Viewing: 1-3 of 3

BigLee - May 17, 2007 2:29 pm - Voted 6/10


Might be an idea to reference your sources of information for a page this scientific.


CharlesD - Jun 4, 2007 12:24 pm - Hasn't voted

cool idea

This is a really nifty idea. But you'll need a map of the tectonic plates so we can reference things.

Here's an example:

Wikipediat page on plates

There is also a bit of ambiguity since a lot of high peaks (particularly the Himalaya and Alaska ranges) are caused by the collision of two plates. Which one do you count them on?


Proterra - Jun 15, 2007 1:13 pm - Hasn't voted


It's actually quite easy when peaks form caused by collision of tectonic plates; the heavier (mostly made out of mafic rock) plate is subducted underneath the lighter, mostly felsic, continental plate. The Ganges Valley in India used to be the continental shelf, and the boundary of the Indian Plate follows the northern edge of the Ganges Valley.
In case of a divergent boundary (e.g. the mid-Atlantic ridge) the boundary usually follows the top of the ridge, unless there's a rift valley present.
Only transform boundaries are a wee bit hard to spot, but here is usually (not always) a nice fault line visible. (San Andreas)

Convergent: Deepest / lowest point between plates
Divergent: Rift Valley / highest point between plates
Transform: Transform scar (not always visible)

Because the boundary between both the Eurasian/Indian, as well as the North American/Pacific plate are converging boundaries, the highest peaks should be on the lighter (more felsic) side of the fault, in this case Eurasian for the big E, and North American for Denali.

Viewing: 1-3 of 3
Return to 'The tectonic 39 summits' main page