Upon reading a response to a thread in C&ID a question popped in my head;
It is said that Everest is growing steadily year by year. This made me wonder if there might be an upper limit?

I would think that at some point, even though the rate of uplift due to plate collision, and it's resulting interactions, might outpace forces such as isostatic adjustment (analogy: iceberg) and lateral forces (analogy: a blob of clay settling and spreading outward), and other processes that would normally result in erosion or collapse, these sets of opposing forces would reach some sort of equilibrium. I wonder about this, also, and whether anyone has calculated a theoretical limit.

Guy McNally wrote:I would think that at some point, even though the rate of uplift due to plate collision, and it's resulting interactions, might outpace forces such as isostatic adjustment (analogy: iceberg) and lateral forces (analogy: a blob of clay settling and spreading outward), and other processes that would normally result in erosion or collapse, these sets of opposing forces would reach some sort of equilibrium. I wonder about this, also, and whether anyone has calculated a theoretical limit.

Well, the uplifting of the Himalaya is so slow you'll never live to see it. Everest is only gaining altitude by millemeters a decade.

Yes, in the order or millimetres per year as I understand it. This would be net growth after factors such as erosion?