BajaNomad - 1966 Photos vs. 2009 Photos at the same place: How little has changed in the desert!

1966 Photos vs. 2009 Photos at the same place: How little has changed in the desert!

David K - 1-17-2009 at 03:56 PM

The funnest part of this discovery is comparing the photos!

There were only 2 shown in the July, 1966 issue of Desert Magazine and none other were in the box of old photos from Choral Pepper's collection, I have.

We had the one photo of Bruce Barron and the wall, with us up there... to help get the angle right, as I wanted to try and be in the same place as Bruce was, 43 years ago... I got close!

The other photo of Bruce by rock circles on top of the mountain, I was a bit farther away than was Choral. However, with my camera edit feature... I got close to simulating the same.

Notice the rocks are matched... but how little the Old Man Cactus has grown in 43 years:

Feb., 1966:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan., 2009:

=====================================================

The wall photos 1966 vs. 2009:

The cardon, ocotillos and other plants are so slightly changed in nearly half a century! Make one wonder how old they are?!

[Edited on 1-18-2009 by David K]

Natalie Ann - 1-17-2009 at 06:42 PM

How very interesting - these comparison photos, David.

Although I've considered the age of the various desert plants, how slowly they grow... I'd never really considered what that meant in terms of landscape when mankind does not make changes to it. Those photos look as if you literally time-traveled.

Thanks for taking the time to go there and set up the shots 'n all.

Nena

Edit: Actually if you time-traveled it didn't take any time at all :biggrin:

, but thank you anyway.

[Edited on 1-18-2009 by Natalie Ann]

Barry A. - 1-17-2009 at 08:07 PM

Something I have often noticed when viewing "before and after" photos in the West is how much "lusher" the vegetation appears to be now as opposed to 50, 100, or 150 years ago.

This is really apparent in the 1869 and 1871 set of photos of John Wesley Powell's boat journey down the Green River in Wyoming and Utah, as compared to the same pictures today.
The west of yesteryear was much more sparse in vegetation than today, at least in most of the photos that I have seen.

We tend to think that man has raped the western landscape during the past 150 years, but really that is not so much apparent when you view these photos-----in fact just the opposite.

Great job, David.

Barry

Bob H - 1-17-2009 at 08:40 PM

David, love the comparison shots a lot! I can see that the cactus in the first shot has changed a bit... I think some of the big branches back then have fallen and the new shot shows new branches surrounding where the center of the original cactus stood. I could be halucinating though... haha. I see very little change in the rocks, but there are some differences.

Great shots... I really enjoyed looking at them.
Thanks,
Bob H

jeans - 1-17-2009 at 08:58 PM

In the first set of pictures, the mountains sure grew a lot

Paulina - 1-17-2009 at 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jeans
In the first set of pictures, the mountains sure grew a lot

Jeans,

Good eye! I didn't notice how they've grown as tall as the Old Man Cactus until you brought that to our attention!

jk David!

P<*)))>{

David K - 1-17-2009 at 11:20 PM

Jeans, my photo was taken much further away than Choral's... I zoomed in to match the rock size as close as possible to match the two photos up... I did that here with the camera.

I may do a side by side layout and label the prominent rocks (a/a, b/b, etc.) for fun!

Sharksbaja - 1-18-2009 at 12:40 AM

Were you able to zoom in on that varnish on the placed stones. I know what you ate talking about but I'd like to learn more about that phenomenon. Do the rocks leech out the "varnish" according to their relative positioning or placement or is it a mineralization that is oriented by sunlight or ?? Do you have some close-ups that show the stuff?

Now don't get technical on me! :lol:

I appreciate your eye on those pics though. It looks untouched since the two sets were taken up there.

David K - 1-18-2009 at 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sharksbaja
Were you able to zoom in on that varnish on the placed stones. I know what you ate talking about but I'd like to learn more about that phenomenon. Do the rocks leech out the "varnish" according to their relative positioning or placement or is it a mineralization that is oriented by sunlight or ?? Do you have some close-ups that show the stuff?

Now don't get technical on me! :lol:

I appreciate your eye on those pics though. It looks untouched since the two sets were taken up there.

Here is a good photo of the wall, with my hat...

I will dig up some info on desert varnish...

Choral Pepper says this (in the Diaz Grave chapter):

They lifted a rock and turned it over. It was dark on the top, light colored underneath. The dark coating acquired by rocks in the desert is called desert varnish. It is caused by a capillary action of the sun drawing moisture out of the rock. The dark deposit is left from minerals in the water. In an arid region where rainfall is practically nil, desert varnish takes hundreds of years to form. The fact that these rocks were all coated by desert varnish on the top indicated that they had remained in their positions for a very, very long time.

Neal Johns says this:

Desert varnish is clay and iron/manganese oxides deposited by a complex bacterial process. Ronald Dorn has done a lot of work over the decades dating petros by analyzing these deposits.

On the Internet is a ton of info on desert varnish.

Here is a good link (to Desert USA) about the subject:

http://www.desertusa.com/magdec97/varnish/dec_varnish.html

[Edited on 1-18-2009 by David K]

Skipjack Joe - 1-18-2009 at 09:58 AM

Thank you and Neal Johns for the link on Desert Varnish. It helped explain a lot of what I had been seeing over the years. Personally I don't like the stuff very much though. The rocks around Joshua Tree, which seem to have less desert varnish and look more quartz-like, are more beautiful. But that's just me.

I hope you tipped Neal with a Mountain Dew for the information

[Edited on 1-18-2009 by Skipjack Joe]

heike - 1-18-2009 at 10:04 AM

Thanks for the great pics! Very interesting........

David K - 1-18-2009 at 10:08 AM

De nada...

Yah, Neal loves his Dew!

[Edited on 1-18-2009 by David K]

Skipjack Joe - 1-18-2009 at 10:12 AM

I wish he would post more often.

He's knowledgeable and funny at the same time. And he doesn't take himself too seriously.

Paulina - 1-18-2009 at 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
I wish he would post more often.

He's knowledgeable and funny at the same time. And he doesn't take himself too seriously.

Ditto.

That's why he's my #1 H.I.W. :yes:

P.<*)))>{

Mexitron - 1-18-2009 at 10:47 AM

Nice photo comparison! Humphrey had a heck of a time trying to tell the ages of Cirios since time comparison photos sometimes showed little growth. I imagine that most desert plants are older than what is generally believed.

In the photo of the rock wall the desert varnish is not consistent--that is some of the rocks don't have the varnish but should...that could bring the age back into the realm of the mission era possibly. I think though that I will have to investigate this site personally and since it looks quite hot in that area will have to bring lots of cerveza in the medicine kit to stave off the heat. :light:

Point by point '66 to '09:

David K - 1-18-2009 at 10:58 AM

I used the letters A through S... Choral took the photo much closer than I and and she was to the right.

Note the angle of points C and B and C and O.

Very interesting... and fun! (well for me, anyway!)

[Edited on 1-18-2009 by David K]

Bob H - 1-18-2009 at 11:04 AM

Wow, the side by side reference is fantastic. I still think that the cactus has totally changed over time. But the rock identification letters are just great!
Bob H

David K - 1-18-2009 at 11:18 AM

Thanks Bob... I have a better quality image to use than gets posted on Nomad... So, I was careful that the pairs were the same in each case... Cool stuff. Yes, the cactus has grown... but that's all it has, in 43 years?

[Edited on 1-19-2009 by David K]

Desert Varnish

Taco de Baja - 1-18-2009 at 11:51 AM

I agree with Mexitron, a personal site visit is in order!

I also see many rocks in the wall that do not have varnish or are partially varnished In fact, on some of them you can see where the rock was buried and only the original portion of the rock that was exposed to the elements for 1,000 of years is stained with varnish, while the previously buried portion is not. I also bet that if you looked some of the lighter colored rocks there would be varnish on their current bottoms.

I believe the only reason the wall rocks have varnish is because the rocks that were used had varnish on them to begin with. It should not, and can not, be used as a dating technique for the wall. It is my understanding that varnish takes 1,000 not hundreds of years to form. Hence the reason the huge geoglyphs made by the Native Americans in the Mojave, by moving the varnished pebbles on the alluvial fans, are still visible. As are the tracks made by the idiots who did doughnuts their trucks and motorcycles around and through the glyphs. Same reason petroglyphs are still visible, If varnish could be formed in a couple 100 years, all the petroglyphs would be….well...history…

Taco de Baja - 1-18-2009 at 12:15 PM

An interesting read on desert varnish:

The Origin of Desert Varnish

It's a large 8MB PDF file, so it will take a while to download if you have a slow connection...

Quote:

The growth rates of rock varnish vary from <1 to 40 micrometers per thousand years on subaerially exposed rock surfaces and rarely reach thicknesses >200 micrometers, regardless of age. The primary components which make up desert varnish are clays (nearly 70%) and iron and manganese oxides that are derived from air-borne dust and other sources external to the underlying rock.

Since detailed studies of desert varnish began in the 1950s, the mechanism of varnish formation was not well nderstood. Initially, it was thought that desert varnish was precipitated physiochemically. Recent studies have noted the close association between microorganisms and varnish formation, but a causal role of this biological activity has yet to be affirmed.

BajaGringo - 1-18-2009 at 12:44 PM

One big change I noticed in comparing the 1966 photo and the 2009 photo is that Bruce Barron has put on a few pounds!

:biggrin:

David K - 1-19-2009 at 10:36 AM

Funny man, you are! :biggrin:

BajaGringo - 1-19-2009 at 12:36 PM

Sorry David, I couldn't resist. I'll go on a diet if you do???

David K - 1-19-2009 at 07:04 PM

It would be a good thing, yes? :light:

BajaGringo - 1-20-2009 at 10:16 AM

OK, I am starting today!!!!

Right after I finish these donuts...

:lol:

David K - 1-20-2009 at 10:23 AM

We have the makings of a fun bet, perhaps we should take it to u2u before weight figures get tossed around ?? :lol:

BajaGringo - 1-20-2009 at 10:26 AM

You have a deal - anybody else want in on this? u2u me...

geoffff - 1-28-2009 at 11:48 AM

DavidK, I love your before & after shots! I need to get myself a copy of Choral Pepper's book and play that game.

-- Geoff

mtgoat666 - 1-28-2009 at 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
The funnest part of this discovery is comparing the photos!

...how little the Old Man Cactus has grown in 43 years:...

The cardon, ocotillos and other plants are so slightly changed in nearly half a century! Make one wonder how old they are?!

Photos are good illustration of how slow things grown in desert, and how rocks take so long to develop their patina. Makes it easy to understand how off-road vehicles can easily scar the desert and it can take many decades or centuries for visual scars to disappear. Today, you can go to Baja and still find scars of the ECR trail, even in areas where it is not still in use. In Mojave, you can still see Patton's WWII tank training scars that look like they happened yesterday.

Tread lightly!

David K - 1-28-2009 at 09:00 PM

It is those scars that are such an attraction to us history buffs... so glad the Jesuits built those trails!

Barry A. - 1-29-2009 at 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666

Quote:

To me the MOST interesting things to explore on the Mojave Desert (or any desert) are the historical mines, old abandoned towns, the aboriginal sites, and the old Patton trails, as well as the historic Mojave Road, etc.------all man-made things. I love the natural attractions too, but the "man made history" is the REAL attraction to me. At 70+ I cannot walk more than about 3 miles with my arthritis, so vehicular access is of prime importance to me----------as one of the many authors of the "TREAD LIGHTLY" campaign, I too realize that the desert is very fragile, but do not believe that vehicular access should be cut off unless it is duplicating already existing access-------sensitive (to "all" man's needs) management is the answer, IMO.

Barry

David K - 3-5-2009 at 03:41 PM

Thanks Barry for the intelligent reply... and that the desert can only be enjoyed if we can get there... no matter our physical ability or time constraints.

This is our planet, too... afterall!

Now, find some rock piles that look interesting out there, everybody! :biggrin: