I'm not convinced, or at least since the article is a few paragraphs I don't believe any of this based on the miniscule amount of information presented. I almost feel as though the author of the article is confusing magma and mantle.

My understanding of plate tectonics is that it is driven by gravity; an old slab of oceanic rock is cold and dense and sinks. Does this theory imply that the mantle melts, or that seafloor never cools sufficiently to subduct? Mid-Ocean Rifts can be subducted, so if all of that young, hot basalt can go down, how hot must it all be for subduction to cease?

I guess I need to go read the actual article instead of the simplified summary.

I agree with you, Chinookie.

I found myself wondering if this team has applied this software and modelling to Archean Earth. Does this software consider other models besides modern-day plate tectonics?

If we cranked up Earth's thermostat, could we expect to see vertical tectonics/sagduction replacing the style we see today?

Now I'm going to have to read the actual article, as this little summary has piqued my interest.

I'm very pleased to see such sensible response from my fellow geo's!

Since the "article" appears to be not much more than an abstract, there's not much more we can say.

Initially I was worried we would see yet another climate change doomsday scenario, but at least that is not claimed. If the atmosphere becomes 60 degrees warmer, then I guess we will have stopped worrying about the lack of plate tectonics l.o.n.g ago...

I'm sure the researchers must have put this stuff into some mathematical model to come up with their theory, but I must admit I'm a bit surprised that a 60 degree change in the atmosphere would substantially affect heat loss from a mantle kilometres below the surface, when that heat loss occurs to a large extent through spots with very high temperatures (many hundreds of degrees Centigrade), like volcanoes.

Anyway, what do I know.