https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2020-12-29/australias-ancient-volcanoes-form-geology-cradle-mountain/12987192
Now, after studying how tectonic plates moved over time and analysing the chemistry of rock samples from several volcanoes, Dr Mather and colleagues developed a new hypothesis.

“ can apply to volcanoes from the southern tip of Tasmania all the way up to northern Queensland,” Dr Mather said.

The answer lies in the nature of the seafloor that was pushed under the continent from the east, they reported in the journal Science Advances.

“During the past 120 million years, lots and lots of seafloor has been shoved underneath Australia and Zealandia,” Dr Mather explained.

“But what’s special is this seafloor is imbued with water and carbon.”

Usually, the plate that is pushed underneath sinks towards the centre of the Earth, but the material pushed under the Indo Australian plate has continued to hang around in the upper mantle for the past 60 million years.

“So occasionally that volatile cocktail gets released and that percolates to the surface in the form of volcanoes.”

Here’s the original paper. I am far from convinced. Mind you, I have always been far from convinced by the (older) competing theory of multiple hotspots.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/51/eabd0953

Michael V said:

Here’s the original paper. I am far from convinced. Mind you, I have always been far from convinced by the (older) competing theory of multiple hotspots.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/51/eabd0953

:)

At least they are theorising.

Michael V said:

Here’s the original paper. I am far from convinced. Mind you, I have always been far from convinced by the (older) competing theory of multiple hotspots.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/51/eabd0953

I haven’t read this stuff yet. Do you have an idea of your own MV?

buffy said:

Michael V said:

Here’s the original paper. I am far from convinced. Mind you, I have always been far from convinced by the (older) competing theory of multiple hotspots.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/51/eabd0953

I haven’t read this stuff yet. Do you have an idea of your own MV?

Yes, but it doesn’t explain everything either. I need to re-read this latest paper while actually concentrating.

Michael V said:

buffy said:

Michael V said:

Here’s the original paper. I am far from convinced. Mind you, I have always been far from convinced by the (older) competing theory of multiple hotspots.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/51/eabd0953

I haven’t read this stuff yet. Do you have an idea of your own MV?

Yes, but it doesn’t explain everything either. I need to re-read this latest paper while actually concentrating.

My concentration span was found to be skimmimng over bits. So yes, several reads may be required.

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

Here’s the original paper. I am far from convinced. Mind you, I have always been far from convinced by the (older) competing theory of multiple hotspots.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/51/eabd0953

:)

At least they are theorising.

Hypothesising :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

Here’s the original paper. I am far from convinced. Mind you, I have always been far from convinced by the (older) competing theory of multiple hotspots.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/51/eabd0953

:)

At least they are theorising.

Hypothesising :)

Making informed guesses…

buffy said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

:)

At least they are theorising.

Hypothesising :)

Making informed guesses…

Throwing darts.

buffy said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

:)

At least they are theorising.

Hypothesising :)

Making informed guesses…

Or arm-waving. (Something geologists are prone to.)

Michael V said:

buffy said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Hypothesising :)

Making informed guesses…

Or arm-waving. (Something geologists are prone to.)

My only hope is that they put the pick down first.

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

Here’s the original paper. I am far from convinced. Mind you, I have always been far from convinced by the (older) competing theory of multiple hotspots.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/51/eabd0953

:)

At least they are theorising.

Three hotspots suffice nicely. The two volcanic chains under the Pacific nicely parallel the Great Dividing Range. And the timescale for all three shows a perfect progression from oldest in the north to youngest in the south.

The only perplexity in the hotspot theme for me is that the active volcanoes under SE South Australia are in the wrong place. They should be further east, in Bass Straight.

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

Here’s the original paper. I am far from convinced. Mind you, I have always been far from convinced by the (older) competing theory of multiple hotspots.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/51/eabd0953

:)

At least they are theorising.

Three hotspots suffice nicely. The two volcanic chains under the Pacific nicely parallel the Great Dividing Range. And the timescale for all three shows a perfect progression from oldest in the north to youngest in the south.

The only perplexity in the hotspot theme for me is that the active volcanoes under SE South Australia are in the wrong place. They should be further east, in Bass Straight.

It’s too late now.