Mysterious ‘blobs' deep inside the Earth may cause deadly volcanic eruptions that wipe out life
Now, scientists in Australia have identified mysterious 'blobs' about 1,200 miles under the surface that could cause massive eruptions.
Blobs are three-dimensional regions that span the length of continents and can be 100 time the height of Mount Everest.
They sit at the bottom of Earth's rocky mantle above the molten outer core, a place so deep that Earth's elements are squeezed beyond recognition. The blobs are also the starting point for plumes of hot molten rock which flow up towards the Earth's surface.
There they erupt as lava, gases and rock fragments with the capability of wiping out life as we know it.
The scientists warn that giant, large-scale eruptions can have serious impacts, such as sudden climate change and mass extinction events.
Volcanic eruptions can intensify global warming by adding greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere.
Giant volcanoes also triggered events that led to the largest mass dying on Earth, the Permian-Triassic extinction 252 million years ago.
'These blobs have possibly existed for hundreds of millions of years,' say the researchers from the University of Wollongong, near Sydney.
Earth is made up of three layers – the crust, the mantle and the core, which was recently separated into 'inner' and 'outer'.
According to the team, blobs are at the bottom of Earth's mantle, betwee 1,200 miles and 1,800 miles below our feet.
The mantle, the planet's thickest layer, is predominantly a solid rock, but blobs may be different compared with the surrounding mantle rocks.
Blobs are made of rock just like the rest of the mantle, but they're thought to be hotter and heavier.
For their study, the team used computer modeling to simulate 'mantle convection' – the movement of material in Earth's mantle powered by heat – over one billion years.
Blobs, which are some 1,200 miles below Earth's surface, move over time and are connected to Earth's surface by 'mantle plumes' that create giant eruptions
Their findings suggest that mantle plumes – columns of hot molten rock in the mantle – rise up from the continent-sized blobs.
Mantle plumes are shaped a bit like a lollipop sticking upwards, with the 'stick' the plume tail and the 'candy' nearer Earth's surface the plume head.
The researchers found that locations of volcanic eruption fall either onto, or close to, the location of blobs, as predicted by their models.
This suggests that blobs, an acronym for Big LOwer-mantle Basal Structures, are essentially the deep-Earth origin of volcanic eruptions.
Typically, deep Earth motions are in the order of 0.4-inch per year, so they only become significant over tens of millions of years.
Blobs probably shift in a year at roughly the rate at which human hair grows each month, the team say.
Although they have possibly existed for hundreds of millions of years, it's unclear what causes their movement.
Mantle plumes rise very slowly from blobs through the mantle because they transport hot solid rock, not melt or lava.
At lower pressures in the uppermost 125 miles of Earth's mantle, the solid rock melts, leading to volcanic eruptions.
'We used statistics to show that the locations of past giant volcanic eruptions are significantly related to the mantle plumes predicted by our models,' explain the authors in a piece for The Conversation.
'This is encouraging, as it suggests that the simulations predict mantle plumes in places and at times generally consistent with the geologic record.'
The new findings, published in Communications Earth and Environment, suggest that the deep Earth is even more dynamic than we realized.
Future research aims to explore the chemical nature of blobs, which might be possible with simulations that track the evolution of their composition.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Science could enable a fascist future. Especially if we don't learn from the past
Science is in crisis. Funding infrastructures for both basic and applied research are being systematically decimated, while in places of great power, science's influence on decision making is waning. Long-term and far-reaching studies are being shuttered, and thousands of scientists' livelihoods are uncertain, to say nothing of the incalculable casualties resulting from the abrupt removal of life-saving medical and environmental interventions. Understandably, the scientific community is working hard to weather this storm and restore funding to whatever extent possible. In times like these, it may be tempting to settle for the status quo of six months ago, wanting everything simply to go back to what it was (no doubt an improvement for science, compared to the present). But equally, such moments of crisis offer an opportunity to rebuild differently. As Arundhati Roy wrote about Covid-19 in April 2020, 'Historically, pandemics have forced humans to break with the past and imagine their world anew. This one is no different. It is a portal, a gateway between one world and the next.' What could science look like, and what good could science bring, if we moved through the portal of the present moment into a different world? At worst, science will play its part in accelerating us toward a tech-obsessed end-times-fascist future. At best, science will broaden its power as a positive force, serving the wellbeing of humans and nature alike. Imagining this latter vision in exquisite detail is essential, and we argue here that to first envision and then work towards the best version of science, we need to reckon honestly with science's past and present. Most crucially, we need to confront the commonplace claim that science is – or ought to be – objective and apolitical, uninfluenced by human culture, norms, or values. The current moment has rudely awakened many scientists to the fact that research is indeed political, and further makes clear that scientists' attempts to distance themselves from politics will backfire. Denying the inherent entanglements of science and politics leaves scientists lacking the capacity and tools to mount effective defenses against bad-faith political attacks. This denial also allows science to go unquestioned when it undermines the needs and rights of marginalized beings and places. As much as scientists might wish for science to be cleanly separable from politics, decades of research demonstrates that this has never been true, and never could be. The field of science studies examines the inherently human processes of science – who defines what science is, who gets to conduct scientific research, who pays for it, who benefits from it, who is harmed by it – and how these human dynamics shape scientific knowledge. Feminist science studies in particular documents how power and oppression shape scientific findings and applications, demonstrating that even 'science at its most basic' is in fact inextricable from politics. Some of the most compelling, and consequential, examples of such entanglement can be found in human and animal biology. Consider an analysis of 19th-century science on human race and sex from Sally Markowitz, which clearly reveals the influence of white supremacism on basic biology. Markowitz shows how 19th-century scientists not only asserted that human races are biological categories, but also that the so-called white race is evolutionarily superior. To 'prove' this politically-motivated claim, these scientists first decided that the degree of distinction between men's and women's bodies (or 'sexual dimorphism') was proof of evolutionary superiority, and then claimed, on the basis of selective measurements, that sexual dimorphism is supposedly greater in Europeans than in Africans. Women of African descent were thus mismeasured as both less female and less human than their white counterparts – rendering all people of African descent more 'animal-like'. This 19th-century research has had far-reaching consequences, from justifying enslavement, to supporting eugenic sterilization practices well into the 20th century, to contemporary controversy around the 'femaleness' of elite Black and brown female athletes, among other examples. It may be tempting to relegate such blatant instances to the past, and claim that scientists have since corrected such mistakes. But in fact these ghosts continue to haunt us. In our new book, Feminism in the Wild, we – an evolutionary biologist and a science studies scholar – dive deep into how contemporary scientists describe and understand animal behavior, and find the dominant political perspectives of the last 200 years reflected back to us. Scientific research on mating behavior in species ranging from fruit flies to primates is entangled with patriarchal expectations of masculinity and femininity. Scientists' understanding of animals' foraging behavior mirrors a capitalist theory of economics, based upon assumptions of scarcity and optimization, and expectations of individualism are pervasive throughout scientific research on how animals behave in groups. Contemporary researchers express surprise, for instance, at elephants who alter their eating habits to accommodate a fellow herd member disabled by poachers, at ravens who alert one another to the presence of food in the dead of winter, or at female dolphins who begin lactating without having given birth in order to nurse calves whose mothers have died. Dominant evolutionary theories do not explain such instances of care on their own terms, but instead insist that these behaviors must ultimately be self-interested. Not coincidentally, these theories rooted in individualism only rose to dominance in the last 50 years or so, alongside the rise of neoliberalism. Meanwhile, eugenic perspectives, rooted in racism, classism, and ableism, constrain how scientists understand sex, intelligence, performance and more, in humans and animals alike. For example, today's scientists are still somewhat shocked by lizards who successfully navigate tree trunks and branches with missing limbs, as these agile lizards undermine the presumed correlation between an animal's appearance, performance, and survival that's captured in the phrase 'survival of the fittest'. Other scientists continue to argue that peahens (for instance) choose to mate with the most beautiful peacock, despite his expansive tail's costly impediments, because beauty is a 'favorable' trait even if it doesn't promote survival. Such arguments about female mate choice are rooted in a theory developed decades ago by mathematician and evolutionary biologist Ronald A Fisher, a vocal advocate of 'positive eugenics', which means encouraging only people with 'favorable' traits to reproduce. Leonard Darwin (son of Charles Darwin), in his 1923 presidential address to the Eugenics Education Society, made this connection between Fisher's theories and eugenics explicit, stating: 'Wonderful results have been produced…by the action of sexual selection in all kinds of organisms…and if this be so, ought we not to enquire whether this same agency cannot be utilized in our efforts to improve the human race?' Leonard Darwin then went on to deliver an astoundingly modern-sounding description of sexual selection before considering its implications for effective eugenics propaganda. We offer these examples (and many more, in our book), to show that scientific research on the evolution of animal behavior remains thoroughly and undeniably political. But the moral of our story is not that scientists must root out all politics and strive for pure neutrality. Rather, feminist science studies illustrates how science has always been shaped by politics, and always will be. It is therefore incumbent upon scientists to confront this reality rather than deny it. Thankfully, for as long as science has been aligned with systems of oppression, there have been scientists and other scholars resisting this alignment, both explicitly and implicitly. In Feminism in the Wild, we detail the work of scientists developing new mathematical models about female mating behavior that discard old assumptions aligned with patriarchy and eugenics, instead demonstrating that it's possible and even likely that female animals are not necessarily concerned with mating with the 'best' males and that mate choice can be a more flexible and variable affair. We discuss a rich history of theories about animals' behavior in groups that take both individual and collective well-being seriously. And we explore alternatives rooted in queer, Indigenous, and Marxist standpoints, which counter the dominant view that animal behavior is all about maximizing survival and reproduction. Ultimately, we show that it is possible—and even desirable—to fold political analysis into scientific inquiry in a way that makes science more multifaceted and more honest, bringing us closer to the truth than a science which denies its politics ever could. In this historical moment scientists must embrace, rather than avoid, the political underpinnings and implications of scientific inquiry. As Science's editor-in-chief Holden Thorp put it in 2020, 'science thrives when its advocates are shrewd politicians but suffers when its opponents are better at politics.' We agree, and further insist: scientists must reckon honestly and explicitly with the ways in which the knowledge they produce, and the processes by which they produce it, are already and unavoidably political. In doing so, scientists may lose the shallow authority they have harbored by pretending to be above the political fray. They will instead have to grapple with their own political perspectives constantly, as part of the scientific process—a rougher road, no doubt, but one that will lead us to a stronger science, both more empirically rigorous and more politically resilient. Imagine if scientists seized this moment to remake science even while fighting for it. As MacArthur Genius and feminist science studies scholar Ruha Benjamin recently stated: imagination is '[not] an ephemeral afterthought that we have the luxury to dismiss or romanticize, but a resource, a battleground.' And, she continues: 'most people are forced to live inside someone else's imagination.' United in the goal of building a stronger science, we call upon scientists to put our imaginations to work differently, in ways that move us through this nightmare portal into a dreamier world, where justice is not cropped out of scientific endeavors but rather centered and celebrated. Ambika Kamath is trained as a behavioral ecologist and evolutionary biologist. She lives, works, and grows community in Oakland, California, on Ohlone land Melina Packer is Assistant Professor of Race, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, on Ho-Chunk Nation land. She is the author of Toxic Sexual Politics: Economic Poisons and Endocrine Disruptions
The Independent
6 hours ago
- The Independent
This fuzzy animal friend may be the key to treating schizophrenia
Llamas – likely without red pajamas – may hold the key to treating schizophrenia. The serious brain disorder causes people to interpret reality abnormally, and affects approximately 3.7 million U.S. adults between the ages of 18 to 65 years old, according to the nonprofit RTI International. But the domesticated South American woolly animal might be be able to help. French researchers said this week that they had used llama antibodies, or proteins that help to protect the immune system, to design a tiny fragment of an antibody known as a 'nanobody' that will trigger a neurotransmitter in the brain involved in regulating neural activity. Neurotransmitters are chemical molecules that carry messages or signals from one nerve cell to the next target cell, according to the Cleveland Clinic. No llamas were harmed in the study and researchers can identify nanobodies in a petri dish. In the past, llama antibodies have also proven effective in fighting Covid and other 'SARS-like' viruses. When scientists at the Institute of Functional Genomics injected the molecule into the veins or the muscles, it was able to break the blood-brain barrier and effectively reach brain receptors. The barrier is a a tightly locked layer of cells that defend your brain from harmful substances. Studying the impact of the nanobodies in two tests using mice, the researchers found that they corrected cognitive deficits that were observed. There was an improvement of cognitive function with just one shot, and a prolonged effect over one week. Clinical studies are now required to show that their findings could be a new avenue of treatment for schizophrenia. "In humans obviously we don't know [yet], but in mice yes, it is sufficient to treat most deficits of schizophrenia," molecular biologist Jean-Philippe Pin told Newsweek.. He was a co-author of the research which was published in the journal Nature. Pin said that medications currently given to schizophrenia patients "treat the symptoms well, but less the cognitive deficits." The cause of the chronic condition remains unknown, but the World Health Organization says it is thought that an interaction between genes and a range of environmental factors may be the reason. The exact prevalence of schizophrenia is difficult to measure. Some have tied cases in Canada to cannabis use. Although schizophrenia can occur at any age, people are typically diagnosed between the ages of 16 and 30. Symptoms vary from person to person. There is no cure, but it can be treated through antipsychotic medications, talk therapy, and self-management strategies, the National Alliance on Mental Illness says. The study's authors hope to add this strategy to the list. 'This research confirms the potential of nanobodies as a new therapeutic strategy for acting on the brain, with their use eventually being broadened to include the treatment of other neurological illnesses,' the institute said in a statement.
The Guardian
7 hours ago
- The Guardian
‘We want women to have role models': how Sydney University is enticing more female academics to engineering
When Dr Jacqueline Thomas started her academic career in civil engineering a decade ago, she was one of just two full-time women in the school. Thomas had returned to Australia after a stint in Africa to teach a new humanitarian engineering major at the University of Sydney, the first of its kind in the country. 'It was crazy, it really took me by surprise,' she said. 'When I started, I just thought, 'great, I got the job, perfect'. And then I realised.' In 2025 the percentage of female academics at the faculty is still languishing below 20%. Hoping to correct systemic gender inequities facing the sector, the University of Sydney has launched its first engineering faculty recruitment drive to offer academic roles reserved for women. Five schools are part of the campaign, including aerospace, mechanical and mechatronic engineering, civil engineering, computer science, and electrical and computer engineering, where between 12% and 17% of continuing academic staff are female. Thomas, who has recently given birth to her second child, said 'the greater diversity that we have within our teaching space demonstrates for our student cohort that these pathways are possible'. 'I think that's really important, especially as I'm a mum. It hasn't always been easy, and there's definitely been moments where you have doubts … but I think it is important for female students to see those examples,' she said. Sign up: AU Breaking News email Prof Renae Ryan, a biomedical engineer at Sydney University who helmed the initiative, says it is one of the largest recruitment campaigns for women in the industry's history. 'We want to reflect the society we serve,' she said. 'If you're looking at universities and you go to information nights and there's no women, you feel like an outsider. We want women to have role models and people that they can look up to and see themselves as engineers.' Ryan, who is the associate dean of culture and community in the faculty of engineering, has been in the industry for more than two decades. She was previously the academic director of the university's Science in Australia Gender Equity program. She said that in medicine and biology, courses now often comprised 50% or more women at junior levels before dropping off at later study stages, but in engineering, numbers had been low 'the whole way through'. 'When you're the minority, in any industry, it can feel very isolating and lonely,' she said. 'Women can feel undervalued and disrespected at times as well, particularly in engineering and the automotive industry. 'You've just got additional barriers all the time to get over, and you don't have the same opportunities as other people. You get overlooked.' A Diversity Council Australia report released last year found just 11% of engineering students who identify as female go on to work in an engineering role, and of those, just 4% were born in Australia. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion The gender pay gap for women in engineering was 24% compared with 14% across all industries. Ryan said the barriers began early on. Girls selected out of maths and science subjects, she said, even if they were good at them, due to 'societal pressures and cultural norms'. But she said the idea men and women have different skill sets lending themselves to certain careers was 'garbage'. 'There are some countries where the engineering workforce is actually more female dominated,' she said, pointing to Turkey, Iran and Egypt, where women constitute a significant and growing portion of the engineering workforce. The implications of gender equity in the workforce aren't just good optics, either. The history of invention is one in which our world has catered to the male body. For instance, women are more likely to be moderately or seriously injured in car crashes, even when controlling for external factors like crash intensity, because vehicles were designed for men. Cars were modelled off car crash test dummies based on the 'average' male and seatbelts were also fitted with a male body type in mind, which can not only lead to discomfort but serious safety concerns. 'We need women in the engineering workforce … because if we don't have diversity in the people doing the work and designing these systems, we're not getting the best out of the technology,' Ryan said. 'We're not building it for everyone. We're building it for select groups.'
