In article <48e2d3c9$0$87069$815e3792@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Ed Huesers <ed@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>mailing
>> It went out last week.
>Received it, check your email.
I had to deal with 3 cars yesterday (acquiring 2, disposing 1).
>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.
Toast.
>>>>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.
Alas Bob passed away a few years ago. I never really knew him. Friends
knew and worked with him.
>>>>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.
Bedrock has temperature. Glacier theory has the base at 0C. That's a
good assumption for temperate glaciers. If you are melting to the
ground, you aren't on a glacier. You can have debris fall on to one,
get covered with snow and form a moat (melt), but you still have to have
ice underneath. You can have lateral and medial moraines.
>>>>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.
>> 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.
Well the Shoestring was likely the most unusual lower 48 glacier before
St. Helens blew. My friend talked to both Austin Post and Fred Beckey
about it before selecting it. She got some of Austin's aerial photos.
Smaller glaciers work on the same principals, just smaller.
>> 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?
There were ice falls and crev*****. The Shoestring had an estimated 6
kinematic waves. We did survey work below one of the ice falls.
All gone now, basically.
>> Monty Python joke on how the boys relaxed. Boom! Taking in a little
>> fi****ng....
>
> Some hammocks would make nice nets.
Lob that grenade.
>>> 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.
Gasp!
>>>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.
Crampons.
>>>>' 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.
If sustained they would not be there.
>>>>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.
Yeah like moraines. I can image pingos might be a problem. All kinds
of ice related morphology.
>>>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.
Well choice can be good.
More than 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.
We were watching a plane video. And there were flight issues landing on
frozen lakes on skis vs. wheels.
>>>>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.
The Muldrow is likely good. Murray was on the Muldrow a few decades back.
>> 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.
What about the bases of Longs and Hallet?
>> 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.
You just have to find the right place. You should be able to find some
in just Boulder Canyon. And that Canyon above your house which I drove
down. Look around.
>>>>RMNP? >>> Yes,
>> 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.
Hope for you. Go for your rock.
>>>>>>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.
Don't dream it, be it. From Rocky Horror.
--
|
