Methane absorption in the atmosphere of Jupiter from 1800 to 9500 cm-1 and implications for vertical cloud structure

New measurements of the low-temperature near-infrared absorption of methane (Sihra, 1998, Laboratory measurements of near-infrared methane bands for remote sensing of the jovian atmosphere, Ph.D. thesis, University of Oxford) have been combined with existing, longer path-length, higher-temperature data of Strong et al. (1993, Spectral parameters of self- and hydrogen-broadened methane from 2000 to 9500 cm-1 for remote sounding of the atmosphere of Jupiter, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Trans. 50, 309–325) and fitted with band models. The combined data set is found to be more consistent with previous low-temperature methane absorption measurements than that of Strong et al. (1993, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Trans. 50, 309–325) but covers the same wider wavelength range and accounts for both self- and hydrogen-broadening conditions. These data have been fitted with k-coefficients in the manner described by Irwin et al. (1996, Calculated k-distribution coefficients for hydrogen- and self-broadened methane in the range 2000–9500 cm-1 from exponential sum fitting to band modelled spectra, J. Geophys. Res. 101, 26,137–26,154) and have been used in multiple-scattering radiative transfer models to assess their impact on our previous estimates of the jovian cloud structure obtained from Galileo Near-Infrared Mapping Spectrometer (NIMS) observations (Irwin et al., 1998, Cloud structure and atmospheric composition of Jupiter retrieved from Galileo NIMS real-time spectra, J. Geophys. Res. 103, 23,001–23,021; Irwin et al., 2001, The origin of belt/zone contrasts in the atmosphere of Jupiter and their correlation with 5-μm opacity, Icarus 149, 397–415; Irwin and Dyudina, 2002, The retrieval of cloud structure maps in the equatorial region of Jupiter using a principal component analysis of Galileo/NIMS data, Icarus 156, 52–63). Although significant differences in methane opacity are found at cooler temperatures, the difference in the optical depth of the atmosphere due to methane is found to diminish rapidly with increasing pressure and temperature and thus has negligible effect on the cloud structure inferred at deeper levels. Hence the main cloud opacity variation is still found to peak at around 1–2 bar using our previous analytical approach, and is thus still in disagreement with Galileo Solid State Imager (SSI) determinations (Banfield et al., 1998, Jupiter's cloud structure from Galileo imaging data, Icarus 135, 230–250; Simon-Miller et al., 2001, Color and the vertical structure in Jupiter's belts, zones and weather systems, Icarus 154, 459–474) which place the main cloud deck near 0.9 bar. Further analysis of our retrievals reveals that this discrepancy is probably due to the different assumptions of the two analyses. Our retrievals use a smooth vertically extended cloud profile while the SSI determinations assume a thin NH3 cloud below an extended haze. When the main opacity in our model is similarly assumed to be due to a thin cloud below an extended haze, we find the main level of cloud opacity variation to be near the 1 bar level—close to that determined by SSI and moderately close to the expected condensation level of ammonia ice of 0.85 bar, assuming that the abundance of ammonia on Jupiter is (7±1)×10−4 (Folkner et al., 1998, Ammonia abundance in Jupiter's atmosphere derived from the attenuation of the Galileo probe's radio signal, J. Geophys. Res. 103, 22,847–22,855; Atreya et al., 1999, A comparison of the atmospheres of Jupiter and Saturn: deep atmospheric composition, cloud structure, vertical mixing, and origin, Planet. Space Sci. 47, 1243–1262). However our data in the 1–2.5 μm range have good height discrimination and our lowest estimate of the cloud base pressure of 1 bar is still too great to be consistent with the most recent estimates of the ammonia abundance of 3.5 × solar. Furthermore the observed limited spatial distribution of ammonia ice absorption features on Jupiter suggests that pure ammonia ice is only present in regions of localised vigorous uplift (Baines et al., 2002, Fresh ammonia ice clouds in Jupiter: spectroscopic identification, spatial distribution, and dynamical implications, Icarus 159, 74–94) and is subsequently rapidly modified in some way which masks its pure absorption features. Hence we conclude that the main cloud deck on Jupiter is unlikely to be composed of pure ammonia ice and instead find that it must be composed of either NH4SH or some other unknown combination of ammonia, water, and hydrogen sulphide and exists at pressures of between 1 and 2 bar.