Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · pp1386F

Glaciers of Asia

Abstract

This chapter is the ninth to be released in U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1386, Satellite Image Atlas of Glaciers of the World, a series of 11 chapters. In each of the geographic area chapters, remotely sensed images, primarily from the Landsat 1, 2, and 3 series of spacecraft, are used to analyze the specific glacierized region of our planet under consideration and to monitor glacier changes. Landsat images, acquired primarily during the middle to late 1970s and early 1980s, were used by an international team of glaciologists and other scientists to study various geographic regions and (or) to discuss related glaciological topics. In each glacierized geographic region, the present areal distribution of glaciers is compared, wherever possible, with historical information about their past extent. The atlas provides an accurate regional inventory of the areal extent of glacier ice on our planet during the 1970s as part of a growing international scientific effort to measure global environmental change on the Earth’s surface. The chapter is divided into seven geographic parts and one topical part: Glaciers of the Former Soviet Union (F–1), Glaciers of China (F–2), Glaciers of Afghanistan (F–3), Glaciers of Pakistan (F–4), Glaciers of India (F–5), Glaciers of Nepal (F–6), Glaciers of Bhutan (F–7), and the Paleoenvironmental Record Preserved in Middle-Latitude, High-Mountain Glaciers (F–8). Each geographic section describes the glacier extent during the 1970s and 1980s, the benchmark time period (1972–1981) of this volume, but has been updated to include more recent information. Glaciers of the Former Soviet Union are located in the Russian Arctic and various mountain ranges of Russia and the Republics of Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Kazakstun. The Glacier Inventory of the USSR and the World Atlas of Ice and Snow Resources recorded a total of 28,881 glaciers covering an area of 78,938 square kilometers (km 2 ). China includes many of the mountain-glacier systems of the world including the Himalaya, Karakorum, Tien Shan and Altay mountain ranges. The glaciers are widely scattered and cover an area of about 59,425 km 2 . The mountain glaciers may be classified as maritime, subcontinental or extreme continental. In Afghanistan, more than 3,000 small glaciers occur in the Hindu Kush and Pamir mountains. Most glaciers occur on north-facing slopes shaded by mountain peaks and on east and southeast slopes that are shaded by monsoon clouds. The glaciers provide vital water resources to the region and cover an area of about 2,700 km 2 . Glaciers of northern Pakistan are some of the largest and longest mid-latitude glaciers on Earth. They are located in the Hindu Kush, Himalaya, and Karakoram mountains and cover an area of about 15,000 km 2 . Glaciers here are important for their role in providing water resources and their hazard potential. The glaciers in India are located in the Himalaya and cover about 8,500 km 2 . The Himalaya contains one of the largest reservoirs of snow and ice outside the polar regions. The glaciers are a major source of fresh water and supply meltwater to all the rivers in northern India, thereby affecting the quality of life of millions of people. In Nepal, the glaciers are located in the Himalaya as individual glaciers; the glacierized area covers about 5,324 km 2 . The region is the highest mountainous region on Earth and includes the Mt. Everest region. Glaciers in the Bhutan Himalaya have a total area of about 1,317 km 2 . Many recent glacier studies are focused on glacier lakes that have the potential of generating dangerous glacier lake outburst floods. Research on the glaciers of the middle-latitude, high-mountain glaciers of Asia has also focused on the information contained in the ice cores from the glaciers. This information helps in the reconstruction of paleoclimatic records, and the computer modeling of global climate change.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Vladimir M. Kotlyakov, A.M. Dyakova, V.S. Koryakin, V.I. Kravtsova, G.B. Osipova, G.M. Varnakova, V.N. Vinogradov, O.N. Vinogradov, N.M. Zverkova, O.V. Rototaeva, G.A. Nosenko, D.G. Tsvetkov, Julian A. Dowdeswell, E.K. Dowdeswell, Murray Williams, A.F. Glazovskii, Yafeng Shi, Desheng Mi, Tangdong Yao, Q. Zeng, Chaohai Liu, John E. Schroder, Michael P. Bishop, Chander P. Vohra, Syed I. Hasnain, Rajesh Kumar, Safaraz Ahmad, Shresth Tayal, K Higuchi, Okitsugu Watanabe, Hiroji Fushimi, Shuhei Takenaka, Akio Nagoshi, Yutaka Ageta, Shuji Iwata, L. DeWayne Cecil, David L. Naftz, Paul F. Schuster, David D. Susong, Jaromy R. Green. 2010. Glaciers of Asia. https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1386f

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Allostratigraphy and formalizing the Cold Harbor Alloformation, Virginia Coastal Plain, Eastern Virginia

Introduction Distinct morphologic features in the Virginia part of the Coastal Plain Province (herein referred to as the Virginia Coastal Plain) were noted in one of the earliest geologic surveys in 1839 (Rogers, 1884). South of the James River, Rogers (1884, p. 252) described a western bench that ranged from “a low rocky coast…of the primeval sea” to an eastern facing scarp east of the City of Suffolk, Virginia. His eastern bench extended from the scarp at Suffolk, which he suggested was a former shoreline, to the present Atlantic Ocean. Notably, the eastern plain was described as less dissected than the western plain. In Virginia, creation and publication of topographic maps by the U. S. Geological Survey began in the mid-1880s. By 1905, many areas in eastern Virginia were mapped as 30-minute and 15-minute series with 10-foot (ft) contour interval accuracy (Virginia Division of Mineral Resources [VDMR] , 2008). After the continued release of these early maps that displayed Virginia Coastal Plain morphology in increasingly greater detail, several geological reports were published where scarps and plains were traced, named, and origins proposed (Shaler, 1890; Shattuck, 1901; Clark and Miller, 1906, 1912; Wentworth, 1930). Shattuck (1901) recognized three continuous scarps in Maryland and most importantly suggested that there was a correlation between surficial deposits (geologic formations) and morphologic terraces; this defined the terrace-formation concept that became the basis of geologic mapping of the Upper Pliocene and Pleistocene sediments in the Virginia Coastal Plain. Clark and Miller (1912) described three Pleistocene formations and supported the terrace-formation concept because the sediments within each formation were lithologically similar to one another, and differentiating them by comparing key vertical sections was not helpful. In Virginia, Wentworth (1930) defined and mapped five Pleistocene terraces on the basis of correlating morphologic terraces with their underlying formation sediments. Similarly, Cooke (1931) identified and traced seven marine shorelines and proposed corresponding terrace names from Maryland to Florida. Cooke (1931) also pointed out that the various elevations of scarps were related to interglacial sea-level highstands whereas prior workers called on vertical land movement of emergence and submergence to create shoreline scarps. Cooke’s (1936) geologic map of eastern South Carolina showing the Pleistocene sediments is also based on the terrace-formation concept. Detailed geologic mapping of the Virginia Coastal Plain by Virginia Division of Mineral Resources (VDMR) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) followed lithostratigraphic convention for Early Pliocene and older marine sediments. However, geologic mapping of Upper Pliocene and Pleistocene sediments used the concept of morphologic setting and elevations of scarp toe and flat-plain, or the terrace-formation concept. The 1983 version of the North American Stratigraphic Code (hereafter the Code) (North American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature [NACSN] , 1983) introduced allostratigraphy that gave credence to the terrace-formation concept. According to the current Code (NACSN, 2021; Article 58), “an allostratigraphic unit is a mappable body of rock that is defined and identified on the basis of its bounding discontinuities,” and, “formal allostratigraphic units may be defined or distinguish between different (1) superposed discontinuity-bounded deposits of similar lithology, (2) contiguous discontinuity-bounded deposits of similar lithology, or (3) geographically separated discontinuity-bounded units of similar lithology…The lithology of an allostratigraphic unit plays no part in its definition.” However, definition and placement of bounding discontinuities relies on lateral and vertical knowledge of lithology and is so recognized in Article 58e, “A type locality and type area must be designated; a composite stratotype or a type section and several reference sections are desirable.” We understand that each of the terrace formations of Late Pliocene and Pleistocene age were deposited during a marine transgressive event tied to an interglacial sea-level highstand (scarp above the Poquoson Member of the Tabb Formation may be the result of a still-stand as sea level was falling after deposition of the Lynnhaven Member, refer to fig. 1). The base of each map unit is an unconformity (or is at least in part for the base of the Poquoson) and nomenclature for each unit might be changed from “formation” to “alloformation,” as suggested by Doar and Berquist (2009). Figure 1 shows the relative placement of these mapped and named alloformations as used in the Virginia Coastal Plain and Fall Zone (a zone of transition between the Piedmont and Coastal Plain Provinces) (Berquist, 2021). Except perhaps for the Poquoson, many of these proposed alloformations are unlikely to interfinger or grade laterally seaward into extensive deep marine sediments. After their deposition, erosion during sea-level fall and then rise for the next depositional event would seemingly obliterate any marine connection without a basal unconformity. All these alloformations contain sediments deposited in fluvial, estuarine, and shallow-marine environments and are bound everywhere by unconformities. This paper documents the Cold Harbor Alloformation as a formal stratigraphic unit and the rationale for mapping the sediments using an allostratigraphic classification. The Cold Harbor Alloformation is composed of sediments from a variety of environments such as gravel beds, shoreline beach sands, marsh and estuarine sand and mud, and shallow marine sands. These sediments are found at elevations up to 240 ft and lie unconformably above older sediments and rocks. Our work relied on observations of outcrops and many auger borings to identify basal unconformities.

Professional Paper↗

Formalization of the Elsing Green Alloformation, Virginia Coastal Plain, Eastern Virginia

The Elsing Green Alloformation is herein formalized as a new Pleistocene alloformation in the Virginia Coastal Plain. This allostratigraphic unit is characterized by an unconformity-bounded terrace deposit occupying a morphologic flat with a mapped elevation range of about 26 to 38 feet (7.9 to 11.6 meters); its landward extent is commonly marked at the base of an erosional scarp where the toe is typically at 38 feet (11.6 meters) and is distinguished by its topographic expression and stratigraphic position. Sediments of this unit were previously mapped as part of the Shirley Formation or Sedgefield Member of the Tabb Formation but differ significantly in their bounding scarps and terrace morphology. The type area is within the Tunstall 7.5-minute quadrangle near Elsing Green Plantation, King William County, Virginia. The reference section is provided by boring 2012270-2. Correlation is proposed with other mid-Pleistocene terrace deposits in the mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain, including the younger Lynch Heights Formation of Delaware and the Butlers Bluff Member of the Nassawadox Formation of the Eastern Shore of Virginia. The age of the Elsing Green Alloformation is interpreted to be Marine Isotope Stage 9e (about 330,000 years).

Professional Paper↗

Resurvey of the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon dam sites in Grand Canyon National Park—Changes in sediment storage and evidence supporting the occurrence of bedrock incision through the mid-20th century

The Bureau of Reclamation developed an extensive plan for a network of dams, water tunnels, and hydropower plants in and around Grand Canyon, Arizona, in the 1940s through 1960s. The two largest of these planned dams were the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon Dams on the Colorado River. Though these dams were ultimately never built, Reclamation conducted extensive topographic, bathymetric, and subsurface exploration work at the sites proposed for these dams in the 1940s and 1950s. Resurveys of these dam sites were conducted between 1998 and 2021 to determine the changes in sediment storage at these dam sites caused by the upstream construction and operation of Glen Canyon Dam and by the recession of Lake Mead, the reservoir impounded by Hoover Dam. The resurveys of the Marble Canyon dam sites indicate that the post-1950s changes in sediment storage at these dam sites are broadly consistent with flux-based estimates of voluminous sand erosion from Marble Canyon since the 1963 closure of Glen Canyon Dam. These resurveys also suggest that the pre-dam longitudinal variation in sediment thickness over bedrock played a key role in determining the locations of the sand erosion induced by Glen Canyon Dam; more sand eroded from locations where more sand was present in the 1950s. The resurvey of the Bridge Canyon dam sites indicates that the Colorado River’s incision of the Lake Mead delta is regulated both by bed-sediment grain size and downstream hydraulic controls. Finally, analyses of bed-sediment thickness and sedimentological data at the dam sites, and observations of bed scour and gravel transport, suggest that sufficient bedrock was exposed to allow bedrock incision during commonly recurring pre-dam snowmelt floods that entrained small boulders into transport.

Arizona↗