Talk:Aurora/Archive 1

Continuing (tedious) Saga 'Educating The Educators'

Sorry David but someone else has already been in there fixing it up, unbeknown to me, but thats exactly what I'm on about, this is so much bigger than you or I. Mozasaur 19:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Moszasaur

Please, please do not screw up what has been carefully assembled! The image you used to replace what I placed on the site is NOT what auroral arcs look like (and that's the most common visible form). Unless you know better, PLEASE DON'T FIX WHAT AIN'T BROKE. or I will have to complain.

The purpose of Wikipedia is not fun but information. People want to know, and some of us, who know a bit about a few things, want to help them. Anything else muddies the water.

If you want to correspond with me and give me your reasoning, I will listen. Please go to my web page http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Sstern.htm and take it from there. Meanwhile, I am restroring what you changed.

David P. Stern Greenbelt, Maryland, USA

yes you are asking for exactly what i am, "Please, please do not screw up what has been carefully assembled!" but to be honest i havent threatened complaint like you have, I have given my reasoning all over the place and I had my çarefully assembled example image on that page before you came along and removed it. Your tone and behaviour comes across to me as arrogant and elistist "and some of us, who know a bit about a few things,", ffs I have given more than 50 years to this society that we share and who are YOU to talk to me like that? thats exactly the new point, that you apparently dont care about the process and the actual basis of this environment as much as getting what you think should be there, in your view. Oh I guess an extra 20 years on the planet justifies that approach.

Now you dare to tell me what an aurora doesnt look like? umm how many original pics of an aurora can you deliver to substantiate that? My pics are ALL MY OWN WORK FROM REAL AURORA so they are truly representative of what is out there. How many of your pics got accepted on the NASA spaceweather.com? are you trying to tell me that they dont know what an aurora looks like also? They didnt try and tell me my pics were false, they posted them up for the world to see. For that matter how many aurora have you seen with your own eyes and exactly where were you when you saw them? The aurora looks different every time and is highly variable with geographic location, and changes throughout any particular event, I watched a few and I know what they look like.

So who are you going to complain to? do you really think this wiki stuff counts? The web is growing faster than wiki is and even you must know that one page or another is meaningless taken on its own, its the inter-connectedness that counts. My name is Paul Moss. a google name search will give details to you, (#1 on 6 million returns.) Paul Moss

oh and perhaps you could browse some aurora photo gallerys and LEARN that aurora often comes in all colours. NASA spaceweather.com Gallery

Mozasaur 19:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Sense of Loss

I'm actually more dismayed at the loss of a potential friendship and collaboration, we should be enjoying our mutual ability to educate those who want it. For most people 'telling aint selling', you have to treat them with respect and they must feel comfortable to learn from you. Humour is an essential component of a an effective learning environment, you should know that it isnt a cause of muddy water, but yet another tool to achieve your objective.

I have hundreds of aurora photographers that trust me with their images and reports, I get warm fuzzies and the planet gets the detailed knowledge of each event channelled to the scientists that want it.

So lets sit back and see how you handle the rest of the wikipedians coming in and roughly treading on your 'what has been carefully assembled' article. Can you keep fixing it forever? I think not. I think that we have a culture gap in place, its all about the youthful new way as opposed to the (now) elderly old way.

I play with my grandsons on a daily basis, educating them in ways that they dont even know, and we have fun. Any other approach would crash headlong into a brickwall.

To be as honest as I can, I am, myself, unsure of the success or failure of this wikipedia thing, but I am prepared to give hugely to see if it can be all it can be. I must exercise discipline and not waste any more time on trying to educate the educator, some of us are blocked to things we dont wanna know about, I know enough about myself to know that, after all I'm an educator too! (and married to one) I must move on and use my precious time as wisely as I can. Mozasaur 19:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC) copied from my talk page for aurora page editors ease of access. Mozasaur 19:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

do you feel free to rewrite the article?

The rewrite appears ok at a glance, and its kinda nice to have such energy and passion applied to my favourite subject, but isn't the wiki a joint project of everyone interested? otherwise I am having trouble understanding the history of this site. I actually resent the time warping, and would prefer that the newly created pieces were sub pages off the main page. That would be more efficient overall... its weird how one editor is creating such massives as replacement subject pages, while another editor is claiming the same right to strip a subject page to a very small output. I should make an effort to put these two editors in touch, but is it worth it?, like, are we likely to get the outcome that we want (consider most appropriate for the majority of humans)?

1. 1 I place my one small vote for democracy applied. That: incremental editing is prioritised above complete rewriting.

1. 2 If aurora occur approx equally either side of the equator, then an image from each hemisphere on the subject page is fair. I want to observe the continuitiy of this principle. It's also a self appointed vote for all the people on my side of the equator.

~~ moza --Mozasaur 19:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

1. 3 If i have to repeatadly replace an image that fairly represents the southern hemisphere because a contributor had decided that its 'their' page and they will have what they think is the best image for the task at hand, then what point is there to the wiki in the first place? its looks likely that such a personality will progress the appointment of admins' to come and waste their time on such trivial behaviour. I could gift a green image to the planet if that would solve the issue, but i suspect it wouldnt, maybe I'll just do that. How about i gift a blue one and one with white rays and another with yellow... will that solve it? I have seen aurorae many times in many colours. Lets not go too far down this track, I prefer much of the original article and I'm quite uncomfortable about heavy handed solo rewrites by self appointed experts. what happened to wiki ettiquette?

And just for fun, did you see the man made aurora from the atmospheric nuclear testing around 50 years ago? I did, and it was RED, it WASNT anywhere near the poles either. I have been collecting eye witness accounts from other astronomers for a webpage in the future. --Mozasaur 05:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Prediction and location

Is there any way of predicting when these happen? Also, how far north do you have to be to see them? (Or how far south, I guess.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Branddobbe (talk • contribs) 14:54, 11 March 2004 (UTC)

I've seen them at approximately 63 degrees N, though that wasn't exactly the most usual of nights. Off the top of my head, north of the Arctic Circle is your best bet. This is most likely wrong.

Out of academic interest, are there differences between the Aurora Borealis and the Aurora Australis? Also, the 'pop culture reference' part of the article, containing as it does one Simpsons quote, seems a bit odd to me. --Kizor 07:24, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I've seen them in both New Hampshire and Northern New York (2 weeks ago on the night of September 10th 2005 at Fort Ticonderoga). Both of these places are south of the 45th parallel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marc29th (talk • contribs) 17:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

You have to keep an eye on the space weather, such as the prediction of auroral activity.[1] "When geomagnetic activity is low, the aurora typically is located, in the hours around midnight, at about 67 degrees magnetic latitude*. As activity increases, the region of aurora expands toward the equator."[2] (SEWilco 16:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC))

I run a national telephone and email alert tree at 41 degreees south and I'm linked into the Southern Australasian Aurora network. I can say that here in central New Zealand most of my alerts come from a lot further south, Oamaru, Queenstown, Invercargill (an area often referred to as 'rakiura' or loosely 'great fire in the sky', or Tasmania in Australia. Anyone can join our networks, some of our members are in the Northern Hemisphere when I call them. The Kiwi network is public and the Southern Australasian is by referral. I subscribe to a range of email alerts, and they usually describe the solar activity, giving you up to 48 hours notice of an impending event. Its so erratic in truth I often rely on the network to confirm an actual display. Its also complicated by my business and family travel to Brisbane, Australia, with one display a decade. visit Astronomy Net NZ all you need to know. ~~ --Mozasaur 19:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

actually the direct link to my guide to seeing and photographing an aurora is here; Aurora Australis Mozasaur 19:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Aurora Borealis and the upcoming Battle of Bull Run (Civil War)

At the eve of July, 21 1861 of the Battle of Bull Run (Civil War) an Aurora Borealis occured - a rare phenomenon in Virginia. --217.234.82.91 11:00, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

aurora

Since my first encounter with the Aurora Borealis almost 8 years ago, I've been trying to determine when I can get my next "fix." Although it can be difficult to predict, location is key when trying to determine your chances of witnessing one of the best free shows on Earth. From my location (Southeastern Wisconsin, USA), I count on seeing the Aurora three to five times per year. I use a multitude of sources to help me find the northern lights, including data from Nasa, the University of Alaska and Spaceweather.com. Sign up for one or more of the many mailing lists out there and you can recieve Aurora eMail or text messages alerting you of an impending Aurora, based on Sun spot activity. Happy hunting! --Supapup 05:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

page move

I renamed this page from "polar aurora" to "aurora (astronomy)", since the newly discovered aurora on Mars (Nature, June 9 2005) do not occur near the poles. The key is the presence of a magnetic field, and Mars lacks a planetwide magnetic field, but does have remnant magnetic anomalies in its crust. -- Curps 20:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am moving it to Aurora (phenomenon), as it has little to do with the stars and this is how it is described in the OED. Njál 15:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I really disagree with this move. I think you should have proposed the idea first at WP:RM and waited for a consensus. I do not understand your logic - what it has to do with stars is irrelevant to whether it is astronomical or not. Worldtraveller 15:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Possibly I should have discussed it, but that's no reason to move it back. Main reason for move: if you look at other page titles, they clarify further what they are, not their loose academic subject area. For example, we have an article at Queen (band), not Queen (rock music). To quote from the OED, an aurora is "A luminous atmospheric phenomenon". There is disagreement over what comes under the general term astronomy: I find it hard to stretch it to cover anything other than physical bodies in space (stars, planets). Further, we have no evidence that auroras can only occur above planets. Njál 14:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I moved it back because it seems more specific to say astronomy than to say phenomenon. Phenomenon could be anything - it seemed no longer immediately obvious that the article would be about the northern and southern lights - whereas with (astronomy) that seems immediately clear. I think your understanding of what astronomy is is not what most people would understand, to be honest - physical bodies in space are really just one part of it. Nebulae, dark matter, cosmic rays and so on are all astronomical. Not sure what you mean by the last sentence - where else might they occur? Has anyone suggested other possible locations? Worldtraveller 11:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that 'astronomy' makes the article subject clearer than 'phenomenon.' Astronomy is, essentially, the study of the stars (astro-). When people go to look up auroras, they're not thinking of outer space. Can you think of another phenomenon called an aurora, which might confuse people? We could put the article at Aurora (ionospheric phenomenon) or something, but that would probably confuse people even more. Hopefully someone else will comment with an opinion. There are artifical auroras. Njál 18:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Removed the following collection of trivia. (SEWilco 18:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC))

References in pop culture

On the Simpsons television show, Principal Skinner claimed that the aurora borealis was occurring in his kitchen, in an attempt to cover up the fact that his stove was on fire.

An episode of the television show Northern Exposure featured an aurora and the Japanese fascination with them. This show also originated the idea that to copulate under the northern lights and conceive a child will bring good luck to that child.

In the United Kingdom, the first volume of Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy is called Northern Lights, named after the equivalent phenomenon in Lyra's world.

Welsh Band Super Furry Animals recorded a song titled "Northern Lites" on their Guerilla album. Rumour has it the song is about marijuana smoking, but singer Gruff Rhys says it is all about the spectacle of this natural phenomenon.

The northern lights are referenced in the song "Farmhouse" by the band Phish.

On Dawson's Creek, A.J. the College Guy tried to hook up with Joey Potter by showing her the northern lights.

The northern lights are the rare atmospheric phenomenon in New York (around 40 degrees north latitude) in Frequency (movie), starring Jim Caviezel and Dennis Quaid, which allows a New York City firefighter to communicate with his son 30 years in the future via short-wave radio.

Folklore

It was my belief that for the Norse Mythology the Aurora borealis was taken to be the movement of valkyries in the sky, as they search for valuable souls to the halls of Valhalla. It shod be added in the description.LtDoc 02:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Northern lights do not appear in Norse mythology, as the article explains. The external link The Aurora Borealis and the Vikings explains all of that very well:

Similarly, there is the claim in Bullfinch's Mythology that the armor of the Valkyries "sheds a strange flickering light, which flashes up over the northern skies" making the aurora. Once again, there is nothing mentioned in the Old Norse literature that substatiates this assertion, and it can only be taken as either a fanciful interpretation, or perhaps an accretion from later folklore that arose after the end of the Viking Age.

Maybe that should be added to the article, however. --Salleman 03:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Imperial vs Metric units

A section of the article said that the sun was 93 million miles (149 million km) away from earth.

I have removed the imperial units, leaving only the measurement in km. This is because 1) Metric is used in science all around the world, and this is a scientific article. and 2) Imperial units are not used elsewhere in the article.

Geographic Location

The coordinates given in the "Origin and Appearance" section apply only to North America. In Europe, nighttime aurorae are rare south of roughly 55-60 deg. north, and are a near-nightly feature around 68-72 deg. --Aasmunds 12:15, 4 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Consistent plurals

This page doesn't use consistent pluralisation ('the Aurora is' but 'Aurora are', and then 'Auroras on other planets' later, etc). Since the word is derived from Latin, if we were to stay classical, all plural mention of 'Aurora' and 'Auroras' become Aurorae. However, there is also a case for using Auroras as the word has entered into the English language and is doubtless anglicised similarly in other places. Anyone have strong feelings either way, or should I just go ahead and switch it all to Aurorae? --Sam Pointon 11:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've just come to this page for the first time, and noticed exactly the same problem. "Aurorae" is certainly correct, but only a pedant would insist in its use over "auroras". My suggestion is to make all plurals "auroras". In fact, I'm going to accept my own suggestion and go ahead and change them all. Cheers JackofOz 00:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd disagree with you there - it's not about pedantry at all. Question is, which is used more often by astronomers? I just checked quickly on the Astrophysics Data System and it looks like aurorae is more common. I'd stick with what astronomers use. Worldtraveller 00:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've already done something about it and changed them all to auroras. Now, we're at least being consistent and not mixing aurorae and auroras in the same article. You are of course welcome to change them them all to aurorae, and I'd be the last to complain. JackofOz 01:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

even more tedious comment

Well I got around to checking and the current images ( Aurorab ) used to replace the earlier image that I gifted for the purpose is in fact unable to be verified as legitimate public domain content, and on that basis alone should be removed. Th esource is given in the Commons as [3] Public-Domain : [4] The user who delivered that image is unknown and unable to be communicated with, as far as I can tell. It has been relabeled as Aurora Borealis and even that is now called into question; are they possibly Aurora Australis? David Stern asserts (incorrectly) that both North and South Polar aurora have identical characteristics. The other main image ( Polarlicht ) appears to have been delivered by a user 'Photo by Craig M. Groshek' ( Cgros841 that has some small wiki history, but again, it is not possible to verify the authenticity of the image, and it should be considered for deletion. I can supply a GREEN aurora image that I can verify as 100% my own work and as the two polar aurorae are identical, it should be acceptable to David. The assertion of "..carefully assembled.." is now clearly wrong at best and outrageous to those contributors who have been trampled on. On another point, the Astromical Almanac for Australia 2006 (Quasar publishing ISBN 0-9756070-1-4 Glenn Dawes Peter Northfield Ken Wallace) has a two page aurora article by Peter Skilton, (Director, Southern Australasia Aurora Alert Network) with 7 aurora images, 4 of which are reddish and 3 green. Hardly a statistically valid sample, but check NASA Spaceweather for thousands of worldwide aurora images. And a third point; the article claims that Aurora are typically a reddish glow, so now I'confused by David Sterns claim that red is not representative of aurora, as a basis to reject my reddish pic at the top, although the first pic is also reddish. Sometimes wiki-ing gets a bit absurd (sigh) Mozasaur 16:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I haven't really had the time to follow the dispute that seems to have arisen here. However, I certainly agree that unless an article is irredeemably bad, incremental improvement is the normal way to proceed. Mr (Dr?) Stern seems to have attempted to take ownership of the article - while there's never a problem with one person being the dominant contributer to an article, no one person ever has a veto on what other people contribute, so I hope Mr Stern will accept that things work by community consensus here and contribute accordingly.

As for the properties of aurorae borealis and australis, I believe they are identical, at the same geomagnetic latitude. Mozasaur, you make the point that southern hemisphere observers are generally at a lower geomagnetic latitude, which is certainly true, and I think this is related to the question of typical colours. I believe that at high geomagnetic latitudes, on or near the auroral oval, green is the normal colour, but at lower latitudes red is more typically seen. So, people in northern Scandinavia, Russia or Alaska will tend to see green aurorae, while those in southern New Zealand, at a lower geomagnetic latitude, will tend to see more red. Nonetheless, the southern hemisphere aurorae are identical in nature to the northern.

I hope that's a little bit useful anyway. Hope we can all work productively on this article, to make it good or even brilliant. Worldtraveller 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks WorldTraveller. It is true though, that in the northern hemisphere many more people live at the 'greenish auroral' latitudes, compared to the southern hemisphere. That is a simple function of land mass and historical migration. However, in order to get an objective proportion of people who live in the 'reddish auroral' area, my estimate is that the total population is so much vastly larger than the previous two profiles, to not have to re-visit the data. Take into account that many of the worlds largest cities are in that geographical band, and I would suggest that most demographers would agree. Thats my basis for failing to agree with green being dominant. I have looked extensively and the libraries tend to support my observational experience, and that of the hundreds of observers that have sent me images or links to their own photographic work. Curious though, as I also believed green was dominant prior to it being used as the basis for repeated removal of my image. My thoughts are that green is more romantic, it was the colour of most images in the early period of publicity of this phenomena, and that's because they came from the 'polar region'. Currently though, we follow a phase of vast active observation, with new technologies, and alert networks, that enables a new wave of images that are in fact lots of colours. Early in the display cycle for instance, I have seen blue parts where the sun is actually shing across the top of the display, and mid cycle or at the peaks I have seen white, yellow and orange beams, shafts, ripples, pulses, filaments, arcs etc... impossible to convey the true experience, but will suffice. All my work is available and generally on the web for all to see. Now in regard to 'identical' just visualise the tilted earth moving in the solar wind stream, with the Earths' geomagnetic contours being far from circular, and it becomes difficult to see how such assymetry can deliver indentical phenomena. I would use 'similiar' as the truth. There are plenty of pics from space of both displays, simultaneously, to support my view. Also, there are dozens of web pages with data, and I look at both polar regions, often. Take into account that the seasons are opposite, and that aurorae occur more in Autumn in the northern hemisphere, while the southern hemisphere is in the Spring. Another factor is the solar wind dynamic velocity changes, the energy must arrive at each pole at diferent times (the velocity is different in different parts of the wind, its a longer distance to the pole that is furthest from the sun due to the tilt). Everyone has access to both polar views on the same page, NOAA POES the data is usually less than 3 hours old. Yes I trust that we can build a great article, but maintaining that is the real challenge. Mozasaur 14:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Article needs to be more readable

Thank you everyone for contributing to this informative article, but I believe it needs some attention. I find much of the information very technical and Polar aurora is an important phenomenon that should be made understandable to a general audience. I visited the page looking for a brief and accurate explanation of what causes it and I still have no more than a vague idea. The information I suppose is there but should be more readable, clear, and to the point.

Agreed.. thanks for your comment.. Mozasaur 19:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Still not very readable

While the information is great, the article is very poorly organized, superfluously technical, and needs to be completely overhauled.

while i tend to agree somewhat, its a big job and requires an unusually high level of collaboration. We have already seen it re-written completely, and cut to shreds again repeatedly. so its going to be hard. please dont trash it until something agreed on is offerred for the role. please feel free to offer an improved version.moza 13:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Bz ?

The term "Bz" is used in this article without any explanation. After doing quite a bit of Googling, I found that it is one of three components (Bx, By, and Bz) of the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) strength. Bz is the vector component that is perpendicular to the ecliptic, and may point northward or southward relative to the earth's axis. See http://spidr.ngdc.noaa.gov/spidr/help.do?group=IMF . Some editing needs to be done to improve the presentation of Bz, either in this article, or in a new article about the IMF that this article would link to.Wdfarmer 02:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

External Links

There are way too many external links.

Someone should check them all and delete some of the not so useful ones. I might do it myself in my spare time.

- purdonkurt

GA nomination promoted

Three things I would add :

More citations, and if so, inline citations.

Red link recovery.

Great article to read. Lincher 04:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

questions

i was just wondering,if an Aurora borealis occur on the northern hemisphere,does it also occur on the southern hemisphere too?(due to magnetism)

I'm not sure what the question is. The aurora in the southern hemisphere is called aurora australis. Aurora borealis and aurora australis don't always occur at the same time. —Keenan Pepper 17:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Decptive Image

The image Aurora_australis_20050911.jpg in the section "The origin of the aurora" depicts an impossible situation. The edge around the earth shows blue sky, suggesting that the sun is directly behind the earth from the image’s point of view. This would mean that the sun is directly over head at a latitude that without a doubt is well above the tropic of cancer. Benueq 19:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the description says it's "overlaid". Should we remove it, or just mention that it's fake? —Keenan Pepper 23:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Leave it just where it is, its a well known and respected image, carefully created and delivered for free, to share the knowledge of what it looks like from space, by the organisation that goes there and gets those images for us. I like it, I believe it fulfils its purpose, its no more fake than mega millions of others, lots that dont tell you. What, are you going on an image deletion spree just for fun? How many do you think are in this category... wake up and see images for what they really are, pixels put together in many different ways for many different purposes, some true to origin, some not, most somewhere in-between. Many are 'representations' of what its really like, as its impossible to capture in one go, due to technicalities. Relax and enjoy it for what it is, and apply good faith in the wiki spirit. Book a trip to the poles for the next major activity, you have several years to earn the money, then bring back your images and share them here. Only then we can decide meaningfully what to do with one of best images ever on the subject.moza 04:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

oh and for the record I LIVE near that green band (top centre of that image) and I spend a lot of time collecting and sharing images.. you know GIVING (as opposed to taking) I have spent the last 12 years waiting for combinations of Solar and terrestrial weather to coincide just to be able to capture anything at all. It has only happened 4 times, so rarity is a factor for down here. I did see a man made one back in 1962 from atmospheric nuclear testing, imagine that; some superpower spreads radiation all over your breathing air.. great. Please, be thankful you have the luxury of being able to trash stuff, but take the better and more rewarding option of finding stubs to expand, and content to protect, there are zillions.moza 04:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, chill out! Who's going on a "spree"? Benueq here has only made three edits, and I've only proposed one image for deletion in a long time (because it was an incorrect formula for a chemical compound). Nobody's "trashing" anything. Benueq's point was that the image doesn't actually show "what it looks like from space" at all, and since this is an encyclopedia, rather than a coffee-table book or photo album, we should strive for factual accuracy rather than beautiful pictures alone. Here, let me change the caption and see if it's really that offensive to you. —Keenan Pepper 07:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

ok so show me what it looks like from space when you or anyone you know that can give a real pic were there and an aurora was happening, a fairly rare event i would think. a pic is worth a thousand words and there are more than enough words already.moza 08:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I should also point out that the IMAGE satellite that took the data did not have detectors in the visible band of the spectrum. The press release page that the image links to has this confusing sentence: “The ring of light that the solar storm generated over Antarctica glows green in the ultraviolet part of the spectrum, shown in this image.” It does not specify whether it was the far-UV or the extreme-UV channel.

It is a disservice to depict the aurora in green when the actual light that was measured was UV. It really makes the viewer think that he/she is getting a sense of what he/she would see if he/she were out in space. Most people are not going to stop and think about what they are viewing.

I think the present image should be replaced. On the other hand it does show the aurora from space more clearly than the other image in the article. There are plenty of other media derived from the IMAGE satellite that I found at http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/image/. I think any of it would give a more candid impression of the aurora than the NASA press release. I like this movie: http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/sprite/ago96/image/wic_0608.mpg. Also, maybe there should be a separate gallery for aurora media. A lot of it doesn't seem to have a particular connection with the text. Benueq 00:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

well the world is jam packed with such simulations and awareness of that is one of the new tools people must develop for themselves. I have faith that those that really care will read the links and decide for themselves. They chose green because it is an appropriate simulation of what actually happens. If you look at my 1994 image its the same colour, untouched. (for the record 3 of us only saw white, we never saw green! i accept that was a brain trick though as we were completely surrounded by extreme bright changing light, and i did see (and image) blues and yellows very early in the display). Dont suggest that we post white pics though, almost no-one else reports white images. The lower energy auroras are green from when they begin closer to the magnetic poles and only seem to turn red when they move out to latitudes closer to us, the high 30's and above. If the observer is placed over the horizon from the green bands (central Australia) then they will only see the red, or whatever is strong enough. Where I am located, 41 deg south, we sometimes see both, and often with white and yellow/orange bands. see my 2001 images. We are vigilant enough to hunt these things, clever enough to image them, successful enough to have them published by NASA, generous enough to share them for FREE, then how about some consideration? I run a not for profit alert service for the southern hemisphere, for New Zealand and Australia, and have given more than i know. I just ask for a bit of tolerance. I dont understand why this article is endlessly picked on for such trivial adjustmnents when there are thousands of stubs and wikifys waiting out there for attention. Once youve experienced one of these things you will want more, and we are moving back to solar max so there should be some for you to enjoy over the next several years. NASA spaceweather.com has endless galleries and all we need is the sample set here to illustrate the article. Its an encyclopedia not a scientific reference document. I like it just the way it is, it works the best for the most users, considering all the browser / skin / screen size issues world wide. I think that you could focus on verification of images though, I tracked back those two at the top an d while one user was upset that i queried the verification, the other couldnt be located. So they are left un-verified to me. Its fairly easy to upload one as an airforce image and then change user names. My '94 green series are not published on NASA but have been published on lots of sites for about 8 years. My 2001 red and green series were published on spaceweathers home page and are available for wiki use. I have some almost sub-luminal series published by Canterbury University, and have two of them on wiki, but not very attractive. They are true to film though, untouched. Even film changes colours and brightness, by the way, each layer reacts differently at lower light levels, its quite a difficult thing to understand, but almost no image of aurora is accurate for many reasons, another one is that its a dynamic display, and changes are aggregated in the camera / medium. I'm not an expert but it is my core passion and i have good experience under the belt now. I had dinner with David Malin, a photographic scientist / astronomer who pioneered new ways of getting film to be more accurate for astro images, and we discussed new methods, such as three exposures with three different filters, recombining in the lab. His deep space stuff challenges Hubble. Most Hubble images are completely erroneous, but i dont imagine you will rush off and talk about killing them, just accept the falseness and flag it for discussion i reckon is a better response. Look, we want the same thing, a better wikipedia, it might just take a bit more discussion to figure out all the implications of change.moza 03:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Please use fewer words. —Keenan Pepper 03:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

and MORE pictures?moza 16:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As long as they're not fake. (sorry, couldn't resist =P) —Keenan Pepper 08:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

When and where to view?

I would like to see a section on where and when to view the phenomenon. Time of year, time of day (okay, night), mention of influence of light pollution. Any other hints.

Silly aside: I knew a young married Japanese couple who visited Alaska to see the northern lights. After the trip they lamented that they had not seen any. A couple of years later the Northern Exposure episode aired, and we understood. Had a good laugh, perhaps at our friends' expense. Ronstew 22:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Shouldn't the article show how to pronounce "aurora borealis"? Aurora probably doesn't present any problem, but "borealis" is directly taken from Latin and I think a pronunciation guide would help. Would it be ɔˈɹɔɹə bɔɹiˈæləs ? PeterMellow 17:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That seems fine, except maybe the last vowel should be ɪ: bɔɹiˈælɪs. —Keenan Pepper 21:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, just like "metropolis". Done. PeterMellow 22:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Problem opening Ogg file

Hello. I can't open the ogg file (Aurora Borealis from ISS) with Audacity neither Amadeus II. The applications don't recognize it as an ogg vorbis file. i don't know how to help, so i just leave this note ! elifsu

It's not Ogg [[pooh you

Ogg Theora video. Please see Wikipedia:Media help. —Keenan Pepper 19:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Needs more cultural/historical info

This article is slanting towards too technical... it needs historical and cultural background. Some bits about noteworthy displays in modern times would be worthwhile, too. -76.4.49.201 22:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Use VLC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.132.224 (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Recorded Sound

The article states that no one has recorded the sounds of the aurora, but what about stephen p. mcgreevy? http://www.auroralchorus.com, have these recordings been disproved?
These sound recordings are VLF waves, i.e. these are radio waves that are translated into sound by a radio reciever. They come from the magnetosphere, and some of these waves are associated with aurora, but they are not the sound of the aurora. (Lummerzheim 19:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC))

Link pruning

Too many external links have sprouted. We particularly don't need links to every pretty picture. You're invited to check a link or two and improve the "External links" section. (SEWilco 05:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC))

Ames, IA photo 12/14/06

It's not great and had I gotten there with the camera 20 minutes before, it was lighting up the whole sky, bottom to top and was just incredible. Still was quite a sight. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Btrotter (talk • contribs) 07:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Currently Visible Auroras

Why is there no section or link for any currently visible auroras? Or are specific auroras non-notable? AstroHurricane001 22:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Auroras only last for a short while, so there would be no point of logging currently visible auroras. By the time the aurora would be logged it would have already have disappeared. Uwilldrop 18:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I added a link to the aurora forecast from the Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska (Lummerzheim 19:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC))

There are auroras in north here in every few days and they last for minutes. Logging them all would be ridiculous.

Altitude of the Aurora

In Sir John Franklin’s Journey to the Polar Sea, his entry in Chapter VIII - 1819, “January 3rd, he relates a story:

‘He was traveling in a canoe in the English River, and had landed near the Kettle River, when the coruscations of the Aurora Borealis were so vivid and low that the Canadians fell on their faces, and began praying and crying, fearing they should be killed: he himself threw away his gun and knife, that they might not attract the flashes, for they were within two feet from the earth, flitting along with incredible swiftness, and moving parallel to its surface. They continued for upward of five minutes, as near as he could judge, and made a loud rustling noise, like the waving of a flag in a strong breeze. After they had ceased, the sky became clear, with little wind.’

“…within two feet of the earth.” Is this possible? If not the Aurora, what could it have been?

A first hand account of the Aurora Australis touching the surface of the earth is given in Sir Ernest Shackleton's The Heart of the Antartic Chapter 15.

"About the same time we began to see the aurora, and night after night, except when the moon was at its full or the sky overcast, the waving mystic lines of light were thrown across the heavens, waxing and waning rapidly, falling into folds and curtains, spreading out into great arches and sometimes shooting vertical beams almost to the zenith. Sometimes, indeed often, the aurora hovered over Mount Erebus, attracted no doubt by this great isolated mass of rock, sometimes descending to the lower slopes and always giving us an interest that never failed"

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.65.42.172 (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm always wary of these old accounts. If you've read Columbus's accounts of his landing in the New World, you'll know what I mean. He described a land drowning in gold, where the Asian spices he was after were plentiful (though they didn't even exist in the Americas), and where there was a new variety of pepper, superior even to black pepper, which is so wholesome that the natives subsist entirely upon it. The same thing seems to be happening here: they seem to be connecting the Aurora to lightning. I don't know about the validity of the second account, though I will point out that, from what I've read, it's almost a cliche for these old accounts to involve people being overcome by awe, dropping to their knees, throwing aside their weapons, etc. I know I've read at least one example where some European records having walked among natives with a cross, whereupon the natives all fell to their knees and prayed, having been instantly converted. Those Canadians seem to have acted suspiciously similar. I don't know anything for sure, but my verdict is that the first account is a significant exaggeration, and the second is a slight one. But let's hear from an expert. Is it possible for an Aurora to sink low enough to hover around a mountain? Twilight Realm (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Many prospectors during the Klondike Gold Rush believed that the Northern Lights were the reflection of the mother lode of all gold.

Really?Puddytang 07:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

first half of the introduction

has nothing to do with aurorae, instead talks about stupid midnight sun.. why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.178.69.39 (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree. It looks like someone added a high school science report to the beginning of the article. I'm going to remove it. --Boreas231 16:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, what's with the football relations on the Inuit beliefs? I'm not sure on what to change it to, but it should be changed.

Inuits and football

In Inuit folklore, northern lights were the spirits of the dead playing football with human skulls over the sky. The Inuit also used the aurora to get their children home after dark by claiming that if you whistled in their presence they would come down and split their heads from their body to play football with it. Another version of this (Inuit)folklore is that the northern lights are the dead, and when someone dies they don't feel pain anymore. They tell stories of the dead playing soccer with a frozen walrus head. To get your ancestors too come closer you whistle, if they come too close click your nails

wtf? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.143.214.46 (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Opening sentence fragment

Was first mentioned by Ancient Greek explorer - geographer Pytheas.

For some reason, this was the first "sentence" of the article. I moved it to a more appropriate place, but I'm not sure if it's in the best place, or if the current article even has a place for it.

Anyways, I just thought I'd explain my actions here, as I usually do to prevent unnecessary reverts. -- trlkly 07:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I still think the lead paragraph needs a little definition of the fenomena, "What is an aurora Borealis?" in a few words. --Andersmusician VOTE 03:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Auroral events of historical significance

Event did happen according [Google Book's scan of the 1860 quote] it definitely wasn't OREGON's "Portland", because the First Transcontinental Telegraph didn't exist til 1861. Thus there could not be possibly a telegraph line between Boston, MA and Portland, OR. Since Portland, Maine was the obvious largest Portland of the time connected by telegraph to Boston, references to Portland of this day was obviously Portland, ME, not Portland, OR so I have edited this to reference to the prevailing Portland of the day. However, there are about 10 Portland's in USA. If someone can confirm which Portland was referenced, please do so. Mdrejhon 23:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization?

Is "Northern Lights" commonly capitalized? Robert K S 17:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Northernlights125.jpg

Image:Northernlights125.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Astronomy?

Why "astronomy" is used for disambiguation? I see, auroras are on a sky but they have practically nothing to do with astronomy. Miraceti 10:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Aurorae have long been studied as part of astronomy in both the amateur and the professional fields (I study them on Earth and other planets as part of an astrophysics group). They represent part of the coupling between the outflows of matter from stars, the magnetic fields of planets and the atmospheres of planets surrounding the stars. They are also not confined to Earth, as mentioned in the article, and have been viewed on the majority of other planets in the solar system, as well as being a conceptual starting point for exoplanetary searches. --MilleauRekiir (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

what about the Inuit?

Please add more info about traditional Inuit beliefs, myths and stories about the northern lights.--Sonjaaa (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Movement?

Does the aurora move visibly? I have been wondering this for years. I have seen movies where the curtain moves around a lot, but I can't tell whether that's realtime or time-lapse footage. The best this article does is say that "active auroras" "evolve and change constantly." Can I have a more descriptive explanation? 72.75.19.54 (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen them change. The speed is different for each segment (not surprising behavior for wild particle beams). To put a more precise rate in the article we need someone's description of changes. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Video

Template:Video has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Video the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Milo 02:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

aurora in film fiction

There is a fantasy auroral link in this film called Frequency (2000). Great twist involving time-travel :=) Pomona17 (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

New literature & film section added, encompassing Frequency, Robert Service poems, & Philip Pullman's Northern Lights. I'm hoping that more examples will be added by people knowing more examples.  :-) Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 10:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "NYT2" :
  • [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9F05E6DB1638E033A25750C0A96F9C946892D7CF&scp=2&sq=Aurora&st=p AURORA AUSTRALIS.; Magnificent Display on Friday Morning.] Mr. Merlam's Opinions on the Bareul Light--One of his Friends Finds a Place of the Aurora on his Lion-corp. The Aurural Display in Boston.; New York Times, September 3, 1859, Saturday; Page 4, 1150 words
  • NYT

DumZiBoT (talk) 10:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Auroras on the ground

I have a book (The Handy Weather Answer Book) that briefly mentions something about auroras occasionally reaching the earth's surface. People, who have become enveloped in the aurora, have claimed to have heard crackling noises.

Since I ave not heard of this phenomenon elsewhere, I am somewhat doubtful of the accuracy of this claim. Dursty (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

THEMIS results

I made a minor edit. First, the original paragraph had the wrong date for the event. I believe the date on the previous edit was the date of the press conference and not when the event occured. Second, it appears that they cut n paste my paragraph from the THEMIS page and just changed a couple words. --Derekmcd (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

first attention

Benjamin Franklin first brought attention to the "mystery of the Northern Lights."

What is the meaning of "first" in this context? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.176.180.222 (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

12 MB animated gif too large to be inline

Wikipedia's image use policy says:

Inline animations should be used sparingly; a static image with a link to the animation is preferred unless the animation has a very small file size.

Aurora_Australis.gif is a huge, 12 MB animated image file. It shouldn't load automatically when you load the Aurora page. It's a great image but the filesize is ridiculous for that.

Can someone who knows how please replace the animation on this page with a static image that links to the animation? Thanks. AtticusX (talk) 10:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I pulled out the animation. Instead of having the image link to the animation, I put in a spearate link to the animation. since most images here link to the image details, I thought a separate link would be easier to find. Crumley (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Saturn's Aurora animation

On a similar note, the animation Saturns Northern Aurora in Motion.gif, newly added today, is a neat image but its filesize is 5.77 MB, which, for users without top-speed connections, may make this page take several minutes to load. In accordance with guidelines above, it would be nice to have a static version of the image (or perhaps a text link) linking to the full animation. In the meantime, I'm going to pull the animation from this article to keep the page's filesize within reason. AtticusX (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Done as before. Crumley (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC).

Auroral events of historical significance - 1938

I find it odd that in this section there is no mention of the famous aurora (aka The Faitma Storm) that took place on the night of January 25th 1938. It is a well publicised event.

Reorganize Technical Sections

The technical sections are redundant and repetitive. I began rewording the awkward portions and then saw that the technical sections need to be shortened and reorganized. They can likely be condensed into one main heading section with a couple of sub sections. Perhaps I'll have a go at it. Canuck100 (talk) 09:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I have created a complete revision of the technical sections and propose to replace the sections entitled Auroral mechanism, Forms and magnetism, Solar wind and the magnetosphere, Frequency of occurrence, Origin, Sources and types and On other planets with my revision found at User talk:Canuck100/Aurora (astronomy). All of my information includes references to credible sources. Because this is a major revision, I would appreciate feedback before I make the change. You can add feedback at my user page at User talk:Canuck100 Canuck100 (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Minor changes to intro

I made minor changes to the intro. Mostly just to word it better. Lastitem (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Aurora/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

"There is the midnight sun, which is six months of straight sunlight and yes its at midnight, noontime moon, likewise this is six months of darkness, and the most popular the aurora borealis." This sentence is confusing - not to mention, its tone (and lax grammar) is not befitting for an encyclopedia.

Last edited at 11:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 14:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)