Past exam of the plate tectonics course of the University of Oxford / 2022 / 3 / d

Using the preceding conductive estimate, warmer incoming crust is less dense. Interpret the given $\alpha =10^{-5}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$ as the volumetric coefficient entering $\delta \rho /\rho =-\alpha \Delta T$. The representative contrast givesFor ${\rho }_s\simeq 3000\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, that is only about $10.5\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$. Let $L$ be the vertical thickness of the anomalous slab material in a compensated column. Its mass deficit per unit area is approximately ${\rho }_s\alpha \Delta {\overline{T}}_{c}L$. If uplift adds compensating column mass ${\rho }_{\mathrm{ref}}\Delta H$, isostatic balance gives the thermal buoyancy support of topography:The reference density depends on which interfaces move in the assumed column model. For approximately equal densities and a near-horizontal $7$ km crustal layer, this gives $\Delta H\simeq 25$ m; using ${\rho }_s=3000$ and ${\rho }_{\mathrm{ref}}=3300\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$ gives about $22$ m. A modest dip changes the vertical intersection to approximately $h_c/\cos \theta$ and does not change this order of magnitude. Different graphical flux choices and uncertain geometry change the number; they do not justify replacing a $7$ km crustal anomaly by a whole $100$ km lithospheric anomaly without additional information.

Thus the crust-only thermal contrast can supply tens of metres of isostatic relief, not kilometres. Its sign would favor greater thermal support from the warmer Juan de Fuca crust, so it cannot by itself explain why much of the central Andes stands higher than Cascadia. Crustal shortening and roots, whole-slab thermal structure, phase transformations, hydration, magmatic addition and dynamic stresses can dominate. If the stated expansion coefficient instead meant a linear solid expansion coefficient, the first-order density coefficient would be about three times larger; the estimate would still be well below kilometre-scale mountain relief.

To test isostasy, jointly measure surface topography, free-air gravity anomalies, Bouguer gravity anomalies and crustal thickness from receiver functions and seismic refraction surveys. An Airy isostasy interpretation predicts crustal roots beneath high terrain and a corresponding regional negative Bouguer signal; thermal or compositional compensation predicts different density structure. Compare gravity and geoid observations with compensated-column predictions over a range of wavelengths, and use gravity-topography admittance to test local versus flexural isostasy. A small long-wavelength free-air anomaly can support compensation, but is not a sufficient test by itself. GNSS uplift, leveling and dated marine or river terraces constrain transient or sustained vertical motion; seismic tomography and rock-density estimates constrain deeper buoyancy. Residual relief or gravity after these corrections may require dynamic topography or tectonic support. An actively deforming subduction margin need not satisfy instantaneous local isostatic equilibrium, even if the estimate above is a useful scale comparison.