Abstract
Chapman and Pollack (C and P)[2007, Int J Earth Sci] criticize Hamza et al. [2007, Int J Earth Sci] for using actual heat flux measurements in young oceanic crust instead of values from 1-D cooling models. The rationalization of C and P and previous authors is that hydrothermal circulation causes the discrepancy between model and measurement. However, the discrepancy between model values and measured heat flux exists over the entire ocean floor and is opposite to the perturbations that hydrothermal circulation would superimpose on a conductive system [Hofmeister and Criss (2005) Tectonophysics 409:199–203]. The error lies in force-fitting a 1-D cooling model to the 3-D oceanic crust [Hofmeister and Criss (2005) Tectonophysics 395:159–177]. Shortcomings of the 1-D model include mathematical errors, such as use of volumetric rather than linear thermal expansivity to describe contraction which, by assumption, is limited only to the Z -direction [Hofmeister and Criss (2006) Tectonophysics]. This 3× error, traceable to McKenzie and Sclater [1969, Bull Vocanol 33–1:101–118], accidentally provides good agreement of model values with globally averaged seafloor depths for young, but not old ages, and is the sole rationale for using the simplistic cooling model. There is no justification for selective substitution of erroneous 1-D model values for measurements only for the younger half of the 3-D oceanic crust, as stridently and arbitrarily promoted by C and P. Hamza et al. [2007, Int J Earth Sci], in contrast, use the scientific method, which calls for discarding models that do not well describe physical phenomena.
The remainder of this report summarizes the shortcomings of cooling models, particularly the half-space cooling (HSC) model touted by C and P, and explains how hydrothermal circulation affects heat flux. We focus on the basics, as these have been misunderstood. With the key issues of C and P being erroneous, it is not necessary to address their remaining comments, many of which enumerate the vote for an imagined, gargantuan circulation of hot fluid through oceanic basins that is somehow warmed without removing heat from the rocks. The use of “consensus” to belittle valid challenge is the enemy of the scientific method.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Chapman DS, Pollack HN (in review) Comment on “Spherical harmonic analysis of Earth’s conductive heat flow” by V.M. Hamza, R.R. Cardoso, and C.F. Ponte Neto. Int J Earth Sci
Davis EE, Lister CRB (1974) Fundamentals of ridge crest topography. Earth Planet Sci Lett 21:405–413
Hamza VM, Cardoso RR, Ponte Neto CF (2007) Spherical harmonic analysis of Earth’s conductive heat flow. Int J Earth Sci (in press)
Hofmeister AM, Criss RE (2005a) Reply to “Comments on Earth’s heat flux revised and linked to chemistry” by R. Von Herzen, E.E. Davis, A. Fisher, C.A. Stein and H.N. Pollack. Tectonophysics 409:199–203
Hofmeister AM, Criss RE (2005b) Earth’s heat flux revised and linked to chemistry. Tectonophysics 395:159–177
Hofmeister AM, Criss RE (2006) Comment on “Estimates of heat flow from Cenozoic seafloor using global depth and age data” by M. Wei and D. Sandwell. Tectonophysics 428:95–100
Hofmeister AM, Criss RE, Hamza VM (2007) Implications of 1-dimensional contraction, isostatic compensation and rock-mass balance on conductive cooling models of the oceanic lithosphere. Tectonophysics (in review)
Honda S, Yuen DA (2004) Interplay of variable thermal conductivity and expansivity on the thermal structure of the oceanic lithosphere II. Earth Planets Space 56:e1–e4
Johnson HP, Pruis MJ (2003) Fluxes of fluid and heat from the oceanic crustal reservoir. Earth Planet Sci Lett 216:565–574
McKenzie DP, Sclater JG (1969) Heat flow in the Eastern Pacific and seafloor spreading. Bull Vocanol 33–1:101–118
Pollack HN, Hurter SJ, Johnson JR (1993) Heat flow from the Earth’s interior: analysis of the global data set. Rev Geophys 31:267–280
Stein CA, Stein SA (1992) A model for the global variation in oceanic depth and heat flow with lithospheric age. Nature 359:123–128
Von Herzen R, Davis EE, Fisher A, Stein CA, Pollack HN (2005) Comments on “Earth’s heat flux revised and linked to chemistry” by A. M. Hofmeister and R.E. Criss. Tectonophysics 417:325–335
Wei M, Sandwell D (2006a) Estimates of heat flow from Cenozoic seafloor using global depth and age data. Tectonophysics 417:325–335
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hofmeister, A.M., Criss, R.E. Model or measurements? A discussion of the key issue in Chapman and Pollack’s critique of Hamza et al.’s re-evaluation of oceanic heat flux and the global power. Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) 97, 241–244 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00531-007-0257-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00531-007-0257-0