Have you any information about the midnight Sun?

[grant hutchison]

In that magic place, on June 21st, we saw the sun at midnight as it "touched" the horizon but did not set in the southern sky. To the north there was a nearly full moon, both orbs shining brightly in the dusky midnight sky".

What do you conclude, Grant?

I conclude the writer can't tell north from south, and that the emphasis is on an attempt at poetry rather than scientific reportage.
I also conclude that the writer was quite a long way from the Arctic Circle at the time the observation was made. It happens that I've also been to Eagle Summit, which lies at 65.5 N, rather more than a hundred kilometres from the Arctic Circle.
Sauðanes in Iceland, where I made my own observation of the midnight sun on solstice night, is at 66.25 N, four times closer.

My observing location was much closer to matching your requirements for a "sunny midnight" than was the location in this rather opaque report, and yet I observed the sky to be blue. What do you conclude?

Grant Hutchison

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

I don't know where you got this, but they have the direction wrong. The Sun would be just above the northern horizon at midnight, and the full moon just above the southern horizon in the scenario you suggest. The Sun would be above the horizon for the entire day but the Moon would be above the southern horizon only for a few hours. Note that the sky is described as "dusky", that is, as bright as dusk. (Which is pretty bright near sunrise/sunset!)

Hello CM,
The observer said that he watched the real midnight sun!
He meant as dark as a dusk!

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

I conclude the writer can't tell north from south, and that the emphasis is on an attempt at poetry rather than scientific reportage.
I also conclude that the writer was quite a long way from the Arctic Circle at the time the observation was made. It happens that I've also been to Eagle Summit, which lies at 65.5 N, rather more than a hundred kilometres from the Arctic Circle.
Saušanes in Iceland, where I made my own observation of the midnight sun on solstice night, is at 66.25 N, four times closer.

My observing location was much closer to matching your requirements for a "sunny midnight" than was the location in this rather opaque report, and yet I observed the sky to be blue. What do you conclude?

Grant Hutchison

No doubt, I conclude that you did not watch the real midnight sun. Accordingly, the real midnight sun implies a sunny midnight.

[DyerWolf]

Attiyah,

I get the feeling that English may not be your first language. Your English seems fluent, but not nuanced. I mean no disrespect, but some of what you are arguing about with other posters seems, perhaps, due to a misunderstanding of the nuances of the language. If so, what is your first language? I can understand why you quibble about the definition and description of events surrounding the "midnight sun" - if its from a mutual misunderstanding based upon faulty interpretation. Would this be correct?

I also get the impression your educational background differs from many of the others here. Again, no disrespect intended; but perhaps understanding where you are coming from may assist folks here in explaining what seems to them to be fairly straightforward concepts. Is a secular education the norm where you come from?

[Celestial Mechanic]

No doubt, I conclude that you did not watch the real midnight sun. Accordingly, the real midnight sun implies a sunny midnight.

Well, Mr. Zahdeh, maybe you'll just have to go to a polar region AND SEE FOR YOURSELF, since none of us is saying what you want to hear.

Ordinarily at this point I would suggest "Get thee to a library", but I don't think they'll tell you what you want to hear either.

[grant hutchison]

No doubt, I conclude that you did not watch the real midnight sun. Accordingly, the real midnight sun implies a sunny midnight.

You haven't seen it yourself, it would appear.
You have offered no evidence (apart from the use of the word "dusky" by someone who used "orb" in the same sentence) to support your idea.
You have offered no theory to support your idea.
You asked for eyewitness reports and have been offered several, all confirming the brightness of the sky at the time of the midnight sun.

And the whole exercise ends up with you shouting

real

It seems a little pointless ...

Grant Hutchison

[Van Rijn]

Attiyah,

I get the feeling that English may not be your first language. Your English seems fluent, but not nuanced. I mean no disrespect, but some of what you are arguing about with other posters seems, perhaps, due to a misunderstanding of the nuances of the language. If so, what is your first language? I can understand why you quibble about the definition and description of events surrounding the "midnight sun" - if its from a mutual misunderstanding based upon faulty interpretation. Would this be correct?

That's a fair point. For instance, with the sun right on the horizon and long shadows some of the sky can be described as "dusky." That is not the same as dusk (deep twilight/quite dark). The meaning is different.

[Van Rijn]

No doubt, I conclude that you did not watch the real midnight sun. Accordingly, the real midnight sun implies a sunny midnight.

And this looks like another example of the language issue. The sun is up at midnight. What is the supposed distinction between saying "midnight sun" and "sunny midnight"? Saying that it is "sunny" means that the sun is up. You could also say "The sun is visible in the sky at a local time of 12:00am or 0000 military time." Does that make it clearer?

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

summer solstice midnight sun summer solstice

"Here in Anchorage Alaska, it just barely gets dark as the sun dips below the horizon in the middle of the night during the summer. But we wanted to see the real midnight sun. So the day before solstice this year, we packed up our van and drove about 500 miles to a spot where, thanks to its higher latitude and altitude, you can see the real thing. Eagle Summit reaches the highest elevation on the Steese Highway, a mostly gravel road northeast of Fairbanks. In that magic place, on June 21st, we saw the sun at midnight as it "touched" the horizon but did not set in the southern sky. To the north there was a nearly full moon, both orbs shining brightly in the dusky midnight sky".

http://www.turtlepuddle.org/bio/summer/solstice.html

[Nowhere Man]

Glad you asked. Bright bright bluish white against an absolutely black sky. (etc.)

Go ahead, pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Fred

[Maksutov]

Certain posts in this thread appear to be full of zounds and flurry, signifying nothing.

On to other, better things...

[captain swoop]

I can't see where this thread is going to go.

Tell us what you think people should see, you don't seem to want to read what people say they are seeing.

[cjl]

summer solstice midnight sun summer solstice

"Here in Anchorage Alaska, it just barely gets dark as the sun dips below the horizon in the middle of the night during the summer. But we wanted to see the real midnight sun. So the day before solstice this year, we packed up our van and drove about 500 miles to a spot where, thanks to its higher latitude and altitude, you can see the real thing. Eagle Summit reaches the highest elevation on the Steese Highway, a mostly gravel road northeast of Fairbanks. In that magic place, on June 21st, we saw the sun at midnight as it "touched" the horizon but did not set in the southern sky. To the north there was a nearly full moon, both orbs shining brightly in the dusky midnight sky".

http://www.turtlepuddle.org/bio/summer/solstice.html

Did you look at the image in the link you pointed us to?

Because this image from the site you linked to is entitled "The Midnight Sun in interior Alaska, June 21, 1997"

Clearly, it is not dark in that picture.

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

http://www.barentsphoto.com/viewimag...jpg.14154.html

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

Did you look at the image in the link you pointed us to?

Because this image from the site you linked to is entitled "The Midnight Sun in interior Alaska, June 21, 1997"

Clearly, it is not dark in that picture.

Because of the full moon.
As well, the picture does not show the zenith sky.

Please see these pictures wherein the night darknees is dominant.

http://www.simnet.is/gardarj/mapa/mid.htm
http://square.umin.ac.jp/murata/midn...990727_mid.jpg
http://www.arcus.org/TREC/VBC/upload..._9_1_44704.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/http://...m/getfile.php/

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

http://curtisbogan.com/alaska-album/...ht_Sun_jpg.jpg

[publius]

Take your camera and take a shot of the setting sun. You'll see the sky is very dark looking in the image, 'cause the sun is so bright it washes it out. I'm no photographer by a long shot, but I first discovered this taking "brag" pictures of some of my stainless steel welding. The stainless was so bright, it washed out the surroundings, and I had to play around with Photoshop to bring out details.

And I did that with the last link you posted, just increases the brightness. One case easily see there is blue in the data, and you can deduce it looks just like any normal near sunset.

May I ask just what in tarnation is your point/idea/theory about all this? That the sun is somehow not the sun?

-Richard

[publius]

And yet another one of your links with the brightness increased: This one looks even more normal:

[Van Rijn]

Because of the full moon.

No. This was the photo of the moon:

http://www.turtlepuddle.org/bio/summ...wberrymoon.JPG

This was the photo of the sun right on the horizon:

http://www.turtlepuddle.org/bio/summer/midnitesun.JPG

Please see these pictures wherein the night darknees is dominant.

http://www.simnet.is/gardarj/mapa/mid.htm

The sun appears to be below the horizon.

As for the others, the links don't work for me. Also, you can't ignore exposure settings: If you are taking a picture of the sun, the sky will appear extremely dark by comparison.

Anyway, when the sun is up, and if there isn't heavy cloud cover, it will be sunny. End of story. There really isn't much more to say on this subject.

[SMEaton]

Also, you can't ignore exposure settings: If you are taking a picture of the sun, the sky will appear extremely dark by comparison.

This has already been pointed out to Attiyah, by several people, in the "Attiyah Sun Theory" (which isn't really about the sun) thread, and most likely in the "Ozone" thread. No noticeable impact. Interesting how most of the photographs Attiyah hotlinks show blue sky, even with overexposure.

There really isn't much more to say on this subject.

Yet there will still be responses until a mod locks the thread.

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

This has already been pointed out to Attiyah, by several people, in the "Attiyah Sun Theory" (which isn't really about the sun) thread, and most likely in the "Ozone" thread. No noticeable impact. Interesting how most of the photographs Attiyah hotlinks show blue sky, even with overexposure.
Yet there will still be responses until a mod locks the thread.

I see that each time those who fail to defend their counterarguments "introduce a petition" to the moderators to lock the thread under discussion. Why do such members interfere in the moderaters' affairs?

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

Take your camera and take a shot of the setting sun. You'll see the sky is very dark looking in the image, 'cause the sun is so bright it washes it out. I'm no photographer by a long shot, but I first discovered this taking "brag" pictures of some of my stainless steel welding. The stainless was so bright, it washed out the surroundings, and I had to play around with Photoshop to bring out details.

And I did that with the last link you posted, just increases the brightness. One case easily see there is blue in the data, and you can deduce it looks just like any normal near sunset.

May I ask just what in tarnation is your point/idea/theory about all this? That the sun is somehow not the sun?

-Richard

Your explanation "cause the sun is so bright it washes it out" does not apply to these picyures.

Do you know who were the first to use the term "midnight sun"?

Why did they use it?

I consider that those who first coined the "midnight sun" term used it to express a natural phenomenon of the sun itself in certain cases. They saw the sun during real nights with real darkness.

[publius]

Your explanation "cause the sun is so bright it washes it out" does not apply to these picyures.

Do you know who were the first to use the term "midnight sun"?

Why did they use it?

I consider that those who first coined the "midnight sun" term used it to express a natural phenomenon of the sun itself in certain cases. They saw the sun during real nights with real darkness.

Did you not see my Photoshop brightness increase of two of your links? The blue information was in there, just very dark relative to the brightness of the sun. You can do that yourself with any similiar software. This pretty much shows the darkness was due to exposure.

And if I can remember, I'm gonna grab my camera tomorrow and take a picture of the sunset. We'll see how dark that looks with autoexposure on, and I'll see how much information I can pull out with Photoshop.


-Richard

[Tog]

Your explanation "cause the sun is so bright it washes it out" does not apply to these picyures.

Do you know who were the first to use the term "midnight sun"?

Why did they use it?

I consider that those who first coined the "midnight sun" term used it to express a natural phenomenon of the sun itself in certain cases. They saw the sun during real nights with real darkness.

I've been following this thread but as I've never been north of 49 degrees, I didn't have anything to offer. I now have a question.

If the sun is 1 degree above the horizon, why would there be any difference in the look of the sky from that one point on the globe, at the one time of the year? It makes no sense at all. Perhaps you could explain WHY you think the sky would be dark with the Sun visible in the sky, as opposed to just continually restating that a midnight sun means a real sunny midnight.

[tusenfem]

Well, the reason is clear why Attiyah wants to have the sky dark during the arctic summer. You just have to go to the ATM section where (s)he explains that the light of the daytime sky is caused by aurora and some light dome which sometimes was observed by Birkeland during his terella experiments (but never has been observed around the Earth I might say). I guess for some reason these processes are switched off during the "midnight sun" and therefore the sky should be dark with only a bright sun somewhere.

Naturally, Attiyah could move to the moon, and he would have a bright sun in a dark sky all the time :-)

Unfortunately, I do not have an ethymological dictionary for English, so I cannot look up when "midnight sun" was used for the first time (in writing!!) but I assume that it was a looooooong time ago.

The website with the prosaic language (her) clearly has some problems, because being so far north, it is impossible to see the moon in the north.

At the same time Attiyah has no knowledge of how cameras work. I guess (s)he never took a picture of a bright object with a regular automatic camera, which will set the exposure time such that the bright object does not overexpose, which will naturally mean that all other stuff around it is underexposed. This means that the sky, whenever you take a picture of the sun, not only during arctic summer, will be dark.

But all this writing will not change Attiyah's insight, knowledge or his already made-up mind, but we can keep trying to edumacate her/him.

[SMEaton]

I see that each time those who fail to defend their counterarguments "introduce a petition" to the moderators to lock the thread under discussion. Why do such members interfere in the moderaters' affairs?

Please realize that I wasn't calling for a moderator to intervene. As a proponent of an idea that does not mesh with a host of theories backed by actual observation, it falls upon you to provide the evidence for your claims. Throughout several threads you have failed to do so. You might hotlink images or provide text, as if to say "This evidence!", but all of your photographic evidence actually works against your claims. All of your linked references can only beg the question: should a serious reader/poster take your claims seriously?
Please realize that you have yet to provide a valid reason why the sky is recognizably blue in the images that you have hotlinked (despite the obvious copyright issues, leading to the forum rule against hotlinking) in various posts throughout this entire discussion.

[Mellow]

Kinda good news maybe, in 2000, I visited Murmansk in Russia, from Jun 17th to 23rd. Guess what, on the 21st, it was clear (ish) and the sun was visible at midnight and the sky was a normal blue colour. Not black with a sun visible, blue, like an ordinary day.

Ah, I've just checked, I think Murmansk is just above the Arctic circle, so I guess the OP won't be happy with my personal account.

[Jens]

I see that each time those who fail to defend their counterarguments "introduce a petition" to the moderators to lock the thread under discussion. Why do such members interfere in the moderaters' affairs?

What "counterarguments"? I thought you were asking questions? How does one offer counterarguments to questions?

And also, in response to your question about who coined the term "midnight sun," I don't know, but I'm virtually certain it's not originally an English term, so you'd have to look elsewhere. I assume that it was originally brought into English from a Scandinavian language. The English wouldn't have invented it, since they can't experience it.

Also, just as my own question to you, which I hope you'll respond to, what is the term you use in Arabic? Is it similar to "midnight sun"?

[Gillianren]

I tried Googling "etymology midnight sun"; the second thing that comes up is one of my own posts in the ATM section of this very board. Nothing useful came up, so far as I can tell, and I don't think any of my books have an answer as to how old the expression is. But again, it long predates polar exploration.

[grant hutchison]

Well, the reason is clear why Attiyah wants to have the sky dark during the arctic summer. You just have to go to the ATM section where (s)he explains that the light of the daytime sky is caused by aurora and some light dome which sometimes was observed by Birkeland during his terella experiments (but never has been observed around the Earth I might say). I guess for some reason these processes are switched off during the "midnight sun" and therefore the sky should be dark with only a bright sun somewhere.

Yes, I'm reminded of Huxley's line, "... many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact." The recent progression of posts very much makes it appear as if Attiyah Zahdeh is trying to make that process run backwards.

Grant Hutchison