For Hyak: Photos of glacial recession on Mt Hood?

 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.