Interpretation of shadows and antishadows on Saturn and the evidence against south polar eyewalls

Kevin H. Baines; Lawrence A. Sromovsky; Patrick M. Fry

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 18 references

Interpretation of shadows and antishadows on Saturn and the evidence against south polar eyewalls

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Saturn's south polar 'eyewalls' are almost certainly shadows cast by translucent haze layers, not hurricane-like cloud walls.

desk verdict Strong negative case against Saturn's south polar eyewalls, but the step-haze replacement is only convincingly demonstrated for the outer shadow. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08096 v1 pith:UUB4CRYZ submitted 2019-08-21 astro-ph.EP

Lawrence A. Sromovsky , Patrick M. Fry , Kevin H. Baines This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.EP

keywords SaturnsouthpolarvortexcloudshadowsantishadowseyewallinterpretationtranslucenthazelayersMonteCarloradiativetransferCassiniVIMS

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

In Cassini images and spectral maps of Saturn's south pole taken in 2006, the dark crescent shadows seen near 88–89°S had been read as evidence for hurricane-like eyewalls of thick cloud rising through two scale heights. This paper argues that reading is almost certainly wrong. It shows that an optically thick eyewall would appear as a very bright wall extending poleward when lit from the opposite side, whereas the observed bright features extend away from the pole, and that eyewall shadows would be far darker than the observed brightness dips of 5–10 percent. Instead, the paper proposes that each shadow is cast by a sharp poleward step in the optical depth of a translucent overlying aerosol layer—one in the stratospheric haze near 50 mbar and one in a putative diphosphine layer near 350 mbar—with the shadows falling on the ammonia ice deck near 900 mbar. The same edges create the bright 'antishadows' when sunlight slips under the translucent layer. If correct, the south polar vortex shows layered, downwelling haze structure but no deep convective eyewalls.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a sharp step decrease in the optical depth of a translucent aerosol layer suspended above a deeper scattering deck. To model such an edge, the paper uses a Monte Carlo radiative-transfer code that launches tens of millions of photons through a horizontally uniform layer on each side of a boundary, with different optical depths, single-scattering albedos, and surface albedos on the two sides, and bins the escaping photons into I/F profiles at the viewing and illumination angles of the 2006 observations. A step from an optical depth near 0.5 to roughly 0.35–0.425 in the upper layer reproduces shadow and antishadow amplitudes of about 10% at 752 nm and 15–20% at 728 nm. The same code, run with an optically thick vertical wall, produces a bright poleward eyewall feature several times brighter than the background and a much deeper shadow, the predicted signatures that are absent in the images.

What would settle it

Measure the vertical separation between the putative diphosphine step and the reflecting layer at 88.9°S with limb or high-phase observations; if the separation is only about 40 km and the ammonia layer is too optically thick for a shadow to pass through to the deeper deck, the step-transition model cannot reproduce the observed inner shadow length, while a bright wall extending poleward from the boundary in an image with the sun on the opposite side would support the eyewall interpretation instead.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the dark crescent shadows photographed near Saturn's south pole are not cast by optically thick, vertically towering eyewalls, but by sharp poleward steps in the optical depth of two translucent overlying aerosol layers: a stratospheric haze near 50 mbar and a putative diphosphine layer near 350 mbar. The observed shadows near 87.9°S and 88.9°S require only modest reductions in optical depth at 752 nm, about 0.15 and 0.12 on the poleward side of each step, with the shadows falling mainly on the ammonia ice layer near 900 mbar. The same edges, when the sun is on the opposite side of the pole, let extra sunlight pass underneath the translucent layer and produce the locally bright 'antishadow' features. Because an optically thick eyewall would instead appear as a very bright wall extending poleward and would cast much darker shadows than the observed 5–10% I/F variations, the paper concludes that the eyewall interpretation is almost certainly wrong and that no deep convective eyewalls are indicated at Saturn's south pole.

Load-bearing premise

The inner shadow's observed length requires roughly 80–90 km of vertical separation between the shadow-casting layer and the layer it darkens, but the spectral retrievals place the diphosphine step only about half that distance above the ammonia layer, and the paper assumes the shadow continues through the translucent ammonia layer to a deeper deck, an effect its Monte Carlo code cannot simulate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the step-transition explanation is correct, the dark crescents around Saturn's south pole are not evidence for hurricane-like eyewalls or for deep convection reaching two scale heights.
The observed shadow shapes and amplitudes imply only modest optical-depth reductions in the upper hazes—about 0.15 and 0.12 at 752 nm—so the polar cloud structure is consistent with the relatively mild poleward thinning seen in the spectral retrievals.
The antishadows require no separate mechanism: they are the same optical-depth edges viewed from the opposite illumination side, with sunlight passing under the translucent layer and brightening the ammonia deck below.
Methane-band images should show step-like brightness changes at exactly the latitudes of the continuum shadows, and the paper demonstrates such steps at both the outer and inner boundaries.
The south polar vortex can be understood as a region of large-scale downwelling with layered haze, rather than a site of vigorous moist convection, which is consistent with the absence of lightning detections in the polar region.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper's conclusion, the same step-transition geometry should produce paired shadow/antishadow crescents on any sharply bounded translucent haze over a brighter deeper deck, so searches for eyewall analogs in the polar vortices of other giant planets should first rule out this geometric explanation.
If the model holds, the inner-shadow length problem points to a specific unmodeled process—a shadow passing through a translucent ammonia layer to a deeper scattering deck—that could be tested by adding a third reflecting layer to the Monte Carlo code and checking whether the composite shadow length matches.
The wavelength dependence of the step contrast is diagnostic: small-particle translucent hazes should show decreasing shadow/antishadow contrast toward longer continuum wavelengths, whereas optically thick walls would not; comparing the 752-nm and 1.59-µm images in the existing data could sharpen this test.
The curious absence of analogous shadows at Saturn's north pole, noted in the paper, becomes a puzzle for the step model too; if the mechanism is generic, the north polar haze steps may be too gradual or the underlying decks too dark, both of which are testable with the same retrieval approach.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Bottom line: the paper almost certainly kills the eyewall idea, but the replacement explanation is only half-proven. The negative case is strong—optically thick walls would put bright features poleward of the boundary, the observed shadows are shallow 5–10% dips, and the VIMS retrievals show no thick clouds whose pressures step with latitude. Those three independent arguments point the same way, and I think Dyudina et al.'s eyewalls are not going to survive this. That part deserves to be taken seriously.

What is actually new is the 'antishadow' concept and the specific step-decrease model: shadows cast by edges where an overlying translucent haze loses optical depth, with extra illumination under the layer on the opposite side. The toy models and physical photographs are helpful; the Monte Carlo code, while simplified, is validated against horizontally homogeneous cases and reproduces the outer shadow at 752 nm with roughly the right amplitude and width.

Where it gets soft: the inner shadow. The model needs 80–90 km separation between the shadow-casting layer and the layer it darkens, but the retrieved diphosphine-to-ammonia spacing is about half that. The authors close the gap by speculating that the shadow passes through the ammonia layer and lands on a deeper layer, and they say in Section 5.3 that their Monte Carlo code is too simple to handle shadowing of one layer onto two lower layers. So the positive scenario is genuinely incomplete for one of the two shadows it is meant to explain. The step amplitudes are also fitted to the same I/F profiles used to test the model; Fig. 13 basically says the I/F scale change is equivalent to adjusting the step size. That is not fatal, but it means the quantitative support is weaker than the prose sometimes suggests. The authors disclose this clearly, which I appreciate.

The citation pattern and data look fine. They lean on their own companion VIMS retrieval, but that is appropriate since they need the retrieval to define the layers. Original ISS and VIMS data are archived to PDS. Self-citation here is not a problem.

Who is this for: anyone working on Saturn's polar dynamics, and a useful example for a methods discussion about how shadow morphology can constrain cloud structure. I'd send it to a competent referee, not desk reject it; the referee should push on the inner-shadow geometry and on getting a multi-layer Monte Carlo run. If the authors can do that and it works, the paper becomes quite convincing. As is, the negative case is solid, the replacement is plausible but not fully demonstrated.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper challenges the Dyudina et al. (2008, 2009) interpretation of dark crescents near Saturn's south pole as shadows cast by hurricane-like eyewalls. Using VIMS radiative-transfer results from the companion Sromovsky et al. (2019) analysis and new Monte Carlo radiative-transfer calculations, the authors argue that the eyewall interpretation is almost certainly wrong: optically thick eyewalls should produce bright poleward-extending features, but the observed bright features extend in the opposite direction; eyewall shadows should be very dark, but the observed shadows are only 5-10% I/F variations; and VIMS retrievals find no optically thick wall clouds or dramatic cloud-pressure changes. The authors propose instead that the shadows and antishadows are produced by step decreases in the optical depth of overlying translucent aerosol layers: a stratospheric haze step at about 87.9°S with a poleward optical-depth decrease of 0.15 at 752 nm, and a step in a putative diphosphine layer at about 88.9°S with a decrease of 0.12. They support this with Monte Carlo simulations, a physical tracing-paper model, and comparisons of model I/F profiles with ISS scans at 752 nm and 728 nm.

Significance. If correct, the paper overturns a widely cited interpretation of Cassini imaging and removes the evidence for deep convective eyewalls at Saturn's south pole, replacing it with a more mundane translucent-haze-step scenario. The negative case against eyewalls is strong and largely independent of the replacement model: it combines a qualitative geometric argument (bright features appear in the wrong direction), a quantitative contrast argument (shadows are too shallow), and spectral constraints (no optically thick wall clouds). The paper also presents a transparent physical toy model and Monte Carlo calculations that reproduce the qualitative shadow/antishadow phenomenology, and it makes falsifiable predictions (e.g., bright features should not extend poleward; shadow depth should be a small I/F perturbation). The main weakness is that the quantitative replacement model is not fully computed for the inner shadow: the Monte Carlo code is explicitly too simple to model one layer casting a shadow onto two lower layers, and the paper concedes that a definitive conclusion about the inner shadow is beyond its capabilities.

major comments (3)

[§5.3 and Fig. 14 (Panels E and F)] The inner shadow is not quantitatively demonstrated. The Monte Carlo model requires a vertical separation of roughly 80-90 km between the shadow-casting and shadowed layers, but the VIMS-retrieved separation between the putative diphosphine layer and the ammonia layer is only about half of that. The paper then speculates that the shadow passes through the semi-transparent ammonia layer onto the deeper NH4SH layer, but it explicitly states that the Monte Carlo code is 'too simple to handle the shadowing of one layer onto two lower layers' and that a definitive conclusion about the inner shadow is beyond its capabilities. Since the abstract and Section 7 claim that both shadows near 87.9°S and 88.9°S are explained by the translucent-layer steps, the inner half of the replacement model rests on an unmodeled, untested mechanism. This needs either a quantitative multi-layer calculation or a clearly scaled-back claim that the inner shadow is only qualitatively consistent.
[Fig. 13 caption and §5.3] The quantitative amplitude match is partly circular. The Fig. 13 caption states that 'I/F scale changes are equivalent to the same fractional adjustments needed in the size of the optical depth steps,' and the model comparison uses free scaling parameters (iofscale, iofoff, xshift, xscale) that are adjusted to match the observed profiles. The optical-depth step values reported in the abstract (0.15 and 0.12) are inferred from the very I/F variations that the model is then used to explain. To make the amplitude constraint meaningful, the authors should state how the step sizes were determined independently of the I/F scaling, or present a joint fit with uncertainties that shows the step sizes and scale parameters are not degenerate.
[§5.3 and Fig. 13] The match between model and observed I/F profiles is presented visually, with no quantitative goodness-of-fit metric or uncertainty estimate. The text says that steps of 0.05 to 0.1 produce 'about 10%' variations, yet the models in Fig. 13 use a range of steps (e.g., 0.075, 0.05, 0.15, 0.10) and different surface albedos, with no error bars on the observed scans. Given that the central amplitude argument is that optically thick eyewalls would produce much deeper shadows than observed, the paper should quantify the contrast ratios and their uncertainties for both the eyewall and translucent-layer models, rather than relying on visual comparison.

minor comments (5)

[§3.2] The text says 'a step decrease of 0.12 at 88.9 ◦N' but the feature is in the south polar region; this should be 88.9°S.
[Throughout] The putative upper tropospheric layer is referred to inconsistently as 'P2H4?', 'P4 or P2H4?', and 'diphosphine layer'; choose one notation and use it consistently.
[§2.2] There is a typo in 'seen the the CB2 image in the middle panel'; delete the duplicated 'the'.
[§4.6] The validation of the Monte Carlo code is described qualitatively; a figure or table comparing Monte Carlo results with doubling-adding results for the homogeneous cases would make the validation more convincing.
[§5.1] The hurricane Irma example and the Monte Carlo eyewall calculation use different geometries and optical depths; a brief quantitative comparison of the geometry (wall height, solar zenith, viewing angle) would help the reader judge how directly the analogy transfers to Saturn.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The shadow amplitude match in Fig. 13 is a fit rather than a prediction: the free I/F rescaling is explicitly equivalent to adjusting the input optical-depth step. The inner-shadow explanation is also admitted to be beyond the Monte Carlo code, though the negative case against eyewalls retains independent support.

fitted input called prediction [Section 5.3, Figure 13 caption]
"The I/F scale changes are equivalent to the same fractional adjustments needed in the size of the optical depth steps."

The paper's positive claim is that optical-depth step decreases of 0.15 and 0.12 produce shadows of about the observed amplitude. In the quantitative comparison, the Monte Carlo profile is not computed solely from fixed retrieved steps and then compared with the data; instead the model I/F is boosted by a free yscale, and the caption states that such an I/F rescaling is equivalent to adjusting the input step size. Thus the observed shadow amplitude is used to tune the very parameter that is said to generate it. Section 7 then reports that 'these steps are of sufficient magnitude to produce weak shadows, and weak shadows are observed (Fig. 13),' turning a fitted normalization into a claimed confirmation.

full rationale

The anti-eyewall arguments are not circular: the observed bright features extend away from the pole, opposite to the poleward-bright illuminated eyewall predicted and confirmed by Monte Carlo; the shadows are only 5-10% I/F variations rather than the deep shadows expected from optically thick walls; and the VIMS retrievals show no optically thick wall clouds. Those points stand independently of the fitted step amplitudes. The circular element is confined to the positive alternative model: the step locations and optical-depth amplitudes come from the authors' VIMS/MT2 analysis (Sromovsky et al. 2019), and the Monte Carlo shadow amplitude in Fig. 13 is scaled to match the observation with a yscale that the caption equates to changing the step size, so the 'prediction' of weak shadows is partly a fit. Separately, and not itself a circularity, Section 5.3 explicitly concedes that the inner shadow needs an 80-90 km layer separation while only about half that distance exists between the diphosphine and ammonia layers, and that the proposed transmission of the shadow through the ammonia layer onto a deeper layer is beyond the Monte Carlo code; this is an acknowledged completeness gap that weakens the positive model without undermining the negative case against eyewalls. Because one central quantitative prediction reduces in part to fitted inputs, the score is 6 rather than lower; the substantial independent anti-eyewall evidence prevents a higher score.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central positive model depends on several fitted parameters (optical depth steps, scale factors, and I/F offsets) that are adjusted to match the observations being explained. The physical mechanism itself, a step in a translucent layer casting a shadow on a lower layer, is a standard radiative-transfer effect, but its application to Saturn relies on retrieved cloud properties from the authors' companion paper. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)

Stratospheric haze optical depth step = 0.15 at 752 nm (from 0.39 to 0.24 poleward)
Inferred from VIMS spectral fits and ISS step observations; used as an input to Monte Carlo models to reproduce the observed shadow amplitude.
Diphosphine layer optical depth step = 0.12 at 752 nm (from 0.39 to 0.27 poleward)
Inferred from VIMS spectral fits and ISS step observations; used as an input to Monte Carlo models for the inner shadow.
Minnaert exponent K = 0.72
Adjusted by the authors to remove limb darkening in the ISS 752-nm image (Eq. 1).
Monte Carlo horizontal scale factor xscale = 90 to 100 km
Adjusted so that model shadow widths match observed widths in Fig. 13.
I/F scale and offset parameters (iofscale, iofoff, xshift) = Listed per panel in Fig. 13
Adjusted to align model I/F profiles to the observed scans; equivalent to tuning the optical depth step sizes.
Monte Carlo layer parameters (tau1, tau2, surface albedos) = Examples: tau1=0.500, tau2=0.425, SurfAlb=0.85
Chosen to approximate VIMS-retrieved layer properties and to produce I/F variations of the observed amplitude.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The VIMS-retrieved cloud structure of Sromovsky et al. (2019) is valid, including the absence of optically thick clouds and the pressures and optical depths of the four cloud layers.
The paper's rejection of eyewalls and its choice of step locations depend on this companion retrieval, which is cited but not independently verified in this manuscript.
domain assumption The horizontal structure of the cloud layers is a sharp vertical step at y=0, with properties invariant in the x direction.
The Monte Carlo model (Section 4.2) assumes this geometry to treat the boundary; gradual transitions are acknowledged to be beyond the code's capability (Section 5.2).
domain assumption At 752 nm, atmospheric gas absorption can be neglected in the Monte Carlo calculations.
Section 4.1 estimates that including methane absorption changes I/F by about 10%, but the Monte Carlo model itself ignores gas absorption entirely.
domain assumption The lower scattering layers can be approximated as Lambertian reflectors for shadow calculations.
The ground surface in the model is a Lambertian reflector (Section 4.2), which is a simplification of the actual ammonia ice cloud's anisotropic scattering.
domain assumption The step changes in optical depth occur at the latitudes of the observed shadow boundaries.
The step locations are taken from ISS image morphology, not derived from an independent model, and then used as fixed positions in the Monte Carlo comparisons.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interpretation of shadows and antishadows on Saturn and the evidence against south polar eyewalls." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UUB4CRYZ

@misc{pith2026190808096,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interpretation of shadows and antishadows on Saturn and the evidence against south polar eyewalls},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UUB4CRYZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08096}
}

read the original abstract

Cassini spacecraft observations of Saturn in 2006 revealed south polar cloud shadows, the common interpretation of which was initiated by Dyudina et al. (2008, Science 319, 1801) who suggested they were being cast by concentric cloud walls, analogous to the physically and optically thick eyewalls of a hurricane. Here we use radiative transfer results of Sromovsky et al. (2019, Icarus, doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2019.113398), in conjunction with Monte Carlo calculations and physical models, to show that this interpretation is almost certainly wrong because (1) optically thick eyewalls should produce very bright features in the poleward direction that are not seen, while the moderately brighter features that are seen appear in the opposite direction, (2) eyewall shadows should be very dark, but the observed shadows create only 5-10\% I/F variations, (3) radiation transfer modeling of clouds in this region have detected no optically thick wall clouds and no significant variation in pressures of the model cloud layers, and (4) there is an alternative explanation that is much more consistent with observations. The most plausible scenario is that the shadows near 87.9 deg S and 88.9 deg S are both cast by overlying translucent aerosol layers from edges created by step decreases in their optical depths, the first in the stratospheric layer at the 50 mbar level and the second in a putative diphosphine layer near 350 mbar, with optical depths reduced at the poleward side of each step by 0.15 and 0.12 respectively at 752 nm. These steps are sufficient to create shadows of roughly the correct size and shape, falling mainly on the underlying ammonia ice layer near 900 mbar, and to create the bright features we call antishadows.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

[1]

Dynamics of Saturn's polar regions

Antu \ n ano , A., R \' o-Gaztelurrutia , T., S \'a nchez-Lavega , A., Hueso , R., 2015. Dynamics of Saturn's polar regions . J. of Geophys. Res. (Planets) 120, 155--176

work page 2015
[2]

H., Delitsky , M

Baines , K. H., Delitsky , M. L., Momary , T. W., Brown , R. H., Buratti , B. J., Clark , R. N., Nicholson , P. D., 2009 a . Storm clouds on Saturn: Lightning-induced chemistry and associated materials consistent with Cassini/VIMS spectra . 57, 1650--1658

work page 2009
[3]

H., Momary , T

Baines , K. H., Momary , T. W., Fletcher , L. N., Showman , A. P., Roos-Serote , M., Brown , R. H., Buratti , B. J., Clark , R. N., Nicholson , P. D., 2009 b . Saturn's north polar cyclone and hexagon at depth revealed by Cassini/VIMS . 57, 1671--1681

work page 2009
[4]

H., Sromovsky , L

Baines , K. H., Sromovsky , L. A., Fry , P. M., Momary , T. W., Brown , R. H., Buratti , B. J., Clark , R. N., Nicholson , P. D., Sotin , C., 2018. The Eye of Saturn's North Polar Vortex: Unexpected Cloud Structures Observed at High Spatial Resolution by Cassini/VIMS . 45, 5867--5875

2018
[5]

H., Baines , K

Brown , R. H., Baines , K. H., Bellucci , G., Bibring , J.-P., Buratti , B. J., Capaccioni , F., Cerroni , P., Clark , R. N., Coradini , A., Cruikshank , D. P., Drossart , P., Formisano , V., Jaumann , R., Langevin , Y., Matson , D. L., McCord , T. B., Mennella , V., Miller , E., Nelson , R. M., Nicholson , P. D., Sicardy , B., Sotin , C., 2004. The Cassi...

2004
[6]

A., Ingersoll , A

Dyudina , U. A., Ingersoll , A. P., Ewald , S. P., Porco , C. C., Fischer , G., Kurth , W., Desch , M., Del Genio , A., Barbara , J., Ferrier , J., 2007. Lightning storms on Saturn observed by Cassini ISS and RPWS during 2004--2006 . Icarus 190, 545--555

work page 2007
[7]

A., Ingersoll , A

Dyudina , U. A., Ingersoll , A. P., Ewald , S. P., Porco , C. C., Fischer , G., Yair , Y., 2013. Saturn's visible lightning, its radio emissions, and the structure of the 2009-2011 lightning storms . Icarus 226, 1020--1037

work page 2013
[8]

A., Ingersoll , A

Dyudina , U. A., Ingersoll , A. P., Ewald , S. P., Vasavada , A. R., West , R. A., Baines , K. H., Momary , T. W., Del Genio , A. D., Barbara , J. M., Porco , C. C., Achterberg , R. K., Flasar , F. M., Simon-Miller , A. A., Fletcher , L. N., 2009. Saturn's south polar vortex compared to other large vortices in the Solar System . Icarus 202, 240--248

2009

Show all 18 references

[9]

A., Ingersoll , A

Dyudina , U. A., Ingersoll , A. P., Ewald , S. P., Vasavada , A. R., West , R. A., Del Genio , A. D., Barbara , J. M., Porco , C. C., Achterberg , R. K., Flasar , F. M., Simon-Miller , A. A., Fletcher , L. N., 2008. Dynamics of Saturn's South Polar Vortex . Science 319, 1801

2008
[10]

N., Irwin , P

Fletcher , L. N., Irwin , P. G. J., Orton , G. S., Teanby , N. A., Achterberg , R. K., Bjoraker , G. L., Read , P. L., Simon-Miller , A. A., Howett , C., de Kok , R., Bowles , N., Calcutt , S. B., Hesman , B., Flasar , F. M., 2008. Temperature and Composition of Saturn's Polar...

2008
[11]

F., 2006

S \'a nchez-Lavega , A., Hueso , R., P \'e rez-Hoyos , S., Rojas , J. F., 2006. A strong vortex in Saturn's South Pole . Icarus 184, 524--531

2006
[12]

A., Baines , K

Sromovsky , L. A., Baines , K. H., Fry , P. M., 2013. Saturn's Great Storm of 2010-2011: Evidence for ammonia and water ices from analysis of VIMS spectra . Icarus 226, 402--418

2013
[13]

A., Baines , K

Sromovsky , L. A., Baines , K. H., Fry , P. M., 2018. Models of bright storm clouds and related dark ovals in Saturn's Storm Alley as constrained by 2008 Cassini/VIMS spectra . Icarus 302, 360--385

2018
[14]

A., Baines , K

Sromovsky , L. A., Baines , K. H., Fry , P. M., 2019. Saturn's south polar cloud structure inferred from 2006 Cassini VIMS spectra . Icarus, submitted

2019
[15]

A., Baines , K

Sromovsky , L. A., Baines , K. H., Fry , P. M., Momary , T. W., 2016. Cloud clearing in the wake of Saturn's Great Storm of 2010-2011 and suggested new constraints on Saturn's He/H _ 2 ratio . Icarus 276, 141--162

2016
[16]

A., Fry , P

Sromovsky , L. A., Fry , P. M., 2018. The Nature of South Polar Cloud Shadows and Anti-Shadows on Saturn . In: AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts. Vol. 50 of AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts. p. 507.05

2018
[17]

A., 2011

Whitney , B. A., 2011. Monte Carlo radiative transfer . Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India 39, 101--127

2011
[18]

N., 1977

Witt , A. N., 1977. Multiple scattering in reflection nebulae. I - A Monte Carlo approach. 35, 1--6

1977

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Dynamics of Saturn's polar regions

Antu \ n ano , A., R \' o-Gaztelurrutia , T., S \'a nchez-Lavega , A., Hueso , R., 2015. Dynamics of Saturn's polar regions . J. of Geophys. Res. (Planets) 120, 155--176

work page 2015

[2] [2]

H., Delitsky , M

Baines , K. H., Delitsky , M. L., Momary , T. W., Brown , R. H., Buratti , B. J., Clark , R. N., Nicholson , P. D., 2009 a . Storm clouds on Saturn: Lightning-induced chemistry and associated materials consistent with Cassini/VIMS spectra . 57, 1650--1658

work page 2009

[3] [3]

H., Momary , T

Baines , K. H., Momary , T. W., Fletcher , L. N., Showman , A. P., Roos-Serote , M., Brown , R. H., Buratti , B. J., Clark , R. N., Nicholson , P. D., 2009 b . Saturn's north polar cyclone and hexagon at depth revealed by Cassini/VIMS . 57, 1671--1681

work page 2009

[4] [4]

H., Sromovsky , L

Baines , K. H., Sromovsky , L. A., Fry , P. M., Momary , T. W., Brown , R. H., Buratti , B. J., Clark , R. N., Nicholson , P. D., Sotin , C., 2018. The Eye of Saturn's North Polar Vortex: Unexpected Cloud Structures Observed at High Spatial Resolution by Cassini/VIMS . 45, 5867--5875

2018

[5] [5]

H., Baines , K

Brown , R. H., Baines , K. H., Bellucci , G., Bibring , J.-P., Buratti , B. J., Capaccioni , F., Cerroni , P., Clark , R. N., Coradini , A., Cruikshank , D. P., Drossart , P., Formisano , V., Jaumann , R., Langevin , Y., Matson , D. L., McCord , T. B., Mennella , V., Miller , E., Nelson , R. M., Nicholson , P. D., Sicardy , B., Sotin , C., 2004. The Cassi...

2004

[6] [6]

A., Ingersoll , A

Dyudina , U. A., Ingersoll , A. P., Ewald , S. P., Porco , C. C., Fischer , G., Kurth , W., Desch , M., Del Genio , A., Barbara , J., Ferrier , J., 2007. Lightning storms on Saturn observed by Cassini ISS and RPWS during 2004--2006 . Icarus 190, 545--555

work page 2007

[7] [7]

A., Ingersoll , A

Dyudina , U. A., Ingersoll , A. P., Ewald , S. P., Porco , C. C., Fischer , G., Yair , Y., 2013. Saturn's visible lightning, its radio emissions, and the structure of the 2009-2011 lightning storms . Icarus 226, 1020--1037

work page 2013

[8] [8]

A., Ingersoll , A

Dyudina , U. A., Ingersoll , A. P., Ewald , S. P., Vasavada , A. R., West , R. A., Baines , K. H., Momary , T. W., Del Genio , A. D., Barbara , J. M., Porco , C. C., Achterberg , R. K., Flasar , F. M., Simon-Miller , A. A., Fletcher , L. N., 2009. Saturn's south polar vortex compared to other large vortices in the Solar System . Icarus 202, 240--248

2009