4 ms·
Guessing they were also systematically measuring the depth of the ocean around the area, as they make reference to it being "deep ocean". In other words, they
by aes256 14y ago
Guessing they were also systematically measuring the depth of the ocean around the area, as they make reference to it being "deep ocean".
In other words, they were seeking to establish that it's not an island that once existed and has been submerged due to rising sea levels, it flat-out never existed.
Not sure if it's possible (or at least, best practice) to do that from an airplane?
- dalke 14y agoSea levels haven't risen all that much - 8 inches in the last 150 years says one reference. There are other options which are more probable. If it was a volcanic island then the top could be easily eroded. Consider the island of Ferdinandea, off the coast of Italy. "At its maximum (in July and August 1831), it was 4,800 m (15,700 ft) in circumference and 63 m (207 ft) in height." while by January 1832 it had eroded to below sea level. Surtsey is another example, this off the coast of Iceland, and Kavachi is a third, this in the Solomon Islands. If this were the case then depth soundings would easily identify a submerged volcano, even if it were 100m below the surface. A simple visual fly-by wouldn't.
- rmc 14y agoIn other words, they were seeking to establish that it's not an island that once existed and has been submerged due to rising sea levels, it flat-out never existed. Or, y'know go out there to map the place to get better and more accurate maps. If it has an island that isn't there, it's not a good sign that your maps of the area are accurate.