Scientists discover lost range of 'supermountains' three times longer than the Himalayas

Scientists detected two ancient ranges of 'supermountains' that criss-crossed the Earth hundreds of millions of years ago — and may have jump-started animal evolution.

Scientists discover lost range of 'supermountains' three times longer than the Himalayas : Read more
I am wondering how "special" these ancient mountain ranges really have been with respect to other mountain ranges that previously and currently exist. For instance, there is currently a mountain range that runs from Alaska to Chile, about 10,000 miles, which is twice as long as the 5,000 miles stated for the ancient ranges in the article.

But, the article talks about those ancient ranges being "as high as the Himalayas", while the highest peaks in the current range are only 20,000 to 22,000 feet, smaller than the 29,000 feet for the tallest Himalayan peak.

Is that really a big enough difference to matter? If so, how?

It doesn't surprise me that the super mountain ranges on the supercontinents were very tall, considering that they were formed when land masses collided on the plates that came together to form those supercontinents. That is what is making the Himalayas so tall at the current time. Whereas the mountain spine along the western edge of the Americas is formed mainly by seabed subducting under the continents.

But, in terms of the masses of "newly" exposed rocks involved to chemically interact with the Earth's atmosphere, is what happened on those supercontinents really that different from what is happening now?