<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" dtd-version="3.0"><?xmltex \makeatother\@nolinetrue\makeatletter?>
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">TC</journal-id>
<journal-title-group>
<journal-title>The Cryosphere</journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">TC</abbrev-journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">The Cryosphere</abbrev-journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<issn pub-type="epub">1994-0424</issn>
<publisher><publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>

    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/tc-10-65-2016</article-id><title-group><article-title>Comparison of multiple glacier inventories with a new inventory derived from
high-resolution ALOS imagery in the Bhutan Himalaya</article-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Comparison of multiple glacier inventories in the Bhutan Himalaya}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{H.~Nagai et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Nagai</surname><given-names>H.</given-names></name>
          <email>nagai.hiroto@jaxa.jp</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Fujita</surname><given-names>K.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3753-4981</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Sakai</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6320-6212</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Nuimura</surname><given-names>T.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1266-2143</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Tadono</surname><given-names>T.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Earth Observation Research Center, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, Tsukuba, Japan</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Faculty of Risk and Crisis Management, Chiba Institute of Science, Choshi, Japan</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">H. Nagai (nagai.hiroto@jaxa.jp)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>18</day><month>January</month><year>2016</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>10</volume>
      <issue>1</issue>
      <fpage>65</fpage><lpage>85</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>21</day><month>January</month><year>2014</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>25</day><month>February</month><year>2014</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>30</day><month>November</month><year>2015</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>5</day><month>December</month><year>2015</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
<license license-type="open-access">
<license-p>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/</ext-link></license-p>
</license>
</permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/10/65/2016/tc-10-65-2016.html">This article is available from https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/10/65/2016/tc-10-65-2016.html</self-uri>
<self-uri xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/10/65/2016/tc-10-65-2016.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/10/65/2016/tc-10-65-2016.pdf</self-uri>


      <abstract>
    <p>Digital glacier inventories are invaluable data sets for revealing the
characteristics of glacier distribution and for upscaling measurements from
selected locations to entire mountain ranges. Here, we present a new
inventory of Advanced Land Observing Satellite (ALOS) imagery and compare it
with existing inventories for the Bhutan Himalaya. The new inventory contains
1583 glaciers (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>1487</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn>235</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), thereof 219 debris-covered
glaciers (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>951</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn>193</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and 1364 debris-free glaciers (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>536</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn>42</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Moreover, we propose an index for quantifying consistency
between two glacier outlines. Comparison of the overlap ratio demonstrates
that the ALOS-derived glacier inventory contains delineation uncertainties of
10–20 % which depend on glacier size, that the shapes and geographical
locations of glacier outlines derived from the fourth version of the Randolph
Glacier Inventory have been improved in the fifth version, and that the
latter is consistent with other inventories. In terms of whole glacier
distribution, each data set is dominated by glaciers of 1.0–5.0 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
area (31–34 % of the total area), situated at approximately 5400 m
elevation (nearly 10 % in 100 m bin) with either north or south aspects
(22 and 15 %). However, individual glacier outlines and their area
exhibit clear differences among inventories. Furthermore, consistent
separation of glaciers with inconspicuous termini remains difficult, which,
in some cases, results in different values for glacier number.
High-resolution imagery from Google Earth can be used to improve the
interpretation of glacier outlines, particularly for debris-covered areas and
steep adjacent slopes.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

      <?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>To assess the effects of ongoing climate change on glaciers, a
comprehensive programme of glacier monitoring is underway throughout
high-mountain Asia (e.g. Cogley, 2016). However, the inherent inaccessibility
of Himalayan glaciers hampers an adequate number of in situ measurements,
meaning that glacier response to climate change can only be inferred from a
small number of accessible glaciers that tend to be small and/or located at
lower elevations (Bolch et al., 2012; Cogley, 2012). Moreover, spatially
heterogeneous shrinkage of Himalayan glaciers (i.e. rapid thinning in
south-eastern/humid regions and slow thinning in north-western/arid regions)
has been identified via in situ measurements (see Bolch et al., 2012; Yao et
al., 2012), remote sensing (Kääb et al., 2012; Gardelle et
al., 2013), and numerical modelling based on climatic data sets (Fujita and
Nuimura, 2011). More intensive long-term monitoring of Himalayan glaciers is
therefore of great importance and will help reduce uncertainty in projections
of global sea level rise (Radić and Hock, 2011), regional water
availability (Kaser et al., 2010; Immerzeel et al., 2010), and risk
assessment of glacier-related hazards (Richardson and Reynolds, 2000). All
glacier-specific measurements of change (e.g. elevation, volume/mass, length,
velocity) require a well-defined boundary of each glacier entity. However,
assessment of glacier changes in high-mountain Asia is hindered by the
time-consuming process of delineating debris-covered glaciers manually. Using
a data set created by others for change assessment is actually not
recommended without adequate quality control.</p>
      <p>A glacier inventory containing delineated outlines is a fundamental asset for
assessing glacier change in these remote and extensive mountain regions.
Existing glacier inventories for the Himalayas include those of the
International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD; Mool et
al., 2001), the project of Glacier Area Mapping for Discharge from the Asian
Mountains (GAMDAM; Nuimura et al., 2015), and the Chinese Glacier Inventory
(Guo et al., 2015) of the Chinese Academy of Science. Subsequently, parts of
each have been included in a global glacier inventory compiled by the
Randolph Consortium, termed the Randolph Glacier Inventory (RGI) (Pfeffer et
al., 2014). Several studies have utilised these data sets to clarify recent
glacier change (e.g. Vaughan et al., 2013; Bajracharya et al., 2014a, b),
glacier lake evolution (Gardelle et al., 2011), and relationships between
precipitation and the distribution of glacier elevations (Sakai et
al., 2015). The RGI was designed for and applied in several large- to
global-scale assessments and modelling studies in support of IPCC AR5
(Vaughan et al., 2013), including past and future global sea level rise
(Gardner et al., 2013; Radić et al., 2014; Marzeion et al., 2012) and
ice-thickness distribution (Huss and Farinotti, 2012).</p>
      <p>To date, the preferred method of generating multiple glacier outlines has
involved a combination of automatic extraction and manual correction from
mid-resolution multispectral satellite imagery, such as Landsat-7 and
Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER)
imagery. Glacier ice is extracted using a band ratio classification of
visible and near-infrared bands (e.g. Racoviteanu et al., 2008; Paul and
Andreassen, 2009; Bajracharya et al., 2014a, b). Watershed analysis, using
flow directions derived from digital elevation models (DEMs), can be employed
for drainage division (i.e. dividing an ice surface into multiple glaciers
along the ridge line) (e.g. Bolch et al., 2010; Kienholz et al., 2015) and
for consideration of debris-covered areas (e.g. Paul et al., 2004;
Bajracharya et al., 2014a). Following these automatic processes, visual
quality checking and manual correction are usually required; complete visual
interpretation and manual delineation using Landsat imagery have only been
performed for the GAMDAM inventory (Nuimura et al., 2015).</p>
      <p>In contrast, high-resolution satellite imagery such as Quickbird, Ikonos
(Paul et al., 2013), Panchromatic Remote-sensing Instrument for Stereo
Mapping (PRISM) onboard Advanced Land Observing Satellite (ALOS; Narama et
al., 2010; Nagai et al., 2013), and Corona (Bolch et al., 2008; Narama et
al., 2010) enable more detailed scrutiny of terrestrial features with spatial
resolutions of a half to a few metres. For accurate delineation, visual
perception by an investigator is more important than physical values obtained
from multispectral satellite observation. Although manual delineation does
not always result in precise and reproducible glacier outlines, it is
superior to automatic classification when many debris-covered and shaded-ice
areas require interpretation (Paul et al., 2013). For example, Nagai et
al. (2013) used manual delineation and ALOS PRISM imagery to distinguish
between debris-covered glaciers and adjacent hill slopes in the Bhutan
Himalaya, where automatic classification is complicated by complex mountain
topography.</p>
      <p>Glacier inventories are a basis with enormous potential for use at a variety
of scales and accuracies, such as glacier-distribution assessments over
entire mountain ranges, calculations of climate-driven runoff change in
specific river basins, and decadal reporting of terminus retreat. However,
it is not yet clear whether existing inventories yield the same or different
results for these various applications. The aim of this study, therefore, is
to identify consistencies and inconsistencies in glaciological variables
(e.g. area, number, elevations, slope gradient, and aspect) among the
different glacier inventories and to discuss the potential causes of any
disparities, thereby helping to identify the optimum inventory for each
respective purpose and helping to improve future work.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Glacier distribution of the ALOS-derived glacier inventory in the
Bhutan Himalaya, in which glaciers are categorised into debris-covered and
debris-free glaciers. Eleven river basins are categorised into (N) northern,
(T) traversal, and (S) southern basins. The background is a hillshade image
derived from the ASTER GDEM2.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/10/65/2016/tc-10-65-2016-f01.jpg"/>

      </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Material and methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <title>Study site</title>
      <p>Our study focuses on glaciers located in the Bhutan Himalaya, an eastern part
of the Himalayan mountain range. The study site comprises a rectangular area
(89.10–91.90<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, 27.50–28.70<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N; Fig. 1) in which the
main east–west Himalayan range forms the international boundary between
Bhutan and China. The highest peak in our study site reaches 7500 m above
sea level (a.s.l.) and forms the headwaters of the Brahmaputra River. The
climate is dominated by the Indian monsoon, resulting in greater
precipitation on southern side (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2000 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mm</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) than on
northern side slopes (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1000 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mm</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; e.g. Bhatt and Nakamura,
2005; Bookhagen et al., 2006; Houze et al., 2007).</p>
      <p>Glaciological characteristics also exhibit marked disparities between
southerly and northerly aspects, such as the rapid retreat of debris-free
southern glaciers relative to northern glaciers (Karma et al., 2003). Indeed,
the latest ICIMOD inventory suggests that glaciers on southern flanks have
lost <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>23.3</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % in total area over the last 3 decades
(Bajracharya et al., 2014a). Because southern glaciers possess more extensive
debris cover than their northern counterparts, owing to the greater severity
of diurnal freeze–thaw cycles on south-facing slopes (Nagai et al., 2013),
south-facing glaciers are characterised by steep headwalls, low-angle
debris-covered areas, and slower flow rates. In contrast, north-flowing
glaciers typically exhibit gentle slopes, fewer debris-covered areas, and
higher flow rates (Kääb, 2005; Scherler et al., 2011a).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>Data sets</title>
      <p>We utilised ALOS satellite imagery. First, we used PRISM-derived stereo-pair
panchromatic imagery with a spatial resolution of 2.5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, acquired
between 2007 and 2011 (Table S1 in the Supplement), to generate DEMs. The
DEMs were then used in conjunction with DSM (digital surface model) and Ortho-image Generation Software for ALOS PRISM (DOGS-AP; Takaku and Tadono,
2009; Fig. 2) to ortho-rectify the original images. This software was
developed specifically for generating DEMs and ortho-rectified imagery from
PRISM Level 1B1 standard imagery, which supports the rigorous sensor models
of PRISM, ALOS orbit data, and ALOS attitude data (Takaku and Tadono, 2009).
In this study site, we reported an accuracy of 0.37 m root-mean-square error
for the horizontal component in positioning (Ukita et al., 2011). Because all
PRISM images included cloud and seasonal snow cover, we selected the best
multitemporal PRISM images available for each glacier, typically those
collected between October and February. We selected 58 PRISM images from the
1364 available (Table S1). Multi-spectral visible and near-infrared imagery,
with a spatial resolution of 10 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, was acquired via an additional
ALOS sensor, the Advanced Visible and Near Infrared Radiometer Type 2
(AVNIR-2; Table S2). The AVNIR-2 images acquired between 2007 and 2011 were
ortho-rectified using the 90 m Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM3 v3)
DEM in DOGS-AP. Composite true-colour images were generated from bands 3, 2,
and 1, corresponding to red, green, and blue, respectively.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><caption><p>Flow chart of data processing and manual
delineation for the ALOS-derived glacier inventory. Control and tracing of
delineation quality were conducted four times prior to finalising glacier
outlines.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/10/65/2016/tc-10-65-2016-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>We used the second version of the Global Digital Elevation Model by ASTER
(ASTER GDEM2) to perform glacier delineations and spatial analysis. This
model was provided by the Earth Remote Sensing Data Analysis Center, Japan
Space Systems, with a cell size of 1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">arcsec</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 30 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>)
and in geographic coordinates covering the global surface (Tachikawa et
al., 2011). The absolute length of 1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">arcsec</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> varies depending on the
latitude, therefore GDEM2 pixels were resampled to 30 m cell size on the
Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system zone 46. We chose the
ASTER GDEM2 over SRTM3 because the latter exhibited less consistency with
Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICEsat)-derived data in the high
mountains of Asia, including a negative bias of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>99 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and a large
analytical uncertainty. A lower bias of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>40 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> was shown by ASTER
GDEM2 (Nuimura et al., 2015).</p>
      <p>Precipitation data from the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM)
Multi-satellite Precipitation Analysis (TMPA) were used to explore the
relationship between glacier distribution and climate potential for glacier
accumulation. These data were generated using a calibration-based sequential
scheme that combines precipitation estimates from multiple satellites and
rain gauge data at a pixel spacing of 0.25<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 25 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>;
Huffman et al., 2007). Yamamoto et al. (2011) used in situ measurements in the
Nepal Himalaya to demonstrate that the TMPA data have superior consistency to
other precipitation products. Nonetheless, the 0.25<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> spacing means
that both sides of a high mountain range are included within a single pixel
and, therefore, that stark differences in precipitation (i.e. greater
rain/snowfall on the windward, upstream side and less precipitation on the
downstream side) are poorly resolved. For this reason, we avoided spatially
detailed assessments in favour of providing an overview of the distribution
of annual precipitation amounts. A monthly product, TRMM 3B43, was obtained
for the period 1998–2014 and averaged to provide mean annual precipitation
data.</p>
      <p>In addition, we calculated the annual flux of solar radiation for each
glacier. Intensity of received solar radiation depends primarily on slope
inclination and aspect, and these data are provided via spatial analysis of
the ASTER GDEM2 for each date and time. Using a basic tool in ArcGIS, solar
radiation was estimated from the DEM (30 m cell size) every 0.5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
for each month, and those data were summed to provide an annual flux in
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">GJ</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This process considers the latitude of the study site
homogeneously set at 28<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, as well as the effects of shading by
adjacent mountains, but does not consider actual cloud cover and other
meteorological factors. Calculated values are averaged within individual
ALOS-derived glacier outlines to produce a single value for each glacier.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><caption><p>Examples of manually delineated outlines of glaciers and
debris-covered areas.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/10/65/2016/tc-10-65-2016-f03.jpg"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Complex surface features on the termini of debris-covered glaciers
in our study site, shown in <bold>(a)</bold> ALOS PRISM imagery,
<bold>(b)</bold> Landsat-8 imagery, and <bold>(c)</bold> Google Earth (location shown
in Fig. 3). (P) Small ponds, ice cliffs, and bumpy surface relief, as well as
(Q) traces of water stream, are recognised in <bold>(a)</bold> and <bold>(b)</bold>,
whereas (R) bedrock and moraine surfaces are hard to identify in
<bold>(b)</bold>. (S) Debris-covered ice is partly exposed and identified.
Delineation of a glacier with steep surrounding slopes located in our study
site, shown in <bold>(d)</bold> ALOS PRISM, <bold>(e)</bold> Landsat 8 imagery, and
<bold>(f)</bold> Google Earth (location shown in Fig. 3). (T) Heavily
snow-covered surface, on which ice flow is expected, is identified as part of
the glacier, whereas the regions (U) and (V) are snow-covered areas with poor
snow depth for accumulation that are excluded from the glacier because
surface features suggest no ice accumulation on these surfaces. The isolated
ice mass (W) is included as part of the glacier because its mass probably
provides ice to the glacier.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/10/65/2016/tc-10-65-2016-f04.jpg"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <title>Manual digitisation of glacier outlines</title>
      <p>We designed a practical procedure for delineating glaciers and debris-covered
areas in PRISM and other satellite imagery (Fig. 2). Because automatic
classification of glacier surfaces from a multispectral image cannot yet be
applied to such high-resolution panchromatic imagery (i.e. single-band
image), time-consuming manual delineation is currently the only way to take
advantage of the high-resolution images needed for identifying complex
features on glacier surfaces. Additionally, whereas Nagai et al. (2013)
delineated outlines for only debris-covered glaciers, this study makes
delineations for all glaciers, including debris-free glaciers, and provides
attribute information of glaciological parameters for each. Our Bhutanese
study follows the definition of a glacier proposed by Global Land Ice
Measurements from Space (GLIMS) (Raup and Khalsa, 2007), with the sole
exception that we excluded adjacent snow-covered slopes on which glacier flow
is not expected (e.g. Figs. 3, 4).</p>
      <p>First, glacier outlines were generated as vector-format polygons traced onto
the PRISM images, over which ASTER GDEM2-derived contour lines (20 m
interval) were laid using ArcGIS. Poor visibility owing to shadows, which are
particularly pronounced on the accumulation zones of north-flowing glaciers
in winter, was mitigated by changing brightness and contrast. Empirically, it
is important to begin glacier delineation from the terminus in order to
identify the total number of glaciers. Thus, in this study, we began glacier
polygons at the terminus, formed a boundary between the glacier (including
debris-covered areas) and surrounding ice-free terrain, and terminated again
at the terminus (Figs. 3, 4). Having delineated the outer line, internal
bedrock and nunataks were removed from the polygon domain. Points forming
glacier polygons were plotted automatically with 10 m intervals to form
natural, realistic shapes. Additionally, all PRISM-derived outlines were
checked through interpretation of composite visible colour in 28 AVNIR-2
scenes (Table S2) to find misidentification caused by PRISM's panchromatic
imagery. PRISM data were unavailable for 32 glaciers located in the
northernmost part of the study site, for which AVNIR-2 imagery alone was
used. Delineated outlines smaller than 0.01 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in area (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
with a total area of 0.15 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) were removed to minimise the risk of
including snow patches.</p>
      <p>Manual delineation of debris-covered areas requires careful observation and
interpretation of surficial features in high-resolution images. Easily
identifiable thermokarst-like features, such as small ponds, ice cliffs, and
surface relief with numerous small rises and inclines, were distinguished in
PRISM images from surrounding bedrock and moraine (Fig. 4). Additionally, in
numerous instances, stream channels emanating from the margins of
debris-covered termini revealed key differences in internal structure between
supra-glacier debris sediment and bedrock terrain, thereby aiding the delineation
of glacier outlines (e.g. Q in Fig. 4). Boundaries between debris-covered
and debris-free ice surfaces (i.e. the onset of debris cover) can vary among
PRISM scenes of different dates owing to snowfall. In such cases, the most
expansive debris-covered area was adopted and delineated. Several rock
glaciers, flowing masses of boulders with less ice content,
are identifiable in the study site by their steep front and furrowing and creeping forms in
high-resolution satellite imagery. In most cases, they do not have the
thermokarst-like features found on a typical debris-covered glacier, though
gradual transitions between debris-covered glaciers and rock glaciers can
exist. This study does not delineate rock glaciers because they are not
defined as a type of glacier (Raup and Khalsa, 2007).</p>
      <p>Snow-covered rock walls adjacent to the ice surface were also excluded from
our delineations of glacier area (Fig. 4d). First, we focused on the
difference in the concentration of contour lines between glacier surfaces and
rock walls, the former being relatively gentle compared with the latter. This
difference results in relatively sparsely distributed contour lines on the
ice surface and more concentrated contour lines on the walls. The contact
between the two represents the edge of the glacier, even if it is obscured by
snow in the PRISM imagery. Partly snow-covered walls, with exposed and
identifiable bedrock, were excluded. Careful division was required for those
glaciers that are connected to deeply snow-covered rock walls lacking bedrock
exposures. Slopes exhibiting unbroken snow cover and that appeared to be
thick and stable ice masses, and which suggested regular flow rather than
avalanche feeding, were included in glacier outlines (e.g. T in Fig. 4).
However, the specific threshold value of a DEM-derived slope gradient was not
defined for this delineation since hanging glaciers can have steeper
gradients than the surrounding bedrock and must be included.</p>
      <p>Ice surfaces connected to multiple glacier termini were separated along a
hydrological boundary, such as a watershed or ridge line, by delineating
orthogonal lines against GDEM2-derived contour lines (Fig. 5). Unlike the
second Chinese Glacier Inventory (CGI2) (Guo et al., 2015), we did not
perform automatic watershed separation because we intended to compare the
results of automatic separation against visual interpretation in complex
terrain. Typically, the generation of DEMs for snow-covered surfaces is
problematic, as control points can be obscured by snow. However, we did not
observe any unnatural contour lines, which hamper manual delineation, at this
site. Careful interpretation is required to distinguish connecting glacier
termini (Fig. 5). In the case that separation was difficult, they were
integrated into a single glacier. Similarly, any detached ice masses located
just above a glacier were included in the delineation if ice redistribution
was expected. Shapes for these features are recorded and registered in the
inventory as a single row in the attribute table, with the same ID, area, and
other variables.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5"><caption><p>Separation of connected glaciers in our study site. Basic separation
is performed along ridge lines identified by contour lines. Glacier surfaces
with vague termini were not separated.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/10/65/2016/tc-10-65-2016-f05.jpg"/>

        </fig>

      <p>Upon delineation of glacier outlines and debris-covered areas, outlines were
corrected by review of exported glacier polygons into Google Earth, which
includes high-resolution Quickbird images superimposed upon the SRTM3
topography (Fig. S1 in the Supplement). Detailed surface features and 3-D
visualisation are invaluable for identifying delineation errors (e.g. Raup et
al., 2014). Whenever a significant error was identified in cloud-free,
high-quality Google Earth imagery, the original outline was corrected
manually in ArcGIS (in another screen). Especially outlines of north-facing
accumulation areas neighbouring steep mountain ridges are carefully checked
because of mountain shadows in the PRISM and AVNIR-2 imagery acquired in the winter
season. To validate the final corrected version, this manual delineation
process was repeated four times. Moreover, in order to validate manual
delineations based on ALOS imagery, each author independently delineated
10 debris-free glaciers and six debris-covered glaciers, as well as their
debris-covered areas. Four outlines were provided for each glacier entity (as
well as one debris-covered area) and consistencies among them were evaluated
using the overlap ratio.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <title>Glacier attributes</title>
      <p>Statistical information for delineated glaciers was calculated by ArcGIS
tools and recorded in an attribute table, provided here as supplementary
material. A local identification (ID) number was assigned for each glacier
polygon. Spatially disconnected polygons, regarded as one glacier entity
according to GLIMS guidelines (e.g. W in Fig. 4), were merged and assigned a
single ID. Scene ID and acquisition date for the primary PRISM image and the
most appropriate AVNIR-2 image were also noted in the attribute table.</p>
      <p>We calculated the areas of debris-free and debris-covered glacier surface
from their horizontally projected polygons. Elevations of maximum, minimum,
mean, and median elevation were obtained for individual glaciers using the
ASTER GDEM2. Median elevation represents the altitude at which a glacier
polygon is separated into upper and lower halves of equal area. This point
constitutes an index for denoting glacier distribution relative to a
balanced-budget equilibrium line altitude (e.g. Braithwaite and Raper,
2009; Sakai et al., 2015).</p>
      <p>We divided the study site into 11 river basins (Fig. 1) that were generated
automatically using the ASTER GDEM2 and ArcGIS watershed analysis tools. On
the southern flanks, basin names follow those reported by Mool et al. (2001).
On the north side of the range, rivers flowing to the Tibetan Plateau were
named Nianchu, Langkamu, and Subansiri in reference to the attribute table of
the ICIMOD inventory (Bajracharya and Shrestha, 2011).</p>
      <p>Slope gradients were obtained for each glacier by averaging the surface
gradients of the ASTER GDEM2 for each glacier. Values for upper and lower
halves were calculated separately and divided by the median elevation, and
are assumed to represent slope gradients for the accumulation and ablation
zones, respectively. The glacier aspect was calculated as the mean value of
surface aspect on a glacier surface. The aspect value of a GDEM2 pixel
(0–360<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) is converted to a unit vector (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis for longitudinal
range and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis for latitudinal range). Finally, the averaged unit vector
is converted back to an aspect value (0–360<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5">
  <title>Other glacier inventories</title>
      <p>In the present study site, existing glacier outline data sets are available
from GAMDAM, ICIMOD, and RGI, and were referenced onto the Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system (zone 46). Contained outlines
smaller than 0.01 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in area were not analysed in this study to
minimise the risk of including snow patches. We did not include the GLIMS
database because the latest version, released on 2 December 2014, includes
considerable duplication on the northern side of the range and because no
glaciers were delineated on the southern side.</p>
      <p>Comparison between the GAMDAM and ALOS-derived inventories highlights the
differences between the types of satellite imagery used, as similar manual
delineations were performed by similar authors. The GAMDAM inventory contains
more than 83 000 glaciers distributed throughout the high mountains of Asia
(Nuimura et al., 2015), of which we examined those lying within our study
site. These glaciers were delineated manually using two Landsat-7 scenes
acquired on 28 December 2000 and 20 November 2001, along with SRTM-derived
contour lines (20 m interval) for glacier separation and differentiation of
adjacent headwalls. Delineations were then verified via high-resolution
Google Earth imagery. While the methods and criteria of the GAMDAM inventory
are similar to our own, the ALOS-derived outlines used in this study were
delineated solely by the first author, who did not participate in the Bhutan
domain of the GAMDAM inventory. Therefore, we can evaluate consistency
between the ALOS and GAMDAM outlines objectively.</p>
      <p>The first ICIMOD glacier inventory, published in 2001, utilised Landsat-5,
Indian Remote Sensing (IRS)-1D, and Satellite Pour l'Observation de la Terre
(SPOT) imagery acquired in the 1990s, in addition to a <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mn>50 000</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> scale
topographic map depicting glacier distribution in the 1950s (Mool et
al., 2001). The latest ICIMOD glacier inventory, published in 2014, includes
glacier outlines for the Bhutan Himalaya that were generated using Landsat-5/-7
imagery for the periods 1977–1978, 1990, 2000, and 2010 with semi-automatic
classification (Bajracharya et al., 2014a). We utilised the 2010 outlines, in
which glacier ice was classified by a threshold of normalised difference snow
index (NDSI). Erroneously incorporated shadows, water bodies, vegetation,
bare rock, and debris outside of glacier surfaces were removed by multiple
filters including the normalised difference vegetation index, a land and
water mask, and mean hue with respective threshold values (Bajracharya et
al., 2014a). Slopes <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 60<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and surfaces <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4600 m a.s.l. were
removed using the SRTM3 DEM. Debris-covered areas in the elevation range
3000–6000 m a.s.l. were extracted from the remaining terrain via the
SRTM3-derived slope gradient (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 25<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), normalised difference
vegetation index, NDSI, and land/water mask. Finally, outlines of
debris-covered and debris-free glaciers were superimposed onto high-resolution
satellite images in Google Earth and corrected manually (Bajracharya et
al., 2014a).</p>
      <p>The RGI has a global coverage, for which glacier outlines were imported and
merged from various sources (Pfeffer et al., 2014). In producing the RGI, the
original intention was to compile the best possible data available at that
time in order to permit global- and regional-scale analyses for the IPCC
report. For our study site, glacier outlines were extracted from part of
Region 13 Central Asia and Region 15 South Asia East of version 4.0 (RGI4.0)
and version 5.0 (RGI5.0). The RGI4.0 includes glacier outlines from the first
Chinese Glacier Inventory, which was based on aerial photographs and
topographic maps from 1980 (Shi et al., 2009), and from a previous version of
the ICIMOD inventory (Mool et al., 2001). The RGI4.0 is now outdated, but was
frequently used for earlier comparisons. To improve quality, the RGI5.0
contains glacier outlines from the CGI2 for the northern flanks and from the
GAMDAM inventory for the southern side. The CGI2 includes glacier outlines
derived from topographic maps published between 1966 and 1971 and in 1980, as
well as from Landsat TM (Thematic Mapper) images acquired
in 2007, 2009, and 2010 (Guo et al., 2015). Six glacier outlines were based
on topographic maps of unknown age. Automatic delineation of band ratio
segmentation and ice-divide extraction by SRTM3 v4 were performed, followed
by manual editing. Those RGI inventories are thus combined data sets, however
delineation origins are not noted on individual glacier outlines.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS6">
  <title>Overlap ratio</title>
      <p>To evaluate the geometric consistency among the multiple inventories, we
propose an index of overlapping glacier outline between two inventories
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ov</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is defined as

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ov</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">B</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the overlapping area, and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">B</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are
the total areas of a glacier polygon in two inventories of A and B,
respectively. A higher <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ov</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> value means a larger proportion of the
overlapping area is shared by two inventories, and an <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ov</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of zero
signifies no overlap. For example, outlines from ALOS (1.24 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and
RGI5.0 (0.94 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) produce an overlapped area (0.85 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>),
whereas an outline without overlapping area causes zero of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ov</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(Fig. 6). If one polygon in the A inventory is overlapped by several polygons
in the B inventory, the largest <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ov</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is adopted as the ratio of the
targeted glacier in the A inventory.</p>
      <p>Between two polygons from different inventories for one glacier, relative
omission and commission parts are incorporated into the value of overlap
ratio. If one polygon (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) is smaller than another
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">B</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), the shared part (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) is also smaller than <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">B</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
which causes a small value for <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ov</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> even if <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> equals
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This means that a large area of omission causes small
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ov</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values. On the other hand, because this is a relative
comparison of two delineated polygons from different sources, absolute
omission/commission errors based on actual glacier entities cannot be
described. Multiple combinations should be discussed to evaluate
consistencies of each delineation. Thus, the overlap ratio enables assessment
of the consistency among glacier outlines, including location shifting in
various sizes, which would be difficult to perform when using with absolute
value of delineated areas.</p>
      <p>To assess the consistency between two inventories, the mean value of the
overlapping ratio (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">B</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), in which the A and B
inventories are defined as base and target inventories, respectively, is
calculated as

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">B</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∑</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ov</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the number of glaciers in the A inventory. This value
can vary according to the number of non-overlapping polygons (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ov</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) in the two respective inventories, for example.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6"><caption><p>Conceptual example of the overlap ratio (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ov</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). The
background is an ALOS AVNIR-2 image.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=227.622047pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/10/65/2016/tc-10-65-2016-f06.jpg"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Results</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <title>Validation of the ALOS glacier outline</title>
      <p>Ten debris-free glaciers, six debris-covered glaciers, and their
debris-covered areas were delineated from the ALOS PRISM/AVNIR-2 images by
four authors operating independently. Overlap ratios were calculated for all
combinations of the four authors (six ways). Mean values and standard
deviations of the ratios calculated for the 16 glaciers are summarised
against their ALOS-derived sizes (Fig. 7a). All debris-free glaciers give
mean values for <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ov</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> greater than 0.7, with six exceeding 0.9.
Debris-covered glaciers give values greater than 0.5, with larger glaciers
giving higher (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.8) values. Similarly, debris-covered areas give
higher values with increasing area.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Validation of manual glacier delineation using ALOS imagery.
<bold>(a)</bold> Mean values of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ov</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and their standard deviations, from
six combinations among four outlines, are plotted against glacier area (or
debris-covered area). <bold>(b)</bold> Deviations of glacier delineation in 16
sampled glaciers. <bold>(c)</bold> Debris-covered glaciers and debris-covered
areas contain inconsistencies among four interpreters (coloured
respectively), whereas <bold>(d)</bold> a simple shape of a debris-free glacier
exhibits good consistency. <bold>(e)</bold> A debris-free glacier with steep
slopes has inconsistencies on the higher parts of the outline (region in
shadow).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/10/65/2016/tc-10-65-2016-f07.jpg"/>

        </fig>

      <p>To assess delineation uncertainties quantitatively, we compared and analysed
the glacier areas of the four interpreters in closer detail. Mean values and
standard deviations of the delineated area were calculated for each glacier
to obtain their respective uncertainty ratios (i.e. standard deviation
divided by mean area as a percentage) (Table 1). The uncertainty ratio varies
from 1.97 to 48.62 %, with larger values implying greater uncertainty.
Plotting the ratios against glacier size, uncertainties tend to be smaller
for larger glaciers regardless of debris cover (Fig. 7b). The highest
delineation uncertainty (as much as 50 %) is expected for the smallest
(0.01–0.1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> area) debris-covered glaciers and the lowest
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 %) for larger (1.0–10 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), debris-free glaciers. In a
case of relatively larger debris-covered glacier (Fig. 7c), uncertainty ratio
is indeed smaller (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 20 %), however absolute area of delineated
glacier outlines greatly ranges from 42.51 to 63.78 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Table 1,
Fig. 7c). Complicated topography with shadows and ice distribution at the
surrounding steep slopes has the potential to cause large area differences with
inconsistent interpretations.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Delineated glacier area by authors (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="9">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="9" colname="col9" align="center"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Area</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry namest="col2" nameend="col5">Interpreter </oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Mean</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Standard</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">Uncertainty</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col1">(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col2" nameend="col5"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">deviation</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">ratio (%)</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">

         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">4</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>

       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
       <?xmltex \rotentry?>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" colname="col1" morerows="5">Debris-covered</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.29</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.39</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.12</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.14</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.23</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.11</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">49</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.08</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.85</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.23</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.78</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.23</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.39</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">32</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">6.63</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">10.57</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">7.99</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">9.01</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">8.55</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1.44</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">17</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">10.02</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">12.11</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">8.77</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">10.48</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">10.35</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1.20</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">12</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">43.75</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">63.78</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">50.66</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">42.51</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">50.17</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">8.45</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">17</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col9">(Fig. 7c)</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">81.47</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">87.58</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">80.56</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">50.57</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">75.05</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">14.39</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">19</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
       <?xmltex \rotentry?>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1" morerows="9">Debris-free</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.05</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.05</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.05</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.06</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.05</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.00</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">7</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.09</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.15</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.07</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.14</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.11</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.03</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">29</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.09</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.10</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.09</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.12</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.10</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.01</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">12</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.40</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.66</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.43</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.49</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.50</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.10</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">20</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.58</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.61</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.60</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.60</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.60</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.01</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">2</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.97</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.52</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.04</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.07</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.15</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.22</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">19</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col9">(Fig. 7e)</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.98</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.01</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.98</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.07</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.01</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.04</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">4</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.13</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.18</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.18</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.19</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.17</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.02</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">2</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col9">(Fig. 7d)</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">3.18</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3.65</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3.34</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">3.75</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">3.48</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.23</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">7</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">5.59</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">7.77</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">7.38</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">7.82</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">7.14</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.91</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">13</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>

       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Glacier number and area data from the ALOS (all,
debris-covered/debris-free), GAMDAM, ICIMOD, RGI4.0, and RGI5.0 inventories for the
Bhutan Himalaya.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="8">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="center"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col2" nameend="col4">ALOS </oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">GAMDAM</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">ICIMOD</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">RGI4.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">RGI5.0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(All)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(Debris-covered)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(Debris-free)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Number</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1583</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">219</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1364</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1398</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1762</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1563</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1266</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Area (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>1487</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn>235</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>951</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn>193</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>536</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn>42</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1453</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1696</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">2261</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1510</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mean area (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1.2</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F8"><caption><p>Cumulative glacier <bold>(a)</bold> number and <bold>(b)</bold> area values for eight size
classes. <bold>(c)</bold> Estimated area of delineation uncertainty ratio is
shown on debris-covered, debris-free, and total glaciers from the
ALOS-derived glacier inventory.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=207.705118pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/10/65/2016/tc-10-65-2016-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <title>Statistics of Bhutanese glaciers obtained from the ALOS
glacier inventory</title>
      <p>The ALOS-derived glacier inventory consists of 1583 glaciers, with a total
area of 1487 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and mean glacier area of 0.9 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and
includes 219 debris-covered and 1364 debris-free glaciers (Table 2, Fig. 1).
The area of the debris-free glaciers ranges from 0.01 to 5.9 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(mean area 0.4 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), resulting in a total area of 536 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
whereas that of debris-covered glaciers ranges from 0.06 to 79.6 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(mean area 4.3 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), giving a total area of 951 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(Fig. 8). The debris-covered area ranges from 0.01 to 21.2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
resulting in a mean area of 1.0 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The majority (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>649</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) of
ALOS-derived glaciers belong to the 0.1–0.5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> size category,
whereas the greatest number of debris-covered glaciers (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>102</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) belong to
the 1–5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> category. This category also contains the greatest
glacier area (475 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), whereas the 10–50 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> size
category contains the maximum area of debris-covered glacier (375 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). In larger
size classes, debris-covered glaciers are both more numerous and more
extensive than debris-free ice, representing 100 % of glaciers
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in area.</p>
      <p>The anticipated uncertainty ratio for the 16 glaciers (Fig. 7b) was applied
to the entire ALOS-derived glacier inventory. Uncertainties for the
individual ALOS-derived glacier outlines are calculated by means of the trend
lines shown in Fig. 7b. Summation of anticipated uncertainty reaches
235 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (16 % of the total glacier area), where debris-covered
and debris-free glaciers have anticipated uncertainties of 193 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(20 %) and 42 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (8 %), respectively (Table 2). In
addition, they are classified into eight classes of size, where total area
uncertainty is divided by total glacier area (Fig. 8c). Debris-covered
glaciers in the smallest size class (0.05–0.1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) exhibit the
largest uncertainty ratio, at 52 %, whereas those in the largest size
class (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) reveal the smallest uncertainty ratio, at
13 %. Similarly, debris-free glaciers exhibit the smaller uncertainty
ratio for larger size classes (i.e. 11 % for the 0.01–0.05 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
class, 6 % for the 5–10 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> class). The area proportion of
debris-covered glaciers versus debris-free glaciers is smaller/larger in
smaller/larger size classes, with which influencing
uncertainty ratio also shifts from <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 25 % for larger sizes. Integrating both
types of glacier, therefore, the smallest uncertainty ratio is exhibited by
the 0.1–0.5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> class (10 %). The highest is exhibited by the
5–10 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> class (20 %) with which area proportion of
debris-covered versus debris-free glacier is highest (221 to 12 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)
(Fig. 8c). In the size classes larger than 10 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the
uncertainty ratio is directly controlled by that of debris-covered glaciers without any
debris-free glaciers. The maximum uncertain area is exhibited by the
1–5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> size class (78 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) with the largest total area of
debris-covered/debris-free glaciers.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9"><caption><p>Hypsographic curves of glacier surfaces from the ALOS, GAMDAM,
ICIMOD, RGI4.0, and RGI5.0 inventories. Also shown are the curves for the
debris-covered area, and the debris-covered and debris-free glaciers, extracted
from the ALOS inventory.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=221.931496pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/10/65/2016/tc-10-65-2016-f09.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>Surface elevations of debris-covered and debris-free glaciers and of
debris-covered areas were obtained from the ASTER GDEM2 and summarised as
hypsographic curves with 100 m intervals (Fig. 9). Debris-covered glaciers
range from 4000 to 7500 m a.s.l., with a maximum area of 77 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at
5500 m a.s.l. Meanwhile, the debris-covered area ranges from 4000 to
6300 m a.s.l., exhibiting a maximum area of 23 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at
4900 m a.s.l. Debris-free glaciers range from 4600 to 7000 m a.s.l., with
a maximum area of 77 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at 5400 m a.s.l. Although both
debris-covered and debris-free glaciers exhibit maximum areas at approximately the
same elevation, the distribution range of the debris-covered glaciers is
significantly wider (3500 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) with a larger total area
(951 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in Table 2) than that of debris-free glaciers
(2400 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>/536 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10"><caption><p>Glacier <bold>(a)</bold> maximum, <bold>(b)</bold> median, and
<bold>(c)</bold> minimum elevations in the ALOS inventory plotted against the
log-scaled area. Glaciers are categorised as southern, northern, and traversal
basins, as described in Fig. 1. Mean (lines) with standard deviation
(vertical bars) of all inventories were calculated in four size classes.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=227.622047pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/10/65/2016/tc-10-65-2016-f10.jpg"/>

        </fig>

      <p>We compared the maximum, median, and minimum elevations of individual
glaciers with their respective areas on a log scale (Fig. 10). The maximum
and minimum elevations tend to be higher and lower, respectively, for larger
glaciers, whereas median elevations show neither increasing nor decreasing
trends. To assess elevation distribution in greater detail, we categorised
glaciers by location. Northern basins include Nianchu, Langkamu, and
Subansiri, while southern basins include Chamkhar, Mangde, Pho, Mo, Wang, and
Amo. Traversal basins include Dangme and Kuri. An elevational comparison of
glaciers of equal size revealed that the majority of glaciers located in
southern basins occur at lower elevations than those in northern basins,
while glacier elevation is widely distributed in the traversal basins
(Fig. 11).</p>
      <p>The spatial distribution of mean annual precipitation amount, obtained from
TRMM 3B43 for the period 1998–2014, is shown in Fig. 11. Maximum
precipitation (1136 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mm</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) occurred at 27.625<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N,
91.375<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E and minimum precipitation (417 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mm</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) at
28.375<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 89.625<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, resulting in a mean value of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>807</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn>202</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mm</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> for our study site. Northern areas received lower amounts for
each degree of longitude, and vice versa. The most arid basin is the Nianchu
river basin on the Tibetan Plateau. In contrast, southern regions experience
in excess of 2000 mm precipitation per year, but glaciers do not exist there
because the elevation is lower. The main Himalayan crest is characterised by
west to east (W–E) oriented watersheds, occupied by numerous glaciers, and
serves to hinder the northward passage of humid monsoon air masses; yet stark
differences in precipitation are not apparent on either side of the range, as
high peaks and valley bottoms are frequently included in the same pixel.
Thus, even significant differences in local precipitation are not resolved
fully by the 3B43 data.</p>
      <p>The median elevations of individual glaciers were overlain onto a
TRMM-derived spatial distribution of mean annual precipitation (Fig. 11),
revealing a clear north–south contrast (i.e. higher values to the north and
lower values to the south). Additionally, the spatial distribution of annual
precipitation exhibits a north–south gradient, ranging from 462 to
1040 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mm</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. Statistically, however, significant correlation was not
observed for each glacier between annual precipitation and median elevation
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), possibly because most parts of the significant north–south
gradient of median elevation are distributed within a small area beyond
mountain ranges, which is contained by one grid size of precipitation data
(0.25<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F11" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Spatial distributions of median elevation for the ALOS-derived
glacier outlines, overlain on the spatial distribution of annual
precipitation from TRMM 3B43 data (1998–2014).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/10/65/2016/tc-10-65-2016-f11.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T3" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Surface area and overlap ratios for the whole glacier surface in the
Bhutan Himalaya among the six inventories, in which one inventory represents
one glacier surface. The numbers in italic font denote overlapped area
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="7">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="center"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Combination of</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">ALOS</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">GAMDAM</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">ICIMOD</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">RGI4.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">RGI5.0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">glacier inventory</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Total area</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1487</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1453</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1696</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2261</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1510</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">ALOS</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1487</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><italic>1276</italic></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><italic>1371</italic></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><italic>1207</italic></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><italic>1268</italic></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GAMDAM</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1453</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.87</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><italic>1327</italic></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><italic>1178</italic></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><italic>1352</italic></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">ICIMOD</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1696</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.86</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.85</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><italic>1367</italic></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><italic>1389</italic></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">RGI4.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2261</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.66</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.65</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.70</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><italic>1231</italic></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">RGI5.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1510</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.85</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.91</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.87</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.67</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry namest="col2" nameend="col6">Overlap ratio (0 to 1) </oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p>Mean slope gradients were calculated for both the upper and lower halves of
individual ALOS-derived glacier surfaces, as well as for the entire surface
(Fig. 12). The upper (lower) halves are assumed to comprise accumulation
(ablation) zones. For the upper parts, the mean slope gradients reveal no
correlations versus glaciers, whereas those for the lower parts denote
negative correlations. This is related to the fact that a larger glacier, in many
cases with a debris-covered ablation zone, tends to be developed on valley
topography with a gentle slope (e.g. Scherler et al., 2011a). We observed no
tendency in slope steepness between the differently categorised basins.</p>
      <p>ALOS-derived glacier outlines were classified by aspect (Fig. 13). The number
of debris-free glaciers on north-facing slopes is 3 times greater than on
south-facing slopes, whereas debris-covered glaciers show little or no aspect
dependency (Fig. 13a). Conversely, the area of the debris-covered glaciers
exhibits considerable bias in both north and south basins (Fig. 13b). Mean
values of median elevation for the eight aspects were calculated for each
river basin (Fig. 14a). The highest ALOS-derived values occur in the Nianchu
and Langkamu basins, followed by the Dangme and Kuri basins. Lower median
elevations were observed in the southern basins. While south-facing glaciers
have the highest median elevation in the Langkamu, Mo, and Wang river basins,
in other regions we found no consistent inclination in the relationship
between median elevation and surface aspect.</p>
      <p>Total annual solar radiation was estimated using ArcGIS (Fig. 14b). We then
calculated annual solar radiation (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">GJ</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) at the ALOS-derived
glacier surface using an ASTER GDEM2 with 30 m cell size. Although the
influence of surrounding topography was considered, the effects of cloud
cover were impossible to determine. Results range from 4.0 to
9.6 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">GJ</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The mean annual radiation flux for each glacier was
then calculated and plotted against aspect. Our data show that north-facing
glaciers received less radiation than south-facing glaciers. Additionally,
the radiation flux over south-facing glaciers is apparently independent of slope
gradient.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F12"><caption><p>Slope gradients of the <bold>(a)</bold> upper half, <bold>(b)</bold> entire
surface, and <bold>(c)</bold> lower half of ALOS-derived glacier outlines,
categorised as northern/southern/traversal basins as shown in Fig. 1.
Calculated mean values and standard deviations for four size classes are
shown along with those of other inventories.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/10/65/2016/tc-10-65-2016-f12.jpg"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F13"><caption><p>Cumulative glacier <bold>(a)</bold> number and <bold>(b)</bold> area of ALOS-derived glacier outlines,
classified by aspect. Also plotted are total glacier number and area data
from other inventories.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=213.395669pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/10/65/2016/tc-10-65-2016-f13.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F14"><caption><p><bold>(a)</bold> Median elevations in 9 of 11 river basins (Fig. 1) are
plotted along eight aspects. <bold>(b)</bold> Estimated mean values of annual
solar radiation for respective ALOS-derived glacier outlines, for which
glaciers are grouped into three classes based on their mean slope gradients.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=213.395669pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/10/65/2016/tc-10-65-2016-f14.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <title>Consistency among glacier inventories</title>
      <p>We first calculated overlap ratios for each of the five glacier inventories.
The glacier surface was integrated such that one glacier area was determined
for each inventory (Table 3). High ratios of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.85 were obtained for the
ALOS, GAMDAM, ICIMOD, and RGI5.0 inventories, whereas the RGI4.0 inventory
gave low ratios of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.75. Total overlap ratios for RGI4.0/5.0 suggest
that while the RGI4.0 inventory contains larger areas that do not overlap
with the other inventories, this situation has been improved in the RGI5.0
version.</p>
      <p>Second, the number of glaciers is cumulated from those with a lower overlap
ratio and cumulative curves for every combination of the inventories and is
illustrated in Fig. 15. In comparison to the ALOS-derived inventory, the
GAMDAM, ICIMOD, and RGI5.0 inventories reveal similar curves that increase
towards larger <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ov</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.7), indicating that these
data sets exhibit a high degree of well-matched outlines for ALOS-derived
results with <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ov</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.7. In contrast, the RGI4.0 inventory exhibits
constantly increasing curves, on which the number of glaciers with low
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ov</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (0.5) reaches 1000. Consequently, mean values for overlap
ratios (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mtext>base</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>target</mml:mtext></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) are highest for the ALOS–ICIMOD
combination (0.63) and lowest for the ALOS–RGI4.0 combination (0.35). Values
for the ALOS–RGI combination show a marked improvement from RGI4.0 (0.35) to
RGI5.0 (0.56). In analysing other combinations (Fig. 15b–e), the RGI4.0
inventory exhibits uniformly poor overlap with the other inventories.</p>
      <p>Figure 16a depicts area differences of the four inventories against our
ALOS-derived inventory, in which the area difference among glacier outlines
ranges from 0.1 to 10 times. The RGI4.0 in particular includes numerous
glaciers for which the area exceeded 10 times that of the ALOS-derived
inventory. Figure 16b shows variations in the standard deviation of area
difference (ratios in Fig. 16a) calculated within six size classes. Smaller
glaciers exhibit larger standard deviations, whereas larger glaciers show
lower values. While each inventory shows this trend, the greatest standard deviations occur in the RGI4.0
inventory.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F15"><caption><p>Cumulative glacier numbers against overlap ratios (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ov</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) for the six glacier inventories covering the Bhutan
Himalaya. Glacier number increases from the lower <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ov</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to the higher
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ov</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where a constant increase means a large number of
low-<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ov</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> outlines, and a later high rate of increase means a large
number of high-<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ov</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> outlines. Mean <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ov</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values for each
combination are denoted in the panels.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/10/65/2016/tc-10-65-2016-f15.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F16"><caption><p><bold>(a)</bold> Area difference between the ALOS-derived glacier
inventory and other inventories. <bold>(b)</bold> Standard deviations of area
difference are summarised in seven area classes.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/10/65/2016/tc-10-65-2016-f16.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4">
  <title>Glaciological variables among the inventories</title>
      <p>Our inter-inventory comparison reveals that the RGI5.0 contains the lowest
number (1266) of glacier outlines and that ICIMOD contains the highest number
(1762). The minimum total area occurs in the GAMDAM inventory
(1453 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), whereas the RGI4.0 exhibits the greatest, at
2261 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Table 2). We categorised these results into eight size
classes (Fig. 8). The total glacier number and area differed widely among the
inventories. However, in each, the majority of glaciers fall between 0.1 and
0.5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> total glacier number (Fig. 8a). Similarly, the greatest
total area lies in the 1–5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> size class for each inventory,
although the overall difference between RGI4.0 and GAMDAM reaches
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 300 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the size class (Fig. 8b).</p>
      <p>We also compared the hypsometric curves of glacier outlines (Fig. 9). The
maximum area of 187 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> occurs at <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>5600</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn>50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m elevation in the
RGI4.0. The other inventories show a similar pattern. The ALOS, GAMDAM,
ICIMOD, and RGI5.0 outlines are located within the 4000–7500 m elevation
range, whereas the lowermost outlines in the RGI4.0 occur at 2600 m a.s.l.</p>
      <p>For each of the five inventories, we compared the maximum, median, and
minimum elevations with their respective glacier areas (Fig. 10). Generally,
a similar trend was observed: larger glaciers tend to have higher maximum and
lower minimum elevations than smaller glaciers, although the median
elevations uniformly cluster around 5500 m a.s.l. The slope gradients
averaged over the upper half, entire surface, and lower half are depicted in
Fig. 12. Mean slope gradients for the upper halves show a generally constant
trend in the RGI4.0/5.0 and ICIMOD inventory, whereas larger glaciers
generally exhibit slightly gradual gradients in the ALOS and GAMDAM
inventories. Mean slope gradients for the entire glacier surface and lower
halves are also less steep on larger glaciers. Finally, we compared
ALOS-derived total glacier numbers and areas in the eight aspect groups
with the other inventories (Fig. 13a, b). Although we observed significant
differences among the values, all five inventories exhibit similar trends.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <title>Discussion</title>
      <p>Our results suggest that although existing glacier inventories give
different values for number, area, and topographic variables, they reveal
similar statistical and topographical tendencies. The geometric differences
in glacier outlines can be quantified using the overlap ratio, which enables
relative evaluation among the inventories. In this section, we discuss
glacier distributions in the Bhutan Himalaya obtained via the various
inventories, examine the causes and effects of outline diversity using
examples, and provide suggestions for making glacier delineations in areas
of complex topography.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <title>Glacier distribution in the Bhutan Himalaya</title>
      <p>Each inventory indicates that glaciers with areas of 1–5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> occupy
the largest area, while those of 0.1–0.5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> constitute the
majority of glaciers by number (Fig. 8). Globally, the RGI5.0 suggests that
this pattern is similar throughout the low–mid-latitudes, with the exception
of the European Alps (i.e. a large number of small glaciers which do not
affect areal proportion), whereas high-latitude regions are dominated by
larger glaciers (Fig. S3). In the Bhutan Himalaya, glaciers exhibit a size
distribution typical of low-latitude regions.</p>
      <p>In this region, we observed that glaciers in southern basins have lower
maximum, median, and minimum elevations than those in northern basins
(Figs. 10, 11). Also, we note that peak elevations are lower in southern than
in northern basins (Fig. 9b in Nagai et al., 2013). Thus, we consider this
topographic contrast to be a fundamental factor influencing the differences
in maximum elevation between northern and southern basins (Fig. 10a). The
north–south gradients in median elevation and precipitation in Bhutan show
reasonable agreement, whereas north–south air temperature gradients are
relatively minor due to the small latitudinal range (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 170 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>)
(Fig. 11). Therefore, we do not correlate the distribution of median
elevations with glacier size, aspect, or debris cover, but to basin location,
over which precipitation values differ significantly (Figs. 10b, 11, 14a) as
found for the whole glaciers in high-mountain Asia (Sakai et al., 2015) and
some glaciers chosen globally (Ohmura et al., 1992). Combinations of
topography and precipitation may result in lower minimum elevations on
southern glaciers, for which rapid retreat has been reported, and vice versa
(Karma et al., 2003; Bajracharya et al., 2014a).</p>
      <p>ArcGIS-based calculations of annual solar radiation give values of
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 9 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">GJ</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for south-facing glaciers regardless of surface
gradient, whereas north-facing glaciers experience values of
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 8 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">GJ</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for gentle slopes and 5.5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">GJ</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for
steeper slopes (Fig. 14b). North-facing glaciers are more numerous than
south-facing glaciers; this suggests a negative impact of solar radiation on
small, debris-free glaciers on south-facing slopes. In contrast, large
debris-covered glaciers occur on both southerly and northerly aspects
(Figs. 1, 13b). The west to east orientation of the Himalayan range provides
extensive north- and south-facing slopes (Fig. 1) favourable for the
development of large valley glaciers. Potentially, debris cover is supplied
to south- and north-flowing glaciers, although its intensity is greater on
the south-facing slopes (Nagai et al., 2013). Total glacier area is dominated
by debris-covered glaciers and is rather concentrated in the two aspects of
the south and north, where the Himalayan main range forms larger valleys to
develop large glaciers (Fig. 13).</p>
      <p>In other regions, direction of the solar radiation and slope aspect of
glacier distribution are not always correlated. In western China, similar
areal concentration to the north is found for every subregion (Guo et
al., 2015). In Tyrol, Austria, number and areal concentration are found in
the north (Paul et al., 2011). However, in the Tian Shan Mountains, such
concentration to the north is not found (Narama, 2010). In Alaska and
north-west Canada, total glaciers denote homogeneous aspect distribution,
whereas those in the northernmost part do areal concentration at the north
(Kienholz et al., 2015). These variations suggest that glacier aspect
distribution can be affected by local geography such as mountain range
orientation, wind direction, precipitation homogeneity, etc. Therefore we
cannot conclude that solar radiation from the south side is the only factor
for the situation that the number of glaciers is smaller in the south-facing
slopes, although it is a reasonable situation for the global trend that south-facing glaciers have higher
elevation distribution than north-facing glaciers (Evans and Cox, 2005).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <title>Inconsistency in glacier identification</title>
      <p>Identification of glacier termini affects the consistency among glacier
inventories. The largest discrepancy in the number of non-overlapping
glaciers (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>471</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) occurs between the RGI4.0 and GAMDAM inventory, whereas
the smallest (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>34</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) is found between the RGI5.0 and GAMDAM inventory
(Fig. 15). In some cases, small glacier-like polygons larger than
0.01 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were found where no glaciers exist (Fig. 17a). Since
glaciers are unlikely to disappear from one inventory to the next, we suggest
that temporary snow cover is the main reason for this variability and, thus,
that multiple images acquired on different dates should be checked.
Additionally, snow-covered bedrock surfaces can present a similar appearance
to glacier ice (e.g. Fig. 17b). However, while details of surface roughness
in high-resolution Google Earth imagery suggest that these are not ice
surfaces, such identification is not possible using the coarse resolution of
Landsat-5/-7 imagery (30 and 15 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F17"><caption><p><bold>(a)</bold> Glacier outlines in part of our study site. Some
outlines are delineated only in the (P) ICICMOD, (Q) RGI4.0, and (R) GAMDAM
inventories. <bold>(b)</bold> A close-up image from Google Earth suggests that no
glacier exists on the (S) snow-covered hill slope (location shown in box
in <bold>a</bold>). (T) We found differences among the inventories in their
separation of surrounding steep slopes.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/10/65/2016/tc-10-65-2016-f17.jpg"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F18" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Glacier outlines containing significant distortion in the RGI4.0.
These have been improved for the RGI5.0 and are now consistent with other
inventories.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/10/65/2016/tc-10-65-2016-f18.jpg"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3">
  <title>Inconsistency in glacier distribution</title>
      <p>The entire RGI4.0 glacier surface overlaps poorly with those of other
inventories (Table 3). Specifically, while the elevation of maximum glacier
area lies around 5400 m a.s.l., similar to other inventories (Fig. 9),
minimum glacier elevation in the RGI4.0 is considerably lower at
3000 m a.s.l. Individual glacier outlines in the RGI4.0 also overlap poorly
with those in the other target inventories, for which mean values are no
greater than 0.35 (Fig. 15d). We found significant distortion in RGI4.0
outlines when compared with other data sets (Fig. 18), which implies
inaccurate cartography and low-quality georeferencing of the original
topographic maps as well as a poor condition of the original imagery. This is one
possible reason for the uniquely larger glacier area reaching
300 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> larger than that of the GAMDAM inventory (Fig. 8b). In
contrast, RGI5.0 does not exhibit these inconsistencies, nor do the ICIMOD,
GAMDAM, and ALOS-derived inventories, all of which contain large numbers of
well-overlapped glacier outlines with values <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5 (Fig. 15). The ICIMOD
inventory was generated using semi-automatic processes, whereas GAMDAM and
ALOS-derived outlines were generated via manual delineation. In all cases,
the use of Google Earth imagery for manual correction is likely to result in
outlines of similar quality. The RGI5.0 contains GAMDAM and CGI2 outlines for
southern and northern sides, respectively. Figure 15e shows that the RGI5.0
comprises a large number of delineations that are highly consistent with
GAMDAM data, of which 344 outlines of 1266 exhibit a perfect match. Importing
GAMDAM outlines to the RGI5.0 inventory thus contributes to the consistency
with ICIMOD and ALOS-derived inventories (Fig. 15d, e).</p>
      <p>Excessive under- or overestimation of individual glacier areas produced
results that range between factors <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.1 and 10 of the ALOS-derived
outlines, although the majority of results plot along the one-time line (Fig. 16a). This
large difference might be due to the number of glaciers identified from one
connecting glacier surface, rather than inaccurate delineation or poor
georeferencing. While automatic GIS (geographic information system)-based separation of glaciers along ridge
lines is necessary to resolve this issue, a remaining issue is indistinct
glacier termini, which can reduce the consistency of glacier counting
(Fig. 5).</p>
      <p>High inter-inventory consistency at the minimum (i.e. terminus) elevation is
requisite if glacier retreat is to be analysed using multitemporal data. In
addition to the comparatively stable termini of debris-covered Himalayan
glaciers (Scherler et al., 2011b), misidentification of the terminus can also
affect interpretation of retreat rates for debris-covered glaciers (e.g.
Fig. 4b). High-resolution Google Earth satellite imagery reveals numerous ice
cliffs on a debris-covered area, suggesting a hidden ice body. Such details
are difficult to identify in 30 m resolution Landsat imagery. Detailed
visual inspection and manual correction with high-resolution satellite images
is thus needed, particularly for smaller debris-covered glaciers, which, as
described above, exhibit greater inconsistency in manual delineation than
larger glaciers do (Fig. 7b).</p>
      <p>Steep slopes surrounding the accumulation zone are excluded by ALOS-derived,
GAMDAM, and ICIMOD inventories, but are included in the RGI4.0 and CGI2. Such
headwalls constitute an additional source of glacier nourishment via
avalanching (e.g. Benn and Lehmkuhl, 2000; Scherler et al., 2011a; Hewitt,
2011), which must be considered in studies of glacier mass balance and runoff
in high relief regions. For example, glacier nourishment from surrounding
slopes is especially relevant to the behaviour of Karakoram-type (i.e.
Turkistan and Mustagh glaciers) (Hewitt, 2011). In contrast, headwall areas
should be avoided when monitoring changes in glacier mass. Thus, the choice
of inventory must be based on the purpose of study.</p>
      <p>Finally, despite following the same definition of a glacier, differences in
interpretation among investigators can result in considerable variability in
glacier outlines where steep snow-covered slopes occur immediately adjacent
to the glacier (Fig. 7c, e). This factor should be considered during the
manual-editing process of automatic delineation by making a comparison with
Google Earth imagery. Nonetheless, continual updating of satellite imagery,
temporally variable snow cover, and coarse resolution of images preclude
straightforward glacier mapping.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Conclusion</title>
      <p>We compared currently available glacier inventories
for the Bhutan Himalaya with a newly created ALOS-derived glacier inventory.
After manual delineation and quality control of glacier outlines, the
ALOS-derived inventory contains 1583 glaciers with the total area of
1487 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Delineation uncertainty ratio is estimated as 10–20 %
in area. We propose an index of overlap ratio to quantify the consistency
among glacier inventories, which can be used to improve glacier delineation
and compare glacier outlines from different sources. In terms of glacier
outline, the GAMDAM and ICIMOD inventories were highly consistent with
ALOS-derived data, despite being generated from different sources
(Landsat/ALOS), by different methods (automatic/manual), and by different
agencies (ICIMOD/Nagoya University). Updating of the RGI4.0 has improved the
consistency of the RGI5.0 with other inventories. Specifically, the historic
data set from the first Chinese glacier inventory was replaced by newer data,
in addition to incorporation of the GAMDAM inventory. While specific values
for glacier area, elevation, and slope gradient differ among the inventories,
we observed broad similarities in common area classes, such as the largest
number of glaciers (0.1–0.5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and area covered
(1.0–5.0 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), elevation interval of the maximum area
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 5400 m a.s.l.), correspondence of hypsometry (Fig. 9) and surface
gradient (Fig. 14) to their respective horizontal areas, and aspect
distribution (Fig. 13). Although in situ measurements are difficult for the
majority of glaciers in high mountain regions, digitised glacier outlines can
be validated by comparing those from different sources.</p>
      <p>The selection of a specific inventory depends on the purpose of an application.
While any of them is appropriate when overview information only is required,
the correct data set needs to be selected carefully if specific glaciological
variables are of interest and individual glaciers are to be analysed. For
example, glacier area can vary significantly owing to difficulties in the
interpretation of debris-covered areas (Fig. 4) or the separation of
individual glaciers (Fig. 5).</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p><bold>The Supplement related to this article is available online at <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/tc-10-65-2016-supplement" xlink:title="zip">doi:10.5194/tc-10-65-2016-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</bold></p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>We thank the editor, T. Bolch, and the reviewers, F. Paul, A. Racoviteanu,
M. Pelto, and an anonymous reviewer for their patient handling of this paper
and invaluable suggestions. The ALOS data used in this study were provided by
the “Study on Glacial Lake Outburst Floods in the Bhutan Himalayas”
project, conducted as part of the Science and Technology Research Partnership
for Sustainable Development (SATREPS), and supported by the Japan Science and
Technology Agency (JST) and the Japan International Cooperation Agency
(JICA). Support was also provided by the Funding Program for Next Generation
World-Leading Researchers (NEXT). <?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Edited by: T. Bolch</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Bajracharya, S. R. and Shrestha, B.: The status of glaciers in the Hindu
Kush-Himalayan region, International Centre for Integrated Mountain
Development (ICIMOD), Kathmandu, Nepal, 140 pp., 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Bajracharya, S. R., Maharjan, S. B., and Shrestha, F.: The status and decadal
change of glaciers in Bhutan from the 1980s to 2010 based on satellite data,
Ann. Glaciol., 55, 159–166, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3189/2014AoG66A125" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3189/2014AoG66A125</ext-link>, 2014a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Bajracharya, S. R., Maharjan, S. B., Shrestha, F., Bajracharya, O. R., and
Baidya, S.: Glacier status in Nepal and decadal change from 1980 to 2010
based on Landsat data, International Centre for Integrated Mountain
Development (ICIMOD), Kathmandu, Nepal, 88 pp., 2014b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Benn, I. D. and Lehmkuhl, F.: Mass balance and equilibrium-line altitudes of
glaciers in high-mountain environments, Quatern. Int., 65/66, 15–29, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Bhatt, B. C. and Nakamura, K.: Characteristics of monsoon rainfall around the
Himalayas revealed by TRMM precipitation radar, Mon. Weather Rev., 133,
149–165, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/MWR-2846.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/MWR-2846.1</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Bolch, T., Buchroithner, M., Pieczonka, T., and Kunert, A.: Planimetric and
volumetric glacier changes in the Khumbu Himal, Nepal, since 1962 using
Corona, Landsat TM and ASTER data, J. Glaciol., 54, 592–600,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3189/002214308786570782" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3189/002214308786570782</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Bolch, T., Menounos, B., and Wheate, R.: Landsat-based inventory of glaciers
in western Canada, 1985–2005, Remote Sens. Environ., 114, 127–137,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2009.08.015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.rse.2009.08.015</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Bolch, T., Kulkarni, A., Kääb, A., Huggel, C., Paul, F., Cogley,
J. G., Frey, H., Kargel, J. S., Fujita, K., Scheel, M., Bajracharya, S., and
Stoffel, M.: The state and fate of Himalayan glaciers, Science, 336,
310–314, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1215828" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.1215828</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Bookhagen, B. and Burbank, D. W.: Topography, relief, and TRMM-derived
rainfall variations along the Himalaya, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L08405,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006GL026037" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006GL026037</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Braithwaite, R. J. and Raper, S. C. B.: Estimating equilibrium-line altitude
(ELA) from glacier inventory data, Ann. Glaciol., 50, 127–132,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3189/172756410790595930" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3189/172756410790595930</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Cogley, J. G.: Climate science: Himalayan glaciers in the balance, Nature,
488, 468–469, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/488468a" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/488468a</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Cogley, J. G.: Glacier shrinkage across High Mountain Asia, Ann. Glaciol.,
57, 41–49, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3189/2016AoG71A040" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3189/2016AoG71A040</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>Evans, I. S. and Cox, N. J.: Global variations of local asymmetry in glacier
altitude: separation of north–south and east–west components, J. Glaciol.,
51, 469–482, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3189/172756505781829205" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3189/172756505781829205</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Fujita, K. and Nuimura, T.: Spatially heterogeneous wastage of Himalayan
glaciers, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 108, 14011–14014,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1106242108" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1073/pnas.1106242108</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>Gardelle, J., Arnaud, Y., and Berthier, E.: Contrasted evolution of glacial
lakes along the Hindu Kush Himalaya mountain range between 1990 and 2009,
Global Planet. Change, 75, 47–55, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2010.10.003" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.gloplacha.2010.10.003</ext-link>,
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Gardelle, J., Berthier, E., Arnaud, Y., and Kääb, A.: Region-wide
glacier mass balances over the Pamir-Karakoram-Himalaya during 1999–2011,
The Cryosphere, 7, 1263–1286, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/tc-7-1263-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-7-1263-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>Gardner, A., Moholdt, G., Cogley, J. G., Wouters, B., Arendt, A., Wahr, J.,
Berthier, E., Hock, R., Pfeffer, W. T., Kaser G., Ligtenberg, S. R. M.,
Bolch, T., Martin, J., Sharp, M. J., Hagen, J. O., van den Broeke, M. R., and
Paul, F.: A Reconciled Estimate of Glacier Contributions to Sea Level Rise:
2003 to 2009, Science, 340, 852–857, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1234532" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.1234532</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>Guo, W., Liu, S., Xu, J., Wu, L., Shangguan, D., Yao, X., Wei, J., Bao, W.,
Yu, P., Liu, Q., and Jiang, Z.: The second Chinese glacier inventory: data,
methods and results, J. Glaciol., 61, 357–371, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3189/2015JoG14J209" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3189/2015JoG14J209</ext-link>,
2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Hewitt, K.: Glacier change, concentration, and elevation effects in the
Karakoram Himalaya, Upper Indus Basin, Mt. Res. Dev., 31, 188–200, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Houze, R. A., Wilton, D. C., and Smull, B. F.: Monsoon convection in the
Himalayan region as seen by the TRMM Precipitation Radar, Q. J. Roy. Meteor.
Soc., 133, 1389–1411, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/qj.106" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.106</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Huffman, G. J., Bolton, D. T., Neilkin, E. J., and Wolff, D. B.: The TRMM
multi satellite precipitation analysis (TMPA): quasi-global, multiyear,
combined-sensor precipitation estimates at fine scales, J. Hydrometeorol., 8,
38–55, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.1968.tb00567.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1541-0064.1968.tb00567.x</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Huss, M. and Farinotti, D.: Distributed ice thickness and volume of all
glaciers around the globe, J. Geophys. Res., 117, F04010,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2012JF002523" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2012JF002523</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Immerzeel, W. W., Van Beek, L. P., and Bierkens, M. F.: Climate change will
affect the Asian water towers, Science, 328, 1382–1385,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1183188" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.1183188</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>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, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2004.11.003" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.rse.2004.11.003</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Kääb, A., Berthier, E., Nuth, C., Gardelle, J., and Arnaud, Y.:
Contrasting patterns of early twenty-first-century glacier mass change in the
Himalayas, Nature, 488, 495–498, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11324" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature11324</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Karma, Y. A., Naito, N., Iwata, S., and Yabuki, H.: Glacier distribution in
the Himalayas and glacier shrinkage from 1963 to 1993 in the Bhutan
Himalayas, Bulletin of Glaciological Research, 20, 29–40, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Kaser, G., Großhauser, M., and Marzeion, B.: Contribution potential of
glaciers to water availability in different climate regimes, P. Natl. Acad.
Sci. USA, 107, 20223–20227, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1008162107" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1073/pnas.1008162107</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Kienholz, C., Herreid, S., Rich, J., Arendt, A., Hock, R., and Burgess, E.:
Derivation and analysis of a complete modern-date glacier inventory for
Alaska and northwest Canada, J. Glaciol., 61, 403–420,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3189/2015JoG14J230" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3189/2015JoG14J230</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>Marzeion, B., Jarosch, A. H., and Hofer, M.: Past and future sea-level change
from the surface mass balance of glaciers, The Cryosphere, 6, 1295–1322,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/tc-6-1295-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-6-1295-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Mool, P. K., Wangda, D., Bajracharya, S. R., Kunzang, K., Gurung, D. R., and
Joshi, S. P.: Inventory of Glaciers, Glacial Lakes and Glacial Lake Outburst
Floods, Bhutan, International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development
(ICIMOD), Kathmandu, Nepal, 227 pp., 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>Nagai, H., Fujita, K., Nuimura, T., and Sakai, A.: Southwest-facing slopes
control the formation of debris-covered glaciers in the Bhutan Himalaya,
Cryosphere, 7, 1303–1314, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/tc-7-1303-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-7-1303-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>Narama, C., Kääb, A., Duishonakunov, M., and Abdrakhmatov, K.:
Spatial variability of recent glacier area changes in the Tien Shan
Mountains, Central Asia, using Corona (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1970), Landsat (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2000),
and ALOS (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2007) satellite data, Global Planet. Change, 71, 42–54,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2009.08.002" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.gloplacha.2009.08.002</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>Nuimura, T., Sakai, A., Taniguchi, K., Nagai, H., Lamsal, D., Tsutaki, S.,
Kozawa, A., Hoshina, Y., Takenaka, S., Omiya, S., Tsunematsu, K., Tshering,
P., and Fujita, K.: The GAMDAM glacier inventory: a quality-controlled
inventory of Asian glaciers, The Cryosphere, 9, 849–864,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/tc-9-849-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-9-849-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Ohmura, A., Kasser, P., and Funk, M.: Climate at the equilibrium line of
glaciers, J. Glaciol., 38, 397–411, 1992.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>Paul, F. and Andreassen, L. M.: A new glacier inventory for the Svartisen
region, Norway, from Landsat ETM<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> data: challenges and change assessment,
J. Glaciol., 55, 607–618, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3189/002214309789471003" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3189/002214309789471003</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>Paul, F., Huggel, C., and Kääb, A.: Combining satellite multispectral
image data and a digital elevation model for mapping debris-covered glaciers,
Remote Sens. Environ., 89, 510–518, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2003.11.007" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.rse.2003.11.007</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>Paul, F., Frey, H., and Le Bris, R.: A new glacier inventory for the European
Alps from Landsat TM scenes of 2003: challenges and results. Ann. Glaciol.,
52, 144–152, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3189/172756411799096295" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3189/172756411799096295</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>Paul, F., Barrand, N. E., Baumann, S., Berthier, E., Bolch, T., Casey, K.,
Frey, H., Joshi, S. P., Konovalov, V., Le Bris, R., Mölg, N., Nosenko,
G., Nuth, C., Pope, A., Racoviteanu, A., Rastner, P., Raup, B., Scharrer, K.,
Steffen, S., and Winsvold, S.: On the accuracy of glacier outlines derived
from remote-sensing data, Ann. Glaciol., 54, 171–182,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3189/2013AoG63A296" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3189/2013AoG63A296</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Pfeffer, W. T., Arendt, A. A., Bliss, A., Bolch, T., Cogley, J. G., Gardner,
A. S., Hagen, J., Hock, R., Kaser, G., Kienholz, C., Miles, E. S., Moholdt,
G., Mölg, N., Paul, F., Radic, V., Rastner, P., Raup, B. H., Rich, J.,
Sharp, M. J., and the Randolph Consortium: The Randolph Glacier Inventory: a
globally complete inventory of glaciers, J. Glaciol., 60, 537–552,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3189/2014JoG13J176" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3189/2014JoG13J176</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>Racoviteanu, A. E., Williams, M. W., and Barry, R. G.: Optical Remote Sensing
of Glacier Characteristics: A Review with Focus on the Himalaya, Sensors, 8,
3355–3383, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s8053355" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/s8053355</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>Radić, V. and Hock, R.: Regionally differentiated contribution of
mountain glaciers and ice caps to future sea-level rise, Nat. Geosci., 4,
91–94, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1052" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/ngeo1052</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>Radić, V., Bliss, A., Beedlow, A. C., Hock, R., Miles, E., and Cogley,
J. G.: Regional and global projections of twenty-first century glacier mass
changes in response to climate scenarios from global climate models, Clim.
Dynam., 42, 37–58, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1719-7" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00382-013-1719-7</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Raup, B. and Khalsa, S. J. S.: GLIMS analysis tutorial. Boulder, CO,
University of Colorado, National Snow and Ice Data Center, available at:
<uri>http://www.glims.org/MapsAndDocs/guides.html</uri>, last access: 1 December
2015, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>Raup, B. H., Khalsa, S. J. S., Armstrong, R. L., Sneed, W. A., Hamilton,
G. S., Paul, F., Cawkwell, F., Beedle, M. J., Menounos, B. P., Wheate, R. D.,
Rott, H., Shiyin, L., Xin, Li., Donghui, S., Guodong, C., Kargel, J. S.,
Larsen, C. F., Molnia, B. F., Kincaid, J. L., Klein, A., and Konovalov, V.:
Quality in the GLIMS glacier database, in: Global Land Ice Measurements from
Space, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 163–182,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-79818-7_7" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/978-3-540-79818-7_7</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>Richardson, S. D. and Reynolds, J. M.: An overview of glacial hazards in the
Himalayas, Quatern. Int., 65, 31–47, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1040-6182(99)00035-X" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S1040-6182(99)00035-X</ext-link>,
2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>Sakai, A., Nuimura, T., Fujita, K., Takenaka, S., Nagai, H., and Lamsal, D.:
Climate regime of Asian glaciers revealed by GAMDAM glacier inventory, The
Cryosphere, 9, 865–880, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/tc-9-865-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-9-865-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>Scherler, D., Bookhagen, B., and Strecker, M. R.: Hillslope–glacier
coupling: The interplay of topography and glacial dynamics in High Asia,
J. Geophys. Res., 116, F02019, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010JF001751" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2010JF001751</ext-link>, 2011a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>Scherler, D., Bookhagen, B., and Strecker, M. R.: Spatially variable response
of Himalayan glaciers to climate change affected by debris cover, Nat.
Geosci., 4, 156–159, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1068" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/ngeo1068</ext-link>, 2011b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>Shi, Y., Lium, C., and Kang, E.: The Glacier Inventory of China, Ann.
Glaciol., 50, 1–4, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3189/172756410790595831" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3189/172756410790595831</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Tachikawa, T., Hato, M., Kaku, M., and Iwasaki, A.: The characteristics of
ASTER GDEM version 2, Proc. IGARSS 2011 Symposium, Vancouver, Canada,
24–29 July 2011, 3657–3660, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>Takaku, J. and Tadono T.: PRISM On-Orbit geometric calibration and DSM
performance, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 47, 4060–4073,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2009.2021649" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1109/TGRS.2009.2021649</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>Ukita, J., Narama, C., Tadono, T., Yamanokuchi, T., Tomiyama, N., Kawamoto,
S., Abe, C., Uda, T., Yabuki, H., Fujita, K., and Nishimura, K.: Glacial lake
inventory of Bhutan using ALOS data: methods and preliminary results, Ann.
Glaciol, 52, 65–71, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3189/172756411797252293" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3189/172756411797252293</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>Vaughan, D. G., Comiso, J. C., Allison, I., Carrasco, J., Kaser, G., Kwok,
R., Mote, P., Murray, T., Paul, F., Ren, J., Rignot, E., Solomina, O.,
Steffen, K., and Zhang, T.: Observations: Cryosphere, in: Climate Change
2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
edited by: Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G. K., Tignor, M., Allen,
S. K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., and Midgley, P. M.,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, N.Y.,
USA, 317–382, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1017/CBO9781107415324.012</ext-link>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>Yamamoto, M. K., Ueno, K., and Nakamura, K.: Comparison of satellite
precipitation products with rain gauge data for the Khumbu region, Nepal
Himalaya, J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn., 89, 597–610, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.2011-601" ext-link-type="DOI">10.2151/jmsj.2011-601</ext-link>,
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>Yao, T., Thompson, L., Yang, W., Yu, W., Gao, Y., Guo, X., Yang, X., Duan,
K., Zhao, H., Xu, B., Pu, J., Lu, A., Xiang, Y. Kattel, D. B., and Joswiak,
D.: Different glacier status with atmospheric circulations in Tibetan Plateau
and surroundings, Nature Climate Change, 2, 663–667,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1580" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nclimate1580</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list><app-group content-type="float"><app><title/>

    </app></app-group></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Comparison of multiple glacier inventories with a new inventory derived from
high-resolution ALOS imagery in the Bhutan Himalaya</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p class="p">Digital glacier inventories are invaluable data sets for revealing the
characteristics of glacier distribution and for upscaling measurements from
selected locations to entire mountain ranges. Here, we present a new
inventory of Advanced Land Observing Satellite (ALOS) imagery and compare it
with existing inventories for the Bhutan Himalaya. The new inventory contains
1583 glaciers (1487 ± 235 km<i/><sup>2</sup>), thereof 219 debris-covered
glaciers (951 ± 193 km<i/><sup>2</sup>) and 1364 debris-free glaciers (536 ± 42 km<i/><sup>2</sup>). Moreover, we propose an index for quantifying consistency
between two glacier outlines. Comparison of the overlap ratio demonstrates
that the ALOS-derived glacier inventory contains delineation uncertainties of
10–20 % which depend on glacier size, that the shapes and geographical
locations of glacier outlines derived from the fourth version of the Randolph
Glacier Inventory have been improved in the fifth version, and that the
latter is consistent with other inventories. In terms of whole glacier
distribution, each data set is dominated by glaciers of 1.0–5.0 km<i/><sup>2</sup>
area (31–34 % of the total area), situated at approximately 5400 m
elevation (nearly 10 % in 100 m bin) with either north or south aspects
(22 and 15 %). However, individual glacier outlines and their area
exhibit clear differences among inventories. Furthermore, consistent
separation of glaciers with inconspicuous termini remains difficult, which,
in some cases, results in different values for glacier number.
High-resolution imagery from Google Earth can be used to improve the
interpretation of glacier outlines, particularly for debris-covered areas and
steep adjacent slopes.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Bajracharya, S. R. and Shrestha, B.: The status of glaciers in the Hindu
Kush-Himalayan region, International Centre for Integrated Mountain
Development (ICIMOD), Kathmandu, Nepal, 140 pp., 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Bajracharya, S. R., Maharjan, S. B., and Shrestha, F.: The status and decadal
change of glaciers in Bhutan from the 1980s to 2010 based on satellite data,
Ann. Glaciol., 55, 159–166, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3189/2014AoG66A125" target="_blank">doi:10.3189/2014AoG66A125</a>, 2014a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Bajracharya, S. R., Maharjan, S. B., Shrestha, F., Bajracharya, O. R., and
Baidya, S.: Glacier status in Nepal and decadal change from 1980 to 2010
based on Landsat data, International Centre for Integrated Mountain
Development (ICIMOD), Kathmandu, Nepal, 88 pp., 2014b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Benn, I. D. and Lehmkuhl, F.: Mass balance and equilibrium-line altitudes of
glaciers in high-mountain environments, Quatern. Int., 65/66, 15–29, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Bhatt, B. C. and Nakamura, K.: Characteristics of monsoon rainfall around the
Himalayas revealed by TRMM precipitation radar, Mon. Weather Rev., 133,
149–165, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/MWR-2846.1" target="_blank">doi:10.1175/MWR-2846.1</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Bolch, T., Buchroithner, M., Pieczonka, T., and Kunert, A.: Planimetric and
volumetric glacier changes in the Khumbu Himal, Nepal, since 1962 using
Corona, Landsat TM and ASTER data, J. Glaciol., 54, 592–600,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3189/002214308786570782" target="_blank">doi:10.3189/002214308786570782</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Bolch, T., Menounos, B., and Wheate, R.: Landsat-based inventory of glaciers
in western Canada, 1985–2005, Remote Sens. Environ., 114, 127–137,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2009.08.015" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.rse.2009.08.015</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Bolch, T., Kulkarni, A., Kääb, A., Huggel, C., Paul, F., Cogley,
J. G., Frey, H., Kargel, J. S., Fujita, K., Scheel, M., Bajracharya, S., and
Stoffel, M.: The state and fate of Himalayan glaciers, Science, 336,
310–314, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1215828" target="_blank">doi:10.1126/science.1215828</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Bookhagen, B. and Burbank, D. W.: Topography, relief, and TRMM-derived
rainfall variations along the Himalaya, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L08405,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006GL026037" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2006GL026037</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Braithwaite, R. J. and Raper, S. C. B.: Estimating equilibrium-line altitude
(ELA) from glacier inventory data, Ann. Glaciol., 50, 127–132,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3189/172756410790595930" target="_blank">doi:10.3189/172756410790595930</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Cogley, J. G.: Climate science: Himalayan glaciers in the balance, Nature,
488, 468–469, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/488468a" target="_blank">doi:10.1038/488468a</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Cogley, J. G.: Glacier shrinkage across High Mountain Asia, Ann. Glaciol.,
57, 41–49, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3189/2016AoG71A040" target="_blank">doi:10.3189/2016AoG71A040</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Evans, I. S. and Cox, N. J.: Global variations of local asymmetry in glacier
altitude: separation of north–south and east–west components, J. Glaciol.,
51, 469–482, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3189/172756505781829205" target="_blank">doi:10.3189/172756505781829205</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Fujita, K. and Nuimura, T.: Spatially heterogeneous wastage of Himalayan
glaciers, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 108, 14011–14014,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1106242108" target="_blank">doi:10.1073/pnas.1106242108</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Gardelle, J., Arnaud, Y., and Berthier, E.: Contrasted evolution of glacial
lakes along the Hindu Kush Himalaya mountain range between 1990 and 2009,
Global Planet. Change, 75, 47–55, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2010.10.003" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2010.10.003</a>,
2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Gardelle, J., Berthier, E., Arnaud, Y., and Kääb, A.: Region-wide
glacier mass balances over the Pamir-Karakoram-Himalaya during 1999–2011,
The Cryosphere, 7, 1263–1286, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/tc-7-1263-2013" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/tc-7-1263-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Gardner, A., Moholdt, G., Cogley, J. G., Wouters, B., Arendt, A., Wahr, J.,
Berthier, E., Hock, R., Pfeffer, W. T., Kaser G., Ligtenberg, S. R. M.,
Bolch, T., Martin, J., Sharp, M. J., Hagen, J. O., van den Broeke, M. R., and
Paul, F.: A Reconciled Estimate of Glacier Contributions to Sea Level Rise:
2003 to 2009, Science, 340, 852–857, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1234532" target="_blank">doi:10.1126/science.1234532</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Guo, W., Liu, S., Xu, J., Wu, L., Shangguan, D., Yao, X., Wei, J., Bao, W.,
Yu, P., Liu, Q., and Jiang, Z.: The second Chinese glacier inventory: data,
methods and results, J. Glaciol., 61, 357–371, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3189/2015JoG14J209" target="_blank">doi:10.3189/2015JoG14J209</a>,
2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Hewitt, K.: Glacier change, concentration, and elevation effects in the
Karakoram Himalaya, Upper Indus Basin, Mt. Res. Dev., 31, 188–200, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Houze, R. A., Wilton, D. C., and Smull, B. F.: Monsoon convection in the
Himalayan region as seen by the TRMM Precipitation Radar, Q. J. Roy. Meteor.
Soc., 133, 1389–1411, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/qj.106" target="_blank">doi:10.1002/qj.106</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Huffman, G. J., Bolton, D. T., Neilkin, E. J., and Wolff, D. B.: The TRMM
multi satellite precipitation analysis (TMPA): quasi-global, multiyear,
combined-sensor precipitation estimates at fine scales, J. Hydrometeorol., 8,
38–55, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.1968.tb00567.x" target="_blank">doi:10.1111/j.1541-0064.1968.tb00567.x</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Huss, M. and Farinotti, D.: Distributed ice thickness and volume of all
glaciers around the globe, J. Geophys. Res., 117, F04010,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2012JF002523" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2012JF002523</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Immerzeel, W. W., Van Beek, L. P., and Bierkens, M. F.: Climate change will
affect the Asian water towers, Science, 328, 1382–1385,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1183188" target="_blank">doi:10.1126/science.1183188</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
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, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2004.11.003" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.rse.2004.11.003</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Kääb, A., Berthier, E., Nuth, C., Gardelle, J., and Arnaud, Y.:
Contrasting patterns of early twenty-first-century glacier mass change in the
Himalayas, Nature, 488, 495–498, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11324" target="_blank">doi:10.1038/nature11324</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Karma, Y. A., Naito, N., Iwata, S., and Yabuki, H.: Glacier distribution in
the Himalayas and glacier shrinkage from 1963 to 1993 in the Bhutan
Himalayas, Bulletin of Glaciological Research, 20, 29–40, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Kaser, G., Großhauser, M., and Marzeion, B.: Contribution potential of
glaciers to water availability in different climate regimes, P. Natl. Acad.
Sci. USA, 107, 20223–20227, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1008162107" target="_blank">doi:10.1073/pnas.1008162107</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Kienholz, C., Herreid, S., Rich, J., Arendt, A., Hock, R., and Burgess, E.:
Derivation and analysis of a complete modern-date glacier inventory for
Alaska and northwest Canada, J. Glaciol., 61, 403–420,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3189/2015JoG14J230" target="_blank">doi:10.3189/2015JoG14J230</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Marzeion, B., Jarosch, A. H., and Hofer, M.: Past and future sea-level change
from the surface mass balance of glaciers, The Cryosphere, 6, 1295–1322,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/tc-6-1295-2012" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/tc-6-1295-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Mool, P. K., Wangda, D., Bajracharya, S. R., Kunzang, K., Gurung, D. R., and
Joshi, S. P.: Inventory of Glaciers, Glacial Lakes and Glacial Lake Outburst
Floods, Bhutan, International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development
(ICIMOD), Kathmandu, Nepal, 227 pp., 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Nagai, H., Fujita, K., Nuimura, T., and Sakai, A.: Southwest-facing slopes
control the formation of debris-covered glaciers in the Bhutan Himalaya,
Cryosphere, 7, 1303–1314, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/tc-7-1303-2013" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/tc-7-1303-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Narama, C., Kääb, A., Duishonakunov, M., and Abdrakhmatov, K.:
Spatial variability of recent glacier area changes in the Tien Shan
Mountains, Central Asia, using Corona ( ∼  1970), Landsat ( ∼  2000),
and ALOS ( ∼  2007) satellite data, Global Planet. Change, 71, 42–54,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2009.08.002" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2009.08.002</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Nuimura, T., Sakai, A., Taniguchi, K., Nagai, H., Lamsal, D., Tsutaki, S.,
Kozawa, A., Hoshina, Y., Takenaka, S., Omiya, S., Tsunematsu, K., Tshering,
P., and Fujita, K.: The GAMDAM glacier inventory: a quality-controlled
inventory of Asian glaciers, The Cryosphere, 9, 849–864,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/tc-9-849-2015" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/tc-9-849-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Ohmura, A., Kasser, P., and Funk, M.: Climate at the equilibrium line of
glaciers, J. Glaciol., 38, 397–411, 1992.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Paul, F. and Andreassen, L. M.: A new glacier inventory for the Svartisen
region, Norway, from Landsat ETM+ data: challenges and change assessment,
J. Glaciol., 55, 607–618, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3189/002214309789471003" target="_blank">doi:10.3189/002214309789471003</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Paul, F., Huggel, C., and Kääb, A.: Combining satellite multispectral
image data and a digital elevation model for mapping debris-covered glaciers,
Remote Sens. Environ., 89, 510–518, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2003.11.007" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.rse.2003.11.007</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Paul, F., Frey, H., and Le Bris, R.: A new glacier inventory for the European
Alps from Landsat TM scenes of 2003: challenges and results. Ann. Glaciol.,
52, 144–152, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3189/172756411799096295" target="_blank">doi:10.3189/172756411799096295</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Paul, F., Barrand, N. E., Baumann, S., Berthier, E., Bolch, T., Casey, K.,
Frey, H., Joshi, S. P., Konovalov, V., Le Bris, R., Mölg, N., Nosenko,
G., Nuth, C., Pope, A., Racoviteanu, A., Rastner, P., Raup, B., Scharrer, K.,
Steffen, S., and Winsvold, S.: On the accuracy of glacier outlines derived
from remote-sensing data, Ann. Glaciol., 54, 171–182,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3189/2013AoG63A296" target="_blank">doi:10.3189/2013AoG63A296</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Pfeffer, W. T., Arendt, A. A., Bliss, A., Bolch, T., Cogley, J. G., Gardner,
A. S., Hagen, J., Hock, R., Kaser, G., Kienholz, C., Miles, E. S., Moholdt,
G., Mölg, N., Paul, F., Radic, V., Rastner, P., Raup, B. H., Rich, J.,
Sharp, M. J., and the Randolph Consortium: The Randolph Glacier Inventory: a
globally complete inventory of glaciers, J. Glaciol., 60, 537–552,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3189/2014JoG13J176" target="_blank">doi:10.3189/2014JoG13J176</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Racoviteanu, A. E., Williams, M. W., and Barry, R. G.: Optical Remote Sensing
of Glacier Characteristics: A Review with Focus on the Himalaya, Sensors, 8,
3355–3383, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s8053355" target="_blank">doi:10.3390/s8053355</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Radić, V. and Hock, R.: Regionally differentiated contribution of
mountain glaciers and ice caps to future sea-level rise, Nat. Geosci., 4,
91–94, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1052" target="_blank">doi:10.1038/ngeo1052</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Radić, V., Bliss, A., Beedlow, A. C., Hock, R., Miles, E., and Cogley,
J. G.: Regional and global projections of twenty-first century glacier mass
changes in response to climate scenarios from global climate models, Clim.
Dynam., 42, 37–58, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1719-7" target="_blank">doi:10.1007/s00382-013-1719-7</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Raup, B. and Khalsa, S. J. S.: GLIMS analysis tutorial. Boulder, CO,
University of Colorado, National Snow and Ice Data Center, available at:
<a href="http://www.glims.org/MapsAndDocs/guides.html" target="_blank">http://www.glims.org/MapsAndDocs/guides.html</a>, last access: 1 December
2015, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Raup, B. H., Khalsa, S. J. S., Armstrong, R. L., Sneed, W. A., Hamilton,
G. S., Paul, F., Cawkwell, F., Beedle, M. J., Menounos, B. P., Wheate, R. D.,
Rott, H., Shiyin, L., Xin, Li., Donghui, S., Guodong, C., Kargel, J. S.,
Larsen, C. F., Molnia, B. F., Kincaid, J. L., Klein, A., and Konovalov, V.:
Quality in the GLIMS glacier database, in: Global Land Ice Measurements from
Space, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 163–182,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-79818-7_7" target="_blank">doi:10.1007/978-3-540-79818-7_7</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Richardson, S. D. and Reynolds, J. M.: An overview of glacial hazards in the
Himalayas, Quatern. Int., 65, 31–47, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1040-6182(99)00035-X" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/S1040-6182(99)00035-X</a>,
2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Sakai, A., Nuimura, T., Fujita, K., Takenaka, S., Nagai, H., and Lamsal, D.:
Climate regime of Asian glaciers revealed by GAMDAM glacier inventory, The
Cryosphere, 9, 865–880, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/tc-9-865-2015" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/tc-9-865-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Scherler, D., Bookhagen, B., and Strecker, M. R.: Hillslope–glacier
coupling: The interplay of topography and glacial dynamics in High Asia,
J. Geophys. Res., 116, F02019, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010JF001751" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2010JF001751</a>, 2011a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Scherler, D., Bookhagen, B., and Strecker, M. R.: Spatially variable response
of Himalayan glaciers to climate change affected by debris cover, Nat.
Geosci., 4, 156–159, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1068" target="_blank">doi:10.1038/ngeo1068</a>, 2011b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Shi, Y., Lium, C., and Kang, E.: The Glacier Inventory of China, Ann.
Glaciol., 50, 1–4, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3189/172756410790595831" target="_blank">doi:10.3189/172756410790595831</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Tachikawa, T., Hato, M., Kaku, M., and Iwasaki, A.: The characteristics of
ASTER GDEM version 2, Proc. IGARSS 2011 Symposium, Vancouver, Canada,
24–29 July 2011, 3657–3660, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Takaku, J. and Tadono T.: PRISM On-Orbit geometric calibration and DSM
performance, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 47, 4060–4073,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2009.2021649" target="_blank">doi:10.1109/TGRS.2009.2021649</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Ukita, J., Narama, C., Tadono, T., Yamanokuchi, T., Tomiyama, N., Kawamoto,
S., Abe, C., Uda, T., Yabuki, H., Fujita, K., and Nishimura, K.: Glacial lake
inventory of Bhutan using ALOS data: methods and preliminary results, Ann.
Glaciol, 52, 65–71, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3189/172756411797252293" target="_blank">doi:10.3189/172756411797252293</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Vaughan, D. G., Comiso, J. C., Allison, I., Carrasco, J., Kaser, G., Kwok,
R., Mote, P., Murray, T., Paul, F., Ren, J., Rignot, E., Solomina, O.,
Steffen, K., and Zhang, T.: Observations: Cryosphere, in: Climate Change
2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
edited by: Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G. K., Tignor, M., Allen,
S. K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., and Midgley, P. M.,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, N.Y.,
USA, 317–382, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.012" target="_blank">doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.012</a>, 2013.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
Yamamoto, M. K., Ueno, K., and Nakamura, K.: Comparison of satellite
precipitation products with rain gauge data for the Khumbu region, Nepal
Himalaya, J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn., 89, 597–610, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.2011-601" target="_blank">doi:10.2151/jmsj.2011-601</a>,
2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Yao, T., Thompson, L., Yang, W., Yu, W., Gao, Y., Guo, X., Yang, X., Duan,
K., Zhao, H., Xu, B., Pu, J., Lu, A., Xiang, Y. Kattel, D. B., and Joswiak,
D.: Different glacier status with atmospheric circulations in Tibetan Plateau
and surroundings, Nature Climate Change, 2, 663–667,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1580" target="_blank">doi:10.1038/nclimate1580</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
