pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.18219 · v1 · pith:Y5BPBYZWnew · submitted 2026-06-16 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

Ice Giants Revisited: Uranus and Neptune as Magma Ocean Worlds

Edward D. Young , Sarah P. Marcum , Aaron Werlen , Paula N. Wulff This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 22:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords UranusNeptunemagma oceansplanetary interiorsice giantssupercritical fluidsatmospheric compositionsub-Neptunes
0
0 comments X

The pith

Uranus and Neptune's properties match supercritical hydrogen-rich magma ocean interiors under H2 envelopes using three parameters per planet.

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

The paper shows that the radii, bulk densities, gravitational harmonics, moments of inertia, luminosities, and atmospheric compositions of Uranus and Neptune align with models of supercritical hydrogen-rich magma oceans topped by H2-rich envelopes. This structure uses only three fit parameters for each planet and replaces the conventional ice-giant picture. It supplies a single framework for the planets' structures, heat budgets, and chemistry. The approach also frames Uranus and Neptune as nearby analogs for understanding sub-Neptune exoplanets.

Core claim

Uranus and Neptune's observed radii, bulk densities, gravitational harmonics, normalized moments of inertia, intrinsic luminosities, and key features of their atmospheric compositions are consistent with interiors comprising supercritical, hydrogen-rich magma oceans overlain by H2-rich envelopes, based on three fit parameters for each planet.

What carries the argument

Three-parameter-per-planet models that construct supercritical hydrogen-rich magma ocean interiors overlain by H2-rich envelopes.

If this is right

  • The Solar System ice giants are better understood as magma-ocean giants whose origins parallel those of sub-Neptune gas-dwarf planets.
  • A continuum among gas-dwarf planets lets Neptune and Uranus serve as accessible test cases for interior structure models and material properties applied to sub-Neptunes.
  • Atmospheric chemistries of both planets arise naturally from the magma-ocean plus envelope configuration.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same three-parameter construction could be tested on observed sub-Neptunes to predict which ones host extended magma oceans.
  • High-precision measurements of additional atmospheric species or deeper gravitational harmonics could distinguish the magma-ocean model from traditional ice-rich interiors.
  • Thermal evolution calculations that assume magma oceans would predict different cooling rates and present-day heat flows than ice-dominated models.

Load-bearing premise

A model employing only three free parameters per planet can capture the relevant physics of supercritical magma oceans, envelopes, and atmospheric chemistry without major omissions.

What would settle it

A precise measurement or calculation showing that no choice of the three parameters simultaneously reproduces the radius, bulk density, J2 and J4 harmonics, moment of inertia, luminosity, and observed atmospheric abundances within their uncertainties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.18219 by Aaron Werlen, Edward D. Young, Paula N. Wulff, Sarah P. Marcum.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic showing the layered structure of Neptune and Uranus as proposed here (not to scale). The mass and (spherical) moment of inertia are M = Z R1 bar 0 4πr2 ρ(r) dr, (2) I = Z R1 bar 0 8π 3 ρ(r) r 4 dr, (3) with the normalized moment of inertia C/MR2 1 bar = I/(MR2 1 bar). The gravitational moments and rotational figures are computed a posteriori from the spherical density profiles using the concentri… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Models for Neptune and Uranus derived in this study expressed as density versus radius. Contour colors show density. Key elements of the models are labelled. The bright narrow band at the base of the envelope in each case is the boundary region stable against convection, ∼ 120 km and ∼ 180 km wide in the cases of Neptune and Uranus, respectively. is also observational, where the adopted σR of 22 km is inte… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Corner plot for MCMC search over 1,100 models for the best-fit for Neptune showing the marginalized posterior densities for the parameters of interest. The melt H2 weight fraction that was not part of the fit is shown for reference. Green dashed lines are target values, and the red squares and red lines show the highest likelihood solution (line for melt H2 is maximum allowed in search). corresponding to t… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Plot of the binodal phase boundary in T, P, and mole fraction of H2 space that separates the miscible interior and the outer envelope of Neptune as modeled here. The binodal phase boundary is shown as the blue dome structure. The curves terminating in arrow heads represent the miscible interior (red), H2-rich gas (light blue), and liquid silicate rain (violet) with the arrow heads pointing in the direction… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Model temperature-pressure profiles for Neptune and Uranus derived in this study. The regions corresponding to the supercritical silicate-hydrogen-iron magma ocean and the overlying Ledoux-stable layer (boundary layer) in the hydrogen-rich envelope are indicated. The inset shows the upper atmosphere compared with the Voyager 2 observations for both planets. The influence of the binodal phase boundary on th… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Corner plot for MCMC search over 1,008 models for the best-fit for Uranus showing the marginalized posterior densities for the parameters of interest. The melt H2 weight fraction that was not part of the fit is shown for reference. Green dashed lines are target values, and the red squares and red lines show the highest likelihood solution. ents, rather than imposing them as free parameters, and Scheibe et … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Results of a toy accretion model illustrating the expected relationship between planet mass and hydro￾gen fraction. ln(Menv) behaves approximately as a sum of random contributions, and the resulting H2 mass fraction distri￾bution is approximately log-normal. The width of the distribution at each target mass reflects the stochastic variability in both the sequence of embryo masses and the sequence of retent… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Calculated evolution of Neptune over the last 4.5 Gyr. experiments show that reasonable changes to the su￾percritical melt EoS parameters result in similarly suc￾cessful fits to the planet observables but with similar, although still distinct, Pbinodal and xH2 values. These models with different binodal pressures and bulk hydro￾gen fractions have essentially the same pressure-density curves as those obtain… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Equation of state and density data for MgSiO3 and supercritical mixtures of MgSiO3 and H2 from DFT-MD simulations (circles and diamonds) compared with experiments (squares) and model adiabats using our EoS for this study. Curves for simple volume-additive densities are shown for comparison. Adiabat curves using the EoS used here are labeled with the H2 concentrations in weight percent for the miscible sili… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Plots illustrating wind models. Panels a) and d) show meridional cuts of the surface-measured zonal winds extrapolated downward - aligned with the axis of rotation - and reaching the bottom of the convective atmosphere of Neptune and Uranus, respectively. Red/blue indicates prograde/retrograde flow in m/s. Panels b) and e) show the radial decay profile of the winds Q(r), with radius on the x-axis normaliz… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Uranus and Neptune are commonly interpreted as volatile-rich "ice giants", an assumption that underpins most interior models. Here we show that their observed radii, bulk densities, gravitational harmonics, normalized moments of inertia, intrinsic luminosities, and key features of their atmospheric compositions are consistent with interiors comprising supercritical, hydrogen-rich magma oceans overlain by H2-rich envelopes. Our results, based on three fit parameters for each planet, provide a parsimonious explanation for the structures, thermal states, and atmospheric chemistries of Uranus and Neptune. We find that the Solar System's ice giants are better understood as magma-ocean giants, with origins parallel to those of sub-Neptune gas-dwarf planets. A continuum among gas dwarf planets permits Neptune and Uranus to serve as accessible, data-driven test cases for structure models and material properties used to understand sub-Neptunes.

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that Uranus and Neptune's observed radii, bulk densities, gravitational harmonics (J2/J4), normalized moments of inertia, intrinsic luminosities, and atmospheric compositions are consistent with interiors consisting of supercritical hydrogen-rich magma oceans overlain by H2-rich envelopes. This is achieved with a model employing only three fit parameters per planet, providing a parsimonious alternative to traditional ice-giant interpretations and suggesting a structural continuum with sub-Neptune exoplanets.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work supplies a data-driven, low-parameter framework that unifies Solar-System ice giants with the exoplanet population of gas dwarfs and offers testable predictions for material properties in supercritical regimes. Explicit use of only three parameters per planet is a strength when the underlying EOS, solubility laws, and chemistry network are shown to introduce no additional effective freedoms.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that radii, J2/J4, NMOI, luminosity, and atmospheric mole fractions are simultaneously reproduced by three fit parameters requires that the supercritical-fluid EOS, H2 solubility law, radiative/convective boundaries, and atmospheric chemistry network contain no significant fixed assumptions that absorb extra degrees of freedom; the manuscript provides no details on the functional form, error treatment, or validation against independent constraints.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: if the EOS for the supercritical fluid or the H2 dissolution coefficient is taken from a single reference without propagation of its uncertainty range, the reported consistency with three parameters per planet could be an artifact of those fixed choices rather than an outcome of the fit parameters alone.
minor comments (1)
  1. Clarify whether the three fit parameters are the same quantities for both planets or allowed to differ, and list them explicitly.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Below we respond point by point to the major comments, clarifying the distinction between the three fit parameters and the fixed model components drawn from the literature. We are prepared to revise the abstract and add clarifying text as needed.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that radii, J2/J4, NMOI, luminosity, and atmospheric mole fractions are simultaneously reproduced by three fit parameters requires that the supercritical-fluid EOS, H2 solubility law, radiative/convective boundaries, and atmospheric chemistry network contain no significant fixed assumptions that absorb extra degrees of freedom; the manuscript provides no details on the functional form, error treatment, or validation against independent constraints.

    Authors: The three fit parameters per planet are the sole adjustable quantities used to match the suite of observations. The supercritical-fluid EOS, H2 solubility law, radiative/convective boundaries, and atmospheric chemistry network are held fixed at values taken from established literature sources; they introduce no additional free parameters. Functional forms, sources, and validation against independent data are described in the Methods section. We will revise the abstract to state explicitly that only three quantities are varied while the remaining components are fixed from prior work, and we will ensure the Methods section cross-references are clear. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: if the EOS for the supercritical fluid or the H2 dissolution coefficient is taken from a single reference without propagation of its uncertainty range, the reported consistency with three parameters per planet could be an artifact of those fixed choices rather than an outcome of the fit parameters alone.

    Authors: The EOS and solubility coefficients are adopted from specific, widely used references in the same manner as other interior models in the field; they are not tuned during the fit. While a full Monte-Carlo propagation of their uncertainties is beyond the scope of the present study, the simultaneous reproduction of multiple independent observables (radius, J2/J4, NMOI, luminosity, and atmospheric abundances) with only three free parameters per planet provides evidence that the agreement is not an artifact of the fixed choices. We will add a short paragraph in the revised manuscript discussing the provenance of the adopted material properties and noting the absence of uncertainty propagation as a limitation for future work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; model explicitly uses parameter fitting to demonstrate consistency.

full rationale

The abstract states that observed properties 'are consistent with interiors comprising supercritical, hydrogen-rich magma oceans overlain by H2-rich envelopes' and that 'our results, based on three fit parameters for each planet, provide a parsimonious explanation'. This is a standard interior modeling exercise in which parameters are tuned to match external data (radii, densities, J2/J4, NMOI, luminosities, atmospheric compositions). No quoted step reduces a claimed prediction to the fit by construction, invokes a self-citation as the sole justification for a uniqueness theorem, or renames a known result. The central claim is presented as a fit result rather than an independent first-principles derivation, so the match is not misrepresented. The paper is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks with no load-bearing circular steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The model rests on three unspecified fit parameters per planet and the assumption that a magma-ocean interior can reproduce the listed observables; no independent evidence for the new entity is supplied in the abstract.

free parameters (1)
  • three fit parameters per planet
    Explicitly stated as the basis for achieving consistency with observed properties
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Observed planetary properties can be reproduced by a supercritical hydrogen-rich magma ocean plus H2 envelope model
    Central premise of the consistency claim
invented entities (1)
  • supercritical hydrogen-rich magma ocean no independent evidence
    purpose: To serve as the primary interior component explaining multiple observables
    New structural component introduced to replace conventional ice-rich interiors

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5685 in / 1275 out tokens · 45290 ms · 2026-06-26T22:32:52.233491+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

119 extracted references · 110 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2009, Rev

    Ahlers, G., Grossmann, S., & Lohse, D. 2009, Rev. Mod. Phys., 81, 503, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.81.503

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.81.503 2009

  2. [2]

    2014, Ecology, 95, 631, doi: https://doi.org/10.1890/13-1452.1

    Aho, K., Derryberry, D., & Peterson, T. 2014, Ecology, 95, 631, doi: https://doi.org/10.1890/13-1452.1

    work page doi:10.1890/13-1452.1 2014

  3. [3]

    Bailey, E., & Stevenson, D. J. 2021, The Planetary Science Journal, 2, 64, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/abd1e0

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/abd1e0 2021

  4. [4]

    L., Raymond, S

    Bean, J. L., Raymond, S. N., Owen, J. E., et al. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 126, e2020JE006639, doi: 10.1029/2020JE006639

    work page doi:10.1029/2020je006639 2021

  5. [5]

    2024, JWST Reveals CH 4, CO2, and H 2O in a Metal-rich Miscible Atmosphere on a Two-Earth-Radius Exoplanet

    Benneke, B., Roy, P.-A., Coulombe, L.-P., et al. 2024, JWST Reveals CH 4, CO2, and H 2O in a Metal-rich Miscible Atmosphere on a Two-Earth-Radius Exoplanet. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.03325

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    2019, Icarus, 326, 10, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2019.01.027

    Bierson, C., & Nimmo, F. 2019, Icarus, 326, 10, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2019.01.027

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2019.01.027 2019

  7. [7]

    2018, Applied Sciences, 8, doi: 10.3390/app8060893 Brozovi´ c, M., Showalter, M

    Braun, J., Sousa, J., & Paniagua, G. 2018, Applied Sciences, 8, doi: 10.3390/app8060893 Brozovi´ c, M., Showalter, M. R., Jacobson, R. A., et al. 2020, Icarus, 338, 113462, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2019.113462 Cano Amoros, M., Nettelmann, N., Tosi, N., Baumeister, P., & Rauer, H. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 692, A152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452148

    work page doi:10.3390/app8060893 2018

  8. [8]

    Cao, H., & Stevenson, D. J. 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 122, 686, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JE005272

    work page doi:10.1002/2017je005272 2017

  9. [9]

    2020, Space Science Reviews, 216, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00677-8

    Cavalie, T., Venot, O., Miguel, Y., et al. 2020, Space Science Reviews, 216, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00677-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00677-8 2020

  10. [10]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 872, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf99f

    Chabrier, G., Mazevet, S., & Soubiran, F. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 872, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf99f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf99f 2019

  11. [11]

    1961, Hydrodynamic and Hydromagnetic Stability, International Series of Monographs on Physics (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 652 de Koker, N., & Stixrude, L

    Chandrasekhar, S. 1961, Hydrodynamic and Hydromagnetic Stability, International Series of Monographs on Physics (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 652 de Koker, N., & Stixrude, L. 2009, Geophysical Journal International, 178, 162, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04142.x de Pater, I., Romani, P. N., & Atreya, S. K. 1991, Icarus, 91, 220, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(91)90020-T

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-246x.2009.04142.x 1961

  12. [12]

    D., Connerney, J

    Desch, M. D., Connerney, J. E. P., & Kaiser, M. L. 1986, Nature, 322, 42, doi: 10.1038/322042a0

    work page doi:10.1038/322042a0 1986

  13. [13]

    Dietrich, W., Wulff, P., Wicht, J., & Christensen, U. R. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 3177, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1566

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1566 2021

  14. [14]

    2025, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122, e2509771122, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2509771122

    Dragulet, F., & Stixrude, L. 2025, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122, e2509771122, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2509771122

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2509771122 2025

  15. [15]

    N., Gustafsson, M., & Orton, G

    Fletcher, L. N., Gustafsson, M., & Orton, G. S. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 235, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa07a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa07a 2018

  16. [16]

    J., & Nettelmann, N

    Fortney, J. J., & Nettelmann, N. 2010, Space Science Reviews, 152, 423, doi: 10.1007/s11214-009-9582-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-009-9582-x 2010

  17. [17]

    2009, Planetary and Space Science, 57, 2053, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2009.09.011

    Fray, N., & Schmitt, B. 2009, Planetary and Space Science, 57, 2053, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2009.09.011

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pss.2009.09.011 2009

  18. [18]

    Longaretti, P.-Y., & McGhee-French, C. A. 2024, Icarus, 411, 115957, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2024.115957

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2024.115957 2024

  19. [19]

    F., et al

    Fulle, M., Blum, J., Green, S. F., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 482, 3326, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2926

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2926 2019

  20. [20]

    2017, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 810, 175, doi: 10.1017/jfm.2016.687

    Galanti, E., Kaspi, Y., & Tziperman, E. 2017, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 810, 175, doi: 10.1017/jfm.2016.687

    work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2016.687 2017

  21. [21]

    2012, Astron

    Gastine, T., Duarte, L., & Wicht, J. 2012, Astron. Astrophys., 546, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219799

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219799 2012

  22. [22]

    2026, Nature, 650, 60, doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-09970-4

    Gilmore, T., & Stixrude, L. 2026, Nature, 650, 60, doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-09970-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09970-4 2026

  23. [23]

    E., & Sari, R

    Ginzburg, S., Schlichting, H. E., & Sari, R. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 825, 29, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/29

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/825/1/29 2016

  24. [24]

    Pierrehumbert, R. T. 2021, The Planetary Science Journal, 2, 207, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac214c

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ac214c 2021

  25. [25]

    A New Global Chemical Equilibrium Code: Refractory Element Signatures in Super-Earths and Sub-Neptunes

    Grimm, S. L., Steinmeyer, M.-L., Werlen, A., et al. 2026, A New Global Chemical Equilibrium Code: Refractory Element Signatures in Super-Earths and Sub-Neptunes, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.07833

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.07833 2026

  26. [26]

    2000, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 407, 27–56, doi: 10.1017/S0022112099007545

    Grossmann, S., & Lohse, D. 2000, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 407, 27–56, doi: 10.1017/S0022112099007545

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022112099007545 2000

  27. [27]

    2010, A&A, 520, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913396

    Guillot, T. 2010, A&A, 520, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913396

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913396 2010

  28. [28]

    B., Rages, K., Lockwood, G

    Hammel, H. B., Rages, K., Lockwood, G. W., Karkoschka, E., & de Pater, I. 2001, Icarus, 153, 229, doi: 10.1006/icar.2001.6689 Ice Giants as Magma-Ocean Worlds27

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.2001.6689 2001

  29. [29]

    D., Podolak, M., & Schubert, G

    Helled, R., Anderson, J. D., Podolak, M., & Schubert, G. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 726, 15, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/1/15

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/726/1/15 2011

  30. [30]

    D., & Schubert, G

    Helled, R., Anderson, J. D., & Schubert, G. 2010, Icarus, 210, 446, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2010.06.037

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2010.06.037 2010

  31. [31]

    Helled, R., & Fortney, J. J. 2020, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 378, 20190474, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2019.0474

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.2019.0474 2020

  32. [32]

    2020, Space Science Reviews, 216, 38

    Helled, R., Nettelmann, N., & Guillot, T. 2020, Space Science Reviews, 216, 38

    2020

  33. [33]

    D., & Butler, B

    Hofstadter, M. D., & Butler, B. J. 2003, Icarus, 165, 168, doi: 10.1016/S0019-1035(03)00174-X

    work page doi:10.1016/s0019-1035(03)00174-x 2003

  34. [34]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 683, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348238

    Holmberg, M., & Madhusudhan, N. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 683, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348238

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348238 2024

  35. [35]

    Hubbard, W. B. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 768, 43, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/43

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/768/1/43 2013

  36. [36]

    B., & MacFarlane, J

    Hubbard, W. B., & MacFarlane, J. J. 1980, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 85, 225, doi: 10.1029/JB085iB01p00225

    work page doi:10.1029/jb085ib01p00225 1980

  37. [37]

    B., & Marley, M

    Hubbard, W. B., & Marley, M. S. 1989, Icarus, 78, 102, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(89)90072-9

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(89)90072-9 1989

  38. [38]

    2025, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 654, 119242, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2025.119242

    Insixiengmay, L., & Stixrude, L. 2025, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 654, 119242, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2025.119242

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2025.119242 2025

  39. [39]

    Irwin, P. G. J., Toledo, D., Garland, R., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 420, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0432-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0432-1 2018

  40. [40]

    Hammel, H. B. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 540, 1719, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf540

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf540 2025

  41. [41]

    Irwin, P. G. J., et al. 2019a, Icarus, 331, 69, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2019.05.011 —. 2019b, Icarus, 321, 550, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.12.014 —. 2021, Icarus, 357, 114277, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2020.114277

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2019.05.011 2019

  42. [42]

    Irwin, P. G. J., Dobinson, J., James, A., et al. 2023, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 128, e2023J. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10. 1029/2023JE007980

    2023

  43. [43]

    Jacobson, R. A. 2009, The Astronomical Journal, 137, 4322, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4322

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4322 2009

  44. [44]

    A., & Park, R

    Jacobson, R. A., & Park, R. S. 2025, The Astronomical Journal, 169, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad99d1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad99d1 2025

  45. [45]

    Karkoschka, E., & Tomasko, M. G. 2011, Icarus, 211, 780, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2010.08.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2010.08.013 2011

  46. [46]

    P., Hubbard, W

    Kaspi, Y., Showman, A. P., Hubbard, W. B., Aharonson, O., & Helled, R. 2013, Nature, 497, 344, doi: 10.1038/nature12131

    work page doi:10.1038/nature12131 2013

  47. [47]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 909:L22, 6 pp

    Kite, E., & Schaefer, L. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 909:L22, 6 pp

    2021

  48. [48]

    2022, Scientific Reports, 12, 13055, doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-16816-w

    Militzer, B. 2022, Scientific Reports, 12, 13055, doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-16816-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-022-16816-w 2022

  49. [49]

    2017, AJ, 153, 260, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6faf

    Kurosaki, K., & Ikoma, M. 2017, AJ, 153, 260, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6faf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa6faf 2017

  50. [50]

    2020, Phys

    Kuwayama, Y., Morard, G., Nakajima, Y., et al. 2020, Phys. Rev. Lett., 124, 165701, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.165701

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.124.165701 2020

  51. [51]

    Lindal, G. F. 1992, The Astronomical Journal, 103, 967, doi: 10.1086/116119

    work page doi:10.1086/116119 1992

  52. [52]

    F., Lyons, J

    Lindal, G. F., Lyons, J. R., Sweetnam, D. N., et al. 1987, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 92, 14987, doi: 10.1029/JA092iA13p14987

    work page doi:10.1029/ja092ia13p14987 1987

  53. [53]

    E., & Sun, J

    Liu, C., Cohen, R. E., & Sun, J. 2026, Nature Communications, 17, 3980, doi: 10.1038/s41467-026-70603-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-026-70603-z 2026

  54. [54]

    S., Mound, J

    Long, R. S., Mound, J. E., Davies, C. J., & Tobias, S. M. 2020, Phys. Rev. Fluids, 5, 113502, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevFluids.5.113502

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevfluids.5.113502 2020

  55. [55]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 956, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf577

    Madhusudhan, N., Sarkar, S., Constantinou, S., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 956, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf577

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf577 2023

  56. [56]

    I., & Bodenheimer, P

    Malamud, U., Podolak, M., Podolak, J. I., & Bodenheimer, P. H. 2024, Icarus, 421, 116217, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116217

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116217 2024

  57. [57]

    P., Stixrude, L., & Young, E

    Marcum, S. P., Stixrude, L., & Young, E. D. 2026, PhD dissertation, in prep. The Astrophysical Journal

    2026

  58. [58]

    2022, A&A, 665, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243359

    Markham, S., Guillot, T., & Stevenson, D. 2022, A&A, 665, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243359

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243359 2022

  59. [59]

    S., Gomez, P., & Podolak, M

    Marley, M. S., Gomez, P., & Podolak, M. 1995, J. Geophys. Res., 100, 23349, doi: 10.1029/95JE02362

    work page doi:10.1029/95je02362 1995

  60. [60]

    B., Nimmo, F., Wong, T.-S., et al

    McKinnon, W. B., Nimmo, F., Wong, T.-S., et al. 2017, Icarus, 287, 2, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2016.11.019

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2016.11.019 2017

  61. [61]

    2024, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121, e2403981121, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2403981121

    Militzer, B. 2024, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121, e2403981121, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2403981121

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2403981121 2024

  62. [62]

    D., et al

    Miozzi, F., Shahar, A., Young, E. D., et al. 2025, Nature, 648, 551, doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-09816-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09816-z 2025

  63. [63]

    E., & Young, E

    Misener, W., Schlichting, H. E., & Young, E. D. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 981, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1910

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1910 2023

  64. [64]

    I., Fletcher, L

    Moses, J. I., Fletcher, L. N., Greathouse, T. K., Orton, G. S., & Hue, V. 2020, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 378, 20190477, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2019.0477

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.2019.0477 2020

  65. [65]

    Movshovitz, N., & Fortney, J. J. 2022, The Planetary Science Journal, 3, 88, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac60ff 28Young, Marcum, Werlen, & Wulff

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ac60ff 2022

  66. [66]

    J., Mankovich, C., Thorngren, D., & Helled, R

    Movshovitz, N., Fortney, J. J., Mankovich, C., Thorngren, D., & Helled, R. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 891, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7fa2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7fa2 2019

  67. [67]

    F., Acuna, M

    Ness, N. F., Acuna, M. H., Behannon, K. W., et al. 1986, Science, 233, 85, doi: 10.1126/science.233.4759.85

    work page doi:10.1126/science.233.4759.85 1986

  68. [68]

    F., Acuna, M

    Ness, N. F., Acuna, M. H., Burlaga, L. F., et al. 1989, Science, 246, 1473, doi: 10.1126/science.246.4936.1473

    work page doi:10.1126/science.246.4936.1473 1989

  69. [69]

    J., & Redmer, R

    Nettelmann, N., Helled, R., Fortney, J. J., & Redmer, R. 2013, Planetary and Space Science, 77, 143, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2012.06.019

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pss.2012.06.019 2013

  70. [70]

    J., et al

    Nettelmann, N., Wang, K., Fortney, J. J., et al. 2016, Icarus, 275, 107, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2016.04.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2016.04.008 2016

  71. [71]

    A., & Helled, R

    Neuenschwander, B. A., & Helled, R. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 512, 3124, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac628

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac628 2022

  72. [72]

    A., M¨ uller, S., & Helled, R

    Neuenschwander, B. A., M¨ uller, S., & Helled, R. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 684, A191, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347846 P¨ atzold, M., Andert, T., Hahn, M., et al. 2016, Nature, 530, 63, doi: 10.1038/nature16535

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347846 2024

  73. [73]

    C., & Conrath, B

    Pearl, J. C., & Conrath, B. J. 1991, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 96, 18921, doi: 10.1029/91JA01087

    work page doi:10.1029/91ja01087 1991

  74. [74]

    C., Conrath, B

    Pearl, J. C., Conrath, B. J., Hanel, R. A., Pirraglia, J. A., & Coustenis, A. 1990, Icarus, 84, 12, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(90)90155-3

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(90)90155-3 1990

  75. [75]

    Podolak, M., & Cameron, A. G. W. 1974, Icarus, 22, 123, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(74)90112-4

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(74)90112-4 1974

  76. [76]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 759, L32, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/759/1/L32

    Podolak, M., & Helled, R. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 759, L32, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/759/1/L32

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/759/1/l32 2012

  77. [77]

    Podolak, M., & Reynolds, R. T. 1984, Icarus, 57, 102, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(84)90011-9

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(84)90011-9 1984

  78. [78]

    1995, Planet

    Podolak, M., Weizman, A., & Marley, M. 1995, Planet. Space Sci., 43, 1517, doi: 10.1016/0032-0633(95)00061-5

    work page doi:10.1016/0032-0633(95)00061-5 1995

  79. [79]

    I., Wilner, D

    Qi, C., ¨Oberg, K. I., Wilner, D. J., et al. 2013, Science, 341, 630, doi: 10.1126/science.1239560

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1239560 2013

  80. [80]

    I., Espaillat, C

    Qi, C., ¨Oberg, K. I., Espaillat, C. C., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 882, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab35d3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab35d3 2019

Showing first 80 references.