Red in Jupiter’s Spot Not What Astronomers Thought

[Ichingcarpenter]

The best thermal images of Jupiter’s Great Red Spot yet captured have revealed surprising weather and temperature variation within the solar system’s most famous storm.

The darkest red part of the spot turns out to be a warm patch inside the otherwise cold storm. The temperature variation is slight: “Warm” in this case translates to -250 degrees Fahrenheit while cold is an even frostier -256 degrees F. But even that difference is enough to create intriguing internal dynamics.

“This is our first detailed look inside the biggest storm of the solar system,” said Jet Propulsion Laboratory astronomer Glenn Orton, who led the new study to be published in Icarus. “We once thought the Great Red Spot was a plain old oval without much structure, but these new results show that it is, in fact, extremely complicated.”

The Red Spot has persisted since at least the late 17th century, when astronomers first saw it. If you’d seen it back then, though, you might have been “tempted to call it the great red sausage,” Orton said. “It’s shrinking slowly.” Still, it’s the solar system’s longest-lived and largest storm system, wider than three Earths.


Over the past few decades, astronomers had begun to get a handle on the weather patterns around the Great Red Spot, but not inside of it. Previous measurements have indicated that the spot towered over the surrounding cloud cover, much like supercells on Earth.

Scientists have also noticed that its color changes considerably, but what drives the changes — or the famous ruddy complexion in general — is unclear. A leading theory was that sulfurous molecules from deep in the Jovian atmosphere were being lofted by the storm, exposing them to ultraviolet radiation that would break them apart. The newly freed sulfur atoms would then change color and lend the area its distinctive tinge.

But that might not be the case. This latest work shows a clear correlation between the environmental conditions and color, but doesn’t help the scientists figure out what chemistry is actually at work, Orton said.

“This is the first time we can say that there’s an intimate link between environmental conditions — temperature, winds, pressure and composition — and the actual color of the Great Red Spot,” Orton’s collaborator, Leigh Fletcher, an Oxford astronomer added. “Although we can speculate, we still don’t know for sure which chemicals or processes are causing that deep red color, but we do know now that it is related to changes in the environmental conditions right in the heart of the storm.”



Read More http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/03/jupiter-spot/#ixzz0iQbIjjBS

[bananas]

1. That rhymes

"Red in Jupiter’s Spot,
Not What Astronomers Thot"

[Ichingcarpenter]

2. I wish Wired wouldn't use Fahrenheit for science articles

Kelvin would be more accurate since its pegged to absolute zero, Color temperature, noise figures, then Celsius

Scientist don't use Fahrenheit but I guess Americans need to know what it means to them
when salt water freezes at zero F

[bananas]

3. Time for a "six degrees of Fahrenheit" question...

followed immediately by a "six degrees of Kelvin" question...

[Orsino]

4. Kelvin is not more "accurate."

And many scientists do indeed use Fahrenheit.

[Ichingcarpenter]

5. Sure they do... snark....... but you can't go directly from Fahrenheit to Kelvin

as you can with Celsius

Kelvin is used even more that Celsius

Say you have a temperature of 80°F...
°C = (°F - 32) / (1.8)
°C = (80°F - 32 )/ 1.8
°C = (48°F) / 1.8
°C = 26.6
K = °C + 273.15
K = 26.6°C + 273.15
K = 299.75


But I guess you knew that

Kelvin is used even more than Celsius in AstroPhysics

[qazplm]

6. you cant go directly?

K=((F-32)/(1.8))+273.15

Boom I just magically created a creation that lets you go from F to K. That would take a kid about 30 seconds to do.

[Ichingcarpenter]

7. You added a two mathematical steps

that isn't direct as
K= C+ 273.15


wow..... how unnecessary but keep using F and
those miles and pints and ounces

[PhD]

16. As someone who hires many scientists and engineers

I look for people who are well versed in the English system. They can usually convert to Metric quite easily, while those raised in Metric are more than likely lost going the other way. Since much of our work builds on methods and software generated 50+ years ago, I need people who can work in the English system.

[rickford66]

8. Don't forget Rankine

Don't forget Rankine.

[whyverne]

9. And I'm glad they do.

To most people 100 degrees is hot and 0 degrees is cold. That's why we like Fahrenheit. Why the heck would we relate to when water freezes or boils or when molecular activity stops?

[conanneutron]

11. well...

32 degrees is a weird to remember number?

[Fumesucker]

12. Not exactly.. To most *Americans* 100 degrees is hot and 0 degrees is cold..

Almost the entire world now uses Celsius for all temperature measurements..

This map shows the countries that use Fahrenheit in red..

[laconicsax]

13. 100 is hot regardless of whether you use Celsius or Fahrenheit.

Similarly, 0 degrees is cold regardless. It's simply a matter of severity.

[Ian David]

14. You know who else used Celsius? HITLER!

:P

[conanneutron]

10. That's a really good point.

Fahrenheit seems like it'd be a much easier thing to switch over than most metric measurements, why the hell do we still use it?
I'm sure inertia is a motivating force there ("It's just what we use now"), but it wouldn't take long to get people used to it, it makes more sense!

[eppur_se_muova]

15. It's neither great nor red nor a spot. Discuss amongst yourselves. nt