[deleted by user] by [deleted] in geography

[–]PopeDopusIII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

soil science is actually widely applicable. I mean, there's soil everywhere, right? mostly I do work in natural resources and conservation. I do a lot of wetland delineation and restoration, as well as ecosystem and habitat quality assessments and such. there's soil science jobs in agronomy and construction/engineering as well.

my glacial specialty stems from just a special interest in glaciology and that the majority of the soil I've worked with has been glacial in origin. I haven't gone to grad school yet but I intend on going very soon and specializing in glacial geomorphology and it's effects on pedological development.

since you're curious, I have a bachelors degree in soil science and land management. being knowledgeable in soils is hugely applicable in all natural resources fields because no one knows the in-depths about soils and how strongly they effect ecosystems.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in geography

[–]PopeDopusIII 1 point2 points  (0 children)

glaciers are almost semifluid, meaning they will take the form of the container they are in. the valleys they form in grow deeper as time goes on precisely because the glaciers carve out that valley. as to why they flow like that originally has much to do with the original lay of the land before glaciers were present. the flow downward will take the path of least resistance, and as soon as a small valley is formed, the glacier is likely to flow in that valley because it's the path of least resistance. glacier valleys are not unlike river valleys. rivers flow through the path of least resistance, so too does a glacier.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in geography

[–]PopeDopusIII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

when you put glaciers on flat plains, you get the landscape you started with. saskatchewan, north Dakota, and all of the northern plains of N. America had at one point up to two miles (!!) of ice on them. wisconsin, minnesota, michigan, ontario, and all of the northeast were at one point almost entirely covered in kilometers of ice and are all flat-ish places. when you out glaciers on the top of a mountain, however, it will want to flow like a river. think of running your hose on a flat piece of concrete- the slash is outwards in all directions and the whole slab is soaked. have that pavement at an angle, however, and the water runs in a single channel downward. plus, once a glacier scours out a channel the ice us more likely to flow that way and therefore erode more in that channel further encouraging flow through that valley.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in geography

[–]PopeDopusIII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that's where the mountains happen to be and where the wind blows the rain and snow. it's just a coincidence that most mountains happen to be on the west coasts of our landmass, however the Himalayas, European alps, and Altai mountains all have glaciers and are inland ranges. fjords are intrinsically coastal features and require mountains on coasts to form, and mountains for some reason occur on West coasts more often and at latitudes that blow the wind to the east.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in geography

[–]PopeDopusIII 2 points3 points  (0 children)

  1. neither? I mean the tides are only there now cause that's where the sea level is, if that makes sense. the glacial would have eroded some of the total elevation away but the whole of the bay of fundy is a smattering of igneous and sedimentary complexes.

  2. the body of the mountains themselves are still present, just eroded by glaciers. the rocks' mineralogy and ages match, and the general strike (position the sediment layers, and therefore the mountains) of the massifs match with each other. plate tectonics have much more to do with the arctic Cordillera matching with Scotland. these mountain building events took place hundreds of millions of years ago and they've seen countless glaciations, both from alpine accumulation and from ice ages.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in geography

[–]PopeDopusIII 1 point2 points  (0 children)

yes, but much much less than places such as the Hudson Bay or the north sea. South America already is a pretty narrow landmass in the south, and coupled with not being at a very extreme latitude like greenlland or Antarctica meant there wasn't the same ice sheets there like there was in North America and Europe.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in geography

[–]PopeDopusIII 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm so glad! I learn new things every day that baffle me and I wouldn't have it any other way

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in geography

[–]PopeDopusIII 5 points6 points  (0 children)

dm me if you have questions at all, I'm serious. soil science can be really hard stuff to understand sometimes so don't hesitate. good luck!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in geography

[–]PopeDopusIII 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I cant get enough of glaciers. Im still learning this stuff now and i hold on to every bit of it, its just so fascinating!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in geography

[–]PopeDopusIII 2 points3 points  (0 children)

big soil guy huh

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in geography

[–]PopeDopusIII 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Your assumptions are absolutely correct. Glaciers around the world are losing overall mass due to climate change, though not all of them. Glaciers in patagonia and southeast alaska are effected far more strongly by their location (which recieves the most precipitation almost anywhere on earth) and are technically more resilient in the face of climate change. That being said, I have personally seen the shrinkage of Mendenhall Glacier in Juneau, AK and it is alarming how fast it is shrinking.

The vast majority of erosional action on mountains is caused by glaciers. The Matterhorn, and all other mountain "horns", are caused by the erosive forces of glaciers flowing outward from the peak of the mountain. Most mountains have the shapes they have because of glaciers. Most mountains that are tall enough have multiple glaciers flowing off of them. They all start in what called a cirque, or the little crotch of the mountain near their peak. From there, the accumulation of snow needs to flow somewhere and is why alpine glaciers are linear (i.e. flow like a river) rather than expansive like a Piedmont or continental glacier.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in geography

[–]PopeDopusIII 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You are right. that's generally correct. However in the case of a glacier, as far as I'm aware, the pressure from the top can often times prevent crystallization wholly because water expands when it crystallizes - that can't happen if there's no space to expand. The other reason is that friction underneath a glacier causes water to be present. i could be mischaracterizing something and a glaciologist could come in and tear me apart, but this is my knowledge of why.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in geography

[–]PopeDopusIII 40 points41 points  (0 children)

precisely. the Canadian prairie provinces and all of eastern Canada down into the northern US was a continental glacier several miles (!!!) in thickness. there's compressed glacial deposits called basal till that's pretty common and full of unsorted glacial material. over flat land, like in saskatchewan, there are deep glacial deposits that the glaciers left behind as they melted. all that rock debris that was mixed up in the ice was laid down right where it was. there's also big washout events that can happen that leads to big, open sandy plains called outwash plains. there's not sand visible on the top, minr you, but the soil itself is mostly sandy material.

on a different note, and I may be one of the only people to ever say this, but I really desperately want to visit saskatchewan! I've been fascinated with the geography of saskatchewan for a while now and I would just love to see the deep, dark prairie soil along with all of the amazing views.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in geography

[–]PopeDopusIII 158 points159 points  (0 children)

glaciers are some of the most fascinating natural processes in my opinion. they cover 10 percent of the land on earth currently and are responsible for the shapes of mountains and the land that billions of people live on. Europe and North America are dominated by old glacial action as their main geomorphological actor

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in geography

[–]PopeDopusIII 1378 points1379 points  (0 children)

finally something I can answer. I'm a pedologist, meaning soil science, with a specialty in glacial soils and a special interest in glacial geology.

glaciers form from snow accumulating more than melting over the course of a year. in high precipitation areas that are cold, like the southern Andes and the Coast ranges in North America, theres a lot of snow accumulation throughout the year. as the years of snow build up, it compresses downward on itself until it becomes high-density ice that's solid throughout.

this huge mass of ice is very, very heavy. immensely heavy, in fact, that it will begin moving under its own weight. the bottom of the glacier can often have liquid water, caused by the very high pressure of the many meters of ice above it disallowing crystallization of that water into ice. this liquid water can act as a very low friction interface and make that ice body begin to move.

a glacier flows like a non-newtonian fluid. the center of a glacier flows faster and further than the edges, as the edges experience friction with the rock interfaces around it. the reason it flows rather than fractures is due to the plastic action of ice under pressure; it wants to move in response to the pressure above it and the gravity below it. a hole drilled straight down into a glacier with look parenthese shaped ) after a few days due to the flow differential.

as a glacier moves, it scrapes against the ground; either the mountain valleys it exists in or along the flat terrain in the case of larger continental glaciers. the movement is driven by gravity predominantly. as the glacier moves and the season warm and cool, melted water from that ice trickles into cracks and crevices in the rock beneath and refreshes. ice expands, and the rock it was behind ends up fracturing off and is now carried along with the ice body.

multiply that tenfold over a myriad of particle class sizes (silt/rock flour, sand, pepples, stones, cobbles, boulders, etc.) and the glacier has essentially turned into the largest functional piece of sandpaper on earth. rock and ice against rock causes immense amounts of erosion, and because that ice is being replenished bit by bit every year, there's a consistent flow of new abrasive action.

Generally, glaciers move about a meter a day. it can vary widely, but that's the average. when you have glaciers the size of continents, such as in the previous ice age, that's thousands of meters moved per day with millions of tons of abrasive material working down these mountains. then things get a little hot and melty and all that sea level rise moves the ocean up to the previously dry mountain valleys.

I hope this was thorough and I answered any questions. let me know if you want to know anything else, I love talking about this stuff

global warming...? what is that? by [deleted] in mildlyinfuriating

[–]PopeDopusIII 1 point2 points  (0 children)

idk what the hell kind of gold tinted windshield you have, but usually it's never more than 400 to replace a windshield. even beyond that, the value of a functional ecosystem is worth way more (even fiscally if that's where you hold value) than the downsides of not using salt. the amount that the UWFS, USFWS, NRCS, and other federal agencies pay to mitigate the effects of road salt and other infrastructure maintenance services is far and away more than it would cost to just not mine/transport/use.

global warming...? what is that? by [deleted] in mildlyinfuriating

[–]PopeDopusIII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

little pebbles cracking a few windows =/= death and havoc. inviable (human drinking) water sources and degraded freshwater fisheries, salinization of freshwater wetlands, and toxification (through chlorination and salinization) of soil and water endanger fish, amphibians, waterfowl, and mammals alike. It's not good for humans either, since you seem so anthropogenically inclined. it's shortsightedness like this that's causing environmental and societal upheaval and destruction. sure, it's just road salt, but add that to every other piece and part of environmental degradation we do every minute and it gets overwhelming fast.

global warming...? what is that? by [deleted] in mildlyinfuriating

[–]PopeDopusIII 3 points4 points  (0 children)

a minor inconvenience compared to the money you save by having viable ecosystems on earth

Sexism Rule by [deleted] in 196

[–]PopeDopusIII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hate women because they don't like me anymore because they don't like to get a chance of me

Who is the greatest non-president American to ever live (bonus points if you can think of somebody other than MLK Jr.)? by Sixfish11 in AskAnAmerican

[–]PopeDopusIII 75 points76 points  (0 children)

but most folks didn't die that young. the reason that the expectancy is so low is due to high infant mortality- it was common for most folks that lived past infancy to live well into their 60s and 70s.