Talk:Mount Mitchell (North Carolina)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
_ _Someone should talk a bit more about the environmental problems faced by Mt. Mitchell, having backpacked from the town of Montreat to Mtfgerws. Mithchell is myself, I have seen the devistating effects that the acid rain caught in the mountains rain shadow has created. Most everything near the top is dead, large patches of ground are windswept (i forget the term, acid rain kills one tree, and that exposes area to wind which knocks over other trees creating more exposed area... you have a chain effect before long). At the ranger station near the top there is even a bullitin board trying to promote awareness of this problem. It should be addressed more here, I would write it up myself, but I'm afraid I'm not comforatable enough w/ the wikipedia syntax (and my spelling is awefull) to actually write an article. Leif902 00:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
_ _In various places (including e.g. Coos County, New Hampshire), Mitchell's & Mount Washington (New Hampshire)'s statuses are described partially in terms of what else is or isn't east of the Mississippi. This has the virtue of specificity over "east of the Rockies" (are the Black Hills in the Rockies? -- or more to the point, do our readers know whether they are?), at the cost of leaving out a large territory (most of Texas, SD, & MN, and all of four other large states) that also has no higher peak. My atlas shows nothing over 6000 until
- 103° 16' or 17', within 10 or 15 miles of NM in SE CO (Mesa de Mayo, i think), going quickly to 6890 at 37° 7.31'N, 103° 39.76'W, and
- just W of 103° 30' in SD (in or close by the Black Hills), going at Odakota Mtn to 7200 at 43° 55.20'N, 103° 45.25'W (WGS84/NAD83)
(Notice that the one that hits 6K first reaches a lower summit, but also before the other's summit. But could there higher be ground (between 6890 and 7200), in SD on that meridien or even 10 or 20 minutes east of it?)
_ _I am tempted to replace "east of the Mississippi" with "east of New Mexico", which accurately includes more space (about 700 miles) -- essentially using the state boundary as a stand-in for the far too technical "103° W longitude".
_ _Of course someone, preferably with the topo data on CD (instead of on the other side of a narrow 'Net pipe), should independently try to ID the first higher ground W of Mitchell.
_ _(I note that Barbeau Peak, being considerably higher than Mitchell, faces an analogous but quite distinct problem that could have a very different answer. At present it uses the "east of the Rockies" formulation.)
--Jerzy·t 23:44, 2005 July 12 (UTC)
_ _It seems very confusing to mention Barbeau Peak, on Ellesmere Island. If you're including islands, then wouldn't Gunnbjørn Fjeld in Greenland be the highest? Greenland is almost always included as part of North America if islands are included. Even if you accept Barbeau, then Mitchell wouldn't be the 2nd highest, I'm sure there are many other peaks on Ellesmere that are higher than Mitchell, depending on one's definition of a separate "peak".
[edit] Redirect
I have moved the disambiguation page to Mount Mitchell (disambiguation) and caused Mt. Mitchell and Mount Mitchell to link to this article. This was discussed by two others and it seemed the right thing to do since this is the most well known of the mountains. I also changed links wherever I found them. I really hope this helps, and please fix any broken links or double redirects you find. Leif902 01:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Photos
Just a suggestion, could someone who knows how replace the photo of Mt. Mitchell at the top? The photo is of poor quality, and it is now outdated, as the observation tower in the photo has been torn down and will soon be replaced. I would suggest replacing the photo with one of the far higher-quality (and more recent) photos also listed in the article.
