Pharmaceutical Centers

Abstract

Lindal et al. (Lindal, G.F., Lyons, J.R., Sweetnam, D.N., Eshleman, V.R., Hinson, D.P. [1987]. J. Geophys. Res. 92 (11), 14987–15001) presented a range of temperature and methane profiles for Uranus that were consistent with 1986 Voyager radio occultation measurements of refractivity versus altitude. A localized refractivity slope variation near 1.2 bars was interpreted to be the result of a condensed methane cloud layer. However, models fit to near-IR spectra found particle concentrations much deeper in the atmosphere, in the 1.5–3 bar range (Sromovsky, L.A., Irwin, P.G.J., Fry, P.M. [2006]. Icarus 182, 577–593; Sromovsky, L.A., Fry, P.M. [2010]. Icarus 210, 211–229; Irwin, P.G.J., Teanby, N.A., Davis, G.R. [2010]. Icarus 208, 913–926), and a recent analysis of STIS spectra argued for a model in which aerosol particles formed diffusely distributed hazes, with no compact condensation layer (Karkoschka, E., Tomasko, M. [2009]. Icarus 202, 287–309). To try to reconcile these results, we reanalyzed the occultation observations with the He volume mixing ratio reduced from 0.15 to 0.116, which is near the edge of the 0.033 uncertainty range given by Conrath et al. (Conrath, B., Hanel, R., Gautier, D., Marten, A., Lindal, G. [1987]. J. Geophys. Res. 92 (11), 15003–15010). This allowed us to obtain saturated mixing ratios within the putative cloud layer and to reach above-cloud and deep methane mixing ratios compatible with STIS spectral constraints. Using a 5-layer vertical aerosol model with two compact cloud layers in the 1–3 bar region, we find that the best fit pressure for the upper compact layer is virtually identical to the pressure range inferred from the occultation analysis for a methane mixing ratio near 4% at 5°S. This strongly argues that Uranus does indeed have a compact methane cloud layer. In addition, our cloud model can fit the latitudinal variations in spectra between 30°S and 20°N, using the same profiles of temperature and methane mixing ratio. But closer to the pole, the model fails to provide accurate fits without introducing an increasingly strong upper tropospheric depletion of methane at increased latitudes, in rough agreement with the trend identified by Karkoschka and Tomasko (Karkoschka, E., Tomasko, M. [2009]. Icarus 202, 287–309).