I read the full article and I would caution that fundamental assumptions probably invalidate the modelling - or at least limit it to special cases.
The model explicity assumes that there is ocean everywhere - i.e. the oceans never pile up in an ice cap on the cold side, and never dry up on the hot side. Further, the atmospheric model only allows for vapour-liquid phase transition, so ice and snow are never explicitly created. This distinctly limits the range of behaviours that may be observed.
In fact, the cold side will probably get cold enough, at the crest of the ice cap, for atmospheric gases to condense out and begin to dramatically thin the atmosphere and limit its ability to transport heat.
If you look at the Moon, the range of temperature between nightside and dayside is much larger than on the model of this tide-locked planet
I added a comment...
Post new message
Posting replies
Use [http://www.foo.com] or [http://www.foo.com|Description] for links.
HTML tags are not allowed inside posts.
Re: Wow! Thanks!
I read the full article and I would caution that fundamental assumptions probably invalidate the modelling - or at least limit it to special cases.
The model explicity assumes that there is ocean everywhere - i.e. the oceans never pile up in an ice cap on the cold side, and never dry up on the hot side. Further, the atmospheric model only allows for vapour-liquid phase transition, so ice and snow are never explicitly created. This distinctly limits the range of behaviours that may be observed.
In fact, the cold side will probably get cold enough, at the crest of the ice cap, for atmospheric gases to condense out and begin to dramatically thin the atmosphere and limit its ability to transport heat.
If you look at the Moon, the range of temperature between nightside and dayside is much larger than on the model of this tide-locked planet
I added a comment...