Contrasting patterns of early twenty-first-century glacier mass change in the Himalayas (original) (raw)

Nature volume 488, pages 495–498 (2012)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Glaciers are among the best indicators of terrestrial climate variability, contribute importantly to water resources in many mountainous regions1,2 and are a major contributor to global sea level rise3,4. In the Hindu Kush–Karakoram–Himalaya region (HKKH), a paucity of appropriate glacier data has prevented a comprehensive assessment of current regional mass balance5. There is, however, indirect evidence of a complex pattern of glacial responses5,6,7,8 in reaction to heterogeneous climate change signals9. Here we use satellite laser altimetry and a global elevation model to show widespread glacier wastage in the eastern, central and south-western parts of the HKKH during 2003–08. Maximal regional thinning rates were 0.66 ± 0.09 metres per year in the Jammu–Kashmir region. Conversely, in the Karakoram, glaciers thinned only slightly by a few centimetres per year. Contrary to expectations, regionally averaged thinning rates under debris-mantled ice were similar to those of clean ice despite insulation by debris covers. The 2003–08 specific mass balance for our entire HKKH study region was −0.21 ± 0.05 m yr−1 water equivalent, significantly less negative than the estimated global average for glaciers and ice caps4,[10](/articles/nature11324#ref-CR10 "World Glacier Monitoring Service. http://www.wgms.ch

             (2012)"). This difference is mainly an effect of the balanced glacier mass budget in the Karakoram. The HKKH sea level contribution amounts to one per cent of the present-day sea level rise[11](/articles/nature11324#ref-CR11 "Cazenave, A. et al. Sea level budget over 2003–2008: a reevaluation from GRACE space gravimetry, satellite altimetry and Argo. Global Planet. Change 65, 83–88 (2009)"). Our 2003–08 mass budget of −12.8 ± 3.5 gigatonnes (Gt) per year is more negative than recent satellite-gravimetry-based estimates of −5 ± 3 Gt yr−1 over 2003–10 (ref. [12](/articles/nature11324#ref-CR12 "Jacob, T., Wahr, J., Pfeffer, W. T. & Swenson, S. Recent contributions of glaciers and ice caps to sea level rise. Nature 482, 514–518 (2012)")). For the mountain catchments of the Indus and Ganges basins[13](/articles/nature11324#ref-CR13 "Bookhagen, B. & Burbank, D. W. Toward a complete Himalayan hydrological budget: spatiotemporal distribution of snowmelt and rainfall and their impact on river discharge. J. Geophys. Res. 115, F03019 (2010)"), the glacier imbalance contributed about 3.5% and about 2.0%, respectively, to the annual average river discharge[13](/articles/nature11324#ref-CR13 "Bookhagen, B. & Burbank, D. W. Toward a complete Himalayan hydrological budget: spatiotemporal distribution of snowmelt and rainfall and their impact on river discharge. J. Geophys. Res. 115, F03019 (2010)"), and up to 10% for the Upper Indus basin[14](/articles/nature11324#ref-CR14 "Immerzeel, W. W., Droogers, P., de Jong, S. M. & Bierkens, M. F. P. Large-scale monitoring of snow cover and runoff simulation in Himalayan river basins using remote sensing. Remote Sens. Environ. 113, 40–49 (2009)").

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

$199.00 per year

only $3.90 per issue

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Additional access options:

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kaser, G., Grosshauser, M. & Marzeion, B. Contribution potential of glaciers to water availability in different climate regimes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 20223–20227 (2010)
    Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
  2. Immerzeel, W. W., van Beek, L. P. H. & Bierkens, M. F. P. Climate change will affect the Asian water towers. Science 328, 1382–1385 (2010)
    Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
  3. Church, J. A. et al. Revisiting the Earth’s sea-level and energy budgets from 1961 to 2008. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L18601 (2011)
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  4. Cogley, J. G. Geodetic and direct mass-balance measurements: comparison and joint analysis. Ann. Glaciol. 50, 96–100 (2009)
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  5. Bolch, T. et al. The state and fate of Himalayan glaciers. Science 336, 310–314 (2012)
    Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
  6. Scherler, D., Bookhagen, B. & Strecker, M. R. Spatially variable response of Himalayan glaciers to climate change affected by debris cover. Nature Geosci. 4, 156–159 (2011)
    Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
  7. Gardelle, J., Arnaud, Y. & Berthier, E. Contrasted evolution of glacial lakes along the Hindu Kush Himalaya mountain range between 1990 and 2009. Global Planet. Change 75, 47–55 (2011)
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  8. Hewitt, K. Glacier change, concentration, and elevation effects in the Karakoram Himalaya, Upper Indus Basin. Mount. Res. Dev. 31, 188–200 (2011)
    Article Google Scholar
  9. Fowler, H. J. & Archer, D. R. Conflicting signals of climatic change in the Upper Indus basin. J. Clim. 19, 4276–4293 (2006)
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  10. World Glacier Monitoring Service. http://www.wgms.ch (2012)
  11. Cazenave, A. et al. Sea level budget over 2003–2008: a reevaluation from GRACE space gravimetry, satellite altimetry and Argo. Global Planet. Change 65, 83–88 (2009)
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  12. Jacob, T., Wahr, J., Pfeffer, W. T. & Swenson, S. Recent contributions of glaciers and ice caps to sea level rise. Nature 482, 514–518 (2012)
    Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
  13. Bookhagen, B. & Burbank, D. W. Toward a complete Himalayan hydrological budget: spatiotemporal distribution of snowmelt and rainfall and their impact on river discharge. J. Geophys. Res. 115, F03019 (2010)
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  14. Immerzeel, W. W., Droogers, P., de Jong, S. M. & Bierkens, M. F. P. Large-scale monitoring of snow cover and runoff simulation in Himalayan river basins using remote sensing. Remote Sens. Environ. 113, 40–49 (2009)
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  15. Fujita, K. Effect of precipitation seasonality on climatic sensitivity of glacier mass balance. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 276, 14–19 (2008)
    Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
  16. Berthier, E. et al. Remote sensing estimates of glacier mass balances in the Himachal Pradesh (Western Himalaya, India). Remote Sens. Environ. 108, 327–338 (2007)
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  17. Bolch, T., Pieczonka, T. & Benn, D. Multi-decadal mass loss of glaciers in the Everest area (Nepal Himalaya) derived from stereo imagery. Cryosphere 5, 349–358 (2011)
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  18. Fujita, K. & Nuimura, T. Spatially heterogeneous wastage of Himalayan glaciers. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 14011–14014 (2011)
    Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
  19. Gardelle, J., Berthier, E. & Arnaud, Y. Slight mass gain of Karakoram glaciers in the early 21st century. Nature Geosci. 5, 322–325 (2012)
    Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
  20. Azam, M. F. et al. From balance to imbalance: a shift in the dynamic behaviour of Chhota Shigri Glacier (Western Himalaya, India). J. Glaciol. 58, 315–324 (2012)
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  21. Moholdt, G., Nuth, C., Hagen, J. O. & Kohler, J. Recent elevation changes of Svalbard glaciers derived from ICESat laser altimetry. Remote Sens. Environ. 114, 2756–2767 (2010)
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  22. Rignot, E., Echelmeyer, K. & Krabill, W. Penetration depth of interferometric synthetic-aperture radar signals in snow and ice. Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 3501–3504 (2001)
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  23. Gardelle, J., Berthier, E. & Arnaud, Y. Impact of resolution and radar penetration on glacier elevation changes computed from multi-temporal DEMs. J. Glaciol. 58, 419–422 (2012)
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  24. Nuimura, T., Fujita, K., Yamaguchi, S. & Sharma, R. Elevation changes of glaciers revealed by multitemporal digital elevation models calibrated by GPS survey in the Khumbu region, Nepal Himalaya, 1992–2008. J. Glaciol. 58, 648–656 (2012)
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  25. Reid, T. D. & Brock, B. W. An energy-balance model for debris-covered glaciers including heat conduction through the debris layer. J. Glaciol. 56, 903–916 (2010)
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  26. Kääb, A. Combination of SRTM3 and repeat ASTER data for deriving alpine glacier flow velocities in the Bhutan Himalaya. Remote Sens. Environ. 94, 463–474 (2005)
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  27. Sakai, A., Takeuchi, N., Fujita, K. & Nakawo, M. in Debris-covered Glaciers (eds Nakawo, M., Raymond, C. F. & Fountain, A.) Vol. 264 119–130 (IAHS, 2000)
    Google Scholar
  28. Mattson, L., Gardner, J. & Young, G. in Snow and Glacier Hydrology (ed. Young, G. H. ) Vol. 218 289–296 (IAHS, 1993)
    Google Scholar
  29. Quincey, D. J. et al. Early recognition of glacial lake hazards in the Himalaya using remote sensing datasets. Global Planet. Change 56, 137–152 (2007)
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  30. Immerzeel, W. W., Pellicciotti, F. & Shrestha, A. B. Glaciers as a proxy to quantify the spatial distribution of precipitation in the Hunza basin. Mount. Res. Dev. 32, 30–38 (2012)
    Article Google Scholar
  31. Rodell, M., Velicogna, I. & Famiglietti, J. S. Satellite-based estimates of groundwater depletion in India. Nature 460, 999–1002 (2009)
    Article ADS CAS Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank G. Cogley and A. Gardner for their exceptionally thorough and constructive comments. This study was supported by the European Space Agency (ESA) through the projects GlobGlacier (21088/07/I-EC) and Glaciers_cci (4000101778/10/I-AM). The study is further a contribution to the Global Land Ice Measurements from Space (GLIMS) initiative and the International Centre for Geohazards (ICG). NASA’s ICESat GLAS data were obtained from NSIDC, Landsat data are courtesy of NASA and USGS, and the SRTM elevation model version is courtesy of NASA JPL and was further processed by CGIAR. A number of glacier outlines were provided by GLIMS. E.B. and Y.A. acknowledge support from the Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales (CNES) through the TOSCA and ISIS programmes, from the French National Research Agency through ANR-09-CEP-005-01/PAPRIKA, and from the PNTS. J.G. was funded through CNES/CNRS.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, PO Box 1047, Blindern, 0316 Oslo, Norway,
    Andreas Kääb & Christopher Nuth
  2. CNRS, Université de Toulouse, LEGOS, 14 avenue Ed. Belin, Toulouse 31400, France,
    Etienne Berthier
  3. CNRS- Université Grenoble 1, LGGE, 54 rue Molière, BP 96, 38402 Saint Martin d’Hères Cedex, France,
    Julie Gardelle
  4. IRD- Université Grenoble 1, LTHE/LGGE, 54 rue Molière, BP 96, 38402 Saint Martin d’Hères Cedex, France,
    Yves Arnaud

Authors

  1. Andreas Kääb
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  2. Etienne Berthier
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  3. Christopher Nuth
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  4. Julie Gardelle
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  5. Yves Arnaud
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.K. designed the study, processed and analysed the data, created the figures, and wrote the paper. All other co-authors wrote and edited the paper and assisted in interpretations. J.G., E.B. and Y.A. provided additional data, and C.N. assisted in data processing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence toAndreas Kääb.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Text, Supplementary Tables 1-2, Supplementary Figures 1-6 and additional references. (PDF 2658 kb)

Supplementary Data 1

This zipped file contains a guide file for the Supplementary Data files and Data set 1 ICESat footprints. (ZIP 22493 kb)

Supplementary Data 2

This zipped file contains Supplementary Data (see guide file in Supplementary Data 1). (ZIP 18601 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kääb, A., Berthier, E., Nuth, C. et al. Contrasting patterns of early twenty-first-century glacier mass change in the Himalayas.Nature 488, 495–498 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11324

Download citation

This article is cited by

Editorial Summary

Recalculating glacier mass loss in the Himalayas

Glacier changes over the high mountains of Asia can have knock-on effects on water resources and sea levels, but it has been difficult to accurately monitor ice-mass changes. A recent gravimetric survey of mass loss in ice-covered areas around the globe — published in Nature — suggested that the high mountains of Asia were approximately in balance during the early twenty-first century. Now, Andreas Kaab and colleagues present a more detailed analysis using satellite altimetry and show a small but statistically distinguishable mass loss from the Hindu Kush–Karakoram–Himalaya region. A larger mass loss in much of the Hindu Kush–Himalaya was partly offset by a scarcely distinguishable mass loss in the Karakoram.

Associated content