CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 199Astro and Planetary ScienceStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows

Atmospheric Dynamics of the Outer Planets

Ingersoll, Andrew P.·1990·Science
DOI 10.1126/science.248.4953.308
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Despite major differences in the solar and internal energy inputs, the atmospheres of the four Jovian planets all exhibit latitudinal banding and high-speed jet streams. Neptune and Saturn are the windiest planets, Jupiter is the most active, and Uranus is a tipped-over version of the others. Large oval storm systems exhibit complicated time-dependent behavior that can be simulated in numerical models and laboratory experiments. The largest storm system, the Great Red Spot of Jupiter, has survived for more than 300 years in a chaotic shear zone where smaller structures appear and dissipate every few days. Future space missions will add to our understanding of small-scale processes, chemical composition, and vertical structure. Theoretical hypotheses about the interiors provide input for fluid dynamical models that reproduce many observed features of the winds, temperatures, and cloud patterns. In one set of models the winds are confined to the thin layer where clouds form. In other models, the winds extend deep into the planetary fluid interiors. Hypotheses will be tested further as observations and theories become more exact and detailed comparisons are made.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1126/science.248.4953.308

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In the Uranus and Neptune simulations, the equator-to-pole brightness temperature contrasts are 8 and 2 K, respectively, consistent with observations.

    “In the Uranus and Neptune simulations, the equator-to-pole brightness temperature contrasts are 8 and 2 K, respectively, consistent with observations (Ingersoll 1990).”

    From Mechanisms of Jet Formation on the Giant Planets (2010) · cites this paper as Ingersoll 1990

  • In the Saturn simulation, the equator-to-pole brightness temperature contrast is 7 K, consistent with observations.

    “In the Saturn simulation, the equator-topole brightness temperature contrast is 7 K, consistent with observations (Ingersoll 1990;Fletcher et al. 2007).”

    From Mechanisms of Jet Formation on the Giant Planets (2010) · cites this paper as Ingersoll 1990

  • In the Jupiter simulation, the equator-to-pole contrast in the brightness temperature of thermal radiation is 10 K, which is similar to, albeit larger than, the observed brightness temperature contrast or the observed temperature contrast near the emission level.

    “In the Jupiter simulation, the equator-to-pole contrast in the brightness temperature of thermal radiation is 10 K, which is similar to, albeit larger than, the observed brightness temperature contrast or the observed temperature contrast near the emission level (Ingersoll et al. 1976;Ingersoll 1990;Ingersoll et al. 2004;Simon-Miller et al. 2006).”

    From Mechanisms of Jet Formation on the Giant Planets (2010) · cites this paper as Ingersoll 1990

  • Variations in brightness temperature gradients off the equator may be weaker in the Jupiter and Saturn simulations than they are in observations, at least at some wavelengths.

    “Variations in brightness temperature gradients off the equator may be weaker in the Jupiter and Saturn simulations than they are in observations, at least at some wavelengths(Ingersoll 1990; Ingersoll et al. 2004).”

    From Mechanisms of Jet Formation on the Giant Planets (2010) · cites this paper as Ingersoll 1990

  • The thermal optical depths t_l0 at pressure p0 are chosen such that the observed thermal emission levels of the giant planets approximately correspond to t_l = 1.

    “The thermal optical depths t l0 at pressure p 0 are chosen such that the observed thermal emission levels (e.g., Ingersoll 1990) of the giant planets approximately correspond to t l 5 1.”

    From Mechanisms of Jet Formation on the Giant Planets (2010) · cites this paper as Ingersoll 1990

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 69 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ingersoll, A. P.
Affiliations
California Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Ingersoll, Andrew P.
ORCID
Ingersoll, Andrew P.
Venue
Science
Publisher
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Published
1990-04-20
Volume
248
Issue
4953
Pages
308-315
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
DOI
10.1126/science.248.4953.308
OpenAlex
W2101776268
Cited by
199
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 2
FWCI
10.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Astro and Planetary Science
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Fluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Keywords
Jovian planets, planetary atmospheres, atmospheric dynamics, jet stream, Great Red Spot, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, cloud formation, planetary interiors, fluid dynamical model, space missions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review