Slashdot Mirror
Noctilucent Clouds Spread and Mystify
Wired has a feature on noctilucent clouds, once seen only at high latitudes but increasingly visible now lower down the globe. The clouds result from ice crystals at altitudes of 50 miles, higher than five 9s of the atmosphere. What water ice is doing up there, in a region 100 million times drier than the Sahara desert, is only one of the mysteries associated with the clouds. They are a recent phenomenon: the first scientific description of noctilucent clouds was penned in 1885. For a time it was believed that the clouds were an effect resulting from the eruption of the Krakatoa volcano two years before. Since 2002, the clouds have been sighted — and photographed — as far south as Oregon, Colorado, and Utah. Some scientists believe that human-caused climate change is playing a role, but others doubt this. Two satellites are in orbit to study the clouds; NASA's AIM generated this day-by-day movie of clouds in the vicinity of the North Pole during 2008.
Either that, or the anti-Global Warming agenda is going to be shown as a farce instituted by dogmatic opposition to anything that gets in the way of profits.
Jury's still out.
When is this hoax going to end?
When the per capita GDP of the U.S. is forced down to about $1000.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
It will end when it stops being profitable to those promoting it, and not one second sooner.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
I just wonder... when New York is under a half mile of ice and 100 miles from the nearest ocean again, are these same "scientists" going to pushing for carbon taxes to stop global warming.
Do you mean that it's sad that we think that or sad that it is the case? Global warming aside, we know that we've "stuffed up" the planet before-- PCBs and other contaminants in drinking water, Chernobyl, acid rain, the ozone hole, and so on. Since we don't know much about this phenomenon, we have to at least ask ourselves whether it is an human-induced phenomenon or a natural one. If we didn't ask the question, we wouldn't be very good scientists. Only through asking the question will we be able to determine whether such a thing really is our fault, and whether that is a phenomenon we can live with.
it isn't clear why you bring them up,
He's a vocal GW denier trying to beat down any point that could support GW. I keep all the staunch science-deniers I run across on my foes list, I remember Rockoon in particular due to his extreme anti-environmental views.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I can't? Why not - since it's the truth?
1) GISTEMP is closed source, closed algorithm. If you don't agree, you haven't looked at it, or you didn't follow the debacle that caused corrections and finally the release of code in 2007. Code that wouldn't be considered functional by open source standards.
http://cdquarles.wordpress.com/2009/05/02/fun-with-gistemp/
Now, that might change due to efforts like http://clearclimatecode.org/ - but we're not there yet.
2) CRN123 stations do look different than all put together. I know which study you're going to cite, and you might want to read up on how that was done. In short, watch out for "corrections" to the data - i.e, what are they really comparing?
3) GISTEMP and UAH are "all that different" ;) One is used to prove a political agenda, one measures variable climate fluctuations. You're interested in African UHI, amongs other things.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/part-1-of-comparison-of-gistemp-and-uah.html
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/part-2-of-comparison-of-gistemp-and-uah.html
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/07/part-3-of-comparison-of-gistemp-and-uah.html
Bascially, GISTEMP is worthless - as my first reply pointed out. When debating climate variability, we should at least try to use data we can believe in.
it's in my head