Mt. Whitney Portal Store & Hostel Forums General Mt. Whitney Portal Store Message Board 14k's in Danger

Some random thoughts of a bored mountain climber:

Without getting political, and just stating the opinions of others, sea levels may rise in the foreseeable future. In theory, the heights of mountains should then be lowered. I understand Mt. Whitney is actually growing geologically (I thought I heard it was maybe an inch or so each year), and this may be enough to keep it's height from actually dropping should sea levels rise. This is likely also the case for other peaks in the same range. However, I wonder about some other peaks. Here's a list of "endangered peaks" -- those that, in the future, may no longer qualify as 14ks:

Sunshine Peak Colo. 14,001
Huron Peak Colo. 14,003
Thunderbolt Peak Calif. 14,003
Mt of Holy Cross Colo. 14,005
Middle Palisade Calif. 14,012
Mt. Muir Calif. 14,012
North Maroon Pk Colo. 14,014
San Luis Peak Colo. 14,014
Wetterhorn Peak Colo. 14,015
Wilson Peak Colo. 14,017
Pyramid Peak Colo. 14,018
Mt. Tyndall Calif. 14,019

For those who think this is unimportant, you should watch the movie "The man who went up a hill and came down a mountain". This is the story of a surveyor who "resurveys" a mountain at less than 1000 m (??) and thus he will have to recategorize it as a hill. The townsfolk are in an uproar so they build a mound on top of the "hill" to make it into a "mountain" again. If sea levels rise, I suppose this could be attempted here (at least for awhile).

Another interesting(??) subject is how would surveying be affected by rising sea levels. Would they use the same markers, etc. and just do an adjustment (i.e., if sea levels are 3 feet higher than they used to be, would they just subtract 3 feet from all measurements?)

I'm sure this has been discussed here before, but there are various estimates for the height of Mt. Whitney -- 14,494 to 14,505. According to Wikipedia, the 14,505 is the latest estimate.

I read recently that "sea level" is a somewhat ambiguous term even after tides and other weather affects are taken into account. It seems that various parts of the earth are more dense and therefore "suck" the water closer to the center, causing "dimples" in the ocean. I may be mistaken, but as I recall, this effect can cause sea levels to vary by up to 300 feet.

Plus, once you take the oblateness of the Earth into account, things get even further out of whack. We're talking kilometers here, not just feet/meters. There is a significant bulge in the earth around the Equator. For example, Everest may be the tallest mountain measured from MSL (mean sea level) but Chimborazo's summit is the point farthest from the centroid of the Earth once you account for the equatorial bulge. There are several references to this effect, or you can Google "earth oblateness" and find a bunch more.

Local gravitational anomalies might lead to either depressions or elevations in sea level. That is, a local graviational maximum near the edge of a continent would cause the water to "pile up" against the shore and therefore measure higher than the surrounding MSL, "reducing" the summit altitudes of nearby mountains.

It all depends upon the details of datum on which the measurements are based...

The nature of sea level is that it is not just ambiguous, there are a lot of specific definitions as well. Any measurement of altitude above sea level is with reference to the sea level definition used by the surveyor. Since Whitney is far from the beach, it's height isn't made by direct measurement. The last measurement I am aware of is about 14,497' with reference to the NAVD29 definition of sea level. The new 14,505' value is not a new measurement, but a calculation of the difference between the NAVD88 definition of sea level and the NAVD29 definition of sea level applied to the 14,497' value. So, from NAVD29 to NAVD88 the definition of sea level at Mt Whitney dropped 8 feet. If this trend continues we must give consideration to an increased membership in the 14er club.

Where is the highest mountain on Earth? People who refer to sea level say Mount Everest, people who refer to bedrock level say the mountains of Hawaii, people who refer to the distance from the center of the earth say Colombia Ecuador (With thanks to ClamberAbout for the correction). They're all correct.

Dale B. Dalrymple
http://dbdimages.com
http://stores.lulu.com/dbd

No, if you said Ecuador you/they'd be correct.

Is this thread a prelude to an upcoming episode of "The Big Bang Theory" on CBS?

Two comments:

- you could also measure the altitude by equivalent oxygen concentration, which would give you an different ordering of the mountains as the atmosphere bulges near the equator and thins near the poles just like the ocean does (ask anyone who has climbed Mt. Vinson in Antarctica)

- It will take millennia before oceans rise enough to cause any meaningful changes in mountain MSL altitudes (read the IPCC report written by the scientists, not the summary written by the UN politicians).

Didn't read all of this so I may be repeating...

For those of us who don't care about lists, "who cares." For those of us who are worried that the planet is heading for bigger troubles, "hope we can find a solution before it's too late."