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

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.