Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 113 references

Warm exo-Titans orbiting M-dwarf stars should be rare in JWST data because their methane is destroyed in a few hundred thousand years, at least 50 times faster than on Titan.

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 ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 17:44 UTC pith:LJDTEZXA

load-bearing objection The robust lifetime result—100x faster CH4 destruction on warm exo-Titans, driven by M-dwarf UV—deserves serious engagement; the absolute detection probability is a softer extrapolation that should not be taken as a direct model output. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.10611 v1 pith:LJDTEZXA submitted 2025-09-12 astro-ph.EP

The Photochemical Plausibility of Warm Exo-Titans Orbiting M-Dwarf Stars

Sukrit Ranjan , Nicholas F. Wogan , Ana Glidden , Jingyu Wang , Kevin B. Stevenson , Nikole Lewis , Tommi Koskinen , Sara Seager
show 2 more authors
Hannah R. Wakeford Roeland P. van der Marel
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords Exoplanet atmospheric compositionTitanOcean planetsExtrasolar rocky planetsTheoretical modelsMethaneJames Webb Space Telescope
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 paper tries to establish that warm exo-Titans — planets with Titan-like N2-CH4 atmospheres but orbiting closer to their host stars — are a priori unlikely to be observed. Using TRAPPIST-1e as a case study with a 1D photochemical model, the authors find that methane's lifetime is at most 2% (and under generous assumptions 10%) of Titan's, because the closer orbit exposes the atmosphere to stronger ultraviolet radiation. This implies the absolute probability of detecting a warm exo-Titan is less than 10% and likely less than 1%. As a result, the paper argues that any claimed detection would require a high standard of proof, including confirmation that spectral features are not stellar or instrumental artifacts.

Core claim

The central claim is that photochemistry makes warm exo-Titans far less plausible than true Titan. For a Titan-like methane partial pressure of 0.03 bar, the methane lifetime on a warm exo-Titan TRAPPIST-1e is 200,000 years, compared to 20 million years on Titan. Across the range of methane pressures considered, the lifetime is at most 0.02 times Titan's, and even under very generous assumptions about methane inventory it stays below 0.1 times Titan's. The shortened lifetime is driven almost entirely by the higher ultraviolet instellation from the M-dwarf host, not by planet size, temperature structure, or haze formation. The authors conclude that the absolute detection probability is below

What carries the argument

The central tool is a one-dimensional photochemical model of a Titan-like N2-CH4 atmosphere, run to steady state for TRAPPIST-1e, that tracks the column-integrated methane loss rate. The controlling identity is the methane lifetime tau = column abundance / loss rate, and the key finding is that the loss rate rises sublinearly with methane surface pressure because ultraviolet photolysis saturates. Organic haze formation is included but does not rescue the lifetime; the model also resolves the nonlinearity that simpler analytic scalings miss.

Load-bearing premise

The absolute detection probability assumes that the chance of catching a warm exo-Titan scales linearly with its methane lifetime and that Titan's methane-rich phase fraction of about 70% is a fair prior; if larger water worlds outgas methane continuously or if high methane pressures stabilize the atmosphere, the low-probability conclusion would not follow.

What would settle it

A robust JWST detection of multiple methane bands on TRAPPIST-1e or another warm super-Earth, confirmed against stellar contamination and independent data-processing pipelines, would falsify the paper's central claim that warm exo-Titans are a priori unlikely.

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

If this is right

  • If correct, any claim of a warm exo-Titan detection from JWST spectra must clear a high bar: robustness to detrending, stellar contamination, multiple methane bands, and independent reduction pipelines.
  • The model explains why recent JWST observations have not found methane-dominated atmospheres on warm terrestrial exoplanets.
  • Warm exo-Titans should show oxidized carbon species (CO, CO2) alongside methane; their absence would weaken an exo-Titan interpretation.
  • Simpler estimates of methane lifetime based on EUV flux scaling or diffusion-limited hydrogen escape misestimate the lifetime by 1-2 orders of magnitude, so full photochemical modeling is needed.
  • Methane-rich planets around M-dwarfs are generally photochemically unlikely, so the prior for their detection is low.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's lifetime ratio applies to the modeled methane pressures up to 0.15 bar; thicker methane atmospheres (above 0.1-1 bar) remain unmodelled and could behave differently if antigreenhouse cooling stabilizes them.
  • If methane is outgassed continuously rather than in a recent catastrophic event, a warm exo-Titan could be caught in a low-methane phase that is even harder to detect, so future searches might target systems with evidence of active outgassing.
  • The same photochemical reasoning could be applied to other small planets around M-dwarfs as a quantitative prior in Bayesian retrievals of any methane-rich atmosphere.
  • The prediction of oxidized carbon as a corroborating signature is testable: a genuine warm exo-Titan should show both methane and CO/CO2, whereas a stellar-contamination false positive would show only methane-like features.

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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper uses the 1D Photochem model to compute CH4 photochemical lifetimes in N2-CH4 'warm exo-Titan' atmospheres, using TRAPPIST-1e as a case study. For a Titan-like pCH4 of 0.03 bar, the model gives tau_CH4 = 2e5 yr, compared with 2e7 yr for true Titan; sensitivity tests keep this within roughly 3e4-2e5 yr, with the stellar SED as the main control. From the lifetime ratio and Titan's own estimated CH4-rich duty cycle (0.7, from Tobie et al. 2006), the authors infer that the absolute probability of detecting a warm exo-Titan is <0.1 and likely <0.01. They then argue for a high standard of proof for JWST CH4 claims and propose oxidized carbon species as corroborating evidence.

Significance. If the headline probability claim holds, the paper provides a quantitative prior for Bayesian interpretation of JWST transmission spectra of small M-dwarf planets, directly addressing current ambiguity in the TRAPPIST-1e spectrum. The central photochemical result is well supported: the model is validated against Titan, the convergence checks are careful, the sensitivity table is informative, and the code is publicly archived. The finding that tau_CH4 on a warm M-dwarf exo-Titan is orders of magnitude shorter than on Titan is robust and generalizes across representative M-dwarf SEDs. However, the conversion of that lifetime ratio into an absolute detection probability rests on strong interpretive assumptions that the paper acknowledges but does not fully incorporate into its headline claims; this is the main load-bearing weakness.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2 and Abstract] The conversion of the lifetime ratio into an absolute detection probability assumes that detection probability is proportional to tau_CH4 and that CH4-rich atmospheres arise only during a transient post-outgassing duty cycle, normalized by Titan's 0.7 CH4-rich phase fraction. The paper itself presents the Levi et al. (2014) continuous-outgassing channel, under which pCH4 is set by the balance between outgassing and photochemical loss, so detectability is controlled by interior outgassing duration rather than by tau_CH4. The abstract and conclusions state the absolute probability (<0.1, likely <0.01) without this scenario caveat, so the headline is not a consequence of the photochemical model alone. Please either formalize a Bayesian prior over outgassing scenarios or rephrase the probability as conditional on the catastrophic-release scenario.
  2. [§3.1, §4.2, Appendix A] The headline probability claim does not carry the paper's own pCH4 domain restriction. The model is run only for pCH4 <= 0.15 bar, and §4.2 states the finding is restricted to pCH4 <= 0.1 bar, because for pCH4 > 0.1-1 bar climate models predict a positive feedback with hot, thick CH4 atmospheres. The paper excludes this regime as outside its validated framework. The thermochemical Keq calculation in Appendix A is not a coupled climate-photochemistry model, and the text agrees such modeling is required. Thus 'likely <0.01' is a statement about one branch of parameter space; if high-pCH4 atmospheres are stable, the probability could be much larger. The abstract should be rephrased to make this condition explicit, or the high-pCH4 regime should be modeled.
  3. [§4.2 / §5] The paper moves fluidly between 'tau ratio' and 'absolute probability of detection,' but the latter additionally requires assuming that Titan's Tobie et al. (2006) duty cycle applies to warm exo-Titans and that CH4 inventory scaling with planet size is the only relevant correction. The text does apply a 7x inventory correction to get the <0.1 bound, but this is an illustrative scaling, not a model of interior outgassing history on a more massive waterworld. The limitations paragraph in §4.4 concedes this. Because the abstract presents the absolute probability as a headline result, the manuscript needs either a formal derivation of the probability from stated priors or a clear statement that this is an upper-limit heuristic for one outgassing scenario.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.1 vs §4.2] The baseline ratio is given as <=1e-2 in §4.1 (2e5/2e7) but <=2e-2 in §4.2 and 'most likely <=0.02' in the abstract. Please reconcile these numbers or explain the provenance of 0.02.
  2. [§4.2] The multiplication 0.02 x 0.7 = 0.014, not <=0.01 as stated. If the authors are rounding/truncating, say so explicitly.
  3. [§3.1 vs §4.2] The pCH4 threshold is inconsistent: Methods says pCH4 > 0.15 bar is excluded, while §4.2 says the finding is restricted to pCH4 <= 0.1 bar. Please harmonize the stated domain.
  4. [Table 1] The footnotes give deposition velocities as 'cm^-2 s^-1'; the correct unit for a velocity is cm s^-1. This appears in both footnotes a and b.
  5. [Eq. (5)] In the lower-bound chain, the '>' sign after dropping positive terms should be '>=' (or use 'approximately' if that was intended).
  6. [Figure 3 and §4.3] The notation CO_X is used loosely; in Figure 3 the text refers to CO and CO2 separately. Define CO_X at first use and keep notation consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the photochemical lifetimes are model outputs validated against external Titan constraints, and the absolute-probability conversion is an explicitly stated interpretive prior, not a reduction of the derivation to its inputs.

full rationale

The central claim is derived, not assumed. In Section 3.1, tau_CH4 is defined as N_CH4 / L_CH4 and computed by the Photochem model under explicit boundary conditions (fixed pN2=1.5 bar, pCH4 range 3e-7 to 0.15 bar, fixed pH2O, diffusion-limited H/H2 escape, specified deposition velocities). No exo-Titan observable or target probability is inserted as an input. The model's Titan validation (Wogan et al. 2023) is independent support: it is code-reproduced, targets Titan rather than the warm exo-Titan result, and the resulting 2e7 yr is bracketed by the external Titan lifetime estimates of Yung et al. 1984, Wilson & Atreya 2004, Atreya et al. 2006, and Nixon et al. 2018. The self-citation of Photochem and MEAC is therefore not load-bearing; the MEAC comparison is even explicitly downweighted in the text ('This does not constitute strong independent confirmation'). The lifetime-ratio result is robust because the paper shows the SED is the controlling factor: forcing the same baseline with the solar spectrum at 9.5 AU yields tau_CH4 = 5e6 yr, within a factor of 4 of true Titan, and the exo-Titan value is orders of magnitude shorter across the pCH4 range. The conversion of that lifetime ratio into an absolute detection probability in Section 4.2 is an 'all else being equal' scaling combined with Titan's 0.7 CH4-rich phase fraction from Tobie et al. (2006). This is an interpretive prior, not a photochemical output, and the paper itself flags the assumptions: it calls the probabilities upper limits and explicitly discusses the Levi et al. (2014) continuous-outgassing alternative and the excluded pCH4 > 0.15 bar regime. These are acknowledged modeling assumptions and limitations, not circular reductions. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central tau_CH4 result rests on Photochem's validated chemistry and a set of hand-chosen but sensitivity-tested boundary conditions. The headline probability adds two extra premises: a linear mapping from lifetime to detection probability and a single-model Titan phase fraction. No new physical entities are invented.

free parameters (8)
  • p_CH4 baseline = 0.03 bar
    Baseline methane partial pressure chosen to match Titan-like abundance; range 3e-7 to 0.15 bar explored.
  • surface/stratosphere temperature = 240 K surface / 200 K stratosphere
    Chosen from climate-model predictions for N2-CH4 atmospheres; RCE profile used as sensitivity test.
  • eddy diffusion coefficient KZZ = 1e6 cm2/s
    Intermediate value for terrestrial planets; tested at 1e4 and 1e8.
  • haze particle radius = 1 µm
    Chosen haze radius; 0.1 µm used in max-haze sensitivity test.
  • deposition velocities = CO/O2: 1e-9; CO2: 1e-7; haze species: 1e-5 cm/s
    Scaled from literature for ocean coverage and cold carbonate formation; max-oxidant test uses much larger values and gives the same lifetime.
  • p_N2 = 1.5 bar
    Fixed surface N2 pressure motivated by Titan.
  • Titan CH4-rich phase fraction = 0.7
    Tobie et al. (2006) interior model gives 3.2 Gyr of 4.55 Gyr; used to convert lifetime ratio into absolute detection probability.
  • exo-Titan CH4 inventory enhancement = up to 7x
    Analytic scaling from radius (2.5x), CH4:H2O ratio (2x), and density (1.3x); used to soften the lifetime ratio to <=0.1x.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Photochem's neutral HCNO chemistry with haze formation accurately models CH4 loss on Titan-like atmospheres.
    Validated against Titan in Wogan et al. 2023; the paper relies on this to transfer the model to exo-Titans (Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption CH4 lifetime is controlled by neutral photochemistry, so neglect of ion chemistry is acceptable.
    Justified by reference to Yung et al. 1984 and Wilson & Atreya 2004 (Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption Detection probability of a CH4-rich atmosphere scales linearly with the CH4 lifetime (all else equal).
    Used in Section 4.2 to turn tau ratios into relative and absolute detection probabilities; not derived from the photochemical model.
  • domain assumption Titan's current CH4-rich atmosphere is a transient outgassing phase occupying ~70% of its history.
    From Tobie et al. 2006 and Wong et al. 2015; required for the absolute probability <0.01 statement.
  • domain assumption TRAPPIST-1's UV SED is adequately represented by the Wilson et al. 2021 semi-empirical spectrum.
    Baseline forcing (Section 3.1); Peacock et al. 2019 used as sensitivity test.
  • domain assumption Closed-box boundary conditions with diffusion-limited H/H2 escape and prescribed deposition velocities capture the main CH4 loss channels.
    Assumed in Section 3.1; sensitivity tests vary deposition but not the escape treatment.
  • domain assumption Results at pCH4 <= 0.15 bar generalize to warm exo-Titans as a class because FUV flux, not planet properties, controls tau.
    Supported by a small M-dwarf SED sample (Section 4.2), but high-pCH4 >0.1-1 bar regime is explicitly not modeled.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21080 in / 15348 out tokens · 143147 ms · 2026-08-04T17:44:08.527641+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has begun to spectrally characterize small exoplanets orbiting M-dwarf stars, but interpretation of these spectra is ambiguous, with stellar, instrumental, or atmospheric origins possible for apparent spectral features. Consequently, interpretation of JWST small exoplanet spectra follows a Bayesian approach, with less theoretically plausible interpretations facing a higher burden of proof. Here, we use photochemical modeling to evaluate the plausibility of warm exo-Titans, exoplanets with N$_2$-CH$_4$ atmospheres analogous to Titan but orbiting closer to their host stars. Consideration of warm exo-Titans is motivated by arguments from planet formation, as well as tentative evidence from observations. Using TRAPPIST-1e as a case study, we show that the higher instellation experienced by warm exo-Titans reduces their CH$_4$ lifetime $\tau_{\text{CH}_{4}}$ relative to true Titan by orders of magnitude, reducing the probability of observing them. We constrain the $\tau_{\text{CH}_{4}}$ on a warm exo-Titan to be $\leq0.1\times$ (and most likely $\leq0.02\times$) true Titan, implying the absolute probability of detecting a warm exo-Titan is $<0.1$ and likely $<0.01$. This finding is consistent with recent JWST nondetections of CH$_4$-dominated atmospheres on warm terrestrial exoplanets. The low prior probability means that the standard of proof required to claim a warm exo-Titan detection is high, and we offer specific suggestions towards such a standard of proof. Observation of oxidized carbon species would corroborate a putative warm exo-Titan detection. Confirmed detection of warm exo-Titans would signal the need to fundamentally rethink our understanding of the structure, dynamics, and photochemistry of Titan-like worlds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.10611 by Ana Glidden, Hannah R. Wakeford, Jingyu Wang, Kevin B. Stevenson, Nicholas F. Wogan, Nikole Lewis, Roeland P. van der Marel, Sara Seager, Sukrit Ranjan, Tommi Koskinen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Key photochemical modeling inputs. the haze, κ = κ0  λ λ0 !γ where κ is the opacity of the scattering-cross section. We do not adopt a Rayleigh scattering slope of γ = −4.0, but adopt the value of −1.9 fit by T. D. Robinson et al. (2014) to Titan’s transmission spectrum. We use PandExo (N. E. Batalha et al. 2017) to bin the data to the wavelength range and resolution of JWST NIRSpec PRISM (0.6-5.3µm; R≈10… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: CH4 net chemical loss rate (LCH4 ) and lifetime (τCH4 ) as a function of the partial surface pressure of methane. The pink line corresponds to Photochem calculations. The yellow line corresponds to CH4 loss estimated via diffusion-limited escape of equivalent hydrogen, following M. A. Thompson et al. 2022. The black diamond corresponds to true Titan. The blue diamond corresponds to the assumption that τCH4… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Atmospheric COX on a warm exo-Titan TRAPPIST-1e (pCH4 = 3 × 10−2 bar). The simultaneous presence of abundant CH4 and H2O in the warm exo-Titan scenario results in abundant CO and maybe CO2, which are potentially detectable. 4.4. Implications for JWST Observations Because warm exo-Titans are unlikely, a high standard of proof is required to claim one’s detection. Our work suggests that given our current und… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Equilibrium constant for the key reactions H2 + CH3 ↔ H + CH4, H + CH3 + M ↔ CH4 + M. We find Keq decreases with temperature for both reactions, implying reduced CH4 stability at higher temperatures. REFERENCES Adams, D., Luo, Y., & Yung, Y. L. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 823227, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.823227 Aguichine, A., Mousis, O., Deleuil, M., & Marcq, E. 2021, ApJ, 914, 84, d… 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

113 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adams, D., Luo, Y., & Yung, Y. L. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 823227, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.823227

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    2021, ApJ, 914, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfa99

    Aguichine, A., Mousis, O., Deleuil, M., & Marcq, E. 2021, ApJ, 914, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfa99

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfa99 2021

  3. [3]

    D., Meadows, V

    Arney, G., Domagal-Goldman, S. D., Meadows, V. S., et al. 2016, Astrobiology, 16, 873, doi: 10.1089/ast.2015.1422

    arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    K., Adams, E

    Atreya, S. K., Adams, E. Y., Niemann, H. B., et al. 2006, Planet. Space Sci., 54, 1177, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2006.05.028

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pss.2006.05.028 2006

  5. [5]

    M., & Kockart, G

    Banks, P. M., & Kockart, G. 1973, Aeronomy (Part B) (New York, NY: Academic Press)

    1973

  6. [6]

    J., Strange, J

    Barber, R. J., Strange, J. K., Hill, C., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 1828, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2011

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2011 2014

  7. [7]

    E., Mandell, A., Pontoppidan, K., et al

    Batalha, N. E., Mandell, A., Pontoppidan, K., et al. 2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 129, 64501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa65b0

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aa65b0 2017

  8. [8]

    M., Hunter Waite, J., Westlake, J

    Bell, J. M., Hunter Waite, J., Westlake, J. H., et al. 2014, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 119, 4957, doi: 10.1002/2014JA019781

    doi:10.1002/2014ja019781 2014

  9. [9]

    1989, ApJ, 336, 495, doi: 10.1086/167027

    Borysow, A., Frommhold, L., & Moraldi, M. 1989, ApJ, 336, 495, doi: 10.1086/167027

    doi:10.1086/167027 1989

  10. [10]

    1988, ApJ, 326, 509, doi: 10.1086/166112

    Borysow, J., Frommhold, L., & Birnbaum, G. 1988, ApJ, 326, 509, doi: 10.1086/166112

    doi:10.1086/166112 1988

  11. [11]

    2005,, Tech

    Burcat, A., & Ruscic, B. 2005,, Tech. rep., Argonne National Lab.(ANL), Argonne, IL (United States)

    2005

  12. [12]

    J., et al

    Cadieux, C., Doyon, R., MacDonald, R. J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 970, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5afa

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5afa 2024

  13. [13]

    C., & Kasting, J

    Catling, D. C., & Kasting, J. F. 2017, Atmospheric evolution on inhabited and lifeless worlds (Cambridge University Press)

    2017

  14. [14]

    C., Krissansen-Totton, J., Kiang, N

    Catling, D. C., Krissansen-Totton, J., Kiang, N. Y., et al. 2018, Astrobiology, 18, 709, doi: 10.1089/ast.2017.1737

    arXiv 2018

  15. [15]

    Chakrabarty, A., & Mulders, G. D. 2024, ApJ, 966, 185, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3802 14

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3802 2024

  16. [16]

    D., & Pierrehumbert, R

    Chatterjee, R. D., & Pierrehumbert, R. T. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.05188, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.05188

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.05188 2024

  17. [17]

    L., Tennyson, J., & Yurchenko, S

    Chubb, K. L., Tennyson, J., & Yurchenko, S. N. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 1531, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa229

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa229 2020

  18. [18]

    A., Yurchenko, S

    Coles, P. A., Yurchenko, S. N., & Tennyson, J. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4638, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2778

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2778 2019

  19. [19]

    Dalgarno, A., & Williams, D. A. 1962, ApJ, 136, 690, doi: 10.1086/147428

    doi:10.1086/147428 1962

  20. [20]

    2024, ApJL, 968, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5204

    Damiano, M., Bello-Arufe, A., Yang, J., & Hu, R. 2024, ApJL, 968, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5204

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5204 2024

  21. [21]

    H., Glidden, A., et al

    Espinoza, N., Allen, N. H., Glidden, A., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 990, L52, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf42e

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adf42e 2025

  22. [22]

    P., Pont, F., & Aigrain, S

    Gibson, N. P., Pont, F., & Aigrain, S. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 2199, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17837.x

    arXiv 2011

  23. [23]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 990, L53, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf62e

    Glidden, A., Ranjan, S., Seager, S., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 990, L53, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf62e

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adf62e 2025

  24. [24]

    E., Rothman, L

    Gordon, I. E., Rothman, L. S., Hill, C., et al. 2017, JQSRT, 203, 3, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2017.06.038

    doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2017.06.038 2017

  25. [25]

    H., et al

    Gressier, A., Espinoza, N., Allen, N. H., et al. 2024, ApJL, 975, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad73d1

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad73d1 2024

  26. [26]

    E., Schwieterman, E

    Harman, C. E., Schwieterman, E. W., Schottelkotte, J. C., & Kasting, J. F. 2015, Astrophysical Journal, 812, 137, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/137

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/812/2/137 2015

  27. [27]

    2015, ApJL, 805, L11, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/805/2/L11 H¨ orst, S

    Helled, R., Podolak, M., & Vos, E. 2015, ApJL, 805, L11, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/805/2/L11 H¨ orst, S. M., Vuitton, V., & Yelle, R. V. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 113, E10006, doi: 10.1029/2008JE003135

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/805/2/l11 2015

  28. [28]

    2012, Astrophysical Journal, 761, 166, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/166

    Hu, R., Seager, S., & Bains, W. 2012, Astrophysical Journal, 761, 166, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/166

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/761/2/166 2012

  29. [29]

    2024, Nature, 630, 609, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07432-x

    Hu, R., Bello-Arufe, A., Zhang, M., et al. 2024, Nature, 630, 609, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07432-x

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07432-x 2024

  30. [30]

    2020, SSRv, 216, 7, doi: 10.1007/s11214-019-0633-7

    Journaux, B., Kalousov´ a, K., Sotin, C., et al. 2020, SSRv, 216, 7, doi: 10.1007/s11214-019-0633-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-019-0633-7 2020

  31. [31]

    Kasting, J. F. 1988, Icarus, 74, 472, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(88)90116-9

    doi:10.1016/0019-1035(88)90116-9 1988

  32. [32]

    Kasting, J. F. 1990, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 20, 199, doi: 10.1007/BF01808105

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01808105 1990

  33. [33]

    S., Manga, M., & Gaidos, E

    Kite, E. S., Manga, M., & Gaidos, E. 2009, ApJ, 700, 1732, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1732

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/700/2/1732 2009

  34. [34]

    Koll, D. D. B. 2022, ApJ, 924, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3b48

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3b48 2022

  35. [35]

    Koll, D. D. B., Malik, M., Mansfield, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 886, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c91

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c91 2019

  36. [36]

    K., & Fortney, J

    Dhaliwal, J. K., & Fortney, J. J. 2021, ApJ, 913, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf560

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf560 2021

  37. [37]

    2023, ApJ, 944, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb49a

    Levi, A., Bansal, A., & Sasselov, D. 2023, ApJ, 944, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb49a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb49a 2023

  38. [38]

    Levi, A., & Cohen, R. E. 2019, ApJ, 882, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f76

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f76 2019

  39. [39]

    2013, ApJ, 769, 29, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/29

    Levi, A., Sasselov, D., & Podolak, M. 2013, ApJ, 769, 29, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/29

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/1/29 2013

  40. [40]

    2014, ApJ, 792, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/125

    Levi, A., Sasselov, D., & Podolak, M. 2014, ApJ, 792, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/125

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/792/2/125 2014

  41. [41]

    2017, ApJ, 838, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5cfe

    Levi, A., Sasselov, D., & Podolak, M. 2017, ApJ, 838, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5cfe

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5cfe 2017

  42. [42]

    2022, AJ, 164, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac75de

    Diamond-Lowe, H., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac75de

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac75de 2022

  43. [43]

    P., Meadows, V

    Lincowski, A. P., Meadows, V. S., Crisp, D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 867, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae36a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae36a 2018

  44. [44]

    M., Kataria, T., & Gao, P

    Lora, J. M., Kataria, T., & Gao, P. 2018, ApJ, 853, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa132

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa132 2018

  45. [45]

    D., McKay, C

    Lorenz, R. D., McKay, C. P., & Lunine, J. I. 1997, Science, 275, 642, doi: 10.1126/science.275.5300.642

    work page doi:10.1126/science.275.5300.642 1997

  46. [46]

    2022, Science, 377, 1211, doi: 10.1126/science.abl7164

    Luque, R., & Pall´ e, E. 2022, Science, 377, 1211, doi: 10.1126/science.abl7164

    doi:10.1126/science.abl7164 2022

  47. [47]

    S., & Lincowski, A

    Lustig-Yaeger, J., Meadows, V. S., & Lincowski, A. P. 2019, AJ, 158, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab21e0

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab21e0 2019

  48. [48]

    M., et al

    Lustig-Yaeger, J., Fu, G., May, E. M., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02064-z

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02064-z 2023

  49. [49]

    2023, ApJL, 956, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf577

    Madhusudhan, N., Sarkar, S., Constantinou, S., et al. 2023, ApJL, 956, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf577

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf577 2023

  50. [50]

    2022, ApJ, 930, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac59bb

    Mandt, K., Luspay-Kuti, A., Lustig-Yaeger, J., Felton, R., & Domagal-Goldman, S. 2022, ApJ, 930, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac59bb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac59bb 2022

  51. [51]

    E., Waite, J

    Mandt, K. E., Waite, J. H., Teolis, B., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 160, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/2/160

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/749/2/160 2012

  52. [52]

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

    Mant, B. P., Yachmenev, A., Tennyson, J., & Yurchenko, S. N. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 3220, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1239

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1239 2018

  53. [53]

    M., MacDonald, R

    May, E. M., MacDonald, R. J., Bennett, K. A., et al. 2023, ApJL, 959, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad054f Molli` ere, P., Wardenier, J. P., Van Boekel, R., et al. 2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 627, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935470

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad054f 2023

  54. [54]

    E., Stevenson, K

    Moran, S. E., Stevenson, K. B., Sing, D. K., et al. 2023, ApJL, 948, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/accb9c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/accb9c 2023

  55. [55]

    V., Kreidberg, L., Rustamkulov, Z., Robinson, T., & Fortney, J

    Morley, C. V., Kreidberg, L., Rustamkulov, Z., Robinson, T., & Fortney, J. J. 2017, ApJ, 850, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa927b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa927b 2017

  56. [56]

    V., Modirrousta-Galian, D., Edwards, B., et al

    Mugnai, L. V., Modirrousta-Galian, D., Edwards, B., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 284, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abf3c3

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abf3c3 2021

  57. [57]

    M., & Koop, T

    Murphy, D. M., & Koop, T. 2005, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 131, 1539, doi: 10.1256/qj.04.94 15

    doi:10.1256/qj.04.94 2005

  58. [58]

    2022, ApJ, 937, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac86ca

    Nakayama, A., Ikoma, M., & Terada, N. 2022, ApJ, 937, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac86ca

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac86ca 2022

  59. [59]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.12144, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.12144

    Sousa-Silva, C. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.12144, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.12144

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.12144 2025

  60. [60]

    A., Lorenz, R

    Nixon, C. A., Lorenz, R. D., Achterberg, R. K., et al. 2018, Planet. Space Sci., 155, 50, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2018.02.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pss.2018.02.009 2018

  61. [61]

    L., Hauschildt, P

    Peacock, S., Barman, T., Shkolnik, E. L., Hauschildt, P. H., & Baron, E. 2019, ApJ, 871, 235, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf891

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf891 2019

  62. [62]

    Pierrehumbert, R. T. 2010, Principles of planetary climate (Cambridge University Press)

    2010

  63. [63]

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

    Rackham, B. V., Apai, D., & Giampapa, M. S. 2018, ApJ, 853, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa08c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa08c 2018

  64. [64]

    V., Espinoza, N., Berdyugina, S

    Rackham, B. V., Espinoza, N., Berdyugina, S. V., et al. 2023, RAS Techniques and Instruments, 2, 148, doi: 10.1093/rasti/rzad009

    doi:10.1093/rasti/rzad009 2023

  65. [65]

    M., & Kaltenegger, L

    Ramirez, R. M., & Kaltenegger, L. 2018, ApJ, 858, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab8fa

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab8fa 2018

  66. [66]

    M., & Levi, A

    Ramirez, R. M., & Levi, A. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 4627, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty761

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty761 2018

  67. [67]

    2022, ApJ, 930, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5749

    Ranjan, S., Seager, S., Zhan, Z., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5749

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5749 2022

  68. [68]

    2025,, v1.0.0-submit Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17080690

    Ranjan, S., & Wogan, N. 2025,, v1.0.0-submit Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17080690

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.17080690 2025

  69. [69]

    E., Rothman, L

    Richard, C., Gordon, I. E., Rothman, L. S., et al. 2012, JQSRT, 113, 1276, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2011.11.004

    doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2011.11.004 2012

  70. [70]

    B., & Helling, C

    Rimmer, P. B., & Helling, C. 2016, ApJS, 224, 9, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/224/1/9

    doi:10.3847/0067-0049/224/1/9 2016

  71. [71]

    D., Maltagliati, L., Marley, M

    Robinson, T. D., Maltagliati, L., Marley, M. S., & Fortney, J. J. 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 111, 9042, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1403473111

    doi:10.1073/pnas.1403473111 2014

  72. [72]

    S., Gordon, I

    Rothman, L. S., Gordon, I. E., Barber, R. J., et al. 2010, JQSRT, 111, 2139, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2010.05.001

    doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2010.05.001 2010

  73. [73]

    S., Gordon, I

    Rothman, L. S., Gordon, I. E., Babikov, Y., et al. 2013, JQSRT, 130, 4, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2013.07.002

    doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2013.07.002 2013

  74. [74]

    R., et al

    Scarsdale, N., Wogan, N., Wakeford, H. R., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 276, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad73cf

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad73cf 2024

  75. [75]

    P., MacDonald, R

    Schmidt, S. P., MacDonald, R. J., Tsai, S.-M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.18477, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.18477

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.18477 2025

  76. [76]

    Seager, S., & Shapiro, A. I. 2024, ApJ, 970, 155, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad509a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad509a 2024

  77. [77]

    F., Meadows, V., et al

    Segura, A., Kasting, J. F., Meadows, V., et al. 2005, Astrobiology, 5, 706, doi: 10.1089/ast.2005.5.706

    doi:10.1089/ast.2005.5.706 2005

  78. [78]

    E., Fauchez, T

    Sergeev, D. E., Fauchez, T. J., Turbet, M., et al. 2022, PSJ, 3, 212, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac6cf2

    doi:10.3847/psj/ac6cf2 2022

  79. [79]

    Strobel, D. F. 2008, Icarus, 193, 588, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.08.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2007.08.014 2008

  80. [80]

    Strobel, D. F. 2009, Icarus, 202, 632, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2009.03.007

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2009.03.007 2009

Showing first 80 references.