Talk:Atmosphere of Jupiter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Atmosphere of Jupiter is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic star Atmosphere of Jupiter is part of the Jupiter series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 25, 2009.
WikiProject Solar System / Jupiter (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Taskforce Jupiter.
 
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.
WikiProject Meteorology (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Meteorology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Meteorology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Split proposal[edit]

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 ‹See TfD› 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 ‹See TfD› 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. Serendipodous 14:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree ‹See TfD› 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 ‹See TfD› 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. Serendipodous 11:57, 20 August 2012 (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. Serendipodous 07:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Problem photograph[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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. Serendipodous 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[edit]

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. Serendipodous 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[edit]

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
Atmosphere of Jupiter

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
ArchiveMore featured pictures...


Needs some updates[edit]

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)?[edit]

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)