Deep Clouds on Jupiter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jupiter’s atmospheric water abundance is a highly important cosmochemical parameter that is linked to processes of planetary formation, weather, and circulation. Remote sensing and in situ measurement attempts still leave room for substantial improvements to our knowledge of Jupiter’s atmospheric water abundance. With the motivation to advance our understanding of water in Jupiter’s atmosphere, we investigate observations and models of deep clouds. We discuss deep clouds in isolated convective storms (including a unique storm site in the North Equatorial Belt that episodically erupted in 2021–2022), cyclonic vortices, and northern high-latitude regions, as seen in Hubble Space Telescope visible/near-infrared imaging data. We evaluate the imaging data in continuum and weak methane band (727 nm) filters by comparison with radiative transfer simulations, 5 micron imaging (Gemini), and 5 micron spectroscopy (Keck), and conclude that the weak methane band imaging approach mostly detects variation in the upper cloud and haze opacity, although sensitivity to deeper cloud layers can be exploited if upper cloud/haze opacity can be separately constrained. The cloud-base water abundance is a function of cloud-base temperature, which must be estimated by extrapolating 0.5-bar observed temperatures downward to the condensation region near 5 bar. For a given cloud base pressure, the largest source of uncertainty on the local water abundance comes from the temperature gradient used for the extrapolation. We conclude that spatially resolved spectra to determine cloud heights—collected simultaneously with spatially-resolved mid-infrared spectra to determine 500-mbar temperatures and with improved lapse rate estimates—would be needed to answer the following very challenging question: Can observations of deep water clouds on Jupiter be used to constrain the atmospheric water abundance?
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".