Talk:Shoshone National Forest/Archive 1

The oldest what?

The second sentence, Shoshone National Forest was originally designated as the Yellowstone Timberland Reserve in 1891 making this forest the oldest in the U.S. needs rewritten.

The oldest what in the US? The oldest forest? An administrative decision in 1891 would hardly determine that. The sentence may make sense to someone who understands what 'designation' means abd how national parks and reserves work in the US. But for the international reader, you need to spell it out. I hope this comment helps (I'm too ignorant of the subject to fix it). --Aoratos 13:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right...it does read weird...thanks for the imput.--MONGO 13:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Climate

The large diurnal temperature swings commonly observed in high dry settings is due to vigorous radiative cooling to space, an antigreenhouse effect, if you please. Surfaces at 0 degrees C radiate about 400 W/m². The atmosphere radiates between 200 to 400 W/m² back to the ground. The former number might apply to high elevation, very dry, clear conditions and the latter to low elevation fog or low clouds. It is the difference between the power radiated to and that absorbed from the sky that is responsible for the net cooling of the ground. An insulated high infrared emissivity surface on a mountaintop, e.g., Mauna Kea, in clear, dry conditions, will cool 10 degrees C or more below the temperature of the air.

Evaporation has a big effect on vegetation and transpiration certainly affects the temperature locally, e.g., in forests. However, the effect is to reduce the diurnal high. The partial pressure of water vapor in the air affects the evaporation rate. At high elevations, the partial pressure of water vapor is lower than it is at sea level for the same relative humidity and evaporation is more vigorous. Consequently, evaporation can be one of the factors affecting the growth and vitality of plants and the propagation of forest fires at higher elevations. But, evaporation tends to reduce the diurnal temperature range. [1] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glaciers

I was not able to verify the statement, "The seven largest glaciers in the U.S. outside of Alaska are also located in the immediate area." I found a source that seems to contradict this assertion. "Emmons Glacier on Mount Rainier has a surface area of 4.3 mile², the largest area of any glacier in the contiguous United States." "Carbon Glacier has the greatest measured thickness (700 feet) and volume (0.2 mile³) of any glacier in the contiguous United States." [2] By my count, none of the Gannett-Fremont Peak are among the largest 30 glaciers outside of Alaska.

That should probably come out...I read it somewhere, but am not able to locate the source...on second thought, it can't be right because I know that there are a few glaciers in Montana that are bigger.--MONGO 07:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gannett-Fremont Peak Glaciers

I've listed the glaciers in the Gannett-Fremont Peak area below. Of these, the Dinwoody, Mammoth, Sacagawea and Upper Fremont Glaciers seem to have the largest areas, roughly 1 mile².

Continental

Downs

Connie

Sourdough

Dinwoody Glaciers

Grasshopper

Gannett

Mammoth

Dinwoody

Helen

Fremont Glaciers

Sacagawea

Upper Fremont

Lower Fremont

Bull Lake

Knife Point

Washington Glaciers

In Washington, the following glaciers appear to have areas larger than 1 mile². The ones marked with an asterisk have areas larger than 2 mile².

Mount Baker

Roosevelt

Mazama

Park

Boulder

Easton

Deming

Coleman

Mount Shuksan

East Nooksack

Sulphide

Challenger

Neve

Inspiration

Boston

Chickamin

Chocolate

Honeycomb

White Chuck

Mount Rainier

Winthrop*

Emmons*

Fryingpan

Ingraham

Cowlitz

Nisqually

South Tahoma

Tahoma*

Puyallup

Mowich

North Mowich

Russell

Carbon*

Maps

--Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jokulhlaup at Grasshopper Glacier

A Jokulhlaup occurred during September 6-11, 2003. [3] It doesn't seem to fit into Shoshone National Forest, but it is compelling enough to be mentioned somewhere. The same post indicates that the glaciers in the Wind River Mountains are receding rapidly. A journal citation is provided. I think this observation might be good to include in the article. A similar process seems to be occurring in Glacier National Park (which may not be eponymous by 2030). --Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like that...please include anything you find that may discuss this recession phenomenon which is actually widespread in the Rocky Mountains I beleive. I did read that several snowfields in Rocky Mountain National Park had recently been redesignated as glaciers, but can't remember where that was.--MONGO 06:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Number of glaciers

"Most of the glaciers found in the forest are located in the Wind River Range and counting those found in the Absarokas and Beartooths, there are a total of 156 of them; the most in any single forest in the U.S. outside of Alaska." This is contradicted by, "The [Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie] Forest is home to more glaciers and snow fields than any other National Forest in the lower 48." [4] The same sentence appears in Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. I haven't been able to find a number to compare with the 156 number. I did a rough estimate by counting the larger glaciers on maps. These are the ones that I'm pretty confident are active (with multiple crevasses). I found about 66 in Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. If I adopted a more generous criterion, I suspect that number could easily double and possibly triple. What is the source of the 156 number and what criterion was used? --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would be inclined to believe that your federal link above is more accurate than this one [5] which is where the 156 glaciers came from and the credit that they have the most of any N.F. in the lower 48...I may have to make a phone call to the HQ of Shoshone to get the facts and sort this out. They may be talking about distinct glaciers. I think that we could reword it to state the more likely truth that Shoshone National forest has the most glaciers outside of oregon, washington and alaska, or better yet: of any N.F. in the Rocky mountains, as that I would be almost able to state is completely factual...most of the N.F. in Colorado have few glaciers and the mountains in Montana are not high enough to support the development of glaciers outside of a very few isolated peaks, the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness and Glacier National Park (US). I also was surprised when I read the 156 glaciers info...--MONGO 06:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This also parrots the info linked to above in my last comment: [6]--MONGO 06:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

South of Mount Rainier, the Cascade Range has an inconsequential number of glaciers, probably less than 30 and only a few in each National Forest. Only Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest has a large number of glaciers. But, the Rocky Mountains wording sounds best to me. Thank you for the links. I agree that they don't inspire a lot of confidence, but I'm dubious about the one I cited as well. It is more believable if it refers to Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest before North Cascades National Park was carved out of the Forest. It wouldn't surprise me greatly if the number has not be updated (since 1968). --Walter Siegmund (talk) 08:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to give the forest a call and see if they can enlighten us...probably in the next week. Appreciate the imput.--MONGO 08:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up

I just got off the phone with the public affairs rep for Shoshone National Forest and he told me that he was sure that the actual number of active individual glaciers is 156 in the Wind River range section of the forest, primarily in the Fitzpatrick Wilderness section. There are one or two more in the Beartooth region, but they may actually be snowfields. The rep told me that they have 16 named glaciers and 140 that are unnamed. He agreed that the glaciers in Washington state are both thicker and larger but many of them are combined. He also stated that the glaciers in the forest are generally receeding in size. Finally he stated that the best way to word it would be to state that the forest has the most glaciers in any forest in the Rockies...but to continue to use the figure of 156 for a total number.--MONGO 17:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting. Was your contact able to provide a source for the Shoshone NF information? I may try to do the same for Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF. It would be good to have better information for that article, too. It is not uncommon to see a continuous body of ice with two or more active regions separated by apparently inactive snowfields. It must be a matter of judgement when to count that as a single glacier or multiple glaciers, especially since it can change from year to year. Perhaps such cases are those described by the "combined" term. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No he didn't provide a source. I just scanned the fitzpatrick wilderness in Topozone and I believe I counted over 14 named glaciers...you know what, all we can do I guess is go with the best available info. I figured the forest was interesting in itself due to a number of other issues than the number of glaciers, so I never had my heart set on being able to say...well my forest has more than your forest, if you know what I mean. But since I do want to be accurate, I guess if several websites and the PR person for the forest itself says there are 156 glaciers, then I guess I am going to leave that in there...but it sure seems like a lot of glaciers to me. Anyhow, this article needs a little tweaking here and there, but it's at 37KB so thats a tad bit larger than the 32KB recommended size, and I think most of the bases are covered...I hope anyone reading this won't hesitate to toss in their two cents as well. Appreciate your help Walter.--MONGO 18:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of WP:V does not include a phone interview with a public official as a criterion for verifiability, although it makes sense to me that it is. Another editor, for example, could do as you did to verify the information. Also, you have cited websites that are verifiable althought they may be copies of one source. So, I agree that the 156 number should remain. "Most of the glaciers found in the forest are located in the Wind River Range, and there are a total of 156 of them (16 named and 140 unnamed); the most in any single forest in the U.S. outside of Alaska". This statement isn't contradicted by the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest web site that uses the wording "more glaciers and snow fields than any other National Forest". Consequently, it should stay, at least until someone finds a number for the glacier count in Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. Thank you for checking Fitzpatrick Wilderness. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shoshone National Forest sent me their recreation guide and it states that there are 16 named and 140 unnamed glaciers in the forest, the most outside Washington and Alaska....I'm going to change the wording to state that the forest has the most of any forest in the Rockies...how does that sound? I have no way to prove what their recreation guide states as it isn't on their website as throughly...maybe I can see if the guide has a publication number or something.--MONGO 23:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that the recreation guide is a publication of the U.S. Government, so it surely qualifies as verifiable in the Wikipedia sense, even if it is not a peer reviewed journal article. Print has the advantage that it doesn't change at the whim of a web site editor. I would cite the full name of the recreation guide, date, and any other information that might help another editor find it. I'm happy with either "the most outside Washington and Alaska" or "most of any forest in the Rockies".
I talked with Ron DeHart, Public Affairs Officer, Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. He was not able to provide any glacier information for Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie beyond that on the Forest web site. He doesn't have a source for the information, nor a printed version of it. He referred me to the USGS, but was unable to provide a contact. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, I just researched for the Gannett Glacier stub article I just wrote to fill in a redlined link in this article and came across this exerpt from a newpaper which states that the Wind River Range has 63 glaciers [7]...there sure seems to be a wide disparity in these numbers and hope the USFS isn't simply trying to make this National Forest out to be more "grand" than it is...not that it needs much in the form of enhancement as I know...I've been there and it is truly a remarkable, beautiful and diverse protected area. As I staed once before, I scanned the region in topozone and I didn't see 156 glaciers, but they may not all be delineated. I may have to work on the wording some more yet.--MONGO 00:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the excellent reference. Actually, I wonder if I'm missing the point by worrying about the number of glaciers. If the glaciers are disappearing, does it really matter how many remain? Isn't the important point the disappearance of the glaciers and shouldn't that be the lead sentence of the glacier paragraph of the article? I looked at a web site on the shrinking of the North Cascade Range glaciers. [8] It is severe and seems to be accelerating.
Regarding the bug report, one person (predictably) said that it was working correctly and gave it a "RESOLVED" status. But, someone else classified it as a request for an enhancement and give it a "REOPENED" status. There it stands. [9] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As far as that bug report...I already went around and took out the disclaimers on all the articles I had put it in...there may be more. Most of those that stated that the disclaimers created an ugly white line at the top of the article above the template were right...seems odd that it shows up that way, but I suppose most folks are smart enough to scroll past the infobox template. On the other note...all this research on glaciers has me almost convinced that we are in the midst of global warming...I'm not sure much else explains it.--MONGO 08:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice work on the glacier section. I made a pass just now. For the most part, I tried to tighten up the wording but leave the content mostly unchanged. I thought the description of the use of AgI was not as clear as it might have been and changed that a bit. Anyhow, feel free to keep what you like and replace what you don't.
Regarding global warming, when I was reading Nature and Science regularly in the late 1990's, the consensus among those publishing was that global warming was well-established. The evidence has only become more compelling in the interim. It is particularly sad for those of us who love the mid-latitude mountains and think of glacier ice as an integral part of the experience to think that most of that ice will likely be gone by mid-century.
I've been deleting the disclaimers, too. So far, I haven't seen any problems in the articles on my watch list. --02:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Walter, I appreciate your help on all this. It is a shame that there is the strongest of liklihoods that no glaciers will be in the Rockies by the mid century. The impact on fisheries and related habitat and the loss of educational opportunities may be profound.--MONGO 07:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo and Walter: I am certain that as of 2005 the number of Shoshone NF glaciers is less than 156. If we use the standard USGS definition, which is simple minded, a snow and ice body that is more than 0.1 km2, than the number will be very close to 60. Note Kerr, has a much better handle on this than the USFS. There are no trees there, so the FS does not care much about glaciers. In the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie there are many more glaciers than you have noted, inlcuding major ones. Given Kerr's 63 glaciers with an area of 17 square miles indicates an average of 0.35 square miles. Even this area is certainly high as of 2005. In the North Cascades as a whole, there were 756 glaciers noted by the USGS in 1971,this number is now down to 700 with an area of 245 square kilometers. The larger glaciers in this range are much bigger, thicker and more active than those in the Wind River Range. As a result they are much more important for water resources. If you look at my Disequilibrium web page you will note, that with current climate many of the largest North Cascades glaciers will survive where none of the glaciers in the Shoshone will survive beyond being the tiniest of pocket glaciers if at all. In the Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest I have determined the number of glaciers, but I am on vacation until wednesday, when I can check, but it is certainly well in excess of Shoshone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.234.107 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 3 January 2006

I really appreciate your imput. I was going on the word of the PR employee of the forest (a paid USFS employee) and the information in the recreation guide they sent me...I will see if the recreation guide has some sort of publishing date, and or copywrite info which may make it more reliable as a citable source. As Walter pointed out, we both have been doing more reseearch into this issue as we both want to get our facts straight. I never questioned that the glaciers in the Wind River Range are significantly smaller than those in the Cascades...and I reworded the info so that it was clear that this forest has more glaciers than any other single forest in the Rockies (within the U.S.). As Gannett Glacier is now just under 900 acres and is supposedly the largest glacier in the U.S. Rockies, it already is a pocket glacier compared to those on Mt. Hood and in the forests and parks in Washington and especially Alaska. You're probably correct that the USFS is going to be less likely to know for certain the number of glaciers as compared to the USGS whose focus is more geared in that direction. The USFS spends most of it's energies on recreation, timber sales and lease agreements with ranchers and what not. I think what you're getting at is the # of glaciers in this forest as compared to other forests...what I have actually read is that indeed the Shoshone does have more individually named glaciers and or identified independent glaciers than any forest outside of Alaska...this includes Washington and Oregon. The glaciers in the N.F.'s in Washington and Oregon are far larger and are certainly more significant in size but that doesn't mean there are more of them. I may go through Topozone and once again scan the quads and see what number of named glaciers I come up with and just use that as the figure and simply stated that there are # of named glaciers and leave the total # of glaciers out as that seems very abiguous. Many we're on to some sort of government coverup? Is it possible that I have been fed a line (and the public in general, because this recreation guide is for public consumption) and they are doing so for a particular reason?--MONGO 01:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just scanned Topozone, not that that is the best piece of info, but it's based on USGS quads. They show 14 named glaciers I could find and about 65 large unnamed snowfields or possible glaciers. The 14 named glaciers are, south to north: Washakie, Hooker, Knife Point, Bull Lake, Lower Fremont, Upper Fremont, Sacagawea, Helen, Heap Steap, Dinwoody, Gooseneck, Gannett, Grasshopper and Downs.--MONGO 03:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I echo MONGO's thanks? THE DISEQUILBRIUM OF NORTH CASCADE, WASHINGTON GLACIERS 1984-2004 [10] makes a point that is missing from the article, that if a glacier cannot retreat to a new point of equilibrium then it ...will melt away with the continuation of the climate that is causing the disequilibrium. Another article that cites George (sic?) Kerr and "other scientists" states, "between 1950 and 1999, Dinwoody and Gannett Glaciers shrank 37 percent, with 67 percent of that loss occurring in the last decade of the study." [11] (Google finds many more instances of Greg, rather than George Kerr, in this context.) One of Kerr's papers is L. Pochop, R. Marston, G. Kerr, D. Veryzer, M. Varuska and R. Jacobel"GLACIAL ICEMELT IN THE WIND RIVER RANGE, WYOMING", Symposium Proceedings WWRC-90-16, 1990. [12] It states "The total area of glaciers, 63 glaciers covering 44.5 km2, in the Wind River Range is larger than that of all other glaciers, 134 glaciers covering 31 km2, in the American Rockies (Field, 1975 ; Davis, 1988)." The Wyoming State Water Plan, 2003, [13] includes a number of citations some as recent as 2003. Some are from Physical Geography and Journal of Geophysical Research. The plan quotes two papers (it isn't clear exactly which two) as saying, continued climate conditions will "cause the disappearance of the [Gannett and Dinwoody] glaciers within 20 years." --Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, good job...I'll check those links out tonight. I want to discuss the glaciology in detail, but I also want to ensure that it doesn't become overemphasized in this article. It may reach a point in which we can or I may even start a sub article on glacial retreat in the Rockies, or even the Winds...maybe even comparing it to that going on in the Cascades and elsewhere. Seems there is plenty of info out there to make an article, just I am surely not an expert on glaciers, with only a minor in Geology. On a side note, this series of discussions on this talk page are some of the best I have ever seen on Wikipedia...they are collaborative, polite, and educational.--MONGO 06:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are excellent points and I agree. Some of the glacier material could be added to the Wind River Range and Beartooth Mountains articles, I think. The references that I have seen seem to be organized around mountain ranges, as indeed makes sense. This article can serve to summarize that content regarding size, number and disappearance of glaciers. However, it should emphasize impacts on the forest and the fauna thereof since that is covered only in this article. Glacier wasting (retreat or disequilibrium) is an important topic with ample source material; it should be in Wikipedia, and I will contribute to it. I think it should be a general article, not restricted to a single region. After all, Wikipedea is an international collaboration and other editors will join us in contributing on portions of particular interest to them, or so I hope.
I've found the discussion here to be a good experience, also. Best wishes, --Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of glaciers (continuation 2)

Yeah, you can count me in in a side article...probably can be a substanial one with the amount of info out there. I added some to the glaciology stuff and I think now I am ghoing to finish it up as far as the number of glaciers go...let me know what you think.--MONGO 02:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did a study 15 years ago for the forest service and noted 295 glaciers according to the USGS Post (1971) in the Mount Baker Snoqualime Natinal Forest. This number I found by 1998 had been reduced to 287 at the most. The key issue today is how many will survive and that comes back to the disequilibrium. This paper on the disequibrium in the North Cascades is in press now, but I am looking at expansion to the Rockies where the data for Glacier National Park is good enough for some glaciers. In the Wind River Range it is not.Peltoms 15:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does the current wording in the section on glaciology seem accurate at this point? I've been always using the wording as shown in USFS pamphlets and collaborative web based documentation that there are "16 named and 140 unnamed glaciers in the forest." I then saw the latest from the recreation guide for Shoshone National Forest that states there are "44 active glaciers" in the Fitzpatrick Wilderness. I also scanned Topozone and I counted 14 named glaciers, several of those were outside of the Fitzpatrick Wilderness, but may have been on the Wind River Indian Reservation, which bisects the forest and cuts off the southernmost section which is where the Popo Agie Wilderness is located. I saw no glaciers in the Absarokas to the north or in that section of the Beartooths to the northwest...all the glaciers in the Beartooths appeared to be in Montana and therefore are in not in Shoshone. Take a look at the wording as I have it now on glaciolgy and let me know what you think. I believe that Glacier National Park in Montana has less than 25 active glaciers, but that is a park, not a N.F. I was also originally reading and was told by the PR employee for Shoshone that the forest has more glaciers than any other forest in the american rockies. I see no reason to dispute that. Are you the author of the disequiliibrium...you can of course remain anonymous....regardless, your imput is most appreciated. Do you have any faith in this cloud seeding effort about to commence by the state of Wyoming, as far as how it may help reestablish some equilibrium?--MONGO 19:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the Wind River Range and the Shoshone NF are the glacier kings of the American Rockies. It is an easy case to make that the single healthiest glacier in the American Rockies is the Dinwoody Glacier. I am the author of the disequilibrium paper. A few years ago the Park Service had someone examine RMNP for glaciers, they found lots of new ones, though it was because they changed the definition to include any more or less permanent body of snow and ice even if it was an acre in size, I wonder if Shoshone did the same thing. One good way to tell how active a glacier is, is to look at the color of the stream issuing from it, a clear stream suggest no glacier movement now or in the recent past, and hence it is not a glacier. In terms of cloud seeding. I have no faith that it can make more than a small contribution given the limited effort. If one tries to make a vigorous effort you get sued for stealing water that would have fallen elsewhere. Overall you would have to generate an additional half meter of water equivalant snowpack, that is 5 meters of actual snowfall through cloud seeding to balance the glaciers, since mean annual balances are probably close to -0.5 meters/year.Peltoms 14:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up the Davis, P. Thompson, Holocene Glacier Fluctuations in the American Codillera, Quaternary Science Reviews, Vol. 7, pp. 129-157, 1988, paper. QSR is peer reviewed. From p. 137 to 141, "The largest glaciers in the American Rocky Mountains occur in Wyoming, and most of these are located in the Wind River Range (Denton, 1975a). The best dated records of Holocene glacier fluctuations in Wyoming also occur in the Wind River Range. ... There are 63 glaciers that are distributed along most of the length of the range crest. ... In Montana, 106 glaciers may survive in Glacier National Park, the Cabinet Range, The Flathead-Mission-Swan Ranges, the Crazy Mountains and the Beartooth Mountains (Meier, 1961a). ... Historical data suggest that since about 1920 these glaciers have drastically shrunk and that about half of the 150 glaciers present in Glacier National Park at that time no longer exist today (Carrara and McGimsey, 1981, 1988). I don't think that the USFS brochure information can be trusted. It is unsourced and contradicted by peer-reviewed journal articles.
I've started to add material (from this page) on glaciers to the Mount Baker and Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest articles. Glacier Peak contains no mention of the eponymous glaciers.
Thank you Peltoms for your comments. I especially appreciated your observation regarding the color of the stream flowing from a glacier v. permanent snow. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it's been good having you two help me on this matter...should a WikiProject Glaciology be started? Or at least a major article on glacial retreat? All I'd be able to do is parrot what I can read and cite my sources, as I am certianly no expert. But, in late June or maybe into July, I'm going to go into the Fitzpatrick Wilderness for a week...not to climb the peaks, but to examine and photograph the glaciers and habitat. I've already ordered the quads for the whole region. At least we would have some public domain images available for a detailed modern study. I have a minor in geology, so I understand some of the visible evidence of that is associated with glacial retreat. That issue with requalifying snowfields as glaciers sounds like some kind of plot...why the heck would they do that? My understanding is that glaciers are almost a quasi living entity. And the color of the water is most helpful...I wonder if they took that into consideration? I figured that the cloud seeding was going to have almost zero impact on the glaciers...what I read is it is only supposed to improve snowpack to they'll be runoff for a more protracted period during the dry summer to help keep reservoirs replenished.--MONGO 03:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very keen to work on glacial retreat. I found a bit more on the topic at Effects of global warming (in addition to Global warming). There is already some material on glaciology. I noticed it when I worked on Serac. The Glacier article is quite good. I noticed only a few minor problems, e.g., terminus and serac are not mentioned, the plastic flow discussion should mention that this is common behavior of solids near their melting point, etc.
I'm dubious that cloud seeding will have a significant positive impact, also.
Your summer trip sounds splendid. You might ask Michael Frankis what plant photographs are needed. I had a marvelous adventure in October searching for Cupressus bakeri in northern California that I wouldn't have missed for the world. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo; When you head to the WRR the later in the summer the better as the termini will likely be buried before mid-July -- at least, we can hope. Also take along a good gps. If you really want to map a centerline profile on the glacier to see the change from USGS, pick a striaght line up the center start at a fixed point identifiable on a map take a bearing and proceed. To get elevation you need an inclinometer to obtain slope and a laser or tape measure for length between stations along the way. Glacier retreat is a huge topic, I would stick to a region such as the lower 48 or the Pacific Northwest. Peltoms 18:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a decent GPS, no inclinometer though. My ability to study these from a professional standpoint would be limited. Where would I find previous measurements...USGS? I wonder how much is actually being done in there (Shoshone)as far as research goes on the glaciers. I also have tripod mounted laser, but it is used in construction normally. Maybe best before we get too off topic to start an article on glacial retreat...I think I will and link it back here. Probably any more discussion as far as glaciology, unless it pertains to this article will be best there or at my talk page User talk:MONGO or email me through the email link off my userspace: mongomontana (at) yahoo.com I am very appreciative of your assistance on this matter.--MONGO 03:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a new article as mentioned. Glacial recession and posting on talk page there.--MONGO 11:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of glaciers (again)

I'm curious about this sentence: "There are inconsistencies as to the exact number, either 63 in the range, [14] or 44 active glaciers in the Fitzpatrick Wilderness". Is that really an inconsistency? It would be if the Fitzpatrick Wilderness contains or is equivalent to the range. But if the Fitzpatrick Wilderness contains only part of the range, then I don't see the inconsistency. There are 44 glaciers in the range within Fitzpatrick Wilderness and 19 in the range outside the Fitzpatrick Wilderness. What am I missing? --Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not well written is it...the recreation guide lists 44 in Fitzpatrick, but a flyer in the recreation guide states that there are 16 named and 140 unnamed glaciers...that waterplan link states that there are 63 in the "range"...I'm about ready to take out numbers altogether and just leave in the part about the forest having more than any other forest in the rockies.--MONGO 07:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, noticed that the waterplan link also states "Seven of the ten largest glaciers in the continental United States are located in the Wind River Range." and Peltoms and you have both said (correctly I believe) that this is nonsesne essentially. Surely the glaciers on Rainier alone are larger than those in the Winds...I would think at least...--MONGO 07:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use the Davis paper in Quaternary Science Reviews (see above)? It is peer reviewed, dated, and a high quality source for the 63 glacier number. The waterplan link is suspect and should not be cited, in my opinion, especially since better references are available. I'll be near the UW library tomorrow. I can look up other scientific journal references, if you like.
I adjusted the color balance of the Gannet Glacier image to make the glacier and clouds white instead of blue-white. Walter Siegmund (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the Thompson Paper? I think it states that there are 63 glaciers but that would include areas outside the forest such as in the Wind River Indian reservation and in Bridger-Teton National Forest on the west side of the divide....I'll keep looking to finalize this problem.--MONGO 19:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The author is P. Thompson Davis (Davis, P. Thompson, Holocene Glacier Fluctuations in the American Codillera, Quaternary Science Reviews, Vol. 7, pp. 129-157, 1988); "There are 63 glaciers that are distributed along most of the length of the range crest." Thank you for explaining about the extent of the forest. I don't have any good maps. I think that Davis could still be used; "Located along the crest of the Wind River Range are 63 glaciers (Davis, 1988), most of which are within Shoshone National Forest", but it is a matter of taste whether that is actually better. I'll try to add citations too. Walter Siegmund (talk)

Ranger Districts

It might be useful to briefly mention the names of the ranger districts and the major features within each. From my experience with the USFS (ranging from visiting forests to summer employment in high school), they tend to reference places of interest by the ranger districts in which they are located. Keep up the great work. youngamerican (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: never say never

"Ensuring that more than half of the managed land area will never be developed or altered by human activities" ? Man, that's... optimistic. Once people thought that the pyramids would ensure that the Pharaohs' graves would never be robbed. Then they thought Caesar's conquests would ensure that the sun would never set on the Roman empire. But you take my point. I've changed it. Bishonen | talk 17:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Never say never was a Bond movie I believe...I think I was having a Martini, Shaken, not stirred, and my writing judgement was impaired. Thanks for the read over...I think this article really could use a lot fo streamlining and I am going to take care of that shortly.--MONGO 18:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rafting?

I am new (long time reader) and want to start a project on rafting in/around Shoshone. Can anyone help? ShoshoneGirl 02:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

50 °F = 30 °C

While my correction of "50 °F (10 °C)" to "50 °F (30 °C)" is correct because it is a "temperature variance"—an interval, a difference between two readings—rather than a temperature reading, the original unsourced addition of that "temperature variences of 50 degress" number may be questionable. It would probably make sense as being not uncommon, but OTOH it probably isn't what you'd expect on an average day.

It was added by User:MONGO 15 Dec 2005 10:43 UTC (if I've done the conversion to UTC correctly), and the next day edited by the same User:MONGO to "temperature variances of 50°F (10°C)" adding the incorrect conversion (as well as fixing one misspelling and replacing the other with symbols) on 16 Dec 2005 10:46 UTC.

The fact that MONGO's source was a worse speller than MONGO doesn't give me much confidence in the reliability of that number.

Maybe it should just be removed. Then if someone wants to find something along those lines that can be verified in a reliable source, okay. Gene Nygaard 02:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I didn't intend to impugn MONGO's spelling skills. I only intended to show 1) he likely got it from somewhere else, and 2) that other source probably wasn't high-quality. Gene Nygaard 15:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since C and F scales do not start at the same place, a temperature variance of 50 deg F is the same as one of 24 deg C; a temperature level of 50 °F is the same as one of 10 °C. It is conventional to use "deg" for differences and "°" for levels to indicate this distinction. Birdhurst 20:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: 50 deg F is 28 deg C, I think. Birdhurst 21:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are the same unit, with the very same symbol °C, whether used to measure temperature readings or temperature intervals. The standards organizations have tried to make that clear several times; I had a long discussion about this with someone who stubbornly insisted otherwise on one of the talk pages, before some retired BIPM official convinced him otherwise. I think it was on Talk:Celsius; if not I'll try to find it for you. Gene Nygaard 13:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pronunciation

Is it "So-shown" or "So-show-ne"? Would be helpful to have the pronunciation. Sdedeo (tips) 06:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shuh-show-nee (or show-show-nee). Raul654 06:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The latter may be more correct than my adjustment I just made. Maybe: shah-shon-e as this is the way I usually heard it.--MONGO 06:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Audio link at this website--MONGO 06:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fatal Bear attack

Not sure if this merits inclusion in the article.. there doesn't seem to be a good spot and I want to avoid recentism.. but I updated List of fatal bear attacks in North America with this [15] --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date of creation

As part of Yellowstone Timberland Reserve Shoshone was created 1891, but as independant National Forest it was in fact established on July 1, 1908 according to this document (p. 46).-- Sinuhe20 (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citations, broken and missing

Almost all of the Geography section is uncited, as is much of the Recreation section. Also, many of the online links have rotted, including #39, #36, #17, #22, #2, #16, #25, #18, and #20.[16] This state of affairs is not consistent with FA criteria 1c. Malleus Fatuorum 16:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updating

Updating of article is nearing completion. More than 50 new references have been added since April 2013 and all but the following three sections have been either completely rewritten and/or significantly updated. Still remaining to do:

~~Finish update on Recreation section.~~
~~Update Geography and geology section.~~
~~Update Glaciers section~~

--MONGO 23:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update completed.--MONGO 17:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shoshone National Forest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130221230156/http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/products/GCC/Bioscience_Hall_03.pdf to http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/products/GCC/Bioscience_Hall_03.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shoshone National Forest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shoshone National Forest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140106040034/http://apps.fs.usda.gov/nrm/nvum/results/A02014.aspx/Round2 to http://apps.fs.usda.gov/nrm/nvum/results/A02014.aspx/Round2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Shoshone National Forest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shoshone National Forest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120321041507/http://www.wyomingtourism.org/overview/Weather-Climate/43666 to http://www.wyomingtourism.org/overview/Weather-Climate/43666

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]