Quantifying degradation of the Imja Lake moraine dam with fused InSAR and SAR feature tracking time series

Brencher, George; Henderson, Scott; Shean, David

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2024-3196

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3196

Preprints

08 Nov 2024

| 08 Nov 2024

Quantifying degradation of the Imja Lake moraine dam with fused InSAR and SAR feature tracking time series

George Brencher, Scott Henderson, and David Shean

Abstract. Glacial lake outburst flood (GLOF) hazards are often tied to the structural properties of the moraines that dam glacial lakes. Traditional investigations of moraine dam structure and degradation involve costly and logistically challenging in-situ geophysical and repeat topographic surveys, which can only be performed for a small number of sites. We developed a scalable satellite remote sensing approach using interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR), InSAR coherence, and SAR feature tracking to precisely measure moraine dam surface displacement and map the extent of buried ice. We combined time series from ascending and descending Sentinel-1 orbits to investigate vertical and horizontal surface displacement from 2017–2024 with ~12-day temporal sampling.

We applied our approach to quantify degradation of the Imja Lake moraine dam in the Everest Region of Nepal. We find that a 0.3 km² area of the moraine dam has cumulatively subsided ~90 cm over the 7-year study period. Seasonal change in InSAR coherence provides evidence for buried ice throughout the moraine dam. We observe consistent downward and eastward displacement throughout the colder months, which we attribute to ice flow. The magnitude of downward vertical surface velocity increases in the warmer months, likely due to melting of buried ice. Our observations provide new insights into the timing and magnitude of the processes that control moraine dam development and evolution, with broader implications for regional GLOF hazard assessment and mitigation.

Received: 14 Oct 2024 – Discussion started: 08 Nov 2024

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 1388 KB)

Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
Preprint (1388 KB)

Supplement (236 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

07 Jan 2026

Quantifying degradation of the Imja Lake moraine dam with fused InSAR and SAR feature tracking time series

George Brencher, Scott T. Henderson, and David E. Shean

The Cryosphere, 20, 67–86, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-20-67-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-20-67-2026, 2026

Short summary

George Brencher, Scott Henderson, and David Shean

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-3196', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Dec 2024

Thank you for the opportunity to review this work. You can find my detailed comments in the attached document.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3196-RC1
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', George Brencher, 07 Mar 2025
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-3196/egusphere-2024-3196-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3196-AC2
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-3196', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Dec 2024
Dear Editor, Dear Authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. I appreciate the effort and dedication that has gone into developing your study and the processing strategies employed. However, after a thorough evaluation, I regret to inform you that I must recommend rejecting this paper in its current form. While the work demonstrates potential, it would benefit significantly from the involvement of an InSAR/SAR expert with specific expertise in time series analysis development. Such expertise could provide critical support to strengthen the analysis and ensure the robustness of the methodologies employed. Additionally, the reliance on open-access code, while commendable for accessibility, may introduce fundamental flaws in the processing approach if not carefully validated. Below, I outline the key reasons for this recommendation, along with specific feedback.
Lack of Acknowledgment of Prior Work: Your study builds upon well-established methods, such as those introduced by Casu et al. (2011) and Jolivet and Simons (2018), yet these foundational works are neither appropriately acknowledged nor referenced. This omission undermines the context of your research and does not allow the reader to contextualize your research in literature.
Introduction of Non-Validated Processing Approaches: The manuscript introduces non-standard processing techniques, such as the use of pixel offsets to constrain an InSAR time series, without sufficient validation or precedent in the literature. Introducing novel methodologies is commendable; however, without proper validation, these methods cannot be reliably assessed or accepted by the broader scientific community.
Integration of Processing and Physical Interpretation: Attempting to combine an alternative processing strategy with the interpretation of a physical phenomenon adds complexity to the manuscript. The two aspects require independent development, validation, and presentation to ensure clarity and scientific soundness.
Given these concerns, I suggest splitting the manuscript into two separate papers:
A technical paper presenting and validating the alternative processing approach, potentially submitted to a journal specializing in remote sensing or geophysical methods (e.g., IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing).

A separate study presenting the physical results and interpretation, submitted to a journal like The Cryosphere.

Major Concerns and Specific Feedback:
Atmospheric Noise Filtering (Lines 202-228):

The methodology for removing atmospheric noise and assessing measurement accuracy is not specified. This step is critical for validating the results.

Kernel and Window Sizes (Lines 228-231):

The chosen dimensions and skip sizes are not sufficiently justified. It would be helpful to provide a sensitivity analysis or rationale based on the study's objectives.

Displacement Accuracy (Lines 235):

The theoretical accuracy of feature tracking measurements should account for terrain slope and ground range, not just slant range, as this directly impacts the reliability of your results.

Feature Tracking and InSAR Constraining (Lines 250-260):

Using pixel offsets to constrain a high-accuracy phase time series is methodologically questionable. Errors inherent to pixel offsets should be filtered using metrics like SNR rather than aggregating them into a median velocity product.

Displacement Thresholding (Line 256):

Applying a displacement threshold when the expected values are already known introduces bias into the analysis. This approach is contradictory to the principle of deriving unbiased results.

Methodology Validation (Lines 261-265):

Using the normalized median absolute deviation (NMAD) for variability assessment is unconventional for SAR analysis. A focused validation or comparative analysis with established methods is required.

Continuous Network Requirement (Lines 268):

Removing interferograms with low coherence to maintain a continuous network is unnecessary. The NSBAS approach (Jolivet and Simons, 2018) allows for network separations, negating the need for such constraints.

Pseudo 3D Analysis (Figure 4):

Ignoring the north component in your analysis leads to incomplete results, especially in complex topography. Conducting a full 3D inversion using all four available directions would yield more accurate and meaningful results.

Topographical Signal Contamination (Figure 5, Panel B):

The downward signal observed in July-October suggests north-south displacement contamination. A proper 3D analysis would mitigate this issue and provide clearer insights.

In summary, while your study addresses an important topic, significant revisions and validations are required before it can be considered for publication. I hope these comments provide constructive guidance for improving your work.
Best regards
Jolivet, R., & Simons, M. (2018). A multipixel time series analysis method accounting for ground motion, atmospheric noise, and orbital errors. Geophysical Research Letters, 45(4), 1814-1824.
Casu, F., Manconi, A., Pepe, A., & Lanari, R. (2011). Deformation time-series generation in areas characterized by large displacement dynamics: The SAR amplitude pixel-offset SBAS technique. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 49(7), 2752-2763.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3196-RC2
- AC3: 'Reply on RC2', George Brencher, 07 Mar 2025
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-3196/egusphere-2024-3196-AC3-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3196-AC3
EC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-3196', Ian Delaney, 08 Jan 2025

This manuscript has received some mixed reviews. I want to allow the authors to respond, particularly if they can address Reviewer 2's methodological comments and Reviewer 1's points on DEM differencing and presentation.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3196-EC1
- AC1: 'Reply on EC1', George Brencher, 06 Feb 2025
  
  Dear Dr. Delaney,
  We have prepared detailed responses to address all reviewer comments. We are now integrating new results from a WorldView-3 stereo acquisition on January 30, 2025 to provide additional validation of the InSAR results, which will strengthen our responses. We request a short extension to finalize this analysis and will submit responses as soon as possible.
  Best,
  George Brencher
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3196-AC1
- AC4: 'Reply on EC1', George Brencher, 07 Mar 2025
  
  Dear Editor,
  We have now finished a substantial effort to prepare detailed responses to all reviewer criticism. Our responses include validation for our method using 3D displacement measurements from very-high-resolution satellite stereo digital elevation models that span our study period. The validation dataset confirms the magnitude and direction of our synthetic aperture radar-based velocity measurements, offering increased confidence in our method and supporting our interpretation of the underlying physical phenomena. We note that our approach and conclusions remain almost entirely unchanged. However, the revised text and supplementary material is greatly improved as a result of this effort, and we are confident that it will stand up to further scrutiny from both the InSAR and cryosphere communities. We thank the editor again for taking their time to review our responses.
  Sincerely,
  George Brencher on behalf of all authors
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3196-AC4

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-3196', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Dec 2024

Thank you for the opportunity to review this work. You can find my detailed comments in the attached document.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3196-RC1
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', George Brencher, 07 Mar 2025
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-3196/egusphere-2024-3196-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3196-AC2
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-3196', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Dec 2024
Dear Editor, Dear Authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. I appreciate the effort and dedication that has gone into developing your study and the processing strategies employed. However, after a thorough evaluation, I regret to inform you that I must recommend rejecting this paper in its current form. While the work demonstrates potential, it would benefit significantly from the involvement of an InSAR/SAR expert with specific expertise in time series analysis development. Such expertise could provide critical support to strengthen the analysis and ensure the robustness of the methodologies employed. Additionally, the reliance on open-access code, while commendable for accessibility, may introduce fundamental flaws in the processing approach if not carefully validated. Below, I outline the key reasons for this recommendation, along with specific feedback.
Lack of Acknowledgment of Prior Work: Your study builds upon well-established methods, such as those introduced by Casu et al. (2011) and Jolivet and Simons (2018), yet these foundational works are neither appropriately acknowledged nor referenced. This omission undermines the context of your research and does not allow the reader to contextualize your research in literature.
Introduction of Non-Validated Processing Approaches: The manuscript introduces non-standard processing techniques, such as the use of pixel offsets to constrain an InSAR time series, without sufficient validation or precedent in the literature. Introducing novel methodologies is commendable; however, without proper validation, these methods cannot be reliably assessed or accepted by the broader scientific community.
Integration of Processing and Physical Interpretation: Attempting to combine an alternative processing strategy with the interpretation of a physical phenomenon adds complexity to the manuscript. The two aspects require independent development, validation, and presentation to ensure clarity and scientific soundness.
Given these concerns, I suggest splitting the manuscript into two separate papers:
A technical paper presenting and validating the alternative processing approach, potentially submitted to a journal specializing in remote sensing or geophysical methods (e.g., IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing).

A separate study presenting the physical results and interpretation, submitted to a journal like The Cryosphere.

Major Concerns and Specific Feedback:
Atmospheric Noise Filtering (Lines 202-228):

The methodology for removing atmospheric noise and assessing measurement accuracy is not specified. This step is critical for validating the results.

Kernel and Window Sizes (Lines 228-231):

The chosen dimensions and skip sizes are not sufficiently justified. It would be helpful to provide a sensitivity analysis or rationale based on the study's objectives.

Displacement Accuracy (Lines 235):

The theoretical accuracy of feature tracking measurements should account for terrain slope and ground range, not just slant range, as this directly impacts the reliability of your results.

Feature Tracking and InSAR Constraining (Lines 250-260):

Using pixel offsets to constrain a high-accuracy phase time series is methodologically questionable. Errors inherent to pixel offsets should be filtered using metrics like SNR rather than aggregating them into a median velocity product.

Displacement Thresholding (Line 256):

Applying a displacement threshold when the expected values are already known introduces bias into the analysis. This approach is contradictory to the principle of deriving unbiased results.

Methodology Validation (Lines 261-265):

Using the normalized median absolute deviation (NMAD) for variability assessment is unconventional for SAR analysis. A focused validation or comparative analysis with established methods is required.

Continuous Network Requirement (Lines 268):

Removing interferograms with low coherence to maintain a continuous network is unnecessary. The NSBAS approach (Jolivet and Simons, 2018) allows for network separations, negating the need for such constraints.

Pseudo 3D Analysis (Figure 4):

Ignoring the north component in your analysis leads to incomplete results, especially in complex topography. Conducting a full 3D inversion using all four available directions would yield more accurate and meaningful results.

Topographical Signal Contamination (Figure 5, Panel B):

The downward signal observed in July-October suggests north-south displacement contamination. A proper 3D analysis would mitigate this issue and provide clearer insights.

In summary, while your study addresses an important topic, significant revisions and validations are required before it can be considered for publication. I hope these comments provide constructive guidance for improving your work.
Best regards
Jolivet, R., & Simons, M. (2018). A multipixel time series analysis method accounting for ground motion, atmospheric noise, and orbital errors. Geophysical Research Letters, 45(4), 1814-1824.
Casu, F., Manconi, A., Pepe, A., & Lanari, R. (2011). Deformation time-series generation in areas characterized by large displacement dynamics: The SAR amplitude pixel-offset SBAS technique. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 49(7), 2752-2763.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3196-RC2
- AC3: 'Reply on RC2', George Brencher, 07 Mar 2025
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-3196/egusphere-2024-3196-AC3-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3196-AC3
EC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-3196', Ian Delaney, 08 Jan 2025

This manuscript has received some mixed reviews. I want to allow the authors to respond, particularly if they can address Reviewer 2's methodological comments and Reviewer 1's points on DEM differencing and presentation.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3196-EC1
- AC1: 'Reply on EC1', George Brencher, 06 Feb 2025
  
  Dear Dr. Delaney,
  We have prepared detailed responses to address all reviewer comments. We are now integrating new results from a WorldView-3 stereo acquisition on January 30, 2025 to provide additional validation of the InSAR results, which will strengthen our responses. We request a short extension to finalize this analysis and will submit responses as soon as possible.
  Best,
  George Brencher
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3196-AC1
- AC4: 'Reply on EC1', George Brencher, 07 Mar 2025
  
  Dear Editor,
  We have now finished a substantial effort to prepare detailed responses to all reviewer criticism. Our responses include validation for our method using 3D displacement measurements from very-high-resolution satellite stereo digital elevation models that span our study period. The validation dataset confirms the magnitude and direction of our synthetic aperture radar-based velocity measurements, offering increased confidence in our method and supporting our interpretation of the underlying physical phenomena. We note that our approach and conclusions remain almost entirely unchanged. However, the revised text and supplementary material is greatly improved as a result of this effort, and we are confident that it will stand up to further scrutiny from both the InSAR and cryosphere communities. We thank the editor again for taking their time to review our responses.
  Sincerely,
  George Brencher on behalf of all authors
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3196-AC4

Peer review completion

AR – Author's response | RR – Referee report | ED – Editor decision | EF – Editorial file upload

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (17 Mar 2025) by Ian Delaney

AR by George Brencher on behalf of the Authors (09 Apr 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (19 Apr 2025) by Ian Delaney

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (26 May 2025)

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (04 Sep 2025)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I am writing this review taking both the revised manuscript and the reviews into account.
The paper presents different methods based on SAR data to investigate the stability and changes of the Imja Lake moraine dam. This is a highly relevant topic as continued degradation of ice-cored moraine lake dames increases the likelihood of a dam failure causing a glacial lake outburst flood. The work provides relevant insights into the degradation of the moraine, the methods applied are suitable and the results overall reliable so that the study should ultimately published.
It is also evident that the authors put major efforts in addressing both reviewers’ concerns. This led to a clearly improved manuscript. In particular the inclusion of the comparison of the SAR-derived results and the intercomparison of the results of the different SAR methods are very valuable. Considering my knowledge (I am not an SAR expert but have some knowledge in SAR and InSAR and have processed SAR data), I’d judge the methods as sound, relevant influences affecting the accuracy (like the atmospheric noise, influence of the image acquisition geometry) considered and remaining uncertainties discussed. The comparison to the results of the high resolution imagery and results from previous published investigations show the overall reliability of the derived results. Moreover, the observed changes make sense also from the glaciological and geomorphological point of view. However, I am happy to leave the final judgement and possible suggestions for methodological improvements to a real SAR expert.
However, I have also some concerns regarding the current manuscript.
1. The manuscript combines the introduction a novel SAR based investigation, a detailed description of the relevance of the work and physical/glaciological interpretation of the observed results. These are different topics and from my point of view a bit too broad which leads to a quite lengthy manuscript and is also difficult to find the best journal for the current content. TC is a cryospheric journal, there is value to combine the introduction of a novel combination of the different SAR methods with a cryospheric application. However, as the focus is on introducing the remote sensing methods a Remote Sensing Journal focussing on relevant applications might be the better choice (The methodology could be well applied to other changes at the Earth surface not related to the cryosphere. I do not want to make an advertisement for specific journals, but there are several options of journals which are both read by remote sensing experts and cryospheric scientists. But certainly the study is also interesting for TC.
2. The introduction is quite lengthy has some flaws (e.g. the use of the terminology, references etc.). I understand that one reviewer requested more details. However, from my point of few a one paragraph introducing the importance of investigating the dynamics/degradation of moraine dams will be enough (first introducing in few sentences the general importance of investigating GLOFs and then that weakening of the moraine dam is one of the major causes of GLOFs). In general, the introduction has some flaws as some to the scientific knowledge is not fully correctly summarised and some terms are not used correctly. In the first two sentences the authors first present the future of the glaciers and the past changes of the glacial lakes. It would make more sense to introduce both the current knowledge about the past glacier changes (e.g. as summarised in the recent GlaMBIE paper) and the glacial lakes (mention the cited reference, but also one recent for High Mountain Asia as Shugar et al. missed many glacial lakes). Then the potential future of the glaciers and glacial lakes can be mentioned.
Reading the manuscript gives the impression that all moraines are ice-cored. This is not necessarily the case and also Shugar et al. (2020) do not mention ice-cored moraines. In addition, Ostrem, (1959) is not a suitable reference for the global occurrence of ice-cored moraines or moraines damming proglacial lakes which are addressed in this study. The term risk (L. 104) is incorrectly used. “Risk” in hazards is related to the potential for adverse impacts and includes hazard, exposure and vulnerability. The referencing is overall quite good. However, the referencing is a bit arbitrary, sometimes older relevant references are cited and the recent ones not or vice versa. There are few other issues which might not be present anymore when shortening the intro as suggested above. I would be happy to provide more a detailed review in this regard for a revised version.
Few suggestions for potentially relevant references which were not considered (for information only, you may decide to include or not):
Atwood et al. (2010). Using L-band SAR coherence to delineate glacier extent. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing, 36(S1), S186-S195. https://doi.org/10.5589/m10-014
Frey et al. (2012). Compilation of a glacier inventory for the western Himalayas from satellite data: methods, challenges, and results. Remote Sensing of Environment, 124, 832–843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2012.06.020
Huggel et al. (2002). Remote-sensing based assessment of hazards from glacier lake outbursts: a case study in the Swiss Alps. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39, 316–330.
Medeu et al. (2022). Moraine-dammed glacial lakes and threat of glacial debris flows in South-East Kazakhstan. Earth-Science Reviews, 229, 103999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2022.103999 : The study includes figures which nicely show the existence of ice in moraine dams after outbursts.
Wangchuk et al. (2022). Monitoring glacial lake outburst flood susceptibility using Sentinel-1 SAR data, Google Earth Engine, and persistent scatterer interferometry. Remote Sensing of Environment, 271, 112910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2022.112910
L141ff: These two paragraphs do not really fit here. They contain mainly a description of the own methods and should be moved to and merged with the methods section.
3. The discussion and interpretation contain some interesting and relevant aspects but is quite speculative. It makes sense to include some interpretation but they should not be too speculative and backed up by observations if possible. E.g. the authors write “Backwasting and thermokarst development should…” (L529). Evidence could be provided by the high-resolution imagery. Or “Other processes should … “ (L549) “…may also be present…” L554. “…potentially experience…” L564. These are only few examples; there are several more.
In sum, I see the major strength in the article in the methodological part which can nicely applied in many aspects, the presented example being one important application. In this sense I have sympathy for the suggestion of splitting the content and submitting two to different journals. This would then also give the opportunity to be more specific on the methods without the manuscript being very long. And then improving the content related to GLOG hazards and degradation if an ice cored moraine.
Having written this I also see value in the combination as the authors argue and certainly leave it to the editor and authors to decide. Also for TC I suggest to shorten the manuscript and focus even more on the method and be less speculative.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (09 Sep 2025) by Ian Delaney

AR by George Brencher on behalf of the Authors (10 Oct 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (28 Oct 2025) by Ian Delaney

RR by Tobias Bolch (17 Nov 2025)

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (21 Nov 2025) by Ian Delaney

AR by George Brencher on behalf of the Authors (29 Nov 2025) Author's response Manuscript

Post-review adjustments

AA – Author's adjustment | EA – Editor approval

AA by George Brencher on behalf of the Authors (23 Dec 2025) Author's adjustment Manuscript

EA: Adjustments approved (05 Jan 2026) by Ian Delaney

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

07 Jan 2026

Quantifying degradation of the Imja Lake moraine dam with fused InSAR and SAR feature tracking time series

George Brencher, Scott T. Henderson, and David E. Shean

The Cryosphere, 20, 67–86, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-20-67-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-20-67-2026, 2026

Short summary

George Brencher, Scott Henderson, and David Shean

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3196-supplement

Model code and software

Fufiters (fused feature tracking-InSAR time series) Scott Henderson and George Brencher https://github.com/relativeorbit/fufiters

George Brencher, Scott Henderson, and David Shean

Viewed

Total article views: 1,621 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
1,273	306	42	1,621	81	34	50

HTML: 1,273
PDF: 306
XML: 42
Total: 1,621
Supplement: 81
BibTeX: 34
EndNote: 50

Views and downloads (calculated since 08 Nov 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Nov 2024	136	29	7	172
Dec 2024	76	22	2	100
Jan 2025	61	25	1	87
Feb 2025	57	10	2	69
Mar 2025	48	22	4	74
Apr 2025	56	9	2	67
May 2025	33	11	1	45
Jun 2025	38	10	10	58
Jul 2025	35	12	0	47
Aug 2025	128	28	0	156
Sep 2025	416	19	1	436
Oct 2025	57	15	1	73
Nov 2025	50	25	6	81
Dec 2025	59	54	2	115
Jan 2026	23	15	3	41

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 08 Nov 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Nov 2024	136	29	7	172
Dec 2024	76	22	2	100
Jan 2025	61	25	1	87
Feb 2025	57	10	2	69
Mar 2025	48	22	4	74
Apr 2025	56	9	2	67
May 2025	33	11	1	45
Jun 2025	38	10	10	58
Jul 2025	35	12	0	47
Aug 2025	128	28	0	156
Sep 2025	416	19	1	436
Oct 2025	57	15	1	73
Nov 2025	50	25	6	81
Dec 2025	59	54	2	115
Jan 2026	23	15	3	41

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 1,578 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 1,578 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 07 Jan 2026

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (1388 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

Glacial lakes are often dammed by moraines, which can fail, causing floods. Traditional methods of measuring moraine dam structure are not feasible for thousands of lakes. We instead developed a method to measure moraine dam movement with satellite radar data and applied this approach to the Imja Lake moraine dam in Nepal. We found that the moraine dam moved ~90 cm from 2017–2024, providing information about its internal structure. These data can help guide limited hazard remediation resources.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0