Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 53 references

Bridging the Atmospheric Circulations of Hot and Warm Giant Exoplanets

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The large-scale circulation of tidally locked giant planets is set by dynamical numbers, not by equilibrium temperature.

desk verdict A useful two-planet simulation study with a clear qualitative result, but the causal attribution to the Rossby deformation scale is not isolated by the design; worth sending to referees with a demand for control runs. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01397 v1 pith:S2MTLVXC submitted 2025-05-02 astro-ph.EP

J. W. Skinner , S. Wei This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords ExoplanetsExoplanetatmospheresatmosphericdynamicsHotJupitersWarmgiantplanetsRossbydeformationscaleTidallylockedHydrodynamicsimulations
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

The paper sets out to show that the broad pattern of a tidally locked giant planet's atmosphere is governed by a few dynamical parameters, not by how hot the planet is. It simulates a KELT-11b-like hot Jupiter and a WASP-39b-like warm Jupiter at identical resolution and with nearly the same thermal forcing shape, while arranging for their Rossby, Froude, and Burger numbers to be comparable. In both simulations the atmosphere organizes into the same qualitative circulation: a turbulent eastward equatorial jet, quasi-zonal mid-latitude flow near 20 degrees, anticyclonic polar vortices, and large-scale Rossby waves. The differences that do appear, such as jet width and strength, whether polar vortices sit on the pole or precess, and the amplitude and period of disk-integrated flux oscillations, track the difference in Rossby deformation scale. If the claim holds, the observable weather of warm giant planets can be predicted from dynamical similarity rather than from equilibrium temperature alone.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a parameter-similarity construction rather than by a single formula. The planets are chosen so that their Rossby number $Ro$, Froude number $Fr$, Burger number $Bu = (L_D/L)^2$, and deformation scale $L_D$ are comparable; the qualitative circulation is then read as a function of this dynamical regime. Within that regime, $L_D$ does the quantitative work: it sets the horizontal length scale over which waves and vortices interact, so a larger $L_D$ widens the equatorial jet, softens its potential-vorticity gradients, and lets polar vortices couple to and precess around the equatorial flow. The interpretation of the deep Rossby waves uses the quasi-geostrophic $\beta$-plane dispersion relation $c_p = -\beta/(n(n+1)/R^2 + 1/L_D^2)$, which with the planets' parameters predicts a dominant total wavenumber $n \approx 3$ and the observed mode-2, period-about-$3\tau_p$ waves, matching the simulations.

What would settle it

Run the same simulations with the two planets' thermal forcing profiles swapped or reshaped while keeping their dynamical parameters fixed, and check whether the circulation pattern stays qualitatively the same; alternatively, monitor long-baseline phase curves of both planets and look for the predicted flux oscillation amplitudes and periods of roughly $4\tau_p$ for KELT-11b and $3\tau_p$ for WASP-39b.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the result is that two tidally locked gas giants with markedly different equilibrium temperatures, KELT-11b and WASP-39b, develop atmospherically similar circulation when their key dynamical numbers match. The common pattern consists of a broad prograde equatorial flow with turbulent vortices and Rossby-wave undulations, quasi-zonal flow in the extratropics, and a cyclonic ring around an anticyclonic polar vortex in each hemisphere. Quantitative contrasts are attributed to the Rossby deformation scale $L_D$: the hot planet's larger $L_D$ (about $1.5R$) produces broader, roughly 60 to 100 percent stronger equatorial potential-vorticity features, more pronounced wave undulations, and polar vortices that are displaced from the pole and precess with a period near $4\tau_p$, whereas the warm planet's smaller $L_D$ (about $R$) produces a narrower jet, sharper potential-vorticity gradients on the jet flanks, and centered polar vortices. The paper's central claim is that the qualitative circulation regime depends on the dynamical parameter set, with equilibrium temperature entering mainly through its secondary influence on $L_D$, not as the controlling variable.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the two planets being given essentially the same day-night forcing pattern, with the vertical profile of the temperature difference having the same shape and going to zero at 1 bar, so the shared circulation may largely reflect the shared forcing rather than the shared dynamical numbers standing alone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Giant exoplanets currently classified as hot or warm should be expected to share the same qualitative circulation whenever their Rossby, Froude, and Burger numbers and deformation scale are similar, regardless of equilibrium temperature.
  • The Rossby deformation scale, not temperature, sets the width and strength of the equatorial jet, the geometry of polar vortices, and therefore the amplitude and period of time-variable disk-integrated flux.
  • Phase-curve and emission-map observations from current and upcoming space telescopes can be used to infer which dynamical regime a planet sits in, because the simulations predict specific flux oscillation periods and amplitudes near $4\tau_p$ for the hot planet and $3\tau_p$ for the warm planet.
  • If the thermal forcing is made strong and deep, as for HD 209458b, the circulation of both planets becomes predominantly azonal, so forcing strength controls whether the quasi-zonal regime is realized at all.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I would read the paper as implying that the hot versus warm giant-planet division is not a dynamical classification; replacing it with a similarity grouping in $(Ro, Fr, Bu, L_D)$ space would make circulation predictions portable across planets that are observationally very different.
  • A direct extension is to simulate a planet with WASP-39b's temperature but KELT-11b's deformation scale, or vice versa; the paper's logic predicts the circulation should follow $L_D$, not temperature.
  • Because the two forcing profiles were intentionally given the same shape, the cleanest test of the paper's interpretation is a twin simulation in which the forcing shapes are allowed to differ; if the circulation pattern breaks, forcing shape is doing part of the organizing work.
  • The predicted flux oscillation periods of a few orbit periods are within reach of long-baseline JWST phase-curve monitoring, so the dynamical-similarity claim is observationally testable rather than purely numerical.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents high-resolution (T341L50) pseudospectral primitive-equation simulations of two tidally locked giant exoplanets, a hot planet modeled after KELT-11 b and a warmer planet modeled after WASP-39 b. The thermal forcing uses Newtonian relaxation with equilibrium temperature and relaxation time profiles constructed from an as-yet-unpublished self-consistent model. The authors report that, despite markedly different equilibrium temperatures, the two simulations develop qualitatively similar circulation patterns: quasi-zonal flows, turbulent equatorial flow, persistent polar anticyclones, and wavenumber-2 Rossby waves. They attribute quantitative differences in flow width, amplitude, vortex precession, and disk-integrated flux variability to the difference in Rossby deformation length L_D, and they use a quasigeostrophic beta-plane dispersion relation to identify the dominant Rossby mode as n ≈ 3.

Significance. If the causal attribution were established, the paper would make a useful contribution: it would show that qualitative circulation regimes of hot and warm tidally locked giants are controlled by nondimensional dynamical parameters (Rossby, Froude, Burger numbers) rather than by equilibrium temperature alone, with direct implications for interpreting phase curves and JWST/Ariel observations. The paper has real strengths: the code is well-tested and convergence-checked, both planets are run at identical resolution for long integration times, and the diagnostics (potential vorticity, relative vorticity, Hovmöller plots, disk-averaged flux time series) are appropriate and clearly presented. However, the central causal claim is underdetermined by the current experimental design: the two simulations share nearly identical thermal forcing geometry and vertical anomaly shape, so the qualitative similarity may reflect the forcing rather than the dynamical parameters, and no control experiment varies L_D while holding other parameters fixed. The unpublished forcing model also limits reproducibility.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Figure 1, Table 1] The central claim that the qualitative circulation similarity is caused by comparable Rossby and Froude numbers, and that quantitative differences are caused by L_D, is underdetermined by the present design. Both planets are forced with the same lateral modulation cos λ cos φ and, by construction, the same vertical anomaly profile (ΔT_DN ≈ 100 K at 0.05 bar, decreasing linearly in log p to zero at 1 bar), yet they also differ in mass, radius, gravity, rotation rate, scale height, Brunt–Väisälä frequency, and wind speed (Table 1). The identical forcing shape alone could plausibly produce the observed qualitative similarity, and the HP/WP differences could be due to any of the simultaneously varying parameters rather than specifically to L_D. The authors should add a control experiment that varies L_D while holding the forcing profiles and other dynamical numbers fixed, or at minimum an experiment that swaps the Teq(p) and τ_r(p) profiles between the two planets; without such a test the attribution to L_D is not established.
  2. [Section 2.2] The Teq(p) profiles that drive both simulations are computed with a self-consistent radiative-transfer/empirical model whose full description, validation, and fit parameters are deferred to an unpublished companion paper ('Skinner et al., in prep.'). Since the forcing profiles enter every result and their identical vertical structure is central to the similarity interpretation, this is a load-bearing reproducibility gap. The manuscript should either provide the essential details of the polynomial fit and validation or cite a publicly available published description; as written, the reader cannot check whether the two planets' forcing profiles are indeed physically consistent or whether the similarity of the circulations is an artifact of the assumed forcing.
  3. [Section 3, Eq. (2)] The Rossby wave analysis is presented as a prediction ("Equation 2 predicts the dominant linear mode has n ≈ 3"), but it is actually a consistency check: the phase speed c_p is measured from the simulation, the zonal wavenumber m = 2 is read off the same fields, and Eq. (2) is then inverted to obtain n. The mode structure is subsequently confirmed by visual inspection of the same fields. This circularity does not invalidate the identification, but it should be reframed honestly as a consistency check. The claim would be stronger if the authors specified a mode a priori and compared the predicted phase speed with the measured one, or if they presented the inferred n as a diagnostic rather than an independent prediction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, p. 6] The text states that both planets have Ro ≲ 0.15 and Bu = O(1) in mid-to-high latitude regions, while Table 1 lists characteristic Rossby numbers of 0.45 and 0.32; please clarify that the former values are local, away from the equatorial jet, so the two statements are not contradictory.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (3)] The text says "emissivity is assumed to be zero" immediately after defining a Stefan–Boltzmann disk-averaged flux; a zero-emissivity body emits no thermal flux. This is presumably a typo for emissivity equal to unity (or a blackbody), and it should be corrected.
  3. [Abstract and Section 4] There are several typographical errors that should be fixed, including "Rossby waves that gives rise" in the abstract and "distinct, differences" in Section 4.
  4. [Figure 5 discussion, Section 3] The statement that the p = 0.95 bar model fluxes "match closely to full radiative transfer (RT) fluxes" is not supported by any comparison shown in the paper, since the dynamical model does not include radiative transfer; please clarify the provenance of this claim.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Rossby wave 'prediction' is a postdiction; central simulation comparison is not circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3, Rossby wave paragraph and Eq. (2)]
    "We estimate the wave phase speed cp of the Rossby waves from cp = ω/m, where ω is the observed angular frequency of the wave and m = 2. Both are directly measured by detailed analyses of the fields. A wave period of τβ ∼ 3τp is also obtained by visual inspection of Fig. 4. ... Using values of β, cp calculated from the physical parameters of both planets in Table 1, equation 2 predicts the dominant linear mode has n≈ 3. ... The presence of this structure is confirmed by visual inspection of the v fields in the deeper atmospheric regions."

    The 'prediction' of meridional wavenumber n≈3 is not an independent prediction: cp is obtained by measuring ω from the v-field oscillations and fixing m=2 from the same fields, so the dispersion relation is inverted to solve for n from the very wave whose structure is then said to be 'confirmed' by those fields. This is a consistency check or postdiction, not a first-principles prediction. Calling it a prediction presents the diagnostic use of the dispersion relation as an independent test of the theory.

full rationale

The central simulation result is not circular: the circulations are emergent outputs of time-integrating the primitive equations from rest under Newtonian forcing, not quantities defined in terms of the dynamical parameters. The choice of KELT-11b and WASP-39b for comparable Rossby, Froude, and Burger numbers is a study-design selection, not a derivation that forces the qualitative similarity by construction. The identical dayside forcing geometry is a potential confound for the causal attribution to dynamical parameters, but that is a validity limitation, not a circular step. The unpublished forcing model ('will be detailed elsewhere') and self-citations for BoB and the cosλ cosφ forcing are reproducibility gaps, not load-bearing circular arguments. The only circularity-adjacent step is the Rossby wave 'prediction,' which is actually a postdiction from measured wave properties. Because this step is peripheral to the main simulation-based comparison, the overall circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the construction of the thermal forcing, on the validity of the assumed dynamical parameters, and on the adequacy of the primitive-equation model. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Empirical Teq(p) profile polynomial coefficients = Not given; derived from Changeat et al. 2022 statistical trends
    The thermal forcing profiles (Fig. 1) are constructed via a second-order polynomial fit to retrieved dayside temperatures; these coefficients are not derived from first principles and the model is deferred to an unpublished companion paper (Section 2.2).
  • Thermal relaxation timescale tau_r(p) = Taken from J. Y-K. Cho (2008) terminator profiles
    tau_r(p) is prescribed from prior literature as an input; different choices would alter the forcing and potentially the circulation response, so it functions as a chosen parameter.
  • Model domain depth and resolution (T341L50, p in [0,5] bar) = T341L50; p in [0,5] bar
    Chosen by hand; the paper notes the domain may not be converged for much larger p ranges, so this choice caps the simulated region and could influence the deep circulation features.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Primitive equations in zeta-delta-Theta form with hydrostatic balance are an adequate description of these exoplanet atmospheres.
    The model (Section 2.1) solves the primitive equations; non-hydrostatic effects and full radiative transfer are not included.
  • domain assumption Newtonian relaxation with cos(lon)cos(lat) day-night forcing approximates the real thermal forcing.
    Section 2.2 states the forcing scheme; it is an idealized common approximation, but the paper acknowledges the exact Teq(p) profiles are unknown.
  • domain assumption Quasi-geostrophic beta-plane dispersion relation applies to the deep Rossby waves.
    Equation (2) applies QG beta-plane theory under conditions Ro<0.15 and Bu=O(1), stated in Section 3; these conditions are only partially verified.
  • domain assumption The chosen planets' physical parameters (mass, radius, rotation rate, etc.) are accurate.
    Parameters in Table 1 are taken from literature (Pepper et al. 2017; Faedi et al. 2011) and are used to compute the dynamical numbers that underpin the interpretation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bridging the Atmospheric Circulations of Hot and Warm Giant Exoplanets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S2MTLVXC

@misc{pith2026250501397,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bridging the Atmospheric Circulations of Hot and Warm Giant Exoplanets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S2MTLVXC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01397}
}
read the original abstract

We perform high-resolution atmospheric flow simulations of hot and warm giant exoplanets that are tidally locked. The modeled atmospheres are representative of those on KELT-11b and WASP-39b, which possess markedly different equilibrium temperatures but reside in a similar dynamical regime: in this regime, their key dynamical numbers (e.g., Rossby and Froude numbers) are comparable. Despite their temperature difference, both planets exhibit qualitatively similar atmospheric circulation patterns, which are characterized by turbulent equatorial flows, anticyclonic polar vortices, and large-scale Rossby waves that gives rise to quasi-zonal flows in the extra-tropics (i.e., near ~20 degrees). Quantitative differences between the KELT-11b and WASP-39b atmospheres reflect their different Rossby deformation scales, which influence the horizontal length scale of wave--vortex interactions and the overall structure of the circulation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.01397 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: Maximum and minimum equilibrium tem￾perature profiles (yellow and blue lines, respectively) for the giant hot planet and warm planet (HP and WP, respec￾tively). Profiles at several different longitudes are shown: substellar point (SS), antistellar point (AS), and termina￾tors (TS). Right: Thermal relaxation timescale τr(p) for HP and WP. including refinements and validation steps, will be de￾tailed elsewhere (… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A log(|q(λ, ϕ, p)|), where q is the potential vorticity in units of 10−6 K m2 kg−1 s −1 , and B temperature T(λ, ϕ, p) fields in units of K, at time t = 200 τp for T341L50 simulations of tidally synchronized hot and warm gas giant exoplanets (HP and WP, respectively). Fields are shown for p ∈ {0.15, 0.95, 4.95} bar. These p-levels are near the top, middle, and bottom of the simulation domains. Fields are shown in Mo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Relative vorticity ζ(λ, ϕ, p) fields in units τ −1 p , in north polar stereographic projection at time t = 170 τp. The plot boundaries are at ϕ = −10◦ and radial dashed lines indicate the latitudes ϕ ∈ {0 ◦ , 30◦ , 60◦ , 80◦ }. Both planets exhibit anticyclonic vortices at their poles surrounded by cyclonic flows near ϕ ∼ 30◦ . The HP’s cyclonic flows are more distorted and elongated than those on the WP. The WP’s a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Hovm¨oller plots showing the time evolution of meridional wind velocity v as a function of pressure for the simulated hot planet (HP) and warm planet (WP) at the substellar point (λ, ϕ) = (0◦ , 0◦ ) (left) and mid-latitudes (λ, ϕ) = (0◦ , 45◦ ) (right) with red and blu…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Normalized disc-averaged thermal flux F(t)/F(t = 0) at p = 0.95 bar, computed using the Ste￾fan-Boltzmann law and weighted by a cosine function. The disc-average is centered on four key locations: the substellar point (SS), antistellar point (AS), eastern terminator (E…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1972, Monthly Weather Review, 100, 487, doi: 10.1175/1520-0493(1972)100⟨0487:FFFTI⟩2.3.CO;2

    Asselin, R. 1972, Monthly Weather Review, 100, 487, doi: 10.1175/1520-0493(1972)100⟨0487:FFFTI⟩2.3.CO;2

    doi:10.1175/1520-0493(1972)100 1972

  2. [2]

    Boyd, J. P. 2000, Chebyshev & Fourier Spectral Methods, 2nd edn. (Mineola, NY: Dover Publications) B¨ oning, V. G. A., Dietrich, W., & Wicht, J. 2024, https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.12434

    work page Pith review arXiv 2000

  3. [3]

    F., et al

    Changeat, Q., Edwards, B., Al-Refaie, A. F., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 160, 260

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    F., et al

    Changeat, Q., Edwards, B., Al-Refaie, A. F., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 260, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5cc2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac5cc2 2022

  5. [5]

    W., Cho, J

    Changeat, Q., Skinner, J. W., Cho, J. Y-K., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 270, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad1191

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad1191 2024

  6. [6]

    Y., & Polvani, L

    Cho, J. Y., & Polvani, L. M. 1996, Science, 273, 335

    work page 1996

  7. [7]

    Cho, J. Y-K. 2008, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2008.0177

    work page arXiv 2008

  8. [8]

    Y-K., Menou, K., Hansen, B

    Cho, J. Y-K., Menou, K., Hansen, B. M. S., & Seager, S. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 587, 117, doi: 10.1086/375016

    doi:10.1086/375016 2003

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Y-K., Menou, K., Hansen, B

    Cho, J. Y-K., Menou, K., Hansen, B. M. S., & Seager, S. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 675, 817, doi: 10.1086/524718

    2008 doi

  2. [10]

    Y-K., Polichtchouk, I., & Thrastarson, H

    Cho, J. Y-K., Polichtchouk, I., & Thrastarson, H. Th. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 454, 3423, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1947

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    Y-K., & Polvani, L

    Cho, J. Y-K., & Polvani, L. M. 1996, Physics of Fluids, 8, 1531, doi: 10.1063/1.868929

    1996 doi

  4. [12]

    Y-K., Skinner, J

    Cho, J. Y-K., Skinner, J. W., & Thrastarson, H. Th. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 913, 832, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abfd37

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    1967, IBM journal of Research and Development, 11, 215

    Courant, R., Friedrichs, K., & Lewy, H. 1967, IBM journal of Research and Development, 11, 215

    1967

  6. [14]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 688, A15

    Damasso, M., Polychroni, D., Locci, D., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 688, A15

    2024

  7. [15]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 633, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936110

    Debras, F., Mayne, N., Baraffe, I., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 633, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936110

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    Dobbs-Dixon, I., & Lin, D. N. C. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 673, doi: 10.1086/523786

    2008 doi

  9. [17]

    2008, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 65, 855

    Dritschel, D., & McIntyre, M. 2008, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 65, 855

    2008

  10. [18]

    2022, The Astronomical Journal, 164, 15

    Edwards, B., & Tinetti, G. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 164, 15

    2022

  11. [19]

    Edwards, B., Tsiaras, A., Changeat, Q., & Yip, K. H. 2024, RAS Techniques and Instruments, 3, 415

    2024

  12. [20]

    C., Anderson, D

    Faedi, F., Barros, S. C., Anderson, D. R., et al. 2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 531, A40

    2011

  13. [21]

    D., Radica, M., Welbanks, L., et al

    Feinstein, A. D., Radica, M., Welbanks, L., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 670

    2023

  14. [22]

    1982, Atmosphere-Ocean Dynamics, Atmosphere-Ocean Dynamics No

    Gill, A. 1982, Atmosphere-Ocean Dynamics, Atmosphere-Ocean Dynamics No. v. 30 (Elsevier Science)

    1982

  15. [23]

    Hammond, M., & Lewis, N. T. 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118, e2022705118

    2021

  16. [24]

    Heng, K., Menou, K., & Phillipps, P. J. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 2380, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18315.x

    2011

  17. [25]

    Heng, K., & Showman, A. P. 2014, doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-060614-105146

    2014 doi

  18. [26]

    2004, An Introduction to Dynamic Meteorology, 4th edn

    Holton, J.-R. 2004, An Introduction to Dynamic Meteorology, 4th edn. (Elsevier Academic Press)

    2004

  19. [27]

    Y., & Changeat, Q

    Kafle, J., Cho, J. Y., & Changeat, Q. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.11679

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 692, A222

    Kiefer, S., Bach-Møller, N., Samra, D., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 692, A222

    2024

  21. [29]

    Komacek, T. D. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19394

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    D., & Showman, A

    Komacek, T. D., & Showman, A. P. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 821, 16

    2016

  23. [31]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 778, 183

    Desert, J.-M. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 778, 183

    2013

  24. [32]

    Lipps, F. B. 1964, Tellus, 16, 535

    1964

  25. [33]

    Liu, B., & Showman, A. P. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 770, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/42

    2013 doi

  26. [34]

    F., et al

    Ma, S., Saba, A., Al-Refaie, A. F., et al. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07823

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    J., Debras, F., Baraffe, I., et al

    Mayne, N. J., Debras, F., Baraffe, I., et al. 2017, A&A, 604, 79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730465 10 Skinner & Wei

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    S., Sethunadh, J., & Hartogh, P

    Medvedev, A. S., Sethunadh, J., & Hartogh, P. 2013, Icarus, 225, 228 Mendon¸ ca, J. M., Tsai, S.-m., Malik, M., Grimm, S. L., &

    2013

  29. [37]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 869, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaed23

    Heng, K. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 869, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaed23

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    E., Collins, K

    Pepper, J., Rodriguez, J. E., Collins, K. A., et al. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 153, 215

    2017

  31. [39]

    Y-K., Watkins, C., et al

    Polichtchouk, I., Cho, J. Y-K., Watkins, C., et al. 2014, Icarus, 229, 355, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2013.11.027

    2014 doi

  32. [40]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 714, 1334, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/2/1334

    Rauscher, E., & Menou, K. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 714, 1334, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/2/1334

    2010 doi

  33. [41]

    Rivier, L., Loft, R., & Polvani, L. M. 2002, Monthly Weather Review, 130, doi: 10.1175/1520- 0493(2002)130⟨1384:AESDCF⟩2.0.CO;2

    2002 doi

  34. [42]

    Robert, A. J. 1966, Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan. Ser. II, 44, 237, doi: 10.2151/jmsj1965.44.5 237

    1966 doi

  35. [43]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 669, A142

    Samra, D., Helling, C., Chubb, K., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 669, A142

    2023

  36. [44]

    K., Rivier, L., Loft, R., & Polvani, L

    Scott, R. K., Rivier, L., Loft, R., & Polvani, L. M. 2004, NCAR Technical Report, 456, doi: doi:10.5065/D698850K

    2004 doi

  37. [45]

    P., & Guillot, T

    Showman, A. P., & Guillot, T. 2002, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 385, 166, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020101

    2002 doi

  38. [46]

    W., & Cho, J

    Skinner, J. W., & Cho, J. Y.-K. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 982, 64

    2025

  39. [47]

    W., & Cho, J

    Skinner, J. W., & Cho, J. Y-K. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 5172, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab971

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    W., & Cho, J

    Skinner, J. W., & Cho, J. Y-K. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 3584, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2809

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    W., N¨ attil¨ a, J., & Cho, J

    Skinner, J. W., N¨ attil¨ a, J., & Cho, J. Y-K. 2023, Phys. Rev. Lett., 131, 231201, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.231201

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    Th., & Cho, J

    Thrastarson, H. Th., & Cho, J. Y-K. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 716, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/144

    2010 doi

  43. [51]

    Th., & Cho, J

    Thrastarson, H. Th., & Cho, J. Y-K. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 729, 117, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/729/2/117

    2011 doi

  44. [52]

    2018, The Astronomical Journal, 155, 156

    Tsiaras, A., Waldmann, I., Zingales, T., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 155, 156

    2018

  45. [53]

    A., Clark, J

    Wittenmyer, R. A., Clark, J. T., Trifonov, T., et al. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 163, 82

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.