2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2022.115169
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Convective storms in closed cyclones in Jupiter: (II) numerical modeling

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

2
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our results, compatible with the range obtained from similar modelling in Visscher et al (2010), indicate marginal agreement with the Juno MWR analysis (Li et al 2020) as discussed above. Cloud models often require one times solar oxygen or higher (Iñurrigarro et al 2022), but can also accommodate subsolar oxygen (Hueso & Sánchez-Lavega 2001). More problematic are the results from lightning data.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our results, compatible with the range obtained from similar modelling in Visscher et al (2010), indicate marginal agreement with the Juno MWR analysis (Li et al 2020) as discussed above. Cloud models often require one times solar oxygen or higher (Iñurrigarro et al 2022), but can also accommodate subsolar oxygen (Hueso & Sánchez-Lavega 2001). More problematic are the results from lightning data.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We study whether the GRS could have been generated in a similar way by an energetic moist convective “super‐storm” on Jupiter. We have performed numerical simulations of the response of the Jovian flow at the GRS latitude (∼22° to 24°S) to a localized Gaussian heat injection in EPIC (García‐Melendo et al., 2005; Iñurrigarro et al., 2022) and to a mass injection in the SW (García‐Melendo & Sánchez‐Lavega, 2017; García‐Melendo et al., 2013). Our simulations generate a single oval anticyclone (Figures 3a and 3b, Figures S4–S5 in Supporting Information ) but its length is always smaller than the early GRS (Figures 1c and 1d, Figure 2).…”
Section: Numerical Simulations Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%