Talk:La Palma

Name
To 81.39.114.134 - whoever you are. The name of the island is LA PALMA whether in Spanish or English - Palma is a town in the Balearics. SO LEAVE THE NAME ALONE. Also please note I happen to live on La Palma, I am a Geologist and Volcanologist speak excellent English and assure you that your "anglicanisation" of La Palma is WRONG. The Geologist (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You may be a geologist, but your English is far from excellent, mate - passable at best. 88.23.101.209 (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear whoever you are, it is not my English that is "far from excellent," but your USA misuse of English that causes problems. Either have the courage to identify yourself or as they say in England "Put up the shutters and shut up the shop."The Geologist (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

How soon before it fails - indeed will it fail?

I write as a geologist and volcanologist who is involved in studying the Cumbre Vieja on La Palma. Whether a future eruption will cause the western flank of the Cumbre Vieja to fail en-masse in a massive gravitational landslide is a hypothesis. The following facts are pertinant:

1. The Cumbre Vieja is currently the most active volcano in the Canary Islands and last erupted at the Teneguia vent in 1971. 2. During the 1949 several low magnitude earthquakes occurred. 3. Rubio Bonelli (1950) visited the summit region the day followingthe earthquake and reported the occurrence of a fresh fissure approx 1 m wide, with a maximum vertical displacement of 2 m and a visible length of about 2.5 km. He further reported that "... No fumes, ashes, lava, steam or other products were emmitted from the fissures ..." 4. Conclusion drawn from this is that whilst an earthquake occurred and may have been due to water becoming superheated; the water did not vapourise as there was no evidence of any phreatomagmatic explosions - which would occur if the waters had flashed into steam and broken through to the surface. 5. The dimensions recorded in 1949 accord with those recorded over the past 10 years by myself and others. In other words the area is stationary and has not moved since 1949. 6. If the hypothesis of Ward and Day (2001) is correct that the 1949 earthquakes indicated that failure of the flank has started, then it will take many more eruptions to split the Cumbre Vieja along its length of 25 km. It will also then require many more eruptions to move the same flank westwards to the point where it would be unstable. At that point the western flank may fail en-masse in a massive gravitational landlside and generate a so called "mega-tsunami." The Geologist (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

CALDERA
When Leopold von Buch published his memoirs in respect of his visit to the Canary Islands in 1815, he introduced the whole geological community to a new word for a depression formed by volcanic activity. Until then the commonly used word was based around the word "Cauldron" for a large cooking pot. The word that von Buch introduced and passed from German into all other languages was CALDERA. English speaking geologists were amongst some of the last who came to use the term having for many years post von Buch preferred the word "cauldron" to describe the same phenomena.The Geologist (talk) 14:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Random old comments
what happened during the civil war ?

that megatsunami stuff is disputed - here it presented as 100% likely

I reworded the megatsunami secion to make clear it is in dispute. Johntex 18:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"During the 1949 eruption the western half of the Cumbre Vieja ridge slipped several metres downwards into the Atlantic Ocean." This statement is UNTRUE. Present the geological evidence or remove this lie. Brian

Bonelli Rubio (1950) states that the crack that opened had a length of about 1500 metres, a MAXIMUM displacement in the vicinity of the Hoyo Negro of 4 metres and over the length the displacement was about 2 metres. He does not make any claim that the area involved moved towards the ocean and even recent geodetic surveys have revealed that the portion of western flank that was affected has the same dimensions as reported and further that there is no indication of any movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.49.89 (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The Volcano section is not NPOV
The Volcano section is not neutral; words such as "falsely" and "publicity-seeking" should not be used, as they are expressions of opinion, not fact. Please correct the problem. -Rcnj
 * yeah the previous changed version wasn't that good either, sure you can't agree with the theory but to go the other way and say the scientists are bad and all isn't the correct way either. i have put the old version back, which shows the theory isn't unchallenged. Boneyard 22:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The information about the La Palma Tsunami is incorrect
The 'western half' of La Palma did not ABSOLUTELY NOT 'slip 4 meters in 1949. This is a proveable lie propogated by the press on the basis of an interview with the boss of one of the scientists. Please remove this LIE, or produce scientific evidence to support it. You will have to look hard because there is ZERO evidence to support this claim. The ONLY physical evidence of any problem is a small, very shallow, surface crack 2km long which was caused by local subsidence.

The 1949 opening I work on La Palma as a geologist and can assure you and indeed anyone else that the volcano DID move in 1949. The details can be checked in Rubio Bonelli 1950. However the details which have not changed by 2008 are as follows: length of rift = 2.5 km, width of opening 1 m and maximum vertical displacement is 2 m. The eruption was accompanied by earthquakes which are thought to be indicative of edifice failure and are quoted as being proof that the Cumbre Vieja is "about" to fall into the Atlantic Ocean. I suggest you also read the entry for the Cumbre Vieja. The Geologist (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Geologist, but the block suggested by Disasterman McGuire (he invented the name) is proposed as 25km long by 3km by 2km, that would be 150 cubic kilometers of rock. There is still no, nul, nada evidence that this is true. You correctly state the size of the rift, which I guess would work out at a movement of rock of about 5000 cubic meters. This makes McGuires statement so ridiculous that it goes beyond 'worst case' and beyond exageration into the non-scientific realms of downright blatant lying. You state that 'the volcano' moved in 1949. Exactly what is your definiton of 'the volcano' in this statement? A google earth polygon showing the exact physical evidence on the ground would be useful so that I can go along and have a look at the 4 meter fault scar. No fault scars outside the 2.5km indicated by Bonelli? Then 'the volcano' didn't move, and the rift is nothing more than a harmless surface fissure. Brian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian helps (talk • contribs) 15:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Cumbre Vieja is 25 km long, whereas the section that failed in 1949 is about 2.5 km long. McGuire didn't invent his nickname he was referred to that by a President of the Geological Society PRIOR to McGuire adopting it after he was made aware of the fact. The volcano is the WHOLE edifice from the north at the Cumbre Nueva right down to the ocean at Punta de Fuencaliente. Why do you need a polygon to go and look at it, put your boots on, catch the auto-bus to the northern end and walk the Ruta de Volcanes. You'll see all the field evidence. As regards being a harmless surface fissure that is a matter of your opinion. I have stated elsewhere that the 1949 failure plane is only a possible precursor of a developing larger failure plane. The volcano did move - Jedy, which was the epicentre of the 1949 seismic activity.The Geologist (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This is what you say but you do not bring any scientific evidence of your statements. Where are the published paper citations ? If this La Palm threath is true, you are doing no good to american people by denying facts and believe me the Horizon series is based on scientific facts which are made available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.122.156.61 (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The whole is a conjecture. There is no data to indicate that a flank failure is imminent. indeed I doubt if even your grandchildren will see the flank fail - no guarantees. The Horizon programme presented the data as interpreted by Day and Ward and Day, it did not present it as an absolute fact.The Geologist (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have just returned from measuring the Cumbre Vieja - and its dimensions are still the same as those recorded by Rubio Bonelli in 1949 ~2.5 km long, 1 m wide and 2 m maximum vertical displacement. In other words it still hasn't moved. He visited the ridge before and during the eruption and it was as a result of the earlier visit that he noted the day after the earthquake that the fissure had opened. He measured it and recorded those dimensions. What is happening and DGPS readings prove this, is that the whole island plus the others is slowly moving westwards due to the counter-clockwise rotation of the African tectonic plate as it moves northwards into Europe.The Geologist (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This is Original Research, please do not include it in the article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Since when is stating the actual recorded facts "Original Research?" Anyone who has a GPS can verify the facts, anyone who knows geology can verify the fact that the African plate is rotating counter-clockwise and the Canary Islands are on the African Plate. Not original research but facts that are provable! As regards the nickname "Disasterman" it was definitely a president of the Geological Society at a dinner (I was present) at which Professor McGuire was called "Disasterman." The reason he saw disaster in almost every geological process and as all academics seeks a perpetual supply of funds. The name stuck and Professor McGuire is almost ubiquitously referred to as "Disasterman" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.61.231 (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Arjayay - information that is in the public domain whether it is generally available to everyone via the internet etc is not original research. Once any research is published it is no longer original because others will debate it. Bonelli Rubio's and Ortiz's work are available to academics like myself. Some public libraries may have a copy or be able to get one, but they are in Spanish. Any information that supports what has already been published is only supporting the original authors information and as I say elsewhere, put your boots on and visit the Cumbre Vieja you can locate the 1949 fracture and then write here what you found. That is NOT original research it is supporting information to the original work. Original research is research that "you" do that has no record of having been done by anyone else before "you" do it. Here are the original references (Note that they are in Spanish): Bonelli Rubio, J.M., 1950. Contribucion al estudio de la erupcion del Nambroque o San Juan isla de La Palma., Madrid, Instituto Geografico y Catastral, 25 pp., and to Romero Ortiz, J., y Bonelli Rubio 1951. La erupcion del Nambroque en la isla de La Palma. Bol. Inst. Geol. Minas Espana 63, 3–163.The Geologist (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Corrections to the Cumbre Vieja story
The information in the BBC Horizon program is based on the work of 2 scientists whose motives are highly suspect. At least 7 other reputable scientists have torn holes in the BBC story and the suggestions in the program have been discredited. There is NO scientific basis for their ridiculous claims. A co-author of the original work has branded their claims as ridiculous and not based on scientific fact. Boneyard: Please do not change the essence of this text back to the incorrect repeating of the media hype unless you can PROVE that there is scientific evidence. The words "falsely" and "publicity-seeking" are in my opinion accurate, but I appreciate that they might not be appropriate. We need to put this information into perspective without giving too much credence to a program that was effectively a work of fiction. Brian

You might like to consult the page regarding the Cumbre Vieja. There is a large list of peer reviewed papers - about 30, referred to. All are properly referenced and available via the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.102.13 (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

INCORRECT INFORMATION : INFORMATION NOT VERIEFED AND NOT VERIFIABLE
I have to repeat this and request that the person who keeps re-publishing the completely unfounded and incorrect statement that "During the 1949 eruption the western half of the Cumbre Vieja ridge slipped several metres downwards into the Atlantic Ocean" STOPS presenting this LIE as Fact. It is NOT a fact, It is a complete falsification.

It dropped 2 metres and opened a 1 metre wide fissure over about 2500 metres. Total volume displaced is about 5000 cubic metres. The report by Rubio Bonelli gives further information.The Geologist (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

OBEY THE RULES. SHOW that this statement is VERIFIED. Otherwise remove it. The only evidence of any movement at all in 1949 is "a small surface subsidence crack at over 1000m above sea level". This was almost certainly caused by post-volcanic magma chamber collapse and is very localised - 4m deep and traceable over a length of 2km. It is NOT a vertical slippage fracture. It is NOT evidence that a block 25km long by 3km deep and 3km wide 'slipped'. It is more like the cracks in old paint which has absolutely no depth. For the published statement to be correct the crack would have to 25km long, show slippage of 4 meters at both ends (there IS no evidence of this) and the shoreline would have to have sunk 4 meters. This would place the current villages of Puerto Naos, Bombilla, El Remo and probably Tazacorte below sea level. These villages were quite clearly NOT under water when I looked last week. The land where the tomato plantation of an elderly aquintance of mine is also still at 5m above sea level, and has been since they were growing tomatoes there since the 1940's. The statement as published here is a proveable lie.

81.38.247.152 15:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

81.38.247.152 Has a good point. There is no evidence of a large scale slip during any of the eruption in 1430, 1440, 1585, 1646, 1677, 1712, 1949 or in 1971.[1] It has however, been suggested that a large scale slide could cause a mega tsunami. [2]

Yes a large scale slide would cause a tsunami, but that is not relevant unless it is conclusively proved to be likely. If Australia suddenly moved northwards at 100km per hour it would cause a huge tidal wave. If Everest suddenly turned on its head and did a clog dance it would cause earthquakes over the whole continent .... but unless there is evidence that Everest is actually taking dancing lessons I for one am not worried and would label any 'scientist' who said it was about to give a show as either a lunatic or a liar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.245.119 (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Pararas-Carayannis, G. 2002. EVALUATION OF THE THREAT OF MEGA TSUNAMIS GENERATIONFROM POSTULATED MASSIVE SLOPE FAILURES OF ISLANDSTRATOVOLCANOES ON LA PALMA, CANARY ISLANDS, AND ONTHE ISLAND OF HAWAII International Journal of the Tsunami Society Vol. 20 No. 5.

2. Ward, S. N. and S. Day 2001. Cumbre Vieja Volcano -- Potential Collapse and Tsunami at La Palma,Canary Islands. Geophys. Res. Lett. , Submitted.

Spahi 00:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we do cite a reputable source. It seems perhaps 81.38.247.152 might want to cite another reputable source that disagrees? Johntex\talk 02:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This has already been done, there are 7 sources with counter-evidence from reputable scientists. On the otherhand, how do you prove a negative. McGuire (popular science writer who calls himself Diasterman!!!!) claims a 25x3x2km (yes kilometer) block slipped 4 meters in 1949. Prove at McGuire! Show us the 4km slip on a fault line which runs 25km along the top of La Palma. There is no evidence. The fault does not exist. So obviously no other scientist is going to be able to write a serious scientific paper proving that the fault does not exist. This is just another WMD that does not exist (Wave of Mass Destruction). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian helps (talk • contribs) 16:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. :-) (I'm not 81.38.247.152, just for the record.) Waitak 09:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

HERE ARE THE PERTINENT REFERENCES:

For those who doubt the claim that the Cumbre Vieja opened over about 2.5 kilometres, with a fissure about 1 metre wide and a maximum drop of about 2 metres here are the two references wherein the dimensions are quoted:

Bonelli Rubio, J.M., 1950. Contribucion al estudio de la erupcion del Nambroque o San Juan. Madrid: Inst. Geografico y Catastral, 25 pp. Ortiz, J.R., Bonelli Rubio, J.M., 1951. La erupción del Nambroque (junio-agosto de 1949). Madrid: Talleres del Instituto Geográfico y Catastral, 100 p., 1h. pleg.;23 cm

However you may have problems obtaining them as they are out of print and if you do manage to get hold of a copy be warned they are written in Spanish. I have also stated several times that you can visit the fissure, measure the dimensions and they are still the same as those recorded by Rubio Bonelli in 1949. Claims are periodically made that the western flank has moved (because someone's GPS records a difference in co-ordinates to those that they recorded a year or more since) - it hasn't but what has happened is that the whole island, along with the rest of the archipelago, has moved westward at a rate comparable to the westward motion of the African plate.The Geologist (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Cumbre Vieja vs. Cumbre Nueva
The article states in part:
 * [The Caldera de Taburiente] is surrounded by the Cumbre Vieja, a ring of mountains ranging from 1.6 km to 2.4 km in height. [...] Through the southern part of La Palma leads the ridge Cumbre Nueva.

This is incorrect. Cumbre Nueva is the northern part of a ridge going south from the caldera, and Cumbre Vieja is the (much younger!) southern continuation of that ridge, where active volcanism occurs. See and. (The latter article is also interesting as it estimates the extend of a tsunami caused by a future collapse of the western flank of Cumbre Vieja.) AxelBoldt 00:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere in the paper - Ward and Day 2001, do they use the word "WILL" they do however use the word "MAY" and "POTENTIAL" The word "Will" means exactly that - something is guaranteed to happen usually at a specified time and date. "May" means that something might happen but there is insufficient evidence to support the claim. "Potential" means that something possibly might happen IF and only IF certain parameters are met and indeed those parameters are not always known. Ward and Day state categorically that a future eruption may have the potential to cause part or the whole of the western flank of the Cumbre Vieja to fail and that the resultant landslide may have the potential to trigger a tsunami.The Geologist (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Junonia
Lanzarote is Junonia and not Palma Who the hell has stated that Junonia in Pliny the Elder is Palma and not Lanzarote (together with Fuerteventura)?

Proof 1:

Pliny mentions: "etiam spatia complexus Iunoniam abesse ad Gadibus DCCL p. tradit, ab ea tantundem ad occasum versus Pluvialiam Capriaramque".

Palma is the westernmost island of the Canaries and therefore in the west of Junonia there is no island of the Canaries (no Pluvialia and no Capriaria).

Proof 2: In Claudy Ptolemy the O-meridian is set through the westernmost island of the known world and this was through the Canaries. That means through Palma. But according to Ptolemy two islands of the Canaries are not in the 0-meridian but on the 1-meridian in the direction of Mauretanian coast and these are Lanzarote and Fuerteventura (Iunonia) and Gran Canaria (Canaria).

--213.55.131.22 17:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment re "proofs": El Hierro is further west than La Palma, and can probably be easily seen from there; that is the island which was used for the 0 meridian. 89.125.136.233 (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of ref removal
User:62.14.122.84 removed the following link to an article on the tidal wave theory:


 * Scientists warn of massive wave

I've put it back. The motivation is that a WP article should present a balance of information, with enough to let the reader draw his or her own conclusion. It's unacceptable to remove a reputable link because the editor disagrees with it. Waitak 11:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The Tsunami Society statement
The Tsunami Society statementshould be backed with a proper reference or be erased.

This phrase may be questionable: <>

BBC Horizon is known to be backed by scientific evidence which you can obtain by looking at their own references.

The story abour Delpht University was removed since I could NOT find the alleged published paper about it so this may be just counter-propaganda made by people who cannot give proper references. If US people living on the Atlantic are facing the La Palma threath, they should be aware of it and their governement should address the issue by sending their best researchers. Their amry should seal-off the Island since a little A bomb in the trench would be sufficient to wipe-out Washington, NYC and Boston. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.122.156.61 (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The BBC programmes are backed up by the scientific evidence of Day, McGuire and Ward. McGuire claims that the flank will fail - it is only a matter of time. However he is financed by insurance companies mostly in the USA and what do insurance companies do - why they sell insurance policies on a "What if ..." basis. However as the best estimate is that if thewestern flank were to fail it will not be for about 10000 years. I wonder how many of us will be alive to collect the payment. I suspect none! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.48.132 (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The Delft Study in English, is here: http://home.tudelft.nl/fileadmin/UD/MenC/Support/Internet/TU_Website/TU_Delft_portal/Actueel/Magazines/Delft_Integraal/archief/2006_DI/2006-3/achtergrond/doc/LaPalma.pdf

If you want to check the Cumbre Vieja pages there are approximately 32 fully researched, peer reviewed references listed.

What if an Asteroid Hit La Palma Just as it Was Being Hit by a Hurricane?
What if a hurricane was hitting La Palma and then, at that very precise moment, a giant asteroid then fell right on that hurricane?!! My calculations show that the hurricane winds would compress the resulting explosion of the asteroid strike, causing a mega-tornado. The asteroid would also shatter Depalmas volcano, causing it to erupt violently.

But here is the really scary thing-- the resulting volcano eruption would then be sucked into the air by the mega-tornado. The cyclonic affect of the tornado would then intensify the released volcanic gasses in an unprecedented manner. This would multiply the intense heat of these gasses, causing the entire Island of La Palma to melt. And once melted, the Atlantic ocean all around La Palma would then start to boil violently. This could then, in effect, cause an unprecedented boil-nami-- deadly boiling waves that would spread, boiling and spreading and spreading and boiling, until all of the Atlantic was consumed in a great frothy boil. This would effectively poach the entire coastlines of North America, South America, Greenland and possibly Hollywood.

For these reasons we need to evacuate all of coastal North and South America now. I hope action is taken before it's too late.

99.201.163.190 (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What if people stopped listening to pseudo scientists, read the following papers:

Day, S. J., Carracedo, J. C., Guillou, H., Gravestock, P., 1999. Recent structural evolution of the Cumbre Vieja volcano, La Palma, Canary Islands: volcanic rift zone reconfiguration as a precursor to volcano flank instability?. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 94, 135-167.

Ward, S. N., Day, S. J., 2001. Cumbre Vieja Volcano - Potential collapse and tsunami at La Palma, Canary Islands. Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 397–400.

Moss, J.L., McGuire, W.J., Page, D., 1999. Ground deformation monitoring of a potential landslide at La Palma, Canary Islands. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 94, 251–265.

All are available on the internet.The Geologist (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Bonelli Rubio, J.M., 1950. Contribucion al estudio de la erupcion del Nambroque o San Juan. Madrid: Inst. Geografico y Catastral, 25 pp. (Contribution to the study of the Nambroque or St John eruption. Madrid: Inst. Geography and Cadastral).

Ortiz, J.R., Bonelli Rubio, J.M., 1951. La erupción del Nambroque (junio-agosto de 1949). Madrid: Talleres del Instituto Geográfico y Catastral, 100 p., 1h. pleg.;23 cm (The eruption of the Nambroque (June - August, 1949). Madrid, Department of Geography and Cadastry. 100 pages).

Music Band
La Palma is a music band, living in France. This is a double-bass/drums/piano trio which performs instrumental-jazz-pop music. Something almost cinematic. A new album is going to be published, forthcoming in 2012, with featured musicians, it will be called "Easy Years". Published albums : "La Palma" (2008) : La Palma CD Itunes : Itunes Band Facebook : Facebook MySpace : MySpace — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackbread11 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

BIG DEAL - IT STILL IS NOT THE ISLAND TO WHICH THIS ARTICLE REFERS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.61.231 (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Independent Edifices
Each of the Canary Islands is an independent edifice and activity on one does not influence the others. The island of La Gomera is about 22 km from Tenerife and is separated by a channel of water some 1500 metres deep.It evolved as a separate volcano as evidenced by its age - activity on La Gomera ended approximately 4 million years before present. El Hierro lies approximately 100 km south of La Palma and even further from Tenerife; La Palma and Tenerife are about 80 km apart and Gran Canaria lies about 60 km south east of Tenerife. Activity on one island does not influence the other islands - this has been proved time after time by observation. Only Fuerteventura and Lanzarote are considered to be part of the remains of the same volcanic edifice - a simple explanation is given in Carracedo and Day "Canary Islands" Part 4 of Classic Geology in Europe, published by Terra Publishing. Of all the islands Fuerteventura and Gran Canaria have not been active in the last 10000 years. Therefore NO CITATION was needed and has accordingly been removed.