Notices
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Why did not Hawaii Hotspot track break on transform boundaries?

  1. #1 Why did not Hawaii Hotspot track break on transform boundaries? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    24
    Please, have a look at Mendocino, Murray, and Molokai Fracture Zones. The two microplates between them moved with significantly different rates for the past few tens million years. You can evaluate it from Muller, R.D., M. Sdrolias, C. Gaina, and W.R. Roest 2008. Age, spreading rates and spreading symmetry of the world's ocean crust, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 9, Q04006, doi:10.1029/2007GC001743. (The file "age_ortho_7_-135_40.gif" on NOAA's www.ngdc.noaa.gov)

    The difference in distances the two microplates performed for aprox 50 MA is as great as many hundreds km. Still, the Hawaii Hotspot track is not broken on the transform boundary between the microplates. Why?

    What am I missing in my old blog post "Hawaii Convergent, Part 2. Introducing The Concept Of Geofracture (not Plate) Tectonics." ?

    Thanks.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    for one thing, None of the three actually reach Hawaii, add to that the much younger age of the current islands, and its not surprising there is no movement related to the fracture zones.


    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    for one thing, None of the three actually reach Hawaii,
    They do reach Hawaii actually. It's clearly seen on the mentioned image of age of oceanic crust. The offset in the age of the microplates crust reaches from west of North America through Hawaii chain and well farther to the west of the chain.

    add to that the much younger age of the current islands, and its not surprising there is no movement related to the fracture zones.
    I am not talking about newest islands, I'm wondering why the chain's seamounts that were created some tens millions years ago did not move with the microplates since then. The microplates moved some hundreds km relative to each other since then, but the track remains magically unbroken on the transform border between the microplates.
    Last edited by Sergey S.; February 20th, 2012 at 11:49 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Wuerzburg, Bavaria, Germany
    Posts
    160
    add to that the much younger age of the current islands, and its not surprising there is no movement related to the fracture zones.
    I am not talking about newest islands, I'm wondering why the chain's seamounts that were created some tens millions years ago did not move with the microplates since then. The microplates moved some hundreds km relative to each other since then, but the track remains magically unbroken on the transform border between the microplates.
    They are still older! Most transform faults in oceans are nearly as old as the oceanic lithosphere they are lying in/on. In case of the with 60 Ma oldest parts of this chain the lithosphere is with something around 110 Ma still about 50 Ma older.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by The Geographer View Post
    add to that the much younger age of the current islands, and its not surprising there is no movement related to the fracture zones.
    I am not talking about newest islands, I'm wondering why the chain's seamounts that were created some tens millions years ago did not move with the microplates since then. The microplates moved some hundreds km relative to each other since then, but the track remains magically unbroken on the transform border between the microplates.
    They are still older! Most transform faults in oceans are nearly as old as the oceanic lithosphere they are lying in/on. In case of the with 60 Ma oldest parts of this chain the lithosphere is with something around 110 Ma still about 50 Ma older.
    Yes, the transform zone are as old as the crust on its sides. No surprise, the crust of the two microplates has been spread with different rates all those hundreds million years. The problem is that the transform zones have been active all the years. The mentioned picture of age of oceanic crust shows it.

    After the hotspot had burned the track across the transform zone some tens million years ago, the two sides of the transform zone kept on moving with different rates, and the track should become broken. The faster moving microplate should shift its part of the track to east some hundreds km.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Wuerzburg, Bavaria, Germany
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by Sergey S. View Post
    After the hotspot had burned the track across the transform zone some tens million years ago, the two sides of the transform zone kept on moving with different rates, and the track should become broken. The faster moving microplate should shift its part of the track to east some hundreds km.
    how do you proof such a movement? I'm no fan of speculating into the blue
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by The Geographer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sergey S. View Post
    After the hotspot had burned the track across the transform zone some tens million years ago, the two sides of the transform zone kept on moving with different rates, and the track should become broken. The faster moving microplate should shift its part of the track to east some hundreds km.
    how do you proof such a movement? I'm no fan of speculating into the blue
    If I am not missing something...

    Let's take Murray fracture zone for instance. The two microplates on its sides added different lengths of crust for the past few tens millions years according to the mentioned picture of age of oceanic crust. That could happen either due to:

    a) "ridge jump" - if the spreading center for the "more productive" microplate moved east, - no need in active transform (strike-slip) process within the fracture zone in this case.

    or

    b) the spreading ridge for both microplates did not significantly change its configuration. But the crust was spread with different rates for the two microplates. In this case the transform (strike-slip) process within the Murray fracture zone had to take place.

    Murray fracture zone starts not far from middle of San Andreas Fault line. If I am not mistaken, San Andreas Fault has been keeping on its strike-slip behavior for the past few tens million years, so, the "ridge jump" is very unlikely to had happened in any of its part. The two microplates moved west at different rates, Hawaii hotspot track is expected to get broken.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Wuerzburg, Bavaria, Germany
    Posts
    160
    how do you exactly proof that there were different spreading rates in the last 60 Ma? I didn't notice those hundreds of km offset in this paper.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by The Geographer View Post
    how do you exactly proof that there were different spreading rates in the last 60 Ma? I didn't notice those hundreds of km offset in this paper.
    Muller, R.D., M. Sdrolias, C. Gaina, and W.R. Roest 2008. Age, spreading rates and spreading symmetry of the world's ocean crust, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 9, Q04006, doi:10.1029/2007GC001743.
    Chapter 5. Regional Review of Tectonic Reconstructions.
    Figure 8. (top) Oceanic lithospheric age.

    Let's look at the microplate on the north of Murray Fracture Zone. The red and orange colors corresponding to approx 30 MY for the northern microplate of Murray Fracture Zone spans approx 5 degrees of longitude. The same colors for the southern microplate of Murray Fracture Zone span approx 12 degrees of longitude.

    The difference of 7 degrees would mean approx 700 km difference of the crust spread by the microplates. Ridge jump probably could be responsible for hundred or so km, but, the next southern microplate (which points to the head of Hawaii chain) was low on spread crust again. It's hard to imagine why ridge had to dance that hard for a specific narrow microplate.

    That's why, I think, we may conclude that the microplate to the south of Murray Fracture Zone has been moving westward faster than northern microplate for the past 30 MY. It even can be seen on the mentioned above figure. On the west from Hawaii chain the greenish end of the microplate protrudes through the blueish colors (older) of the neighboring microplates.

    The Murray FZ's southern microplate did do extra hundreds km westward for the last 30 MA relative to northern microplate, but the hotspot track did not move with the microplate, and still looks smooth around the fracture zone. That's the problem with the "hotspot" paradigm. That's why I suggested another mechanism to explain Hawaii chain ( Hawaii Convergent, Part 2. Introducing The Concept Of Geofracture (not Plate) Tectonics. )
    --
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Wuerzburg, Bavaria, Germany
    Posts
    160
    You forget exactly 4 things:

    1. There is an offset of lets say 200-300 km which is clearly older than the part of the emperor chain which is lying on it.
    2. As already mentioned with the earth being a globe there have to be different extension rates.
    3. Makes the fault zone a bow so the stress can not go on so clearly to the west, so it ends in ductile or local deformation.
    4. Quality. In your paper is clearly an age error mentioned which is in our region between 0-6 ma.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    I think this thread needs pictures. I for one don't have the time to second guess what on Earth this thread is really about.
    Sergey S. you do know how to put pictures in your posts right?
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Sergey S. View Post
    Please, have a look at Mendocino, Murray, and Molokai Fracture Zones. The two microplates between them moved with significantly different rates for the past few tens million years. You can evaluate it from Muller, R.D., M. Sdrolias, C. Gaina, and W.R. Roest 2008. Age, spreading rates and spreading symmetry of the world's ocean crust, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 9, Q04006, doi:10.1029/2007GC001743. (The file "age_ortho_7_-135_40.gif" on NOAA's www.ngdc.noaa.gov)

    The difference in distances the two microplates performed for aprox 50 MA is as great as many hundreds km. Still, the Hawaii Hotspot track is not broken on the transform boundary between the microplates. Why?

    What am I missing in my old blog post "Hawaii Convergent, Part 2. Introducing The Concept Of Geofracture (not Plate) Tectonics." ?

    Thanks.
    Could you place a specific link to the article you are citing from? That particlular link gets you to the home page.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by The Geographer View Post
    You forget exactly 4 things:

    1. There is an offset of lets say 200-300 km which is clearly older than the part of the emperor chain which is lying on it.
    2. As already mentioned with the earth being a globe there have to be different extension rates.
    3. Makes the fault zone a bow so the stress can not go on so clearly to the west, so it ends in ductile or local deformation.
    4. Quality. In your paper is clearly an age error mentioned which is in our region between 0-6 ma.
    Thank you for your comments.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sergey S. View Post
    Please, have a look at Mendocino, Murray, and Molokai Fracture Zones. The two microplates between them moved with significantly different rates for the past few tens million years. You can evaluate it from Muller, R.D., M. Sdrolias, C. Gaina, and W.R. Roest 2008. Age, spreading rates and spreading symmetry of the world's ocean crust, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 9, Q04006, doi:10.1029/2007GC001743. (The file "age_ortho_7_-135_40.gif" on NOAA's www.ngdc.noaa.gov)

    The difference in distances the two microplates performed for aprox 50 MA is as great as many hundreds km. Still, the Hawaii Hotspot track is not broken on the transform boundary between the microplates. Why?

    What am I missing in my old blog post "Hawaii Convergent, Part 2. Introducing The Concept Of Geofracture (not Plate) Tectonics." ?

    Thanks.
    Could you place a specific link to the article you are citing from? That particlular link gets you to the home page.
    To ask this thread's question I used only the image from the site of NOAA's National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) < NOAA National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) | ngdc.noaa.gov >.

    The source of the image was cited per the requirement on the top of the page Muller, et al., 2008 Age, spreading rates and spreading symmetry of the world's ocean crust | ngdc.noaa.gov :

    Please cite the source when using these data:
    Müller, R.D., M. Sdrolias, C. Gaina, and W.R. Roest 2008. Age, spreading rates and spreading symmetry of the world's ocean crust, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 9, Q04006, doi:10.1029/2007GC001743.

    To reach the image

    - Navigate to Muller, et al., 2008 Age, spreading rates and spreading symmetry of the world's ocean crust | ngdc.noaa.gov;

    - Click "Northern Hemisphere Plots" link, you'll get to Index of /mgg/ocean_age/data/2008/north_hem_plots;

    - Click "age_ortho_7_-135_40.gif" or "age_ortho_8_-180_40.gif" link;

    --
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by Sergey S. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sergey S. View Post
    Please, have a look at Mendocino, Murray, and Molokai Fracture Zones. The two microplates between them moved with significantly different rates for the past few tens million years. You can evaluate it from Muller, R.D., M. Sdrolias, C. Gaina, and W.R. Roest 2008. Age, spreading rates and spreading symmetry of the world's ocean crust, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 9, Q04006, doi:10.1029/2007GC001743. (The file "age_ortho_7_-135_40.gif" on NOAA's www.ngdc.noaa.gov)

    The difference in distances the two microplates performed for aprox 50 MA is as great as many hundreds km. Still, the Hawaii Hotspot track is not broken on the transform boundary between the microplates. Why?

    What am I missing in my old blog post "Hawaii Convergent, Part 2. Introducing The Concept Of Geofracture (not Plate) Tectonics." ?

    Thanks.
    Could you place a specific link to the article you are citing from? That particlular link gets you to the home page.
    To ask this thread's question I used only the image from the site of NOAA's National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) < NOAA National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) | ngdc.noaa.gov >.

    The source of the image was cited per the requirement on the top of the page Muller, et al., 2008 Age, spreading rates and spreading symmetry of the world's ocean crust | ngdc.noaa.gov :

    Please cite the source when using these data:
    Müller, R.D., M. Sdrolias, C. Gaina, and W.R. Roest 2008. Age, spreading rates and spreading symmetry of the world's ocean crust, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 9, Q04006, doi:10.1029/2007GC001743.

    To reach the image

    - Navigate to Muller, et al., 2008 Age, spreading rates and spreading symmetry of the world's ocean crust | ngdc.noaa.gov;

    - Click "Northern Hemisphere Plots" link, you'll get to Index of /mgg/ocean_age/data/2008/north_hem_plots;

    - Click "age_ortho_7_-135_40.gif" or "age_ortho_8_-180_40.gif" link;

    --
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by The Geographer View Post
    You forget exactly 4 things:

    1. There is an offset of lets say 200-300 km which is clearly older than the part of the emperor chain which is lying on it.
    What could it mean the offset is older than Hawaii-Emperor chain? Does not it mean that the microplates on the north and on the south from Murray Fracture Zone did not move relative each other since the time the hotspot crossed the Murray Fracture Zone? If they did not move relative each other, then we can reconstruct the divergent boundary on their eastern ends by just cutting off the crust spread for the last, say, 30 MY.

    Take a look at the image of crustal age posted by billiards. If we cut off the crust spread for the last 30, or 40, or 50 MY, we will be getting very strange configuration for the divergent boundary. I don't state the configuration is not possible. I'm just wondering why on the course of those 50 MY the divergent boundary was full of incredible rectangular surges, but now it is relatively smooth? How had strike-slip fault been maintaining the rectangular configuration?

    2. As already mentioned with the earth being a globe there have to be different extension rates.
    Yes, in general, but this thread is about the details of how it works out.

    3. Makes the fault zone a bow so the stress can not go on so clearly to the west, so it ends in ductile or local deformation.
    The ductile local compressional deformations can be called convergent deformations. If we allow for the rigid microplates to undergo such deformations somewhere in between Hawaii chain and North America, why not to suggest that Hawaii chain itself could be such convergent deformation?

    That's exactly the theme of my already mentioned post "Hawaii Convergent, Part 2. Introducing The Concept Of Geofracture (not Plate) Tectonics." (On a related note: I think I was wrong with the phrase "Geofracture (not Plate) Tectonics". Actually, Geofracture could be taken as the "next order approximation" over Plate Tectonics. It's not a branch "from scratch").

    4. Quality. In your paper is clearly an age error mentioned which is in our region between 0-6 ma.
    I wish I participated in it, but no, it's Müller et all, 2008 paper, not mine :-) I took a look at age error image on NOAA's National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) Muller, et al., 2008 Age, spreading rates and spreading symmetry of the world's ocean crust | ngdc.noaa.gov and found that the uncertainty 0-6 MY lies within the area of the crust spread for the past 30 MY. The borders of the area seem to be estimated with less than 1 MY uncertainty if I'm taking it correctly.
    --
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Wuerzburg, Bavaria, Germany
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by Sergey S. View Post
    What could it mean the offset is older than Hawaii-Emperor chain?
    thats the normal geological logic argumentation

    Does not it mean that the microplates on the north and on the south from Murray Fracture Zone did not move relative each other since the time the hotspot crossed the Murray Fracture Zone?
    yes, it seems to be a strong barrier for all fracture zones, I've taken a look at other papers where you see that the fractures stop directly in front of the chain.

    If they did not move relative each other, then we can reconstruct the divergent boundary on their eastern ends by just cutting off the crust spread for the last, say, 30 MY.
    yes, take a look in the atlantic, where the MOR hardly changed for the last 180 Ma.

    Take a look at the image of crustal age posted by billiards. If we cut off the crust spread for the last 30, or 40, or 50 MY, we will be getting very strange configuration for the divergent boundary. I don't state the configuration is not possible. I'm just wondering why on the course of those 50 MY the divergent boundary was full of incredible rectangular surges, but now it is relatively smooth? How had strike-slip fault been maintaining the rectangular configuration?
    I would guess thats because of the strange own motion of the pacific plate which changed (without knowing exactly which surges you mean)

    3. Makes the fault zone a bow so the stress can not go on so clearly to the west, so it ends in ductile or local deformation.
    The ductile local compressional deformations can be called convergent deformations. If we allow for the rigid microplates to undergo such deformations somewhere in between Hawaii chain and North America, why not to suggest that Hawaii chain itself could be such convergent deformation?
    thats hardly compatible with the many things we know today about the emperor chain for example the where should the volcanism come from? why should there be a anomaly into the deep mantle why is there such a strong geoid anomaly? where do the traces of subducted ancient crust come from?

    4. Quality. In your paper is clearly an age error mentioned which is in our region between 0-6 ma.
    I wish I participated in it, but no, it's Müller et all, 2008 paper, not mine :-) I took a look at age error image on NOAA's National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) Muller, et al., 2008 Age, spreading rates and spreading symmetry of the world's ocean crust | ngdc.noaa.gov and found that the uncertainty 0-6 MY lies within the area of the crust spread for the past 30 MY. The borders of the area seem to be estimated with less than 1 MY uncertainty if I'm taking it correctly.
    --[/QUOTE] the 6 ma error is at the coast so we cannot say what happened the last 6 Ma
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. How do we copy Hawaii to stop our Hurricanes?
    By pbmaise in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 22nd, 2012, 02:43 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 11th, 2011, 12:28 AM
  3. Lagrange multipliers with boundaries? or the like
    By vector13 in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: April 8th, 2011, 04:11 PM
  4. Tsunami Warning for Hawaii,US Coast; Japan 8.9 Quake
    By MeteorWayne in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: March 14th, 2011, 02:37 AM
  5. Boundaries
    By Awareness_truth in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 8th, 2005, 08:22 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •