Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T09:28:45.537Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Assemblée Générale D’oslo 19–28 août 1948. Union géodésique et géophysique internationale; Association internationale d’Hydrologie scientifique, Tome 2, Procès-verbaux des séances; travaux de la Commission de la Neige et des Glaciers, 1950, 403 pages. Louvain: Imprimerie Ceuterick.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2017

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Reviews
Copyright
Copyright © International Glaciological Society 1951

Volume 1 of this series publishes the papers read at Oslo in 1948 before the Commissions of Potamology and Limnology. Volume 3 contains those presented to the Commission of Subterranean Waters. In the volume under review, Volume 2, there are fifty-four papers on the several glaciological subjects sponsored by the then International Commission on Snow and Glaciers, now called the International Commission on Snow and Ice.

The list is substantially that which was reported in this Journal (Vol. 1, No. 5, 1949, p. 290–92) but there are a few papers missing from those read at Oslo. There are also a few now included which were not read there and which have probably been submitted since.

The collection and editing of the great bulk of material must have been a formidable task and great credit must be given to the Editors for producing this valuable record of contemporary work—even though the, no doubt unavoidable, delay in publication to some extent reduces the value.

The papers are conveniently classified under the following headings: Icebergs, physical characteristics of the snow cover, the glacier grain, glacier measurements (and fluctuations), glacier research, ice on lakes and rivers. These groupings differ to some extent from the questions set for the meeting and this is good. The reviewer strongly disagrees with the setting of questions. It is undesirable to try to concentrate glaciological research into set channels; it is far better to leave it to the inspiration and enterprise of the individual glaciologist who will shape his programme according to the par to year developments of the science. Valuable contributions to the Conferences might be lost if research workers adhered rigidly to the set questions.

Discussion of the published papers are few and fragmentary. This is not surprising. Very few real discussions took place at Oslo owing to the large number of papers presented and the short time available for their consideration—a state of affairs which it is hoped will be rectified at Brussels this year.