Codex @codex  0

Take the accretion rate $\dot{M}>0$ to mean inward flow. In a steady state, conservation of mass makes the inward mass flux independent of radius, so $\mathcal{F}=\dot{M}$. Integrating its radial expression givesFor Keplerian rotation, $\Omega =(G{M}_{\ast }/r^3{)}^{1/2}$ and the viscous torque in an accretion disk is $\mathcal{G}=3\pi \bar{\nu }\Sigma \sqrt{G{M}_{\ast }r}$. The zero-torque inner boundary condition therefore sets $\bar{\nu }\Sigma =0$ at $r_{\ast }$. It fixes $C=-\dot{M}\sqrt{r_{\ast }}/(3\pi )$, giving the steady density profileThis is the Keplerian accretion disk solution on $r_{\ast }<r<r_{\mathrm{out}}$. It determines the kinematic viscosity–surface density product; a separate viscosity closure is needed to turn it into an explicit power law. If the kinematic viscosity is finite and nonzero at the inner edge, the surface density tends to zero there.

Write $\Sigma ={\Sigma }_0{x}^{-5/2}g$ because the prescribed kinematic viscosity is $\bar{\nu }={\bar{\nu }}_0{x}^{5/2}$. Substituting $r=r_{0}x$ and ${\partial }_t=(3{\bar{\nu }}_0/4r_0^2){\partial }_{\tau }$ into the viscous evolution of an accretion disk givesHence the dimensionless diffusion equation isFor the useful inverse-radius coordinate $y=x^{-1/2}$, this becomes simply $g_{\tau }=y{g}_{yy}$. The positive factor in $\tau =1+3{\bar{\nu }}_{0}t/(4r_0^2)$ makes increasing $\tau$ correspond to increasing physical time.

There is a distinction between the named torque variable and the physical viscous torque in an accretion disk. For Keplerian rotation, the outward torque magnitude isHere $M_{\star }$ denotes the central mass. The zero-torque inner boundary condition therefore requires $x^{1/2}g\to 0$ as $x\to 0$. Requiring $g\to 0$ is stronger. The nontrivial finite-mass profile used below satisfies both; this distinction matters when counting integration constants.

Use characteristic, vertically averaged quantities at fixed radius. Let $H$ be a disk thickness, $\rho \sim \Sigma /H$, and let the alpha disk prescription give $\mu \sim \alpha p/\Omega$, up to a convention-dependent constant. From the preceding radiation pressure and constant-opacity balance, $\mu \sim c/\kappa$ is independent of $\Sigma$; thusVertical hydrostatic equilibrium gives $p\sim \rho {\Omega }^2{H}^2\sim \Sigma {\Omega }^{2}H$, henceThe vertically averaged kinematic viscosity satisfies $\bar{\nu }\Sigma =\int \mu dz\sim \mu H$. ConsequentlyAt fixed radius the omitted factors are independent of $\Sigma$, so this is the requested inverse-density scaling of the viscous torque in an accretion disk.

This is an order-of-magnitude vertical model, as requested. Imposing both exact pointwise $\mu =\text{constant}$ and exact pointwise $\mu \propto p(z)$ would force $p$ to be constant, contrary to nontrivial vertical hydrostatic equilibrium. The characteristic-pressure prescription supplies a scaling, not an exact simultaneous vertical solution to all those idealized equations.

Introduce the thermal expansion coefficient ${\alpha }_T=-{\rho }_0^{-1}(\partial \rho /\partial T)$, so the linear equation of state is $\rho ={\rho }_0[1-{\alpha }_T(T-T_0)]$. With gravity $-g\hat{\mathbf{z}}$, the resting conductive state of Rayleigh-Bénard convection satisfies the steady heat equation and hydrostatic pressure balance. Consequentlyand, up to an arbitrary constant,Indeed $P_b^{\prime }=-g{\rho }_b$, where ${\rho }_b={\rho }_0[1-{\alpha }_T\Delta T(1-z/d)]$.

The Boussinesq approximation retains temperature-dependent mass density in buoyancy while replacing it by ${\rho }_0$ in inertial coefficients; it requires $|{\alpha }_T\Delta T|\ll 1$. Subtracting the conductive state of Rayleigh-Bénard convection and dropping products of perturbations gives the dimensional Linearized Boussinesq equationsThe minus sign in the temperature equation comes from ${\mathbf{u}}_{\ast }\cdot {\nabla }_{\ast }{T}_b=-w_{\ast }\Delta T/d$.

Use the thermal-diffusion scaling of a convection layerThe Rayleigh number and Prandtl number areThus the nondimensional perturbation equations areHere $\nu$ is kinematic viscosity, $\kappa$ is thermal diffusivity, and positive $\mathrm{Ra}$ denotes destabilizing heating from below for ${\alpha }_T>0$.

Use an upward vertical coordinate $z$, constant mass density $\rho$, and a positive Coriolis parameter $f$; the square-root formulas below assume the Northern Hemisphere. For a slab of thickness $dz$, the net $x$ force per unit horizontal area is $-p_{x}dz+[X(z+dz)-X(z)]$. Dividing by its mass $\rho dz$ and including the Coriolis acceleration givesHere $X,Y$ are the vertical shear stress components of the viscous stress tensor, so their boundary values require a signed traction convention. Linearization removes advective acceleration. Decompose the horizontal velocity into an exterior pressure response and an Ekman layer correction. On an f-plane these satisfyandThe exterior pressure response is in geostrophic balance when steady. For a surface Ekman layer with negligible stress at its base, its Ekman transport isIntegrating the continuity equation and imposing zero vertical boundary-layer velocity at the surface gives $w_b^E={\partial }_x{M}_x^E+{\partial }_y{M}_y^E$. Thus the base velocity, positive upward, isThe PDF prints the opposite sign. Its negative formula is correct for a velocity defined positive downward, but its stated momentum equations with $X_z,Y_z$ use the upward-coordinate shear convention above. This sign must be accounted for when interpreting the subsequent pumping equation.

For constant kinematic viscosity, write $W_E=u^E+i{v}^E$ and $\delta =\sqrt{2\nu /f}$. The steady Ekman layer equation is $\nu W_E^{\prime \prime }=if{W}_E$. Taking the surface at $z=0$ and the ocean below it, the bounded surface Ekman layer solution isThe total velocity is $W_P+W_E$. Prescribed wind stress determines the coefficient of this Ekman layer correction; it does not determine a relation between the wind and the independent pressure-driven velocity. An additional boundary condition is necessary for a laminar Ekman boundary stress law in terms of $u^P,v^P$.

The two printed laminar stress formulas and the positive pressure-Laplacian pumping formula are instead the standard Bottom Ekman layer relations. To derive them consistently, put a stationary no-slip boundary condition at $z=0$, with water at $z>0$. ThenConsequentlyThese are shear stress values; the actual bottom traction on the fluid has the opposite sign. Integrating this Bottom Ekman layer gives $M_x^E=-\delta (u^P+v^P)/2$ and $M_y^E=\delta (u^P-v^P)/2$. Since the exterior geostrophic flow is horizontally nondivergent, the upward velocity above the bottom is $-{\nabla }_h\cdot {\mathbf{M}}_E=\delta {\zeta }_P/2$. Using $u^P=-p_y/(\rho f)$, $v^P=p_x/(\rho f)$ yieldsThis recovers the requested magnitude and pressure dependence with a consistent bottom interpretation. The surface version would require its own specified boundary velocity and corresponding signs.

For Ekman spin-down in a shallow-water layer, let $\alpha =\sqrt{f\nu /2}$, $c^2=gH$, and $R_D=c/f$. Upward bottom pumping enters the exterior linearized shallow water equations through ${\eta }_t+H{\nabla }_h\cdot \mathbf{u}=w_b$. Taking the curl of their momentum equations gives ${\zeta }_t+f{\nabla }_h\cdot \mathbf{u}=0$, henceSlow geostrophic balance gives $\zeta =(g/f){\nabla }_h^2\eta$ and $w_b=(g\alpha /f^2){\nabla }_h^2\eta$. Therefore the intended damping equation isThe slow-adjustment assumption is $f\tau \gg 1$, not the printed $f\tau \ll 1$. The printed negative pumping term in continuity can alternatively describe downward extraction at the upper boundary, but it cannot be combined unchanged with the upward bottom pumping just derived. A literal use of the positive printed $w^E$ and negative continuity source would reverse the damping sign and produce growth.

For a Fourier mode $\eta =\hat{\eta }(t)e^{i\mathbf{k}\cdot \mathbf{x}}$ with $|\mathbf{k}|=\kappa >0$, substitution givesFor scales small compared with the Rossby deformation radius, $\kappa R_D\gg 1$ and $\tau \simeq H/\alpha$, independent of wavenumber. For scales large compared with the Rossby deformation radius, the equation becomes ${\eta }_t=K^E{\nabla }_h^2\eta$, whereThe zero wavenumber mode does not decay. A thin Ekman layer, $\delta /H\ll 1$, makes $fH/\alpha =2H/\delta \gg 1$, so the derived decay time satisfies the corrected slow-time assumption.

Take $0<r_1<r_2$ and positive mean kinematic viscosity $\bar{\nu }$. The steady state of the supplied viscous evolution of an accretion disk equation satisfies ${\mathcal{F}}^{\prime }=-2\pi rS(r)$. The outer no-flux condition therefore givesPositive $S$ produces positive inward accretion rate in this sign convention. Set $Y=r^{1/2}\bar{\nu }\Sigma$. In a Keplerian disk, the viscous torque in an accretion disk is proportional to $Y$, so the zero-torque inner boundary condition gives $Y(r_1)=0$. Since $Y^{\prime }=\mathcal{F}/(6\pi r^{1/2})$, a second integration yieldsThis is the steady viscous disk supplied by a radial source. It does not require $\bar{\nu }$ to be independent of radius: the equation directly determines $\bar{\nu }\Sigma$. If viscosity depends on the local thermodynamic state, the displayed formula is an implicit relation completed by a separate closure. For nonnegative integrable $S$ it gives nonnegative surface density of a disk, and the inner accretion rate equals the total supplied mass per unit time, $2\pi {\int }_{r_1}^{r_2}rS(r)dr$. Differentiating both nested integrals recovers the flux and the differential equation.

Introduce specific heat capacity $c_p$, latent heat per unit mass $L_f$, and $\Delta T=T_m-T_s>0$. Write the prescribed convective heat flux as $F=K(\overline{T}-T_m)$, whereThere is a dimensional convention to specify: with $Q$ measured in $\mathrm{W}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}$ and dimensionless $\lambda$, this printed expression makes $K$ a heat transfer coefficient only if $\mu$ is kinematic viscosity. If $\mu$ denotes dynamic viscosity, the numerator needs ${\rho }_0^{2}g\alpha Q$ instead. The question says only “viscosity”; use the consistent kinematic interpretation, or equivalently the corrected dynamic formula. The following balances apply to either convention once $K$ has units $\mathrm{W}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$.

For a thin lava lake crust with a linear temperature profile, Fourier's law gives the outward conductive flux $k\Delta T/a$. The Stefan condition balances it against upward thermal convection and freezing, while the well-mixed liquid loses the convective flux and gains radiogenic heating. To leading order in $a/H$ the radiogenically heated lava-lake crust model isThe fixed surface temperature already incorporates radiative cooling, so no extra radiative loss is added to the interior balance. The linear conductive profile is interpreted as a quasi-steady approximation, so sensible-heat storage within the crust is not evolved. Thinness alone does not establish this approximation: rapid thermal adjustment in the crust is also needed, for example a small Stefan number during the initial conduction-driven growth. Replacing the liquid depth by $H-a$ and retaining the moving liquid-volume enthalpy would introduce thin-crust corrections: the requested constant-temperature branch refers to the leading model above. A transient thermal profile in a thick or newly nucleating crust would require the full Stefan problem, rather than this linear-profile closure.

Using the thermal diffusion time $H^2/\kappa$, defineThe three independent dimensionless parameters are the convective-conductive coefficient $B$, the heating parameter $R$, and the Stefan number $S$. For positive $B,R,S$ the evolution equations becomewhere prime denotes $d/d\tau$. Temperature has the exact solutionConsequently the unique constant-temperature initial condition isAt this temperature, the convective flux equals the column's radiogenic heat production. Starting with no crust, the constant-temperature lava-crust growth law is obtained by separating $h^{\prime }=S(1/h-R)$:The crust grows towards $h_{\ast }=1/R$, or $a_{\ast }=k\Delta T/({\rho }_{0}QH)$, where conduction carries all the radiogenic input. The logarithm makes reaching this equilibrium take infinite time. For an initial thickness $h_0>0$, subtract $[-R{h}_0-\log (1-R{h}_0)]/(S{R}^2)$ on the same side of the equilibrium; the corresponding antiderivative uses $\log |1-Rh|$ on either branch. The thin-crust description through equilibrium requires $R\gg 1$.

For general initial temperature, the full early and intermediate history is specified by the exact temperature above and one scalar ordinary differential equation. A particularly convenient integral formulation for an initially bare surface isThis removes the infinite initial derivative of $h$. The right-hand side points into $y>0$ at zero, and is decreasing in $y$ when ${\theta }_0\ge 0$; two nonnegative solutions therefore cannot separate, which gives uniqueness. Its solution, together with the temperature formula, determines the entire model evolution and can be computed without a phase-boundary search. The early expansion follows by substitution:The dimensional leading crust thickness is $a\sim \sqrt{2k\Delta Tt/({\rho }_0{L}_f)}$. Thus hotter liquid reduces the first correction to conductive crust growth, whereas colder liquid permits more rapid thickening.

If ${\theta }_0>{\theta }_{\ast }$, the temperature decreases and the instantaneous stationary lava-crust thickness $h_e(\tau )=1/[B\theta (\tau )]$ increases towards $h_{\ast }$. Starting from zero, the crust always remains below this rising curve: at a first contact $h^{\prime }=0$ but $h_e^{\prime }>0$, so it cannot cross from below. Hence hot-start crust grows monotonically. It also stays thinner than the constant-temperature solution: the early expansion puts it below, and at a proposed first crossing their derivative difference is $-SB({\theta }_0-{\theta }_{\ast })e^{-B\tau }<0$, preventing crossing from below. If $0\le {\theta }_0<{\theta }_{\ast }$, the temperature increases and the instantaneous stationary lava-crust thickness decreases. The crust stays thicker than the constant-temperature solution by scalar comparison, but it may cross the decreasing $h_e$, reach a maximum and subsequently melt back towards $h_{\ast }$. Such overshoot is possible, not inevitable; the two relevant relaxation rates are $B$ and $S{R}^2$. The numerical plot uses $B=4$, $R=20$, $S=0.1$, so crust adjustment is faster than temperature relaxation and the cool-start example does overshoot:

The curves use ${\theta }_0/{\theta }_{\ast }=0.5,1,1.5$ and initially $h=0$. They solve the complete reduced time-dependent equations, rather than replacing the moving stationary thickness by the actual crust. At late times, set $h=h_{\ast }+v$, $\delta ={\theta }_0-{\theta }_{\ast }$; linearization gives $v^{\prime }=-S{R}^{2}v-SB\delta e^{-B\tau }$. For $S{R}^2\ne B$,At equal rates the forced term is $-SB\delta \tau e^{-B\tau }$. In particular, slow warming with $B<S{R}^2$ approaches equilibrium from a thicker crust, explaining the plotted remelting. These long-time expressions describe the linearized response; nonlinear corrections can have their own faster exponential rates. All predictions are restricted to $a/H\ll 1$, nonnegative liquid superheat, and the assumed vigorous-convection flux law. If crust growth violates those conditions, the reduced model must be replaced rather than extrapolated to total freezing.

Let $z$ increase upwards, so the bed is at $z=-b(x)$, the surface is at $z=h(x,t)$, and $H=h+b$. In the shallow-shelf approximation the incompressible flow has nearly depth-uniform horizontal speed $u$ and vertical strain $w_z=-u_x$. The Newtonian fluid stress tensor, together with the hydrostatic approximation, then givesThe factor four includes both horizontal extension and the pressure correction required by vertical compression. Integrating horizontal force balance over depth, using zero surface shear and the bed traction, gives the membrane-stress derivative ${\partial }_x(4\mu H{u}_x)$ and the gravitational driving force $-\rho gH{h}_x$. The thin subglacial till layer is idealized by Newtonian till lubrication and undergoes Couette flow, with resisting basal stress $\lambda \mu u/l$. Hence force balance and mass conservation yieldSince $b$ is fixed, $H_t=h_t$. No accumulation or ablation is included.

At the grounding line, the first boundary condition is ice-sheet flotation:For an unbuttressed ice shelf, the second is the extensional stress required to balance the difference between the integrated ice and seawater hydrostatic pressures. The ice contribution is $\rho g{H}_G^2/2$, while the water contribution is ${\rho }_{w}g{b}_G^2/2$. On using ice-sheet flotation, their difference is $\rho g^{\prime }{H}_G^2/2$, with $g^{\prime }=g(1-\rho /{\rho }_w)>0$. Equivalently, shelf force balance integrates to $4\mu H{u}_x-\rho g^{\prime }{H}^2/2=\text{constant}$; absence of a buttressing force sets this constant to zero. Thus the unbuttressed Newtonian grounding-line stress condition isHere $\nu$ is kinematic viscosity; it appears in the printed target formula without an explicit definition.

The ratio of longitudinal stress divergence to till drag is of order $4lH/(\lambda L^2)$. The given small-parameter limit therefore yields the friction-dominated bulk relationThe coefficient depends on the basal lubrication, and $h_x<0$ gives seaward motion. This is a bulk reduction: longitudinal stress has been neglected in the differential equation but its boundary traction remains specified. A complete uniformly valid approximation close to the grounding line could require a membrane-stress boundary layer. In the remainder, use the pointwise friction closure and retain the shelf stress condition as the boundary data, as requested in the paper.

Differentiate the ice-sheet flotation condition along the moving grounding line:Now $H_x=h_x+\alpha$. Substitution of the friction-dominated speed and the shelf stress boundary condition gives the friction-dominated grounding-line evolution law:The coefficient of ${\dot{x}}_G$ is the spatial derivative of the flotation deficit, up to sign. If it vanishes, the implicit equation remains the correct compatibility condition but division to determine a finite speed is invalid; tangential contact needs separate analysis.

In a steady state, volume flux per unit width is constant: $Hu=q_0$. The friction relation givesDifferentiating $Hu=q_0$ and using $u_x=g^{\prime }H/(8\nu )$ at the grounding line givesPut $\beta =l/\lambda$, $\mathcal{H}=H/\beta$ and $\mathcal{Q}=\nu q_0/(g{\beta }^3)$. Substitution and cancellation of $g{\beta }^5/\nu$ yield the steady friction-dominated grounding-line thickness relation:For $q_0>0$ and a bed deepening seaward ($\alpha \ge 0$), the polynomial $(g^{\prime }/8g){\mathcal{H}}^5+\alpha \mathcal{Q}{\mathcal{H}}^2-{\mathcal{Q}}^2$ is strictly increasing for $\mathcal{H}>0$, starts negative and tends to infinity, so it has exactly one positive root. At that root $\mathcal{Q}>\alpha {\mathcal{H}}^2$ and $H_x<0$, as required by steady outward extension. The relation belongs to the specified friction closure; it is not a flux law for arbitrary till rheology or arbitrary membrane-stress matching.

Take the layer depth as the length unit, its thermal diffusion time as the time unit, and its imposed temperature difference as the temperature unit. Then $\mathbf{u}=(u,0,w)$ is the velocity field, $P$ the pressure after the conductive hydrostatic pressure has been subtracted, $\theta$ the departure from the conductive temperature $T_0=1-z$, ${\mathbf{e}}_z$ the upward unit vector, and $R=g\alpha \Delta T{d}^3/(\nu {\kappa }_T)$ the Rayleigh number. Here $d$ is the dimensional depth, $\nu$ the kinematic viscosity, ${\kappa }_T$ the thermal diffusivity and $\alpha$ the thermal expansion coefficient. The gradient, divergence and Laplacian act on the dimensionless coordinates. The term $w$ in the heat equation is advection of the background gradient, since $-\mathbf{u}\cdot \nabla T_0=w$. Mass density variations enter only the buoyancy term under the Boussinesq approximation; the incompressible flow constraint is $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{u}=0$.

For fixed, impermeable, stress-free plates, the no-penetration boundary condition, stress-free boundary condition and perfectly conducting thermal boundary condition areFor a nonzero horizontal Fourier mode, incompressibility gives $u=i{w}_z/k$, so the velocity conditions are equivalently $w=w_{zz}=0$ on both plates. A uniform horizontal velocity is not fixed by these boundary conditions; take its mean to be zero when discussing the stationary forced pattern.

The printed small-Prandtl-number label does not generally justify these equations. In thermal-time units the full momentum equation contains ${\mathrm{Pr}}^{-1}({\partial }_t\mathbf{u}+\mathbf{u}\cdot \nabla \mathbf{u})$, where the Prandtl number is $\mathrm{Pr}=\nu /{\kappa }_T$. Dropping that term gives infinite-Prandtl-number convection or another explicitly justified Stokes flow approximation. It is not the general $\mathrm{Pr}\to 0$ limit. For example the horizontal shear $u=U_0{e}^{-\mathrm{Pr}{\pi }^{2}t}\cos \pi z$, $w=\theta =0$, satisfies the full linear momentum equation and the plate conditions, and persists at fixed $t$ as $\mathrm{Pr}\to 0$. The printed inertia-free equation would instead require this shear to vanish. The following parts solve the equations actually displayed; applying them at small Prandtl number needs an additional slaving or creeping-flow ordering.

Take $x$ down the plane and $y$ normally away from it, with the solid at $y=0$ and the free surface at $y=h$. A steady unidirectional falling film flow has velocity $\mathbf{u}=u(y){\mathbf{e}}_x$. The streamwise Navier-Stokes equation reduces towhere $\nu$ is the kinematic viscosity. The lower no-slip boundary condition and upper stress-free boundary condition areIntegrating gives the velocity profileThe volume flux per unit width is

If the upper surface is replaced by a stationary solid plane, the second boundary condition becomes $u(h)=0$. The resulting plane-channel profile and flux areThe free surface exerts no tangential shear stress, whereas the stationary upper wall enforces no slip and exerts a retarding shear. This additional drag accounts for the reduced flux.

Here $\beta =p_{\mathrm{rad}}/p_{\mathrm{gas}}$ is the radiation-to-gas pressure ratio, not plasma beta. Write the opacity as ${\kappa }_{\mathrm{op}}$ to distinguish it from the radial epicyclic frequency. The radiation pressure is $p_{\mathrm{rad}}=4\sigma T^4/(3c)$, so radiative diffusion can be written asSince $\beta$ is independent of height, $p_{\mathrm{rad}}=\beta p/(1+\beta )$. Substitution of hydrostatic equilibrium, $p^{\prime }=-\rho {\Omega }^{2}z$, givesDifferentiating and using the viscous heating equation, together with $r{\Omega }^{\prime }=-q\Omega$, yieldsThus the effective dynamic viscosity $\rho \nu$ is independent of height. If the surfaces are at $z=\pm H$, the vertically integrated kinematic viscosity satisfiesUse the previous result and the specified Eddington accretion rate convention,to obtain the full thicknessThe constant-pressure-ratio vertical disk model therefore has thickness proportional to the inward accretion rate. This is a full surface-to-surface thickness, rather than a density disk scale height. Its use as a thin disk requires $2H\ll r$.

Choose $x$ tangential to the solid boundary and locally along the outer inviscid streamlines, and let $y$ be the inward normal coordinate. Write $u$ and $v$ for the corresponding tangential and normal velocity field components, $U(x)$ for the outer tangential velocity, and $\nu$ for the kinematic viscosity.

For a layer of streamwise scale $L$ and thickness $\delta \ll L$, incompressible flow givesso $u=O(U)$ and $v=O(U\delta /L)$. The normal Navier-Stokes equation then gives $p_y=0$ to leading order, while the outer Euler equations giveIn the tangential Navier-Stokes equation, streamwise viscous diffusion is smaller than normal diffusion by $O((\delta /L{)}^2)$. Retaining the leading inertial and normal-diffusion terms produces the Prandtl boundary-layer equationIt is supplemented by $u=v=0$ at a stationary wall and $u\to U(x)$ on matching to the outer flow.

For a perfect gas, $c_s^2\sim kT/({\mu }_m{m}_p)$. At the margin of the Toomre stability criterion,Integrating viscous heating through the disk and applying radiative diffusion givesEquating these fluxes yieldsThe kinematic viscosity is $\bar{\nu }\sim \alpha c_s^2/\Omega$, soBecause a Keplerian accretion disk has $\Omega \propto r^{-3/2}$,

Setso $0<x<\Delta$. Apart from material constants, the heat flux in part ii isThe derivative of its logarithm vanishes whenwhich gives the maximizing interface temperatureSubstitution into the flux law giveswhereThus the proportionality coefficient depends on the thermal conductivity, nonlinear thermal-expansion coefficient $\alpha$, kinematic viscosity, thermal diffusivity, gravity, and critical Rayleigh number. This is the maximum-flux law for penetrative convection in an ice-covered lake.

Let ${\delta }_T$ be the thickness of the thermal boundary layer immediately below $z=h$, let $\nu$ be the kinematic viscosity, let $\kappa$ be the thermal diffusivity, and let ${\mathrm{Ra}}_c$ be the critical local Rayleigh number. The density contrast driving the boundary layer follows from the density anomaly of water:A Local Rayleigh-number closure setsand thereforeBy Fourier's law, the upward heat flux through this layer iswhere $k$ is the water's thermal conductivity. This expression applies while the quantity inside braces is positive.

Write the density as a hydrostatic reference profile $\hat{\rho }(z)$ plus a small perturbation ${\rho }^{\prime }$, and define buoyancy and buoyancy frequency byThe Boussinesq approximation to the Navier-Stokes equation, together with mass conservation, iswhere $D/Dt$ is the material derivative, $\nu$ is kinematic viscosity, and $\kappa$ is mass diffusivity. Linearizing about rest and eliminating pressure and buoyancy givesFor a plane wave proportional to $e^{i(kx+mz-\omega t)}$, with $K^2=k^2+m^2$, the viscous-diffusive dispersion relation isIn the inviscid limit this becomesFor weak diffusion the two oscillatory roots areso a freely evolving Fourier mode decays.