klenke Posted March 4, 2002 Share Posted March 4, 2002 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted March 4, 2002 Share Posted March 4, 2002 Yeah, I'm sure most of the people out there doing first acsents, first decsents, and other "big" things are reading the journals and scouring available documentation. But often I'll hear some claim, and I wonder "How do they know that?" Kind of like the bouldering in Leavenworth, skiing all over the cascades, and obscure routes on peaks in the middle of the cascades. People come out and say "I just did a first.... blah blah blah..", then someone says, "wait. That wasn't the first" Just because there's no summit register, no rap slings, and nothing in the literature about it doesn't mean some wacko trad dude didn't do it as part of an un-advertised back and forth traverse! Lots of sick s**t's gone on around here with nobody really having said anything about it. On a related topic: Do any of you watch OLN much? Some of the stuff on there is cool. At least some will gad thing in the Cirque is better than Ali McNuggets. But sometimes, some of the "expeditions" are LAME! They're thing I could do! Admittedly, I'm more lazy than them, and they took the initiative to get the funding and the sponsorship, but is that what really makes an "expedition"? Sorry to klenke for tangent-ing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted March 4, 2002 Share Posted March 4, 2002 quote: Originally posted by klenke: 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. Amen!!!Another one of my favorites is when I read, "We're going to climb Huascaran, second highest peak in South America". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted March 4, 2002 Share Posted March 4, 2002 ok ok, I know I just asked to have the previous thread about tnf closed, but I can't resist. You know how I was complaining about "expeditions" in my post above? Well, I just went and read the announcement for the tnf talk and noticed this woman was "the first woman to ski waaddington" This is one of those OLN shows I was making fun of! They nearly flew to the summit for their "expedition", and watching this woman ski didn't impress me. Now I'm begining to put all the pieces together and realizing why people are ragging on these tnf speakers so much! oh well, if they can get paid to have fun, more power to them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pope Posted March 4, 2002 Share Posted March 4, 2002 Measured from base to summit, you can find some tall ones out in the Pacific. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klenke Posted March 4, 2002 Author Share Posted March 4, 2002 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodchester Posted March 4, 2002 Share Posted March 4, 2002 Cotpaxi is generally referred to as the world's highest "active" valcano. How in the hell they got highest is beyond me. I am unsure if it actually is the highest active volcano, but everything I have ever seen on it, including the locals there, say it is the highest active volcano. Maybe some dolt at TNF just assumed it was one in the same? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imorris Posted March 4, 2002 Share Posted March 4, 2002 If you consider the equatorial bulge of the planet due to rotation, Chimborazo is technically the highest mountain on the planet from core to surface. In fact, at the summit of Chimborazo, you are spinning faster than anyone on the planet! Maybe that's why Cotopaxi is considered the highest volcano. Just a guess though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imorris Posted March 4, 2002 Share Posted March 4, 2002 Whoops, should've actually read all of the responses carefully. Yep, Cotopaxi: highest active. Chimborazo: also a volcano, but dormant. I'll shut up now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
payaso Posted March 4, 2002 Share Posted March 4, 2002 I was surprised when I first heard that report a while ago and it had nothing to do with TNF. Supposedly it qualifies as the "world's highest volcano" because it's location at the equator somehow gives it (and all other land around the equator for that matter) some kind of "boost" due to the eliptical shape of our planet. If earth was a true sphere then this would not be the case. That volcano was one of my first climbing experiences back in 98. I was travelling down there and had been climbing some tamer stuff in Venezuela when we decide to go for Cotopaxi. We wanted to see if we could cut it against 19,000 ft and paid a local guide about $100 each for everything. For me it was acclimitization 101 as we practically drove to the refuge/shelter and started climbing that night. We were only 45 minutes or so from the summit, but were pretty whipped by the altitude. I really felt my head was going to explode! I need to go back and finish that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted March 4, 2002 Share Posted March 4, 2002 I know someone who is climbing Mt. Pissis right now as we speak..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpine_Tom Posted March 4, 2002 Share Posted March 4, 2002 quote: Originally posted by max: On a related topic: Do any of you watch OLN much? Sorry to klenke for tangent-ing. When we got cable a few months back, I was thinking "OLN! Finally I get to see some of those cool climbing shows. And, of course, the Tour de France."So, every time I turn it on, what's on? FISHING! Every &*%#$@ time I look at OLN, it's a fishing show! You look at their website, and there's all this other stuff listed, but every time I flip to it, it's fishing, perhaps the only outdoor activity more boring to watch than golf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted March 4, 2002 Share Posted March 4, 2002 That info about Hillaree being 'first to ski descend NW peak of Waddington' is such total bullshit... anybody ever hear of Trevor Petersen? John Chilton? Steve Smaridge, Eric Pehota? Hell JOHN BALDWIN TELE SKIIED the thing after skiing UP IT FIRST (no helicopter support here) back in 1996 or 1997... its even written up in the CAJ. Oops but nobody from TNF ever reads that rag. I got a good first descent for Hillaree: north face of Devils Thumb [ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: Dru ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrench Posted March 4, 2002 Share Posted March 4, 2002 Payaso's and imorris' comments confirm what I've heard -- that of the ACTIVE volcanoes, Chimborazo summitt is the farthest from the center of the planet because of the shape of the earth. How the hell they know that and who bothered to figure it out beats me, but it sure makes for some confusion when people shorten it to "highest volcano in the world." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrench Posted March 4, 2002 Share Posted March 4, 2002 btw, the site I just checked doesn't even have Cotopaxi in the top 5 of ACTIVE volcanoes (it's #6) based on distance above sea level -- so the whole "shape of the earth" thing really skews the rankings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_Parker Posted March 4, 2002 Share Posted March 4, 2002 Klenke, nice to see you use the proper term "highest" to describe the elevations of the mountains. As a fellow "stickler" for details, I am chagrined when people, especially climbers intermix highest, tallest and biggest. I believe Mauna Kea (Hawaii)to be the tallest volcano (and mountain) on the planet, coming in somewhere at 31,000 ft. Of course this is measuring the mountain from the ocean floor. The tallest (base elevation to summit) mountain above sea level is Denali. Everest is of course the highest (raw elevation) above sea level. Correct me if I'm wrong! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted March 4, 2002 Share Posted March 4, 2002 quote: Originally posted by David Parker: Klenke, nice to see you use the proper term "highest" to describe the elevations of the mountains. As a fellow "stickler" for details, I am chagrined when people, especially climbers intermix highest, tallest and biggest.I believe Mauna Kea (Hawaii)to be the tallest volcano (and mountain) on the planet, coming in somewhere at 31,000 ft. Of course this is measuring the mountain from the ocean floor. The tallest (base elevation to summit) mountain above sea level is Denali. Everest is of course the highest (raw elevation) above sea level. Correct me if I'm wrong! What is the base elevation to summit (I assume you mean base elevation from above sea level or Mauna Kea would win that too, base elevation of 19, 000 feet BELOW sea level) figure for Denali? Cause I have heard that Dhaulagiri, from nearby river valley gorge to summit, is 20,000 feet or something continuous rise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klenke Posted March 4, 2002 Author Share Posted March 4, 2002 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted March 4, 2002 Share Posted March 4, 2002 What the fuck, that is a stupid system klenke (no offense), but if you took a smooth billiard ball of 22 million feet radius and added a 6 inch high pustule of a hill, that would make it "tallest" by your definition even though it would still be an insignificant blip compared to Olympus, Mauna Kea and Everest. Olympus Mons is (relatively) larger peak cause it is on such a small planet. And it is, truly, the biggest mtn in the solar system. Even bigger if you ignore the reference datum and measure simply from nearest low point to summit, cause much of the nearby surface outside the massif is below the datum. The only thing your system measures is distance from the center point, that is almost entirely a meaningless statistic. it doesnt make it harder to climb or anything. The only thing it DOES measure that i can see is rotation speed and hence relativistic acceleration and even there that is assuming all the bodies rotate at the same speed... Chimborazo IS actually the fastest moving point on Earth, though... so you should age slower there. [ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: Dru ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_Parker Posted March 4, 2002 Share Posted March 4, 2002 I'm no geologist but somehow they determine where the base is and how it sets on a land mass that is not part of the mountain. The himalayans sit on a rather high plateau. Denali's base on the other hand is not far above sea level. The St. Elias Mountains are also TALL. I don't know about that river vally next to Dhalaguri, but I'll bet it is still pretty high above sea level. Personally, measuring the mountain from the "center of the earth" is of no meaning to me and I think it is a rediculous technicality. Measuring mountains will always be controversial, but I believe the fact that they extend under the surface of the water doesn't disqualify them if that's were you have to go to get to the base. [ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: David Parker ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted March 4, 2002 Share Posted March 4, 2002 quote: Originally posted by David Parker: I'm no geologist but somehow they determine where the base is and how it sets on a land mass that is not part of the mountain. The himalayans sit on a rather high plateau. Denali on the other hand is not far from sea level. The St. Elias Mountains are also TALL. I don't know about that river vally next to Dhalaguri, but I'll bet it is still pretty high above sea level. Actually the gorge ( I think it is the Indus, maybe??) is really deeply incised, it is only about 4,000 feet ASL and Dhaulagiri is over 24, 000 feet high or whatever. Also Denali is a lot further from the ocean than the St Elias is. Fairweather rises 5000m in only about 50km horizontal distance... ( i think, anybody got the real distance to tidewater?) [ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: Dru ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klenke Posted March 4, 2002 Author Share Posted March 4, 2002 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gapertimmy Posted March 4, 2002 Share Posted March 4, 2002 this thread reminds me of the super smash hit by creed, take me higher. regardless, i still think chimbo is a sweet looking mountain, i still want to climb it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_Parker Posted March 4, 2002 Share Posted March 4, 2002 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. Attempting to calculate the height of the mountains on earth after removing all the earth's water is rediculous! Take away the water and this is no longer earth, nor would we be here to even think about it! (and why that quote above by Klenke didn't appear in bold is beyond me!) [ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: David Parker ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klenke Posted March 4, 2002 Author Share Posted March 4, 2002 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." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.