the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 07 Feb 2025
Brief Communication: Multisource Remote Sensing Detects Growing Himalayan Glacial Lake Outburst Flood Hazards
Abstract. Increasing outburst flood hazards from melting glaciers threaten Himalayan communities but are difficult to assess. On 16 August 2024, a catastrophic Glacial Lake Outburst Flood (GLOF) occurred unexpectedly in the Bhotekoshi River Valley, in the Mt. Everest region of Nepal. Using this disaster as an illustration, we demonstrate that combining new and legacy satellite remote sensing technologies for lake water level, turbidity, and extent can detect potential GLOF hazards and help identify these risks.
- Preprint
(31161 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(21267 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-133', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Mar 2025
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this study that deals with remote sensing of the recent GLOF in Nepal. After reading this study, I have to conclude that: (i) framing (potential of remote sensing data), (ii) methodology (claims that are based on the insights from one case study), and (iii) format (brief communication) are not convincing.Â
The use of remote sensing data in glacial hazard assessments and monitoring has decades long tradition and the manuscript under consideration doesn’t seem to go beyond broadly used GLOF hazard indicators (i.e., detection of lakes and monitoring of growth, relationship (hydrological connection) between the lake and glaciers (here expressed by water turbidity); WSE and topography).
I’m not saying that recent progress in availability and resolution of remote sensing data doesn’t pave promising way forward - surely yes. However, if this study is to provide novel and robust data-driven insights, it needs to go beyond: (i) one GLOF case that is analyzed, (ii) descriptive observations without interpretations (what actually triggered that overtopping and how is this process-wise linked to the indicators the authors look at?), (iii) brief communication format.
I encourage the authors to prepare a full scale research paper instead of this brief comment. Â
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-133-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-133', Anonymous Referee #2, 11 Apr 2025
Review for: Brief Communication: Multisource Remote Sensing Detects Growing Himalayan Glacial Lake Outburst Flood Hazards
This is an interesting short case study on a GLOF associated with glacier recession and lake formation in the Thame region of Nepal. It adds to the growing list of case studies of these events, by using repeated remotely sensed imagery to outline the development of the lakes and the likely evolution of these and eventual GLOF development. It could be published with a few small changes to the paper.Â
These are outlined below:
Line 51. Add more references. I suggest:Â
Haritashya, U.K., Kargel, J.S., Shugar, D.H., Leonard, G.J., Strattman, K., Watson, C.S., Shean, D., Harrison, S., Mandli, K.T. and Regmi, D., 2018. Evolution and controls of large glacial lakes in the Nepal Himalaya. Remote Sensing, 10(5), p.798.ÂÂLine 72 Normalized Difference Turbidity Index. Please explain what the rationale is for using this technique. … what is the rationale for this? You also need to explain why increased turbidity could not be associated with other processes than increased glacier melt. Is this a long-term feature of the lake? You may not have the answer to this question, but it should at least have been posed. If increased turbidity is a clear precursor for GLOFs then this would be a very useful metric for GLOF planners to be able to use. However, more discussion of this point is required.
Fig 2 caption. Not sure which are Lakes 1-5. These are not shown on the figure.
Parts of Section 3.2 should be earlier in the text? The seems to me to be part of the the rationale and should therefore be placed before methods.
Line 237 McFEETERS should not be capitalised.Â
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-133-RC2
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-133', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Mar 2025
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this study that deals with remote sensing of the recent GLOF in Nepal. After reading this study, I have to conclude that: (i) framing (potential of remote sensing data), (ii) methodology (claims that are based on the insights from one case study), and (iii) format (brief communication) are not convincing.Â
The use of remote sensing data in glacial hazard assessments and monitoring has decades long tradition and the manuscript under consideration doesn’t seem to go beyond broadly used GLOF hazard indicators (i.e., detection of lakes and monitoring of growth, relationship (hydrological connection) between the lake and glaciers (here expressed by water turbidity); WSE and topography).
I’m not saying that recent progress in availability and resolution of remote sensing data doesn’t pave promising way forward - surely yes. However, if this study is to provide novel and robust data-driven insights, it needs to go beyond: (i) one GLOF case that is analyzed, (ii) descriptive observations without interpretations (what actually triggered that overtopping and how is this process-wise linked to the indicators the authors look at?), (iii) brief communication format.
I encourage the authors to prepare a full scale research paper instead of this brief comment. Â
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-133-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-133', Anonymous Referee #2, 11 Apr 2025
Review for: Brief Communication: Multisource Remote Sensing Detects Growing Himalayan Glacial Lake Outburst Flood Hazards
This is an interesting short case study on a GLOF associated with glacier recession and lake formation in the Thame region of Nepal. It adds to the growing list of case studies of these events, by using repeated remotely sensed imagery to outline the development of the lakes and the likely evolution of these and eventual GLOF development. It could be published with a few small changes to the paper.Â
These are outlined below:
Line 51. Add more references. I suggest:Â
Haritashya, U.K., Kargel, J.S., Shugar, D.H., Leonard, G.J., Strattman, K., Watson, C.S., Shean, D., Harrison, S., Mandli, K.T. and Regmi, D., 2018. Evolution and controls of large glacial lakes in the Nepal Himalaya. Remote Sensing, 10(5), p.798.ÂÂLine 72 Normalized Difference Turbidity Index. Please explain what the rationale is for using this technique. … what is the rationale for this? You also need to explain why increased turbidity could not be associated with other processes than increased glacier melt. Is this a long-term feature of the lake? You may not have the answer to this question, but it should at least have been posed. If increased turbidity is a clear precursor for GLOFs then this would be a very useful metric for GLOF planners to be able to use. However, more discussion of this point is required.
Fig 2 caption. Not sure which are Lakes 1-5. These are not shown on the figure.
Parts of Section 3.2 should be earlier in the text? The seems to me to be part of the the rationale and should therefore be placed before methods.
Line 237 McFEETERS should not be capitalised.Â
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-133-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 286 | 185 | 19 | 490 | 86 | 10 | 30 |
- HTML: 286
- PDF: 185
- XML: 19
- Total: 490
- Supplement: 86
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 30
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1