5361147
story
Comments: 132 +- News: Noctilucent Clouds Likely Caused By Shuttle Launches on Wednesday July 29 2009, @01:33AM
Posted
by
kdawson
on Wednesday July 29 2009, @01:33AM
from the tunguska-was-a-comet dept.
from the tunguska-was-a-comet dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicearth.gif); width:77px; height:80px;
earth
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicscience.gif); width:62px; height:75px;
science
icebike writes "In our recent discussion of the phenomenon of noctilucent clouds, there was some suggestions that these might be the product of global warming due to moisture being lofted high into the atmosphere. It now appears that these clouds are simply the product of Shuttle launches. In a story about the Tunguska blast, Science News says: 'Each launch of a space shuttle, which burns a combination of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen as fuel, pumps about 300 metric tons of water vapor into the atmosphere at altitudes between 100 and 115 kilometers. Soon after the January 16, 2003, launch of the shuttle Columbia, a liftoff that took place just after the height of summer in the Southern Hemisphere, noctilucent clouds appeared over Antarctica. Similarly, a widespread display of the night-shining clouds showed up over Alaska two days after the shuttle Endeavour blasted off on August 8, 2007. Previous studies show that in both instances those clouds included material from the shuttle plumes.' So, man-made after all?"
Related Stories
One person's error is another person's data.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
See? Man-made climate change! (Score:5, Funny)
Those damn environmentalists were right!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A Hint: It's the increasing incidence of the clouds that is being "explained" by increased water vapour from rockets. Rockets obviously don't explain 19th century occurences of the phenomena recorded just a few years after Krakatoa (1883).
A Clue: You will get a better response if you attempt to debunk something that is actually being claimed. It's a bit disconcerting when you atta
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone had to say it. I wish CmdrTaco would write a bot which automatically inserts the "Correlation is not causation" thing into every discussion, along with an automatically selected XKCD cartoon.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And now, they're putting toxic chemtrails in space!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
At least they're not throwing around a lot of radioactive stuff in space. Would turn it in to some kind of inhospitable void.
Um, first observed in 1887 - well before shuttle (Score:5, Informative)
The previous Slashdot thread included the tidbit that the first noctilucent clouds mentioned in recorded history were in 1887 (also noted here [wikipedia.org]). So unless someone was using hydrogen-oxygen rocketry almost a full century before the first shuttle launch, it would seem that they are not purely anthropogenic.
Cheers,
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Well, there goes my crack headline of "Latest Global Warming Cause : Shuttle Farts".
Re:Um, first observed in 1887 - well before shuttl (Score:5, Funny)
Almost a full century before the first shuttle launch by humans! Finally we have proof for UFOs! :-)
Parent
Re:Um, first observed in 1887 - well before shuttl (Score:5, Insightful)
first noctilucent clouds mentioned in recorded history were in 1887
1887 was when the term was coined. It is impossible to say whether the phenomenon called "noctilucent clouds" in 1887 is the same phenomenon we see today. For example, Northern lights might qualify as "noctilucent" and may look cloudy to boot. It's important to distinguish the phenomenon from the terminology.
Parent
Re:Um, first observed in 1887 - well before shuttl (Score:5, Informative)
Noctilucent clouds occur over a very small altitude range (about 82-84 km) Observations of the same cloud from different locations can be used to find the height by triangulation. ISTR that the 1887 observation did this and that it is therefore a genuine observation of NLC.
The question of whether there were no NLC before this date was a contentious one last time I asked. Some make the argument that NLC are very distinctive and that if they were there we would have records going back to the Viking era, as we do with the Aurora Borealis. Others, however, argue that NLC look sufficiently like other clouds and are sufficiently unremarkable to the casual observer that it is not surprising that there are no descriptions prior to 1887. (Remember that the idea that it is worth naming and describing clouds only really goes back to Luke Howard in the early 1800s.)
Parent
Re:Um, first observed in 1887 - well before shuttl (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Um, first observed in 1887 - well before shuttl (Score:4, Funny)
Schroedinger's Noctilucent Cloud?
It doesn't exist until you photograph it?
Parent
Please go read the article. (Score:5, Insightful)
While I suppose the summary could be read that way, the actual article is a little more clear on the distinction. That some other events also cause noctilucent clouds, while true, does not invalidate the premise of the shuttle also causing them.
So mod parent down. Bitch about inaccuracies in the summary if you want, but don't pretend they serve as meaningful parts of the discussion.
Parent
Re:Um, first observed in 1887 - well before shuttl (Score:5, Insightful)
Its also quite possible that the recent appearances of these clouds was caused by the shuttle launches dumping lots of water into the upper atmosphere, regardless of what has caused them in the past
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Such as from a volcano, which can reach into the stratosphere, not as high as the shuttle, but probably far enough. Or perhaps from the other direction, a (or many) comet burning up in the atmosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
The previous Slashdot thread included the tidbit that the first noctilucent clouds mentioned in recorded history were in 1887 (also noted here [wikipedia.org]). So unless someone was using hydrogen-oxygen rocketry almost a full century before the first shuttle launch, it would seem that they are not purely anthropogenic.
Cheers,
Good point. I'm not an astrophysicist or anything, but could meteorite's from carbonaceous chondrites, or micro-comets, ejecting their mass at the clouds' altitude cause the phenomenon naturally?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Had you RTFA you would have seen this:
Scientists at the time suggested that the night-shining clouds over London were made of meteoritic dust. But those aerosols are typically too small to reflect sunlight efficiently, Kelley argues, suggesting the clouds above Europe were made of ice crystals. This assumption, along with the new analysis of shuttle plume movement, strongly suggests that the object that blazed into the atmosphere and disintegrated above Siberia was a moisture-rich comet rather than a relatively dry asteroid.
Re: (Score:2)
CM and CI carbonaceous chondrites are the ones I was thinking about specifically, they aren't that "dry" compared to other asteroids.
Re: (Score:2)
"unless someone was using hydrogen-oxygen rocketry almost a full century before the first shuttle launch"
Werner von Braun's grand daddy?
Krakatoa 1883 (Score:2)
The gap of four years is probably a bit too long, but if a lower poster is right that 1887 is the date the term noctilucent was coined, then it the coinage might well occur a little after the phenomenon.
Re:Um, first observed in 1887 - well before shuttl (Score:5, Interesting)
And what happened around that time?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa [wikipedia.org]
You totally miss the point of the story. Its not the fuel mixture. Its the fact that large amounts of water vapor find their way to the upper atmosphere. Some by natural causes. Some by shuttle launches.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also recorded in history is this account of a close encounter of the third kind in 1887 ;-))
http://home.pacbell.net/joerit/docs2/crash/1887crsh.htm [pacbell.net]
Finally! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, duh [weather.gov]!
Why now? (Score:5, Interesting)
Disregarding the 1887 thing, which is amply discussed above, what amazes me is this:
If these luminous clouds are caused by shuttle launches, why has it taken, 32 years and 128 launches for someone to discover this relation?
Or, has something else happened to the atmosphere not-so-long ago which, together with the launches, have been causing these clouds only recently?
Re:Why now? (Score:4, Insightful)
An obscure topic of meteorology, that appears to occur naturally from time to time, being correlated with space shuttle launches? And probably with a significant delay between release and formation of the clouds, one would think. I think you vastly overestimate the degree of weather observation that actually gets done, and our understanding of the weather system. Yes, there's much ground-based data of temperatures, precipitation and cloud cover but very little on the actual conditions up there - the lone weather balloons they used to send up don't amount to much. It's really only in the last few decades of satellites we've been studying it in detail.
In any case, I'm sure this will be used as another "disproof" of global warming. Like with Darwin when he gets 95% right and 5% wrong people always want to pretend that theories are either perfect or completely wrong, even though that makes no sense. Or assume some irrational assumption of uniform effects, so the results can violate them. Mess with say the Gulf stream and everything from Mexico, eastern US and Europe could get colder even during a global warming. Sometimes I wonder if they don't understand or if they just pretend not to...
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I think you vastly overestimate the degree of weather observation that actually gets done, and our understanding of the weather system.
Very likely, yes. Thanks for the insight.
Oh and by the way, I'm not reading any global warming (dis)proof into this -- that's one thing I *know* I'm not qualified for. :D
Facts FUD (Score:3, Interesting)
got volume? (Score:2)
Why don't we see people rolling around choking at shuttle launches as the huge volume of exhaust displaces the breathable atmosphere from sea-level to stratosphere?
Carbon credits for shuttle launches? (Score:3, Interesting)
So, can shuttle launches get "carbon credits"? (I know that they aren't actually reducing carbon emissions but if these clouds reduce global warming perhaps they'd be eligible). Is the amount so negligible that it wouldn't come close to offsetting the (horrendously) expensive launches?
Do other spacecraft (Arianne, Delta, Soyuz) also create these clouds?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Since the water vapor brought into the atmosphere in high altitudes likely increases global warming (water vapor is a more effective greenhouse gas than CO2), I don't think they could get carbon credits.
Causing, or contributing? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's an interesting point. Similarly, I wonder if the conditions that NASA chooses to launch during are related to conditions that allow noctilucent cloud formation.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I can't read the article due to Slashdot effect, but if shuttle launches are contributing to or causing (big difference there!) the formation of the noctilucent clouds then there should be a correlation to check for.
They did and there was - http://www.nrl.navy.mil/pressRelease.php?Y=2003&R=35-03r [navy.mil]
Easiest waste of modpoints (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This is *OLD* news... see APOD! (Score:4, Informative)
From June, 2003: .... note the last sentence.
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap030615.html [nasa.gov]
6 years.
Sometimes it takes main stream media a while to catch on.
Note that this APOD entry has further links to US Navy research on the topic.
Noctilucent clouds have been observed in Europe (Score:2)
Such nonsense. Recently noctilucent clouds have been observed with uncommon frequency all over the world, not just the US: http://www.nlcnet.co.uk/ [nlcnet.co.uk]
These idiotic explanations (global warming, space shuttle) show that a political agenda is being protected. It is quite simple: noctilucent clouds are a symptom of cooling of the upper atmosphere. Only that allows ice crystals to survive at a height of 80 kilometers at such low latitudes.
This true explanation cannot be allowed to penetrate the public mind becaus
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia says that the mesosphere extends from 50 to 80-85 km up, and the thermosphere from 80-85 to over 640km, and that the mesopause (the boundary between the two layers, at 80-85km) "is the coldest place on Earth, with a temperature of 100C" [wikipedia.org]. The really hot bit is well above the mesopause.
Not to mention that cooling of parts of the atmosphere, if it was real, would still be evidence of climate cha
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Since this UV/EUV/X-ray flux is a significant fraction of the solar output and varies strongly with coronal conditions, it is the most important driver of global warming/cooling.
And that's why you see a strong correlation between solar output and global mean temperature!
Except, of course, there is no such correlation. After all, as you say, "the data does not lie". Whoops!
Wishful thinking (Score:2)
Self-enforced Ignorance (Score:2)
"In our recent discussion of the phenomenon of noctilucent clouds..." ... we had plenty of input on the history and nature of them, including an uncharacteristically (for recent examples) detailed and accurate recounting from Wired.
So how is it one can reference an article with such good, clear information, and then utterly ignore all of that in order to posit such a ridiculous assertion? Worse than submission of such junk articles is the complete lack of editorial effort in determining whether the submissi
Cognitive filtering (Score:3, Informative)
Here's what I find interesting: the bulk of the 'data' behind anthropogenic global warming points to a rise in temps THIS century of a small handful of degrees. The concern is over the consequences of a further rise of, again, a small handful of degrees.
Now, drag out all the charts, graphs, and politically-motivated reports you want, for and against; the only actual modern large-scale experiment that gives us any proof regarding human impact on temperature was the week after 9/11.
The complete lack of aircraft over the US had a SIGNIFICANT effect on high and low temperatures immediately.
Couple that with this current evidence that a single shuttle launch can apparently impact cloud formation over the Antarctic, and I'd say that's a far-more-tangible red flag than the supposed connections made over CO2 or other 'global warming' gases.
So why isn't there a significant, sustained effort to minimize air travel?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, drag out all the charts, graphs, and politically-motivated reports you want, for and against; the only actual modern large-scale experiment that gives us any proof regarding human impact on temperature was the week after 9/11.
It was three days. Citation with reference here [realclimate.org].
The complete lack of aircraft over the US had a SIGNIFICANT effect on high and low temperatures immediately.
Three days is far too short a time period to say anything conclusive about climate. You might as well argue that the sustained low temperatures last winter are a sign that the world is cooling...
Couple that with this current evidence that a single shuttle launch can apparently impact cloud formation over the Antarctic, and I'd say that's a far-more-tangible red flag than the supposed connections made over CO2 or other 'global warming' gases.
So why isn't there a significant, sustained effort to minimize air travel?
You mean like this [yahoo.com]? Judging from this and the rest of your comments, you really need to get out more...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So why isn't there a significant, sustained effort to minimize air travel?
Because we like air travel and hate industry. Minimizing air travel would inconvenience too many of "the right kind of people."
The same kind of thinking can be seen in the summary: "It now appears that these clouds are simply the product of Shuttle launches." The key word here is "simply", implying that there's nothing to worry about, because shuttle launches are a Good Thing.
AGW may be real--the signal in ocean heat content is pr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering how variable the weather is in September, how can you be sure you're seeing causation, and not mere correlation? Having 3 or 4 days of temps significantly warmer or cooler than the week before is normal that time of year, as it's when winter fronts start moving across the continent.
While I've seen the sky completely haze over between morning and afternoon due to contrail spreading (if you work outside all day and can watch the sky, you can see this happen) I'm still not convinced it's significan
few airplanes after 9-11 changed atmosphere (Score:4, Interesting)