pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.11089 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-11 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

Recognition: no theorem link

Seasonal Insolation Variability on Early Venus: Implications for Energy Budget

Stephen R. Kane
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 00:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords Venusearly Venusinsolation variabilityenergy balanceatmospheric opacityclimate evolutionorbital parameterssolar luminosity
0
0 comments X

The pith

Early Venus could experience large shifts in sunlight by latitude and season, yet the total energy received over each orbit changed only modestly, making atmospheric opacity the main control on surface temperature.

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

Venus and Earth share similar bulk properties but followed different paths, with Venus ending up far hotter. This work constructs maps of incoming solar energy at different latitudes and points in the orbit for both present-day Venus and an earlier epoch when the Sun was fainter and the planet may have spun or orbited differently. Using simple energy-balance calculations that track how quickly the atmosphere heats or cools, the analysis shows that while sunlight gets redistributed substantially, the average amount arriving over a full orbit stays fairly constant across the tested range of rotations, tilts, and eccentricities. Because the average energy input changes little, the thickness and composition of the atmosphere emerge as the dominant factor setting surface temperature. The maps and response times supply starting points for more detailed climate models that could test whether early Venus ever supported temperate conditions.

Core claim

Early Venus could experience substantial redistribution of insolation across latitude and orbital phase, but orbit-averaged incident flux varies only modestly across the explored parameter space, leaving atmospheric opacity as the dominant control on surface temperature. Insolation variations therefore act mainly as modulators rather than primary drivers of climate state, with their expression governed by the competition between forcing and radiative adjustment timescales.

What carries the argument

Latitude-orbital phase maps of incident solar flux translated through 0-D and 1-D energy-balance models that include a radiative relaxation timescale calibrated to modern Venus.

If this is right

  • Insolation variations act mainly as modulators rather than primary drivers of climate state.
  • The competition between forcing variability and radiative adjustment timescales determines how orbital changes express themselves at the surface.
  • The insolation maps and response diagnostics supply boundary conditions for future three-dimensional climate simulations of early Venus.
  • Regimes exist in which temperate surface conditions may have been sustained despite the explored dynamical states.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Reconstructing Venus's climate history should prioritize evolution of atmospheric composition over precise reconstruction of past rotation rate or eccentricity.
  • The same mapping and timescale approach could be applied to early Earth to locate the divergence point where insolation stability gave way to different temperature controls.
  • Many thick-atmosphere rocky planets may exhibit similar insolation stability, narrowing the orbital conditions that can alone trigger major climate shifts.
  • If the modest average-flux result holds, searches for past habitable conditions on Venus should focus on windows when opacity was lower rather than on specific orbital configurations.

Load-bearing premise

The idealized 0-D and 1-D energy-balance models, including the radiative relaxation timescale tuned to modern Venus, correctly capture how the atmosphere would respond to different rotation, obliquity, eccentricity, and fainter solar input on early Venus.

What would settle it

A three-dimensional climate simulation driven by the paper's insolation maps that finds surface temperature changes more strongly with the tested orbital parameters than with adjustments to atmospheric opacity would contradict the claim that opacity dominates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.11089 by Stephen R. Kane.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Representation of possible evolutionary pathways for Venus to its present state, starting with a magma ocean phase. The top pathway is for the case where Venus lost much of its water inventory early, while the bottom pathway considers an extended period of surface liquid water until the climate was destabilized. Figure reproduced from Gillmann et al. (2022). that early Venus likely maintained low obliquity… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: TOA flux maps for Venus (top row) and Earth (bottom row) as a function of planetary latitude and orbital phase at the present epoch of solar luminosity, and with contours of constant flux (W/m2 ) overlaid. The flux maps are represented for the slow-rotator (left column) and fast-rotator (right column) scenarios. Note that the slow-rotator maps show the maximum (sub-stellar) flux at each latitude, whereas t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The evolution of the Solar System HZ as a function of solar age. The CHZ and OHZ are represented by the light and dark green regions, respectively. The locations of Venus and Earth are represented by horizontal dashed lines, and the vertical dotted lines indicate the 0.5 Gyr epoch and the current epoch. and season without altering the global-mean incident energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: TOA flux maps for Venus at an age of 0.5 Gyr using ε = 2.64◦ and e = 0.007 (top row, Section 3.4), ε = 10.0 ◦ and e = 0.007 (middle row, Section 3.5), and ε = 2.64◦ and e = 0.15 (bottom row, Section 3.6). The flux maps are plotted as a function of planetary latitude and orbital phase at 73% of the present solar luminosity, and with contours of constant flux (W/m2 ) overlaid. The flux maps are represented f… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: TOA flux maps for Venus at an age of 0.5 Gyr using the combination of ε = 10.0 ◦ and e = 0.15 (see Section 3.7). The flux maps are plotted as a function of planetary latitude and orbital phase at 73% of the present solar luminosity, and with contours of constant flux (W/m2 ) overlaid. The flux maps are represented for the slow-rotator (left) and fast-rotator (right) scenarios. The slow-rotator panel shows … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Maps of the radiative relaxation timescale (τE(β, φ); top row) and the dimensionless damping parameter (χ(β, φ); bottom row) for the combined-factor case (Section 3.7), shown for the slow-rotator (left) and fast-rotator (right) limits. The maps are computed from Equation 9 and Equation 10 using a local temperature scale derived from the absorbed flux and an adopted effective column mass. Regions with χ ≪ 1… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Venus and Earth are similar in bulk properties yet followed dramatically different climatic trajectories. Reconstructing Venus's climate evolution requires understanding how rotation, obliquity, eccentricity, and solar luminosity shaped incident energy and the atmospheric response. Here we present latitude-orbital phase maps of incident solar flux for Venus at the present epoch and at an age of 0.5 Gyr, when the Sun was fainter and Venus may have occupied a different dynamical state. We explore slow- and fast-rotator regimes, moderate obliquity (10deg), and elevated eccentricity (e=0.15-0.30), motivated by dynamical studies of plausible limits. To translate flux maps into climate-relevant quantities, we apply an idealized atmospheric energy-balance framework with global (0-D) and latitude-dependent (1-D) formulations calibrated to modern Venus. This framework defines a radiative relaxation timescale that links forcing variability to thermal response. The resulting diagnostics connect orbital forcing to surface energy balance and assess seasonal and orbital variability relative to Venus's extreme greenhouse state. Our results show that early Venus could experience substantial redistribution of insolation across latitude and orbital phase, but orbit-averaged incident flux varies only modestly across the explored parameter space, leaving atmospheric opacity as the dominant control on surface temperature. Insolation variations therefore act mainly as modulators rather than primary drivers of climate state, with their expression governed by the competition between forcing and radiative adjustment timescales. The insolation maps and response diagnostics provide boundary conditions for future 3-D climate simulations of early Venus, including regimes in which temperate surface conditions may have been sustained.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper computes latitude-orbital phase maps of incident solar flux on Venus for the present epoch and at 0.5 Gyr (fainter Sun, possible different rotation/obliquity/eccentricity). It applies idealized 0-D and 1-D atmospheric energy-balance models, calibrated to modern Venus via a single radiative relaxation timescale, to translate these maps into thermal-response diagnostics. The central claim is that orbit-averaged incident flux varies only modestly across the explored parameter space, so that atmospheric opacity remains the dominant control on surface temperature while insolation variations act primarily as modulators whose expression depends on the competition between forcing and radiative-adjustment timescales. The maps and diagnostics are offered as boundary conditions for future 3-D simulations.

Significance. If the extrapolation of the modern-Venus-calibrated EBM holds, the work supplies concrete, reproducible insolation boundary conditions and a clear separation between orbital forcing and greenhouse control that can guide 3-D GCM studies of early Venus. The modest variation in orbit-averaged flux is a useful quantitative result that narrows the plausible range of insolation-driven climate states.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods (energy-balance framework)] Methods (energy-balance framework and radiative relaxation timescale): The single radiative relaxation timescale τ_rad is tuned to reproduce modern-Venus thermal inertia and then applied unchanged to the early-Venus case (lower solar constant, altered rotation/obliquity/eccentricity). Because the temperature equation is written as dT/dt = (F − σT⁴)/τ_rad, any dependence of τ_rad on equilibrium temperature, heat capacity, or opacity (all altered by the ~5–10 % fainter Sun) directly affects whether seasonal/orbital flux redistribution is damped or amplified. No derivation or sensitivity test of τ_rad under the early-Venus parameter set is provided, so the claim that “insolation variations act mainly as modulators” rests on an unverified extrapolation.
  2. [Results (orbit-averaged flux)] Results (orbit-averaged flux claim): The statement that orbit-averaged incident flux “varies only modestly across the explored parameter space” is load-bearing for the conclusion that atmospheric opacity dominates. The manuscript should report the actual range of orbit-averaged values (with uncertainties) for each combination of rotation regime, obliquity, and eccentricity so that readers can judge whether the variation is modest relative to the greenhouse forcing.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / Introduction] The abstract and introduction should explicitly state the numerical values adopted for the modern-Venus calibration of τ_rad and the solar constant at 0.5 Gyr so that the forward projection is reproducible.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions for the insolation maps should indicate the exact orbital phases and latitude grid used, and whether the maps are normalized to the modern solar constant or to the early-Sun value.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their insightful comments, which highlight key limitations in our idealized energy-balance approach and the need for quantitative detail on orbit-averaged fluxes. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to improve clarity and robustness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods (energy-balance framework)] Methods (energy-balance framework and radiative relaxation timescale): The single radiative relaxation timescale τ_rad is tuned to reproduce modern-Venus thermal inertia and then applied unchanged to the early-Venus case (lower solar constant, altered rotation/obliquity/eccentricity). Because the temperature equation is written as dT/dt = (F − σT⁴)/τ_rad, any dependence of τ_rad on equilibrium temperature, heat capacity, or opacity (all altered by the ~5–10 % fainter Sun) directly affects whether seasonal/orbital flux redistribution is damped or amplified. No derivation or sensitivity test of τ_rad under the early-Venus parameter set is provided, so the claim that “insolation variations act mainly as modulators” rests on an unverified extrapolation.

    Authors: We acknowledge this is a valid concern regarding the extrapolation. Our 0-D/1-D framework is intentionally simplified, with τ_rad calibrated as an effective constant to modern Venus thermal inertia to capture the competition between forcing and adjustment timescales. No first-principles derivation or sensitivity tests for early-Venus parameters were included in the submitted manuscript. In revision, we will add a new subsection performing sensitivity tests on τ_rad (varying it by factors of 0.5–2.0) to show impacts on seasonal damping, and we will explicitly discuss the constant-τ_rad assumption as a limitation of the idealized model when applied to altered solar constant and dynamics. This will better qualify our modulator conclusion. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results (orbit-averaged flux)] Results (orbit-averaged flux claim): The statement that orbit-averaged incident flux “varies only modestly across the explored parameter space” is load-bearing for the conclusion that atmospheric opacity dominates. The manuscript should report the actual range of orbit-averaged values (with uncertainties) for each combination of rotation regime, obliquity, and eccentricity so that readers can judge whether the variation is modest relative to the greenhouse forcing.

    Authors: We agree that explicit numerical ranges are required to support the claim. The submitted manuscript states the variation is modest based on the flux maps but does not tabulate the orbit-averaged values for each parameter set. In the revision, we will insert a table in the results section reporting the orbit-averaged incident flux (W m⁻²) for present-day and 0.5 Gyr cases, across slow/fast rotators, 10° obliquity, and e = 0.15/0.30. We will also show the percentage range relative to the mean and compare it to the solar-constant change and greenhouse effects. Since the calculations are deterministic, we will note that reported values have no statistical uncertainties but represent exact model outputs for the explored configurations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation uses external calibration for forward application

full rationale

The paper computes insolation maps directly from orbital parameters, rotation state, obliquity, eccentricity, and solar luminosity evolution at 0.5 Gyr using standard astronomical relations. It then applies a 0-D/1-D energy-balance model whose radiative relaxation timescale is calibrated once to modern Venus observations as an external benchmark. The early-Venus results are obtained by feeding the new insolation maps into this fixed model; no parameter is fitted to early-Venus data, no output is renamed as a prediction of itself, and no self-citation chain or ansatz is invoked to force the conclusion that orbit-averaged flux varies only modestly while opacity dominates. The central claim follows from comparing the computed flux variability against the model's fixed response timescale and is therefore independent of the target result by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on calibration of the energy-balance model to modern Venus and assumptions about plausible early-Venus dynamical states without new independent constraints on those states or the early atmosphere.

free parameters (2)
  • radiative relaxation timescale
    Defined within the idealized framework to connect insolation forcing variability to thermal response and calibrated to modern Venus.
  • energy-balance model calibration parameters
    Tuned to reproduce modern Venus conditions for both global and latitude-dependent formulations.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The explored slow- and fast-rotator regimes, 10-degree obliquity, and eccentricity range 0.15-0.30 represent plausible limits for early Venus.
    Motivated by prior dynamical studies but taken as given for the flux calculations.
  • domain assumption The idealized 0-D and 1-D energy-balance framework with radiative relaxation timescale sufficiently captures the link between orbital forcing and surface energy balance for early Venus.
    Used to translate flux maps into climate-relevant quantities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5575 in / 1637 out tokens · 55421 ms · 2026-05-13T00:55:42.168982+00:00 · methodology

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 · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C., Barnes, R., Domagal-Goldman, S., et al

    Armstrong, J. C., Barnes, R., Domagal-Goldman, S., et al. 2014, Astrobiology, 14, 277, doi: 10.1089/ast.2013.1129

    work page doi:10.1089/ast.2013.1129 2014

  2. [2]

    2007, Icarus, 188, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2006.11.022

    Atobe, K., & Ida, S. 2007, Icarus, 188, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2006.11.022

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2006.11.022 2007

  3. [3]

    Hedman, M. M. 2016, Astrobiology, 16, 487, doi: 10.1089/ast.2015.1427

    work page doi:10.1089/ast.2015.1427 2016

  4. [4]

    2013, Astrobiology, 13, 225, doi: 10.1089/ast.2012.0851

    Barnes, R., Mullins, K., Goldblatt, C., et al. 2013, Astrobiology, 13, 225, doi: 10.1089/ast.2012.0851

    work page doi:10.1089/ast.2012.0851 2013

  5. [5]

    Berger, A. L. 1978, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 35, 2362, doi: 10.1175/1520-0469(1978)035⟨2362:LTVODI⟩2.0.CO;2

    work page doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1978)035 1978

  6. [6]

    2021, PSJ, 2, 220, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac26c0

    Cascioli, G., Hensley, S., De Marchi, F., et al. 2021, PSJ, 2, 220, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac26c0

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ac26c0 2021

  7. [7]

    Chambers, J. E. 2001, Icarus, 152, 205, doi: 10.1006/icar.2001.6639

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.2001.6639 2001

  8. [8]

    O., McDonald, I., & Kane, S

    Chandler, C. O., McDonald, I., & Kane, S. R. 2016, AJ, 151, 59, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/3/59

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-6256/151/3/59 2016

  9. [9]

    Constantinou, T., Shorttle, O., & Rimmer, P. B. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 189, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02414-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02414-5 2025

  10. [10]

    Correia, A. C. M., & Laskar, J. 2003, Icarus, 163, 24, doi: 10.1016/S0019-1035(03)00043-5

    work page doi:10.1016/s0019-1035(03)00043-5 2003

  11. [11]

    Correia, A. C. M., Laskar, J., & de Surgy, O. N. 2003, Icarus, 163, 1, doi: 10.1016/S0019-1035(03)00042-3

    work page doi:10.1016/s0019-1035(03)00042-3 2003

  12. [12]

    2011, A&A, 531, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116606

    Cottereau, L., Rambaux, N., Lebonnois, S., & Souchay, J. 2011, A&A, 531, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116606

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116606 2011

  13. [13]

    B., Voigt, A., & Abbot, D

    Cowan, N. B., Voigt, A., & Abbot, D. S. 2012, ApJ, 757, 80, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/80

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/1/80 2012

  14. [14]

    W., & Emanuel, K

    Cronin, T. W., & Emanuel, K. A. 2013, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 5, 843, doi: 10.1002/jame.20049

    work page doi:10.1002/jame.20049 2013

  15. [15]

    Dobrovolskis, A. R. 2013, Icarus, 226, 760, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2013.06.026

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2013.06.026 2013

  16. [16]

    M., Hoffman, J

    Donahue, T. M., Hoffman, J. H., Hodges, R. R., & Watson, A. J. 1982, Science, 216, 630, doi: 10.1126/science.216.4546.630

    work page doi:10.1126/science.216.4546.630 1982

  17. [17]

    2020, Journal of Climate, 33, 3921, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0329.1

    Rhines, A. 2020, Journal of Climate, 33, 3921, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0329.1

    work page doi:10.1175/jcli-d-19-0329.1 2020

  18. [18]

    F., & Pollard, D

    Edson, A., Lee, S., Bannon, P., Kasting, J. F., & Pollard, D. 2011, Icarus, 212, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2010.11.023

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2010.11.023 2011

  19. [19]

    B., Getty, S

    Garvin, J. B., Getty, S. A., Arney, G. N., et al. 2022, PSJ, 3, 117, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac63c2

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ac63c2 2022

  20. [20]

    2009, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 286, 503, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2009.07.016

    Gillmann, C., Chassefi` ere, E., & Lognonn´ e, P. 2009, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 286, 503, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2009.07.016

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2009.07.016 2009

  21. [21]

    J., Avice, G., et al

    Gillmann, C., Way, M. J., Avice, G., et al. 2022, SSRv, 218, 56, doi: 10.1007/s11214-022-00924-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-022-00924-0 2022

  22. [22]

    Gough, D. O. 1981, SoPh, 74, 21, doi: 10.1007/BF00151270

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00151270 1981

  23. [23]

    2019, ApJ, 881, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2a06 —

    Guendelman, I., & Kaspi, Y. 2019, ApJ, 881, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2a06 —. 2020, ApJ, 901, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaef8 —. 2022, AGU Advances, 3, e2022A V000684, doi: 10.1029/2022A V000684

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2a06 2019

  24. [24]

    2013, Nature, 497, 607, doi: 10.1038/nature12163

    Hamano, K., Abe, Y., & Genda, H. 2013, Nature, 497, 607, doi: 10.1038/nature12163

    work page doi:10.1038/nature12163 2013

  25. [25]

    2016, Icarus, 272, 178, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2016.02.048

    Haus, R., Kappel, D., Tellmann, S., et al. 2016, Icarus, 272, 178, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2016.02.048

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2016.02.048 2016

  26. [26]

    L., Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., et al

    Hidalgo, S. L., Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., et al. 2018, A pJ, 856, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab158

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab158 2018

  27. [27]

    L., Bott, K., Dalba, P

    Hill, M. L., Bott, K., Dalba, P. A., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aca1c0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aca1c0 2023

  28. [28]

    Ingersoll, A. P. 1969, Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 26, 1191, doi: 10.1175/1520-0469(1969)026⟨1191:TRGAHO⟩2.0.CO;2

    work page doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1969)026 1969

  29. [29]

    Kane, S. R. 2021, Planetary Habitability (IOP Publishing), doi: 10.1088/2514-3433/ac2aa1 —. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 420, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01626-x

    work page doi:10.1088/2514-3433/ac2aa1 2021

  30. [30]

    R., & Byrne, P

    Kane, S. R., & Byrne, P. K. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 417, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02228-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02228-5 2024

  31. [31]

    R., Ceja, A

    Kane, S. R., Ceja, A. Y., Way, M. J., & Quintana, E. V. 2018, ApJ, 869, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaec68 16 Stephen R. Kane

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaec68 2018

  32. [32]

    R., & Gelino, D

    Kane, S. R., & Gelino, D. M. 2012a, Astrobiology, 12, 940, doi: 10.1089/ast.2011.0798 —. 2012b, PASP, 124, 323, doi: 10.1086/665271

    work page doi:10.1089/ast.2011.0798 2011

  33. [33]

    R., Kopparapu, R

    Kane, S. R., Kopparapu, R. K., & Domagal-Goldman, S. D. 2014, ApJL, 794, L5, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/794/1/L5

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/794/1/l5 2014

  34. [34]

    R., & Torres, S

    Kane, S. R., & Torres, S. M. 2017, AJ, 154, 204, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa8fce

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa8fce 2017

  35. [35]

    R., Vervoort, P., Horner, J., & Pozuelos, F

    Kane, S. R., Vervoort, P., Horner, J., & Pozuelos, F. J. 2020, PSJ, 1, 42, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/abae63

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/abae63 2020

  36. [36]

    R., Hill, M

    Kane, S. R., Hill, M. L., Kasting, J. F., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 1, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/1

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/830/1/1 2016

  37. [37]

    R., Arney, G., Crisp, D., et al

    Kane, S. R., Arney, G., Crisp, D., et al. 2019, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 124, 2015, doi: 10.1029/2019JE005939

    work page doi:10.1029/2019je005939 2019

  38. [38]

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

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

  39. [39]

    F., Whitmire, D

    Kasting, J. F., Whitmire, D. P., & Reynolds, R. T. 1993, Icarus, 101, 108, doi: 10.1006/icar.1993.1010

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1993.1010 1993

  40. [40]

    2023, Solar Energy, 249, 250, doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2022.11.022

    Kopp, G. 2023, Solar Energy, 249, 250, doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2022.11.022

    work page doi:10.1016/j.solener.2022.11.022 2023

  41. [41]

    Kopp, G., & Lean, J. L. 2011, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L01706, doi: 10.1029/2010GL045777

    work page doi:10.1029/2010gl045777 2011

  42. [42]

    K., Ramirez, R

    Kopparapu, R. K., Ramirez, R. M., SchottelKotte, J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 787, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/787/2/L29

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/787/2/l29 2014

  43. [43]

    K., Ramirez, R., Kasting, J

    Kopparapu, R. K., Ramirez, R., Kasting, J. F., et al. 2013, ApJ, 765, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/131

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/2/131 2013

  44. [44]

    J., & Nimmo, F

    Krissansen-Totton, J., Fortney, J. J., & Nimmo, F. 2021, PSJ, 2, 216, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac2580

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ac2580 2021

  45. [45]

    2008, Icarus, 196, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.02.017

    Laskar, J. 2008, Icarus, 196, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.02.017

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2008.02.017 2008

  46. [46]

    2009, Nature, 459, 817, doi: 10.1038/nature08096

    Laskar, J., & Gastineau, M. 2009, Nature, 459, 817, doi: 10.1038/nature08096

    work page doi:10.1038/nature08096 2009

  47. [47]

    1993, Nature, 361, 615, doi: 10.1038/361615a0

    Laskar, J., Joutel, F., & Robutel, P. 1993, Nature, 361, 615, doi: 10.1038/361615a0

    work page doi:10.1038/361615a0 1993

  48. [48]

    1993, Nature, 361, 608, doi: 10.1038/361608a0

    Laskar, J., & Robutel, P. 1993, Nature, 361, 608, doi: 10.1038/361608a0

    work page doi:10.1038/361608a0 1993

  49. [49]

    2004, A&A, 428, 261, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041335

    Laskar, J., Robutel, P., Joutel, F., et al. 2004, A&A, 428, 261, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041335

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041335 2004

  50. [50]

    2010, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 115, E06006, doi: 10.1029/2009JE003458

    Lebonnois, S., Hourdin, F., Eymet, V., et al. 2010, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 115, E06006, doi: 10.1029/2009JE003458

    work page doi:10.1029/2009je003458 2010

  51. [51]

    2016, Icarus, 278, 38, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2016.06.004

    Lebonnois, S., Sugimoto, N., & Gilli, G. 2016, Icarus, 278, 38, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2016.06.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2016.06.004 2016

  52. [52]

    S., Grassi, D., Mahieux, A., et al

    Limaye, S. S., Grassi, D., Mahieux, A., et al. 2018, SSRv, 214, 102, doi: 10.1007/s11214-018-0525-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-018-0525-2 2018

  53. [53]

    2015, Planet

    Linsenmeier, M., Pascale, S., & Lucarini, V. 2015, Planet. Space Sci., 105, 43, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2014.11.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pss.2014.11.003 2015

  54. [54]

    B., Giorgini, J

    Margot, J.-L., Campbell, D. B., Giorgini, J. D., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01339-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01339-7 2021

  55. [55]

    L., Ostberg, C., Kane, S

    Miles, E. L., Ostberg, C., Kane, S. R., et al. 2025, AJ, 170, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/add71c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/add71c 2025

  56. [56]

    2024, Icarus, 422, 116245, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116245 O’Brien, D

    Musseau, Y., Tobie, G., Dumoulin, C., et al. 2024, Icarus, 422, 116245, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116245 O’Brien, D. P., Morbidelli, A., & Levison, H. F. 2006, Icarus, 184, 39, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2006.04.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116245 2024

  57. [57]

    2019a, ApJ, 874, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab06cc —

    Ohno, K., & Zhang, X. 2019a, ApJ, 874, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab06cc —. 2019b, ApJ, 874, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab06ca

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab06cc

  58. [58]

    Ostberg, C., & Kane, S. R. 2019, AJ, 158, 195, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab44b0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab44b0 2019

  59. [59]

    R., Li, Z., et al

    Ostberg, C., Kane, S. R., Li, Z., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acbfaf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acbfaf 2023

  60. [60]

    2023, A&A, 674, A227, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245790

    Revol, A., Bolmont, E., Tobie, G., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A227, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245790

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245790 2023

  61. [61]

    2022, SSRv, 218, 70, doi: 10.1007/s11214-022-00937-9

    Rolf, T., Weller, M., G¨ ulcher, A., et al. 2022, SSRv, 218, 70, doi: 10.1007/s11214-022-00937-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-022-00937-9 2022

  62. [62]

    Rose, B. E. J., Cronin, T. W., & Bitz, C. M. 2017, ApJ, 846, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8306

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8306 2017

  63. [63]

    2023, SSRv, 219, 51, doi: 10.1007/s11214-023-00995-7

    Salvador, A., Avice, G., Breuer, D., et al. 2023, SSRv, 219, 51, doi: 10.1007/s11214-023-00995-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-023-00995-7 2023

  64. [64]

    P., & Guillot, T

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020101 2002

  65. [65]

    S., Menou, K., & Scharf, C

    Spiegel, D. S., Menou, K., & Scharf, C. A. 2009, ApJ, 691, 596, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/1/596

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/691/1/596 2009

  66. [66]

    S., Raymond, S

    Spiegel, D. S., Raymond, S. N., Dressing, C. D., Scharf, C. A., & Mitchell, J. L. 2010, ApJ, 721, 1308, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1308

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/721/2/1308 2010

  67. [67]

    2007, Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres), 112, D09112, doi: 10.1029/2006JD007901

    Takagi, M., & Matsuda, Y. 2007, Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres), 112, D09112, doi: 10.1029/2006JD007901

    work page doi:10.1029/2006jd007901 2007

  68. [68]

    G., Doose, L

    Tomasko, M. G., Doose, L. R., Smith, P. H., & Odell, A. P. 1980, J. Geophys. Res., 85, 8167, doi: 10.1029/JA085iA13p08167

    work page doi:10.1029/ja085ia13p08167 1980

  69. [69]

    E., Fasullo, J

    Trenberth, K. E., Fasullo, J. T., & Kiehl, J. 2009, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 90, 311, doi: 10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1

    work page doi:10.1175/2008bams2634.1 2009

  70. [70]

    2021, Nature, 598, 276, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03873-w

    Turbet, M., Bolmont, E., Chaverot, G., et al. 2021, Nature, 598, 276, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03873-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03873-w 2021

  71. [71]

    R., Kirtland Turner, S., & Gilmore, J

    Vervoort, P., Horner, J., Kane, S. R., Kirtland Turner, S., & Gilmore, J. B. 2022, AJ, 164, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac87fd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac87fd 2022

  72. [72]

    J., & Del Genio, A

    Way, M. J., & Del Genio, A. D. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 125, e06276, doi: 10.1029/2019JE006276

    work page doi:10.1029/2019je006276 2020

  73. [73]

    J., Del Genio, A

    Way, M. J., Del Genio, A. D., Kiang, N. Y., et al. 2016, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 8376, doi: 10.1002/2016GL069790

    work page doi:10.1002/2016gl069790 2016

  74. [74]

    J., Georgakarakos, N., & Clune, T

    Way, M. J., Georgakarakos, N., & Clune, T. L. 2023, AJ, 166, 227, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0373 Seasonal Insolation V ariability on Early Venus 17

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad0373 2023

  75. [75]

    J., Aleinov, I., Amundsen, D

    Way, M. J., Aleinov, I., Amundsen, D. S., et al. 2017, ApJS, 231, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa7a06

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa7a06 2017

  76. [76]

    E., Garvin, J

    Widemann, T., Smrekar, S. E., Garvin, J. B., et al. 2023, SSRv, 219, 56, doi: 10.1007/s11214-023-00992-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-023-00992-w 2023

  77. [77]

    M., & Pollard, D

    Williams, D. M., & Pollard, D. 2003, International Journal of Astrobiology, 2, 1, doi: 10.1017/S1473550403001356

    work page doi:10.1017/s1473550403001356 2003

  78. [78]

    C., & Abbot, D

    Yang, J., Bou´ e, G., Fabrycky, D. C., & Abbot, D. S. 2014, ApJL, 787, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/787/1/L2

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/787/1/l2 2014