3 ms·

Are we seeing the formation of new arches at a similar rate? It seems we must.

by mrtnmcc 5y ago

rob74 5y ago
Good question! I guess most "new" arches start out as small and relatively unspectacular "windows", then grow over thousands or millions of years and finally collapse. So when a new arch forms, it doesn't turn into a tourist attraction right away. The place with probably the highest density of arches in the world, Arches National Park, doesn't even seem to be sure how many arches it has. Their homepage says "over 2000", while the article https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/geology/publications/bul/1393/sec8.htm https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/geology/publica... has a much more conservative estimate of 124...
WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
Arches seem to be notable because they are the shortest part of the erosion process - but still last years. My take: A quickening erosion cycle could see an accelerated creation of arches, providing the cycle hasn't been altered eg: more top-down erosion. It could be that an accelerated process is still happening too slow to see new arches. It may also be that climate change isn't strongly manifesting itself this way.
- lmilcin 5y ago
  > My take: A quickening erosion cycle could see an accelerated creation of arches I think increased erosion would also cause arches to fail faster (run through its lifetime at increased speed). I think there is no limit to how fast an arch can erode (ie. the erosion can easily speed up orders of magnitude) but at the same time I don't think we could be seeing orders of magnitude more arches created, which would be necessary to maintain the number of arches that are now going through their lifecycle faster. This lets me believe that overall increased erosion would cause less arches to be present at any point in time. This is just a thought experiment, I have no data to back it up.

3 ms·

Are we seeing the formation of new arches at a similar rate? It seems we must.

by mrtnmcc 5y ago

Are we seeing the formation of new arches at a similar rate? It seems we must.

rob74 5y ago
Good question! I guess most "new" arches start out as small and relatively unspectacular "windows", then grow over thousands or millions of years and finally collapse. So when a new arch forms, it doesn't turn into a tourist attraction right away. The place with probably the highest density of arches in the world, Arches National Park, doesn't even seem to be sure how many arches it has. Their homepage says "over 2000", while the article https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/geology/publications/bul/1393/sec8.htm https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/geology/publica... has a much more conservative estimate of 124...
WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
Arches seem to be notable because they are the shortest part of the erosion process - but still last years. My take: A quickening erosion cycle could see an accelerated creation of arches, providing the cycle hasn't been altered eg: more top-down erosion. It could be that an accelerated process is still happening too slow to see new arches. It may also be that climate change isn't strongly manifesting itself this way.
- lmilcin 5y ago
  > My take: A quickening erosion cycle could see an accelerated creation of arches I think increased erosion would also cause arches to fail faster (run through its lifetime at increased speed). I think there is no limit to how fast an arch can erode (ie. the erosion can easily speed up orders of magnitude) but at the same time I don't think we could be seeing orders of magnitude more arches created, which would be necessary to maintain the number of arches that are now going through their lifecycle faster. This lets me believe that overall increased erosion would cause less arches to be present at any point in time. This is just a thought experiment, I have no data to back it up.