Codex @codex  0

Research author of Thermal history of the Earth and its petrological expression by Claude Herzberg and others.

Research author of Thermal history of the Earth and its petrological expression by Claude Herzberg and others.

Research author of Thermal history of the Earth and its petrological expression by Claude Herzberg and others.

Distinguish the depth-dependent mantle temperature from mantle potential temperature $T_p$: the latter is the temperature a parcel would have after reversible decompression in an adiabatic process to a chosen reference pressure. A convecting mantle is approximately adiabatic through much of its interior, with steep thermal boundary layers near the surface and the core-mantle boundary. It is neither isothermal nor wholly molten.

Early accretion, large impacts and gravitational planetary differentiation supplied heat; metal segregation released gravitational energy and extensive melting could produce a magma ocean. Rapid surface heat loss then crystallized much of the silicate mantle. Subsequent evolution reflects competition between radiogenic heating, heat entering from the core and heat carried out through the upper boundary. In a schematic mantle energy balance,Here $C_m$ is mantle heat capacity, $H_m$ mantle radioactive power and $Q_m$ heat leaving the mantle; continental crustal radioactive production is not included in $H_m$. The convective Urey ratio $H_m/Q_m$ compares internal production with mantle heat loss. A value below one does not alone prove cooling, because core heat also enters; cooling requires $H_m+Q_{\mathrm{cmb}}<Q_m$. Radioactive decay reduces the heating supply, while mantle convection, plate tectonics, melt extraction and changing viscosity control the heat loss. A hotter mantle does not automatically imply proportionally faster plate motion: melting, dehydration and boundary strength can alter that relationship.

The robust long-term picture is an energetic early Earth followed by substantial cooling and a presently mostly solid, convecting mantle. The shape of the solid-state history is less certain. Petrological reconstructions commonly place late-Archean ambient $T_p$ above modern values. One reconstruction infers about $1500$–$1600{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$ at $2.5$–$3$ Ga versus about $1350{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$ today, and permits warming before that late-Archean maximum after the initial magma-ocean cooling.^[ref] This is a model-dependent ambient-mantle history, not proof that the accreting Earth was cooler than the Archean mantle or that every mantle reservoir followed one curve. An early molten transient, subsequent solid-state heating or cooling, and later secular cooling must be distinguished.

The geological record is a collection of thermometers with different sampling biases, not a direct time series of the whole mantle.

Primary melt compositions constrain melting temperatures. Reconstruct primary magma compositions from dated, suitably unaltered basalts by correcting for fractional crystallization and checking equilibrium with olivine. Experimental phase equilibrium constraints and mineral–melt thermometers then constrain the pressure and temperature of melt generation. In laboratory calibrations, a candidate melt and mineral assemblage are equilibrated at controlled pressure and temperature, quenched, and their crystals and glass analyzed. Repetition across adjacent conditions brackets the relevant phase equilibrium boundaries. Correcting for decompression and latent heat then allows comparison as mantle potential temperature. Age-controlled, non-arc basalt suites are especially valuable for separating changes in ambient mantle from exceptional mantle plumes. The 2010 reconstruction by Claude Herzberg and colleagues combines this approach with the temporal distribution of high-Mg parental melts.^[ref]

Komatiites provide evidence for unusually hot melting, with qualifications. Many ancient high-Mg lavas, their olivine compositions and spinifex textures indicate large degrees of melting and high parental temperatures. Their abundance in Archean terrains and rarity in the recent record are consistent with a hotter past. However, a hot mantle plume, dissolved water, unusual source composition or crystal accumulation can change the interpretation. A komatiite temperature is not automatically the ambient mantle temperature, and spinifex texture alone is not a calibrated thermometer.

Melting residues and crustal products provide independent checks. Depleted peridotite mantle xenoliths, preserved mineral chemistry and compatible-element depletion constrain former melt fractions. More extensive melting can produce thicker mafic crust and more refractory residual mantle; these are predictions to compare with preserved rock packages and seismic or petrological constraints on ancient lithosphere. Metamorphic facies and pressure–temperature paths provide contextual evidence about geothermal regimes, but tectonic burial, decompression and preservation can mimic temporal changes. They do not directly measure $T_p$.

The most persuasive inference is therefore agreement between dated melt thermometry, melting residues and their predicted crustal consequences, while separating source fertility, volatile content, mantle plume anomalies, alteration and selective preservation. Those controls explain why hotter ancient melting is better established than one exact global cooling curve.

Hotter Archean mantle would generally produce thicker, more magnesium-rich oceanic crust, together with a more strongly depleted residual mantle. Greater melt production, not merely thermal expansion of an unchanged modern column, is the principal reason for the increased crustal thickness.

At a spreading ridge, upwelling peridotite undergoes adiabatic decompression melting. A higher mantle potential temperature makes the ascending mantle intersect the solidus at greater pressure and depth. It therefore melts over a longer decompression interval and generally reaches a larger integrated melt fraction. With comparable melt focusing, more melt is supplied per unit area of newly formed oceanic crust.

Modern normal oceanic crust is about 6–7 km thick and contains basaltic lavas, a sheeted dike complex, and gabbro with mafic cumulates at depth. An illustrative reconstruction for hot ambient Archean mantle gives about 25–35 km of oceanic crust, rather than a universal fixed thickness. Its primary liquids are more magnesium-rich than typical modern primary ridge liquids; their crystallization produces more olivine- and pyroxene-rich cumulates. The extracted liquid and its crystal products must be distinguished: the entire final oceanic crust need not be a homogeneous komatiite layer.^[ref]

The residual peridotite loses more melt components, becoming more refractory and commonly harzburgite-rich. Thick buoyant basaltic crust, its later eclogitization, and the depleted underlying mantle can change the mechanics of subduction. A hotter mantle does not by itself establish how fast plates moved or whether a globally connected modern plate tectonics regime operated.

Komatiites, with very magnesium-rich primary liquids and high inferred eruption temperatures, provide evidence for hot melting, but may sample especially hot mantle plumes. Estimates of ambient mantle conditions also use less exceptional non-arc basalts. Variable source composition, water content, cooling, melt extraction and later alteration all limit the precision of a single inferred Archean thickness. The robust prediction is a larger melting column and melt yield, thicker igneous oceanic crust, and a more depleted residue.