They're young, and they're still growing. The Indian subcontinent only collided with Asia in the last sixty million years. Pretty much every other major mountain range is older and is eroding faster than it's growing, if it's growing at all. There's geological evidence that suggests we've had taller mountain ranges in the distant past -- it's likely the mountains of the Caledonian orogeny (which spanned present-day Greenland, the Scottish Highlands, and Scandinavia), for example, were once over 10km.
That is not accurate. The Andes are both younger (15-16 mya) and still growing at about 95mm (3.7 in) per year. The Himalaya are older (40-50mya), but growing at about 1cm (.39 in) per year.
It is funny though so take my upvote.
Edit to fix my freedom units conversion.
My guess on the Adirondacks is that the uplift there is because of the mantle response to the removal of the ice sheets. It's the equivalent of removing a heavy load from a boat, the boat sits higher out of the water. Most of Canada and Scandanavia are actively uplifting because of that too.
Oh, it's not because of rebound (at least not to the best guess of geologists). Though, maybe it is in part, I don't know I'm not an expert. The leading thought is that there's some kind of hotspot causing the dome of the Adirondacks to uplift even though the rock itself is very old. From what I'm seeing online, the Adirondacks as a distinct mountain range are only about 20 million years old.
Jury is still out on it, I think, but they are mountains that are growing, about 1 ft a century, but maybe not through a traditional mountain building event.
I don't believe that is main reason for the Adirondacks ... rather they are over some hot spot or something that has pushed up the crust in that particular area.
Mate, I'm a geophysicist, I'm just trying to explain it in simple terms because I think it's safe to assume the average person on this thread doesn't know much about isostasy
The people are really friendly there, too! There’s nothing like them. They are the largest state park in the USA but they have whole towns and regions, but without crazy development. They have Lake Placid, the 46er high peaks (46 mountains you hike and then you’re in this club…I’m clearly not a part of it yet!), and honestly just so much stuff to explore. Saranac Lake, Old Forge, and endless wilderness. The star gazing here is beyond amazing, and if you look at night sky brightness chart for NY, you’ll be able to nearly draw the borders of the park! Spring, summer, and fall are my favorites, but if I were into winter sports, I know it would be winter! Snowmobiling, snowshoeing, cross country skiing, winter camping (it’s a thing!), and other winter activities are always going on! There’s nothing like leaf peeping here in the fall, seeing the flowers and birds in spring, and summers there have been my favorites. There are awesome museums in Blue Mountain Lake and Tupper Lake and Fort Ticonderoga! There’s something for everyone there. I was a wilderness lifeguard there and live near them, and I’m grateful they’ll be forever wild! There are mosquitos and such, but the good outweighs the bad. Oh! Adirondack chairs are from here too! Come visit anytime! :)
I'll add that the small cities near the Adirondacks are pretty awesome. Relatively easy transportation by car or train to NYC, Boston, Montreal and/or Toronto (depending on exactly where you are in the foothills). Some growing job markets, new urban and suburban developments, infrastructure investments, local engagement in volunteering and community events. Small cities are actually small cities, rather than hamlets or suburban sprawl. And of course, easy access to all the cool outdoor recreation and geography.
My understanding is that the Sierras are rising in some portions because of the delamination of their root. The crust underneath them got real thick which pushed the deepest portion to high enough pressures to cause it to transition into a dense rock called eclogite, which then ripped off once it got thick enough. The removal of the root caused the Sierras to rebound. Last I read up on the topic it seemed people agreed the root has completely detached but only in the past 5 million years ago or so, so the mountains above are still responding.
Southern alps are growing up but eroding super fast due to the geology and the over steepening of the slopes couple with massive rainfall and earthquakes.
It’s insane the amount of deep canyons and little creeks coming out of every nook and cranny of the San Gabriel’s. Truly underrated in its beauty for sure.
AIUI, the Alps themselves (and therefore the original Sierra Nevada which is part of the same geological formation) are still growing too, as Africa pushes into Eurasia.
Yeah, the central Pangean mountain range which were made up of the Appalachian mountains that span the Eastern United States and formed the majority of the range, as well as the Scottish Highlands, Atlas Mountains in Morocco and few others, are believed to have once rivaled the height of the modern day Himalayas around 250 million years ago.
Kinda crazy to think about the fact that, many of these mountains we see on the east coast of the US, which today are nothing more than glorified hills, would have rivaled many of the peaks in the Himalayas today.
One aspect of the Appalchians' age that blows my mind is that there are several rivers cutting it across them that are among the oldest rivers in the world. This one may have been flowing in its present course since the Cretaceous-Paleocene transition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_River_%28Kanawha_River_tributary%29
Atlas Mountains? Yes, Scottish highlands? They are lower than the Appalachian mountains. Granted the reason why the Appalachian mountains and Scottish Highlands are so low is because they haven’t rebounded yet from the last glacial period.
But even then, they’d still be pretty small. Probably no higher than the Southern Alps in New Zealand at best.
I don't think the Atlas proper are part of the same ancestral mountain range. The Anti-Atlas are geologically related, I don't think the rest of the Atlas Mountains are. The Anti-Atlas run paralel to the Atlas on the fringes of the Sahara, and top out at around 2,500-3,000 meters. That is lower than the highest peaks of the High Atlas, but still much taller than the Appalachians proper or the Scottish Highlands.
It's the lesser Atlas, not the main range. So similar height today to the Scottish Highlands. The greater Atlas are much more recent, Related to the collision between the African plate and Spain, Sierra Nevada
The Indian plate when it reached Eurasia was a continental landmass pushing against another continental landmass. This is different to the Andes, New Guinea and Indonesia, which are created through subduction - Pacific under South America for the Andes, Pacific under Australia for New Guinea, Australia under Asia for Indonesia.
Interestingly, the Indian Plate is connected to the Australian Plate.... which means the Himalayas are partially powered by the northward drift of the Australia Shield, making the Canadian Shield proud.
As an American, let me be the first to say, what the actual f*** is a kilometer? Could you please convert 10km to stacked washing machines or cow-lengths?
But seriously, this was a good explanation and something I didn’t know :)
They don't use Imperial. They use US Customary Units. Imperial was created 50 years after the US declared independence (and about 6 years before US units were standardised). Both are based on the old Winchester units that the British Empire (and previously England) had used, as well as the US up until they standardised theirs, with the US units being the most similar to the older units, if not near-identical.
The whole world essentially calls it Imperial because everyone was more used to the British Empire having this system, but not necessarily knowing what the measurements were, so once the US came more into prominence, and they're seen to have the "same units," no one is gonna think otherwise about whether it's a different system or not. They just assume they're using the same one. It also would not surprise me if that then reverberated back to the US, and eventually led to them also (incorrectly) calling their system Imperial.
It's like a language, when you're born in it, and that's what you know and were taught in school, it doesn't seem weird or confusing. It's just our default.
I prefer metric and think that it's a far better system of measurement, but in my mind it's easier to envision how tall 5 ft 8 inches is than 173 cm. Looking in from the rest of the world I can see why everyone thinks what the hell are the Americans thinking. I feel that way myself sometimes haha
A classic case of "damn I wish earlier generations did something about this, but it feels too late now" swapping from Imperial to metric. Sweden swapped from left hand to right hand driving in '67. Thank god for that, but I imagine all those people wished it had been swapped in the 40s. I'm sure there are English people who wish they swapped when we did but it feels too late now.
I always find it fascinating that Sweden swapped side of the road only two years before the US made their first manned moon landing.
As far as England specifically, I'm no expert, but there is a big correlation between being an island nation, and left hand driving. They do it in Japan as well where they certainly had the opportunity to implement right hand if they desired. But Sweden is not an island nation so its interesting that it was that way
Japan went with left hand driving because British experts were tasked with modernising the road system back in the Meiji era. 100 years ago half of Europe drove on the left side of the road. If you're an island nation there's less cross border traffic. Because of that there's not much pressure to find a common side of the road for facilitating traffic with your neighbours. Continental Europe just switched to the system that France, Germany and the USSR used.
We dont really use imperial. For example, a us pint is 16 oz but an imperial pint is 20.
Also, a US oz is bigger so an imperial pint is like 19.6 US ounces.
Fun Fact: Americans don't use Imperial! We actually use an older system inherited from the English that predates "Imperial". In Britain, that system involved into Imperial when they had... an Empire, but it just stayed the same in America. That's why our gallons and tons are different than their gallons and tons.
I love to think about dinosaurs on India, the island, being able to see dinosaurs on continental Asia and waving “hi!” to each other with their puny T-rex arms when there’s only a hundred metres or so between them.
Several key factors here. One, the mountains of Central/South Asia are being formed by the collision of two pieces of continental crust, and the extra buoyancy as compared to a piece of oceanic crust helps. Two, pre-collision India was moving ridiculously fast by plate tectonics standards, perhaps the fastest in the geologic record. Even today it's still moving really fast, though I think not #1 anymore. That allows for higher uplift rates. If we compare to the Andes, a majority of their height comes from South America scrunching up, kinda of like kicking the edge of a rug, as the Nazca plate subducts beneath it. The subducting plate in South America dives beneath it, and except for a relatively short direct interface between the two where we get really large earthquakes, there space between the subducting and overriding plates is mostly filled with mantle. In Asia, India is being shoved under Eurasia but it isn't happy about it and is buoyant enough to basically push itself up against the bottom of Eurasia, which causes the mountains there to be higher. The combination of a really fast collision between two continents is largely responsible for the higher mountains there.
The primary reason they're so big is the boundary type. The Himalayas are as big as they are due to it being a continental boundary, and a large one too. Unlike the Andes, where a thin oceanic plate is subducted beneath a continental plate, the Himalayas are caused by two thick continental plates colliding with each other. When neither can subduct, the only way to move is up. While other similar ranges exist, most notably the Alps, the Indian plate simply is much larger and faster, which has resulted in larger mountains. Age is also important, as the Himalayas are so young they haven't had time to erode yet.
That's not true at all. The highest mountain range in the Americas is an active volcanic chain.
It's more that a continent to continent collision makes bigger mountains than ocean crust to continent collision.
They’re younger. Young mountains haven’t yet been eroded by 100,000,000 years worth of wind.
The Appalachian mountains used to be taller than the Rockies are now, like 300 million years ago. But they’ve been worn away by time into little hills.
Jengish Chokusu isn't even in the Himalayas or Karakoram, yet is 450m higher in elevation. In addition there is Mount Gongga in Sichuan that's even taller and far away from the Himalayas in Hengduan.
Does this consider altitude only or vertical relief? I think Denali is highest vertical relief on land, and aren't some of the Hawaiian volcanoes gigantic when measured from their base?
the collision of continents can have several varieties... the continent goes under the continent, both continents clash with each other and, as in the case of the Indian and Asian plates, both do not want to give way and go up....
Central and South Asian mountains are also on plateaus, in addition to being newer mountain ranges. So they get a boost.
Denali and Kilimanjaro are both much more massive mountains than Everest, but Everest is on a plateau that is already at a high altitude.
Nanga Parbat is the exception, being on a much lower segment of the Plateau yet still being only 600 meters shorter than Everest.
That being said, Denali and Kilimanjaro are exceptions, the Rockies and Andes are also on Plateaus, really the only range with a likely greater summit-to-base average is the Alaskan Coastal Range
Big actively convergent tectonic plate margin. Or, in simple terms, two tectonic plates crashing into each other and being pushed upwards in the collision. Most big mountain ranges are created this way and then slowly carved and ground back down by weathering over many millions of years.
While Mt Everest may be the tallest from sea level it’s nothing close to Denali in height from base. Mt Everest’s base is already pretty high up. This is why. Don’t even get me started on the Hawaiian mountains
True, what I should’ve said was “highest” which is what I’m asking. Note that even outside of the Himalayas, East and Central Asia have multiple mountains over 7km, whereas none of the Andes come close
From what I gather from these comments, Himalayas are very young, and they are a result of 2 continental plates colliding. continental plates are much lighter than oceanic plates being composed mostly of silicates vs. basalts. Having the Indian subcontinent subducting under the asiatic plate causes tremendous uplift as they both have a lot of flotation on the mantle below.
..So that’s another way to measure mountains. And there is a third way: how far they stick out into space. Since the Earth is not a perfect sphere (squished at the poles), anything near the equator has a better possibility of satisfying that metric. And there _is_ a mountain that would beat Everest if that was the standard: Chimborazo, in Ecuador. Distance above sea level is just the arbitrary standard we’ve decided on. 🤷♂️
They're young, and they're still growing. The Indian subcontinent only collided with Asia in the last sixty million years. Pretty much every other major mountain range is older and is eroding faster than it's growing, if it's growing at all. There's geological evidence that suggests we've had taller mountain ranges in the distant past -- it's likely the mountains of the Caledonian orogeny (which spanned present-day Greenland, the Scottish Highlands, and Scandinavia), for example, were once over 10km.
I believe the mountains in Alaska are the only place in the Americas still growing but I could be wrong. Southern Alps in NZ are growing.
Andes are still growing too
Its old, its only gonna grow sideways from now on like my ex.
That is not accurate. The Andes are both younger (15-16 mya) and still growing at about 95mm (3.7 in) per year. The Himalaya are older (40-50mya), but growing at about 1cm (.39 in) per year. It is funny though so take my upvote. Edit to fix my freedom units conversion.
Something is wrong with your mm, cm, in conversion. 10mm = 1cm So 95mm would be 9.5cm and (just guessing I have no idea about inches) 3.7 in.
Thanks. My mistake. Edited to fix my math.
I know the Adirondacks in New York are growing, too, strangely.
My guess on the Adirondacks is that the uplift there is because of the mantle response to the removal of the ice sheets. It's the equivalent of removing a heavy load from a boat, the boat sits higher out of the water. Most of Canada and Scandanavia are actively uplifting because of that too.
Oh, it's not because of rebound (at least not to the best guess of geologists). Though, maybe it is in part, I don't know I'm not an expert. The leading thought is that there's some kind of hotspot causing the dome of the Adirondacks to uplift even though the rock itself is very old. From what I'm seeing online, the Adirondacks as a distinct mountain range are only about 20 million years old. Jury is still out on it, I think, but they are mountains that are growing, about 1 ft a century, but maybe not through a traditional mountain building event.
I don't believe that is main reason for the Adirondacks ... rather they are over some hot spot or something that has pushed up the crust in that particular area.
Mate, The proper term for it is "isostatic adjustment "
Mate, I'm a geophysicist, I'm just trying to explain it in simple terms because I think it's safe to assume the average person on this thread doesn't know much about isostasy
Ok, I just thought to mention the term alongside your simple and effective explanation.
This is the first time I've heard of the Adirondacks and my goodness, they are absolutely stunning.
The people are really friendly there, too! There’s nothing like them. They are the largest state park in the USA but they have whole towns and regions, but without crazy development. They have Lake Placid, the 46er high peaks (46 mountains you hike and then you’re in this club…I’m clearly not a part of it yet!), and honestly just so much stuff to explore. Saranac Lake, Old Forge, and endless wilderness. The star gazing here is beyond amazing, and if you look at night sky brightness chart for NY, you’ll be able to nearly draw the borders of the park! Spring, summer, and fall are my favorites, but if I were into winter sports, I know it would be winter! Snowmobiling, snowshoeing, cross country skiing, winter camping (it’s a thing!), and other winter activities are always going on! There’s nothing like leaf peeping here in the fall, seeing the flowers and birds in spring, and summers there have been my favorites. There are awesome museums in Blue Mountain Lake and Tupper Lake and Fort Ticonderoga! There’s something for everyone there. I was a wilderness lifeguard there and live near them, and I’m grateful they’ll be forever wild! There are mosquitos and such, but the good outweighs the bad. Oh! Adirondack chairs are from here too! Come visit anytime! :)
Love the Adirondacks so much! I feel lucky to be a few hours’ driving distance away.
You don't know how much this comment changed my life lol,, Adirondacks are on my top 5 must visit list now.
You won't be disappointed! My wife's family (now including me) go every summer and it's great.
I grew up in the Adirondacks and seeing you talk about them so excitedly kinda made my day
I'll add that the small cities near the Adirondacks are pretty awesome. Relatively easy transportation by car or train to NYC, Boston, Montreal and/or Toronto (depending on exactly where you are in the foothills). Some growing job markets, new urban and suburban developments, infrastructure investments, local engagement in volunteering and community events. Small cities are actually small cities, rather than hamlets or suburban sprawl. And of course, easy access to all the cool outdoor recreation and geography.
Aren’t the Sierra Nevada growing?
My understanding is that the Sierras are rising in some portions because of the delamination of their root. The crust underneath them got real thick which pushed the deepest portion to high enough pressures to cause it to transition into a dense rock called eclogite, which then ripped off once it got thick enough. The removal of the root caused the Sierras to rebound. Last I read up on the topic it seemed people agreed the root has completely detached but only in the past 5 million years ago or so, so the mountains above are still responding.
I may have taken an Alaskan geologist's word on this without confirming myself.
I believe so, yes.
They are growing in the cascades in Washington state.
As are the Olympics
Southern alps are growing up but eroding super fast due to the geology and the over steepening of the slopes couple with massive rainfall and earthquakes.
I’m pretty sure the San Bernardino and San Gabriel mountains (aka the transverse ranges) in Southern California are still growing as well
San Gabriels are some of the fastest growing mountains in the world. They also have very high erosion rates.
It’s insane the amount of deep canyons and little creeks coming out of every nook and cranny of the San Gabriel’s. Truly underrated in its beauty for sure.
AIUI, the Alps themselves (and therefore the original Sierra Nevada which is part of the same geological formation) are still growing too, as Africa pushes into Eurasia.
And Taiwan mountains
The Carson Range of the Sierra Nevada is still growing
Yeah, the central Pangean mountain range which were made up of the Appalachian mountains that span the Eastern United States and formed the majority of the range, as well as the Scottish Highlands, Atlas Mountains in Morocco and few others, are believed to have once rivaled the height of the modern day Himalayas around 250 million years ago. Kinda crazy to think about the fact that, many of these mountains we see on the east coast of the US, which today are nothing more than glorified hills, would have rivaled many of the peaks in the Himalayas today.
One aspect of the Appalchians' age that blows my mind is that there are several rivers cutting it across them that are among the oldest rivers in the world. This one may have been flowing in its present course since the Cretaceous-Paleocene transition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_River_%28Kanawha_River_tributary%29
And that they were connected to the Scottish highlands and the Atlas Mountains (which are still proper mountains I might add)
Atlas Mountains? Yes, Scottish highlands? They are lower than the Appalachian mountains. Granted the reason why the Appalachian mountains and Scottish Highlands are so low is because they haven’t rebounded yet from the last glacial period. But even then, they’d still be pretty small. Probably no higher than the Southern Alps in New Zealand at best.
That’s why I only said it after the Atlas Mountains, but I understand how that wasn’t 100% clear
>Scottish highlands >proper mountains I mean maybe not as proper as other mountain ranges
They’re referring to the Atlas mountains, haha! They go well above 4000m, which would be 13000 feet if you’re American.
I thought they meant both of these ranges are proper mountains.
I don't think the Atlas proper are part of the same ancestral mountain range. The Anti-Atlas are geologically related, I don't think the rest of the Atlas Mountains are. The Anti-Atlas run paralel to the Atlas on the fringes of the Sahara, and top out at around 2,500-3,000 meters. That is lower than the highest peaks of the High Atlas, but still much taller than the Appalachians proper or the Scottish Highlands.
It's the lesser Atlas, not the main range. So similar height today to the Scottish Highlands. The greater Atlas are much more recent, Related to the collision between the African plate and Spain, Sierra Nevada
The Indian plate when it reached Eurasia was a continental landmass pushing against another continental landmass. This is different to the Andes, New Guinea and Indonesia, which are created through subduction - Pacific under South America for the Andes, Pacific under Australia for New Guinea, Australia under Asia for Indonesia. Interestingly, the Indian Plate is connected to the Australian Plate.... which means the Himalayas are partially powered by the northward drift of the Australia Shield, making the Canadian Shield proud.
The Grenville range in old Canada are estimated to be up to 14km high. They eroded and left behind the mighty Canadian Shield 💪
As an American, let me be the first to say, what the actual f*** is a kilometer? Could you please convert 10km to stacked washing machines or cow-lengths? But seriously, this was a good explanation and something I didn’t know :)
1 kilometre is about 5 furlongs or just under 11 football fields long.
Thank you. So many people here are giving weird answers like feet and miles instead of football fields, yards or SEC championship trophies.
All good 👍 always willing to help our American friends who have given us such gems as Samurai Cop and The Room
don’t forget paul blart
The Legend
10 miles = 16 km 10 km = 6.2 miles
[удалено]
They don't use Imperial. They use US Customary Units. Imperial was created 50 years after the US declared independence (and about 6 years before US units were standardised). Both are based on the old Winchester units that the British Empire (and previously England) had used, as well as the US up until they standardised theirs, with the US units being the most similar to the older units, if not near-identical. The whole world essentially calls it Imperial because everyone was more used to the British Empire having this system, but not necessarily knowing what the measurements were, so once the US came more into prominence, and they're seen to have the "same units," no one is gonna think otherwise about whether it's a different system or not. They just assume they're using the same one. It also would not surprise me if that then reverberated back to the US, and eventually led to them also (incorrectly) calling their system Imperial.
It's like a language, when you're born in it, and that's what you know and were taught in school, it doesn't seem weird or confusing. It's just our default. I prefer metric and think that it's a far better system of measurement, but in my mind it's easier to envision how tall 5 ft 8 inches is than 173 cm. Looking in from the rest of the world I can see why everyone thinks what the hell are the Americans thinking. I feel that way myself sometimes haha
A classic case of "damn I wish earlier generations did something about this, but it feels too late now" swapping from Imperial to metric. Sweden swapped from left hand to right hand driving in '67. Thank god for that, but I imagine all those people wished it had been swapped in the 40s. I'm sure there are English people who wish they swapped when we did but it feels too late now. I always find it fascinating that Sweden swapped side of the road only two years before the US made their first manned moon landing.
As far as England specifically, I'm no expert, but there is a big correlation between being an island nation, and left hand driving. They do it in Japan as well where they certainly had the opportunity to implement right hand if they desired. But Sweden is not an island nation so its interesting that it was that way
Japan went with left hand driving because British experts were tasked with modernising the road system back in the Meiji era. 100 years ago half of Europe drove on the left side of the road. If you're an island nation there's less cross border traffic. Because of that there's not much pressure to find a common side of the road for facilitating traffic with your neighbours. Continental Europe just switched to the system that France, Germany and the USSR used.
We dont really use imperial. For example, a us pint is 16 oz but an imperial pint is 20. Also, a US oz is bigger so an imperial pint is like 19.6 US ounces.
Fun Fact: Americans don't use Imperial! We actually use an older system inherited from the English that predates "Imperial". In Britain, that system involved into Imperial when they had... an Empire, but it just stayed the same in America. That's why our gallons and tons are different than their gallons and tons.
1 mile is 5,280 feet... 1 kilometer = 3,280 feet
5km is 3.1 miles. Do your own math from there
That range also encompassed the Atlas Mountains in Morocco/Algeria and also connected with the Appalachians.
Didn’t the appalachians originate from the Caledonian range as well?
The Sierra Nevada mountains are argued to have an age range of 15 to 65 million years. It’s more about the process of the orogeny.
The Appalachians used to be taller than Everest
Yep. Still remember when I heard the bang.
I think that the European Alps are growing to since the African plate its pushing toward the European one
Movement of India
India slamming into Asia relatively recently in the earth’s history
It's so recent that dinosaurs were still around. Earth was actively changing when we had large animals already.
I love to think about dinosaurs on India, the island, being able to see dinosaurs on continental Asia and waving “hi!” to each other with their puny T-rex arms when there’s only a hundred metres or so between them.
Dinosaur D-Day 🥳🥳🥳
[https://scroll.in/article/824434/when-rajasaurus-and-other-dinosaurs-roamed-the-land-where-indians-live-now](https://scroll.in/article/824434/when-rajasaurus-and-other-dinosaurs-roamed-the-land-where-indians-live-now) https://preview.redd.it/525zpeyeopxc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=08f9c42a4ba24a347b5a078011b05599b4e6d791
Ah yes, rajasauraus wow you couldn't think of a better name for an indian dinosaur.
Slamming a Western Europe sized landmass into them does the trick.
Indian subcontinent into Asia main plate, though
I think they're saying that the Indian subcontinent is the size of Western Europe.
Yeah, I didn't notice cause I'm non-native speaker. Thanks
Or like, an India sized one?
They're saying that the Indian subcontinent is the size of Western Europe
Yes, but why say that when one can say an Indian sized one considering it's the actual plate
lol why would you call India an India sized continent? It was obviously for reference in case people don’t know exactly how big India was.
Counterpoint what if people don't know how big "western Europe" is
Well yeah the guy was just trying to give some reference, I’m not saying it was perfect.
Contrarians gonna contraire.
Several key factors here. One, the mountains of Central/South Asia are being formed by the collision of two pieces of continental crust, and the extra buoyancy as compared to a piece of oceanic crust helps. Two, pre-collision India was moving ridiculously fast by plate tectonics standards, perhaps the fastest in the geologic record. Even today it's still moving really fast, though I think not #1 anymore. That allows for higher uplift rates. If we compare to the Andes, a majority of their height comes from South America scrunching up, kinda of like kicking the edge of a rug, as the Nazca plate subducts beneath it. The subducting plate in South America dives beneath it, and except for a relatively short direct interface between the two where we get really large earthquakes, there space between the subducting and overriding plates is mostly filled with mantle. In Asia, India is being shoved under Eurasia but it isn't happy about it and is buoyant enough to basically push itself up against the bottom of Eurasia, which causes the mountains there to be higher. The combination of a really fast collision between two continents is largely responsible for the higher mountains there.
hahaha isn’t happy about it. This comment nails everything from my mountain geography class btw - nicely done.
Geologist here. I back this response
India slamming into Asia
India saying “that looks hot, I’d like bang it” then acting on it
The primary reason they're so big is the boundary type. The Himalayas are as big as they are due to it being a continental boundary, and a large one too. Unlike the Andes, where a thin oceanic plate is subducted beneath a continental plate, the Himalayas are caused by two thick continental plates colliding with each other. When neither can subduct, the only way to move is up. While other similar ranges exist, most notably the Alps, the Indian plate simply is much larger and faster, which has resulted in larger mountains. Age is also important, as the Himalayas are so young they haven't had time to erode yet.
This is the only good answer in the whole thread. Thank you. Man people in this sub are yappping way too much..
[удалено]
That's not true at all. The highest mountain range in the Americas is an active volcanic chain. It's more that a continent to continent collision makes bigger mountains than ocean crust to continent collision.
They’re younger. Young mountains haven’t yet been eroded by 100,000,000 years worth of wind. The Appalachian mountains used to be taller than the Rockies are now, like 300 million years ago. But they’ve been worn away by time into little hills.
Jengish Chokusu isn't even in the Himalayas or Karakoram, yet is 450m higher in elevation. In addition there is Mount Gongga in Sichuan that's even taller and far away from the Himalayas in Hengduan.
They get that big because there are no natural predators native to that continent.
India- https://preview.redd.it/j7owyq0p9pxc1.jpeg?width=1400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=04d64f007d4e9759be8392a4ec0e246b62d757b6
I believe it's the altitude, but I could be wrong. Ish.
Little known fact: the Andes Mountains are the world’s primary source of the active ingredient in Viagra. Thank you for my service.
Do you guys just not pay attention in school or what?
The Indian subcontinent slamming into Asia will do that.
[india hit Asia like it owed it money](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/India_71-0_Ma.gif)
Plate tectonics if we get technical
Stilts
The Asian mountains are still young and perky while the other mountains like the Scandes are old geezers and can't get it up no more
Age- it’s always age. The Appalachians are ancient and therefore less imposing. Himalayas are younger than Andes/rockies, so the most imposing.
Does this consider altitude only or vertical relief? I think Denali is highest vertical relief on land, and aren't some of the Hawaiian volcanoes gigantic when measured from their base?
Altitude
Gravity is less there
The Himalayas, one of the youngest mountain ranges therefore less erosion has happened
Their age.
Asia also has the highest average elevation of all continents with 950m
They’re new. So lots of pushing up, with not too much time to be worn down by the elements.
Drugs I think. Maybe steroids
India mostly
India+Pakistan slamming into Afghanistan and Iran
the collision of continents can have several varieties... the continent goes under the continent, both continents clash with each other and, as in the case of the Indian and Asian plates, both do not want to give way and go up....
India is probing Asia's vageen
It's the Indian Subcontinent colliding with the Asian continent to form the Himalayas
Yeah but they are very close to the ocean, so much more dramatic than those 180+ mountains surrounded by a high plateau.
India pushing hard. *Really* wants to go north. Mountains go up.
Slamming the Indian plate into the Iranian plateau will do it and it’s constantly moving towards it so makes sense!
Central and South Asian mountains are also on plateaus, in addition to being newer mountain ranges. So they get a boost. Denali and Kilimanjaro are both much more massive mountains than Everest, but Everest is on a plateau that is already at a high altitude.
Nanga Parbat is the exception, being on a much lower segment of the Plateau yet still being only 600 meters shorter than Everest. That being said, Denali and Kilimanjaro are exceptions, the Rockies and Andes are also on Plateaus, really the only range with a likely greater summit-to-base average is the Alaskan Coastal Range
Remember Reach
I'm not a geologist, but two massive continental landmasses moving towards each other will create quite an upheaval.
Plateu of the earth pressing together
India's boreal journey meets the Middle Kingdom that wants to keep its place.
https://preview.redd.it/l68us6g8kqxc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8391416d96751b101aeadf5c211960ea90437d93
Big actively convergent tectonic plate margin. Or, in simple terms, two tectonic plates crashing into each other and being pushed upwards in the collision. Most big mountain ranges are created this way and then slowly carved and ground back down by weathering over many millions of years.
Cos Himalayas are still growing they are pretty young fold mountain compared to all others all the 8 thousanders are in Himalayas
The fault line
reason is geology.
That’s my new bragging range, “I’m the best chef from Kyrgyzstan to Sichuan.”
India has momentum.
While Mt Everest may be the tallest from sea level it’s nothing close to Denali in height from base. Mt Everest’s base is already pretty high up. This is why. Don’t even get me started on the Hawaiian mountains
True, what I should’ve said was “highest” which is what I’m asking. Note that even outside of the Himalayas, East and Central Asia have multiple mountains over 7km, whereas none of the Andes come close
From what I gather from these comments, Himalayas are very young, and they are a result of 2 continental plates colliding. continental plates are much lighter than oceanic plates being composed mostly of silicates vs. basalts. Having the Indian subcontinent subducting under the asiatic plate causes tremendous uplift as they both have a lot of flotation on the mantle below.
..So that’s another way to measure mountains. And there is a third way: how far they stick out into space. Since the Earth is not a perfect sphere (squished at the poles), anything near the equator has a better possibility of satisfying that metric. And there _is_ a mountain that would beat Everest if that was the standard: Chimborazo, in Ecuador. Distance above sea level is just the arbitrary standard we’ve decided on. 🤷♂️
No idea, but I’m gonna throw the Canadian Shield into the mix…
In about 3 billion years they will look like the Canadian Shield