Skisports Posted June 13, 2003 Posted June 13, 2003 Out in the middle of fucking nowhere there are concrete poles around the glacier and a pole in the middle of the glacier that said " solar radation deflector" WTF.... Is Big brother is watching? Quote
JoshK Posted June 13, 2003 Posted June 13, 2003 Strange things are afoot on the South Cascade Glacier... Quote
Jim Posted June 13, 2003 Posted June 13, 2003 It's one of the USGS glacier research points. Every see the permanant station out there on the moraine? Quote
JoshK Posted June 13, 2003 Posted June 13, 2003 No. What's it look like? We saw some concrete poles; one on the western flank of sentinal, the other on the S/SW flank and one up on the hill opposite of lizard peak. Any clue what they are for? It's odd the poles on the glacier itself weren't marked officially in any way. Somebody could have easily ripped them out and messed around with them, moved them, etc. i'm surprised they didn't have some notice on them. Perhaps they expect (rightfully so) next to nobody will be on the upper south cascade glacier. Â Also, what are these things marked "gaging station"s on the USGS maps? Same thing? Quote
Lowell_Skoog Posted June 13, 2003 Posted June 13, 2003 The USGS has been studying the South Cascade glacier since the 1950s, before there was a Glacier Peak Wilderness Area. Their studies are valuable to gauge the pace of global warming, among other things. If you've ever compared old pictures of the glacier to today's pictures, you'll be amazed at the amount of glacier recession. In the 1930s, Dwight Watson said he could throw a rock across the lake at the foot of the glacier. By the 1960s or so, they were able to land seaplanes there. Today, the glacier barely reaches the lake, I believe. Â The bottom line is, the USGS equipment there is important. Leave it alone. Quote
klenke Posted June 13, 2003 Posted June 13, 2003 I was under the impression that the gaging stations in the creeks are used to gauge the volume flow rate so as to know the input into a reservoir behind a dam or into a aquaduct system further downstream. I could be wrong. You do see them on USGS maps quite regularly. Â Josh: how was the trail from the Cascade Glacier to the S. Fork Cascade River Road trailhead (if you used it)? Quote
erik Posted June 13, 2003 Posted June 13, 2003 klenke you are right on there with the gauging stations  they have a website showing them. very important for ww kayakers.   Quote
JoshK Posted June 13, 2003 Posted June 13, 2003 Yeah, I've seen the comparison pictures between 1962 and 1996. Very sad. Interestingly enough while the lower glacier has receded a huge amount, it seems there are new formations of glacier ice higher up around the cirque that weren't there in the 60s. Maybe I was misinterpreting the pictures. Â Lowell, wouldn't think of harassing the equipment. We figured it was for studies of some sort. I was just quite surprised it wasn't officially marked. It wouldn't be that hard to see somebody messing with it, considering what an oddity it is out in the middle of a sea of ice. Â Klenke, didn't go in that way. Came over from le-conte/sentinal saddle. The came from the cascade river road, which is still blocked 2 miles from the end thanks to the laziness of the park service in getting a mud slide cleaned up. The road is clear of snow other than that. Quote
JoshK Posted June 13, 2003 Posted June 13, 2003 It . Getting snowed/sleeted/rained on for 2 hours at 5800 feet when the forecast was for "partly cloudy" and FL 11,000 is pretty shitty tho. Way to go NWS. I'm starting to think they should just start forecasting "we haven't a clue" for the cascades forecasts since they seem to get it right about 20% of the time. Quote
ski_photomatt Posted June 13, 2003 Posted June 13, 2003 JoshK, Skisports- nice job on the traverse  Do a goodle search for 'south cascade glacier' and you'll get lots of hits about the various studies done there. I'm sure there are many technical journal articles published in places like 'Journal of Glaciology' if you are really curious.  JoshK said: Getting snowed/sleeted/rained on for 2 hours at 5800 feet when the forecast was for "partly cloudy" and FL 11,000 is pretty shitty tho. Way to go NWS. I'm starting to think they should just start forecasting "we haven't a clue" for the cascades forecasts since they seem to get it right about 20% of the time.  I'm going to stick up for the NWS. In case you haven't noticed or bothered to think about it, weather prediction is dam hard. And it's really fucking hard in places like Washington where the available data upstream (ie, the ocean) is virtually nil. The varied topography here makes it even harder. The short term forecast (48 hours) is remarkably accurate; the longer range forecast has been getting better and better, but oftentimes is wrong.  The NWS issues more of a forecast than 'partly cloudy', FL = XX ft. With every forecast update, they also issue a forecast discussion (forecast discussion) It almost always includes a statement about the forecaster's confidence in the issued forecast. For instance, the one linked now (2:45pm, Friday) says the forecast should be pretty good for the next few days ( .DISCUSSION...MODELS CONTINUE TO SHOW RATHER GOOD CONSISTENCY AND CONTINUITY THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF NEXT WEEK...) but after that (MODELS SHOW INCREASING CONSISTENCY AND CONTINUITY PROBLEMS SO THAT BY NEXT FRI THERE IS EITHER A RIDGE JUST TO OUR E...OR A TROUGH JUST TO OUR E...) they have no clue. The forecaster goes on to say from next Wednesday on, they will broad brush the forecast (nothing specific, it isn't really a forecast). Sometimes, the discussion will say we're unsure even a day or two from now.  So there's your forecast: cloudy and showery through tomorrow (mostly in northwestern WA.. it's in the discussion), clearing sligthly by sunday, and nice Monday and Tuesday. To be able to say that with any confidence at all Friday afternoon is remarkable.  If you don't want to take the time to read the discussion or learn about the weather and (gasp, even) make your own forecasts, then at least read the NWS forecasts regularly, a few updates a day. If it is changing back and forth from one to the next, don't give it much confidence. If it remains unchanged from day to day, it's a good bet. Quote
JoshK Posted June 14, 2003 Posted June 14, 2003 Thanks, Matt. Â I did a google search earlier today and spent a good few hours reading about the south cascade glacier and the various things studied there and on other glaciers around the world. Very interesting. Â Also, about the NWS, that was tounge in cheek. I completely agree. Predicting the weather is a science we really don't know a whole lot about yet and they do the best they can. Actually, with the forecast discussion that we had last seen, we were at least able to guess that we'd have an improvement in the weather and we'd be rewarded for not bailing out. In conclusion, my complaint is with the unpredictable cascades, not the weather guys. Seriously tho, we got exactly what we expected for June in the NW. Everybody who I had spoken too about skiing the traversed seemed to have some sort of similar story about that area dumping on them no matter how good the weather was supposed to be. Â Â Quote
ski_photomatt Posted June 15, 2003 Posted June 15, 2003 I was wondering how the weather was in the mountains last week. Ned_Flanders and I saw your registration at the marblemount ranger station last sunday. how was the weather? tuesday had a shallow inversion and wednesday a fairly quite deep one right? i bet the skiing was good. Â it sometimes amazes me what the weather models can now do. they rarely seriously miss a storm and can almost capture subtle changes, especially regarding topography (the MM5 can predict convergence zones). the weather changes predicted on friday afternoon for the period through tuesday night/wednesday are pretty tough and the NWS may have nailed it. Quote
JoshK Posted June 16, 2003 Posted June 16, 2003 The worst of the weather we got was monday night and tuesday pretty much all day. monday afternoon on was just visibility issues, but tuesday morning the crap started in for real; rain/snow/wind and real bad visibility. it slowly improved overnight tuesday night/wednesday morning. Â The skiing however, was excellent. it never got really cold so we got pretty good consistent spring corn the entire time. We never needed crampons and the lack of completely sunny skies until the last day made the snow stay slightly less than completely sloppy. Quote
enem Posted June 16, 2003 Posted June 16, 2003 you guys left last sunday evening ? we must have run into you at the cascade pass trailhead, we were a group of 3 on skis and you had started up the trail ? too bad about the weather, at least the skiing was good! Quote
JoshK Posted June 16, 2003 Posted June 16, 2003 Yup, that was us. We started up the trail then decided we should at least start a ski traverse by skiing. Â Â Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.