I wonder if any of the ranges or peaks in Virginia grew a little after their earthquake...

You pose a good question. You'd need some sort of subduction-type fault nearby. Perhaps some of the peaks in the Cascadia region are inching upward due to the big fault off the coast of WA/BC/AK.

Boarh grew by 1.5' after the 1983 earthquake.

I suppose one has to ponder the meaning of "grow." The change to earth-centered geoids has boosted the reported elevations of some mountains; some of that is "real," as plates in the lithosphere move relative to the rest of the earth.

An interesting dilemma, since a growth rate of 1mm/y has to be reconciled with a 1cm/yr growth from simply sliding to a new position relative to the older geoid.

surgent wrote:I wonder if any of the ranges or peaks in Virginia grew a little after their earthquake...

You pose a good question. You'd need some sort of subduction-type fault nearby. Perhaps some of the peaks in the Cascadia region are inching upward due to the big fault off the coast of WA/BC/AK.

My guess would be that they subsided a tiny bit and that the coastal plain east of the Spottsylvania Lineament might have inched up a bit. It was definitely weird as hell experiencing that - we're not in Cali-friggin-fornia.

Whitney was always listed at 14,997 feet and it has been listed at 14,505 (for some time now), Is this possibly the same thing or was Whitney's elevation adjusted because of better accuracy with new technology? Were Muir, Mallory and Russell found to have "new" elevations as well?

Marmaduke wrote:Whitney was always listed at 14,997 feet and it has been listed at 14,505 (for some time now), Is this possibly the same thing or was Whitney's elevation adjusted because of better accuracy with new technology? Were Muir, Mallory and Russell found to have "new" elevations as well?

The change in reported elevation was caused by the change to an earth-centered geoid for reference of the elevation. Whether it is "real" depends on your mindset. See discussion above.

What's an "earth centered geoid"? Presumably any reasonable way you choose to extrapolate the sea level isn't going to affect the answer very much...especially for something so close to the ocean. So while it might be a big part of the growth over the last 100 years, it's not going to be a big part of the growth over the next 10^6.

Sorry, I don't have any big-ass scientific theories in order to explain the growth rate of peaks ....

I'm still waiting for California to fall into the sea, for crying out loud !

That hippie chick (real estate agent) was WRONG, when she told me she had proof that Arizona would soon have "Ocean-front" property ....

mt borah earthquake would have popped this portion of the lost rivers up 7-8 ft