don findlay a écrit dans le message
.com...
Scientific American Special Edition - Everchanging Earth.
The article on Mountain Building -

Has anyone gone out and actually bought this yet - for (in Australia)
the exorbitant price of $11.95., say $12? Yes/ no?

You just gotta READ it for the BRAND SPANKING NEW THEORY on mountain
building.
In view of 'George's' apparent readiness ('George' being our resident
dill over here in sci.geo.geology) indeed wholesome desire to be
screwed and abused by his elected representative (whoever he may be)
I'm posting this just to say rush out and buy it if you think that
suchlike articles that promote mountain building as isostatic
adjustment due to erosion, are good oil. The authors say that the
reason the Himalayas are high, and the Tibetan Plateau is not so high
is because of the weather; the Himalayas get the monsoon and therefore
more rain, more erosion, and therefore bounce up faster than Tibet,
which is in a rain shadow. Seriously, .. no bull. One's a professor
of structural geology and tectonics at Yale. The other's similar at
southern Illinois. Two professors, ..got to be sensible. 1+1 = 2
(Y/N?)

Do you get it? Erosion (isostatic adjustment) gives you mountains.
They say:- "For this reason, erosional processes can be viewed as
"sucking" crust into mountain ranges and up towards the surface."



SNIP
(Tut Tut, ..and the road already mapped out too.)

(Just thought I'd do a nice promotional job for Scientific American,
for promulgating such esotery.)



Having not read the paper I can only comment on statements you said they
say!
1: Greater rain fall does not always mean greater errosion. In some cases
because of increased vegatation it can mean less.

2. The climate today may (likely) not have any relationship to past
climates!
3. Errosion rates would have to be fantastic!
It is always better not to put much stock in the "theory of the week" from
academia.
JOL