Q: Is Tecumseh a 4000'er ?

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Add the moose poop and round off and there you go, an excuse to "count" it.
 
This has been discussed to death. :) It's still an official 4,000 footer and remains on the list. The 4K committee has made no decision either way on it. The elevation on the new benchmark is also incorrect.
 
Dingo said:
According to the LIDAR survey, which hasn't been made public yet. However, the revised elevation for Tecumseh has been published elsewhere.
Click to expand...

The LIDAR data has been public since at least June.

Larry Garland has Tecumseh at 3995 using the new data. The same data the USGS is using. ::shrug::
 
JoshandBaron said:
The LIDAR data has been public since at least June.
Larry Garland has Tecumseh at 3995 using the new data. The same data the USGS is using. ::shrug::
Click to expand...

Can you provide a link to where the data has been made public? In working with him, it's my understanding that hasn't happened yet.
 
Dingo said:
According to the LIDAR survey, which hasn't been made public yet. However, the revised elevation for Tecumseh has been published elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Question: Does LIDAR penetrate to ground level or actually measure forest canopy level?
 
The elevation on the disk is based on a GPS survey by the Young Surveyors Group of the NH Land Surveyors Assoc. back in June. A report and/or article will be published soon. The GPS survey is more accurate than the LiDAR data for this particular spot.
 
A couple points:

LiDAR does NOT survey every single spot in a location. It is a series of points, and if there's a gap over the actual highpoint, it could result in an artificially low peak value. It could be significant if the summit is particularly pointed or has big boulders. The only thing I can confirm is that 3995' is the highest point in that LiDAR set. I haven't taken a close look to see how far apart the gaps are.

Secondly, Roy S. has pointed out elsewhere that the old disc was not quite on the true summit. Almost, but not quite. As far as the datasheet for that benchmark is concerned, that was last reported as destroyed. So I would hold off any opinion until it's confirmed the new one is absolutely on the highest point, and the report on the survey methods comes out.

I'm intuitively surprised to hear GPS can be more accurate than LiDAR except perhaps in the thickest of woods, so I'm guessing the LiDAR absolute (vs. relative) accuracy is off a lot more than it should be. That, however, can be corrected with control point surveys (at least that's what I took away from some recent reading).

Worst case (if one has a distaste for accuracy ;)) is it'll still be on the NEHH list, we'll be even with the DAKs in numbers***, and gridiots will have an easier time of it. :D


*** A rudimentary analysis I did besides Tecumseh shows Lincoln and S. Hancock should go away due to lack of a 200' col, and Guyot should get added. Thus, 46 peaks.
 
I always have a tough time deciding what constitutes a high point when the summit consists of loose rock. If a big prominent outcrop of ledge I can buy it but most summits tend to be loose boulders and rocks that presumably are on top of underlying ledge. Therefore the summit can potentially be artificially be moved by moving rocks to form a higher point. I have talked to locals who have hauled various crushed rock products to the summit development on top of Mt Washington as tourists are perpetually taking souvenirs and in general summit operations tend to displace rock. Probably the most problematical summit is Jay Peak where the actual summit was blasted to allow the construction of the summit building. Did Jay grow or shrink when the summit was blasted? If a foundation was poured does the top of the foundation constitute the new summit elevation?

Sadly the list is going to shrink as the loss of the Greenland and Antarctic glaciers progress, the MSL reference is going to rise at some point and the summits elevations will drop. I occasionally get to review development concepts for the Boston area and most developments are baking in 10 to 15 of mean sea level rise with another 10 to 15 feet of storm surge on top of that.
 
peakbagger said:
Sadly the list is going to shrink as the loss of the Greenland and Antarctic glaciers progress, the MSL reference is going to rise at some point and the summits elevations will drop. I occasionally get to review development concepts for the Boston area and most developments are baking in 10 to 15 of mean sea level rise with another 10 to 15 feet of storm surge on top of that.
Click to expand...

Be a while. Here's the actual data:

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8443970

Takes 100 years to rise less than a foot...
 
TJsName said:
Took*

Do you think that the trend is (and will continue to be) linear, or that it will accelerate?

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
Click to expand...

No one can predict the climate with any degree of reliability, despite claims to the contrary. But the data to date are stubbornly linear. My pure GUESS, based on current data and known and speculated mechanisms, is that the increase in atmospheric temperatures will continue to be linear, but will level off about 50 years from now. Very large scale systems that respond very slowly to temperature (such as polar ice sheets, deep sea temperatures, and sea levels) will lag this, and will level off about 100 years from now. 100 years from now someone can resurrect this post and see if I was close to right. :)

But I admit that this is a guess. Unlike Michael Mann and Al Gore, I have not spent 20 years trying to fabricate a "hockey stick" that refuses to appear, or manufacturing bogeymen to scare and indoctrinate schoolchildren.

The data and the science suggest to me that:

>the climate has been warming since the "Little Ice Age" and will continue to warm for the rest of our lives
>human activity contributes some portion of this warming, but how much is unclear
>well planned changes in human activity may "blunt" the warming trend slightly (I know what I would do if I were the "super-Czar" in charge of energy, but we can discuss on a separate thread)
>poorly planned, drastic changes in human activity may "blunt" the warming slightly, but will have very high and immediate social and financial costs that will far outweigh any benefit from blunting the warming trend in the "out years."

Much of what passes for analysis in this subject area is politically driven, and not scientifically valid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Top