5 ms·
You might like this YT video about the refilling of the Med... The MEGAFLOOD that brutally filled the Mediterranean in months https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
by mikhailfranco 3y ago
You might like this YT video about the refilling of the Med...
The MEGAFLOOD that brutally filled the Mediterranean in months
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RSPgIcnRN0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RSPgIcnRN0
The Med was created by long-term tectonic forces,
which closed the sea at Gibraltar, about 7 million years ago. The whole thing dried out, leaving salt deposits on the lowest dusty plains (like Great Salt Lake, Dead Sea, Aral Sea today). Enough dust, dirt and seasonal river inflow, covered the salt in sedimentary layers.....
About 6 million years ago, Gibraltar was breached by rising sea levels, and flooded the Balearic (W. Med) basin, up to the line Italy-Sicily-Tunisia.
Very shortly afterwards (months < 2 years) the water breached the high ground immediately south of Sicily, creating the subsea Noto Canyon, and filling the eastern Med.
P.S. Interesting final comment - the Black Sea was probably not filled by a similar dramatic flood through the Bosphorus. Alluvial structures and fans in the Black Sea floor, show that it silted up from the north, and almost certainly overflowed the Bosphorus from the north, which is why the Bosphorus is relatively narrow - not the whole Med carving wide straits, but a freshwater trickle out from the silted Black Sea.
P.P.S. Also note this contradicts some imagined historical basis for the Gilgamesh and Biblical floods being in the Black Sea (in the direction of what is now called Mt. Ararat). Those tales are much more likely to refer to Mesopotamian floods of the Tigris or Euphrates, perhaps triggered by breaching of earthquake-induced rockslides that temporarily blocked one of the rivers. We can now date and locate a specific episode like this in ancient China 4,000 years ago:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/china-yellow-river-great-flood-xia-dynasty-yu https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/china-yel...
- blueflow 3y agoAvoid using clickbaity YT videos as source, they are entertainment and not reliable.
- mikhailfranco 3y agoI did say like not believe. Specific errors? Counter references?
- blueflow 3y ago> Counter references? Bold. You presented no citable references, either.
- mikhailfranco 3y agoI summarized some factual statements - any of them wrong?
- blueflow 3y agoWhy is the burden on me? Are any of them right?
- mikhailfranco 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanclean_flood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanclean_flood
- blueflow 3y agoThats better. If you want go get even better, scroll down to the "References" section and follow from there to the primary sources. Wikipedia alone is okay-ish but is often faulty because it accepts journalistic pieces (including some YT videos) as source.
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoThat's kind of like saying the internet is not reliable. Don't post links. Ok. So now what? Only studies, only peer-reviewed studies? Only peer-reviewed studies published by qualified sources? Only videos based on peer-reviewed studies published by approved sources, that have passed a committees on the non-biased use of artistic representations of special effects in entertainingly but scientifically accurate facts? This whole, nothing is real, there is no truth, is really out of control.
- blueflow 3y agoNo its not. You are making a bad strawman. YT content creators are financially incentivized to exaggerate things to generate user engagement. This is a conflict of interests. A good source would be something that has its own sources cited or directly comes with evidence.
- mikhailfranco 3y agoThat might be an appropriate threshold for Wikipedia, but not for HN.
- hnbad 3y agoTo that point, HN commenters are also directly incentivized to say certain things because of the way the voting works. You can get a lot of upvotes just by seeming profound (especially if you have a reputation) or "rational" without being either of those things because few people have the time and energy to dissect comments beyond first impressions. Bonus points if you can cite a study even if it does not actually say what you claim or is otherwise dubious (because after all, dismissing it based on the author would be an "ad hominem", right?). The problem HN has with YT content creators being motivated by certain factors is not that they're less trustworthy but that they're tacky. Like Reddit (a social link sharing site with commenting and a heavily polarized community) which is nothing like HN (a social link sharing site with commenting and a heavily polarized community).
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
- alcover 3y agoThank you. I fail to grasp your P.S. in relation to the Levant passage ?