El Ni&ntilde;o Enhances Snowline Rise and Ice Loss on the World's Largest Tropical Ice Cap

Lamantia, Kara A.; Larocca, Laura J.; Thompson, Lonnie G.; Mark, Bryan G.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-676

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-676

Preprints

18 Mar 2024

| 18 Mar 2024

El Niño Enhances Snowline Rise and Ice Loss on the World's Largest Tropical Ice Cap

Kara A. Lamantia, Laura J. Larocca, Lonnie G. Thompson, and Bryan G. Mark

Abstract. Tropical glaciers are essential water resources in the central Andes as vital water resources and crucial climate indicators, currently undergoing rapid retreat. However, understanding their vulnerability to the combined effects of persistent warming, short-term climate phenomena, and interannual fluctuations remains limited. Here we automate mapping of key mass balance parameters on the Quelccaya Ice Cap (QIC), the world’s largest tropical ice cap. Using Landsat's near-infrared (NIR) band, we analyze snow cover area (SCA) and total area (TA) and calculate the Accumulation Area Ratio (AAR) and Equilibrium Line Altitude (ELA) over nearly 40 years (1985–2023). Between 1985 and 2022, the QIC lost ~46 % and ~34 % of its SCA and TA, respectively. We show that the QIC’s loss in SCA and rise in ELA are exacerbated by El Niño events, which are strongly correlated to the preceding wet season’s Ocean Niño Index (ONI). We observe lower levels of correlation to more recent El Niño events as anthropogenic climatic impacts overwhelm the natural forcing and continue to exacerbate loss at the QIC.

Received: 05 Mar 2024 – Discussion started: 18 Mar 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 preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 1944 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 (1944 KB)

Supplement (553 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

08 Oct 2024

El Niño enhances snow-line rise and ice loss on the Quelccaya Ice Cap, Peru

Kara A. Lamantia, Laura J. Larocca, Lonnie G. Thompson, and Bryan G. Mark

The Cryosphere, 18, 4633–4644, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-4633-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-4633-2024, 2024

Short summary

Kara A. Lamantia, Laura J. Larocca, Lonnie G. Thompson, and Bryan G. Mark

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-676', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 Apr 2024

This is an interesting paper analyzing the relationship between ENSO and snow-covered area and ELA on the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru. The paper, however, has a number of weaknesses that need to be improved before it is ready for publication. I have tried to outline some of the main aspects that could benefit from more attention below.
Main comments:
Title: I think the title may have to be changed – as far as I know Quelccaya is no longer the world’s largest tropical ice cap (see Kochtitzky et al., 2018). This statement is also repeated several times in the text.
Line 22-24: Statements such as this one regarding projected future loss of a glacier surface area need to include a date, as the percentage loss quoted is time-dependent. Are you referring to the year 2100?
Line 28: Yarleque et al. (2018) did not state that the QIC would disappear by 2050 under a high emission scenario. They only determined that the ELA would move above the summit by that point. Given the ice thickness of the QIC, it would likely still take several decades to fully melt all the ice in the ablation zone. Hence 2050 is a date for a ‘point of no return’ with the accumulation zone gone, but it is not a date for the complete disappearance of the QIC.
Line 32: I think what you refer to here is the actual size of the ice sheet, not the ‘magnitude of retreat’, which suggests something different (the loss of ice per unit time). Also the citation for this statement (Lamantia et al., 2023) is not included in the reference list
Line 42-44. The snowfall on Quelccaya has no dynamical connection to the ITCZ. The ITCZ is a maritime feature located north of the equator. Snowfall on Quelccaya is fueled by the South American summer monsoon, with much of the heavy snowfall associated with convective activity over the western Amazon basin, triggered via cold air incursions (see Hurley et al., 2015).
Lines 50-51: The change in the FLH is not just worrisome because of direct melt, but also because it leads to a rise of the rain-snow line, thus affecting the albedo in the ablation zone. This likely has a larger impact on the total glacier energy and mass balance than the change in the sensible heat flux alone (e.g. see discussion in Rabatel et al. (2013)).
Lines 52-53: Your statement here would imply that both La Nina and El Nino events lead to warmer SST in the tropical Pacific. Of course this is the case only for El Nino, while La Nina events are associated with colder SST.
Line 60-64: The first study to test this idea regarding end-of-the-dry-season snowline serving as an estimate of the ELA in the Andes was by Rabatel et al. (2012). This should be acknowledged. Their methodology was then applied by Yarleque et al. (2018) to estimate the interannual ELA variability on Quelccaya, equally relying on Landsat data to estimate the ELA via maximum elevation of the dry-season snowline. Hence the ELA approach used here has been applied on QIC before and the results obtained here should thus be compared to those previously published in Yarleque et al. (2018) to the extent that this is possible, especially when discussing the ELA results from your study in section 3.1 or during the discussion of the results in section 4.2.
Line 135: I am not sure you can use surface temperature from ERA5 directly to calculate days with above- or below-freezing on QIC without making some bias adjustments. What is the absolute surface elevation of Quelccaya in ERA5? I assume it is considerably lower than 5670 m, hence the ERA5 surface temperature will have a warm bias, no? Alternatively, you may want to use the free tropospheric temperature interpolated to the QIC elevation as it is less affected by a topographic bias than surface temperature.
Line 185: Snow cover, unlike ice cover, varies interannually. Hence I would not refer to the change in snow cover from one year to the next as a ‘loss’, which sounds as if it were permanent. Maybe refer to snow cover ‘change’ or ‘reduction’ instead, but it is not a permanent ’loss’.
Line 253-254: While the northern Peruvian coast indeed receives more precipitation during El Nino, the Peruvian Andes and the western Amazon are drier than normal. For example, see detailed analysis of precipitation effects of ENSO in Peru by Sulca et al. (2018). Also Hurley et al. (2019) have investigated the ENSO influence on snowfall amount and temperature anomalies on Quelccaya using on-site meteorological measurements, showing that conditions on the QIC are warmer and drier than normal during El Nino events.
Figures 2-5: I think all these bar and line graphs require uncertainty estimates. While there is some discussion of error estimates in the text, the Figures do not include any such uncertainties. Figure 5 in particular is strange. While it make sense that the total snow covered area varies from year to year in response to ENSO, why would the total area (ice cover) increase by several km^2 from one year to the next? This would imply a rapid advance of the ice cap increasing the total ice covered area by ~10% over the course of a year, which is highly unlikely. To me this rather suggests that significant uncertainties exist in the yearly estimates of total ice cover. This makes including error bars all the more important, to understand whether interannual variations of the total ice cover reside within these uncertainty estimates.

Minor suggestions for change:
Line 9: Glaciers are ‘vital water resources as vital water resources’? Something went wrong here.
Line 48: delete either ‘recording’ or ‘documenting’ (one verb too many).
Line 131: ‘European Centre for Medium Weather Range Weather Forecast’. Delete the first ‘Weather’ as it should say ’European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecast’.
Line 198: different => difference
Line 199: complied => compiled
Line 282: You refer to a paper by Taylor et al. (2022), yet this paper is not listed in the reference section.
Line 336: Please add the name of the journal where this article was published.
Lines 353-354: delete ‘an international journal’.
Lines 335-339: You repeat the same reference twice. Delete one of them. Also, in the text simply cite Hanshaw & Bookhagen (2014). There is no need for the labels ‘a’ and ‘b’ – it’s one and the same paper.
Line 382: delete ‘Article 3’
Line 388: This should be Pepin ‘et al.’ (the paper has many co-authors). Also note that there is an updated newer version of this paper (Pepin et al., 2022).
Line 404: delete ‘Article 1-5’.
Line 433: delete ‘Article 9’.

References:
Hurley, J.V., et al. 2015. Cold air incursions, d¹⁸O variability and monsoon dynamics associated with snow days at Quelccaya Ice Cap, Peru. J. Geophys. Res., 120, 7467-7487, doi:10.1002/2015JD023323.
Hurley, J.V., et al. 2019. On the interpretation of the ENSO signal embedded in the stable isotopic composition of Quelccaya Ice Cap, Peru. J. Geophys. Res. 124, 131-145, doi: 10.1029/2018JD029064.
Kochtitzky, W.H., et al. 2018. Improved estimates of glacier change rates at Nevado Coropuna Ice Cap, Peru. J. Glaciol., 64(244), 175-184, doi: 10.1017/jog.2018.2.
Pepin, N.C., et al. 2022. Climate changes and their elevational patterns in the mountains of the world. Rev. Geophys. 60, e2020RG000730, doi:10.1029/2020RG000730.
Rabatel, A., et al., 2012: Can the snowline be used as an indicator of the equilibrium line and mass balance for glaciers in the outer tropics? J. Glaciol., 58(212), 1027-1036. doi:10.3189/2012JoG12J027
Rabatel, A., et al. 2013. Current state of glaciers in the tropical Andes. A multi-century perspective on glacier evolution and climate change. Cryosphere, 7, 81-102, doi:10.5194/tc-7-81-2013.
Sulca, J., et al. 2018. Impacts of different ENSO flavors and tropical Pacific convection variability (ITCZ, SPCZ) on austral summer rainfall in South America, with a focus on Peru. Int. J. Climatol., 38, 420-435, doi:10.1002/joc.5185.
Yarleque, C., et al. 2018.. Projections of the future disappearance of the Quelccaya Ice Cap in the Central Andes. Sci. Rep. 8, 15564, doi:10.1038/s41598-018-33698-z.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-676-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Kara Lamantia, 29 May 2024
  
  We thank the reviewer for their comments, please see the attached PDF with our responses
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-676-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-676', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Apr 2024

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-676/egusphere-2024-676-RC2-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-676-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Kara Lamantia, 29 May 2024
  
  We thank the reviewer for our comments. Please see the attached pdf with our responses.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-676-AC2

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-676', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 Apr 2024

This is an interesting paper analyzing the relationship between ENSO and snow-covered area and ELA on the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru. The paper, however, has a number of weaknesses that need to be improved before it is ready for publication. I have tried to outline some of the main aspects that could benefit from more attention below.
Main comments:
Title: I think the title may have to be changed – as far as I know Quelccaya is no longer the world’s largest tropical ice cap (see Kochtitzky et al., 2018). This statement is also repeated several times in the text.
Line 22-24: Statements such as this one regarding projected future loss of a glacier surface area need to include a date, as the percentage loss quoted is time-dependent. Are you referring to the year 2100?
Line 28: Yarleque et al. (2018) did not state that the QIC would disappear by 2050 under a high emission scenario. They only determined that the ELA would move above the summit by that point. Given the ice thickness of the QIC, it would likely still take several decades to fully melt all the ice in the ablation zone. Hence 2050 is a date for a ‘point of no return’ with the accumulation zone gone, but it is not a date for the complete disappearance of the QIC.
Line 32: I think what you refer to here is the actual size of the ice sheet, not the ‘magnitude of retreat’, which suggests something different (the loss of ice per unit time). Also the citation for this statement (Lamantia et al., 2023) is not included in the reference list
Line 42-44. The snowfall on Quelccaya has no dynamical connection to the ITCZ. The ITCZ is a maritime feature located north of the equator. Snowfall on Quelccaya is fueled by the South American summer monsoon, with much of the heavy snowfall associated with convective activity over the western Amazon basin, triggered via cold air incursions (see Hurley et al., 2015).
Lines 50-51: The change in the FLH is not just worrisome because of direct melt, but also because it leads to a rise of the rain-snow line, thus affecting the albedo in the ablation zone. This likely has a larger impact on the total glacier energy and mass balance than the change in the sensible heat flux alone (e.g. see discussion in Rabatel et al. (2013)).
Lines 52-53: Your statement here would imply that both La Nina and El Nino events lead to warmer SST in the tropical Pacific. Of course this is the case only for El Nino, while La Nina events are associated with colder SST.
Line 60-64: The first study to test this idea regarding end-of-the-dry-season snowline serving as an estimate of the ELA in the Andes was by Rabatel et al. (2012). This should be acknowledged. Their methodology was then applied by Yarleque et al. (2018) to estimate the interannual ELA variability on Quelccaya, equally relying on Landsat data to estimate the ELA via maximum elevation of the dry-season snowline. Hence the ELA approach used here has been applied on QIC before and the results obtained here should thus be compared to those previously published in Yarleque et al. (2018) to the extent that this is possible, especially when discussing the ELA results from your study in section 3.1 or during the discussion of the results in section 4.2.
Line 135: I am not sure you can use surface temperature from ERA5 directly to calculate days with above- or below-freezing on QIC without making some bias adjustments. What is the absolute surface elevation of Quelccaya in ERA5? I assume it is considerably lower than 5670 m, hence the ERA5 surface temperature will have a warm bias, no? Alternatively, you may want to use the free tropospheric temperature interpolated to the QIC elevation as it is less affected by a topographic bias than surface temperature.
Line 185: Snow cover, unlike ice cover, varies interannually. Hence I would not refer to the change in snow cover from one year to the next as a ‘loss’, which sounds as if it were permanent. Maybe refer to snow cover ‘change’ or ‘reduction’ instead, but it is not a permanent ’loss’.
Line 253-254: While the northern Peruvian coast indeed receives more precipitation during El Nino, the Peruvian Andes and the western Amazon are drier than normal. For example, see detailed analysis of precipitation effects of ENSO in Peru by Sulca et al. (2018). Also Hurley et al. (2019) have investigated the ENSO influence on snowfall amount and temperature anomalies on Quelccaya using on-site meteorological measurements, showing that conditions on the QIC are warmer and drier than normal during El Nino events.
Figures 2-5: I think all these bar and line graphs require uncertainty estimates. While there is some discussion of error estimates in the text, the Figures do not include any such uncertainties. Figure 5 in particular is strange. While it make sense that the total snow covered area varies from year to year in response to ENSO, why would the total area (ice cover) increase by several km^2 from one year to the next? This would imply a rapid advance of the ice cap increasing the total ice covered area by ~10% over the course of a year, which is highly unlikely. To me this rather suggests that significant uncertainties exist in the yearly estimates of total ice cover. This makes including error bars all the more important, to understand whether interannual variations of the total ice cover reside within these uncertainty estimates.

Minor suggestions for change:
Line 9: Glaciers are ‘vital water resources as vital water resources’? Something went wrong here.
Line 48: delete either ‘recording’ or ‘documenting’ (one verb too many).
Line 131: ‘European Centre for Medium Weather Range Weather Forecast’. Delete the first ‘Weather’ as it should say ’European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecast’.
Line 198: different => difference
Line 199: complied => compiled
Line 282: You refer to a paper by Taylor et al. (2022), yet this paper is not listed in the reference section.
Line 336: Please add the name of the journal where this article was published.
Lines 353-354: delete ‘an international journal’.
Lines 335-339: You repeat the same reference twice. Delete one of them. Also, in the text simply cite Hanshaw & Bookhagen (2014). There is no need for the labels ‘a’ and ‘b’ – it’s one and the same paper.
Line 382: delete ‘Article 3’
Line 388: This should be Pepin ‘et al.’ (the paper has many co-authors). Also note that there is an updated newer version of this paper (Pepin et al., 2022).
Line 404: delete ‘Article 1-5’.
Line 433: delete ‘Article 9’.

References:
Hurley, J.V., et al. 2015. Cold air incursions, d¹⁸O variability and monsoon dynamics associated with snow days at Quelccaya Ice Cap, Peru. J. Geophys. Res., 120, 7467-7487, doi:10.1002/2015JD023323.
Hurley, J.V., et al. 2019. On the interpretation of the ENSO signal embedded in the stable isotopic composition of Quelccaya Ice Cap, Peru. J. Geophys. Res. 124, 131-145, doi: 10.1029/2018JD029064.
Kochtitzky, W.H., et al. 2018. Improved estimates of glacier change rates at Nevado Coropuna Ice Cap, Peru. J. Glaciol., 64(244), 175-184, doi: 10.1017/jog.2018.2.
Pepin, N.C., et al. 2022. Climate changes and their elevational patterns in the mountains of the world. Rev. Geophys. 60, e2020RG000730, doi:10.1029/2020RG000730.
Rabatel, A., et al., 2012: Can the snowline be used as an indicator of the equilibrium line and mass balance for glaciers in the outer tropics? J. Glaciol., 58(212), 1027-1036. doi:10.3189/2012JoG12J027
Rabatel, A., et al. 2013. Current state of glaciers in the tropical Andes. A multi-century perspective on glacier evolution and climate change. Cryosphere, 7, 81-102, doi:10.5194/tc-7-81-2013.
Sulca, J., et al. 2018. Impacts of different ENSO flavors and tropical Pacific convection variability (ITCZ, SPCZ) on austral summer rainfall in South America, with a focus on Peru. Int. J. Climatol., 38, 420-435, doi:10.1002/joc.5185.
Yarleque, C., et al. 2018.. Projections of the future disappearance of the Quelccaya Ice Cap in the Central Andes. Sci. Rep. 8, 15564, doi:10.1038/s41598-018-33698-z.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-676-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Kara Lamantia, 29 May 2024
  
  We thank the reviewer for their comments, please see the attached PDF with our responses
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-676-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-676', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Apr 2024

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-676/egusphere-2024-676-RC2-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-676-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Kara Lamantia, 29 May 2024
  
  We thank the reviewer for our comments. Please see the attached pdf with our responses.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-676-AC2

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) (12 Jun 2024) by Emily Collier

AR by Kara Lamantia on behalf of the Authors (12 Jun 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (18 Jun 2024) by Emily Collier

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (03 Jul 2024)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (25 Jul 2024)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The authors improved the paper and addressed the main issues. Hence I have no further major comments. However, there are still many small errors interspersed throughout the paper, so I would urge the authors to thoroughly proof-read the paper one more time before publication. I listed a few mistakes below that caught my eye, but there are likely many more.

Line 66-67: Why include initials in this citation? Simply write: ‘(Hurley et al., 2015).’

Line 66-67: Same comment – remove initials from citation: ‘(Thompson, 2017).’

Line 72: ‘Additionally, ice cores from multiple locations in Peru document this accelerating enrichment’. What enrichment? This sentence is not clear.

Line 95-96: This is still wrong. You write: ‘European Centre for Medium Weather Range Weather Forecast (ECMWF), yet it should say: ‘European Centre for Medium- Range Weather Forecast (ECMWF)’.

Line 148: This is the first time you use the abbreviation ‘OTSU. Please spell out what this means.

Line 143: This is section 2.4, not 2.3.

Line 148: This is the first time you use the abbreviation ‘SWIR’. Please spell out what this means.

Line 161: This is section 2.5, not 2.4.

Line 196: these r-squared values are very low – are you sure the significance levels you indicate for such low vales are correct? How can a r^2 value of 0.03 be significant at p=0.01?

Line 226: ERA 5 data show (plural)

Line 245: p-values are usually indicated with a small ‘p’. You do so in the first part of the paper, but here you suddenly start to capitalize ‘P’. Be consistent, as otherwise one might come to believe that you are referring to two different metrics or variables. The same comment applies to the seemingly indiscriminate use of ‘r’ and ‘R’ throughout the paper.

Figure caption 3: you write ‘Percentage of snow cover..’, yet the Figure shows absolute snow cover in km^2.

Figure caption 4: You write: ‘Decrease in the QIC’ SCA (red) and TA (blue) at the end of the dry season from 1985 (left) to 2023 (right)’. Yet you only show the decrease in the SCA. The TA (blue line) is the same in both images.

Line 299: Remove initials. Simply write: ‘(Hurley et al., 2019).’

Line 315-316: this sentence is unclear: ‘decline from anthropogenic warming has resulted in the long-term decline of the SCA’. What do you mean with ‘decline from anthropogenic warming’?

Figure S5: I don’t find such simple linear interpolations to be very useful or realistic assumptions. As ice caps shrink and become thinner, elevation-dependent feedbacks and edge effects will become increasingly more important, resulting in accelerated shrinking over time, especially given the large flat topography making up most of the remaining ice-covered area.

Line 347: ‘El Nino’: add the ‘tilde’ symbol above the ‘n’.

Lines 387-388: This reference is still wrong. It lacks volume and page numbers or doi. Also the journal name is wrong. This article appeared in the journal ‘Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing’, not ‘Terrestrial Photogrammetry’. Finally, the title is incomplete: The correct title is: ‘Measurement of the Retreat of Qori Kalis Glacier in the Tropical Andes of Peru by Terrestrial Photogrammetry’.

Lines 446-448: This reference is missing half the authors. Please include the complete author list or abbreviate the author list in a way that makes it clear that not all authors are listed.

Supplement: Please adjust the manuscript title. You are still using the old erroneous title.

Supplemental Table 2: It makes no sense to indicate median elevation and ELA with an accuracy of millimeters. I think meters would be a better reflection of the uncertainty of these estimates.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (30 Jul 2024) by Emily Collier

AR by Kara Lamantia on behalf of the Authors (09 Aug 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (17 Aug 2024) by Emily Collier

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your revisions and responses during the second round of review.

I am pleased to accept your manuscript for publication in The Cryosphere subject to the following minor revisions:
1. Please replace references to ENSO as a 'short-term' climate mode with 'interannual' climate mode.
2. For ease of reading, please reduce the number of abbreviations where possible. For example Cordillera Vilcanota (CV) and region of interest (ROI) are only used twice in the whole manuscript and do not need to be defined as an abbreviation.
3. Please provide additional information about how the agreement with manual digitisation and the ±3% error estimate was assessed (based on how many/which image comparisons, etc).
4. If I understood correctly, you identified El Niño and La Niña events based on single monthly values of the ONI index, however traditionally they are defined based on the five consecutive 3-month running mean of SST anomalies in the Niño 3.4 region exceeding the threshold of ±0.5°C (see https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/enso/sst). Please justify, assess, and discuss the impact of your approach.
5. For clarity and ease of reading, please provide a consistent end date of your study throughout the manuscript. The 2023 El Niño event is considered and frequently discussed, however in Section 3 you refer to "the observation period (1985 to 2022)."
6. Line 197-199: where can the reader see the agreement between ERA5-Land and station data?
7. Line 223-225: "We found that in both the 1997–1999 and 2015–2017 periods..." I still find this sentence hard to follow, please simplify and clarify if possible.
8. Line 226-228: please move to the text justifying only discussing the ONI index to the methods section 2.5

Thank you and best regards,
Emily Collier

Hide

AR by Kara Lamantia on behalf of the Authors (21 Aug 2024)

EF by Anna Glados (27 Aug 2024) Manuscript Author's response Author's tracked changes

ED: Publish as is (27 Aug 2024) by Emily Collier

AR by Kara Lamantia on behalf of the Authors (27 Aug 2024) Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

08 Oct 2024

El Niño enhances snow-line rise and ice loss on the Quelccaya Ice Cap, Peru

Kara A. Lamantia, Laura J. Larocca, Lonnie G. Thompson, and Bryan G. Mark

The Cryosphere, 18, 4633–4644, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-4633-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-4633-2024, 2024

Short summary

Kara A. Lamantia, Laura J. Larocca, Lonnie G. Thompson, and Bryan G. Mark

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-676-supplement

Kara A. Lamantia, Laura J. Larocca, Lonnie G. Thompson, and Bryan G. Mark

Viewed

Total article views: 440 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
305	105	30	440	42	20	21

HTML: 305
PDF: 105
XML: 30
Total: 440
Supplement: 42
BibTeX: 20
EndNote: 21

Views and downloads (calculated since 18 Mar 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Mar 2024	78	24	4	106
Apr 2024	95	23	9	127
May 2024	48	19	3	70
Jun 2024	26	11	6	43
Jul 2024	21	9	5	35
Aug 2024	21	8	2	31
Sep 2024	14	10	1	25
Oct 2024	2	1	0	3

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 18 Mar 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Mar 2024	78	24	4	106
Apr 2024	95	23	9	127
May 2024	48	19	3	70
Jun 2024	26	11	6	43
Jul 2024	21	9	5	35
Aug 2024	21	8	2	31
Sep 2024	14	10	1	25
Oct 2024	2	1	0	3

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 561 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 561 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 08 Oct 2024

Download

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

Preprint (1944 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

Glaciers that exist within tropical regions are a vital water resource and excellent indicators of changing climate. We use satellite imagery analysis to detect the boundary between snow and ice on the Quelccaya Ice Cap (QIC) in Peru, the world’s largest tropical ice cap. This indicates the QIC’s health and can be analyzed with other variables such as temperature, precipitation, and sea surface temperature anomalies to better understand what factors on what timeline are driving the ice retreat.


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