16
$\begingroup$

Iceland has been cited as the location of a hot-spot overlying a mantle plume (similar to that of the Hawaii chain in the Pacific), though for some time this model has been challenged (see Gillian Foulger's mantle plumes site, especially Lundin & Doré's article).

How does the recent announcement by Torsvik et al. (2015) — that south east Iceland is underlain by continental crust — affect this debate?

Reference

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I haven't read the entire paper, but there's a red flag in the first sentence of the abstract: "The magmatic activity (0–16 Ma) in Iceland is linked to a deep mantle plume...". So no bias there :) $\endgroup$
    – Matt Hall
    Apr 14, 2015 at 14:58

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
8
$\begingroup$

Yes, Iceland is an example of a hotspot overlying a plume. The plume has been imaged seismically, e.g., see the Science paper (Figure 3) by Montelli et al. (2004). It is available at http://www.sciencemag.org/content/303/5656/338

The 2015 paper you referred doesn't dispute that claim. All is says is that "The plume split off a sliver of continent from Greenland in the Early Eocene. This sliver is now located beneath southeast Iceland where it locally contaminates some of the plume-derived magmas".

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Whether mantle plumes exist is still hotly debated. Proponents of the concept see results such as Montelli et al. as definitive proof. Opponents of the concept argue that Montelli et al. and others were seeing what they wanted to see. Tomographic mapping requires a background model. Assume a background model that involves mantle plumes, and voila! you see mantle plumes. Assume a background model that rejects mantle plumes, and voila! you don't see mantle plumes. $\endgroup$
    – David Hammen
    Apr 14, 2015 at 12:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DavidHammen There is also evidence from geochemistry. You should read the relatively recent paper by Kerr which is available at sciencemag.org/content/340/6128/22.full $\endgroup$
    – stali
    Apr 14, 2015 at 14:18
  • $\begingroup$ Montelli's research (e.g. as described in this PDF; look at figure 3) suggests that Iceland's hotspot is not caused by a plume, assuming 'plume' has its usual meaning: a deep-seated upwelling connected to the core-mantle boundary. $\endgroup$
    – Matt Hall
    Apr 14, 2015 at 14:52
  • $\begingroup$ A plume starts deep but doesn't have to be deep seated forever. When it ceases the deep part will be the first to disappear and therefore you might only see its remnants at the very top. Also, the deeper parts of the plume are much narrower and harder to image to begin with. Look at the images in the link mentioned in my answer (both P and S wave results). $\endgroup$
    – stali
    Apr 14, 2015 at 18:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @stali: Montelli's words: "The results of our inversion [...] clearly contradict [...] a plume extending all the way to the core-mantle boundary" (i.e. what most people call a plume). So your evidence doesn't really support the bold first sentence of your answer, which is just one side of a contested claim, perhaps even the minority side. I think you should at least recognize the debate in your answer. PS, if poss, please avoid referencing pay-walled material. $\endgroup$
    – Matt Hall
    Apr 14, 2015 at 22:16

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.