Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
We determine the variation of effective viscosity η across the lower mantle from models of the Gibb's free energy of activation G* and the adiabatic temperature profile. The variation of G* with depth is calculated using both an elastic strain energy model, in which G* is related to the seismic velocities, and a model which assumes G* is proportional to the melting temperature. The melting temperature is assumed to follow Lindemann's equation. The adiabatic temperature profile is calculated from a model for the density dependence of the Grüneisen parameter. Estimates of η depend on whether the lower mantle is a Newtonian or power law fluid. In the latter case separate estimates of η are obtained for flow with constant stress, constant strain rate, and constant strain energy dissipation rate. For G* based on the melting temperature, increases in η with depth range from a factor of about 100 for Newtonian deformation or power-law flow with constant stress to about 5 for non-Newtonian deformation with constant strain rate. For G* based on elastic defect energy, increases in η with depth range from a factor of about 1500 for Newtonian deformation or power-law flow with constant stress to about 10 for non-Newtonian deformation with constant strain rate. Among these models, only a non-Newtonian lower mantle convecting with constant strain rate or constant strain energy dissipation rate is consistent with recent estimates of mantle viscosity from post-glacial rebound and true polar wander data.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ellsworth et al. (1985) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: