A comparison of chemistry and dust cloud formation in ultracool dwarf model atmospheres

TL;DR

This paper compares five cloud models in ultracool dwarf atmospheres to understand their differences and impacts on spectral predictions, highlighting uncertainties in modeling and observational implications.

Contribution

It provides an objective comparison of various cloud models in ultracool dwarf atmospheres, clarifying their similarities, differences, and effects on spectral features.

Findings

Models agree on global cloud structure but differ in details like grain size and dust amount.

Uncertainty in predicted magnitudes ranges from 0.1 to 1.375 across filters.

UKIRT WFCAM presents the greatest challenge for model accuracy.

Abstract

The atmospheres of substellar objects contain clouds of oxides, iron, silicates, and other refractory condensates. Water clouds are expected in the coolest objects. The opacity of these `dust' clouds strongly affects both the atmospheric temperature-pressure profile and the emergent flux. Thus any attempt to model the spectra of these atmospheres must incorporate a cloud model. However the diversity of cloud models in atmospheric simulations is large and it is not always clear how the underlying physics of the various models compare. Likewise the observational consequences of different modeling approaches can be masked by other model differences, making objective comparisons challenging. In order to clarify the current state of the modeling approaches, this paper compares five different cloud models in two sets of tests. Test case 1 tests the dust cloud models for a prescribed L, L--T, and T-dwarf atmospheric (temperature T, pressure p, convective velocity vconv)-structures. Test case 2 compares complete model atmosphere results for given (effective temperature Teff, surface gravity log g). All models agree on the global cloud structure but differ in opacity-relevant details like grain size, amount of dust, dust and gas-phase composition. Comparisons of synthetic photometric fluxes translate into an modelling uncertainty in apparent magnitudes for our L-dwarf (T-dwarf) test case of 0.25 < \Delta m < 0.875 (0.1 < \Delta m M 1.375) taking into account the 2MASS, the UKIRT WFCAM, the Spitzer IRAC, and VLT VISIR filters with UKIRT WFCAM being the most challenging for the models. (abr.)