pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.10757 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-11 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

Recognition: no theorem link

Revisiting the greenhouse effect of non-greenhouse gases in the atmospheres of Earth-like planets

Hiroyuki Kurokawa, Kosuke Aoki, Tetsuo Taki, Yuka Fujii

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 04:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords N2water vaporCO2greenhouse effectRayleigh scatteringexoplanet atmospheresplanetary climatehabitability
0
0 comments X

The pith

Increasing background N2 pressure affects climate on Earth-like planets mainly by changing atmospheric water vapor amounts, with the net warming or cooling depending on CO2 levels.

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

The paper investigates how non-greenhouse gases like nitrogen regulate climate on planets similar to Earth by varying N2 abundance in one-dimensional model atmospheres. It shows that N2 changes work chiefly through their impact on water vapor, which then creates warming by altering the rate at which temperature drops with height and by shifting how much water vapor contributes to trapping heat. The overall temperature response to more N2 depends on the existing CO2 amount: low CO2 leads to warming from water vapor dilution, while high CO2 leads to warming from greater water vapor loading that also absorbs more sunlight. At very high N2 levels, sunlight scattering by the gas causes cooling that is strengthened by less water vapor, but this cooling effect disappears under high CO2 because extra water vapor absorption dominates.

Core claim

In one-dimensional N2-CO2-H2O model atmospheres, changes in background N2 pressure influence climate by modifying the amount of atmospheric H2O, producing two effects: altering the thermodynamic lapse rate (H2O-dilute warming) and changing the radiative contribution of H2O to the greenhouse effect (H2O-load warming). The resulting climate response to increasing N2 depends on the CO2 abundance. Under low CO2 conditions, dilution of atmospheric H2O leads to warming, whereas under high CO2 conditions, increased H2O loading also produces warming. At sufficiently high N2 abundances, Rayleigh scattering induces cooling, an effect further amplified by the accompanying decrease in atmospheric H2O. 3

What carries the argument

The H2O-dilute warming mechanism (change in thermodynamic lapse rate from water vapor dilution) and H2O-load warming mechanism (change in H2O radiative contribution), together with Rayleigh scattering of stellar radiation.

If this is right

  • Under low CO2 conditions, increasing N2 warms the planet through dilution of H2O that changes the lapse rate.
  • Under high CO2 conditions, increasing N2 warms the planet through greater H2O loading that enhances the greenhouse effect and stellar absorption.
  • At high enough N2 levels, Rayleigh scattering cools the surface, with the cooling strengthened by reduced H2O unless high CO2 boosts H2O absorption enough to cancel it.
  • These multiple pathways through non-greenhouse gases provide a framework for understanding climate responses across varied Earth-like atmospheric compositions.
  • Assessments of planetary habitability must incorporate how N2 influences H2O and the resulting temperature outcomes that depend on CO2.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The identified dependence on CO2 could help interpret why some planets with thick inert gas envelopes remain habitable while others do not.
  • Similar dilution and loading effects might apply when varying other non-greenhouse gases such as argon in model atmospheres.
  • Incorporating these N2-H2O interactions into studies of early Earth or Mars atmospheres could refine estimates of past climate stability.
  • Future observations of exoplanet spectra could test the predictions by checking for correlations between inferred N2 pressure and surface temperature indicators.

Load-bearing premise

One-dimensional radiative-convective models of N2-CO2-H2O atmospheres capture the dominant physical pathways for how N2 affects climate without needing three-dimensional dynamics or clouds.

What would settle it

Three-dimensional climate simulations or direct observations of a planet with known N2 and CO2 abundances that show surface temperatures independent of N2 pressure or that lack the predicted switch from warming to cooling as CO2 increases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.10757 by Hiroyuki Kurokawa, Kosuke Aoki, Tetsuo Taki, Yuka Fujii.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Color contour of the surface temperature as a function of pCO2 and pN2 for (a) the fiducial case and (b) the dry-atmosphere case. Dotted lines indicate isotherms, with T = 250, 300, 350, 400, 450, and 500 K in panel (a) and T = 240, 260, 280, 300, 320, and 340 K in panel (b). The diagonal dashed line indicates pCO2 = pN2 . The gray-shaded region in the upper right of panel (a) denotes the part of parameter… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Vertical profiles of various atmospheric quantities in the fiducial case. Line colors represent pN2 . From left to right, the panels correspond to pCO2 = 10−3 , 10−1 , and 10 bar, respectively. The blue triangular symbol in panels (a)–(i) denotes the boundary between regions governed by the latent-heat-dominated and the specific-heat-dominated lapse rate (X = Xref). (a)–(c): Temperature profiles. Thick lin… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: A similar set of plots to those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic summary of the surface temperature response to increasing pN2 on the pCO2 –pN2 plane, comparing Goldblatt et al. (2009, G+09), Wordsworth & Pierrehumbert (2013, WP13), and this work. For Goldblatt et al. (2009), the pink shaded region denotes the parameter range they ex￾plored, within which all cases show warming as pN2 increases. For Wordsworth & Pierrehumbert (2013), circles mark the parameter … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: TOA net energy flux normalized by the incoming solar flux. (a) fiducial case, (b) dry-atmosphere case. REFERENCES Abraham, C., & Goldblatt, C. 2022, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 79, 2243, doi: 10.1175/JAS-D-21-0270.1 Adams, D., Scheucher, M., Hu, R., et al. 2025, Nature Geoscience, 1 Arney, G., Domagal-Goldman, S. D., Meadows, V. S., et al. 2016, Astrobiology, 16, 873, doi: 10.1089/ast.2015.1422 Be… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Although non-greenhouse gases can vary substantially in abundance in Earth-like atmospheres, their climatic influences remain insufficiently understood. To investigate how such gases regulate climate, we vary the abundance of N$_2$ as a representative non-greenhouse component in one-dimensional N$_2$--CO$_2$--H$_2$O model atmospheres. Beyond pressure broadening of absorption lines and Rayleigh scattering emphasized in previous studies, our results show that changes in background N$_2$ pressure influence climate by modifying the amount of atmospheric H$_2$O, producing two effects: altering the thermodynamic lapse rate (H$_2$O-dilute warming) and changing the radiative contribution of H$_2$O to the greenhouse effect (H$_2$O-load warming). The resulting climate response to increasing N$_2$ depends on the CO$_2$ abundance. Under low CO$_2$ conditions, dilution of atmospheric H$_2$O leads to warming, whereas under high CO$_2$ conditions, increased H$_2$O loading also produces warming. At sufficiently high N$_2$ abundances, Rayleigh scattering induces cooling, an effect further amplified by the accompanying decrease in atmospheric H$_2$O. Under high CO$_2$ conditions, however, enhanced H$_2$O loading increases the absorption of stellar radiation and overwhelms the contribution of Rayleigh scattering, causing the cooling response to disappear. These results reveal multiple physical pathways through which non-greenhouse gases influence climate and provide a framework for understanding climate responses and habitability in diverse Earth-like atmospheres.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses one-dimensional radiative-convective N2-CO2-H2O model atmospheres to examine how varying background N2 pressure affects climate on Earth-like planets. Beyond pressure broadening and Rayleigh scattering, the central claim is that N2 changes modify atmospheric H2O abundance, producing an H2O-dilute warming effect (via thermodynamic lapse-rate alteration) and an H2O-load warming effect (via H2O's radiative contribution); the net response to increasing N2 is warming under low-CO2 conditions but can be modulated or reversed under high-CO2 conditions, with Rayleigh scattering cooling appearing only at sufficiently high N2.

Significance. If the modeled pathways hold, the work identifies additional physical mechanisms by which non-greenhouse gases regulate climate and habitability, extending beyond the pressure-broadening and scattering effects emphasized in prior literature and offering a conceptual framework for diverse atmospheric compositions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Model description] The central claim requires the 1D model to isolate H2O-dilute and H2O-load effects without confounding from surface-temperature feedbacks or mean-molecular-weight changes. The manuscript does not report sensitivity tests to the moist-adiabat formulation, fixed-RH assumption, or cp when N2 dominates (see model description and methods sections).
  2. [Results] The decomposition into H2O-dilute warming and H2O-load warming is load-bearing for the CO2-dependent response claim, yet the paper provides no controlled experiments (e.g., fixed-H2O-column runs or explicit lapse-rate versus radiative forcing breakdowns) to quantify their separate contributions (see results section and associated figures).
  3. [Discussion] The weakest assumption is that the 1D N2-CO2-H2O setup captures dominant pathways without 3D dynamics or clouds. Given that H2O column changes drive the reported effects, the manuscript should demonstrate that omitting these processes does not reverse the sign of the N2 response under the CO2 regimes examined (see discussion of limitations).
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract states qualitative outcomes but supplies no quantitative metrics (e.g., surface-temperature changes, H2O column deltas, or CO2 thresholds) or error estimates; adding these would improve verifiability.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and legends should explicitly list the CO2 mixing ratios, N2 pressure ranges, and fixed parameters (e.g., surface gravity, stellar spectrum) for each panel to allow direct connection to the text.
  3. [Methods] Notation for the two warming mechanisms (H2O-dilute and H2O-load) is introduced in the abstract but should be defined with a short equation or schematic in the methods to avoid ambiguity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their insightful comments on our manuscript. We have revised the paper to include additional sensitivity tests and controlled experiments as suggested, strengthening our analysis of the H2O-dilute and H2O-load effects. We address the limitations of the 1D model in the discussion.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Model description] The central claim requires the 1D model to isolate H2O-dilute and H2O-load effects without confounding from surface-temperature feedbacks or mean-molecular-weight changes. The manuscript does not report sensitivity tests to the moist-adiabat formulation, fixed-RH assumption, or cp when N2 dominates (see model description and methods sections).

    Authors: We agree that reporting sensitivity tests is necessary to robustly isolate the effects. In the revised manuscript, we have added sensitivity tests to the moist-adiabat formulation by comparing different lapse rate calculations, to the fixed-RH assumption by varying the relative humidity profile, and to cp by adjusting for N2 dominance. These tests confirm that the H2O-dilute warming and H2O-load warming mechanisms are not confounded by these factors, and the CO2-dependent response holds. We have also clarified how surface temperature feedbacks are handled in the model iteration. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] The decomposition into H2O-dilute warming and H2O-load warming is load-bearing for the CO2-dependent response claim, yet the paper provides no controlled experiments (e.g., fixed-H2O-column runs or explicit lapse-rate versus radiative forcing breakdowns) to quantify their separate contributions (see results section and associated figures).

    Authors: We acknowledge this point and have added controlled experiments in the revised results section. Specifically, we include fixed-H2O-column runs to isolate the dilute effect from the load effect, and explicit breakdowns separating the lapse-rate changes from the radiative forcing changes due to H2O. These additions quantify the contributions and support the claim that the net response depends on CO2 abundance, with dilution dominating at low CO2 and loading at high CO2. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Discussion] The weakest assumption is that the 1D N2-CO2-H2O setup captures dominant pathways without 3D dynamics or clouds. Given that H2O column changes drive the reported effects, the manuscript should demonstrate that omitting these processes does not reverse the sign of the N2 response under the CO2 regimes examined (see discussion of limitations).

    Authors: We agree that 1D models have limitations regarding 3D dynamics and clouds. We have expanded the discussion of limitations to include more detailed arguments based on prior 3D studies of Earth-like atmospheres, suggesting that the sign of the N2 response is unlikely to reverse. However, a complete demonstration would require 3D simulations with clouds, which is not within the scope of this study. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Demonstrating that the omission of 3D dynamics and clouds does not reverse the sign of the N2 response under the examined CO2 regimes, as this requires dedicated 3D modeling efforts beyond the current 1D radiative-convective framework.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: model outputs on N2-driven H2O changes are independent of inputs

full rationale

The paper's derivation relies on numerical integration of a 1D radiative-convective N2-CO2-H2O atmosphere model to compute equilibrium temperature profiles, H2O columns, and decomposed lapse-rate versus radiative effects. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are shown that reduce any claimed prediction (e.g., sign of climate response to N2) to a definition or input by construction. The H2O-dilute and H2O-load mechanisms emerge from the model's moist adiabat and radiative transfer calculations rather than being presupposed; external benchmarks such as line-by-line radiative codes and observed Earth profiles remain available for falsification. Self-citations, if present, are not load-bearing for the central result.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract; full model equations, parameter choices, and validation steps are unavailable. Standard assumptions of 1D radiative-convective equilibrium and fixed relative humidity profiles are implied but not detailed.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption One-dimensional radiative-convective equilibrium governs the temperature structure
    Implicit in the use of 1D N2-CO2-H2O model atmospheres described in the abstract

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5591 in / 1333 out tokens · 40638 ms · 2026-05-12T04:15:22.778358+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2022, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 79, 2243, doi: 10.1175/JAS-D-21-0270.1

    Abraham, C., & Goldblatt, C. 2022, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 79, 2243, doi: 10.1175/JAS-D-21-0270.1

    work page doi:10.1175/jas-d-21-0270.1 2022

  2. [2]

    2025, Nature Geoscience, 1

    Adams, D., Scheucher, M., Hu, R., et al. 2025, Nature Geoscience, 1

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    D., Meadows, V

    Arney, G., Domagal-Goldman, S. D., Meadows, V. S., et al. 2016, Astrobiology, 16, 873, doi: 10.1089/ast.2015.1422

    work page doi:10.1089/ast.2015.1422 2016

  4. [4]

    A., Lasaga, A

    Berner, R. A., Lasaga, A. C., & Garrels, R. M. 1983, American Journal of Science, 283, 641, doi: 10.2475/ajs.283.7.641

    work page doi:10.2475/ajs.283.7.641 1983

  5. [5]

    C., & Kasting, J

    Catling, D. C., & Kasting, J. F. 2017, Atmospheric Evolution on Inhabited and Lifeless Worlds

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    2022, A&A, 658, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142286

    Chaverot, G., Turbet, M., Bolmont, E., & Leconte, J. 2022, A&A, 658, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142286

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142286 2022

  7. [7]

    L., Anderson, F

    Ehlmann, B. L., Anderson, F. S., Andrews-Hanna, J., et al. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 121, 1927, doi: 10.1002/2016JE005134

    work page doi:10.1002/2016je005134 2016

  8. [8]

    2009, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 286, 503, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2009.07.016

    Gillmann, C., Chassefi` ere, E., & Lognonn´ e, P. 2009, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 286, 503, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2009.07.016

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2009.07.016 2009

  9. [9]

    J., Raymond, S

    Gillmann, C., Golabek, G. J., Raymond, S. N., et al. 2020, Nature Geoscience, 13, 265, doi: 10.1038/s41561-020-0561-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41561-020-0561-x 2020

  10. [10]

    L., Kitzmann, D., et al

    Godolt, M., Grenfell, J. L., Kitzmann, D., et al. 2016, A&A, 592, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628413

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628413 2016

  11. [11]

    W., Lenton, T

    Goldblatt, C., Claire, M. W., Lenton, T. M., et al. 2009, Nature Geoscience, 2, 891, doi: 10.1038/ngeo692

    work page doi:10.1038/ngeo692 2009

  12. [12]

    D., Zahnle, K

    Goldblatt, C., Robinson, T. D., Zahnle, K. J., & Crisp, D. 2013, Nature Geoscience, 6, 661, doi: 10.1038/ngeo1892

    work page doi:10.1038/ngeo1892 2013

  13. [13]

    2013, Nature, 497, 607, doi: 10.1038/nature12163

    Hamano, K., Abe, Y., & Genda, H. 2013, Nature, 497, 607, doi: 10.1038/nature12163

    work page doi:10.1038/nature12163 2013

  14. [14]

    E., Schwieterman, E

    Harman, C. E., Schwieterman, E. W., Schottelkotte, J. C., & Kasting, J. F. 2015, ApJ, 812, 137, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/137

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/812/2/137 2015

  15. [15]

    Hirschmann, M. M. 2016, American Mineralogist, 101, 540

    work page 2016

  16. [16]

    Hu, R., Peterson, L., & Wolf, E. T. 2020, ApJ, 888, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5f07

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5f07 2020

  17. [17]

    Hu, R., & Thomas, T. B. 2022, Nature Geoscience, 15, 106, doi: 10.1038/s41561-021-00886-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41561-021-00886-y 2022

  18. [18]

    M., Pepin, R

    Jakosky, B. M., Pepin, R. O., Johnson, R. E., & Fox, J. L. 1994, Icarus, 111, 271, doi: 10.1006/icar.1994.1145

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1994.1145 1994

  19. [19]

    2015, Earth Science Reviews, 148, 150, doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2015.05.006

    Johnson, B., & Goldblatt, C. 2015, Earth Science Reviews, 148, 150, doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2015.05.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2015.05.006 2015

  20. [20]

    Kasting, J. F. 1988, Icarus, 74, 472, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(88)90116-9

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(88)90116-9 1988

  21. [21]

    F., & Ackerman, T

    Kasting, J. F., & Ackerman, T. P. 1986, Science, 234, 1383, doi: 10.1126/science.11539665

    work page doi:10.1126/science.11539665 1986

  22. [22]

    P., Mather, J

    Kato, S., Ackerman, T. P., Mather, J. H., & Clothiaux, E. E. 1999, JQSRT, 62, 109, doi: 10.1016/S0022-4073(98)00075-2

    work page doi:10.1016/s0022-4073(98)00075-2 1999

  23. [23]

    2015, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 413, 51, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2014.12.032

    Kavanagh, L., & Goldblatt, C. 2015, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 413, 51, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2014.12.032

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2014.12.032 2015

  24. [24]

    L., Godolt, M., Stracke, B., & Rauer, H

    Keles, E., Grenfell, J. L., Godolt, M., Stracke, B., & Rauer, H. 2018, Astrobiology, 18, 116, doi: 10.1089/ast.2016.1632

    work page doi:10.1089/ast.2016.1632 2018

  25. [25]

    S., Steele, L

    Kite, E. S., Steele, L. J., Mischna, M. A., & Richardson, M. I. 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 118, e2101959118, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2101959118

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2101959118 2021

  26. [26]

    Koll, D. D. B., & Cronin, T. W. 2019, ApJ, 881, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab30c4 15

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab30c4 2019

  27. [27]

    K., Ramirez, R., Kasting, J

    Kopparapu, R. K., Ramirez, R., Kasting, J. F., et al. 2013, ApJ, 765, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/131

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/2/131 2013

  28. [28]

    2018, Icarus, 299, 443, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.08.020

    Kurokawa, H., Kurosawa, K., & Usui, T. 2018, Icarus, 299, 443, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.08.020

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2017.08.020 2018

  29. [29]

    Kurokawa, H., Laneuville, M., Li, Y., et al. 2022,

    work page 2022

  30. [30]

    Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 23, e2021GC010295, doi: 10.1029/2021GC010295

    work page doi:10.1029/2021gc010295

  31. [31]

    2014, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 394, 179, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2014.03.027

    Kurokawa, H., Sato, M., Ushioda, M., et al. 2014, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 394, 179, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2014.03.027

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2014.03.027 2014

  32. [32]

    L., et al

    Lammer, H., Sproß, L., Grenfell, J. L., et al. 2019, Astrobiology, 19, 927, doi: 10.1089/ast.2018.1914

    work page doi:10.1089/ast.2018.1914 2019

  33. [33]

    2025, PSJ, 6, 212, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/adf7a1

    Landry, J., Kurokawa, H., Taki, T., et al. 2025, PSJ, 6, 212, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/adf7a1

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/adf7a1 2025

  34. [34]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1089/ast.2014.1231 2015

  35. [35]

    Manabe, S., & Wetherald, R. T. 1967, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 24, 241, doi: 10.1175/1520-0469(1967)024⟨0241: TEOTAW⟩2.0.CO;2

    work page doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1967)024 1967

  36. [36]

    2012, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 313, 56, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2011.10.040

    Marty, B. 2012, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 313, 56, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2011.10.040

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2011.10.040 2012

  37. [37]

    2013, Science, 342, 101, doi: 10.1126/science.1240971

    Philippot, P. 2013, Science, 342, 101, doi: 10.1126/science.1240971

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1240971 2013

  38. [38]

    J., & Ramaswamy, V

    Paynter, D. J., & Ramaswamy, V. 2011, Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres), 116, D20302, doi: 10.1029/2010JD015505

    work page doi:10.1029/2010jd015505 2011

  39. [39]

    Ramirez, R. M. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 259, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa603

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa603 2020

  40. [40]

    M., & Craddock, R

    Ramirez, R. M., & Craddock, R. A. 2018, Nature Geoscience, 11, 230, doi: 10.1038/s41561-018-0093-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41561-018-0093-9 2018

  41. [41]

    M., Kopparapu, R

    Ramirez, R. M., Kopparapu, R. K., Lindner, V., & Kasting, J. F. 2014, Astrobiology, 14, 714, doi: 10.1089/ast.2014.1153

    work page doi:10.1089/ast.2014.1153 2014

  42. [42]

    2021, Scientific Reports, 11, 20894, doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-99240-w

    Sakuraba, H., Kurokawa, H., Genda, H., & Ohta, K. 2021, Scientific Reports, 11, 20894, doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-99240-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-021-99240-w 2021

  43. [43]

    T., & Wordsworth, R

    Seeley, J. T., & Wordsworth, R. D. 2023, PSJ, 4, 34, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/acb0cb

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/acb0cb 2023

  44. [44]

    A., Galanina, T

    Serov, E. A., Galanina, T. A., Koroleva, A. O., et al. 2024, JQSRT, 328, 109172, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2024.109172

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2024.109172 2024

  45. [45]

    Catling, D. C. 2017, Icarus, 290, 46, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.02.022

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2017.02.022 2017

  46. [46]

    M., Buick, R., Hagadorn, J

    Som, S. M., Buick, R., Hagadorn, J. W., et al. 2016, Nature Geoscience, 9, 448, doi: 10.1038/ngeo2713

    work page doi:10.1038/ngeo2713 2016

  47. [47]

    M., Catling, D

    Som, S. M., Catling, D. C., Harnmeijer, J. P., Polivka, P. M., & Buick, R. 2012, Nature, 484, 359, doi: 10.1038/nature10890

    work page doi:10.1038/nature10890 2012

  48. [48]

    B., Hu, R., & Lo, D

    Thomas, T. B., Hu, R., & Lo, D. Y. 2023, PSJ, 4, 41, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/acb924

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/acb924 2023

  49. [49]

    Vieytes, M. C. 2014, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 385, 22, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2013.10.024

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2013.10.024 2014

  50. [50]

    Santhanam, K. 1989, J. Geophys. Res., 94, 16287, doi: 10.1029/JD094iD13p16287

    work page doi:10.1029/jd094id13p16287 1989

  51. [51]

    2021, Nature, 598, 276, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03873-w

    Turbet, M., Bolmont, E., Chaverot, G., et al. 2021, Nature, 598, 276, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03873-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03873-w 2021

  52. [52]

    A., Johnson, M

    Ueno, Y., Schmidt, J. A., Johnson, M. S., et al. 2024, Nature Geoscience, 17, 503, doi: 10.1038/s41561-024-01443-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41561-024-01443-z 2024

  53. [53]

    2013, ApJ, 767, 65, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/65 von Paris, P., Grenfell, J

    Vladilo, G., Murante, G., Silva, L., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 65, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/65 von Paris, P., Grenfell, J. L., Rauer, H., & Stock, J. W. 2013, Planet. Space Sci., 82, 149, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2013.04.009

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/1/65 2013

  54. [54]

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

    work page doi:10.1029/jc086ic10p09776 1981

  55. [55]

    The Astrophysical Journal , abstract =

    Watanabe, Y., & Ozaki, K. 2024, ApJ, 961, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad10a2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad10a2 2024

  56. [56]

    J., & Del Genio, A

    Way, M. J., & Del Genio, A. D. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 125, e06276, doi: 10.1029/2019JE00627610.1002/essoar.10501118.3

    work page doi:10.1029/2019je00627610.1002/essoar.10501118.3 2020

  57. [57]

    J., Del Genio, A

    Way, M. J., Del Genio, A. D., Kiang, N. Y., et al. 2016, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 8376, doi: 10.1002/2016GL069790

    work page doi:10.1002/2016gl069790 2016

  58. [58]

    2014, ApJL, 785, L20, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/785/2/L20

    Wordsworth, R., & Pierrehumbert, R. 2014, ApJL, 785, L20, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/785/2/L20

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/785/2/l20 2014

  59. [59]

    D., & Pierrehumbert, R

    Wordsworth, R. D., & Pierrehumbert, R. T. 2013, ApJ, 778, 154, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/154

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/778/2/154 2013

  60. [60]

    T., et al

    Yang, J., Leconte, J., Wolf, E. T., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 222, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/222

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/826/2/222 2016

  61. [61]

    M., Catling, D

    Zahnle, K., Haberle, R. M., Catling, D. C., & Kasting, J. F. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 113, E11004, doi: 10.1029/2008JE003160

    work page doi:10.1029/2008je003160 2008