Stratospheric clouds do not impede <i>JWST</i> transit spectroscopy for exoplanets with Earth-like atmospheres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) will provide an opportunity to investigate the atmospheres of potentially habitable planets. Aerosols significantly mute molecular features in transit spectra because they prevent light from probing the deeper layers of the atmosphere. Earth occasionally has stratospheric/high tropospheric clouds at 15–20 km that could substantially limit the observable depth of the underlying atmosphere. We use solar occultations of Earth’s atmosphere to create synthetic JWST transit spectra of Earth analogues orbiting dwarf stars. Unlike previous investigations, we consider both clear and cloudy sightlines from the SCISAT satellite. We find that the maximum difference in effective thickness of the atmosphere between a clear and globally cloudy atmosphere is 8.5 km at 2.28 $\mu$m, with a resolution of 0.02 $\mu$m. After incorporating the effects of refraction and Pandexo’s noise modelling, we find that JWST would not be able to detect Earth-like stratospheric clouds if an exo-Earth was present in the TRAPPIST-1 system, as the cloud spectrum differs from the clear spectrum by a maximum of 10 ppm. These stratospheric clouds are also not robustly detected by TauREx when performing spectral retrieval for a cloudy TRAPPIST-1 planet. However, if an Earth-sized planet were to orbit in a white dwarf’s habitable zone, then we predict that JWST’s NIRSpec would be able to detect its stratospheric clouds after only four transits. We conclude that stratospheric clouds would not impede JWST transit spectroscopy or the detection of biosignatures for Earth-like atmospheres.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".