the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Glaciological and meteorological monitoring at LTER sites Mullwitzkees and Venedigerkees, Austria, 2006–2022
Abstract. Glaciers in the Alps are losing mass at unprecedented and accelerating rates. Monitoring of glacier mass change as well as relevant atmospheric parameters plays an important role in improving understanding of local and downstream impacts. We present subseasonal, seasonal, and annual glaciological mass balance data and meteorological observations from Mullwitzkees and Venedigerkees, two glacier monitoring sites in the Hohe Tauern range of the Austrian Alps. Ablation stake networks were established on Mullwitzkees in 2006/07 and on Venedigerkees in 2011/12. Monitoring is ongoing. In addition to stake readings at subseasonal intervals, accumulation measurements (snow pits and probing) are carried out seasonally. The glaciological data set consists of subseasonal floating date measurements as well as fixed date seasonal and annual values. Fixed date glacier wide mass balance was derived from annual point mass balance values. Automatic weather stations measuring standard meteorological parameters were installed near Mullwitzkees and Venedigerkees in 2020 and 2019, respectively. Meteorological data is provided in 10 minute intervals. Uncertainties for individual point mass balance measurements were computed following the approach of the Swiss glacier monitoring service (GLAMOS), taking into account estimated density and reading errors. The subseasonal mass balance records highlight shorter term variability in mass loss and the linkage with meteorological conditions. The most negative annual point mass balance recorded in the period of record was -5.8 ± 0.66 m w.e. at an elevation of 2536 on Venedigerkees. 2022 stands out as the most negative mass balance year to date in both time series, particularly at higher elevations. The cumulative specific mass balance (glacier wide) over the period of record was -14.68 m w.e. at Mullwitzkees and -8.79 m w.e. at Venedigerkees. Data is available in PANGAEA publication series and the associated datasets. The main publication series are updated annually. The Mullwitzkees mass balance datasets can be found at: doi:10.1594/PANGAEA.965660 and doi:10.1594/PANGAEA.965719. The Venedigerkees data can be found at doi:10.1594/PANGAEA.965648 and doi:10.1594/PANGAEA.965729.
- Preprint
(8199 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1505 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2023-523', Mauri Pelto, 19 Apr 2024
Having measured mass balance in the field for 40 years. It is unusual for me to come across a paper that provides significant useful approaches and insights. This paper looking at the mass balance of two glaciers in Austria does so. The authors have collected and analyzed a data set that is richer spatially and temporally during the balance year than other mass balance programs. The density of measurement through space and time limits extrapolation challenges and illustrates problems with a fixed date approach, where the fixed date is inflexible. The paper also highlights the important value of more frequent observations during the ablation season. I have a number of recommendations and questions below that could add value. I do not think these rise to the level of requiring an additional review.
25: reword “…drives hydrological change across spatial scales”
44: Good point wonder if it is better worded with spatial and temporal resolution are included “ Preserving all collected data with appropriate metadata captures the highest spatial and temporal resolution is essential for potential future reanalysis and homogenization of time series (Zemp et al., 2013)."
78: Because you refer to a plateau and valley section, it is worth noting elevation range of these sections of MWK.
81: the 50-70 m thickness in 2003 not particularly relevant by the end of the study period when ice has become much thinner. Any updated thickness values?
92: On VK is the accumulation zone fed by avalanching or significant wind deposition?
144: Table 1 indicates an exceptionally high measurement density compared to the typical. This is worth pointing out as this also limits spatial extrapolation. The use of considerable fall probing is also something that is often not done reducing summer season measurement density.
165-How consistent is snow density in snowpits near end of melt season? On many temperate glaciers late season snowpack has effectively a uniform density.
238: The ELA in this case is an average location for the elevation where the accumulation zone begins, how patchy is the accumulation zone, which would indicate how useful the ELA as a separate measure from mass balance? On North Cascade glaciers I have found it impossible to report an observable/useful ELA and instead focus on reporting AAR to WGMS.
360: Why is it considered essential to convert to a fixed date from the measurement observations?
Figure 4 Is an exceptional display of data. Particularly 4a. It would be relevant to use a specific year as an example as well.
Figure 5 illustrates ablation through time at specific stakes. Visually the rate of loss from year to year appears mostly consistent, statistically how consistent is it?
394: Not sure I see this as a challenge of this method. I see this as a benefit of the method of such a high density of points. This limits spatial extrapolation which is the benefit of high density mass balance measurement programs.
418: Is this reduced ablation because of a higher albedo or simply excess accumulation due to the avalanches that remains after ablation conditions?
473: Overall did the AWS snow height sensor add any value?
500: Why not note the advantages of moving to a system that tracks the balance year and is not fixed date?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2023-523-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Lea Hartl, 04 Jun 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2023-523', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Jun 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2023-523/essd-2023-523-RC2-supplement.pdf
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Lea Hartl, 28 Jun 2024
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2023-523', Mauri Pelto, 19 Apr 2024
Having measured mass balance in the field for 40 years. It is unusual for me to come across a paper that provides significant useful approaches and insights. This paper looking at the mass balance of two glaciers in Austria does so. The authors have collected and analyzed a data set that is richer spatially and temporally during the balance year than other mass balance programs. The density of measurement through space and time limits extrapolation challenges and illustrates problems with a fixed date approach, where the fixed date is inflexible. The paper also highlights the important value of more frequent observations during the ablation season. I have a number of recommendations and questions below that could add value. I do not think these rise to the level of requiring an additional review.
25: reword “…drives hydrological change across spatial scales”
44: Good point wonder if it is better worded with spatial and temporal resolution are included “ Preserving all collected data with appropriate metadata captures the highest spatial and temporal resolution is essential for potential future reanalysis and homogenization of time series (Zemp et al., 2013)."
78: Because you refer to a plateau and valley section, it is worth noting elevation range of these sections of MWK.
81: the 50-70 m thickness in 2003 not particularly relevant by the end of the study period when ice has become much thinner. Any updated thickness values?
92: On VK is the accumulation zone fed by avalanching or significant wind deposition?
144: Table 1 indicates an exceptionally high measurement density compared to the typical. This is worth pointing out as this also limits spatial extrapolation. The use of considerable fall probing is also something that is often not done reducing summer season measurement density.
165-How consistent is snow density in snowpits near end of melt season? On many temperate glaciers late season snowpack has effectively a uniform density.
238: The ELA in this case is an average location for the elevation where the accumulation zone begins, how patchy is the accumulation zone, which would indicate how useful the ELA as a separate measure from mass balance? On North Cascade glaciers I have found it impossible to report an observable/useful ELA and instead focus on reporting AAR to WGMS.
360: Why is it considered essential to convert to a fixed date from the measurement observations?
Figure 4 Is an exceptional display of data. Particularly 4a. It would be relevant to use a specific year as an example as well.
Figure 5 illustrates ablation through time at specific stakes. Visually the rate of loss from year to year appears mostly consistent, statistically how consistent is it?
394: Not sure I see this as a challenge of this method. I see this as a benefit of the method of such a high density of points. This limits spatial extrapolation which is the benefit of high density mass balance measurement programs.
418: Is this reduced ablation because of a higher albedo or simply excess accumulation due to the avalanches that remains after ablation conditions?
473: Overall did the AWS snow height sensor add any value?
500: Why not note the advantages of moving to a system that tracks the balance year and is not fixed date?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2023-523-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Lea Hartl, 04 Jun 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2023-523', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Jun 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2023-523/essd-2023-523-RC2-supplement.pdf
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Lea Hartl, 28 Jun 2024
Data sets
Glacier mass balances and elevation zones of Mullwitzkees, Hohe Tauern, Austria, 2006/2007 et seq. Martin Stocker-Waldhuber et al. https://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.806662
Glacier mass balances and elevation zones of Venedigerkees, Hohe Tauern, Austria, 2011/2012 et seq. Bernd Seiser and Andrea Fischer https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.833232
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
453 | 180 | 48 | 681 | 43 | 38 | 37 |
- HTML: 453
- PDF: 180
- XML: 48
- Total: 681
- Supplement: 43
- BibTeX: 38
- EndNote: 37
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1