|
'Why is Kosciuszko/Mt Cook not on your site, isn't that the highest point of Australia?' or: 'Dick Bass did not climb Carstensz, why not?'
This is the most frequently asked question and there is no clear answer. Although I have my own opinion as you know, I will try to explain why different people have different views about this using facts, my notes and some Q&A's. There is no absolute truth in this and I welcome input on the discussion.
Fact: Dick Bass was the first person to start an adventure known as climbing the 7 summits. He wanted to climb the highest point of the seven continents on earth as defined by the encyclopedia Britannica. He succeeded by means of willpower, being the first person to do so.
Fact: Encyclopedia Britannica gives the following definition of a continent: "One
of
the
larger
continuous
masses
of
land,
namely,
Asia,
Africa,
North
America,
South
America,
Antarctica,
Europe,
and
Australia,
listed
in
order
of
size.
(Europe
and
Asia
are
sometimes
considered
a
single
continent,
Eurasia.)
Fact: The highest point of the continent Australia as defined above is Mt Kosciuszko.
Fact: EB's definition of an island is: "any area of land smaller than a continent and entirely surrounded by water. Islands may occur in oceans, seas, lakes, or rivers. A group of islands is called an archipelago. Islands may be classified as either continental or oceanic. Oceanic islands are those that rise to the surface from the floors of the ocean basins. Continental islands are simply unsubmerged parts of the continental shelf that are entirely surrounded by water. Many of the larger islands of the world are of the continental type. Greenland (840,000 square miles [2,175,000 square km]), the largest island, is composed of the same materials as the adjacent North American continent, from which it is separated by a shallow and narrow sea. Likewise the world's second largest island, New Guinea (309,000 square miles [800,000 square km]), is part of the Australian continental platform and is separated from it only by the very shallow and narrow Torres Strait. A slight warping of the sea bottom in the vicinity of Torres Strait would be sufficient to join New Guinea to Australia; conversely, a slight rise in sea level may submerge a hilly coast and leave the hilltops remaining as small islands just off shore (such are those off the coast near Boston, Mass., and the islands off the Maine coast)."
Note: by definition this means that an island can be a part of a continent (as is the case with island in lakes and rivers), but that many (larger) islands are considered not to be part of any continent (like Greenland, Cuba, UK or New Guinea etc.) This also means that all the 'continents' together don't add up to the earths total surface.
Q: If you are copying Dick Bass' achievement, shouldn't you climb the same mountains as he did, whether these are the true 7 summits or not? A: If I were copying his effort I would do so, but my intention is to climb the highest points of the continental masses, spanning the earth surface. Q: But Dick Bass climbed the highest peaks of the 7 parts of the world, right? A: No, he did not. By definition, the total of the continents are not the earth surface as most of the islands are not included. If there was a 6km high volcano in the UK, it would not be considered the European 'summit' by Dick Bass' definition, but I would consider it so. Personally I don't think that you should leave out a large part of the earth's surface if you divide the earth in 7 parts and climb the highest peak on each part
Note:
EB
also
mentions
that: Q: 'But maybe Dick Bass just used the geographical borders? Then Carstensz, being part of Indonesia, is included, but is part of Asia, not Australia or Oceania.' A: Your claim is right, but in this case there are two new issues popping up:
Q: (as asked by a site visitor) "Dick Bass climbed Kosciusko to claim the 7 summits, if Carstensz replaces this are you Harry going to tell Dick Bass he never achieved what he is laying claim to. Will you be able to claim to have climbed the seven summits if you have not been to the highest peak in Australia? Its an interesting issue."
A:
Dick
Bass
did
what
he
wanted
to
do
and
it
was
a
great
achievement.
He
has
inspired
me
to
do
mostly
the
same
as
he
did,
but
new
insights
have
led
me
to
believe
that
my
quest
for
the
7
summits
is
the
real
one.
There
is
no
absolute
truth
here
though
as
the
7summits
simply
have
not
been
defined/or
have
been
defined
in
different
ways
if
you
like,
my
definition
is
one
of
many. Q: (as asked by a site visitor) "just to further debate as to which peaks are truly the seven to climb, if you refer to the encyclopedia Britannica, guess what? Australia is a continent, not the volcanic islands of Indonesia. they are actually on the continental shelf of Asia it would seem, thanks guys" A:
You
would
be
right,
except
for
the
fact
that
New
Guinea
is
not
a
Volcanic
Island
but
a
continental
island
and
part
of
the
Australian
shelf
as
explained
above.
I
see
the
point
you
are
trying
to
make,
but
think
that
the
original
idea
of
climbing
the
7
summits
was
to
divide
the
surface
of
the
earth
into
7
parts
and
climb
the
highest
points
of
each
part
aside
from
the
fact
of
these
parts
are
continents
or
not.
Fact: I have opened up a voting booth as I was curious about other people's reactions about the issue. On the left menu you can see the voting button: When you click on it you can choose what you think is the correct 7th summit to climb: -Carstensz -Kosciuszko -Mt Cook* -Don't know -Don't care
* When I made this booth I was unaware of Mt Wilhelm (4509m), but I guess that any vote for Mt Cook will result in a Mt Wilhelm vote as the reasoning for them being the one will be the same.
Q: (as asked by a site visitor) "I'm afraid that a vote is not really going to work, as the definition of CONTINENT is- a large continuous mass of land. Again new Zealand is not a CONTINENT and neither is Indonesia. This is fact and is really not open to debate or vote" A: The voting booth is just there because I am curious how other people think about this issue; this is not the first time that it is debated that Carstensz might be the summit to climb or not. I am not asking to vote whether the EB should be updated with regards to their definition of continents, but want to define the 7 summits, independent from what Dick Bass has achieved. There are clearly different opinions about this issue and I would like to see them translated in a simple poll, that's all. It will not be binding for me, you or other mountaineers as everybody is entitled to their own opinion.
Fact: The latest count showed the following distribution:
Note: So what do we learn from this? - There are quite few people that agree with me - There are about the same number of people who disagree, divided over different camps - Most visitors have an opinion
As you have read, in my definition Carstensz is the mountain to climb, being the highest summit between the Himalayas and Antarctica. I know Dick Bass was the 'inventor' of the seven summits, but Pat Morrow was the first to climb the seven including Carstensz, and therefore he was acclaimed by the mountaineering community to be the first person who climbed the real summits. (see: these lists of both category of climbers) I did climb Carstensz, but I agree that it is no clear-cut case. Long ago someone defined a 'continent', that's a fact, but who will determine what a 'summit' is:
Thanks and keep climbing,
Harry
Thanks to graciea3182, DavidN and ShirlNZ for joining in on the discussion on the old forum.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
'What about Mauna Kea, Hawaii, isn't that the highest mountain on earth? And what about Chimborazo?' There has been some discussion in an outdoor magazine about the highest mountain on earth, where the answer was Mauna Kea, Hawaii The reasoning behind this is that MK is about 4205m above sea level and another 6000m below sea level.... This is quite ridiculous to me as you can also make one of the troughs near Japan as being the base of Mt Everest, even count Asia as being just one big and very gently sloping mountain .As there are even deeper troughs in the Pacific, even this the choice of MK not make any sense:
See this Ocean Data site for details. More info about Mauna Kea can be found on this site and here. See also the discussion on Americasroof about the same question. Chimborazo: The top of Chimborazo, 6310 meters asl ( 20703 ft.) is the farthest point from the center of the earth as the earth is not round but elliptical. Even though Mt. Everest is higher above sea level, Chimborazo actually is the highest point from the earth's center, due to the Earth's equatorial bulge. This is not to be confused with the highest mountain above sea level but can win you a case of beer if you ask the question right... |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
'What are the second highest points per continent, aren't they much harder to climb?'
This was originally asked to my by a member of the Straight Dope message board, but more people have wondered, especially the 'serious' mountaineers looking down on 7 summiteers.
So
what
are
the
2nd
highest
mountains
and
are
they
really
all
harder
to
climb
than
the
7
summits? Asia: K2 (=Mt Godwin Austin, China-Pakistan) 8611m or 28,250 ft Considered to be the most difficult climb in the world because of the altitude mixed with too many objective dangers, especially avalanches on all of the steep ridges and faces. No technically easy route available, many good climbers died here.
Ojos del Salado (Argentina-Chile) 6880m or 22,590 ft It's
harder
to
get
to
than
Aconcagua,
but
the
climb
is
also
mostly
a
walk
up.
There
are
no
routes
comparable
in
difficulty
with
Aconcagua's
South
Face North America: Logan (Canada) 5959m or 19,520 ft See this site for climbing info, like Denali the mountain is remote, cold and windy, the normal route is merely non technical, but there are really hard routes as well.
Mt. Kenya (aka Kirinyaga, Kenya) 5199m or 17,058ft This is certainly a harder climb than Kili, but only because the last few hundred meters need rock and/or ice climbing skills, depending on the route. But Kili is almost 700 meters higher and although less technical this is an important factor for failing to climb it.
Dykh-Tau (Russia) 5204m 17,070 ft. Technically much more demanding mountain, but 438m lower than Elbrus. (many people think that Mt Blanc is the highest or 2nd highest mountain in Europe, but it is the highest mountain in the European Alps only.)
Oceania: Ngga Pulu used to be the second highest (4862m) but in recent years the icecap has melted so much that its neighbor now equals or maybe even tops it. Presumably Ngga Pulu was even higher than Carstensz in the beginning of the last century... see the Carstensz pages for some pictures. It is much easier than climbing Carstensz as it it just a simple glacier walk up easy slopes.
Antarctica: Mount Tyree (4845m or 5,896 feet), Supposed to be more technical than Vinson, but the temperature and other polar conditions will be more influential here. (close
3rd
is
Mount
Shinn,
4802
or
15,752
feet) Conclusion: Some of the 2nd highest peaks are harder to climb than the highest, some are easier, as simple as that. First of all it totally depends on which route you take on the 7 summits. I dare anybody who claims to be a better mountaineer than 'the 7 summiteers' to climb the south face of Aconcagua, the McCartney-Roberts route on the southwest of Denali or the Kangshung or Northwest ridge routes on Everest. Yes, K2 has no easy routes, but the same is true for any 8000+ peak
Ps: why not rephrase the question: 'Why not climb the hardest mountain per continent, aren't they much harder to climb?' ;-} |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
There's a 5130m high Oceanic mountain in my atlas, isn't that higher than Carstensz?
On the forum you can see the question we were asked about the 5130 'phantom mountain' that is often mentioned on maps of West-Papua/Irian Jaya, this is the Q&A about this issue: Question: "Hey, I was just looking at an atlas and it shows there is a mountain in Irian Jaya that is 5030m which makes it bigger than Carstensz? And i think that yes that area should be in the Australian continent. I was just wondering what you thought? Cheers, BEN" Answer: "Hi Ben, thanks for your question; actually this is problem with a double background: Close to Carstensz Pyramid is another peak that is called Ngga Pulu/Poeloe or Jaya Peak/Puncak Jaya. It was measured during the first expeditions to the mountain ranges: 5130m (see also the maps section of the Carstensz pages). But later expeditions and more detailed measuring proved that Carstensz was the highest peak with 4884m; This does not mean that the first explorers were wrong, as Ngga Pulu is a snow peak (see the picture taken on the summit on the Carstensz pages) and has melted considerably in the last century, so it could have been true that it was the highest peak in the 1930's, but now it has melted so much it is surely lower than Carstensz (whose summit is rock, so it won't melt...). Unfortunately the 5130m measurement is still mentioned on most of the maps available these days; even worse, it is contributed to Carstensz Pyramid. Hope this clarifies the situation, best regards and keep climbing, Harry www.7summits.com"
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is
K2
higher
than
everest;
How
do
they
measure
the
height
of
a
mountain?
I
was
asked
the
following
question
on
the
forum:
"how
do
they
measure
the
heighth
of
a
mountain.
would
a
hill
that
was
10
foot
hight
in
denver
actually
be
1
mile
and
10
foot
high?
Larry"
This
is
what
was
answered,
including
links
about
measuring
mountains,
K2
vs
Everest
and
more.:
"Hi
Larry,
thanks
for
your
question.
Your
statement
is
right,
mountains
are
measured
relatively
to
the
sea level
(the
altitude
is
expressed
in
feet/meters
Above
Sea
Level,
or
'ASL').
But
Sea level
is
hard
to
measure
exactly!
New
methods
of
measuring
are
invented
and
mountains
do
change
in
time,
so
who
is
right?
I
have
selected
a
few
links
where
you
can
learn
more
about
this
issue:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question356.htm
Question How
do
they
measure
"sea
level"?
Is
it
the
average
of
the
tides?
And
is
the
sea
level
actually
rising
or
not?
http://www.discover.com/may_00/featworks.html
About
Measuring
Mount
Everest:
history,
GPS,
snowpack
etc.
http://www.telegram.com/extra/everestreturn/return.html
About
Mr
Giorgio
who
went
to
Everest
in
2001
to
measure
it's
height,
the
height
ofg
the
snowpack
on
the
summit
and
to
discover
Sir
Hillary's
high
camp.
http://www.pobonline.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/features/BNP__Features__Item/0,2338,7041,00.html
about
the
GPS
measurement
of
Mt
Rainier
in
Washington
state,
USA.
Different
results
are
compared.
http://www.outsidemag.com/peaks/features/k2.html
About
the
discussion
over
the
highest
mountain:
is
K2
taller
than
Everest?
Or
is
it
smaller
than
Kanchenjunga...
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/6-2/Ch6.htm
For
everybody
who
want
to
learn
about
triangulation!
http://www.platetectonics.com/archives/archive60.htm
Nature's
Highs,
about
the
formation
of
peaks
and
mountains,
plate
tectonics;
alterations
with
time,
interactions
with
weather.
http://www.arm.gov/docs/education/background/seavari.html
About
what
sea
level
actually
is
and
how
you
measure
it;
how
does
the
sea
level
change,
what
is
the
Geoid
and
more.
Hope
this
helps!
Best
regards,
Harry
7summits.com"
|
