Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 78 references

TRAPPIST-1 b is most likely airless, but 3D climate modeling shows several atmospheres — thin residual gas, hazy thermal inversions — produce the same bright 15-micron dayside, so a single eclipse point cannot settle whether an atmosphere e

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Airless, thin residual, and hazy-inversion atmospheres all match TRAPPIST-1 b's eclipse and phase curve data, so a single 15 µm eclipse depth is not enough to conclude a planet is airless.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection The paper's central warning—don't infer an airless rocky planet from a single 15-µm eclipse depth—survives scrutiny, and the 3D modeling alone is worth the read. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.02120 v1 pith:QYXDNODM submitted 2025-09-02 astro-ph.EP

Constraints on the possible atmospheres on TRAPPIST-1 b: insights from 3D climate modeling

Alice Maurel , Martin Turbet , Elsa Ducrot , J\'er\'emy Leconte , Guillaume Chaverot , Gwenael Milcareck , Alexandre Revol , Benjamin Charnay
show 8 more authors
J. Thomas Fauchez Micha\"el Gillon Alexandre Mechineau Emeline Bolmont Ehouarn Millour Franck Selsis Jean-Philippe Beaulieu Pierre Drossart
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords TRAPPIST-1 brocky exoplanet atmospheressecondary eclipsethermal phase curve3D climate modelingatmospheric collapsethermal inversionJWST mid-infrared photometry
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

TRAPPIST-1 b, the innermost rocky planet of the TRAPPIST-1 system, shows a dayside so bright in JWST mid-infrared observations that the simplest reading is a bare, airless rock. The paper asks whether that reading is unique, and shows it is not. Using 1D and 3D climate simulations compared against two eclipse depths and a full 15-micron phase curve, the authors find that an airless planet is the most likely configuration, with a thin CO2-poor residual atmosphere as the leading alternative — but also that thin pure-CO2 atmospheres would freeze out onto the nightside within about ten years, and that haze-shrouded atmospheres with a hot upper layer (a thermal inversion) can mimic the bare-rock signal. The broader payoff is a warning: concluding a planet is airless from a single photometric point is hazardous, and phase-curve or multi-wavelength observations are needed to back up such verdicts.

Core claim

The paper's central claim: all JWST emission data on TRAPPIST-1 b — 12.8 and 15 µm eclipse depths plus a 15 µm phase curve — are consistent with an airless planet, the most likely scenario; a thin CO2-poor residual atmosphere is the leading alternative. Four families of atmospheres reproduce the bright dayside: thin bare-rock-like ones, thick transparent ones, reduced greenhouse atmospheres with opacity windows at the observed wavelengths, and thermal-inversion atmospheres where CO2 emits. 3D modeling adds effects 1D cannot see: pure-CO2 atmospheres at 0.1 bar or less collapse into the nightside cold trap within a decade, and the high layers probed at 15 µm redistribute heat poorly even in h

What carries the argument

The central object is the Generic Planetary Climate Model, a 3D global climate model with correlated-k radiative transfer and an active CO2 condensation scheme, post-processed by the Pytmosph3R tool into synthetic eclipse spectra and 15 µm phase curves. It carries the argument because heat redistribution is emergent, not assumed: the model self-consistently produces the nightside cold trap that collapses thin pure-CO2 atmospheres, and the inefficient high-altitude redistribution that lets hazy atmospheres keep a hot dayside and cold nightside. The 1D exo_k model is the fast screening stage that maps the composition-pressure space before the 3D stage.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the model's prediction that pure CO2 atmospheres of about 0.1 bar or less freeze out completely onto the cold nightside within a decade; if real turbulence, internal heat, or orbital motion keeps the nightside warmer, thin CO2 atmospheres would remain compatible with the observations.

What would settle it

Measure the 10 µm secondary eclipse of TRAPPIST-1 b. The bare-rock and hazy CO2-emission models diverge most at this wavelength, and the paper's sensitivity calculation says roughly two JWST visits would separate them; eight visits at 18 µm would also work. A 10 µm depth matching the hazy model would overturn the airless-most-likely conclusion; one matching bare rock would confirm it.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Thin pure-CO2 atmospheres (about 0.1 bar or less) are not viable on TRAPPIST-1 b: they freeze out onto the nightside within roughly a decade, so any surviving CO2-dominated atmosphere must be thick or stabilized by other heating.
  • The 15 µm phase curve discriminates where eclipse depth cannot: thick, heat-redistributing atmospheres (reduced N2-CH4-C2H4 and thick transparent cases) are ruled out by their flat phase curves.
  • After all available emission data, the viable set shrinks to an airless planet, a thin CO2-poor residual atmosphere, and a fine-tuned hazy thermal-inversion atmosphere.
  • The same eclipse-then-phase-curve methodology and the same degeneracy of a single high 15 µm eclipse depth apply to other temperate rocky exoplanets observed in emission with JWST.
  • Two JWST visits at 10 µm could, by the paper's sensitivity estimates, separate the bare-rock scenario from the hazy CO2-emission scenario.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The collapse threshold is the natural target for model intercomparison: if another GCM's nightside cold trap is warmer because of different turbulent-mixing or surface parameterizations, thin CO2 atmospheres re-enter the viable set, and the 'most likely airless' conclusion weakens.
  • The paper's single-photometric-point warning extends to the wider JWST rocky-planet eclipse surveys: targets flagged as airless from one eclipse may need phase-curve or multi-wavelength follow-up before being used as clean reference bodies for stellar-contamination correction.
  • Only idealized hazes with tuned scattering properties match the data; realistic tholin, sulfate, and dust optics do not. Laboratory or microphysical constraints on high-altitude haze optical properties around cool M dwarfs could settle whether the hazy scenario is physically plausible.
  • A joint fit of planets b and c in the observed phase curve — noted by the authors as the cleaner but out-of-scope approach — could sharpen the extraction of b's nightside emission and further separate the surviving scenarios.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript uses 1D radiative-convective (exo_k) and 3D Generic PCM simulations to explore which atmospheres on TRAPPIST-1 b can match the JWST secondary-eclipse depths at 12.8 and 15 µm (Greene et al. 2023; Ducrot et al. 2024) and the 15 µm thermal phase curve (Gillon et al. 2025). The authors identify four families that can yield a bright 15 µm dayside: thin residual N2-CO2 atmospheres, thick transparent atmospheres, thick greenhouse-efficient atmospheres with an opacity window near 12.8/15 µm, and atmospheres with a strong thermal inversion (CH4+CO2, idealized hazes, or dust/tholins). After computing synthetic eclipse spectra and phase curves and comparing them with a relative chi-square metric (Sect. 2.4), they find that the airless model and several atmospheric models remain compatible with all the available data. The paper concludes that the observations are consistent with an airless planet, with a thin CO2-poor residual atmosphere as the main alternative, and that a single 15 µm eclipse depth cannot be used to infer airlessness.

Significance. The central conclusion is important: it provides a quantitative demonstration that JWST emission photometry of TRAPPIST-1 b, including the phase curve, is degenerate between airless, thin-residual, and fine-tuned hazy/inverted atmospheres. This is a valuable warning for the many upcoming JWST programs targeting rocky exoplanets in emission. The paper's strengths are the broad N2-CO2 pressure/mixing-ratio grid (Table 1, Fig. 5), explicit 3D treatment of heat redistribution in the upper atmosphere, GCM simulations of CO2 cold-trap collapse (Fig. 7, Appendix A.2), an honest discussion of model limitations (Sect. 4), and concrete, falsifiable predictions for future 10 and 18 µm observations (Fig. 14) and transit spectra (Appendix D). The non-uniqueness conclusion does not depend on the collapse prediction: the thin N2+1 ppm CO2 and N2+0.1 ppm CO2 cases already match the eclipse and phase-curve points in Table 1. However, the quantitative ranking of the remaining scenarios ("most likely airless") is not supported by the relative chi-square metric used.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.4, Eq. (2), Table 1] The paper states that the chi-square is only a relative metric and "cannot provide an absolute quantification of the mismatch" (Sect. 2.4), yet Table 1 labels all entries as reduced chi-square, including values below 1 (e.g., CO2+Hazes Model 1, chi2_joint = 0.4), and Sect. 3.3.3 calls Model 1 "the best agreement". Because the two haze parameters of Model 1 are tuned to the same eclipse/phase-curve data and no degrees-of-freedom or model-covariance treatment is given, these numbers cannot support the "most likely airless" ranking in the abstract and conclusion. The qualitative degeneracy remains, but the ranking needs to be either replaced by a proper model comparison or removed and presented as a prior-based or qualitative preference.
  2. [§3.3.2, §4.1, Appendix C.1] The haze-inversion models that pass all data are the least physical: Model 1 mimics a single-scattering albedo of 0.5 by arbitrarily reducing the stellar flux by a factor 2, and Model 2 uses a haze factor two orders of magnitude below the value previously advocated (Sect. 3.3.2). Appendix C.1 shows that realistic aerosol optical properties (tholins, H2SO4, martian dust) do not produce a CO2 emission band and that the simplified-haze case is fine-tuned. Since the abstract lists "CO2 atmospheres rich in hazes" alongside the other families without these caveats, the paper should explicitly distinguish proof-of-concept/idealized models from physically self-consistent models in the abstract and conclusion. The caveats in Sect. 4.1 are not carried through to the paper's headline statements.
  3. [§3.1.6, Table 1, Appendix A.2] Models flagged with asterisks in Table 1 are time-dependent collapsing states, but they are assigned chi-square values on the same footing as stable equilibrium models. For example, N2+100 ppm CO2 at 0.01 bar has chi2_joint = 1.7 and is listed as collapsing; its observables are snapshots during an ongoing collapse, not a stationary state. The conclusion that collapse "allowed us to rule out some atmospheres" (Sect. 5) is also in tension with the statement that the data-compatible thin CO2-poor atmospheres are the end products of partial collapse (Sect. 3.1.6). The text should clarify whether collapse is used as a dynamical selection criterion or as a formation mechanism. This clarification matters, but it would not overturn the degeneracy claim: if the collapse were overestimated, additional thin CO2-bearing models would remain viable, strengthening the paper's main warning.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2] The unit for the planetary radius is given as "1.116 (M⊕)"; it should be "1.116 (R⊕)".
  2. [Table 3 / §2.1.3] The N2+CO2 k-tables are from "Chaverot et al. in prep." and the phase-curve data are from Gillon et al. (2025), "under review". For reproducibility, provide public access to the opacity tables and phase-curve data products (or an updated reference) before publication.
  3. [§2.4] The phrase "the most likely scenario" in the abstract is not derivable from the relative chi-square comparison alone; if retained, it should be explicitly qualified as a prior-based or qualitative assessment.
  4. [§3.1.6 / §3.1.7] The discussion of tidal heat flux (Table 4) is clear, but the text should state whether the quoted internal flux range (4e-2 to 500 W/m2) is used in any of the GCM simulations or only as a post hoc stability argument. It appears to be the latter.
  5. [Appendix C.2] The non-convergence of the deep atmosphere in the 3D dust simulation is honestly disclosed; consider adding a convergence criterion or a statement that the upper-atmosphere emission layers are converged to within the quoted precision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the degeneracy conclusion rests on independent forward models.

full rationale

This paper is a forward-model exploration, not a derivation. The central claim—that a single 15 µm eclipse depth is degenerate—is established by Table 1 and Fig. 5: thin N2+CO2 atmospheres (e.g., N2+0.1 ppm CO2 at 1 bar, N2+1 ppm CO2 at 0.1 bar) and the airless model all achieve reduced χ2 < 2 for eclipse and phase-curve data without any parameter fit to the eclipse depths. These are independent realizations from the Generic PCM/exo_k with stated opacities and boundary conditions. The CO2 collapse result (Sect. 3.1.6) is a GCM prediction, not an input, and it is not used to remove data-compatible models; pure-CO2 0.1 bar is already excluded by the eclipse data itself (χ2_eclipse = 17 in Table 1). The hazy-inversion models (Model 1 and 2) are explicitly fit to the observations and called 'fine-tuned' (Sect. 3.3.3); they are presented as existence proofs of a possible, though unlikely, scenario, not as predictions, so no fitted value is relabeled as a prediction. Citations to Ducrot et al. (2024) for the simplified haze prescription and to Gillon et al. (2025) for phase-curve data are not load-bearing for the main degeneracy conclusion, which survives even if all haze models were discarded. The paper's own acknowledged limitations (non-converged dust GCM, relative χ2, idealized hazes) affect the ranking of scenarios, but not the qualitative non-uniqueness. No step in the derivation chain reduces by definition to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central degeneracy conclusion relies on forward models with several prescribed or fitted parameters. The haze models are explicitly fine-tuned to match eclipse depths. The airless interpretation depends on assumed surface albedo and emissivity treatment. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (5)
  • Haze factor f_haze (simplified haze model) = 7e-4 (Model 1), 3e-5 (Model 2)
    Adjusted to make synthetic eclipse depths match the JWST 12.8 and 15 µm measurements (Section 3.3.3, Fig. 11).
  • Single-scattering albedo of simplified hazes = 0.5 (Model 1), 0.2 (Model 2)
    Adjusted together with f_haze to match eclipse data (Section 3.3.3).
  • Surface albedo = 0.1 (GCM bare ground), 0.2 (airless reference)
    Chosen from previous work (Ducrot et al. 2024); sensitivity tested in 1D (Appendix A.3); affects the airless eclipse depth and the thin-atmosphere continua.
  • Aerosol layer parameters (VMR, pressure bounds, radii) for dust/tholins = Dust VMR 3.5e-18, tholins VMR 1e-13, pressure layers and radii as in Section 3.3.2
    Prescribed ad hoc to produce thermal inversion scenarios; no formation model constrains them.
  • exo_k albedo cutoff wavelength = 5 µm
    Assumed to separate stellar and thermal emission regimes; changes computed eclipse depths for thin atmospheres relative to a wavelength-independent albedo (Section 3.1.4).
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption TRAPPIST-1 b is in a circular, tidally locked orbit with zero obliquity and synchronous rotation.
    Based on Agol et al. (2021); used for all GCM setups (Table 2). Sensitivity to substellar circulation is explored only for the collapse analysis (Section 3.1.7).
  • domain assumption The Generic PCM and exo_k with the used correlated-k tables accurately compute radiative transfer and climate for these atmospheres.
    Core modeling premise; opacity tables are partly constructed for this work or from an unpublished 'Chaverot et al. in prep.' (Table 3), and spectral resolution is R=10 in the GCM.
  • domain assumption The selected phase-curve extraction (analysis #1-MG of Gillon et al. 2025) is a valid representation of TRAPPIST-1 b's phase curve.
    The authors chose one of many MCMC pipelines, noting the extracted curve is pipeline-dependent (Section 2.4).
  • domain assumption No internal heat flux in nominal simulations.
    Set to 0 in GCM (Table 2); the possibility that internal/tidal heat prevents collapse is discussed separately in Section 3.1.7.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraints on the possible atmospheres on TRAPPIST-1 b: insights from 3D climate modeling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QYXDNODM

@misc{pith2026250902120,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraints on the possible atmospheres on TRAPPIST-1 b: insights from 3D climate modeling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QYXDNODM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02120}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

JWST observations of the secondary eclipse of TRAPPIST-1 b at 12.8 and 15 microns revealed a very bright dayside. These measurements are consistent with an absence of atmosphere. Previous 1D atmospheric modeling also excludes -- at first sight -- CO2-rich atmospheres. However, only a subset of the possible atmosphere types has been explored and ruled out to date. Recently, a full thermal phase curve of the planet at 15 microns with JWST has also been observed, allowing for more information on the thermal structure of the planet. We first looked for atmospheres capable of producing a dayside emission compatible with secondary eclipse observations. We then tried to determine which of these are compatible with the observed thermal phase curve. We used a 1D radiative-convective model and a 3D global climate model (GCM) to simulate a wide range of atmospheric compositions and surface pressures. We then produced observables from these simulations and compared them to available emission observations. We found several families of atmospheres compatible at 2-sigma with the eclipse observations. Among them, some feature a flat phase curve and can be ruled out with the observation, and some produce a phase curve still compatible with the data (i.e., thin N2-CO2 atmospheres, and CO2 atmospheres rich in hazes). We also highlight different 3D effects that could not be predicted from 1D studies (redistribution efficiency, atmospheric collapse). The available observations of TRAPPIST-1 b are consistent with an airless planet, which is the most likely scenario. A second possibility is a thin CO2-poor residual atmosphere. However, our study shows that different atmospheric scenarios can result in a high eclipse depth at 15 microns. It may therefore be hazardous, in general, to conclude on the presence of an atmosphere from a single photometric point.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.02120 by Alexandre Mechineau, Alexandre Revol, Alice Maurel, Benjamin Charnay, Ehouarn Millour, Elsa Ducrot, Emeline Bolmont, Franck Selsis, Guillaume Chaverot, Gwenael Milcareck, Jean-Philippe Beaulieu, J\'er\'emy leconte, J. Thomas Fauchez, Martin Turbet, Micha\"el Gillon, Pierre Drossart.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Exoplanets under consideration for the Rocky Worlds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Sketches of the different atmospheric scenarios studied in depth in this work, as seen from the North pole. of the lower atmosphere can far exceed the brightness tem￾perature measured by MIRI, due to the powerful greenhouse effect of the atmosphere. For such atmospheres to fit the eclipse data, the molecules present in the atmosphere must have absorption windows that let through the emission from the deepe… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: N2-CO2 grid of performed simulations. The points in red are not compatible with the observations; the green points match the data. The orange, purple, and brown lines correspond respec￾tively to the 3σ limit of Ih et al. (2023), and limits from this work from eclipse and phase curve observations. The arrows indicate a collapse of the CO2 present in the atmosphere. The dots corre￾spond to stable atmosphere,… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Phase curves of the simulations from Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Synthetic eclipse spectra (left panel) and phase curves (right panel) for all the CO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Total pressure of a pure CO2 atmosphere against time, for the threshold case of a 0.1 bar atmosphere. In a tidally locked case, the atmosphere collapses totally in approximately ten Earth years. If we set a circulation of the substellar point to one Earth year, the 0.1 bar atmosphere becomes stable, and a partially col￾lapsed atmosphere vaporizes all the CO2 back to the atmosphere. surface temperature drop… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Thick atmosphere case (10 bar, N2 atmosphere with 20% of CH4 and 0.2% of C2H4). Upper panels: Synthetic observables and observed data (eclipse depth vs wavelength, left, and phase curve, right). Lower panels: Temperature profile (left) and map (right). The temperature map corresponds to a sum of the atmospheric layers, weighted by their contribution to the emission at 15 µm. We added the similarly weighted… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: 1D case of thermal inversion (10 bar, N2+40% CH4+0.4%CO2). Left: Opacity of the atmosphere with the zone of emission of the star and the planet. Middle: Temperature profile and the layers of emission of the atmosphere at 15 µm. Right: Eclipse depth. The methane absorbs partly in the star-emission region, creating the thermal inversion in the temperature profile. The CO2 absorbs in the 15 µm band, and thus … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Thermal inversion: 1 bar, N2+40% CH4+0.4%CO2. The panels are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Thermal inversion: CO2+ simplified hazes. The panels are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Thermal inversion: CO2+ aerosols with realistic optical properties. The panels are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Phase curves in the 12.8 µm MIRI filter for an airless body and the remaining atmospheric families, along with the cor￾responding simulated observational points. 4.4. Perspectives for the study of TRAPPIST-1 b We highlighted different atmospheres that could produce observ￾ables compatible with our data available. Are there additional emission observations of TRAPPIST-1 b that could distinguish between the… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L., et al

    Agol , E., Dorn , C., Grimm , S. L., et al. 2021, Planet. Sci. J., 2, 1

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    2022, , 663, A79

    Auclair-Desrotour , P., Deitrick , R., & Heng , K. 2022, , 663, A79

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    K., Gressier, A., et al

    Banerjee, A., Barstow, J. K., Gressier, A., et al. 2024, , 975, L11

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Barclay , T., Pepper , J., & Quintana , E. V. 2018, , 239, 2

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    2016, , 591, A106

    Bolmont , E., Libert , A.-S., Leconte , J., & Selsis , F. 2016, , 591, A106

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    E., et al

    Bolmont , E., Selsis , F., Owen , J. E., et al. 2017, , 464, 3728

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    J., et al

    Bourrier , V., Ehrenreich , D., Wheatley , P. J., et al. 2017, , 599, L3

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    E., Gryvnak, D

    Burch, D. E., Gryvnak, D. A., Patty, R. R., & Bartky, C. E. 1969, J. Opt. Soc. Am. (1917-1983), 59, 267

    work page 1969

  9. [9]

    2021, , 646, A171

    Charnay , B., Blain , D., B \'e zard , B., et al. 2021, , 646, A171

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    2015, , 813, 15

    Charnay , B., Meadows , V., & Leconte , J. 2015, , 813, 15

    work page 2015

  11. [11]

    Chen , H., Li , G., Paradise , A., & Kopparapu , R. K. 2023, , 946, L32

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    , Rocchetto, Marco , Yurchenko, Sergei N

    Chubb, Katy L. , Rocchetto, Marco , Yurchenko, Sergei N. , et al. 2021, , 646, A21

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Coleman , G. A. L., Leleu , A., Alibert , Y., & Benz , W. 2019, , 631, A7

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    V., et al

    de Wit, J., Doyon, R., Rackham, B. V., et al. 2024, Nat. Astron., 8, 810–818

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    2024, , 682, A6

    Drant , T., Garcia-Caurel , E., Perrin , Z., et al. 2024, , 682, A6

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    2020, , 640, A112

    Ducrot , E., Gillon , M., Delrez , L., et al. 2020, , 640, A112

    work page 2020

  17. [17]

    2024, Nat

    Ducrot, E., Lagage, P.-O., Min, M., et al. 2024, Nat. Astron

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    2022, , 658, A41

    Falco , A., Zingales , T., Pluriel , W., & Leconte , J. 2022, , 658, A41

    work page 2022

  19. [19]

    J., Rackham , B

    Fauchez , T. J., Rackham , B. V., Ducrot , E., Stevenson , K. B., & de Wit , J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.19585

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    J., Turbet , M., Villanueva , G

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

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    1999, , 104, 24155

    Forget , F., Hourdin , F., Fournier , R., et al. 1999, , 104, 24155

    work page 1999

  22. [22]

    2013, , 222, 81

    Forget , F., Wordsworth , R., Millour , E., et al. 2013, , 222, 81

    work page 2013

  23. [23]

    & Schmitt , B

    Fray , N. & Schmitt , B. 2009, , 57, 2053

    work page 2009

  24. [24]

    & Liou , K

    Fu , Q. & Liou , K. N. 1992, J. Atmos. Sci., 49, 2139

    work page 1992

  25. [25]

    J., et al

    Gillon, M., Ducrot, E., Bell, T. J., et al. 2025, under review at Astronomy & Astrophysics

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    M., et al

    Gillon , M., Jehin , E., Lederer , S. M., et al. 2016, , 533, 221

    work page 2016

  27. [27]

    2020, , 52

    Gillon, M., Meadows, V., Agol, E., et al. 2020, , 52

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    Gillon , M., Triaud , A. H. M. J., Demory , B.-O., et al. 2017, , 542, 456

    work page 2017

  29. [29]

    P., Bell , T

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

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    H., et al

    Gressier, A., Espinoza, N., Allen, N. H., et al. 2024, , 975, L10

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    & Borysow , A

    Gruszka , M. & Borysow , A. 1997, , 129, 172

    work page 1997

  32. [32]

    M., Lichtenberg , T., et al

    Hammond , M., Guimond , C. M., Lichtenberg , T., et al. 2025, , 978, L40

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    N., & Tennyson, J

    Hill, C., Yurchenko, S. N., & Tennyson, J. 2013, , 226, 1673

    work page 2013

  34. [34]

    2024, , 630, 609

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

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    1981, , 99, 126

    Hut , P. 1981, , 99, 126

    1981

  36. [36]

    Ih , J., Kempton , E. M. R., Whittaker , E. A., & Lessard , M. 2023, , 952, L4

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    R., Line , M

    Iyer , A. R., Line , M. R., Muirhead , P. S., Fortney , J. J., & Gharib-Nezhad , E. 2023, , 944, 41

    work page 2023

  38. [38]

    M., Elvidge , A

    Joshi , M. M., Elvidge , A. D., Wordsworth , R., & Sergeev , D. 2020, , 892, L33

    work page 2020

  39. [39]

    E., van der Avoird , A., et al

    Karman , T., Gordon , I. E., van der Avoird , A., et al. 2019, , 328, 160

    work page 2019

  40. [40]

    N., Sagan , C., Arakawa , E

    Khare , B. N., Sagan , C., Arakawa , E. T., et al. 1984, , 60, 127

    work page 1984

  41. [41]

    Kite , E. S. & Barnett , M. N. 2020, Proc. Nat. Ac. Sci., 117, 18264

    work page 2020

  42. [42]

    Koll , D. D. B. 2022, , 924, 134

    work page 2022

  43. [43]

    & Fortney , J

    Krissansen-Totton , J. & Fortney , J. J. 2022, , 933, 115

    work page 2022

  44. [44]

    Krissansen-Totton, J., Olson, S., & Catling, D. C. 2018, Science Advances, 4, eaao5747

    work page 2018

  45. [45]

    2021, , 645, A20

    Leconte , J. 2021, , 645, A20

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    2023, , 955, L22

    Lim , O., Benneke , B., Doyon , R., et al. 2023, , 955, L22

    work page 2023

  47. [47]

    E., Christensen, D

    Lund Myhre, C. E., Christensen, D. H., Nicolaisen, F. M., & Nielsen, C. J. 2003, The J. Phys. Chem., 107, 1979

    work page 2003

  48. [48]

    S., & Lincowski , A

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

    work page 2019

  49. [49]

    V., Berghea , C

    Makarov , V. V., Berghea , C. T., & Efroimsky , M. 2018, , 857, 142

    work page 2018

  50. [50]

    P., Yachmenev, A., Tennyson, J., & Yurchenko, S

    Mant, B. P., Yachmenev, A., Tennyson, J., & Yurchenko, S. N. 2018, , 478, 3220

    work page 2018

  51. [51]

    & Cowan , N

    Moore , K. & Cowan , N. B. 2020, , 496, 3786

    work page 2020

  52. [52]

    & Charbonneau , D

    Nutzman , P. & Charbonneau , D. 2008, , 120, 317

    work page 2008

  53. [53]

    Perrin, M. Y. & Hartmann, J. M. 1989, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Rad. Transf., 42, 311

    work page 1989

  54. [54]

    V., Apai , D., & Giampapa , M

    Rackham , B. V., Apai , D., & Giampapa , M. S. 2018, , 853, 122

    2018

  55. [55]

    Revol, A., Émeline Bolmont, Sastre, M., et al. 2024,

    work page 2024

  56. [56]

    2023, , 620, 287–291

    Selsis , F., Leconte , J., Turbet , M., Chaverot , G., & Bolmont , E. 2023, , 620, 287–291

    work page 2023

  57. [57]

    Shakespeare, C. J. & Steffen, J. H. 2023, Day 'N' Nite: Habitability of Tidally Locked Planets with Sporadic Rotation

    work page 2023

  58. [58]

    2015, , 250, 553

    Soto , A., Mischna , M., Schneider , T., Lee , C., & Richardson , M. 2015, , 250, 553

    work page 2015

  59. [59]

    W., Winn , J

    Sullivan , P. W., Winn , J. N., Berta-Thompson , Z. K., et al. 2015, , 809, 77

    2015

  60. [60]

    2024, , 683, A231

    Teinturier , L., Charnay , B., Spiga , A., et al. 2024, , 683, A231

    work page 2024

  61. [61]

    Tran, H., Boulet, C., Stefani, S., Snels, M., & Piccioni, G. 2011, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Rad. Transf., 112, 925

    work page 2011

  62. [62]

    M., Rambinison , E., & Turbet , M

    Tran , H., Hartmann , J. M., Rambinison , E., & Turbet , M. 2024, , 422, 116265

    work page 2024

  63. [63]

    2018, , 306, 116

    Tran, H., Turbet, M., Chelin, P., & Landsheere, X. 2018, , 306, 116

    work page 2018

  64. [64]

    Triaud , A. H. M. J. 2021, in ExoFrontiers; Big Questions in Exoplanetary Science, ed. N. Madhusudhan (IOP Publishing), 6--1

    work page 2021

  65. [65]

    2018, Theses, Sorbonne Universit \'e / Universit \'e Pierre et Marie Curie - Paris VI

    Turbet, M. 2018, Theses, Sorbonne Universit \'e / Universit \'e Pierre et Marie Curie - Paris VI

    work page 2018

  66. [66]

    2020 a , , 216, 100

    Turbet , M., Bolmont , E., Bourrier , V., et al. 2020 a , , 216, 100

    work page 2020

  67. [67]

    2018, , 612, A86

    Turbet , M., Bolmont , E., Leconte , J., et al. 2018, , 612, A86

    work page 2018

  68. [68]

    2020 b , , 346, 113762

    Turbet , M., Boulet , C., & Karman , T. 2020 b , , 346, 113762

    work page 2020

  69. [69]

    J., Leconte , J., et al

    Turbet , M., Fauchez , T. J., Leconte , J., et al. 2023, , 679, A126

    work page 2023

  70. [70]

    2017, Earth Plan

    Turbet , M., Forget , F., Leconte , J., Charnay , B., & Tobie , G. 2017, Earth Plan. Sci. Let., 476, 11

    work page 2017

  71. [71]

    M., Tamayo, D., & Hansen, B

    Vinson, A. M., Tamayo, D., & Hansen, B. M. S. 2019, 488, 5739

    work page 2019

  72. [72]

    & Ozaki, K

    Watanabe, Y. & Ozaki, K. 2024, , 961, 1

    work page 2024

  73. [73]

    D., Forget , F., Selsis , F., et al

    Wordsworth , R. D., Forget , F., Selsis , F., et al. 2011, , 733, L48

    work page 2011

  74. [74]

    D., Kerber , L., Pierrehumbert , R

    Wordsworth , R. D., Kerber , L., Pierrehumbert , R. T., Forget , F., & Head , J. W. 2015, (Planets), 120, 1201

    work page 2015

  75. [75]

    N., Mellor, T

    Yurchenko, S. N., Mellor, T. M., Freedman, R. S., & Tennyson, J. 2020, , 496, 5282

    work page 2020

  76. [76]

    Zahnle , K. J. & Catling , D. C. 2017, , 843, 122

    work page 2017

  77. [77]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  78. [78]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.