PDA

View Full Version : Mt. Everest shrinks



ToSeek
2005-Oct-10, 04:48 PM
Well, not exactly, but it's shorter than previously thought. (http://www.livescience.com/othernews/ap_051010_everest.html)


The world's highest mountain, Mount Everest, is 12 feet shorter than previously thought, Chinese scientists who measured the peak earlier this year said Sunday.

Their survey determined that the mountain was 29,017 feet, or 12 feet smaller than it was measured to be 30 years ago, said Chen Bangzhu, a spokesman with the Chinese State Bureau of Surveying and Mapping.

hhEb09'1
2005-Oct-10, 05:14 PM
Well, not exactly, but it's shorter than previously thought. (http://www.livescience.com/othernews/ap_051010_everest.html)I thought the old one was plus or minus a hundred or so anyway--I'd even heard (probably ULish) that the previous measurement was 29,000, and they tacked on the extra just to make it seem like a "real" measurement.

novaderrik
2005-Oct-10, 05:26 PM
i thought someone took a GPS receiver up there a few years ago and got it down to within an inch or whatever of it's actual measurement?
or do the Chinese scientists not believe what the capitalistic United States GPS satellites have to say?

ToSeek
2005-Oct-10, 05:39 PM
I thought the old one was plus or minus a hundred or so anyway--I'd even heard (probably ULish) that the previous measurement was 29,000, and they tacked on the extra just to make it seem like a "real" measurement.

I had heard that Everest was reported at 29,002 feet for a while because half-a-dozen surveyors measured the height, and the average came out to exactly 29,000. That seemed too approximate, so they tacked on a couple of feet.

hhEb09'1
2005-Oct-10, 05:43 PM
Does that mean it's bouncing up and down? :)
I had heard that Everest was reported at 29,002 feet for a while because half-a-dozen surveyors measured the height, and the average came out to exactly 29,000. That seemed too approximate, so they tacked on a couple of feet.Basically the story I heard--but for many years the accepted value was 29,028, so they supposedly tacked on an extra 28.

grant hutchison
2005-Oct-10, 06:22 PM
The Everest Millennium Expedition of 1999 measured it at 8850m (29035ft). This was widely publicised by National Geographic, and seems to have gained a lot of acceptance, merely because of the publicity. Three previous GPS measurements pegged it at 8838m (in 1998), 8872m (in 1987) and 8846m (in 1993). All the surveys claimed accuracies significantly less than the scatter between the various measurements.
The Nepalese still use the original 8848m (29028ft) in their maps.

Grant Hutchison

Edit: to add another surveyed height.

ToSeek
2005-Oct-10, 06:59 PM
Elevation of Mount Everest newly defined (http://www.alpineresearch.ch/alpine/en/presse1.html)


The surveying and naming history of the world’s highest mountain started in 1853. At that time, the Bengali surveyor Radhanath Sikhdar announced to the office of India’s surveyor general, Sir Andrew Waugh, that he had discovered the highest Mountain on earth which then got registered as Summit XX. Sikhdar‘s calculations were confirmed in 1856, and in 1865 Sir Waugh named the summit Mount Everest in honour of his predecessor, the surveyor general Sir George Everest. He thus ignored the existing names the Tibetans and Nepalese had already given it: Chomolungma, goddess of the earth, and Sagarmatha, goddess of the sky respectively.

The then calculated elevation of 8,840 meters or 29,002 feet represented an average of data obtained through six different surveying stations, all located at a distance of 170 to 190 kilometers (105 to 118 miles) from the Everest massif at about 60 meters or 197 feet above sea level. In 1954 the official elevation of Mount Everest was set at 8848 meters or 29,028 feet. This figure was established by the Survey of India and consisted of the average data obtained from a total of twelve surveying stations located between 47 and 76 kilometers (29 to 47 miles) from the mountain. In September 1992, the first modern elevation survey was performed directly at the mountain by a Chinese-Italian expedition team. They collected data using not only the regular Swiss theodolites but also laser altimeters and GPS signals. The newly established elevation was surprisingly close to the old figure: 8,848.82 meters or 29,031 feet.

aurora
2005-Oct-10, 07:56 PM
Unless a rock has broken off the top, I would expect that the top has actually risen by a few inches over the time period, since the Himalayas are still growing.

but a few inches would be less than the uncertainty of the measurements, sounds like.

hhEb09'1
2005-Oct-10, 08:01 PM
The then calculated elevation of 8,840 meters or 29,002 feet represented an average of data obtained through six different surveying stations, all located at a distance of 170 to 190 kilometers (105 to 118 miles) from the Everest massif at about 60 meters or 197 feet above sea level. In 1954 the official elevation of Mount Everest was set at 8848 meters or 29,028 feet. Revisionism, I betcha. The calculations were probably done in feet, rather than meters. Proof? 8,840 meters does not compute to 29,002 feet, although 29,002 feet computes to 8,840 meters. Same for the other set of figures. :)

gopher65
2005-Oct-10, 08:16 PM
Well, they have to use meters now because only primatives use feet ;)

hhEb09'1
2005-Oct-10, 08:31 PM
That's still the only way to get to the top, isn't it? :)

Laser Jock
2005-Oct-10, 09:50 PM
That's still the only way to get to the top, isn't it? :)
You could take a helicopter (http://www.everestnews.com/stories2005/everestcopter05232005.htm).

hhEb09'1
2005-Oct-10, 10:01 PM
You could take a helicopter (http://www.everestnews.com/stories2005/everestcopter05232005.htm).I stand corrected! First landing, May 14, 2005.

paulie jay
2005-Oct-11, 02:44 AM
Well, not exactly, but it's shorter than previously thought.
Yeah, it always looks bigger on television... http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/frech/c015.gif

Celestial Mechanic
2005-Oct-11, 04:43 AM
I'm melting!! I'm melting!! Oh, what a world! Oh-h-h-h...

:)

Eric Vaxxine
2005-Oct-11, 03:47 PM
I reckon it slips and slides and all heights were once correct.

Captain Kidd
2005-Oct-11, 03:56 PM
Are they going to have to start posting signs along the way?


Take nothing but photos
leave nothing but footprints
break nothing but silence
kill nothing but time

Blasted souvenir hunters. ;)

Gillianren
2005-Oct-11, 08:25 PM
Unless a rock has broken off the top, I would expect that the top has actually risen by a few inches over the time period, since the Himalayas are still growing.

but a few inches would be less than the uncertainty of the measurements, sounds like.

erosion, is my understanding. after all, it doesn't have to happen all at once for it to be affected by it. the mountains near my mom's house are actually, if I recall, the fastest-growing mountain range in the world. however, given the seismology and climate of the region, they're coming down as fast as they're being built up.

Argos
2005-Oct-11, 11:25 PM
To illustrate the thread, the Mount Everest (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=27.999555,86.914902&spn=0.133911,0.219830&t=k&hl=en)

Maksutov
2005-Oct-12, 07:55 AM
This hill obviously needs a sticker, so that impressionable youths are not led astray:

http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/9249/mteverestdisclaimer5mh.th.jpg (http://img377.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mteverestdisclaimer5mh.jpg)

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/566/iconwink6tn.gif

pghnative
2005-Oct-12, 01:35 PM
This hill obviously needs a sticker, so that impressionable youths are not led astray:

http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/9249/mteverestdisclaimer5mh.th.jpg (http://img377.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mteverestdisclaimer5mh.jpg)

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/566/iconwink6tn.gifdead links

Wolverine
2005-Oct-12, 04:07 PM
They work here. Perhaps IS was temporarily down.

pghnative
2005-Oct-12, 05:44 PM
Probably -- they now work here also.

Maddad
2005-Oct-12, 06:02 PM
i thought someone took a GPS receiver up there a few years ago and got it down to within an inch or whatever of it's actual measurement?That's what I remember, plus the measurement was 29,045 feet. That's a reasonable increase over the previous 29,028 figure because the mountain range is srill growing, probably related to the rate that India is subducting under EuroAsia - about fifteen centimeters a year (what is that, nine inches? It won't grow quite that fast because all the forward motion will not necessarily be translated into verticle motion. Also, the range will be erroding, so total verticle motion will be something less than 15 centimeters a year.


Unless a rock has broken off the top, I would expect that the top has actually risen by a few inches over the time period, since the Himalayas are still growing.Bingo.

hhEb09'1
2005-Oct-12, 08:43 PM
That's what I remember, plus the measurement was 29,045 feet. That's a reasonable increase over the previous 29,028 figure because the mountain range is srill growing, probably related to the rate that India is subducting under EuroAsia - about fifteen centimeters a year (what is that, nine inches? It won't grow quite that fast because all the forward motion will not necessarily be translated into verticle motion. Also, the range will be erroding, so total verticle motion will be something less than 15 centimeters a year.15 cm is about six inches

wait... is this an old joke??

Maksutov
2005-Oct-12, 11:52 PM
15 cm is about six inches

wait... is this an old joke??That's what she said, "What's 15 silly centimeters between friends?"

Amazing how those old cigarette commercials still linger... :shifty:

MrClean
2005-Oct-13, 12:38 AM
I keep seeing scenes from that "The Englishman who went up a hill and came down a mountain"

An old Nepalese spirit man says "Higher" And next we see a continual stream of people with buckets of snow.

When can I schedual my helicopter ride; how much is that going to be?

Maksutov
2005-Oct-13, 05:09 AM
Mt. Everest shrinks:

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/5505/everestshrinks36ic.th.jpg (http://img399.imageshack.us/my.php?image=everestshrinks36ic.jpg)

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/3326/everestshrinks27cq.th.jpg (http://img292.imageshack.us/my.php?image=everestshrinks27cq.jpg)

publiusr
2005-Oct-13, 05:29 PM
Major Asteroid impacts Indian Ocean as Cyclone spins on shore during Tsunami. Waves reach Himalayas.

This is your captain speaking.

Welcome to the latest seaside resort--Shangri-La! We will be serving rice and shark--because thats how we find them
Watch as tidal waves and avalanches fight it out on the slopes. We are cruising at 30,000 ft. so that means we're ready to land. If you look out the port window you see the Dalai-Lama surfing and if you look out the starbord window you will see a Coelacanth skiing.

Stop by the set of our new TV special, Gilligans Glacier--huh? That is the fourth Yeti this month we've treated for shark bite? Quiet!

Now sing it with me folks:

"George, George, George of the Tundra--look out for that overhanging snow-cornice"


And don't forget our new program: Baywatch Bhutan--oh, look, there is Tenzing Norgay giving mouth to mouth to David Hassilhoff. Hide your eyes!

grant hutchison
2005-Oct-15, 04:04 PM
On closer inspection, this seems to be a complete non-event. New Scientist quotes The Times of India quoting Chen Bangzhu, the director-general of the Chinese State Bureau of Surveying and Mapping: "The elevation of Mount Everest's summit is 8844.43 metres, with a precision of 10.21 metres." (My bold.)
Ummm.
So the error bars for the Chinese measurement are greater than the claimed difference in height.

Grant Hutchison

Melusine
2005-Oct-16, 03:02 AM
Mt. Everest shrinks:

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/5505/everestshrinks36ic.th.jpg (http://img399.imageshack.us/my.php?image=everestshrinks36ic.jpg)

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/3326/everestshrinks27cq.th.jpg (http://img292.imageshack.us/my.php?image=everestshrinks27cq.jpg)
LOL! I saved those. Did you create them?

That's cool about the helicopter. The article says, "424 Ecureuil/AStar AS350 B3 are currently in operation worldwide, mainly used for missions requiring high performances, such as aerial work (cargo sling capacity: 1,400kg) in very high and hot conditions."

What is the cargo weight capability at the summit of Everest? I'm wondering about saving people from heights helicopters couldn't achieve before, some having crashed while taking off from lower bases.

Maddad
2005-Oct-18, 12:58 AM
[QUOTE=hhEb09'115 cm is about six inches
wait... is this an old joke??[/QUOTE] http://www.google.com/search?q=15+centimeters+in+inches
*Sigh* No, but you are.

ToSeek
2005-Oct-18, 03:42 PM
http://www.google.com/search?q=15+centimeters+in+inches
*Sigh* No, but you are.

Maddad, you've violated the rule regarding civility on this forum for the second time (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=574192&postcount=147). You've been banned for a week. The only reason it's not permanent is that I can't absolutely verify that you got the warning from your first time.