Svalbard glacier calving front retrievals during the 1960s and 1970s from archived Landsat and declassified intelligence satellite photographs

Danjou, Loris; Rinne, Eero; Schytt Mannerfelt, Erik

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2025-5249

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5249

Preprints

25 Nov 2025

| 25 Nov 2025

Svalbard glacier calving front retrievals during the 1960s and 1970s from archived Landsat and declassified intelligence satellite photographs

Loris Danjou, Eero Rinne, and Erik Schytt Mannerfelt

Abstract. We retrieved calving front locations of 171 Svalbard tidewater glaciers from archived satellite imagery. We used early Landsat images from 1976–1978 as well as declassified intelligence satellite photographs from 1962–1963. To support the geophysical analysis of these calving fronts, we also used historical aerial images from 1936–1938. During our study period between 1936 and 1978, we estimate an average glacier retreat rate of 26.3 m yr^-1. This corresponds to an approximately 1 km of average retreat of Svalbard tidewater glaciers during this period. By multiplying the retreats by the glaciers' widths, we estimate the cumulative area loss rate to be 16.0 km² yr^-1 (R²=0.94), which is slightly lower than the estimates found in the existing literature for the periods 1985–2023 and 2000–2020. Looking at individual glaciers, we identify and discuss 15 significant advance events. For four of them, our study provides additional information to current knowledge. We have discovered one undocumented surge – we show evidence that Emmabreen has surged between 1936 and 1963. We have also narrowed down the time windows of two previously known surges: the surge of Allfarvegen to between 1976 and 1978 (previously reported to have happened between 1970 and 1980), and the surge of Stonebreen to between 1936 and 1963 (previously reported between 1936 and 1971). We also show that Schweigaardbreen and Fonndalsbreen have advanced 400 and 541 meters, respectively, between 1938 and 1976. We discuss the potential future uses of our dataset, consisting of georeferenced satellite images used in our study as well as digitized calving fronts, which is freely available for future research.

Received: 23 Oct 2025 – Discussion started: 25 Nov 2025

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, 4308 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 (4308 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

28 Jul 2026

Svalbard glacier calving front changes from the 1930s to the 1970s from archived satellite and aerial images

Loris Danjou, Eero Rinne, and Erik Schytt Mannerfelt

The Cryosphere, 20, 4133–4155, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-20-4133-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-20-4133-2026, 2026

Short summary

Loris Danjou, Eero Rinne, and Erik Schytt Mannerfelt

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

CC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-5249', Harold Lovell, 27 Nov 2025

Hello authors,
Just a minor comment on one small aspect of this paper that I noticed, being familiar with the cited study:
Section 4.2.2., page 15, line 245 it is stated:
Schweigaardbreen is not documented as a surge-type glacier, but the presence of crevasse-squeeze ridge networks seen in recent aerial images (Lovell and Boston, 2017) indicates a possible misclassification.
We didn't identify crevasse-squeeze ridges at Schweigaardbreen (nor did Farnsworth et al., 2016: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.03.025). Instead, we identified a glaciotectonic composite ridge system, formed as the ice margin advances into proglacial sediments. Lovell and Boston (2017) was mainly focused on identifying these glaciotectonic moraines, which in Svalbard have a very good correlation with known surges or glaciers with other evidence of past surging (e.g. crevasse-squeeze ridges).
Cheers,
Harold Lovell

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5249-CC1
- AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Loris Danjou, 17 Feb 2026
  
  Dear Harold,
  Thank you very much for suggesting this correction. We will make sure to clarify this section in the next version of the manuscript.
  All the best,
  Loris Danjou, Eero Rinne and Erik Schytt Mannerfelt
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5249-AC3
RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-5249', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Jan 2026

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-5249/egusphere-2025-5249-RC1-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5249-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Loris Danjou, 17 Feb 2026
  
  Please find attached our response.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5249-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-5249', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Jan 2026
This manuscript presents a historical reconstruction of calving front positions for 171 tidewater glaciers in Svalbard over the period 1936–1978, based on a combination of historical aerial photographs, early Landsat MSS imagery, and declassified KH-5 ARGON satellite photographs. The extension of calving-front observations into the pre-1980 satellite, together with the public release of georeferenced imagery and digitized fronts, gives this study clear long-term value as a data resource for Svalbard glacier research.
However, the scientific contribution of the manuscript is currently not articulated as clearly as it could be. The Introduction largely reads as a chronological listing of previous studies rather than a focused synthesis that motivates why this reconstruction is needed, what specific gap it fills relative to existing datasets, and how it advances current understanding. In addition, although 171 glaciers are mapped, the manuscript lacks a clear overview figure demonstrating the spatial coverage of the dataset, which makes it difficult to fully appreciate the scope and representativeness of the work.
I also have several major concerns related to (i) the treatment and interpretation of georeferencing uncertainties, (ii) the robustness of inferred average retreat and area-loss rates given the sparse temporal sampling, and (iii) the framing of some conclusions, which in places extend beyond what the data can securely support. Addressing these issues would substantially strengthen the scientific rigor, clarity, and long-term usability of the dataset. Overall, I recommend major revision.
Major comments
1. The study relies heavily on polynomial georeferencing of KH-5 ARGON images using many ground control points (typically 100–200 per image), while explicitly abandoning a physically based orthorectification approach (Sect. 2.2.2). Although the authors justify this choice by focusing on relative calving-front positions near sea level, the implications of this decision require a more critical and transparent discussion. High-order polynomial transformations can provide a good local fit at GCPs but may introduce non-physical distortions between control points, particularly over very large scenes such as ARGON images (>500 km wide). The manuscript also acknowledges that uncertainties in 1962–1963 are especially large, yet several key interpretations (e.g. identification and timing of advances, surge attribution) rely strongly on these data. Further clarification is needed:
Provide quantitative diagnostics of georeferencing performance (e.g. RMSE at GCPs and, if possible, spatial patterns of residuals).

Explicitly discuss how non-uniform geometric distortions could bias centerline-based distance estimates, especially for wide or curved glacier fronts.

Clarify whether any spatial filtering or systematic exclusion (e.g. image edges or areas affected by severe distortions) was applied, beyond individual case decisions such as Emmabreen.

Without this information, it is difficult to assess whether some detected advances or retreats can be confidently distinguished from residual geometric artefacts.
2. The manuscript reports an average retreat rate of 26.3 m yr⁻¹ between 1936 and 1978 and discusses variations within this period (Sect. 3.1, Fig. 5a). However, the effective temporal resolution is extremely limited, with only three broad observation windows (1936–1938, 1962–1963, and 1976–1978). Given this sparsity: 1) Linear trends and apparent phases such as “plateaus” or accelerations are poorly constrained. 2)The reported R² values may give a misleading impression of robustness. I suggest that the authors:
Reframe retreat and area-loss rates explicitly as period-averaged net changes, rather than temporally resolved trends.

Avoid interpretative language implying acceleration or deceleration unless supported by sensitivity tests.

Emphasize net changes between observation epochs as the primary result, with trends presented only as descriptive summaries.

3. Area change is calculated as the product of frontal displacement and average glacier width (Sect. 2.5, 3.1), following Li et al. (2025). While this approach is reasonable given the data limitations, it differs fundamentally from outline-based methods used in other studies cited for comparison (e.g. Kochtitzky and Copland, 2022). Although these differences are acknowledged, the manuscript still draws relatively strong comparative conclusions (Sect. 4.1, 5). I therefore recommend that the authors more clearly separate methodological differences from physical interpretation when comparing results across studies, explicitly discuss how width variability, fjord geometry, and non-parallel retreat may bias area estimates, and consider presenting cumulative frontal length change alongside area change as a more methodologically neutral metric.
4. The identification of surge events is one of the most interesting aspects of the manuscript. However, the criteria used to distinguish surges from non-surge advances are not always clearly defined. For example, Schweigaardbreen and Fonndalsbreen are treated cautiously as advancing glaciers, whereas Emmabreen is classified as having undergone a previously undocumented surge, largely based on frontal advance magnitude and geometry. Given the long time intervals between observations, this distinction remains ambiguous. I recommend that the authors explicitly state the diagnostic criteria used to classify an event as a surge versus a non-surge advance, clarify the relative roles of frontal advance magnitude, spatial coherence, and ancillary evidence (e.g. crevasse patterns or later velocity observations), and acknowledge that, in some cases, surge classification remains uncertain given the available data. This would improve the conceptual consistency of Sect. 4.2 and help avoid over-interpretation.
Minor comments:
Consider using the term “delineation” rather than “retrieval” consistently throughout the manuscript.

The Abstract and Introduction would benefit from clearer separation between background, methods, and the specific contribution of this study. The Introduction (particularly Sect. 1.2) could be substantially condensed; rather than listing previous studies, it should synthesize why DISP and early Landsat data are essential for the present work.

Use “calving-front position” rather than “locations” for consistency with common terminology.

An overview map showing all 171 calving fronts is necessary to demonstrate the spatial coverage of the dataset.

Clarify how many fronts are shown in Fig. 3 and how this relates to the total number of observations.

Several statements describing “faster” or “slower” retreat (e.g. Lines 184–186) are difficult to support given the sparse time sampling and should be revised.

Multi-panel figures (e.g. Fig. 7) are information-rich but visually dense; inset maps or simplified color schemes could improve readability.

2.5 notes that centerlines were digitized manually; please clarify whether a single operator performed this task and comment briefly on consistency.

The uncertainty framework is thorough, but a concise summary table of typical positional uncertainties for each data source in the main text would aid readers.

Please ensure that metadata in the Zenodo archive clearly document coordinate reference systems and georeferencing procedures.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5249-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Loris Danjou, 17 Feb 2026
  
  Please find attached our response.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5249-AC2

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

CC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-5249', Harold Lovell, 27 Nov 2025

Hello authors,
Just a minor comment on one small aspect of this paper that I noticed, being familiar with the cited study:
Section 4.2.2., page 15, line 245 it is stated:
Schweigaardbreen is not documented as a surge-type glacier, but the presence of crevasse-squeeze ridge networks seen in recent aerial images (Lovell and Boston, 2017) indicates a possible misclassification.
We didn't identify crevasse-squeeze ridges at Schweigaardbreen (nor did Farnsworth et al., 2016: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.03.025). Instead, we identified a glaciotectonic composite ridge system, formed as the ice margin advances into proglacial sediments. Lovell and Boston (2017) was mainly focused on identifying these glaciotectonic moraines, which in Svalbard have a very good correlation with known surges or glaciers with other evidence of past surging (e.g. crevasse-squeeze ridges).
Cheers,
Harold Lovell

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5249-CC1
- AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Loris Danjou, 17 Feb 2026
  
  Dear Harold,
  Thank you very much for suggesting this correction. We will make sure to clarify this section in the next version of the manuscript.
  All the best,
  Loris Danjou, Eero Rinne and Erik Schytt Mannerfelt
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5249-AC3
RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-5249', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Jan 2026

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-5249/egusphere-2025-5249-RC1-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5249-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Loris Danjou, 17 Feb 2026
  
  Please find attached our response.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5249-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-5249', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Jan 2026
This manuscript presents a historical reconstruction of calving front positions for 171 tidewater glaciers in Svalbard over the period 1936–1978, based on a combination of historical aerial photographs, early Landsat MSS imagery, and declassified KH-5 ARGON satellite photographs. The extension of calving-front observations into the pre-1980 satellite, together with the public release of georeferenced imagery and digitized fronts, gives this study clear long-term value as a data resource for Svalbard glacier research.
However, the scientific contribution of the manuscript is currently not articulated as clearly as it could be. The Introduction largely reads as a chronological listing of previous studies rather than a focused synthesis that motivates why this reconstruction is needed, what specific gap it fills relative to existing datasets, and how it advances current understanding. In addition, although 171 glaciers are mapped, the manuscript lacks a clear overview figure demonstrating the spatial coverage of the dataset, which makes it difficult to fully appreciate the scope and representativeness of the work.
I also have several major concerns related to (i) the treatment and interpretation of georeferencing uncertainties, (ii) the robustness of inferred average retreat and area-loss rates given the sparse temporal sampling, and (iii) the framing of some conclusions, which in places extend beyond what the data can securely support. Addressing these issues would substantially strengthen the scientific rigor, clarity, and long-term usability of the dataset. Overall, I recommend major revision.
Major comments
1. The study relies heavily on polynomial georeferencing of KH-5 ARGON images using many ground control points (typically 100–200 per image), while explicitly abandoning a physically based orthorectification approach (Sect. 2.2.2). Although the authors justify this choice by focusing on relative calving-front positions near sea level, the implications of this decision require a more critical and transparent discussion. High-order polynomial transformations can provide a good local fit at GCPs but may introduce non-physical distortions between control points, particularly over very large scenes such as ARGON images (>500 km wide). The manuscript also acknowledges that uncertainties in 1962–1963 are especially large, yet several key interpretations (e.g. identification and timing of advances, surge attribution) rely strongly on these data. Further clarification is needed:
Provide quantitative diagnostics of georeferencing performance (e.g. RMSE at GCPs and, if possible, spatial patterns of residuals).

Explicitly discuss how non-uniform geometric distortions could bias centerline-based distance estimates, especially for wide or curved glacier fronts.

Clarify whether any spatial filtering or systematic exclusion (e.g. image edges or areas affected by severe distortions) was applied, beyond individual case decisions such as Emmabreen.

Without this information, it is difficult to assess whether some detected advances or retreats can be confidently distinguished from residual geometric artefacts.
2. The manuscript reports an average retreat rate of 26.3 m yr⁻¹ between 1936 and 1978 and discusses variations within this period (Sect. 3.1, Fig. 5a). However, the effective temporal resolution is extremely limited, with only three broad observation windows (1936–1938, 1962–1963, and 1976–1978). Given this sparsity: 1) Linear trends and apparent phases such as “plateaus” or accelerations are poorly constrained. 2)The reported R² values may give a misleading impression of robustness. I suggest that the authors:
Reframe retreat and area-loss rates explicitly as period-averaged net changes, rather than temporally resolved trends.

Avoid interpretative language implying acceleration or deceleration unless supported by sensitivity tests.

Emphasize net changes between observation epochs as the primary result, with trends presented only as descriptive summaries.

3. Area change is calculated as the product of frontal displacement and average glacier width (Sect. 2.5, 3.1), following Li et al. (2025). While this approach is reasonable given the data limitations, it differs fundamentally from outline-based methods used in other studies cited for comparison (e.g. Kochtitzky and Copland, 2022). Although these differences are acknowledged, the manuscript still draws relatively strong comparative conclusions (Sect. 4.1, 5). I therefore recommend that the authors more clearly separate methodological differences from physical interpretation when comparing results across studies, explicitly discuss how width variability, fjord geometry, and non-parallel retreat may bias area estimates, and consider presenting cumulative frontal length change alongside area change as a more methodologically neutral metric.
4. The identification of surge events is one of the most interesting aspects of the manuscript. However, the criteria used to distinguish surges from non-surge advances are not always clearly defined. For example, Schweigaardbreen and Fonndalsbreen are treated cautiously as advancing glaciers, whereas Emmabreen is classified as having undergone a previously undocumented surge, largely based on frontal advance magnitude and geometry. Given the long time intervals between observations, this distinction remains ambiguous. I recommend that the authors explicitly state the diagnostic criteria used to classify an event as a surge versus a non-surge advance, clarify the relative roles of frontal advance magnitude, spatial coherence, and ancillary evidence (e.g. crevasse patterns or later velocity observations), and acknowledge that, in some cases, surge classification remains uncertain given the available data. This would improve the conceptual consistency of Sect. 4.2 and help avoid over-interpretation.
Minor comments:
Consider using the term “delineation” rather than “retrieval” consistently throughout the manuscript.

The Abstract and Introduction would benefit from clearer separation between background, methods, and the specific contribution of this study. The Introduction (particularly Sect. 1.2) could be substantially condensed; rather than listing previous studies, it should synthesize why DISP and early Landsat data are essential for the present work.

Use “calving-front position” rather than “locations” for consistency with common terminology.

An overview map showing all 171 calving fronts is necessary to demonstrate the spatial coverage of the dataset.

Clarify how many fronts are shown in Fig. 3 and how this relates to the total number of observations.

Several statements describing “faster” or “slower” retreat (e.g. Lines 184–186) are difficult to support given the sparse time sampling and should be revised.

Multi-panel figures (e.g. Fig. 7) are information-rich but visually dense; inset maps or simplified color schemes could improve readability.

2.5 notes that centerlines were digitized manually; please clarify whether a single operator performed this task and comment briefly on consistency.

The uncertainty framework is thorough, but a concise summary table of typical positional uncertainties for each data source in the main text would aid readers.

Please ensure that metadata in the Zenodo archive clearly document coordinate reference systems and georeferencing procedures.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5249-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Loris Danjou, 17 Feb 2026
  
  Please find attached our response.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5249-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) (27 Feb 2026) by Heather Reese

AR by Loris Danjou on behalf of the Authors (10 Apr 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (07 May 2026) by Heather Reese

The Editor’s decision is to Publish the manuscript subject to revisions (review again by editor). There are both minor revisions, but also a major point that Reviewer 2 has raised that needs to be addressed.

There are occasional grammatical issues in the text that the authors should correct before submitting, particularly where new text was added. Eg, “(note that the resolution is 140 m but the sampling scale is finner).” TC does not do language editing of the ms at any stage.

Reference to Table 1 in the text has fallen away, and the table itself should appear after the use of GCPs for rectification has been described in the text.

When you discuss taking the GCPs in this section, you should then refer to appendix B2 with the RMSEs for each image – both for KH-Argon and Landsat data. Ok, I see B2 is a figure with the RMSEs for the KH-Argon data but not the Landsat data. At least a table with the RMSEs for the Landsat data should also be given.

I note that in Fig B2, some of the RMSEs for the KH-Argon data are rather high (especially frame b with 234 m RMSE)– although I understand the challenges. It would be helpful if you referenced another article that discusses this, eg, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02829175 (Sohn, HG., Kim, KT. Horizontal positional accuracy assessment of historical ARGON satellite photography. KSCE J Civ Eng 4, 59–65 (2000). High RMSEs and their potential effect on the delineation of the glacial front should be discussed factually in the manuscript.

In Table 1 – list the images in chronological order.

Please indicate which Landsat satellite data were used (Landsat -1, -2, and/or -3?) All of these were operating between 1976-1978. Indicate what Level data you have used (L1GT? L1TP?) – this is important so that the reader knows the geographic accuracy of the data.

Also, The Ground Sample Distance (GSD) of Landsat 1 (MSS) was originally 79 meters (commonly cited as 80 m), but the data provided via Earth Explorer today is resampled to a 60-meter pixel size. Please acknowledge this.

The section on Landsat data should also refer to the dates and number of GCPs used in Table 1.

I find Fig 4 difficult to interpret – is there a black outline being used to represent something? If so, maybe it should be dashed or white so that one can really tell where your lines are. Maybe in Fig 5, a box around the area shown (corresponding to Fig 4 area) would help the interpretation of Fig 5, which I also find difficult to interpret.

Figure 5 prominently features the “Randolph inventory” which is only briefly mentioned in the Introduction but no details are given and it wasn’t clear that the authors were using this data in their analysis. If it makes sense to keep it in, please give a little detail as to the dataset and what it is based on.

Please remove “…and ensure correctness” from the end of the following sentence, as giving larger error margins doesn’t ensure correctness. Therefore, our uncertainties are conservatively bigger than these RMSE values and ensure correctness.

According to Fig 9, use of the “Early” ERA5T dataset is written. I believe the authors should be using the standard dataset and not the Early dataset, especially since the long historical record going back to 1940 is shown. The authors also haven’t referenced which dataset they used in the text (Early or Standard).

I think that the sentence in your Conclusion “An analysis of the average glacier behavior over the whole study period yields an average retreat rate of (R2 =0.89)27.3±3.0myr−1, which agrees with the value of 25-50myr−1 found by Li et al. (2025) for period1985–2023.” could benefit from putting the actual years (from 1936 to1978) instead of “over the whole study period”.

The authors added to the Conclusion the sentence “This difference is likely due to increasing T2m and SST in Svalbard, as well as a decrease in SIC between 1940 and 2023.”. The reference to “This difference” is vague, particularly since the preceding paragraph discusses the difference between other studies’ results and the authors’ own. I don’t think this is what the authors mean – I think they mean to say that these factors are influencing the glacial loss. Please look over.

A more major point:
Reviewer 2 is concerned about the rectification of the imagery, and I believe this is the main issue for your manuscript. Figure B2 is helpful, but the axes should have the Lat Long on them, and it would be helpful to know the location of the glacier front represented within each plot. Otherwise the reader has no way of knowing where the GCPs were taken and if they are valid.

In addition, the May frame B appears to show systematic errors. Please comment on this, and take careful consideration of your method and in the discussion consider the possibility of how this affects your results and the potential error sources are here. This will help future researchers who may try to build on your study.

Hide

AR by Loris Danjou on behalf of the Authors (01 Jun 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (12 Jun 2026) by Heather Reese

AR by Loris Danjou on behalf of the Authors (17 Jun 2026) Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

28 Jul 2026

Svalbard glacier calving front changes from the 1930s to the 1970s from archived satellite and aerial images

Loris Danjou, Eero Rinne, and Erik Schytt Mannerfelt

The Cryosphere, 20, 4133–4155, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-20-4133-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-20-4133-2026, 2026

Short summary

Loris Danjou, Eero Rinne, and Erik Schytt Mannerfelt

Data sets

Svalbard glacier calving fronts (1936-1978) Loris Danjou https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16918636

Model code and software

Svalbard_calving_fronts_1936-1978_data_analysis Loris Danjou https://github.com/lorisdanjou/Svalbard_calving_fronts_1936-1978_data_analysis

Loris Danjou, Eero Rinne, and Erik Schytt Mannerfelt

Viewed

Total article views: 3,644 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
2,347	1,109	188	3,644	117	88

HTML: 2,347
PDF: 1,109
XML: 188
Total: 3,644
BibTeX: 117
EndNote: 88

Views and downloads (calculated since 25 Nov 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Nov 2025	530	125	35	690
Dec 2025	430	300	59	789
Jan 2026	527	265	30	822
Feb 2026	432	161	34	627
Mar 2026	294	138	23	455
Apr 2026	68	33	1	102
May 2026	51	61	3	115
Jun 2026	9	13	1	23
Jul 2026	6	13	2	21

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 25 Nov 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Nov 2025	530	125	35	690
Dec 2025	430	300	59	789
Jan 2026	527	265	30	822
Feb 2026	432	161	34	627
Mar 2026	294	138	23	455
Apr 2026	68	33	1	102
May 2026	51	61	3	115
Jun 2026	9	13	1	23
Jul 2026	6	13	2	21

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 3,625 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 3,625 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 28 Jul 2026

Download

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

Preprint (4308 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

We have retrieved front locations for 171 Svalbard tidewater glaciers in the 1960s and 1970s, from Landsat images and – for the first time in this region – declassified intelligence satellite photographs. We compared our results to aerial photographs from the 1930s and calculated that these glaciers retreated by about 1 km. We also discovered one undocumented glacier surge (a rapid front advance), narrowed down the time frames of two others, and documented two other glacier advances.


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