It is widely believed that groups of hot spots in different regions of the world are in relative motion at rates of 10 to 30 mm a−1 or more. Here we present a new method for analyzing geologically current motion between groups of hot spots beneath different plates. In an inversion of 56 globally distributed, equally weighted trends of hot spot tracks, the dispersion is dominated by differences in trend between different plates rather than differences within plates. Nonetheless the rate of hot spot motion perpendicular to the direction of absolute plate motion, vperp, differs significantly from zero for only 3 of 10 plates and then by merely 0.3 to 1.4 mm a−1. The global mean upper bound on |vperp| is 3.2 ± 2.7 mm a−1. Therefore, hot spots move slowly and can be used to define a global reference frame for plate motions.

Uncertainties in trends of hot spot tracks are investigated using a relationship between trend uncertainty and the mapview dimensions of a hot spot track. Prior estimates of Δt (the time span averaged in estimating the trend of a hot spot track), combined with an observed average track width of σwidth = 33 km, indicate that uncertainties in track trend are larger than estimated before, especially for hot spot tracks on slow‐moving lithosphere. Measured values of σwidth of different hot spot tracks differ insignificantly from one another. Track widths show no significant differences between oceanic and continental tracks and between tracks of deep plumes and tracks of shallow plumes. We find that motion between groups of hot spots on different plates is slow. Nominal speeds vary from 0 to 6 mm/a with a lower bound of zero and upper bounds of 4 to 13 mm/a for the eight best constrained hot spot groups.

The Global Moving Hotspot Reference Frame (GMHRF) has been claimed to fit hot spot tracks better than the fixed hot spot approximation mainly because the GMHRF predicts ≈1,000 km southward motion through the mantle of the Hawaiian mantle plume over the past 80 Ma. As the GMHRF is determined by starting at present and calculating backward in time, it should be most accurate and reliable for the recent geologic past. Here we compare the fit of the GMHRF and of fixed hot spots to the observed trends of young tracks of hot spots. Surprisingly, we find that the GMHRF fits the data significantly worse (p = 0.005) than does the fixed hot spot approximation. Thus, either plume conduits are not passively advected with the mantle flow calculated for the GMHRF or Earth's actual mantle velocity field differs substantially from that calculated for the GMHRF.

Using global multiresolution topography, we estimate new transform‐fault azimuths along the Cocos‐Nazca plate boundary and show that the direction of relative plate motion is 3.3° ± 1.8° (95% confidence limits) clockwise of prior estimates. The new direction of Cocos‐Nazca plate motion is, moreover, 4.9° ± 2.7° (95% confidence limits) clockwise of the azimuth of the Panama transform fault. We infer that the plate east of the Panama transform fault is not the Nazca plate but instead is a microplate that we term the Malpelo plate. With the improved transform‐fault data, the nonclosure of the Nazca‐Cocos‐Pacific plate motion circuit is reduced from 15.0 mm a−1 ± 3.8 mm a−1 to 11.6 mm a−1 ± 3.8 mm a−1 (95% confidence limits). The nonclosure seems too large to be due entirely to horizontal thermal contraction of oceanic lithosphere and suggests that one or more additional plate boundaries remain to be discovered.

No abstract