T. Guillot and A. P. Showman: Evolution of Pegasi planets 157
is the case with Jupiter. HD 209458b and otherPegasi planets differ qualitatively from Jupiter be-cause the globally-averaged stellar flux they absorb is
∼
10
8
ergcm
−
2
(10
5
Wm
−
2
), which is
∼
10
4
times greaterthan the predicted intrinsic flux of
∼
10
4
ergcm
−
2
. (Incontrast, Jupiter’s absorbed and intrinsic fluxes are thesame within a factor of two.) Several evolution calcu-lations of Pegasi planets have been published (Burrowset al. 2000a; Bodenheimer et al. 2001), but these papersdisagree about whether HD 209458b’s radius can beexplained, and so far there has been no general discussionof how the irradiation affects the evolution. Our aim is tohelp fill this gap.Here, we quantify how atmospheric processes affectthe evolution of Pegasi planets such as HD 209458b. First(Sect. 2), we show that the evolution is sensitive to theassumed atmospheric temperatures. This sensitivity hasnot previously been documented, and quantifying it isimportant because the temperature profiles appropriatefor specific planets remain uncertain (e.g., no atmosphericradiative transfer calculation for HD 209458b yet exists).Our works suggests that the discrepancy between the pre-dictions of Burrows et al. (2000a) and Bodenheimer et al.(2001) can be largely explained by their different assump-tions about atmospheric temperature.Second, the effect of atmospheric dynamics on the evo-lution has to date been neglected. For example, currentmodels assume the day-night temperature difference iszero, despite the fact that substantial day-night temper-ature variations are likely. In Sect. 3.1 we demonstratehow the evolution is modified when a day-night tempera-ture difference is included. Furthermore, the intense stellarirradiation will lead to production of atmospheric kineticenergy, and transport of this energy into the interior couldprovide a substantial energy flux that would counteractthe loss of energy that causes planetary contraction. InSect. 3.2 we investigate this effect.The research has major implications for HD 209458b.Early calculations implied that Pegasi planets contractslowly enough to explain HD 209458b’s large radius(Guillot et al. 1996; Burrows et al. 2000a). But recent cal-culations of irradiated atmospheressuggest that the actualdeep atmosphere is colder than assumed (Goukenleuqueet al. 2000). When such realistic temperatures are adopted(our Sect. 2), the planet contracts too fast and the radiusis
∼
0
.
2–0.3
R
J
too small. Bodenheimer et al. (2001) ar-gued that tidal heating from circularization of the orbitwould slow the contraction, leading to a larger radius, butthis is a transient process that would end
∼
10
8
years afterthe planet’s formation. Instead we argue that kinetic en-ergy produced in the atmosphere is transported into theinterior and dissipated (Sect. 3.2). We show that plau-sible downward energy fluxes can slow or even halt theplanet’s contraction, allowing HD 209458b’s radius to beexplained.In a joint paper (Showman & Guillot 2002, Paper II)we consider the atmospheric dynamics of these planets,with emphasis on how the atmospheres respond to stellarheating and gravitational tidal interactions, and on theobservable consequences.
2. Sensitivity of evolution to atmospherictemperature
The upper boundary condition of evolution models con-sists of a relationship between the effective temperatureand some deeper temperature (say that at 10 bars) towhich the model’s interior temperature profile is attached.Here we show that the evolution is sensitive to the as-sumed relationship (i.e., to the assumed atmospheric tem-perature structure).Before we begin, we provide some definitions. We de-fine the effective temperature of the irradiated planet as4
πR
2
σT
4eff
=
L
+
L
int
,
(1)where
R
is the planet’s radius,
T
eff
is its effective temper-ature,
σ
is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant,
L
is the partof the stellar luminosity absorbed by the planet and
L
int
isthe intrinsic luminosity of the planet due to its cooling andcontraction (and possibly other processes such as radioac-tivity or thermonuclear reactions in the case of massiveobjects).The temperature corresponding to the intrinsic plan-etary flux, called the “intrinsic” temperature
T
int
, is de-fined by4
πR
2
σT
4int
=
L
int
.
(2)Similarly, we define
T
from the absorbed stellar lumi-nosity
L
.
T
is the effective temperature towards whichthe planet tends as it cools and
L
int
diminishes (see e.g.Hubbard 1977). It is a function of the Bond albedo (i.e.the ratio of the luminosity directly reflected to the totalluminosity intercepted by the planet).
T
can be viewedas the effective temperature reached by the planet after ithas lost its internal heat, and is hence sometimes noted
T
eq
(e.g. Guillot et al. 1996; Saumon et al. 1996).
2.1. Atmospheric boundary conditions
We consider two evolution models of HD 209458b basedon the parameters listed in Table 1; the two models differonly in their prescription for the atmospheric boundarycondition.Our first evolution sequence, dubbed the “hot” case,uses the standard boundary condition from Guillot et al.(1996) and Burrows et al. (2001a). These papers adoptedan atmospheric structure of an
isolated
object with theexpected effective temperature, which provides a fair fitto the evolution of Jupiter. The surface boundary condi-tion consists of a relationship between the temperature atthe 10bar pressure level
T
isolated
, the effective tempera-ture
T
eff
and the gravity
g
of an isolated planet/browndwarf derived by several authors (see Marley et al. 1996;Burrows et al. 1997):
T
(
P
= 10 bar) =
T
isolated
(
T
eff
,g
)
.
(3)
Leave a Comment