The tsunami spawned from the March 11 earthquake off eastern Japan broke up parts of an Antarctic ice shelf that hadn't moved in 46 years, scientists say.
Though the tsunami waves were only about a foot high when they reached Antarctica, their consistency was enough to crack the 260-foot-thick ice and split off icebergs with combined surface areas more than twice the size of Manhattan from the Sulzberger Ice Shelf, the scientists report in a NASA statement.
It was the first time scientists have been able to tie icebergs directly to a tsunami, according to NASA.
The tsunami waves traveled 8,000 miles and took 18 hours to reach the ice shelf, the scientists said, giving them time to validate theories on how an earthquake can affect geography a hemisphere away.
"In the past we've had calving events where we've looked for the source. It's a reverse scenario – we see a calving and we go looking for a source," Kelly Brunt, a cryosphere specialist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, said in the NASA statement. "We knew right away this was one of the biggest events in recent history – we knew there would be enough swell. And this time we had a source."
Emile Okal at Northwestern University and Douglas MacAyeal at the University of Chicago collaborated in the study.
"This is an example not only of the way in which events are connected across great ranges of oceanic distance, but also how events in one kind of Earth system, i.e., the plate tectonic system, can connect with another kind of seemingly unrelated event: the calving of icebergs from Antarctica's ice sheet," MacAyeal said in the NASA statement.
© 2011 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Contact us | Work for us | Help
It is great thing to provide me for Tusame
Hey they got the Money and that's what really counts in the end.-
Oh do tell. Lunatic.
Care to back up this statement with any cited reliable resources? No? I thought so.
Oh and the guys who claim dinosaurs were never real and that their fossils were put there by god don't count as reliable resources.
It actually has been proven to be true. The earth IS warming. The BS is that the earth goes through natural cycles of warming and the question now is whether or not we are the factor that is causing the warming of if it is natural. Also, the debate is about whether or not this warming will have a significant impact on the earths ecosystems or if it is nothing to worry about
kill: "Global warming has been proven to be a myth perpetuated by scientists trying to get grants."
Err, sorry, but the science tends to show that the world is heating up, the question is whether or not human beings have contribute anything significant to the process.
The earth's atmosphere contains something like .03% CO2, and humans are responsible for (according to PBS) about 3% of the world's CO2 production a year.
Is that fraction of a fraction of a percent the tipping point for the environment? Maybe.
And here are the facts to back it up... http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm
Where in this article is global warming referenced, other than in the comments? The article talks about the propagation of waves due to seismic activity, and how scientists were able to match the effect of the calving of the icebergs to the cause of the earthquakes and subsequent tsunamis.
Go troll somewhere else, please.
they have presented their evidence, now you present yours.
Hahahahaha!! The 'facts' that 'Fish' posted come from an organization of people who want to continue to pollute the air with combustion vehicles.
Helluva 'fact' there, Fishie.
You're just a troll sweltering in a loin cloth.
Yes, there is global warming. Here is the proof http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Views_on_global_warming
What does it matter what the organization's intent is? Facts are facts....
It is proven that the Earth goes through cycles of warming & cooling (the middle ages are known as "the little Ice Age"). The credible question is how much of the current warming is due to industrial activity? The next question is how accurate is the data? Science would be better served if some of those claiming "Global Warming" stopped manipulating their data to try getting a faster reaction (or just to sell a book).
Regardless of the cause of global warming or if it will have an effect on global ecosystems, I'm in texas and 60+ days of straight 100+ heat (now starting to be regulars of 108) is simply too hot.