Skip to main content
Sandbox Physics
Planetary atmospheres from thermal tails to winds

AC13 · L1

How a planet loses its atmosphere

A planet can lose gas a few fast particles at a time, or carry a whole atmosphere outward in a wind. The difference begins with how strongly gravity holds each particle and whether collisions keep the gas moving together.

The fastest particles get the first chance

Imagine a gas particle near the top of an atmosphere. A collision sends it outward. Gravity slows it; most particles turn around and return. A sufficiently fast particle can keep going, provided that another collision does not redirect it first.

Temperature describes a distribution of random speeds. Even a cold gas has a small fast tail. Raising the temperature adds particles to that tail; increasing particle mass or the planet’s gravity makes escape harder. The usual comparison is between gravitational binding energy and thermal energy per particle.

λ=GMmrkT\lambda=\frac{GMm}{rkT}
Here M is planet mass, m is particle mass, r is distance from its center, G is the gravitational constant and k is Boltzmann’s constant. A large binding parameter means that typical random motion falls far short of escape energy.

Reading: Volkov et al. 2011, Thermally driven atmospheric escape, arXiv v1

Why the top of the atmosphere matters

Deep down, particles collide before they travel far. An unusually fast particle generally shares its energy with its neighbors. Higher up, the gas is thinner and the distance between collisions grows. The outer region where that distance becomes comparable to the distance over which density changes is called the exobase.

At a strongly bound exobase, the gas below can be nearly stationary and the outward fast tail can provide a small leak. This calculation is called Jeans escape. Counting fast particles is not enough: the particles moving most quickly outward cross a surface more often, so the escape calculation weights them by outward velocity. The following chapter builds that integral.

Reading: Volkov et al. 2011, Thermally driven atmospheric escape, arXiv v1

The atmosphere can also move together

Now warm the gas enough that pressure can drive a sustained outward flow. Collisions transmit that push between neighbors. The gas near the bottom may drift slowly even while the outer atmosphere streams away rapidly.

A useful first model keeps temperature fixed at every radius. Its accelerating solution passes through the sound speed at a particular radius. Below that point, pressure disturbances can travel upstream through the subsonic flow; above it, the outward flow outruns them. This is the isothermal Parker wind, first developed for stellar outflows and useful as a deliberately simplified planetary transport model.

The amount of gas carried by this solution still needs a density at its lower boundary. Two atmospheres at the same temperature and gravity can have the same velocity shape but carry different amounts of mass. The shape of a wind and the supply of gas are separate pieces of the calculation.

Reading: Cranmer 2004, New views of the solar wind with the Lambert W function, v1

A hot wind needs a heat source

Gas gains gravitational potential energy as it climbs away and does work as it expands. Keeping it warm requires a continuing supply of heat. A star’s X rays and extreme ultraviolet radiation can supply some of that energy. Only part of the intercepted power becomes mechanical escape; ionization and radiation can take substantial shares.

A quick energy-limited estimate divides usable incoming power by the binding energy per kilogram. It gives a useful scale. A complete atmosphere calculation also follows where the light is absorbed, how the gas cools and how temperature changes along the flow.

Small planets can additionally lose gas while their interiors and envelopes cool. Their changing radius alters the atmosphere through which radiation travels. The observed shortage of intermediate-size close-in planets is called the radius valley. Connecting those processes to it takes us from an individual wind to the history of a population. The last guide follows that argument through fixed primary papers.

Reading: Murray-Clay, Chiang & Murray2009, Atmospheric escape from hot Jupiters, v2 · Ginzburg, Schlichting & Sari 2018, Core-powered mass loss, v2 · Owen & Wu 2017, The evaporation valley in the Kepler planets, v2

Exercises and explanations

  1. Two planets have the same radius and temperature; one has twice the mass. What happens to the binding parameter?

    Read the explanation

    It doubles. At a strongly bound exobase the escaping Maxwellian tail becomes much smaller. Predicting the total mass loss also requires density and the location where collisions become rare.

Try the prediction

Watch a tail and a wind

  1. Start with Through the sonic point. Follow the cyan particles as they pass the dotted sphere and become amber.
  2. Select A rare escaping tail. Watch cyan paths return and amber paths leave; the rare escaping paths are deliberately oversampled.
  3. Select The missing heating. Raise the stellar XUV power while keeping the independently prescribed temperature fixed. Explain why available power changes before the transport rate does.

Sources and calculation scope

  1. Cranmer 2004, New views of the solar wind with the Lambert W function, v1

    7June2004; AJP 72,1397–1403. Full text, SectionsIII–IV, equations12–16: isothermal momentum equation, critical point and the two real Lambert-W branches. The solar ionized-hydrogen sound-speed convention is replaced by our explicitly fixed single-particle mass.

  2. Volkov et al. 2011, Thermally driven atmospheric escape, arXiv v1

    26September2010 preprint, published ApJL729,L24(2011). Full text, Section 2 and Figures1–5: hard-sphere mean free path, radius-based versus local scale-height Knudsen numbers, kinetic escape and conditional Jeans corrections. Their heating below the lower boundary differs from a globally maintained isothermal wind. The adopted Lab collision cross section is a teaching input, not their molecular-nitrogen value.

  3. Murray-Clay, Chiang & Murray2009, Atmospheric escape from hot Jupiters, v2

    18November2008 revision, ApJ 693,23(2009). Full text, Section 3.2, equations19/22 and Figure 7: absorbing area, energy-limited scaling and the cooling/recombination limitations of a fixed efficiency. This source develops hot-Jupiter radiation hydrodynamics; the small-planet illustration uses only the explicitly stated global power comparison.

  4. Owen & Wu 2017, The evaporation valley in the Kepler planets, v2

    4October2017 revision; ApJ 847,29. Full text consulted, Section 2.2 erosion timescale and Figure 6 synthetic population distributions. The predicted valley is a model outcome conditioned on initial envelopes and irradiation histories, not a directly imaged escaping atmosphere.

  5. Ginzburg, Schlichting & Sari 2018, Core-powered mass loss, v2

    6March2018 revision; MNRAS 476,759–765. Full text, Section 2.1, equations5–7, Figures1/3/5: the cooling reservoir, energy and transport limits, synthetic radius distributions and their comparison with the observed population.

FeedbackSomething broken, confusing, or missing on this page?Tell us
What kind of feedback?

Sent with this page’s address, its Lab ID, the site language and your device type. Please leave out personal details. Feedback is kept for up to 12 months.Privacy policy