Talk:Mount Logan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)