adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: Thermal Inertia Controls on Titan’s Surface Temperature and Planetary Boundary Layer Structure
Authors: Sooman Han, Juan M. Lora
Figure caption: Diurnal variations in boundary layer depth for the four simulation cases. The left panels for each case show the diurnal evolution of potential-temperature profiles at 9:00 AM, 12:00 PM, and 3:00 PM local solar time (blue) and at 12:00 AM (purple), compared with the Huygens profile obtained at approximately 10:00 AM (M. Fulchignoni et al. 2005). The middle panels display the temperature diffusion tendency predicted by the model’s PBL parameterization, with arrows indicating the profiles at 9:00 AM, 12:00 PM, and 3:00 PM, corresponding to the inflection points in the left panels. The right panels show the mean composite evolution of PBL depth, averaged over 30 Titan days during midsummer (Ls = 290°–305°), with smoothing applied to highlight the diurnal amplitude. The mean curve is shown as a thick line, and individual days are shown as thin lines. The PBL height is diagnosed as the altitude of the model layer where the vertical diffusion coefficient first drops below a threshold of 0.01 m2 s−1, which approximately corresponds to the inflection point of the potential temperature profile in the boundary layer parameterization in TAM.
Paper: Thermal Inertia Controls on Titan’s Surface Temperature and Planetary Boundary Layer Structure
Authors: Sooman Han, Juan M. Lora
Figure caption: Zonal and meridional wind profiles at the model grid point nearest the Huygens landing site for the four simulation cases compared with Huygens probe observations (M. K. Bird et al. 2005; E. Karkoschka 2016). Positive values in the zonal and meridional directions correspond to eastward and northward motions, respectively. Solid blue lines indicate seasonal mean profiles, averaged over 30 Titan days during midsummer in the final simulation year. Shaded regions denote the 3rd–97th percentile range of simulated winds.
Paper: Thermal Inertia Controls on Titan’s Surface Temperature and Planetary Boundary Layer Structure
Authors: Sooman Han, Juan M. Lora
Figure caption: Seasonal variations of PBL depth for four simulation cases. The left panels show global zonal-mean fields, averaged over 10 Titan years; the right panels show the composite evolution of PBL depth, also averaged over 10 Titan years and smoothed to emphasize the seasonal amplitude. The mean curve is shown as a thick line, and individual years are shown as thin lines.
Paper: Thermal Inertia Controls on Titan’s Surface Temperature and Planetary Boundary Layer Structure
Authors: Sooman Han, Juan M. Lora
Figure caption: Similar to Figure 1, but for the model grid point nearest the planned Dragonfly landing site (161.8°E, 3.7°N), rather than the Huygens landing site. For Case 4, the dunes terrain type, with a thermal inertia of I = 236 TIU, is assumed at the surface (S. M. MacKenzie et al. 2019).
Paper: Thermal Inertia Controls on Titan’s Surface Temperature and Planetary Boundary Layer Structure
Authors: Sooman Han, Juan M. Lora
Figure caption: Global seasonal mean maps of diagnosed PBL depth for four distinct seasons, based on simulations with a spatially varying thermal inertia map (Case 4). (a) Southern spring, averaged over Ls = 200°–215°; (b) southern summer, Ls = 290°–305°; (c) southern fall, Ls = 20°–35°; and (d) southern winter, Ls = 110°–125°.
Paper: Thermal Inertia Controls on Titan’s Surface Temperature and Planetary Boundary Layer Structure
Authors: Sooman Han, Juan M. Lora
Figure caption: Similar to Figure 5, but for the model grid point nearest the planned Dragonfly landing site, rather than the Huygens landing site.
Paper: Thermal Inertia Controls on Titan’s Surface Temperature and Planetary Boundary Layer Structure
Authors: Sooman Han, Juan M. Lora
Figure caption: Similar to Figure 7, but for the model grid point nearest the planned Dragonfly landing site, rather than the Huygens landing site.
Paper: Thermal Inertia Controls on Titan’s Surface Temperature and Planetary Boundary Layer Structure
Authors: Sooman Han, Juan M. Lora
Figure caption: Similar to Figure 4, but for the model grid point nearest the planned Dragonfly landing site, rather than the Huygens landing site.
Paper: The Ongoing Decline in Activity of Comet 103P/Hartley 2
Authors: Ariel Graykowski, Guillaume Langin, David Chiron, Bruno Guillet, Franck Marchis, Nicolas Biver, Gérard Arlic, Bernard Baudouin, Etienne Bertrand, Randall Blake, Cyrille Bosquet, John K. Bradley, Isabelle Brocard, Christophe Cac, Alain Cagna, Nicolas Castel, Eric Chariot, Olivier Clerget, Tom Coarrase, Lucas Cogniaux, Julien Collot, Christophe Coté, Michel Deconinck, Jean-Paul Desgrees, Josselin Desmars, Giuseppe Di Tommaso, José Donas, William Drapeaud, Todd Forrester, Florent Fremont, Keiichi Fukui, Paul Garde, Jérôme Gaudilliere, Pascal Gaudin, Alexis Giacomoni, David Gineste, Patrice Girard, Jean Claude Gomez, Chuck Goodman, Gerard-Philippe Grandjean, Philippe Guiglion, David Havell, Patrick Huth, Kachi Iwai, Marc-Etienne Julien, Rachel Knight, Ryuichi Kukita, Petri Kuossari, Jean-Michel Ladruze, Anis Ben Lassoued, Cédric Latgé, Jean-Marie Laugier, Matthieu Lauvernier, Patrice Le Guen, Jean-Charles Le Tarnec, Didier Lefoulon, Liouba Leroux, Niniane Leroux, Arnaud Leroy, Chelsey Logan, Yohann Lorand, Elisabeth Maris, Jean-Pierre Masini, Nicola Meneghelli, Laurent Millart, Eric Miny, Mike Mitchell, Baptiste Montoya, Fabrice Mortecrette, Anouchka Nardi, Antoine Ngo, Denis Nicolas, Raphael Nicollerat, Takaya Okada, Wataru Ono, George Patatoukas, Jacqueline Payet-Ayrault, Patrick Picard, Claude Porchel, Kanai Potts, Michel Quienen, Martial Relier, Fabien Richardot, Darren Rivett, Matthew Ryno, Fadi Saibi, Sophie Saibi, Christian Sartini, Hiromichi Sasaki, Philippe Seibert, Masao Shimizu, Lucas Sifoni, Georges Simard, Petri Tikkanen, Ian Transom, Bernard Tregon, Frank Tyrlik, Laurent Vadrot, Michel Veuillet, Christian Voirol, Stefan Will, Corine Yahia, Phil Yehle, Neil Yoblonsky, Wai-Chun Yue
Figure caption: Lightcurves of Comet 103P/Hartley 2 from each observable apparition since 1991. Panels (A)–(C) show the fitted lightcurve (blue) over COBS data (gray). Panel (D) shows the lightcurve (blue) fitted only to AFA and Unistellar data (red and blue, respectively), which aligns well with COBS data (gray). In all panels, reduced magnitudes are shown in green. The minimum apparent magnitude, ﹩{m}_{{G}_{{\rm{\min }}}}﹩, is derived from the fit, and ﹩{G}_{{\rm{\min }}}﹩ is the corresponding reduced magnitude. The greater scatter and uncertainties in 2023 reflect the crowded star field during that apparition.