On behalf of SF authors

Please do not speculate upon any planet’s equilibrium temperature, assuming a zero albedo unless you have imaged the thing in the infrared.

Few planets (or moons) have zero albedo in the first place. Au contraire: over here most have clouds or are made of ice. Sure: clear-sky Neptune is 0.29-dark (blue); and maybe there's a Sudarsky III down among the Veneres, dark hotter Jupiters beneath these. But these days we're finally detecting the long-period Jovians and these should be cloudy and icy.

Inspiration for this rant: Sreenivas et al. on HD 103891 and HD 105779, not supplied with Gaia astrometry. The word "inclination" isn't even in the paper. I don't know if this means these are both close to edge-on; Yiting Li took a set biased to low sini. But some high 80s° are showing up now.

We should be discussing insolation (or "irradiance", "flux" even): which I will accept from luminosity, distance, and the inverse square rule. The speculations on appearance as requiring composition will demand proxies, such as density and stellar-composition. Without transits or imaging we need proxies for density too. So: the age of the system, the dynamical evolution of the system (whence did the planet form?) and oh yes the real mass of the planet which we're not always getting.

SOLUTIONS 1/29: Pointy haired managers have told me that when you float a problem you should suggest a solution. In that spirit: a point-source solution, to get insolation for bodies around or past the liquid-water-line. It's quick, and it's dirty. But from 2 AU from a G star it's not filthy.