A news item involving Tamu Massif was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 6 September 2013. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
by Erik Klemetti http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/09/largest-volcano-on-earth-it-is-all-about-timing/ "Now, this is really the crux of their argument: seismic profiles can be interpreted as large lava flows all coming from the same vent. Interesting idea, but in my mind, a bit of a stretch with the data on hand....Without thorough dating of the lava flows, we can’t be sure how long it took to form and if it was over the course of millions of years, how is that a single volcano (much like a flood basalt being miscategorized as a single event)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.107.240.36 ( talk) 19:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
"A seamount is technically defined as an isolated elevational rising of 1,000 m (3,281 ft) or more from the surrounding seafloor, and with a limited summit area, a definition drafted in 1964." So no, it's not a seamount; I'm removing that project tag. Very interesting discovery, although I don't see how it's taken so long to discover - then again, I'm not an expert in the subject. I would modify Mauna Loa to reflect this change, but it appears someone already has. Res Mar 20:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Significant rounding error. We need the original units. — kwami ( talk) 01:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
From the National Geographic article, it mentions the following: "Its top lies about 6,500 feet (about 2,000 meters) below the ocean surface, while the base extends down to about 4 miles (6.4 kilometers) deep." If we take 4 miles as 21,120 ft and minus 6500 ft, we get 14,620 ft. I can update this information in the article. Platypus3 ( talk) 23:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
How was this discovered? Victor Grigas ( talk) 03:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
"Discovery" and "discovery date" are problematic. Tamu Massif was already named at least as early as 1999 [1], and the Shatsky Rise (of which it is part) was clearly known since at least the 1970s (probably earlier). Keep in mind that "massif" is just a cute word for submarine mountain. People knew that this underwater mountain existed for a long time. The difference is that now there is evidence that this formed as the result of a single volcano (maybe). If one accepts that, then it is the largest single volcano on Earth, which is admittedly remarkable. However, it is not like we only just noticed the mountain down there, we've known about that for decades. Dragons flight ( talk) 04:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It must have had interesting flora and fauna.It must have broke the surface in the MidJurassic and did not disappear beneath the waves until the MidCretaceous. With isolated islands, the first few species to colonize an island radiate into whole new families, if not orders, as they radiate into available niches. I would not be surprised if flightless pterosaurs existed there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.108.158 ( talk) 05:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
|
I think the statement of being 20% smaller than Olympus Mons is misleading. It could lead people to conclude that the volume of Tamu is 20% less than Nix Olympica, or its height is 20% less; instead of the footprint being 20% less. -- 70.24.244.158 ( talk) 08:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
The introduction section of this article states "Tamu Massif is the largest volcano on Earth and one of the largest in the solar system, measured by area.[1]". This is based on an article published on 5 September 2013 at the National Geographic website New Giant Volcano Below Sea Is Largest in the World. The paper by Sager et al. that has triggered the media interest was published at the Nature Geoscience website, also on 5 September 2013 but corrected on 6 September. The abstract of this Nature article states "We suggest that the Tamu Massif could be the largest single volcano on Earth and that it is comparable in size to the largest volcano in the Solar System, Olympus Mons on Mars."
Sager claiming that "the Tamu Massif could be the largest single volcano on Earth" (bold added by me) and the media telling us that the Tamu Massif is the largest single volcano on Earth, are two different things.
Is the Tamu Massif the largest single volcano on Earth? It could be, but we still can't say for sure. The scientific jury is still out, because it has not even studied the claim yet. The media claims reported as fact in this Wikipedia article are premature. I suggest the Wikipedia article is changed to reflect this uncertainty. GeoWriter ( talk) 13:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
No, it's not even close. That statement appears to be based on the following fallacious syllogism:
The problem with the argument is that in the first statement, the meaning of "largest" is not specified. Olympus Mons is indeed the tallest known volcano in the Solar System, and may also be the largest in volume, but it is not close to being the largest by area. There are several others on Mars that exceed 1000 km in diameter; Alba Mons and Syrtis Major have approximate dimensions of 1015 x 1150 and 1000 x 1400 km, respectively, indicating they have about 4-5 times the area of Tamu Massif; see Plescia, J. B. (2004). "Morphometric properties of Martian volcanoes". Journal of Geophysical Research. 109 (E3). doi: 10.1029/2002JE002031.
I noticed two tags were added to the article. Can someone with access to Nature confirm those two facts are not anywhere within the text of the actual report? I suspect they are, just that they do not appear in the abstract. ceran thor 15:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
On 5 September 2013, a paper was published in a scientific journal in which a group of seven scientists stated "We suggest that the Tamu Massif could be the largest single volcano on Earth". (bold added by me). On the same day, some journalists wrote magazine, newspaper and website articles based on that scientific article but, in order to create a more interesting news story, the scientific paper's "could be the largest single volcano on Earth" was hardened by the media to become e.g. "Tamu Massif is the largest volcano on Earth" or "Tamu Massif is confirmed as the largest volcano on Earth". In the 4 days since the publication of the scientific paper and first media reports, many thousands of other newspapers, magazines and websites have published the media reports without questioning the content. Although the article on the National Geographic website has the headline "New Giant Volcano Below Sea Is Largest in the World", it is one of the few that I have seen that also quotes a geologist as saying "“If what they are saying is correct, that is truly a massive volcano”. (bold added by me).
I think the media coverage of Tamu Massif is biased in favour of treating unconfirmed science as fact. I think the media articles appear to be unreliable sources that should be avoided as sources of information for the Wikipedia article on Tamu Massif. One team of scientists promoting their own work to a journalist is not confirmation that Tamu Massif is the largest volcano on Earth. Confirmation can only be given by other scientists after they have examined the evidence in the scientific literature. The scientific paper was published only 4 days ago. Let's give the worldwide geological community a chance to provide the confirmation. If they do confirm, then fine, but it's going to take a while.
I think that the Wikipedia article can reasonably and uncontroversially cater for this less than certain situation with wording in the article such as "Tamu Massif is an extinct submarine shield volcano located in the northwestern Pacific Ocean. The possibility of its nature as a single volcano was announced on 5 September 2013. If confirmed, Tamu Massif would be the largest known volcano on Earth." This was the wording that was in place before someone, who saw yet another popular science article on a news website that stated the finding had been confirmed, changed the wording to factual "Tamu Massif is the largest known volcano on Earth.", which is premature and may never be true. GeoWriter ( talk) 12:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
According to List of Shield Volcanoes this volcano is only dormant whereas in this article it is listed as extinct (which it probably is). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.202.217.170 ( talk) 22:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
The image caption says its summit depth is 80m whereas the article's first paragraph says its summit depth is 1,980 m. I did some searching around and the 80m looks like a pretty bad typo. I will make adjustments accordingly. If it is actually supposed to be 80m, please discuss and fix in both places. 66.190.94.33 ( talk) 18:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
The article states that Tamu Massif "comprises the entire Shatsky Rise". If that is true, then that means they are one and the same, and the articles should be merged. ZFT ( talk) 08:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I know there is a source for that claim, but where is the scientific paper itself?— The Space Enthusiast ( talk) 13:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
A news item involving Tamu Massif was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 6 September 2013. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
by Erik Klemetti http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/09/largest-volcano-on-earth-it-is-all-about-timing/ "Now, this is really the crux of their argument: seismic profiles can be interpreted as large lava flows all coming from the same vent. Interesting idea, but in my mind, a bit of a stretch with the data on hand....Without thorough dating of the lava flows, we can’t be sure how long it took to form and if it was over the course of millions of years, how is that a single volcano (much like a flood basalt being miscategorized as a single event)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.107.240.36 ( talk) 19:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
"A seamount is technically defined as an isolated elevational rising of 1,000 m (3,281 ft) or more from the surrounding seafloor, and with a limited summit area, a definition drafted in 1964." So no, it's not a seamount; I'm removing that project tag. Very interesting discovery, although I don't see how it's taken so long to discover - then again, I'm not an expert in the subject. I would modify Mauna Loa to reflect this change, but it appears someone already has. Res Mar 20:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Significant rounding error. We need the original units. — kwami ( talk) 01:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
From the National Geographic article, it mentions the following: "Its top lies about 6,500 feet (about 2,000 meters) below the ocean surface, while the base extends down to about 4 miles (6.4 kilometers) deep." If we take 4 miles as 21,120 ft and minus 6500 ft, we get 14,620 ft. I can update this information in the article. Platypus3 ( talk) 23:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
How was this discovered? Victor Grigas ( talk) 03:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
"Discovery" and "discovery date" are problematic. Tamu Massif was already named at least as early as 1999 [1], and the Shatsky Rise (of which it is part) was clearly known since at least the 1970s (probably earlier). Keep in mind that "massif" is just a cute word for submarine mountain. People knew that this underwater mountain existed for a long time. The difference is that now there is evidence that this formed as the result of a single volcano (maybe). If one accepts that, then it is the largest single volcano on Earth, which is admittedly remarkable. However, it is not like we only just noticed the mountain down there, we've known about that for decades. Dragons flight ( talk) 04:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It must have had interesting flora and fauna.It must have broke the surface in the MidJurassic and did not disappear beneath the waves until the MidCretaceous. With isolated islands, the first few species to colonize an island radiate into whole new families, if not orders, as they radiate into available niches. I would not be surprised if flightless pterosaurs existed there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.108.158 ( talk) 05:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
|
I think the statement of being 20% smaller than Olympus Mons is misleading. It could lead people to conclude that the volume of Tamu is 20% less than Nix Olympica, or its height is 20% less; instead of the footprint being 20% less. -- 70.24.244.158 ( talk) 08:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
The introduction section of this article states "Tamu Massif is the largest volcano on Earth and one of the largest in the solar system, measured by area.[1]". This is based on an article published on 5 September 2013 at the National Geographic website New Giant Volcano Below Sea Is Largest in the World. The paper by Sager et al. that has triggered the media interest was published at the Nature Geoscience website, also on 5 September 2013 but corrected on 6 September. The abstract of this Nature article states "We suggest that the Tamu Massif could be the largest single volcano on Earth and that it is comparable in size to the largest volcano in the Solar System, Olympus Mons on Mars."
Sager claiming that "the Tamu Massif could be the largest single volcano on Earth" (bold added by me) and the media telling us that the Tamu Massif is the largest single volcano on Earth, are two different things.
Is the Tamu Massif the largest single volcano on Earth? It could be, but we still can't say for sure. The scientific jury is still out, because it has not even studied the claim yet. The media claims reported as fact in this Wikipedia article are premature. I suggest the Wikipedia article is changed to reflect this uncertainty. GeoWriter ( talk) 13:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
No, it's not even close. That statement appears to be based on the following fallacious syllogism:
The problem with the argument is that in the first statement, the meaning of "largest" is not specified. Olympus Mons is indeed the tallest known volcano in the Solar System, and may also be the largest in volume, but it is not close to being the largest by area. There are several others on Mars that exceed 1000 km in diameter; Alba Mons and Syrtis Major have approximate dimensions of 1015 x 1150 and 1000 x 1400 km, respectively, indicating they have about 4-5 times the area of Tamu Massif; see Plescia, J. B. (2004). "Morphometric properties of Martian volcanoes". Journal of Geophysical Research. 109 (E3). doi: 10.1029/2002JE002031.
I noticed two tags were added to the article. Can someone with access to Nature confirm those two facts are not anywhere within the text of the actual report? I suspect they are, just that they do not appear in the abstract. ceran thor 15:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
On 5 September 2013, a paper was published in a scientific journal in which a group of seven scientists stated "We suggest that the Tamu Massif could be the largest single volcano on Earth". (bold added by me). On the same day, some journalists wrote magazine, newspaper and website articles based on that scientific article but, in order to create a more interesting news story, the scientific paper's "could be the largest single volcano on Earth" was hardened by the media to become e.g. "Tamu Massif is the largest volcano on Earth" or "Tamu Massif is confirmed as the largest volcano on Earth". In the 4 days since the publication of the scientific paper and first media reports, many thousands of other newspapers, magazines and websites have published the media reports without questioning the content. Although the article on the National Geographic website has the headline "New Giant Volcano Below Sea Is Largest in the World", it is one of the few that I have seen that also quotes a geologist as saying "“If what they are saying is correct, that is truly a massive volcano”. (bold added by me).
I think the media coverage of Tamu Massif is biased in favour of treating unconfirmed science as fact. I think the media articles appear to be unreliable sources that should be avoided as sources of information for the Wikipedia article on Tamu Massif. One team of scientists promoting their own work to a journalist is not confirmation that Tamu Massif is the largest volcano on Earth. Confirmation can only be given by other scientists after they have examined the evidence in the scientific literature. The scientific paper was published only 4 days ago. Let's give the worldwide geological community a chance to provide the confirmation. If they do confirm, then fine, but it's going to take a while.
I think that the Wikipedia article can reasonably and uncontroversially cater for this less than certain situation with wording in the article such as "Tamu Massif is an extinct submarine shield volcano located in the northwestern Pacific Ocean. The possibility of its nature as a single volcano was announced on 5 September 2013. If confirmed, Tamu Massif would be the largest known volcano on Earth." This was the wording that was in place before someone, who saw yet another popular science article on a news website that stated the finding had been confirmed, changed the wording to factual "Tamu Massif is the largest known volcano on Earth.", which is premature and may never be true. GeoWriter ( talk) 12:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
According to List of Shield Volcanoes this volcano is only dormant whereas in this article it is listed as extinct (which it probably is). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.202.217.170 ( talk) 22:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
The image caption says its summit depth is 80m whereas the article's first paragraph says its summit depth is 1,980 m. I did some searching around and the 80m looks like a pretty bad typo. I will make adjustments accordingly. If it is actually supposed to be 80m, please discuss and fix in both places. 66.190.94.33 ( talk) 18:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
The article states that Tamu Massif "comprises the entire Shatsky Rise". If that is true, then that means they are one and the same, and the articles should be merged. ZFT ( talk) 08:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I know there is a source for that claim, but where is the scientific paper itself?— The Space Enthusiast ( talk) 13:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)