Thanks odin1,
I read this last week. Let's see what I recall. Overall I think the facts presented in the article are fine; but there are quite a few misleading statements, as well as overly dramatic, wrong declarations. There was one sentence ...something about flying in the face of Greenhouse theory. But ....well I need to go look.
I think the first paragraph should be rewritten to start as: A possible new factor in the theory of "global warming was revealed at... and... considered for publication...." This new factor operates independent of CO2 and could explain a significant portion of the "apparent rise in average global temperature recorded by scientists over the last hundred years or so ...."
...or so? How about the past 99.8 years; y'know, since the meteor?
The first paragraph ends "Shaidurov explained how changes in the amount of ice crystals at high altitude could damage the layer of thin, high altitude clouds found in the mesosphere that reduce the amount of warming solar radiation reaching the earth's surface."
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l8660812527143t7/"They seem to be ice particles nucleated at very low pressures and temperatures by either meteoric smoke or by atmospheric ions." -Received: 1 April 1982
http://ao.osa.org/abstract.cfm?id=86405"Depending on the actual form of the size distribution function of the irregular grains, the irradiance... may change by 2 orders of magnitude in the visible spectrum." -December 2005
http://envisat.esa.int/envisatsymposium/proceedings/sessions/3A3/462623sa.pdf"The true NLC particle size distribution is still not fully established, but recent model simulations and measurements suggest that the actual particle size distribution is better approximated by a normal – i.e. Gaussian – distribution, than by the traditionally used log-normal distribution." -Envisat Symposium 2007
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob...5a829c9f489b90a"The geographical coverage and the continuity of the data provide exclusive information on global distribution, seasonal variation, and planetary wave patterns. In combination with spectroscopic measurements, this provides the possibility to infer global information about NLC particle sizes." -June 2005
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V3S-450KHTP-3&_user=10&_origUdi=B6V3S-4GCX1P4-8&_fmt=high&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2001&_rdoc=1&_orig=article&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7f461e33d640a1a71f58a6973777a8ce
At this height (83 km), both methane-induced changes and 11-year solar-UV induced changes are expected to be the main forcings. Using the data available for surface methane and for solar Lyman-alpha fluxes, we estimate the water vapor changes due to methane oxidation, and to Lyman- induced photodissociation of water vapor. For the periodic (10-year) component, the NLC time series was found to significantly correlate with Lyman- flux data, for nearly all available multi-decadal NLC data sets. As first shown by Gadsden for the European data, the correlations are highest when the time lag of NLC following solar cycle minimum is two to three years. This result places into considerable doubt the hypothesis of direct solar Lyman- control of NLC. Volcanism appears to have had a negligible influence, with the possible exception of the 1883 Krakatoa eruption. -January 2002
....
Well, my point is that there is a huge body of work out there on noctilucent clouds (NLC) and climate change; the article makes it sound as if he's discovering something new.
The second paragraph refers to a "detailed analysis of the mean temperature change by year for the last 140 years...."
....and then there is "This flies in the face of current global warming theories that blame a rise in temperature on rising carbon dioxide emissions since the start of the industrial revolution."
So, it is his detailed temperature analysis that "flies in the face of...."
Fortunately, there's no controversy over temp. data reconstructions (said sarcastically).
Of Tunguska, "Shaidurov... suggests that the [temp.] rise... could have had a very different cause, which he believes was the massive Tunguska Event...."
"Suggests... could have... he believes..." actually is a fairly accurate sentence....
...and all the stuff about water vapor is true; ...but we don't know if it is happening.
"Shaidurov has concluded that only an enormous natural phenomenon, such as an asteroid or comet impact or airburst, could seriously disturb atmospheric water levels;" ...but we don't know if it is happening.
Shaidurov suggests this as a possibility, but the final sentence sums up the true state of our knowledge regarding this factor: "There are many hypothetical mechanisms of how this mesosphere catastrophe might have occurred, and future research is needed to provide a definitive answer."
We don't even know if this "mesosphere catastrophe might have occurred," or to what extent, or duration.
Even if it did, it wouldn't change the additional warming effects of CO2 or methane. I think the effects would be additive.
If you take the article literally, it really isn't bad at all; but the connotations and inferences that come from the title, and that one "flies in the face" sentence, erroneously give the impression that all previous "greenhouse" work was irrelevant.
Considering the source is a .blog, the information seems very believable; but the editorial tone of the article leads to a misleading conclusion.
As mentioned above, Krakatoa seems to have been significant; and this also fits fairly close to the time-frame mentioned.
btw...
Science First Hand
Subtitle: A good journal for inquisitive people
Published by: Sibirskoe otdelenie RANOOO "Inforlio"Novosibirsk, Russia
Language: English, bimonthly, ISSN 1810-8520
Start Year: 2004
http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29702/6Science First Hand:
Journal gives first-hand look at science…
The Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Science is taking science to the public in an engaging way with its "journal for inquisitive people", Science First Hand. Published bi-monthly in separate English and Russian editions, the format "is not quite typical of academic publications", says editor-in-chief academician Nikolai Dobretsov.
Closer in look and feel to National Geographic than many learned-society magazines, Science First Hand presents non-technical articles written by scientists from across the range of research in Russia. Recent issues include a series looking at the work of the Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, including an interview with the director, Alexander Skrinsky, and articles from the institute's young researchers. For further information and subscriptions see
www.sibsciencenews.org.p.s.
If you'd like to comment on a regular peer-reviewed scientific paper, feel free to look over the "Crustal Heating"