For Hyak: Photos of glacial recession on Mt Hood?

A dissenting perspective from Hyak's Hood photos , here is the west side of Mt Hood published by the *BBC* today:<br> <br><br>From news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/picture_g..._changing/html/5.stm

Nice pictures. You need to be careful interpreting them though. The 1985 shot looks like it was taken earlier in the summer, so there is quite a bit of seasonal snow still around. The actual extent of the glaciers (as well as I can tell by looking at the pictures) hasn't changed too much. The snow and ice on the headwalls (particularly the Sandy) is very different, but I don't think that really counts. I've got a similar picture of Spider Mountain on my website:<br><br>www.alpenglow.org/climbing/ptarmigan-195...r-mtn-1953-2003.html

That certainly seems like good advice, Lowell. FWIW, the caption of the photo is, "This image shows Mount Hood in Oregon at the same time in late summer in 1985 and 2002".<br><br>The full BBC slideshow can be seen here:<br>news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/picture_g..._changing/html/1.stm

The slideshow starts out with the text:

Some scientists say an increase in the rate of melting of the world's glaciers is evidence of global warming. <br><br>Argentina's Upsala Glacier was once the biggest in South America, but it is now disappearing at a rate of 200 metres per year. <br><br>Other scientists say its reduction is due to complicated shifts in glacial dynamics and local geology.

<br>I'm certainly not a scientist nor do I have any background in glaciology, this leaves me stuck with taking the interpretation of whatever source seems most credible.

The Robson glacier (Mt. Robson, B.C.) is receding about 50 ft. a year. It's amazing to see the height of the lateral moraines. I'm too lazy to look it up, but aren't there only a couple of glaciers in the world that are actually growing? I sort of remember reading that the Blue on Olympus was one of them. ???

My UW geodork buddies tell me the Blue is one of the few that is stagnant, mostly due to a steep gradient at its terminus. It would need much higher temps to recede and much cooler temps to advance. The glacier inside the Mt St Helens crater is actually growing because the eruption created a new "cirque" of sorts without any ice in it, and the whole system is still way out of whack because of that. At some point it should reach equlibrium (I'm sure there's a masters thesis or two there...). Of course, it could also just get blown up...

Unless all glaciologists are corrupt, I do not doubt that most glacial "regions" are rapidly losing mass. A documented fact and indisputable. This includes the Cascades.<br><br>However, the type of glacier that is to react most to this phenomenon may not be consistent. The small hanging and pocket glaciers that are high on the sides of the Cascades may be particularly immune to what is happening. This may be due to their very nature, they can only accumulate a certain amount of mass in a given season because of their physical constraints (small area confined by steep slopes, steep accumulation zones, etc.) Once they accumulate max snow in a season, the rest just sloughs off to the sides or drops far below. In other words they max out in lean or mean years no matter what. Many of the pictures shown in these discussions seem to concentrate on displaying this type of glacier, which is so common in the Cascades, yet still does not represent where most of the glacial mass resides.<br><br>Larger glaciers with lower angle accumulation zones, would seem to be most vunerable. Here are glaciers that have esssentially no limits to their ability to accumulate snow in a given season, have done so for centuries or more to attain some level of equilibrium and therefore will react most dramatically to a consistent change in their ability to maintain mass. Can anyone argue that the Nisqually is actually increasing in mass or is stable? Even the Coleman, which recently was advancing (which by the way does not necessarily mean that it is increasing in mass, it could be that the bed that the glacier is resting on has increased in lubrication due to melting that causes a surge in forward motion.) has clearly changed for the less since my ventures there in 1993. The stagnant portion of the Coleman is completely disintegrating, and the active portion in the trench seems to occupy noticably less volume.<br><br>In any case all the dinky pocket glaciers seen on the sides of many mountains of the Cascades probably don't add up to the volume of one or two Nisquallys or Colemans. It could be that the glaciologists measurements reflect total ice depletion and not whether one small glacier here or there is gaining or losing.<br><br>Since the jist of these threads seem to be arguments for or against global warming, my two cents are that the phenomenon is clearly established. I think the only debate at this point is why and will it continue and if so, how far will it go?<br><br>Alan

 I think the only debate at this point is why and will it continue and if so, how far will it go?<br>

<br><br>Of course climate change will continue. Look at history and you'll find that it is always changing. vathena.arc.nasa.gov/curric/land/global/climchng.html You'll see too that the rates of change are not constant either. It's hard to comprehend how a few hundred years of recorded data fits into the billions of years of earths history.

It seems the debate is more about are humans responsible for recent climate change in the last few hundred years. My thoughts are that 200 years, or less, is what people tend to focus on, which to me seems like an insignificant time window in the bigger picture (200 years in 5,000,000,000 years is not much time). We still seem to be within normal historical ranges. At least that's what I see when I look at historical records.

The post above by hambone was actually written by me, zenom. We used the same computer and I didn't notice hambone was still logged in until too late.

Good discussion, everyone. BigSnow, that's a good point about glacier types. I agree with hambone/zenom that simply using the term "climate change" obscures what the real question is. "Climate change" happens, but what we are really debating is how much, if any, humans are contributing to climate change. It's true that our climate record is very short compared to the age of the Earth, but isn't it true that we have fairly reliable data for more than just a few hundred years (ice cores, tree rings, glaciation evidence, etc)? I don't have a link for this, but it seems to me that what is really striking is the recent high rate of change of "greenhouse gas" concentrations in the atmosphere (increase). This is what stands out to me as some of the strongest evidence of human effects on the atmosphere. Of course, then there is the question of how the atmosphere will react to this rapid rate of change.<br><br>PS- Jeff, just a coincidence that you started this thread on the first day of Kyoto accord in effect?

I did see these photo's a couple days ago.  The photo from 1985 looks like it was taken after a recent snowfall (clean snow) as compared to the 2002 photo where all the snow had melted and the snow remaining appears to be not so white.  I looked back at old data and found that 1985 was a better snow year as well as compared to 2002.  At least in the photo's provided on skistreak.com they gave the month each photo was taken, where this just says 'same time in the summer' which is very vague.  I'm sure this summer we will be able to come up with some very bare looking photo's and then compare to say 2000 and say "look at the loss of snow".  Doesn't prove anything beyond 2005 as being a horrible winter for the PNW and snowfall.  <br><br>If you look at the SKISTREAK photo's you will also notice that 2002 was not a good snow season when compared to 2003 where there is significant more snow. FWIW.....<br><br>I liked the photo's they showed from the late 1800's compared to today with the glacier loss there, now that was impressive.  But as we all know, most of north america was once covered in glaciers that have since receeded and what is occuring today is nothing more then what has been occuring since the end of the last ice age....(my opinion)..  I don't really want to get another GW debate going, but the photo's are interesting to look at.<br><br>Thanks for the photo's..

Actually, the recent recessions are not the continuation of the retreat of the last ice age, when the continent was largely ice bound.<br><br>"Relative" stability (meaning numerous fluctuations including mini ice ages have since occurred) compared to that ice age has been around for quite a while.<br><br>Hyak is going to have a hard time convincing me that there is not warming going on by using photos of a couple of glaciers on some mountain side. There are whole fiords in Alaska that have since opened up in the last century. Ecosystems are moving north and up in altitude. Lots and lots of data, but if a person wants to stick their head in the sand, there is a lot of that too.<br><br>I think what I can agree with is that there is no "proof" that the current warming regime is due to man's activity.<br><br>There is just correlation, related to the fact that greenhouse gases have raised very significantly in the last century or so.<br><br>I guess the question is: do we wait for another few decades so that this correlation can be established as proof based on statistical significance? If it is proven but then realized that it is too late for corrective action, what have you gained. There is something to be said for risk analysis coming into play here, but so hard to calculate considering the lack of knowledge.<br><br>Bottom line is that those who will greatly profit by not acting will always come down on the side of waiting to see... ('cause of the bottom line!) Maybe even not wanting to put a little effort into finding out what really may be going on, for fear of losing the debate.<br><br>Alan

Actually, the recent recessions are not the continuation of the retreat of the last ice age, when the continent was largely ice bound.<br><br>Hyak is going to have a hard time convincing me that there is not warming going on by using photos of a couple of glaciers on some mountain side. <br><br>Alan

<br><br>Don't worry, I am NOT trying to convince anyone of any of my theories. I just give my personal opinion and really have no desire for debate. <br><br>This is what happens with such a poor snow year, we spend too much time discussing things other then backcountry ski trips. I sure hope it snows sometime soon so I can start hiking again and get a few turns.

Hyak, I agree on all points.<br><br>These types of years tend to scare us into thinking the worse.<br><br>Fact is there have been similar droughts and of longer duration than a single year in the past in this area. We were probably overdue.<br><br>Alan

Does anyone know when the the term "global warming" first appeared in the lexicon? Was it in the early 90's? I vividly remember the coming ice age predictions in the mid 70's (as a very young child of course). But I can't pinpoint the first mention of global warming ... in modern times:<br><br>pages.zoom.co.uk/cosmicelk/GlobalWarming.htm Interesting reading.

I remember as a kid in the early 70s hearing of the coming Ice Age. Of course this was due to global cooling caused by pollution blocking out the sun, or something like that.<br><br>In the 80's it became the Ozone hole scare, later to be learned the ozone hole is a normal occurance that changes with the seasons. You never hear of the ozone hole anymore. <br><br>Now its the GW stuff.......Its always something, its always bad and its always caused by MAN.

In the 80's it became the Ozone hole scare, later to be learned the ozone hole is a normal occurance that changes with the seasons.  You never hear of the ozone hole anymore. 

<br><br>Yes, the ozone hole is a seasonal thing, but I don't think I've ever read (in the mainstream press) that ozone depletion was a myth. I just did a quick google on "ozone depletion" and found this NASA page:<br><br>www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/Ozone/history.html

If you scan down the page to "Current Goverment regulations" you'll find what sound to me like pretty stringent actions to phase out CFCs. These protocols are still in effect. My interpretation of the history is that the reason you don't hear about the ozone hole anymore is that we're doing something about it.<br><br><br>

Hyak - interesting logic. If memory serves you are using an logical fallacy called "poisoning the well" - in other words, attaching something that may have been shown to be wrong (predictions of a coming ice age) to something else (global warming being caused by man). It was not a convincing tactic in high school debate, and it is not convincing now either. <br><br>Try testing another bit of your thinking - is it so unimaginable that man could affect climate through his activities? It certainly happens on a micro-scale (e.g. go for a nice long run in the L.A. basin when the smog has set in, or better yet go from the paved and built area of downtown Kirkland on a hot summer day to the cool woods of St Edward Park which is typically MUCH cooler yet further from the cooling effects of Puget Sound, and ask yourself this question again). Is it so hard to imagine effects on a macro scale? You don't need to do any hard science thinking for this thought exercise - you can just keep using your gut. This may not change your opinion, but could it allow some shred of doubt creep in?

If memory serves you are using an logical fallacy called "poisoning the well" - in other words, attaching something that may have been shown to be wrong (predictions of a coming ice age) to something else (global warming being caused by man).

<br><br>An article in today's Seattle Times suggests that the "new ice age" problem is still a concern.<br><br>seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationwor...02183544_warm18.html

The concern is about fresh water shutting down currents in the Atlantic, which keep northern Europe and the eastern U.S. warmer than they would otherwise be, given their latitude.

Hyak - interesting logic. If memory serves you are using an logical fallacy called "poisoning the well" - in other words, attaching something that may have been shown to be wrong (predictions of a coming ice age) to something else (global warming being caused by man). It was not a convincing tactic in high school debate, and it is not convincing now either. <br>

<br><br>I feel like I'm caught playing dogpile on the playground and I'm the guy on the bottom.....<br><br><br>As I said earlier, I am not trying to convince anyone (I am no expert on this subject and I'll be the first to admit it), I just voice an opinion and tell why.....no big deal. <br><br><br><br>

Hey - I'm just sharing thoughts and ideas. No intent to jump on your body, and no expectation that you'll change your opinion. I just liked participating in this sort of discussion to test my own thinking by putting it out there for others to challenge (or amplify). <br><br>Ever since reading Godel's proof in college, which for me raised questions even about "mathametical certainty," i've tried to be open to various interpretations of the world. YMMV.