Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home page

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu.... uh, User

Announcements and News >> Light Pollution

David Knisely
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 6880
Loc: Beatrice, Nebraska
Re: Light Pollution Rating
      05/13/08 06:18 PM

Quote:

Some more info...

Here's the S&T article by John Bortle (inventor of the Bortle Scale). Gives his philosophy on how to determine your local sky conditions and LP.

HTH




Well, the Bortle scale is rather inconsistent in the items it uses to measure the "levels", so I would rather go with a Zenith Limiting Magnitude figure coupled with a simple description (or better yet, the SQM readings). I once came up with this scale:

Re: Judging light pollution. It is really tough to give a judgment of the exact level of sky quality. I guess I could divide it into several levels: Severe, Moderate, Mild, Dark Sky, and Pristine.

SEVERE: Severe light pollution might be a situation where (even in the absence of direct lighting), only stars brighter than magnitude 4.0 would be visible to the unaided eye overhead, with considerable skyglow in all parts of the sky. The sky background would be bright (especially nearer the horizon) with perhaps just a slight dimming of the glow overhead. Such conditions maybe found in some areas in some of the central portions of major cities like New York or Los Angeles.

MODERATE: Moderate light pollution is rather difficult to quantify, but some limited deep-sky observations are possible in such an environment (double stars, brighter open clusters, brighter planetary nebulae, etc.). I would probably put the moderate light pollution at a limiting magnitude of from 4.0 to 4.9 or so with varying amounts of skyglow in different directions, although no part of the sky would appear very dark. The horizon would still be fairly bright overall, making deep-sky observations lower than about 30 degrees in altitude more difficult.

MILD: A "mild" light pollution level would probably be at the point where a person could see 5.0 to 5.9 or so in some areas of the sky, and where the brighter portions of the Milky Way high above the horizon may be faintly visible at times. Various areas around the horizon would show skyglow, but overhead and perhaps in a few other areas, the sky brightness would appear noticeably darker, although perhaps not exactly fully dark. M31 would be visible to the unaided eye with averted vision when well above the horizon, although it would usually be perceived as just a small faint fuzzy spot. I think that probably all of the Messier Objects would be visible in a good telescope over 4 inches in aperture with mild to moderate light pollution levels, although the detail visible in them might be a bit limited. The number of faint galaxies visible in a 6" or 8" takes a big jump when you get down to the mild light pollution level. Some light pollution filters can help combat the effects of low to moderate light pollution to a degree.

DARK SKY: I would consider a "dark sky" site to be a place where you can see typically see stars 6.0 to 6.8 with averted vision routinely and large parts of the sky appear quite dark, but where there may be a few limited light domes from nearby cities visible. The Milky Way would show up prominently with a sort of granular texture. M31 would appear noticably elongated to the unaided eye, and occasionally, M33 would be glimpsed with the unaided eye as well when well above the horizon. At such sites, detail in faint deep-sky objects becomes a good deal easier to see, and the number of objects visible in the telescope goes up dramatically. My dark sky site routinely gets me to +6.5 naked eye, and occasionally fainter.

PRISTINE: Skies which routinely allow naked-eye sightings of magnitude +6.9 and fainter I would consider "pristine". Usually, these places are located well away from any major cities, and at higher altitudes. Little or no light pollution is visible over the entire sky at such pristine sites, and the Milky Way shows some faint detail which is usually shown only in photographs. For example, the Nebraska Star Party site is deep in the sparsely-populated Sandhills at 3100 feet elevation (the nearest sizable "city", North Platte, Nebr., pop. 24,509, is 100 miles to the south). At that site, I have seen stars as faint as +7.5, and others have gone to 8.0. Similar such feats are possible in many areas, especially in the Rockies, and in the high desert areas of the American southwest.

In summary, the following are the approximate unaided-eye visual magnitude limits (Zenith Limiting Magnitude) and overhead light-pollution ratings for my scale of judging light pollution:

SEVERE: only stars brighter than mag. 4.0 are visible with bright skyglow over most of the sky.
MODERATE: mag. 4.0 to 4.9 stars visible (variable skyglow depending on direction of observation).
MILD: mag. 5.0 to 5.9 stars visible (some notable darker areas visible).
DARK SKY: mag. 6.0 to 6.8 stars visible (dark, sometimes with a few light domes along the horizon).
PRISTINE: mag. 6.9 and fainter stars *consistently* visible (little or no light pollution in any direction).

If you want to get the most out of Deep-Sky with a telescope, get to as dark a site as you reasonably can (even if there is some light pollution), and then work with what you have. You may be surprised as to how well you do, even from a non-optimal location!

Clear skies to you.

--------------------
David W. Knisely
Hyde Memorial Observatory
http://www.hydeobservatory.info


Post Extras Print Post   Remind Me!     Notify Moderator

Entire thread
Subject Posted by Posted on
* Light Pollution Rating ik507racer 01/18/08 05:29 PM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating RussL   05/14/08 10:32 PM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating Nightfly   01/21/08 06:41 PM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating o1d_dude   01/18/08 06:58 PM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating phanfave   01/18/08 07:49 PM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating ik507racer   01/18/08 10:10 PM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating Tom L   01/18/08 10:31 PM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating Olivier Biot   01/19/08 09:06 AM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating Mike D   01/19/08 10:43 AM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating KCN   01/20/08 01:54 AM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating fdunlop   01/20/08 09:54 PM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating anawrot   01/21/08 01:32 AM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating rwiederrich   01/24/08 06:11 PM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating Glassthrower   01/24/08 06:31 PM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating Siguy   01/24/08 07:55 PM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating Bowmoreman   01/24/08 10:05 PM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating Joe Cipriano   01/24/08 10:55 PM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating Glassthrower   01/24/08 11:01 PM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating o1d_dude   01/25/08 02:26 AM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating Illinois   01/25/08 11:29 AM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating Joe Cipriano   01/25/08 03:42 PM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating grimm   02/26/08 12:27 AM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating jrw11   02/29/08 01:16 AM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating csa/montanaModerator   02/29/08 09:33 PM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating Nightknight   05/13/08 04:26 PM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating csa/montanaModerator   05/13/08 06:55 PM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating Joe Cipriano   03/01/08 01:20 PM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating Spaz   03/01/08 11:04 PM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating Holst   03/16/08 02:11 AM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating Tony Flanders   03/16/08 06:15 AM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating Holst   03/16/08 06:00 PM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating Joe Cipriano   03/18/08 07:27 PM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating Joe Cipriano   03/18/08 08:01 PM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating David Knisely   05/13/08 06:18 PM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating Illinois   01/21/08 11:47 AM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating SATXSkywatcher   01/21/08 02:59 PM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating BryceSkies   06/04/08 10:27 PM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating xsmatt81   02/23/08 07:18 PM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating TIMMY!   01/25/08 09:35 PM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating Spaz   01/21/08 04:09 PM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating Nauset   01/21/08 08:25 PM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating Mr. Bill   01/22/08 12:49 PM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating panhard   03/21/08 01:51 PM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating stevecoe   01/22/08 10:24 PM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating KCN   01/23/08 01:14 AM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating gilligan   01/21/08 11:14 AM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating moron392   01/21/08 10:51 AM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating Bowmoreman   01/21/08 10:17 AM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating osbourne one-nil   01/20/08 04:23 AM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating christinam   01/20/08 12:02 PM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating backwoods   01/20/08 04:48 PM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating Spaz   01/20/08 03:55 AM
. * Re: Light Pollution Rating Bob101   01/20/08 03:29 AM

Extra information
1 registered and 0 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  csa/montana 



Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Thread views: 4092


Jump to

CN Forums Home



Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics