Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 93 references

Effects of transient stellar emissions on planetary climates of tidally-locked exo-earths

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Transient stellar flares and particle storms materially alter the climate and circulation of tidally locked Earth-like planets around M dwarfs, cooling the thermosphere through NO and CO2 emission while warming the middle and lower…

desk verdict First 3D chemistry-climate study of how flares and stellar protons affect climates of tidally locked exo-Earths; the middle-atmosphere results are the real news, but the headline thermospheric cooling needs a higher model top before I'd trust it. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03723 v2 pith:GIDIUSPA submitted 2025-05-06 astro-ph.EP

Howard Chen , Paolo De Luca , Assaf Hochman , Thaddeus D. Komacek This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords stellarflaresenergeticparticlestidallylockedexoplanetsM-dwarfhabitability3Dchemistry-climatemodelingthermosphericcoolingexoplanetatmosphericdynamicsozonevariability
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

Using a three-dimensional global chemistry-climate model, this paper asks whether transient stellar emissions—ultraviolet flares and stellar energetic particles—do more than alter photochemistry on tidally locked Earth-like exoplanets. The authors simulate a TRAPPIST-1e-like planet and find that recurring flares cool the upper atmosphere by roughly 100 K through radiative emission by NO and CO2, while warming the mesosphere and lower atmosphere as N2O and water vapor accumulate. They also report that intense flares accelerate nightside winds by up to 40 m/s at 30 to 50 km altitude and can push water vapor toward moist-greenhouse abundances. If right, flaring activity is not a side note but a primary driver of climate, chemistry, and observable variability for planets around active low-mass stars.

What carries the argument

The central object is a three-dimensional general circulation model with interactive photochemistry applied to a tidally locked, Earth-composition exo-Earth forced by stochastic flare spectra and proton precipitation. The mechanism that carries the result is the coupling of proton-driven odd-nitrogen and odd-hydrogen production with radiative transfer: NO and CO2 become thermospheric coolants, N2O and H2O become lower-atmosphere warmers, and ozone depletion or recovery modulates the temperature response on monthly to annual timescales.

What would settle it

Run the same flare scenarios with the model top raised to 300 to 400 km and explicit ion chemistry: if the NO/CO2 radiative cooling no longer produces the roughly 100 K thermospheric anomaly, that claim is falsified. A complementary test is observational: monitor a known flaring M-dwarf planet through repeated transits and look for flare-correlated N2O and H2O enhancements and O3 depletions; their absence would falsify the chemical-climate coupling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that time-dependent stellar emissions produce a vertically split thermal response in a synchronously rotating, Earth-composition planet: stellar protons and UV drive odd-nitrogen and odd-hydrogen chemistry that radiatively cools the thermosphere (up to roughly 100 to 150 K in the most extreme runs), while the same events raise middle- and lower-atmosphere temperatures by tens of kelvin through increased infrared absorbers N2O and H2O. Ozone acts as a modulating knob: under moderate flaring it can increase, but under extreme flaring it is eroded, and the temperature response tracks this variability. The simulations also show a dynamical consequence—horizontal winds on the nightside at 30 to 50 km altitude increasing by up to about 40 m/s—and water vapor occasionally reaching a mixing ratio above $10^{-3}$, connecting transient stellar events to both long-term habitability and short-term observability.

Load-bearing premise

The reported thermospheric cooling depends on the model resolving NO and CO2 radiative emission with an atmospheric top near 150 km, but the authors note that flare photo-ionization and photo-excitation require a top at 300 to 400 km; if the truncation removes the relevant thermospheric chemistry, that part of the claim collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Climate simulations of M-dwarf habitable-zone planets that omit transient stellar emissions will misrepresent both the thermal structure and the circulation, since the paper finds persistent upper-atmosphere cooling and middle-atmosphere warming that depend on flare frequency and energy.
  • Observed spectra will be time-variable: repeated flares change N2O, H2O, and O3 abundances, so transmission and emission observations averaged over many transits must account for flare-modulated composition rather than a single quiescent state.
  • Habitability assessments should include flare statistics: moderate flaring may raise greenhouse gases while extreme flaring erodes ozone, so surface UV dose and surface temperature depend on the flare frequency distribution rather than mean stellar XUV alone.
  • The reported wind-speed enhancements of up to 40 m/s at 30 to 50 km altitude could alter day-night chemical transport and the dynamical regime of the middle atmosphere, with consequences for how species are mixed and observed.
  • Extreme flare scenarios can push water vapor into the moist-greenhouse regime (mixing ratio above $10^{-3}$), implying that actively flaring hosts may drive their planets toward faster water loss than quiescent hosts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The model's 150 km top likely truncates the very thermospheric chemistry responsible for the cooling signal; extending the top to 300 to 400 km with explicit ion chemistry could make the reported NO/CO2 cooling stronger or shift its altitude, while the middle-atmosphere warming should be more robust.
  • Because the authors use a single 9000 K blackbody flare spectrum and note that real M-dwarf flares are harder in the FUV and NUV, the balance between ozone production and destruction—and hence the temperature response—could shift with spectral shape; rerunning with observationally anchored flare spectra is a direct test.
  • On Earth, geomagnetic shielding moderates energetic particle effects; if tidally locked planets have weak dynamos, protons could penetrate deeper and amplify the lower-atmosphere greenhouse response this paper reports.
  • An observational discriminator: a flaring M-dwarf planet should show correlated enhancements of N2O and H2O and depletion of O3 in spectra taken weeks after large flares; the absence of such a correlation would challenge the modeled coupling.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript uses the 3D Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model (WACCM) with interactive photochemistry to simulate the response of an Earth-like, tidally locked TRAPPIST-1e-like planet to transient stellar UV flares and stellar energetic particle events. Four scenarios are compared: Quiescent, Moderate, Active, and Extreme, using flare statistics from the MUSCLES survey and proton spectra scaled from the 2003 Halloween event. The authors report 100–150 K cooling in the upper atmosphere attributed to NO and CO2 radiative emissions, 30–50 K warming in the middle and lower atmosphere associated with enhanced N2O and H2O, wind speed increases up to 40 m s−1 at 30–50 km altitude, and ozone depletion. They argue that transient stellar emissions materially alter the climate, chemistry, and circulation of synchronously rotating rocky exoplanets and affect their observability.

Significance. If the results hold, this would be one of the first systematic 3D chemistry-climate investigations of flare-driven atmospheric effects on temperate tidally locked exoplanets, with implications for interpreting phase curves and transmission spectra. The paper's strengths include the use of an observationally anchored stochastic flare generator, external input spectra from MUSCLES rather than fitted simulation outputs, a publicly archived dataset, and a sensible effort to apply non-parametric significance tests. However, the central thermospheric cooling claim is not yet supported by the configured model, and the statistical design as implemented does not cleanly isolate the forced response.

major comments (4)
  1. [Figure 1 caption; §3.1] The caption of Figure 1 states that the Extreme and Moderate temporal medians are taken only for days when flares occur, whereas the Quiescent medians are not restricted in this way. This conditions the two groups on different subsets of the time series, so the anomaly and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test may reflect the flare-day selection rather than the atmospheric response to stellar activity. Please recompute all medians, anomalies, and significance tests on identically conditioned samples (for example, all simulated days for every scenario) or explicitly justify why the conditioning is equivalent. The same issue may propagate to the boxplot anomalies in Figure 2 and the Appendix figures if they use the same conditioning.
  2. [§3.1, §4, Fig. 2a, Table 2] The headline thermospheric cooling of 100–150 K is reported at 1.223×10^-5 mbar, yet the model top is about 10^-6 mbar (~150 km), leaving only about one pressure scale height of resolved atmosphere above the analysis level. The manuscript itself states in Section 4 that resolving flare-associated photo-ionization and photo-excitation processes would require a model top of 300–400 km. With the cooling maximum so close to the upper boundary, the signal could be a boundary artifact or a missing-source effect rather than a robust radiative response. In addition, the abstract attributes the cooling to radiative emissions from NO and CO2, but the results show NO enhancements only and no CO2 diagnostic or radiative-budget decomposition. Please provide a higher-top verification or a radiative flux decomposition, or reframe the claim to the middle and lower thermosphere and soften the 'abrupt thermospheric cooling' attribution.
  3. [§2.2, §3.2] Each of the four scenarios is a single 8-year realization, but the Wilcoxon rank-sum and Kruskal-Wallis tests are applied to daily output across many grid points as if these were independent samples. Atmospheric state variables are strongly autocorrelated in space and time, so the effective sample size is far smaller than the number of grid-cell-days, and the reported p<0.01 overstates the confidence that the scenarios differ. Please report the effective sample size or ensemble spread, and phrase the significance claims accordingly.
  4. [Table 2 vs. Figures 1–3] The altitude nomenclature is internally inconsistent: Table 2 labels 1.223×10^-5 mbar as the lower thermosphere, while Figure 1a and Figure 2 call the same level the middle atmosphere; Table 2 labels 0.008 mbar as the mesosphere, while Figure 3 calls it the middle atmosphere. Since the paper's central claim is about thermospheric cooling, these labels must be harmonized so readers can tell which results are thermospheric, mesospheric, or stratospheric. This is not merely cosmetic; it determines whether the abstract's 'thermospheric cooling' claim is actually tested.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 2 caption] The caption says the panels show NO and OH, but the axes in panels (e) and (f) are labeled N2O; please correct the caption to match the displayed quantities.
  2. [Table 1 vs. §2.1] The Flare Rate row in Table 1 is listed as 3–6 day^-1, while the text specifies 6 day^-1 for Moderate and Extreme and 4 day^-1 for Active; please unify these numbers.
  3. [§3.3] The phrase 'after the ≈63 yr mark' should refer to months, not years, given the 8-year simulation and the month axis in Figure 3.
  4. [§4] There is a typo '10^-6 mba' that should be '10^-6 mbar'.
  5. [§5] The Data Availability statement says 'scrips'; this should be 'scripts'.
  6. [Introduction] There is a typo 'distributuon' in the first paragraph; it should be 'distribution'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the flare and proton inputs are external, outputs are emergent model fields, and self-citations are only methodological precedent.

full rationale

The paper's forcing data are taken from external observational and modeling sources: flare statistics and UV spectra from the MUSCLES survey (Loyd et al. 2018; France et al. 2016), proton fluence scaling from Youngblood et al. (2017), and proton energy spectra from the 2003 Halloween event (Funke et al. 2011; Jackman et al. 2008). None of these inputs are fitted to the simulation outputs, and the predicted fields (temperature, wind speed, NO, N2O, H2O, O3) are computed interactively by the CESM/WACCM model rather than defined in terms of the forcing. The central claims therefore do not reduce to their inputs by construction. Self-citations to earlier WACCM exoplanet work (Chen et al. 2019, 2021, 2023) are used as methodological precedent and literature context, not as load-bearing derivations, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from them. The paper itself flags a real model-fidelity limitation in Section 4: 'the cutoff of the atmosphere column of our climate model occurs at the lower thermosphere (or at∼10−6 mba, which is∼150km). Resolving the important flare-associated photo-ionization and photo-excitation processes would require at least 300-400 km model-top.' That caveat undermines confidence in the headline thermospheric NO/CO2 cooling result, but truncation is a correctness risk, not a circularity: the reported cooling is still an emergent model output rather than a restatement of the input. Likewise, the assumed 9000 K flare blackbody and fixed proton spectra are acknowledged external uncertainties rather than fitted parameters. No equation in the paper makes any predicted quantity equal to a fitted or self-cited input, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on a chain of external input models and assumptions: MUSCLES flare statistics, a 9000 K blackbody flare spectrum, a fixed Halloween-event proton spectrum, and a 150 km model top. None of these are fitted to the simulated output, but they set the quantitative scale of every reported anomaly.

free parameters (6)
  • Flare blackbody temperature = 9000 K
    Assumed for all flares; affects UV spectral shape, photolysis rates, and ozone/NO responses. The text notes this may underestimate NUV and FUV flare energies.
  • Cumulative flare index alpha = 0.76 (Moderate), 0.58 (Extreme), 0.52 (Active)
    Taken from MUSCLES survey populations; sets the flare energy distribution used in the simulations.
  • Flare rate mu = 6 per day (Moderate and Extreme), 4 per day (Active)
    Sets how often flares occur; the paper states cumulative effects depend on flare frequency.
  • Flare energy range = 10^30 to 10^34.5 erg
    Restricts the simulated flare sizes and was chosen to match observational flare statistics.
  • Proton energy spectrum = 2003 Halloween solar proton event
    Fixed for every event; the paper acknowledges this may be inappropriate for extreme M-dwarf events.
  • SiIV energy ratio = 160
    Used to scale proton fluence from flare SiIV energy following Youngblood et al. 2017.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The atmosphere is Earth-like N2-O2 with modern Earth surface albedo, topography, and land-sea mask.
    Adopted in Section 2.1; limits applicability to strongly oxygenated atmospheres and is a modeling choice that affects transport and chemistry.
  • domain assumption Proton flux is linearly proportional to ion-pair production rate.
    Section 2.1 follows Jackman et al. 2008, stated as valid for most Earth-like atmospheres.
  • domain assumption Daily mean flare cadence is adequate for simulating climate and chemical responses.
    The paper imposes flares at daily cadence even though real flares last minutes to hours; the Discussion notes smaller, more frequent events may be misrepresented.
  • domain assumption A model top near 10^-6 mbar, about 150 km, is sufficient to represent flare-driven thermospheric processes.
    The Discussion admits that resolving photo-ionization and photo-excitation would require a 300 to 400 km model top. This assumption is load-bearing for the thermospheric cooling claim.
  • domain assumption The stochastic flare generator based on the MUSCLES M-dwarf sample represents TRAPPIST-1-like activity.
    Section 2.1 replaces observed TRAPPIST-1 UV spectra with synthetic flare spectra that may not be representative of the real star.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effects of transient stellar emissions on planetary climates of tidally-locked exo-earths." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GIDIUSPA

@misc{pith2026250503723,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effects of transient stellar emissions on planetary climates of tidally-locked exo-earths},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GIDIUSPA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03723}
}
read the original abstract

Space weather in exoplanetary systems, driven by transient stellar emissions such as flares, coronal mass ejections, and stellar proton events, can significantly influence planetary habitability and the long-term evolution of atmospheres. These time-dependent phenomena also complicate the remote characterization of exoplanets by altering the abundance of key chemical species and modulating atmospheric brightness temperatures. While prior studies have largely focused on photochemical effects, surface UV dosages, and spectral consequences, here we extend the analysis using three-dimensional general circulation models coupled with interactive photochemistry. We simulate the climate and chemical responses of TRAPPIST-1e-like, synchronously rotating planets subjected to stellar energetic particle events and periodic UV flux enhancements. Using statistical methods, we evaluate impacts across spatial and temporal scales. Our results show that abrupt thermospheric cooling occurs via radiative emissions from NO and CO2, while warming in the middle and lower atmosphere arises from increased infrared absorbers, including N2O and H2O. In moderately active stellar regimes, atmospheric temperature changes are strongly modulated by O3 variability. Cumulative effects depend on flare frequency, while instantaneous responses are sensitive to the spectral energy distribution of the flare. Notably, intense flares can dynamically energize the middle atmosphere, enhancing wind speeds by up to 40 m/s on the substellar nightside at altitudes of 30 to 50 km. These findings suggest that repeated, high-energy eruptive events from young stars may play a critical role in shaping atmospheric dynamics on temperate terrestrial exoplanets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.03723 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Temporal medians of ’Extreme’, ’Moderate’, and ’Quiescent’ simulations for Temperature (T in K). Medians are taken from 8 years and for (a) 1.223 × 10−5 mbar and (b) 0.008 mbar atmospheric levels. Extreme and Moderate medians are only taken for days when flares occur. Stippling uses a two-tailed Wilcoxon rank-sum test to represent ’Extreme’ and ’Moderate’ areas that are not statistically different from the ’Quiescen… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Boxplots of Extreme and Moderate anomalies for Temperature (T in K), Nitric Oxide (NO, in mol mol−1 ), and Hydroxide (OH, in mol mol−1 ). Anomalies are computed by subtracting the Quiescent temporal field median from the daily medians of the three sets of simulated cases: Extreme, Moderate, and Active Boxplots in (a), (c), and (e) are computed for the 1.223 × 10−5 mbar middle atmospheric level, whereas the ones in (… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Global-median temperature (K) and horizontal wind speeds (m s−1 ) at 0.008 mbar, or the middle atmosphere, showing the results for a planet around an actively flaring star (blue), around a moderately active star (red), around a quies￾cent/inactive star (black), and a more energetic star with a lower overall flare rate (orange). Time series are computed from the 8-year simulation. temperatures throughout the period e… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Vertical profile of wind-speed (m s−1 ) temporal and field median difference between two sets of simulations over -15◦ -15◦N, 0◦ -50◦E. Circles represent differences that are not statistically significant at the 1% level following a two-tailed Wilcoxon rank-sum test. n…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Mullaney, K., Chen, H., et al

    Afentakis, G. P., Mullaney, K., Chen, H., et al. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 166, 117

    2023

  2. [2]

    L., et al

    Agol, E., Dorn, C., Grimm, S. L., et al. 2021, The planetary science journal, 2, 1

    2021

  3. [3]

    2016, Nature Geoscience, 9, 452 Alvarado-Gómez, J

    Danchi, W. 2016, Nature Geoscience, 9, 452 Alvarado-Gómez, J. D., Drake, J. J., Fraschetti, F., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 895, 47

    2016

  4. [4]

    V., & Rodríguez Martínez, R

    Armitage, T., Martin, D. V., & Rodríguez Martínez, R. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 538, 2937

    2025

  5. [5]

    D., Meadows, V

    Arney, G., Domagal-Goldman, S. D., Meadows, V. S., et al. 2016, Astrobiology, 16, 873 Arsenović, P., Rozanov, E., Usoskin, I., et al. 2024, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121, e2321770121

    2016

  6. [6]

    2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 577, A42

    Baraffe, I., Homeier, D., Allard, F., & Chabrier, G. 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 577, A42

    2015

  7. [7]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 850, 150

    Baudino, J.-L., Mollière, P., Venot, O., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 850, 150

    2017

  8. [8]

    2010, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 115

    Becker, E., & von Savigny, C. 2010, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 115

    2010

Show all 93 references
  1. [9]

    2018, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 492, 121

    Bin, J., Tian, F., & Liu, L. 2018, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 492, 121

    2018

  2. [10]

    I., Decin, L., et al

    Braam, M., Palmer, P. I., Decin, L., et al. 2025, The Planetary Science Journal, 6, 5

    2025

  3. [11]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 4672

    Carone, L., Keppens, R., Decin, L., & Henning, T. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 4672

    2018

  4. [12]

    Chen, H., Li, G., Paradise, A., & Kopparapu, R. K. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 946, L32

    2023

  5. [13]

    T., Zhan, Z., & Horton, D

    Chen, H., Wolf, E. T., Zhan, Z., & Horton, D. E. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 886, 16

    2019

  6. [14]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 298

    Chen, H., Zhan, Z., Youngblood, A., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 298

    2021

  7. [15]

    A., Palmer, P

    Cohen, M., Bollasina, M. A., Palmer, P. I., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 930, 152

    2022

  8. [16]

    R., Covey, K

    Davenport, J. R., Covey, K. R., Clarke, R. W., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 871, 241

    2019

  9. [17]

    Davenport, J. R. A. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 829, 23

    2016

  10. [18]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journall, 837, L26

    Dong, C., Lingam, M., Ma, Y., & Cohen, O. 2017, The Astrophysical Journall, 837, L26

    2017

  11. [19]

    K., Mayne, N

    Eager-Nash, J. K., Mayne, N. J., Nicholson, A. E., et al. 2023, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 128, e2022JD037544

    2023

  12. [20]

    N., Schlieder, J

    Ealy, J. N., Schlieder, J. E., Komacek, T. D., & Gilbert, E. A. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 168, 173

    2024

  13. [21]

    2008, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 113

    Engebretson, M., Lessard, M., Bortnik, J., et al. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 113

    2008

  14. [22]

    J., Turbet, M., Villanueva, G

    Fauchez, T. J., Turbet, M., Villanueva, G. L., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 194

    2019

  15. [23]

    2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00850 Fionnagáin, D

    Kowalski, A. 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00850 Fionnagáin, D. Ó., Kavanagh, R. D., Vidotto, A. A., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 924, 115

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    France, K., Loyd, R. O. P., Youngblood, A., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 820, 89

    2016

  17. [25]

    2020, The Astronomical Journal, 160, 237

    France, K., Duvvuri, G., Egan, H., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 160, 237

    2020

  18. [26]

    D., Drake, J

    Fraschetti, F., Alvarado-Gómez, J. D., Drake, J. J., Cohen, O., & Garraffo, C. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 937, 126

    2022

  19. [27]

    F., Ahlers, J

    Fromont, E. F., Ahlers, J. P., do Amaral, L. N., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 961, 115

    2024

  20. [28]

    2011, Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics, 11, 9089

    Funke, B., Baumgaertner, A., Calisto, M., et al. 2011, Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics, 11, 9089

    2011

  21. [29]

    L., Grießmeier, J.-M., von Paris, P., et al

    Grenfell, J. L., Grießmeier, J.-M., von Paris, P., et al. 2012, Astrobiology, 12, 1109

    2012

  22. [30]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 953, L27

    Gu, P.-G., & Chen, H. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 953, L27

    2023

  23. [31]

    Hack, J. J. 1994, Journal of Geophysical Research, 99, 5551

    1994

  24. [32]

    S., & Turnbull, M

    He, F., Merrelli, A., L’Ecuyer, T. S., & Turnbull, M. C. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 933, 62

    2022

  25. [33]

    2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 621, A67

    Herbst, K., Papaioannou, A., Banjac, S., & Heber, B. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 621, A67

    2019

  26. [34]

    S., & MacGregor, M

    Howard, W. S., & MacGregor, M. A. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 926, 204

    2022

  27. [35]

    S., Corbett, H., Law, N

    Howard, W. S., Corbett, H., Law, N. M., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 902, 115

    2020

  28. [36]

    S., MacGregor, M

    Howard, W. S., MacGregor, M. A., Feinstein, A. D., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 169, 27

    2024

  29. [37]

    S., Li, G., Zank, G., & Jin, M

    Hu, J., Airapetian, V. S., Li, G., Zank, G., & Jin, M. 2022, Science Advances, 8, eabi9743

    2022

  30. [38]

    J., Poppenhäger, K., et al

    Ilin, E., Schmidt, S. J., Poppenhäger, K., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 645, A42

    2021

  31. [39]

    2008, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 8, 765

    Jackman, C., Marsh, D., Vitt, F., et al. 2008, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 8, 765

    2008

  32. [40]

    A., Shkolnik, E

    Jackman, J. A., Shkolnik, E. L., Million, C., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 519, 3564 Stellar Flares & Exo-Earth’s Climate15

    2023

  33. [41]

    P., Lammer, H., Kislyakova, K

    Johnstone, C. P., Lammer, H., Kislyakova, K. G., Scherf, M., & Güdel, M. 2021, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 576, 117197

    2021

  34. [42]

    Kasting, J. F. 1988, Icarusus, 74, 472

    1988

  35. [43]

    1983, Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 88, 5191

    Kiehl, J., & Ramanathan, V. 1983, Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 88, 5191

    1983

  36. [44]

    W., Corrales, L

    King, G. W., Corrales, L. R., Fernández Fernández, J., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 530, 3500

    2024

  37. [45]

    E., Brasseur, G

    Kinnison, D. E., Brasseur, G. P., Walters, S., et al. 2007, Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres), 112, D20302

    2007

  38. [46]

    D., & Abbot, D

    Komacek, T. D., & Abbot, D. S. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 871, 245

    2019

  39. [47]

    T., Arney, G., et al

    Kopparapu, R., Wolf, E. T., Arney, G., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 845, 5

    2017

  40. [48]

    T., Haqq-Misra, J., et al

    Kopparapu, R., Wolf, E. T., Haqq-Misra, J., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 819, 84

    2016

  41. [49]

    F., Allred, J

    Kowalski, A. F., Allred, J. C., & Carlsson, M. 2024a, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.13214

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    F., Hawley, S

    Kowalski, A. F., Hawley, S. L., Wisniewski, J. P., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 207, 15

    2013

  43. [51]

    Fortney, J. J. 2024, Nature communications, 15, 8374

    2024

  44. [52]

    H., & Wallis, W

    Kruskal, W. H., & Wallis, W. A. 1952, Journal of the American statistical Association, 47, 583

    1952

  45. [53]

    Kubyshkina, D., Fossati, L., & Erkaev, N. V. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 684, A26 López-Puertas, M., Funke, B., Gil-López, S., et al. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 110, A09S43

    2024

  46. [54]

    J., Miguel, Y., Tsai, S.-M., et al

    Louca, A. J., Miguel, Y., Tsai, S.-M., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 521, 3333

    2023

  47. [55]

    Loyd, R. O. P., France, K., Youngblood, A., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 867, 71

    2018

  48. [56]

    P., Shkolnik, E

    Loyd, R. P., Shkolnik, E. L., Schneider, A. C., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 867, 70

    2018

  49. [57]

    Luo, Y., Hu, Y., Yang, J., Zhang, M., & Yung, Y. L. 2023, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120, e2309312120

    2023

  50. [58]

    S., & Lincowski, A

    Lustig-Yaeger, J., Meadows, V. S., & Lincowski, A. P. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 158, 27

    2019

  51. [59]

    B., & Whitney, D

    Mann, H. B., & Whitney, D. R. 1947, The annals of mathematical statistics, 50

    1947

  52. [60]

    R., Mills, M

    Marsh, D. R., Mills, M. J., Kinnison, D. E., et al. 2013, Journal of Climate, 26, 7372

    2013

  53. [61]

    M., & Schneider, T

    Merlis, T. M., & Schneider, T. 2010, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 2

    2010

  54. [62]

    B., Chen, C.-C., Gettelman, A., et al

    Neale, R. B., Chen, C.-C., Gettelman, A., et al. 2010, NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN-486+ STR

    2010

  55. [63]

    A., Kowalski, A., Drake, S

    Osten, R. A., Kowalski, A., Drake, S. A., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 832, 174 Päivärinta, S.-M., Seppälä, A., Andersson, M., et al. 2013, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 118, 6837

    2016

  56. [64]

    R., Barclay, T., Youngblood, A., et al

    Paudel, R. R., Barclay, T., Youngblood, A., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 971, 24

    2024

  57. [65]

    2018, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics

    Pettit, J., Randall, C., Marsh, D., et al. 2018, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics

    2018

  58. [66]

    J., Zamyatina, M., Mayne, N

    Ridgway, R. J., Zamyatina, M., Mayne, N. J., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 2472

    2023

  59. [67]

    G., Owen, J

    Rogers, J. G., Owen, J. E., & Schlichting, H. E. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 529, 2716

    2024

  60. [68]

    2005, Geophysical Research Letters, 32

    Rozanov, E., Callis, L., Schlesinger, M., et al. 2005, Geophysical Research Letters, 32

    2005

  61. [69]

    2023, Nature, 614, 659

    Rustamkulov, Z., Sing, D., Mukherjee, S., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 659

    2023

  62. [70]

    1972, Science, 177, 52

    Sagan, C., & Mullen, G. 1972, Science, 177, 52

    1972

  63. [71]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 893, 12

    Scheucher, M., Herbst, K., Schmidt, V., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 893, 12

    2020

  64. [72]

    M., Whiteford, N

    Seeburger, R., Higgins, P. M., Whiteford, N. P., & Cockell, C. S. 2023, Astrobiology, 23, 415

    2023

  65. [73]

    2010, Astrobiology, 10, 751

    Hawley, S. 2010, Astrobiology, 10, 751

    2010

  66. [74]

    E., Lambert, F

    Sergeev, D. E., Lambert, F. H., Mayne, N. J., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 894, 84

    2020

  67. [75]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 667, L9

    Coffaro, M. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 667, L9

    2022

  68. [76]

    2017, Scientific Reports, 7, 45257

    Sukhodolov, T., Usoskin, I., Rozanov, E., et al. 2017, Scientific Reports, 7, 45257

    2017

  69. [77]

    B., Pavlov, A

    Tian, F., Toon, O. B., Pavlov, A. A., & De Sterck, H. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 621, 1049

    2005

  70. [78]

    2019, Astrobiology, 19, 64

    Davenport, J. 2019, Astrobiology, 19, 64

    2019

  71. [79]

    K., Powell, D., et al

    Tsai, S.-M., Lee, E. K., Powell, D., et al. 2023, Nature, 617, 483

    2023

  72. [80]

    2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 596, A112 Van Doorsselaere, T., Shariati, H., & Debosscher, J

    Turbet, M., Leconte, J., Selsis, F., et al. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 596, A112 Van Doorsselaere, T., Shariati, H., & Debosscher, J. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 232, 26

    2016

  73. [81]

    M., Odert, P., Leitzinger, M., et al

    Veronig, A. M., Odert, P., Leitzinger, M., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 697

    2021

  74. [82]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 652, A107 16Chen, H., De Luca, P., Hochman, A., & Komacek, T.D

    Vida, K., Bódi, A., Szklenár, T., & Seli, B. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 652, A107 16Chen, H., De Luca, P., Hochman, A., & Komacek, T.D. Von Clarmann, T., Funke, B., López-Puertas, M., et al. 2013, Geophysical Research Letters, 40, 2339

    2021

  75. [83]

    J., & Del Genio, A

    Way, M. J., & Del Genio, A. D. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 125, e2019JE006276

    2020

  76. [84]

    J., Del Genio, A

    Way, M. J., Del Genio, A. D., Kiang, N. Y., et al. 2016, Geophysical Research Letters, 43, 8376

    2016

  77. [85]

    J., Froning, C

    Wilson, D. J., Froning, C. S., Duvvuri, G. M., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 911, 18

    2021

  78. [86]

    T., & Toon, O

    Wolf, E. T., & Toon, O. B. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres), 120, 5775

    2015

  79. [87]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 785, L20

    Wordsworth, R., & Pierrehumbert, R. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 785, L20

    2014

  80. [88]

    D., Tian, H., et al

    Xu, Y., Alvarado-Gómez, J. D., Tian, H., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 971, 153

    2024

  81. [89]

    B., & Abbot, D

    Yang, J., Cowan, N. B., & Abbot, D. S. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 771, L45

    2013

  82. [90]

    V., Robinson, T

    Young, A. V., Robinson, T. D., Krissansen-Totton, J., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 101

    2024

  83. [91]

    Youngblood, A., France, K., Loyd, R. O. P., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 843, 31

    2017

  84. [92]

    J., & McFarlane, N

    Zhang, G. J., & McFarlane, N. A. 1995, Atmosphere-ocean, 33, 407

    1995

  85. [93]

    Rasch, P. J. 2003, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 108, ACL Stellar Flares & Exo-Earth’s Climate17 APPENDIX Figures in appendix 1-7 contain results that support our findings in the main text. 0 80 160 240 320 0 80 160 240 320 0 80 160 240 320 −90 −60 −30 0 30 60 ...

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.