Talk:Mountain/Archive 1

Higher or Taller
Hears a question from the trivial facts file first posed on the Mount Everest talk page.
 * The summit of Mt Chimborazo in Ecuador is 2150m further away from the centre of the earth than the summit of Mt Everest. Does that mean it's higher or taller or what?

Should something be said about how mountain heights are measured on earth and elsewhere in the solar system? -- kiwiinapanic 09:31 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Sure. The rule is "above mean sea level" - I believe cartographers have a model of the nonspherical earth, so they can calculate where the sea would be if it was lapping at the base of Everest. But we should get a cite-able source for this. Stan 13:34 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Rivers?
If all major river systems come from mountains - where is the range that causes the Mississippi River? Hmmmm? It starts in Minnesota in a bog if I'm not mistaken. The Wisconsin River comes out of Lac Vieux Dessert lake.

Definition
Four separate definitions of a mountain are given at the start of this article. At the end of the relevent section, we are told that "by this definition" mountains cover X % of the landmass of each continent. Which of the above 4 definitions are these satistics using?

Illogical Paragraph
''Mountains cover 54% of Asia, 36% of North America, 25% of Europe, 22% of South America, 17% of Australia, and 3% of Africa. As a whole, 24% of the Earth's land mass is mountainous. Also, 1 in 10 people live in mountainous regions. All the world's major rivers are fed from mountain sources.''
 * This is currently flagged as needing verification, but surely this is impossible because (as it says earlier in the article, and as is discussed below) there is no official differentiation between a hill and a mountain. At least, then, this should include what quantifies a mountain for these figures (i.e. what the original source claims)? If no such number can be found then perhaps this is worthy of removal from the article (although it does give a good rough figure for interest's sake). Angus Lepper 18:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is valuable information and should be kept in some form. Perhaps it should say mountains over 1km or mountains/hills cover 54% ... --SRS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.173.199 (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This data derives from the UNEP WCMC work done in the run-up to the International Year of Mountains in 2002, and it derives from the definition that I've now added in. So the logic should now be present.--91.111.130.10 (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hill versus Mountain
I am truly interested in finding out the difference between a hill and a mountain. Any dictionary just tells you that a mountain is larger than a hill and that a hill is smaller than a mountain. Anyone that can give a more definitive answer to that I would like to hear from via this page.

To the best of my knowledge, Anon, that's about as definitive as it gets. Here in Australia, where it's mostly pretty flat, and the highest peak of all is on the same level as the entire plain that Mexico City sits on, we tend to call almost any little bump a "mountain" - features that I shouldn't think anyone would even bother calling a "hill" if they were in Switzerland or the Himalaya. Also, we call some very tiny streams "rivers". It's all relative. Tannin

Yep. Take a look at Yucca Mountain. I've been there and toured the facility and think it is very funny that the ridgeline (which is only 200 metres above the surrounding average elevation) is called a "mountain." As far as I'm concerned if a hunk of rock is smaller than the tallest building in the world then it is a hill. --mav

Often it's just perpetuation of a longstanding name - in the old days "mountain" was far more likely to be used - but in a couple places I've seen allusions to a formal criterion of the sort that a geographic names board might use. It's on my list to track down one of these days. Stan 04:38 28 May 2003 (UTC)


 * When I was in Nepal, my Nepalese guides called anything that probably didn't exceed 10,000 ft. a "hill" or sometimes a "big hill". All relative sometimes I guess when you have the Himalayan giants over 20,000 ft nearby. RedWolf 04:51, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * BRITANNICA NON GFDL QUOTE: A mountain is a landform that rises prominently above its surroundings. It is generally distinguished by steep slopes, a relatively confined summit, and considerable height. The term mountain has topographic and geologic meanings. It generally refers to rises over 2,000 feet (610 meters).


 * In England and Wales there was a traditional standard of 1000 feet supposedly used by the OS. There is an anecdotal tale related to the village of Taffs Well (as dramatised in The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain) where the land mass known to the locals as the "mountain" was a few feet short of the 1000ft mark (I believe it is 16ft in the film) and thus designated a hill.  Chris talk back 01:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it has to do with the climbing of the mountain. Is it rocky? Do you have to use your hands to climb up? Is it steep? Then it's a mountain.--God of War 06:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, a mountain is measured, in most instances, relative to sea level. As such, in this geological sense, you can have mountains that do not rise very far above their surroundings at all viz. mountains that make up mountain ranges and are only given numbers rather than names. In this sense, the word 'mountain' is qualitatively distinct from that of hill, and you cannot say "here a hill ends and a mountain begins". 143.252.80.100 14:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Under sea
This article doesn't seem to talk about mountains or mountain ranges lying wholly under the ocean. Which are the major ones ? Is there a list or article anywhere else ? Jay 11:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * try mid-ocean ridges. The East Pacific Rise, Mid-Atlantic Ridge are the obvious ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.98.21 (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Jay (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Britannica
I was sceptical about the Encyclopaedia Britannica "requiring" mountains to be over 2000 feet, so I went to the library and looked it up. This is all the EB (15th edition, 2002) has to say on the question:
 * Mountains generally are understood to be larger than hills, but the term has no standardized geological meaning.

It's only the Student Britannica that gives the 2000 foot threshold, and even then it only says that mountains are "generally understood" to be over 2000 feet, not that they definitively are. I think this article tries too hard to quantify something that can't be quantified, but if we must put a figure on it (as we probably should, since it's clearly a source of debate), it ought to be with the appropriate qualifiers. --Blisco 21:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * According to Encyclopædia Britannica, the Britannica Student Encyclopedia is Compton's Encyclopedia by another name. Here is the start of the article (subscription required for the full whammy) in the 'real' Britannica, where the above quote can be found. --Blisco 21:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed Why it is created? What for ? section
I removed this section because it violates NPOV and it has nothing scientifically to do with mountains. This section would better belong somewhere else. It is also a form of original research; see: No original research.

User:  Hdt83  |  Talk/Chat  19:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

How could you know that this has nothing scientifically to do ? it's full of science كس اخت اللي أنفضك يا ابن الشرموطة

Seriously, stop putting it in there.

Higher than Everest?
Can someone please provide verifcation that there used to be mounains much higher than everest? I know this is true but I would like to see verification. I know there used to be volcanoes in New Mexico and Arizona much higher than everest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sunoco (talk • contribs) 21:20, March 29, 2007 (UTC)

Ice Volcanoes  Volcanoes have been known to erupt on other planets and moons in our solar system in our life-times (volcanoes on Venus for example, constantly erupt)and some of them erupt ice instead of lava. Sorry I could not figure out how to make a new section. Can someone verify or site ice volcanoes. I find it hard to belive.

Mauna Loa The highest peak on the planet, although a significant amount of it is under the Pacific ocean. Only about 13,448 ft/4100m of Mauna Loa are above sea level, so it may not seem like a very tall mountain. But, when you start measuring Mauna Loa from its true base on the bottom of the ocean, in the Hawaiian Trough, the total height exceeds that of Everest by over 3/4 of a mile. Mauna Loa is Hawaiian for "Long Mountain", probably because of its long, gently sloping shape. If you want to get really technical, Mauna Kea, a neighbor of Mauna Loa on the same island of Hawaii, is actually the tallest mountain in the world. Mauna Kea is about 350 ft/107m taller than Mauna Loa, but its mass doesn't compare to that of Mauna Loa. Mauna Loa takes up a lot of space because its mass is 9,700 cubic miles/40,000 cu km of mountain. --0s1r1s (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Bizzarely written section
Under the "Characteristics" section, there are a few bizarre statements, for instance: "Mountains are not generally liked for human habitation; the weather is harsher, less water is available, and there is little level ground suitable for peeing" - why is having level ground for urinating a significant problem for mountain dwellers?? I'd imagine being unable to erect structures easily would be a more pressing problem. It's a vaguely surreal statement, and does look out of place here.

Also, "At very high altitudes, there is less air in the air" - erm, well that statement really doesn't make any sense, it's the sort of observation a three-year-old might make when climbing up a mountain, if they actually did that kind of thing. Surely the correct statement is either "there is less oxygen in the air", or "the air is thinner and less dense, meaning more demands are put on the body to obtain enough oxygen" (I'm sure there's a better way of wording that, but you get the idea)

And here's a statement which surely must be a lie - "Despite some biological adaptation by peoples who have lived on mountains for hundreds or thousands of years, babies' average birthweight is reduced by 100 grams for every 1 meter gain in altitude." - What?, ok, so a baby born 10 meters above sea level weighs 1kg less on average? Maybe the writer got confused between a meter and a kilometer? I think that's the most likely case, and that kind of claim should be referenced, surely? Alanmarsden 10:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The first two of those statements have already been removed from the article, I removed the third statement. Doing a couple quick google searches the only thing I could find that indicated birth weight is affected by altitude is this article, and a research paper that somewhat covers the birth weight of animals in high altitudes.  It's pretty safe to assume that all three were vandalism.  Gh5046 06:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * McCullough et al (1977, Archives of Environmental Health) found both a decrease in birth weight and higher infant mortality as altitude increases in a study in Colorado. The mean birth weight of their "high" altitude babies was over 200 grams less than their lower altitude babies.2shots (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

test —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.240.201.13 (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

too many mountains that look like postcard mountains?
This is a really wonderful and well-loved site. My only complaint is that, as far as the images go, there seems to be a disproportionate focus on particularly high mountains that conform to certain common stereotypes of what mountains are "supposed" to look like. I was wondering if there could be a little more balance. The Blue Ridge image is a good start; I've added one of the northern Appalachians. A few others should do the trick and balance out the images to show an informative range of mountain forms and sizes. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC) P.S. Five images of mountains in Pakistan?? It's a great country with gorgeous mountains, but hey. . .--Pgagnon999 (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've gone ahead and done it. Hope it inspires some lively discussion. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

thinking of relabeling "Local definations" to "Definition" and moving to the top.
Seems to me that what should be first is a definition of what constitutes a mountain, and the arguments contained therein, as opinions vary regarding how high a landmass needs to be before it is considered a mountain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgagnon999 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC) Done--Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
Any idea why this particular article receives so much vandalism? --Pgagnon999 (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Highest?
This section ''The peak that rises farthest from its base is Mauna Kea on Hawaii, whose peak is 10,200 metres (33,500 ft) above its base on the floor of the Pacific Ocean. Mount Lamlam on Guam also lays claim to the tallest mountain as measured from it base. Although it's peak is only 406 metres (1,330 ft) above sea level, it measures 11,530 metres (37,830 ft) to it's base at the bottom of the Marianas Trench.'' seems contradictory to itself. How can Mauna Kea be the peak that rises farthest from its base, when Mount Lamlam rises farther from its base? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.214.17.5 (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC) On top of a mountain the atmosphere is very hard to breath.You can sometimes find anchors on the mountain! I saw one on a mountain.You have to climb a very long time to get to the top of a mountain.Its very fun and a perfect vacation spot for the family.On a mountain other mountains in the distance will look blue. By the way make sure you bring extra water when you travel! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.130.24 (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

New image sizing parameter available in infobox mountain
Step right up & be the first on your block to use the new image resizing option available for Template:Infobox Mountain. This new option is expressed by the line "| Photo size = x " where x= the width of the photo in pixels. The line has been included in the template description for easy cut and paste. If the line is excluded from the template, photo width defaults to 300px. Note, however, if the line is included with no parameter, the photo will not display.

This option is especially useful in working with vertical compositions, which tend to display too large at 300px, or lower quality images that may appear too grainy at 300px.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Why mountains are cold
The article states that the reason mountains are cold is "the Sun heats Earth from the ground up". To my knowledge, the statement is false. At best it's a hypothesis that shouldn't be stated as fact. It should be removed from the article for the following reasons: Spiel496 (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A high plateau is also cold; the hypothesis wrongly predicts that the air, being close to the high ground of a plateau, should be just as warm as a low valley.
 * Air heated at low altitude should rise -- why then aren't mountains warmer than lowlands?
 * Yes, some of the heat radiating up from the ground is absorbed by the atmosphere; but the sun sends a lot of heat downward. If the atmosphere were so optically dense that it blocked ground heat from reaching a mountain, then by the same reasoning the ground should be shielded from the heat of the sun.
 * The hypothesis would predict that at night mountains should be warmer than lowlands, because then the situation is reversed: the ground cools by radiating into space.
 * The article lapse rate which describes just this phenomenon doesn't mention the heat-from-ground hypothesis.
 * Such a hypothesis would be more appropriate in the lapse rate article.


 * Agreed. I am no expert, but I learned that air cools with altitude because of adiabatic expansion of rising currents and cooling of descending currents, which agrees with the lapse rate article. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The only problem I have with this sort of reasoning is that referenced material has been removed from the article and has not been replaced with (better) referenced material. Granted, the original source material wasn't ideal, but from what I could see (and following the reference provided in the source material itself), there was some truth to the argument. That said, I have no issue with replacing that argument with a better (referenced), but even if we are meteorologists (and we're not), I don't think we should get in the habit of making judgement calls about the validity of a source without backing our judgments up. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Pgagnon999's point is well-taken. I would prefer to find the definitive reference.  My technical reasons above admittedly border on original research.  But I think they constitute a good reason to be suspicious of what was a fairly recent addition to the article.  A safe course of action is to return the content back to how it looked before 9 January 2008, which is essentially what Q Chris has done.  Spiel496 (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Q Chris hasn't returned the content, but another editor just did. Then you reverted. Considering your remarks above (unless I am misunderstanding them), I reverted your revert. Again, it's a bad precendent to delete sourced material withouth replacing it with improved sourced material --Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to imply that Q Chris returned the bogus content; I meant that he returned the article to its pre-controversial state. Isn't that the safest course of action in a controversy?  16 days ago, user Eldiadefiesta added some material that, while sourced, is likely wrong.  I'm simply proposing that we remove the material until we can find something that people can agree on.  Spiel496 (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have re-written the paragraph in question, and provided a source. I think it was correct before, but prone to mis-interpretation, because it didn't explain the role played by the density of the air.--Brambleshire (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Blatant Qur'an plugging
I tried to delete the "Mountains and religion" section, but some script designed to stop vandalism undid my edit.

Seriously, what the hell?

Just read the section and you'll see its obvious Islamic bias.

24.215.24.81 (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that paragraph is both unsourced and blatant original research. It should not be reinserted without exceptionally good sources. That said, edit wars are not the way to solve this. I strongly recommend editors reach consensus here rather than continue to remove and reinsert the paragraph in the article. Thanks, Gwernol 18:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you mean "Islamic bias"? Does it claim that Islam is better at describing mountains than Judaism or Christianity?  No.  It's just an example of a religious interpretation of the geology, and the religion happens to be Islam.  I have no problem with the section. Spiel496 (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest you re-read our policy on original research since the section in question is a clear example of that. On a minor note, if the only religion mentioned was Islam, the section would have to be titled "Mountains in Islam" and a full account of how mountains are treated in Islam would have to be given, otherwise it will fail WP:NPOV. Of course that doesn't really is a side matter until proper reliable sources can be given to allow inclusion of anything light the previous content. Gwernol 00:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A mountain is a landform that extends above the surrounding terrain in a limited area, with a peak. A mountain is generally steeper than a hill, but there is no universally accepted standard definition for the height of a mountain or a hill although a mountain usually has an identifiable summit. Mountains cover 64% of Asia, 36% of North America, 25% of Europe, 22% of South America, 17% of Australia, and 3% of Africa. As a whole, 24% of the Earth's land mass is mountainous. 10% of people live in mountainous regions. Most of the world's rivers are fed from mountain sources, and more than half of humanity depends on mountains for wate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.68.81.168 (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Funny thing is I actually came on here to see if I could find any references of 'Mountains' and their metaphysical nature as well as religious. Maybe a section on that could be applied with various sources as well as the Qur'an. And I don't see why using the Qur'an shouldn't be any different to the frankly uncountable Bible references on Wiki pages. As far as I can tell this isn't a Christian site and thus should show no bias, no matter how much bias lies in the heart of the writer. --Bbsoso34 (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The spritual connotations of mountins have many aspects and go well beyond just the Abrahamic religions. The tpic is probably worth an article of its own. Note that we have a stub article about Sacred mountains and a category to include specific mountains that are considered sacred, Category:Sacred mountains, though I realize that isn't exactly what Bbsoso34 is asking about. But those should be referenced in an article like Mountains and religion.   Will Beback    talk    01:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Archiving
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅--Oneiros (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Dubious
I'm repeating my concerns from January 2008 regarding the explanation for mountains being cold. The article claims that high altitudes are colder because the sun heats the atmosphere from the ground up. This viewpoint fails to explain several points: Spiel496 (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A high plateau is also cold; the hypothesis wrongly predicts that the air, being close to the high ground of a plateau, should be just as warm as a low valley.
 * Air heated at low altitude should rise -- why then aren't mountains warmer than lowlands?
 * Yes, some of the heat radiating up from the ground is absorbed by the atmosphere; but the sun sends a lot of heat downward. If the atmosphere were so optically dense that it blocked ground heat from reaching a mountain, then by the same reasoning the ground should be shielded from the heat of the sun.
 * The hypothesis would predict that at night mountains should be warmer than lowlands, because then the situation is reversed: the ground cools by radiating into space.
 * The statement "with the thinning of the atmosphere, the insulating effect of the air decreases, resulting in less heat retention" is especially perplexing.
 * The article lapse rate which describes just this phenomenon doesn't mention the heat-from-ground hypothesis.


 * I wrote the bit about "with the thinning of the atmosphere, the insulating effect of the air decreases, resulting in less heat retention". I offer you the relevant excerpts of the two articles encyclopedia that I sourced:


 * This from the article on Atmosphere...

The atmosphere may be divided into several layers. In the lowest one, the troposphere, the temperature as a rule decreases upward at the rate of 5.5°C per 1,000 m (3°F per 3,000 ft)... The density of dry air at sea level is about 1/800 the density of water; at higher altitudes it decreases rapidly, being proportional to the pressure and inversely proportional to the temperature. Pressure is measured by a barometer and is expressed in millibars, which are related to the height of a column of mercury that the air pressure will support; 1 millibar equals 1.33 mm (0.052 in) of mercury. Normal atmospheric pressure at sea level is 1,013 millibars, that is, 760 mm (29.92 in) of mercury. At an altitude of 5.6 km (about 3.5 mi) pressure falls to about 507 millibars (about 380 mm/14.96 in of mercury); half of all the air in the atmosphere lies below this level. The pressure is approximately halved for each additional increase of 5.6 km in altitude. At 80 km (50 mi) the pressure is 0.009 millibars (0.0069 mm/0.00027 in of mercury). Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.


 * And this from Temperature...

At low elevations the air temperature is also determined largely by the surface temperature of the earth. The periodic temperature changes are due mainly to the sun's radiant heating of the land areas of the earth, which in turn convect heat to the overlying air. As a result of this phenomenon, the temperature decreases with altitude, from a standard reference value of 15.5° C (60° F) at sea level (in temperate latitudes), to about -55° C (about -67° F) at about 11,000 m (about 36,000 ft). Above this altitude, the temperature remains nearly constant up to about 33,500 m (about 110,000 ft). Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.


 * So, from the above, my understanding is that the air at lower elevations is denser, so it insulates more. At higher altitudes, it is less dense, so any heat absorbed by ground dissipates faster.  So that goes for mountains and plateaus, but if you are standing in the middle of a plateau on a sunny day, then yes, it would probably be quite warm.  I don't know if that is the case or not, I'm just speculating.  Then at night, plateus and mountains would get especially cold, because the heat of the sun is no longer warming the ground and all the heat is quickly dissipating.  But I'm not a scientist, and this is not original research.  I only offer what I would consider a reasonably trustworthy source, and if there is another, better source with another, better explanation, then it should certainly be added to the article.--Brambleshire (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thinking about this some more... I think an adequate explanation would also have to mention the different ways heat is transferred, and something about wind. Heat comes in the form of sunlight, and is transferred in the form of radiation... so I wonder, does it just radiate all the way out into space, or what?  Your question about hot air rising is a good one, I have read about hawks riding the afternoon thermals in order to gain altitude, so why doesn't that hot air warm up the higher elevations?  I think maybe wind has something to do with that.  I don't have the answers at this time, but I think the article could be improved if it explained these things.--Brambleshire (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Addressing the "insulating effect" first, please notice that the Encarta quote does not contain any form of the word "insulate". That explanation is either completely your own, or it came from another source. I'll also point out the somewhat counter-intuitive fact that the thermal conductivity of a gas is independent of pressure.

I see now what Encarta is saying about the air at low elevations being heated by the ground. That sounds like a real effect that should at least be mentioned in the article (which it is). However, it isn't clear what "low elevation" means. For all we know, the effect extends only 500 ft above the surface. I hope that an expert can help out here. I have trouble believing that the ground effect extends upwards at a constant 5.5°C per 1,000 m all the way to 11,000 m, day and night.

Yes, I do think air motion plays a role. When air rises, the pressure drops, allowing it to expand. If a gas expands without heat being added, it cools. So rising air cools until it reaches a point where the surrounding air is the same temperature. I think that is the key to why temperature decreases with elevation. In order to get up there, the air had to cool. I see what Encarta is saying, but I suspect that the heating from the ground is a minor effect. Spiel496 (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I used the term "insulating effect", perhaps incorrectly, as shorthand for the idea that there is a layer of dense air in the lowest part of the atmosphere, near the surface of the earth, retaining heat. I can provide a source for that idea.  Sticking with Encarta, here is a quote from the article on Troposphere...

The troposphere contains 75 percent of the atmosphere's mass—on an average day the weight of the molecules in air (see Pressure) is 1.03 kg/sq cm (14.7 lb/sq in)—and most of the atmosphere's water vapor... Carbon dioxide is present in small amounts... carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (see Greenhouse Effect), which traps some of the earth's heat close to the surface and prevents its release into space... As sunlight enters the atmosphere, a portion is immediately reflected back to space, but the rest penetrates the atmosphere and is absorbed by the earth's surface. This energy is then reemitted by the earth back into the atmosphere as long-wave radiation. Carbon dioxide and water molecules absorb this energy and emit much of it back toward the earth again. Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.


 * I'm not claiming this goes very far to answer the question at hand, I'm just explaining my use of the term "insulating effect" -- though perhaps it is mis-leading. Like you said, we haven't defined "low elevation", and it is vague in the above quote what "close to the surface" means (other than within the Troposphere, which doesn't help us much).  I agree we could use the help of an expert. Or, if I can find a source that explicitly explains why mountains are cold, then I'll add it to the article.--Brambleshire (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, insulating in the greenhouse-sense! I was thinking conduction, and it didn't make any sense. I should have gotten there quicker. Yes, that's plausible. So the only remaining question is whether it contributes significantly. I agree, an expert would be welcome. Maybe I can round up someone from the Lapse rate article. Spiel496 (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think I got it. I went to the library and did some reading in a meteorology textbook.  One piece I was missing before was the contribution of water vapor in the air.  It absorbs a lot of radiant heat, more than carbon dioxide.  Here are two direct quotes, and then a summary of everything I learned from this source...

"Water vapor absorbs roughly five times more terrestrial radiation than all the other gasses combined, and it accounts for the warm temperatures of the lower troposphere, where it si more highly concentrated, and where we live."

"More radiant energy is received on mountaintops than in the valleys below because there is less atmosphere to hinder its arrival. The less dense mountain air, however, also allows much of the heat to escape these lofty peaks. This factor more than compensates for the extra radiation received. As a result, the valleys remain warmer than do adjacent mountains even though they receive less solar radiation."


 * So...


 * Mountains are cold because air temperature in the lowest layer of the atmosphere, the troposphere, decreases with gains in altitude. The rate at which the temperature drops with elevation, called the environmental lapse rate, is not constant (it can fluctuate throughout the day or seasonally and also regionally), but a normal lapse rate is 6.5 degrees C per kilometer. The temperature continues to drop up to a height of about 9 - 16 km, where it doesn’t decrease further.  However, this is higher than the highest mountaintop.


 * Practically all the heat at the surface of the Earth comes from the sun, in the form of solar energy. This heat is then transferred back into the atmosphere in several ways. Air is an insulator, so conduction of heat from the ground to the atmosphere is negligible. Heat is mainly transferred into the atmosphere through convection and radiation. Warm air rises because of its buoyancy, leading to convective circulation in the form of thermals. (Wind is also the result of convection: horizontal movement of air is a component of convection, this horizontal convective flow is called advection.)


 * When heat radiates from the surface of the earth, it is released as long-wave radiation, which does not travel through the air efficiently. This radiant heat is absorbed temporarily by gasses in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide and water vapor. Thus, the lower portion of the troposphere -- more than 50% of all air lies below the altitude of the summit of Mt. Everest -- forms a blanket of air keeping the surface warm. This is the Greenhouse Effect.


 * The higher one goes in altitude, the less of this blanket there is to keep in the heat. Thus, higher elevations such as mountains are colder than surrounding lowlands.


 * --Brambleshire (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I waited ten days, then I went ahead and updated the article, in the interest of removing the "dubious" tag. Please review at your convenience.--Brambleshire (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

nutshell
I would like to make a brief explanation of what a mountain is at the beginning of this article. I wish to say "mountains are large piles of solid rock many meters high". may I do this without my edit being instantly reverted and you calling it vandalism on my user discussion page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epicstonemason (talk • contribs) 21:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Most often this is completely irrelevant as there is a description of the article in the lead section. I'd seriously advise you NOT to engage in enforcing your first objective as stated on your talk page;  My current mission: I will replace every noun in the English version of Wikipedia with a link to it's respective page.').  I'm a bit reluctant in giving you free reign as you are playing the newbie type of role, yet you know how to italicise and to bold from day one.  Qwrk (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I figured out how to do everything I know how to do by looking at what other people have written in edit mode. I only made my account yesterday.Epicstonemason (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
There's some serious vandalism of someone editing the introduction section with the use of the words dick and pussy, it just makes me sick just to see that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.26.119 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

can anyone define: peak
it is stange that a introducing line uses a word, which is not defined in Wikipedia itself...Caumasee (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There are many common english words that are not linked in Wikipedia articles, see Manual of Style (linking), for a definition see . Mikenorton (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Mountain formation - misattribution of source of text and other changes needed.
Turner chris1 (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC) The following section requires some editing and changes to clarify its meaning, remove ambiguous text, poor grammar and misleading attribution to prominent geologists.

''Compressional forces in continental collisions may cause the compressed region to thicken, so the upper surface is forced upward. To balance the weight of the earth surface, much of the compressed rock is forced downward, producing deep "mountain roots" [see the Book of "Earth", Press and Siever page.413]. Mountains therefore form downward as well as upward (see isostasy). However, in some continental collisions part of one continent may simply override part of the others, crumpling in the process.''

The text is a nearly straight quote from this book http://www.scribd.com/doc/50479109/Miracles-of-Islam-Rotation-of-the-Earth, including the poor grammar. Not to quote the source is misleading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability), especially as the Press book is quoted at the end of the paragraph.

The reason for this I suspect is the text has been inserted by a group of muslims (influenced I think by the work of Zakir Naik and Zaghloul El-Naggar)to promote their belief that certain verses in the Quran (e.g. 16:15) contain scientific information (in this case the unproven idea that mountains somehow stabilise the earth) which could not have been been known to the prophet Mohammed in 650AD. It therefore goes against the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view policy.

Zakir Naik claims the support of the geologist Frank Press and in particular  that Press's book "Earth" contains text which supports their contentions. You can see a book by Naik which makes this claim at http://www.scribd.com/doc/10030165/Quran-and-Modern-Science-by-Dr-Zakir-Naik-Book page 25, hence the added  and I think misleading, "See the Book of the "Earth" towards the end of text.

I particular I think the following changes therefore need to be made:

1) it is not clear what 'To balance the weight of the earth surface', means?


 * Apparently this can (has! see http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43851/27096449/mountains_-_do_they_stabilise_or_not?pg=1) been interpreted as meaning the whole surface of the earth is balanced, rather than just the part being forced up, which is plainly not generally accepted geology.


 * Grammar - "the earth surface" is poor, but if you change it to earth's then you just make it more misleading!


 * Suggest this is changed to " the balance the weight of the material forced upward (i.e. the mountains and hills formed in the continental crust during the collision"),

2) see the Book of "Earth...." ==


 * is ugly English,


 * gives the misleading impression (to some) that the previous text it is actually quoted from that book (it doesn't seem to be see http://img102.imageshack.us/i/bldz4139ib.jpg/), I have pointed out the probable original source (but that could also be a copy from elsewhere). I think the reference may have refered to a diagram, which was then deleted from this wiki page for copyright reasons - but the reference has remained.


 * and is not a proper reference (i.e. with a number),
 * Suggest the reference to the book (not just a page) is added as a proper reference in the further reading section and removed from the general text. There have got to be more recent geology books than that one though!


 * Suggest that continental collisions should be a link to the wikipage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_collision (and if possible the ones for tectonics, mountain building etc. as a more informative way of describing what is happening at plate boundries.

Include a section on Mountains in religion


 * It may be useful to have a section which deals explicitly with the religious claims made, with references to wiki pages of Maurice Bucaille, Zakit Naik and others, with the muslim and the sceptic points of view presented properly.


 * I believe the above changes will improve the page - I am not sure exactly how to get this to happen, apparently there are tags I should be putting in for a protected page, but as the change may be seen as controversial, I thought it best to give people a chance to think about it before leaping in. here endeth my first ever post, hope I got it right and followed some of the rules!.21:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Turner chris1 (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Very good observations. Will take a closer look later. I've modified your format a bit above for readability (don't need multiple headers:). Vsmith (talk) 11:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I will wait for your final comments Turner chris1 (talk) 13:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems the material sourced to the Press and Sievier book has been there for quite a while, likely has been copied to other websites. I've fixed the ref format and will verify the page # later. More fixes needed, will be back to check further. Vsmith (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * you can see page 413 at http://www.scribd.com/doc/51244698/Earth, as I suggest above, I think that the diagram 17-34 was originally referenced, but this has got lost over time Turner chris1 (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well the rules say - be bold so I have been! Turner chris1 (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Bold works :) I've fixed a bit in the article per WP:MOS - and removed duplicate signatures here, just add the ~ after your post. Scribd page won't load on my balky connection right now. Vsmith (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I want new topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.94.90 (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Aconcagua not of direct volcanic origin
141.78.16.132 (talk) 13:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Aconcagua is not of volcanic origin as stated in this article. Have a look on Aconcagua's own site.

Grammer question
In the first paragraph of the definition section, is relatively the proper word? Mcx8xu (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)mcx8xu
 * Yes, its in a quotation from the OED. What it means is that a table mountain may have several "peaks", each of which in absolute terms are thousands of feet above sea-level, but since they are only a few feet higher than the plateau they don't count as separate mountains. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

"Closest point to outer space" dubious


In the first picture (reproduced here), I find the assertion that the point farthest from the center of the Earth is "the closest point to outer space" rather dubious, as what causes the Earth to bulge in the middle (i.e. its rotation) should also cause the atmosphere to bulge there, perhaps even more so, if we take ratios rather than absolute distances. Is the source considered reliable? Even if so, why should it be in bold? cm&#610;&#671;ee&#9742;&#9993; 00:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

re the Intro
I glanced at and watchlisted this when "you guys" targeted it for improvement as a signature/core article.....second look now, and as per my first impression at time of watchlisting, the intro strikes me as very subjective, not accurate, and in need of proper citation......Skookum1 (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this whole thing's pretty weak. Thinking we should leave rewriting the lead until all the body work is finished.  That way it can sum up what's actually reffed lower down.  The Interior  (Talk) 05:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Core literature
I've noticed a lot of weak sourcing here, so maybe a good exercise is to start listing some of the "canonical" mountain writing. The Interior (Talk) 05:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Bermicourt and I have added half of these citations in the last 10 days. Please feel free to improve! The first source, below, is already cited: I'll update the reference.—hike395 (talk) 05:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It was stuff like "wisegeek.com" and "go4awalk.com" that was jumping out, I can see the reliable ones you guys are adding. Good work.  The Interior  (Talk) 05:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Bad ones replaced by good ones. —hike395 (talk) 06:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * there's a BC specific one Landforms of British Columbia S. Holland, originally published in the 1950s, may have a definition in it, but also has extensive sources/references; don't think it's online, it may be, used as citations on various Mountain Range articles.Skookum1 (talk) 08:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

List of sources

 * Gerrard, John. Mountain Environments: An Examination of the Physical Geography of Mountains. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1990. Print. The Interior  (Talk) 05:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Bernbaum, Edwin. Sacred Mountains of the World. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1990. Print. Author bio at the Banff Centre The Interior  (Talk) 06:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment
The included photo of Mount Rainier is wonderful to see. Speling12345 (talk) 8:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Problem with Mount Davidson
This is a mess.

This article tells us that it has a "height of 300 m (980 ft), which makes it ten feet short of the minimum for a mountain by American designations." Ignoring the doubtful mathematics (980 + 10 = 1000?), the line is rightly tagged as needing a citation.

The Mount Davidson article gives us a height of "928 feet (283 m)", sourced to the U.S. Geological Survey. That makes it pretty reliable. So the claim in this article seems just plain wrong.

The best solution would appear to be removal.

HiLo48 (talk) 05:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Anybody? HiLo48 (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree. Even the Mount Davidson page agrees with you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.38.196 (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2015
Please change "the Irish Republic" to "Ireland", the correct name of the country.

137.248.1.31 (talk) 11:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

❌ Ireland is the name of the island, which is divided between the Republic of Ireland, and Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom. - Arjayay (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Ireland is the name of the island and also the name of the country. Republic of Ireland is an official description of the state and can be used to avoid ambiguity but, as stated in the constitution, the name of the country is Éire in Irish or Ireland in English. 'Ireland' is used at the EU and UN for example. 'Irish Republic' is not correct in any sense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Irish_state Since the sentence begins "In the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic...", it is clear that the reference is to the state and there is no ambiguity and so it should be "In the United Kingdom and Ireland..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.248.1.31 (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC) Please see Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles/Ireland disambiguation task force in particular the section that states the current uses on Wikipedia:-
 * As you are unhappy with my initial response, I'll let another editor decide your re-raised request, but to my mind "the United Kingdom (In full: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland") and Ireland" double counts Northern Ireland.
 * As I'm sure you can imagine, the "correct" words to be used in Wikipedia; for all, and parts of, Ireland, have been already been discussed at great length.
 * Ireland - currently used for the island as a geographical entity and its entire political and cultural history
 * Republic of Ireland - currently used for the Irish state's article, which includes its post 1921 political history, and some of its pre-1921 cultural history
 * Northern Ireland - the UK country in the northeast of the island of Ireland
 * - Arjayay (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2015
Dear friends. Can you guys please help me how to edit semi-protected pages?

Suntalkha (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * as you have not requested a change. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  01:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2015
208.131.181.108 (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC) A mountain is a landform that is usually over 500 metres.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. There is already a rather detailed and sourced section on "definition" Cannolis (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2015
Fold mountains are mountain ranges that are formed when two of the tectonic plates that make up the Earth's crust push together at their border. The extreme pressure forces the edges of the plates upwards into a series of folds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.57.154 (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Chaco it out
Check out water on chat page on the to do list at the top. It's the bottom bullet point. So ridiculous :::; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.31.25.8 (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Where's that? ... It sounds like an adequate place to post something ridiculous (watched a travel video on youtube by the way). On a constructive side: what about mythology section - certainly different cultures have different mythologies connected to mountains - there's not a word of it in the article. Olympus anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.222.28 (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Type of Mountain
Please consider adding Residual Mountain as a Type of Mountain. These are mountains that form when the outlying soft rock becomes eroded. Monarock or Inselberg may not be apropriate as Inselbergs tend to be small in size( i think)--Shadychiri (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source that we could cite for that information? — Gorthian (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have began actively looking for materials that could support my view. I also feel that the use of the Term Erosion, may not be appropriate. Shadychiri (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Error in Mount Scott reference
Mount Scott is actually 2464 feet, 751m. Not 251m. This conflicts with the point trying to be made because at 2464 it would meet the criteria for mountain by the definition they reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.61.28.2 (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Numerical accuracy
Where does the figure 8,849.868 m come from? It seems wildly/misleadingly over-precise.80.229.172.13 (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It comes from a precise conversion from 29035 feet to metres - I've rounded it to the nearest metre. Mikenorton (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Mt. Everest is 8848m above sea level see the Mt Everest page RickyM12 (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Climate section edits and suggested corrections
1) Climate on mountains become colder at high elevations... → Climate in mountains becomes colder at high elevations...

2) This is known as an adiabatic process, which has a characteristic pressure-temperature curve. As the pressure gets lower, the temperature decreases. →  This is known as an adiabatic process, which has a characteristic pressure-temperature dependence: as the pressure gets lower, the temperature decreases.

Thank you! - Alex

Please edit the following: 1) Climate section: Change "Climate on mountains become colder at high elevations..."   to    "Climate in the mountains becomes colder at high elevations..."

2) Climate section: "This is known as an adiabatic process, which has a characteristic pressure-temperature curve" to "This is known as an adiabatic process, which has a characteristic pressure-temperature dependence"

Thank you! Oleksandr almaty (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  05:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Changing variety of English?
changed the spelling of "kilometer" and "center" to "kilometre" and "centre". To me, this seems to be changing the national variety of English in the article. According to MOS:RETAIN, we shouldn't change a stable choice of spelling, absent a compelling reason. "Kilometer" has been in this article since 2013, while "center" has been present since 2006. The subject of the article is worldwide, and so does not compel a particular variety of English. . I reverted Nyttend's edit. Am I missing something? —hike395 (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) Spelling is only a part of it. We must maintain a particular variety of English, which as I said already, means that we have to give priority to feet and miles or priority to metres and kilometres.  No country gives priority to meters and kilometers.  (2) Where's the stable variety of English that you're talking about?  Please glance at the last version before mine and run a search for   and a search for  : no variety of English has been established in this article.  Nyttend (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you and I are interpreting the MOS differently. The way I read it is: first you determine which units are primary by WP:UNIT. Then, you determine how to spell those units according to MOS:UNITNAMES and MOS:ENGVAR (which is called out in MOS:UNITNAMES). There's nothing in WP:UNIT that tells us that the choice of unit should depend on the choice of English variant. So I think it's possible for an article to have metric units first, which are spelled in an American way (if American is selected by the rules in MOS:ENGVAR).
 * Now, you make a good point that, prior to your edit, there was no clear choice of English variant in this article, so cleaning it up would be good. MOS:RETAIN says to "use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety.".
 * Using WikiBlame, I found the following:
 * "center" was first used here, October 7, 2006 (10,611 bytes)
 * "centre" was first used here, August 28, 2003 (3,412 bytes)
 * "meter" was first used here, January 15, 2007 (11,246 bytes)
 * "metre" was first used here, July 17, 2005 (6,725 bytes)
 * ORES says that the article version that first used "centre" is rated start class. It looks like the August 28, 2003 version was written by from Canada, therefore it looks like we'll use Canadian spelling (including centre, metre, kilometre). I'll mark the page with a template that places a hidden category.
 * Is this acceptable to you, Nyttend? —hike395 (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's workable. Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Sacred mountains
Have assembled some info on the role of mountains in the religious and philosophical arena, there having been a dearth of such info in this article previously. Religious aspects have been a key part of the human experience of mountains for millennia and more could be written on the topic though perhaps most is best reserved for the linked main article. Similarly a section in this article on mountains in literature and the arts, with relevant links would enhance it too. thanks Geopersona (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

"Geographic accident" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Geographic accident. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

"Dağ" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dağ. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)