Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Three-dimensional dynamical evolution of cloud particle microphysics in sub-stellar atmospheres I. Description and exploring Y-dwarf atmospheric variability

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper demonstrates that a two-moment cloud microphysics scheme—just particle number plus condensed mass per condensate—can capture time-dependent cloud formation, patchiness, and spectra in a 3D model of a Y-dwarf atmosphere at…

desk verdict Useful and honest 3D GCM cloud microphysics paper; the delta-function closure is a real limitation, but the forward JWST test and available code make it worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10305 v2 pith:WLLTCQ4M submitted 2024-11-15 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Elspeth K.H. Lee , Kazumasa Ohno This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords browndwarfsYcloudmicrophysics2-momentbulkschemegeneralcirculationmodelsatmosphericvariabilityKClcloudsJWSTspectroscopy
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

The paper argues that a bulk cloud model tracking only two moments of the particle size distribution—total particle number and total condensed mass—can carry time-dependent cloud microphysics into three-dimensional circulation models of brown dwarfs and exoplanets at acceptable cost. The authors derive moment equations for homogeneous nucleation, condensation and evaporation, and collisional growth, close the distribution with a single mean particle size, and couple the scheme to a GCM of the Y-dwarf WISE 0359-54 with KCl clouds. The simulation produces a global but patchy cloud field, an equatorial belt of larger particles, emission spectra that broadly match the JWST observations, and roughly 0.5-1% rotational variability in the Spitzer bands. If this demonstration holds, cloud microphysics stops being a bottleneck for 3D modelling and becomes a standard module for interpreting the JWST spectra of cold sub-stellar atmospheres.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-moment mass-moment system. The zeroth and first moments of the particle mass distribution, $M^{(0)} = N_c$ (number density) and $M^{(1)} = \rho_c$ (mass density), are advanced by coupled ODEs that sum the rates of homogeneous nucleation (with seed mass $m_{\rm seed}$), condensation and evaporation evaluated at the mean particle mass, Brownian coagulation and gravitational coalescence reduced to same-size collisions at the mean radius, seed-particle evaporation, and a deep vapour-replenishment relaxation. Closure is the monodisperse delta-function distribution $f(m) = N_c\,\delta(m - m_c)$, so every process—settling velocity, collision rates, and cloud opacity—is evaluated at the single mass-weighted mean radius $r_c = (3m_c/4\pi\rho_d)^{1/3}$. The practical payoff is that only two tracers per condensate are advected in the GCM, which is what makes time-dependent microphysics affordable inside 3D simulations.

What would settle it

Run the identical WISE 0359-54 GCM setup with a bin-resolving scheme that tracks dozens of particle sizes (the CARMA-style approach of Gao et al. 2018) and compare cloud structure, spectra, and variability amplitudes; substantial differences would show that the single-size closure is the limiting assumption. On the observational side, a JWST spectrum of a Y-dwarf whose retrieved cloud particle size distribution is clearly broad rather than narrow around one mean radius would test that same assumption directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result, in the authors' own framing, is a capability demonstration: a time-dependent two-moment bulk microphysical scheme—evolving the zeroth and first moments of the particle mass distribution, $N_c$ and $\rho_c$, together with the condensable vapour density—can be coupled directly to a 3D general circulation model and still reproduce the main observable consequences of clouds in a sub-stellar atmosphere. The scheme unifies homogeneous nucleation, condensation and evaporation, Brownian coagulation, and gravitational coalescence in one moment framework, closes the size distribution with a monodisperse delta function at the mass-weighted mean radius, and is integrated on the same timestep as the GCM's chemistry. Applied to the Y-dwarf WISE 0359-54, it yields a global KCl cloud layer with long-lived patchiness at higher latitudes, an equatorial belt of larger particles, synthetic spectra consistent with the JWST data beyond about 7 $\mu$m, and 0.5-1% periodic and sub-rotational variability in the Spitzer [3.6] and [4.5] bands. The authors conclude that the 2-moment scheme is a highly suitable method for investigating cloud characteristics and feedback in GCMs and other large-scale simulations.

Load-bearing premise

The entire calculation is anchored to a single particle size: the model assumes every cloud at a given location has the same radius, and it computes all growth rates, settling speeds, and the amount of light blocked using that one radius, so if real Y-dwarf clouds contain a wide spread of particle sizes, the simulated cloud patterns, spectra, and variability would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Time-dependent microphysics—nucleation, condensation, and collisional growth—can be run inside a 3D GCM for the cost of two advected tracers per condensate, avoiding the 40-70 bins that bin schemes require.
  • For the Y-dwarf regime, KCl clouds form a global layer that is patchy at higher latitudes and shows longitudinally varying particle sizes at the equator, with the patchy features lasting over many rotations.
  • The synthetic spectra match the JWST spectrum of WISE 0359-54 longward of about 7 $\mu$m but over-predict flux at shorter wavelengths, so additional cloud species (Na2S, ZnS, or NaCl) or mixed-composition grains are needed to add opacity.
  • The model yields roughly 0.5-1% periodic and sub-rotational variability in the Spitzer [3.6] and [4.5] bands with the right rotational periodicity, but a lower amplitude than the variability observed on other Y dwarfs.
  • Cloud opacity feedback in this regime is enough to help force weak equatorial jets even in an otherwise sluggish, stagnant atmosphere, tying cloud radiative forcing to the dynamical regime.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's own Appendix B shows that log-normal, inverse-gamma, exponential, and Rayleigh distributions with the same moments give noticeably different radius distributions and opacities; a consequence the authors leave implicit is that the specific patchiness patterns and variability amplitudes should be treated as contingent on the monodisperse closure rather than as predictions that would surv
  • The missing opacity below about 7 $\mu$m and the low variability amplitude compared with objects like WISE 1405 (Cushing et al. 2016) point to a concrete next test: letting H2O condense on KCl seeds, which the paper flags as future work, could add the high-altitude opacity that the current single-species scheme cannot provide.
  • Re-closing the same two moments with a gamma or log-normal distribution instead of a delta function—the route Earth cloud models took with fixed shape parameters—would cost almost nothing and would let JWST retrievals of size distribution width feed directly back into the GCM.
  • Because the equatorial belt of larger particles is sustained by the deep vapour-replenishment boundary condition, a parameter sweep over the deep mixing strength ($K_{zz}$ floor) or the deep KCl reservoir abundance would quantify how much of the predicted 0.5-1% variability is a boundary-condition choice rather than atmospheric dynamics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a new two-moment bulk microphysical cloud scheme for sub-stellar atmospheres, derived from the mass moment equations of the particle size distribution. The scheme evolves the zeroth and first moments (number density and mass density of cloud particles) with source/sink terms for homogeneous nucleation, condensation/evaporation, collisional growth (Brownian coagulation and gravitational coalescence), seed-particle evaporation, and deep vapour replenishment. The scheme is coupled to the Exo-FMS GCM and applied to a WISE 0359-54 Y-dwarf parameter regime with KCl clouds. The authors report a sluggish atmospheric circulation, patchy long-lived cloud structures, synthetic spectra that reproduce the JWST observations shortward of about 7 microns only if additional cloud opacity is added, and 0.5-1% Spitzer-band variability. The central claim, stated in the Conclusions, is that the two-moment scheme is 'highly suitable' for investigating cloud characteristics and feedback in GCMs.

Significance. If the central claim is robust, the scheme would be a valuable contribution: it adds time-dependent cloud microphysics with collisions to 3D GCMs at moderate computational cost while retaining the main dynamical and radiative feedbacks. The derivation of the moment equations from the Smoluchowski equation (Section 2 and Appendix A) is clear and standard, the code is publicly available, and the JWST comparison is a genuine forward test in which the authors explicitly report the model's shortcomings rather than tuning to the data. The main caveat is that the predicted cloud structures, spectra, and variability rest on the monodisperse delta-function closure, and the paper itself shows in Appendix B that different closures give materially different opacities. This limitation is acknowledged but not quantified, so the central 'suitability' claim is not yet fully established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections 3 and 4] There is a direct internal inconsistency in the quoted minimum vertical mixing coefficient: Section 3 states 'We assume a minimum Kzz = 10^5 cm2 s−1' while Section 4 states 'Vertical mixing is therefore dominated by the prescribed minimal Kzz = 10−5 cm2 s−1'. These differ by ten orders of magnitude and the correct value is load-bearing for the discussion of chemical quenching and vertical transport. The authors must correct the typo and, more importantly, verify that all conclusions (e.g., the NH3 fit in Section 5) correspond to the actual value used in the simulation.
  2. [Sections 3.1, 5, and Appendices A.1 and B] The GCM cloud opacity feedback and all microphysical rates assume a monodisperse size distribution f(m) = Nc δ(m − mc) (Appendix A.1), but the synthetic spectra in Section 5 are post-processed with an exponential size distribution reconstructed from the moments (Appendix B). Because Appendix B demonstrates that distributions with identical moments (log-normal, inverse gamma, exponential, Rayleigh) produce substantially different radius distributions and distribution-integrated opacities, the observable comparison is not generated under the same closure that supplied the cloud opacity feedback inside the GCM. The authors should quantify the sensitivity of the simulated cloud structure, spectra, and variability to the assumed closure, for example by repeating the post-processing with the monodisperse distribution or by rerunning a short simulation with a gamma distribution with fixed shape parameter.
  3. [Section 2.1.2] The gravitational coalescence term is problematic under the monodisperse closure. With a delta-function size distribution all particles have the same radius and settling velocity, so the differential settling velocity in the kernel (Eq. 33) is identically zero. The model bypasses this by introducing the ad hoc parameter ϵ = 0.5 to estimate the relative velocity (Eq. 34), a value taken from protoplanetary disk grain-growth simulations (Sato et al. 2016). Since collisional growth is a new component of the scheme and directly affects particle sizes and cloud opacity, the sensitivity of the results to ϵ should be quantified, or the approximation should be justified for sub-stellar conditions.
  4. [Appendix B.1, Eq. (B.5)] Equation (B.5) defines σm = exp(sqrt(ln(1 + V[m]^2/E[m]^2))). The argument V[m]^2/E[m]^2 is dimensionless only if the variance is dimensionless, but V[m] has units of g^2, so the expression is dimensionally inconsistent. The correct dimensionless ratio is V[m]/E[m]^2. As written, this formula would produce incorrect distribution widths in the reconstructed log-normal distribution, which feeds directly into the spectral post-processing in Section 5.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous OCR-style typos and spacing errors in the manuscript text (e.g., 'o ffers', 'di fferent', 'with it’s', 'we not that'), which should be corrected in the final version.
  2. [Section 4] The text says 'This patchiness is long-lived in the GCM simulations, with the features in the simulations lasting several rotation rates.' This should likely read 'several rotation periods', and the concept of a 'rotation rate' as a duration is confusing.
  3. [Section 5] The phrase 'sub-rotational variability' is used to describe the light curves; it is unclear whether this means variability at timescales shorter than the rotation period, and the term should be defined.
  4. [Section 6] The thermal timescale estimate uses Teff = 548 K while the model setup uses Tint = 458 K; the relationship between these values and their definitions should be clarified to avoid apparent inconsistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the spectra and variability amplitudes are forward model outputs, and the monodisperse closure is an explicitly acknowledged modeling ansatz rather than a hidden input.

full rationale

No step in the derivation chain reduces a predicted quantity to an input by construction. The 2-moment equations are derived in Appendix A from the Smoluchowski/Drake moment-generating formulation, and the monodisperse closure f(m) = Nc delta(m - mc) is explicitly presented and justified as a modeling choice in Appendix A.1, not introduced as a prediction. The coagulation and settling rates are written in closed form in the text and re-derived from standard kernels (Eqs. 23, 25, 32, 34); the statement that Eqs. 23 and 25 are the same expressions found in Ohno & Okuzumi (2018) is a direct re-derivation, so that citation is not load-bearing. The JWST spectral comparison in Section 5 is a forward synthetic-spectrum test: the model parameters (Tint = 458 K, log g = 4.46) are adopted from the independent retrieval study of Kothari et al. (2024), and the paper reports where the model overpredicts flux rather than fitting the scheme to force agreement. The 0.5-1% variability amplitudes are time-series model outputs, not fitted constants. The use of a different exponential size distribution in post-processing than the delta closure used for cloud opacity feedback in the GCM is an acknowledged inconsistency and limitation (Sections 3.1 and 6, Appendix B), not a circular reduction; Appendix B even demonstrates the sensitivity of integrated opacities to the assumed distribution shape. Minor self-citations to Lee (2023) and Ohno & Okuzumi (2018) provide the prior framework and code base, but the central coupled-GCM results are not forced by those references, so they do not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central simulation depends on a chain of modeling choices and free parameters: the monodisperse closure of the size distribution, assumed collision physics, single-species KCl composition, background mixing values, and boundary conditions. None of these is fitted to the JWST spectrum; the spectral comparison is a forward test that the paper reports as partially failing. However, the lack of sensitivity tests around parameters like tau_evap, epsilon, and Nf means the robustness of the reported cloud structures is not established.

free parameters (9)
  • Nf (nucleation fitting factor) = 5
    Assumed following Gail & Sedlmayr 2013; enters the Gibbs free energy and critical cluster size for homogeneous nucleation (Eqs. 43-44). Changing it alters nucleation rates and seed particle production.
  • alpha (nucleation sticking efficiency) = 1
    Assumed in Eq. 42 for the growth timescale of the critical cluster; affects the homogeneous nucleation rate.
  • epsilon (coalescence relative velocity factor) = 0.5
    Used in Eq. 34 to estimate differential settling velocity from the mean particle settling velocity; taken from Sato et al. 2016 (protoplanetary disk work) and directly sets the gravitational coalescence rate.
  • tau_evap (seed particle evaporation timescale) = 1 s
    Ad hoc parameterization in Section 2.4 to smooth seed evaporation; the more physical estimate m_seed/|dm/dt| was avoided for numerical stability.
  • minimum Kzz (background vertical mixing) = 10^5 cm2/s
    Assumed minimal turbulent mixing in the radiative region (Section 3). The simulation's vertical transport and chemical quenching depend on this; Section 4 inconsistently quotes 10^-5 cm2/s.
  • Tint (internal temperature) = 458 K
    Adopted from Kothari et al. 2024 retrieval of WISE 0359-54; sets the deep adiabat and overall thermal structure.
  • Prot (rotational period) = 10 h
    Assumed Jupiter-like because the object's rotation is unknown; directly sets the 10-hour variability period reported.
  • tau_deep (deep vapour replenishment timescale) = unspecified
    Defined in Eq. 48-49 as either a parameter or estimated from Kzz, but the actual value used in the simulation is not stated in the paper.
  • rseed (seed particle radius) = 1 nm
    Assumed seed size for homogeneous nucleation; enters the seed mass and the seed evaporation condition (Section 2.4).
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Hit-and-stick collisions with no bouncing, fragmentation, or turbulence-enhanced collision kernels.
    Stated in Section 2.1: 'Throughout this study we assume hit-and-stick collisions, ignoring other effects such as bouncing and fragmentation... We do not include turbulence driven collisional processes.' This affects particle growth and size.
  • ad hoc to paper Monodisperse delta-function particle size distribution closure, f(m) = Nc delta(m - mc).
    Adopted in Appendix A.1 to close the moment equations; all microphysical rates, settling, and opacities use the single mean radius rc. The paper acknowledges this approximation and shows in Appendix B that distribution shape matters.
  • domain assumption No latent heat release and no Kelvin effect in condensation/evaporation.
    Explicitly stated in Section 2.2. Affects the local energy balance and growth rates, potentially important for cloud feedback.
  • domain assumption Pure KCl clouds; Na2S, ZnS, NaCl, and H2O condensation are neglected.
    Single composition assumption in Section 3; the paper itself notes additional cloud species are needed to match JWST flux below 7 um.
  • ad hoc to paper Settling velocity computed at the mass-weighted mean radius for all moments.
    Section 3: 'We assume the settling velocity for all moments to occur at the mass weighted mean particle radius'. Strictly each moment should have its own settling velocity (Woitke et al. 2020), but this was avoided for numerical stability.
  • domain assumption Deep condensate vapour reservoir fixed at equilibrium KCl mixing ratio ~1e-7 and replenished at the bottom layer.
    Section 3: deep reservoir abundance from Woitke et al. 2018; Eq. 48 relaxation with tau_deep; assumes all Na condensed and no gas-phase Na/K opacity.
  • domain assumption Thermal perturbation, MLT, and drag parameterization inherited from Lee et al. 2024 reproduce the intended dynamical regime.
    The GCM setup follows the forcing from Lee et al. 2024; the dynamical state of the simulated Y-dwarf depends on these choices.
  • ad hoc to paper Opacity post-processing assumes an exponential particle size distribution reconstructed from the moments, while the GCM feedback uses a monodisperse distribution.
    Section 5 and Appendix B. The inconsistent distribution assumptions between the GCM and the spectra may bias the comparison to JWST.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Three-dimensional dynamical evolution of cloud particle microphysics in sub-stellar atmospheres I. Description and exploring Y-dwarf atmospheric variability." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WLLTCQ4M

@misc{pith2026241110305,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Three-dimensional dynamical evolution of cloud particle microphysics in sub-stellar atmospheres I. Description and exploring Y-dwarf atmospheric variability},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WLLTCQ4M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10305}
}
read the original abstract

Understanding of cloud microphysics and the evolution of cloud structures in sub-stellar atmospheres remains a key challenge in the JWST era. The abundance of new JWST data necessitates models that are suitable for coupling with large-scale simulations, such as general circulation models (GCMs), in order to fully understand and assess the complex feedback effects of clouds on the atmosphere, and their influence on observed spectral and variability characteristics. We aim to develop a 2-moment, time-dependent bulk microphysical cloud model that is suitable for GCMs of sub-stellar atmospheres. We derive a set of moment equations for the particle mass distribution and develop a microphysical cloud model employing a 2-moment approach. We include homogeneous nucleation, condensation, and collisional microphysical processes that evolve the moments of a particle size distribution in time. We couple our new 2-moment scheme with the Exo-FMS GCM to simulate the evolution of KCl clouds for a WISE 0359-54 Y-dwarf parameter regime, and examine the effect of cloud opacity on the atmospheric characteristics. Our results show a global KCl cloud structure, with a patchy coverage at higher latitudes, as well as an equatorial belt region that shows increased particle sizes and variations in longitude. Patchy regions are long lived, being present over many rotations of the brown dwarf. Our synthetic spectra conform well with JWST observations of WISE 0359-54, but more cloud opacity is required to dampen the spectral features at wavelengths below ~7um. Our GCM shows periodic and sub-rotational variability on the order of 0.5-1% in the Spitzer [3.6] and [4.5] micron bands, lower than that observed on other Y-dwarf objects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10305 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Dynamical properties of the atmosphere after 1104 days of simulation, averaged across the final 4 days. Left: zonal mean zonal velocity. Right: zonal mean vertical velocity. Little dynamical structure is present outside the equatorial region, leaving a generally sluggish and stagnant atmosphere. 5. Emission spectra and variability characteristics We use the 3D radiative-transfer code, gCMCRT (Lee et al. 2022), to po… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Latitude-longitude projections of the atmospheric conditions at 1104 days of simulation, averaged across the final 4 days at the 0.4 bar pressure level. Top left: brightness temperature, Tb [K]. Top right: atmospheric temperature. Middle left: mass weighted average cloud particle size. Middle right: number density of the cloud particles. Bottom left: Mixing ratio of the first moment (q1). Bottom right: Mixing ratio … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Globally averaged properties of the GCM after 1104 days of simulation, averaged across the final 4 days of simulation. The dotted line shows the globally averaged T-p profile, with the grey shading denoting the approximate convective region of the atmosphere. Top left: mixing ratio values for the moments q0 and q1 and saturation mixing ratio, qs (pink dashed line). Top right: mass weighted mean cloud particle size, … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison between the post-processed spectra from the GCM and the WISE 0359-54 JWST spectral data from Beiler et al. (2023). The width of the orange line shows the extent of the maximum and minimum flux across the last 96 hours of simulation. The dotted black line sho…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Relative flux density for the Spitzer [3.6] and [4.5] bands pro￾duced from the last 96 hours of the GCM simulation, at an inclination of 90◦ . This shows a 10-hour peak-to-peak rotational component with ∼0.5-1 % variability. Small scale inter-rotational periodic variab…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. A clear detection of proper motion confirms that the claimed $\mathbf{z\simeq32}$ galaxy candidate, "Capotauro'', is a Y-type brown dwarf

    astro-ph.GA 2026-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Capotauro, previously a candidate galaxy at z about 32, is confirmed as a Y-type brown dwarf near 730 pc by a 6.2 sigma proper motion measured over 3.5 years.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

119 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    Ackerman , A. S. & Marley , M. S. 2001, , 556, 872

    2001

  4. [4]

    Adams , D., Gao , P., de Pater , I., & Morley , C. V. 2019, , 874, 61

    2019

  5. [5]

    S., et al

    Apai , D., Karalidi , T., Marley , M. S., et al. 2017, Science, 357, 683

    2017

  6. [6]

    A., Cushing , M

    Beiler , S. A., Cushing , M. C., Kirkpatrick , J. D., et al. 2023, , 951, L48

    2023

  7. [7]

    A., Cushing , M

    Beiler , S. A., Cushing , M. C., Kirkpatrick , J. D., et al. 2024, , 973, 107

    2024

  8. [8]

    J., Crouzet , N., Cubillos , P

    Bell , T. J., Crouzet , N., Cubillos , P. E., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 879

    2024

Show all 119 references
  1. [9]

    A., Vos , J., Buenzli , E., et al

    Biller , B. A., Vos , J., Buenzli , E., et al. 2018, , 155, 95

    2018

  2. [10]

    A., Vos , J

    Biller , B. A., Vos , J. M., Zhou , Y., et al. 2024, , 532, 2207

    2024

  3. [11]

    Bohren , C. F. & Huffman , D. R. 1983, Absorption and scattering of light by small particles (John Wiley & Sons)

    1983

  4. [12]

    P., Zhou , Y., Morley , C

    Bowler , B. P., Zhou , Y., Morley , C. V., et al. 2020, , 893, L30

    2020

  5. [13]

    Brock , J. R. & Hidy , G. M. 1965, Journal of Applied Physics, 36, 1857

    1965

  6. [14]

    1943, Reviews of Modern Physics, 15, 1

    Chandrasekhar , S. 1943, Reviews of Modern Physics, 15, 1

    1943

  7. [15]

    A., Mayne , N

    Christie , D. A., Mayne , N. J., Lines , S., et al. 2021, , 506, 4500

    2021

  8. [16]

    C., Hardegree-Ullman , K

    Cushing , M. C., Hardegree-Ullman , K. K., Trucks , J. L., et al. 2016, , 823, 152

    2016

  9. [17]

    C., Roellig , T

    Cushing , M. C., Roellig , T. L., Marley , M. S., et al. 2006, , 648, 614

    2006

  10. [18]

    N., Estrada , P

    Cuzzi , J. N., Estrada , P. R., & Davis , S. S. 2014, , 210, 21

    2014

  11. [19]

    1993, A Simple and Accurate Method for Calculating Viscosity of Gaseous Mixtures, Report of investigations (U.S

    Davidson, T. 1993, A Simple and Accurate Method for Calculating Viscosity of Gaseous Mixtures, Report of investigations (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines)

    1993

  12. [20]

    Davies, C. N. 1945, Proceedings of the Physical Society, 57, 259

    1945

  13. [21]

    Draine , B. T. & Salpeter , E. E. 1977, , 67, 2230

    1977

  14. [22]

    Drake , R. L. 1972, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 29, 537

    1972

  15. [23]

    2024, , 625, 51

    Dyrek , A., Min , M., Decin , L., et al. 2024, , 625, 51

    2024

  16. [24]

    & Moosm \"u ller , H

    Ehlers , K. & Moosm \"u ller , H. 2023, Aerosol Science Technology, 57, 425

    2023

  17. [25]

    E., Kirk, J., et al

    Espinoza, N., Steinrueck, M. E., Kirk, J., et al. 2024, Nature

    2024

  18. [26]

    Fortney , J. J. 2005, , 364, 649

    2005

  19. [27]

    G., Homeier , D., & Steffen , M

    Freytag , B., Allard , F., Ludwig , H. G., Homeier , D., & Steffen , M. 2010, , 513, A19

    2010

  20. [28]

    1964, The Mechanics of Aerosols, Dover books on engineering (Dover Publications)

    Fuchs, N. 1964, The Mechanics of Aerosols, Dover books on engineering (Dover Publications)

    1964

  21. [29]

    P., Keller , R., & Sedlmayr , E

    Gail , H. P., Keller , R., & Sedlmayr , E. 1984, , 133, 320

    1984

  22. [30]

    & Sedlmayr, E

    Gail, H.-P. & Sedlmayr, E. 2013, Physics and Chemistry of Circumstellar Dust Shells, Cambridge Astrophysics (Cambridge University Press)

    2013

  23. [31]

    & Benneke , B

    Gao , P. & Benneke , B. 2018, , 863, 165

    2018

  24. [32]

    S., & Ackerman , A

    Gao , P., Marley , M. S., & Ackerman , A. S. 2018, , 855, 86

    2018

  25. [33]

    Gao , P., Piette , A. A. A., Steinrueck , M. E., et al. 2023, , 951, 96

    2023

  26. [34]

    K., Wakeford , H

    Grant , D., Lewis , N. K., Wakeford , H. R., et al. 2023, , 956, L32

    2023

  27. [35]

    Guillot , T., Ida , S., & Ormel , C. W. 2014, , 572, A72

    2014

  28. [36]

    J., Seviour , W

    Hammond , M., Mayne , N. J., Seviour , W. J. M., et al. 2023, , 525, 150

    2023

  29. [37]

    Hansen , J. E. 1971, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 28, 1400

    1971

  30. [38]

    Hansen , J. E. & Travis , L. D. 1974, , 16, 527

    1974

  31. [39]

    & Fomins , A

    Helling , C. & Fomins , A. 2013, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 371, 20110581

    2013

  32. [40]

    Helling , C., Woitke , P., & Thi , W. F. 2008, , 485, 547

    2008

  33. [41]

    & Zipperer, L

    Herning, F. & Zipperer, L. 1936, Gas u. Wasserfach, 79, 69

    1936

  34. [42]

    W., & Min , M

    Huang , H., Ormel , C. W., & Min , M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.18181

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    E., Lewis , N

    Inglis , J., Batalha , N. E., Lewis , N. K., et al. 2024, , 973, L41

    2024

  36. [44]

    Jacobson, M. Z. 2005, Fundamentals of Atmospheric Modeling, 2nd edn. (Cambridge University Press)

    2005

  37. [45]

    Janz, G. J. 2013, Molten salts handbook (Elsevier)

    2013

  38. [46]

    2023, , 671, A169

    Kiefer , S., Gobrecht , D., Decin , L., & Helling , C. 2023, , 671, A169

    2023

  39. [47]

    & Heng , K

    Kitzmann , D. & Heng , K. 2018, , 475, 94

    2018

  40. [48]

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

    Komacek , T. D., Tan , X., Gao , P., & Lee , E. K. H. 2022, , 934, 79

    2022

  41. [49]

    C., Burningham , B., et al

    Kothari , H., Cushing , M. C., Burningham , B., et al. 2024, , 971, 121

    2024

  42. [50]

    & Burrows , A

    Lacy , B. & Burrows , A. 2023, , 950, 8

    2023

  43. [51]

    A., & Yelle , R

    Lavvas , P., Griffith , C. A., & Yelle , R. V. 2011, , 215, 732

    2011

  44. [52]

    V., & Griffith , C

    Lavvas , P., Yelle , R. V., & Griffith , C. A. 2010, , 210, 832

    2010

  45. [53]

    2016, , 594, A48

    Lee , E., Dobbs-Dixon , I., Helling , C., Bognar , K., & Woitke , P. 2016, , 594, A48

    2016

  46. [54]

    Lee , E. K. H. 2023, , 524, 2918

    2023

  47. [55]

    Lee , E. K. H., Blecic , J., & Helling , C. 2018, , 614, A126

    2018

  48. [56]

    Lee , E. K. H., Parmentier , V., Hammond , M., et al. 2021, , 506, 2695

    2021

  49. [57]

    Lee , E. K. H., Tan , X., & Tsai , S.-M. 2023, , 523, 4477

    2023

  50. [58]

    Lee , E. K. H., Tan , X., & Tsai , S.-M. 2024, , 529, 2686

    2024

  51. [59]

    Lee , E. K. H., Wardenier , J. P., Prinoth , B., et al. 2022, , 929, 180

    2022

  52. [60]

    K., Cushing , M

    Leggett , S. K., Cushing , M. C., Hardegree-Ullman , K. K., et al. 2016, , 830, 141

    2016

  53. [61]

    Lew , B. W. P., Roellig , T., Batalha , N. E., et al. 2024, , 167, 237

    2024

  54. [62]

    J., Boutle , I

    Lines , S., Mayne , N. J., Boutle , I. A., et al. 2018, , 615, A97

    2018

  55. [63]

    J., Manners , J., et al

    Lines , S., Mayne , N. J., Manners , J., et al. 2019, , 488, 1332

    2019

  56. [64]

    L., Kirkpatrick , J

    Looper , D. L., Kirkpatrick , J. D., Cutri , R. M., et al. 2008, , 686, 528

    2008

  57. [65]

    L., Tremblin , P., Alves de Oliveira , C., et al

    Luhman , K. L., Tremblin , P., Alves de Oliveira , C., et al. 2024, , 167, 5

    2024

  58. [66]

    Luna , J. L. & Morley , C. V. 2021, , 920, 146

    2021

  59. [67]

    E., et al

    Mang , J., Gao , P., Hood , C. E., et al. 2022, , 927, 184

    2022

  60. [68]

    A., Heinze , A., Apai , D., et al

    Metchev , S. A., Heinze , A., Apai , D., et al. 2015, , 799, 154

    2015

  61. [69]

    E., Biller , B

    Miles , B. E., Biller , B. A., Patapis , P., et al. 2023, , 946, L6

    2023

  62. [70]

    & Sorensen , C

    Moosm \"u ller , H. & Sorensen , C. M. 2018, , 219, 333

    2018

  63. [71]

    E., Marley, M

    Moran, S. E., Marley, M. S., & Crossley, S. D. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 973, L3

    2024

  64. [72]

    V., Fortney , J

    Morley , C. V., Fortney , J. J., Marley , M. S., et al. 2012, , 756, 172

    2012

  65. [73]

    V., Marley , M

    Morley , C. V., Marley , M. S., Fortney , J. J., & Lupu , R. 2014, , 789, L14

    2014

  66. [74]

    M., et al

    Morrison, H., van Lier-Walqui, M., Fridlind, A. M., et al. 2020, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 12, e2019MS001689, e2019MS001689 2019MS001689

    2020

  67. [75]

    1928, Kolloidchemische Beihefte, 27, 223

    M \"u ller, H. 1928, Kolloidchemische Beihefte, 27, 223

    1928

  68. [76]

    M., Beatty , T

    Murphy , M. M., Beatty , T. G., Schlawin , E., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy

    2024

  69. [77]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.10197

    Ohno , K. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.10197

    2024 arXiv

  70. [78]

    & Okuzumi , S

    Ohno , K. & Okuzumi , S. 2017, , 835, 261

    2017

  71. [79]

    & Okuzumi , S

    Ohno , K. & Okuzumi , S. 2018, , 859, 34

    2018

  72. [80]

    2020, , 891, 131

    Ohno , K., Okuzumi , S., & Tazaki , R. 2020, , 891, 131

    2020

  73. [81]

    Ormel , C. W. & Min , M. 2019, , 622, A121

    2019

  74. [82]

    Palik , E. D. 1985, Handbook of optical constants of solids (Academic Press)

    1985

  75. [83]

    J., Showman , A

    Parmentier , V., Fortney , J. J., Showman , A. P., Morley , C., & Marley , M. S. 2016, , 828, 22

    2016

  76. [84]

    2019, , 887, 170

    Powell , D., Louden , T., Kreidberg , L., et al. 2019, , 887, 170

    2019

  77. [85]

    & Zhang , X

    Powell , D. & Zhang , X. 2024, , 969, 5

    2024

  78. [86]

    Pruppacher , H. R. & Klett , J. D. 1978, Microphysics of Clouds and Precipitation (Springer Dordrecht)

    1978

  79. [87]

    1987, Contractor rept

    Querry, M. 1987, Contractor rept. Jun 1985-May 1987

    1987

  80. [88]

    & Hindmarsh , A

    Radhakrishnan , K. & Hindmarsh , A. C. 1993, Description and use of LSODE, the Livermore solver for ordinary differential equations, Tech. Rep. UCRL-ID-113855, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

    1993

  81. [89]

    2014, , 793, 75

    Radigan , J., Lafreni \`e re , D., Jayawardhana , R., & Artigau , E. 2014, , 793, 75

    2014

  82. [90]

    Robinson , T. D. & Marley , M. S. 2014, , 785, 158

    2014

  83. [91]

    Rosner, D. E. 2012, Transport processes in chemically reacting flow systems (Courier Corporation)

    2012

  84. [92]

    Rossow , W. B. 1978, , 36, 1

    1978

  85. [93]

    2022, , 663, A47

    Samra , D., Helling , C., & Birnstiel , T. 2022, , 663, A47

    2022

  86. [94]

    2016, , 589, A15

    Sato , T., Okuzumi , S., & Ida , S. 2016, , 589, A15

    2016

  87. [95]

    2024, , 168, 104

    Schlawin , E., Mukherjee , S., Ohno , K., et al. 2024, , 168, 104

    2024

  88. [96]

    1994, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 51, 249

    Schoenberg Ferrier , B. 1994, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 51, 249

    1994

  89. [97]

    & Beheng , K

    Seifert , A. & Beheng , K. D. 2001, Atmospheric Research, 59, 265

    2001

  90. [98]

    P., Tan , X., & Zhang , X

    Showman , A. P., Tan , X., & Zhang , X. 2019, , 883, 4

    2019

  91. [99]

    P., Gobrecht , D., Helling , C., & Decin , L

    Sindel , J. P., Gobrecht , D., Helling , C., & Decin , L. 2022, , 668, A35

    2022

  92. [100]

    Smoluchowski , M. V. 1916, Zeitschrift fur Physik, 17, 557

    1916

  93. [101]

    & Metchev , S

    Su \'a rez , G. & Metchev , S. 2022, , 513, 5701

    2022

  94. [102]

    & Showman , A

    Tan , X. & Showman , A. P. 2019, , 874, 111

    2019

  95. [103]

    & Showman , A

    Tan , X. & Showman , A. P. 2021, , 502, 2198

    2021

  96. [104]

    2024, , 683, A231

    Teinturier , L., Charnay , B., Spiga , A., et al. 2024, , 683, A231

    2024

  97. [105]

    B., Turco , R

    Toon , O. B., Turco , R. P., Jordan , J., Goodman , J., & Ferry , G. 1989, , 94, 11,359

    1989

  98. [106]

    W., Emery , A., et al

    Tremblin , P., Phillips , M. W., Emery , A., et al. 2020, , 643, A23

    2020

  99. [107]

    Tsai , S.-M., Lee , E. K. H., & Pierrehumbert , R. 2022, , 664, A82

    2022

  100. [108]

    & Kruger, C

    Vincenti, W. & Kruger, C. 1965, Introduction to Physical Gas Dynamics (Wiley)

    1965

  101. [109]

    M., Biller , B

    Vos , J. M., Biller , B. A., Bonavita , M., et al. 2019, , 483, 480

    2019

  102. [110]

    Wakeford , H. R. & Sing , D. K. 2015, , 573, A122

    2015

  103. [111]

    Wilke , C. R. 1950, Journal of Chemical Physics, 18, 517

    1950

  104. [112]

    & Helling , C

    Woitke , P. & Helling , C. 2003, , 399, 297

    2003

  105. [113]

    2020, , 634, A23

    Woitke , P., Helling , C., & Gunn , O. 2020, , 634, A23

    2020

  106. [114]

    H., et al

    Woitke , P., Helling , C., Hunter , G. H., et al. 2018, , 614, A1

    2018

  107. [115]

    S., et al

    Yang , H., Apai , D., Marley , M. S., et al. 2015, , 798, L13

    2015

  108. [116]

    Zahnle , K. J. & Marley , M. S. 2014, , 797, 41

    2014

  109. [117]

    & Showman , A

    Zhang , X. & Showman , A. P. 2014, , 788, L6

    2014

  110. [118]

    P., Morley , C

    Zhou , Y., Bowler , B. P., Morley , C. V., et al. 2020, , 160, 77

    2020

  111. [119]

    Ziegler , C. L. 1985, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 42, 1487

    1985

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.