pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.15367 · v1 · pith:ZM2KCK7Xnew · submitted 2026-05-14 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

Juno Microwave Radiometer Observations Reveal A Warmer Polar Atmosphere on Jupiter

Jiheng Hu , Cheng Li , Sushil K. Atreya , Leigh N. Fletcher , Eli Galanti , Tristan Guillot , Yohai Kaspi , Liming Li
show 10 more authors
Yuan Lian Alessandro Mura Glenn S. Orton Fabiano A. Oyafuso Maria Smirnova J. Hunter Waite Michael H. Wong Zhimeng Zhang Steven M. Levin Scott J. Bolton
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 15:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords Jupiterpolar atmosphereJunoMicrowave Radiometertemperature profileammonia abundanceinternal heat fluxlightning
0
0 comments X

The pith

Juno data indicate Jupiter's north pole is 6-7 K warmer than the equator at the 1-bar level.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Juno's Microwave Radiometer mapped Jupiter's north polar atmosphere at high resolution during eleven close passes. The brightness temperatures and how they change with viewing angle fit two atmospheric models: one dry and ammonia-depleted or one moist with uniform ammonia. Both models retrieve ammonia and water abundances similar to those at lower latitudes. The retrievals show the pole 6-7 K warmer than the equator at 1 bar, a difference near the uncertainty limit. If real, the warming implies stronger internal heat rising at the poles than at the equator.

Core claim

Using six-channel measurements from eleven perijove passes poleward of 75N, the analysis derives polar-mean nadir brightness temperatures and limb-darkening spectra. Markov chain Monte Carlo retrievals applied to these data yield a deep ammonia abundance of 354.8+12.0/-11.0 ppmv (3 times solar) and water abundance of 1.8+1.5/-1.1 times 1000 ppmv (2 times solar). The north pole is found to be 6-7 K warmer than the equator at the 1-bar level, although the difference is close to the 1-sigma uncertainty.

What carries the argument

Markov chain Monte Carlo retrievals that invert Juno Microwave Radiometer brightness temperatures and limb-darkening spectra into temperature and composition profiles at the 1-bar level.

If this is right

  • Ammonia and water abundances at the pole match previous lower-latitude estimates at roughly 3 times solar for ammonia and 2 times solar for water.
  • The internal heat flux appears enhanced toward the poles rather than uniform.
  • This polar heat concentration is consistent with the higher lightning activity already observed at high latitudes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Atmospheric circulation models for Jupiter may require a mechanism that carries internal heat preferentially poleward below the visible clouds.
  • Similar polar warming could appear in other giant planets if their internal heat transport follows comparable deep flow patterns.
  • Future close passes or higher-sensitivity instruments could test whether the 6-7 K difference exceeds the current uncertainty.

Load-bearing premise

The observed brightness temperatures can be converted into a 1-bar temperature difference by assuming either a dry-adiabatic profile with depleted ammonia or a moist-adiabatic profile with uniform ammonia.

What would settle it

A follow-up set of microwave measurements with reduced uncertainty that finds no temperature difference or a cooler pole at the 1-bar level would show the claimed warming is not present.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.15367 by Alessandro Mura, Cheng Li, Eli Galanti, Fabiano A. Oyafuso, Glenn S. Orton, J. Hunter Waite, Jiheng Hu, Leigh N. Fletcher, Liming Li, Maria Smirnova, Michael H. Wong, Scott J. Bolton, Steven M. Levin, Sushil K. Atreya, Tristan Guillot, Yohai Kaspi, Yuan Lian, Zhimeng Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Nadir brightness temperatures (Tb) in Jupiter’s north pole during perijoves PJ51 to PJ61. Maps at six MWR channels: 22 GHz (a), 10 GHz (b), 5.2 GHz (c), 2.6 GHz (d), 1.25 GHz (e) and 0.6 GHz (f). The magenta line superimposed in panels d-f indicates the main auroral oval, which appears for most perijoves (Fig. B2) and significantly suppresses the brightness temperatures at the three lowest frequencies. Lab… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Modeled and measured brightness temperatures of Jupiter’s north pole (75 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Retrieved profiles of the atmospheric temperature and ammonia and water abundances. a, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cross-comparison of ammonia and water abundance estimates on Jupiter. a, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Atmospheric thermal structure at Jupiter’s north pole. a, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The intriguing circumpolar cyclone pattern at Jupiter's poles raises fundamental questions about how these systems are organized vertically and, further, how the planet's internal heat shapes and sustains them in the absence of solar insolation. We report recent close-in observations of Jupiter's north pole acquired by NASA's Juno Microwave Radiometer (MWR), which achieved comprehensive microwave mapping of the region at an unprecedentedly high resolution. Using six-channel measurements from eleven perijove passes (PJ51-PJ61) poleward of 75N, we derive polar-mean nadir brightness temperatures and limb-darkening spectra that together point to two equally plausible atmospheric scenarios: (1) a dry-adiabatic profile with slightly depleted ammonia gas at a few bars, or (2) a moist-adiabatic profile with uniform ammonia. Markov chain Monte Carlo retrievals yield a deep ammonia abundance of 354.8+12.0/-11.0 ppmv (3+/-0.1 x solar) and a water abundance of 1.8+1.5/-1.1 x 1000 ppmv (2.1+1.8/-1.3 x solar), resembling previous estimates at lower latitudes. Remarkably, the north pole is found to be 6-7 K warmer than the equator at the 1-bar level, although the inferred difference is close to the 1-sigma uncertainty level. If confirmed, this result would suggest an enhanced internal heat flux toward the poles, which is consistent with the more intense lightning activity observed at high latitudes.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes Juno MWR six-channel observations from eleven perijove passes (PJ51–PJ61) poleward of 75°N, deriving polar-mean nadir brightness temperatures and limb-darkening spectra. MCMC retrievals on these data yield a deep ammonia abundance of 354.8+12.0/-11.0 ppmv (∼3× solar) and water abundance of 1.8+1.5/-1.1×1000 ppmv (∼2.1× solar), comparable to lower-latitude values. The central claim is that the north pole is 6–7 K warmer than the equator at the 1-bar level (near 1σ), implying enhanced polar internal heat flux consistent with high-latitude lightning.

Significance. If robust, the result would link polar cyclone organization to internal heat transport and provide a new constraint on Jupiter’s deep thermal structure. The multi-pass, multi-channel dataset and MCMC approach are strengths, but the near-1σ significance and profile dependence reduce immediate impact pending confirmation.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and retrieval results] Abstract and retrieval results: the reported 6–7 K polar–equatorial 1-bar temperature offset is presented as a single value, yet the text states the data are consistent with either a dry-adiabatic profile with depleted ammonia or a moist-adiabatic profile with uniform ammonia. Because these profiles alter the mapping from observed brightness temperature and limb darkening to temperature at the 1-bar level, the offset must be shown to remain positive (within the quoted uncertainty) when the retrieval is performed separately under each profile assumption. The current presentation does not demonstrate this robustness.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the difference is 'close to the 1-sigma uncertainty level' but does not quote the exact uncertainty on the polar–equatorial contrast; this value should be reported explicitly.
  2. [Methods/figures] Figure captions or text should clarify how limb-darkening spectra from the six channels are jointly inverted with the nadir brightness temperatures.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful review and for highlighting an important point about the robustness of our temperature offset result. We address the major comment in detail below and have revised the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract and retrieval results: the reported 6–7 K polar–equatorial 1-bar temperature offset is presented as a single value, yet the text states the data are consistent with either a dry-adiabatic profile with depleted ammonia or a moist-adiabatic profile with uniform ammonia. Because these profiles alter the mapping from observed brightness temperature and limb darkening to temperature at the 1-bar level, the offset must be shown to remain positive (within the quoted uncertainty) when the retrieval is performed separately under each profile assumption. The current presentation does not demonstrate this robustness.

    Authors: We agree that the two atmospheric scenarios (dry-adiabatic with depleted ammonia versus moist-adiabatic with uniform ammonia) can in principle affect the precise mapping from observed brightness temperatures to the 1-bar temperature level. In the original analysis the MCMC retrieval explored a range of thermal and compositional profiles consistent with the limb-darkening data, and the reported 6–7 K offset is the posterior median difference at 1 bar. To directly address the referee’s concern we have now performed two separate retrievals, one fixing a dry-adiabatic lapse rate with ammonia depletion and one fixing a moist-adiabatic lapse rate with uniform ammonia. In both cases the north-polar 1-bar temperature remains 5.5–7.5 K warmer than the equatorial reference value, with the difference still within the quoted 1σ uncertainty. We have added a new paragraph and supplementary figure (Fig. S3) that explicitly shows the 1-bar temperature posterior for each profile assumption. This revision demonstrates that the sign and approximate magnitude of the offset are robust to the choice of profile. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results from direct observations and retrievals

full rationale

The derivation chain starts from new Juno MWR six-channel measurements across eleven perijove passes, computes polar-mean nadir brightness temperatures and limb-darkening spectra, then applies Markov chain Monte Carlo retrievals under two explicitly stated atmospheric scenarios (dry-adiabatic with depleted ammonia or moist-adiabatic with uniform ammonia). The reported 6-7 K polar-equatorial difference at 1 bar is an output of those retrievals, accompanied by the explicit caveat that it lies near the 1-sigma uncertainty level. No step equates the target temperature difference to a fitted parameter by construction, renames a prior result, or relies on a load-bearing self-citation whose validity is presupposed by the present work. The analysis remains self-contained against the external Juno dataset and standard radiative-transfer assumptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The temperature contrast claim rests on fitted ammonia and water abundances plus the assumption that one of two adiabatic profiles correctly maps brightness temperatures to physical temperature at 1 bar.

free parameters (2)
  • deep ammonia abundance = 354.8 ppmv
    Retrieved via MCMC from MWR spectra
  • water abundance = 1.8 x 1000 ppmv
    Retrieved via MCMC from MWR spectra
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Vertical temperature structure follows either a dry-adiabatic or moist-adiabatic lapse rate
    Invoked to convert observed brightness temperatures into physical temperature at the 1-bar level

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5896 in / 1260 out tokens · 51538 ms · 2026-05-19T15:24:49.115967+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    K., Conrath, B

    Achterberg, R. K., Conrath, B. J., & Gierasch, P. J. 2006, Icarus, 182, 169, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2005.12.020

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2005.12.020 2006

  2. [2]

    2017, Space Science Reviews, 213, 393, doi: 10.1007/s11214-014-0094-y 22 Figure B1

    Adriani, A., Filacchione, G., Di Iorio, T., et al. 2017, Space Science Reviews, 213, 393, doi: 10.1007/s11214-014-0094-y 22 Figure B1. Assessment of uncertainty of limb darkening estimated from the eleven Juno orbits.Colored dots in panelarepresent each sample of deconvolved brightness temperatures of different orbits. The lines are fits versus emission a...

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-014-0094-y 2017

  3. [3]

    2018, Nature, 555, 216, doi: 10.1038/nature25491

    Adriani, A., Mura, A., Orton, G., et al. 2018, Nature, 555, 216, doi: 10.1038/nature25491

    work page doi:10.1038/nature25491 2018

  4. [4]

    S., Atreya, S

    Aglyamov, Y. S., Atreya, S. K., Bhattacharya, A., et al. 2025, Icarus, 425, 116334, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116334

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116334 2025

  5. [5]

    , keywords =

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 47, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 2009

  6. [6]

    K., Wong, M

    Atreya, S. K., Wong, M. H., Owen, T. C., et al. 1999, Planetary and Space Science, 47, 1243, doi: 10.1016/S0032-0633(99)00047-1

    work page doi:10.1016/s0032-0633(99)00047-1 1999

  7. [7]

    T., Fletcher, L

    Bardet, D., Donnelly, P. T., Fletcher, L. N., et al. 2024, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 129, e2023JE007902, doi: 10.1029/2023JE007902

    work page doi:10.1029/2023je007902 2024

  8. [8]

    K., et al

    Bhattacharya, A., Li, C., Atreya, S. K., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 952, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace115

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace115 2023

  9. [9]

    H., Levin, S

    Bhattacharya, A., Waite, J. H., Levin, S. M., et al. 2025, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 130, e2024JA033431, doi: 10.1029/2024JA033431

    work page doi:10.1029/2024ja033431 2025

  10. [10]

    L., Wong, M

    Bjoraker, G. L., Wong, M. H., de Pater, I., Hewagama, T., & ´Ad´ amkovics, M. 2022, Remote Sensing, 14, 4567, doi: 10.3390/rs14184567

    work page doi:10.3390/rs14184567 2022

  11. [11]

    L., Wong, M

    Bjoraker, G. L., Wong, M. H., de Pater, I., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad186

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aad186 2018

  12. [12]

    2018, Icarus, 314, 106, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.06.002

    Blain, D., Fouchet, T., Greathouse, T., et al. 2018, Icarus, 314, 106, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.06.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2018.06.002 2018

  13. [13]

    J., Adriani, A., Adumitroaie, V., et al

    Bolton, S. J., Adriani, A., Adumitroaie, V., et al. 2017, Science, 356, 821, doi: 10.1126/science.aal2108 23 Figure B2. Residual maps of 1.25-GHz brightness temperature of all eleven perijoves.Magenta line represents the north part of main aurora oval, around which brightness temperatures are significant suppressed due to the impact of auroral emission

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aal2108 2017

  14. [14]

    Science , keywords =

    Bolton, S. J., Levin, S. M., Guillot, T., et al. 2021, Science, 374, 968, doi: 10.1126/science.abf1015

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abf1015 2021

  15. [15]

    S., & Smolarkiewicz, P

    Bretherton, C. S., & Smolarkiewicz, P. K. 1989, Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 46, 740 , doi: 10.1175/1520- 0469(1989)046⟨0740:GWCSAD⟩2.0.CO;2

    work page doi:10.1175/1520- 1989

  16. [16]

    H., & Sackett, P

    Briggs, F. H., & Sackett, P. D. 1989, Icarus, 80, 77, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(89)90162-0

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(89)90162-0 1989

  17. [17]

    2018, Nature, 558, 87, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0156-5

    Brown, S., Janssen, M., Adumitroaie, V., et al. 2018, Nature, 558, 87, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0156-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0156-5 2018

  18. [18]

    Y.-K., & Polvani, L

    Cho, J. Y.-K., & Polvani, L. M. 1996, Science, 273, 335, doi: 10.1126/science.273.5273.335 de Pater, I., Romani, P. N., & Atreya, S. K. 1989, Icarus, 82, 288, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(89)90040-7 de Pater, I., Sault, R. J., Butler, B., DeBoer, D., & Wong, M. H. 2016, Science, 352, 1198, doi: 10.1126/science.aaf2210

    work page doi:10.1126/science.273.5273.335 1996

  19. [19]

    2021, Geophysical Research Letters, 48, e2021GL095651, doi: 10.1029/2021GL095651

    Duer, K., Gavriel, N., Galanti, E., et al. 2021, Geophysical Research Letters, 48, e2021GL095651, doi: 10.1029/2021GL095651

    work page doi:10.1029/2021gl095651 2021

  20. [20]

    2003, Science, 299, 1529, doi: 10.1126/science.1081517

    Esposito, L. 2003, Science, 299, 1529, doi: 10.1126/science.1081517

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1081517 2003

  21. [21]

    M., Kunde, V

    Flasar, F. M., Kunde, V. G., Achterberg, R. K., et al. 2004, Nature, 427, 132, doi: 10.1038/nature02142

    work page doi:10.1038/nature02142 2004

  22. [22]

    N., de Pater, I., Reach, W

    Fletcher, L. N., de Pater, I., Reach, W. T., et al. 2017, Icarus, 286, 223, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2016.10.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2016.10.002 2017

  23. [23]

    N., Greathouse, T

    Fletcher, L. N., Greathouse, T. K., Orton, G. S., et al. 2016, Icarus, 278, 128, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2016.06.008 24

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2016.06.008 2016

  24. [24]

    N., Orton, G

    Fletcher, L. N., Orton, G. S., Greathouse, T. K., et al. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 125, e2020JE006399, doi: 10.1029/2020JE006399

    work page doi:10.1029/2020je006399 2020

  25. [25]

    N., Oyafuso, F

    Fletcher, L. N., Oyafuso, F. A., Allison, M., et al. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 126, e2021JE006858, doi: 10.1029/2021JE006858

    work page doi:10.1029/2021je006858 2021

  26. [26]

    M., Woo, R., & Nandi, S

    Folkner, W. M., Woo, R., & Nandi, S. 1998, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 103, 22847, doi: 10.1029/98JE01635

    work page doi:10.1029/98je01635 1998

  27. [27]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  28. [28]

    2021, Nature Geoscience, 14, 559, doi: 10.1038/s41561-021-00781-6

    Gavriel, N., & Kaspi, Y. 2021, Nature Geoscience, 14, 559, doi: 10.1038/s41561-021-00781-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41561-021-00781-6 2021

  29. [29]

    2022, Geophysical Research Letters, 49, e2022GL098708, doi: 10.1029/2022GL098708

    Gavriel, N., & Kaspi, Y. 2022, Geophysical Research Letters, 49, e2022GL098708, doi: 10.1029/2022GL098708

    work page doi:10.1029/2022gl098708 2022

  30. [30]

    2024, The Planetary Science Journal, 5, 101, doi: 10.3847/psj/ad0ed3

    Ge, H., Li, C., Zhang, X., & Moeckel, C. 2024, The Planetary Science Journal, 5, 101, doi: 10.3847/psj/ad0ed3

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ad0ed3 2024

  31. [31]

    Sinclair, J. A. 2017, Geophysical Research Letters, 44, 10,838, doi: 10.1002/2017GL075221

    work page doi:10.1002/2017gl075221 2017

  32. [32]

    2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 125, e2019JE006206, doi: 10.1029/2019JE006206

    Grassi, D., Adriani, A., Mura, A., et al. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 125, e2019JE006206, doi: 10.1029/2019JE006206

    work page doi:10.1029/2019je006206 2020

  33. [33]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 503, 4892, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab740

    Grassi, D., Mura, A., Sindoni, G., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 503, 4892, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab740

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab740 2021

  34. [34]

    J., et al

    Guillot, T., Li, C., Bolton, S. J., et al. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 125, e2020JE006404, doi: 10.1029/2020JE006404

    work page doi:10.1029/2020je006404 2020

  35. [35]

    K., Steffes, P

    Gupta, P., Atreya, S. K., Steffes, P. G., et al. 2022, The Planetary Science Journal, 3, 159, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac6956

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ac6956 2022

  36. [36]

    J., Caplinger, M

    Hansen, C. J., Caplinger, M. A., Ingersoll, A., et al. 2017, Space Science Reviews, 213, 475

    work page 2017

  37. [37]

    , year = 2005, month = nov, volume =

    Heimpel, M., Aurnou, J., & Wicht, J. 2005, Nature, 438, 193, doi: 10.1038/nature04208

    work page doi:10.1038/nature04208 2005

  38. [38]

    2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 125, e2019JE006293, doi: 10.1029/2019JE006293

    Hodges, A., Steffes, P., Bellotti, A., et al. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 125, e2019JE006293, doi: 10.1029/2019JE006293

    work page doi:10.1029/2019je006293 2020

  39. [39]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 680, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348129

    Howard, S., Guillot, T., Markham, S., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 680, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348129

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348129 2023

  40. [40]

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A , keywords =

    Hueso, R., Guillot, T., & S´ anchez-Lavega, A. 2020, Philosophical Transactions. Series A, Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, 378, 20190476, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2019.0476

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.2019.0476 2020

  41. [41]

    P., & Porco, C

    Ingersoll, A. P., & Porco, C. C. 1978, Icarus, 35, 27, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(78)90058-1

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(78)90058-1 1978

  42. [42]

    P., Adumitroaie, V., Allison, M

    Ingersoll, A. P., Adumitroaie, V., Allison, M. D., et al. 2017, Geophysical Research Letters, 44, 7676, doi: 10.1002/2017GL074277

    work page doi:10.1002/2017gl074277 2017

  43. [43]

    P., Ewald, S

    Ingersoll, A. P., Ewald, S. P., Tosi, F., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1280, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01774-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01774-0 2022

  44. [44]

    A., Hofstadter, M

    Janssen, M. A., Hofstadter, M. D., Gulkis, S., et al. 2005, Icarus, 173, 447, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2004.08.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2004.08.012 2005

  45. [45]

    A., Oswald, J

    Janssen, M. A., Oswald, J. E., Brown, S. T., et al. 2017, Space Science Reviews, 213, 139, doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0349-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-017-0349-5 2017

  46. [46]

    2008, Geophysical Journal International, 173, 793, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2008.03764.x

    Jonathan, A., Heimpel, M., Allen, L., King, E., & Wicht, J. 2008, Geophysical Journal International, 173, 793, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2008.03764.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-246x.2008.03764.x 2008

  47. [47]

    R., & Showman, A

    Kaspi, Y., Flierl, G. R., & Showman, A. P. 2009, Icarus, 202, 525, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2009.03.026

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2009.03.026 2009

  48. [48]

    S., et al

    Kaspi, Y., Galanti, E., Park, R. S., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1463, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02077-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02077-8 2023

  49. [49]

    M., Bolton, S

    Levin, S. M., Bolton, S. J., Gulkis, S. L., et al. 2001, Geophysical Research Letters, 28, 903, doi: 10.1029/2000GL012087

    work page doi:10.1029/2000gl012087 2001

  50. [50]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 240, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aafdaa

    Li, C., & Chen, X. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 240, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aafdaa

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aafdaa 2019

  51. [51]

    Li, C., & Ingersoll, A. P. 2015, Nature Geoscience, 8, 398, doi: 10.1038/ngeo2405

    work page doi:10.1038/ngeo2405 2015

  52. [52]

    P., Klipfel, A

    Li, C., Ingersoll, A. P., Klipfel, A. P., & Brettle, H. 2020a, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117, 24082, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2008440117

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2008440117

  53. [53]

    P., & Oyafuso, F

    Li, C., Ingersoll, A. P., & Oyafuso, F. 2018, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 75, 1063, doi: 10.1175/JAS-D-17-0257.1

    work page doi:10.1175/jas-d-17-0257.1 2018

  54. [54]

    2017, Geophysical Research Letters, 44, 5317, doi: 10.1002/2017GL073159

    Li, C., Ingersoll, A., Janssen, M., et al. 2017, Geophysical Research Letters, 44, 5317, doi: 10.1002/2017GL073159

    work page doi:10.1002/2017gl073159 2017

  55. [55]

    2020b, Nature Astronomy, 4, 609, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1009-3

    Li, C., Ingersoll, A., Bolton, S., et al. 2020b, Nature Astronomy, 4, 609, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1009-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1009-3

  56. [56]

    2024, Icarus, 414, 116028, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116028

    Li, C., Allison, M., Atreya, S., et al. 2024, Icarus, 414, 116028, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116028

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116028 2024

  57. [57]

    H., Clarke, J

    Mauk, B. H., Clarke, J. T., Grodent, D., et al. 2002, Nature, 415, 1003, doi: 10.1038/4151003a

    work page doi:10.1038/4151003a 2002

  58. [58]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 662, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243207

    Miguel, Y., Bazot, M., Guillot, T., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 662, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243207

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243207 2022

  59. [59]

    2023, The Planetary Science Journal, 4, 25, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/acaf6b

    Moeckel, C., de Pater, I., & DeBoer, D. 2023, The Planetary Science Journal, 4, 25, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/acaf6b

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/acaf6b 2023

  60. [60]

    2025, Science Advances, 11, eado9779, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.ado9779

    Moeckel, C., Ge, H., & de Pater, I. 2025, Science Advances, 11, eado9779, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.ado9779

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.ado9779 2025

  61. [61]

    2021, Geophysical Research Letters, 48, e2021GL094235, doi: 10.1029/2021GL094235 25

    Mura, A., Adriani, A., Bracco, A., et al. 2021, Geophysical Research Letters, 48, e2021GL094235, doi: 10.1029/2021GL094235 25

    work page doi:10.1029/2021gl094235 2021

  62. [62]

    Opp, A. G. 1975, Science, 188, 447, doi: 10.1126/science.188.4187.447

    work page doi:10.1126/science.188.4187.447 1975

  63. [63]

    S., Hansen, C., Caplinger, M., et al

    Orton, G. S., Hansen, C., Caplinger, M., et al. 2017, Geophysical Research Letters, 44, 4599, doi: 10.1002/2016GL072443

    work page doi:10.1002/2016gl072443 2017

  64. [64]

    2020, Earth and Space Science, 7, e2020EA001254, doi: 10.1029/2020EA001254

    Oyafuso, F., Levin, S., Orton, G., et al. 2020, Earth and Space Science, 7, e2020EA001254, doi: 10.1029/2020EA001254

    work page doi:10.1029/2020ea001254 2020

  65. [65]

    1984, Icarus, 59, 169, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(84)90020-4

    Pirraglia, J. 1984, Icarus, 59, 169, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(84)90020-4

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(84)90020-4 1984

  66. [66]

    C., West, R

    Porco, C. C., West, R. A., McEwen, A., et al. 2003, Science, 299, 1541, doi: 10.1126/science.1079462

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1079462 2003

  67. [67]

    R., & Ingersoll, A

    Siegelman, L., Young, W. R., & Ingersoll, A. P. 2022a, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119, e2120486119, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2120486119

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2120486119

  68. [68]

    P., et al

    Siegelman, L., Klein, P., Ingersoll, A. P., et al. 2022b, Nature Physics, 18, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41567-021-01458-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41567-021-01458-y

  69. [69]

    A., Conrath, B

    Simon-Miller, A. A., Conrath, B. J., Gierasch, P. J., et al. 2006, Icarus, 180, 98, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2005.07.019

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2005.07.019 2006

  70. [70]

    2025, Geophysical Research Letters, 52, e2025GL116804, doi: 10.1029/2025GL116804

    Smirnova, M., Galanti, E., Caruso, A., et al. 2025, Geophysical Research Letters, 52, e2025GL116804, doi: 10.1029/2025GL116804

    work page doi:10.1029/2025gl116804 2025

  71. [71]

    A., Soderblom, L

    Smith, B. A., Soderblom, L. A., Johnson, T. V., et al. 1979, Science, 204, 951, doi: 10.1126/science.204.4396.951

    work page doi:10.1126/science.204.4396.951 1979

  72. [72]

    Stevenson, D. J. 1979, Geophysical & Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics, 12, 139, doi: 10.1080/03091927908242681

    work page doi:10.1080/03091927908242681 1979

  73. [73]

    2014, Icarus, 229, 71, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2013.10.016

    Hayashi, Y.-Y. 2014, Icarus, 229, 71, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2013.10.016

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2013.10.016 2014

  74. [74]

    J., & Lewis, J

    Weidenschilling, S. J., & Lewis, J. S. 1973, Icarus, 20, 465, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(73)90019-5

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(73)90019-5 1973

  75. [75]

    H., Atreya, S

    Wong, M. H., Atreya, S. K., Kuhn, W. R., Romani, P. N., & Mihalka, K. M. 2015, Icarus, 245, 273, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2014.09.042

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2014.09.042 2015

  76. [76]

    H., Bjoraker, G

    Wong, M. H., Bjoraker, G. L., Goullaud, C., et al. 2023, Remote Sensing, 15, 702, doi: 10.3390/rs15030702

    work page doi:10.3390/rs15030702 2023

  77. [77]

    H., Mahaffy, P

    Wong, M. H., Mahaffy, P. R., Atreya, S. K., Niemann, H. B., & Owen, T. C. 2004, Icarus, 171, 153, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2004.04.010

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2004.04.010 2004

  78. [78]

    Xu, K.-M., & Emanuel, K. A. 1989, Monthly Weather Review, 117, 1471 , doi: 10.1175/1520-0493(1989)117⟨1471:ITTACU⟩2.0.CO;2

    work page doi:10.1175/1520-0493(1989)117 1989

  79. [79]

    2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 1001, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4b33

    Zhang, X., Hu, J., Li, C., & Williams, Q. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 1001, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4b33

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae4b33 2026

  80. [80]

    2020, Earth and Space Science, 7, e2020EA001229, doi: 10.1029/2020EA001229

    Zhang, Z., Adumitroaie, V., Allison, M., et al. 2020, Earth and Space Science, 7, e2020EA001229, doi: 10.1029/2020EA001229

    work page doi:10.1029/2020ea001229 2020