Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 50 references

Resolved convection in hydrogen-rich atmospheres

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read In hydrogen-rich atmospheres, crossing the Guillot humidity threshold makes the dry subcloud boundary layer collapse and be replaced by a near-100%-cloudy, superadiabatic layer.

desk verdict A clean 3D confirmation that crossing Guillot's humidity threshold restructures the lower troposphere; the fixed radiative cooling is a real caveat but the paper flags it clearly and the core result stands. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06648 v1 pith:ZUYHE4GY submitted 2024-12-09 astro-ph.EP

Jacob T. Seeley , Robin D. Wordsworth This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords moistconvectionhydrogen-richatmospheresGuillotthresholdbuoyancyreversalcloud-resolvingmodelsuperadiabaticlapseratesub-Neptuneexoplanetscondensiblespecies
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

On Earth, a warm, moist parcel of air is buoyant and rises. In hydrogen-rich atmospheres the condensible vapor (such as water) is heavier than the background gas, so a warm, saturated parcel can be denser than its surroundings and sink instead of rising. This paper uses a three-dimensional cloud-resolving model to show that this regime has a sharp onset: when near-surface specific humidity $q_s$ exceeds the critical value $q_{\rm crit}$ first derived by Guillot (1995), the dry-adiabatic subcloud boundary layer collapses and is replaced by a shallow, extremely cloudy layer whose temperature drops faster than the dry adiabatic rate. With reduced surface moisture, the same superadiabatic cloudy layer forms aloft, above a deep dry layer, rather than at the surface. The result matters because hydrogen-rich atmospheres are common among sub-Neptunes and young planets, and the predicted increase in cloudiness may be observable.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the saturation density $\rho^* = p \mu^* / (RT)$ of a saturated air parcel, together with the critical humidity $q_{\rm crit} = RT/[(\mu_v - \mu_a) L(T)]$ at which its logarithmic derivative with respect to temperature changes sign. When the vapor is heavier than the background gas ($\mu_v > \mu_a$), raising temperature raises the parcel's mean molar mass; above $q_{\rm crit}$ that compositional effect beats thermal expansion, so anomalously warm saturated parcels are negatively buoyant. This identity supplies the mechanism for the simulated regime transition: condensation at cloud base produces parcels that sink rather than feed moist updrafts, so the dry subcloud layer erodes from the top until it either vanishes or is capped by a superadiabatic cloudy layer.

What would settle it

A decisive test is to rerun the $\mu_a = 2$ g/mol and $\mu_a = 4$ g/mol cases with fully interactive radiative transfer: if the dry subcloud layer survives or the near-100% cloudy superadiabatic layer disappears, the collapse is an artifact of the prescribed cooling. A complementary observational check would be to look for the predicted cloud deck near the $\sim 247$ K level in a solar-composition, H$_2$O-condensing sub-Neptune atmosphere.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Guillot humidity threshold is not just a thermodynamic curiosity but a dynamical regime boundary. In simulations with background molar mass $\mu_a$ spanning 28 g/mol ($\mathrm{N_2}$) down to 2 g/mol ($\mathrm{H_2}$) at fixed surface pressure and temperature, the atmosphere's structure changes abruptly at the point where $q_s \ge q_{\rm crit}$ (eq. 13). Below the threshold, a dry subcloud layer overlies a moist troposphere close to the moist adiabat, with low cloud fractions of a few percent. Above it, the subcloud layer collapses: near-surface lapse rates become superadiabatic (about 120 K/km in the $\mu_a = 2$ g/mol case), low cloud fraction jumps to nearly 100%, and the tropospheric temperature profile is much colder than a moist adiabat rooted at the surface. When surface moisture availability is reduced (the DeepBL suite), a deep dry subcloud layer survives and the cloudy superadiabatic layer forms aloft, with humidity falling by about an order of magnitude across it before the atmosphere returns to a second dry-adiabatic layer and then a moist layer. The paper interprets this as the expected consequence of negatively buoyant cloudy parcels at the lifting condensation level, and argues the trend toward increased cloudiness above threshold should apply to $\mathrm{H_2O}$ and other condensible species.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the prescribed 200 W/m$^2$ radiative cooling, spread uniformly between surface and tropopause, behaves enough like real radiative transfer that it does not qualitatively change the regime transition; if clouds or temperature structure feed back strongly on the cooling, the collapse and superadiabatic layer could be modified or absent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In atmospheres with $q_s \ge q_{\rm crit}$, the dry subcloud boundary layer collapses and low cloud fraction rises from a few percent to close to 100%, with the cloud peak dropping to the near-surface model level.
  • If surface moisture is limited ($\beta=0.2$), the superadiabatic cloudy layer forms aloft above a roughly 30-km-deep dry subcloud layer, remaining distinct from both the surface layer and the moist troposphere; the paper calls this structure closer to sub-Neptune conditions.
  • Increasing surface moisture in the Guillot regime can paradoxically dry the atmosphere: in the VaryBeta suite, raising $\beta$ from 0.4 to 0.6 collapses the boundary layer and cuts column water vapor from over 800 kg/m$^2$ to under 100 kg/m$^2$.
  • For solar-composition background gas ($\mu_a=2.5$ g/mol) with water vapor, the superadiabatic cloudy layer would sit near $p=0.1$ bar at about 247 K, close to Earth's emission temperature, so such layers may influence the transmission and emission spectra of sub-Neptunes; the paper tabulates analogous cloud emission temperatures for other condensibles.
  • Some Guillot-regime simulations show episodic convection with roughly two-day pulses and associated variability in cloud water, indicating that convective activity in hydrogen-rich atmospheres can be intermittent.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • We infer that the ratio $q_s/q_{\rm crit}$ should organize cloud fraction across condensible species; running the same cloud-resolving model with CH$_4$ or NH$_3$ as the condensible would predict where superadiabatic decks form in gas-giant atmospheres.
  • We infer that with fully interactive radiation the transition may shift in parameter space, but the buoyancy-reversal mechanism should survive because it depends only on the thermodynamics of saturated parcels.
  • We infer that the episodic ~2-day convective pulses in some low-MMW runs suggest radiative-convective equilibrium in the Guillot regime may be bistable; global-scale simulations could reveal whether this manifests as observable, time-variable cloud cover.
  • We infer that if younger planets retain more H$_2$, the paper's cloudiness trend implies a secular brightening or dimming as hydrogen is lost and $\mu_a$ rises; however, the paper notes the cloud decks in DeepBL sit below $p=0.1$ bar, so emission spectroscopy may be a more promising probe than transmission spectroscopy.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses the DAM cloud-resolving model to test a thermodynamic criterion first derived by Guillot (1995) for low-mean-molecular-weight atmospheres. The authors derive that when the saturation specific humidity exceeds qcrit = RT/[(μv-μa)L(T)], anomalously warm saturated air is negatively buoyant because the condensible's molecular weight outweighs the thermal expansion. In a suite of 3D radiative-convective equilibrium simulations with background molar masses from 28 to 2 g/mol, they find that crossing this threshold in near-surface humidity coincides with the disappearance of the dry subcloud layer and the formation of a shallow, nearly fully cloudy layer with temperature lapse rates well in excess of the dry adiabat. Additional suites with reduced surface wetness (DeepBL) show that a deep dry layer can keep the superadiabatic cloudy layer aloft, while increasing surface wetness collapses the boundary layer and sharply reduces column water vapor. The paper also reports episodic convection in one deep-boundary-layer case and computes 'cloud emission temperatures' for various condensibles at p = 0.1 bar.

Significance. If the main claim holds, the paper provides the first 3D cloud-resolving demonstration that a well-defined thermodynamic threshold controls convective structure in low-mean-molecular-weight atmospheres, with potentially observable implications for cloudiness and spectra of H2-rich planets. The analytical derivation is clean, the simulations cover a wide and thoughtfully designed parameter range, and the data and plotting code are made publicly available. The principal weakness is that the radiative forcing is idealized and prescribed, so the robustness of the boundary-layer collapse to cloud-radiation interactions remains untested; the authors acknowledge this and call for follow-up. With a focused sensitivity test or a qualified statement of conditionality, this would be a substantial contribution.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.1 / Section 4] The mechanism for the boundary-layer collapse described in Section 4 explicitly relies on "continued radiative cooling" above the lifting condensation level to amplify the negative buoyancy of cloudy parcels. However, in all experiments the tropospheric radiative cooling is prescribed as a column-integrated 200 W/m2 distributed uniformly between the surface and the diagnosed 200 K tropopause (Section 3.1). Since the transition to the Guillot regime is accompanied by an increase in low cloud fraction to nearly 100% (Fig. 5, bottom), a fully interactive radiative transfer scheme would likely cool the cloudy layer less, which could weaken or eliminate the runaway collapse. The authors acknowledge this limitation in Sections 3.1 and 5, but the abstract and Section 4 state the collapse as a consequence of crossing the Guillot threshold without this caveat. I request a sensitivity test in which the vertical distribution of radiative cooling is varied (e.g., cooling reduced in the cloudy layer) or a demonstration that the qualitative regime transition is insensitive to the placement of the cooling; otherwise the headline claim is conditional on the prescribed forcing.
  2. [Section 3.1 / Table A1 / Fig. 2] The only higher-resolution run, DeepBL hr, uses a quasi-2D domain (750 m x 128 km) with a refined vertical grid, but it is presented only as a snapshot in Fig. 2 and is not compared quantitatively with its coarse-resolution counterpart (DeepBL with mu_a = 6 g/mol). The authors note that cloud fraction and precipitation efficiency are sensitive to horizontal and vertical resolution (Jeevanjee & Zhou 2022; Jenney et al. 2023), yet a central result is the jump of low cloud fraction to near 100% in the VaryMu runs (Fig. 5). A quantitative comparison of the time-mean cloud fraction, temperature profile, and layer depth between DeepBL hr and the coarse DeepBL mu_a = 6 run is needed to assess whether the near-100% cloudiness and the collapse of the subcloud layer are robust to resolution. If this comparison exists in the online material, it should be referenced explicitly in the main text.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 3] In the inset of Fig. 3, the curves for different molar masses are plotted without an explicit line-style or color legend; please add a legend or a table of line styles so that the mu_a = 2, 4, and 6 cases can be distinguished.
  2. [Fig. 5] The two thin gray lines indicating qcrit for the 280 K and 320 K cases are almost indistinguishable from each other and from the dashed line for 300 K; consider using different colors and adding a legend.
  3. [Section 4] The sentence "it is mixed down to the surface by turbulence and numerical diffusion" is confusing: numerical diffusion should not be presented as a physical mixing mechanism. Please rephrase to describe turbulent mixing or model diffusion explicitly.
  4. [Section 2, Eq. (13)] For clarity, state explicitly that qcrit is a specific humidity (mass fraction) expressed in kg/kg, consistent with qv in Eq. (8); the table header already uses this unit, but the main text should do so as well.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Guillot threshold is derived from thermodynamics and the CRM transition is emergent, not fitted.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that crossing the humidity threshold q_s >= q_crit (Eq. 13) causes the dry subcloud boundary layer to collapse and be replaced by a cloudy superadiabatic layer. The threshold q_crit is derived analytically in Eqs. (5)-(13) from the ideal gas law, the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, and latent-heat thermodynamics; none of the predicted quantities (boundary-layer collapse, superadiabatic lapse rates, cloud fraction) enters that derivation. The cloud-resolving simulations use the DAM model with standard bulk surface flux formulae, a fixed SST, and a prescribed 200 W/m^2 radiative cooling; no parameter is fitted to match the q_s = q_crit crossing or the structural transition. The near-surface humidity q_s is diagnosed from model output, and q_crit is computed independently from Eq. (13), so the coincidence shown in Fig. 5 is an emergent result rather than a fit. The transition is also probed in the DeepBL and VaryBeta experiments, which vary surface moisture availability at fixed or controlled background molar mass, further separating the humidity threshold from the molar-mass sweep. The idealized radiative cooling is explicitly acknowledged as a limitation and is not a fitted input tied to the predicted transition; it may affect robustness under fully interactive radiation but does not make the derivation circular. Self-citations (e.g., Seeley & Wordsworth 2021, 2023; Dagan et al. 2023) are used for model setup, microphysics parameter choices, and context for episodic convection, but they are not load-bearing for the paper's main claim. Overall, the analytical derivation, independent model diagnostics, and parameter variations provide self-contained support for the reported regime transition.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on standard moist thermodynamics for the qcrit derivation and on the specific model configuration (microphysics, surface fluxes, radiative forcing) for the simulated transition. The main non-standard assumption is the idealized fixed radiative cooling, which the authors note constrains enthalpy flux and convective mass flux.

free parameters (5)
  • Prescribed column-integrated radiative cooling = 200 W/m2
    Imposed in Section 3.1; fixes the mean enthalpy flux and convective mass flux, which the authors note could vary with molar mass.
  • Tropopause temperature = 200 K
    Prescribed for diagnosing the tropopause and the vertical extent of radiative cooling, Section 3.1.
  • Surface drag coefficient CD = 1.5e-3
    Standard bulk formula value, Section 3.1; affects near-surface wind and flux disequilibrium.
  • Background gustiness V = 5 m/s
    Added in surface flux formula, Section 3.1; influences flux magnitudes.
  • Surface wetness parameter beta = varied from 0.2 to 1.0
    Experimental control in VaryBeta and DeepBL suites, Section 3.2; controls moisture availability and lifting condensation level.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Ideal gas law and standard moist thermodynamics (Romps 2021) apply to H2-rich atmospheres.
    Used throughout Section 2 to derive qcrit and in the model's thermodynamics.
  • domain assumption The simplified microphysics scheme (saturation adjustment, autoconversion, rain evaporation) is sufficient to capture the qualitative convective behavior.
    Section 3.1; parameters from Seeley & Wordsworth 2023, with no sensitivity tests here.
  • ad hoc to paper The prescribed uniform radiative cooling of 200 W/m2 approximates radiative-convective equilibrium across the parameter sweep.
    Section 3.1; the authors acknowledge this constrains enthalpy flux and convective mass flux.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Resolved convection in hydrogen-rich atmospheres." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZUYHE4GY

@misc{pith2026241206648,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Resolved convection in hydrogen-rich atmospheres},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZUYHE4GY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06648}
}
read the original abstract

In hydrogen-rich atmospheres with low mean molecular weight (MMW), an air parcel containing a higher-molecular-weight condensible can be negatively buoyant even if its temperature is higher than the surrounding environment. This should fundamentally alter the dynamics of moist convection, but the low-MMW regime has previously been explored primarily via one-dimensional theories that cannot capture the complexity of moist turbulence. Here, we use a three-dimensional cloud-resolving model to simulate moist convection in atmospheres with a wide range of background MMW, and confirm that a humidity threshold for buoyancy reversal first derived by Guillot (1995) coincides with an abrupt change in tropospheric structure. Crossing the "Guillot threshold" in near-surface humidity causes the dry (subcloud) boundary layer to collapse and be replaced by a very cloudy layer with a temperature lapse rate that exceeds the dry adiabatic rate. Simulations with reduced surface moisture availability in the lower atmosphere feature a deeper dry subcloud layer, which allows the superadiabatic cloud layer to remain aloft. Our simulations support a potentially observable systematic trend toward increased cloudiness for atmospheres with near-surface moisture concentrations above the Guillot threshold. This should apply to \ce{H2O} and potentially to other condensible species on hotter worlds. We also find evidence for episodic convective activity and associated variability in cloud cover in some of our low-MMW simulations, which should be investigated further with global-scale simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06648 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The saturation density ρ ∗ = pµ∗ /(RT) for a mixture of water vapor and a background gas with molar mass µa varying from 44 g/mol to 2 g/mol. The total pressure is held fixed at 105 Pa, and the temperature ranges from 200 K to the boiling point of water at this pressure. For cases in which the background gas is lighter than water vapor, the portions of the curves for which ρ ∗ increases with temperature are plotted … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A snapshot of the DeepBL hr simulation, showing (from upper left, going clockwise): cloud condensate, vertical velocity, specific humidity, and precipitating water. The colorbar for all fields except for vertical velocity is the base-10 logarithm of the water mass fraction (i.e., a value of -5 means 10−5 kg/kg.) Note that this simulation was performed on a quasi-2D grid, and with a higher resolution than the rest of… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Temperature profiles for atmospheres with a surface temperature of 300 K, surface pressure of 105 Pa, and with varying background gas molar mass µa. The left panel shows idealized moist adiabats, while the right panel shows the steady-state temperature profiles from our cloud-resolving simulations. The inset focuses on the lowermost 6 km of the CRM simulations. temperature are, by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, as… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Top panel) Column-integrated water vapor in the CRM simulations from the VaryMu experiment, in comparison to the same quantity calculated from idealized moist-adiabatic atmospheres with 50% relative humidity. (Bottom panel) Low (z ≤ 5 km) cloud altitude (i.e., the alt…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Several quantities from the VaryMu experiments at surface temperatures of 280 K (blue), 300 K (black), and 320 K (red). (Top panel) Near-surface specific humidity qs. The critical humidity threshold qcrit is also plotted with a gray dashed line for the 300 K case; the …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Results from the DeepBL experiment for µa = 4, 6, and 14 g/mol. (Left) Temperature profiles, with the altitude at which qv = qcrit marked with a solid circle. The p = 0.1 bar altitude for each simulation is marked with a triangle. (Middle) Specific humidity profiles; t…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Results from the VaryBeta experiment (Left) Temperature profiles. (Right) Specific humidity profiles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: High-frequency (hourly) output from 20 days of the DeepBL simulations with µa = 4 and 6 g/mol. Top row: surface sensible heat flux (SHF) in W/m2 . Bottom row: column-integrated cloud water in kg/m2 . the moist troposphere above. Overall, our idealized simulation framew…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Cloud emission temperatures and qcrit values for a wide range of condensing species. We define cloud emission temperature as the temperature for which q ∗ v(p, T) = qcrit, for a representative emission pressure of p = 0.1 bar. The latent heats and saturation vapor pres…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    Q (6^bb1jFMD71 5ѨhA 6l F ###IDDDDDDDA H |2V\ )57'| 33Jdž i׮ ֭[t

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 47, 481, 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222

    arXiv 2009

  5. [5]

    2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 201601472, 10.1073/pnas.1601472113

    Bony, S., Stevens, B., Coppin, D., et al. 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 201601472, 10.1073/pnas.1601472113

    doi:10.1073/pnas.1601472113 2016

  6. [6]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 227, 1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348936

    Cl \' e ment, N., Leconte, J., Spiga, A., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 227, 1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348936

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348936 2024

  7. [7]

    W., & Chavas, D

    Cronin, T. W., & Chavas, D. R. 2019, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 76, 2193, 10.1175/JAS-D-18-0357.1

    work page doi:10.1175/jas-d-18-0357.1 2019

  8. [8]

    T., & Steiger, N

    Dagan, G., Seeley, J. T., & Steiger, N. 2023, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 15, 1, 10.1029/2023MS003765

    work page doi:10.1029/2023ms003765 2023

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    J., Baraffe, I., et al

    Drummond, B., Mayne, N. J., Baraffe, I., et al. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 612, A105

    2018

  2. [10]

    A., & Kite, E

    Fan, B., Tan, Z., Shaw, T. A., & Kite, E. S. 2021, Geophysical Research Letters, 48, 1, 10.1029/2020GL090746

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    J., & Gonzales, E

    Friedson, A. J., & Gonzales, E. J. 2017, Icarus, 297, 160, 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.06.029

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    P., Lee, G

    Gao, P., Thorngren, D. P., Lee, G. K., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 951, 10.1038/s41550-020-1114-3

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    2024, Planetary Science Journal, 5, 10.3847/PSJ/ad0ed3

    Ge, H., Li, C., Zhang, X., & Moeckel, C. 2024, Planetary Science Journal, 5, 10.3847/PSJ/ad0ed3

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    1995, Science, 269, 1697

    Guillot, T. 1995, Science, 269, 1697

    1995

  7. [15]

    M., & Hohn, H

    Guldberg, C. M., & Hohn, H. 1876, \' E tudes sur les Mouvements de l'Atmosph \` e re (Studies on the Movement of the Atmosphere). Part 1 , 39 pp

  8. [16]

    Innes, H., Tsai, S.-M., & Pierrehumbert, R. T. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 953, 168, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace346

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    2022, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 14, 10.1029/2021ms002759

    Jeevanjee, N., & Zhou, L. 2022, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 14, 10.1029/2021ms002759

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    M., Ferretti, S

    Jenney, A. M., Ferretti, S. L., & Pritchard, M. S. 2023, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 15, 10.1029/2022MS003444

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    Kasting, J. F. 1988, Icarus, 74, 472, 10.1016/0019-1035(88)90116-9

    1988 doi

  12. [20]

    M.-R., Zahnle, K., & Fortney, J

    Kempton, E. M.-R., Zahnle, K., & Fortney, J. J. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 745, 3

    2011

  13. [21]

    Koll, D. D. B., & Cronin, T. W. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 881, 120, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab30c4

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    2017, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 598, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629140

    Leconte, J., Selsis, F., Hersant, F., & Guillot, T. 2017, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 598, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629140

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    Leconte, J., Spiga, A., Cl \' e ment, N., et al. 2024, 1. 2401.06608

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 240, 37, 10.3847/1538-4365/aafdaa

    Li, C., & Chen, X. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 240, 37, 10.3847/1538-4365/aafdaa

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    Madhusudhan, N., Piette, A. A. A., & Constantinou, S. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 918, 1, 10.3847/1538-4357/abfd9c

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 956, L13

    Madhusudhan, N., Sarkar, S., Constantinou, S., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 956, L13

    2023

  19. [27]

    W., Weiss, L

    Marcy, G. W., Weiss, L. M., Petigura, E. A., et al. 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111, 12655, 10.1073/pnas.1304197111

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 665, A12, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243359

    Markham, S., Guillot, T., & Stevenson, D. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 665, A12, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243359

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    2024, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 81, 1475, 10.1175/jas-d-23-0076.1

    McKinney, M., & Mitchell, J. 2024, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 81, 1475, 10.1175/jas-d-23-0076.1

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    Misener, W., & Schlichting, H. E. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 6025, 10.1093/mnras/stac1732

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 819

    Mol Lous, M., Helled, R., & Mordasini, C. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 819

    2022

  24. [32]

    A., Howard, A

    Petigura, E. A., Howard, A. W., & Marcy, G. W. 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 19273, 10.1073/pnas.1319909110

    2013 doi

  25. [33]

    2011, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 734, 1, 10.1088/2041-8205/734/1/L13

    Pierrehumbert, R., & Gaidos, E. 2011, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 734, 1, 10.1088/2041-8205/734/1/L13

    2011 doi

  26. [34]

    Pierrehumbert, R. T. 2011, Principles of planetary climate (Cambridge University Press)

    2011

  27. [35]

    Romps, D. M. 2008, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 65, 3779, 10.1175/2008JAS2679.1

    2008 doi

  28. [36]

    2021, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 147, 3493, 10.1002/qj.4154

    ---. 2021, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 147, 3493, 10.1002/qj.4154

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    T., & Wordsworth, R

    Seeley, J. T., & Wordsworth, R. D. 2021, Nature, 599, 10.1038/s41586-021-03919-z

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    2023, The Planetary Science Journal, 4, 34, 10.3847/psj/acb0cb

    ---. 2023, The Planetary Science Journal, 4, 34, 10.3847/psj/acb0cb

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    D., & Yang, D

    Seidel, S. D., & Yang, D. 2020, Science Advances, 6, 1, 10.1126/sciadv.aba1951

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    S., & Yang, J

    Song, X., Abbot, D. S., & Yang, J. 2024, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 16, 10.1029/2023MS003912

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    E., & Mitchell, J

    Spaulding-Astudillo, F. E., & Mitchell, J. L. 2024, accepted to Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems. 2306.03219

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Sugiyama, K., Nakajima, K., Odaka, M., Kuramoto, K., & Hayashi, Y. Y. 2014, Icarus, 229, 71, 10.1016/j.icarus.2013.10.016

    2014 doi

  35. [43]

    2011, Geophysical Research Letters, 38, 2, 10.1029/2011GL047878

    Sugiyama, K., Nakajima, K., Odaka, M., et al. 2011, Geophysical Research Letters, 38, 2, 10.1029/2011GL047878

    2011 doi

  36. [44]

    Tan, X., Lef \` e vre, M., & Pierrehumbert, R. T. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 923, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3e69

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    N., & Fabrycky, D

    Winn, J. N., & Fabrycky, D. C. 2015, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 53, 409, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122246

    2015 doi

  38. [46]

    2012, Icarus, 219, 267

    Wordsworth, R. 2012, Icarus, 219, 267

    2012

  39. [47]

    Yang, D., & Seidel, S. D. 2020, Journal of Climate, 33, 2841, 10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0260.1

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    2023, Environmental Research: Climate, 2, 015006, 10.1088/2752-5295/acba39

    ---. 2023, Environmental Research: Climate, 2, 015006, 10.1088/2752-5295/acba39

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    2022, Nature Geoscience, in press, 15, 10.1038/s41561-022-01033-x

    Yang, D., Zhou, W., & Seidel, S. 2022, Nature Geoscience, in press, 15, 10.1038/s41561-022-01033-x

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    D., Shahar, A., & Schlichting, H

    Young, E. D., Shahar, A., & Schlichting, H. E. 2023, Nature, 616, 306, 10.1038/s41586-023-05823-0

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.