Mt Rainier survey marker melts away...

[hammer2000]

Mystery of Rainier survey marker melts away

"Is global warming shrinking Mount Rainier? A survey marker atop the Northwest's tallest peak sure makes it look that way: Protruding from the summit, the marker appears to have melted out of the ice cap that covers the mountain's highest point. But records from the U.S. Geological Survey tell a different story."

 

Full Story at Seattle Times:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/loca...rinking01m.html

 

Another story hyping their cause at 350.org:

http://www.350.org/about/blogs/mt-rainier-shrinking

 

Regarding PID SB1151: MT RAINIER

*Geocaching Page Link: http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=SB1151

*NGS Data Sheet Link: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ds_mark.prl?PidBox=SB1151

 

Not sure what's worse. The "shrinking" mountain hype or people logging a duplicate benchmark on display...guess I should do all my benchmarking from here: http://www.geositu.com/

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Mystery of Rainier survey marker melts away

"Is global warming shrinking Mount Rainier? A survey marker atop the Northwest's tallest peak sure makes it look that way: Protruding from the summit, the marker appears to have melted out of the ice cap that covers the mountain's highest point. But records from the U.S. Geological Survey tell a different story."

 

Full Story at Seattle Times:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/loca...rinking01m.html

 

Another story hyping their cause at 350.org:

http://www.350.org/about/blogs/mt-rainier-shrinking

 

Regarding PID SB1151: MT RAINIER

*Geocaching Page Link: http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=SB1151

*NGS Data Sheet Link: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ds_mark.prl?PidBox=SB1151

 

Not sure what's worse. The "shrinking" mountain hype or people logging a duplicate benchmark on display...guess I should do all my benchmarking from here: http://www.geositu.com/

 

Curious, how did a banned member get logged in and post in the forum?

 

Should not this topic of "Global Warming" be posted in the Off-Topic forum?

 

John

[+TheBeanTeam]

Well I know that some are banned from the forums and not geocaching.com itself so maybe the reverse is true.

 

I think this post is perfect for the forum since it involves the placement an subsequent movement of a benchmark that is then in turn being misinterpreted.

 

The fact that "someone had pounded the marker into the ice" thinking it belonged there is interesting in itself.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Well I know that some are banned from the forums and not geocaching.com itself so maybe the reverse is true.

 

I think this post is perfect for the forum since it involves the placement an subsequent movement of a benchmark that is then in turn being misinterpreted.

 

The fact that "someone had pounded the marker into the ice" thinking it belonged there is interesting in itself.

 

The story has the feeling of being a hoax. The benchmark is not on the peak as shown by Mr Race's own picture.

 

 

According to the datasheet it is 218 feet from the highest and north peak. It appears it is in the proper position, but I'm not going to climb the mountain to find out.

 

John

[foxtrot_xray]

The story has the feeling of being a hoax. The benchmark is not on the peak as shown by Mr Race's own picture.

According to the datasheet it is 218 feet from the highest and north peak. It appears it is in the proper position, but I'm not going to climb the mountain to find out.

 

 

If you read the article, it mentions that someone found it at the top of the peak and then was later found pounded into the ice. A USGS person says it was probably moved and was pounded back in by an individual. Somehow the global warming freaks got the picture and used it as 'evidence' that global warming was destroying our lives.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

The story has the feeling of being a hoax. The benchmark is not on the peak as shown by Mr Race's own picture.

According to the datasheet it is 218 feet from the highest and north peak. It appears it is in the proper position, but I'm not going to climb the mountain to find out.

 

 

If you read the article, it mentions that someone found it at the top of the peak and then was later found pounded into the ice. A USGS person says it was probably moved and was pounded back in by an individual. Somehow the global warming freaks got the picture and used it as 'evidence' that global warming was destroying our lives.

 

Here's from the article --

 

"The marker almost certainly weathered out of the rocky ground naturally, Signani said. Someone probably found it and carried it to the summit.

 

"Maybe it was just laying up there in that strewn rock and eroded material for a long time," said Signani, who searched for the marker in 1988, armed with precise coordinates and a metal detector.

 

When he didn't find it, he assumed someone had carried it off as a souvenir."

 

Known fact - Signani did not find the benchmark in 1988. He did not know if it was missing or not and "thought" someone probably found it and moved it.

 

Question - is it now replaced in its original spot (as in back in the original hole) or is it driven back into the frozen ground elsewhere? If it is back in the original hole the question becomes, how did someone know where to put it or was it never moved?

 

There appears to little hard evidence in the article that the benchmark was ever actually "gone" and just "not found".

 

John

[Difficult Run]

If we take John Race at his word, it would appear the monument was moved:

When climbing guide John Race first saw the aluminum pole, it was lying on the ground.

"It seemed striking," he said. "The impression you had was that the thing had melted out."

Surveyor Larry Signani's account seems a little suspect, given that he never filed a report with the NGS

and unless he had some very good equipment with him in 1988, I don't put much faith in what he said:

"Maybe it was just laying up there in that strewn rock and eroded material for a long time," said Signani,

who searched for the marker in 1988, armed with precise coordinates and a metal detector.

(It wouldn't be the first time a surveyor made a mistake, eh?)

 

That being said, I'm not going to make any speculations about global warming based on this poorly written article.

~ Mitch ~

[andylphoto]

Interesting article, but not evidence of global warming. It would seem that the marker has been moved if it was placed in the ground 200 feet from the summit and is now set in the snow at the summit. I also enjoyed a couple of the logs on the geocaching page. Here's a good one, including photographic proof...

 

"recovered in good condition, hundreds of miles from where it claims to be located. the marker was located indoors, as you may be able to tell from the photos, so a GPS fix, or very accurate GPS fix was near impossible. it was very near GC13A70, in Muncie, IN"

 

 

There are actually a couple of honest logs on this one, which is refreshing.

[+PFF]

The adults who posted recovery reports for fake SB1151 disks have been asked politely to consider deleting their logs (and those of their children), in a spirit of fairness.

 

I doubt that they would accept this kind of frivolous report at one of their geocaches. It is hoped they will be respectful of all aspects of our GPS-based hobby. If not, I'll invite them to stop by my office and log MOUNT MITCHELL, which is sitting on my desk, 250 miles from its original setting.

 

-PFF-

[+LSUFan]

.guess I should do all my benchmarking from here: http://www.geositu.com/

 

Curious, how did a banned member get logged in and post in the forum?

 

Should not this topic of "Global Warming" be posted in the Off-Topic forum?

 

John

 

John, I kind of have a feeling that the post was an attempt at spam, which promoted the website link above for geositu.com. Possibly, they were banned for being a spammer.

[+Sagefox]

So this brings up for me a question about logging benchmarks that I observed prior to gc benchmarking. I have logged some as found where I observed the marker or saw (intersections) the item prior to gc benchmarking. This marker included. We saw it in 1965 and I actually picked it up and jammed it back in the snow. It was loose at that time and I have photos of it.

 

Other examples are that I saw and was in the King Dome prior to its destruction as well as seeing several chimneys or other structures that were destroyed prior to gc benchmarking. I believe I have logged three to ten of these.

 

What are the current thoughts about this? Logging a benchmark as found that was visited prior to gc benchmarking but the bm was destroyed prior to 2002?

[+PFF]

So this brings up for me a question about logging benchmarks that I observed prior to gc benchmarking.

 

To avoid confusion, all logs should indicate when the observation took place.

 

I felt the way you handled SB1151 (using a Note) was very appropriate. The text is very clear, and there is no doubt about what transpired.

 

By the way, if you revisit the GC data sheet for MOUNT RAINIER, you will see that several modifications have been made since this thread began.

 

--A couple of the entries for reproduction marks have been deleted.

 

--The individual who climbed the mountain as a youth followed your example and changed his "Found" to "Note".

 

--On the family entry, Mom changed her submission from "Found" to "Note". The children's reports remain as "Found". And I think that's a good way to leave it. This is a family which enjoys doing things together, including GEO activities. That's certainly worth encouraging.

 

The kids were thrilled at seeing a benchmark, and it allowed them to put something in the benchmark slot on their profile pages. The multiple entries, taken as a whole, leave no doubt about what was found. Meanwhile, the cooperation from everyone involved has created an excellent example for those who, in the future, find the souvenirs on display.

 

-Paul-

Edited October 17, 2009 by PFF

[Bill93]

Darn. I guess that means I still can't claim the first benchmark I ever noticed, in the 1960's. ;-) Now that I know what they are it has eluded me.

[+Klemmer]

I don't have any problem with logging it as a find if you personally saw it prior to GC Benchmarking existing. Or, even if you just recently discovered benchmark hunting.

 

BUT, one big Proviso (as we call it in one of my fields of work):

You need to be SURE you have the right marker (disc or intersection object). Of course, the best way to be sure is to have and post a picture.

 

There are many logs on many benchmarks on GC that have no pictures, and we know there are many flat wrong logs. In this forum, I think we strive for (and encourage) accuracy of our reports, and correction of errors.

 

Historical note:

Back before the Benchmarking Database existed on GC, several enterprising non-surveyor geocachers (myself included) "discovered" NGS benchmarks. I was logging survey markers on NGS (as an individual) before the GC database existed. Some of us also started creating virtual geocaches out of survey markers (several interesting triangulation stations, in my case). I think GC was getting flooded with those "benchmark virtuals", and they got hold of the NGS database in 2002 (on a set of CD's in those days) and put it up on the GC website, pretty much as you see it today. They then asked us "virtual benchmarkers" to check it out, see what we thought (beta test?), and eventually (with our OK), took down all the benchmark virtuals. Wish those were just archived, so we could se ethem, but they are hard deleted. Luckily, I either had pictures (on film!) of my pre-GC finds, or went back and got some. So, my "oldies" (3 or 4?) were "backed in" eventually (I think) with pictures and / or re-visits.

 

And they lived happily ever after....

End bedtime story, kiddies.......

[+Sagefox]

You need to be SURE you have the right marker (disc or intersection object). Of course, the best way to be sure is to have and post a picture.

 

I am quite sure the disk we found in 1965 was the real thing and I suspect the disk in the Times article is that very selfsame disk. Since I did not log the benchmark as found I can be quite bold in this assumption.

 

The marker was loose when we found it and, as I recall, it was at the summit. I think it has been lying around on its side under the snow most of its life and occasionally comes to the surface and gets replanted at the top. We need someone to get a photo of it and since the Times article made notice of it perhaps photos will be available soon.

 

I was able to dig up a couple of historic relics from my climb:

 

 

[+Sagefox]

edit to delete post - not really on topic

Edited October 17, 2009 by Team Sagefox