The topic of global warming: twice is nice.

Hyak, do you have permission from skistreak to stick those photos and his text on your website? At the very least you should credit where the first photo came from (it's from the Timberline lodge museum -- they have real seal skins there too!). It's unforunate the actual dates of the photos aren't listed. Without the actual dates, it's possible the first photo was taken August 31st and the 2nd and 3rd August 1st. <br><br>BTW, does anyone have any commentary on the September issue of National Geographic? The entire issue was devoted to Climate Change and contained much more thoughtful and useful information then I've *yet* seen in Global Warming threads on Internet message boards. <br><br>I'm glad photomatt was able to provide the background on Skip's models -- thanks Matt.

Hyak, do you have permission from skistreak to stick those photos and his text on your website? At the very least you should credit where the first photo came from (it's from the Timberline lodge museum -- they have real seal skins there too!). It's unforunate the actual dates of the photos aren't listed. Without the actual dates, it's possible the first photo was taken August 31st and the 2nd and 3rd August 1st. <br><br>I'm glad photomatt was able to provide the background on Skip's models -- thanks Matt.

<br><br>The credit for skistreak is right on the photo, I did not try to hide it. I had no idea where the original photo came from so I could not give it the credit it deserves. <br><br>Very very unlikely that the pictures would be taken at the tail ends of the months as you mention. The facts are in the photo's and thanks for skistreak for posting them with the info. a couple years ago! <br><br><br>

Thanks for the pointer to Nat Geo, Jeff.<br><br>Glacier recession is happening in many places and so is of course not a myth, two photos of Hood notwithstanding. As another Nat Geo article points out( www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0310/exclusive.html ), there are multiple causal factors, so it's not a simple story. But in case the Kili photos aren't enough:
ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hopkinson/GLAC_BOW.HTM
www.easternsnow.org/proceedings/2001/Hall_1.pdf
(close to home) www.nps.gov/noca/massbalance.htm
geowww.uibk.ac.at/glacio/RESEARCH/RWENZORI/
etc.


And if you want to dig up some of your own to try to "prove" your POV, a stash of historical glacier photos can be found at: nsidc.org/data/g00472.html .

Interesting discussion, but would the folks in California, Nevada, Utah, and even the Northeast be so inclined to discuss Global Warming this season as we are?<br><br>Here is my take looking at the big picture.  From what I remember from taking thermodynamics (a course I failed once and barely passed the second time) the Earth's atmosphere (including the oceans)is pretty much a closed thermodynamic system relatively speaking.  Sure there is radiational cooling through the atmosphere that global warming is supposedly affecting but that is part of the system and when you consider the whole system that has only a few degrees of change in thousands of years it's pretty much a closed system.  From what my wasted brain remembers in a closed system the change in energy (or delta) is always equal to zero.  What that means to me is that the Earth's atmosphere is always trying to balance the delta.  Now where the hell am I going with this?....smoked too much in college I guess.<br><br>Oh yeah, to me it seems like most of the studies out there are only looking at one part of the curve - the part we are on right now which shows a steady increase in global temps over the past 50 years or so.  But if you look at the whole system over geologic time the curve could probably be defined more like a sine wave with periods where climate was really warm (peaks on the curve) and periods when it was really cold (valleys on the curve) but overall the horizontal axis (Average temp) remains in the middle.  Now this is just my personal perception but it seems like naturally we are just on the part of the curve that is ascending above the average.  Is the introduction of greenhouse gasses accelerating the rate of climb on the curve?  Probably by most accounts.  Does that mean that there could be a corresponding accellerated decrease in temps in the future?  Well the Pentagon studied it and found it to be a possibile scenerio for the future.<br><br>I think the overall human affect on climate can be better defined as having an impact on the applitude and frequency of the curve.  The Earth is going to try and maintain the delta so the curve will become steeper with high peaks and deeper valleys and less time in between on the geologic time scale.  I think this also occurs on a seasonal/yearly time scale too that is geographically dependent (i.e. being in the right place at the right time).  It was just a few years ago that we had the world record for accumulated snowfall, and now we have bunk.  A few years ago the glaciers started recharging.  Crevases even opened up again on the south slope of Mt Adams.  In the future I think we'll have to get used to years with plentiful snowfall and pathetic years like this one.  The way I look at it there's not much I can do except drive less and consume less but I get pretty apathetic when I think about nations like India and China that are starting to eclipse the U.S. in their contribution to greenhouse gasses.  Sure the polar ice caps might melt but I'll enjoy sailing the Artic Ocean in the summer then. <br><br>I wish it would snow...I've obviously got too much time on my hands to think right now.

Like Amar, I'm not eager to get into a debate about global warming right now either. But in response to hyak.net's "you be the judge" pictures, I'll offer some others:<br><br> www.alpenglow.org/climbing/ptarmigan-195...scade-1953-2003.html

You may have seen the Wenatchee World article from last autumn which predicted that the South Cascade Glacier (in the pictures) may disappear within 100 years. It was discussed over in CascadeClimbers.com, as I recall.

To me it seems that whether the snowfields on Hood or on the South Cascades glacier are increasing or decreasing can't really be used to "prove" global warming one way or another.<br><br>So if global temps are rising (due to natural or human causes -- or some combination thereof) -- why should we assume that this will mean less snow uniformly over the globe? <br><br>IMHO the weather system is far too complex for a simple linear relationship than that. <br><br>Regardless of why the climate is changing -- the effects will not be easy to predict -- some areas will get more snow, some less, some will get dryer, some wetter.<br><br>Not so long ago (1950's) the PNW experienced a series of winters with above average snowfall -- and some glacier climbers were gleefully speculating on "The return of the ice age".<br><br>One other item -- I was surfing through some other weather records last week (don't recall where) -- but do recall a general impression that the winters in the late '30s through the '40's had low snowpacks in the PNW -- so it might be elightening if someone could dig up some August 1950-59 or so photos of Mt Hood.