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.
Therein lies the problem. Denver is too close to see them. That's why Mt. Rainier and the Olympics are so dramatic from Seattle.
Mt. Rainier has a 9000 foot vertical. And just about everyone in WA can see it. Show me a pic taken from Denver that compares to this
Here are a couple pictures of Denver with Mount Evans, which is 9,000 feet higher than Denver (14,274 ft ASL) and only 38 miles away. You can see it perfectly from Denver, "too close" as you said makes no sense. I can definitely tell from your comments that you've never been to Denver.
I'm finding that it is pointless to try to converse with you, you make 0 sense and change your mind frequently. Thanks anyway and have a nice day
Who cares how rounded a summit is, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.
A rounded or steep summit has nothing to do with vertical rise anyways.
Well, I care how rounded a summit is.
It doesn't have anything to do with vertical rise. But think about it: if a summit was really not steep but had a huge rise, it wouldn't be very impressive. Imagine a 10000 foot rise over 100 miles; it would be barely perceptible.
It doesn't have anything to do with vertical rise. But think about it: if a summit was really not steep but had a huge rise, it wouldn't be very impressive. Imagine a 10000 foot rise over 100 miles; it would be barely perceptible.
I think steep summits are impressive too, The point I was making was that you seemed to relate rounded summits with vertical rise and I was just commenting on how these are unrelated. Even mountains with steep profiles can still rise 8,000 to 10,000 feet in 10 or more miles. Overall you are right though.
Pikes peak's summit is rounded but it rises 8,000 feet in 8 miles and is a stand alone peak, all of these make it impressive.
The Rockies are only slightly closer to Denver, plus there is nothing east of Denver but plains. Both the Sierra Nevada and Cascades are more impressive from a geological and mountaineering perspective. Much more comparable to the Canadian Rockies in terms of Ruggedness. I don't say this to be offensive, but the Canadian Rockies are the bench mark for ranges in North America, along with some of the coastal ranges in Alaska and B.C. The Rockies in Colorado are just not as rugged.
The Olympic Mountains are due west of Seattle, and the Cascades are less than 20 miles east of Seattle. The Cascades in Washington have a much greater vertical relief than the Rockies do in Colorado. Plus the Cascades in WA are much more rugged and jagged. I forgot to add that the Colorado Rockies are not glaciated. Their are perennial snowfields in Colorado, but there are not many real glaciers there. The Cascades of Wa state the largest amount of glaciers in the United States outside of Alaska.
The North Cascades have much greater relief:
Coleman Glacier in the North Cascades of WA.
This is from Klwatti ice cap in the North Cascades in WA state in August.
Oh jeez.......
You're just repeating the same stuff over and over and over again.
I've discussed this topic several times now, and you must not have ever read any of my comments very closely.
It's pointless to try and converse with you, nothing you're saying makes any sense or relates to what I've been talking about.
I like the conversation and all, but how did this turn into a "Seattle vs Denver" and "cascades vs Rockies" thread?
With all due respect, why do some northwestern posters always feel the need to out due when it comes to natural Beauty? It's not like you have anything to prove. It's a very beautiful region.
Yeah let's get back on topic.
All west coasters from CA to BC feel like they have to out do everyone for some reason, and they will always deny any mistakes on their part even when it's obvious they're wrong. I have found that it's just easier to let them have their way than to spend hours trying to converse with them like adults.
I think steep summits are impressive too, The point I was making was that you seemed to relate rounded summits with vertical rise and I was just commenting on how these are unrelated. Even mountains with steep profiles can still rise 8,000 to 10,000 feet in 10 or more miles. Overall you are right though.
Pikes peak's summit is rounded but it rises 8,000 feet in 8 miles and is a stand alone peak, all of these make it impressive.
Agree with what you said, part of my statement was just there to justify posting my photos. Some mountains are impressive for their bulk, others their jagged steepenes and a few both. Though, Hozomeen Mountain, from the second photo rises about 6000 feet in a little less than 2 miles.
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.
Some mountains are impressive for their bulk, others their jagged steepenes and a few both. Though, Hozomeen Mountain, from the second photo rises about 6000 feet in a little less than 2 miles.
