Glacier moving 8 feet a day?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Alienwho

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2001
6,766
0
76


<< It'll be interesting to see it slam into a continent. I wouldn't be surprised if it made the mountain taller or even formed some others. >>


It would be extremely cool to watch that slam into a continant. If the glacier is the size of texas moving 8 feet a day, how high of a mountain would that make?
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0


<< The one you site has been moving for some time, under observation. >>



How long? 20 years ago your 'friends' were warning us of a new ice age and blaming....'Global Cooling!'

I choose to look at the so-called scientific evidence through a critical eye as they can't get tomorrow's weather correct...

..again, as I'm getting called names and the Liberal Poster is NOT producing ANY evidence that is credible in the least...need I go on?

 

Dually

Golden Member
Dec 20, 2000
1,628
0
0


<< AmusedOne

Don't confuse them with the facts...afterall, it keeps the Liberals busy while we advance OUR agenda....:D
>>



Um, I hope you care about Global Warming cause all of our lives depend on it being stoped, you won't think its funny when we are dying. This week scientist gave our planet 70 years to live before its unlivable.
 
Feb 7, 2000
1,004
0
0
And the Bush administration doesn't think there is any evidence of global warming?

i dont know what bush or his administration's position is on global warming but based on the content of his energy policy he will attempt to reduce green house gas emisions. more nuclear = better. more non fossil fuels = better, but its irrelavant, wind and other forms just plain suck. more fossil fuels = bad, but we just arent ready to abandon that form of energy, oh wells.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,504
20,111
146


<< AmusedOne

My most humble apology to you, sir. How could I have been so cruel? Of course you are not supporting Shrubs withdraw from anything that sounds like protection for the envirnment.
Only people like Tominator would declare they could care less about the envirnment. He will stay indoors at his computer and never venture out into clean air,so why should anyone else?

Rant off/
>>



If you present a treaty that calls for ALL nations to cut greenhouse gasses, I'll support it. The Kyoto treaty is flawed because it exempts many nations, and many of those exempt are the highest producers of greenhouse gasses. Sure, let's save the environment, but let's not shoot ourselves in the foot while we do it.



<< You site this is the Tokositna galcier. I do not recall this being the one they are talking about on the news. The article was last updated May 10. Could it be we are not talking about the same one? I honestly do not yet know which it is,but even the article you site says many in that area have begun movement at an alarming rate, and with potential for cataclismic outcome. The last I heard on the one I refer to is that this is highly unusual for this particular glacier,in that it hasn't moved at all in several decades. The one you site has been moving for some time, under observation. >>



Read it agian. Yes, this is the same Glacier. Here's the AP news article:

Glacier Near Mount McKinley Rumbles

By MAUREEN CLARK
.c The Associated Press


TOKOSITNA GLACIER, Alaska (AP) - After decades of inactivity, the Tokositna Glacier is rumbling and crackling through the craggy peaks of the Alaska Range.

The unexpected journey caught experts by surprise and delighted tourists with a rare view of a force that shapes the earth.

``A lot of film has been used up on the Tokositna,'' said Bill Post, a pilot for K2 Aviation who regularly takes tourists on scenic flights through the Alaska Range and carries climbers to nearby Mount McKinley.

The Tokositna, about 200 miles north of Anchorage, suddenly began surging in late February, moving forward at a rate of about eight feet per day. That's pretty zippy for an alpine glacier, said Guy Adema, the National Park Service's glaciologist at Denali National Park and Preserve. And when a 20-mile-long river of ice more than 1,000-feet thick, starts moving forward, people notice.

Local pilots from the nearby town of Talkeetna were the first to see the dramatic changes on the glacier, which starts near the base of Mount Huntington.

Bulges and depressions eventually measuring hundreds of feet in height and depth began rippling down the Tokositna's normally flat surface. The edges of the glacier shredded as they scraped along the valley walls, carrying tons of rock and dirt along for the ride.

Perhaps the most dramatic indication that the glacier was on the move was when fresh crevasses, blackened with dirt, were exposed within days of a heavy snowfall.

``That really confirmed it,'' Adema said. ``Those fresh cracks reveal it all.''

At the rate the Tokositna is surging, Adema thinks it could eventually mow down the cottonwoods, birches and brush now growing just beyond its leading edge.

There are about 40 glaciers in Denali, covering about one million acres. About one-quarter are surge-type glaciers, that gallop forward suddenly at a rapid rate. When a surge occurs, it offers an opportunity to view the powerful forces that carved valleys of the Alaska Range in the distant past.

``It's a chance to see the natural surroundings change within a season. There aren't especially that many natural processes that happen within that timeframe,'' Adema said. ``This valley will look quite a bit different this year than it did last year.''

``We think it has something to do with the water outlets being blocked,'' he said. When the water builds up, it acts as a lubricant, allowing the glacier to slide forward at a much faster-than-normal rate.

While scientists think they know how glaciers surge, they're not exactly sure why.

Adema and two field technicians camped beside the Tokositna for three days last month, skiing across its surface, measuring its movement and listening to the sounds of large blocks of ice falling away as the glacier moved forward.

Scientists are trying to get a better understanding of the dynamics of surging glaciers and what role, if any, climate plays in their activity. Surge-type glaciers tend to take off at regular intervals, ranging anywhere from 10 to 100 years.

A surge generally starts in late winter and lasts through the summer, sometimes resuming the following summer before the glacier eventually comes to rest, Adema said.

AP-NY-06-09-01 0114EDT
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,504
20,111
146


<<

<< AmusedOne

Don't confuse them with the facts...afterall, it keeps the Liberals busy while we advance OUR agenda....:D
>>



Um, I hope you care about Global Warming cause all of our lives depend on it being stoped, you won't think its funny when we are dying. This week scientist gave our planet 70 years to live before its unlivable.
>>



Good gawd, and you believed that?

As you get older, you'll find there are predictions of doom over and over and over that never come true. Take everything you hear with a HUGE grain of salt, OK?
 

Capn

Platinum Member
Jun 27, 2000
2,716
0
0
&quot;This week scientist gave our planet 70 years to live before its unlivable.&quot;

hehe, sure. Just because someone who gets an associates degree by mail in medical transcription and says we're all gonna die, doesn't make it fact.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,504
20,111
146


<< Ancient? When Greenland was named, it was green...that might be awhile ago, but not ancient. >>



Umm, not really. The Viking explorer who found Greenland named it such to get people to immigrate there. &quot;Greenland&quot; was the first tourist fraud recorded. :)

 

Valnir

Member
Oct 15, 1999
186
0
0


<< This week scientist gave our planet 70 years to live before its unlivable. >>



That's right 1 group of scientist says it, so it must be true right??

Completely ignore other scientist groups who dispute all of this. Course you don't ever hear about that since only 1 newsgroup will even mention it, that being Fox.

There are scientist on both sides and the fact of the matter is NO ONE KNOWS JACK S@!T.

We don't know nearly enough about atmosphere to say what is and what is not the cause.

Only the extreme Greens say crap like we only have 70 years left. The general number the mainstream groups push is 3-8*C degrees this century, which is nothing to ignore btw.

However that could just as much be the cause of the earth heading towards another Ice Age (* remember it gets extremely hot right before the cold *) as it could be us causing the problems. However why just say it's Green House gases. What about all the freaking radio, microwave, and magnetic waves sending everywhere?? Or how about the study showing a nice parallel in the change of the Earth's temperature with the amount of radiation we are hit by from the Sun??

The goal for us should be to find the most balance between reducing emissions and doing more research. I'd hate to be completely screwed because we threw all our money into 1 basket only to find out that approach was completely wrong.

While Bush's plan isn't great, it's a start. And it's a hell of a lot better than anything Clinton come up with. He could have just as easily been pushing alternative solutions long before we had the problems of today, but didn't.

What's real funny about the whole thing is we probably wouldn't have as many problems and wouldn't using so many fossil fuels had the Democrats with the Media's help not completely destroyed the use of Nuclear Energy here. Despite the fact probably the most liberal country of them all, France, uses Nuclear energy to supply 80% of all of it's power yet I don't seem to recall any major problems for them. Maybe we should get some help from them and setup a the cheapest and one of the cleanest sources of energy.

Then we need to slap the Oil and Car companies and revoke any patents they own that deal with more efficient engines. I mean seriously, in 100 hundred years NO ONE has come up with a more efficient fossil-fuelless engine??

However that will never happen because these companies are paying off both sides.
 

Valnir

Member
Oct 15, 1999
186
0
0


<< ...While scientists think they know how glaciers surge, they're not exactly sure why...dynamics of surging glaciers and what role, if any, climate plays in their activity... >>



What's the chance CNN failed to mention these statements :)

My guess, 100%
 

Siva

Diamond Member
Mar 8, 2001
5,472
0
71


<< Ancient? When Greenland was named, it was green...that might be awhile ago, but not ancient. >>


Um no it was never green. The Vikings wanted to keep people away from their land, so they spread rumors of a Greenland and told people to stay away from the Iceland. Or was it that Iceland was once covered in ice and it just migrated to Greenland? ;)