Brief communication: Temperature-driven shrinkage of a disappearing Himalayan glacier

Fujita, Koji; Kayastha, Rijan B.

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2026-1078

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1078

Preprints

23 Mar 2026

| 23 Mar 2026

Brief communication: Temperature-driven shrinkage of a disappearing Himalayan glacier

Koji Fujita and Rijan B. Kayastha

Abstract. Using drone and GNSS surveys, we updated the geodetic mass balance of Glacier AX010. This glacier has the longest observational record in the Nepal Himalayas, showing accelerating mass loss rates of –1.3 m w.e. a^–1 over the last 15 years (2008–2023). We reconstructed 80 years of annual mass balance using a mass-balance model forced by calibrated reanalysis data. While rising temperatures drive shrinkage, changes in precipitation have neither accelerated nor mitigated mass loss. The glacier began losing mass in the early 1970s, accelerated in the early 2000s, and is projected to disappear within one to two decades.

Received: 25 Feb 2026 – Discussion started: 23 Mar 2026

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, 5042 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 (5042 KB)

Supplement (24614 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

21 Jul 2026

| Highlight paper

Brief communication: Temperature-driven shrinkage of a disappearing Himalayan glacier

Koji Fujita and Rijan B. Kayastha

The Cryosphere, 20, 4005–4015, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-20-4005-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-20-4005-2026, 2026

Short summary Editorial statement

Koji Fujita and Rijan B. Kayastha

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-1078', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 May 2026
In this study, Koji Fujita and Rijan B. Kayastha reconstruct the evolution of AX000 and AX010, two small glaciers of the Nepal Himalaya. This contribution is of great importance given that AX010 is among the first Himalayan glaciers that were observed with modern methods in the late 1970s. This brief communication is a concise article that efficiently convey the main message about the importance of temperature in driving the mass loss of AX000 and AX010. The figures are of very high quality and the text is very clear. I recommend to publish the paper after some minor revisions.
General comments:
In some places, I think that the authors could better acknowledge the glaciology research conducted in the region. This is detailed below.

It is difficult to keep track of all the geodetic mass balances. Especially, some results originate from previous studies and are not easily available (Fujita and Nuimura, 2011; Nuimura et al., 2012). I suggest to add a dedicated section in the data and method about these previous estimates, and to distribute these data together with the 2008 and 2023 elevation data.

The approach to take ERA5 temperature from pressure level instead of surface data of the grid point is relevant (L99-101). The drawback of this method is that the surface variables are then likely not physically consistent. This is probably the case for the relative humidity at least. Then the debiasing of ERA5 variables based on Trakarding AWS injects another level of inconsistency, because variables are debiased one by one (L146-148). I don’t see any way around, but the authors should at least acknowledge this issue.

Most numbers come with too many digits in the text and tables (e.g. L128 the error should be 0.04 m w.e. a-1); please check carefully everywhere

Some references to small glaciers could be added (Huss and Fischer, 2016; Parkes and Marzeion, 2018). I understand that this contribution is a “Brief communication” with associated space constraints, so my request is only optional.

Specific comments:
L1-2: “longest” should be change to “oldest” as observations are not continuous for AX010
L2: “accelerating” is not matching the number provided in the sentence, which is the mass loss rate for the latest period. I suggest removing “accelerating” or otherwise calculate the acceleration in m w.e. a-1/decade.
L12: I can’t find the mention of a “tipping point” in Beniston et al. (2018). Consider rephrasing or citing another reference.
L18-20: this sentence is ambiguous, as it is not clear if it refers to the number of series or to the mass balance trends. Consider rephrasing.
L52: provide the duration of the GNSS record
L67: why is the density assumption different from the most commonly used (Huss, 2013)?
L75-77: I did not find a direct comparison of the ice radar measurements with the bed reconstructions. It would be good the add the three ice radar points on the closest cross section on figure S11
L82: how is the albedo evolving in the model?
L96: missing details about the 1978 hypsometry (and associated DEM of the glacier surface)
L114-115: I did not understand whether there would be one or multiple values for r_P at the first reading, because I was not expecting r_P to change through time. I suggest to formulate the method more explicitly, and write that you calculate five different r_P (Table S4)
L120-125: I find the uncertainties on the GNSS-UAV DEM difference a bit optimistic, especially given that there is a systematic offset between the GNSS and UAV for both study sites (fig. 1b).
L120-135: I am missing the actual values of the geodetic mass balance in the text and/or in a table in the main article. I would suggest swapping table 1 and table S4/S6.
L129: what are the “sparse survey points”?
L136: references about local meteorological measurements and comparison with ERA5 could be relevant here (Khadka et al., 2022; Matthews et al., 2020)
183-184: a reference to Florentine et al. (2023) could be relevant here
L205-209: the authors could update the references cited here because a lot of work has been produced on the this topic in the recent years (Jouberton et al., 2022)
L217-219: compare with the results of (Khadka et al., 2024)
L243: “longest” -> “oldest”
L253-254: it would be clearer to write the name of Trambau Glacier explicitely
Fig. S6b -> relative humidity should be corrected for the pressure difference, no?

References cited in this review
Beniston, M., Farinotti, D., Stoffel, M., Andreassen, L. M., Coppola, E., Eckert, N., Fantini, A., Giacona, F., Hauck, C., Huss, M., Huwald, H., Lehning, M., López-Moreno, J.-I., Magnusson, J., Marty, C., Morán-Tejéda, E., Morin, S., Naaim, M., Provenzale, A., Rabatel, A., Six, D., Stötter, J., Strasser, U., Terzago, S., and Vincent, C.: The European mountain cryosphere: a review of its current state, trends, and future challenges, The Cryosphere, 12, 759–794, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-759-2018, 2018.
Florentine, C., Sass, L., McNeil, C., Baker, E., and O’Neel, S.: How to handle glacier area change in geodetic mass balance, Journal of Glaciology, 69, 2169–2175, https://doi.org/10.1017/jog.2023.86, 2023.
Fujita, K. and Nuimura, T.: Spatially heterogeneous wastage of Himalayan glaciers, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 14011–14014, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1106242108, 2011.
Huss, M.: Density assumptions for converting geodetic glacier volume change to mass change, The Cryosphere, 7, 877–887, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-7-877-2013, 2013.
Huss, M. and Fischer, M.: Sensitivity of Very Small Glaciers in the Swiss Alps to Future Climate Change, Frontiers in Earth Science, 4, 34, https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2016.00034, 2016.
Jouberton, A., Shaw, T. E., Miles, E., McCarthy, M., Fugger, S., Ren, S., Dehecq, A., Yang, W., and Pellicciotti, F.: Warming-induced monsoon precipitation phase change intensifies glacier mass loss in the southeastern Tibetan Plateau, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119, e2109796119, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2109796119, 2022.
Khadka, A., Wagnon, P., Brun, F., Shrestha, D., Lejeune, Y., and Arnaud, Y.: Evaluation of ERA5-Land and HARv2 Reanalysis Data at High Elevation in the Upper Dudh Koshi Basin (Everest Region, Nepal), Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 61, 931–954, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-21-0091.1, 2022.
Khadka, A., Brun, F., Wagnon, P., Shrestha, D., and Sherpa, T. C.: Surface energy and mass balance of Mera Glacier (Nepal, Central Himalaya) and their sensitivity to temperature and precipitation, Journal of Glaciology, 1–22, https://doi.org/10.1017/jog.2024.42, 2024.
Matthews, T., Perry, L. B., Koch, I., Aryal, D., Khadka, A., Shrestha, D., Abernathy, K., Elmore, A. C., Seimon, A., Tait, A., Elvin, S., Tuladhar, S., Baidya, S. K., Potocki, M., Birkel, S. D., Kang, S., Sherpa, T. C., Gajurel, A., and Mayewski, P. A.: Going to Extremes: Installing the World’s Highest Weather Stations on Mount Everest, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 101, E1870–E1890, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-19-0198.1, 2020.
Nuimura, T., Fujita, K., Yamaguchi, S., and Sharma, R. R.: Elevation changes of glaciers revealed by multitemporal digital elevation models calibrated by GPS survey in the Khumbu region, Nepal Himalaya, 1992-2008, Journal of Glaciology, 58, 648–656, https://doi.org/10.3189/2012JoG11J061, 2012.
Parkes, D. and Marzeion, B.: Twentieth-century contribution to sea-level rise from uncharted glaciers, Nature, 563, 551–554, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0687-9, 2018.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1078-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Koji Fujita, 15 Jun 2026
  
  Dear Reviewer #1,
  I’d like to thank you for your comments on our manuscript. Please find the attached PDF for my reply.
  Best regards,
  
  Koji Fujita, on behalf of all authors of the manuscript
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1078-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-1078', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 May 2026

The manuscript used a set of recent and past data consisting of ice thickness observation, GNSS points, drone photogrammetry survey, and other datasets to update the mass balance record of two small glaciers in the Nepal Himalaya. Based on these observations, in combination with ERA5 reanalysis and nearby meteorological observations, the authors simulate the mass balance for a long period from 1940-2023 using their established glacier mass balance model. The main aim of the manuscript is to estimate and update the long-term mass balance record, understand how climate change has influenced glacier loss over the past decades, and how the glaciers will evolve in future decades. They conclude that both glaciers are losing mass at higher rates, particularly after the 1970s and in recent years, and that the glaciers may lose their remaining ice volume by 2050. The results support these conclusions.
Overall, the manuscript is well written, with good and informative figures and tables (including those in the supplementary material). Method-wise, the work employed all established methods with uncertainly/calibration analysis for reliability. I do not have any major concern about the method or content of the manuscript, except several minor issues regarding text phrasing, citation, etc., which I have highlighted below.

Introduction
The authors very nicely framed the introduction section touching almost every aspect that the title expresses, except for the role of climate change or warming in glacier shrinkage. In the second paragraph, the authors briefly review the existing records and understanding of glacier shrinkage of the Himalayan region and also particularly for the Nepal area, where the current work is conducted. In my understanding, at the end of this para, a brief sentence of how climate has altered the mass loss / shrinkage of these glaciers over the past decades, would make the paragraph/part complete, considering that ‘climate change/warming’ is the main reason of glacier shrinkage in the region, which the authors have also highlighted in their title.

Line 27: Please add ‘records’ (or similar word) after ‘mass balance’ as ‘..update the mass balance of an iconic glacier..’ sounds a bit incomplete.
Line 28-29: This sentence contains ‘mas balance’ word three times; the authors might want to take care of this in a different way.
Line 45-46: Abbreviation of DEM is already done before in Line 23-24.
I would also expand GNSS term somewhere it appears first.
Line 65-66: This sentence is almost the same as it is in Line 47-48. Can be merged or removed from one place.
Line 67-69: here, at the end of this sentence, I would cite a couple of studies who used similar methods for uncertainty analysis as error estimation is an important part of the mass balance calculation, so that readers can relate better or for their future reference. Within the authors existing reference list, Maurer et al., 2019; Shean et al., 2020 are also good examples of such studies.
Line 130-131: Please cite the figure number (Fig. 1d) at the end of this sentence for reference. Also, instead of ‘show glacier changes...’, I would write it as ‘show mass loss/balance changes...’. In my understanding, mass balance/loss is more appropriate here compared to ‘glacier change’.
Line 161: The authors may want to use ‘glacier-wide’ instead of glacier-scale.
Line 193-195: I do not see any figure or table reference to see the PDD changes. Table S8? Please add a figure/table reference at the end of the sentence.
Line 238: Isn't here the ice thickness unit should be in just meter, not in m w.e.?
Figure 1: Inside texts are very small to read, maybe increase the font size or the figure sizes. In B panel, legend markers are also very small to read. I do not see any elevation information of the glaciers here, which would have been helpful to identify the ablation/accumulation areas of the glaciers, thus, better interpreting the spatial mass loss patterns. Maybe adding elevation contours would be helpful. This came to my mind when I was wondering about the small size of the glaciers, if they have any distinguishable ablation or accumulation zones.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1078-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Koji Fujita, 15 Jun 2026
  
  Dear Reviewer #2,
  I’d like to thank you for your comments on our manuscript. Please find the attached PDF for my reply.
  Best regards,
  
  Koji Fujita, on behalf of all authors of the manuscript
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1078-AC2

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-1078', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 May 2026
In this study, Koji Fujita and Rijan B. Kayastha reconstruct the evolution of AX000 and AX010, two small glaciers of the Nepal Himalaya. This contribution is of great importance given that AX010 is among the first Himalayan glaciers that were observed with modern methods in the late 1970s. This brief communication is a concise article that efficiently convey the main message about the importance of temperature in driving the mass loss of AX000 and AX010. The figures are of very high quality and the text is very clear. I recommend to publish the paper after some minor revisions.
General comments:
In some places, I think that the authors could better acknowledge the glaciology research conducted in the region. This is detailed below.

It is difficult to keep track of all the geodetic mass balances. Especially, some results originate from previous studies and are not easily available (Fujita and Nuimura, 2011; Nuimura et al., 2012). I suggest to add a dedicated section in the data and method about these previous estimates, and to distribute these data together with the 2008 and 2023 elevation data.

The approach to take ERA5 temperature from pressure level instead of surface data of the grid point is relevant (L99-101). The drawback of this method is that the surface variables are then likely not physically consistent. This is probably the case for the relative humidity at least. Then the debiasing of ERA5 variables based on Trakarding AWS injects another level of inconsistency, because variables are debiased one by one (L146-148). I don’t see any way around, but the authors should at least acknowledge this issue.

Most numbers come with too many digits in the text and tables (e.g. L128 the error should be 0.04 m w.e. a-1); please check carefully everywhere

Some references to small glaciers could be added (Huss and Fischer, 2016; Parkes and Marzeion, 2018). I understand that this contribution is a “Brief communication” with associated space constraints, so my request is only optional.

Specific comments:
L1-2: “longest” should be change to “oldest” as observations are not continuous for AX010
L2: “accelerating” is not matching the number provided in the sentence, which is the mass loss rate for the latest period. I suggest removing “accelerating” or otherwise calculate the acceleration in m w.e. a-1/decade.
L12: I can’t find the mention of a “tipping point” in Beniston et al. (2018). Consider rephrasing or citing another reference.
L18-20: this sentence is ambiguous, as it is not clear if it refers to the number of series or to the mass balance trends. Consider rephrasing.
L52: provide the duration of the GNSS record
L67: why is the density assumption different from the most commonly used (Huss, 2013)?
L75-77: I did not find a direct comparison of the ice radar measurements with the bed reconstructions. It would be good the add the three ice radar points on the closest cross section on figure S11
L82: how is the albedo evolving in the model?
L96: missing details about the 1978 hypsometry (and associated DEM of the glacier surface)
L114-115: I did not understand whether there would be one or multiple values for r_P at the first reading, because I was not expecting r_P to change through time. I suggest to formulate the method more explicitly, and write that you calculate five different r_P (Table S4)
L120-125: I find the uncertainties on the GNSS-UAV DEM difference a bit optimistic, especially given that there is a systematic offset between the GNSS and UAV for both study sites (fig. 1b).
L120-135: I am missing the actual values of the geodetic mass balance in the text and/or in a table in the main article. I would suggest swapping table 1 and table S4/S6.
L129: what are the “sparse survey points”?
L136: references about local meteorological measurements and comparison with ERA5 could be relevant here (Khadka et al., 2022; Matthews et al., 2020)
183-184: a reference to Florentine et al. (2023) could be relevant here
L205-209: the authors could update the references cited here because a lot of work has been produced on the this topic in the recent years (Jouberton et al., 2022)
L217-219: compare with the results of (Khadka et al., 2024)
L243: “longest” -> “oldest”
L253-254: it would be clearer to write the name of Trambau Glacier explicitely
Fig. S6b -> relative humidity should be corrected for the pressure difference, no?

References cited in this review
Beniston, M., Farinotti, D., Stoffel, M., Andreassen, L. M., Coppola, E., Eckert, N., Fantini, A., Giacona, F., Hauck, C., Huss, M., Huwald, H., Lehning, M., López-Moreno, J.-I., Magnusson, J., Marty, C., Morán-Tejéda, E., Morin, S., Naaim, M., Provenzale, A., Rabatel, A., Six, D., Stötter, J., Strasser, U., Terzago, S., and Vincent, C.: The European mountain cryosphere: a review of its current state, trends, and future challenges, The Cryosphere, 12, 759–794, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-759-2018, 2018.
Florentine, C., Sass, L., McNeil, C., Baker, E., and O’Neel, S.: How to handle glacier area change in geodetic mass balance, Journal of Glaciology, 69, 2169–2175, https://doi.org/10.1017/jog.2023.86, 2023.
Fujita, K. and Nuimura, T.: Spatially heterogeneous wastage of Himalayan glaciers, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 14011–14014, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1106242108, 2011.
Huss, M.: Density assumptions for converting geodetic glacier volume change to mass change, The Cryosphere, 7, 877–887, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-7-877-2013, 2013.
Huss, M. and Fischer, M.: Sensitivity of Very Small Glaciers in the Swiss Alps to Future Climate Change, Frontiers in Earth Science, 4, 34, https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2016.00034, 2016.
Jouberton, A., Shaw, T. E., Miles, E., McCarthy, M., Fugger, S., Ren, S., Dehecq, A., Yang, W., and Pellicciotti, F.: Warming-induced monsoon precipitation phase change intensifies glacier mass loss in the southeastern Tibetan Plateau, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119, e2109796119, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2109796119, 2022.
Khadka, A., Wagnon, P., Brun, F., Shrestha, D., Lejeune, Y., and Arnaud, Y.: Evaluation of ERA5-Land and HARv2 Reanalysis Data at High Elevation in the Upper Dudh Koshi Basin (Everest Region, Nepal), Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 61, 931–954, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-21-0091.1, 2022.
Khadka, A., Brun, F., Wagnon, P., Shrestha, D., and Sherpa, T. C.: Surface energy and mass balance of Mera Glacier (Nepal, Central Himalaya) and their sensitivity to temperature and precipitation, Journal of Glaciology, 1–22, https://doi.org/10.1017/jog.2024.42, 2024.
Matthews, T., Perry, L. B., Koch, I., Aryal, D., Khadka, A., Shrestha, D., Abernathy, K., Elmore, A. C., Seimon, A., Tait, A., Elvin, S., Tuladhar, S., Baidya, S. K., Potocki, M., Birkel, S. D., Kang, S., Sherpa, T. C., Gajurel, A., and Mayewski, P. A.: Going to Extremes: Installing the World’s Highest Weather Stations on Mount Everest, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 101, E1870–E1890, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-19-0198.1, 2020.
Nuimura, T., Fujita, K., Yamaguchi, S., and Sharma, R. R.: Elevation changes of glaciers revealed by multitemporal digital elevation models calibrated by GPS survey in the Khumbu region, Nepal Himalaya, 1992-2008, Journal of Glaciology, 58, 648–656, https://doi.org/10.3189/2012JoG11J061, 2012.
Parkes, D. and Marzeion, B.: Twentieth-century contribution to sea-level rise from uncharted glaciers, Nature, 563, 551–554, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0687-9, 2018.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1078-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Koji Fujita, 15 Jun 2026
  
  Dear Reviewer #1,
  I’d like to thank you for your comments on our manuscript. Please find the attached PDF for my reply.
  Best regards,
  
  Koji Fujita, on behalf of all authors of the manuscript
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1078-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-1078', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 May 2026

The manuscript used a set of recent and past data consisting of ice thickness observation, GNSS points, drone photogrammetry survey, and other datasets to update the mass balance record of two small glaciers in the Nepal Himalaya. Based on these observations, in combination with ERA5 reanalysis and nearby meteorological observations, the authors simulate the mass balance for a long period from 1940-2023 using their established glacier mass balance model. The main aim of the manuscript is to estimate and update the long-term mass balance record, understand how climate change has influenced glacier loss over the past decades, and how the glaciers will evolve in future decades. They conclude that both glaciers are losing mass at higher rates, particularly after the 1970s and in recent years, and that the glaciers may lose their remaining ice volume by 2050. The results support these conclusions.
Overall, the manuscript is well written, with good and informative figures and tables (including those in the supplementary material). Method-wise, the work employed all established methods with uncertainly/calibration analysis for reliability. I do not have any major concern about the method or content of the manuscript, except several minor issues regarding text phrasing, citation, etc., which I have highlighted below.

Introduction
The authors very nicely framed the introduction section touching almost every aspect that the title expresses, except for the role of climate change or warming in glacier shrinkage. In the second paragraph, the authors briefly review the existing records and understanding of glacier shrinkage of the Himalayan region and also particularly for the Nepal area, where the current work is conducted. In my understanding, at the end of this para, a brief sentence of how climate has altered the mass loss / shrinkage of these glaciers over the past decades, would make the paragraph/part complete, considering that ‘climate change/warming’ is the main reason of glacier shrinkage in the region, which the authors have also highlighted in their title.

Line 27: Please add ‘records’ (or similar word) after ‘mass balance’ as ‘..update the mass balance of an iconic glacier..’ sounds a bit incomplete.
Line 28-29: This sentence contains ‘mas balance’ word three times; the authors might want to take care of this in a different way.
Line 45-46: Abbreviation of DEM is already done before in Line 23-24.
I would also expand GNSS term somewhere it appears first.
Line 65-66: This sentence is almost the same as it is in Line 47-48. Can be merged or removed from one place.
Line 67-69: here, at the end of this sentence, I would cite a couple of studies who used similar methods for uncertainty analysis as error estimation is an important part of the mass balance calculation, so that readers can relate better or for their future reference. Within the authors existing reference list, Maurer et al., 2019; Shean et al., 2020 are also good examples of such studies.
Line 130-131: Please cite the figure number (Fig. 1d) at the end of this sentence for reference. Also, instead of ‘show glacier changes...’, I would write it as ‘show mass loss/balance changes...’. In my understanding, mass balance/loss is more appropriate here compared to ‘glacier change’.
Line 161: The authors may want to use ‘glacier-wide’ instead of glacier-scale.
Line 193-195: I do not see any figure or table reference to see the PDD changes. Table S8? Please add a figure/table reference at the end of the sentence.
Line 238: Isn't here the ice thickness unit should be in just meter, not in m w.e.?
Figure 1: Inside texts are very small to read, maybe increase the font size or the figure sizes. In B panel, legend markers are also very small to read. I do not see any elevation information of the glaciers here, which would have been helpful to identify the ablation/accumulation areas of the glaciers, thus, better interpreting the spatial mass loss patterns. Maybe adding elevation contours would be helpful. This came to my mind when I was wondering about the small size of the glaciers, if they have any distinguishable ablation or accumulation zones.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1078-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Koji Fujita, 15 Jun 2026
  
  Dear Reviewer #2,
  I’d like to thank you for your comments on our manuscript. Please find the attached PDF for my reply.
  Best regards,
  
  Koji Fujita, on behalf of all authors of the manuscript
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1078-AC2

Peer review completion

AR – Author's response | RR – Referee report | ED – Editor decision | EF – Editorial file upload

ED: Submit a revised manuscript (26 Jun 2026) by Brice Noël

AR by Koji Fujita on behalf of the Authors (27 Jun 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (30 Jun 2026) by Brice Noël

Dear Koji Fujita and co-authors,

Thank you very much for submitting your revised manuscript which addresses our reviewers’ comments. Based on the reviewers advise and your relevant responses, I am happy, in principle, to accept your manuscript for publication in The Cryosphere after you have considered the minor revisions listed below. Line numbers are based on the tracked-change document. Note that I will give the paper a final check before formal acceptance.

Best wishes,
Brice Noël

*******************
Minor comments:

L75: “we confirmed that there was almost no snow …” Could you be more precise here? For instance, if applicable specifying “successive field surveys in YYYY-YYYY confirmed that …”

L80: “further processing, such as estimating the normalized median …”

L139: By “A000”, I guess you mean “AX000”?

L145-146: Please make sure that units are well defined e.g., m w.e. a-1 for AX010 and AX000 geodetic mass balance rates. This comment holds for the whole manuscript. For completeness, could you add the AX000 geodetic mass balance rate (-1.060 +- 0.023 m w.e. a-1) in Table S4 and provide a reference to the latter Table S4 in L145-146.

L175: The mass balance rate of 1.48 +- 0.08 has no units (m w.e. a-1) and is not listed in Table S4? Could you verify if this is a mistake? For consistency, please use a similar number of digits across the text (e.g. 3 as in L145-146) when listing mass balance rates.

L177-178: “In contrast … Trakarding AWS site” This sentence is somewhat unclear, as it makes three relationships between Glacier AX010 and ERA5, ERA5 and Trakarding, and Glacier AX010 and Trakarding. To clarify, you could cut the sentence as: “In contrast, at Glacier … ERA5 underestimates precipitation by XX m w.e. There, precipitation is more than five times greater … AWS site (XX m w.e.).”

L180: By “good reproducibility” do you mean “good agreement” or “from pressure levels align with observational data”, please clarify.

Section 3.4 L214-254: In this section multiple different periods are sampled to estimate trends, and the discussion goes back and forth between those. As a result, it is sometimes unclear which period is considered. Please make sure to explicitly state which period is sampled when a trend is listed. You could state at the beginning of the section that e.g. “long-term” means 1941-2023, and refer to “long-term trends” where appropriate, and specifically mention shorter periods when these are discussed.

L272: “the thickest part of the glacier” is rather vague, could you express this in % of the total ice volume?

Figure 1: Consider highlighting previous 1978-2007 estimates as, e.g., dashed orange line, so readers identify at first glance your new data sets. Add a reference to Table S4: “Bgeod obtained in previous studies are also shown (Fujita et al., 2001; Fujita and Nuimura, 2011) (Table S4).” See also the comment above in L145-146.

Supplementary Figure S8: labels b and c are swapped on the second and third subfigures.

Supplementary Table S4: For completeness, could you list geodetic mass balance data for glacier AX000 (light orange line in Fig. 1d) in Table S4 as well.

Supplementary Table S5: in L4 of the caption “root” instead of “route”.

Hide

AR by Koji Fujita on behalf of the Authors (01 Jul 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (08 Jul 2026) by Brice Noël

AR by Koji Fujita on behalf of the Authors (09 Jul 2026)

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

21 Jul 2026

| Highlight paper

Brief communication: Temperature-driven shrinkage of a disappearing Himalayan glacier

Koji Fujita and Rijan B. Kayastha

The Cryosphere, 20, 4005–4015, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-20-4005-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-20-4005-2026, 2026

Short summary Editorial statement

Koji Fujita and Rijan B. Kayastha

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1078-supplement

Koji Fujita and Rijan B. Kayastha

Viewed

Total article views: 1,027 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
687	283	57	1,027	664	49	62

HTML: 687
PDF: 283
XML: 57
Total: 1,027
Supplement: 664
BibTeX: 49
EndNote: 62

Views and downloads (calculated since 23 Mar 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Mar 2026	459	183	40	682
Apr 2026	111	39	1	151
May 2026	81	39	10	130
Jun 2026	14	6	2	22
Jul 2026	22	16	4	42

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 23 Mar 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Mar 2026	459	183	40	682
Apr 2026	111	39	1	151
May 2026	81	39	10	130
Jun 2026	14	6	2	22
Jul 2026	22	16	4	42

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 1,012 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 1,012 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 27 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 (5042 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

Glacier AX010 in Nepal, monitored since the 1970s, has been shrinking at an accelerating rate, mainly due to rising temperatures. Drone surveys, modeling, and reanalysis data show mass loss began in the early 1970s and intensified after 2000. While rising temperatures drive shrinkage, precipitation changes have neither accelerated nor mitigated mass loss. At the current rate, the glacier may disappear within 10–20 years.


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