<p>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 <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/303/5656/338">http://www.sciencemag.org/content/303/5656/338</a></p>

<p>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".</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-14T12:26:24.897Z
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.
David Hammen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-14T14:18:24.810Z
@DavidHammen There is also evidence from geochemistry. You should read the relatively recent paper by Kerr which is available at https://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6128/22.full
stali
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-14T14:52:52.013Z
Montelli's research (e.g. as described in [this PDF](http://www.mantleplumes.org/Penrose/PenPDFAbstracts/Montelli_Raffaella_abs.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.
Matt Hall
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-14T18:03:59.680Z
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).
stali
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-14T22:16:09.317Z
@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.
Matt Hall
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-13T23:17:58.270Z
2015-04-13T23:17:58.270Z
stali
<p>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 <a href="http://www.mantleplumes.org/">Gillian Foulger's mantle plumes site</a>, especially <a href="http://www.mantleplumes.org/Iceland2.html">Lundin &amp; Doré's article</a>).</p>

<p>How does <a href="http://phys.org/news/2015-04-fragment-continental-crust-southeast-iceland.html">the recent announcement</a> by <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1423099112">Torsvik et al. (2015)</a> — that south east Iceland is underlain by continental crust — affect this debate?</p>

<p><strong>Reference</strong></p>

<ul>
<li>Torsvik, TH, et al. (2015), PNAS online 30 March 2015. DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1423099112">10.1073/pnas.1423099112</a></li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-14T14:58:43.013Z
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 :)
Matt Hall
<geology><geophysics><plate-tectonics><mantle-plumes><hotspot>
Is Iceland an example of a hot-spot overlying a mantle plume?
Siv
# Is Iceland an example of a hot-spot overlying a mantle plume?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-04-13)

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](http://www.mantleplumes.org/), especially [Lundin & Doré's article](http://www.mantleplumes.org/Iceland2.html)).

How does [the recent announcement](http://phys.org/news/2015-04-fragment-continental-crust-southeast-iceland.html) by [Torsvik et al. (2015)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1423099112) — that south east Iceland is underlain by continental crust — affect this debate?

**Reference**

* Torsvik, TH, et al. (2015), PNAS online 30 March 2015. DOI: [10.1073/pnas.1423099112](http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1423099112)

**Tags:** geology, geophysics, plate-tectonics, mantle-plumes, hotspot

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: 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 :)  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2015-04-13. Score: 8

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".

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: 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.  
> **username_2**: @username_3 There is also evidence from geochemistry. You should read the relatively recent paper by Kerr which is available at https://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6128/22.full  
> **username_1**: Montelli's research (e.g. as described in [this PDF](http://www.mantleplumes.org/Penrose/PenPDFAbstracts/Montelli_Raffaella_abs.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.  
> **username_2**: 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).  
> **username_1**: @username_2: 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.  

---

