don findlay wrote:
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."
.... "The new model of how mountains develop promises to be as
revolutionary as was plate tectonics some four decades ago." And so
"mountains.. shape the climate and tectonics of the planet". Not the
other way round, you'll notice - Astounding stuff! Cheap at the price!

Next time you go climing mountains, just take all your clothes off and
sit down. In due course you'll find yourself lifted to the summit.
The only reason it hasn't been tested is because nobody has ever got a
grant for this ground-breaking hypothesis. (How many clothes would you
have to wear for it to work? Maybe the Yale Professor should put his
undies where his article is.

Hey, Daryl, ..why did you give up on isostacy giving mountain building?
You're in good company.

Mountain Building - wow! It WOULD be funny, if there were not suchlike
dills as promote this sort of rubbish, and editors who think that it's
good for a screw of YOU. Does it really deserve the status of
'scientific debate', when any child can see the stupidity in it? Well
of course it does, for the hidden logic of "feedback". But you can
see what they're reaching towards, as regards 'uplift', ..can you not?
It's just a qeustion of how long it will take for them to get there.
(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.)

Wow! This is fascinating stuff, just add water, which causes erosion
and mountains will grow, and suggests the secret ingredient is still
the fertilizer!

JT