Bigtree

Trip: Wedge Mt in a day - Classic/north-east arete Date: 7/12/2008 Trip Report: After 3 previous attempts I finally tagged the summit of Wedge Mt via Classic route along entire north-east arete. Had some great company, stellar weather and good snow/ice conditions. Approach to arete via Weart-Wedge col: North-west face of Wedge Mt: Entire north arete: Arete from up top: Descent via west ice fall: Route map/topo: Gear Notes: - Rope. - Std glacier travel gear. Approach Notes: - Left trail-head (~ 2 500') at midnight Saturday July 12. - 3 hrs to hut at Wedgemont Lake. - Short break for tea at lake, - Ascended via Wedge-Weart col/north-east arete. - On summit (~ 9 527') at 8:40 am. - Descended via ice fall on west side (some crevasse and falling serac hazards at ice fall). - Back to car by 4:30 pm after some lounging at hut. - Total elevation gain/loss 14 000' (~ 7 000' each way). - Total distance 14.6 miles. - View from the summit - spectacular.

Jim, in answer to your question with a question, have you considered doing the climb as a day trip? I've done it both ways and much preferred doing it as a day trip. Beats lugging a heavy pack up to the Lunch Counter and back. As I recall, it took me 12 hrs return (i.e., car to car from Cold Springs campground leaving at 3 am) in mid-July. Just a thought for you.

HansLund, I was leading a small group early that morning and turned around atop the DC (~ 12 500') at about 4:30 - 5:00 due to high winds and a rockfall (~ 12 000' from just above the boot trail) which cracked one of our team on the kneecap. There was a large cluster of folks huddled at around 13 500' or so apparently trying to figure out which way to go given the wind. We thought it was the right call for us to abort under the circumstances; particularly given the forecast at the time which suggested that the winds were part of the leading edge of a small front that was sweeping in. By the time we got back to Muir the winds had clearly abated, but we had no regrets - the mountain isn't going anywhere and we had a great time.

Bummer. Freedom 55 seems to have all but slipped away for me during the first half of '08.

Das Beerd, just climbed it last Thursday. The scariest thing for me was the fear of getting clotheslined by the hordes of inexperienced folks climbing above the Hogsback in the event there was a fall. Also, you might find a second tool helpful on some parts of the descent should you decide to downclimb nose-in. Lastly, don't be a lame ass like so many folks I saw who actually took a snow-cat ride up to ~ 8,500' before commencing their "climb".

Stihl-girl will take care of that little pecker pole for you Feck.

http://cascadeclimbers.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Main/60124/Number/804992#Post804992 http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mbs/conditions/mt_baker_climbing_notes.shtml "06/02/2008 Easton Glacier 2.5 mile hike to Schriebers Meadow Trail Head. Lots of snow from Trail Head to railroad grade 5 feet of snow at 5400 feet along Railroad Grade. Route was difficult to follow. Avoid ice balls on west side. No summit attempted, because of time. Heavy fog at 8200 feet. Everything well filled in, looking great. 06/01/2008 Coleman-Deming Unsafe crossing of cracked Bridge over Grouse Creek at beginning of Heliotrope trail. Route strait forward with no crevasses open. Also snow shoes or skis are very useful."

Bubba, I'm planning on climbing via Easton this weekend myself. I hope the road fully melts out. As I recall, the top of the Railway grade/terra firma ends at about 6,400'. There is a nice, non-glacial bowl immediately along you left as you plod up the grade (at about 5,000'). Have fun and make sure you break a good trail.

Beautiful photos Tim.

you and jmace are both right - I'm just in denial

Further to my bump above, I spoke with one of the Rangers at the Sedro Woolley office this morning (Tuesday May 27th) who advised that they only had one recent TR - May 26th climb via Coleman-Demming glaciers - "warm and wet to the top...take care in and around steep slopes".

Bump. I was planning on climbing the North ridge this weekend (i.e., May 31/June 1), but have an inkling its not in shape. Any pics and/or reports of conditions along the ridge would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks billcoe. What an interesting read.

Check out this web site: http://www.leelau.net/2008/spearhead2008_04/ He appears to have just completed the trip last week.

I respect your view re: packing weight on the way down as well; however, I've come to realize at 45 that my knees are like tread ratings on tires in that they're only good for so many miles of use. Also, to further clarify my earlier comments re: running being over rated, the important thing in my mind from a climbing point of view is increasing overall fitness/endurance. While you can certainly achieve this to some degree from running, I can get pretty much the same aerobic and anaerobic workout from cycling, hiking or climbing (e.g., 2 1/2 hr mountain bike ride yesterday with an average heartbeat of 136 bpm and a peak of 169 bpm).

Running is over rated and is very hard on the back, feet and knees. I think your current workout recipe is fine, but more biking, hiking & climbing never hurt anyone. Also, when I'm heading out for a conditioning hike/climb I usually pack 4 - 6 plastic gallon milk jugs filled with water up to my high point and then empty them out and save my knees for the hike/climb down.

Haven't climbed it, but am planning to do so. My buddy who has via W. But cautioned against making the common mistake of some who bring a mega pack and get crushed. He further advised that the rule of thumb he used based on a 3-man team with each member having a total of 100 lbs gear etc. is a 60:40 ratio of weight distribution between sled and pack. In other words: a) plan on hauling 60 lbs in the sled and 40 lbs in your pack; and, b) your Osprey with a 5200 in3 capacity is probably fine.

Forest Carbon Sequestration: Some Issues for Forest Investments (http://www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-DP-01-34.pdf)... "Forests operate both as vehicles for capturing additional carbon and as carbon reservoirs. A young forest, when growing rapidly, can sequester relatively large volumes of additional carbon roughly proportional to the forest’s growth in biomass. An old-growth forest acts as a reservoir, holding large volumes of carbon even if it is not experiencing net growth. Thus, a young forest holds less carbon, but it is sequestering additional carbon over time. An old forest may not be capturing any new carbon but can continue to hold large volumes of carbon as biomass over long periods of time. Managed forests offer the opportunity for influencing forest growth rates and providing for full stocking, both of which allow for more carbon sequestration."

Clipped from Union of Concerned Scientists website (http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/catalyst/fa04-catalyst-forest-carbon-sequestration.html)... "Photosynthesis and respiration are the essential machinery by which forests store and release carbon. As a tree grows, it absorbs CO2 from the air and, through the process of photosynthesis, uses solar energy to store carbon in its roots, stems, branches, and foliage. Some carbon is released back into the atmosphere as CO2 during respiration, but a living tree acts as a carbon “sink”—storing more carbon than it releases. Trees continue to accumulate carbon until they reach maturity, at which point about half of the average tree’s dry weight will be carbon. When trees decay and die, they become a carbon source, releasing more carbon than they can absorb. And when forests are harvested, burned, or cleared by humans, or in the event of a natural disturbance such as fire or disease, some of the carbon stored in the trees’ cells is released into the atmosphere. Stored carbon, however, can be transferred into forest products—for example, wood used for lumber, furniture, and other durable goods can hold its carbon for decades or even centuries if well maintained. Recent estimates show that U.S. forests, grasslands, and agricultural lands form a sizable carbon sink. Even a forest that undergoes regular harvesting can act as a carbon sink as long as yearly growth exceeds the amount of carbon removed during harvest. The U.S. carbon sink absorbs 1.1 to 2.6 million metric tons of CO2 each year, which is equivalent to 20 to 46 percent of total U.S. global warming emissions."

Pindude, http://www.peakfreaks.com/greentheme.htm is a very funny read (e.g., "The Carbon Neutral movement was started by the David Suzuki Foundation" or, "...'carbon credits'...a must-have accessory for individuals and organizations who want to fight climate change and show their green credentials." or, "Everyone from banks like HSBC, to rock bands like the Rolling Stones, to almost 500 NHL players are purchasing carbon offsets for their emissions."

The "theory" is called respiration which is "The release of energy from glucose or other organic substances inside living cells. During respiration, sugar/starch, and oxygen is turned into carbon dioxide, water and energy. Every cell needs to respire in order to produce the energy it needs." Since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and presuming that you believe in the guilt-ridden theory that global warming is caused by anthropogenic activities, I'm tempted to encourage all such believers to adopt your suggested fix; however, that would result in the elimination of some good fun for me, so don't do it.

You'll do fine. Its usually skiable until May.

For sure. Scurlock takes some amazing and beautiful photos. Thanks for the TR Porter.

April '08 Scientific American: "In the late 1890s in a laboratory atop a 4,554-meter peak in the Monta Rosa range in the Italian Alps, physiologist Angelo Mosso made the first direct observations of the effects of high altitude on the human brain: by eye and with an apparatus he designed, Mosso peeked into the skull of a man whose brain had been partly exposed in an accident, observing changes in swelling and pulsation. Now a similar experiment has been done with noninvasive brain imaging, and for those of us who love to climb the results are not elevating. Neurologist Nicolás Fayed and his colleagues in Zaragoza, Spain, performed MRI brain scans on 35 climbers (12 professionals and 23 amateurs) who had returned from high-altitude expeditions, including 13 who had attempted Everest. They found brain damage in virtually every Everest climber but also in many climbers of lesser peaks who returned unaware that they had injured their brain. It seems that climbers of high mountains, whether weekend warrior or seasoned professional, face returning from the high peaks with a brain that is not in the same condition it was in beforehand. What Gives in a Climber’s Brain? Although a person’s tolerance to hypoxia (lack of oxygen) varies according to differences in innate physiology and physical conditioning, no one is immune. Those effects can be acute, affecting you only while you are at altitude, or—as the Fayed study found—they can be longer-lasting. The first acute stage is called, naturally enough, acute mountain sickness. It can cause headache, insomnia, dizziness, fatigue, nausea and vomiting. The next, more serious stage is high-­altitude cerebral edema, also known as HACE, brain swelling that is potentially fatal. Lack of oxygen can directly damage brain cells. In addition, the walls of blood capillaries begin to leak at high altitudes, and the leaked fluid can cause dangerous swelling, pressing the brain outward against the rigid skull. Sometimes the optic nerves swell so badly they bulge into the back of the eye, degrading vision and causing retinal hemorrhages. Meanwhile blood, concentrated from dehydration and thickened by increased numbers of red blood cells, clots more easily. This clotting, along with the hemorrhage from the thinned capillaries, can cause a stroke. A climber with HACE may experience amnesia, confusion, ­delusions, emotional disturbance, personality changes and loss of consciousness. Severe cases of acute high-altitude disease have long been known to cause brain damage. But one of the sobering things about the Fayed study is that even when climbers showed no signs of acute sickness, the scans still found brain damage. The results in the Everest climbers were the starkest. Of the 13 climbers, three had made the 8,848-meter summit, three had reached 8,100 meters, and seven had topped out between 6,500 and 7,500 meters. The expedition had no major mishaps, and none of the 12 professional climbers evinced any obvious signs of high-altitude illness; the only acute case of mountain sickness was a mild one in the expedition’s amateur climber. Yet only one of the 13 climbers (a professional) returned with a normal brain scan. All the scans of the other 12 showed cortical atrophy or enlargement of the Virchow-Robin (VR) spaces. These spaces surround the blood vessels that drain brain fluid and communicate with the lymph system; widening of these VR spaces is seen in the elderly but rarely in the young. The amateur climber’s brain had also suffered subcortical lesions in the frontal lobes. How High Is Too High? Of course, Everest is extreme. Fayed and his colleagues also studied an eight-person team that attempted Aconcagua, a 6,962-meter summit in the Argentine Andes. Two climbers reached the summit, five climbed to between 6,000 and 6,400 meters, and one reached 5,500 meters. Yet three members experienced acute mountain sickness, and two displayed symptoms of brain edema—probably because they ascended more rapidly from lower altitudes than the Everest climbers did. All eight Aconcagua climbers showed cortical atrophy on MRI scans. Seven showed enlarged VR spaces, and four showed numerous subcortical lesions. Some needed no scan to tell them their brains had been injured. One climber suffered aphasia (problems with speech), from which he recovered six months later. Two complained of transient memory loss after returning, and three others struggled with bradypsychia (slowed mental function). The body is remarkably resilient: Does the brain recover from these mountaineering wounds? To answer this question, the researchers reexamined the same climbers three years after the expedition, with no other high-altitude climbing intervening. In all cases, the damage was still apparent on the second set of scans. Still, Aconcagua is one of the world’s highest mountains. Mont Blanc in the western Alps is less extreme. Its 4,810-meter summit is climbed every year by thousands of mountaineers who probably do not expect injury to their “second favorite organ,” to use Woody Allen’s nomenclature for the brain. Yet the researchers found that of seven climbers who reached Mont Blanc’s summit, two returned with enlarged VR spaces. Because Why? The study suggests that chronic exposure to high altitudes is not required to experience irreversible brain damage. In fact, amateurs seem to be at greater risk, because they are more likely to suffer acute mountain sickness or high-altitude cerebral edema. At the same time, the experience required to become well acclimated seems to take an ever increasing cumulative toll; compared with the amateurs, professional climbers in this study had ­greater cortical atrophy overall. They felt stronger but showed more brain damage. Mountain climbing is growing in popularity—and with good reason. It can provide experiences of a lifetime; a communion with nature and with friends that feeds the soul; intense and enduring rewards surpassing those found within the bounds of routine; and adventure and challenge that build courage, stamina and fortitude. It also gets you into incomparable mountain wilderness—although that is vanishing. Many sense that the singular “it” residing in George Mallory’s pithy raison d’ascent—“Because it’s there!”—may soon be gone. Some 5,000 climbers ascend Himalayan peaks every year. Thousands more climb peaks in the Alps and Andes. Many of these people spend liberally to mount expeditions or to be guided to the summit. But it is increasingly clear that these climbers are paying for the privilege with something more than hard-earned cash. They’re paying with brain tissue."

ChucK, let me get this right. A guy posts a message on a public climbing oriented website essentially saying look at me and some website about a bunch of guys making a political and environmental statement by purporting to climb Denali in a carbon neutral fashion. I express a contrarian opinion or two and you think that's bad? Assuming I haven't misunderstood you, and for the second time, I apologise. In the future I'll strive to only express opinions that are positive and affirming in nature, but most importantly ones that are consistent with your and mattp's views of the world. As an aside, I have found this website, and a number of contributors to it, very helpful (and yes entertaining) over the years. However, I have been awed on the odd occaision at how intolerant some folks can be of public discourse - perhaps you'll prove me wrong. Cheers.