Slashdot Mirror
Noctilucent Clouds Likely Caused By Shuttle Launches
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?"
Those damn environmentalists were right!
The previous Slashdot thread included the tidbit that the first noctilucent clouds mentioned in recorded history were in 1887 (also noted here). 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,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Well, there goes my crack headline of "Latest Global Warming Cause : Shuttle Farts".
Almost a full century before the first shuttle launch by humans! Finally we have proof for UFOs! :-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
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.
Just callin' it like I see it.
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.
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
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.
Finally, solid evidence that the government controls the weather.
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?
"Good news, everyone!"
Only 300 metric tons? By doing a simple 1 minute Google search I've found that a single cloud weighs on the order of 100 tons-100,000 tons and more. Great bullshit kdawson.
My theory, then, is that they were caused by the advent of photography, in much the same way Color was invented in the 50s.
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?
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. Specifically, there should be a fall in the number of observed clouds during the two extended periods of time when the shuttle wasn't flying following the Challenger and Columbia disasters. IIRC, there was a similar fall off in percentage cloud cover over the US during the days after 9/11 when almost no aircraft were flying within US airspace.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Wow, that was the easiest way to get rid of these pesky modpoints ever. Go back to the old article and retroactively mod everyone up who vaguely mentioned something spaceshuttly.
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.
And what happened around that time?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa
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.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
From June, 2003: .... note the last sentence.
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap030615.html
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 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.)
Please, how have you managed to turn this into a rant about a global warming conspiracy?
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 saying.
The clouds themselves form when the temperature in this layer is low, and the lowest temperatures in this region occur in summer, counterintuitively. This is of course when temperatures are highest in the lower atmosphere.
So, the cooling you refer to hasn't got any established relationship with the "scam" of global warming, and if it did, it wouldn't support your argument.
> My theory, then, is that they were caused by the advent of
> 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.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
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?
-Styopa
Thank you, Calvin's dad.
End of lesson. You may press the button.
Schroedinger's Noctilucent Cloud?
It doesn't exist until you photograph it?
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Hah! That was a GGGGGREAT Calvin and Hobbes!!! http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/calvin-father-on-black-and-white-pictures.gif
Interesting PBS NOVA show on Global Dimming or the effects of a hundred thousand US jet flights a day. they mostly halted the three days after 9-11. The upper atmosphere become noticeably more clear in that short period.
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!