Tag Archives: Atmosphere

On the early evolution of Jupiter

Hi there! Today we will discuss on how Jupiter formed. I guess you know Jupiter, i.e. the largest planet of our Solar System. It is a gaseous planet, which means that it is composed of a large and thick atmosphere, which surrounds a solid core. Jupiter is currently studied by the NASA spacecraft Juno. The study I present you, The primordial entropy of Jupiter, by Andrew Cumming, Ravi Helled, and Julia Venturini, simulates different possible paths for the accretion of the atmosphere of Jupiter. The goal is to compare the outcomes with the current atmosphere, to eventually discard some scenarios and constrain the primordial Jupiter. This study has recently been published in The Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

The planet Jupiter

Jupiter is the largest planet of our Solar System, and the most massive one. It is about 1,000 more massive than our Earth, and 1,000 less massive than the Sun. As such, it has a tremendous influence on the architecture of our System, particularly the small bodies. The Main Asteroid Belt presents gaps, which are due to mean-motion resonances with Jupiter. Jupiter is also responsible for the destabilization of the orbits of objects which pass close to it. A famous example is the comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 which Jupiter tidally destroyed before its impact. You can find below a comparison between Jupiter, Saturn, and our Earth.

Jupiter Saturn Earth
Equatorial radius 71,492 km 60,268 km 6,378 km
Polar radius 66,854 km 54,364 km 6,357 km
Distance to the Sun 5.20 AU 9.58 AU 1 AU
Orbital period 11.86 yr 29.46 yr 1 yr
Spin period 9 h 55 m 10 h 33 m 23 h 56 m
Density 1.326 g/cm3 0.687 g/cm3 5.514 g/cm3

I compare with our Earth given our special connection with that planet, but the comparison with Saturn is much more relevant from a physical point of view. For gaseous planets, the radius correspond to an atmospheric pressure of 1 bar. I here provide a unique spin period, but the gaseous planets experience differential rotation, i.e. the equator may spin slightly faster than the poles.

You can see that our Earth is much denser than the giant guys. The reason is the thick atmosphere, which is less dense than a rocky body. Actually Jupiter is assumed to have a rocky core as well, which would be surrounded by hydrogen, which pressure increases with the depth.

Jupiter seen by Voyager 2 in 1979. © NASA / JPL / USGS
Jupiter seen by Voyager 2 in 1979. © NASA / JPL / USGS

Observers especially know Jupiter for its Great Red Spot, i.e. a giant storm, which is observed since the 17th century.

Jupiter is currently the target of the NASA mission Juno.

The mission Juno

The NASA mission Juno has been sent from Cape Canaveral in August 2011, and orbits Jupiter since July 2016, on a polar orbit. The nominal mission will be completed in July 2018, but I hope it will be extended (I do not have information on this point, sorry). Its goals are to understand origin and evolution of Jupiter, look for solid planetary core, map magnetic field, measure water and ammonia in deep atmosphere, observe auroras.

The  South pole of Jupiter seen by Juno. © NASA / JPL/ SwRI
The South pole of Jupiter seen by Juno. © NASA / JPL/ SwRI

It is composed of 9 instruments. Beside impressive images of cyclones in the atmosphere of Jupiter, it for instance gave us its gravity field of Jupiter with an unprecedented accuracy. Such a result permits to constrain the interior, see for instance this study, in which the authors modeled different interiors for Jupiter. They then compared the resulting, theoretical gravity field, which the one actually measured by Juno. They deduced that the core contains between 7 and 25 Earth masses of heavy elements.

The study I present today does not model the present Jupiter, but instead simulates the evolution of Jupiter from its early life to present. Once more, the goal is to compare with current and future observations. Let us see how a giant planet evolves.

The formation of a giant planet

There are two identified scenarios for the triggering of the formation of a planet:

  • Disk instability: a massive disk fragments into planet-sized self-gravitating clumps
  • Core accretion: solid particles collide and coagulate into larger and larger bodies until a body large enough to accrete a gaseous envelope.

The core accretion model consists of 3 phases:

  1. Primary core/heavy-element accretion: here you create the solid core,
  2. Slow envelope/gas accretion: in this phase, the solid core continues growing, while gas accretes as well,
  3. Rapid gas accretion: this is the final stage, where the core has already been formed.

Here the authors simulate the Phase 3. They are particularly interested in the heat transfer inside the atmosphere. There are two ways to transport heat in such an environment: by radiation, or by convection, i.e. transport of gas, which is a much more effective process. Moreover, convection permits the transport of heavy elements, and so a gradient of density in the atmosphere. This gradient of density would eventually stop the convection, the atmosphere reaching a kind of equilibrium.

Let us see how the authors simulated that process.

Simulations of different scenarios

The authors simulated the gas accretion of Jupiter using the numerical MESA code, for Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics. Yes, stellar, not planetary. But this is very relevant here, since a gaseous planet and a star are both made of a thick gaseous envelope.

These simulations differ by

  • The initial mass of the core,
  • its initial luminosity, which affects the heat transfers during the accretion process. This could be expressed in terms of entropy, which is a thermodynamical quantity expressing the overall activity of a fluid. It will then express the quantity of conductive transfers,
  • the initial mass of the envelope,
  • the temperature of the accreted material,
  • the time-dependent accretion rate. In some simulations it is an ad-hoc model, fitted from previous studies, and in other ones it is directly derived from formation models. The accretion rate is obviously time-dependent, since it slows down at the end of the accretion,
  • the opacity of the material, which is defined as the ratio of the gravitational acceleration over the pressure, multiplied by the optical depth. This affects the heat transfers.

And from all of these simulations, the authors deduce some properties of the final Jupiter, to be compared with future observations to constrain the evolution models.

The initial state constrains the final one

And here are some of the results:

  • Lower opacity and lower solid accretion rate lead to a low mass core,
  • if the gas accretion rate is high then the proto-Jupiter is likely to be fully radiative, i.e. no convection,
  • the rate at which the accretion slows down at the end determines the depth of the convection zone,

etc.

At this time, we do not dispose of enough data to constrain the initial parameters and the accretion rates, but why not in the future? Juno is still on-going, and we hope other missions will follow. For instance, stable regions in Jupiter’s interior can be probed with seismology. Seismology of giant planets would be pretty similar to helioseismology, i.e. this would consist in the detection of acoustic waves, which would be generated by convection in the interior.

The study and its authors

  • You can find the study here. The authors made it freely available on arXiv, thanks to them for sharing! And now the authors:
  • The website of Andrew Cumming, first author of the study,
  • and the one of Ravit Helled.

And that’s it for today! Please do not forget to comment. You can also subscribe to the RSS feed, and follow me on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and Pinterest.

Impacts on Jupiter

Hi there! Today is a little different. I present you a study of the impacts on Jupiter. This study, Small impacts on the giant planet Jupiter, by Hueso et al., has recently been accepted for publication in Astronomy and Astrophysics.
This is something different from usual by the implication of amateur astronomers. The professional scientific community sometimes needs their help, because they permit to tend to a global coverage of an expected event, like a stellar occultation. This is here pretty different since impacts on Jupiter are not predicted, so they are observed by chance. And the more observations, the more chance.
Thanks to these data, the authors derived an estimation of the impact rate on Jupiter.

The fall of Shoemaker-Levy 9

Before getting to the point, let me tell you the story of the comet Shoemaker-Levy 9. This comet has been discovered around Jupiter in March 1993 by Carolyn and Eugene Shoemaker, David Levy, and Philippe Bendjoya. Yes, this was discovered as a satellite of Jupiter, but on an unstable orbit. This comet was originally not a satellite of Jupiter, and when passing by Jupiter captured it. And finally, Shoemaker-Levy 9 crashed on Jupiter between July, 16 and July, 22 1994. Why during 6 days? Because the comet got fragmented. 23 fragments have been detected, which crashed close to the South Pole of Jupiter in 1994. This resulted in flashes more visible than the Red Spot, and scars which could be seen during several months. Moreover, Shoemaker-Levy 9 polluted the atmosphere of Jupiter with water.

Impacting Jupiter

Shoemaker-Levy 9 is a spectacular and well-known example of impact on Jupiter. But Jupiter is in fact regularly impacted. Cassini even mentioned a black dot on Jupiter in 1690, which could result from an impact. This is how things work.

Jupiter attracts the impactors

As you know, Jupiter is the most massive body in the Solar System, beside the Sun of course. As such, it attracts the small objects passing by, i.e. it tends to focus the trajectories of the impactors. So, the impactors are caught in the gravitational field of Jupiter, but usually on a hyperbolic orbit, since they come from very far away. As a consequence their orbits are unstable, and they usually will be ejected, or crash onto Jupiter. Let us assume we crash on Jupiter.

Jupiter destroys the impactors

Before the crash, the distance to Jupiter decreases, of course, and its gravitational action becomes stronger and stronger. A consequence is that the differential action of Jupiter on different parts of a given body, even a small one, gets stronger, and tends to disrupt it (tidal disruption). This is why Shoemaker-Levy 9 has been fragmented.

The impactors do not leave any crater

When the fragments reach Jupiter, they reach in fact its upper atmosphere. Since this atmosphere is very large and thick, the impactors do not create visible craters, but only perturbations in the atmosphere. We see at least a flash (a bright fireball), and then we may see kind of clouds, which are signatures of the atmospheric pollution due to the impactors. I mentioned a flash, actually they may be several of them, because the impactor is fragmented.

Let us now discuss on the observations of such events.

Observing an impact

Jupiter is usually easy to observe from the Earth, but only 9 months each year. It is too close to the Sun during the remaining time. While visible, everybody is free to point a telescope at it, and record the images. Actually amateur astronomers do it, and some impacts were detected by them. Once you have recorded a movie, then you should watch it slowly and carefully to detect an impact. Such an event lasts a few seconds, which is pretty tough to detect on a movie which lasts several hours.

The authors studied 5 events, at the following dates:

  1. June 3, 2010, detected twice, in Australia and in the Philippines,
  2. August 20, 2010, detected thrice, in Japan,
  3. September 9, 2012, detected twice, in the USA
  4. March 17, 2016, detected twice, in Austria and Ireland,
  5. May 26, 2017, detected thrice, in France and in Germany.

Once an observer detects such an event, he/she posts the information on an astronomy forum, to let everybody know about it. This is how several observers can get in touch. If you are interested, you can also consult the page of the Jupiter bolides detection project.

The detection of impacts can be improved in observing Jupiter through blue filters and wide filters centered on the methane absorption band at 890 nm, because Jupiter is pretty dark at these wavelengths, making the flash more visible. Moreover, one of the authors, Marc Delcroix, made an open-source software, DeTeCt, which automatically detects the flashes from observations of Jupiter.

All of these events were discovered by amateurs, and professionals exploited the data to characterize the impactors.

Treating the data

Once the impacts have been detected, the information and images reach the professionals. In order to characterize the impactor, they estimate the intensity and duration of the flash by differential photometry between images during the event and images before and after, to subtract the luminosity of Jupiter. Then they plot a lightcurve of the event, which could show several maximums if we are lucky enough. From the intensity and duration they get to the energy of the impact. And since they can estimate the velocity of the impact, i.e. 60 km/s, which is a little larger than the escape velocity of Jupiter (imagine you want to send a rocket from Jupiter… you should send it with a velocity of at least 60 km/s, otherwise it will fall back on the planet), they get to the size of the impactor.

A 45-m impactor every year

The most frequent impacts are probably the ones by micrometeorites, as on Earth, but we will never be able to observe them. They can only be estimated by dynamical models, i.e. numerical simulations, or by on-site measurements by spacecrafts.

The authors showed that the diameters of the impactors, which were involved in the detected events, could be from the meter to 20 meters, depending on their density, which is unknown. Moreover, they estimate that events by impactors of 45 m should occur and could be detectable every year, but that impacts from impactors of 380 meters would be detectable every 6 to 30 years… if observed of course. And this is why the authors insist that many amateurs participate to such surveys, use the DeTeCt software, report their observations, and share their images.

The study and its authors

And that’s it for today! Please do not forget to comment. You can also subscribe to the RSS feed, and follow me on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and Pinterest.

The chemistry of Pluto

Hi there! The famous dwarf planet Pluto is better known to us since the flyby of the spacecraft New Horizons in 2015. Today, I tell you about its chemistry. I present you Solid-phase equilibria on Pluto’s surface, by Sugata P. Tan & Jeffrey S. Kargel, which has recently been accepted for publication in The Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

The atmosphere of Pluto

I do not want here to recall everything about Pluto. This is a dwarf planet, which has been discovered by Clyde Tombaugh in 1930. It orbits most of the time outside the orbit of Neptune, but with such an eccentricity that it is sometimes inside. It was discovered in 1978 that Pluto has a large satellite, Charon, so large that the system Pluto-Charon can be seen as a binary object. This binary has at least 4 small satellites, which were discovered thanks to the Hubble Space Telescope.

Pluto has a tenuous atmosphere. It was discovered from the Earth in 1985 in analyzing a stellar occultation: when a faint, atmosphereless object is aligned between a star and a observer, the observer does not see the star anymore. However, when the object has an atmosphere, the light emitted by the star is deviated, and can even be focused by the atmosphere, resulting in a peak of luminosity.

Several occultations have permitted to constrain the atmosphere. It has been calculated that its pressure is about 15 μbar (the one of the Earth being close to 1 bar, so it is very tenuous), and that it endured seasonal variations. By seasonal I mean the same as for the Earth: because of the variations of the Sun-Pluto distance and the obliquity of Pluto, which induces that every surface area has a time-dependent insolation, thermic effects affect the atmosphere. This can be direct effects, i.e. the Sun heats the atmosphere, but also indirect ones, in which the Sun heats the surface, triggering ice sublimation, which itself feeds the atmosphere. The seasonal cycle, i.e. the plutonian (or hadean) year lasts 248 years.

Observations have shown that this atmosphere is hotter at its top than at the surface, i.e. the temperature goes down from 110 K to about 45 K (very cold anyway). This atmosphere is mainly composed of nitrogen N2, methane CH4, and carbon monoxide CO.

The surface of Pluto

The surface is known to us thanks to New Horizons. Let me particularly focus on two regions:

  • Sputnik Planitia: this is the heart that can be seen on a map of Pluto. It is directed to Charon, and is covered by volatile ice, essentially made of nitrogen N2,
  • Cthulhu Regio: a large, dark reddish macula, on which the volatile ice is absent.
A map of Pluto (mosaic made with New Horizons data). © NASA
A map of Pluto (mosaic made with New Horizons data). © NASA

The reason why I particularly focus on these two regions is that they have two different albedos, i.e. the bright Sputnik Planitia is very efficient to reflect the incident Solar light, while Cthulhu Regio is much less efficient. This also affects the temperature: on Sputnik Planitia, the temperature never rises above 37 K, while it never goes below 42.5 K in Cthulhu Regio. We will see below that it affects the composition of the surface.

An Equation Of State

The three main components, i.e. nitrogen, methane, and carbon monoxide, have different sublimation temperatures at 11μbar, which are 36.9 K, 53 K, and 40.8 K, respectively (sublimation: direct transition from the solid to the gaseous state. No liquid phase.). A mixture of them will then be a coexistence of solid and gaseous phases, which depends on the temperature, the pressure, and the respective abundances of these 3 chemical components. The pressure is set to 11μbar, since it was the pressure measured by New Horizons, but several temperatures should be considered, since it is not homogeneous. The authors considered temperatures between 36.5 K and 41.5 K. Since the atmosphere has seasonal variations, a pressure of 11μbar should be considered as a snapshot at the closest encounter with New Horizons (July 14, 2015), but not as a mean value.

The goal of the authors is to build an Equation Of State giving the phases of a given mixture, under conditions of temperature and pressure relevant for Pluto. The surface is thus seen as a multicomponent solid solution. For that, they develop a model, CRYOCHEM for CRYOgenic CHEMistry, which aims at predicting the phase equilibrium under cryogenic conditions. The paper I present you today is part of this development. Any system is supposed to evolve to a minimum of energy, which is an equilibrium, and the composition of the surface of Pluto is assumed to be in thermodynamic equilibrium with the atmosphere. The energy which should be minimized, i.e. the Helmholtz energy, is related to the interactions between the molecules. A hard-sphere model is considered, i.e. a minimal distance between two adjacent particles should be maintained, and for that the geometry of the crystalline structure is considered. Finally, the results are compared with the observations by New Horizons.

Such a model requires many parameters. Not only the pressure and temperature, but also the relative fraction of the 3 components, and the parameters related to the energies involved. These parameters are deduced from extrapolations of lab experiments.

Results

The predicted coexistence of states predicted by this study is consistent with the observations. Moreover, it shows that the small fraction of carbon monoxide can be neglected, as the behavior of the ternary mixture of N2/CH4/CO is very close to the one of the binary N2/CH4. This results in either a nitrogren-rich solid phase, for the coolest regions (the bright Sputnik Planitia, e.g.), and a methane-rich solid phase for the warmest ones, like Cthulhu Regio.

Developing such a model has broad implications for predicting the composition of bodies’s surfaces, for which we lack of data. The authors give the example of the satellite of Neptune Triton, which size and distance to the Sun present some similarities with Pluto. They also invite the reader to stay tuned, as an application of CRYOCHEM to Titan, which is anyway very different from Pluto, is expected for publication pretty soon.

The study and its authors

And that’s it for today! Please do not forget to comment. You can also subscribe to the RSS feed, and follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

A periodic variation in the atmosphere of Venus

Hi there! Today’ post will be my first on Venus. More precisely, it deals with its atmosphere. As you may know, the planet Venus is known for its very thick atmosphere, which precludes optical observations of its surface. The study I present today is entitled “Discovery of a 150 day period in the Venus condensational clouds”, by Kevin McGouldrick and Constantine Tsang, who work in the city of Boulder, CO (I love this place). This study has been recently accepted for publication in Icarus.

Some Venus facts

Venus is the second innermost planet of the Solar System, which means that its orbit is interior to the one of the Earth. It is sometimes said to be a twin sister of the Earth because its diameter is 95% the diameter of the Earth. However, the meteorological conditions make it a very hostile place for life. The surface pressure is ~93 times the one of the Earth, the temperature is about 470˚C, and the atmosphere is essentially made of carbon dioxide.

Its rotation is very interesting, since it rotates very slowly, and in the retrograde direction. It has a rotation period of 245 days, while its orbital period around the Sun is only 225 days. This means that a Venusian day is longer than a Venusian year. This peculiar rotational state could result from the atmospheric tides, i.e. the way the dense atmosphere interacts with the gravitational forcing of the Sun, loses some energy, and also interacts with the surface. However, the atmosphere moves much faster, with a period of about 4.2 days.

The exploration of Venus

As a putative twin sister of the Earth and a nearby planet, Venus has been a priority target of the Space Race. This is why several American and Soviet probes reached it between 1962 and 1984, allowing major progress in our knowledge of the planet. Here are the probes:

  • 1962: Mariner 2 (USA). This probe was the first one to perform successfully a flyby of another planet than the Earth. It proved that the surface was hot, detected no magnetic field, and it improved our knowledge of the mass of the planet. Beside these results of Venus, it made measurements of the Solar wind and allowed many technological improvements in space navigation and telecommunication.
  • 1965: Venera 4 (USSR), Mariner 5 (USA). Venera 4 crashed on Venus after a fall in the atmosphere with a parachute, permitting the first in situ measurements of its chemical composition, and detection of a weak magnetic field, which Mariner 2 could not have detected. Mariner 5 made a flyby of Venus and analyzed its outer atmosphere.
  • 1969: Venera 5 & 6 (USSR) were technologically similar to Venera 4, but with specific improvements of the analysis of the atmosphere, based on the results of Venera 4.
  • 1970: Venera 7 (USSR) was the first probe to land on another planet than the Earth and to transmit data from the surface. It made the first accurate measurement of the temperature and the pressure at the surface.
  • 1972: Venera 8 (USSR) showed that the atmosphere of Venus was pretty clear below 50 km, meaning that the clouds had a higher altitude.
  • 1975: Venera 9 & 10 (USSR). These two probes were the first ones to send images of the surface of another planet than the Earth. Moreover, Venera 10 measured the velocity of the wind.
  • 1978: Venera 11 & 12 (USSR), Pioneer Venus Multiprobe (USA). Venera 11 & 12 made more accurate measurements of the composition of the atmosphere, and detected lightning and thunder. Pioneer Venus Multiprobe launched 4 probes to the surface of the planet, to analyse the atmosphere during their fall. One of these probes survived the impact, but did not have any imaging instrument. These probes identified 3 layers of clouds in the atmosphere.
  • 1978-1992: Pioneer Venus Orbiter (USA). This spacecraft was the companion of Pioneer Venus Multiprobe, and was inserted into orbit on Dec 4th 1978. Its orbit was very eccentric (0.8), and it contained 17 instruments, allowing to study the magnetic field of Venus, its gravity field, its atmosphere… It also monitored the water loss of the Halley’s comet in 1986.
  • 1981: Venera 13 & 14 (USSR) were landers, they made measurements of the atmosphere during the fall and took images of the surface.
  • 1983: Venera 15 & 16 (USSR). These probes were orbiters equipped with radars. They mapped ~25% of the surface.
  • 1984: Vega 1 & 2 (USSR + Europa). These two probes made a flyby of Venus to launch a lander devoted to make measurements of the atmosphere. After the flyby, the probes approached Halley’s comet and took ~1,500 images of it.
  • 1990: Flyby by Galileo (USA). Galileo was sent to Jupiter, but used the gravitational assistance of Venus on its way. This was the opportunity to study the composition of the clouds of Venus, in comparing the measurements at 1.74 and 2.30 μm, i.e. in the infrared. These two bandwidths correspond to minimal absorption by carbon dioxide and by water, so they can be used not only to detect a signal from the surface of Venus, i.e. the Solar light reflected by the surface, but also to estimate the temporal evolution and the composition of the clouds.
  • 1990-1994: Magellan (USA). This orbiter studied the gravity field of the planet, and also provided a detailed map. It particularly revealed the presence of many volcanoes, few impact craters and large lava plains, meaning that the surface is geologically young, and evidence of some tectonic activity, which is pretty different than the terrestrial one. It was revealed by low domical structures called coronae, produced by the upwelling and subsidence of magma from the mantle.
  • 1998-1999: 2 flybys by Cassini (USA), on its way to Saturn.
  • 2006-2015: Venus Express (Europa), see next paragraph.
  • Since 2015: Akatsuki (Japan). This spacecraft should have orbited Venus since 2010, but that maneuver failed. It then orbited the Sun during 5 years in safe mode before succeeding another orbital insertion in December 2015. This spacecraft essentially studies the dynamics of the atmosphere of Venus during a 2 year regular scientific mission, which has started in May 2016.

Venus Express (VEX)

This ESA spacecraft has been launched in November 2005, and was inserted in orbit in April 2006, originally for a 2-year mission… which was completed 9 years later! The main objective of that mission was to understand the dynamics of the atmosphere of Venus, with the hope of a better understanding of the atmospheric evolution in general. It contained 7 instruments, 3 of them being devoted to spectrometry (VIRTIS, SPICAV and PFS), one to radioscience (VeRa, for Venus Radioscience), one was a magnometer (MAG), one for imaging (VMC, for Venus Monitoring Camera), and the last one, ASPERA-4, investigated the interaction between the Solar wind and the Venusian atmosphere. We are today particularly interested by VIRTIS, for Visible and Infrared Thermal Imaging Spectrometer, which measured the emitted radiance in 1.74 μm and 2.30 μm of the night-side of Venus.
Venus Express had a polar and highly eccentric orbit. Its high eccentricity resulted in a large variation of the distance between the probe and the planet, i.e. from 460 to 63,000 km, with a period of 24 hours. As a consequence, the field of view and resolution of the measurements experienced large variations.
An interesting thing to notice is the fact that Venus Express reused some technologies designed for Mars Express and Rosetta.

This paper

The authors analyzed the emitted radiance in the infrared at different latitudes, for the two wavelengths 1.74 μm and 2.30 μm. Unfortunately, they do not have measurements later than 2008 October 27, because of the failure of the instrument’s cooling system (keep in mind that infrared is very sensitive to the temperature). Moreover, they used only data taken at a distance larger than 10,000 km. The variation of this radiance characterizes the dynamics of the lower region of the clouds, at an altitude between 50 and 55 km. Observing at these two wavelengths permits to draw conclusions on the size of the particles constituting the clouds. Actually, 4 sizes of particles are expected in the clouds of Venus, and in this specific region:

  • Mode 1 particles: they have an average diameter of 0.6 μm, and are expected in the upper region,
  • Mode 2 particles: they have an average diameter of 2 μm, and are expected in the upper region as well,
  • Mode 2′ particles: they have an average diameter of 3 μm, and are expected in the lower and middle regions,
  • Mode 3 particles, with a diameter of 7 μm, are expectd in the lower region.

So, for our lower clouds, we expect only Mode 2′ and Mode 3 particles.

The authors used VIRTIS data, and after denoising they averaged the measurements over 7 days, since they are interested only in the long-term dynamics. Since the atmosphere is rotating, the authors could thus only detect variations in time and in latitude, but not in longitude.

And the results are these: the radiance steadily increases at mid-latitudes, while it decreases near the poles, which could reveal a circulation of clouds over a very-long term. This long-term variation should be a periodic effect, which future measurements by Akatsuki should help to understand.
Moreover, the authors noticed a 150-day periodic variation in the cloud coverage, especially in the 1.74 μm radiance data, at mid-latitude. This is an unexpected result, which had already been hinted by the same authors 4 years before, with less data. The cause of this periodicity still needs to be elucidated. The authors notice that this period is almost two thirds of the rotation period of Venus, but this may be by chance. This could be the manifestation of a Hadley-like circulation, i.e. a kind of circular motion of the atmosphere driven by variations of its temperature, itself controlled by the latitude and the altitude.

Some links

That’s it for today! As usual, I am interested in your feedback. Let me know what you think about this article, what kind of articles you are interested in, if you have specific questions on the science behind…
 

Thanks!