Talk:Ontong Java Plateau

Rated start class

I rated this as a start class rather than as a stub, because it had some good references and a good image. I almost rated it as of mid importance for WPGeology, but couldn't quite get there. --Bejnar (talk) 09:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Volume

It extruded some 100 million km3 of magma Obviously incorrect data, 100 million km3 = 10000 km * 10000 km * 1 km — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.205.143 (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

At ~1% of the Earth's area, that comes in at 5 million square km, so the quoted total would imply an average thickness of 20km, which seem a little high, although the maximum was 30 km. According to Coutillot and Renne (2003), the total volume is 44.4 million km3 Table1, although it's not clear whether that includes the Hikurangi plateau as well. So the number is of the right order, although I've yet find a supporting ref for the number used in the article - I'll add a citation needed tag. Mikenorton (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually the 100 million km3 is there in the first reference "do the Ontong Java, Manihiki and Hikurangi large igneous provinces represent a single ~100 million km3 magmatic pulse? " it says in the abstract and finishes by saying "Given the now unequivocal evidence that Osbourn Trough was a spreading ridge, we consider that these plateaus are remnants of a formerly contiguous Ontong Java–Manihiki–Hikurangi large igneous province emplaced at ∼120 Ma." Mikenorton (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Does this represent a scientific consensus, or just one researcher's controversial opinion? 100 million km^3, all dumped in a single pulse, would be 25 times larger than the Siberian traps, which are associated with the most severe mass extinction in Earth's history. So worth being cautious here. David Bofinger (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

For comparison, in the large igneous province article this event is listed as 1.86 million km^2 and 8.4 million km^3. (Haven't looked at references there.) David Bofinger (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Please, explain this sentences: "About 80% of the OJP is being subducted beneath the Solomon Islands. Only the uppermost 7 km of the crust is preserved on the Australian Plate". Firstly, OMP is on Pacific Plate (not on Australian). Secondly, according to this map: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Tectonic_plates_boundaries_detailed-en.svg Australian plate is subducting beneath Pacific plate around Solomon Islands (not vice versa!). How can it be at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.188.228 (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I just read source for that (Mann & taira 2004) - it describes this such "The Solomon arc was the best example of an island arc polarity reversal on Earth. As shown schematically, ‘‘arc polarity reversal’’ is defined as a process in which subduction below an island arc ceases, the arc is accreted to the formerly consuming plate (here, the Pacific plate) and subduction reverses direction to consume the formerly overiding plate (the Australian plate)". I think that information needs to be in article (and scheme from source) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.188.228 (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ontong Java Plateau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170101204714/http://www3.nd.edu/~icpmslab/pdfs/OJP_Paper.pdf to http://www3.nd.edu/~icpmslab/pdfs/OJP_Paper.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Language

Could we not get rid of the awful "emplacement" which is a word so rare that it will stop many readers in their tracks, and is definitely not the kind of prose we should be using to a varied readership. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Emplacement is used routinely when discussing igneous geology. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

It is a legitimate geological term but I replaced "emplacement" and "emplaced" with less obscure words. GeoWriter (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)