Slashdot Mirror


Cape Verde Boulders Indicate Massive Tsunami 73,000 Years Ago

TaleSlinger writes: Researchers from University of Bristol, UK found that boulders strewn 200m above sea level on Cape Verde, off the west coast of Africa, were ripped from cliffs below and washed up there by a tsunami between 170m and 270m (550-850ft). Researchers at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory dated the tsunami at 73,000 years ago. It's interesting that this is about the same time as the Mt. Toba Eruption and about the same time humans nearly became extinct.

54 comments

  1. Mass extinction not caused by Mount Toba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought they determined the mass extinction wasn't caused by Mount Toba. In fact when the original mass extinction was dated in the late 90s, they were putting it around 5,000-10,000 BC and many people wondered,"Hey, that's right around when Noah's flood struck where it is documented that the population of the world went down to 4 families."

    1. Re:Mass extinction not caused by Mount Toba by chipschap · · Score: 5, Funny

      I thought it was global warming, you know, prehistoric man discovered fire, lit too many of them, and off we go.

    2. Re:Mass extinction not caused by Mount Toba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      There have only been five "mass extinctions", the last one 66 million years ago:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      There have been numerous megafloods and tsunamis, as well as enormous sea level rise over the past 14000 years. None of them are the cause of mass extinctions.

      People love speculating "which one" is the cause of flood myths:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      The fact of the matter is that megafloods and tsunamis are so frequent that there are many stories of great floods due to many actual great floods.

    3. Re:Mass extinction not caused by Mount Toba by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      I thought it was the total disaster known as the world of warcraft cataclysm expansion.

    4. Re:Mass extinction not caused by Mount Toba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought they determined the mass extinction wasn't caused by Mount Toba. In fact when the original mass extinction was dated in the late 90s, they were putting it around 5,000-10,000 BC and many people wondered,"Hey, that's right around when Noah's flood struck where it is documented that the population of the world went down to 4 families."

      Nope.

      The Toba bottleneck was about 50,000 years ago, dated to say, 48,000 BC or so.

    5. Re:Mass extinction not caused by Mount Toba by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Prehistoric men burned wood, which is neutral to the climate ....

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:Mass extinction not caused by Mount Toba by Bovius · · Score: 1

      Quick, someone check to see if there's an ark up among the rocks.

    7. Re:Mass extinction not caused by Mount Toba by chipschap · · Score: 1

      Prehistoric men burned wood, which is neutral to the climate ....

      You're obviously a Politically Incorrect Denier!

    8. Re:Mass extinction not caused by Mount Toba by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      I thought they determined the mass extinction wasn't caused by Mount Toba.

      You're right. It was Cthulu. He left the rest of us as a snack for later.

    9. Re:Mass extinction not caused by Mount Toba by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      Megatsunamis can be purely local. The most recent known megatsunami reached 525m (yes, about 1700 ft) and occurred in 1958:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    10. Re: Mass extinction not caused by Mount Toba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you believe coal and oil are petrified dinosaur turds, then they are also carbon neutral.

    11. Re:Mass extinction not caused by Mount Toba by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      The Toba bottleneck was about 50,000 years ago

      Sorry, all I heard was "The Boba fettleneck was about 50,000 years ago (in a galaxy far far away)".

    12. Re:Mass extinction not caused by Mount Toba by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Neither am I political incorrct, nor a denier.
      However eithher you atempted a lame joke, which I did not get, or you are an complete idiot.
      Hint: read a book anout biology.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  2. really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is this even posted here? Extinction events are well documented, nothing new here...

    1. Re:really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're important to study to understand current and future extinction events. Because of the Republicans, the Holocene extinction event is accelerating. We need to understand them in order to try to minimize the damage they're doing.

    2. Re: really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've already hit the hockey stick on so there's nothing that can be done. Also, I wouldn't blame the Republicans. It is Republicanism in general that is the problem.

    3. Re:really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because of the Republicans, the Holocene extinction event is accelerating.

      I should have that framed: it's such a lovely example of the utter idiocy and misuse of science by Democrats and "liberals".

    4. Re:really? by Capt.Albatross · · Score: 1

      Why is this even posted here? Extinction events are well documented, nothing new here...

      To pick just one of many examples, security breaches are well documented.

    5. Re:really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm thinking that was an attempt at satire. The "Republicans want to kill us" troll (greenwow) is too dumb to construct a sentence like that.

  3. Say what? by djupedal · · Score: 2

    >and about the same time humans nearly became extinct.

    Can't be - there's at least one living right across the street.

    1. Re:Say what? by Livius · · Score: 1

      That human is actually only nearly living across the street.

    2. Re:Say what? by raftpeople · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Due to limited variation in human DNA there is a hypothesis that human population was substantially reduced around 70,000 to 100,000 years ago.

    3. Re:Say what? by djupedal · · Score: 1

      Too near for my liking...

    4. Re:Say what? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      So you're saying he's only mostly dead?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    5. Re:Say what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Merely pining for the fjords.

  4. Ignore the "humans almost went extinct" bit by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Informative

    That's not from the Nature letter; apparently that's some off-the-wall addition from the submitter.

    Since the submitter hasn't figured this out... This was a localized mega-tsunami. An enormous volcanic-induced landslide caused a huge wave to hit a nearby island. Just like other mega-tsunamis that are known to have occurred in Hawaii and Alaska. The scientists aren't talking about some global catastrophe - it would've sucked to be on that other nearby island, though.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Ignore the "humans almost went extinct" bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The potential for extinction obviously wasn't due solely to a tsunami. What is being referred to is this:

      Toba had erupted a number of times previously (one of these, about 840,000 years ago, was itself a super-eruption). What was significant about the event 74,000 years ago was the coincidence that an important period in human evolution was occurring at the same time. The Earth was already inhabited by a number of species closely related to us, such as Homo neanderthalensis (the Neanderthals) in Europe, and Homo erectus and Homo floresiensis (sometimes called the ‘hobbits’) in southeast Asia. All of these survived Toba, but some archaeologists have claimed that almost all the anatomically modern humans (our direct ancestors) were killed by the environmental effects the volcano caused, with the remaining people surviving in refuges in Africa. This scenario is based on data from genetics, and because it suggests that people were narrowed down from many to very few numbers, it is known as a genetic ‘bottleneck’.

    2. Re:Ignore the "humans almost went extinct" bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cape Verde was uninhabited prior to the 15th century.

    3. Re:Ignore the "humans almost went extinct" bit by PPH · · Score: 1

      This was a localized mega-tsunami. An enormous volcanic-induced landslide caused a huge wave to hit a nearby island.

      Volcano in Indonesia (Indian Ocean) causes a tsunami in West Africa (Atlantic Ocean). I'd call that a bit more than localized.

      Most homo-whatever species were living in Africa and many lived near the coastlines. The combination of an immediate wipe-out plus an ensuing volcanic winter probably did put a major stress on our ancestors.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:Ignore the "humans almost went extinct" bit by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 2

      I guess your post is a troll, but I will provide some context anyway

      The magnitude 9.0 earthquake off Japan in 2011, the biggest to hit the nation in recorded history, generated a tsunami that was up to 40 m high in a few restricted areas along the coast of Japan itself, but less than 3 m everywhere else the waves reached. A tsunami wave from Toba, North Sumatra would need to travel across the Indian Ocean, around South Africa and up almost the entire South Atlantic ocean into the North Atlantic to hit Cape Verde (literally the equivalent of half way round the world). If, indeed, the tsunami was 170-270 m high when it hit Cape Verde, it is frightening indeed to imagine the height across Asia, East Africa and the Western coasts of the Americas. Indeed, the impact would have been so great that I wonder why evidence has not been found earlier.

    5. Re:Ignore the "humans almost went extinct" bit by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Or more specifically, Cape Verde was uninhabited between 71K BC and 1500 AD

    6. Re:Ignore the "humans almost went extinct" bit by Rei · · Score: 1

      From the article:

      Such tsunamis may not have the same long-distance range as those that originate from underwater earthquakes, such as the 2004 tsunami in southeast Asia that travelled thousands of kilometres from where the seafloor ruptured.

      The article does not say that a volcano in Indonesia caused a tsunami in West Africa. Please read it.

      --
      The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
    7. Re:Ignore the "humans almost went extinct" bit by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      That's not from the Nature letter; apparently that's some off-the-wall addition from the submitter.

      There is a coincidence of timing. However, given that previous estimates for this particular sector collapse (see my comment elsewhere for the dozens of other "recent, geologically" Atlantic sector collapses) were between 50 and 150 thousand years ago, it is little more than coincidence.

      If there were a tight human population bottleneck (as opposed to a more drawn out but less severe one, with comparable cumulative genetic effects) of a few dozen generations (a thousand years, for a round number), you could fit this localised problem, the global Toba problem, and a Yellowstone super volcano all into a mere ten thousand years and still have several thousand years left over for humanity to continue expanding at 5% per generation (1 extra child per 20 families per generation), giving easily a 10-fold population increase to offset a 9-fold decimation.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  5. Great Flood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Makes that Noah story sound slightly plausable...

    1. Re:Great Flood by ledow · · Score: 1

      Great floods are recorded worldwide throughout history.

      2 or 7 of every animal on Earth on a boat? That's the bit that's bollocks.

    2. Re:Great Flood by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 3

      2 or 7 of every animal on Earth on a boat? That's the bit that's bollocks.

      Yeah, because the part about Noah fathering his 3 sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, when he was five hundred years old is totally believable.

      As is the idea that he was 950 years old when he died. Also totally believable.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    3. Re:Great Flood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those are probably cycles of the moon, not years. A zealot monk or learned translated or remembered the story wrong, which is understandable as very long time ago the mankind started to worship the sun, and so probably measuring time with it as well, instead of the moon as the move to agriculture and stable settlements from hunting and gathering was made.

    4. Re:Great Flood by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      According to current standards, those ages seem ludicrous. Except, we pretty much know what causes aging --- we just don't know how to stop it or really even delay it beyond consuming less and expending less calories. We also know retro-viruses and other outside influences like possible protein generating bacterium can mutate and change DNA. Along with general long-term DNA mutations due to "natural" evolution.

      It is not outside the realm of possibility that there was a period in our world's history where we lived longer, perhaps even even much longer -- than we do now.

    5. Re:Great Flood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When I was in Africa, I met a man who claimed that his father was 110 years old.

      People exaggerate, or more likely do not know the real number and make up some unimaginably huge number because he's really old. I'd question if he could even count to 100. And remember, written language is hundreds of years old and written biblical stories were verbal stories going back hundreds of generations. You have to look at them in this light and also the context at the time they were written down. Numbers now mean different things than they meant a thousand years ago, like in the bible the number 40 occurs quite a bit iirc. Forty then meant a really big but manageable number.

    6. Re:Great Flood by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      According to current standards, those ages seem ludicrous.

      According to any standards, those ages seem ludicrous. There is literally zero proof that anyone has ever lived to 150, let alone to 950 years.

      It is not outside the realm of possibility that there was a period in our world's history where we lived longer, perhaps even even much longer -- than we do now.

      And it's not outside the realm of possibility that there was a period in our world's history when unicorns roamed the skies, shooting laser beams from their horns. They later grew tired of the skies and psychomagnetically recromulated their own DNA, becoming sea-based creatures resembling sharks with laser beams in their eyes instead. Soon they'll do it again, except they'll be time-traveling sharks that fly, equipped with Sidewinder missiles and GAU-8 Avenger Gatling guns.

      I mean, it's not outside the realm of possibility, it could happen.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    7. Re:Great Flood by Kjella · · Score: 1

      As is the idea that he was 950 years old when he died. Also totally believable.

      Well, we have reason to believe some trees are over 5000 years old so if you believe in the creation myth and that Adam and Eve were created by divine touch that diminished over generations that is actually one of the less incredible parts. That we don't live longer is probably a compromise between reproductive age and retaining experience and knowledge between generations as giving birth to a new healthy generation might be more evolutionary "fit" than growing longer life spans, not any true kind of hard limit. Having seen how long we have and haven't gotten in medicine I don't think we'll see it in my lifetime but within the next few hundred years of science I think a thousand year life span is possible. Which doesn't mean that I think ancient people of the past lived that long, but still far more in the realm of the possible than some of the other stuff.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re:Great Flood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah if you're under 40 you'll likely see it in your lifetime, some say under 60. It'll be brutal to start with, surgery to replace organs.

    9. Re:Great Flood by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 0

      so if you believe in the creation myth

      Stop right there. No, I don't believe in the creation myth, because I'm not a fucking idiot.

      Only gullible suckers, people with head injuries, and the terminally naive believe in these toxic little fairy tales anymore.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  6. global extinction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I thought it was global warming caused by cow farts and elitists breathing heavy from carrying all that grant cash for more fake research.

  7. Re:it only took us 500 yrs.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to nearly decimate the planet... what'll our remnants say about us?

    Future generations will say that people like you were idiots.

  8. Surfs up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Grab your long board dude.

  9. Fear by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    Imagine living near a beach and seeing an 800 ft. wave coming at you. The fear would have been awful for a few seconds before you were slammed down under tons of water.

    1. Re:Fear by edxwelch · · Score: 1

      ! 800 foot wave? You don't need to be near the beach to get hit by that. For instance, that would pretty much wipe out Holland.

  10. Re: it only took us 500 yrs.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More likely they'll ask themselves how people like you could be so blind despite all the facts...

  11. FTA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the eastern flank of a Cape Verde volcano splashed into the sea some 73,000 years ago, it generated an enormous wave that rose to 170 metres of height before it crashed into a nearby island, geophysicists have discovered.

    Why bother mentioning Mt Toba when the first sentence of that article explains where the tsunami came from?

  12. Energy wave disipates in 2 dimensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unlike a fracture line wave, we can expect the energy from a singular splash to decrease very rapidly with the distance.

    No way it can cause a mass extinction.

  13. Just for some context ... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
    When I was taking a volcanology holiday a couple of years ago on the Canary Islands, the count of recognised deposits from mega-landslips around the island group was 23. Many more were unrecognised, probably, due to having been overlaid by more recent landslips. The period during which these were deposited was probably only 10 million years, for an event every half million or so years, and each would probably have had significant effects between Brazil, Newfoundland, Britain and Morocco.

    The Cape Verde islands are a broadly similar island group, a thousand miles to the south. So a broadly similar history can be inferred - maybe Brazil would get hit a bit more, and Newfoundland a bit less. So you're now looking at events every quarter million years.

    Don't forget the Azores, on the Gibralter-to-Mid-Atlantic transform fault. There;s sector collapse risk there too. And no small risk of sector collapses in the volcanic Carribean islands too, some of which could reasonably be expected to propagate out into the Atlantic too. Say a cumulative risk in the order of once every 100,000 years.

    It is not news that these risks exist, and have existed for longer than humanity has existed. And there is nothing realistic that we can do about them. Except not live too close to coastlines.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"