IOURNAL

OFGEOPttYSICAL
RESE•RCE VOL.71,NO.16 AUGUST
15,1966

The Viscosity of the Lower Mantle

D½• P. MCKENZIE •

Institute of GeophysicsandPlanetaryPhysics
Universityo/California, San Diego

The viscosityof the mantle is important to theories of convectionand continental drift and
alsoto the understanding of the earth'sexternalgravity field.Until recently,however,the
processescausingcreepin solidsunderthe low stresses presentwithinthe earthwereobscure,
andthere wereno estimatesof the viscosityof the lower mantle.In this paperthe use of a
stress-independentviscosityis justified,and the Navier-Stokes equationis appliedto creep
within the mantle, to investigatehow this viscositymay vary with depth within the earth
andto estimatethe viscosityof the lower mantlefrom the nonhydrostatic equatorialbulge.
The viscosityis shownto be 6 X 10'•ø(stokes),and this high value preventsboth convection
in the lower mantle and polar wandering.

1. INTRODUCTION gavea lowervalueof 3 X 10• stokes.Gulenberg

The viscosity of the earth's interior is im- [!959] showedthat the uplift of the Canadian
Shield is consistent with Haskell's result.
portantin manygeophysical
problems.
It is es-
sentialto any calculationson convectionwithh• There was no method of estimatingthe vis-
the mantle and must govern continental drift cosity of the lower mantle until MacDonald
andtectonicsof the crust. Whether polar wan- [1963] pointed out that the nonhydrostatic
deringtakesplacewill be decidedby the earth's bulgecouldonly be supportedby a highly vis-
vis½osily,and the harmonics of the external couslower mantle. He suggesteda viscosityof
gravityfield may perhaps be related through 10'•' stokes,which is supportedby the analysis
the viscosityto temperature differenceswithin given below. Before any calculationscan be
the mantle. However, until the nonhydrostatic made, it is necessaryto show that there is a
bulgewas discovered,there was no method of differencebetweenthe nonhydrostatic bulgeand
estimatingthe viscosityof the mantle below a the other harmonicsof the external gravity
depthof perhaps1000 km. The reasonsfor'this field. This differencebecomesclear in section2,
..ire(seesection6) that the deformationpro- where the energy stored in each harmonic is
ducedby a surfaceload takes place in the calculated.The bulgecontainsmoreenergythan
upper mantle and never reaches the lower any other component.
mantle,howeverlargethe dimensions of fhe load Many attemptshave beenmadeto relate•he
maybe.Onlya bodyforce,like rotation,is able rate of strainin a solidto the stressapplied,but
to deform the lower mantle. most of the equationsproducedare empirical
The classicalmethod of estimatingthe kine- and are basedon laboratorystudiesunder con-
maticviscosityof the mantle is to measurethe ditions very different from those within the
isostatic
uplift after a known load has been re- earth.Zharkov [1963] and Gordon[1965] have
movedfrom the surface.Haslce•l's[1935] cal- discussedwhat mechanisms can producecreep
culationfor the postglacialreboundof Fen- in a solid when the stressis small, and both
noscandia,
probably the most accurate of the believediffusioncreepto be the dominantme-
chanism within the earth.
manyestimatesfor that region, gives a kine-
maticviscosityof 3 X 10• stokes.The only Kaula [1963] calculatedthe elasticshearen-
otheraccuratecalculation[Crit•enden,1963], ergy in the nonhydrostaticbulgeto be 2 X 10•
onthe uplift after Lake Bonnevilledried out, ergs. Table I showsthat the gravitationalen-
ergy in the bulge is 2 X 10• ergs. Thus the
neglectof the elasticforceswill introducea 10%
•On leave from the Department of Geodesy
Madingley Rise, Cambridge,Eng- error, which is small comparedwith the other
andGeophysics,
land. uncertainties.

3995
 3996 DAN P. McKENZIE

. TI:IE [EXTERNAL Gaavm: FIEf,I) then

The nonhydrostaticpart of the equatorial

bulge was not discovered until the external
gravity field couldbe determinedfrom the mo-
fo
• fo
•'•X'"rX
t k k/
•*sin
0dO ---

tion of satellites. In this section the gravita- Thevalues of U•"arecomplex andarerelated

tional energystoredin the bulgeis shownto be to the reaI coeffieients
definedby
much greater than that in any other coefficient,
and thus suggestsit has a differentorigin. Sec-
tion 4 requires the gravity field of a layered
4) = 7 +
spherethat has small distortionsin the surface
of each layer. The revelant expressions are de- l m•O

rived here becausethey have not been found

in the literature. ß[C, cosme
Outsidethe earth the gravitationalpotential throughthe followingequations
U satisfies
U,ø= C," •,"•' = (C,m-- iS,')/•

and inside the earth

The coc•cicntsC•"' and c . calculated from
•hc motionof satellites,are of the orderof 10-•
V"(y= -4Gp (2) •o 10• exceptfor C o the equatorial
bulge.
The
Accordingto the usualsignconvention which zonal harmonic coc•cients are better known
is followedhere, U is positiveeverywhere. thanthe tesseralbecause they produce long-
The solutionto (1) is term changes
in the orbit parametersand
may bc measuredover a longperiodfromone
station.The tcsscralcoe•cicntsproduce
only
short-termchangesin the orbit, and thusthe
observationsfrom different stations mustbe
combined.Since •t•c relative positionsof ire
and (2) gives stationscannotbe determinedindependently
with sufficientaccuracy,these must alsobe
•, [3R•,2 -- r-• calculated from the orbits. The observaliom
haveonlyrecentlybecomesuff•cicnfiy accurale.
The geoiddeterminedby Izsak [1964] hasele-
m • m vationsand depressions in ttxesamegeneralre-
gionsas that of Guier and Newton [1965].The
geoidis the surfaceof mcan radius a overwhich
whereR• = 6378km andis themeanequatorial U is constan•
radiusand g = GM/R• • = 979.8era/see
•, M
beingthe massof the earth. Uz• are the = ,. O,,/,))
cientsof the externalfield •th R• taken as a
referenee
length;they requireslightcorrections
if themeanradiusa is usedinstead.At present The gravitationalpotential due to a deformed
the experimentalerrorsare greMerthan the sphereof uniform densitywhosesurface(not
eorreetions.
an equipotential) is
ThespheficaI
harmo•csaredefined
by
v, l>>v, (5)
canbe foundby requiringU and V U to becon-
tinuouson the deformedsurface[Je•reys•
k(z+ Jeffreys,1950,p. 642]

U,'• -- (3/(2/-[- 1))V,'

 VISCOSITY OF THE LOWER MA•TLE 3997

Thepotential Integratingover the wholesurface,over k from

found
from(3), (5), and(6)' 0 to 1, and substitutingthe mass M of the
spherefor 4•-dp/3 gives
Z ---- ! •
- [2(• - •)/s] v, • (7)
Whena spherehasseverallayersof different or
density,
the correspondingexpressions may be
found
byadditionof expressions like (3) 47f'
E = ---•--gaM
V•m = --G,n• '• (9) ßX; X; (z- •)(2z+ •) v,•(v,•) * (•o)
With two/ayers The negativesignoccursbecauseU is taken as
positive.The analysisabove applies to a non-
u• • • v,,,•) (.,•)• (,•, , •, rotating sphere.In a rotating frame the energy
is

E = _4x'
3
gaMZ Z(l- 1)
ß(2• + •)(vF - •,•)(v, •- •,-).
H, • are the hydrostaticcoe•cientsof the grav-
Gl '-- ity field. If the axis of rotation is that of the
.,. 2(•- 1) sphericalharmonics,H, • = 0 unlessm = 0 and
--21.4-1g' a g,'-t-2i"•q,'i
'•g2 l is even. Jeffreys [1963] has calculatedH• and
H,o to be
In theseequations,o7,"•,,,U,"%and ,•V,'"are the
deformationand the potential on the unde-
--1072.1 X 10-• and •2.9 • !0 -•
formedand dr'formedsurfaces,respectively,of
theboundaryradiusa,,.Also for the unnormalizedspherical harmonics, or
--479.5 X 10-• and +1.0 X 10-• for those used
here. The energiesgiven by (11) (Table 1) are
calculated from the tabulated values of C, • and
g•= (4wG/3g)a•(,ox-p•.) g•.= (4•G/3g)a•pr
where/• is the densitywithin the Iayer n. The
corresponding resultsfor three layers are easily u•(vD * = [(c,'7 +
derivedin the sameway. :In all modelsthe den-
The agreementbetweenthe two determinations
sities were chosen to make •he acceleration due
is not particularly good,especiallyfor the low
to the gravity field on the surfaceof all layers
harmonics.However, it is clear that the energy
thesameasits surfacevalue, g. in the X• ø harmonicis very much greater than
The coefficients of the external field are best
that in any other.
compared by calculatingthe energy contained There are several possiblemethods of pro-
in each of them. This calculation cannot be ac-
duc•g slight deviations from spherical s•-
curatebecausethe depth of the density varia- merry of the densitydistribution,but it is di•-
tions responsiblefor the coei•cients is not cult to undersland why the axis of rotation
known.An estimatecan be made by consider- should also be the axis for these deviations.
ingthe earth as a uniformsphere.The energy Yeffre•s [1963] believes that the manfie has
canbecalculatedby addinga massm givenby finite strength and has supportedthe density
m= 4x.a•pa
dk• • ,1, , 0< k< 1 differencesrequired for the gravity field since
the earth was formed. •owever, considerations
tothesurfaceof a sphereat potential of the mechanismsinvolved in creep in solids
at high temperatures and low stressesdo not
V:ga(1-
• • 2/--1)k,•,. support.the idea of finite strength
3998 DAN P. McKENZIE

TABLE 1. The Gravitational Energy in the oœmagnitude

too smallto explainthe satellite
External Gravity Field* measurement.
Anothersuggestion[Wang,1966]is thatthe
nonhydrostatic
bulge will vanishwhenthere-
m 2 3 4 5 6 boundof formerlyglaciated
areasis complete.
This effect (discussed
in appendix3) is alsoan
112 14.5 6.8 0.0 0.7 order oœmagnitudetoo small to explainthe
0
108 13.1 3.6 0.0 0.8 servations.

i 24.1 6.9 1.0 0.3 Thus the original suggestionof Munk a•d
5.0 1.3 1.0 0.5 MacDonald [1960] that the nonhydrostatic
2 17.8 13.6 5.0 4.1 1.6 bulgeis causedby the earth's angulardecciera.
5.6 0.8 0.9 7.6 5.3 tion is still the only mechanismyet discussed
9.8 9.7 0.4 9.2 which can explain the observations.The dil-
3 7.8 1.1 11.6 l.6 foreneein energybetweenthe bulgeand
1.1 6.7 11.,i other harmonicsis then explainedby the dif-
4 1.2 6.4 6.8 ference
in theirorigins.
Theearth's
viscosity
can
9.9 9.5 })c calculatedon the basisof this hypothesis.
5 4.6 7.8
1.7 3. Cnw,
w,rwrr•N ,r•
14.6 No furtherprogress
canbemadewithout
an
equation re]ating stress to the rate of stra•
* Energy in units of 1.56 X 10•s ergs. Upper
values, Guier and Newton [1965]; lower values, within the earth. •any complicatedempirical
Izsak [1964]. equations have been publishedwith very little
discussionof the mechanismsby which the solid
is deformed. These mechanisms will be discussed
1963; Gordon,1965], nor doessucha theory in a later paper, where it will be shownihat
explainthe orientationof the excessmass.An- diffusioncreep is dominant if the stressis small
other causeof the densityirregularitiesmay be (less than about 10-•'•,,where • is the shear
a temperaturedistributionwith smalIdifferences modulus). Creep of this nature in a homogene-
from .sphericalsymmetry, causedeither by ous solid obeysthe Navier-Stokesequationand
convectionor by the nature of the solutionsto thus justifies the use of a stress-independent
the heat conductionequationwhenthe conduc- viscosity.• earth model consistentwith both
tivity is a functionof temperature.Since Tozer the rates of postglacialuplift and the nonhydro-
[1965] shows that the Coriolis force can be static bulge is related here to the propertiesof
neglectedthroughoutthe mantle, the only way mantle rocks.
in which the rotation can affect convection and The nonhydrostaticequatorialbulgeproduces
heat flow is through the boundaryconditions, shearingstresseswhich causethe earth to creep
which are given on a spheriodrather than on a toward hydrostatic equilibrium. If the stressis
sphere.Under these conditionsa theorem due •su•cient to causedislocationsto movethrough
to yon Zeipel [Eddington, 1926] preventsthe the crystal, the only creep mechanismis dif-
surfacesof constant pressurefrom being iso- fusionof alomsor vacanciesalonggra• bound-
thorns, and slowcirculationwill take placeun- aries or lhrough the crysial lattice [Gordon,
lessthe earth has finite strength.The equations 1965]. Herring [1950] showsthat the diffusion
which governthe flow are complicated,and no creeprate • dependslinearly on stressa
solutionhas beenattempted.In any caseit is
unlikelythat this effectis important,sincethe a = • V•/•0•r• • (•)
earth'ssurfacefeaturesshowno symmetryabout where R is the mean crystal radius, V, the
the equator.Someidea of the order of magni- atomic volume,and D the diffusioncoe•cient.
tude of the nonhydrostaticfield is obtainedin
D is related to the enthalpy,•H, required
appendix2. This calculation, suggestedby G. E. produce a vacancy or •terstitial atom
Backusand It. H. Dicke, givesa valueof 1.6 X
10-' for the nonhydrostaticU2 that is an order
 VISCOSITY OF THE LOWER MANTLE 3999

where whichvarieslittlewith terminedby the creeprate in the uppermantle

Dois a constant
pressure
andtemperature.
Thusthecreep
can aboveabout 1000km. However,flow produced
bedescribed
by a kinematic v, given by the bulgewill penetrateinto the lower man-
viscosity
by tle, which therefore must have a much greater
viscositythan the upper mantle.
•,= (10kTR2/Dom,,) exp(AH/kT) (14) The temperaturegradientin the lowermantle
wherem, isthemassof an atom.Themainpres- is closeto the adiabatic,and in the upper man-
sureandtemperaturedependence of the vis- tle it is very muchgreater. Tozer [1965] finds
cosityis throughthe exponential letre.In the that the viscositychangeslittle along an adia-
laboratory,T is generallysmalland creeptakes bat; thus if AH remains constant throughout
placebythemovement a processthe mantle the viscosityshoulddecreasestead-
ofdislocations,
whichcannotoperate below the yield stress. ily with depth to its value in the lower mantle.
Undertheseconditions a solidhasfinitestrength Since the viscosityincreasesby five orders of
becausediffusionis far too slowto be measured. magnitudebetweenthe upper and lower mantle,
Kaula [1963] finds that the nonhydrostatic AH must increase.The phase change from an
bulgeproduces a maximumshearstressof olivineto a spine!lattice probably takes place
about10s dynes/cm",or about 10-'• within the between300 and 600 kin, and the movementof
silicon from tetrahedral to octahedral coordina-
mautle.His solutionis not unique. This stressis
probably too smallto movedislocations, and tion takes place between600 and 900 km. The
thuscreepwill be by diffusion.Sinceboth pres- densephasein the lower mantle has a higher
sureand temperatureare, to the first approxi- bulk modulusand hencea higher activation en-
mation,functionsof r, the radius,the viscosity ergy for vacancyformationthan the lessdense
willalsoonly dependon r. In this casethe flow phasesin the upper mantle. Thus a goodmodel
for movements within the earth with time scales
will obeyequationssimilar to thosegiven by
Altermanet al. [1959] for the corresponding of about 10• years or greater probably has a
elasticcase.Theseequationsare given by G. E. surface shell 1000 km thick with a viscosity
Backus(personalcommunication)and could be -• 10• stokes overlying a lower layer of vis-
solvedfor varioustemperature and pressuredis- cosity•, 10-• stokes,which in turn surroundsan
lribufions.However,the uncertaintiesin T and inviscid core. There is general agreement that
in lhe constantsin (14) are as yet too great for the boundarybetweenthe upper and lower man-
such an analysis to be justified. The same tle is a phasechangeand thus dependson pres-
method as Alterman's is used for the calcula- sure, whereas that between the •ower mantle
lionsin section4, but with a maximfireof three and the core •s a compositionchangeand hence
the volume of the core is constant. These bound-
layersonly.The flow in each layer lhen satisfies
theNavier-Stokesequation ary conditionsmust be satisfiedby the solutions
to (15). The differencebetweenthe viscosities
Dv is sufficientlygreat for the lower mantle to be-
- O,v + (v.V)v have as a rigid corefor movementsin the upper
mantle. Also, flow within the lower mantle be-
= rV•v q- V(U -- p/p) (15) havesas if both the core and the upper mantle
V'v=O were inviseidfluids; thus the transversestress
vanishes at both surfaces. A more accurate esti-
wherep is the fluid pressureand •, standsfor mate of the thicknessof the upper shell can
•/0•. MacDonald [1963] has shown that the probably be ealculatedfrom the uplift rate of
viscosity
requiredto producethe nonhydrostatic areaswith varyingdiameters,and it may explain
bulgeis about10:• stokes,whichis very much the apparent differencein upper mantle vis-
grealerthan the valueof 3 X 10-• estimatedby cosity as calculatedfrom the shorelinesof Lake
Haskell[1935] for the postglacial
uplift of the Bonneville [Crittenden, 1963] and from the
Baltic Shield. The movement of the earth's sur- Baltic Shield.
faceunder a load of radius • 1000 km* is de- Three models are considered here' model 1
is a homogeneous
earth; model2 has an inviseid
* ~, orderof magnitude
of. coreand a homogeneous mantle; and modeI3 is
4000 DAN P. McKENZIE

the one described above and is the most like

the actual earth. In all models the stress van-
ishes at the outer surface. The ne• section
contains the mathematical solutions to (1,5) +vlu- Wp3•/•
cor2 J
x•ø(ø)
with the appropriateboundaryconditions.
4. MODEL CALCULATIOATS
2
It is moreconvenient
to workwithdimensionless
There is no analyticsolution%0(115)in a to- quantities•7,
%, 6), 6l, and•',defined
by
'ratingframe, and thus certainapproximations
must be made before a solution is attempied. • _ av q!= U/ga 6)= r/gap
Even the angularrotation cannotbe taken as
constant becausethe nonhydrostaticbulge is (R: r/a •: gat/•,
producedby the deceleration.The first part of
tt]is sectionjustifiesthe approximationsmade, Equations 17maythenbewrittenin terms of3,
a dimensionless number
and the secondcontainssolutionsof the simpli-
fied equationsfor each of the modelsdiscussed 0 = V•; r
in section 3. The difference between the vis-
cosity calculated for a homogeneous sphere, q- $'"Vql
.... (P coa •,-x.
,, (o)
model 1, and model 2, which containsan in- :•x/g g
viscid core, is small. Allowancefor the phase
changein model 3 requiresan order of magni- o = v.•7 (•8)
tude increasein the viscosity. where
Fortunately, the flow toward the hydrostatic
figure is very slow,and many terms in the full 5'2= ga'
equationscan be neglected.The equationsfor The bulgeis causedby the time dependence of
the flow of a viscousincompressible liquid in a (,),wlfichmay be written
rotating frame are
w = oo,,exp(-yt/2) = •ooexp(-rU2)
V'v=O

O,v + (o x r+ 2• x r
Since the hydrostaticbulge is proportional to
+ • x (• x r) + (v-v)v •,?, 1/• is il•e relaxationtime for lhe hydro-
sinitc bulge.The value of ¾ may be foundfrom
= •v% + v(u- •/•)
Sincethe bulgeis about 104 cm greaterthan -v/• = •/•
the hydrostatic,and corresponds
to the hydro- Equ,'dion 18 becomes
staticfigureof about10• yearsago,[v[• 10-•o.
Si•larly 0 =

[• • •0-• [•[ • •0-• + •v[q•- m+

0 = V-•7 (19)
where

The bulge will be governedby the larges• •o = - •oo•/ax/• g

•erm containing• or •, which in this caseis the
• x (• x r) term. Thus (16) may be written
2 This sectioncontainsno argumentsor conclu-
sionsthat are essentialto the understanding
of
the problem.It may be omittedby thosewho do
not want to study the detailed mathematical solu-
tion to the e.quationsof viscous
flow.
Equation 19 must be solvedwith the appropri-
ate boundary conditions. For a homogeneous
sphere which has been slightly deformed,lhe
condition that the lransverse stress should van-
ish on the deformedsurfaceis, to the first ap-
proximation, the same condition as that ii
shouldvanishon a sphere,radiusa. Thus
 VISCOSITY OF THE LOWEt:t MANTLE 4001

The Laplacetransforms
of (23) and (24), with
respect to •' are

- 6t sin 8
= o (•o) v x(vx•(%))
=v[•(•)-
on6t= 1, whereO• stands
for O/O•!,etc.The
normal
stress
• mustvanishon the deformed +, + r x• (o)
surface,
(R = 1 -[- V, and doesnot vanishon
V'•(•O = 0 (26)

•(e)•=•+,
= 2[O•(•(•O-a•)](27)
(21) •(•) =
=0 The surfaceof the sphereis taken as unde-
formed at • = 0 becausethe initial conditions
The kinematicconditionis that the rate at have no effect on the solution.The divergence
whichthe surface is deformed must equal the
of (25) gives
normalvelocity

• o• = [•Y-a•]•.• (2•) v• •(•) - •(e)+ • + r

There is no solution to these equations with Thus
•[ • 1because
theforcedrivingthecirculation
is •5 •. Substituting
•(•) - •(e)+ •'+r •-x•ø(o)
in (1S) gives
a,.','(s)must be foundfrom the boundarycon-
-v•%=v x(v x•)
ditions. The other solution containing (R-z-• is
= v[• - e + excluded because it is infinite at the center. The
form of (25) suggests
a solutionof the type
v.% = 0
Theboundaryconditionsbecome
,

•.•+• = •[a,,,(•.a•)]•., (s•) + l,,F(o•, •)c•,(o, •)} (so)

• = [•-a•]•.•
P, B, and C are the vectorsphericalharmonics
Equation20 is unchanged.The rest of this defined in Morse and Feshbach [1953], but
sectioncontainsthe exact solution to (23) with normalizedso that their integralsover a unit
boundaryconditions20 and 24. sphereare iT. Substitutionof (29) into (25)
Two approximations have been made in the and the traction equationsshowsthat no solu-
derivationof (23). The first is that a regionof tion containingC is possible;thus there is no
constant•scosity separatedby sharpspherical solutionto correspondto the torotrialmagnetic
boundariesis a goodmodelfor the mantleand is fields or torsional oscillationsin elastic theory.
probablyvalid. The secondis that buoyancy Equation 26 gives
forcesdue to temperature variations can be
neglected.
It hasbeenshown(section2, appendix
2) that theseforcesare unable to producethe (Pt ' '
observed gra•ty field by themselves,but it is
and (25) becomes
di•cult to prove that they cannot interact
through the two noOnear terms,• = •(T) and •(• + •)/,,F -
v. VT, to producethe observedfield. However,
sucheffectsare neglected. = •(•) •' • (a0)
4002 DAN P. McKENZIE
The solutionto (30) is
vJ()= + x;O½
+ r)
K• = 2/19
Inversionof the Laplacetransformgives
whereb•(s) mustbe foundfromthe boundary
con•tions.•(v) and the valuesof •(•) and
•(%) onthe deformedsurface
maybeexpanded Vaø(f)
= aoKoe
-rr
- r)
in sphericalh•mo•cs
ß{1 -- exp[--(Ka-- r)rl}
Since •he no•ydros•atic bulge is smallcorn.
pared •th •he hydrostatic,K a >> F; als0
fKa >> 1. Hence (35) becomes

Equation7 relatesVf(s) and•f(s); equation

2oe-r rKa
27 gives
As v • 0, F • 0 and (36) gives•he hydrostatic
potential, Wao(D

Both V• oand Wa oare measured on the deformed

surface.The corresponding coefficients,
•a0 and
H•0, on the surfaceof a sphere•th • = 1,my
•hen be foundby using(7). Thus
•o_ tiao ;%0_ waO
• • 0
H• W•ø
= 2 (l -- 1)b•
• -- 2(2•
+ 3)a• (32)
r r
•oth transverseequationsgive

When this equation is expressedin measured,

rather than dimensionless,parameters,it be-
comes
+ z(z+ = 0
The expressionin •he first bracket is equalto v-- AK•gaw/2(--&) (37)
Where •o and & have their modern values. The
(l--{-
1)(/-- 2)b' l•(l-}"
z -- 2i2/ 3)a••
+3) value of A was obtained in section 2 and is used
in section6 to calculate the viscosity.Such$
Elimination of az% bzm,and 6• • from (28), (31), calculationis justified only if & has remained
(32), and (33) leaves constantover the last 10' years.
The earth is not a homogeneous sphere,but
0= I q- s Vz,•(s)
+s+ F&•o
6,2(34)ties
containsa fluid core and a mantle whoseproper-
vary with depth.The externalgravityfield
can still be usedin calculatinga viscosity,but
-- •/[2(/q- 1)2+ 1]
7' l
the theory becomes more complicated.A model
with a fluid coreand a homogeneous mantleisa
decaytime for a surface better approximation
r• is the dimensionless to the earth than a homo-
disturbancewhich only containssphericalhar- geneous sphereis. However,the gravityfieldis
monicsof degree1. The true relaxationtime is then causedby distortions at both the earth's
w'•/ga. Equation34 showsthat rotationaffects surfaceandthe core-mantle boundary.Since the
onlythe Y :•oharmonicof the gravityfield flowtakesplacein response to thegravityfield,
 VISCOSITYOF Tt•E LOWERMANTLE 4003
theflowat the outersurface
is caused
by the 1 1 c•
2

shapeof boththe outersurfaceandthe core- a 2 7

mantleboundary.For this reasonthe model
mustbe described in termsof its two normal
modes andtherotationincludedasa generalized
A2 =
forceon both.Fortunately,the decaytime for
bothmodes is shortcompared with that for the 8 1 1 8 .
rotation,
and thereforethe normalmodesneed
befoundformallyonly.
Flowwithinthe corein responseto movement
of •he core-manfieinterface obeys (19) with
8a 1.• 8 j
•0 The boundaryconditions
for normalstressgive

v
Px
=o D V2
ø.+-s+"r.J= Baa.o (43)
wherep• and p2 are core and lower mantle 1 -- P_L 0
densities,
respectively.
Thus the pressurewithin (w)" = (d', D = p2

thecore,(P•,is hydrostatic. 0 I
-r• 2 o
5'•- p--•
[q%+ f•oe fitX. (0)]-+-const(39)
The normal stress is continuous at the core- B2 =
mantleboundary,• • a.
8o•
'• 3• 2 •
Equations42, 43, and 9 canbe combinedto give
The k•emafic and transverses•ressboundary
countionsare •he sameas in (32) and (33) bu• C[Vaø -[- Wf2o/(S-[-F)] = sVa
ø (44)
are•akenat • = a. In Laplace•ransformspace, where
becomes
C = G•(B•E•)
-•D
•2odX•ø(O)
- + .......
s+ r and E• is the first two columnsof (A•)-•. The
motion of the core-mantleinterface is coupled
to •hat of the surfaceof the off-diagonalterms
in C. The normalmodescanbe foundby diagonal-
izing C. We chooseS so that
The solution;o (30) now contains two more
terms

and
S-•CS
=[:0•
O]=A
¾a
Then (44) becomes
M before,•b••, •b•% •a••, and •a•• must be
determined
from •he boundaryconditions,
and (ao/(S+ r))As-w
therotation affects the harmonic with l • 2 and 0
m = 0 only. The transverse stress and = - eo
mafic
equations
maybecombined
to give
o
(4. . r) S-•W
X•
0
(s+' X•)(s+ r)]
4004 DAN P. McKENZIE

Inversionof the Laplacetransformgives versestressequationsand the kinematicbound.

ary conditionat the core-mantle boundary
t0
give a matrix as above.When the resultis
=- r• • - 0 S- written in the form of (47), the expression
0n
the right is P/lOK.ofor an upper mantlethick.
0 nessof 300 kin, and one of 1000 km gives
I'/15K..,.Thus the viscosityrequiredto produce
spherewhen the externalgravity field is increasedby factors
As in the caseof the homogeneous
v--• 0, F --• 0 andthehydrostatic ') of 10 and 15, respectively,over that for theh0.
value(o.•ø(t
is given by mogeneous sphere.The viscosities for thismodel
are an order of magnitude greater than for
(o•.ø(t
-) = -- i2oe-rrlS-xW either the homogeneoussphere or for the two-
where ! is the unit matrix. Thus layer modelbecauseall the nonhydrostatic field
is causedby distortionof the core-mantlebound.
•,.,o(•)
_ •o(•) = _ •or•-•A-•s-•w ary. Sincethe gravitationalpotentialdropsas
•:• • 0.1, the distortion required, and hencethe
v•O(•)- w..O(•)= S[v,•O(•) - •',(•)] viscosity,is greater. The deformationfromthe
= - •2opd- r•C-'W (45) hydrostaticellipticity is ~ 1 kin, or ½boutan
order of magnitudeless than could be detected
and
by core reflections.
= = - (40) Tf the viscousstressesin the upper mantle
cannot be neglected,•he factor on •he rightof
Uø- H=" P(F=G,
.o,HO = F C W)..,. (47) (47) must lie betweenI•/1.4K.,.and P/15•, de-
pendingon the v•ria•ion of viscosiWwithdepth
The subscript2 refersto the secondcomponent in •he upper mantle.
of the vector concerned. The expression on the 5. TT-IE ANGULAZ< DECEZmaa'rzoN
right of (47) canbe evaluatedand
The analysisin section 4 applies only if the
whereK• is as givenby (34).
angulardecelerationhas a time constantlong
In the third case,anotherlayer is introduced
comparisonwith that of the bulge, whichis
to representthe upper mantic. The viscosity
•-2 X 10• years in the three-layer model.As-
of this layer must be • 10=, or about five
ironomicai observationscover only the last 150
ordersof magnitudesmallerthan •hat of
years,but until Wells [ 1963] found daily growth
lower manfie. Thus an approximate solution
lines on coralsthey were the only measurement
can be obtainedby neglectingthe viscousforces of the dcceleration.
due to decelerationin the upper mantle. The
Mu.nk and MacDonaht [1960] discuss tl•ehis-
boundarybetweenthe upper and lower mantle
torical variations in the lcnglh of day, which
is a phasechange,whichtakes placeat constant
they separate into two parts--one due
pressure. Thus (38) gives
tidal exchangeof angular momentum between
• W(9 + (•o/0 + r)) = 0 (•s) the earth, the sun, and the moon and the other
due •o some internal cause,probably motions
on the bmmdary. Since the normal stress within the fluid core.The only informationused
dependentof O, the pressurecoe•cient, to achievethis separationis astronomical ob-
•mediately belowthe boundaryand within the servationsof the orbits of the moon, the sun,
lower mantle is
and Mercury and a comparisonbetweenthe
heightsof lhe sun and moon tides. They esti-
P•'(s) = 2[Od•,z']•=, (49)
mate the presentdeceleration
to be 5.3 x 10-=
The gravitational and rotational potentials are rad/sec'øif the friction in the oceansis linear,or
continuouseverywhere;hence(43) becomes 5.8 X 10-= rad/sec
'øif, as seemsmorelikely,lhe
friction dependson the squareof the velocity.
--2[Oa[:.•'•]a=•= •a2øa
s -[- •.a•.
ø (50) The second value is used for all the calculations
This equation can be combinedwith the trans- made in section 6. The acceleration due to in-
 VISCOSITY OF THE LOWER MANTLE 4005

ternalcauses
fluctuateswith a time scaleof where &• is the accelerationproducedby proc-
about20 years,but it hasnot producedany essesin and on the earth. Equations 52 to 55
long-term
changes
since
observations
began. may be combinedto give
Observations
on MiddleDevoniancoralshave
beenusedrecentlyto calculatethe deceleration &, = --(4y.•Ma•/3C)5,
overa periodof 350millionyears.Wells[1963] For the earth C • 0.33Ma•; thus
andStrutton[1964]havesuggested that ridges
onthe epithccaof somePaleozoiccoralscor- •, = --4.0•, (•)
respond
to daily,monthly,
andannualgrowth (1/C) de/dr = 4.0(Y•/•)•, (57)
and hencereveal the number of days in a
monthand a year. Runcorn [1964] finds that Thus
theseobservations
requirethe earth'sdecciera-
tion and moment of inertia to have remained &• = 2.3 X 10-a4 rad/seca
constantsince Middle Devonian time. These (i/C) dC/dt = 3.3 X 10-2ø part/see
results,
thoughstill slightlyuncertain,support
of the modernobservations. Sincethe probableerror in &, is ,-., 10-=•, the
theextrapolation
In tile analysisill sectioni it was more con- accelerationdue to the collapseof the bulge is
yententto use an expressionfor the ang•]ar ve- too small to be detected.The changein C since
locityof theform Devoniantime is only 3 parts in 10•, which is
well within Runcorn's estimate of the experi-
co-' coocxp (--'yt/2) (51) mental uncertainties. These results are not
changedwhen the finite viscosityis included.
where• and •00are constantand • = --2&/•o. This section showsthat large changesin &,
Equation 51 fits all observationsas well as a or C since Devonian time are excludedby the
straight
line does;however,thereis no physical coral results. Thus the equations derived in
reasonwhy it shouldbe preferred.
section4 can be appliedto the earth.
ThoughRuncornfoundthat the coralresults
requiredno changein the earth's ,momentof 6. DAMr• A•O V•scos•z • ½
inertia,the collapseof the equatorialbulgemust NONHOMOGENEOUS EARTH
produce an internalangularacceleration and a
decreasein the moment of inertia. This effect is In previousdiscussionsoœthe earth'sviscosity,
discussedhere to show that it can be neglected. Haskell [1935], Gold [1955], and Munk and
If C and zi are the time-dependentmoments MacDonald [1960] have considereda homo-
of inertia about axes passingthrough the pole geneousearth only. Substitutionof A -- 9.8 X
andthe equator,differentiationof MacCullagh's 10-•, K• = 2/19, o•--- 7.3 X 10-• tad/see,
formula[Jeffreys,1959, p. 40] gives 5: = --5.8 X 10-" rad/sec•, g = 9.8 X 10•
cm/sec%
and a = 6.4 X 10s cminto (37) shows
that a viscosityof 4 X 10• stokesis requiredto
dt dt dt
producethe observed
equatorialbulge,and this
To the first approximalion the mean moment value is not consistent with that derived from
of inertia remains constant postglacial uplift. Thus a homogeneous earth is
too simplea modeland a layeredearth must be
dC dA.
used.Also, in a homogeneous earth the charac-
+ =o teristic time for the dampingof the Chandler
Je/]reys[1959] showsthat Y.•is proportionalto wobbleand for the collapseof the nonhydrostatic
•'•; thus bulgeare the sameand are relatedto the time
requiredfor polarwandering(seeGold[1955]and
(2/oo)&,-- (1/Y•) dYe/dr (54:) section7). Gold used13 yearsasthe decaytime
for the Chandler wobble and discovered that
where&, is the total angularacceleration.
dueto
Apart fromexternalforcesthe angular polar wanderingwould take place in about 1
allcauses.
momentum of the earth must remain constant million years, an embarrassinglyshort time.
This difiqcultyis alsocausedby a homogeneous
+ = o earth beingtoo simplea model.
4006 DAN P. McKENZIE
In a layeredearththereis no simplerelation equilibrium.
Whenthevalueof --&, obtained
betweenthe dampingof the Chandlerwobble in section 5 is substituted
intotheexpressiota
and the time taken for the bulge to collapse. given
in section
4 forthethree-layer
model
with
Let us consider an earth which consists of a a phase
change,
theviscosity
required
is4 X
shellwhichwill dampthe Chandlerwobblein stokes if theuppermantleis300kmthickand
10 yearssurrounding
a rigid centralcore,and 6X 10TMstokes
if it is1000
kmthick.
Atwo-layer
allow the surfaces of the shell and the core to modelwitha fluidcoregivesa viscosity
of
havetheir hydrostaticbulgescausedby rotation. 6 X 1025
stokes
butisnotconsistent
withpost.
In this modelthe dampingof the wobblewill be glacial
uplift.Takeuchi
andHasegawa
[1965]
rapid and will take placein the viscousshell. ignore
thegravityfielddueto theelliptictry
of
If the angularvelocityis changed, however•the the core-mantle
boundaxy.
Their model
nonhydrostatic bulgeproducedwill bepermanent rigidlower
mantle;
therefore
theextern•l
gravity
because it will be causedby the shapeof the rigid fieldwouldbe dominated
by the shape
ofthe
core,even thoughthe shellwill quicklyflow to rigidlower
mantle
andnotbytheexternal
shape.
make the outer surfacean equipotential.If the The shapeof the core-mantle boundarywill
continentsare floatingin the outer shell, the fix the rotationaxisto the lowermantleand
Ebtv6sforceonthemwill not causepolarwander- hinderpolarwandering. However,the Chandler
ing becausethe rotational axis is fixed by the wobblewill be dampedby the layerwhichcan
centralcore.This forcemay causethem to drift dissipate
the mostenergywhenactedonbya
toward the equatorif the viscosityof the shell force X•.•(O, qb)exp toot.Sincethere is a dose
is sufficientlysmall.Sucha modelwill alsoallow relationship
between
themechanisms
producing
isostaticadjustmentto any surfaceload. dampingand thoseproducingcreep,thelower
Present knowledgeabout the earth's interior mantieis unlikelyto cause
therapiddamping
of
from seisinologyshowsthat there is a central the Chandlerwobble.Andersonand Archambeau
core,radius 3470 kin, surroundedby a radially [1964]believethat mostof the damping
ofbody
symmetric mantle. Free oscillationsand body wavesand of free oscillations
takesplacein the
waves show the core to be inviscid over the upper mantle. It is likely that the Chandler
time scalesconsidered here, whereaspostglacial wobbleand the body tidesare alsodamped
in
uplift requires the upper mantle to have a the sameregion.
viscosity •, 3 X 10•'• stokes.The discussion Thus it is important to decidewhetherthe
above showsthat isostaticadjustmentwill be processis governedby the most or the leas•
governedby the viscosityof the surfacelayers. viscouspart of a nonhomogeneous
earthbefore
The nonhydrostatic bulgewill be supportedby any simplificationsare made.
•he mostviscouslayerwithinthe earth,provided
7. POLARWANDERINGAND CONVECTION
that the decaytime within this layeris shortin
comparison with the rotationaldecaytime. The Palcomagnetic resultsrequire the magnetio
viscosityrequiredmust be greaterthan the pole, and hence the rotational pole, to have
4 X 10'-•stokescalculatedfor a homogeneousmoved relative to each continentduringgeo-
earth.The only possible positionfor a layer of logical time. If continentshave drifted relative
suchhigh viscosityis the lower mantle. Solid- to e•ch other and lo the pole,polarwandering
state considerations (section3) suppor•this is hard to define.However,the highviscosities
conclusion.The outer boundaryof the lower calculated here for Zhe lower m•ntle will stabi-
mantleis a phasechange, andthusthisboundary lize the pole, and continentaldrift may •hen
is governedby pressure.Under theseconditions take place on an earth whoselower mantleis
theanalysis in section
4 shows thattheshapeof fixed to the rotation axis.
the boundaryis governed by the leastviscousof If a small massm is placedon the earth's
the two phases.Thus the outer surfaceof the surfaceat a latitude 0o, •he Chandlerwobble
lowermantleis an equipotential,andit doesnot will be excitedand will take place•boutanax•s
contributeto the nonhydrostaticbulge(a similar inclinedat an angleof ma• sin 2 0o/2(C- A)
argumentappliesto the inner core).The cause radiansto •he original•xis of rotation.Thede-
of the bulge must thereforebe a distortionof c•y time of the Chandlerwobble,thoughvery
the core-mantleboundaryfrom hydrostatic uncertain,is probably of the order of 30 years.
 VISCOSITY OF TIIE LOWER MANTLE 4007

[t isnotknownwherethe energyconcerned
is by Haskelt's[1935]method will be a function of
tissipated,
buttheleastlikelyplaceisthelower the radius of the areas[McConnell,1965], and
mantle.
The dissipationwill take placewithin the surface movements will differ fi'om those
thelayerthat hasthe shortest decaytimefor calculatedfrom the simpletheory of an infinite
•n oscillating
disturbance
of the form half-space.The calculationsmust be made with
•xpi•ot.ttowever,
therateof polarwanderingsphericalshells.
willbe determined
by the layer whichhasthe Beforeconvection
cantake placein the lower
longest
decay
time%oa constant
disturbance
of mantle, the temperaturegradient must exceed
theformX.2(0), and the samelayer will sup- the adiabaticby an amount/•givenby
portthenonhydrostatic
bulge.
If thetimecon- = -
stantfor polarwanderingis • and that for the
lowermantleis •, where whereR ois the criticalIiayleighnumber,• 2 X
10*, • the thermal conductivity• 0.01 cal/
= ga) øC sec, and a the thermal expansion•-• 2 X
andz• is ,;asgiven by (34), then Gold [1955] 10-•/øC.If v • 6 X 10"'•,thevalueof • required
finds beforeconvection cantake placeis • 10øC/kin,
or a temperature differenceacrossthe lower man-
r-• 2•'•(C -- A)/?na• sin20,, (58) fie of about 20,000øC.The actual temperature
Tile forceacting on the mass in the direction difference is probably between 1000øC and
ofthe equatoris calledthe Ertvrs force.•unk 2000øC and is far too small to cause convection.
and MacDonald define the excitation function The adiabatic gradient is 0.5øC/kin, or a tem-
dueto this force as perature difference across the lower mantle of
1000øC; thus the actual temperature gradient
If[ = ma•sin 20o/2(C-- A) •'• 'r•/•' (59) may not even exceedthe adiabatic. Even a vis-
cosity of 4 x l0 • stokesis quite sufficientto
If • -• 4 X 10•, then r• • 2 X !0 • years and
prevent convection.
the pole will not wander in geologicaltime
Convectionin tile upper mantleis :notaffected
(•-• 5 X 10"years)unless[•[-0 4 X 10-•.
Avalueofrof•6X 10•anda-•5X 10 scm by thesecalculations,nor is there any difficulty
in conveeringthrough the phase-change region
requires
If] "• 5 X 10-•. They computethat for
thepresentdistributionof oceansand continents if it is spread over about 500 -lorn[Verhoogen,
thevalueof I•] is approximately
10-•, whichis
insufficient
to produce polar wandering. It is It is interestingthat this model partly ex-
plains the occurrenceof earthquakes.Below a
likelythat a largervalue of ]•l will resultfrom
densityvariations within the mantle, but since depth of 700 kin, thermal stressesare removed
theseare likely to be thermal in origin they by creep and do not accumulate becausethere
probably have a decaytime short in comparison is no convection.Abovethis depth,heat is trans-
withthat of polar wandering.It is clear that ported by movement of the rock, generating
the EStvSs force on the continents is not suffi- shearingstressesand henceearthquakes.
cient•o movethe pole,but this forcemay move 8. Co•c•,ns•ox
the continentsseparatelytoward the equator.
Geology doesnot supportmovements in latitude These calculationsdepend on the measured
only,however,andthussucha forceis probably value of U•ø [King-ftele, 1965] and on the value
not important. calculatedby Je/)'reys[1963] for a hydrostatic
Unlikepolar wandering,convection neednot earth. If either of theseis in error by 1%, the
beprevented by a highlyviscouslowermantle. energystored in the U• harmonicmay be no
It is veryimportantto knowwhetherthe non- greaterthan that in any other,and this method
hydrostatic bulgeis causedby a highviscosity of estimating•he viscosityof the lower mantle
throughout the mantleor by a thin layersome- fails. However, there is no reason •o doubt
wherewithin it, perhapsat the core-mantle either the measurements or the calculations.
boundary. If the lowermantlehasa viscosity
of The three-layer model with an inviscid core
about10•' throughout,it will affectisostatic and a phase changebetween the •pper and
upliftin two ways.The viscosityas calculated lower mantle is the most realistic of those con•
4008 DAN P. McKENZIE
sideredhere,and it requiresa viscosityof 6 x Lamb looked for solutions of the form
10'-• stokes in the lower mantle. All three models
are sufficiently
viscous
to preventconvection
in •T = •T exp(--•)
the lowermantleand to preventpolarwander- In this case(A4) becomes
ing in geologicaltime.
The viscosityestimatedfrom postglacialup- (v • + •)• = o • = •
lift will be reducedif the 1ewermantle is highly (•)
V'•7• = 0
viscous,and thus convection within the upper
mantle,900km thick,is likely to takeplace. MorseandFesbach[1953]showthatthesolu-
The only argumentin favor of convection
in tions to (AS) are
the lower mantle is that the scale of features on
1
the earth's surfacethought to be due to convec-
tion cells is about 3000 kin. Convection in the
lower mantle is then required if the cells are
to be circular in crosssection.However,circular
cellsare foundonlyat Rayleighnumbersslightly wherea• are complex coefficients
andjz(k•)
above critical, about 2 X 103,and there is no are sphericalBesselfunctions.The •1 solution
evidencethat this occursin the upper mantle. maybe combined withthe particular
integral
to
Thus there is no di•culty in explainingconti- satisfythe boundaryconditions,
but the•
nental drift and other surface featuresby con- solution may not. Thus the • solutionmust
vectionin the uppermantle. satisfythe boundaryconditions
by itself,andit
ArPENOIX 1
can be generatedonly by the initial velocity
field and not by gravitationalflow. The•
Lamb [1SS1]solvedthe equationsfor viscous solution correspondsto torsional elasticoscilla-
flow in a nonrotatingspherebut useda method tions and toroidal magneticfields; it canbe
different from that used in section 4. He retained written in terms of the vector spherical
bar.
the term S• andsolved monies C•,• alone. The combined•b and X
solution containsboth P,,,• and B• and cot.
•-•s• = v•v+ •v[• - •] (•) respondsto spheroidal elastic oscillationsand
poloidal magneticfields. These solutionsshould
V.• = 0
be comparedwith (29).
These equationshave a particular integral of Thus the solutionto (A1) is
•he form

v= v•+•v ]
provided that
ßexp (--a•')
v'•, = o (•) This solutionis apparentlyof order 1, andthat
and in section4 is of order 5% However, whenthe
values of a•• are determinedfrom the boundau
o•4,= •- • (A3) conditionsand an approximate expression is
usedfor j•(/•(R) when k(R is small, the terms0f
When • is calculatedfrom theseequationsit
order 1 cancelin (A6) and leave only those0f
doesnot satisfy the surfacetraction boundary order • the two solutions are then the same.
condition,and thusthe generalsolutionto (A1)
is required
The effectof von Zeipel'stheoremon theex-
ternal gravity field can be calculatedfromBu/-
where
lard's [1948] valuesfor the elliptictrye of the
surfaces of constantdensity.His values,though
vW•= • o•v• (•4) for an isothermalearth,caneasilybe corrected
V-•Y• = 0 for temperature. Clairaut's theoremthen gives
 VISCOSITY OF TtIE LOWER MANTLE 4009

thechangein externalfield.In the following The valuesof ]VT]• is ,• 20øC/km.Numerical

calculation
onlythe orderof magnitude of the integrationusingB'ullard's[1948] valuesof ((y)
effect
is given. then gives
Sincetheearthis not isothermal,
the density
isa function
of bothradiusr andthe tempera- J•--H• = --1.6 • 10-•
lure Thusthe nonhydrostatic potentialdue to this
effect has the wrong sign and is an order of
magnitudetoo smallto explainthe observedpo-
The originalisothermalsurfacesof constant tential.
densityare In this calculation the slow convection caused
by the rotation, which Verhoogen[1948] be-
r = y[1 --• get.•(0)] (A7) lieves to be important in orogenicprocesses,
wherey is the meanradiusof the surface.On hasbeenneglected. Full calculationsare in prog-
raising
thelcmperature by 3T, wc canfind•he ress,but it will be surprisingif the simple cal-
changein elliptictryof sucha surfacefrom culationaboveis wrong.

APPENDIX 3
•' r
Wang [1966] has suggestedthat the nonhy-
If the conductivityand rate of heat generation drostaticbulge is a relic of the last glaciation.
areconstant throughoutthe earth, and if During the last ice age most of the ice was con-
is zeroeverywhere,it is easy to show that the centrated in polar regionsand remained there
isothermshave •'he same cl]ipticity as the long enough to become isostatically compen-
earth'ssurface.These assumptionsarc not true sated.When the ice capsmelted,the deforma-
within the earth but do permit an order of tion remained and now causesthe nonhydro-
magnitude calculation.On a surfacedefinedby static external gravity field. It is shown below
(A7) the temperaturevariation is that this effect would indeed producea bulge
of the right sign and order of magnitude.How-
• 2
ever, isostatic rebound has reduced the defor-
sY]vv[,, - malton by a factor of about 10 since the ice
wherea is the mean external radius o[ the e•rth
melted, so that this suggestionalso givesa value
which is an order of magnitude smaller than
and]VT]• Jsthe surfacetemperaturegradient. that observed.
EquationA8 and tim Adams-Wi]Iimnson rela-
The massof ice which causedisostaticdepres-
tionship
givethe change]n r:
sion can be calculatedfrom the changein sea
level, d. Any floating ice will not depresssea
•• Iv •1•y•b(•)
-- level or deform the mantle. If this mass formed
two polar ice caps,each with an angular radius
Thesurfaces of constan•densityare now r of •o, their thickness• would be
•r, •nd Chirau•'s theorem[Je•reys, 1959] gives
t = a cosOo/( - oos03
6- H•= l•Ma
• a(Y)a If the ice capsand the cMnge in se• level are
completelycompensatedby flow in lhe mantle
of density 3 g/era•, the point areas will be de-
pressedby t/3, and the rest of the earth (as-
sumedall to be ocean)will be uplifted by d/3.
Integration
by par•sgives The deformed surface can be written as

J2- H2= 15Ma

3
Integration over the earth'ssurfacegives
ß - av
C• = --•((• + a)/4 oo•Sosi•• So (A12)
4:010 DAN P. McKENZIE
The resultingw•Iueof J.•is givenby (6)'
----((t + d)/2a) cos0osin
- d cos0osin• 0o/2a(1-- cos0o) (A13) Herring,C., Diffusionalviscosityof a polycrystaI.
Sinced -• 10"cm, •, -• 35ø,anda - 6.4 x 10•
ClTI,
J..,.• 1.2
Tile observedvalue is 1.05 X 10-•, which is the
sameorder of magnitude.
The externalfield has changed,however,since
the ice melted.In the placeswhereisostaticup-
lift has been measured[Farrand, 1962], only
about a tenth of the glacialdownwarpremains. Kaula, W. M., Elastic modelsof the mantlecor-
It is likely that the sameis true of Siberia and
Antarctica,which also carriedlarger ice sheets
in the last ginclarion.Thus isostaticadjustments t(ing-tIele, D. G., Recentprogress
have reducedJ.• from ,-- 10-• to --, 10-•, or an
order of magnitudetoo small to explainthe ob- I•amb,H., On the oscillations
servations.
Acknowledgments. I am grateful to Sir I-Iarold
Jeffreys,Dr. J. W. Elder, I)r. A. Gill, and Mr.
J. C. R. I•unt for advice on fluid mechanics, and
to Sir Edward Bullard for continuous encourage-
ment. I)r. W. •. Munk read the manuscript and
made many helpful suggestions.
The work reported was in part supportedby the
U.S. Air Force grant SD/IGPP/AF49(638)-1388
(seismic)and in part by a scholarshipfrom Shell
Oil Company.
REFE•E•VCES
Alterman, Z., I-I. Jarosch,and C. L. Pekeris, Oscil-
lations of the earth, Proc..Roy. Soc. London,
A, 252, 80-95, 1959.
Anderson, D. L., and C. B. Archambeau, The
artelasticity of the earth, J. Geophys. Res., 69,
2071-2084, 1964.
Bullard, E. C., The figure of the earth, Monthly
Notices Roy. Astron. Sot., Geophys. Suppl., 5,
186-192, 1948.
Crittenden, M.D., Jr., Effective viscosity of the
earth derived from isostatic loading of Pleisto-
cene Lake Bonneville, J. 'Geophys. J?es., 68,
5517-5530, 1963.
Eddington, A. S., The internal Constitution of the
Stars, Cambridge University Press, New York,
1926.
Farrand, W. It., Post glacial uplift in North
America,Am. J. $ci., 260, 181-199,1962.
Gold, T., The instability of the earth's rotational
axis,Nature, 175,528-529,1955.
Gordon, It. B., Diffusion creep in the earth's man-
tie, J. Geophys.Res.,70, 2413-2418,1965.
Guier, W. I-I., and It. It. Newton, The earth's
gravity field as deducedfrom the Doppler track-
ing of fivesatellites,
J. Geophys.
Res.,70,4613•
4626, 1965.
Gutenberg,
B., Physics
o/ theEarth's
Interior,
AcademicPress,New York, 1959.
Haskell,N. A., The motionoœa viscous
fluid
der a surfaceload, Physics,6, 265-269,1935.
line solid,J. Appl. Phys.,21, 437-445,1950.
Izsak,I. G., Tesseral
harmonics
of thegeopotential
and corrections
to station coordinates,
J. Geo.
phys. Res., 69, 2621-2630, 1964.
Jeffreys,tI., The Earth, 4th ed., Cambridge
versity Press,New York, 1959.
Jeffreys,I-I., On the hydrostatictheory of
figureof the earth,Geophys.
J., 8, 196-202,
1963.
Jeffreys,I-I., and B. S. Jeffreys,Methodsof Mathe-
maticalPhysics, 2nded.,Cambridge !Yniversity
Press,New York, 1950.
responding to variations in the external
gravity
field, J. Geophys.Res., •8, 4967-4978,1963.
in determining
the zonal harmonicsof the earth'sgravitational
potential, Nature, 207, 575-576, 1965.
of a viscous
spheroid•
Proc. London. Math. Sot., 13, 51-66, 1881.
McConnelI,It. K., Isostaticadjustment
in a lay-
ered earth, J. Geophys.Res., 70, 5171-5188,
1965.
MacDonald, G. J. IV., The deep structure of oceans
and continents,Rev. Geophys.,1, 587-665,1963.
Morse, P.M., and I-I. Feshbach,Methods of Theo-
retical Physics,McGraw-Hill Book CornpaW,
New York, 1953.
Munk, W. It., and G. J. F. MacDonald, The I•ota-
tion of the Eartit, CambridgeUniversityPress,
New York, 1960.
Runcorn, S. K., Changes in the earth's moment
in inertia, Nature, 20J, 823-825,1964.
Strution, C. T., Periodicity in Devonian coral
growth, Paineontology,7, 552-558, 1964.
Takeuchi, I-I., and Y. Hasegawa, Viscosity
bution within the earth, Geophys.J., 9, 503-
508, 1985.
Tozer, D.C., Heat tr,•nsfer and convectioncur-
rents, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, A, •58,
252-271, 1965.
Verhoogen, J., Von Zeipel's theorem and convec-
tion in the earth, Trans. Am. Geophys.Union,
29, 361-365, 1948.
Verhoogen, J., Phase changesand convectionin
the earth's manfie, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc.Lon-
don, A, 253,276-283, 1965.
Wang, C.-Y., Earth's zonal deformations,J. Geo-
phys.Res.,71(6), 1713-1720,1966.
Wells, J. W., Coral growth and geochronology,
ture, 197, 948-950, 1963.
Zharkov, V. N., The viscosity of the interiorof
the earth, in Problems of Theoretical SeismoIogy
and Physics of the Earth's interior, editedby
V. A. Magnitskii, Israel Program for Scientific
Translations,Jerusalem,1963.
(ManuscriptreceivedJanuary31, 1966.)