Jupiter's Equatorial Plumes and Hot Spots: Spectral Mapping from Gemini/TEXES and Juno/MWR
Leigh N. Fletcher, Glenn S. Orton, T. K. Greathouse, John Rogers, Zhimeng Zhang, Fabiano Oyafuso, Gerald Eichstädt, Henrik Melin, Cheng Li, S. Levin, S. J. Bolton, M. A. Janssen, H. J. Mettig, D. Grassi, A. Mura, A. Adriani
Abstract
Abstract We present multiwavelength measurements of the thermal, chemical, and cloud contrasts associated with the visibly dark formations (also known as 5‐μm hot spots) and intervening bright plumes on the boundary between Jupiter's Equatorial Zone (EZ) and North Equatorial Belt (NEB). Observations made by the TEXES 5‐ to 20‐μm spectrometer at the Gemini North Telescope in March 2017 reveal the upper‐tropospheric properties of 12 hot spots, which are directly compared to measurements by Juno using the microwave radiometer (MWR), JIRAM at 5 μm, and JunoCam visible images. MWR and thermal‐infrared spectroscopic results are consistent near 0.7 bar. Mid‐infrared‐derived aerosol opacity is consistent with that inferred from visible‐albedo and 5‐μm opacity maps. Aerosol contrasts, the defining characteristics of the cloudy plumes and aerosol‐depleted hot spots, are not a good proxy for microwave brightness. The hot spots are neither uniformly warmer nor ammonia‐depleted compared to their surroundings at p <1 bar. At 0.7 bar, the microwave brightness at the edges of hot spots is comparable to other features within the NEB. Conversely, hot spots are brighter at 1.5 bar, signifying either warm temperatures and/or depleted NH 3 at depth. Temperatures and ammonia are spatially variable within the hot spots, so the precise location of the observations matters to their interpretation. Reflective plumes sometimes have enhanced NH 3 , cold temperatures, and elevated aerosol opacity, but each plume appears different. Neither plumes nor hot spots had microwave signatures in channels sensing p >10 bars, suggesting that the hot spot/plume wave is a relatively shallow feature.