the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Quantifying the influence of mining dust particle deposition on the melting rate of nearby glaciers in northwestern China
Abstract. In addition to causing severe damage to human health and mechanical equipment, mineral dust particles (MDPs) also affect the rate at which glaciers melt. Although the acceleration of glacier melting by MDPs has attracted attention, there is limited understanding of the main controlling variables affected by MDPs that change the melting rate, and the mathematical relationships between each variable and the rate of melting remain to be fully elucidated. To address this problem, we first reconstructed the ablation environment to simulate changes in the rate of glacier melting under the influence of MDPs. The environment was analyzed through both physical and numerical experiments, and the response of glacier melting to multiple particles and individual particles on both macroscopic and microscopic levels was examined. Subsequently, based on thermodynamic laws, we theoretically derived a formula to calculate the increase in the rate of glacier melting attributable to MDPs. Through mutual validation of experiments and theory, we found that MDP coverage on the glacier surface increases the energy absorbed by the glacier, thereby resulting in an increased rate of melting, with an uplift of 10 %–40 %. The increase in the rate of melting is controlled primarily by four variables: particle number, particle diameter, irradiance, and particle surface albedo. Particle number, irradiance, and particle surface albedo each exhibit a linear relationship with the rate of increase in meltwater production, whereas particle diameter shows an exponential (quadratic) relationship. Our findings elucidate the mathematical relationship between MDPs and the rate of glacier melting, thereby providing scientific reference for glacier protection and accurate prediction of glacier melting rate.
- Preprint
(4772 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 18 Oct 2025)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-885', Meow Han, 27 May 2025
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Xinyi Xu, 28 May 2025
reply
First of all, thank you for reading and for your positive feedback. We are honored that our study could serve as a reference and provide inspiration for your research. If you have any further questions or need more details, please feel free to contact us via email.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-885-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Xinyi Xu, 28 May 2025
reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-885', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Aug 2025
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-885/egusphere-2025-885-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Xinyi Xu, 19 Aug 2025
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-885/egusphere-2025-885-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Xinyi Xu, 19 Aug 2025
reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-885', Anonymous Referee #2, 12 Sep 2025
reply
I have read the work by Zhiyi Zhang et al with a particular interest in their physical experiments, and comparison to real-world data. although the study does have some interesting datasets and highlights an important issue I do not feel this meets the standard of publication within Cryosphere. My concerns are as follows:
Assumed knowledge: Throughout the manuscript the authors fail to cite key elements of the existing literature as well as having an assumed knowledge for the reader. I feel in multiple sections the authors oversimplify well researched phenomena or fail to cite any literature when discussing certain points, greatly hindering their argument.
Experiment 1: This fails to take into account key elements of the surface energy balance found on glaciers, particularly when considering the role of debris and comes across as a simplification of a very well researched process. Although similar experiments have developed models based on flat, uniform surfaces these are not truly representative of a glacier surface. I would be explicit about this in your experimental design with further citations required (See Steiner at al., 2018). This is touched upon in section 4.3 but the authors fails to adequately address this to further integrate their findings with existing models as well as failing to acknowledge and build upon key literature.
Section 4.2: I agree with your conclusions, but this is a very well-established phenomenon, yet you have failed to cite the existing literature here: Gardner and Sharp (2010); Libois et al. (2013); Warren and Wiscombe (1980). Further work is required to acknowledge existing research. This is also similar to the role algae blooms play on ablation and further comparison and citation of this work would strengthen the authors arguments.
Failure to acknowledge spatial heterogeneity: The authors fail to acknowledge the role of surface topography in influencing ablation, which is key in applying their ideas to real-world examples. Given the availability of the remotely sensed data, I would like to see additional work done to map the spatial variations of debris cover as this is a very well researched field which I feel their results could add to. They also discuss ablation heavily, however when looking at their real-world applications they only acknowledge icefront retreat as a method of mass loss. Real world examples must also consider surface lowering, which has been shown in multiple studies.
Conclusions: I do not find the conclusions from this paper to be novel. I agree that the examination as to the role of MDPs warrants further investigation but I feel in its current state this paper does not contribute towards the field in a significant way.
Specific comments:
Line 37: Correct but multiple references required
Line 45: Good to draw on an example but what other factors here?
Line 47: Agreed, but go into detail here
Line 54: Yes, but this is a vast oversimplification, explain further.
Line 94: Good, but I would want more details here, how far, which direction, what is the prevailing wind etc.
Line 98: This is data analysis before presenting methods, remove.
Figure 1: I would like to see a region photo with the study area highlighted. B) what is the sensor used for this image, please add a scale and credit in the figure caption. D) retreat is only part of the story, have you considered surface lowering? There is also no legend for this figure explain the colour, I assume this is to show mass loss but this isn’t explicit.
Linen 131: These are not observations, these are calculated inferences from a dataset thus this needs to be carefully explained, an observation should represent a direct measurement. Please correct this throughout the manuscript.
162: An interesting experiment however, I do not feel this represents glacier ice. Any debris is far more likely to collate in topographic lows, and the ice is unlikely to have a comparable structure to that of water. These things need to be carefully considered in any conclusions.
Figure 9: A nice schematic however I have noted here and throughout the manuscript the authors do not address the spatial heterogeneity of debris cover (of any size) on glaciers and its role in differential ablation.
Due to my concerns, I have stopped collecting minor comments and the authors should focus on my major comments.
I would be happy to review this again in detail if the paper underwent major reworking.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-885-RC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Xinyi Xu, 15 Sep 2025
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-885/egusphere-2025-885-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Xinyi Xu, 15 Sep 2025
reply
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
693 | 74 | 23 | 790 | 17 | 30 |
- HTML: 693
- PDF: 74
- XML: 23
- Total: 790
- BibTeX: 17
- EndNote: 30
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
This paper presents a novel research topic with a solid methodology, combining both experimental work and theoretical derivation. It follows a clear logical structure and provides reliable data. Otherwise, it quantifies key variables influencing glacier melting and reveals the mathematical relationships between these variables and the melting rate. These findings offer valuable insights for future predictions and glacier protection efforts. Overall, the paper has been highly beneficial to my own research.