“NASA predicts the best Northern Lights for 50 years”
So say the BBC, The Telegraph, The Observer and many other publications in relation to the chances of seeing the aurora borealis in 2012. A whole host of tour operators and cruise companies have lapped up this quote and without any apparent scrutiny added it to their press releases and websites. Look at anyone offering Northern Lights tours and you’ll be very likely to find a variant of this statement occupying a prominent place in their promotional literature.
The phantom NASA Scientist
Some use the term “NASA scientist” while others refer to “NASA scientists”, although in no case is a scientist actually named. However hard I’ve tried I haven’t found a single link to an actual quote from anyone at NASA.
So what is the truth behind this claim? It appears to be little more than unsubstantiated spin relating to a natural phenomenon that is notoriously hard to predict.
Here’s what NASA actually did say in an article in 2009: “Pesnell believes sunspot counts (strongly correlating to Northern Lights activity) will pick up again soon, “possibly by the end of the year,” to be followed by a solar maximum of below-average intensity in 2012 or 2013.”
This story from the New Scientist makes even gloomier reading for aurora watchers, with some predicting the weakest solar activity for over 70 years.
Quite a contrast from all the “once in a lifetime” headlines.
Myth vs reality?
So where could this widely reported optimistic prediction have come from? Perhaps this chart provides a hint of an explanation for those who have thrown their lot behind the appearance of fantastic aurora sightings this year. It combines the research modelling results from over 50 solar physicists showing their predictions for the extent of solar activity in SC24 (the current solar cycle):
What this plot shows, even to the uninitiated eye, is a massive discrepancy between scientists in what they believe will happen in terms of solar activity. It suggests an unpredictable, almost random cycle with no consensus on the level of activity.
Anyone for a quote?
Is this merely a case of laziness on the part of journalists eager to sell a story to editors that is blessed with ready-made eye candy, while tour operators take an easy opportunity to promote the star attraction of their northern tours?
Presumably with all the professional news organisations, reputable tour operators and diligent journalists who have been happy to put their name to such a bold statement, there is some solid research to back it up. I’d love to see it. Failing this, perhaps even a link to a quote from a named NASA scientist would be a start.
Love it! You make a great point.
I’m off to Lapland in four weeks baited by these exact reports. I shall report back when I see if I can see them for myself. Regardless of the hype, seeing the Northern Lights has always been a roll of the dice- and it’s one gamble I’m happy to take as both a journalist and a consumer. All the solar flare/50 years stuff just gave me the right kick up the butt to commit to following a dream my partner and I have always had.
The fact there is no guarantee I’ll see it is half the appeal. it’s not artificial and can’t be controlled and that is what makes it so special.
As for the spin… well… they’re just SO pretty….
Me too – we’re off to Iceland in March to see the lights. Just not going with any unrealistic expectations. And if the aurora doesn’t show up I’m sure we’ll still enjoy a country I’ve long wanted to visit.
So what was the result of the March trip to Iceland? Was it good for Northern Lights sightings?
Michelle
Hi Andy
I think this is the original scientific paper that has them all in a spin. http://www.ias.ac.in/jaa/marjun2008/JAA03.pdf .
Go to prediction on page 37 (red chart).
It was probably discovered by the media recently and did the round,as such stories do. Frankly, go to Iceland this year, coz it’s cheap at the moment; that’s the advice I’d give people!
thanks for this John. Yes, she was quoted in the New Scientist article as having a contrary view – it appears that pretty much any level of activity has been predicted by one scientist or another. You can just take your pick as to which one you want to believe.
Having worked closely with meteorologists at one time, I’ve learned to doubt any statement beginning with the words ‘Scientists predict …’
Yes, I would like to see and photograph the lights, but I wouldn’t go especially … the ideal would be to go for some other reason, and count the lights as a bonus if they do make an appearance.
I am off to Tromsø this very weekend for the lights! Staying with a friend who works at the Norwegian Meteorological Institute and fully subscribes to the Aurora hype : ) It looks like a clear weekend is on the way — hopefully there will be some news to report. Good luck in Iceland!
Hope not. I’m hoping to hop on the bandwagon myself in March as a certain someone has a big birthday coming up.
Top headline though. Bagsy lapping it up in Lapland!
I think the original prediction came from the Space weather division of NOAA in 2007 (http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/PressRelease.html) in which half of their expert panel said it was going to be a good year with a peak around now. Solar cycle prediction is very difficult and that’s why the forecast was revised in 2009, with most experts now believing the peak will come in 2013 and that it will be below average.
Thanks for the comments and extra insights. Thanks Mark also for adding that link – interesting stuff yet that there’s no firm opinion here about a strong solar maximum in this cycle, let alone a 50 year peak. As you say it’s nigh on impossible to predict with any sort of confidence.
Good luck Anna and Jools in your quests for the lights this spring – here’s hoping that nature does indeed deliver a big display for all of us heading north this year.
In the meantime I’m yet to see the definitive source of all those ‘best in 50 years’ headlines…
Whilst I completely agree that such ‘findings’ should be taken with a shovelful of salt, for the record we had some fabulous lights here in Trondheim last night. I’m a Brit and have lived here for 13 years, but this is only the fourth time I’ve seen them that clearly from here. I find it amazing that people make the lights the sole reason for their trip but good luck one and all, and rest assured that there is far more to see if you don’t get lucky.
As a follow-up, I am happy to confirm that the Aurora activity in Tromsø over the weekend did not disappoint! Here is the evidence: http://www.flickr.com/photos/anutele/6733986357.
Wishing everyone some clear skies!
I think these reports are right – I can’t remember the last time you could see the Aurora over northern England either…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16694472
Hi Andy, there have certainly been some great sightings recently but bear in mind that in 2000 there was a burst of solar activity that meant the aurora was visible from the Isle of Wight. In 2003 it was also seen as far south as Florida. So this isn’t that unusual; we’re just more aware of the predictions this time around.
My point in this post isn’t to predict what may or may not happen in 2012 – it was to highlight the way in which so many people have spread a story from a statement that no-one actually made.
I found your nice site via David Whitley’s Top 20 List. (Good on you.)
I certainly agree with your point about attention grabbing headlines that serve largely to be eye candy in order to generate readers. My daughter sent me the BBC story, which has me planning a trip to Alaska in 2013, the so-called solar maximum (which may be nothing of the sort).
The BBC story linked to a British website that sends out alerts, kind of like what the extreme surfers use to track the monster waves. Unfortunately, I cannot afford to drop everything and purchase a last minute airline ticket to the far north.
If the technicolor sky show does not materialize, I guess I will just have to blog about local drinking habits and other crazy shit.
Here is the link to the U.K. aurora alert network: http://aurorawatch.lancs.ac.uk/alerts
Thanks for stopping by (and glad to see the list brought in new visitors)
The Alaska trip sounds like a great plan and yes, it’s best to take the attitude that if you see the aurora, great; if not, there’s so much to enjoy in Alaska that you’ll still have a good time.
Thanks for the link too – I have this one set up but like you, I can’t just get up and go.