4 ms·
I wonder how high it was 200k years ago. Edit: another comment mentions the mountains were formed 40-50 million years ago. So I would presume roughly the same
by loonster 5y ago
I wonder how high it was 200k years ago.
Edit: another comment mentions the mountains were formed 40-50 million years ago. So I would presume roughly the same height.
- Leherenn 5y agoI don't have an answer, but I would say not necessarily the same height. Mountains do not grow all at once or at a constant rate. For instance, there are some parts of the Himalayas that are currently growing at 1-2 cm/y. It is thus not impossible that this place was several hundred meters lower 200k years ago.
- hutzlibu 5y agoYeah, 200k is not much in geological terms.
- masklinn 5y agoThe himalayas grow actively and quickly, we're talking of cm/year scale. So 200kya means the site could have moved 2+km up (assuming a roughly constant growth rate), which is nothing to sneeze at or ignore. There's one hell of a difference living at 4000m versus 2000.
- hutzlibu 5y agoI remembered that fact, too and was wondering about it, how it fits with it. My conclusion was rather, that the growth rate was probably not constant over that time, because yeah, 2km is quite a lot. But others mentioned that this area was quite unchanged. I am going to investigate..
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Sharlin 5y agoAnd they’re really young for mountains (which is why they’re so high!)