|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 15
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 15 |
I've seen several different elevations for Mt. Whitney: 14,494, 14,495, 14,500, 14,505 and on my hat from the Portal Store: 14,497.61. Which elevation is correct? Also I was wondering if Mt Whitney is still growing, like a inch or 2 every decade or hundred years?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 214
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 214 |
The triangulation station marker is 14,505'. The highest point is about 3' higher, so it is 14,508'. 
Last edited by lambertiana; 10/23/10 04:14 AM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 5,436 Likes: 9
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 5,436 Likes: 9 |
Not according to Doug. It's still 14497.611 (or something like that).
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 556
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 556 |
49'er, Last year there was some widespread re-setting by the geographical powers-that-be of what constitutes "sea level" - you can find several threads here on the details, but it's beyond my pay grade. The net result is that official elevations for just about everything rose 8 feet, which is why the 14,497 figure common to Whitney for years is now referred to as 14,505.
This still causes me to scratch my head, since it would appear that "sea level" dropped 8 feet. I thought the seas and oceans were rising from all the melt we're constantly reading about, which would logically have the opposite effect on elevations. Presumably, the two are not the same thing. I can promise you, though, that there are folks on the board here who can explain it better than I can.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 720
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 720 |
Journey well...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,006
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,006 |
I've seen several different elevations for Mt. Whitney: 14,494, 14,495, 14,500, 14,505 and on my hat from the Portal Store: 14,497.61. Which elevation is correct? Also I was wondering if Mt Whitney is still growing, like a inch or 2 every decade or hundred years? Apparently the new elevation is 14,508'. Here's a thread on the subject that Doug started and others chimed in on back in May: 14,508'
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 196
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 196 |
"is it still growing"?
By geologic standards, the Sierra Nevada range (which includes Mt.Whitney) is quite young and is still growing. The earth's surface is made up of tetonic plates (6 i think)and they are always moving. The North American sliding into the Pacific plate which causes an uplift (subduction zone) of the NA plate which created the Sierra range.
A classic example of plate movement can be seen by looking at the Hiwaiian Islands as a whole, There is only 1 hotspot that created them. The Pacific plate is gliding over it (A new island is in the process of being born BTW). Just about anywhere there is a Volcano (and earthquakes), there are two different plates coming together.
If the plates stop moving, we are in a world (litterally)of hurt, that would mean that the earths core is cooling and we would end up looking like the Moons big brother.
Thats what i have off the top of my head.
Why Yes, I am crazy. I'm just not stupid.
|
|
|
|
|