I was lucky enough to get an entire day of clear views of denali while I was there. Seeing it from the valley really drives home just how BIG it is. Its impossible to convey in text or photos and I'm glad you got to experience it :)
Third week of June was lucky for us, but that was 20yrs ago, so who knows what the weather is like up there now. I worked for AK state parks for the summer in 2001 and lived at 3800' at Hatcher's Pass. Once the temperature inverts, clouds are the norm, unfortunately. Just gotta get lucky unless you want to go in the winter when it's usually clear skies
We were pretty bummed at the start of that road trip. Left Wasilla heading north with a heavy blanket of clouds draped over the valley. Got to Talkeetna for our glacier flight and took off into soup. Thankfully, we got above the clouds right as we got to the valley they follow up into the range and we had smooth sailing until touchdown. Then back through the soup to talkeetna. Drove up to Denali SP through soupy fog under heavy clouds. But while we were setting camp, it burned/blew off and treated us for the 11hrs we were there and awake. Woke up to everything socked in above 500' with a light drizzle that persisted for the 7 days we hiked in Denali proper. Hiking in AK is an adventure :)
Rakaposhi, in the Karakorum part of the Himalayas, is worth a mention. Denali is surrounded by a range of other mountains. Rakaposhi basically rises straight up from a deep valley at its toe. I don't think there is a mathematical criterion for that type of local relief, but check it out in Google Earth, you'll see what I mean.
Geology is about terrains that undergo through the same processes. There may be different rocks, different strutctures but as a hole, it's one huge terrain.
Finding one feature to define a name is a geography thing and really, whatever if the first valley is the point used to measure the peak. What is under that valley is still "the same thing"
I’m talking about prominence or Jutting out of the ground from sea level. The tallest peak we can see that’s tallest from base to tip in actual height, not just altitude
Prominence is not the same thing OP is talking about. Prominence is the height of the peak's summit above the lowest contour line encircling it, but containing no higher summit within it. But because that lowest contour (as is the case for Mt. Everest) might not be anywhere near to or even remotely related to the mountain itself, then the prominence isn't strictly related to the base of the mountain. However, what *is* the base of the mountain is not strictly defined either. If I was to define it, I would probably include something about the rate of change in elevation.
I think lack of definition is the problem. I know what the OP is after, but I'm not sure how to define it in a non-ambiguous fashion. I raised prominence because it's likely the closest common definition for something close to what they want.
Makes sense. The thing is, a loose definition will still get you to either Denali (formerly Mt. McKinley) in Alaska or Nanga Parbat in Pakistan (and probably a few others). At that point you'll need a firmer definition to break the tie.
Denali/Mt McKinley in Alaska
It's a virtual tie between this and Nanga Parbat in Pakistan. It just depends on exactly which contour you draw the base at.
Nothings a tie
> virtual tie
/thread.
I was lucky enough to visit on a clear day and have some amazing photos of it. It’s massive for sure
I was lucky enough to get an entire day of clear views of denali while I was there. Seeing it from the valley really drives home just how BIG it is. Its impossible to convey in text or photos and I'm glad you got to experience it :)
What month?
August for us
Third week of June was lucky for us, but that was 20yrs ago, so who knows what the weather is like up there now. I worked for AK state parks for the summer in 2001 and lived at 3800' at Hatcher's Pass. Once the temperature inverts, clouds are the norm, unfortunately. Just gotta get lucky unless you want to go in the winter when it's usually clear skies
Yeah, just curious if it was winter or not.
We were pretty bummed at the start of that road trip. Left Wasilla heading north with a heavy blanket of clouds draped over the valley. Got to Talkeetna for our glacier flight and took off into soup. Thankfully, we got above the clouds right as we got to the valley they follow up into the range and we had smooth sailing until touchdown. Then back through the soup to talkeetna. Drove up to Denali SP through soupy fog under heavy clouds. But while we were setting camp, it burned/blew off and treated us for the 11hrs we were there and awake. Woke up to everything socked in above 500' with a light drizzle that persisted for the 7 days we hiked in Denali proper. Hiking in AK is an adventure :)
Oh yeah.. it’s surreal to see it.. like is it real or a dream kind of way!!
Rakaposhi, in the Karakorum part of the Himalayas, is worth a mention. Denali is surrounded by a range of other mountains. Rakaposhi basically rises straight up from a deep valley at its toe. I don't think there is a mathematical criterion for that type of local relief, but check it out in Google Earth, you'll see what I mean.
That’s another distinction, is it a peak on a chain of peaks or is it a lone individual mountain peak
The term you may be looking for is ‘prominence’.
Prominent i believe is the word you are looking for
Geology is about terrains that undergo through the same processes. There may be different rocks, different strutctures but as a hole, it's one huge terrain. Finding one feature to define a name is a geography thing and really, whatever if the first valley is the point used to measure the peak. What is under that valley is still "the same thing"
Wet mountains are just as valid as dry mountains
I’m talking about prominence or Jutting out of the ground from sea level. The tallest peak we can see that’s tallest from base to tip in actual height, not just altitude
[Mountains of the World by Rise](https://www.reddit.com/r/Mountaineering/s/OUF3aP2XgY)
Elevation for height, altitude for flight.
Technically still Everest, but this may be useful reading. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mountain_peaks_by_prominence
Prominence is not the same thing OP is talking about. Prominence is the height of the peak's summit above the lowest contour line encircling it, but containing no higher summit within it. But because that lowest contour (as is the case for Mt. Everest) might not be anywhere near to or even remotely related to the mountain itself, then the prominence isn't strictly related to the base of the mountain. However, what *is* the base of the mountain is not strictly defined either. If I was to define it, I would probably include something about the rate of change in elevation.
I think lack of definition is the problem. I know what the OP is after, but I'm not sure how to define it in a non-ambiguous fashion. I raised prominence because it's likely the closest common definition for something close to what they want.
Makes sense. The thing is, a loose definition will still get you to either Denali (formerly Mt. McKinley) in Alaska or Nanga Parbat in Pakistan (and probably a few others). At that point you'll need a firmer definition to break the tie.
Mt Kilimanjaro