<p>A third candidate beside the two listed (Denali and Kilimanjaro) is Nanga Parbat in Pakistan. The <a href="https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/tallest-mountain-face" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Guinness Book of World Records</a> lists Nanga Parbat as the tallest from base to peak. Denali and Kilimanjaro are contenders as well, based entirely on how one defines &quot;base&quot;. A fourth strong contender is Rakaposhi, also in Pakistan. The problem is that the concept of base elevation is not well defined.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-23T14:34:12.763Z
That's very interesting. I haven't thought of those additional two you mentioned nor ever heard of them being contenders.
Little Mind
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-24T07:47:25.957Z
According to Guinness it's the tallest mountain face, they don't say "tallest from base to peak" and they provide a lower number than the 18,000 ft in my question. I think for a mountain to count as the tallest from vale to peak, it must be similarly tall from _all sides_.
Little Mind
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-24T10:03:27.363Z
@LittleMind That is **your** concept of the base election (and even that is subject to issues). Other people have different concepts. The concept of base elevation is not well-defined, which is why you see different claims. For example, consider mountains whose base is in the ocean: What's the tallest from base to peak? Many say it's Mauna Kea, but a few people say it's Guam's Mount Lamlam, which is the mountain that is closest to the Challenger Deep.
David Hammen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-24T12:21:32.547Z
It's probably the mainstream concept because Mt Lamlam usually isn't mentioned for the above reason: only one side of it has the extreme elevation difference, but it's not as tall above the surrounding terrain except the Mariana trench.
Little Mind
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-29T15:37:44.817Z
To David Hammen and the upvoter: Imagine yourself being on flat land and in front of you is a mountain. Now imagine yourself being at the deepest point of a ravine rising very high up to the surface which is flat land. See the difference?
Little Mind
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-29T15:40:25.637Z
Btw if you wonder why I didn't accept your answer: While interesting, it technically doesn't answer my question which isn't what the tallest mountain from vale to peak on Earth is (or may be), but if Mt McKinley (Denali) or Kilimanjaro is taller.
Little Mind
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-23T13:19:58.400Z
2024-12-23T13:31:07.007Z
2024-12-23T13:31:07.007Z
David Hammen
<p>I hear both statements from time to time: that either Mt McKinley (Denali) or Kilimanjaro are Earth's tallest mountain from vale to summit, about 18,000 ft (5,500 m) elevation difference. Is there a clear answer to which mountain is taller or does it depend on what you consider the &quot;base&quot; respectively from where you're measuring?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-23T11:33:35.553Z
Not sure about these two, but the tallest mountain on Earth from base to summit in Mauna Kea, with >10 km: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/highestpoint.html
Jean-Marie Prival
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-23T11:50:23.640Z
@Jean-MariePrival I know, but it's underwater so it's a different situation with Mauna Kea. The "base" of Mauna Kea can be considered sea level because water is something solid or liquid, something you can touch, and if salty enough, even sit on.
Little Mind
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-23T23:47:36.050Z
Air, like water, is a fluid. But I guess I see what you mean.
Jean-Marie Prival
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-24T07:32:43.770Z
@Jean-MariePrival For example, liquids and solids have an abrupt surface whereas atmospheres don't have any. At 100 mi (160 km) above the Earth, would you say you're in a gas or in vacuum? Even interstellar space has a few hydrogen atoms per cubic foot. Another example, you can drink water, but you can't drink a gas, not even a supercritical one. You can breathe a gas, but you can't breathe water unless you have gills.
Little Mind
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-24T14:00:32.847Z
Yeah, but this has little to do with the matter. The base of Mauna Kea is 6 km under water, whether you can breathe it or not...
Jean-Marie Prival
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-24T15:02:40.427Z
@Jean-MariePrival Yes. I would only prefer that those who state it (textbooks, science magazines etc) would also include the tallest such mountain on land because it's the latter that is what is more commonly meant or so.
Little Mind
<mountains><geomorphology>
Which mountain is taller above its base: Mount McKinley (Denali) or Kilimanjaro?
Little Mind
# Which mountain is taller above its base: Mount McKinley (Denali) or Kilimanjaro?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-12-23)

I hear both statements from time to time: that either Mt McKinley (Denali) or Kilimanjaro are Earth's tallest mountain from vale to summit, about 18,000 ft (5,500 m) elevation difference. Is there a clear answer to which mountain is taller or does it depend on what you consider the "base" respectively from where you're measuring?

**Tags:** mountains, geomorphology

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Not sure about these two, but the tallest mountain on Earth from base to summit in Mauna Kea, with >10 km: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/highestpoint.html  
> **username_0**: @username_1 I know, but it's underwater so it's a different situation with Mauna Kea. The "base" of Mauna Kea can be considered sea level because water is something solid or liquid, something you can touch, and if salty enough, even sit on.  
> **username_1**: Air, like water, is a fluid. But I guess I see what you mean.  
> **username_0**: @username_1 For example, liquids and solids have an abrupt surface whereas atmospheres don't have any. At 100 mi (160 km) above the Earth, would you say you're in a gas or in vacuum? Even interstellar space has a few hydrogen atoms per cubic foot. Another example, you can drink water, but you can't drink a gas, not even a supercritical one. You can breathe a gas, but you can't breathe water unless you have gills.  
> **username_1**: Yeah, but this has username_0 to do with the matter. The base of Mauna Kea is 6 km under water, whether you can breathe it or not...  
> **username_0**: @username_1 Yes. I would only prefer that those who state it (textbooks, science magazines etc) would also include the tallest such mountain on land because it's the latter that is what is more commonly meant or so.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2024-12-23. Score: 2

A third candidate beside the two listed (Denali and Kilimanjaro) is Nanga Parbat in Pakistan. The [Guinness Book of World Records](https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/tallest-mountain-face) lists Nanga Parbat as the tallest from base to peak. Denali and Kilimanjaro are contenders as well, based entirely on how one defines "base". A fourth strong contender is Rakaposhi, also in Pakistan. The problem is that the concept of base elevation is not well defined.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: That's very interesting. I haven't thought of those additional two you mentioned nor ever heard of them being contenders.  
> **username_0**: According to Guinness it's the tallest mountain face, they don't say "tallest from base to peak" and they provide a lower number than the 18,000 ft in my question. I think for a mountain to count as the tallest from vale to peak, it must be similarly tall from _all sides_.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 That is **your** concept of the base election (and even that is subject to issues). Other people have different concepts. The concept of base elevation is not well-defined, which is why you see different claims. For example, consider mountains whose base is in the ocean: What's the tallest from base to peak? Many say it's Mauna Kea, but a few people say it's Guam's Mount Lamlam, which is the mountain that is closest to the Challenger Deep.  
> **username_0**: It's probably the mainstream concept because Mt Lamlam usually isn't mentioned for the above reason: only one side of it has the extreme elevation difference, but it's not as tall above the surrounding terrain except the Mariana trench.  
> **username_0**: To username_2 username_2 and the upvoter: Imagine yourself being on flat land and in front of you is a mountain. Now imagine yourself being at the deepest point of a ravine rising very high up to the surface which is flat land. See the difference?  
> **username_0**: Btw if you wonder why I didn't accept your answer: While interesting, it technically doesn't answer my question which isn't what the tallest mountain from vale to peak on Earth is (or may be), but if Mt McKinley (Denali) or Kilimanjaro is taller.  

---

