4.7 Article

Reflected light from 3D exoplanetary atmospheres and simulation of HD 209458b

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 389, Issue 1, Pages 257-269

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13549.x

Keywords

radiative transfer; atmospheric effects; planets and satellites: individual: HD 209458b; planetary systems

Funding

  1. Marshall Commission
  2. Department for Terrestrial Magnetism of the Carnegie Institution of Washington
  3. STFC [PP/D000890/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Science and Technology Facilities Council [PP/D000890/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present radiation transfer models that demonstrate that reflected light levels from 3D exoplanetary atmospheres can be more than 50 per cent lower than those predicted by models of homogeneous or smooth atmospheres. Compared to smooth models, 3D atmospheres enable starlight to penetrate to larger depths resulting in a decreased probability for the photons to scatter back out of the atmosphere before being absorbed. The increased depth of penetration of starlight in a 3D medium is a well-known result from theoretical studies of molecular clouds and planetary atmospheres. For the first time we study the reflectivity of 3D atmospheres as a possible explanation for the apparent low geometric albedos inferred for extrasolar planetary atmospheres. Our models indicate that 3D atmospheric structure may be an important contributing factor to the non-detections of scattered light from exoplanetary atmospheres. We investigate the self-shadowing radiation transfer effects of patchy cloud cover in 3D scattered light simulations of the atmosphere of HD 209458b. We find that, for a generic planet, geometric albedos can be as high as 0.45 in some limited situations, but that in general the geometric albedo is much lower. We conclude with some explanations on why extrasolar planets are likely dark at optical wavelengths.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available