Topic: Highest peak of Arctic (Read 40344 times)

Andreas · « **on:** Nov 23 2003, 22:57 »

If you count Greenland as Arctic then Gunnbjørnsfjell (3693 moh) would be the highest peak of Arctic. What about counting Gunnbjørnsfjell as the eight of the "8 summits"?

Ron · « **Reply #1 on:** Nov 24 2003, 02:37 »

The artic aint no continent is it !.....Green land belongs to north america

trunl · « **Reply #2 on:** Nov 24 2003, 09:33 »

there are always the small pieces of land that some claim to be part of a different continent than they really are on, so i post this link to show what country belongs to what continent and the second link is for a detailed list to show exactly what country belongs to which continent.

http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/contnent.htm

http://www.worldatlas.com/cntycont.htm

Nils · « **Reply #3 on:** Nov 25 2003, 21:21 »

did you have geographics and politics in school? Greenland belongs to denmark and denmark belongs to europe.

Ron · « **Reply #4 on:** Nov 25 2003, 22:18 »

weel now you say it i remeber somthing in that direction...i just took a look at this map

http://www.histocasa.nl/regio/

i guess its wrong or im to quick

lol and at this site it is not in counrty list of america but also not in the europe list...Lmao

http://users.belgacom.net/uno/landen/wereldkaart.htm

yup your right althuogh they have an own goverment since 1979 or something political responcability is denmarks concern

Yeti · « **Reply #5 on:** Nov 26 2003, 01:19 »

The Seven-Summits have nothing to do with political borderlines.
It´s always a geological problem and because Greenland is considered to be part of the north american geology it is belongs definite to the north american continent!

trunl · « **Reply #6 on:** Nov 29 2003, 05:24 »

hey nils i have a question, a long time ago america belonged to britian but it was still over here, so then was america part of europe?? let me answer it for you, NO!

andy · « **Reply #7 on:** May 10 2004, 07:33 »

Are we not talking about today??? not eons of years ago???

trunl · « **Reply #8 on:** May 11 2004, 08:13 »

first of all, not eons ago. lol. just about 350 years ago. second, so what you are saying is that the seven summits depend on how the land is divided up that day? so then the seven summits may change again someday?

DON'T THINK SO!

trunl

MoT · « **Reply #9 on:** Sep 24 2004, 15:58 »

Ah but how about this for a new list?

1 Arctic - North Pole
2 Arctic - Gunnbjørnsfjell
3 Antarctic - South Pole
4 Antarctic - Vinson
5 Highest Point on Earth - Everest
6 Farthest Point from the Earth's core and nearest point to the sun - Chimborazo

7 Harry's House - Lowest point on the planet

Actually i mean the Dead Sea is the lowest point on earth... not much of a climb though

(Well 1 to 6 anyway)

Oh and by the way, Greenland is a self-governing overseas administrative division of the Kingdom of Denmark but it's on the North American tectonic plate so is part of the American continent

Actually there are around 14 major tectonic plates - we could create another list but what would be the point? I think the origininal seven summits right or wrong would always outshine it simply because of the way it showed how ordinary people could climb ANYWHERE if they really wanted to. That's the real significance of the seven summits

Buddha · « **Reply #10 on:** Sep 24 2004, 17:05 »

Quote from: trunl on May 11 2004, 08:13

first of all, not eons ago. lol. just about 350 years ago. second, so what you are saying is that the seven summits depend on how the land is divided up that day? so then the seven summits may change again someday?

DON'T THINK SO!

trunl

Stupid remark there Trunl... Your age really shows here! Of course the seven summits can change as borders of the countries change.. Or didn't you know that until the Soviet union was disolved the highest peak in Europe was actually Mt. Blanc. If I'm not mistaken it was back in 1992 that Elbrus became Europe's highest peak but I will let that be unsaid. Anyway, you were what? 2-3 years old then... So if you wanna give a history lesson like earlier, make sure that you read up on some contemporary history as well

Now, then again I can't think of any other peak that this would be applicable to since the rest is safely within the "borders" of a continent...

MoT · « **Reply #11 on:** Sep 24 2004, 20:21 »

Quote from: Buddha on Sep 24 2004, 17:05

Or didn't you know that until the Soviet union was disolved the highest peak in Europe was actually Mt. Blanc.

Actually I hate to play devil's advocate here... Parts of Soviet Russia were considered part of Europe (i believe it was the part west of the Urals and north of Georgia etc).

I think the reason people get so confused about Mt. Blanc is that people couldn't visit the Caucasus too easily back then so the Mt. Blanc climb being the highest peak in the alps was adopted by 'free' europeans as the highest in Europe. Hell most people i know STILL don't know what or where Elbrus is. I had a Geography 3rd Level Graduate argue with me about the highest peak in Europe - she didn't know about Elbrus, Dychtau, Ararat or any of the other peaks above Mt Blanc.

Buddha · « **Reply #12 on:** Sep 25 2004, 00:27 »

I would love for you to play the devil's advocate here...

Since I have a PhD in Political Science I would love to talk a little bit more about this. You are correct that some parts of Soviet Union were considered a part of Europe even before the fall but Elbrus was NOT located in Europe prior to the fall of the USSR. Elbrus was then located in Asia, but when the USSR the european/asian border moved... So, you are actually wrong.

You views that the peak was to hard to reach doesn't really hold up as an argument, just look at Carstenz. That's peak is even harder to reach at this point but is still believed by the vast majority of climbers to be one of the 7 summits. The political instability in a country doesn't decide if a peak is part of the 7 summits or not, the political borders however do...

MoT · « **Reply #13 on:** Sep 25 2004, 01:57 »

Ah but the 7 summits was conceived, completed and accepted a few years before the fall of the Soviet Union. So when did Elbrus become European? I'm a fan of European history so i find that interesting. Not saying you're wrong at all, by the way, I'm just curious :_[

As regards access - i guess it was just the case that people didn't really look to the Eastern Bloc countries for sporting pursuits

Ron · « **Reply #14 on:** Sep 25 2004, 02:25 »

weel.... i always considered elbrus to be european...in fact europe is as far east as the Oeral..that what I learend at school anyway (long time ago

)

Buddha · « **Reply #15 on:** Sep 25 2004, 13:16 »

Well, seems like I have at least 3 people against me in this.. so I guess I have to cave in and look like the fool I might be :eek) and shut up

I never took geography at the university so I will still let this be up for debate...

Corsair · « **Reply #16 on:** Sep 25 2004, 14:43 »

ural mountains in soviet union/russia is and has always (talking modern times, not eons ago

) been the border between asia and europe.

in order to get all the seven, which peak in europe did messner, bass & co climb before the fall of the soviet union?

Buddha · « **Reply #17 on:** Sep 25 2004, 19:57 »

I did a search on the web and not surprisingly there is a debate on which peak is the highest in Europe. The 2 peaks up for debate is Elbrus and Blanc.

World IQ lists Elbrus and Blanc as part of the seven summits...

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/List_of_mountains#Seven_summits

GESource World Guide says that Elbrus is arguably the highest peak in Europe...

http://www.gesource.ac.uk/worldguide/html/image_1975.html

Personally I don't really care. Mt. Blanc is great for nearby training and Elbrus is going to be conquered anyway

Ron · « **Reply #18 on:** Sep 25 2004, 23:23 »

Meschner , bass and co did elbrus

Buddha · « **Reply #19 on:** Sep 26 2004, 00:47 »

I know that Messner, Bass & Co. did Elbrus...

7summits forum!

Author Topic: Highest peak of Arctic (Read 40344 times)

Andreas

trunl

Nils

Yeti

trunl

andy

trunl