Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SeattlePassedTheBall t1_j22wn5y wrote

Not exactly, this yardstick is ignoring sea level outright and just measuring from the base of the mountain to the summit. Everest isn't even the tallest fully above sea level as it starts on a really high plateau, Denali is.

45

Inspector_Crazy t1_j22wvfu wrote

So why isn't the entire Tibetan Plateau counted as part of this? And for that matter the entire indian subcontinent? Still feels a bit arbitrary.

17

SeattlePassedTheBall t1_j22xfc8 wrote

It certainly is a bit arbitrary and I'm not sure exactly what classifies as the mountain and what doesn't. Everest extends the furthest above sea level but the Tibetan Plateau is 17k feet above sea level so the mountain is "only" about 12k feet tall. Denali by the same logic is about 18,000.

You can take these shenanigans further too, Everest isn't the furthest from the center of the earth thanks to earth not being a perfect sphere (it is wider at the equator than the poles,) Chimborazo in Ecuador is.

34

AnAdvocatesDevil t1_j277tqh wrote

The geographic term is "Prominance" and is actually pretty interesting to look up, but basically measures a mountain by the height from the minimum elevation between it and the next highest (parent) peak. Everest is the 'Parent' of every other mountain on earth by this system.

2

ExtraSmooth t1_j24agch wrote

I thought it was kilimanjaro

1

SeattlePassedTheBall t1_j24d4le wrote

That's the tallest freestanding mountain, which just means it isn't part of a mountain range. I can't find a source that says it is taller than Denali from base to summit.

6

devilish_enchilada t1_j26w2ru wrote

Fuck yeah! I drove up to Denali like 5 times last summer. Easy drive for me!

1