51�������

Abstract:

Jupiter’s Oval BA undergoes recurrent colour changes whose physical origin remains uncertain. Radiative transfer retrievals indicate that these changes occur in the upper chromophore haze of the vortex annulus, around and above the 0.2–bar level, and are primarily associated with a decrease in optical depth, with no significant change in particle size or haze altitude. We apply a one-dimensional microphysical model to this haze layer, constrained by the retrieved aerosol properties of the red annulus in 2016 and the whiter annulus in 2020, and use it to reproduce the observed colour-change timescale of approximately 0.5 years. Our results indicate that this transition is best reproduced by changes in tropospheric vertical transport within a subsiding annulus, corresponding to preferred downwelling velocities of order 10−4–10−3 m s−1 at chromophore-bearing pressures. These small vertical velocities may help explain why no clear dynamical signature has yet been identified.

Abstract:

Cassini observed Jupiter during its 2000–2001 gravity-assist flyby, acquiring a valuable set of Visible and Infrared Mapping Spectrometer (VIMS) observations over a wide range of viewing geometries and observing conditions. These data comprise visible and infrared spectral cubes covering the VIS channel from 0.35 to 1.05 µm and the IR channel from 0.9 to 5.1 µm. We present a calibrated catalog of these Jupiter VIMS observations,  excluding satellite-targeted observations, designed to provide a homogeneous and validated set of spectral products for future Jovian studies.Starting from the raw archive cubes, we developed a processing workflow that combines ISIS/SPICE-based geometry recovery with dedicated radiometric calibration procedures for both VIMS channels. The final products are delivered as multi-extension FITS files containing calibrated I/F spectral cubes, wavelength and FWHM vectors, and geometry backplanes for incidence, emission, and phase angles, planetocentric latitude, positive-east longitude, pixel resolution, and azimuth angle. The workflow also addresses several issues affecting the original data set, including saturation, VIS pointing-related offsets between radiometric cubes and geometric backplanes, channel-dependent dark-signal artifacts, and a subset of IR approach-phase for which the standard ISIS calibration pipeline can produce over-scaled reflected spectra.The resulting catalog provides a uniform, documented, validated, and publicly available set of Cassini/VIMS Jupiter products. By combining calibrated VIS and IR cubes with wavelength information and geometry backplanes, these products facilitate a wide range of applications in the study of Jupiter and its atmosphere.

Abstract:

JWST-NIRSpec observations are providing our first detailed view of the Ice Giants in the 5-micron spectral window [1]. Observations of Jupiter and Saturn (see Figure) at 5 microns have historically revealed important insights into their tropospheric composition, along with striking images of clouds silhouetted against the glowing thermal emission from deeper atmospheric layers [2]. Comparable observations of the colder Ice Giants, however, have long remained beyond observational reach—until now.In this talk, we present JWST-NIRSpec 5-micron observations of the Ice Giants and discuss their implications. We examine what these observations reveal about the tropospheric temperatures, clouds, and composition of Uranus and Neptune, as well as what they may imply for current radiative transfer models at these wavelengths.In particular, we find that the JWST data may suggest sub-adiabatic temperature gradients near the cloud layers, resulting in colder temperatures in the deeper atmosphere. However, these conclusions depend sensitively on the scattering properties of Ice Giant clouds and on accurate modelling of the gaseous opacity, both of which, we argue, remain uncertain under these conditions.Figure: Saturn at 5 microns (left, in red) from Cassini, with hazes shown in green (Image credits: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona), compared to Uranus at 5 microns from JWST-NIRSpec [1].[1] Roman, M.T., et al., The Infrared Spectrum of Uranus Revealed with JWST (submitted)[2] Wong, M.H., Bjoraker, G.L., Goullaud, C., Stephens, A.W., Luszcz-Cook, S.H.,1047Atreya, S.K., Pater, I., Brown, S.T.: Deep clouds on jupiter. Remote Sensing104815(3), 702 (2023) 

Abstract:

During its flyby of Titan in 1980, Voyager 1 unveiled an atmosphere thick with an opaque, orange haze that completely obscured the surface, and provide  the first close-up images of its vertical layering (Smith et al. 1981, Hanel et al 1981). Subsequent observations from the Cassini-Huygens mission (Flasar et al. 2004) expanded this view, revealing a world dominated by photochemical hydrocarbons and nitriles with lakes of methane  (Stofan et al. 2007, Mastrogiuseppe et al. 2019), tholin-like organic sand (Lorenz et al. 2006), and seasonally evolving ice clouds (Jennings et al. 2012, West et al. 2016) as seen in Figure 1. While recent observations and laboratory studies (Anderson et al. 2011, Chatain et al. 2020) have provided greater insights into the physical properties of these aerosols and how they form, their composition and complexity remain a mystery.Figure 1: Image taken by Cassini Imaging Science Subsystem (Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/Space Science Institute) showing a large ice cloud possibly made of HCN at 300km in Titan’s south pole, 2012 (West et. 2016, Vinatier et al. 2018)In the upper atmosphere, nitrogen and methane are photodissociated by UV radiation and energetic particles to produce ions which act as embryos for the growth of large organic molecules (Vuitton et al. 2024). As these molecules sink through the atmosphere, they recombine, coagulate, and accumulate into larger aerosol particles, onto which trace species can condense, forming both photochemical hazes and stratospheric ice clouds (Vuitton et al. 2024). Cassini CIRS (Composite Infrared Spectrometer) far infra-red spectra (FP1) exhibit four types of hazes: Haze 0, Haze A, Haze B (otherwise known as the “Haystack”) and Haze C (de Kok et al. 2007). While Haze 0 is present throughout the CIRS spectral range and affects the spectral continuum, Haze A, B and C appear as broad features in the far-infrared range. Relatively little is known about these hazes, making their features difficult to fit and estimate. In addition, their signatures overlap with H2O, C4H2, C2N2 and CH4 rotational lines, complicating retrievals of these gases (Sylvestre et al.2017).  Among these hazes, Haze B exhibits the strongest spectral signature. Anderson et al. 2018 suggested that the composition must be a mixture of more than one chemical compound due to its magnitude, breadth and opacity. Haze B is observed to only be present at the winter poles, forming and dissipating with the changing seasons, most likely caused by reduced sunlight and temperature (Jennings et al. 2012a,b , Anderson et al 2018).To enable accurate fitting of water features, Ford et al. (in review) retrieved an effective spectral cross-section of Cassini CIRS FP1 spectra between 147-257cm-1 of 156 FIRNADCMP 0.5cm-1 observations (Figure 2) across different latitudes and times (see also Ford et al. 2025). This was achieved by scaling gaussian basis functions to fit Haze A, B and C (and any other unknown aerosols) in the spectra baselines using the NEMESIS radiative transfer code (Irwin et al. 2008). Previous aerosol cross-sections did not account for latitude or time variation and therefore this technique empirically and agnostically modelled the changing baseline.  In this study, we decomposed those 156 effective spectral cross-sections and extrapolated unique Haze B cross-sections for latitudes of -89° to 88° from June 2004 to April 2017.  We used principal component analysis to determine the number of complete hazes present in the spectral range, finding that Haze B accounts for 98% of the observed variation. We then applied non-negative matrix factorisation to seperate the spectra into two unique and stable components: one representing Haze B, and a second representing a mixture of other haze contributions, along with numerical and spectral noise.Figure 2: Effective spectral cross-section of all 156 Cassini CIRS FIRNADCMP 0.5cm-1 observations before decomposition. Each colour represents a different observation. The plot shows the variation extent of the Haze B feature at ~220cm-1. Using the maximum Haze B cross-section of each observation as proxy, we find a large increase at the winter poles with the increase during northern spring being nearly twice that of northern winter, consistent with previous investigations. We also find Haze B extends to 60°, different to 70° proposed by Anderson et al. 2018. The results also give an insight into the time of formation/dispersion of Haze B at the poles. We see that Haze B at the south pole forms around 2013, reaching its peak during the summer solstice. The final dissipation of Haze B at the north pole cannot be determined due to limited data. ReferencesAnderson, C.M. et al. (2011), Icarus,  212.2, 762-778. DOI: 10.1016/j.pss.2010.10.009Anderson, C.M. et al. (2018), Organic Ices in Titan’s Stratosphere in Space Science Reviews, 214.8, 125  DOI: 10.1007/s11214-018-0559-5Chatain, A.  et al. (2020), Icarus, 345, 113741. DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus/2020.113741Coustenis, A. et al. (1999), Planet Space Science, 47, 1305-1329. DOI:  10.1016/S0032-0633(99)00053-7de Kok, R. et al. (2007), Icarus, 191, 223. DOI:10.1016/j.icarus.2007.04.003Flasar, F.M. et al. (2004), Space Science Reviews, 115, 169–297. DOI: 10.1007/s11214-004-1454-9Ford, J.S. et al. (2025),  EGU General Assembly 2025, Vienna, Austria, EGU25-3741. DOI: 10.5194/egusphere-egu25-3741Ford, J.S. et al. In review. Titan’s Stratospheric Water: Latitudinal and Seasonal Variation from Cassini CIRS Data and Implications for External Oxygen Sources. PSJHanel, R.A. et al. (1981), Science, 212, 192–200. DOI: 10.1126/science.212.4491.192Irwin, P.G.J et al. (2008), JQSRT, 109, 1136. DOI: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2007.11.006Jennings, D.E. et al. (2012), The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 754, L3. DOI: 10.1088/2041-8205/754/1/L3Khanna, R.K. (2005), Icarus, 178,165-170. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2005.03.011Lorenz, R. et al. (2006), Science, 312, 724–727. DOI: 10.1126/science.1123257Mastrogiuseppe, M. et al. (2019), Nature Astronomy, 3, 535, DOI: 10.1038/s41550-019-0714-2Samuelson, R.E. Clouds and aerosols of Titan’s atmosphere, in The Atmospheres of Saturn and Titan. Proc.Int. Workshop, vol. ESA SP-241 (1985)Smith, B.A. et al. (1981), Science, 212, 163–191. DOI: 10.1126/science.212.4491.163Stofan, E.R. et al. (2007), Nature, 445, 61–64. DOI: 10.1038/nature05438Sylvestre, M. et al. (2017), A&A, 609:A64. DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630255Vinatier, S. et al. (2018),  Icarus, 310, 89-104. DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.12.040Vuitton, V. et al. (2024), Chapter 6:Titan’s Atmospheric Structure, Composition, Haze, and Dynamics in Titan after Cassini–Huygens, COSPAR Scientific Symposium Series.West, R.A. et al, (2016), Icarus, 270, 399-408. DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2014.11.038 

Abstract:

The origin and vertical distribution of Jupiter’s red coloration remain uncertain, despite multiple proposed aerosol models. Laboratory work (Carlson et al., 2016) showed that photolyzed ammonia and acetylene can form a red compound consistent with Jupiter’s colours, motivating the “universal chromophore” hypothesis (Sromovsky et al., 2017), and the “Crème Brûlée” model (Baines et al., 2019), which places a thin absorber above the ammonia clouds. Later HST and VLT studies (Pérez‑Hoyos et al., 2020; Braude et al., 2020) suggested a more vertically extended, less blue‑absorbing material, while recent analyses of the Great Red Spot and Oval BA indicate the presence of two distinct colouring agents: a universal‑chromophore absorber and a deeper UV‑absorbing aerosol (Anguiano‑Arteaga et al., 2021, 2023). These findings highlight persistent ambiguity in Jovian aerosol composition and structure.To investigate this, we analysed 2019 Jupiter observations from CARMENES (The Calar Alto High-Resolution search for M dwarfs with Exoearths with Near-infrared and optical Échelle Spectrographs), (0.52–1.71 μm). Since no calibration star was available, we calibrated the spectra using Saturn’s B ring and Cassini/VIMS reflectivity (Cuzzi et al., 2009), achieving agreement with published Jupiter spectra to within 10% (Clark, R.N., McCord, T.B., 1979; Mendikoa, I., et al., 2017; Irwin, P.G., et al., 2018).Using 64 VIS–NIR observation pairs, we performed a Minnaert limb‑darkening analysis and generated synthetic spectra for five regions. These were used in NEMESIS retrievals with three aerosol models. Across all models, the highest‑altitude aerosol layer dominated the spectral behaviour, with particle size, cloud‑base abundance, and pressure level strongly influencing the fits. Model B (Braude et al., 2020) produced the lowest χ²/Nfree values, but no model fully reproduced the observations, likely due to the limited wavelength range, which lacks constraints on deeper clouds.The models diverged in retrieved particle sizes and cloud‑base pressures, with several results, such as extremely small tropospheric particles or overly large stratospheric particles, indicating physical inconsistencies. Model A’s tropospheric haze base aligns with Galileo probe measurements (Sromovsky and Fry, 2002); Model C retrieves a cloud base level near the NH₄SH level predicted by Atreya (1998), deeper than CIRS detections (Matcheva et al.,2005) but within the range of Baines et al. (2019), with implausible particle sizes.Overall, the study shows that CARMENES can deliver high‑quality, flux‑calibrated planetary spectra, but also that broader spectral coverage is essential to resolve Jupiter’s chromophore composition and aerosol vertical structure. Figure 1: Location of the spectra used to perform the Minnaert limb-darkening approximation for each region considered in this study. Red for EZ, yellow for NEB, green for SEB, pink for SEB transition and blue for NEB transition. The Jupiter AGC image represented corresponds only to the spectra of the EZ whose longitude was closest to 0º. Figure 2: Comparison between observed and modelled spectra and residuals for EZ using model B]{Comparison between observed (blue) and modelled (red) spectra (left column) and comparison between differences (red) and a priori errors (black) (right column) for the EZ using model B, with the grey shaded areas corresponding to telluric absorption. The top row corresponds to nadir (incidence and emission angle = 0º) and the bottom row to limb (incidence and emission angle = 61.45º). Figure 3: Comparison between the a priori aerosol vertical profiles and the retrieved profiles for every region for models A and B. We compare the optical depth/atm at 0.90 μm of model B with all three aerosol populations considered and model A's stratospheric and tropospheric hazes. The horizontal dashed line corresponds to 0.15 atm, separating model B's deep cloud layer from the haze. References:Carlson, R. W., et al. (2016). Chromophores from photolyzed ammonia reacting with acetylene: Application to Jupiter's Great Red Spot. Icarus, 274, 106–115.Sromovsky, L. A., et al. (2017). A possibly universal red chromophore for modeling color variations on Jupiter. Icarus, 291, 232–244.Baines, K. H., et al. (2019). The visual spectrum of Jupiter's Great Red Spot accurately modelled with aerosols produced by photolyzed ammonia reacting with acetylene. Icarus, 330, 217–229.Pérez-Hoyos, S., et al. (2020). Color and aerosol changes in Jupiter after a North temperate belt disturbance. Icarus, 132, 114021.Braude, A. S., et al. (2020). Colour and tropospheric cloud structure of Jupiter from MUSE/VLT: Retrieving a universal chromophore. Icarus, 338, 113589.Anguiano-Arteaga, A., et al. (2021). Vertical Distribution of Aerosols and Hazes Over Jupiter's Great Red Spot and Its Surroundings in 2016 From HST/WFC3 Imaging. Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 126, e2021JE006996.Anguiano-Arteaga, A., et al. (2023). Temporal variations in vertical cloud structure of Jupiter's Great Red Spot, its surroundings and Oval BA from HST/WFC3 imaging. Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 128, e2022JE007427.Irwin, P., et al. (2008). The NEMESIS planetary atmosphere radiative transfer and retrieval tool. J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf., 109, 1136–1150.Rodgers CD. (2000). Inverse methods for atmospheric sounding: theory and practice. Singapore: World Scientific.Cuzzi, J., et al., 2009. Ring Particle Composition and Size Distribution. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht. pp. 459–509.Clark, R.N., McCord, T.B., 1979. Jupiter and Saturn: Near-infrared spectral albedos. Icarus 40, 180–188.Mendikoa, I., et al., 2017. Temporal and spatial variations of the absolute reflectivity of Jupiter and Saturn from 0.38 to 1.7 𝜇m with planetcam-upv/ehu. A&A 607, A72.Irwin, P.G., et al., 2018. Analysis of gaseous ammonia (NH3) absorption in the visible spectrum of Jupiter. Icarus 302, 426–436.Matcheva, K.I., Conrath, B.J., Gierasch, P.J., Flasar, F.M., 2005. The cloud structure of the jovian atmosphere as seen by the Cassini/CIRS experiment. Icarus 179(2), 432–448.Sromovsky, L., Fry, P., 2002. Jupiter’s cloud structure as constrained by Galileo probe and HST observations. Icarus 157 (2), 373–400.