Volcano Update 2 - Additional vents opening -Volcano on La Palma island in the Canary Islands has erupted

Doc1

Has No Life - Lives on TB
More of Doc's clueless ramblings:

Several things here, guys (in no particular order). Remember that I have no background in geology, so to reiterate, these are clueless ramblings. Nonetheless I believe I can offer some common sense observations.

First of all, it's my understanding that solidified lava is fairly light rock. This - again, according to my understanding - is because the lava has gas entrained in its matrix as it cools, creating a rock that's full of frozen bubbles. I've heard that the solidified lava on LaPalma is roughly one ton per square meter. This is heavy, but not nearly as heavy as something like blocks of granite.

The lava has been flowing westward towards the sea. Much of it has been solidifying before it reaches the ocean, but a significant amount is cooling as it hits the water. You've all seen this as new landmass created on the western side of LaPalma.

My point is that the lava has been flowing perpendicular to the existing fault line and creating more weight a considerable distance from the fault. As this lava continues to build at a western distance from the fault, won't it cause increased leverage pulling land away from the fault? Wouldn't this weight tend to pull part of the landmass away from the main part of the island and increase the chances of subsidence or collapse into the sea? Again, this strikes me as common sense, but I may well be missing something.

Secondly, I want to talk about nuclear weapons in the context of LaPalma. No, I'm not going to suggest that we bomb the island! LOL! I merely want to offer that we tested many atomic and thermonuclear weapons in the Pacific during the Cold War. Some of these were underwater, though most were above the surface. All of these test detonations produced "tsunamis" of various intensities and as you might expect, the more powerful detonations created larger wave action. We didn't test the really large hydrogen bombs beneath the waves because of their likelihood of generating unacceptable amounts of fallout, though we did test smaller atomic weapons underwater and tested some huge hydrogen bombs right at the ocean's surface. Why do I mention this? I note this because even the largest weapons didn't cause transoceanic tsunamis.

The Russians have supposedly been working on autonomous, nuclear-armed torpedoes which are designed to detonate at depth near an adversary's coastline. These "torpedoes" should better be thought of as unmanned submarines equipped with really large hydrogen bomb warheads. These weapons will supposedly create a huge, radioactive tsunamis that will innundate and destroy an enemy's coastline in the relatively near vicinity of the weapon. This makes sense and I believe such weapons would be very effective.

But it's important to note that they are designed to created localized tsunamis near the enemy's coast, not transpacific tsunamis (which could come back to harm Pacific Russia).

I still have a lot of trouble wrapping my mind around the idea that a relatively small part of a relatively small island falling into the sea could create a transatlantic tsunami of unimaginable height.

Enlighten me, guys. If large hydrogen bombs didn't create transoceanic tsunamis, how would a relatively small chunk of a relatively small island do so?

Best
Doc
 

packyderms_wife

Neither here nor there.
I still have a lot of trouble wrapping my mind around the idea that a relatively small part of a relatively small island falling into the sea could create a transatlantic tsunami of unimaginable height.

Neighbors are geologists, he said the likelihood of it cleaving was zero to none at this point in time... but it does make for great media hype. His best friend from college is a volcanologist, he's currently living in Germany, and has studied La Palma and a couple of other volcanoes in the area, has said that he doesn't think it'll cleave anytime soon. We shall see.
 

Walrus Whisperer

Hope in chains...
More of Doc's clueless ramblings:

Several things here, guys (in no particular order). Remember that I have no background in geology, so to reiterate, these are clueless ramblings. Nonetheless I believe I can offer some common sense observations.

First of all, it's my understanding that solidified lava is fairly light rock. This - again, according to my understanding - is because the lava has gas entrained in its matrix as it cools, creating a rock that's full of frozen bubbles. I've heard that the solidified lava on LaPalma is roughly one ton per square meter. This is heavy, but not nearly as heavy as something like blocks of granite.

The lava has been flowing westward towards the sea. Much of it has been solidifying before it reaches the ocean, but a significant amount is cooling as it hits the water. You've all seen this as new landmass created on the western side of LaPalma.

My point is that the lava has been flowing perpendicular to the existing fault line and creating more weight a considerable distance from the fault. As this lava continues to build at a western distance from the fault, won't it cause increased leverage pulling land away from the fault? Wouldn't this weight tend to pull part of the landmass away from the main part of the island and increase the chances of subsidence or collapse into the sea? Again, this strikes me as common sense, but I may well be missing something.

Secondly, I want to talk about nuclear weapons in the context of LaPalma. No, I'm not going to suggest that we bomb the island! LOL! I merely want to offer that we tested many atomic and thermonuclear weapons in the Pacific during the Cold War. Some of these were underwater, though most were above the surface. All of these test detonations produced "tsunamis" of various intensities and as you might expect, the more powerful detonations created larger wave action. We didn't test the really large hydrogen bombs beneath the waves because of their likelihood of generating unacceptable amounts of fallout, though we did test smaller atomic weapons underwater and tested some huge hydrogen bombs right at the ocean's surface. Why do I mention this? I note this because even the largest weapons didn't cause transoceanic tsunamis.

The Russians have supposedly been working on autonomous, nuclear-armed torpedoes which are designed to detonate at depth near an adversary's coastline. These "torpedoes" should better be thought of as unmanned submarines equipped with really large hydrogen bomb warheads. These weapons will supposedly create a huge, radioactive tsunamis that will innundate and destroy an enemy's coastline in the relatively near vicinity of the weapon. This makes sense and I believe such weapons would be very effective.

But it's important to note that they are designed to created localized tsunamis near the enemy's coast, not transpacific tsunamis (which could come back to harm Pacific Russia).

I still have a lot of trouble wrapping my mind around the idea that a relatively small part of a relatively small island falling into the sea could create a transatlantic tsunami of unimaginable height.

Enlighten me, guys. If large hydrogen bombs didn't create transoceanic tsunamis, how would a relatively small chunk of a relatively small island do so?

Best
Doc
I just halfway think all that is doomer porn, but I'm not a geologist!
 

Lone_Hawk

Resident Spook
More of Doc's clueless ramblings:

Several things here, guys (in no particular order). Remember that I have no background in geology, so to reiterate, these are clueless ramblings. Nonetheless I believe I can offer some common sense observations.

First of all, it's my understanding that solidified lava is fairly light rock. This - again, according to my understanding - is because the lava has gas entrained in its matrix as it cools, creating a rock that's full of frozen bubbles. I've heard that the solidified lava on LaPalma is roughly one ton per square meter. This is heavy, but not nearly as heavy as something like blocks of granite.

The lava has been flowing westward towards the sea. Much of it has been solidifying before it reaches the ocean, but a significant amount is cooling as it hits the water. You've all seen this as new landmass created on the western side of LaPalma.

My point is that the lava has been flowing perpendicular to the existing fault line and creating more weight a considerable distance from the fault. As this lava continues to build at a western distance from the fault, won't it cause increased leverage pulling land away from the fault? Wouldn't this weight tend to pull part of the landmass away from the main part of the island and increase the chances of subsidence or collapse into the sea? Again, this strikes me as common sense, but I may well be missing something.

Secondly, I want to talk about nuclear weapons in the context of LaPalma. No, I'm not going to suggest that we bomb the island! LOL! I merely want to offer that we tested many atomic and thermonuclear weapons in the Pacific during the Cold War. Some of these were underwater, though most were above the surface. All of these test detonations produced "tsunamis" of various intensities and as you might expect, the more powerful detonations created larger wave action. We didn't test the really large hydrogen bombs beneath the waves because of their likelihood of generating unacceptable amounts of fallout, though we did test smaller atomic weapons underwater and tested some huge hydrogen bombs right at the ocean's surface. Why do I mention this? I note this because even the largest weapons didn't cause transoceanic tsunamis.

The Russians have supposedly been working on autonomous, nuclear-armed torpedoes which are designed to detonate at depth near an adversary's coastline. These "torpedoes" should better be thought of as unmanned submarines equipped with really large hydrogen bomb warheads. These weapons will supposedly create a huge, radioactive tsunamis that will innundate and destroy an enemy's coastline in the relatively near vicinity of the weapon. This makes sense and I believe such weapons would be very effective.

But it's important to note that they are designed to created localized tsunamis near the enemy's coast, not transpacific tsunamis (which could come back to harm Pacific Russia).

I still have a lot of trouble wrapping my mind around the idea that a relatively small part of a relatively small island falling into the sea could create a transatlantic tsunami of unimaginable height.

Enlighten me, guys. If large hydrogen bombs didn't create transoceanic tsunamis, how would a relatively small chunk of a relatively small island do so?

Best
Doc
La Palma is in the Atlantic.....
 

jed turtle

a brother in the Lord
More of Doc's clueless ramblings:

Several things here, guys (in no particular order). Remember that I have no background in geology, so to reiterate, these are clueless ramblings. Nonetheless I believe I can offer some common sense observations.

First of all, it's my understanding that solidified lava is fairly light rock. This - again, according to my understanding - is because the lava has gas entrained in its matrix as it cools, creating a rock that's full of frozen bubbles. I've heard that the solidified lava on LaPalma is roughly one ton per square meter. This is heavy, but not nearly as heavy as something like blocks of granite.

The lava has been flowing westward towards the sea. Much of it has been solidifying before it reaches the ocean, but a significant amount is cooling as it hits the water. You've all seen this as new landmass created on the western side of LaPalma.

My point is that the lava has been flowing perpendicular to the existing fault line and creating more weight a considerable distance from the fault. As this lava continues to build at a western distance from the fault, won't it cause increased leverage pulling land away from the fault? Wouldn't this weight tend to pull part of the landmass away from the main part of the island and increase the chances of subsidence or collapse into the sea? Again, this strikes me as common sense, but I may well be missing something.

Secondly, I want to talk about nuclear weapons in the context of LaPalma. No, I'm not going to suggest that we bomb the island! LOL! I merely want to offer that we tested many atomic and thermonuclear weapons in the Pacific during the Cold War. Some of these were underwater, though most were above the surface. All of these test detonations produced "tsunamis" of various intensities and as you might expect, the more powerful detonations created larger wave action. We didn't test the really large hydrogen bombs beneath the waves because of their likelihood of generating unacceptable amounts of fallout, though we did test smaller atomic weapons underwater and tested some huge hydrogen bombs right at the ocean's surface. Why do I mention this? I note this because even the largest weapons didn't cause transoceanic tsunamis.

The Russians have supposedly been working on autonomous, nuclear-armed torpedoes which are designed to detonate at depth near an adversary's coastline. These "torpedoes" should better be thought of as unmanned submarines equipped with really large hydrogen bomb warheads. These weapons will supposedly create a huge, radioactive tsunamis that will innundate and destroy an enemy's coastline in the relatively near vicinity of the weapon. This makes sense and I believe such weapons would be very effective.

But it's important to note that they are designed to created localized tsunamis near the enemy's coast, not transpacific tsunamis (which could come back to harm Pacific Russia).

I still have a lot of trouble wrapping my mind around the idea that a relatively small part of a relatively small island falling into the sea could create a transatlantic tsunami of unimaginable height.

Enlighten me, guys. If large hydrogen bombs didn't create transoceanic tsunamis, how would a relatively small chunk of a relatively small island do so?

Best
Doc
“If”...la palma did collapse, and IF that created a super tsunami, I would think that nukes
planted off eastern seaboard shores, set off just as the tsunami passed overhead, could amplify the effect of the natural tsunami before it reached shore, such that the result might be much Considerably larger than what either the artificial or the natural could achieve alone. Consider what great lengths our government is currently going to to get most of the world “vaxxed” quite obviously to de-populate the globe, but they seem to be falling short of their goals, and close to 1/3 of the US population might be wiped out by such a tsunami. The temptation to try such a combination might be too much for them to resist...
 

Lone_Hawk

Resident Spook
“If”...la palma did collapse, and IF that created a super tsunami, I would think that nukes
planted off eastern seaboard shores, set off just as the tsunami passed overhead, could amplify the effect of the natural tsunami before it reached shore, such that the result might be much Considerably larger than what either the artificial or the natural could achieve alone. Consider what great lengths our government is currently going to to get most of the world “vaxxed” quite obviously to de-populate the globe, but they seem to be falling short of their goals, and close to 1/3 of the US population might be wiped out by such a tsunami. The temptation to try such a combination might be too much for them to resist...

Jed, no offence meant, but you are way over reaching this....
 

jed turtle

a brother in the Lord
Hmmm. I guess Those new “Kanyon” autonomous Russian torpedoes, capable exactly for what Doc described above, were just put into commission for no reason then... and a recent article I read stated that the US and Britain were experimenting with under sea nukes down around Australia iirc back around the early 50s for just such a purpose. ”out of the box” perhaps, but any such accusation of over-reaching also applied to any thought that someday terrorists would strike towers in NYC...
 

Doc1

Has No Life - Lives on TB
La Palma is in the Atlantic.....
Learn to read carefully. I was referring to Pacific nuclear tests. We never tested nukes in the Atlantic. Further, I was observing nuclear weapons oceanic effects, not effects limited to one ocean or another.

When I referred to LaPalma, I specifically noted the Atlantic. When I referred to weapons tests, I referred to the Pacific. There, there. Better now? Not too hard to figure out if you read slowly and with comprehension.

Best
Doc
 

Lone_Hawk

Resident Spook
Learn to read carefully. I was referring to Pacific nuclear tests. We never tested nukes in the Atlantic. Further, I was observing nuclear weapons oceanic effects, not effects limited to one ocean or another.

When I referred to LaPalma, I specifically noted the Atlantic. When I referred to weapons tests, I referred to the Pacific. There, there. Better now? Not too hard to figure out if you read slowly and with comprehension.

Best
Doc
I served on a ship that survived Bikini...
 

Lilbitsnana

On TB every waking moment

danielboon

Has No Life - Lives on TB
TONIGHT: Longest Partial Lunar Eclipse in Hundreds of Years

November 18, 2021
Overnight tonight across the U.S., weather permitting, you will be able to see the longest partial lunar eclipse since the 1440s.
 

helen

Panic Sex Lady
TONIGHT: Longest Partial Lunar Eclipse in Hundreds of Years

November 18, 2021
Overnight tonight across the U.S., weather permitting, you will be able to see the longest partial lunar eclipse since the 1440s.
Oh. No.
 

helen

Panic Sex Lady
Let's see if I remember. Anecdotal evidence suggests the number of volcanic eruptions increase at the midpoint between perigee and the next full moon. November is past that.

Next perigee is December 5 and the full moon after that is December 19. Blow out day is December 12 or so.

Hope this helps.
 

Lilbitsnana

On TB every waking moment
Golly. I went to bed a little after six last night and I read about all of these interesting, scary things when I wake up.
 
Top