It has long been recognized that atomic interactions are key in understanding largescale geological phenomena, which is an approach dating at least as far back as the days of Goldschmidt [1]. Conversely, a study of the materials that comprise the planets can tell us much about fundamental physics and chemistry. This line of approach is subsequently exemplified by Pauling's development of the theory of chemical bonding from the structural studies of minerals [2].

Красной нитью этого тома является идея подставления различных методов исследования процессов, происходящих в реальных озёрах. Часть I посвящена подходам и техникам численного моделирования, приложенным к демонстрации отклика озера на ветровое воздействие. Она начинается с представления баротропных и бароклинных течений и распределений температуры воды, формирующихся в озере Цюрих в результате действия различных ветровых сценариев.

This work is not intended as a textbook, or as a review, but represents an enquiry into the problem of how and why solid planets produce crusts. As this seems to have happened at many different scales throughout the Solar System, we were curious to see whether some general principles might emerge from the detail. The formation of the planets themselves is the outcome of essentially random processes, constrained mainly by the history of the inner nebula and by the cosmochemical abundances of the chemical elements. But perhaps the production of crusts might be a simpler or more uniform process, a notion supported by the frequent appearance of basaltic lavas of assorted types on the surfaces of rocky bodies. <...>

Earth’s infinite geological complexity fascinates us, and centuries of detailed observations and modeling can tempt us to believe that we have a full understanding of Earth’s igneous processes. Our world, however, is only one data point in the Solar System. A model that successfully predicts or explains a volcanic process on Earth, for example, may fail completely when applied to another planetary body. Such comparative planetology is therefore critical, and reveals the weaknesses in our understanding that would otherwise remain hidden: just because a model works on Earth does not mean that it truly explains a given process elsewhere using first principles. <...>