Talk:Mount Washington

Template:New Hampshire Mountains

External Links

mountwashington.com is perpetually under construction. Also, the weather section fails to load because the site from which it was designed to "acquire" content has been updated. The Cog Railway prices are wrong and the schedule is out of date. Ditto the Auto Road schedule. Animated GIFs on the page appear to have been lifted from an old version of mountwashington.org, which you can see at archive.org. In sum, the information on the site is mostly incorrect, aggregated from other sites, or simply missing. I propose this link be removed.

--Talinus 16:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody responded for two months, I did the homework and deleted the link myself. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, which states "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research."

--Talinus (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

---

This removed text, from the ext links,

, the only railway in the world built entirely on trestles, 3.1 miles (5.2 km).

is either incoherant or just wrong. The tracks are laid on the ground at the summit, at the crossing with the Gulfside Trail, and apparently all the way between those two points; also at the Base Station and presumably large stretches between there and Gulfside. --Jerzy(t) 19:36, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

---

Modified avalanche text

and which have killed more than 130 people since 1849, largely in Tuckerman.

This number is more than all of the recorded deaths from all causes in all of the Presidentials, including falls, heart attacks, plane crashes, and railroad accidents. There were 2 Tucks avalanche deaths in 1954, 1 in 1956, and 2 in 2002, for a total of 5 , unless you add the one in 1996 on Lion's Head (which of course is 5 too many). Ref Howe, Nicholas(2000). Not Without Peril pp.299-304. and 11/29/2002 news at timefortuckerman.com. If we really need a fatality number, maybe it should cover all of Mt Washington, but maybe an external link to a compendium is sufficient. (updated talk) Lupinelawyer 01:45, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

panoramas

The link to the panoramas was removed by somebody as "spam" but they are non-commercial and, IMHO, very informative. I'm glad it was added and think it is good for the article (which is why I returned it). - DavidWBrooks 21:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The panoramas are exceptional resources; I've never seen a full-color digital version of this in such high resolution. --Talinus 14:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

External links

I added a link to a Web-based gallery of paintings of Mount Washington done by 19th century artists. JJ 22:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Weather

As an employee of the Observatory, I conferred with one of the meteorologists to correct the world record wind speed sentence. I also corrected the description of -47°F from "frequently" to once, as it is a station record low. Reference: http://www.mountwashington.org/weather/normals.html --Talinus 05:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Scope of "highest peak" statement

I am troubled by the misleading link to "northeastern United States" in the sentence describing the "highest peak" area. Mt Washington isn't simply the highest in the "northeast" 10 or so states, as defined in that article, but rather the entire geographically northeast QUADRANT; a much more dramatic area. This includes everything east of the mountains of the Dakotas (i.e., Harney Peak) and north of, say, Tennessee (i.e., Mount Chapman). So, in effect, the superlative is somewhat dulled by the reference to a limited geographic definition. One could just as easily say, "highest peak in New Hampshire", which - while true - is deceptively narrow. What if we were to say "highest peak in the northeast geographic quarter, including 26 states", or perhaps some other, more accurate geographic metric? Thoughts? Lupinelawyer 03:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I have always used the following to describe Mount Washington. "Mount Washington, at 6,288 feet of elevation, is the highest peak east of the Mississippi and north of the Carolinas." Comments? JJ 13:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Very good. You want to put it in the article? - DavidWBrooks 15:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I have made the change. This is not related, but is it "suggested" to use "ft." instead of "feet."? With short words, why abbreviate? Also, the "m" for meters, which is also abbreviated, should be "m.", right? Who's the style expert on these matters. I have piped in on both grammar and style issues on what I believe are the "appropriate" pages, but I thought I'd ask here. I often find navigating the back roads of wikipedia confusing (perhaps more than it needs to be??). JJ 00:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It is incorrect to call it the highest peak "east of the Missisippi and north ofthe Carolinas" unless you make it very clear you are restricting yourself to the US (which makes no geographic sense). There are higher peaks on Baffin Island, Ellesmere Island, etc. See http://www.peakbagger.com/range.aspx?rid=110 .

Weather: Why?

Mount Washington has impressive weather, but this article doesn't mention why. It isn't that tall a mountain. What makes it such an unusual place? (Off the top of my head I would guess the high winds are due to an airfoil effect over the top of this gently-sloaping mountain, but I don't know.) —BenFrantzDale 04:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I remember reasons being put foward in a fascinating educational production, The Voyage of the Mimi, when we watched it in 6th grade. Or maybe it wasn't voyage of the mimi. maybe it was some other incredibly bootleg educational video. Point is, it was both an effect of the airfoil effect - you got that right - and an intersection of three major weather patterns (one moving south out of canada, one west off the atlantic, and one....somewhere else?) that often happen to meet in the region.

Might be interesting to include that information in a section under the weather section, but I certainly don't have the knowledge to do it. Anyone who does, that'd be great.--82.83.32.101 15:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

While I lack the knowledge to fully answer your questions, I've put a bug in the ears of the meteorologists at the Obs, who could provide an answer without batting an eye. --24.52.163.193 00:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I remember reading that it's because Mount Washington is surrounded by narrow valleys on either side that funnel wind to the summit, which aside from the clashing air masses and the airfoil effect would explain the harsh weather. Also the fact that it's in a very exposed location; it's by far the tallest mountain in the vicinity, and these weather patterns receive no obstacle as they approach Mount Washington. However, I don't remember where I read this. bob rulz 13:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.tuckerman.org/weather/weather.htm Provides and explanation as well as a few pictures. Maybe someone could add one of the weather system pictures to this article, as I am not familiar with doing this. 63.65.68.246 12:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the sloping effect has little to do with the weather on the summit, but rather the weather on the East side of the Mtn. The extreme weather of the summit and the Mtn. itself has to do with it's location with 2 major weather patterns, the lack of vegitation to break up wind, it's height above all surrounding peaks, and it's Northern latitude location. These factors are what combine to create its harsh weather. Most trails that climb the summit have signs near the bases of the trails that warn of the notoriously bad weather and advise hikers to turn back if weather is bad or turns bad. It's a VERY ominous sign. Mt Washington has been referred to as "the most dangerous little mtn" in the world.

Geology

I would like to see some info on its origin. Is it an extinct volcano? Dunnhaupt 01:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it. The other pages on the White Mountains (New Hampshire) might say more. —Ben FrantzDale 05:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Mt Washington is composed chiefly of granite, which is igneous rock, but not volcanic. (Magma solidified far below the surface, -- no volcano formed.) Most of the rock was formed 100 to 200 million years ago, but uplifted into mountains during the Cenozoic (just 25 million years ago). Much of the geology you can see in New Hampshire is due to a much more recent event: Ice Age glaciers (~20,000 y.a.) reshaping the mountains and valleys.

Pinkham Notch

While you're on the topic of Mount Washington, take a look at the Pinkham Notch article. I just wrote it, and would appreciate suggestions. -- Sturgeonman 00:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Name

What was it called before it was named Mount Washington (e.g. in the 1600s). How did it get that name? -- Beland 15:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Agiocochuck (spellings vary), a local "Indian" name. More interesting is the fact that "Mount Washington" originally included everything we now call the Presidential Range - eg Mt Monroe, Mt Jefferson, ....

Kensett Image in this article

It is my very strong belief that the Kensett image in this article is NOT Mount Washington. Although I am certain it's not Mount Washington, I cannot identify for certain this scene. It may not even be in New Hamshire. I need for "experts" on New Hamsphire geography to either support my claim or not, but there needs to be a discussion. There are many good, known paintings of Mount Washington, but first we must agree that the Kensett must go. Thanks. JJ 16:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's titled "View of Mount Washington" on the source web page. But looking at the larger version, I wonder if Washington is the mountain in the right background, rather than the one in the center middleground. Maybe seen from the west over Bretton Woods, with Crawford Notch on the extreme right? Or perhaps from the southeast, near Glen, with the Saco River running through the low ground to the left of the near hills? From the shadows, the sun is to the right and not too high.

—wwoods 17:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Titles are often wrong and should not be taken as gospel. Unfortunately, dealers would rather have a painting of Mount Washington that one of an unknown mountain. You seem to agree that it's very unclear if the prominent mountain is Washington. Also, you suggest two very different locations for the view. Why don't we agree to use a "classic" image of Washington for which there is no dispute. A Kensett masterpiece (see John Frederick Kensett), Mount Washington from the Valley of Conway, would be my suggestion. I welcome other opinions. JJ 19:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. I'm not certain about the picture, but it sounds like the doubts are legitimate enough that we should act on them, particularly since JJ has proposed an easy alternative. - DavidWBrooks 19:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Snowfall

What's this comparison to Mount Rainer? Is this a useful addition to this article? JJ 14:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No - I removed it. - DavidWBrooks 15:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the article makes big claims for record snowfall which do not hold up in comparison to many places around the world (in particular - the Pacific Northwest).