Seattle Times: "The truth about global warming"

Here's one for you: Telluride had heavy rain recently....old timers said that they had never seen it rain so hard for so long. How heavy was the rain? A 100 year flood....the second 100 year flood since 2002!

So, I was hiking last Sunday east of Glacier Peak. That area received a huge amount of ash and pumice (lapili) some 10000 years ago. Anyway, since that eruption things have returned to normal. Rock slides have covered much of the volcanic material, although it is still evident in thick bars near meadows and creeks. However, the heavy rains of Octovber 2003 were extremely significant in this area. Remember, Mt. Baker receiving nearly 30" of rain in a 10 day period, and bridges like that over the Mazama Glacier outlet stream, and Suiattle and Whitechuck River are still washed out. So, here's the deal, in one area through which I hiked, these monumental floods had cut through the surface stream and talus materials to expose a deep cut - some 20' deep - into the Glacier Peak materials. One can clearly see a layer of lapili some 2' thick, a layer of ash of another foot or so and then a second deposit of 18" of lapili and another foot of ash. These deposits are in natural stream courses, but they are not mixed with any stream materials or talus which is predominately Skagit Gneiss. Since there are no mixed materials, and since this is where water run-off would naturally course, doesn't that mean that these ash and pumice materials have not been previously exposed in these locations since they were dposited 10,000 years ago? And doesn't that also mean that at least in these locations that these were 10000 year floods? There were numerous streams cut many feet into and in some cases all the way through the Glacier Peak materials.

Since there are no mixed materials, and since this is where water run-off would naturally course, doesn't that mean that these ash and pumice materials have not been previously exposed in these locations since they were dposited 10,000 years ago? And doesn't that also mean that at least in these locations that these were 10000 year floods? There were numerous streams cut many feet into and in some cases all the way through the Glacier Peak materials.

Not sure I follow your reasoning here. Surface water is constantly exposing older stuff. If a flood cuts into a 10,000 year old deposit, that doesn't mean the flood is a 10,000 year flood. It just means the stream, at that point, has cut through the overburden and reached those materials. By the line of reasoning you suggest, the next flood that cuts even deeper, will be a 10,000+ year flood, even though its discharge may be less. Flood recurrence interval is a statistic that compares the discharge of floods within some sample period, I dont think you can simply extrapolate it from the age of materials being removed, especially in areas with erosion rates as high as the Cascades. That isnt to say it cant be done, I just think there may be more too it.

Not sure I follow your reasoning here. Surface water is constantly exposing older stuff. If a flood cuts into a 10,000 year old deposit, that doesn't mean the flood is a 10,000 year flood. It just means the stream, at that point, has cut through the overburden and reached those materials. By the line of reasoning you suggest, the next flood that cuts even deeper, will be a 10,000+ year flood, even though its discharge may be less. Flood recurrence interval is a statistic that compares the discharge of floods within some sample period, I dont think you can simply extrapolate it from the age of materials being removed, especially in areas with erosion rates as high as the Cascades. That isnt to say it cant be done, I just think there may be more too it.

Let's put it this way, it may not be a 10000 year flood regionally, but the locality is on a talus slope, so talus is over time gradually covering older materials - although given the location, it is on the outlier of talus movement. It is not in a river bottom, rather on a slope, but the location is definitely where run-off would course. (There were a number - perhaps a half-dozen such watercourses, nearly all not only had the surface talus removed, but cut very deeply into the old tephra deposits). This had clearly not happened to this extent since the deposit of the materials. The cuts in several locations were step-like, reaching down suddenly 5-8 feet deeper than previously in nearly all of these watercourses. The evidence seems to suggest a rainfall event that was unlike virtually any other in this location.

In my lifetime, the most significant rainfall events were 14" in 24 hours at Verlot in the 70's, 7" of rain in 24 hours at Mt. Baker in the early 80's, and I recall a handful of storms dropping perhaps 10-12" of rain in 3-4 days at Baker and Paradise. So, the event of the last week of October, 2003, was far and away more significant. There was just under 30" of rain in about nine days, and during this period two 24 hour rainfalls of 9" and 10". Now, if one had statistics - which we don't - or extrapolated statistics from records we do have, I think we would find the October 2003 event to be very rare indeed - a few standard deviations out of the norm. Exactly how far out of the norm, no one can say, but the geologic evidence points to a very rare event indeed.

Similarly, the fetch of the January 16, 2005 Pineapple Express which extended from the tropics to northern Ontario was unprecedented certainly in my lifetime. Yet these two events, which have similar causes and origins both took place in a two year period.....

Incidentally, this is the only location I've ever seen where the Glacier Peak deposits are clearly displayed in such a way that they are not mixed by water or normal erosion. This is itself was quite fascinating.

Let's put it this way, it may not be a 10000 year flood regionally, but the locality is on a talus slope, so talus is over time gradually covering older materials - although given the location, it is on the outlier of talus movement. It is not in a river bottom, rather on a slope, but the location is definitely where run-off would course. (There were a number - perhaps a half-dozen such watercourses, nearly all not only had the surface talus removed, but cut very deeply into the old tephra deposits). This had clearly not happened to this extent since the deposit of the materials. The cuts in several locations were step-like, reaching down suddenly 5-8 feet deeper than previously in nearly all of these watercourses. The evidence seems to suggest a rainfall event that was unlike virtually any other in this location.

This sounds like a potential masters thesis here... although I'm sure someone has already looked at it.
I still don't think it proves a 10,000 year local recurrence interval. I'll agree that the recent cuts suggest a significant event, I just dont think that reaching the tephra layer means there hasn't been flooding of this magnitiude in the last 10,000 years. Since these are in normal watercourses, talus is contantly being removed from them. What it may suggest is that talus removal has out paced talus deposition in those channels for the first time in 10,000 years. That may suggest an increase in flood frequency in recent times, more contant flow in those channels than in the past, or an abnormally large flood.

My point is that you can't assume that you are starting from the same blank slate when these event s occur. Especially in this case, where major flooding happened within years of eachother, the channels were already reamed out when the second flood happened ... talus deposition didn't have any time to catch up.

This sounds like a potential masters thesis here... also though I'm sure someone has already looked at it. 
I still don't think it proves a 10,000 year local recurrence interval. I'll agree that the recent cuts suggest a significant event, I just dont think that reaching the tephra layer means there hasn't been flooding of this magnitiude in the last 10,000 years. Since these are in normal watercourses, talus is contantly being removed from them. What it may suggest is that talus removal has out paced talus deposition in those channels for the first time in 10,000 years. That may suggest an increase in flood frequency in recent times, more contant flow in those channels than in the past, or an abnormally large flood.

My point is that you can't assume that you are starting from the same blank slate when these event s occur. Especially in this case, where major flooding happened within years of eachother, the channels were already reamed out when the second flood happened ... talus deposition didn't have any time to catch up.

I also would normally expect a gradual cutting down into these deposits, but that does not appear to be the case in this situation. Having done the same hike a number of times since 1980 - probably some 10-12 times or so, I can definitively say that crossing this same (primary) course involved nothing more than stepping down and accross a talus incised by the watercourse (typically dry) about 4' until the big flood event. Now, it is a trough some twenty feet deep with steep embankments of layered ash and lapilli and older earth deposits beneathe the tephra.  Similar cuts, although not as deep show the sudden deepening of previously unremarkable minor streambed crossings.

I just find it quite interesting, and I think that it does suggest the rarity of this rainfall event.

I'd actually think a study of this event or of larch remains from recent deglaciation along the east slopes of the Cascades would both be fascinating research topics for some young buck or lady out there. If anyone is interested, I'd be glad to provide locations and details as I know them.

Having read most of the voluminous replies to this thread, I thought I would add my own.

I believe that the possibility that we are adding momentum to a naturally occuring cycle is enough to warrant behavior modification.  Historical data indicate that climate change is nothing new and the Earth maintains equilibrium while fluctuating between fairly well defined extremes.  My concern is that the rate of change may be so accelerated due to the added effects of human activity that there will be severe impacts on human (and other) life in the geologic near term.  My gut feeling is that the Earth will eventually shake off any input we may have, but the consequences to us even if they are only economical will make the costs associated with the Kyoto Protocol seem nonexistent. 

It seems the bulk argument in this thread is about who is right and wrong.  To me, this seems a bit of a waste of energy.  I value all of the green links with suggestions on how we can each make a difference individually.  Less helpful are remarks which seem to have provocation as their only goal.

Quote from Randonnee on: 08/06/06, 10:02 AM

Does anyone there trout fish in the high lakes? In late August at Lower Snow Lake, the trout are in such a frenzy that even a bare hook will land a fish, time after time. Even a poor presentation will result in catching a fish. Fish on, baby...

The last paragraph was about responses here at times. Some responses and respondents are fully preloaded with such personal prejudice that predictable sharp and even spiteful words come immediately from some (assumed) enlightened, brilliant, well-educated, politically-correct and tolerant multicultural-celebrating 206ers.

Randonnee, I think you may have been taking exception to the "crusty dinosaur" comment earlier in the thread and also Phil's deprecation of Pat Robertson.  In doing so you have likened a large number of TAY posters to mindless fish driven to stupidity by hunger.  Secondly you have sarcastically insulted the intelligence of - and also accused of hypocrisy- anyone with a 206 area code.  While this may be "fun" in and of itself, it is dissapointing to see in the TAY community.  I get the feeling that you are not completely serious with your jabs but you are attempting to amuse or provoke, leaving the choice to the temperament of the reader.  I am normally in favor of pot stirring, but sometimes while discussing a serious topic it causes me to dismiss the validity of your arguments.   Perhaps cw is right, if we disagree, we ought to be skiing together rather than duking it out via keyboard.

My last thoughts directed to Randonnee.  I am judging from your support of "anti GW" souces that you think our current economic/consumptive course is reasonable.  You have not directly stated this and I am curious.  Are you just opposed to government mandates?  I remember you saying you drove a fuel efficient car and your family occupied a moderate living space.  Do you advocate voluntary energy conciousness but object to a GW doomsaying machine? [One sentence deleted from here due to complaint. --Charles] Sorry for the sarcasm, I am a "206er" but I have never viewed "509ers" as different from me.  I spent my childhood in a small town dependant on fishing and timber.

Now that I have had my rant, maybe I can add something constructive.  I used to drive a 4WD 3/4 ton Suburban everywhere I went, mostly alone.  As I became more thoughtful of my place in the world and the consequences of my behavior, I realized this was not a good thing.  I would be lying if I said my switch to a 4 cylinder economy car in 2001 was not also self centered.  The price of gas was  a helpful influence, but I could not imagine being as wasteful now as I was formerly.  I often think that I will look back with these same feelings in another 5 years concerning my present behaviour.

I like spending less but I wish the price of gas would continue to rise instead of fall.  The US subsidizes auto use to an incredible degree.  If we didn't artificially lower the price of gas, the world might look far different.  The tax dollars that build and maintain roads are also disconnected from the choice to use an auto.  If you had to pay $6 a gallon for gas and pay to drive on the road by weight per mile, you could actually make an informed choice about what that trip is worth.  We are still paying the full cost, but the bill is hidden from us.  Here is the chance for all of the small government advocates to stand up.  No subsidies for oil exploration, production, refinement and road building.  If you want to bike to work, why should you pay for your neighbor's Hummer?  Let the price of consumables reflect the cost of production and transportation to market.  How can we say we have a free market when the true cost of everything eat, buy or drive is hidden from us?

I rented Mazda 626 turbodiesel in France that was twice the mpg of a US market economy car.  It was as good or better than anything comparable I have driven here.  Auto use is still subsidized there, just less than here.  Just imagine removing all subsidies.

The argument that persons who support taking action to reduce GW are US haters is ludicrous.  It is in our own best interest.

The argument that preventive action will hurt those least able to afford it is also laughable.  Those most at risk due to inaction are the powerless, mostly third world residents with no resources to help them adapt to the changes that may occur.

The US consumes per capita most of the worlds resources.  The world will follow our example.  If that example is exclusively consumptive, the world will not be able to support the demand.  If we have the courage to develop stategies that will allow allow a high standard of living with lower impacts we may be able to preserve some of the comforts we have come to enjoy.

I wake up on top of a 30 foot ledge with no memory of how I arrived there.  I have my snowboard clipped on, I'm in excellent physical conditition, I feel confident and there is a nice steep landing below me. On my left is a large group of skiers and boarders from TAY warning me there are rocks just below the surface right in the landing.  On my right is one or two teenagers from TAS chanting JUMP! JUMP! JUMP!.   What to do?


Sorry for the obvious bias.  I would rather spend money trying to mitigate a nonexistent disaster than blithely head into ruin.