Real Mountains!

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just a quick observation.

Much is often made of absolute altitude in relation to mountain height,
and is the reason why many claim that the UK has no real mountains.

Well recently, as you may have surmised from a recent post, I've been
taking an interest in Yellowstone, and it didn't escape my attention that
the highest peak in the park is Eagle Peak at 3,462m (11,358ft).

"Well that's a real mountain!" no doubt you'd all exclaim.

But I keep reading that most of Yellowstone is at an altitude of roughly
8,000ft. In fact, looking more closely, it turns out that Yellowstone
Lake, a not insubstantial feature of the park, occupies an altitude of
2,357m (7,733ft), quite typical for the park as a whole.

So typical in fact, that one might consider the lake to represent "local
sea level".

As it happens, Eagle Peak is not far from Yellowstone Lake.

A bit of simple math reveals that the dramatic summit of Eagle Peak is a
mere 1,105m (3,625ft) above the height of Yellowstone Lake. A very similar
height to the height of Snowdon above sea level in fact.

So there you have it, the highest point of Yellowstone national park, in
the Rockies, is roughly comparable to the height of Snowdon, relatively
speaking.

There rests my argument for the importance of relative rather than
absolute height.

Of course, this post wouldn't be complete without a view of said Eagle
Peak, would it? So here's two. Granted it's a tad more rocky than Snowdon,
but it's roughly the same height, relatively speaking.

http://www.nps.gov/archive/yell/slidefile/scenics/mvsoutheast/Images/09237.jpg
http://www.nps.gov/archive/yell/slidefile/scenics/mvsoutheast/Images/09238.jpg

You've mixed up the pictures ! They are The Cuillin on Skye.

See : http://www.theosphotos.fotopic.net/p7706625.html

--
"Beannachd leibh"

Theo
www.theosphotos.fotopic.net

Theo said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.nps.gov/archive/yell/slidefile/scenics/mvsoutheast/Images/09237.jpg
http://www.nps.gov/archive/yell/slidefile/scenics/mvsoutheast/Images/09238.jpg

You've mixed up the pictures ! They are The Cuillin on Skye.

See : http://www.theosphotos.fotopic.net/p7706625.html

Good point! Yes, that's a much better comparison!

Paul

In message <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Theo said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.nps.gov/archive/yell/slidefile/scenics/mvsoutheast/Images/0
9237.jpg

http://www.nps.gov/archive/yell/slidefile/scenics/mvsoutheast/Images/0
9238.jpg

You've mixed up the pictures ! They are The Cuillin on Skye.

See : http://www.theosphotos.fotopic.net/p7706625.html

Good point! Yes, that's a much better comparison!

And its MATHS, Paul!
--
Philip Powell
Looking north across the Derwent Valley and Northumberland
to The Cheviot

Philip Powell said:

And its MATHS, Paul!

Is it? LOL! Am I becoming Americanised or something?

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/

In message <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Philip Powell said:

And its MATHS, Paul!

Is it? LOL! Am I becoming Americanised or something?

Yes - too much talk of Yosemite!

--
Philip Powell
Looking north across the Derwent Valley and Northumberland
to The Cheviot

Philip Powell said:

Quoted message said:

Is it? LOL! Am I becoming Americanised or something?

Yes - too much talk of Yosemite!

I never mentioned Yosemite!

It's the other one that starts with a Y...

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/

Paul Saunders said:

Just a quick observation.

Quoted message said:

A bit of simple math reveals that the dramatic summit of Eagle Peak is a
mere 1,105m (3,625ft) above the height of Yellowstone Lake. A very similar
height to the height of Snowdon above sea level in fact.

Seems to apply to Alps v. Himalayas too

Height of Mont Blanc above Chamonix is roughly 4600-1000 = 3600m
Height of Everest above basecamp 8900-5500 = 3400m (just needs a hut
building at the South Col then).

Roy.

In message <[email hidden]>, Roy
<roy@somedomainsomewhere.?.invalid> writes

Quoted message said:

Paul Saunders said:

Just a quick observation.

Quoted message said:

A bit of simple math reveals that the dramatic summit of Eagle Peak
is a mere 1,105m (3,625ft) above the height of Yellowstone Lake. A
very similar height to the height of Snowdon above sea level in fact.

Seems to apply to Alps v. Himalayas too

Height of Mont Blanc above Chamonix is roughly 4600-1000 = 3600m
Height of Everest above basecamp 8900-5500 = 3400m (just needs a hut
building at the South Col then).

Roy.

What about Ongar Hill above King's Lynn?

--
Martin Richardson
670/1554 Marilyns - aiming for 777 71/118 New Donalds - only 40% to go
100/211 Irish Hewitts - 111 hitts left 42/220 Corbetts - only 81% to go

Roy roy@somedomainsomewhere said:

Height of Mont Blanc above Chamonix is roughly 4600-1000 = 3600m

Weird, Mont Blanc from Chamonix doesn't look exceptionally high at all
to me (apart from the clue that it's covered in snow) in contrast some
800m Scottish peaks from the Sea look gigantic.

Paul Saunders said:

Just a quick observation.

Much is often made of absolute altitude in relation to mountain height, and
is the reason why many claim that the UK has no real mountains.

Well recently, as you may have surmised from a recent post, I've been taking
an interest in Yellowstone, and it didn't escape my attention that the
highest peak in the park is Eagle Peak at 3,462m (11,358ft).

"Well that's a real mountain!" no doubt you'd all exclaim.

But I keep reading that most of Yellowstone is at an altitude of roughly
8,000ft. In fact, looking more closely, it turns out that Yellowstone Lake,
a not insubstantial feature of the park, occupies an altitude of 2,357m
(7,733ft), quite typical for the park as a whole.

So typical in fact, that one might consider the lake to represent "local sea
level".

As it happens, Eagle Peak is not far from Yellowstone Lake.

A bit of simple math reveals that the dramatic summit of Eagle Peak is a
mere 1,105m (3,625ft) above the height of Yellowstone Lake. A very similar
height to the height of Snowdon above sea level in fact.

So there you have it, the highest point of Yellowstone national park, in the
Rockies, is roughly comparable to the height of Snowdon, relatively
speaking.

There rests my argument for the importance of relative rather than absolute
height.

Of course, this post wouldn't be complete without a view of said Eagle Peak,
would it? So here's two. Granted it's a tad more rocky than Snowdon, but
it's roughly the same height, relatively speaking.

http://www.nps.gov/archive/yell/slidefile/scenics/mvsoutheast/Images/...http://www.nps.gov/archive/yell/slidefile/scenics/mvsoutheast/Images/...

Paul

You're absolutely correct. I was recently on a plain, not a bump in
sight, at over 3000 metres. Of course it's relative.

Paul Rooney said:

You're absolutely correct. I was recently on a plain, not a bump in
sight, at over 3000 metres. Of course it's relative.

Thanks for the vote. Which plain was it?

Anyone got any relative height info on the Tibetan Plateau? I know it's not
completely flat, it may even be quite mountainous by UK standards, but not
by Himalayan standards, relatively speaking.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/

Quoted message said:

Anyone got any relative height info on the Tibetan Plateau? I know it's not
completely flat, it may even be quite mountainous by UK standards, but not
by Himalayan standards, relatively speaking.

As Peter Clinch would say "It depends"
Which bit of the Tibetan Plateau ?
It is a series of mountain ranges and vast valleys between them
and also gorges cutting into the plateau

Himalaya in the South as you know
and the Kunlun in the North
but also lots of others in between
and also gorges cutting into the plateau, especially draining to the
east

other ranges include Amnye Machen, Bayan Har, Tanggula Shan

The area NW of Zoige is 4,000m ( + or - ) of rolling hills, rather
like British moorland

The Amnye Machen range tops out at 6,282m
with one supporting pass being 4,700m and the general level of the
plateau around it being circa 4000m

The road over the Tanggula Shan is 5,200m (I dont remember where I got
that fact) it divides the provinces of Qinghai and Xizang
Tanggula range tops out with Purog Kangri (6929 m)

Minya Konka/ Gonga Shan at 7556 meters is the highest peak outside of
the Southern/Western ranges of the Himalaya/Karakoroum and it is 3600
m above it surroundings
its at the point where the plateau starts to drop off into China

On Oct 11, 9:54 pm, "Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Paul Rooney said:

You're absolutely correct. I was recently on a plain, not a bump in
sight, at over 3000 metres. Of course it's relative.

Thanks for the vote. Which plain was it?

Anyone got any relative height info on the Tibetan Plateau? I know it's not
completely flat, it may even be quite mountainous by UK standards, but not
by Himalayan standards, relatively speaking.

Paul
--http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/

Yunnan. Used to be Tibet proper before the borders were altered. Now
it's Tibetan Yunnan, where the people and the language and the food
are Tibetan, etc. It's flat as a pancake as far as the eye can see and
beyond, in places.

Quoted message said:

Yunnan. Used to be Tibet proper before the borders were altered. Now
it's Tibetan Yunnan, where the people and the language and the food
are Tibetan, etc. It's flat as a pancake as far as the eye can see and
beyond, in places.

Interesting Paul,
Where in Tibetan Yunnan is it flat like that ?
I remember it being pretty mountainous with river valley gorges from
the Lancang (Mekong) and the Yangtze among other rivers
If my memory serves me right it was certainly undulating around
Zhongdian and very deep cut and rugged further North up the Lancang to
Xizang.

Maybe you are talking about towards and around Lugo Lake ?, an area I
have tried to get to on a couple of trips but never worked out.

My memory may be at fault as it is over 10 years since I have been in
Yunnan

Hope this does not end up being a duplicate post

Quoted message said:

Yunnan. Used to be Tibet proper before the borders were altered. Now
it's Tibetan Yunnan, where the people and the language and the food
are Tibetan, etc. It's flat as a pancake as far as the eye can see and
beyond, in places.

Interesting Paul, which bit of Tibetan Yunnan is like that,
in my memory it is very mountainous with the valley gorges of the
Lancang (Mekong) and the Yangtse cutting into the landscape
I remember areas around Zhongdian being undulating, but further north
up the Lancang into Xizang it was very mountanious.

My memory may be add odds at it was over 10 years ago I was in that
area of Tibet

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just a quick observation.

Much is often made of absolute altitude in relation to mountain height,
and is the reason why many claim that the UK has no real mountains.

One of my group on a '98 Greenland exped sent me a link to his photo album
which contained this shot
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2399/1561262674_754c5e14eb_o.jpg
These mountains (The Stauning Alps) are only slightly higher than those in
the UK - I'd say the reason some people say there are no 'real' mountains in
the UK is down to character not height. I don't agree with that argument,
but there are certainly a lot of wannabe mountains!

Graham

"Graham Seed" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

One of my group on a '98 Greenland exped sent me a link to his photo album
which contained this shot
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2399/1561262674_754c5e14eb_o.jpg
These mountains (The Stauning Alps) are only slightly higher than those in
the UK - I'd say the reason some people say there are no 'real' mountains
in the UK is down to character not height. I don't agree with that
argument, but there are certainly a lot of wannabe mountains!

Graham

Sorry, wrong setting, If anyone did try to see the photo you wouldn't have
been able to. You can now.

G

kimilseung said:

Quoted message said:

Yunnan. Used to be Tibet proper before the borders were altered. Now
it's Tibetan Yunnan, where the people and the language and the food
are Tibetan, etc. It's flat as a pancake as far as the eye can see and
beyond, in places.

Interesting Paul, which bit of Tibetan Yunnan is like that,
in my memory it is very mountainous with the valley gorges of the
Lancang (Mekong) and the Yangtse cutting into the landscape
I remember areas around Zhongdian being undulating, but further north
up the Lancang into Xizang it was very mountanious.

My memory may be add odds at it was over 10 years ago I was in that
area of Tibet

It did end up being a duplicate post, but that's by the way.
The last couple of hundred miles south of Zhongdian (on the road from
Lijiang) is a huge plain.

Quoted message said:

It did end up being a duplicate post, but that's by the way.
The last couple of hundred miles south of Zhongdian (on the road from
Lijiang) is a huge plain.

Thanks Paul,
you are making me dead jealous
I spend a fair bit of my time just day dreaming about Tibet.

Do any of the locals actually call Zhongdian by its "new" name of
Shangri-la
I'm seeing some maps using it now
I already say Sri Lanka and Beijing
one day I may say Mumbai
but I can not ever imagine adopting such a ridiculous name as Shangri-
la
so I hope the answer is no