|
|
|
|
pinktricam
May 31, 2004, 12:51 AM
Post #1 of 15
(2826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947
|
Matthew Taylor
Thursday May 27, 2004
The Guardian
Eight climbers who were killed in the deadliest day in Mount Everest's history may have died after "sky fell in", according to a new study.
An analysis of weather patterns in May 1996 suggests the mountaineers died when the stratosphere sank to the level of the summit, nearly 9,000 metres (29,000ft) above sea level.
Normally the peak sits just below the atmospheric layer. But on May 10 1996, there were two fast-flowing air streams, called jet streaks, moving over the mountain. The freak weather caused pressure and oxygen levels to plunge within the "death zone" - the area above 8,000 metres where oxygen is extremely thin.
Kent Moore, a physicist from the University of Toronto, quoted in New Scientist magazine today, believes this would have had fatal results.
"Such a drop is significant where the air is already very thin," he says. "On top of Everest, it is equivalent to raising the mountain by 500 metres, and would have instantly cut the amount of oxygen the mountaineers were breathing by about 14%."
The eight who died were members of a group of 26 who were climbing without the aid of supplementary oxygen.
Conditions had been good with clear sky and light winds. But at around 4pm the "death zone" was engulfed by storms, winds and temperatures that crashed to minus 40C.
|
|
|
|
|
musicman
May 31, 2004, 1:02 AM
Post #2 of 15
(2826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 16, 2004
Posts: 828
|
that just goes to show how incredible and relentless nature truly is, now i'm not tryin' to dog on everest climbers cause its been my dream to climb it since i was a child. but i think that sometimes people forget to realize that no matter what you do that nature will always, ALWAYS, be in charge.
|
|
|
|
|
tradmania
May 31, 2004, 2:02 AM
Post #3 of 15
(2826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 2, 2003
Posts: 36
|
Obviously this just goes to show that the fears held by the villages of Gaul with Asterix and Oblisk (sp?) were not unfounded.
|
|
|
|
|
mtnjohn
May 31, 2004, 8:38 PM
Post #4 of 15
(2826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 17, 2002
Posts: 230
|
Whoa!
Chicken Little IS right!
I knew it all along
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
May 31, 2004, 9:28 PM
Post #5 of 15
(2826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
Whoa that`s spooky, I just went and saw "The Day After Tomorrow".
|
|
|
|
|
orion
May 31, 2004, 9:38 PM
Post #6 of 15
(2826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 8, 2003
Posts: 19
|
Wow... Bernoulli strikes again. That's certifiably sobering.
|
|
|
|
|
robmcc
May 31, 2004, 9:55 PM
Post #7 of 15
(2826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2003
Posts: 2176
|
In reply to: 8^) Ask the local Sherpas in the area to hear their side of the story about how outsiders not respecting the local rules. If any one think that mountaines are dead rocks ,think again.
Absolutely. If we have to choose between this being a well-understood weather phenomenon or a mystical superstition about living mountains, well, clearly the mountain got its panties in a bunch and killed these climbers.
:boring:
Where's that Occam's Razor sig when you need it?
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
curt
May 31, 2004, 10:13 PM
Post #8 of 15
(2826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Interesting, but there is something funny here:
In reply to: "Such a drop is significant where the air is already very thin," he says. "On top of Everest, it is equivalent to raising the mountain by 500 metres, and would have instantly cut the amount of oxygen the mountaineers were breathing by about 14%."
The total atmosperic pressure on top of Mt. Everest is around 250 torr as opposed to sea level pressure which is normally around 760 torr. The amount of oxygen reduction associated with going 500m higher than 29,028 feet, is about another 3% to 4% decrease- not anywhere near 14%. I wonder if there is more to the story or if this is a misquote?
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
braon
May 31, 2004, 10:56 PM
Post #9 of 15
(2826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 4, 2003
Posts: 154
|
In reply to: The total atmosperic pressure on top of Mt. Everest is around 250 torr as opposed to sea level pressure which is normally around 760 torr. The amount of oxygen reduction associated with going 500m higher than 29,028 feet, is about another 3% to 4% decrease- not anywhere near 14%.
250 / 760 = .32
So the pressure on top of Everest is 32% of the pressure at sea level. Decreasing that another 3-4% leaves 28-29% of the pressure at sea level. Let's call it 28.5%:
760 * .285 = 216.6
Round that to 217, divide by 250, and find the pressure relative to the pressure on top of Everest:
217 / 250 = .86
86% of the pressure on top of Everest sure looks like a decrease of 14% to me. Is my math off, or am I just doing everything wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
bsignorelli
May 31, 2004, 11:50 PM
Post #10 of 15
(2826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 415
|
In reply to: Where's that Occam's Razor sig when you need it? Rob
:)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
May 31, 2004, 11:59 PM
Post #11 of 15
(2826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: The total atmosperic pressure on top of Mt. Everest is around 250 torr as opposed to sea level pressure which is normally around 760 torr. The amount of oxygen reduction associated with going 500m higher than 29,028 feet, is about another 3% to 4% decrease- not anywhere near 14%. 250 / 760 = .32 So the pressure on top of Everest is 32% of the pressure at sea level. Decreasing that another 3-4% leaves 28-29% of the pressure at sea level. Let's call it 28.5%: 760 * .285 = 216.6 Round that to 217, divide by 250, and find the pressure relative to the pressure on top of Everest: 217 / 250 = .86 86% of the pressure on top of Everest sure looks like a decrease of 14% to me. Is my math off, or am I just doing everything wrong?
You're right, of course. I was only looking at the 4% incremental decrease relative to sea level and didn't normalize for the starting elevation. Oops.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
fullahsiffur
Jun 1, 2004, 1:51 AM
Post #12 of 15
(2826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 2, 2003
Posts: 376
|
In reply to: The eight who died were members of a group of 26 who were climbing without the aid of supplementary oxygen.
Is this a misquote? I'm pretty sure they had oxygen,or is this just referring to when they ran out of oxygen?
:?
|
|
|
|
|
sandbag
Jun 1, 2004, 3:00 AM
Post #13 of 15
(2826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 12, 2003
Posts: 1443
|
actually, the %of O2 is still the same, its the partial pressure(pO2) that is the real culprit. either way, its not a fun way to end an expedition, but then again all risks assessed, you shouldnt go if you dont plan on at least brushing the reaper. Namaste.
|
|
|
|
|
beesty511
Jun 1, 2004, 5:40 AM
Post #14 of 15
(2826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2004
Posts: 336
|
nm
|
|
|
|
|
rescueman
Jun 1, 2004, 3:20 PM
Post #15 of 15
(2826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2004
Posts: 439
|
In reply to: actually, the %of O2 is still the same, its the partial pressure(pO2) that is the real culprit.
The quote was "the amount of oxygen decreased by 14%" not the percentage. This statement was accurate. The absolute amount was less.
- Robert
|
|
|
|
|
|
