Grammatically, it's possible to interpret it either way;
The [NP1], now [adj1], and [adj2], and [adj3] as [NP2]
Always means that the thing NP1 is described by each of the three adjectives, but whether it was comparably as much as as the thing NP2 for all three or just the third is not clear.
The reader will be pointed toward one reading or the other by context.
In cases where we need to be extremely clear as a matter of practical concern, this would be a bad sentence. It would be poor writing to write an instruction manual with such an ambiguity.
Such ambiguities can also jar on the reading. Generally this will happen more when the first reading is one we decide is wrong, and we return. There's little risk of that here, because neither reading leads us to a nonsensical interpretation (on this point, anyway). In rare occasions, such ambiguity can strengthen a sentence or let it allow for humour.
The interesting thing here, is that while your question suggests that we might interpret the second differently to the first—by deciding that fragrant and light don't belong with ice—and while you are probably correct for many readers' interpretation at least, truly cold is the adjective that least belongs.
If something is impalpable then how on earth can it be cold? Or if by some technical argument you could allow something to be both cold and impalpable, how could we know it was cold? Or how could we experience it, so as to compare another coldness?
Of course we can't, and logically it's utter rot. Yet the sentence works. If any of these adjectives belong with impalpable, it's clear and still. Somehow in reading, we match clear and still with impalpable ice, and forgive the impossibility by just matching cold with ice.
This has nothing to do with the logic of grammar, and everything to do with the psychology of reading and Emily Brontë's talent. As indeed does much of that book, which if we consider it rationally is about two horrible people, possibly sociopaths, who are horrible to each other and to everyone else and who we shouldn't care about. It's down to Brontë's talent, that we do.