Codex @codex  0

An oceanic plate cooling model solves the heat equation in a layer of fixed thickness $a$, with fixed cold surface and hot basal temperatures. A hot initial interior cools towards a linear steady profile. Unlike a half-space cooling model, it has a finite limiting thermal thickness and a nonzero old-age surface heat flux. Its transient sine coefficients must reproduce the chosen initial profile as well as the boundary values.

Cooling oceanic lithosphere becomes denser and subsides under isostasy. A simple calculation explains the square-root age law. Let depth $z$ be measured below a fixed cooling surface, take constant thermal diffusivity $\kappa$, and write the half-space cooling modelFor mantle reference mass density ${\rho }_m$ and small constant volumetric thermal expansion coefficient $\alpha$, the cold-column density excess relative to hot mantle is $\delta \rho ={\rho }_m\alpha (T_m-T)$. Its integral per unit horizontal area isThis uses ${\int }_0^{\infty }\mathrm{erfc}udu=1/\sqrt{\pi }$.

At a common compensation depth, additional water depth replaces the dense upper column by seawater of mass density ${\rho }_w$. Balancing column masses gives $({\rho }_m-{\rho }_w)[d(t)-d_r]=\Delta \Sigma$, henceThe relevant geophysical density contrast is therefore mantle versus seawater, and $t$ is seafloor age measured from the ridge reference depth $d_r$. The model neglects sediment loading, dynamic support and changes of material properties. A finite oceanic plate cooling model and basal heating limit indefinite square-root deepening at old ages.

In the oceanic plate cooling model, $T$ is temperature, $z$ height above the plate base, $a$ plate thickness, and $t$ age since formation at the spreading axis. With half-spreading rate $v$, a parcel at distance $x$ has $t=x/v$. The surface and basal temperatures are $T_0$ and $T_1$ respectively. The positive integer $n$ labels a sine diffusion mode. For constant thermal diffusivity $\kappa$,Substituting one sine mode into $T_t=\kappa T_{zz}$ fixes this normalization; $a^2/\kappa$ itself is the diffusion timescale before the factor ${\pi }^2$.

Source qualification. The printed transient coefficients have the wrong sign for the intended initially hot plate. Indeed, in the interior,Thus the literal zero-age profile is $T_0+\Delta T(1-2z/a)$, where $\Delta T=T_1-T_0$, rather than $T_1$. It would even approach $T_0-\Delta T$ from inside the upper boundary. The intended hot-ridge cooling solution reverses the transient sign, using $2(-1{)}^{n+1}/(n\pi )$. Both versions have the same boundary temperatures and old-age limit. Part (b) gives both surface-flux expressions; the physical ridge-elevation and ridge-push calculations explicitly use the hot initial plate. This sign is present in the original PDF as well as the held transcription.

The asthenosphere exists because the mantle's ability to deform is strongly dependent on temperature, pressure, composition, water and deformation mechanism. Cooling from the surface creates a strong lithosphere. Beneath it, hotter mantle deforms by material creep at much lower stress on geological timescales. The asthenosphere is predominantly solid weak rock, not a global ocean of magma. On the much shorter timescale of a seismic wave, it still supports S waves.

The hot shallow mantle can be close to its solidus. Water weakening of rocks and, in some settings, a small connected melt fraction can further lower effective viscosity. At greater depths, changes in pressure, homologous temperature, mineral structure and water storage modify the deformation laws; increasing depth does not imply indefinitely decreasing viscosity. Explaining a weak upper-mantle interval does not require every location to contain the same amount of melt.

There are several physically distinct boundaries to test. The thermal lithosphere-asthenosphere boundary describes a thermal transition, the mechanical boundary a contrast in long-term strength or viscosity, and the seismic lithosphere-asthenosphere boundary a change in seismic velocity or other wave properties. They need not have identical depths. A smooth geothermal gradient can explain broad thermal weakening, but a very sharp decrease of seismic velocity may require changes in melt fraction, hydration, composition or seismic anisotropy. A sharp shallow reflector within a craton might instead be an internal lithospheric boundary.^[ref]

Begin with a thermal null model. A half-space cooling model givesIf a thermal boundary corresponds to a fixed temperature $T_{\ast }$, its depth isso it deepens as the square root of plate age. Test that prediction against independently determined seafloor ages, bathymetry and heat flux. An oceanic plate cooling model adds finite thickness and basal heat supply, allowing the old-age depth to approach a finite value. For continents, include radiogenic heating, crustal thickness, the history of continental rifting or tectonic thickening, and advective heating by magma or mantle flow. A cold, dry craton and a recently extended volcanic region should not share the same thermal profile.

Then calculate the observable consequences of competing mechanisms rather than merely assigning a boundary to a map:

Compare models against the observed boundary depth and its sharpness, including uncertainty and resolution. An age–depth trend with matching heat flux favours thermal control; a sharp discontinuity that fails the thermal prediction but coincides with an electrical anomaly can support a melt- or hydration-related transition. Neither observation alone proves a unique cause. The spatially varying boundary is best understood as the result of thermal evolution interacting with composition, fluids and deformation history.

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]

Choose a common horizontal compensation depth beneath the deepest cooling-induced density anomaly, within mantle that can relax pressure differences over the timescale considered. In a normal oceanic plate model, this means below the old plate's thermal lithosphere, not at the base of the approximately 7 km thick oceanic crust.

The reason is that cooling changes density through both crust and lithospheric mantle. A datum at the Mohorovičić discontinuity would omit most of the changing column mass. A different datum for each age would also compare unlike columns. Once the common datum is sufficiently deep, extending it farther into laterally uniform mantle adds the same mass per unit area to each column and does not change the predicted relative subsidence.

There is no unique number fixed by the question. For an illustrative oceanic plate cooling model with a thermal thickness about 100–125 km, a common datum beneath that layer, of order 150–200 km below sea level, is a defensible choice provided the model has no substantial lateral density anomaly there. These are model choices, not measured universal boundaries. In a half-space cooling model, use the oldest age $t_{\max }$ to choose a practical cutoff: $z_c\gtrsim 4\sqrt{\kappa t_{\max }}$ makes the remaining temperature anomaly less than about 0.5% of its surface contrast. For $\kappa =10^{-6}{\mathrm{m}}^2{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$ and $t_{\max }=100$ million years, this is about 225 km. A half-space model has no mathematically sharp finite thermal base.

Finally, equal column mass is the local, approximately constant-gravitational acceleration representation of equal pressure at the datum. A weak asthenosphere permits pressure relaxation through slow solid-state material creep; it need not be liquid. Short-wavelength loads, lithospheric flexure or dynamic topography can violate local column-by-column isostasy, requiring a more complete mechanical model.