The Mystery of Jupiter’s Shrinking Great Red Spot Might Be Solved
It’s the iris in the great eyeball of Jupiter, revolving to gaze balefully out upon the cosmos: the Great Red Spot, the single largest, longest-lived storm in the entire Solar System
Humanity has been observing it for centuries, a colossal anticyclone currently a little bit larger than Earth, with winds that howl around in an anticlockwise direction at up to 680 kilometers (425 miles) per hour.
As mighty as it rages, however, the Great Red Spot has significantly diminished since the first definite records of its existence in 1831. The storm was once much larger; over time, it has dwindled, and it dwindles still.
Scientists now think they understand why: The Great Red Spot feeds off of other, smaller storms merging into it. If there aren’t those smaller storms for the Great Red Spot to devour and subsume, it will be unable to maintain its prodigious dimensions.
“Many people have looked at the Great Red Spot over the last 200 years and were as fascinated by it as I am,” says astronomy PhD Caleb Keaveney of Yale University.
“We found through numerical simulations that by feeding the Great Red Spot a diet of smaller storms, as has been known to occur on Jupiter, we could modulate its size.”
Once, back in the late 19th century, the Great Red Spot spanned a whopping 39,000 kilometers across. Now, it’s just over a third of that width at 14,000 kilometers.
Earth’s 12,742-kilometer diameter could still fit inside – but it’s getting to be a tighter squeeze. We’ve never seen the Spot so (relatively) small.
Scientists have been investigating this strange phenomenon, but it’s a puzzler. Jupiter is very different from Earth, and its weather much wilder. In spite of these differences, though, fluids – such as atmospheric gasses – behave in certain ways that can be explored using the mathematics of fluid dynamics.
And, while we can’t extrapolate 1:1 the behavior of Earth’s weather onto Jupiter, we can use our understanding of Earth’s atmospheric processes to try to figure out what is happening on Jupiter. This is what Keaveney and his colleagues have done.
We know, from research published in 2021, that Jupiter’s Great Red Spot effectively ‘eats’ smaller storms it encounters, growing larger in the process. So, the researchers used a similar phenomenon observed here on Earth to inform their models of Jupiter’s atmosphere.
In the jet streams that circulate through Earth’s atmosphere, long-lived, high-pressure systems called heat domes, or blocks, can form, where the jet stream slows to a halt. These blocks can play a significant role in heat waves and droughts as they trap warm temperatures below them for long periods.
The longevity of these blocks has been linked to anticyclones and other smaller weather phenomena. Equipped with this information, the researchers created a model for Jupiter’s atmosphere and the Great Red Spot, simulating interactions between the storms.
They found that, when a smaller storm encountered the Great Red Spot, the former storm would maintain its size, or grow, compared to simulations without these interactions. And the degree to which the Spot was sustained was stronger if there were more interactions. Finally, the strength of the smaller storm played a role, too. A stronger storm gave the Great Red Spot a bigger boost.
There’s nothing we can really do about the Great Red Spot. Jupiter is going to Jupe, we’re just here to enjoy the show. But learning about its amazing atmosphere can help us better understand the way weather works on our own planet, which is pretty neat.
“Our study has compelling implications for weather events on Earth,” Keaveney says.
“Interactions with nearby weather systems have been shown to sustain and amplify heat domes, which motivated our hypothesis that similar interactions on Jupiter could sustain the Great Red Spot. In validating that hypothesis, we provide additional support to this understanding of heat domes on Earth.”
The research has been published in Icarus.
See more at Science Alert
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. [paypal-donation
Trackback from your site.
Howdy
| #
Simulations? Don’t judge the entire universe by this speck of dust called Earth. Go and get the proof or shut up.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy,
Yesterday I had a conversation with a local physicis, who teaches at local private university, about the physics of “impulse”.. For I was going to a park to pump myself up to maybe 45 degrees from vertical by small impulses of my body’s movements 9inpulses) for which I was supplying a little energy. He admitted that physicists seldom considered the physics of impulses. However, I failed to tell him I had concluded that I knew the principle of resonance was involved for I knew (experienced) that my small body moments needed to be made at a certain time in the swing’s oscillation to be most effective.
Howdy, have you ever pumped yourself up on a swing? For it seemed the physicist had not. For I know not all my classmates in grade had done what I and few others did.
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
I never knew a child that could not increase the oscillation of a swing after watching another do it.
Standing up gives the maximum result as nearly the whole body can be used to impart greater force.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy and PSI Readers,
You wrote: “I never knew a child that could not increase the oscillation of a swing after watching another do it.” I agree and I repeat it so other readers do not miss that you do nothing original. Someone has to tell you what you write except maybe criticisms of others who have done “something original”. For someone had to construct (invented) a swing first.,
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
Speak for yourself Jerry, you are the PSI critic par excellence, usually of other contributors, but they can’t be as mundane as you, surely.
“For someone had to construct (invented) a swing first.”
You mean somebody didn’t just happen on it by swinging on a tree branch one day?
See what I mean…
Long Hair–The Woman’s Glory
https://truediscipleship.com/the-womans-glory/
What is long hair a sign of Jerry?
Reply
Howdy
| #
Double Crown: Leadership, Luck, or Something More?
https://spiritualmeanings.net/double-crown-spiritual-meaning-superstitions/
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy and PSI Readers,
Where is your evidence that somebody did “happen on it by swinging on a tree branch one day” and than published what he/she had discovered as Galileo did with his observations and experiments with the pendulum?
I have been unable to find Einstein’s published reasoning about his thought experiment but I sure he drop the body on the slowly moving flat car and saw the same that he saw while doing the same experiment on the stationary depot platform. And he knew the moving body had to be seen falling along some curved path because it horizontal motion and the principle of inertia which had already been established by observed experiments such as Feynman’s father suggested his son try with the wagon and the ball in it.
have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy and PSI Readers,
Where is your evidence that somebody did “happen on it by swinging on a tree branch one day” and than published what he/she had discovered as Galileo did with his observations and experiments with the pendulum?
I have been unable to find Einstein’s published reasoning about his thought experiment but I sure he drop the body on the slowly moving flat car and saw the same that he saw while doing the same experiment on the stationary depot platform. And he knew the moving body had to be seen falling along some curved path because it horizontal motion and the principle of inertia which had already been established by observed experiments such as Feynman’s father suggested his son try with the wagon and the ball in it.
have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
My evidence? Use your intelligence Jerry. No wonder it’s taken you this long to reply.
If one doesn’t know what centrifugal force is, yet witnesses it every day without thinking, do they keep notes for Heaven’s sake.
I notice you reference Galileo again, and yet I’m the one with no originality, according to you.
The ball thing is old, and depends on the point of reference, nothing more.
An aircraft can fly while being in a static position if the required conditions are met.
That it can fly while static, is because the moving air flowing over it is the point of reference, not a place on the Earth.
Still haven’t answered my hair question. Too original?
Reply
Len Winokur
| #
Jerry please stop being so supercilious. Not everyone appreciates your being the smart Alec as much as you do.
Reply
aaron
| #
They SO smart with their CGI
NASA means ‘to deceive’ in Hebrew
Reply
Howdy
| #
Like NATO, NASA isn’t a word, Aaron.
Reply
aaron
| #
spelling – casting spells
Reply
Howdy
| #
‘Spelling’, is a word, while NASA is an acronym.
Nasa in Hebrew, means to lift up, carry…
https://worldeventsandthebible.com/nasa-in-hebrew
Reply
aaron
| #
Hello Howdy
Seems to make difference where the dot is placed
No dot in NASA
so could be either?
all up to the interpretation
“The primitive verb root which in Hebrew means “to beguile” or “to deceive” is “נָשָׁא”, as quoted above, which is transliterated as nasha’ (pronounced “na-shar”). They are easily confused, not only in English, but for those not familiar with Hebrew: the only difference being the location of the dot above the middle letter (“shin”).
A dot above the right hand side of “shin” represents the sound “sh” (called “shin dot”) while a dot above the left represents the sound “s” (called “sin dot”).”
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-nasa-in-hebrew-means-to-deceive.9801/
S.C.
| #
Everybody tried to tell you to get a Prius instead of that F-150, but noooo,
Now climate change is affecting Jupiter and it’s all your fault. Thanks a lot!
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy,
This is the article which renewed my search (http://smallcomets.physics.uiowa.edu/blackspot.html) for the case of the dirty snowball.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Commenters and Readers,
I again bring this link (https://principia-scientific.com/how-prehistoric-glaciers-could-have-been-formed-part-1/). Which might only be source of another link.
I am old and forget but I co still know the importance of continuity.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Commenters and Readers,
The “Original Discovery” is a story about the struggle of Louis Frank, John Gravel, and a young undergraduate student John Sigwarth, to answer the question: “Is what we OBSERVE real???
No commenter has yet, as I write, commented on this Great Story about SCIENCE. I plan to keep this story to your attentions until someone gives evidence they have thoughtfully considered the “Original Discovery”.
Have a good day
Reply