[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Follow up (was RE: Ancient mountains)
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
> By the way, how quickly are mountains "brought down" by erosion?
It depends on a number of factors: total volume uplifted, climate, tectonic
situation for uplift, isostatic rebound (basically, the
more you erode a mountain range, the more it rises in response to balance out
the deep root pushing down into the mantle), etc. It
can be a couple million years, or it can be tens of millions of years.
> And is
> there any reason to believe ancient mountains could have been higher than
> ones, say, in Pangaea? If the supercontinent was the result of multiple plate
> convergences, it should have had some really spectacular ranges...
At least some people have proposed that the Euramerican-Siberian collision (see
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/300NAt.jpg) might have
produced ranges higher than the Himalaya. Not all agree, though.
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Senior Lecturer, Vertebrate Paleontology
Department of Geology Director, Earth, Life & Time Program
University of Maryland College Park Scholars
Building 237, Room 1117
College Park, MD 20742
Phone: 301-405-4084 Email: email@example.com
Fax (Geol): 301-314-9661 Fax (CPS-ELT): 301-405-0796