Talk:Mount Logan

Elevation

Alm93 changed the elevation to 6,081 metres but I have reverted because 5,959 is the official height of Mt. Logan as I know it from several sources. Alm93, if you have new information/source, please provide it. RedWolf 15:40, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

About the peak's prominence, something is clearly wrong. If Mentasta Pass is at an elevation of 747m (see link), then Mt. Logan's prominence should be 5212m, not 5250m. Either the elevation of Mentasta Pass is wrong or someone didn't subtract correctly.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.186.108 (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

base circumference

Logan reportedly has the largest base circumference of any mountain on Earth.

What exactly is base circumference, and how is it defined? It would be good to have a link or some explanation because otherwise the statement looks very dubious. For example the first thought that came to my mind when reading the intro was: "Well, on what basis is its base circumference, whatever that is, larger than say Mt Mckinley, Aconcagua, or Mt Everest?" Hope this is not too much of a pain for someone to sort out... Deuar 14:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• The pages on the GSC and bivouac.com sites make this claim. However, neither provides scientific details. From what I have read so far on Mt. Logan, it covers a lot of area. While Everest may be the highest from sea level, I don't think I would consider it a massive mountain in terms of occupied area. RedWolf 17:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Base circumference is the distance traveled by walking around the base where the mountain begins to rise from the surrounding topography, presumably. Silver Penguin (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The base of a mountain is not well-defined in general, so I am always extremely skeptical of such claims. Since Logan rises almost entirely from rather flat glaciers, the base of the massif is closer to being well-defined than for most peaks, and it does cover a huge amount of ground. But for most peaks, it's a very sketchy concept; hence comparisons are unlikely to be meaningful. -- Spireguy (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's not at all clear what this is supposed to mean. One could take the base as the encircling contour at the level of the key col (as in the definition of prominence). That is, at least, well-defined but obviously falsifies the claim, since it would mean that the base of Mont Blanc is almost all of Europe and the base of Mount Everest would be the whole of Afro-Eurasia. So, to be honest, I think the claim ought to be deleted from the article. Although it's well-sourced, it seems to be ill-defined and you'd imagine that, given several plausible definitions, you'd imagine that the Geological Survey of Canada would choose the one that puts the world's "most special" mountain in Canada. Dricherby (talk) 10:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Map

I found the map misleading. The graphic seems to imply the mountain is in Alaska and not the Yukon. Can we find a better one?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.66.21.17 (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, we don't yet have a locator map for the Yukon. Once we have one, then it can be changed. RedWolf (talk) 05:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Coldest recorded temperature

If you look at the archived 500 mb (18,000 ft) maps for this date [1] (requires DJVU plugin) it shows that the temperature in the southern Yukon was only about -23 deg C. This is not even in the ballpark of the -78 C temperature claimed in the article, which would produce a phenomenal lapse rate that in no shape or form can be supported by springtime atmospheric temperatures. This really needs to be backed up by a credible source. -76.4.49.201 23:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Amen. Jarfingle 03:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it seems that the information was drawn directly from this site: http://www.summitsofcanada.ca/canatrek/summits/yukon.html Now, I'm not really the best judge of this, but the site seems to be an educational network, and is sponsored by the Royal Canadian Geographical Society, so it seems to be at least somewhat reputable. That said, of the links provided on the page, I couldn't find any that corroborated the site. 74.109.78.141 01:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, the above comment was mine. Jamincan 01:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have added the above site as the reference to the article. However, I also could not find another site supporting this claim so I have left the dubious note for now. I might look at contacting them by email to see if they would provide their source for the claim. RedWolf 19:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Any news on the email? Did you send it? Did they reply? --Bentonia School 15:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, haven't had a chance to pursue this further as of yet. RedWolf 19:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• I emailed them several months ago but never received a response. Therefore, with the evidence provided above and no other source for this claim, I have removed it. RedWolf (talk) 04:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone added that anecdote about -108F temperatures back in. I removed it -- that source is not authoritative and I agree that it's extremely fishy. I encourage its removal if it appears again. -Rolypolyman (talk) 11:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone added[2] this claim back in:

"A temperature of −77.5 °C (−107.5 °F) was recorded in May 1991, which made Mount Logan the northern hemisphere's Pole of Cold. "

I think that this is even worse than the claim that was removed in 2010:

"A temperature of −77.5 °C (−108 °F) was recorded on May 26, 1991, which may be the coldest temperature ever recorded in the northern hemisphere. This is quite controversial due to the high elevation."

At least the original sentence introduced doubt and didn't outright assign Mt. Logan as the Pole of Cold.

In the past, I've contacted the National Weather Service and successfully had them change their official records when there were obvious errors. They were obvious to me, even though the measurements were likely only 10 F (5.5 C) off the actual temperature for the day at that location. In this case, we're dealing with a temperature which is probably at least 60 F (33.3 C) off the actual temperature for the day at that location. And we're talking about the end of May here.

Some nearby stations to Mt. Logan

• Haines Junction (elevation 1965 ft.) - May 26 minimum temperatures each year available 1992-2011 (F):

42, 45, 45, 31, 29, 31, 36, 37, 39, 36, 50, 39, 36, 36, 35, 28

• Whitehorse (elevation 2306 ft.) - May 26 minimum temperatures each year available 1991-2011 (F):

39, 45, 39, 28, 50, 39, 30, 51, 33, 33, 36, 42, 39, 44, 45, 38, 46, 42, 35, 36, 35

To be conservative and take the minimum temperature in all those years, that would be -7.8 F/1000 ft, or -14.2 C/km. That seems pretty unlikely.

There are other weird weather stories which turn out to be bogus (140 F in Mexico) or true (110 F heat bursts in the middle of the night) or possibly true (157 F from a heat burst in Portugal), but for these:

1. There is more than one source.
2. One of the sources is a meteorological agency (typically).
3. There is a recognition that the measurement is out of the ordinary.
4. Somebody, other than a Wikipedian, proposes some theory or explanation, or at least describes other relevant conditions at the time.

To claim a record which is 19 F colder than the official Northern Hemisphere record, 22 F colder than the North America record (including Greenland), and -27 F colder than the official Canada record, and to be broken at the end of May - without any explanation or backup source, and from essentially a travel website - hurts our credibility.

I hope that this claim will not be re-added without at least explaining the change on the talk page.

Ufwuct (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

References

{{bivouac}}

I replaced all occurrences of the {{bivouac}} with {{cite bivouac}}. The new template uses {{tl:cite web}} internally so the appearance of the citation will always match that of the more often used and maintained template. Please feel free to ask any questions. Thanks --DRoll (talk) 04:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Pre-English name

Is there a pre-English name for the mountain? How is it known by local aboriginal peoples? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 19:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mount Logan/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs some information on geology before I could consider it worthy of B class. RedWolf (talk) 05:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 05:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 00:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mount Logan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120921022054/http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/earth-sciences/hist/logan/6987 to http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/earth-sciences/hist/logan/6987

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Does anybody have full climate data or is it just extrapolation?

We currently say reaches near freezing implying that the summit temperature is below freezing in all twelve months. THis is wholly credible given the elevation, but do we have hard data? In particular, how close to freezing is it really? Thanks, —Soap— 12:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)