Jupiter’s Equatorial Plumes and Hot Spots: Spectral Mapping from Gemini/TEXES and Juno/MWR. (arXiv:2004.00072v1 [astro-ph.EP])
<a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Fletcher_L/0/1/0/all/0/1">L.N. Fletcher</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Orton_G/0/1/0/all/0/1">G.S. Orton</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Greathouse_T/0/1/0/all/0/1">T.K. Greathouse</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Rogers_J/0/1/0/all/0/1">J.H. Rogers</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Zhang_Z/0/1/0/all/0/1">Z. Zhang</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Oyafuso_F/0/1/0/all/0/1">F.A. Oyafuso</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Eichstadt_G/0/1/0/all/0/1">G. Eichstädt</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Melin_H/0/1/0/all/0/1">H. Melin</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Li_C/0/1/0/all/0/1">C. Li</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Levin_S/0/1/0/all/0/1">S.M. Levin</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Bolton_S/0/1/0/all/0/1">S. Bolton</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Janssen_M/0/1/0/all/0/1">M. Janssen</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Mettig_H/0/1/0/all/0/1">H-J. Mettig</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Grassi_D/0/1/0/all/0/1">D. Grassi</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Mura_A/0/1/0/all/0/1">A. Mura</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Adriani_A/0/1/0/all/0/1">A. Adriani</a>
We present multi-wavelength measurements of the thermal, chemical, and cloud
contrasts associated with the visibly dark formations (also known as 5-$mu$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 $mu$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 $mu$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-$mu$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.
We present multi-wavelength measurements of the thermal, chemical, and cloud
contrasts associated with the visibly dark formations (also known as 5-$mu$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 $mu$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 $mu$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-$mu$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.
http://arxiv.org/icons/sfx.gif
