klenke

Bivys are either intended or unintended depending on whether or not they were intended or unintended. Comprende? [ 03-22-2002: Message edited by: klenke ]

Fishstick, You'd be a dipstick if you tried to climb Ben Nevis on a weekend day or probably any summer day. A winter ascent would be best. Why? Because it's probably worse than Mt. Baker in terms of the shear number of people you'll see at the summit plateau. 100's of people every direction you look. No solitude on that peak in the spring/summer/early fall. If you do go and do Ben Nevis, I absolutely recommend going up via Carn Mor Dearg and doing a loop around the east side of the Coire na Ciste (Coire of the coffin) and up the back side of Ben Nevis. A lot less crowds on that route. A lot less! Here's a link with pics:http://sca.uwaterloo.ca/~praetzel/Scotland/Ben_Nevis.html

This study has been completed. See: http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/Or: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/methuselah/ [ 04-12-2002: Message edited by: klenke ]

This study has been completed. [ 04-12-2002: Message edited by: klenke ]

This study has been completed. [ 04-12-2002: Message edited by: klenke ]

Hmmm, 82 of Canada's Top 100 are in the St. Elias Range. Saint Elias: Patron Saint of High Mountains. Thanks for the listing, Dru. FYI, Bugaboo's height is 3186 meters (but it's not the highest in the Purcell Range). I think the highest is Mt. Farnham (3,459 m). Highest summit on Vancouver Island: Golden Hinde at 2,200 meters (7,216 ft +/-)

Here's a bunch more gaps:

"It's about what you're getting done, not what you wear." Yeah, I know what ya mean. I use to get chided constantly about not wearing "standard" Mountaineers clothing, and yet these same people chiding me I would be climbing circles around. They'd say, "Is that a cotton sweatshirt you're wearing? That's not fleece!"I'd reply, "That's right. And, hey look, whatta ya know, it's a bright sunny day. Go back to Seattle!" In short, Mountaineers tout fleece as if it'll keep you from getting wet and keep you from freezing to death. Ah not so. Good judgement comes from the mind, not from the mantles you wear.

Okay, here's the joke (irony) of the GAP clothing:No climber-type would shop at The Gap. The Gap's clothing is for wannabe outdoor enthusiasts...or sorority girls looking for just the right type of flashy gear to stand out on campus. Other than that, I have no problem with your thankful post, Jman. I'd do the same, perhaps, if something sentimental to me was lost. In fact, it has happened to me...even recently....very, very recently.

I could continue with the GAP joke, but I'll refrain. You make a good point, ScottP.

veggie belly: I assume you're being facetious. Have you seen Horseshoe Peak? It's prominence is 80 ft. You wouldn't have to look hard to miss it. You would have to look hard to see it. "Lowly" peak #101 is none other than Mt. Ballard. If you know about Mt. Ballard, you'll know it is a travesty that it is not on the list. It's height is between 8,320 and 8,340 ft. It's one of the largest mountains in the area east of Granite Creek (N of Rainy Pass, SW of Harts Pass). You simply can't miss it. THAT PEAK BELONGS ON THE LIST. Remove Horseshoe and Ballard takes it's rightful place. Actually, I'll probably wind up doing both Horseshoe and Ballard, the former to appease Bulgarist purists, and the latter to please realists (like John Roper, who understood the mistake, perhaps).

It was only a GAP CAP, for goodness sakes. Hey everybody, I lost a pack rain-cover in the Pasayten Wilderness last summer. If anybody found it (it's blue) can I have it...

Speaking as someone who's actually doing them... All those peaks in the Top 100 belong there except "Horseshoe Peak". Horseshoe Peak is not a separate summit. It's merely a ridge high point with <400ft of prominence. There are many such ridge high points in the Cascades. I have oftened wondered just how this "peak" got put on there in the first place. Perhaps the first people to be undertaking the TOP 100 saw it while doing Buckner and decided to put it (Horseshoe) on the list AFTER climbing it. Nonsense, if true. It ought so much to be removed in favor of a much more worthy candidate like poor old peak #101, whose rightful place on the list was taken away by that impostor Horseshoe.

Terminal Gravity wrote: "We are all familiar with politicians, sales people and business moguls using incomplete, mis-qouted, ill concieved and/or erronious statistics to convince people all sorts of things. It is a sad day when climbers & pseudo-climbers start doing the same." Especially reflected in your last sentence above, nobody knows this now more than me. Nobody. There are those that move clouds...and apparently I am not one of them.

"Go soon, cause I think I'm going to reserve it for every weekend from April 1 to Sept 30 :-)" Airmoss: can I be your friend? You know, that would be kind of funny if a bunch of us got together and reserved Spire Rock by making ourselves up as a different phony group every weekend in the timeframe of February to June. We could usurp the rock from the Mounties and laugh as we watch them scramble for some back up plan...which they probably don't have. Ha ha!

Matt: thanks for the update on Communism Peak's new name. The new one is just as ridiculous as the old one. Who's this "Samani"? Sounds like someone's name. Glen: the highest point on the Kamchatka Peninsula is Vulkan Kluchevskoy at ~16,000 ft. And according to my book, it is ONLY 7,000 years old! Kamchatka does have a hell-of-a-lotta volcanoes on it. All the landscape photos I've ever seen show shield volcanoes like Fuji all compactly strung out like a pearl necklace. Very cool. Would make for quite a traverse...up and down and up and down and up and down and...

Actually, it's against the law to be on active train tracks. So, you don't have the right. It's trespassing. Still though, you should probably get out of the way if a train comes. A lot of people don't, a lot of people die.

So, it used to be first ascents got all the headlines. Now, first ski descents get the headlines (why, I have no idea; it's not like it's that hard to "ski" down a mountain providing the terrain allows it). In the future I suppose "first sex at the summit" will garner all the headlines. (I think I've got a few summits here.) ---Klenke

Having a calendar listing where the Mounties would be may do as much a disservice as a service when concerning their planned climbs. I say this because Mountie climb leaders can and do have a tendency to bag out on climbs--climbs that could go after all. You could opt not to go to a climb (like The Tooth) because they had been scheduled to go there, and yet you COULD HAVE gone because they cancelled their climb (without telling the world).

I agree with you there, Timm@Y. As one of my engineering professors used to say (to be read in a Hungarian accent):"Eh, there are no constants in life."

Sea level is used as the Earthly datum because it is convenient. Knowing what we know now about ocean depths and continental heights, it would be possible, though unreasonable, to change the Earth datum to some other reference "zero" which would be lower than the surface of the oceans. I cannot even begin to conjecture at this change. Another thing I heard a long time ago is that the weight of all that ocean water actually compresses the sea floor and buoys, if you will, the continental land masses. While I'm not sure if I believe that, I will say that the bottom of the ocean surrounding the Hawaiian islands would not be this new datum. Therefore, it would not be correct to say Mauna Kea is the tallest summit when measured from ANY "datum". It is the tallest summit, however, from it's head to its toe. I'm not sure about what peak has the greatest vertical relief above sea level from its base to its summit. I've heard Denali mentioned before. Dru's mention of Dhauligiri could be true too. It's new to me. Basically, the above classifications outline why it is important to reference everything to a common "zero"--sea level.

From an email I sent about a year ago... (Anyone who would like the excel spreadsheet I made concerning the Earth calculations below should send me an email request for it. I will gladly send it along.) > Did you know that the highest peak in the world relative to the center of> the earth is not Everest but Chimborazo in Ecuador? Everest is roughly> 20,939,000' from the center where as Chimborazo is roughly 20,946,000'> from the center (over a mile farther). Strictly speaking, this is the> true gauge of a planet's apex (how far it punches toward space), for who> knows what sea level is on other planets. One needs a sea for there to be> a 'sea level'. > > For instance, the highest mountain in the solar system is Olympus Mons on> Mars at 69,844'. However, this height is referenced from the Martian> datum (average terrain height from center of planet, I presume). And> since the radius of Mars is 2,110 miles (11,119,000'), Olympus Mons is> actually only roughly 11,190,000' above the center of the planet. And> thus, by obscure intellection, I might lead on to say that Chimborazo is> the highest peak in the solar system when referenced to the center of the> planet. But, ah, not so fast. One should check on Venus to be sure...> > Maat Mons on Venus is roughly 29,500' above the Venusian datum. Adding> this to Venus' radius of 19,817,000' and the volcano's summit is roughly> 19,847,000' from the center of the planet.> > Conclusion: Chimborazo is indeed the highest peak in the solar system> with respect to the center of its planet.

For those who want to know...(based on the information I have) Top 11 summits in South America based on the latest estimates:1. Aconcagua 22,826 ft (6959 m) ARGENTINA2. Pissis 22,573 ft (6882 m) ARGENTINA3. Ojos del Salado 22,566 ft (6880 m) ARGENTINA/CHILE4. Mercedario 22,205 ft (6770 m) ARGENTINA/CHILE5. Huascaran 22,200 ft (6768 m) PERU6. Bonete Chico 22,170 ft (6759 m) ARGENTINA7. Llullaillaco 22,057 ft (6723 m) ARGENTINA/CHILE8. Libertador 22,042 ft (6720 m) ARGENTINA9. Cazadero 21,845 ft (6660 m) ARGENTINA/CHILE10. Yerupaja 21,704 ft (6617 m) PERU11. Incahuasi 21,681 ft (6610 m) ARGENTINA/CHILE A recent re-reckoning of Salado & Pissis places Pissis at #2. Their basically virtually equivalent in altitude. Salado is the highest volcano in the world. My height for Salado has changed slightly from my previous post. This one is probably more correct. Of these, #2 Pissis, #3 Salado, #6 Bonete Chico, #9 Cazadero, and #11 Incahuasi are in the same general area: the region with the most peaks over 6,000 meters outside of the Himalaya. Sub-summits of the above majors were not considered. Incidentally, the highest peak in the "former" U.S.S.R. was Pik Kommunizma at 24,590 ft (7495 m) in the current Tajikistan.

Message to The North Face Store and to those who have been misinformed by them (as reported in their last topic): The tallest volcano in the world is NOT Cotopaxi (19,388 ft). Cotopaxi is not even in the top 5. The tallest is Chile's Ojos del Salado at 22,589 ft (6,887 meters). Cotopaxi is not even the highest in Ecuador, this goes to Chimborazo (20,700 ft). As for Russia's highest summit, this is always in question based on new borders and new sibling countries forming. But last time I checked, Mt. Elbrus (18,476 ft) was still in Russia (just north of Georgian border). Plus, there are volcanoes on Russia's Kamchatka Peninsula that are higher than The North Face's assertion of Belukha (14,780 ft). The highest summit on the Kamchatka Peninsula is Vulkan Kluchevshoy (listed at 15,580 ft but probably closer to 16,000 ft). Call me a stickler, but I don't like misinformation. A lot of people can think know the truth about someone or something, but they really don't. One should never assume. It is irresponsible at best.

How can something as beautiful as that NOT be protected? It's a impressive as Monument Valley and not too far away.