Click
Here

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 115, E06006, doi:10.1029/2009JE003458, 2010

for

Full
ArticleSuperrotation of Venus’ atmosphere analyzed with a fullgeneral circulation model
Sébastien Lebonnois,1 Frédéric Hourdin,1 Vincent Eymet,2 Audrey Crespin,1Richard Fournier,2 and François Forget1
Received 26 June 2009; revised 16 October 2009; accepted 13 January 2010; published 12 June 2010.

[1] A general circulation model (GCM) has been developed for the Venus atmosphere,
from the surface up to 100 km altitude, based on the GCM developed for Earth at ourlaboratory. Key features of this new GCM include topography, diurnal cycle, dependenceof the specific heat on temperature, and a consistent radiative transfer module based on
net exchange rate matrices. This allows a consistent computation of the temperature field,
in contrast to previous GCMs of Venus atmosphere that used simplified temperature
forcing. The circulation is analyzed after 350 Venus days (111 Earth years). Superrotation
is obtained above roughly 40 km altitude. Below, the zonal wind remains very small
compared to observed values, which is a major pending question. The meridional
circulation consists of equator‐to‐pole cells, the dominant one being located within thecloud layers. The modeled temperature structure is globally consistent with observations,though discrepancies persist in the stability of the lowest layers and equator‐pole
temperature contrast within the clouds (10 K in the model compared to the observed 40 K).
In agreement with observational data, a convective layer is found between the base of
the clouds (around 47 km) and the middle of the clouds (55–60 km altitude). The transportof angular momentum is analyzed, and comparison between the reference simulation and asimulation without diurnal cycle illustrates the role played by thermal tides in theequatorial region. Without diurnal cycle, the Gierasch‐Rossow‐Williams mechanism
controls angular momentum transport. The diurnal tides add a significant downward
transport of momentum in the equatorial region, causing low latitude momentum
accumulation.
Citation: Lebonnois, S., F. Hourdin, V. Eymet, A. Crespin, R. Fournier, and F. Forget (2010), Superrotation of Venus’
atmosphere analyzed with a full general circulation model, J. Geophys. Res., 115, E06006, doi:10.1029/2009JE003458.

1. Introduction[2] With the successful Venus Express European mission
to Venus, and the perspective of other upcoming missions to
Venus, such as the Japanese Akatsuki mission (or Venus
Climate Orbiter), a renewed interest in the Venusian climate
has appeared in the last few years, especially with thedevelopment of several general circulation models aroundthe world. The atmosphere of Venus exhibits several
peculiar characteristics that have been revealed by the seriesof spacecrafts and probes sent for exploration during the1970s and 1980s (Venera missions series, Pioneer Venus
Orbiter and probes, Magellan). Predominant features are thedense atmosphere, with 92 bars of CO2 (96.5%) at thesurface; the dense cloud layers, which cover the whole
1
Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique, UMR 8539, IPSL, UPMC,
CNRS, Paris, France.
2
Laboratoire Plasma et Conversion de l’Energie, UMR 5213, UPS,CNRS, Toulouse, France.

Copyright 2010 by the American Geophysical Union.
0148‐0227/10/2009JE003458

planet in the altitude range 48 to 70 km; the extremely hot
deep atmosphere, with roughly 735 K at the surface; the fast
rotation rate of the whole atmosphere, which spins in thesame direction as the solid surface with zonal winds peaking
at more than 100 m s−1 near the cloud top (superrotation)and the vortex structures centered around both poles above
60° latitude. The most recent comprehensive reviews of thethermal structure and dynamics of Venus’ atmosphere may
be found in the work by Crisp and Titov [1997], Zasova et
al. [2007] and Gierasch et al. [1997].
[3] The mechanisms that may explain the maintenance ofsuch a superrotation have been explored through manymodel developments, starting thirty years ago with thepioneering three‐dimensional general circulation model by
Young and Pollack [1977]. This model was able to get
substantial superrotation above 30 km altitude, despite its
low resolution and potential problems in its vertical diffusion formulation [Rossow et al., 1980; Young and Pollack,1980]. Theoretical studies have put forward two mechanisms that may help interpret the superrotation. The first one
is called the Gierasch‐Rossow‐Williams mechanism (GRW)[from Gierasch, 1975; Rossow and Williams, 1979]: theE06006

1 of 23

E06006

E06006LEBONNOIS ET AL.: VENUS’ ATMOSPHERE WITH FULL GCM

mean meridional circulation, which consists of thermallydirect cells with ascending motions around equator anddescending flows in polar regions, transports angularmomentum upward, and toward high latitudes, inducing
high zonal speed jets that become unstable. Waves, possibly
generated through barotropic instabilities along the equatorward side of the jet, redistribute angular momentum
equatorward. The second hypothesis involves the diurnalmotion of the Sun, which may affect the angular momentum
budget through two different mechanisms. A first possibility
is the moving flame mechanism [Schubert and Whitehead,
1969; Schubert, 1983] where tilted eddies induced by therotating heat from the Sun transport angular momentum
upward. A second possibility is the thermal tides generated
within and above the cloud layers, which have been shown
to be able to play a major part in the maintenance of thesuperrotation [Pechman and Ingersoll, 1984; Fels, 1986;
Leovy and Baker, 1987; Hou et al., 1990; Newman andLeovy, 1992; Takagi and Matsuda, 2007]. The respectiveroles of each of these mechanisms have been investigatedusing general circulation models (GCMs). Del Genio et al.
[1993] and Del Genio and Zhou [1996] used an Earth‐likeGCM with the rotation period of Venus, which could produce superrotation through the GRW mechanism whenupper and lower atmospheres were strongly decoupled. The
GCM developed for Titan (Saturn’s largest satellite, which
has also a superrotating atmosphere) at the Laboratoire de
Météorologie Dynamique [Hourdin et al., 1992, 1995, 2004;
Rannou et al., 2002, 2004] has also been able to produce
strong superrotation in this atmosphere, through the GRW
mechanism. However, the atmosphere of Venus had neverbeen fully simulated, with all its properties and characteristics.
[4] Recently, Venus GCMs have been developed worldwide, using simplified physical and radiative parameterizations. The models developed by Yamamoto and Takahashi[2003, 2004, 2006] and Hollingsworth et al. [2007] force
atmospheric heating rates and relax the temperature towarda specified temperature profile (Newtonian cooling). In thesesimulations, surface‐to‐cloud‐top and equator‐to‐pole Hadleycirculation is generated, and significant superrotation is
obtained, though the thermal forcing needs to be stronger
than expected, with heating rates in the lower atmosphereof the order of 0.5 K/Earth day, compared to values of theorder of 10−3 K/Earth day suggested by observations [Tomasko
et al., 1980]. The model developed in Oxford [Lee, 2006;
Lee et al., 2005, 2007], as well as the model developed by
Herrnstein and Dowling [2007], use a relaxation of thetemperature toward a specified temperature structure that
includes latitudinal variations. The equator‐to‐pole temperature gradient forced in this structure for the lower atmosphere is of the order of 10 K. As in the other models,significant superrotation is obtained, with similar Hadleycirculation.
[5] The self‐consistent computation of temperature using
a true radiative transfer code (and thus a realistic radiative
forcing) is a much more difficult task, and only two models
have been developed so far: Ikeda et al. [2007] and the oneused in this paper [Lebonnois et al., 2005]. Here, we present
the first results of this new GCM developed for Venus,
which includes a full radiative transfer module, allowing thetemperature structure to be computed self‐consistently. This
radiative transfer model [Eymet et al., 2009] represents asignificant step forward in the simulation of a realistic
Venus’ atmosphere.
[6] In section 2, the general circulation model is detailed,including a summary of the radiative transfer module’s
characteristics. Results concerning the mean meridional
circulation are developed in section 3, where we insist on
the role of realistic radiative transfer. Angular momentum
transport and superrotation mechanisms are then analyzed in
section 4.

2. General Circulation Model Description
2.1. Dynamical Core and Parameterizations[7] The dynamical core of our general circulation modelis based on the LMDZ Earth model developed at theLaboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique [Hourdin et al.,2006]. The Z stands for “zoom” because this model has
the ability to zoom the grid over a given region if required.
The finite difference discretization scheme conserves bothpotential enstrophy for barotropic nondivergent flows, andtotal angular momentum for axisymmetric flow. For latitudes poleward of 60° in both hemisphere, a longitudinalfilter is applied to limit the effective resolution to that at 60°.
In the current version of the Venus GCM, we use a horizontal resolution of 48 longitudes × 32 latitudes (7.5° ×
5.625°). The time step is 1.5 minutes, and the model uses a
Leapfrog time integration scheme, with a periodic predictor‐
corrector time step.
[8] The vertical grid is based on hybrid coordinates, withpressure at level j defined as p(j) = ap(j) + bp(j) × psurf. The
coefficients ap and bp are given in Table 1 for the 50 levelsof the GCM, together with the corresponding pressure for asurface pressure of 92 bar, and the corresponding altitude, first
following the Venus International Reference Atmosphere(VIRA) [Seiff et al., 1985] and second computed from theglobally averaged geopotential in the reference simulation of
the GCM (this simulation is detailed in section 2.3).
[9] The orbit of Venus is taken as circular, and we neglect
the inclination of Venus’ rotation axis. Model parameters
are collected in Table 2.
[10] The standard version of the LMDZ dynamical coreuses a single value for the specific heat Cp, but Cp varies in
the atmosphere of Venus from 738 J/kg/K at 100 km altitude
to 1181 J/kg/K near the surface (values taken from theVenus International Reference Atmosphere [Seiff et al.,1985]). This variation of Cp with temperature needs to betaken into account, in order to get realistic adiabatic lapse
rates in the whole atmosphere. We use an analytic approximation for this temperature dependence, that yields values
very close to the VIRA profile for Cp (within 4% for temperatures below 200 K, below 1% everywhere else):
Cp ðT Þ ¼ Cp0 

 
T
;
T0

ð1Þ

with Cp0 = 1000 J/kg/K, T0 = 460 K, and n = 0.35.
[11] In the LMDZ model, the potential temperature is oneof the fundamental prognostic variable in the equations of

2 of 23

E06006

E06006LEBONNOIS ET AL.: VENUS’ ATMOSPHERE WITH FULL GCM
Table 1. Hybrid Coefficients for the 50 Vertical Levels of the GCM and Corresponding Pressure and Altitudea
Altitude (km)Level

ap (Pa)bp

Pressure (hPa)

VIRAb

Reference GCM Simulationc

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

0.
656.
2.61 × 10+3
7.67 × 10+3
1.73 × 10+4
3.30 × 10+4
5.57 × 10+4
8.63 × 10+4
1.25 × 10+5
1.70 × 10+5
2.21 × 10+52.75 × 10+5
3.27 × 10+5
3.74 × 10+5
4.13 × 10+5
4.40 × 10+5
4.52 × 10+5
4.50 × 10+5
4.35 × 10+5
4.01 × 10+5
3.29 × 10+5
2.37 × 10+5
1.70 × 10+5
1.22 × 10+5
8.73 × 10+4
6.26 × 10+4
4.48 × 10+4
3.21 × 10+42.30 × 10+4
1.65 × 10+4
1.18 × 10+4
8.47 × 10+3
6.07 × 10+3
4.35 × 10+3
3.12 × 10+3
2.23 × 10+3
1.60 × 10+3
1.15 × 10+3
8.21 × 10+2
5.89 × 10+2
4.22 × 10+2
3.02 × 10+2
2.17 × 10+2
1.55 × 10+2
1.11 × 10+2
79.7
51.5
28.3
14.3
6.11

1.
9.99 × 10−1
9.95 × 10−1
9.85 × 10−1
9.66 × 10−1
9.35 × 10−1
8.91 × 10−1
8.33 × 10−1
7.62 × 10−1
6.79 × 10−1
5.86 × 10−1
4.89 × 10−1
3.91 × 10−1
2.99 × 10−1
2.15 × 10−1
1.43 × 10−1
8.75 × 10−2
4.90 × 10−2
2.29 × 10−2
6.66 × 10−3
2.67 × 10−4
5.38 × 10−8
2.69 × 10−15
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.

9.200 × 104
9.188 × 104
9.155 × 104
9.067 × 104
8.901 × 104
8.636 × 104
8.256 × 104
7.754 × 104
7.135 × 104
6.413 × 104
5.613 × 104
4.772 × 104
3.928 × 104
3.122 × 104
2.389 × 104
1.754 × 104
1.257 × 104
9.008 × 103
6.454 × 103
4.635 × 103
3.314 × 103
2.374 × 103
1.701 × 103
1.219 × 103
8.735 × 102
6.259 × 102
4.485 × 102
3.213 × 102
2.302 × 102
1.650 × 102
1.182 × 102
84.70
60.69
43.49
31.16
22.33
16.00
11.46
8.214
5.886
4.217
3.022
2.165
1.551
1.112
0.79650.51500.28260.14290.0611

0.00
0.04
0.10
0.25
0.54
1.02
1.72
2.69
3.97
5.58
7.55
9.90
12.6
15.8
19.2
23.1
27.0
30.7
34.1
37.4
40.5
43.4
46.3
49.0
51.5
53.9
56.1
58.2
60.1
62.0
63.9
65.7
67.4
69.2
70.8
72.5
74.1
75.7
77.3
78.8
80.3
81.7
83.1
84.4
85.8
87.1
88.8
91.0
93.3
95.5

0.00
0.03
0.12
0.32
0.68
1.23
2.03
3.10
4.50
6.23
8.35
10.8
13.7
17.0
20.7
24.6
28.3
31.9
35.2
38.4
41.4
44.2
46.9
49.5
51.9
54.1
56.2
58.1
60.1
61.9
63.7
65.5
67.2
68.8
70.5
72.2
73.8
75.5
77.1
78.7
80.2
81.8
83.3
84.8
86.2
87.8
90.1
92.9
94.9
101.

a

Vertical levels are at the bottom of each layer. Corresponding pressure is for a surface pressure of 92 bar.
Calculated using the standard VIRA pressure/altitude model at equator [Seiff et al., 1985].
Computed with the globally averaged geopotential from the reference GCM simulation.

bcenergy conservation. The potential temperature  is thetemperature an air parcel initially at temperature T andpressure p would reach when brought to a reference pressure
pref (typically, the surface pressure) adiabatically:
Z T


Cp

dT
¼
T

Z p
R
pref

dp
p

ð2Þ

(R is the atmospheric gas constant). Equation (2) is obtained
from the first principle of thermodynamics when a parcel of

air at pressure p and temperature T is brought adiabaticallyto the reference pressure pref.
[12] When Cp is taken as constant with temperature,equation (2) yields the classical expression of potential
temperature  = T × (pref/p), with  = R/Cp. However, when
Cp depends on temperature, this expression is no longer
valid.
[13] To keep modifications of the dynamical core to theminimum, we have kept potential temperature as a key
variable in the dynamics. Thus, we have calculated the new
expression of potential temperature under these conditions.

3 of 23

E06006

E06006LEBONNOIS ET AL.: VENUS’ ATMOSPHERE WITH FULL GCM

amplitude of the enthalpy adjustment, so that the momentum
exchange increases with the instability [Hourdin et al.,1993].
[16] The surface boundary layer parameterization used inthis GCM is similar to the one used in the early three‐dimensional version of our Titan GCM [Hourdin et al.,
1995], with parameters indicated in Table 2.
[17] The vertical diffusion flux of a quantity (by unitmass) x is computed as F = −rk(∂x/∂z), with r the atmospheric density, and k the diffusion coefficient. At the surface, the flux is F = rVCdDx, with V the wind in the firstlayer of the model, and Cd the surface drag coefficient,computed as

Table 2. List of the Main GCM Parameters
Parameter

Value

Venus Characteristics
Planet radius
Gravity
Revolution period
Rotation rate
Rotation period
Length of solar day
Obliquity (approximation)
Eccentricity (approximation)
Distance to Suna6051.3 km
8.87 m s−2
224.7 Earth days
−2.99 × 10−7 s−243. Earth days
1.0087 × 10−7 s
180°0108.15 × 106 km

Atmospheric Propertiesa
9.2 × 106 Pa
43.44 g mol−1

Mean surface pressure
Mean molecular massHorizontal Dissipation Parameters
Horizontal dissipation time
2 × 104 s below ∼ 3 × 106 Pa;
constant
1 × 104 s above ∼ 3 × 106 Pa
Number of iterations
2(dissipative operator)
Surface, Soil, and Boundary Layer Parameters
Surface albedo
0.1
Surface thermal inertia
2000 J m−2 s−0.5 K−1
Surface roughness coefficient
0.01 mMixing length
35 m
Minimum turbulent coefficient
3. × 10−4 m2 s−1

Cd ¼

 
@V pﬃﬃ
Kz ¼ h2   ;@zFrom, e.g., Schubert [1983].

Introducing the expression of Cp(T) (equation (1)) inequation (2) yields
T 1
R
p
dT ¼
ln
;
T0
Cp0 pref

ð3Þ

 0
1
p


ðT   Þ ¼ ln
;
T0
pref

ð4Þ



then (for n ≠ 0)

where 0 = CpR 0 . This yields the new expression for the
potential temperature:


 ¼T



þ T0 ln



pref
p

0

:

2

ð5Þ

[14] The adjustments done in the dynamical core enable
us to run the GCM with any formulation of Cp and thecorresponding potential temperature based on equation (2).
In our reference simulation, equations (1) and (5) are taken
into account. However, we made also simulations with aconstant Cp value, and the classical potential temperature(see section 2.3).
[15] When necessary, i.e., when the vertical temperature
gradient is below the adiabatic lapse rate, dry convective
adjustment occurs. Potential enthalpy (H = Cp × ) is mixed
to keep the adiabatic lapse rate across the unstable layer.
This convective adjustment is achieved through parcel
exchange, and therefore these motions should also mix
momentum. The intensity of this exchange of momentum
cannot be evaluated from the simple model used here. It isthus estimated through a coefficient that depends on thef ðRi Þ;ð6Þ

where VK is the Von Karman constant (VK = 0.4), z1 is thealtitude of the first layer in the model, z0 is the rugosity orroughness length, a characteristic dimension of the roughness of the surface (chosen arbitrarily as z0 = 0.01 m), andf(Ri) is a function of instability depending on the Richardson
number Ri. This function was defined for Earth [see Louis,
1979], and its validity here may be subject to caution.
[18] The diffusion coefficient Kz is computed as

a

Z T

VK
lnð1 þ z1 =z0 Þð7Þ

where h = lmix(z2 − z)/(z2 − z1), lmix is a mixing length,chosen as 35 m, z2 is the altitude of the top layer of themodel,  = (Rci − Ri)/Rci , Rci is the critical Richardson number(chosen as 0.4). A minimum value is fixed for Kz, Kmin = 3 ×
10−4 m2 s−1 (stable conditions).
[19] The sensitivity of the simulations to this choice ofparameterization, and of these parameters, need to be tested
in depth. Several tests indicate that they indeed affect thecirculation in the deep atmosphere. A full study is currently
ongoing and will be reported in a future paper.
[20] For thermal conduction in the soil, we use a soilmodel (11 layers) [Hourdin et al., 1993]. The model
depends on one parameter, the thermal inertia of the surface.
The chosen thermal inertia (I = 2000 J m−2 s−0.5 K−1) is
typical for nonporous basalts [Zimbelman, 1986].
[21] A high‐resolution topographical data set from theMagellan mission (PDS Magellan GTDR data set: http://pds‐
geosciences.wustl.edu/missions/magellan/shadr_topo_grav/
index.htm [Ford and Pettengill, 1992]) was used to specify
the surface topography smoothed to the GCM resolution.
Evolved parameterizations have been developed for the
Earth and Mars [Lott and Miller, 1997; Forget et al., 1999]
to take into account subgrid topography effects (drag, lift
and gravity waves), but these have not yet been included inthe Venus GCM.
[22] Horizontal dissipation is taken into account, based on
an iterated Laplacian. The dissipative time constants arechosen to minimize the impact of this dissipation while
maintaining numerical stability of the simulation. The chosen values for the simulations presented in this work are 2 ×
104 s below roughly 15 km altitude, and 1 × 104 s above,with a smoothed transition over a few layers. In the top four
layers of the GCM, a sponge layer is included, with Rayleigh4 of 23

E06006

LEBONNOIS ET AL.: VENUS’ ATMOSPHERE WITH FULL GCM

friction damping horizontal winds to zero. Time constants are
9.6 × 104 s (1.12 Earth days) for the top layer, then 1.20 × 105,
1.23 × 105, and 1.60 × 105 s for the three layers below,
following values used by Newman and Leovy [1992].
2.2. Radiative Transfer
2.2.1. Full Radiative Transfer Scheme[23] For solar radiation, heating rates are taken from look‐up tables, with downward solar flux profiles computed as afunction of solar zenith angle (0° to 95°), based on Crisp[1986]. Interpolation is done for the correct solar zenith
angle for each GCM grid point, taking into account thediurnal cycle.
[24] For thermal radiation, we used the code developed by
Eymet et al. [2009] based on the net exchange rates (NER)
matrix formalism [Eymet et al., 2005; Dufresne et al., 2005],
in the wavelength range from 1.7 to 250 mm. The heating
rate of a layer i, −Ci, is computed as the sum of net exchanges
Y(i, j, l) with all the other layers j (including space andground) and in 68 wavelength narrow bins:
Ci ¼

XX


ði; j; Þ:poles to 70 km equatorward of 50°–60° latitude [Zasova etal., 2007; Titov et al., 2008]. Taking into account a latitudinal variation of the cloud model would be quite easy to
implement, as soon as characteristics of the clouds in thepolar region are available. This would be a significant
improvement to test the role of cloud variations in the
dynamics of the polar regions.
2.2.2. Simplified Radiative Forcing[29] To test our GCM under conditions similar to previously published models, we also performed simulations witha simplified radiative forcing. In this simplified scheme, theradiative tendency (temporal variation between two modeltime steps) on temperature at longitude l, latitude  andpressure level p is given by
Trad ð; ; p; t ÞT ð; ; p; tÞ  T0 ð; pÞ
¼
;
t




ði; j; Þ ¼ BðTi ; Þ  B Tj ;  ði; j; Þ;

ð8Þ

ð9Þ

where B(T, l) is the Planck function, and x(i, j, l) is an
opticogeometric factor assumed to be temperature independent.
[25] Given atmospheric composition (assumed to be horizontally uniform), Eymet et al. [2009] compute correlated kcoefficients for the gas. They also use a cloud model[Zasova et al., 2007] that prescribes particles properties anddistributions (without taking into account any latitudinalvariations). From these data, the NER coefficients x(i, j, l)are computed with a Monte Carlo code (see details in thework by Eymet et al. [2009]). This x matrix is the input
taken into account in the GCM, where the NER matrix Y is
computed at each radiative time step (2000 times per Venus
day for the moment, i.e. every 1.4 h), using the modeled
temperature field and equation (9).
[26] As discussed by Eymet et al. [2009], the opacity inthe deep atmosphere strongly affects the infrared net flux
vertical profile, and therefore the temperatures obtained
below the clouds. In order to get an average surface temperature close to the VIRA reference (735 K), we had tosignificantly increase the CO2 continuum opacity in the far‐infrared (we multiplied this parameter by a factor of 6 over
the thermal infrared region, not in the near‐infrared windows where constraints exist). There is a clear need here tobetter constrain opacity sources in the deep atmosphere.
[27] To take into account the topography, x matrices werecomputed for several surface pressures, from 40 to 115 bar(5 bar steps). For each GCM grid point, we interpolate thex matrix linearly to the actual surface pressure at the
beginning of the simulation.
[28] The cloud structure is taken as uniform for the
moment, with a base at 47 km altitude, and a cloud top
located around 70 km altitude. In the atmosphere of Venus,
though, the clouds are variable. In particular, the cloud top
has been observed to vary from roughly 60 km near the

ð10Þ

where T0(, p) is the forcing thermal structure, and t is thetime constant of this forcing. T0(, p) and t are taken fromLee [2006]:
T0 ð; pÞ ¼ Tref ð pÞ þ T1 ð pÞðcosðÞ  C Þ;j

The individual net exchange rates are computed with

E06006

ð11Þ

where Tref(p) is a reference temperature profile (VIRA
model [Seiff et al., 1985]), and T1(p) is a perturbation term
giving the peak equator‐to‐pole difference. The constant C
is the integral of cos() over the domain (C = p/4). The
profile of T1(p) was chosen to reflect the peak in absorptionof solar insolation within the cloud deck [Lee, 2006]. The
value of t is 25 Earth days, decreasing slightly in theuppermost levels. In this formulation, the diurnal cycle is
not taken into account.
[30] For these simulations, simple lower boundary layer
friction and vertical eddy diffusion coefficients are also
implemented. In the lowest layer, Rayleigh friction relaxes
the wind field toward zero with a time constant of 32 Earthdays. The vertical eddy diffusion coefficient is fixed at 2.5 ×
10−2 m2 s−1.
2.3. Simulations[31] A reference simulation was first run for 350 Venus
days (3.5 × 109 s, or 111 Earth years), with topography anda full radiative transfer scheme including the diurnal cycle(heating rate tables depending on zenith angle, and x matrices depending on surface pressure). The run was started withthe atmosphere at rest (uniform zonal wind field u = 0), witha vertical temperature profile very close to the VIRA model,
uniform for every GCM grid point. Surface pressure (92 bar)and temperature profile are set for all grid points alike,
despite the topography. The total mass of the atmosphereand initial total angular momentum are therefore the same insimulations both with and without topography. The pressure
and temperature in the deepest layers adapt quickly to the
topography. After 350 Venus days, the atmospheric state has
converged toward a steady cycle, though the total angularmomentum is still slightly increasing. The averaged net
energy flux at the top of the atmosphere is around 1 W m−2.
[32] The atmospheric state after 250 Venus days is almost
identical to the one obtained after 350 Venus days. We
used that state as the starting point for sensitivity runs of
100 Venus days: (1) sensitivity to resolution with a 64 ×

5 of 23

E06006

E06006LEBONNOIS ET AL.: VENUS’ ATMOSPHERE WITH FULL GCM

Figure 1. Evolution of the total atmospheric angularmomentum, normalized to its initial value, for the various
simulations performed (see section 2.3): 1, reference simulation (bold solid line); 2, same simulation without topography (bold dashed line); 3, simulation with constant Cp
with topography (bold dash‐dotted line); 4, simulation withconstant Cp without topography (bold dotted line). Sensitivity simulations are also plotted after the reference run: 5,
no diurnal cycle (thin dashed line); 6, modified sponge layer(thin dotted line, following closely the reference run); 7,
higher resolution (thin solid line).
48 horizontal grid; (2) one run without the diurnal cycle;(3) sensitivity to upper boundary conditions with a sponge
layer damping the horizontal winds and temperature fields
toward their zonal average values (no sponge layer at all isunstable and could not be run). This last run is done only for
50 Venus days, as it follows the reference simulation
closely.
[33] Other long simulations starting from rest were also
performed to analyze the influence of topography and therole of radiative transfer: the same simulation as the reference but without topography (350 Venus days), two simulations using a constant Cp value (Cp = 900 J K−1 kg−1, withand without topography, for 250 Venus days), and two
simulations using the Newtonian cooling module instead of
the full radiative transfer (with and without topography, for
250 Venus days).

forces. The total angular momentum of the atmosphere M
may therefore only evolve through interactions with thesurface: either through pressure effects on the topography(mountain torque), or through boundary layer friction. In a
GCM, a sponge layer at the upper boundary may also affectthe angular momentum budget.
[36] Superrotation develops in the cloud region in all thelong simulations described in the previous section. However, in the deep atmosphere, the zonal wind tends to remainvery small compared to observations, and therefore, the total
angular momentum pumped into the atmosphere is not
greatly increasing.
[37] For the reference simulation, the momentum is still
increasing after 350 Venus days. This small increase(around 2% between 250 and 350 Venus days) may berelated to small variations of the zonal wind in the deepest
layers, but the overall wind fields are almost identical between
250 and 350 Venus days (displayed below; Figure 6). Without
topography, less angular momentum is pumped into theatmosphere, and once the meridional circulation is stabilized, the angular momentum begins to decrease. Again, thesmall decrease between 250 and 350 days has almost no
impact on the overall wind distribution. When a constant
Cp is used, both simulations start pumping angular momentum at similar rates, but without topography, again, thepumping stops after roughly 50 Venus days, and the total
angular momentum slightly decreases.
[38] To analyze the angular momentum budget in our
simulations, we compute the different terms at high frequency for two Venus days (days 251 and 252). The tendency (temporal variation between two model time steps) on
angular momentum is decomposed asdM¼ T þ F þ S þ D þ ;
dt

ð12Þ

where M is the total angular momentum, T is the total
mountain torque, F is the total angular momentum tendency
from the boundary layer scheme (friction with the surface),
S is the total angular momentum tendency from the sponge
layer, D is the residual torque from horizontal dissipation,and  is the residual variation of angular momentum fromthe advection scheme. These quantities are computed during
the simulation asZ
M¼

Z
a cos udV þ

V

S

Z

3. Results and Role of Radiative Transfer
3.1. Spin‐Up Phase and Angular Momentum
Conservation[34] The evolution of the total angular momentum of theatmosphere, normalized to its initial value (3.47 × 1027 kg
m2 s−1), is shown in Figure 1 for the various simulations
mentioned above. The initial value corresponds to an
atmosphere with zero zonal wind, i.e., rotating as a solid
body at the planet’s rotation rate. When the atmosphere is insuperrotation, the total angular momentum of the atmosphere is significantly larger than this initial value.
[35] The total angular momentum referred to the rotation
axis of the system solid planet and atmosphere is a quantity
theoretically conserved in the absence of external (tidal)
6 of 23

a2 cos2 

ps
dS;
g

ð13Þ

@zs
dS;
@

ð14Þ

ð15Þ

V

 
du
a cos 
dV ;
dt F

ð16Þ

V

 
du
a cos 
dV ;
dt S
 
du
a cos 
dV :
dt D

ð17Þ

T ¼

ps
S

Z
F¼
Z
S¼
Z
D¼
V

E06006

LEBONNOIS ET AL.: VENUS’ ATMOSPHERE WITH FULL GCM

E06006[39] From Figure 2, it appears that D and S are quite
stable, and very small compared to the average value of T +F, which represents the total interaction between the atmosphere and the surface. Though this is a critical point on
which a particular effort was put in the LMDZ GCM, theconservation of the atmospheric angular momentum during
advection is not exact in the numerical model: the  term
(residual after advection) is not zero, indicating a minor
problem of angular momentum conservation. This  residual
is also quite stable, and small compared to the amplitude of
the T + F variations, though its absolute value is comparable
to the average value of T + F after 250 Venus days. However,  appears to be always negative, which means thatduring advection, the model tends to lose numerically someof the atmospheric angular momentum. Therefore, this leakcan not be an artificial source of angular momentum thatwould drive superrotation, though it may slightly affectthe spin‐up rate. The angular momentum pumping into theatmosphere occurs through the T + F interaction with thesurface, which decreases during spin‐up until it approximately balances the  numerical leak.
[40] An interesting feature to note in Figure 2a is thediurnal cycle of T and F. Depending on the relative positionsof the subsolar point and the topographic features, the surface winds organize so that the total surface friction either
takes momentum from the surface (F > 0) or give it back(F < 0). The mountain torque follows a similar cycle(though anticorrelated with the total surface friction), withmuch larger amplitude, higher frequency variations, andpositive average value. This diurnal cycle induces diurnal
variations of the total atmospheric angular momentum
through exchanges with the solid planet, and therefore
variations of the planet’s rotation rate [Karatekin et al.,2009]. This length of day (LOD) variation, which is thevariation in Venus’ rotation rate, can be computed using
Figure 2. Variations of the total angular momentum tendencies over two Venus days (days 251–252) in the reference simulations (a) with and (b) without topography.
Unit is 1018 kg m2 s−2. Black, dM
dt , temporal derivative of
total angular momentum M (computed from successive
values of M); dark blue, T, mountain torque; light blue, F,
surface friction from boundary layer scheme; green, , residual tendency from advection; orange, D, residual tendency
from horizontal dissipation; red, S, sponge layer.
R
In these equations,
V dV is the integral over the volumeRatmosphere, S dS is the integral over the surface of Venus,
r is the density, l is the longitude,  is the latitude, a is theradius of Venus, W is the angular velocity of Venus’ rotaps is the surface pressure,tion, zs is the topographic
 height,
arethe different tendencies
u is the zonal wind, and du
F,S,D
dt
computed in the GCM modules.  appears as the differencedM
dt − (T + F + D + S). D and  should theoretically be equal
to zero. These different terms are plotted as a function oftime for two Venus days in Figure 2 (days 251 and 252 of
the simulations), for the reference simulation and the simulation without topography. Their average values over thesetwo days are listed in Table 3. These two days are quite
representative of any time during the simulations. The
average value of dM
dt over these two days is equal to thetrends seen in Figure 1 after 250 Venus days.

LOD ¼Matm
 LOD;
MVenusð18Þ

where MVenus = 1.87 × 1031 kg m2 s−1 is the angularmomentum of the solid body, LOD = 2.1 × 107 s is therotation period of Venus, and DMatm is the variation of thetotal atmospheric angular momentum over a period of 117
Earth days, which is around 7 × 1024 kg m2 s−1 in thissimulation. This yields DLOD ’ 7.9 s.
3.2. Zonally Averaged Meridional Structure
3.2.1. Temperature and Stability[41] Available observations of the temperature structure
can be found in the work by Seiff [1983] and Seiff et al.

Table 3. Averaged Values of the Different Terms in Equation (12)Over the Two Venus Days Shown in Figure 2aWith Topography

Without Topography

0.12
1.95
0.08
−0.07
−0.10
−1.74

0.03
0.
0.39
−0.03
0.04
−0.37

dM/dt
T
F
S
D


7 of 23

Unit is 1018 kg m2 s−2.

a

E06006

LEBONNOIS ET AL.: VENUS’ ATMOSPHERE WITH FULL GCM

Figure 3. Vertical temperature profile (solid line) obtained
after 350 Venus days in the reference simulation, averaged
over longitudes, latitudes, and the last two Venus days ofthe simulation. It is compared to the initial temperature profile, close to the VIRA model (dashed line). Cloud boundaries are sketched for indication.
[1985] (Pioneer Venus), Zasova et al. [2007] (Venera missions), and Grassi et al. [2008] and Tellmann et al. [2009]
for recent Venus Express data. The vertical structure of
the temperature averaged over time (the last two days ofthe simulation), longitudes and latitudes is shown in Figure 3.
It is close to the VIRA model [Seiff et al., 1985], except
in the deepest 10–15 km, where temperatures are lower
than observed, and the related static stability is much larger
than observed. This discrepancy may be related to theuncertainties that are present in the spectroscopic data sets
used as inputs for the NER matrix computations (see dis-

E06006

cussions by Eymet et al. [2009]). The static stability profileis shown in Figure 4. It may be compared to the stability
profiles deduced from the Pioneer Venus data [Schubert,
1983], from the Vega 2 entry probe (also reproduced in
Figure 4 [Zasova et al., 2007]), and from the VeRa/Venus
Express data [Tellmann et al., 2009]. The dominant features are the convective region located in the lower andmiddle clouds (the region with very small stability around
50 km altitude, discussed in section 3.3), the stable layer
below the clouds, and the low‐stability deep atmosphere(below 30 km altitude).
[42] Latitudinal variations of the temperature field areshown in Figure 5, where the difference between the zonallyand temporally (last two Venus days of the simulation)
averaged temperature and its latitudinal mean is plotted.
Below 55 km, the temperature contrasts between equatorand poles are very small, less than 1 to 2 K. This is much
lower than variations seen in available observations, that
may reach 20–30 K at 50 km altitude [Seiff et al., 1980;
Sromovsky et al., 1985; Zasova et al., 2007; Tellmann et al.,2009].
[43] In the upper cloud (60–70 km), the observations
show the presence of a cold collar, around 40 K colder thanequator, located at latitudes around 60°–75°, with a hot core
above the pole. The temperature contrast modeled in thisregion is only around 10 K, and no hot polar core is
obtained. This discrepancy may be explained by the fact thatthe cloud structure observed in this region also has characteristics different from the equator, with a lower cloud top
and different cloud particle properties [Titov et al., 2008;
Wilson et al., 2008]. These cloud structure variations are notyet implemented in the model, and since there is an interaction between temperature structure and cloud structure,
this lack of cloud structure variations in the model isprobably related to the discrepancy in the latitudinal temperature contrast.

Figure 4. Vertical stability profile obtained after 350 Venus days in the reference simulation, averaged
over longitudes, latitudes, and the last two Venus days of the simulation (black line). Data obtained fromthe Vega 2 entry probe (taken from Zasova et al. [2007]) are shown for comparison (gray line).
8 of 23

E06006

LEBONNOIS ET AL.: VENUS’ ATMOSPHERE WITH FULL GCM

E06006

Figure 5. Latitudinal temperature contrasts (K) for the reference simulation: difference between the zonally and temporally (last two Venus days of the simulation) averaged temperature and its latitudinal mean.
Contours show the mean zonal wind (red, m s−1), the mean temperature field (black, K), and the mean
meridional circulation (mass stream function, white, 109 kg s−1).
[44] Above roughly 70 km altitude, the latitudinal gradientof temperature reverses, with warmer temperatures above
the pole. This is consistent with observations, and with thedecrease of zonal wind speed (see below). It is related toadiabatic heating and cooling in the upper region of themesospheric equator‐to‐pole meridional cells.
3.2.2. Zonal Wind[45] Using realistic radiative transfer instead of the simpler temperature forcing used in other Venus GCMs resultsin significant differences in the mean zonal wind field, butalso in the mean meridional circulation, as seen in Figure 6.
[46] Figures 6c and 6d illustrate the circulations obtainedwith the simplified radiative forcing after 250 Venus days,
to compare to previous GCMs using similar radiative
parameterization [Yamamoto and Takahashi, 2003, 2004,
2006; Lee, 2006; Lee et al., 2005, 2007; Herrnstein and
Dowling, 2007; Hollingsworth et al., 2007]. The results
are mostly similar to these previous studies. These simulations are not discussed in detail here, because the goal of thispaper is to focus on the simulations with realistic radiativetransfer. However, we wanted to illustrate how the different
radiative forcings result in different circulations. Therefore,
the circulations obtained with simplified radiation scheme
are briefly described below.
[47] Maximum zonal winds are obtained in the clouddeck, with high‐latitude jets located near 60°–70° latitude,
and around 50 km altitude, lower than the level of maximum
temperature forcing (around 55–60 km altitude). A secondary maximum is located at the equator, close to the topof the model. The mean meridional circulation consists
essentially of two large Hadley cells, with ascending motions
at the equator, and subsiding motions over polar regions,covering all altitudes from the surface up to the cloud
regions above 60 km altitude. In their work, Herrnstein and
Dowling [2007] point out that taking into account the

topography reduces the zonal wind peak. This is not the casehere. Both the zonal wind peak amplitudes and the overall
amplitude of the superrotation is higher with topography in
our simulations.
[48] The atmospheric circulation is different when arealistic radiative transfer is used. Zonal wind and mean
meridional circulation are shown in Figures 6a (withtopography) and 6b (without). We emphasize that the circulation described below is the mean meridional circulation,
averaged over longitude and time. The day and night circulations are different, and will be discussed in future work.
[49] In these simulations, the modeled Venus atmosphereappears to be vertically divided into three different regions:(1) the deep troposphere, from surface to the base of theclouds (around 45 km altitude), where the influence of the
topography over the meridional circulation is clearly visible,
and the zonal wind is very small; (2) the lower and middle
cloud region, from 45 to 60 km altitude, dominated by twothermally direct cells, where the zonal winds start increasing; and (3) the upper cloud and mesosphere, above 60 km
altitude, where the zonal winds are maximum, with adominant role played by the thermal tides. These threedifferent regions are detailed in the following subsections.
[50] Because the zonal wind and temperature mean
meridional fields are linked together through cyclostrophic
equilibrium (which is approximately verified from the cloudbase upward in the model), the three regions in the verticalstructure are also visible in the mean latitudinal temperature
contrast (i.e. the difference between the zonal and temporal
averaged temperature and its latitudinal mean, Figure 5).
The strongest contrasts are seen in the upper cloud andmesosphere, where the peak of the zonal wind is located.
The relation between the vertical variations of the zonal
wind and the latitudinal contrasts in the temperature field isclearly visible in this map.

9 of 23

E06006

LEBONNOIS ET AL.: VENUS’ ATMOSPHERE WITH FULL GCM

E06006

Figure 6. Mean zonal wind (m s−1) and stream function (black contours, 109 kg s−1) after 350 Venus
days for (a) reference simulation with full radiative transfer and topography, (b) same as Figure 6a but
without topography, (c) simulation with Newtonian cooling forcing and topography, and (d) same as
Figure 6c but without topography. Averages are done over the last 2 Venus days of each simulationand over longitudes.
[51] The modeled wind field does not fit the available
observed vertical and latitudinal profiles of the zonal windfield [Schubert, 1983; Gierasch et al., 1997; Limaye, 2007;
Peralta et al., 2007; Sánchez‐Lavega et al., 2008]. The
observed and modeled vertical profiles of the equatorial
zonal wind are shown in Figure 7. The measured winds
below 40 km altitude are increasing steadily with altitude.
This is not the case in the simulations. The amplitude of thezonal wind peak, though located at the right altitude, appears
to be approximately half of the observed value.
[52] When we look at latitudinal variations of the zonal
wind within the cloud layers, the observed profile at thecloud top is roughly constant up to 50°–60° latitude, which
is not the case in the simulation.
3.3. Lower and Middle Clouds: From 45 to 60 km[53] This region covers the dominant thermally direct
circulation obtained in the simulation. This structure isclosely related to the mean radiative forcing, and to theenergy redistribution in this region. The radiative temperature tendencies are shown in Figure 8: both solar heating
rate and infrared cooling rate are added, giving the total
temperature variation rate due to the radiative scheme. The
average is performed over the last two Venus days of thesimulation, and over longitudes. The solar radiation yields a
maximum heating over equatorial regions, above roughly
55 km altitude. The meridional circulation consists of two
equator‐to‐pole cells, with ascending motions at the equator,
subsiding motions over the poles, an upper poleward branchin the middle clouds, which redistributes energy poleward,
and a lower equatorward branch in the lower clouds. The
zonal wind in this region peaks at the equator, with smaller
values than expected from observations. The angularmomentum transport associated with this meridional circulation will be discussed in section 4.
[54] The patterns between 45 and 55 km are due to the
longwave infrared emission and absorption: a maximum
cooling between 50 and 55 km altitude, dominant above
polar regions though it covers all latitudes, and a secondary
maximum heating at the base of the clouds (around 47 km
altitude over all latitudes in this simulation) where absorption by the clouds of thermal infrared radiation coming frombelow dominates the energy exchanges. This structure tends
to destabilize this atmospheric region, since it tends to
produce superadiabatic temperature gradients. Therefore,
convection is obtained between 45 and 57 km, as seen in
Figure 8, but also in the stability profile (Figure 4), in close

10 of 23

E06006

LEBONNOIS ET AL.: VENUS’ ATMOSPHERE WITH FULL GCM

E06006computed with the x matrix used in the GCM (for a surfacepressure of 92 bars), and with the averaged temperature
profile at the end of the reference simulation, presented in
Figure 3.
[56] This vertical profile shows a maximum heating at thebase of the clouds, and a maximum cooling in the middle ofthe cloud layers, between 50 and 55 km altitude (patternalready seen in previous radiative transfer studies [Crisp andTitov, 1997]). A second maximum cooling is also computedat the top of the clouds. The structure of the cooling within
the whole cloud region is sensitive to the cloud model usedin the radiative transfer. The heating at the base of theclouds is done from the hot troposphere below, throughinfrared windows between 3 and 7 mm, while cooling in theclouds is due to exchanges of energy between the cloudlayers and space, mainly through windows around 10 mm,
and a window ranging from roughly 20 to 30 mm.

Figure 7. Vertical profile of the zonal wind at equatorobtained after 350 Venus days in the reference simulation,
averaged over longitudes and the last two Venus days ofthe simulation (black line). Data obtained from the Venera
and Pioneer Venus missions (taken from Schubert [1983])
are shown for comparison (gray).
agreement with the observed stability profile in this region[Schubert, 1983; Tellmann et al., 2009].
[55] This pattern is also illustrated in Figure 9, where thethermal infrared radiative budget (i.e. the net power received
by a model cell per unit horizontal area from the infrared
radiative scheme) is shown as a function of altitude, and as afunction of wavelength (from 1.7 to 250 mm). This budget is3.4. Upper Cloud and Mesosphere[57] Above 60 km, in the mesosphere, the zonal winds
reach maximum values around 70 km altitude, with a peak
centered on the equator. The meridional circulation isorganized in weak Hadley cells.
[58] The amplification of the equatorial zonal wind in thisregion, as well as in the other cloud region discussed in theprevious subsection, is related to the diurnal tides. This isdemonstrated below, in section 4. The latitudinal distribution of zonal wind in this region may then result from anequilibrium between the impact of thermal tides, and theangular momentum transport by the meridional circulation.
The intensity of this meridional transport is correlated withthe meridional transport of energy, and therefore with theradiative forcing. A better representation of clouds in theradiative scheme, taking into account the latitudinal varia-

Figure 8. Radiative temperature tendency (sum of solar and infrared temperature tendencies), averaged
over the last two days of the simulation (unit is 10−6 K s−1). Contours show the temperature tendency due
to convective adjustment (white, with the dominant convective region highlighted by the dashed area) andmass stream function (black, 109 kg s−1).
11 of 23

E06006

LEBONNOIS ET AL.: VENUS’ ATMOSPHERE WITH FULL GCM

Figure 9. (a) Vertical profile of the radiative budget integrated over infrared wavelengths (from 1.7 to 250 mm),computed using the equatorial x matrix and the averaged
temperature profile at the end of the reference simulation,
presented in Figure 3. (b) The same vertical profile ofthermal IR radiative budget but shown as a function of
wavelength (unit is W m−2 mm−1).
tions in the cloud distribution, may improve both the latitudinal temperature contrast, and the balance between
meridional circulation and thermal tides in the angularmomentum transport.
3.5. Deep Troposphere: From 0 to 45 km[59] Between the surface and the cloud base, the meridional circulation is significantly affected by topography.
Without topography, the mean meridional circulation issymmetric with respect to the equator, and is organized as
two Hadley cells. When topography is taken into account,though the two dominant cells are still visible, the symmetryis broken, and small cells are present, in particular anindirect cell close to the surface in the northern low to
middle latitudes, between the main topographic features(Figure 6a). Again, this is a zonally averaged view of theE06006

meridional circulation, and its variation with local time will
be studied in detail in future work.
[60] Near 30 km altitude, there is a region with a clear
minimum in the stability profile, in agreement with observations (see Figure 4). This feature is related to a secondary
maximum of cooling at these altitudes (Figure 8), mainly
occurring in the 3–7 mm window (Figure 9b).
[61] Below roughly 20 km altitude, the stability becomes
too high in the model, compared to observations, and thetemperature is lower than observed.
[62] The zonal wind remains very small from the surface
up to the cloud base, which is in strong disagreement withthe observations (Figure 7). This is consistent with the total
angular momentum remaining much smaller than expectedfrom available measurements. This problem is not understood, but this result was also obtained by Ikeda et al. [2007]
with a similar general circulation model, and a very different(but self‐consistent) radiative scheme: superrotation develops in their model within and above the clouds, but nosignificant zonal winds appear under the clouds. In our
GCM, this discrepancy may possibly be related to the
problem of the atmosphere above the surface being too
stable, or to the fact that latitudinal variations of the cloud
structure is not taken into account. Some preliminary tests
have also indicated that this problem may be related to theparameterization chosen for the vertical diffusion and surface drag coefficients, both computed in the boundary layer
module. A complete study of the impact of these parameterson the deep atmospheric circulation will be reported in a
future work. Another hypothesis, proposed by Ikeda et al.
[2007], is the possible role of nonorographic gravity waves
generated near the surface. Using a parameterization forsuch nonorographic gravity waves, these authors showedthat the zonal wind in the lower atmosphere is increasing,and the overall profile is much closer to observations. In theirmodel, gravity waves generated close to the surface withpositive phase speeds encounter critical levels before reaching the cloud base, depositing angular momentum below
the clouds and accelerating the zonal mean flow. On thecontrary, gravity waves with negative phase speed reach thehigh atmosphere above the clouds, decelerating the flow inthis region.
3.6. Sensitivity Studies[63] Figure 10 shows the sensitivity of the modeled windfield to some parameters. When a constant Cp is used
(Figure 10a), the modeled circulation is quite similar to thereference simulation after 250 Venus days. The use of adifferent Cp profile affects mainly the temperature profile(not shown). The separation between the deep atmosphere
below the clouds and the lower cloud appears to be more
pronounced, and the zonal wind peak less intense.
[64] The use of a different sponge layer (Figure 10b) for
50 Venus days from the 250 Venus day state of the reference simulation (see section 2.3) do not seem to affect thecirculation significantly.
[65] When using a finer spatial grid (Figures 10c and 10d)for up to 100 additional Venus days after the reference
simulation taken at 250 Venus days (see section 2.3), thezonal wind field distribution does not appear to be significantly changed, though the total angular momentum slightly
decreases (as seen in Figure 1). However, the higher spatial

12 of 23

E06006

LEBONNOIS ET AL.: VENUS’ ATMOSPHERE WITH FULL GCM

E06006

Figure 10. Mean zonal wind (m s−1) and stream function (black contours, 109 kg s−1) for sensitivity
studies (to be compared to Figure 6a): (a) with constant Cp, full radiative transfer and topography(after 250 Venus days); (b) with modified sponge layer (50 additional Venus days after the reference
simulation taken at day 250); with higher horizontal resolution (64 × 48) after (c) 50 and (d) 100
additional Venus days after the reference simulation taken at day 250; and without diurnal cycle after(e) 50 and (f) 100 additional Venus days after the reference simulation taken at day 250. Averages aredone over the last 2 Venus days of simulations and over longitudes.
resolution affects the averaged meridional stream function,
mainly below 40 km altitude where the topography plays asignificant role, as discussed above. A more extensive
evaluation of the sensitivity to resolution should be performed in the future, but as far as the temperature, zonal
wind and angular momentum are concerned, this sensitivity
test indicates a very minor impact.

[66] The most significant effect is clearly seen in Figures 10eand 10f, when the diurnal cycle is omitted for 100 additional
Venus days after the 250 Venus day reference simulation. In
the lower and middle clouds, the zonal winds are reduced tovery low values, and even negative values around the equator(Figure 10f). In the upper clouds and above, the zonal winds
around the equator are significantly less than in the reference

13 of 23

E06006

LEBONNOIS ET AL.: VENUS’ ATMOSPHERE WITH FULL GCM

simulation, with high latitude jets appearing and then fading
away. The evolution after 50, then 100 Venus days clearly
indicates that the superrotation in the cloud region is nolonger maintained, though the situation in the deeper atmosphere appears to be less affected (see also Figure 1).
[67] This is a clear signature of the influence of thermaltides in the distribution of angular momentum within andabove the cloud region. This role will be discussed in moredetails in section 4.2.
[68] This structure of the zonal wind field obtained in thesimulation without diurnal cycle has some similarities withthe simulations using a simplified temperature forcing,though the jets obtained are located much lower, and stable,in the latter case. In the simplified forcing case, the diurnal
cycle is also not included. Lee [2006] tried including adiurnal cycle in the simplified forcing, but he did not get
significant influence on the zonal wind field, though thediurnal tides did play a role in the angular momentum
transport.

4. Superrotation Mechanism[69] Though this peculiar circulation has been studied forthirty years, and despite available observations of Venus’
atmospheric dynamics, the mechanisms controlling the superrotation of Venus’ atmosphere are still not fully understood. The GRW mechanism [Gierasch, 1975; Rossow andWilliams, 1979] has been able to explain Titan’s atmospheric superrotation in the most evolved Titan GCM to date[Hourdin et al., 1995, 2004; Rannou et al., 2004], and inprevious simplified GCMs developed for Venus [Young andPollack, 1977; Del Genio et al., 1993; Yamamoto and
Takahashi, 2003; Lee et al., 2005; Herrnstein and Dowling,
2007; Hollingsworth et al., 2007], but some studies havealso emphasized that thermal tides have a significant effect[Pechman and Ingersoll, 1984; Fels, 1986; Leovy and
Baker, 1987; Hou et al., 1990; Newman and Leovy, 1992;
Takagi and Matsuda, 2007]. The zonally averaged transportof angular momentum in our new simulations of Venus’
atmospheric dynamics is detailed in this section. Contributions of mean meridional circulation (MMC), transient
waves and stationary waves are separated, after averaging
over 4 Venus days (computed with high‐frequency outputs).
The total meridional transport [vq] of a variable q can be
decomposed as
h ih i h i½vq ¼ ½v½q þ v* q* þ v0 q0 ;

ð19Þ

where [q] is the zonal mean, q the temporal average, q* =q − [q], and q′ = q − q. [v][q] is the MMC contribution, [v* ][q* ] is the contribution from stationary waves, and [v0 q0 ] isthe contributions from transients waves. The same equation
applies for vertical transport of the variable q, using thevertical wind w (in Pa/s) instead of the meridional wind v.
The stationary waves component appears to be negligible(despite topography), and the respective role of MMC andtransients will be discussed below.
[70] In the following discussion, two simulations are used:
the reference simulation (after 350 Venus days), and thesensitivity simulation done without diurnal cycle, taken
50 Venus days after the 250 Venus day state of the reference

E06006

simulation, which will be referred to as NDC for no diurnal
cycle. From these simulations, we compute the relative
angular momentum of a given cell (mass dm) at latitude
 from the zonal wind u: dM = dm × u × acos, wherea is Venus’ radius.
4.1. Angular Momentum Transport Without Diurnal
Cycle[71] The zonally averaged vertical and horizontal transports of angular momentum by the circulation are shown in
Figures 11 and 12 for the NDC simulation. We used thesimulation after 50 Venus days only because the zonal circulation is not maintained, and the transport of angularmomentum after 100 Venus days, though qualitatively
similar to the one discussed here, is much weaker.
[72] Figures 11 and 12 are typical of the GRW mechanism[Gierasch, 1975; Rossow and Williams, 1979]. The mean
meridional circulation transports angular momentum
upward (Figure 11a), and toward the poles (Figure 12a).
This transport is compensated by the transport by waves(transients), which bring back angular momentum horizontally toward the equator, and vertically downward. An
analysis of these waves is given in section 4.3.
[73] To go deeper in the analysis of the transport, the vertical transport is dissociated in relevant regions in Figure 11:
the middle‐ and low‐latitude region between 50°N and 50°S
(Figure 11c) and the two polar regions (north in Figure 11b
and south in Figure 11d). The same is done for the horizontal transport in Figure 12: the region above 60 km altitude(Figure 12b), the region below 42 km altitude (Figure 12d),
and the region in between (Figure 12c).
[74] In the vertical direction, Figure 11 shows that themean meridional circulation transports upward the angularmomentum at low to midlatitudes, while the downward
transport is done by the mean meridional circulation in polar
regions, and by transients at low to midlatitudes. In thehorizontal direction, the transport is dominant in the region
corresponding roughly to the lower and middle clouds (42 to
60 km altitude), as well as in the region corresponding to theupper clouds and above (above 60 km altitude). In eachregion, the poleward transport by each of the Hadley cells iscompensated by an equatorward transport by waves generated in these regions.
[75] The resulting distribution of zonal wind (Figure 10e)
is consistent with the GRW mechanism. It exhibits a high‐latitude peak in each hemisphere, which is favorable forbarotropic instabilities. This may then produce waves thatwill induce the stabilizing equatorward transport of angularmomentum [Luz and Hourdin, 2003]. However, it appears
that this mechanism is not stable here, as seen in Figure 10f.
The jets are fading away, indicating that the mean meridional circulation at low latitudes (where the zonal wind has
decreased a lot) is not injecting enough angular momentum
above the clouds to maintain the jets.
[76] Together with the transport of angular momentum by
the meridional and vertical winds discussed above, angularmomentum is also transported in the physical parameterizations through the boundary layer and advection
schemes. These terms are not included in Figures 11 and 12.
The transport by the boundary layer scheme compensates
the residual transport, and brings back angular momentum
from polar regions (where it is given back to the surface) to

14 of 23

E06006

LEBONNOIS ET AL.: VENUS’ ATMOSPHERE WITH FULL GCM

E06006

Figure 11. Vertical transport of angular momentum in the simulation without diurnal cycle. Black solidline, mean meridional circulation; dashed line, transients; dotted line, stationary waves; gray solid line,
total. Temporal averages were done over days 300 to 304. (a) The relative angular momentum verticaltransport is integrated for all latitudes at each given altitude and is divided by the latitudinal sum of
the mass at this altitude. The relative angular momentum vertical transport is integrated only for a fractionof the latitudes ((b) 50°N–90°N, (c) 50°N–50°S, and (d) 50°S–90°S) but is still divided by the total
integrated mass at this altitude, so that Figures 11b, 11c, and 11d add to give the corresponding plot
in Figure 11a. It must be noted, though, that the total integrated mass at a given altitude is varying
exponentially with the altitude. Also, the vertical wind being in Pa/s, upward transport is negativeand downward transport is positive.
equatorial regions (where it is pumped from the surface).
The transport of angular momentum resulting from theadvection scheme is confined to the convective region (seeFigure 8). The mixing due to convection induces a small
downward transport of angular momentum, associated withthe vertical gradient of zonal wind. For both simulations
with or without diurnal cycle, the variations of angularmomentum due to this transport are, most of the time,
roughly one order of magnitude less than the angularmomentum variations due to the meridional circulation,leaving this mixing a second‐order process.
4.2. Angular Momentum Transport: Role of Thermal
Tides[77] The role of angular momentum transport by thermaltides in the maintenance of superrotation within the clouds
in equatorial regions has been studied by Newman andLeovy [1992]. They used a semispectral primitive equation
model that included the zonal mean flow, and wave numbers
1 and 2. These waves corresponded to diurnal and semidiurnal tides, though they could also be excited by instabilities.
The background zonal wind speed was imposed as theinitial condition (with a maximum of 75 m s−1 at equator).
Diurnal and semidiurnal tides were transporting angularmomentum from above the clouds into the cloud region,
accelerating the equatorial flow at these altitudes, andsmoothing the latitudinal variations of the wind speed
between the midlatitude jet and the equator. Newman andLeovy [1992] also ran their model without any waves, andin this case their results appeared to be similar to our results,
discussed in the previous section, with a strong barotropically unstable high‐latitude jet. Though the backgroundwind field remained unexplained, this paper illustrated therole of vertical transport of angular momentum by thethermal tides. This mechanism is in agreement with our
results, as described below.
[78] Takagi and Matsuda [2007] also explored the role ofthermal tides, using a GCM with prescribed solar heating
and Newtonian cooling toward a zonal averaged temperature field. The zonally average component of the solar
heating was suppressed. This strongly affects the angularmomentum transport by mean meridional circulation, which
was then almost eliminated. Their results emphasized therole of deceleration of the zonal flow close to the surface bysemidiurnal tides, inducing momentum pumping throughsurface friction. During the spin‐up phase of their simulations, this deceleration close to the ground was obtained
through waves that were not thermal tides, but the resulting

15 of 23

E06006

LEBONNOIS ET AL.: VENUS’ ATMOSPHERE WITH FULL GCM

E06006

Figure 12. Latitudinal transport of angular momentum in the simulation without diurnal cycle (zonal
average). Black solid line, mean meridional circulation; dashed line, transients; dotted line, stationary
waves; gray solid line, total. Temporal averages were done over days 300 to 304. (a) The relative angularmomentum latitudinal transport is integrated for the entire column at each latitude and is divided by the
total mass of the column. The relative angular momentum latitudinal transport is integrated only for afraction of the column ((b) 60–100 km altitude, (c) 42–60 km, and (d) 0–42 km) but is still divided
by the total mass of the entire column, so that Figures 12b, 12c, and 12d add to give the corresponding
plot in Figure 12a.

effect was similar, inducing pumping of angular momentum
into the whole atmosphere. This effect was not obtained inour results.
[79] In our reference simulation where the thermal tides
are present, the mechanism of angular momentum transport
is different from the NDC case described in the previous
section. As in the previous section, Figures 13 and 14
present the vertical and horizontal transport of angularmomentum in this case, first globally integrated, then indifferent regions. The global vertical transport (Figure 13a)indicates stronger vertical exchanges than in the NDC case.
The mean meridional circulation is able to transport angularmomentum from the deep atmosphere up to regions above
the clouds, despite the fact that the meridional stream
function shows stacked cells. This may be explained by thefact that all these cells are dominantly direct. In the horizontal, the global plots (Figure 14a) are quite similar to the
NDC case, though the exchanges are less intense. It is stillcompatible with the GRW mechanism, in the sense that themean meridional circulation transports angular momentum
poleward, while the transients bring it back toward theequator. However, no high‐latitude jets are forming here,
and therefore these transients may be different from thetransients seen in the NDC case.
[80] Again, a region by region analysis helps us understand the angular momentum budget. In the vertical direc-

tion, Figure 13c shows that the downward transport bytransients (thermal tides) is very strong in the equatorial
region, in the clouds (roughly between 45 and 80 km altitude, where the solar flux absorption is the strongest). In thepolar regions, as in the NDC case, both the mean meridional
circulation (dominant) and the transients transport angularmomentum downward. For the mean meridional circulation,
the ratio between the upward transport in the equatorial
region and the downward transport in polar region is muchhigher than in the NDC simulation.
[81] This strong equatorial downward transport of angularmomentum by the thermal tides in the cloud region isconsistent with the work of Newman and Leovy [1992]. It
helps maintaining the maximum of the zonal winds in thisregion, in the altitude range 45 to 80 km. The peak of thezonal wind is located around 70 km altitude, consistent withobservations, and it is lower than in the NDC case. The
mean meridional circulation, though transporting angularmomentum in a similar way as in the NDC case, is notstrong enough here to induce a shift of the peak zonal windspeed toward the high‐latitude jets.
[82] In our reference simulation, as was discussed in
section 3, the latitudinal distribution of the zonal wind atcloud top is not as uniform in latitude as is observed in the
Venus atmosphere. This suggests that the influence of thethermal tides is too large compared to the mean meridional

16 of 23

E06006

LEBONNOIS ET AL.: VENUS’ ATMOSPHERE WITH FULL GCM

E06006

Figure 13. Same as Figure 11 but for the reference simulation with diurnal cycle. Temporal averages
were done over days 350 to 354.
latitudinal transport of angular momentum. This may berelated to the misrepresentation of the latitudinal gradient of
temperature (increasing this gradient would certainly
increase the amplitude of the mean meridional circulation),or too weak global zonal wind below the clouds (which may
be affecting both the global amplitude of the peak zonal
wind and the global angular momentum transport budget).

Figure 14. Same as Figure 12 but for the reference simulation with diurnal cycle. Temporal averages
were done over days 350 to 354.
17 of 23

E06006

LEBONNOIS ET AL.: VENUS’ ATMOSPHERE WITH FULL GCM

Figure 15. Amplitude frequency spectrum for the temperature at longitude = 0° for (a, c, e) the reference
simulation (days 350–354) and (b, d, f) the NDC simulation (days 300–304). Figures 15a and 15b arearound 65 km, as a function of latitude; Figures 15c and 15d are at the equator, as a function of altitude;
and Figures 15e and 15f are at 60°N, as a function of altitude. The solid curve is the mean zonal rotation
speed of the flow (same unit as the frequency). A solid line also emphasizes the diurnal frequency. The
different types of wave activity are indicated with dashed areas, bold arrows, and roman numbers (seetext).
18 of 23

E06006

E06006

LEBONNOIS ET AL.: VENUS’ ATMOSPHERE WITH FULL GCM

E06006

Figure 16. Altitude‐time Hovmöller plots of temperature variability (T′ = T − T ) at longitude = 0. (a) At
the equator, for the reference simulation, during four Venus days (days 350–354); the dominant signal isthe diurnal tide. (b) Same as Figure 16a, but the signal is filtered for frequencies higher than 7 × 10−7 Hz(periods around 16 Earth days) and only one Venus day is plotted, showing the type IV waves. (c) At 60°
latitude, for the NDC simulation, during four Venus days (days 300–304); the dominant signal is the type
II quasi‐bidiurnal wave. (d) Same as Figure 16c, but the signal is filtered for frequencies between roughly
3 × 10−7 and 7 × 10−7 Hz (periods between 16 to 38 Earth days), showing the type I waves.
[83] We have also performed the same analysis for thecase without topography, to evaluate the influence of thisparameter on the study. Figures (not shown) and analysis arethen very similar to the case with topography presented in
Figures 13 and 14.
4.3. Wave Analysis[84] A Fourier transform analysis has been performed on
the temperature field on high‐frequency outputs from both
the reference and the NDC simulations: 100 points per
Venus day, during four days run after the initial simulations,days 350–354 for the reference run, and days 300–304 for
the NDC simulation. Altitude‐frequency plots at the equatorand 60°N, and latitude‐frequency plots at 65 km altitude arepresented in Figure 15.
[85] When the diurnal cycle is not taken into account(Figures 15b, 15d, and 15f), the dominant waves are seen in
middle‐ to high‐latitude regions, between 50 and 90 km
altitude. We will refer to them as type I, for simplicity. Theiramplitude is no larger than 1 K. These waves have phasespeeds that are slower than the zonal wind flow, i.e. they

propagate in the opposite direction relative to the mean flow
(as Rossby waves do).
[86] A very long period wave, quasi‐bidiurnal, referred toas type II, is visible at high latitudes (above 50°), mainly
within the upper cloud (60–70 km altitude), with anamplitude as high as 5 K.
[87] As the zonal wind in the cloud region decreases withtime in the NDC simulation, the amplitude of both types ofwaves is decreasing accordingly, when plotting them after
350 Venus days (not shown here).
[88] Taking into account the diurnal cycle induces large
modifications to this picture. The dominant waves are now
the diurnal tide and its harmonics, located at all latitudes,
above 40 km altitude (type III). The amplitude of the tides ismaximum at higher altitudes: within and above the clouds, it
is around 5 K for the diurnal tide (but it is as high as 10 K or
more close to the top of the model), and around 3 K for thesemidiurnal tide. At high latitudes, the type I and II waves
also seem to be present, as in the NDC simulation. Type II
waves have even larger amplitudes, up to 10 K. Anothertype of waves (type IV) is visible mainly in low latitude

19 of 23

E06006

LEBONNOIS ET AL.: VENUS’ ATMOSPHERE WITH FULL GCM

E06006

Figure 17. Longitude‐time Hovmöller plots of temperature variability (T′ = T − T ) at 66 km altitude. (a) At
the equator, for the reference simulation, during four Venus days (days 350–354); the dominant signal isthe diurnal tide. (b) Same as Figure 17a, but the signal is filtered for frequencies higher than 7 × 10−7 Hz(periods around 16 Earth days) and only one Venus day is plotted, showing the type IV waves. (c) At 60°
latitude, for the NDC simulation, during four Venus days (days 300–304); the dominant signal is the type
II quasi‐bidiurnal wave. (d) Same as Figure 17c, but the signal is filtered for frequencies between roughly
3 × 10−7 and 7 × 10−7 Hz (periods between 16 to 38 Earth days), showing the type I waves.
regions, between 60 and 70 km altitude (upper clouds), at
high frequencies (around 2.5 × 10−6 Hz). The period ofthese waves is around 4 to 5 Earth days, so there may be a
relation with the wave structures observed at the cloud top at
ultraviolet wavelengths [Del Genio and Rossow, 1990].
However, their amplitude is very small, of order 0.1 K. It
must be kept in mind that the modeled zonal wind in thissimulation is around half of the observed value, whichchanges the relative wave speed of these waves compared toobserved ones.
[89] The location of type I and II waves appear to bestrongly correlated with regions of strong zonal winds,
while type III waves are not. This is consistent with type I
and II waves being generated by instabilities associated withzonal jets, while diurnal tides have no connection to zonal
winds. For type IV waves, a connection to equatorial zonal
winds is also possible.

[90] The convective region between 47 km altitude (cloudbase) and roughly 55 km altitude is clearly visible in both
simulations, as it inhibits the wave activity.
[91] Figures 16 and 17 illustrate these dominant waves,using two‐dimensional plots with time as one dimension(also known as Hovmöller plots): altitude vs time, thenlongitude vs time at 66 km altitude. Figures 16 and 17 display the temperature temporal variability T′ = T − T , i.e. thedifference between the temperature field and its averageover four Venus days. Figures 16a and 17a shows equatorial
temperature variations in the reference simulation, whichemphasizes the thermal tides (type III). Then in Figures 16b
and 17b, the same temperature variations are filtered (thecutoff frequency is around 7 × 10−7 Hz, which corresponds toa period around 16 Earth days) to show the high‐frequency
type IV waves. In Figures 16c, 16d, 17c, and 17d, temperature
variations in the NDC simulation are shown at 60°N: first, thetotal signal shows the type II, long period waves, then the

20 of 23

E06006

LEBONNOIS ET AL.: VENUS’ ATMOSPHERE WITH FULL GCM

signal is filtered, keeping frequencies between 3 × 10−7
and 7 × 10−7 Hz (periods between 16 and 38 Earth days)
and therefore type I waves. Types II and III waves propagate
eastward, in the same direction as the diurnal forcing. Types I
and IV propagate westward, along with the zonal flow.
[92] Based on an analysis of filtered [v0 u0 ] (the transportterm for zonal wind, due to transients), using cutoff frequencies around 3 × 10−7 Hz (3 (Venus days)−1, roughly
38 Earth days) and 7 × 10−7 Hz (7 (Venus days)−1, roughly
16 Earth days), it appears that both in the reference and
NDC simulations, the transport of angular momentum bywaves is essentially done through long‐period waves (over38 Earth days). These waves may be type III (thermal tides)
for the reference simulation, and types I (longest‐period
part of them) and II. The origin and role of the type II,
quasi‐bidiurnal waves modeled at high latitudes is not clear.
However, the variations observed in the cloud structure athigh latitudes, which are not taken into account in thisGCM, may affect the flow through modified radiativetransfer, and therefore affect these waves. This should betested when a more realistic latitudinal structure for the
clouds is used in the radiative transfer computations.
[93] As in section 4.2, the possible role of topography has
been evaluated by the same analysis on the simulation
without topography. Figures (not shown) and analysis areagain very similar to the case with topography presented inthis section.

5. Conclusion[94] Based on the LMDZ general circulation model used
for the Earth, we have developed a general circulation modelfor the Venus atmosphere, from the surface up to roughly
100 km altitude. This new GCM takes into account the
topography, the diurnal cycle, the dependence of the specificheat to the temperature, and a consistent radiative transfer
module. The temperature dependence of Cp is very large inthe Venus atmosphere, and this relation induced modifications in the definition of the potential temperature that isused as a basic variable in the dynamical core. Though thistemperature dependence of Cp affects the temperature
structure of the atmosphere, the impact over the windstructure appears to be of second order, as shown in thiswork.
[95] The radiative transfer developed for infrared based on
net exchange rates matrices [Eymet et al., 2009] allows aconsistent computation of the temperature field, which isdifferent from previous GCMs of Venus’ atmosphere, whichwere based on simplified forcing of the temperature structure. To illustrate the need for such a realistic computationof temperature, we have also run our GCM with simplified
temperature forcing. These simulations show results fairly
similar to previously published works. Comparison between
both runs shows how the zonal and meridional wind fields
are affected by such a simplification.
[96] After a long spin‐up phase, covering at least
150 Venus days (or more than 50 Earth years), we analyzed
the modeled zonal and meridional circulations. Superrotation
is obtained at the cloud level, above roughly 40 km altitude,
but below this altitude, the zonal wind does not increase to
the observed values. This discrepancy is a major pending
question. The sensitivity of the simulations to the choices of

E06006boundary layer scheme and parameters is currently underinvestigation, as preliminary tests indicate that the deep
atmospheric circulation may be significantly affected bythese choices. The possible role of gravity waves generated
close to the surface need also to be assessed by further
studies. The meridional circulation consists of equator‐to‐pole cells, with the dominant one located within the cloudlayers. The modeled temperature structure is globally quiteconsistent with observations, though several discrepancies
need to be explained and improved: the atmosphere is too
stable in the lowest 15 km, and the latitudinal contrast
between equator and high latitudes in the upper cloud (the“cold collar”) is not as large as observed. This may berelated to the fact that clouds are considered uniform withaltitude for the moment. This probable coupling between
cloud structure, radiation field and circulation needs to betaken into account in future improvements of the GCM. It
may also be possible that this discrepancy is of dynamical
origin, due to the structure of the zonal wind field in thecloud region. A convective layer is found between the baseof the clouds (around 47 km), heated from the deep atmosphere below and the middle of the clouds (55–60 km altitude), region that is able to cool directly to space; this isconsistent with observation of the stability structure above
40 km.
[97] Conservation of angular momentum is tested, andthough it is not perfect in the model, superrotation cannot be
produced artificially from the residual advection errors. The
transport of angular momentum has been analyzed, andcomparison between the reference simulation and a sensitivity simulation performed without a diurnal cycle clearly
illustrates the role played by the thermal tides in the equatorial region.
[98] When the diurnal cycle is shut down, the transport ofangular momentum is consistent with the Gierasch‐Rossow‐
Williams mechanism, where horizontal transport of angularmomentum by waves at midlatitudes within the cloud layers
compensates the poleward transport of angular momentum
by the mean meridional circulation. The resulting zonal
wind field displays high‐latitude jets above the clouds, andinstabilities are able to develop on the equatorial flank ofthese jets. However, this structure is not stable in this test,
and the jets fade away after 100 Venus days.
[99] The mechanism controlling equatorial superrotationin the reference case where thermal tides are present is more
complex than suggested by the GRW mechanism. The mean
meridional circulation transports angular momentum
upward (despite layered Hadley cells), and poleward, but
this poleward transport is weakened by the thermal tides.
These tides add a significant downward transport of angularmomentum in the equatorial region, which allows accumulation of angular momentum at low latitudes, forbidding thebuild of the high‐latitude jets. However, horizontal equatorward transport of angular momentum by waves is stillobtained in the cloud layer to compensate the mean meridional circulation horizontal transport. The resulting zonal
wind field displays a stable maximum at the equator. The
observed zonal wind profile is intermediate between these
two situations, with roughly constant zonal winds equatorward of 50° latitude. This discrepancy in the balance
between downward transport of angular momentum bythermal tides and horizontal transport by the mean meridi-

21 of 23

E06006

LEBONNOIS ET AL.: VENUS’ ATMOSPHERE WITH FULL GCM

onal circulation (and transient waves) in the cloud region
may be related to the misrepresentation of the latitudinaltemperature gradients in the clouds, or to the absence ofsuperrotation below the clouds.
[100] An analysis of the waves present in the reference
simulation and in the simulation without diurnal cycle has
been done, using Fourier transform of the temperature field.
When no diurnal cycle is taken into account, waves arepresent at high latitudes, in the region of maximum winds. A
second type of waves, of very long period (quasi‐bidiurnal),
are also present. With the diurnal cycle, thermal tides areclearly identified. As mentioned above, their role in thevertical transport of angular momentum is crucial. Within
the upper cloud, short period waves (4 to 5 Earth day
period) are also seen in the equatorial region.
[101] Due to the discrepancy between modeled andobserved zonal wind fields, the superrotation phenomenon
is not yet fully understood. However, the role of thermaltides is emphasized, as well as the importance to computeaccurately the radiative transfer and the temperature field.
The impact of latitudinal variations in the cloud structure(associated with coupling between clouds, temperature
structure and dynamics) need to be fully investigated infuture developments of the model.
[102] Acknowledgments. This work has been supported by the Centre
National d’Etudes Spatiales, by the project Exoclimats financed by the
Agence Nationale de la Recherche, and by the computation facilities of theInstitut du Développement et des Ressources en Informatique Scientifique.

References
Crisp, D. (1986), Radiative forcing of the Venus mesosphere. I—Solar
fluxes and heating rates, Icarus, 67, 484–514.
Crisp, D., and D. Titov (1997), The thermal balance of the Venus atmosphere, in Venus II: Geology, Geophysics, Atmosphere, and Solar Wind
Environment, edited by S. W. Bougher, D. M. Hunten, and R. J. Phillips,
pp. 353–384, Univ. of Ariz. Press, Tucson.
Del Genio, A. D., and W. B. Rossow (1990), Planetary‐scale waves and thecyclic nature of cloud top dynamics on Venus, J. Atmos. Sci., 47, 293–
318.
Del Genio, A. D., and W. Zhou (1996), Simulations of superrotation on
slowly rotating planets: Sensitivity to rotation and initial conditions,
Icarus, 120, 332–343.
Del Genio, A. D., W. Zhou, and T. P. Eichler (1993), Equatorial superrotation in a slowly rotating GCM: Implications for Titan and Venus, Icarus,
101, 1–17.
Dufresne, J.‐L., R. Fournier, C. Hourdin, and F. Hourdin (2005), Net
exchange reformulation of radiative transfer in the CO2 15mm band on
Mars, J. Atmos. Sci., 62, 3303–3319, doi:10.1175/JAS3537.1.
Eymet, V., J.‐L. Dufresne, R. Fournier, and S. Blanco (2005), A boundary
based net exchange Monte‐Carlo method for absorbing and scattering
thick medium, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transfer, 95, 27–46.
Eymet, V., R. Fournier, J.‐L. Dufresne, S. Lebonnois, F. Hourdin, and
M. A. Bullock (2009), Net exchange parameterization of thermal infrared
radiative transfer in Venus’ atmosphere, J. Geophys. Res., 114, E11008,
doi:10.1029/2008JE003276.
Fels, S. B. (1986), An approximate analytical method for calculating tides
in the atmosphere of Venus, J. Atmos. Sci., 43, 2757–2772.
Ford, P. G., and G. H. Pettengill (1992), Venus topography and kilometer‐scale slopes, J. Geophys. Res., 97, 13,103–13,114.
Forget, F., F. Hourdin, R. Fournier, C. Hourdin, O. Talagrand, M. Collins,
S. R. Lewis, P. L. Read, and J.‐P. Huot (1999), Improved general circulation models of the Martian atmosphere from the surface to above
80 km, J. Geophys. Res., 104, 24,155–24,176.
Gierasch, P. (1975), Meridional circulation and the maintenance of theVenus atmospheric rotation, J. Atmos. Sci., 32, 1038–1044.
Gierasch, P. J., et al. (1997), The general circulation of the Venus atmosphere: An assessment, in Venus II: Geology, Geophysics, Atmosphere,
and Solar Wind Environment, edited by S. W. Bougher, D. M. Hunten,
and R. J. Phillips, pp. 459–500, Univ. of Ariz. Press, Tucson.

E06006

Grassi, D., P. Drossart, G. Piccioni, N. I. Ignatiev, L. V. Zasova, A. Adriani,
M. L. Moriconi, P. G. J. Irwin, A. Negrão, and A. Migliorini (2008),
Retrieval of air temperature profiles in the Venusian mesosphere fromVIRTIS‐M data: Description and validation of algorithms, J. Geophys.
Res., 113, E00B09, doi:10.1029/2008JE003075.
Herrnstein, A., and T. E. Dowling (2007), Effect of topography on the spin‐
up of a Venus atmospheric model, J. Geophys. Res., 112, E04S08,
doi:10.1029/2006JE002804.
Hollingsworth, J. L., R. E. Young, G. Schubert, C. Covey, and A. S.
Grossman (2007), A simple‐physics global circulation model for
Venus: Sensitivity assessments of atmospheric superrotation, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 34, L05202, doi:10.1029/2006GL028567.
Hou, A. Y., S. B. Fels, and R. M. Goody (1990), Zonal superrotation above
Venus’ cloud base induced by the semidiurnal tide and the mean meridional circulation, J. Atmos. Sci., 47, 1894–1901.
Hourdin, F., P. Le Van, O. Talagrand, R. Courtin, D. Gautier, and C. P.
McKay (1992), Numerical simulation of the circulation of the atmosphere of Titan, in Symposium on Titan: Proceedings, Toulouse, France,
9–12 September 1991, edited by B. Kaldeich, Eur. Space Agency Spec.
Publ., ESA SP338, 101–106.
Hourdin, F., P. Le Van, F. Forget, and O. Talagrand (1993), Meteorologicalvariability and the annual surface pressure cycle on Mars, J. Atmos. Sci.,
50, 3625–3640.
Hourdin, F., O. Talagrand, R. Sadourny, R. Courtin, D. Gautier, and C. P.
McKay (1995), Numerical simulation of the general circulation of theatmosphere of Titan, Icarus, 117, 358–374.
Hourdin, F., S. Lebonnois, D. Luz, and P. Rannou (2004), Titan’s stratospheric composition driven by condensation and dynamics, J. Geophys.
Res., 109, E12005, doi:10.1029/2004JE002282.
Hourdin, F., et al. (2006), The LMDZ4 general circulation model: Climate
performance and sensitivity to parameterized physics with emphasis on
tropical convection, Clim. Dyn., 27, 787–813, doi:10.1007/s00382-0060158-0.
Ikeda, K., M. Yamamoto, and M. Takahashi (2007), Superrotation of theVenus atmosphere simulated by an atmospheric general circulation
model, in Proceedings of IUGG XXIV General Assembly, edited by
L. Ubertini et al., p. 488, Umbria Sci. Meet. Assoc., Perugia, Italy.
Karatekin, O., V. Dehant, and S. Lebonnois (2009), Length of day variations of Venus, Bull. Am. Astron. Soc., 41, 561.
Lebonnois, S., F. Hourdin, V. Eymet, R. Fournier, and J.‐L. Dufresne(2005), A new Venus general circulation model, in the context of theVenus‐Express mission, Bull. Am. Astron. Soc., 37, 742.
Lee, C. (2006), Modelling of the atmosphere of Venus, Ph.D. thesis, Univ.
of Oxford, Oxford, U. K.
Lee, C., S. R. Lewis, and P. L. Read (2005), A numerical model of theatmosphere of Venus, Adv. Space Res., 36, 2142–2145.
Lee, C., S. R. Lewis, and P. L. Read (2007), Superrotation in a Venus general circulation model, J. Geophys. Res., 112, E04S11, doi:10.1029/
2006JE002874.
Leovy, C. B., and N. L. Baker (1987), Zonal winds near Venus’ cloud top
level: A model study of the interaction between the zonal mean circulation and the semidiurnal tide, Icarus, 69, 202–220.
Limaye, S. S. (2007), Venus atmospheric circulation: Known andunknown, J. Geophys. Res., 112, E04S09, doi:10.1029/2006JE002814.
Lott, F., and M. Miller (1997), A new sub‐grid scale orographic dragparameterization: Its formulation and testing, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc.,
123, 101–128.
Louis, J. (1979), A parametric model of vertical eddy fluxes in the atmosphere, Boundary Layer Meteorol., 17, 187–202.
Luz, D., and F. Hourdin (2003), Latitudinal transport by barotropic waves
in Titan’s stratosphere. I. General properties from a horizontal shallow‐
water model, Icarus, 166, 328–342.
Newman, M., and C. B. Leovy (1992), Maintenance of strong rotational
winds in Venus’ middle atmosphere by thermal tides, Science, 257,
647–650.
Pechman, J. B., and A. P. Ingersoll (1984), Thermal tides in the atmosphereof Venus: Comparison of model results with observations, J. Atmos. Sci.,
41, 3290–3313.
Peralta, J., R. Hueso, and A. Sanchez‐Lavega (2007), A reanalysis of
Venus winds at two cloud levels from Galileo SSI images, Icarus, 190,
469–477.
Rannou, P., F. Hourdin, and C. P. McKay (2002), A wind origin for Titan’s
haze structure, Nature, 418, 853–856.
Rannou, P., F. Hourdin, C. P. McKay, and D. Luz (2004), A coupled
dynamics‐microphysics model of Titan’s atmosphere, Icarus, 170,
443–462.
Rossow, W. B., and G. P. Williams (1979), Large‐scale motion in the
Venus stratosphere, J. Atmos. Sci., 36, 377–389.

22 of 23

E06006

LEBONNOIS ET AL.: VENUS’ ATMOSPHERE WITH FULL GCM

Rossow, W. B., S. B. Fels, and P. H. Stone (1980), Comments on “A three‐dimensional model of dynamical processes in the Venus atmosphere,”J. Atmos. Sci., 37, 250–252.
Sánchez‐Lavega, A., et al. (2008), Variable winds on Venus mapped inthree dimensions, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L13204, doi:10.1029/
2008GL033817.
Schubert, G. (1983), General circulation and the dynamical state of theVenus atmosphere, in Venus, edited by D. M. Hunten et al., pp. 681–
765, Univ. of Ariz. Press, Tucson.
Schubert, G., and J. A. Whitehead (1969), The moving flame experimentwith liquid mercury: Possible implications for the Venus atmosphere,
Science, 163, 71–72.
Seiff, A. (1983), Thermal structure of the atmosphere of Venus, in Venus,
edited by D. M. Hunten et al., pp. 215–279, Univ. of Ariz. Press, Tucson.
Seiff, A., D. B. Kirk, R. E. Young, R. C. Blanchard, J. T. Findlay, G. M.
Kelly, and S. C. Sommer (1980), Measurements of thermal structure andthermal contrasts in the atmosphere of Venus and related dynamical
observations: Results from the four Pioneer Venus probes, J. Geophys.
Res., 85, 7903–7933.
Seiff, A., J. T. Schofield, A. J. Kliore, F. W. Taylor, S. S. Limaye, H. E.
Revercomb, L. A. Sromovsky, V. V. Kerzhanovich, V. I. Moroz, and
M. Y. Marov (1985), Model of the structure of the atmosphere of Venus
from surface to 100 kilometers altitude, Adv. Space Res., 5, 3–58.
Sromovsky, L. A., H. E. Revercomb, and V. E. Suomi (1985), Temperature
structure in the lower atmosphere of Venus: New results derived from
Pioneer Venus entry probe measurements, Icarus, 62, 458–493.
Takagi, M., and Y. Matsuda (2007), Effects of thermal tides on the Venus
atmospheric superrotation, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D09112, doi:10.1029/
2006JD007901.
Tellmann, S., M. Pätzold, B. Häusler, M. K. Bird, and G. L. Tyler (2009),
Structure of the Venus neutral atmosphere as observed by the Radio
Science experiment VeRa on Venus Express, J. Geophys. Res., 114,
E00B36, doi:10.1029/2008JE003204.
Titov, D. V., F. W. Taylor, N. I. Svedhem, H. Ignatiev, W. J. Markiewicz,
G. Piccioni, and P. Drossart (2008), Atmospheric structure and dynamics

E06006as the cause of ultraviolet markings in the clouds of Venus, Nature, 456,
620–623, doi:10.1038/nature07466.
Tomasko, M. G., L. R. Doose, P. H. Smith, and A. P. Odell (1980), Measurements of the flux of sunlight in the atmosphere of Venus, J. Geophys.
Res., 85, 8167–8186.
Wilson, C. F., S. Guerlet, P. G. J. Irwin, C. C. C. Tsang, F. W. Taylor,
R. W. Carlson, P. Drossart, and G. Piccioni (2008), Evidence for anomalous cloud particles at the poles of Venus, J. Geophys. Res., 113,
E00B13, doi:10.1029/2008JE003108.
Yamamoto, M., and M. Takahashi (2003), The fully developed superrotation simulated by a general circulation model of a Venus‐like atmosphere, J. Atmos. Sci., 60, 561–574.
Yamamoto, M., and M. Takahashi (2004), Dynamics of Venus’ superrotation: The eddy momentum transport processes newly found in a GCM,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L09701, doi:10.1029/2004GL019518.
Yamamoto, M., and M. Takahashi (2006), Superrotation maintained bymeridional circulation and waves in a Venus‐like AGCM, J. Atmos.
Sci., 63, 3296–3314.
Young, R. E., and J. B. Pollack (1977), A three‐dimensional model ofdynamical processes in the Venus atmosphere, J. Atmos. Sci., 34,1315–1351.
Young, R. E., and J. B. Pollack (1980), Reply, J. Atmos. Sci., 37, 253–255.
Zasova, L. V., N. I. Ignatiev, I. A. Khatuntsev, and V. Linkin (2007), Structure of the Venus atmosphere, Planet. Space Sci., 55, 1712–1728,
doi:10.1016/j.pss.2007.01.011.
Zimbelman, J. R. (1986), The role of porosity in thermal inertia variations
on basaltic lavas, Icarus, 68, 366–369.
A. Crespin, F. Forget, F. Hourdin, and S. Lebonnois, Laboratoire de
Météorologie Dynamique, UMR 8539, IPSL, UPMC, CNRS, 4 place
Jussieu, Box 99, F‐75252 Paris CEDEX 05, France. (sebastien.
lebonnois@lmd.jussieu.fr)
V. Eymet and R. Fournier, Laboratoire Plasma et Conversion del’Energie, UMR 5213, UPS, CNRS, F‐31071 Toulouse, France.

23 of 23