WHEN IS A RAINBOW NOT A RAINBOW? At this time of year, a colorful arc often appears in the noontime sky. It looks like a rainbow, but it’s not. “I saw one on June 23rd while I was walking through forest near Flagstaff, Arizona,” reports David Blanchard, who took this picture through the treetops:
Blanchard witnessed a circumhorizon arc–a rainbow-colored band of light caused by the sun shining through plate-shaped ice crystals floating in cirrus clouds. Actual rainbows, on the other hand, are caused by sunlight reflected from raindrops.
Summer is the season for circumhorizontal arcs because they appear only when the sun is high in the sky–more than 58o above the horizon. The arc’s enormous size and pure spectral colors make it one of the most beautiful of all ice halos.
At medium latitudes, like much of the USA, the arc is not rare.Typically, it can be seen several times each summer. In contrast, further north in much of Europe the circumhorizon arc is a rarity and impossible to see north of Copenhagen. See the charts in Les Cowley’s web page ‘How rare?’ for the visibility at your location.
Dancing With Fools 
So what’s for breakfast? 🙂
LikeLike
Whatever you make?
LikeLike
Sold the Miata yesterday and the expensive repair problems with it, dammit, I liked driving it and the top down experience was amazing. However Mazda made two year emission mistakes on 99 and 2000 years causing much SMOG nonsense.
I would like to go back in time to a pre-SMOG car, maybe a Corvair?
LikeLike
Move to Michigan, you can get another Miata. We don’t test for smog here.
LikeLike
I’ve never seen such an arc. Have seen double rainbows.
LikeLike
I saw one of those here once. I was sitting out in a lawn chair on the side of the house, leaned my head back and looked straight up in the sky. A streak of a rainbow like the one in your picture was up there. It wasn’t a rainbow, no arc with a beginning and an end. Just a streak 4 to 6 inches if I held two fingers up in the air. I didn’t see many clouds in the sky at all, it was pretty clear but I’ll consider it was a circumhorizon arc anyway.
LikeLike
Jill picked Quincy up around 2:30. Decided to dye my hair, so I’m sitting here looking like an ugly bowling ball, hope no one shows up to visit. Good thing there is pretty much a zero chance of that.
LikeLike
Took my blood pressure before I dyed my hair, it was 112/69. Yikes, turned machine off then back on and tested again…103/65. 😦
Took it again just now, a reasonable 130/74. Guess I’ll live.
LikeLike
Much better at the lower figures.
LikeLike
I think Carol’s BP is better at 130/74. The other numbers are too low. Ask any GOOD cardiologist — that overly aggressive lowering of BP causes more problems than it staves off. Falls, confusion, insufficient oxygen rich blood flow to the brain. 103/65 is not your friend! That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it.
LikeLike
Oh! And one other “risk” factor with aggressive lowering of BP — a biggie!
Increased risk for acute kidney injury or failure.
LikeLike
Depends upon how much one has been exercising and so pulse rate. When I exercise my blood pressure goes down as the blood vessels dilate to pump more blood around faster.
I agree that a resting systolic reading under 110 is kinda low. But contrawise a resting reading of 130 is at the upper limit.
LikeLike
90 here, hotter down the hill, I’m staying put. Took a rash of pictures for tomorrow.
I figured I would get the good long distance views before it got smoky from some fire somewhere.
LikeLike
Up to 80 °F so the local pizza parlor has the air conditioner on; this causes a draft so I hafta wear my jacket.
LikeLike
Wasting utilities no doubt.
I would assume a higher usage if the establishment has large doors that open and close frequently, would make cooling usage higher cool in some areas. I would try a different corner, might get lucky. 😉
LikeLike
Consider what both the Mayo Clinic and Wikipedia write about hypotension: systolic below 90 mmHg or distolic below 60 mmHg and there are symptoms. So 103/65 is fine.
LikeLike
Ambiguous. (<90 or <60) and symptoms
LikeLike
So 103/65 is fine.
Often, we are on the same page. On this, we are not. I don’t give a flip what Mayo or Wikipedia says — one size does not fit all. In the “elderly” defined by JAMA (not me) the “elderly” is +65, 103/65 is not acceptable as a target (or sustained) BP reading.
LikeLike
Reference?
LikeLike
She said. JAMA.
LikeLike
Thought I posted earlier, guess I failed. Hiya, Mickster!
My bp has dropped from the horror show of 170 something over 130 something fir a few years now, due to meds, so I’m okay with them.
Statins, otoh, while doing what they’re are supposed to do, prevent me from eating grapefruit, food of the gods, and that is a kind of torture.
LikeLike
To the TVD bridge and return in 45 minutes. It’s not that I walked faster but rather it takes me a minute to go down the stairs to the street and put the walking stick loops on my wrists. Same in reverse at the end.
A bird of prey, not a Swainsen’s hawk; a skein of Swainsen’s hawks; a wedge of geese.
LikeLike