Response to Mölg et al.: Glacier loss on Kilimanjaro is consistent with widespread ice loss in low latitudes

Abstract

Our paper (1) does not seek to review all potential controls on glacier mass balance (MB) but to (i) present ice volume-change calculations, revealing that glacier thinning now accounts for ∼50% of the ice-volume loss for the summit ice fields, (ii) update changes in the areal extent of the ice fields based on newer (2007) aerial photographs, and (iii) highlight that ice loss on Kilimanjaro is not exceptional. We disagree with Molg et al. (2) that we inappropriately propose that Kilimanjaro’s “shrinking ice fields are not unique” (1). The reduction in areal extent and ice volume (shrinking) of Kilimanjaro’ si cefields is not unique; it isconsistentwiththewell-documentedwidespread glacier retreat in lower latitudes. Molg et al. (2) obfuscate the issue of Kilimanjaro’s glacier recession by not differentiating between processes responsible for decreasing ice area (i.e., vertical wall retreat) and more typical MB processes acting on horizontal surfaces, where the balance is currently negative. In fact, since 2000, we have documented area-weighted plateau thinning of ∼4 m, a tremendous increase over the rate of 1 m per