4.7 Article

Volcanic outgassing of CO2 and H2O on Mars

期刊

EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS
卷 308, 期 3-4, 页码 391-400

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2011.06.014

关键词

Mars; volcanism; outgassing; CO2; water; geophysics

资金

  1. Helmholtz Association

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Volcanic outgassing is one of the main sources of volatiles for the martian atmosphere and degassing of the martian interior potentially influenced the early martian climate. Using a parameterized thermo-chemical evolution model and considering two end-member melting models, we self-consistently calculate the amount of CO2 and H2O outgassed during the martian evolution. Outgassing rates are found to depend primarily on a factor describing the outgassing efficiency, the bulk mantle water content, the mantle oxygen fugacity, and the local melt fraction in the magma source regions. We find that significant outgassing ceased around 3.5-2 Gyr ago, depending on the adopted melting model. A total of 0.9-1 bar CO2 is outgassed during this time period if a mantle oxygen fugacity corresponding to one log(10) unit above the iron-wustite buffer is assumed. Additionally, a total of 17-61 m of water is delivered to the surface. Outgassing is most efficient in the pre-Noachian (up to 4.1 Gyr), but still significant during the Noachian, and 5-15 m of water and similar to 250 mbar of CO2 are outgassed between 4.1 and 3.7 Gyr. Although this amount is probably insufficient for an appreciable greenhouse effect, pressures are found to be sufficient to stabilize transient liquid water on the surface well into the Hesperian period. Therefore, our results support the hypothesis that rather than being warm-and-wet, the martian climate was probably cold-and-wet. Outgassing is found to strongly decline during the Hesperian, and is insignificant during the Amazonian period. A simple parameterization for the outgassing of CO2 and H2O as a function of time is presented. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据