pith. sign in

arxiv: 1906.11754 · v1 · pith:VOAUV7EBnew · submitted 2019-06-27 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

Overcast on Osiris: 3D radiative-hydrodynamical simulations of a cloudy hot Jupiter using the parameterised, phase-equilibrium cloud formation code EddySed

S. Lines , N. J. Mayne , J. Manners , I. A. Boutle , B. Drummond , T. Mikal-Evans , K. Kohary , D. K. Sing This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 14:02 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords cloudshot Jupitersradiative feedbackHD 209458b3D simulationsEddySedtransmission spectraphase curves
0
0 comments X

The pith

Cloud radiative effects produce markedly different thermal and optical structures in hot Jupiter simulations

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper performs 3D radiative-hydrodynamical simulations of the hot Jupiter HD 209458b using a fully coupled cloud treatment with the EddySed code that includes radiative feedback from absorption and scattering. It establishes that adding these cloud effects changes the atmosphere's thermal and optical structure in most simulations, and that cloud properties depend on sedimentation efficiency and the deep temperature-pressure profile. The results matter because they imply that cloud radiative feedback cannot be neglected in atmospheric modeling, and the cloudy models yield better agreement with observed transmission spectra, emission data, and phase curves than cloud-free versions.

Core claim

The thermal and optical structure of the simulated atmosphere is markedly different, for the majority of our simulations, when including cloud radiative effects, suggesting this important mechanism can not be neglected. The cloud structure is sensitive to not only the cloud sedimentation efficiency but also the temperature-pressure profile of the deeper atmosphere. Synthetic observations report an improved match to the observed transmission, HST WFC3 emission and 4.5 μm Spitzer phase curve of HD 209458b, and all cloudy simulations have an apparent albedo consistent with observations.

What carries the argument

The EddySed parameterised phase-equilibrium cloud formation code, coupled into 3D radiative-hydrodynamical simulations with explicit cloud radiative feedback through absorption and scattering.

If this is right

  • Cloud radiative effects cannot be neglected as they change the structure in most cases.
  • Cloud structure depends on sedimentation efficiency f_sed and the deeper atmosphere's temperature-pressure profile.
  • The resulting synthetic observations improve the match to transmission, emission and phase curve data over cloud-free models.
  • All simulations with clouds produce apparent albedos consistent with observations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same cloud feedback effects may apply to other hot Jupiters and influence their observable properties.
  • A direct comparison using identical condensates in both phase-equilibrium and microphysical models would help isolate the source of structural differences.
  • The dependence on deep T-P profiles points to a possible link between interior heat transport and upper atmosphere clouds.

Load-bearing premise

The phase-equilibrium assumption together with the specific condensates chosen for EddySed are adequate to represent the dominant cloud radiative effects.

What would settle it

A set of simulations run without cloud radiative feedback that nevertheless produces the same thermal and optical structures as the feedback-inclusive runs would show the effects are not markedly different.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1906.11754 by B. Drummond, D. K. Sing, I. A. Boutle, J. Manners, K. Kohary, N. J. Mayne, S. Lines, T. Mikal-Evans.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Equatorial temperature–pressure profiles, sampled at t = 0 (dashed lines) and t = 500 (solid lines) days and for the dayside sub–stellar point, λ = 180◦ (red lines) and nightside anti–stellar point, λ = 0◦ (black lines) for all simulations. curves via the advection–driven modulation of the outgoing thermal flux. Cloud particles can also absorb stellar photons. Depending on the location of the cloud top, th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Equatorial total cloud mixing ratio profiles, sampled at t = 0 (dashed lines) and t = 500 (solid lines) days and for the dayside, λ = 180◦ (red lines) and nightside, λ = 0◦ (black lines) for all simulations. mentioned trend in larger temperature changes on the day￾side hemisphere which occur due to the lack of direct stellar heating on the nightside. To better understand the effect of radiatively active cl… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Total, thermal (long–wave) and stellar (short–wave) heating rates for a clear sky (upper) and evolved cloudy (hot deep interior and fsed = 0.1 case) atmosphere at t = 500 days (lower) for the equator φ = 0◦ (dotted lines) and mid–latitudes φ = 45◦ (solid), at the anti–stellar, λ = 0◦ (black lines) and sub–stellar, λ = 180◦ (red lines) points, as well as the east–limb, λ = 260◦ (orange lines) and west–limb,… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Meridional-mean of the normalised contribution function (colour scale) for clear sky (upper row) and cloudy HDI and fsed = 0.1 (lower row) for 0.5 µm (left column) and 4.5 µm (right column). Atmospheric temperature is shown via black contours. ing of the nightside equator despite the enhanced nightside cooling from the cloud. At higher pressures, deeper in the atmosphere; while there is a large cloud–drive… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Temperature–Pressure profiles, sampled at t = 0 days (dashed lines) and t = 500 days (solid lines) for the equator (left panel) and mid–latitude (right panel) at the anti–stellar, λ = 0◦ (black lines) and sub–stellar, λ = 180◦ (red lines) points, as well as the east–limb, λ = 270◦ (orange lines) and west–limb, λ = 90◦ (blue lines), for the hot deep interior and fsed = 0.1 case. perature increase for pressu… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Individual condensate mixing ratio and effective radii profiles, sampled at t = 0 days (dashed lines) and t = 500 days (solid lines) at the anti–stellar, λ = 0◦ (black lines) and sub–stellar, λ = 180◦ (red lines) points, as well as the east–limb, λ = 270◦ (orange lines) and west–limb, λ = 90◦ (blue lines), for the hot deep interior fsed = 0.1 simulation. The total cloud mixing ratio typically remains non–z… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Kz z profiles, sampled at t = 500 days at the anti– stellar, λ = 0◦ (black lines) and sub–stellar, λ = 180◦ (red lines) points, as well as the east–limb, λ = 270◦ (orange lines) and west– limb, λ = 90◦ (blue lines), for the hot deep interior fsed = 0.1 simulation. The dotted line follows the analytical form of Kz z derived from 3D simulations of tracer advection (Parmentier et al. 2013). full evaporation o… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Cloud condensate mixing ratios of MnS, MgSiO3 and Al2O3 (top, middle and bottom rows, respectively) for the hot deep interior and fsed = 0.1 simulation of HD 209458b. Data obtained during the initial diagnostic call at t = 0 days with radiatively passive clouds (left) and final atmospheric state at t = 500 days after the atmosphere has changed due to radiatively active clouds (right). The sub–stellar (days… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Transmission spectra, sampled at t = 500 days for all four of our simulations (black lines) with the clear sky (no cloud) spectrum at t = 0 days (blue lines), and observations from Sing et al. (2008) (red symbols) included. All spectra are normalised to the observations at λ = 1.4 µm due to the degeneracy of transmission spectra with the assumed planetary radius, and atmospheric extent. tion as the cloud e… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Dayside ‘clear’ sky at t = 0 days with no cloud opacity (blue lines) and ‘cloudy’ (black lines) emission at 0.2 - 1.0 µm (top row), WFC3 G141 1.1 - 1.7 µm (middle row) and 3.5 - 10 µm (lower row), sampled at t = 500 days, for all four simulations: both hot and standard deep interior profiles and fsed = 0.1 and 1.0. For the thermal emission, we include observations of the dayside emission from Zellem et al… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Apparent albedo, Ag, between 0.35 - 1.3 µm for HDI and fsed = 0.1 (solid black), HDI and fsed = 1.0 (solid red), Clear HDI (solid blue), SDI and fsed = 0.1 (dashed black), SDI and fsed = 1.0 (dashed red) and Clear SDI (dashed blue). Albedo data from Rowe et al. (2008) are shown, with the 1σ upper limit of 0.08 and the 3σ upper limit of 0.17 as the lower and upper horizontal dashed orange lines respectivel… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Upper Panel: Dayside ‘clear’ (blue line), ‘clear–cloud’ (red line) and ‘cloudy’ (black line) emission between 0.2 - 3.0 µm for HDI and fsed = 0.1. The clear emission is from the simu￾lation at 0 days, without cloud opacity, the ‘clear–cloud’ is the emission after 500 days (when cloud radiative feedback has al￾tered the temperature–pressure profile) but cloud opacity is not included in the flux calculation… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: ‘Clear’ sky, cloud–free, spectrum at t = 0 days and omitting cloud opacity (dotted blue line) and the cloudy, t = 500 days (black line) phase curve at 500 - 800 nm (left) and 4.5 µm (right), sampled at t = 500 days, for the HDI and fsed = 0.1 simulation. Observations from Zellem et al. (2014) (red line) with 1σ error (shaded) are included for the thermal phase curve (right panel). 4 CONCLUSIONS We first l… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present results from 3D radiative-hydrodynamical simulations of HD 209458b with a fully coupled treatment of clouds using the EddySed code, critically, including cloud radiative feedback via absorption and scattering. We demonstrate that the thermal and optical structure of the simulated atmosphere is markedly different, for the majority of our simulations, when including cloud radiative effects, suggesting this important mechanism can not be neglected. Additionally, we further demonstrate that the cloud structure is sensitive to not only the cloud sedimentation efficiency (termed $f_{\textrm{sed}}$ in EddySed), but also the temperature-pressure profile of the deeper atmosphere. We briefly discuss the large difference between the resolved cloud structures of this work, adopting a phase-equilibrium and parameterised cloud model, and our previous work incorporating a cloud microphysical model, although a fairer comparison where, for example, the same list of constituent condensates is included in both treatments, is reserved for a future work. Our results underline the importance of further study into the potential condensate size distributions and vertical structures, as both strongly influence the radiative impact of clouds on the atmosphere. Finally, we present synthetic observations from our simulations reporting an improved match, over our previous cloud-free simulations, to the observed transmission, HST WFC3 emission and 4.5 $\mu$m Spitzer phase curve of HD 209458b. Additionally, we find all our cloudy simulations have an apparent albedo consistent with observations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper presents 3D radiative-hydrodynamical simulations of HD 209458b using the EddySed parameterized phase-equilibrium cloud formation code with fully coupled cloud radiative feedback. It claims that including radiative effects produces markedly different thermal and optical structures in the majority of runs, that cloud structure is sensitive to f_sed and the deep T-P profile, notes large differences versus prior microphysical modeling (with fair comparison deferred), and reports improved matches to transmission spectra, HST WFC3 emission, and 4.5 μm Spitzer phase curves along with observationally consistent albedos.

Significance. If the central numerical results hold under more quantitative scrutiny, the work would usefully demonstrate the non-negligible impact of cloud radiative feedback in 3D hot-Jupiter models and the potential of parameterized equilibrium clouds to improve observational fits relative to cloud-free cases. The explicit sensitivity tests to f_sed and deep T-P, plus the production of synthetic observables, are positive features. However, the lack of error bars, statistical significance tests, and systematic uncertainty quantification on parameter choices reduces the immediate strength of the claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that the simulations 'report an improved match' to the observed transmission, HST WFC3 emission and 4.5 μm Spitzer phase curve provides no quantitative metrics (e.g., reduced χ², residual rms, or error bars on the synthetic spectra) and no assessment of whether the improvement is statistically significant; this is load-bearing for the claim that the cloudy models are superior.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract and § on comparison to prior work: the conclusion that cloud radiative effects 'cannot be neglected' rests on the phase-equilibrium assumption and specific condensate list in EddySed, yet the manuscript explicitly notes large differences with the authors' earlier microphysical model and defers a fair comparison (identical condensate list) to future work; if the equilibrium treatment or condensate selection materially alters cloud opacity or vertical distribution, the reported structural differences may not generalize.
  3. [Results] Results on parameter sensitivity: while f_sed and deep T-P are varied and shown to affect cloud structure, the manuscript contains no systematic exploration, posterior distributions, or discussion of how post-hoc selection of these free parameters influences the magnitude of the radiative-feedback changes or the observational matches.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments. We address each major comment point-by-point below, indicating planned revisions where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that the simulations 'report an improved match' to the observed transmission, HST WFC3 emission and 4.5 μm Spitzer phase curve provides no quantitative metrics (e.g., reduced χ², residual rms, or error bars on the synthetic spectra) and no assessment of whether the improvement is statistically significant; this is load-bearing for the claim that the cloudy models are superior.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative support would strengthen the abstract claim. In revision we will add reduced-χ² and rms residual values (computed from the synthetic spectra already shown in the figures) to the abstract and to the relevant results section, together with a brief statement on the practical limits to formal statistical significance given current observational and model uncertainties. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and § on comparison to prior work: the conclusion that cloud radiative effects 'cannot be neglected' rests on the phase-equilibrium assumption and specific condensate list in EddySed, yet the manuscript explicitly notes large differences with the authors' earlier microphysical model and defers a fair comparison (identical condensate list) to future work; if the equilibrium treatment or condensate selection materially alters cloud opacity or vertical distribution, the reported structural differences may not generalize.

    Authors: The manuscript already flags the large differences with our prior microphysical work and explicitly defers a like-for-like comparison. The statement that radiative effects 'cannot be neglected' is intended to apply within the phase-equilibrium framework employed here. We will revise the abstract and discussion to qualify the claim more explicitly and to reiterate the need for the deferred comparison. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results] Results on parameter sensitivity: while f_sed and deep T-P are varied and shown to affect cloud structure, the manuscript contains no systematic exploration, posterior distributions, or discussion of how post-hoc selection of these free parameters influences the magnitude of the radiative-feedback changes or the observational matches.

    Authors: The variations presented are targeted sensitivity experiments intended to demonstrate the influence of f_sed and the deep T-P profile. A full posterior or systematic sweep lies beyond the scope of this initial demonstration study. We will expand the discussion to describe how the chosen parameter values affect the reported radiative-feedback differences and observational comparisons, and we will note this limitation for future work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results are direct numerical outcomes of simulations

full rationale

The paper reports outcomes from 3D radiative-hydrodynamical simulations comparing runs with and without cloud radiative feedback in EddySed. The central claim of markedly different thermal/optical structures is a direct numerical result from those experiments, not a closed derivation or mathematical reduction. f_sed is treated as an adjustable parameter varied for sensitivity tests, and improved observational matches are presented as simulation outputs rather than predictions forced by construction. No load-bearing self-citation or ansatz smuggling underpins the main result; the work is self-contained against external benchmarks via the reported simulation comparisons.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the phase-equilibrium assumption inside EddySed and on the choice of condensates; f_sed is treated as a free parameter that is varied rather than derived.

free parameters (1)
  • f_sed
    Sedimentation efficiency parameter in EddySed whose value controls cloud vertical structure and is varied across simulations.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Phase-equilibrium cloud formation is an adequate description for the dominant radiative effects.
    Invoked by the choice of EddySed code and stated as the modeling approach.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5841 in / 1553 out tokens · 22546 ms · 2026-05-25T14:02:34.651494+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 81 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S., Marley M

    Ackerman A. S., Marley M. S., 2001, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...556..872A 556, 872

    work page 2001

  2. [2]

    S., Baraffe I., Tremblin P., Manners J., Hayek W., Mayne N

    Amundsen D. S., Baraffe I., Tremblin P., Manners J., Hayek W., Mayne N. J., Acreman D. M., 2014, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    S., et al., 2016, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A

    Amundsen D. S., et al., 2016, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    S., Tremblin P., Manners J., Baraffe I., Mayne N

    Amundsen D. S., Tremblin P., Manners J., Baraffe I., Mayne N. J., 2017, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    J., de Mooij E., Barstow J., Osborn H

    Armstrong D. J., de Mooij E., Barstow J., Osborn H. P., Blake J., Saniee N. F., 2016, Nature Astronomy, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016NatAs...1E...4A 1, 0004

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    K., Aigrain S., Irwin P

    Barstow J. K., Aigrain S., Irwin P. G. J., Sing D. K., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/50 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...834...50B 834, 50

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/50 2017

  7. [7]

    Benneke B., Seager S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/100 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...753..100B 753, 100

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/753/2/100 2012

  8. [8]

    Blecic J., Dobbs-Dixon I., Greene T., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8171 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848..127B 848, 127

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8171 2017

  9. [9]

    A., Mayne N

    Boutle I. A., Mayne N. J., Drummond B., Manners J., Goyal J., Hugo Lambert F., Acreman D. M., Earnshaw P. D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201630020 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630020 2017

  10. [10]

    M., 1999, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...512..843B 512, 843

    Burrows A., Sharp C. M., 1999, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...512..843B 512, 843

    work page 1999

  11. [11]

    P., Bord \'e P., Rocchetto M., Charnay B., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834384 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A

    Caldas A., Leconte J., Selsis F., Waldmann I. P., Bord \'e P., Rocchetto M., Charnay B., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834384 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834384 2019

  12. [12]

    Charnay B., B \'e zard B., Baudino J.-L., Bonnefoy M., Boccaletti A., Galicher R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaac7d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...854..172C 854, 172

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaac7d 2018

  13. [13]

    C., Saumon D., Marley M

    Cushing M. C., Saumon D., Marley M. S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/5/1428 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....140.1428C 140, 1428

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/140/5/1428 2010

  14. [14]

    Deming D., et al., 2013, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...774...95D 774, 95

    work page 2013

  15. [15]

    Demory B.-O., et al., 2013, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...776L..25D 776, L25

    work page 2013

  16. [16]

    S., Mayne N

    Drummond B., Tremblin P., Baraffe I., Amundsen D. S., Mayne N. J., Venot O., Goyal J., 2016, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A

    work page 2016

  17. [17]

    J., Baraffe I., Tremblin P., Manners J., Amundsen D

    Drummond B., Mayne N. J., Baraffe I., Tremblin P., Manners J., Amundsen D. S., Goyal J., Acreman D., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732010 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732010

  18. [18]

    Drummond B., et al., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aab209 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...855L..31D 855, L31

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aab209 2041

  19. [19]

    J., Manners J., Baraffe I., Goyal J., Tremblin P., Sing D

    Drummond B., Mayne N. J., Manners J., Baraffe I., Goyal J., Tremblin P., Sing D. K., Kohary K., 2018c, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaeb28 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...869...28D 869, 28

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaeb28

  20. [20]

    M., 1996, @doi [Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences] 10.1175/1520-0469(1996)053<1921:ECOIFA>2.0.CO;2 , 53, 1921

    Edwards J. M., 1996, @doi [Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences] 10.1175/1520-0469(1996)053<1921:ECOIFA>2.0.CO;2 , 53, 1921

    work page doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1996)053 1996

  21. [21]

    M., Slingo A., 1996, @doi [Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society] 10.1002/qj.49712253107 , 122, 689

    Edwards J. M., Slingo A., 1996, @doi [Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society] 10.1002/qj.49712253107 , 122, 689

    work page doi:10.1002/qj.49712253107 1996

  22. [22]

    J., De Mooij E

    Esteves L. J., De Mooij E. J. W., Jayawardhana R., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/51 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...772...51E 772, 51

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/772/1/51 2013

  23. [23]

    M., Aigrain S., Gibson N., Barstow J

    Evans T. M., Aigrain S., Gibson N., Barstow J. K., Amundsen D. S., Tremblin P., Mourier P., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv910 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.451..680E 451, 680

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv910 2015

  24. [24]

    J., Saumon D., Marley M

    Fortney J. J., Saumon D., Marley M. S., Lodders K., Freedman R. S., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500920 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...642..495F 642, 495

    work page doi:10.1086/500920 2006

  25. [25]

    Gao P., Benneke B., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad461 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...863..165G 863, 165

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad461 2018

  26. [26]

    S., Ackerman A

    Gao P., Marley M. S., Ackerman A. S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab0a1 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...855...86G 855, 86

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab0a1 2018

  27. [27]

    J., Conrath B

    Gierasch P. J., Conrath B. J., 1985, Energy conversion processes in the outer planets . Cambridge and New York, Cambridge University Press, pp 121--146

    work page 1985

  28. [28]

    L., Ockert-Bell M

    Hartmann D. L., Ockert-Bell M. E., Michelsen M. L., 1992, Journal of Climate, 5, 1281

    work page 1992

  29. [29]

    Helling C., Fomins A., 2013, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013RSPTA.37110581H 371, 20110581

    work page 2013

  30. [30]

    Helling C., Woitke P., 2006, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A

    work page 2006

  31. [31]

    Helling C., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13991.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.391.1854H 391, 1854

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13991.x 2008

  32. [32]

    R., Swain M

    Iyer A. R., Swain M. R., Zellem R. T., Line M. R., Roudier G., Rocha G., Livingston J. H., 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 823, 109

    work page 2016

  33. [33]

    J., Louden T., Doyle A

    Kirk J., Wheatley P. J., Louden T., Doyle A. P., Skillen I., McCormac J., Irwin P. G. J., Karjalainen R., 2017, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.3907K 468, 3907

    work page 2017

  34. [34]

    Kitzmann D., Heng K., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3141 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475...94K 475, 94

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3141 2018

  35. [35]

    A., et al., 2007, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Natur.447..183K 447, 183

    Knutson H. A., et al., 2007, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Natur.447..183K 447, 183

    work page 2007

  36. [36]

    Lecavelier Des Etangs A., Pont F., Vidal-Madjar A., Sing D., 2008, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A

    work page 2008

  37. [37]

    Lee J.-M., Irwin P. G. J., Fletcher L. N., Heng K., Barstow J. K., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/14 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...789...14L 789, 14

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/789/1/14 2014

  38. [38]

    Lee G., Dobbs-Dixon I., Helling C., Bognar K., Woitke P., 2016, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A

    work page 2016

  39. [39]

    K., Showman A

    Lewis N. K., Showman A. P., Fortney J. J., Marley M. S., Freedman R. S., Lodders K., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/344 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...720..344L 720, 344

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/720/1/344 2010

  40. [40]

    T., Lambert F

    Lewis N. T., Lambert F. H., Boutle I. A., Mayne N. J., Manners J., Acreman D. M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaad0a , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...854..171L 854, 171

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaad0a 2018

  41. [41]

    R., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/203 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....152..203L 152, 203

    Line M. R., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/203 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....152..203L 152, 203

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/203 2016

  42. [42]

    Lines S., et al., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2275 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481..194L 481, 194

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2275

  43. [43]

    Lines S., et al., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732278 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732278

  44. [44]

    S., Robinson T

    Marley M. S., Robinson T. D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122522 , http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/abs/2015ARA

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122522 2015

  45. [45]

    J., Baraffe I., Acreman D

    Mayne N. J., Baraffe I., Acreman D. M., Smith C., Wood N., Amundsen D. S., Thuburn J., Jackson D. R., 2014a, Geoscientific Model Development, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014GMD.....7.3059M 7, 3059

    work page

  46. [46]

    J., et al., 2014b, A & A, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    Mayne N. J., et al., 2014b, A & A, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    work page

  47. [47]

    J., et al., 2017, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A

    Mayne N. J., et al., 2017, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A

    work page 2017

  48. [48]

    J., Drummond B., Debras F., Jaupart E., Manners J., Boutle I

    Mayne N. J., Drummond B., Debras F., Jaupart E., Manners J., Boutle I. A., Baraffe I., Kohary K., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf6e9 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...871...56M 871, 56

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf6e9 2019

  49. [49]

    Menou K., 2018, arXiv e-prints, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv181111725M

    work page 2018

  50. [50]

    E., H \"o rst S

    Moran S. E., H \"o rst S. M., Batalha N. E., Lewis N. K., Wakeford H. R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aae83a , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..252M 156, 252

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aae83a 2018

  51. [51]

    V., Fortney J

    Morley C. V., Fortney J. J., Marley M. S., Zahnle K., Line M., Kempton E., Lewis N., Cahoy K., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/110 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...815..110M 815, 110

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/815/2/110 2015

  52. [52]

    I., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/737/1/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737...15M 737, 15

    Moses J. I., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/737/1/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737...15M 737, 15

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/1/15 2011

  53. [53]

    Nikolov N., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2433 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.447..463N 447, 463

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2433 2015

  54. [54]

    Ohno K., Okuzumi S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aabee3 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...859...34O 859, 34

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabee3 2018

  55. [55]

    Oreshenko M., Heng K., Demory B.-O., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw133 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457.3420O 457, 3420

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw133 2016

  56. [56]

    W., Min M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833678 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A

    Ormel C. W., Min M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833678 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833678 2019

  57. [57]

    Parmentier V., Crossfield I. J. M., 2018, Exoplanet Phase Curves: Observations and Theory . p. 116, @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-55333-7_116

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-55333-7_116 2018

  58. [58]

    P., Lian Y., 2013, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    Parmentier V., Showman A. P., Lian Y., 2013, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    work page 2013

  59. [59]

    J., Showman A

    Parmentier V., Fortney J. J., Showman A. P., Morley C., Marley M. S., 2016, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...828...22P 828, 22

    work page 2016

  60. [60]

    Pinhas A., Madhusudhan N., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1849 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471.4355P 471, 4355

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1849 2017

  61. [61]

    Powell D., Zhang X., Gao P., Parmentier V., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac215 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...860...18P 860, 18

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac215 2018

  62. [62]

    Rajan A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa74db , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154...10R 154, 10

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa74db 2017

  63. [63]

    Ramanathan V., Cess R., Harrison E., Minnis P., Barkstrom B., Ahmad E., Hartmann D., 1989, Science, 243, 57

    work page 1989

  64. [64]

    Roman M., Rauscher E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aafdb5 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...872....1R 872, 1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafdb5 2019

  65. [65]

    F., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/591835 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...689.1345R 689, 1345

    Rowe J. F., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/591835 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...689.1345R 689, 1345

    work page doi:10.1086/591835 2008

  66. [66]

    S., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/592734 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...689.1327S 689, 1327

    Saumon D., Marley M. S., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/592734 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...689.1327S 689, 1327

    work page doi:10.1086/592734 2008

  67. [67]

    P., Fortney J

    Showman A. P., Fortney J. J., Lian Y., Marley M. S., Freedman R. S., Knutson H. A., Charbonneau D., 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 699, 564

    work page 2009

  68. [68]

    Shporer A., Hu R., 2015, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AJ....150..112S 150, 112

    work page 2015

  69. [69]

    K., Vidal-Madjar A., D \'e sert J.-M., Lecavelier des Etangs A., Ballester G., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/590075 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...686..658S 686, 658

    Sing D. K., Vidal-Madjar A., D \'e sert J.-M., Lecavelier des Etangs A., Ballester G., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/590075 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...686..658S 686, 658

    work page doi:10.1086/590075 2008

  70. [70]

    K., et al., 2016, Nature, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016Natur.529...59S 529, 59

    Sing D. K., et al., 2016, Nature, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016Natur.529...59S 529, 59

    work page 2016

  71. [71]

    S., Silverio K., Burrows A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1487 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...699.1487S 699, 1487

    Spiegel D. S., Silverio K., Burrows A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1487 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...699.1487S 699, 1487

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/2/1487 2009

  72. [72]

    B., Turco R., Hamill P., Kiang C., Whitten R., 1979, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 36, 718

    Toon O. B., Turco R., Hamill P., Kiang C., Whitten R., 1979, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 36, 718

    work page 1979

  73. [73]

    S., Mourier P., Baraffe I., Chabrier G., Drummond B., Homeier D., Venot O., 2015, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...804L..17T 804, L17

    Tremblin P., Amundsen D. S., Mourier P., Baraffe I., Chabrier G., Drummond B., Homeier D., Venot O., 2015, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...804L..17T 804, L17

    work page 2015

  74. [74]

    Tremblin P., et al., 2017, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...841...30T 841, 30

    work page 2017

  75. [75]

    R., Sing D

    Wakeford H. R., Sing D. K., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424207 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424207 2015

  76. [76]

    Wood N., et al., 2014, @doi [Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society] 10.1002/qj.2235 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014QJRMS.140.1505W 140, 1505

    work page doi:10.1002/qj.2235 2014

  77. [77]

    G., Korb G

    Zdunkowski W. G., Korb G. J., 1985, Promet, 2/3, 26

    work page 1985

  78. [78]

    a ge zur Physik der Atmosph \

    Zdunkowski W., Welch R., Korb G., 1980, Beitr \"a ge zur Physik der Atmosph \"a re, 53, 147

    work page 1980

  79. [79]

    T., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/53 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...790...53Z 790, 53

    Zellem R. T., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/53 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...790...53Z 790, 53

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/790/1/53 2014

  80. [80]

    P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aada7c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018ApJ...866....2Z 866, 2

    Zhang X., Showman A. P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aada7c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018ApJ...866....2Z 866, 2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aada7c 2018

Showing first 80 references.