Models of large‐scale viscous flow in the Earth's mantle with constraints from mineral physics and surface observations

313 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Dynamics and evolution of the deep mantle resulting from thermal, chemical, phase and melting effects (2012, methodology): “In the geoid modelling of Steinberger and Calderwood (2006), advected heat fluxwas used as an additional constraint; resulting deepmantle viscosities for the optimised models were in the range ~6×1022– 6×1023 Pa.s at 2300 kmdepth before dropping 2–3 orders ofmagnitude to the CMB.”
The viscosity of Earth's lower mantle inferred from sinking speed of subducted lithosphere (2012, background): “…vertical surface motion data associated with the solid earth response to ice sheet (un)loading and sea level change, heat flow, or dynamic surface topography (e.g. Ricard and Vigny, 1989; Pari and Peltier, 1995; Forte and Mitrovica, 1996; Panasyuk and Hager, 2000; Steinberger and Calderwood, 2006).”
Geodynamics of the Yellowstone hotspot and mantle plume: Seismic and GPS imaging, kinematics, and mantle flow (2009, methodology): “Density variations are inferred from global S-wave tomography models “Smean” (Becker and Boschi, 2002), SAW24B16 (Megnin and Romanowicz, 2000) and TX2007 (Simmons et al., 2006) following Steinberger and Calderwood (2006) or from subduction history (Steinberger, 2000b).”