https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479721008380
Think about why the sky looks blue in the daytime.
On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 05:30:32 -0700 (PDT), W <[email protected]>
wrote:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479721008380
Think about why the sky looks blue in the daytime.
There's no reason that the sky needs to be brighter. Just because a
retrofit can be done badly isn't an argument against doing it. Of
course, if energy is saved a brighter sky may be a reasonable price to
pay. But a well designed LED system can control the brightness of
individual lights, can alter which lights are on or are bright based
on location and time, and can more effectively control where stray
light ends up.
On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 9:34:11 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 05:30:32 -0700 (PDT), W <[email protected]>
wrote:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479721008380
Think about why the sky looks blue in the daytime.
There's no reason that the sky needs to be brighter. Just because a
retrofit can be done badly isn't an argument against doing it. Of
course, if energy is saved a brighter sky may be a reasonable price to
pay. But a well designed LED system can control the brightness of
individual lights, can alter which lights are on or are bright based
on location and time, and can more effectively control where stray
light ends up.
"Can" does not mean "will" and in most, if not all cases, the results will be as described in the article.
A brighter sky is not worth the energy saved. Energy saved would simply be used in additional outdoor lighting.
Before sodium or mercury vapor, outdoor lighting was incandescent, expensive to run and maintain, and used to a lesser extent. Making lighting "more efficient" just meant that more lighting would be installed and we have seen the results.
History repeats.
At least LPS can be filtered to some extent. LED? No.
A brighter sky is not worth the energy saved.
On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 15:58:18 -0700 (PDT), W <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 9:34:11 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 05:30:32 -0700 (PDT), W <[email protected]>
wrote:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479721008380
Think about why the sky looks blue in the daytime.
There's no reason that the sky needs to be brighter. Just because a
retrofit can be done badly isn't an argument against doing it. Of
course, if energy is saved a brighter sky may be a reasonable price to
pay. But a well designed LED system can control the brightness of
individual lights, can alter which lights are on or are bright based
on location and time, and can more effectively control where stray
light ends up.
"Can" does not mean "will" and in most, if not all cases, the results will be as described in the article.
A brighter sky is not worth the energy saved. Energy saved would simply be used in additional outdoor lighting.
Before sodium or mercury vapor, outdoor lighting was incandescent, expensive to run and maintain, and used to a lesser extent. Making lighting "more efficient" just meant that more lighting would be installed and we have seen the results.
History repeats.
At least LPS can be filtered to some extent. LED? No.Losers are easily distinguished by looking at the worst cases and
assuming nothing else is possible.
The history that is repeating right now is the collapse of another civilization.
On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 4:58:20 PM UTC-6, W wrote:
A brighter sky is not worth the energy saved.Energy savings are extremely valuable, as they allow us to reduce
carbon dioxide emissions, thus avoiding catastrophic climate
change.
On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 05:30:32 -0700 (PDT), W <[email protected]>
wrote:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479721008380
Think about why the sky looks blue in the daytime.There's no reason that the sky needs to be brighter. Just because a
retrofit can be done badly isn't an argument against doing it. Of
course, if energy is saved a brighter sky may be a reasonable price to
pay.
On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 4:58:20 PM UTC-6, W wrote:
A brighter sky is not worth the energy saved.Energy savings are extremely valuable, as they allow us to reduce
carbon dioxide emissions, thus avoiding catastrophic climate
change.
John Savard
On Wednesday, 3 August 2022 at 19:55:04 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 4:58:20 PM UTC-6, W wrote:
A brighter sky is not worth the energy saved.
Energy savings are extremely valuable, as they allow us to reduce
carbon dioxide emissions, thus avoiding catastrophic climate
change.
Ridiculous.
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:48:03 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 3 August 2022 at 19:55:04 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 4:58:20 PM UTC-6, W wrote:
A brighter sky is not worth the energy saved.
Energy savings are extremely valuable, as they allow us to reduceRidiculous.
carbon dioxide emissions, thus avoiding catastrophic climate
change.
I was going to go on about how terrible science denialism is,
but I recently saw this video,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBbxSl_C2mQ
about how science is now telling us we have to stop eating
cookies and ice cream, and I hardly have the heart to do it
any more.
On Wednesday, 3 August 2022 at 09:34:11 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 05:30:32 -0700 (PDT), W <[email protected]>
wrote:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479721008380There's no reason that the sky needs to be brighter. Just because a
Think about why the sky looks blue in the daytime.
retrofit can be done badly isn't an argument against doing it. Of
course, if energy is saved a brighter sky may be a reasonable price to
pay.
Why? Are you still using a computer with a 300 watt power supply because it "saves energy?"
I had to Google up the study, given that ********* **** did
not provide details, but I found the information quickly; there
was a story about it in USA Today.
Rafael Perez-Escamilla was interviewed for the story; he
said these results were based on a "robust" Brazilian study
of cognitive decline in older adults related to their diets,
although the study has not yet undergone peer-review for
publication.
I was going to go on about how terrible science denialism is,
but I recently saw this video,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBbxSl_C2mQ
about how science is now telling us we have to stop eating
cookies and ice cream, and I hardly have the heart to do it
any more.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479721008380
Think about why the sky looks blue in the daytime.
On Fri, 5 Aug 2022 17:46:23 -0700 (PDT), RichA <[email protected]>
wrote:
Why? Are you still using a computer with a 300 watt power supply because it "saves energy?"
What are you talking about?
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 10:17:43 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 5 Aug 2022 17:46:23 -0700 (PDT), RichA <[email protected]>
wrote:
Why? Are you still using a computer with a 300 watt power supply because it "saves energy?"
What are you talking about?
A desktop computer has, as one of its components, a power supply which
takes the mains voltage of 120 volts RMS or whatever and outputs current
at DC voltages the motherboard can use.
In recent years, the sizes of power supplies used by computers has grown.
At one time, a 150 watt power supply was quite normal; now, 750 watts
or so is often needed by current-generation graphics cards.
While today's switching power supplies are quite efficient, it's still true that
a bigger power supply has a larger overhead power dissipation.
John Savard
I understand all of that. And I still don't know what Rich is talking
about. Neither does he, of course.
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 12:51:19 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
I understand all of that. And I still don't know what Rich is talking
about. Neither does he, of course.
He is making a reference to your well-documented hypocrisy regarding climate change.
On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 01:57:51 -0700 (PDT), W <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 12:51:19 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
I understand all of that. And I still don't know what Rich is talking
about. Neither does he, of course.
He is making a reference to your well-documented hypocrisy regarding climate change.Hypocrisy. Another word you do not understand.
On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 01:57:51 -0700 (PDT), W <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 12:51:19 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
I understand all of that. And I still don't know what Rich is talking
about. Neither does he, of course.
He is making a reference to your well-documented hypocrisy regarding climate change.Hypocrisy. Another word you do not understand.
You have been talking about this stuff for a long time. Why have you not eliminated your fossil fuel use?
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 9:30:09 AM UTC-6, W wrote:
You have been talking about this stuff for a long time. Why have you not eliminated your fossil fuel use?There is such a thing as hypocrisy.
But there is also such a thing as trying to intimidate people to prevent them from calling awareness to the global warming problem.
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 9:51:37 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 01:57:51 -0700 (PDT), W <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 12:51:19 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >Hypocrisy. Another word you do not understand.
I understand all of that. And I still don't know what Rich is talking
about. Neither does he, of course.
He is making a reference to your well-documented hypocrisy regarding climate change.
You have talking about this stuff for a long time. Why have you not eliminated your fossil fuel use?
On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 9:09:34 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 07:30:51 -0700 (PDT), W <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 9:51:37 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >> On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 01:57:51 -0700 (PDT), W <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 12:51:19 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:Hypocrisy. Another word you do not understand.
I understand all of that. And I still don't know what Rich is talking >> >> >> about. Neither does he, of course.
He is making a reference to your well-documented hypocrisy regarding climate change.
You have talking about this stuff for a long time. Why have you not eliminated your fossil fuel use?
Such a stupid argument!
You were supposed to use a colon instead of an exclamation point after the word "argument."
Because it isn't possible for me to do so.
It IS possible for you to do so. You just don't WANT to do so.
And because it isn't my
responsibility to do so.
If you think that there is a problem then it is your responsibility to not contribute to it.
It's a problem of the commons, and cannot be
dealt with except as such.
Absolute nonsense. This "problem" can certainly be ameliorated by individual efforts.
On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 07:30:51 -0700 (PDT), W <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 9:51:37 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 01:57:51 -0700 (PDT), W <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 12:51:19 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:Hypocrisy. Another word you do not understand.
I understand all of that. And I still don't know what Rich is talking >> >> about. Neither does he, of course.
He is making a reference to your well-documented hypocrisy regarding climate change.
You have talking about this stuff for a long time. Why have you not eliminated your fossil fuel use?
Such a stupid argument!
Because it isn't possible for me to do so.
And because it isn't my
responsibility to do so.
It's a problem of the commons, and cannot be
dealt with except as such.
Do not presume to tell any of them that they need to cut back.
And because it isn't my
responsibility to do so. It's a problem of the commons, and cannot be
dealt with except as such.
No, it is not possible.
I do what I can to minimize my ecological footprint. Which is all
anybody should be doing.
It most certainly cannot. But your grasp of concepts like "society" is
very limited, being a sociopath.
On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 9:54:54 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
No, it is not possible.
You are still having trouble distinguishing your needs from wants.
Here's a clue for you:
If you don't need it to survive then you shouldn't want it if it harms the planet by your having it.
Got it?
I do what I can to minimize my ecological footprint. Which is all
anybody should be doing.
Except that you are NOT minimizing your footprint. Not even close.
And the laws that you favor would weigh most heavily on those who already have a small footprint.
It most certainly cannot. But your grasp of concepts like "society" is
very limited, being a sociopath.
Hypocrite (you) = sociopath.
On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 7:09:34 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
And because it isn't my
responsibility to do so. It's a problem of the commons, and cannot be
dealt with except as such.
It _is_ true that expecting the current global warming problem to be solved >by everyone's voluntary efforts is unrealistic.
But saying that people shouldn't bother to make such voluntary efforts as >they can while we are waiting for more concerted action seems to me to be >going too far.
On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 08:06:45 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<[email protected]> wrote:
But saying that people shouldn't bother to make such voluntary efforts as >they can while we are waiting for more concerted action seems to me to be >going too far.
But I didn't say that.
You appeared to have said that. In your later replies to Wsnell, you did note that you do indeed make reasonable personal efforts. But this just gives
him the opportunity to claim you were walking back your previous statements.
I'm willing to accept you didn't express quite what you meant. He will just call you a liar.
On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 7:21:03 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 08:06:45 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<[email protected]> wrote:
But saying that people shouldn't bother to make such voluntary efforts as >> >they can while we are waiting for more concerted action seems to me to be >> >going too far.
But I didn't say that.
You appeared to have said that. In your later replies to Wsnell, you did note >that you do indeed make reasonable personal efforts. But this just gives
him the opportunity to claim you were walking back your previous statements.
I'm willing to accept you didn't express quite what you meant. He will just >call you a liar.
On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 16:21:43 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 7:21:03 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
That's all he ever has. He's just another hateful idiot like Rich.
Based on what you post, it is quite clear that you are the hateful one.
On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 4:59:17 AM UTC-6, W wrote:
Based on what you post, it is quite clear that you are the hateful one.I have noticed a pattern in your conversations here.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 31:45:43 |
| Calls: | 12,109 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,275 |