Talk:Grinnell Glacier

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Glaciers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glaciers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Glaciers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GlaciersWikipedia:WikiProject GlaciersTemplate:WikiProject GlaciersGlacier
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Montana Mid‑importance

	Montana portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montana, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Montana on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MontanaWikipedia:WikiProject MontanaTemplate:WikiProject MontanaMontana
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Protected areas Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Gem Glacier has not disappeared

In its third paragraph, http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Grinnell_Glacier says the Gem Glacier "disappeared in the 1990's".

To the contrary:

http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/repeatphoto/gg_trail11-98.htm says Gem Glacier "does not appear to have changed much" between 1911 and 1998 (leaving only 1999 for it to disappear, if it did so in the 1990's).

http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/glaciers.htm says it was being monitored in 2003 (it's been my experience that once something has disappeared, it's no longer monitored). Since it's the smallest glacier in Glacier National Park (according to http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/repeatphoto/gg_trail11-98.htm), it still is being monitored as far as I know.

In fact, it looks as large in http://www.philarmitage.net/glacier/glacier16x.html (the http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Grinnell_Glacier photo taken in 2005) as it did in the 1998 http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/repeatphoto/gg_trail11-98.htm photo.

Gem Glacier, 48.747ºN 113.727ºW, is in the upper right quadrant of the http://www.philarmitage.net/glacier/glacier16x.html photo. From this camera angle, it's what looks like a snow drift, above Grinnell Glacier, about halfway up the face of the Garden Wall, on the rock shelf between Mount Gould and the Garden Wall, not the long line of snow, at about the same altitude to the left of it, on Mount Gould.

http://www.bigskyfishing.com/National_parks/glacier/grinnell-glacier-gallery/head-grinnell-glacier.shtm has a more head-on photo of Gem Glacier and in http://www.terragalleria.com/parks/np-image.glac34126.html you can see its icy terminus.24.245.1.26 22:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work...I made the proper adjustments. An efort to better document all the remaining glaciers is underway and Gem Glacier will have it's own article soon, or feel free to create one yourself if you wish. Thanks again for the excellent summary above!--MONGO 06:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.24.245.1.26 14:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

I have rated this article a "B" rating due to a storng probablility that not a lot more information is coming to be available anytime soon. I think the article is almost as comprehensive as it can get for right now.--MONGO 07:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current size

In thinking that 1993 is pretty old for a current measurement, I did a little Google searching. I found an article from May 2005 that implies its size is 110 acres (a quarter of 440 acres) or about 0.45 km^2. This is a very poor source, IMO, primarily because it's not very exact, but also because it might stir POV questions in some. A more scholarly source from 2001 says that it lost 0.17 km^2 between 1993 and 2001, so indulging in some possible WP:SYN for this talk page, that leads me to 0.61 km^2 in 2001 (which, if one assumes more accuracy than it probably deserves from the previous article, that it lost 0.16 km^2 between 2001 and 2005). In short, I think it'd be nice if we had some fresh, reliable sources about this glacier that we could use to give a more recent size value for (without resorting to synthesis), but I couldn't find any. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking around. Appears that the Glacier Monitoring webpages that were here are currently under reconstruction, so I added a few new ones and did some updates.--MONGO 19:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Grinnell Glacier. 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) 13:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]