Wind River Range > Gannett Peak > Additions and CorrectionsGannett Peak Additions and Corrections
[ Post an Addition or Correction ]
|
| Felsberg | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | Hi Guys - I'm not from your parts so dont pretend to offer any specifics, but I do know of a reference that may settle your arguments, and that you will find interesting; its a USGS pub : "Satellite Image Atlas of Glaciers of the World -- North America" The link: Glaciers of the Western US (USGS - 3.2MB pdf) and the parent pub: Satellite Image Atlas - Glaciers of North America (USGS - html) Enjoy - jeff | |
| Posted Mar 3, 2004 5:22 pm | ||
| Bob Bolton | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | Paul, I know even less about the Olympic Range glaciers than I do about the North Cascades glaciers, but I've got to believe that the Blue Glacier is one of the larger ones in Washington. Also, as I recall the South Cascade Glacier was once considered the largest in the North Cascades, but it has been shrinking rather dramatically in the last 30 or 40 years. Any idea how big it is? Also, how do the glaciers on Mt. Baker and Glacier Peak stack up size wise against the non-volcano biggies like the Chikamin and Boston? | |
| Posted Mar 3, 2004 5:42 pm | ||
| Klenke | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | Jeff Moore's first link below provides the answer on Table 1 (see page 9): Washington's total glaciated area = 428 sq. km (165 sq. mi) North Cascades total glaciated area = 267 sq. km (103 sq. mi) Olympic Mountains total glaciated area = 46 sq. km (18 sq. mi) Wind River Range total glaciated area = 32 sq. km (12 sq. mi) It appears the Wind River Range has the most glaciated area outside of Washington. Even the Olympic Range has more ice than The Winds. Info given in my Olympic Climbing Guide (3rd Edition, p. 20): "Mt. Olympus ranks third in the amount of glaciation on a single peak in the 48 contiguous United States, with the Hoh Glacier being the longest." This link says the Hoh is the longest but the Blue is the largest at 5.3 sq. km (2.0 sq. mi). For the South Cascade Glacier, Beckey (in 1989 figures) gives it a length of 2.3 miles and a width of 1,000 to 3,500 ft. On page 3 of this link data is given for the shrinking size of six glaciers in the North Cascades. Specifically, the South Cascade Glacier has shrunk from 1.0 sq. miles in 1958 to 0.8 sq. miles in the 1990s. The answer to your last question is fairly obvious. The volcano glaciers are generally much larger but there are certainly smaller volcano glaciers than the Chikamin or Boston (Inter Glacier, for example). I don't care to run the numbers to get exact area values. Feel free. | |
| Posted Mar 3, 2004 6:22 pm | ||
| Bob Bolton | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | Thanks Jeff. From the USGS document, here's a table showing the places where ice is found in the lower 48. This pretty much says it all I think. Bob  | |
| Posted Mar 3, 2004 8:36 pm | ||
| Bob Bolton | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | I've always thought it was kinda interesting that Glacier National Park is so named when three other areas and another single peak have more glacier than it has. For what its worth. -Bob | |
| Posted Mar 3, 2004 8:43 pm | ||
| loopperu | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | a more important question than how large specific glaciers are, or where they are currently found, involves how they respond to c limate change, how fast they advance or receed, why those glaciers are there in the first place and exactly how they flow. glacier national park is named for the integrated effect of 1+ million years of glaciation that shaped the peaks and valleys that make it the beautiful landscape it is today. | |
| Posted Mar 3, 2004 10:06 pm | ||
| Bootboy | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | I got my info from "Walking the Winds" by Rebecca Woods | |
| Posted Mar 19, 2004 12:54 am | ||
| Bob Bolton | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | Based on the dialog here, I think I'll not post the claim. I'd sure like to find out where she got that idea. Anyone have any idea how to contact Rebecca Woods? | |
| Posted Mar 19, 2004 7:33 pm | ||
| Alpinist | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 9/10 | ||
| Posted Aug 15, 2004 10:39 am | ||
| Bob Bolton | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | Thanks George. Actually, others have suggested that I add the weather link to my pages, and I've thought about it. For some peaks it makes some sense, but at least for Gannett I'm not sure there's much value in it. Few people I know would get to the peak by the following day even if they have computer access in Pinedale, so the forecast available at the timetemperature.com site isn't far enough out to be of much help. There's a ten-day forecast available from weather.com and I'm sure other sites, but even that tends to be not very helpful in my estimation. However if it might help, I could add that to the Mountain Conditions sections or somewhere. For example, here's the current ten-day forecast from weather.com for Pinedale.. Note the dissimilarity between the two forecasts for Monday night (if you see this post very soon, like on Sunday the 15th). BTW, please note that the link associated with the supplied timetemperature.com weather "map" in your post is broken - can that be fixed? I'll give it a try below: Well, I tried the link provided, and it still doesn't work. Hmmm, looks like that site has some problems. Maybe I'll use the weather.com link. Thanks! Bob | |
| Posted Aug 15, 2004 11:53 am | ||
| Alpinist | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 9/10 | Hi Bob - I agree with you that weather forecasts are not 100% accurate, particularly when traveling to a remote area. However, I still find them useful for monitoring weather trends. I'll check the weather every day or two for 2 weeks preceeding a trip to see what the weather is like. In summer, it usally gives you a pretty good idea of conditions, unlike winter when a blizzard can occur on short notice. It's very convenient to be able to do that at a glance from the mountain page in SP... Cheers, George | |
| Posted Aug 15, 2004 3:50 pm | ||
| Bob Bolton | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | I added the timetemperature.com weather "map", but the link takes you to the www.weather.com 10-day forecast for Pinedale.  | |
| Posted Aug 15, 2004 9:48 pm | ||
| AriehDavid | Permit | |
Voted 4/10 | There are two red-tape things to know of. I believe it is 8 people or more, but it might be more like 10, either way, a group of people around this number have to register with the forest service office as a designated group, regardless of whether you're just friends. Second, there is a possibility of approaching Gannet from the East through the Wind River Native American Reservation which cuts approach distance significantly if coming from the East. However there is a fee years ago it was 20bucks. I don't know if it increased in accordance with the passage of time. | |
| Posted Sep 6, 2007 3:54 am | ||
| Alpinist | Henry Gannett | |
Voted 9/10 | There's an excellent article in the Nov 1, 2007 edition of The American Surveyor magazine that gives a detailed overview of Henry Gannett's innovative contributions to geographical surveys and cartography in the US during late 19th century. | |
| Posted Nov 1, 2007 12:34 am | ||
|