New Height for Mt. Elbert?

[Upwardlybound]

We always joked about piling up 49 feet of rock on top of Fletcher Mountain to create a new 14er, but may we'll just wait for a higher measurement!

[BillMiddlebrook]

Has it individually been measured to be 14,000+ feet? I don't think so.

Bill, you're certainly more into this stuff and more of an authority than many of us, myself included. So I'm curious as to why we see so many written references to the Spire's revised elevation at 14,000 feet? For example, we see it on the Summit Post and Mountainproject listings for the peak. Where are these people getting the information? Is it just being passed around as heresay? I'm curious as to the source for these reports that its elevation is 14,000. Thoughts?

I think it's being mentioned so much because some people would really like to see it become a "14er." For various reasons.

As SLKRR mentions here...

If anyone is really curious about the NAVD88 heights, as compared to the old NGVD29 heights, just use this handy converter:

http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/VERTCON/vert_con.prl" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Plug in the latitude, longitude, and "old" height of the point you are interested in, and it will return the "new" elevation.

For those interested in the "Sunlight Spire": It has a surveyed height of 13,995 using the NGVD29 datum. When you run this through the converter, it reports a shift of 5.89 feet, or a "new" height of 14,000.89 feet.

...the numbers can be re-computed using the new datum and the coordinates of the spire. But since it's not a USGS recognized summit or benchmark, we don't even know how the 13995 was derived in the first place. Well, at least I don't. I don't know if it was just an estimate or if it was officially surveyed at some point. If it was surveyed to be 13,995', as shown on topo maps since at least 1978, I'd say we could call it 14'k based on the recent recalculations and stick it with the other unnamed, "unofficial" summits. I'd actually like to see it on the list but I don't just want to put it there cuz it's a tough, cool climb.

[KentonB]

In the interest of further confusion...Chimborazo is indeed the farthest point from the center of the earth due to the equatorial bulge. But Mauna Kea in Hawaii is actually the tallest mountain from base to peak, (about 10,000 feet more than Everest). The difference is most of Mauna Kea is underwater, which is why it isn't considered to be the tallest in the world.

I know this is getting WAY off topic, but you raise an issue that has really bothered me. I've heard others talk about how Mauna Kea "would be" the tallest mountain if we measured from base to peak. The question I have is... how would you determine the "base"? If using the sea floor as the "base" for Mauna Kea, what "base" should be used for Everest? Why not also use the ocean floor? If so, Everest would also be 10,000 feet higher and maintain it's record. Using "Sea Level" as the base of Everest for comparison just doesn't really make sense.

It's just one of those things I think about that keep me up at night. LOL

[Dancesatmoonrise]

Has it individually been measured to be 14,000+ feet? I don't think so.

Bill, you're certainly more into this stuff and more of an authority than many of us, myself included. So I'm curious as to why we see so many written references to the Spire's revised elevation at 14,000 feet? For example, we see it on the Summit Post and Mountainproject listings for the peak. Where are these people getting the information? Is it just being passed around as heresay? I'm curious as to the source for these reports that its elevation is 14,000. Thoughts?

I think it's being mentioned so much because some people would really like to see it become a "14er." For various reasons.

As SLKRR mentions here...

If anyone is really curious about the NAVD88 heights, as compared to the old NGVD29 heights, just use this handy converter:

http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/VERTCON/vert_con.prl" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Plug in the latitude, longitude, and "old" height of the point you are interested in, and it will return the "new" elevation.

For those interested in the "Sunlight Spire": It has a surveyed height of 13,995 using the NGVD29 datum. When you run this through the converter, it reports a shift of 5.89 feet, or a "new" height of 14,000.89 feet.

...the numbers can be re-computed using the new datum and the coordinates of the spire. But since it's not a USGS recognized summit or benchmark, we don't even know how the 13995 was derived in the first place. Well, at least I don't. I don't know if it was just an estimate or if it was officially surveyed at some point. If it was surveyed to be 13,995', as shown on topo maps since at least 1978, I'd say we could call it 14'k based on the recent recalculations and stick it with the other unnamed, "unofficial" summits. I'd actually like to see it on the list but I don't just want to put it there cuz it's a tough, cool climb.

I see. Well, aren't there others on the unnamed list for which exists the same question of actual survey? Perhaps for consistency, wouldn't it then be worth having there? (I certainly would not advocate for any more than the greyed-out, unnamed, unranked entry, such as exists for West Wilson, as an example...)


As to the sea level arguments - I kind of wondered about that. Is the sea really level? Do we have a perfectly concentric sphere upon which we habitate, described by the levels of the oceans? We worry about +/- one foot (or +/- 1 meter) - does all the sea and do all the oceans have uniformity to within +/- 1 meter? (OK, so I'm not a geophysicist... just a climber. But an interesting question on the minds of the curious...)

[SLKRR]

As to the sea level arguments - I kind of wondered about that. Is the sea really level? Do we have a perfectly concentric sphere upon which we habitate, described by the levels of the oceans? We worry about +/- one foot (or +/- 1 meter) - does all the sea and do all the oceans have uniformity to within +/- 1 meter? (OK, so I'm not a geophysicist... just a climber. But an interesting question on the minds of the curious...)

The short answer is: no.

The long answer is that there are "hills" and "valleys" in the ocean surface that correspond to areas of relatively higher or lower gravity, caused by differing density in materials found in the Earth's crust. In regions where gravity is slightly higher, sea water will actually bulge up - it is imperceptible to the eye and to most earthbound instruments, and has only really been measured accurately since the advent of GPS. The shape formed by the water's surface is called the geoid. And, yes, this geoid also would have hills and valleys on land, again based on relative differences in gravity. It's not a perfect ellipsoid, as it is often conceived. It is more precise measurements of this geoid that is causing these elevations to be revised. (This is one reason that elevations on handheld GPS devices often do not match what appears on maps - they are based on a mathematically perfect ellipsoid.)

ESRI has a good summary of these issues here, complete with maps showing the ocean's bulges: http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0703/geoid1of3.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .

[Flips]

Well, looks like I've now got my excuse to climb mine all over again.

I'm also glad Sunshine gained elevation. I was bit worried about it. Would I still be able to say I climbed a 14er if it went below 14K? Likewise, would one be able to say they climbed a named/unranked 14er if they climbed Sunlight Spire when it was less than 14K and later it was above 14K?

[MUni Rider]

Well, looks like I've now got my excuse to climb mine all over again.

I'm also glad Sunshine gained elevation. I was bit worried about it. Would I still be able to say I climbed a 14er if it went below 14K? Likewise, would one be able to say they climbed a named/unranked 14er if they climbed Sunlight Spire when it was less than 14K and later it was above 14K?

The mountains in Colorado didn't really jump up all those extra feet in the last few years. Man just got better at measuring what was already there all along.

[Manky]

I don't care how big or small the darn thing is, I just wanna climb the Sunlight Spire. Even from the Vallecito drainage, this thing looks impressive. Very interesting thread though. It is slightly sad that we have to apply any "rules" at all for mountain summits. Humans love counting and quantifying things!!

[thevagabond]

ESRI has a good summary of these issues here, complete with maps showing the ocean's bulges: http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0703/geoid1of3.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .

Great article!!

[xpda]

Sunlight Spire doesn't really look like a separate mountain, unlike El Diente and North Maroon (and even Conundrum). It's probably only 13,999' 11" above sea level anyway.

That's right. Sea level has risen a couple inches in the past 50 years, so it may only be 13,999'10" MSL.

[xpda]

[Useless Trivia Warning]
Mauna Kea in Hawaii is actually the tallest mountain from base to peak...
[/Useless Trivia Warning]

[important information]
Olympus Mons is the largest mountain in the solar system, and is as of yet unclimbed.
[/important information]

[ejfred]

[Useless Trivia Warning]
Mauna Kea in Hawaii is actually the tallest mountain from base to peak...
[/Useless Trivia Warning]

[important information]
Olympus Mons is the largest mountain in the solar system, and is as of yet unclimbed.
[/important information]

That one doesn't look so bad; not sure if I could bring trail mix up there though.