Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-j4x9h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-09T05:35:14.892Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Review of the status and mass changes of Himalayan-Karakoram glaciers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 January 2018

MOHD FAROOQ AZAM*
Affiliation:
National Institute of Hydrology, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India Discipline of Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Simrol 453552, India
PATRICK WAGNON
Affiliation:
Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, IRD, IGE, F-38000 Grenoble, France International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu, Nepal
ETIENNE BERTHIER
Affiliation:
LEGOS, CNRS, Université de Toulouse, Toulouse, France
CHRISTIAN VINCENT
Affiliation:
Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, IRD, IGE, F-38000 Grenoble, France
KOJI FUJITA
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan
JEFFREY S. KARGEL
Affiliation:
Department of Hydrology and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
*
Correspondence: Mohd Farooq Azam <farooqaman@yahoo.co.in>
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We present a comprehensive review of the status and changes in glacier length (since the 1850s), area and mass (since the 1960s) along the Himalayan-Karakoram (HK) region and their climate-change context. A quantitative reliability classification of the field-based mass-balance series is developed. Glaciological mass balances agree better with remotely sensed balances when we make an objective, systematic exclusion of likely flawed mass-balance series. The Himalayan mean glaciological mass budget was similar to the global average until 2000, and likely less negative after 2000. Mass wastage in the Himalaya resulted in increasing debris cover, the growth of glacial lakes and possibly decreasing ice velocities. Geodetic measurements indicate nearly balanced mass budgets for Karakoram glaciers since the 1970s, consistent with the unchanged extent of supraglacial debris-cover. Himalayan glaciers seem to be sensitive to precipitation partly through the albedo feedback on the short-wave radiation balance. Melt contributions from HK glaciers should increase until 2050 and then decrease, though a wide range of present-day area and volume estimates propagates large uncertainties in the future runoff. This review reflects an increasing understanding of HK glaciers and highlights the remaining challenges.

Information

Type
Papers
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2018
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Spatial glacier/basin behaviors over the HK region (Note: the observation time is different and given in corresponding supplementary tables). The regions are defined following (Bolch and others, 2012). Symbology: Circles represent the glacier scale observations while squares represent basin/regional scale observations. Red (or blue) color represents negative (or positive) changes in length, area or mass balance. The abbreviations are given in corresponding supplementary tables. (a) Glacier snout fluctuations for 152 glaciers and 2 basins (Supplementary Table S2). (b) Area changes for 24 glaciers and 47 basins (Supplementary Table S3). (c) Glaciological mass balances for 24 glaciers (Supplementary Table S4 and S6) and (d) geodetic mass balances for 10 glaciers and 24 basins/regions (Supplementary Table S8).

Figure 1

Fig. 2. (a) Length change of selected glaciers in the HK region over the last 170 years (b) Number of data records (c) Area change rates for HK region. The rates were calculated in percent change per year with respect to the initial observed area. Note that the unweighted mean area rates are calculated for 5-year period from a varying number of values depending on the period. The black and orange boxes represent the ±1 Std dev. envelope for each 5-year mean area change rate and calculated from the area change rates available for the corresponding period. Data and references used in the figure are listed in Supplementary Table S2 and S3.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Mass balances in the HK region. (a) Annual glaciological mass balances for all 24 glaciers. Red thick line is the mean mass balances for the Himalayan Range calculated using 24 glaciers’ data, black thick line is the mean mass balances for the Himalayan Range calculated using 20 screened glaciers, and the blue thick line represents the global mean mass balances between 1975 and 2014 calculated from 37 reference glaciers of the World Glacier Monitoring Service (Zemp and others, 2012, WGMS 2013). (b) Number of data points available each year. (c) Geodetic mass balances. Black thick line is the mean geodetic mass balances for the Himalayan Range while green thick line is the mean geodetic mass balances for the Karakoram Range and (d) Annual modeled/hydrological mass balances. Black thick line is the mean modeled mass balances. Abbreviations in different panels are glacier/region names, available in Supplementary Tables S4, S8, and S9. Note that the mean mass balances are unweighted and calculated for the 5-year period from a varying number of mass balance values available for each period. The black boxes represent the ±1 Std dev. envelope for each 5-year mean mass balance and calculated from the mass-balance values available for the corresponding period.

Supplementary material: File

Azam et al. supplementary material

Azam et al. supplementary material 1

Download Azam et al. supplementary material(File)
File 18.3 MB