Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Red sky at night, shepherd's delight. Red sky in the morning, shepherd's warning. (In a common variation, "shepherd" is replaced by "sailor") A red sky – in the morning or evening – is a result of high pressure air in the atmosphere trapping particles of dust or soot.
If you haven't seen the northern lights this year — today might be your last chance. And what a fun way to ring in the new year! The Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) issued a geomagnetic ...
Red sky at night or Red Sky at Night may refer to: An example of weather lore; see Red sky at morning "Red Sky at Night", a song by David Gilmour from the album On an Island "Red Sky at Night", a song by Focus from the album Ship of Memories; Red Sky at Night, 2022 play by Lindsay Rodden for Mikron Theatre Company
The solar storms of May 2024 (also known as 2024 Mother's Day solar storm [1] or Gannon storm in memory of Jennifer Gannon, [2] a space weather physicist [3]) were a series of powerful solar storms with extreme solar flares and geomagnetic storm components that occurred from 10–13 May 2024 during solar cycle 25.
The common phrase "red sky at morning" is a line from an ancient rhyme often repeated with variants by mariners [1] and others: Red sky at night, sailors' delight. Red sky at morning, sailors take warning.
T Coronae Borealis (T CrB), nicknamed the Blaze Star, is a binary star and a recurrent nova about 3,000 light-years away in the constellation Corona Borealis. [11] It was first discovered in outburst in 1866 by John Birmingham, [12] though it had been observed earlier as a 10th magnitude star. [13]
In the case of alpenglow, which is similar to the Belt of Venus, [7] afterglow is used in general for the golden-red glowing light from the sunset and sunrise reflected in the sky, and in particularly for its last stage, when the purple light is reflected. [2] [1] The opposite of an afterglow is a foreglow, which occurs before sunrise ...
This is quite a refreshing perspective on the Wikipedia way of things! I applaud your informality. It seems to me that many (and I mean MANY) Wikipedia articles are oh-so-thinly-veiled POV rants . . . and when they aren't (in my estimation, at least), someone will have the gall to make a comment to the effect that "this part needs some work — too much POV" or something similarly ridiculous ...