Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Massive auroral display last night over Toronto

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 8:45:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

It lasted all night and covered most of the sky.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/43385570
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 12:48:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:kv2e815iovos1790n6n11jfdiu36j2u3co@4ax.com...
> It lasted all night and covered most of the sky.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/43385570


Boy, you Toronto people think Toronto is the center of the universe don't
you. ;>) The display could be seen here in Saskatchewan too.

Nice shot, but I would crop the upper left corner.

L.C.
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 6:42:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

> It lasted all night and covered most of the sky.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/43385570

Cool. That massive high pressure, cold arctic air a few days ago must
have helped with that. We had overhead auroras about 2 mos. ago that
were equally spectacular.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Related resources
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 8:33:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 15 May 2005 14:42:41 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>RichA wrote:
>
>> It lasted all night and covered most of the sky.
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/43385570
>
>Cool. That massive high pressure, cold arctic air a few days ago must
>have helped with that. We had overhead auroras about 2 mos. ago that
>were equally spectacular.
>
>Cheers,
>Alan.

I received an emailed warning that there have been some pretty
spectacular solar flares and that communications could be effected
as well from the bombardment of the outer atmosphere. We could see
more tonight.
-Rich
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 8:52:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

> On Sun, 15 May 2005 14:42:41 -0400, Alan Browne


>>Cool. That massive high pressure, cold arctic air a few days ago must
>>have helped with that. We had overhead auroras about 2 mos. ago that
>>were equally spectacular.
>>
>
> I received an emailed warning that there have been some pretty
> spectacular solar flares and that communications could be effected
> as well from the bombardment of the outer atmosphere. We could see
> more tonight.

I'll drag my stuff off to my dinner outing tonight and see what's what
after ... skies are clear now (rainy last night). Thanks for the tip.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
May 16, 2005 3:18:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:D 6856r$ifc$2@inews.gazeta.pl...
> RichA wrote:
>
>> It lasted all night and covered most of the sky.
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/43385570
>
> Cool. That massive high pressure, cold arctic air a few days ago must
> have helped with that. We had overhead auroras about 2 mos. ago that were
> equally spectacular.
>
http://www.spaceweather.com

http://www.spaceweather.gc.ca/forecastmap_e.shtml

Hmmmm, weather has nothing to do with Auroras. It depends on the solar
flares and sun spot activity

Here are my Ottawa area Aurora images from the November 8, 2004 storm;

http://www.darrelllarose.ca/gallery/Aurora
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 3:59:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <mdcf81t1i1f72e3o8i8t3hgj2n4t13j56j@4ax.com>, RichA
<none@none.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 15 May 2005 14:42:41 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> I received an emailed warning that there have been some pretty
> spectacular solar flares and that communications could be effected
> as well from the bombardment of the outer atmosphere. We could see
> more tonight.
> -Rich

I'm curious to know how communications could be effected (caused or
accomplished) by bombardment of the outer atmosphere.

Normally, I'd suspect that communications would be adversely affected
(influenced or acted upon) by such a bombardment.

Chris
May 16, 2005 3:59:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Chris Cox wrote:
> In article <mdcf81t1i1f72e3o8i8t3hgj2n4t13j56j@4ax.com>, RichA
> <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 15 May 2005 14:42:41 -0400, Alan Browne
>><alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>I received an emailed warning that there have been some pretty
>>spectacular solar flares and that communications could be effected
>>as well from the bombardment of the outer atmosphere. We could see
>>more tonight.
>>-Rich
>
>
> I'm curious to know how communications could be effected (caused or
> accomplished) by bombardment of the outer atmosphere.
>
> Normally, I'd suspect that communications would be adversely affected
> (influenced or acted upon) by such a bombardment.
>
> Chris


http://www.exploratorium.edu/learning_studio/auroras/se...

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 4:24:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <150520051659125068%ccox@mindspring.com>,
Chris Cox <ccox@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <mdcf81t1i1f72e3o8i8t3hgj2n4t13j56j@4ax.com>, RichA
><none@none.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 15 May 2005 14:42:41 -0400, Alan Browne
>> <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>> I received an emailed warning that there have been some pretty
>> spectacular solar flares and that communications could be effected
>> as well from the bombardment of the outer atmosphere. We could see
>> more tonight.
>> -Rich
>
>I'm curious to know how communications could be effected (caused or
>accomplished) by bombardment of the outer atmosphere.

It changes the ionization of the upper atmosphere (the
Ionosphere), which is used to "bounce" (reflect) signals in a large
portion of the RF spectrum. The altitude at which the ionosphere starts
is one of the things which is changed by the influx of charged particles
from the Sun. Pretty much anything above the broadcast band is affected
in some way or another.

Some things are improved (e.g. some ham radio bands are able to
establish communications over a much greater difference than at other
times. (This includes the old Citizen's Band, which normally is fairly
short range, but during some sunspot activity, I have listened to a CB
transmission in Ecuador -- and I was near Washington DC.

Obviously -- what is a bonus to hams, who live for these times,
is a major source of interference when various groups which use a given
band, protected from each other by normal signal propagation
limitations, will suddenly start getting in each other's way.

And it *might* be that communications to and from satellites
might be blocked, so they could not help communications which do need to
reach around the world.

>Normally, I'd suspect that communications would be adversely affected
>(influenced or acted upon) by such a bombardment.

So -- why the question -- just looking for details, or did you
leave out a "not" from the above sentence?

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 4:28:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 15 May 2005 23:18:04 -0400, "Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote:

>
>"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>news:D 6856r$ifc$2@inews.gazeta.pl...
>> RichA wrote:
>>
>>> It lasted all night and covered most of the sky.
>>>
>>> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/43385570
>>
>> Cool. That massive high pressure, cold arctic air a few days ago must
>> have helped with that. We had overhead auroras about 2 mos. ago that were
>> equally spectacular.
>>
>http://www.spaceweather.com
>
>http://www.spaceweather.gc.ca/forecastmap_e.shtml
>
>Hmmmm, weather has nothing to do with Auroras. It depends on the solar
>flares and sun spot activity
>
>Here are my Ottawa area Aurora images from the November 8, 2004 storm;
>
>http://www.darrelllarose.ca/gallery/Aurora
>
>

Beautiful!~ Ah it would be so nice to have a dark city sky!
-Rich
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 8:40:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:
> It lasted all night and covered most of the sky.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/43385570

Really impressive aurora for being that far south. Toronto may have
cold winters, but from a European perspective its latitude is almost
subtropical - same as Pisa, Italy.

(Up here in Sweden, it is generally considered that the auroras in
middle Sweden - 60th parallel or so - usually don't really cut it, and
that you need to go up to the Far North, above the 66th parallel, say,
to get the real McCoy...)

But yours was quite nice, especially taken into account that it
certainly would have looked a good deal more impressive still if
photographed out in the countryside.

Jan Böhme
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 2:31:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Chris Cox wrote:

> In article <mdcf81t1i1f72e3o8i8t3hgj2n4t13j56j@4ax.com>, RichA
> <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 15 May 2005 14:42:41 -0400, Alan Browne
>><alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>I received an emailed warning that there have been some pretty
>>spectacular solar flares and that communications could be effected
>>as well from the bombardment of the outer atmosphere. We could see
>>more tonight.
>>-Rich
>
>
> I'm curious to know how communications could be effected (caused or
> accomplished) by bombardment of the outer atmosphere.
>
> Normally, I'd suspect that communications would be adversely affected
> (influenced or acted upon) by such a bombardment.

Google away. But in short, all these particle interactions generate
random signals over fairly broad parts of the radio spectrum at varying
amplitudes. Noise. Receivers pick it up and it interferes with the
signal they're trying to pick up. Like trying to listen to somebody in
a crowded and noisy room. Different modulation schemes are more or less
susceptible to noise, so in some cases little noise can cause a lot of
interference; in some cases it takes a lot of noise before the receiver
even shows that there is interference at all.

Spread spectum receivers, such as GPS, do quite well. In fact all of
the signal is below the ambient RF noise level at all times.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 3:03:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Darrell wrote:

> Hmmmm, weather has nothing to do with Auroras. It depends on the solar
> flares and sun spot activity

2nd part I agree, but I thought a mass of cold dry air was required as well.

>
> Here are my Ottawa area Aurora images from the November 8, 2004 storm;
>
> http://www.darrelllarose.ca/gallery/Aurora

Seen them before. Very nice. I looked last night, but no joy. There
was high thin cloud cover so that might have prevented seeing them.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 8:46:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 16 May 2005 10:31:47 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>Chris Cox wrote:
>
>> In article <mdcf81t1i1f72e3o8i8t3hgj2n4t13j56j@4ax.com>, RichA
>> <none@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 15 May 2005 14:42:41 -0400, Alan Browne
>>><alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>I received an emailed warning that there have been some pretty
>>>spectacular solar flares and that communications could be effected
>>>as well from the bombardment of the outer atmosphere. We could see
>>>more tonight.
>>>-Rich
>>
>>
>> I'm curious to know how communications could be effected (caused or
>> accomplished) by bombardment of the outer atmosphere.
>>
>> Normally, I'd suspect that communications would be adversely affected
>> (influenced or acted upon) by such a bombardment.
>
>Google away. But in short, all these particle interactions generate

<serious stuff snipped>

Alan, you've missed Chris's point; he was jumping on an _E_ffected vs.
_A_ffected confusion in the original post.

Regards,
Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
--
There are 10 types of people in the world;
those that understand binary and those that don't.
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 8:46:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Graham Holden wrote:

> Alan, you've missed Chris's point; he was jumping on an _E_ffected vs.
> _A_ffected confusion in the original post.

Profuse apologies for believing that most of us politely adhere to the
notion that spelling and grammatical errors are not to be obsessed over
on newsgroups.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 8:46:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
> Graham Holden wrote:
>
>> Alan, you've missed Chris's point; he was jumping on an _E_ffected
>> vs. _A_ffected confusion in the original post.
>
> Profuse apologies for believing that most of us politely adhere to
> the
> notion that spelling and grammatical errors are not to be obsessed
> over on newsgroups.
>

I guess I must apologize for missing the difference between
"obsessing" and a friendly, humourous hint that could help a fellow
denizen avoid looking the fool in future.

Of course one must consider a danger that some hypersensitive soul
might be bruised by incidental revelations and react by dragging a
pungent preserved piscine across the trail.

I say, "Good on ye, Graham; buck up, Brown-with-an-'e'".

--
Frank S

"Verbing wierds language."
-Calvin
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 9:38:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 16 May 2005 09:17:44 -0700, "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:

>Alan Browne wrote:
>> Graham Holden wrote:
>>
>>> Alan, you've missed Chris's point; he was jumping on an _E_ffected
>>> vs. _A_ffected confusion in the original post.
>>
>> Profuse apologies for believing that most of us politely adhere to
>> the
>> notion that spelling and grammatical errors are not to be obsessed
>> over on newsgroups.
>>
>
>I guess I must apologize for missing the difference between
>"obsessing" and a friendly, humourous hint that could help a fellow
>denizen avoid looking the fool in future.
>
>Of course one must consider a danger that some hypersensitive soul
>might be bruised by incidental revelations and react by dragging a
>pungent preserved piscine across the trail.
>
>I say, "Good on ye, Graham; buck up, Brown-with-an-'e'".

I'd just like to say it wasn't me picking up on the slip, it was Chris. I
was merely pointing out to Alan why Chris had replied.

Although I'm usually good at spotting typos (at least in other people's
posts), I generally don't obsess about them.

Regards,
Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
--
There are 10 types of people in the world;
those that understand binary and those that don't.
!