[TR] The north summit of Greenwood Mountain isn't

[klenke]

Trip: The north summit of Greenwood Mountain isn't

Date: 8/5/2007

 

Trip Report:

 

Background:

This report is not intended to debate the name of this mountain. I call it Greenwood Mountain. You can call it what you want. Some (many?) call it NE Dumbell Mountain--a prosaic name if there ever was one. It isn't officially named on the map. According to Beckey, local miners called the peak "Greenwood Mountain" and that is where the name comes from (obviously, take your Beckeyisms with a grain of salt). Either way, this mountain is a Top 100 summit.

 

There are two summits on Greenwood Mountain: a southern point triangulated at 8,415 ft and a northern point about 300 yards away triangulated at 8,400+ ft (meaning it could on casual consideration be as high as 8,439 ft, thus higher than the south summit). Most Top 100 pursuers, including the original Bulgers, were content on only doing the south summit. But if the north summit were actually higher, one could argue that those who only did the south summit were "cheating" the honor of completion.

 

A photo from earlier this decade...

 

Knowing just which of the two summit points is highest has fascinated me ever since I read Beckey's words regarding the peak "...but apparently higher at its northern tip." Further piquing my intrigue was Mike Torok after a return trip up there in 2004. He stated that the north summit is "higher by a couple of feet." (reference) But then Fay Pullen went up to the south summit with her fancy little clinometer and measured a downward angle to the north summit, meaning it is lower. However, she did not do a back bearing from the north to south summit. Furthermore, what effect would earth curvature have on her reading? I originally climbed to the south summit in August 2003 with Stefan Feller. Neither of us could say with certainty which summit was higher. Unfortunately, we didn't have time to visit the north summit too. Given all of the above, I knew I would need to return to Greenwood to make some sort of measurement or measurements of my own.

 

Results:

On the weekend of August 4-5, 2007 I traveled with my girlfriend Michelle up to Spider Meadow. While she stayed in camp and endured hungry black flies and mosquitos, I went on up to Greenwood. I was at the summit from Phelps Basin in a little under three hours. The weather was partly cloudy.

 

{Excuse the poor quality. We realized we forgot the memory card in the camera and so rushed back to the nearest store at Lake Wenatchee to purchase a disposable camera.}

 

I was carrying with me my old Casio altimeter with 20-ft increments, a new High Gear altimeter with 1-ft increments (though it's not that accurate), and a medium quality Magellan GPS. I was first surprised to see the GPS report exactly 8415 feet for the south summit with an accuracy of 13 feet. It fluctuated a little with a minimum reading of 8413 and a maximum of 8418. 11 satellites were used to acquire my position. I reset my Casio to the nearest setting of 8420 ft. I reset my High Gear to 8415 ft.

 

 

After a short stay at the south summit I downclimbed its SE Ridge to get to the obvious, though somewhat inaccessible looking ramp that leads down to the glacier/snow on the east side of the peak. The ridge is mostly Class 3 but features two short Class 4 steps with good holds. After descending to about 8160 ft, I located a chossy 25-ft gully leading down to the finger of snow (with attendant moat) reaching up on the ramp. This gully is at a point on the ridge where continuing on it would be difficult (it's right before a small cannonhole).

 

 

There were old boot tracks in the snow leading over to the north summit. After climbing down the gully and out of the moat, I more or less followed those tracks to the base of the south face of the north summit.

 

 

The snow reaches up a bit and steepens. To make matters worse there was a double moat, one a bit back from the face (like a schrund) below the steepest snow (don't slide into it!) and one at the snow high point. I got off the snow rather easily across a two-foot chasm then sketched my way up ball-bearing-covered slabs. I worked rightward past/under where a big block of snow had slid off moments before then made my way up to the final SE Ridge. The ridge was Class 3--not difficult at all. For the return I would take a narrow ramp/gully that avoided the unpleasant slabs. It took me about an hour to get from the south summit to the north summit.

 

 

 

At the north summit I again pulled out my instruments.

The GPS now read 8410 feet with only minor fluctuations. The accuracy was +/-8 feet. 14 satellites were used to acquire my position. The High Gear altimeter also read lower by about 15 feet. My Casio read the same height (8420 ft).

 

 

I returned to the south summit and the GPS again read 8415 ft (now settling out to 8418, actually). The High Gear altimeter was also again reading about 8415 ft.

 

 

Conclusion:

Two independent experiments (Fay's and mine) showed that the north summit is lower than the south summit. Two casual comments (Fred's and Mike's) intimated the north summit was higher than the south. I'm going to go with the quantitative data and aver that THE SOUTH SUMMIT OF GREENWOOD MOUNTAIN IS THE HIGHEST POINT. There is no need to go over to the north summit except for the better views it provides of Bonanza Peak, Martin Peak, and the Railroad Creek valley.

[beecher]

Bollocks - Guinness requires no fewer than 16 satellite acquisitions for top 100 status.

[pms]

nice work, any thoughts or similar data about Raven Ridge?

[MarkMcJizzy]

Furthermore, what effect would earth curvature have on her reading?

 

None. I am sure that given the distances you were dealing with, plane surveying is completely applicable.

[olyclimber]

Thanks for the TR Klenke. We all missed you.

[dduncan]

Great job, Klenke. Saves me the effort of lugging my surveyor's level up there ala Raven Ridge.

[Kyle_Flick]

Welcome back.

[Stefan]

Excellente! Wow, such detail in your analysis. Great job Klenke.

[Gary_Yngve]

Furthermore, what effect would earth curvature have on her reading?

 

None. I am sure that given the distances you were dealing with, plane surveying is completely applicable.

 

Yep. The earth's radius is about 6000 km.

Going 1 km perpendicular to the radius would cause a change in altitude of

sqrt(6000^2+1^2)-6000, which is approximately sqrt((6000+1/12000)^2)-6000, which is 1/12000 km, or about 83 cm.

 

[Rad]

Going 1 km perpendicular to the radius would cause a change in altitude of

sqrt(6000^2+1^2)-6000, which is approximately sqrt((6000+1/12000)^2)-6000, which is 1/12000 km, or about 83 cm.

 

Pythagoras to the rescue!

[lunger]

yeah klenke good info.

 

btw, re: pythagoras, i think it works out to 8.3 cm, or 83 mm.

[Blake]

someone should stack 4' of rocks on the unclimbed Mox peak summit, so that it would become one of the top 100 and all subsequent peak baggers would have to do it.

[Gary_Yngve]

good catch, lunger. 8.3 cm is it.

[olyclimber]

I think the Baller has just established himself as a mathematical whiz. Not many get a chance to correct Mr. Yngve!

[forrest_m]

I think the Baller has just established himself as a mathematical whiz. Not many get a chance to correct Mr. Yngve!

 

no, no, don't you know that all bigshot math types always make arithmetic errors, that's why all the discussions end with "calculating the final answer is left as an exercise for the reader."

[olyclimber]

But do they admit they are wrong? I don't think so. The Baller abides.

[klenke]

Jim:

Yes, the two summit points of Raven Ridge are another two that need GPSifying.

 

Another would be the middle and south summits of Cardinal.

 

Then what about the two summits on Indian Head Peak?

Or what is the height of the true summit of Spider Mountain (the summit isn't the 8286 point)?

Or Big Chiwaukum (the summit is north of the 8081 point).

Or Mt. Fury's two summits. Are they higher or lower than Luna? Which of the three points (W Fury, E Fury, or Luna) is the highest point in the Pickets?

 

Yes sir, there are a lot of summit uncertainties out there that could use an accurate GPS assessment or, in a few decades, LIDAR.

 

This weekend I'm going back up for Buck Mountain, having only done the north summit. The middle point is likely higher but I'll see what my GPS gives for a difference.

[MPaul_Hansen]

'True' summits - confirmation using a simple ?device?

....next time my friends & I are in the above areas ...

will pack a custom altered Hand Level [or salvaged Theodolite

Head from a Transit [similar to spotting scope]

used by surveyors for decades,

with a special mount to fasten to a minature

camera tripod, and avoid hand unsteadiness. To get a direct

visual indication of relative height. Yes, per std. surveying

practice; sightings should be made in both directions,

preferrably with roughly equal line of sights. [Not that this

is of great importance ....]

Edited August 14, 2007 by MPaul_Hansen

[klenke]

Report on Buck Mountain

Yesterday Jeff Rodgers and I visited the summit(s) of Buck Mountain (sattelite image of Buck's summit area). We first went to the north summit where I had been before in August 2002. My GPS settled out at 8535 feet on the highest rock. We then went to the middle summit where my GPS settled on 8559 ft. Visual observation also seemed to prove the middle summit is higher than the north summit.

 

However, most intriguing was the south summit. It seems just as high as the middle summit when viewed from the middle summit. The map shows this summit as being 8360+ but I think it is higher, i.e., the map is in error. With limited time available, I made an attempt at the south summit via the SW Ridge. I climbed rather easily to the notch and was faced with a low-fifth rock step about 20 feet in height. I was still a good 100 feet below the top, or so it seemed. I backed off, not wanting to do the downclimb (with no special gear). At this notch and at a point farther southwest my GPS read 8420 ft, meaning the peak is probably around 8500-8520 ft. It might even be higher.

 

 

[Tom_Sjolseth]

Nice work, Klenkenator!

[Stefan]

excellente!

[Jens]

Another one to mention that is on that "100" list.

Sherpa Balanced Rock is the true summit of Sherpa Peak. (by only a couple of feet though).

[klenke]

An extra word of note:

 

There was no register at the two summit when I climbed them on August 5. At the south summit I did find the square tin can in which the register had been placed but there was no register inside. I thought perhaps it had been moved to the north summit. I could not find it over there either.

 

The register may have been removed by a Leave No Trace zealot. Or it may have been accidentally bumped off the top (if it fell off the east side it could have fallen into a moat). Or perhaps it was full of entries and therefore in need of relocating to UW Archives (someone would do well to check if it was deposited there).

 

Based on Roald's post in this thread, it appears the register disappeared sometime between mid-July and August 5. Perhaps it was removed by the party whose old tracks I followed over to the north summit. These tracks were no more than a few days old.

 

Fortunately, in regard to the famous first entry into the register, it appears Dr. Roper and Mike Torok have at least preserved photographs of it:

see the third and fourth pictures on this page.

[vinemaple]

Great report. I saw sometime back that you had showed how to add discriptions into photo's using the keyboard. I believe that you use the / or some other keys. Would mind sharing that information again? Thanks.

[klenke]

Vinemaple: The text and annotations in the photos were simply put on the images themselves using Microsoft Paint. I then uploaded these images. Nothing special.