Geology Reports⌕ Search

Geology topics

Francois E. Matthes

Publications and source records attributed to Francois E. Matthes.

14 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2014

Glacier‐measurements in the United States

It is doubtless known to many members of the Section of Hydrology that prior to the World War there existed an International Glacier Commission (la Commission Internationale des Glaciers) whose self‐appointed task it was to gather and publish the results of all available measurements showing the annual variations in length—advance or recession—of glaciers in different parts of the world. On this Commission the United States was represented by two men who made frequent contributions to the International record.

Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union↗
USGS2014

Report of the Committee on Glaciers, 1934–35

The members of the Committee on Glaciers for 1935 are as given in the report of the Committee for 1933–34 in the Transactions of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting with the addition of Kenneth N. Phillips (The Mazamas, Pacific Building, Portland, Oregon). The year 1934 witnessed a further expansion of the program of systematic annual observations on the variations of American glaciers which was inaugurated by the Committee in 1931. Several of the collaborators in the field-work of their own initiative enlarged the scope of their activities, and a new group joined the movement in the Pacific Northwest, These are the Mountaineers, of Seattle, Washington, who began observations on the glaciers of Mount Baker, which are the largest in the continental United States next to those on Mount Rainier. Under the leadership of H. V. Strandberg a base-line was laid out by the Mountaineers for measurement of the recession of the Easton Glacier, on the south side of the peak.

Washington↗
USGS2014

Report of Committee on Glaciers, 1935–36

The membership of the Committee remains the same as stated in the Transactions of the 15th Annual Meeting, except that Kenneth N. Phillips has taken the place of Carl P. Richards, as representative of the Mazamas, of Portland, Oregon. The Committee submits the following report on the variations of glaciers in the continental United States and Alaska for 1935 or, more precisely, for the 12‐month period from the autumn of 1934 to the autumn of 1935.

Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union↗
USGS2014

Report of the committee on glaciers, 1936–37

The Committee was enlarged during the past year by one more member, Prof. J. E. Church of Reno, Nevada, Chairman of the Committee on Snow, who agreed to serve on it while the Chairman of the Committee on Glaciers in turn accepted membership on the Committee on Snow. Thus the two Committees, whose spheres of work are in some respects intimately related, have been brought into closer touch with each other. Although the Committee on Glaciers has assembled considerable data on different lines of glaciologic research during the past few years, it seems best to confine this report, like the preceding ones, to a record of the variations—advance or recession—of glaciers in the continental United States and Alaska, and to reserve the other data for presentation later, in separate papers. The variations of glaciers here reported are for the 12‐month period from the autumn of 1935 to the autumn of 1936.

Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union↗
USGS2014

Evaporation and runoff from snow in the Alpine Zone of our western mountains

In this informal paper the processes of snow‐wastage at high altitudes were discussed and a number of slides illustrating suncups and sunpits in different stages of development were shown. It was stressed that these features are peculiar to the region above the timber‐line, which biologists term the Alpine, or Arctic‐Alpine, Zone. That regions is, as a matter of fact, primarily and fundamentally a physiographic zone distinct from all other physiographic zones at lower levels by reason of an unusual combination of climatic, hydrologic, and geologic factors.

Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union↗
USGS2014

Report of committee on glaciers, April 1939

The Committee on Glaciers at present is constituted as follows: Harry Fielding Reid—Professor‐Emeritus of Geology, Johns Hopkins University (former member of the International Glacier Commission), 608 Cathedral Street, Baltimore, Maryland William H. Hobbs—Professor‐Emeritus of Geology, University of Michigan (until recently Vice‐ President of the International Glacier Commission, at present associate member), Ann Arbor, Michigan J. E. Church—Professor of Classics, University of Nevada (President of the International Commission of Snow, and Chairman of the Committee on Snow of the Section of Hydrology, American Geophysical Union), Reno, Nevada Colonel Lawrence Martin—Chief of the Division of Maps, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. Wm. Osgood Field, Jr.—Explorer, 18 West Twelfth Street, New York, N.Y. Earl A. Trager—Chief of the Naturalist Division, National Park Service, Washington, D. C. Glenn L. Parker—District Engineer, Water Resources Branch, United States Geological Survey, 406 Federal Building, Tacoma, Washington Oliver Kehrlein—Chairman, Committee on Glacier Studies, Sierra Club, 1050 Mills Tower, San Francisco, California Kenneth N. Phillips—Associate Hydraulic Engineer, Water Resources Branch, United States Geological Survey, Chairman, Research Committee of the Mazamas, 606 Post‐Office Building, Portland, Oregon William S. Cooper—Professor of Botany, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota Gerald FitzGerald, Senior Topographic Engineer, Alaska Branch, United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. Laurence M. Gould, Professor of Geology, Carleton College, Northfield, Minnesota François E. Matthes, Chairman , Senior Geologist, Section of Glacial Geology, United States Geological Survey (titular member of the International Glacier Commission), Washington, D.C. In 1938, as in previous years, the Committee devoted its energies primarily to the collecting of data on the variations in length and volume of American glaciers, it being felt that the maintenance of a continuous record of these variations is of prime importance, not only to hydrology and glaciology, but, as has become increasingly evident recently, also to climatology, geomorphology, geography, ecology, history, and archaeology. As the time available for the work of the Committee is limited and does not permit covering the entire field of glaciology, it seems best to devote it before all else to this line of research which yields results of value to so many different sciences. Besides, the gathering of data on glacier‐oscillations is not a one‐man job that can be taken up or dropped at convenience from time to time, but is an organized and far‐flung enterprise whose success depends upon the faithful cooperation of many volunteer workers located in different parts of the country. Such an enterprise, once launched, must be kept running or it will disintegrate and the precious enthusiasm of the field‐workers will be lost.

Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union↗
USGS2014

Committee on glaciers, 1939–40

The Committee on Glaciers is now composed of the following members: Harry Fielding Reid, Professor Emeritus of Geology, Johns Hopkins University, 608 Cathedral Street, Baltimore, Maryland; William H. Hobbs, Professor Emeritus of Geology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Lawrence Martin, Chief of the Division of Maps, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.; J. E. Church, Professor of Meteorology, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada; Wm. Osgood Field, Jr., Explorer, 18 West Twelfth Street, New York, N.Y.; Earl A. Trager, Chief of the Naturalist Division, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.; Oliver Kehrlein, Chairman, Committee on Glacier Studies, 1050 Mills Tower, 220 Bush Street, San Francisco, California; Kenneth N. Phillips, Associate Hydraulic Engineer, Water Resources Branch, United States Geological Survey, Chairman, Research Committee of the Mazamas, 606 Post‐Office Building, Portland, Oregon; William S. Cooper, Professor of Botany, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Gerald FitzGerald, Senior Topographic Engineer, Alaska Branch, United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.; Lawrence M. Gould, Professor of Geology, Carleton College, Northfield, Minnesota; François E. Matthes (Chairman), Senior Geologist, Section of Glacial Geology, United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. The international relations of the Committee have changed somewhat during the past year as a result of the consolidation of the International Commission of Glaciers with the International Commission of Snow. That consolidation was effected by the International Association of Scientific Hydrology (to which both commissions belonged) at the triennial meeting in Washington, in September, 1939. Inasmuch as the membership of the new International Commission of Snow and Glaciers comprises the personnel of the two former commissions, our Committee on Glaciers now automatically is represented on the new International Commission by four men—Church, Hobbs, Gould, and Matthes. Moreover, Church is acting President, and it is understood that he will become President as soon as the political situation in Europe permits the holding of a formal election of officers at which all nations interested can exercise their right of voting

Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union↗
USGS2014

Report of committee on glaciers, 1940–41

The personnel of the Committee is now as follows: Harry Fielding Reid, Professor Emeritus of Geology, Johns Hopkins University, 608 Cathedral Street, Baltimore, Maryland; William H. Hobbs, Professor Emeritus of Geology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Lawrence Martin, Chief of the Division of Maps, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.; J. E. Church, Professor of Meteorology, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada; Wm. Osgood Field, Jr., Explorer, 18 West Twelfth Street, New York, New York; Oliver Kehrlein, Chairman, Committee on Glacier Studies of Sierra Club, 1050 Mills Tower, 220 Bush Street, San Francisco, California; Kenneth N. Phillips, Associate Hydraulic Engineer, Water Resources Branch, United States Geological Survey, Chairman, Research Committee of the Mazamas, 606 Post‐Office Building, Portland, Oregon; William S. Cooper, Professor of Botany, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Gerald Fitzgerald, Senior Topographic Engineer, Alaska Branch, United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.; Laurence M. Gould, Professor of Geology, Carleton College, Northfield, Minnesota; Dr. Max Demorest, Department of Geology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut; François E. Matthes (Chairman), Senior Geologist, Section of Glacial Geology, United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.

Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union↗
USGS2014

Report of Committee on Glaciers, 1942–43

The personnel of the Committee at present is as follows: Harry Fielding Reid, Professor Emeritus of Geology, Johns Hopkins University, 608 Cathedral Street, Baltimore, Maryland William H. Hobbs, Professor Emeritus of Geology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan Colonel Lawrence Martin, Chief, Division of Maps, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. James E. Church, Professor of Meteorology and President, International Commission of Snow and Glaciers, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada First Lieutenant William Osgood Field, Jr., home address, 18 West Twelfth Street, New York City Oliver Kehrlein, Chairman, Committee on Glacier Studies, Sierra Club, 1050 Mills Tower, San Francisco, California Kenneth N. Phillips, Associate Hydraulic Engineer, Water Resources Branch, Geological Survey, Chairman, Research Committee of the Masamas, 606 Post‐Office Building, Portland, Oregon William S. Cooper, Professor of Botany, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota Lieutenant Colonel Gerald FitzGerald, Army Air Corps, Washington, D.C. Laurence M. Gould, Professor of Geology, Carleton College, Northfield, Minnesota Arthur Johnson, Hydraulic Engineer, Conservation Branch, Geological Survey, 1105 Washington Building, Tacoma, Washington François E. Matthes (Chairman), Senior Geologist, Section of Glacial Geology, Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. The Committee is fortunate in having its membership reinforced by the addition of ARTHUR JOHNSON, who for several years has had charge of the repetitive plane‐table surveys of the lower Nisqually Glacier, on Mount Rainier—a project which the Geological Survey is carrying on in cooperation with the city of Tacoma, Washington. To him the Committee is indebted for data concerning the losses in volume of ice which the Nisqually Glacier is sustaining from year to year.

Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union↗
USGS2014

Report of committee on Glaciers, 1945

To Preston P. Macy, Superintendent of Olympic National Park, the Committee is indebted for the first data on the recession of the Blue Glacier, one of the major ice streams on Mount Olympus. Annual measurements to its terminus were begun in 1938, the year in which Olympic National Park was established, and such measurements, MACY states, will be continued in future years, circumstances permitting. Thus one more sizable glacier is added to the list of ice bodies in the western United States whose variations in length and volume in response to current climatic fluctuations are being observed from year to year.

Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union↗
USGS2014

The glacial anticyclone theory examined in the light of recent meteorological data from Greenland—Part I

The glacial anticyclone theory, which William H. Hobbs propounded in 1910, is today still the only definitely formulated theory concerning the atmospheric movements that take place over an ice sheet of large extent. It stands chiefly on deductive grounds and contains several features that to climatologists as well as to glaciologists have always seemed questionable. Aside from the need of its verification for scientific reasons, there is now also urgent practical need for reliable information about the weather conditions that prevail over the ice sheet of Greenland, for Greenland lies athwart several of the great air routes of the future. In this paper, accordingly, the glacial anticyclone theory is first analyzed and then confronted with the facts of observation that are now at hand, especially those reported from the fixed meteorological stations which were maintained in the interior of Greenland during the 1930s. In this, the first part of the paper, the meteorological data from the Eismitte station of the German Wegener Expedition are reviewed. The second part will cover the areological data of that expedition and the similar material from the other ice‐cap stations. The conclusions reached are that there is no evidence of a virtually permanent “glacial anticyclone” centered over the Greenland ice sheet. On the contrary, there is consistent evidence from all parts of Greenland that the weather over the ice sheet is controlled by alternating cyclonic and anticyclonic movements. Cyclonic activity is most intense in southern Greenland and weakest in northern Greenland. The entire ice sheet is supplied with snow brought by rising maritime air masses, not by air descending from the upper troposphere. Aviators need not expect so much as a fifty‐fifty chance of meeting with good weather on flights across central Greenland, except for a few weeks in midsummer.

Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union↗
USGS1930

Geologic history of the Yosemite Valley

The problem of the origin of the Yosemite Valley inherently demands a solution in quantitative terms. Its essence is, To what extent is the valley a product of glacial action, to what extent a product of stream erosion? The principal result of the investigations upon which this report is based is the determination within narrow limits of the preglacial depth of the Yosemite Valley and of other facts concerning its preglacial development which permit fairly definite estimates of the proportionate shares of work performed by stream and by glacier. The investigations comprise a detailed survey of the glacial and geomorphologic features of the Yosemite region and an equally intensive study of its rock formations, supplemented by reconnaissance work of both kinds in adjoining parts of the Sierra Nevada. The petrologic studies were made by Frank C. Calkins; the glacial and geomorphologic survey by Francois E. Matthes. Detailed mapping of the morainal system of the ancient Yosemite Glacier has served not only to determine the farthest limits reached by that glacier but to throw new light on the significance of the hanging valleys of the Yosemite region. It is reasonably certain that the glacier never extended more than about a mile beyond the site of El Portal. The hanging side valleys of the Merced Canyon below El Portal, therefore, hang not because of any glacial deepening suffered by that canyon. The explanation is offered that they hang because their streamlets have been unable to trench as rapidly as the Merced River since the rejuvenation of the Merced by the last uptilting of the Sierra Nevada. The streamlets were handicapped not only by their comparatively small volume but also by the fact that their courses trend northwestward and southeastward, substantially at right angles to the direction of the tilting, and therefore have remained essentially unsteepened, whereas the Merced's course trends southwestward, directly down the slope of the Sierra block, and therefore has been appreciably steepened. Projection of the longitudinal profiles of these hanging valleys forward to the axis of the Merced Canyon shows that they are closely accordant in height. Their profiles indicate a series of points on a former profile of the Merced with respect to which the side streams had graded their courses prior to the last uplift. This old profile can be extended upward into the glaciated part of the Merced Canyon above El Portal and even into the profoundly glaciated Yosemite Valley, accordant points being furnished by a number of hanging side valleys (due allowance being made for glacial erosion suffered by those valleys). However, not all the hanging valleys of the Yosemite region are accordant with this set. Several of them, including the upland valley of Yosemite Creek, constitute a separate set indicating another old profile of the Merced at a level 600 to 1,000 feet higher than the first. Others, including the hanging gulch of lower Bridalveil Creek, point to an old profile of the Merced about 1,200 feet lower than the first. There are thus three distinct sets of hanging valleys produced in three cycles of stream erosion. The valleys of the upper set, like those of the middle set, were left hanging as a result of rapid trenching by the Merced induced by an uplift of the range, there having been two such uplifts. Only the valleys of the lower set hang because of glacial deepening and widening of the Yosemite Valley, the cycle in which they were cut having been interrupted by the advent of the Pleistocene glaciers. They consequently indicate the preglacial depth of the Yosemite Valley. That depth, measured from the brow of El Capitan, was about 2,400 feet; measured from the rim at Glacier Point it was about 2,000 feet.

California↗