CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 113Stellar, planetary, and galactic studiesSolar and Space Plasma DynamicsAstro and Planetary Science

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 89 of the 89 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Our Sun. V. A Bright Young Sun Consistent with Helioseismology and Warm Temperatures on Ancient Earth and Mars

Open access
Sackmann, I.‐Juliana, Boothroyd, Arnold I.·2003·The Astrophysical Journal
DOI 10.1086/345408
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The relatively warm temperatures required on early Earth and Mars have been difficult to account for via warming from greenhouse gases. We tested whether this problem can be resolved for both Earth and Mars by a young Sun that is brighter than predicted by the standard solar model (SSM). We computed high-precision solar evolutionary models with slightly increased initial masses of M i = 1.01-1.07 M ☉ ; for each mass, we considered three different mass-loss scenarios. We then tested whether these models were consistent with the current high-precision helioseismic observations. The relatively modest mass-loss rates in these models are consistent with observational limits from young stars and estimates of the past solar wind obtained from lunar rocks and do not significantly affect the solar lithium depletion. For appropriate initial masses, all three mass-loss scenarios are capable of yielding a solar flux 3.8 Gyr ago high enough to be consistent with water on ancient Mars. The higher flux at the planets is due partly to the fact that a more massive young Sun would be intrinsically more luminous and partly to the fact that the planets would be closer to the more massive young Sun. At birth on the main sequence, our preferred initial mass M i = 1.07 M ☉ would produce a solar flux at the planets 50% higher than that of the SSM, namely, a flux 5% higher than the present value (rather than 30% lower, which the SSM predicts). At first (for 1-2 Gyr), the solar flux would decrease ; subsequently, it would behave more like the flux in the SSM, increasing until the present. We find that all of our mass-losing solar models are consistent with the helioseismic observations; in fact, our preferred mass-losing case with M i = 1.07 M ☉ is in marginally (although insignificantly) better agreement with the helioseismology than is the SSM. The early solar mass loss of a few percent does indeed leave a small fingerprint on the Sun's internal structure. However, for helioseismology to significantly constrain early solar mass loss would require higher accuracy in the observed solar parameters and input physics, namely, by a factor of ~3 for the observed solar surface composition and a factor of ~2 for the solar interior opacities, the p - p nuclear reaction rate, and the diffusion constants for gravitational settling.

Overview

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 · 10.1086/345408

Cites

89 of 89 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 89 references

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Charbonnel C., 1992, A&A, 255, 191
  2. Cohen, E. R. & Taylor, B. N. 1986, Codata Bulletin No. 63 (New York: Pergamon)
  3. Geiss J., 1973, Proc. 13th Int. Cosmic-Ray Conf. (Denver), 5, 3375
  4. Geiss, J. & Bochsler, P. 1991, in The Sun in Time, ed. C. Sonnett, M. Giampapa, & M. Matthews (Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press), 98
  5. Grevesse, N. & Noels, A. 1993, in Origin and Evolution of the Elements, ed. N. Prantzos, E. Vangioni-Flam, & M. Casse (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), 15
  6. Kerridge, J. F., Signer, P., Wieler, R., Becker, R. H. & Pepin, R. O. 1991, in The Sun in Time, ed. C. Sonnett, M. Giampapa, & M. Matthews (Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press), 389
  7. Lebreton Y., 1987, A&A, 175, 99
  8. Morel P., 1997, A&A, 327, 349
  9. Murphy W. M., 1998, BAAS, 30, 03
  10. Richard O., 1996, A&A, 312, 1000
  11. Schatzman E., 1977, A&A, 56, 211
  12. Willson L. A., 1987, Comments Astrophys., 12, 17
  13. Woese C., 1987, Microbiol. Rev., 51, 221, 10.1128/MMBR.51.2.221-271.1987 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Sackmann, I. ‐., & Boothroyd, A. I.
Affiliations
California Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
The Astrophysical Journal
Publisher
American Astronomical Society
Published
2003-02
Volume
583
Issue
2
Pages
1024-1039
ISSN
  • 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4357
DOI
10.1086/345408
OpenAlex
W2130229226
Cited by
113
References
89
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 6
FWCI
5.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Astrophysical Journal (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Solar and Space Plasma Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Space and Planetary Science › Astro and Planetary Science
Keywords
young Sun, solar luminosity, solar mass loss, helioseismology, global warming, solar wind, lunar rocks, solar opacity, gravitational settling, water on Mars

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