Everest isn’t 8000 meters from the base to peak. It’s 8000 meters at the peak but the foothills are several hundred meters high before you even get to everest. The buildings shown would have to be shown below ground if we really wanted to see them compared to everest’s height.
The buildings are shown as you would see them if they were built at the base of the mountain, to show its size. The sea level is irrelevant for this illustration.
Then why is the top listed as everest’s height k2’s height (just woke up and can’t read yet), ? It should list height from base to peak, not sea level to peak. It’s misleading this way.
People generally refer to mountains by their altitude, and buildings by prominence. Those that are aware of the difference can subtract 4000 from 8611. Those that are not would be confused by different labeling.
That’s not the issue i had with the photo. It was it not being labeled at the proper height from the base. I didn’t notice the label at the bottom hence the strike-thru of my comment.
Those that don’t completely read the comment thread can be confused by different markup labeling.
That’s a misleading graph as it starts at 4000m
What’s misleading about it?
Everest isn’t 8000 meters from the base to peak. It’s 8000 meters at the peak but the foothills are several hundred meters high before you even get to everest. The buildings shown would have to be shown below ground if we really wanted to see them compared to everest’s height.Then why is the top listed as
everest’s heightk2’s height (just woke up and can’t read yet), ? It should list height from base to peak, not sea level to peak. It’s misleading this way.It shows the height above sea level at the base, too.
Well fuck, not only did i misread the mountain but i completely missed the smudge that looks like snow stating the starting height.
I stand corrected. I’m going for coffee so i can look like less of a dipshit today.
Enjoy your coffee, friend!
Buildings and mountain are shown at actual size. The graphic is only comparing prominence.
The misleading part is having the picture labeled as the height of k2 here. The height listed should be its prominence not sea level to peak.
People generally refer to mountains by their altitude, and buildings by prominence. Those that are aware of the difference can subtract 4000 from 8611. Those that are not would be confused by different labeling.
That’s not the issue i had with the photo. It was it not being labeled at the proper height from the base. I didn’t notice the label at the bottom hence the strike-thru of my comment.
Those that don’t completely read the comment thread can be confused by different markup labeling.
I think this is more to visualize the size of the ascent on K2, rather than the true size of the mountain.
at 800m the Burj is still at 1/10 of the 2nd tallest mountain… seems big no?