Noctilucent Clouds Likely Caused By Shuttle Launches 132
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?"
See? Man-made climate change! (Score:5, Funny)
Those damn environmentalists were right!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Normal: Things we have observed for a long time. Not normal: Things we have observed only recently.
Since global warming is the main change currently happening to our climate, attributing other changes to global warming is often an acceptable first hypothesis, at least if there's a known mechanism that could potentially link the two.
Re: (Score:1)
Since global warming is the main change currently happening to our climate, attributing other changes to global warming is often an acceptable first hypothesis, at least if there's a known mechanism that could potentially link the two.
Well the "known mechanism" is probably a good thing to have before you move from hunch to public announcement.
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:2)
Granted. Well, pretty big.
There used to be a perception that SlashDot had a scientifically and/or technically literate readership - I'll bet that's what they tell the advertisers anyway. So don't believe, work the numbers.
Given - a shuttle is worth 300 tonnes of water ; altitude is 115km ; a cirrus cloud is 0.002 g/m^3 water (from http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap08/moist_cloud.html [uwyo.edu] ) ;
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:1)
I guess we can all relax now knowing that we are only seeing the signs of shuttle damage to the extreme edge of the atmosphere.
I have been concerned for a while now about the possibility of disturbing what must for the most part be a very stable part of the atmosphere. Does anyone know how many pollutants ie N/SOx these launches distribute or if the chemistry of that region is likely to be affected?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually they weren't right because they said it was due to global warming. But what I don't get is that they are "scientists". They use the "scientific method". All their conclusions are "peer reviewed". They are smarter than all non-scientists. How could they be wrong? And if they were wrong about this is it possible that they could be wrong about other statements of "fact"? I thought scientists couldn't be wrong? That is was impossible for a non-scientist to question their conclusions?
Could it b
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:1)
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! :-)
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.
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.)
Re:Um, first observed in 1887 - well before shuttl (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
> photography, in much the same way Color was invented in the 50s.
You're off by a couple of decades. The world turned color starting in the thirties. Although, it was pretty grainy color for a while.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Thank you, Calvin's dad.
Re:Um, first observed in 1887 - well before shuttl (Score:4, Funny)
Schroedinger's Noctilucent Cloud?
It doesn't exist until you photograph it?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
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
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:Um, first observed in 1887 - well before shuttl (Score:1)
Ahah! So, "From the Earth to the Moon" was a documentary, and not fictional (so, it's the opposite of the moon landing shots).
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)
Seven digit'r up there. 'Course they expect folks to RTFA.
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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]!
Dang.... (Score:1)
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...
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
Re: (Score:1)
It didn't take that long.
I distinctly remember hearing about this in a lecture back in 2006 in Kiruna space campus. They have investigated stuff like this for a while there and remarked that spacecraft launches 'also' cause them. Shuttles were not specifically mentioned.
The clouds that are not man-made were said to dissolve ozone, but not in big quantities, they are completely "natural".
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, the article implies that it is old news that noctilucent clouds can be caused by the shuttle. The new point in the article is that Tunguska was the likely cause of noctilucent clouds that occurred shortly after, which implies an impacting body containing a lot of water rather than a lot of rock. The slashdot article summary does actually convey this, although the slashdot article title is misleading.
Note that there are parallels here with the first manned American orbital mission. John Glenn obse [dailyhistory.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Because the shuttle connection is just sensationalist journalism. This will necessarily happen for any rocket that emits water vapor at the appropriate altitude. There are launches going up all the time so the occurrences aren't as easily correlated to the shuttle.
Facts FUD (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:1)
I'm no rocket scientist, but I am pretty sure that they largely use liquid oxygen for the rocket boosters. Most of the exhaust is probably water vapor and oxygen.
Re: (Score:1)
Easy enough to verify. Aaaaaand, nope. Only the shuttle's main engines use liquid oxygen/hydrogen. The boosters use a solid mixture and each one provides over twice the force generated by all three main engines combined (therefore it's safe to assume the boosters are expelling a significant amount of the total exhaust).
Re: (Score:1)
spread the wealth... (Score:2)
So the volume of shuttle exhaust material is enough to fill a significant portion of the upper atmosphere of the North Pole?
Really depends on how much you spread it out. If the air up there was only 1/1000 thick as it is a sea level, then, a volume of gas which might be a cubic 100 meters at sea level would be considerably larger in the upper atmosphere... miles across maybe.
Re: (Score:2)
Which gave me this odd thought: Since the planet continuously loses some atmosphere into space -- maybe it behooves us to thicken up that top layer and slow down the process... ;)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's kind of like saying gasoline is more flammable than wood.
As infrequent as shuttle launches are, the relatively tiny amount of water vapor they've released is almost certainly not a significant contributor to global warming. There's just not enough quantity there.
But if somehow a *lot* of water got up there, enough to form a continuous layer from the equator to the poles, you'd be looking at world-wide year-round subtropical temperatures,
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:2)
Make that -100C, but yes, true, it is well below freezing. However, the somewhat more physically complete explanation than simply "the upper atmosphere is getting colder" is that less energy is being put into the upper atmosphere on account of unusually low UV and
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There are 3 requirements for these clouds to form:
1. Dust in the mesosphere to seed the accumulations
2. Moisture in the mesosphere
3. Temperatures less than about 150K
There isn't a lot of either dust or water in this part of the atmosphere, and things like volcanic eruptions, and shuttle launches are one mechanism by which large quantities of both can be transported to this layer of the atmosphere, which is what TFA is sa
Re: (Score:2)
It is related to global warming/cooling as follows: the required low temperatures in the upper atmosphere are only attained if the solar UV/EUV/X-ray flux, mostly originating from the solar corona, is very low: that part of the spectrum does not penetrate well and hence is absorbed in the upper atmosphere.
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. The solar corona is a very
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!
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be stupid. As any child knows, the sun heats the earth so there is obviously a correlation between solar output and earth temperature.
However, the highly variable part of the solar output is mostly in the UV/EUV/X-ray range and as such is not easy to measure on earth. No correlations of global temperature with ground-based or narrow-band solar flux measurements
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be stupid. As any child knows, the sun heats the earth so there is obviously a correlation between solar output and earth temperature.
How ironic. You accuse me of stupidity while, apparently, not understanding the term "mean global temperature".
No correlations of global temperature with ground-based or narrow-band solar flux measurements are to be expected.
Bullshit. We've had satellites studying the sun for decades.
You're basically suggesting some sort of solar output measurement that's been growing
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine the solar output doubles. What do you figure will happen to the mean global temperature? Assume it halves. What will happen? In what way is that not a correlation?
Indeed, and guess what: we have found strong variations in UV output http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/sola/1998/00000177/00000001/00134956?crawler=true [ingentaconnect.com]. The shorter the
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine the solar output doubles. What do you figure will happen to the mean global temperature? Assume it halves. What will happen? In what way is that not a correlation?
Yes, my point exactly. And since solar output has a predictable variation, and that variation *does not correlate with global mean temperature*, the link between solar output and global warming is tenuous at best.
The variations are definitely correlated to the solar cycle which is not surprising
Oh FFS, so you admit, then, that the variati
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they are linked, but not in the simple way you seem to suggest. The linking mechanism to the solar cycle I described is indirect. Also, UV/EUV/X-ray output variation have been observed to occur on much shorter timescales than the 11 year solar cycle. Part of that has of course to do with solar flares, but there are also medium-timescale (days/weeks) variations that correlate to changes in the solar wind pr
Re: (Score:2)
And unless you can provide evidence that said flux has shown an increasing trend over the last 50 years (okay, let's say the last 20 or so, since we've had reliable satellite data), your supposition that those bands are linked to GW is baseless.
In case you don't understand this argument, let me rephrase: The global mean temperature has been markedly increasing (and the rate of increase has been increasing) for at least the last 50 years. Whatever mechanism you claim is linked to GW must, therefore, show a
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure you can agree that simple physics dictates that variations in the solar flux must drive global average temperatures. After all, the energy present in the solar radiation reaching the earth is mostly absorbed by the earth's atmosphere, surface, and sea. This
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you just don't get it. Look up the definition of the word "correlated". Then look at the solar output over the last 50 years. Then look at the global mean temperature for the last 50 years, and the rate of change of the global mean temperature over the last 50 years. Then apply the aforementioned definition to those data sets. You might discover, much to your surprise, that there is *no correlation* between the increase in global mean temperature and the change in solar output over the last 50 yea
Re: (Score:2)
I guess part of the confusion lies in that we use a different meaning for "global warming". What I mean is an increase in the average global atmospheric temperature, something which can have many causes. I think you mean something more narrow: anthropogenic greenhouse-gas driven global warming.
That cannot be done. We do not have that data. A lot of the solar output is in the EUV. It has only recently started to be measured: http://www.usc.edu/dept/space_s [usc.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
That cannot be done. We do not have that data.
And, again, that's a bullshit cop-out. At minimum, we have had solar output data from satellites for decades, now, which is more than enough to determine if there's a correlation between the observed increase in global mean temperature and solar output. The answer, which is hardly surprising, is that there is no such correlation.
Anyway, it's clear you're unwilling to listen to actual reason, so I'm done here. Hopefully anyone reading this thread will see how
Re: (Score:2)
No we have not had that. Realize that measuring the solar flux in the EUV and X-ray spectrum is not that easy even when in space. These wavelengths are easily absorbed: lenses and mirrors cannot be used to focus those photons on a detector. You need tricky instruments like grazing-incidence spectr
Re: (Score:2)
For the recent trend in global temperatures, see here: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12865 [canadafreepress.com].
As an aside, I'm not sure it was intentional, but you've done a very good job of citing an article which illustrates the dangers of cherrypicking data to suit your own agenda. I mean, honestly, selecting the last 5 years and using that to pick out a temperature trend. It's absolutely absurd. And it's well known that El Nino was responsible for the spike in global temperature in the mid-90s. The
just typical American (Score:1)
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
FYI, these clouds are in the mesosphere ... (Score:1)
Convection stops in the stratosphere (because there is no temperature inversion there
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:2, Insightful)
Secondly, What is the effect of noctilucent clouds on on o
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
Re: (Score:2)
So why isn't there a significant, sustained effort to minimize air travel?
$$$
not too hard to figure out. and really what is the alternative to air travel for moving vast amounts of people vast distances.
I don't know, but you seem to have all the answers.
Re: (Score:2)
"Hidden?"
HAHAHAAHAHA
Let me be clear: I SUSPECT THAT THE PANIC OVER AGW IS FUD.
I can outline my position succinctly with these 5 questions.
Q: Is the planet warming?
A: Unclear. *Most* data seems to point to an overall warming trend that is also inducing pattern changes that may even result in localized cooling.
Q: Is this warming unusual?
A: No. All historical climate data points to the fact that the climate changes over time in varying cycles. According to all long-term plots (example http://en.wikipedia.or [wikipedia.org]
Growing up in New York City (Score:1)
I remember growing up in New York when the Space Shuttle launched it always rained the next day.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but it rains often enough up there that I would not be willing to blame the shuttle. More likely the times that conditions are best in Florida for a shuttle launch tend to come the day before it rains in New York.
But I'm sure you posted your anecdote more to be humorous than to seriously suggest a causal link.
Statistics needed (Score:2)
In the science field, there's a saying "anecdotes are not data."
Let's see some real statistics.
few airplanes after 9-11 changed atmosphere (Score:4, Interesting)
"So, man-made after all?" (Score:2)
It's completely natural. Space launches are a natural product of evolution.
Or, to put it another way: if God didn't want us to go into space, he wouldn't have made it so easy to react hydrogen with oxygen.
Re: (Score:1)
Citation needed.