how were the highest peaks of the earth formed?,

also describe how the different type of rock was formed because different peaks are made from different rock types,


peace.

I beleive most were created by the oceans which at one time surrounded them. Also by the travel of the glaciers when they were melting. Plate techtonics also explains the ranges that were created from volcanoes as the plates seperated and/or came together. You'd have to be a bit more specific on which peaks and which types of rocks you are refering to.

There are several types, congomerate...etc and each would have a different explaination for its coming into existance

how were the highest peaks of the earth formed?,

also describe how the different type of rock was formed because different peaks are made from different rock types,


peace.

The two highest above the surface, Everest and it's neighbor K-9, are both the results of plate tectonics and the resultant folding of the Earth's crust.

The two highest above the surface, Everest and it's neighbor K-9, are both the results of plate tectonics and the resultant folding of the Earth's crust.

Is Everest a single, double fold or more mountain building process? Science needs to know. :D

Is Everest a single, double fold or more mountain building process? Science needs to know. :D

:D Geology is way outside my chosen fields and I'm limited to just the basics. So I'll leave that to one of our resident experts. ;)

If you measure a mountain from its base to its height, irrespective if there was water around it or not, then the Mauna Lau volcano in Hawaiia is the highest and most massive mountain in the world at 32,800 ft.

If you measure a mountain from the ground level up, then it is Mount Everest is 29,035.

Both of these mountains were formed by volcanoes. Mauna Lau is a shield volcano formed when lava pours out in all directions forming a flatter cone. The Hawaiin island Volcanoes are shield valcanoes that originated from underwater cracks (hot spots) in the earth's Pacific plate creating outburst of lava that formed the cones. These lava flows created some of the largest volcanoes in the world.

Many of the postings here most probably will be duplicates of those that were already posted on the forums "Types of Mountains" and "Is the top of a volcano open or closed?" which you can find on page 2. You might want to look them over first.

"Mount Everest, like the rest of the Himalayas, rose from the floor of the ancient Tethys Sea. The range was created when the Eurasian continental plate collided with the Indian subcontinental plate about 30 to 50 million years ago. Eventually the marine limestone was forced upward to become the characteristic yellow band on the top of Mount Everest."
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761571675/Mount_Everest.html

"Over two hundred fifty million years ago, India, Africa, Australia, and South America were all one continent called Pangea. Over the next several million years, this giant southern continent proceeded to break up, forming the continents we know today. Pangea essentially turned inside out, the edges of the old continent becoming the collision zones of new continents. Africa, South America, and Antarctica began to fragment.

What ultimately formed Mt. Everest, about 60 million years ago, was the rapid movement of India northward toward the continent of EuroAsia; Click here for a present-day map of the Indian subcontinent. India charged across the equator at rates of up to 15 cm/year, in the process closing an ocean named Tethys that had separated fragments of Pangea. This ocean is entirely gone today, although the sedimentary rocks that settled on its ocean floor and the volcanoes that fringed its edges remain to tell the tale of its existence.

To understand the fascinating mechanics of the collision of India with Asia we must first look beneath the Earth's surface. The continents are carried by the Earth's tectonic plates like people on an escalator. There are currently 7 giant plates sliding across the Earth's surface, and a handful of smaller ones. There may have been more or fewer plates in the past. Currently they slide, collide, and recede from one another at rates of 1-20 cm/year. They are driven by internal heat deep in the earth that is able to escape efficiently only by convection. Convection is the process that drives hot currents of gas or liquid upwards because they are less dense, and cold currents of liquid downwards because they are more dense.

For at least 80 million years the oceanic Indian Plate continued its inexorable collision with southern Asia, including Tibet. The heavy ocean floor north of India acted like a giant anchor, plunging rapidly into the mantle, and dragging the Indian continent along with it, northward, towards Tibet. As the plates collided, the sinking ocean floor generated volcanoes in southern Tibet because the rock at the top of the descending plate melted, from friction and the huge pressures of collision. However, by 25 million years ago the fast moving Indian continent had almost entirely closed over the intervening ocean, squeezing the sediments on the ocean foor. Since the sediments were lightweight, instead of sinking along with the plate, they crumpled into mountain ranges—the Himalayas. By 10 million years ago the two continents were in direct collision and the Indian continent, because of its enormous quantity of light quartz-rich rocks, was unable to descend along with the rest of the Indian plate. It was at about this time that the anchor chain must have broken; the descending Indian plate may have fallen off and foundered deep into the mantle.

Although we don't fully understand the mechanism of what happened next, it's clear that the Indian continent began to be driven horizontally beneath Tibet like a giant wedge, forcing Tibet upwards. Tibet, meanwhile, is behaving like a giant roadblock that prevents the Himalaya from moving northward. Under the peaks and under most of Tibet the Indian plate is apparently gliding along almost frictionlessly.

Over periods of 5-10 million years, the plates will continue to move at the same rate, which allows us to forecast fairly reliably how the Himalaya will develop. In 10 million years India will plow into Tibet a further 180km. This is about the width of Nepal. Because Nepal's boundaries are marks on the Himalayan peaks and on the plains of India whose convergence we are measuring, Nepal will technically cease to exist. But the mountain range we know as the Himalaya will not go away"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/everest/earth/birth.html

also describe how the different type of rock was formed because different peaks are made from different rock types.Because there are so many different types of rock on Earth - excluding the basic three classifications: igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary - a really thorough and complete answer to this question would require you to take many courses in geology.

The process of mountain building is called "orogeny" and is usually produced by tectonic plates movements: convergence, divergence or transformational shear (strike-slip, where plates slide across one another left or right horizontally), but can also be produced by individual volcanos or volcanic chains (like the Hawaiian Islands), or magma hot spots that produce uplifts.

"The peak that is farthest from the centre of the Earth is Chimborazo in Ecuador. At 6,272 m above sea level it is not even the tallest peak in the Andes, but because the Earth bulges at the equator and Chimborazo is very close to the equator, it is 2,150 m further away from the Earth's centre than Everest."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountains#Heights

The World's 10 Highest Mountain Peaks:
Everest1 Himalayas Nepal/Tibet 29,035 8,850
K2 (Godwin Austen) Karakoram Pakistan/China 28,250 8,611
Kanchenjunga Himalayas India/Nepal 28,169 8,586
Lhotse I Himalayas Nepal/Tibet 27,940 8,516
Makalu I Himalayas Nepal/Tibet 27,766 8,463
Cho Oyu Himalayas Nepal/Tibet 26,906 8,201
Dhaulagiri Himalayas Nepal 26,795 8,167
Manaslu I Himalayas Nepal 26,781 8,163
Nanga Parbat Himalayas Pakistan 26,660 8,125
Annapurna Himalayas Nepal 26,545 8,091

The famous "Seven Summits" (the highest mountains on all 7 continents) for summiteers to climb:
Kilimanjaro
Denali
Elbrus
Aconcagua
Carstensz Pyramid
Vinson
Everest

A more complete list of 70 of the World's Highest Mountains"
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest_mountains

The Ten Longest Mountain Ranges [on land]:
Andes: 4,500 miles
Rocky Mountains: 3,000 miles
Himalayas: 2,400 miles
Great Dividing Range: 2,250 miles
Transantarctic Mountains: 2,200 miles
Brazilian Coastal Range: 1,900 miles
Sumatra-Java Range: 1,800 miles
Aleutian Range: 1,650 miles
Tien Shan: 1,400 miles
New Guinea Range: 1,250 miles
http://www.santacruzpl.org/readyref.../lngstmtn.shtml

However, technically, the Mid-Ocean Ridge is Earth's longest mountain range on Earth. "The ridge circles the globe from the Arctic Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean passing into the Indian Ocean and crossing into the Pacific Ocean. This range is four times longer than the Andes, Rocky and Himalaya Mountains combined."
http://pao.cnmoc.navy.mil/educate/n...rivia/large.htm

If you measure a mountain from its base to its height, irrespective if there was water around it or not, then the Mauna Lau volcano in Hawaiia is the highest and most massive mountain in the world at 32,800 ft.

If you measure a mountain from the ground level up, then it is Mount Everest is 29,035.

Both of these mountains were formed by volcanoes. Shit. You are still at it. You take an otherewise good post then ruin it with this piece of tripe. Despite the fact that in your subsequent description you make it very clear that Everest was not formed by volcanoes, you clearly state here it was. When are you going to get your act to together kid?

Shit. You are still at it. You take an otherewise good post then ruin it with this piece of tripe. Despite the fact that in your subsequent description you make it very clear that Everest was not formed by volcanoes, you clearly state here it was. When are you going to get your act to together kid?You're stalking me again.

Get real you idiot. I am a geologist. I look at posts in Earth science. When I do I find you up to your old nonsense, so I post a correction.
I see you are not about to acknowledge that you made a major error in your post. That's quite normal for you. What plethora of links of unrelated facts may I now expect you to post in an effort to deflect attention away from the fact that you screwed up? I can hardly wait.
Shape up kid or I shall start stalking you for real, not by accident.

Edit: be advised I have reported you for false accusation of stalking and for failure to acknowledge a gross factual error in your post.

The Himalayan range was formed when the Indian plate and Eurasian plate collided and there are remnants of volcanic activity and volcano mountains all across the Himilayas; however, the peaks of Mount Everest were probably formed by glacier activities. The mountain is still surrounded by glaciers today.

The finding of ocean-life fossils on top of Mount Everest indicate that it was not directly formed by a volcano, but rest assured that the underlying "main central thrust system" surrounding the Himalaya Mountain range was caused by an uplifting of magma. The surrounding peaks contain many rocks of volcanic origin, especially in the Tibetian region:

"Rift-related basalts are widespread in the Tibetan sedimentary sequence of Zanskar and Kashmir, India and rare Permian alkali granites have been found to intrude the section. Increasing continental-margin instability in Aptian–Albian time is indicated by the formation of regionally important unconformities and the inception of alkalic volcanism. These events, probably marking the separation of the Indian plate from Gondwana and the beginning of its northward drift toward Eurasia....Marine conditions persisted on the part of the Indian margin exposed in the Zanskar Range until early Eocene (Ypresian) time, when red beds containing ophiolitic debris first appeared in the stratigraphic succession....the meta-igneous rocks and associated leucogranites is referred to here as the Greater Himalayan zone.

Most zircons, many monazites, and at least some xenotimes are inherited from the magmatic source regions of the leucogranites or incorporated during emplacement....These same minerals may lose radiogenic Pb by high-temperature diffusion and could thus underestimate magmatic ages....

Cross sections drawn across the entire Himalayan orogen typically depict the Main Frontal thrust system as the surface expression of a low-angle, basal thrust along which the Indian plate is subducted beneath the Himalaya and southern Tibet and into which the Main Boundary thrust system and Main Central thrust system root. In this model, the basal thrust—referred to hereafter as the Himalayan Sole thrust—must become basement-involved north of the downdip projection of the Main Central thrust system, or approximately at the latitude of the Himalayan range crest."

Source: "Tectonics of the Himalaya and southern Tibet from two perspectives," by K.V. Hodges, Geological Society of America Bulletin: Vol. 112, No. 3, pp. 324–350.

Basically, wherever two tectonic plates collide, there will be magmatic or volcanic uplifting and consequental mountain formations.

The finding of ocean-life fossils on top of Mount Everest indicate that it was not directly formed by a volcano, but rest assured that the underlying "main central thrust system" surrounding the Himalaya Mountain range was caused by an uplifting of magma.No vallich. Once again you are wrong. The uplift was caused by the piling up of two continental masses with thick, lightweight sialic crust on top of each other and a consequent isostatic uplift. The volcanic activitity is secondary and is not responsible for the uplift.
Not only are you wrong, but as I predicted you have tried to cover up your error with a further spewing of distorted and misinterpreted facts.
Please cease this behviour forthwith.

Be advised I have again reported you for persistent posting of faulty information and failure to acknowledge prior errors.

I never said that it was "primary." In fact in my above post I said that the colliding of plates was primary. I then said "wherever two tectonic plates collide, there will be magmatic or volcanic uplifting" - secondary, okay now? Are you disagreeing with this? If so, Examples please.

Are you finished having your little immature, unproductive, useless, revengeful jollies yet? What's the purpose in you following me all over these forums and posting nothing but criticism? Sciforum is called the "intelligent community." How are your antagonistic replies without any content contributing in any way? They're just empty "void" posts.

You're stalking me, and just trying to be argumentative. You seem to think you own the domain?

No vallich. Once again you are wrong. The uplift was caused by the piling up of two continental masses with thick, lightweight sialic crust on top of each other and a consequent isostatic uplift. The volcanic activitity is secondary and is not responsible for the uplift.
Not only are you wrong, but as I predicted you have tried to cover up your error with a further spewing of distorted and misinterpreted facts.
Please cease this behviour forthwith.

Be advised I have again reported you for persistent posting of faulty information and failure to acknowledge prior errors.
As stated:

"The Himalayan range was formed when the Indian plate and Eurasian plate collided and there are remnants of volcanic activity and volcano mountains all across the Himilayas; however, the peaks of Mount Everest were probably formed by glacier activities."

"As the plates collided, the sinking ocean floor generated volcanoes in southern Tibet because the rock at the top of the descending plate melted, from friction and the huge pressures of collision. However, by 25 million years ago the fast moving Indian continent had almost entirely closed over the intervening ocean, squeezing the sediments on the ocean foor. Since the sediments were lightweight, instead of sinking along with the plate, they crumpled into the mountain ranges—the Himalayas."

Source: "Tectonics of the Himalaya and southern Tibet from two perspectives," by K.V. Hodges, Geological Society of America Bulletin: Vol. 112, No. 3, pp. 324–350.

Which nowhere says that Mount Everest is the result of volcanic activity. ie you were wrong. Now you are compounding your error by trying to wriggle out of admitting it ever occured.
Strike Three.

Vallich as I have made abundantly clear to you in the past you continually misinterpret and misrepresent what you have read. This is understandable. It happens to everyone from time to time. You have taken it to a fine art. Where you differ form most is your persistent failure to admit when you are in error.

I am not stalking you. Stop accusing me of stalking you. You aren't worth stalking you silly child.When I sdee your nonsense on a thread I shall correct it. If you want that to cease then stop posting nonsense or admit when you are wrong. Its that simple.

Yesterday you said "If you measure a mountain from the ground level up, then it is Mount Everest is 29,035.

Both of these mountains were formed by volcanoes. "

That is a clear statement that Mount Everest was primarily formed by volcanoes.. In any case volcanoes were not even a secondary in its formation. You are wrong. This should not be this difficult. You made a simple small error which you are now blowing out of all proportion by failing to admit to.

Wise up little man. Wise up now.

I have an uncanny sense of deja vu about this.

rest assured that the underlying "main central thrust system" surrounding the Himalaya Mountain range was caused by an uplifting of magma
I know that we've already debated for a long time about this in a previous thread, but I cannot help interrupting again. A thrust fault is a low angle reverse fault, and is caused by convergent tectonic forces. Thrust faults allow crustal shortening to be accommodated (via vertical thickening) by the stacking of fault blocks, one on top of another. Thrust faults often develop parallel to fold limbs. So a thrust system is caused by tectonic forces, when the direction of maximum compression is in the horizontal plane.
In the case of the Himalayas, it is quite clear that the cause of these large forces (and hence of the thrust system) is India's northward drive into Eurasia.
Igneous activity can be a result of such forces (through anatexis), but is not the cause.

The Himalayan range was formed when the Indian plate and Eurasian plate collided and there are remnants of volcanic activity and volcano mountains all across the Himilayas
There are remnants of volcanic activity in Wales and Scotland too. That doesn't make volcanism the cause of the geomorphology of these regions.

I never said that it was "primary." In fact in my above post I said that the colliding of plates was primary. I then said "wherever two tectonic plates collide, there will be magmatic or volcanic uplifting" - secondary, okay now? Are you disagreeing with this? If so, Examples please.
I am disagreeing with this. In the very same sentence as you quoted, you stated that the orogeny was a consequence of "magmatic or volcanic uplifting".
Your exact words were:Basically, wherever two tectonic plates collide, there will be magmatic or volcanic uplifting and consequental mountain formations. (My boldface.)

Also, I seem to have missed the relevance of this quote of yours:Rift-related basalts are widespread in the Tibetan sedimentary sequence of Zanskar and Kashmir, India and rare Permian alkali granites have been found to intrude the section. Increasing continental-margin instability in Aptian–Albian time is indicated by the formation of regionally important unconformities and the inception of alkalic volcanism. These events, probably marking the separation of the Indian plate from Gondwana and the beginning of its northward drift toward Eurasia.
I'm certainly no expert on the geology of India, but it's quite obvious to me that rift-related basalts are neither a cause nor a consequence of the Himalayan orogeny. I would say the same about Permian intrusions. If they do pertain to the debate, please could you elucidate for me?

I heard once that the MacDonnell Range in midwest Australia was once higher than the Himilayas.

Can anyone verify the authenticity of this claim?

This is highly possible as the Himalayas are actually part of the Alpine-Himalaya Mountain Range that extends from Western Europe to New Zealand. Even though the Macdonnell Ranges are only 4,000 feet now, they contributed to the formation of the Himalayas and no doubt where much higher during the Panaea era.

"The Macdonnell Ranges were formed 300 million years ago when a large basin covered with sediment 10km [32,808 feet] deep underwent a violent upheaval, forcing the underlying rock onto its side."
http://travel.independent.co.uk/ausandpacific/article28705.ece

Mt. Everest is 29,035 feet. hmmm?

"Some of the oldest rocks in the world have been found in Australia, and are around 3.7 billion years old, from the Murchison region in Western Australia. These ancient rocks contain tiny crystals that are even older, dating from 4.4 billion years ago, close to the time of the Earth's own formation."
http://www.ahc.gov.au/publications/geofossil/window.html

"Australia was once part of the enormous landmass Gondwanaland, which earlier formed part of the supercontinent Pangaea....The thick sedimentary rocks of the Great Dividing Range were deposited in a long, broad north-south depression, or geosyncline, during an interval that spanned most of the Paleozoic Era (570 million to 225 million years ago). Compressive forces buckled these rocks at least twice during the era, forming mountain ranges and chains of volcanoes. However, the volcanoes have long since become extinct, and as a result the mountain ranges are extremely eroded."
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568792/Australia.html

"Rift-related basalts are widespread in the Tibetan sedimentary sequence of Zanskar and Kashmir, India and rare Permian alkali granites have been found to intrude the section. Increasing continental-margin instability in Aptian–Albian time is indicated by the formation of regionally important unconformities and the inception of alkalic volcanism. These events, probably marking the separation of the Indian plate from Gondwana and the beginning of its northward drift toward Eurasia....Marine conditions persisted on the part of the Indian margin exposed in the Zanskar Range until early Eocene (Ypresian) time, when red beds containing ophiolitic debris first appeared in the stratigraphic succession....the meta-igneous rocks and associated leucogranites is referred to here as the Greater Himalayan zone."

Direct Quote, Source: "Tectonics of the Himalaya and southern Tibet from two perspectives," by K.V. Hodges, Geological Society of America Bulletin: Vol. 112, No. 3, pp. 324–350.

Whenever two tectonic plates collide there will be a fluidity due to the extreme counter forces of compression (molten magma). There will be an uplifting.

Interesting - I took a look at the excerpt location of the first link and the same paragraph mentions that Macdonnell was only as high as the Rockies. Perhaps it is just exaggeration then.

Interesting - I took a look at the excerpt location of the first link and the same paragraph mentions that Macdonnell was only as high as the Rockies. Perhaps it is just exaggeration then.Let me follow through on this. What excerpt source are you looking at? This is very interesting.

Your first link, down the left column where you grabbed the first excerpt in your 3rd to last post.

I heard about the MacDonnell claim from a tv program about Australia sometime ago, but I definitely heard the narrator's voice say "these mountains once stood higher than Mt. Everest," which is a pretty bold claim, but also possibly in reference to some credible geological studies that I am not aware of.

Detailed info on the Macdonnell range is pretty scarce on the Internet. I tried finding out about this because yeah, it interested me a lot too but I just couldn't find anything.

Oh yes! I'm not denying this. Only asking where you also heard this from. As stated:

"The Macdonnell Ranges were formed 300 million years ago when a large basin covered with sediment 10km [32,808 feet] deep underwent a violent upheaval," http://travel.independent.co.uk/aus...rticle28705.ece

The thing is that we know very little about the mountain ranges in Pangaea, Gondwana and Laurasia, and then before these there were the continents of Pannotis (600 mya) and then before this Rodinia (1,100 mya). As far as I know, we have absolutely no information about mountain ranges in these ciontinents at all! That's why I was so surprised to hear you mention the supposed original height of the MacDonnel Range and asked you for your source. The fact that it was higher than Everest may or not be true. Even though a basin 32,808 feet pushed up the upheavel of the MacDonnel Range, this does not necessarily mean that the resulting range was that high. The upheavel basin most likely sank somewhat downward under the opposing pressure. Therefore it is questionable. But I would think that in the past there were mountains higher than Everest.

Rift-related basalts are widespread in the Tibetan sedimentary sequence of Zanskar and Kashmir, India and rare Permian alkali granites have been found to intrude the section. Increasing continental-margin instability in Aptian–Albian time is indicated by the formation of regionally important unconformities and the inception of alkalic volcanism. These events, probably marking the separation of the Indian plate from Gondwana and the beginning of its northward drift toward Eurasia....Marine conditions persisted on the part of the Indian margin exposed in the Zanskar Range until early Eocene (Ypresian) time, when red beds containing ophiolitic debris first appeared in the stratigraphic succession....the meta-igneous rocks and associated leucogranites is referred to here as the Greater Himalayan zone.

Valich, you've posted this twice now, but that doesn't make it twice as relevant.

It says in your quote that the basalt and granite are related to rifting, not continental collision. Somehow, you are interpreting this to mean that:the underlying "main central thrust system" surrounding the Himalaya Mountain range was caused by an uplifting of magma

Could you explain your reasoning?

Facial, estimates of heights of mountain ranges when they were at their peak (pun intended) could be made in a variety of ways.
1) Estimate the amount of sediment that has been eroded from the mountains, based upon studies of the younger sedimentary material exposed on the flanks of the mountains.
2) Where regional metamorphism has occured a temperature may be inferred from specific minerals. Match that against probable temperature gradients and the amount of material above that point may be deduced.
3) Use seismic data to determine the size of the mountain range root. From this, taking into account isostatic responses, a probable height could, again, be deduced.

All of these methods are subject to significant error and several assumptions. I have never seen a convincing case made for a specific height. Maybe I haven't looked hard enough. I have found nothing on the McDonnel range in particular. It sounds like local pride and tourist marketing hype to me.

Valich, you've posted this twice now, but that doesn't make it twice as relevant....It says in your quote that the basalt and granite are related to rifting, not continental collision.The Main Front thrust (MFT), or "Himalaya Sole thrust," refers to the basal downward angle thrusting of the India Plate located at the base of the Himalayas. It produces a shear thrust and is part of what is called the India/Asia Decollement: the boundary between the basement basalt and crystalline rocks from the overlying sedimentary rock. It is part of the entire India/Asia fold-thrust-rifting belt system.

"The Himalayas were principally formed as a result of the collision between the Indian and the Asian plates. After splitting from Gondwanaland, India drifted northwards to collide with the Asian landmass about 40 million years ago. The intervening tethys ocean was closed by northwards subduction beneath southern Tibet, and the collision created the Himalayan orogenic belt. Continuing northward movement of India at a rate of about 5 cm per year over the last 40 million years has caused it to indent Asia, and the resultant massive shortening is expressed by thrusting of the northern margin of India, by faulting and earthquakes in the Himalayas and China, by rifting and faulting in Tibet, and by the uplift of the Himalayas which is still continuing at rates of upto several millimetres per year."
http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/HT/H_0125.htm

Both basalts and granites have been found included into the overlying sedimentary rock, and, as stated, this is thought to be due to earlier volcanic "events, probably marking the separation of the Indian plate from Gondwana and the beginning of its northward drift toward Eurasia."

When two plates "collide," they either slide laterally (slip-slide) or converge (subduct or compress). In the case of the India/Asia thrust belt system there is evidence of both compression (dip-slip reverse thrust faults), folding, rifting, and subduction.

The high angle of collision front of the Himalayas created numerous faults, high heat flow, and volcanic activity. "Alpine-Himalayan belt and Antilles display the best examples of compressional tectonics. Some local compressionalenvironments were also produced along the transpressive strike-slip belts, back-arc regionsand fold-and-thrust belts. Thrusts and reverse faults are generally seen as zones of multiple faults and folds."

Source: "Dynamics of the Earth, Faults and Earthquakes" by Okan Tüysüz, ITU Eurasia Institute of Science, 2001.
http://www.eies.itu.edu.tr/Deprem/dynamics_earth.pdf.

"Frontal thrust occurs far outboard of the steep topography....The southern zone has the higher relief, rising abruptly from the Main Frontal thrust...The active 2500-km-long Himalayan arc is the type example of a continent-continent collision zone....evidence favors an episodic system operating similarly but independently within along-strike segments in which timing differences in a varying balance between uplift and erosion produce spatial differences of topographic and geologic features....

There is general continuity of tectonostratigraphic relationships along the Himalaya, consisting of five fault-bounded units:

1) Foreland basin, Indian basement, and Paleozoic platform sediments overlain by Tertiary to Holocene synorogenic sediments.

2) Sub-Himalaya, Miocene to Pleistocene synorogenic molasse overthrusting the foreland basin on the imbricated Main Frontal thrust.

3) Lesser Himalayan Sequence, mainly Paleozoic metasedimentary rocks thrust over the Sub-Himalaya on the imbricated Main Boundary thrust.

4) Greater Himalayan Sequence, high-grade metamorphic rocks and granites thrust over the Lesser Himalayan Sequence on the Main Central thrust.

5) Tibetan Sequence of Paleozoic metasedimentary rocks, distal correlatives of the Lesser Himalayan Sequence and platform sedimentary rocks, with down-to-the-north motion on the South Tibetan detachment.

Source: "How steep are the Himalaya? Characteristics and implications of along-strike topographic variations," by Chris Duncan et al., Geology: Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 75–78. http://www.gsajournals.org/gsaonline/?request=get-document&doi=10.1130%2F0091-7613(2003)031%3C0075:HSATHC%3E2.0.CO%3B2

"The tectonically significant Quaternary thrust faults at the topographic front of the Higher Himalaya...is thought to mark the transition from a region of rapid uplift in the Higher Himalayan ranges to a region of slower uplift to the south. Uplift of the Higher Himalaya during the Quaternary is not entirely due to passive uplift over a deeply buried ramp in the Himalayan sole thrust, as is commonly believed, but partially reflects active thrusting at the topographic front."

Source: "Quaternary deformation, river steepening, and heavyprecipitation at the front of the Higher Himalayan ranges," by Kip V. Hodges et al., Earth and Planetary Science Letters 220, 2004.
http://projects.crustal.ucsb.edu/nepal/publications/Hodges_etal2004.pdf

"Both the Scandinavian Caledonides and the Himalayas are results of continental collisions. Due to the different ages of these orogens and the accumulated time spans of weathering, different crustal depths are exposed in these mountain belts."

Source: "A Comparison of Geological Features from Two Zones of Continental Collision by Means of Remote Sensing and GIS Evaluation of Field Data: Examples from the Tornetrask and Mt. Everest Sections," by Gerhard Bax.
http://www.kfunigraz.ac.at/geowww/hmrsc/pdf/hmrsc4/Bax_hm4.PDF

Lots of lovely detail, but none of it demonstrating that Mt Everest was volcanic in origin as you stated.
The finding of ocean-life fossils on top of Mount Everest indicate that it was not directly formed by a volcano, but rest assured that the underlying "main central thrust system" surrounding the Himalaya Mountain range was caused by an uplifting of magma.
You are adopting the same strategy you do every time an error is pointed out. You refuse to admit the error and attempt to obfuscate the discussion by posting a mass of detail - all of it sound - bearing no relationship to the point you have been called on.
You are an intellectual cheat and liar. This thread is a perfect example of it.
It is time you cut the crap vallich. You made a mistake. Now act like a man and admit it, rather than behave like a spoilt little child. You are becoming increasingly tiresome and an embarassment to this forum.
You have no credibility with any one here who has any experience or knowledge. Why not cut your losses while you are behind, rather than totally buried?
Ethically you are the most corrupt individual posting here, for I think you are smart enough to know just how devious and dishonest you are being.
Once again I find your behaviour physically sickening. Stop it. Desist.

Lots of lovely detail, but none of it demonstrating that Mt Everest was volcanic in origin as you stated.

You are adopting the same strategy you do every time an error is pointed out. You refuse to admit the error and attempt to obfuscate the discussion by posting a mass of detail - all of it sound - bearing no relationship to the point you have been called on.
You are an intellectual cheat and liar. This thread is a perfect example of it.
It is time you cut the crap vallich. You made a mistake. Now act like a man and admit it, rather than behave like a spoilt little child. You are becoming increasingly tiresome and an embarassment to this forum.
You have no credibility with any one here who has any experience or knowledge. Why not cut your losses while you are behind, rather than totally buried?
Ethically you are the most corrupt individual posting here, for I think you are smart enough to know just how devious and dishonest you are being.
Once again I find your behaviour physically sickening. Stop it. Desist.Again:

"The Himalayan range was formed when the Indian plate and Eurasian plate collided and there are remnants of volcanic activity and volcano mountains all across the Himilayas; however, the peaks of Mount Everest were probably formed by glacier activities. The mountain is still surrounded by glaciers today.

The finding of ocean-life fossils on top of Mount Everest indicate that it was not directly formed by a volcano, but rest assured that the underlying "main central thrust system" surrounding the Himalaya Mountain range was caused by an uplifting of magma. The surrounding peaks contain many rocks of volcanic origin, especially in the Tibetian region."

My above post confirms the reason why there are basalt and crystal deposits amongst the upper sedimentary rock of Everest: they are remnants of previous volcanic activity.

Ophiolite: Psychologically I have a very earnest, sincere and compassionate desire to try and figure out where you're coming from in order to respond respectfully and sympathetically: but I am at a loss. You seem to view people like you view rocks? Static, unchanging, inorganic pieces of material objects.

I believe in lifelong learning. As I learn, my knowledge base changes accordingly, and with that change comes an increase in understanding of the world around me, and a newer and hopefully better way of communicating that understanding to others. Am I not doing that on this forum?

Words can kill. Are you a murderer? Belittling and constanly criticizing a person is immoral, evil, and wrong. Yet you persist on doing so. And in your condescending replies - always void of useful progressive or productive content - you are taking up valuable space on these forum threads that others, who have a sincere desire to learn, must wade through to get to the facts and achieve a greater understanding.

Why do you continue to behave this way?

...the Himalaya Mountain range was caused by an uplifting of magma. ...Wrong.

The Himalayan range was formed when the Indian plate and Eurasian plate collidedCorrect.

The crustal rocks are less dense than the deeper rocks (That is why they are "floating" on top of the deeper rocks.) As the Indian plated "dives" below the Eurasian plate, it is like adding ice to the bottom of a floating ice cube. That is part of the ice cube will rise higher in the sea as lighter material is placed below it. That is why icebergs stick up above the sea level and why the Himalayan Mountains stick up above the average surface of the Earth - They have a lot of old, less-dense, Indian plate below them, just as an iceberg has a lot of lighter material below it.

As for the magma / volcanic activity, yes it is real, but due to the fact that old Indian plate material is being melted as it goes deeper and this "liquid" is under tremendous pressure and the "cap" holding it down is not without flaws, cracks etc. so some comes up to the surface again.

Valich, please help me out.

I asked you to elaborate, but you just reposted the same stuff, plus a lot more extraneous information.

Igneous and sedimentary lithologies were both involved in the orogenesis. The igneous rocks were formed prior to the collision, during rifting. Sediments were laid down in the closing Tethys basin. Neither process was directly responsible for the mountain building.

Granites formed by partial melting during the collision. These were a product of the orogenesis. It is not accurate to say:
the underlying "main central thrust system" surrounding the Himalaya Mountain range was caused by an uplifting of magma
Remember, as a general rule of thumb in our universe, Cause precedes effect.

I'm confused that you continue to claim this, despite at least one of your posts actually containing the sentence:
Both basalts and granites have been found included into the overlying sedimentary rock, and, as stated, this is thought to be due to earlier volcanic "events, probably marking the separation of the Indian plate from Gondwana and the beginning of its northward drift toward Eurasia."

Ophiolite: Psychologically I have a very earnest, sincere and compassionate desire to try and figure out where you're coming from in order to respond respectfully and sympathetically: but I am at a loss. You seem to view people like you view rocks? Static, unchanging, inorganic pieces of material objects.Wholly incorrect. I view you in that way because you have given me no reason to view you otherwise.


I believe in lifelong learning. As I learn, my knowledge base changes accordingly, and with that change comes an increase in understanding of the world around me, and a newer and hopefully better way of communicating that understanding to others. Am I not doing that on this forum?No. You have persistently refused to acknowledge when you have made a mistake. In this thread I, BillyT and Laika (much more diplomatically) have all pointed out your error, but you go blithely on ignoring this, posting irrelevant data to obfuscate your error. You have been doing this in every post in which we have crossed swords. I have seen you doing it in other posts in which I have chosen not to become involved in. You show no indication of ever changing. Prove me wrong. Change.

Words can kill. Are you a murderer? Belittling and constanly criticizing a person is immoral, evil, and wrong. Yet you persist on doing so.Persistently ignoring one's own errors; consistently adopting a dishonest way of handling criticism; balndly pretending the fault lies with others; these are not evil. They are stupid, ignorant, unethical and rude. Yet this is exactly what you have been persistently guilty of.
I make no apology whatsoever for the attacks I have made on your unacceptable attitude and behaviour on this forum. I have told you repeatedly that I will stop the criticism when you stop the flagrant intellectual dishonesty.

And in your condescending replies - always void of useful progressive or productive content - you are taking up valuable space on these forum threads that others, who have a sincere desire to learn, must wade through to get to the facts and achieve a greater understanding.
Once again. Valich you post things that are in gross error. This does not help others to improve their understanding. You then refuse to acknowledge your error. You are corrupting the scientific approach, you are distorting facts, you are misinterpreting scientific results.
You really are a presumptuous specimen to accuse me of wasting space when all that is required is for you to admit when you have made a mistake.

Why do you continue to behave this way?
Here is a repeat from another post. Why do you keep asking me the question and ignoring my answer. What don't you understand. What is your mental problem. Tell me you have a recognised mental illness and I'll back off. In the meantime:

I have told you ad nauseam exactly what my problem with you is. Here is a further brief summary. Read it this time and understand it you moron.
1. You repeatedly post erroneous information.
2. You give it a veneer of authenticity by using relevant terminology and quoting or citing research that is in the same field as the matter under discussion.
3. When corrected you do not accept your error, but try to wriggle out in an unseemly fashion by posting unrelated detail and denying your original claim.
4. In short, you misinterpret, misunderstand and misrepresent basic scientific facts, then deny it
5. Such intellectual dishonesty is not only harming yourself, but more importantly could mislead other into scientific misunderstandings based upon you nonsensical claims.
6. Consequently I shall continue to correct as many of your errors as I run across, when I run across them. My repeated requests to the moderators that you be banned have fallen on deaf ears, so I shall police your lies until either you cease them, you get banned or I get banned.
Is that clear enough for you yet.

Just another point on this.
Words can kill. Are you a murderer? Belittling and constanly criticizing a person is immoral, evil, and wrong.
Words cannot kill, except in phrases such as "Front rank, fire."
You are belittling yourself by your own behaviour.
The words of someone whose opinion you have zero regard for can hardly cause you any harm, so why do you find my words so upsetting? Might it be because you know I am right?

Formation of the Himalyas and Rifting:

The formation of the Himalayas is a highly complex. The original formation of the High Himalayas occurred as a result of plate compression and deformation of the Indian plates with the Eurasian Plate (Indo-Asia collision), and then subduction of the Indian plate (indirectly caused from thermal relaxation) during many geological periods. The tops of the peaks themselves were formed by glaciation and the ceaseless denudation (weathering and erosion) that continues today. Mt. Everest and the surrounding mountain peaks are the source of some of the largest and longest rivers on Earth and have the highest concentration of glaciers anywhere except for the polar regions. Rifting is due to both plate separation, continental rifts, and anticlinal folding (folds sloping downward in the opposite direction), among other orogeny processes.

There is rifting in the Northwest Himalayas in Pakistan and Tibet due to the interactions of three geological areas: the Indian plate in the south, the Kohistan- Ladakh magmatic arc in the middle, and the Karakoram plate in the north. This produces rifting, collision, deformation and metamorphism within the mountain belts in the northwest area.

There is rifting in the Eastern Himalayas in India due to continental rifts: elongated depressions between geologic faults called grabens. “In India, the Kutch graben trends eastward from the coast [forming] the Reelfoot rift, initially formed during the Cambrian (about 600 million years ago), but numerous small bodies of alkalic igneous rocks indicate renewed extension during the Early Permian (about 290 million years ago) and Late Cretaceous (80-100 million years ago, at the end of the Mesozoic).” This is the same type of rifting that causes the earthquakes in the New Madrid Regions west of the Appalachians. (http://clifty.com/hazard/archives/1010206-152122.html)

In fact, there is rifting all along the Himalayas because it forms an arc (back-arc rifts). The arc causes parallel rifting as it spreads. The reason that the Himalayas are formed in arc is because the northern edge of the Indian plate, originally formed from the separation of Gondwana, is shaped like an arc. In fact there is even remnant rifting attributed to the original East-West separation of Gondwana 210 mya.

North of the High Himalayas, there is rifting in the Tibetan plateau due to strike-slip faults and the consequental North-South rift valleys in the the Indus Suture Zone, ISZ (or Indus-Yarlung-Tsangpo Suture Zone). This area “defines the zone of collision between the Indian Plate and the Ladakh Batholith (also Transhimalaya or Karakoram-Lhasa Block)….The Indus Suture Zone represents the northern limit of the Himalaya. Further to the North is the so-called Transhimalaya, or more locally Ladakh Batholith, which corresponds essentially to an active margin of Andean type. Widespread volcanism in this volcanic arc was caused by the melting of the mantle at the base of the Tibetan bloc, triggered by the dehydration of the subducting Indian oceanic crust.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Himalaya)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/17/2_2_himal_tecto_units.giF
Active rifting and volcanic activity takes place in China in the North China Plane rift system that occurred after the Indo-Asia collision. Studies have linked this rifting and volcanism in eastern China to the subducting Pacific plate away from the Eurasian continent. The stress transmission and basal decollement from this rift system generates earthquakes in East China and Taiwan. “Taiwan is a moderately dipping (20° to 30°) thrust fault away from the deformation front.” (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/288/5475/2346)

Other rifts are attributed to the south-directed Main Central Thrust: the Peshawar and Jalalabad Basins. The Kashmir Basins of Pakistan and northwestern India near Kathmandu contain over a kilometer of sediment and formed as a result of the Main Boundary Thrust.

Subduction of India under the Eurasian Plate began 60-70 mya. The Main Central Thrust (MCT) formed 40 mya. The Main Boundary Thrust (MBT) - the second thrust - formed about 20 mya.
http://www.virtualexplorer.com.au/2003/11/05/files/figure01.jpg
Geological map of the Himalayas showing fault-bound tectonic zones: HHSZ - High Himalaya Sedimentary Zone, HHCZ - High Himalaya Crystalline Zone, LHZ - Lesser Himalaya Zone, SHZ - Sub-Himalaya Zone. Main Frontal Thrust (MFT), Main Boundary Thrust (MBT) and Main Central Thrust (MCT) are crustal-scale thrusts. South Tibet Detachment System (STDS) is a low-angle normal fault. Indus-Tsangpo Suture Zone (ITSZ) marks the site of the continent-continent collision zone. Note that the small leucogranite plutons occur in two linear belts close to the contact between HHCZ and HHSZ and within HHSZ. (http://www.virtualexplorer.com.au/2003/11/05/)
http://www.virtualexplorer.com.au/2002/7/wosnitza/img/Fig12.jpg
The Main Frontal Thrust (MFT) and the Main Central Thrust (MCT) are reverse faults, the Southern Tibet Detachment (STD) is a normal thrust. In between MCT and STD, a wedge of material is thought to be extruded. (b) Enlargement of the left part of (a): reverse view, (c) - (e) The geometry of the wedge as well as the topography of the Moho (lower boundary of the mafic lower crust).(http://www.virtualexplorer.com.au/2002/7/wosnitza/paper7.html)

Further References:

Three distinct geological tectonic domains and plates in Pakistan, see:
http://www.virtualexplorer.com.au/2003/11/02/

Neo-tectonics of the Northwest Himalayas, see: http://earth.leeds.ac.uk/tectonics/nanga_parbat/parbatepsl.pdf

Rifting in the Tibetan Plateau, see: http://tectonics.geo.ku.edu/dewane3.html

The “thermal uplift of the Neo-tethyan break away phase of rifting, which precedes the volcanism of the Panjal traps in Himalayas (300-270 Ma),” see: http://www-sst.unil.ch/research/plate_tecto/subsidence_main.htm

The Himalyas as a series of mountain chains, see: http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/HT/H_0125.htm

And this latest post of yours (so jam-packed full of freshly googled information, precious and holy TRUTH!!) answers the questions that have been asked of you about your claim that " the underlying "main central thrust system" surrounding the Himalaya Mountain range was caused by an uplifting of magma" how?

The question is a simple one, Valich.
How do you explain your claim of 'uplifting of magma' being behind the formation of the Himalayas?
Or do you retract your statment?

Answer the question.

The Himalayas were formed from the limestone thrust sheets, right?

I don't think magma played any role in their formation except for isostatic uplift from the Ganges & tributaries.

Sorry about the huge .jpg image file. I had no idea that it would take up so much space.

No. They are not all formed by "limestone thrust sheets." It's a very complex process (see everything I posted above). You're referring to the yellow band of limestone that mountaineers encounter on the way up as they climb Mt. Everest. Yes, this was a marine layer of limestone from the ancient Tethys Ocean that was forced upward from the Indo-Asia plate collision, but underlying this layer are metamorphosized, black gneiss, folded and layered rock: a clear indication of magma activity.

Again, anytime two plates meet, whether it be convergence, divergence, or transform slip-side, there's going to be extensive heat built up causing magma formations, either through compression, upheavels, intrusions, friction shear forces, folding, uplifting mantle magma uprising, etc.

The upper portions of the Himalaya Mountains consist of sedimentary rock but they contain pockets of basalts and granite. Basalts can only be formed from volcanic activity. Granite is also an igneous rock and has to be formed from magma.

The Himalayan Mountain Ranges is the most complex system of mountain-building orogeny on Earth. Evidence of previous upper volcanic activity and lower magma uplifts are extensively present over the entire Himalaya Belt.

As the plates collided, the sinking Indian Plate generated extensive volcanoes in southern Tibet because the rock at the top of the plate melted from friction and huge pressures of the collision. Today, the tibetan Plateau is dotted with young volcanoes.

The High Himalayas consist of a continuous belt of thick crustal stacking of metasedimentary and metaigneous rocks and associated granites, with a very complex deformational history. The base of the High Himalayas is made up of metamorphic rocks: schists formed from muds and sands that crystallised as a result of the collision. These are predominantly clastic metasedimentary rocks. Gneisses in this base layer are overlain by a thick layer of amphibolite calcareous rocks in many areas of central Nepalese Himalayas. Higher up are two huge bands of granite. Nearer the top the rocks are sedimentary. Within a few hundred metres of the summit is a formation known to climbers as the ‘Yellow Band’. This layer of shale, sandstone and limestone is made up of marine silts, clays and animal remains from the bed of the Tethys Ocean.

The tectonostratigraphy of the Himalayan belt is divided into the Tibetan Himalaya, Greater Himalaya, Lesser Himalaya, and Subhimalaya zones. Separating the zones are major fault systems: the South Tibetan Detachment system (STDS) between the Tibetan Plateau and Higher Himalayas, the Main Central Thrust (MCT) between the Higher and Lesser Himalayas, and the Main Boundary Thrust (MBT) between the Lesser Himalaya and Subhimalaya. Other important structures include the Ramgarh and Main Frontal Thrusts (MFT) and the Lesser Himalayan duplex.

The two parallel granite belts span the Higher Himalayas running parallel to the South Tibetan Detachment system (STDS). It is thought that these granite belts were formed during the evolution of the Main Central Thrust (MCT) from the (STDS): a decollement thrust. The (MCT) separates the high-grade metamorphic rocks of the Higher Himalaya crystalline hanging wall from the weakly metamorphosed series of the Lesser Himalaya footwall. The Main Frontal Thrust (MFT) is also decollement thrust with no basement involvement at least as far north as the downdip projection of the Main Boundary Thrust system (MBT). The (MBT) separates the metapsammitic schists and phyllites of the Lesser Himalaya hanging wall from the conglomerates and sandstones of the Sub-Himalaya footwall. The (MFT) is a low-angle, basal thrust along which the Indian plate is subducted beneath the Himalaya and southern Tibet and into which the (MBT) and (MCT) system root. The basal Himalayan Sole thrust (HST) becomes basement north of the downdip projection of the (MCT), or approximately at the latitude of the Himalayan range crest.
(http://www.gsajournals.org/gsaonline/?request=get-document&doi=10.1130%2F0091-7613(2003)031%3C0359:KMFTMC%3E2.0.CO%3B2)

The two seperate granite belts are thought to have been created by discontinuous melting reactions during the thrust surface slip that dips shallowly through the metamorphically stratified crust. Depending on the position of magma emplacement above the (STDS), the spacing approximates the distance between the two plates. The granites are embedded within Tethyan medasedimentary rocks and appear to have high melting temperatures.
http://sims.ess.ucla.edu/pdf/Harrison_et_al_GEOLOGY_1997.pdf

Hot-spring waters near the Main Central Thrust (MCT) in the Marsyandi River of central Nepal are caused by hydrothermal interactions with the tectonic metamorphic flux processes below, indicative of magma activity. This area is marked by thrusting and active uplifting. The Marsyandi River marks the transition from a region of rapid uplift in the Higher Himalayan ranges to a region of slower uplift to the south. http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/research/derry/publications/Evans_Geology_01.pdf

An active deformation of surface-rupture earthquakes, uplift of stream terraces, active foldinging and uplifting indicates that the Himalayan Frontal Thrust (HFT) and the Kunlun fault that divides the Tibetan Plateau are tectonically the most active zone areas across the whole of the Himalayas. (www.ias.ac.in/currsci/jun102004/1554.pdf)

Apart from the strike-slip faulting there are important variations in compressional structural. The Main Mantle Thrust (MMT) of Indian continental crust beneath the principal Tethyan suture zone now has a vertical attitude suggesting a strong buckling component associated with this thrusting. It seems most likely that uplift along the northern Indus valley section occurred by buckle folding and East-West flattening. The transition between the thrust-fold geometries at Liachar portion of the MMT and the kilometric buckle fold at Sassi apparently involves a series of ductile shear zones exposed along the Ramghat section.
http://earth.leeds.ac.uk/tectonics/nanga_parbat/parbatepsl.pdf

http://www.virtualexplorer.com.au/2003/11/05/files/figure01.jpg

There are extensive igneous rock plutons formed from magma in the Northern Ignus-Tsangpo Suture Zone (ITSZ) formed due to melting of the crust during the terminal collision. the Main Central Thrust (MCT) brought the magma of the deep continental crust to lie on top of the Lesser Himalaya Zone (LHZ), Midland Formation in Nepal. This magma rose above the MCT lowering the solidus in the hot High Himalaya Crystalline Zone (HHCZ) and produced melts. The melt rose through the metamorphic piles along giant dykes and sills and emplaced at the contact between the HHCZ and High Himalaya Sedimentary Zone (HHSZ). Many of the Himalayan leucogranite plutons are indeed underlain and fed by giant dyke and sill complexes. However, there is no evidence of partial melting in the rocks occurring in the immediate hangingwall of the MCT, and the footwalls of the MCT is occupied by sedimentary or very low grade metamorphic rocks that do not appear to have given off large amount of fluid.

http://www.virtualexplorer.com.au/2003/11/05/files/figure02.jpg

melting model for the Himalayan leucogranite. thrusting along MCT caused metamorphism in the footwall (LHZ) releasing H2O+CO2 fluid that triggered partial melting in the hangingwall (HHCZ). The melts emplaced at higher structural levels along giant dikes.

Following the collision, the continued convergence resulted in the frontal part of the Indian plate to get thrusted back onto itself (reverse folding). This detachment is referred to as the Main Himalayan Thrust (MHT).

http://www.virtualexplorer.com.au/2003/11/05/files/figure03.jpg

The frontal part of the Indian continental crust thrusted back onto itself along a northerly dipping detachment. This detachment is also called Main Himalayan Thrust (MHT) that extends into south Tibet and possibly north of Indus-Tsangpo Suture Zone (ITSZ). The black line above the Indian Ocean Crust represents partially molten crust, as imaged in seismic profiling. The calculated thermal structure shown assumes a horizontal MHT at a depth of 30 km and a depth to mantle at 80 km.

Partial melting affects the thickened Himalayan crust, both along and across the orogen as well as at different depths. Depending on the values of heat-flow parameters, it is also possible for the transient geotherms to have steeper gradient than the initial (i.e., at the time of thrusting) geothermal gradient. Consequently, partial melting and emplacement of granitic magma may be continuing to the present day. Very young ages obtained from some of the plutons and high surface heat flow in Tibetan plateau supports this contention. This is also in conformity with the deduction from seismic data of a partial molten crust in southern Tibet.

Sources:

"A melting mechanism for the Himalayan leucogranite," by Dilip K. Mukhopadhyay, Journal of the Virtual Explorer, Vol. 11, 2003.
http://www.virtualexplorer.com.au/2003/11/05/

"Tectonics of the Himalaya and southern Tibet from two perspectives," K. V. Hodges, Geological Society of America Bulletin: Vol. 112, No. 3, pp. 324–350, 2000.
http://www.gsajournals.org/gsaonline/?request=get-document&doi=10.1130%2F0016-7606(2000)112%3C324:TOTHAS%3E2.0.CO%3B2

None of which substantiates in anyway your false claim that Mount Everest arose from volcanic activity. You were wrong. You are wrong. And it appears that you intend to continue being wrong.
The very data you are posting actually helps to demonstrate you are wrong, yet you appear to be unable to recognise this.
Cut the crap vallich. Admit your error. Admit it now.

None of which substantiates in anyway your false claim that Mount Everest arose from volcanic activity. You were wrong. You are wrong. And it appears that you intend to continue being wrong.
The very data you are posting actually helps to demonstrate you are wrong, yet you appear to be unable to recognise this.
Cut the crap vallich. Admit your error. Admit it now.You were right, you are right and you will continue to be right about Vallich's inability to admit he was wrong. He has posted many pages of related cut and paste material but it does not appear to pass thru any human mind. He sometimes does not realize that his current cut and paste posts contradicts earlier ones. I am beginning to think he is not real flesh and blood, but a subroutine of Google as he often does turn up a lot of related information. I hope he continues this as I am able to throw out the trash.

Being right is nice of course. Having three, four or five people in this thread point out he is wrong is even better. On an intellectual level this means the goal of preventing casual readers from being misled by his errors is prevented. However, on a visceral level it would be infinitely satisfying for the little turd to front up and admit he is wrong. It's a shame, as he does often turn up some interesting links. A pity he is unable to understand them.

Again: "I believe in lifelong learning. As I learn, my knowledge base changes accordingly, and with that change comes an increase in understanding of the world around me, and a newer and hopefully better way of communicating that understanding to others. Am I not doing that on this forum?"

If I at first suggested or implied that Everest was a volcano: YES!, I was wrong, and I quickly posted a rebuttal. That initial statement was due to the fact that I read that there are numerous pockets of volcanic basalts and magmatic granite in Mt. Everest.

What is it that you want? I am posting posts that answer the questions asked on this forum. You are posting voidless criticisms that serve no useful purpose and wastes precious forum space that those of us that have a sincere desire to learn have to needlessly wade throuth.

Check out this sketch of the Western Himalayas in East India and Pakistan. Isn't it fascinating? The India plate has actually produced a reverse upward southwest thrust (the magmatic Indus-Kohistan Seismic Zone). Notice the multiple faults and thrusts that overlie the Indian Plate above in the front.

http://cires.colorado.edu/~bilham/KASHMIR/CartoonEarthquakeSection.jpg

The surface expression of the causal fault is marked by a line of landslides from Balakot to a few km SE of Muzaffarabad. The causal fault of Pakistan shows the active Murree/Muzafferabad fault....On hillsides not reamed clean by landslides near Balakot, a series of slumps or normal faults have developed above the inferred location of the reverse fault. (http://cires.colorado.edu/~bilham/Kashmir%202005.htm)

So - there's a section of the Indian plate that's sheared off under the Himalayas? Or is it still part of the Indian plate?

What is a suture defined as anyways?

Valich,

What is it that you want?

Several things.
One is to learn. As you purport to be your purpose too.
However. In regards to you, I have several other objectives.
One of them is to get you to do this every time you are wrong:
If I at first suggested or implied that Everest was a volcano: YES!, I was wrong, and I quickly posted a rebuttal. That initial statement was due to the fact that I read that there are numerous pockets of volcanic basalts and magmatic granite in Mt. Everest.
Why is it so hard to get you to admit you're wrong?
Part of learning is learning where you erred. Part of learning where you erred (when in a public setting) is admitting those faults to those who you've made them to around you.
It took how many posts to get you to admit that you were wrong?
And even now you're using qualifiers such as 'if'.
If you admit your erroneous conclusions everytime you make them rather than simply ignoring the people pointing out your failures and criticising them as 'criticisers', then we'd leave you alone. We'd not stop pointing out where you're wrong (when we know) but we'd be a lot more respectable towards you.

Thank you, Valich. For finally. Admitting. That you were wrong about something.
Finally.
December 6th. Goes on my calendar.

If I at first suggested or implied that Everest was a volcano: YES!, I was wrong, and I quickly posted a rebuttal. Thank you valich. That was all I was asking for. However, I fail to find the rebuttal. May I suggest in future you adopt the method followed by most posters on the forum and open such a rebuttal post with a phrase such as

"Oops. I got this wrong."
"Sorry. I was being a bit loose in my phrasing. That came out wrong."
"Mistake. Heavan's de murgatroyd I made a mistake."
"Mea culpa. Here is what I should have said"

That is all we want valich, a direct acceptance that you have made an error. It should not have taken this many pages to get to this point. The responsibility for that lies with you.

But again, thank you for acknowledging your error.

Oh. By the way, while considering this later during work, I realized that Valich did retract his inital statement about 'volcanoes'. But, at the same time and later he added in the 'upwelling of magma' thing being behing the 'main central thrust' whatever.

That's why we've been on your case, Valich. Because you retracted with one hand but kept on going with the other.
And, even now, with this new perspective in hand, it seems as though you've only retracted your initial statement on volcanoes again but not the 'upwelling of magma'.
However. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.


The thing is, Valich, that there has been vulcanism that has contributed to the Himalayas. This is beyond doubt. Vulcanism in the past before India collided with Asia. And also some that took place during the collision. But, the thing that people have been trying to get you to admit (and hopefully you just have) is that the vulcanism is incidental to the whole affair. It's not even secondary. The force behind the height of the Himalayas is tectonic force (or something. I'm not an expert and am unsure of nomenclature) due to the Indian plate cramming itself up Asia's ass. The vulcanism that is seen in the area is a consequence of this rather than the other way around.

You guys are all wrong.
The highest peak in the world has to be my ego.

I should know because I always look down on the Himalayas.

-- it's no joke, just the mind.

We bow to your ultimately superior knowledge Genep. Chomolungma bows down to you.

I'm not exactly sure how the multiple decollements in the Himalyas led to the multiple reverse thrusts. From reading the scientific journals, I know that the crust layering is still "not fully understand," so I'm not the only one. Very interesting subject.

I don't understand your uncertainty.

Firstly, we would not typically speak of a reverse thrust. A thrust is a reverse fault, so a reverse thrust would be rather like a double negative - in this case that would make it a normal fault: not at all what you meant. A more accurate usage would be to call it either a thrust fault, or a reverse fault, or even a reverse/thrust fault. Not all reverse faults are necessarily considered thrust faults. That term tends to be reserved for the low angle faults. It is these that are associated with decollements.
That leads to my second area of puzzlement. Decollements are simply thrust faults, though ones in which the structural deformation of the rocks above and below the detatchment plane may be quite different. If we have multiple thrusts we must have the same number of multiple decollements, since in this context they are the same thing. What were you not understanding?
The first decollements (from memory) were identified in the Alps, where overturned nappes of sedimentary rock had clearly been transported many miles over a low angle detatchment plane. Recognition of multiple nappes and their associated metamorphic and structural history have been key in understanding the geology of the British Caledonides [which may also have rivalled the Himalayas in size].

Valich,

Why is it so hard to get you to admit you're wrong?
Part of learning is learning where you erred. Part of learning where you erred (when in a public setting) is admitting those faults to those who you've made them to around you.
It took how many posts to get you to admit that you were wrong?
And even now you're using qualifiers such as 'if'.
If you admit your erroneous conclusions everytime you make them rather than simply ignoring the people pointing out your failures and criticising them as 'criticisers', then we'd leave you alone. We'd not stop pointing out where you're wrong (when we know) but we'd be a lot more respectable towards you.

Thank you, Valich. For finally. Admitting. That you were wrong about something.
Finally.
December 6th. Goes on my calendar.Always quick to criticize: never any contribution to the forum.

My first post about Everest was 11-30-05, 03:32 PM, and was then quickly followed by my corrected second post at 11-30-05, 06:41 PM in which I stated: "The finding of ocean-life fossils on top of Mount Everest indicate that it was not directly formed by a volcano." These two posts were only quickly interrupted by Ophiolite's posts, who is ALWAYS quickly prone to intercept as the "God of Earth Science" forums.

I very quickly corrected my error, extremely quickly admitted to it, and went on with a much more detaled and explanatory post: posts that have never before been posted with such substaniated scientific detail on Sciforum. All the following details were factual information and cited from reputable scientfic sources.

Oh. By the way, while considering this later during work, I realized that Valich did retract his inital statement about 'volcanoes'. But, at the same time and later he added in the 'upwelling of magma' thing being behing the 'main central thrust' whatever.

That's why we've been on your case, Valich. Because you retracted with one hand but kept on going with the other.
And, even now, with this new perspective in hand, it seems as though you've only retracted your initial statement on volcanoes again but not the 'upwelling of magma'.
However. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.As posted, with scientific analysis, there is still an uprising of magma uplift in the Himalayas: multiple reverse thrust faults, earthquakes, volcanoes, hot spots, and thermal uprising.

I don't understand your uncertainty.

Firstly, we would not typically speak of a reverse thrust. A thrust is a reverse fault, so a reverse thrust would be rather like a double negative - in this case that would make it a normal fault: not at all what you meant. A more accurate usage would be to call it either a thrust fault, or a reverse fault, or even a reverse/thrust fault. Not all reverse faults are necessarily considered thrust faults. That term tends to be reserved for the low angle faults. It is these that are associated with decollements.
That leads to my second area of puzzlement. Decollements are simply thrust faults, though ones in which the structural deformation of the rocks above and below the detatchment plane may be quite different. If we have multiple thrusts we must have the same number of multiple decollements, since in this context they are the same thing. What were you not understanding?
The first decollements (from memory) were identified in the Alps, where overturned nappes of sedimentary rock had clearly been transported many miles over a low angle detatchment plane. Recognition of multiple nappes and their associated metamorphic and structural history have been key in understanding the geology of the British Caledonides [which may also have rivalled the Himalayas in size].No! A reverse thrust fault is not "like a double negative." Nothing of the sort!

Yes, it is a "low angle thrust fault." Reread your books. There is actually no reverse about it. It's just a matter of what part of the "decollement" thrusts below or above the other. Reread what a "decollement" is.

Not again vallich. Please not again.
You falsely accused me of stalking you. I am beginning to think you are being deliberately contrary just to wind me up.
Listen very carefully. A thrust fault is a form of reverse fault. The term reverse thrust makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
You state 'there is actually no reverse about it'. Of course there isn't. So why are you including it as a descriptive of thrust?
Don't bother posting any more twaddles on this. Once again you are wrong. I am not going to indulge your fantasies any further. Back off.

As posted, with scientific analysis, there is still an uprising of magma uplift in the Himalayas: multiple reverse thrust faults, earthquakes, volcanoes, hot spots, and thermal uprising.

Wow, there's hot spots in the Himalaya?

Where have they been hiding all these years?

You're not following the postings above. The Himalayas contain probably more hot spots then any other mountain range on earth - and it is very complex.

I already stated "Hot-spring waters near the Main Central Thrust (MCT) in the Marsyandi River of central Nepal are caused by hydrothermal interactions with the tectonic metamorphic flux processes below... This area is marked by thrusting and active uplifting. The Marsyandi River marks the transition from a region of rapid uplift in the Higher Himalayan ranges to a region of slower uplift to the south. http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/..._Geology_01.pdf

Countless neighboring "hot spots" can be similarly pointed out. It's an extremely complex system filled with "hot spots," underlying magma uplifts, and volcanic activity.

There's quite a difference between "hot springs" and "hot spots"

Underlying hot spots are necessary for the creation of hot springs.

Underlying hot spots are necessary for the creation of hot springs.

Are you telling us that everywhere in the world that we find hot springs we will find an underlying hot-spot?

A hot-spot is not just a localized heat source. A simple definition of hot spot is "a geologic feature of long-lived active volcanism and high heat flow originating from the mantle." Examples of hot spots include Hawaii, Iceland, Yellowstone and several other, mostly oceanic locals- but to my knowledge, there are no hot spots in the Himalayas.

Vallich may be using the term 'hot-spot' in a rather loose way to mean a zone of elevated temperature. There is no doubt that great increase in sialic thickness due to the collision of two continental plates has raised temperatures within the Himalayan orogen. In that sense, certainly, there are hot spots.
Like you, however, I am unaware of any that fit the conventional definition you have provided. There may have been one or more at an earlier time, but again that runs counter to what I would intuitively expect. The himalaya, like all features related to plate tectonic interaction, are linear features. Hot spots are point sources.
Does not compute.

Yes, I did use the word "hot spot" loosely, but only because the question was worded so loosely.

I originally posted:

"Hot-spring waters near the Main Central Thrust (MCT) in the Marsyandi River of central Nepal are caused by hydrothermal interactions with the tectonic metamorphic flux processes below, indicative of magma activity."

The hot springs around the Marsyandi River in central Nepal are due to the underlying hot spots.

Hot spots are not necessarily point sources. They can originate from a direct uplift of magma originating from the outer core straight up through the mantle into the lithosphere.

As an example - although I think we already defined this on another thread?

"The Snake River Plain and the Yellowstone Hot Spot: The geysers, hot springs, and bubbling mud pots of Yellowstone National Park indicate there is extra heat beneath this corner of Wyoming. Geologists and volcanologists think the heat is from a hot spot beneath Yellowstone. A long line of features that extends to the west from Yellowstone are interpreted to be the track left in the continent from the hotspot. The Yellowstone calderas are the youngest and mark the approximate location of the hotspot. Yellowstone has had three very large eruptions in the last 2 million years. During each event, a large volume of rhyolite magma was erupted from a shallow level in the crust and the large caldera formed. These eruptions occurred 2.0, 1.3, and 0.6 million years ago. The volume of lava erupted makes the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens look very small."
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/north_america/yellowstone.html
"

Hot spots are not necessarily point sources. They can originate from a direct uplift of magma originating from the outer core straight up through the mantle into the lithosphere.

If we are speaking of "hot spots" in a tectonic framework (which fits your definition), rather than as a regional or localized heating of the crust- then by definition a "hot spot" is a point source. The ultimate origin of hot-spots is quite controversial now. There are still those that call for deep mantle plumes originating at the core-mantle boundary, but another group has emerged that cites evidence of a shallow, probably asthenosphere, source with little to no mantle contribution.

Yellowstone is, in fact, a point source. It just so happens that the North American plate has been moving over the hotspot for the last 17 million years or so- but the present Yellowstone hot spot is located underneath or to the northeast of Yellowstone caldera. While the Snake River Plain may be the track of Yellowstone hot spot- I don't think anyone suggests the hot spot (mantle plume) still exists beneath the SRP.

Yes, I agree with you. But what I am saying, and stated above, is that underneath that hot spot point source is an underlying source of magmatic activity either caused by convection currents in the mantle or a direct linear vertical uplift of magma from the outer core of the Earth: these are the two sources of a "hot spot."

"I don't think anyone suggests the hot spoy (mantle plume) still exists beneath the SRP."

As stated: "eruptions occurred 2.0, 1.3, and 0.6 million years ago." And we expect them to occur again.

"the hot springs and geysers of Yellowstone....are fueled by heat from a large reservoir of partially molten rock (magma), just a few miles beneath. As this magma-which drives one of the world’s largest volcanic systems-rises, it pushes up the Earth’s crust beneath the Yellowstone Plateau....Thousands of small quakes are recorded each year by the seismographic network of the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory (YVO), a partnership of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the University of Utah, and Yellowstone National Park. Faults and fractures also allow surface water to penetrate to depth and become heated, rising again to produce hydrothermal (hot water) features, such as geysers. Steam and hot water carry huge quantities of thermal energy to the surface from the magma chamber below. Continuing up-and-down ground motions on the Yellowstone Plateau reflect the migration of both hydrothermal fluids and magma below the surface.

Each of Yellowstone’s explosive caldera-forming eruptions occurred when large volumes of “rhyolitic” magma accumulated at shallow levels in the Earth’s crust, as little as 3 miles (5 km) below the surface. This highly viscous (thick and sticky) magma, charged with dissolved gas, then moved upward, stressing the crust and generating earthquakes. As the magma neared the surface and pressure decreased, the expanding gas caused violent explosions.

Since Yellowstone’s last caldera-forming eruption 640,000 years ago, about 30 eruptions of rhyolitic lava flows have nearly filled the Yellowstone Caldera. Other flows of rhyolite and basalt (a more fluid variety of lava) also have been extruded outside the caldera. Each day, visitors to the park drive and hike across the lavas that fill the caldera, most of which were erupted since 160,000 years ago, some as recently as about 70,000 years ago. These extensive rhyolite lavas are very large and thick, and some cover as much as 130 square miles (340 km2), twice the area of Washington, D.C. During eruption, these flows oozed slowly over the surface, moving at most a few hundred feet per day for several months to several years, destroying everything in their paths.....

The large magma reservoir beneath Yellowstone may have temperatures higher than 1,475°F (800°C), and the surrounding rocks are heated by it. Because of this, the average heat flow from the Earth’s interior at Yellowstone is about 30 times greater than that typical for areas elsewhere in the northern Rocky Mountains."
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3024/

Magma = hot spots? Have you ever been to Yellowstone to witness the hydrothermal fluid liquid mineral activity in the hot spots there?

Valich
I agree that there is a hot spot underneath Yellowstone. I should know- I have been working in and researching the Yellowstone system for over 15 years.

But that does not mean that a mantle plume exists beneath the Snake River Plain today. Certainly it did millions of years ago. The Yellowstone caldera and the Snake River Plain are two distinctly different geologic provinces, even if both were formed by passage of the Yellowstone hotspot.

"Magma=hot spots"

If that were true, then every volcano on earth would be a hot spot.

Have you ever been to Yellowstone to witness the hydrothermal fluid liquid mineral activity in the hot spots there?

There is only one "hot spot" at Yellowstone- whether deep or shallow mantle sourced- it is situated beneath (or very close to) the Yellowstone caldera and is responsible for the reservoir of magma there. This is the point source I am referring to, even if it is 70 km by 40 km in area.

I grant you that within this system there are several seperate (hydro)thermal basins- the most famous being the Upper Geyser basin, even though Norris is hotter and more acidic, and Hot Springs basin is quite a bit larger. The thermal basins are not separate hot spots, rather they are parts of the Yellowsone volcanic system, which is driven by a single hot spot (again I use the term "hot spot" in a tectonic framework- not a spot where localized heating has occurred).

I am also using the term "hot spot" in a tectonic sense - not as a "single point source" in isolation from the underlying and thermal-interconnected magma chamber.

The Yellowstone caldera sits over a huge magma chamber that is just a few miles underneath it and is pushing this caldera upwards. The Snake River intertwines its way through Yellowstone and across the SNP and there are hot springs all along it in Wyoming and Idaho: the source of these hot springs are ultimately the same. There is a huge magma plume under Yellowstone that extends into Idaho. The Snake River is dotted all along the way. Faults, fractures and thermal interfaces allow thermal transitions of this huge pool of magma. Yellowstone is on a giant volcanic crater and hot magma is just a few miles underneath, but the plume is huge and not confined to just Yellowstone.

"The Snake River Plain traces the path of a geologic hot spot now centered in Yellowstone National Park." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_River_Plain

"At the heart of Yellowstone's past, present, and future lies volcanism. Catastrophic eruptions occurred 2 mya, mya, and then 600,000 years ago. The latest eruption spewed out nearly 240 cubic miles of debris. What is now the park's central portion then collapsed, forming a 28- by 47- mile caldera (or basin). The magmatic heat powering those eruptions still powers the park's famous geysers, hot springs, fumaroles, and mud pots. In the last decade, geological research has determined that the two volcanic vents, now known as "resurgent domes", are rising again."
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/LivingWith/VolcanicPast/Places/volcanic_past_yellowstone.html

"The Yellowstone Hot Springs: How They Work
As ground water seeps slowly downward and laterally, it comes in contact with hot gases charged with carbon dioxide rising from the magma chamber. Some carbon dioxide is readily dissolved in the hot water to form a weak carbonic acid solution. This hot, acidic solution dissolves great quantities of limestone as it works up through the rock layers to the surface hot springs. Once exposed to the open air, some of the carbon dioxide escapes from solution. As this happens, limestone can no longer remain in solution. A solid mineral reforms and is deposited as the travertine that forms the terraces." http://www.nps.gov/yell/nature/geothermal/mamterrc.htm

"The volcanic history of the Yellowstone-Snake River Plain volcanic field is based on the systematic time-progressive volcanic origin of this region that is characterized by several large calderas in eastern Snake River Plain with dimensions similar to those of Yellowstone's three giant Pleistocene calderas. Earthquakes in this area [West of Yellowstone all the way across to Central and Southwest Idaho] are part of the divergent belt of seismicity that extends more than 400 km along the west side of the SRP in a west-southwest direction into central Idaho....While there is no systematic time progression of the Columbia Plateau basalts, the immense scale and synchroneity of timing of this volcanic field suggests a similar mantle source for both Yellowstone and the Columbia basalts."
http://www.mines.utah.edu/~rbsmith/RESEARCH/YellowstoneHotspot.html

In other words, as the last article states: "a similar mantle source for both Yellowstone and the Columbia basalts."

There are hot springs all along the Snake River that extends from Yellowstone into Central Idaho to Southwest Idaho. Either part of this same magma plume lies underneath this entire area, or there are underground faults, cracks, and crevasses that still transmit pockets of magma under Idaho or somehow transmit heat to form these hot springs in Idaho from the same source. My guess would be that this magma plume is so huge that although it is now centered under Yellowstone, it has been spread out by its pathway and is now much smaller or thinner or deeper there. How else can you account for so many hot springs all over Idaho in the wake of the path of the same magma chamber?

Valich
I think we are arguing semantics.
We agree that Yellowstone Park (and by extension-Yellowstone caldera) sits atop the present Yellowstone hot spot.
We agree that the Snake River Plain is the path of the hotspot.
We agree that there is a time-progressive sequence of volcanic eruptions (magmas) from southwest to northeast along the SRP.
We agree that the present Yellowstone volcanic (magmatic) system produces, among other things, the spectacular hydrothermal features that are renowned in Yellowstone.

Looks like our only point of disagreement is whether or not the present hot spot extends beneath the SRP.
Hot spots throughout the world display some common characteristic features:
1. Regional tumescence or uplift. This is obvious in Yellowstone Park- in contrast, the SRP is subsiding. Not surprising that as the hot spot passes through the uplifted rocks then cool, densities increase, volume decreases and subsidence takes place.
2. Low seismic velocities. As expected, the lowest seismic velocities in the region are beneath Yellowstone Park. SRP seismic velocities show a marked increase over those found below Yellowstone Park. Though the seismic velocities in the SRP are greater than those in Yellowstone, they are lower than the continental rocks bordering the SRP to the north and south, suggesting thermal disturbance in the past.
3. Active seismicity. Yellowstone is seismically very active. In contrast, the SRP is almost aseismic.
4. Waning volcanism. The change from a predominantly rhyolite system in Yellowstone to a predominantly basalt system in the SRP also argues that the hotspot no longer underlies the SRP. As the SRP cools and contracts, the low-viscosity (probably mantle derived) basalts can more easily make their way to the surface.
5. Heat flow. All hot spots are characterized by high heat flow, usually in the order of 30 to 40 times the crustal average. Yellowstone’s heat flow fits in this range- heat flows in the SRP, while still above crustal averages, are almost an order of magnitude lower.

You pointed out the “so many hot springs all over Idaho” as evidence for a much larger hot spot/magmatic system. There are hot springs located all throughout the western United States- including New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Oregon and Washington. Surely you don’t suggest these are all related to the Yellowstone hot spot? Or some other hot spot? The three components needed for hot springs (water, heat and a plumbing system) do not even make a magmatic system a necessary component.

Are the Miocene Columbia River Basalts related to the paleo-Yellowstone hot spot? Possibly. I hope you’re not suggesting that present Yellowstone hot spot still underlies the Columbia River Basalts.

At any rate, this is getting way off-thread. My point is that there are no Yellowstone type “hot spots” in the Himalayas. Is there magmatic activity? Of course. Are there hot springs? Of course. But magmatic activity and hot springs do not necessarily equal “hot spot”.

We are not in disagreement at all - semantics or otherwise. We are having a very rational intellectual exchange of information and you have provided an excellent counter theory to my suggestion that a magma area still must somehow exist in Idaho to account for so many hot springs there:

"4: As the SRP cools and contracts, the low-viscosity (probably mantle derived) basalts can more easily make their way to the surface.
5. Heat flow. All hot spots are characterized by high heat flow, usually in the order of 30 to 40 times the crustal average. Yellowstone’s heat flow fits in this range- heat flows in the SRP, while still above crustal averages, are almost an order of magnitude lower."

Basically, I think I stated the same, i.e., "probably mantle derived." But I'm thinking that these are remnants of leftover magma or "faults, cracks, or crevasses" that still allow small portions of magma to protrude through, or still supply a way of thermal convection.

You state: "Though the seismic velocities in the SRP are greater than those in Yellowstone, they are lower than the continental rocks bordering the SRP to the north and south, suggesting thermal disturbance in the past."

This I did not know, nor understand. But there was a large earthquake that extends as a uplift North-to-South in Southcentral Eastern Idaho. It's quite famous as a tourist attraction there along that area and appears as a long uplifted fault about 2-6 feet high on the Eastern side.

I assume you're talking about Quake Lake, formed durning the 1959 Hebgen Lake earthquake.

Have you visited Yellowstone? Have you also had a chance to tour the Snake River Plain? Fascinating geology.

No, Quake Lake is in Montana just west of West Yellowstone. Brrrrr. Had to run outside to my truck to get my map of Idaho. It's about 15 degrees here in Flagstaff - hope that darn magma chamber moves south here for the winter!

You'd have to look on a map but there was a huge earthquake that caused a long fault that goes linear Northwest-to-Southeast about 150 miles Southwest of Yellowstone. So this obviously was due to the movement of the plate over this magma chamber because it is uplifted on the Eastern side. It runs all the way down parallel to I93 from Chialis, Idaho, where I93 branches off to R75, to where I93 ends in the Southeast at Arco and Buttte City, Idaho: remnants of the past.

To the immediate North of this equarthquake ridge there are numerous hot springs between Stanley, Idaho and Salmon, Idaho along R75 to North I93, directly west of Yellowstone. There are three large hot springs that rise up directly into the Snake River just east of Stanley, but hot springs extend all the way from Hell's Canyon, where the Snake River then merges with the Salmon River in Oregon, to the origin of the Snake River in Yellowstone.

There are hotsprings all along the way from Boise to Stanley to the east. So where is this thermal uplift coming from? Lingering hot pockets (not necessarily socalled "hot spots"), or a direct thermal convection still existing through faults, cracks, or crevasses from the original magma chamber now huddling over Yellowstone?

Remember you are dealing with the Idaho Batholith (Cretaceous to early Tertiary) as well as Eocene volcanic and intrusive rocks throughout much of that area. Too old to be related to Yellowstone, but young enough to still produce hot springs. Most of the hot springs in this area are found along faults that probably tap deeper geothermal reservoirs.

Are you referring to the Borah Peak earthquake (shook bricks off buildings in Challis) in the early 1980's? Left quite a scarp and is oriented more N-S?

Yes, In fact the Idaho Batholith (formed through a series of phases, 40 to 100 mya) underlies even the Snake River Plain and beyond it to the South. But it dips down under the SRP, with the SRP on top of it: like a basin. The Idaho Balolith's 20,000 square miles underlie almost all the mountain ranges in Idaho: North, Central, and South.

The hot springs I was referring to east of Stanley are in the Salmon River: not the Snake River, but there are hot springs all through this area as well - all across Central and Southern Idea. Some of them are mineral hot springs and smell of sulfur: a clear indication of magma below. These are all along fault zones. The Salmon River follows a suture.

The earthquake that I was referring to is the 1983 Borah Peak Earthquake (7.3 on the Richter) that is just west of the Lost River Range and was centered just south of the Borah Peak (the highest peak in Idaho, elev. 12662 ft.). The Lost River and Lemni Ranges both run parallel to the Bitterroot Range and are part of the Idaho-Montana Thrust Belt: lots of fault-related folding, including the basin-range faulting from the SRP formation.

A great photo of the 1983 earthquake scarp and the Borah Peak can be seen at:
Maughan http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/wpages/borahpk.htm

It is interesting to note that the Bitterroot and Lost River Ranges are actually part of an older orogeny system called Sevier Orogenies that were formed 150 mya when an ancient plate (now totally subducted) called the Farallon oceanic plate collided with the North American Plate. But lot's of very complex faults, folding, and errosional activity followed. http://home.att.net/~goggallery/frames/geology2.htm

"The Bitterroots expose rocks that formed in the earth's middle crust at depths somewhere around 20-30 kilometers (12-18 miles) below the surface, 90-50 mya, when Western Montana was part of a mountain range (known as the northern Sevier Orogen) more like the Andes, much higher and more extensive than it is today. 50 mya, the Sevier Mountains were torn apart by the extension or thinning of the continental crust. As the earth's crust thinned and the mountain belt collapsed, portions of the middle crust were transported upward to the surface on very large faults that are well exposed in a flank of the Bitterroot Range." http://clasnews.clas.ufl.edu/news/clasnotes/9910/

Another interesting fact is that the current magma chamber over Yellowstone is definitely a magma plume originating out of the Earth's outer core. This is evident by the fact that the Snake River Plain forms an arc 400 miles long and is dotted with volcanic activity, faults, and thermo-uplifts and hot springs. The Craters of the Moon National Monument is covered with 100 mile long stretches of lava and has cinder cones just 30-40 ft. high that errupted only 2,000 years ago. Compare that to the much earlier erruptions in Yellowstone. Also, basalts found on the Northwest part of the SRP are younger than those found in the Northeast part of the SRP. Therefore, the underlying plume must have formed - or still be forming - multiple magmatic chambers (hot spots) and not just the one now over Yellowstone. The 1983 Borah Earthquake is just 50 miles due North of Craters of the Moon Nat'l Mon.

"A hot spot provided the magma for the eruptions at Craters of the Moon. The Great Rift provided the pathway for the magma to reach the surface. The Great Rift is the most extensive of several volcanic rift zones which traverse the Snake River Plain. Volcanic rift zones are weak areas where the Earth's crust has stretched and thinned and fissures have developed. Magma under pressure follows these fissures to the surface. The Great Rift, which passes through Craters of the Moon, is 60 miles long and from 1-1/2 to five miles wide. It is characterized by short surface cracks, more than 25 cinder cones, and is the point of origin for over 60 lava flows."
http://www.nps.gov/crmo/hsg2.htm

Valich- While the main theme of your post is accurate, some of the wording is a bit confusing.
...there are hot springs all through this area...smell of sulfur: a clear indication of magma below.
Magma is not necessary to produce a sulfur smell in hot springs.
... Idaho-Montana Thrust Belt: lots of fault-related folding, including the basin-range faulting from the SRP formation.
The thrust faulting and folding occurred during compressive tectonics; Basin and Range faulting is extensional. The two are not related, except that they deform the same rocks. Also, SRP formation did not cause basin and range faulting, even though they are probably both related to the passage of the Yellowstone hot spot
...when an ancient plate (now totally subducted) called the Farallon oceanic plate ...
Not totally subducted- remaining parts of the Farallon plate are called the Juan de Fuca, Rivera and Cocos plates and still exist off the coast of North America.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/Farallon.html

Another interesting fact is that the current magma chamber over Yellowstone is definitely a magma plume originating out of the Earth's outer core.
First, I assume you meant "mantle" plume. Second, there is quite a bit of controversy over the source of the Yellowstone Hot spot. One group of geoscientists believes in a deep mantle source (beginning at the core-mantle boundary), but significant evidence now supports a very shallow (base of the crust) origin- leading the other group of Yellowstone researchers to refer to the Yellowstone heating anomaly instead of hot spot.
The first Yellowstone eruption is located along the Nevada-Oregon boundary- at McDermitt caldera. While the time-progressive sequence of volcanism from McDermitt to Yellowstone is well-publicized, there is a less well-known "sister" track, a time-progressive sequence of volcanism that also begins in McDermitt, trends northwest and ends at Newberry Caldera near Bend, OR. Hard to explain with a deep mantle plume.
Much of the hot-spot origin discussion is like the old chicken and egg argument: did the hot spot cause the extensional tectonics, or did the extensional tectonics create the heating anomaly?
Third, I hope that the magma chamber is "under" Yellowstone, rather than "over" it.
Therefore, the underlying plume must have formed - or still be forming - multiple magmatic chambers (hot spots) and not just the one now over Yellowstone
The hot spot, or "underlying plume" is beneath Yellowstone. The SRP, which is the track of this hot spot, cools, contracts and allows the underlying molten basalt (mantle material) to finally make its way to the surface. In a few million years, when the hot spot has moved further to the NE, Yellowstone park will cool, contract, subside and be covered with basalt flows.

Magma is molten mantle. Lava is magma when it errupts onto the surface: only a difference in semantics.

Actually, it referred to as the Idaho-Montana Thrust Fault "System". Sorry for leaving out the word "system."

The smell of sulphur is indicative of molten minerals below. Magma comes in a variety of mineral compositions.

Since rhyolite in the Northwest SRP has been found to be younger than older rhyolite in the Northeast SRP, this is indicative of multiple magma chambers arising from the mantle plume. The central Craters of the Moon erupted a mere 2,000 years ago: now the hot spot is hundreds of miles to the Northwest under Yellowstone, yet the last volcanic erruption in Yellowstone was 600,000 years ago. What does this indicate to you? To me it seems that the plume protrudes in different areas in different geological periods: not just stays stationary as the plate moves over it.

As the article you cites states: "Juan de Fuca, Rivera, and Cocos Plates as small remnants" of the much larger Farallon oceanic plate. They are peices that were broken off. For the sake of brevity - as you can clearly see how long the post had already become - I decided not to include this. You are absolutely correct. If I posted any over a longer post, people would probably be inclined not to read it. I'm not out to write a dissertation. I'm relating my personal experiences of what I've seen and observed in these areas and backed them up with what I've read.

Magma is not molten mantle. Magma is molten or partially molten rock material- the source is not always the mantle. If magma were solely mantle derived all lava would be basalt and all intrusives would be gabbro.

The smell of sulphur is indicative of only one thing, the presence of sulphur. Many shales contain several % sulfide- passing hot water through such shales, regardless of the source of heat or water, will create the smell you refer to.

The Juan de Fuca, Cocos and Rivera plates are not pieces that broke off the Farallon plate, they are the remnants of the Farallon plate.

If magma was strictly molten Earth's core, then it would consist almost entirely of iron and nickel.

When I pick up a slice of shale, I smell no sulphur - unless it is liquified (molten).

"Remnants" can mean remaining pieces of the whole. You're contradictory yourself. You cited a USGS article that also calls these pieces of the Farallon Plate: "small remnants."

If magma was strictly molten Earth's core, then it would consist almost entirely of iron and nickel.
At no point does doodah say anything about deriving magma from the core. He would not be so foolish.
Are you unaware that magmas can be generated through the melting of continental crustal rocks?

When I pick up a slice of shale, I smell no sulphur - unless it is liquified (molten).Your sensory limitations are interesting, but hardly relevant.

"Remnants" can mean remaining pieces of the whole. You're contradictory yourself. You cited a USGS article that also calls these pieces of the Farallon Plate: "small remnants." :rolleyes:

If magma were solely mantle derived all lava would be basalt and all intrusives would be gabbro.Then Ophiolite posts that "he is not saying magma is derived directly from the core."

"NO," and I never suggested or said that it was either! So why then did he post this comment Ophiolite? I never said "magma were soley mantle derived," but he's implying that this is what I said or meant! Wake up Ophiolite. You're interrupting the rational, knowledgeable, logical progression of this forum.

What the hell is your problem: "YOUR sensory limitations are interesting, but hardly relevant." Likewise, your comments, AS USUAL, are dregrading, belittling, defaming, absoluting void of any content, and bring the entire integrity of all these forums down. If you have nothing intelligent to contribute: please do not post anything at all!

If magma was strictly molten Earth's core...

As the article you cites states: "Juan de Fuca, Rivera, and Cocos Plates as small remnants" of the much larger Farallon oceanic plate. They are peices that were broken off.

He's the one who likes
all our pretty songs and he
likes to sing along and he
likes to shoot his gun but he
knows not what it means,
knows not what it means when I say yeah..."

Wait for it....

No, this was not the article that "I" cited, it was the article that the reply poster cited. Check again.

I have no idea what your italicized poem means. Would you care to explain?

And then in ever so small hidden print "Wait for it...."

Is this a threat? I live day-by-day and have no time to wait for anything. What is it that you want me to "wait for"? Or are you too much of a coward to explain?

No, this was not the article that "I" cited, it was the article that the reply poster cited. Check again.

You're conceding on the 'earth's core' issue then?
As to the 'remnants' thing. The problem isn't the article, but rather your interpretation of remnants as pieces broken off. Rather, the whole plate broke up and only remnants remain.

My poem? Just a little song is all. In Bloom, by Nirvana. Do you sing along with the radio too, Valich?

As to 'wait for it...'. Well. You disappointed me. I was waiting for the 'you're stalking me! You have nothing positive to say. You only criticize and blah blah blah...'

Wait for it....

You're conceding on the 'earth's core' issue then?
As to the 'remnants' thing. The problem isn't the article, but rather your interpretation of remnants as pieces broken off. Rather, the whole plate broke up and only remnants remain.

My poem? Just a little song is all. In Bloom, by Nirvana. Do you sing along with the radio too, Valich?

As to 'wait for it...'. Well. You disappointed me. I was waiting for the 'you're stalking me! You have nothing positive to say. You only criticize and blah blah blah...'

Wait for it....
"Conceding?" Conceding what? Again, I have no idea what you are talking about.

There is no issue here except the one that you want to create, just to be argumentative and cause trouble - as usual. Are you