I have no understanding of why this is, but many people do not want Mt. Everest to be the tallest mountain on Earth. Why would it matter whether or not the highest point on the planet is also the tallest mountain, I cannot fathom. Really, I cannot really understand why the "height" of the mountain really matters to people who are not climbing it, after all, the height of the mountain and how impressive it is are not really the same thing.
Colorado mountains, for example, are beautiful, but they do not have the jaw dropping base-to-peak elevation of many smaller mountains. The Colorado Rockies are also, as a generalization, less rugged than other peaks. That said, a Colorado 14er has a more rarefied atmosphere than an Alaskan peak at 12,000 feet, regardless of cold, glaciers, ruggedness, or base-to-peak, so climbing to 14,000' is harder than to 12,000', all else being equal.
What the anti-Everest crowd key into is that Mount Everest is part of a mountain range, and therefore, "cheats." How a natural system can cheat, I am not exactly sure. I am also not sure what is so problematic about plate tectonic created ranges versus mantle hotspot created volcano chains, but I am not inside the mind of those who wish to find obscure measurements to discredit Everest.
The first step in discussing the elevation of a summit is how one defines elevation. The traditional method is to measure from sea level. This is useful for humans because we can stand at sea level. The breathable atmosphere is taken to be about 1 atmosphere of pressure at sea level. It can be, with only minor complications (the oceans are not flat, think tides), easily measured. Perhaps best of all, it provides a common point from which one can measure the elevation of other things. Other points that might be useful to use would be the shore of the Dead Sea (the lowest point not covered by water, -1371'), the Bentley Subglacial Trench (the lowest point not covered by liquid water, -8,382'), and the Challenger Deep (the deepest point on the sea floor, -35,755' (or deeper)). Choose any of these other datums, and Mt. Everest remains the tallest mountain.
Using any datum on the surface of the earth, the highest point remains Mt. Everest, and the elevation of every summit simply increases (or decreases) by the amount that the new datum lies below (or above) sea level. The one datum that changes the highest point calculation is the center of the planet. Owing to the fact that Earth is not spherical, Chimborazo (20,564') in Ecuador is 3967.1 miles above the center of the planet (beating out Everest by 1.3 miles).
Using a standard datum (e.g. sea level) makes surveying (and science) possible. Some people do not think elevation should be measured from a standard point. The most common way to measure a mountain from a non-standard datum is prominence. The goal of prominence is that a peak with high prominence will, generally, be more impressive than a peak with low prominence (if you want the full scoop on prominence, check Wikipedia, or Peakbagger). Mt. Everest has the most prominence of any mountain (even if disregarding sea level), but as with any moving datum, prominence does have some drawbacks, and the "tallest mountain" crowd will certainly find some nonsensical way to discount this standard method of measuring mountains.
Elevation, as measured by those seeking the "tallest mountain" is commonly the base-to-peak elevation. I have often considered the base-to-peak issue. The first problem is actually defining the base. In my mind, the base of a mountain, to illustrate how impressive it is, would be the highest elevation of a col that connects it to another peak. I seem to be alone on this, and the base seems to be the lowest point where the mountain is no longer the mountain, but the valley, or gentle slope, in the case of Denali.
Using the base-to-peak measure, there are mountains that are taller than Everest, including Denali. Denali has a base-to-peak elevation of something like 18,400' to Everest's 13,500' (ish). Denali's base-to-peak is, of course, much taller than Hawaii's Mauna Kea (13,796', above sea level and base-to-peak). However, the claim goes that Mauna Kea does not begin at sea level, but rather at the sea floor.
Measuring a mountain from the sea floor is tricky business. First off, it seems meaningless because one can never gaze from the undersea "base" to the summit (or climb from base to peak). Second, the scale changes dramatically. The sea floor is dominated by gentle changes in elevations that would never seem related on the surface. Mona Kea, for example, if you count all of the volcanism on Hawaii as "Mona Kea," but exclude the Mauna Loa side, stretches out for as much as 100 miles. Above sea level, humans would never count being 100 miles away from a mountain as being "on" the mountain, yet in the world of submarine "mountains," this is a standard practice. Using GeoMapApp to plot the bathymetry (and elevation), Mauna Kea's steepest, largest slope has the gentle rise of a slug's tail.
Assessing Mauna Kea from other angles reveals even more unimpressive base-to-peak elevation profiles. From the east, the volcanic plateau that Mauna Kea sits on becomes more evident.
If Mauna Kea were a mountain above sea level, most people would judge it as having an impressive 13,000 meter base-to-peak, sitting on top of a 20,000 foot plateau. If all of this was above sea level, plopped in Louisiana, it would be the tallest mountain on earth, and the volcanic plateau would be the highest plateau on the planet, but most of it is submarine, so, just like the off-shore base of Carstensz Pyramid (the highest island high point), it does not count.
The last problem with this measure of Mauna Kea, is that it ignores the existence of the other five volcanoes on Hawaii, like Mauna Loa, elevation 13,679' (120' lower than Mauna Kea), which is said to be the biggest in terms of basal area and volume (which may need to be considered at another time). Looking at the broad saddle between Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa, the base-to-peak elevation can be measured as little as about 6500', impressive, but hardly the most impressive peak on the planet.
If measured from the lowest point on the sea floor that lava from Mauna Kea has reached, to the highest point on the mountain, Mauna Kea reaches an impressive 33,500'. This height towers above Mt. Everest's height above sea level, and Everest's base-to-peak. However, if submarine mountain bases are in play for largest mountain, than volcanoes will never overcome the mountain building of plate tectonics. In the same way that the Himalaya tower above the Hawaiian volcanoes, coastal and submarine mountain belts built through plate tectonics tower over the Hawaiian seamounts.
The island nation of Tuvalu is expected to be the first nation to be destroyed by sea level rise. Though not home to lowest country high point (a title belonging to the Maldives at just under 8'), Tuvalu's 15' high point is a sand dune that has already been over topped in a storm surge. However, if bathymetry is taken as elevation, Tuvalu becomes not an island nation, but a mountain top nation. It seems strange that a nations crowning a 15,000' mountain will be the first to be destroyed by a sea level rise of mere inches.
Tuvalu, is not a great example of the massive mountains built by plate tectonics, as it too is volcanic. Mount Lamlam rises 1,332' above sea level, marking Guam's highest point. This unassuming island high point does not seem like it would be a candidate for tallest mountain in the world, but the Mariana Trench runs just off Guam's coast. From the Challenger Deep to the top of Mt. Lamlam, Guam's base-to-peak elevation is a stunning rise of up to 37,248', almost 4,000' taller than Mauna Kea. If measuring from the Challenger Deep to the top of Mt. Lamlam is a stretch (the Mt. Lamlam massif rises above the Challenger Deep, but the peak arguably rises only out of the Mariana Trench), even conservative estimates rank Mt. Lamlam as a 10,000 m peak, putting the peak in contention for the title of tallest.
While Mauna Kea is an impressive volcano, changing the definition of "tallest" to distract from what a mountain is does not respect the peak. Denali is not taller than Mt. Everest, nor is Mauna Kea. Each peak is impressive for what it is. There are plenty of unnamed peaks in Alaska, and throughout the world, that are majestic, and staggering in scale, regardless of how they compare to the other peaks of the world. The tallest mountain on Earth is Mt. Everest by any rational measure, all the other mountains are spectacular in their own way.
Colorado mountains, for example, are beautiful, but they do not have the jaw dropping base-to-peak elevation of many smaller mountains. The Colorado Rockies are also, as a generalization, less rugged than other peaks. That said, a Colorado 14er has a more rarefied atmosphere than an Alaskan peak at 12,000 feet, regardless of cold, glaciers, ruggedness, or base-to-peak, so climbing to 14,000' is harder than to 12,000', all else being equal.
What the anti-Everest crowd key into is that Mount Everest is part of a mountain range, and therefore, "cheats." How a natural system can cheat, I am not exactly sure. I am also not sure what is so problematic about plate tectonic created ranges versus mantle hotspot created volcano chains, but I am not inside the mind of those who wish to find obscure measurements to discredit Everest.
The first step in discussing the elevation of a summit is how one defines elevation. The traditional method is to measure from sea level. This is useful for humans because we can stand at sea level. The breathable atmosphere is taken to be about 1 atmosphere of pressure at sea level. It can be, with only minor complications (the oceans are not flat, think tides), easily measured. Perhaps best of all, it provides a common point from which one can measure the elevation of other things. Other points that might be useful to use would be the shore of the Dead Sea (the lowest point not covered by water, -1371'), the Bentley Subglacial Trench (the lowest point not covered by liquid water, -8,382'), and the Challenger Deep (the deepest point on the sea floor, -35,755' (or deeper)). Choose any of these other datums, and Mt. Everest remains the tallest mountain.
Using any datum on the surface of the earth, the highest point remains Mt. Everest, and the elevation of every summit simply increases (or decreases) by the amount that the new datum lies below (or above) sea level. The one datum that changes the highest point calculation is the center of the planet. Owing to the fact that Earth is not spherical, Chimborazo (20,564') in Ecuador is 3967.1 miles above the center of the planet (beating out Everest by 1.3 miles).
Using a standard datum (e.g. sea level) makes surveying (and science) possible. Some people do not think elevation should be measured from a standard point. The most common way to measure a mountain from a non-standard datum is prominence. The goal of prominence is that a peak with high prominence will, generally, be more impressive than a peak with low prominence (if you want the full scoop on prominence, check Wikipedia, or Peakbagger). Mt. Everest has the most prominence of any mountain (even if disregarding sea level), but as with any moving datum, prominence does have some drawbacks, and the "tallest mountain" crowd will certainly find some nonsensical way to discount this standard method of measuring mountains.
Elevation, as measured by those seeking the "tallest mountain" is commonly the base-to-peak elevation. I have often considered the base-to-peak issue. The first problem is actually defining the base. In my mind, the base of a mountain, to illustrate how impressive it is, would be the highest elevation of a col that connects it to another peak. I seem to be alone on this, and the base seems to be the lowest point where the mountain is no longer the mountain, but the valley, or gentle slope, in the case of Denali.
Using the base-to-peak measure, there are mountains that are taller than Everest, including Denali. Denali has a base-to-peak elevation of something like 18,400' to Everest's 13,500' (ish). Denali's base-to-peak is, of course, much taller than Hawaii's Mauna Kea (13,796', above sea level and base-to-peak). However, the claim goes that Mauna Kea does not begin at sea level, but rather at the sea floor.
Measuring a mountain from the sea floor is tricky business. First off, it seems meaningless because one can never gaze from the undersea "base" to the summit (or climb from base to peak). Second, the scale changes dramatically. The sea floor is dominated by gentle changes in elevations that would never seem related on the surface. Mona Kea, for example, if you count all of the volcanism on Hawaii as "Mona Kea," but exclude the Mauna Loa side, stretches out for as much as 100 miles. Above sea level, humans would never count being 100 miles away from a mountain as being "on" the mountain, yet in the world of submarine "mountains," this is a standard practice. Using GeoMapApp to plot the bathymetry (and elevation), Mauna Kea's steepest, largest slope has the gentle rise of a slug's tail.
 |
| The elevation profile from approximately -5000 to 4000 m over nearly 80 kilometers distance of Mauna Kea's supposed base-to-peak elevation. Note the volcanic plateau clearly visible at about sea level. No vertical exaggeration. |
Assessing Mauna Kea from other angles reveals even more unimpressive base-to-peak elevation profiles. From the east, the volcanic plateau that Mauna Kea sits on becomes more evident.
 |
| The gentle rise of the Hawaiian volcanic plateau (from 0 to 60 km), and the gentle slopes of Mauna Kea (from 75 to 120 km), separated by the clear plateau (from 60 to 75 km). Vertical scale from -5000 to 4000 m, no vertical exaggeration. |
The last problem with this measure of Mauna Kea, is that it ignores the existence of the other five volcanoes on Hawaii, like Mauna Loa, elevation 13,679' (120' lower than Mauna Kea), which is said to be the biggest in terms of basal area and volume (which may need to be considered at another time). Looking at the broad saddle between Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa, the base-to-peak elevation can be measured as little as about 6500', impressive, but hardly the most impressive peak on the planet.
 | ||
| The 2000 m (6500') base-to-peak elevation of Mauna Kea's south side. Vertical scale from 0 to 4000 m, no vertical exaggeration. |
The island nation of Tuvalu is expected to be the first nation to be destroyed by sea level rise. Though not home to lowest country high point (a title belonging to the Maldives at just under 8'), Tuvalu's 15' high point is a sand dune that has already been over topped in a storm surge. However, if bathymetry is taken as elevation, Tuvalu becomes not an island nation, but a mountain top nation. It seems strange that a nations crowning a 15,000' mountain will be the first to be destroyed by a sea level rise of mere inches.
+E-W+elevation+profile+noVE.jpg) |
| The mountain top nation of Tuvalu will likely be the first nation to be overcome by sea level rise. Vertical scale -4000 to 0 m, no vertical exaggeration. |
Tuvalu, is not a great example of the massive mountains built by plate tectonics, as it too is volcanic. Mount Lamlam rises 1,332' above sea level, marking Guam's highest point. This unassuming island high point does not seem like it would be a candidate for tallest mountain in the world, but the Mariana Trench runs just off Guam's coast. From the Challenger Deep to the top of Mt. Lamlam, Guam's base-to-peak elevation is a stunning rise of up to 37,248', almost 4,000' taller than Mauna Kea. If measuring from the Challenger Deep to the top of Mt. Lamlam is a stretch (the Mt. Lamlam massif rises above the Challenger Deep, but the peak arguably rises only out of the Mariana Trench), even conservative estimates rank Mt. Lamlam as a 10,000 m peak, putting the peak in contention for the title of tallest.
 |
| Guam's inconsequential Mt. Lamlam, possibly the tallest mountain in the world. Vertical scale from -10,000 to 0 m, no vertical exaggeration. |
No comments:
Post a Comment