Geologists Find Largest Exposed Fault on Earth- Catastrophic earthquakes & tsunamis?

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: TrueAmerican

You know...when I read your OP, the first thing I thought of was that NZ quake. Forgive my ignorance on the subject, but when it comes to chain reactions, could a fault like that cause a chain that spreads/branches out over the whole planet, like a big crack in a piece of glass? And if yes, and it happened rapidly, would multiple tsunamis occur all over the world too?

the whole chain-reaction thing is debatable. a lot of people say that full moons (sometimes new moons) bring a tidal effect that causes quakes; others say no.
I don't know about global, but certainly the Pacific 'ring of fire' seems sort of connected.

"And there were flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder; and there was a great earthquake, such as there had not been since man came to be upon the earth, so great an earthquake was it, and so mighty." (Rev 16:18)

originally posted by: TrueAmerican
Now I can speculate that if this did indeed happen all at once, the sheer size alone of that abyss is more than scary in implication. It's flat out biblical. The scale of that tsunami would be rivaled perhaps only by the one in my book, or maybe what happened in Latuya Bay in Alaska back in the 50's. Except this would dwarf that one. And considering the mega tsunami in Alaska was like some 1,200 feet high or higher, to dwarf that means a major cataclysm.

Indeed a bit unnerving when you think about it. It's almost impossible to grasp the scale of such an event, and the implications it would have for a large part of the population on earth.

However, apparently you overestimated the height of the megatsunami in Alaska by a factor 10. Maybe a typo, but needed to correct you on this one.

The 1958 Lituya Bay megatsunami occurred on July 9 at 22:15:58, following an earthquake with a moment magnitude of 7.8 and a maximum Mercalli Intensity of XI (Extreme). The earthquake took place on the Fairweather Fault and triggered a rockslide of 30 million cubic metres (40 million cubic yards, and about 90 million tons) to fall from several hundred metres into the narrow inlet of Lituya Bay, Alaska. The impact was heard 50 miles (80 km) away,[6] and the sudden displacement of water resulted in a megatsunami that destroyed vegetation up to 1,722 feet (525 m) above the height of the bay and a wave that traveled across the bay with a crest reported by witnesses to be on the order of 98 feet (30 m) in height.[citation needed] This is the most significant megatsunami and the largest known in modern times. The event forced a re-evaluation of large wave events, and recognition of impact, rockfall and landslide events as a previously unknown cause of very large waves.

If we really want to talk about 1,000+ feet megafloods I encourage you to explore the work of Randall Carlson and Graham Hancock, and watch Joe Rogan's recent podcast with them. For a short version you can watch Graham's TED talk about it. You either love Hancock or hate him, but his theory is gaining more and more support by the day. Lots of new evidence in the fields of meteorology, geology and archeology has come out in the past few years that further supports this theory.

In short, they theorize on the great (biblical) flood that apparently resulted from multiple comet impacts on the North American ice cap during the Younger Dryas (12,800-11,600 years ago). This first resulted in very rapid cooling followed by a very rapid rising of the temperature on earth, which apparently caused this megaflood. Multiple craters have now been identified, huge water ripples and carvings are visible in the landscape, and water marks on the mountains were found up 1,000+ feet high!



The whole podcast is very well worth the watch, but from around the 1:52:00 minute mark and onwards they go into great visual detail. Carlson presents lots of cool new photographic evidence accompanied by hypnotizing story telling. My jaws were on the floor while listening to that, so make sure to check that one out if you want to know more about it.

Anyways, thank for sharing, interesting read!

There's considerable doom mongering. There are lots of faults in that area. However, note this particular fault is a detachment fault and they are often pretty huge. A detatchment fault is where two plates are pulling away from each other and new material formed by magma in the chasm left behind. Its not the same as where two faults collide causing significant quakes - however, bare in mind where a gap forms at the other end they push against each other - but the rock is quite plastic in that regards so a large detachment can occur triggering many quakes over a period of time along the collision edges rather than one mega quake.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

Yikes :/ I'm still struggling with continental flood basalts. Now this. Damn nature, you scary.

a reply to: rickymouse

Actually it would.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Richter scale is not linear.

As measured with a seismometer, an earthquake that registers 5.0 on the Richter scale has a shaking amplitude 10 times greater than an earthquake that registered 4.0 at the same distance. As energy release is generally proportional to the shaking amplitude raised to the 3/2 power, an increase of 1 magnitude corresponds to a release of energy 31.6 times that released by the lesser earthquake.[1] This means that, for instance, an earthquake of magnitude 5 releases 31.6 times as much energy as an earthquake of magnitude 4.

Magnitude 3 = 2 gigajoules
Magnitude 4 = 63 gigajoules
Magnitude 5 = 2,000 gigajoules
Magnitude 6 = 63,000 gigajoules
Magnitude 7 = 2,000,000 gigajoules

The Richter scale built on the previous, more subjective Mercalli scale by offering a quantifiable measure of an earthquake's size.[2]

a reply to: TrueAmerican

Nah, it happened instantly when the matrix was turned on yesterday.
It was programmed to look that way.
It's not real and it never happened, but it's really fun to pretend it was real though huh?

Ah well, when you go to sleep tonight and they shut the matrix off you'll forget about all this.
Why you keep logging back in I'll never know.

originally posted by: Newt22
a reply to: crazyewok

or a water planet/Moon... I am still working on our earth getting struck by a large ball of water... Everything I see seems to point that way.

Earth was struck by a large ball of water??? I have no idea where you got that idea but I can tell you right now that it's not true. Water does not stay in liquid form in space, i it would be ice. A comet might be more what you are thinking of as they are mostly ice, but if you are thinking about how did water get on earth, I watched a documentary just yesterday about that subject and while they previously thought comets might have been the source, it turns out that it was more likely to have been asteroids which also contain water vapor amongst other things.

originally posted by: TrueAmerican
Now I can speculate that if this did indeed happen all at once, the sheer size alone of that abyss is more than scary in implication. It's flat out biblical. The scale of that tsunami would be rivaled perhaps only by the one in my book, or maybe what happened in Latuya Bay in Alaska back in the 50's. Except this would dwarf that one. And considering the mega tsunami in Alaska was like some 1,200 feet high or higher, to dwarf that means a major cataclysm.

It's "Lituya Bay" and you are completely mis-characterizing what happened there. I've been there and talked with people who were present when it happened. The "tsunami" was quite small and affected only Lituya Bay itself. There was a glacier at the back of the Bay (since no doubt receded) and a small island in the middle of the Bay. The "front" of the bay included a low-lying sandspit. There is a narrow entrance to the south. This creates a normally protected shelter for fishing boats needing respite from the quite vicious storms in the ocean. When I was there storm winds reached 105 mph. We stayed anchored for several days waiting for the storm to abate.

The "tsunami" happened when the front of the glacier cracked and fell off into the bay. This created a wave that swept over the island in the middle of the bay, picked up the fishing boats anchored at the head of the bay, and swept them over the sandspit into the ocean. The wave was reputed to be about 100 feet high. I realize popular culture continues to call this a "mega tsunami" but the fact is it was quite small as Lituya Bay isn't that large. Though some fishermen got quite a ride I don't believe anyone was killed. The "tsunami" did not affect any other communities as Lituya Bay is quite isolated an is at least 50 miles from the nearest settlement of Elfin Cove, which then had a population of 22.

a reply to: TheRedneck


Redneck, I am not an expert but the research I have found so far does seem to suggest that global geothermal activity has been increasing. The first clue that this has been occurring is the weakening of Earth's magnetic field and the global increase in seismic events. This increase in geothermal activity is heating the depths of our oceans. Although these underwater geothermal/volcanic activity would not heat the upper areas of our oceans, it does help in the net increase in temperature our oceans have been experiencing.

For example, the temperature of the Eurasian Basin which back in 2013 was found to have increased from an unexpected increase in geothermal activity since the previous 10 years (1990s -late 2000s).

Ocean Sci., 9, 147-169, 2013
www.ocean-sci.net...
doi:10.5194/os-9-147-2013
© Author(s) 2013. This work is distributed
under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.


Research article
19 Feb 2013
Observations of water masses and circulation with focus on the Eurasian Basin of the Arctic Ocean from the 1990s to the late 2000s
B. Rudels1,2, U. Schauer3, G. Björk4, M. Korhonen1,2, S. Pisarev5, B. Rabe3, and A. Wisotzki3 1Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 64, 00014, Helsinki, Finland
2Finnish Meteorological Institute, Erik Palmenin aukio 1, P.O. Box 503, 00101 Helsinki, Finland
3Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, P.O. Box 120161, 27515 Bremerhaven, Germany
4Department of Earth Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Box 460, 40530 Gothenburg, Sweden
5Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, 36 Nakhimovsky Prospect, Moscow 117997, Russia
Received: 05 Jul 2012 – Published in Ocean Sci. Discuss.: 08 Aug 2012
Revised: 15 Jan 2013 – Accepted: 28 Jan 2013 – Published: 19 Feb 2013
Abstract. The circulation and water mass properties in the Eurasian Basin are discussed based on a review of previous research and an examination of observations made in recent years within, or parallel to, DAMOCLES (Developing Arctic Modeling and Observational Capabilities for Long-term Environmental Studies). The discussion is strongly biased towards observations made from icebreakers and particularly from the cruise with R/V Polarstern 2007 during the International Polar Year (IPY). Focus is on the Barents Sea inflow branch and its mixing with the Fram Strait inflow branch. It is proposed that the Barents Sea branch contributes not just intermediate water but also most of the water to the Atlantic layer in the Amundsen Basin and also in the Makarov and Canada basins. Only occasionally would high temperature pulses originating from the Fram Strait branch penetrate along the Laptev Sea slope across the Gakkel Ridge into the Amundsen Basin. Interactions between the Barents Sea and the Fram Strait branches lead to formation of intrusive layers, in the Atlantic layer and in the intermediate waters. The intrusion characteristics found downstream, north of the Laptev Sea are similar to those observed in the northern Nansen Basin and over the Gakkel Ridge, suggesting a flow from the Laptev Sea towards Fram Strait. The formation mechanisms for the intrusions at the continental slope, or in the interior of the basins if they are reformed there, have not been identified. The temperature of the deep water of the Eurasian Basin has increased in the last 10 yr rather more than expected from geothermal heating. That geothermal heating does influence the deep water column was obvious from 2007 Polarstern observations made close to a hydrothermal vent in the Gakkel Ridge, where the temperature minimum usually found above the 600–800 m thick homogenous bottom layer was absent. However, heat entrained from the Atlantic water into descending, saline boundary plumes may also contribute to the warming of the deeper layers.

Citation: Rudels, B., Schauer, U., Björk, G., Korhonen, M., Pisarev, S., Rabe, B., and Wisotzki, A.: Observations of water masses and circulation with focus on the Eurasian Basin of the Arctic Ocean from the 1990s to the late 2000s, Ocean Sci., 9, 147-169, doi:10.5194/os-9-147-2013, 2013.

www.ocean-sci.net...

Of note is that they also mention that saline boundary plumes may also be contributing to the warming of the deeper ocean layers, but a lot of people don't seem to understand how long it takes for the transfer of heat from the upper ocean layers down to 800m, or even 2,000 m.

Just for the warming of the top 20m in our oceans to transfer down to 100m it takes roughly 100 years. Which means for this heat to be transferred down to 800 m it takes well over 800 years. The heat transfers would not be linear because the deeper the heat has to be transferred, the more energy/longer time it will be needed for that heat to be transferred down to deeper ocean layers.

Recently NOAA released data, and a graph showing that the temperature in our oceans had increased, but that data covered from 0 -2,000 m. Which would mean it would take hundreds to thousands of years for the heat to have been transferred that deep in our oceans. Not to mention that it hasn't been like that for all areas. There are areas of our oceans which have lost heat.

Been working on gathering a lot of research on this subject, which I will post as soon as possible, but there is a lot of data to go through.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I am familiar with the thermal properties of water, and you are correct in that it takes a long time for heat to dissipate through water. This is primarily because dissipation is a function of temperature differential and water requires a huge amount of energy to make minor temperature changes.

I would especially be interested to know if you find a connection between the lower-level warming and currents.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TrueAmerican

BTW, something that might add to this particular process, is another event which was previously thought to be impossible to occur at more than 3,000m under the oceans because of the increased pressure water exerts at those depths.

Explosive volcanism on the ultraslow-spreading Gakkel ridge, Arctic Ocean

In 1999 there was a powerful volcanic explosion, similar to the Vesuvious explosion, which occurred at 4,000 km underwater on the Gakkel ridge, Arctic Ocean. This was previously thought to be impossible, and they are thought to be rare.

SCIENTISTS DISCOVER GIANT VOLCANIC ERUPTION IN ARCTIC OCEAN

By Climatologist Cliff Harris

An international team of researchers was able to provide evidence of explosive volcanism in the depths of the ice-covered Arctic Ocean for the first time. Researchers from an expedition to the Gakkel Ridge, led by the American Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), report in the current issue of the journal Nature that they discovered, with a specially developed camera, extensive layers of volcanic ash on the seafloor, which indicates a gigantic volcanic eruption.

"Explosive volcanic eruptions on land are nothing unusual and pose a great threat for whole areas," explains Dr Vera Schlindwein of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the Helmholtz Association. She participated in the expedition as a geophysicist and has been, together with her team, examining the earthquake activity of the Arctic Ocean for many years. "Mount Vesuvius in Italy erupted in 79 AD and buried thriving Pompeii under a thick layer of ash and pumice. Far away in the Arctic Ocean, at 85 degrees North and 85 degrees East, a similarly violent volcanic eruption happened, almost undetected, in 1999. In this case, however, under a water layer of 4,000 meters thickness." So far, researchers have assumed that explosive volcanism cannot happen in water depths exceeding 3 kilometers because of high ambient pressure. "These are the first pyroclastic deposits we've ever found in such deep water, at oppressive pressures that inhibit the formation of steam, and many people thought this was not possible," says Robert Reves-Sohn, staff member of the WHOI and lead scientist of the expedition carried out on the Swedish icebreaker Oden in 2007. This 1999 eruption occurred right after the peak of "global warming" in 1998.
...

www.longrangeweather.com...

It is possible this event your thread mentions was a more powerful explosion, or more probable various successive explosions which occurred at that same location as pressure kept building up over time.

This research team also found that there was another volcanic explosion in 2001 at the Gakkel Ridge. This region is still active.

The 1999 explosion propelled volcanic debris up to 1.2 miles up into the water and this occurred 4,000 m underwater. The buildup pressure that caused this explosion was massive.

A similar, and probably successive occurrence could have happened at the Banda Detachment fault in eastern Indonesia.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Studies such as the following are a good start.

A 'hydrothermal siphon' drives water circulation through the seafloor

Researchers Find Major West Antarctic Glacier Melting from Geothermal Sources

Mid-ocean ridge eruptions as a climate valve Maya Tolstoy

Although some scientists think these events are rare, others think such underwater volcanic activity is more common than presumed so far.

Fire under the ice

NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face

Geothermal Heat Flux and its Influence on the Oceanic Abyssal Circulation and Radiocarbon Distribution

The changes in geothermal heating was also found to have increased in the 1980s.

The geothermal heating of the abyssal subarctic Pacific Ocean

Yet geothermal heating has also been found to have continued increasing in the Pacific ocean.

Bottom water warming in the North Pacific Ocean

Masao Fukasawa1, Howard Freeland2, Ron Perkin2, Tomowo Watanabe3,5, Hiroshi Uchida1 & Ayako Nishina4

Ocean Observation and Research Department, Japan Marine Science and Technology Centre, Yokosuka, 237-0061, Japan
The Institute of Ocean Sciences, Sidney, British Columbia, V8L 4B2, Canada
Far-fisheries Laboratory, Japan Fisheries Agency, Shimizu, 424-8633, Japan
Faculty of Fisheries, Kagoshima University, Kagoshima, 890-0056, Japan
Present address: Central Fisheries Laboratory, Japan Fisheries Agency, Japan

Correspondence to: Masao Fukasawa1Howard Freeland2 Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]

Top of page
Abstract

Observations of changes in the properties of ocean waters have been restricted to surface1 or intermediate-depth waters2, 3, because the detection of change in bottom water is extremely difficult owing to the small magnitude of the expected signals. Nevertheless, temporal changes in the properties of such deep waters across an ocean basin are of particular interest, as they can be used to constrain the transport of water at the bottom of the ocean and to detect changes in the global thermohaline circulation. Here we present a comparison of a trans-Pacific survey completed in 1985 (refs 4, 5) and its repetition in 1999 (ref. 6). We find that the deepest waters of the North Pacific Ocean have warmed significantly across the entire width of the ocean basin. Our observations imply that changes in water properties are now detectable in water masses that have long been insulated from heat exchange with the atmosphere.

www.nature.com...

a reply to: TrueAmerican

I have to admit, as much as I love all the conspiracy content here it's stuff like this thar keeps me coming back (no, not the Doom- porn), thank you Mr. Todd for a great post, this is truly fascinating.

One thing occurred to me halfway through the first page. The 'Great Flood' from the Bible. It's widely regarded that there was, at some point in human history, a flood that covered a lot of the earth (I always wondered where this excess water came from and went to). If the scar in your OP happened suddenly as opposed to gradually, is it possible that could have caused the biblical flood?

The Agnostic in me is screaming at me for bringing the Bible into a thread about science, ha ha...

a reply to: TrueAmerican

So now the question is if this happened all at once, or if it ripped apart over thousands of years. And from the sounds of it, it seems it happened at once.

Now I can speculate that if this did indeed happen all at once, the sheer size alone of that abyss is more than scary in implication. It's flat out biblical.

The flat out biblical stuff has to do more with impactors I think. We hear rumors of earthquakes, when the big s*** hits it won't need a rumor mill.

a reply to: djz3ro

Check out my post above and start exploring the material. They go over all the details you mentioned in that podcast.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

I personally do not understand why anyone would worry about this. Apart from alerting those that live in the region, there is nothing you, I or anyone can do about it. What happens, will happen regardless. Also, these things happen for a reason. The earth changes, grows, switches and we rather have been through this kind of change before and we push on or we all suffer.

Either way, its interesting.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
...
In 1999 there was a powerful volcanic explosion, similar to the Vesuvious explosion, which occurred at 4,000 km underwater on the Gakkel ridge, Arctic Ocean. This was previously thought to be impossible, and they are thought to be rare.
...

Made a mistake there, it should be 4,000 m not 4,000 km. I shouldn't post so late.

Thanks! Much needed posting than rantings about USA politics.