Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by shearzone

  1. Rockies and the Laurentions are the two I can think of. I'm thinking there is actually two on the west coast, not just the Rockies, but darned if I can recall.




    Actually, there are alot more than two mountain ranges in western Canada. The Canadian Cordillera (the answer I was looking for) is composed of the Rocky Mountains, Wernecke Mountains, Mackenzie Mountains, Ogilvie Mountains, Franklin Mountains, Pelly Mountains, Selwyn Mountains, Cassiar Mountains, Omineca Mountains, Columbia Mountains, Skeena Mountains, Coastal Mountains and Saint Elias Mountains. The Laurentian Mountains are actually part of a much older mountain range of the Grenville geological province; a billion year old range composed of some of the youngest rocks of the Canadian Shield. They are flanked to the southeast by a younger mountain range named the ____________ Mountains, which are about half the age of the Laurentian Mountains. The third range I have in mind occurs in arctic Canada...any guesses?

  2. Methinks this forum topic is running out of interest...


    I think it could be that the 'guess the number' game is getting old. Could also be that some are away on vacation. I'll bite on taking the next question.


    Canada is bookended by three major mountain belts. Name them.

  3. Hmmmm - sounds like short, sandles and t-shirt weather.


    did you expect to have to wear a winter coat :D ? FYI, Toronto is only slightly more north than the northen border of Nevada (by about 1 degree latitude). We may report our temperatures using smaller numbers (with the temperature that water solidifies as a baseline), but that doesn't mean it suddenly gets colder once you cross into Canada. I expect that you'll find more trouble adjusting to the high humidity than a difference in temperature.

  4. There is no geocaching in Canada, despite the existence of few thousand fake caches listed on geocaching.com which are claimed to be in Canada; those listings were placed by the powers that be merely to be politically correct, so that Canadians (the three, that is, who are literate) would not be offended if they noticed that Canada had no geocache listings. The sad reality is that Canada is an extremely primitive country -- a wild and dangerous and primeval land -- and all but about ten of its residents are cannibals as well as hooligans and neurasthenics. It is a terrible place to visit, and most visitors to Canada do not return alive. If you are REALLY tempted to visit Canada, I urge you to put Canada aside, and instead visit West Virginia -- it is also a Godless and lawless land, but at least most of the residents of West Virginia do not eat people.


    You've obviously never been to Canada. Let me assure you, we are much worst than that. Our witch hunts usually involve flaming hockey sticks to melt the accused's igloo and afterward set the guilty on fire.


    Going to the Canadian Rockies in a few weeks. Specifically will be going to Banff, Jasper, Lake Louise, and Calagry.

    Can anyone tell me how I can get a pocket query for those areas? When I search for caches and put Canada as the Country, I am then able to select Alberta. However, there are almost 3500 caches listed and I don't know what is near the places I will be going.


    Any advice?



    Why don't you run a pocket query along a route? Try Calgary to Lake Louise? No point looking for caches between Lake Louise and Jasper, Parks Canada doesn't allow caches in the national parks. However, I believe there might be a few caches in Banff and Lake Louise that are grandfathered that you may like to check out. The staff at in Jasper NP cleaned out the park of caches, where as the staff at Banff NP didn't really bother. As for caching in Calgary, drop a line in these forums: http://forums.calgarycachers.net , but make sure you spell the name of the city properly, or the illiterates might get irate :rolleyes:


    edit: correction for my illiteracy

  5. The fourth that I was thinking of is on the Gaspe Peninsula, so technically in the province of Quebec. Whether that is in Atlantic Canada or not, I suppose is up to guiderchachi for the purpose of this question. If guiderchachi is satisfied with the answers already here, I'll let the next question go to Tomtec since he got two of them whereas I got one.

  6. Off the top of my head I can only come up with 2:

    • The old Town of Lunenburg in Nova Scotia
    • The remains of the viking settlement in Newfoundland

    But there has got to be a few more...



    You got two of them, Where's the other one?



    I had to look this up, so I've now taken myself out of the running. We have actually listed three of them, the two that TOMTEC listed and Gros Morne. Mistaken Point has been submitted as a candidate to become a UNESCO site, and still awaiting approval. Guiderachi is right, we are still looking for one more.

  7. I believe Mistaken Point for its assemblage of Neoproterozic fossils and Gros Morne for being a world class example of oceanic crust obducted onto continental crust are also UNESCO sites.

  8. Shearzone, you got it! The latitude of each meridian crossing is then plotted on a Mercator chart to give a series of rhumb lines that approximate the great circle.






    Next question. What community is nearest to the geographic centre of Canada?

  9. First of all, apologies for not responding sooner--weekend-- :smile:


    Now, for today's question:


    What property of a map/chart drawn on the GNOMONIC projection makes it useful for long distance navigation?


    great circles are projected as straight lines?

  10. It says 'Midwest' but Indiana looks kinda east to me


    It's all relative to the american eastern seaboard. In a way, it's kind of like how we classify the near-east, middle-east and far-east with respect to North America.


    I've always felt the same way about classifying Ontario as "central Canada". To me, it seems like Ontario should be part of "eastern" Canada...that is, until I look at a map to remember how much real estate there is east of there :smile:


    I have had this discussion with many people from all over Canada. This is a topic that many Canadians are passionate about, particularly during discussion over beer(s). In my experience, I have found that Canadians from Ontario (including me) and eastward generally classify eastern, central and western Canada based on population distribution, that is, they will call the Atlantic provinces eastern Canada, Quebec and Ontario central Canada and BC and the prairie provinces western Canada. In contrast, Canadians from Manitoba to British Columbia generally only recognize a two-fold division based on geography, with the boundary between eastern Canada and western Canada at the Manitoba-Ontario border. The western Canadians that do recognize a central Canada insist it is in Manitoba, the geographic east-west of Canada, not Ontario, which is the population centre of Canada. Now that I am in Alberta, I refrain from using the terms 'eastern Canada' and 'western Canada', but rather, I explicitly state the provinces I am refering to. However, I have been known to refer to the Atlantic provinces as far-eastern Canada :smile: . In the end, it's all a matter of perspective.

  11. Ok, after a short time out here's the next quesiton.


    Where is the greatest uninterrupted vertical drop in the world as defined by uniterrupted cliff face, and how long is this drop?




    I can think of a few candidates, but I'm going to guess Venezuela? As for the drop, I'll guess 200 m?

  12. I'm posting this Earthcache topic in the Canadian section as I have noticed a bunch of new ones in Ontario over the last couple of months.


    I used to think Earthcaches were cool. They've brought me to places like the Cheltenham Badlands, the Sifton Bog, Niagara Falls, the Devil's Punchbowl, the Niagara Escarpment. I really enjoyed visiting these unique and interesting places.


    Lately, in my own area, I've been brought to an Earthcache in a parking lot where large rocks have been strategically placed by man, another at a bend in a river...ho hum. These local earthcaches were "placed" by cachers not even from the area. I did these caches and emailed my answers to the specific questions asked, without so much as a reply as to whether or not I had the correct answers.


    Just for $#!+$ and giggles, I googled some of the cache descriptions of the Earthcaches placed by these cachers and found them to be simply cut and pasted from Wikipedia or other sites. It seems that anyone can place an Earthcache anywhere on the planet, without even visiting the site, forget about replying to the requirements they have set out in the cache description, and never have to worry about maintenance. For me, Earthcaches have leapt up several notches on the lameness factor. What's your take?


    I, as an aspiring geologist, love the idea of earthcaches. When they are they are done well, they are my favorite type of cache. Given the new requirements, earthcaches can and should be among the more spectacular and/or educational caches out there. In my experience, many (but certainly not all) earthcaches out there actually do feature a geologically-interesting site. The problem is, many people who submit earthcaches for publication are not geologists (which is obviously not a requirement), but more importantly, they do not do the necessary research to actually be able to explain the 'WoW factor' to the layperson. I'm not in anyway saying that only geologists should submit earthcaches, but I am saying that earthcaches, given their educational nature, should require more attention to detail in the write-up on behalf of the author in order to ensure every finder be able to understand the elusive wow-factor so many hold dear. Take my earthcache (GCZDAF: Mazama Ash - Edmonton ) for example. This cache took by far the longest of any of my caches to develop, and I didn't even need to set a physical cache. Furthermore, the ash horizon that I ask the finders to seek out is a mere 1-2 cm thick among a 2-3 m thick exposure of flood plain deposits from the North Saskatchewan. The wow factor in this earthcache that I hope most finders take away with them is that the ash was spewed out of a volcano in Oregon 6800 years ago, and was carried by winds all the way to Edmonton! If finders understand this, this seemingly insignificant horizon becomes much more spectacular. I would hope (and expect) that other developers of earthcaches, regardless of the grandeur of the highlighted feature, would be able to explain the attraction well enough for subsequent finders to say 'wow!'

  13. What was the name of the lake that covered SW Ontario when the glaciers began to receed from the area 14,000 years ago?


    NOTE: I don't think the locals at the time named it.


    I know the answer, but I'll give others a crack at it first. When the ice dam that held the water broke, sea level rose incredibly fast!


    Oh well. Consider it my earthcache version of a parking-lot lamppost micro. :anibad:


    Hmmm. Now I'm left wondering how I can call attention to the limestone from the local quarry used in the construction of the WalMart in town :anibad:


    Most of the limestone in eastern and southern Ontario are ~400 million year old, and much of it is rich in fossils. Take a look and see if you can find any!

  15. I originally tried to reword the text, but found that the original site conveyed the information much more eloquently than I could.

    Oh well.


    This is not a scientific journal where intellectual property is taken seriously. In fact, I'm sure the authors of the text would be happy to find out that their text may reach a wider audience through this medium. As long as credit/reference is given to the original authors, I see no problem with this.

  16. I believe these 7 peaks continue to grow as the strata continues to tilt (ongoing tectonic collision I believe). Although I know Mount Logan is still growing...


    This is the first time I've been able to check the forum since arriving in Yellowknife. The answer given is not exactly what I was looking for, but it will do for the sake of keeping the quiz going. The answer to what the seven tallest peaks in the Canadian Rockies are that the strata that compose them are all horizontally bedded, the most stable orientation of bedding. Intuitively, it makes sense. Think of how you would stack a pile of books. On the side with the largest surface area, of course. If you arrange them vertically, you would need bookends to keep them from falling over. If you piled them at any other angle, they would slide off the pile.


    I'm guessing the rest of the Rockies peaks are too.


    To answer this, plate collision in the rockies has ended, thus the mountains are no longer rising due to plate convergence.


    Nonetheless, thanks CA for taking over for me to keep the geopub quiz going in my absence

  17. I'm leaving for a weeklong roadtrip to Yellowknife. The answer to the question has been left with CA in case I can't follow up on this question.

  18. Take it away shearzone


    The seven tallest peaks of the Canadian Rockies have something in common. What is it? Hint: it has something to do with the orientation of strata that compose them.

  • Create New...