Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Planet Earth in reflected and polarized light: II. Refining contrast estimates for rocky exoplanets with ELT and HWO

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Reflected-light contrast estimates for nearby rocky exoplanets are about half of previous values when realistic 3D clouds and surface albedo maps are used.

desk verdict The refined contrast numbers are useful, but the headline factor-of-two is mostly a grid-resolution effect, not the cloud/surface modeling the abstract implies. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04348 v1 pith:MIIDUOUI submitted 2025-06-04 astro-ph.EP

Giulia Roccetti , Michael F. Sterzik , Julia V. Seidel , Claudia Emde , Mihail Manev , Stefano Bagnulo This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords reflectedlightpolarizationrockyexoplanetsradiativetransfer3DcloudinhomogeneitiessurfacealbedoEarthasanexoplanetELTANDES
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

This paper argues that reflected-light contrast estimates for nearby rocky exoplanets are too optimistic: when clouds are modeled as patchy 3D structures and surface albedo as wavelength-dependent maps taken from Earth observations, the predicted planet-to-star contrast drops to roughly half the values used in current observing plans. For Proxima b at 90 degrees phase, the contrast falls from about $11.2\times10^{-8}$ to $5.8\times10^{-8}$. The same simulations show that polarized-light contrasts sit near one-fifth of the flux contrast and carry stronger diagnostic information about clouds and surfaces. If these numbers hold, next-generation instruments like ANDES on the ELT and the HWO mission concept will need longer integrations or different observing strategies than previously planned.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is a 3D Monte Carlo radiative transfer pipeline built on the MYSTIC code, extended with the 3D Cloud Generator (3D CG), which redistributes ERA5 reanalysis cloud water into sub-grid patchy structures, and with HAMSTER, a wavelength-dependent hyperspectral surface albedo library. Ocean surfaces use BRDF and BPDF treatments to capture the glint. This combination produces the ground-truth Earth-like and ocean models against which homogeneous models are compared, and it is the source of the updated contrast numbers.

What would settle it

Measure Proxima b's reflected-light contrast near 90 degrees phase with ANDES: if the measured value lands near $11\times10^{-8}$ rather than approximately $5.8\times10^{-8}$, the Earth-derived cloud and surface priors are wrong for this target.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that simplified models—uniform surface albedo, homogeneous cloud decks, and coarse horizontal grids—systematically overestimate how much reflected light an Earth-like planet returns to the observer. Using the 3D Cloud Generator with ERA5 cloud fields and HAMSTER surface albedo maps in the MYSTIC radiative transfer code, the paper computes updated contrasts for six M-dwarf planets plus an Alpha Centauri A Earth analog and finds values about half of the earlier ANDES golden-sample contrast study, e.g., $5.8\times10^{-8}$ versus $11.2\times10^{-8}$ for Proxima b at $\alpha=90^\circ$. The polarization contrasts are about one-fifth of those flux contrasts. The paper also shows that homogeneous cloud models distort high-resolution water absorption lines, flipping them between absorption and emission in polarized light, and argues that measuring fractional polarization plus high-contrast high-resolution spectroscopy is a more reliable route to characterizing nearby Earth-like worlds.

Load-bearing premise

The target planets are assumed to have Earth-like cloud patterns and surface albedo distributions, even though M-dwarf planets are expected to be tidally locked and the paper notes their cloud climatology is likely different.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Planned ANDES integration times for Proxima b and the other golden-sample planets should be re-derived from the roughly factor-two lower contrasts; otherwise observations risk being under-integrated.
  • Polarized light, though about five times fainter in contrast, may be the more informative channel because it is largely free of telluric contamination and suppresses stellar speckles, so polarimetric differential imaging deserves instrument design attention.
  • At R=100,000, water-band lines in polarized light switch between absorption and emission depending on surface type, so water-line observations can serve as an ocean-glint diagnostic rather than only an abundance measure.
  • Retrieval codes should adopt wavelength-dependent surface albedo, even a four-surface linear combination, and patchy clouds, since uniform models bias atmospheric and cloud property estimates.
  • Cloud patchiness survives long integrations: averaging over an eight-hour night does not reproduce a homogeneous cloud model, so forward models for planned observations must keep 3D cloud structure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the factor-two correction is real, the detectability of the golden sample with ANDES is substantially weaker than advertised, and the mission case for HWO may need to lean more on polarization or longer stares.
  • Feeding general-circulation-model cloud fields from tidally locked M-dwarf simulations into the same 3D CG pipeline would directly test whether the Earth-cloud assumption shifts the contrasts and would likely widen the spread between targets.
  • The absorption-to-emission flip of polarized water lines suggests an observable proxy for ocean fraction: tracking the sign of the line across orbital phase could map surface water coverage without direct imaging.
  • Because a coarser zoom-out resolution reproduces the older GCM-based contrasts, past and future radiative-transfer calculations coupled to GCM outputs should be re-checked for resolution convergence before their albedo numbers enter instrumentation plans.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents 3D radiative transfer simulations, using the MYSTIC Monte Carlo code with the 3D Cloud Generator and HAMSTER surface albedo maps, to study reflected and polarized light from Earth-like exoplanets. It builds a ladder of model complexity from uniform surfaces and clouds to an Earth-as-an-exoplanet scenario, compares the resulting spectra and phase curves, and uses the realistic models to compute updated flux and polarization contrasts for the ANDES golden sample plus Barnard b and an Alpha Cen A analogue. The central quantitative claim is that previous reflected-light contrast estimates, such as those of Pallé et al. (2023), are overestimated by roughly a factor of two because of simplified cloud and surface modeling; the paper also argues that polarization retains strong diagnostic value, particularly through water lines, cloudbow features, and high-resolution absorption line behavior.

Significance. If the factor-of-two correction is correct, the paper directly affects predicted integration times and instrument requirements for ELT/ANDES, PCS, and HWO. The modeling ladder is a useful methodological contribution, the inclusion of 3D cloud inhomogeneity and wavelength-dependent surface albedo is a clear step beyond homogeneous treatments, and the high-resolution line calculations at R=100000 are valuable for future retrieval work. The companion code and data are made publicly available, which strengthens reproducibility. However, the headline factor-of-two attribution is not cleanly established by the paper's own comparison ladder, and the contrast table lacks error bars; these issues must be addressed before the quantitative conclusions can be used for instrument planning.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §5, Table 2] The abstract's claim that reflected-light contrast estimates are overestimated by a factor of two 'when simplified cloud and surface models are used' is not supported by the comparison ladder as presented. For Proxima b at α=90°, Table 2 gives Cflux = 5.83×10^-8 for the high-resolution 3D CG Earth-like model, 9.01×10^-8 for the zoom-out x100 Ocean model (which uses the same 3D CG cloud and surface treatment at coarser resolution), and 11.2×10^-8 from Pallé et al. (2023). The zoom-out value captures about 60% of the gap between the high-resolution value and the Pallé et al. value, so the dominant part of the claimed factor-of-two correction is a horizontal-resolution effect of the radiative transfer grid, not the cloud/surface complexity. The paper's own statement in §5 that the zoom-out values 'align closely' with Pallé et al. confirms this interpretation, and the abstract, §5, and conclusion item 5 should be reworded to separate the resolution effect from the cloud/surface realism effect.
  2. [§3.2, §5, Table 2] Table 2 reports only point estimates, although §3.2 and Figs. 5/6 define a 1σ cloud spread for the 3D CG models. Without propagating this spread into the contrast values, the reader cannot judge whether the residual difference between the zoom-out case and Pallé et al., or between the Ocean and Earth-like scenarios, is significant. Adding at least the 1σ ranges to Table 2 would also allow the 'factor of two' claim to carry a meaningful confidence interval.
  3. [§5, Table 2] All five golden-sample targets are M dwarfs and are likely tidally locked, and the paper itself notes that tidal locking 'can result in atmospheric circulation and cloud patterns that differ significantly from those of Earth.' Yet the 3D CG input clouds are ERA5 Earth fields, so the contrast estimates in Table 2 assume an Earth-like cloud climatology for planets whose cloud cover and cloud distribution are expected to differ. Because this is the central quantitative product of the paper, I would like to see either a sensitivity test using cloud distributions from tidally locked GCM simulations, such as those of Turbet et al. (2016), or an explicit restriction of the factor-of-two statement to non-tidally-locked Earth analogues.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2 and Tables 1–2] The target is called 'GJ 682 b' in the text of Section 2 but 'GJ 682 c' in Tables 1 and 2; the designation should be made consistent.
  2. [Table 2] The Pallé et al. (2023) column is empty for Barnard b and Alpha Cen A; please insert a dash or a value to clarify that no prior estimate is being compared.
  3. [Fig. 7 caption] The caption says 'uniform, homogeneous, and 3D CG clouds' while the text describes four cloud treatments (uniform, patchy liquid-water, two-layer liquid and ice water, and 3D CG); the caption should be aligned with the figure content.
  4. [Appendix A] The time-averaged case uses a single randomly chosen date; a brief sentence on why that date is representative would help readers assess the robustness of the 8-hour averaging conclusion.
  5. [§5] The phrase 'a potential planet located at 1 AU orbiting Alpha Cen A' would be clearer if '1 AU' were explicitly identified as the orbital distance assumed for the synthetic planet.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the refined contrasts are genuine simulation outputs, not fitted to the target values or defined by them.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: Earth-observed inputs (ERA5 cloud fields, HAMSTER surface albedo maps, cloud microphysics) feed the 3D Cloud Generator and MYSTIC radiative transfer, producing reflectance values that are converted to contrasts through Eq. (1) with the geometric scale factors in Table 1. The headline numbers, e.g., 5.8e-8 for Proxima b versus 11.2e-8 from Pallé et al. (2023), are model outputs, not parameters fitted to those literature values, so this is not a 'fitted input called prediction' situation. The frequent citation of Roccetti et al. (2025) supplies the ground-truth modeling framework, but that prior work is parameter-free with respect to the exoplanet contrasts and is code-released, so the self-citation is real evidence rather than a circular load. The zoom-out x100 comparison in Table 2 is an internal resolution check; even if one judges that the abstract's factor-of-two attribution overstates the role of cloud/surface complexity relative to horizontal resolution, that is a scientific interpretation issue, not a reduction of the result to its inputs by construction. The paper also explicitly acknowledges in Sec. 5 that tidal locking likely changes cloud patterns relative to Earth, which is a transferability caveat, not a circular step. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz-via-citation, or redefined-empirical-pattern pattern appears. The central claims therefore survive the circularity test, with any residual concerns falling under correctness or attribution rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central contrast results rest on Earth-derived model inputs (ERA5 clouds, HAMSTER surfaces) that are not fitted to exoplanet observations. The homogeneous model's surface weights and cloud properties are assumed from Earth data; the paper quotes no error bars on the final contrast estimates. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • Liquid water cloud cover fraction = 46%
    Set from ERA5 Earth averages in Roccetti et al. (2025); directly sets the homogeneous and patchy cloud radiative response, hence the contrast estimates.
  • Liquid water cloud optical depth = 6.51
    From ERA5 averaged cloud properties; used in all cloud models.
  • Cloud effective droplet radius (liquid) = 8.99 µm
    From ERA5 averages; controls cloudbow position and scattering in polarization.
  • Liquid cloud base altitude and thickness = 1.59 to 2.59 km
    From Roccetti et al. (2025) Tables 1 and 2; affects line formation and cloud deck height retrieval.
  • Ice water cloud cover, optical depth, radius = 54%, 0.63, 46.9 µm
    From ERA5 averages; affects polarization at large phase angles.
  • Surface composition weights in linear-combination Earth model = 70% ocean, 10% forest, 10% desert, 10% polar
    Hand-chosen to mimic Earth's surface fractions; used for the homogeneous Earth-like and cloudy Earth-like models.
  • 3D CG zoom factor = x3 (9 km sub-pixels)
    Convergence choice from Roccetti et al. (2025); resolution strongly affects contrast, since zoom-out x100 matches Pallé.
  • Ocean surface wind speed = 10 m/s
    Assumed constant for BRDF and BPDF ocean glint; affects polarization amplitude.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption ERA5 3D cloud fields are representative of cloud structure on habitable-zone rocky exoplanets.
    Applied to all targets, including tidally locked M dwarfs; the authors note the limitation in Sec. 5 but do not model different cloud climatologies.
  • domain assumption HAMSTER surface albedo maps represent the spectral reflectance of exoplanet surfaces.
    Surface albedo maps are derived from Earth satellite data (Roccetti et al. 2024) and used as ground truth.
  • domain assumption The US Standard Atmosphere approximates the atmospheres of Earth-like exoplanets around M and G stars.
    Used for all ray paths at 400 to 2500 nm and in high-resolution line calculations.
  • domain assumption A linear combination of four surface types reproduces the disk-integrated signal of a heterogeneous planet.
    The paper uses this to build homogeneous Earth-like models and to recommend it for future retrievals.
  • standard math MYSTIC solves the vector 3D radiative transfer equation correctly with the ALIS and VROOM variance-reduction methods.
    Standard, well-tested radiative transfer code; not re-derived in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Planet Earth in reflected and polarized light: II. Refining contrast estimates for rocky exoplanets with ELT and HWO." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MIIDUOUI

@misc{pith2026250604348,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Planet Earth in reflected and polarized light: II. Refining contrast estimates for rocky exoplanets with ELT and HWO},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MIIDUOUI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04348}
}
read the original abstract

The characterization of nearby rocky exoplanets will become feasible with the next generation of telescopes, such as the Extremely Large Telescope (ELT) and the mission concept Habitable Worlds Observatory (HWO). Using an improved model setup, we aim to refine the estimates of reflected and polarized light contrast for a selected sample of rocky exoplanets in the habitable zones of nearby stars. We perform advanced 3D radiative transfer simulations for Earth-like planets orbiting G-type and M-type stars. Our simulations incorporate realistic, wavelength-dependent surface albedo maps and a detailed cloud treatment, including 3D cloud structures and inhomogeneities, to better capture their radiative response. These improvements are based on Earth observations. We present models of increasing complexity, ranging from simple homogeneous representations to a detailed Earth-as-an-exoplanet model. Our results show that averaging homogeneous models fails to capture Earth's full complexity, especially in polarization. Moreover, simplistic cloud models distort the representation of absorption lines at high spectral resolutions, particularly in water bands, potentially biasing atmospheric chemical abundance estimates. Additionally, we provide updated contrast estimates for observing rocky exoplanets around nearby stars with upcoming instruments such as ANDES and PCS at the ELT. Compared to previous studies, our results indicate that reflected light contrast estimates are overestimated by a factor of two when simplified cloud and surface models are used. Instead, measuring the fractional polarization in the continuum and in high-contrast, high-resolution spectra may be more effective for characterizing nearby Earth-like exoplanets. These refined estimates are essential for guiding the design of future ELT instruments and the HWO mission concept.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04348 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Reflected light (top row) and polarized light (bottom row) spectra for various homogeneous, cloud-free planets with di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Reflected light (top row) and polarized light (bottom row) phase curves showing homogeneous cloud-free planets. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Reflected light (top row) and polarized light (bottom row) spectra for various homogeneous planets with di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Reflected light (top row) and polarized light (bottom row) phase curves showing planets with homogeneous clouds and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison among spectra in reflected (first row) and polarized light (second row) of models of di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Reflected light (first row) and polarized light (second row) phase curves showing the influence of models of di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: O2-A band in reflected (top row) and polarized light (bottom row) at a spectral resolution of R = 100 000. The absorption lines are modeled for an Ocean planet with three cloud treatments: uniform, homogeneous, and 3D CG clouds. Different columns refer to different pha…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: H2O absorption lines in the Y band in reflected (top row) and polarized light (bottom row) at a spectral resolution of R = 100 000. The absorption lines are modeled for an Ocean planet with three cloud treatments: uniform, homogeneous, and 3D CG clouds. Different colum…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: H2O absorption lines in the Y band in reflected (top row) and polarized light (bottom row) at a spectral resolution of R = 100 000. The absorption lines are modeled for an Ocean and an Earth-like planet scenario with 3D CG clouds. Different columns refer to different p…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison among spectra in reflected (first row) and polarized light (second row) of the Ocean and Earth-like planet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Large Interferometer For Exoplanets (LIFE): XIII. The Value of Combining Thermal Emission and Reflected Light for the Characterization of Earth Twins

    Alei, E., Quanz, S. P., Konrad, B. S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.13037

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    P., Clough, S

    Anderson, G. P., Clough, S. A., Kneizys, F. X., Chetwynd, J. H., & Shettle, E. P. 1986, AFGL atmospheric constituent profiles (0.120km)

    work page 1986

  3. [3]

    L., Vigan, A., Mouillet, D., et al

    Beuzit, J. L., Vigan, A., Mouillet, D., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A155

    2019

  4. [4]

    S., et al

    Borsa, F., Rainer, M., Bonomo, A. S., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A34

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    2005, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 91, 65

    Buehler, S., Eriksson, P., Kuhn, T., von Engeln, A., & Verdes, C. 2005, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 91, 65

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    & Schmid, H

    Buenzli, E. & Schmid, H. M. 2009, A&A, 504, 259

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    The RISTRETTO simulator: Exoplanet reflected spectra

    Bugatti, M., Lovis, C., Pepe, F., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.20879

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    & Mayer, B

    Buras, R. & Mayer, B. 2011, J. Quant. Spectr. Rad. Transf., 112, 434

    work page 2011

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    J., et al

    Cadieux, C., Doyon, R., MacDonald, R. J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, L2

    2024

  2. [10]

    W., Korzennik, S

    Charbonneau, D., Noyes, R. W., Korzennik, S. G., et al. 1999, ApJ, 522, L145 Collier Cameron, A., Horne, K., Penny, A., & James, D. 1999, Nature, 402, 751 Collier Cameron, A., Horne, K., Penny, A., & Leigh, C. 2002, MNRAS, 330, 187 Costa Silva, A. R., Demangeon, O. D. S., Sant...

    1999

  3. [11]

    V ., Marshall, J

    Cotton, D. V ., Marshall, J. P., Bailey, J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 873

    2017

  4. [12]

    2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 115, 260

    Dong, C., Jin, M., Lingam, M., et al. 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 115, 260

    2018

  5. [13]

    & Tinetti, G

    Edwards, B. & Tinetti, G. 2022, AJ, 164, 15

    2022

  6. [14]

    Emde, C., Buras, R., & Mayer, B. 2011, J. Quant. Spectr. Rad. Transf., 112, 1622

    2011

  7. [15]

    2016, Geoscientific Model De- velopment, 9, 1647

    Emde, C., Buras-Schnell, R., Kylling, A., et al. 2016, Geoscientific Model De- velopment, 9, 1647

    2016

  8. [16]

    2017, A&A, 605, A2

    Emde, C., Buras-Schnell, R., Sterzik, M., & Bagnulo, S. 2017, A&A, 605, A2

    2017

  9. [17]

    2011, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 112, 1551 García Muñoz, A

    Eriksson, P., Buehler, S., Davis, C., Emde, C., & Lemke, O. 2011, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 112, 1551 García Muñoz, A. 2015, International Journal of Astrobiology, 14, 379

    2011

  10. [18]

    2014, Journal of Quantitative Spec- troscopy and Radiative Transfer, 148, 99 Article number, page 13 of 16 A&A proofs:manuscript no

    Gasteiger, J., Emde, C., Mayer, B., et al. 2014, Journal of Quantitative Spec- troscopy and Radiative Transfer, 148, 99 Article number, page 13 of 16 A&A proofs:manuscript no. main González Hernández, J. I., Suárez Mascareño, A., Silva, A. M., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A79

    2014

  11. [19]

    E., Karalidi, T., Bott, K

    Gordon, K. E., Karalidi, T., Bott, K. M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 166

    2023

  12. [20]

    P., Bell, T

    Greene, T. P., Bell, T. J., Ducrot, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 618, 39

    2023

  13. [21]

    D., Thompson, S

    Hall, R. D., Thompson, S. J., Handley, W., & Queloz, D. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 2968

    2018

  14. [22]

    2020, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 146, 1999

    Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., et al. 2020, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 146, 1999

    2020

  15. [23]

    J., Snellen, I

    Hoeijmakers, H. J., Snellen, I. A. G., & van Terwisga, S. E. 2018, A&A, 610, A47

    2018

  16. [24]

    2024, Nature, 630, 609

    Hu, R., Bello-Arufe, A., Zhang, M., et al. 2024, Nature, 630, 609

    2024

  17. [25]

    M., Mouillet, D., et al

    Hunziker, S., Schmid, H. M., Mouillet, D., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A69

    2020

  18. [26]

    & Stam, D

    Karalidi, T. & Stam, D. M. 2012, A&A, 546, A56

    2012

  19. [27]

    2021, The Messenger, 182, 38

    Kasper, M., Cerpa Urra, N., Pathak, P., et al. 2021, The Messenger, 182, 38

    2021

  20. [28]

    F., Whitmire, D

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

    1993

  21. [29]

    C., Henson, G

    Kemp, J. C., Henson, G. D., Steiner, C. T., & Powell, E. R. 1987, Nature, 326, 270

    1987

  22. [30]

    K., Ramirez, R., Kasting, J

    Kopparapu, R. K., Ramirez, R., Kasting, J. F., et al. 2013, ApJ, 765, 131

    2013

  23. [31]

    k., Wolf, E

    Kopparapu, R. k., Wolf, E. T., Arney, G., et al. 2017, ApJ, 845, 5

    2017

  24. [32]

    2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instru- mentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Lovis, C., Blind, N., Chazelas, B., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instru- mentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 12184, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IX, ed. C. J. Evans, J. J. Bryant, & K. Motohara, 121841Q

    2022

  25. [33]

    & Barnes, R

    Luger, R. & Barnes, R. 2015, Astrobiology, 15, 119

    2015

  26. [34]

    Martins, J. H. C., Santos, N. C., Figueira, P., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, A134

    2015

  27. [35]

    2009, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, V ol

    Mayer, B. 2009, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, V ol. 1, Eu- ropean Physical Journal Web of Conferences, 75

    2009

  28. [36]

    & Kylling, A

    Mayer, B. & Kylling, A. 2005, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 5, 1855 Montañés-Rodríguez, P., Pallé, E., Goode, P. R., & Martín-Torres, F. J. 2006, ApJ, 651, 544 National Academies of Sciences, E. & Medicine. 2021, Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 2020s

    2005

  29. [37]

    2025, A&A, 693, A213 Pallé, E., Biazzo, K., Bolmont, E., et al

    Nortmann, L., Lesjak, F., Yan, F., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A213 Pallé, E., Biazzo, K., Bolmont, E., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.17075

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    2020, ApJ, 894, L27

    Pino, L., Désert, J.-M., Brogi, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 894, L27

    2020

  31. [39]

    V ., et al

    Prinoth, B., Sedaghati, E., Seidel, J. V ., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.08558

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    P., Ottiger, M., Fontanet, E., et al

    Quanz, S. P., Ottiger, M., Fontanet, E., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A21

    2022

  33. [41]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.05447

    Rauer, H., Aerts, C., Cabrera, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.05447

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    D., Meadows, V

    Robinson, T. D., Meadows, V . S., Crisp, D., et al. 2011, Astrobiology, 11, 393

    2011

  35. [43]

    2024, Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 17, 6025

    Roccetti, G., Bugliaro, L., Gödde, F., et al. 2024, Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 17, 6025

    2024

  36. [44]

    F., et al

    Roccetti, G., Emde, C., Sterzik, M. F., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A170

    2025

  37. [45]

    2013, Astronomische Nachrichten, 334, 188

    Rodler, F., Kürster, M., López-Morales, M., & Ribas, I. 2013, Astronomische Nachrichten, 334, 188

    2013

  38. [46]

    2021, A&A, 646, A159

    Scandariato, G., Borsa, F., Sicilia, D., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A159

    2021

  39. [47]

    V ., Prinoth, B., Pino, L., et al

    Seidel, J. V ., Prinoth, B., Pino, L., et al. 2025, Nature, 639, 902

    2025

  40. [48]

    F., Levrard, B., et al

    Selsis, F., Kasting, J. F., Levrard, B., et al. 2007, A&A, 476, 1373

    2007

  41. [49]

    Snellen, I. A. G., Albrecht, S., de Mooij, E. J. W., & Le Poole, R. S. 2008, A&A, 487, 357

    2008

  42. [50]

    F., Birkby, J

    Spring, E. F., Birkby, J. L., Pino, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A121

    2022

  43. [51]

    Stam, D. M. 2008, A&A, 482, 989

    2008

  44. [52]

    F., Bagnulo, S., Emde, C., & Manev, M

    Sterzik, M. F., Bagnulo, S., Emde, C., & Manev, M. 2020, A&A, 639, A89

    2020

  45. [53]

    2018, Experimental Astronomy, 46, 135

    Tinetti, G., Drossart, P., Eccleston, P., et al. 2018, Experimental Astronomy, 46, 135

    2018

  46. [54]

    Trees, V . J. H. & Stam, D. M. 2019, A&A, 626, A129

    2019

  47. [55]

    Trees, V . J. H. & Stam, D. M. 2022, A&A, 664, A172

    2022

  48. [56]

    2016, A&A, 596, A112

    Turbet, M., Leconte, J., Selsis, F., et al. 2016, A&A, 596, A112

    2016

  49. [57]

    R., Birkby, J

    Vaughan, S. R., Birkby, J. L., Thatte, N., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3509

    2024

  50. [58]

    R., Gebhard, T

    Vaughan, S. R., Gebhard, T. D., Bott, K., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 5477

    2023

  51. [59]

    2021, Nature Communications, 12, 922

    Wagner, K., Boehle, A., Pathak, P., et al. 2021, Nature Communications, 12, 922

    2021

  52. [60]

    2022, ApJ, 931, 48

    Wang, F., Fujii, Y ., & He, J. 2022, ApJ, 931, 48

    2022

  53. [61]

    J., Aleinov, I., Amundsen, D

    Way, M. J., Aleinov, I., Amundsen, D. S., et al. 2017, ApJS, 231, 12

    2017

  54. [62]

    Zieba, S., Kreidberg, L., Ducrot, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 620, 746 Article number, page 14 of 16 Giulia Roccetti et al.: Planet Earth in reflected and polarized light Appendix A: Cloud averaging over long integration times To address the effect of time-averaging the planetary...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.