Notifications
Clear all

New height determined for Denali by USGS

15 Posts
7 Users
0 Reactions
3 Views
(@geeoddmike)
Posts: 1556
Registered
Topic starter
 

http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_top_story/new-elevation-for-nations-highest-peak/?from=title

The ten-foot difference is attributed to improved measurements not geophysical changes.

Some nice photos in this article as well as here: http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=4312#.VfAVP8T3arV

BTW, the radar survey height which prompted this determination was found to be inaccurate.

 
Posted : September 9, 2015 3:15 am
(@dan-patterson)
Posts: 1272
Registered
 

Denali? You mean Mount McKinley?

 
Posted : September 9, 2015 3:22 am
(@john-giles)
Posts: 744
 

Now all those people that have climbed it have to go back and climb that extra ten feet.

 
Posted : September 9, 2015 3:25 am
(@james-fleming)
Posts: 5687
Registered
 

Dan Patterson, post: 335605, member: 1179 wrote: Denali? You mean Mount McKinley?

Apparently Denali is ten feet higher than McKinley.

 
Posted : September 9, 2015 3:30 am
(@geeoddmike)
Posts: 1556
Registered
Topic starter
 

The new height is ten feet LOWER...

 
Posted : September 9, 2015 4:01 am
(@john-giles)
Posts: 744
 

Well I misread that one. Dang it.

Now they have to dig a 10' hole at the base and climb down into it I guess.

 
Posted : September 9, 2015 4:06 am
(@james-fleming)
Posts: 5687
Registered
 

GeeOddMike, post: 335609, member: 677 wrote: The new height is ten feet LOWER...

Apparently the weight of the naming controversy has taken its toll on the mountain.

 
Posted : September 9, 2015 4:08 am
(@davis118)
Posts: 22
Registered
 

I feel sorry for the surveyor that used any monuments to bench for an elevation. If FEMA sees this, everything is in a flood zone.

 
Posted : September 9, 2015 4:36 am
(@mightymoe)
Posts: 9920
Registered
 

GeeOddMike, post: 335604, member: 677 wrote: http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_top_story/new-elevation-for-nations-highest-peak/?from=title

The ten-foot difference is attributed to improved measurements not geophysical changes.

Some nice photos in this article as well as here: http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=4312#.VfAVP8T3arV

BTW, the radar survey height which prompted this determination was found to be inaccurate.

It has to be asked, what will the "new" adjustments do to this elevation?

 
Posted : September 9, 2015 5:10 am
(@geeoddmike)
Posts: 1556
Registered
Topic starter
 

The links below are (respectively) an image of the changes to ellipsoid heights, a presentation on the state of the vertical network in Alaska, a file on height issues in Alaska and an image of the USGG geoid-ellipsoid separations in Alaska.

http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/heightmod/AK20107ProbsWVerticalRefFrameIn0AKOppegard.ppt

http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/heightmod/201404KinsmanNGShtModernizationForOnline.pdf

 
Posted : September 9, 2015 5:53 am
(@mightymoe)
Posts: 9920
Registered
 

GeeOddMike, post: 335619, member: 677 wrote: The links below are (respectively) an image of the changes to ellipsoid heights, a presentation on the state of the vertical network in Alaska, a file on height issues in Alaska and an image of the USGG geoid-ellipsoid separations in Alaska.

http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/heightmod/AK20107ProbsWVerticalRefFrameIn0AKOppegard.ppt

http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/heightmod/201404KinsmanNGShtModernizationForOnline.pdf

It looks like Alaska will get about a 1.5' increase in ellipsoid heights, will the geoid models get a 1.5' decrease or will that be independent of any ellipsoid changes?

 
Posted : September 9, 2015 9:21 am
(@geeoddmike)
Posts: 1556
Registered
Topic starter
 

My reading of the contours shows the differences in ellipsoid heights to range from 0 meters in SE, +0.5m in the middle, and +1.0 m in the Aleutians.

The changes to ellipsoid heights should be dominated by translation changes (origin differences). Doing a quick calculation using the itrf96 to nad83 translations (Tx = 0.991, Ty = -1.9072, Tz =-0.5129), I see the about 0.4 m at a point in Denali Borough.

The geometric geoid should be independent and not "contaminated" by the "inseparability" problems posed by data like the GPS on BM data.

 
Posted : September 9, 2015 10:50 am
(@mightymoe)
Posts: 9920
Registered
 

GeeOddMike, post: 335680, member: 677 wrote: My reading of the contours shows the differences in ellipsoid heights to range from 0 meters in SE, +0.5m in the middle, and +1.0 m in the Aleutians.

The changes to ellipsoid heights should be dominated by translation changes (origin differences). Doing a quick calculation using the itrf96 to nad83 translations (Tx = 0.991, Ty = -1.9072, Tz =-0.5129), I see the about 0.4 m at a point in Denali Borough.

The geometric geoid should be independent and not "contaminated" by the "inseparability" problems posed by data like the GPS on BM data.

At the end of the day, there will be new ellipsoid heights and a totally new Geoid Model, based completely on gravity measurments, at least I think that's the plan, and although the land at Denali will have a rise of .4m it may still have the same elevation. Or it may grow again;-)

 
Posted : September 9, 2015 11:58 am
(@dmyhill)
Posts: 3082
Registered
 

Dan Patterson, post: 335605, member: 1179 wrote: Denali? You mean Mount McKinley?

You only call it that if you are from Outside.

 
Posted : September 10, 2015 7:59 am
(@dan-patterson)
Posts: 1272
Registered
 

I was joking and I call it that in honor of President William McKinley.

 
Posted : September 10, 2015 8:34 am