Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 51 references

Ionospheric conductances at the giant planets of the Solar System:a comparative study of ionization sources and the impact of meteoric ions

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Meteoric ions could make a non-negligible contribution to Hall and Pedersen conductances at Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, multiplying them by up to 6 for 1 keV auroral electrons.

desk verdict The new content is the ice-giant extension and the altitude-decoupling result; the Jupiter 'validation' is asserted rather than shown, and the headline ratios are fragile because the 0.4 ionization probability from Jupiter is applied without uncertainty. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04219 v1 pith:DOS2KW2H submitted 2024-12-05 astro-ph.EP physics.space-ph

Noé Clément , Yuki Nakamura , Michel Blanc , Yuxian Wang , Sariah Al Saati This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPphysics.space-ph
keywords HallconductancePedersenmeteoricionsgiantplanetsmagnetosphere-ionospherecouplingauroralelectronprecipitationicegiantsionosphericmodel
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 asks whether ions produced by ablating meteoroids matter for the electrically conducting layers of all four giant planets, not just Jupiter. Using one simplified ionospheric model, it first reproduces the earlier Jupiter finding that meteoric ions add a non-negligible contribution to Hall and Pedersen conductances. It then shows that the same is true at Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune when the precipitating electrons have characteristic energies below a few keV: for about 1 keV electrons with a flux of 1 milliwatt per square metre, meteoric ions multiply both conductances by about 6 at Saturn, 1.5 at Uranus, and 3 at Neptune. The reason this contribution is limited in magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling is that on these three weaker-field planets the conducting dynamo layer lies a few hundred kilometres above the layer where meteoric ions are produced.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a generic one-dimensional ionospheric model that tracks only three families of ions: H$_3^+$, CH$_5^+$, and the meteoric ions Fe$^+$, Mg$^+$, Si$^+$, and Na$^+$. Neutral density and temperature profiles and the meteoroid mass, flux, and speed distributions come from Moses and Poppe (2017); meteoroid ablation and ionization use the model of Nakamura et al. (2022); electron-precipitation and photoionization rates use the parameterizations of Hiraki and Tao (2008) and Richards et al. (1994). Conductivities are the standard sums over ions of collision-frequency-over-cyclotron-frequency ratios, and conductances are their altitude integrals. The decisive comparison is the altitude of the meteoric ion density peak against the altitude of the dynamo layer; at Jupiter they coincide, while at the other three giants the weaker field raises the dynamo layer above the meteoric peak.

What would settle it

Measure the vertical profile of metallic ions at Uranus or Neptune, by radio occultation, in situ probe, or a dedicated ablation model anchored to measured dust flux, and compare its peak altitude with the dynamo layer: the paper predicts the peak sits several hundred kilometres below the layer and that removing meteoric ions lowers height-integrated conductance by about 1.5 times at Uranus and 3 times at Neptune under 1 keV, 1 milliwatt per square metre electron precipitation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that meteoric ions, previously shown to be important at Jupiter, could also be important at Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, provided the precipitating auroral electrons are soft (characteristic energy lower than a few keV). In the model, metallic ions from ablating meteoroids dominate the local ion density at their production peak and increase the height-integrated Hall and Pedersen conductances by factors of roughly 6, 1.5, and 3 at Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune for 1 keV, 1 milliwatt per square metre electron precipitation. A second, independent finding is a vertical mismatch: because the magnetic fields of these three planets are much weaker than Jupiter's, their dynamo layer, where collision and cyclotron frequencies are comparable, sits several hundred kilometres above the meteoric ion layer. The paper presents these two results as together defining the role of meteoric ions: large in the total conductance budget, but partly decoupled from the currents that couple each planet to its magnetosphere.

Load-bearing premise

The whole estimate rests on assuming that meteoroids hitting Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune ionize as efficiently as they do at Jupiter (probability 0.4) and that the adopted meteoroid influx is correct; if either is much smaller, the claimed conductance boost could become negligible.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, conductance values used in magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling models will be too low by factors of up to 6, 1.5, and 3 if meteoric ionization is ignored for soft (few keV) electron precipitation.
  • Because the corotation-enforcement radius scales as the fourth root of Pedersen conductance, a larger conductance means angular momentum is transferred from the planet to its magnetospheric plasma out to larger distances than previously estimated.
  • The reflection and transmission of Alfvén waves at the ionosphere, which set the structure of moon-induced auroral footprints, depend on Hall and Pedersen conductances and will therefore change if meteoric ions are included.
  • At characteristic electron energies of 10 keV and above, precipitating electrons dominate the conductances, so whether meteoric ions matter depends directly on the actual auroral electron energy spectrum at each planet.
  • At Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune the additional meteoric conductance is produced below the dynamo layer, so its effect on magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling is weaker than the height-integrated values alone would suggest.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If real meteoroid ionization efficiencies at the ice giants are lower than the Jovian value of 0.4 assumed here, a possibility the paper itself flags, the amplification factors would shrink and could fall below the level that matters for coupling.
  • The altitude-separation result offers a quick proxy for exoplanets: for a hot Jupiter or Neptune-like world, knowing the surface field strength and atmospheric density profile is enough to predict whether a meteoric ion layer would overlap the dynamo layer.
  • A future Uranus or Neptune mission that can locate the metallic ion layer by radio occultation or in situ sampling would directly test whether the predicted decoupling of meteoric conductance from the dynamo layer is real.
  • At Neptune the assumed presence of H$_3^+$ is not yet observed; if H$_3^+$ is absent, the low-altitude ion chemistry would differ and the relative weight of meteoric ions in the conductance budget could shift.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a generic one-dimensional ionospheric model for the four giant planets, solving photochemical equilibrium for H3+, CH5+, and meteoric ions (Fe+, Mg+, Si+, Na+), and uses it to compute Hall and Pedersen conductivities and conductances as functions of precipitating electron flux and characteristic energy, photoionization, and meteoroid ablation. Using atmospheric profiles and meteoroid influx distributions from Moses & Poppe (2017) and the ablation model of Nakamura et al. (2022), the authors claim to reproduce the Jupiter result that meteoric ions contribute non-negligibly to the height-integrated conductances, and then extend that claim to Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune for precipitating electrons with characteristic energies below a few keV; for 1 keV and 1 mW/m^2, the meteoric ion contribution multiplies the Hall and Pedersen conductances by about 6 at Saturn, 1.5 at Uranus, and 3 at Neptune. A second conclusion is that, because of the weaker magnetic fields of Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, their conductive layer lies a few hundred kilometers above the layer where meteoric ions are mainly produced, which limits the role of meteoric ions in magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling.

Significance. If the results hold, this is the first comparative study of meteoric-ion effects on ionospheric conductances across the four giant planets, with direct relevance to magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling models at Saturn and the ice giants and a useful template for exoplanet applications. The manuscript is transparent about its simplifications, the modeling data are publicly archived at a Zenodo DOI, and the quantitative predictions (enhancement factors at stated energies and fluxes, and the altitude offset between the meteoric-ion layer and the conductive layer) are falsifiable with future observations or more detailed models. The paper also explicitly identifies the uncertainty in the meteoric ionization probability, which is a strength in framing. However, the quantitative core of the central claim rests on parameters that are neither propagated nor tested in sensitivity runs, so the significance is conditional until that robustness is established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, 'Meteoric ion production' and Section 6, 'Meteoric ions'] The paper applies the Jupiter-calibrated ionization probability of 0.4 (from Kim et al., 2001) to Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune without any sensitivity analysis, even though Section 6 explicitly states that this value 'could be smaller at Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune than at Jupiter.' Because the headline multiplication factors (6 at Saturn, 1.5 at Uranus, and 3 at Neptune for 1 keV, 1 mW/m^2) scale linearly with this probability, a factor-of-two reduction at Uranus would bring the enhancement down to 1.25, and a factor-of-three reduction at Neptune would make it approximately 1, eroding the 'non-negligible' claim at the very planets where the margins are thinnest. Please add a sensitivity study that varies the ionization probability (and, if possible, the meteoroid mass flux from Moses & Poppe, 2017) over a plausible range and states which conclusions survive such variations.
  2. [Section 4 and Figure 7] The Jupiter validation is asserted but not quantitatively demonstrated. The abstract and Section 4 state that 'results from Nakamura et al. (2022) are recovered,' but the comparison is limited to a qualitative statement and a plot of the ratios at Jupiter. To establish that the same model can be trusted at the other planets, please provide a quantitative comparison with Nakamura et al. (2022), for example percent differences in height-integrated conductances or overlays of the conductivity profiles, and specify the exact input conditions under which the comparison is made.
  3. [Section 2 (magnetic field) and Section 5] The conclusion that the conductive layer lies above the meteoric-ion layer at Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune relies on the dipole approximation with a polar field strength equal to twice the equatorial value. This approximation is particularly uncertain for Uranus and Neptune, whose magnetic fields are strongly non-dipolar, tilted, and offset. Because this altitude offset is the second main conclusion of the paper, please justify the dipole approximation for the ice giants (for example by citing available field models or by testing the sensitivity of the inferred conductive-layer altitude to a plausible range of auroral field strengths).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 3] The axis labels and planet names in Figure 3 appear corrupted ('fl02', 'J0pite− Sat0−n U−an0s Nept0ne'), and the legend is hard to read; please regenerate the figure with properly rendered labels.
  2. [Equation (5)] The expression for the electron-neutral collision frequency νen includes temperature T, but the units of T are not stated near the equation; please add a note that T is in Kelvin and nH2 is in cm^-3.
  3. [Section 1.2] The text contains a typo: 'cororation' should be 'corotation' in the discussion of the corotation radius.
  4. [Section 6, 'Meteoric ions'] The statement that meteoric ions have lifetimes longer than '100 Jovian days' should specify the planet to which this lifetime applies, since the lifetime depends on electron density and temperature and will differ among the four planets.
  5. [Figures 4 and 5] The four-panel layout for each planet is dense and the panel labels are small; consider splitting the figures or enlarging the labels to improve readability.
  6. [Title and abstract] The manuscript header has an extra space in the title area: 'Solar System:a comparative study' lacks a space after the colon; also check that the title in the running header matches the main title.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor self-citation in the Jupiter benchmark; Saturn/Uranus/Neptune results are genuine model outputs, so no construction-level circularity.

  1. self citation load bearing [Abstract; Section 2 'Meteoric ion production'; Section 4 'Impact of meteoric ions on conductances: results']
    "After checking that our model reproduces the conclusions of Nakamura et al. (2022) at Jupiter, i.e. the contribution of meteoric ions to the height-integrated conductances is non-negligible, we show that this contribution could also be non-negligible at Saturn, Uranus and Neptune..."

    The Jupiter benchmark and the meteoric production rates at all four planets come from the same co-authored ablation model (Nakamura et al., 2022), so 'reproducing' Nakamura et al.'s Jupiter conclusion is an internal consistency check within one model lineage, not an external falsification. This makes the cited prior work load-bearing for the Jupiter validation. However, the Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune conductance ratios (6, 1.5, 3 at 1 keV) are computed from the model with different atmospheric profiles, magnetic fields, and meteoroid influxes; they are not fitted to any target and do not reduce by construction to the Nakamura result. The 0.4 ionization probability is an assumed parameter whose admitted uncertainty affects robustness but does not make the derivation circular.

full rationale

The paper's core derivation is a forward model: given neutral atmosphere profiles (Moses & Poppe 2017), magnetic field values, electron precipitation parameterization (Hiraki & Tao 2008), photoionization (Richards et al. 1994), and meteoric ion production (Nakamura et al. 2022 ablation model), it solves chemical equilibrium (Eq. 10) and integrates conductivities (Eqs. 2, 3, 11). The headline ratios are outputs, not fitted quantities, and the altitude separation of the conductive and meteoric-ion layers follows directly from the cyclotron/collision frequency comparisons in Section 5. The only noteworthy circularity-adjacent element is that the Jupiter validation and the meteoric production source are both from Nakamura et al. (2022), a paper co-authored by a member of the present team; this is a real self-citation but it is not the sole basis of the Saturn/Uranus/Neptune claim, which has independent content. The Discussion's caveat that the Jupiter-derived ionization probability 0.4 'could be smaller at Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune' is an acknowledged parameter uncertainty rather than a circular step; it belongs in a correctness/sensitivity assessment, not in the circularity score. Overall the derivation is self-contained at the level of the stated assumptions, so the score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on roughly seven modeling assumptions and three hand-set parameters. The most consequential are the Jupiter-derived ionization probability of 0.4, the H2-dominated photochemical equilibrium scheme, and the meteoroid input distributions from Moses & Poppe (2017). None of these are tested against direct conductance measurements at Saturn, Uranus, or Neptune, so the result is best read as a conditional model prediction.

free parameters (3)
  • Meteoric ionization probability at all four planets = 0.4
    Estimated by Kim et al. (2001) for Jupiter and applied unchanged to Saturn, Uranus, Neptune; it directly scales the meteoric ion production rates that drive the paper's central claim. The Discussion acknowledges it could be smaller at the other three planets.
  • Electron-neutral collision frequency multiplier for H2 = 2
    The authors multiply the Banks & Kockarts (1973) value for H by 2 to approximate H2's electron momentum transfer cross section; an order-one factor chosen by hand that shifts the altitude and peak of electron conductivity.
  • Characteristic precipitating electron flux at Saturn, Uranus, Neptune = 1 mW/m^2 (base case), 100 mW/m^2 (upper limit)
    Selected from auroral observations at Saturn and Uranus and speculated for Neptune; conductances scale with the flux and the meteoric-vs-electron ratio depends on the assumed flux level, though the paper tests two values.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Photochemical equilibrium (production equals recombination for each ion)
    Stated in Section 2 ('Equilibrium'): valid where chemical timescales are shorter than transport; used to solve the ion densities that feed conductivities. Flagged as a strong approximation in Section 6.
  • domain assumption Atmosphere is H2-dominated; only H2 and CH4 neutrals matter
    Section 2: H2 is about 80% of mass density; He and H neglected with less than 20% estimated effect on collision frequencies; CH4 included as the main reactant with H3+. Restricts chemistry to H3+, CH5+ and meteoric ions.
  • domain assumption Polar magnetic field equals twice the equatorial field (dipole approximation)
    Section 2: the magnetic field value used in conductivity formulas is the polar value estimated by doubling the equatorial field. This affects the altitude of the conductive layer, a central element of the comparative conclusion.
  • ad hoc to paper H3+ exists in Neptune's upper atmosphere
    Section 1.2: H3+ and aurora remain undetected at Neptune; the paper assumes its presence, which sets the baseline electron density against which meteoric ions are compared at Neptune.
  • domain assumption Meteoroid flux, mass and speed distributions from Moses & Poppe (2017)
    Used as input to the ablation model; the resulting meteoric ion production peak altitudes and densities are directly responsible for the non-negligible contribution claim.
  • domain assumption Photoionization by solar flux only; stellar flux neglected
    Section 2: stellar ionization estimated 10 to 300 times smaller than solar, so excluded; affects the low-energy baseline of conductances.
  • domain assumption Neglect of galactic cosmic ray ionization
    Mentioned in Section 1.1; GCR ionization could affect lower altitudes, possibly overlapping with meteoric ion layers, and is not included.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ionospheric conductances at the giant planets of the Solar System:a comparative study of ionization sources and the impact of meteoric ions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DOS2KW2H

@misc{pith2026241204219,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ionospheric conductances at the giant planets of the Solar System:a comparative study of ionization sources and the impact of meteoric ions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DOS2KW2H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04219}
}
read the original abstract

The dynamics of giant planet magnetospheres is controlled by a complex interplay between their fast rotation, their interaction with the solar wind, and their diverse internal plasma and momentum sources. In the ionosphere, the Hall and Pedersen conductances are two key parameters that regulate the intensity of currents coupling the magnetosphere and the ionosphere, and the rate of angular momentum transfer and power carried by these currents. We perform a comparative study of Hall and Pedersen conductivities and conductances in the four giant planets of our Solar System - Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. We use a generic ionospheric model (restraining the studied ions to H3+, CH5+, and meteoric ions) to study the dependence of conductances on the structure and composition of these planets' upper atmospheres and on the main ionization sources (photoionization, ionization by precipitating electrons, and meteoroid ablation). After checking that our model reproduces the conclusions of Nakamura et al. (2022, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JA030312) at Jupiter, i.e. the contribution of meteoric ions to the height-integrated conductances is non-negligible, we show that this contribution could also be non-negligible at Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, compared with ionization processes caused by precipitating electrons of energies lower than a few keV (typical energies on these planets). However, because of their weaker magnetic field, the conductive layer of these planets is higher than the layer where meteoric ions are mainly produced, limiting their role in magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04219 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An illustration of the important roles of Pedersen and Hall conductances in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An illustration of the neutral atmosphere component of our parameter space: H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Mass flux distribution and mean entry velocity of meteoroids reaching each of the four [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ion densities (first panel of each row) for a run with meteoric ions, and conductivities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as Figure 4 for Uranus and Neptune [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Hall and Pedersen conductances calculated for the four giant planets with the 3 main [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ratio between conductances with contribution (w) of meteoric ions and conductances [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the altitudes of the conductive layer and of the meteoric ion layer. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Schematic illustration of the conductive layers (black shadings) and meteoric ion layers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , Neubauer , F M

    Acuna1981 APACrefauthors Acuna , M H. , Neubauer , F M. \ Ness , N F. APACrefauthors \ 1981 09 . Standing Alfv \'e n Wave Current System at Io: Voyager 1 Observations Standing Alfv \'e n Wave Current System at Io: Voyager 1 Observations . Journal of Geophysical Research 86 A10 8513-8521 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1029/JA086iA10p08513 APACrefDOI

    work page doi:10.1029/ja086ia10p08513 1981

  2. [2]

    \ Kockarts, G

    Banks1973 APACrefauthors Banks, P M. \ Kockarts, G. APACrefauthors \ 1973 . Aeronomy Aeronomy . Academic Press Book A Pages 194 and 218 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1126/science.186.4170.1200.a APACrefDOI

    work page arXiv 1973

  3. [3]

    \ Bunce , E J

    Cowley2001 APACrefauthors Cowley , S W H. \ Bunce , E J. APACrefauthors \ 2001 08 . Origin of the main auroral oval in Jupiter's coupled magnetosphere-ionosphere system Origin of the main auroral oval in Jupiter's coupled magnetosphere-ionosphere system . Planetary and Space Science 49 10-11 1067-1088 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1016/S0032-0633(00)00167-7 APACrefDOI

    doi:10.1016/s0032-0633(00)00167-7 2001

  4. [4]

    , Blanc , M

    Devinat2024 APACrefauthors Devinat , M. , Blanc , M. \ Andr \'e , N. APACrefauthors \ 2024 03 . A Self‐Consistent Model of Radial Transport in the Magnetodisks of Gas Giants Including Interhemispheric Asymmetries A self‐consistent model of radial transport in the magnetodisks of gas giants including interhemispheric asymmetries . Journal of Geophysical Re...

    work page doi:10.1029/2023ja032233 2024

  5. [5]

    , Maillard , J P

    Drossart1989 APACrefauthors Drossart , P. , Maillard , J P. , Caldwell , J. , Kim , S J. , Watson , J K G. , Majewski , W A. Wagener , R. APACrefauthors \ 1989 08 . Detection of H _ 3 ^ + on Jupiter Detection of H _ 3 ^ + on Jupiter . Nature 340 6234 539-541 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1038/340539a0 APACrefDOI

    doi:10.1038/340539a0 1989

  6. [6]

    \ Blanc , M

    Fontaine1983 APACrefauthors Fontaine , D. \ Blanc , M. APACrefauthors \ 1983 09 . A theoretical approach to the morphology and the dynamics of diffuse auroral zones A theoretical approach to the morphology and the dynamics of diffuse auroral zones . Journal of Geophysical Research 88 A9 7171-7184 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1029/JA088iA09p07171 APACrefDOI

    work page doi:10.1029/ja088ia09p07171 1983

  7. [7]

    , Blanc , M

    Fontaine1985 APACrefauthors Fontaine , D. , Blanc , M. , Reinhart , L. \ Glowinski , R. APACrefauthors \ 1985 09 . Numerical simulations of the magnetospheric convection including the effects of electron precipitation Numerical simulations of the magnetospheric convection including the effects of electron precipitation . Journal of Geophysical Research 90...

    work page doi:10.1029/ja090ia09p08343 1985

  8. [8]

    , Gkouvelis , L

    Gerard2020 APACrefauthors G \'e rard , J C. , Gkouvelis , L. , Bonfond , B. , Grodent , D. , Gladstone , G R. , Hue , V. Blanc , M. APACrefauthors \ 2020 08 . Spatial Distribution of the Pedersen Conductance in the Jovian Aurora From Juno-UVS Spectral Images Spatial Distribution of the Pedersen Conductance in the Jovian Aurora From Juno-UVS Spectral Image...

    work page doi:10.1029/2020ja028142 2020

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    APACrefauthors \ 1980 06

    Goertz1980 APACrefauthors Goertz , C K. APACrefauthors \ 1980 06 . Io's interaction with the plasma torus Io's interaction with the plasma torus . Journal of Geophysical Research 85 A6 2949-2956 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1029/JA085iA06p02949 APACrefDOI

    1980 doi

  2. [10]

    , Waite , J., J

    Grodent2001 APACrefauthors Grodent , D. , Waite , J., J. Hunter \ G \'e rard , J C. APACrefauthors \ 2001 07 . A self-consistent model of the Jovian auroral thermal structure A self-consistent model of the Jovian auroral thermal structure . Journal of Geophysical Research 106 ...

    2001 doi

  3. [11]

    \ Goertz , C K

    Gurnett1981 APACrefauthors Gurnett , D A. \ Goertz , C K. APACrefauthors \ 1981 02 . Multiple Alfven wave reflections excited by Io: origin of the Jovian decametric arcs Multiple Alfven wave reflections excited by Io: origin of the Jovian decametric arcs . Journal of Geophysic...

    1981 doi

  4. [12]

    , G \'e Rard , J C

    Gustin2004 APACrefauthors Gustin , J. , G \'e Rard , J C. , Grodent , D. , Cowley , S W H. , Clarke , J T. \ Grard , A. APACrefauthors \ 2004 10 . Energy-flux relationship in the FUV Jovian aurora deduced from HST-STIS spectral observations Energy-flux relationship in the FUV ...

    2004 doi

  5. [13]

    , Grodent , D

    Gustin2017 APACrefauthors Gustin , J. , Grodent , D. , Radioti , A. , Pryor , W. , Lamy , L. \ Ajello , J. APACrefauthors \ 2017 03 . Statistical study of Saturn's auroral electron properties with Cassini/UVIS FUV spectral images Statistical study of Saturn's auroral electron ...

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    APACrefauthors \ 1979 11

    Hill1979 APACrefauthors Hill , T W. APACrefauthors \ 1979 11 . Inertial limit on corotation Inertial limit on corotation . Journal of Geophysical Research 84 A11 6554-6558 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1029/JA084iA11p06554 APACrefDOI

    1979 doi

  7. [15]

    APACrefauthors \ 2015 02

    Hiraki2015 APACrefauthors Hiraki , Y. APACrefauthors \ 2015 02 . Auroral vortex street formed by the magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling instability Auroral vortex street formed by the magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling instability . Annales Geophysicae 33 2 217-224 . APACrefDOI ...

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    \ Tao , C

    Hiraki2008 APACrefauthors Hiraki , Y. \ Tao , C. APACrefauthors \ 2008 02 . Parameterization of ionization rate by auroral electron precipitation in Jupiter Parameterization of ionization rate by auroral electron precipitation in Jupiter . Annales Geophysicae 26 1 77-86 . APAC...

    2008 doi

  9. [17]

    , Pesnell , W D

    Kim2001 APACrefauthors Kim , Y H. , Pesnell , W D. , Grebowsky , J M. \ Fox , J L. APACrefauthors \ 2001 04 . Meteoric Ions in the Ionosphere of Jupiter Meteoric Ions in the Ionosphere of Jupiter . Icarus 150 2 261-278 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1006/icar.2001.6590 APACrefDOI

    2001

  10. [18]

    , Manochina , A V

    Lebedinets1973 APACrefauthors Lebedinets , V N. , Manochina , A V. \ Shushkova , V B. APACrefauthors \ 1973 08 . Interaction of the lower thermosphere with the solid component of the interplanetary medium Interaction of the lower thermosphere with the solid component of the in...

    1973 doi

  11. [19]

    , Liu , L

    Lei2004 APACrefauthors Lei , J. , Liu , L. , Wan , W. \ Zhang , S R. APACrefauthors \ 2004 08 . Modeling the behavior of ionosphere above Millstone Hill during the September 21-27, 1998 storm Modeling the behavior of ionosphere above Millstone Hill during the September 21-27, ...

    2004 doi

  12. [20]

    APACrefauthors \ 1991 02

    Lysak1991 APACrefauthors Lysak , R L. APACrefauthors \ 1991 02 . Feedback instability of the ionospheric resonant cavity Feedback instability of the ionospheric resonant cavity . Journal of Geophysical Research 96 A2 1553-1568 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1029/90JA02154 APACrefDOI

    1991 doi

  13. [21]

    \ Song , Y

    Lysak2002 APACrefauthors Lysak , R L. \ Song , Y. APACrefauthors \ 2002 08 . Energetics of the ionospheric feedback interaction Energetics of the ionospheric feedback interaction . Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics) 107 A8 1160 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1029/2001JA00030...

    2002 doi

  14. [22]

    \ Song , Y

    Lysak2003 APACrefauthors Lysak , R L. \ Song , Y. APACrefauthors \ 2003 04 . Kinetic theory of the Alfv \'e n wave acceleration of auroral electrons Kinetic theory of the Alfv \'e n wave acceleration of auroral electrons . Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics) 108 A4...

    2003 doi

  15. [23]

    \ McConnell , J C

    Majeed1991 APACrefauthors Majeed , T. \ McConnell , J C. APACrefauthors \ 1991 12 . The upper ionospheres of Jupiter and Saturn The upper ionospheres of Jupiter and Saturn . Planet Space Science 39 12 1715-1732 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1016/0032-0633(91)90031-5 APACrefDOI

    1991 doi

  16. [24]

    APACrefauthors \ 2020 12

    Melin2020 APACrefauthors Melin , H. APACrefauthors \ 2020 12 . The upper atmospheres of Uranus and Neptune The upper atmospheres of Uranus and Neptune . Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A 378 2187 20190478 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1098/rsta.2019.0478...

    2020

  17. [25]

    \ Sato , T

    Miura1980 APACrefauthors Miura , A. \ Sato , T. APACrefauthors \ 1980 01 . Numerical simulation of global formation of auroral arcs Numerical simulation of global formation of auroral arcs . Journal of Geophysical Research 85 A1 73-91 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1029/JA085iA01p00073 A...

    1980 doi

  18. [26]

    , Mura , A

    Moirano2021 APACrefauthors Moirano , A. , Mura , A. , Adriani , A. , Dols , V. , Bonfond , B. , Waite , J H. Bolton , S J. APACrefauthors \ 2021 09 . Morphology of the Auroral Tail of Io, Europa, and Ganymede From JIRAM L-Band Imager Morphology of the Auroral Tail of Io, Europ...

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    , Witasse , O

    MolinaCuberos2023 APACrefauthors Molina-Cuberos , G J. , Witasse , O. , Toledo , D. \ Tripathi , S N. APACrefauthors \ 2023 03 . The Low-Altitude Ionosphere of the Ice Giant Planets The Low-Altitude Ionosphere of the Ice Giant Planets . Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets...

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    , Melin , H

    Moore2019 APACrefauthors Moore , L. , Melin , H. , O'Donoghue , J. , Stallard , T S. , Moses , J I. , Galand , M. Schmidt , C A. APACrefauthors \ 2019 09 . Modelling H _ 3 ^ + in planetary atmospheres: effects of vertical gradients on observed quantities Modelling H _ 3 ^ + in...

    2019

  21. [29]

    , Moses , J I

    Moore2020 APACrefauthors Moore , L. , Moses , J I. , Melin , H. , Stallard , T S. \ O'Donoghue , J. APACrefauthors \ 2020 12 . Atmospheric implications of the lack of H _ 3 ^ + detection at Neptune Atmospheric implications of the lack of H _ 3 ^ + detection at Neptune . Philos...

    2020

  22. [30]

    \ Poppe , A R

    Moses2017 APACrefauthors Moses , J I. \ Poppe , A R. APACrefauthors \ 2017 11 . Dust ablation on the giant planets: Consequences for stratospheric photochemistry Dust ablation on the giant planets: Consequences for stratospheric photochemistry . Icarus 297 33-58 . APACrefDOI d...

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    , Terada , K

    Nakamura2022 APACrefauthors Nakamura , Y. , Terada , K. , Tao , C. , Terada , N. , Kasaba , Y. , Leblanc , F. Yoshikawa , I. APACrefauthors \ 2022 03 . Effect of Meteoric Ions on Ionospheric Conductance at Jupiter Effect of Meteoric Ions on Ionospheric Conductance at Jupiter ....

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    APACrefauthors \ 1980 03

    Neubauer1980 APACrefauthors Neubauer , F M. APACrefauthors \ 1980 03 . Nonlinear standing Alfv \'e n wave current system at Io: Theory Nonlinear standing Alfv \'e n wave current system at Io: Theory . Journal of Geophysical Research 85 A3 1171-1178 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1029/JA0...

    1980 doi

  25. [33]

    \ Cowley , S

    Nichols2004 APACrefauthors Nichols , J. \ Cowley , S. APACrefauthors \ 2004 05 . Magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling currents in Jupiter's middle magnetosphere: effect of precipitation-induced enhancement of the ionospheric Pedersen conductivity Magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling...

    2004 doi

  26. [34]

    APACrefauthors \ 1978

    Nishida1978 APACrefauthors Nishida, A. APACrefauthors \ 1978 . Magnetosphere as a Resonator Magnetosphere as a resonator . Berlin, Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg . APACrefURL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-86825-2_5 APACrefURL APACrefDOI doi:10.1007/978-3-642-86825-2...

    1978 doi

  27. [35]

    , Kim , Y H

    Perry1999 APACrefauthors Perry , J J. , Kim , Y H. , Fox , J L. \ Porter , H S. APACrefauthors \ 1999 07 . Chemistry of the Jovian auroral ionosphere Chemistry of the Jovian auroral ionosphere . Journal of Geophysical Research 104 E7 16541-16566 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1029/1999JE...

    1999 doi

  28. [36]

    APACrefauthors \ 1963 10

    Rees1963 APACrefauthors Rees , M H. APACrefauthors \ 1963 10 . Auroral ionization and excitation by incident energetic electrons Auroral ionization and excitation by incident energetic electrons . Planetary and Space Science 11 10 1209-1218 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1016/0032-0633(6...

    1963 doi

  29. [37]

    , Fennelly , J A

    Richards1994 APACrefauthors Richards , P G. , Fennelly , J A. \ Torr , D G. APACrefauthors \ 1994 05 . EUVAC: A solar EUV flux model for aeronomic calculations EUVAC: A solar EUV flux model for aeronomic calculations . Journal of Geophysical Research 99 A5 8981-8992 . APACrefD...

    1994 doi

  30. [38]

    , Paty , C S

    Riousset2013 APACrefauthors Riousset , J A. , Paty , C S. , Lillis , R J. , Fillingim , M O. , England , S L. , Withers , P G. \ Hale , J P M. APACrefauthors \ 2013 06 . Three-dimensional multifluid modeling of atmospheric electrodynamics in Mars' dynamo region Three-dimension...

    2013 doi

  31. [39]

    , Paty , C S

    Riousset2014 APACrefauthors Riousset , J A. , Paty , C S. , Lillis , R J. , Fillingim , M O. , England , S L. , Withers , P G. \ Hale , J P M. APACrefauthors \ 2014 02 . Electrodynamics of the Martian dynamo region near magnetic cusps and loops Electrodynamics of the Martian d...

    2014 doi

  32. [40]

    , Janser , S

    Saur2018 APACrefauthors Saur , J. , Janser , S. , Schreiner , A. , Clark , G. , Mauk , B H. , Kollmann , P. Kotsiaros , S. APACrefauthors \ 2018 11 . Wave-Particle Interaction of Alfv \'e n Waves in Jupiter's Magnetosphere: Auroral and Magnetospheric Particle Acceleration Wave...

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    \ Blanc , M

    Senior1984 APACrefauthors Senior , C. \ Blanc , M. APACrefauthors \ 1984 01 . On the control of magnetospheric convection by the spatial distribution of ionospheric conductivities On the control of magnetospheric convection by the spatial distribution of ionospheric conductivi...

    1984 doi

  34. [42]

    \ Mishin , E V

    Streltsov2018 APACrefauthors Streltsov , A V. \ Mishin , E V. APACrefauthors \ 2018 11 . On the Existence of Ionospheric Feedback Instability in the Earth's Magnetosphere-Ionosphere System On the Existence of Ionospheric Feedback Instability in the Earth's Magnetosphere-Ionosp...

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    , Mowat , J R

    Sundstrom1994 APACrefauthors Sundstrom , G. , Mowat , J R. , Danared , H. , Datz , S. , Brostrom , L. , Filevich , A. Larsson , M. APACrefauthors \ 1994 02 . Destruction Rate of H\_3\^+ by Low-Energy Electrons Measured in a Storage-Ring Experiment Destruction Rate of H\_3\^+ b...

    1994 doi

  36. [44]

    , Melin , H

    Thomas2023 APACrefauthors Thomas , E M. , Melin , H. , Stallard , T S. , Chowdhury , M N. , Wang , R. , Knowles , K. \ Miller , S. APACrefauthors \ 2023 . Detection of the infrared aurora at Uranus with Keck-NIRSPEC Detection of the infrared aurora at Uranus with Keck-NIRSPEC ...

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    APACrefauthors \ 2000 01

    Titheridge2000 APACrefauthors Titheridge , J E. APACrefauthors \ 2000 01 . Modelling the peak of the ionospheric E-layer Modelling the peak of the ionospheric E-layer . Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 62 2 93-114 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1016/S1364-6826(99)0010...

    2000 doi

  38. [46]

    , Geballe , T R

    Trafton1993 APACrefauthors Trafton , L M. , Geballe , T R. , Miller , S. , Tennyson , J. \ Ballester , G E. APACrefauthors \ 1993 03 . Detection of H 3 + from Uranus Detection of H 3 + from Uranus . The Astrophysical Journal 405 761 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1086/172404 APACrefDOI

    1993 doi

  39. [47]

    , Riousset , J A

    Vernisse2017 APACrefauthors Vernisse , Y. , Riousset , J A. , Motschmann , U. \ Glassmeier , K H. APACrefauthors \ 2017 03 . Simulations of stellar winds and planetary bodies: Ionosphere-rich obstacles in a super-Alfv \'e nic flow Simulations of stellar winds and planetary bod...

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    , Plane , J M C

    Vondrak2008 APACrefauthors Vondrak , T. , Plane , J M C. , Broadley , S. \ Janches , D. APACrefauthors \ 2008 12 . A chemical model of meteoric ablation A chemical model of meteoric ablation . Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics 8 23 7015-7031 . APACrefDOI doi:10.5194/acp-8-7015-2...

    2008 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Waite1988 APACrefauthors Waite , J., J. H. , Chandler , M O. , Yelle , R V. , Sandel , B R. \ Cravens , T E. APACrefauthors \ 1988 12 . Superthermal electron processes in the upper atmosphere of Uranus: Aurora and electroglow Superthermal electron processes in the upper atmosp...

    1988 doi

  42. [50]

    , Blanc , M

    Wang2021 APACrefauthors Wang , Y. , Blanc , M. , Louis , C. , Wang , C. , Andr \'e , N. , Adriani , A. Tao , C. APACrefauthors \ 2021 09 . A Preliminary Study of Magnetosphere-Ionosphere-Thermosphere Coupling at Jupiter: Juno Multi-Instrument Measurements and Modeling Tools A ...

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    APACrefauthors \ 2010 02

    Watanabe2010 APACrefauthors Watanabe , T H. APACrefauthors \ 2010 02 . Feedback instability in the magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling system: Revisited Feedback instability in the magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling system: Revisited . Physics of Plasmas 17 2 022904 . APACrefDOI ...

    2010 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.