Talk:Storegga Slide

message: This time frame seems linked to the  8.2 kilo-year bond event.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.68.244 (talk) 06:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Now says the latest was 6225-2170 BC - what do the sources say about the first two slides ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Time Frame

message: Article could use a picture. Bastie 01:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: The Storegga slides occurred about 7000 yers ago during the Neolithic or New Stone Age. Writing had not been developed and no record exists except in the archaeological and geological columns. Tsunamite - the deposits left by a tsunami, are exposed in many places including Montrose Basin where they are about 0.6 m thick. The Geologist (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tsunamite

message: I don't understand the land slide conclusion. A tsunami may be able to displace water to higher land but - surely - most of this water then recedes again into the sea? Even if we are to assume that the Doggerland area was a basin from which no water could escape, surely, the edges of this basin would not be inundated by a displacement of water? It doesn't seem to make sense. Please explain this in the article. Thanks!!! 213.47.144.254 (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Now clarified, I hope.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

text: A tsunami also abrades soil levels. As it rushes in it pushes debris ahead of it, gathering more as it goes, and if the land it is inundating is low enough, and the tsunami wave is long enough (tsunamis have really long wave lengths), and moving fast enough, then it can completely wash over islands or small land masses, which Doggerland had been reduced to by this point, and reduce their overall height to below sea level. The same also happens when tsunami waves recede, they pull soil and debris back with them into the sea. Even if they don't reduce it entirely, they also leave huge salt deposits, poisoning the land, killing plant life and making it impossible for regrowth to occur. This means the processes of storm erosion are accelerated. Water is a very destructive force, it doesn't just wash and recede.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.142.75 (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @Ghmyrtle, 80.189.142.75 (talk), & 213.47.144.254 (talk) --- If I remember correctly from the "Time Team" episode covering this event, the mega-tsunami cut through Doggerland to create the trench that we see today - the "English Channel". Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Doggerland

message: The Parva Fault, in northern Sweden, formed about 8500 years ago, during deglaciation.  Could that upheaval have been linked, to the staggering Storegga Slide ??
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a918214598'''
66.235.26.150 (talk) 07:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Parva Fault

message: The article states that "The Likely Triggering Mechanism" was a combination of an earthquake and melting methane clathrates.
Where is the reference for this, please?Frunobulax (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen one.  That text was essentially added in this edit, back in 2005, without a supporting reference.  For the time being I'll tag it as , but if you have sources making a different suggestion, please add them.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now we have a SciAm source (not open access) - can someone with access clarify how that would work. It seems more likely that the slide released hydrates than that a hydrate expansion caused the slide ?? - Rod57 (talk) 12:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

text:  This 2016 article Skimming the surface of underwater landslides says it is still not understood (but suggests end of ice age deposits either grew too large or were destabilised by an earthquake). - Rod57 (talk) 12:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Likely Triggering Mechanism" 

message: What? How is it even possible that at worst the waves were 20 meters high? That can't be right. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather depends upon several factors, speed of the moving mass, the vertical displacement of water involved, bathymetry of the sea bed and so forth. The slide can be modelled and the results measured - doubtless more data will emerge in coming years. Geopersona (talk) 11:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Tsunami height image

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Storegga Slide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130325085427/http://sprint.clivar.org/soes/staff/ejr/Rohling-papers/2008-Weninger%20et%20al%20Documenta%20Praehistorica.pdf to http://sprint.clivar.org/soes/staff/ejr/Rohling-papers/2008-Weninger%20et%20al%20Documenta%20Praehistorica.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: This article states that there were three Storegga slides, but ref 2 at  for the statement only refers to one, as does another ref at . Unless there is strong support for multiple slides I suggest that the article should be changed to only say there was one. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Britannica talks of one major slide and two further slides which happened much later but also mentions that some geologists adhere to a model involving three moderate-size slides (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Storegga-slides). There is room for both interpretations in the article, provided they are referenced. Geopersona (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: We would need a better source than a non-specialist Britannica editor. All the comments in the article which refer to multiple slides cite sources which only refer to one slide. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'll cast my net more widely, see what comes up. Geopersona (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three slides? 

message: The research which says we'd need a new ice age is highly dubious. It was commissioned by the Oil and Gas lobby to say that oil and gas drilling would cause any further slides. It is not supported by the scientific community, who generally regard it as industry whitewashing, and the question as to whether there is more glacial deposits which could be disturbed by drilling is still very much open.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.142.75 (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Likelihood of recurrence