An Absolutely Brilliant LTTE
I genuinely appreciate sarcasm used artfully in political discourse; the thing is, I don't really have the cojones to pull it off all the way -- I almost always end up backing off of the sarcasm and making it obvious to all but the most oblivious observer that I'm "just kidding".
That's why I think the 3rd letter down at this link to The Idaho Statesman is so great. Check out what Cliff Weisgerber of Hidden Springs has to say about global warming:
Those of you who were convinced to acquiesce to Daylight Savings Time by being told that it was necessary for the farmers — the farmers need that extra hour of sunlight during the summer to get their work done — have now been duped into moving the change up to save energy. More sun per day, less furnace per day, less lighting needs per day. Pretty simple, eh?[Emphasis mine] Brilliant! Considering the number of equally ridiculous letters from non-sarcastic writers that come into the Statesman, this one makes its point quite well, and the writer never does drop out of character. Cliff Weisgerber of Hidden Springs, I salute you!
The problem you are not thinking about here is global warming.
Global warming is nothing other than the planet's response to this additional sunlight each day during the warmer months. Global warming will increase with the recently added weeks of additional sunlight.
Of course, Al Gore likes and supports Daylight Savings Time as he is getting a lot of face time with his campaign for reaction to global warming. He's not about to admit that the human cause in global warming is the government's Daylight Savings Time conspiracy...
(Actually, I did consider the possibility that the letter writer was a complete idiot. However, a quick Google search showed that he'd previously written a letter opposing a local "Family Values" leader, so it was fairly clear that the persona he adopted for this letter was not actually his.)
posted by Bubblehead at 5:07 PM
8 Comments:
Sounds good but the guy actually doesn't understand DST.
The later sunset during DST reduces energy use in the evenings, while the later sunrise doesn't cause (much) more, because the sun is up when normal people wake up whether or not DST is in effect. (Note I say normal people and not poor bastard LTJG EDOs in ERO/DMP dayshift.)
So the net effect is that DST saves energy by moving daylight to the evening hours, when more people are likely to be awake.
3/28/2007 7:17 PM
I agree with "anonymous" above that sarcasm can be a difficult concept to grasp.
RM1/SS
3/29/2007 1:32 PM
I'm leaning toward bonehead. DST doesn't create another hour of sun; that can only be done by Earth's orbit.
3/29/2007 3:50 PM
You probably meant to say rotation vice orbit. However, a little reflection will reveal that changing either one of them won't affect the total hours of sunlight incident upon the Earth (although you could affect the amount of energy delivered by moving the orbit closer to the sun).
However, all of this depends upon you buying in to modern progressive "sphere-like Earth" theories. I know there are some here who will take issue.
-AB
3/29/2007 9:23 PM
Folks, the point was sarcasm, not global warming. However...
the question of more daylight hours must be measured against the rate of cooling during the night. Indeed, the rate of cooling must be slower than the rate of warming during the day or the backside of the planet would be a frozen wasteland each night. Now, DST does not add daylight, but global slowing does. The Earth's rotation has been slowing for millions of years according to the geological record. So, faster warming AND longer days means it gets hotter. Slower cooling means that night cannot balance the effect. Global Slowing is the killer we must face in the coming years. It is imperative that we stop fussing with this CO2 nonsense and figure out a way to speed up the Earth before our grandchildren face 30 hours per day of scorching sun.
RM1/SS
3/30/2007 6:26 AM
RM1/SS
Thank you for stating something I have considered and wondered about for years. Some might think your theory mere sarcasm. No energy is endless and one of the many questions that chould be asked is "Will our rotational energy run out before or after our orbital energy?"
Oh BH, is this discussion an example of the Law of Unintended Consequences?
3/30/2007 9:52 AM
No, I think it's orbit, not rotation. Rotation is a daily event; orbit is yearly. An hour of sunlight comes and goes over a matter of months.
Global slowing; interesting concept, giving rise to the question, is it slowing more at the equator than at the poles?
3/30/2007 1:46 PM
alan,
it depends on how you measure the rate of rotation. If you measure it as rotations per a specific time period, it will slow at the same rate. if you measure it as miles per time period as the Earth's surface passes a fixed point, then yes, the equator would have to slow faster. This also means that it the equator will need to be accelerated more if we are to avoid the need to live in goregeous city-domes.
rm1/ss
3/30/2007 2:15 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home