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, 06:48 PM
 
2,402 posts, read 3,578,213 times
Reputation: 1266

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by californio sur View Post
You are so incorrect and make me wonder what your agenda is. Take a look at relief map of the United States. As stated earlier the mountains in Southern California are part of the entire series of ranges from central Mexico into Canada and up into Alaska; much longer, higher and much more rugged than anything on the East Coast.

If you have been in Southern California as you claim than you are blind if you want to characterize the land as flat. From downtown Los Angeles north one must cross the Santa Monica mountains [within the city limits] from 2000 to 3000 feet above the LA basin [sealevel to 400 ft] and San Fernando Valley [elevation from 200 to 700 feet]. Within 10 miles north on Interstate 5 one reaches the Santa Susana mts. [elevation 2000-3000ft] before dropping into the Santa Clarita valley [elevation sealevel to 1200 ft] which is, at the most 5 miles across. Then one ascends the Tehachapi Mts, an east\west mountain range that separates Los Angeles county from the Central Valley. The distance from Santa Clarita to the Grapevine is 40 miles of mountains that rise up to 8000 feet. The Tejon Pass is over 4000 feet and occasionally the freeway is closed during winter storms due to snowfall.

I'm not sure why you are misrepresenting the mountains of California Maybe you can produce photos of East Coast mountains so we can compare.

Mountains & elevation map of the U.S.


San Gabriel Mts. [elevation 4000 to 10,000 ft]

San Gabriel mts looking from Rancho Palos Verdes

Santa Monica Mts [elevation 2000-3000 ft] looking down on the beach and Santa Monica

Santa Monica Mt within Los Angeles city, looking down onto the San Fernando Valley

San Gabriel Mts. above San Gabriel valley











http://www.gallery.wncoutdoors.info/images/regular/whiviewcliffs.jpg (broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-15-2010, 07:17 PM
 
Location: Pasadena
7,412 posts, read 8,233,887 times
Reputation: 1802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever View Post
I have no agenda.

I realize that there are many DISJOINTED, NON-CONNECTED mountain ranges all over the western U.S. If you want to claim them as being part of the same mountain chain, then go right ahead. It doesn't take away from the fact that these mountains aren't one continous mass of mountains, much like the Appalachian Chain.



It is north of the San Gabriel Mountains. In the high desert, it's about as flat as a pancake, along highway 18 and 138 connecting Victorville to Palmdale. You do start to hit hills around Palmdale and Lancaster, and you hit mountains right before you get to Tehachapi.

If you're coming from the San Fernando Valley, sure, you're travel through the pass on up to Santa Clarita, and there are mountains there. It depends on what direction you are coming from. I was pointing out that if one is coming from the east, north of the San Gabriel Mountains, it is flat up until you get close to the Tehachapi Mountains. That's a fact.



I just pointed out that it depends on where you're coming from.



I know my Geography, better than most people. I speak nothing but facts with regard to the direction of which mountain ranges exist, or "flow".

I realize that elevations of the western mountains are higher. I've never claimed that they are not. my argument has been that they aren't as tall, from base to summit, that many of you make them out to be. For example, the San Bernardino Mountains are actually shorter from base to summit than the Appalachians in many areas, if one is driving from the high desert up to Big Bear. On the other hand, if coming from the south, the increase in elevation is greater. As such, this is different than in the Appalachians, where the differences from base to summit is roughly equal on all sides.
With all due respect your comments are ridiculous and don't in any way conform to the facts. If you prefer to not acknowledge the relief map and the actual elevations of the mountains in the U.S. than it definitely suggests denial and outright distortion. Can you honestly write that the West Coast mountains are not in-fact continuous from Mexico to Alaska? You can assert than even after looking at the map? Please prove that the Appalachian are higher from base to summit than the mountains I have provided data on. Is there anyplace in the Eastern half of the U.S. that is below sea-level? - NO. Are any Appalachian peaks even close to half the elevations of the San Bernardino\ San Gabriel and Sierra Nevada mountains? - NO. Can you even produce a photo that compares to the steep incline of mountains that I have shown in California? Good luck

On the northeast side of the San Gabriel mountains is the Mojave Desert, primarily a high desert; meaning it's elevation is around 2000ft and yes, there are flat areas\ salt flats to be exact [where the space shuttles land if Cape Canaveral is experiencing bad weather]. To the west of the Mojave Desert is the Tehachapi mountains; to the north and northeast are the Sierra and south are the San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountains. If you look at the relief map I provided you will see a large desert of relatively flat land.

But your statements have suggested that these mountains of Southern California are "islands" with much flat land surrounding them and you even incorrectly stated that the Tehachapi are only 10 miles wide. Why are you distorting the facts? Are you guessing? Have you really been in California? And if so were your eyes open?

You have proven nothing in light of the information I have provided. Unless you are willing to be credible than you appear trollish.

Anything like this in the Appalachian mts?




Mt. Lassen in northern California is a volcano. Any volcanoes in the Eastern U.S.?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2010, 07:40 PM
 
4,811 posts, read 8,810,348 times
Reputation: 2764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever View Post
The Appalachians extend from Georgia to Maine.

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.
Are you serious?

Geography of California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Sierra Nevada Mountains go into Nevada. The seismic activity of California gives it the advantage of most other areas in that every time the earth moves the mountains get wider or taller in some instances.
It is clear that California mountains extend beyond the state and even into another country.



Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2010, 08:03 PM
 
Location: Pasadena
7,412 posts, read 8,233,887 times
Reputation: 1802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever View Post
Actually some nice photos of what we would consider hills in California! Just kidding. But you have yet to respond to the request that you back up your statements with facts. I think you got in over your head by belittling something that towers over the worn down Appalachian; a much older mountain range that both the Ice Age and time has eroded. The Western U.S. mountains are younger in geological time and continually lifted by tectonic plates. That's why volcanoes ring the western mountains but not the Appalachians.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2010, 08:14 PM
 
4,811 posts, read 8,810,348 times
Reputation: 2764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever View Post
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.
Trick photography? Your posts are sounding ubsurd!





















Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2010, 08:15 PM
 
726 posts, read 1,869,353 times
Reputation: 413
califronia sur: beautiful photos, I can't wait to get back to California and explore more. such a beautiful state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2010, 08:16 PM
 
Location: IN
20,846 posts, read 35,932,344 times
Reputation: 13287
The northern Appalachians get winter storms just as extreme if not moreso compared to the Rockies. I have seen WC values lower than -70F on Mt. Washington with drifts several feet high via the webcam. They shut down the road at the end of summer/early Fall because conditions usually start to turn wintry in a hurry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2010, 08:17 PM
 
726 posts, read 1,869,353 times
Reputation: 413
so cal brad: nice photos too. Where's the fourth from the bottom taken?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2010, 08:20 PM
 
4,811 posts, read 8,810,348 times
Reputation: 2764
Quote:
Originally Posted by choosing78 View Post
so cal brad: nice photos too. Where's the fourth from the bottom taken?
San Bernardino mountains
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2010, 09:16 PM
 
2,402 posts, read 3,578,213 times
Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by californio sur View Post
With all due respect your comments are ridiculous and don't in any way conform to the facts. If you prefer to not acknowledge the relief map and the actual elevations of the mountains in the U.S. than it definitely suggests denial and outright distortion.
Again, you're not listening. I've never denied that the western mountains, on average, are at a higher elevation. My point was that the elevation from base to summit isn't as big a difference as many people believe them to be, given the elevation above sea level.


Quote:
Can you honestly write that the West Coast mountains are not in-fact continuous from Mexico to Alaska?
I've traveled extensively, and they are not contiguous. Hey, even the Appalachian Mountains aren't contiguous when you get into New York State. There is a gap of lower elevation land between parts of I-81 over to the Berkshires of Massachusetts and the Green Mountains of Vermont.

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.

Quote:
You can assert than even after looking at the map?
The Great Basin looks mountains according to most maps, given its high elevation above sea level. The thing is, for most of the basin, it's flat, interspersed with random hills.

Quote:
Please prove that the Appalachian are higher from base to summit than the mountains I have provided data on.
I never claimed that they were taller, only that certain parts of the Appalachians were taller than much of the southern California mountains. For example, Mt. Mitchell and the Great Smoky Mountains appear taller, and have a greater actual true elevation from base to summit than MOST of the San Bernardino Mountains and San Gabriel Mountains. However, admittedly, the highest peaks of the San Gabriels are taller than most of the Appalachians. However, even for these few isolated spots, they don't feel taller, simply because the northern base is at a higher elevation, and because they aren't very large mountains, in terms of square mileage. Thirdly, the lack of vegetation actually makes them appear smaller.

Quote:
Is there anyplace in the Eastern half of the U.S. that is below sea-level? - NO.
Parts of New Orleans.

Quote:
Are any Appalachian peaks even close to half the elevations of the San Bernardino\ San Gabriel and Sierra Nevada mountains? - NO.
You can't be serious. So Mt. Mitchell, Clingman's Dome, the Great Smoky Mountains, etc. are not even half in height to the San Bernardino Mountains? Don't make me laugh. You obviously aren't very well traveled.

Quote:
Can you even produce a photo that compares to the steep incline of mountains that I have shown in California? Good luck
I never claimed that the Appalachians were as rugged as your naked mountains that only get trees in the highest of elevations.

Quote:
On the northeast side of the San Gabriel mountains is the Mojave Desert, primarily a high desert; meaning it's elevation is around 2000ft and yes, there are flat areas\ salt flats to be exact [where the space shuttles land if Cape Canaveral is experiencing bad weather]. To the west of the Mojave Desert is the Tehachapi mountains; to the north and northeast are the Sierra and south are the San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountains. If you look at the relief map I provided you will see a large desert of relatively flat land.

But your statements have suggested that these mountains of Southern California are "islands" with much flat land surrounding them and you even incorrectly stated that the Tehachapi are only 10 miles wide. Why are you distorting the facts? Are you guessing? Have you really been in California? And if so were your eyes open?
As the crow flies, my friend, as the crow flies. The Tehachapis, according to relief maps, are only about ten miles across. Now, in a car, sure, they'll be more than ten miles across.
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