Talk:Hudson Bay

Any Beaches?

Not to sound stupid but I am seriously curious, are there any recreational beaches on the Hudson Bay or is it just too cold, or too sparsely populated, or not enough wave action for sand beaches, or too darn many polar bears? Seriously though, are there any recreational beaches there? Thanks

The shoreline is mostly composed of rock boulders and pebbles. The flats have some beaches, but I bet there are too many bears to keep an eye on, and it should be a bit too cold for a non resident to swim in —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arviatlands (talk • contribs) 17:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Administration

Is Hudson Bay part of the ocean or is it a Canadian territorial body of water?

Jim McPherson

---

It is a part of the Dominion of Canada, and is totally under their jurisdiction.

More specifically, all of the waters and islands in Hudson Bay are part of Nunavut, if I read the maps correctly. knoodelhed (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Map colour

Also, maybe it'd help if someone coloured the map (blue for water). Kokiri

Done. --Menchi 01:21, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hudson Bay vs. Hudson's Bay

Someone anonymously reverted my change to make the article consistant and accurate regarding the "'s". I have reverted back to my version and added a small explanation. CWood 00:21, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In the US an early decision was made by, th US Board on Geographic Names, that the name of no US geographic location should have an apostrophe. Pikes Peak being the best known example. But, since Hudson's Bay is not in the US, I don't think we should honor the US convention. I think we should use "Hudson's Bay" -- Geo Swan 11:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

no mention of the Northwest Passage? Cacophony 18:49, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

While Canada's N bound by US precedent, it's convention now to call it Hudson Bay, N Hudson's. I corrected to that effect. Trekphiler 18:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh? Can you cite a source? I am highly skeptical of your assertion. -- Geo Swan 15:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The Geographic Names Board of Canada has the Bay as "Hudson Bay". http://geonames2.nrcan.gc.ca/cgi-bin/v8/sima_name_v8?english . If this is how the Government of Canada officially refers to this body of water, Wikipedia should also use this naming convention. As a side note, I have never seen a modern map labelling this body of water as Hudson's Bay. CWood 00:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I grew up on the shores of Hudson Bay, and it's so labelled on pretty much every map (Canadian, admittedly) I've seen. Some of the confusion might result from the Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) of yore, which IIRC does use the possessive form. But the Bay itself (the landform, not the company) is "Hudson". - FlyingOrca 22:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the elevation above sea level of the Hudson Bay Lowlands?

I have been pulling my hair out trying to find this information. None of my paper atlas show this, and I cannot find it on the web. Thanks.

Depth?

The Mediterranean sea article says Hudson's Bay would fit its definition of a Mediterranean sea, except it was so shallow it functions like a huge estuary. So, how shallow is it? -- Geo Swan 11:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Without looking, I found 260m mentioned, but haven't stumbled across an authoritative source. (SEWilco 19:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC))

the depth is getting shallower and shallower. In fact, the isostatic rebound is happening faster than the melt water is rising, literally. So, the older residents recognize the many islands that were not in earlier history, compared to now, which are growing in numbers and getting shallower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arviatlands (talk • contribs) 17:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Isostatic rebound is said to be greatest in the world in the Hudson bay area, and in the northern climes of Norway and Sweden. Both areas are rising in excess of 15 mm annually. Thus, not only is the bay getting shallower, but the shoreline is shrinking. This is readily apparent on the western shoreline, where marine deposits are visible many miles from the current lakebed. The lakebed is attributed by many geologists to the weight of the last ice sheet, said to have exceed two miles in thickness, centered over the current bay area. These same authorities suggest the bay will eventally disappear, unless the next ice age intervenes first.... 98.212.239.101 (talk) 04:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Coors lite

Size matters

Is Hudson Bay considered world's largest? I've heard it claimed... Trekphiler 18:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)It is the largest bay.

Geology

what about the semi-circled shoreline on the quebecois side? look like a huge meteorite impact.. is anything known about that? 790 09:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It indeed does look like a huge meteorite impact (I found my way here through Google Earth :), complete with a center formation (obviously shaped by the continental ice sheets moving across here). The Clearwater Lakes could have been formed by parts of this huge meteorite, along with a number of smaller impact sites nearby. The possibility of an impact has been noted, and a little googling reveals it's been studied, too: Earth Impact Database

But what if there is no clear shock metamorphism because the impact happened during the ice age? That would greatly lessen the impact on the ground. I'm just guessing here, but it would seem odd that a shoreline would be naturally that circular - even less when there's plenty of ice scour marks on the nearby lakes. maraz 10:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I learned in a college planetology class that Hudson Bay is indeed the site of an ancient meteorite impact.Cyclopiano 05:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have watched something on you tube suggesting that hudson bay could well contain a string of ancient volcanic caldera's. It is only a theory but could well be true. Wiki235 17:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

indeed. The impact dumped fine sand sediments which reached the western arctic town called Tuktoyaktok, NWT. This community is suffering from the space rock impact from Hudson Bay, and climate change, due to extraction of oil, the natural insulation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arviatlands (talk • contribs) 17:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence of an impact at Hudson Bay. The Geological Survey of Canada has investigated the rocks of the Hudson Bay area and found no evidence of shock metamorphism or any indication that it might have been produced by an impact event.[1] BT (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

As Black Tusk stated, Earth scientists have repeatedly looked evidence for impact origin of either Hudson Bay or its southeastern edge and found a lack of any credible evidence for an impact origin. An impact large enough to have created either all or part of Hudson Bay would have left extremely clear evidence that no amount of glaciation and any other erosion would have removed. It is instructive that billions of years after the Sudbury impact structure was formed an abundance of evidence remains despite numerous Quaternary glaciations and billions of years of deformation, metamorphism, and erosion. The 2010 SEIS Impact Database (ver 2010.1) lists Hudson Bay as a class 4 feature. This means that "observations of the structure and/or geological context suggest non-impact origin but a single alternative interpretation has not been well established" for Hudson Bay. For that reason, I have removed the text about Hudson Bay being an impact structure from the article. The SEIS Impact Database is:

Rajmon, D. (2009) Impact database 2010.1. On-line: http://impacts.rajmon.cz Paul H. (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I did some browsing through recently published literature, including Eaton and Darbyshire (2010), about the tectonics of Hudson Bay and the Nastapoka Arc. There is clear evidence that it is the arcuate edge of the Belcher fold-thrust belt, which was created 1.85-1.80 Ga ago. In addition, total-field magnetic anomaly and Bouguer gravity maps of the Hudson Bay region in Eaton and Darbyshire (2010) clearly define the structural elements underlying Hudson Bay. They soundly refute any idea about the existence of a ringed structure that could be a Mare Crisium-like or -size impact structures associated with the Nastapoka Arc. Other comments about the origin of the Nastapoka Arc can be found in the Earth Imapct Database FAQ, 2. Is there a large impact structue on the SE margin of Hudson Bay, Canada?.

Reference Cited:

Eaton D. W. and F. Darbyshire, 2010, Lithospheric architecture and tectonic evolution of the Hudson Bay region. Tectonophysics. v. 480, pp. 1–22.Paul H. (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What made the Hudson bay to have no brecciated rocks and shock or shattered cones, is due to the fact that the humonguous shattered cones were almost flattened by glaciers and are now humpbacked shaped bedrocks in various locations on the shoreline west of the Hudson bay coast. Also the mantle rippled when the space rock made a hole, and the ripples are an esker sized bedrock! AWESOME FORMATION! The latter smaller impact of Iles De Madeleine contributed to the deepest parts of Hudson Bay, the Hudson Strait detaching Meta Incognita from Ungava Bay, the st. Lawrence river, the great lakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.181.32.205 (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC) \

As in the case of the Sudbury impact structure (Sudbury Basin), an extraterrestrial impact of the magnitude needed to have created either the Nastapoka Arc or Hudson Bay would have brecciated, fractured, and deformed the Earth's crust to such an extent and depth that it is absolutely impossible for glacial erosion ("flattening") have erased the effects of such an impact. In addition, if a person takes the time and effort to read through and look at the numerous detailed papers and geologic maps that has been published by geologists and other Earth scientists for the Hudson Bay shorelines and region, they would find that there is more than enough hard data to completely refute any ideas about the "humpbacked shaped bedrocks" having once been "humonguous shattered cones" and the region's mantle and crust having been deformed ("rippled") by any type of extraterrestrial impact. The fact of the matter is that many geologists have looked long and hard for any evidence of impact deformed and brecciated rock, shocked quartz, both "humonguous" and small shatter cones, high pressure mineral polymorphs, impact melt sheets and/or dikes, and impact-related pseudotachylytes associated with either Nastapoka Arc or Hudson Bay. Despite repeated efforts to find it by geologists and expectation that it would be found, such evidence has been found to be completely absent. Instead, geologists have found that local and regional structure, stratigraphy, and other aspects of the geology of either the Nastapoka Arc or Hudson Bay solidly refute any theory that it was created by an extraterrestrial impact. A person just has realize that there are many other processes in addition to extraterrestrial impacts that can produce arcuate geological structures and landforms.Paul H. (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Yes, all one need do is spend a few seconds with Google Earth to see that the bay and the "tail" extending southward are obviously a huge impact crater. (Also, compare to images of the crater off the Yucatan peninsula). If the experts think that there is no evidence of an impact, then they are simply overlooking something (such as the fact that repeated ice ages would have erased most of that evidence). Also, considering the size of the bay compared to the impact that supposedly killed off the dinosaurs, it must have caused a mass extinction event on a much larger scale (and thus it might have cause the P-T extinction event, or it might have occurred even before that). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.177.80 (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

As discussed above, there are many, many more geological processes in addition to either asteroid, comet, or meteorite impacts that produce either circular or arcuate geological structures and landforms. As discussed in innumerable papers, it is impossible to determine whether either a specific feature from images, such as those seen in Google Earth, is of impact origin or not. This determination needs to be made using the presence of evidence of deformation resulting from hypervelocity impact such as shocked quartz, shatter cones, high pressure mineral polymorphs, impact melt sheets and/or dikes, and impact-related pseudotachylytes. Not only that the numerous detail studies of the geology of Hudson Bay and surrounding region have not found any credible evidence for its origin by a hypervelocity impact, they have also found an abundance of evidence that refutes such an origin. Given the widespread and detailed nature of the geological research that has been conducted in the Hudson Bay area, it is now virtually impossible that geologists and other Earth scientists have overlooked this evidence. An excellent paper that summarizes this research is:

Eaton D. W. and F. Darbyshire, 2010, Lithospheric architecture and tectonic evolution of the Hudson Bay region. Tectonophysics. v. 480, pp. 1–22.

In addition, the proposal that the majority of the evidence for the impact origin of Hudson Bay has been removed by erosion is scientifically bankrupt. An extraterrestrial impact crater that is 1,370 km (850 mi) long and 1,050 km (650 mi) wide would have an average crater depth of 2.5 km and a transient crater depth of 180 km. The bottom of this crater would be underlain by a melt sheet about 25 km thick. A zone of deeply deformed rock that is hundreds of meters thick would extend many tens of kilometers from the edge of such a crater. Because of shallow depth of documented glacial erosion in the Canadian shield relative to the depth of deformation that would be associated with a crater the size of Hudson Bay, it is physically impossible for glacial erosion to have removed the evidence for a Hudson Bay impact to any significant extent. It is impossible to use glacial erosion to explain the lack of any credible and obvious evidence for a Hudson Bay Impact.

Finally, it should noted that extraterrestrial impact craters do not have "tails." Because of the physical processes that create craters, even oblique impacts cannot produce craters with "tails." The idea that the presence of such "tails" constitutes evidence of the extraterrestrial impact origin of a specific landform lacks any scientific basis.

The tail, if he means the "James Bay", is another feature derived from another more recent impact. The impact of Iles De La Madeleine, which caused a deep portion of Hudson Bay to form, and the Hudson Strait. Also the "Great Lakes" were also formed, and the New Found Land, Hudson River, and St. Lawrence River, leading to the New Madrid Seismic Zone. The North Cordilleran Volcanic Rift was also created and made the B.C. Coast to inch away towards the Pacific every year. Hudson Bay impact also created the "sudden appearance of Granite", and exposed some rare earth elements in Nunavut and N.W.T.

Some references to look at:

1. The Earth Impact Database

2. Reimold, W. U., 2007, The Impact Crater Bandwagon (Some problems with the terrestrial impact cratering record). Meteoritics & Planetary Science. vol. 42, No,. 9, pp. 1467–1472.

3 Therriault, A. M., R. A. F. Grieve, and M. Pilkington, 2002. The recognition of terrestrial impact structures. Bulletin of the Czech Geological Survey. vol. 77, no. 4, pp. 253–263.

4 Melosh, H. J., 1989. Impact cratering: A geologic process. New York, Oxford University Press.Paul H. (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Navigability

Is the Hudson Bay navigable for trade ships having large containers?

Yes it is - Churchill, Manitoba has a huge grain shipping terminal on the shore of Hudson Bay. CWood 02:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

We were told of Dorset people became extinct around 1500's. They aren't gone, they're still around. This is one of the reasons why I do not trust the scientific community. They say this and that, but because they are so small, they cannot even find the quartz boulders, and porous rocks that dot our land. One of the quartz boulder, the size of about a meter cubed, is now under quagmire and mud. There are quite of few of these but are now under the mud, probably about from few inches to about 6 feet. The stages of global climate change has made a lot of difficulties, including finding what the experts want to see, brecciated rocks, quartz boulders, and other land features. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arviatlands (talk • contribs) 19:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It also drains southern Canada and parts of U.S.

The article reads: “It [Hudson Bay] drains a large portion of the northern areas of Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba, and the southeastern area of Nunavut.” It surely drains southern Ontario and Manitoba as well. In fact, large portions of northwestern Minnesota and eastern and northern North Dakota and small portions of northeastern South Dakota and northeastern Montana also drain into Hudson Bay. I don’t see any mention at all of the United States, while I would like to see a map of the Hudson Bay watershed here. -- Nina, 15 May 2000

fish?

Are there fish in the bay? Any commercial or rec fishing?

Arctic char is mostly caught on these waters. Also, cod, scalpin, shrimps, seals, but to a lesser extent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arviatlands (talk • contribs) 17:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Salinity

This was added and should be answered. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Description

Hudson Bay is 1.23 million km², making it the second-largest bay in the world (after the Bay of Bengal). It is relatively shallow, with an average depth of about 100 meters (compared to 2,600 meters in the Bay of Bengal). It is approximately 1,370 km (850 mi) long and 1,050 km (650 mi) wide.[2] On the east it is connected with the Atlantic Ocean by Hudson Strait, and on the north with the rest of the Arctic Ocean by Foxe Basin (which is not considered part of the bay) and Fury and Hecla Strait. Geographic coordinates: 78° to 95° W, 51° to 70° N.

Hudson bay is the largest body of water all within one country

LisaWange (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why this was posted here, but the Sea of Okhotsk might count as a larger body of water within one country. Pfly (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Damming the bay to make a freshwater lake?

Has anyone ever considered trying to build a huge dam, levy, or sea wall across the narrow channels that connect the bay to the ocean?

If the bay already has a measurably lowered salt content than the rest of the ocean, it may be possible through damming for it to become the largest freshwater lake in the world after several decades of flushing out the salts and preventing the salts from re-entering the basin through tidal forces and diffusion.

This is certainly an interesting idea if global warming were to follow the suggested path of melting the permafrost and the United States and Mexico becoming more arid. Having the largest freshwater lake in the world would hold significant economic value for Canada if that region were to become more temperate.

DMahalko (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

lol

"When the ice cleared in the spring Hudson wanted to explore the rest of the area, but the crew mutinied on June 22, 1611. They left Hudson and others adrift in a small boat. No one knows the fate of Hudson and the crewmembers stranded with him, but historians believe they died." I'm not a historian or anything, but I think they made it.--Toepoaster (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I was tempted to come here and comment on that, then remembered this wasn't Fark where snarkiness is expected. All of the evidence suggests that anyone alive in 1611 would have died since, whether the subject of a mutiny or not. A good clarification would be that "historians see no evidence that they survived for long afterwards."Bollox Reader (talk) 08:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)