Backcountry Death Stats

@Nick and @Vegan.Hiker -you're both right. Weather and geology are both contributors. The Eastern Sierra is still growing because there is still a lot of volcanic activity under the ground and tectonic plate movement is shoving the mountains upward while weather wears them down.
 
I have to side with Nick. The Appalachian Orogeny dates to around 300 million years. The initial mountain building in the Rockies began 60 something million years ago with the Laramide Orogeny. That initial compression folding was followed by extension faulting-a process that continues to this day. A lot of the Rockies is still on the rise, along with the west coast mountains.

I don't think there is any real difference in the erosion process. A lot of high elevation areas in the west receive 80 to 100" of annual precip. The greatest topography difference I see is the effects of glaciation. While certainly present in the northeast, it was primarily an ice cap that overrode all. While ice caps were also present in the west, most were of a more local variety like the Beartooths. The typical cirques, U shaped valleys, aretes, terminal moraines, etc we typically see in the Rockies, Sierras, and North Cascades were mostly the result of mountain glaciers.
 
Agreed. While wild weather certainly may play a part in localized erosion, the fact is that the Appalachian Range is just much, much older than the Rockies. A little Wikipedia research actually shows the Appalachian Range stopped growing roughly 200+ million years ago while the rockies main growth period stopped only 50+ or so million years ago. Very rough numbers, but you get the point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Rocky_Mountains
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Appalachians
 
Vegan.Hiker said:
I also read once that the reason the Appalachians on the east coast were shorter elevations than the Rockies out west was that the Appalachians were much older and therefore worn down by the harsh weather coming off the eastern coast.
Click to expand...

I'm quoting myself lol. I think my statements are being misinterpreted a little. I fully acknowledged that the Appalachians are older and that is the underlying factor (in fact I think I was the one to bring that up in the quote above). I was just making the point that the Appalachians in addition to being older, experience some harsher weather conditions being on the eastern seaboard, and that no doubt has contributed to faster erosion. I think we're all basically saying the same thing though.

I guess the real thing to discuss then is whether the Appalachians really are subject to harsher weather than the Rockies. I haven't looked into it enough to say for sure, but based on the fact that the worst weather conditions in the world occur atop Mt. Washington, NH in the Appalachians, I assumed that they do. But I could be wrong, as my wife will surely attest to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Vegan.Hiker said:
I'm quoting myself lol. I think my statements are being misinterpreted a little. I fully acknowledged that the Appalachians are older and that is the underlying factor (in fact I think I was the one to bring that up in the quote above). I was just making the point that the Appalachians in addition to being older, experience some harsher weather conditions being on the eastern seaboard, and that no doubt has contributed to faster erosion. I think we're all basically saying the same thing though.

I guess the real thing to discuss then is whether the Appalachians really are subject to harsher weather than the Rockies. I haven't looked into it enough to say for sure, but based on the fact that the worst weather conditions in the world occur atop Mt. Washington, NH in the Appalachians, I assumed that they do. But I could be wrong, as my wife will surely attest to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I think part of the difference is just in the data collection. Very few spots in the west that have a climate station sitting on the higher peaks. The climate on just the few I've sampled can be rugged indeed and they were definitely not anything special. Bottom line, east or west, you better have proper gear for whatever the endeavor is going to be, expecting a worse case scenario.
 
John Goering said:
I think part of the difference is just in the data collection. Very few spots in the west that have a climate station sitting on the higher peaks. The climate on just the few I've sampled can be rugged indeed and they were definitely not anything special. Bottom line, east or west, you better have proper gear for whatever the endeavor is going to be, expecting a worse case scenario.
Click to expand...

Totally agree... From what I've read the claim about Mt. Washington having the world's worst weather (which it a topic of endless dispute on the northeast hiking forum VFTT.org) makes an important distinction between climate and weather. Climate being more about averages over-time and the term weather taking volatility into consideration. The last time I was atop Mt. Washington it was a calm 78 degrees at the foot of the mountain and we got a reading of 36 degrees at the summit in high winds, sideways rain, and zero visibility. When we got back down, it was sunshine and birds chirping again.

But your point about most peaks not having weather observatories is completely true. Most peaks obviously don't. I did find this interesting article and while Mt. Washington has the highest average wind speeds (of those with an observatory), Longs Peak, in Colorado was very close behind (only 1 mph difference). So, I seriously doubt that Mt. Washington REALLY DOES have the "worlds worst weather" as is claimed, but like you said, hikers should always have respect for mountains and mother nature, and always be prepared for what can happen.

Here's that interesting article I came across - http://www.summitpost.org/interesting-weather-statistics-for-us-mountain-summits/171585
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top