Daylight Savings Question
Connie S Chin
Hi everyone, since this weekend was Daylight Savings time, it brought
up a question that has been bothering for awhile now.
Why dont we fall back in the spring and "spring ahead" in the fall.
Wouldn't this cause the sunrise and sunset to be about the same time each
year?
Check it out. In the Summer the sun sets at around 8 pm. But if we did
move the clock back then the sun would set at 6 pm. (The reason for the 2
hour difference is 1 hour back, and take off the hour that is already
there)
Now in the winter time the sun sets around 4pm but if we move the clocks
ahead then it would set at around 6pm then. Wouldn't this be a better
idea? I understand that people want to see more sun in the summer etc.
What do you all think?
Thanks
Dan Krislov
csc...@is6.nyu.edu (Connie S Chin) wrote:
>
SNIP
>Now in the winter time the sun sets around 4pm but if we move the clocks
>ahead then it would set at around 6pm then. Wouldn't this be a better
>idea? I understand that people want to see more sun in the summer etc.
>What do you all think?
This was tried in the early '70s as an energy-saving measure, but was
quickly abandoned. The problem was that it was still quite dark when
kids were still on their way to school. Not surprisingly, parents
didn't like the combination of icy driving conditions and kids out in
the dark. Likewise, if you set the clock back in the spring, sunrise
would be around 4:30-5:00 a.m. No thanks.
Ron Hunsinger
In article <6gaui0$qg2$1...@news.nyu.edu>, csc...@is6.nyu.edu (Connie S Chin)
wrote:
> Hi everyone, since this weekend was Daylight Savings time, it brought
> up a question that has been bothering for awhile now.
> Why dont we fall back in the spring and "spring ahead" in the fall.
> Wouldn't this cause the sunrise and sunset to be about the same time each
> year?
> Check it out. In the Summer the sun sets at around 8 pm. But if we did
> move the clock back then the sun would set at 6 pm. (The reason for the 2
> hour difference is 1 hour back, and take off the hour that is already
> there)
> Now in the winter time the sun sets around 4pm but if we move the clocks
> ahead then it would set at around 6pm then. Wouldn't this be a better
> idea? I understand that people want to see more sun in the summer etc.
> What do you all think?
The idea of Daylight Savings is to keep *sunrise* at about the same time,
not sunset.
In the summertime, sunrise comes earlier and sunset later. At the equinox
(and ignoring the lightbending done by the atmosphere), sunrise-sunset is
6am-6pm.
How much that's affected by season depends on your latitude. Suppose you're
at a latitude where it changes by an hour. That means in the summer
daylight stretches to 5am-7pm, and in the winter it shrinks to 7am-5pm. You
have two extra hours of daylight in the summer, and two fewer hours of
daylight in the winter.
In the summer, people will stay up later to enjoy that extra hour of
daylight before sunset, but they won't (unless tricked into doing so) get
up any earlier than they have to. That means they sleep through the extra
hour of daylight in the morning.
With Daylight Savings, you spring forward an hour throughout the summer.
Daylight still stretches from 5am-7pm, but because your clocks have been
adjusted it *seems* to stretch from 6am-8pm. Instead of having an extra
hour of daylight in the morning and an extra hour in the evening, you wind
up with both extra hours in the evening, where they will be enjoyed.
-Ron Hunsinger
Karl Brace
Connie S Chin wrote:
>
> Hi everyone, since this weekend was Daylight Savings time, it brought
> up a question that has been bothering for awhile now.
> Why dont we fall back in the spring and "spring ahead" in the fall.
> Wouldn't this cause the sunrise and sunset to be about the same time each
> year?
While your alternative would indeed keep the sunset at about the same
time, as the days get longer the sun would RISE earlier and earlier as
summer approaches. For example, sunrise in Boston on June 21st would
be at 4:07 AM if we stayed on standard time, but thanks to daylight
savings time sunrise moves to 5:07 AM. This is still mighty early,
but your alternative would cause the sun to come up at 3:07 AM! All
that wasted sunlight at a time when people are sleeping!
One big reason for daylight savings time is for a stronger economy.
Economist make a lot of mistakes, but this is an easy one to get right:
When people have extra daylight in the evening, they spend more money.
They go out more, they plan activities for the early evening, and they
extend their day out a little bit longer. The result is more consumer
spending, more jobs, and increased government revenues.
Karl Brace
t.r.mcloughlin
Connie S Chin wrote:
>
> Hi everyone, since this weekend was Daylight Savings time, it brought
> up a question that has been bothering for awhile now.
> Why dont we fall back in the spring and "spring ahead" in the fall.
> Wouldn't this cause the sunrise and sunset to be about the same time each
> year?
Ask yourself what would happen to the time of sunrise,
and then go and search a newspaper archive to see what
the reaction in the U.S. was in the early 1970s when,
due to the oil crisis, the US flirted with extending
daylight savings time.
Quick answer: It was too dark in the morning, and people
were concerned about school children going to school in
the dark.
trm
Hugh Gibbons
In article <hnsngr-ya0231800...@news.sirius.com>,
hns...@sirius.com (Ron Hunsinger) wrote:
! With Daylight Savings, you spring forward an hour throughout the summer.
! Daylight still stretches from 5am-7pm, but because your clocks have been
! adjusted it *seems* to stretch from 6am-8pm. Instead of having an extra
! hour of daylight in the morning and an extra hour in the evening, you wind
! up with both extra hours in the evening, where they will be enjoyed.
Daylight savings is still a bad savings plan. You borrow an hour from the
spring and get it back in the fall, but you get NO INTEREST for several
months of living on borrowed time.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I've sworn off being obnoxious. No, I mean it this time.
<ShaDly>
I think the whole thing is stupid and confuses the masses. Why don't we just
leave it alone, and get used to the way it is supposed to be?
Hugh Gibbons
In article <6h0fb4$cc1$1@nnrp1>, "<ShaDly>" <sha...@swbell.net> wrote:
! I think the whole thing is stupid and confuses the masses. Why don't we just
! leave it alone, and get used to the way it is supposed to be?
Does the way it's supposed to be include getting up hours before sunrise
in the winter and hours after sunrise in the summer?
Jim Esler
Hugh Gibbons wrote:
>
> In article <6h0fb4$cc1$1@nnrp1>, "<ShaDly>" <sha...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> ! I think the whole thing is stupid and confuses the masses. Why don't we just
> ! leave it alone, and get used to the way it is supposed to be?
>
> Does the way it's supposed to be include getting up hours before sunrise
> in the winter and hours after sunrise in the summer?
The clock is purely an artificial human invention. There is nothing
natural about it. The natural thing for us to do is to get up at
sunrise and go to bed at sunset. This is easy for the masses to
understand, and it needs no industrial complex or technology to support
it. It may get a bit awkward to sell this in Lapland, though.
Jim Esler
cjc...@alum.mit.edu
In article <3534C2...@cdc.com>,
And no technology or industrial complex could exist without it. If I want
to talk to you at 2:00 PM tomorrow... how do we do that without a clock?
How does anyone coordinate anything with anyone else? Anyway, a
clock isn't stopping anyone from getting up at sunrise and going to bed
at sunset if they want to.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Ken Nelson
hgibbons@_remove_stic.net (Hugh Gibbons) writes:
>In article <6h0fb4$cc1$1@nnrp1>, "<ShaDly>" <sha...@swbell.net> wrote:
>! I think the whole thing is stupid and confuses the masses. Why don't we just
>! leave it alone, and get used to the way it is supposed to be?
>Does the way it's supposed to be include getting up hours before sunrise
>in the winter and hours after sunrise in the summer?
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>I've sworn off being obnoxious. No, I mean it this time.
I propose the following: daylight saving time in winter and regular time
in summer. That way it will be cooler when we go to bed in summer and
warmer when we get up in the winter saving energy.
regards ken
Hugh Gibbons
! Hugh Gibbons wrote:
! >
! > In article <6h0fb4$cc1$1@nnrp1>, "<ShaDly>" <sha...@swbell.net> wrote:
! >
! > ! I think the whole thing is stupid and confuses the masses. Why don't
we just
! > ! leave it alone, and get used to the way it is supposed to be?
! >
! > Does the way it's supposed to be include getting up hours before sunrise
! > in the winter and hours after sunrise in the summer?
!
! The clock is purely an artificial human invention. There is nothing
! natural about it. The natural thing for us to do is to get up at
! sunrise and go to bed at sunset. This is easy for the masses to
! understand, and it needs no industrial complex or technology to support
! it. It may get a bit awkward to sell this in Lapland, though.
It's very true what you say, but modern industrial society relies on people
agreeing on what time it is, working certain hours, etc. Better a
time system that makes some adjustment to the seasons than one that
makes none at all.
Hugh Gibbons
In article <ErH32...@iglou.com>, k...@iglou2.iglou.com (Ken Nelson) wrote:
! hgibbons@_remove_stic.net (Hugh Gibbons) writes:
!
! >In article <6h0fb4$cc1$1@nnrp1>, "<ShaDly>" <sha...@swbell.net> wrote:
!
! >! I think the whole thing is stupid and confuses the masses. Why don't
we just
! >! leave it alone, and get used to the way it is supposed to be?
!
! >Does the way it's supposed to be include getting up hours before sunrise
! >in the winter and hours after sunrise in the summer?
!
! >* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
! >I've sworn off being obnoxious. No, I mean it this time.
!
! I propose the following: daylight saving time in winter and regular time
! in summer. That way it will be cooler when we go to bed in summer and
! warmer when we get up in the winter saving energy.
You have it half-backward. If we had dst in the winter, we would get up an
hour earlier than we do now, when it is REALLY dark. In the summer we
would get up very late in the morning and go to bed late in the evening,
so it *would* be cooler.
Bryan Costin
Jim Esler wrote in message <3534C2...@cdc.com>...
>Hugh Gibbons wrote:
>>
>> In article <6h0fb4$cc1$1@nnrp1>, "<ShaDly>" <sha...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> ! I think the whole thing is stupid and confuses the masses. Why don't we
just
>> ! leave it alone, and get used to the way it is supposed to be?
>>
>> Does the way it's supposed to be include getting up hours before sunrise
>> in the winter and hours after sunrise in the summer?
>
>The clock is purely an artificial human invention. There is nothing
>natural about it. The natural thing for us to do is to get up at
>sunrise and go to bed at sunset. This is easy for the masses to
>understand, and it needs no industrial complex or technology to support
>it. It may get a bit awkward to sell this in Lapland, though.
Natural for whom, exactly? I work second-shift, which means I usually go to
bed at about 1:30AM and wake up at noon. Except on Fridays, when I work
9am-5pm, since we close early that day. And on weekends, when I determine my
own schedule. My body generally doesn't seem to care when I go to bed or
wake up, so long as there's adequate time in between. I hardly think that I
am unique in this respect.
Frankly, I agree with the spirit of the original post. There are lots of
places which don't observe DST at all, and somehow their residents struggle
through without any apparent ill effects. It's a confusing and silly
practice that no longer serves any useful purpose (if it indeed ever did.)
-Bryan
Carl Fink
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998 01:18:22 -0400, Bryan Costin
<bcostin@*nospam*clark.net> wrote:
> . . . There are lots of
>places which don't observe DST at all, and somehow their residents struggle
>through without any apparent ill effects. It's a confusing and silly
>practice that no longer serves any useful purpose (if it indeed ever did.)
You are aware that this is a non sequitur?
"It's possible to survive without it, therefore it's useless." Like,
say, books?
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
Maybe you should get a Sherlock Holmes outfit to disguise the fact that
you have no clue. --Scott Adams