Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 39

Thread: Q: Is Tecumseh a 4000'er ?

  1. #16
    Senior Member Salty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Warner, NH
    Posts
    136
    A couple points:

    LiDAR does NOT survey every single spot in a location. It is a series of points, and if there's a gap over the actual highpoint, it could result in an artificially low peak value. It could be significant if the summit is particularly pointed or has big boulders. The only thing I can confirm is that 3995' is the highest point in that LiDAR set. I haven't taken a close look to see how far apart the gaps are.

    Secondly, Roy S. has pointed out elsewhere that the old disc was not quite on the true summit. Almost, but not quite. As far as the datasheet for that benchmark is concerned, that was last reported as destroyed. So I would hold off any opinion until it's confirmed the new one is absolutely on the highest point, and the report on the survey methods comes out.

    I'm intuitively surprised to hear GPS can be more accurate than LiDAR except perhaps in the thickest of woods, so I'm guessing the LiDAR absolute (vs. relative) accuracy is off a lot more than it should be. That, however, can be corrected with control point surveys (at least that's what I took away from some recent reading).

    Worst case (if one has a distaste for accuracy ) is it'll still be on the NEHH list, we'll be even with the DAKs in numbers***, and gridiots will have an easier time of it.


    *** A rudimentary analysis I did besides Tecumseh shows Lincoln and S. Hancock should go away due to lack of a 200' col, and Guyot should get added. Thus, 46 peaks.

  2. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Gorham NH
    Posts
    5,913
    I always have a tough time deciding what constitutes a high point when the summit consists of loose rock. If a big prominent outcrop of ledge I can buy it but most summits tend to be loose boulders and rocks that presumably are on top of underlying ledge. Therefore the summit can potentially be artificially be moved by moving rocks to form a higher point. I have talked to locals who have hauled various crushed rock products to the summit development on top of Mt Washington as tourists are perpetually taking souvenirs and in general summit operations tend to displace rock. Probably the most problematical summit is Jay Peak where the actual summit was blasted to allow the construction of the summit building. Did Jay grow or shrink when the summit was blasted? If a foundation was poured does the top of the foundation constitute the new summit elevation?

    Sadly the list is going to shrink as the loss of the Greenland and Antarctic glaciers progress, the MSL reference is going to rise at some point and the summits elevations will drop. I occasionally get to review development concepts for the Boston area and most developments are baking in 10 to 15 of mean sea level rise with another 10 to 15 feet of storm surge on top of that.

  3. #18
    Senior Member B the Hiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    837
    Quote Originally Posted by JoshandBaron View Post
    Whoever maintains that trail has it on their to-do list, I'm sure. Dude loves rock work.
    At least at one point, one of our own was the maintainer. Rocket21, I think he goes by. Jeremy, yes?

    Brian

  4. #19
    Senior Member TCD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,838
    Quote Originally Posted by peakbagger View Post
    Sadly the list is going to shrink as the loss of the Greenland and Antarctic glaciers progress, the MSL reference is going to rise at some point and the summits elevations will drop. I occasionally get to review development concepts for the Boston area and most developments are baking in 10 to 15 of mean sea level rise with another 10 to 15 feet of storm surge on top of that.
    Be a while. Here's the actual data:

    https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sl...tml?id=8443970

    Takes 100 years to rise less than a foot...

  5. #20
    Senior Member TJsName's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    'Springtime' on the Carters (Somerville, MA)
    Posts
    1,958
    Quote Originally Posted by TCD View Post
    Be a while. Here's the actual data:

    https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sl...tml?id=8443970

    Takes 100 years to rise less than a foot...
    Took*

    Do you think that the trend is (and will continue to be) linear, or that it will accelerate?

    https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
    | 63.8% W48: 19/48
    Trail Adopter of the Guinea Pond Trail

  6. #21
    Senior Member DayTrip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Woodstock, CT
    Posts
    2,605
    Quote Originally Posted by TCD View Post
    Be a while. Here's the actual data:

    https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sl...tml?id=8443970

    Takes 100 years to rise less than a foot...
    At which point people will be beaming around peakbagging planets and this will all be a non issue.
    NH 48 4k: 48/48; NH W48k: 46/48; NY 46: 6/46

  7. #22
    Senior Member TCD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,838
    Quote Originally Posted by TJsName View Post
    Took*

    Do you think that the trend is (and will continue to be) linear, or that it will accelerate?

    https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
    No one can predict the climate with any degree of reliability, despite claims to the contrary. But the data to date are stubbornly linear. My pure GUESS, based on current data and known and speculated mechanisms, is that the increase in atmospheric temperatures will continue to be linear, but will level off about 50 years from now. Very large scale systems that respond very slowly to temperature (such as polar ice sheets, deep sea temperatures, and sea levels) will lag this, and will level off about 100 years from now. 100 years from now someone can resurrect this post and see if I was close to right.

    But I admit that this is a guess. Unlike Michael Mann and Al Gore, I have not spent 20 years trying to fabricate a "hockey stick" that refuses to appear, or manufacturing bogeymen to scare and indoctrinate schoolchildren.

    The data and the science suggest to me that:

    >the climate has been warming since the "Little Ice Age" and will continue to warm for the rest of our lives
    >human activity contributes some portion of this warming, but how much is unclear
    >well planned changes in human activity may "blunt" the warming trend slightly (I know what I would do if I were the "super-Czar" in charge of energy, but we can discuss on a separate thread)
    >poorly planned, drastic changes in human activity may "blunt" the warming slightly, but will have very high and immediate social and financial costs that will far outweigh any benefit from blunting the warming trend in the "out years."

    Much of what passes for analysis in this subject area is politically driven, and not scientifically valid.

  8. #23
    Senior Member sierra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New hampshire
    Posts
    2,616
    Quote Originally Posted by B the Hiker View Post
    At least at one point, one of our own was the maintainer. Rocket21, I think he goes by. Jeremy, yes?

    Brian
    Yes, that is his name. I have run into a him a few times, while he was working on the trail.

  9. #24
    Senior Member richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    manchester nh
    Posts
    343
    Yes, I’ve also spoken with him while he was doing stone work on the trail. I think he also maintains the NETC website.

  10. #25
    Senior Member TEO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    752
    Quote Originally Posted by TCD View Post
    No one can predict the climate with any degree of reliability, despite claims to the contrary. But the data to date are stubbornly linear. My pure GUESS, based on current data and known and speculated mechanisms, is that the increase in atmospheric temperatures will continue to be linear, but will level off about 50 years from now. Very large scale systems that respond very slowly to temperature (such as polar ice sheets, deep sea temperatures, and sea levels) will lag this, and will level off about 100 years from now. 100 years from now someone can resurrect this post and see if I was close to right.

    But I admit that this is a guess. Unlike Michael Mann and Al Gore, I have not spent 20 years trying to fabricate a "hockey stick" that refuses to appear, or manufacturing bogeymen to scare and indoctrinate schoolchildren.

    The data and the science suggest to me that:

    >the climate has been warming since the "Little Ice Age" and will continue to warm for the rest of our lives
    >human activity contributes some portion of this warming, but how much is unclear
    >well planned changes in human activity may "blunt" the warming trend slightly (I know what I would do if I were the "super-Czar" in charge of energy, but we can discuss on a separate thread)
    >poorly planned, drastic changes in human activity may "blunt" the warming slightly, but will have very high and immediate social and financial costs that will far outweigh any benefit from blunting the warming trend in the "out years."

    Much of what passes for analysis in this subject area is politically driven, and not scientifically valid.
    Odd, because your post is politically driven, and not scientifically valid. My condolences to you on of the death of one of your beloved leaders. (BTW, who are you quoting?)

    Re. Al Gore.

    Re. Little Ice Age.

    Re. the hockey stick.

    Re. Scientific consensus.

  11. #26
    Senior Member TEO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    752

  12. #27
    Senior Member TCD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,838
    Not quoting anyone in particular, just using the quotation marks to highlight word choices.

    Never followed Koch; not worried about what he thought. (But saddened by the massive show of disgusting hatred that has been produced by his death...)

    I don't let other people tell me what to believe; I look at data and try to understand it. Time will tell; I won't be around in 100 years to know if I was right or wrong. Maybe some of our youngest members will get a look at things in 70 years and be able to see what direction it's actually headed.

  13. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Lewiston, and Biddeford Maine
    Posts
    635
    You can go back thousands of years and look at archeological records and see that the climate is constantly changing, long before mankind had any sort of impact on the environment. The Earth goes through frequent freeze/thaw cycles. We are in the midst of a thaw cycle. If history is any indication, the Earth will warm for another couple thousand years and then glaciate for 100,000 or so.

    I was watching a show on Curiosity Stream about the Black Sea and scanning the sea floor for shipwrecks. The Black Sea was a large landlocked lake until the Mediterranean Sea levels rose and entered the Black Sea through the Bosphorous Strait. A couple researchers think it may have been as recently as 3000 years ago and gave rise to the Noah's Ark story in the Bible.

  14. #29
    Senior Member ChrisB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    KoKo Head Direct About 1024 Steps one way
    Posts
    753
    Quote Originally Posted by skiguy View Post
    Is it really worth arguing over the significant height. It’s just a real nice hike from which side or the other.
    Right!

    And, since we make the rather arbitrary rules for the games we play, we can always create the... 3995rs

    ...if we find we really miss lil ole Tecumseh.
    Nobody told me there'd be days like these
    Strange days indeed -- most peculiar, mama
    .

  15. #30
    Senior Member Salty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Warner, NH
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisB View Post
    Right!

    And, since we make the rather arbitrary rules for the games we play, we can always create the... 3995rs

    ...if we find we really miss lil ole Tecumseh.
    I'm going with hexadecimal for the 0x1000' footers with a 0x100' col depth (4096'/256').

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •