Eugene Miya wrote:
> Ed Huesers wrote:
>>>mailing ****rt, et al.
>> Looking forward to it.
> It went out last week.
Received it, check your email.
Cute little polar bear. Saw those at a coffee shop in estes, just about
bought one. Now I have one.
Prudhoe eh? ****rt makes a statement.
>>>glaciologist
>> What book would be good for me?
> In general? Maybe Living Ice by Bob Sharp. That's fun.
Sounds good. Fun helps when reading things I already know. Keeps it
interesting so I don't miss the parts I don't know.
>>>Spring is not a great time of year to study mass balance.
>> Well, then it probably isn't a moat because it's the top layer of
>>snow that melts because it is on the warm ground and rock at the top.
>>What I thought was a moat melts down to where it is nearly flat stepping
>>on the glacier from above.
> Snow != ice.
See, that's what I need the book for. The fresh layer of ice that
most call snow melts fast from the radiant heat of the earth/rock at the
top of the glacier. The underlying ice that a lot of people would call
snow but I call it ice. It's older, from year or years before. It's much
denser and melts much slower. The top fresh layer first melts away from
ground and then down from the top so the fresh layer is only foot or so
thick. Kinda leaves a moat looking thing but I don't think that's what
you would call a moat.
>>>Movement is also sometime complicated.
>> Yeah, It's not like I'm going to sit there and watch it move. I
>>doubt they would like me sticking a marker in.
> Well as a matter of fact, you could.
> We did that on St Helens. You just need instruments and a little time.
> Plugging readings into an HP-67 back some decades ago, it was neat to
> watch that the poles we placed moved 200 mm (20 cm or 8 inch) over a 3
> day period.
Sounds like more work than I'm ready for, rounding up all that gear
and then climbing the same glacier several times.
But for some reason I don't think this glacier moves near as much as
the one you measured. It's not very steep, only need an ice axe when
it's hard.
> That's just linear. We had to also deal with wave height.
Wave height? You mean the bedrock underneath having a hump. Making
crev***** and ice falls?
> Monty Python joke on how the boys relaxed. Boom! Taking in a little
> fi****ng....
Some hammocks would make nice nets.
>>>> Mostly, stomp hard and let the snow sinter a few seconds before
>>>>stepping up.
>> I was snowshoeing on that trips. The 10 inches of
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^!
Yes, snowshoes.... Still having boot fitting problems. Found the
name of a good fitter though. Just need to get it done.
>>soft was deep enough to give a mostly flat step when stomped hard on
>>those few hazardous steps.
> Oh, hard to side step.
Must be done correctly or it would slide, but there was just enough
fresh to give a comfortable step.
>>>I saw last years' AAJ and people like to pitch tents on platforms
>>>chopped out of knife-edged ice ridges with 1,000s of feet of air on
each
>>>side. Always have 1 corner hanging in space.
>>
>> Depending on no microbursts.
>> Doublely living on the edge.
> No really strong winds.
Perhaps the winds could be strong and it wouldn't matter and one
would be living in the eddy. A microburst, though, would be to quick to
create an eddy.
>>>You must have spacing between the boulders.
>> Stay in the center of the snowfields, exit carefully.
> Only as a generalization.
Yes, some snowfields have humps of boulders in them where the
boulders are under the snow. Experience seems to help. I think I've
found a couple holes it the last decade. I don't travel fast in
questionable areas on the way down, that forward momentum is the leg
breaker.
>>Stay on bare rock/tundra mix when not sure of the snowfield.
> Sometimes a safer bet.
It feels good to mix it up in a climb anyway. Work different muscles.
>>>> Yes, I've learnt how some snow has holes and other snow doesn't.
>> We used to fall through in the early days. Experience helps
> 8^)
And to put it into words or even thoughts as to why I know. Perhaps
some day I'll have thought enough about it.
>>>They have mountains buried in them.
>>>Future cirques.
>>
>> I'd like to travel to someplace where the freshly polished rock is
>>showing. Eradics would be pretty unstable.
> Erratics. They can be stable. How fresh?
I've seen some small ones in one canyon where the permanent
snowfield has receded a long ways. They were that years deposit and very
fresh with sand still on them.
I'd like to see big ones sat down by the actual glacier itself.
Perhaps the Mudlow.
> RMNP should have some.
I've seen polished rock where the ground got washed away off the
bedrock. The ground apparently protected the rock from the freeze thaw
cycle and it looks pretty freshly polished. Don't see that much though.
> Depends on the bed rock. Yosemite has a fair amount. The Alps and a
> lot of other places have G polish.
Seems to be to much talus on the edges to show the bedrock here.
Farther away from the glaciers it has seen the freeze thaw for to long.
Sometimes there's quartz that is still polished but not often.
>>>RMNP?
>> Yes, easy to get to and getting to know the area real good. Perhaps
>>to good but I'm getting a deeper understanding and waiting to see what
>>comes of it.
> I gave Murray 2 of my geo books. What does he do? Spend more time with
> botanists.
They smell nice. Give me the smell of fresh broken rock though.
>>>>>When did you guys kill off your last grizzlies?
>> By reading web pages, sounds like we might still have some...
> I think those people are dreaming. In the lower 48 its Yellowstone and
> Glacier NPs. Yeah like we have real wolverine in CA.
They made it sound pretty credible but... Hey, It's good to dream.
Ed Huesers
Http://www.grandshelters.com
|
