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 08-06-2010, 04:50 AM
 
Location: West Michigan
3,077 posts, read 5,452,059 times
Reputation: 4328

Advertisements

Don't forget the Porcupine Mountains in the U.P. of Michigan!

They're very worn down and can barely be considered mountains, but they are some of the oldest mountains in the world, which makes them cool.




For some really good pics of the area, check out this page from the picture thread on the Michigan forum:

Pics of Spectacular Michigan
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-06-2010, 06:34 AM
 
Location: Richardson, TX
8,701 posts, read 11,840,664 times
Reputation: 3727
Quote:
Originally Posted by topgear View Post
Just looking at the west vs the east, the differences are obvous, sheer size and elevation being the two main factors. Even in the bay area , we have mountains that rise and easly eclipse almost anything past the rockies, let alone Seattle, the Olympic mountains rise from sealevel and make even the highest southern/eastern peaks look quite tame. In general, we are talking about comparing a mountain range, that is at best 5,000ish feet vs 14,000 ish, not quite fair.
The route didn't run that far north.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2010, 08:31 AM
 
625 posts, read 1,562,471 times
Reputation: 481
I think Nevada needs some work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2010, 08:40 AM
 
5,859 posts, read 14,053,448 times
Reputation: 3485
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcgr View Post
I live on the Sawtooth mountain range, our mountains are just older.
Tough, I don't know why that map in the first post calls it "iron mountains," around here there is little iron, most iron is further inland.
I was curious about that too. The map calls MN's Sawtooth Mountains and MI's Porcupine Mountains the "Iron Mountains". I've never heard that term before. I can understand that they may well be part of the same range, separated by Lake Superior, but have never seen them grouped this way or
called that.

Also, I recall hearing that for some reason the Adirondack mountains are not considered a part of the Appalachians, though the Catskills and the Green Mountains are. Anyone else ever hear that? Any idea why this might be so?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2010, 08:48 AM
 
Location: New Hampshire
2,257 posts, read 6,973,541 times
Reputation: 4061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Around View Post
Also, I recall hearing that for some reason the Adirondack mountains are not considered a part of the Appalachians, though the Catskills and the Green Mountains are. Anyone else ever hear that? Any idea why this might be so?
Geologically, the Adirondacks are more closely related to the Laurentian Mountains in Quebec; they are an extension of the Canadian Shield. The bedrock was laid much earlier than the Appalachians. However, the Adirondacks only began to rise in elevation much more recently. In other words, while the Appalachians continue to gradually shrink over time (they were once higher than the Himalayas), the Adirondacks are increasing in height.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2010, 09:02 PM
 
5,859 posts, read 14,053,448 times
Reputation: 3485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verseau View Post
Geologically, the Adirondacks are more closely related to the Laurentian Mountains in Quebec; they are an extension of the Canadian Shield. The bedrock was laid much earlier than the Appalachians. However, the Adirondacks only began to rise in elevation much more recently. In other words, while the Appalachians continue to gradually shrink over time (they were once higher than the Himalayas), the Adirondacks are increasing in height.
Thank you, rep for you! Now I remember their relationship with the Laurentians. Didn't know they are increasing in height.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2010, 11:07 PM
 
Location: Coos Bay, Oregon
7,142 posts, read 8,884,098 times
Reputation: 7732
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2010, 12:37 AM
 
Location: St Paul, MN - NJ's Gold Coast
5,256 posts, read 11,965,340 times
Reputation: 3080
It's a decent map

Utica, NY is NOT in the Appalachians- It's pretty flat around that area.
The Appalachians barely go into NJ unless the map is including the foothills. In the map, the mountains extended near Paterson- That's not right at all- The lesser known Ramapo mountains are in that general area (along with SE NYS), but far too insignificance to be mentioned.

I'm no expert anywhere else though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2010, 08:50 AM
 
1,246 posts, read 2,988,715 times
Reputation: 1824
You have included too much of NY State in the "mountains" area. There are the Catskills and the Adirondacks, and a few minor ranges such as the Taconics and Shawangunks; but most of the rest of the gray area you include are just considered to be hilly country, not mountains. (Then there is the Tug Hill plateau, which is basically a giant tilted slab, producing a sort of one-sided cliff that may seem mountainous to some.)

The Adirondacks and Laurentians are the reason why upstate NY sometimes gets earthquakes (as we did this summer). Sometimes with smashed windows and warped highways... good times! (cuz nobody ever dies!)


Also, the Catskills are not part of the Appalachians - they are a deeply eroded plateau that has resulted in mountains, not really a "chain" of mountains.

The confusion may stem from the fact that parts of the southern tier of NY are included into the federal designation of the greater Appalachian Region (for government aid purposes). But culturally and geologically, it is not Appalachia.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2010, 05:58 PM
 
2,402 posts, read 3,580,618 times
Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deezus View Post
Hiking in the Appalachians can be amazing and pretty challenging. I think the difference is that while trail hiking can be difficult in parts of the Appalachians(due to steep trails and hills) climbing peaks on the West Coast is a world apart from anywhere east of the Rockies. I've climbed most of the Cascade volcanos in the Northwest with the exception of Mt. Rainier and Mt. Jefferson. You're dealing with hiking over miles of glaciers and snowfields even in late summer, besides having to worry about rock and icefall, rapid changes in weather, falling into crevasses and high elevations above 10,000 feet.

If you live at sea level as most American do, hiking at higher elevations can be the most challenging factor for even a simple day hike on a well graded trail. There are 14,000 foot mountains in Colorado with fairly easy trails to the top, although the high elevation makes them difficult for even some hikers in top shape. Or take the John Muir Trail through the High Sierra---in over 211 miles it crosses 6 passes over 11,000 feet.

And don't get me wrong---I love parts of the Appalachians, especially driving and hiking along the Blue Ridge Parkway through the southern part of the range. However, in the Sierra Nevada there is basically a 200 mile stretch south of Tioga Pass in Yosemite in which no drivable road actually crosses the mountains. It's just a whole level of ruggedness away from anything in the East. If someone loves the beauty of the mountains of the East or the hills and lake of Midwest I can't argue with them--but in terms of scale, hiking and climbing in the Western mountain ranges is on a different level.
As someone has said, most of the mountains out west aren't all that much taller than what can be find in the high elevations of the Appalachians. There isn't much in the way of 14,000 feet tall mountains out west. Mt. Whitney is in the 14,000-15,000 ELEVATION range, and it is the tallest mountain in the "lower 48". Most of these mountains rise from an elevation of anywhere from 3,000-5,000 feet, with the exception of the Cascades, Sierras, Olympic, and other coastal ranges. Of these, only the Sierras have an overall much larger increase in elevation from base to summit. In this regard, I suppose one could say that the Sierra Mountains is the true tallest mountain chain in the lower 48. Of the Rockies, With a few exceptions, they aren't much taller than the Appalachians in true elevation.
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