Was Washington Taller?

This might seem like a stupid question, feel free to say so, but I was looking at Washington yesterday and having been on top a number of times I was wondering if it used to be taller? When they put up the summit buildings did they end up having to flatten the top and taking away some of the height? Just curious and having searched the forums I didn't find anything.

Thanks.

slevasse said:

This might seem like a stupid question, feel free to say so, but I was looking at Washington yesterday and having been on top a number of times I was wondering if it used to be taller? When they put up the summit buildings did they end up having to flatten the top and taking away some of the height? Just curious and having searched the forums I didn't find anything.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Cuurently at least, the summit is a pile of rocks that is not inside any building. I do not know if it is a natural pile of rocks, or if there used to be a building on the true summit. But in any case, I doubt the elevation has changed more than a few feet.

Just guess'n

But I don't think it changed much since the last Ice Age, before which it was taller.

I'm not a geologist but I want to play one on TV. I have heard that some mountains in the Appalachian chain were as high as 20,000 ft. The geological forces (ie the continental drift) that formed them stopped about 400 million years ago. They have been getting smaller ever since. Maybe someone can provide a link on this.

sweeper said:

But I don't think it changed much since the last Ice Age, before which it was taller.

Click to expand...

Actually, it is quite possible that it has grown since the ice age. The weight of the ice depressed the land in many areas and once the ice is gone, the land rebounds (upward).

Don't know specifically about Mt. Wash.

Doug

Not to anthropomorphize, but mountains are like people: they get stooped over and smaller with age. Once, Mount Washington, or "Agiocochook," which means "Youngish Mountain" in Algonquin, was indeed much higher. Now, with a geologic form of osteoporosis setting in, the bedrock that forms Mount Washington -- and indeed most of the White Mountains -- is susceptible to fracture. One example of this is the (geologically) recent demise of the "Old Man of the Mountains." If such an incident befell Mount Washington, it could mean the end of its 'mountaineering' career.

Also, the buildings on the summit help weigh it down, just like the books in the UMass library.

Aren't you glad there are so many scientists on this board?

Actually I wasn't speaking in terms of geological forces, but in terms of people blasting the top of the mountain off to put the summit buildings up there. I realize there is that pile of rocks that is called the summit since I have hiked Washington, but I was curious if the mountain lost some height due to the leveling needed to put in the buildings and such.

The government has records of the establishment and upkeep of survey points that go back to the mid nineteenth century.

The log for Mount Washington (Here) goes back to 1849. As the years went by various buildings came and went but the markers and the highest point seemed to remain. In 1921 a report suggested that the top of the mountain may have been "blown off", but then in 1933, the original marker was again found a "few feet from the highest point". For a while it seems there was an observatory, then one and then two water tanks built over or near the top but they have since disappeared (present weather observatory is elsewhere). Read through the logs and see what you think.

My conclusion is that buildings have been built all over the place, but the highest point was never obliterated (although covered for a while).

The present summit cairn however, has probably been built up slightly over the years, as has obviously happened on Katahdin.

I believe in Lawson's book, Passaconaway's Realm, in talking of the 1784 expedition to the summit it mentions Cutler's attempts to measure the height of Washington were based on its highest point being on the eastern side of the summit. So, how does that relate to where the "summit" of today is? I may be wrong but I don't think that the sign you would find today is on the eastern side is it? I mean, I'm just going by dead reckoning.

The highest point has not changed in the past few hundred years, given the Rhizocarpon geographicum (map lichen) size and cover. A lichen size study was published in the Mount Washington Bulletin (precursor to Windswept) in the early 1980s in which the small size of lichens on the older building foundations was noted (these stones were probably fresh of lichens when they were dug out of the ground). The present State Parks building and MWO constructed in 1979-1980 involved a lot of excavation, but all was already lower than the summit.

I seem to recall a cement or concrete post standing atop the summit benchmark back in either October 1977 or September 1979 while the Adams building was under construction.

I think it was the later date, but I may be wrong.

I seem to recall in Not Without Peril that if the electric trolley line had been built to the top of the mountain, there were plans for a huge hotel that would have encompassed the summit proper so you could "hike to the peak" right on the pile of rocks in the lobby. Fortunately this did not happen, but it could certainly give rise to rumors of changes to the summit cone.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, please, because I very well could be.

From what I've heard/read, the appalachians are some of, if not the, oldest mountains on earth. Only young forming mountains grow, while older ones slowly get smaller. Large mountain ranges, such as the ones found in the Himalayas and Alaska are very young. As a mountain ages, they wear down from the elements and the normal breaking off of rocks. I assume this is why most of the appalachians have a "smoother" appearance to them in comparison with some of the very large mountains. I believe the appalachians would have been in the 17-20k for height. (I'm talking a VERY VERY long time ago)

Correct

Yes, that is all correct info, but I'm not sure if you realize that is not the answer to the original question. Read post #7 in this thread. The answer is given in post #10. If you read through the entire thread it will confirm your understanding of the mountains.

KDT

Sorry, I read that. I guess it was mainly out of personal interest and a response to paradox. I didn't think it required posting an entirely new thread.

AlexTal said:

Sorry, I read that. I guess it was mainly out of personal interest and a response to paradox. I didn't think it required posting an entirely new thread.

Click to expand...

No need to apologize. Don't underestimate the ability of lots of bored people to post up a storm on nearly any question related to mountains.

AlexTal said:

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, please, because I very well could be.

From what I've heard/read, the appalachians are some of, if not the, oldest mountains on earth. Only young forming mountains grow, while older ones slowly get smaller. Large mountain ranges, such as the ones found in the Himalayas and Alaska are very young. As a mountain ages, they wear down from the elements and the normal breaking off of rocks. I assume this is why most of the appalachians have a "smoother" appearance to them in comparison with some of the very large mountains. I believe the appalachians would have been in the 17-20k for height. (I'm talking a VERY VERY long time ago)

Click to expand...

Welcome to the boards!

Thanks! I like it already.

Hi!

I didn't mean that you should start a new thread, I just wasn't sure if you were trying to answer the question or were curious about something else.

Anyway, yeah, welcome to the boards!

KDT