Talk:Atmospheric escape

message: It should be edited I think. It clearly sounds like it is take from the middle of a book with references to some Tables which are not there. Also, it is not well written for an encyclopedia. For instance, the Jean escape term is used all over, yet it is mentioned very insiginificantly that Jean escape and thermal escape is the same thing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Louigi Verona (talk • contribs) 16:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article requires cleanup

message: The article is missing some escape processes.
*Hydrodynamic escape
*Nonthermal ecape
*Polar wind escape
*Homopause Effect
*Sputtering
The first four should probably be made into redirects once they are added to the article. There is already an article at sputtering. -- Kjkolb 15:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing escape processes

message: Venus is not much less massive than the earth, so its loss of water may be due to that it receives more solar energy. I suggest that only "Mars" be listed as having lost water due to lower gravity. Anyone with better data?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astropro (talk • contribs) 14:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Venus receives more solar radiation and is hotter, not lower gravity

message: I deleted the following text, under "blow off", from the section on thermal escape: "[blow-off] might possibly be a way for Venus to lose its water early in its history. It is closer to the Sun than the Earth so that early in its history its oceans probably boiled off. Assuming it started with a similar amount of water to Earth, evaporating all its water would lead to an atmosphere with a pressure of 270 bars (the surface of the Earth is at 1 bar) composed almost entirely of super-heated steam."
I'm not sure quite what the relevance is here.  Evaporation of the ocean is not the same as escape.  Although the first step in getting the water to escape is clearly getting it into the atmosphere, the escape process is different from the evaporation.  The surface pressure of 270 bars is irrelevant, since the atmosphere doesn't escape from the surface-- the text seemed to imply that the "tremendous" pressure of 270 bars would cause the atmosphere to just blow off into space, but this is not true-- that 270 bars is actually the pressure downward on the atmosphere, where the gas above the surface holds the gas at the surface down.
It might be desirable to delete the whole "blow off" text, since I don't think it's very clear, and I'm not sure what it has to do with thermal escape.  
Geoffrey.landis 15:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: evaporation of oceans

message: I edited the article to include all the major nonthermal processes, with scientific journal references. It's bulky, but it all fits into the concept of atmospheric escape. I don't know how to properly attribute the tables with titles and source underneath them, if someone could take care of that, or tell me how to do it, I would feel less bad about reproducing them without citation. It also needs to be cross-referenced throughout.
Rendence 20:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourced nonthermal escape section 

message: The citation for the hydrodynamic "blow-off" is Watson, Donahue, Walker (Icarus 48, 150-166, 1981). They derive a solution similar to the solar wind solution (Parker 1963). In the thermosphere hydrogen escapes rapidly in a hydrodynamic bulk flow induced by heating through solar EUV radiation. This flow might be restricted by diffusion of hydrogen throught the lower atmospheric layers. Havier atoms may be washed out of the atmosphere if the escape velocity is larger than the diffusion velocity of the atoms downwards. They are just carried along. Note, that the process happens in the heterosphere, where the atmosphere is no longer a mix of different molecules, but consist mainly of hydrogen. It is believed to be an ongoing process on hot Jupiters like HD 209458b, Vidal-Madjar et al., Nature, Volume 422, Issue 6928, pp. 143-146 (2003).
Sorry, this is my first edit, so I post it here in the discussion, so that somebody who is more familiar with wikipedia can change the article, if necessary.
85.183.206.138 (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Non-thermal Escape]] 

message: I am developing teaching materials for college level astronomy on Wikipedia and am contemplating the inclusion of the following link into this article.  Although the page is very much "under construction", it is clearly not going to be suitable as a Wikipedia article.  When the calculation is complete, I would like to include it in this article as a link that would look something like this:
* See also Why planets lose their atmospheres (Wikiversity)
--guyvan52 (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Wikiversity contribution 

message: I am a college professor attempting to use Wikipedia to construct a college course in Astronomy and found this article helpful.  I copied and edited portions, elaborated in some places, and referenced this article.  If the watchers of this page don't like the link there will be no hard feelings.--guyvan52 (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to wikiversity article 

message: This article is really bad.  The lede is almost useless and the first section Thermal Escape Mechanisms is VERY poorly written. Whoever wrote this has apparently not been exposed to the idea of an "introduction". I've changed the claim that increasing temperature moves the range of velocities in the distribution 'upwards', how lame is that? It claims that "THE" reason Jupiter retains hydrogen is its size...apparently its location and age have nothing to do with it??? Wrong. Similarly the claim that Titan is cooler ("colder than what?" is left to the reader's imagination) and hence retains its atmosphere is made. Wow. These are Middle School mistakes! Also, if Jeans escape is one type of thermal escape, then why in the world would you immediately launch into a description of it without any context? Poor, poor, poor. I was on my second correction to the article when I realized the job was bigger than I now have time for.  Looking for a few good men and women here... Atmosphere can escape due to its temperature (velocity), due to the solar wind, due to collision and near collisions with massive objects (comets, asteroids), due to gravitation of near-by bodies and due to electrical charge effects. DON'T use the word sun, use Sun if you mean our star, but generically use star (and stellar wind). I should add that the entire article is disjointed almost to the point of unintelligibility. 173.189.74.95 (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a rewrite. (Sept 2014) 

message: According to this article, planet Earth loses about 96 tons of gases from its atmosphere every year.
Scientists claim that over 30,000 tons of meteoric matter falls on the Earth annually.
And if the hypothesis is true that the non-dense matter of the vacuum and the dense matter of sustance have a common property of equal proportional increase in the number of their elementary units, then theoretically due to this, the annual increase in the mass of the planet Earth will be about two ten-billionth parts per year. That will amount to trillions of tons per year. Then the doubling of the mass of planet Earth can occur in 3.33 billion years.
95.27.231.251 (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many tons of atmosphere is the Earth losing? 

message: The comments in this stackexchange thread <https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/615311/what-is-this-atmospheric-escape-chart-actually-showing>, allege that the chart in this article is erroneous/misleading, and one cites a sources that would appear to back up that assertion. Can someone with a background in physics elaborate? 2600:1700:38E0:A040:FCEA:97B0:4C74:2CD6 (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart on the upper right