Does Peak 3938, claimed to the Australia’s second highest mountain in Antarctica, really exist, or is it a web hoax?

The mountain is called Peak 3938 on the peakbagger website. http://peakbagger.com/peak.aspx?pid=13025

It doesn’t have a Wikipedia page. And when I look up the location on Google Earth (86° 18’ S; 158° 0’ E) there’s nothing there but an ice plateau a thousand metres lower (2849 metres as against claimed 3938 metres).

mollwollfumble said:

Does Peak 3938, claimed to the Australia’s second highest mountain in Antarctica, really exist, or is it a web hoax?

The mountain is called Peak 3938 on the peakbagger website. http://peakbagger.com/peak.aspx?pid=13025

It doesn’t have a Wikipedia page. And when I look up the location on Google Earth (86° 18’ S; 158° 0’ E) there’s nothing there but an ice plateau a thousand metres lower (2849 metres as against claimed 3938 metres).

This seems to agree:
The highest point on the icecap is in Australian Antarctic Territory, at 4093 metres, at 80°22′ S, 77°21′ E. The highest mountain in the eastern sector of the Australian Antarctic Territory is Mt McClintock (3492 metres) and highest mountain in the western sector of the Australian Antarctic Territory is Mt Menzies (3228 metres). Vinson Massif is the highest mountain in Antarctica, at 4897 metres.

All three of the highest ice domes in Antarctica are in Australian Territory. These are prosaically called Dome A, Dome C and Dome F. The longer version of the names is Dome Argus, Dome Circe and Dome Fuji. Dome Fuji also goes by the name Dome Valkyrie.

So if you want to know if the ice sheet on Antarctica proper is getting thinner or thicker, look at these.

I’ve used Google Earth spot heights to count 25 mountains in Australian Antarctic Territory taller than Mt Kosciusko. There may be many more. I may be able to find more.

This website might help.

https://data.aad.gov.au/aadc/places/search.cfm?full_text_search=true&submit_btn=Search&page=4&search_text=Britannia%20range%20mount

It’s a link to the gazetteer search of the Australian Antarctic Division. Includes a lot of names and a few heights of mountains in Antarctica. I could try searching through there for some object in either a similar location or of similar altitude.

There are large-scale maps of Antarctica somewhere.

mollwollfumble said:

This website might help.

https://data.aad.gov.au/aadc/places/search.cfm?full_text_search=true&submit_btn=Search&page=4&search_text=Britannia%20range%20mount

It’s a link to the gazetteer search of the Australian Antarctic Division. Includes a lot of names and a few heights of mountains in Antarctica. I could try searching through there for some object in either a similar location or of similar altitude.

There are large-scale maps of Antarctica somewhere.

somewhere.

mollwollfumble said:

This website might help.

https://data.aad.gov.au/aadc/places/search.cfm?full_text_search=true&submit_btn=Search&page=4&search_text=Britannia%20range%20mount

It’s a link to the gazetteer search of the Australian Antarctic Division. Includes a lot of names and a few heights of mountains in Antarctica. I could try searching through there for some object in either a similar location or of similar altitude.

There are large-scale maps of Antarctica somewhere.

This is a better link.
https://data.aad.gov.au/aadc/gaz/

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

This website might help.

https://data.aad.gov.au/aadc/places/search.cfm?full_text_search=true&submit_btn=Search&page=4&search_text=Britannia%20range%20mount

It’s a link to the gazetteer search of the Australian Antarctic Division. Includes a lot of names and a few heights of mountains in Antarctica. I could try searching through there for some object in either a similar location or of similar altitude.

There are large-scale maps of Antarctica somewhere.

This is a better link.
https://data.aad.gov.au/aadc/gaz/

The “altitude” column is particularly useless. It only gives the altitudes of 3 mountains higher than Mt Kosciusko. Perhaps nobody knows what the heights of Antarctic mountains are because Antarctica has never been surveyed?

How difficult would it be to do a proper survey of Antarctica? For example to the same accuracy as the British survey of India in the years 1793-1796.

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

This website might help.

https://data.aad.gov.au/aadc/places/search.cfm?full_text_search=true&submit_btn=Search&page=4&search_text=Britannia%20range%20mount

It’s a link to the gazetteer search of the Australian Antarctic Division. Includes a lot of names and a few heights of mountains in Antarctica. I could try searching through there for some object in either a similar location or of similar altitude.

There are large-scale maps of Antarctica somewhere.

This is a better link.
https://data.aad.gov.au/aadc/gaz/

The “altitude” column is particularly useless. It only gives the altitudes of 3 mountains higher than Mt Kosciusko. Perhaps nobody knows what the heights of Antarctic mountains are because Antarctica has never been surveyed?

How difficult would it be to do a proper survey of Antarctica? For example to the same accuracy as the British survey of India in the years 1793-1796.

It would be expensive.

mollwollfumble said:

How difficult would it be to do a proper survey of Antarctica? For example to the same accuracy as the British survey of India in the years 1793-1796.

Using ground survey techniques, even modern ones, bloody difficult. Practically impossible even.

From space, dead easy. Surely it’s already been done?

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

How difficult would it be to do a proper survey of Antarctica? For example to the same accuracy as the British survey of India in the years 1793-1796.

Using ground survey techniques, even modern ones, bloody difficult. Practically impossible even.

From space, dead easy. Surely it’s already been done?

Does GPS work at high latitudes?

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

How difficult would it be to do a proper survey of Antarctica? For example to the same accuracy as the British survey of India in the years 1793-1796.

Using ground survey techniques, even modern ones, bloody difficult. Practically impossible even.

From space, dead easy. Surely it’s already been done?

Does GPS work at high latitudes?

apparently it is good in the horizontal but less so in the vertical due to no satellites being overhead.

http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/e0010976

scroll down to the GPS entry.

ChrispenEvan said:

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Using ground survey techniques, even modern ones, bloody difficult. Practically impossible even.

From space, dead easy. Surely it’s already been done?

Does GPS work at high latitudes?

apparently it is good in the horizontal but less so in the vertical due to no satellites being overhead.

http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/e0010976

scroll down to the GPS entry.

Thanks. So maybe not so good for Antarctic mountain heights.

ChrispenEvan said:

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Using ground survey techniques, even modern ones, bloody difficult. Practically impossible even.

From space, dead easy. Surely it’s already been done?

Does GPS work at high latitudes?

apparently it is good in the horizontal but less so in the vertical due to no satellites being overhead.

http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/e0010976

scroll down to the GPS entry.

Interesting, although I suspect its quite old.

It’s talking about using GPS for navigation though, which is different to monitoring or measuring the level of a fixed point with repeated measurements. If it’s true that most of the polar regions still hasn’t been accurately surveyed from space, I find that surprising.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Tamb said:

Does GPS work at high latitudes?

apparently it is good in the horizontal but less so in the vertical due to no satellites being overhead.

http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/e0010976

scroll down to the GPS entry.

Interesting, although I suspect its quite old.

It’s talking about using GPS for navigation though, which is different to monitoring or measuring the level of a fixed point with repeated measurements. If it’s true that most of the polar regions still hasn’t been accurately surveyed from space, I find that surprising.

Seems it has been done

http://icesat.gsfc.nasa.gov/

poikilotherm said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

apparently it is good in the horizontal but less so in the vertical due to no satellites being overhead.

http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/e0010976

scroll down to the GPS entry.

Interesting, although I suspect its quite old.

It’s talking about using GPS for navigation though, which is different to monitoring or measuring the level of a fixed point with repeated measurements. If it’s true that most of the polar regions still hasn’t been accurately surveyed from space, I find that surprising.

Seems it has been done

http://icesat.gsfc.nasa.gov/

This looks interesting:
http://icesat-2.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Due to launch next year.

Unless Trump cancels it in the interests of science of course.

Great comments on GPS and IceSat above.

I’ve looked at all the “mountains” – as opposed to “peaks” and “domes” and “ridges”, on the Australian Antarctic website now. Roughly 340 mountains in Australian Antarctica. Of these, I’ve so far been able to find approximate altitudes for 120 of them – in a dozen or so cases I’ve found two altitudes that differ by more than 100 metres.

In almost every case, the AA lists the height as approximate.

In just a couple of cases, there is a note “Height from survey mark …” so those would be reliable.

mollwollfumble said:

Great comments on GPS and IceSat above.

I’ve looked at all the “mountains” – as opposed to “peaks” and “domes” and “ridges”, on the Australian Antarctic website now. Roughly 340 mountains in Australian Antarctica. Of these, I’ve so far been able to find approximate altitudes for 120 of them – in a dozen or so cases I’ve found two altitudes that differ by more than 100 metres.

In almost every case, the AA lists the height as approximate.

In just a couple of cases, there is a note “Height from survey mark …” so those would be reliable.

The amount of snow/ice each season would alter the height of the mountain surely? Hence the approximation for height.

poikilotherm said:

mollwollfumble said:

Great comments on GPS and IceSat above.

I’ve looked at all the “mountains” – as opposed to “peaks” and “domes” and “ridges”, on the Australian Antarctic website now. Roughly 340 mountains in Australian Antarctica. Of these, I’ve so far been able to find approximate altitudes for 120 of them – in a dozen or so cases I’ve found two altitudes that differ by more than 100 metres.

In almost every case, the AA lists the height as approximate.

In just a couple of cases, there is a note “Height from survey mark …” so those would be reliable.

The amount of snow/ice each season would alter the height of the mountain surely? Hence the approximation for height.

Not by 100 m though!

I have wondered in the past why people didn’t just check the rate of ice volume change at Antarctica from satellite data. I guess this thread answers that.

poikilotherm said:

mollwollfumble said:

Great comments on GPS and IceSat above.

I’ve looked at all the “mountains” – as opposed to “peaks” and “domes” and “ridges”, on the Australian Antarctic website now. Roughly 340 mountains in Australian Antarctica. Of these, I’ve so far been able to find approximate altitudes for 120 of them – in a dozen or so cases I’ve found two altitudes that differ by more than 100 metres.

In almost every case, the AA lists the height as approximate.

In just a couple of cases, there is a note “Height from survey mark …” so those would be reliable.

The amount of snow/ice each season would alter the height of the mountain surely? Hence the approximation for height.

It snows vary rarely in Antarctica.

Michael V said:

poikilotherm said:

mollwollfumble said:

Great comments on GPS and IceSat above.

I’ve looked at all the “mountains” – as opposed to “peaks” and “domes” and “ridges”, on the Australian Antarctic website now. Roughly 340 mountains in Australian Antarctica. Of these, I’ve so far been able to find approximate altitudes for 120 of them – in a dozen or so cases I’ve found two altitudes that differ by more than 100 metres.

In almost every case, the AA lists the height as approximate.

In just a couple of cases, there is a note “Height from survey mark …” so those would be reliable.

The amount of snow/ice each season would alter the height of the mountain surely? Hence the approximation for height.

It snows vary rarely in Antarctica.

But some say Antarctic ice volumes are actually increasing because it is snowing more than it used to.

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

This website might help.

https://data.aad.gov.au/aadc/places/search.cfm?full_text_search=true&submit_btn=Search&page=4&search_text=Britannia%20range%20mount

It’s a link to the gazetteer search of the Australian Antarctic Division. Includes a lot of names and a few heights of mountains in Antarctica. I could try searching through there for some object in either a similar location or of similar altitude.

There are large-scale maps of Antarctica somewhere.

somewhere.

Found some. US Geological Survey http://usarc.usgs.gov/usarcmp3TST2.shtml
Place names are all blurred when I zoom in, but spot heights seem legible.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

poikilotherm said:

The amount of snow/ice each season would alter the height of the mountain surely? Hence the approximation for height.

It snows vary rarely in Antarctica.

But some say Antarctic ice volumes are actually increasing because it is snowing more than it used to.

Possibly, but I don’t know.

Michael V said:

poikilotherm said:

mollwollfumble said:

Great comments on GPS and IceSat above.

I’ve looked at all the “mountains” – as opposed to “peaks” and “domes” and “ridges”, on the Australian Antarctic website now. Roughly 340 mountains in Australian Antarctica. Of these, I’ve so far been able to find approximate altitudes for 120 of them – in a dozen or so cases I’ve found two altitudes that differ by more than 100 metres.

In almost every case, the AA lists the height as approximate.

In just a couple of cases, there is a note “Height from survey mark …” so those would be reliable.

The amount of snow/ice each season would alter the height of the mountain surely? Hence the approximation for height.

It snows vary rarely in Antarctica.

For small ice domes the altitude would vary a lot. But not for large ice domes or for mountains with rocky summits. The summits of more than 99% of the Antarctic peaks are rocky, so far I’ve only found one that isn’t. “Lookout dome” at a height of 2377 metres (higher than Mt Kosciusko) is covered in ice and is thought to be the highest point of the Miller Range.

> Found some. US Geological Survey http://usarc.usgs.gov/usarcmp3TST2.shtml Place names are all blurred when I zoom in, but spot heights seem legible.

Looking good. For example I’ve found the height of Mt Nero, and also found that the peak of Mt Nero is not the peak of Mt Nero. This seems common, the actual highest point (2590) is higher than the named peak (2510). Some of the spot heights are only just legible, eg. 1 and 7 look alike, and I don’t want to confuse a height of 2780 with that of 2180.

mollwollfumble said:

> Found some maps. US Geological Survey http://usarc.usgs.gov/usarcmp3TST2.shtml Place names are all blurred when I zoom in, but spot heights seem legible.

Looking good. For example I’ve found the height of Mt Nero, and also found that the peak of Mt Nero is not the peak of Mt Nero. This seems common, the actual highest point (2590) is higher than the named peak (2510). Some of the spot heights are only just legible, eg. 1 and 7 look alike, and I don’t want to confuse a height of 2780 with that of 2180.

Perfect for the sliver of Australian territory that overlaps the Transantarctic Mountains. Between 157 and 160 degrees East. No maps for any other part of Australian Territory.

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Found some maps. US Geological Survey http://usarc.usgs.gov/usarcmp3TST2.shtml Place names are all blurred when I zoom in, but spot heights seem legible.

Looking good. For example I’ve found the height of Mt Nero, and also found that the peak of Mt Nero is not the peak of Mt Nero. This seems common, the actual highest point (2590) is higher than the named peak (2510). Some of the spot heights are only just legible, eg. 1 and 7 look alike, and I don’t want to confuse a height of 2780 with that of 2180.

Perfect for the sliver of Australian territory that overlaps the Transantarctic Mountains. Between 157 and 160 degrees East. No maps for any other part of Australian Territory.

OK, used above website to get the names to download from http://usarc.usgs.gov/drg_dload.shtml

Added up the peaks higher than Mt Kosciusko in the Australian part of the Transantarctic Mountains.

Found 124 of them.

Roughly 2/3 of them have names.

mollwollfumble said:

Does Peak 3938, claimed to the Australia’s second highest mountain in Antarctica, really exist, or is it a web hoax?

The mountain is called Peak 3938 on the peakbagger website. http://peakbagger.com/peak.aspx?pid=13025

It doesn’t have a Wikipedia page. And when I look up the location on Google Earth (86° 18’ S; 158° 0’ E) there’s nothing there but an ice plateau a thousand metres lower (2849 metres as against claimed 3938 metres).

I’ve tracked down the original source for Peak 3938 and now have a semi-official explanation.

The peak exists, but the location is wrong. It’s location is 86° 18’ S; 158° 0’ W, that’s West, not East. “that fix would make the peak the high point of the Nilsen Plateau”.

Wikipedia has this on the Nilsen Plateau: “Nilsen Plateau (86°20′S 158°0′W) is a rugged, ice-covered plateau which, including Fram Mesa, is about 30 nautical miles (60 km) long and 1 to 12 nautical miles (22 km) wide, rising to 3,940 m between the upper reaches of the Amundsen and Scott Glaciers, in the Queen Maud Mountains.”

3,940 m vs 3,938 m.
An exact match.

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

Does Peak 3938, claimed to the Australia’s second highest mountain in Antarctica, really exist, or is it a web hoax?

The mountain is called Peak 3938 on the peakbagger website. http://peakbagger.com/peak.aspx?pid=13025

It doesn’t have a Wikipedia page. And when I look up the location on Google Earth (86° 18’ S; 158° 0’ E) there’s nothing there but an ice plateau a thousand metres lower (2849 metres as against claimed 3938 metres).

I’ve tracked down the original source for Peak 3938 and now have a semi-official explanation.

The peak exists, but the location is wrong. It’s location is 86° 18’ S; 158° 0’ W, that’s West, not East. “that fix would make the peak the high point of the Nilsen Plateau”.

Wikipedia has this on the Nilsen Plateau: “Nilsen Plateau (86°20′S 158°0′W) is a rugged, ice-covered plateau which, including Fram Mesa, is about 30 nautical miles (60 km) long and 1 to 12 nautical miles (22 km) wide, rising to 3,940 m between the upper reaches of the Amundsen and Scott Glaciers, in the Queen Maud Mountains.”

3,940 m vs 3,938 m.
An exact match.

A near infinitesimal difference anyway.

Good work in tracking that down.

But doesn’t that make it the highest peak in an Australian Territory, by a considerable margin?

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

Does Peak 3938, claimed to the Australia’s second highest mountain in Antarctica, really exist, or is it a web hoax?

The mountain is called Peak 3938 on the peakbagger website. http://peakbagger.com/peak.aspx?pid=13025

It doesn’t have a Wikipedia page. And when I look up the location on Google Earth (86° 18’ S; 158° 0’ E) there’s nothing there but an ice plateau a thousand metres lower (2849 metres as against claimed 3938 metres).

I’ve tracked down the original source for Peak 3938 and now have a semi-official explanation.

The peak exists, but the location is wrong. It’s location is 86° 18’ S; 158° 0’ W, that’s West, not East. “that fix would make the peak the high point of the Nilsen Plateau”.

Wikipedia has this on the Nilsen Plateau: “Nilsen Plateau (86°20′S 158°0′W) is a rugged, ice-covered plateau which, including Fram Mesa, is about 30 nautical miles (60 km) long and 1 to 12 nautical miles (22 km) wide, rising to 3,940 m between the upper reaches of the Amundsen and Scott Glaciers, in the Queen Maud Mountains.”

3,940 m vs 3,938 m.
An exact match.

A near infinitesimal difference anyway.

Good work in tracking that down.

But doesn’t that make it the highest peak in an Australian Territory, by a considerable margin?

It would have been second highest, after “Dome A”. All Australian Antarctic Territory is > 45 degrees East, so moving it west takes it out of AAT.

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

Does Peak 3938, claimed to the Australia’s second highest mountain in Antarctica, really exist, or is it a web hoax?

The mountain is called Peak 3938 on the peakbagger website. http://peakbagger.com/peak.aspx?pid=13025

It doesn’t have a Wikipedia page. And when I look up the location on Google Earth (86° 18’ S; 158° 0’ E) there’s nothing there but an ice plateau a thousand metres lower (2849 metres as against claimed 3938 metres).

I’ve tracked down the original source for Peak 3938 and now have a semi-official explanation.

The peak exists, but the location is wrong. It’s location is 86° 18’ S; 158° 0’ W, that’s West, not East. “that fix would make the peak the high point of the Nilsen Plateau”.

Wikipedia has this on the Nilsen Plateau: “Nilsen Plateau (86°20′S 158°0′W) is a rugged, ice-covered plateau which, including Fram Mesa, is about 30 nautical miles (60 km) long and 1 to 12 nautical miles (22 km) wide, rising to 3,940 m between the upper reaches of the Amundsen and Scott Glaciers, in the Queen Maud Mountains.”

3,940 m vs 3,938 m.
An exact match.

Well done.

I’ve got a lot more now, the highest peaks (for the broadest possible definition of peak eg. Bluff, clifftop, high point of ledge, ridge) in Australian Antarctica.

I’m also on track of all the high mountains in East Antarctica. East Antarctica has a big overlap with Australian Territory, but they aren’t identical.

One aim is to update and fix what Wikipedia has.

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve got a lot more now, the highest peaks (for the broadest possible definition of peak eg. Bluff, clifftop, high point of ledge, ridge) in Australian Antarctica.

I’m also on track of all the high mountains in East Antarctica. East Antarctica has a big overlap with Australian Territory, but they aren’t identical.

One aim is to update and fix what Wikipedia has.

The first difficulty about this is knowing where to start. There are a heck of a lot of Mountains in Antarctica, about half of them have never had their heights measured. They could be sorted by height, by name, by Territory, by Range, by general region (east Antarctica, west Antarctica, Transantarctic mountains). Add to that the issue of Antarctic Islands, particularly along the Antarctic Peninsula. Then there’s the difference between Mountains and Peaks, and the different types of peaks (ridge, heights, bastion, cliff, ledge, nunatak etc.)

My ideal would be putting this on a single page – but that’s too big
Another ideal would be splitting up the entire list by Territory.
For each territory then list the highest peaks, then high mountains, then other mountains with Wikipedia pages (not in table).

On the bright side it appears that PB have updated the information for this peak.

dv said:

On the bright side it appears that PB have updated the information for this peak.

Did they also update the info on the dark side?

roughbarked said:

dv said:

On the bright side it appears that PB have updated the information for this peak.

Did they also update the info on the dark side?

I find their lack of references disturbing

This might end up biting hard.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-05/former-one-nation-members-say-bill-mcnee-bought-hansons-plane/8418824

Michael V said:

This might end up biting hard.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-05/former-one-nation-members-say-bill-mcnee-bought-hansons-plane/8418824

Go away, you naughty thing. You’re in the wrong thread!

(sorry)

There’s not enough information on this peak to merit a complete article so I redirected it to Nilsen Plateau and added some deets to that article.