Paper detail

The Need for Laboratory Work to Aid in The Understanding of Exoplanetary Atmospheres

Advancements in our understanding of exoplanetary atmospheres, from massive gas giants down to rocky worlds, depend on the constructive challenges between observations and models. We are now on a clear trajectory for improvements in exoplanet observations that will revolutionize our ability to characterize the atmospheric structure, composition, and circulation of these worlds. These improvements stem from significant investments in new missions and facilities, such as JWST and the several planned ground-based extremely large telescopes. However, while exoplanet science currently has a wide range of sophisticated models that can be applied to the tide of forthcoming observations, the trajectory for preparing these models for the upcoming observational challenges is unclear. Thus, our ability to maximize the insights gained from the next generation of observatories is not certain. In many cases, uncertainties in a path towards model advancement stems from insufficiencies in the laboratory data that serve as critical inputs to atmospheric physical and chemical tools. We outline a number of areas where laboratory or ab initio investigations could fill critical gaps in our ability to model exoplanet atmospheric opacities, clouds, and chemistry. Specifically highlighted are needs for: (1) molecular opacity linelists with parameters for a diversity of broadening gases, (2) extended databases for collision-induced absorption and dimer opacities, (3) high spectral resolution opacity data for relevant molecular species, (4) laboratory studies of haze and condensate formation and optical properties, (5) significantly expanded databases of chemical reaction rates, and (6) measurements of gas photo-absorption cross sections at high temperatures. We hope that by meeting these needs, we can make the next two decades of exoplanet science as productive and insightful as the previous two decades. (abr)

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access34 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.