Why are the (Norwegian) Mountains so High?
Friday, 17. July 2009, 10:09:53

And in fact they were. If we look at a period like the Cretaceous (circa 145-65 million years ago), then much of north western Europe was covered by a sea, the so-called Chalk Sea, with extremely clear water and practically no influx of sediments from the surrounding lands, including the Scandinavian Peninsula - this peninsula was flat lowland at that time.

The Scandinavian Peninsula has obviously been uplifted since then. Why, where and when? Well the “wheres” and the “whens” have been largely answered through fission track dating. “Why” is still disputed.
Parts of the Scandinavian mountains have risen by over 1 km over the last 10-20 million years. This permanent uplift varies across Norway, being greatest in south and north, and least in the central region. And we are not just talking about the uplift that took place after the Ice Age, and the removal of the weight of the ice. The uplift took place before the Ice Age.
I remember that there was “some disagreement” about the cause at the Nordic Geological Winter Meeting in Aalborg, Denmark, 2008, (with several papers on the subject) and I hope to hear more on the subject during the next Nordic Geological Winter Meeting to take place in Oslo in January 2010.
During the SCANLIPS project passive seismology was employed to investigate the problem coupled with modelling of potential field data to determine variations in crustal properties and structure across Norway and Sweden.
In the TopoScandiaDeep project scientists will study the composition and properties of the crust and upper mantle below Southern Scandinavia to try to understand why it was uplifted. This will be done using tomographic methods which give an image of the Interior of the Earth by using waves generated by earthquakes or by man-made small surface explosions. They will also use the gravity field, magnetic field and surface heat flow to help constrain the physical properties of the Earth. Finally, the model will be used to test with computer simulations and with tank experiments which forces are necessary to deform the crust and mantle in the way observed today in Scandinavia.
Some geologists believe that the clue must lie in the mantle (that is that the topography is related to processes in the mantle). Therefore they use magnetotelluric methods. Magnetotellurics (MT) is a natural-source, electromagnetic geophysical method of imaging structures below the earth's surface. Natural variations in the earth's magnetic field induce electric currents (or telluric currents) under the Earth's surface. With this method it is possible to see the transition between the upper lithospheric mantle and the somewhat deeper mantle - mapping down to a depth of about 150 km.
I find it nice to know that geologists are still faced with unsolved questions. “Why are the Mountains so High?” is not necessarily as simple a question as it looks.
In Norwegian:
• http://www.ngu.no/no/Aktuelt/2009/Fjellets-gate-gjemt-i-mantelen/











piombaldo # 12. August 2009, 08:04
The sardo-corsica microplate shows one of the greatest batholites in Europe, connected with the other Hercynian granites of Continental Europe.
It's somehow curious that in Corsica there are many peaks more than 2000 meters high (max: 2720) while in the rest of Europe the same rocks in most cases are in ranges less than 1000 meters high, and that Hercynian Corsica has much more elevations than the Alpine Corsica, wich was formed 270 MY after...
Since all around there are back-arc neogenic basins, with oceanic crust, what a strong tectonic force has been the one that drove the Hercyinian Corsica so high!
nielsol # 12. August 2009, 09:35
Thanks for the info.
nielsol # 12. August 2009, 19:41
- see my post at
http://my.opera.com/nielsol/blog/2009/08/12/why-are-some-mountains-so-low