Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 2 cited by

Increased Surface Temperatures of Habitable White Dwarf Worlds Relative to Main-Sequence Exoplanets

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A planet orbiting a white dwarf runs 25 K warmer than a twin around a main-sequence star, thanks to its 10-hour spin.

desk verdict Careful GCM comparison showing fast-rotating synchronous WD planets run warmer, but the 25 K headline rests on Earth-tuned cloud physics and the abstract overreaches. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02694 v1 pith:X7QUA4ZG submitted 2024-12-03 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Aomawa L. Shields , Eric T. Wolf , Eric Agol , Pier-Emmanuel Tremblay This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords whitedwarfhabitablezonesynchronousrotationexoplanetclimateglobalmodelcloudfeedbacksurfacetemperatureaquaplanetKepler-62
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

White dwarf stars are the cooling remnants of dead suns, but the planets that survive around them may still be warm. This paper simulates two Earth-like aqua planets receiving identical instellation—one in the habitable zone of a 5000 K white dwarf, the other around the main-sequence K-dwarf star Kepler-62—and finds the white dwarf planet's global mean surface temperature about 25 K higher. The authors trace the warming to the white dwarf planet's much faster 10-hour synchronous rotation, which stirs the atmosphere into stretched, jet-like circulation, prevents thick dayside clouds from forming, and strengthens nightside greenhouse trapping. If correct, white dwarf habitable zones may be more comfortable for surface life than equivalent main-sequence systems, partly compensating for the host star's ever-declining luminosity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the synchronously rotating aqua planet in a three-dimensional global climate model, used as a controlled comparison across two host stars. The mechanism carrying the argument is the "bat rotator" circulation regime, the paper's term for an ultra-fast-rotation planetary climate in which a sub-day rotation period stretches atmospheric circulation into zonal jets and homogenizes day-night clouds; it is the difference between that regime and the slow-rotator substellar-cloud regime that produces the 25 K warming.

What would settle it

Repeat the two simulations with cloud microphysical parameters varied across the plausible range—autoconversion threshold, cloud droplet number concentration, and cloud-top entrainment—and check whether the 25 K global-mean temperature difference survives. Observationally, a phase curve of a confirmed white dwarf habitable-zone planet should show the predicted small day-night temperature contrast and homogeneous cloud pattern.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that rotation period, not stellar spectrum, controls the climate difference: a synchronously rotating aqua planet with an Earth-like atmosphere receiving Earth-like instellation from a 5000 K white dwarf (orbital and rotation period 0.44 days) ends up with a global mean surface temperature of 273 K, about 25 K higher than the same planet synchronously orbiting Kepler-62 at a 155-day period. The fast-rotating white dwarf planet develops strong zonal winds and phase-tilted meridional eddy momentum flux, stretching clouds into a homogeneous banded "bat rotator" pattern; this suppresses the thick substellar liquid-water clouds that reflect sunlight on the slow rotator, lowering the top-of-atmosphere albedo from 0.49 to 0.40, and it preserves a substantial nightside cloud greenhouse, with the Kepler-62 planet emitting about 18 watts per square meter more longwave radiation to space from its nightside. Both effects push the white dwarf planet warmer despite the same incident flux and similar host-star spectra.

Load-bearing premise

The simulations assume that the model's Earth-tuned cloud physics correctly captures how dayside liquid-water clouds respond when rotation drops to 0.44 days; if that cloud response is wrong, the 25 K warming could shrink or reverse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any rocky planet found in a white dwarf habitable zone is likely to be synchronously rotating with a sub-day period, so the modeled warming should be the expected baseline climate rather than a special case.
  • The warming shrinks the risk of global freezing, so planets that migrated inward after the red giant phase may deglaciate more readily around white dwarfs than around K dwarfs at equal instellation.
  • The weaker dayside cloud feedback means the inner edge of the white dwarf habitable zone may be positioned differently than a slow-synchronous scaling would suggest, raising the risk of runaway greenhouse and water loss for planets near the inner edge.
  • The homogenized day-night temperature and cloud pattern is a concrete observable: transmission and secondary-eclipse measurements of a white dwarf habitable-zone planet should show less day-night contrast than for a slow synchronous planet.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper tests only horizontal resolution and not cloud microphysical parameters, the 25 K value is an unverified prediction at the cloud-scheme level; changing the autoconversion threshold or cloud droplet number concentration could plausibly shrink or reverse the difference.
  • The same fast-rotation warming should apply to any synchronously rotating close-in planet around a low-luminosity star, not only white dwarfs, so the mechanism should be visible in simulations of M-dwarf planets with sub-day rotation periods.
  • A testable extension is to repeat the comparison across white dwarf temperatures from roughly 4000 to 7000 K and with land-covered or partially ocean surfaces; the paper's aqua-planet setup likely brackets, but does not bound, the climate range.
  • If the mechanism is correct, phase-curve observations of a white dwarf habitable-zone planet should reveal a relatively small day-night brightness temperature difference, in contrast to the strong substellar hotspot expected on a slow synchronous planet.
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

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper uses the ExoCAM/CESM global climate model to compare the climates of two synchronously rotating aqua planets with Earth-like atmospheric composition and instellation: one in the habitable zone of a 5000 K white dwarf (0.44-day rotation/orbital period) and one in the habitable zone of the K-dwarf Kepler-62 (155-day rotation/orbital period). It reports a global-mean surface temperature about 25 K higher on the white-dwarf planet (273.1 vs 247.8 K), attributes this to the fast rotation suppressing thick dayside liquid-water clouds and weakening shortwave cloud forcing, and shows that the white-dwarf planet also has a stronger nightside longwave cloud greenhouse effect. A non-synchronous Kepler-62 planet with a 10-hr rotation is additionally simulated and is warmer still (281.9 K), a result the paper discusses in terms of day-night insolation geometry and surface ice exposure.

Significance. If the result holds, it gives a concrete, process-based prediction for the climates of rocky planets in white-dwarf habitable zones and identifies rotation period rather than host-star SED as the dominant climate control in this comparison. The paper's strengths are that the 25 K difference is an emergent GCM output rather than a fitted quantity, that surface albedo inputs are spectrum-weighted from published surface properties, that the causal chain from rotation to cloud field to cloud forcing is traced with quantitative diagnostics in Figures 3-5 and Table 2, and that a horizontal-resolution convergence test is reported. The principal limitation is that the quantitative claim is carried by Earth-tuned cloud parameterizations operating far outside their tuning regime, with no sensitivity experiments that perturb the cloud scheme.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 2 (Methods); Figs. 3-5; Table 2] The headline 25 K difference and the stated mechanism (fast rotation preventing thick dayside liquid-water clouds) are carried by the CAM4/ExoCAM large-scale condensation and cloud microphysics schemes. The only sensitivity test reported in Sec. 2 is horizontal resolution (4x5 vs 2x2.5 degrees), which does not exercise the cloud parameterization. At a 0.44-day rotation period with a fixed substellar point, the model is being used far outside the regime for which quantities such as the cloud droplet number concentration, autoconversion threshold, and critical relative humidity were tuned. Because the day-night cloud asymmetry is the proximate cause of the 25 K difference, a perturbation of at least one or two cloud-related parameters (or a comparison with an alternative cloud scheme) is needed to demonstrate that the sign and approximate magnitude of the result are robust. As written, the quantitative claim is an extrapolation of the cloud scheme.
  2. [Sec. 3.1; Table 2] The attribution of the full 25 K difference to rotation is not fully isolated by the experimental design. The WD-synchronous versus K62-synchronous comparison changes rotation period, orbital period, and host-star SED simultaneously, while the K62 non-synchronous comparison changes rotation but also removes the synchronous day-night insolation pattern. The two-band albedo differences in Table 1 are small, so the SED path is likely minor, but no control simulation varies rotation alone while holding the stellar spectrum and the synchronous geometry fixed. Please either add such a control (for example, the WD-planet setup with the K62 SED, or a rotation-period series for the K62 planet) or soften the causal wording so that the rotation attribution is presented as an inference supported by dynamical diagnostics rather than a fully decomposed demonstration.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Title and Abstract] The title and abstract should specify that the comparison is with synchronously rotating main-sequence planets; the non-synchronous K62 planet in Table 2 is 281.9 K, warmer than the WD planet, so the unqualified title overstates the domain of the claim.
  2. [Sec. 2] The sentence 'ln Section 2' should read 'In Section 2'.
  3. [Figure 2 caption] The caption contains duplicated words ('albedo albedo', 'higher higher') and the line 'Figure 2D is averaged over longitude' reads like a leftover annotation; please clean up the caption.
  4. [Figure 7 caption] The word 'comprisies' should be 'comprises'.
  5. [Sec. 2 (resolution test)] The horizontal-resolution convergence test is described only qualitatively ('climates were equivalent'); please report the quantitative comparison, such as global-mean surface temperature and cloud forcing at 2x2.5 versus 4x5, to support this statement.
  6. [Sec. 2 (sea-ice emissivity)] The hydrohalite emissivity change is said to affect global-mean surface temperatures by 'as much as 2 degrees K', but the direction and the affected simulations are not shown; please specify the sensitivity and whether it warms or cools relative to the standard case.
  7. [Sec. 2 (ocean model)] The static slab ocean lacks horizontal ocean heat transport; a sentence discussing the potential effect of this simplification on the nightside temperature and cloud comparison would help readers assess the robustness of the nightside longwave-cloud-forcing result.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 25 K warming is an emergent GCM output; inputs are spectrum-weighted albedos and Kepler-derived rotation periods, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The headline 25 K global-mean surface-temperature difference between the synchronous white-dwarf planet and the synchronous Kepler-62 planet is an emergent output of forward CESM/ExoCAM simulations, not a quantity defined by the inputs. Inputs specified in Section 2 are the host-star spectra (a synthetic WD spectrum from published cooling models and a Kepler-62 synthetic spectrum from literature stellar parameters), spectrum-weighted two-band surface albedos in Table 1, Earth-like atmospheric composition, equal instellation, and rotation/orbital periods computed from Kepler's third law using the adopted luminosities. Nothing in the method fits a parameter to the target temperature; the albedo and emissivity values are taken from published surface-property data and weighted by the host spectra, and the reported hydrohalite-emissivity modification is an a priori change whose roughly 2 K effect is quantified, not tuned. The comparison planet is independently constructed from literature stellar parameters, so the result is not forced by construction. Self-citations (Wolf et al. 2022 for ExoCAM; Shields et al. 2013, 2014, 2016 for the two-band sea-ice albedo method; Agol 2011 for WDHZ duration; Tremblay et al. 2011 and Bedard et al. 2020 for WD models) supply the modeling lineage and external stellar data; none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as a substitute for the computed climate difference. The paper also reports the only sensitivity test it runs (horizontal resolution, Section 2) and acknowledges the static-ocean limitation; these are robustness caveats about Earth-tuned cloud parameterizations, not circularity. Accordingly, no step in the claimed derivation reduces to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an emergent property of a complex GCM, so the ledger of assumptions is dominated by domain assumptions about model validity rather than free parameters fitted to the result. The two numerical inputs that materially affect the answer (sea-ice albedos, hydrohalite emissivity) are taken from prior literature and are not tuned to reproduce the 25 K offset.

free parameters (2)
  • Hydrohalite crust thermal emissivity = 0.752
    Weighted average of emissivity between salt-free H2O snow and fine-grained halite (Lane & Christensen 1998), used for T < -40 C surfaces. It is a physical input, not fitted to the temperature result, but it changes global mean surface temperatures by up to 2 K.
  • Two-band sea-ice/snow albedos (NIR/VIS) = Varying by host star and temperature regime, see Table 1
    These are computed from published spectral albedos weighted by each host star's SED. They are not fitted to the target result but are model inputs that affect TOA and surface albedo.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Both planets are in synchronous 1:1 spin-orbit resonance (except the deliberate non-synchronous K62 test).
    Tidally locked state is assumed for HZ planets around WD and K-dwarf based on tidal locking arguments; cited in Section 2.
  • domain assumption The ocean is treated as a static, fully mixed slab with no ocean heat transport or dynamics.
    Stated in Section 2; dynamic ocean omitted for computational feasibility, so heat redistribution and cloud feedbacks may differ from a dynamic ocean.
  • domain assumption Both planets have an identical Earth-like atmosphere (367 ppmv CO2, 1.76 ppmv CH4, N2/O2, surface pressure 1 bar) and surface composition (aqua planet).
    Stated in Section 2; this isolates stellar SED and rotation effects but ignores likely composition differences between WD and main-sequence planet formation pathways.
  • domain assumption The ExoCAM/CESM 1.2.1 cloud, convection, and radiative parameterizations are valid for the simulated rotation rates and SEDs.
    The model is Earth-tuned; the paper checks horizontal resolution (Section 2) but not cloud-parameter sensitivity, so the cloud response at 10-hr rotation is an unverified assumption.
  • domain assumption The white dwarf synthetic spectrum (pure-H atmosphere, Teff=5000 K, log g=8.0) and cooling model (Bédard et al. 2020) accurately represent a 5.96 Gyr, 0.580 Msun WD.
    Used as input to the GCM; the spectrum affects surface ice albedo via wavelength-dependent weighting (Section 2).
  • domain assumption The Kepler-62 stellar parameters (Teff=4859 K, log g=4.59, Fe/H=-0.34, L=0.25 Lsun) from the NASA Exoplanet Archive and Fulton & Petigura 2018 are correct.
    Used as input to the GCM; the planet is placed at 0.50 AU to receive Earth-like instellation (Section 2).
  • domain assumption The hypothetical K62 planet, placed between Kepler-62e and Kepler-62f orbits, would be tidally locked to a 155-day period and would have stable climate under the assumed GCM.
    The 155-day synchronous period is computed from Kepler's third law; tidal locking viability is argued from prior work (Shields et al. 2016a; Barnes 2017).
  • domain assumption Sea-ice albedo and emissivity modifications (hydrohalite crust) from Carns et al. and Lane & Christensen are applicable to these exoplanet conditions.
    Adopted from terrestrial sea-ice studies; the paper reports up to 2 K temperature impact from the emissivity change (Section 2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Increased Surface Temperatures of Habitable White Dwarf Worlds Relative to Main-Sequence Exoplanets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X7QUA4ZG

@misc{pith2026241202694,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Increased Surface Temperatures of Habitable White Dwarf Worlds Relative to Main-Sequence Exoplanets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X7QUA4ZG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02694}
}
read the original abstract

Discoveries of giant planet candidates orbiting white dwarf stars and the demonstrated capabilities of the James Webb Space Telescope bring the possibility of detecting rocky planets in the habitable zones of white dwarfs into pertinent focus. We present simulations of an aqua planet with an Earth-like atmospheric composition and incident stellar insolation orbiting in the habitable zone of two different types of stars - a 5000 K white dwarf and main-sequence K-dwarf star Kepler-62 with a similar effective temperature - and identify the mechanisms responsible for the two differing planetary climates. The synchronously-rotating white dwarf planet's global mean surface temperature is 25 K higher than that of the synchronously-rotating planet orbiting Kepler-62, due to its much faster (10-hr) rotation and orbital period. This ultra-fast rotation generates strong zonal winds and meridional flux of zonal momentum, stretching out and homogenizing the scale of atmospheric circulation, and preventing an equivalent build-up of thick, liquid water clouds on the dayside of the planet compared to the synchronous planet orbiting Kepler-62, while also transporting heat equatorward from higher latitudes. White dwarfs may therefore present amenable environments for life on planets formed within or migrated to their habitable zones, generating warmer surface environments than those of planets with main-sequence hosts to compensate for an ever shrinking incident stellar flux.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02694 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We assumed circular orbits for our orbiting planets, Earth’s radius, mass, atmospheric composition, and surface pressure. The planets were assumed to be synchronously rotating, as defined as tidally-locked in a 1:1 spin-orbit resonance. Each planet was put at the distance from its host star where it would receive an Earth-like equivalent amount of instellation (∼1360 W/m2 ), given the host star’s intrinsic stellar l… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. The spectral energy distribution of a modeled white dwarf with an effective temperature of 5000 K (red) and a synthetic spectrum of Kepler-62 (4859 K, purple). Both SEDs have been normalized to an Earth-like instellation (∼1360 W/m2 ). Given that previous work has shown that observed planet Kepler-62f, with a 267-day orbital period, could have reached tidal circularization within the 7 Gyr-age of the system (Shields… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Climate comparisons for synchronously-rotating planets with Earth-like atmospheric compositions receiving 100% of the modern solar constant from Kepler-62 and a 5000 K synthetic white dwarf. Figure 2D is averaged over longitude. The slower-rotating K62 planet exhibits an oval-shaped temperature pattern with the hottest regions at the substellar point, high TOA albedo albedo due to large substellar cloud coverage, lo… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Though the WD planet exhibits higher dayside surface temperatures, the K62 planet has a larger dayside cloud fraction and liquid water cloud mass (Fig. 3A and latitude-averaged Fig. 3B), contributing to a stronger (greater net negative) shortwave (SW) cloud forcing and…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The WD planet has a lower cloud fraction throughout most of the atmospheric column on the dayside compared to the K62 planet (Fig. 4A), resulting in less SW heating in these regions, allowing more radiation to make it through the atmosphere to heat the surface of the W…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A comparison of the longwave (LW) cloud forcing on the night sides of both synchronous planets reveals a much stronger contribution of clouds to the WD planet’s greenhouse effect compared to the K62 planet, which emits on average ∼18 W/m2 more radiation to space on its…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The K62 planet’s weaker and symmetrical meridional flux of zonal eddy momentum contributes to a large and relatively uniform cloud fraction centered at the substellar point. In contrast, strong phase tilts above and below the equator on the WD planet transport moisture…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Zonal wind strength is more than an order of magnitude smaller on the slow-rotating K62 planet compared to the WD planet (note different colorbar ranges). Equatorial superrotation is present throughout the atmospheric column on the K62 planet, while on the fast-rotatin…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Climate comparison of a non-synchronous, fast-rotating K62 planet with both synchronous planets. The non-synchronous K62 planet is warmer overall, with a surface temperature pattern that is longitudinally homogeneous. All longitudes of the planet receive sunlight over …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: While the non-synchronous planet exhibits a larger difference between maximum and minimum surface temperatures compared to either of the synchronous planets, with colder upper-latitude regions given the amount of ice exposed to sunlight throughout the planet’s day, it …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Life after death: Europa in the evolving Habitable Zone of a Red Sun

    astro-ph.EP 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Europa's surface would sublimate asymmetrically in the red giant habitable zone, yet a water-vapor atmosphere could persist for at least 0.2 Gyr, and three observing strategies could reveal it.

  2. Long-lived Habitable Zones around White Dwarfs undergoing Neon-22 Distillation

    astro-ph.EP 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Neon-22 distillation cooling pauses in massive white dwarfs can extend continuous habitable zone durations by a factor of 2-3 and push the habitable zone farther from the star.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2011a, ApJL, 731, L31, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/731/2/L31

    Agol, E. 2011a, ApJL, 731, L31, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/731/2/L31

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/731/2/l31

  2. [2]

    T., Dhillon, V

    Aungwerojwit, A., G¨ ansicke, B. T., Dhillon, V. S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 117, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae750

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae750 2024

  3. [3]

    2017, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 129, 509, doi: 10.1007/s10569-017-9783-7

    Barnes, R. 2017, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 129, 509, doi: 10.1007/s10569-017-9783-7

    doi:10.1007/s10569-017-9783-7 2017

  4. [4]

    2013, Astrobiology, 13, 279, doi: 10.1089/ast.2012.0867 B´ edard, A., Bergeron, P., Brassard, P., & Fontaine, G

    Barnes, R., & Heller, R. 2013, Astrobiology, 13, 279, doi: 10.1089/ast.2012.0867 B´ edard, A., Bergeron, P., Brassard, P., & Fontaine, G. 2020, ApJ, 901, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abafbe B´ edard, A., Brassard, P., Bergeron, P., & Blouin, S. 2022, ApJ, 927, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4497

    arXiv 2013

  5. [5]

    1995a, ApJ, 443, 764, doi: 10.1086/175566

    Bergeron, P., Saumon, D., & Wesemael, F. 1995a, ApJ, 443, 764, doi: 10.1086/175566

    work page doi:10.1086/175566

  6. [6]

    1995b, Publ

    Bergeron, P., Wesemael, F., & Beauchamp, A. 1995b, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac., 107, 1047, doi: 10.1086/133661

    doi:10.1086/133661

  7. [7]

    M., Holland, M

    Bitz, C. M., Holland, M. M., Weaver, A. J., & Eby, M. 2001, Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 106, 2441, doi: 10.1029/1999JC000113

    work page doi:10.1029/1999jc000113 2001

  8. [8]

    2020, Nature Geoscience, 13, 718, doi: 10.1038/s41561-020-00649-1

    Carlsen, T. 2020, Nature Geoscience, 13, 718, doi: 10.1038/s41561-020-00649-1

    doi:10.1038/s41561-020-00649-1 2020

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    W., Beaulieu, J

    Blackman, J. W., Beaulieu, J. P., Bennett, D. P., et al. 2021, Nature, 598, 272, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03869-6

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    Borduas, N., & Donahue, N. M. 2018, in Green Chemistry, ed. B. T ˜A ˜A & T. Dransfield (Elsevier), 131–150, doi: https: //doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809270-5.00006-6

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    C., Brandt, R

    Carns, R. C., Brandt, R. E., & Warren, S. G. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 120, 7400, doi: 10.1002/2015JC011119

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    C., Light, B., & Warren, S

    Carns, R. C., Light, B., & Warren, S. G. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 121, 5217, doi: 10.1002/2016JC011804

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    Chen, H., Li, G., Paradise, A., & Kopparapu, R. K. 2023, ApJL, 946, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acbd33

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    R., Cadelano, M., et al

    Chen, J., Ferraro, F. R., Cadelano, M., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1170, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01445-6

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Ojha, N., & Butler, T

    Coates, J., Mar, K. A., Ojha, N., & Butler, T. M. 2016, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 16, 11601, doi: 10.5194/acp-16-11601-2016

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Marsh, D

    Cooke, G. J., Marsh, D. R., Walsh, C., Rugheimer, S., & Villanueva, G. L. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 206, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2604

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    H., & Sigurdsson, S

    Debes, J. H., & Sigurdsson, S. 2002, ApJ, 572, 556, doi: 10.1086/340291

    2002 doi

  10. [18]

    V., & Bevans, J

    Dunkle, R. V., & Bevans, J. T. 1956, J. Meteorol., 13, 212

    1956

  11. [19]

    2011, Icarus, 212, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2010.11.023

    Pollard, D. 2011, Icarus, 212, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2010.11.023

    2011 doi

  12. [20]

    J., Marsh, T

    Farihi, J., Hermes, J. J., Marsh, T. R., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 1647, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3475

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    A., et al

    Fossati, L., Bagnulo, S., Haswell, C. A., et al. 2012, ApJL, 757, L15, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/757/1/L15

    2012 doi

  14. [22]

    J., & Petigura, E

    Fulton, B. J., & Petigura, E. A. 2018, AJ, 156, 264, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aae828 G¨ ansicke, B. T., Schreiber, M. R., Toloza, O., et al. 2019, Nature, 576, 61, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1789-8 16

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    P., Mather, J

    Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Clampin, M., et al. 2006, Space Sci. Rev., 123, 485, doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-8315-7

    2006 doi

  16. [24]

    R., Danabasoglu, G., Donner, L

    Gent, P. R., Danabasoglu, G., Donner, L. J., et al. 2011, Journal of Climate, 24, 4973, doi: 10.1175/2011JCLI4083.1

    2011 doi

  17. [25]

    2019, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 72, 386

    Gertz, J. 2019, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 72, 386

    2019

  18. [26]

    D., Lustig-Yaeger, J., Davis, C

    Guzewich, S. D., Lustig-Yaeger, J., Davis, C. E., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 893, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab83ec

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    Kopparapu, R. k. 2018, ApJ, 852, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9f1f

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    Hu, Y., & Yang, J. 2014, P. Natl. A. Sci., 111, 629, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1315215111

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    C., & Lipscomb, W

    Hunke, E. C., & Lipscomb, W. H. 2008, CICE: The Los Alamos Sea Ice Model. Documentation and Software User’s Manual. Version 4.0. (T-3 Fluid Dynamics Group, Los Alamos National

    2008

  22. [30]

    Ingersoll, A. P. 1969, J. Atmos. Sci., 26, 1191, doi: 10.1175/1520-0469(1969)026 ⟨1191: TRGAHO⟩2.0.CO;2

    1969 doi

  23. [31]

    M., & Haberle, R

    Joshi, M. M., & Haberle, R. M. 2012, Astrobiology, 12, 3, doi: 10.1089/ast.2011.0668

    2012

  24. [32]

    2003, ApJL, 584, L91, doi: 10.1086/374036

    Jura, M. 2003, ApJL, 584, L91, doi: 10.1086/374036

    2003 doi

  25. [33]

    2018, Contemporary Physics, 59, 251, doi: 10.1080/00107514.2018.1467648

    Kalirai, J. 2018, Contemporary Physics, 59, 251, doi: 10.1080/00107514.2018.1467648

    2018

  26. [34]

    J., Kozakis, T., et al

    Kaltenegger, L., MacDonald, R. J., Kozakis, T., et al. 2020, ApJL, 901, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba9d3

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    Kaspi, Y., & Showman, A. P. 2015, ApJ, 804, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/60

    2015 doi

  28. [36]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 3532, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3431

    Kipping, D. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 3532, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3431

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    S., Gaidos, E., & Manga, M

    Kite, E. S., Gaidos, E., & Manga, M. 2011, ApJ, 743, 41, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/1/41

    2011 doi

  30. [38]

    D., & Abbot, D

    Komacek, T. D., & Abbot, D. S. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 871, 245, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb33

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    Abbot, D. S. 2019, ApJ, 883, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3980

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    k., Wolf, E

    Kopparapu, R. k., Wolf, E. T., Haqq-Misra, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 84, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/84

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    M., & Saumon, D

    Kowalski, P. M., & Saumon, D. 2006, ApJL, 651, L137, doi: 10.1086/509723

    2006 doi

  34. [42]

    Kozakis, T., Kaltenegger, L., & Hoard, D. W. 2018, ApJ, 862, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacbc7

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    D., & Christensen, P

    Lane, M. D., & Christensen, P. R. 1998, Icarus, 135, 528, doi: 10.1006/icar.1998.5998

    1998

  36. [44]

    2013, Nature, 504, 268, doi: 10.1038/nature12827

    Leconte, J., Forget, F., Charnay, B., Wordsworth, R., & Pottier, A. 2013, Nature, 504, 268, doi: 10.1038/nature12827

    2013 doi

  37. [45]

    2015, Science, 347, 632, doi: 10.1126/science.1258686

    Leconte, J., Wu, H., Menou, K., & Murray, N. 2015, Science, 347, 632, doi: 10.1126/science.1258686

    2015 doi

  38. [46]

    C., & Warren, S

    Light, B., Carns, R. C., & Warren, S. G. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 121, 4966, doi: 10.1002/2016JC011803

    2016 doi

  39. [47]

    2022, ApJL, 925, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4788

    Kaltenegger, L. 2022, ApJL, 925, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4788

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    E., & Wood, K

    Livio, M., Pringle, J. E., & Wood, K. 2005, ApJL, 632, L37, doi: 10.1086/497577

    2005 doi

  41. [49]

    H., Shields, A

    Lobo, A. H., Shields, A. L., Palubski, I. Z., & Wolf, E. 2023, ApJ, 945, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca970

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    2013, MNRAS, 432, L11, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt026

    Loeb, A., & Maoz, D. 2013, MNRAS, 432, L11, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt026

    2013 doi

  43. [51]

    2015, Astrobiology, 15, 119, doi: 10.1089/ast.2014.1231

    Luger, R., & Barnes, R. 2015, Astrobiology, 15, 119, doi: 10.1089/ast.2014.1231

    2015

  44. [52]

    L., Burgasser, A

    Luhman, K. L., Burgasser, A. J., & Bochanski, J. J. 2011, ApJL, 730, L9, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/730/1/L9

    2011 doi

  45. [53]

    2013, ApJ, 774, 51, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/51

    Menou, K. 2013, ApJ, 774, 51, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/51

    2013 doi

  46. [54]

    Mitchell, J. F. B., Senior, C. A., & Ingram, W. J. 1989, Nature, 341, 132, doi: 10.1038/341132a0

    1989 doi

  47. [55]

    E., Debes, J., Cracraft, M., et al

    Mullally, S. E., Debes, J., Cracraft, M., et al. 2024, ApJL, 962, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2348

    2024 doi

  48. [56]

    S., Ibgui, L., Goodman, J., & Burrows, A

    Nordhaus, J., Spiegel, D. S., Ibgui, L., Goodman, J., & Burrows, A. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 631, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17155.x

    2010

  49. [57]

    R., Saumon, D., Hodgkin, S

    Oppenheimer, B. R., Saumon, D., Hodgkin, S. T., et al. 2001, ApJ, 550, 448, doi: 10.1086/319718

    2001 doi

  50. [58]

    P., & Axel, L

    Ostriker, J. P., & Axel, L. 1968, The Astronomical Journal Supplement, 73, 31

    1968

  51. [59]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2001.02228

    Palubski, I., Shields, A., & Deitrick, R. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2001.02228. https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.02228

    2020 arXiv

  52. [60]

    J., Shields, A

    Rushby, A. J., Shields, A. L., & Joshi, M. 2019, ApJ, 887, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4da6

    2019 doi

  53. [61]

    J., Shields, A

    Rushby, A. J., Shields, A. L., Wolf, E. T., Lagu¨ e, M., & Burgasser, A. 2020, ApJ, 904, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbe04

    2020 doi

  54. [62]

    L., Barnes, R., Agol, E., et al

    Shields, A. L., Barnes, R., Agol, E., et al. 2016a, Astrobiology, 16, 443, doi: 10.1089/ast.2015.1353

    2015

  55. [63]

    L., Bitz, C

    Shields, A. L., Bitz, C. M., Meadows, V. S., Joshi, M. M., & Robinson, T. D. 2014, ApJL, 785, L9, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/785/1/L9 17

    2014 doi

  56. [64]

    L., & Carns, R

    Shields, A. L., & Carns, R. C. 2018, ApJ, 867, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadcaa

    2018 doi

  57. [65]

    L., Meadows, V

    Shields, A. L., Meadows, V. S., Bitz, C. M., et al. 2013, Astrobiology, 13, 715, doi: 10.1089/ast.2012.0961

    2013

  58. [66]

    P., & Polvani, L

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

    2011 doi

  59. [67]

    P., Wordsworth, R

    Showman, A. P., Wordsworth, R. D., Merlis, T. M., & Kaspi, Y. 2013, Atmospheric Circulation of Terrestrial Exoplanets, ed. S. J. Mackwell, A. A

    2013

  60. [68]

    Simon-Miller, J. W. Harder, & M. A. Bullock, 277, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816530595-ch12

    doi

  61. [69]

    B., Hansen, B

    Sigurdsson, S., Richer, H. B., Hansen, B. M., Stairs, I. H., & Thorsett, S. E. 2003, Science, 301, 193, doi: 10.1126/science.1086326

    2003 doi

  62. [70]

    L., O’Brien, D., Webster, P

    Stephens, G. L., O’Brien, D., Webster, P. J., et al. 2015, Reviews of Geophysics, 53, 141, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/2014RG000449

    2015 doi

  63. [71]

    Swan, A., Farihi, J., Su, K. Y. L., & Desch, S. J. 2024, MNRAS, 529, L41, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad198

    2024 doi

  64. [72]

    E., Arzoumanian, Z., & Taylor, J

    Thorsett, S. E., Arzoumanian, Z., & Taylor, J. H. 1993, ApJL, 412, L33, doi: 10.1086/186933

    1993 doi

  65. [73]

    E., Bergeron, P., & Gianninas, A

    Tremblay, P. E., Bergeron, P., & Gianninas, A. 2011, ApJ, 730, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/128

    2011 doi

  66. [74]

    2016, A&A, 596, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629577

    Turbet, M., Leconte, J., Selsis, F., et al. 2016, A&A, 596, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629577

    2016 doi

  67. [75]

    J., Dennihy, E., et al

    Vanderbosch, Z., Hermes, J. J., Dennihy, E., et al. 2020, ApJ, 897, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9649

    2020 doi

  68. [76]

    A., Rappaport, S., et al

    Vanderburg, A., Johnson, J. A., Rappaport, S., et al. 2015, Nature, 526, 546, doi: 10.1038/nature15527

    2015 doi

  69. [77]

    A., Xu, S., et al

    Vanderburg, A., Rappaport, S. A., Xu, S., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 363, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2713-y

    2020 doi

  70. [78]

    2021, in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Planetary Science, 1, doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.013.238

    Veras, D. 2021, in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Planetary Science, 1, doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.013.238

    2021

  71. [79]

    Walker, J. C. G., Hays, P. B., & Kasting, J. F. 1981, J. Geophys. Res., 86, 9776, doi: 10.1029/JC086iC10p09776

    1981 doi

  72. [80]

    2014a, ApJL, 791, L12, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/791/1/L12 —

    Wang, Y., Tian, F., & Hu, Y. 2014a, ApJL, 791, L12, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/791/1/L12 —. 2014b, ApJL, 791, L42, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/791/2/L42

    doi

  73. [81]

    J., Genio, A

    Way, M. J., Genio, A. D. D., Aleinov, I., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 239, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aae9e1

    2018 doi

  74. [82]

    M., & Pollard, D

    Williams, D. M., & Pollard, D. 2003, Int. J. Astrobiology, 2, 1, doi: 10.1017/S1473550403001356

    2003 doi

  75. [83]

    E., Hansen, C

    Winget, D. E., Hansen, C. J., Liebert, J., et al. 1987, ApJL, 315, L77, doi: 10.1086/184864

    1987 doi

  76. [84]

    Fauchez, T. J. 2022, PSJ, 3, 7, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac3f3d

    2022 doi

  77. [85]

    D., Forget, F., Selsis, F., et al

    Wordsworth, R. D., Forget, F., Selsis, F., et al. 2010, A&A, 522, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015053

    2010 doi

  78. [86]

    C., & Abbot, D

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

    2014 doi

  79. [87]

    B., & Abbot, D

    Yang, J., Cowan, N. B., & Abbot, D. S. 2013, ApJL, 771, L45, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/771/2/L45

    2013 doi

  80. [88]

    Zhan, R., Koll, D. D. B., & Ding, F. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.03189, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.03189

    2024 doi arXiv

  81. [89]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02375-9 18

    Zhang, K., Zang, W., El-Badry, K., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02375-9 18

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.