Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Aurora Enthusiasts Discover A Strange New Light In The Sky And Named It Steve (bbc.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the great-and-powerful-Steve dept.

An anonymous reader quotes the BBC: A group of aurora enthusiasts have found a new type of light in the night sky and named it Steve. Eric Donovan from the University of Calgary in Canada spotted the feature in photos shared on a Facebook group. He did not recognise it as a catalogued phenomenon and although the group were calling it a proton arc, he knew proton auroras were not visible. Testing showed it appeared to be a hot stream of fast-flowing gas in the higher reaches of the atmosphere.

The European Space Agency sent electric field instruments to measure it 300km (190 miles) above the surface of the Earth and found the temperature of the air was 3,000C (5,400F) hotter inside the gas stream than outside it. Inside, the 25km-wide ribbon of gas was flowing at 6 km/s (13,000mph), 600 times faster than the air on either side.
One official at the European Space Agency made sure to thank the "army of citizen scientists" who helped with the discovery, saying "It turns out that Steve is actually remarkably common, but we hadn't noticed it before." The name apparently came from a scene in the movie "Over the Hedge."

56 comments

  1. Goddamnit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fucking Furries.

  2. Could have been *much* worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It could have been much worse. They could have called it Lighty McLightface.

    1. Re:Could have been *much* worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aurora McAuroface?

      Ok, I know I'm stretching for an "orifice" joke there, but in my defence, it's Monday.

    2. Re:Could have been *much* worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Aurora McAuroface?

      Ok, I know I'm stretching for an "orifice" joke there, but in my defence, it's Monday.

      Your pun was a pretty large turd, so there you go.

    3. Re:Could have been *much* worse. by BonThomme · · Score: 1

      Too erudite.

      Lighty McLightface.

    4. Re:Could have been *much* worse. by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Ok, I know I'm stretching for an "orifice" joke there, but in my defence, it's Monday.

      While we're on the subject of strange meteorological phenomena: that's a huge orifice in the sky up there...

    5. Re:Could have been *much* worse. by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      I was thinking Stevey McSteveface.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    6. Re:Could have been *much* worse. by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Okay, AC. You win the Internet for today.

      But only for today. Make good use of it.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    7. Re:Could have been *much* worse. by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      "It turns out that Steve is actually remarkably common, but we hadn't noticed it before."

      That's what she said...

    8. Re: Could have been *much* worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I prefer than much more than fucking Steve. Fucking Fanbois....

      Larry, Sergey, Mark, Jeff would be better.... Heck.... even Bill would be better.

    9. Re:Could have been *much* worse. by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      Okay, AC. You win the Internet for today.

      But only for today. Make good use of it.

      No, no he/she doesn't... This meme is so out of date that it's corpse has rotted in it's grave...

    10. Re:Could have been *much* worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that the hole in the ozone layer?

    11. Re:Could have been *much* worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry - I shall :-)
      (actually, I'm Pogue Mahone but I can't find my password)

  3. Re:Were they lying to me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought the science was settled!

    Yes, you're correct. Science was settled somewhere between 1642 and 1727

  4. 3000C @ 190 miles by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 2

    Bear in mind at the extremely low pressure @ 190 miles (You'd need a space suite) 3000C is not as sweltering as it sounds

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    1. Re:3000C @ 190 miles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure it wouldn't even bother a satellite going through it, right?

    2. Re:3000C @ 190 miles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "I'm sure it wouldn't even bother a satellite going through it, right?"

      It does. That's the thing about the Thermosphere- the pressures and temperature gradients go all over the place, depending on time of day, Solar flux, and Atmospheric tides. The very wide ranges in temperature, (~150K to ~2500K), are the very reason it is called the Thermosphere.
      At ~300km, pressures range around 10-1000 Microtorr. That's actually a large and interesting pressure range, because Paschen Discharges can take place there all over. (This is a lot more complex than that simple Graph in Wikipedia indicates. There are several Paschen Discharge regions; at 300km, the main Gas constituents are Atomic Nitrogen and Oxygen, Atomic and Molecular Hydrogen, and Helium, and they can all be bothersome.)
      What I haven't seen any references to is whether any Spectra has been taken of Steve. That might be interesting.

    3. Re:3000C @ 190 miles by PPH · · Score: 1

      whether any Spectra has been taken of Steve

      Obviously white, with a name like Steve.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:3000C @ 190 miles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously white, with a name like Steve.

      No, obviously Asian. If it were white it'd be named Dakota, Tanner, or Hunter.

    5. Re:3000C @ 190 miles by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Why? Because space is cold? Quite the opposite actually, for something that is generating heat a low pressure is a big problem being only able to radiate heat away and unable to rely on any convection.

    6. Re: 3000C @ 190 miles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bear in mind at the extremely low pressure @ 190 miles (You'd need a space suite)

      Would that space suite include double beds, a kitchenette, and a business table?

    7. Re:3000C @ 190 miles by nasch · · Score: 1

      Obviously white, with a name like Steve.

      http://akns-images.eonline.com...

  5. Common? by pr0t0 · · Score: 2

    "It turns out that Steve is actually remarkably common, but we hadn't noticed it before."

    So, despite all of the sky watchers, stargazers, atmospheric researchers, astronauts, and people in Iceland; no one noticed the apparently "remarkably common" streaks of 5400 degree gas travelling at 13000mph a mere 50-60 miles below the ISS?

    --
    I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
    1. Re:Common? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It turns out that Steve is actually remarkably common, but we hadn't noticed it before."

      So, despite all of the sky watchers, stargazers, atmospheric researchers, astronauts, and people in Iceland; no one noticed the apparently "remarkably common" streaks of 5400 degree gas travelling at 13000mph a mere 50-60 miles below the ISS?

      Gosh you'r right. It must be a sign of the end times.

    2. Re:Common? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More likely that everyone who saw it assumed that someone else had already catalogued it.

    3. Re:Common? by Zocalo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Aurora are highly variable objects; they come in many shapes, shades, intensities, speeds they move back and forth across the sky, the speed at which they can appear/disappear, and so on. It's not that they haven't been noticed before, in fact that's how they were identified as being so common - by finding examples captured in previous images of the night sky taken by aurora watchers and similar - it's just that no one has realised they were a distinct form of interaction between particles in the upper atmosphere until now. You've also got to keep in mind that for many people that live in latitudes where aurora are common they're just a fact of life and not all that much more notable than the moon in the night sky, so the chances are pretty high that these jets have been seen on countless occasions, maybe even photographed as well, dismissed as a band/ribbon aurora (not the most photogenic type, and of little interest unless you're new to aurora watching), and that was that.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    4. Re: Common? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Very highly unlikely. People gazing at the stars, scientist or not, like to do so either knowing what they are looking at or discovering something new. No different than bird watchers or pretty much anything else. If someone who loves gazing at the stars were to see something they hadn't before they would most likely look it up to know what to call it.

      That makes much more sense than millions of people ignoring it. It might be common but I think it's not been observed before.

    5. Re:Common? by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      Steve is remarkably common. Why I was in a meeting with 2 of them a few months ago. I was also on a project where the PM, the Tech Lead, and the IT support were all "Steve". The other two main contacts on that contract were honorary Steves too.

      The real question is why didn't people notice Steve until now? Did slashdot really need to run a front-page story to get us to notice Steve?

    6. Re:Common? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, this article is about the aurora(s). If you hadn't mentioned this fact, we would have been chatting away about it for another 100 comments. Jerk.

    7. Re: Common? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Birding is a good example of something similar, even if you are not aware of it. New species of birds are named or removed all the time, even from areas with a century of active birding. The boundaries between different categories are often not easy to pin down, especially from visible observation alone, and you can end up with different things that look similar. There are bird species that look similar, but only got listed as different species through careful observation and genetic testing to find out they were in separate breeding groups. While other times separate species were combined into different subspecies of a common species, because they were found to just be variations within a single breeding group. In the former case, with some time, subtle differences can be found and sometimes it because easier to visually tell the different groups apart... which leads to realizing that observations of the two groups were common in the past, just not noticed.

      When you take something that has a large variation in shape like aurora, it is quite easy to see how two slightly different shapes could be lumped together. Even with clouds, there is still argument over how to group them, despite being seen by a much larger group of people and being much easier to photograph.

    8. Re:Common? by PPH · · Score: 1

      5400 degree gas travelling at 13000mph a mere 50-60 miles below the ISS

      They just thought it was the holding tank dump on burrito night.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    9. Re: Common? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ill get the chains and locked collars and Mad Max vehicles ready

    10. Re:Common? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well to be fair, it HAS ben seen for a long time- just not categorized as a 'different kind of aura'. In the past, it was considered a sub-part of the regular northern & southern lights.

      This 'discovery' is kind of like seeing humanities heads of hair and calling it "hair"... then 100 years later identifying certain strands lighter, darker, curly, or straight, etc.

    11. Re:Common? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      Were they full of billowing hot gas, too?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    12. Re:Common? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Sky watchers and stargazers go out of their way to get away from such disturbances. As do many researchers.
      Astronauts? Well what are they going to see whizzing past a relatively thin stream at an incredibly fast speed from a distance far enough to see an entire aurora?
      People in Iceland? Well I see a lot of new things all the time. I certainly do not go out of my way to identify if they are unique and have never been discovered before, especially not bright objects in the sky while I'm looking for bright objects in the sky called aurora.

      Just because something is incredibly common and seen constantly doesn't mean it gets "noticed".

    13. Re: Common? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Steve hasn't been noticed before because seeing the forest through the trees isn't always easy. We haven't discovered everything. Hell for all that we think we know in reality for the entire universe we probably know less than 1% of what there is to know for overall knowledge.

    14. Re:Common? by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      Depends on the Steve.

    15. Re:Common? by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      "...for many people that live in latitudes where aurora are common they're just a fact of life and not all that much more notable than the moon in the night sky..."

      I live in the southern U.S., and have never seen one of them in-person. That's kind of mind-blowing.

    16. Re:Common? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking as someone who lives where aurora are common, I can say your analogy to the moon is a little off. The moon is a relatively stable sight and doesn't change much except for phase.

      It's more like a sunset, with about that amount of variability. Would anyone stop to admire a good sunset? Yeah. Same thing with the aurora; if the display is good, you'll take a minute to stop and watch.

    17. Re:Common? by Zocalo · · Score: 1

      Stunned me too when I got speaking to locals on the earlier aurora orientated photography trips I've done. The very first trip I did, we'd just done a successful all-nighter, which for most of us was the first time we'd ever seen the lights, and were in an Icelandic garage/café getting some breakfast and looking over our images when we got talking with a long distance lorry driver - his response to a question about getting to see the aurora a lot was basically a shrug and "thousands of times, I guess, don't really notice them anymore...". Yep, that'll do it: *minds* *blown*. :)

      That said, the AC's analogy below about a really good sunset is probably better than my more direct night sky objects one; they *do* still look, but only when it's a really good display, and after doing many more trips to the Arctic (it can really get under your skin!) I can kind of see why. I've now got a lot of photographs of simple bands of aurora, so unless it's a really nice composition with the background, an unusual colour, or has something else to set it apart, I often don't bother unless I haven't got my camera set up yet and need a few test shots to check I've nailed my focus and the exposure settings are in the ballpark.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  6. I will name him George by jfdavis668 · · Score: 5, Funny

    and I will hug him and pet him and squeeze him

    1. Re: I will name him George by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you jfdavis, made my morning.

    2. Re:I will name him George by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jeez. From the way you make it sound, I would think "Dick" would be a more appropriate name.

  7. why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why didn't they name it Mulder?

  8. You can't call a planet 'Bob'! by Daetrin · · Score: 1

    I'm never calling it that

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  9. Re:Were they lying to me? by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

    Unless this phenomenon is relevant to climate, nothing changes.

    If it is relevant, then all of the models will be refined.

    It could also be a "new" phenomem, in the sense that it only occurs under certain conditions which have only arisen (or returned) recently.

    But go ahead and blast away at your little pet peeve without a modicum of thought. Actual, reasonable scientists will sort it out in time.

    --

    ---
    According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
  10. Re:Were they lying to me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the contrary, science was settled in 6000 BC.

    Everything after that is just man trying to comprehend God's Majesty.

    Protip: It won't work.

  11. Mixed tense by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    Aurora Enthusiasts Discover A Strange New Light In The Sky And Named It Steve

    Did they name it (named: past tense) before they discovered it (discover: present tense)?

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  12. For those who don't get the reference by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    1. Re:For those who don't get the reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is a reference to Of Mice and Men.

  13. They named it Steve... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They discovered it had a strange reality about it that no one else recognised. They say it's better and more stylish than all other forms of light. Is it a PC light or a Mac light?

  14. Acronym? by godel_56 · · Score: 1

    I'm wondering how long it will be before someone comes up with an excessively forced acronym for "steve".

    1. Re:Acronym? by almitydave · · Score: 2

      I'm wondering how long it will be before someone comes up with an excessively forced acronym for "steve".

      Superhigh-Temperature Extreme Velocity Ether?

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
  15. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So this group takes another groups discovery and decides they have naming rights? How the fuck does that happen?

  16. Lightband? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not calling this a steve. That's dumb. How about "lightband"?