Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Non-ideal MHD simulations of hot Jupiter atmospheres

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Hot Jupiter winds generate local magnetic fields of up to ~10^3 G at the shear layer, far exceeding the assumed interior field and breaking the linear regime even in cool planets.

desk verdict Solid, transparent non-ideal MHD study; the hot-planet result is robust, but the cold-planet 'comparable to background' claim rests on an unconstrained seed radial field. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14342 v1 pith:RSVU3NLW submitted 2025-05-20 astro-ph.EP

Clàudia Soriano-Guerrero , Daniele Viganò , Rosalba Perna , Albert Elias-López , Hayley Beltz This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords hotJupiteratmospheresmagnetohydrodynamicsmagneticfieldwindingOhmicdissipationHalldriftambipolardiffusionexoplanetfieldsshearlayer
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

In hot Jupiter atmospheres, winds are usually assumed to perturb a magnetic field generated deep in the planetary interior; this paper shows that at the substellar point that perturbative picture breaks down across most of the hot Jupiter population. The authors run 1D plane-parallel MHD simulations of atmospheric columns, using wind and temperature profiles from published global circulation models of five planets, and find that the wind's vertical shear winds up the seed magnetic field into azimuthal fields of order $10^1$–$10^3$ G near the 1-bar shear layer, far exceeding the assumed 3–20 G background. The balance between this winding and Ohmic dissipation sets the field, while Hall drift and ambipolar diffusion, though subdominant, reshape the field at $p \lesssim 1$ bar in the hottest planets. The associated currents dissipate $\sim 10^{-6}$–$10^{-3}$ of the stellar irradiation locally. Even the coldest model (HD 189733b, $T_{\rm eq}\sim1200$ K) induces a field comparable to its background, so the paper concludes that the linear perturbative regime applies only to the least irradiated hot Jupiters and that circulation models should evolve magnetic induction self-consistently.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the 1D plane-parallel induction equation solved over a vertical column at the substellar point, fed by wind and thermodynamic profiles taken from published GCMs of five planets spanning $T_{\rm eq} \sim 1200$–2400 K. The operative balance is the stationary winding–Ohmic equilibrium, $\partial B_x/\partial t \simeq \partial_z(v_x B_z) + \partial_z(J_y/\sigma) \simeq 0$: the vertical shear of the zonal wind, $\partial_z v_x$, acting on a seed radial field $B_z$, generates the azimuthal field $B_x$ and its supporting meridional current $J_y$, which Ohmic dissipation limits. The non-ideal electric field entering the induction equation is $\mathbf{E} = -\mathbf{v}\times\mathbf{B} + \mathbf{J}/\sigma + (\mathbf{J}\times\mathbf{B})/(e n_e) - ((\mathbf{J}\times\mathbf{B})\times\mathbf{B})/(\nu_{in}\rho_i)$, so the relative weight of the Hall and ambipolar terms grows with the locally amplified $B_x$ rather than with the faint background field. Conductivity is computed along each column from thermal potassium ionization, and the seed for winding is an imposed radial component $B_z^{\rm in} = 0.1\,B_y^{\rm in}$, justified by the expectation of field misalignment or multipolar structure. A notable diagnostic subtlety in the paper is that at stationarity the advective-to-Ohmic ratio as defined by the full curl terms is $\sim 1$ by construction, so the authors use the standard estimate $R_m = vL/\eta$, which in the non-linear regime acts as an order-of-magnitude measure of the induced-to-background field ratio.

What would settle it

One decisive check is to measure or bound the radial (vertical) component of the magnetic field at the substellar point of a hot Jupiter. If spectropolarimetric mapping or the ion-neutral velocity offset method shows B_z much smaller than 0.1 B_y there — as would hold for a nearly aligned dipole, where B_z approaches zero at the equator — then the predicted fields of $10^{2}$–$10^{3}$ G at p ~ 1 bar could not arise from 1D winding, and the claim that the linear regime fails for most hot Jupiters would weaken in proportion. Within the paper's own setup, the linear scaling of |Bx|max with the seed (8 G at 0.003 G up to 870 G at 0.3 G) already shows that the headline field strengths are directly hostage to that assumed seed ratio.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that atmospheric magnetic induction in hot Jupiters operates in the non-linear regime: at the substellar point, the azimuthal field created by the wind, $B_x$, is locally much larger than the assumed planetary background field, even for the coldest model considered. The equilibrium balance between winding and Ohmic dissipation, $\partial B_x/\partial t \simeq \partial_z(v_x B_z) + \partial_z(J_y/\sigma) \simeq 0$, yields azimuthal fields of order $10^1$–$10^3$ G at the shear layer near $p \sim 1$ bar — up to $\sim$1,550 G in WASP-121b — far exceeding the 3–20 G background fields assumed in the input GCMs. The induced field scales linearly with the seed radial field $B_z$, and the associated Ohmic dissipation scales quadratically, with local heating efficiencies of $\sim 10^{-6}$–$10^{-3}$ of the irradiation from the radiative layers alone. The Hall and ambipolar terms are subdominant to the winding–Ohmic balance, but in the hottest planets they generate a meridional field component $B_y$ and azimuthal currents $J_x$ that twist the field geometry at $p \lesssim 1$ bar and drive meridional and vertical flows. Because even HD 189733b ($T_{\rm eq} \sim 1200$ K) induces a field comparable to its assumed background, the authors conclude that the perturbative regime 'might be appropriate for the low-irradiated end of the HJ sample only.'

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that at the substellar point the planet's magnetic field has a radial component equal to 10% of its horizontal component, and the entire winding effect that produces the large fields scales linearly with that assumed radial component.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the substellar point of the five modeled planets, the wind shear winds the seed field into azimuthal fields of ~10^1–10^3 G near 1 bar, and even the coolest case, HD 189733b, produces an induced field comparable to its assumed 3 G background.
  • Because the induced field exceeds the background in essentially all modeled cases, Ohmic dissipation and magnetic drag calculations that treat induction as a linear perturbation apply only to the least irradiated hot Jupiters.
  • The Hall and ambipolar terms, while secondary to the winding–Ohmic balance, twist the field and generate meridional and vertical flows at p <~ 1 bar in the hottest planets, effects a global circulation model would need to evolve self-consistently.
  • Most Ohmic energy is released in the shear region around 0.1 to a few bar, so extending the simulated column to 1000 bar raises the peak field but leaves the cumulative dissipated energy nearly unchanged.
  • The induced field grows linearly with the seed radial field, so the amplification and the heating efficiency scale with the planet's internal field strength and geometry.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the real radial component of the planetary field at the substellar point is much smaller than the assumed 10% of the meridional component, the predicted amplification and heating would shrink in proportion, so the paper's regime conclusion is conditional on field misalignment or multipolar structure rather than on a pure aligned dipole.
  • The predicted Bx profiles and the ion-neutral drift velocities they imply could be confronted with high-resolution transmission spectroscopy of the hottest planets, since the ambipolar drift grows in the outer layers where the winding–Ohmic balance weakens.
  • The same 1D column machinery, applied to the anti-stellar point or to terminators, would likely show weaker winding because of slower winds and lower temperatures, suggesting the substellar column is the most favorable place to detect atmospheric magnetic effects.
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

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents 1D plane-parallel non-ideal MHD simulations of vertical atmospheric columns at the substellar points of several hot Jupiters, using GCM-derived wind and thermodynamic profiles. The simulations evolve the induction equation for the azimuthal and meridional magnetic field components, including winding, Ohmic, Hall, and ambipolar terms, with the wind and temperature profiles forced toward prescribed backgrounds. The converged solutions are characterized by a winding--Ohmic balance, with local azimuthal fields reaching up to ~10^3 G in the hottest cases and local heating efficiencies of ~10^-6 to 10^-3. The authors find that Hall and ambipolar terms are subdominant but can modify the field geometry at p <~ 1 bar for the hottest planets, and they argue that even the coldest model considered (HD 189733b, Teq ~ 1200 K) produces an induced field locally comparable to the assumed background, so that the perturbative regime is not generally applicable.

Significance. The paper is a careful and useful contribution. Its strengths are the use of multiple realistic GCM input profiles, the inclusion of Hall and ambipolar terms in addition to the usual winding--Ohmic balance, explicit resolution and boundary-condition sensitivity studies (Apps. A and B), and unusually candid discussion of the model's limitations. If the quantitative results are accepted, they strengthen the case that non-linear magnetic induction is important in hot Jupiter upper atmospheres and provide concrete local Ohmic heating efficiencies that can inform future dissipation and GCM studies. The main caveat, developed below, is that the quantitative and qualitative conclusions for the cooler planets are controlled by an externally imposed and unconstrained seed radial magnetic field; the hot-planet conclusions are more robust.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. 2.5, Table 2, Fig. 10] The paper's headline conclusion that even the coldest model (HD 189733b, Teq ~ 1200 K) induces fields locally comparable to the background, and the associated statement that the perturbative regime is appropriate only for the low-irradiated end, is carried by the hand-chosen seed value Bin_z = 0.1 Bin_y. Because the winding balance in Eq. (17) is proportional to Bz, and Fig. 10 shows Bx scaling linearly with Bin_z (with Qj and the heating efficiency scaling quadratically), reducing the seed from 0.3 G to 0.03 G at the substellar point would lower HD 189733b's |Bx|max from 0.39 G to roughly 0.04 G, nearly two orders of magnitude below the 3 G background. The manuscript offers a plausible qualitative justification for a nonzero radial field coming from tilted and multipolar components, but no quantitative or observationally grounded estimate of its amplitude is provided. The cold-planet conclusion and the absolute efficiencies in Table 2 should therefore be presented as explicitly conditional on Bin_z, or the authors should supply a physically motivated range for the radial seed field.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.3] The planet names 'HD 20958b' and 'HD 1898733b' in the text should be corrected to 'HD 209458b' and 'HD 189733b'.
  2. [Sec. 3.4] In the paragraph discussing ion-neutral relative velocities, 'HD 209458Bb' should read 'HD 209458b'.
  3. [Throughout] The planet name is repeatedly typeset as 'W ASP 76b' with an internal space; it should appear as 'WASP-76b' (or consistently as 'WASP 76b').
  4. [Apps. A and B] The appendix figures are each captioned 'Figure 1', which will confuse cross-referencing; they should be renumbered as Figure A1 and Figure B1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No equation-level circularity: the simulation solves a stated induction equation with prescribed inputs, and the seed-field sensitivity of the cold-planet conclusion is transparent rather than a hidden fit.

full rationale

The central derivation is a numerical solution of the induction equation formed by eqs. (3)-(6) with the electric field of eq. (7), using wind and thermodynamic profiles taken from external GCMs and a seed field stated directly in Section 2.5: "we introduce a small but non-zero initial radial component, that we fix by default as Bin_z = 0.1 Bin_y". The headline induced-field values, Ohmic dissipation rates, and efficiencies in Table 2 are outputs of this evolution; no parameter is fitted to reproduce |Bx|max or epsilon. The nearest candidate for a reduction is the linear dependence of the winding result on the seed: Section 3.6 states that "Bx roughly scales with Bz" and that "the dissipated heat Qj ... and the heating efficiency, scale quadratically with Bin_z", so the cold-planet conclusion (HD 189733b, |Bx|max = 0.39 G against Bd = 3 G) is conditional on the assumed Bin_z = 0.1 Bin_y. However, the paper explicitly acknowledges and explores this conditionality, and the target result is not used to define or fit the seed. This is a transparent sensitivity limitation, not circular reasoning. The GCM inputs already contain a magnetic drag computed from the same background field Bd used as the simulation seed (Section 2.3, eq. 16), so the demonstration that the induced field can exceed Bd is an internal-consistency check of the perturbative-drag assumption, not a conclusion obtained by assuming itself. Self-citations to Soriano-Guerrero et al. (2023) supply the perturbative formulation, forcing parameters, and time-unit definitions, but these are standard numerical choices rather than an unverified uniqueness theorem or ansatz that carries the central claim. The paper's own caveats in the Final Remarks ("our results should not be taken as fully self-consistent... (i) they are local simulations of sub-stellar columns... (ii) the GCM models... implicitly assum[e] a linear regime... (iii) we conservatively confine the induction to the domain considered") further confirm that the claims are presented as conditional. No circular step can be exhibited with a specific equation-level reduction; the score of 2 reflects only the presence of minor self-citations that are not load-bearing.

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

The central numbers depend on six unverified premises: the GCM profiles, the potassium-only conductivity, the M1 Ohm's law, the plane-parallel geometry, the zero-induced-field boundaries, and the pinned wind. The most consequential for the headline amplitudes is the geometric and seed-field premise: with a purely aligned dipole at the equator, the radial field, and hence the winding, would vanish. The boundary premise caps the domain and acts as a lower bound on deep dissipation, while the pinned wind makes the field an upper bound, so these two bracket the real answer rather than canceling. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Radial seed field Bin_z = 0.3 G by default (Bd/10), 2 G for WASP 18b; sensitivity runs at 0.03 and 0.003 G
    The winding term grows Bx in proportion to Bz. The paper fixes Bin_z = 0.1 Bin_y as a default 'necessary seed' (Section 2.5), and Section 3.6 shows the resulting Bx scales linearly with it. No independent constraint is offered.
  • Deep-extension adiabatic index gamma_deep = 1.12
    Chosen heuristically to connect the GCM p(T) profile to the convective region in the depth-extension runs (Section 2.3.1). Affects the WASP 76b extension tests in Section 3.5 but not the headline results.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption GCM substellar wind and p(T) profiles adequately represent the atmospheres of the modeled planets.
    The entire simulation is driven by these external profiles (Section 2.3). Errors in the GCM winds and temperatures propagate directly into the induced fields and heating efficiencies.
  • domain assumption Potassium-only Saha ionization (Eq. 13) gives acceptable electron fractions, hence conductivities.
    Section 2.2 states the analytical approximation deviates by up to a factor of a few at T > 2500 K relative to full Saha (Kumar et al. 2021), which directly affects Ohmic, Hall and ambipolar coefficients.
  • domain assumption The weakly-ionized, isotropic Ohm's law (Eq. 7) applies in the M1 coupling regime.
    Section 2.2 argues collision frequencies exceed the electron plasma frequency for p greater than about mbar, so anisotropic conductivity and plasma waves are neglected.
  • domain assumption A 1D plane-parallel column with purely vertical gradients captures the dominant induction at the substellar point.
    Section 2 states only vertical dependences are considered; the authors acknowledge this is an approximation and that the substellar point is the most extreme location.
  • ad hoc to paper Magnetic field components are fixed to their background values at both boundaries (no induced field at the edges).
    Section 2.5 and Appendix A: needed for numerical convergence; relaxing to dBx/dz = 0 leads to non-convergent field growth. The paper notes this confines induction to the domain and may underestimate deep currents.
  • ad hoc to paper Wind and temperature profiles are held fixed by external forcing, so magnetic feedback on the azimuthal wind is absent.
    Section 2.1 pins vx to vw(z) via F0 and uses Newtonian cooling. The authors state this 'cannot consistently include the magnetic drag on the wind', so field strengths are likely upper limits.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-ideal MHD simulations of hot Jupiter atmospheres." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RSVU3NLW

@misc{pith2026250514342,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-ideal MHD simulations of hot Jupiter atmospheres},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RSVU3NLW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14342}
}
abstract

In Hot Jupiters (HJs), atmospherically induced magnetic fields are expected to play an important role in controlling the wind circulation and in determining their inflated radii. Here we perform 1D plane-parallel magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations of HJ atmospheric columns, using the wind and thermodynamic profiles generated by global circulation models of different exo-planets. We quantitatively investigate the effects of magnetic field winding and Ohmic dissipation (previously considered in several works), with the addition of Hall drift and ambipolar diffusion. The main effect is the magnetic field winding in the full non-linear regime, with local azimuthal fields reaching maximum values up to ${\cal O}(10^2)$ G at the shear layer (typical pressure $\sim 1$ bar), much stronger than the assumed background field generated in the planetary interior. The associated meridional currents undergo Ohmic dissipation, with local heating efficiencies of at least $\sim$ ${10^{-6}}-10^{-3}$ (considering only these shallow layers). In addition to the dominant winding vs. Ohmic balance, the presence of the Hall and ambipolar terms have a non-negligible contribution in shaping and twisting the induced magnetic field at $p\lesssim 1$ bar; however this effect is only apparent for the hottest planets. Our results, though limited by construction to a plane-parallel approximation of the sub-stellar columns and with a simplified setup that cannot consistently include the magnetic drag on the wind, assess the non-linearity and complexity of the magnetic induction in HJs atmospheres, and call for a self-consistent inclusion of MHD effects in Ohmic dissipation studies and circulation models, beyond the often-assumed perturbative regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.14342 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Substellar profiles for the different models shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Vertical profiles at hydrostatic equilibrium, for the dif￾ferent models shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The vertical profiles of Qj (z) (top), ρ1/ρ0(z)(centre) and T(z) (bottom). The dashed line corresponds to the background profile at the beginning of the simulations and the continuous line at the convergence at t/t∗ ∼ 7000. that Qj has the highest contribution in the deepest regions. As a result, more dissipated energy will be available near the RCB; if this energy penetrates into the convective region, it could be … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The vertical profiles of Bx(z) (top), By(z) (upper cen￾ter), Jy(z) (lower center) and Jx(z) (bottom) for WASP 76b. The different intensities of red for Bx indicate the magnitudes at each time as indicated in the legend, until t/t∗ ∼ 7000. The blue dashed line correspon…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Local lengthscales calculated with the local vertical gradients of magnetic diffusivity (blue), velocity (red) and induced magnetic field (black) for WASP 76b, at convergence. Center: magnetic Reynolds number, calculated using L as the local minimum of the three …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the vertical profiles (from top to bottom) Bx(z), By(z), and cumulative Ohmic heating, R 0 z Qj (z ′ ) dz′ , for the different models. The dashed lines correspond to the purely winding+Ohmic cases, with no Hall and ambipolar terms included. counteracting …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evaluation of the different contributions to the electric field components: Ex (left) and Ey (right) for WASP 76b (top) and HD 209458b (bottom) across the entire domain. Advective terms are shown in blue, Ohmic in red, Hall in green, ambipolar in yellow, and the total …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Relative velocity between ions and neutrals inferred from the solutions of the different models . This is essentially due to the chosen boundary conditions, which tie Bx at both extremes, allowing to reach higher peaks if the domain is more extended. The highest field …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The vertical profiles for Bx(z) (top), Jy(z) (center) and cumulative Ohmic heating R 0 z Qj (z ′ )dz′ (bottom) at convergence, corresponding to t/t∗ ∼ 10000 for four simulations with different maximum pressures: 1000 bar (blue), 500 bar (yellow), 300 bar (red) and 88.3…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of the Bx(z) (top), the Ohmic dissipation per unit volume Qj (z) and the cumulative one, R 0 z Qj (z ′ ) dz′ , for different values Bin z =0.3 G (red), 0.03 G (blue) and 0.003 (yellow) for WASP 76b. As a reference, the default case with GCM inputs that cons…
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison of the vertical profiles Bx(z) (top) and Qj (z) (bottom) for WASP 76b-d3, for different BC at different times (indicated with increasingly darker shades): Bx= 35 G in the lower border and Bx = 0 G in the upper border (red), dBx/dz=0 in the upper and lower bo…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Rossby number regime, convection suppression, and dynamo-generated magnetism in inflated hot Jupiters

    astro-ph.EP 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Inflated hot Jupiters with outer-envelope heat deposition have suppressed deep convection and surface magnetic fields at or below Jupiter's, which may explain the absence of detected coherent radio emission.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Arbona A., Artigues A., Bona-Casas C., Mass \'o J., Mi \ n ano B., Rigo A., Trias M., Bona C., 2013, @doi [Computer Physics Communications] 10.1016/j.cpc.2013.04.012 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013CoPhC.184.2321A 184, 2321

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2013.04.012 2013

  2. [2]

    Arbona A., Mi \ n ano B., Rigo A., Bona C., Palenzuela C., Artigues A., Bona-Casas C., Mass \'o J., 2018, @doi [Computer Physics Communications] 10.1016/j.cpc.2018.03.015 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018CoPhC.229..170A 229, 170

    doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2018.03.015 2018

  3. [3]

    J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/714/2/L238 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...714L.238B 714, L238

    Batygin K., Stevenson D. J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/714/2/L238 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...714L.238B 714, L238

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/714/2/l238 2010

  4. [4]

    J., Bodenheimer P

    Batygin K., Stevenson D. J., Bodenheimer P. H., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...738....1B 738, 1

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/738/1/1 2011

  5. [5]

    J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/53 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...776...53B 776, 53

    Batygin K., Stanley S., Stevenson D. J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/53 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...776...53B 776, 53

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

  6. [6]

    Beltz H., Rauscher E., Kempton E. M. R., Malsky I., Ochs G., Arora M., Savel A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac897b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....164..140B 164, 140

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac897b 2022

  7. [7]

    Bodenheimer P., Lin D. N. C., Mardling R. A., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/318667 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...548..466B 548, 466

    doi:10.1086/318667 2001

  8. [8]

    Bonitz M., et al., 2024, @doi [Physics of Plasmas] 10.1063/5.0219405 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PhPl...31k0501B 31, 110501

    doi:10.1063/5.0219405 2024

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    B., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/514326 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...661..502B 661, 502

    Burrows A., Hubeny I., Budaj J., Hubbard W. B., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/514326 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...661..502B 661, 502

    2007 doi

  2. [10]

    Chabrier G., Baraffe I., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/518473 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...661L..81C 661, L81

    2007 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Krishan V., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04461.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.323L..23C 323, L23

    Chitre S. M., Krishan V., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04461.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.323L..23C 323, L23

    2001

  4. [12]

    Cho J. Y. K., Menou K., Hansen B. M. S., Seager S., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/524718 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...675..817C 675, 817

    2008 doi

  5. [13]

    Connerney J. E. P., et al., 2022, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets] https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JE007055 , 127, e2021JE007055

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    Coulombe L.-P., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-023-06230-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Natur.620..292C 620, 292

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    J., French M., Nettelmann N., Redmer R., Wicht J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2849 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.3113D 517, 3113

    Dietrich W., Kumar S., Poser A. J., French M., Nettelmann N., Redmer R., Wicht J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2849 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.3113D 517, 3113

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    Dobbs-Dixon I., Lin D. N. C., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/523786 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...673..513D 673, 513

    2008 doi

  9. [17]

    T., Roberge W

    Draine B. T., Roberge W. G., Dalgarno A., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160617 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...264..485D 264, 485

    1983 doi

  10. [18]

    Felipe García T., 2010, Phd thesis, University of La Laguna

    2010

  11. [19]

    J., Dawson R

    Fortney J. J., Dawson R. I., Komacek T. D., 2021, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets)] 10.1029/2020JE006629 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021JGRE..12606629F 126, e06629

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    French M., Becker A., Lorenzen W., Nettelmann N., Bethkenhagen M., Wicht J., Redmer R., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1088/0067-0049/202/1/5 , 202, 5

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    Gastine T., Wicht J., 2021, @doi [Icarus] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2021.114514 , 368, 114514

    2021

  14. [22]

    Ginzburg S., Sari R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/803/2/111 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...803..111G 803, 111

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    Ginzburg S., Sari R., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/116 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...819..116G 819, 116

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    Guillot T., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913396 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...520A..27G 520, A27

    2010 doi

  17. [25]

    T., Anderson R

    Gunney B. T., Anderson R. W., 2016, @doi [Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpdc.2015.11.005 , 89, 65

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    arXiv:2208.03387

    Hardy R., Cumming A., Charbonneau P., 2022, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220803387H p. arXiv:2208.03387

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    P., 2015, @doi [Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences] 10.1146/annurev-earth-060614-105146 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AREPS..43..509H 43, 509

    Heng K., Showman A. P., 2015, @doi [Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences] 10.1146/annurev-earth-060614-105146 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AREPS..43..509H 43, 509

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18315.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.413.2380H 413, 2380

    Heng K., Menou K., Phillipps P. J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18315.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.413.2380H 413, 2380

    2011

  21. [29]

    D., Kohn S

    Hornung R. D., Kohn S. R., 2002, @doi [Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience] 10.1002/cpe.652 , 14, 347

    2002 doi

  22. [30]

    P., Fortney J

    Kataria T., Showman A. P., Fortney J. J., Stevenson K. B., Line M. R., Kreidberg L., Bean J. L., D \'e sert J.-M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/86 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...801...86K 801, 86

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    Knierim H., Batygin K., Bitsch B., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142588 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...658L...7K 658, L7

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    A., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature05782 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Natur.447..183K 447, 183

    Knutson H. A., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature05782 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Natur.447..183K 447, 183

    2007 doi

  25. [33]

    Koll D. D. B., Komacek T. D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3de , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...853..133K 853, 133

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    D., Youdin A

    Komacek T. D., Youdin A. N., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7b75 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...844...94K 844, 94

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    D., Thorngren D

    Komacek T. D., Thorngren D. P., Lopez E. D., Ginzburg S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7eb4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...893...36K 893, 36

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    D., Tan X., Gao P., Lee E

    Komacek T. D., Tan X., Gao P., Lee E. K. H., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7723 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934...79K 934, 79

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    T., Yelle R

    Koskinen T. T., Yelle R. V., Lavvas P., Cho J. Y.-K., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/16 , 796, 16

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    Kumar S., Poser A. J., Sch \"o ttler M., Kleinschmidt U., Dietrich W., Wicht J., French M., Redmer R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevE.103.063203 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PhRvE.103f3203K 103, 063203

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/729/1/L7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...729L...7L 729, L7

    Laughlin G., Crismani M., Adams F. C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/729/1/L7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...729L...7L 729, L7

    2011 doi

  32. [40]

    Li J., Goodman J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/1146 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...725.1146L 725, 1146

    2010 doi

  33. [41]

    M., Stevenson D

    Liu J., Goldreich P. M., Stevenson D. J., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.11.036 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008Icar..196..653L 196, 653

    2008 doi

  34. [42]

    D., Fortney J

    Lopez E. D., Fortney J. J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...818....4L 818, 4

    2016 doi

  35. [43]

    Lou Y.-Q., 1993, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics] https://doi.org/10.1029/93JA01033 , 98, 11483

    1993 doi

  36. [44]

    T., Lee E

    Malsky I., Rauscher E., Roman M. T., Lee E. K. H., Beltz H., Savel A., Kempton E. M. R., Cinque L., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b70 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...961...66M 961, 66

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    Menou K., 2012, @doi [Astrophys. J. Lett.] 10.1088/2041-8205/754/1/L9 , 754, L9

    2012 doi

  38. [46]

    Menou K., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1093/mnrasl/slz041 , 485, L98

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    Palenzuela C., et al., 2018, @doi [Classical and Quantum Gravity] 10.1088/1361-6382/aad7f6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018CQGra..35r5007P 35, 185007

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    Palenzuela C., Mi \ n ano B., Arbona A., Bona-Casas C., Bona C., Mass \'o J., 2021, @doi [Computer Physics Communications] 10.1016/j.cpc.2020.107675 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021CoPhC.25907675P 259, 107675

    2021

  41. [49]

    P., Wardle M., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12998.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.385.2269P 385, 2269

    Pandey B. P., Wardle M., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12998.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.385.2269P 385, 2269

    2008

  42. [50]

    P., Lian Y., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321132 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...558A..91P 558, A91

    Parmentier V., Showman A. P., Lian Y., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321132 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...558A..91P 558, A91

    2013 doi

  43. [51]

    Parmentier V., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833059 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...617A.110P 617, A110

    2018 doi

  44. [52]

    P., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/134 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...776..134P 776, 134

    Perez-Becker D., Showman A. P., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/134 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...776..134P 776, 134

    2013 doi

  45. [53]

    Perna R., Menou K., Rauscher E., 2010a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/719/2/1421 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...719.1421P 719, 1421

    doi

  46. [54]

    Perna R., Menou K., Rauscher E., 2010b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/313 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...724..313P 724, 313

    doi

  47. [55]

    Perna R., Heng K., Pont F., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/59 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...751...59P 751, 59

    2012 doi

  48. [56]

    Popescu Braileanu B., Keppens R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140872 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...653A.131P 653, A131

    2021 doi

  49. [57]

    Rauscher E., Menou K., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/714/2/1334 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...714.1334R 714, 1334

    2010 doi

  50. [58]

    Rauscher E., Menou K., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/96 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...750...96R 750, 96

    2012 doi

  51. [59]

    Rauscher E., Menou K., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...764..103R 764, 103

    2013 doi

  52. [60]

    M., Komacek T

    Rogers T. M., Komacek T. D., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/132 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...794..132R 794, 132

    2014 doi

  53. [61]

    M., McElwaine J

    Rogers T. M., McElwaine J. N., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa72da , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...841L..26R 841, L26

    2017 doi

  54. [62]

    M., Showman A

    Rogers T. M., Showman A. P., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/782/1/L4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...782L...4R 782, L4

    2014 doi

  55. [63]

    Roman M., Rauscher E., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8ee4 , 850, 17

    2017 doi

  56. [64]

    Ryu T., Zingale M., Perna R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2638 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.5517R 481, 5517

    2018 doi

  57. [65]

    B., Beltz H., Komacek T

    Savel A. B., Beltz H., Komacek T. D., Tsai S.-M., Kempton E. M.-R., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5a0a , 969, L27

    2024 doi

  58. [66]

    T., Xiang C., 2007, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics] https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JA012164 , 112

    Shen F., Feng X., Wu S. T., Xiang C., 2007, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics] https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JA012164 , 112

    2007 doi

  59. [67]

    P., Guillot T., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20020101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A&A...385..166S 385, 166

    Showman A. P., Guillot T., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20020101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A&A...385..166S 385, 166

    2002 doi

  60. [68]

    P., Cooper C

    Showman A. P., Cooper C. S., Fortney J. J., Marley M. S., 2008, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/589325 , 682, 559

    2008 doi

  61. [69]

    P., Fortney J

    Showman A. P., Fortney J. J., Lian Y., Marley M. S., Freedman R. S., Knutson H. A., Charbonneau D., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/564 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...699..564S 699, 564

    2009 doi

  62. [70]

    P., Lewis N

    Showman A. P., Lewis N. K., Fortney J. J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/95 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...801...95S 801, 95

    2015 doi

  63. [71]

    Soriano-Guerrero C., Viganò D., Perna R., Akgün T., Palenzuela C., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad2311 , 525, 626

    2023 doi

  64. [72]

    P., Fortney J

    Thorngren D. P., Fortney J. J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aaba13 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....155..214T 155, 214

    2018 doi

  65. [73]

    J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab43d0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...884L...6T 884, L6

    Thorngren D., Gao P., Fortney J. J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab43d0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...884L...6T 884, L6

    2019 doi

  66. [74]

    B., McKay C

    Toon O. B., McKay C. P., Ackerman T. P., Santhanam K., 1989, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres] https://doi.org/10.1029/JD094iD13p16287 , 94, 16287

    1989 doi

  67. [75]

    A., Horch E

    Wang J., Fischer D. A., Horch E. P., Huang X., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/229 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...799..229W 799, 229

    2015 doi

  68. [76]

    Wu Y., Lithwick Y., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/13 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...763...13W 763, 13

    2013 doi

  69. [77]

    N., Mitchell J

    Youdin A. N., Mitchell J. L., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1113 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...721.1113Y 721, 1113

    2010 doi

  70. [78]

    Q., Yan H., Liu T

    Zhao S. Q., Yan H., Liu T. Z., Liu M., Shi M., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2ffe , 923, 253

    2021 doi

  71. [79]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

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