adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: Earth as a Transiting Exoplanet: A Validation of Transmission Spectroscopy and Atmospheric Retrieval Methodologies for Terrestrial Exoplanets
Authors: Jacob Lustig-Yaeger, Victoria S. Meadows, David Crisp, Michael R. Line, Tyler D. Robinson
Figure caption: Characteristic thermal (left) and water (right) profiles of Earth’s atmosphere. The profiles are derived from satellite data and were acquired to match the dates of the EPOXI Earth flyby in 2008 (see Robinson et al. 2011). Each latitude plotted represents the globally averaged vertical profile for all HEALPix bins with the corresponding north and south latitudes.
Paper: Earth as a Transiting Exoplanet: A Validation of Transmission Spectroscopy and Atmospheric Retrieval Methodologies for Terrestrial Exoplanets
Authors: Jacob Lustig-Yaeger, Victoria S. Meadows, David Crisp, Michael R. Line, Tyler D. Robinson
Figure caption: Earth’s approximate 1D atmospheric thermal structure and composition. The temperature structure (dashed black) is shown along the top x-axis, and the gas mixing ratios are shown along the bottom x-axis, both as a function of pressure. This model is used to inform the initialization of our retrievals.
Paper: Earth as a Transiting Exoplanet: A Validation of Transmission Spectroscopy and Atmospheric Retrieval Methodologies for Terrestrial Exoplanets
Authors: Jacob Lustig-Yaeger, Victoria S. Meadows, David Crisp, Michael R. Line, Tyler D. Robinson
Figure caption: A comparison between the 6 μm O2–N2 CIA band from Moreau et al. (2001) and the 6 μm O2–O2 CIA band from HITRAN 2016 (Gordon et al. 2017). At Earth-like temperatures and pressures, the O2–N2 and O2–O2 CIA bands appear to agree in intensity, suggesting that the O2–O2 absorption coefficient can be accurately used for O2–N2.
Paper: The Second International Asteroid Warning Network Timing Campaign: 2005 LW3
Authors: Davide Farnocchia, Vishnu Reddy, James M. Bauer, Elizabeth M. Warner, Marco Micheli, Matthew J. Payne, Tony Farnham, Michael S. Kelley, Miguel R. Alarcon, Paolo Bacci, Roberto Bacci, Mauro Bachini, Kevin Baillié, Giorgio Baj, Daniel Bamberger, Anatoly P. Barkov, Stefan Beck, Guido Betti, Enrico Biancalani, Bryce T. Bolin, David Briggs, Luca Buzzi, Haowen Cheng, Eric Christensen, Alessandro Coffano, Luca Conversi, Christophe Demeautis, Larry Denneau, Josselin Desmars, Anlaug A. Djupvik, Leonid Elenin, Paolo Fini, Tobias Felber, Randy Flynn, Gianni Galli, Mikael Granvik, Bill Gray, Zuri Gray, Luca Grazzini, Werner Hasubick, Tobias Hoffmann, Robert Holmes, Marco Iozzi, Alexander L. Ivanov, Viktor A. Ivanov, Natalya V. Ivanova, Cristóvão Jacques, Hai Jiang, Zheng Jinghui, Anni Kasikov, Myung-Jin Kim, Balaji Kumar, Hee-Jae Lee, Bin Li, Jing Liu, Javier Licandro, Tyler Linder, Vadim E. Lysenkov, Martina Maestripieri, Andrea Mantero, Vladimiro Marinello, Jennie McCormick, Darrel Moon, Alessandro Nastasi, James D. Neill, Guenther Neue, Artem O. Novichonok, Francisco Ocaña, Gianpaolo Pizzetti, Anton Pomazan, Josiah N. Purdum, Christophe Ratinaud, Dong-Goo Roh, Filipp D. Romanov, Nello Ruocco, Toni Santana-Ros, Toni Scarmato, Anastasia Schmalz, Sergei Schmalz, Miquel Serra-Ricart, Clay Sherrod, Nick Sioulas, Andrea Soffiantini, Giacomo Succi, David J. Tholen, Jeppe S. Thomsen, William Thuillot, Richard Wainscoat, Guy Wells, Robert Weryk, Nikolai A. Yakovenko, Hong-Suh Yim, Chengxing Zhai
Figure caption: Geocentric and heliocentric distance (top left), solar elongation and phase angle (top right), plane-of-sky rate of motion (bottom left), and V-band magnitude (bottom right) of 2005 LW3 as a function of time. The vertical lines correspond to the times of perihelion and closest approach to Earth.
Paper: The Second International Asteroid Warning Network Timing Campaign: 2005 LW3
Authors: Davide Farnocchia, Vishnu Reddy, James M. Bauer, Elizabeth M. Warner, Marco Micheli, Matthew J. Payne, Tony Farnham, Michael S. Kelley, Miguel R. Alarcon, Paolo Bacci, Roberto Bacci, Mauro Bachini, Kevin Baillié, Giorgio Baj, Daniel Bamberger, Anatoly P. Barkov, Stefan Beck, Guido Betti, Enrico Biancalani, Bryce T. Bolin, David Briggs, Luca Buzzi, Haowen Cheng, Eric Christensen, Alessandro Coffano, Luca Conversi, Christophe Demeautis, Larry Denneau, Josselin Desmars, Anlaug A. Djupvik, Leonid Elenin, Paolo Fini, Tobias Felber, Randy Flynn, Gianni Galli, Mikael Granvik, Bill Gray, Zuri Gray, Luca Grazzini, Werner Hasubick, Tobias Hoffmann, Robert Holmes, Marco Iozzi, Alexander L. Ivanov, Viktor A. Ivanov, Natalya V. Ivanova, Cristóvão Jacques, Hai Jiang, Zheng Jinghui, Anni Kasikov, Myung-Jin Kim, Balaji Kumar, Hee-Jae Lee, Bin Li, Jing Liu, Javier Licandro, Tyler Linder, Vadim E. Lysenkov, Martina Maestripieri, Andrea Mantero, Vladimiro Marinello, Jennie McCormick, Darrel Moon, Alessandro Nastasi, James D. Neill, Guenther Neue, Artem O. Novichonok, Francisco Ocaña, Gianpaolo Pizzetti, Anton Pomazan, Josiah N. Purdum, Christophe Ratinaud, Dong-Goo Roh, Filipp D. Romanov, Nello Ruocco, Toni Santana-Ros, Toni Scarmato, Anastasia Schmalz, Sergei Schmalz, Miquel Serra-Ricart, Clay Sherrod, Nick Sioulas, Andrea Soffiantini, Giacomo Succi, David J. Tholen, Jeppe S. Thomsen, William Thuillot, Richard Wainscoat, Guy Wells, Robert Weryk, Nikolai A. Yakovenko, Hong-Suh Yim, Chengxing Zhai
Figure caption: R.A. and decl. of 2005 LW3 as a function of time. The thickness of the line is related to the brightness of the object.
Paper: The Second International Asteroid Warning Network Timing Campaign: 2005 LW3
Authors: Davide Farnocchia, Vishnu Reddy, James M. Bauer, Elizabeth M. Warner, Marco Micheli, Matthew J. Payne, Tony Farnham, Michael S. Kelley, Miguel R. Alarcon, Paolo Bacci, Roberto Bacci, Mauro Bachini, Kevin Baillié, Giorgio Baj, Daniel Bamberger, Anatoly P. Barkov, Stefan Beck, Guido Betti, Enrico Biancalani, Bryce T. Bolin, David Briggs, Luca Buzzi, Haowen Cheng, Eric Christensen, Alessandro Coffano, Luca Conversi, Christophe Demeautis, Larry Denneau, Josselin Desmars, Anlaug A. Djupvik, Leonid Elenin, Paolo Fini, Tobias Felber, Randy Flynn, Gianni Galli, Mikael Granvik, Bill Gray, Zuri Gray, Luca Grazzini, Werner Hasubick, Tobias Hoffmann, Robert Holmes, Marco Iozzi, Alexander L. Ivanov, Viktor A. Ivanov, Natalya V. Ivanova, Cristóvão Jacques, Hai Jiang, Zheng Jinghui, Anni Kasikov, Myung-Jin Kim, Balaji Kumar, Hee-Jae Lee, Bin Li, Jing Liu, Javier Licandro, Tyler Linder, Vadim E. Lysenkov, Martina Maestripieri, Andrea Mantero, Vladimiro Marinello, Jennie McCormick, Darrel Moon, Alessandro Nastasi, James D. Neill, Guenther Neue, Artem O. Novichonok, Francisco Ocaña, Gianpaolo Pizzetti, Anton Pomazan, Josiah N. Purdum, Christophe Ratinaud, Dong-Goo Roh, Filipp D. Romanov, Nello Ruocco, Toni Santana-Ros, Toni Scarmato, Anastasia Schmalz, Sergei Schmalz, Miquel Serra-Ricart, Clay Sherrod, Nick Sioulas, Andrea Soffiantini, Giacomo Succi, David J. Tholen, Jeppe S. Thomsen, William Thuillot, Richard Wainscoat, Guy Wells, Robert Weryk, Nikolai A. Yakovenko, Hong-Suh Yim, Chengxing Zhai
Figure caption: Locations of the 82 ground-based observation sites that participated in the campaign.
Paper: Material around the Centaur (2060) Chiron from the 2018 November 28 UT Stellar Occultation
Authors: Amanda A. Sickafoose, Stephen E. Levine, Amanda S. Bosh, Michael J. Person, Carlos A. Zuluaga, Bastian Knieling, Mark C. Lewis, Karsten Schindler
Figure caption: Example images from the 74- and 40-inch telescope data cubes. (Left) The 74-inch data, taken at 2-Hz cadence. The occultation star is the bright source, and a single, faint comparison (G = 18.7) is detectable just above the noise to the NE. (Right) The 40-inch data, taken at 0.67-Hz cadence. The occultation star and a bright comparison star are labeled.
Paper: Material around the Centaur (2060) Chiron from the 2018 November 28 UT Stellar Occultation
Authors: Amanda A. Sickafoose, Stephen E. Levine, Amanda S. Bosh, Michael J. Person, Carlos A. Zuluaga, Bastian Knieling, Mark C. Lewis, Karsten Schindler
Figure caption: Diffraction model fits to the 3σ drops in the 74 inch light curve. Dots represent data points, and lines represent the best-fit models. The black lines are the diffraction models at high time resolution, and the red lines represent the model fits at the sampling rate of the data set. Overlapping features were fit simultaneously.
Paper: Material around the Centaur (2060) Chiron from the 2018 November 28 UT Stellar Occultation
Authors: Amanda A. Sickafoose, Stephen E. Levine, Amanda S. Bosh, Michael J. Person, Carlos A. Zuluaga, Bastian Knieling, Mark C. Lewis, Karsten Schindler
Figure caption: Diffraction model fit to the 74-inch data for immersion (left) and emersion (right). Data are shown as black dots. The best-fit models are shown as dashed green, solid red, and dotted blue lines for 10, 50, and 100 km scale heights, respectively. The models are very similar, with a slightly larger diffraction spike on emersion for the 10 km scale height (consistent with the lowest bending parameter, b, for this case in Table 2).
Paper: Material around the Centaur (2060) Chiron from the 2018 November 28 UT Stellar Occultation
Authors: Amanda A. Sickafoose, Stephen E. Levine, Amanda S. Bosh, Michael J. Person, Carlos A. Zuluaga, Bastian Knieling, Mark C. Lewis, Karsten Schindler
Figure caption: Light curve for the comparison star in the 40-inch data set. The dotted–dashed line indicates the level of 3σ drops from the baseline. The solid line shows the spatial extent of the occultation features discussed in this work.
Paper: Material around the Centaur (2060) Chiron from the 2018 November 28 UT Stellar Occultation
Authors: Amanda A. Sickafoose, Stephen E. Levine, Amanda S. Bosh, Michael J. Person, Carlos A. Zuluaga, Bastian Knieling, Mark C. Lewis, Karsten Schindler
Figure caption: The predicted shadow path for the 2018 November 28 UT Chiron occultation. The solid black lines indicate the northern, center, and southern extent of the shadow path with 3σ error bars as dashed lines. Chiron’s shadow was assumed to be 108 km in radius for this prediction.
Paper: Material around the Centaur (2060) Chiron from the 2018 November 28 UT Stellar Occultation
Authors: Amanda A. Sickafoose, Stephen E. Levine, Amanda S. Bosh, Michael J. Person, Carlos A. Zuluaga, Bastian Knieling, Mark C. Lewis, Karsten Schindler
Figure caption: Light curves from the (top) 74-inch and (bottom) 40-inch SAAO telescopes. The portion near the occultation by Chiron’s nucleus is shown in more detail in Figures 5 and 6, with significant flux drops highlighted in Figure 7.(The data used to create this figure are available.)
Paper: Material around the Centaur (2060) Chiron from the 2018 November 28 UT Stellar Occultation
Authors: Amanda A. Sickafoose, Stephen E. Levine, Amanda S. Bosh, Michael J. Person, Carlos A. Zuluaga, Bastian Knieling, Mark C. Lewis, Karsten Schindler
Figure caption: Sky-plane projection of Chiron at the time of the occultation, along with the nominal location of the observed chord and the proposed rings. Chiron's orientation is that of the preferred ring-plane pole from Ortiz et al. (2015), and the chord has a closest approach of 50 km calculated from assuming a spherical nucleus with a radius of 105 km (following Lellouch et al. 2017) and using the ingress and egress times in Table 2. The thick black line, which appears continuous at this resolution, is a plot of individual black dots that each represent one image taken using the 74-inch telescope. Large red dots indicate locations where the light-curve data deviate by 3σ or more below the baseline, with the chord going behind the solid nucleus in this plot. Solid gray ellipses represent the two most prominent dips from Sickafoose et al. (2020), while the dotted gray ellipse represents the ring location and width from Ortiz et al. (2015).
Paper: Material around the Centaur (2060) Chiron from the 2018 November 28 UT Stellar Occultation
Authors: Amanda A. Sickafoose, Stephen E. Levine, Amanda S. Bosh, Michael J. Person, Carlos A. Zuluaga, Bastian Knieling, Mark C. Lewis, Karsten Schindler
Figure caption: Sky-plane projections of Chiron at the time of the 2018 occultation, along with the location of the observed chord for different ring-pole positions and closest approaches. The black and gray lines, which appear continous at this resolution, are plots of individual dots that each represents one image taken using the 74-inch telescope. Large red and pink dots indicate locations where the light-curve data deviate by 3σ or more below the baseline, with the chord going behind the solid nucleus in these plots. (Left) Range of ring-pole positions based on the errors on ecliptic latitude and longitude for the preferred solution in Ortiz et al. (2015). The solid gray ellipse represents the ring location for the preferred pole position (the pole indicated by a black arrow, as shown in Figure 4). Dotted gray ellipses indicate the different ring locations for the extremes of the ring-pole error bars (the poles indicated by gray arrows). The chords are plotted with closest-approach distances of ±10 km from the nominal 50 km solution, and each data point is plotted in gray with the significant light-curve deviations represented in pink. (Right) The best-fit triaxial shape for Chiron’s nucleus from Braga-Ribas et al. (2023) with the updated nominal ring-pole position (not including errors) and ring concentrations (including errors) from Ortiz et al. (2023). The chord is plotted in black and red for the nominal closest approach, with gray and pink for closest approaches of ±10 km.
Paper: Material around the Centaur (2060) Chiron from the 2018 November 28 UT Stellar Occultation
Authors: Amanda A. Sickafoose, Stephen E. Levine, Amanda S. Bosh, Michael J. Person, Carlos A. Zuluaga, Bastian Knieling, Mark C. Lewis, Karsten Schindler
Figure caption: Test for symmetric features. The immersion (gray) and emersion (black) portions of the light curves are overlaid to check for features that are symmetric on either side of the nucleus. The overlay is centered on the image closest to the fitted midtime. Dashed lines are provided at the locations of all data points that are 3σ or more below the baseline. (top) Data with respect to distance in the sky plane. (Middle) Data with respect to distance in the nominal ring plane, with the preferred ring-orbital pole from Ortiz et al. (2015). In both panels, data from the 74-inch telescope are shown on the top, and data from the 40-inch telescope are shown on the bottom. No significant features were detected in the 40-inch data. (Bottom) Example alternative geometries for the 74-inch data set; data with respect to the ring plane for the extremes of the ring-orbital pole errors in Ortiz et al. (2015). In order for the nucleus immersion and emersion to align in this panel, the closest-approach (CA) value was adjusted from the nominal value to the values given in the plot.
Paper: Strong Tidal Dissipation at Uranus?
Authors: Francis Nimmo
Figure caption: Orbital evolution of Miranda and Ariel assuming Q = 1800 at the present day. Dashed lines assume Q stays constant and uses the semimajor axis evolution equation in Murray & Dermott (1999). Solid and dotted lines assume Q increases going back in time according to the resonance-locking hypothesis (Fuller et al. 2016), using the equations of Nimmo et al. (2018); dotted lines are used to denote increasing uncertainty in orbits at earlier times (see text).
Paper: Strong Tidal Dissipation at Uranus?
Authors: Francis Nimmo
Figure caption: Equilibrium tidal heat flux as a function of Q calculated using Equation (1) for four different past MMRs (see Table 1). The brown box indicates the geologically inferred heat fluxes.
Paper: Early Water Delivery to Terrestrial Planet Regions during the Stages of Jupiter’s Formation and Migration in the Grand Tack Model
Authors: Masahiro Ogihara, Hidenori Genda, Yasuhito Sekine
Figure caption: The amount of water delivered into the region of a < 2 au during the growth phase of Jupiter in each simulation. The initial water mass fraction of the planetesimal is the value described in Section 2. Three runs were performed in each setting. Squares represent results for higher-resolution simulations.
Paper: Early Water Delivery to Terrestrial Planet Regions during the Stages of Jupiter’s Formation and Migration in the Grand Tack Model
Authors: Masahiro Ogihara, Hidenori Genda, Yasuhito Sekine
Figure caption: Snapshots of the system during the growth phase. Jupiter grows at 3.5 au on a timescale of 1 Myr, and the size of the planetesimal is assumed to be 50 km. The colors represent the water mass fraction of objects other than Jupiter. The water content of the initial planetesimals is described in Section 2. Notably, as Jupiter grows, the surrounding planetesimals are scattered, which contributes to the material mixing.
Paper: Early Water Delivery to Terrestrial Planet Regions during the Stages of Jupiter’s Formation and Migration in the Grand Tack Model
Authors: Masahiro Ogihara, Hidenori Genda, Yasuhito Sekine
Figure caption: Same as Figure 1, but for different parameters. (a) The planetesimal is 5 km in size, and the eccentricity damping is strong. (b) The planetesimal is 500 km in size, and the eccentricity damping is weak. (c) Jupiter is in rapid growth with envelope accretion on a timescale of about 0.1 Myr. The planetesimal is 50 km in size.
Paper: Early Water Delivery to Terrestrial Planet Regions during the Stages of Jupiter’s Formation and Migration in the Grand Tack Model
Authors: Masahiro Ogihara, Hidenori Genda, Yasuhito Sekine
Figure caption: Snapshots of the system during the migration phase. Jupiter moves inward and outward according to the Grand Tack model. (a) Our fiducial setting with a planetesimal of 50 km in size. (b) The planetesimal is 5 km in size.
Paper: Early Water Delivery to Terrestrial Planet Regions during the Stages of Jupiter’s Formation and Migration in the Grand Tack Model
Authors: Masahiro Ogihara, Hidenori Genda, Yasuhito Sekine
Figure caption: Fraction of planetesimals that were originally in each orbit and delivered into the region of a < 2 au at the end of simulation (t = 2 Myr). Blue symbols indicate runs for fiducial Jupiter growth, while orange symbols indicate Jupiter’s rapid growth. Error bars represent standard deviations. The dashed gray line shows a fitted equation to all results except for R = 5 km.
Paper: Early Water Delivery to Terrestrial Planet Regions during the Stages of Jupiter’s Formation and Migration in the Grand Tack Model
Authors: Masahiro Ogihara, Hidenori Genda, Yasuhito Sekine
Figure caption: Same as Figure 2, but the total amount of water delivered into the region of a < 2 au during the growth and migration phase of Jupiter.
Paper: Early Water Delivery to Terrestrial Planet Regions during the Stages of Jupiter’s Formation and Migration in the Grand Tack Model
Authors: Masahiro Ogihara, Hidenori Genda, Yasuhito Sekine
Figure caption: Cumulative amount of water delivered to protoplanets as a function of mass of protoplanets for our typical run until t = 2 Myr. Identical protoplanets are connected by lines. The initial water mass fraction of the planetesimal is the value described in Section 2. Protoplanets initially contain no water.
Paper: Early Water Delivery to Terrestrial Planet Regions during the Stages of Jupiter’s Formation and Migration in the Grand Tack Model
Authors: Masahiro Ogihara, Hidenori Genda, Yasuhito Sekine
Figure caption: The mass fraction of material originating from the outer region (CC materials) among the planetesimals within Jupiter’s orbit (a = 3.5 au) at the end of Jupiter’s growth phase (t = 1 Myr). The materials initially inside and outside of Jupiter’s orbit are called NC and CC materials, respectively. Squares represent results for higher-resolution simulations.
Paper: Early Water Delivery to Terrestrial Planet Regions during the Stages of Jupiter’s Formation and Migration in the Grand Tack Model
Authors: Masahiro Ogihara, Hidenori Genda, Yasuhito Sekine
Figure caption: Snapshots of the system during the growth and migration phases in a case with Saturn. Jupiter and Saturn grow on a timescale of 1 Myr and move inward and outward according to the Grand Tack model.
Paper: Early Water Delivery to Terrestrial Planet Regions during the Stages of Jupiter’s Formation and Migration in the Grand Tack Model
Authors: Masahiro Ogihara, Hidenori Genda, Yasuhito Sekine
Figure caption: Same as Figure 6, but for the case with Saturn. Three runs of simulations are summarized.
Paper: Early Water Delivery to Terrestrial Planet Regions during the Stages of Jupiter’s Formation and Migration in the Grand Tack Model
Authors: Masahiro Ogihara, Hidenori Genda, Yasuhito Sekine
Figure caption: The amount of water delivered into the region of a < 2 au until t = 2 Myr (blue) and t = 10 Myr (orange) for the fiducial case, corresponding to blue circles in Figure 5. Diamonds represent the amount of water accreted on embryos, and crosses represent the amount of water present as planetesimals.
Paper: Early Water Delivery to Terrestrial Planet Regions during the Stages of Jupiter’s Formation and Migration in the Grand Tack Model
Authors: Masahiro Ogihara, Hidenori Genda, Yasuhito Sekine
Figure caption: Same as Figure 7, but for the case with Saturn.
Paper: Moist Convection Is Most Vigorous at Intermediate Atmospheric Humidity
Authors: Jacob T. Seeley, Robin D. Wordsworth
Figure caption: Metrics of actual convective vigor for the (a) EarthTemp, (b) EarthPressure, and (c) Titan experiments. The metric w max refers to the maximum tropospheric value of the profile of mean updraft velocity (diamond markers) or the profile of the 99.9th percentile of vertical velocity at each altitude (circle markers). In each panel, the location on the x-axis with maximum CAPE is marked by the triangle at the top of the plot. In panel (a), the black open circles and black open squares show ﹩{w}_{\max }^{99.9}﹩ from the simulations at 275, 325, and 355 K with high resolution (EarthTemp_hr) and with interactive clear-sky radiation (EarthTemp_realrad), respectively. Note that panel (c) has a different y-axis limit than panels (a) and (b).
Paper: Moist Convection Is Most Vigorous at Intermediate Atmospheric Humidity
Authors: Jacob T. Seeley, Robin D. Wordsworth
Figure caption: (a) Temperature profiles of the environment (dashed) and adiabatically lifted near-surface parcels (solid) from the EarthTemp experiment; the area between these two profiles is shaded where the parcel is warmer than the environment. For visual clarity, a subset of surface temperature cases are plotted, and the environmental temperature profile is only plotted where it is cooler than the adiabatic parcel. (b) Convective available potential energy (CAPE), defined as the vertically integrated positive buoyancy of the lifted parcels whose temperature profiles are shown in panel (a). The condensate mass fraction in the lifted parcels was subjected to an exponential-decay sink term with a vertical length scale of L = 5 km; see Figure B1 for the effect of different condensate fallout assumptions.
Paper: Moist Convection Is Most Vigorous at Intermediate Atmospheric Humidity
Authors: Jacob T. Seeley, Robin D. Wordsworth
Figure caption: The effect of varying condensate fallout assumptions on parcel lifting calculations for computation of CAPE. The condensed water mass fraction is assumed to have a sink term due to fallout that manifests as an exponential decay with height, on a length scale L, during each discrete lifting step. The main text figures use L = 5 km, but here we also show the cases L → 0 (pseudo-adiabatic), L = 25 km, and L → ∞ (reversible). In all cases there is a peak in CAPE.