Lee,
You have presented me with a way to think about mountains, young and old, andtheir climates that I could have never achieved on my own. Should I conclude that the most pleasing mountains of all are those that have eroded to flat plains - the ultimate old growth mountain state? Just wondering. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee Frelich" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 9:32:18 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [ENTS] Re: Catskills Bob: When I saw your pictures of the Catskills, I thought, there are mountains with real character and elegant rounded shapes resulting from a few hundred million years of graceful aging. They have not quite reached the dignified state of the Porcupine Mountains in Michigan and Sawtooth Mountains in Minnesota, that used to rival the Himalayas, but have undergone a billion years of erosion to end up being about 1500 feet higher than their base, but the Catskills are almost there. Old-growth mountains such as the Porkies have a lot of character, and they don't block the view of the sky (and approaching tornadoes) like juvenile mountains such as the Rockies. Besides that, in the northern Midwest we can get 20 feet of snow in the winter and Siberian temperatures without resorting to excessive elevation. Lee PS--speaking of approaching tornadoes, the Kandiyohi Elm forest in Minnesota narrowly escaped being leveled by a tornado AGAIN on Tuesday. They sure get a lot of tornadoes west of Minneapolis. No wonder the first settlers out there lived in dugout houses with sod roofs. [email protected] wrote: > > Robert, > > > > Glad you enjoyed the photos. There will be more as I discipline > myself to take my camera on tree and mountain ventures. In the past I > relied on friends to do what I should have also been doing. I'm > finally getting my act together. I have a lot of photographic > documentation to catch up on. > > With respect to vertical relief of mountains, over the years > I've done dozens of analyses on East versus West, mountain range > versus mountain range, and peak versus peak. I am as big of a nut on > mountains as trees. I would agree that the East does has some big > climbs that can go unappreciated by westerners. The west side of the > Great Smokies in eastern Tennesse and the White Mountains in New > Hampshire have the biggest climbs in terms of vertical relief. > They are followed by the isolated summit points of Mount Kathadin in > Maine and Giant Mountain in the Adirondacks. The Blacks and Balsams of > North Carolina and Adiriondack High Peaks come next. There are a few > large elevation gains (3,000 feet) in the Green Mountains and Taconics > of Vermont. The Blue Ridge of North Carolina, Virgina, and Georgia, > the Greens and Taconics in Vermont, the Catskills of New York, and > some of the other Maine Appalachians form a large area of mountains > where vertical relief can reach 3,000 feet and slightly more in the > case of the highest peaks. The Burroughs range in the Catskills comes > to mind. But these latter mountain regions are roughly comparable. To > be fair, we'd also need to include some areas in West Virginia, but > I'm less familiar with West Virginia's 'tall' peaks. > > The lack of understanding and appreciation for eastern summits > often stems from invalid comparisons. But, this occurs for western > summits as well. Trails to the tops of well known summits can begin > half way up the mountain, allowing a hiker or climber to claim that > he/she climbed the mountain when he/she climbed half the mountain - or > less. Establishing the base of a mountain at the bottom of the final > rise is a ridiculous practice of some hikers and writers - very, very > misleading. The Peak Baggers have devised a system of peak by peak > comparison for vertical relief. They are the reaal experts. > > Different methods of comparison can be applied to judge the > vertical relief of mountains. For me, I like to use the visual > impressiveness of a mountain or mountain range as seen from different > distances. I especially enjoy viewing the vertical relief that a > mountain or range attains from the surrounding lowlands so that I see > the full vertical sweep of the peaks. However, lots of foot hills > stretched over a long horizontal distance can reduce the visual > impressiveness of a range. Conversely, some foothills can set the > stage, so to speak, for the bigger peaks beyond. > > The western side of the Great Smokies rise from foothills that > are between 1,500 and 2,000 feet above sea level. Spots along the > water courses are even lower. The tops of the Smokies reach to a > maximum height of 6,643 feet at Clingman's Dome. Mt. Guyot is second > at 6,621 feet. Mt Leconte is third at 6,593 feet. These peaks and > other 6,000-footers along the crest of the Smokies rise between 4,500 > and 5,000 feet above the basal foothills. They are western-sized > mountains. The highest peaks of the Whites in New Hampshire provide > almost as much relief and are generally steeper sided, giving the > appearance of being higher. > > The high peaks of the Rockies generally rise from 4,000 to 7,000 > feet above their basal lowlands. In terms of vertical relief as seen > at a distance, the Front Range in Colorado, the Bighorns in Wyoming, > and the Wasatch in Utah have impressive base to summit rises, with > about a thousand foot difference between each, i.e. 9,000 feet for the > Front Range's highest summits, 8,000 feet for the Bighorn high > summits, and 7,000 for the Wasatch. The Tetons in Wyoming and the > Sangre de Cristo, La Platas, San Juans, and Sawatch in Colorado are > more more on the order of 6,000 to 6,500 feet. > > In judging impressiveness, the Tetons and Sangres haved no > foothills. They are really 'in your face' mountains and can through > you off in judging what you have to climb. The eye and brain do a lot > of work to bring the proportions together and make them understandable. > > As Don Bertolette has pointed out in his examples, the peaks of > California and the volcanoes of the Pacific NW go off the charts in > terms of vertical relief. San Jacinto in southern California rises > very abruptly 10,800 feet above the desert floor. When I spent several > months at March AFB in 1966, I viisted those huge mountains. The > enormous vertical relief initially confused me until I realized how > much mountain I was looking at and got my brain to assess the > proportions better. > > Of course, visual appeal of mountains is in the eyes of the > beholder. A beautifully contoured mountain rising abruptly 2,000 feet > above its base can be as attractive as much larger mountains. I like > them all. > > BTW, congrats on the movie deal. > > > > Bob > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "JamesRobertSmith" <[email protected]> > To: "ENTSTrees" <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 4:22:18 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > Subject: [ENTS] Re: Catskills > > > Absolutely gorgeous photos! > > I love our eastern peaks. I meet up with a lot of hikers from out west > that I call "mountain snobs". They don't consider our mountains to be > anything other than hills. I point out to them that the 13K-foot peak > they climbed only has 2500 feet of relief, but this matters not at all > to them. I've stood on many mountains in Virginia that have as much > vertical relief as Half Dome in Yosemite. But they wouldn't admit that > those Virgina summits are mountains. > > Alas. > > At any rate, those are great photos. One of these days I hope to hike > in the Catskills, too. > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to [email protected] Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
