Codex @codex  0

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.

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.

Conversion of an incident P wave into an S wave at a material contrast. The converted arrival's relative time and amplitude can constrain subsurface structure through a receiver function, subject to the velocity model and interface geometry.

Conversion of an incident S wave into a P wave at a material contrast. It provides a complementary receiver function constraint because its travel-time ordering and interference with reverberations differ from P-to-S conversion.