The ongoing glacier shrinkage in the Alps requires frequent updates of
glacier outlines to provide an accurate database for monitoring, modelling
purposes (e.g. determination of run-off, mass balance, or future glacier
extent), and other applications. With the launch of the first Sentinel-2 (S2)
satellite in 2015, it became possible to create a consistent, Alpine-wide
glacier inventory with an unprecedented spatial resolution of 10 m. The first S2 images from August 2015 already provided excellent mapping conditions
for most glacierized regions in the Alps and were used as a base for the
compilation of a new Alpine-wide glacier inventory in a collaborative team
effort. In all countries, glacier outlines from the latest national
inventories have been used as a guide to compile an update consistent with
the respective previous interpretation. The automated mapping of clean
glacier ice was straightforward using the band ratio method, but the
numerous debris-covered glaciers required intense manual editing. Cloud
cover over many glaciers in Italy required also including S2 scenes from
2016. The outline uncertainty was determined with digitizing of 14
glaciers several times by all participants. Topographic information for all glaciers was
obtained from the ALOS AW3D30 digital elevation model (DEM). Overall, we derived a total glacier area
of 1806±60 km2 when considering 4395 glaciers >0.01 km2. This is 14 % (-1.2 % a-1) less than the 2100 km2 derived
from Landsat in 2003 and indicates an unabated continuation of glacier
shrinkage in the Alps since the mid-1980s. It is a lower-bound estimate, as
due to the higher spatial resolution of S2 many small glaciers were
additionally mapped or increased in size compared to 2003. Median
elevations peak around 3000 m a.s.l., with a high variability that depends on
location and aspect. The uncertainty assessment revealed locally strong
differences in interpretation of debris-covered glaciers, resulting in
limitations for change assessment when using glacier extents digitized by
different analysts. The inventory is available at 10.1594/PANGAEA.909133 (Paul et al., 2019).
Introduction
Information on glacier extents is required for numerous glaciological and
hydrological calculations, ranging from the determination of glacier volume,
surface mass balance, and future glacier evolution to run-off, hydropower
production, and sea level rise (e.g. Marzeion et al., 2017). For these and
several other applications, glacier outlines spatially constrain all
calculations and thus provide an important baseline dataset. In response to
the ongoing atmospheric warming, glaciers retreat, shrink, and lose mass in
most regions of the world (e.g. Gardner et al., 2013; Wouters et al., 2019;
Zemp et al., 2019). Accordingly, a frequent update of glacier inventories is
required to reduce uncertainties in subsequent calculations. With relative
area loss rates of about 1 % a-1 in many regions globally (Vaughan et al., 2013), glaciers lose about 10 % of their area within a decade, and thus a
decadal update frequency seems sensible. In regions with stronger glacier
shrinkage, such as the tropical Andes (e.g. Rabatel et al., 2013, 2018) or the
European Alps (e.g. Gardent et al., 2014), an even higher update frequency is
likely required. However, apart from the high workload required to digitize
or manually correct glacier outlines (e.g. Racoviteanu et al., 2009), it is
often not possible to obtain satellite images in a desired period of the
year with appropriate mapping conditions, i.e. without seasonal snow and
clouds hiding glaciers. Hence, glacier inventories are often compiled from
images acquired over several years, resulting in a temporarily inhomogeneous
dataset. Fortunately, a 3-year period of acquisition is still acceptable in
error terms, as area changes of about ±3 % are within the typical
area uncertainty of about 3 % to 5 % (e.g. Paul et al., 2013).
The last glacier inventory covering the entire Alps with a common and
homogeneous date was compiled from Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) images
acquired within 6 weeks in the summer of 2003 (Paul et al., 2011). Although
this dataset has its caveats (e.g. missing small glaciers in Italy and some
debris-covered ice), it is methodologically and temporarily consistent and
represents glacier outlines of the Alps in the Randolph Glacier Inventory
(RGI). A few years later, high-quality glacier inventories were compiled
from better resolved datasets (aerial photography, airborne laser scanning)
on a national level in all four countries of the Alps with substantial
glacier coverage (Austria, France, Italy, Switzerland). These more recent
inventories refer to the periods 2008–2011 for Switzerland (Fischer et al., 2014), 2004–2011 for Austria (Fischer et al., 2015), 2006–2009 for France
(Gardent et al., 2014), and 2005-2011 for Italy (Smiraglia et al., 2015). As
an 8-year period is rather long, consistent and comparable change assessment
is challenging. However, for the first version of the World Glacier
Inventory (WGI) the temporal spread was even larger, ranging from 1959 to
about 1983 (Zemp et al., 2008). Another problem for change assessment is the
inhomogeneous interpretation of glacier extents that occurs in part to be
compliant with the interpretation in earlier national inventories. Hence,
calculations over the entire Alps that require a consistent time stamp are
difficult to perform and rates of glacier change are difficult to compare
across regions (e.g. Gardent et al., 2014).
Considering the ongoing strong glacier shrinkage in the Alps over the past
decades and the above shortcomings of existing datasets, there is a high
demand to compile a (1) new, (2) precise, and (3) consistent glacier
inventory for the entire Alps, with data acquired under (4) good mapping
conditions in (5) a single year. Although it might be difficult to satisfy
all five criteria at the same time, at least some of them seem achievable by
means of recently available satellite data. With the 10 m resolution data
from Sentinel-2 (S2) and its 290 km swath width, it is possible (a) to
improve the quality of the derived glacier outlines (compared to Landsat TM)
substantially (Paul et al., 2016) and (b) cover a region such as the Alps
with a few scenes acquired within a few weeks or even days, satisfying
criteria (2) and (5). Good mapping conditions, however, only occur by chance
after a comparably warm summer when all seasonal snow off glaciers has
melted and largely cloud-free conditions persist over an extended time span
in August or September.
Here we present a new glacier inventory for the European Alps that has been
compiled from S2 data that were mostly acquired within 2 weeks of August 2015 (during the commissioning phase). However, due to glaciers (mostly in
Italy) being partly cloud-covered, scenes from 2016 (and very few from
2017) were also used. Hence, criterion (5) could not be fully satisfied. In order
to satisfy point (3), we decided to perform the mapping of clean ice with an
identical method (band ratio), and distribute the raw outlines to the
national experts for editing of wrongly classified regions (e.g. adding
missing ice in shadow and under local clouds or debris cover, removing lakes
and other water surfaces). As a guide for the interpretation the analysts
used the latest high-resolution inventory in each country. All corrected
datasets were merged into one dataset and topographic information for each
glacier was derived from the ALOS AW3D30 digital elevation model (DEM). For uncertainty assessment all
five participants corrected the extents of 14 glaciers independently four
times.
Study region
The Alps are a largely west–east (south–north in the western part) oriented mountain
range in the centre of Europe (roughly from 43 to 49∘ N and 2 to 18∘ E) with peaks reaching 4808 m a.s.l. in
the west at Mont Blanc (Monte Bianco) and elevations above 3000 m a.s.l. in
most regions. In Fig. 1 we show the region covered by glaciers, along with
footprints of the Sentinel-2 tiles used for data processing. The Alps thus act as a
topographic barrier for air masses coming from the north and south (Auer et al., 2007), as well as from the west in the western part. This results in
enhanced orographic precipitation and a high regional variability of
precipitation amounts in specific years and in the long-term mean
(e.g. Frei et al., 2003). On the other hand, temperatures are horizontally
rather uniform (e.g. Böhm et al., 2001) but vary strongly with height
according to the atmospheric lapse rate (e.g. Frei, 2014). Snow accumulation
is mostly due to winter precipitation, but some snowfall can also occur in
summer at higher elevations, reducing ablation for a few days.
Details about the Sentinel-2 tiles used to create the inventory;
C stands for country. The related Fig. 1 shows where the tiles are located.
Overview of the study region with footprints (colour-coded for
acquisition year) of the Sentinel-2 tiles used (see Table 1 for numbers).
There is no significant long-term trend in precipitation over the last
100+ years (Casty et al., 2005), but summer temperatures in the Alps
increased sharply (by about 1 ∘C) in the mid-1980s (e.g. Beniston,
1997; Reid et al., 2016). As a consequence, winter snow cover barely survives
the summer even at high elevations and/or when strong positive deviations
in temperature occur. Glacier mass balances in the Alps were thus
predominantly negative over the past 3 decades (e.g. Zemp et al., 2015),
and the related mass loss resulted in widespread glacier shrinkage and
disintegration over the past decades (e.g. Gardent et al., 2014, Paul et al., 2004). An order of magnitude estimate with a rounded total area of about
2000 km2 in 2003 and a mean annual specific mass loss of 1 m w.e. a-1 (e.g. Zemp et al., 2015) gives a loss of about 2 Gt of ice per year in
the Alps.
Most glaciers in the Alps are of cirque, mountain, and valley type and the
two largest ones (Aletsch and Gorner glaciers) have an area of about 80 and 60 km2, respectively. Some glaciers reach down to 1300 m a.s.l., and the overall mean elevation is around 3000 m a.s.l., a unique
value compared to other regions of the RGI (e.g. Pfeffer et al., 2014). Due
to the surrounding often ice-free rock walls of considerable height, many
glaciers in the Alps are heavily debris covered. Whereas this allowed the
tongues of several large valley glaciers to survive at comparably low
elevations (Mölg et al., 2019), many glaciers – large and small – become
hidden under increasing amounts of debris. Combined with the ongoing
down-wasting and disintegration, precisely mapping their extents is
increasingly challenging.
DatasetsSatellite data
We processed 17 different S2 tiles from a total of eight different dates to
cover the study region with cloud-free images. These
are split among the four countries, resulting in 29 independently processed
image footprints (Fig. 1 and Table 1). Of these, 15 were acquired in 2015, 11 in 2016, and 3 in
2017. Convective clouds in Italy (mostly along the Alpine main divide)
required extending the main acquisition period over 2 years. All glaciers
in France were mapped from four tiles acquired on 29 August 2015. This date
also covers most glaciers mapped in Switzerland (five tiles), apart from the
southeast tile 32TNS (ID: 11) that was acquired 3 days earlier
(26 August 2015). Two tiles from that date (32TNT/TPT) are used to map glaciers
in western Austria, and three tiles (32TQT/TQS and 33TUN) from 27 August 2016 are used for eastern Austria. A total of 12 tiles cover the glaciers in Italy, 7
from 2016 and 5 in total from 2015 and 2017 (Table 1). However, those from
2017 only cover very few small glaciers, and thus collectively the
northern (Switzerland and Austria) and western (France) parts of the inventory
are from 2015, whereas the southern (Italy) and eastern (Austria) parts are
mostly from 2016. All tiles were downloaded from http://remotepixel.ca (last access: 21 March 2017) (only the required
bands, this is no longer possible), http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov (last access: July 2018), or the Copernicus Sentinel
Hub.
From all tiles, bands 2, 3, 4, 8, and 11 (blue; green; red; near-infrared, NIR; and shortwave infrared, SWIR) of the sensor Multi Spectral Imager (MSI)
were downloaded and colour composites were created from the 10 m visible and
NIR (VNIR) bands. The 20 m SWIR band 11 was bilinearly resampled to 10 m resolution to obtain glacier outlines at this resolution. The 10 m resolution VNIR bands allowed for a much better identification of glacier
extents (e.g. correcting debris-covered parts) than is possible with Landsat
(Paul et al., 2016), resulting in higher quality outlines. Apart
from the resampling, all image bands are used as they are, except for
Austria, where further preprocessing has been applied (see Sect. 4.2.1).
The August 2015 scenes from the S2 commissioning phase had reflectance
values that stretched from 1 to 1000 (12 bit) instead of the later 16 bit
(allowing values up to 65 536), but this linear rescaling had no impact on
the threshold value for the band ratio (see Sect. 4.1).
Digital elevation models (DEMs)
We originally intended to use the new TanDEM-X (TDX) DEM to derive
topographic information for all glaciers, as it covers the entire Alps and
was acquired closest (around 2013) to the satellite images used to create
the inventory. However, closer inspection revealed that it had data voids
and suffered from artefacts (Fig. 2). Although these are mostly located in
the steep terrain outside of glaciers, many smaller glaciers are severely
impacted, resulting in incorrect topographic information. As an alternative, we
investigated the ALOS AW3D30 DEM that was compiled from ALOS tri-stereo
scenes (Takaku et al., 2014) and acquired about 5 years before the TDX DEM
(around 2008). The AW3D30 DEM has an inferior temporal match but no data
voids and comparably few artefacts (Fig. 2). The individual tiles were
merged into one 30 m dataset in UTM 32N projection with a WGS84 datum. For the
preprocessing of satellite bands in Austria, a national DEM with 10 m resolution derived from laser scanning was used (Open Data Österreich:
http://data.gv.at, last access: 20 June 2020).
Comparison of hillshade views from (a) the AW3D30 DEM and (b) the
TanDEM-X DEM for a region around Mont Blanc (Monte Bianco). Glacier
outlines are shown in red, and data voids in the TanDEM-X DEM are depicted as
constantly grey areas. The yellow circle marks the Mont Blanc summit, and the
yellow cross in the lower centre marks the coordinates 45.8∘ N and
6.9∘ E. The AW3D30 DEM was downloaded from
https://www.eorc.jaxa.jp/ALOS/en/aw3d30/index.htm (last access: 24 July 2019) and is provided by JAXA.
The TanDEM-X DEM has been acquired by the TerraSAR-X/TanDEM-X mission and is
provided by DLR (DEM_GLAC1823).
Previous glacier inventories
Outlines from previous national glacier inventories were used to guide the
delineation. They have been mostly compiled from aerial photography with a
spatial resolution better than 1 m and should thus provide the highest
possible quality. This allowed considering very small and otherwise
unnoticed glaciers and helped to identify glacier zones that are debris covered. The substantial glacier retreat that took place between the two
inventories was well visible in most cases and did not hamper the
interpretation. However, a larger number of mostly very small glaciers were
either not mapped in 2003 and have now been added or were smaller in
2003 and now have larger extents. A large issue with respect to the additional workload is the compilation of ice divides. They can be derived
semi-automatically from watershed analysis of a DEM using a range of methods
(e.g. Kienholz et al., 2013), but in general many manual corrections still have
to be applied. To have consistency with previous national inventories,
we decided to use the drainage divides from these inventories to separate
glacier complexes into entities. However, due to the locally poor
geolocation of S2 scenes in steep terrain (Kääb et al., 2016; Stumpf
et al., 2018), some ice divides of the former inventories overlapped with
glacier extents (by up to 50 m) and were manually adjusted.
MethodsMapping of clean ice in all regions
Automated mapping of clean to slightly dirty glacier ice is straightforward
using a red or NIR to SWIR band ratio and a (manually selected) threshold
(e.g. Paul et al., 2002). Other methods such as the normalized
difference snow index (NDSI) also work well (e.g. Racoviteanu et al., 2009), as
both utilize the strong difference in reflectance from the VNIR to the SWIR
for snow and ice (e.g. Dozier, 1989). As the latter are bright in the VNIR
bands (high reflectance) but very dark (low reflectance) in the SWIR,
dividing a VNIR band by a SWIR band gives high values over glacier ice and
snow and very low values over all other terrain, as this is often much brighter
in the SWIR than the VNIR. The manual selection of a threshold for each
scene (or S2 tile) has the advantage of including a regional adjustment of the
threshold to local atmospheric conditions. We followed the recommendation to
select the threshold in a way that good mapping results in regions with
shadow are achieved. By lowering the threshold, more and more rock in shadow
is included, creating a noisy result. It has been shown by Paul et al. (2016) that glacier mapping with S2 (using a red / SWIR ratio) requires an
additional threshold in the blue band to remove misclassified rock in shadow
(that can have the same ratio value as ice in shadow but is darker in the
blue band). Hence, for this inventory glaciers have first been automatically
identified using the following equation:
(red/SWIR)>th1and blue>th2,
with the empirically derived thresholds th1 and th2. As mentioned
above, the SWIR band was bilinearly resampled from 20 to 10 m spatial
resolution before computing the ratio. No filter for image smoothing was
applied to retain fine spatial details, such as rock outcrops. Figure 3
shows the impact
of the threshold selection for a test site in the Mont Blanc region (Leschaux Glacier). Figure 3a depicts the (contrast-stretched) red / SWIR ratio image, Fig. 3b shows the impact of th1 on the mapped area, Fig. 3c
shows the impact of th2, and Fig. 3d shows the resulting outlines after raster–vector
conversion. As can be seen in Fig. 3b, there is very little impact on the
mapped glacier area when increasing th1 in steps of 0.2. For this region
we used 3.0 as th1, resulting in the blue and yellow areas being the mapped
glacier. Wrongly mapped rock in shadow is then reduced back with th2
(Fig. 3c) that is selected by visual analysis and expert judgement. In this
case, a value of 860 was selected for th2; i.e. only the blue area in Fig. 3c is considered. This removed rock in shadow from the glacier mask for the
region to the right of the white arrow, but, on the other hand, correctly
mapped ice in shadow is removed at the same time in the region above the
green arrow (Fig. 3c and d). Hence, threshold selection is always a
compromise as it is in general not possible to map everything correctly with
one set of thresholds. In the resulting binary glacier maps, the
“non-glacier” class is set to “no data” before being converted to a shape file
using raster–vector conversion. In the resulting shape file, internal rocks
are thus data voids.
Results of the automated (clean ice) glacier mapping and threshold
selection: (a) band ratio MSI band 4 / MSI band 11 (red / SWIR). (b) Glacier
classification results using different thresholds. The lower values add some
additional pixels, in particular in shadow regions where the threshold is
most sensitive. (c) Blue band threshold to remove wrongly classified rock in
shadow. The highest value has been used, resulting in a good performance in
the left part of the image (white arrow) and a bad one to the right (green
arrow), where correctly classified ice in shadow is removed. (d) Final
outlines (light blue) on top of the Sentinel-2 image in natural colours. The
yellow cross to the lower right of the centre of panel (a) is marking the
coordinates 45.87∘ N and 7.0∘ E
(image source: Copernicus Sentinel data 2015).
All preprocessed scenes were provided in their original geometry for
correction by the national experts. As shown in Fig. 3c, it was sometimes
not possible to include dark bare ice and at the same time exclude bare rock
in shadow. Such wrongly classified regions,
together with data gaps for debris cover and clouds (omission errors),
wrongly mapped water bodies (e.g. turbid lakes and rivers), and shadow
regions (commission errors), were corrected by the analysts. By setting the minimum glacier size to 0.01 km2, most of the often very small snow patches (i.e. <0.01 km2) were removed (cf. Leigh et al., 2019).
Corrections in the different countriesAustria
The satellite scenes for Austria were further preprocessed by Gabriele Schwaizer
(cf. Paul et al., 2016) to remove water surfaces and improve classification
of glacier ice in cast shadow before manual corrections were applied. The
latter work was mainly performed by one person (Johanna Nemec). Two previous
Austrian glacier inventories (Lambrecht and Kuhn, 2007; Fischer et al., 2015)
were used to support the interpretation of small glaciers, debris-covered
glacier parts, and the boundary across common accumulation areas. Further,
an internal independent quality control of the generated glacier outlines
was made by a second person (Gabriele Schwaizer), using orthophotos (30 cm
resolution) acquired in late August 2015 for most Austrian glaciers for
overall accuracy checks and to assure the correct delineation of debris-covered glacier areas. In Fig. 4a, we illustrate the strong glacier shrinkage
from 1998 (yellow lines) to 2016 (red), as well as the manual corrections
applied, extending the brightly filled areas of the raw classification to the
red extents.
Examples of challenging classifications in different countries. (a) Debris cover delineation (red) around Grossvenediger (Hohe Tauern) in
Austria with raw extents (light grey) and outlines from the previous
national inventory (yellow). (b) Tré-La-Tête Glacier (Mont-Blanc),
with automatically derived glacier extents (green), manually corrected
outlines from 2015 (red), and outlines derived from aerial photographs taken
in 2008 (yellow). The S2 image from August 2015 is in the background. (c) A subset of the Orobie Alps in Italy (S2 image from September 2016), with
evidence of topographic shadow and debris-covered glaciers. The inset shows
an aerial photograph with better glacier visibility but seasonal snow. (d) S2
image from 2015 showing differences in interpretation of debris cover for
Gavirolas Glacier in Switzerland for the inventories from 2003 (yellow),
2008 (green), and 2015 (red). The inset shows a close-up of its lowest
debris-covered part obtained from aerial photography for comparison (this
image is a screenshot from Google Earth). The yellow crosses in each panel
mark the following geographic coordinates: (a) 47.12∘ N,
12.4∘ E; (b) 45.8∘ N, 6.75∘ E; (c) 46.09∘ N, 10.07∘ E; and (d) 46.86∘ N,
9.06∘ E (image source: Copernicus Sentinel data 2015 and 2016).
France
The raw glacier outlines from S2 were corrected by one person (Antoine Rabatel).
The glacier outlines from the previous inventory by Gardent et al. (2014)
were used for the interpretation, in particular in shadow regions and for
glaciers under debris cover. It is noteworthy that the previous inventory
was made on the basis of aerial photographs (2006–2009) with field campaigns
for the debris-covered glacier tongues to clarify the outline delineation.
As a consequence, this previous inventory constitutes a highly valuable
reference. In addition, because even on debris-covered glaciers the changes
between 2006–2009 and 2015 are visible (Fig. 4b), Pléiades images from
2015–2016 acquired within the KALIDEOS-Alpes–CNES programme were used as a
guideline, mostly for the heavily debris-covered glacier tongues.
Italy
As mentioned above, clouds covered the southern Alpine sector on the S2
scenes from August 2015. Hence, most of the inventory was compiled based on
images from 2016, and three scenes from 2017 (see Table 1) were used to map
glaciers under clouds or with adverse mapping conditions, i.e. excessive
snow cover or shadows in the other scenes. Images acquired in August 2016
had little residual seasonal snow and a high solar elevation at the time of
acquisition, which minimized shadow areas and created very good mapping
conditions. In September 2016 and October 2017, more snow was present on
high mountain cirques and glacier tongues, but comparatively few snow
patches were found outside glaciers. However, the lower solar elevation
compared to August caused a few north-facing glaciers and glacier
accumulation areas to be under shadow. The raw glacier outlines from S2
were corrected by two analysts (Davide Fugazza and Roberto Sergio Azzoni). The outlines were
separated into regions based on the administrative division of Italy,
following the previous Italian glacier inventory (Smiraglia et al., 2015).
Seasonal snow and rocks in shadow that were wrongly identified as clean ice, as well as lakes and large rivers, were manually deleted by the analysts. In
shadow regions and for glaciers with large debris cover, the outlines from
the previous Italian inventory by Smiraglia et al. (2015) were particularly
valuable as a guide. Where some small glaciers were entirely under shadow,
the outlines from the previous inventory were copied without changes, while
in cases of partial shadow coverage they were edited in their visible
portions. Due to the comparably small area changes of such glaciers over
time, the former outlines are likely more precise than a new digitization
under such conditions (cf. Fischer et al., 2014).
Glaciers in the Orobie Alps (ID 12 in Fig. 1), Dolomites, and Julian Alps (ID
18) posed significant challenges for glacier mapping. The three regions host
very small niche glaciers and glacierets: in the Orobie and Julian Alps,
their survival is granted by abundant snowfall, northerly aspect, and
accumulation from avalanches, with debris cover also playing an important
role. In the Dolomites, debris cover is often complete (Smiraglia and
Diolaiuti, 2015), while the steep rock walls provide shadow and further
complicate mapping. For glaciers in the Orobie Alps, an aerial orthophoto
acquired by Regione Lombardia (https://www.geoportale.regione.lombardia.it, last access: 20 June 2020) in 2015 was
used to aid the interpretation in view of its finer spatial resolution (e.g.
Fischer et al., 2014; Leigh et al., 2019), although the image also shows
evidence of seasonal snow. Here, manual delineation of the glacier outlines
was required, as the band ratio approach could only detect small snow patches
(see Fig. 4c). In the other two regions, outlines from the previous
inventory, derived from aerial orthophotos acquired in 2011, were copied and
only corrected where evidence of glacier retreat was found. Whereas the
uncertainty in the outlines of the latter glaciers can be large (some of
them are marked as “extinct” in the first Italian inventory from 1959 to
1962), the combined glacier area from the three regions is just above 1 %
(1.35 km2) of the total area of Italian glaciers. For several of these
very small, partly hidden entities, one can certainly discuss if they should
be kept at all. In this inventory, they have been included for consistency
with the last national inventory.
Switzerland
The raw glacier outlines from S2 were corrected by three people (Raymond Le Bris,
Frank Paul, and Philipp Rastner), each of them being responsible for a different main
region (south of the Rhône, north of the Rhône and Rhine, and south of the Rhine). The glacier
outlines from the previous inventory by Fischer et al. (2014) were highly
valuable for the interpretation, in particular in shadow regions and for
glaciers under debris cover. In the hot summer of 2015, most seasonal snow
had disappeared by the end of August, and thus mapping conditions with a
comparably high solar elevation (limited regions in shadow) were very good.
Some glaciers that could not be identified in the (contrast-stretched) S2
images were either copied from the previous inventory (if located in shadow)
or assumed to have disappeared (if sunlit). Wrongly mapped (turbid) lakes
and rivers (Rhône, Aare) were manually removed.
In a few cases (mostly debris-covered glaciers), we had to deviate from the
interpretation of the previous inventories. As shown in Fig. 4d, very
high-resolution satellite imagery or aerial photography (as available in
Google Earth or from map servers) do not always help in finding a “correct”
interpretation of glacier extents, as the rules applied for identification
of ice under debris cover might differ (see Figs. S1, S2 and S3 in the
Supplement). In this case it seems that the debris-covered region was not
corrected in the 2003 and 2008 inventories, but it is now included (one can
still discuss the boundaries). The interpreted glacier area has thus
grown strongly since 2003 due to the better visibility of debris cover with
S2.
Drainage divides and topographic information
Drainage divides between glaciers were copied from previous national
inventories but were locally adjusted along national boundaries. In part
this was required because different DEMs had been used in each country to
determine the location of the divide. Additionally, some glaciers are
divided by national boundaries rather than flow divides. This can result in
an arbitrary part of the glacier (e.g. its accumulation zone) being located
in one country and the other part (e.g. its ablation zone) being located in another
country. As this makes no sense from a glaciological (and hydrological)
point of view, such glaciers (e.g. Hochjochferner in the Ötztal Alps)
have been corrected in such a way that they belong to the country where the
terminus is located. There are thus a few inconsistencies in this inventory
compared to the national ones.
After digital intersection of glacier outlines with drainage divides,
topographic information for each glacier entity is calculated from both DEMs
(ALOS and TDX) following Paul et al. (2009). The calculation is fully
automated and applies the concept of zone statistics introduced by Paul et al. (2002). Each region with a common ID (this includes regenerated glaciers
consisting of two polygons) is interpreted as a zone over which statistical
information (e.g. minimum, maximum, and mean elevation) is derived from an
underlying value grid (e.g. a DEM or a DEM-derived slope and aspect grid).
Apart from glacier area (in km2), all glaciers have information about
mean, median, maximum, and minimum elevations; mean slope and aspect (both in
degrees); and aspect sector (eight cardinal directions) using letters and
numbers (N =1, NE =2, etc.). Further information that is appended to each glacier
in the attribute table of the shape file is as follows: the satellite tile used, the
acquisition date, the analyst, and the funding source. This information is
applied automatically by digital intersection (“spatial join”) to all glaciers from a
manually corrected scene footprint shape file (see Fig. 1). The various
attributes have then been used for displaying key characteristics of the
datasets in bar graphs, scatter plots, and maps (see Sect. 5.1).
Change assessment
Glacier area changes have only been calculated with respect to the inventory
from 2003, as the dates for the previous national inventories were too
diverse for a meaningful assessment (see Sect. 1). To obtain consistent
changes, only glaciers that are also mapped in the 2003 inventory are used
for a direct comparison (automatically selected via a “point in polygon” check). However,
after realizing that a glacier-specific comparison is not possible due to
differences in interpretation (caused by the higher resolution of S2 and the
different national rules) and changes in topology (e.g. inclusion of
tributaries that were separated in 2003), we decided to only compare the
total glacier area of the previous and new inventory.
Uncertainty assessment
As several analysts have digitized the new inventory, we performed
multiple digitizings of a preselected set of glaciers to determine internal
variability in interpretation per participant and across participants as a
measure of the uncertainty of the generated dataset. For this purpose, all
participants used the same raw outlines from S2 tile 32TLR (no. 23 in Fig. 1) to manually
correct 14 glaciers (sizes from 0.1 to 10 km2) to the south of Lac des
Dix around Mont Blanc de Cheilon (3870 m a.s.l.) for debris cover. All
glaciers had to be digitized four times by five participants, giving a nominal total of
280 outlines for comparison. Results were analysed using an overlay of
outlines to identify the general deviations in interpretation and through a
glacier-by-glacier comparison of glacier sizes. For the latter, all datasets
were intersected with the same drainage divides and glacier-specific areas
were calculated. For each glacier and the entire region, mean area values
and standard deviations are calculated per glacier, per participant, and for
the total sample. The participants were asked to only use the S2 image and
the 2003 outlines as a guide for interpretation in the first two
digitization rounds and consider interpretation of very high-resolution
imagery as provided by Google Earth for the second two rounds. At a minimum,
1 day should have passed between each digitization round and no
former outlines were allowed to be shown. On average, each digitization
round took about 2 h.
Additionally, we applied the buffer method (e.g. Paul et al., 2017) to obtain
a statistical uncertainty value for the entire sample. This method gives a
minimum and maximum area and was used to determine a relative area
difference. This value multiplied by 0.68 gives the standard deviation
(assuming normally distributed deviations from the correct outline) that is
used as a further measure of area uncertainty (Paul et al., 2017). The
selected buffer is based on an earlier multiple digitizing experiment for a
couple of glaciers (Paul et al., 2013), showing that the variability in the
positioning is within one pixel (or about ±10 m in the current case)
of both sides of the “true” vector line. Strictly, a larger buffer should be
used for the debris-covered glacier parts, as their uncertainty is higher.
However, we have not implemented this here, as the related calculations are
computationally expensive (cf. Mölg et al., 2018) and would still not
reflect the real problem in debris identification as shown in Fig. 4d.
Instead, we additionally applied a ±2 pixels buffer to all glaciers.
For the majority of the debris-covered glaciers (i.e. those where debris can
at least be identified) this gives an upper-bound value of the uncertainty.
Depending on the degree of debris cover along the perimeter, the uncertainty
is between the two values derived from the two buffers.
ResultsThe new glacier inventory
In total, we identified 4395 glaciers larger than 0.01 km2, covering a
total area of 1805.9 km2, of which 361.5 km2 (20 %) is found in
Austria and 227.1 (12.6 %), 325.3 (18 %), and 892.1 km2 (49.4 %)
is found in France, Italy, and Switzerland, respectively. The size class distribution
by area and count is depicted in Fig. 5a and is also listed in Table 2. In
total, 62.5 % (92 %) of all glaciers are smaller than 0.1 km2 (1.0 km2), covering 5.5 % (28 %) of the glacierized area, whereas 1.6 %
are larger than 5 km2 and cover 40 %. Thereby, glaciers in the size
class 1 to 5 km2 alone cover one-third (31.5 %) of the area but only
6.4 % of the total number. This biased size class distribution is typical
for alpine glaciers where a few large glaciers are surrounded by numerous
much smaller ones. The distribution of glacier number and area by aspect
sector displayed in Fig. 5b shows the dominance, both in number and coverage
area, of northerly exposed glaciers compared to all other sectors. About
60 % of all glaciers (covering 60 % of the area) are exposed to the NW,
N, or NE, whereas only 21 % of all glaciers are found in the SE, S,
and SW sectors. This distribution of glacier aspects is typical for regions where
radiation plays a larger role in glacier existence compared to factors such
as precipitation (Evans and Cox, 2005). The larger area coverage for
glaciers facing SE is mostly due to the large Aletsch and Fiescher glaciers.
Glacier area and count per size class for the entire sample.
Size class (km2)0.01–0.020.02–0.050.05–0.10.1–0.20.2–0.50.5–11–22–55–1010–20>20AllCount9661060723533520244177103481654395Count (%)22.024.116.512.111.85.64.02.31.10.40.1100Area (km2)13.8334.4451.4275.48163.87168.28249.06319.13322.96211.85195.561805.9Area (%)0.81.92.84.29.19.313.817.717.911.710.8100
Relative frequency histograms for glacier count and area per (a) size
class and (b) aspect sector for all glaciers.
A plot of glacier surface area vs. minimum and maximum elevations (Fig. 6a)
reveals that glaciers smaller than 1 km2 cover nearly the full range of
possible elevations, indicating that their mean elevation is also impacted
by factors other than climate (i.e. they can also exist at low elevations
when they are located in a well-protected environment). Glaciers larger than
1 km2, on the other hand, have clearly distinguished maximum and minimum
elevations, i.e. they arrange around a climatically driven mean elevation that
is around 3000 m a.s.l. Plotting glacier area vs. elevation range (Fig. 6b)
shows that the largest glaciers are not those with the highest elevation
range (the maximum of 3140 m is for Glacier des Bossons in the Mont Blanc
massif with a size of 10 km2) and that for the majority of glaciers the
elevation range increases with glacier size. This is typical for regions
dominated by mountain and valley glaciers, as these follow the given
topography. The ca. 7 km2 Plaine Morte Glacier is a plateau
glacier with an elevation range of only 350 m and represents an exception
from the rule that larger glaciers generally have a larger elevation range.
Glacier area vs. (a) minimum and maximum elevation and (b) elevation range for all glaciers.
The median elevation of a glacier is largely driven by temperature,
precipitation, and radiation receipt (which depends on topography). As
temperature is rather similar at the same elevation over large regions (e.g.
Zemp et al., 2007) and topography (aspect and shading) has a strong local
impact on radiation receipt, the large-scale variability of median (or mean)
elevation of a glacier has a high correlation with precipitation (e.g.
Ohmura et al., 1992; Oerlemans, 2005; Rastner et al., 2012; Sakai et al., 2015).
The spatial distribution of glacier median elevations in the Alps (Fig. 7)
thus also reflects the general pattern of annual precipitation amounts (e.g.
Frei et al., 2003). When focusing on glaciers larger than 0.5 km2 (that
are less impacted by local topographic conditions), clearly lower median
elevations (around 2400 m a.s.l.) are found for glaciers along the northern
margin of the Alps and major mountain passes than in the inner Alpine
valleys (around 3700 m a.s.l.) that are well shielded from precipitation. On
top of this variability is the variability due to a different aspect
(Fig. 7, inset): on average, glaciers that are exposed to the south have
median elevations that are about 250 m higher (mean 3125 m a.s.l.) than
north-facing glaciers (mean 2875 m a.s.l.). However, the scatter is high, and
for each aspect the elevation variability is about 1500 m.
Spatial distribution of median elevation (colour-coded) for glaciers
larger 0.5 km2. The inset shows a scatterplot depicting glacier aspect
(counted from north at 0∘) vs. median elevation and
values averaged for each cardinal direction.
The graph in Fig. 8 shows the hypsometry of glacier area in the four
countries and for the total area in relative terms. On average, the highest
area share is found around the mean elevation of 3000 m a.s.l. By referring
to the total area as 100 % for each country, differences among them can be
seen. Most notable is the smaller elevation range and larger peak of
glaciers in Austria, the broader vertical distribution in Switzerland (with
the lowest peak value), and the slightly higher peak of the distribution in
Italy (at 3100 m a.s.l). The hypsometry of glaciers in France is closest to
the curve for the entire Alps.
Normalized glacier hypsometry per country as derived from the AW3D30
DEM.
Area changes
For a selection of 2873 comparable polygon entities present in both
inventories, total glacier area shrunk from 2060 km2 in 2003 to 1783 km2 in 2015/16, i.e. by -13.2 % (-1.1 % a-1). Considering the assumed
missing area in the 2003 inventory of about 40 km2 (glaciers with area
gain are 29.4 km2 larger in 2015/16 than in 2003), a more realistic
area loss is -15 % or -1.3 % a-1. This is about the same pace as reported
earlier by Paul et al. (2004) for the Swiss Alps from 1985 to 1998/99
(-1.4 % a-1). An example of the strong glacier shrinkage in Austria is
depicted in Fig. 9. Closer inspection of this image also reveals a small
shift (about up to 50 m to the SE) of the S2 scenes compared to the earlier
Landsat TM scenes.
Visualization of the strong glacier area shrinkage between 2003
(yellow) and 2015 (red) for a subregion of the Zillertal Alps (Austria and
Italy). The yellow cross on the right marks the coordinates
47.0∘ N, and 11.88∘ E (image source: Copernicus Sentinel data 2015).
The comparison of glacier outlines in Fig. 10 illustrates, for the region
around Sonnblickkees in Austria, why we do not provide a scatterplot of
relative area changes vs. glacier size or country-specific area change values
(cf. also Fig. 4d for Gavirolas Glacier in Switzerland). Due to the
different interpretations in the new inventory, 125 mostly very small
glaciers are 100 % to 630 % larger than in 2003 and a large number (557)
are 0 % to 100 % larger. For example, the 4 km2 Suldenferner has
increased in size by 550 %, as a small tributary (that holds the ID for the
glacier) was disconnected in 2003 but is now connected to the entire
glacier. Although such cases can be manually adjusted, it would not solve
the general problem of differing interpretations when using data sources
with differing spatial resolutions (cf. Fischer et al., 2014; Leigh et al., 2019). For example, the glacier in Fig. 4d has increased its size from 2003
to 2015 by 56 % due to the new interpretation. On the other hand, Careser
Glacier, which fragmented into six ice bodies from 2003 to 2015, lost 55 %
of its area when summing up all parts, as opposed to 63 % when considering
the largest glacier only. As a consequence, the possible area reduction due to
melting is partly compensated by the more generous interpretation of glacier
extents and thus is of limited meaning for individual glaciers.
Overall, glacier extents in the 2015/16 inventory might be somewhat larger
than in reality due to the inclusion of seasonal or perennial snow in some
regions. The -15 % area loss mentioned above can thus be seen as a lower-bound estimate.
Overlay of glacier outlines from 2003 (black) and 2016 (yellow)
showing the different interpretation of glacier extents for the region
around Sonnblickkees (SBK) in Austria. The black cross on the lower right
marks the coordinates 47.12∘ N, 12.6∘ E (image source: Copernicus Sentinel data 2015).
UncertaintiesGlacier outlines
The multiple digitizing experiment revealed several interesting (albeit
well-known) results. Overall, the area uncertainty (1 standard deviation,
SD) is 3.3 % across all participants for the total of the digitized area
(Table 3). As two glaciers (11 and 13) were not mapped by one participant,
the missing values are replaced with the mean value from the other
participants. Across all glaciers, but for individual participants, the
uncertainty (comparing the values from the four digitization rounds) is
lower (1 % to 2.7 %), indicating that the digitizing is
more consistent when performed by the same person. The area values of
participant 1 (P1) are systematically higher than for the other
participants, about 6 % for the total area. A detailed analysis (close-ups
and only showing individual datasets) of the digitized outlines (Fig. 11)
revealed that the differences are mostly due to the more generous inclusion
of debris-covered glacier ice for two of the larger glaciers (nos. 1 and 5).
When excluding P1, the SD across the other participants is 3 times
smaller (1.1 %). The uncertainty also slightly depends on glacier size,
showing values between 1 % and 6 % for glaciers larger than 1 km2
and between 2 % and 20 % for glaciers <1 km2. The smallest
glacier in the sample is smaller than 0.1 km2 and shows variations in
SD between 8 % and 44 %, in the latter case this is also due to a
reinterpretation of its extent when using very high-resolution imagery. For
such small glaciers, related changes can thus result in considerably
different extents.
Results of the multiple digitizing experiment, listing for each of
the five participants the mean glacier area (in km2) in the columns P1
to P5, along with the standard deviation in percent (SD %). The last two
columns provide the averaged values across all participants for each glacier
and the last row gives total areas and their standard deviation across all
glaciers and for each participant. The two values marked in bold are mean
values derived from the other four participants. In the last column, values in italic mark highest
values for glaciers larger and smaller than 1 km2. Glacier ID 4 is
missing as it was digitized as one glacier (with ID 5) by most participants.
Overlay of glacier outlines from the multiple digitizing experiment
by all participants. Colours refer to the first (yellow), second (red),
third (green), and fourth (white) rounds of digitization. The white cross on
the upper right marks the coordinates 46.0∘ N,
7.5∘ E (image source: Copernicus Sentinel data 2015).
Moreover, for P1 and most of the other participants, the digitized glacier
extents increased by several percent after consultation of very high-resolution satellite images, e.g. those available from Google Earth and the
Swisstopo map server (Supplement, Fig. S1). The generally very flat and
debris-covered regions were barely visible on the S2 images and have been
digitized differently in each of the four rounds. Hence, the possibility for
a reinterpretation of the outlines within the same experiment resulted in
higher standard deviations. Whether such regions have to be included in a glacier
inventory or not can be discussed, as the transition to ice-cored medial or
lateral moraines is often gradual and including these features in a glacier
inventory or not is a (personal) methodological decision. Figures S2 and
S3 in the Supplement provide examples of the difficulties in interpreting
such regions. Even at this high spatial resolution, the exact boundary of the
two glaciers is not fully clear, and thus a large interpretation spread can be
expected at lower resolution. However, in general it seems that the area of
glaciers with debris-covered margins is still slightly underestimated at 10 m resolution. This confirms the earlier recommendation of double-checking all
digitized glacier extents with such very high-resolution sensors, at least
for the difficult cases (e.g. Fischer et al., 2014).
The uncertainty (1 SD) obtained with the buffer method is ±5 %
(10 %) when using a 10 m (20 m) buffer. Considering that the former buffer
might be a realistic uncertainty bound for clean ice and that the latter buffer might be realistic for
debris-covered ice, the “true” uncertainty value would be between 5 % and
10 % and for individual glaciers would largely depend on the difficulties in
identifying ice under debris. This is in line with the uncertainties derived
from multiple digitizing and numerous previous studies.
Topographic information
The comparison of topographic parameters (minimum, maximum, and mean
elevation and mean slope and aspect) revealed larger differences when derived
from either the TDX or AW3D30 DEM, in particular towards smaller glaciers.
These are more likely to be impacted by artefacts as they share a larger
percentage of their total area (Fig. 2). Differences in mean slope and
aspect are generally small but increase towards larger slope values for the
former. This is in agreement with the general observations that DEM quality
is reduced at steep slopes. Minimum elevation is slightly higher in the TDX
DEM, which can be explained by glacier retreat between the acquisition dates
(around 2009 for AW3D30 vs. around 2013 for TDX). However, a clearly lower
mean elevation due an overall surface lowering of the glaciers could not be
observed, indicating that the differences are in the uncertainty range.
Apart from artefacts, the uncorrected radar penetration of the TDX DEM into
snow and firn might play a role here as well.
Discussion
The derived size class distribution (Fig. 5) and topographic information are
typical for glaciers in mid-latitude mountain ranges with numerous smaller
glaciers surrounding a few larger ones (e.g. Pfeffer et al., 2014). Only 349
out of 4395 glaciers (8 %) are larger than 1 km2 and nearly half of them
(46 %) are smaller than 0.05 km2 and cover 2.7 % of the area. It
might be possible that many of the latter are no longer glaciers but are instead
just perennial snow and firn patches. However, for consistency with earlier
national glacier inventories they have been included. Mean elevation values
do not depend on size for such “glaciers”, indicating that they can survive
at different elevations and that precipitation amounts have a limited impact on
their occurrence (e.g. if fed by avalanche snow). If they are well protected
from solar radiation (e.g. by shadow or debris cover) such glaciers might
persist for some time despite increasing air temperatures. Glacier mean
elevation does not depend on glacier size but on glacier location with
respect to precipitation sources, in particular for larger glaciers (Fig. 7). On top of this dependence is the variability with mean aspect (Fig. 7,
inset).
Widespread glacier thinning over the past few decades and over steep terrain have lately resulted
in interrupted profiles for several larger valley glaciers. Their
lower parts are now no longer nourished by ice from above. These separated
parts thus can not be named “regenerated glaciers”, but instead they melt away as
dead ice. Strictly speaking, such lower dead ice bodies (that can persist
due to debris cover for a very long time) should be excluded from a glacier
inventory (Raup and Khalsa, 2007). However, for consistency with former
inventories and their contribution to run-off, we included them here and used
the same ID for both parts to obtain topographic information for the
combined extent. Calculating this for the individual parts instead would
result in related outliers and a more difficult analysis of trends. At best,
such separated parts are identified with a flag in the attribute table, for
example as a further extension to the “form” attribute (e.g. “4: Separated
glacier part”) used in the RGI (RGI consortium, 2017). However, the
differentiation from a regenerated glacier might sometimes be difficult.
Due to the differences in interpretation (Fig. 10), we have not compared the
2003 extents of individual glaciers directly with those from the new
inventory but we compared only the total area of glaciers observed in both inventories.
Considering the underestimated glacier area in 2003 (e.g. due to missing
debris cover) and possibly overestimated sizes in 2015 (e.g. due to included
snow), the pace of shrinkage (-1.3 % a-1) has not changed compared to the
earlier mid-1980s to 2003 period. This indicates that most glaciers have not
yet reached a geometry that is compliant with current climate conditions, and they
will thus continue shrinking in the future. This becomes also clear from the
snow cover remaining near the end of the ablation period on the glaciers,
covering barely 20 % to 30 % of the area (e.g. Figs. 9 and 11). Assuming
a required 60 % coverage of their accumulation area, glaciers in the Alps
have to lose another 50 % to 70 % of their area to again reach balanced
mass budgets (Carturan et al., 2013). There are other regions in the world
with similar high (or even higher) area loss rates such as the tropical
Andes (e.g. Rabatel et al., 2013), but to a large extent this is also due to
the smaller glaciers in this region. A realistic comparison across regions
would only be possible when change rates of identical size classes are
compared.
The multiple digitizing experiment (Fig. 11) revealed a large variability in
the interpretation of debris-covered glaciers among the analysts but high
consistency in the corrections where boundaries are well visible. Related
area uncertainties can be high for very small glaciers (>20 %)
but are generally <5 %. The area reduction derived here of about
-15 % since 2003 is thus significant, but for small and/or debris-covered
glaciers the area uncertainty can be similar to the change, making it less
reliable. However, this strongly depends on the specific glacier
characteristics and cannot be generalized to all small glaciers.
The gradual disappearance of ice under debris cover and the separation of
low-lying glacier tongues on steep slopes are major problems for any glacier
inventory created these days. We decided to reconnect disconnected glacier
parts using their ID (to multi-part polygons) for consistency with earlier inventories. However,
keeping them separated is another possibility, given that possible dead ice
is clearly marked in the attribute table.
Data availability
The dataset can be downloaded from 10.1594/PANGAEA.909133 (Paul et al., 2019).
Conclusions
We presented the results of a new glacier inventory for the entire Alps
derived from Sentinel-2 images from 2015 and 2016. In total, 4395 glaciers
>0.01 km2 covering an area of 1806±60 km2 are
mapped. This is a reduction of about 300 km2 or -15 % (-1.3 % a-1)
compared to the previous Alpine-wide inventory from 2003. The pace of
glacier shrinkage in the Alps has remained about the same since the mid-1980s,
indicating that glaciers will continue to shrink under current climatic
conditions. Due to the differences in interpretation, we have not performed
a glacier-by-glacier comparison of area changes. The ongoing glacier
decline also results in increasingly difficult glacier identification (under
debris cover) and topological challenges for a database (when glaciers split).
The former is confirmed by the results of the uncertainty assessment,
showing a large variability in the interpretation of glacier extents when
conditions are challenging. Despite the additional workload, we think this
is the best way to provide an uncertainty value for such a highly corrected
and merged dataset. In any case, the outlines from the new inventory should
be more accurate than for 2003, as we here used the previous, high-quality
national inventories as a guide for interpretation, performed corrections by
the respective experts, and worked with the higher resolution of Sentinel-2
data that helped in identifying important spatial details.
The clean-ice mapping with the band ratio method is straightforward, but
requires well-thought-out decisions on the two thresholds as they will always be
a compromise. They should be tested in regions with ice in cast shadow and
selected in a way that the workload for manual corrections is minimized. If
a precise DEM is available, the required corrections of wrongly mapped ice
in shadow can be reduced, as revealed by the further preprocessing for glaciers in
Austria. However, reduced DEM quality and illumination differences
can limit the benefits of a topographic normalization of the images. Due to
the artefacts in the first version of the TanDEM-X DEM, we used the ALOS
AW3D30 DEM to derive topographic information for each glacier despite the
less good temporal agreement. To conclude, we had datasets with a much
higher spatial resolution available for this inventory compared to the 2003
dataset, but for several reasons (e.g. debris cover, clouds, seasonal snow)
the creation of glacier inventories from satellite data and a DEM remains a
challenging task with a high workload and expert knowledge required.
The supplement related to this article is available online at: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-1805-2020-supplement.
Author contributions
FP designed the study, prepared raw glacier outlines, performed various
calculations, and wrote the draft manuscript. PR performed most of the
GIS-based calculations and the editing that was required to obtain a
complete dataset and change assessment (e.g. DEM mosaicking, dataset
merging, drainage divides, topographic attributes, satellite footprints).
All authors processed, corrected, and checked the created glacier outlines in
their country and contributed to the contents and editing of the manuscript.
FP, DF, JN, AR, and PR performed the multiple digitizing of glacier outlines
for uncertainty assessment.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This research has been supported by the European Space Agency (grant no. 4000109873/14/I-NB) and the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) that is implemented by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) on behalf of the European Commission.
Review statement
This paper was edited by Reinhard Drews and reviewed by Andrea Fischer and Sam Herreid.
References
Auer, I., Böhm, R., Jurkovic, A., Lipa, W., Orlik, A., Potzmann, R.,
Schöner, W., Ungersböck, M., Matulla, C., Briffa, K., Jones, P. D.,
Efthymiadis, D., Brunetti, M., Nanni, T., Maugeri, M., Mercalli, L., Mestre,
O., Moisselin, J.-M., Begert, M., Müller-Westermeier, G., Kveton, V.,
Bochnicek, O., Stastny, P., Lapin, M., Szalai, S., Szentimrey, T., Cegnar,
T., Dolinar, M., Gajic-Capka, M., Zaninovic, K., Majstorovic, Z., and
Nieplova, E.: HISTALP – historical instrumental climatological surface time
series of the greater Alpine region 1760–2003, Int. J.
Climatol., 27, 17–46, 2007.
Beniston, M., Diaz, H. F., and Bradley, R. S.: Climatic change at high
elevation sites: A review, Climatic Change, 36, 233–251, 1997.
Böhm, R., Auer, I., Brunetti, M., Maugeri, M., Nanni, T., and
Schöner, W.: Regional temperature variability in the European Alps
1760–1998 from homogenized instrumental time series, Int. J.
Climatol., 21, 1779–1801, 2001.Carturan, L., Filippi, R., Seppi, R., Gabrielli, P., Notarnicola, C., Bertoldi, L., Paul, F., Rastner, P., Cazorzi, F., Dinale, R., and Dalla Fontana, G.: Area and volume loss of the glaciers in the Ortles-Cevedale group (Eastern Italian Alps): controls and imbalance of the remaining glaciers, The Cryosphere, 7, 1339–1359, 10.5194/tc-7-1339-2013, 2013.
Casty, C., Wanner, H., Luterbacher, J., Esper, J., and Böhm, R.: Temperature and precipitation variability in the European Alps since 1500, Int. J. Climatol., 25, 1855–1880, 2005.
Dozier, J.: Spectral signature of alpine snow cover from Landsat 5 TM,
Remote Sens. Environ., 28, 9–22, 1989.
Evans, I. S. and Cox, N. J.: Global variations of local asymmetry in glacier
altitude: Separation of north-south and east-west components, J.
Glaciol., 51, 469–482, 2005.
Fischer, M., Huss, M., Barboux, C., and Hoelzle, M.: The new Swiss Glacier
Inventory SGI2010: Relevance of using high-resolution source data in areas
dominated by very small glaciers, Arct. Antarct. Alp. Res.,
46, 933–945, 2014.Fischer, A., Seiser, B., Stocker Waldhuber, M., Mitterer, C., and Abermann, J.: Tracing glacier changes in Austria from the Little Ice Age to the present using a lidar-based high-resolution glacier inventory in Austria, The Cryosphere, 9, 753–766, 10.5194/tc-9-753-2015, 2015.
Frei, C.: Interpolation of temperature in a mountainous region using
nonlinear profiles and non-Euclidean distances, Int. J.
Climatol., 34, 1585–1605, 2014.Frei, C., Christensen, J. H., Déqué, M., Jacob, D., Jones, R. G., and
Vidale, P. L.: Daily precipitation statistics in regional climate models:
Evaluation and intercomparison for the European Alps, J. Geophys.
Res., 108, 4124, 10.1029/2002JD002287, 2003.
Gardent, M., Rabatel, A., Dedieu, J.-P., and Deline, P.: Multitemporal
glacier inventory of the French Alps from the late 1960s to the late 2000s,
Global Planet. Change, 120, 24–37, 2014.
Gardner, A. S., Moholdt, G., Cogley, J. G., Wouters, B., Arendt, A. A.,
Wahr, J., Berthier, E., Hock, R., Pfeffer, W. T., Kaser, G., Ligtenberg, S.
R. M., Bolch, T., Sharp, M. J., Hagen, J. O., van den Broeke, M. R., and
Paul, F.: A consensus estimate of glacier contributions to sea level rise:
2003 to 2009, Science, 340, 852–857, 2013.Kääb, A., Winsvold, S. H., Altena, B., Nuth, C., Nagler, T., and
Wuite, J.: Glacier remote sensing using Sentinel-2. Part I: Radiometric and
geometric performance, and application to ice velocity, Remote Sens., 8, 598, 10.3390/rs8070598, 2016.
Kienholz, C., Hock, R., and Arendt, A. A.: A new semi-automatic approach for
dividing glacier complexes into individual glaciers, J. Glaciol.,
59, 925–936, 2013.
Lambrecht, A. and Kuhn, M.: Glacier changes in the Austrian Alps
during the last three decades, derived from the new Austrian glacier
inventory, Ann. Glaciol., 46, 177–184, 2007.Leigh, J. R., Stokes, C. R., Carr, R. J., Evans, I. S., Andreassen, L. M., and
Evans, D. J. A.: Identifying and mapping very small (<0.5 km2)
mountain glaciers on coarse to high-resolution imagery, J.
Glaciol., 65, 873–888, 2019.
Marzeion, B., Champollion, N., Haeberli, W., Langley, K., Leclercq, P., and
Paul, F.: Observation of glacier mass changes on the global scale and its
contribution to sea level change, Surv. Geophys., 38, 105–130,
2017.Mölg, N., Bolch, T., Rastner, P., Strozzi, T., and Paul, F.: A consistent glacier inventory for Karakoram and Pamir derived from Landsat data: distribution of debris cover and mapping challenges, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 1807–1827, 10.5194/essd-10-1807-2018, 2018.Mölg, N., Bolch, T., Walter, A., and Vieli, A.: Unravelling the evolution of Zmuttgletscher and its debris cover since the end of the Little Ice Age, The Cryosphere, 13, 1889–1909, 10.5194/tc-13-1889-2019, 2019.
Oerlemans, J.: Extracting a climate signal from 169 glacier records,
Science, 308, 675–677, 2005.
Ohmura, A., Kasser, P., and Funk, M.: Climate at the equilibrium line of
glaciers, J. Glaciol., 38, 397–411, 1992.
Paul, F., Kääb, A., Maisch, M., Kellenberger, T. W., and Haeberli,
W.: The new remote-sensing-derived Swiss glacier inventory: I. Methods,
Ann. Glaciol., 34, 355–361, 2002.Paul, F., Kääb, A., Maisch, M., Kellenberger, T. W., and Haeberli,
W.: Rapid disintegration of Alpine glaciers observed with satellite data,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L21402, 10.1029/2004GL020816, 2004.
Paul, F., Barry, R., Cogley, J. G., Frey, H., Haeberli, W., Ohmura, A.,
Ommanney, C. S. L, Raup, B., Rivera, A., and Zemp, M.: Recommendations for the
compilation of glacier inventory data from digital sources, Ann.
Glaciol., 50, 119–126, 2009.
Paul, F., Frey, H., and Le Bris, R.: A new glacier inventory for the
European Alps from Landsat TM scenes of 2003: Challenges and results, Ann.
Glaciol., 52, 144–152, 2011.
Paul, F., Barrand, N. E., Baumann, S., Berthier, E., Bolch, T., Casey, K.,
Frey, H., Joshi, S. P., Konovalov, V., Le Bris, R., Mölg, N., Nosenko,
G., Nuth, C., Pope, A., Racoviteanu, A., Rastner, P., Raup, B., Scharrer,
K., Steffen, S., and Winsvold, S. H.: On the accuracy of glacier outlines
derived from remote sensing data, Ann. Glaciol., 54, 171–182,
2013.Paul, F., Winsvold, S. H., Kääb, A., Nagler, T., and Schwaizer, G.:
Glacier remote sensing using Sentinel-2. Part II: Mapping glacier extents
and surface facies, and comparison to Landsat 8, Remote Sens., 8, 575,
10.3390/rs8070575, 2016.
Paul, F., Bolch, T., Briggs, K., Kääb, A., McMillan, M., McNabb, R.,
Nagler, T., Nuth, C., Rastner, P., Strozzi, T., and Wuite, J.: Error sources
and guidelines for quality assessment of glacier area, elevation change, and
velocity products derived from satellite data in the Glaciers_cci project, Remote Sens. Environ., 203, 256–275, 2017.Paul, F., Rastner, P., Azzoni, R.S., Diolaiuti, G., Fugazza, D., Le Bris,
R., Nemec, J., Rabatel, A., Ramusovic, M., Schwaizer, G., and Smiraglia, C.:
Glacier inventory for the Alps, PANGAEA,
10.1594/PANGAEA.909133, 2019.
Pfeffer, W. T., Arendt, A.A., Bliss, A., Bolch, T., Cogley, J. G., Gardner,
A. S., Hagen, J.-O., Hock, R., Kaser, G., Kienholz, C., Miles, E.S.,
Moholdt, G., Mölg, N., Paul, F., Radic ?, V., Rastner, P., Raup, B.H.,
Rich, J., Sharp, M.J., and the Randolph Consortium: The Randolph Glacier
Inventory: A globally complete inventory of glaciers, J. Glaciol.,
60, 537–552, 2014.Rabatel, A., Francou, B., Soruco, A., Gomez, J., Cáceres, B., Ceballos, J. L., Basantes, R., Vuille, M., Sicart, J.-E., Huggel, C., Scheel, M., Lejeune, Y., Arnaud, Y., Collet, M., Condom, T., Consoli, G., Favier, V., Jomelli, V., Galarraga, R., Ginot, P., Maisincho, L., Mendoza, J., Ménégoz, M., Ramirez, E., Ribstein, P., Suarez, W., Villacis, M., and Wagnon, P.: Current state of glaciers in the tropical Andes: a multi-century perspective on glacier evolution and climate change, The Cryosphere, 7, 81–102, 10.5194/tc-7-81-2013, 2013.
Rabatel, A., Ceballos, J. L., Micheletti, N., Jordan, E., Braitmeier, M.,
Gonzales, J., Moelg, N., Ménégoz, M., Huggel, C., and Zemp, M.:
Toward an imminent extinction of Colombian glaciers?, Geogr. Ann. A, 100, 75–95, 2018.
Racoviteanu, A. E., Paul, F., Raup, B., Khalsa, S. J. S., and Armstrong, R.:
Challenges in glacier mapping from space: Recommendations from the Global
Land Ice Measurements from Space (GLIMS) initiative, Ann. Glaciol.,
50, 53–69, 2009.Rastner, P., Bolch, T., Mölg, N., Machguth, H., Le Bris, R., and Paul, F.: The first complete inventory of the local glaciers and ice caps on Greenland, The Cryosphere, 6, 1483–1495, 10.5194/tc-6-1483-2012, 2012.Raup, B. and Khalsa, S. J. S.: GLIMS Analysis Tutorial, 15 pp., available at: http://www.glims.org/MapsAndDocs/guides.html (last access: 20 February 2020), 2007.
Reid, P. C., Hari, R. E., Beaugrand, G., Livingstone, D. M., Marty, C.,
Straile, D., Barichivich, J., Goberville, E., Adrian, R., Aono, Y., Brown,
R., Foster, J., Groisman, P., Hélaouët, P., Hsu, H., Kirby, R.,
Knight, J., Kraberg, A., Li, J., Lo, T., Myneni, R. B., North, R. P., Pounds,
J. A., Sparks, T., Stübi, R., Tian, Y., Wiltshire, K. H., Xiao, D., and
Zhu, Z.: Global impacts of the 1980s regime shift, Glob. Change Biol.,
22, 682–703, 2016.RGI consortium: Randolph Glacier Inventory – A Dataset of Global Glacier
Outlines: Version 6.0, GLIMS Technical Report, 71 pp., available at:
http://glims.org/RGI/00_rgi60_TechnicalNote.pdf (last access: 20 February 2020),
2017.Sakai, A., Nuimura, T., Fujita, K., Takenaka, S., Nagai, H., and Lamsal, D.: Climate regime of Asian glaciers revealed by GAMDAM glacier inventory, The Cryosphere, 9, 865–880, 10.5194/tc-9-865-2015, 2015.
Smiraglia, C. and Diolaiuti, G. A.: The new Italian glacier inventory, 1 edn., Ev-K2-CNR Publications, Bergamo, 2015.
Smiraglia, P., Azzoni, R. S., D'Agata, C., Maragno, D., Fugazza, D., and
Diolaiuti, G. A.: The evolution of the Italian glaciers from the previous
data base to the new Italian inventory. Preliminary considerations and
results, Geogr. Fis. Din. Quat., 38, 79–87, 2015.Stumpf, A., Michéa, D., and Malet, J.-P.: Improved co-registration of
Sentinel-2 and Landsat-8 imagery for earth surface motion measurements,
Remote Sens., 10, 160, 10.3390/rs10020160, 2018.
Takaku, J., Tadono, T., and Tsutsui, K.: Generation of high resolution
global DSM from ALOS PRISM, ISPRS Archives, XL-4,
243–248, 2014.Vaughan, D. G., Comiso, J. C., Allison, I., Carrasco, J., Kaser, G., Kwok,
R., Mote, P., Murray, T., Paul, F., Ren, J., Rignot, E., Solomina, O.,
Steffen, K., and Zhang, T.: Observations: Cryosphere, in: Climate Change
2013: Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited
by: Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S. K.,
Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., and Midgley, P. M., Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, 317–382,
2013.
Wouters, B., Gardner, A. S., and Moholdt, G.: Global glacier mass loss during
the GRACE satellite mission (2002–2016), Front. Earth Sci., 7, 96,
10.3389/feart.2019.00096, 2019.
Zemp, M., Hoelzle, M., and Haeberli, W.: Distributed modelling of the
regional climatic equilibrium line altitude of glaciers in the European
Alps, Global Planet. Change, 56, 83–100, 2007.
Zemp, M., Paul, F., Hoelzle, M., and Haeberli, W.: Alpine glacier
fluctuations 1850–2000: An overview and spatio-temporal analysis of
available data and its representativity, in: Darkening Peaks: Glacier Retreat, Science, and Society, edited by: Orlove, B., Wiegandt, E., and
Luckman, B., University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 152–167, 2008.
Zemp, M., Frey, H., Gärtner-Roer, I., Nussbaumer, S. U., Hoelzle, M.,
Paul, F., Haeberli, W., Denzinger, F., Ahlstroem, A. P., Anderson, B.,
Bajracharya, S., Baroni, C., Braun, L. N., Caceres, B. E., Casassa, G., Cobos,
G., Davila, L. R., Delgado Granados, H., Demuth, M. N., Espizua, L., Fischer,
A., Fujita, K., Gadek, B., Ghazanfar, A., Hagen, J. O., Holmlund, P., Karimi,
N., Li, Z., Pelto, M., Pitte, P., Popovnin, V. V., Portocarrero, C. A., Prinz,
R., Sangewar, C. V., Severskiy, I., Sigurdsson, O., Soruco, A., Usubaliev,
R., and Vincent, C.: Historically unprecedented global glacier changes in
the early 21st century, J. Glaciol., 61, 745-762, 2015.
Zemp, M., Huss, M., Thibert, E., Eckert, N., McNabb, R., Huber, J.,
Barandun, M., Machguth, H., Nussbaumer, S. U., Gärtner-Roer, I., Thomson,
L., Paul, F., Maussion, F., Kutuzov, S., and Cogley, J. G.: Global glacier
mass changes and their contributions to sea-level rise from 1961 to 2016,
Nature, 568, 382–386, 2019.