The persistent myth of crustal growth

From the extraterrestrial telescopic, space probe, meteorite and returned sample studies of planetary evolution, and terrestrial evidence for early differentiation of core and fluid spheres and continental crust, I feel the conclusion is inescapable that large terrestrial planets of our solar system underwent essentially immediate differentiation into relatively constant-volume core, depleted mantle, enriched crust and fluid reservoirs. Differentiation was an early event, carried rapidly to completion. It is a false premise to have the formation of sialic crust on Earth dragged out over billions of years after hot accretion. The uniqueness of the Earth arises from its size, retention of water and dynamic surface-renewal processes, which have effectively erased all vestiges of the first several hundred million years of its crustal history. A large volume of depleted mantle always existed and an isotopically nearly homogeneous character for mantle and crust in early times was only sustained by rapid convective stirring of the silicate Earth. The sigmoidal continental crust age curve that is recorded in whole rock Nd and zircon U-Pb dates is a predictable consequence of the highly exponential decline in stirring rates. It represents survival, not the original extent of crustal domains. Positive εNd(T) values for Archaean mantle-derived magmas are quantitatively predicted by this model, as are the observed depleted-mantle model ages of clastic sedimentary rocks. Current rates of crustal accretion and loss of crust by sediment subduction and tectonic erosion are approximately in balance and compatible with negligible crustal growth at present. Claims that current growth is approximately 1 km per year are based on incorrect and selectively cited data and incomplete analyses of the freeboard argument. The idea that the Earth's crust has grown is a myth dating from the 19th century and was established as geochemical dogma in the 1950s and 1960s. It has survived by inertia and repetition and endless self-citation. The alternative no-growth view has been sometimes ignored, frequently questioned and downplayed, often cited only as an end member hypothesis (on the presumption that the truth must lie between extremes), and sometimes acclaimed and supported. Evidence in its favour has been accumulating. The growth myth has survived, however, as the consensus. In science, conventional wisdom is difficult to overturn. After more than 20 years some implications of plate tectonics have yet to be fully appreciated by isotope geochemists who advocate crustal growth, and by geologists and geophysicsts who have followed their lead.