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.
I know Mt. Rainier has the 2nd best TP in the world (13,210 ft , second only to K2. What mountain ranges have the best? The Rockies are probably mostly out as the base of the mountain range is pretty high altitude already.
Any good mountain ranges with a good topological prominence? I think the Sandia mountains in NM are some 3k.
Check the mountains in Southern California. The San Gabriels, San Bernardinos and San Jacintos. The foothills begin at about 1,000 ft, and some peaks rise to over 10,000 feet.
I know Mt. Rainier has the 2nd best TP in the world (13,210 ft , second only to K2. What mountain ranges have the best? The Rockies are probably mostly out as the base of the mountain range is pretty high altitude already.
Any good mountain ranges with a good topological prominence? I think the Sandia mountains in NM are some 3k.
LOL Awesome post.
I just had a pile of people in the city vs city section arguing with me about this subject. They simply could not understand that a mountain in New England at 6200 ft above sea level with a TP of 6100 ft appears to the eye about the same as Pikes Peak which has a 7400ft verticle elevation and a TP of 5550 at best.
I just had a pile of people in the city vs city section arguing with me about this subject. They simply could not understand that a mountain in New England at 6200 ft above sea level with a TP of 6100 ft appears to the eye about the same as Pikes Peak which has a 7400ft verticle elevation and a TP of 5550 at best.
What about Mt. Everest?
Mt. Everest is 8,848 at it's highest. Altitude is important for snow in some climates I suppose (though in NY 150 feet above sea level gets it bad enough), but from what I remember there is good skiing on Mt. Washington, no?
edit: just realized I compared NH to NY, so just for the record I know Mount Washinton is in NH.
Mt. Everest is 8,848 at it's highest. Altitude is important for snow in some climates I suppose (though in NY 150 feet above sea level gets it bad enough), but from what I remember there is good skiing on Mt. Washington, no?
The facts I saw had Everest at 8850 METERS which is 29,035 FEET! lol
I think it's TP is 28K feet.
Skiing in Northern New England is great. Maybe not the best, but very comparible.
Killington in VT compares to some of the best out West and even surpasses some.
The facts I saw had Everest at 8850 METERS which is 29,035 FEET! lol
its prominence is 8848 meters, sorry I neglected to put the M. (or convert to feet)
Google has a handy feature if you type the mountains name and 'prominence' after it, it will return the figure, just like doing conversions. It put Mt. Rainer in Feet(meters) but just gave meters for Everest. Interesting.
However... if you look up how high Everest is, and compare it's prominence it is equal, wierd. Considering it is in the Himilaya's I'm not sure I'd buy it.
I researched topographical prominence, and the definition that is used most commonly is how far down you would have to descend to get to a peak of greater height. That is why Mount Everest's prominence is equal to its height; there is no peak higher than it. This definition seems more partial to more isolated peaks like Rainier and McKinley because they are the highest points in their region. The Rockies' prominence is not very impressive because there are many peaks grouped together. I have hiked some of the peaks in Colorado, and often times a 14,000 ft. mountain only rises 2,000 ft from the terrain on one side, but on the other side it drops 8,000 feet into a valley with an elevation of 6,000 ft. (That was my reasoning behind the Rockies being bigger JViello.)
I researched topographical prominence, and the definition that is used most commonly is how far down you would have to descend to get to a peak of greater height.
Can you explain this part please? I'm kind of confused.
The facts I saw had Everest at 8850 METERS which is 29,035 FEET! lol
I think it's TP is 28K feet.
Skiing in Northern New England is great. Maybe not the best, but very comparible.
Killington in VT compares to some of the best out West and even surpasses some.
Not trying to start an argument but Killington hardly impressed me..its comparable to some of our smaller resorts in CA but not nearly in the same league as a lot of the bigger ones..and definitely not on par with any in WA or OR.
This is just from personal experience.. I'm not a big skier but ski trips with friends are always fun and I do hit the slopes.
The Cascades obviously have the best topological prominence. Where else do you find giant monster volcanoes like Rainier, St. Helens, Hood, Bachelor, and Shasta? Nowhere in the U.S., that's where.
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.
