[HN Gopher] Most of Europe is glowing pink under the aurora
___________________________________________________________________
Most of Europe is glowing pink under the aurora
Author : luispa
Score : 1574 points
Date : 2024-05-10 21:59 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.foto-webcam.eu)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.foto-webcam.eu)
| Kikawala wrote:
| Even more live views at the main page: https://www.foto-
| webcam.eu/
| axblount wrote:
| Is this related to the solar storm? Why is it pink?
| anamexis wrote:
| Yes, and pink is a typical aurora color.
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| https://www.space.com/aurora-colors-explained
|
| Oxygen at higher altitudes has a different emission frequency
| apparently (I've only ever seen the faintest green pulsing
| aurora IRL)
|
| It's possible to tell what elements something is made of by
| determining the spectra coming off of it when it's excited:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_spectroscopy
| moralestapia wrote:
| Oh, boy. So beautiful! It's probably visible where I am as well
| but there's still some sunlight so gg. Hope it lasts for a while!
| secondcoming wrote:
| This shows a scientific view of it:
|
| https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/space/surface/level/an...
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| This is a very cool visulization
| isatty wrote:
| That's a really cool website. Very responsive too.
| sc__ wrote:
| I live in a northern Atlantic country and use it to learn
| about upcoming storms during storm season, days in advance of
| my national weather service.
| zeteo wrote:
| Is it visible from Australia as well?
| davidw wrote:
| Does it shift around? It's quite absent in the western US and
| Canada right now:
|
| https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/space/surface/level/an...
|
| Of course, it's still a beautiful sunny warm day too where I am
| so it'll be 5 hours or so before it's dark enough to see it.
| idlewords wrote:
| The auroral oval stays roughly the same but the Earth rotates
| under it.
| davidw wrote:
| Cool! That means if it stays stable, it's headed our way on
| a very clear evening here. Fingers crossed...
| kzrdude wrote:
| It was seen in France and Switzerland today, even if they are
| not colored in on the map, so it could be seen outside the main
| areas.
|
| Also - there is green over the equator - is that intentional?
| anileated wrote:
| There is a 50% probability of aurora borealis over the equator
| right now according to that website.
| bonzini wrote:
| Barely visible in Northern Italy--no pink worth calling home
| about--but the sky is sensibly lighter than it usually is.
| davidw wrote:
| The one pointed 'nordest' from Monte Grappa seems to show some
| pink:
|
| https://www.meteograppa.it/lewebcam.php
|
| Tried looking for some webcams in the Cortina area but they
| seem to have a lot of clouds. Some of which appear to have a
| pink hue.
| bonzini wrote:
| Light pollution does not help, probably.
| davidw wrote:
| Found one from the Stelvio pass that shows some colors, but
| nothing like some of the other links people are posting.
| sarusso wrote:
| This is from Trieste:
| https://twitter.com/_sarusso/status/1789112947165270298. Naked
| eye was way less bright but still well visible I would say!
| davidw wrote:
| Nice way to celebrate the Giro d'Italia!
| amatecha wrote:
| Wow! Check out the view from the Jungfraujoch in Switzerland!
| https://www.jungfrau.ch/en-gb/live/webcams/#webcam-jungfrauj...
| chgs wrote:
| Doesn't look like that in reality. If I take a photo on my
| phone here in the UK midlands I get pink and green in all
| directions with a 3 second exposure.
|
| However with just the naked eye it's like super high level
| clouds
| mrcus wrote:
| Yeah, none of these other stories and photos are from reality
| amatecha wrote:
| Yeah, camera sensors (depending on filtering) are far more
| sensitive to the dim light of the aurora than our eyes. Still
| means you can get utterly amazing photography there already!
| :)
| codetrotter wrote:
| A couple of years ago in the middle of Norway (not south,
| not north, in-between) me and a friend saw in the news that
| there would be aurora borealis, which is not common in that
| part of Norway.
|
| We were outside at like 2AM in the night that day trying to
| spot it but could see any hint of it for the life of us.
|
| Finally we used his phone and long exposure to see what it
| would pick up and on the captured photo we saw shades of
| green like aurora borealis.
|
| Quite fascinating, it was.
| Filligree wrote:
| For what it's worth... growing up in Tromso, we have
| auroras a few dozen times per winter usually.
|
| They were always strong enough to be easily seen, often
| quite dramatic. It really does look like that if you're
| far enough north.
| codetrotter wrote:
| For sure. As mentioned though we were in the middle of
| Norway, not north.
|
| Well, actually the proper term for where we were at is
| East Norway. And I guess by official standards the middle
| of Norway is further north than where I consider the
| middle of Norway to be.
|
| To be very specific, we were in Gjovik.
| erikbye wrote:
| Here's a few crappy phone pics from near Oslo on a night
| (evening, around 19 I think) it was very visible with the
| naked eye. 0.5 seconds exposure.
|
| https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=date-taken-
| desc&safe_sea...
| codetrotter wrote:
| That's awesome! Wish I get to see it that visible too.
| dotancohen wrote:
| I was lucky enough to be in Tromso in February 2013
| during the last solar cycle maximum. It was absolutely
| amazing, even a local who we happened upon near one of
| the fjords while he was cross country skiing - in the
| middle of the night - said that he had never seen such
| aurora. They were gold and purple along with the more
| common greens and reds that we had seen all week.
| ShakataGaNai wrote:
| I was in Northern MN a couple years back when there was
| some decent aurora https://imgur.com/a/nBjdhZ9
|
| What the camera caught was really impressive! Even with
| just a couple seconds exposure on a phone. But what the
| human eye saw was.... effectively a portion of the sky that
| was unusually bright and seemed to have some sort of
| movement. Like you stared at it and knew something was
| amiss, but nothing "impressive" to look at.
| erikbye wrote:
| Come to the arctic circle during polar night, then you
| will see impressive.
| porphyra wrote:
| Human eyes are basically black and white in low light since
| rod cells can't detect color.
| deadbabe wrote:
| Ok why is it that some people say northern lights look
| EXACTLY like these spectacular photos, and others say in real
| life they are actually barely visible and you need a camera
| and very dark skies?
|
| Is there some kind of running joke I'm missing? I saw some
| northern lights in Iceland but they were very dim and
| underwhelming, I didn't even know what I was looking at until
| I photographed them and saw the vivid green streaks in the
| photo, which definitely weren't super visible in real life.
| The tour guide even said they aren't actually like the photos
| at all!
|
| Are northern lights bullshit or what? What is possible to see
| with just a bare naked eye?
| nerdenough wrote:
| They'll never look exactly like the long exposure, ultra
| vibrant photos. However, when they are really strong you
| can see both greens and purples very distinctly with the
| naked eye.
|
| One experience you can get in person when they're really
| strong is how fast they can dance around above you as well.
| I've found the dancing lights to the naked eye are much
| more astounding than in timelapses or videos, 1) because
| that's when they're most vibrant in person, and 2) because
| you can see just how fast and jittery and energetic they
| are, unlike in a video which is usually captured at much
| less than 30fps for low light and denoised and frames
| mashed together to create those soupy smooth videos and
| timelapses. Nice in their own way, but nowhere near the
| same experience.
|
| And when they're very low energy they will just look like
| green grey clouds to the naked eye.
|
| Source: live in the arctic
| Geee wrote:
| Yeah, typically northern lights look like faint white
| clouds with a little bit of green tint to naked eye. The
| photos are like those time-exposure photos of the milky
| way, which is not what the eye sees.
| matsemann wrote:
| While they "typically" look like that, because most often
| they're quite weak, I wouldn't compare it to milky way
| photos. If it's strong, especially if you're up north and
| somewhere with little light pollution, what you see is
| comparable to lots of pictures.
| jnurmine wrote:
| In addition to the intensity of the Solar activity,
| location matters, especially nowadays.
|
| The auroras won't be super vivid near larger cities in
| Central Europe, with a lot of light around you. It's just
| not north enough and not dark enough. Up north, rural
| Lapland or so, it can get very vivid during a winter.
|
| Cameras tend to add their extra though.
|
| A surprising thing to me was how the aurora can sometimes
| be still and sometimes move so fast. It is a strange
| experience. One would expect something that covers such a
| large part of the visible sky-dome to move slowly, but
| instead it can swipe around quite quickly ("like a fox's
| tail").
| fch42 wrote:
| If you ever have the chance to see the Milky way from
| Namibia, the Andes, the Western Australian desert, you
| may revise your view there. The dust clouds and star
| streams extend far out and make it appear like "standing
| on the bridge of as starship". It looks very 3D. Still
| not colorful, but immersive and so much detail.
|
| Alas, in the northern hemisphere, we've been pretty good
| eradicating nighttime darkness (and a lot else besides
| ...).
| marssaxman wrote:
| In the northern hemisphere, you can enjoy that view -
| spectacularly - from Mauna Kea. I had never before
| realized that you could perceive _depth_ in the sky.
| swiftcoder wrote:
| You should try seeing the milky way from the middle of an
| ocean sometime - most folks have never been far enough
| from light pollution to really see it as it used to be.
|
| It really does look like a river of starlight across the
| sky, once you are a few hundred miles away from shore.
| flak48 wrote:
| I've seen both.
|
| Last night from London the most I could see with my naked
| eye was diffuse patches of faint pink and green - sometimes
| highlighted by marginally brighter white-pink streaks that
| cut across the patches. The camera however picked them up
| as dramatic bright pink/green columns of light with rarely
| any trace of the blackness of the sky.
|
| When I was in Iceland a few years ago though - I distinctly
| remember being easily able to make out super bright and
| well define dancing wavy bands of bright green, pink,
| purple and orange (with high contrast compared to the
| surrounding dark sky) with my naked eye. The camera again
| picked up the same thing but with the blackness of the sky
| covered by a green /pink coloured background - something
| definitely brighter but less well defined that what I could
| see with my naked eye (and the camera images were not
| necessarily superior than what I could see in this case).
|
| TL:DR; I've seen both versions of what you describe with my
| naked eye and it's definitely not bullshit! When people say
| they can't see anything like the pictures - I would have to
| guess that they either have never been in an area with
| significant activity or maybe didn't have dark enough skies
| without light pollution.
| majikandy wrote:
| In my back garden in london initially it felt like maybe
| I was just seeing remnants of having looked at a
| lightbulb and then looking at the sky. After a bit of
| eyes adjusting the pinks were very clear and the white
| streaks like rays of light you see in those kind of beams
| from heaven type pictures. The green was more on the
| horizon and initially needed the camera to show it at
| all, and then again after a while I could see feint green
| with the naked eye. Yes the camera showed it more, but
| the naked eye experience was also magical and I feel very
| lucky to have seen it on bbc news website by chance
| before going to bed. I watched it from 11:15pm to
| midnight when it seemed to vanish as if it was never
| there in the first place. I feel like I caught the ISS in
| a photo too but I can't find definitive information it
| was overhead at 11:51pm uk time, so it probably wasn't.
| dimask wrote:
| Imo if the northern lights are strong, the live experience
| is superior to photos because of how they move, while
| photos are still images. But many times they are not as
| strong and they do not look like much with naked eye, while
| long exposure will catch more of it.
| silisili wrote:
| As someone who has never seem them, what I wish most people
| would do is attempt to edit said photos to 'about what it
| looked like to my eyes.'
|
| You can find some online, but they range from 'just like
| the picture' to 'random fog', so one is left not knowing
| what to believe.
| bawolff wrote:
| It varries significantly depending where you are. Both
| could be true for different people viewing them from
| different places.
| silisili wrote:
| These would be interesting data points based on season,
| location, and weather conditions nonetheless.
| bawolff wrote:
| That's a little like asking people to report how wet they
| got when it was raining, and not controlling for if they
| have an umbrella or were out after the storm passed.
| Nition wrote:
| I was in a place with fair amount of light pollution, and
| far from where the aurora would be strongest.
|
| These two photos taken with my camera, are approximately
| how it looked to my eyes after they'd adjusted to the
| dark:
|
| https://i.imgur.com/8OOiCgX.png
| https://i.imgur.com/GCpyumd.png
|
| As a comparison, this is how my phone captured the same
| scene with default settings:
|
| https://i.imgur.com/FCvN3gf.jpeg
| silisili wrote:
| Thanks! Certainly two entirely different visuals.
| Nition wrote:
| Yeah. Although I'm sure you can get closer to the phone
| photo in real life if you're somewhere very dark and near
| the poles.
| _ph_ wrote:
| I saw them yesterday mostly as light grey clouds. But at
| one moment, those clouds turned slightly red to me. I am at
| a very bright location and quite far to the south. So I
| only can assume, that their brightness was at the brink of
| color vision and that my eye wasn't perfectly adapted to
| the dark. In better circumstances and perhaps with a tiny
| bit more "signal", they should appear in colors.
| fch42 wrote:
| I've seen both impressive (colorful, bright, straight
| overhead and fast movement) as well as barely noticeable
| (colorless bands/sheets that "look like faint clouds but
| somehow odd". With the "odd" mostly meaning that they move
| different from clouds; not preferentially in wind (or any)
| direction, and often just around our eye's threshold. It
| also, sometimes, looks like a band of light pollution low
| along the northern horizon, when the green main aurora oval
| is "just" visible.
|
| Few-seconds exposures on a digital camera bring the colors
| out that you may or may not see by eye if the aurora is
| weak.
|
| Also, especially mid-latitudes, sometimes an Aurora display
| has moments of higher brightness with color, and then again
| "grey curtains".
|
| The most impressive thing about stronger Aurora, to me, is
| the "fine structure", the fact you may have it well
| overhead (not just on the northern horizon) and the fast
| movements. It can look like "beads" running up and down the
| curtains, or "lances" being thrown from the sky, and
| line/streak structures are very sharply outlined, not like
| the soft blur in multi-second pictures. And the curtains
| can "wave" across the entire sky in a second then.
|
| But I haven't seen enough Aurora to dare predict anything
| ... I cross my fingers.
| dahart wrote:
| Not bullshit. When you see a strong one, it looks like all
| the amazing photos, and better because it's moving and
| spanning the sky. Photos never capture the scale.
|
| I had a similar thought about the sun's corona during a
| solar eclipse, for some reason I thought people were using
| special photo processes to extract something that was hard
| to see without equipment. Then caught an eclipse and the
| corona blooms like a huge flower in the sky and it's better
| than almost all the photos. I'm guessing the dynamic range
| of the corona makes it very hard to photograph anywhere
| near as good as what it looks like when you're there.
| Kon5ole wrote:
| One thing to consider is that when you run outside because
| you get a tip about northern lights, your eyes need about
| 20-30 minutes to fully adjust to darkness. If you do things
| like look at a phone display or camera display while
| waiting, that "timer" gets reset.
|
| In my experience when the lights are strong (and your eyes
| have adjusted), they look a lot like the photos - not as
| saturated color-wise, but very bright.
| marssaxman wrote:
| I wonder the same. My wife and I drove out to a park east
| of Seattle late last night to spend a couple hours watching
| the aurora, and it was... okay. I saw some faint grey
| wisps, like high-altitude clouds, which occasionally faded
| away and reappeared elsewhere. A mild novelty, but nothing
| I would bother to seek out again; I assumed we were too far
| south, or out of the path, and hadn't gotten to see it
| properly.
|
| This morning, though, my feeds are chock-a-block with
| dramatic, colorful, detailed photos, complete with
| rapturous commentary about the drama of the spectacle,
| posted by people in the same area who were apparently
| watching the same sky! Well... that's a different
| experience than I had. I'd been told that the colors showed
| up more clearly through a camera, but I hadn't realized
| there would be little to see without one.
| PuffinBlue wrote:
| There are many variables. Visual acuity, how well your
| eyes can adapt to low light, colour sensitivity, light
| pollution and cloud cover are just a few. Even standing
| next to each other two people can have different
| experiences thanks to those variables.
|
| I am very fortunate to have excellent visual acuity, low
| light sensitivity and am extremely sensitive to
| colour/different shades or tones. There are test you can
| do online for this if you have a well calibrated screen.
| I also used to be a photographer and worked for years in
| low light settings documenting events. So I have put that
| good fortune in the genetic lottery to good use!
|
| So for me, I absolutely saw the full colour display very
| strongly. I could see variations in colour throughout the
| height of the column and i could easily make out the
| striations between the different filaments. I could also
| easily see the curve of the bands across the northern
| sky. The colours to me were as obvious as the orange of
| light pollution you might see from a nearby town. I could
| see the low level patches of cloud silhouetted against
| the green and the huge bands of red/pinky red towering up
| into space.
|
| What I will say though is that even looking at my phone
| was enough to dull the experience. And minimally strong
| light in the eye instantly desaturated the colours of the
| aurora and took a minute or two to recover. So you really
| do need dark places, dark skies and to really let your
| eyes full adjust to their maximum possible sensitivity.
| BenjiWiebe wrote:
| So at 9:55PM in central Kansas, you could see definite
| pink/red in the north (vertical strips, reminiscent of
| sunset/sunrise through clouds) and a bright
| colorless/maybe greenish patch straight up. Also some
| faint pink to the west. The color was unmistakable in the
| north though and only required a minute or so of dark
| adaptation after coming out of the house. It's dark skies
| here but not extremely dark. Funny thing is the aurora
| itself made the sky very not-dark.
| bitcurious wrote:
| > Ok why is it that some people say northern lights look
| EXACTLY like these spectacular photos, and others say in
| real life they are actually barely visible and you need a
| camera and very dark skies?
|
| There is a lot of variability in people's night vision. I
| viewed this past aurora with a friend, we went to a
| relatively dark sky location and let our eyes adjust for 30
| minutes. In that setting, I could make out the green and
| red coloration while she mostly saw it as a while glow.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Any place with that much snow in mid-May is just make believe
| to me at this point in time.
| hackernewds wrote:
| what am I expecting to see?
| rahkiin wrote:
| These are live webcams. At the time it was sent it was
| probably showing the aurora
| crdrost wrote:
| Nice livestream from a bloke on YouTube:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTxvAQYKGPI
| consp wrote:
| Most of Europe == Not covered by light polution. (and specific
| areas)
|
| (it's orange outside and it's sodium vapor related)
|
| edit: kind of whish I was at my parent's place. It's a lot less
| poluted but no go here; nw europe densly populated, we also have
| the artificial sunrise here 24/7 by means of greenhouses.
| EA-3167 wrote:
| Classic aurora move, I can almost hear the charged particles
| now...
|
| "Und doch habe ich allein, allein auf mich gestellt, ganz
| Europa erobert!"
|
| Sure you did charged particles, sure you did, but welcome to
| Europe's secret weapon: Light pollution!
| consp wrote:
| > Sure you did charged particles
|
| Well technically ... sodium vapor lamps are charged
| particles. But yea you are correct we're screwed.
| Starlevel004 wrote:
| Even in the light polluted London you can still see it, even if
| it's faint.
| consp wrote:
| From the ground I cannot see it (I'm a bit north of london
| latitude wise so it should be better), and we have nicely
| combination of areas of greenhouses and petrochemical
| companies burning off here so it might be far worse than
| central london unfortunately. I'm not too high up but my view
| north is quite ok ... and unnatural orangeish and void of any
| pink.
| TomWhitwell wrote:
| It's just about visible (much more so through an iPhone camera)
| in central London right now
| Reason077 wrote:
| That's pretty incredible. Central London is so bright at
| night that very few stars are even visible usually.
| evanb wrote:
| I could see faint streaks from central Berlin. No doubt it'd
| look better from a deep darkness but even in the city it can be
| seen tonight.
| fransje26 wrote:
| > we also have the artificial sunrise here 24/7 by means of
| greenhouses.
|
| That's a Dutch thing. You can choose between being a great
| exporter of unripe, tasteless tomatoes, or seeing Aurora
| Borealis, but you can't have both..
| clmul wrote:
| This is what I could see with my camera in the east of the
| Netherlands, and even with the naked eye I could easily see
| some red at times: https://imgur.com/a/kloWEOl
| kubanczyk wrote:
| > a great exporter of unripe, tasteless tomatoes
|
| The small ones are okay-ish (cherry tomatoes) if that makes
| you happier
| Angostura wrote:
| Well, I was watching it in East London last night
| bowsamic wrote:
| I was in middle of nowhere Sweden last week but the number of
| daylight hours are so high that far north that even in the dead
| middle of the night the sky is still blue
| _fizz_buzz_ wrote:
| Saw them in the west of Germany. Phone camera made them more
| visible. But also clearly visible with the naked eye.
| pixelpoet wrote:
| Looked outside just now around Bad Homburg in Frankfurt area,
| nothing :( So depressing
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| More discussions on related NOAA posts:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40315394
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40318356
| docapotamus wrote:
| I live in rural very northern England. It's incredible, clear
| with the naked eye. iPhone 14 camera with 3s exposure is out of
| this world (pun intended, but misleading)
| jon_adler wrote:
| Similar for me down south too (Cambridge). My first sighting
| and it is superb.
| AlexAndScripts wrote:
| I'm near Bristol. It's still absolutely stunning. It's not just
| to the north, either - it's everywhere.
| docapotamus wrote:
| Yep I noticed that to, it's sort of bathing everywhere from
| zenith
| matsemann wrote:
| Yeah, it's often easy to make it look much better on camera
| than what it did in real life. Something to keep in mind if one
| feel one missed out, heh.
|
| Also, timelapses of long exposures can give a wrong impression
| of how it moves. But has for a long time been the only way to
| actually see a video of it.
|
| It's often not that slow and wavy in real life. It's more like
| watching an orchestra play, where suddenly someone plays a
| flute in the corner, and then a few moments later a trombone
| sounds from the other side. It's dramatic and beautiful when
| it's really on.
|
| But modern video cameras are now good enough to capture this in
| real time, so hopefully we'll see more realistic videoes.
| docapotamus wrote:
| Agree. Was surprised how well the phone pulled the colour
| out.
|
| Can't find my DSLR unfortunately otherwise it'd be on the
| tripod.
|
| Had to wake the 6 year old for him to see this, once in a
| life time type of thing
| schoen wrote:
| If I understand correctly, I think there's a decent chance
| to have something similar at any given solar maximum (about
| every 11 years)
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_maximum
|
| But it's definitely not a sure thing, and this could very
| well be the biggest one for decades to come.
| penteract wrote:
| In less rural northern England, it was faintly visible to me.
| If I hadn't been looking for the aurora specifically, I would
| have assumed it was a weird cloud. After walking a bit away
| from street lights I could make out a south facing arc spanning
| the sky directly overhead which went away within a few minutes.
| mattbee wrote:
| Since we're all scientists here, I'll report a negative from
| central York. My wife and I stood up in the attic looking out
| of the Velux for 10 minutes. It was dark, clear and we were
| could see from NE-ish to SE-ish. We couldn't really call it. A
| very subtle effect on a 10s smartphone exposure, mayyybe? I
| will compare with tonight.
|
| We once rented a beautiful, slightly remote house on a beach
| outside Reykjavik and one night, the sky danced for us. So I
| don't feel hard done-by.
| davejohnclark wrote:
| Interesting, maybe it depends on when you were looking? Also
| central York and we popped outside just after half eleven and
| the aurora was very visible to the naked eye, not in full
| multicolour but very clearly not a cloud, quite thick and
| radiating out from a centre in the sky almost all the way
| down to the horizon. We have a reasonably dark place we can
| look from near us (and where we got some photos on a
| smartphone camera that show a sky full of vivid purples and
| greens) but I could see it clearly enough from right outside
| our house even with the bright led streetlights all around.
|
| After 20 minutes it faded from view almost entirely and we
| went inside. I have no idea if it came back or what it was
| like beforehand, maybe we got very lucky or maybe it came and
| went through the night?
| mattbee wrote:
| I must have caught a calmer moment at midnight then! I'm in
| Murton so there's not a lot of light looking away from
| town.
| danw1979 wrote:
| I'm 5 miles to the east ! (Dunnington) and was gutted to hear
| this morning that I'd missed an amazing display here last
| night. Many people in the village saw the aurora in varied
| colours - greens, purples, pinks. Incredible photos... it
| sounds like it was just before midnight that it really kicked
| off.
| mmastrac wrote:
| The NOAA forecast suggests it'll be nearly as powerful as the
| March 13th storm in '89 that took out the Quebec grid:
| https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/communities/aurora-dashboard-exper...
| idontwantthis wrote:
| Is there a map of the world showing where it should be visible? I
| wonder how far I would need to drive.
| nilsherzig wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40324332
| idontwantthis wrote:
| I can't tell what to make of that. It looks normal northern
| to me but people are saying it's going to be visible in
| Alabama tonight.
| doodlebugging wrote:
| Saw it in N Texas between dark +15minutes and about 2:30
| this morning. Really nice. I've waited since 2003 to see
| another from my front yard. I caught the big ones during
| that last solar max including the X27 flare auroras. This
| show came from a merging of several X-class flares in quick
| succession. There was an X5.7 today that may also give us a
| show in 2-3 days depending on whether it had an earth-
| directed component.
|
| spaceweather.com spaceweatherlive.com
|
| other links in related posts also have additional sites to
| track things like this. Good luck.
| _ph_ wrote:
| Where are you located?
| idontwantthis wrote:
| SW USA
| _ph_ wrote:
| It really depends how far south you are and how strong the
| solar storm will get. You should look for some dark place
| close up. But it might be, that it is only visible on the
| northern parts of the US. Even seeing it there is quite
| uncommon.
| doodlebugging wrote:
| This one was visible all the way to at lest San Antonio,
| Texas and the Florida Keys. I won't be surprised to see
| photos from Mexico. Nice show.
| marmakoide wrote:
| Wow, I just went outside (South West of France) to plug the car
| for charging before going to bed.
|
| I noticed unusual, faint light patterns in the night sky, like
| long spikes coming from the North. It was not the Milky Way, we
| can see every clear night. Color was mostly gray slightly pink.
| Wondered what was that ... My first aurora !!!
| mysterydip wrote:
| > It was not the Milky Way, we can see every clear night.
|
| I'm exceedingly jealous. I don't think I've ever lived
| somewhere that I could see it, no matter how clear the night.
| Looking at images of "north america at night" vs "europe at
| night" I can see why.
| IG_Semmelweiss wrote:
| In most locations around the world , I think you are a 3 hour
| drive from a camping trip with milky way nightime exposure.
|
| Try it out! Enlist some of your hiking friends. They'll tell
| you where to go.
| Avalaxy wrote:
| With the milky way it's the same thing as the auroras. I went
| camping in the middle of nowhere USA, and on a clear night
| you can absolutely not see the milkyway the way it's
| portrayed in photos. It looks waaaaaaaaay less clear. You
| need a very long exposure camera to see it the same way as on
| the internet. The only difference with Europe is that I saw
| more stars, but none of those nebulas.
| BytesAndGears wrote:
| Not entirely true, I was out hiking in the mountains of
| Colorado, and that was the best Milky Way view I've ever
| seen. It looked just like the crazy photos with millions of
| stars. Just laid on a rock staring at it for an hour
| amatecha wrote:
| Go take some photos with your camera -- it will pick up
| brilliant colours from what looks like super dim/grey
| "clouds/glow" to our eyes :)
| matsemann wrote:
| Where do people get their forecasts? I often use this one, but
| it's not very usable outside Norway. Great if you click into each
| forecast (click the image) and get more details. Like how it
| actually covers the sky in that location. So that I can use that
| to plan (doesn't matter if it's strong if it's in a direction I
| can't see it) https://site.uit.no/spaceweather/data-and-
| products/aurora/os...
|
| Used to use a NOAA page, but they changed it a while ago and
| don't find it as useful anymore.
| https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/communities/aurora-dashboard-exper...
|
| Some weather services also have a kp index, but I often feel
| those can't be trusted, and don't tell the whole story. And
| aurora is quite hit or miss, so need more updated data.
|
| I have an app on my phone (AuroraNotifier) that chimes when
| there's hope. And then I use these others to plan a bit better.
| But some more interactive map akin to the uit.no one but where I
| can place myself around would be nice.
|
| Edit: someone posted this below, looks nice, have some other
| kinds of data https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en.html
|
| Edit2:
| https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/space/surface/level/an...
| jimmygrapes wrote:
| Generally I wake up and assess which of my body parts are
| experiencing issues. Pressure differentials play havoc upon
| internal pockets. Other than that I go outside and feel the
| temperature and humidity and witness the general movement (or
| abcence of movement) of cloud formations. I smell the air.
| Surprisingly, these sensations are pretty close to accurate
| when it comes to predicting local weather.
|
| I am not sure how to do that for space weather yet.
| NKosmatos wrote:
| It's currently at Kp8. https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en.html
| coryfklein wrote:
| What latitude do we expect to be able to see this in the USA?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Possibly as far south as Alabama.
| https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/northern-lights-south-alabama-...
| merek wrote:
| See the Auroral oval map
| https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en.html
|
| Right now it's appearing over North East US, and should become
| increasingly visible after sunset.
| Rwyt wrote:
| Well visible in central Switzerland:
| https://feed.yellow.camera/rigi-scheidegg
| https://feed.yellow.camera/rigi-rotstock
| bsdooby wrote:
| Crazy, even Bern is bathed in Northern Lights
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| Just amazing... I've only ever seen these kinds of photos at
| the north pole before.
| relyks wrote:
| Are we supposed to be able to see anything in North America?
| kzrdude wrote:
| In some places yes
| https://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/aurora-forecast-northe...
| relyks wrote:
| Thanks! I have a small chance of seeing something lol
| mcint wrote:
| Keep in mind, this is only a 30 minute leading forecast. And
| day-night status has a strong effect on the ionosphere, to
| the extent that radio stations have different regulated
| broadcast power day versus night, and amateur radio folks
| bounce radio off it at night.
| 0xcafecafe wrote:
| Italy is not shown in the forecast zone but pics are
| surfacing from northern parts of it. Does that mean there is
| hope for southern US?
| sseagull wrote:
| I dunno how far south you mean, but we see it in SW
| Virginia (which is outside the forecast zones that I've
| seen).
| idlewords wrote:
| I'd wait until after sunset.
| relyks wrote:
| Indeed :)
| r2_pilot wrote:
| It's even visible in north Mississippi.
| russdill wrote:
| I saw a very faint red and just a tiny bit of green from a
| Phoenix/LA flight. 34N
| hnthrowaway0328 wrote:
| In Quebec and eagerly waiting for the sunset. Ah a few weeks ago
| the sun was the old lover and now please go away...
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Aurora aside, that is a very cool website.
| impish19 wrote:
| These Barbie promos are getting out of hand
| hippich wrote:
| If I am in Texas, should I take care of anything? Like flip
| breakers or disconnect solar panels?
| _ph_ wrote:
| No, this is all quite harmless.
| billsmithaustin wrote:
| All of that. Plus, wrap your head in aluminum foil.
| stevenally wrote:
| Oil the guns. Count the ammo.. .
| idlewords wrote:
| It never hurts to fire wildly into the air, Yosemite Sam style.
| ta988 wrote:
| No only an issue with really long lengths of cables. Electrical
| companies have to mitigate
| mcv wrote:
| I heard the aurora would be visible in Netherland, so living in
| Amsterdam I just went outside to check. Nothing. Maybe some very
| vague lighter bands in some places? Cities have too much light
| for this sort of thing.
| andrepd wrote:
| You're in the most light-polluted region of the continent.
| Unlikely you can see anything I'd wager x)
| grsmvg wrote:
| I saw visible pink bands from my balcony in Amsterdam,
| showing bright pink fading to green when looking through my
| iPhone. And yes, lots of light pollution here. Shows how
| crazy strong this northern light was.
| willmadden wrote:
| You have to drive away from the city lights, turn off
| screens/lights, and let your eyes adjust. Cities are light
| polluted.
| panzi wrote:
| Thank you! Just made some (blurry) long exposure photos on an old
| digital camera. Can't see it with the naked eye here.
| complex_pi wrote:
| Well visible in Belgium starting around 23:30 ! Even with the
| naked eye ! (From outside the city)
| DoingIsLearning wrote:
| Still true now? In the netherlands hard to tell anything.
| Certainly nothing on the level of the Swiss pictures being
| shared.
| complex_pi wrote:
| I stayed up until about 1AM only. Views from the mountains
| are hard to match in any case 8-)
| clmul wrote:
| Around 1 AM at night this was the view in the east of the
| Netherlands: https://imgur.com/a/kloWEOl
|
| With the naked eye I could see moving bright "clouds", and
| sometimes see streaks of red inside them. After 1:30 it died
| out quite rapidly for me.
| hyperluz wrote:
| Is that happening because Earth is loosing its magnetic field and
| the end is near? ;)
| phyzome wrote:
| Pretty sure we get aurorae because we _have_ a strong magnetic
| field...
| alpha_squared wrote:
| This also appears to be happening in the southern hemisphere as
| well and growing brighter. My layman understanding is auroras are
| the result of coronal mass ejections interacting with Earth's
| atmosphere, but I don't recall these incidents being large enough
| to be so visible in the northern and southern hemispheres
| simultaneously.
| bsdooby wrote:
| Carrington comes to mind...
| idlewords wrote:
| That had aurora visible in Florida and Hawaii. It's going to
| take a little more effort from the Sun to match that.
| willmadden wrote:
| Not for long. The earth's magnetic field is decaying at an
| exponential rate as the poles shift.
|
| I believe we've spent far too much time worrying about CO2
| and not nearly enough worrying about the dangers from our
| sun.
| twojacobtwo wrote:
| > The earth's magnetic field is decaying at an
| exponential rate as the poles shift.
|
| Got any scientific sources for that claim?
|
| > I believe we've spent far too much time worrying about
| CO2 and not nearly enough worrying about the dangers from
| our sun.
|
| Other than hardening our power grid to the effects of
| solar storms, what exactly could we do WRT the sun and
| the magnetic field?
|
| Also, given our serious lack of progress on climate
| change targets and the glacial pace (pun intended) at
| which it has been accepted as 1) real and 2)
| anthropogenic, I think saying 'too much time' is
| inaccurate.
| vixen99 wrote:
| I wonder what you (or any of us) would like to say to N.
| J. Ayuk, Executive Chairman at the African Energy
| Chamber:- (his words, not mine)
|
| "Africans don't hate Oil and Gas companies. We love Oil
| and today we love gas even more because we know gas will
| give us a chance to industrialize. No country has ever
| been developed by fancy wind and green hydrogen. Africans
| see Oil and Gas as a path to success and a solution to
| their problems. The demonization of oil and gas companies
| will not work."
|
| and this is very far from an isolated opinion in the
| developing world. Given the amount of Western human
| capital applied to reducing dependence on fossil fuel
| it's a somewhat sobering experience to take a look at the
| Mauna Loa CO2 rate of increase. Can you see any
| significant decrease in recent years. I can't.
|
| https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
| willmadden wrote:
| 1) go to perplexity.ai
|
| 2) type in "Is the earth's magnetic field weakening?"
|
| 3) read the summary and click the sources if you don't
| believe it.
|
| Read this about your CO2. The CO2 in our atmosphere is
| already at a concentration where the narrow band of
| wavelengths CO2 absorbs is fully saturated. This means
| more CO2 isn't going to cause more warming, because there
| is no more light in its opaque wavelengths to absorb.
| Also the pattern of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere
| vs surface temperature does not indicated that CO2 causes
| warming, but that CO2 levels rise after warming has
| already occurred. Policy around CO2 is hindering human
| progress and has caused massive economic damage. The
| models were all wrong, and this paper explains the
| reason.
|
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266649
| 682...
| pyuser583 wrote:
| Current storm is visible in Florida and Southern Texas, per
| NOAA.
| vundercind wrote:
| Like, _visible_ visible? I'm a lot farther north than
| that and if I hadn't known there was something going on,
| I'd not have noticed it. It _kinda_ shows up on camera,
| but naked eye viewing is not even worth a walk to the
| nearest window. Nothing to see, really.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| I'm also guessing light pollution was less of a thing in
| 1859
| idlewords wrote:
| Having your eyes dark-adapted (even a bit) makes a big
| difference. Here (Maine) I couldn't see anything out the
| window, or much of anything stepping outside, but after
| two minutes could see large-scale aurora across the
| entire sky, despite being near a bunch of streetlights
| and passing cars.
| notfish wrote:
| This is the biggest storm since 2003! We hit a G5 on the SWPC
| geomagnetic storm reading, and my team had to power down
| components on our satellites to keep them safe!
| dgellow wrote:
| Now that's a badass sentence. What is your team working on?
| kortilla wrote:
| Based on the about: "Code monkey at the elongated muskrat's
| not-earth corporation"
|
| Starlink
| throwaway290 wrote:
| Based on lack of response, starshield or some other
| defense or spy sats
| madaxe_again wrote:
| While I was happily posting photos of the ionic chaos over
| your network throughout. Nice one.
| qwertox wrote:
| Here are some visual tools NASA provides:
| https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/
| qclibre22 wrote:
| Typo, that's NOAA, not NASA.
| yodsanklai wrote:
| Any chance it'll be there tomorrow too?
|
| Seems beautiful in the French alps, wonder if it's worth trying
| to go there tomorrow
|
| https://www.skaping.com/chamrousse/la-croix?archives=MTcxNTM...
| mcint wrote:
| There were some follow on flare events. "Additional activity
| expected"
|
| https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/g5-conditions-observed today
|
| https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/homepage in the future
| swader999 wrote:
| Yep X5.8 registered about an hour ago.
| mhandley wrote:
| First time I've ever seen the aurora from West London - I always
| assumed the light polution would make it impossible to see, but
| here's a picture I took of it over the Thames:
| https://twitter.com/MarkJHandley/status/1789070802459000892
| s-xyz wrote:
| This is so freaking cool
| saalweachter wrote:
| What's the lowest latitude it's being seen from in Europe?
| nraynaud wrote:
| I don't see it from Grenoble
| pcardoso wrote:
| Seems to be visible in Portugal, sadly where I live the sky is
| overcast.
| Dibby053 wrote:
| These were apparently taken from Calar Alto, Almeria
| (37deg13'25''N 2deg32'46''W)
|
| https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GNQEcVZX0AA13FE?format=jpg&name=...
|
| https://img2.rtve.es/im/16098919/?w=900
| throwaway11460 wrote:
| Friends saw it on Canary Islands.
| aeonik wrote:
| Could a G4 to G5 storm disrupt air planes while in flight?
|
| Do they ever cancel air travel for this level of storm?
| swader999 wrote:
| Yes, if it's a Boeing plane.
| 77pt77 wrote:
| Regular atmosphere is enough for that...
| ta988 wrote:
| No and it is beautiful when you are flying north routes at
| night.
| grafelic wrote:
| I feel I need to report my experience from Denmark, Jutland.
|
| It started with white broad streaks, which most of all looked
| like fog, but then perhaps after 10 minutes or so, we saw colors
| of red, purple and green begin to emerge from the these streaks.
| Most astoundingly it all seemed to emanate from a fluctuating
| point in the middle of the sky. If you looked closely at this
| point you could see it fall into itself, morphing and shifting
| continuously.
|
| We went around the house and we could purple streaks at the top
| and orange to red patches at the bottom of the sky.
|
| Colors observed: Whitish blue, Green, Purple, Red, and Orange
|
| An absolutely a beautiful experience.
| niutech wrote:
| Can you share a photo?
| grafelic wrote:
| I took one semi successful photo using my crappy beat-down
| a20e Samsung phone.
|
| It doesn't do what we saw justice at all.
|
| https://imgur.com/5mlD22W
| frfl wrote:
| grafelic's image looks totally black on my crappy laptop
| monitor unless I turn brightness up to 100%, even then it's
| barely noticeable.
|
| Here's a color enhanced version of grafelic's photo that
| shows the color bands more easily,
|
| https://i.imgur.com/IS8JWD8.jpeg
|
| Added some blur after color adjustments to remove
| pixelation artifacts.
| bozhark wrote:
| I'm b mobile, it's still black with a lil highlight.
|
| Near, but definitely not retrospective
| gareth_untether wrote:
| When I took photos of the northern lights on my Sony RX1
| the colours became much stronger. I assumed all digital
| cameras captured the colours better than our eyes.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Yes, an electronic sensor is much more sensitive than our
| eyes. However, even within digital sensors, some are more
| sensitive than others. Add that sensitivity with the
| ability to do long exposure, and you can capture things
| we will _never_ see with our naked eyes. Even with
| binoculars or telescopes, our eyes will just seem more
| photons, but pretty much without the color. That 's where
| the digital sensors really "shine"
| erikbye wrote:
| Our eyes definitely do not see "pretty much without the
| color". Born and raised in Norway I've watched more
| aurora borealis than I care to count. On many occassions
| you could see all kinds of colors and dancing lights with
| the naked eye, very strong and vivid, too. Important to
| be in a dark environment without light pollution. At the
| arctic circle during polar night you will see northern
| lights that almost match the most stunning photos you
| have seen.
| grafelic wrote:
| Here are some quality photos from Denmark:
| https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/vejret/saa-vildt-ser-det-ud-se-
| nat...
| bavell wrote:
| Incredible!
| joshvm wrote:
| Currently pretty good at the South Pole. The pink skies are
| wild. Green auroras are fairlty common over the winter, but
| it's unusual for it to be this red.
|
| If you're interested in a real time video, here's one I
| captured a few weeks ago from our "back yard" (excuse the
| Instagram link)
|
| https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6T27pEO7dQ/?igsh=eXJyOGtuY2l.
| ..
| joshvm wrote:
| Here are some additional photos from the current storm - ht
| tps://www.instagram.com/p/C60Y-gIu4Ob/?igsh=N3AwaGZzODN3eD.
| ..
|
| Sadly we have pretty high winds at the moment and
| visibility is poor due to all the blowing snow, but if
| you're high up (eg an observation deck), it's a bit
| clearer.
| cinntaile wrote:
| Unrelated but why are you at the South Pole?
| taneq wrote:
| Why aren't you?! :P
| ta1243 wrote:
| All the cool people are there
| GTP wrote:
| Cool as in cold? :D
| joshvm wrote:
| I'm wintering for the South Pole Telescope.
|
| https://pole.uchicago.edu/
| robk wrote:
| Amazing thanks for sharing
| sebastianconcpt wrote:
| Thank you for sharing that. I wonder at what speed the morphing
| happen, also a sense of proportion. Very hard to capture that
| in anything but direct experience.
| nine_k wrote:
| Per Wikipedia, most auroras are 300 to 600 km wide, and occur
| at 90 to 150 km above surface. It' below LEO (300 km), but
| it's considered outer space already. You actually see a thing
| the size of a mountain range shining and morphing above you
| in space.
| playingalong wrote:
| Not sure here in proper continental Europe, but the usual
| sightings in the Arctic Circle are typically very short. Like
| it shows up for a minute or even not so. Then you wait an
| hour and another sighting for tens of seconds. Obviously
| sometimes it lasts for hours, but this is nothing frequent
| (in given location).
| sllabres wrote:
| I am looking at the foto webcam images too and haven't seen
| the aurora myself, but the photos show a much longer
| timespan: For Wildhaus the first image with a pink/greenish
| glow is at 22:22
|
| https://www.foto-webcam.eu/webcam/wildhaus/2024/05/10/2220
|
| and this continues through the entire night
| https://www.foto-webcam.eu/webcam/wildhaus/2024/05/10/2230
|
| till shortly before sunset, where the exposure time
| probably shortens too much to capture the color of the the
| aurora https://www.foto-
| webcam.eu/webcam/wildhaus/2024/05/11/0420
|
| Other locations:
|
| https://www.foto-webcam.eu/webcam/ewa/2024/05/11/0330
|
| https://www.foto-
| webcam.eu/webcam/glecksteinhuette/2024/05/1...
|
| https://www.foto-
| webcam.eu/webcam/hochleckenhaus/2024/05/11/...
| kzrdude wrote:
| Thee scale is what the pictures don't capture. The color is
| stronger in the camera but at some point there was a red or
| pink streak across half the sky. From zenith and down 1/2 way
| on one side and 2/3 on the other side. As usual, it's hard
| for a camera to capture the feeling of being there and having
| it all above you.
|
| The scale of change I saw yesterday is that it fades in or
| changes over five seconds maybe, it's not changing faster
| than that. The most intense lights were over some 20 minute
| period maybe and then slowly it was mostly disappearing
| again.
| lwansbrough wrote:
| Someone shared something similar on Twitter:
| https://x.com/packyM/status/1789113052723314918
| beretguy wrote:
| Can somebody link not to Twitter, please?
| mk89 wrote:
| Wow that's magnificent.
| madaxe_again wrote:
| I'm a few thousand kilometres south of you in Portugal - here,
| we got the side view of what was above you, and it was
| spectacular - pink sky underlit by blue and green filled with
| vast columns. It really gave me the sense of being a tiny thing
| on a virtually naked sphere hurtling through the void - seeing
| such titanic structures really puts things into scale.
| irthomasthomas wrote:
| I was out flying a camera drone on the river Dee between
| Liverpool and North Wales filming the sunset, when I started
| getting magnetic interference warnings. At the same time, I
| started to see flashes in the sky. Then my vision was filled
| with sparkling lights. A few minutes later I got an aurora
| warning from my brother and the aurora app. KP 8-9
|
| As the sun went down I was waking through a woodland. I thought
| the dark would help my eyes to see the aurora, and I could
| point my camera away from the light pollution of Liverpool and
| maybe catch some colour with a long exposure.
|
| Suddenly, I realised the colour of the aurora was coming
| through the trees, and getting brighter. I wasn't expecting it
| to be visible to naked eye like this. In these latitudes the
| advice is to set your camera to highest iso and slowest shutter
| speed and hope to catch a little colour. I wasn't expecting
| this! So I packed up quick and ran through the woods and into
| open fields. There, directly above me was this intense white
| light, with white arms forming a sort-of cross. The longest arm
| formed an arch over the whole sky, and where they reached the
| earth, on either side they became colourful, like a twinkling
| rainbow stretching out to space.
|
| I didn't have the equipment or the wits to get a good photo. I
| just threw myself on the ground and lay on my back watching.
|
| Wildest thing I ever saw. Absolutely awesome.
|
| When I regain my composure, I will upload some photos somewhere
| (where, though?) and edit this comment.
| 3np wrote:
| > and edit this comment.
|
| You have like 30min to edit and there's a timeout for replies
| too so maybe put the link in your profile if it gets later <3
| fransje26 wrote:
| Which app have you been using for the aurora warning?
| jfk13 wrote:
| Not who you were replying to, but I've had the AuroraWatch
| UK app installed for a while now (and yes, we enjoyed last
| night's display, after being alerted by the app).
| Moru wrote:
| You did the right thing, the correct way is to just enjoy it
| with your eyes. There are enough photos and timelapses on the
| net anyway. They can't capture the speed of the real thing
| since you need pretty long exposure time to get enough light.
| dom96 wrote:
| I was in the area too. Decided to go for a drive to Southport
| beach to try and catch it and saw.. nothing.
|
| Yesterday evening I tried Crosby beach. Also nothing.
|
| Did I just go at the wrong time? It was between 11pm and 1am.
| b33j0r wrote:
| Poetry comes to us when we can't say exactly how it made us
| feel. As a son of Jurgen, I appreciated your account.
| gmuslera wrote:
| Those are close to the places in Europe where they are growing
| triffids?
| DonaldFisk wrote:
| Scotland, 56 degrees north. I expected to see the aurora near the
| northern horizon, but it was visible east, west and even south,
| from 11:00pm (2200hrs UTC) until 12:15am (2315UTC). Easily
| visible to the naked eye. Took good photos on 1 second exposures,
| ISO 2500.
| manx wrote:
| Do you mind sharing a photo?
| gizajob wrote:
| iPhone 14 from my back yard in (extremely light polluted)
| Liverpool, England.
|
| https://photos.app.goo.gl/KPUMabcnNG6E5gZ77
| lsllc wrote:
| Anyone have any DSLR settings recommendations? (newbie here,
| Canon EOS R5).
|
| Located North Eastern US, just about approaching dusk. Fingers
| crossed!
| eloisius wrote:
| Crank your ISO up and play with shutter speed. You need a
| tripod to capture anything satisfactory.
| esmein wrote:
| Don't be afraid of Iso, you might want manual focus, mirrorless
| cameras even as good as the R5 have a hard time focusing on
| "nothing at infinity". Largest aperture your lens can do
| (biggest hole, smallest f number) and the recommended shutter
| speeds.
|
| I had luck with iso 3200, f1.4 and 1/6s shutter handheld on a
| sony a7iv with a 35mm f1.4 GM.
| lsllc wrote:
| Thanks! Now I just need some cosmic rays to light the sky!
| knolan wrote:
| Tripod. Long exposure and keep ISO lowish. You may need to
| manually focus as there won't be a clear object to focus on.
|
| Shoot RAW and you can tweak the image better to pull down the
| brightness of the sky to help the colours stand out.
| dddrh wrote:
| Use a tripod and use a remote or set a 2 second delay on your
| shutter press if you start using longer exposures at low iso
| (anything longer than 1/10 of a second IMO)
|
| Settings really depend on the effect you are trying to capture:
| - if you want to try and capture it like your eye sees it: high
| iso (as high as you can stand) and aim for between 1/500 and
| 1/30. - if you want to capture a more painterly look with the
| whole sky colored in: low iso (I'd start at 200) and long
| exposure >3 seconds. Probably between 3 and 30 seconds
| depending on the available light.
|
| Those should get you started to experiment and find what you
| like. Enjoy!
|
| Oh yea. Turn off the focus light, turn off the screen, and turn
| off the red blinking indicators. Turn all the lights off so you
| can preserve your night vision.
| lsllc wrote:
| Thanks, I got some good pictures! AF is def. a problem ...
| nico wrote:
| This is related to the cycles of Earth's core
|
| Our planet's magnetic field is "entangled" with the Sun's
| activity
|
| This unusual flare means unusual activity for our magnetic field,
| hence for the core as well
|
| It would be cool to have some realtime comparison/visualization
| of Earths magnetic core activity, vs solar flares
| robxorb wrote:
| Could you provide sources for this? Sounds plausible, given it
| is electromagnetic energy.
| nico wrote:
| Just speculating
|
| It's known that the magnetic core is generating/sustaining
| the magnetic field, which means that anything that happens to
| the field, has some sort of counterpart in the core
|
| So it would be cool to have that data: what happens inside
| Earth's core when a big magnetic event is affecting it's
| magnetic field
| bamboozled wrote:
| The earth is the greatest spaceship we'll ever know. Complete
| magic is this phenomenon.
|
| Feels like one is engulfed in the Aurora when it's strong. First
| time I experienced it the arctic circle actually scared me.
| will1am wrote:
| It's really damn beautiful, but it's scary. Whenever there are
| events on Earth that aren't typical of nature at regular times
| for some reason I always think it's not a good sign..
| throwaway11460 wrote:
| Don't worry, it's very typical. Just the timescales are
| literally astronomical.
| pelagicAustral wrote:
| I'm in the southern hemisphere (near Antarctica) and the sight is
| absolutely insane, almost terrifying... its a bright red aurora.
| Never seen anything like it.
| tracyhenry wrote:
| please post a photo!
| pelagicAustral wrote:
| I was out last night, but here you go: https://ibb.co/68hPjRT
| jiehong wrote:
| That's deep red! Quite a different sight!
| tracyhenry wrote:
| Thank you, this looks amazing
| proxyon wrote:
| people live near antartica?
| marmakoide wrote:
| Ushaiha and the Falklands?
| vitorgrs wrote:
| Even in Uruguay it can be seen... Incredible.
| jeffmess wrote:
| I can see brown I can see blue I can see violet sky...
| retrac wrote:
| If you want the best possible view with the naked eye, give them
| a chance to adapt to the dark properly. The human eye is about
| 100,000 more sensitive after an hour in total darkness. A
| smartphone screen or car headlight is enough to undo it.
| kragen wrote:
| car headlights are brighter than the sun from a short enough
| distance; perhaps you think we can guess what distance you're
| talking about seeing the car headline from, but actually you
| have to be explicit about it
| throwaway_ab wrote:
| In the dark notice how much light comes from a phone and how
| much that illuminates the person holding the phone.
|
| A car headlight shining your way from hundreds of meters even
| over 1km will often illuminate that person far more than
| their phone screen.
|
| So if the phone screen is enough to undo the hour long eyes
| adjusting to the dark duration, then the car headlights at
| almost any realistic distance causes an undo.
| kragen wrote:
| a headlight a kilometer away may be spread over 36000
| square meters including your face. (more detailed info on
| headlight antenna gain would be appreciated.) a 1200-lumen
| high beam over that area is 0.03 lux
|
| a 500 nit phone screen emitting over about a steradian from
| an 80mm x 160mm area is 6.4 lumens, but at night you
| usually turn it down to minimum brightness, say 0.6 lumens.
| (i haven't measured.) at a distance of 300mm that steradian
| is 0.09m2, so it's about 6 lux
|
| so the cellphone is about 200 times brighter than the
| headlight at that distance, and that's also observable from
| looking at people using cellphones walking on the highway
|
| but the person i was asking for more detail didn't specify
| that the headlight is pointed at your face; and in most
| situations where you can see headlights, they're not
| pointed at you. that's just a detail you filled in
| lambdasquirrel wrote:
| Makes sense.. all the serious astronomy apps are in black and
| red, and back before we had phones, we used to use red
| flashlights if we needed to consult our charts.
| dylan604 wrote:
| just like all of the 80s military action films with red
| filtered flashlights or CNC rooms on ships. sometimes, meme
| like content isn't just made up. as an amateur (at best)
| astro type person, you learn very quickly how true how
| quickly a brief flash of white light can ruin your night
| vision. walking around during the day without sun glasses can
| also extend the amount of time it takes your eyes to
| acclimate to the dark. however, once you do allow your eyes
| to acclimate to the dark, it is amazing to me still how much
| we can actually see.
| solarwindy wrote:
| Last night in particular, hiking through the forest there
| was no need for a flashlight at all.
| dylan604 wrote:
| On full moons, you can read a book and see the shadows
| cast by the moonlight. It's fun to take someone to see it
| for the first time who originally do not believe the
| shadows are possible.
| punnerud wrote:
| Use the old pirate trick and keep an eye patch over one of the
| eyes, and switch when going outside. They used it to be able to
| see inside the boat going from bright sunlight.
| noman-land wrote:
| This is genius.
| olive247 wrote:
| Wait no way? That's where the pirate eye patch trope comes
| from? There was a practical reason?
| xanderlewis wrote:
| I had assumed it was because, being a pirate, you were more
| likely to have had one of your eyes poked out during some
| sort of melee.
|
| But that's much more interesting...
| scientism wrote:
| I've read another theory: It's because of the sun damage
| to their eye from using a sextant for navigation. Haven't
| been able to confirm it though.
| samus wrote:
| Such damage is creeping and the brain can just
| hallucinate the blank patches in the vision away, until
| only like 10% of the retina is left and it just doesn't
| work anymore. These days, dumbass laserheads are the most
| likely to suffer from that problem.
|
| It's amazing how much of our conscious experience is
| hallucination, and yet a lot of people are disparaging
| LLMs for doing just the same...
| crashmat wrote:
| probably because when humans pay full attention and think
| clearly they can not hallucinate for 99% of things they
| can sense (disregarfing optical illusion), but there is
| no 'pay attention and dont hallucinate' switch for LLMs.
| samus wrote:
| People are bullshitting just the same about topics they
| know nothing about. They often also won't shut about when
| others tell them and even when they themselves know that
| they know nothing. To some extent this is necessary for
| humans to function at all, and the scientific process
| starts out from uneducated guesses and rigorously refines
| them and casts away what doesn't hold up to empiric data.
|
| Optical illusions are evidence of the pile of hacks that
| our senses and our consciousness use to make sense of the
| world. I think it is really difficult to fully disengage
| from the biases this induces, and we are sadly best at
| perceiving such flaws in others. This might be one of the
| reasons why humans have to socialize with other humans to
| maintain mental health.
| 4hg4ufxhy wrote:
| This would explain why only pirates wear them rather than
| also ordinary seamen.
| Jare wrote:
| There's no evidence that this use was real. Mythbusters
| tried it and said the trick itself does work (which any of
| has may already know), but who knows if it was even
| practical in a pirate boat, vs the loss of stereo vision
| etc.
|
| The whole idea of pirates wearing eyepatches seems simply
| the replication of one particularly colorful pirate
| archetype over centuries of literature and tales.
| swiftcoder wrote:
| I feel like the advantages of stereo vision may be
| oversold in this scenario. At the distances that sailing
| vessels would engage there's limited need for binocular
| depth cues - they really only start to come into play at
| the point where you would begin a boarding action
| Jare wrote:
| But the idea of the patches-for-night-vision is precisely
| to have one eye covered during the boarding, so when you
| enter the insides of the enemy boat that eye is ready for
| seeing in the dark.
| lukan wrote:
| Have you ever tried to climb a rope ladder on a moving
| ship?
|
| Stereo vision is helpful on ships (and allmost everywhere
| else where you need eyes), even when not boarding.
| asicsarecool wrote:
| I don't have binocular vision. I lived aboard a sailboat
| for a few years. I'm quite active with rock climbing etc
| and I honestly don't think I would be able to do anything
| better if I had binocular vision...
|
| Just a thought
| lukan wrote:
| Good for you!
|
| But I know I am worse doing climbing etc. with one eye.
|
| It is probably something you can train and get used to,
| that it is not such a big deal, but I cannot imagine
| doing it on the same level one eyed.
| unkulunkulu wrote:
| But then again, you did not have enough motivation to
| spend time learning it. A pirate captain might have
| enough to actually train this way.
| mypalmike wrote:
| Yup. Here in the city of Seattle, I went to a park where there
| were lots of people and unfortunately, lots of light. I could
| see some wispy light in the sky, and it was interesting to look
| at but not very dynamic.
|
| After I got home, I just laid down in the grass in the back
| yard where it's fairly dark. After about 15 minutes, I had a
| pretty good view of what looked a bit like streaky clouds
| throughout the sky. It was still somewhat faint but the
| movement was fantastic to watch.
| petarb wrote:
| I missed the news around this. Can someone share why this is
| happening? I thought this was only visible more north and usually
| green. Thanks!
| pizza wrote:
| Largest solar storm in 20 years
| DeepYogurt wrote:
| How long ahead of time can one forecast these events?
| superkuh wrote:
| Realistically only about half an hour. There are instruments at
| the L1 lagrange point that can measure the properties of the
| solar wind and/or CME as they pass and allowed real informed
| responses to events.
|
| There are also very, very simplified CME propagation models
| (WSA-ENLIL, etc) that can start with some assumptions and give
| a reasonable idea about when the CME will arrive within ~12
| hours.
|
| But for every time the simulations succesfully predict severe
| geomagnetic events or the like they give false positives a
| couple dozen times. The simulations cannot predict the
| geoeffectiveness.
| nomilk wrote:
| Anyone know of sources/sites that track the magnitude of
| geomagnetic storms as a time series? (interested to gauge the
| magnitude of recent ones relative to those of the past, similarly
| to how we may do so for earthquakes)
| gaudystead wrote:
| Perhaps not quite what you're looking for, but this might give
| you a start:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_storms
| jeffhuys wrote:
| https://spaceweathernews.com/
| sarusso wrote:
| Visible in North Italy as well. Unexpected!
| sarusso wrote:
| Pic here:
| https://twitter.com/_sarusso/status/1789112947165270298
| LelouBil wrote:
| I'm near paris and don't see anything :(
| blululu wrote:
| This is so cool. I just made a Timelapse from the images of the
| linked camera: https://youtu.be/pgexFsYzRYE
| ninkendo wrote:
| Checking in from Detroit here... the aurora is actually super
| visible on the iPhone camera. Much more than from the naked eye
| (although they are slightly visible... I have a lot of light
| pollution around me though.)
|
| I'm curious what causes it to come in better in my iPhones
| sensors... different wavelengths perhaps?
| ipqk wrote:
| longer exposure times.
| ninkendo wrote:
| The longer exposure doesn't seem to affect other aspects of
| the night sky though, I can see stars way better with the
| naked eye than my phone will show. That's probably just
| because of stars being point sources and hard for the camera
| to focus on in an otherwise black night sky.
| exitb wrote:
| Another factor is color - our eyes don't notice it well in
| low light, so the patches don't stand out. Camera sensor is
| equally sensitive to colors at all brightness levels.
| cozzyd wrote:
| Just saw it in downtown Chicago (by the lake). Faint, but visible
| with naked eye. Easier to capture with my pixel 8 than with my
| (handheld) DSLR, even with a fast lens...kicking myself for not
| grabbing my tripod
| chicagojoe wrote:
| Fellow Chicagoan here! I went down one of the piers and saw it
| as well. At first it looked like cirrus clouds but the colors
| emerged as my eyes acclimated. I thought it was my brain
| hallucinating the details it expected but my phone validated
| what I was seeing. Truly stunning even with just a 2sec
| exposure.
| dgellow wrote:
| Damn, I missed it
| aio2 wrote:
| lmao same
| sph wrote:
| The only day in years that I decide to go to bed earlier than
| usual, this happens...
| sva_ wrote:
| I just came home, went up the mountains. Absolutely crazy what I
| was able to see. I live somewhere mid to north Germany. Super
| stoked to go further up north based on what I saw in the sky. I
| have to say the images don't even nearly do justice to what I saw
| tonight, it was absolutely amazing. I spent some 6 hours up
| there. Just poor phone images, sorry.
|
| https://imgur.com/a/lPI9EXc
| dylan604 wrote:
| from sheer curiosity, I had to try to see what was in that
| image. just a meager push of the exposure revealed some color
| on top of the horrid compression:
|
| https://imgur.com/a/D7MGjoS
| rl3 wrote:
| It's dawn now, did anyone happen to screenshot that page during
| the night?
|
| The mosaic of pink/purple skies was rather beautiful, but I'm
| afraid preserving it slipped my mind.
| Geee wrote:
| I just found out that if you select a webcam you can actually
| go back in time, or even do a 'backwards timelapse' from the
| view menu. There's also a 'best of' which seems to have a
| collection of quite nice shots from all webcams:
| https://www.foto-webcam.eu/webcam/bestof/
| rl3 wrote:
| Awesome, thank you!
| roschdal wrote:
| It's the apocalypse.
| TylerE wrote:
| Can't see it from where I am in North Carolina as it's sadly
| overcast, but I'm sseeing photos from friends as far south as
| Georgia and Alabama of vivid pink auroras.
| squarefoot wrote:
| Any Ham Radio operators here can share their experience if and
| how much it affected radio communications?
| tarxvf wrote:
| I heard CW on 144.2MHz with auroral flutter meaning (if I
| understand correctly) it propagated through or off the aurora.
|
| So that's cool!
| sagischwarz wrote:
| Here are some phone pics from my home village in Germany:
| https://www.nowhereinparticular.xyz/polarlichter.html
|
| This was a once-in-a-lifetime experience. My brother, who is a
| hobby astronomer, called me and sent me outside. Initially, I saw
| only a faint red glow in the northeast of the sky, but after a
| few minutes, my eyes adapted and I could see how it slowly moved
| and changed its form over time. I stayed outside for maybe 15
| minutes and then went back inside. An hour later, I went outside
| again and almost the whole sky was shining in all different
| colors and forms, from patches to clouds to pillars that seemed
| to support the heavens, ever chaning. Incredible.
| weinzierl wrote:
| Is your village north, middle or south Germany. Just curious
| how much I missed:-/
| sagischwarz wrote:
| Mid-west, in an area called Hunsruck.
| weinzierl wrote:
| Thanks, I'm in Bavaria, so there might have been be a
| chance and the other comments say there are more solar
| storms upcoming. Definitely will have my eyes in the sky
| tonight. The images are amazing, btw.
| samus wrote:
| It should definitely have been possible to see it from
| Bavaria. It was definitely visible in northern Italy. Big
| cities might have to much light pollution though. Let's
| hope we get lucky tonight.
| h4ckerle wrote:
| OT but I didn't realise until now the Hunsruck was a real
| place... I always assumed it was invented for Werwolfe von
| Dusterwald!
| teekert wrote:
| In southern Netherlands at the coast, with a 10 sec exposure,
| iPhone 12 mini, main cam, I was able to see some pink and green
| with streaks. To my eyes it was like faint clouds that changed
| to quickly to be clouds, better visible when I didn't look
| straight at them. Your pics are something else, but what was it
| like to your eyes?
| sagischwarz wrote:
| The colors in my pics are a bit more intense than they were
| to the eyes, but not by that much. They were all clearly
| visible, including all the structures, glowing. It is pretty
| dark where I come from, the next city is dozens of kilometers
| away.
| fch42 wrote:
| From Bournemouth in the UK, I got the same impression as you
| - looking like cloud sheets, but more straight lines than,
| say, what windblown contrails look like. No clear color
| visible to me but the location wasn't anywhere near "dark".
|
| I've seen impressive (and colorful) aurora before, and can
| well imagine it might've looked splendid in (darker) places.
| Don't give up ... maybe more on the way.
| clmul wrote:
| In the east of the Netherlands I was seeing something similar
| to what you describe, but when particularly active I also saw
| a reddish glow in places. This is a timelapse I made around
| the same time: https://imgur.com/a/kloWEOl
| beretguy wrote:
| Thank you for not linking to Twitter.
| tolerantgravity wrote:
| 9 hours later and we saw similar sights in the Pacific Northwest
| in the US! Pretty awesome.
| kilianinbox wrote:
| Stockholm Sweden at ~4am
| https://x.com/aimkilian/status/1789188389108933097?s=46&t=Md...
| msephton wrote:
| Can't believe I slept through this.
| dan_can_code wrote:
| You may get another chance tonight.
| xanderlewis wrote:
| I'm in Aberdeen for the weekend. Saw nothing whatsoever.
| wiredfool wrote:
| Me too, but it's because I slept through it. Feeling better
| now.
| weinzierl wrote:
| I am sad that I missed it. I there some sort of forecast service
| that tells when there is a good chance to see an aurora in a
| particular place?
| ricardo81 wrote:
| I also missed it. Meant to be happening again tonight though.
| Ladsko wrote:
| Tonight at which location? Europe? I might go for a impromptu
| camping trip!
| ricardo81 wrote:
| Apparently much of the Northern Hemisphere, going by how
| many photos I've seen across the world from last night.
|
| Here in the UK the skies should be clear.
| doodlebugging wrote:
| If you go to https://spaceweather.com they have a link for text
| alerts when these things are about to happen.
|
| That is one way.
|
| I visit that site and a similar site for CME and space weather
| information: https://www.spaceweatherlive.com
|
| There is a lot to see and to follow. I just came back inside
| after snapping pics since just after dark here in N Texas. We
| had a good show that started off behind the clouds but it was
| bright enough to shine through the clouds. Then a few hours
| later after the clouds cleared it was great. My camera battery
| quit on me. I used three cameras tonight and only really got
| usable photos from my iphone, whose camera I normally hate
| because it always seems to process images after I take them.
| Part of it is probably on me since I haven't taken the time to
| study how to optimize settings.
|
| Anyway. Tomorrow should be another good day for this. Keep your
| eyes on the sky!
| Ladsko wrote:
| I'd also recommend checking a website like
| https://www.lightpollutionmap.info to find an area nearby
| that has less light pollution.
| joshvm wrote:
| Yes, you can use the NOAA forecast site which will show the
| "oval" and has 24 hour/30min predictions. Or Space Weather Live
| has some location forecasts. Generally if you don't live at a
| high latitude you need a very strong display to see anything.
| There's usually a bit of warning for storms like this, as
| various solar observation satellites can beam back images of
| the CME faster than the solar wind takes to get here.
|
| The keywords to use are "space weather forecast <country>"
|
| https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/
| xinayder wrote:
| I'm on a trip visiting my friend in Central Finland and yesterday
| we had a 96% warning for aurora chance. Unfortunately, for us,
| the sky was quite cloudy and we didn't get a chance to see the
| lights. When we were heading back home I saw a faint line of
| blueish-purple in the sky, which seemed unusual, and told my
| friends "hey what if this is the aurora". I checked the photos
| from the other people that claimed they saw the lights and it
| checked out with what I've seen.
| sgt101 wrote:
| How did this compare to the Carrington event?
| inamorty wrote:
| You could read a newspaper from the light in the middle of the
| night during the Carrington event, so not comparable at all.
| heavenlyblue wrote:
| Citation needed
| inamorty wrote:
| Sure thing: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20050210157
| /downloads/20...
| beretguy wrote:
| That's what I want to know but everybody just talks about how
| pretty it is. I want to know if it was dangerous to our
| electronics, and if not then how close it came to being
| dangerous, you know, small things like that.
| samus wrote:
| If it was dangerous, we would know by now. As it is, we are
| still able to use the internet. Major outages would be all
| over the news.
| anileated wrote:
| The current storm hit G5
| (https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/g5-conditions-observed),
| it's officially "off the charts" if it gets any stronger.
|
| By the time you cannot use Internet, it's too late--and it
| won't be all over the news because guess how we
| make/broadcast/receive them. Worst case you won't even get
| a radio transmission through.
| kzisme wrote:
| Super visible with the naked eye an hour and a half east of
| Denver. At some points the whole sky turned colors from
| green/pink/blue.
|
| https://imgur.com/a/8TJpI5i
|
| Some photos if anyone is interested
| mkaszkowiak wrote:
| This aurora was really powerful! I could see it with a naked eye
| from a town in central Poland, despite cloudy weather and light
| pollution. Feels great to finally see it in person
| bcye wrote:
| For those coming here during the day, they have a page with the
| best images of tonight: https://www.foto-webcam.eu/webcam/bestof/
| savolai wrote:
| Here's a time archive of all the cams https://www.foto-
| webcam.eu/2024/05/10/2230
| moooo99 wrote:
| I live in a relatively big city where light pollution is
| obviously a huge thing. But the aurora was so strong that even we
| were able to make it out, although not as intensively beautiful
| as on all those webcam feeds
| SenHeng wrote:
| Does anyone have a direct link to the time period when the aurora
| hits?
|
| All I see is a beautiful sunny day.
| DoingIsLearning wrote:
| I think for most folks in Europe it was between 23:00 and 03:00
| CET yesterday.
|
| Not sure what future forecasts are. I guess NOAA will probably
| have some prediction.
| nalinidash wrote:
| You can find the images here: https://www.foto-
| webcam.eu/webcam/bestof/
|
| Approx time(as per the snapshots): 10.05.24 22:00-11.05.24 4:20
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/specialist-forecasts/sp...
|
| shows a video-style timeline of predictions for both Northern
| and Southern hemisphere.
|
| I'm not sure what "percentage" corresponds to visible aurorae
| though, anyone know?
| djhworld wrote:
| I didn't see anything with the naked eye (UK), probably too much
| light pollution, but I took a photo of the sky with my phone and
| you could definitely see it.
| Havoc wrote:
| Same. Central London though so pretty hopeless on light
| pollution anyway
| divbzero wrote:
| The sky has been lighting up in North America too. I've heard
| reports of the aurora from New England and, here in the Pacific
| Northwest, it's currently visible by naked eye and striking in
| long exposure shots. I always thought I would have to visit
| Alaska or Scandinavia to see the northern lights, never thought I
| could catch a glimpse so close to home.
| jayknight wrote:
| It was visible to the naked eye in the city lights here around
| Memphis, TN. I've seen pictures from the gulf coast. That was
| so crazy!
| mjh2539 wrote:
| It was visible as far south as northern San Antonio last night.
| jamesbfb wrote:
| And parts of Melbourne, Australia too! Never in my life have I
| seen this here. It's a wonderful thing to see.
| sen wrote:
| Central Victoria here, absolutely insane view with greens and
| purples through the sky.
| nojvek wrote:
| Most of North US and Canada is also glowing pink today. Got many
| messages from friends in Washington and BC.
|
| What a wonderful sight.
| btbuildem wrote:
| Many of the photos here show it in such vivid colour, but for me
| the really breathtaking part was the scale and movement of the
| aurora.
|
| Last night (here in Quebec) the entire sky was filled with
| colour. It's not as intense in person, but the slow shimmer of it
| is otherworldly. I was up on my roof for almost an hour, watching
| the blobs undulate in the sky. I think it made a bigger
| impression on me than the recent eclipse.
| BillionAI wrote:
| Girlfriend sent me pictures from Aarhus, DK. Was absolutely
| stunning!
| g7vrd wrote:
| You can see the effects of the CME on the HF amateur radio bands.
|
| This live map (https://g7vrd.co.uk/wspr/IO81) would usually be
| full of worldwide contacts being reported by WSPR (Weak Signal
| Propagation Reporter), but the solar flares have closed down the
| bands quite considerably.
|
| The map is centred on Maidenhead grid square IO81, but you can
| change it to wherever you are: https://www.whatsmylocator.co.uk/
|
| This will also cause problems with aircraft, as they use HF when
| they're out of sight of land.
| navane wrote:
| why was all the news about eurovision songfestival and nothing
| about this
| Ylpertnodi wrote:
| Israel?
| aussieguy1234 wrote:
| I saw a full aurora in Melbourne, Australia.
|
| Colours, ribbons, arcs and beams all visible to the naked eye and
| on camera.
|
| Normally with aurouras, you only get to see a faint greyish glow
| on the horizon and it only looks good on camera. Not this time.
| 77pt77 wrote:
| Aurora australis are dimmer than aurora borealis.
| pmarreck wrote:
| I have no idea what's going on because I have a toddler. Can
| someone catch me up here?
| _giorgio_ wrote:
| Did anyone screenshot it?
| atulatul wrote:
| Off topic maybe but Europe is so beautiful. I wish I get to
| travel across Europe with leisure.
| alt0_ wrote:
| Feel free to go outside in headphones and put this[0] on.
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=086uhG3Rf3U
| wslh wrote:
| From Ushuaia, Argentina close to Patagonia:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/argentina/comments/1cp89bf/aurora_a...
| bsimpson wrote:
| Now that it's over, the timestamp should be in the link:
|
| https://www.foto-webcam.eu/webcam/lucknerhaus/2024/05/10/224...
| thunkshift1 wrote:
| Why is it pink and not green
| jlrubin wrote:
| i have the unique experience of being in a plane over the Bering
| sea a few hours ago.
| https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin/status/1789273537179426922
|
| i was going nuts in my seat and seemed to be the only one on the
| plane aware of what was going on.
| boringg wrote:
| Ive had a similar experience but looking at massive forest
| fires outside and noone in the cabin caring in the least bit.
| Its a strange thing.
| Havoc wrote:
| I've got a flight tonight at 23:00 so hopefully can secure a
| window seat!
| rpmisms wrote:
| Is anyone else experiencing slow Internet during this? I'm not
| sure if it's related or confirmation bias, but it's been crawling
| since the storm hit.
| spongebobism wrote:
| Is it the Aurora or is it the Eurovision finals? We may never
| know...
| lytfyre wrote:
| Went about an hour north of Vancouver BC Canada to get away from
| bit city lights and watch.
|
| It was probably not the brightest small strands I've ever seen -
| if my memories of Northern Saskatchewan as a kid are still
| accurate - but I don't think I've seen the whole sky light up to
| such an extent.
|
| here's a photo:
| https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fu...
|
| magenta and green colours were clearly visible in person during
| the intense periods, although obviously not as bright or intense
| as long exposure photos. Solidly visible bands for at least the
| two hours I stayed out.
| GTP wrote:
| I missed it last night, but I heard it will repeat it tonight.
| I'm going to try to see it. It's unheard of at this latitute,
| currently I'm on an island in Tuscany, center of Italy.
|
| Edit: I found online that the last one visible from Italy was in
| 2003, so not unheard of but still rare.
| andrewstuart wrote:
| Clearly no-one read Day of the Triffids.
|
| Don't look.
| Sparkyte wrote:
| Can it be seen with the naked eye? I didn't see anything last
| night.
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| Sorry all, had the following comment in the wrong thread
| yesterday:
|
| My unindicted co-conspirator is a much bigger fan of song
| contests than I am, but sometimes you just have to wonder at the
| production values:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyUsNgu4GAI&t=550s
| globular-toast wrote:
| Went out into a meadow near town last night. Couldn't see a
| thing. Light pollution was probably too bad. But it was really
| funny to see a bunch of people milling about in the meadow at
| almost midnight. Many of them idiots walking around with phone
| torches destroying their and everyone else's night vision.
|
| The shocking thing to me, though, is the number of satellites in
| the sky. This was a shit sky, way beyond what people would call
| "milky". Hardly any stars visible. But everywhere you looked
| there were satellites. I remember it being rare to see one only
| 15 years ago. Almost couldn't believe you could really see them
| back then. But now... Everywhere. I had no idea how congested it
| was getting up there. Wish I could leave Earth. But also glad we
| can't because we'd fuck that up too.
| vbilopav wrote:
| I thought it was because of Eurovision
| djha-skin wrote:
| We went out to Simpson Springs in Utah to see the borealis. There
| was a bit of a flare up. Like others have said it looked like
| streaky fog to the naked eye. My camera picked up something a
| little better. My wife's camera was a Samsung Galaxy Ultra S21
| and she picked up gold it looks so good on her camera but anyway
| here's my shot.
|
| https://linksharing.samsungcloud.com/jytxIMvelaGs
|
| You can see the lights of dugway Utah in the background
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-05-12 23:01 UTC)