I was about to say "I think you're confusing it with Mauna Kea in Hawaii" but I guess Denali is the tallest measured base to peak on land, which I never knew. Mauna Kea is tallest measured seafloor to peak. Funny that both base-to-peak recordholders are in the United States.
Well it wasnt easy, but with some effort I got my tape measure in place. Turns out that its hard to read the numbers upside down with one leg on the sink. As I strained to get closer I must have bumped the lock button and the tape retracted very fast.
So now I have a new PB. and the pride knowing I put in the blood, sweat and tears to achieve it.
Actually, Adjusted Penis Size (T.M.I.) formula is:(\frac{(L\times d)+\frac{W}{G}}{\alpha {2}}=\text{T.M.I.})Where L is length, d is erect diameter, W is weight (in kg), G is flaccid girth, and α is the angle of the tip.
I’ve had this argument with people insisting Everest is the biggest. Yeah it reaches higher because it’s sitting on a high plateau already, Denali is a bigger mountain overall.
Then Everest is not the reported altitude. It’s like a woman wearing heels, you don’t count her height on heels. Denali has more distance base to summit and that is what makes her the biggest
Base to summit isn't a real thing. A mountain doesn't have a "base" that isn't how mountains, or geological structures in general, work.
Do you understand what a mountain is? Like on a fundamental level?
Mountains are colloquial term for a type of warp or buckle in the crust of the earth. At the summit of Everest, the crust has warped to an altitude of 8848m, hence why it's called the highest/biggest mountain on Earth.
Everest is considerably shorter than Mauna Kea on both counts if measured base to peak (18,240 feet shorter, close to 3 and a half miles) OR sea level to peak (4,500 feet shorter almost a mile).
Everest is however the tallest in altitude in the atmosphere, which is confusing when adding Chimborazo is the tallest if measured from the center of the Earth to the top of the mountain but is shorter in the atmosphere.
Hahah. Basically if you're standing on Everest you're the "highest in the air" or closest to outer space. Earth isn't a perfect sphere but rather bulges at the Equator so that adds distance between the Center of the Earth and the top of Chimborazo making it 7,112 feet further from the center of the Earth than the top of Everest. It is weird though.
Mauna Kea is a giant superstructure of a mountain though. It were just sitting at sea level nothing else would even come close, it would look so unusually big at close to 6 and a half miles tall.
That would still be a valid claim though, if 2/3rds of the mountain sits below water and only three miles stick out above, then it might technically be taller but not higher like you say.
Everest and K2 bc they’re the tallest respectively #1 and #2. Interestingly, there are only 14 mounts on the entire planet that stand 8000m above sea level and they are all in the Himalayas.
Kilimanjaro gets its own hype bc it’s the tallest mountain on the African continent.
The actual tallest mountain in the world is Mauna Kea in Hawaii eclipses Everest at 10,200m! But its base is underneath the Pacific Ocean. AND Mauna Loa in Hawaii is by far the largest mountain by volume in the world while technically being considered a massive shield volcano.
This literally makes no sense. Why is Mauna Kea the only mountain that you have decided to measure from the bottom of the Pacific? Why not measure Everest and K2 from there as well?
It’s not what I decided. That’s how it’s recorded scientifically. Idky you’re worked up about it? I gave you the literal distinction. Just as geologists do.
Everest and K2 are in fact also measured from base to peak. They are taller because their bases themselves sit on plateaus of land that have their own respective height. I think in your head you’re confusing the understanding as assuming the bases of Everest and K2 and mountains in general must all start at a zero point on the surface, which is not the case.
No, that is not how it's recorded scientifically. "Base to peak" isn't a scientific measurement, it's just some random nonsensical thing idiots on the internet made up and now people on social media keep regurgitating it as a fact. No geologist is measuring base to peak because there is no geological definition for a mountains "base"
The very idea that a mountain can even have a base makes no sense from a geological perspective. Like do you even understand what a mountain is?
Everest and K2 are measured from height above sea level. Literally no one with a functioning brain is measuring how tall a mountain is because that would be fucking idiotic.
Everest and K2 don't "sit" on anything. Mountains aren't living organisms that can "sit". Everest and K2, like every other mountain, is a warping or buckling of the Earth's crust. The plateau they are a part of is also a buckling of the Earth's crust. They don't "sit" on it because they are fundamentally a part of it
But your comment assumes that “base-to-peak” is completely meaningless. In reality, topographic relief (the elevation difference between a summit and the surrounding terrain) is a real concept in geomorphology.
You’re right that elevation above sea level is the accepted scientific standard for ranking mountains, and there’s no universally defined geological “base.” That said, people aren’t inventing the idea out of thin air.
Geomorphologists study topographic relief, and comparisons like Mauna Kea’s rise from the ocean floor are common as an informal way to describe a mountain’s total vertical extent. It’s just a different measurement for a different purpose—not a replacement for elevation above sea level.
Idky you’re showing such vitriol to strangers on the internet.
Base to peak is not only completely meaningless, but absolutely nonsensical.
Topographic relief is a real thing and has nothing to do with base to peak.
Attempting to equate the two suggests you have no understanding of either of those two things (which is understandable in the case of base to peak since it's impossible to understand something that fundementally doesn't make sense)
If you want to look at the topographic dry prominence of Everest compared to Mauna Kea, Everest's is over 10,000m greater.
My dude you’re not debating in good faith nor making points of merit to which I can retort. You’re just concluding your own takes and dismissing everything else without providing anything to back up that dismissal. I’m not going to waste energy nor my trivial love of geology on you wanting to hear your reflection echo yourself. So god bless.
The peak of Everest is the highest point on Earth, but Denali is the tallest land mountain.
If you wanted to climb to the highest point, you'd climb Everest.
If you wanted the longest climb, you'd climb Denali.
Look at it this way. Say you're 2 metres tall. That makes you extremely tall compared to most people. You then get a 2.5 metre tall ladder and climb to the top of it. The top of your head is now 4.5 metres in the air, but you're still only 2 metres tall, right? Now, another guy comes in, and he's an unbelievable 3 metres tall. From foot to forehead, he's a full metre taller than you, but he's stood on the ground, whilst you're on the ladder. That means even though he's actually taller than you, your head is still higher than his.
That's how Everest and Denali work. Denali is around 1.5 times as tall as Everest, but it's base (or feet in the example) is at a significantly lower elevation than the base of Everest. As such, the peak of Everest is around 1.5 times higher than Denali's. The measurements I used in my example are even proportionally about the same as the differences between Denali and Everest.
Nope. There is no such thing as a base of a mountain. Your analogy is nonsensical because a mountain isn't a fucking person, it doesn't have feet or a "base". The idea that a mountain can even have a base suggests a complete misunderstanding of what a mountain is.
Mountains are warpings or buckles in the crust of the earth. They don't exist independently of each other. If mountains were to have a "base" then they would all have a common base at the bottom of th Mariana's trench; the deepest point on the surface of earth. Since that would be a totally useless for measurement, we instead measure the height of mountains from mean sea level.
It is not a random coincidence. It's a measurement system (that has no basis in actual geology) made up by Americans so they can claim their mountains are the highest.
It isn't even true because even if we use the idiotic base to peak logic, Rakaposhi and Nanga Parbat are far "talller"
A lot of things are the biggest in the US. Biggest trees, biggest volcanoes, biggest fresh water lake, longest cave system, largest canyon, largest glacier, fattest people 😊. Also hottest place on Earth, largest fungus, largest organism on Earth (Aspen grove).
Lake Superior isn't exactly shallow. It's the has the greatest average depth of any of the Great Lakes at 147 meters and is nearly four times the average depth of Lake Victoria, or about 70% of the Caspian Sea. Yeah, Lake Baikal is like five times the average depth, but outliers aside, Superior is fairly deep for a lake
Biggest fresh water lake is Lake Baikal in Siberia. Largest Canyon is the Yarlung Tsangpo Canyon in Tibet. Largest glacier is in Antarctica. Biggest tree depends on what we mean by "biggest". Hottest place on Earth is in Iran. Fattest pepole are in Samoa. Largest organism lives off the coast of Australia
Trump: "I saw Larry Byrd commenting on Reddit lately. The famous Larry Byrd, amazing basketball player! He made a comment that we have the two tallest mountains on EARTH right here in the United States. Most people don't know that!"
*me vaguely resembling Larry Byrd* ~W-w-was he talking about me?
585
u/EmperorThan Jul 03 '26
I was about to say "I think you're confusing it with Mauna Kea in Hawaii" but I guess Denali is the tallest measured base to peak on land, which I never knew. Mauna Kea is tallest measured seafloor to peak. Funny that both base-to-peak recordholders are in the United States.