Why does Jupiter have a Great Red Spot?

Another quirk about the GRS is why is it we don't have another one in the northern hemisphere of Jupiter? Neil Degrasse Tyson brings that up, and points to the Great Dark Spot on Neptune being the same way. Saturn's hexagon is another example of gaseous planet nuttiness. I'm wondering if the fact that we are really talking more about a fluid than a gas on these huge cold planets that there are factors there that introduce novel variables not seen on the rocky planets. Guess we still have much to learn.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wow..I had no idea you'd quote that exact same article by Tyson.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course we have much to learn....and I totally agree with regards to a planetary atmosphere acting like a liquid, especially with a fast spin rate and coriolis effect.
With Jupiter, the possibility of hydrogen being a metallic liquid, may also have some bearing.
But as I said, with the red spot, we have a reasonable idea.
It's also been noted that the red spot has shrunk in size, and wind speeds have increased.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

paddoboy, since you are 'Glad to be of assistance' in...whatever it is that you think or believe your conduct in this Thread(and on this Forum!) is accomplishing...then I will "assist" you in that endeavor.

The following is a "quote" of an article by Jerry Coffey, titled "Does Jupiter Have a Solid Core?", I took the liberty to Bold some pertinent passages so that you may be able to glean some important points from the article :

- the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.universetoday.com/14470/does-jupiter-have-a-solid-core/

Since, according to you, paddoboy, my own 'ability to interpret properly is non existent', I thought that just maybe the other Readers and Members of SciForums could read and interpret what is actually stated so that they could make their own interpretation of the article.

I leave this Thread to you, paddoboy.

 

Again dmoe, you can highlight to your hearts content, keep avoiding to comment on what I have actually said, misinterpret anything that you imagine throws a bad light on me, and continue whatever it is that drives you....I really don't care, other then to continue to operate to the best of my ability for science, particularly astronomy and cosmology.
That will continue.

Once again, it is part of accepted planetary formation theory, that the gaseous and icy giants should have a rocky core. In the case of Jupiter, that core is most probably surrounded by liquid metallic hydrogen.
That core is also probably larger then the planet Earth.
I will wait anxiously for the JUNO data to return and keep up with any changes in planetary formation that could be a result of any new positive findings.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Generally accepted theory holds that it consists of a dense core made of a mixture of elements, the core is thought to be surrounded by a layer of liquid metallic hydrogen and helium, then the outer layer is proposed to be dominated by molecular hydrogen. The core is often speculated to be rocky. It wasn’t until 1997 that the existence of the core was even theorized.
. The presence of a planetary core follows accepted knowledge of planetary formation. According to this knowledge base, Jupiter would have had to form a rocky or icy core with enough mass in order to capture such a high percentage of gasses from the early solar nebula.
Scientists admit that the planet may lack a core at this time due to the high heat and as hot liquid metallic hydrogen mixed with the molten core, carrying it to higher levels of the planet’s interior.
http://www.universetoday.com/14470/does-jupiter-have-a-solid-core/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jupiter's rocky core bigger and icier, model predicts
By Robert Sanders, Media Relations | 25 November 2008

BERKELEY — Jupiter has a rocky core that is more than twice as large as previously thought, according to computer calculations by a University of California, Berkeley, geophysicist who simulated conditions inside the planet on the scale of individual hydrogen and helium atoms.
The simulation suggests that the core is made of layers of metals, rocks and ices of methane, ammonia and water, while above it is an atmosphere of mostly hydrogen and helium. At the center of the rocky core is probably a metallic ball of iron and nickel, just like Earth's core.

"Our simulations show there is a big rocky object in the center surrounded by an ice layer and hardly any ice elsewhere in the planet,
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/11/25_core.shtml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On November 22, 2011, planetary scientists revealed in a pre-print that new calculations indicate that Jupiter's rocky core has been dissolving under the tremendous pressure of overlying mass since its creation some 4.5 billion years ago, which would explain why its core appears to be smaller and its atmosphere richer in heavy elements than predicted by theoretical models. Gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn are thought to have developed from solid bodies of rock and ice which generated sufficient gravity to attract atmospheric envelopes of hydrogen and helium gas when they attained around 10 Earth-masses. Some studies, however, have suggested that Jupiter's core now holds less than 10 Earth-masses, although the core of its smaller sibling Saturn appears to have some 15 to 30 Earth-masses.
http://www.solstation.com/stars/jupiter.htm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jupiter's Rocky Core Bigger and Icier, According to New Simulation
When Jupiter formed 4.5 billion years ago, rocks and ice combined to form a rocky core 14-18 times the mass of the Earth, according to a new simulation by University of California, Berkeley geophysicist Burkhard Militzer. This is twice what previous models predicted. Militzer employed a simulation technique designed to model the properties of semiconductors and now used for nanomaterials. This simulation also predicts fewer areas of ice throughout the rest of the atmosphere.
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=112766
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

As I did admit before dmoe, the planetary formation theory is not on as solid ground as the BB, Abiogenesis, Evolution, SR and GR, but it is still the incumbent model at this time.
Worth noting though, that your own thoughts on the far more accepted certainty of the other theories I mentioned, have also been poo pooed by yourself, in fact you did outright say you do not accept the BB.
just saying.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

May 15, 2014: Jupiter's trademark Great Red Spot -- a swirling anti-cyclonic storm larger than Earth -- has shrunk to its smallest size ever measured.
According to Amy Simon of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, recent NASA Hubble Space Telescope observations confirm the Great Red Spot now is approximately 10,250 miles across, less than half the size of some historical measurements. Astronomers have followed this downsizing since the 1930s.

Historic observations as far back as the late 1800s gauged the storm to be as large as 25,500 miles on its long axis. NASA Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 flybys of Jupiter in 1979 measured it to be 14,500 miles across. In 1995, a Hubble photo showed the long axis of the spot at an estimated 13,020 miles across. And in a 2009 photo, it was measured at 11,130 miles across.
Beginning in 2012, amateur observations revealed a noticeable increase in the rate at which the spot is shrinking -- by 580 miles per year -- changing its shape from an oval to a circle.

"In our new observations it is apparent very small eddies are feeding into the storm," said Simon. "We hypothesized these may be responsible for the accelerated change by altering the internal dynamics and energy of the Great Red Spot."
Simon's team plans to study the motions of the small eddies and the internal dynamics of the storm to determine whether these eddies can feed or sap momentum entering the upwelling vortex, resulting in this yet unexplained shrinkage.
NASA's Juno spacecraft is hurtling toward Jupiter now, due to reach the giant planet in July 2016. Point-blank examination by Juno's instruments will undoubtedly help unravel the mystery. Stay tuned for updates from both Hubble and Juno.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/juno/main/#.U3UrwChiOSp

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...r4KYBw&usg=AFQjCNE3IikPju2XtUDETFY9cBpokksANg

 

One aspect of gaseous planets that I have speculated on, concerns planetary migration, either inwards towards the mother star, or outwards.
Planetary migration can explain the hot Jupiters in extra-solar systems that have been found over the last decade or so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Planetary migration occurs when a planet or other stellar satellite interacts with a disk of gas or planetesimals, resulting in the alteration of the satellite's orbital parameters, especially its semi-major axis. Planetary migration is the most likely explanation for hot Jupiters, extrasolar planets with jovian masses, but orbits of only a few days. The generally accepted theory of planet formation from a protoplanetary disk predicts such planets cannot form so close to their stars, as there is insufficient mass at such small radii and the temperature is too high to allow the formation of rocky or icy planetesimals. It has also become clear that terrestrial-mass planets may be subject to rapid inward migration if they form while the gas disk is still present. This may affect the formation of the cores of the giant planets (which have masses of the order of 10 Earth masses), if those planets form via the core accretion mechanism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_migration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So, taking all that into consideration, could a present terrestrial planet, have been a gaseous giant early in the protoplanetary disk formation period?
Could it have been possible that the gaseous debris, gathered by the gravity of the rocky core, when it was further from the star, again be blown off when migrating into closer quarters of the star, with only a few days orbital period?
Could it have been possible for Mercury, Venus and even Earth to have once been gaseous giants, in the early history of planetary formation?

In essence I'm asking, could a gaseous giant, eventually become a terrestrial rocky planet, for similar reasons and migratory trends?
Afterall stellar systems, including our solar system, are largely dynamic in nature.
And reasonable thoughts on those proposals?

 

Not as speculative as I thought it seems.
Found the following links......
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Rocky Planets Could Have Been Born as Gas Giants:
http://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/rocky-planets-could-have-been-born-as-gas-giants/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

For Magical Realist:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jupiter spins around on its axis once every 9.8 hours (Jupiter's "day"). This is so fast, given Jupiter's size and the fact that it mostly a fluid, that Jupiter is noticeably squashed at its poles.

Measuring longitude values on Jupiter is complicated by the fact that the planet spins more rapidly near the equator than it does at the poles. Three systems are used. Jupiter System I is used for features within about 10° of the equator, where a full rotation takes about 9h 50.5m. Jupiter System II is used for features north and south of this zone (such as the Great Red Spot), where a rotation takes about 9h 55.7m. Finally, Jupiter System III, which is based on the rotation of Jupiter's interior, is used for radio observations and isn't particularly useful for visual observers. This rotation time of 9h 55.5m probably reflects the rate at which the solid core of Jupiter rotates, far below the cloud layers

Interior
Jupiter interior Jupiter radiates about 2½ times more heat than it receives from the Sun, indicating a substantial source of internal heat, almost certainly gravitational contraction, to account for the surface temperature. At its center, Jupiter is thought to have solid metal-rock core, similar in composition to Earth, with a diameter of about 24,000 km and a mass of 10 to 15 Earth-masses. Surrounding this, out to a diameter of about 100,000 km, is a metallic mixture of hydrogen and helium. On Earth we know these two as gases; in Jupiter's interior the pressure is so high that the hydrogen takes up a state in which it behaves like a metal. Outside this metallic hydrogen zone is a shell of liquid molecules, mainly hydrogen and helium, with the cloudy atmosphere, richer in ammonia and methane, about 1,000 km deep, above. Temperatures range from -130°C at the top of the clouds, to 30°C about 70 km below, to perhaps 20,000 K at the planet's center.

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/J/Jupiter.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Most of those I think I have mentioned MR, but the above link gives a good summary.

 

There is nothing to explain, simply because I, dmoe, do not think that 'having a liquid core is exclusive of it being rocky'.
I have never stated, nor claimed, anything even vaguely along that line of 'thinking'.

Perhaps TRIPPY can take the time to explain to us all why he states/claims that I, dmoe, 'thinks having a liquid core is exclusive of it being rocky'?

Perhaps TRIPPY can take the time to explain to us all what evidence he used to deduce/conclude that I, dmoe, 'thinks having a liquid core is exclusive of it being rocky'?

 

Why does Jupiter have a Great Red Spot?

I had one of those when I was about 16.
Perhaps it is an adolescent planet.

 

Excuse me, but I must ask you to "quote" any of my Posts wherein I, dmoe, Stated or Claimed that I was 'try(ing)' to 'disprove' anyone's 'assertion' or that anyone's 'assertion' was 'wrong'.

What I Posted was "quotes" of the articles that were referenced by other Members. The difference being that I "quoted" the articles more fully or in "context", as opposed to 'Quote Mining' or 'Cherry Picking' individual phrases or lines from those referenced articles.

Trippy, if you want to, or care to actually know what I think, all you have to do is ask.

Questioning me or challenging me, based upon assumptions, presumptions or what you 'seem' to have deduced or concluded about what I 'seem to think' , without me, dmoe, ever Stating or Posting what I 'think' is somewhat disingenuous, at best.
Is it not?

Just in the interest of clarity though, I will State that from what I do know of the current published and accepted knowledge on the 'composition' of the Planet/Gas Giant Jupiter...there is no consensus, or widely held Scientific belief that Jupiter currently has a 'rocky' or 'solid' core.

 

Nice. Shouting again?

 

The extract above from my previous link helps explain why Jupiter has its great red spot.
Important aspects are as I mentioned before, different rotation rates of the atmosphere, according to latitudes, and the different rotation rates of the atmosphere as a whole compared to the rocky core.
That plus the fact that after 400 years, this "storm" does seem to be waning somewhat, with a reduction in size.

I think that answers the question of the OP, and other matters as well.

 

Came upon an interesting question.....
" Could A Spacecraft Fly Straight Through Jupiter?"
Obviously, a thought experiment of which the answer to would be yes, if Jupiter did not have a rocky core......

Despite its gusty reputation as a "gas giant," Jupiter's blood-red clouds hide a dense, rocky core that's perhaps 20 times as massive as Earth. That core blocks any spacecraft's passage through the centre of the planet, but even a detour through the clouds would be a disaster.
from.....
http://www.popsci.com.au/tech/could-a-spacecraft-fly-straight-through-jupiter,380175 [AUG 24th 2013:]

Universe Today also has an article about Jupiter......
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jupiter has a rocky core that is more than twice as large as previously thought, according to computer calculations by a geophysicist who simulated conditions inside the planet on the scale of individual hydrogen and helium atoms. “Our simulations show there is a big rocky object in the center surrounded by an ice layer and hardly any ice elsewhere in the planet,” said Burkhard Militzer from University of California, Berkeley. “This is a very different result for the interior structure of Jupiter than other recent models, which predict a relatively small or hardly any core and a mixture of ices throughout the atmosphere.” A comparison of this model with the planet’s known mass, radius, surface temperature, gravity and equatorial bulge implies that Jupiter’s core is an Earth-like rock 14 to 18 times the mass of Earth, or about one-twentieth of Jupiter’s total mass, Militzer said. Previous models predicted a much smaller core of only 7 Earth masses, or no core at all.


The simulation suggests that the core is made of layers of metals, rocks and ices of methane, ammonia and water, while above it is an atmosphere of mostly hydrogen and helium. At the center of the rocky core is probably a metallic ball of iron and nickel, just like Earth’s core.
“Basically, Jupiter’s interior resembles that of Saturn, with a Neptune or Uranus at the center,” he said. Neptune and Uranus have been called “ice giants” because they also appear to have a rocky core surrounded by icy hydrogen and helium, but without the gas envelope of Jupiter and Saturn.


“This new calculation by Burkhard removes a lot of the old uncertainties of the 19-year-old model we have had until now,” said coauthor William B. Hubbard from the University of Arizona. “The new thermodynamic model is a more precise physical description of what’s going on inside Jupiter.”

The large, rocky core implies that as Jupiter and other giant gas planets formed 4.5 billion years ago, they grew through the collision of small rocks that formed cores that captured a huge atmosphere of hydrogen and helium.

“According to the core accretion model, as the original planetary nebula cooled, planetesimals collided and stuck together in a runaway effect that formed planet cores,” Militzer said. “If true, this implies that the planets have large cores, which is what the simulation predicts. It is more difficult to make a planet with a small core.”

In order to match the observed gravity of Jupiter, Militzer’s simulation also predicts that different parts of Jupiter’s interior rotate at different rates. Jupiter can be thought of as a series of concentric cylinders rotating around the planet’s spin axis, with the outer cylinders – the equatorial regions – rotating faster than the inner cylinders. This is identical to the sun’s rotation, Militzer said.
The researchers say their model matches up well with data from the Galileo spacecraft, which orbited Jupiter from 1995 -2003.


Militzer plans to use the new model to simulate other planets’ interiors, and to investigate the implications for the formation of planets outside our solar system. Future data from NASA’s Juno mission, to be launched in 2011 and orbit Jupiter by 2016 to measure the planet’s magnetic field and gravity, will provide a check on Militzer’s predictions.
http://www.universetoday.com/21536/jupiter-could-have-earth-like-rocky-core/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I find the following comparison interesting......
"“Basically, Jupiter’s interior resembles that of Saturn, with a Neptune or Uranus at the center,” he said. Neptune and Uranus have been called “ice giants” because they also appear to have a rocky core surrounded by icy hydrogen and helium, but without the gas envelope of Jupiter and Saturn."

 

Again, I must remind you, Dr_Toad :

UPPER CASE is for SHOUTING!

Bold is for emphasis!

 

deleted, why waste my time....