Talk:Mount Mitchell

---

_ _Someone should talk a bit more about the environmental problems faced by Mt. Mitchell, having backpacked from the town of Montreat to Mtfgerws. Mitchell is myself, I have seen the devastating 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 bulletin 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 comfortable enough w/ the wikipedia syntax (and my spelling is awefull) to actually write an article. Leif902 00:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Untitled

I went on a tour with a ranger at nearby Clingman's Dome in 2005 and he said that it's an urban legend that acid rain caused most of the devastation. He said it was actually caused by a boorer beatle ( I think ) or some kind of insect that arrived in America from Europe that attacks fir trees above a certain elevation. The havoc is mostly among this one type of tree and some tree species seem to be unaffected. Let us figure out what really caused the damage with sources before we jump to conclusions. --Triadian (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The Fraser firs were killed by the Balsam woolly adelgid (the ranger was probably referring to this). Current research suggests acid rain harms red spruce trees by stunting their growth, but to what extent is uncertain. Air pollutants are more harmful at the higher altitudes because these elevations are draped in clouds 25-30% of the time. I've added a source to the article. Bms4880 (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be it. Very well done Bms4880! --Triadian (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2009 (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".

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)

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.

Distances to higher points

To answer Jerzy, there are mountains in the islands in the Caribbean, which is geographically considered a part of North America, that are higher than Mitchell, notably Blue Mountain Peak in Jamaica and Pico Duarte in the Dominican Republic. I was using Google Earth to measure distances from Mount Mitchell to Harney Peak in the Black Hills of South Dakota, which the article states is the closest higher peak east of the Rockies and distances to higher points in New Mexico and Colorado which I found are higher than Harney Peak and closer to Mitchell than the Black Hills' summit.

Using the ruler in Google Earth, I found that the distance from Mount Mitchell to Harney Peak is 1,256 miles (2021 kilometers). From measurements I made, I found that Fishers Peak, south of Trinidad, Colorado, at 9,580 feet (2920 meters), is 1,236 miles (1989 kilometers) from Mitchell, making it 20 miles closer than Harney Peak. Fishers Peak is a butte at the northwest end of a plateau on the Colorado-New Mexico border and, since it is east of Raton Pass, some consider it to be east of the Rocky Mountains as well, and also the highest point east of the Rockies. Laughlin Peak, in Colfax County, New Mexico at 8,799 feet (2,682 meters), is 1,222 miles (1967 kilometers) from Mitchell. Even closer, at 1,205 miles (1939 kilometers), is Sierra Grande in Union County, New Mexico, whose elevation is 8,720 ft (2,658 m). There are other peaks in the Raton-Clayton volcanic field of New Mexico that also exceed Harney Peak in height and are closer to Mount Mitchell as well.

Using the ruler, it appears that Lone Butte, in Las Animas County, Colorado, is the closest higher point to Mount Mitchell.

I'm sure there are sources to back up my findings.
S Martin (talk) 09:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

number of visitors

What does it mean to say that Still, hundreds of tourists visit the peak each spring through autumn, for its incredible views and sunsets? Is that hundreds of visitors each day from spring through autumn? Or hundreds of visitors in the entire period from spring to autumn (this sounds way too low to me, but is how I would ordinarily interpret that syntax). 206.208.105.129 (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement removed. Bms4880 (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Updated Elevation

The elevation now used in this article, cited in that 2012 National Geodetic Survey page, is for the new marker atop the new observation platform. The platform is a man-made structure. The mountain itself is still 6684 ft in elevation - the rocks marking the highest point were not altered in its construction. Do we want the elevation in this article to reflect the mountain, or structures constructed atop the mountain?

Not that it matters, but I myself have made multiple GPS measurements of the highest remaining natural rock atop the summit, over multiple years, all agreeing with the 6684 ft. measurement. Wxtrails (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted back to the old elevation. Bms4880 (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mount Mitchell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070512231842/http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/climate/extremes.html to http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/climate/extremes.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)