Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 81 references

Overcast on Osiris: 3D radiative-hydrodynamical simulations of a cloudy hot Jupiter using the parameterised, phase-equilibrium cloud formation code EddySed

T0 review · 3 major / 0 minor · reviewed 2026-05-25 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Cloud radiative effects produce markedly different thermal and optical structures in hot Jupiter simulations

desk verdict This shows cloud radiative feedback alters 3D hot Jupiter structure and improves data fits, but the gains are shown qualitatively after tuning and rest on EddySed's phase-equilibrium setup. read the letter →

arxiv 1906.11754 v1 pith:VOAUV7EB submitted 2019-06-27 astro-ph.EP

S. Lines , N. J. Mayne , J. Manners , I. A. Boutle , B. Drummond , T. Mikal-Evans , K. Kohary , D. K. Sing This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords cloudshotJupitersradiativefeedbackHD209458b3DsimulationsEddySedtransmissionspectraphasecurves
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 performs 3D radiative-hydrodynamical simulations of the hot Jupiter HD 209458b using a fully coupled cloud treatment with the EddySed code that includes radiative feedback from absorption and scattering. It establishes that adding these cloud effects changes the atmosphere's thermal and optical structure in most simulations, and that cloud properties depend on sedimentation efficiency and the deep temperature-pressure profile. The results matter because they imply that cloud radiative feedback cannot be neglected in atmospheric modeling, and the cloudy models yield better agreement with observed transmission spectra, emission data, and phase curves than cloud-free versions.

What carries the argument

The EddySed parameterised phase-equilibrium cloud formation code, coupled into 3D radiative-hydrodynamical simulations with explicit cloud radiative feedback through absorption and scattering.

What would settle it

A set of simulations run without cloud radiative feedback that nevertheless produces the same thermal and optical structures as the feedback-inclusive runs would show the effects are not markedly different.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The thermal and optical structure of the simulated atmosphere is markedly different, for the majority of our simulations, when including cloud radiative effects, suggesting this important mechanism can not be neglected. The cloud structure is sensitive to not only the cloud sedimentation efficiency but also the temperature-pressure profile of the deeper atmosphere. Synthetic observations report an improved match to the observed transmission, HST WFC3 emission and 4.5 μm Spitzer phase curve of HD 209458b, and all cloudy simulations have an apparent albedo consistent with observations.

Load-bearing premise

The phase-equilibrium assumption together with the specific condensates chosen for EddySed are adequate to represent the dominant cloud radiative effects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Cloud radiative effects cannot be neglected as they change the structure in most cases.
  • Cloud structure depends on sedimentation efficiency f_sed and the deeper atmosphere's temperature-pressure profile.
  • The resulting synthetic observations improve the match to transmission, emission and phase curve data over cloud-free models.
  • All simulations with clouds produce apparent albedos consistent with observations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same cloud feedback effects may apply to other hot Jupiters and influence their observable properties.
  • A direct comparison using identical condensates in both phase-equilibrium and microphysical models would help isolate the source of structural differences.
  • The dependence on deep T-P profiles points to a possible link between interior heat transport and upper atmosphere clouds.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper presents 3D radiative-hydrodynamical simulations of HD 209458b using the EddySed parameterized phase-equilibrium cloud formation code with fully coupled cloud radiative feedback. It claims that including radiative effects produces markedly different thermal and optical structures in the majority of runs, that cloud structure is sensitive to f_sed and the deep T-P profile, notes large differences versus prior microphysical modeling (with fair comparison deferred), and reports improved matches to transmission spectra, HST WFC3 emission, and 4.5 μm Spitzer phase curves along with observationally consistent albedos.

Significance. If the central numerical results hold under more quantitative scrutiny, the work would usefully demonstrate the non-negligible impact of cloud radiative feedback in 3D hot-Jupiter models and the potential of parameterized equilibrium clouds to improve observational fits relative to cloud-free cases. The explicit sensitivity tests to f_sed and deep T-P, plus the production of synthetic observables, are positive features. However, the lack of error bars, statistical significance tests, and systematic uncertainty quantification on parameter choices reduces the immediate strength of the claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that the simulations 'report an improved match' to the observed transmission, HST WFC3 emission and 4.5 μm Spitzer phase curve provides no quantitative metrics (e.g., reduced χ², residual rms, or error bars on the synthetic spectra) and no assessment of whether the improvement is statistically significant; this is load-bearing for the claim that the cloudy models are superior.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract and § on comparison to prior work: the conclusion that cloud radiative effects 'cannot be neglected' rests on the phase-equilibrium assumption and specific condensate list in EddySed, yet the manuscript explicitly notes large differences with the authors' earlier microphysical model and defers a fair comparison (identical condensate list) to future work; if the equilibrium treatment or condensate selection materially alters cloud opacity or vertical distribution, the reported structural differences may not generalize.
  3. [Results] Results on parameter sensitivity: while f_sed and deep T-P are varied and shown to affect cloud structure, the manuscript contains no systematic exploration, posterior distributions, or discussion of how post-hoc selection of these free parameters influences the magnitude of the radiative-feedback changes or the observational matches.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments. We address each major comment point-by-point below, indicating planned revisions where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that the simulations 'report an improved match' to the observed transmission, HST WFC3 emission and 4.5 μm Spitzer phase curve provides no quantitative metrics (e.g., reduced χ², residual rms, or error bars on the synthetic spectra) and no assessment of whether the improvement is statistically significant; this is load-bearing for the claim that the cloudy models are superior.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative support would strengthen the abstract claim. In revision we will add reduced-χ² and rms residual values (computed from the synthetic spectra already shown in the figures) to the abstract and to the relevant results section, together with a brief statement on the practical limits to formal statistical significance given current observational and model uncertainties. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and § on comparison to prior work: the conclusion that cloud radiative effects 'cannot be neglected' rests on the phase-equilibrium assumption and specific condensate list in EddySed, yet the manuscript explicitly notes large differences with the authors' earlier microphysical model and defers a fair comparison (identical condensate list) to future work; if the equilibrium treatment or condensate selection materially alters cloud opacity or vertical distribution, the reported structural differences may not generalize.

    Authors: The manuscript already flags the large differences with our prior microphysical work and explicitly defers a like-for-like comparison. The statement that radiative effects 'cannot be neglected' is intended to apply within the phase-equilibrium framework employed here. We will revise the abstract and discussion to qualify the claim more explicitly and to reiterate the need for the deferred comparison. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results] Results on parameter sensitivity: while f_sed and deep T-P are varied and shown to affect cloud structure, the manuscript contains no systematic exploration, posterior distributions, or discussion of how post-hoc selection of these free parameters influences the magnitude of the radiative-feedback changes or the observational matches.

    Authors: The variations presented are targeted sensitivity experiments intended to demonstrate the influence of f_sed and the deep T-P profile. A full posterior or systematic sweep lies beyond the scope of this initial demonstration study. We will expand the discussion to describe how the chosen parameter values affect the reported radiative-feedback differences and observational comparisons, and we will note this limitation for future work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; results are direct numerical outcomes of simulations

full rationale

The paper reports outcomes from 3D radiative-hydrodynamical simulations comparing runs with and without cloud radiative feedback in EddySed. The central claim of markedly different thermal/optical structures is a direct numerical result from those experiments, not a closed derivation or mathematical reduction. f_sed is treated as an adjustable parameter varied for sensitivity tests, and improved observational matches are presented as simulation outputs rather than predictions forced by construction. No load-bearing self-citation or ansatz smuggling underpins the main result; the work is self-contained against external benchmarks via the reported simulation comparisons.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the phase-equilibrium assumption inside EddySed and on the choice of condensates; f_sed is treated as a free parameter that is varied rather than derived.

free parameters (1)
  • f_sed
    Sedimentation efficiency parameter in EddySed whose value controls cloud vertical structure and is varied across simulations.
assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption Phase-equilibrium cloud formation is an adequate description for the dominant radiative effects.
    Invoked by the choice of EddySed code and stated as the modeling approach.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Overcast on Osiris: 3D radiative-hydrodynamical simulations of a cloudy hot Jupiter using the parameterised, phase-equilibrium cloud formation code EddySed." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VOAUV7EB

@misc{pith2026190611754,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Overcast on Osiris: 3D radiative-hydrodynamical simulations of a cloudy hot Jupiter using the parameterised, phase-equilibrium cloud formation code EddySed},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VOAUV7EB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1906.11754}
}
abstract

We present results from 3D radiative-hydrodynamical simulations of HD 209458b with a fully coupled treatment of clouds using the EddySed code, critically, including cloud radiative feedback via absorption and scattering. We demonstrate that the thermal and optical structure of the simulated atmosphere is markedly different, for the majority of our simulations, when including cloud radiative effects, suggesting this important mechanism can not be neglected. Additionally, we further demonstrate that the cloud structure is sensitive to not only the cloud sedimentation efficiency (termed $f_{\textrm{sed}}$ in EddySed), but also the temperature-pressure profile of the deeper atmosphere. We briefly discuss the large difference between the resolved cloud structures of this work, adopting a phase-equilibrium and parameterised cloud model, and our previous work incorporating a cloud microphysical model, although a fairer comparison where, for example, the same list of constituent condensates is included in both treatments, is reserved for a future work. Our results underline the importance of further study into the potential condensate size distributions and vertical structures, as both strongly influence the radiative impact of clouds on the atmosphere. Finally, we present synthetic observations from our simulations reporting an improved match, over our previous cloud-free simulations, to the observed transmission, HST WFC3 emission and 4.5 $\mu$m Spitzer phase curve of HD 209458b. Additionally, we find all our cloudy simulations have an apparent albedo consistent with observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1906.11754 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Equatorial temperature–pressure profiles, sampled at t = 0 (dashed lines) and t = 500 (solid lines) days and for the dayside sub–stellar point, λ = 180◦ (red lines) and nightside anti–stellar point, λ = 0◦ (black lines) for all simulations. curves via the advection–driven modulation of the outgoing thermal flux. Cloud particles can also absorb stellar photons. Depending on the location of the cloud top, this heating… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Equatorial total cloud mixing ratio profiles, sampled at t = 0 (dashed lines) and t = 500 (solid lines) days and for the dayside, λ = 180◦ (red lines) and nightside, λ = 0◦ (black lines) for all simulations. mentioned trend in larger temperature changes on the day￾side hemisphere which occur due to the lack of direct stellar heating on the nightside. To better understand the effect of radiatively active cloud on the… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Total, thermal (long–wave) and stellar (short–wave) heating rates for a clear sky (upper) and evolved cloudy (hot deep interior and fsed = 0.1 case) atmosphere at t = 500 days (lower) for the equator φ = 0◦ (dotted lines) and mid–latitudes φ = 45◦ (solid), at the anti–stellar, λ = 0◦ (black lines) and sub–stellar, λ = 180◦ (red lines) points, as well as the east–limb, λ = 260◦ (orange lines) and west–limb, λ = 100◦ … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Meridional-mean of the normalised contribution function (colour scale) for clear sky (upper row) and cloudy HDI and fsed = 0.1 (lower row) for 0.5 µm (left column) and 4.5 µm (right column). Atmospheric temperature is shown via black contours. ing of the nightside equa…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Temperature–Pressure profiles, sampled at t = 0 days (dashed lines) and t = 500 days (solid lines) for the equator (left panel) and mid–latitude (right panel) at the anti–stellar, λ = 0◦ (black lines) and sub–stellar, λ = 180◦ (red lines) points, as well as the east–li…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Individual condensate mixing ratio and effective radii profiles, sampled at t = 0 days (dashed lines) and t = 500 days (solid lines) at the anti–stellar, λ = 0◦ (black lines) and sub–stellar, λ = 180◦ (red lines) points, as well as the east–limb, λ = 270◦ (orange lines…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Kz z profiles, sampled at t = 500 days at the anti– stellar, λ = 0◦ (black lines) and sub–stellar, λ = 180◦ (red lines) points, as well as the east–limb, λ = 270◦ (orange lines) and west– limb, λ = 90◦ (blue lines), for the hot deep interior fsed = 0.1 simulation. The …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Cloud condensate mixing ratios of MnS, MgSiO3 and Al2O3 (top, middle and bottom rows, respectively) for the hot deep interior and fsed = 0.1 simulation of HD 209458b. Data obtained during the initial diagnostic call at t = 0 days with radiatively passive clouds (left) …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Transmission spectra, sampled at t = 500 days for all four of our simulations (black lines) with the clear sky (no cloud) spectrum at t = 0 days (blue lines), and observations from Sing et al. (2008) (red symbols) included. All spectra are normalised to the observation…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Dayside ‘clear’ sky at t = 0 days with no cloud opacity (blue lines) and ‘cloudy’ (black lines) emission at 0.2 - 1.0 µm (top row), WFC3 G141 1.1 - 1.7 µm (middle row) and 3.5 - 10 µm (lower row), sampled at t = 500 days, for all four simulations: both hot and standar…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Apparent albedo, Ag, between 0.35 - 1.3 µm for HDI and fsed = 0.1 (solid black), HDI and fsed = 1.0 (solid red), Clear HDI (solid blue), SDI and fsed = 0.1 (dashed black), SDI and fsed = 1.0 (dashed red) and Clear SDI (dashed blue). Albedo data from Rowe et al. (2008)…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Upper Panel: Dayside ‘clear’ (blue line), ‘clear–cloud’ (red line) and ‘cloudy’ (black line) emission between 0.2 - 3.0 µm for HDI and fsed = 0.1. The clear emission is from the simu￾lation at 0 days, without cloud opacity, the ‘clear–cloud’ is the emission after 500 …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: ‘Clear’ sky, cloud–free, spectrum at t = 0 days and omitting cloud opacity (dotted blue line) and the cloudy, t = 500 days (black line) phase curve at 500 - 800 nm (left) and 4.5 µm (right), sampled at t = 500 days, for the HDI and fsed = 0.1 simulation. Observations …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 81 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S., Marley M

    Ackerman A. S., Marley M. S., 2001, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...556..872A 556, 872

    work page 2001

  2. [2]

    S., Baraffe I., Tremblin P., Manners J., Hayek W., Mayne N

    Amundsen D. S., Baraffe I., Tremblin P., Manners J., Hayek W., Mayne N. J., Acreman D. M., 2014, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    S., et al., 2016, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A

    Amundsen D. S., et al., 2016, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    S., Tremblin P., Manners J., Baraffe I., Mayne N

    Amundsen D. S., Tremblin P., Manners J., Baraffe I., Mayne N. J., 2017, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    J., de Mooij E., Barstow J., Osborn H

    Armstrong D. J., de Mooij E., Barstow J., Osborn H. P., Blake J., Saniee N. F., 2016, Nature Astronomy, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016NatAs...1E...4A 1, 0004

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    K., Aigrain S., Irwin P

    Barstow J. K., Aigrain S., Irwin P. G. J., Sing D. K., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/50 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...834...50B 834, 50

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/50 2017

  7. [7]

    Benneke B., Seager S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/100 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...753..100B 753, 100

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/753/2/100 2012

  8. [8]

    Blecic J., Dobbs-Dixon I., Greene T., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8171 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848..127B 848, 127

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8171 2017

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    A., Mayne N

    Boutle I. A., Mayne N. J., Drummond B., Manners J., Goyal J., Hugo Lambert F., Acreman D. M., Earnshaw P. D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201630020 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    M., 1999, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...512..843B 512, 843

    Burrows A., Sharp C. M., 1999, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...512..843B 512, 843

    1999

  3. [11]

    P., Bord \'e P., Rocchetto M., Charnay B., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834384 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A

    Caldas A., Leconte J., Selsis F., Waldmann I. P., Bord \'e P., Rocchetto M., Charnay B., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834384 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    Charnay B., B \'e zard B., Baudino J.-L., Bonnefoy M., Boccaletti A., Galicher R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaac7d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...854..172C 854, 172

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    C., Saumon D., Marley M

    Cushing M. C., Saumon D., Marley M. S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/5/1428 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....140.1428C 140, 1428

    2010 doi

  6. [14]

    Deming D., et al., 2013, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...774...95D 774, 95

    2013

  7. [15]

    Demory B.-O., et al., 2013, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...776L..25D 776, L25

    2013

  8. [16]

    S., Mayne N

    Drummond B., Tremblin P., Baraffe I., Amundsen D. S., Mayne N. J., Venot O., Goyal J., 2016, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A

    2016

  9. [17]

    J., Baraffe I., Tremblin P., Manners J., Amundsen D

    Drummond B., Mayne N. J., Baraffe I., Tremblin P., Manners J., Amundsen D. S., Goyal J., Acreman D., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732010 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    doi

  10. [18]

    Drummond B., et al., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aab209 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...855L..31D 855, L31

    doi

  11. [19]

    J., Manners J., Baraffe I., Goyal J., Tremblin P., Sing D

    Drummond B., Mayne N. J., Manners J., Baraffe I., Goyal J., Tremblin P., Sing D. K., Kohary K., 2018c, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaeb28 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...869...28D 869, 28

    doi

  12. [20]

    M., 1996, @doi [Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences] 10.1175/1520-0469(1996)053<1921:ECOIFA>2.0.CO;2 , 53, 1921

    Edwards J. M., 1996, @doi [Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences] 10.1175/1520-0469(1996)053<1921:ECOIFA>2.0.CO;2 , 53, 1921

    1996 doi

  13. [21]

    M., Slingo A., 1996, @doi [Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society] 10.1002/qj.49712253107 , 122, 689

    Edwards J. M., Slingo A., 1996, @doi [Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society] 10.1002/qj.49712253107 , 122, 689

    1996 doi

  14. [22]

    J., De Mooij E

    Esteves L. J., De Mooij E. J. W., Jayawardhana R., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/51 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...772...51E 772, 51

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    M., Aigrain S., Gibson N., Barstow J

    Evans T. M., Aigrain S., Gibson N., Barstow J. K., Amundsen D. S., Tremblin P., Mourier P., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv910 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.451..680E 451, 680

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    J., Saumon D., Marley M

    Fortney J. J., Saumon D., Marley M. S., Lodders K., Freedman R. S., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500920 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...642..495F 642, 495

    2006 doi

  17. [25]

    Gao P., Benneke B., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad461 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...863..165G 863, 165

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    S., Ackerman A

    Gao P., Marley M. S., Ackerman A. S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab0a1 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...855...86G 855, 86

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    J., Conrath B

    Gierasch P. J., Conrath B. J., 1985, Energy conversion processes in the outer planets . Cambridge and New York, Cambridge University Press, pp 121--146

    1985

  20. [28]

    L., Ockert-Bell M

    Hartmann D. L., Ockert-Bell M. E., Michelsen M. L., 1992, Journal of Climate, 5, 1281

    1992

  21. [29]

    Helling C., Fomins A., 2013, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013RSPTA.37110581H 371, 20110581

    2013

  22. [30]

    Helling C., Woitke P., 2006, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A

    2006

  23. [31]

    Helling C., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13991.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.391.1854H 391, 1854

    2008 doi

  24. [32]

    R., Swain M

    Iyer A. R., Swain M. R., Zellem R. T., Line M. R., Roudier G., Rocha G., Livingston J. H., 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 823, 109

    2016

  25. [33]

    J., Louden T., Doyle A

    Kirk J., Wheatley P. J., Louden T., Doyle A. P., Skillen I., McCormac J., Irwin P. G. J., Karjalainen R., 2017, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.3907K 468, 3907

    2017

  26. [34]

    Kitzmann D., Heng K., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3141 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475...94K 475, 94

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    A., et al., 2007, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Natur.447..183K 447, 183

    Knutson H. A., et al., 2007, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Natur.447..183K 447, 183

    2007

  28. [36]

    Lecavelier Des Etangs A., Pont F., Vidal-Madjar A., Sing D., 2008, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A

    2008

  29. [37]

    Lee J.-M., Irwin P. G. J., Fletcher L. N., Heng K., Barstow J. K., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/14 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...789...14L 789, 14

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    Lee G., Dobbs-Dixon I., Helling C., Bognar K., Woitke P., 2016, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A

    2016

  31. [39]

    K., Showman A

    Lewis N. K., Showman A. P., Fortney J. J., Marley M. S., Freedman R. S., Lodders K., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/344 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...720..344L 720, 344

    2010 doi

  32. [40]

    T., Lambert F

    Lewis N. T., Lambert F. H., Boutle I. A., Mayne N. J., Manners J., Acreman D. M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaad0a , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...854..171L 854, 171

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    R., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/203 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....152..203L 152, 203

    Line M. R., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/203 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....152..203L 152, 203

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    Lines S., et al., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2275 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481..194L 481, 194

    doi

  35. [43]

    Lines S., et al., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732278 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    doi

  36. [44]

    S., Robinson T

    Marley M. S., Robinson T. D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122522 , http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/abs/2015ARA

    2015 doi

  37. [45]

    J., Baraffe I., Acreman D

    Mayne N. J., Baraffe I., Acreman D. M., Smith C., Wood N., Amundsen D. S., Thuburn J., Jackson D. R., 2014a, Geoscientific Model Development, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014GMD.....7.3059M 7, 3059

  38. [46]

    J., et al., 2014b, A & A, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    Mayne N. J., et al., 2014b, A & A, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

  39. [47]

    J., et al., 2017, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A

    Mayne N. J., et al., 2017, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A

    2017

  40. [48]

    J., Drummond B., Debras F., Jaupart E., Manners J., Boutle I

    Mayne N. J., Drummond B., Debras F., Jaupart E., Manners J., Boutle I. A., Baraffe I., Kohary K., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf6e9 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...871...56M 871, 56

    2019 doi

  41. [49]

    Menou K., 2018, arXiv e-prints, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv181111725M

    2018

  42. [50]

    E., H \"o rst S

    Moran S. E., H \"o rst S. M., Batalha N. E., Lewis N. K., Wakeford H. R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aae83a , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..252M 156, 252

    2018 doi

  43. [51]

    V., Fortney J

    Morley C. V., Fortney J. J., Marley M. S., Zahnle K., Line M., Kempton E., Lewis N., Cahoy K., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/110 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...815..110M 815, 110

    2015 doi

  44. [52]

    I., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/737/1/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737...15M 737, 15

    Moses J. I., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/737/1/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737...15M 737, 15

    2011 doi

  45. [53]

    Nikolov N., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2433 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.447..463N 447, 463

    2015 doi

  46. [54]

    Ohno K., Okuzumi S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aabee3 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...859...34O 859, 34

    2018 doi

  47. [55]

    Oreshenko M., Heng K., Demory B.-O., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw133 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457.3420O 457, 3420

    2016 doi

  48. [56]

    W., Min M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833678 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A

    Ormel C. W., Min M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833678 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A

    2019 doi

  49. [57]

    Parmentier V., Crossfield I. J. M., 2018, Exoplanet Phase Curves: Observations and Theory . p. 116, @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-55333-7_116

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

    P., Lian Y., 2013, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    Parmentier V., Showman A. P., Lian Y., 2013, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    2013

  51. [59]

    J., Showman A

    Parmentier V., Fortney J. J., Showman A. P., Morley C., Marley M. S., 2016, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...828...22P 828, 22

    2016

  52. [60]

    Pinhas A., Madhusudhan N., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1849 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471.4355P 471, 4355

    2017 doi

  53. [61]

    Powell D., Zhang X., Gao P., Parmentier V., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac215 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...860...18P 860, 18

    2018 doi

  54. [62]

    Rajan A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa74db , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154...10R 154, 10

    2017 doi

  55. [63]

    Ramanathan V., Cess R., Harrison E., Minnis P., Barkstrom B., Ahmad E., Hartmann D., 1989, Science, 243, 57

    1989

  56. [64]

    Roman M., Rauscher E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aafdb5 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...872....1R 872, 1

    2019 doi

  57. [65]

    F., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/591835 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...689.1345R 689, 1345

    Rowe J. F., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/591835 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...689.1345R 689, 1345

    2008 doi

  58. [66]

    S., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/592734 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...689.1327S 689, 1327

    Saumon D., Marley M. S., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/592734 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...689.1327S 689, 1327

    2008 doi

  59. [67]

    P., Fortney J

    Showman A. P., Fortney J. J., Lian Y., Marley M. S., Freedman R. S., Knutson H. A., Charbonneau D., 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 699, 564

    2009

  60. [68]

    Shporer A., Hu R., 2015, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AJ....150..112S 150, 112

    2015

  61. [69]

    K., Vidal-Madjar A., D \'e sert J.-M., Lecavelier des Etangs A., Ballester G., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/590075 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...686..658S 686, 658

    Sing D. K., Vidal-Madjar A., D \'e sert J.-M., Lecavelier des Etangs A., Ballester G., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/590075 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...686..658S 686, 658

    2008 doi

  62. [70]

    K., et al., 2016, Nature, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016Natur.529...59S 529, 59

    Sing D. K., et al., 2016, Nature, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016Natur.529...59S 529, 59

    2016

  63. [71]

    S., Silverio K., Burrows A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1487 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...699.1487S 699, 1487

    Spiegel D. S., Silverio K., Burrows A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1487 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...699.1487S 699, 1487

    2009 doi

  64. [72]

    B., Turco R., Hamill P., Kiang C., Whitten R., 1979, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 36, 718

    Toon O. B., Turco R., Hamill P., Kiang C., Whitten R., 1979, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 36, 718

    1979

  65. [73]

    S., Mourier P., Baraffe I., Chabrier G., Drummond B., Homeier D., Venot O., 2015, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...804L..17T 804, L17

    Tremblin P., Amundsen D. S., Mourier P., Baraffe I., Chabrier G., Drummond B., Homeier D., Venot O., 2015, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...804L..17T 804, L17

    2015

  66. [74]

    Tremblin P., et al., 2017, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...841...30T 841, 30

    2017

  67. [75]

    R., Sing D

    Wakeford H. R., Sing D. K., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424207 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A

    2015 doi

  68. [76]

    Wood N., et al., 2014, @doi [Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society] 10.1002/qj.2235 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014QJRMS.140.1505W 140, 1505

    2014 doi

  69. [77]

    G., Korb G

    Zdunkowski W. G., Korb G. J., 1985, Promet, 2/3, 26

    1985

  70. [78]

    a ge zur Physik der Atmosph \

    Zdunkowski W., Welch R., Korb G., 1980, Beitr \"a ge zur Physik der Atmosph \"a re, 53, 147

    1980

  71. [79]

    T., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/53 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...790...53Z 790, 53

    Zellem R. T., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/53 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...790...53Z 790, 53

    2014 doi

  72. [80]

    P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aada7c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018ApJ...866....2Z 866, 2

    Zhang X., Showman A. P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aada7c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018ApJ...866....2Z 866, 2

    2018 doi

  73. [81]

    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 May 25, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.