Welcome to SP!  -
Areas & RangesMountains & RocksRoutesImagesArticlesTrip ReportsGearOtherPeoplePlans & PartnersWhat's NewForum

100 Highest Peaks in North America

Regional discussion and conditions reports for Canada and Alaska. Please post partners requests and trip plans in the Canada and Alaska Climbing Partners forum.
 

Re: 100 Highest Peaks in North America

Postby Sierra Ledge Rat » Sun May 27, 2012 2:06 pm

Perhaps the definition of "North America" should come from an official geology or geography organization.
User Avatar
Sierra Ledge Rat

 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:14 am
Location: Appalachia, United States
Thanked: 240 times in 157 posts

Re: 100 Highest Peaks in North America

Postby lcarreau » Sun May 27, 2012 2:43 pm

Geography was never one of my strongest subjects because of the politics involved, but these borders will probably eclipse the sands of time ..

Image
User Avatar
lcarreau

 
Posts: 4052
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:27 pm
Location: Court of the Crimson King, Arizona, United States
Thanked: 885 times in 664 posts

Re: 100 Highest Peaks in North America

Postby surgent » Sun May 27, 2012 5:56 pm

Sierra Ledge Rat wrote:Perhaps the definition of "North America" should come from an official geology or geography organization.


I propose an unnamed ridge in Nicaragua, elevation about 150 feet, that is the lowest saddle that connects the North American land mass to the South American land mass. Were the sea levels to rise to this ridge, only then would the American land mass separate into two distinct islands.
User Avatar
surgent

 
Posts: 462
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 2:45 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona, United States
Thanked: 88 times in 55 posts

Re: 100 Highest Peaks in North America

Postby Bruno » Mon May 28, 2012 11:23 am

Scott wrote:
Some consider Central America not a part of North America."


Who? :?: I've never heard of anyone or any source that considers Central America as not a part of North America.

More or less everybody living in Central America will not consider him/herself as part of North America.

Scott wrote:If not North America, which continent would it belong to?

America.

Scott wrote:It is not a seperate continent nor belongs to South America, but only north?

The problem is that there are several models regarding the number of continents. For the ones considering North America and South America as two different continents (usually the English-speaking countries plus the 7-Summits climbers), then it makes sense to include geographically Central America as part of North America. But if you consider only one continent for the whole "America(s)", then it is classically divided into three zones: South America, Central America and North America. This is the model used in every Latin American country.

Considering that SP is an English language website, I don't see a problem to include Central America with North America, but this would certainly hurt the sensitivity of many Spanish-speaking Central Americans.
User Avatar
Bruno

 
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 9:16 am
Location: Swaziland
Thanked: 110 times in 74 posts

Re: 100 Highest Peaks in North America

Postby Baarb » Mon May 28, 2012 1:51 pm

User Avatar
Baarb

 
Posts: 398
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:42 pm
Location: The Village with Three Corners
Thanked: 42 times in 29 posts

Re: 100 Highest Peaks in North America

Postby davehart » Thu Sep 13, 2012 5:25 am

I just returned from a California Sierra's trip where we completed the last 5 fourteeners there: Williamson, Tyndall, Split, and two non-300 foot prominence peaks Thunderbolt and Starlight. This now brings my tally of North American fourteeners to 100 of the 104 accepted peaks.

My discussion earlier describes the concept of a variable prominence criteria, on a state by state basis. One cannot simply apply a 300' prominence to Colorado and California, and also apply it to Alaska or Mexico. There must be geographic differences.

The last three arctic fourteeners may take a while, and Popo may never settle down enough for me to visit. But only time will tell.

dave hart
User Avatar
davehart

 
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:20 pm
Location: Anchorage, Alaska, United States
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

Re: 100 Highest Peaks in North America

Postby wfinley » Thu Sep 20, 2012 4:12 am

davehart wrote:The last three arctic fourteeners may take a while, and Popo may never settle down enough for me to visit. But only time will tell.

dave hart

Congrats Dave! What do you have left?
As for Popo... You might have make a trip from the Pioneer's Home for that one!
User Avatar
wfinley

 
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:59 am
Location: Anchorage, Alaska, United States
Thanked: 5 times in 4 posts

Re: 100 Highest Peaks in North America

Postby davehart » Sat Sep 22, 2012 10:17 pm

I have remaining:
McArthur 14K' in Yukon St. Elias Range next to Logan. Tried north ridge in 2009, made it to 11K'.
Aello 14K' in Alaskan Wrangell Mtns. One of three Twaharpies peaks west of Bona.
Augusta 14K' in St. elias Range on Yukon/Alaska border.

Will be heading into one of these in May 2013, depending on preference of interested partners. Augusta North Ridge is most technically sustained with most objectiive serac and avalance exposure. McArthur is pretty straightforward snow ridge, with a bit of ice climbing though very safe. Aello is mostly glacier travel to a high camp at 12K', then a 50 degree snow and ice face to the summit. Very safe.

Always looking for a couple qualified partners for 2-3 weeks on any of these obscur peaks.

Dave
User Avatar
davehart

 
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:20 pm
Location: Anchorage, Alaska, United States
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

Re: 100 Highest Peaks in North America

Postby lefty » Tue Oct 16, 2012 5:07 am

Here is a link to the front runner list on http://www.peakbagger.com for North America peaks with 500 feet of prominence.

http://www.peakbagger.com/FRL.aspx?lid=2101
User Avatar
lefty

 
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 2:09 am
Location: Santa Monica, California
Thanked: 8 times in 6 posts

Re: 100 Highest Peaks in North America

Postby Scott » Tue Oct 16, 2012 3:21 pm

The North Summit of Denali is not a distinct peak, so one must use a large enough prominence 1,350' to exclude it


And yet the little bump Challenger Point is? You include bumps and little sub-peaks such as Challenger Point as separate while at the same time excluding many of the Alaska/Canada peaks. Kinda lame if you ask me, but it does make you endeavor a lot easier (especially for us Coloradans) since we can beef up the numbers with easy bumps as separate peaks.

I know the Alaska Mountaineering Club uses 500', but other list use a much greater prominence for separate peaks. Still, if peaks such as North Denali and Churchill are excluded, so should peaks such as Challenger Point.

There is nothing wrong with counting Challenger Point, but to do so, Peaks such as North Denali and Churchill should also be included to make any list meaningful (unless other subpeaks such as Challenger are also excluded). Of course we all have to climb our own list, but for elevation list, there should be at least some consistency.
Last edited by Scott on Tue Oct 16, 2012 6:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User Avatar
Scott

 
Posts: 7469
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 1:03 pm
Location: Craig, Colorado, United States
Thanked: 583 times in 321 posts

Re: 100 Highest Peaks in North America

Postby Fletch » Tue Oct 16, 2012 4:23 pm

Scott wrote:
The North Summit of Denali is not a distinct peak, so one must use a large enough prominence 1,350' to exclude it


And yet the little bump Challenger Point is? You include bumps and little sub-peaks such as Challenger Point as separate while at the same time excluding many of the Alaska/Canada peaks. Kinda lame if you ask me, but it does make you endeavor a lot easier since you can beef up the numbers with easy bumps as separate peaks.

I know the Alaska Mountaineering Club uses 500', but other list use a much greater prominence for separate peaks. Still, if peaks such as North Denali and Churchill are excluded, so should peaks such as Challenger Point.

There is nothing wrong with counting Challenger Point, but to do so, Peaks such as North Denali and Churchill should also be included to make any list meaningful (unless other subpeaks such as Challenger are also excluded). Of course we all have to climb our own list, but for elevation list, there should be at least some consistency.

Since Dave has climbed almost all of them, it's probably best to defer to him for guidance on the 'rules' of the list. In another post, I thought he summed it up quite well by saying (and I'm paraphrasing) that for purposes of this list, one should use the local customs when determining if you've completed a list (i.e CO 14ers to include N Maroon, Challenger, Cameron, El Diente, etc --- CA 14ers to include Muir, Thunderbolt and Starlight, etc --- Logan/Denali Massif's only have one summit --- Liberty Cap is not a seperate 14er --- Tajumulco is included, Hawaii is excluded --- you get the idea). In other words, there is no consitent mathematical formula that works over such a broad geographical area. But for now, I'll follow Dave's lead...

(considering that I agree with him, it makes it easy :lol: --- and Dave, correct me if I'm wrong)
User Avatar
Fletch

 
Posts: 229
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:46 pm
Location: Orange County
Thanked: 90 times in 49 posts

Re: 100 Highest Peaks in North America

Postby Scott » Tue Oct 16, 2012 5:03 pm

Since Dave has climbed almost all of them, it's probably best to defer to him for guidance on the 'rules' of the list.


Even if he did climb every single one, it wouldn't change the fact that including Challenger Point while eliminating Churchill on a single list would make a list lame (for lack of a better word; and by that I mean that the list doing so would be lame, not that Dave or you are lame, further, "you" in my above post is meant to be a generic "you"; I'll edit the post for clarity). I'd tell the same thing to Messner or anyone else as well.

one should use the local customs


What is the local custom for Alaska? Other than the 500 feet criteria used by the Mountaineering Club of Alaska, I don't know if there is one . Some (Mountaineering Club of Alaska) use 500 feet, some use 200 meters, some use 400 meters and some 500 meters. How about Canada?

Using local customs makes sense for separate lists for each region, but not when lumping all peaks together on the same list, especially of the criteria are so far apart. Otherwise one could argue that the UK has more mountains than Nepal and is therefore more mountainous. Both regions use separate and vastly different criteria for an individual peak. It works well while looking at two lists from each region, but not when combining the lists as a single list. There has to be more consistent criteria to combine list. Without at least some consistency, it doesn't work when combining different regional list into one. For example, I have 47 peaks using seperate regional list vs. 33 on the combined list linked in this thread.

Of course if anyone does have a viable reason why on a single list, Challenger Point is more of a separate summit than Churchill or North Denali, I'd be interested in hearing the reason. Even if done by percentages, Challenger Point would only have 2% vs North Denali's almost 7% rise between saddles between peaks. For a list for the entire North America, it certainly makes sense to exclude peaks like Challenger Point.
User Avatar
Scott

 
Posts: 7469
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 1:03 pm
Location: Craig, Colorado, United States
Thanked: 583 times in 321 posts

Re: 100 Highest Peaks in North America

Postby Fletch » Tue Oct 16, 2012 7:30 pm

Scott wrote:
Since Dave has climbed almost all of them, it's probably best to defer to him for guidance on the 'rules' of the list.


Even if he did climb every single one, it wouldn't change the fact that including Challenger Point while eliminating Churchill on a single list would make a list lame.

I think i know what you are saying - you want a pure, consistent list. 300, 500, 1,400 whatever - just be consistent (so as to be comparable). Right?

My only thought to that (and I respect that --- agree with it on many levels too) is that if you are the first guy to climb the list (and by all indications, I think Dave is as close as anyone will ever get --- unless he himself completes the list), then you get to call the shots.

14,000 ft elevation (or 8,000m) is as arbitrary as 500 ft prominence or lines on a map. Lists are not perfect. Neither are the guys measuring them (and the guys measuring the elevations and prominence for that matter!). That's why I sort of feel better using as my barometer the following: a) the local custom and b) the guys that have been there and done that. Everything else is just speculation. Everybody needs to do what's best for them.

There are no endorsements or trophies or cash prizes or girl groupies for finishing a list (as far as I know, they show up for different reasons). It's personal from start to finish...
User Avatar
Fletch

 
Posts: 229
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:46 pm
Location: Orange County
Thanked: 90 times in 49 posts

Re: 100 Highest Peaks in North America

Postby Scott » Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:42 pm

I think i know what you are saying - you want a pure, consistent list. 300, 500, 1,400 whatever - just be consistent (so as to be comparable). Right?


Exactly, when creating a single list to post for informational reasons. Many regional lists using different criteria still exist, but if a single list of all the peaks on a continent was create, for example, it should be consistent (regardless of what criteria is chosen).

Who has climbed what is a whole different topic. Saying that a list should be consistent doesn’t mean I mean to degrade whoever is climbing them all or by what criteria they choose to do so.

My only thought to that (and I respect that --- agree with it on many levels too) is that if you are the first guy to climb the list (and by all indications, I think Dave is as close as anyone will ever get --- unless he himself completes the list), then you get to call the shots.


If that were the case there would be no argument about the 7 summits and it would have been conclusive back in 1985. It gets even blurrier concerning the 7 second summits and 7 3rd summits as well.

As far as by all indications, it would depend on where the cutoff is set. The higher the cutoff for a separate peak, the less peaks. For example, if the prominence cutoff is set at either 4000 meters, or 13,000 feet, the highest 14,000’+ mountains in North America were already completed long ago. Of course setting the prominence criteria that high would be pretty silly and isn’t what I meant by my post.

14,000 ft elevation (or 8,000m) is as arbitrary as 500 ft prominence or lines on a map. Lists are not perfect. Neither are the guys measuring them (and the guys measuring the elevations and prominence for that matter!).


Agree.

That's why I sort of feel better using as my barometer the following: a) the local custom and b) the guys that have been there and done that.


I gree that it works well using a regional list (such as the Colorado 14ers), but when you are talking about something like an entire continent being included in a single list, simply combining list sometimes doesn't quite work out as well in a logical sense (for example counting Challenger Point, but not North Denali). Of course, that's up to the climber to decide (although what the climber decides doesn't have anything to do with keeping the criteria consistent for the list in question; any number of different climbing list could be created).

Everything else is just speculation. Everybody needs to do what's best for them.

There are no endorsements or trophies or cash prizes or girl groupies for finishing a list (as far as I know, they show up for different reasons). It's personal from start to finish...


Agree with all of the above.
User Avatar
Scott

 
Posts: 7469
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 1:03 pm
Location: Craig, Colorado, United States
Thanked: 583 times in 321 posts

Re: 100 Highest Peaks in North America

Postby MoapaPk » Tue Oct 16, 2012 9:50 pm

User Avatar
MoapaPk

 
Posts: 7639
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 7:42 pm
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
Thanked: 752 times in 487 posts

Previous

Return to Canada and Alaska

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2006-2013 SummitPost.org. All Rights Reserved.