the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Arctic glacier snowline altitudes rise 150 meters over the last four decades
Abstract. The number of Arctic glaciers with direct, long–term measurements of mass balance is limited. Here we used satellite–based observations of the glacier snowline altitude (SLA), the location of the transition between snow cover and ice late in the summer, to approximate the position of the equilibrium line altitude (ELA)–a parameter important for mass balance assessment and for understanding the response of glaciers to climate change. We mapped the snowline (SL) on a subset of 269 land–terminating glaciers above 60 °N latitude in the latest available summer, clear–sky Landsat satellite image between 1984 and 2022. The mean SLA was extracted using the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) Global Digital Elevation Model (GDEM). We compare remotely–observed SLA observations with available long–term field–based measurements of ELA and with ERA5–Land reanalysis climate data. Over the last four decades, Arctic glacier SLAs have risen an average of ~152 m (3.9±0.4 m yr–1; R2=0.74, p<0.001), with a corresponding summer (June, July, August) temperature shift of +1.2 °C at the glacier locations. This equates to a 127±5 m shift per 1 °C of summer warming. However, along with warming, we observe an overall decrease in snowfall, an increase in rainfall, and a decrease in the total number of days in which the mean daily temperature is less than or equal to 0 °C. Glacier SLA is most strongly correlated with the number of freezing days, emphasizing the dual effect of multi–decadal trends in mean annual temperature on both ablation (increasing melt) and accumulation processes (reducing the number of days in which snow can fall). Although we find evidence for a negative morpho–topographic feedback that occurs as glaciers retreat to higher elevations, we show that more than 50 % of the glaciers studied here could be entirely below the SLA by 2100, assuming the pace of global warming and the mean rate of SLA rise is maintained.
-
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
(2603 KB)
-
Supplement
(1212 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2603 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1212 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-522', Antoine Rabatel, 03 Apr 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-522/egusphere-2024-522-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Laura Larocca, 31 May 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-522/egusphere-2024-522-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Laura Larocca, 31 May 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-522', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 May 2024
Review of Larocca et al. 'Arctic glacier snowline altitudes rise 150 meters over the last four decades', The Cryosphere Discussions.
This paper uses satellite observations of Arctic glacier end of summer snowlines as a proxy for equilibrium line altitudes. Snowlines were mapped for 269 land-terminating glaciers from Landsat optical images between 1984 and 2022. Snow line altitudes were extracted from ASTER GDEM elevation information and then compared with field-based ELA measurements and ERA-5 reanalysis climate information. The authors relate their changes to summer warming, decreases in snowfall, and increases in rainfall. I liked the paper and think it will make a valuable contribution to the literature. The paper is substantive and rigorous, and both the quality of writing and figures is excellent. I had just a few questions and suggestions as I went through the manuscript and will list them here for inclusion by the authors into a revised manuscript.
- 37, worth differentiating here how many of these 42 are in the Arctic (not many).
- 40, there's another data source that is relevant but not mentioned here - longer term (multi decadal) records of glacier area (and sometimes) volume change from archival aerial stereophotogrammetry. Find and cite some of these studies.
- 54-55, this sentence would be better placed in the previous paragraph.
- 62, can you specify what is meant by 'glacier morpho-topographic variables' here, as it's a bit of an unwieldy term. I don't really know what it means but it seems important for it to be known at this crucial part of the manuscript. Probably worth a mention of the representivity of using land-terminating glaciers only too, given that the larger mass losses tend to be a tidewater terminating glaciers.
- Figure 1, I find the very light green shading difficult to see, can this be made a darker, more distinct colour? Likewise, the difference between a small black dot and a small pink dot with a thick black edge is also not distinct. What about solid black vs solid blue?
- Section 2.1, presumably an elevational range is important. Can you summarise the range of elevations over which these 269 glaciers lie (maybe ELA elevation). I would think you need a range of low, medium and higher elevation sites. If you do not have this, please justify why not.
- 97, sorry, I'm a bit unclear about this - you used a digitisation tool, yet digitised all SLs manually? Specify clearly what the tool was for, and what the tool did not do.
- 98, as ever with these remote sensing-based estimates of snow line / ELA, how do you account for the presence and influence of the superimposed ice zone? [note, I see that this is addresses in section 4.1]. And then further, why do you not differentiate between the snow line and the firn line which you may be able to distinguish in optical imagery in some years.
- 103-104, why do you include glaciers whose maximum altitude is higher than the snowline? With your sample size, I'm sure it would be straightforward to exclude all those glaciers with such low maximum elevations and include only those that allow the snowline to be measured every year. Inclusion of these glaciers is likely to bias your results in some way, so as an absolute minimum you need to account for this and discuss it.
- 109, will mean snowline elevations be affected by factors such as changing glacier hypsometry (as the snowline changes) and avalanching onto the glacier surface? These may be relevant at local scales. If you can quantify, do, otherwise mention as a potential source of uncertainty.
- Table 1, spectral range of bands (if different)?
- Figure 3, why no glaciers in Svalbard which surely is the most well studied of these regions? But Svalbard is in the Figure 4 plot?
- 128, Cite the RGI paper as well as the dataset (Pfeffer et al., 2014, doi: 10.3189/2014JoG13J176.
- 183, n=?
- 307, more could be said about the correlations between SLA and spring rainfall. I would expect spring rain to result in less snow due to melting from latent heat release and then enhanced rates of compaction and will likely lead to an earlier snow melt and then higher ELA.
- 378, It would worth attempting to quantify the error in the rate of SLA rise due to glacier thinning and include it here and in the main summary of results. Also, 'deflating' here and elsewhere is an odd word choice. Suggest 'thinning', or 'lowering'.
- Dowdeswell ref in main text not in the ref list, and Jiskoot ref in list not in the main text
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-522-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Laura Larocca, 31 May 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-522/egusphere-2024-522-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Laura Larocca, 31 May 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-522', Antoine Rabatel, 03 Apr 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-522/egusphere-2024-522-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Laura Larocca, 31 May 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-522/egusphere-2024-522-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Laura Larocca, 31 May 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-522', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 May 2024
Review of Larocca et al. 'Arctic glacier snowline altitudes rise 150 meters over the last four decades', The Cryosphere Discussions.
This paper uses satellite observations of Arctic glacier end of summer snowlines as a proxy for equilibrium line altitudes. Snowlines were mapped for 269 land-terminating glaciers from Landsat optical images between 1984 and 2022. Snow line altitudes were extracted from ASTER GDEM elevation information and then compared with field-based ELA measurements and ERA-5 reanalysis climate information. The authors relate their changes to summer warming, decreases in snowfall, and increases in rainfall. I liked the paper and think it will make a valuable contribution to the literature. The paper is substantive and rigorous, and both the quality of writing and figures is excellent. I had just a few questions and suggestions as I went through the manuscript and will list them here for inclusion by the authors into a revised manuscript.
- 37, worth differentiating here how many of these 42 are in the Arctic (not many).
- 40, there's another data source that is relevant but not mentioned here - longer term (multi decadal) records of glacier area (and sometimes) volume change from archival aerial stereophotogrammetry. Find and cite some of these studies.
- 54-55, this sentence would be better placed in the previous paragraph.
- 62, can you specify what is meant by 'glacier morpho-topographic variables' here, as it's a bit of an unwieldy term. I don't really know what it means but it seems important for it to be known at this crucial part of the manuscript. Probably worth a mention of the representivity of using land-terminating glaciers only too, given that the larger mass losses tend to be a tidewater terminating glaciers.
- Figure 1, I find the very light green shading difficult to see, can this be made a darker, more distinct colour? Likewise, the difference between a small black dot and a small pink dot with a thick black edge is also not distinct. What about solid black vs solid blue?
- Section 2.1, presumably an elevational range is important. Can you summarise the range of elevations over which these 269 glaciers lie (maybe ELA elevation). I would think you need a range of low, medium and higher elevation sites. If you do not have this, please justify why not.
- 97, sorry, I'm a bit unclear about this - you used a digitisation tool, yet digitised all SLs manually? Specify clearly what the tool was for, and what the tool did not do.
- 98, as ever with these remote sensing-based estimates of snow line / ELA, how do you account for the presence and influence of the superimposed ice zone? [note, I see that this is addresses in section 4.1]. And then further, why do you not differentiate between the snow line and the firn line which you may be able to distinguish in optical imagery in some years.
- 103-104, why do you include glaciers whose maximum altitude is higher than the snowline? With your sample size, I'm sure it would be straightforward to exclude all those glaciers with such low maximum elevations and include only those that allow the snowline to be measured every year. Inclusion of these glaciers is likely to bias your results in some way, so as an absolute minimum you need to account for this and discuss it.
- 109, will mean snowline elevations be affected by factors such as changing glacier hypsometry (as the snowline changes) and avalanching onto the glacier surface? These may be relevant at local scales. If you can quantify, do, otherwise mention as a potential source of uncertainty.
- Table 1, spectral range of bands (if different)?
- Figure 3, why no glaciers in Svalbard which surely is the most well studied of these regions? But Svalbard is in the Figure 4 plot?
- 128, Cite the RGI paper as well as the dataset (Pfeffer et al., 2014, doi: 10.3189/2014JoG13J176.
- 183, n=?
- 307, more could be said about the correlations between SLA and spring rainfall. I would expect spring rain to result in less snow due to melting from latent heat release and then enhanced rates of compaction and will likely lead to an earlier snow melt and then higher ELA.
- 378, It would worth attempting to quantify the error in the rate of SLA rise due to glacier thinning and include it here and in the main summary of results. Also, 'deflating' here and elsewhere is an odd word choice. Suggest 'thinning', or 'lowering'.
- Dowdeswell ref in main text not in the ref list, and Jiskoot ref in list not in the main text
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-522-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Laura Larocca, 31 May 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-522/egusphere-2024-522-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Laura Larocca, 31 May 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
534 | 151 | 37 | 722 | 53 | 25 | 23 |
- HTML: 534
- PDF: 151
- XML: 37
- Total: 722
- Supplement: 53
- BibTeX: 25
- EndNote: 23
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Laura J. Larocca
James M. Lea
Michael P. Erb
Nicholas P. McKay
Megan Phillips
Kara A. Lamantia
Darrell S. Kaufman
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2603 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1212 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper