The vorticity is shown in polar view at the level in the model that corresponds roughly to the estimated level of the cloud tops from which the observed flow is inferred (0.75 bar). Coherent cyclones are recognizable in the simulation, similar to those observed by the Juno mission in 2016. [See Liu and Schneider (2010) for a discussion of these vortices.]
The zonal velocity is shown at the level in the model that corresponds roughly to the estimated level of the cloud tops from which the observed flow is inferred (0.75 bar). Clearly recognizable is the prograde (superrotating) equatorial jet and alternating off-equatorial jets. Their strengths and widths depend on observationally poorly constrained drag parameters (Liu and Schneider 2015). Also recognizable are Rossby wave packets especially on the equatorial jet, with retrograde propagation and phase lines that have the characteristic chevron shape indicating angular momentum transport into the jet, as is observed to occur.
The zonal velocity is shown at the level in the model that corresponds roughly to the estimated level of the cloud tops from which the observed flow is inferred (0.1 bar). As in the Jupiter simulation, a prograde (superrotating) equatorial jet and alternating off-equatorial jets are clearly recognizable, as are large Rossby wave packets. As observed, the jets are stronger and wider in the Saturn than in the Jupiter simulation, especially near the equator.
The vorticity is shown in polar view at the level in the model that corresponds roughly to the estimated level of the cloud tops from which the observed flow is inferred (0.1 bar). As in the Jupiter simulation, coherent vortices (the largest being cyclones) are visibly in the polar regions. The polar jet exhibits polygonal (wavenumber 8 and 9) undulations that are reminiscent of the wavenumber-6 “polar hexagon” observed on Saturn. Indeed, the simulations spontaneously produce similar hexagonal polar jets when the drag at the lower boundary is slightly lowered.
