Lowest Temperatures and Conditions at Altitude

[ILUVSWTAS]

Ok Tony you win! I concede that mainland Australia is obviously what I already knew it to be, Dirty, dry, Flat, boring, overpopulated, ugly And apparantly a very cold unhospitable place to live! I dont know how you manage.....

[Son of a Beach]

ozaps-map.gif

Source:http://members.ozemail.com.au/~slacey/alpine.htm

That image appears to confirm that alpine areas cover only a tiny area of any state of Australia. I would have classified a smidgen more of Tasmania as alpine than in that image, but that's just me, and of course depends on the definition of "Alpine" in use*. In the context of bushwalking, I think the vast majority of overnight bushwalking expeditions in Tasmania pass through alpine areas, which I guess is relevant to the people on this form, anyhow. That's probably the same for Victoria too, I would think.

Tasmania PWS says:

Alpine and subalpine areas occupy a small proportion of Tasmania's land surface... In most Tasmanian alpine areas there is no distinct treeline, with the hardiest eucalypts, the snow gum (Eucalyptus coccifera) growing wherever if can find shelter close to mountain tops or forming open woodlands on the best-drained parts of alpine plateaux up to altitudes of 1300m.

I have seen the snow gums high up in the Arthurs. Took me a while to realise what they were, as they look like little creeping ground/rock covering plants or shrubs when they're up that high and at first don't look like a gum tree at all. I had to crush and smell a leaf to make sure my guess was right.

[ILUVSWTAS]

Nice info Nik. No peak in the Arthurs (besides Fed) is over 1181 (west portal) either. Much of the range is around the 900-1000m mark.

[Son of a Beach]

* My dictionary defines "Alpine" as, "of or relating to high mountains".

By this definition there is no Alpine areas anywhere in Australia, as none of our mountains are high (in world standards - again it depends on your definition of "high"). Some mainland mountains are a little higher than the highest Tasmanian mountain, but I really don't think this definition is applicable to discussion of Alpine areas in Australia, therefore I tend to think of Alpine according to vegetation, and that means according to climate. If there is pineapple grass or cushion plants, that's definitely alpine to me. If there are pencil pines or pandanii, then that that's sub-alpine to me.

[ILUVSWTAS]

Agreed. It's Exactly what mr Kirkpatrick says in the book I mentioned earlier too.

[Nuts]

hmmm, so 'technically', no one Really 'know's'? My definition is similar to Nik's based on vegetation. If experts disagree then i guess we are 'wrong'
I never really thought of anywhere in Australia as 'alpine' in the true sense but the distinct vegetation types found on tassie mountaintops were probably always good enough for my purposes.
These occur well outside the areas covered by accepted definition (ie the exact vegetation types found on Mt Ossa...)

[Tony]

Ok Tony you win! I concede that mainland Australia is obviously what I already knew it to be, Dirty, dry, Flat, boring, overpopulated, ugly And apparantly a very cold unhospitable place to live! I dont know how you manage.....

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

[ILUVSWTAS]

Hahaha Wonderful response!

[north-north-west]

I think you will find that there is much more area above the tree line in Tasmania than what that picture shows.

The two maps are also in a very different scale - neat trick there, Tony - and include sub-alpine. Lot of sub-alpine on the mainland. Most of the Alps, in fact, is sub-alpine as opposed to alpine.

[Tony]

I think you will find that there is much more area above the tree line in Tasmania than what that picture shows.

The two maps are also in a very different scale - neat trick there, Tony - and include sub-alpine. Lot of sub-alpine on the mainland. Most of the Alps, in fact, is sub-alpine as opposed to alpine.

I find your "neat trick there" alegation offensive. If you had of taken the time to check, the map is as per stated source.

Tony

[north-north-west]

1) allegation
2) the 'of' is both unnecessary and inaccurate
3) Is it ever permissible to poke a little gentle fun at you, or do you always insist on being taken as seriously as a nuclear warhead?

[Jellybean]

But back on the track of the argument, any about 800m in Tasmania should be considered 'altitude' and anything above 600m in the South West. I've been to over 6000m in the Himalayas before, whilst the weather there at times of the year are very vicious, its the fact that other times of the year you can expect cold but clear days. Almost guaranteed. When I was in Nepal, it was as low as -20 degrees, but I've been colder in Tasmania at 0 degrees with the wind chill.

"At "altitude" in Tassie? Are you serious, or is this a tongue in cheek comment!?"

Yes, back on track of the argument .... the distinguishing feature of true "altitude" (i.e., high altitude) for me is not the temperature (you can have very cold conditions at any elevation - Antarctica being a case in point) but the lack of oxygen in the air and, I'm sorry, but 600m - 800m in Tassie is very definitely NOT the same as over 6000m in Nepal!!

Don't get me wrong, I love Tassie, but it amuses me when I hear of people going to "altitude" in Tassie.

Cheers,

JB

[Ent]

Content removed by poster.

Last edited by Ent on Wed 15 Dec, 2010 3:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[ILUVSWTAS]

But back on the track of the argument, any about 800m in Tasmania should be considered 'altitude' and anything above 600m in the South West. I've been to over 6000m in the Himalayas before, whilst the weather there at times of the year are very vicious, its the fact that other times of the year you can expect cold but clear days. Almost guaranteed. When I was in Nepal, it was as low as -20 degrees, but I've been colder in Tasmania at 0 degrees with the wind chill.

"At "altitude" in Tassie? Are you serious, or is this a tongue in cheek comment!?"

Yes, back on track of the argument .... the distinguishing feature of true "altitude" (i.e., high altitude) for me is not the temperature (you can have very cold conditions at any elevation - Antarctica being a case in point) but the lack of oxygen in the air and, I'm sorry, but 600m - 800m in Tassie is very definitely NOT the same as over 6000m in Nepal!!

Don't get me wrong, I love Tassie, but it amuses me when I hear of people going to "altitude" in Tassie.

Cheers,

JB

It's simply a phrase meaning.. ME CLIMB HIGHER NOW

[stepbystep]

Hi JB,
When I refer to "at altitude" in Tassie it obviously has nothing to do with thinning air etc it's entirely to do with exposure.
As soon as you are 'above the tree-line' where the vegetation becomes lower and therefore offers no protection I consider myself 'at altitude'.
This instantly tells me my walk is in new territory and there is any number of precautions I will take that I wouldn't at a lower 'altitude'.
So JB you can find your 'amusement' wherever you like(I know I do ) but when I'm standing on an exposed ridge-line at 1400 metres getting blown off my feet, I'm not going to be deliberating the semantics of whether I'm "at altitude" or standing on a mountainside
Cheers, sbs

[Son of a Beach]

Technically, 1m above see level is at altitude (no quote marks required). The altitude there is 1m above sea level (doh!), and is therefore is at altitude. Suggesting anything else is technically incorrect.

However, the phrase is frequently used to simpl mean whatever the writer wants it to mean, and of course it is usually used in a relative context. Ie, the same as the word "high". It therefore has no specific meaning, and suggesting that somebody cannot be "at altitude" in any particular part of the world is literally nonsense.

[ILUVSWTAS]

Technically, 1m above see level is at altitude (no quote marks required). The altitude there is 1m above sea level (doh!), and is therefore is at altitude. Suggesting anything else is technically incorrect.

However, the phrase is frequently used to simpl mean whatever the writer wants it to mean, and of course it is usually used in a relative context. Ie, the same as the word "high". It therefore has no specific meaning, and suggesting that somebody cannot be "at altitude" in any particular part of the world is literally nonsense.

[Son of a Beach]

Tony and NNW...

Tony: NNW is frequently just joking on this site, so don't take it too personally.

NNW: The "neat trick there" phrase is taking it a bit too far, and does sound a bit of an insulting allegation.

Please keep it polite and friendly, everyone!

[Nuts]

Exactly! its all relative... just standing up makes me dizzy sometimes..
Others would scoff at 6000m being 'at altitude', especially in Nepal.
I wonder if the vertically challenged would feel the urge to jump on reaching the top of Everest?

[Macca81]

Tony and NNW...

Tony: NNW is frequently just joking on this site, so don't take it too personally.

NNW: The "neat trick there" phrase is taking it a bit too far, and does sound a bit of an insulting allegation.

Please keep it polite and friendly, everyone!

i thought he meant neat trick by whoever made the image, not tony specifically...

But back on the track of the argument, any about 800m in Tasmania should be considered 'altitude' and anything above 600m in the South West. I've been to over 6000m in the Himalayas before, whilst the weather there at times of the year are very vicious, its the fact that other times of the year you can expect cold but clear days. Almost guaranteed. When I was in Nepal, it was as low as -20 degrees, but I've been colder in Tasmania at 0 degrees with the wind chill.

"At "altitude" in Tassie? Are you serious, or is this a tongue in cheek comment!?"

Yes, back on track of the argument .... the distinguishing feature of true "altitude" (i.e., high altitude) for me is not the temperature (you can have very cold conditions at any elevation - Antarctica being a case in point) but the lack of oxygen in the air and, I'm sorry, but 600m - 800m in Tassie is very definitely NOT the same as over 6000m in Nepal!!

Don't get me wrong, I love Tassie, but it amuses me when I hear of people going to "altitude" in Tassie.

Cheers,

JB

JB, its all relative. as nick specified, he was talking altitude in terms of tasmania. the comparison with nepal was clearly not to do with the distance above sea level itself, but instead the difference in the feeling of cold at the differing altitudes. nepal may have thinner air, but that doesnt make it colder as such...


id say that 600+m is regarded as a decent elevation, when your comparing it with tassie peaks that rarely get above 1100m...

[corvus]

Sorry all, never been there should not comment so is it ok to withdraw my comment
Foot out of mouth now.
corvus

[Ent]

Content removed by poster.

Last edited by Ent on Wed 15 Dec, 2010 3:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[corvus]

Hi NNW

Have you had a gender change I wonder if your signature line should have "I am woman, hear me roar" etc, etc.

Cheers Brett

See you Big Yin you are well out of line and better get down on your knees and say sorry to my wee mate by insinuating that she is not a woman and had a change of gender ,jist no funny an a disgrace tae yer Celtic heritage.
The Mc Corvus o' sair knee

[north-north-west]

"At "altitude" in Tassie? Are you serious, or is this a tongue in cheek comment!?"

Yes, back on track of the argument .... the distinguishing feature of true "altitude" (i.e., high altitude) for me is not the temperature (you can have very cold conditions at any elevation - Antarctica being a case in point) but the lack of oxygen in the air and, I'm sorry, but 600m - 800m in Tassie is very definitely NOT the same as over 6000m in Nepal!!

Don't get me wrong, I love Tassie, but it amuses me when I hear of people going to "altitude" in Tassie.

That's fair enough, but in that case it would have been more accurate - and less inflammatory (after all, we Tozzies are a feisty mob and have far too much experience at hearing our lovely little island denigrated) - to have said "At 'altitude' in Australia?"

[north-north-west]

Tony and NNW...

Tony: NNW is frequently just joking on this site, so don't take it too personally.

NNW: The "neat trick there" phrase is taking it a bit too far, and does sound a bit of an insulting allegation.

Please keep it polite and friendly, everyone!

i thought he meant neat trick by whoever made the image, not tony specifically...

Macca: It's 'she'. Please.
Yes, and no. Of course I didn't mean to imply that Tony had stooped to manipulating the image, he obviously took it straight from its original site.
But that image is misleading due to the difference in scale, and Tony did post it, so he has to accept responsibility for any misinterpretation of it.

Nik: Make up your mind. I can do polite, or I can do friendly, but being a traditional Aussie - of the type who calls her best mates 'mangy *&%$#!' - doing both at once is a stretch.

Also, I know you would prefer this to be dealt with by PM, but I don't say anything about someone in private that I wouldn't say publicly, either online or directly to their face. Consider Tony's earlier snide little line:

...if actual facts upsets you...

Is that polite? Or friendly?
The difference is that I laugh at that sort of thing, rather than get all huffy and start whingeing. I think it's called having a sense of humour. Or maybe one of proportion.

Brett: This is scary. I've been considering the extra bit to the signature.

[Nuts]

i guess dogs need lovin too! (not that they have much choice)

[Ent]

Content removed by poster.

Last edited by Ent on Wed 15 Dec, 2010 3:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Macca81]

Tony and NNW...

Tony: NNW is frequently just joking on this site, so don't take it too personally.

NNW: The "neat trick there" phrase is taking it a bit too far, and does sound a bit of an insulting allegation.

Please keep it polite and friendly, everyone!

i thought he meant neat trick by whoever made the image, not tony specifically...

Macca: It's 'she'. Please.





i actually knew that, i just didnt take a great deal of notice in who it was that made the comment

[north-north-west]

*graciously*
You are forgiven. Go forth and sin no more.

[corvus]

Hi NNW

Have you had a gender change I wonder if your signature line should have "I am woman, hear me roar" etc, etc.

Cheers Brett

See you Big Yin you are well out of line and better get down on your knees and say sorry to my wee mate by insinuating that she is not a woman and had a change of gender ,jist no funny an a disgrace tae yer Celtic heritage.
The Mc Corvus o' sair knee

Wow, Corvus settle petal. I meant that more than once genders get confused on this site and more than once NNW has corrected other posters. I under no circumstance intended to imply NNW was anything else but a women of substance. Personally the use of avatars means confusion is unavoidable but the English language does not allow for the use of neuter and we, the politically correct generation, are forced to use the plural "they" instead or even worst she/he. First names will not help much given Chris, to name but one name. As the first female speaker of the house once responded when asked should she be referred to as Madam Speaker or just Speaker with "there is no sex in this chair" So hence replies to the the avatar name but boy long ones do encourage shorting via abbreviations. Catch you round "Cor"

Cheers Brett

Well thats aw right'n that caus you were crusin fur a bruisin if she ever caught up with you I recon she would jump up an pit the heid on your kneecap
corvus

Sensless banter Mods but worthwhile IMHO