U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-15-2010, 09:33 PM
 
Location: Pasadena
7,412 posts, read 8,235,465 times
Reputation: 1802

Advertisements

Here's what you wrote:

Quote:
The San Gabriels, San Bernardinos, or the Santa Ana Mountains are not taller than what is found in western North Carolina. Not by a long shot.
They may get close to what can be found in parts of the Blue Ridge of Georgia and Virginia, but definitely not in the Smoky Mountain region of the Blue Ridge in North Carolina and Tennessee.
And this:

Quote:
By the way, the San Gabriel Mountains, San Bernardino Mountains, and Santa Ana Mountains are tiny in square mileage. They're more or less like "islands" of mountains that spring forth above the surrounding flatter landscape, unlike other mountain ranges, such as the Appalachians or Rocky Mountains, which comprise a large area.

In this regard, the southern California mountain ranges are not unlike the Guadalupe Mountains of West Texas, or those isolated mountain ranges found in parts of Southern New Mexico, as well as parts of Arizona.
Then you wrote this:

Quote:
I've driven in those mountains. They are not as dramatic as you're making them. I've camped out in the San Bernardino Mountains. I've driven the "Rim of the World Highway". While impressive, they don't strike you as being any taller than what can be found in western North Carolina. In fact, some areas within the western North Carolina mountains feel much more taller than anything in the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, or Santa Ana Mountains. While the greenery or smoothed nature may account for this, I'm being honest with my observations.

A telescopic lens was used to get that photo of the San Gabriel Mountains behind Los Angeles. The mountains, though only about twenty miles away, don't appear anything in the way of that altitude when looking from the ground. They simply don't. It's trick photography at best.
And this:

Quote:
The ranges of southern California might extend forty miles, broken up, then another forty miles. They don't extend into another states, such as Arizona or Nevada. Compared to the Appalachians or the Rockies, they ARE tiny, square-mileage wise.
Do you want to prove what you assert? Can you prove any of what you claim? Be my guest because most of it is pure bull. And the trick photography is a real laugh.

Please explain your statements with facts as I have done otherwise go to bed or admit you are wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-16-2010, 12:51 AM
 
Location: Rural Northern California
1,019 posts, read 2,484,114 times
Reputation: 824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever View Post

The Sierra Nevada range is relatively long, I'll admit. Mammoth Mountain is near the southern end of the range. It extends along most of the eastern edge of California near Tehachapi, all the way north to areas near Oregon. However, before the Cascade Range comes into view, there are areas of low elevation, if only for a relatively small distance. It's not like it's not broken up. Be honest.
That's just not true. I've lived my entire life in Northern CA, and there's isn't a definable point where the Sierras end and the Cascades begin. Lassen it at the southern end of the Cascade Range, but its base is very high because it's nestled in the northern reaches of the Sierra Nevada. Geologically, that makes sense, because the two mountain ranges were formed by very similar geologic processes (offshore subduction zone), albeit the Sierras are at a much more advanced stage of development because the subduction occurred, and finished, much earlier (most of the Farallon plate was completely subducted under North America). The Feather River Route, a famous railroad pass over the Northern Sierra, not too far from Lassen, is 5,221 feet in elevation, and is considered the lowest, easiest pass over the mountain range.

Also, I consider Mammoth to be more in the central Sierra Nevada. It's well north of Mt. Whitney, and I would guess at least a 150+ miles North of the range's southern terminus.



Quote:
I never claimed that the Appalachians were as rugged as your naked mountains that only get trees in the highest of elevations.
Could you clarify which range we're talking about here? Some of the Southern California ranges are very devoid of vegetation, but not the Sierra Nevada in Northern California, which is one of the most densely forested ranges in North America (long growing season, fertile soil, and tremendous amounts of precipitation). Though, to be fair, that's the Western Slope. The Eastern Slope is much drier because of a very pronounced rain shadow effect (which is a big part of why Nevada is the driest state in the Union).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2010, 04:36 AM
 
2,402 posts, read 3,578,675 times
Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by californio sur View Post
Here's what you wrote:



And this:



Then you wrote this:



And this:



Do you want to prove what you assert? Can you prove any of what you claim? Be my guest because most of it is pure bull. And the trick photography is a real laugh.

Please explain your statements with facts as I have done otherwise go to bed or admit you are wrong.
I'm not going to argue with you. The fact is, the square mileage of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains is much smaller than the southern Applachians. That's a fact.

Secondly, the highest peaks of the San Gabriels are indeed taller than the highest peaks of the Appalachians. I never reported that they were not. My argument has been that most of the San Gabriels and San Bernardino Mountains are not as tall as some of the higher areas of the Appalachians in true base to summit elevation. I'm not going to argue with you about it. If you want to look at the picture I provided of Brasstown Bald looking into the distance, you can clearly see that the distance to the base down to Lake Chatuge in the distance is greater than some of those posted in your southern California mountain pics.

Thirdly, I've pointed out that in much of the west, even flat areas appear at high elevation, such as in the Great Basin and most places. Exceptions include the San Juaquin Valley, right along the Pacific Coast, and a few other spots. Given this, the increase from base to summit on the high desert side of the San Gabriels and San Bernardino Mountains is less than what you can find in the tallest areas of the Appalachians.

Fourthly, I've pointed out that since the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains are smaller in square mileage than the Appalachians, it makes them seem smaller, simply because they aren't that wide across, and they are limited to the number of peaks from one side to the other, relative to what is found in the Appalachians. They are also lacking tall trees, with the exceptions found in the highest of elevations, such as around Big Bear and Lake Arrowhead in the San Bernardino Mountains. In much of the San Gabriel Mountains, you can be relatively high up, and still be dealing with scraggly trees. However, there are a few pockets of tall trees, namely in valleys, and in a few other areas, such as around Wrightwood.

Driving up to Big Bear from the High Desert, you start at roughly 1800 feet, and rise to around 6200 feet. That's about 4400 feet. You could hike to the highest of elevations around Big Bear, which is around another one thousand feet. In reality, the mountains around Big Bear are only about 5400 feet in true elevation. Yet, some mountains within the Smoky Mountains are around 6600 feet in elevation, from a base that is about 1200 feet, equalling about 5600 feet. Thus, it is slightly taller, or roughly equal. That's been my point the entire time.

Regarding the trick photography comment. Be realistic, it is. The mountains do not look that prominent over LA to its north. I've been to the Los Angeles area every year fro a number of years, and the mountains don't look that grand. It is a close-up shot with a telescopic lens. It's similar to the picture of Salt Lake City and the Wasatch, granted probably not that extreme.

Last edited by Stars&StripesForever; 08-16-2010 at 04:45 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2010, 04:42 AM
 
2,402 posts, read 3,578,675 times
Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Widowmaker2k View Post
That's just not true. I've lived my entire life in Northern CA, and there's isn't a definable point where the Sierras end and the Cascades begin. Lassen it at the southern end of the Cascade Range, but its base is very high because it's nestled in the northern reaches of the Sierra Nevada. Geologically, that makes sense, because the two mountain ranges were formed by very similar geologic processes (offshore subduction zone), albeit the Sierras are at a much more advanced stage of development because the subduction occurred, and finished, much earlier (most of the Farallon plate was completely subducted under North America). The Feather River Route, a famous railroad pass over the Northern Sierra, not too far from Lassen, is 5,221 feet in elevation, and is considered the lowest, easiest pass over the mountain range.

Also, I consider Mammoth to be more in the central Sierra Nevada. It's well north of Mt. Whitney, and I would guess at least a 150+ miles North of the range's southern terminus.


Relatively speaking, Mammoth is toward the southern end. It's why people from LA go there to ski, if they are going to the Sierras. I mentioned that areas just north of Tehachapi are about the southern extent of the Sierras. Look at a map.

Quote:
Could you clarify which range we're talking about here? Some of the Southern California ranges are very devoid of vegetation, but not the Sierra Nevada in Northern California, which is one of the most densely forested ranges in North America (long growing season, fertile soil, and tremendous amounts of precipitation). Though, to be fair, that's the Western Slope. The Eastern Slope is much drier because of a very pronounced rain shadow effect (which is a big part of why Nevada is the driest state in the Union).
In that regard, I was referring to the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and Santa Ana Mountains (southern California mountains), not the Sierras. I'm fully aware that the Sierras have lots of trees, considering that I've spent time traveling around and camping in them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2010, 11:27 AM
 
9,967 posts, read 14,610,447 times
Reputation: 9193
[quote=Widowmaker2k;15491151]
Quote:
That's just not true. I've lived my entire life in Northern CA, and there's isn't a definable point where the Sierras end and the Cascades begin. Lassen it at the southern end of the Cascade Range, but its base is very high because it's nestled in the northern reaches of the Sierra Nevada. Geologically, that makes sense, because the two mountain ranges were formed by very similar geologic processes (offshore subduction zone), albeit the Sierras are at a much more advanced stage of development because the subduction occurred, and finished, much earlier (most of the Farallon plate was completely subducted under North America). The Feather River Route, a famous railroad pass over the Northern Sierra, not too far from Lassen, is 5,221 feet in elevation, and is considered the lowest, easiest pass over the mountain range.
And furthermore from Mt. Lassen on there aren't real significant gaps in the Cascades until you get into Southern British Columbia with the exception of the Columbia River Gorge(where there a steep 3000 foot+ cliffs on both sides) and a couple area in the south near the Klamath and Pitt Rivers. And where the Cascades end, the Coastal Mountains of British Columbia begin. If there was a significant gap in the wall of mountains along the West Coast it would've been great news to the waves of pioneers who struggled to find ways over the mountain passes to Oregon and California. Even in the gentler areas of the Cascades between the large volcanoes you are dealing with smaller sub peaks and passes over 5000 ft.

While it's often quoted that the Appalachian Mountains run from Canada to Georgia--the fact is that it's a system of different mountain ranges, no different than the chains of mountains on the West Coast that make up the greater Pacific Cordillera. While the Southern Appalachians are prominent along the Blue Ridge and in the Great Smokies, once you get north of the Potomac into Pennsylvania, the range is pretty marginal, more rolling hills and ridges than mountains. It's not until you get into Northern New England that you see any real mountains of size again. To say the Appalachians are a unbroken chain of mountains and the Sierra Nevada and Cascades aren't--isn't really an honest comparison.

Last edited by Deezus; 08-16-2010 at 11:49 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2010, 01:52 PM
 
Location: Pasadena
7,412 posts, read 8,235,465 times
Reputation: 1802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever View Post
I'm not going to argue with you. The fact is, the square mileage of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains is much smaller than the southern Applachians. That's a fact.

Secondly, the highest peaks of the San Gabriels are indeed taller than the highest peaks of the Appalachians. I never reported that they were not. My argument has been that most of the San Gabriels and San Bernardino Mountains are not as tall as some of the higher areas of the Appalachians in true base to summit elevation. I'm not going to argue with you about it. If you want to look at the picture I provided of Brasstown Bald looking into the distance, you can clearly see that the distance to the base down to Lake Chatuge in the distance is greater than some of those posted in your southern California mountain pics.

Thirdly, I've pointed out that in much of the west, even flat areas appear at high elevation, such as in the Great Basin and most places. Exceptions include the San Juaquin Valley, right along the Pacific Coast, and a few other spots. Given this, the increase from base to summit on the high desert side of the San Gabriels and San Bernardino Mountains is less than what you can find in the tallest areas of the Appalachians.

Fourthly, I've pointed out that since the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains are smaller in square mileage than the Appalachians, it makes them seem smaller, simply because they aren't that wide across, and they are limited to the number of peaks from one side to the other, relative to what is found in the Appalachians. They are also lacking tall trees, with the exceptions found in the highest of elevations, such as around Big Bear and Lake Arrowhead in the San Bernardino Mountains. In much of the San Gabriel Mountains, you can be relatively high up, and still be dealing with scraggly trees. However, there are a few pockets of tall trees, namely in valleys, and in a few other areas, such as around Wrightwood.

Driving up to Big Bear from the High Desert, you start at roughly 1800 feet, and rise to around 6200 feet. That's about 4400 feet. You could hike to the highest of elevations around Big Bear, which is around another one thousand feet. In reality, the mountains around Big Bear are only about 5400 feet in true elevation. Yet, some mountains within the Smoky Mountains are around 6600 feet in elevation, from a base that is about 1200 feet, equalling about 5600 feet. Thus, it is slightly taller, or roughly equal. That's been my point the entire time.

Regarding the trick photography comment. Be realistic, it is. The mountains do not look that prominent over LA to its north. I've been to the Los Angeles area every year fro a number of years, and the mountains don't look that grand. It is a close-up shot with a telescopic lens. It's similar to the picture of Salt Lake City and the Wasatch, granted probably not that extreme.
Great cop out and convenient for you to assert that we are arguing. Reality is that you made many statements that are incorrect and when asked to provide one iota of evidence for these claims you, instead avoid and decline to prove your assertions. I will keep that in mind before bothering to discuss issues with you since you fail to cite any evidence and are unable and unwilling to admit when you are wrong. You are a poor excuse for a serious poster!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2010, 02:36 PM
 
4,811 posts, read 8,811,367 times
Reputation: 2764
I think Stars and Stripes is running out of road in this debate. it's just going to go around and around in circles. It's best just to ignore it. It obviously knows it has been proven wrong, now it is just looking for attention. we all know everything it is saying is coming purely from it's a$$
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2010, 02:44 PM
 
9,967 posts, read 14,610,447 times
Reputation: 9193
Quote:
Originally Posted by creeksitter View Post
Sorry to interrupt the pissing contest -- more info on the escarpment.

I was flying to San Francisco but I don't remember where I was flying from. I mean I know i started in knoxville but the connecting flight could have been an number of places. I think i was flying on Northwest and i remember coming home via Houston on a veeeery slow prop plane. I saw this on the way out, though. Maybe the connection was in Dallas? The escarpment was in a dry area, not very populated, about 1/2 to 2/3 through that leg of the flight and definitely before you hit the rockies. I got the impression the ground was flat to the east of it with rolling hills to the west. The rocky escarpment was very distinct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by creeksitter View Post
Sorry to confuse the issue, I'm pretty sure this happened on my trip to SF, but it is remotely possible it was another trip - flying from Atlanta to Seattle.
Not to interrupt the Southern California Mountains vs. Blue Ridge Mountain grudge match that I inadvertently started, but...

If you were flying from Houston or Dallas to San Francisco then it was probably somewhere in New Mexico. The Sandia Crest and other mountains look pretty rocky from the air and it's about a 50 mile long straight line from North to South on the other side of the Rio Grande Valley.

If you were flying from Atlanta to Seattle than you probably flew over the Dakotas and then Wyoming/Montana. The Black Hills doesn't really resemble from the air what you described. Not sure what's in North Dakota that could look like that. Maybe in Wyoming somewhere like the Bighorn Mountains might fit that description.

Last edited by Deezus; 08-16-2010 at 03:19 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2010, 02:52 PM
 
5,691 posts, read 8,754,172 times
Reputation: 4911
Thanks Deezus, I'll check out the Sandia Crest. Your description sounds like what i saw.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2010, 03:54 PM
rah
 
Location: Oakland
3,315 posts, read 8,119,687 times
Reputation: 2508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verseau View Post
The San Bernadinos definitely get higher than the Apps, but nothing in the Bay Area is close to the highest elevations of the Apps, either by elevation or prominence.
It's true that you'll find higher peaks in the Appalachians than you'll find in the Bay Area, but the Appalachians are huge...some of it's ranges are on par or shorter than what you find in the Bay, while some are taller than what you find here. Our tallest peak is only about 1,000 feet shorter than the tallest in the Appalachians too, so it's not like our taller mountains here are dwarfed or anything. Here are most of the highest named summits in the Bay Area (~3,000+ feet tall):

San Benito Mountain - 5,267'
Mount Hamilton/Copernicus Peak - 4,353'
Mount Saint Helena - 4,327'
Mount Hamilton/Kepler Peak - 4,250
Mount Hamilton/Observatory Peak - 4,213
Mount Isabel - 4,183'
Eylar Mountain - 4,016'
Pyramid Rock - 4,003'
Black Mountian - 3,835'
Mount Day - 3,816'
Mount Diablo - 3,806'
Mount Stakes - 3,796'
Mount Lewis - 3,727'
Loma Prieta - 3,727'
Cedar Mountain - 3,668'
Mount Mocho - 3,665'
Red Mountain - 3,652'
Crystal Peak - 3,599'
Mount Boardman - 3,586'
North Peak - 3,491'
Mount Thayer - 3,481'
Mount Umunhum - 3,478'
Geyser Peak - 3,455'
Lookout Point - 3,448'
Mount Chual - 3,432'
Bollinger Mountain - 3,425'
Ransom Point - 3,402'
Cow Hill - 3,245'
Mount Sizer - 3,182'
Rattlesnake Butte - 3,150'
Black Mountain (#2) - 3,117'
Mount Wallace - 3,091'
Round Mountain - 3,081'
Berryessa Peak - 3,041'
The Peak - 3,008'
Mount Helen - 3,002'
El Sombroso - 2,992'
Sugarloaf Mountain - 2,972'
Burned Mountain - 2,968'

^that's not a complete list, as no mountains from Santa Cruz or San Benito counties were in the original wikipedia list that i go that info from (here: List of summits of the San Francisco Bay Area - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). I did add the Bay's tallest mountain, San Benito Mountain, to the list though. There are definitely at least a few others that should be on there too.

And here are the various mountain ranges/hills in the Bay Area, with their highest elevations listed:

Diablo Range - 5,267'
Mayacamas Mountains - 4,342' (this range is partially in the bay area, so the elevation listed is the highest point in the Bay Area, but not in the entire range)
Santa Cruz Mountains - 3,786'
Gabilan Range - 4,355' (another one that's partially in the Bay Area)
San Felipe Hills - 3,291'
Sierra Azul - 2,897'
Vaca Mountains - 2,818'
Burnt Hills - 2,812'
The Palisades - 2,497'
Sonoma Mountains - 2,287'
Los Buellis Hills - 1,975'
The Girdle - 1,713'
Berkeley Hills - 1,512'
Briones Hills - 1,411'
Hemme Hills - 1,083'
San Leandro Hills - 1,030'
Santa Teresa Hills - 1,017'
Black Hills - 968'
San Francisco Hills - 925'
Sherburne Hills - 850'
English Hills - 827'
Dougherty Hills - 676'
Yountville Hills - 489'
Potrero Hills - 351'
Montezuma Hills - 279'
Coyote Hills - 223'

source: wikipedia.

No Bay Area mountains seem to match the largest prominences of the Appalachians though. Our biggest prominences are around 3,000' where i've found some from 4,000-6,000' feet for the Appalachians.

Last edited by rah; 08-16-2010 at 04:05 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top