Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 101 references

A broad exploration of climate and observability of close-in rocky exoplanets: applications to Ross 128 b

T0 review · 1 major / 5 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 Close-in rocky exoplanets around M dwarfs are likely much darker than the standard 0.3 Earth-like albedo used in detection forecasts.

desk verdict A genuinely useful albedo grid for Ross 128 b-like planets, but the headline low-albedo ranges silently depend on the assumed dark surface. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03857 v2 pith:ZOIQTQ2V submitted 2026-08-04 astro-ph.EP

Mathilde Houelle , Emeline Bolmont , Christophe Lovis , Martin Turbet , Guillaume Chaverot , Alexandre Mechineau , Jérémy Leconte This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords Ross128bgeometricalbedoreflected-lightspectroscopytidallylockedexoplanetsmoistbistabilityterrestrialexoplanetatmosphereshigh-contrastimagingMdwarfhabitablezone
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 claims that warm, close-in rocky exoplanets around M dwarfs probably reflect much less starlight than the 0.3 Earth-like value routinely used in detection forecasts. Using Ross 128 b as a prototype, it couples three-dimensional climate simulations across many atmospheric compositions, pressures, water inventories, and spin states with synthetic reflectance spectra for the RISTRETTO and ANDES bandpasses. Across every simulated scenario, the geometric albedo stays between 0.07 and 0.2 in the visible RISTRETTO band and between 0 and 0.14 in the near-infrared ANDES bands. If true, this means planning observations on the assumption of 0.3 reflectivity would overestimate planet-to-star contrast, and darker targets may need longer exposures or may be missed entirely.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the climate moist bistability of close-in, low-water-reservoir rocky planets: for the same star and orbit, the climate can settle into either a collapsed state with water frozen out on the nightside and a cloud-free dayside, or a runaway state with all water vaporized, with a narrow transient state between them. Because cloud formation occurs almost exclusively on the nightside in these regimes, the dayside that observers see lacks reflective clouds and ice, so the geometric albedo is controlled by the surface albedo, Rayleigh scattering by the atmospheric gas, and water vapor and carbon dioxide absorption in the near-infrared. The paper couples this climate output to a radiative-transfer computation of phase-dependent reflected-light spectra to convert each simulated climate into a wavelength-dependent geometric albedo in the instrument bandpasses.

What would settle it

Measure the reflected-light phase curve of Ross 128 b with PCS: a band-integrated geometric albedo above 0.2 in the 0.62 to 0.84 micron RISTRETTO band, or a near-infrared spectrum showing cloud or haze scattering instead of saturated water-vapor absorption, would rule out the paper's low-albedo conclusion for this population.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the reflectivity of close-in, non-transiting rocky planets is set by climate, not by an arbitrary Earth-like constant, and that for Ross 128 b-like irradiation the climate almost always acts to lower albedo. The 3D climate simulations produce two stable end states characteristic of moist bistability: a collapsed state where water is trapped as nightside surface ice and the dayside atmosphere is dry and cloud-free, and a runaway state where all water is vaporized and its strong near-infrared absorption darkens the planet, with a transient state of localized nightside liquid water between them. In all cases, dayside cloud decks and dayside ice are absent, so visible reflectivity stays close to the assumed dark rocky surface, while water vapor and carbon dioxide absorb most of the near-infrared flux. The resulting geometric albedo ranges are 0.07 to 0.2 in the RISTRETTO band and 0 to 0.14 in the ANDES YJH bands, with dense nitrogen or carbon dioxide atmospheres raising the visible albedo through Rayleigh scattering and water-rich runaway states driving it toward zero in the near-infrared.

Load-bearing premise

The low albedo range rests on assuming a dark rocky surface with albedo 0.2 and omitting photochemical hazes and dayside clouds; if real surfaces are brighter or hazes form, the reflectivity could be substantially higher.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Detection-limit charts that assume a 0.3 geometric albedo overstate the reflected-light contrast of Ross 128 b-like planets; using the simulated albedos lowers predicted contrast and lengthens required exposure times for RISTRETTO, ANDES, and PCS.
  • The visible RISTRETTO bandpass mainly reports atmospheric density through Rayleigh scattering, while the ANDES near-infrared bands mainly report water vapor and carbon dioxide absorption, so combining both bands can distinguish a thick transparent atmosphere from a water-rich runaway atmosphere.
  • Even a planet inside the inner edge of the habitable zone can host localized liquid water in nightside cold traps for a narrow range of water inventory, so the climate state is not a monotonic function of irradiation alone.
  • Runaway states occur even at modest water inventories, with a transition around 8 cm of global equivalent layer, implying that highly irradiated rocky planets with small water reservoirs may commonly be dark in the near-infrared.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If real planetary surfaces turn out to be brighter than the assumed 0.2 albedo, for example feldspathic, clay-like, or covered by photochemical hazes, the quoted albedo ranges would rise, so measuring surface mineralogy or haze refractive indices is the fastest way to tighten these forecasts.
  • A null or very dark detection of Ross 128 b by PCS would corroborate the low-albedo picture, whereas a visible-band geometric albedo above 0.2 would point to missing reflectors such as dayside clouds or hazes.
  • The paper's Case 2B water budget shows a small non-conservation of total water mass, of order 10^-3%, which the authors flag as needing investigation; the transient-state statistics rest on this approximation, even though the albedo impact is likely negligible.
  • The same modeling chain could be run for less irradiated targets where dayside cloud formation is expected; the albedo suppression found here should not be assumed for planets near the outer part of the habitable zone.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses the Generic-PCM 3D global climate model to simulate a broad suite of climate states for Ross 128 b, varying atmospheric composition (N2, N2+CO2, CO2), surface pressure (0.1-10 bar), water inventory (dry to 83.3 cm GEL), and spin-orbit resonance (1:1 and 5:2). The GCM outputs are post-processed with Pytmosph3R to produce synthetic reflectance spectra and mean Bond and geometric albedos in the RISTRETTO and ANDES bandpasses. The authors identify collapsed, transient, and runaway climate states, find geometric albedos of 0.07-0.2 in the RISTRETTO bandpass and 0-0.14 in the ANDES bandpass across all scenarios, and argue that the common 0.3 Earth-like albedo assumption likely overestimates reflectivity for this planet population.

Significance. If the low-albedo result is robust, it directly affects the predicted contrast ratios and exposure times for reflected-light characterization of non-transiting rocky planets with RISTRETTO, ANDES, and PCS, and it provides a useful alternative to the ad hoc 0.3 albedo assumption commonly used in observability studies. The paper is transparent about many of its limitations, publishes the GCM outputs on Zenodo, and grounds the climate bistability in earlier work rather than assuming it. The main weakness is that the headline albedo ranges are computed for a fixed surface albedo of 0.2, and the authors themselves state in Section 5 that the results are highly sensitive to this assumption; the abstract and conclusions do not carry this caveat forward.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract; Sections 4.3 and 5] The abstract and Section 4.3 state, as a population-level result, that "hazeless rocky planets receiving stellar irradiations similar to Ross 128 b exhibit rather low reflectivity, with geometric albedos ranging from 0.07 to 0.2 in the RISTRETTO bandpass and from 0 to 0.14 in the ANDES bandpass across all simulated scenarios," and conclude that the 0.3 Earth-like value overestimates reflectivity. These statements omit the fact that every simulation assumes a surface albedo of A_surf = 0.2 (Section 2.1, Table 2). As Section 2.2.2 notes, a Lambertian surface alone gives A_g = 2/3 A_surf; hence the upper end of the quoted RISTRETTO range is set by the assumed dark surface plus Rayleigh scattering. Section 5 concedes that "these results are highly sensitive to the assumed surface albedo" and lists feldspathic, granitoid, and clay surfaces as plausible brighter alternatives; with A_surf = 0.4-0.6 the clear-atmosphere geometric albedo would reach 0.27-0.40, at or above the 0.3 value the paper argues is an overestimate. The central population-level conclusion is therefore scoped more narrowly than the abstract and conclusions suggest. Please qualify the abstract and conclusions with the A_surf = 0.2 assumption, or add a sensitivity analysis (e.g., recompute clear-atmosphere and thin-atmosphere geometric albedos for A_surf = 0.3-0.6) to determine the range of surface albedos over which the low-albedo conclusion holds.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1.3, footnote 1] The footnote reporting a 10^-3% non-conservation of global water mass is important for reproducibility; please move this information into the main text or appendix with a brief explanation of the likely cause, since the transient state (Case 2B) is a central result.
  2. [Sections 2.1.3 and 4.2.2] The "dry" scenarios still include a residual water amount in the correlated-k tables, which leaves trace water features in the spectra (footnote 3 of Section 4.2.2). Please state quantitatively how much residual water is present and how it affects the reported albedo values, so that readers do not interpret the dry cases as strictly water-free.
  3. [Figures 3, 4, and 5] The color scales differ between panels in several multi-panel maps, which makes cross-case comparison difficult; consider using unified color scales or explicitly labeling the color-bar limits in each panel.
  4. [Section 2.2.1] The text mentions both the lower spectral resolution of the GCM correlated-k tables (58/28 bands) and the higher resolution used by Pytmosph3R (R=300 or 500); please clarify the distinction between these two resolutions to avoid confusion about the fidelity of the synthetic spectra.
  5. [Title page and Data availability] There are a few typographical errors, including "Institut Poytechnique" in the affiliations and "https://svn.lmd.jussieu.fr/Planeto/" in the Data availability section; these should be corrected before publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the albedo ranges are independent model outputs conditional on a disclosed surface-albedo assumption, and the self-citations provide code, opacity tables, and prior climate frameworks rather than the target result.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The central claim, that hazeless rocky planets at Ross 128 b-like irradiation have geometric albedos of 0.07-0.2 in the RISTRETTO bandpass and 0-0.14 in the ANDES bandpass, is produced by an explicit forward model: Generic-PCM 3D climate simulations with varying composition, surface pressure, water inventory, and spin-orbit state, followed by Pytmosph3R reflectance spectra and the geometric albedo definition in Eq. (1) with a Lambertian phase function. The surface albedo A_surf = 0.2 is an assumed input, not a parameter fitted to the reported albedo outputs, so the low-albedo result is a conditional model prediction rather than a restatement of the input. The paper explicitly discloses the sensitivity in Section 5: 'these results are highly sensitive to the assumed surface albedo,' and it lists brighter surface types that could raise reflectivity; this is a robustness limitation, not circularity. Self-citations are present (Leconte et al. 2013a,b; Chaverot et al. 2022, 2023; Turbet et al. 2016, 2019, 2021; Leconte 2021), but they supply correlated-k opacity tables, GCM water-cycle schemes, prior labels for climate states, and radiative-transfer code; the paper reproduces the moist bistability in its own simulations rather than importing the conclusion from those citations. No fitted input is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem from prior work is invoked to force the choice, and no empirical pattern is repackaged solely under new coordinates. The skeptical concerns about surface albedo and omitted hazes are legitimate scoping/robustness issues, but they do not make any step of the derivation equivalent to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The low-albedo result is a genuine model output, but the model is primed by several chosen inputs: a dark surface (albedo 0.2), fixed cloud condensation nuclei, and low water inventories. The paper is transparent that the result is sensitive to the surface albedo.

free parameters (4)
  • Surface albedo A_surf = 0.2
    Chosen as the surface boundary condition in all GCM runs; the low-albedo result is directly sensitive to this value, as acknowledged in Section 5.
  • Global water inventory (GEL) = 6, 8.3, 83.3 cm
    Scenario parameters motivated by Venus-like low water reservoirs; vary the climate regime and hence albedo.
  • Cloud condensation nuclei concentration = 1e5 kg^-1
    Fixed model parameter for cloud formation; affects cloud distribution and albedo.
  • Thermal inertia = 1000 J m^-2 K^-1 s^-1/2
    Assumed surface thermal inertia; affects day/night temperature contrast and heat redistribution.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Primitive equations and two-stream radiative transfer adequately represent the climate
    The Generic-PCM and Pytmosph3R/exo_k solve the primitive equations and two-stream RT; standard practice but an approximation.
  • domain assumption The 5:2 spin-orbit resonance with 0.09 eccentricity and 79 deg obliquity is a plausible Ross 128 b state
    Taken from Valente & Correia (2022); used for the asynchronous rotation scenarios.
  • ad hoc to paper Atmospheres are hazeless and dominated by N2 or CO2 with water as the only condensable
    The paper explicitly excludes photochemical hazes and Venus-like clouds, noting they would raise albedo; a stated simplification.
  • domain assumption Low water inventories (cm-scale GEL) are representative
    Motivated by Venus analog and water loss during pre-main-sequence M dwarf phase; not directly measured.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A broad exploration of climate and observability of close-in rocky exoplanets: applications to Ross 128 b." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZOIQTQ2V

@misc{pith2026260803857,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A broad exploration of climate and observability of close-in rocky exoplanets: applications to Ross 128 b},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZOIQTQ2V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03857}
}
read the original abstract

VLT/RISTRETTO, ELT/ANDES and ELT/PCS will soon enable atmospheric characterization of non-transiting, small rocky exoplanets orbiting closer than the inner edge of the Habitable Zone around M dwarfs, combining high-contrast imaging with high-resolution spectroscopy in reflected light. A key parameter for reflected-light observability is wavelength-dependent reflectivity, shaped by climate, surface and atmospheric properties. This work refines spectral reflectivity predictions for this population. Using Ross 128 b as a prototype, we provide physically consistent geometric albedo estimates within the RISTRETTO and ANDES spectral ranges across diverse atmospheric scenarios. We run 3D global climate model simulations of Ross 128 b for varying atmospheric compositions, surface pressures, water inventories and spin-orbit resonances to explore its possible climate regimes. We then compute synthetic reflectance spectra with Pytmosph3R to assess spectral signatures per scenario and discuss detectability and instrument capacity for constraining climate. Results show hazeless rocky planets receiving irradiation similar to Ross 128 b exhibit low reflectivity, with geometric albedos of 0.07-0.2 in the RISTRETTO bandpass and 0-0.14 in the ANDES bandpass across all scenarios. This low reflectivity can stem from the lack of clouds or surface ice deposits on the dayside, or from strong atmospheric absorption due to high water vapor concentrations, depending on the parameter configurations. These features are characteristic of the climate moist bistability found in close-in, low-water-reservoir planets in previous studies. Our results suggest arbitrary albedo assumptions, such as the common 0.3 Earth-like value, can overestimate reflectivity for this population, highlighting the need for accurate climate models to improve reflectivity predictions and optimize preparation for next-generation spectrographs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03857 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Estimated detectability of the currently known (RV and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top: Orbital phases ϕ as seen from the observer for a planet with an orbital inclination i of 60◦ . Bottom: Illustration of the orbital phase ϕ, orbital inclination i and phase angle α (for the same inclination i = 60◦ ). The red line indicates the observed latitude (30◦ ) corresponding to an inclination i of 60◦ . The contrast ratio is computed with Pytmosph3R for all sim￾ulated scenarios. Then, we derive the geome… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Latitude-longitude maps of temperature and winds averaged over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Latitude-longitude maps of column-integrated water vapor (panels a, b and c), water ice surface density (panel d) and surface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Latitude-longitude maps of column-integrated water clouds (panels a, b and c), outgoing longwave radiation (OLR, panels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Temporal evolutions of the column-integrated water va [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Temporal evolution of the mean atmospheric surface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mean surface temperatures for all simulated cases; markers indicate the global mean, while error bars extend from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Geometric albedo spectra computed between 0.4 and 1.8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Mean Bond and geometric albedos for all simulated cases (the values can be found in Table [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J., Barnes, J., et al

    Anglada-Escudé, G., Amado, P. J., Barnes, J., et al. 2016, Nature, 536, 437

    2016

  2. [2]

    2017, A&A, 602, A88

    Astudillo-Defru, N., Forveille, T., Bonfils, X., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A88

    2017

  3. [3]

    M., Rowe, J

    Batalha, N. M., Rowe, J. F., Bryson, S. T., et al. 2013, ApJS, 204, 24

    2013

  4. [4]

    2016, A&A, 591, A106

    Bolmont, E., Libert, A.-S., Leconte, J., & Selsis, F. 2016, A&A, 591, A106

    2016

  5. [5]

    E., et al

    Bolmont, E., Selsis, F., Owen, J. E., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3728

    2017

  6. [6]

    2018, A&A, 613, A25

    Bonfils, X., Astudillo-Defru, N., Díaz, R., et al. 2018, A&A, 613, A25

    2018

  7. [7]

    A., Mayne, N

    Boutle, I. A., Mayne, N. J., Drummond, B., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A120

    2017

  8. [8]

    J., Thompson, M

    Bower, D. J., Thompson, M. A., Hakim, K., Tian, M., & Sossi, P. A. 2025, ApJ, 995, 59

    2025

Show all 101 references
  1. [9]

    2025, A&A, 702, A230

    Bugatti, M., Lovis, C., Billot, N., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A230

    2025

  2. [10]

    J., Hillier, J

    Buratti, B. J., Hillier, J. K., & Wang, M. 1996, Icarus, 124, 490

    1996

  3. [11]

    2019, A&A, 623, A161

    Caldas, A., Leconte, J., Selsis, F., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A161

    2019

  4. [12]

    & Hapke, B

    Cassidy, W. & Hapke, B. 1975, Icarus, 25, 371

    1975

  5. [13]

    2023, A&A, 680, A103

    Chaverot, G., Bolmont, E., & Turbet, M. 2023, A&A, 680, A103

    2023

  6. [14]

    2022, A&A, 658, A40 Del Genio, A

    Chaverot, G., Turbet, M., Bolmont, E., & Leconte, J. 2022, A&A, 658, A40 Del Genio, A. D., Way, M. J., Amundsen, D. S., et al. 2019, Astrobiology, 19, 99

    2022

  7. [15]

    2025, A&A, 698, A76

    Drant, T., Tian, M., Carrasco, N., & Heng, K. 2025, A&A, 698, A76

    2025

  8. [16]

    Dressing, C. D. & Charbonneau, D. 2015, ApJ, 807, 45

    2015

  9. [17]

    H., Glidden, A., et al

    Espinoza, N., Allen, N. H., Glidden, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 990, L52

    2025

  10. [18]

    2022, A&A, 658, A41 Article number, page 17 of 24 A&A proofs:manuscript no

    Falco, A., Zingales, T., Pluriel, W., & Leconte, J. 2022, A&A, 658, A41 Article number, page 17 of 24 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aa60174-26

    2022

  11. [19]

    J., Turbet, M., Villanueva, G

    Fauchez, T. J., Turbet, M., Villanueva, G. L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 194

    2019

  12. [20]

    & Leconte, J

    Forget, F. & Leconte, J. 2014, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 372, 20130084

    2014

  13. [21]

    Fulton, B. J. & Petigura, E. A. 2018, AJ, 156, 264

    2018

  14. [22]

    Gill, A. E. 1980, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 106, 447

    1980

  15. [23]

    J., et al

    Gillon, M., Ducrot, E., Bell, T. J., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, arXiv:2509.02128

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    M., et al

    Gillon, M., Jehin, E., Lederer, S. M., et al. 2016, Nature, 533, 221

    2016

  17. [25]

    H., Demory, B.-O., et al

    Gillon, M., Triaud, A. H., Demory, B.-O., et al. 2017, Nature, 542, 456

    2017

  18. [26]

    2025, ApJ, 990, L53

    Glidden, A., Ranjan, S., Seager, S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 990, L53

    2025

  19. [27]

    D., Zahnle, K

    Goldblatt, C., Robinson, T. D., Zahnle, K. J., & Crisp, D. 2013, Nature Geo- science, 6, 661

    2013

  20. [28]

    P., Bell, T

    Greene, T. P., Bell, T. J., Ducrot, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 618, 39

    2023

  21. [29]

    Hammond, M., Tsai, S.-M., & Pierrehumbert, R. T. 2020, ApJ, 901, 78

    2020

  22. [30]

    Y ., Ford, E

    He, M. Y ., Ford, E. B., & Ragozzine, D. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4575

    2019

  23. [31]

    2006, Climate Dynamics, 27, 787

    Hourdin, F., Musat, I., Bony, S., et al. 2006, Climate Dynamics, 27, 787

    2006

  24. [32]

    Y ., Carrasco, N., & Charnay, B

    Jaziri, A. Y ., Carrasco, N., & Charnay, B. 2026, Nature Scientific Report, arXiv:2601.18324

    2026

  25. [33]

    R., Bott, K

    Kane, S. R., Bott, K. M., Goodis Gordon, K. E., et al. 2026, PASP, 138, 024404

    2026

  26. [34]

    E., van der Avoird, A., et al

    Karman, T., Gordon, I. E., van der Avoird, A., et al. 2019, Icarus, 328, 160

    2019

  27. [35]

    2021, The Messenger, 182, 38

    Kasper, M., Cerpa Urra, N., Pathak, P., et al. 2021, The Messenger, 182, 38

    2021

  28. [36]

    Kasting, J. F. 1988, Icarus, 74, 472

    1988

  29. [37]

    F., Whitmire, D

    Kasting, J. F., Whitmire, D. P., & Reynolds, R. T. 1993, Icarus, 101, 108

    1993

  30. [38]

    2019, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 124, 2306

    Kodama, T., Genda, H., O’ishi, R., Abe-Ouchi, A., & Abe, Y . 2019, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 124, 2306

    2019

  31. [39]

    Koll, D. D. B. & Abbot, D. S. 2016, ApJ, 825, 99

    2016

  32. [40]

    K., Ramirez, R., Kasting, J

    Kopparapu, R. K., Ramirez, R., Kasting, J. F., et al. 2013, ApJ, 765, 131

    2013

  33. [41]

    K., Ramirez, R

    Kopparapu, R. K., Ramirez, R. M., SchottelKotte, J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 787, L29

    2014

  34. [42]

    k., Wolf, E

    Kopparapu, R. k., Wolf, E. T., Arney, G., et al. 2017, ApJ, 845, 5

    2017

  35. [43]

    k., Wolf, E

    Kopparapu, R. k., Wolf, E. T., Haqq-Misra, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 84

    2016

  36. [44]

    & Stevenson, K

    Kreidberg, L. & Stevenson, K. B. 2025, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 122, e2416190122

    2025

  37. [45]

    2021, A&A, 645, A20

    Leconte, J. 2021, A&A, 645, A20

    2021

  38. [46]

    2023, ApJ, 955, L22

    Lim, O., Benneke, B., Doyon, R., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, L22

    2023

  39. [47]

    2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instru- mentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Lovis, C., Blind, N., Chazelas, B., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instru- mentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 12184, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IX, ed. C. J. Evans, J. J. Bryant, & K. Motohara, 121841Q

    2022

  40. [48]

    2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instru- mentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Lovis, C., Blind, N., Chazelas, B., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instru- mentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 13096, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy X, ed. J. J. Bryant, K. Moto- hara, & J. R. D. Vernet, 130961I

    2024

  41. [49]

    2017, A&A, 599, A16

    Lovis, C., Snellen, I., Mouillet, D., et al. 2017, A&A, 599, A16

    2017

  42. [50]

    & Barnes, R

    Luger, R. & Barnes, R. 2015, Astrobiology, 15, 119

    2015

  43. [51]

    Madden, J. H. & Kaltenegger, L. 2018, Astrobiology, 18, 1559

    2018

  44. [52]

    2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1703.02670

    Mallama, A. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1703.02670

    2017 arXiv

  45. [53]

    W., Feiden, G

    Mann, A. W., Feiden, G. A., Gaidos, E., Boyajian, T., & von Braun, K. 2015, ApJ, 804, 64

    2015

  46. [54]

    2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Marconi, A., Abreu, M., Adibekyan, V ., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 12184, Ground- based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IX, ed. C. J. Evans, J. J. Bryant, & K. Motohara, 1218424

    2022

  47. [55]

    1966, Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan, 44, 25

    Matsuno, T. 1966, Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan, 44, 25

    1966

  48. [56]

    2025, A&A, 701, A193

    Maurel, A., Turbet, M., Ducrot, E., et al. 2025, A&A, 701, A193

    2025

  49. [57]

    2024, A&A, 688, A47

    Maurice, M., Dasgupta, R., & Hassanzadeh, P. 2024, A&A, 688, A47

    2024

  50. [58]

    Meador, W. E. & Weaver, W. R. 1980, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 37, 630

    1980

  51. [59]

    2025, A&A, 700, A146

    Mignon, L., Delfosse, X., Meunier, N., et al. 2025, A&A, 700, A146

    2025

  52. [60]

    1941, Kanon der Erdebestrahlung und seine anwendung auf das eiszeitenproblem (Koniglich Serbische Akademie)

    Milankovitch, M. 1941, Kanon der Erdebestrahlung und seine anwendung auf das eiszeitenproblem (Koniglich Serbische Akademie)

    1941

  53. [61]

    J., Payne, V

    Mlawer, E. J., Payne, V . H., Moncet, J.-L., et al. 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 370, 2520

    2012

  54. [62]

    R., Irwin, J., Charbonneau, D., et al

    Newton, E. R., Irwin, J., Charbonneau, D., et al. 2016, ApJ, 821, 93

    2016

  55. [63]

    2025, Experimental Astronomy, 59, 29

    Palle, E., Biazzo, K., Bolmont, E., et al. 2025, Experimental Astronomy, 59, 29

    2025

  56. [64]

    2024, A&A, 688, A59

    Parc, L., Bouchy, F., Venturini, J., Dorn, C., & Helled, R. 2024, A&A, 688, A59

    2024

  57. [65]

    A., Howard, A

    Petigura, E. A., Howard, A. W., & Marcy, G. W. 2013, Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Science, 110, 19273

    2013

  58. [66]

    2025, ApJ, 989, 181

    Piaulet-Ghorayeb, C., Benneke, B., Turbet, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 181

    2025

  59. [67]

    Pierrehumbert, R. T. 2010, Principles of Planetary Climate

    2010

  60. [68]

    Pieters, C. M. & Noble, S. K. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 121, 1865

    2016

  61. [69]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, L86

    Quirino, D., Gilli, G., Kaltenegger, L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, L86

    2023

  62. [70]

    V ., Apai, D., & Giampapa, M

    Rackham, B. V ., Apai, D., & Giampapa, M. S. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 96, arXiv: 1812.06184

    2019 arXiv

  63. [71]

    S., Reylé, C., Allard, F., et al

    Rajpurohit, A. S., Reylé, C., Allard, F., et al. 2013, A&A, 556, A15

    2013

  64. [72]

    D., Boyajian, T

    Ribas, I., Gregg, M. D., Boyajian, T. S., & Bolmont, E. 2017, A&A, 603, A58

    2017

  65. [73]

    2024, Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 17, 6025

    Roccetti, G., Bugliaro, L., Gödde, F., et al. 2024, Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 17, 6025

    2024

  66. [74]

    F., et al

    Roccetti, G., Emde, C., Sterzik, M. F., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A170

    2025

  67. [75]

    D., & Forget, F

    Selsis, F., Wordsworth, R. D., & Forget, F. 2011, A&A, 532, A1

    2011

  68. [76]

    Showman, A. P. & Polvani, L. M. 2011, ApJ, 738, 71

    2011

  69. [77]

    P., Wordsworth, R

    Showman, A. P., Wordsworth, R. D., Merlis, T. M., & Kaspi, Y . 2013, in Com- parative Climatology of Terrestrial Planets, ed. S. J. Mackwell, A. A. Simon-

    2013

  70. [78]

    L., et al

    Snellen, I., de Kok, R., Birkby, J. L., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, A59

    2015

  71. [79]

    T., Smith, V

    Souto, D., Unterborn, C. T., Smith, V . V ., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, L15 Suárez Mascareño, A., Artigau, É., Mignon, L., et al. 2025, A&A, 700, A11

    2018

  72. [80]

    2026, ApJ, 1000, 99

    Taniguchi, K., Kodama, T., Turbet, M., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1000, 99

    2026

  73. [81]

    B., McKay, C

    Toon, O. B., McKay, C. P., Ackerman, T. P., & Santhanam, K. 1989, J. Geo- phys. Res., 94, 16287

    1989

  74. [82]

    2021, Nature, 598, 276

    Turbet, M., Bolmont, E., Chaverot, G., et al. 2021, Nature, 598, 276

    2021

  75. [83]

    2018, A&A, 612, A86

    Turbet, M., Bolmont, E., Leconte, J., et al. 2018, A&A, 612, A86

    2018

  76. [84]

    J., Leconte, J., et al

    Turbet, M., Fauchez, T. J., Leconte, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A126

    2023

  77. [85]

    2016, A&A, 596, A112

    Turbet, M., Leconte, J., Selsis, F., et al. 2016, A&A, 596, A112

    2016

  78. [86]

    2019, Icarus, 321, 189

    Turbet, M., Tran, H., Pirali, O., et al. 2019, Icarus, 321, 189

    2019

  79. [87]

    Valente, E. F. S. & Correia, A. C. M. 2022, A&A, 665, A130

    2022

  80. [88]

    J., Del Genio, A

    Way, M. J., Del Genio, A. D., Kiang, N. Y ., et al. 2016, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 8376

    2016

  81. [89]

    T., Kopparapu, R

    Wolf, E. T., Kopparapu, R. K., & Haqq-Misra, J. 2019, ApJ, 877, 35

    2019

  82. [90]

    T., Schwieterman, E

    Wolf, E. T., Schwieterman, E. W., Haqq-Misra, J., et al. 2025, The Planetary Science Journal, 6, 231

    2025

  83. [91]

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

    Wordsworth, R. D., Forget, F., Selsis, F., et al. 2010, A&A, 522, A22

    2010

  84. [92]

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

    Wordsworth, R. D., Forget, F., Selsis, F., et al. 2011, ApJ, 733, L48

    2011

  85. [93]

    J., Wittenmyer, R

    Wright, D. J., Wittenmyer, R. A., Tinney, C. G., Bentley, J. S., & Zhao, J. 2016, ApJ, 817, L20

    2016

  86. [94]

    A., Maehara, H., Airapetian, V ., et al

    Yamashiki, Y . A., Maehara, H., Airapetian, V ., et al. 2019, ApJ, 881, 114

    2019

  87. [95]

    C., & Abbot, D

    Yang, J., Boué, G., Fabrycky, D. C., & Abbot, D. S. 2014, ApJ, 787, L2

    2014

  88. [96]

    B., & Abbot, D

    Yang, J., Cowan, N. B., & Abbot, D. S. 2013, ApJ, 771, L45

    2013

  89. [97]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 58

    Yang, J., Ji, W., & Zeng, Y . 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 58

    2020

  90. [98]

    T., et al

    Yang, J., Leconte, J., Wolf, E. T., et al. 2019, ApJ, 875, 46

    2019

  91. [99]

    B., Sasselov, D

    Zeng, L., Jacobsen, S. B., Sasselov, D. D., et al. 2019, Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Science, 116, 9723

    2019

  92. [100]

    P., et al

    Zieba, S., Kreidberg, L., Coy, B. P., et al. 2026, Nature Astronomy [arXiv:2605.00100]

    2026 arXiv

  93. [101]

    2023, Nature, 620, 746 Article number, page 18 of 24 M

    Zieba, S., Kreidberg, L., Ducrot, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 620, 746 Article number, page 18 of 24 M. Houelle et al.: A broad exploration of climate and observability of close-in rocky exoplanets Appendix A: Calculations of the dimensionless Rossby deformation length Following ...

    2013

Pith tools

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