Were the Himalayas once 60,000 feet high

**John Drake** · 01-30-2011

I've heard this since I was in college but what is the evidence? Are there a certain class of fossils that lived in what was nearly outer space, at least by our surface standards.

And when was it, my understanding is the Himalayas are young and still growing, when did they get time to lose 30,000 feet.

**noahath** · 01-30-2011

I've never actually heard what you're suggesting. The Himalayas are constantly growing as a result of the Indian plate pushing into Asia, thus the Himalayas will continue to grow in height for the next few million years.

**hairballxavier** · 01-30-2011

Originally Posted by noahath

I've never actually heard what you're suggesting. The Himalayas are constantly growing as a result of the Indian plate pushing into Asia, thus the Himalayas will continue to grow in height for the next few million years.

They also erode.

**John Drake** · 01-30-2011

Originally Posted by noahath

I've never actually heard what you're suggesting. The Himalayas are constantly growing as a result of the Indian plate pushing into Asia, thus the Himalayas will continue to grow in height for the next few million years.

I heard it mentioned in passing in two courses that I took in college but have never heard it said since and can find no mention on the net, that's why I'm asking. Is it possible that I got it mixed up and they were talking about how high the Himalayas will BE someday? I don't see why India will stop running into Eurasia anytime soon.

Considering that one theory says that all the Ice Ages of the past several millions of years, (not just the most recent one but the whole series of which it is a part) are due to the rise of the Himalayas, think what a chain nearly 10 miles high will do.

**noahath** · 01-30-2011

I can't see how the Himalayas could have ever been higher than they are now because they only started growing when the plates collided millions of years ago. They're essentially a growing child that has yet to reach maturity, and has nothing to do with the previous ice age, as durnig that time the mountains were incomparable to what we see today. It could be that they were talking about potential height as they grow (from memory) an inch or so each year (I can't recall the exact rate of growth).