In situ exhumation from bedrock of large rounded boulders at the Giant's Causeway, Northern Ireland: An alternative genesis for large shore boulders (mega-clasts)

McKenna, John; Jackson, Derek W.T.; Cooper, J. Andrew G.

doi:10.1016/j.margeo.2010.09.005

Cited by 25 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The information from this locality fills an important gap in the knowledge of the geographical distribution of coastal megaclast deposits along the Atlantic coast of Europe. These deposits were reported previously from the British Isles [21,[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][45][46][47][48][49][50][51], northern France (first of all, Brittany) [52][53][54][55][56], and the western and southwestern coasts of the Iberian Peninsula [57][58][59][60][61]. The Hondarribia locality represents the other domain, i.e., the Biscay Bay, the coasts of which are prone to severe storms creating and transporting megaclasts, similarly to the above-mentioned regions [62].…”

Section: Example 1: Hondarribia (Spain; Biscay Bay)supporting

confidence: 55%

Finding Coastal Megaclast Deposits: A Virtual Perspective

Ruban

2020

JMSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coastal megaclast deposits are dominated by detrital particles larger than 1 m in size. These attract significant attention of modern researchers because of the needs of sedimentary rock nomenclature development and interpretation of storm and tsunami signatures on seashores. If so, finding localities that exhibit coastal megaclast deposits is an important task. Field studies do not offer a quick solution, and, thus, remote sensing tools have to be addressed. The application of the Google Earth Engine has permitted to find four new localities, namely Hondarribia in northern Spain (Biscay Bay), the Ponza Island in Italy (Tyrrhenian Sea), the Wetar Island in eastern Indonesia (Banda Sea), and the Humboldt o Coredo Bay at the Colombia/Panama border (eastern Pacific). In these localities, coastal megaclast deposits consisting of blocks (1–10 m in size) and some megablocks (>10 m in size) are delineated and preliminary described in regard to the dominant size of particles, package density, mode of occurrence, etc. The limitations of such virtual surveys of coastal megaclast deposits are linked to an insufficiently high resolution of satellite images, as well as ‘masking’ effects of vegetation cover and cliff shadows. However, these limitations do not diminish the importance of the Google Earth Engine for finding these deposits. Consideration of some tourism-related information, including photos captured by tourists and bouldering catalogues, facilitates search for promising areas for subsequent virtual surveying of megaclast distribution. It is also established that the Google Earth Engine permits quantitative analysis of composition of coastal megaclast deposits in some areas, as well as to register decade-long dynamics or stability of these deposits, which is important to interpret their origin. The current opportunities for automatic detection of coastal megaclast deposits seem to be restricted.

show abstract

Section: Example 1: Hondarribia (Spain; Biscay Bay)supporting

confidence: 55%

Finding Coastal Megaclast Deposits: A Virtual Perspective

Ruban

2020

JMSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, these concepts and interpretations are not without their detractors, with international peer-reviewed critiques essentially casting serious doubt on almost the entire range of purported evidence (e.g. Courtney et al, 2012;Felton and Crook, 2003;Felton et al, 2000Felton et al, , 2006Goff et al, 2003Goff et al, , 2010bHall et al, 2008;McKenna et al, 2011). A thorough review by Courtney et al (2012) of all lines of alleged evidence and critiques indicated that there was a body of robust research indicating that the coast of New South Wales has probably been struck by several 'small' palaeotsunamis (e.g.…”

Section: Historical Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

The Australian tsunami database

Goff

Chagué‐Goff

2014

Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There has been a significant increase in the number of peer-reviewed publications, critical reviews and searchable web-based databases, since the first substantial tsunami database for Australia was published in 2007. This review represents a complete reorganization and restructuring of previous work coupled with the addition of new data that takes the number of events from 57 (including 2 erroneous events) to 145. Several significant errors have been corrected including mistaken run-up heights for the event of 19 August 1977, Sumba Island, Indonesia, that suggested it was the largest tsunami in Australia’s history. The largest historical event in the database is now the 17 July 2006, Java, Indonesia, tsunami that had a run-up height of 7.90 m at Steep Point, Western Australia. Although estimated wave heights of 40 ft (∼13 m) were noted for the 8 April 1911 event at Warrnambool, Victoria, no run-up data were provided. One of the more interesting findings has been the occurrence of at least 11 deaths, albeit for events that are generally poorly defined. Data gathered during the construction of this database were rigorously reviewed and as such several previous palaeotsunami entries have been removed and other potentially new ones discarded. The reasons for inclusion or exclusion of data are discussed, and it is acknowledged that while there has been an almost three-fold increase in the number of entries the database is still incomplete. With this in mind the database architecture has been brought in line with others in the region with the ultimate goal of merging them all in order to provide a larger, interrogatable and updatable data set. In essence, the goal is to enhance our understanding of the national and regional tsunami hazard (and risk) and to move towards an open-source database.

show abstract

“…That is, a storm wave must have a height four times greater than that of a tsunami in order to entrain a boulder of specified mass. This is a contested theory as authors such as Morton et al (2006) have proposed that transport mechanisms such as sliding, as opposed to the overturning assumption made by the equations, may reduce the force required to relocate boulders (McKenna et al, 2011).…”

Section: Numerical Modellingmentioning

confidence: 99%