At an REI presentation on California's glaciers by Tim Palmer last night, an old timer said that the proglacial lake on the Palisade glacier wasn't there 40yrs ago. For what it's worth. Does anyone know this to be true?

There is a small glacial lake high above Sam Mack Meadow as you go toward Winchell. That one has been there when I scrambled up Winchell in 1971 and is on maps. If you are talking about another glacial lake, where on Palisades Glacier?

Have a look here:

http://glaciers.research.pdx.edu/image-galleries/palisade-glacier

I assume you mean the small unnamed lake at the toe of the glacier (while guessing that Alois is thinking of Sam Mack Lake?)

In some of the historical photos the unnamed lake is not visible, although I don't know if it could just be covered
in ice and snow, even though many of them are summer photos.

FWIW, here's a view from the summit I took in August, 1979. So, 33 years ago this year. There does appear to be a lake there- maybe a bit larger than it appears due to being partially frozen. Some of the darker areas around the lake may be deposits of rock debris.


Oops, make that 34 years ago this year...

Yes, that's the lake, Boyblue. Between Gayley and the moraine, NE from NPal. So if it was there 34 years ago, then either something happened just before that time and the lake formed (not that likely), or the guy didn't remember correctly, or he saw it while it was stil frozen/snowed over.

Alois, I wasn't referring to the Winchel side, but that looks like a good site to check out!

Yea, would be interesting to know when exactly he was on the glacier and how heavy of a snow year it was.

It wasn't there last February!

As I recall, 1979 was an average snow year. I'm hoping another member will post a picture of the glacier from the summit taken during a recent 'average snow year'- preferably summer, of course. It would be interesting to compare them.

This isn't quite what you asked for, but it is a picture of the glacier from Gayley Camp last August. That was a low snow year. Even so, the glacier's condition is abominable, and going by your picture it's changed a lot. http://www.summitpost.org/palisade-glacier-from-gayley-camp/834355

boyblue wrote:As I recall, 1979 was an average snow year. I'm hoping another member will post a picture of the glacier from the summit taken during a recent 'average snow year'- preferably summer, of course. It would be interesting to compare them.

Here's a shot from August of 2002:


Another from August of 2000:

The lake is pretty big in boyblue's 33 yo pic there. Sounds like the old dude at REI doesn't know what he is talking about... and needs to back up his whimsical statements.

I 'borrowed' a portion of the 1947 aerial view from the link in coldfoot's post above. (http://glaciers.research.pdx.edu/image-galleries/palisade-glacier) If you look carefully at the center of the circled part of the 1947 view, you can see the exact same snowfields that are in the upper left corner of my 1979 image. This seems, IMO, to indicate that the pictures were both taken under very similar conditions regarding the amount of residual winter snow. Then look at the size of the pond in each shot- definitely a difference in size.




Note that those snowfields are entirely absent in Bob's 2002 view and nearly so in the 2000 view. Climatically, his were taken later in the season.

Took this shot from my campsite on top of the ridge just below Mt Gayley. It's about 15 or 20 years old.

http://www.summitpost.org/global-warming-or-spring-thaw/465060/c-150406

The Chief wrote:Now this interesting.... 1960 and the Glacier is almost completely gone!



Twenty years LATER, 1980, and look! Back and then some.

That caught my attention, too. I think the bare ice slope (compared with the neve region that is closer to the mountain) is hard to see in the black and white image.
Google Earth view- imagery dated 09/02/2012:

Same image rendered without color data (B&W):

Campared with the 1960 image:

Note that the proglacial lake does appear significantly larger in the 2012 views.

More info and an animation here: http://glaciers.research.pdx.edu/glaciers-california

It seems that 1060 was a low at the time, which was followed by a slight rebound that lasted into the late 90s, which gave way to a decline since then and the lowest extent in 2009 (no data since then).

The lake itself has shifted around a little, and grown. It's actually very impressive to watch the water "vanish" into the rock at the downhill end of the lake as it drains. There's no visible surface stream. The calving uphill is also impressive - we camped there this fall.

The Chief wrote:Now this interesting.... 1960 and the Glacier is almost completely gone!



Twenty years LATER, 1980, and look! Back and then some.

Do additional, smaller snowfields in the bottom pic suggest it was taken earlier in the year?