the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Seasonal biases in glacier surface flow velocities measured from optical remote sensing images
Abstract. Sub-annual glacier surface velocity time series are receiving increasing attention as they provide critical information on subglacial hydrology, glacier and ice-sheet instabilities, and responses to external forcing. Regional-to-global scale datasets of glacier surface velocities are based on optical and/or SAR remote sensing images. They are now available worldwide in open access or on demand. In the meantime, systematic seasonal errors (i.e. biases) have been reported in time series derived from optical imagery on various landforms, such as landslides or dunes. The extent to which such biases affect glacier velocity maps remains poorly investigated. They may lead to misinterpretations of sub-annual velocity variations, for instance by amplifying or attenuating real seasonal signals, and in the worst case, by producing artificial seasonal signals. Here, we propose characterizing the amplitude and spatial distribution of seasonal biases identified in velocity maps derived from Sentinel-2 and Landsat 8/9 images. First, we compare GNSS velocity data measured on Argentière Glacier (French Alps) with three different glacier surface flow velocity datasets derived from remote sensing images and post-processed using different state-of-the-art methodologies. We highlight a systematic overestimation of the seasonal amplitude among the different datasets, regardless of the post-processing strategies employed. Then, we assess this seasonal bias at the scale of the Mont-Blanc Massif by analyzing velocity estimated over static areas. Clear seasonal biases are observed on the north-facing slopes, particularly on the northwestern aspect. The amplitude of this bias differs between the existing glacier surface velocity products, depending on the satellite images used and filters applied on the raw data. Across the Mont-Blanc Massif, the median value of this bias ranges from 7 to 80 m.yr−1 on north-facing slopes, for high to low level of filtering respectively. This highlights the importance of filtering the raw velocity data based on a wide range of filters, including spatial and directional filters, to reduce the amplitude of the seasonal bias. However, the measured velocities still reflect shadow tracking in areas affected by shadow casting. The amplitude of the seasonal bias is positively correlated with the number of days under shadows, and negatively correlated with variations in illumination. Therefore, to mitigate this seasonal bias, we propose a strategy to mask out areas affected by shadow casting. Finally, we estimate the amplitude of the seasonal bias in the remaining glacier covered areas based on an analysis over static areas. In the end, we show evidences of seasonal biases in other places of the world, such as Yukon, Canada and Western Greenland. The code is published as a Python package called SeBVel.
- Preprint
(35325 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-946', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Apr 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-946', Whyjay Zheng, 16 May 2026
This study illustrates a potential seasonal bias present in the glacier velocities extracted from optical satellite images. By testing various software packages and workflows, the authors show that such seasonal bias may exist regardless of the tracking algorithm and post-processing methods. The authors also propose potential sources of the bias and conduct correlation analysis to test their hypothesis.
To my knowledge, this is the first time the seasonality-related uncertainty in glacier velocities has been investigated. The methods in this work are mostly sound, and I think the idea that links seasonal bias to shadows and illumination effects in optical images is brilliant. This work is definitely worth being published in TC. However, after reading the manuscript, I have some questions about the core components of this work and would like clarifications or further explanations from the authors to ensure the arguments are appropriately supported by the analysis. Besides, I have also included my other minor comments below. I hope they are helpful!
Major questions and comments
- Seasonal amplitudes: For the static area analysis, the authors state that “The seasonal amplitude is computed using a weighted rolling median applied on the image-pair velocities stacked according to their respective day of the year … Then, the amplitude is defined as the difference between the maximum and minimum of this smoothed time series.” However, this method seems to yield a general noise level rather than a seasonal amplitude. Do the timing of maximum and minimum values show some seasonality? Unfortunately, I could not find any useful information in the manuscript to answer this on my own. No time-series analysis, such as that shown in Figure 1, is being done for the static area. Figure 8 might have some clues, but it is ambiguous. Peak velocity happens in both spring (Issungata and Kaskawulsh) and fall (Kaskawulsh only). It may be recognized as certain seasonality, but it is not the type with only one peak in spring/summer and one valley in fall/winter, as shown in Figure 1.
My experience makes me think these peaks might be linked to the spring snowmelt and the first autumn snow, when the surface completely decorrelates within a short period. If true, this causes an issue when this “seasonal amplitude” is compared with the seasonal amplitudes on the ice surface, which is argued to be due to the cast shadow and illumination effects. In addition, Figures 2 and 3 provide clues that shadows and illumination effects control the “seasonal amplitude” with varying strengths depending on the slope aspect. Snowmelt, however, might have similar effects, since snow accumulates and melts differently on different slopes and aspects.
With the thoughts above, I would suggest adding a time series analysis of a static terrain, like what is done for the tongue of Argentière Glacier (Figure 1), to clearly show that the noise follows the same seasonality as on the ice surface.
Additionally, how is the seasonal amplitude of the LOWESS and TICOI time series determined? I can see that the amplitude is computed directly by the SR model, but I am not certain about the other two. - Phase offset as seasonal bias: I assume the seasonal bias is not limited to the modeled amplitude of the seasonal signal, but also includes the modeled phase. In Figure 1, we can clearly see an offset in the timing of the velocity peak between the GNSS and remote sensing data, and the authors briefly mentioned this in Section 4.1 as well. However, no further discussion is present, and I am particularly interested in whether this phase offset could also result from mistracing the shadow movement on the ice surface. The phase bias might not be the main focus of this paper, but it would be great if the discussion of it is not skipped, so readers are aware of it.
- Cast shadow effect: According to the text and Figure B5, the cast shadow effect can be interpreted as unintentionally tracking the shadow movement over time. Does the azimuth variation of glacier velocity match the shadow movement? (e.g., according to Figure 5, does the shadow move to the ~50-degree azimuth direction between the winter solstice and the summer solstice?) Based on Figure B6, we should observe glacier speed-up in the autumn as the shadow stretches and slow-down in the spring as the shadow shortens. However, this does not match what is observed in Figure 5, where the maximum velocity is observed in the winter/spring. Maybe I am thinking about this incorrectly, but could you help clarify this?
- Dependence on the satellite missions: Since the seasonal amplitude of Landsat-based velocities is 1.6-1.8 times higher than the Sentinel-2 based velocities (Section 4.2), the seasonal amplitude may be further reduced if we use high-resolution optical images, such as Planet Lab or Pleiades, to track glacier movement. This might be worth mentioning in the conclusion, as it is often necessary to assess whether high-resolution optical images are needed for glacier velocity maps.
Minor questions and comments
- Figure 5: “Shadow casting is illustrated on two Sentinel-2 images in Fig. 5.” – I am not sure what this refers to.
- Figure 8 should be cross-referenced somewhere in Section 5.
- I can identify typos and minor grammatical errors scattered in the manuscript; perhaps one more round of manual proofreading is required. Here is my incomplete list to get started.
- L88: ampcor
- L119: seasonal variations in section 4.1
- L169: tilted (?)
- L330-331: careful; biases
- L339: additional “he”
- L345: based on
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-946-RC2 - Seasonal amplitudes: For the static area analysis, the authors state that “The seasonal amplitude is computed using a weighted rolling median applied on the image-pair velocities stacked according to their respective day of the year … Then, the amplitude is defined as the difference between the maximum and minimum of this smoothed time series.” However, this method seems to yield a general noise level rather than a seasonal amplitude. Do the timing of maximum and minimum values show some seasonality? Unfortunately, I could not find any useful information in the manuscript to answer this on my own. No time-series analysis, such as that shown in Figure 1, is being done for the static area. Figure 8 might have some clues, but it is ambiguous. Peak velocity happens in both spring (Issungata and Kaskawulsh) and fall (Kaskawulsh only). It may be recognized as certain seasonality, but it is not the type with only one peak in spring/summer and one valley in fall/winter, as shown in Figure 1.
Data sets
SeBVel maps examples L. Charrier https://cloud.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/s/tALFL2i9g59T2kt
Model code and software
SeBVel python package L. Charrier and N. Lioret https://github.com/LauraneC/SeBVel.git
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 799 | 500 | 56 | 1,355 | 76 | 108 |
- HTML: 799
- PDF: 500
- XML: 56
- Total: 1,355
- BibTeX: 76
- EndNote: 108
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
General comments
This paper provides a useful review of the impact of terrain shadowing on the determination of glacier velocities from optical remote sensing, demonstrating that there is a potentially strong seasonal dependency (mainly related to surface slope and aspect). The use of simultaneously-acquired in situ GNSS data at Argentiere Glacier helps to strengthen the arguments. This is a topic which has been little investigated before, but the results demonstrate that it should be included when using remote-sensing derived glacier velocities
The first part of the paper is generally well written, well illustrated, and easy to follow. However, the final part of the paper (particularly sections 4.4 and 5) are much less well developed and explained, and need some work to bring them up to the standard of the rest of the manuscript. I provide detailed comments below to help with this.
Specific comments
The title could be made more informative by including mention of shadows. When I first read it I expected seasonal biases to also discuss things such as the effect of seasonal snow, but this isn’t included.
L19: I’m unclear as to what this sentence is referring to: ‘the measured velocities still reflect shadow tracking in areas affected by shadow casting’. In particular, is this reflecting to errors computed over static areas, or over moving glaciers? Please clarify.
L23: change ‘evidences’ to ‘evidence’
L27: should make it clear here that it’s the resolution of newly available optical and SAR satellite imagery that’s important (i.e., high enough to detect glacier motion over short timescales), in addition to the number of images and their repeat cycle
L43: It may also be useful to mention that there are inherent biases in the availability of glacier velocity data based on the sensor used: e.g., SAR imagery is best for winter imagery and accumulation areas; optical imagery is best for summer imagery and ablation areas.
L57: would be useful to include a map of your study area which shows the locations you refer to in the text (e.g., Argentiere Glacier, Bossons Glacier), and highlights some of the features (e.g., steep slopes, shadowing, location of GNSS antenna). An inset photo of Argentiere Glacier might also be useful to include to show the steepness of the surrounding topography. Fig. A2 could provide a good starting point for this, but with more information included.
L119: I think this should read: ‘focus only on the seasonal variations in section 4.1’?
L147: change to ‘by an exponential decay”
L158: add am to the time here (10:30 am) to avoid any ambiguity, and to be consistent with the format used on L168. Also check for similar issues elsewhere (e.g., L109)
L158: you state here that 10:30 local time corresponds to the time of acquisition of Sentinel-2 images. However, L109 states that Sentinel-2 acquisitions occur at 10:30 UTC, which is 2 hrs behind local time in France in the summer and 1 hr behind local time in the winter. These statements therefore need to be corrected, and/or the shadow calculations need to be redone to match up with the actual Sentinel-2 acquisition time.
L223: provides units for 29 and 55 (presumably m yr-1?)
L251: change ‘shadow extend’ to ‘shadow extent’
Fig. 5 caption: I don’t know what this is referring to: “Shadow casting is illustrated on two Sentinel-2 images in Fig. 5”. Perhaps the reference here is meant to be to Fig. B7?
L294/5: this needs a bit more explanation as to exactly what role the DEM co-registration played in the Provost (2025) study of Aletsch Glacier
L298: I find this entire section 4.4 awkwardly worded and difficult to follow (additional comments are below). The sentences and thoughts seem to be disconnected from each other, and I can’t tell what exactly you’ve done compared to what you’re proposing to do, and how this relates to the findings of your study. Please reword/clarify this section!
L299: this sentence reads like an incomplete thought. Do you actually implement what you propose here? Needs better explanation.
L302: I don’t understand why Combe Maudite is specifically mentioned here, when it isn’t mentioned anywhere else in the manuscript.
L307: this is a weird way to start a paragraph. Does the first sentence connect to the previous paragraph? The second sentence says that you propose something, but I can’t tell whether you actually implement this.
L319: it seems that you’ve forgotten to provide any reference to Fig. 8 in this section, which is important to understand what’s being referred to. This section 5 also needs expanding to much better explain your methods and input data sources for computing the stated seasonal biases. Some of this information is included in the caption for Fig. 8 (e.g., that you used ITS_LIVE image-pair velocities), but this also needs to be in the main text.
Fig. 8: I have a few significant concerns about this figure (not helped by the fact that the methodology to produce it is not properly described – see previous comment):
Fig. B4 caption: state that the blue dot is on Bossons Glacier
Fig. B7 caption: state that the point is on Bossons Glacier