
ADVERTISEMENT
If mountains rise because of lack of water weight, then shouldn't the readings show the snowfall dropping at a lower elevation after a few good blizards, when in fact the mountains actually sank back to their normal position?
The mountains only rose about half an inch, so the lower elevation will probably be too small to notice.
Back in 2011, when there was very heavy precipitation, the ground actually sank a mm or two. Unfortunately, the court ordered huge amounts of that water released for river wildlife rather than stored for future use, so now there are huge shortages.
I think after this identification of rising and lowering of mountains due to increasing and decreasing of weight on the land saturated water, then a place should sink more if water seeks the lowest level and when water is removed, the place rises, the tallest places first, depending on equilibrium, then the lowest places, so not only are California mountains rising due to lose of water stability, the normal substraight is also, rising due to lose of that same water table or layers of water of different capacities. Depending on the stability of the soils, determines the ability of raise and fall due to increase or decrease of water weight. Lake beds usually full of water but not now will also rise due to lose of water weight so bridges, roadways and such is also moving but at different intervals due to stability, weight of structure and connectedness to the surroundings, plus adhesion and similar conditions. Thank you for this information.
Thank you for the thoughtful comment. You are right, the entire West has risen slightly with different areas rising depending on local water loss. The California mountains are the areas rising the most. It presents a challenge for engineers.
Comments