Jupiter's Third Red Spot 86
Jupiter's Great Red Spot, the solar system's largest (and longest-lived) storm, was joined by another in 2006, dubbed Red Spot Junior. Now a third red spot near the first two has been photographed by the Hubble space telescope. This is a storm about half the size of Earth. Here's a photo of the new storm (it's the one on the left). From New Scientist: "No one knows for sure what gives the three spots their red color. But one theory is that especially violent storms dredge up material from deeper in Jupiter's atmosphere, such as phosphorus-containing molecules, which undergo chemical reactions that turn them red when exposed to sunlight."
For shame.... (Score:4, Funny)
Nothing to worry about (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Laser Spectroscopy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The laser would probably be manufactured in the US, and sent into space.
But seriously, the laser would be aimed at Jupiter, and the reflection would be analyzed. It's done all the time. In fact, there's one due to land on Mars [marstoday.com] any day now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Fundamentally, one would project a frequency-tunable laser beam onto the Red Spot and read the "reflected" results. The different substances in the target absorb light at very specific frequencies: if a sufficiently powerful laser is used to illuminate the Red Spot (and sufficiently sensitive sensors to read the reflected results), it would be relatively simple to analyze the data and determine the composition of the cloud.
The big problem is that Jupiter is a long way away--at least 17 light-minutes, IIRC
Re: (Score:2)
Along with a sensor, you'll want a very, very high resolution telescope in order to resolve the spot from the background (assuming the spot has spread to the size of the planet... eep). Also, you probably don't want to be on the ground if you're doing IR s
Re: (Score:1)
I see that you have some expertice in Laser Spectroscopy. I have been concerned about Chemtrails for some time and thought that perhaps your technique could be used to detect the concentrations and presense of various substances being dumped into our atmosphere by the military in their admitted "weather manipulation experiments". Barrium Salts and Aluminum Oxides are reported to be in these but others suspect other payloads as well. I am running for U.S. Congress District #1 of Wisconsin. A
Re: (Score:2)
Chemtrails are a dead subject, foisted upon the well-meaning and concerned by the dishonest and delusional. I take it as given that you fall into the first two categories, but you're following a topic composed almost entirely of lies, half-truths, and sheer duplicity of a few. Even were you not running for office, I implore you to investigate the science--actual science, not the blatherings of the conspiracy theories.
However, this thread is neither
Three eyed monster (Score:5, Interesting)
What would be really, really cool is if we ever send a probe that could figure out the core of these massive gas giants. Solid iron? Molten nickel? Some weird mix of whoknowswhat?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You mean it could be made out of Hormel Spam?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
very interesting (Score:2)
Half the size of Earth? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the articles is wrong. (Score:3, Interesting)
So their problem wasn't reading too fast, it was clicking the wrong link.
earthly parallels to the Spot? (Score:5, Interesting)
Presumably Earth's atmosphere is just too thin to support weather systems of that longevity, although it's hard to think of a good scaling argument for why the size, thickness, mass et cetera of the atmosphere should dictate the scale of the duration of events in it.
But I wonder if there are parallels in ocean events, here? We have the El Nino/Nina business, the Atlantic Oscillation, and these things at least have periods near decades. Perhaps some of what we consider "permanent" features of the oceans, like the Gulf Stream, are merely "storms" like Jupiter's Red Spot that last several centuries.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
3 cheers for global warming (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Eh? From properties like size, thickness (viscosity?), mass and a few others like planetary rotation velocity it's trivial to construct lots of independent quantities with the dimension of time. So it's obvious that the duration of storms could depend on such factors.
Re: (Score:2)
Coming up with wrong but logically consistent arguments for a given conclusion is easy. That's what numerology and astrology are all about.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That if she weighs as much as a duck, then...she's made out of wood?
Re: (Score:2)
How about: "Since the first observations date to the time of the invention of that which you need to observe the phenomenon, then we have no idea when the Spot first appeared." Another way to put it is that there have been no observations of Jupiter with sufficient resolution to see the Spot in which the Spot hasn't appeared.
Re: (Score:1)
I was having a go at the other guy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which, come to think of it, argues that the storms we have in our atmosphere are really just manifestation of energy circulation in the hydrosphere. Maybe the Earth's atmosphere by itself is too small to sustain any significant weather systems at all. Maybe if there were no oceans, there'd be very little weather on the Earth.
But then again, the experience of Mars suggests otherwise. Mars has no oceans, and can gener
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the obvious differences is that the larger dusty and all sandy materials lacks surface tension, since they're not held together by attractive forces like the van der Waals forces holding a liquid together.
Another interesting differ
Re: (Score:1)
Basically, Earth's size, rotation rate, and stratification only support 1-2 jet streams, and there is a lot of variability. This variability, and the strong wave-radiative potential near the jet streams does not allow large-scale coherent structure to persist for "long" periods of time. Jupiter supports many jets having nearly fixed positions, which allows coherent material eddies to persist without disruption in the mixing layers between the jets.
Earth has similar eddies, on shorter timescales, in both
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Is that really true?
I know it's a lot of gas, and if there is a solid rocky "planet" under all that atmosphere, nobody's going to go walking around on it.
But it (naively) seems reasonable that since it managed to collect so much material that it would have gotten enough, rock, iron, etc to make a solid planet many times the size of the earth.
Is there some reason to expect that's not how it is?
It's that time... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
So, Jupiter is in for a long, dark and angsty emo adolescence?
Re: (Score:1)
Apparently Malignant (Score:1)
I blame global warming. (Score:5, Funny)
Clearly... (Score:5, Funny)
I see what YOU did there (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Global warming is occurring everywhere in the solar system due to increased solar activity.
2) This fact is completely unknown to most everybody who "believes" (as you put it) that global warming is a crisis.
3) The fact of extraterrestrial warming is glossed over entirely by scientists and media presenting information to the public because it would "damage the cause".
Your "unbiased" "scientific" mindset causes you to be ready to jump down the throats of anyone who voices a contrary opinion. It apparently has deleterious effects on the sense of humor as well.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
The GP was not humorous. It was simply insulting, and in a completely derivative way. It's like the whole Clinton blowjob thing, it's been done to death, okay? Yes, we get it, you think people who believe in global warming are stupid.
1.) Earth is warming much, much faster than other planets.
Really? How do you know this? From the multiple millions of temperature sensors on Mars? From the hundreds of years of relatively accurate Jupiter-wide temperature readings?
Oh wait, you can't know that with any accuracy.
2.) Venus isn't warming.
Venus is already unique in being by far the hottest planet. Nice way to bolster your "case" by pointing to the biggest outlier temperature-wise in the whole Solar system.
Twit.
3.) The amount of warming on Earth can not be explained by increased solar activity.
Huh? Which Earth are you living on? Sun gets hotter, Earth gets hotter.
4.) The fact is not unknown, it is accounted for, and this fact is what is not known by idiot deniers.
Ad hominem bullshit. What's that a
water is the greater greenhouse gas (Score:1)
You will change rain fall patterns, the mountains might still be as cold, but get less rain, thus the glaciers shrink, its still cold tho. They always melted, but the huge amount of new
snow kept it balanced.
So yes, the planet is warming, but its the cause thats iffy I think, is it 100% co2 based? doubt it, its not that powerful, and I bet the rain fall pattern change
is a bigger factor. Its nice to blame peoples consumptions, bu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I see what you didn't do there... (Score:5, Insightful)
2) This fact is completely unknown to most everybody who "believes" (as you put it) that global warming is a crisis.
No, it's known by a great many. It's already been studied, and accounted for, by climatologists. It's discussed frequently with regards to global warming, because increasing solar output combined with increased greenhouse gases makes the problem even worse.
Your "unbiased" "scientific" mindset causes you to be ready to jump down the throats of anyone who voices a contrary opinion.
Why yes we're ready to jump down the throats of peoples whose opinions are conceived in abject ignorance, but who insist on presenting their uneducated ignorant opinions as though it is not only equal to, but superior, to the opinions of those who have done actual science in the field. These are not the same type of opinion. Stop pretending that having this explained to you is somehow a form of censorship or a sign of just how unreasonable everyone else is.
ready to jump down a throat? (Score:1)
As someone who believes that industry has been far too wasteful of far too many things for far too many decades, I see at the whole "global warming" crusade in pretty much the same way as I see Greenpeace and Soukagakkai and Scientology.
Out of balance.
A day late and a hundred dollars short.
Barking up the wrong tree. Searching under the lamppost where they think there's light instead of in the shadows where the wallet was dropped.
Running around screaming the obvious answers instead of stopping to d
Re: (Score:1)
Do you mean "Soka Gakkai"? They have a big building across the street from a friend's condo. I was wondering what it was. From their website, they seem to be claiming to be some sort of Buddhist sect, but Eckankar claims the same thing and they're a sleazy cult (my dumbass brother and his wife were in it for some time before they went all crazy culty on them).
Re: (Score:1)
They can be pretty sleazy at times. They also happen to be the primary funding and personnel source behind the Japanese political party Kohmei-to -- komei.or.jp, unfortunately getting close to being the largest single party in Japan.
Re: (Score:2)
Why yes we're ready to jump down the throats of peoples whose opinions are conceived in abject ignorance, but who insist on presenting their uneducated ignorant opinions as though it is not only equal to, but superior, to the opinions of those who have done actual science in the field. These are not the same type of opinion. Stop pretending that having this explained to you is somehow a form of censorship or a sign of just how unreasonable everyone else is.
Care to quote some actual peer reviewed science?
I thought not.
Funny how the the "overwhelming scientific evidence" is never quoted, referenced or otherwise.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Yeah, climate scientists are just going to ignore the #1 factor that controls natural climate change when they are making their climate models. :p
The IPCC has a nice graph that shows the magnitude of various forcings on climate change. The chapter that has this is right here (pdf) [www.ipcc.ch]. Ultimately, the concensus amoung scientists are that natural solar forcing is minor compared to man-made forcings. That is not to say there isn't an effect, and certainly the observations of climate change on Jupiter and Ma
Re: (Score:2)
1) Global warming is occurring everywhere in the solar system due to increased solar activity.
2) This fact is completely unknown to most everybody who "believes" (as you put it) that global warming is a crisis.
False dichotomy.
What about people who are not convinced that global warming is man-made and still think this constitutes a crisis?
Seriously, let's assume, as you do, that this is all caused by an unexplained increase in solar activity. What if this trend is going to continue? This would mean even more pronounced climate change, which affects the viability of our civilization, or at the very least will cause localized problems. Whether or not climate change is man made is completely irrelevant.
Actually, tha
Re: (Score:2)
2. I think AGW is high on the list of several urgent global problems and I am also aware of the solar flux thing - so I put this one down as anecdotal.
3. Mass media maybe, they seem to need a target to point their finger at in just about everything. Scientists however have done no such thing - please look at this widely accepted graph [wikipedia.org] that is in line with, and easier to understand than, the IPCC findings most recently described in the 2007 IPCC [www.ipcc.ch] SPM.
BTW: IANAC and I agree the OP was humourous.
Re:I see what you did there (Score:5, Insightful)
You know you've become too partisan about an issue when you don't allow anyone to poke any fun at it.
Besides, if you somehow made the joke in the opposite direction, and put it on late-night TV along with similar jokes, it'd be called the Colbert Report and thousands of people would cheer you on and practically think you're the Second Coming.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Collision in August (Score:2, Informative)
There Goes the Neighborhood (Score:2)
First it was Mars. "Better Red and Dead!" Now it's Jupiter. Oh, it starts as just one red spot. Then, when your telescope is pointed at Saturn, another appears, then another. We're on a decline that will not be stopped.
We interrupt this rant to prevent any insipid Uranus puns.
Move along, now. Nothing to see here.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that's why we renamed it "Urectum".
Re: (Score:1)
It's the Dwellers... (Score:2)
Space art? (Score:2)
Squeeze it! (Score:2)