Showdown at Big Sky

February 23, 2006 10:33 PM

Why is the sky so much bigger in Wyoming and Montana than everywhere else?

For several summers when I was younger, my mom, my sister, and I would road trip from California to Wyoming, where my mom grew up. She used to tell us that as soon as one crossed the border from Utah to Wyoming, the sky would suddenly expand and become enormous. I'm sure it wasn't really so sudden, but it seemed totally true. By the time we got to Evanston, the sky would have exploded.

I was reminded of this when I watched Brokeback Mountain, which did a beautiful job of capturing the wide open expanses, the great purple mountains, and the huge blue sky. And I started wondering - hey, why? I don't think it's just the openness of the landscape, because I've been in other open, flatter areas and the sky didn't seem so big.

I haven't spent as much time in Montana but assume it's the same deal there, as they have a town named after it.

So why's the sky so big in Wyoming and Montana, and is there anywhere else in the world with the same phenomenon?

posted by granted to science & nature (28 comments total)

Because there is absolutely nothing taking up space on the horizon?

Like, *nothing*.
posted by Brittanie at 10:45 PM on February 23, 2006

I'm not a world traveller, so I can't really compare. But to me, MT and WY seem to have big sky because the land is flat (in parts), the local shrubbery is low, so one thus has a fully unimpeded view of the horizon for 360 degrees. But it's really not all that different in Kansas, which isn't called big sky country.

Places in MT and WY do have mountains on the horizon, though, which when far enough away may give a sense of scale without impeding view.
posted by teece at 10:47 PM on February 23, 2006

Lower than average polution, leading to high visibility.

If you have 20 miles visibility across clear ground, you have about 1200 square miles visible to you from a given spot. If you have 10 miles visibility, that drops to 300 square miles. At 2 miles, you're down to about 12 square miles.
posted by I Love Tacos at 10:55 PM on February 23, 2006

I think its teece's latter point. Take a look at these pictures. The whole earth seems bigger. An unimpeded view of distant mountains only happens in rocky areas like Montana where you dont have enormous trees blocking the way. I think this actually provides a larger sense of psychological space than, say, complete flatness. I've been out on boats in the ocean with nothing but water in all directions and, if anything, the horizon seems closer with the water dipping down into the curvature of the Earth.

A secondary reason is likely that rocky places will generally have less dust in the area than say farmed places such as Kansas Or Iowa or California's Central Valley. The less dust in the air the clearer and bluer the sky is - which also makes it more pronounced and intense.

Thats my theory, anyways.
posted by vacapinta at 11:00 PM on February 23, 2006

By nothing, I meant buildings and trees, not mountains.
posted by Brittanie at 11:02 PM on February 23, 2006

If film doesn't lie, then Big Sky country isn't limited to the US of A. Also, see here and, I'd wager, stretches in Central Asia, Mongolia, Namibia, Siberia ...
posted by rob511 at 11:19 PM on February 23, 2006

Robbie Robertson is why it seems bigger. His Canadian rootsiness stretches space.

No, I'd go for the observer bias asnwer— having driven all over our great land, the sky's no bigger in Butte than in Lubbock. The Great Plains states all have comiserate skylines, mostly because there just aren't as many trees. But telling yourself that you're entering Big Sky Country makes it feel more romantic, more special. Tie that in with positive childhood memories and, well, you've got a personal mythos goin'.
posted by klangklangston at 11:23 PM on February 23, 2006

Combination of distance visibility (as ILT said) and lack of obstructive objects like trees and buildings that block most of the view. The rolling plains of Texas are just gorgeous, particularly if you're cresting a hill and see stretches of road for miles and miles down the rest and acres upon acres of farmland patching the countryside.
posted by vanoakenfold at 11:40 PM on February 23, 2006

FYI: Brokeback Mountain was filmed in Alberta.
posted by heeeraldo at 2:01 AM on February 24, 2006

Lewis, in the Scottish Outer Hebrides is also blessed with Big Sky. The landscape is exceptionally barren and on clear days the amount of sky is just staggering.
posted by brautigan at 2:02 AM on February 24, 2006

I think it is to do with the number of different distance cues you are getting. Stand beside a highway in somewhere like Montana and you will get the convergence of parallel lines towards the horizon, a lack of local obstructions like trees to impede your view and if you are lucky 2 or 3 different ranges or ridges of mountains between you and the horizon. The visibility is high partly due to clean air but there will still be a gradient in colour towards blue in the distance and in tone - lighter in the distance. This is pretty much the full range of distance cues available from the "big sky" special effects box.

The wikipedia article on "horizon" is useful reading about absolute viewing distances in flat landscapes - but basically you need to have serious mountain ranges around in order to stand a chance of seeing anything truely distant.
posted by rongorongo at 2:23 AM on February 24, 2006

Data point: I grew up in Kansas and would occasionally hear it referred to as big sky country.
posted by squidlarkin at 5:31 AM on February 24, 2006

Flatness. General lack of pollution.
You'd be amazed how much "lower" a gray sky appears to be compared to a big vivid blue sky.
Northern Indiana can be pretty much as flat as a billiard table for as far as the eye can see, but you still feel like you're in a room with 8-foot ceilings. Friggin' gray sky.
posted by Thorzdad at 6:27 AM on February 24, 2006

I think vacapinta must have a point. The land is just as flat in Iowa and you don't get that exhilarating feeling of hugeness that you get in Montana. It must be partly the clarity of the air.
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:36 AM on February 24, 2006

I'll have to say 'clear unimpeded view of very distant hills and mountains' as well. That sets it apart from plains lands like Kansas. even if the mountains aren't huge in the distance, the uneven horizon and your natural ability to judge distance and scale when viewing faraway hills and mountains, even peripherally must contribute to this sensation. When I first moved to Alaska, I felt over and over that there was something different about the air or the sky, something about the way things looked faraway that I hadn't seen living in the lower 48 (even in Washington State) - it was almost like I could see further. (In one sense I could. - From downtown Anchorage, you could easily see Denali, over 140 miles distant)
posted by kokogiak at 6:47 AM on February 24, 2006

It seems to me that nearly everything is bigger in Wyoming and Montana - the sky is about 20% bigger. The trucks - bigger. The boots? Bigger.

Hats? Bigger. Speed limits - bigger.

I attribute it to the good old American instinct toward expansion. They've certainly got the space for bigger things out there.
posted by rocketman at 7:35 AM on February 24, 2006

I've also driven all over and got the big sky feelings both in MT and KS. Having something far-away to look at that's much smaller than it should be certainly helps, as does having big fat clouds in the sky. In KS it's the clouds; the land seems low and bare but you look up and there's a lot going on.
posted by fleacircus at 9:33 AM on February 24, 2006

Wow rob511, your second link has some fantastic stuff, and all with high res versions available. Thanks!
</ot>
posted by SpookyFish at 9:36 AM on February 24, 2006

I think that it's lack the of humitity. Where I grew up it was very flat, but at some point the horizon seemed to be in a fog bank, even on the clearest day.
posted by 445supermag at 10:18 AM on February 24, 2006

It's because there are no trees to block your view, and there are mountains on the horizon that give you a sense of scale. Indiana, Iowa, etc don't seem to have as big a sky because there are no mountains in the far-off distance to give you a sense of how far away the horizon is.
posted by JekPorkins at 10:22 AM on February 24, 2006

Grew up in Big Sky MT or nearby - I can tell you from experience that a good chunk of the reason is that the sky is generally clear. Clear as in you can see blue sky instead of overcast cloud cover. The mountain ranges scrape most of the moisture out as clouds pass over, which is why the western side of the Rockies is wetter (think Seattle) than the drier eastern side (think MT, Utah, heck Death Valley gets the same treatment). It's in the song, you know...

Oh give me a home where the buffalo roam
Where the deer and the antelope play
Where seldom is heard a discouraging word
And the skies are not cloudy all day ...
posted by caution live frogs at 11:36 AM on February 24, 2006

(On a sad note, just saw ads recently stating that luxury condos in the Gallatin Valley, at Big Sky, are now starting at a paltry $700,000. I wish the yuppie bastards would just stay in Denver, they needn't ruin the rest of the Rockies...)
posted by caution live frogs at 11:37 AM on February 24, 2006

I wish the yuppie bastards would just stay in Denver, they needn't ruin the rest of the Rockies...

meh. If you build it (a big-ass ski resort on a great mountain), they (the bastards) will come.
posted by JekPorkins at 11:51 AM on February 24, 2006

Siberia is a lot like this. I saw it first-hand in 2002. Here. Here. Here.
posted by camworld at 12:11 PM on February 24, 2006

Nice pics, camworld.
posted by soiled cowboy at 7:25 PM on February 24, 2006

FYI: Brokeback Mountain was filmed in Alberta.

What! Well, I guess that answers my second question.

Interesting - so I gather there isn't an absolutely 100% definitive answer, at least not one known among Metafilter denizens. Which is just fine with me - after I posted, I was slightly afraid there would be some horrible explanation involving the death of innocent baby animals that would ruin Wyoming for me forever.

The mountains provided scale and general clear air sounds reasonable to me. Thanks everyone for humoring my whimsical wonderings!!
posted by granted at 10:44 PM on February 24, 2006

Example. Taken in Great Falls (two hours south of Canada, 45 miles east of the Rockies), looking roughly East/Southeast.

'Nuff said.
posted by davidmsc at 1:00 AM on February 25, 2006

Let's make a big sky simulation landscape just for fun. We'll start off with a flat plane - like Iowa - but on a day with perfect visibility - and we'll put our six foot tall observer in the middle of it. From the same Wikipedia article I mentioned before we see that the distance in miles at which objects vanish over the horizon is 1.5 times the square root of the height of the object. So if we talk away from our viewer we will disappear from his view after a paltry 3 miles. That's not a lot of material to give depth cues.

Of course we can see further than that if we look up - we have about 22 miles of atmosphere and maybe the sun and the moon visible beyond it - but nothing to make the sky look particularly massive.

So let's bring in some mountains - a mile high range. That can be 89 miles away before it vanishes altogether and it will look nice and blue before it does so. To really max out the effect we would put our viewer on top of a fairly high ridge - surrounded by a rapid descent to a flat plane in all directions. Then we would have some concentric rings of mountains rising from the plane - each higher than the last by just enough to look good.

We would probably choose to make the time early morning or dusk so that we have more dramatic light, some long shadows and the odd star showing.

Then of course there has to be the distant howl of a lone wolf, a sleepily grazing herd of bison and somebody playing a harmonica.
posted by rongorongo at 4:23 AM on February 27, 2006