You are on page 1of 7

Icarus 242 (2014) 105–111

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

journal homepage:

A toy climate model for Mars
Hannu Savijärvi
Department of Physics, P.O. Box 48, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 28 February 2014
Revised 31 July 2014
Accepted 31 July 2014
Available online 10 August 2014
Mars, atmosphere
Mars, climate
Mars, polar caps
Mars, surface
Radiative transfer

a b s t r a c t
A ‘‘toy climate model’’ TCM was constructed for Mars. It returns the midday surface and near-surface air
temperatures, given the orbital parameters, season (Ls), latitude, thermal inertia, albedo, surface pressure
and dust visible optical depth (s). The TCM is based on the surface energy balance with radiation terms
calibrated against line-by-line calculations and surface heat flux terms against 1D model simulations. The
TCM air temperatures match various lander observations reasonably well, e.g. the 3.4 martian years of
recovered T1.6m from Viking Lander 1.
The results demonstrate strong sensitivity of Ts and T1.6m to the dust load. All the VL1 years suggest
major dust storms around Ls 270–300°, while s appears only moderate in the simultaneous VL2 observations. The TCM was further extended to increased surface pressures, using moist 1D simulations. The
greenhouse warming remained modest and the diurnal range was small in a thick CO2 atmosphere. As
the CO2 condensation temperature Tc increases rapidly with pressure, the range of afternoon temperatures at various latitudes remains quite narrow in a thick atmosphere. The TCM can also deal with orbital
parameter variations. A high-eccentricity, high-obliquity case was demonstrated for the present 7 mb (Tc
150 K) and a 1 bar CO2 atmosphere (Tc 195 K). High obliquity of 45° led to quite wide winter polar ice
caps, which extended down to the subtropics. In the 1 bar case even the equatorial Ts was close to Tc
at aphelion; a major dust storm at that time led to a tropical CO2 ice cover.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The climate of Mars has undergone many variations and even
the present climate is quite extreme in the sense that advancing
and then retreating polar ice caps with temperatures around
150 K extend to latitudes as low as 50–60° every martian year,
while in the equatorial regions the surface temperatures can soar
well above 273 K. Solar radiation is the only important heat source
for the surface and atmosphere of Mars, but the strongly varying
orbital parameters have made its distribution on the surface quite
variable in time. On Mars, the topography, the thermal inertia and
the surface albedo vary by large amounts. The present 95% CO2
atmosphere is thin (6–9 mb) and dusty, with traces of H2O, but it
may have been a lot thicker in the past (Read and Lewis, 2004).
A good way to study the climate of Mars is to use general circulation models adjusted to the conditions of the study period. The
present climate is reproduced quite well by these models (e.g.
Haberle et al., 1999; Richardson and Wilson, 2002; Madeleine
et al., 2012) and they have hinted at findings, e.g. ancient tropical
mountain glaciers (Fastook et al., 2008), traces of which have been
observed. A drawback of the GCMs is that they need huge comE-mail address:
0019-1035/Ó 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

puter resources, skill in the development and running, and skill
also in the interpretation of the results. Smaller models, e.g. the
local column (1D) models, have also been relatively successful in
simulating the present local temperatures on Mars as observed
by the landers (e.g. Savijärvi, 1999, 2012a,b; Savijärvi and
Määttänen, 2010). Both model types indicate that the daytime surface temperature is strongly forced by the incoming net solar radiation and the outgoing near-blackbody surface thermal radiation
(Petrosyan et al., 2011). These can be calculated rather exactly,
whereas the less accurately known turbulent surface heat fluxes
and the thermal radiation from the thin atmosphere are far smaller
and might be parameterizable. Hence the surface temperature
could perhaps be estimated knowing only the properties of the
ground and solar radiation at the surface. The practise and accuracy of such a scheme motivated the present study.
On the other hand, if only one variable were to characterize the
climate of a planet, the midday near-surface temperature at any
site and season is a good candidate. This is aimed for Mars here.
Based on the above reasoning, a ‘‘toy climate model’’ (TCM) is constructed with the help of line-by-line radiative transfer and 1D
atmospheric model results (Sections 2 and 3). The TCM is validated
for various lander sites in Section 4 and is shown to simulate the
existing lander-observed surface and near-surface air tempera-

The distance of Mars from the Sun varies during the martian year of 668. (3) the tilt angle (obliquity) ho.985 taking into account the extinction by CO2. which are insignificant outside the polar areas. 6 mb. 1 display the LBL-produced total solar radiation at the surface (sum of direct and diffuse parts = global radiation g) as the function of s and h. Solar radiation onto a horizontal martian surface g as a function of the solar height angle and dust visible optical depth s. can thus be calculated via (1–2). The budget reads gð1  aÞ þ F d  eg rT 4s  Ho  G ¼ 0.g.g. The TCM is in fact an energy balance model (EBM) in the tradition of the invaluable Budyko–Sellers-type EBMs for the Earth (e. Here a is the surface albedo. In the atmosphere the solar radiation is absorbed and scattered by air molecules and by dust particles. The distance r and hence S(Ls) can be calculated for any combination of d. Solar radiation The solar radiation S at the distance r from the Sun is S = So/r2. 1975) and Mars (e.19° and (4) the areocentric longitude Ls of perihelion Lsp. 2).775 s) due to the elliptic orbit. Haberle et al. (3). perhaps leading to huge climate changes. emis- Fig. g ¼ S  sinðhÞ  ð0:985 expðs= sinðhÞÞ þ 1:89x  1:67x2 Þ.96.0 AU (the fainter Sun of the distant past could be taken into account by reducing So). the observed s being around 0. there are also other terms.09341. sion and scattering of the thermal longwave (LW) and solar shortwave (SW) radiation by the mixture of the CO2 molecules and dust particles is a difficult. Fig. where So is the observed Earth solar constant. one sol thus advancing Ls by 0. lines are Eq. In Section 5 the TCM is extended to higher surface pressures (up to 2 bar of CO2) with a demonstration for a high-pressure high-obliquity paleoclimate case. g(1  a) the absorbed SW radiation. lines in Fig.18s/sin(h)) produces g within ±17 W m2 of the LBL results for s 0–1 but the values are less accurate in dust storm conditions. season Ls and the four orbital parameters d. and even to 4–5 during the major dust storms that may then arise occasionally. 1. (2) the eccentricity of the orbit e. the more energy there is available for convection and conduction. LT) is determined via sdecl ¼ sinðho Þ  sinðLs Þ. The four orbital parameters with their present values are (1) the mean distance d. .3 W m2 and ps. (3). The presented algorithms and parameterizations might be useful for many other applications and the easily coded TCM may also serve as a tool for education. This leads to 0:8 x ¼ 1  expð0:45s=ðsinðhÞÞ Þ. 1) is obtained by handling the direct and diffuse solar radiation separately. Strong dependence on both s and h can be seen. which needs quite sophisticated and computer-intensive multiple scattering spectral line-by-line (LBL) radiative transfer methods for good accuracy. Due to the relatively high eccentricity the southern hemisphere of Mars thus receives a lot of solar radiation during summer. A more accurate fit (Eq. ð3Þ where the first term in g gives the direct radiation within ±0. it can be used to rapidly chart changes in climate due to changes in the Sun–atmosphere–ground system for a wide parameter space and so could for instance guide the time-consuming GCM research. Sellers. The dotted line is the top-of-the-atmosphere flux S  sin(h). Thus we set Ho  G = gr  g(1  a) where gr (‘‘ground’’) is a sinðhÞ ð2Þ where the current declination angle of the Sun is sin1(sdecl). Hoffert et al. Thermal radiation and the heat fluxes at the surface The LBL calculations provide a convenient reference for handling of the solar and thermal radiation in the martian atmosphere. (2005) for the present average conditions on Mars. Fd the downwelling longwave radiation from the atmosphere and egrTs4 = Fu the upwelling LW radiation from the surface (eg is the surface emissivity 0. 1981. 0. 88. the factor 0. S ¼ So =r2 : ð1Þ At a latitude u the solar height angle h at midday (12:00 local solar time. 2. e. Presently Mars is closest to the Sun (Lsp = 251°) prior to the southern summer solstice (Ls 270°). S  sin(h).6 solar days (sols. The midday solar flux onto a horizontal plane at the top of the atmosphere. The x-terms fit the diffuse (scattered) part within ±10 W m2 of the LBL results for any s and h. 1969. so that relatively less of the scattered light then makes it to the surface. Like the other energy balance models.. The extinction effects of the latter are characterized by the visible aerosol optical depth s. The simultaneous absorption. EBMs are usually aimed at the zonal or global mean annual energy balance at the top of the atmosphere. Ls is the seasonal index: 0° (180°) during the northern hemisphere spring (autumn) equinox and 90° (270°) in the northern summer (winter) solstice. convection and conduction. Savijärvi / Icarus 242 (2014) 105–111 tures reasonably well. 25. We make here the basic assumption that in the nearly cloudless midday conditions of Mars’ extra-polar latitudes both Ho and G are proportional to g(1  a): the more ground-absorbed solar radiation..106 H. Marks are from LBL calculations. Dust amounts vary widely in Mars. whereas the TCM produces the instantaneous local midday surface temperature incorporating all important effects such as those from dust. Kasting.8 W m2 of the LBL results. 3. given the latitude u. 251° (Read and Lewis. 1994).54° on the average. The role of dust is here quite important: the Viking 1 temperature data as interpreted with the TCM results would appear to indicate major regional dust storms every winter. 1. The x2 term is physically due to the fact that with a lot of dust in the air the scattering of sunlight to the space increases (Mars looks blurred and whiter during major dust storms). A simple fit S  sin(h)  0. ho and Lsp. The orbital parameters have varied widely in the past. Although the global radiation g is the dominant midday source term in the heat budget of the surface.2 during relatively clear periods but rising to 1–2 during the hot southern summers. whereas major storms have been less frequent in the recent years of intense observation (a change in climate?). and conversely. 2004). and G the conduction of heat into the ground. about 1367 W m2 at the Earth mean distance of r = 1. 1991. southern winters tend to be harsh (cf. ð4Þ neglecting the phase change effects (sublimation and freezing of water and CO2 ice). Ho is the upward convective heat flux from the surface. Such reference LBL calculations were made in Savijärvi et al. North.52366 AU. e and Lsp from r ¼ d  ð1  e2 Þ=ð1 þ e  cosðLs  Lsp ÞÞ. r the Stefan–Boltzmann constant and Ts the ground surface temperature). S is here 610. cdecl ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1  s2decl . ¼ sinðuÞ  sdecl þ cosðuÞ  cdecl . strongly wavelength-dependent problem. The points in Fig.99 exp(0.

5 K/km on Mars).H. A simple sine function s = 0. (1)–(3).3 has here a large role because of the low wintertime solar height angles at 48°N.95. It appears adequate for the second VL2 year but the first year would need slightly more dust during the summer and some dust decay at around sol 290 (Ls  290°) for a better match with the observed T1. together with 2245 sols (3. 2012a..6m observations at 12LT (mean of 11:30–12:30) .39  ln2(0. which roughly matches also the VL2 observations of s.5 K1. The midday surface winds are 4–5 ms1 and the precipitable water content is around 2 lm in the experiments. when the temperature profile is adiabatic up to several kilometres on Mars (Fig.g. which has quite successfully simulated the observed 1–2 m temperatures of all the landers on Mars.5 K1. no sunshine in the polar winter). This 1D model resolves the atmosphere in 30 layers and the ground in five layers. Turbulence is via the Monin–Obukhov theory in the lowest layer with a mixing length theory aloft.b). The crucial matter is now to determine the factors gr and e.. Tables 1 and 2). The midday and afternoon air temperatures as measured at 1–2 m heights by the various landers have been 95–90% of Ts. while the larger differences between T1m and T100m reveal the strongly superadiabatic surface layer discussed above and in Savijärvi (2012b). the expression Tc = 148. The 1D model is run varying I and s. If Ts falls below the CO2 condensation temperature Tc (e. Fig. ps = 7 mb. for CO2 only) is less than the values 0. The VL2 winter midday temperatures drop to near 160 K at Ls 270°.6 + 6. 100 m and 1000 m heights at Spirit from Smith et al.2) where the results were particularly accurate (Savijärvi. 14.6°S) using the present orbital parameters (Section 2). instead of the usual near-surface air temperatures. water vapour.24. With that taken into account (6) also agrees with the reference LBL results for midday conditions. Results The TCM is now applied at the southern hemisphere Spirit site (Gusev Crater.. returning the midday surface temperature Ts.20.3 and 1. The 1D model has reproduced the daily and annual cycles of the mini-TES–observed boundary layer temperatures at the rover Spirit (Savijärvi and Kauhanen. Spirit mini-TES-retrieved air temperature T at 1. which take into account CO2. The no-dust TCM T1m is shown for comparison. (2006).6m. c = 0. The TCM thus consists of Eqs. a fit to p(Tc) values of Kasting (1991). 100 and 1000 m heights at 16LT (from Smith et al.16 suggested by Leovy (1982) and Savijärvi et al. T1m to be crudely c  Ts with c  0. and the TCM T1m curve with c = 0. 107 gr ¼ 0:41 þ 0:185 lnðI=285Þ þ 0:03s.10 without dust (i. Here use is made of the University of Helsinki column model (equations in Savijärvi. I = 360 J m2 s0. to Ts.3 during the first Spirit year (Smith et al. which is solved from the surface heat budget (4) at each model time step of about 10 s.5  sin(Ls) is hence used in the TCM in order to describe schematically the annual dust cycle as observed at Spirit. The downwelling LW radiation Fd depends on the other hand on the current profiles of dust and temperature in a rather complex fashion.91). 3 shows the 12LT Viking Lander 2 T1.95. I = 283 J m2 s0.15–0. The near-surface air temperature is then approximated from Ts for comparison with the measured lander mission values.135ps) + 0. while during the cold aphelion/winter season (Ls 71–90°) the dust load is minimal. Fig. 2006). the condensation/sublimation of which keeps Ts at Tc.8–0. 2. Dust appears to act as a thermostat for the southern hemisphere: increased dust amounts during the hot perihelion/summer season (Ls 251–270°) tend to keep the surface temperatures lower than without dust in Fig. Hence we estimate the factors gr and e via 1D simulations at Spirit (a = 0. so one can take e. using the surface temperature as a proxy for the associated dust and temperature profiles that determine Fd.91). Ts and T1m are set to Tc to indicate CO2 ice. The mini-TES-derived local s varied mainly between 0. the no-dust comparison is 192 K. and the TCM T1m with and without dust. 2006).e.41ps). There were weak dust storms at Ls  150° and 230° with s temporarily up to 2.8 K for ps (in mb) up to 2 bar.4 martian years) of reprocessed VL1 T1. The simulations (examples given in Tables 1 and 2) suggest that the expressions Fig. 2 displays the mini-TES-retrieved 15:45–16:15LT air temperatures at 1 m. It uses improved delta-discrete-ordinate SW and pressurescaled emissivity LW radiation schemes (validated via the LBL results). The Spirit sinusoidal s is used. a = 0.5 K1) during the low-dust season (Ls = 57°. e ¼ ð0:10 þ 0:11sÞðI=285Þ0:1 . (2005).3°N. Savijärvi / Icarus 242 (2014) 105–111 coefficient to be determined. (2006). dust. with gr and e determined from the model’s midday surface fluxes. the reason being that e here refers. The TCM T1m is within the cloud of the observed T1m. I = 285 J m2 s0. A crude simplification is to assume an effective emissivity e for the air column. 4. giving T s ¼ ðgð1  aÞð1  grÞ=ðrðeg  eÞÞÞ0:25 . applied in that order. The effective emissivity of 0. 2) (except for a shallow superadiabatic surface layer) and the dust is well-mixed in this highly convective layer (Savijärvi and Määttänen. The no-dust case is obtained for comparisons by setting s = 0. The ground heat transfer consists of a numerically fairly accurate thermal diffusion forced by conduction G. The TCM curves of Ts for Spirit and Opportunity (not shown) similarly fit quite well the samples of the mini-TESretrieved afternoon Ts from Spanovich et al. 2010). 2. The logarithmic dependence of gr on I reflects the strong diurnal surface temperature variations at low I.6m (PDS observations) and T1. 4 (top panel) shows the TCM T1. whereas the no-dust T1m tends to the high side. 1999). s = 0.48  ln(0. ð6Þ describe the midday gr and e reasonably well as functions of the ground thermal inertia I and atmospheric dustiness s. which during the midday hours is 15–25 K higher than the air temperature at 1–2 m (cf. Fig. A major dust storm at around Ls 270° might hence extend the northern polar ice cap to the VL2 latitude of 48°N. (6) and (5).6m from the TCM for this site (48°N. The moderate dust load of s 1. It is formally a zero-dimensional energy balance model. as observed by the mini-TES (Smith et al.6m at every 30° of Ls on the Viking Lander 1 site (22. a = 0. This is most useful during the midday hours. gives Tc within ±0. clouds and fog. The benefit of these assumptions is that one can now write the surface heat budget in the form g(1  a)(1  gr)  rTs4(eg  e) = 0 and solve for Ts. but no temperature retrievals for T1m exist for those times. 2006). 2008).22.g. Hence we set Fd = erTs4. The differences of about 4 K between the observed T100m and T1000m obey the adiabatic lapse rate (4. ð5Þ which is the core of the TCM. For the present surface pressures Tc  150 K. c = 0.

K T1m.1 226.32 0.0 20. T1m. (1)–(3)) is strongly damped every VL1 winter. s = 0. Therefore it appears that major regional dust storms did arise at the VL1 site every winter (except perhaps the second).3 311. Ls at 90° intervals is indicated by the vertical lines. whereas those with the VL2 dust tend to stay too warm in winter and in spring.6 m from Viking Lander 2 (+) with the TCM T1. W m2 G.0 175. The solar radiation at the surface g (thick line. 4 displays the TCM midday solar fluxes at the VL1 site. The VL2/Spirit scenario is also shown for comparison (short dashed lines).0 241.5 223. All the first three Viking years appear to indicate major dust storm conditions (low T1.6 19. as the simultaneous VL2 observations and the TCM T1.6 m from Viking Lander 1 (+. g1 is for VL1 dust.0 233. Top panel: The 12LT mean temperatures at 1. 4.66 0.3 108. (1) and (2)) smooths the eccentricity effects seasonally at the subtropical VL1 latitude of 22°N.8 183.2 279. The TCM T1.9 274.5 7. K Fd. The VL1 dust scenario (mid panel) is based on the first year of observations. eg = 0. of the eccentric orbit.3 21.10 0. 3) indicate much less dust at the VL2 site.8 2.1 17. .6m (long dashed) and TCM T1.0 266.5 51.2 229.6 78.6m (dashed line). but they did not grow global. Mid panel: The dust scenarios. This makes the TCM curves identical for all the years.0 13.1 37. (2013). The moderate VL2 dust scenario produces winters clearly too warm at the VL1 site by the TCM (Fig.2 11.43 0. when the dust amounts are high.0 2. Eqs.2 214.2 15. Unfortunately the VL1 data is missing for sols 800–1000 due to a missing data tape. note the big dual dust storms at Ls 210° (s 2. W m2 e gr 485 385 285 185 85 236. I Ts. K g(1  a). Savijärvi / Icarus 242 (2014) 105–111 Table 1 Ts. No dust. Kemppinen et al.11 0.4 242. K T1m.7 10. The dust scenarios are repeated for the other years (in lack of observations).6 226.6m results (Fig.7 151.9 241. Fu = egrTs4.3 99.108 H.4 256.3 at Ls 300° with the VL1 dust scenario.6m observations reasonably well for the first and third year.1 247. W m2 Ho. gr = (G + Ho)/(g(1  a)) at 12LT from Spirit site 1D model simulations at Ls = 57° as the function of ground thermal inertia I (J m2 s0.6m (solid).8 78. s Ts.33 0. The bottom panel of Fig.41 0. The SW transmissivity of the atmosphere then gets as low as 0.41 0. while S  sin(h) (thin line.9 81.09 0.6m) during Ls 300–320° at the VL1 site and low temperatures at around sol 2200 (Ls 210°) on the fourth year in the end of the period of observations. 4.08 0.6m with the VL2 dust scenario (short dashed) at 30° intervals of Ls. W m2 Ho. The 12LT mean temperatures at 1.3 229. g2 for VL2 dust.4 0.4 18. W m2 Fu.0 247.8 219.0 5.52 0.3 210.8 40.6 136. W m2 G. Eqs.15 0.6 234.7 238. which corresponds to a relatively thick low cloud on the Earth.7 248. since the recent years of intense observations have not resulted in major regional dust storms being observed every winter on Mars.5 K1). The dashed line S (Eq. (1)) demonstrates the effect Fig..3 29.47 0.54 Fig. from Kemppinen et al.6 13.7 9.2 W m2.9 114.8 204.6 m temperatures fall below 200 K at Ls 270–300° during the first and also during the third VL1 year while the no-dust TCM then displays 240 K.20 0. W m2 Fd. the surface fluxes and e = Fd/(rTs4). top panel).3 230. 3. This is interesting and warrants further studies.5 1.8 24. The effects of the dust storms are striking: the observed wintertime 1.10 0.9 0.44 0.4 114.6 223.3 84.5 K1 with variable dustiness s. W m2 e gr 0 0.0 168. with s up to 4 at Ls 300°. TCM no-dust T1.5) and at 270–300°. Ls 270° being the solid line.3 190.6m (solid line) and the TCM no-dust T1. W m2 Fu. Bottom panel: The 12LT TCM solar fluxes.3 20.96.5 152.0 189. The absorbed solar radiation g(1  a) is 311.47 0.5 10.1 42. 2013) with the TCM T1.2 114.10 0.19 Table 2 As Table 1 but for I = 285 J m2 s0.8 204.6m with the VL1 dust nevertheless fits the VL1 T1.

which partially melts in the intense summer sunshine and freezes again in the coldness of winter. and all the 1 m temperatures tend closer to the surface temperatures. 5. The results are in Table 3. The summer temperatures reach 242 K at Ls 90° and 239 K at Ls 122° (as observed at Phoenix. a similar 7 K upward trend is seen at 10 km. and the local surface pressures may also vary temporally as much as 30% during the year due to the freezing and sublimation of CO2 at the poles. H2O) or heavy .8 + 0. 2013). Savijärvi / Icarus 242 (2014) 105–111 Fig. 5 (top panel) presents the TCM midday T1m at the polar Phoenix site (68°N. The initial precipitable water content is kept at 2 lm as in the previous experiments. whereas in the 1000 mb CO2 atmosphere the mean is 213 K but the difference only 13 K. after checking that its radiation results did agree with those of a narrow band RT model (Savijärvi.g. 109 Fig. the dust cycle maximum should perhaps be adjusted to follow it. Pressure effects – greenhouse Mars? The topographic and other surface pressure variations were not yet included in the TCM. Thus the mean temperature does increase. 2012b). Further additions could include the ‘‘faint young Sun’’ paradox (by simply decreasing So by 25–30%). 6 illustrates schematically the martian climate. Fig. ground thermal inertia of 300 J m2 s0. displaying the annual TCM 1 m noon temperatures at latitudes 75°N.5 K1. The CO2 15 lm band is simply so narrow that the LW broadband effective emissivity e does not grow to values large enough for a strong surface temperature increase. e. The top panel is for the present orbital parameters (Section 2). c = 0. ps of 7 mb.93) with the same schematic s as for Spirit and VL2.18. 6 is just a demonstration of the potential of the TCM in simulating the present. Top panel: The afternoon T1m at some key latitudes from the TCM for typical present-day Mars conditions. To include the pressure effects. The lower panel applies the same typical present-day atmospheric and ground parameters. The topography is quite variable on Mars with high mountains and low valleys. but for an extreme orbital case with high eccentricity of 0. the springtime melting of the polar ice cap takes place only from about Ls 330° onward. in which the pressure and temperature effects on the spectral lines of CO2 and H2O are properly included. Savijärvi and Määttänen. no clouds.3. equator.5  cos(Lsp  Ls). The increase of ps from 7 to 2000 mb therefore does not seem to lead to a strong greenhouse warming on Mars without other warming effects. In the 7 mb atmosphere the 12/06LT mean of T1m is 206 K and the difference is 47 K. while the equatorial latitudes display a simultaneous notch and the higher latitudes indicate winter polar ice caps. 45°S and 75°S for the sinusoidal Spirit s(Ls). I = 150 J m2 s0.20 at all latitudes. Bottom panel: As the top panel but for an extreme orbital case with eccentricity of 0.5 K1 and albedo of 0. whereas conduction to the ground decreases. Bottom panel: The 12LT solar fluxes from the TCM. even with the help of some water vapour in the cold air. The sensible heat flux increases dramatically. 6. One may note that the warmest temperatures occur at 45°S during the southern summer. Fig. but only about 7 K near the surface. a = 0. Furthermore. by defining s = 0. The 06LT surface and near-surface temperatures increase. If in such orbit change simulations the longitude of perihelion Lsp is other than 251–270°. which extend down to the subtropics on both hemispheres. about 60 sols after the first sunrise. obliquity of 45° and perihelion at Ls 270°. Table 3 shows that as the surface pressure increases. 5. Fig. Other gaseous or aerosol LW absorbers. thick clouds (CO2. Likewise. past and future climates of Mars. The solar fluxes (lower panel) reveal that the low midday solar height angles combined with the increased dust loads toward the northern winter force the TCM temperatures to Tc well before the polar night actually begins at Ls 240°. despite the dust amounts of s  1.H. Read and Lewis. 2006.12. the 1D Spirit model for Ls 57° with s = 0 was run as before but with increased surface pressures. a result in agreement with some recent GCM experiments (Forget et al. the surface pressures may have been a lot higher on ancient Mars. 2004). such as volcanic sulphur/ash products.. which is parameterized into the TCM in the next section. the downwelling solar radiation g decreases (due to increased absorption and Rayleigh scattering by the thicker CO2 atmosphere) but the downwelling thermal radiation Fd increases relatively more. 45°N. the 12LT temperatures decrease. The polar latitudes are ice-covered in winter but warm up during the summer. Thus mountain glaciers may well have grown in such conditions. and variations in the surface pressure (atmospheric density). perhaps developing layering of dusty ice. T at 10 km height (as an indication whether the free atmosphere is warming or cooling in these greenhouse gas experiments) and the surface fluxes at 12LT. which displays Ts and T1m at 06LT and 12LT. Top panel: The midday TCM T1m for the Phoenix site (68°N) with the nodust comparison. high obliquity of 45° and perihelion at Ls 270° (such values may have occurred individually in the martian past.12. 2010) but then start to sink rapidly with CO2 ice indicated at the surface during Ls 210–330°.

8 198.5 49. All the three first VL1 years. the midday 1 m temperatures are nevertheless lower at all latitudes than in Fig.3 43.5 188. lower panel). 11 km in Mars.011  (ps/7 mb/sin(h))0.8 199. lower panel (the extreme orbital case). In particular the long preliminary data set for 3.1 219.. Thus the temperature zone available for the afternoon near-surface air temperatures is quite narrow in a thick-atmosphere Mars. given the orbital parameters. The TCM can also deal with orbit parameter variations.985 in (3) by exp{0.3 108.5 (lower panel).9 197.0 33. where po is 7 mb as used in the Spirit experiments of Tables 1 and 2. for instance.4 229. 2013).9 181. High obliquity led to quite wide winter polar caps. because the diurnal range is now small (cf.9 302.37 0.054 ln(ps/7 mb) to e and +0.7 164. The TCM was extended via 1D moist model simulations to include the effects of increased surface pressure with the result that in a thick CO2 atmosphere the diurnal range was small and the greenhouse warming remained modest. Savijärvi / Icarus 242 (2014) 105–111 Table 3 As Table 1 but for increased surface pressures.110 H. The TCM air temperature results appear to match all the available lander observations in the latitude range 15°S–68°N during all seasons on Mars. Fig. the range of afternoon temperatures at various latitudes is quite narrow in a thick martian CO2 atmosphere. Concluding remarks A simple and extremely rapid ‘‘toy climate model’’ TCM was constructed for Mars.7 192.7 94.6 199.14 0. Secondly. which extended down to .9 229.18 0. These validation results demonstrate strong sensitivity of Ts and T1m to the current dust load. The TCM could be used to chart what kind of increase of e together with the possible associated decrease in g would be needed to produce a given paleo-Ts. without dust (upper panel) and in a global dust storm. and one is starting at around Ls 210° on the fourth year. Two things become clear from Fig.5 35.10 0.0 182. These can also be used to demonstrate the present topographic effects by setting the surface pressure ps(z) = po exp(z/H) for any grid point or site s.1 296.21 0. T10km g(1  a).55 0.61 0.1 44. In particular opaque water ice clouds might provide the extra emissivity for the warmer surface temperatures (Urata and Toon. Ts 12LT. in which the radiation terms have been parameterized using line-by-line and narrow band model RT results. The high-eccentricity (0. It returns the midday surface temperature Ts and an estimate for air temperature at 1–2 m height. The model is based on the surface energy balance. s = 0. and can be included by adding new terms: +0.9 53. while the dust loads were apparently much more moderate at the VL2 site (48°N) in the simultaneous VL2 T1.062 ln(ps/7 mb) to gr of (6). T1m 12LT.0 308. in order to pin down candidates for the extra absorbers. s = 2. I = 285 J m2 s0. Table 3). 6. A major dust storm at around aphelion leads to a temporary tropical CO2 ice cover (Fig.6m observations from Viking Lander 1 (Kemppinen et al.7 286. and H is the scale height. The pressure effects can now be parameterized to the TCM with the help of Table 3.5 222.99 because of the thick atmosphere (cf.26 0.3 184. 6. and the current atmospheric surface pressure and dust visible optical depth (s).1 127.75 dust might change the situation but these were not assumed in our experiments. ps. using the above parameterizations.3 39.4 192. the season (Ls).6 199. Firstly.4 226. despite the 7 K increase in the diurnal mean temperatures.9 km MOLA).7 307. 7. Furthermore. W m2 Ho.3 189.5 196. the site latitude. since the CO2 condensation temperature Tc increases rapidly with pressure (from 150 K at 7 mb to 195 K at 1 bar).1 0.6 K and c = T1m/ Ts = 0. 6 but for a thick 1000 mb CO2 atmosphere.3 28.2 217. The 06LT Ts.6m observations of 1.9 13.4 225. Here the CO2 condensation temperature Tc is 194. appear to display big dust storms at the VL1 site (22°N) around Ls 270–300°. thermal inertia and albedo.5 K1.2 29.4 martian years of the reprocessed and recalibrated T1. even if the diurnal mean temperatures have increased due to the greenhouse warming by the thick Fig. especially if there is dust in the air.5 243.2 199. and the surface heat flux terms using results from realistic 1D model simulations with dust and water vapour.6 206.4 239. 7.50 0.73 0.3 47. T1m and 12LT T at 10 km height are also shown.34}.9 200. even the equator is close to freezing in the dust-free case during the aphelion season. T1m 12LT.5 92. W m2 e gr 7 20 50 100 200 500 1000 2000 179.3 218.5 26.0 233. Ts 06LT.2 310.5 martian years. but for a 1000 mb CO2 atmosphere without dust (s = 0. W m2 G.5 305.8 221. this exercise nevertheless demonstrates the capacity of the TCM to rapidly chart given scenarios of p and s for the past and present.4 114. As Fig.3 189. 7.9 211. 6.1 182.6 231.3 211. h Pa 06LT. upper panel) and in a global dust storm condition (s = 2. 7 demonstrates the TCM-predicted midday T1m as in the extreme orbital case of Fig.6 231.32 0.5.7 199.1 186. lower panel) according to the TCM. The surface pressure effects appear nearly logarithmic in e and gr. CO2 atmosphere. Hence the afternoon temperatures were in fact about 10 K lower in a 1 bar atmosphere than in the present 7 mb atmosphere. It appears that the increased SW extinction of the thicker CO2 atmosphere can be taken into account by replacing the factor 0.9 187.69 0.41 0.9 184.3 60.0 311.5 20. z is the height of s relative to the Spirit site altitude (1.1 58.41 0.12) high-obliquity (45°) case was demonstrated for the present 7 mb and for a 1 bar CO2-sphere.44 0.8 247. Table 3). the vastly increased Tc makes the ice-covered winter polar caps very wide. W m2 Fd.4 246.5 77. 2013) is reasonably well simulated. Although thick dust might be unlikely in a thick atmosphere.5 204.

. Forget. R.J. Planet. H. Tyler.R.. C. Urata.. http://dx. A.008. Navarro. Geophys. R. Savijärvi.. W.B. C. Meteorol. 138.. 298–301. R.L. et al. This work was supported by the Finnish Academy Grants 132825 and 131723. atmospheric water transport and surface glaciation. 111 Hoffert. Schmidt. Leconte. J..M.. Simulations of the martian hydrologic cycle with a general circulation model: Implications for the ancient martian climate. Springer-Verlag. F. Soc. Harri. 2012b. J.I. Nature 416 (6878). O. http://dx.. Atmosphere and Climate of a Desert Planet. Icarus 226. Mechanisms of the diurnal cycle in the atmospheric boundary layer of Mars. Meteorol. F. Adv. R. Kerber. Q. Praxis Publishing Ltd. Icarus 109. 2010. A topographically forced asymmetry in the martian circulation and 1991. Sellers. to the extent that a dust storm at aphelion triggered a tropical CO2 ice cover. Harri. Soc.W.. RG3005. M.J. Q. Christensen. Ari-Matti Harri and his Finnish Meteorological Institute team. A model for the evolution of CO2 on Mars.. The TCM in its present form needs the surface pressure and dustiness as external parameters. W. Spanovich. Meteorol. 134. Savijärvi. P.. Radiative and turbulent heating rates in the clear-air boundary layer.1016/j.doi.08. Tropical mountain glaciers on Mars: Altitude-dependence of ice accumulation.. it could be coupled into mass budget models (e. Kauhanen. D.1002/ qj. 8.H. 2010. Haberle.doi.61. formation times. H. R. A model study of the atmospheric boundary layer in the Mars Pathfinder lander conditions. Spiga. 2013..2008.icarus. 2033– 2043. 2012. 136. D. 1982.1029/2010RG000351.-M. Smith. Space Sci. J. 305–317.. Soc. Meteorol. Surface and near-surface atmospheric temperatures for the Mars Exploration Rover landing sites.. Head. 2006. McKay. P. 635–641. Icarus 180. Haberle. 39. R. while the mass models would provide the surface pressures and perhaps dustiness for the TCM. A. B. 147–161. Soc. j. 1994. Forget.H. Crisp. J. 2008.J. Icarus 198. Kasting. Madeleine. Haberle. Effects of CO2 and dust on present-day solar radiation and climate in Mars. 2. M. glacier dynamics. Res. Smith.R. E. J.. The convective boundary layer on Mars: Some 1-D simulation Wolff. 102–120..E. .. http://dx. Greve. Grieger. Space Res. 32. J.. GCM simulations of the Mars Pathfinder ASI/MET data... R. 104. Soc.. S. Marcq. J. Meteorol. 2005.M. 2006.. R. Määttänen. H. M. 2011.L. H. A global climatic model based on the energy balance of the Earth–atmosphere system.D. Icarus 222. F.doi.. http://dx.. Q. References Fastook. 1999. Q..J.A.D. Savijärvi. Savijärvi. http://dx.B. J. The data is presently at the validation phase.. Q. 2004. Liquid water on Mars: An energy balance climate model for CO2/H2O atmospheres. 8957–8974. 2010). Chichester. a latitudinal model for the martian surface temperature.. E. 58. Surface and boundary-layer modeling for the Mars Exploration Rover sites. http://dx. J. G.g. One martian year of atmospheric observations using MER mini-TES. 1969. S.. et al. J. Savijärvi. 617– Atmos.doi. Geophys.. which limits its usefulness to some extent. H. 229–250. 392–400. Lett. Acknowledgments The preliminary Viking Lander 1 dataset was kindly provided by Dr.2012. 2006. C. However. Soc... Instrum.-M. and implications for planetary spin-axis/ orbital history. 2907–2922. http://dx. O.. Rev.doi. 131. J. Data Syst. Geophys. Kemppinen.. 112–129. Icarus 221. 2013. 483–493. Boundary-layer simulations for the Mars Phoenix lander site. R. Wordsworth.1002/qj. Millour. New analysis software for Viking Lander meteorological data. Callegan. Meteorol. MAIC-2. CO2 condensation and the climate of early Mars. Savijärvi.650.. A. 19–44. Leovy.1002/ qj. Q... J.232... J. North. accumulation conditions. Toon. 132. 1497–1505. W.doi. 552–560.. A. http://dx. 111. D....B. 931–940. 49.1029/2012GL053564. In the 1 bar case even the equatorial latitudes were dangerously close to Tc. Richardson. 2. J. Savijärvi / Icarus 242 (2014) 105–111 the subtropics in both cases.F..L. A. N. Sci. M. Icarus 94.. R.10.T. 2012a..M. Ziegler.... R. Theory of energy balance climate models. Tillman. Davis.W. Madeleine.129/2006JE002770. E. Read. Marchant. 2008. R. L. R. Icarus 47. J. Geosci. J.doi.. 1975. et al. 3D modelling of the early martian climate under a denser CO2 atmosphere: Temperatures and CO2 ice clouds..1256/qj. 314–320.019. Haberle et al. H.. Lewis.R. Stenzel. 1994. E12S13. 10. Wilson. 1–13. 2013. The influence of radiatively active water ice clouds on the martian climate. Res.. A. J. Appl. 2002. 1999.. Forget..icarus.I.. J. M. Savijärvi. Squyres. O. T.D. 1981. The two reviewers provided thoughtful comments that improved the article. Millour.R. The martian atmospheric boundary layer.. 81–99. providing relatively accurate surface temperatures for them. 61–69. Greve et al. Res. The Martian Climate Revisited.05. Petrosyan.. Martian meteorological variability. Meteorol... P.. http://dx.