Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 67 references

A Full-Atmosphere Model of Jupiter

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A 1D kinetics model spanning Jupiter's full atmosphere predicts a new stratospheric HCN layer peaking at 33 ppb at 2.94e-7 bar.

desk verdict Useful full-atmosphere Jupiter chemistry model with a testable HCN prediction, but the abstract's N2 value contradicts the body and undermines the HCN peak. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.04034 v1 pith:BUCIUHFR submitted 2025-09-04 astro-ph.EP

Antonín Knížek , Paul B. Rimmer , Martin Ferus This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords JupiterhydrogencyanidephotochemistrythermochemicalkineticschemicalreactionnetworksplanetaryatmospheresNH4SHcloudsstratosphere
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that Jupiter's chemistry is one connected system, not separate deep and upper atmospheres: a 1D kinetics code spanning 1.1e3 bar to 7.4e-11 bar can reproduce the main observed chemical features while also making new predictions. Its headline claim is a new stratospheric hydrogen cyanide layer: between 1e-6 and 6.76e-8 bar, photolysis of CH4 and N2 feeds radical reactions with net outcome 2CH4 + N2 -> 2HCN + 3H2, producing 33 parts per billion of HCN at a pressure of 2.94e-7 bar. The same model places a mixed NH3-NH4SH cloud between 0.1 and 1 bar, carries a nitrogen reservoir high into the atmosphere, and anchors sulfur chemistry with updated NH4SH thermodynamics. A reader should care because the HCN peak is a specific, observable target that can be checked with existing ALMA capabilities and upcoming JUICE observations, and because modeling the full atmospheric extent yields predictions that separate regional models miss.

What carries the argument

ARGO, a 1D photochemical-thermochemical kinetics solver, running the STAND gas-phase reaction network with the new NH4SH chemistry. At each level ARGO integrates coupled continuity equations dn_i/dt = P_i - L_i - dPhi_i/dz, with eddy and molecular diffusion supplying vertical transport; reverse reaction rates are set by Gibbs free energies, which lets the deep atmosphere relax to thermochemical equilibrium. HCN's stratospheric peak is carried by a radical chain: CH4 photolysis gives CH/CH3, N2 photolysis gives N, then N + CH3 -> H2CN and H2CN -> HCN, with net 2CH4 + N2 -> 2HCN + 3H2. The NH4SH cloud layer is anchored by fitted NASA-polynomial thermodynamics derived from the NH3+H2S equilibri

What would settle it

A limb or occultation retrieval resolving the 1e-6 to 6.76e-8 bar window that returns an HCN upper limit below a few ppb at ~3e-7 bar (well under the predicted 33 ppb peak) would falsify the gas-phase layer; detecting a localized rise toward tens of ppb at 2.94e-7 bar would confirm it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central object is a 1D photochemical-thermochemical kinetics model extending from 1.1e3 bar to 7.4e-11 bar, with sulfur chemistry included over this full span for the first time. After validation against regional models and spacecraft observations, it reproduces Jupiter's main chemistry, including a mixed NH3-NH4SH cloud layer between 0.1 and 1 bar. Its new claim is six vertically separated HCN regimes; in the fifth, between 1e-6 and 6.76e-8 bar, photolysis of CH4 and N2 feeds radicals that make HCN by net 2CH4 + N2 -> 2HCN + 3H2, peaking at 33 ppb at 2.94e-7 bar. The authors present this peak as observationally testable and additionally report CO frozen at 4.2 ppb near 318 bar.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted 33 ppb HCN peak assumes gas-phase radical chemistry alone sets HCN between 1e-6 and 6.76e-8 bar; the paper itself notes the model excludes aerosol chemistry, while observations have proposed that aerosols remove HCN.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A limb or occultation observation aimed at the 1e-6 to 6.76e-8 bar window can confirm or reject the 33 ppb HCN peak without an entry probe.
  • The model's gas-phase destruction transition near 2 mbar offers a purely chemical explanation for the sharp HCN drop-off seen in recent ALMA data, independent of the proposed aerosol mechanism.
  • NH4SH condensation between 0.1 and 1 bar sequesters most sulfur below the cloud, so deep sulfur abundance must be inferred from H2S below that layer, not from upper-atmosphere sulfur.
  • A CO abundance frozen at 4.2 ppb near 318 bar provides an observable linkage from Jupiter's deep water and oxygen supply to the CO seen higher in the atmosphere.
  • Having one code from 1,100 bar to 7.4e-11 bar means future retrievals can be compared with a single self-consistent chemical profile, rather than patched regional models.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The authors do not say so, but a steady background HCN source implies post-Shoemaker-Levy 9 HCN maps need a modeled baseline before cometary material can be cleanly separated; the predicted layer could serve as that baseline.
  • If the radical mechanism is real, any gas-rich world with overlapping CH4 and N2 photolysis regions should produce a similar HCN layer; locating where the two photolysis cutoffs cross would give a fast, transferable prediction.
  • Because aerosol chemistry is absent, a non-detection of the 33 ppb peak would more likely mean HCN uptake on haze than failure of the gas-phase chain; fitting an aerosol uptake coefficient to the observed profile would separate the two effects.
  • The peak's width and altitude encode stratospheric vertical mixing, so high-resolution spectra of the layer could constrain Kzz independently of temperature retrievals even if the absolute abundance remains uncertain.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper couples a thermochemical-kinetic 1D model (ARGO with the STAND network) over 1.1e3 bar to 7.4e-11 bar to describe Jupiter's deep atmosphere, troposphere, and stratosphere in a single code. New updates include NH4SH formation/destruction, Antoine equations for NH4SH and H2S condensation, and two updated reaction rates. The model is benchmarked against several regional models (Rimmer & Helling 2016; Hu 2021; Tsai et al. 2021; Visscher et al. 2010; Moses et al. 2010; Rensen et al. 2023) and against observations. It reproduces the main hydrocarbon profiles, CO quenching (4.2 ppb at ~318 bar), the NH3-NH4SH cloud near 0.1-1 bar, and a relatively constant N2 mixing ratio (11 ppm in §5) up to 1e-6 bar. The headline result is a newly identified HCN formation region at 1e-6 to 6.76e-8 bar driven by N2 photolysis (Eq. 36), with a predicted peak of 33 ppb at 2.94e-7 bar, presented as testable by JUICE/MAJIS. The abstract additionally claims a quenched N2 mixing ratio of 490 ppm, which is inconsistent with §5 and with the N inventory in Table 1.

Significance. If correct, the paper would provide the first full-pressure-range coupled kinetics model for Jupiter's sulfur and nitrogen chemistry and a falsifiable stratospheric HCN prediction. Strengths include use of a published, reusable code framework; comparisons to multiple state-of-the-art codes and observations; explicit incorporation of sulfur chemistry; and a clearly articulated reaction mechanism for HCN (Eq. 36). The HCN peak is a genuine model output rather than a fit to target observables, which lowers circularity concerns. However, the N2 abundance inconsistency directly affects the magnitude of this prediction, and the NH4SH thermodynamics rest on unvalidated extrapolations. These points prevent acceptance in the current form.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract vs. §5; Eq. (36)] The abstract states a quenched N2 mixing ratio of 490 ppm up to 10^-6 bar; §5 reports 'a relatively constant value of 11 ppm from the bottom of the atmosphere up to 10^-6 bar' — a factor-45 discrepancy. Table 1 gives N mole fraction 4.68×10^-4, so 490 ppm N2 would require 9.8×10^-4 N atoms, exceeding the total N inventory. This is load-bearing because the new HCN region (Eq. 36) begins with N2 photolysis; in the 1e-6–6.76e-8 bar window HCN production is approximately first-order in f_N2. With 11 ppm the 33 ppb peak would become ~0.7 ppb. No sensitivity analysis over f_N2 is given. Please reconcile the values, verify N conservation, and provide f_N2 sensitivity for the HCN peak.
  2. [§2.4.1, Eq. (11); Table 4] The NH4SH equilibrium constant from Lewis (1969), Eq. (11), is explicitly valid only for 180–300 K, yet it is extrapolated to the full atmospheric temperature range, and the resulting NASA polynomials are used up to 6500 K. Similarly, the NH4SH Antoine parameters (Table 4, valid 222.1–306.4 K) are extrapolated to 110 K. The claimed NH3–NH4SH cloud layer between 0.1 and 1 bar (§4, Fig. 8) depends on these saturation relations, and the paper presents sulfur chemistry as one of its main novelties. No uncertainty, error budget, or alternative treatment is offered. Because the cloud-layer claim is a stated validation, this extrapolation needs a targeted sensitivity test (e.g., varying the equilibrium constant within its stated validity or comparing with a current NH4SH thermodynamic dataset).
  3. [§6, Fig. 14] The 33 ppb HCN prediction is the central new result. The paper states 'Our model does not include aerosol chemistry and would therefore not catch this effect,' referring to Cavalié et al. (2023b), who propose heterogeneous/aerosol removal as the cause of depleted HCN. Since the new production region lies in the stratosphere (1e-6 to 6.76e-8 bar), where haze is present, the predicted peak could be an upper limit. The paper should quantify the heterogeneous-loss timescale or perform a simple sensitivity test with an adopted sticking coefficient. Without that, the 'testable by observations' claim is not yet supported. In addition, the model predicts 33 ppb while the earlier uniform-mixing upper limits of Weisstein & Serabyn (1996) (0.3 ppb) and Davis et al. (1997) (0.16 ppb) are cited; a column-density check against those limits would clarify whether the prediction is already observable.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§4] 'down to 320 mbar at 1.55 bar' — the unit appears to be a typo for ppm (mixing ratio vs pressure).
  2. [§2.4.1, Eqs. (22)–(23)] The units of k_f are not clearly defined; including NHTOT in Eq. (23) suggests a termolecular rate coefficient, but c1 is quoted in cm3 s-1. Define bimolecular vs termolecular coefficients to avoid dimensional confusion.
  3. [§2.2, Table 1] The 5% margin is described as applied to mixing ratios directly and then said not to correspond to a 5% change in metallicity; the interpretation is confusing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: predictions are forward model outputs, not fits or self-referential definitions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—the stratospheric HCN peak at 33 ppb and the quenched N2 abundance—are produced by a forward 1D kinetics model (ARGO with the STAND network), not by fitting to the target observables. Initial elemental abundances are taken from external observational constraints (Rensen et al. 2023, based on Wong et al. 2004 and Li et al. 2020), and reaction rates are largely from published literature with updates from Hu (2021). No parameter is fitted to the HCN or N2 observations used for validation; comparisons to Cavalié et al. (2023b), Weisstein & Serabyn (1996), and Davis et al. (1997) are after-the-fact checks, not inverse constraints. The self-citations to Rimmer & Helling (2016) and Rimmer et al. (2021) describe the public ARGO code and STAND network, but the new results do not reduce to a self-citation: the HCN formation mechanism in Eq. (36) follows from explicit reaction tracing in the network, and the N2 quench value is an emergent disequilibrium output. The paper explicitly notes the missing aerosol chemistry as a limitation, which is a legitimate scope caveat rather than a circular step. An internal inconsistency exists between the abstract's 490 ppm N2 and Section 5's 11 ppm N2, but that is a correctness risk and does not constitute circular self-derivation. No equation in the paper reduces by construction to an input or to a cited authors' claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model's central results depend on a large pre-existing chemical network, several extrapolated thermodynamic fits, and assumed transport coefficients; these are the axioms the paper does not derive.

free parameters (2)
  • Eddy diffusion coefficient Kzz (deep atmosphere) = 1e8 cm^2/s (constant)
    Taken from Visscher et al. (2010), altitude-independent below 6.7 bar; controls quench levels of N2, CO, HCN and condensation heights. Paper tests sensitivity but uses this literature value.
  • Lower boundary temperature = 1400 K
    The (p,T) profile is truncated at 1400 K because the code has convergence issues below that; authors argue the atmosphere is in equilibrium there so it should not affect results, but this is a numerical convenience, not a physical constraint.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The STAND reaction network is complete and accurate for Jupiter's full atmosphere.
    The model's results, including the HCN peak, are solutions of this network; any missing or erroneous rates change the output. Network from Rimmer et al. (2021) with two updated rates from Hu (2021).
  • domain assumption Gas-phase chemistry alone determines stratospheric HCN; no heterogeneous or aerosol loss.
    Section 6 admits the model does not include aerosol chemistry, while Cavalié et al. (2023b) propose aerosol removal as the cause of HCN depletion. If aerosol sinks are significant, the 33 ppb peak is an artifact.
  • ad hoc to paper Lewis (1969) NH4SH equilibrium constant, valid 180-300 K, can be extrapolated to the full atmospheric temperature range.
    Section 2.4.1 states 'we extrapolate to the whole temperature range' without a physical justification; the NH4SH cloud layer and its formation depend on this.
  • ad hoc to paper Antoine equation parameters for NH4SH are valid when extrapolated from 222-306 K down to 110 K.
    Section 2.5: 'we extrapolate equation to 110 K in order to allow condensation to take place'; condensation levels and cloud layer geometry depend on this.
  • domain assumption The actinic flux at Jupiter is the solar flux at Earth scaled by inverse-square distance to 5.2 AU.
    Section 2.3; a standard approximation that ignores orbital eccentricity, seasonal, and auroral contributions.
  • domain assumption Deep elemental abundances from Rensen et al. (2023), based on Wong et al. (2004) and Li et al. (2020), are representative of Jupiter's bulk composition.
    Section 2.2; the model's lower boundary is set to these values, so all upper-atmosphere predictions inherit them.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Full-Atmosphere Model of Jupiter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BUCIUHFR

@misc{pith2026250904034,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Full-Atmosphere Model of Jupiter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BUCIUHFR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.04034}
}
abstract

This paper presents a combined 1D photochemical-thermochemical kinetics model of Jupiter's deeper atmosphere, troposphere and stratosphere. The model covers atmospheric pressure range from $1.1 \times 10^{3}$ bar to $7.4 \times 10^{-11}$ bar and is the first model that incorporates sulfur chemistry when spanning an atmospheric region of this extent. This model incorporates a new version of the STAND reaction network with updated NH4SH chemistry, and updated Antoine equation parameters for NH4SH and H2S. Validation against current models of Jupiter's atmosphere as well as recent observational data shows that our model successfully describes Jupiter's main observed chemical features. Since one of the focuses of the model is the chemistry on nitrogen, it correctly predicts the formation of a mixed NH3-NH4SH cloud layer between 0.1 and 1 bar. It also describes the chemistry of HCN throughout the atmosphere and discovers a region in the stratosphere between $1 \times 10^{-6}$ and $6.76 \times 10^{-8}$ bar, where HCN forms through radical chemistry with maximum mixing ratio 33 ppb at $2.94 \times 10^{-7}$ bar -- a prediction testable by observations. At the same time, our model predicts a quenched N2 mixing ratio 490 ppm up to 10$^{-6}$ bar. The model therefore successfully bridges the gap between existing models of separate regions of Jupiter's atmosphere and makes new testable predictions of several chemical species.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.04034 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Eddy diffusion coefficient adopted in our work, units cm2 s −1 . 2.2. Initial conditions The initial conditions to this model are supplied as elemental abundances at the bottom of the (p,T) profile. The elemental abundances of H, He, N, C, O and S were taken from Rensen et al. (2023), who uses the abundances of CH4 and H2S from Wong et al. (2004) and H2O and NH3 from Li et al. (2020). Their model uses the lower boun… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of (p,T) profiles used in this work and in Rensen et al. (2023). Note that our profile above 6.7 bar was adopted from Moses et al. (2005). correspond to 5% change in metallicity. The elemental ratios are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Mixing ratios of CH4 , C2H2 , C2H4 , C2H6 and C4H2 as a function of pressure compared to Rimmer and Helling (2016), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mixing ratios of CH4 , C2H2 , C2H4 , C2H6 , CO and C4H2 as a function of pressure compared to Tsai et al. (2021), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mixing ratios of CH4 , C2H2 , C2H4 , C2H6 and C4H2 as a function of pressure compared to observations. Our results are shown in solid line with dashed line margins. Observational data were compiled from Festou et al. (1981); Drossart et al. (1999); Wagener et al. (1985…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: CO, CH4 and H2O mixing ratios in the Jupiter’s deep atmosphere as a function of pressure (solid line with dashed line margins). The data are compared with results from Visscher et al. (2010) (dash-dot line). amounts of not only water and CO, but also all the other spec…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mixing ratios of oxidized carbon-bearing species in the deep atmosphere (solid line with dash line margins) as a function of pressure. The data are compared with results of Visscher et al. (2010) (dash-dot line). itself, but is consumed to produce NH4SH. Its mixing rat…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mixing ratios of nitrogen bearing species on Jupiter as a function of pressure. Species denoted JX are condensed species. occultation measurements give temperature at 1 bar up to 4 K different to the Galileo data with a possible variation as much as 7 K. Differences in…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Condensation of the three major condensable species NH3 , H2O and NH4SH in our model. The plot shows mixing ratios as a function of pressure and JX signifies condensed species. 10 10 10 8 10 6 10 4 10 2 10 0 mixing ratio 10 1 10 2 10 3 pressure (bar) H2 He H2O CH4 NH3 …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Mixing ratios of major component gases in Jupiter’s deep atmosphere and troposphere. Our data are plotted in solid line and compared to Rensen et al. (2023) (shown in dashed line). 5. Deep tropospheric chemistry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Mixing ratios of nitrogen-containing species as a function of pressure in Jupiter’s deep atmosphere. Our model results are plotted in solid line with dashed line margins. The results are compared to Moses et al. (2010), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Atmospheric mixing ratios of HCN, CN and CH4 from our model as a function of pressure. And increase in HCN mixing ratio is clearly visible. HCN has been detected on Jupiter. Tokunaga et al. (1981) detected the R-branch lines of the 𝜈2 fundamental band of HCN from whic…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: HCN mixing ratio in our model as a function of pressure with six marked regions of different dominant chemistry. upwards without further reactions. This also implies that the lower boundary of this region, i.e. around 517 bar, is the HCN quenching level. The main prod…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: HCN mixing ratio in our model as a function of pressure from our model (blue) and as observed by Cavalié et al. (2023b) (orange). Next, between 1 × 10−6 bar and 6.76 × 10−8 bar lies a newly discovered region of HCN formation. This is the fifth distinct region of HCN c…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    pp. 1–47. URL: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/047002903X.ch1, doi:https: //doi.org/10.1002/047002903X.ch1. Matthews, C.N.,

    work page doi:10.1002/047002903x.ch1

  2. [3]

    Cambridge Planetary Science, pp

    The interior of Jupiter. Cambridge Planetary Science, pp. 35–58. URL:https://books.google.co.uk/books?id= aMERHqj9ivcC. Gupta, P., Atreya, S.K., Steffes, P.G., Fletcher, L.N., Guillot, T., Allison, M.D., Bolton, S.J., Helled, R., Levin, S., Li, C., Lunine, J.I., Miguel, Y., Orton,G.S.,HunterWaite,J.,Withers,P.,2022. Jupiter’stemperaturestructure:Areassess...

    work page 2022

  3. [9]

    URL:https://www

    Planetary and Space Science 45, 1203–1212. URL:https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0032063397000433, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0032-0633(97)00043-3. the SL9-Jupiter Collision. A Knížek et al.:Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 23 of 25 A Full-Atmosphere Model of Jupiter Lellouch,E.,Paubert,G.,Moreno,R.,Festou,M.C.,Bézard,B.,Bockelée-Mo...

    work page doi:10.1016/s0032-0633(97)00043-3 1995

  4. [15]

    Moses, J.I., Visscher, C., Keane, T.C., Sperier, A.,

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/1/15. Moses, J.I., Visscher, C., Keane, T.C., Sperier, A.,

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/1/15

  5. [17]

    doi:10.1006/icar.1994

    Are the giant planets fully convective? Icarus 112, 337–353. doi:10.1006/icar.1994

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1994 1994

  6. [21]

    Rimmer,P.B.,Helling,C.,2016.Achemicalkineticsnetworkforlightningandlifeinplanetaryatmospheres.TheAstrophysicalJournal:Supplement series

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ ab55e8. Rimmer,P.B.,Helling,C.,2016.Achemicalkineticsnetworkforlightningandlifeinplanetaryatmospheres.TheAstrophysicalJournal:Supplement series

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ 2016

  7. [25]

    Geophysical Research Letters 44, 7676–7685

    Implications of the ammonia distribution on jupiter from 1 to 100 bars as measured by the juno microwave radiometer. Geophysical Research Letters 44, 7676–7685. URL:https://agupubs.onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017GL074277, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL074277. Ingersoll, A.P., Cuzzi, J.N.,

    doi:10.1002/2017gl074277

  8. [27]

    Huebner, W.F., Carpenter, C.W.,

    URL: https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac1789, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1789. Huebner, W.F., Carpenter, C.W.,

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1789

Show all 67 references
  1. [33]

    doi:10.1038/373592a0

    Nature 373, 592–595. doi:10.1038/373592a0. Lewis, J.S.,

    doi

  2. [35]

    Nature Astronomy 4, 609+

    The water abundance in jupiter’s equatorial zone. Nature Astronomy 4, 609+. doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1009-3. Li, C., Ingersoll, A., Janssen, M., Levin, S., Bolton, S., Adumitroaie, V., Allison, M., Arballo, J., Bellotti, A., Brown, S., Ewald, S., Jewell, L., Misra,S.,Orton,G.,Oy...

    2017 doi

  3. [36]

    Icarus 302, 418–425

    Coloring Jupiter’s clouds: Radiolysis of ammonium hydrosulfide (NH4SH). Icarus 302, 418–425. doi:10. 1016/j.icarus.2017.10.041. Matteucci, S., Yampolskii, Y., Freeman, B.D., Pinnau, I.,

    2017

  4. [40]

    URL:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0032063303000722, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0032-0633(03)00072-2

    Planetary and Space Science 51, 591–611. URL:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0032063303000722, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0032-0633(03)00072-2. Moses, J.I.,

    doi

  5. [42]

    Geophysical Research Letters 22, 1597–1600

    Post-sl9 sulfur photochemistry on jupiter. Geophysical Research Letters 22, 1597–1600. doi:10.1029/95gl01200. Moses, J.I., Fouchet, T., Bézard, B., Lellouch, E., Gladstone, G.R.,

    doi

  6. [48]

    Prinn, R.G., Barshay, S.S.,

    doi:10.1007/s11214-024-01057-2. Prinn, R.G., Barshay, S.S.,

    doi

  7. [53]

    A Knížek et al.:Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 22 of 25 A Full-Atmosphere Model of Jupiter Fouchet, T., Lellouch, E., Bézard, B., Feuchtgruber, H., Drossart, P., Encrenaz, T.,

    doi:10.1007/s11214-023-00996-6. A Knížek et al.:Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 22 of 25 A Full-Atmosphere Model of Jupiter Fouchet, T., Lellouch, E., Bézard, B., Feuchtgruber, H., Drossart, P., Encrenaz, T.,

    doi

  8. [56]

    Icarus 292, 182–207

    Jupiter’s auroral-related stratospheric heating and chemistry i: Analysis of voyager-iris and cassini-cirs spectra. Icarus 292, 182–207. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2016.12.033. Stevenson, D.J.,

    2016 doi

  9. [62]

    Icarus 209, 602–615

    The deep water abundance on jupiter: New constraints from thermochemical kinetics and diffusion modeling. Icarus 209, 602–615. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103510001387, doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2010.03.029. Visscher,C.,Sperier,A.D.,...

    2010 doi

  10. [64]

    Icarus 250, 154–164

    New insights on jupiter’s deep water abundance from disequilibrium species. Icarus 250, 154–164. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2014.11.026. Wang, D., Lunine, J.I., Mousis, O.,

    2014 doi

  11. [65]

    Icarus 276, 21–38

    Modeling the disequilibrium species for jupiter and saturn: Implications for juno and saturn entry probe. Icarus 276, 21–38. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2016.04.027. Weisstein, E.W., Serabyn, E.,

    2016 doi

  12. [67]

    Icarus 10, 386–392

    Organic synthesis in a simulated jovian atmosphere. Icarus 10, 386–392. URL: https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0019103569900931, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-1035(69)90093-1. Woitke, P., Helling, C., Hunter, G.H., Millard, J.D., Turner, G.E., Worters, M., ...

  13. [68]

    impactofsilicatesandphyllosilicatesonthecarbontooxygenratio.Astronomy&Astrophysics614,A1.doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732193

    Equilibrium chemistry down to 100 k. impactofsilicatesandphyllosilicatesonthecarbontooxygenratio.Astronomy&Astrophysics614,A1.doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732193. Wong, M.H., Mahaffy, P.R., Atreya, S.K., Niemann, H.B., Owen, T.C.,

    doi

  14. [72]

    Visscher, C., Moses, J.I., Saslow, S.A.,

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/72. Visscher, C., Moses, J.I., Saslow, S.A.,

    doi

  15. [73]

    doi:10.1006/icar.1994.1038

    Icarus 108, 1–17. doi:10.1006/icar.1994.1038. Zhang, Z., Adumitroaie, V., Allison, M., Arballo, J., Atreya, S., Bjoraker, G., Bolton, S., Brown, S., Fletcher, L.N., Guillot, T., Gulkis, S., Hodges, A., Ingersoll, A., Janssen, M., Levin, S., Li, C., Li, L., Lunine, J., Misra, S...

    1994

  16. [74]

    Earth and Space Science 7, e01229

    Residual study: Testing jupiter atmosphere models against juno mwr observations. Earth and Space Science 7, e01229. doi:10.1029/2020ea001229. A Knížek et al.:Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 25 of 25

    doi

  17. [101]

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aad186. Bolton, S.J., Adriani, A., Adumitroaie, V., Allison, M., Anderson, J., Atreya, S., Bloxham, J., Brown, S., Connerney, J.E.P., DeJong, E., Folkner, W.,Gautier,D.,Grassi,D.,Gulkis,S.,Guillot,T.,Hansen,C.,Hubbard,W.B.,Iess,L.,Ingersoll,A.,Janssen,M.,...

    doi

  18. [103]

    Noll, K., Knacke, R., Tokunaga, A., Lacy, J., Beck, S., Serabyn, E.,

    doi:10.1039/c003954c. Noll, K., Knacke, R., Tokunaga, A., Lacy, J., Beck, S., Serabyn, E.,

    doi

  19. [110]

    Moses, J.I., Visscher, C., Fortney, J.J., Showman, A.P., Lewis, N.K., Griffith, C.A., Klippenstein, S.J., Shabram, M., Friedson, A.J., Marley, M.S., Freedman, R.S.,

    URL:https: //agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2005JE002411, doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JE002411. Moses, J.I., Visscher, C., Fortney, J.J., Showman, A.P., Lewis, N.K., Griffith, C.A., Klippenstein, S.J., Shabram, M., Friedson, A.J., Marley, M.S., Freedman, R.S.,

    doi

  20. [159]

    Howard,S.,Guillot,T.,Markham,S.,Helled,R.,Müller,S.,Stevenson,D.J.,Lunine,J.I.,Miguel,Y.,Nettelmann,N.,2023.Exploringthehypothesis of an inverted z gradient inside jupiter

    doi:10.3847/PSJ/ac6956. Howard,S.,Guillot,T.,Markham,S.,Helled,R.,Müller,S.,Stevenson,D.J.,Lunine,J.I.,Miguel,Y.,Nettelmann,N.,2023.Exploringthehypothesis of an inverted z gradient inside jupiter. Astronomy & Astrophysics 680, L2. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348129. Hu, R.,

    2023 doi

  21. [194]

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab46a8. Poulet, F., Piccioni, G., Langevin, Y., Dumesnil, C., Tommasi, L., Carlier, V., Filacchione, G., Amoroso, M., Arondel, A., D’Aversa, E., Barbis, A., Bini, A., Bolsée, D., Bousquet, P., Caprini, C., Carter, J., Dubois, J.P., Condamin, M., Couturier...

    2024 doi

  22. [224]

    Rimmer, P.B., Jordan, S., Constantinou, T., Woitke, P., Shorttle, O., Hobbs, R., Paschodimas, A.,

    doi:10.3847/0067-0049/224/1/9. Rimmer, P.B., Jordan, S., Constantinou, T., Woitke, P., Shorttle, O., Hobbs, R., Paschodimas, A.,

    doi

  23. [264]

    Visscher, C., Moses, J.I.,

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac29bc. Visscher, C., Moses, J.I.,

    doi

  24. [559]

    Cavalié,T.,Lunine,J.,Mousis,O.,2023a

    doi:10.1086/165751. Cavalié,T.,Lunine,J.,Mousis,O.,2023a. Asubsolaroxygenabundanceoraradiativeregiondeepinjupiterrevealedbythermochemicalmodelling. Nature Astronomy 7, 678–683. doi:10.1038/s41550-023-01928-8. Cavalié, T., Rezac, L., Moreno, R., Lellouch, E., Fouchet, T., Benma...

    1994 doi

  25. [841]

    doi:10.3390/rs15030841. A Knížek et al.:Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 24 of 25 A Full-Atmosphere Model of Jupiter Rimmer,P.B.,Ferus,M.,Waldmann,I.P.,Knížek,A.,Kalvaitis,D.,Ivanek,O.,Kubelík,P.,Yurchenko,S.N.,Burian,T.,Dostál,J.,Juha,L.,Dudžák, R.,Krůs,M.,Tennyson,J.,Civi...

    2020 doi

  26. [1188]

    Storms and the depletion of ammonia in jupiter: Ii

    Guillot, T., Li, C., Bolton, S.J., Brown, S.T., Ingersoll, A.P., Janssen, M.A., Levin, S.M., Lunine, J.I., Orton, G.S., Steffes, P.G., Stevenson, D.J., 2020a. Storms and the depletion of ammonia in jupiter: Ii. explaining the juno observations. Journal of Geophysical Research ...

    doi

  27. [1947]

    organic and inorganic compounds

    Vapor pressure of pure substances. organic and inorganic compounds. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry 39, 517–540. URL: https://doi.org/10.1021/ie50448a022, doi:10.1021/ie50448a022. Sutherland, J.D.,

    doi

  28. [1969]

    Journal of Atmospheric Sciences 26, 981–985

    Dynamics of jupiter’s cloud bands. Journal of Atmospheric Sciences 26, 981–985. URL: https: //journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/26/5/1520-0469%5F1969%5F026%5F0981%5Fdojcb%5F2%5F0%5Fco%5F2.xml, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1969)026<0981:DOJCB>2.0.CO;2. Kaspi, Y.,...

    1969 doi

  29. [1977]

    Science 198, 1031–1034

    Carbon Monoxide on Jupiter and Implications for Atmospheric Convection. Science 198, 1031–1034. doi:10.1126/science.198.4321.1031. Prinn, R.G., Olaguer, E.P.,

  30. [1981]

    JournalofGeophysicalResearch86,5715–5725

    Composition and Thermal Profiles of the JovianupperatmospheredeterminedbytheVoyagerultravioletstellaroccultationexperiment. JournalofGeophysicalResearch86,5715–5725. doi:10.1029/JA086iA07p05715. Fletcher, L.N., Cavalié, T., Grassi, D., Hueso, R., Lara, L.M., Kaspi, Y., Galanti...

    doi

  31. [1983]

    The Astrophysical journal 266, 415–424

    An analysis of the reflection spectrum of Jupiter from 1500 A to 1740 A. The Astrophysical journal 266, 415–424. doi:10.1086/160789. Grassi,D.,Adriani,A.,Mura,A.,Atreya,S.K.,Fletcher,L.N.,Lunine,J.I.,Orton,G.S.,Bolton,S.,Plainaki,C.,Sindoni,G.,Altieri,F.,Cicchetti,A., Dinelli,...

    2020 doi

  32. [1985]

    Astrophysical Journal 299, 1067–1078

    Equilibrium and nonequilibrium chemistry of saturn’s atmosphere - implications for the observability of ph3, n2, co, and geh4. Astrophysical Journal 299, 1067–1078. doi:10.1086/163775. Fegley, Bruce, J., Lodders, K.,

    doi

  33. [1989]

    Infrared Physics 29, 199–204

    Infrared studies of hydrocarbons on jupiter. Infrared Physics 29, 199–204. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0020089189900481, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0020-0891(89)90048-1. Lellouch, E., Bézard, B., Strobel, D.F., Bjoraker, G.L., Flasar, F.M., Romani, P.N.,

  34. [1991]

    Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 21, 421–434

    Dark matter in the solar system: Hydrogen cyanide polymers. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 21, 421–434. doi:10.1007/bf01808312. Miguel, Y., Bazot, M., Guillot, T., Howard, S., Galanti, E., Kaspi, Y., Hubbard, W.B., Militzer, B., Helled, R., Atreya, S.K., Conner...

    doi

  35. [1992]

    Astrophysics and Space Science 195, 1–294

    Solar Photo Rates for Planetary Atmospheres and Atmospheric Pollutants. Astrophysics and Space Science 195, 1–294. doi:10.1007/BF00644558. Huebner, W.F., Mukherjee, J.,

    doi

  36. [1994]

    Icarus 110, 117–154

    Chemical models of the deep atmospheres of jupiter and saturn. Icarus 110, 117–154. doi:10.1006/icar. 1994.1111. Ferus, M., Kubelík, P., Knížek, A., Pastorek, A., Sutherland, J., Civiš, S.,

    1994

  37. [1995]

    mushballs

    Cepam: a code for modeling the interiors of giant planets. Astronomy & Astrophysicss 109, 109–123. Guillot, T., Stevenson, D.J., Atreya, S.K., Bolton, S.J., Becker, H.N., 2020b. Storms and the depletion of ammonia in jupiter: I. microphysics of “mushballs”. Journal of Geophysi...

    doi

  38. [1996]

    Icarus 123, 23–36

    Submillimeter line search in jupiter and saturn. Icarus 123, 23–36. doi:10.1006/icar.1996.0139. Woeller, F., Ponnamperuma, C.,

    1996

  39. [1997]

    Icarus 130, 387–403

    Broadband Submillimeter Spectroscopy of HCN, NH3, and PH3in the Troposphere of Jupiter. Icarus 130, 387–403. doi:10.1006/icar.1997.5836. Draine, B.T.,

    1997

  40. [1998]

    JournalofGeophysicalResearch:Planets 103, 22857–22889

    Thermalstructureofjupiter’satmosphereneartheedgeofa5- 𝜇mhotspotinthenorthequatorialbelt. JournalofGeophysicalResearch:Planets 103, 22857–22889. doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/98JE01766. Sinclair, J., Orton, G., Greathouse, T., Kasaba, Y., Sato, T., Giles, R., Melin, H., Fletcher,...

    doi

  41. [1999]

    Planetary and Space Science 47, 1243–1262

    A comparison of the atmo- spheres of jupiter and saturn: deep atmospheric composition, cloud structure, vertical mixing, and origin. Planetary and Space Science 47, 1243–1262. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0032063399000471, doi:https://doi.org/10. 101...

    2002

  42. [2000]

    Astronomy & Astrophysics 355, L13–L17

    Jupiter’s hydrocarbons observed with ISO-SWS: vertical profiles of C_2H_6 and C_2H_2, detection of CH_3C_2H. Astronomy & Astrophysics 355, L13–L17. doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/ 0002273, arXiv:astro-ph/0002273. Freedman,R.S.,Marley,M.S.,Lodders,K.,2008. LineandMeanOpacitiesforU...

    2008 doi arXiv

  43. [2001]

    Icarus 152, 331–346

    Structure of the Jovian Stratosphere at the Galileo Probe Entry Site. Icarus 152, 331–346. doi:10.1006/icar.2001.6640. Young, R.M.B., Read, P.L., Wang, Y.,

    2001

  44. [2004]

    Icarus 171, 153–170

    Updated galileo probe mass spectrometer measurements of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur on jupiter. Icarus 171, 153–170. URL:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0019103504001393, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2004.04.010. Yelle, R.V., Griffith, C.A....

    2004 doi

  45. [2006]

    Icarus 184, 478–497

    On the HCN and CO2 abundance and distribution in Jupiter’s stratosphere. Icarus 184, 478–497. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2006.05.018. Lellouch, E., Bézard, B., Moreno, R., Bockelée-Morvan, D., Colom, P., Crovisier, J., Festou, M., Gautier, D., Marten, A., Paubert, G.,

    2006 doi

  46. [2009]

    Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 47, 481–522

    The Chemical Composition of the Sun. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 47, 481–522. doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222. Atreya, S., Wong, M., Owen, T., Mahaffy, P., Niemann, H., de Pater, I., Drossart, P., Encrenaz, T.,

  47. [2010]

    Icarus 208, 837–849

    High-resolution 3-𝜇m spectra of Jupiter: Latitudinal spectral variations influenced by molecules, clouds, and haze. Icarus 208, 837–849. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2010.03.024. Kitzmann, D., Joachim, S.,

    2010 doi

  48. [2014]

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A 372, 20130073– 20130073

    Chemical kinetics on extrasolar planets. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A 372, 20130073– 20130073. doi:10.1098/rsta.2013.0073. Moses, J.I., Allen, M., Gladstone, G.R.,

    2013

  49. [2015]

    Planetary and Space Science 106, 11–45

    Photoionization and photodissociation rates in solar and blackbody radiation fields. Planetary and Space Science 106, 11–45. doi:10.1016/j.pss.2014.11.022. Ingersoll, A.P., Adumitroaie, V., Allison, M.D., Atreya, S., Bellotti, A.A., Bolton, S.J., Brown, S.T., Gulkis, S., Janss...

    2014 doi

  50. [2016]

    Angewandte Chemie International Edition 55, 104–121

    The origin of life—out of the blue. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 55, 104–121. URL: https:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/anie.201506585, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201506585. Tokunaga, A., Beck, S., Geballe, T., Lacy, J., Serabyn, E.,

    doi

  51. [2017]

    Science 356, 821–825

    Jupiter’s interior and deep atmosphere: The initial pole-to-pole passes with the juno spacecraft. Science 356, 821–825. doi:10.1126/science.aal2108. Breck, D.W.,

    doi

  52. [2018]

    Nature 558, 87–90

    Prevalent lightning sferics at 600 megahertz near jupiter’s poles. Nature 558, 87–90. doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0156-5. Burcat, A., Ruscic, B.,

    doi

  53. [2019]

    Part II: Passive ammonia and water cycles

    Simulating Jupiter’s weather layer. Part II: Passive ammonia and water cycles. Icarus 326, 253–268. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2018.12.002. Zahnle, K., Mac Low, M.M.,

    2018 doi

  54. [2020]

    SpaceScienceReviews216,84

    Comparison of the deep atmospheric dynamics of jupiterandsaturninlightofthejunoandcassinigravitymeasurements. SpaceScienceReviews216,84. doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00705-7. Kim, S.J., Geballe, T.R., Kim, J.H., Jung, A., Seo, H.J., Minh, Y.C.,

    doi

  55. [2021]

    ThePlanetaryScienceJournal2,133

    Hydroxide salts in the clouds of venus: TheireffectonthesulfurcycleandclouddropletpH. ThePlanetaryScienceJournal2,133. URL: https://doi.org/10.3847/psj/ac0156, doi:10.3847/psj/ac0156. Romani,P.N.,Jennings,D.E.,Bjoraker,G.L.,Sada,P.V.,McCabe,G.H.,Boyle,R.J.,2008. Temporallyvary...

    2008 doi

  56. [2022]

    Astronomy & Astrophysics 662, A18

    Jupiter’s inhomogeneous envelope. Astronomy & Astrophysics 662, A18. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243207. Moreno,R.,Marten,A.,Matthews,H.,Biraud,Y.,2003. Long-termevolutionofco,csandhcninjupiteraftertheimpactsofcometshoemaker-levy

    2003 doi

  57. [2023]

    The Astrophysical Journal Letters 952, L27

    Highly Depleted Alkali Metals in Jupiter’s Deep Atmosphere. The Astrophysical Journal Letters 952, L27. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace115. Bjoraker, G.L., Wong, M.H., de Pater, I., Hewagama, T., Ádámkovics, M., Orton, G.S.,

    doi

  58. [6232]

    Guillot,T.,1999.AcomparisonoftheinteriorsofJupiterandSaturn.PlanetaryandSpaceScience47,1183–1200.doi: 10.1016/S0032-0633(99) 00043-4, arXiv:astro-ph/9907402

    doi:10.1038/s41467-023-41665-0. Guillot,T.,1999.AcomparisonoftheinteriorsofJupiterandSaturn.PlanetaryandSpaceScience47,1183–1200.doi: 10.1016/S0032-0633(99) 00043-4, arXiv:astro-ph/9907402. Guillot, T., Gautier, D., Chabrier, G., Mosser, B.,

    1999 arXiv

  59. [6275]

    Festou, M.C., Atreya, S.K., Donahue, T.M., Sandel, B.R., Shemansky, D.E., Broadfoot, A.L.,

    doi:10.1038/s41598-017-06489-1. Festou, M.C., Atreya, S.K., Donahue, T.M., Sandel, B.R., Shemansky, D.E., Broadfoot, A.L.,

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.