the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Calving front positions for Greenland outlet glaciers (2002–2021): a spatially extensive seasonal record and benchmark dataset for algorithm validation
Abstract. Calving front positions of marine-terminating glaciers are a key indicator of variations in glacier dynamics, ice–ocean interactions, and serve as critical boundary conditions for ice sheet models. High-precision, long-term records of calving front variability are essential for understanding glacier recession and calving processes, improving mass loss estimates, and supporting the development and validation of robust automated front-tracking algorithms. However, existing datasets often exhibit limited spatial coverage, inconsistent temporal resolution, and heterogeneous delineation methods, which result in variable accuracy and insufficient detail, reducing the performance and transferability of automated calving front detection. Here, we present a spatially extensive, high-accuracy dataset of glacier calving front positions across Greenland, intended as a benchmark for algorithm training, model–data integration, and studies of seasonal glacier dynamics. The dataset comprises approximately 12,000 manually delineated calving front positions for ~290 outlet glaciers from 2002 through 2021, extracted from multi-source satellite imagery (Landsat, Sentinel-1/2, MODIS, ENVISAT, and ERS). Delineations were conducted using standardized workflows in the Google Earth Engine platform and ArcGIS, and each record is accompanied by comprehensive metadata, including acquisition date, digitization method, source imagery, and other relevant attributes. Positional accuracy was evaluated through comparison with high-resolution PlanetScope imagery and manually interpreted reference datasets, confirming high geometric fidelity with positional offsets ranging from about 40 to 100 m across representative glaciers, depending on image resolution and terminus complexity. In contrast, automated products tend to show reduced accuracy in verification areas with complex terminus morphology, reflecting their high sensitivity to image quality, limited generalizability across heterogeneous geometries, and the absence of large-scale, high-precision training data. This dataset contributes to mitigating these challenges by providing dense, manually validated, high-precision observations across Greenland, serving as a robust benchmark for developing and validating automated front detection algorithms, refining boundary representations in ice sheet models, and advancing understanding of ice–ocean interactions. The dataset is publicly available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16879054 (Xi et al., 2025).
- Preprint
(3091 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 21 Oct 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2025-304', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Sep 2025
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2025-304/essd-2025-304-RC1-supplement.pdfReplyCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/essd-2025-304-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2025-304', Erik Loebel, 18 Sep 2025
reply
This paper presents a large dataset of manually delineated glacier calving fronts. These glacier fronts are valuable to the glaciology community, facilitating a better understanding of glacier dynamics and serving as constraints for ice dynamic modelling. They are also usefull reference data for future machine learning-based delineation efforts. If I am not mistaken, this is currently the third largest manually delineated calving front dataset for Greenland (after the TermPicks repository and the data from Black and Joughin, 2023).
According to the manuscript, this product has (1) complete spatial coverage, (2) consistent and (3) high temporal resolution, as well as (4) homogeneous and (5) high accuracy delineation protocols. After reading the abstract and introduction, I anticipated a product that would meet all these criteria. However, upon reviewing the rest of the paper and examining the actual product, I was left quite disappointed, as only point 1 and, with some limitations, point 3 were actually met. I still believe this is a valuable product that will benefit the glaciology community. As it stands, however, in its current form, the manuscript does not effectively describe the product, particularly its limitations. Significant revisions are required.
General comments- At various points in the paper (e.g. lines 19 and 78), it is emphasised that this data product has complete and consistent temporal sampling.
This would be a major advantage, particularly for diversifying reference data for machine learning approaches, as most other manually delineated products have heterogeneous sampling, as they are usually by-products of focused glaciology studies. However, Figure 9 shows that the sampling is inconsistent. At L317, it is also stated that glaciers of higher scientific interest are captured at a higher temporal frequency, which seems to contradict the emphasis on temporal consistency somewhat. I am also not quite convinced by the definition of 'scientifically interesting'. Nioghalvfjerdsbræ only has 15 entries and Humboldt Glacier is not included at all. I don't see this as a major issue. I would just like these statements to be more representative of the actual product. Also, as this dataset is intended to serve as a benchmark, this should be mentioned as a limitation. - Data quality and validation. This is the most critical point, in my opinion. The authors report an accuracy range of 40 to 100 metres for this data product. This value is derived by comparing the calving fronts in 15 satellite images across five glaciers to delineations from other data products. This is supplemented by visual comparisons against Planet imagery for another six calving fronts, as well as visual comparisons of five calving front change time series with other products.
The data quality of this product varies significantly from glacier to glacier (and also from delineation to delineation), but this is not picked up by the validation in the manuscript. It even feels somewhat disingenuous to show how well the glacier front's teeth-like structure is delineated in Fig. 4 when the quality of most other fronts is significantly worse. For example, many of the calving fronts of Nioghalvfjerdsbræ consist of fewer than 50 vertices for the entire 40 km-long glacier front, with some vertices being more than 5 km apart. These calving fronts clearly exceed 100 m in accuracy and are likely not suited for validating ML models. Similar issues are present for other glaciers. Clearly, validating using just six representative glaciers (with a total of 15 calving fronts assessed computationally) is insufficient to capture the characteristics of the data product.My suggestion is the following. Use the data from the larger, existing calving front repositories (I would recommend at least the four larger than this one, TermPick, AutoTerm, CALFIN and Black and Joughin, 2023). Identify pairs of calving fronts where there is an entry in both this and other data sets at the same date. Calculate the average minimum distance error between these two same-day entries. The results could then be shown as a data-product-to-data-product difference overall (e.g. as mean an median), and also per glacier (perhaps in a large table or histogram in the supplementary material). In conjunction with the validation results of the other data products, such an analysis would provide a much more complete picture of data quality.
- This is only a recommendation, but I think this paper would benefit from a brief discussion of how it compares with other products. This could particularly cover other manual delineated repositories, such as TermPicks; other benchmark datasets, such as the one from Gourmelon et al. (10.5194/essd-14-4287-2022); and automation products, such as AutoTerm.
- Glacier names and type (marine-terminating, land-terminating) should be included in the metadata.
- The writing in many places is below standard and requires revision. There are missing references (most notably in Table 1), places with citations where none is expected (e.g. L106, L117), mistakes (e.g. L140, Table 2) and inconsistencies (e.g. use of outlet and marine-terminating glacier). Please refer to the list of specific comments below.
Specific comments
- L23: Please provide an exact number.
- L29: I don't think the analysis in this manuscript fully justifies this statement.
- L37: Consider refering to the more recent IMBIE assessment (10.5194/essd-15-1597-2023)
- L43: Why specifically retreat?
- L65: Black and Joughin (2023) did not use deep learning in this publication.
- L70: When speaking of 'current algorithms', why use a reference from 2011? Also, this statement is not entirely true.
- L71: This statement is misleading. I guess it only refers to the CALFIN product. The AutoTerm product has 278239 entries.
- L81: We have products like this.
- L61 - 84: I feel like this paragraph needs to be completely restructured and given a common thread. The citations are all over the place. For example, why is Goliber et al. (2022, TermPicks) only mentioned in relation to the final statement and not for the product itself?
- L87: Please provide an accurate number.
- L89: hy specifically retreat?
- Table 1: There are products missing: AutoTerm, ESA-CCI, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-4287-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-1-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-3315-2024, https://doi.org/10.18739/A2W93G, https://doi.org/10.22008/FK2/UNZUJF, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-3813-2018
- Table 1: Consider including a count of calving fronts.
- Table 1: Isn't GEEDiT and ArcGIS manual as well?
- L106: Check these citations.
- Table 2: Landsat 5 has an image resolution of 30 metres and no panchromatic band.
- L140: The NDWI is usually calculated using green and near-infrared. Why was red used instead?
- L147: Why grounded ice? What about floating glacier tongues?
- L149: I guess only for Landsat-7 and 8?
- L155: Please refer to which glacier ID has been used.
- L161: I suspect this refers to the smallest possible error.
- L188: From the satellite image in Figure 1, it looks like a land-terminating glacier. If that's true, that's probably why it hasn't been included in most other products. If that's the case, remove the subsequent statement.
- L234: Isstrøm is missing the "ø". Also in the figures. Please check.
- L281: This statement is not justified based on the analysis carried out here.
- L286: I don't see any advantage in terms of spatial or temporal coverage. TermPicks has similar spatial coverage and much longer temporal coverage.
- L304: This refers to the .shp files, whereas the product itself is a Geopackage (.gpkg).
- Figure 10: How is this calculated? What was done with Humboldt Glacier, which is not included in the product?
- L350 - 359: This does not really fit in this section, which should focus on the product and usage notes.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-304-RC2 - At various points in the paper (e.g. lines 19 and 78), it is emphasised that this data product has complete and consistent temporal sampling.
Data sets
Calving front positions for Greenland outlet glaciers (2002–2021): a spatially extensive seasonal record and benchmark dataset for algorithm validation Xi Lu, Liming Jiang, Daan Li, Yi Liu, Andrew Sole, Stephen J. Livingstone https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16879054
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
545 | 16 | 9 | 570 | 11 | 13 |
- HTML: 545
- PDF: 16
- XML: 9
- Total: 570
- BibTeX: 11
- EndNote: 13
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1