PDA

View Full Version : Which Mountain Will You Climb Next?



Flag-Soil
Sunday, July 31st, 2016, 12:21 PM
Next on my list is Ben Nevis by the CMD Arete, the ridge on the left:

http://www.ramsaysround.com/gfx/CMD-Arete.jpg

Bernhard
Thursday, August 11th, 2016, 07:57 AM
In general, those mountains that I have climbed never really were planned that far ahead; it mostly depended on where I was going and what I could find there. But there are some I have on my 'to do list':

Watzmann mountain range, near the Königssee in Bavaria, with the highest summit being 2714 meters.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Watzmann3.jpg

I once started climbing the Slættaratindur, the highest mountain of the Faroe islands with 880 meteres. We made it up until the ridge, but the weather was too bad to continue the last part to the summit, so it's my wish to return someday to complete this. It is said that with perfect weather you have the furthest view on earth, where you can (very rarely) even see Iceland.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Faroe_Islands,_Eysturoy,_Funningur_(6).j pg

Perhaps this summer I will climb the 2344 m Ellmauer Halt in Austria, highest peak of the Kaiser mountains.

http://images.summitpost.org/original/649363.jpg

Huginn ok Muninn
Thursday, August 11th, 2016, 11:08 AM
Holy crap. I get dizzy on top of an 8 foot ladder. :-O

Alright, I'll be ambitious and say I'd hike to the top of this:

http://media.holidaycheck.com/data/urlaubsbilder/images/41/1157710932.jpg

:P

Shadow
Thursday, August 11th, 2016, 08:09 PM
Holy crap. I get dizzy on top of an 8 foot ladder. :-O

Alright, I'll be ambitious and say I'd hike to the top of this:

http://media.holidaycheck.com/data/urlaubsbilder/images/41/1157710932.jpg

:P


I'm with you. I climbed into a car and drove to the top of Mona Loa which was over 14,000 ft.

Englisc
Thursday, August 11th, 2016, 08:39 PM
Uhm...Can Valserberg, the highest point in the Netherlands, count? I've been there. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaalserberg ;) :D

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/HighestPointOfTheNetherlands.jpg

Seriously, I wish I was fit enough to climb a mountain. Something I'd love to be able to do, but I've never found the willpower to get the weight off (I'm somewhat overweight) or to get fit enough. One of my greatest personal failings.

My uncle does a lot of fell running though. He has run up Snowdon and Ben Nevis, among other smaller mountains.

The Horned God
Thursday, August 11th, 2016, 09:26 PM
I once started climbing the Slættaratindur, the highest mountain of the Faroe islands with 880 meteres. We made it up until the ridge, but the weather was too bad to continue the last part to the summit, so it's my wish to return someday to complete this. It is said that with perfect weather you have the furthest view on earth, where you can (very rarely) even see Iceland.


You definitely wouldn't be able to see Iceland from the top of Slættaratindur. From a height of 880m your horizon would be 106km away assuming an unobstructed view. This page does the calculation; http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm

106km is not nearly far enough to be able see Iceland which is over 500km away from the Faroes.

And Slættaratindur certainly doesn't afford the farthest line of sight on earth. Any taller mountain with a view of the ocean to the horizon would allow you to see farther. Mauna Kea in Hawaii at over 4000m would be one example and there are many others.

However if you can see the top of another tall mountain from the summit of one you are on, then you might be able to see even beyound the ground-level horizon.

According to google the farthest line of sight on earth is from the top of Mt. Killimanjaro to the top of Mount Kenya 325km away.

The next mountain I'll be climbing will be BenBulben in County Sligo. I might do it next Monday if the weather is good. At 550m it not a particularly high mountain, even by Irish standards, but there we are, you take whats available.

http://www.globeholidays.net/Europe/Ireland/West_Ireland/Media/Sligo_Mount_Benbulben.jpg
Benbulben.

Bernhard
Thursday, August 11th, 2016, 10:09 PM
You definitely wouldn't be able to see Iceland from the top of Slættaratindur. From a height of 880m your horizon would be 106km away assuming an unobstructed view. This page does the calculation; http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm


What one would be able to see is the Vatnajökull, which rises over a 1000 meter above sealevel. But there are other variables at work here. At least, that's what the Guinness World Records say.


According to Guinness World Records Slættaratindur is the object of the world's longest sight line, 550 km from Vatnajökull, the largest glacier in Iceland. GWR state that "owing to the light bending effects of atmospheric refraction, Vatnajökull (2119m), Iceland, can sometimes be seen from the Faroe Islands, 340 miles (550km) away". This may be based on a claimed sighting of Vatnajökull by a British sailor in 1939, during the British occupation of the Faroe Islands in World War II when they were used to monitor German shipping and U-boat movements. The validity of this record is analysed/undermined in mathematical and atmospheric detail by J.C. Ferranti.

Source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sl%C3%A6ttaratindur)

The Horned God
Thursday, August 11th, 2016, 10:27 PM
Seriously, I wish I was fit enough to climb a mountain. Something I'd love to be able to do, but I've never found the willpower to get the weight off (I'm somewhat overweight) or to get fit enough. One of my greatest personal failings.


It's not a question of willpower or the ability to resist hunger. You're just eating the wrong food. Namely too much simple carbohydrates and not enough fruit and vegtables.

If you want to lose weight to be able to climb mountains then you need to make a priority of eating as much fruit and vegetables as you possibly can every day.

If you commit to doing that you'll never be hungry, and won't have room in your stomach for all the cakes and biscuits etc, that are making you fat now.

Start off slowly with foods you like. Do you like apples? Eat a bag a day. Do you like pears or bananas or peaches? Same policy. You don't need to limit those kinds of foods. Boiled or baked Potatoes are also fine as are beans and peas and any type of vegetable. You can eat any of those foods in unlimited quantities and you'll almost certainly lose weight and be healthier, and never be hungry.

Have a look at this video about calorie restriction. I'm not suggesting you start practicing calorie restriction but the example is instructive. The man in the clip is a poker-thin 9 and a half stone at 5'9" inches tall. The average man his height is 12 stone. The reason he is so thin is he only consumes 1900 calories a day.

Difficult to maintain you might think, as that's fewer calories than the average woman consumes, but look at how bulky and full of fiber the food he eats is.

He couldn't be eating that weight of food everyday and be hungry, no one could, that is why he has maintained such a low calorie consumption;

cRouwxVxqY8

His dinner weighs 3 pounds or about 1.5kg in vegetables! And because it's all fiber it takes all day to digest so he's never hungry. Take a leaf out of his book (or salad) and you'll be amazed at the amount of weight you lose without needing to feel hungry at any time.

The Horned God
Thursday, August 11th, 2016, 11:21 PM
What one would be able to see is the Vatnajökull, which rises over a 1000 meter above sealevel. But there are other variables at work here. At least, that's what the Guinness World Records say.


A 1000m elevation still only allows you to see 112km. Add that to the 106km that the 880m elevation of Slættaratindur allows you to see and you have a combined line of sight of 218km, still no where near to closing the 550km distance between those two points.

The story of some sort of atmospheric lensing making the view possible is interesting, but uncorroborated. Even if it happened it was most likely a one off event, since it has never been reported since.

So assuming it happened, it may be the longest line of sight that ever took place but it wouldn't be true to say it is the longest line of sight that currently exists, as it doesn't currently exist in any physical sense. Nor is it strictly accurate to say that it is a rare event. An event that only happened once can't be said to be rare, it is unique.

Englisc
Friday, August 12th, 2016, 11:26 AM
It's not a question of willpower or the ability to resist hunger. You're just eating the wrong food. Namely too much simple carbohydrates and not enough fruit and vegtables.

If you want to lose weight to be able to climb mountains then you need to make a priority of eating as much fruit and vegetables as you possibly can every day.

If you commit to doing that you'll never be hungry, and won't have room in your stomach for all the cakes and biscuits etc, that are making you fat now.

Start off slowly with foods you like. Do you like apples? Eat a bag a day. Do you like pears or bananas or peaches? Same policy. You don't need to limit those kinds of foods. Boiled or baked Potatoes are also fine as are beans and peas and any type of vegetable. You can eat any of those foods in unlimited quantities and you'll almost certainly lose weight and be healthier, and never be hungry.

Have a look at this video about calorie restriction. I'm not suggesting you start practicing calorie restriction but the example is instructive. The man in the clip is a poker-thin 9 and a half stone at 5'9" inches tall. The average man his height is 12 stone. The reason he is so thin is he only consumes 1900 calories a day.

Difficult to maintain you might think, as that's fewer calories than the average woman consumes, but look at how bulky and full of fiber the food he eats is.

He couldn't be eating that weight of food everyday and be hungry, no one could, that is why he has maintained such a low calorie consumption;

cRouwxVxqY8

His dinner weighs 3 pounds or about 1.5kg in vegetables! And because it's all fiber it takes all day to digest so he's never hungry. Take a leaf out of his book (or salad) and you'll be amazed at the amount of weight you lose without needing to feel hungry at any time.
I'm aware of the low-carb diet - and that it's not a good idea to focus on calorie restriction as that can lead to you actually gaining weight over time. I tried going low-carb for a while and I think I did start to get some weight off, along with generally consuming fewer calories per day than I had before, but I didn't manage to keep it up.

Dunno, I probably didn't focus enough on the diet and went too cold-turkey on the sweet stuff leading to cravings. I think I'll have another go at it considering the lessons I learned from last time.

The Horned God
Friday, August 12th, 2016, 01:08 PM
Dunno, I probably didn't focus enough on the diet and went too cold-turkey on the sweet stuff leading to cravings.

You don't have to cut the sweet stuff out completely, even fitness experts don't recommend doing that. They recommend eating small "cheat meals" of junk food a couple of days a week or when when cravings hit.

The key is to give in a little bit at the first sign of a craving while you still have plenty of self-control left. Then it's not a big deal to eat a small chocolate bar and leave it at that. But if you wait until your blood sugar has completely crashed and you are like a wild beast at the colosseum you'll just eat everything in sight. So try not to let yourself get to that point.

I'd recomend giving in to cravings as soon as they appear in a controlled way, and then immediately afterwards eat a load of fruit, 3 large apples say. The fruit will add some natural sugar and a lot of fibre which will slow the absorption of the simple carbs your after eating and prevent the cravings coming back for probably a few hours.

Some people would assume that if you eat 3 large apples after a bar of choclate you are just loading yourself with additional calories, but it doesn't work like that, what you are doing is greatly decreasing the average calorie density and rate of absorption of the "meal" by greatly increasing the fibre content of the "meal". That's the important thing. 3 pieces of fruit now will mean you won't be as hungry later because your blood sugar will be supported for a much longer time than on choclate or cake alone.

Just as an estimate if you got 20% of your daily calories from chocolate bars, cake, biscuits etc, you'd be slightly chubby maybe, but actually about average. 20% of your daily calories is 400 calories. That's like a bar or cadbury's dairy milk and a couple of chocolate hobnobs. In terms of bulk it's nothing, it won't fill you up. It'd represent nearly a quarter of your days calories yet you'd be craving sugar again half an hour later. That's why eating like that doesn't work if you want to lose weight. And the best way to ensure that you don't repeat a sugar binge too often during the day is to chase the junk food with a lot of bulky fibrous food like fruit. Try it and see if it works for you.

Ingvaeonic
Friday, August 12th, 2016, 02:44 PM
Which Mountain Will You Climb Next?

K2, in my dreams!

Bernhard
Friday, August 12th, 2016, 07:02 PM
The story of some sort of atmospheric lensing making the view possible is interesting, but uncorroborated. Even if it happened it was most likely a one off event, since it has never been reported since.


Well yes, but that's the thing we don't know. It's not even sure whether the claim is based on this one recorded sighting. Hence me phrasing the whole thing as "it is said", refering to the World Guinness Records. Anyway, I wouldn't go up there expecting to see Iceland.

*As a correction to my previous post, the Vatnajökull is over 2000 meters, not 1000.

The Horned God
Friday, August 12th, 2016, 07:16 PM
*As a correction to my previous post, the Vatnajökull is over 2000 meters, not 1000.

Even a 2500 meter elevation allows a line of sight of 178km so it doesn't change the calculation decisively. You still won't see Vatnajökull from the Faroes even on the clearest day under normal conditions.

The whole idea of being able to see Islands in the Atlantic that aren't there or at least are't where they appear to be (perhaps due to some sort of mirage) is an interesting one.

There may be an instance of a similar phenomenon in the legend of "Hy-Brasil".


"Brasil, also known as Hy-Brasil or several other variants,[1] is a phantom island said to lie in the Atlantic Ocean[2] west of Ireland. Irish myths described it as cloaked in mist except for one day every seven years, when it became visible but still could not be reached."


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Ortelius_1572_Ireland_Map.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brasil_(mythical_island)

The Horned God
Friday, August 12th, 2016, 10:52 PM
K2, in my dreams!

In your nightmares more like. For every 4 people that successfully summit K2, 1 dies on the mountain.

You'd have a far lower chance of dying doing 3 or 4 tours of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan. Why would anyone want to risk their lives to that extent just to go and do something that hundreds of people have done before? I don't understand it.

I did attempt to climb mount Blanc a few years ago, I got pretty high but had to turn back because of bad weather. But the risk of dying on Mount Blanc is 1 in 500, not 1 in 4...

Ingvaeonic
Saturday, August 13th, 2016, 05:47 AM
In your nightmares more like. For every 4 people that successfully summit K2, 1 dies on the mountain.

You'd have a far lower chance of dying doing 3 or 4 tours of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan. Why would anyone want to risk their lives to that extent just to go and do something that hundreds of people have done before? I don't understand it.

I did attempt to climb mount Blanc a few years ago, I got pretty high but had to turn back because of bad weather. But the risk of dying on Mount Blanc is 1 in 500, not 1 in 4...

Yes, there is an element of truth in what you say.

K2 is clearly the most dangerous of the Eight-thousanders of the Himalayan and Karakoram mountain ranges. It has a death-rate percentage of 22.8%, according to the Wiki item on the subject, by far the highest death-rate percentage of all the Eight-thousander mountains.

Link: Eight-thousander (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-thousander)

The Horned God
Saturday, August 13th, 2016, 02:20 PM
Yes, there is an element of truth in what you say.

K2 is clearly the most dangerous of the Eight-thousanders of the Himalayan and Karakoram mountain ranges. It has a death-rate percentage of 22.8%...[].

Link: Eight-thousander (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-thousander)

According to that page there is an 8000'er more dangerous even than K2. Annapurna has seen 191 successful assents and 61 deaths. Making a death rate of 25.1%. Most of the deaths are due to fluid on the lungs or brain. Other deaths are due to avalanche. All causes of death that the climbers have little or no control over.

Ingvaeonic
Tuesday, August 16th, 2016, 09:12 AM
According to that page there is an 8000'er more dangerous even than K2. Annapurna has seen 191 successful assents and 61 deaths. Making a death rate of 25.1%. Most of the deaths are due to fluid on the lungs or brain. Other deaths are due to avalanche. All causes of death that the climbers have little or no control over.

I must have missed that. I shall have another look.

Damn it! You're right. Annapurna I has a death-rate percentage of 25.1%.

Well, K2 has the second highest death rate of the eight thousanders.:thumbup

Flag-Soil
Wednesday, November 2nd, 2016, 01:03 AM
The West Flank of the Eiger has been on my list for a couple of years now. It would be a sightseeing trip to see the famous north face close up! It is within my ability, I can climb grade 1 scrambles, but it would be wise to hire a guide.

http://www.summitpost.org/images/medium/743141.JPG

It is a two day walk, with a bivouac halfway up:
http://www.summitpost.org/images/medium/743144.JPG

The Horned God
Thursday, November 3rd, 2016, 01:18 PM
It is within my ability, I can climb grade 1 scrambles, but it would be wise to hire a guide.


I would suggest to you that if you think you might need a guide for something like that, then you definitely need one! Suppose the weather closes in, as it can on the Eiger, would you trust yourself to find your way safely in zero visibility?

Also the route appears to be glaciated near the top. How experienced are you at distinguishing snow and ice that is sound enough to bare your weight from that which isn't? One stumble there and if you aren't roped to anyone you could be a gonner...

Flag-Soil
Thursday, November 3rd, 2016, 10:17 PM
I would suggest to you that if you think you might need a guide for something like that, then you definitely need one! Suppose the weather closes in, as it can on the Eiger, would you trust yourself to find your way safely in zero visibility?

Also the route appears to be glaciated near the top. How experienced are you at distinguishing snow and ice that is sound enough to bare your weight from that which isn't? One stumble there and if you aren't roped to anyone you could be a gonner...

I spoke to a mountain guide about Eiger west flank in a pub last year, he said it is easy, and that he had climbed it without crampons. Here are two views of the gradient, it is not extreme at all, people ski down the west flank. The weather, is the main risk.

https://s12.postimg.org/454lvchlp/eiger_west_face_ski_descent_topo_ross_he witt1.jpg

https://s12.postimg.org/q312p4wm5/743261.jpg

The North Face of the Eiger has a gripping history, there are many very entertaining documentaries about it, this is one of the best: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3ntsiw