singende schicksalhaften falken

You’re driving along in your car or truck and suddenly a yellow light illuminates on your dash telling you to check or service your engine. If you’re like most car owners, you have little idea about what that light is trying to tell you or how you should react. What all definitions have in common—either explicitly or implicitly—is the goal of establishing a base upon which the negative effects of artificial nighttime illumination can be categorized. Toward this end, Gallaway’s definition opens us to the broader range of concerns embodied by the contemporary usage of the term—light pollution is not meant to condemn nighttime lighting as a whole, but rather specific uses and outputs of artificial lighting. These negative or undesired aspects of nighttime lighting can be subdivided into four categories: skyglow, glare, light trespass, and clutter.66. These four categories of light pollution are used (although with slightly different terms) by the International Dark-Sky Association, and cited elsewhere as well (e.g. Morgan-Taylor, 2014 Morgan-Taylor, M. (2014). Regulating light pollution in Europe: Legal challenges and ways forward. In J. Meier, U. Hasenöhrl, K. Krause, & M. Pottharst (Eds.), Urban lighting, light pollution and society (pp. 159–176). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. [Google Scholar]). As such, I am accepting these as the standard causes of light pollution.View all notes Skyglow is light sent upward (directly or reflected) and scattered in the atmosphere, causing artificial ambient brightness and decreasing stellar visibility (Mizon, 2012 Mizon, B. (2012). Light pollution: Responses and remedies (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4614-3822-9[Crossref] [Google Scholar]). This is the orange haze often seen above cities, and the largest burden for astronomy. It has also arguably been the dominant focus of efforts to quantify light pollution, as some landmark studies rely on satellite imagery (e.g. Cinzano, Falchi, & Elvidge, 2001 Cinzano, P., Falchi, F., & Elvidge, C. D. (2001). The first world Atlas of the artificial night sky brightness. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 328, 689–707.10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04882.x[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] [Google Scholar]). The other three forms of light pollution are more commonly experienced hinderences in daily life: glare occurs when excessive brightness reduces visibility (e.g. a floodlight at eye level), light trespass is unwanted or unintended light (e.g. light shining into your bedroom window at night), and clutter is caused by over-illuminated clusters of light sources (e.g. signage and advertising) (IDA, 2014 IDA. (2014). International Dark-Sky Association. International Dark-Sky Association. Retrieved 15 January, 2015, from [Google Scholar]; Morgan-Taylor, 2014 Morgan-Taylor, M. (2014). Regulating light pollution in Europe: Legal challenges and ways forward. In J. Meier, U. Hasenöhrl, K. Krause, & M. Pottharst (Eds.), Urban lighting, light pollution and society (pp. 159–176). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. [Google Scholar]). The fourth solution is that the speed of light has decreased since creation week (Norman and Setterfield 1987; Setterfield 1989). This is often called “cdk” for “c decay,” where “c” is the letter that physicists usually use to represent the speed of light. Undoubtedly, this solution has sparked the hottest debate amongst recent creationists. When the possibility that light might have decreased was first proposed in the creation literature three decades ago, it was immediately met with great interest. However, much of the early interest soon turned to opposition. Opponents do not believe that the data adequately support this hypothesis; supporters do. Opponents point out that any significant change in the speed of light would alter the structure of matter that ought to be visible in distant objects. Supporters agree, but argue that other factors have changed to compensate for this. There is a great divide on this solution, and we will not discuss this controversy anymore here. You’re driving home from work one day when the car owner’s worst nightmare happens: the check engine light pops on. It comes without warning and with no explanation. For most drivers, this means a trip to the mechanic, but it’s not difficult to diagnose (and sometimes fix) yourself. In the attic there are three switches. Each switch controls one of the lights in the basement. In addition, many homes have poor ventilation and fuel-based lighting poses serious debilitating health hazards such as respiratory and eye problems. In developing nations, acute respiratory infection, influenza and pneumonia kill nearly two million children annually. Tell us about problems with street lights, pedestrian crossings or illuminated bollards: Your Check Engine Light may be indicating a simple problem that’s easy to fix – such as a loose gas cap. Or, it could be a warning of a more serious problem that could damage your engine components. Finding out why your light is on now can save you money and trouble down the road. With our novel question in mind, we must then ask how the concept of light pollution frames current challenges and associated ethical questions, and what actions it will guide us toward. However, it is pertinent to first clarify the notion of ‘framing’. Here, I use the term broadly to describe the conceptual lens through which problems will be defined and perceived, and through which solutions will be posed. Frames are helpful in crystallizing and formulating a problem, but in doing so also set the boundaries of possibility on potential solutions. In Frame Innovation (2015 Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. Cambridge: The MIT Press. [Google Scholar]), Dorst explains a method of design thinking used to overcome seemingly intractable real-world problems, dubbed the ‘frame creation model’. Building on the linguistic research of Lakoff and Johnson (1980 Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We live by. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]), Dorst explains that frames may be simple phrases, but in reality are subtle and complex thought tools. ‘Proposing a frame includes the use of certain concepts, which are assigned significance and meaning. These concepts are not neutral at all: they will steer explorations and perceptions in the process of creation’ (2015 Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. Cambridge: The MIT Press. [Google Scholar], p. 63). A good frame should be inspiring, original, robust, and create a common space for finding solutions. And once accepted, a frame will define the parameters of possibility. ‘Once frames are accepted, they become the context for routine behavior: once accepted, the frame immediately begins to fade. Statements that started life as original frames become limiting rationalities in themselves, holding back new developments’ (Dorst, 2015 Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. Cambridge: The MIT Press. [Google Scholar], p. 65). Jason Lisle’s 2010 paper published in the Answers Research Journal (meaning, despite his apparent confidence in its explanatory power and his doctoral education in astrophysics, that he was unwilling to submit to peer review – any ideas as to why?) aims to solve the starlight problem by taking advantage of a quirk of physics–it isn’t certain, after 70 years of discussion, whether a “one way” speed of light can be measured or is a convention. Lisle thus proposes that light traveling towards the Earth does so at an infinite speed while light traveling the other way goes at half the measured speed; which is not original to him. Thus it becomes possible for light to arrive from distant stars in line with the 6000-year chronology of young Earth creationism (and equally well, or perhaps even better, with Bertrand Russell’s deliberately ridiculous five minutes ago hypothesis) even though we still measure the speed of light as a fairly lumbering 299,792,458 m/s. Studies suggest that light pollution around lakes prevents zooplankton, such as Daphnia, from eating surface algae, causing algal blooms that can kill off the lakes’ plants and lower water quality.[55] Light pollution may also affect ecosystems in other ways. For example, lepidopterists and entomologists have documented that nighttime light may interfere with the ability of moths and other nocturnal insects to navigate.[56] Night-blooming flowers that depend on moths for pollination may be affected by night lighting, as there is no replacement pollinator that would not be affected by the artificial light. This can lead to species decline of plants that are unable to reproduce, and change an area’s longterm ecology.[57] Among nocturnal insects, fireflies (Coleoptera: Lampyridae, Phengodidae e Elateridae) are especially interesting study objects for light pollution, once they depend on their own light to reproduce and, consequently, are very sensitive to environmental levels of light.[58][59][60] In 2015 it was shown and quantified for the first time the negative effects of direct illumination on fireflies, in a study that monitored populations over four years.[61] Fireflies are charismatic [62] (which is a rare quality among insects) and are easily spotted by nonexperts, providing thus good flagship species to attract public attention;[61] good investigation models for the effects of light on nocturnal wildlife;[61] and finally, due to their sensibility and rapid response to environmental changes, good bioindicators for artificial night lighting.[63] vigrx erogran Zevs Testogen BeMass eracto Celuraid Muscle el macho Testo Ultra Atlant Gel