Planet formation models: the interplay with the planetesimal disc

Context. According to the sequential accretion model (or core-nucleated accretion model), giant planet formation is based first on the formation of a solid core which, when massive enough, can gravitationally bind gas from the nebula to form the envelope. The most critical part of the model is the formation time of the core: to trigger the accretion of gas, the core has to grow up to several Earth masses before the gas component of the protoplanetary disc dissipates. Aims: We calculate planetary formation models including a detailed description of the dynamics of the planetesimal disc, taking into account both gas drag and excitation of forming planets. Methods: We computed the formation of planets, considering the oligarchic regime for the growth of the solid core. Embryos growing in the disc stir their neighbour planetesimals, exciting their relative velocities, which makes accretion more difficult. Here we introduce a more realistic treatment for the evolution of planetesimals' relative velocities, which directly impact on the formation timescale. For this, we computed the excitation state of planetesimals, as a result of stirring by forming planets, and gas-solid interactions. Results: We find that the formation of giant planets is favoured by the accretion of small planetesimals, as their random velocities are more easily damped by the gas drag of the nebula. Moreover, the capture radius of a protoplanet with a (tiny) envelope is also larger for small planetesimals. However, planets migrate as a result of disc-planet angular momentum exchange, with important consequences for their survival: due to the slow growth of a protoplanet in the oligarchic regime, rapid inward type I migration has important implications on intermediate-mass planets that have not yet started their runaway accretion phase of gas. Most of these planets are lost in the central star. Surviving planets have masses either below 10 M⊕ or above several Jupiter masses. Conclusions: To form giant planets before the dissipation of the disc, small planetesimals (~0.1 km) have to be the major contributors of the solid accretion process. However, the combination of oligarchic growth and fast inward migration leads to the absence of intermediate-mass planets. Other processes must therefore be at work to explain the population of extrasolar planets that are presently known.

The structure of the asteroid 4 Vesta as revealed by models of planet-scale collisions

Asteroid 4Vesta seems to be a major intact protoplanet, with a surface composition similar to that of the HED (howardite-eucrite-diogenite) meteorites. The southern hemisphere is dominated by a giant impact scar, but previous impact models have failed to reproduce the observed topography. The recent discovery that Vesta's southern hemisphere is dominated by two overlapping basins provides an opportunity to model Vesta's topography more accurately. Here we report three-dimensional simulations of Vesta's global evolution under two overlapping planet-scale collisions. We closely reproduce its observed shape, and provide maps of impact excavation and ejecta deposition. Spiral patterns observed in the younger basin Rheasilvia, about one billion years old, are attributed to Coriolis forces during crater collapse. Surface materials exposed in the north come from a depth of about 20kilometres, according to our models, whereas materials exposed inside the southern double-excavation come from depths of about 60-100kilometres. If Vesta began as a layered, completely differentiated protoplanet, then our model predicts large areas of pure diogenites and olivine-rich rocks. These are not seen, possibly implying that the outer 100kilometres or so of Vesta is composed mainly of a basaltic crust (eucrites) with ultramafic intrusions (diogenites).

Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature” Humlum et al. [Glob. Planet. Change 100: 51–69.]: Isotopes ignored

A recent study relying purely on statistical analysis of relatively short time series suggested substantial re-thinking of the traditional view about causality explaining the detected rising trend of atmospheric CO2 (atmCO2) concentrations. If these results are well-justified then they should surely compel a fundamental scientific shift in paradigms regarding both atmospheric greenhouse warming mechanism and global carbon cycle. However, the presented work suffers from serious logical deficiencies such as, 1) what could be the sink for fossil fuel CO2 emissions, if neither the atmosphere nor the ocean – as suggested by the authors – plays a role? 2) What is the alternative explanation for ocean acidification if the ocean is a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere? Probably the most provocative point of the commented study is that anthropogenic emissions have little influence on atmCO2 concentrations. The authors have obviously ignored the reconstructed and directly measured carbon isotopic trends of atmCO2 (both δ13C, and radiocarbon dilution) and the declining O2/N2 ratio, although these parameters provide solid evidence that fossil fuel combustion is the major source of atmCO2 increase throughout the Industrial Era.