Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 76 references

Habitability in 4-D: Predicting the Climates of Earth Analogs across Rotation and Orbital Configurations

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 For Earth-like planets, one number — rotation period — appears to control climate habitability, with the fraction of warm, wet land collapsing from roughly 70% to 20% once days grow longer than about 20 Earth days.

desk verdict A solid but metric-sensitive map of 4-D habitability: rotation dominates, eccentricity doesn't matter much, but the ~20-day drop is an artifact of monthly averaging that needs a sensitivity check. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19357 v1 pith:4FNWFK7G submitted 2024-12-26 astro-ph.EP

Arthur D. Adams , Christopher Colose , Aronne Merrelli , Margaret Turnbull , Stephen R. Kane This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords habitabilitymetricrotationperiodobliquityorbitaleccentricitylongitudeofperiastronexoplanetclimategeneralcirculationmodelsGaussianprocessemulation
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

Earth-like planets in the habitable zone can have wildly different climates depending on how fast they spin and how the spin is oriented, and this paper tries to map out which configurations keep land warm and wet enough for life as we know it. The authors ran 93 three-dimensional climate models of Earth analogs spanning rotation period, obliquity, orbital eccentricity, and longitude of periastron, then used statistical emulation to turn those scattered runs into a smooth prediction of habitability across all four parameters. Their central claim is that rotation period dominates: for days longer than about 20 Earth days, the fraction of land that stays above freezing with adequate rain drops from roughly 70% to 20%, driven by cooler land temperatures. Obliquity matters only as a secondary lever on fast rotators, and eccentricity up to 0.225 barely registers. If correct, this singles out one measurable quantity — planet spin — as the key to predicting which Earth analogs are worth observing.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the fractional climate habitability metric f_HZ (denoted H in the body), defined as the land-area-weighted fraction of grid cells whose monthly mean surface temperature lies between 0 and 100 °C and whose yearly precipitation reaches 300 mm, with the temperature indicator applied before time averaging so that slow-rotator diurnal cycles count only where they persist for roughly a month. Around that metric the paper builds a four-dimensional parameter study: Latin Hypercube Sampling distributes 92 non-Earth GCM runs evenly across rotation period, obliquity, eccentricity, and longitude of periastron, and a Gaussian process regressor with a radial-basis-function kernel interpolates habitability between the runs, with the eccentricity pair recast as (e cos φ_p, e sin φ_p) so the kernel sees a Cartesian space. The emulator is validated against a held-out test set of 46 runs, and the rotation-period gradient it recovers, steepest between 16 and 32 days, is the mechanism that carries the paper's main claim.

What would settle it

Take the existing 64-day and 128-day rotation runs, the models where the diurnal cycle is actually resolved, and recompute the temperature metric against daily output instead of monthly means. If daily-thresholded f_T rises above the monthly value by more than the run-to-run scatter, then the sharp habitability collapse near 20 days is inflated by temporal averaging, and the cliff's true location and steepness would need re-measuring.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim, stated on its own terms, is this: for planets with Earth's surface conditions and annual insolation, the fraction of land that is both above freezing and wet enough for life is set overwhelmingly by rotation period, over the full explored ranges of obliquity (0–90°), eccentricity (up to 0.225), and longitude of periastron. The emulated habitability map shows a cliff near 20 days of rotation: at shorter periods roughly 60–80% of land meets the temperature-and-precipitation criterion, while no model with a rotation period longer than 32 days shows average habitability above 0.25, no matter how the other three parameters are set. The same map assigns obliquity a factor-of-two influence, largest at intermediate obliquity, but only for rotation periods under about 20 days, and assigns eccentricity an effect too weak for the emulator to attribute with confidence.

Load-bearing premise

The whole map rests on monthly-averaged model output being a fair unit of habitability, even though the daily temperature cycle is resolved only for rotation periods of 64 days and longer, so the reported fractions — and the location of the ~20-day drop — would change if shorter warm spells were counted as habitable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Mission target selection should treat rotation period as a primary filter: a planet with a ~10-day spin and low-to-intermediate obliquity is far more likely to expose temperate, rainy land than a ~30-day rotator on an otherwise identical orbit.
  • Time-series observations that constrain rotation would directly test the predicted habitability break, since current transit and radial-velocity surveys constrain orbital elements but not spin.
  • The habitability cliff is a land-temperature effect, not a rainfall effect: oceans retain near-100% habitable fractions out to 128-day rotations, so ocean-dominated worlds would stay habitable by this metric even where continents freeze.
  • The training-and-test emulator design makes four-dimensional parameter sweeps of expensive climate models affordable, offering a template for extending GCM-based habitability studies beyond the rotation-and-orbit parameters explored here.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If habitability were judged on a growing-season or diurnal timescale instead of monthly means, the ~20-day cliff would likely soften and shift toward slower rotation: the monthly metric writes off short warm spells by construction, and the paper only resolves the diurnal cycle at rotation periods of 64 days and beyond.
  • The weak eccentricity signal is at least partly a consequence of averaging: the metric integrates over full orbits and over all land, so seasonally extreme but locally habitable intervals are washed out, and the emulator's one hint of an eccentricity dependence rests on a single training point.
  • Holding the same sampling-and-emulation pipeline to parameters this paper fixes — ocean fraction, atmospheric CO2, continental layout — would show whether the rotation-dominated result transfers beyond the single Earth-analog configuration modeled here.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents 93 ROCKE-3D general circulation model simulations of Earth-like planets, varying rotation period, obliquity, orbital eccentricity, and longitude of periastron via Latin Hypercube Sampling. A Gaussian-process emulator is trained on 46 runs and tested on an independent 46-run sample to map a combined temperature-precipitation climate habitability metric fH defined over land from monthly model outputs. The central claim is that, for eccentricities up to 0.225, rotation period is the primary driver of fH, with a sharp drop from ~70% to ~20% for rotation periods beyond ~20 days, and that obliquity is a secondary factor for fast rotators. The paper also compares its metric against previous work by Jansen et al. (2019) and He et al. (2022) and discusses the physical mechanisms behind the rotation-period dependence.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a practically important result for exoplanet habitability: a single spin parameter, rather than orbital shape, may set the climate habitability of Earth-like planets in the habitable zone, with direct implications for target selection and follow-up observations. The methodological framework—LHS sampling of a four-dimensional parameter space, GP emulation with a held-out test set, and public code and data—is a strength and makes the study reproducible. The paper also gives a careful comparison to prior habitability metrics and honestly acknowledges several limitations, including the unresolved diurnal cycle. However, the headline quantitative finding (the ~20-day drop and its magnitude) is sensitive to the monthly averaging used to define fH, a sensitivity the authors themselves flag in Section 6.1; this needs to be addressed before the central claim can be taken at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [§6.1, Eq. (2)] The central claim of a sharp drop in habitability between ~20 and ~32 days is computed from monthly-mean temperatures, but the authors concede in §6.1 that the diurnal cycle is only resolved for rotation periods of 64 days and above, and that shorter averaging would change fH. For Prot = 20–30 days, the sunlit interval lasts ~10–15 consecutive days, which is not the 'few days' that the §6.1 growing-season argument dismisses; the monthly-mean indicator in Eq. (2) counts a cell as uninhabitable for an entire month whose mean temperature is below 0°C even if the cell is above freezing for a substantial fraction of that month. The claimed location and magnitude of the drop are therefore not robust to the averaging interval, and the abstract's '~20 days' and '~70% to ~20%' are overstated as physical findings. I recommend either recomputing fH from daily or 6-hourly outputs for a subset of runs spanning Prot = 16–64 days to test robustness, or explicitly qualifying the abstract and conclusions as applying to the monthly-mean metric.
  2. [Table 1, §5.4] Table 1 does not list rotation periods for the test set, and the text in §5.4 gives test Case 16 Prot = 4.59 days and test Case 27 Prot = 21.1 days, which are identical to the training-set Prot values for the same case numbers. As printed, this makes the independence of the test sample in the primary driver dimension unverifiable, and if the test set reuses the training Prot values, the held-out validation in §5.4 would not test interpolation in the rotation-period direction. Please add the missing test Prot column or otherwise clarify how the two LHS samples are independent in this dimension.
  3. [§5.4, Fig. 13] Of the 14 test points that deviate from the emulator prediction by more than 1σ, 11 are underestimates and all occur at rotation periods shorter than 64 days. The authors state that the 14/46 count is consistent with Gaussian expectations, but they do not test the sign asymmetry; a two-tailed binomial test on 11 of 14 deviations being one-signed has p ≈ 0.06, which is marginal. If the emulator systematically underpredicts fH in the fast-rotation regime, the contrast between fast and slow rotators—and hence the quantitative '70% to 20%' drop—could be exaggerated. Please discuss this asymmetry and, if possible, test for bias.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (2)] The precipitation indicator Iprec assigns a 1 to a cell for the entire year if the annual total exceeds 300 mm, regardless of whether the precipitation falls in a single month; the paper notes this in §4.2, but the text could more explicitly state that fprec is insensitive to seasonal concentration of rainfall.
  2. [Fig. 1] The caption states that the global fractional averages agree closely with Jansen et al. (2019) up to 32 days; the plotted symbols for the different studies are not always easy to distinguish in gray-scale, so different marker shapes would improve readability.
  3. [§6.1] The sentence noting that 'the faster rotation periods would also have different fractional habitabilities if the calculation was made from shorter averaging periods' is an understatement that could be quantified; a simple sensitivity estimate for Prot = 20–30 days would help the reader judge the magnitude of the effect.
  4. [Table 2] The RBF length scales for e cos φp are reported as ≳10^3 for fT and H, which effectively means the emulator is flat in that dimension; the table could note that such large values indicate the dimension is uninformative, reinforcing the paper's claim of a weak eccentricity dependence.
  5. [Abstract] The phrase 'for rotation periods greater than ~20 days, habitability drops significantly' should be qualified with 'for the monthly-mean metric used here' or similar, given the acknowledged dependence of fH on the averaging interval.
  6. [§3.3] The emulator's predictive variance is zero at training points because the GCM is treated as deterministic; the paper states this, but it is worth reminding the reader that the reported uncertainties exclude GCM internal variability, which is partially validated by the test-set residuals but not propagated into the headline fH values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the emulator is validated on held-out GCM runs, thresholds are externally anchored, and the only self-citation (He et al. 2022) is a metric inheritance rather than a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that rotation period, not eccentricity, dominates the temperature-precipitation habitability of Earth analogs. The derivation chain is: (1) define H as the fractional land area satisfying 0-100 C monthly-mean temperature and >=300 mm/yr precipitation (Equation 2, Section 3.2); (2) generate 93 ROCKE-3D simulations at LHS points; (3) fit a Gaussian-process emulator to 46 training runs; (4) test against 46 independently sampled runs (Sections 5.3-5.4); (5) read off the ~20-day drop from the emulated surface. No step forces the conclusion by construction. The habitability thresholds are not fit to the GCM outputs: the 300 mm/yr value is explicitly anchored to terrestrial desert reference data (Willmott & Matsuura 2018), and the 0-100 C window is the standard liquid-water criterion from Jansen et al. (2019). Only the GP kernel length scales and noise are fitted, and they do not define H; the out-of-sample test (Figure 13) is a genuine held-out comparison. The main in-text caveat is in Section 6.1, which states that monthly outputs 'limit our ability to characterize the diurnal cycle-induced temperature variations to only the slowest rotation periods (64 days and above), and does imply that the faster rotation periods would also have different fractional habitabilities if the calculation was made from shorter averaging periods.' That is a temporal-resolution limitation that could shift the exact location of the ~20-day boundary, but it is not a circular reduction: the metric definition does not encode that boundary, and Appendix B checks robustness under altered temperature and precipitation thresholds. The one bibliographic overlap is that the metric is adopted in modified form from He et al. (2022), which shares co-authors Merrelli and Turnbull; this is a definitional inheritance with external justification, not a load-bearing self-citation or a fitted input renamed as a prediction. Hence no circular step; score 2 reflects only that minor self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests primarily on model assumptions (GCM fidelity, monthly averaging, threshold habitability metric) and on fitted GP kernel hyperparameters, not on new physical entities or ad hoc constants. The habitability thresholds are inherited from prior literature, and the kernel hyperparameters are standard statistical smoothing parameters.

free parameters (1)
  • Gaussian process kernel hyperparameters (RBF length scales and white noise) = Training H emulator: log2(Prot) scale 1.20, obliquity 40.3 deg, e cos phi 1.63, e sin phi >1000, white noise <1e-9
    These are fit to the 46 training runs and set the smoothness and uncertainty of the emulator. They influence the relative importance of rotation vs obliquity in the interpolated maps, though the main trends are also visible in direct GCM outputs.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption ROCKE-3D with the configured physics (SOCRATES radiation, 4x5 degree resolution, 40 layers, 1360 m ocean) faithfully represents the climate of Earth-like exoplanets across the explored parameter range.
    Section 2.1 describes the model setup; no independent validation against real exoplanet climates is provided.
  • domain assumption Monthly output cadence is sufficient for computing fractional habitability.
    Section 3.2 and Section 6.1; the authors explicitly note that faster rotators would give different fH values with shorter averaging periods.
  • domain assumption Habitability can be represented by the temperature (0-100 C) and precipitation (>300 mm/yr) thresholds adopted from Jansen et al. 2019 and He et al. 2022.
    Section 3.2; these thresholds are proxies for life as we know it, not independently derived for this study.
  • domain assumption The Gaussian process with RBF and white kernels adequately models the fH surface over the 4-D parameter space.
    Section 3.3; tested in Section 5.4 but not proven for unsampled regions, especially the eccentricity dimensions.
  • domain assumption Each GCM run has reached radiative equilibrium when its 30-orbit running mean net flux is near zero.
    Section 2.1; climate equilibrium is difficult to assess and the authors cite literature on this ambiguity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Habitability in 4-D: Predicting the Climates of Earth Analogs across Rotation and Orbital Configurations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4FNWFK7G

@misc{pith2026241219357,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Habitability in 4-D: Predicting the Climates of Earth Analogs across Rotation and Orbital Configurations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4FNWFK7G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19357}
}
abstract

Earth-like planets in the circumstellar habitable zone (HZ) may have dramatically different climate outcomes depending on their spin-orbit parameters, altering their habitability for life as we know it. We present a suite of 93 ROCKE-3D general circulation models (GCMs) for planets with the same surface conditions and average annual insolation as Earth, but with a wide range of rotation periods, obliquities, orbital eccentricities, and longitudes of periastra. Our habitability metric $f_\mathrm{HZ}$ is calculated based on the temperature and precipitation in each model across grid cells over land. Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) aids in sampling all 4 of the spin-orbit parameters with a computationally feasible number of GCM runs. Statistical emulation then allows us to model $f_\mathrm{HZ}$ as a smooth function with built-in estimates of statistical uncertainty. We fit our emulator to an initial set of 46 training runs, then test with an additional 46 runs at different spin-orbit values. Our emulator predicts the directly GCM-modeled habitability values for the test runs at the appropriate level of accuracy and precision. For orbital eccentricities up to 0.225, rotation period remains the primary driver of the fraction of land that remains above freezing and with precipitation above a threshold value. For rotation periods greater than $\sim 20$ days, habitability drops significantly (from $\sim 70$% to $\sim 20$%), driven primarily by cooler land temperatures. Obliquity is a significant secondary factor for rotation periods less than $\sim 20$ Earth days, with a factor of two impact on habitability that is maximized at intermediate obliquity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19357 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A comparison of the global temperature-based habitability metric of Jansen et al. (2019), in orange squares, as defined in Equation 1, with the fractional land temperature averages (fT) in circles, as calculated from Equation 2. The fractional averages are colored based on whether they are averaged over the entire globe (green), only the oceans (blue), or only land (pink). Our global fractional averages agree very c… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Contours denoting the emulated values of the fractional land average temperature fT, precipitation fprec, and habitability metric H, as calculated from Equation 2 and defined in §3.2, for the climate models originally published in He et al. (2022). For non-eccentric orbits, rotation period is the strongest predictor of whether on average a planet’s land will maintain a minimum surface temperature and therefore habit… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Time averages of the surface temperature for the 1st quintile of the training and test models in rotation period, ordered fastest to slowest. While the rotation periods are organized in increasing order from top left to bottom right, the remaining spin and orbital parameters (obliquity, eccentricity, and longitude of periapse) vary according to the configuration from the Latin Hypercube Sampling algorithm, and are t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time averages of the surface temperature for the 2nd quintile of the training and test models in rotation period, ordered fastest to slowest. While the rotation periods are organized in increasing order from top left to bottom right, the remaining spin and orbital para…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Time averages of the surface temperature for the 3rd quintile of the training and test models in rotation period, ordered fastest to slowest. While the rotation periods are organized in increasing order from top left to bottom right, the remaining spin and orbital para…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Time averages of the surface temperature for the 4th quintile of the training and test models in rotation period, ordered fastest to slowest. While the rotation periods are organized in increasing order from top left to bottom right, the remaining spin and orbital para…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Time averages of the surface temperature for the 5th quintile of the training and test models in rotation period, ordered fastest to slowest. While the rotation periods are organized in increasing order from top left to bottom right, the remaining spin and orbital para…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The total land averages of surface temperature and precipitation, each as a function of the 4 varied parameters of the model runs. The average temperature generally is negatively correlated with rotation period, while the other parameters show very little structure. Av…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Fractional averages of the surface temperature (left) and precipitation (center) for each of the model runs. Fractional averages are defined as the averages over all model times, weighted by area, of land that satisfies the prescribed habitability conditions in tempera…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The emulated fractional averages of surface temperature (fT) for the training set. The emulations are shown across the four model dimensions as a “grid of grids”, where each sub-plot shows rotation period versus obliquity, and the sub-plots are arranged such that ecce…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The emulated fractional averages of precipitation (fprec) for the training set. The emulations are shown across the four model dimensions as a “grid of grids”, where each sub-plot shows rotation period versus obliquity, and the sub-plots are arranged such that eccentr…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The emulated fractional averages of the habitability metric for the training set. The emulation is shown across the four model dimensions as a “grid of grids”, where each sub-plot shows rotation period versus obliquity, and the sub-plots are arranged such that eccentr…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: A comparison of the habitability metrics from the test models (filled circles), compared with the habitability metric values predicted by the emulator at the locations of the test points (open circles). The error bars are the emulator’s estimated uncertainties in its …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The residuals in the emulator predictions of the habitability values from the test set of GCM runs, plotted versus the RMS distance in the parameter space (as defined in Equation 5). Each point is colored on a log scale by the rotation period of the run. While we see …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The habitability metric for the combined training and test models (top) and the associated statistical uncertainties in the emulation (bottom). The emulation is shown across the four model dimensions as a “grid of grids”, where each sub-plot shows rotation period vers…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The temperature metric (fT) for the combined training and test models (top) and the associated statistical uncertainties in the emulation (bottom). The emulation is shown across the four model dimensions as a “grid of grids”, where each sub-plot shows rotation period …
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The precipitation metric (fprec) for the combined training and test models (top) and the associated statistical uncertainties in the emulation (bottom). The emulation is shown across the four model dimensions as a “grid of grids”, where each sub-plot shows rotation pe…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 22 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]

    A near-infrared interferometric survey of debris disc stars. II. CHARA/FLUOR observations of six early-type dwarfs

    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...

    work page Pith review arXiv 1983

  4. [4]

    H., & Zahnle, K

    Abe, Y., Abe-Ouchi, A., Sleep, N. H., & Zahnle, K. J. 2011, Astrobiology, 11, 443, 10.1089/ast.2010.0545

    arXiv 2011

  5. [5]

    2024, adadams/habitability\_metrics: v1.0.1, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.14556043

    Adams, A. 2024, adadams/habitability\_metrics: v1.0.1, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.14556043

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.14556043 2024

  6. [6]

    2023, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 125, 10.3847/1538-3881/acb533

    An, D.-S., Xie, J.-W., Dai, Y.-Z., & Zhou, J.-L. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 125, 10.3847/1538-3881/acb533

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acb533 2023

  7. [7]

    2014, Astrobiology, 14, 277, 10.1089/ast.2013.1129

    Armstrong, J., Barnes, R., Domagal-Goldman, S., et al. 2014, Astrobiology, 14, 277, 10.1089/ast.2013.1129

    arXiv 2014

  8. [8]

    2009, International Journal of Astrobiology, 8, 81, 10.1017/S1473550409004406

    Arnold, L., Bréon, F.-M., & Brewer, S. 2009, International Journal of Astrobiology, 8, 81, 10.1017/S1473550409004406

    work page doi:10.1017/s1473550409004406 2009

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    2013, aap, 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille, T., Tollerud, E., et al. 2013, aap, 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Phillips, R., & Milo, R

    Bar-On, Y. M., Phillips, R., & Milo, R. 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, 6506, 10.1073/pnas.1711842115

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    1993, jgr, 98, 10, 10.1029/93JD00222

    Berger, A., Loutre, M.-F., & Tricot, C. 1993, jgr, 98, 10, 10.1029/93JD00222

    1993 doi

  4. [12]

    L., Seifahrt, A., et al

    Brady, M., Bean, J. L., Seifahrt, A., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 168, 67, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad500a

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    M., Haqq-Misra, J., Wolf, E

    Colose, C. M., Haqq-Misra, J., Wolf, E. T., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 921, 25, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac135c

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    Dai, A., Huang, D., Rose, B. E. J., Zhu, J., & Tian, X. 2020, Climate Dynamics, 54, 4515, 10.1007/s00382-020-05242-1

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    2018, The Astronomical Journal, 155, 266, 10.3847/1538-3881/aac214

    Deitrick, R., Barnes, R., Bitz, C., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 155, 266, 10.3847/1538-3881/aac214

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    Dobrovolskis, A. R. 2013, Icarus, 226, 760, 10.1016/j.icarus.2013.06.026

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    2015, Astrobiology, 15, 739, 10.1089/ast.2015.1325

    Driscoll, P., & Barnes, R. 2015, Astrobiology, 15, 739, 10.1089/ast.2015.1325

    2015

  10. [18]

    2013, Icarus, 226, 1447, 10.1016/j.icarus.2013.07.025

    Driscoll, P., & Bercovici, D. 2013, Icarus, 226, 1447, 10.1016/j.icarus.2013.07.025

    2013 doi

  11. [19]

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

    1996 doi

  12. [20]

    M., & Slingo, A

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

    1996 doi

  13. [21]

    G., McNally, W., Virgin, J

    Fletcher, C. G., McNally, W., Virgin, J. G., & King, F. 2022, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 14, 10.1029/2021MS002836

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    J., & Driscoll, P

    Foley, B. J., & Driscoll, P. E. 2016, Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 17, 1885, 10.1002/2015GC006210

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    J., & Smye, A

    Foley, B. J., & Smye, A. J. 2018, Astrobiology, 18, 873, 10.1089/ast.2017.1695

    2018

  16. [24]

    L., Kitzmann, D., et al

    Godolt, M., Grenfell, J. L., Kitzmann, D., et al. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 592, A36, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628413

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Valdes, P

    Gregoire, L. J., Valdes, P. J., Payne, A. J., & Kahana, R. 2011, Climate Dynamics, 37, 705, 10.1007/s00382-010-0934-8

    2011 doi

  18. [26]

    T., Fauchez, T

    Haqq-Misra, J., Wolf, E. T., Fauchez, T. J., & Kopparapu, R. K. 2024, The Planetary Science Journal, 5, 140, 10.3847/PSJ/ad50a7

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    S., & Turnbull, M

    He, F., Merrelli, A., L’Ecuyer, T. S., & Turnbull, M. C. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 933, 62, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6951

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    L., Bott, K., Dalba, P

    Hill, M. L., Bott, K., Dalba, P. A., et al. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 34, 10.3847/1538-3881/aca1c0

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    2017, Journal of Open Research Software, 5, 10.5334/jors.148

    Hoyer, S., & Hamman, J. 2017, Journal of Open Research Software, 5, 10.5334/jors.148

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  23. [31]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 875, 79, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab113d

    Jansen, T., Scharf, C., Way, M., & Del Genio, A. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 875, 79, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab113d

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    2001, \ SciPy \ : Open source scientific tools for \ Python \

    Jones, E., Oliphant, T., Peterson, P., & others . 2001, \ SciPy \ : Open source scientific tools for \ Python \ . http://www.scipy.org/

    2001

  25. [33]

    R., Ciardi, D

    Kane, S. R., Ciardi, D. R., Gelino, D. M., & von Braun, K. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 425, 757, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21627.x

    2012

  26. [34]

    R., & Torres, S

    Kane, S. R., & Torres, S. M. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 154, 204, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa8fce

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    R., Hill, M

    Kane, S. R., Hill, M. L., Kasting, J. F., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 830, 1, 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/1

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    F., Whitmire, D

    Kasting, J. F., Whitmire, D. P., & Reynolds, R. T. 1993, Icarus, 101, 108, 10.1006/icar.1993.1010

    1993

  29. [37]

    Y., Colose, C., Ruedy, R., et al

    Kiang, N. Y., Colose, C., Ruedy, R., et al. 2021, 53

    2021

  30. [38]

    2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing : Players , Agents and Agendas , ed

    Kluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley, B., Perez, F., et al. 2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing : Players , Agents and Agendas , ed. F. Loizides & B. Scmidt (IOS Press), 87--90, 10.3233/978-1-61499-649-1-87

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    2014, apjl, 787, L29, 10.1088/2041-8205/787/2/L29

    Kopparapu, R., Ramirez, R., SchottelKotte, J., et al. 2014, apjl, 787, L29, 10.1088/2041-8205/787/2/L29

    2014 doi

  32. [40]

    K., Ramirez, R., Kasting, J

    Kopparapu, R. K., Ramirez, R., Kasting, J. F., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 765, 131, 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/131

    2013 doi

  33. [41]

    2013, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 554, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321042

    Leconte, J., Forget, F., Charnay, B., et al. 2013, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 554, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321042

    2013 doi

  34. [42]

    A., Carslaw, K

    Lee, L. A., Carslaw, K. S., Pringle, K. J., Mann, G. W., & Spracklen, D. V. 2011, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 11, 12253, 10.5194/acp-11-12253-2011

    2011 doi

  35. [43]

    W., Jellinek, A

    Lenardic, A., Crowley, J. W., Jellinek, A. M., & Weller, M. 2016 a , Astrobiology, 16, 551, 10.1089/ast.2015.1378

    2016

  36. [44]

    M., Foley, B., O'Neill, C., & Moore, W

    Lenardic, A., Jellinek, A. M., Foley, B., O'Neill, C., & Moore, W. B. 2016 b , Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 121, 1831, 10.1002/2016JE005089

    2016 doi

  37. [45]

    H., Shields, A

    Lobo, A. H., Shields, A. L., Palubski, I. Z., & Wolf, E. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 945, 161, 10.3847/1538-4357/aca970

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    2013, pyDOE

    Martinez, J.-M., Collette, Y., Baudin, M., & Christopoulou, M. 2013, pyDOE . https://pythonhosted.org/pyDOE/

    2013

  39. [47]

    2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference , ed

    McKinney, W. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference , ed. S. van der Walt & J. Millman, 51--56

    2010

  40. [48]

    1941, Royal Serbian Academy Special Publication, 133, 1

    Milanković, M. 1941, Royal Serbian Academy Special Publication, 133, 1. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1572824499597240704

    1941

  41. [49]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 934, 74, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6a56

    Mollière, P., Molyarova, T., Bitsch, B., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 934, 74, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6a56

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    Olson, P., & Christensen, U. R. 2006, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 250, 561, 10.1016/j.epsl.2006.08.008

    2006 doi

  43. [51]

    T., & Kaltenegger, L

    O'Malley-James, J. T., & Kaltenegger, L. 2018, Astrobiology, 18, 1123, 10.1089/ast.2017.1798

    2018

  44. [52]

    2006, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 91, 1290, 10.1016/j.ress.2005.11.025

    O’Hagan, A. 2006, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 91, 1290, 10.1016/j.ress.2005.11.025

    2006 doi

  45. [53]

    M., Suárez Mascareño, A., Allart, R., et al

    Passegger, V. M., Suárez Mascareño, A., Allart, R., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 684, A22, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348592

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    2011

  47. [55]

    2018, Geosciences, 8, 280, 10.3390/geosciences8080280

    Ramirez, R. 2018, Geosciences, 8, 280, 10.3390/geosciences8080280

    2018 doi

  48. [56]

    M., & Kaltenegger, L

    Ramirez, R. M., & Kaltenegger, L. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 797, L25, 10.1088/2041-8205/797/2/L25

    2014 doi

  49. [57]

    E., & Williams, C

    Rasmussen, C. E., & Williams, C. K. I. 2006, Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning (MIT Press). https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006gpml.book.....R

    2006

  50. [58]

    2020, Geophysical Research Letters, 47, e2019GL083898, 10.1029/2019GL083898

    Rugenstein, M., Bloch‐Johnson, J., Gregory, J., et al. 2020, Geophysical Research Letters, 47, e2019GL083898, 10.1029/2019GL083898

    2020 doi

  51. [59]

    W., Kiang, N

    Schwieterman, E. W., Kiang, N. Y., Parenteau, M. N., et al. 2018, Astrobiology, 18, 663, 10.1089/ast.2017.1729

    2018

  52. [60]

    2005, Astrobiology, 5, 372, 10.1089/ast.2005.5.372

    Seager, S., Turner, E., Schafer, J., & Ford, E. 2005, Astrobiology, 5, 372, 10.1089/ast.2005.5.372

    2005 doi

  53. [61]

    Sexton, D. M. H., Karmalkar, A. V., Murphy, J. M., et al. 2019, Climate Dynamics, 53, 989, 10.1007/s00382-019-04625-3

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    2014, apjl, 785, L9, 10.1088/2041-8205/785/1/L9

    Shields, A., Bitz, C., Meadows, V., Joshi, M., & Robinson, T. 2014, apjl, 785, L9, 10.1088/2041-8205/785/1/L9

    2014 doi

  55. [63]

    2010, apj, 721, 1308, 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1308

    Spiegel, D., Raymond, S., Dressing, C., Scharf, C., & Mitchell, J. 2010, apj, 721, 1308, 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1308

    2010 doi

  56. [64]

    S., Menou, K., & Scharf, C

    Spiegel, D. S., Menou, K., & Scharf, C. A. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 681, 1609, 10.1086/588089

    2008 doi

  57. [65]

    2023, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 200, 10.3847/1538-3881/acc336

    Spinelli, R., Gallo, E., Haardt, F., et al. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 200, 10.3847/1538-3881/acc336

    2023 doi

  58. [66]

    I., & Vallis, G

    Thomson, S. I., & Vallis, G. K. 2019, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 145, 2627, 10.1002/qj.3582

    2019 doi

  59. [67]

    2015, Environmental Modelling and Software, 63, 24, 10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.09.017

    Uusitalo, L., Lehikoinen, A., Helle, I., & Myrberg, K. 2015, Environmental Modelling and Software, 63, 24, 10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.09.017

    2015 doi

  60. [68]

    C., & Varoquaux, G

    van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science Engineering, 13, 22, 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37

    2011 doi

  61. [69]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 808, 126, 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/126

    Van Eylen, V., & Albrecht, S. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 808, 126, 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/126

    2015 doi

  62. [70]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, stab2143, 10.1093/mnras/stab2143

    Van Eylen, V., Astudillo-Defru, N., Bonfils, X., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, stab2143, 10.1093/mnras/stab2143

    2021 doi

  63. [71]

    R., Kirtland Turner, S., & Gilmore, J

    Vervoort, P., Horner, J., Kane, S. R., Kirtland Turner, S., & Gilmore, J. B. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 164, 130, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac87fd

    2022 doi

  64. [72]

    J., & Georgakarakos, N

    Way, M. J., & Georgakarakos, N. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 835, 1, 10.3847/2041-8213/835/1/L1

    2016 doi

  65. [73]

    J., Georgakarakos, N., & Clune, T

    Way, M. J., Georgakarakos, N., & Clune, T. L. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 166, 227, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0373

    2023 doi

  66. [74]

    J., Aleinov, I., Amundsen, D

    Way, M. J., Aleinov, I., Amundsen, D. S., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 231, 12, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa7a06

    2017 doi

  67. [75]

    J., & Matsuura, K

    Willmott, C. J., & Matsuura, K. 2018, Terrestrial Precipitation : 1900-2017 Gridded Monthly Time Series . http://climate.geog.udel.edu/html_pages/download.html

    2018

  68. [76]

    T., Shields, A

    Wolf, E. T., Shields, A. L., Kopparapu, R. K., Haqq-Misra, J., & Toon, O. B. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 837, 107, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ffc

    2017 doi

Pith tools

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