Peaks Visible from Calgary, Google Earth

This freeze screen includes some of the peaks visible from Calgary with Barrier Mountain to the north and Hailstone Butte to the south.

From the Calgary Tower on a clear day we can see a radius of c. 200 km to the south west, west and northwest. Barrier Mountain is the farthest northwest peak and Hailstone Butte is the farthest southwest visible to the naked eye.

Web 2.0 has provided a number of useful tools for identifying mountain peaks visible from Calgary, situated them within ranges and regions, collecting information about geological formations, associated rivers, creeks, etc, recommended scrambles and hikes, photos, maps, directions and even wild life warnings and wild flower information. Google Earth has been very useful although many peaks are not yet indicated and cannot be found with a regular search. So I have used wikipedia for the larger peaks and when that fails I look to www.bivouac.com which invariably provides exact locations and accurate information on the various peaks. I can use their information to add GoogleEarth icons to my maps. I am also working with Google Maps so I can share a folder with these peaks as I add them. Both Google Maps and Google Earth have their limitations but these are mind-boggling tools for a bricoleuse in virtual cartography.

Although I do most of my work on photos with Adobe Photoshop CS, I prefer to sort and manage photos with Web 2.0 Picassa. It is much faster to work with. Picasa allows me to generate geotags easily. I’m not sure how many programs recognize this yet. Of course Google Earth does. But I have really made quite a mess with folders in my Google Earth .kmz files because of Picasa.

Adobe Photoshop CS allows me to add lots of metadata including tags, captions, descriptions, copyright notices, etc. I am not sure how many other programs can use the data but I am expecting that this will only expand.

I appreciate Web 2.0 Flickr feature of allowing for pop-up notes on photos which means I can identify peaks without actually embedding text as I do in Adobe Photoshop CS. Images can then be shared without adding textual information that others might not find useful.

Peaks Visible from Crescent Heights, Calgary

Identifying Rocky Mountain peaks visible from Calgary is an ongoing personal project which gives a sense of perspective to life in the foothills. Individual peaks are like waves that seem to rise and descend disappearing from view depending on the clarity of the air or the time of day.

From this view on Crescent Heights overlooking the Bow River we can glimpse Gibraltar Mt. 2665 m. to the west (on the left side of the image). The Misty Range which are part of the Highrock Range on the east side of Kananaskis Provincial Park are visible next. This includes Mist Mt. 3140 m. and Storm Mt. 3095 m. Then we see Bluerock Mt. 2789 m. and Mt. Burns 2936 m.

Mt. Rae 3225 m. which is also part of the Highrock Range’s Misty Range, “serves as the head of the main watershed to Calgary, Alberta by way of the Rae Glacier flowing into Elbow Lake, source of the Elbow River. At 10,558’, Rae is the highest mountain viewed on the front range from Calgary. [It was named in 1859 after Arctic explorer Dr. John Rae.] Mt. Rae was recommended by this post at www.summitpost.org as “the most scenic and accessible high alpine foliage in all of the Canadian Rockies.”

Continuing north and to the right we can see Cougar Mt. 2863 m. and Mt. Sarrail 3147 m.

Tombstone Mt. 3035 m. in the Opal Range is next.

Banded Peak 2934 m., Outlaw Peak 2970 m., Mt. Cornwall 2956 m., and Mt. Glasgow 2950 m. are part of the Glasgow Group in the Front Ranges. These are stunning from the top of Moose Mountain.

Mount Glasgow is in the Elbow Valley of the Kananaskis Range. Banded Peak is one of the easiest to identify because of the brown cliff band which is visible all year round. Mt. Cornwall just behind Mount Glasgow has a highly visible arch of permanent snow-covered scree slopes.

Further north are Mt. Blane 2972 m., Mt. Brock 2879 m., Mt. Hood 2873 m.of the Opal Range with Mt. Evan Thomas 3097 m. as the most northerly peak in the range. The Opal Range strata is thrust in a striking vertical orientation. George Dawson mistakenly thought that small cavities lined with quartz were coated with a film of opal.

Mt. Remus 2688 m and Mt Romulus 2832 m are marked but they cluster where with other Opal mountain peaks and are not that clearly distinguished.

Fisher Peak 3052 m. is quite prominent. It is the highest peak in the Fisher Range a range of mountains which includes mountains between Calgary and Kananaskis Highway.

Mt . Howard 2777 m. is half hidden behind the tall building.

Prairie Mountain and Moose Mountain would be the next in line to the north but they are not visible in this photo.

Peaks Panorama Visible from Crowfoot

Hailstone Butte 2363 m.
Plateau Mt. 2514 m.
Mt. Burke 2545 m.
Mt. Gass 2866 m. Mt. Lyall 2952 m.
Unnamed Peak 2870 m.
Mt. Farquhar 2905 m.
Holy Cross Mt. 2667 m.
Mt. Head 2782 m.
Pyriform Mt. 2789 m.
Junction Mt. 2650 m.
Unnamed 2865 m.
Unnamed 2850 m.
Gibraltar Mt. 2665 m.
Mist Mt. 3138 m.
Storm Mt. 3095 m.
Bluerock Mt. 2789 m.
Mt. Burns 2936 m.
Mt. Rae 3225 m.
Cougar Mt. 2863 m.
Mt. Sarrail 3147 m.
Tombstone Mt. 3035 m.
Banded Peak 2934 m.
Outlaw Peak 2970 m.
Mt. Cornwall 2956 m.
Mt. Glasgow 2950 m.
Mt. Blane 2972 m.
Mt. Brock 2879 m.
Mt. Hood 2873 m.
Mt. Romulus 2831 m.
Mt. Evan Thomas 3097 m.
Fisher Peak 3052 m.
Mt . Howard 2777 m.
Prairie Mt. 2210 m.
Moose Mt. 2436 m
Mt. Bogart 3144 m
Mt. Sparrowhawk 3121 m
Wind Mountain 3124 m
Mt. Allen 2819 m
Mt. Lougheed 3107 m
Mt. Lorette 2489 m
Big Sister 2970 m
Middle Sister 2769 m
Little Sister 2694 m
Mt. Lawrence Grassi 2684 m
Grotto Mt. 2206 m
Mt. Fable 2702 m
Mt. Peechee 2934 m
Mt. Girouard 2995 m
Mt. Inglismaldie 2964 m
Saddle Peak 2831 m
Orient Peak 2636 m
Mt. Costigan 2980 m
Mt. Aylmer 3162 m
Unnamed 2960 m
Devil’s Head 2796 m
Castle Rock 2960 m
Unnamed 2, 930 m
Unnamed 2, 580 m
Ostukwan Peak 2, 530 m
Dormer Mountain 2768 m
Barrier Mountain 2962 m

Measuring Happiness: the Boom is a Bust

Cities like Calgary and Toronto lack the social cohesion and neighbourly trust found in smaller cities in eastern Canada. The higher stress in urban high-growth, and high-mobility areas gets in the way of a sense of well-being and happiness.

Some Calgarians are heading south to tropical warmth and a slower-paced lifestyle in places like Costa Rica. Unfortunately Costa Rica is one of the places where extremes of wealth and poverty have already intensified. tbc

Social Interactions, Identity: Well-Being, Happiness Studies

Wilton, Suzanne. 2008-09-14. “The great escape.” Calgary Herald.

“Calgarians are fleeing the high cost and stress of city life for a fresh start in Costa Rica Paddling along a river canal through a remote tropical forest near Costa Rica’s Caribbean coast, monkeys swinging overhead, Ross Ballard is at peace away from the booming centre he called home for most of his life.”

Dunn, Elizabeth W.; Aknin, Lara B.; Norton, Michael I. 2008-03. “Spending Money on Others Promotes Happiness.” Science.

A report by researchers from the University of British Columbia and Harvard Business School claims that

“Employees who devoted more of their bonus to prosocial spending [spending on others] experienced greater happiness after receiving the bonus, and the manner in which they spent that bonus was a more important predictor of their happiness than the size of the bonus itself.” (cited in CBC 2008-03-20)

“The Canadian Institute for Advanced Research incubates ideas that go on to revolutionize the international research community, and change the lives of people all over the world. Through its research programs, CIFAR provides leading scholars with the time, direction, freedom and inspiration to pursue fundamental questions concerning society, technology, and the very nature of humanity and the universe. CIFAR’s cooperative, interdisciplinary approach means that program members delve into issues that no conventional university or research institution could address.”

2007-07-12.“Where money seems to talk.” The Economist.

Oxford Debates 2.0: Mutual Respect and Well-Informed Dissent

The ease and relative impersonality of new technologies and new media “a mechanism of world inter-communication … embracing the whole planet, freed from national hindrances and restrictions, and functioning with marvellous swiftness and perfect regularity” requires writers to have a heightened level of self-discipline and consideration of content, volume, style, tact, wisdom and timeliness (Birkland 1998). With the speed of the mouse-click it easy to lose sight of moderation and courtesy.

The Economist began a series of Oxford-style debates[1] on October 16, 2007 using new technologies and new media with traditional academic skills of logic, rhetoric and courtesy to seek collective wisdom.

The first series of debates (Oct 16th 2007 – Jan 24th 2008) were on education and connected issues of public responsibility, immigration, and the digital divide. Technology in education; University recruiting; Social networking

The motion that,

“The continuing introduction of new technologies and new media adds little to the quality of most education.”

was rejected with a vote result of: Proposition: 44% Opposition: 56%.

“We have supplied our own evidence for the value of new technology in education. Without new technology this debate would never have happened. But we have also shown the value of the traditional academic skills of logic, rhetoric and courtesy. All of these were much in evidence, and gave our debate its quality. On the substance of the question: Sir John Daniel and his supporters argued splendidly for the limitations of technology, and its frequent disappointments in practice. But they were handicapped from the start by a willingness to agree that technology could and should be doing much more to improve education, if only it were to be integrated imaginatively enough into the curriculum and if institutions and teaching methods were reformed radically enough to make best use of it. This undertow of possibility communicated itself to undecided voters, and produced an outcome which I suspect even the losers might regard as fair, amounting as it does to a very heavily qualified vote of confidence in technology. Let me thank again our speakers, who did a superb job of provoking and guiding us; and our featured guests, whose interventions kept the discussion fresh. I reiterate my admiration for Dr Kozma’s closing statement, in which, it seemed to me, he engaged himself much more personally in the argument and was correspondingly more persuasive. It was at the point that his clear margin of victory started to emerge. Most of all let me thank our commenters, whose collective wisdom and experience has proved a formidable resource. This officially brings the first Economist debate to a close and I look forward to welcoming you to our next debate on Dec 10th. (Robert Cottrell [2], Debate Moderator. Deputy Editor).

Notes

1. “Rules of the game: Traditional Oxford-style debate: Oxford-style debate is most famously practised by the Oxford Union, the debating society of Oxford University. The Oxford Union’s invigorating debating chamber has yielded generations of British parliamentarians, lawyers, journalists and other accomplished advocates. The Oxford style of debate is characterised by its formality and structure. Debates are hosted by a moderator and take place between two teams, the “proposition” and the “opposition”. The proposition proposes a resolution for the debate ‘with constructive arguments and the use of supporting material.’ The opposition then opposes the resolution by rebutting these arguments and bringing its own supporting material to bear. Traditionally, each side has three opportunities to advance its cause: through an opening speaker, a second speaker and a summator (The Economist Oxford-Style Debates: How it Works).”

2. “The Economist selects speakers on the basis of their professional accomplishments, intellectual acuity and knowledge of the topic at issue. A balanced perspective is required from all speakers; Oxford-style debate can only succeed when both the proposition and the opposition listen to their opponents’ arguments with respect and respond with well-informed dissent. Guest participants are chosen for their expertise and real-world experience. Their role in the debate is not to take sides, but to deepen the floor’s understanding of the issues surrounding the topic up for debate (The Economist Oxford-Style Debates: How it Works).”

Webliography and Bibliography

Birkland, Stephen. 1998-08-31. “Internet, the World Wide Web, and Electronic Discussion Lists: A perspective from the Baha’i Writings by Bahá’u'lláh, Abdu’l-Bahá, Shoghi Effendi and Universal House of Justice.”