Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Scientists reveal why world's highest mountains are at the equator

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Science Donate to DU
 
steven johnson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 11:05 PM
Original message
Scientists reveal why world's highest mountains are at the equator
It's just physics and climatology that make peaks higher around the equator.


Scientists have solved the mystery of why the world's highest mountains sit near the equator - colder climates are better at eroding peaks than had previously been realised.

In general, mountains only rise to around 1,500m above their snow lines, so it is the altitude of these lines — which depends on climate and latitude — which ultimately decides their height.




Scientists reveal why world's highest mountains are at the equator
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BlueJazz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
1. I believe they are wrong. Mountains are taller at the Equator because...
..of centrifical force.
In fact, the size of mountains is very limited.
I suspect the Earth had much larger mountains in the past...but the really big ones flew off into space.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thereismore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-14-09 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Nonsense. Gravity beats centrifugal force at the Earth's surface. Everywhere. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueJazz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-14-09 06:16 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. I see another one of my lousy jokes falls flat. :(
:) :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aragorn Donating Member (784 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-14-09 06:28 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. but not the second one
I get it - intentional or not.

Hey - centrifugal. And the first part of your joke may be correct, as theorized about Mars etc. But who knows?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ready4Change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-14-09 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. You, good sir (or madam), are WRONG!
Tall mountains used to be evenly spread around the globe, but centrifugal forces as the Earth spun has cause them to SLIDE to the equator!

(And yes, I got it. And Yes, I've read and got the second one, even it it was unintentional. Well played, gentle person, well played.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eppur_se_muova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-15-09 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. So ... you've read Hal Clement's "Mission of Gravity"? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ready4Change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-16-09 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. That one's escaped me.
I've heard of it, but not managed to fit it into my reading.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caraher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-14-09 06:45 AM
Response to Original message
5. Another factor (geometry)...
More of Earth is near the equator than the poles!

The interesting finding is the part about the snow lines... but even without that I'd expect more (of almost anything except ice and snow) to be found nearer the equator than the poles).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pokerfan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-15-09 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. True
71% of the Earth is closer to the equator than either pole.

cos(π/4) = 0.7071

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arctic Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-14-09 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
6. What about Mt. McKinley(Denali) in Alaska.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Posteritatis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-15-09 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Individual cases in a sample this large are mostly just outliers. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Science Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC