Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The changes come hardest when leaving the glaciated section of the Allegheny plateau. In the un-glaciated plateau elevation can actually be lower in places (like in western WV, Southwest PA, eastern Ohio and eastern KY), but the valleys are cut deeper and more narrow and/or the hills are jagged and pointy rather than dome or ridge like.
Most of the Appalachian plateau in NY is glaciated, excepting the Enchanted Mountains region of western NY. This means the valleys are higher as they were filled with rocks and soil, or they are filled with fresh water lakes. What in PA would be a 600-1000 foot deep valley (from peak to floor), in NY is typically a finger lake.
As the valleys were filled and broadened in NY and northern PA, the hills look to be more distant and in some cases, smaller. A hill of 1500 feet at peak looks very different if the valley is at 400 feet, or 700. Further, a lot of hills in the heavily glaciated areas (including northwestern PA) have such gentle inclines that they seem large from a distance or high perspective but vanish from sight as you approach, especially combined with heavy forestry. The curvature of the earth is a trickster!
The glaciated Alleghenies can sometimes afford far more impressive views than the un-glaciated however. It all depends on exactly where you are.
The PA deep valley region is a unique area in its own right however. Nowhere else in the Alleghenies is the plateau nature of its origin more obvious. In this region the top of the hills is generally flat or rolling, whereas the valleys are so deep and sheer it makes them look like mountains from inside.
This area is not only less eroded than elsewhere in the un-glaciated plateau, but it's also not glaciated! Leaving it as this wonderful relic of an ancient landscape cut into almost exclusively by rivers.
I hope some of that helped to describe it.
What's crazy is i never think of New York as a state.
I hear the name New York and automatically think NYC lol,
There's a few states like that,where the main city is more popular than the state.
Location: Appalachian New York, Formerly Louisiana
4,409 posts, read 6,540,027 times
Reputation: 6253
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChefCurry
What's crazy is i never think of New York as a state.
I hear the name New York and automatically think NYC lol,
There's a few states like that,where the main city is more popular than the state.
That's pretty much proving a point I was making earlier in this thread.
Also sadly, NY is the only state where the name is obscured. Like I said earlier, everybody knows there's an Illinois attached to Chicago. Everybody knows there's a California outside of Los Angeles. Few seem to know that NY is not just a city.
That's not entirely true. The Catskills aren't much bigger than the northern blue ridge in PA, and they suffer glaciation. Meaning higher valleys; meaning lower base to summit rise.
The blue ridge in PA have a larger rise to summit and in multiple places do appear to be higher than the Catskills. They also have more rugged, pointed peaks, whereas many peaks in the catskills are rounded off at the top. Further, PA geologically has more true mountains than NY does.
In many, many places of PA the deeper valleys make the hill country feel much higher and denser than in most of NY. For the record, the Poconos are actually part of the Allegheny plateau and are not true mountains.
However, PA does have its share of low roll country too. A good chunk of western PA isn't exactly impressive, especially near Erie, in terms of elevation. However, if this is all you've ever seen of PA, you're missing out.
The Adirondacks are much higher for certain, but are generally separated by broader valleys. The Adirondacks, like a lot of the Laurentian range, are clustered rather than contiguous. The scenery it affords is closer to lower mountains out west than it is the majority of the Appalachian range. Whereas their very neighbors in Vermont and New Hampshire are Appalachian, and exhibit an appearance closer to what you can find in PA.
That last part isn't trying to say the Adirondacks aren't awesome, just throwing information about them out there.
I have a fair well of knowledge on this stuff and I am willing to share.
However the highest mountain the Catskills is higher then any mountain in Pennsylvania by over eight hundred feet. And an atlas that shows elevations will show how much more rugged the Catskills are say compared to the Poconos.
Here is a list of the 115 higher peaks in the Northeast (almost all 4,000' feet plus). Northeast "115" 4000-footers - Peakbagger.com
Most are in New York and New Hampshire with a few in Maine and Vermont. The highest point in Pennsylvania in contrast is Mount Davis at 3200 feet.
SURPRISE!
Although New York has higher mountains then Pennsylvania if I remember right, PA is the hillier state. I say if I remember right because there was a site that we posted here on City-Data I cannot find now. Anyway it listed the states from 1 to 50. Number 1 (Florida) was the flattest and 50 (West Virginia) was the hilliest.
Now, being the hilliest did not mean that West Virginia has higher mountains then say Colorado, it just means that West Virginia has less flat land then Colorado. Anyway New York came in a respectable 36 or 37 (hillier and less flat then more then 75% of the states) but I believe Pennsylvania was even higher in the 40s. Pennsylvania does have flattish areas like areas near Philadelphia and near Lake Erie and the Ohio border. But Pennsylvania is much more hiller then most states.
What's crazy is i never think of New York as a state.
I hear the name New York and automatically think NYC lol,
There's a few states like that,where the main city is more popular than the state.
Little known trivia.
When the English first took over New Netherland after the Second Anglo-Dutch War, they created the Province of New York which included todays New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware. Basically what became the Middle Colonies and later the Mid-Atlantic.
The future New York State part of this huge province was called YORK SHIRE. So New York City (Manhattan) was in Yorkshire. New York, Yorkshire. Or possibly it would have become New York, New Yorkshire.
I know it sounds weird to us but at least we would have been able to tell the city and state apart more easily.
Anyway, the Dutch reconquered New York during the Third Anglo-Dutch War (!) and held it for a few years. Unfortunately when the English came back, the name Yorkshire was dropped for some reason and today both the city and province/state have the same name.
Location: Appalachian New York, Formerly Louisiana
4,409 posts, read 6,540,027 times
Reputation: 6253
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative
However the highest mountain the Catskills is higher then any mountain in Pennsylvania by over eight hundred feet. And an atlas that shows elevations will show how much more rugged the Catskills are say compared to the Poconos.
Here is a list of the 115 higher peaks in the Northeast (almost all 4,000' feet plus). Northeast "115" 4000-footers - Peakbagger.com
Most are in New York and New Hampshire with a few in Maine and Vermont. The highest point in Pennsylvania in contrast is Mount Davis at 3200 feet.
Now how about we see what the height is from base to summit? You may find the Catskills are ultimately not much bigger than the northern blue ridge.
After all, parts of Kansas exceed 4000 feet in elevation. Unless it's one enormous gentle mountain, elevation doesn't mean everything. I've used this point in a thread about the Appalachians versus the west before.
I don't know for certain, I'd have to do some research as well, but I believe the rise of the Catskills is similar to the blue ridge in PA.
Now how about we see what the height is from base to summit? You may find the Catskills are ultimately not much bigger than the northern blue ridge.
After all, parts of Kansas exceed 4000 feet in elevation. Unless it's one enormous gentle mountain, elevation doesn't mean everything. I've used this point in a thread about the Appalachians versus the west before.
I don't know for certain, I'd have to do some research as well, but I believe the rise of the Catskills is similar to the blue ridge in PA.
The Adirondack High Peaks have bigger verticals than the absolute height of most (and the tallest, all) of the Mountains of PA.
But the point is if PA can only maybe match the 2nd best range in NYS, NYS wins.
Location: Appalachian New York, Formerly Louisiana
4,409 posts, read 6,540,027 times
Reputation: 6253
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4
The Adirondack High Peaks have bigger verticals than the absolute height of most (and the tallest, all) of the Mountains of PA.
But the point is if PA can only maybe match the 2nd best range in NYS, NYS wins.
I think you might be missing the point of this specific exchange. I'm comparing and contrasting, not participating in a "who has the bigger, floppier willy" contest. Settle yer nettles.
I think you might be missing the point of this specific exchange. I'm comparing and contrasting, not participating in a "who has the bigger, floppier willy" contest. Settle yer nettles.
The thing is its about NYS second most scenic range being compared to PA's most scenic and largest mountains. I understand that there are differences, such as there really aren't passes through the PA ridge and Valleys, unlike the Catskills where you can drive through without actually going up a mountain. The only way to avoid a major elevation gain going from Pittsburgh to Harrisburg is via the Cumberland Gap, in Tennessee and up the other side of the Apps.
To me it just seems like Comparing the Berkshires to the Whites.
Location: Appalachian New York, Formerly Louisiana
4,409 posts, read 6,540,027 times
Reputation: 6253
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4
The thing is its about NYS second most scenic range being compared to PA's most scenic and largest mountains. I understand that there are differences, such as there really aren't passes through the PA ridge and Valleys, unlike the Catskills where you can drive through without actually going up a mountain. The only way to avoid a major elevation gain going from Pittsburgh to Harrisburg is via the Cumberland Gap, in Tennessee and up the other side of the Apps.
To me it just seems like Comparing the Berkshires to the Whites.
And holding a conversation about something like this is wrong because...?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
York Shire
