Slashdot Mirror
NASA Snaps Mysterious "Night-Shining" Clouds
coondoggie writes to tell us that NASA has captured some pretty impressive images of the Alluring noctilucent (or "night-shining") clouds. These clouds are made up of ice crystals and dust and are formed at high altitudes near the poles. "Very little is known about how these clouds form over the poles, why they are being seen more frequently and at lower latitudes than ever before, or why they have been growing brighter. AIM will observe two complete cloud seasons over both poles, documenting an entire life cycle of the shiny clouds for the first time. 'It is clear that these clouds are changing, a sign that a part of our atmosphere is changing and we do not understand how, why or what it means,' stated AIM principal investigator James Russell III of Hampton University, Hampton, Va. 'These observations suggest a connection with global change in the lower atmosphere and could represent an early warning that our Earth environment is being changed.'"
writes to tell us that NASA has captured some pretty impressive images of the Alluring noctilucent (or "night-shining") clouds.
At this time of day? localized entirely in your kitchen?
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
That may well be entirely true, but I recognize a cousin to the "...and therefore may lead to new treatments for cancer." that molecular biologists ritualistically slap at the end of every grant application.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
We hear too often from these climate "experts", finally someone is ready to admit that our climate is so big and complex that we don't know exactly how it all works.
Even more worryingly, early reports suggest they may contain Dihydrogen Monoxide.
If you haven't made a developer cry, you've wasted a day.
http://www.spaceweather.com/nlcs/gallery2007_page9.htm has a Noctilucent Cloud gallery. I haven't seen them yet myself, but it'll be interesting to see if AIM manages to find an explanation for them. It's an intriguing mystery!
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
"All right, Beatrice, there was no alien. The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus."
I'm waiting for a "-1 somepeoplejustshouldn'tgetmodprivileges" meta-moderation.
I've seen these a few times over the last years. The examples I saw weren't as brilliant as the ones in the summary (more along the lines of http://www.spaceweather.com/nlcs/gallery2007_page1.htm), but they are still very beautiful. I never realized they were a special subset of clouds.
Post-rock/Ambient/Drone and other noise.
One theory trying to explain these clouds is the X-ray activity of the sun. The sun is a highly variable star when it comes to X-rays. During its 11-year cycle, the X-ray flux emitted by the sun varies by a factor of 15, with ferocious bursts. We are at a solar minimum, so we see few sun spots and the X-ray activity is also lower on average.
I found an article that is short and readable explaining the link between solar cycles and X-rays: http://solar.physics.montana.edu/nuggets/2000/000407/000407.html. Note that the X-ray activity can vary hugely from the current solar minimum to, say, the 2000-2001 solar max.
The problem is that we don't have that much data on it yet. We need to accumulate several cycles worth of observations before we can answer these questions:
* When does the sun emit X-rays? Is it linked to sun spots?
* What do solar X-rays do to the upper atmosphere?
The X-rays are absorbed by the ionosphere (fortunately for life forms), and this energy transfer is not well known. During each solar minimum, less X-rays arrive in the upper atmosphere, which therefore should cool down. Is it the reason why we see these noctilucent clouds? If so, they should start disappearing in a couple of years, when sun spots return.
This is a very interesting keyhole on a yet unknown mechanism. I hope we'll see updates on the subject.
Fantasy: http://ferrisfantasy.blogspot.com/
"Very little is known about how these clouds form over the poles, why they are being seen more frequently and at lower latitudes than ever before, or why they have been growing brighter. AIM will observe two complete cloud seasons over both poles, documenting an entire life cycle of the shiny clouds for the first time."
"These observations suggest a connection with global change in the lower atmosphere and could represent an early warning that our Earth environment is being changed."
* It could also suggest that documentation has been poor in the past (ref. quote 1) and that the higher rate is because more effort is spent on registering the climate in general.
* It could also suggest a _purely local_ non-human-related change. After all, the middle ages warm period has been discounted by climatologists as a purely half-a-hemisphere local phenomenon. There is hence no reason why the climate should not change in one region of the world alone.
* It could also suggest a _purely local_ human-related change, e.g. if it is related to soot in the atmosphere, or NOx
* It could also suggest a _cyclical_ event, either globally or locally, which the expressions used ('is being changed') alludes away from.
Simply saying "The observations could suggest that XYZ" is an unprofessional statement. All observations could suggest a large number of things - so if it is just a suggestion and you are a professional, do not make a statement on it, while if it is very likely to be, then say that it is likely instead.