She said finding dinosaur fossils at a high elevation — in this case, 2,000 metres above sea level — is unusual because it means they would have been living there.
>"It probably didn't look a lot different than it does today, except the mountains would have been even taller," she said.
The Cascade Range did not exist during the Cretaceous era. Those mountains arose through subduction and volcanism starting around 37 Mya.
Even if there were mountains around, 2K meters is not that high. I used to live in a town at 2500 meters elevation in Colorado.
I might be misinterpreting your comment, but the mountains of Spatzizi and BC in general are not part of the Cascades, other than a small area near the border around Chilliwack.
Black rock around white bone could be volcanic ash or mud buried the bones, then pushed down into the mantle just right, heated it under lots of pressure and cooked it all into rock like a kiln?
Heat and pressure like that would convert that ash into a metamorphic rock and destroy any fossils. Surface rocks don’t get down to the Mantle except through subduction where they are melted and mixed with other melted rocks.
If those fossils were buried in ash or mud, the normal rock-forming processes would have fossilized the bone and converted the ash and much to sedimentary rock. You see the same thing in other fossils bearing rocks like limestone and sandstone.
I'm not a geologist, but 2000 m in 37 million years is ~0.05 millimeters per year. Is that about the right rate of growth for mountains formed through subduction and volcanism?
By comparison, the Himalaya (maximum height, > 8800m) are only ~50m years old, are among the fastest rising mountains in the world, and Everest itself has an average growth rate over the period of 0.18mm/yr.
The fastest rising peak, presently, is Nanga Parbet, in Pakistan (part of the Himalayan Plateau), rising at 7mm/yr.
That's 70mm/decade, and 700mm (~3/4 meter) every century.
<https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/fastest-r...>
<https://eartheclipse.com/science/geography/how-himalayas-for...>
[Also not a geologist, but] apart from volcanism from subduction, there were also other landmasses being sheared off the subducting plate and accreted onto the western part of the continent. It was all probably higher before the many millions of years of erosion up until now?
> "It probably didn't look a lot different than it does today, except the mountains would have been even taller," she said.
Is that true? I would expect upheaval more than erosion there.
FTFA: "Arbour estimates the fossils are 66 to 68 million years old."
Yeah that whole paragraph is nonsensical...
Most fossils we know about come from wetland and marine environments. It's extremely rare to find things for mountains and jungles. Fossils require quick deposition and the right conditions... Exciting stuff.
It's really interesting to have so many fossils close to the surface, especially in an area with a considerable amount of seismic activity. I always thought earthquakes & the such would serve to disperse fossils rather than pool so many together.
Mountains tend to erode more quickly than lowland areas, for fairly obvious reasons.
Somewhat related: the current peaks of the Appalachian mountains are the former valleys of the original range. Presumably of more consolidated material.
TIL: "B.C" stands for British Columbia, which despite the name, is neither part of Britain nor near Columbia, but in Canada.
It was a British Crown Colony, hence the British — and the Columbia part is a reference to the [edit] Columbia River Basin which I believe was part of the territory before it ended up in Washington. You may be thinking of Colombia.
[edit] just to drive home the British part the Union Jack is still an official, ceremonial flag of Canada.
If I remember right, the Columbia River has its source in British Columbia.
Correct. I just did a 5 hour paddleboard down the Columbia near its starting point in Invermere BC (it's a huge wetland). It's absolutely gorgeous out there.
I went on a road trip and stuck around Invermere for a week or so once. It’s beautiful. I hung out at a hot spring, swam in a remarkably clear lake, camped, and generally loved it. Before that was Nelson. I’m very glad I live in this place.
Ditto. I'm from Vancouver Island and while it's also beautiful, you cross like 4 different biomes driving East across BC and it never ceases to amaze.
Same, and yeah it’s incredible! Going through Osoyoos (it was my first time) was such a mind trip. It’s a desert! I went on a little boardwalk tour and kept seeing cacti and all kinds of panels with text describing deserts. Coming from the island this was not at all what I expected. I’d been to cache creek and seen dry dusty places plenty, but that area is extra cool.
And yeah, this island is absolutely amazing too.
[dead]
"Columbia" was a word used to refer to the New World. It's use shifted over time (sometimes just the tropics, sometimes both continents, sometimes just America, etc).
They did add “Beautiful” before British Columbia on the license plates, so that there is at least one word that gives the best description of the province.
Was it represented as an acronym on the license plates?
"Sure! I'll call you next week!" -- never to be heard from again.
Everyone seems very unhappy there socially.
That’s normal nice in the Pacific Northwest. Possibly due to the Scandinavian heritage. Another explanation I heard is that people used to be more open there before the many waves of post 90s immigration. Once people there have established their friend groups they’re not looking to add any more to the group as they worry too many new friends will diminish their own place in their friend group.
> Once people there have established their friend groups they’re not looking to add any more to the group as they worry too many new friends will diminish their own place in their friend group.
That's such a cynical interpretation of a totally reasonable problem of social dynamics.
A friendship of 2 has different dynamics than 3 than 4, etc. And all of them are different depending on the composition of intraverts/extraverts.
FWIW, the extravert friend groups I know are highly inclusive and are always eager to add new members. For obvious reasons.
And the opposite for introverts who are much more careful and cautious (I am one) because they know how fragile good vibes can be and how new strangers are exhausting and can affect them.
IMO, the Pacific Northwest attracts introverts because the main activities are fairly individualistic (hiking, skiing) and the social aspects happen before/after which you can easily skip. Not so in something like NYC where everything is orientated around other people.
Then extraverts move to the PNW for the hot tech job markets (Seattle/Vancouver) and are annoyed that everyone is so "cold".
I am describing things as I see them, not casting aspersions. As far as I care people can manage their friend groups however they wish even if that results in my own exclusion.
I think what people criticize most is the insincerity in the 'nice'. I see that as a cultural communication issue and not properly understanding local norms. At least in PNW they won't make plans with you, the Northern California version of 'nice' will make plans with you but then flake at the last minute. From an organizational perspective this appears to be rather sub-optimal but I understand why people do it.
Personally I'm weird so I have to navigate cultural differences no matter where I go and I don't expect people to change to accommodate me.
> I am describing things as I see them
But you're not.
> Once people there have established their friend groups they’re not looking to add any more to the group
Is an observation
> as they worry too many new friends will diminish their own place in their friend group.
Is an interpretation.
Perhaps you've met someone that told you this is what's happening to them. But that's an individual, not a blanket assumption you can place across all the locals.
Source: I am a PNW local. I wasn't born here, but have been here since I was a kid. Here's the thing about your point about "insincere nice". It's not insincere. It's just delusional.
I met lots of people. I get excited about lots of them. I mean when I say I want to hang out again, or show them around. I can visualize a future where we do those things. I want to leave the door open to that happening.
But I get busy, I get tired. I make tough choices. And this new person ends up getting prioritized at the bottom of the list.
I know the criticism. This is mean. It's cruel. But it feels meaner to say "i'm too busy to hang out" to someone who i genuinely like and feel like if things lined up well, we could become friends.
If I say "let's hang out again soon" and we never do, I wasn't lying to you. I was lying to myself.
> as they worry too many new friends will diminish their own place in their friend group.
I have several friends in Seattle that have explicitly told me this.
PNW is more about not inviting, the flakiness is more of Californian thing. As someone who has spent substantial time in both places as part of a lifetime of being an expat to many places around the world the PNW and California do indeed have these distinct characteristics. Other expat friends have independently come to the same conclusions. As an expat you get to do the whole making new friends thing over and over again so I know what it's normally like and I know when it's different.
It's a generalization, which is not to say that all individuals in these locals have these characteristics.
I'm not disputing the difficulty of the problem, just the root cause motivations.
I don't want to cast aspersions on your friends in Seattle, but...maybe you need better friends.
I've been a local and I've been an expat (5 years in western Europe). I feel that the default PNW "mental model" is diametrically opposed from the expat mindset.
Expats don't want to be tied down, they want to see as much as possible, see the world, meet lots of people. Build friendship quickly and deeply, but then move on too.
PNW is nothing like that.
IMO your expats coming to this conclusion that the reason why the PNW locals are the way they are is a failure of imagination of expats - a lack of understanding of outdoorsy introverts.
We're not thinking about our positions in friend groups.
Your personal anecdotes are unconvincing.
Scandinavia is similarly dark and gloomy in the winter, I think?
Does the darkness cause this effect in people? Is the darkness a filter for people who are like that already?
I do wonder, could be that for much of human history if you ever saw a foreigner one of you was about to die. PNG blood feuds being a modern example. Perhaps societies with a strong centralized state would evolve a culture open to integrating foreigners. I also wonder how much of modern multiculturalism has its roots in colonial empires.
AFAIK many of the Scandinavians that came to the US were escaping the really bad ethnic / religious stratification and famines.
Aka “Seattle Nice.”
People move to a place, are eager to get connected, but the people there are already connected…except for all the other lonely newbies. It’s a boom-town phenomenon, I think.
And if you are a long-time resident, it’s a little rich having large numbers of people come clog up your town while doing clueless newbie things and then gripe about how they don’t feel welcome.
I've lived in Seattle for 25 years, have been hearing about "Seattle Nice" and "The Seattle Freeze" that whole time. By which they mean that people are friendly and polite on a surface level, but cold and distant when you try to get closer. I think it's a myth, or at any rate I have never experienced it as a trend (individuals, sure). People here are as nice as anywhere else I've been. I think maybe it's confirmation bias: people hear about it, then see it everywhere, like stereotypes about rude New Yorkers, or snooty Parisians.
It would be strange if whole a region, with such a huge population of transplants, all shared the same personality. They don't make you sign a contract to be rude when you move here!
I've never been to Seattle but this description is erfectly apt for Toronto.
“Seattle freeze” is like “Seattle drivers”. The chances are pretty high that the dumdum who is double-parked in a bus lane while cars honk at them is actually not from Seattle.
Though in other cities you can make friends much more easily, especially on the East Coast...
Because immigration is not as strong.
(note, sounds racist, but not what I meant. What I meant is that when there's a lot of people coming, it's mechanically harder for people to enter pre-existing social groups, thus the impression that people are not welcoming)
Newbies who just moved in are much more likely to leave as well. Why invest the time?
For newbies often it's their first time as an expat or immigrant but for the natives usually they've been through these waves of immigrants multiple times already.
I get this all the time in North Carolina. Maybe it’s just a symptom of the times? Most everyone I know under the age of 40-45 would rather commit hari kari than place a short, friendly phone call.
Also, hear me out, maybe it’s us?
Subjective, likely false. No sources listed.
I live there, that comment made me laugh because there’s definitely some amount of truth in it. I’ve always described west coast Canada as surface nice, but harder to make friends, while Ontario is surface closed off, but a lot easier to make new friends.
The Wikipedia page for the “Seattle freeze” phenomenon mentions it applying to Vancouver[1], also Vancouver has long been known as “No Fun City” because of laws and cultural norms against partying[2].
1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Freeze 2 https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/No_Fun_City
I'm not sure of the root causes but British Columbia does seem to have particularly antiquated liquor laws, even compared to the rest of Canada.
Y’all aren’t tapped into BC MTB culture. Vibes are thru the roof! Source: me, now :)
Just as subjective as the OP, XD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Langley#History
> [Fort Langley] dates from a time when the boundary between British and American possession of the trans-mountain west, known as the Columbia District had not yet been decided.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_District#Hudson's_Bay...
> With the creation of the Crown Colony on the British mainland north of the then-Washington Territory in 1858, Queen Victoria chose to use Columbia District as the basis for the name Colony of British Columbia, i.e. the remaining British portion of the former Columbia District.
The dinosaur is from B.C. geographically, and from extremely B.C. temporally.
We typically don't use the periods, and abbreviate it like any other Canadian province or US state like BC, AB, WA, NY etc.
Are you American? I'm surprised to hear some people don't know we exist!
I'm from Saxony.
Ah, fair enough. We're about 9 time zones away!
These days B.C. seems to be preferred due to the colonial connotations of "British Columbia".
My grandfather told me about this yesterday. He said something along the lines that they needed helicopters to get where they are to retrieve them.
To which I said: this is the most important discovery about dinosaurs, who would’ve thought they had helicopters!
Didn’t quite land like I had hoped. My transition to Full Dad is complete.
I hereby award you three knee-slaps and a yuk-yuk. Congratulations!
Does anyone know what it might be? When I was a child I would go fishing in this one spot. And somehow come across or split one of the stones. And inside was a worm like imprint, and I later split a few stones and found more. This was close to Toronto.
Of course they were high, it's British Columbia.
[flagged]
Hopefully this time they reconstruct them accurately.
How?
What were they smoking?
Potosaurus?
smoking on that dinosaur pack