Neptune's Latitudinal H2S Distribution: Reconciling Near-Infrared and Microwave Observations
Copernicus Publications (2025)
Abstract:
In 2018, analysis of Gemini-NIFS near-infrared observations revealed the probable presence of H2S above the main cloud deck on Neptune [1]. The spectral signature of the gas was found to be much stronger at Neptune's south pole compared to regions nearer the equator.Conversely, analysis of Neptune's microwave emission with ALMA suggested strongly enhanced H2S abundances at midlatitudes [2], with much less at the south pole. Determining the true variation of H2S with latitude is crucial for understanding the tropospheric circulation of Neptune.We present our analysis of observations of Neptune from VLT-SINFONI in 2018. Using a limb-darkening approximation, we are able to fit the reflected solar radiance from multiple zenith angles, which allows us to discriminate between gas and aerosol opacity. Despite the lower spectral resolution of this instrument compared to Gemini-NIFS, we are able to detect the H2S spectral signature. With our radiative transfer retrieval code, archNEMESIS [3], we use nested sampling to fit a parameterised cloud model (similar to that of [4]) to these observations over a range of latitudes. We prescribe a latitudinally varying deep methane abundance derived from recent VLT-MUSE observations [5], which enables us to constrain the depth of the cloud top.Our retrieved results are in agreement with the results derived from ALMA [2] - we find a significant enhancement of deep H2S at Neptune's southern midlatitudes, decreasing towards the equator and the pole. Our results show a much deeper cloud top towards the pole, resulting in the increased cloud top column abundance of H2S observed here in the previous near-infrared analysis [1].Figure 1: A comparison of fits to a spectrum extracted from the 50°S to 60°S latitude band, with a model including H2S (blue) and a model without H2S (red). Note the significant discrepancy around 1.58 microns. The models are fitted to spectra at two zenith angles simultaneously.[1] Irwin, P. G., Toledo, D., Garland, R., Teanby, N. A., Fletcher, L. N., Orton, G. S., & Bézard, B. (2019). Probable detection of hydrogen sulphide (H2S) in Neptune’s atmosphere. Icarus, 321, 550-563.[2] Tollefson, J., de Pater, I., Luszcz-Cook, S., & DeBoer, D. (2019). Neptune's latitudinal variations as viewed with ALMA. The Astronomical Journal, 157(6), 251.[3] Alday, J., Penn, J., Irwin, P. G., Mason, J. P., & Yang, J. (2025). archNEMESIS: an open-source Python package for analysis of planetary atmospheric spectra. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.16452.[4] Irwin, P. G., Teanby, N. A., Fletcher, L. N., Toledo, D., Orton, G. S., Wong, M. H., ... & Dobinson, J. (2022). Hazy blue worlds: a holistic aerosol model for Uranus and Neptune, including dark spots. Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 127(6), e2022JE007189.[5] Irwin, P. G., Dobinson, J., James, A., Wong, M. H., Fletcher, L. N., Roman, M. T., ... & de Pater, I. (2023). Latitudinal variations in methane abundance, aerosol opacity and aerosol scattering efficiency in Neptune's atmosphere determined from VLT/MUSE. Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 128(11), e2023JE007980.Optically Observed Ammonia in the Northern Equatorial Zone
(2025)
Abstract:
Photochemistry versus Escape in the Trappist-1 planets.
(2025)
Abstract:
Revealing patchy clouds on WASP-43b and WASP-121b through coupled microphysical and hydrodynamical models
Copernicus Publications (2025)
Abstract:
Hot and ultra-hot Jupiters are currently the best observational targets to study the effects of clouds on exoplanet atmospheres. Observations have reported westward optical phase curve offsets, weak spectral features, and nightside temperatures remaining constant with increasing stellar flux, which may together be explained by the presence of exoplanetary clouds. Although there are many models that simulate the 3D structure and circulation of hot/ultra-hot Jupiters and many microphysical models describing the formation of clouds, very few models exist that couple these two approaches. This gap, along with recent JWST observations unmatched by models, suggests a need for more accurate models to track the formation of clouds as well as their radiative feedback on atmospheric circulation and dynamics. In this work, we couple two models to better understand how atmospheric dynamics and cloud microphysics in hot Jupiter atmospheres affect each other and the observable properties of such planets in the context of JWST data. We run cloudless 3D general circulation model (GCM) simulations using the SPARC/MITgcm for WASP-43b and WASP-121b, two hot/ultra-hot Jupiters that already have high-quality data from HST and recent JWST observations. We then feed the temperature-pressure profile outputs from the GCM simulations into 1D CARMA, which models the microphysics of mineral clouds in hot and ultra-hot Jupiter atmospheres. Finally, we use our coupled circulation and cloud formation results to calculate synthetic spectra with a ray-striking radiative transfer code and compare our results to emission and transmission observations of WASP-43b and WASP-121b. We find that various cloud species, including corundum, forsterite, and iron, form everywhere on WASP-43b and on the nightside and west limb of WASP-121b, perhaps explaining the most recent phase curve observations of these planets. We discuss implications for the interpretation of JWST/MIRI and JWST/NIRSpec observations of WASP-43b and WASP-121b respectively, with implications for the broader planetary population.Saturn’s Local and Seasonal Aerosol Variations Inferred from Cassini Combined UV, Visual, and Near-IR Observations
(2025)