mountain 'prominence' question- any geology/geography experts?

[brblx]

this seems silly, but i can't find the answer through wikipedia or google.

mountains are generally measured by their elevation above sea level, or alternately by their prominence...or both.

i had long thought that everest presented only a relatively minor amount of prominence, with base camp around 18000ft, iirc. that only leaves 11000ft or mountain to climb, far behind, say, denali. even accounting for everest being the 'major' peak in its range, why does the surrounding elevated plateau around everest count towards its prominence, while in other mountains it does not?

the linked wiki kind of explains it as 'everest is the highest mountain in asia, therefore its prominence goes all the way to sea level,' but that seems rather dumb. something i'm mising here, or is declaring everest to have the same elevation/prominence just one of those weird human conventions we've developed?

also i know this is a stupid question. sue me, i'm curious.

 

[brblx]

ok, no one cares, but i think i might now understand, but perhaps for the wrong reasons.

according to prominent researcher 'some random dude' on established scientific journal 'some forum'-

http://www.city-data.com/forum/general-u-s/590921-mountains-best-topological-prominence-2.html

It is hard to explain and understand. I had to reread the definition a few times myself. Let's say there is a peak that is 5,000 feet above sea level, and there is another peak 6,000 feet above sea level, and they are separated by a valley. The promenence of the 5,000 foot mountain is the amount you have to descend from the peak to start climbing the 6,000 foot mountain. Let's say the 6,000 foot mountain is the highest mountain for 100 miles. The promenence of the 6,000 foot mountain is the amount you have to descend to start climbing the closest mountain taller than it. Does that make more sense? Here is a wikipedia that has reliable information (I checked it with other sites, and it is right.)

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/gene...rominence-station-island-2.html#ixzz1UUOfIZYY

this seems really retarded, but explains my confusion; since everest is the highest mountain, it automatically recieves a prominence equal to its elevation above sea level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest_mountains

that seems to confirm it. if you look at, say, lhotse, which is just a small subpeak of everest, it lists the prominence as only ~600m, even though the bulk of that mountain makes it FAR higher than that- but 600m is the amount of elevation you would have to descend to reach the saddle that leads to everest (one of lhotse's faces being part of the most common routes up everest iirc).

anyway, like i said. no one cares. but the more you know(tm).

 

[Farang]

Your posts confuse me. But Denali is the tallest mountain in the world, in terms of if you were to cut it away from its base and place it next to Everest on a table.

edit: take that back, maybe not the tallest but taller than everest

 

[feralkid]

Your posts confuse me. But Denali is the tallest mountain in the world, in terms of if you were to cut it away from its base and place it next to Everest on a table.

edit: take that back, maybe not the tallest but taller than everest

Wrong by about 9,000 feet.

 

[Icepick]

 

[brblx]

crazy guy

exactly.

and 3rd poster seems to be under the same misconception that i was concerning...uh, science...making sense. apparently it does not, sir.

since nothing is taller than everest, apparently (i wish i could double-italicize that) that makes its recorded 'prominence' figured include all terrain surrounding it that leads down to sea level.

to use another mountain for comparison, look on that linked chart and see that K2, which is nowhere near everest, lists it as its parent mountain, with a prominence of ~4000m- basically the descent to the top of the tibetan plateau, which would then be traversed to get to everest. choy oyo, another 8000m peak, sits near everest, also listing it as the 'parent' mountain. but it has only ~2000m of prominence, meaning there must be some kind of ridgeline between the two.

god i'm bored.

 

[Lithium381]

so sea-level = altitude and elevation above surroundings = prominence?

 

[dainthomas]

This thread makes me think of this guy. Badass.

 

[GregGreen]

I really don't have a real answer but I'm assuming that Everest has the highest prominence, all the rest of the Himalayas are mountains off that one really big mountain. So K2 is only credited for what it is above where it sits on Everest. And although K2 isn't very close to Everest, it does share the same low point, so it's prominence is measured in reference to Everest. It is basically an offshoot.


If you read this part http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topographic_prominence#Interesting_prominence_situations more closely, it might help you make more sense of it. Talks a bit about US mountains in reference to continental divide and such -- something you might be more familiar with?

 

[davmat787]

Doesn't it take something like 2 to 3 weeks just to reach the base camp at 11000 feet or whatever? That's what I have heard at least, and why the climb is so dangerous as you can't just climb your injured buddy down the mountain, you are weeks away from help, even at base camp.

I think those that try the ascent routinely see frozen corpses of those who tried, and failed. It is just too damn dangerous to try and remove some of the dead. Google, and I think you will be surprised by the amount of corpses on Everest.

 

[brblx]

oh yes, i'm well aware of that. most all the people who have died on everest are still up there. it's pretty much accepted that if you can't move on your own above ~8000m or so (where most people require oxygen, and also where some of the most treacherous climbing is on both north and south routes), you will probably succumb to the elements. and hell, lots of bodies are fairly close to to base camp when buried in avalanches or crushed by giant pieces of ice in the khumbu icefall.

and everest is generally regarded as, i dunno, maybe the 2nd easiest of 14 >8000m mountains?:awe: from what i've read, choy oyu is probably the easiest (i think it's the 2nd most climbed behind everest), k2 and a few others with names that elude me are regarded as far more technical. also the routes are not as as well traversed (the main everest routes are pretty much lined with fixed ropes), some are more prone to avalanches, ect.

afaik i think choppers can and have flown to the base camp of everest, maybe a little higher, but it's risky. if you collapse in an upper camp you still have a long way down to go.

there are some pretty good reads about himalayan climbing. into thin air is a pretty damn good read and an easy pageturner.

 

[BoomerD]

Mauna Kea in Hawaii is the world's tallest mountain from base to peak. Its base is on the sea floor and it rises 33,480 feet (10,314 meters) in total, reaching 13,796 feet (4205 m) above sea level.

While Mt. Everest is the world's tallest mountain above sea level, Mauna Kea is still quite spectacular.

 

[KillerCharlie]

I'm a mountain climber and with people always trying to do the "100st highest" list or whatever, this topic comes up a lot. There are a lot of ways to measure prominence, so there are several different lists and several "tallest mountains." Often, prominence can be seemingly arbitrary.

Here are a couple more brief descriptions:
http://www.peakbagger.com/help/glossary.aspx#clean
http://www.peakbagger.com/help/glossary.aspx#opt

In the 48 states, in my opinion the Cascades are the tallest mountains - they have the most prominence. Mt. Rainier absolutely blows away anything in Colorado. More importantly, they're much much more rugged than anything else in the 48 states and exponentially more glaciated.... okay I'm getting carried away with my love of the Cascades.

I've done a few climbs with a guy who's doing the "100 tallest" mountains in Washington (apparently only 35 people have done it in 40 years). Some of the mountains that made it on the list are questionable - prominence is an interesting subject. It all depends on what rock is considered part of what mountain. There are a bunch of subpeaks of the large volcanoes (like Little Tahoma on Mt Rainier) that sometimes count and sometimes don't.

Everest base camp may be at 18k feet, but the actual "base" of the mountain is lower down than that. Base camp is just where they decided to put up some tents.

 

[brblx]

yeah, but that's the ocean. shit be deep, dawg. at that depth, that's not even really on any continental shelf, right?

you know what's neat? puncak jaya, which is one of the 'seven summits' if you consider that australia sucks with it's shitty ~2000m mountain. but then it's only impressive as a mountain until you see the mine that sits next to it...

 

[brblx]

I'm a mountain climber and with people always trying to do the "100st highest" list or whatever, this topic comes up a lot. There are a lot of ways to measure prominence, so there are several different lists and several "tallest mountains."

Here are a couple more brief descriptions:
http://www.peakbagger.com/help/glossary.aspx#clean
http://www.peakbagger.com/help/glossary.aspx#opt

In the 48 states, in my opinion the Cascades are the tallest mountains - they have the most prominence. Mt. Rainier absolutely blows away anything in Colorado. More importantly, they're much much more rugged than anything else in the 48 states and exponentially more glaciated.... okay I'm getting carried away with my love of the Cascades.

I've done a few climbs with a guy who's doing the "100 tallest" mountains in Washington (apparently only 35 people have done it in 40 years). Some of the mountains that made it on the list are questionable - prominence is an interesting subject. It all depends on what rock is considered part of what mountain. There are a bunch of subpeaks of the large volcanoes (like Little Tahoma on Mt Rainier) that sometimes count and sometimes don't.

I just finished reading Into Thin Air - extremely well written. It's nice in that it was written by an experienced mountaineer, yet it's written in a way that's extremely easy to understand.

Everest base camp may be at 18k feet, but the "base" of the mountain is lower down than that.

on everest; my understanding is that the journey to base camp, while lengthy, is basically a rocky hike. it's more of a 'trek' than a climb.

i very much enjoy both the wilderness and the cold (within reason). whenever i can actually manage to get some funds, i want to spend some time in the rockies. ultimately, it would pretty awesome to climb something like denali or even rainier. i'm not so intrigued by the 'numbers' games associated with a lot of himalayan climbs, though it would be awesome to go over there, even just to travel through some of the lower evelations, which are a lot more temperate and pretty damned gorgeous.

 

[Blitzvogel]

on everest; my understanding is that the journey to base camp, while lengthy, is basically a rocky hike. it's more of a 'trek' than a climb.

i very much enjoy both the wilderness and the cold (within reason). whenever i can actually manage to get some funds, i want to spend some time in the rockies. ultimately, it would pretty awesome to climb something like denali or even rainier. i'm not so intrigued by the 'numbers' games associated with a lot of himalayan climbs, though it would be awesome to go over there, even just to travel through some of the lower evelations, which are a lot more temperate and pretty damned gorgeous.

I find it difficult to fathom that climbers on Everest spend weeks(?) on it during the treks between camps and the time spent at these camps acclimating to the altitude. Where/how are they supplied for such lengthy times? I highly doubt they carry enough enough food with them, are they supplied on a regular basis by dedicated people?

 

[brblx]

most all people who climb everest have some kind of logistical support. it varies a lot; you could pay maybe 50-100k for a company that does large, well-supported expeditions that will do their best to drag you to the top, so long as you seem healthy enough. or you could pay someone just enough to get you your permits and deliver you and your supplies to the mountain. i think even this is a 25k+ endeavor. obviously i'm pulling rough figures out of my ass, but the bottom line is that it ain't cheap. and aside from maybe seasoned climbers who can quickly summit 8000m peaks without oxygen, yeah, i think you have to spend a lot of time acclimmatimzing. shit, people get sick at the top of 4-5000m peaks in the US and europe; that's below everest base camp.

iirc an actual trip up everest is maybe 4 days tops, once acclimatized.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Prominence is all about relativity. It is the minimum height of climb to the summit on any route from a higher peak, since there is no higher peak, we default to sea level

Your posts confuse me. But Denali is the tallest mountain in the world, in terms of if you were to cut it away from its base and place it next to Everest on a table.

edit: take that back, maybe not the tallest but taller than everest

yeah, Aconcagua would still be taller and is an excellent example of why this happens

Since Aconcagua is the highest peak on the contiguous American continent (North and South America) we measure its prominence from sea level to its peak - a full 6,962m.

To obtain Denali's prominence we start from highest low point between the two peaks (which is near Lake Nicaragua since the man-made Panama Canal does not count)

here is a good example

we measure the prominence of Peak A from Peak A's key col because its the minimum distance to the top of Peak A from a higher peak (not necessarily the highest peak, as the furthest peak on the right is the highest)

If the sea level rose 58+m North and South America would become separated by sea and thus Denali's key col would become sea level just like Everest or Aconcagua

 

[ribeditaa]

What are some good colleges for geology? I am really interested in geology and I am giving it serious consideration for a possible career choice. So anyone know which college is good for geology? Thanks!
___________________________________
yahoo keyword tool ~ overture ~ traffic estimator ~ adwords traffic estimator

 

[silverpig]

Interesting thread. Thanks for the necro, new guy


Also, I like doing the Cascade volcanoes because of their prominence - they are the tallest thing around and when you are on the top of one, you are definitely at the highest point in the area.