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)
View Poll Results: The Most Scenic Mountain Range?
Appalachians 15 20.00%
Rockies 21 28.00%
Cascades 27 36.00%
Alaskan Ranges 12 16.00%
Voters: 75. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-23-2009, 08:56 AM
 
Location: Somerville, MA
8,000 posts, read 16,052,716 times
Reputation: 9340

Advertisements

It's funny, I think people's exposure to these ranges is really playing into things a bit. I'm willing to bet that if more people have seen Alaska's that would be the leading vote getter. I like the Appalachians. Not necessarily for just "sheer beauty," but for the way they work with the built environment. I love places like North Conway NH, Bethel ME, Stowe VT... they're just harder to find elsewhere. Anyway, if you want sheer beauty, there is still some of that in the appalachians

Mt Washington:




Katahdin:


Franconia:
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-24-2009, 03:35 PM
 
4,925 posts, read 9,776,853 times
Reputation: 3268
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox View Post
It's funny, I think people's exposure to these ranges is really playing into things a bit. I'm willing to bet that if more people have seen Alaska's that would be the leading vote getter. I like the Appalachians. Not necessarily for just "sheer beauty," but for the way they work with the built environment.
Yup--I had the same thought when I first saw the poll--"Alaska Range is gonna come in last--not as many people have seen it."

I've been fortunate to travel and been able to see them all. I picked the Cascades, and would most days, but...I think they are all beautiful.

(I would phrase your last sentence the other way around..."The built environment works with the mountains", rather than the mountains work with what was built...the mountains were there first!)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2009, 05:12 PM
 
Location: In The Outland
6,023 posts, read 11,901,272 times
Reputation: 3535
These are very new mountains. --- Glacier National Park.

http://ourdrivetoalaska.com/images/glacier%20np.jpg (broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2009, 06:12 PM
 
Location: Westminster/Huntington Beach, CA
1,780 posts, read 1,242,969 times
Reputation: 1196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flute View Post
Those of you who like the Sierras, Tetons, and Guadelopes, just include that as part of the Rockies. By Rockies, I basically meant Western mountains excluding the Cascades.
What? The Sierra Nevada are a completely different mountain range from the Rockies and are way diff in terms of weather, scenery, wildlife. Not to mention they are also about 1,000 miles apart. The Sierra's are much too important and prominent to not be included as their own category. Lake Tahoe, Mount Whitney (Tallest mountain in the lower 48), Mammoth, Yosemite? Any of those ring a bell?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2009, 06:53 PM
 
6 posts, read 31,642 times
Reputation: 29
I'm Canadian, and although we do have our impressive mountain ranges: the picture postcard Rockies, the monolithic, rugged and brooding Coast range, and the vast, high and icy St. Elais mountains in the southwest Yukon (only slightly shorter than Mt. McKinley), we don't have the number of ranges, or variety of ranges that you do in the USA. From the granite wonderland of the Sierra Nevada to the volcanic chains of the Cascades, to the Rockies, (different than ours, but higher) the multiple ranges of the USA fascinate me, and if I had money, I'd spend a couple of years exploring them. You have canyons and deserts, too, that outdo anything up North.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2009, 01:31 AM
 
Location: Rural Northern California
1,019 posts, read 2,484,114 times
Reputation: 824
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickers View Post
These are very new mountains. --- Glacier National Park.
Please explain?! The Rockies are an ancient mountain range compared to the Cascades or the Sierra Nevada. The Rockies used to be twice their current height (on a par with the Himalayas) but have sine been eroded down to where they are now. Even looking at that picture, you can see that those mountains have undergone millions of years of erosion and glaciation. At this point, they're not getting any bigger.

The Sierras, however, only began to rise 4 million years ago, while the Rockies stopped rising over 35 million years ago (end of the Laramide Orogeny). While it's true that the rock that forms the Sierra, the Sierra Nevada Batholith was intruded roughly 200 millions years ago, it sat underground, waiting until crustal extension associated with the Basin and Range province brought it to the surface. The Sierra Nevada are young, and will rise much higher before they are finished, while the Rockies are pretty much done.

The Cascades, on the other hand, are infants compared to either mountain range. Because of the explosive (and thus destructive) nature of the Cascade volcanoes, the highest mountains are composed of rock that is only roughly 100,000 to 200,000 years old. When subduction of the Juan De Fuca, Gorda, and Explorer plates stops (when they are completely subducted under the North American plate), the Cascades will likely undergo a resurgence similar to the current Sierra Nevada (which too began life as a series of volcanoes adjacent a subduction zone).

Generally speaking, in North America, the farther West you go, the younger the mountain ranges become. On the East Coast, the Appalachians are the ancient remnants of a mountain range that was probably 25,000+ feet high (and actually extended into modern day Scotland, when North America and Europe were connected; see: Caledonian Orogeny). The Rockies too were roughly that high, but millions of years of erosion took their toll, and now the tallest peaks are only a little higher than 14,000 ft. The Sierras and the Cascades are much younger, and still growing. You can't predict how high they will eventually become, of course, but the Sierras are already the highest range in the lower 48 (and the Cascades aren't far off), especially when you consider their immediate height above their surroundings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2009, 08:37 AM
 
Location: In The Outland
6,023 posts, read 11,901,272 times
Reputation: 3535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Widowmaker2k View Post
Please explain?! The Rockies are an ancient mountain range compared to the Cascades or the Sierra Nevada. The Rockies used to be twice their current height (on a par with the Himalayas) but have sine been eroded down to where they are now. Even looking at that picture, you can see that those mountains have undergone millions of years of erosion and glaciation. At this point, they're not getting any bigger.

The Sierras, however, only began to rise 4 million years ago, while the Rockies stopped rising over 35 million years ago (end of the Laramide Orogeny). While it's true that the rock that forms the Sierra, the Sierra Nevada Batholith was intruded roughly 200 millions years ago, it sat underground, waiting until crustal extension associated with the Basin and Range province brought it to the surface. The Sierra Nevada are young, and will rise much higher before they are finished, while the Rockies are pretty much done.

The Cascades, on the other hand, are infants compared to either mountain range. Because of the explosive (and thus destructive) nature of the Cascade volcanoes, the highest mountains are composed of rock that is only roughly 100,000 to 200,000 years old. When subduction of the Juan De Fuca, Gorda, and Explorer plates stops (when they are completely subducted under the North American plate), the Cascades will likely undergo a resurgence similar to the current Sierra Nevada (which too began life as a series of volcanoes adjacent a subduction zone).

Generally speaking, in North America, the farther West you go, the younger the mountain ranges become. On the East Coast, the Appalachians are the ancient remnants of a mountain range that was probably 25,000+ feet high (and actually extended into modern day Scotland, when North America and Europe were connected; see: Caledonian Orogeny). The Rockies too were roughly that high, but millions of years of erosion took their toll, and now the tallest peaks are only a little higher than 14,000 ft. The Sierras and the Cascades are much younger, and still growing. You can't predict how high they will eventually become, of course, but the Sierras are already the highest range in the lower 48 (and the Cascades aren't far off), especially when you consider their immediate height above their surroundings.
I posted a photo and said that they were new mountains and they are compared to the Appalachian mountains. I never claimed that they were newer than the Cascades or the Sierras.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2009, 09:23 AM
 
Location: Rural Northern California
1,019 posts, read 2,484,114 times
Reputation: 824
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickers View Post
I posted a photo and said that they were new mountains and they are compared to the Appalachian mountains. I never claimed that they were newer than the Cascades or the Sierras.
Ahh, that makes sense then. Beautiful photo, by the way. I love the Rockies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2009, 04:25 PM
 
Location: Somerville, MA
8,000 posts, read 16,052,716 times
Reputation: 9340
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinem View Post

(I would phrase your last sentence the other way around..."The built environment works with the mountains", rather than the mountains work with what was built...the mountains were there first!)
Good correction. I'm an urban planning student and tend to get it backwards sometimes since my focus is on the built environment. You're right though!
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