Aurora Alert During The Nights Ahead

Jens Lönn writes: "Magnetic fields above sunspot 9653 erupted yesterday (Oct. 9th at 1110 UT) and hurled a full-halo coronal mass ejection toward Earth. The expanding cloud, which speed away from the Sun traveling approximately 1000 km/s, could strike our planet's magnetosphere as soon as Thursday, Oct. 11th. Sky watchers, especially those living above geomagnetic latitude 50 degrees, should remain alert for Northern Lights during the nights ahead. The best time to spot auroras is usually around local midnight. Note: This is not an alert for a geomagnetic storm, it's just an alert for those who wants to watch great auroras at night."

Clouds suck

[caffeinated_bunsen]

This is the third big aurora forecast in the last few weeks, and every time Michigan has been completely covered in clouds. Damn troposhphere...

And is it just me, or are the trolls lazy today?

Re:Clouds suck

[PinkStainlessTail]

Light pollution from Detroit ain't helping either (here in Belleville).

I think the trolls are all worn out from their big Tuesday. Yuck. I'm never looking at -1 again.

Northern Lights? I was hoping

[typical geek]

to hear about the real Aurora, flying above Afghanistan at Mach 5, the pilot giving hte finger to the Taliban.

The Real Aurora

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I wish it was an Aurora too...

I've seen what I think is the real Aurora, three times, back in the mid to late 80's.

I always used to camp at Mono Lake on the CA, NV border to see the Perseids display every Aug..

On three different years, I heard a sound like I'd never heard before, and looked up to see an aircraft with a contrail movin' faster than anything I'd seen to date.

My father used to spend alot of time at Edwards AFB as a test engineer (civilian), and used to take us to armed forces day there every year during the early '60's. I'd seen and heard all sorts of very neat aircraft that was based at Edwards in those days.

I also used to subscribe to Avation Week and Space Technology (split the $175.00 subscription price with my Lockheed engineer girlfriend) so I could keep tabs on Aurora's development (reading between the lines as it were).

I could tell you about everything that flies way back then, and what I saw at Mono Lake was astoundingly faster. We're talkin' less than five seconds, horizon to horizon! I was blown away...

They were all headed North to South along the Sierra crest.

And the last one I saw in 1989, sounded even weirder, and had a morse code like contrail. I'd never seen an aircraft with a broken contrail before (or since).

Re:The Real Aurora

[typical geek]

doughnuts on a rope?

Back when I was more into starnge aviation news, the Aurora's contrail was supposed to look like doughnuts on a rope, due to the pulse engine it used.

Re:The Real Aurora

[Austin Tashis]

The "doughnuts-on-a-rope" description describes what the contrail would look like at low speeds. When it's really moving it would look more like the other reader described it.

I'm a little skeptical of the 5 second horizon-to-horizon claim though, especially at the altitude they've been flying these things at. Nothing could move that fast without burning.

Photo buffs please chime in!!

[CodeShark]

This is the first time in ages that the Aurora may be easily visible where I'm at (near KCMO, USA), (if the clouds break up a bit more).

Obviously I will need to get away from the city lights, but if it is visible, I could sure use some info/recommendations on photo exposure times/films/etc.?

Second question: how much is this latest blob of solar goo supposed to do in terms of radio interference, etc.?

Re:Photo buffs please chime in!!

[hhe_hee]

You can always check out the Aurora gallerys on this [spaceweather.com] page, the photographers decsribe a bit about how they did and what equipment they used to get those beautiful pictures. Mostly people use ASA 400 with a 10 to 20 sec exposure time, but of course that depends on which lens you use. And the best way to learn is to try several exposure times and or films and remember to make notes for each photo you take (just to know what you did right and what went wrong). Often you can get pretty good pictures even if the aurora is faint, but thats a matter of exposure time and luck. But look at the photo details at the page, those guys know how to do it right :)

I havent seen any predictions about where on the scale [noaa.gov] this blob is, but it is possibly a R2 (or lower) - which means moderate effects. That is, only limited radio blackouts on the sunlit side.

Aurora... check your *magnetic* latitude

[Milalwi]

Ahh, yes. I'm still waiting for a clear night with visible aurora in this solar cycle. During the last cycle on 13-March-1989, I saw one of the most amazing displays I have ever seen. If remember correctly my magnetic latitude [noaa.gov] is about 50degN. The display reached the zenith. I understand it was visible in the Caman Islands that night. I saw many displays growing up, as I lived quite a bit north of my present location. (About 60degN Magnetic)

If you're curious about what the aurora is doing, this [noaa.gov] is a good place to check. (If you're in the northern hemisphere)

Remember that aurora forecasts almost always list the magnetic latitude, so check to see if your location is expected to have visible aurora. For example, this forecast projects aurora at 50degN Magnetic and north (Yea!). You may (especially in North America) be further north (or south) than you think!

Milalwi

Clouds or light pollution?

[DNS-and-BIND]

I live in L.A., so clouds aren't too much of a problem, but light pollution is. It seems as if the auroras would be less suceptible to light pollution than other astronomical phenomena, is this true?

Re:Clouds or light pollution?

[Ann O'Nymous-Coward]

Check the "geomagnetic latitude" link in the root article. Basically, L.A. is just too far south to be able to see these auroras. :(

Stupid Rain

[SloWave]

Cool! I'm in Alaska for the next few weeks. Now if it would just stop raining and the clouds would clear up some.

Question/misunderstanding

[Starbreeze]

From what I understand from this page [noaa.gov], if you are located at magnetic latitude 50 degrees, the activity level needs to be at 10+ before you can see the Northern Lights. The activity level is currently listed at a 6 and I don't see anywhere saying it's expected to rise in activity. So shouldn't the article say people at 60 degrees and above (not 50) should be able to see the Aurora?

Aurora forcast website

[Lawmeister]

Living in Whitehorse, I use this site from the University of Alaska Geophysical Institute [alaska.edu] to see if staying up late will be worth it.

Missed it?

[hhe_hee]

If you missed the auroras you can alway check out some beautiful pictures of them here [spaceweather.com]. The auroras were so bright in some places that they could be seen from brightly lit cities, cool...