On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 05:30:32 -0700 (PDT), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
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 <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> 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.

On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 15:58:18 -0700 (PDT), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
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 <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>> 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 7:08:36 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 15:58:18 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> 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 <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> >> 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.

Nope. Losers assume the best case and become misled. As we see with you.

On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 7:55:04 PM 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.

The "saved energy" will be used somewhere else, in this case probably to create more light pollution.

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 reduce
> > carbon dioxide emissions, thus avoiding catastrophic climate
> > change.

> Ridiculous.

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.

John Savard

On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 8:59:29 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> 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 reduce
> > > carbon dioxide emissions, thus avoiding catastrophic climate
> > > change.
> > Ridiculous.
>
> 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.

I had to Google up the study, given that Stephen Colbert 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.

John Savard

On Fri, 5 Aug 2022 17:46:23 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
wrote:

>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 <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>> 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.
>
>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 10:59:29 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

> 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.

That video is too long to wade through. What is the timestamp of the (ir)relevant dialogue?

On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 11:22:23 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

> 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.

Since the science isn't "settled" on this, perhaps we should not look to late-night TV "comedians" for dietary advice?

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 <rande...@gmail.com>
> 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

On Tue, 9 Aug 2022 18:17:16 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

>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 <rande...@gmail.com>
>> 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.

(And actually, a modern 750 W power supply uses less power when it's
at low load than an old 150 W one did. A modern computer is much more
efficient than one from 20 or 30 years ago, only using the additional
power when it's demanded.)

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 <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
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 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 <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> 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 talking about this stuff for a long time. Why have you not eliminated your fossil fuel use?

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 <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> 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.

John Savard

On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 3:17:42 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> 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.

And I identified an example of it.
> But there is also such a thing as trying to intimidate people to prevent them
> from calling awareness to the global warming problem.

Except that is not what was intended here. However, if you or peterson do feel intimidated, then progress is being made.

There are plenty of people in the world who are using far less fossil fuel than either you or peterson. Do not presume to tell any of them that they need to cut back.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 07:30:51 -0700 (PDT), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
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 <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>> 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 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.

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 <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> 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 <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> >> 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 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.

And before we start passing laws that mostly affect those who don't contribute much to a "problem" anyway, first we must insist that those who DO contribute greatly to the problem (that would be YOU) practice what they preach.. That is, they must use MUCH LESS even in the absence of laws that would require the use of less.

On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 06:37:42 -0700 (PDT), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>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 <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>> 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 <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>> >> 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 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.

No, it is not possible.

>>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.

I do what I can to minimize my ecological footprint. Which is all
anybody should be doing.

>>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.

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 5:11:12 AM UTC-6, W wrote:
> Do not presume to tell any of them that they need to cut back.

If, objectively, current carbon dioxide productioin will have catastrophic
consequences, then "presumption" is not involved.

John Savard

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.

While government rationing, so that people who use less energy won't
have to compete with people who use more energy, might indeed be needed,
it isn't the main reason why a collective response would be far more effective.

Currently, we don't really have enough choices as to where we get our
energy from. I don't think it's proven that touchy-feely sources like wind and
solar can produce the amount of energy we want without using up far too
much land to be acceptable. But we have other choices.

For cars: we can use *methyl* alcohol as fuel. Unlike ethyl alcohol, that can
be made from grass, sawdust, corn husks, and so on, thus it can be produced
without competing with food production. But that means that cars that run
on methyl alcohol have to be manufactured, and gas stations need to carry
that kind of fuel.

For electricity - every fossil fuel burning electrical power plant needs to be
shut down. Wind and solar won't achieve that goal all by themselves. But
we have a proven way to produce electricity that's carbon free that is
capable of being expanded to produce as much energy as we are likely to
want. Nuclear power, including breeder reactors. Including fuel reprocessing.

Nobody would really have to make sacrifices, to cut back drastically on
energy use. Instead, the amount of carbon produced by energy use would be
reduced to be close to zero.

Of course, it's been claimed that this wouldn't be enough; we _also_ have to
cut back on how much meat we eat. I certainly hope that solutions can be
found here that avoid the need to take such action; instead, we need to make
it possible for everyone in the world to enjoy the same kind of diet that North
Americans enjoy. Sustainably!

Maybe more chicken, or more fish, and less beef? After all, it's methane that's
the problem from meat production, and perhaps not all meat-bearing animals
release methane to the extent that cattle do.

John Savard

On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 07:23:22 -0700 (PDT), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>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.

Too stupid and dogmatic to waste my time with.