Talk:Mantle plume

message: What is the speed of convection within a plume?  With it being mainly solid matter under great pressure, pretty slow I imagine, but do the plumes rise at 1cm a year or 1 cm in 1000 years? Northfold 11:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rate of Convection 

message: Could someone clean this up it seems pretty hard to understand for those of us that don't know much about the geography of the ocean floor.71.224.24.133 22:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layman's terms 

message: I have restored my former definition of a mantle plume as an upwelling of abnormally (or anomalously) hot mantle, because some time ago, someone only identified by an IP has reverted it to an upwelling of molten rock. It is important to understand that this is wrong: in most parts of the plume, the rock is not molten, and even in those uppermost parts where it may be partially molten, it is far from being a 100% melt. I hope the new formulation helps to avoid in the future the misunderstanding that the earth's mantle is a magma ocean.--TomR 20:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of mantle plume

message: This page appears to have been copied from http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/science_fair_projects_encyclopedia/Mantle_plumes (unless they copied it from here, who can say?)
They do -- credit is given at the bottom of their page to Wikipedia.--Vsmith 00:28, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio or mirroring?

message: Current theories about mantle plumes are not fixed in stone (pardon the pun). In fact, many geologists maintain that there are no such things as mantle plumes, and that they need not be invoked to explain certain geological features.
http://www.mantleplumes.org/index.html is probably one of the best resources on this.
Could someone make mention of these alternative ideas/contradictions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.43.67.201 (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mantle Plume controversy? 

message: For a B category article, there is a rather notciable lack of images/diagrams.
Jason McConnell-Leech 10:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images/Diagrams 

message: A large number of footnotes refer to an author's surname and a year, period. The list of more complete sources attached at the bottom of the article does not include many of these sources: for example, a search for Morgan turns up no source. This means the incomplete sources in the footnotes are useless. Brews ohare (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete identification of sources 

message: Hey, this article seams to be mainly written by an author who might be no one of the geological mainstream opinion. --Christian b219 (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide a few details? RockMagnetist (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Foulger is also the name of the Coauthor of this quite plume critical book http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1405161485.html which content could be subscribed with this phase "Another hypothesis for unusual volcanic regions is the "Plate model". This attributes volcanoes to passive leakage of magma from the mantle onto the Earth's surface where extension of the lithosphere permits it. This model attributes essentially all volcanism to plate tectonic processes, with volcanoes far from plate boundaries resulting from intraplate extension.[4]" sentences like "The hypothesis of mantle plumes is not universally accepted because many of its predictions have not been confirmed by geophysical or petrological observation.[citation needed]. As a result, it has become less popular with many groups in the geological sciences." seam to me just to represent the opinion of the author. But there is quite good evidence of very deep sources, take a look here http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/125/1/Harris,J_1997pdf.pdf. --Christian b219 (talk) 12:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Both of the external links are to organizations affiliated with Foulger. Zyxwv99 (talk) 03:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: I notice that nobody's addressed the NPOV tag for several months. It seems like the criticism raised on the talk page might also fall under the lines of Fringe and Reliable Source issues. Can we get an expert to address this article? 209.6.197.214 (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: People are often reluctant to try to clean up an article that has obviously been hijacked and/or created by a cult. Doubting the existence of mantle plumes is not in itself fringe science, but what I see here is beyond fringe. Zyxwv99 (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is NPOV the right tag? 

message: The "plate hypothesis" section seems to present the "plume vs. plate" debate as either/or.  For instance "The Plate hypothesis embodies the concept that deep mantle plumes causing surface, time-progressive volcanism do not exist" and "The Plate hypothesis thus attributes all of Earth's volcanism to a single process".  
Is this either/or presentation correct?  Is anyone really suggesting that ALL occurrences must conform either to plume theory or ALL to plate hypothesis?  Isn't it more like "some hot-spots and volcanism seem best explained by plume theory while others seem better explained by the plate hypothesis"?  (My wording is probably quite inaccurate, but I hope you get the idea.)
Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Either/or? 

message: There's no mention of a potentially very significant sub-glacial plume in the article. See: Seroussi, H., E. R. Ivins, D. A. Wiens, and J. Bondzio (2017), Influence of a West Antarctic mantle plume on ice sheet basal conditions, J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, 122, 7127–7155, .
LeadSongDog come howl! 18:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antarctic plume 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mantle plume. 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/20110522022417/http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~jritsema/Reprints/ritsema_etal_science1999.pdf to http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~jritsema/Reprints/ritsema_etal_science1999.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Special relativity and General relativity are accepted as scientific theories, understood in its scientific sense of "almost universally accepted with no major rivals".  Note that both articles specifically have this word "theory" very near their opening.
By contrast, the "mantle plume" seems not yet to be quite so settled, and various points in the article use the word "hypothesis".  There are other ideas, particularly the "plate hypothesis" of Don L. Anderson and others, that can legitimately make a claim for explaining the surface phenomena in at least some of the locations.  Given the lack of "settledness", the word "hypothesis" (as already used) seems correct.
Regarding the opening of this articles then, as with SR and GR, we ought to include the word "hypothesis" (or "theory") near the start of the article.  I propose "hypothesis" (subject to consensus here) and I then further propose (in line with the SR and GR articles) slightly rewording the article lead to include this word, and doing so in about a week's time (mid October 2018).
Any objection? Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would call it a widely accepted theory. Its a theory because of its very large scope and ramifications. I do however think its more important to see what academic sources say on the topic. Lappspira (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypothesis or theory?  And how should the article start? 

message: Article currently reads in part 
about 830 Myr for a core mantle heat flux of 20 mW/m2, while the cycle time (the time between plume formation events) is about 2 Gyr.
Are Myr and Gyr acceptable units in this context? It's not my field, but I think they may be obsolete and deprecated. Andrewa (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Ma is now preferred. However, since each term is used just once, I'm going to simply spell out 830 million years and 2000 million years (the latter because "billion" is somewhat ambiguous). --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed as above. Thank you. Andrewa (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units