3 ms·
The question's answer is approached but not quite reached with vague words about sensitive cameras. The article does not explicitly say that the phenomenon even
by cardiffspaceman 8y ago
The question's answer is approached but not quite reached with vague words about sensitive cameras. The article does not explicitly say that the phenomenon even is or isn't visible to the naked eye. The wikipedia article [1] suggests that the phenomenon was 'discovered' in 2016. But that leaves a little room for the possibility that it was occasionally noticed before then but not rigorously observed with photographs, witnessed notes, and the like, to document the sightings.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_(atmospheric_phenomenon) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_(atmospheric_phenomenon)
- ksaj 8y ago"The phenomenon is not rare, but nobody had looked into it in detail prior to that." Hmm, you're right. What you are reading between the lines is apparently correct. Both the article and the wikipedia entry seem to actively avoid stating things in definite terms on that detail. The first article I read about it said that the "discoverers" knew about it for some time, and it wasn't until they tried googling it that they realized it didn't have a name. My sister, who by coincidence lives just outside Calgary (where Steve was "discovered") tells me that she's known about it since she was a child and just assumed it was part of the Northern Lights. But... that's anecdotal and doesn't make up for the recent articles focusing on the newer discovery as to its cause. It is naked-eye visible as long as your light pollution is such that you can see Aurorae when they happen. The other part that was recently discovered is that it can be seen as far central as the equator. Can that be seen by the naked eye? I think that might not be stated so clearly either. I have also not heard if the south presents the same or similar phenomenon.