Largest Volcano ever discovered

[JamesSavik]

One of the solar system's largest volcanoes discovered in the Pacific Ocean

By Jacob Kastrenakes on the Verge

 

September 5, 2013 07:23 pm

 

http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/5/4698836/immense-volcano-discovered-pacific-ocean-among-solar-systems-biggest

 

 

1

inShare

One of the largest single volcanoes in the solar system is right here on Earth. Researchers from the University of Houston have determined that a structure long-hidden beneath the ocean, Tamu Massif, is actually one large volcano — not a series of smaller ones. At just over 400 miles wide, it has an area that's about the size of the British Isles and compares to Mars' massive Olympus Mons, the biggest known volcano in the solar system. But despite Tamu Massif's gigantic size, determining what exactly it is has taken years.

 

"We knew it was a big volcanic 'something.'"

 

"We knew it was a big volcanic something," William Sager, the Houston team's lead researcher, tells The Verge. "The problem is we really don't know what’s out there. We can't see the structure very clearly." As Sager says, marine geologists are in a tough spot when it comes to observing their subjects — they can't exactly walk right up to them.

 

In order to find out what was beneath the ocean, Sager and others took a boat out into the Pacific and over Shatsky Rise, an underwater peninsula on which the volcano sits that lies around 1,000 miles east of Japan. Sound waves were bounced back and forth from the boat and through over a mile of water to the volcano, eventually returning enough information to develop an idea of what it looked like.

 

That alone wouldn't have been enough, however. The researchers also looked at samples drilled out of Tamu Massif's lava flows, which it took them over 15 years to get while waiting for a proposal to be accepted just to start drilling. Together, the seismic data and drilling samples — along with other measurements made throughout the years of work — allowed the team to see that the volcano's lava all flowed out of one central spot. Its shape is so wide and shallow that when walking on it, you might not even notice that you were going up or downhill.

 

"What we saw surprised us."

 

"What we saw surprised us," Sager says. "We would have expected to see different centers." Because Tamu Massif is so large, its magma likely flowed out in large quantities and traveled over long distances, allowing it to cool and build up to such a large size. It appears to have been formed around 145 million years ago, and gone inactive not long thereafter. "Before this we weren't sure that we had single volcanoes that could grow to this size. Now we do."

 

The finding will help researchers understand what's going on inside of the earth. On one hand, Tamu Massif shows what the planet is capable of, but on the other, it sets constraints on what researchers should be looking for. The research team's paper is being published by Nature Geoscience. "It’s a gee-whiz moment," says Sager. "It’s sort of like discovering a new species of whale that we didn't know was out there. It gives us a different perspective."

 

 

[hh5]

Be glad this is in the pacific rather than the south china seas ... someone would try to claim it as their territory lol

[Thorn Wilde]

Very, very cool!

[Bill W]

Can't wait for that was to erupt.  Wonder when the last time it did?  Is it like the Super Volcano under Yellowstone National Park and doesn't erupt for ages, but then watch out when it does? 

[thebrinkoftime]

Cool info about a volcano, nice, alright. And it's in the superior ocean too, nice. But it better keep the -- keep away from us!

 

*rant mode on*

 

But my editor sense goes off at that headline and first sentence. How on Earth can scientists claim it's one of the largest volcanoes in the solar system when there's so much undiscovered territory on other planets? Penetrated all those gas clouds on Venus? Explored the entire surface of Jupiter? Seen what's to see on every single moon of Saturn? You dickhead scientists took a cherished Disney character away from the solar system because you couldn't get it right the first time, so we don't need dickhead journalists polluting the truth of words and mischaracterizing the scientists with hyperbole like that. I get the same rage feels when I hear somebody make a list of the greatest videogames of all time, even though video games have only been around or relatively advanced to go on a greatest list for about 30 years.

 

Sorry, this just really bothers me. It's like everyone's letting the monkeys out of the zoo to play, recently. Especially when it all gets fixed by adding the simple "known" before solar system. But nooooo, that doesn't sound impressive now. They know, you know and I know that the nuance of that paltry explanation of Mars' big fiery land zit won't be digested by most readers. But hyperbole gets the clicks, so whatever.

 

*rant mode off*

 

BTW, whenever I meet foreigners who want to live in Japan, they always ask me if I think Fuji will erupt soon. I always smile evilly and say, "Oh yes."

Edited September 6, 2013 by thebrinkoftime

[Thorn Wilde]

Cool info about a volcano, nice, alright. And it's in the superior ocean too, nice. But it better keep the -- keep away from us!

 

*rant mode on*

 

But my editor sense goes off at that headline and first sentence. How on Earth can scientists claim it's one of the largest volcanoes in the solar system when there's so much undiscovered territory on other planets? Penetrated all those gas clouds on Venus? Explored the entire surface of Jupiter? Seen what's to see on every single moon of Saturn? You dickhead scientists took a cherished Disney character away from the solar system because you couldn't get it right the first time, so we don't need dickhead journalists polluting the truth of words and mischaracterizing the scientists with hyperbole like that. I get the same rage feels when I hear somebody make a list of the greatest videogames of all time, even though video games have only been around or relatively advanced to go on a greatest list for about 30 years.

 

Sorry, this just really bothers me. It's like everyone's letting the monkeys out of the zoo to play, recently. Especially when it all gets fixed by adding the simple "known" before solar system. But nooooo, that doesn't sound impressive now. They know, you know and I know that the nuance of that paltry explanation of Mars' big fiery land zit won't be digested by most readers. But hyperbole gets the clicks, so whatever.

 

*rant mode off*

 

BTW, whenever I meet foreigners who want to live in Japan, they always ask me if I think Fuji will erupt soon. I always smile evilly and say, "Oh yes."

 

(slightly off topic) You know, I've done that 'see Mt. Fuji ropeway cable car' thing twice now, and both times it was too cloudy to actually see Fuji. I did get an excellent view (and smell because the wind was in my face) of Owakudani, though... I should have eaten the black eggs, but was stupidly scared, cause it was before I realised that, once peeled, they're just regular eggs. 

[hh5]

if that volcano erupted on land ... we be doomed

[JamesSavik]

One of the great extinctions in geological history was supposed to have been caused by volcanic out-gassing.

 

I've been corresponding with this team discussing whether of not this volcano might have been it. At right around ~150 million years ago and one major eruption, it just might be right.

 

Even under the ocean, the chemical changes to the ocean and atmosphere would be devastating for an eruption event that large.

[Zombie]

*rant mode on*

 

But my editor sense goes off at that headline and first sentence. How on Earth can scientists claim it's one of the largest volcanoes in the solar system when there's so much undiscovered territory on other planets? Penetrated all those gas clouds on Venus? Explored the entire surface of Jupiter? Seen what's to see on every single moon of Saturn? You dickhead scientists took a cherished Disney character away from the solar system because you couldn't get it right the first time, so we don't need dickhead journalists polluting the truth of words and mischaracterizing the scientists with hyperbole like that. I get the same rage feels when I hear somebody make a list of the greatest videogames of all time, even though video games have only been around or relatively advanced to go on a greatest list for about 30 years.

 

Sorry, this just really bothers me. It's like everyone's letting the monkeys out of the zoo to play, recently. Especially when it all gets fixed by adding the simple "known" before solar system. But nooooo, that doesn't sound impressive now. They know, you know and I know that the nuance of that paltry explanation of Mars' big fiery land zit won't be digested by most readers. But hyperbole gets the clicks, so whatever.

 

*rant mode off*

 

 

Um, well I guess it's good to rant - gets it off your chest as we say

 

And, yes, journalists love hyperbole - "Quite Big Volcano Discovered" doesn't really cut it - but surely it's reasonable to say "one of the largest known". Scientists aren't claiming this is the biggest because they know we don't know everything that's on our own planet and that qualifier allows for future discoveries of even bigger things. Personally, I think it's really exciting that new stuff like this is still being discovered.

 

As for Venus, we actually know quite a lot about its surface through radar mapping by the Magellan probe which mapped about 98% of its surface, including in 3D, which revealed over a hundred large isolated shield volcanoes and who knows maybe future probes with better resolution will identify the biggest but we can only measure what we know at the present.

 

As for Pluto, well blame the International Astronomical Union The reality is the Kuiper Belt was only discovered in 1992 so the fact that Pluto is a Kuiper Belt object couldn't have been known when Pluto was discovered in 1930, nor was its smallness understood until much later - it's actually less massive than 7 moons in the solar system.

 

And as for getting data on the surface of Jupiter - well, good luck with that one as it's a gas giant with no surface - you'd have to penetrate very deep before you came close to anything solid, probably some sort of liquid metallic hydrogen core

[Sasha Distan]

i stay calm and enjoy the fact the our planet could chose to blow us up at any time.

[thebrinkoftime]

Um, well I guess it's good to rant - gets it off your chest as we say

 

And, yes, journalists love hyperbole - "Quite Big Volcano Discovered" doesn't really cut it - but surely it's reasonable to say "one of the largest known". Scientists aren't claiming this is the biggest because they know we don't know everything that's on our own planet and that qualifier allows for futue discoveries of even bigger things. Personally, I think it's really exciting that new stuff like this is still being discovered.

 

No offense, zombie, but I did cover that in the original post, that adding known would have fixed it and that it's the journalists' fault for making the scientists look bad -- I'm pretty sure their research paper or report or whatever wasn't titled, "ZOMG! Underwater Volcano in the Pacific is Bigger Than Kanye West's Ego!"

 

As for Venus, we actually know quite a lot about its surface through radar mapping by the Magellan probe which mapped about 98% of its surface, including in 3D, which revealed over a hundred large isolated shield volcanoes and who knows maybe future probes with better resolution will identify the biggest but we can only measure what we know at the present.

 

As for Pluto, well blame the International Astronomical Union The reality is the Kuiper Belt was only discovered in 1992 so the fact that Pluto is a Kuiper Belt object couldn't have been known when Pluto was discovered in 1930, nor was its smallness understood until much later - it's actually less massive than 7 moons in the solar system.

 

And as for getting data on the surface of Jupiter - well, good luck with that one as it's a gas giant with no surface - you'd have to penetrate very deep before you came close to anything solid, probably some sort of liquid metallic hydrogen core

 

And this is why I don't trust scientists  (not the writers who report the science, that's a different ballgame as said above) who don't use words like "reasonably certain" or "we suspect." Your point about Pluto seals the deal. We're always updating our knowledge about science and things we thought we're absolutely true 20 years ago turn not to be true today (one of my favorites is that somebody whose brain or heart has stopped for more than a minute cannot come back to life, which seems to be gradually eroding as new findings suggest a more complex mechanism at work). That's why I don't believe for a second we really have a real good idea what a place like Jupiter is really like. Nope. I'm guessing people 100 years from now will laugh at the certainties we thought were true about the solar system today in the same way we laugh today at how phrenology actually had a surprising number of adherents 100 years ago. It's less the nitty gritty of the specific details and the hubris of certain scientists (not necessarily these scientists) who stand by their data and make unreasonable conclusions without a healthy degree of skepticism. That always bothers me. Accepting the limits of your current knowledge is really important.

 

One anecdote comes to mind. I was watching this television show earlier this year that had some popular celebrities go for really thorough full body health checkouts. The works, brainscans, cholestrol readings, cancer checks, everything. It was found that one in particular not only had a tumor the size of an orange in his brain, emphysema from smoking, his liver was basically entirely non-functional, and his pancreas and kidneys were seriously damaged; he had a stomach so ulcerous that it was about to rupture any moment. All the doctors (and all top-notch, respected doctors as well) told him they don't know how he's still alive and he should have been dead years ago, and literally any second he could die. Everyone got concerned and said he should go to the hospital immediately. The entertainer seemed quite reluctant, like he didn't want to and it was revealed months later, that indeed, he didn't and is continuing the lifestyle that led up to his body's ill health, but he keeps chugging along.

 

Now I don't exactly agree with this celebrity's choice -- I think he should definitely get it checked up and fixed, if possible, at once, but all the doctors couldn't believe he was still conscious and energetic. I think he just got annoyed by their attitudes -- that they were so sure he was going to die and he didn't. Even later on, a second checkup with different doctors came to the same conclusion and he eventually started watching his diet and lifestyle, but he is still refusing surgery. I think a large part of this celebrity's attitude can be traced back to the hubris of scientists who are so certain their results contain the truth and nothing but. A much better to have taken would have been to say, "Look, you can ignore this, but you're playing with fire. I know many patients who didn't survive with only one of the health problems you have. The probabilities do not look good" instead of my "My Magic Data 8-Ball tells me you're going to die soon."  It tends to make people who are less inclined to investigate or think about it unreasonably suspicious of good science.

 

And that's a shame.

Edited September 7, 2013 by thebrinkoftime

[JamesSavik]

it is the biggest simple volcano we know of in the Solar system.

 

It's shorter than Olympus Mons on Mars but it spreads out to a land area about the size of the British Isles.

 

There aren't going to be volcanoes on gas giants.

 

Mercury has been mapped in detail by the Messenger probe. Venus was mapped by radar by the Magellan probe. Both have volcanic features but Mercury's aren't very impressive. Volcanoes on Venus appear to be of the shield variety and were obviously influenced by the dense atmosphere. They aren't in the same league.

 

It is unlike Iceland or other super-volcanoes in that there appears to be only one magma tube/chamber: a simple volcanic system as opposed to a complex one.

 

 

In a note from the University of Houston researchers that are working on this, they say that other groups are studying whether or not this one is associated with a great extinction.

[thebrinkoftime]

There aren't going to be volcanoes on gas giants.

 

How do you know? I know you're really knowledgeable about gas giants, because you know, your mom*, but how much do we really truly know about the nature of gas giants? How much data do we have on different planets that are gas giants? Just because it strains the common sense borne from the facts we have and is not likely from the information we have at this point, doesn't mean you can just rule it out. At that point, it's not even a science problem, it's a logical one.

 

*It's just a harmless joke to lighten the mood, chill, no offense meant, I don't even know your mom and I'm sure she's very nice when she farts. Because everybody farts, but only some people are gas giants.

[JamesSavik]

Gas giants exist in very different state of matter than terrestrial planets.  We've been watching them very closely with the Galileo (Jupiter) and Cassini (Saturn) probes. Gas giants simply don't form volcanoes because there are no plate tectonics, magma or any of the physical processes associated with vulcanism.

 

Those states of matter are defined by temperature, density and pressure. We've actually dropped a probe into Jupiter and got data until the pressure crushed it.

 

Jupiter is thin gas at the top and it gets denser rapidly as we go deeper. Then it turns into slush which is partially ice/liquid. As you go deeper, the state of the gas turns into a liquid and stays in that state until you get close to the core.

 

At its core the liquid gas is under intense pressure and acts as a metal because the electrons in the outer shell are jammed together. As it is spinning this liquid metal core creates an intense electro-dynamic effect that causes the intense magnetic fields that we see around gas giants.

 

What we know about the gas giants is information gleaned from direct observation of probe data and the modeling of physical processes using equations of physics and chemistry.

Edited September 7, 2013 by jamessavik

[thebrinkoftime]

I'm aware of that. I did have middle school science classes too, you know.

 

What I'm saying is that we have some data on Jupiter which is based on instruments that are based on our knowledge of the physical universe at this time. This isn't like an object of matter on Earth which we can observe rather indefinitely based on the laws we so far know that work on our own planet and seem to work on other planets. But all we really have is just a drop in the bucket of knowledge when there is a vast wide system of celestial bodies out there we have no clue about. I'm saying that our tiny, tiny advancements on the knowledge of gas giants is not enough to go off to definitely say they can't form volcanoes because our laws tell us so. We can speculate that that is the case, but until we've become much more knowledgeable about space in our own system and far abroad, I'd say it's best not to make an assumption like that, because there's likely all sorts of strange things we have no clue about it and it's been the case that we've had to rewrite our common knowledge base many times in the past. Logically, it does not follow that because we know about one gas giant that we know about all of them.

Edited September 7, 2013 by thebrinkoftime

[Thorn Wilde]

Actually, since we define gas giants as the kind of planet that Jupiter is (and we have some evidence that the other gas giants in our solar system are mostly like it), IF there is a type of planet out there in the universe that is like a gas giants but also has plate tectonics and a molten core necessary for volcanic formations, that would be a third kind of planet and not a gas giant at all.

 

We know what gas giants are like, because we have defined gas giants as what Jupiter is. If there's a third or fourth or fifth type of planet in the universe we haven't yet discovered and defined, that's another matter. This isn't quantum mechanics. This is pretty basic, provable, observable physics, and where the calculations and the observations match up, we pretty much know that we know what we know, unless we start going all philosophical and existential about it, which is really a completely different issue. 

 

Also:

 

[JamesSavik]

I think we can safely conclude that Gas giants don't form volcanoes.   They don't have the rocks for it.. or the lava for that matter.

 

We have seen vulcanism in the moons of gas giants.

 

 

IO, a moon of Juipter was seen having volcanic eruptions by Voyager. It's too close to Jupiter and the giant planets gravity and magnetic field act like a microwave on the little moon heating its core and warping is surface.

 

 

These aren't really volcanoes but water geysers on Saturn's moon of Enceladus. Like IO, the tiny moon is manhandled by the gas giants gravity and magnetic fields heating the moons interior. Enceladus  is a lot better off than IO because it is farther out and the strength of its gravity and magnetic fields are much less than Jupiters.

[hh5]

Are all the moons of Jupiter not native to it?

[JamesSavik]

Are all the moons of Jupiter not native to it?

 

I'm not sure that anyone knows for sure. Gas giants have impressive gravity and all of ours have at least a dozen. Some even have rings.

 

Some of those moons probably are captured objects. There are a number that look quite different from the others in color, composition and density.

Edited September 8, 2013 by jamessavik

[Zombie]

I don't trust scientists ... who don't use words like "reasonably certain" or "we suspect." ... the hubris of certain scientists (not necessarily these scientists) who stand by their data and make unreasonable conclusions without a healthy degree of skepticism ... the hubris of scientists who are so certain their results contain the truth and nothing but ...

 

Scientists are human - no different from you, me and everyone else. Maybe there are even scientists who are stupid, ignorant, vain, aggressively ambitious, dishonest, fraudulent, back-stabbing, even barking mad!

 

We're always updating our knowledge about science and things we thought we're absolutely true 20 years ago turn not to be true today ...

 

But this isn't a bad thing. This is the scientific method - you come up with an idea and then you work this up into a theory, then test it and test it again and again; or you get data on something new, then make up a theory to explain it. Then test it and test it. The key is "testability" [if your idea cannot be tested then it's about something else, not science] which means sometimes the test will prove the theory wrong, in which case science has to take another track. This is how scientific knowledge is "updated". There's nothing wrong with this. It doesn't matter that "things we thought were absolutely true 20 years ago turn not to be true today" because over time we are building up a core of knowledge that we can rely on - core knowledge that has given you your iPad, your iPhone, you flat screen TV, the planes you fly on - every technological device you use.

 

As for the unhealthy coffin-dodging celebrity who's cheating the undertakers of business this isn't about scientists it's about healthcare doctors. They may have science training but they are not scientists - they are dealing with sick people not formulating theories, gathering data or testing data, so that analogy is not really relevant here. But doctors will know that each of us has a different and unique genetic make-up - unless we're identical twins - and that's why those who live "wholesome" lives often die early, while others can abuse their bodies and live to old age - Keith Richards should NOT be alive!!!

 

 

.

Edited September 9, 2013 by Zombie

[hh5]

scientist can't accept a new theory until long past the death of the author

lol sounds the same for the religious order

the scientist is fighting for funding of his theory thus has no time to lose funding over another theory

[thebrinkoftime]

This is how scientific knowledge is "updated". There's nothing wrong with this. It doesn't matter that "things we thought were absolutely true 20 years ago turn not to be true today" because over time we are building up a core of knowledge that we can rely on - core knowledge that has given you your iPad, your iPhone, you flat screen TV, the planes you fly on - every technological device you use.

 

I know there isn't anything wrong with it, which is why I always like scientists who are well aware of that compared to scientists who are not. (I will not name names here and start a huge cat fight, I will not name names here and start a huge cat fight, I will not name names here and start a huge cat fight, I've done enough brinking for one day.)

 

As for the unhealthy coffin-dodging celebrity who's cheating the undertakers of business this isn't about scientists it's about healthcare doctors.

 

Oops, I should have clarified that the reason I used that analogy is that the doctors were all people who worked as universities at researchers, doing field work to help research new approaches and cures for the diseases in their highly specialized fields, which is why they were invited to the show and partially why I was so shocked by their attitude! They should know better than everyone else how different each patient can be! George Burns lived till how long smoking all those cigars?

[Zombie]

Reading between the lines, seems you've rubbed up aganst some pretty shitty scientists along the way, and this thread has given you an outlet to let off some steam! And your reference to cat fights probably nails some of these dudes for what the are - I guess they're all men? women scientists seem to behave much more professionally

But whatever your issues with individual scientists - and let's face it we all like watching a good cat fight!  - the field of science [and mathematics] is still one of humankind's greatest achievements

 

[hh5]

naa its like waiting for the next bobby fisher ... the next einny ... the next god of science ... at least there isn;t a pope of science

 

Reading between the lines, seems you've rubbed up aganst some pretty shitty scientists along the way, and this thread has given you an outlet to let off some steam! And your reference to cat fights probably nails some of these dudes for what the are - I guess they're all men? women scientists seem to behave much more professionally

But whatever your issues with individual scientists - and let's face it we all like watching a good cat fight!  - the field of science [and mathematics] is still one of humankind's greatest achievements

 

[Celethiel]

I kind of agree with Brink there about the "Largest Volcano" idea....