Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 88 references

The Effects of Kinematic MHD on the Atmospheric Circulation of Eccentric Hot Jupiters

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

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

Pith's one-line read The first 3D general circulation models of an eccentric hot Jupiter with temperature-dependent magnetic drag predict that the planet's equatorial jet weakens and narrows as field strength grows, that a dayside thermal inversion appears…

desk verdict Solid first kinematic-MHD GCM of an eccentric hot Jupiter with testable spectral predictions, but the abstract's monotonic scaling claim does not survive their own Figures 5 and 13. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04169 v1 pith:LMM5IVSY submitted 2025-02-06 astro-ph.EP

Hayley Beltz , Willow Houck , Laura C. Mayorga , Thaddeus D. Komacek , Joseph R. Livesey , Juliette Becker This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords hotJupitersexoplanetatmospheresgeneralcirculationmodelskinematicmagnetohydrodynamicsmagneticdrageccentricorbitsthermalinversionshigh-resolutionemissionspectroscopy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper uses 3D general circulation models to ask what happens to the atmosphere of an eccentric hot Jupiter when magnetic drag is calculated from local conditions rather than assumed as a uniform frictional timescale. The target is TOI-150b, a 1.75-Jupiter-mass planet on an e=0.26 orbit whose equilibrium temperature swings between roughly 1300 K and 1700 K over each 5.86-day orbit. The authors find that the eccentric orbit alone narrows and strengthens the equatorial jet, adds westward mid- and high-latitude winds, and makes thermal inversions appear only near periastron; adding kinematic MHD drag weakens the jet and deepens the westward flow as field strength rises from 0 to 30 Gauss. Post-processed emission spectra then predict that stronger magnetic fields reduce Doppler broadening, and that a moderate 10-Gauss field produces the largest orbit-to-orbit variability in net Doppler shifts. A reader cares because these spectral signatures give observers a way to infer an exoplanet's magnetic field strength from ground-based high-resolution spectroscopy.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a locally calculated magnetic drag timescale, applied in the momentum equation as a Rayleigh drag $-u/\tau_{\mathrm{mag}}$ with a matching Ohmic dissipation term in the energy equation. The timescale is $\tau_{\mathrm{mag}} = 4\pi\rho\eta/(B^2|\sin\phi|)$, where $B$ is the assumed dipole field strength, $\phi$ the latitude, $\rho$ the density, and $\eta = 230\sqrt{T}/x_e$ the magnetic resistivity; the ionization fraction $x_e$ comes from the Saha equation summed over the first 28 elements. Because resistivity depends exponentially on temperature through ionization, the drag varies by orders of magnitude between the hot dayside and cooler nightside, so the same field strength slows winds strongly near periastron and barely at all near apastron. This temperature dependence is what couples orbital phase, magnetic field strength, and the predicted Doppler variability.

What would settle it

A JWST emission spectrum of TOI-150b near periastron and another near apastron would settle the phase-dependent-inversion claim: the models predict the roughly 6.2-micron water feature in emission at periastron (thermal inversion present) and in absorption at apastron (no inversion), with the periastron CO2 feature at roughly 4.2 microns weakening as field strength rises to 10 Gauss. Observing no such phase flip in the water feature would contradict the central mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the first application of kinematic (temperature-dependent) magnetic drag to an eccentric hot Jupiter changes both the circulation and the observable spectra in a field-strength-dependent way. Compared with a circular-orbit simulation of the same planet, the eccentric model develops a narrower, stronger equatorial superrotating jet and westward flow at high latitudes that spreads toward mid-latitudes as the dipole field strength is increased to 10-30 Gauss. The thermal structure becomes phase-dependent: a dayside temperature inversion exists only near periastron, where irradiation peaks, and the day-night temperature contrast grows with field strength. When the 3D structures are post-processed into R=100,000 emission spectra, higher field strengths produce less Doppler broadening, and the 10-Gauss model shows the largest inter-orbit variation in net Doppler shift when the same hemisphere is viewed at different orbital phases, a signature the authors attribute to the local drag responding to the changing temperature structure.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes a pseudo-synchronous rotation period of 4.14 days for the planet, and the authors state plainly that this rotation rate is unconstrained observationally; all the predicted circulation changes, thermal-inversion timing, and Doppler shifts are computed against that assumed spin, so a different real rotation rate would change the wind pattern and the spectroscopic signatures.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the models are right, TOI-150b's equatorial jet is weaker and narrower for stronger assumed fields, and westward flow extends from high latitudes toward mid-latitudes at 10-30 Gauss.
  • Thermal inversions on this planet should appear only near periastron and disappear near apastron, so emission spectra should flip from showing water in emission to water in absorption across the orbit.
  • Stronger magnetic fields should yield measurably less Doppler broadening in high-resolution emission spectra, and the 10-Gauss model predicts the largest orbit-to-orbit Doppler variability for a fixed viewing geometry.
  • Phase curves should peak before periastron, with the peak occurring closer to periastron as field strength increases.
  • Clouds, modeled here in 1D, should be more abundant near apastron and may vanish at periastron, with only small (no more than 5 percent) spectral effects.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extending the paper's logic, hotter eccentric planets whose equilibrium temperature stays above the thermal ionization threshold all orbit would keep magnetic drag active year-round, so their inter-orbit variability could be even larger than what is predicted here for TOI-150b.
  • The prediction that 10 Gauss maximizes variability while 30 Gauss suppresses it implies a non-monotonic mapping between field strength and observable variability; if that mapping holds, single-epoch Doppler measurements cannot rank field strengths without multi-epoch, phase-resolved data.
  • Because the drag timescale depends on local temperature, any cloud or chemistry process that alters the temperature profile would shift where and when the drag acts; coupling the 3D model with the cloud prescription used here in 1D would test whether clouds mute the predicted Doppler variability.
  • The paper's estimate that the orbit has only a 22 percent geometric chance of showing a secondary eclipse means that a nondetection would not falsify the models, while a detection would constrain the orbital geometry and sharpen the phase-curve predictions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. Beltz et al. present the first 3D general circulation model study of an eccentric hot Jupiter (TOI-150b, e=0.26) with kinematic MHD drag. They run eccentric and circular models with dipole field strengths B = 0, 3, 10, and 30 G, using a locally calculated, temperature-dependent drag timescale from Perna et al. (2010). They find that eccentricity alone narrows and strengthens the equatorial jet, produces high-latitude westward winds, and creates a phase-dependent thermal inversion, and that MHD drag weakens and narrows the jet, alters the dayside circulation, and reduces Doppler broadening and net Doppler shifts in simulated high-resolution emission spectra. The paper further explores 1D cloud models and low-resolution spectra, and concludes that the eccentric-orbit effects and their spectroscopic signatures scale with the chosen magnetic field strength.

Significance. The study is a useful extension of the kinematic MHD approach to a physically important regime: eccentric hot Jupiters with periodically varying irradiation and thermal ionization. The drag prescription is locally calculated and not fitted to the target results; the magnetic field strength is varied as a free parameter, and the reported jet weakening, circulation changes, and spectral signatures emerge from the simulations. The work also connects 3D dynamics to concrete, testable predictions, such as phase-dependent thermal inversions, the 4.2 micron CO2 feature, and the 6.2 micron H2O emission/absorption switch. If the claims are appropriately qualified, the paper will be a valuable reference for observers targeting eccentric hot Jupiters and for modelers incorporating magnetic effects beyond simple uniform Rayleigh drag.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, Section 3.2, Figure 5, Section 5] The abstract states that the strength and magnitude of the eccentric-orbit circulation effects 'scale with the chosen global magnetic field strength,' and Section 5 states that 'Increasing the magnetic field strength weakens the equatorial jet.' This monotonic scaling is contradicted by the paper's own results: Section 3.2 states that 'the jet in the 3G case is stronger in the upper atmosphere than the 0G case' (Figure 5), and the Figure 5 caption claims a weaker and narrower jet with increasing field strength. Because the scaling claim is part of the headline contribution, the abstract, conclusions, and figure caption should be revised to describe a non-monotonic or phase-dependent dependence, or to explicitly separate the 3G exception from the strong-field (10G/30G) trend.
  2. [Abstract, Section 3.5.1, Figure 13, Section 5] The claim of 'decreased Doppler broadening as magnetic field strengths increase' is not supported by the presented data. Section 3.5.1 states that 'the 10G model has the least amount of broadening at each phase, showing even less broadening than the 30G model except for at phase=0,' and Figure 13 plots this directly. The broadening is therefore not monotonically decreasing with field strength. The abstract and conclusions should be reworded to state that active magnetic drag reduces Doppler broadening relative to the drag-free case, with a non-monotonic dependence across the 3G, 10G, and 30G models, and the authors should either explain the 10G versus 30G behavior or present it as an apparently nonlinear response.
  3. [Section 4.3] The acknowledged limitation about pseudo-synchronous rotation should be given more weight in the presentation of the Doppler-shift predictions. As written, Section 4.3 notes that the 4.14-day rotation period is observationally unconstrained and that different rotation rates would alter the circulation and Doppler shifts, but the abstract presents the spectroscopic variability and Doppler-broadening trends as robust eccentric-orbit signatures. Either the abstract should carry a brief caveat, or the discussion should include a sensitivity estimate, such as a comparison against a synchronously rotating eccentric model or an order-of-magnitude estimate of the expected change in net Doppler shift.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.3, footnote 4] The footnote contains a typo: 'timsecale' should be 'timescale.'
  2. [Section 4.2] The opening sentence, 'Our work is builds upon Kataria et al. (2013),' should be corrected to 'Our work builds upon Kataria et al. (2013).'
  3. [Section 3.1, Figure 3 caption] The phrase 'the eccentric model has a faster rotation rate then the circular model' should read 'than the circular model.'
  4. [Section 3.5.1, Figure 13] The quantity 'Full-Width 80%-Max' is not defined in the text; a sentence explaining the normalization and the cross-correlation width measure would improve reproducibility.
  5. [Section 3.1] The discussion attributes the circulation changes to 'the inclusion of eccentricity,' but the eccentric model also uses a faster pseudo-synchronous rotation period. The text acknowledges this on the previous page, but a one-sentence reminder in Section 3.1 would prevent readers from misinterpreting the comparison as isolating eccentricity alone.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the Doppler and circulation predictions are emergent GCM outputs of a physically defined drag prescription, not refitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are not equivalent by construction to any fitted input. The kinematic MHD drag timescale tau_mag = 4*pi*rho*eta/(B^2*|sin(phi)|) is defined from the non-ideal MHD equations, with resistivity eta = 230*sqrt(T)/x_e and a Saha ionization fraction, and is then applied as a Rayleigh drag in the RM-GCM. The magnetic field strength B is a free parameter varied across models (0, 3, 10, 30 G), not fitted to the wind or Doppler outputs. The strengthened equatorial jet, westward mid-latitude flow, phase-dependent thermal inversion, and spectral Doppler shifts are emergent properties of the GCM integration. High-resolution spectra are post-processed from the GCM temperature and wind structure using independent radiative transfer and ExoMol opacities, so the Doppler-shift predictions are not a renaming of the model inputs. The pseudo-synchronous rotation period (4.14 d, from Hut 1981) is an externally motivated assumption, and the paper explicitly flags that 'this rotation rate is unconstrained observationally' (Section 4.3); that is a limitation, not a circular step. Several self-citations (Beltz et al. 2021, 2022b) document earlier implementations of the same drag prescription and are used for comparison, not as load-bearing proof of the present conclusions. The manuscript does contain internal consistency tensions with its own scaling claims: Section 3.2 states that 'the jet in the 3G case is stronger in the upper atmosphere than the 0G case,' and Section 3.5.1 reports that the 10G model has less broadening than the 30G model at most phases. These contradict a simple monotonic scaling with field strength, but they are qualitative and correctness concerns, not cases where an output reduces to an input by definition. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities; it applies an existing magnetic drag parameterization to a new planet. The main free input is the assumed dipole field strength B, and the main unconstrained state is the pseudo-synchronous rotation period.

free parameters (2)
  • Surface dipolar magnetic field strength B = 0, 3, 10, 30 G (four separate eccentric models)
    Chosen by hand as a parameter study; no observational constraint for TOI-150b. Central results (jet weakening, Doppler broadening, inter-orbit variability) depend on this value.
  • Sedimentation efficiency f_sed in 1D cloud model = 3, 1, 0.5
    Varied to span compact to extended cloud structures in the 1D EGP+ models; secondary to the central GCM claims.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Pseudo-synchronous rotation with period 4.14 days for all eccentric models
    Adopted from Hut (1981) and Kataria et al. (2013); the paper states this rotation rate is unconstrained observationally and that different rates would alter circulation and Doppler shifts (Section 4.3).
  • domain assumption Magnetic field is a dipole aligned with the rotation axis, so drag is applied only in the east-west direction
    Section 2.1; no constraints on exoplanet magnetic field topology. The authors acknowledge tilted or multipolar fields could change circulation (Section 4.3).
  • domain assumption Kinematic MHD approximation is valid where the magnetic Reynolds number Rmag < 1
    Section 2.1 states Rmag << 10^-5 for most of the atmosphere, with a few deep hot gridpoints at Rmag ~ 1 asserted to have minimal effect.
  • domain assumption Ionization fraction from Saha balance over the first 28 elements, with electron density approximately equal to ion density
    Used in the resistivity formula (Eq. 2-3); valid for a nearly neutral atmosphere. This determines the temperature dependence of the drag timescale.
  • domain assumption Solar metallicity and local chemical equilibrium in spectral post-processing
    Section 2.2; deviations from solar metallicity would change opacities, temperature structure, and spectra.
  • domain assumption The RM-GCM primitive equations and picket-fence radiative transfer approximate the atmospheric physics
    The model is used as a proxy for real atmospheric circulation; prior validation is cited (Lee et al. 2022) but no convergence tests are shown here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Effects of Kinematic MHD on the Atmospheric Circulation of Eccentric Hot Jupiters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LMM5IVSY

@misc{pith2026250204169,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Effects of Kinematic MHD on the Atmospheric Circulation of Eccentric Hot Jupiters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LMM5IVSY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04169}
}
read the original abstract

Hot Jupiters are typically considered to be tidally locked due to their short orbital periods. The extreme irradiation can result in atmospheric species becoming thermally ionized on the dayside, which then interact with the planet's magnetic field by resisting flow across magnetic field lines, shaping the atmospheric structure. However, an eccentric orbit results in temporally dependent irradiation and a non-permanent dayside, as the planet-star distance can change drastically during its orbit. In this paper, we present 3D atmospheric models of TOI-150b, an eccentric (e=0.26), Jupiter-mass 1.75 M_Jup planet whose equilibrium temperature varies from 1300K to 1700K. We conduct simulations for magnetic field strengths ranging from 0-30 Gauss using the kinematic magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) approach. When compared to simulations of the planet assuming a circular orbit, we find that the eccentric orbit results in a strengthened and narrowed equatorial jet, westward winds at mid-latitudes, and a phase-dependent thermal inversion. The strength and magnitude of these effects scale with the chosen global magnetic field strength. We also generate high-resolution (R=100,000) emission spectra to study net Doppler shifts and find inter-orbit spectroscopic variability at moderate magnetic field strengths, as well as decreased Doppler broadening as magnetic field strengths increase. This work represents the first time that the kinematic MHD approach has been applied to an eccentric hot Jupiter and highlights the importance of a locally calculated, temperature dependent magnetic drag prescription for predicting atmospheric structure and resulting spectra.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04169 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The presence of an eccentric orbit results in the emergence of strong westward motion at high latitudes in the upper atmosphere in addition to the equatorial jet regularly found in circular models. Here we show zonal-mean zonal winds, plotted as a function of latitude over the modeled pressure region. When the orbit is non-circular, the equato￾rial superrotating jet is narrower and stronger, particularly at pressure… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Eccentricity has a direct impact on the thermal profile of a hot Jupiter, which can result in thermal inversions that are only present for a portion of the orbit. Here we present equatorial profiles of the 0G circular (left) and eccentric cases (right) to show the impact an eccentric orbit has on the temperature-pressure profile of TOI-150b. The profiles are color-coded based on the distance from the substellar long… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. At different phases of the planet’s orbit, the atmosphere has varying day-night temperature structures. We present equatorial slices of TOI-150b’s atmosphere at multiple phases (from top to bottom: transit, first quadrature, and third quadrature of the circular model for both the circular (left) and eccentric (right) cases to showcase a top-down view of the planet’s atmosphere. The white arrows at the center of each… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The inclusion of active magnetic drag alters the temperature and wind structure, particularly in the upper atmosphere. Here we show maps of temperature and wind streamlines of TOI-150b with different levels of dipolar magnetic field strengths (columns) at a phase of 30…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The inclusion of kinematic MHD can dramatically alter the strength and extent of the equatorial jet. Here we show longitudinally averaged zonal winds plotted as a function of latitude and pressure. The zonal winds are averaged through each output phase over the course …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Increasing magnetic field strength will alter the thermal structure of an eccentric hot Jupiter. Here we show the difference between the 10G and 0G eccentric cases at a phase near periastron (right hand column) alongside their near periastron temperature and wind maps.…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Clouds result in slight upper atmospheric warm￾ing at transit and apastron due to the increase in opacity that leads to a greater deposition of energy, but have a minimal effect on the temperature structure at periastron. The inclu￾sion of TiO creates temperature inver…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The changing stellar flux associated with an ec￾centric orbit causes stronger atmospheric variation through￾out the orbit than the circular model, resulting in a wider range of emission spectral fluxes. In this plot, we show spec￾tra from the eccentric and non-eccentr…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Changing the magnetic field strength results in differing levels of broadening in the resulting spectra. We display each of the post-processed eccentric simulations with a vertical offset applied to distinctly see the characteristics of each emission spectra. We show …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Magnetic field strength and eccentricity have substantial impacts on the wind speeds and corresponding Doppler shifts of the planet. We cross-correlate our high-resolution Doppler on spectra with our high-resolution Doppler off spectra and show the peaks of the cross-…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The extent of Doppler broadening changes when different magnetic field strengths are applied. Here we present the Full-Width 80%-Max of the cross-correlation curve normalized to the drag-free case at transit for each of our eccentric models for a variety of phases. Ov…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Due to variability within a single orbit, the same hemisphere of the planet can show significantly different structures at two different phases. Here, we show orthographic projections near the photosphere for the 0G and 10G eccentric models at two phases where the sam…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The presence of clouds in a one-dimensional model results in a significantly increased flux at periastron, but have minimal effects at apastron. We show a comparison of the 1D Cloudy and cloudless emission spectra at a reso￾lution of R = 150. The inclusion of clouds c…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The inclusion of magnetic fields, as well as 3D effects, can impact the strength and shape of spectral fea￾tures. Here we present the 3D spectra from our 0G, 3G, and 10G models near apastron and periastron. At periastron, the 10G spectra shows a lower flux than the 3G…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Magnetic field strength along with orbital phase in a non-circular orbit can impact the wind and thermal structure of a hot Jupiter. Here we show the wind and thermal structure of TOI-150b near apastron at varying pressure levels (rows) and magnetic field strengths (c…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The strength of the magnetic field applied to the planet’s eccentric atmosphere can influence important thermal and pressure characteristics. Here we present snapshots of equatorial temperature-pressure profiles for each of our models with an eccentric orbit at a phas…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_19.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    """"""""

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    C., & Laughlin , G

    Adams , F. C., & Laughlin , G. 2006, , 649, 1004, 10.1086/506145

    doi:10.1086/506145 2006

  5. [5]

    2004, Monthly Weather Review, 132, 2845 , 10.1175/MWR2823.1

    Adcroft, A., Campin, J.-M., Hill, C., & Marshall, J. 2004, Monthly Weather Review, 132, 2845 , 10.1175/MWR2823.1

    doi:10.1175/mwr2823.1 2004

  6. [6]

    2019, , 625, A136, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834891

    Arcangeli , J., D \'e sert , J.-M., Parmentier , V., et al. 2019, , 625, A136, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834891

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834891 2019

  7. [7]

    Batygin , K., Stanley , S., & Stevenson , D. J. 2013, , 776, 53, 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/53

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/776/1/53 2013

  8. [8]

    J., Dang , L., Cowan , N

    Bell , T. J., Dang , L., Cowan , N. B., et al. 2021, , 504, 3316, 10.1093/mnras/stab1027

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1027 2021

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    Beltz , H., Rauscher , E., Brogi , M., & Kempton , E. M. R. 2021, , 161, 1, 10.3847/1538-3881/abb67b

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    Beltz , H., Rauscher , E., Kempton , E. M. R., et al. 2022 a , , 164, 140, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac897b

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    T., & Guilliat , A

    Beltz , H., Rauscher , E., Roman , M. T., & Guilliat , A. 2022 b , , 163, 35, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3746

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    2012, , 537, A67, 10.1051/0004-6361/201116852

    Bonavita , M., Chauvin , G., Desidera , S., et al. 2012, , 537, A67, 10.1051/0004-6361/201116852

    2012 doi

  5. [13]

    2021, , 645, A24, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039344

    Borsa , F., Allart , R., Casasayas-Barris , N., et al. 2021, , 645, A24, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039344

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    I., Stefansson , G., Monson , A

    Ca \ n as , C. I., Stefansson , G., Monson , A. J., et al. 2019, , 877, L29, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab21c0

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Cho , J. Y. K., Menou , K., Hansen , B. M. S., & Seager , S. 2003, , 587, L117, 10.1086/375016

    2003 doi

  8. [16]

    Crossfield , I. J. M., Hansen , B. M. S., Harrington , J., et al. 2010, , 723, 1436, 10.1088/0004-637X/723/2/1436

    2010 doi

  9. [17]

    2013, , 435, 3159, 10.1093/mnras/stt1509

    Dobbs-Dixon , I., & Agol , E. 2013, , 435, 3159, 10.1093/mnras/stt1509

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    2012, , 751, 87, 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/87

    Dobbs-Dixon , I., Agol , E., & Burrows , A. 2012, , 751, 87, 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/87

    2012 doi

  11. [19]

    J., Lodders , K., Marley , M

    Fortney , J. J., Lodders , K., Marley , M. S., & Freedman , R. S. 2008, , 678, 1419, 10.1086/528370

    2008 doi

  12. [20]

    2016, , 591, A144, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527600

    Fromang , S., Leconte , J., & Heng , K. 2016, , 591, A144, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527600

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    W., Bushby , P

    Hindle , A. W., Bushby , P. J., & Rogers , T. M. 2021 a , , 922, 176, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0e2e

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    2021 b , , 916, L8, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0fec

    ---. 2021 b , , 916, L8, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0fec

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    1981, , 99, 126

    Hut , P. 1981, , 99, 126

    1981

  16. [24]

    M., McCullough , P

    Johns-Krull , C. M., McCullough , P. R., Burke , C. J., et al. 2008, , 677, 657, 10.1086/528950

    2008 doi

  17. [25]

    P., Fortney , J

    Kataria , T., Showman , A. P., Fortney , J. J., et al. 2015, , 801, 86, 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/86

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    P., Lewis , N

    Kataria , T., Showman , A. P., Lewis , N. K., et al. 2013, , 767, 76, 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/76

    2013 doi

  19. [27]

    A., Charbonneau , D., Allen , L

    Knutson , H. A., Charbonneau , D., Allen , L. E., et al. 2007, , 447, 183, 10.1038/nature05782

    2007 doi

  20. [28]

    Koll , D. D. B., & Komacek , T. D. 2018, , 853, 133, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3de

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    D., & Showman , A

    Komacek , T. D., & Showman , A. P. 2016, , 821, 16, 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/16

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    D., Showman , A

    Komacek , T. D., Showman , A. P., & Tan , X. 2017, , 835, 198, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/198

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    2019, , 490, 1094, 10.1093/mnras/stz2433

    Kossakowski , D., Espinoza , N., Brahm , R., et al. 2019, , 490, 1094, 10.1093/mnras/stz2433

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    R., Parmentier , V., et al

    Kreidberg , L., Line , M. R., Parmentier , V., et al. 2018, , 156, 17, 10.3847/1538-3881/aac3df

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    O., Lin , D

    Laine , R. O., Lin , D. N. C., & Dong , S. 2008, , 685, 521, 10.1086/589177

    2008 doi

  26. [34]

    2008, , 674, 1106, 10.1086/523957

    Langton , J., & Laughlin , G. 2008, , 674, 1106, 10.1086/523957

    2008 doi

  27. [35]

    , & Laughlin, G

    Langton, J. , & Laughlin, G. 2008, , 483, L25, 10.1051/0004-6361:200809417

    2008 doi

  28. [36]

    Lee , E. K. H., Wardenier , J. P., Prinoth , B., et al. 2022, , 929, 180, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac61d6

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    K., Parmentier , V., Kataria , T., et al

    Lewis , N. K., Parmentier , V., Kataria , T., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1706.00466, 10.48550/arXiv.1706.00466

    2017 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    K., Showman , A

    Lewis , N. K., Showman , A. P., Fortney , J. J., Knutson , H. A., & Marley , M. S. 2014, , 795, 150, 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/150

    2014 doi

  31. [39]

    K., Showman , A

    Lewis , N. K., Showman , A. P., Fortney , J. J., et al. 2010, , 720, 344, 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/344

    2010 doi

  32. [40]

    2003, , 591, 1220, 10.1086/375492

    Lodders , K. 2003, , 591, 1220, 10.1086/375492

    2003 doi

  33. [41]

    2008, , 481, 529, 10.1051/0004-6361:20078167

    Loeillet , B., Shporer , A., Bouchy , F., et al. 2008, , 481, 529, 10.1051/0004-6361:20078167

    2008 doi

  34. [42]

    Malsky , I., Rauscher , E., Kempton , E. M. R., et al. 2021, , 923, 62, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2a2a

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    T., et al

    Malsky , I., Rauscher , E., Roman , M. T., et al. 2024, , 961, 66, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b70

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    L., Line , M

    Mansfield , M., Bean , J. L., Line , M. R., et al. 2018, , 156, 10, 10.3847/1538-3881/aac497

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    S., & McKay, C

    Marley, M. S., & McKay, C. P. 1999, Icarus, 138, 268, https://doi.org/10.1006/icar.1998.6071

    1999

  38. [46]

    S., Saumon, D., Guillot, T., et al

    Marley, M. S., Saumon, D., Guillot, T., et al. 1996, Science, 272, 1919, 10.1126/science.272.5270.1919

    1996

  39. [47]

    S., Seager , S., Saumon , D., et al

    Marley , M. S., Seager , S., Saumon , D., et al. 2002, , 568, 335, 10.1086/338800

    2002 doi

  40. [48]

    M., Stevenson , K

    May , E. M., Stevenson , K. B., Bean , J. L., et al. 2022, , 163, 256, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac6261

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    J., Baraffe, I., Acreman, D

    Mayne, N. J., Baraffe, I., Acreman, D. M., et al. 2014, Geoscientific Model Development, 7, 3059, 10.5194/gmd-7-3059-2014

    2014 doi

  42. [50]

    C., Robinson , T

    Mayorga , L. C., Robinson , T. D., Marley , M. S., May , E. M., & Stevenson , K. B. 2021, , 915, 41, 10.3847/1538-4357/abff50

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    M., Grimm , S

    Mendon c a , J. M., Grimm , S. L., Grosheintz , L., & Heng , K. 2016, , 829, 115, 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/115

    2016 doi

  44. [52]

    M., Malik , M., Demory , B.-O., & Heng , K

    Mendon c a , J. M., Malik , M., Demory , B.-O., & Heng , K. 2018, , 155, 150, 10.3847/1538-3881/aaaebc

    2018 doi

  45. [53]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 745, 138, 10.1088/0004-637x/745/2/138

    Menou, K. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 745, 138, 10.1088/0004-637x/745/2/138

    2012 doi

  46. [54]

    2009, , 700, 887, 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/887

    Menou , K., & Rauscher , E. 2009, , 700, 887, 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/887

    2009 doi

  47. [55]

    1949, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 44, 335, 10.1080/01621459.1949.10483310

    Metropolis, N., & Ulam, S. 1949, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 44, 335, 10.1080/01621459.1949.10483310

    1949

  48. [56]

    W., Mayor , M., et al

    Naef , D., Latham , D. W., Mayor , M., et al. 2001, , 375, L27, 10.1051/0004-6361:20010853

    2001 doi

  49. [57]

    2014, , 562, A133, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322342

    Parmentier , V., & Guillot , T. 2014, , 562, A133, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322342

    2014 doi

  50. [58]

    J., & Marley , M

    Parmentier , V., Guillot , T., Fortney , J. J., & Marley , M. S. 2015, , 574, A35, 10.1051/0004-6361/201323127

    2015 doi

  51. [59]

    Perez-Becker , D., & Showman , A. P. 2013, , 776, 134, 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/134

    2013 doi

  52. [60]

    2010 a , , 719, 1421, 10.1088/0004-637X/719/2/1421

    Perna , R., Menou , K., & Rauscher , E. 2010 a , , 719, 1421, 10.1088/0004-637X/719/2/1421

    2010 doi

  53. [61]

    2010 b , , 724, 313, 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/313

    ---. 2010 b , , 724, 313, 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/313

    2010 doi

  54. [62]

    M., et al

    Pino , L., Brogi , M., D \'e sert , J. M., et al. 2022, , 668, A176, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244593

    2022 doi

  55. [63]

    N., Becker , J

    Quinn , S. N., Becker , J. C., Rodriguez , J. E., et al. 2019, , 158, 177, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3f2b

    2019 doi

  56. [64]

    2012, , 750, 96, 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/96

    Rauscher , E., & Menou , K. 2012, , 750, 96, 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/96

    2012 doi

  57. [65]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 764, 103, 10.1088/0004-637x/764/1/103

    Rauscher, E., & Menou, K. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 764, 103, 10.1088/0004-637x/764/1/103

    2013 doi

  58. [66]

    D., & Marley , M

    Robinson , T. D., & Marley , M. S. 2014, , 785, 158, 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/158

    2014 doi

  59. [67]

    Rogers , T. M. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0131, 10.1038/s41550-017-0131

    2017 doi

  60. [68]

    M., & Komacek, T

    Rogers, T. M., & Komacek, T. D. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 794, 132, 10.1088/0004-637x/794/2/132

    2014 doi

  61. [69]

    M., & McElwaine , J

    Rogers , T. M., & McElwaine , J. N. 2017, , 841, L26, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa72da

    2017 doi

  62. [70]

    T., Kempton, E

    Roman, M. T., Kempton, E. M.-R., Rauscher, E., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 908, 101, 10.3847/1538-4357/abd549

    2021 doi

  63. [71]

    Russell , C. T. 1993, Reports on Progress in Physics, 56, 687, 10.1088/0034-4885/56/6/001

    1993 doi

  64. [72]

    1991, Contributions to Plasma Physics, 31, 331, 10.1002/ctpp.2150310307

    Sato , M. 1991, Contributions to Plasma Physics, 31, 331, 10.1002/ctpp.2150310307

    1991 doi

  65. [73]

    B., Kempton , E

    Savel , A. B., Kempton , E. M. R., Rauscher , E., et al. 2023, , 944, 99, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb141

    2023 doi

  66. [74]

    B., Kempton , E

    Savel , A. B., Kempton , E. M. R., Malik , M., et al. 2022, , 926, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac423f

    2022 doi

  67. [75]

    A., & Shepherd , T

    Shaw , T. A., & Shepherd , T. G. 2007, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 64, 190, 10.1175/JAS3823.1

    2007 doi

  68. [76]

    2020, Space Science Reviews, 216, 139, 10.1007/s11214-020-00758-8

    Showman, A., Tan, X., & Parmentier, V. 2020, Space Science Reviews, 216, 139, 10.1007/s11214-020-00758-8

    2020 doi

  69. [77]

    P., Cho , J

    Showman , A. P., Cho , J. Y. K., & Menou , K. 2010, in Exoplanets, ed. S. Seager , 471--516, 10.48550/arXiv.0911.3170

    2010 doi arXiv

  70. [78]

    P., Cooper , C

    Showman , A. P., Cooper , C. S., Fortney , J. J., & Marley , M. S. 2008, , 682, 559, 10.1086/589325

    2008 doi

  71. [79]

    P., Fortney , J

    Showman , A. P., Fortney , J. J., Lian , Y., et al. 2009, , 699, 564, 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/564

    2009 doi

  72. [80]

    P., & Guillot , T

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

    2002 doi

  73. [81]

    P., & Polvani , L

    Showman , A. P., & Polvani , L. M. 2011, , 738, 71, 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/71

    2011 doi

  74. [82]

    W., Kitzmann , D., Patzer , A

    Stock , J. W., Kitzmann , D., Patzer , A. B. C., & Sedlmayr , E. 2018, , 479, 865, 10.1093/mnras/sty1531

    2018 doi

  75. [83]

    Tennyson , J., & Yurchenko , S. N. 2018, Atoms, 6, 26, 10.3390/atoms6020026

    2018 doi

  76. [84]

    I., & Vallis , G

    Thomson , S. I., & Vallis , G. K. 2019, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 145, 2627, 10.1002/qj.3582

    2019 doi

  77. [85]

    B., McKay , C

    Toon , O. B., McKay , C. P., Ackerman , T. P., & Santhanam , K. 1989, , 94, 16287, 10.1029/JD094iD13p16287

    1989 doi

  78. [86]

    2023, , 520, 3867, 10.1093/mnras/stad214

    Tsai , S.-M., Steinrueck , M., Parmentier , V., Lewis , N., & Pierrehumbert , R. 2023, , 520, 3867, 10.1093/mnras/stad214

    2023 doi

  79. [87]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.07651, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.07651

    Wazny , M., & Menou , K. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.07651, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.07651

    2024 doi arXiv

  80. [88]

    Zhang , J., Kempton , E. M. R., & Rauscher , E. 2017, , 851, 84, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9891

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.