Addition of water and ammonia cloud microphysics to the EPIC model

Palotai, Csaba; Dowling, T. E.

doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2007.10.025

Cited by 31 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The top of the water cloud is thus frozen while the base is purely liquid. The location of the cloud decks in this scenario is in good agreement with previous one-and two-dimensional model results (West et al, 1986;Atreya et al, 1999;Palotai and Dowling, 2008). Using very large or small particle sizes for the condensate does not affect the location of the cloud base but influences the vertical extent of the cloud layer.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 89%

“…These values are smaller than the densities obtained in previous numerical cloud models (e.g. Atreya et al, 1999;Palotai and Dowling, 2008), a discrepancy that seems to originate from the initialization used in our model. Since only vapor transported from the deep regions of the model into the colder upper atmosphere will condense, and no condensates exist initially, the cloud density crucially depends on the upwelling velocities in the model.…”

Section: Cloud Decks and Bandscontrasting

confidence: 87%

“…Circulations initiated by latent heat release through condensation can significantly alter the atmospheric dynamics (e.g. Palotai and Dowling, 2008) and might lead to vertical transport different from the one we now obtain in response to the Newtonian forcing terms.…”

Section: Atmospheric Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 62%

“…An adaption of a terrestrial microphysics scheme for Jupiter, as has been undertaken by Palotai and Dowling (2008) for the EPIC model, would necessarily include a number of observationally poorly constrained input parameters. In a three-dimensional model like OPUS, such an extension would also significantly increase the computational resources needed.…”

Section: Bulk Cloud Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Palotai and Dowling (2008) have investigated Jupiter's ammonia and water cloud layer in large domain two-dimensional models but so far no results from large scale, three-dimensional models of Jupiter's cloud structure have been published.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Modeling Jupiter's cloud bands and decks

Zuchowski¹,

Yamazaki²,

Read³

2009

Icarus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Cloud Decks and Bandscontrasting

confidence: 87%

Section: Atmospheric Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 62%

Section: Bulk Cloud Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Modeling Jupiter's cloud bands and decks

Zuchowski¹,

Yamazaki²,

Read³

2009

Icarus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Storms and the Depletion of Ammonia in Jupiter: II. Explaining the Juno observations

Guillot

Bolton

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

• Juno measurements show that ammonia gas in Jupiter has variable abundance to great depth and as a function of latitude • We show that Jupiter's powerful storms control ammonia abundance by leading to the formation of water-ammonia hailstones (mushballs) and evaporative downdrafts • A simple atmospheric mixing model successfully links measured lightning rate to ammonia abundance and predicts variable water abundance to great depth.

show abstract

Generation of equatorial jets by large-scale latent heating on the giant planets

Lian

Showman

2010

Icarus

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three-dimensional numerical simulations show that large-scale latent heating resulting from condensation of water vapor can produce multiple zonal jets similar to those on the gas giants (Jupiter and Saturn) and ice giants (Uranus and Neptune). For plausible water abundances (3-5 times solar on Jupiter/Saturn and 30 times solar on Uranus/Neptune), our simulations produce ∼ 20 zonal jets for Jupiter and Saturn and 3 zonal jets on Uranus and Neptune, similar to the number of jets observed on these planets. Moreover, these Jupiter/Saturn cases produce equatorial superrotation whereas the Uranus/Neptune cases produce equatorial subrotation, consistent with the observed equatorial jet direction on these planets. Sensitivity tests show that water abundance, planetary rotation rate, and planetary radius are all controlling factors, with water playing the most important role; modest water abundances, large planetary radii, and fast rotation rates favor equatorial superrotation, whereas large water abundances favor equatorial subrotation regardless of the planetary radius and rotation rate. Given the larger radii, faster rotation rates, and probable lower water abundances of Jupiter and Saturn relative to Uranus and Neptune, our simulations therefore provide a possible mechanism for the 1 existence of equatorial superrotation on Jupiter and Saturn and the lack of superrotation on Uranus and Neptune. Nevertheless, Saturn poses a possible difficulty, as our simulations were unable to explain the unusually high speed (∼ 400 m s −1 ) of that planet's superrotating jet. The zonal jets in our simulations exhibit modest violations of the barotropic and Charney-Stern stability criteria. Overall, our simulations, while idealized, support the idea that latent heating plays an important role in generating the jets on the giant planets.

show abstract

Addition of water and ammonia cloud microphysics to the EPIC model

Cited by 31 publications

References 59 publications

Modeling Jupiter's cloud bands and decks

Modeling Jupiter's cloud bands and decks

Storms and the Depletion of Ammonia in Jupiter: II. Explaining the Juno observations

Generation of equatorial jets by large-scale latent heating on the giant planets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About