Cited by 20Ionosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsAstro and Planetary ScienceEarth Systems and Cosmic Evolution

Evolution of the Earth's polar outflow from mid-Archean to present

Open access
Kislyakova, K. G., Johnstone, C. P., Scherf, M., Holmström, M., Alexeev, I. I., Lammer, H., Khodachenko, M. L., Güdel, M.·2020·Journal of Geophysical Research Space Physics

Abstract

Abstract The development of habitable conditions on Earth is tightly connected to the evolution of its atmosphere, which is strongly influenced by atmospheric escape. We investigate the evolution of the polar ion outflow from the open field line bundle, which is the dominant escape mechanism for the modern Earth. We perform Direct Simulation Monte Carlo (DSMC) simulations and estimate the upper limits on escape rates from the Earth's open field line bundle starting from 3 gigayears ago (Ga) to present assuming the present‐day composition of the atmosphere. We perform two additional simulations with lower mixing ratios of oxygen of 1% and 15% to account for the conditions shortly after the Great Oxydation Event (GOE). We estimate the maximum loss rates due to polar outflow 3 gigayears ago of 3.3×10 27 s −1 and 2.4×10 27 s −1 for oxygen and nitrogen, respectively. The total integrated mass loss equals to 39% and 10% of the modern atmosphere's mass, for oxygen and nitrogen, respectively. According to our results, the main factors that governed the polar outflow in the considered time period are the evolution of the XUV radiation of the Sun and the atmosphere's composition. The evolution of the Earth's magnetic field plays a less important role. We conclude that although the atmosphere with the present‐day composition can survive the escape due to polar outflow, a higher level of CO 2 between 3.0 and 2.0 Ga was likely necessary to reduce the escape.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/2020ja027837

Cites

76 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Kislyakova et al. (2020) found loss rates due to polar outflow at approximately 3 Ga of approximately 3.3×10^27 s^-1 and approximately 2.5×10^27 s^-1 for O+ and N+ ions.

    “already found loss rates due to polar outflow at ≈ 3 Ga of ≈ 3 . 3 × 10 27 s -1 and ≈ 2 . 5 × 10 27 s -1 for O + and N + ions.”

    From The young Sun's XUV-activity as a constraint for lower CO2-limits in the Earth's Archean atmosphere (2021) · cites this paper as Kislyakova et al. (2020)

    Table 3 (Results, p. 13) gives the 3.0 Ga maximum polar-outflow rates as 3.3 × 10^27 s^-1 for O+ and 2.3 × 10^27 s^-1 for N+, not the claimed approximately 2.5 × 10^27 s^-1 for N+. The Results (p. 12) also caution that these modeled rates are upper limits, because some ions may be recaptured. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Ion outflow might have been significant during the Hadean eon.

    “That ion outflow might have been significant during the Hadean eon is already indicated by recent findings of Kislyakova et al. (2020)”

    From The young Sun's XUV-activity as a constraint for lower CO2-limits in the Earth's Archean atmosphere (2021) · cites this paper as Kislyakova et al. (2020)

    The Abstract (p. 2) reports substantial modeled polar ion outflow at 3 Ga, supporting the general point that early-Earth ion outflow could be significant. But the Introduction (p. 3) limits the study to 3 Ga through the present, and the Conclusions (p. 15) say conditions might have differed before 3 Ga. The paper does not establish significant outflow during the earlier Hadean eon. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • According to Kislyakova et al. (2020), the main parameters that governed atmospheric escape during the studied time period are the evolution of the young Sun's XUV radiation and the atmosphere composition, while the evolution of the Earth's magnetic field had a less important role.

    “According to their results, the main parameters that governed the atmospheric escape during the studied time period are the evolution of the young Sun's XUV radiation and the atmosphere composition, while the evolution of the Earth's magnetic field had a less important role.”

    From The young Sun's XUV-activity as a constraint for lower CO2-limits in the Earth's Archean atmosphere (2021) · cites this paper as Kislyakova et al. (2020)

    The Conclusions (p. 15) identify solar XUV output and atmospheric composition as the main influences, with magnetic-field evolution playing a lesser role. But that conclusion is specifically about modeled polar outflow escape from 3.0 Ga onward, under stated assumptions about polar plasma parameters; the citing sentence broadens it to atmospheric escape generally. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Scherf, M., Khodachenko, M., Lammer, H., Alexeev, I., Johnstone, C., Guedel, M., . . . Kulikov, Y. (2018, Apr). The terrestrial paleo-magnetosphere and its implications on the origin and evolution of the nitrogen-dominated atmosphere. In Egu general assembly conference abstracts (p. 16210).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kislyakova, K. G., Johnstone, C. P., Scherf, M., Holmström, M., Alexeev, I. I., Lammer, H., Khodachenko, M. L., & Güdel, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Vienna (AT)
  • Austrian Academy of Sciences (AT)
  • Swedish Institute of Space Physics (SE)
  • Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University (RU)
  • Russian Academy of Sciences (RU)
Corresponding author
Kislyakova, K. G.
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research Space Physics
Published
2020-08
Volume
125
Issue
8
ISSN
  • 2169-9380 (ISSN-L)
  • 2169-9402
OpenAlex
W3041835497
Cited by
20
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
FWCI
1.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Geophysical Research Space Physics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Austrian Science Fund (S116‐N16, S11604‐N16, S11606‐N16, S11607‐N16)
  • Österreichische Forschungsförderungsgesellschaft (873671)
  • Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (RFMEFI61619X0119)
  • Russian Science Foundation (18‐12‐00080)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Ionosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Astro and Planetary Science
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Earth Systems and Cosmic Evolution
Keywords
atmospheric escape, early Earth atmosphere, Great Oxidation Event, atmospheric composition, carbon dioxide, habitability, geomagnetic field, mass loss

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review