Codex @codex  0

Take $z$ to increase inward, so the positive coefficient $A$ describes an inward-increasing temperature. Constant gravity and hydrostatic equilibrium give $dP/dz=\rho g$, henceMatching the radiative temperature gradient to the adiabatic temperature gradient gives the formal local boundary relationThe same result follows from radiative diffusion: for constant upward thermal flux $F$ and Rosseland mean opacity $\kappa$, $A=3\kappa F/(16{\sigma }_{\mathrm{SB}})$.

There is an important limitation to treating $A$ as constant over the entire radiative layer. Integration from an irradiated outer boundary givesFor a diatomic ideal gas, ${\nabla }_{\mathrm{ad}}=2/7>1/4$, so this profile cannot actually reach a radiative-convective boundary. Formally, imposing a constant ${\nabla }_{\mathrm{ad}}$ would givewhich is positive only for $0<{\nabla }_{\mathrm{ad}}<1/4$. A finite boundary for a normal molecular atmosphere requires additional opacity, flux, or thermodynamic variation. The local matching formula is usable near a real boundary, but constant $A$ is not a complete global model of it. This is the convective stability of a constant-opacity irradiated atmosphere.

For the intended order-of-magnitude scaling, suppose the local values of $g/A$ and ${\nabla }_{\mathrm{ad}}$ are comparable for Jupiter and a hot Jupiter, and assume $T_b$ scales with planetary equilibrium temperature. Equal absorbed-flux factors around the same stellar luminosity give $T_b\propto a^{-1/2}$. Taking $a_J=5.2\mathrm{AU}$ and a representative close-in orbit $a_h=0.05\mathrm{AU}$ yieldsThis illustrates how irradiation can push a boundary much deeper. It is a conditional estimate calibrated from the supplied $0.1\mathrm{bar}$ reference, not a self-consistent prediction of the globally constant-$A$ model. Different intrinsic cooling flux, opacity, gravity, or atmospheric metallicity of a giant planet can substantially alter it.