Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

NASA Snaps Mysterious "Night-Shining" Clouds

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon Dec 10, 2007 05:27 PM
from the pretty-pictures dept.
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.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by User 956 (568564) on Monday December 10 2007, @05:28PM (#21648591) Homepage
    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?
    • Don't mod down just because you don't get the reference. How anyone could possibly not get the Simpsons reference here, I have no idea. Hand in your damn geek cards.
      • Hey, if we're getting Geek Card on it we'd have to point out that Aurora Borealis is not the same as Alluring Noctilucent Clouds.

        Parent still made me grin though =D
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          I knew a hippie chick named Alluring Noctilucent Cloud once. She could light up a room with her smile, but only at night.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        Hand over your geek card for not recognizing that his reference was incorrect anyway: "At this time of year? At this time of day? In this part of the country? Localized entirely within your kitchen?".
    • '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.'"

      No, that's Al Gore's job. Now you're going to have to take away his Nobel prize and give to the clouds. :)

      • Re:"steamed hams"? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Monday December 10 2007, @10:15PM (#21651145) Homepage Journal

        could represent an early warning that our Earth environment is being changed
        It amazes that people are still looking for warnings, as if the actual warming of the earth's atmosphere, and the fact that there is more agreement among climate scientists on this issue than almost any other issue in all of science, just isn't enough.

        I mean, I understand that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but do we really need to wait until the house burns to the ground before we'll agree that the bitch is on fire? Isn't the smoke rising through the floorboards enough? It's amazing the number the oil companies and the right-wing media have done on us. Every other developed country in the world is at least sitting down and agreeing to try to minimize carbon emissions except the US. And we act all shocked and hurt when the rest of the world thinks we're total assholes.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Actually, the major point is that the other developped countries have understood that, with the rapidly increasing cost of the energy they have to import, using their technological advance to reduce their oil dependance is a long term economical winning move. The fact that it might help the environment is nothing more than a fortunate side effect.
          The american problem is that they are governed by people who have a personnal interest in keeping their country in a high oil dependance.
  • Heh... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Otter (3800) on Monday December 10 2007, @05:33PM (#21648659) Journal
    ...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."

    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.

    • Global warming is the big scare in the climate world right now, so it is how you get money for environmental research. You write a proposal to study some owl that isn't endangered but might become so that nobody gives a shit about and you get no money. However you change it up and talk about how you want to study the impact of global warming on it, bam you gots money.

      Same shit with terrorism in other areas. Can't get money for an anti-crime initiative? Just make it an anti-terror initiative! You get money t
    • "...Or it could be just the opposite!"

      Maybe the cloud is part of a positive feedback cycle that keeps the Earth's climate in acceptable ranges. Probably not, but since we're all jumping to conclusions here...

    • Re:Heh... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by moderatorrater (1095745) on Monday December 10 2007, @06:17PM (#21649159)
      I disagree. I look at Global Warming as the cause like I look to the latest code change as the cause of a never before seen software bug. The chances that a new phenomena is occurring in the atmosphere that's never occurred before being completely unrelated to another widespread, unprecedented phenomena is relatively low. They're not just tacking on a buzzword, they're drawing the obvious link.
      • Re:Heh... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by huckamania (533052) on Monday December 10 2007, @06:55PM (#21649643) Journal
        I was going to mod some of the other posts...

        First, Global Warming is passe, try Global Climate Change. That's a better term for your crowd because when it snows in April you can relate it to Global Climate Change. It has the added benefit of being completely true since no one is going to argue for Global Climate Stasis.

        Second, science is about confirming links, obvious (to you) or not. Not that this study is going to actual confirm anything. Studying something for 2 years will not allow them or you or anyone to draw any conclusions about whether Global Climate Change is the cause.

        Third, the conclusion that this is a new phenomenon is on shaky ground. Same can be said for the ozone hole. A better label would be a phenomenon we've never noticed before. I'm sure one of Newton's contemporaries probably labeled gravity as a new phenomenon, as if everyone was floating around in zero G before the apple fell on Wayne's head.
          • Re:Heh... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Planesdragon (210349) <slashdot&castlesteelstone,us> on Tuesday December 11 2007, @12:56AM (#21652093) Homepage Journal

            When people say temperature decreases are part of global warming it is a cop out for global warming proponents who really don't know what is going on which makes them right no matter what happens. Convenient isn't it?
            Scary. Not convenient.

            The "Climate Crisis" interpretation is that, due to the sudden rise of atmospheric carbon, we're in danger of not just a few degrees of warmth or sea level jumping a hundred feet, but a cascading series of feedback loops that will render Earth wholly uninhabitable.

            We know the temperature is going up. We know that carbon in the air is going up. We know that we're tossing an awful lot of carbon into the air We can see a clear correlation between temperature and carbon going back a few thousand years.

            Don't YOU think that's enough to, I don't know, stop tossing carbon into the air and see what happens? If it turns out to do nothing, we can just let you burn dinosaurs again. I know I'd rather lose my next paycheck than die.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        These clouds aren't unprecedented. What's novel (besides the imaging of them) is that their location, timing and density are supposedly changing. That may in fact have to do with global warming, or be the result of some other human-caused process, but if you're going to make the assumption that anything variable in the atmosphere is necessarily related to climate change -- that pretty much makes my point.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        I disagree. I look at Global Warming as the cause like I look to the latest code change as the cause of a never before seen software bug.

        Well, that makes the flawed assumption that the earth's climate behaviors linearly and predictibly. It doesn't and therefor, it can't. There's nothing about our climate that guarantees that we should be in any steady state, and geologically speaking, the earth's climate has bounced all over the place. Sure, you might argue that there is some asthetic utility to balancin
        • You make the flawed assumption that the global warming is all about absolute levels. It is not, it is all about rates of change. Sure, the Earth's climate has bounced all over the place. But it hasn't changed on time scales as short as we are seeing now. And it's the fast changes that makes the planet less habitable, moreso than the target values.
  • Best quote ever! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LingNoi (1066278) on Monday December 10 2007, @05:34PM (#21648665)

    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,
    That has to be the first honest answer I have read from someone on our climate, ever.

    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.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      i don't believe it's even "clear" that it's an indicator our climate is changing. in TFA they don't even consider that maybe they are just getting better at knowing where to look for them, hence they see more.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 10 2007, @05:44PM (#21648799)
      Ask any atmospheric physicist how things like that work and they will almost certainly tell you: We don't know.

      If there's one thing I learned during my Atmospheric Physics course at university, it's that we only have somewhat good ideas, or decent approximations of how some of these things work in the best case, and vague approximations or no fricking clue in the worst cases.

      This is why it bothers me so much when people talk about global climate change as if they know what is going to happen. Is it happening? Yeah! Is it probably not good? Yeah! Do we even know enough to be crying end of the world? No!
      • Is it happening? Yeah! Is it probably not good? Yeah! Do we even know enough to be crying end of the world? No!
        Best synopsis of the whole issue ever. Kudos for Conciseness and Clarity.
      • Re:Best quote ever! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by moosesocks (264553) on Monday December 10 2007, @09:36PM (#21650873) Homepage
        Precisely.

        Atmospheric Science heavily relies upon taking what little data we *do* know, and extrapolating as much useful information as we possibly can out of it.

        And it actually works pretty well... "anomalies" that have turned up in forecast models very often turn out to actually exist in reality. It was this way that we determined that a considerable amount of ash and pollution produced by industrial activity in Asia gets blown all the way to North America. It was so counterintuitive that nobody had ever thought to test for it before the forecast model suggested that it was happening quite readily.

        If you also want to see something really scary, read up on the CFC Ozone depleting reaction. If it weren't for a few seasonal processes that restore the Ozone, and more importantly, wash out the CFCs, we'd have burned off our entire atmosphere in just a few years.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Is it happening? Yeah! Is it probably not good? Yeah! Do we even know enough to be crying end of the world? No!

        Will we ever know enough before it's too late? Probably not! Can we do some good things now to give us more time to learn what's going on? Not if everyone has your attitude...

        If you continue to analyze until you completely understand everything, the time for effective action is probably long past.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Does this mean we can randomly diddle the knobs of a complex system we don't understand and expect no consequences? No!
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      Before you get on your high horse and start saying it's just a theory, or a conspiracy by envirofascists or something, how about learning a bit about what we do know, what we don't know, and the degrees of uncertainty to each [realclimate.org]. Great. You now have what we call an "informed opinion"... and as such you recognise that you didn't actually have a clue what you were talking about when you posted that comment.
    • by Atario (673917) on Monday December 10 2007, @07:14PM (#21649845) Homepage

      exactly how it all works
      You don't need to know the exact capillary constriction/dilation response curve under all types of trauma to know that it's probably best not to whack yourself in the head with an axe handle.
  • Even more worryingly, early reports suggest they may contain Dihydrogen Monoxide.
  • More pictures (Score:5, Informative)

    by Xelios (822510) on Monday December 10 2007, @05:43PM (#21648787)
    http://www.spaceweather.com/nlcs/gallery2007_page9.htm [spaceweather.com] 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!
    • No, no, he already knows the answer even though he hasn't started the study yet -- it's global warming!

      Man, I love Science.
  • by JK_the_Slacker (1175625) on Monday December 10 2007, @05:45PM (#21648811) Homepage

    "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."

  • Visible in Ohio. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mpathetiq (726625) on Monday December 10 2007, @05:51PM (#21648887) Homepage
    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 [spaceweather.com]), but they are still very beautiful. I never realized they were a special subset of clouds.
  • I at first thought NASA snapped its fingers and waved a wand,

    and there were singers of stars in the pond...

    Maybe they will increase the budged by offering their version of "Name Your Star" for the low, low price of... $350
  • by pln2bz (449850) * on Monday December 10 2007, @06:20PM (#21649209)
    If you go through these pictures ...

    http://www.spaceweather.com/nlcs/gallery2007_page9.htm [spaceweather.com]

    Nearly every single cloud structure is filamentary. People will surely say it's blasphemous to use the E-word, but structures like these ...

    http://www.spaceweather.com/nlcs/images2007/16jun07/Heden1.jpg [spaceweather.com]

    Are what you get in the laboratory with *electrical* plasmas. It's the same structure that you get in a novelty plasma globe. These look exactly like Birkeland Currents to me. I'm not even sure that "clouds" is the proper term for these things, given their proximity to space. Even the overhead view from the article in question demonstrates filamentation.
  • by StefanJ (88986) on Monday December 10 2007, @06:23PM (#21649259) Homepage Journal
    The White House is already taking steps to make sure that these "scientists" at NASA don't say anything that might upset you:

    Climate Science Manipulation Alleged [guardian.co.uk]

    Obviously, this report didn't get properly vetted. By the end of the day it should be titled "Unday Clouds Shine Pretty! Doubleplus Good!"
  • by gambolt (1146363) on Monday December 10 2007, @06:28PM (#21649313)
    when the clouds are positioned for coverage around the globe . . .

    checkmate

  • One theory: X-rays (Score:5, Informative)

    by ericferris (1087061) on Monday December 10 2007, @06:33PM (#21649363) Homepage
    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 [montana.edu]. 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.
  • Clouds (Score:3, Funny)

    by srobert (4099) on Monday December 10 2007, @06:41PM (#21649481)
    Scientists have studied the phenomenon from the ground and from the perspective of the satellite imagery. They have found that the impressive appearance of illumination, is actually reflective. They have been unable to conclude what is the cause of the increase in the frequency of the phenomena.
    A leading researcher commented as follows:
    I've looked at clouds from both sides now
    From up and down, and still somehow
    It's cloud illusions I recall
    I really don't know clouds at all
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 10 2007, @06:46PM (#21649543)
    "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.

  • by DieByWire (744043) on Monday December 10 2007, @07:44PM (#21650123)

    I've seen these several times over the North Atlantic in the summer.

    If you're not paying attention, your first impression is that they look like cirrus clouds viewed from the ground, only much more beautiful.

    It's when you remember that you're already 30+ thousand feet up, and that these look like cirrus do when you're on the ground, that you realize how high they are. (That's plain English for 'mesosphere.')

    Like satellites, you can see them when your sky is dark but they are catching sunlight due to their altitude.

    Right up there with northern lights as a visual treat.

    • by sumdumass (711423) on Monday December 10 2007, @05:52PM (#21648901) Journal
      It is? Could it be that they are cause by the same thing causing global warming and you are placing the context in the wrong area?

      Something that has simply amazed me for a long time now is Freezing Fog. Maybe understanding that could lead to a better understanding of these clouds and your conclusion of global warming.
      • He doesn't believe in global warming even exists, and you have been trolled.
    • It is clear that they are caused by global warming.
      I agree. It's feedback. They are one of the ways that the planet maintains its temperature.

      You see, a low cloud blocks some sunlight coming in, but also blocks infrared going out. A very high cloud, however, blocks the same amount of sunlight ( not being significantly closer to the sun ) and blocks less infrared because only inrared going straight up will hit it. This works unless there is nearly 100% cloud cover.
    • Where in the article does it say anything about the world ending? Or that the investigators were "weathermen?"

      Clearly, you are the one who is jumping to conclusions without examining the evidence.

      Enjoy your nap. Maybe you'll be a bit less cranky when you wake up.
      • It's true. Didn't anyone watch the documentary The Day After Tomorrow? Dennis Quaid or Jake Gyllenhaal should have won instead of Al.