8 replies to this topic

[RLK1]

As I have previously noted and linked to in other threads on this forum, research has shown that the principle driver for skyglow in an otherwise dark sky is solar activity.

 

This past August and into early September, it "may" be the solar cycle has peaked although that remains to be confirmed, as per the "EarthSky website"

 

"It’s official: the monthly sunspot number for August 2024 is the highest for Solar Cycle 25 so far. The sunspot number for August 2024 reached a 215.5 value. It surpassed the previous peak for this solar cycle, which happened in July 2024, with a value of 196.5. The last time the monthly average was larger than 215.5 was 23 years ago, in September 2001 during Solar Cycle 23 (a value of 238.2). Will Solar Cycle 25 continue this trend? Will September have an even larger monthly sunspot number? Or have we reached Solar Maximum?"

 

For most, if not all observers, who noted their skies or be brighter, greyer, and/or have the objectively determined the same with SQM monitoring, the effects of the aforementioned solar activity should be evident.

It certainly has to this observer. For those that haven't, I will note this anecdotal commentary:

 

I was up at my dark sky site in the Los Padres Forest in August and I overheard one amateur commenting to the two others near him on how "dark the sky was." Actually, I could plainly see how grey it appeared as opposed to a darker sky and my SQM readings indicated the the same. And, when I checked the next day, the earth had indeed been blasted by solar activity.  (Ditto conditions on a return trip on September 3rd.)

 

The three other amateurs at the site in August were imagers who promptly went back into their RVs at nightfall after setting their imaging rigs on auto and never ventured out of their RVs until the next day. They never even peeped out of their RVs to behold the universe above them and, instead, chatted about the movies and TV they were about to watch. I have to wonder why they don't buy time at a remote imaging observatory that sends them the data that they will process at home just like the data they recorded during the night and, all the while, saving them the trip up the mountain, but that discussion is for another day.

 

Suffice it to say, amateur based commentary is just that...

 

[Ron359]

As I have previously noted and linked to in other threads on this forum, research has shown that the principle driver for skyglow in an otherwise dark sky is solar activity.

 

This past August and into early September, it "may" be the solar cycle has peaked although that remains to be confirmed, as per the "EarthSky website"

 

"It’s official: the monthly sunspot number for August 2024 is the highest for Solar Cycle 25 so far. The sunspot number for August 2024 reached a 215.5 value. It surpassed the previous peak for this solar cycle, which happened in July 2024, with a value of 196.5. The last time the monthly average was larger than 215.5 was 23 years ago, in September 2001 during Solar Cycle 23 (a value of 238.2). Will Solar Cycle 25 continue this trend? Will September have an even larger monthly sunspot number? Or have we reached Solar Maximum?"

 

For most, if not all observers, who noted their skies or be brighter, greyer, and/or have the objectively determined the same with SQM monitoring, the effects of the aforementioned solar activity should be evident.

It certainly has to this observer. For those that haven't, I will note this anecdotal commentary:

 

I was up at my dark sky site in the Los Padres Forest in August and I overheard one amateur commenting to the two others near him on how "dark the sky was." Actually, I could plainly see how grey it appeared as opposed to a darker sky and my SQM readings indicated the the same. And, when I checked the next day, the earth had indeed been blasted by solar activity.  (Ditto conditions on a return trip on September 3rd.)

 

The three other amateurs at the site in August were imagers who promptly went back into their RVs at nightfall after setting their imaging rigs on auto and never ventured out of their RVs until the next day. They never even peeped out of their RVs to behold the universe above them and, instead, chatted about the movies and TV they were about to watch. I have to wonder why they don't buy time at a remote imaging observatory that sends them the data that they will process at home just like the data they recorded during the night and, all the while, saving them the trip up the mountain, but that discussion is for another day.

 

Suffice it to say, amateur based commentary is just that...

The problem with your  'off-topic'rant' is that "natural skyglow" from solar activity, is not a form of  Light "pollution."  Just like the Full Moon its not man-made, and nothing can be done about it, except check the Moon calendar or spaceweather indexes of solar activity.  But I agree,  your commentary is 'amateurish.'  ; )  

[RLK1]

The problem with your  'off-topic'rant' is that "natural skyglow" from solar activity, is not a form of  Light "pollution."  Just like the Full Moon its not man-made, and nothing can be done about it, except check the Moon calendar or spaceweather indexes of solar activity.  But I agree,  your commentary is 'amateurish.'  ; )  

"The problem with your  'off-topic'rant' is that "natural skyglow" from solar activity, is not a form of  Light "pollution."

 

Actually, it has everything to do with light pollution because it is a confounding variable that must be considered in any serious attempt to evaluate light pollution and that is why it's emphasized in the relevant research.

[Ron359]

"As I have previously noted and linked to in other threads on this forum, research has shown that the principal driver for skyglow in an otherwise dark sky is solar activity."

 

  In an otherwise "dark sky," the only 'confounding' thing is missing the fact that it can only be natural skyglow, could be from solar activity or gengenshein.  Or something in the atmosphere reducing transparency you mistake for skyglow.   That should be intuitively obvious.  I think you point out tha anyone doing a "serious study" of LP should or would know this.  The major 'amateur' mistake I see often posted on CNs is taking their SQM readings far too 'seriously.'   I think that point is lost in your 'rant.'  

[RLK1]

"As I have previously noted and linked to in other threads on this forum, research has shown that the principal driver for skyglow in an otherwise dark sky is solar activity."

 

  In an otherwise "dark sky," the only 'confounding' thing is missing the fact that it can only be natural skyglow, could be from solar activity or gengenshein.  Or something in the atmosphere reducing transparency you mistake for skyglow.   That should be intuitively obvious.  I think you point out tha anyone doing a "serious study" of LP should or would know this.  The major 'amateur' mistake I see often posted on CNs is taking their SQM readings far too 'seriously.'   I think that point is lost in your 'rant.'  

"In an otherwise "dark sky," the only 'confounding' thing is missing the fact that it can only be natural skyglow, could be from solar activity or gengenshein.  Or something in the atmosphere reducing transparency you mistake for skyglow."

 

Even an amateur such as yourself ought to know that even a dark sky can vary in brightness and not only in response to solar activity, the moon or the gegenschein (not gengenshein) or in response to changes in transparency but also to significant causes that I've previously posted about in this forum:

 

"(1) Even during a deep solar minimum the natural night sky is rarely, if ever, constant in brightness. Changes with time-scales of minutes, hours, days, and months are observed. (2) Semi-annual night sky brightness variations are coincident with changes in the orientation of Earth's magnetic field relative to the interplanetary magnetic field." "The semi-annual variation in geomagnetic activity has been known for over 100 years".

"Our research is enabled by accurate, low cost, scientific quality SQM-LU-DL31 and TESS-W32 photometers. They provide continuous measures of zenith night sky brightness dusk to dawn every night."

"There is no simple cause and effect relationship between solar activity, space weather, and changes in broadband night terrestrial airglow."

 

https://www.nature.c...598-021-02365-1

 

Likewise,  the article from Green et al that is recognized as a significant contribution to our understanding of light pollution notes, "A key point to note is that solar activity drives the airglow contribution to vary during the 11-year solar cycle." "A site-by-site comparison of artificial sky glow contribution remains challenging in detail because of variations in airglow even at solar minimum, the stochastic contribution of faint stars through the various small apertures used for most of these measurements, and seasonal variation of aerosols in the atmosphere."

 

https://link.springe...159-021-00138-3

 

Now, I'm not sure what the words "key point" in this aforementioned study of light pollution means to you but, perhaps, it would have got your attention if it were called a "news flash", "red flag" or "check engine light".

 

 

That said, I stated in my OP that solar activity is a "main driver" but I did not state it was the only one. From my OP, the point should be obvious that some can't even get past that when they view the sky, assuming that they view it at all other than via their computer screens...

[Ron359]

 

 

"That said, I stated in my OP that solar activity is a "main driver" but I did not state it was the only one. From my OP, the point should be obvious that some can't even get past that when they view the sky, assuming that they view it at all other than via their computer screens..."

 

One of the 'downsides' of all the 'routine easy to use 'automation' for deep sky imaging these days, no doubt there are 'novice imagers' who are 'mystified' by the green glow in some of their deep sky images.  

 

As someone with plenty of experience in the science and imaging from 'amateur' level, I'm aware of these sources that effect night sky brightness.  But since your 'audience' for the post are apparently imagers and observers maybe using SQMs unaware of these "natural phenomenon" I think your point is lost in the LP forum. Probably better to post it in the Beginning Imaging or observing forums w/o the 'rant' aspects.  But thats a suggestion left to moderators and you.  

Edited by Ron359, 09 September 2024 - 11:05 AM.

[RLK1]

 

 

 

"That said, I stated in my OP that solar activity is a "main driver" but I did not state it was the only one. From my OP, the point should be obvious that some can't even get past that when they view the sky, assuming that they view it at all other than via their computer screens..."

 

One of the 'downsides' of all the 'routine easy to use 'automation' for deep sky imaging these days, no doubt there are 'novice imagers' who are 'mystified' by the green glow in some of their deep sky images.  

 

As someone with plenty of experience in the science and imaging from 'amateur' level, I'm aware of these sources that effect night sky brightness.  But since your 'audience' for the post are apparently imagers and observers maybe using SQMs unaware of these "natural phenomenon" I think your point is lost in the LP forum. Probably better to post it in the Beginning Imaging or observing forums w/o the 'rant' aspects.  But thats a suggestion left to moderators and you.  

 

It's axiomatic, other than to the obtuse, that the post is in the proper forum.

 

And, as far as your repeated references to a "rant", I'd doubt that most readers would consider a self described anecdotal comment of a few short paragraphs to be a "rant". 

 

Further, your whistle to a moderator is a bit rich in your case as I recall you've had more than one or two or three posts/threads locked and the like...

Edited by RLK1, 09 September 2024 - 12:21 PM.

[Ron359]

 

[csa/montana]

Folks, let's rein in the personal attacks.

 

"Suffice it to say, amateur based commentary is just that."

 

and that is what CN is all about, amateurs commenting here.

 

Everyone has their own way of enjoying the night skies, whether, visual, imaging, etc.  This is up to the individual in how they wish to enjoy astronomy; there is no wrong way, even retiring for the night and letting their equipment do the work for them.