In New Delhi, a lot of people say that the Aravali range used to be as tall as the Himalayas. How do scientists know that some mountain range used to be a lot taller millions of years ago, and what is the process by which mountains erode in general?
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
4
I'll begin with your second question, as to how mountains erode. To simplify things, there are two methods:
- Physical weathering, where the rocks are broken down by weather. For example, there are cracks in rocks that get filled by water which freezes and expands. This maker the cracks bigger and breaks down the rock. Also wind, earthquakes and any other process that breaks it down.
- Chemical weathering, where the rocks are not broken by are altered to softer and weaker types of "rock". For example, take granite, a common rock in mountain ranges. It contains minerals from the feldspar family which are solid and hard. However, give some time and water and they convert to minerals from the clay family (aka "dust").
The first process is more relevant for tall mountains.
Now, how do we know the rate? This is a competition between uplift (the rising of the mountains) and the weathering (the breaking down of mountains). I'll give one example to illustrate it. Let's say that on the mountain top you find limestone with a certain fossil that you know existed 5 million years ago. So you know this used to be at the sea floor, let's say 300 meters below the water, but now it's 2000 meters up in the sky. So it had to rise 2300 meters in 5 million years. You can calculate the average uplift rate from that. Also, let's say that you know that in the past 10 years, a certain amount of rock was eroded from the mountain. You can calculate the rate of weathering. This way you can know the total rate.
There are new modern methods which rely on cosmogenic isotopes to get a much more accurate picture of this process, but that's for another question.
-
$\begingroup$ See below for why this answer is incorrect. $\endgroup$ Mar 25, 2017 at 3:15
-
$\begingroup$ @KnobScratcher actually, no. Details in comments to your own answer. While your answer covers part of the story, it does not invalidate mine, and I really don't understand the down vote. $\endgroup$– GimelistMar 25, 2017 at 3:20
-
$\begingroup$ Your stated technique is so unreliable, that even with recently uplifted fossils, isotope geochemistry (at the very least) must be used to put constraints on the position of sea level over time. $\endgroup$ Mar 25, 2017 at 4:03
-
$\begingroup$ @KnobScratcher are you ignoring the words "example", "average" and most importantly "new modern...isotopes...more accurate" that all appear in my answer? The OP is obviously a non-specialist and a figure like the one in the other answer may be too complex. A simplified answer that one can easily visualise in their head is what's required here. Enjoy life. $\endgroup$– GimelistMar 25, 2017 at 4:09
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
4
Determining an uplift rate for rocks is not easy, but certain techniques will produce far more reliable results than others. There are also qualitative techniques that provide estimates so rough as to be almost useless. For example, this technique, from the 'answer', above:
So you know this used to be at the sea floor, let's say 300 meters below the water, but now it's 2000 meters up in the sky. So it had to rise 2300 meters in 5 million years. You can calculate the average uplift rate from that.
...fails to account for the time this sediment spent lithifying, or "turning into stone" which would certainly have involved deep burial for some unknown time, at an unknown depth, yielding an upper, or lower bound on no more than a wild guess.
Uplift rates of basement rocks (mountain cores) are best quantified using "fission track dating"; a thermochronometry technique whereby the helium track lengths, produced by the radioactive decay of uranium into thorium, are analyzed. The technique depends on careful selection of appropriate mineral crystals, within the host rock, containing radioactive elements. Even this technique requires understanding an uncertain history of annealing temperatures. For example, in this paper:
the following figure illustrates the complexity of the problem:
The above paper is an excellent analysis of the history of uplift of the Kyrgyz mountains, in which constraints were made on the age of uplifting as the range grew laterally. Mountains don't just grow vertically!
-
$\begingroup$ fails to account for the time this sediment spent lithifying, or "turning into stone" which would certainly have involved deep burial for some unknown time, at an unknown depth, yielding an upper, or lower bound on no more than a wild guess. and your answer fails to account for it as well. Also, what if the rocks were lithified to begin with? Also, uplift rates are not best quantified, but it's one of the methods. Other methods include cosmogenic isotopes (which I mentioned) and a variety of other methods, not all geochemical. $\endgroup$– GimelistMar 25, 2017 at 3:22
-
$\begingroup$ Fission track dating results in thermochronologic data: i.e. time and heat. Heat does not always equal burial depth. Again, this in conjuction with other method can provide uplift history of the rock. There's also the requirement that suitable minerals are actually present in the rock. What if you don't have apatite? Tough luck. Another thing that your answer completely fails to address is the erosion rate, which is not equal to the uplift rate and is critical to the overall paleoelevation of mountains, which is exactly what was asked in this question. $\endgroup$– GimelistMar 25, 2017 at 3:24
-
$\begingroup$ Regardless of the problems I just outlined, I will upvote your answer because it shows another aspect of the anwser that was not addressed in mine. However, it is not the only answer, and together with my own answer provides a more complete answer to the question asked by OP. $\endgroup$– GimelistMar 25, 2017 at 3:25
-
$\begingroup$ I didn't address erosion rates because without so much as a basic understanding of uplift rate, there can be no sensible calculation of erosion rate, and thus mountain elevation over time. $\endgroup$ Mar 25, 2017 at 4:10