Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 71 references

A multi-frequency global view of Callisto's thermal properties from ALMA

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Callisto's millimeter emission is more efficient than Europa's or Ganymede's, and no single thermal-inertia model can reproduce its heat pattern.

desk verdict First global resolved ALMA thermal maps of Callisto are a solid dataset, and the high-emissivity claim holds up across models, but the Europa/Ganymede contrast rests on an unquantified albedo map and the complex-model wins lack model comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12671 v1 pith:MCMQYXCQ submitted 2025-07-16 astro-ph.EP

Maria Camarca , Katherine de Kleer , Bryan Butler , Alexander Thelen , Cole Meyer , Alex Akins , Imke de Pater , Mark Gurwell This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords Callistothermalpropertiesinertiaemissivitymillimeterobservationsthermophysicalmodelingimpactbasinsicysatellites
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

Callisto is the most ancient and geologically quiet of the Galilean moons, and this paper tries to read its surface composition and shallow subsurface from the heat it emits at millimeter wavelengths. Using resolved observations of both hemispheres at 0.87, 1.3, and 3 mm, the authors argue that Callisto glows more brightly at these wavelengths than Europa or Ganymede, with emissivities of 0.85–0.97, and that a surface with one uniform thermal inertia cannot reproduce the observed disk-center versus limb temperatures. Instead, models with two thermal-inertia components or with a frequency-dependent electrical skin depth fit the data, and the best fits require an unusually strong absorption scaling. After subtracting the best global models, the remaining 3–5 K cold spots line up with the Valhalla impact basin, the Adlinda/Heimdall/Lofn crater complex, and a trailing-hemisphere location near the peak of Callisto's carbon-dioxide gas, giving planetary scientists a new way to connect large impacts and volatile distributions on an airless icy world.

What carries the argument

The central object is a one-dimensional thermophysical model with radiative transfer that solves the heat equation down to several thermal skin depths for every latitude and longitude, then converts the temperature profile into synthetic brightness maps using the electrical skin depth $\delta_{\rm elec} = \lambda/(4\pi\kappa)$, where $\kappa$ is the imaginary part of the refractive index. The paper tests three variants: $M_\Gamma$ with one thermal inertia and one emissivity, $M_{\Gamma,\delta}$ with one thermal inertia plus a wavelength- and temperature-independent absorptivity scale factor $a_{\rm scale}$ multiplying $\kappa$, and $M_{\Gamma,\Gamma}$ with two thermal-inertia components linearly mixed in flux before beam convolution. This machinery converts the data's spatial brightness pattern into constraints on subsurface thermal inertia and emissivity, and the comparison among variants is what isolates the need for more than one thermal property.

What would settle it

Observe the same Callisto hemisphere at 233 GHz at several different local times of day, and separately at a centimeter wavelength that probes roughly a meter deep, such as 10–50 GHz. If the Valhalla cold spot changes contrast with local time, it is a thermal-inertia signature; if it stays cold at all times while the deep emissivity falls, it is a composition and emissivity signature. Either outcome would test whether the scaled-skin-depth model is capturing real subsurface properties or absorbing model error.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that Callisto's millimeter emissivity is high and uniform across frequency, hemisphere, and model choice: representative values are $\epsilon \sim 0.85$–$0.97$, compared with $0.75$–$0.85$ for Europa and Ganymede. The companion discovery is negative: models that fit only a single thermal inertia $\Gamma$ and an emissivity fail systematically, producing warm disk centers and cold limbs, which shows that Callisto's submillimeter emission is shaped by more than one thermal property. Both a two-thermal-inertia mixture and a single-$\Gamma$ model with a scaled electrical skin depth $\delta_{\rm elec}$ improve the fits, with the best absorptivity scaling factors sitting at the upper boundary of the tested range ($a_{\rm scale} \approx 10$–$12.5$). Residual images from the improved fits then reveal local 3–5 K cold anomalies at Valhalla, at the Adlinda/Heimdall/Lofn crater suite, and at a trailing-hemisphere location near the peak of Callisto's CO2 gas column.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on assuming thermal properties and the albedo map are uniform enough that spatial brightness differences can be read as local time-of-day differences, and that scaling pure-ice absorption by a single wavelength-independent factor captures Callisto's real subsurface; if either fails, the fitted properties and cold spots may be artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Single-thermal-inertia models should no longer be used for Callisto at these wavelengths; future thermophysical fits need either a second thermal-inertia component or a frequency-dependent subsurface absorption length.
  • The high emissivity of 0.85–0.97, holding across all model treatments, implies that Callisto's near-surface is less ice-dominated than Europa's or Ganymede's at millimeter depths.
  • Because 97–343 GHz observations still do not constrain a change in thermal properties with depth, Callisto's dark material blanket is likely at least tens of centimeters thick, and these observations provide a lower bound on that thickness.
  • Valhalla, the solar system's largest multiring impact basin, shows a 3–5 K cold anomaly at multiple frequencies, meaning the cold-crater trend seen on other icy moons extends to the largest impact class.
  • The trailing-hemisphere cold spot aligned with the CO2 gas peak suggests that local subsurface compositional variations may control where CO2 gas is released, linking thermal mapping to volatile transport.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the high emissivity is caused by a global rock-rich lag deposit, centimeter-wavelength observations probing ~1 m depth should show emissivity falling below ~0.8; a drop of that kind would confirm the dark blanket is thick and volatile-poor.
  • Beyond the paper: the association between the 97 GHz cold spot and the CO2 gas peak can be tested directly by spatially correlating the residual temperature maps with gas-column maps; a persistent negative correlation would suggest that CO2 outgassing cools the regolith or that gas-rich terrain has distinct thermal properties.
  • Beyond the paper: because the best-fit absorptivity scalings cluster at the edge of the tested grid ($a_{\rm scale} = 10$–$12.5$), extending the grid beyond $12.5$ would reveal whether the needed skin-depth reduction is real or whether the model is absorbing neglected physics such as surface roughness or layering.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. Camarca et al. present ALMA observations of Callisto at 97, 233, and 343 GHz covering both the leading and trailing hemispheres. They report disk-integrated brightness temperatures, fit three thermophysical model families (single thermal inertia MΓ, two-thermal-inertia MΓ,Γ, and single thermal inertia with variable electrical skin depth MΓ,δ), and derive global thermal inertias and emissivities. The paper's central claims are that Callisto's millimeter emissivities are high (0.85–0.97, compared with 0.75–0.85 for Europa and Ganymede), that single-thermal-inertia models fail to reproduce the data, that the more complex models fit better, and that residual cold anomalies are associated with the Valhalla basin, the Adlinda/Heimdall/Lofn crater complex, and a trailing-hemisphere region near the JWST CO2 gas peak.

Significance. This is the first multi-frequency, globally resolved millimeter thermal mapping of Callisto, and it substantially extends the authors' earlier single-frequency work. The careful calibration check, explicit description of the modeling choices, and the systematic exploration of three thermophysical treatments are clear strengths. If the high-emissivity result survives an albedo-uncertainty test, it would be an important compositional constraint for the Galilean satellites. The residual anomalies are geologically interesting and provide useful context for JWST observations and upcoming JUICE measurements. The paper is also commendably explicit about its assumptions, particularly the spatial-variation-as-time-of-day interpretation and the independent fitting of each observation. However, the two most quantitative claims—the emissivity contrast with Europa/Ganymede and the statistical preference for more complex models—are not yet fully supported by the analysis as presented.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3 and Section 4.2] The emissivity retrieval uses the Bond albedo map of Camarca et al. (2023) as an exact input with no stated uncertainty and no sensitivity test. Because the disk-integrated brightness temperature is fixed by observation, the fitted emissivity is essentially the ratio of the observed Tb to the model-predicted surface temperature, which scales as (1−A)^(−1/4). For Callisto's Bond albedo of roughly 0.15–0.25, an absolute albedo error of 0.05–0.1 changes equilibrium temperatures by about 3–10 K and therefore shifts derived emissivities by roughly 0.05–0.1. The claimed contrast with Europa and Ganymede (0.85–0.97 vs 0.75–0.85) is comparable to this systematic, so the headline cross-satellite result needs an explicit albedo sensitivity test or a quantitative uncertainty estimate on the albedo map before it can be regarded as established.
  2. [Section 4.3.2 and Figure 4] The MΓ,δ fits prefer absorptivity scaling factors at the upper boundary of the tested grid (ascale = 10–12.5), as the paper itself notes. This means the true optimum may lie outside the explored range, and the improved fit of MΓ,δ over MΓ could absorb model error (for example, unresolved roughness or vertical structure) into an unphysical absorptivity scaling rather than representing a real subsurface electrical property. I recommend extending the ascale grid beyond 12.5, or at minimum reporting the χ2 trend beyond the boundary and discussing how the physical interpretation changes if the minimum remains at the edge.
  3. [Section 3, Eq. (5), and Section 4.3.4] The claim that 'more complex models fit better' is based on lower χ2 values and improved residual morphology, but MΓ,δ and MΓ,Γ have more free parameters than MΓ, and Eq. (5) does not implement a formal model-comparison criterion such as AIC or BIC. Because each observation is fit independently with an increased number of tunable parameters, the improvement is partly by construction. The authors should add a parameter-count-aware comparison (for example ΔBIC or a cross-validation residual metric) or explicitly qualify the conclusion as a descriptive statement about residual structure rather than a statistical model preference.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 7 caption] The caption labels both the second and third rows as MΓ,Γ; the third row should be MΓ,δ.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (5)] The sentence following Eq. (5) is grammatically incomplete and garbled: 'Npar is the number of model parameters (e.g., 2 for a single Γ and e), Models that satisfied...' needs to be rewritten for clarity.
  3. [Section 3] There is a typo in 'down to to several thermal skin depths'; the duplicated 'to' should be removed.
  4. [Figure 2 caption] The entry 'Gurwell & Moullet (personal communication)' would be easier for readers to verify if a formal citation or ALMA memo reference were provided in the caption or reference list.
  5. [Section 4.4.1] In the sentence 'The Tb deviations of Valhalla from surrounding terrain in the 97 and 233 GHz best-fit thermal models are ∼5.2 K and ∼1.8 K', it would be clearer to state explicitly that these values are data-minus-model residuals, since the preceding text also discusses raw image contrasts.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's claimed results are fitted quantities compared against ALMA data, not derived from the model inputs.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical fitting exercise. The target quantities (emissivity, thermal inertia, and skin-depth scaling factor) are free parameters optimized against calibrated ALMA images via the cost function of Eq. 5; they are not derived from the model assumptions. The high-emissivity claim follows from the observed disk-integrated and resolved brightness temperatures (Table 1) combined with modeled physical temperatures, so it is an inversion of the data rather than a consequence of the albedo map or the thermophysical model by construction. The conclusion that single-thermal-inertia models fail and that models with variable skin depth or two thermal-inertia components fit better is a model-comparison statement based on residuals and chi-squared values, with no claimed prediction that reduces to the fitted parameters themselves. The albedo map from Camarca et al. (2023) and the thermophysical model from de Kleer et al. (2021a) are same-group prior results used as inputs, but neither is defined in terms of Callisto's emissivity or the fitted thermal inertias, and the paper does not invoke a uniqueness theorem or cite its own prior work to forbid alternatives. The identified weaknesses—the fixed albedo map with no sensitivity test, and the best-fit absorptivity scaling factor lying at the upper boundary of the explored grid—are robustness or model-physics concerns, not circularity. No step in the derivation chain equates a prediction to an input by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central inferences rest on thermophysical model assumptions and fitted parameters. The model is inherited from de Kleer et al. 2021a, the albedo input is from Camarca et al. 2023, and the new fitted quantities are thermal inertia, emissivity, absorptivity scaling, and mixing fraction. No new physical entities, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Effective thermal inertia Gamma (single and two-component) = Wide accepted ranges; e.g. 600-1900 MKS at 343 GHz, 100-1300 MKS at 233 GHz, unconstrained at 97 GHz
    Free parameter in thermophysical model fits to ALMA data; reported ranges are acceptable fits, often overlapping or unconstrained.
  • Millimeter emissivity epsilon = 0.85-0.97 across observations and model treatments
    Fitted simultaneously with thermal inertia in each model treatment; this is the central claimed result.
  • Absorptivity scaling factor ascale = Best fits near 10-12.5, the upper bound of the tested range
    Free scale factor multiplying pure-water-ice absorption in the MGamma,delta treatment; scales electrical skin depth and best fits at the edge of the grid.
  • Mixing percentage of low and high thermal inertia components = Not tabulated; acceptable ranges shown in Figure 5
    Linear mixture fraction in the two-Gamma model, varied to minimize residuals, with much of parameter space acceptable at 97 GHz.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption 1D heat equation with zero heat flux at depth and solar insolation upper boundary
    Section 3; standard thermophysical model for airless bodies, but assumes uniform material properties and neglects lateral heat flow, roughness, and layering.
  • domain assumption Spatial brightness variations across the disk are interpreted as local-time variations under constant global thermal properties
    Section 3; enables global fits from snapshot observations, but fails if properties vary at sub-beam spatial scales.
  • domain assumption Electrical properties are set by pure water ice and scaled by a constant ascale
    Equation 4; neglects composition, dark material, and any temperature or frequency dependence beyond the pure-ice treatment.
  • domain assumption The Bond albedo map from Camarca et al. 2023 is correct and fixed
    Section 3; this map sets the solar insolation input, so errors in it propagate into thermal inertia and emissivity fits.
  • domain assumption Linear addition of two thermal-inertia model images in Jy before beam convolution approximates sub-beam heterogeneous terrain
    Two-Gamma approach in Section 3; ignores nonlinear radiative coupling between neighboring terrain types.
  • standard math The chi-square acceptance criterion in Equation 5 treats resolution elements as independent data points
    A reasonable statistical convention from Press et al. 1986, but it does not penalize extra free parameters when comparing models of different complexity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A multi-frequency global view of Callisto's thermal properties from ALMA." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MCMQYXCQ

@misc{pith2026250712671,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A multi-frequency global view of Callisto's thermal properties from ALMA},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MCMQYXCQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12671}
}
read the original abstract

We present thermal observations of Callisto's leading and trailing hemispheres obtained using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) at 0.87 mm (343 GHz), 1.3 mm (233 GHz), and 3 mm (97 GHz). The angular resolution achieved for these observations ranged from 0.09-0.24 arcseconds, corresponding to ~420-1100 km at Callisto. Global surface properties were derived from the observations using a thermophysical model (de Kleer et al. 2021) constrained by spacecraft data. We find that Callisto's millimeter emissivities are high, with representative values of 0.85-0.97, compared to 0.75-0.85 for Europa and Ganymede at these wavelengths. It is clear that models parameterized by a single thermal inertia are not sufficient to model Callisto's thermal emission, and clearly deviate from the temperature distributions in the data in systematic ways. Rather, more complex models that adopt either two thermal inertia components or that treat electrical skin depth as a free parameter fit the data more accurately than single thermal inertia models. Residuals from the global best-fit models reveal thermal anomalies; in particular, brightness temperatures that are locally 3-5 K colder than surrounding terrain are associated with impact craters. We identify the Valhalla impact basin and a suite of large craters, including Lofn, as key cold anomalies (~3-5 K) and geologic features of interest in these data. These data provide context for Callisto JWST results (Cartwright et al. 2024) as well as the other ALMA Galilean moon observations (de Kleer et al. 2021, Trumbo et al. 2017, 2018, Thelen et al. 2024), and may be useful ground-based context for upcoming Galilean satellite missions (JUICE, Europa Clipper).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.12671 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: Calibrated ALMA images of Callisto. Right: Residuals obtained by subtracting Lambertian disks from images on the left to highlight differences in Tb across the disk, with the unit being K for all panels. In both panels, the ellipse in the lower left corner represents the FWHM (full-width at half-maximum) of the synthesized ALMA beam, which is the resolution element. The latitude/longitude grid is spaced at 30◦… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Summary of disk-averaged brightness temperature measurements for Callisto plotted as a function of wavelength. This plot is an update to the one shown in Camarca et al. (2023) including the additional ALMA data points presented here. Our measurements (black/gray points with capped error bars, highlighted in grey) agree with most neighboring data. Data in this plot are taken from: Berge & Muhleman (1975), Butler (201… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Results from model fits using single-Γ models (MΓ). We note that the MΓ approach produced consistent systematic effects in the residual maps indicating that none was a good fit, and is therefore not the preferred thermal modeling approach. For each observation frequency and hemisphere, the range of Γ and emissivity values that satisfied Eq. 5 are indicated by colored bars. The 97 GHz (L) models are not constrained i… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Summary of model fits treating electrical skin depth as a free parameter, MΓ,δ. The y-axis is presented as the factor by which δelec is decreased relative to pure water ice (ascale); the actual δelec these values correspond to are temperature￾dependent. Shaded regions …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Summary of the two-Γ model (MΓ,Γ) fits. For each observation, the range of two-Γ mixtures that satisfied Eq. 5 are enclosed below and to the right of the labeled lines. The 97 GHz results include the entire parameter space. The best-fit mixture model for each observati…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Grid of residuals derived from different thermal modeling approaches. Each column represents a unique observation, and each row is dedicated to a different modeling treatment. The first row shows residuals derived from models generated using a best-fit single thermal i…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Residuals from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    r<n Y GX r1K-aS + C5w_+ W m Fx-^|#! CB

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    work page arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    J., de Kleer, K., Camarca, M

    Akins, A., Butler, B. J., de Kleer, K., Camarca, M. N., & Thelen, A. E. 2024, in AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 2024, P23B--309. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024AGUFMP23B..309A

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    T., Kryuchkov, V

    Basilevsky, A. T., Kryuchkov, V. P., Ivanov, M. A., Zabalueva, E. V., & Kotova, I. V. 2002, Solar System Research, 36, 322, 10.1023/A:1019576422376

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1019576422376 2002

  6. [6]

    L., & Muhleman, D

    Berge, G. L., & Muhleman, D. O. 1975, Science, 187, 441, 10.1126/science.187.4175.441

    work page doi:10.1126/science.187.4175.441 1975

  7. [7]

    2020, Icarus, 352, 113947, 10.1016/j.icarus.2020.113947

    Bonnefoy, L., Le Gall, A., Lellouch, E., et al. 2020, Icarus, 352, 113947, 10.1016/j.icarus.2020.113947

    work page arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    F., Vokrouhlický, D., Nesvorný, D., & Moore, J

    Bottke, W. F., Vokrouhlický, D., Nesvorný, D., & Moore, J. M. 2013, Icarus, 223, 775, 10.1016/j.icarus.2013.01.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2013.01.008 2013

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    Briggs, D. S. 1995, 187, 112.02. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995AAS...18711202B

    1995

  2. [10]

    L., Hunter, T

    Brogan, C. L., Hunter, T. R., & Fomalont, E. B. 2018, arXiv:1805.05266 [astro-ph]. http://arxiv.org/abs/1805.05266

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    2023, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 128, e2022JE007609, 10.1029/2022JE007609

    Brown, S., Zhang, Z., Bolton, S., et al. 2023, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 128, e2022JE007609, 10.1029/2022JE007609

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    2012, ALMA Memo 594, Tech

    Butler, B. 2012, ALMA Memo 594, Tech. rep. https://science.nrao.edu/facilities/alma/ aboutALMA/Technology/ALMA_Memo_Series/alma594/abs594

    2012

  5. [13]

    J., & Bastian, T

    Butler, B. J., & Bastian, T. 1999, in Synthesis Imaging in Radio Astronomy II , ed. G. B. Taylor, C. L. Carilli, & R. A. Perley, Vol. 180. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ASPC..180.....T

    1999

  6. [14]

    d., Butler, B., et al

    Camarca, M., Kleer, K. d., Butler, B., et al. 2023, The Planetary Science Journal, 4, 142, 10.3847/PSJ/aceb68

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    J., Furfaro, R., & Asphaug, E

    Cambioni, S., Delbo, M., Ryan, A. J., Furfaro, R., & Asphaug, E. 2019, Icarus, 325, 16, 10.1016/j.icarus.2019.01.017

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Villanueva, G

    Cartwright, R. J., Villanueva, G. L., Holler, B. J., et al. 2024, The Planetary Science Journal, 5, 60, 10.3847/PSJ/ad23e6

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    Clark, B. G. 1980, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 89, 377. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980A&A....89..377C/abstract

    1980

  10. [18]

    2021 a , The Planetary Science Journal, 2, 5, 10.3847/PSJ/abcbf4

    de Kleer, K., Butler, B., de Pater, I., et al. 2021 a , The Planetary Science Journal, 2, 5, 10.3847/PSJ/abcbf4

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    2021 b , The Planetary Science Journal, 2, 149, 10.3847/PSJ/ac01ec

    de Kleer, K., Cambioni, S., & Shepard, M. 2021 b , The Planetary Science Journal, 2, 149, 10.3847/PSJ/ac01ec

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    A., & Dickel, J

    de Pater, I., Brown, R. A., & Dickel, J. R. 1984, Icarus, 57, 93, 10.1016/0019-1035(84)90011-3

    1984 doi

  13. [21]

    N., Reach, W

    de Pater, I., Fletcher, L. N., Reach, W. T., et al. 2021, The Planetary Science Journal, 2, 226, 10.3847/PSJ/ac2d24

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    2020, The Planetary Science Journal, 1, 60, 10.3847/PSJ/abb93d

    de Pater, I., Luszcz-Cook, S., Rojo, P., et al. 2020, The Planetary Science Journal, 1, 60, 10.3847/PSJ/abb93d

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    L., Kreysa, E., & Chini, R

    de Pater, I., Ulich, B. L., Kreysa, E., & Chini, R. 1989, Icarus, 79, 190

    1989

  16. [24]

    N., Luszcz-Cook, S., et al

    de Pater, I., Fletcher, L. N., Luszcz-Cook, S., et al. 2014, Icarus, 237, 211, 10.1016/j.icarus.2014.02.030

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Moeckel, C., et al

    de Pater, I., Sault, R. J., Moeckel, C., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 158, 139, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3643

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    2018, Space Science Reviews, 214, 111, 10.1007/s11214-018-0546-x

    Ferrari, C. 2018, Space Science Reviews, 214, 111, 10.1007/s11214-018-0546-x

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    R., & Harsono, D

    Francis, L., Johnstone, D., Herczeg, G., Hunter, T. R., & Harsono, D. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 160, 270, 10.3847/1538-3881/abbe1a

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    Greeley, R., Heiner, S., & Klemaszewski, J. E. 2001, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 106, 3261, 10.1029/2000JE001262

    2001 doi

  21. [29]

    2000, Planetary and Space Science, 48, 829, 10.1016/S0032-0633(00)00050-7

    Greeley, R., Klemaszewski, J., & Wagner, R. 2000, Planetary and Space Science, 48, 829, 10.1016/S0032-0633(00)00050-7

    2000 doi

  22. [30]

    M., Buie, M

    Grundy, W. M., Buie, M. W., Stansberry, J. A., Spencer, J. R., & Schmitt, B. 1999, Icarus, 142, 536, 10.1006/icar.1999.6216

    1999

  23. [31]

    2015, Icarus, 256, 101, 10.1016/j.icarus.2015.04.014

    Hanuš, J., Delbo', M., Ďurech, J., & Alí-Lagoa, V. 2015, Icarus, 256, 101, 10.1016/j.icarus.2015.04.014

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    1999, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 37, 1871, 10.1109/36.774700

    Hewison, T., & English, S. 1999, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 37, 1871, 10.1109/36.774700

    1999 doi

  25. [33]

    A., Klemaszewski, J

    Hibbitts, C. A., Klemaszewski, J. E., McCord, T. B., Hansen, G. B., & Greeley, R. 2002, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 107, 14, 10.1029/2000JE001412

    2002 doi

  26. [34]

    2012, Icarus, 221, 1084, 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.10.013

    Howett, C., Spencer, J., Hurford, T., Verbiscer, A., & Segura, M. 2012, Icarus, 221, 1084, 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.10.013

    2012 doi

  27. [35]

    2019, Icarus, 321, 705, 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.12.018

    ---. 2019, Icarus, 321, 705, 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.12.018

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    2011, Icarus, 216, 221, 10.1016/j.icarus.2011.09.007

    Howett, C., Spencer, J., Schenk, P., et al. 2011, Icarus, 216, 221, 10.1016/j.icarus.2011.09.007

    2011 doi

  29. [37]

    2016, Icarus, 270, 443, 10.1016/j.icarus.2015.09.027

    Janssen, M., Le Gall, A., Lopes, R., et al. 2016, Icarus, 270, 443, 10.1016/j.icarus.2015.09.027

    2016 doi

  30. [38]

    K., Kivelson, M

    Khurana, K. K., Kivelson, M. G., Stevenson, D. J., et al. 1998, Nature, 395, 777, 10.1038/27394

    1998 doi

  31. [39]

    G., Khurana, K

    Kivelson, M. G., Khurana, K. K., Stevenson, D. J., et al. 1999, Journal of Geophysical Research, 104, 4609, 10.1029/1998JA900095

    1999 doi

  32. [40]

    L., & de Pater, I

    Mitchell, D. L., & de Pater, I. 1994, Icarus, 110, 2, 10.1006/icar.1994.1105

    1994

  33. [41]

    R., Bierhaus, E

    Moore, J., Chapman, C. R., Bierhaus, E. B., et al. 2004, in Jupiter: The Planet , Satellites and Magnetosphere (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 397--427

    2004

  34. [42]

    2007, Report on continuum measurements of Ganymede and Callisto with the IRAM – PdB interferometer : Application to flux calibration, Internal Memo , Tech

    Moreno, R. 2007, Report on continuum measurements of Ganymede and Callisto with the IRAM – PdB interferometer : Application to flux calibration, Internal Memo , Tech. rep

    2007

  35. [43]

    1977, Science, 195, 90, 10.1126/science.195.4273.90.c

    Morrison, D. 1977, Science, 195, 90, 10.1126/science.195.4273.90.c

    1977 doi

  36. [44]

    P., & Murphy, R

    Morrison, D., Cruikshank, D. P., & Murphy, R. E. 1972, The Astrophysical Journal, 173, L143, 10.1086/180934

    1972 doi

  37. [45]

    O., & Berge, G

    Muhleman, D. O., & Berge, G. L. 1991, Icarus, 92, 263, 10.1016/0019-1035(91)90050-4

    1991 doi

  38. [46]

    O., Berge, G

    Muhleman, D. O., Berge, G. L., Rudy, D., & Niell, A. E. 1986, The Astronomical Journal, 92, 1428, 10.1086/114279

    1986 doi

  39. [47]

    G., Balog, Z., Nielbock, M., et al

    Müller, T. G., Balog, Z., Nielbock, M., et al. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 588, A109, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527371

    2016 doi

  40. [48]

    Pauliny-Toth, I. I. K., Witzel, A., & Gorgolewski, S. 1974, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 34, p. 129 (1974), 34, 129. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974A

    1974

  41. [49]

    1977, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 58, L27

    ---. 1977, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 58, L27. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977A&A....58L..27P/abstract

    1977

  42. [50]

    H., Flannery, B

    Press, W. H., Flannery, B. P., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1986, Numerical recipes. The art of scientific computing. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986nras.book.....P

    1986

  43. [51]

    Rau, U., & Cornwell, T. J. 2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 532, A71, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117104

    2011 doi

  44. [52]

    J., & Wieringa, M

    Sault, R. J., & Wieringa, M. H. 1994, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 108, 585. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994A&AS..108..585S

    1994

  45. [53]

    M., & Glassmeier, K.-H

    Saur, J., Neubauer, F. M., & Glassmeier, K.-H. 2010, Space Science Reviews, 152, 391, 10.1007/s11214-009-9581-y

    2010 doi

  46. [54]

    B., Schmidt, B

    Sparks, W. B., Schmidt, B. E., McGrath, M. A., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 839, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa67f8

    2017 doi

  47. [55]

    Spencer, J. R. 1987 a , PhD thesis, University of Arizona. https://repository.arizona.edu/handle/10150/184098

    1987

  48. [56]

    1987 b , Icarus, 69, 297, 10.1016/0019-1035(87)90107-2

    ---. 1987 b , Icarus, 69, 297, 10.1016/0019-1035(87)90107-2

    1987 doi

  49. [57]

    R., Tamppari, L

    Spencer, J. R., Tamppari, L. K., Martin, T. Z., & Travis, L. D. 1999, Science, 284, 1514, 10.1126/science.284.5419.1514

    1999

  50. [58]

    J., Ferrari, C., Altobelli, N., Pilorz, S., & Morishima, R

    Spilker, L. J., Ferrari, C., Altobelli, N., Pilorz, S., & Morishima, R. 2018, in Planetary Ring Systems , 1st edn., ed. M. S. Tiscareno & C. D. Murray (Cambridge University Press), 399--433, 10.1017/9781316286791.015

    2018 doi

  51. [59]

    J., Pilorz, S

    Spilker, L. J., Pilorz, S. H., Edgington, S. G., et al. 2005, Earth, Moon, and Planets, 96, 149, 10.1007/s11038-005-9060-8

    2005 doi

  52. [60]

    2022, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 134, 114501, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    The CASA Team , Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 134, 114501, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    2022 doi

  53. [61]

    E., Kleer, K

    Thelen, A. E., Kleer, K. d., Camarca, M., et al. 2024, The Planetary Science Journal, 5, 56, 10.3847/PSJ/ad251c

    2024 doi

  54. [62]

    R., Moran, J

    Thompson, A. R., Moran, J. M., & Swenson, G. W. 2017, Interferometry and Synthesis in Radio Astronomy , Astronomy and Astrophysics Library (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 10.1007/978-3-319-44431-4

    2017 doi

  55. [63]

    K., Brown, M

    Trumbo, S. K., Brown, M. E., & Butler, B. J. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 154, 148, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa8769

    2017 doi

  56. [64]

    2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 161, 10.3847/1538-3881/aada87

    ---. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 161, 10.3847/1538-3881/aada87

    2018 doi

  57. [65]

    Ulich, B. L. 1981, The Astronomical Journal, 86, 1619, 10.1086/113046

    1981 doi

  58. [66]

    L., & Conklin, E

    Ulich, B. L., & Conklin, E. K. 1976, Icarus, 27, 183, 10.1016/0019-1035(76)90001-4

    1976 doi

  59. [67]

    L., Duckel, J

    Ulich, B. L., Duckel, J. R., & de Pater, I. 1984, Icarus, 60, 590, 10.1016/0019-1035(84)90166-0

    1984 doi

  60. [68]

    Warren, S. G. 2019, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 377, 20180161, 10.1098/rsta.2018.0161

    2019

  61. [69]

    2008, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 113, 10.1029/2007JD009559

    Yan, B., Weng, F., & Meng, H. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 113, 10.1029/2007JD009559

    2008 doi

  62. [70]

    Zahnle, K., Dones, L., & Levison, H. F. 1998, Icarus, 136, 202, 10.1006/icar.1998.6015

    1998

  63. [71]

    2000, Icarus, 147, 329, 10.1006/icar.2000.6456

    Zimmer, C. 2000, Icarus, 147, 329, 10.1006/icar.2000.6456

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.