Via press release from Eurekalert: Glaciers Help High-Latitude Mountains Grow Taller

A UA-led team of geologists reports that glaciers can help actively growing mountains become taller – contrary to the conventional view that the only role for glaciers in mountain formation is shrinking them through erosion.
Glaciers can help actively growing mountains become higher by protecting them from erosion, according to a University of Arizona-led research team.
The finding is contrary to the conventional view of glaciers as powerful agents of erosion that carve deep fjords and move massive amounts of sediment down mountains. Mountains grow when movements of the Earth’s crust push the rocks up.
The research is the first to show that the erosion effect of glaciers – what has been dubbed the “glacial buzzsaw” – reverses on mountains in colder climates.
The researchers were surprised, said first author Stuart N. Thomson, a research scientist in the UA department of geosciences. “We were expecting to see the buzzsaw.”
The team discovered the protective effects of glaciers by studying the Andes Mountains in the southernmost region of South America, known as Patagonia.
UA co-author Peter W. Reiners said, “It’s been thought that glaciers limit the height of mountain ranges worldwide.”
The key is climate. Glaciers atop mountains in temperate latitudes flow downhill, scouring away the surface of the mountain. Over millennia, such erosion can reduce the height and width of a mountain range by miles.
However in very cold climates such as the Patagonian Andes, rather than scraping away the surface of the mountain, the team found that glaciers protect the mountain top and sides from erosion.

The team dubs the action of the cold-climate glaciers “glacial armoring.”
“Climate, especially through glaciers, has a really big impact on how big mountains get,” said Reiners, a UA professor of geosciences.
“What we’re seeing is that below certain latitudes, glacial buzzsaws clearly and efficiently operate, but south of about 45 degrees, it not only doesn’t work – it has the opposite effect,” he said. “The glaciers actually protect the surface and allow themountains to grow higher.”
He and his colleagues anticipate that glacial armoring also occurs on cold-climate mountains very far north, such as those in Alaska.
The team’s paper, “Glaciation as a destructive and constructive control on mountain building,” is in the Sept. 16 issue of the journal Nature and featured on the journal’s cover. Additional co-authors are Mark T. Brandon and Nathaniel J. Wilson of Yale University in New Haven, Conn.; Jonathan H. Tomkin of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; and Cristián Vásquez of the Universidad de Chile in Santiago. The National Science Foundation and the Chilean Fondecyt funded the work.
The Andes are the textbook example of actively growing mountains that are limited in height and size by glaciers, Thomson said. The Andes are actively being pushed higher by movements of the Earth’s crust. However, if the glacial buzzsaw is active, the mountains also are ground down.
“We’re trying to understand how mountains are built and destroyed,” Thomson said. “Why are mountains high?”
In actively growing mountains, hot rocks from deep in the Earth are being thrust up. At the same time, erosion sands away the tops and sides of the mountains, bringing those once-hot rocks closer to surface. The speed at which the rocks cool indicates how rapidly the surface material above the rocks was removed by erosion.

To figure out how fast the glaciers had scoured the Andes, Thomson and his colleagues needed to analyze rocks now exposed on the mountains. The scientists sailed up glacially-cut fjords to the foot of remote glaciers and collected soccer ball-sized rocks.
The team collected rocks from latitude 38 degrees south to 56 degrees south, for a total of 146 samples.
The researchers analyzed the rocks in laboratories at the UA and at Yale University to determine what geologists call the “cooling age” of the rocks. The cooling age tells how fast the rock was exposed by erosion.
The researchers used two independent dating methods, apatite uranium-thorium-helium and fission-track dating, to determine cooling ages. Both methods showed the same result – that the rocks cooled faster in the north and slower in the south. The slower the cooling, the more slowly the mountains are eroding.

Reiners said, “What corroborates this is that the mountains are higher in the south than in the north. Uplift is winning in the south, and the glacial buzzsaw is winning in the north.”
The importance of climate in the formation of mountains is currently a matter of scientific debate, Thomson said. The new finding indicates that climate plays a key role.
Said Thomson: “Climate determines the size of a mountain range – whether there is a glacial buzzsaw or glacial armoring.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Not a fan of wiki, but even they can’t [snip] a know observable formation,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier
[snip . . link is sufficient]
A link for more expansion(lol!) on the subject,
“Expansion Tectonics” by Karl W. Luckert
http://www.triplehood.com/scrip.htm
[snip ditto ] b.mod
Remember now this is the age of Aquarius, anything’s possible. But as has been pointed out, the faster the equator-ward mountains warm during an interglacial the more erosion, the more pole-ward the mountains the more uplift because the weight of the glaciers was greater in these areas. But, again, anything’s possible in this day and age. Left?
@Lance of BC says:
September 16, 2010 at 11:41 pm
Expansion tectonics? Really? Absolute junk science.
Your comments were snipped, so I am not sure what you were saying about it, but its junk all around.
racookpe1978 asked a 8:39 pm
“What keeps the wet-based glacier water “trapped” under the glacier ice so it can allow flow…”
Not too sure but I think ‘regelation’ at the glacier base is part answer. Increased pressure exerted by a critical mass of ice against enforced obstacles (eg. bedrock prominences) causes ice to melt; subsequently, downstream of obstacle after depressurisation, to re-freeze. It seems there is a constant inter-play between pressure and phase and a physical constant operating at the atomic level.
The relationship between p + t can be seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Melting_curve_of_water.jpg
I suspect its not so much a matter of not being “trapped underneath” but more of whether necessary conditions have been met to confer sufficient ‘wetness.’
Amazing stuff, water.
Junk science is based on belief with no real evidence like flat earth science or plate tectonics. Expansion tectonics is a hypotheses with scientific proof from modern hitec. measuring tools from satellite and earth, paleontology and real visual photographic evidence. The earth IS expanding, go google that. The science of Plate Tectonic is absurd and unobservable, show me were one continent is going under another creating mountains? There would be tons of tell tale ripples and ridges forming on the ocean floor longitude pushing up the coast to form mountains. No. Only mountains ranges being formed are from magma in the deep oceans along fault lines running north to south from constant expansion and a wandering south of our outer crust. Go look at a google earth, they run latitude north to south.
Dome mountains form were a fracture from a separation/expansion that allows magma to reach or get close to the surface. A mountains thrusting up and shearing shows this upheaval on coastal ridges from flanging. Magma support underneath the domed middle of a continental crust continually decreases and, in response, the original curvature is destined to sag. The slouching vertical weight of the collapsing dome translates into horizontal slippage, outward from the center toward the continent’s periphery. I also believe that ice ages and magnetic pole reversals are JS and never happened. All this is just a aging cooling earth, a cracking and separation of the outer crust, magma filling expansion along(or away from) faults and a slow rotations south of the crust.
I used to believe the plate tectonic theory being a fossil hunter/amateur paleontologist all my life. I started questioning it when local fossils(vancouver Island) of 400 millions and the younger Mosasaurs showed up. I believed and was told that vancouver island was a small part of a large continent drifting around bouncing off large continents then drifting towards the British columbia coastline pushing up the mountains. This was all crap I figured out, why would our fossils be the same as the coastline if we were drifting from far out in the ocean? We were part of the coast before being up heaved, fractured and separated from the coast a few hundred million years age. That is why there are the same genome of fossils here.
Oh and glaciers break up rock and mountains with thawing, freezing, thawing and weight of the growing glacier caring it down a valley. When a mountain rises or freeze line shifts the top is colder and dry and the glacier will keep accumulating on that level with less melt and also less erosion. But down lower it’s business as usual breaking up the rock and washing it down the mountain.
If you believe I’m wrong , please let me know were I’ve went wrong, if you can keep from ad hom. 🙂
Hey Lance of BC,
[snip]
1. Just because you can “google it” doesn’t mean it’s true!
2. You said “show me were one continent is going under another creating mountains”. Apparently you don’t understand the theory, so maybe you should refrain from opining about it! It Looks to me like you can’t see the forest for the trees.
[snip]
Here’s a video to explain my point,
http://www.nealadams.com/sciencedown/sciencevids00.html
There are others here also,
http://www.nealadams.com/sciencedown/sciencevidsdisc.html
When I said go look at google, I ment google maps and then click on earth.
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&tab=wl
Look at the oceans for subduction, were are the signs of it?
Lance, why are there trenches? If things are all expanding, why do we have trenches and sea floor sediments thurst on the edges of contenitnts? In fact, why do we have seafloor thrust up on the edge of continents. And not just clinging, thrust up there!
What causes blueschist metamorphism? (High pressure, low temperature) Unless a subduction zone?
Have you looked at GPS data lately? What explains all of those movements?
Why do I have chains of volcanoes at the like the Aleutians? or the Andes? What is the mechanism for that volcanism? Where did all the water in those volcanoes come from?
What explains mantle geochemistry? Why is there a depleted upper mantle and an enriched lower mantle? What causes things like EM1, EM2 and HiMU? (not up to date on your mantle geochemistry?)
What causes the expansion of the earth? When things cool, they contract. Why is the earth expanding? Mechanisms. Mechanisms, Mechanisms. You have none.
What explains paleomagnetics? Your model predicts little movement of the crustal masses, when there has been movement all over the place.
What explains the various ages of the continental crust. Your model predicts that it would all be the same age. It’s not.
Etc. You have junk science. Absolute, 100% junk science. That’s not ad hom, that’s reality.
I did all my field work on Vancouver Island. Most of Vancouver Island is part of Wrangellia. You can read about that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrangellia_Terrane
Thank you Benjamin P.!
I didn’t have the time to respond to Lance of BC as my mind was overwhelmed with the myriad of geologic relationships that serve as evidence supporting the theory of plate tectonics. And, yes it is a only a theory, but one which is tested everyday by practicing earth scientists, including myself!
As I sit here in my living room, I can look out my window and see the steep southern flank of the San Gabriel Mtns. The San Gabriels are one of a cluster of ranges here in southern California know as the Transverse Ranges. These ranges are oriented generally east-west, ‘transverse’ to the general north-south fabric of the rest of California
Sorry, I didn’t finish!
The San Gabriels are a mountain range, which based on gravity studies, does not have any roots! They are being elevated along low angle reverse faults (thrust faults) related to the San Andreas Fault system. These thrust faults are the result of COMPRESSION of the crust. I can’t see a computer generated animation of this process, I can walk a mile from my house and see the contact of Precambrian gniessic rocks which have been thrust over Quaterneary stream alluvium. All of So Cal is a great geological laboratory with hundreds of similar examples which are consistent with the currently accepted theory. Maybe my eyes deceive me or I have been a dupe of an artificial scientific consensus for twenty five years, but I tend to believe a theory supported by hands-on, outcrop scale, empirical scientific observation more than a theory which is based solely on interpretation of ‘new’ observations of remote sensing data.
@fhsiv says:
September 19, 2010 at 10:51 am
Yeah, it’s pretty hard to deny Plate Tectonics. That was just a TINY list of the GINORMOUS list of evidence that supports PT. You being in California have tons of evidence right at your feet.
But hey, Lance found something on the internet…so…