/ Get ticking those mountains whilst they still are!

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
JamButty - on 12 Oct 2016
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/09/rising-sea-levels-reduce-several-uk-mountains-hills-...

Few changes may be on the horizon. If you're a Corbett ticker you may have a few more to do!!

nathan79 - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to JamButty:

Hopefully more of a worry south of the border if the post-glacial rebound rate is quick enough!
Peter Walker on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to JamButty:

I notice the opening pic in the article is of Bruach na Frithe...if sea levels rise enough for that to lose its Munro status then we're in the realms of Roland Emmerich films.
pebbles - on 25 Oct 2016

daft definition anyway. looking at the gently rising broad whalebacked ridge that is Thack Moor (a mountain) as opposed to the steep and craggy sides of Suilven, which is not even a corbett, I mentally stick to my childhood definition, which is that a mountain is a big pointy hill with rocky bits on it.
Post edited at 11:12
The Lemming - on 25 Oct 2016
In reply to JamButty:
But aren't all the hills in Scotland and all the mountains in the Lake District?
Post edited at 11:18
blurty - on 25 Oct 2016
In reply to JamButty:

This sort of bollocks really annoys me. As mentioned above, the continental plate is rebounding from being relieved of the load imposed during the last ice age - Scotland is rising, and England sinking (& there's a metaphor if ever I have heard one!).

Sea levels have been rising at about 30cm a century since records began, the rate seemingly unaffected by recent increases in the rate of rise of temperatures, so far anyway.
Ratfeeder - on 27 Oct 2016
In reply to pebbles:

> daft definition anyway. looking at the gently rising broad whalebacked ridge that is Thack Moor (a mountain) as opposed to the steep and craggy sides of Suilven, which is not even a corbett, I mentally stick to my childhood definition, which is that a mountain is a big pointy hill with rocky bits on it.

Absolutely. I'm astonished that such an august body as the OS could be so simple-minded as to suppose that a term like 'mountain' can be defined at all. But the assumption that a single, neat stipulation solely in terms of an exact number of imperial units of height above sea-level will do the job is quite frankly laughable.

Terms which refer to the abstract shapes of geometry have simple and precise definitions: all triangles are three-sided shapes because the word 'triangle' simply means 'three sided shape' or 'three angles'. But since when did the word 'mountain', which is used to refer to real objects in the world, simply mean 'any bit of land of or over 2000 ft. above sea-level'?
wercat on 30 Oct 2016
In reply to JamButty:

this can only have real impact when the car parks that are the normal setting off point for the summits have had to be relocated.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Dave Cumberland - on 31 Oct 2016
In reply to blurty:

> Sea levels have been rising at about 30cm a century since records began, the rate seemingly unaffected by recent increases in the rate of rise of temperatures, so far anyway.

Sea levels have been rising as follows:
20,000 to 10,000 years before present: 2 to 5 centimetres per annum (that is just under an inch to two inches).
10,000 to 6,000 years before present: 2 centimetres per annum (just under an inch).
6,000 years to the present, insignificant sea level rise (statistically insignificant).

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.