Weird, exotic and wonderful places on Earth picture thread

[wjfox]

Some fascinating pics here -

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/200...es_to_nyc.html


Earth From Above comes to NYC

Photographer Yann Arthus-Bertrand will bring his work back to the United States - to New York City for the first time in 2009. Aiming to inspire people to think globally about sustainable living, Arthus-Bertrand has been photographing unique views of our planet, seen from the sky, since 1994 - and has produced an exhibit of over 150 4-ft. by 6-ft. prints which will be on display in New York City at the World Financial Center Plaza and along the Battery Park City Esplanade from May 1, 2009 to June 28, 2009. When completed in New York City, the Earth From Above exhibit will also move on to California in 2010. Photographs and captions all courtesy of Yann Arthus-Bertrand.

[sterock85]

NORWAY

[cle]

Wow, these are great, especially the China ones. Thanks for putting the time in!

I've always had a thing for rural China ever since seeing those Hero/House of Flying Daggers/Crouching Tiger films - they look amazing. I especially love the bamboo forests.

My favourite above is the "Shennongjia, home to the mythical Wildman" and the lakes too.

What a great topic too - I love all this stuff!

[the spliff fairy]

^yep Shennongjia is one of my must-dos some time, basically a temperate forest exotic.

Another place, exotic Europeanism, and off the radar
Buenos Aires

[the spliff fairy]

the towers of BA

[El_Greco]

^ Nice pic.Oh...and Spliff please stop spamming.

[wjfox]

Originally Posted by El_Greco

Oh...and Spliff please stop spamming.

I agree. Is there really any need for 500+ photos on a single page?

I have 8 meg broadband and a 3.4 Ghz PC... and I still had problems loading the page.

[Sy]

^That is amazing, I would love to be able to see that in person.

[Langur]

^ I actually enjoyed his photos even if there were rather a lot of them.

And now for some of the finest scenery in Her Majesty's Commonwealth Realms:


The Canadian Rockies


Two postcard views of Moraine Lake backed by the Ten Peaks (up to 3424m):






Mount Rundle (2948m) is close to the town of Banff in the Banff National Park and is an easy scramble to the top:








Cascade Mountain (2998m) is also close to Banff in the Banff National Park and can also be easily scrambled:






The Icefields Parkway links most of the Canadian Rocky Mountains National Parks (Banff, Jasper, Kootenay, Yoho, Robson, Assiniboine etc):




Mount Chephren (3307m) from the Icefields Parkway:




The Jumbo Purcells (3437m) are not strictly in the Rockies but are very close by:




The Ramparts rise 1200m (3200m above sea level) above Amethyst Lake in Jasper National Park:





Herbert Lake with the Bow Range beyond:




Medicine Lake in the Jasper National Park:




Lake Minnewanka in Banff National Park:




The north face of Mount Edith Cavell (3363m):




Mount Robson (3954m) is the highest peak in the Canadian Rockies and the 3000m South Face (2nd photo) is by far the largest mountain face in the Rockies - almost Himalayan in scale:






Peyto Lake, in common with Moraine Lake and many others nearby, is stained a brilliant turquoise by rock flour ground out by the glaciers:




Mount Birdwood (3097m):




Mount Assiniboine (3618m) is often called "the Matterhorn of North America":

[El_Greco]

^ They dont have snakes there do they?

[Langur]

^ They probably do (there are snakes in tame old England after all.....) but not dangerous ones. However there are plenty of grizzly bears and wolves. However the latter aren't generally dangerous and even the bears are only dangerous if you're close to their young.

By the way these photos bear out what I was saying to you earlier about how the highest mountains in a range are not always the most visually impressive. The highest peaks in the Rockies are all in Colorado but when you compare the pictures above to Mt Elbert (Colorado's Mt Elbert, at 4401m, is the highest peak in the Rockies, and 2nd only to California's Mt Whitney as the highest in the US outside of Alaska) you can see that these mountains in Canada are far more impressive. That's because Mount Elbert's rise above its surrounding valleys is just 1200m - less than that of Scotland's Ben Nevis (1300m above Glen Nevis) let alone the likes of Mount Robson (see above) with it's 3000m South Face. The most impressive scenery in the Rockies is generally in Canada, Montana, and Wyoming rather than Colorado.

[El_Greco]

Originally Posted by Langur

^ They probably do (there are snakes in tame old England after all.....) but not dangerous ones. However there are plenty of grizzly bears and wolves. However the latter aren't generally dangerous and even the bears are only dangerous if you're close to their young.

Dangerous or not it still a snake and I have Ophidiophobia!Id probably drop dead if I saw one.

By the way these photos bear out what I was saying to you earlier about how the highest mountains in a range are not always the most visually impressive. The highest peaks in the Rockies are all in Colorado but when you compare the pictures above to Mt Elbert (Colorado's Mt Elbert, at 4401m, is the highest peak in the Rockies, and 2nd only to California's Mt Whitney as the highest in the US outside of Alaska) you can see that these mountains in Canada are far more impressive. That's because Mount Elbert's rise above its surrounding valleys is just 1200m - less than that of Scotland's Ben Nevis (1300m above Glen Etive) let alone the likes of Mount Robson (see above) with it's 3000m South Face. The most impressive scenery in the Rockies is generally in Canada, Montana, and Wyoming rather than Colorado.

I understand what youre saying and youre probably right (That pic of The Ramparts is amazing) but as I said in another thread I also like the view you get from the highest mountain in a range simply because you get the feeling as if youre on top of the world but of course for that you need good weather and clear skies.But Id also like to just walk around The Rockies (for example) doing absolutely zero climbing and simply enjoying the sights.

[Langur]

Originally Posted by El_Greco

I understand what youre saying and youre probably right (That pic of The Ramparts is amazing) but as I said in another thread I also like the view you get from the highest mountain in a range simply because you get the feeling as if youre on top of the world but of course for that you need good weather and clear skies.But Id also like to just walk around The Rockies (for example) doing absolutely zero climbing and simply enjoying the sights.

The preference for mid-height summit views over views from the highest summit in a range is not exactly what I'm saying here (though you can check out the view from Mt Elbert (4401m), highest summit in the Rockies, here). It's rather that whole ranges of lower mountains can often be more spectacular than higher peaks and ranges because visual impressiveness has more to do with height above the surrounding terrain than raw height above sea level. The peaks of the Colorado Rockies are higher above sea level than the Canadian Rockies but in Colorado the rise above the surrounding terrain is much less and also less steep and visually dramatic. Another example is Scotland. The Cairngorms have the next five highest peaks in Britain after Ben Nevis but their rise above the surrounding valleys is considerably less, and also less steep and dramatic, than the mountains of Glen Coe, Fort William, Torridon, Cuillin etc which are all more spectacular and impressive in my view. In the Andes, Cerro Torre (3128m) is arguably more spectacular than Aconcagua (6962m), despite being less than half the height. In the Himalayas/Karakoram I find Machapuchare (6993m), Ama Dablam (6812m), Rakaposhi (7788m), and Nupste (7861m) are all more impressive than Everest (8848m) despite being 1000-2000m shorter. And there's no way that Kilimanjaro (5985m) can compete for visual drama with Switzerland's Matterhorn (4478m) despite the former being 1500m higher above sea level.

Other factors also come into play. I especially like the Alps and Rockies because of the lush pine and spruce forests on their lower slopes. I found the dusty deserty Atlas Mountains of Morocco somewhat less attractive despite their comparable scale. Likewise I found the views of the Himalayas more beautiful from the India/Nepal side than from Tibet in part because of the lusher and greener scenery in the foreground. Even among desert mountains I found the view from Egypt's Mt Sinai (2285m) more impressive than the view from Mt Toubkal's summit (4167m) because I found the rich colour palette and distinctive rock formations of Sinai more beautiful and impressive. Views over the Grand Canyon or Wadi Rum are amazing for the same reason.

By the way thanks for the photos of Palmyra. Unfortunately when you get close to those rows of columns you can see that many have been crudely "restored". They took the columns lying around on the floor and then poured concrete over their bases in which to stand rows of them upright again. I'm not opposed to that per se as the end result is probably more impressive and attractive than if they'd been left in situ on the gound but I know the archeological community was horrified. Also check out the ruins of Petra in neighbouring Jordan - incredible!

[kids]

If you're worried about the chance of bumping into a snake (?) i'm guessing it is very unlikely, i've seen snakes in Cumbria (2-3 foot.)

[El_Greco]

Palmyra.Syria.

Palmyra was in ancient times an important city of central Syria, located in an oasis 215 km northeast of Damascus and 120 km southwest of the Euphrates. It has long been a vital caravan city for travellers crossing the Syrian desert and was known as the Bride of the Desert. The earliest documented reference to the city by its pre-Semitic name Tadmor, Tadmur or Tudmur, is recorded in Babylonian tablets found in Mari.

[El_Greco]

Oh yes Petra is amazing!
I just love these ancient cities ; the civilizations that built them are long gone but their buildings still standing.It makes me wonder will buildings of our time survive that long?

Petra.







BTW Anasazi Village in Mesa Verde National Park is pretty impressive too.

[El_Greco]

Lost Cities :

Machu Picchu.Peru.

Although the archaeological discovery of Machu Picchu came nearly a hundred years ago, historians are still unsure of the function of this ancient Inca citadel.

The Inca had no system of writing and left no written records, and archaeologists have been left to piece together bits of evidence as to why Machu Picchu was built, what purpose it served, and why it was so quickly vacated.



Palenque.Mexico.

The earliest Maya began to settle the dense rain forests of southwestern Mexico and Guatemala some 3,000 years ago. For nearly 1,400 years, settlements arose throughout the region, with some, like Tikal and Palenque (shown here), expanding into large, vibrant city-states.



Troy.Turkey.

Myth, folklore, mystery, and intrigue surround the ancient city of Troy like no other ruin on Earth. Once thought to be purely imaginary, a prop in Homer's epic poem The Iliad, excavations in northwestern Turkey in 1871 eventually proved that the city indeed existed.

In 1871, German adventurer Heinrich Schliemann began digging at Hisarlik, Turkey, (shown here) in search of the fabled city. His roughshod excavation wrought havoc on the site, but revealed nine ancient cities, each built on top of the next and dating back some 5,000 years. At the time, most archaeologists were skeptical that Troy was among the ruins, but evidence since the discovery suggests the Trojan capital indeed lies within the site.



Mohenjo Daro.Pakistan.

The Indus Valley civilization was entirely unknown until 1921, when excavations in what would become Pakistan revealed the cities of Harappa and Mohenjo Daro (shown here).

This mysterious culture emerged nearly 4,500 years ago and thrived for a thousand years, profiting from the highly fertile lands of the Indus River floodplain and trade with the civilizations of nearby Mesopotamia.



Persepolis.Iran.

The ancient city of Persepolis in modern-day Iran was one of four capitals of the sprawling Persian Empire. Built beginning around 520 B.C., the city was a showcase for the empire's staggering wealth, with grand architecture, extravagant works of silver and gold, and extensive relief sculptures such as this one portraying envoys with offerings for the king.

The height of Persian rule lasted from about 550 B.C. until 330 B.C., when Alexander the Great overthrew the ruling Archaemenid dynasty and burned Persepolis to the ground.



Tanis.Egypt.

The city of Tanis is relatively unknown among Egypt's wealth of historical sites, though it yielded one of the greatest archeological troves ever found. Once the capital of all Egypt, Tanis's royal tombs have yielded artifacts on par with the treasures of Tutankhamun.



Great Enclosure.Zimbabwe.

Once thought (erroneously) to be a city of the biblical Queen of Sheba, Great Zimbabwe stands as the most important archaeological site yet found in sub-Saharan Africa. Though historians are still seeking answers about the origin and purpose of the city, evidence suggests the Shona, ancestors of the modern Bantu, built it beginning around A.D. 1250 and that it served as a spiritual center.



Mesa Verde.Colorado.

More than 600 cliff dwellings made by the ancestral Pueblo people, also known as the Anasazi, are scattered throughout Mesa Verde National Park in Colorado (shown here).

The Anasazi arrived in the region as early as A.D. 550, building their homes and cultivating crops on the soaring mesa tops. Around 1150, though, they began to move their dwellings to the alcoves within the canyon walls. Most houses were quite small, but a few reached enormous proportions, housing up 250 people.

[El_Greco]

Gigantic River Cave Revealed in Laos



October 20, 2008–A cave explorer stands before an imposing stalagmite–made of mineral deposits–near an entrance to the Xe Bang Fai River cave in central Laos.

An expedition in February 2008, co-led by veteran caver John Pollack, comprehensively mapped and photographed the 5.9-mile (9.5-kilometer) length of the little-known cavern for the first time.

The spelunking team encountered some of the largest rooms and most impressive structures of any river cave on Earth, Pollack said.

A river cave is any cave with an active water source flowing through it.

Everything about the cave is big–from its towering entrances to its phobia-inducing spiders, which can be 10 inches (25 centimeters) across, Pollack added.

"It's also extremely well decorated with spectacular formations," Pollack said.



The Xe Bang Fai River cave's gaping downstream entrance was used as a daily staging point for the February 2008 trip, funded by the National Geographic Society's Expeditions Council.

The cave has two known entrancesone upstream and one downstream.

The exploration team spent ten days surveying and photographing the cave, communicating in the darkness by walkie-talkie, and traveling by lightweight, inflatable kayaks.

The adventurers' longest day in the cave lasted 17 hours.



The Xe Bang Fai River cave is crowded with outsize features.

First traversed on a bamboo raft by a French explorer in 1905, the cave, known locally as Tham Khoun Xe and occasionally visited by tourists, went unstudied for 90 years as war and political turmoil in Laos kept researchers out of the Southeast Asian country.

A French team returned briefly in 1995, but little useful data was gleaned. Caver John Pollack staged his first expedition to the site in 2006.



A spelunker is dwarfed by draperies made of calcite deposits about two miles (three kilometers) from the Xe Bang Fai River cave's downstream entrance.

Caver John Pollack's 2008 team consisted of four Canadian and four American researchers aided by several Laotian guides and assistants.

The expedition's photographer Dave Bunnell shuttled mounds of photographic equipment into the caves.

"He'd spend all day setting up flashes and strobes, sometimes shooting the same shot 18, 20 times over," Pollack said.



Calcium carbonate formations (above) called gour or rimstone pools, form in the rainy season as water seeps in and collects in ponds, over time leaving complex deposits.

Explorer John Pollack's team found cube-shaped "cave pearls" in some of the cave's gour formations that were up to 12.6 inches (32 centimeters) in circumference–potentially a world record, he said.

Pollack's team chose February, the middle of Laos's dry season, for its 2008 expedition to the Xe Bang Fai River cave.

Still river levels reached 12.8 cubic yards (9.8 cubic meters) per second.

During the August-September monsoon, the Xe Bang Fai River roars through the cave at up to 1,300 cubic yards (1,000 cubic meters) per second.



Cave explorers nicknamed this large room "the Cathedral" for its high, vaulted ceiling.

Explorer John Pollack calls the Xe Bang Fai River cave "an underground K2," which, based on the volume of water that passes through the cave and the size of its passages, is likely one of the largest river caves on Earth.

Expedition co-leader Bob Osburn is producing a highly detailed map of the cavern, and Pollack expects an article on the team's discoveries to appear in the journal of the National Speleological Society in 2009.

He hopes to return to the cave in 2010.

[Tony Sebo]

two excellent posts el greco.

[Gherkin]

I've got 2MB Broadband in student accomodation... these pages have taken ages! Brilliant photos nonetheless, the descriptions are interesting too el greco