1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \documentclass{emulateapj}
4:
5: %\documentclass[10pt]{aastex}
6: %\usepackage{emulateapj5}
7:
8: %\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
9: %\setcounter{footnote}{-1}
10:
11: \def\mj{M$_{\rm J}\ $}
12: \def\rj{R$_{\rm J}\ $}
13: \def\etal{{et~al.\,}}
14: \def\mo{M$_\odot$}
15: \def\ro{R$_\odot$}
16: \def\lo{L$_\odot\,$}
17: \def\mp{M$_{\rm p}$}
18: \def\rp{R$_{\rm p}\,$}
19: \def\lbol{L$_{bol}\,$}
20: \def\mstar{M$_{\ast}$}
21: \def\rstar{R$_{\ast}$}
22: \def\teff{T$_{\rm eff}\,$}
23: \def\teffs{T$_{\rm eff}$s$\,$}
24: \def\mic{$\mu$m$\,$}
25: \def\undertext#1{$\underline{\smash{\hbox{#1}}}$}
26: \def\sles{\lower2pt\hbox{$\buildrel {\scriptstyle <}
27: \over {\scriptstyle\sim}$}}
28: \def\sgreat{\lower2pt\hbox{$\buildrel {\scriptstyle >}
29: \over {\scriptstyle\sim}$}}
30:
31: %\null\voffset=+0.0pc % +0.0pc
32:
33: \slugcomment{Accepted Aug. 28, 2007 to Ap.J. Letters}
34:
35: \begin{document}
36:
37: \title{Theoretical Spectral Models of the Planet HD 209458b with a
38: Thermal Inversion and Water Emission Bands}
39: %\title{Water Emission Bands in the Spectrum of the Transiting Planet HD 209458b and Evidence for a Thermal Inversion}
40:
41: \author{A. Burrows\altaffilmark{1}, I. Hubeny\altaffilmark{1}, J. Budaj\altaffilmark{1,2},
42: H.A. Knutson\altaffilmark{3}, \& D. Charbonneau\altaffilmark{3}}
43:
44: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy and Steward Observatory,
45: The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ \ 85721;
46: burrows@zenith.as.arizona.edu, hubeny@aegis.as.arizona.edu, budaj@as.arizona.edu}
47:
48: \altaffiltext{2}{Astronomical Institute, Tatranska Lomnica, 05960 Slovak Republic}
49:
50: \altaffiltext{3}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, 02138 USA;
51: hknutson@cfa.harvard.edu, dcharbonneau@cfa.harvard.edu}
52:
53: \begin{abstract}
54:
55: We find that a theoretical fit to all the HD 209458b data at secondary eclipse
56: requires that the dayside atmosphere of HD 209458b have a thermal inversion
57: and a stratosphere. This inversion is caused by the capture of optical
58: stellar flux by an absorber of uncertain origin that resides at altitude.
59: One consequence of stratospheric heating and temperature inversion is the flipping
60: of water absorption features into {\it emission} features from the near- to the mid-infrared
61: and we see evidence of such a water emission feature in the recent HD 209458b IRAC data
62: of Knutson et al. In addition, an upper-atmosphere optical absorber may help explain both
63: the weaker-than-expected Na D feature seen in transit and the fact that the
64: transit radius at 24 $\mu$m is smaller than the corresponding radius
65: in the optical. Moreover, it may be a factor in why HD 209458b's optical transit radius
66: is as large as it is. We speculate on the nature of this absorber and the planets
67: whose atmospheres may, or may not, be affected by its presence.
68:
69: \end{abstract}
70:
71:
72: \keywords{stars: individual (HD 209458) ---(stars:) planetary systems---planets and satellites: general}
73:
74:
75:
76: \section{Introduction}
77: \label{intro}
78:
79: Of the more than 235 extrasolar giant planets (``EGPs") discovered in
80: the last twelve years \footnote{See J. Schneider's Extrasolar Planet
81: Encyclopaedia at http://exoplanet.eu, the Geneva Search Programme at
82: http://exoplanets.eu, and the Carnegie/California compilation at http://exoplanets.org}, 22 are
83: transiting their primaries. The most thoroughly studied transiting EGP
84: is HD 209458b (Henry et al. 2000; Charbonneau et al. 2000; Brown et al. 2001;
85: Melo et al. 2006; Santos, Israelian, \& Mayor 2004; Knutson et al. 2007a).
86: For transiting EGPs, not only do we measure the planet's radius,
87: but the $\sin{i}$ ambiguity of radial-velocity studies is resolved to yield the
88: planet's mass. Moreover, with precision photometry, the wavelength-dependence
89: of the transit radii can provide a measure of a planet's atmospheric
90: composition (Burrows et al. 2000; Hubbard et al. 2001;
91: Fortney et al. 2003; Barman 2007). In this way, sodium (Charbonneau et al. 2002)
92: and water (Barman 2007) have been identified in HD 209458b and
93: water has been identified in HD 189733b (Tinetti et al. 2007)
94: and in TrES-1 (Burrows, Hubeny, \& Sudarsky 2005).
95: Moreover, using the micro-satellite MOST,
96: high-precision optical photometry has constrained (perhaps, measured) HD 209458b's geometric albedo
97: (Rowe et al. 2006, 2007). It is very low ($\sim$4.0$\pm4.0$\%),
98: in keeping with the predictions of Sudarsky, Burrows,
99: \& Pinto (2000) when the alkali metals, and not clouds, dominate absorption in
100: the atmosphere and Rayleigh scattering dominates scattering.
101: This makes HD 209458b darker in the optical than most
102: of the objects of our solar system and also suggests that
103: the associated contrast ratios are not optimal for
104: characterizing EGPs.
105:
106: However, for hot, close-in EGPs such as HD 209458b, the
107: planet-star contrast ratios in the mid-infrared are much more favorable
108: than in the optical (Burrows, Sudarsky, \& Hubeny 2003; Burrows, Sudarsky, \& Hubeny 2004;
109: Burrows 2005), oftimes exceeding 10$^{-3}$, and such contrasts are within reach of
110: the infrared space telescope {\it Spitzer} (Werner \& Fanson 1995).
111: Using its IRAC and MIPS cameras and the IRS spectrometer, one can now measure the
112: summed light of the planet and the star in and out of secondary eclipse
113: (when the star occults the planet) and, from the difference, determine
114: the planet's spectrum at superior conjunction.
115: This has led to a breakthrough in the study of exoplanets
116: and a means to probe their chemistry and atmospheres.
117: Hence, for the close-in EGPs in the near- to mid-infrared, and without
118: the need to separately image planet and star, the direct detection of
119: planetary atmospheres via low-resolution spectroscopy and precision IR photometry
120: is now a reality (Charbonneau et al. 2005; Deming et al. 2005,2006,2007; Grillmair et al. 2007;
121: Richardson et al. 2007; Harrington et al. 2006,2007; Knutson et al. 2007b,c;
122: Cowan et al. 2007).
123:
124: To date, secondary eclipse fluxes in the IRAC and MIPS channels have been measured
125: for five transiting EGPs (HD 189733b, TrES-1, HD 209458b, HD 149026b, and GJ 436b), but in
126: this paper we focus on the interpretation of the HD 209458b data. A more
127: comprehensive paper on our numerical technique and theoretical fits
128: to other secondary eclipse data, as well as to phase light curve measurements,
129: is in preparation (Burrows, Budaj, \& Hubeny 2007b). For HD 209458b, not only is there
130: a complete set of measurements at secondary eclipse using IRAC and
131: MIPS, but using the IRS spectrometer, a low-resolution spectrum between
132: $\sim$7.5 $\mu$m and $\sim$15 $\mu$m has now been obtained (Richardson et al. 2007;
133: Swain et al. 2007).
134:
135: Excitingly, the new IRAC data of Knutson et al. (2007c) trace out a positive
136: bump in the $\sim$3.6$\mu$m to 8 $\mu$m spectral region, which we interpret via detailed modeling as a
137: water {\it emission} feature. A water absorption feature was anticipated (Burrows,
138: Hubeny, \& Sudarsky 2005; Burrows, Sudarsky, \& Hubeny 2006; Fortney et al. 2005;
139: Barman, Hauschildt, \& Allard 2005). Therefore, this is strong evidence for a thermal inversion in the atmosphere of
140: HD 209458b which has flipped water absorption features into emission features. We now provide
141: the comparison between theory and the observations and the resulting preliminary analysis.
142:
143:
144: \section{Fit to the HD 209458b Planet/Star Flux Ratios at Secondary Eclipse}
145:
146: Three models with an upper-atmosphere absorber in the optical (and with
147: the resulting stratospheres) for the planet/star flux ratios of HD 209458b
148: at secondary eclipse are portrayed in Fig. \ref{fig1}. The purple, green,
149: and red models are for redistribution parameters (P$_n$; Burrows, Sudarsky,
150: \& Hubeny 2006) of 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5, respectively, but are otherwise
151: the same. For each model, an extra absorber of uncertain provenance
152: is placed at altitude below pressures of 25 mbars. The total monochromatic
153: optical depth of this layer is $\sim$3. A new redistribution algorithm that introduces a heat sink
154: on the dayside between 0.01 and 0.1 bars, and a corresponding source on the nightside, is
155: employed. This algorithm is explained in Burrows, Budaj, \& Hubeny (2007b).
156: Following the suggestion of Hubeny, Burrows, \& Sudarsky (2003) in
157: their atmosphere bifurcation study, we have also calculated a
158: model suite (not shown) with equilibrium TiO and VO in the stratosphere.
159: With a total Planck-mean optical depth of TiO/VO below $\sim$ 30 mbars
160: of $\sim$3.1, these models are quite similar to those with inversions
161: depicted in Fig. \ref{fig1} with the same P$_n$s. Figure \ref{fig1} also
162: provides a representative default model (black) without a stratospheric
163: %
164: %absorber, but with P$_n$ = 0.3 and heat redistribution between 0.1 and 1 bars,
165: %
166: absorber, but with P$_n$ = 0.3,
167: along with all the relevant HD 209458b measurements to date. The
168: default model represents the previous predictions for atmospheres with
169: monotonically decreasing temperatures and no inversions, though the new
170: redistribution algorithm alluded to above was employed.
171:
172: The most salient observational constraints for our current purposes are the geometric
173: albedo in the optical from MOST (Rowe et al. 2006,2007), a K-band upper limit
174: using IRTF/SpeX from Richardson, Deming, \& Seager (2003), a MIPS/24-$\mu$m photometric point
175: from Deming et al. (2005), a low-resolution {\it Spitzer}/IRS spectrum from
176: Richardson et al. (2007), and, most importantly, photometric points
177: in IRAC channels 1 through 4 from Knutson et al. (2007c). Richardson et al. (2007)
178: suggest that there is evidence in the IRS data for two spectral features: one near
179: 7.78 $\mu$m and one near 9.67 $\mu$m. However, we think the data are too noisy to
180: draw this conclusion and await the next generation of observations to test it.
181: Moreover, we note that Richardson et al. (2007) normalize their data to the Knutson et
182: al. (2007c) IRAC 4 point, but that due to the noisiness of the IRS data near
183: 8 $\mu$m this normalization deserves a second look.
184:
185: The 1-$\sigma$ optical albedo limit from
186: Rowe et al. (2007) is $\sim$8.0\%, a very low number. For comparison, the
187: geometric albedo for Jupiter is $\sim$40\%. However, such a low number was predicted
188: due to the prominence in the optical of broadband absorptions by the alkali metals sodium
189: and potassium in the hot atmospheres of irradiated EGPs (Sudarsky et al. 2000;
190: their ``Class IV"). Alkali metals are not found in Jupiter's atmosphere.
191: The associated planet-star flux ratios are $\sim$10$^{-5}$$-$10$^{-6}$.
192: A low albedo due to absorption by the Na D and K I resonance lines is consistent with the identification of sodium
193: in the atmosphere of HD 209458b using HST/STIS transit spectroscopy (Charbonneau
194: et al. 2002), though the magnitude of the sodium feature has yet to be fully explained.
195: Both these datasets suggest that any clouds that might reside in the
196: atmosphere of HD 209458b are thin or mostly absorbing. A thick scattering cloud layer
197: would reflect light rather efficiently and lead to a high albedo, which is not seen.
198: The extra absorber we introduce could in fact be a cloud, but in that case it must be comprised of particles
199: with a low scattering albedo. This would seem to eliminate forsterite and enstatite.
200:
201: As Fig. \ref{fig1} demonstrates, the low upper limit of Richardson, Deming, \& Seager (2003) in the K band
202: that was problematic in the previous theory (Burrows, Hubeny, \& Sudarsky 2005; Fortney et al. 2005;
203: Barman, Hauschildt, \& Allard 2005) is comfortably consistent with the models with an extra
204: upper-atmosphere absorber in the optical, particularly for higher values of P$_n$.
205: Moreover, the peak near the IRAC 1 channel ($\sim$3.6 $\mu$m) in the previous
206: model without an inversion (Burrows et al. 2006) is reversed with the extra absorber into a deficit
207: that fits the Knutson et al. (2007c) point. Importantly, the theory without an extra absorber
208: at altitude predicts that the planet-star flux ratio in the IRAC 2 channel should be lower than
209: the corresponding ratio at IRAC 1. However, with the extra absorber the relative strengths in
210: these bands are reversed, just as are the Knutson et al. (2007c) points for HD 209458b. This reversal
211: is a clear signature of a thermal inversion in the low-pressure regions of the atmosphere.
212: Figure \ref{fig2} depicts the corresponding temperature-pressure profiles and the thermal inversion
213: at low pressures introduced by the presence of an extra absorber in the optical.
214: It also indicates the approximate positions of the effective photospheres for photons
215: in the IRAC and MIPS channels. The fact that in the new models the IRAC 1 photosphere
216: is cooler than the IRAC 2 photosphere is a key to the observed behavior of the Knutson et al. (2007c) data.
217:
218: Fig. \ref{fig1} indicates that the models with a stratosphere fit the IRAC
219: 1, 2 and 4 flux points quite well. However, the relative height of the
220: IRAC 3 point near 5.8 $\mu$m is difficult to fit, while maintaining the good
221: fits at the other IRAC points and consistency with the Richardson, Deming, \& Seager
222: (2003) limit. As Fig. \ref{fig2} shows, the
223: positions of the IRAC 3 and IRAC 4 photospheres are generally close to one
224: another. This makes it difficult to have effective ``brightness"
225: temperatures that are as different as are implied by the IRAC data.
226: Nevertheless, IRAC 2, 3, and 4 together trace out a peak, whereas in
227: the default theory an absorption trough was expected. Note in
228: Fig. \ref{fig1} the significant difference in the planet-star flux ratio
229: at these wavelengths between the old default model and the new models with
230: a stratospheric absorber. This is the spectral region of a strong
231: ro-vibrational band of water and a comparison between our new HD 209458b
232: models and the data indicates that this feature is in emission.
233:
234: The IRS data of Richardson et al. (2007) are normalized to the Knutson et al. (2007c) IRAC 4 point,
235: so the good fit there is not independent. Nevertheless, the IRS data have a flattish slope
236: between $\sim$7.5 $\mu$m and $\sim$14 $\mu$m that is mildly inconsistent with the slight rise
237: of our new models. In addition, the 24-$\mu$m MIPS point obtained by
238: Deming et al. (2005) is lower than these models. However, the flux at
239: this point is being reevaluated (D. Deming, private communication). If
240: the new value at 24 $\mu$m is, as suggested, $\sim$0.0033$\pm{0.0003}$, then our new model(s) with
241: inversions fit here as well (see Fig. \ref{fig1})\footnote{Note, though, that the actual updated number
242: has yet to be determined and published.}. Be that as it may, the good qualitative and quantitative fits
243: for the K band limit, three of the four IRAC channels, and the MOST albedo limit (not shown) lend credence to
244: our overall model and conclusions. Concerning the dayside atmosphere of HD 209458b, there is an extra absorber
245: in the optical at altitude, there is a pronounced thermal inversion (see Fig. \ref{fig2}),
246: and water is seen in emission.
247:
248:
249: \section{Discussion}
250: \label{conclusions}
251:
252:
253: We find that a consistent fit to all the HD 209458b data at secondary eclipse
254: requires that the atmosphere of HD 209458b have a thermal inversion at altitude
255: and a stratosphere. This inversion is caused by the capture of incident optical
256: stellar flux by an extra absorber of currently uncertain origin that resides at
257: low pressures. The IRAC data of Knutson et al. (2007c) can not be
258: fit by the effects of dayside heat redistribution cooling alone. A consequence
259: of stratospheric heating and temperature inversion is the flipping of water absorption features into emission
260: features from the near- to the mid-infrared (Hubeny, Burrows, \& Sudarsky 2003; Burrows,
261: Sudarsky, \& Hubeny 2006), and this seems to explain all the current HD 209458b data. Hence,
262: contrary to the interpretation of Richardson et al. (2007), the flatness or slight rise
263: of their IRS spectrum near $\sim$7.8 $\mu$m (Fig. \ref{fig1}) in fact supports the presence of
264: abundant atmospheric water, because this region is at the edge of a strong water band in emission.
265: Our inference of the presence of water in abundance in the atmosphere of HD 209458b is also consistent with the
266: conclusion of Barman (2007) using transmission spectroscopy.
267:
268: If the extra absorber is in the gas phase, and there is no cloud, then
269: our new models are easily consistent with the low albedo derived by Rowe et al. (2006,2007).
270: If the extra absorber is a cloud, the cloud particles must have a low scattering albedo
271: and can not be very reflecting. This would seem to rule out forsterite or enstatite
272: clouds, but does not necessarily rule out iron clouds. As shown by Hubeny, Burrows, \&
273: Sudarsky (2003) and Burrows, Sudarsky, \& Hubeny (2006), strongly irradiated atmospheres
274: can experience a solution bifurcation to an atmosphere with an inversion for which
275: the water features are flipped from absorption to emission. In
276: those papers, the absorber was gas-phase TiO/VO, which in equilibrium can exist at low pressures
277: at altitude and not just at high temperatures at depth. If the extra absorber were
278: TiO/VO, there would be fewer free parameters, but it was thought that the ``cold-trap"
279: effect would quickly deplete the upper atmosphere of TiO/VO and ensure the default
280: atmospheric solution without an inversion. However, this has not been proven, particularly
281: when atmospheric mass loss is ongoing, as we know to be the case for HD 209458b
282: (Vidal-Madjar et al. 2003,2004). The same arguments hold for iron clouds, although
283: since absorption by iron particles is not restricted to the optical,
284: this solution is sub-optimal.
285:
286: One can also speculate that the severe irradiation regime of some close-in EGPs
287: might create non-equilibrium compounds through photolysis, such as the tholins or
288: polyacetylenes discussed in the more benign contexts of solar-system bodies,
289: that could serve as the extra absorber we deduce exists in the atmosphere
290: of HD 209458b. Clearly, what the high-altitude absorber actually is remains to be seen,
291: but one can speculate that its presence is more likely in the atmospheres
292: of the most strongly irradiated EGPs. What ``most strongly irradiated" actually
293: means is not yet clear, but the flux at the substellar point on HD 209458b is $\sim$$10^{9}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$.
294: The corresponding numbers for OGLE-TR-10b, OGLE-TR-56b, OGLE-TR-132b, TrES-2, TrES-3,
295: WASP-1b, XO-3b, HAT-P-1b, and HD 149026b are higher (Burrows et al. 2007a). The corresponding number for
296: TrES-1 is lower ($\sim$0.43$\times10^{9}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$) and this planet shows good evidence
297: for water in {\it absorption} (Burrows, Hubeny, \& Sudarsky 2005). In addition, the
298: IRS spectrum of HD 189733b of Grillmair et al. (2007) seems consistent with a more canonical
299: water absorption feature shortward of $\sim$8 $\mu$m. Its substellar flux is
300: $\sim$0.47$\times10^{9}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. So, if stellar flux at
301: the planet is an indicator, we may have a handle on which planets reside in the transition
302: region between manifesting water absorption or emission features (and inversions), and where the
303: relative IRAC 1/IRAC 2 strengths start to flip. Given their substellar fluxes, HD 189733b,
304: XO-1b, XO-2b, and/or WASP-2b may be links. Though we find a weak dependence
305: on metallicity, non-equilibrium chemistry and cloud formation may have stronger dependences.
306: Therefore, there are still numerous parameters to address.
307:
308: As Fig. \ref{fig1} suggests, the planet/star ratios shortward of $\sim$4 $\mu$m are
309: more sensitive to the heat redistribution parameter, P$_n$, than the corresponding
310: ratios longward of $\sim$8 $\mu$m. This suggests a shorter-wavelength strategy
311: for designing close-in EGP climate diagnostics. In addition, models with inversions
312: significantly boost the mid-infrared fluxes longward of $\sim$15 $\mu$m. This boost
313: is not the only signature of models with dayside stratospheres. Since the
314: nightside flux at the same P$_n$ is unlikely to be much altered by the fact
315: of dayside inversion, if the dayside has such an inversion due to enhanced
316: optical absorption at altitude, the day-night contrasts measured during an orbital
317: traverse by a close-in EGP will be larger than expected for a given P$_n$. This
318: possibility is relevant when interpreting the 24-$\mu$m light curve of $\upsilon$ And b
319: (Harrington et al. 2006). Perhaps, the large day-night contrast seen in this
320: case does not require a small P$_n$.
321:
322: An upper-atmosphere absorber in the optical may simultaneously explain
323: the weaker-than-expected Na D feature seen in transit by Charbonneau et al. (2002)
324: (Fortney et al. 2003) and the fact that the transit radius measured by Richardson et al. (2006) at 24 $\mu$m
325: (1.26$\pm$0.08 R$_{\rm J}$) is smaller than the corresponding radius in the optical
326: (1.32$\pm$0.025 R$_{\rm J}$; Knutson et al. 2007a). In addition, it may help explain
327: why HD 209458b's optical transit radius is as large as it is. Finally, the extra
328: absorber may be related to the enhanced opacities for close-in EGPs discussed
329: in the context of the EGP radius models of Burrows et al. (2007a). Whatever their
330: actual roles, anomalous optical absorption at altitude and thermal inversions
331: are now insinuating themselves as exciting new components of EGP theory.
332:
333:
334: \acknowledgments
335:
336: We thank Drake Deming, Bill Hubbard, Maki
337: Hattori, Mike Cushing, and Drew Milsom for helpful discussions.
338: This study was supported in part by NASA grants NNG04GL22G and NNX07AG80G and
339: through the NASA Astrobiology Institute under Cooperative
340: Agreement No. CAN-02-OSS-02 issued through the Office of Space
341: Science.
342:
343: %\clearpage
344:
345: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
346:
347: %\bibitem[Ballester, Sing, \& Herbert 2007]{ballester} Ballester, G.E.,
348: %Sing, D.K., \& Herbert, F. 2007, Nature, 445, 511 % H Balmer in winds: 1.33 vs. 1.32 R_j
349:
350: \bibitem[Barman, Hauschildt, \& Allard 2005]{barman} Barman, T.S., Hauschildt, P.H., \& Allard, F.
351: 2005, \apj, 632, 1132 % Phase-Dependent Properties of Extrasolar Planet Atmospheres
352:
353: \bibitem[Barman 2007]{barman2007} Barman, T. 2007, accepted to \apj, astro-ph/0704.1114
354:
355: \bibitem[Brown et al. 2001]{brown01} Brown, T. M., Charbonneau, D.,
356: Gilliland, R.L., Noyes, R.W., \& Burrows, A. 2001, \apj, 552, 699
357:
358: \bibitem[Burrows et al. 2000]{bur2000} Burrows, A. Guillot, T., Hubbard, W.B., Marley, M.S.,
359: Saumon, D., Lunine, J.I., \& Sudarsky, D. 2000, \apj, 534, L97
360:
361: \bibitem[Burrows, Sudarsky, \& Hubeny 2003]{burrows2003b} Burrows, A., Sudarsky, D., \& Hubeny, I. 2003,
362: published in the proceedings of the 14th Annual Astrophysics Conference in Maryland ``The Search
363: for Other Worlds," eds. S. Holt and D. Deming, (AIP Conference Proceedings),
364: held in College Park, MD, October 13-14, 2003, p. 143.
365:
366: \bibitem[Burrows et al. 2004]{bur2004f} Burrows, A., Sudarsky, D., \& Hubeny, I.
367: 2004 \apj, 609, 407 % Wide-Separation
368:
369: \bibitem[Burrows 2005]{bur05} Burrows, A. 2005, Nature, 433, 261
370:
371: \bibitem[Burrows et al. 2005]{bur2005} Burrows, A., Hubeny, I., \& Sudarsky, D.,
372: 2005 \apj, 625, L135 % second1
373:
374: \bibitem[Burrows, Sudarsky, \& Hubeny 2006]{bur06} Burrows, A., Sudarsky, D.
375: \& Hubeny, I. 2006, \apj, 650, 1140 (astro-ph/0607014) % second2
376:
377: \bibitem[Burrows, Hubeny, Budaj, \& Hubbard 2007a]{bur07} Burrows, A.,
378: Hubeny, I., Budaj, J., \& Hubbard, W.B. 2007a, \apj, 661, 502 % Radii
379:
380: \bibitem[Burrows, Budaj, \& Hubeny 2007b]{bur07b} Burrows, A.,
381: Hubeny, I., \& Budaj, J. 2007b, in preparation
382:
383: \bibitem[Charbonneau \etal 2000]{Charbonneau00} Charbonneau, D.,
384: Brown, T. M., Latham, D. W., \& Mayor, M. 2000, \apjl, 529, L45
385:
386: \bibitem[Charbonneau \etal 2002]{Charbonneau02} Charbonneau, D.,
387: Brown, T. M., Noyes, R. W., \& Gilliland, R. L. 2002, \apj, 568, 377 % sodium
388:
389: \bibitem[Charbonneau \etal 2005]{char05} Charbonneau, D. \etal 2005, \apj, 626, 523
390: % Detection of Thermal Emission from an Extrasolar Planet
391:
392: %\bibitem[Charbonneau et al. 2006]{charb06} Charbonneau, D. et al. 2006, \apj, 636, 445 % HD 149026b radius, etc.
393:
394: %\bibitem[Charbonneau et al. 2007a]{ppv} Charbonneau, D., Brown, T.M., Burrows, A., \& Laughlin, G. 2007a,
395: %in ``Protostars and Planets V," ed. B. Reipurth and D. Jewitt, p. 701
396: %(University of Arizona Press), astro-ph/0603376
397:
398: %\bibitem[Cho \etal 2003]{Cho02} Cho, J. Y-K., Menou, K., Hansen, B. M. S.,
399: %\& Seager, S. 2003, \apj, 587, L117
400:
401: %\bibitem[Cooper \& Showman 2005]{cooper} Cooper, C.S. \& Showman, A.P. 2005,
402: %\apj, 629, L45 (astro-ph/0502476)
403:
404: %\bibitem[Cowan, Agol, \& Charbonneau 2007]{cowan2007} Cowan, N.B.,
405: %Agol, E., \& Charbonneau, D. 2007, \mnras, 379, 641 % light curves for HD 179949, HD 209458b, 51 Peg b
406:
407: \bibitem[Deming \etal 2005]{deming05} Deming, D., Seager, S., Richardson, L.J., \& Harrington, J.,
408: 2005, Nature, 434, 740
409: % Infrared radiation from an extrasolar planet, HD 209458b at 24 microns
410:
411: \bibitem[Deming \etal 2006]{deming06} Deming, D., Harrington, J.,
412: Seager, S., Richardson, L.R. 2006, \apj, 644, 560 % HD 189733b at 16 microns
413:
414: \bibitem[Deming \etal(2007)]{deming07} Deming, D., Harrington, J.,
415: Laughlin, G., Seager, S., Navarro, S.B., Bowman, W.C., \& Horning, K. 2007,
416: submitted to \apj~ Letters (arXiv:0707.2778) % GJ436b at 8 microns, primary and secondary
417:
418: %\bibitem[Deming \etal 2007]{deming07old} Deming, D., Richardson, L.J., \& Harrington, J.
419: %2007, \mnras, 378, 148 % HD 209458b at 3.8 microns from IRTF (limit 0.0013 \pm 0.0011)
420:
421: \bibitem[Fortney et al. 2003]{fort03} Fortney, J.J., Sudarsky, D., Hubeny, I., Cooper, C.S.,
422: Hubbard, W.B., Burrows, A., \& Lunine, J.I. 2003, \apj, 589, 615
423:
424: \bibitem[Fortney et al. 2005]{fort2005} Fortney, J.J., Marley, M.S., Lodders, K.,
425: Saumon, D., \& Freedman, R.S. 2005, \apj, 627, L69 % HD 209458b and TrES-1 secondary eclipse, 3-5 solar ...
426:
427: %\bibitem[Fortney et al. 2006]{fort2006} Fortney, J.J., Saumon, D., Marley, M.S., Lodders, K.,
428: %\& Freedman, R.S. 2006, \apj, 642, 495, astro-ph/0507422 % HD 149026b and HD 189733b
429:
430: %\bibitem[Fortney \& Marley 2007]{fm07} Fortney, J.J. \& Marley, M.S. 2007, submitted to \apj\ (arXiv:0705.2457)
431: % "Analysis of Spitzer Mid-Infrared Spectra of Irradiated Planets: Evidence for Water Vapor?"
432:
433: %\bibitem[Fressin et al. 2007]{fressin} Fressin, F., Guillot, T., Morello,
434: %V., \& Pont, F. 2007, accepted to \aap (arXiv:0704.1919) % "...: Giant Planets in the OGLE fields"
435:
436: \bibitem[Grillmair et al. 2007]{grillmair} Grillmair, C.J., Charbonneau, D., Burrows, A., Armus, L.,
437: Stauffer, J., Meadows, V., Van Cleve, J., \& Levine, D. 2007, \apj, 658, L115
438:
439: %\bibitem[Guillot \& Showman 2002]{GuillotShowman02} Guillot, T. \&
440: %Showman, A.P. 2002, \aap, 385, 156
441:
442: %\bibitem[Guillot et al. 2006]{guillot06} Guillot, T., Santos, N.C., Pont, F., Iro, N., Melo, C., \&
443: %Ribas, I. 2006, \aap, 453, L21 % correlation between heavy element content and stellar metallicity
444:
445: \bibitem[Harrington et al. 2006]{harrington} Harrington, J.,
446: Hansen, B., Luszcz, S., Seager, S., Deming, D., Menou, K.,
447: Cho, J., \& Richardson, L. 2006, Science, 314, 623
448: %Science{\bf{xpress}}, 12 October,
449: %2006 (http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2006/1013/2).
450: % Ups And b light curve
451:
452: \bibitem[Harrington et al. 2007]{harrington07} Harrington, J., Luszcz, S.,
453: Seager, S., Deming, D., \& Richardson, L.J. 2007, Nature, 447, 691
454: % HD 149026b, 8 microns.
455:
456:
457: \bibitem[Henry \etal 2000]{Henry00} Henry, G., Marcy, G. W., Butler, R. P.,
458: \& Vogt, S. S. 2000, \apjl, 529, L41
459:
460: \bibitem[Hubeny, Burrows, \& Sudarsky 2003]{Hubeny03} Hubeny, I., Burrows, A., \& Sudarsky, D. 2003,
461: \apj, 594, 1011
462:
463: \bibitem[Hubbard et al. 2001]{hub2001} Hubbard, W.B., Fortney, J.J., Lunine, J.I.,
464: Burrows, A., Sudarsky, D., \& Pinto, P. 2001, \apj, 560, 413
465:
466: \bibitem[Knutson et al. 2007a]{kcn07} Knutson, H.A., Charbonneau, D., Noyes, R.W.,
467: Brown, T.M., \& Gilliland, R.L. 2007a, \apj, 655, 564 % astro-ph/0603542 % HD 209458b radius
468:
469: \bibitem[Knutson et al. 2007b]{kcn07b} Knutson, H.A., Charbonneau, D., Allen, L.E., Fortney, J.J.,
470: Agol, E., Cowan, N.B., Showman, A.P., Cooper, C.S., \& Megeath, S.T.
471: 2007b, Nature, 447, 183 % HD 189733b, 8-micron light curve ramp, 8-micron
472:
473: \bibitem[Knutson et al. 2007c]{kcn07c} Knutson, H.A., Charbonneau, D., Allen, L.E.,
474: Torres, G., Burrows, A., \& Megeath, S.T. 2007c, submitted to \apj
475: % HD 209458b IRAC points
476:
477: \bibitem[Melo et al. 2006]{melo} Melo, C., et al. 2006, \aap, 460, 251 % astro-ph/0609259
478:
479: %\bibitem[Menou \etal 2003]{Menou03} Menou, K., Cho, J. Y-K., Hansen, B. M. S.,
480: %\& Seager, S. 2003, \apj, 587, L113
481:
482: \bibitem[Richardson, Deming, \& Seager 2003]{richard} Richardson, L.J., Deming, D.,
483: \& Seager, S. 2003, \apj, 597, 581 % HD 209458b: Strong Limits on 2.2 micron
484:
485: \bibitem[Richardson et al. 2006]{richard06} Richardson, L.J., Harrington, J.,
486: Seager, S., \& Deming, D. 2006, \apj, 649, 1043 % 24-micron radius of HD 209458b (1.26 \pm 0.08)
487:
488: \bibitem[Richardson et al. 2007]{richard07} Richardson, L.J., Deming, D.,
489: Horning, K., Seager, S., \& Harrington, J. 2007, Nature, 445, 892
490: % HD 209458b IRS data, features at 7.78 and 9.67 microns, conflicts with Swain
491:
492: \bibitem[Rowe et al. 2006]{rowe} Rowe, J.F., Matthews, J.M., Seager, S., Kuschnig, R., Guenther, D.B.,
493: Moffat, A.F.J., Rucinski, S.M., Sasselov, D., Walker, G.A.H., \& Weiss, W.W. 2006,
494: \apj, 645, 1241 (astro-ph/0603410)% A_B < 0.375, A_g < 0.25 "An Upper Limit on the Albedo of HD 209458b"
495:
496: \bibitem[Rowe et al. 2007]{rowe07} Rowe, J.F., et al. 2007, submitted to \apj
497: % MOST albedo limit in the optical: 4.0% \pm 4.0 (1-sigma)
498:
499: \bibitem[Santos, Israelian, \& Mayor 2004]{sim04} Santos, N.C., Israelian, G., \& Mayor, M. 2004, \aap, 415, 1153
500:
501: %\bibitem[Showman \& Guillot 2002]{ShowmanGuillot02} Showman, A. P.
502: %\& Guillot, T. 2002, \aap, 385, 166
503:
504: \bibitem[Schneider]{enc} J. Schneider's
505: Extrasolar Planet Encyclopaedia at http://exoplanet.eu, the Geneva Search Programme at
506: http://exoplanets.eu, and the Carnegie/California compilation at http://exoplanets.org
507:
508: \bibitem[Sudarsky \etal 2000]{Sudarsky00} Sudarsky, D., Burrows, A.,
509: \& Pinto, P. 2000, \apj, 538, 885
510:
511: \bibitem[Swain et al. 2007]{swain} Swain, M., Bouwman, J., Akeson, R.,
512: Lawler, S. \& Beichman, C. 2007, submitted to \apj Letters (arXiv:astro-ph/0702593) % HD 209458b IRS data
513:
514: \bibitem[Tinetti et al. 2007]{tinetti} Tinetti, G. et al. 2007, Nature, 448, 169
515: % "Water Vapour in the atmosphere of a transiting planet," HD 189733b (primary eclipse, IRAC 1, 3, 4, and optical)
516:
517: \bibitem[Vidal-Madjar et al. 2003]{vidal} Vidal-Madjar, A., Lecavelier des Etangs, A., D\'esert, J.-M.,
518: Ballester, G.E., Ferlet, R., H\'ebrand, G., \& Mayor, M. 2003, Nature, 422, 143
519:
520: \bibitem[Vidal-Madjar et al. 2004]{vidal2} Vidal-Madjar, A., D\'esert, J.-M.,
521: Lecavelier des Etangs, A., H\'ebrard, G., Ballester, G.E., Ehrenreich, D.,
522: Ferlet, R., McConnell, J.C., Mayor, M., Parkinson, C. D. 2004, \apj, 604, L69
523:
524: \bibitem[Werner \& Fanson 1995]{werner} Werner, M.W. \& Fanson, J.L. 1995, Proc. SPIE, 2475, p. 418-427 ({\it Spitzer})
525:
526: \end{thebibliography}{}
527:
528:
529: \clearpage
530:
531: % figure 1
532: \begin{figure}
533: \centerline{
534: \includegraphics[width=14.cm,angle=-90,clip=]{f1.eps}}
535: \caption{
536: The planet-star flux ratios at secondary eclipse versus wavelength for
537: three models of the atmosphere of HD 209458b with inversions and for one model without an
538: extra upper-atmosphere absorber of any kind (black, old default).
539: The three models with stratospheres have different values of P$_n$ (= 0.3 [purple],
540: 0.4 [green], and 0.5 [red]), but are otherwise the same. The old, default model
541: has a P$_n$ of 0.3. This figure demonstrates that models
542: with an extra upper-atmosphere absorber in the optical and with
543: P$_n \sgreat 0.35$ fit the data; the old, default model fits not at all.
544: We have also calculated models (not shown) with equilibrium TiO/VO in the
545: upper atmosphere ($\le$ 30 mbars) (Burrows, Sudarsky, \& Hubeny
546: 2006; Burrows, Budaj, \& Hubeny 2007b) which are quite
547: close to the corresponding models with an extra absorber.
548: Superposed are the data in the K band ($\sim$2.2 $\mu$m) from Richardson,
549: Deming, \& Seager (2003) (orange line and arrow), the four IRAC points
550: from Knutson et al. (2007c) (brown square blocks), the IRS spectra from Richardson et
551: al. (2007) (purple and aqua), and the MIPS data at 24 $\mu$m from Deming et al. (2005) (green square block).
552: Also included, with a question mark beside it, is a tentative update to this 24 $\mu$m flux point,
553: kindly provided by Drake Deming (private communication). If the flux at
554: 24 $\mu$m is indeed $\sim$0.0033$\pm{0.0003}$, then our model(s)
555: with inversions fit there as well. See the text for discussions.
556: }
557: \label{fig1}
558: \end{figure}
559:
560: % figure 2
561: \begin{figure}
562: \centerline{
563: \includegraphics[width=14.cm,angle=-90,clip=]{f2.eps}}
564: \caption{
565: Dayside temperature (K)-pressure (bars) profiles for the four models for HD 209458b depicted in Fig. \ref{fig1}.
566: For the old, default model and the new P$_n$ = 0.4 model, we indicate the positions of
567: the ``photospheres" for the IRAC and MIPS/24-$\mu$m bands, defined as the corresponding
568: $\tau =2/3$ surfaces. Most of these mid-infrared photospheres are at altitude, where
569: an extra absorber can have a significant effect. The photospheres for the near-IR J, H,
570: and K bands (as well as the IRAC 1 band) are deeper in. A comparison of the green and the black curves
571: demonstrates that both cooling by heat redistribution (P$_n \sgreat 0.3$) and heating by absorption
572: in the upper atmosphere together are necessary to invert the IRAC1/IRAC2 flux ratio.
573: All three inversion models experience some cooling at moderate pressures
574: due to a sink imposed to mimic heat redistribution, but this process alone is
575: insufficient to elevate the temperatures of the upper atmosphere to values necessary
576: to fit the Knutson et al. (2007c) IRAC data for HD 209458b. An extra absorber in the
577: optical and at low pressures is called for. See text for a discussion.
578: }
579: \label{fig2}
580: \end{figure}
581: \clearpage
582:
583:
584: \end{document}
585:
586: