论文标题

木星赤道羽毛和热点:双子座/texes和Juno/MWR的光谱映射

Jupiter's Equatorial Plumes and Hot Spots: Spectral Mapping from Gemini/TEXES and Juno/MWR

论文作者

Fletcher, L. N., Orton, G. S., Greathouse, T. K., Rogers, J. H., Zhang, Z., Oyafuso, F. A., Eichstädt, G., Melin, H., Li, C., Levin, S. M., Bolton, S., Janssen, M., Mettig, H-J., Grassi, D., Mura, A., Adriani, A.

论文摘要

我们介绍了与明显的黑暗地层(也称为5- $ $ M热点)相关的热,化学和云对比度的多波长测量值,并在木星赤道区(EZ)和北赤道带(NEB)之间的边界上介入亮羽。 Texes 5-20 $ $ m m光谱仪在2017年3月在Gemini North望远镜上进行的观察结果揭示了12个热点的上流层特性,它们与Juno使用微波辐射计(MWR)的测量直接进行了比较,Jiram在5 $ $ M和Junoocam可见图像。 MWR和热边缘光谱结果在0.7 bar附近一致。中红外衍生的气溶胶不透明度与可见的albedo和5- $μ$ M不透明度地图一致。气溶胶的对比,多云的羽流的定义特征和贫血的热点,不是微波亮度的良好代理。与周围的环境相比,热点既不均匀地温暖,也不是氨气耗尽的。在0.7 bar时,热点边缘的微波亮度与NEB内的其他特征相当。相反,热点在1.5 bar时更明亮,表示温度温暖的温度和/或深度耗尽的NH $ _3 $。温度和氨在热点内是空间变化的,因此观测的精确位置与它们的解释很重要。反射羽流有时会增强NH $ _3 $,冷温和升高的气溶胶不透明度,但每个羽流都不同。羽流和热点都没有在通道中感应$ p> 10 $ bar的微波签名,这表明热点/羽流是相对较浅的特征。

We present multi-wavelength measurements of the thermal, chemical, and cloud contrasts associated with the visibly dark formations (also known as 5-$μ$m hot spots) and intervening bright plumes on the boundary between Jupiter's Equatorial Zone (EZ) and North Equatorial Belt (NEB). Observations made by the TEXES 5-20 $μ$m spectrometer at the Gemini North Telescope in March 2017 reveal the upper-tropospheric properties of 12 hot spots, which are directly compared to measurements by Juno using the Microwave Radiometer (MWR), JIRAM at 5 $μ$m, and JunoCam visible images. MWR and thermal-infrared spectroscopic results are consistent near 0.7 bar. Mid-infrared-derived aerosol opacity is consistent with that inferred from visible-albedo and 5-$μ$m opacity maps. Aerosol contrasts, the defining characteristics of the cloudy plumes and aerosol-depleted hot spots, are not a good proxy for microwave brightness. The hot spots are neither uniformly warmer nor ammonia-depleted compared to their surroundings at $p<1$ bar. At 0.7 bar, the microwave brightness at the edges of hot spots is comparable to other features within the NEB. Conversely, hot spots are brighter at 1.5 bar, signifying either warm temperatures and/or depleted NH$_3$ at depth. Temperatures and ammonia are spatially variable within the hot spots, so the precise location of the observations matters to their interpretation. Reflective plumes sometimes have enhanced NH$_3$, cold temperatures, and elevated aerosol opacity, but each plume appears different. Neither plumes nor hot spots had microwave signatures in channels sensing $p>10$ bars, suggesting that the hot-spot/plume wave is a relatively shallow feature.

扫码加入交流群

加入微信交流群

微信交流群二维码

扫码加入学术交流群,获取更多资源