Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
NASA Space Science

NASA Snaps Mysterious "Night-Shining" Clouds 198

Posted by ScuttleMonkey 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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA Snaps Mysterious "Night-Shining" Clouds More

NASA Snaps Mysterious "Night-Shining" Clouds

Comments Filter:

  • "steamed hams"? (Score:5, Funny)

    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?

    • Off topic? Dumb mods (Score:2, Informative)

      by spun ( 1352 )
      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)

          by spun ( 1352 )
          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)

        by Xinef Jyinaer ( 1044268 )
        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?".

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by letxa2000 ( 215841 )

      '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) 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)

          by aadvancedGIR ( 959466 )
          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.
        • "except the US" ...and China.
        • >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?

          As someone brighter than I first said: when someone's income depends on not understanding your argument, it's incredibly difficult to convince that person that you're right. The USA is the leading consumer of energy in the world, and is, per capita, the leading producer of greenhouse pollutants. Is it really amazin
        • I would try to take that a little bit more literally. Until they know what it means, they are only suggesting it could be an environment change. Maybe more evidence supporting global warming, maybe even against, maybe something we humans are entirely unaware of. Effect from ozone layer, who knows. Or it might just be a normal phenomena. That's what scientists do: figure this stuff out. Until then, your tirade towards these guys is a bit premature.

  • 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

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Toonol ( 1057698 )
      "...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.
        • These were first seen in the late 1800s around the period that Krakatoa erupted.

          I think people underestimate the level of science that was performed then. I'm quite confident that stargazers of the time would indeed notice something new and unseen.

          Now it's possible they've appeared in the distant past, gone away and come back, but that's a different story

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Otter ( 3800 )
        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)

        by tjstork ( 137384 )
        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

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Markus Landgren ( 50350 )
          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.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by tjstork ( 137384 )
            You make the flawed assumption that the global warming is all about absolute levels. 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.

            I honestly have not seen anyone make that claim. The issue with GW is that we have realized that the climate is not a steady state thing at all, and that worse, we seemed to have kicked it out of that steady state, so scientists are utterly terrified because they hav

  • 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)

      by timmarhy ( 659436 )
      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.

    • Re:Best quote ever! (Score:5, Insightful)

      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)

        by samkass ( 174571 )
        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.

        • 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.

          And you propose we do, what... considering we don't know enough to take action. We could affirmatively decide to take inaction, although if we do that, we've taken an action thereby eliminating our objective of inaction. On the other hand, we could pass some laws and crack down on the industrial revolutions of third world countries all the while knowing that we don't know enough to make a responsible decision.

          Reading back over this, it really sounds like a flame; it isn't, I just don't understand what

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by domatic ( 1128127 )
        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)

      by OriginalArlen ( 726444 )
      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.
      • Well how about something [agu.org] a little less biased [agu.org] ? [wikipedia.org]

        Here's a hint: If your solution to <Problem X> involves global socialism and isn't <people suffering needlessly while resources exist to alleviate it> then you're probably a little too invested in your solution to be trusted about the severity of the problem.

        Similarly, if your solution involves reduction of productivity without even attempting to address the problems inherent in the inevitable reduction of available goods, you're probably also goin
    • 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.

      I wouldn't say we don't know exactly how it all works at the micro level but at the macro is a fairly simple concept.

      The sun warms the earth at unevenly depending on the tilt and rotation of the earth. The atmosphere is moving anyways due to rotation but warm air and water moves from hot to cold areas to give off energy since there are no means

    • Re:Best quote ever! (Score:5, Funny)

      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.
      • "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."

        True, but SOME level of comprehension of the cause and the specific effect is useful if you purport to TREAT the consequences of the problem. If you just got whacked in the head with an axe handle, no amount of foot-cream is going to help you.

        It's even more important if you intend to prevent the problem happening aga
    • Knowing Mr. Russell personally, I can also tell you that he puts science ahead of his ideology, and he definitely says that anthropogenic warming is a major factor. As a good scientist with decades of solid work behind him, he does not propose every last effect of this, nor will he tell you that it's final and we know it all, but he will point to piles and piles of evidence.

      I will definitely vouch for his bona fides, though.
  • 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.

  • And I immediately think... (Score:5, Funny)

    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

  • These Clouds are Filamentary (Score:4, Interesting)

    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.

    • Re:These Clouds are Filamentary (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DerekLyons ( 302214 ) <fairwater@gmai l . c om> on Monday December 10, 2007 @06:48PM (#21649565) Homepage
      Despite their 'proximity' to space, they are still deep within the atmosphere and at a pressure considerably above that typical of plasmas. Looks can be decieving.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by pln2bz ( 449850 ) *

        Despite their 'proximity' to space, they are still deep within the atmosphere and at a pressure considerably above that typical of plasmas. Looks can be decieving.

        Not that anybody really knows at this point, but for the record, it was only about ten years ago that we were told that lightning does not lead into space too.

  • Relax, guys! (Score:3, Funny)

    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!"

  • they are coordinating from behind the moon (Score:4, Funny)

    by gambolt ( 1146363 ) on Monday December 10, 2007 @06:28PM (#21649313)
    when the clouds are positioned for coverage around the globe . . .

    checkmate

    • when the clouds are positioned for coverage around the globe . . .
      The alien mothership is in orbit here. If we can hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate. Now, like all great plans, my strategy is so simple an idiot could have devised it.

      : )

  • 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
  • I wonder if the same thing is happening in the South Pole?

  • Interpreting the data to fit with the times (Score:4, Insightful)

    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.

  • 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.

    They are being seen more frequently now, because you are looking for them now! Just like those big waves [slashdot.org] that were denied existence until you went looking for them, and what do you know, they're all over the place. NASA needs to collect at least 100 years data before they can start generalizing about pattern and changes.

  • I think we're in the late warning category at this point, don't you?
  • Hats off to Russell. The man's been doing solid satellite-based experiments for decades. He's someone you should listen to about climate science.

    I can tell you in advance, though, that there's a likely conclusion as to why noctilucent clouds are becoming more prevalent. That is predicted by the global warming simulations. The warmth being radiated from earth is being trapped in the lower atmosphere, and so while it heats up, the upper atmosphere actually cools. That's a solid hypothesis that's already
    • . . . a responsible party, like someone working for the Cato Institute, or Exxon-Mobile, or George Deutsch [blogspot.com]?
  • hollywood is just generating some advance publicity for their upcoming 2nd x-files movie [aintitcool.com]

    in the coming months, they are going to "disappear" some boats in the bermuda triangle and then plant area 51 documents on los alamos national laboratory computers, and then "leak" it

  • They're beautiful... and very high (Score:3, Informative)

    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.

  • Jeeze...

    The Earth's climate has NEVER stopped changing... It has been changing since there was a climate to begin with and it always will, drasticly and massivly. Don't go changing the language to fit the adgenda now, that's completely unscientific. "It may be another sign of the Earth's on-going climate change."

    Your welcome.
  • They're mooning.

  • So the NASA satellite snaps a picture of the Arctic region, on June 11, and it's dark there? Shouldn't it be the middle of the arctic day?

    And many of the other pictures seem simply to show very high clouds at dusk/dawn, the clouds still/already in sunlight but the ground below already/still in the dark. Is the question about why are the clouds up there, or why they shine?

  • brrr.... (Score:2)

    by drew ( 2081 )

    why they are being seen more frequently and at lower latitudes than ever before.


    Obviously a sign of Global Cooling...

Slashdot Top Deals

One person's error is another person's data.

Close