<p>In our current understanding of Venus, two things are generally accepted:</p>
<ol>
<li>Venus reached its thermal tipping point at least 700 Ma. As the Sun's luminosity gradually increased with age, its average surface temperature slowly escalated until a runaway greenhouse effect could occur, rapidly boiling away the planet's hydrosphere in a positive feedback loop.</li>
<li>Due to having a stagnant lid, Venus goes through a cycle of widely separated mass-resurfacing events, the most recent of which occurred around 600 Ma. Its thick crust allows large reservoirs of magma to form, which eventually connect to the surface and release internal heat through spontaneous volcanism.</li>
</ol>
<p>Assuming the latter has been the case for most of the planet's history, Venus should have undergone several of these catastrophic resurfacing events long before crossing the threshold for runaway heating. Such episodes would release a substantial amount of heat and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and oceans, greatly contributing to the global climate and greenhouse effect. From these observations I've began to suspect the runaway greenhouse effect was not triggered recently by increased solar luminosity, but early in its history by Venus's cycle of volcanic activity.</p>
<p>If this is the case, I believe this may also apply to other stagnant-lid planets, with a similar or greater internal temperature. Episodic extreme volcanism could result in rapid, dramatic increases in global climate and atmospheric heating, potentially causing a runaway greenhouse effect.</p>
<p>Is my theory about the evolution of Venus and similar planets correct?</p>
<p>Additional details:</p>
<ul>
<li>I will assume Venus developed a water hydrosphere roughly 4.4 Ma, at the same time Earth did. This is the earliest date for the transition to its current conditions. In this timeframe, the Sun's luminosity was roughly 0.75-0.95<em>L</em>☉. From Venus, this would be about 1.434-1.817<em>L</em>☉.</li>
<li>These catastrophic heating events are caused by the growth of large magma chambers formed by conduction at the bottom of the crust. When these chambers have not yet matured, this heating has a negligible effect on surface temperature, and is not the same phenomenon.</li>
<li>This question does not consider stagnant-lid planets with lower masses and core temperatures than Venus. Though planets like Mars also undergo periodic volcanism, it is far less catastrophic than the planetwide resurfacing of Venus. Furthermore, they have higher difficulty holding onto light gases than Venus. Even if they don't undergo a volcanism-induced runaway heating, they may lose their atmospheres anyway.</li>
<li>That being said, Venus also has difficulty holding onto lighter gases, having lost most of its water vapor. Perhaps a more massive planet with a stagnant-lid regime can retain a non-hothouse atmosphere for longer, assuming resurfacing events do not trigger runaway heating.</li>
<li>It's occurred to me that atmospheric degradation may also contribute to runaway heating, as decreasing surface pressures lower the boiling point of water.</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-13T08:51:16.840Z
Kind of related: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/38897/34513 & https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/40769/34513
Jean-Marie Prival
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-13T08:55:29.970Z
I disagree with #2. Heat has always a way to escape, by convection in the mantle then by conduction in the crust. If you look at Earth, there is a heat flow even where there is a thick crust without volcanism, although this flux is of course higher in active regions like mid-oceanic ridges. Also, if you look at the numbers, the internal heat flow to the surface is in mW/m$^2$, while the solar irradiation is in hundreds of W/m$^2$. So you'll never heat the surface of a planet by releasing internal heat. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Earth_heat_flow.jpg#/media/File:Earth_heat_flow.jpg
Jean-Marie Prival
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-13T08:58:26.807Z
That being said, the release of gases by volcanism certainly played a role in building the greenhouse effect on Venus.
Jean-Marie Prival
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-13T20:12:32.687Z
@Jean-MariePrival Perhaps I worded my question poorly. Heat does escape Venus's interior, it just takes far longer to travel through a thicker crust. This makes the direct flow from bottom to top far weaker than that on Earth, and this alone does not cause the catastrophic heating I've described. Instead, it creates magma chambers near the bottom, which over millions of years reach far greater sizes than Earth's do. The mass-heating occurs when these chambers connect to the surface, releasing the conducted heat along with greenhouse gases through large-scale volcanic eruptions.
Thoth
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-13T20:28:17.600Z
@Jean-MariePrival If I understand correctly, you meant a planet cannot raise its surface temperature through the constant, regular flow of heat through solid rock. On Venus, this flow usually has a negligible affect on the surface, but creates magma chambers which cause short, infrequent periods of rapid escape. Furthermore, the greenhouse gases released by these events increase the effects of solar radiation, heating the planet even more.
Thoth
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-13T21:40:03.517Z
I've rewritten part of the question and added some background information.
Thoth
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-15T08:37:07.597Z
I meant a planet cannot raise its surface temperature through release of its internal heat, period. No matter if it is released by regular heat flow through solid rock, or by huge eruptions. We've had several of those on Earth (look for "large igneous province"), they release huge amounts of magma over short timescales (geologically speaking), they are indeed associated with climate impacts and mass extinctions because of the amount of gases they release in the atmosphere, but I've never read a single paper stating that the heat from the magma had any significant contribution.
Jean-Marie Prival
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-16T18:29:43.160Z
@Jean-MariePrival Ah, sorry for misunderstanding. In that case, the planet would only really be impacted by the greenhouse gas emissions.
Thoth
<exoplanet><planetary-atmosphere><venus><geology>
Are stagnant-lid Earth analogues guaranteed to become Venus-like?
Thoth
# Are stagnant-lid Earth analogues guaranteed to become Venus-like?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-12-13)

In our current understanding of Venus, two things are generally accepted:

1. Venus reached its thermal tipping point at least 700 Ma. As the Sun's luminosity gradually increased with age, its average surface temperature slowly escalated until a runaway greenhouse effect could occur, rapidly boiling away the planet's hydrosphere in a positive feedback loop.
2. Due to having a stagnant lid, Venus goes through a cycle of widely separated mass-resurfacing events, the most recent of which occurred around 600 Ma. Its thick crust allows large reservoirs of magma to form, which eventually connect to the surface and release internal heat through spontaneous volcanism.

Assuming the latter has been the case for most of the planet's history, Venus should have undergone several of these catastrophic resurfacing events long before crossing the threshold for runaway heating. Such episodes would release a substantial amount of heat and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and oceans, greatly contributing to the global climate and greenhouse effect. From these observations I've began to suspect the runaway greenhouse effect was not triggered recently by increased solar luminosity, but early in its history by Venus's cycle of volcanic activity.

If this is the case, I believe this may also apply to other stagnant-lid planets, with a similar or greater internal temperature. Episodic extreme volcanism could result in rapid, dramatic increases in global climate and atmospheric heating, potentially causing a runaway greenhouse effect.

Is my theory about the evolution of Venus and similar planets correct?

Additional details:

* I will assume Venus developed a water hydrosphere roughly 4.4 Ma, at the same time Earth did. This is the earliest date for the transition to its current conditions. In this timeframe, the Sun's luminosity was roughly 0.75-0.95*L*☉. From Venus, this would be about 1.434-1.817*L*☉.
* These catastrophic heating events are caused by the growth of large magma chambers formed by conduction at the bottom of the crust. When these chambers have not yet matured, this heating has a negligible effect on surface temperature, and is not the same phenomenon.
* This question does not consider stagnant-lid planets with lower masses and core temperatures than Venus. Though planets like Mars also undergo periodic volcanism, it is far less catastrophic than the planetwide resurfacing of Venus. Furthermore, they have higher difficulty holding onto light gases than Venus. Even if they don't undergo a volcanism-induced runaway heating, they may lose their atmospheres anyway.
* That being said, Venus also has difficulty holding onto lighter gases, having lost most of its water vapor. Perhaps a more massive planet with a stagnant-lid regime can retain a non-hothouse atmosphere for longer, assuming resurfacing events do not trigger runaway heating.
* It's occurred to me that atmospheric degradation may also contribute to runaway heating, as decreasing surface pressures lower the boiling point of water.

**Tags:** exoplanet, planetary-atmosphere, venus, geology
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Kind of related: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/38897/34513 & https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/40769/34513  
> **username_1**: I disagree with #2. Heat has always a way to escape, by convection in the mantle then by conduction in the crust. If you look at Earth, there is a heat flow even where there is a thick crust without volcanism, although this flux is of course higher in active regions like mid-oceanic ridges. Also, if you look at the numbers, the internal heat flow to the surface is in mW/m$^2$, while the solar irradiation is in hundreds of W/m$^2$. So you'll never heat the surface of a planet by releasing internal heat. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Earth_heat_flow.jpg#/media/File:Earth_heat_flow.jpg  
> **username_1**: That being said, the release of gases by volcanism certainly played a role in building the greenhouse effect on Venus.  
> **username_0**: @Jean-MariePrival Perhaps I worded my question poorly. Heat does escape Venus's interior, it just takes far longer to travel through a thicker crust. This makes the direct flow from bottom to top far weaker than that on Earth, and this alone does not cause the catastrophic heating I've described. Instead, it creates magma chambers near the bottom, which over millions of years reach far greater sizes than Earth's do. The mass-heating occurs when these chambers connect to the surface, releasing the conducted heat along with greenhouse gases through large-scale volcanic eruptions.  
> **username_0**: @Jean-MariePrival If I understand correctly, you meant a planet cannot raise its surface temperature through the constant, regular flow of heat through solid rock. On Venus, this flow usually has a negligible affect on the surface, but creates magma chambers which cause short, infrequent periods of rapid escape. Furthermore, the greenhouse gases released by these events increase the effects of solar radiation, heating the planet even more.  
> **username_0**: I've rewritten part of the question and added some background information.  
> **username_1**: I meant a planet cannot raise its surface temperature through release of its internal heat, period. No matter if it is released by regular heat flow through solid rock, or by huge eruptions. We've had several of those on Earth (look for "large igneous province"), they release huge amounts of magma over short timescales (geologically speaking), they are indeed associated with climate impacts and mass extinctions because of the amount of gases they release in the atmosphere, but I've never read a single paper stating that the heat from the magma had any significant contribution.  
> **username_0**: @Jean-MariePrival Ah, sorry for misunderstanding. In that case, the planet would only really be impacted by the greenhouse gas emissions.  

---

## 0 answers

