Anyhow, fair go.  've already drawn a fair few diagrams that
illustrate the broad picture.  Moreover, any drawing needs to be fixed
to the geology, not some imaginiary 'coriolis concept' akin to
convection - or we'll end up with something similar to the plate
tectonics (again).  You're talking about probably close to a century
of serious mapping to define the data, before undertaking any detail.
I've only outlined some of the framework. And it's not easy drawing up
that stuff up in three dimensions.  You have to *see* it first, and
the track record shows that is not something that comes easily to
people.  Even less the way their favourite 'concepts' get in the way
of the facts (check out Mummy Bear/ three bears post)

Coming at it from a geological point of view and being prepared to pay
attention to the anisotropies just mentioned, and noticing the
different sorts of behaviours that go on at different scales  puts it
all in a different ball-park from the simple comparison you're talking
about.  Anyone going about it that way?   Forget it.  It's a mapping
job in the first instance.  All I meant was a very loose analogy,
related to the polewards swing of the Pangaean hemispheres.  You see
the mess plate tectonics has made of the geology thus far, with it's
half-century of arithmetic that 'proves convection'.  It's not the way
to approach it.  Ask somebody with the arithmetic to take that sort of
anisotropy into account and see what they say, about how simple it is.
 Robert Grumbine or Stu are bound to post a helpful note for you.

Why are you persisting with this Carsten?   All I have to say is
posted on my site.