Earth Cyclones, Venus Vortices Have Much in Common

by Anne Minard on March 13, 2009

vi0310_02_5_h

Scientists have spotted an S-shaped feature in the center of the vortices on Venus that looks familiar — because they’ve seen it in tropical cyclones on Earth.

Researchers from the United States and Europe spotted the feature using NASA’s Pioneer Venus Orbiter and The European Space Agency’s Venus Express. Their new discovery confirms that massive, swirling wind patterns have much in common where they have been found — on Venus, Saturn and Earth.

2008gl036093-op01

At cloud top level, Venus’ entire atmosphere circles the planet in just about four Earth days, much faster than the solid planet does. Despite this “superrotation,” some dynamical and morphological similarities exist between the vortex organization in the atmospheres of Venus’s northern and southern hemispheres and tropical cyclones and hurricanes on Earth.

Organization of the Venus atmospheric circulation into two circumpolar vortices, one centered on each pole, was first deduced more than 30 years ago from Mariner 10 ultraviolet images. The S-shaped feature in the center of the vortices on Venus was first detected by the Pioneer Venus Orbiter near the northern pole and recently by Venus Express orbiter around the southern pole. It is also known to occur in Earth’s tropical cyclones.

Using an idealized nonlinear and nondivergent barotropic model, lead author Sanjay S. Limaye, of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and his colleagues are proposing that these S-shaped features are the manifestations of barotropic instability. The feature can be simulated with a barotropic model and, like in the vortices on Venus and in tropical cyclones, it is found to be transient.

Another similarity between the observed features in the vortex circulations of Venus and in terrestrial hurricanes is the presence of transverse waves extending radially outward from the vortex centres. The lack of observations of such features in Earth’s polar vortices is suggestive that the dynamics of the Venus polar vortices may have more in common with hurricanes than their more direct terrestrial counterparts. 

Given the challenges in measuring the deep circulation of Venus’s atmosphere, the authors expect that the morphological similarities between vortices on Earth and Venus might help scientists better understand atmospheric superrotation on Venus and guide future observations.

IMAGE CAPTIONS: 1. The ‘eye of the hurricane’ on Venus, taken by the Visible and Infrared Thermal Imaging Spectrometer (VIRTIS) on board Venus Express. The yellow dot represents the south pole. Credit: ESA 2. An infrared satellite image of Hurricane Howard [1998], showing an S-shaped pattern in the low (warm) clouds in the tropical cyclone’s eye. Credit: Sanjay S. Limaye. 

Source: Geophysical Research Letters

  • OillsMisery

    Solacious B. Incorrect.
    Actually, there is only one model which you could answer the question to. The BASIC model.

    As far as the rest. I don’t go around spouting out either rediculous or poorly thought rubbish taking up 3/4 of a web page. Nor do I poorly plagerize material and act like I know it better than those who actually study the subject at hand for a living. Others also do not waste others time by bringing up things which don’t even apply to the subject. Although a few seem to believe plasma is the base material of the universe.

    One of your errors, is you know a little of something and apply it to something else. For instance, your atmospheric or ‘gas’ relationship to fluid. The dynamics appear to be alike, as if you can substitute one for the other. In some small experiments, you may be able to get an idea of the dynamic of one through substitution, and do just fine, but overall you cannot. There are many instances, but the simplest and most known is, one you can compress, the other you cannot. So to believe one acts like the other is wrong.

    Don’t bring up credibiilty. Nobody here would say you have any. The fact I’m pointing this out to you actually adds to mine. Which is not the intent.

    You want to debate, fine. However, do it with some thought and logic. Don’t just spurt out something you ‘think’.Not everything on the Internet is true, current or accurate.
    If someone brings out a point, it is rediculous to toss out some reference pointing out something else. If you really understood it, you could break down what THEY SAID, not add more fuel to the idiocy by including some paper which barely applies to the original topic.

  • Salacious B. Crumb

    And as usual OillsMisery speaks a lot, and just says absolutely nothing!
    “Why is the geopotential of the free surface used in the first two parts of the barotropic model, and not in the third? And secondly, exactly what should it be describing?”
    Then you say the answer is “The BASIC model.”
    What? That isn’t an answer is it!
    There are three parts to any barotropic models in the partial differential equations!
    Oh!! So you don’t know!!!
    And then you have the absolute audacity to say “Don’t bring up credibiilty.”? No one buys it.

  • Salacious B. Crumb

    Hey OillsMisery,
    What do you reckon the height of the “free surface” of this vortex of Venus?
    Really be interested to know.

  • solrey

    salaciousbcrumb,
    You seem to understand mathematics well enough.
    Do you see math as a form of language?
    Check out the link in my prior post regarding diocotron instabilities and wrap your head around that math.
    Not saying that you can’t. I’m just saying that EM influenced plasma is very fluid-like. Since you seem to understand the math of fluid dynamics by correctly pointing out that there is a difference betewen a compressible and non-compressible fluid, I’m curious about your thoughts on the fluidity of magnetic fields.
    peace

  • Mr.Obvious

    By their desperate reactions, it is Obvious the explanation was far too complicated for them to understand.

  • Salacious B. Crumb

    Mr. Oblivious
    Oh dear. Now back to the familiar hit and run tactics eh?
    As usual, you criticise but you say absolutely nothing.
    Perhaps it was to complicated for yourself to understand.

  • OillsMisery

    Sally B. Drumb, you must be on crack. You memory is so poor you don’t even remember what you stated. Saying it was the BASIC model was in response to you believing it could be one of many. Just thinking it was an answer, shows how rediculous you are. Maybe work on your short term memory.

    Of course I understand it. However, first of all you wouldn’t believe me. Second, proving it would take a lot of space. Third, you wouldn’t understand what I was saying. Understanding what the model is used for is simple. Understanding how it works and why it is set up the way it is… is another story. It doesn’t take a genius to use a formula. However, you have to have some skill in order to set one up and prove it.

    Yet once again, you can’t put out any information that you can prove, you toss out rediculous questions or poorly paraphrased info based on the information you’ve picked up from Googling the Internet.

    Reckon… Are you a hillbilly now? Your question doesn’t make a lot of sense… which further shows you have no clue; but to go on… if it did make some sort of sense, there wouldn’t be enough data to do any modeling.

    I’m not seeking your approval or grace. So as far as what credibility I have with you doesn’t concern me. I just enjoy pointing out how rediculously moronic you are…. to yourself. I don’t have to point this fact out to others, they see it already!

    Keeping you busy on Google in your quest to learn more about this has been enough to laugh about on its own. Your responses are just added gold. It follows the same pattern as everything else. You toss out the nomenclature you’ve seen, yet apply it incorrectly. Too elfin funny!

    So anytime you attempt to BS or berate people here, I’m going to call you out, so you can see just how ignorant you really are.

    I’m not even going to respond to you anymore… only to the BS you are spreading.

  • Salacious B. Crumb

    “Of course I understand it. However, first of all you wouldn’t believe me. Second, proving it would take a lot of space. Third, you wouldn’t understand what I was saying..”

    So it is true, you don’t know!

    “So anytime you attempt to BS or berate people here, I’m going to call you out, so you can see just how ignorant you really are.
    I’m not even going to respond to you anymore… only to the BS you are spreading.”

    Coward! So we know who really is speaking the BS!

  • Salacious B. Crumb

    And as usual OillsMisery speaks a lot, and just says absolutely nothing!
    “Why is the geopotential of the free surface used in the first two parts of the barotropic model, and not in the third? And secondly, exactly what should it be describing?”
    Then you say the answer is “The BASIC model.”
    What? That isn’t an answer is it!
    There are three parts to any barotropic models in the partial differential equations!
    Oh!! So you don’t know!!!
    And then you have the absolute audacity to say “Don’t bring up credibiilty.”?
    No one buys it.

  • Mr.Obvious

    Salacious B. Crumb,
    When it comes to your stupidity I don’t have to say a lot. It is quite Obvious. You are the only one who doesn’t get it. A side effect (for sure), whereas you wouldn’t understand it if it was drawn out in pictures.

    btw…. with the equation, the answer lies in how the prime represents the derivative with respect to…. (nah, cant allow you to look it up that easy) hint: Rossby speed, horizontal divergence, and baroxxxxx wave drag.

    There you are. I said a lot for you. Happy?
    Go ahead. Get upset and say something to deflect the Obvious.

  • Salacious B. Crumb

    Let see…
    Oblivious said;

    “Why is the geopotential of the free surface used in the first two parts of the barotropic model, and not in the third? And secondly, exactly what should it be describing?”

    You say the answer is “The BASIC model.”
    Then you say.

    “Of course I understand it. However, first of all you wouldn’t believe me. Second, proving it would take a lot of space. Third, you wouldn’t understand what I was saying.”

    Sorry, it doesn’t quite equate, does it.
    YOU CLEAR DON”T KNOW
    The thing is you didn’t expect an answer, and now you have nowhere to run and hide behind silly rhetoric . By your pathetic reacts you are by behaving like a naughty little schoolgirl who has just been CAUGHT OUT
    Simply you have show this behaviour on a number of occasions doing exactly the same pattern of irrational behaviour.
    So do what you like, because everyone already can sees through your deception and clear falsehoods. Otherwise you wouldn’t be making open threats to me on blogs site like this one.
    Have a
    NICE day!

  • Salacious B. Crumb

    Why is the geopotential of the free surface used in the first two parts of the barotropic model, and not in the third? And secondly, exactly what should it be describing?

    Two very simple answers which take no more than one sentence.

    So why is it;

    <BLOCKQUOTE”Of course I understand it. However, first of all you wouldn’t believe me. Second, proving it would take a lot of space. Third, you wouldn’t understand what I was saying.”

    So you want ME do it in one sentence, but it would take YOU “a lot of space.

    No one believes you.
    Just Pathetic.

  • Mr.Obvious

    Do you not comprehend simple words?

    He said you wouldn’t believe the answer. So then he would have to PROVE IT, which would take up space. To boot, you STILL wouldn’t get it.

    You not getting it is Obvious, since you couldn’t comprehend the explanation to begin with.

  • Salacious B. Crumb

    Mr Oblivious,
    No one actually believes you know…
    Let’s see the great expert and I remember you call them “planet nebula”
    You are just a pathetic fraud. [Get it!]

  • Mr.Obvious

    Sally B. VERY STUPID.

    Have you been to: http://www.space.com/nebulas

    Perhaps there you’ll be able to figure it out.
    What is that?? Can’t hear you with that foot in your mouth

  • Aodhhan

    Salcious…. you are one of the last people who should berate someone for grammar, spelling, or any other type of typo correction.

  • Salacious B. Crumb

    Aodhhan said:

    Salcious…. you are one of the last people who should berate someone for grammar, spelling, or any other type of typo correction.

    Yeah. But he did it three times!

  • Salacious B. Crumb

    Mr.Oblivious said:
    Perhaps there you’ll be able to figure it out.
    What is that?? Can’t hear you with that foot in your mouth

    It is ‘planetary nebula’ stupid not ‘planet nebula’. The plural is ‘planetary nebulae’.

    Where is ‘planet nebula’ on the link?

    How ignorant are you?? eh?

Previous post:

Next post: