Paper detail

Revised mass-radius relationships for water-rich rocky planets more irradiated than the runaway greenhouse limit

Mass-radius relationships for water-rich rocky planets are usually calculated assuming most water is present in condensed (either liquid or solid) form. Planet density estimates are then compared to these mass-radius relationships, even when these planets are more irradiated than the runaway greenhouse irradiation limit (around 1.1~times the insolation at Earth for planets orbiting a Sun-like star), for which water has been shown to be unstable in condensed form and would instead form a thick H2O-dominated atmosphere. Here we use the LMD Generic numerical climate model to derive new mass-radius relationships appropriate for water-rich rocky planets that are more irradiated than the runaway greenhouse irradiation limit, meaning planets endowed with a steam, water-dominated atmosphere. For a given water-to-rock mass ratio, these new mass-radius relationships lead to planet bulk densities much lower than calculated when water is assumed to be in condensed form. In other words, using traditional mass-radius relationships for planets that are more irradiated than the runaway greenhouse irradiation limit tends to dramatically overestimate -- possibly by several orders of magnitude -- their bulk water content. In particular, this result applies to TRAPPIST-1 b, c, and d, which can accommodate a water mass fraction of at most 2, 0.3 and 0.08 %, respectively, assuming planetary core with a terrestrial composition. In addition, we show that significant changes of mass-radius relationships (between planets less and more irradiated than the runaway greenhouse limit) can be used to remove bulk composition degeneracies in multiplanetary systems such as TRAPPIST-1. Finally, we provide an empirical formula for the H2O steam atmosphere thickness which can be used to construct mass-radius relationships for any water-rich, rocky planet more irradiated than the runaway greenhouse irradiation threshold.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access8 authors3 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.