Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Habitable Zone and Atmosphere Retention Distance (HaZARD) Stellar-evolution-dependent loss models of secondary atmospheres

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Earth-mass planets around the smallest stars probably cannot keep CO2 or N2 atmospheres.

desk verdict A useful, honest synthesis that gives observers a clear reason to expect airless rocky planets around small M dwarfs, with the main caveat being the solar-scaled EUV spectra. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09702 v2 pith:7KJNIUCX submitted 2025-02-13 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Gwenaël Van Looveren , Sudeshna Boro Saikia , Oliver Herbort , Simon Schleich , Manuel Güdel , Colin Johnstone , Kristina Kislyakova This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords atmosphericretentiondistancesecondaryatmospheresJeansescapehabitablezoneMdwarfstarsstellarXUVevolutionrockyexoplanetJWSTtargetselection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish when an Earth-mass rocky planet can hold on to a CO2- or N2-dominated secondary atmosphere, and whether that overlaps with the liquid-water habitable zone. It combines thermochemical upper-atmosphere escape models with stellar rotation and X-ray/ultraviolet (XUV) evolution to define an atmospheric retention distance, the closest orbit at which thermal Jeans escape — molecules at the top of the atmosphere moving faster than escape velocity — stays below volcanic outgassing replenishment. The central result is that around fully convective stars below about 0.4 solar masses, the habitable zone lies inside the retention distance for gigayear timescales, so Earth-mass HZ planets there are unlikely to retain any atmosphere. The paper also finds that slower initial stellar rotation lets the habitable zone and retention distance overlap earlier, and that all Earth-like rocky planets targeted by JWST in cycles 1 and 2 fall outside the retention distance. If right, many prime targets in the search for habitable rocky exoplanets are predicted to be airless, and future target selection should favour stars above 0.4 solar masses.

What carries the argument

The central object is the atmospheric retention distance (ARD): the closest orbital distance at which a 1 Earth-mass planet retains a given CO2/N2 atmosphere, defined by comparing Jeans escape rates from the Kompot 1D thermochemical upper-atmosphere model with a threshold loss rate of about 16,000 kg/s, equivalent to losing Earth's entire atmosphere in 10 Myr and comparable to sustained volcanic outgassing. The critical XUV irradiance at which this loss rate is reached is converted into a distance using stellar luminosity evolution tracks for slow, medium, and fast initial rotators across stellar masses from 0.1 to 1.2 solar masses and ages from 1 Myr to 12 Gyr. The habitable zone is computed separately from climate-model limits, and the comparison of these two distances carries the argument.

What would settle it

A JWST or Ariel detection of a thick CO2- or N2-dominated atmosphere on an Earth-mass rocky planet in the habitable zone of a fully convective star below about 0.4 solar masses and older than 1 Gyr would contradict the central claim that such planets are unlikely to retain any atmosphere.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that habitability requires not just liquid-water insolation but atmospheric retention, and these two conditions are often mutually exclusive for low-mass stars. Concretely, it claims that for a 1 Earth-mass planet with a CO2- or N2-dominated atmosphere, there is a minimum orbital distance, the atmospheric retention distance, inside which Jeans escape removes the entire atmosphere faster than plausible outgassing can replace it. Combining these retention distances with stellar evolution models, the paper finds that the ARD lies outside the HZ for stars below roughly 0.4 solar masses at ages of a gigayear or more, because fully convective stars spin down slowly and stay X-ray and ultraviolet active; HZ planets around such stars are therefore unlikely to retain atmospheres unless outgassing is extreme. It further claims that initial rotation rate matters: a fast-rotating star keeps high XUV irradiance longer, delaying HZ-ARD overlap. Finally, it claims that all Earth-like rocky exoplanets observed by JWST in cycles 1 and 2, including HZ planets, currently orbit inside the ARD and are not expected to retain atmospheres.

Load-bearing premise

The calculations assume that one solar EUV spectrum, scaled uniformly in brightness, represents the XUV output of every star from 0.1 to 1.2 solar masses; if low-mass stars emit a genuinely different spectral shape, the predicted escape rates and retention distances could shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Around stars below about 0.4 solar masses, the habitable zone lies inside the atmospheric retention distance at ages of 1000 Myr and beyond, so Earth-mass HZ planets there are unlikely to retain any CO2- or N2-dominated atmosphere.
  • For stars above about 0.6 solar masses, the entire HZ can lie outside the ARD by 2000 Myr, allowing retention and constraining possible atmospheric compositions such as N2 near the outer HZ and CO2 near the inner edge.
  • A faster initial stellar rotation keeps XUV output high for longer and delays HZ-ARD overlap, so identical planets around identical-mass stars can have different atmospheric fates depending on the star's birth rotation.
  • None of the Earth-like rocky planets observed by JWST in cycles 1 and 2 are expected to retain an atmosphere, and a detection around such a target would require rapid, sustained volcanic replenishment.
  • The Solar System validation implies that the early Earth needed a CO2-dominated atmosphere and that Venus could have retained a thick atmosphere until roughly 3.5 Gyr ago.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the EUV spectral shape of M dwarfs differs strongly from the scaled solar spectrum used here, exobase temperatures and therefore retention distances could shift; this is testable by recomputing escape rates with observed M-dwarf EUV spectra.
  • Because only Jeans escape is modelled and hydrodynamic and non-thermal losses are ignored, the ARDs are optimistic upper limits; including those channels would push retention distances outward and strengthen the airless-planet prediction.
  • A natural extension is to vary planet mass and water content: water vapour enhances loss, so wetter planets would have larger ARDs, while more massive rocky planets up to about 2 Earth masses would have smaller ones, changing the ranking of JWST and Ariel targets.
  • If the claim holds, future target lists should prioritise planets around older, slowly rotating stars above 0.4 solar masses rather than M-dwarf HZ planets.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper introduces the 'atmospheric retention distance' (ARD): the minimum orbital distance at which an Earth-mass planet with a CO2- or N2-dominated secondary atmosphere would lose the equivalent of one Earth atmosphere in 10 Myr by Jeans escape. The ARD is computed by combining thermochemical upper-atmosphere models (Kompot; Van Looveren et al. 2024) with stellar evolution and rotation models (Johnstone et al. 2021a) for stellar masses 0.1-1.2 Msun, ages 1-12000 Myr, and slow/medium/fast initial rotators, and is compared to the conservative habitable zone of Kopparapu et al. (2013, 2014). The authors find that the HZ-ARD overlap appears earlier around slowly rotating stars; that HZ planets around fully convective stars with masses below about 0.4 Msun are unlikely to retain atmospheres; that initial rotation affects retention probability; and that scheduled JWST cycle 1/2 Earth-sized rocky targets, including HZ planets, lie closer than the ARD. They validate the model against Archean Earth pressure constraints and Venus's resurfacing history, and stress that Jeans escape is a lower limit to total loss.

Significance. If the results are robust, the ARD provides a simple, physically motivated target-selection criterion for JWST and Ariel and a falsifiable prediction that HZ rocky planets around very-low-mass M dwarfs should lack thick CO2/N2 atmospheres. The paper builds on published, externally benchmarked models rather than fitting to the targets; the Earth-Archean and Venus comparisons are concrete consistency checks. Its main strengths are the explicit treatment of the calculation as a lower limit on loss, the systematic coverage of stellar mass, age, rotation, and atmospheric composition, and the clear presentation of a new diagnostic quantity. The principal uncertainties are the scaled-solar EUV spectral assumption for M dwarfs, the adopted 1 Gyr 'grace period', and the exclusion of hydrodynamic and non-thermal loss; these make the quantitative mass threshold provisional pending sensitivity tests.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sect. 2.3] The assumption that one solar EUV spectrum, uniformly scaled in flux, represents the XUV irradiation of all hosts from 0.1 to 1.2 Msun is load-bearing for the central <0.4 Msun threshold. As the paper recognizes, VL24 Fig. 7 shows that the exobase thermal structure is sensitive to spectral shape, and Jeans escape depends exponentially on exobase temperature. The stated justification (most known planets orbit relatively evolved main-sequence stars) does not apply to the fully convective M dwarfs on which the headline conclusion rests. Please add a quantitative sensitivity analysis using reconstructed M-dwarf EUV spectra (e.g., Fontenla et al. 2016; Namekata et al. 2023) and report how the ARD and the 0.4 Msun boundary change.
  2. [Sect. 2.2 and Figs. 2-3] The ARD is based on Jeans escape only, which the authors correctly call a lower limit, yet the captions state 'above these lines, atmospheres can be retained' and the conclusions state that HZ planets around stars above 0.4 Msun 'are most likely to retain' atmospheres. Because hydrodynamic and non-thermal losses are excluded, an orbit outside the Jeans-based ARD does not guarantee retention; it only means that Jeans escape is below the adopted threshold. I recommend reframing the ARD as a necessary-condition boundary (inside which loss is guaranteed) and qualifying all retention-zone language accordingly.
  3. [Sect. 3.1] The adopted 1000 Myr 'grace period' is an input assumption rather than a model output, and it directly sets the age at which the 0.4 Msun threshold is evaluated in Fig. 3. A different grace period would shift the mass boundary; the paper does not derive this timescale from the outgassing and thermal-evolution literature it cites or test its sensitivity. Please show how the ARD-HZ overlap and the threshold mass change for grace periods of, e.g., 500 and 2000 Myr, or provide a quantitative justification for 1000 Myr from the magma-ocean and outgassing models.
  4. [Sect. 2.2] The ARD threshold itself (loss of 1 Earth atmosphere in 10 Myr, approximately 1.6e4 kg/s) is an order-of-magnitude choice. Because the comparison to outgassing rates governs whether a planet can replenish what it loses, the threshold should be presented explicitly as a diagnostic and the paper should show how the ARD curves change if the threshold is varied by, say, a factor of a few. This is especially relevant for the claim that planets inside the ARD are 'unlikely to retain any atmosphere', which depends on the threshold exceeding plausible sustained outgassing.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Sect. 3.2] The phrase 'fall outside the ARD' is ambiguous; since Fig. 4 shows targets orbiting closer than the ARD, I recommend using 'inside the ARD' or 'closer than the ARD' consistently.
  2. [Sect. 2.3] The quantity FEUV,⊕ is introduced with units of erg/cm2, but a flux should carry erg cm^-2 s^-1; please correct the units or define the quantity as a time-integrated fluence.
  3. [Sect. 3.2] The phrase 'keep in might' should read 'keep in mind'.
  4. [Sect. 4] The conclusion refers to fully convective stars as 'M < 0.35 Msun', while the abstract and Sect. 3.2 use 'masses under 0.4 Msun'; please reconcile these numbers and state the adopted boundary criterion.
  5. [Fig. 4 caption] Please state that the ARD curves are for a slowly rotating star at 5000 Myr and that younger or faster-rotating hosts would move the curves outward, as noted for TOI-700 d in the text.
  6. [Sect. 2.2 and Table 1] The modelled irradiance grid is 6-14 FEUV,⊕, but the Venus discussion in Sect. 3.1 cites values up to 24 FEUV,⊕; clarify whether the latter are linear scalings outside the simulated grid or extrapolations, since the text elsewhere says results are not extrapolated beyond the simulated models.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ARD derivation combines an independent thermochemical upper-atmosphere model with empirically grounded stellar evolution tracks and an externally motivated loss threshold.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The atmospheric retention distance is defined from Kompot Jeans escape calculations (Johnstone et al. 2018; Van Looveren et al. 2024), which are physical upper-atmosphere models with stated boundary conditions and independent validation against Solar System cases. The threshold for 'catastrophic loss' is chosen externally as the loss of one Earth atmosphere in 10 Myr, not fitted to the JWST targets that are later compared with the ARD. The stellar EUV luminosities come from Johnstone et al. (2021a), a rotation-evolution model with its own empirical calibration; it does not assume the result that HZ planets around fully convective stars lose their atmospheres. The solar-spectrum scaling in Sect. 2.3 is an acknowledged approximation, and the paper explicitly notes the spectral-shape sensitivity via VL24 Fig. 7, but an approximation or model limitation is not circularity. The comparison with geological isotope data (Marty et al. 2013; Som et al. 2016) is used as validation, not as a fitted input. No equation is shown to be equivalent to its own input, and no prediction reduces to a fit or to a self-citation by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on prior published models (Kompot, Johnstone 2021a), a hand-chosen loss threshold, and several simplifying assumptions (uniform solar-spectrum scaling, dry atmospheres, Jeans-only escape). The only genuinely new free parameter introduced in this paper is the catastrophic-loss rate defining the ARD; all other inputs are imported from the authors' earlier work. No new physical entities are introduced; the ARD is a derived diagnostic boundary.

free parameters (1)
  • Catastrophic mass-loss threshold = 1.6e4 kg/s (1 Earth atmosphere per 10 Myr)
    Defines the ARD as the distance where Jeans escape reaches this rate; chosen as the same order as maximum sustained outgassing rates (Sect. 2.2). Not derived from first principles, and the ARD scales with it.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Jeans escape from a Maxwellian exobase is a lower limit to the total atmospheric mass-loss rate (Sect. 1, 2.2).
    All ARD calculations use only Jeans escape; hydrodynamic and non-thermal losses are assumed to increase loss rates.
  • ad hoc to paper The EUV spectrum of every star can be represented by the solar spectrum scaled uniformly in flux (Sect. 2.3).
    Load-bearing for all stellar hosts; VL24 Fig. 7 shows exobate temperature depends on spectral shape.
  • domain assumption Water is excluded from the atmospheric models because it would increase escape (VL24, Johnstone 2020).
    Conservative for retention, but means quoted compositions are dry.
  • domain assumption Stellar XUV luminosity evolution follows Johnstone et al. (2021a) rotation-dependent tracks (Sect. 2.3).
    The central input linking ARD to stellar age and mass.
  • domain assumption Outgassing rates above about 1e4 kg/s can replenish or sustain an atmosphere; below this, the atmosphere is lost over 10 Myr (Sect. 2.1-2.2).
    This order-of-magnitude balance sets the ARD threshold.
  • ad hoc to paper The first 1000 Myr of a system's life is neglected to allow for magma ocean outgassing and early thick atmospheres (Sect. 3.1).
    Keeps ARDs conservative but arbitrarily discards the most active phase.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Habitable Zone and Atmosphere Retention Distance (HaZARD) Stellar-evolution-dependent loss models of secondary atmospheres." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7KJNIUCX

@misc{pith2026250209702,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Habitable Zone and Atmosphere Retention Distance (HaZARD) Stellar-evolution-dependent loss models of secondary atmospheres},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7KJNIUCX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09702}
}
read the original abstract

A major open question in exoplanet research is whether secondary atmospheres are rare around Earth-sized rocky exoplanets. In this work we determine the distance at which an Earth-sized planet orbiting a variety of stellar hosts could retain a CO2- or N2-dominated atmosphere and compare this atmospheric retention distance (ARD) with that of the liquid-water HZ. We combined planetary atmosphere models with stellar evolution models. The atmospheric models produced by the thermochemical Kompot code allowed us to calculate the Jeans escape rates for different stellar masses, rotation rates, and ages. These loss rates allowed us to determine the closest distance a planet is likely to retain a CO2- or N2-dominated atmosphere. Using stellar rotation evolution models, we modelled how these retention distances evolve as the X-ray and ultraviolet activity of the star evolves. We find that the overlap of the HZ and the ARD occurs earlier around slowly rotating stars. Additionally, we find that HZ planets orbiting stars with masses under 0.4 M_\odot are unlikely to retain any atmosphere, due to the lower spin-down rate of these fully convective stars. We also show that the initial rotation rate of the star can impact the likelihood of a planet retaining an atmosphere, as an initially fast-rotating star maintains high levels of short-wavelength irradiance for much longer. The orbits of all Earth-like rocky exoplanets observed by JWST in cycles 1 and 2, including HZ planets, fall outside the ARD. Our results will have implications for future target selections of small exoplanet observing programmes with JWST or future instruments such as the Ariel space mission.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09702 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. For each type of atmosphere, we determined the extreme [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Abundance-weighted average Jeans escape for various atmo￾spheric compositions, distinguished by colour (extension of the results presented in VL24). 2.3. Stellar spectrum The second important aspect to determine the ARD is the influ￾ence of the star. The modelled atmospheres were all exposed to an empirical model of the solar spectrum based on Claire et al. (2012). To model the thermal profiles we used the spectrum … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Atmosphere retention distance for different atmospheric com￾positions, indicated by different colours, over time for a 1 M⊙ slowly rotating star. Above these lines, atmospheres can be retained. The green shaded area indicates the HZ. The dashed lines indicate Earth’s and Venus’s semi-major axis, denoted by their corresponding symbols. (around 124 Matm,⊕). However, this would be a lower limit as the irradiance at 0.7… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Atmosphere retention distance for different atmospheric compositions, indicated by different colours, for different stellar masses for slowly rotating stars. To the right of these lines, atmospheres can be retained. The green shaded area indicates the HZ. Each panel sh…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Atmosphere retention distances for different stellar masses for slowly rotating stars at an age of 5000 Myr. The green shaded area indi￾cates the HZ. Symbols indicate scheduled JWST targets, with triangles highlighting eclipse observations. For clarity, the system’s na…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Atmosphere retention distances for slow rotators (red), medium rotators (green), and fast rotators (blue) for a 1 M⊕ planet with a 99% CO2 atmosphere. Above these lines, atmospheres can be retained. The green shaded area indicates the HZ. Each panel shows a different s…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. SCoRE: the Surface Composition of Rocky Exoplanets

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In over 150,000 equilibrium crust-atmosphere models, the thermal stability of 23 minerals is tied to atmospheric type, independent of the six tested refractory-element abundance sets.

  2. Stellar impact on exoplanetary atmospheric evolution and habitability

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

    This is a review, not a new result: it consolidates stellar-evolution, atmospheric-escape, photochemistry, and magnetic-shielding literature for exoplanet habitability and biosignature interpretation.

  3. Evolution and Observable Properties of Rocky Planet Atmospheres

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

    Rocky exoplanet atmospheric composition encodes interior, surface, escape, photochemical, and biological history, so coupled-process models are required to interpret mass-radius and spectral data.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    J., Walton, C., Planavsky, N

    Alcott, L. J., Walton, C., Planavsky, N. J., Shorttle, O., & Mills, B. J. W. 2024, Nat. Geosci., 17, 458

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    W., Wordsworth, R

    Arnscheidt, C. W., Wordsworth, R. D., & Ding, F. 2019, ApJ, 881, 60

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    2022, Space Sci Rev, 218, 60

    Avice, G., Parai, R., Jacobson, S., et al. 2022, Space Sci Rev, 218, 60

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Barstow, J. K. & Irwin, P. G. J. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 461, L92

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Bauer, S. J. & Lammer, H. 2004, Planetary Aeronomy (Springer)

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    L., & Noack, L

    Baumeister, P., Tosi, N., Brachmann, C., Grenfell, J. L., & Noack, L. 2023, As- tronomy and Astrophysics, 675, A122

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    C., Glein, C

    Catling, D. C., Glein, C. R., Zahnle, K. J., & McKay, C. P. 2005, Astrobiology, 5, 415

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Catling, D. C. & Kasting, J. F. 2017, Atmospheric Evolution on Inhabited and Lifeless Worlds, 1st edn. (Cambridge University Press)

    work page 2017

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    T., Zhan, Z., & Horton, D

    Chen, H., Wolf, E. T., Zhan, Z., & Horton, D. E. 2019, ApJ, 886, 16

    2019

  2. [10]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 298

    Chen, H., Zhan, Z., Youngblood, A., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 298

    2021

  3. [11]

    W., Sheets, J., Cohen, M., et al

    Claire, M. W., Sheets, J., Cohen, M., et al. 2012, Astrophysical Journal, 757, 95 de Wit, J., Wakeford, H. R., Gillon, M., et al. 2016, Nature, 537, 69

    2012

  4. [12]

    Diamond-Lowe, H., Berta-Thompson, Z., Charbonneau, D., & Kempton, E. M. R. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 42

    2018

  5. [13]

    Dickinson, R. E. 1972, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 29, 1531 do Amaral, L. N. R., Barnes, R., Segura, A., & Luger, R. 2022, ApJ, 928, 12

    1972

  6. [14]

    M., Hoffman, J

    Donahue, T. M., Hoffman, J. H., Hodges, R. R., & Watson, A. J. 1982, Science, 216, 630

    1982

  7. [15]

    2024, Nature Astronomy

    Ducrot, E., Lagage, P.-O., Min, M., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy

    2024

  8. [16]

    N., Schlieder, J

    Ealy, J. N., Schlieder, J. E., Komacek, T. D., & Gilbert, E. A. 2024, The Astro- nomical Journal, 168, 173

    2024

  9. [17]

    2021, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 44

    Edwards, B., Changeat, Q., Mori, M., et al. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 44

    2021

  10. [18]

    & Tinetti, G

    Edwards, B. & Tinetti, G. 2022, AJ, 164, 15

    2022

  11. [19]

    Elkins-Tanton, L. T. 2008, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 271, 181

    2008

  12. [20]

    T., Drob, D

    Emmert, J. T., Drob, D. P., Picone, J. M., et al. 2021, Earth and Space Science, 8, e2020EA001321

    2021

  13. [21]

    V ., Lammer, H., Odert, P., et al

    Erkaev, N. V ., Lammer, H., Odert, P., et al. 2013, Astrobiology, 13, 1011

    2013

  14. [22]

    2012, Reviews of Geophysics, 50, RG2006

    Feulner, G. 2012, Reviews of Geophysics, 50, RG2006

    2012

  15. [23]

    M., Linsky, J

    Fontenla, J. M., Linsky, J. L., Garrison, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 154

    2016

  16. [24]

    Fox, J. L. & Bougher, S. W. 1991, Space Science Reviews, V olume 55, Issue 1-4, pp. 357-489, 55, 357

    1991

  17. [25]

    B., & Sedaghatpour, F

    Fu, H., Jacobsen, S. B., & Sedaghatpour, F. 2023, Commun Earth Environ, 4, 1

    2023

  18. [26]

    P., Mather, J

    Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Abbott, R., et al. 2023, Publications of the Astro- nomical Society of the Pacific, 135, 068001

    2023

  19. [27]

    P., Mather, J

    Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Clampin, M., et al. 2006, Space Science Reviews, 123, 485

    2006

  20. [28]

    L., Lammer, H., et al

    Gebauer, S., Grenfell, J. L., Lammer, H., et al. 2020, Astrobiology, 20, 1413 Article number, page 9 of 10 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aa52998-24

    2020

  21. [29]

    H., Demory, B

    Gillon, M., Triaud, A. H., Demory, B. O., et al. 2017, Nature 2017 542:7642, 542, 456

    2017

  22. [30]

    2023, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 623, 118442

    Grasser, N., Kislyakova, K., Scherf, M., Lammer, H., & Van Looveren, G. 2023, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 623, 118442

    2023

  23. [31]

    P., Bell, T

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

    2023

  24. [32]

    M., Noack, L., Ortenzi, G., & Sohl, F

    Guimond, C. M., Noack, L., Ortenzi, G., & Sohl, F. 2021, Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 320, 106788

    2021

  25. [33]

    Hart, M. H. 1979, Icarus, 37, 351

    1979

  26. [34]

    M., & Manning, C

    Hopkins, M., Harrison, T. M., & Manning, C. E. 2008, Nature, 456, 493

    2008

  27. [35]

    Johnstone, C. P. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 890, 79

    2020

  28. [36]

    Johnstone, C. P. & Güdel, M. 2015, A&A, 578, A129

    2015

  29. [37]

    P., Güdel, M., Lammer, H., & Kislyakova, K

    Johnstone, C. P., Güdel, M., Lammer, H., & Kislyakova, K. G. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 617, A107

    2018

  30. [38]

    F., Whitmire, D

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

    1993

  31. [39]

    G., Johnstone, C

    Kislyakova, K. G., Johnstone, C. P., Scherf, M., et al. 2020, JGRA, 125, e27837

    2020

  32. [40]

    G., Noack, L., Johnstone, C

    Kislyakova, K. G., Noack, L., Johnstone, C. P., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 878

    2017

  33. [41]

    Koll, D. D. B., Malik, M., Mansfield, M., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 886, 140

    2019

  34. [42]

    M., Schottelkotte, J., et al

    Kopparapu, R., Ramirez, R. M., Schottelkotte, J., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 787, 29

    2014

  35. [43]

    K., Ramirez, R., Kasting, J

    Kopparapu, R. K., Ramirez, R., Kasting, J. F., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 765, 131

    2013

  36. [44]

    Kreidberg, L., Koll, D. D. B., Morley, C., et al. 2019, Nature, 573, 87

    2019

  37. [45]

    A., Ivanov, M

    Kreslavsky, M. A., Ivanov, M. A., & Head, J. W. 2015, Icarus, 250, 438

    2015

  38. [46]

    Krissansen-Totton, J., Garland, R., Irwin, P., & Catling, D. C. 2018, The Astro- nomical Journal, 156, 114

    2018

  39. [47]

    V ., et al

    Kubyshkina, D., Fossati, L., Erkaev, N. V ., et al. 2018, Astronomy and Astro- physics, 619, A151 kumar Kopparapu, R., Wolf, E. T., Haqq-Misra, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 84

    2018

  40. [48]

    2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 598, 121

    Lammer, H., Selsis, F., Ribas, I., et al. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 598, 121

    2003

  41. [49]

    L., et al

    Lammer, H., Sproß, L., Grenfell, J. L., et al. 2019, Astrobiology, 19, 927

    2019

  42. [50]

    L., Gebauer, S., et al

    Lammer, H., Zerkle, A. L., Gebauer, S., et al. 2018, The Astronomy and Astro- physics Review 2018 26:1, 26, 1

    2018

  43. [51]

    K., Nakajima, M., & Fischer, R

    Lichtenberg, T., Schaefer, L. K., Nakajima, M., & Fischer, R. A. 2023, Protostars and Planets VII, 534, 907

    2023

  44. [52]

    S., Lebonnois, S., Mahieux, A., et al

    Limaye, S. S., Lebonnois, S., Mahieux, A., et al. 2017, Icarus, 294, 124

    2017

  45. [53]

    2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0129

    Luger, R., Sestovic, M., Kruse, E., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0129

    2017

  46. [54]

    S., & Lincowski, A

    Lustig-Yaeger, J., Meadows, V . S., & Lincowski, A. P. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 158, 27

    2019

  47. [55]

    2013, Sci- ence, 342, 101

    Marty, B., Zimmermann, L., Pujol, M., Burgess, R., & Philippot, P. 2013, Sci- ence, 342, 101

    2013

  48. [56]

    V ., Kreidberg, L., Rustamkulov, Z., Robinson, T., & Fortney, J

    Morley, C. V ., Kreidberg, L., Rustamkulov, Z., Robinson, T., & Fortney, J. J. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 850, 121

    2017

  49. [57]

    V ., Modirrousta-Galian, D., Edwards, B., et al

    Mugnai, L. V ., Modirrousta-Galian, D., Edwards, B., et al. 2021, The Astronom- ical Journal, 161, 284

    2021

  50. [58]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 937, 72

    Nakayama, A., Ikoma, M., & Terada, N. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 937, 72

    2022

  51. [59]

    S., et al

    Namekata, K., Toriumi, S., Airapetian, V . S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 147

    2023

  52. [60]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 5681

    Nicholls, H., Hébrard, E., Venot, O., Drummond, B., & Evans, E. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 5681

    2023

  53. [61]

    2023, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 128, e2023JA031405 O’Rourke, J

    Nishioka, T., Seki, K., Sakata, R., et al. 2023, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 128, e2023JA031405 O’Rourke, J. G. & Korenaga, J. 2015, Icarus, 260, 128

    2023

  54. [62]

    Owen, J. E. & Jackson, A. P. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 425, 2931

    2012

  55. [63]

    Owen, J. E. & Wu, Y . 2016, ApJ, 817, 107

    2016

  56. [64]

    Prinn, R. G. & Fegley, B. 1987, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 15, 171

    1987

  57. [65]

    Ramirez, R. M. & Kaltenegger, L. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 797, L25

    2014

  58. [66]

    Roble, R. G. 1995, Reviews of Geophysics, 33, 539

    1995

  59. [67]

    Rogers, L. A. 2015, ApJ, 801, 41

    2015

  60. [68]

    M., Meadows, V ., Kasting, J., & Hawley, S

    Segura, A., Walkowicz, L. M., Meadows, V ., Kasting, J., & Hawley, S. 2010, Astrobiology, 10, 751

    2010

  61. [69]

    M., Buick, R., Hagadorn, J

    Som, S. M., Buick, R., Hagadorn, J. W., et al. 2016, Nature Geosci, 9, 448 Stüeken, E. E., Kipp, M. A., Koehler, M. C., et al. 2016, Astrobiology, 16, 949

    2016

  62. [70]

    T., kumar Kopparapu, R., et al

    Suissa, G., Wolf, E. T., kumar Kopparapu, R., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 118

    2020

  63. [71]

    F., Liu, H

    Tian, F., Kasting, J. F., Liu, H. L., & Roble, R. G. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 113, 5008

    2008

  64. [72]

    Trenberth, K. E. & Smith, L. 2005, Journal of Climate, 18, 864

    2005

  65. [73]

    P., Güdel, M., & Lammer, H

    Tu, L., Johnstone, C. P., Güdel, M., & Lammer, H. 2015, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 577, L3 Van Looveren, G., Güdel, M., Boro Saikia, S., & Kislyakova, K. 2024, Astron- omy and Astrophysics, 683, A153

    2015

  66. [74]

    Wolf, E. T. & Toon, O. B. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 120, 5775

    2015

  67. [75]

    & Kreidberg, L

    Wordsworth, R. & Kreidberg, L. 2022, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astro- physics, V olume 60, pp. 159-201, 60, 159

    2022

  68. [76]

    & Jacobsen, S

    Yu, G. & Jacobsen, S. B. 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences, 108, 17604

    2011

  69. [77]

    2023, Nature Article number, page 10 of 10

    Zieba, S., Kreidberg, L., Ducrot, E., et al. 2023, Nature Article number, page 10 of 10

    2023

Pith tools

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