More on Juno MWR Ammonia (Update)

Fig. 1. Aligned IR, visible photographs & MWR ‘ammonia’ in the cloud-free, North Equatorial Zone, best seen in the IR image.

Juno scientists, desperate to find evidence that Jupiter is a hot ‘gas giant’ planet, have been searching for signs of predicted ammonia in the atmosphere for twenty years. After ten Juno passes, they have not been successful and claim that ammonia may be present as ammonia snow in the highest altitude clouds.

Despite the lack of physical evidence for ammonia, seventeen scientists, have allowed their names to be associated with a paper which ‘inverts’ Jupiter’s global ammonia distribution assuming a prescribed temperature profile. Although the MWR radiometers were intended to measure temperatures, the signals from its radiometers are not being used in this way, rather a prescribed temperature profile is assumed, thus the term ‘invert’. This process utilizes regularization, a statistical technique combined with Markov chain Monte Carlo, meant to give preference to a desired solution even though it is opposite to the obvious physical measurements. Not surprisingly, this ‘analysis’ results in a completely non-physical conclusion, depicted graphically in Figure 1 (right), suggesting that the ammonia within Jupiter is concentrated in a single thin ‘pancake’ (red) layer just north of the equator and that the immediately adjacent North Equatorial Zone (NEZ) is completely depleted in ammonia (blue). These results of the ‘regularization’ paper are not supported in the following paper:

However, observations in “Ammonia in Jupiter’s Troposphere From High-Resolution 5 μm Spectroscopy” by Giles, Fletcher and Irwin et al., GRL 44, 21, 2017. states:
However, the strong equatorial enhancement seen by MWR is not observed in the CRIRES data. This can be partially explained by the presence of deep, thick clouds in the Equatorial Zone, which act to suppress the gaseous absorption features at 5 μm and can therefore increase the retrieved abundances if they are included in the model. However, even an entirely opaque deep cloud cannot reproduce the strong enrichment at all pressure levels that is seen at the equator in the MWR observations. The cause of the discrepancy between the two spectral regimes is unclear and should be the focus of future studies; possible explanations could include temporal variability (between 2012 and 2016), temperature variations, or additional complex cloud effects.

The authors claim ammonia “… is the main opacity source”, citing a deep ammonia abundance spanning the Galileo Probe Mass Spectrometer (GPMS) limits of 566 ± 216 ppm (9–11 bars). In fact, the Galileo probe mass spectrometer did not detect any ammonia. Its presence was inferred from reductions of sunlight as the probe descended. They further divide Jupiter’s atmosphere into two moist and one dry adiabatic layers, stating that “The ideal adiabatic atmosphere is dry adiabatic up to the base of the water cloud”, but the predicted ‘water cloud’ was also not detected.

In an attempt to hedge on this this ‘inversion’ process, the authors state “Variations in brightness temperature are interpreted as variations in ammonia rather than variations in physical temperature because otherwise the winds would be an order of magnitude larger than those observed. Thus, the MWR measures the distribution of ammonia below the weather layer.”

Fig. 2. Inverted data (low temp at top) from MRW channels with cold peaks interpreted as ammonia, marked by arrows.

As explained in a number of previous posts on the MGH Jupiter, the multiple zonal wind bands are actually vortices constrained beneath by the solid surface. There is no other explanation of the multiple bands, evidenced by the fact that they have never been explained in the ‘scientific’ journals. As a result of the solid surface, the Coriolis effect dominates the alternating east-west flowing bands. This is further proven at the center of the EZ where the reversal of the Coriolis effect prevents the warm aerosol clouds in the SEZ from propagating into the NEZ by combining with the centrifugal force and raising them vertically (Figure 3). The resulting cooler temperature of the raised clouds exactly at Jupiter’s equator (Figure 2) were detected by the MWR but, based on the ‘inversion’ analysis, were interpreted as the non-physical ammonia pancake. The cold peaks from the raised clouds, shown in channels 2 and 3 are marked by arrows which this author has added in Figure 2. Despite the images Fig. 1 visible (middle), the colder temperatures (Fig. 2.) and slower observed velocities, not a single NASA scientist has ever recognized that the clouds at the equator are raised several as much as ~100 km.
.
The clear NEZ allows observation of radiation from deep in the atmosphere. The ‘regularization study’ interprets this as a complete absence of ammonia, shown as blue in Figure 1 (right). Consistent with the entire ‘regularization’ inversion, the lower temperatures are at the top of Figure 2.

Hot Spots

Some IR energy from the fusion reaction and the hot helion vortex (Figure 3) extending to the Great Red Spot, passes north beneath the EZ and is reflected upward from the long east-west periodic clouds in the NEB (Figure 1 middle), known for the last twenty years as hot-spots. As expected in the MGH hypothesis, these display different spectra than that observed in the clear NEZ.

The disputed paper, “The distribution of ammonia on Jupiter from a preliminary inversion of Juno microwave radiometer data” by Li, Ingersoll, Janssen, Levin, Bolton et al. includes several statements hedging their methods and conclusions: “The map of ammonia concentration was derived by assuming that there is no lateral temperature gradient on the equipotential surface [i.e.], because both numerical simulations [e.g., Kaspi et al., 2009; Schneider and Liu, 2009] and infrared observations [e.g., Simon-Miller et al., 2006] suggest that lateral temperature differences could be weak (less than 10 K). If a large temperature contrast across equipotential surface are realized, as proposed by Allison [2000], they could imply some revision to our preliminary retrieval of the distribution of ammonia.” The first statement of this quote is illustrated by the fact that the cold peak originally in the channel 1 data has been removed.

The equipotential surface referred to is the equatorial zone (EZ) of Jupiter, the southern half of which is filled with crystalline aerosols while the northern half is clear (Figure 1, IR image). The MWR observations are referenced to an altitude of 0.5 bars. Because the MWR is thought to measure the absorption of IR radiation by ammonia, the calculated ammonia concentration increases shown are determined by the decreases in the brightness temperature in each channel.

Fig. 3. Vortical surface winds showing eastward equatorial jet stream north of GRS. Coriolis becomes vertical at equator combining with the centrifugal force preventing vortical propagation of aerosols to North Equatorial Zone.

The Methane Gas Hydrate Model

A large temperature contrast between the SEZ and NEZ is exactly what is proposed in the Methane Gas Hydrate hypothesis, but erased in the cited paper (Figure 2). A continuous fusion reaction of protons with deuterium on the surface of Jupiter, less than 800 km below the cloud-tops produces heat in the form of the kinetic energy of bare nuclei of a light isotope of helium nuclei (helions) with only one neutron:

p + d -> ³He⁺⁺ + 4.98 MeV (1)

These rise westward in the form of a vortex (Coriolis) of 10³²/s, 4.98 MeV, helions, to the Great Red Spot due to Jupiter’s rapid rotation, generating a westward surface vortex (yellow) which encircles the planet. This, in turn, spawns secondary surface vortices of opposite chirality and direction to its north and south. The fast helions delineate the primary vortex, exit the planet via the Great Red Spot, and drive all the known features of Jupiter, producing what is currently known as ‘the inner radiation belt’ which is the source of Jupiter’s magnetic field. The clouds in the surface vortices are formed by the high temperature reactions of the full range of known solar system elements, as oxides, sulfides, sulfates, carbonites and carbonates, being released from the methane gas hydrate by the heat of the fusion reaction, which crystallize as the vortex rises and expands. Because of this complex elemental makeup, the compounds comprising the visible clouds have never been identified. Juno scientists, lacking any positive detection of ammonia, suggest that they might be ‘ammonia snow’.

Figure 1 (IR), shows the apparent hot-spots at the northern edge of the equatorial zone (NEB) which correspond to large visible clouds in visible range photo (middle). In the Li paper, this radiation is described as:

“The positive brightness temperature anomaly in the North Equatorial Belt (NEB) at 10–20°N is the other prominent feature in the spectra; it can be interpreted as a significantly low concentration of ammonia. The high brightness temperature in the NEB in channels 5 and 6 is consistent with ground-based observations [Bjoraker et al., 2015; Fletcher et al., 2016]. The largest temperature anomaly is on the southern side of the NEB at shallow depth, and then it gradually shifts to the northern side of the NEB at greater depth. The slope change in the spectra was never expected or observed before. Although the NEB and the South Equatorial Belt (SEB) look similar in both the visible images and the infrared images at 5 μm [Orton et al., 2017], they are very different in the microwave spectrum. The brightness temperature anomaly in the NEB continues to 50–60 bars, while the brightness temperature anomaly in the SEB diminishes at about 10 bars. This huge north-south asymmetry is also not expected.” They interpret this hot-spot as strongly ammonia depleted, shown as the blue area of Figure 1.

Fig. 4. Galileo Probe entry point (circled), directly north of fusion reaction.

This slope change in the spectra across the NEZ proves the Methane Gas Hydrate hypothesis. Amazingly, the Galileo Atmospheric Probe entered the brightest of these spots, directly north of the fusion reaction, circled in a photo on the cover of Science Magazine, 10 May, 1996, by a Galileo scientist (Glenn Orten?), which featured the first detailed results of that mission.

Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.