The lake was there 35 years ago. I think the guy doesn't know what he is talking about.

From c. 1994

SpazzyMcgee wrote:

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?

According to the page these came from (http://glaciers.research.pdx.edu/image-galleries/palisade-glacier), 1960 was early August and 1980 was late August.
But... I remember 1980 as being a much higher than average snow year.

There's a lot of interesting stuff on that site. Well worth exploring.

As long as the seasonal snow has melted and you're looking at the ablation zone, below the firn line, the exact time of year shouldn't matter. Looking at the upper glacier might reveal a different picture, but looking down low should show the extent of the ice.

In any case, here's what late 2012 looked like: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set ... 1c75dc2939

Sierra Ledge Rat wrote:The lake was there 35 years ago. I think the guy doesn't know what he is talking about.

From c. 1994

I like this picture. What time of the year was it taken?

Based on the snow/ice coverage it looks cold but based on your cloths it looks quite warm.

What else was said about the current glacier ? Is it changing more than in the past ?

Nothing else on this particular glacier. Folks do take accurate measurements on them though, particularly in Yosemite (Lyell, Dana). Shasta's glaciers on the other hand have been growing since the end of the Little Ice Age due to the increased precipitation at the more northern latitude. But they too are expected to start shrinking if current warming trends continue.

One more data point - here's the glacier in Sept. 08 as seen from the summit of Winchell




and I think this is the same glacial lake as seen from the shore, also Sept 08.

The Chief wrote:Totally evidenced by the last two supposed "Hottest Years on Record" years.

That's on a national or global scale, not Shasta region specific.

The Chief wrote:

96avs01 wrote:

The Chief wrote:Totally evidenced by the last two supposed "Hottest Years on Record" years.

That's on a national or global scale, not Shasta region specific.

Irrelevant.

Shasta and other Cascade Glaciers are actually growing and are continuing to do so.

That is the jest of it.

Are they adding enough ice mass to offset the decline of glaciers in other locales on a global scale? Not even close. So your reference to the "Hottest Years on Record" is irrelevant to your argument.

The Chief wrote:That is the jest of it.

"Jest" is a prank or a joke. Did you mean "gist?"

clmbr wrote:What time of the year was it taken?

Mid-July 1994

The Chief wrote:
Shasta and other Cascade Glaciers are actually growing and are continuing to do so.

That is the jest of it.

Shasta is a Cascade Glacier? I have not heard of it.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalay ... rowing.htm

Skeptics confuse these issues by cherry picking individual glaciers or by ignoring long term trends. Diversions such as these do not address the most important question of what is the real state of glaciers globally?

Shasta and other Cascade Glaciers are actually growing and are continuing to do so.

Shasta is not a glacier, it is a volcano.

I am not here to start arguments, but your can't point out a few growing glaciers and claim we have no problem here. There are a few glaciers that are growing, but many more are shrinking. Which is a proven fact.

alpinelady1 wrote:There are a few glaciers that are growing, but many more are shrinking. Which is a proven fact.

Yes. That is a fact.

alpinelady1 wrote:I am not here to start arguments

And that is not.

Are you familiar with former IPCC sceptic Richard Mullar's conversion?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opini ... wanted=all

The IPCC made a mistake on HImalayan glacial retreat, but also found and corrected the mistake. That's how science is supposed to work. Mullar now believes the IPCC's "fantasy forecasts" better model the available evidence than any other explanation being offered.