Are 'hot spots' hot spots?

The term ‘hot spot’ emerged in the 1960s from speculations that Hawaii might have its origins in an unusually hot source region in the mantle. It subsequently became widely used to refer to volcanic regions considered to be anomalous in the then-new plate tectonic paradigm. It carried with it the im...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of Geodynamics
Main Author: Foulger, G.R.
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:unknown
Published: Elsevier 2012
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dro.dur.ac.uk/13308/
http://dro.dur.ac.uk/13308/1/13308.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jog.2011.12.003
id ftunivdurham:oai:dro.dur.ac.uk.OAI2:13308
record_format openpolar
spelling ftunivdurham:oai:dro.dur.ac.uk.OAI2:13308 2023-05-15T16:53:02+02:00 Are 'hot spots' hot spots? Foulger, G.R. 2012-07-01 application/pdf http://dro.dur.ac.uk/13308/ http://dro.dur.ac.uk/13308/1/13308.pdf https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jog.2011.12.003 unknown Elsevier dro:13308 issn:0264-3707 doi:10.1016/j.jog.2011.12.003 http://dro.dur.ac.uk/13308/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jog.2011.12.003 http://dro.dur.ac.uk/13308/1/13308.pdf NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Journal of Geodynamics. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Journal of Geodynamics, 58, 2012, 10.1016/j.jog.2011.12.003. Journal of geodynamics, 2012, Vol.58, pp.1-28 [Peer Reviewed Journal] Hotspot Hot spot Plate Plume Temperature Mantle Seismology Petrology Heat flow Article PeerReviewed 2012 ftunivdurham https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jog.2011.12.003 2020-05-28T22:31:14Z The term ‘hot spot’ emerged in the 1960s from speculations that Hawaii might have its origins in an unusually hot source region in the mantle. It subsequently became widely used to refer to volcanic regions considered to be anomalous in the then-new plate tectonic paradigm. It carried with it the implication that volcanism (a) is emplaced by a single, spatially restricted, mongenetic melt-delivery system, assumed to be a mantle plume, and (b) that the source is unusually hot. This model has tended to be assumed a priori to be correct. Nevertheless, there are many geological ways of testing it, and a great deal of work has recently been done to do so. Two fundamental problems challenge this work. First is the difficulty of deciding a ‘normal’ mantle temperature against which to compare estimates. This is usually taken to be the source temperature of mid-ocean ridge basalts (MORBs). However, Earth's surface conduction layer is ∼200 km thick, and such a norm is not appropriate if the lavas under investigation formed deeper than the 40–50 km source depth of MORB. Second, methods for estimating temperature suffer from ambiguity of interpretation with composition and partial melt, controversy regarding how they should be applied, lack of repeatability between studies using the same data, and insufficient precision to detect the 200–300 °C temperature variations postulated. Available methods include multiple seismological and petrological approaches, modelling bathymetry and topography, and measuring heat flow. Investigations have been carried out in many areas postulated to represent either (hot) plume heads or (hotter) tails. These include sections of the mid-ocean spreading ridge postulated to include ridge-centred plumes, the North Atlantic Igneous Province, Iceland, Hawaii, oceanic plateaus, and high-standing continental areas such as the Hoggar swell. Most volcanic regions that may reasonably be considered anomalous in the simple plate-tectonic paradigm have been built by volcanism distributed throughout hundreds, even thousand of kilometres, and as yet no unequivocal evidence has been produced that any of them have high temperature anomalies compared with average mantle temperature for the same (usually unknown) depth elsewhere. Critical investigation of the genesis processes of ‘anomalous’ volcanic regions would be encouraged if use of the term ‘hot spot’ were discontinued in favour of one that does not assume a postulated origin, but is a description of unequivocal, observed characteristics. Article in Journal/Newspaper Iceland North Atlantic Durham University: Durham Research Online Journal of Geodynamics 58 1 28
institution Open Polar
collection Durham University: Durham Research Online
op_collection_id ftunivdurham
language unknown
topic Hotspot
Hot spot
Plate
Plume
Temperature
Mantle
Seismology
Petrology
Heat flow
spellingShingle Hotspot
Hot spot
Plate
Plume
Temperature
Mantle
Seismology
Petrology
Heat flow
Foulger, G.R.
Are 'hot spots' hot spots?
topic_facet Hotspot
Hot spot
Plate
Plume
Temperature
Mantle
Seismology
Petrology
Heat flow
description The term ‘hot spot’ emerged in the 1960s from speculations that Hawaii might have its origins in an unusually hot source region in the mantle. It subsequently became widely used to refer to volcanic regions considered to be anomalous in the then-new plate tectonic paradigm. It carried with it the implication that volcanism (a) is emplaced by a single, spatially restricted, mongenetic melt-delivery system, assumed to be a mantle plume, and (b) that the source is unusually hot. This model has tended to be assumed a priori to be correct. Nevertheless, there are many geological ways of testing it, and a great deal of work has recently been done to do so. Two fundamental problems challenge this work. First is the difficulty of deciding a ‘normal’ mantle temperature against which to compare estimates. This is usually taken to be the source temperature of mid-ocean ridge basalts (MORBs). However, Earth's surface conduction layer is ∼200 km thick, and such a norm is not appropriate if the lavas under investigation formed deeper than the 40–50 km source depth of MORB. Second, methods for estimating temperature suffer from ambiguity of interpretation with composition and partial melt, controversy regarding how they should be applied, lack of repeatability between studies using the same data, and insufficient precision to detect the 200–300 °C temperature variations postulated. Available methods include multiple seismological and petrological approaches, modelling bathymetry and topography, and measuring heat flow. Investigations have been carried out in many areas postulated to represent either (hot) plume heads or (hotter) tails. These include sections of the mid-ocean spreading ridge postulated to include ridge-centred plumes, the North Atlantic Igneous Province, Iceland, Hawaii, oceanic plateaus, and high-standing continental areas such as the Hoggar swell. Most volcanic regions that may reasonably be considered anomalous in the simple plate-tectonic paradigm have been built by volcanism distributed throughout hundreds, even thousand of kilometres, and as yet no unequivocal evidence has been produced that any of them have high temperature anomalies compared with average mantle temperature for the same (usually unknown) depth elsewhere. Critical investigation of the genesis processes of ‘anomalous’ volcanic regions would be encouraged if use of the term ‘hot spot’ were discontinued in favour of one that does not assume a postulated origin, but is a description of unequivocal, observed characteristics.
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Foulger, G.R.
author_facet Foulger, G.R.
author_sort Foulger, G.R.
title Are 'hot spots' hot spots?
title_short Are 'hot spots' hot spots?
title_full Are 'hot spots' hot spots?
title_fullStr Are 'hot spots' hot spots?
title_full_unstemmed Are 'hot spots' hot spots?
title_sort are 'hot spots' hot spots?
publisher Elsevier
publishDate 2012
url http://dro.dur.ac.uk/13308/
http://dro.dur.ac.uk/13308/1/13308.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jog.2011.12.003
genre Iceland
North Atlantic
genre_facet Iceland
North Atlantic
op_source Journal of geodynamics, 2012, Vol.58, pp.1-28 [Peer Reviewed Journal]
op_relation dro:13308
issn:0264-3707
doi:10.1016/j.jog.2011.12.003
http://dro.dur.ac.uk/13308/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jog.2011.12.003
http://dro.dur.ac.uk/13308/1/13308.pdf
op_rights NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Journal of Geodynamics. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Journal of Geodynamics, 58, 2012, 10.1016/j.jog.2011.12.003.
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jog.2011.12.003
container_title Journal of Geodynamics
container_volume 58
container_start_page 1
op_container_end_page 28
_version_ 1766043563372576768