Talk:Tamu Massif

Largest Volcano on Earth? It Is All About Timing

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)

Categorization and some other things

"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. ResMar 20:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks ResMar. I came as soon as I heard, glad to see someone made sure it was classified correctly. ceranthor 21:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

feet or meters?

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)

Better if we use the measurements/units stated in the actual paper, as the Nat Geo figures will more than likely have already been altered. We should be accurate as is reasonably possible. douts (talk) 11:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

discovery?

How was this discovered?Victor Grigas (talk) 03:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

"Discovery"

"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)

"Massif" does not mean "submarine mountain". Its primary meaning is "large mountain mass". — O'Dea (talk) 07:54, 8 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) It may well have had an interesting animal life, but probably not large ostrich-like pterosaurs or freshwater aquatic dinos. At the time, the island would have been even farther out into the ocean (the Panthalassa/early Pacific) than the area is now, since the floor plate of the Pacific has been tectonically moving westward, like a giant rolling tape, for at least 200 million years, and the continents were still mostly grouped closely together around 140 Mya. And likely there weren't as many island chains in the Pacific then as there are now. So it would have been quite difficult to get there for any land-living animals that were unable to fly or swim - or plants that couldn't drift there. Today, the seeds of plants are often transmitted by birds within their bowel content, eventually landing on new soil, but that route didn't exist in any major way in the Jurassic.83.254.151.33 (talk) 05:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC) Why do we think it was ever an island? I thought it never broke the surface. — kwami (talk) 05:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC) I never said a thing about freshwater aquatic dinosaurs. As for flightless pterosaurs, it would only take 1 recently bred flying pterosaur-female being blown there and successfully raising her clutch of eggs (the few fossilized pterosaur-juveniles and pterosaur-eggs indicate that, at least in the cases of fossilization, juvenile pterosaurs were altricial) for founding a population of pterosaurs. If this happened in the MidJurassic, at about the time the island rose above the waves, we could have flightless pterosaurs filling terrestrial niches by the late Jurassic and persisting into the early Cretaceous, when the island sank beneath the waves. In the Cenozoic, we have many cases of flightless birds filling terrestrial niches on islands. The most famous is the Dodo, a giant flightless pidgin. This must have been an island for tens of millions of years. It is unlikely that it was always barren rock: 1 seed blowing or washing up on the island, would in short order colonize the whole island. It would start off as a monoculture, practically clones, since the plants are all descended from 1 individual, but the plants would radiate into all available niches. It seems likely that insects, spiders (the wind caries spiderlings) and pterosaurs would arrive on the island. I figure that land crabs arrived too, since their young float in the currents. The island probably never had dinosaurs, lizards, amphibians, or mammals. It may r may not have had crocodilians and tortoises, as it is rather hit or miss when it comes to these animals managing to colonize islands (it would only take 1 bred female tortoise to reach the island for founding a population of tortoises, but she and her inlayed eggs would have to survive for over an year in the ocean with no food or water with many hungry predators willing to eat her). I see an island with unique flora and fauna. The fauna would consist of unique insects spiders, and pterosaurs. Some of the pterosaurs would have taken up terrestrial niches and be flightless. Lacking from the island would be mammals, lizards, amphibians,, and dinosaurs. toward the end of the island, in the early Cretaceous, birds would arrive, but not have time to radiate much before the island sank beneath the waves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.108.158 (talk) 06:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Olympus Mons

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)

Largest single volcano on Earth?

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)

Largest known should fix that. -Koppapa (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it fixes that. The phrases "Tamu Massif is the largest volcano on Earth" or "Tamu Massif is the largest known volcano on Earth" both give the impression that this is a fact. The popular science media like a simple story, so that is the spin they have put on the Nature Geoscience article. It should be described in the Wikipedia article as a claim not a fact. Changing "largest volcano" to "largest known volcano" suggests that Tamu is the largest volcano but its position as largest volcano may not be permanent because another larger volcano may be found in the future. That's not the problem with this Wikipedia article. The problem is Tamu may not actually be the largest or largest known volcano on Earth. Without assessment by other scientists of the evidence of Tamu's size, the two-day old claim that Tamu is the largest or largest known volcano should not be stated as fact, despite popular science websites misreporting it as a fact within 24 hours of the scientific article being published and before other geologists can assess its validity. Assessment by other scientists of evidence presented in the Sager paper could show that Tamu is not what has been claimed. It's too early for Wikipedia to treat Sager's claim as fact. GeoWriter (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

From looking at this it is quite obvious that Tamu is larger than Hawaii. Volcanoguy 21:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It should not be claimed that this is the largest until the opinion is held by others, it should be qualified with "possibly", "could be", etc. -- Nbound (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not our job to interpret what sources are saying - we should report what the paper says. nothing more and nothing less. I haven't got time to look at it now, but if the abstract of the paper (which im assuming is the main source being used here) says it could be the largest volcano on earth, then that is what should be in the article. Also, for the record, the simple fact the paper has been published means that it has already been peer-reviewed, as all scientific papers submitted to journals are peer-reviewed before publishing. douts (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, I think re-wording it to "currently thought to be the largest volcano on Earth" and citing the actual paper, rather than the nat geo source would be ideal for now douts (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Tamu Massif is indeed larger than Hawaii. The issue is not "how big is Tamu Massif?". The issue is "what is Tamu Massif?" GeoWriter (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Abstract of the Sager et al. paper in Nature Geoscience. GeoWriter (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, from reading your comment above it sounds like you doubt the Tamu Massif as the largest volcano on Earth. Prior to this discovery Mauna Loa was thought to be the largest volcano on Earth and that's why I said it is quite obvious that Tamu is larger than Hawaii. So I don't see the problem there. This source describes the Tamu Massif as a shield volcano. Volcanoguy 00:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm with GeoWriter. The report is that Tamu Massif could be a single volcano. It'll likely be years before we can absolutely confirm if it's one volcano or a series or collection of volcanoes. I've reworded the lead to better match what's being reported in Nature magazine. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Volcanoguy, the issue is that it was earlier thought the Tamu Massif was several volcanoes. The new report says "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." I have added emphasis in two places. These people do not have absolute confirmation that Tamu Massif is a single volcano. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

If there are several volcanoes making up a large mass like the Tamu Massif it is therefore a complex volcano. Volcanoguy 19:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Saying it's the largest volcano in the world is incorrect. Volcanoes aren't measured by area, they are measured by explosivity. The claim could be that it's the largest volcanic structure - or possibly largest volcanic mountain - in the world. But even that claim is bunk because the Siberian traps - which are not a "single volcano" but were surely a lot more eruptive - are tremendously "larger". How about forgetting the headlines and just stick to "one of the largest volcanic structures on earth"? — jdorje (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

As "volcanic structure" is not defined it would be WP:OR to make the claim this one of the largest. Volcanic Explosivity Index is one of the metrics people can use. The current claims however are using "area" as the metric. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Any sources that say volcanoes "aren't measured by area, they are measured by explosivity"? Indeed explosive eruptions are measured by explosivity on the Volcanic Explosivity Index but volcanoes like the Tamu Massif are geographic features and can be measured by area and volume. Large volcanic provinces like the Siberian Traps have never been proven to be made up of volcanoes as big as the Tamu Massif hence that's why the Tamu Massif is now thought to be the world's largest volcano. Volcanoguy 01:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Is Tamu Massif comparable to the largest known volcano in the Solar System, measured by area?

No, it's not even close. That statement appears to be based on the following fallacious syllogism:

• Olympus Mons is the largest volcano in the Solar System.
• Tamu Massif has an area almost as large as that of Olympus Mons.
• Therefore, Tamu Massif has an area almost as large as any volcano in the Solar System.

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.

Thank you. I also suggest that the word "comparable" is not an appropriate word if one means "of about the same size". If one means that, then say it. TomS TDotO (talk) 13:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed tags

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. ceranthor 15:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Tamu Massif - Scientific confirmation or media confirmation

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)

100% agree with you. With subjects like this, scientific sources should always come before media sources. douts (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Is it extinct or just dormant?

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)

Thanks for pointing out this inconsistency. Tamu Massif is extinct according to a quotation in National Geographic attributed to William Sager, the scientist in charge of its study. I've changed the List of shield volcanoes to match the Tamu Massif article. GeoWriter (talk) 00:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Summit inconsistency

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)

Merge with Shatsky Rise?

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)

Larger than Olympus Mons?

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)