the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 07 Jan 2022
Surface elevation and ice thickness data between 2012 and 2020 at the ablation area of Artesonraju Glacier, Cordillera Blanca, Perú
Abstract. We present a representative set of data of interpreted ice thickness and ice surface elevation of the ablation area of the Artesonraju glacier between 2012 and 2020. The ice thickness was obtained by means of Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), while the surface elevation was by means of automated total stations and mass balance stakes. The results from GPR data show a maximum depth of 235 ± 18 m and a decreasing mean depth ranging from 134 ± 18 m in 2013 to 110 ± 18 m in 2020. Additionally, we estimate a mean ice thickness change rate of −4.2 ± 3.2 m yr−1 between 2014 and 2020 with GPR data alone, which is in agreement with the elevation change in the same period. The latter was estimated with the more accurate surface elevation data, yielding a change rate of −3.2 ± 0.2 m yr−1, and hence, confirming a negative glacier mass balance. The data set can be valuable for further analysis when combined with other data types, and as input for glacier dynamics modeling, ice volume estimations, and GLOF (glacial lake outburst flood) risk assessment. The complete dataset is available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5571081 (Oberreuter et al, 2021).
- Preprint
(2136 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
- RC1: 'Review of essd-2021-336', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Feb 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2021-336', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Feb 2022
The authors describe the thinning of the Artesonraju Glacier, they analyse and compare surface elevation change measured by total station and ablation stakes, and ice thickness measured by GPR.
The case study is interesting and the dataset original, but the overall presentation of the manuscript is really poor. It lacks scientific rigour, many statements are qualitative and not supported by references or evidence. The introduction should be improved, but, more importantly, the description of the study area and dataset must be largely expanded. The description of the GPR system lacks relevant details and it is not compliant with the introduction. The GRP data processing description lacks rigour and it does not include any innovations, I think that could be shortened. I have doubts about the measurement using the total station. The use of a single reference prism does not allow correcting for atmospheric artefacts accurately. I cannot understand how the total station measurement error has been obtained and how can be so little. Moreover, it is not clear whether the prisms have been left onto the glacier or if they were replaced at each survey. In the first case, how their motion along with the glacier sliding was considered? In the second case, how their positioning was decided across the different surveys?. I think that the location of prisms and total station should be shown in a figure. Why the GPS measurements acquired during the GPR survey were not used to derive the glacier surface elevation? The error estimation is poorly described. It is difficult to understand how the error contributions have been derived/estimated. The quality of the figure, and especially their description, should be substantially improved. This is particularly evident in the results section (figure 7 remains a mystery for me). Also the tables are difficult to read. I think that a more robust cross-validation analysis could improve the robustness of the dataset and results, which are currently questionable. Finally, the dataset description is completely different with respect to the dataset included in Zenodo. I think that this is a serious flaw for a manuscript submitted to a dataset journal. I reported these and other comments directly on the attached pdf.
In the end, I think that the quality of the manuscript, the dataset description and the presentation of the results are too poor and that their solution cannot be considered only a major revision. As such, I do not support the publication of this manuscript.
- RC3: 'Comment on essd-2021-336', Anonymous Referee #3, 15 Feb 2022
Status: closed
- RC1: 'Review of essd-2021-336', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Feb 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2021-336', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Feb 2022
The authors describe the thinning of the Artesonraju Glacier, they analyse and compare surface elevation change measured by total station and ablation stakes, and ice thickness measured by GPR.
The case study is interesting and the dataset original, but the overall presentation of the manuscript is really poor. It lacks scientific rigour, many statements are qualitative and not supported by references or evidence. The introduction should be improved, but, more importantly, the description of the study area and dataset must be largely expanded. The description of the GPR system lacks relevant details and it is not compliant with the introduction. The GRP data processing description lacks rigour and it does not include any innovations, I think that could be shortened. I have doubts about the measurement using the total station. The use of a single reference prism does not allow correcting for atmospheric artefacts accurately. I cannot understand how the total station measurement error has been obtained and how can be so little. Moreover, it is not clear whether the prisms have been left onto the glacier or if they were replaced at each survey. In the first case, how their motion along with the glacier sliding was considered? In the second case, how their positioning was decided across the different surveys?. I think that the location of prisms and total station should be shown in a figure. Why the GPS measurements acquired during the GPR survey were not used to derive the glacier surface elevation? The error estimation is poorly described. It is difficult to understand how the error contributions have been derived/estimated. The quality of the figure, and especially their description, should be substantially improved. This is particularly evident in the results section (figure 7 remains a mystery for me). Also the tables are difficult to read. I think that a more robust cross-validation analysis could improve the robustness of the dataset and results, which are currently questionable. Finally, the dataset description is completely different with respect to the dataset included in Zenodo. I think that this is a serious flaw for a manuscript submitted to a dataset journal. I reported these and other comments directly on the attached pdf.
In the end, I think that the quality of the manuscript, the dataset description and the presentation of the results are too poor and that their solution cannot be considered only a major revision. As such, I do not support the publication of this manuscript.
- RC3: 'Comment on essd-2021-336', Anonymous Referee #3, 15 Feb 2022
Data sets
Surface elevation (2012-2020) and ice thickness (2014-2020) datasets measured at Artesonraju Glacier, Cordillera Blanca, Perú Jonathan Oberreuter, Edwin Badillo-Rivera, Edwin Loarte, Katy Medina, Alejo Cochachin, and José Uribe https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5571081
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 944 | 394 | 65 | 1,403 | 62 | 66 |
- HTML: 944
- PDF: 394
- XML: 65
- Total: 1,403
- BibTeX: 62
- EndNote: 66
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1