KaskadskyjKozak

The hike up the Muir Snow Field is analogous to hoofing it up an intermediate ski run. It is wide, and there is nowhere that you'll look down and freak out. The weather is the big thing. Just go when the forecast is good. I was on the other side of Rainier yesterday. It was mostly sunny, and we watched for any coming rain showers (as forecast). We had no problems, and it was probably a great day to have been to Muir as well.

How much snow was up on granite mountain? Where did you stop? Granite Mountain has a notorious avalanche chute that you want to avoid under certain conditions, so that may have been a wise move on your part. There is an alternate route that people taken in the winter.

Has anyone been up on the Emmons recently? The White River road opened yesterday, and I hiked up to Ruth Mountain. Didn't see any climbers going up or down, just some skiiers. There was pretty decent snow coverage in Glacier Basin and on the Inter-glacier, and the route up the corridor looked good - from what you can see at a distance. The NPS web-site was updated 4/26 - it doesn't say anything about the Emmons route - just mentions the Paradise routes that are preferred now.

microwave popcorn smell is bad, but microwaved fish leftovers is much worse.

Nope. Do the math - that one trip will pollute the atmosphere and use resources at the rate of about 6 months of day-to-day living for the average American.

Destroy the Bourgeois Capitalist Pigs! Workers of the World Unite!

1L per 19km works out to a little over 45 miles per US gallon for a vehicle that travels at hundreds of miles per hour. That's a Hell of a lot less "excessive" than your average SUV at 55 mph. The distance from Seattle to Rome is 5674 miles, or 11348 miles round-trip. The average American drives around 12000 miles a year, so in one single trip, you are consuming the same amount of gasoline as one person does between roughly 4 and 12 months (depending on your car's mileage).

True. Back in the 80's I recall estimates that we had enough oil reserves in the world for about 100 years. I don't recall what rate of growth that assumed for usage, and don't know how much difference today's estimates are from then. But the reserves are finite. As reserves are consumed, and oil becomes more scarce, it will become more and more expensive, and there will be pressure to find cheaper fuel sources. This pressure will drive technology, and we will find a solution. If that solution results in lower CO2 emissions, then the whole problem will sort itself out. I recall that the estimates for temperature change in the original posting were something like "1 degree in 100 years" at current levels and "as much as 10 degrees in 100 years" at unchecked levels. Who is to say we will have enough accessible reserves to burn fossil fuels for 100 years?

Nice obfuscation and intentional dismissal of JayB's point. I see a lot of non-sequitors by pseudo-scientists who connect scientific data with prescriptive public policy decisions and hysterical doomsday posturing. The data that supports global warming says nothing about the actual effect of raising cafe standards by x MPG, for example. Pot. Kettle. Black. It points out the hypocrisy of eco-nuts who pay lip service to "thinking globally, acting locally", but in actuality live lifestyles that consume just as much of the earth's resources as those whom they denigrate. It's always easier to point the finger at others, and mandate that *they* make costly, drastic lifestyle changes.

I heard it/read it in mainstream media - all before talk radio was even popular. the hand-wringing about the "imminent ice-age" in the 70's is very similar to hand-wringing by NON SCIENTISTS today - most notably the enviro-nuts. Most of what we hear about global warming - the dire predictions and feel-good-meaningless-gesture solutions come from NON SCIENTISTS based on FEELING (a liberal fall-back) not data. And I duly note your silence on the "over-population hysteria".

In the 70's all we heard about was the doom-and-gloom scenarios of the oncoming, inevitable ice-age and the overpopulation crisis that would destroy the earth. It seems there's never a shortage of doomsday prophets wringing their hands about our ultimate demise.

Excellent! Well-stated!

keep at it - it gets easier.

lots of people... it's so popular, the gays want to get in on the action...

Read and learn guys. Buy your fiancee a cheap ring. It will go over real well, I'm sure, and you will risk little if you f**k up.

You guys crack me up.

Feel the same way if it is a family heirloom (your dead mother's/grandmother's wedding ring)?

Exactly.

I agree with that. But I'd adjust a lot about the budget if I could wave a magic wand. We didn't? What about the gas guzzlers of the 70's? What about RVs? Ban them too? What about people who drive thousands of miles every year to climb friggin' glaciers and rock crags? "Was this trip really necessary?" Maybe we should just ration gas, give everyone an allowance and a national card. Ordnung muB sein. Arbeit macht Frei. and the rest of the world will just happily join us - even if it means limiting their economic growth and prosperity? Or perhaps we'll just give them some nice opportunities upon which to capitalize.

not. irrespective of what went bad, the ring goes back to the guy. why? it was a gift. further she's not the one who blew it. if she was the one who had posted the add and he wanted to break it off then she should give it back but he's the one who effed up. I'm assuming it cost $$$ (as in the 2-month salary rule). The "gift" is a symbol for the committment to marry. Marriage off - gift null and void.

not. irrespective of what went bad, the ring goes back to the guy.

I find it hard to below that the science is not getting funded, nor that it is that expensive to do. Software projections based on different rates of CO2 concentrations would be one component, as would cost projections on their economic impact. This could be compared with the cost (economic, quality of life) of building more efficient cars, rationing gasoline, or whatever else is proposed.

"perhaps", "might" blah blah. "feel-good" gestures don't cut it. You have to do a full cost-benefit analysis with an honest report of the choices.

"Hansen's team, reporting Thursday in the journal Science, said they also determined that global temperatures will rise 1 degree Fahrenheit this century even if greenhouse gases are capped tomorrow." Mostly due to the fact we've already pumped a lot of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere already. Perhaps we should think about not making a bad situation worse. Emissions will increase - I have never seen a plausible plan for even capping them. Capping them will still increase the temps by 1F. Instead of spouting mantras and feel-good slogans, coupled with useless token gestures and forcing people to make drastics lifestyle changes, we should do some serious number crunching to see what can be effective, its cost, and realistic outcomes.

"Hansen's team, reporting Thursday in the journal Science, said they also determined that global temperatures will rise 1 degree Fahrenheit this century even if greenhouse gases are capped tomorrow."