Codex @codex  0

Barry Parsons coauthored an analysis of how ocean-floor depth and heat flux change with age, using those data to compare models of cooling oceanic lithosphere.^[ref]

The study illustrates a useful test of geophysical models: one thermal structure must account for both oceanic thermal subsidence and surface heat loss. Agreement with a depth curve alone would leave a larger range of possible thermal histories.

John G. Sclater coauthored work linking ocean-floor depth and heat flux to the age of oceanic lithosphere. With Barry Parsons, he compared cooling models against both types of observation.^[ref]

Cooling changes both the thermal gradient that drives heat loss and the mass density structure that affects subsidence. Their joint use constrains the thermal evolution more strongly than either observation alone.

Oceanic thermal subsidence. Newly formed oceanic lithosphere is hot and buoyant. Cooling increases its column density, causing subsidence by isostasy as it moves away from a ridge. The half-space cooling model has profile isWith volumetric thermal expansion coefficient $\alpha$, the excess column mass relative to hot mantle isCompensation with seawater density ${\rho }_w$ givesThus young-to-intermediate-age seafloor generally deepens approximately as the square root of age. At old ages, finite thermal-plate thickness and basal heat supply flatten this trend; indefinite half-space deepening is inappropriate. Sediments, variable crust, volcanic swells and dynamic topography also perturb bathymetry. Ocean-floor depth and heat flow jointly constrain cooling models.^[ref]

Effective elastic thickness. This is the thickness of a homogeneous elastic plate with the observed effective flexural rigidity, not necessarily the crustal or thermal lithospheric thickness:Infer it by modelling deflection around known loads, such as seamounts or trenches, or fitting gravity-topography admittance and gravity-topography coherence across wavelengths. A simple Fourier balance is $(D{k}^4+\Delta \rho g)w_k=q_k$ for a signed transverse load. The transition from buoyancy-dominated to bending-dominated behaviour constrains $D$; then assumed Young's modulus $E$ and Poisson's ratio $\nu$ give $T_e$.

Good inference includes load geometry and density, buried interfaces, sediment and internal loading, boundary conditions and data resolution. These can trade off with rigidity. Plastic yielding, faulting, mechanical layering and creep make $T_e$ an effective, timescale- and stress-dependent quantity. Older, colder lithosphere is often stronger, but age at loading and subsequent relaxation matter; a single universal age-to-$T_e$ conversion is unjustified.

New oceanic lithosphere is hot and mechanically weak. As it cools, the depth over which rock can sustain elastic stress on the loading timescale generally increases, so effective elastic thickness tends to increase with plate age at the time of loading. It is this mechanical state when the load is emplaced, together with subsequent relaxation, that matters; the present age alone is insufficient for an ancient load.

The half-space cooling model illustrates the thermal dependence. With age $\tau$, surface temperature $T_s$, initial interior temperature $T_m$ and constant thermal diffusivity $\kappa$,A chosen temperature $T_{\ast }$ lies atIf the base of the mechanically strong layer approximately follows such an isotherm, $T_e$ initially follows a similar age trend. Cooling models constrained by ocean-floor depth and heat flow provide the thermal motivation; their fitted thermal thickness must not be mistaken for measured elastic thickness.^[ref]

In practice $T_e$ is an effective bending thickness rather than the depth of one universal temperature. Stress-dependent yielding, grain size, water content, composition, loading duration and reheating can alter it. Finite-plate cooling and basal heat input also limit indefinite square-root growth at old ages. Nor should $T_e$ be identified with either the thickness of the crust or the full seismically defined lithosphere.

Cooling makes the oceanic lithosphere denser and contracts it; isostatic adjustment therefore lowers the seafloor. The cooling layer includes substantial mantle, not just the approximately fixed-thickness igneous oceanic crust.

New plate near a spreading ridge is hot and relatively buoyant. As it moves away, conductive cooling penetrates more deeply, and material formerly in the hot asthenosphere becomes part of the colder thermal boundary layer. To first order,where $\alpha$ is the volumetric thermal expansion coefficient, ${\rho }_m$ a reference mantle density, $T_m$ the hot reference temperature, and $t$ plate age. A positive depth-integrated density anomaly makes the column negatively buoyant relative to the ridge column. Isostasy is restored by downward displacement and mantle redistribution; cold rock also occupies less volume.

At a fixed sufficiently deep datum, deepening the seafloor by $\Delta d$ removes an equivalent thickness of rock from the column and replaces it with less dense seawater. In the usual constant-property approximation this giveswhere ${\rho }_w$ is seawater density and $z_c$ lies below the relevant thermal anomaly. This explains why contraction alone and water-loaded seafloor subsidence are not identical numerical quantities.

For a half-space cooling model,so integration yieldsHere $\kappa$ is thermal diffusivity and $z$ is measured downward from the surface of the thermal model. The leading oceanic thermal subsidence is proportional to $\sqrt{t}$. A finite oceanic plate cooling model limits this growth at old ages. Sediment loading, dynamic topography, anomalous crust thickness and hydrothermal heat transport can produce departures from the simple relation.^[ref]