the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 13 Oct 2025
Brief communication: Towards defining the worst-case breach scenarios and potential flood volumes for moraine-dammed lake outbursts
Abstract. Moraine dam failures are the main source of catastrophic glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs). The effective GLOF disaster risk management requires reliable identification of areas at risk. While predictive outburst flood modelling benefits from advancing tools and computational capacities, some of the fundamental considerations remain poorly addressed. Among them, the outburst flood scenarios are essential yet often oversimplified input for modelling. Here we present novel methodology which enables the estimation of a maximum breach depth and so the calculation of potential flood volume (PFV), with the key parameter being the slope of the breached channel (α) derived from past events.
- Preprint
(836 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(285 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
- CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4136', Koji Fujita, 20 Nov 2025 reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4136', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Dec 2025
reply
This article provides a method for estimating the maximum volume that can be released during a GLOF.
I agree that lakes typically do not completely drain, so this method would be helpful to estimate a more realistic flood volume.
-Why do you assume that the crest is at the center of the moraine?
-How do you justify using a specific slope for calculating the PFV? For example, for Galong Go, considering an angle of 0 degrees, we will have a breach that goes from the crest to the toe, so that we would have a breach of 50 meters (5073-5023m). This would give us, assuming the lake area is constant, a volume of 50x5630000 = 28.150.000 m3. So it seems that a significant factor is the width of the moraine. If we have a narrow moraine, a breach at 3 degrees will be close to 0 degrees, but if you have a wide moraine, as in this example, the breach height decreases. The same holds for all the examples in Table III. So, how does the width of the moraine correlate with the angles in the table from Supplement I: The list of analysed events, measured and calculated characteristics?
- How certain or defensible is conclusion two from this work, considering that your GLOF sample used is small? It seems like a reasonable guess more than a conclusion derived from the results. It is important to note that the range of angles in the supplementary table is considerable.
- It would be good to mention how the volumes were calculated in the previous calculations. For example, Gepan Gath and Luding have similar configurations and PFV. However, Fujita et al.'s (2013) estimate was much closer (85.6%) than Worni et al.'s (2013) (37.8%) to the revised PFV. My guess is that the difference between Fujita et al. (2013) and this method is within the error of the methods.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4136-RC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 262 | 76 | 31 | 369 | 33 | 15 | 17 |
- HTML: 262
- PDF: 76
- XML: 31
- Total: 369
- Supplement: 33
- BibTeX: 15
- EndNote: 17
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Dear authors,
This study estimates the potential flood volume (PFV) of glacial lakes from the angle of the post-GLOF flow path. Although it does not evaluate the outburst potential itself, I believe it provides useful information. As a researcher who has conducted similar prior research, I offer several comments that I hope will be helpful.
The fact that the angle of the post-GLOF flow path is small was shown in Figure 6 of Fujita et al. (2013), so I would appreciate it if this could also be mentioned in the manuscript. The difference in PFV estimates ultimately stems from the choice of threshold: 10° in Fujita et al. (2013) and 3° in this study, so it would be good to refer to this point in the discussion.
I believe the Supplement figure represents an important result of this study, so it should be included in the main manuscript. It should also be discussed what characteristics glacial lakes with large angles maintained even after outburst tend to have.
I have some objections regarding the method shown in Figure 1D and Equations 1 & 2. What can actually be measured from satellite data is the “horizontal distance”, not the “slope distance”; therefore, “d” should be treated as the horizontal distance, and the angle should be calculated using the arctangent (Equation 1). In addition, Equation 2 should be computed using the tangent.
In estimating the PFV shown in Figure 2, the calculations use the moraine crest, but glacial lakes are not necessarily filled with water up to the top of the moraine. Therefore, it would be better to use the lakeshore, which is easier to identify in satellite imagery.
The moraine toe boundary is not clearly identifiable for all glacial lakes. The impact of uncertainty in determining the toe position on the PFV should be evaluated.
Regarding the PFV re-evaluated in Table 1, Fujita et al. (2013) assessed PFV for many glacial lakes and also provided their location information in the Supplement. Therefore, PFV should be evaluated for a larger number of glacial lakes.