Talk:Atmosphere of Jupiter

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 15 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cem011.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Split proposal

I'd like to formally propose splitting Great Red Spot from this page.

Do you agree that Great Red Spot should be split into a separate article?

• Agree This article is wonderful, very in-depth, and an extremely well-written article. However, in order to obtain more specific information on the GRS, a split is necessary. This page is at 87kb, which is above "Probably should be split" and below "almost certainly should be split" according to WP:SIZE. But perhaps even more importantly, GRS is not given an opportunity to expand and grow like every other article in Wikipedia because this article cannot get any bigger. Iksnyrk (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Agree GRS can easily stand on its on as a seperate article and will give it the opportunity to be expanded. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 13:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• This issue was discussed before, and the problem is that most of the ideas about expanding the GRS article ultimately led to the creation of this one, since they involved Jupiter's entire atmosphere rather than the GRS in particular. It's one thing to split the article; it's another to come up with ways to expand it. Serendi^podous 14:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Agree The observational history of the GRS should be expanded upon, and a separate article can easily be made and become quite large. We have an article on the atmosphere of Earth, and separate articles for types of storms and windbelts (like the jetstream), so there is no reason for only having a single article. If the Great Dark Spot can support an article, then the GRS, which has much greater study, should easily do so. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Agree it clearly warrants its own article. I certainly came here looking for an article, not a couple of paragraphs in an article on Jupiter's atmosphere. Very weird that it was subsumed to this in the first place. jackbrown (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

If you feel that the GRS article could be expanded upon with reliable sources, then I would not object to its recreation; however, I would object to simply recreating the article (which actually contains less information on the GRS than the Atmosphere article) and leaving it be for others to finish. If you want to recreate it, expand it. Serendi^podous 11:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Agree The Great Red Spot is significant enough for its own article. --216.96.152.222 (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

What does that mean? How, exactly, is it more "notable" to be listed under a level 3 heading instead of a level 1? It doesn't make the information any less accessible. Serendi^podous 07:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Problem photograph

Hello, I think there is a problem with the scale in the photograph labelled "Approximate size comparison of Earth and the GRS". It shows the Earth approximately equal in diameter to the minor axis of the Spot. But the text says the spot could contain 2-3 Earths.174.91.141.19 (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The spot is not circular. Ruslik_Zero 19:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it has always been observed as ellipsoidal. But now that its shrinking is accelerating, it is indeed approaching circularity, as reported recently by astronomers. David Spector (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Age of the Great Red Spot

In the section for the Great Red Spot (GRS) under "Discrete Features", it states: "Earth observations establish a minimum storm lifetime of, variously, 182 years and possibly 347 years.[67][68]". These citations link to fact sheets that state either "at least 300 years" [67] or "at least the 400 years that humans have observed it through telescopes" [68]. Does anyone know the correct citations for these very precise GRS ages? If they don't exist then this may be it should be changed accordingly 14.200.3.249 (talk) 09:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Drawings that I have seen in the RAS Library made in the mid 19th century show no sign of the GRS. According to Agnes Clerke's History of Astronomy During the Nineteenth Century:

   In the course of his observations on Jupiter at Brussels in 1878, M, Neisten was struck with a rosy cloud attached to a whitish zone beneath the dark southern equatorial band. Its size was enormous.... The earliest record of its appearance seems to be by Professor Pritchett, director of the Morrison Observatory (U.S.), who figured and described it July 9, 1878. It was again delineated August 9, by Tempel at Florence. In the following year it attracted the wonder and attention of almost every possessor of a telescope. Its colour had by that time deepened into a full brick-red, and was set off by contrast with a white equatorial spot of unusual brilliancy.... 

Subsequent passages describe its changes in visibility. Apparently Mr Gledhill at Halifax had observed an 'elliptical ring' at the same latitude in 1869-70. Clerke says that a spot had reappeared and vanished eight times between Cassini's observation of the spot that allowed him to time Jupiter's rotation in 1665 and 1713, when it was last seen by Maraldi. She says 'It was, however, very much smaller than the recent object, and showed no unusual colour.'

So I don't believe that there is evidence for a continuity of the GRS between Cassini's spot and the current GRS, which has undoubtedly persisted since 1878. Robin Scagell (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Great red spot

So. Great red spot redirects here. And yet there is no subsection of this article called great red spot. I propose that either (a) this article be deleted (not so helpful) or that (b) an article named great red spot be created (okay with me) or that (c) there be some clearly named subsection of this article that clearly attracts the attention of those looking for information about the great red spot. 04:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Of course there is a subsection of this article called "Great Red Spot". And once again, just like the dozen or so other people who have proposed this break, if you can provide enough reliable sources to expand the section beyond the scope of this article, then a separate article would be AOK. So far, no one has volunteered such sources. Serendi^podous 04:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Great red spot ---> Atmosphere_of_Jupiter#Great_Red_Spot - Sidelight12 ^Talk 04:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Poor wording

The page currently says "The atmosphere of Jupiter lacks a clear lower boundary and gradually transitions into the fluid interior of the planet." This is actually nonsensical. The gaseous atmosphere IS a fluid. Liquids, gases, and plasmas are all fluids, and certain deformable "solids" are also. Fnj2 (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

revised. Serendi^podous 04:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I think 'fluid' was correct. Ruslik_Zero 14:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"Both gases and liquids are fluids". David Spector (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

File:PIA02863 - Jupiter surface motion animation.gif to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:PIA02863 - Jupiter surface motion animation.gif will be appearing as picture of the day on April 21, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-04-21. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A 14-frame clip showing the atmosphere of Jupiter as viewed from the NASA probe Cassini. Taken over a span of 24 Jupiter rotations between October 31 and November 9, 2000, this clip shows various patterns of motion across the planet. The Great Red Spot rotates counterclockwise, and the uneven distribution of its high haze is obvious. To the east (right) of the Red Spot, oval storms, like ball bearings, roll over and pass each other. East-west bands adjacent to each other move at different rates. Strings of small storms rotate around northern-hemisphere ovals. The large grayish-blue "hot spots" at the northern edge of the white Equatorial Zone change over time as they proceed eastward across the planet. Ovals in the north rotate counter to those in the south. Small, very bright features appear quickly and randomly in turbulent regions, possibly lightning storms. The smallest visible features at the equator are about 600 km (370 miles) across.Animation: NASA/JPL/University of Arizona

Needs some updates

The article has a lot of statements that say "as of 2008", which I see is the year it was promoted to FA but quite possible that this information is not outdated. The issues are:

• The Oval BA section mostly contains information from 2006-8.
• From the Dynamics section:

• "As of 2008, a comprehensive theory of the dynamics of the Jovian atmosphere has not been developed."
• "realistic simulations of 3D flows are not possible as of 2008"

• From the Vortices section: "The early hypothesis that the vortices are deep convective plumes (or convective columns) as of 2008 is not shared by the majority of planetary scientists."

Besides updates, one other observation I have is whether it's appropriate to have the Great Dark Spot in the GRS section and LRS in the Oval BA section. Both begin with "[section subject] should not be confused with [other storm]". The Great Dark Spot is simply described as "a feature observed near Jupiter's north pole in 2000 by the Cassini–Huygens spacecraft," with the remainder of the paragraph about the Neptune feature. In my opinion, that's not much to say. There are lots of vortices, so something should probably be mentioned to explain its notability, otherwise it may be something to consider removing entirely if little else can be said about it. It may also be worth adding a section about "other notable vortices" to discuss these two and any others worth describing.

Just a few friendly comments to improve Wikipedia from someone who learned a lot from stumbling across and reading this great article. AHeneen (talk) 02:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Why non-SI unit(s)?

There is pascal as an only SI pressure unit. I recommend do not use obsolete one like "bar" is.

94.112.226.172 (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Bar is commonly used in scientific literature. Ruslik_Zero 20:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Missing Basic Information

There is some very basic information on the bands that is missing or perhaps considered self-evident which should nevertheless be explicitly stated. I wanted to know two simple things about the bands and zones of Jupiter, that aren't covered in the article:

1) I am color blind, and so can't work out for myself, what are the typical colors in the bands and zones? They're merely described as 'dark' or 'light'. I understand that they are not of constant color, but some indication of the ranges of tints seen would be helpful.

2) What direction do the bands and zones flow in relation to the rotation of Jupiter? The images of the flowing bands don't indicate whether north is up or not, and I don't want to have to assume. swestrup (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

What is going on with temperature?

Many articles on this, for example please see: http://www.space.com/33551-jupiter-heats-up-great-red-spot.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.212.93 (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Heat from radioactive decay and gravitational compression convects to the surface. Octaazacubane (talk) 07:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Atmosphere of Jupiter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070615100054/http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/12mar_darkspot.htm to http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/12mar_darkspot.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081019024917/http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/02mar_redjr.htm to http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/02mar_redjr.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070202190145/http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/05jun_redperil.htm to http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/05jun_redperil.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

New Evidence of Atmospheric Depth

This article seems to shed new light on a topic discussed in this article as currently unknown. Anyone knowledgeable enough to contribute the findings to the article? https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-02612-y — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.26.193.170 (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

thank you

thank you for this page,,, i used it for my project,, i will give credit , thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.204.13.5 (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Out-of-place Sentence

Currently, the last sentence in the opening section must be in the wrong place. It says: "This storm near the red spot is called Red Spot Junior.", but no storm is being described for it to refer to. Does this sentence belong at the end of the previous paragraph, which discusses Oval BA? MarkGoldfain (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• PIA21972-Jupiter-Clouds-JunoSpacecraft-20171024.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Speculation about life in Jupiter's clouds

Carl Sagan article mentions that he speculated about life in Jupiter's clouds with Edwin E. Salpeter (in section "Scientific achievements"), with a link to the Jupiter article. However it seems this text disappeared. Nothing either here. Any idea? Yann (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

There are people who think that extremophiles are only able to live on Earth, and that suggesting any other planet has life is too outlandish to even consider. It's a worldview thing for them. Octaazacubane (talk) 08:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

False color images being displayed as true color images

This is an ongoing social problem that is multifaceted and pretty complex. Recent image by the Hubble space telescope is NOT a true color image of Jupiter. It's made with a false color pallete to match false color image "art" made by self-proclaimed "citizen scientists" who take Juno probe camera images and create clickbait art for social networks. It is an example of a weird phenomenon that has been growing strong for the past decade. If you want to check what Jupiter looks like, go and take a look through a powerful telescope. It most certainly does not look like Hubble team's deviation. There is nothing wrong with false color images, they are highly useful, but do not mislabel them and especially do not use them, mislabelled, as leading images for articles. Don't perpetuate scientific and intellectual dishonesty on an encyclopedia, please. Lajoswinkler (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)