
Satellites detect 'thousands' of new ocean-bottom mountains - elijahparker
http://m.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29465446
======
etep
I hope the U.S. Navy incorporates this into their nautical charts, but, sadly,
I doubt they will. I wonder if this data would have prevented the 2004
undersea collision of the USS San Francisco. see, e.g.,
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_San_Francisco_(SSN-711)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_San_Francisco_\(SSN-711\))

~~~
DrJokepu
They had the data. VMS indicated the navigational hazard but they have ignored
it. It was a combination of insufficient training and poor chart review
procedures.

~~~
etep
I'm not sure if this is meant to contradict my comment somehow, but I think we
are saying the same thing -- read differently, it sounds like you might be
suggesting they don't even need the new data. Whether on VMS, or notice to
mariners, or whatever, what they had was a report of discolored water.
Different, therefore from new data revealing underwater topography.

Removed redundant and pedantically incorrect extra use of word "new".

~~~
ZoF
It's, "new data revealing 'actual/correct' underwater topography".

Not, "new data revealing 'new' underwater topography."

Sorry if that sounds pedantic, but it's an important distinction imo, these
'underwater mountains' didn't come into existence recently.

~~~
etep
Obviously, but I edited my comment. My inner pedant jumps for joy.

~~~
ZoF
10 days late; but... As it should. <3

------
wcoenen
They are inferring mountains and trenches based on the observed effect of
their gravity on the water above. But can't there be mass concentrations that
aren't mountains, like the lunar maria?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_concentration_(astronomy)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_concentration_\(astronomy\))

------
rokhayakebe
Can someone tell us the importance of this discovery?

~~~
techas
Its mainly scientific.

Plate tectonics theory was born by looking at the ocean floor. During second
world war, in the Atlantic, there was huge effort by both parties to obtain
good quality maps of the ocean floor. This was to drive/combat the german
U-boats. In addition, "new" sensitive magnetic devises were developed to
detect large bodies of steel (e.g. submarines). After war (during 50's and
60's) these new data came out and researchers found several striking features:
first, the ocean basis were not deeper in the middle but, on the contrary,
were deeper just by the continents. In the middle they found a mountain chain
that goes from pole to pole with an average height os 5000m (over seafloor,
still submerged). Actually this is the larger mountain chain on Earth.

Second, they found that seafloor rocks have a permanent magnetization. This is
not surprising giving their composition, but the ming blogging feature is that
this magnetization has a clear pattern of stripes parallel to the mid Atlantic
mountain chain.

These two observations, that didn't fit at all with the theories of Earth
evolution of the moment, were the main triggers of the new Plate Tectonics
theory. Nowadays, despite there is little doubt on how the Earth and oceanic
plates behave, it is not clear how is the exact mechanism driving tectonic
plates.

The thermal state of tectonic plates, hot at the mid oceanic ridge and cold
near continents, explains the observed bathymetry. Nevertheless there is no
agreement in the geophysical community on how this cooling happen. The first
order is absolutely clear, but if you go to the details two theories compete
to explain observations (the so called "half-space cooling" vs. "Plate
Model"). Detailed bathymetry is key to distinguish which one is closer to what
happen in Nature. We need better observations that the currently available to
advance in our understanding.

------
asciimo
Clarification for the busy reader: these new mountains are newly _detected_ ,
not newly created.

~~~
swayvil
Thank you. Thought The Old Ones were returning there for a sec.

------
tokenadult
Duplicate of

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8408514](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8408514)

submitted 22 hours ago (alas, without discussion, so it's good to see some
comments here). I see how that was done.

~~~
dang
The submitter of the current post did just fine.

Reposts are ok if it's a good story that hasn't had much attention [1]. The
duplicate detector is deliberately left porous to allow for this. Otherwise
the luck of the draw would prevent many—if not most—good stories from being
seen.

1\.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html)

~~~
tokenadult
I was by no means complaining, but always liked Colin Wright's reports of
duplicate posts, because I'd wonder "Haven't I seen that before?"

