The Intrinsic Temperature and Radiative–Convective Boundary Depth in the Atmospheres of Hot Jupiters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In giant planet atmosphere modeling, the intrinsic temperature T int and radiative–convective boundary (RCB) are important lower boundary conditions. Often in one-dimensional radiative–convective models and in three-dimensional general circulation models it is assumed that T int is similar to that of Jupiter itself, around 100 K, which yields an RCB around 1 kbar for hot Jupiters. In this work, we show that the inflated radii, and hence high specific entropy interiors (8–11 k b /baryon), of hot Jupiters suggest much higher T int . Assuming the effect is primarily due to current heating (rather than delayed cooling), we derive an equilibrium relation between T eq and T int , showing that the latter can take values as high as 700 K. In response, the RCB moves upward in the atmosphere. Using one-dimensional radiative–convective atmosphere models, we find RCBs of only a few bars, rather than the kilobar typically supposed. This much shallower RCB has important implications for the atmospheric structure, vertical and horizontal circulation, interpretation of atmospheric spectra, and the effect of deep cold traps on cloud formation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".