Astronomy C‑class High‑importance
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment B‑class

This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Here's a list of possible things that the article might benefit from, in no particular order:

1. Remove the liberal bias from the article. Oh wait, you wouldn't have an article without that...

Reality has a liberal bias. Not necessarily for things that only affect relations between humans (whether murder should be illegal or not, whether kookoo libertarians should let legal heroin stores open in front of schools or not, guns, abortion, gay marriage..) but definitely for environmental things. The conservative track record is very bad on that. And don't say liberal is tree hugging people that want no wood to be used ever and think the tree's spirit speaks to them, the average liberal's nothing like that.

Feel welcome to edit the list, of course. Izogi 23:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Endocrine reviews doi:10.1210/er.2013-1051 JFW | T@lk 12:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

The web page listed in the resources links http://www.need-less.org.uk/ is no longer live.

http://www.hillarys.co.uk/skyglow/ is a good substitute for an interactive lightmap of the UK.

Luke

Not done: Link is not dead. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "A similar image from 2012 illustrating the growth in light pollution." However, according to the images as they are show, it makes it appear as though light pollution has been reduced in the last decade. If this is just a result of the images having different filters applied coming from different sources, this needs to be pointed out. Tar-Elessar (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have my doubts about the second image. I don't think they're backwards - I think the second image is just wrong (that is, it's not indicative of light pollution). Australia's population is heavy dominated in along the eastern seaboard. The light sources in the middle of Western Australia are quite erroneous (there is just no population to speak of at all where those light sources are. According to the NASA website, they are likely wildfires (bushfires)). If there's no further information, I'm going to remove the second image, as it doesn't show us anything about light pollution.

peterl (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct as needed, the depiction of N.America shows as if light pollution has gone down, which (i think?) is not the case. Also, in case any one wonders the original source for the pictures; Pic1 : http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=55167 & Pic2 : http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=79765, according to the first source, "This image of Earth’s city lights was created with data from the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) Operational Linescan System (OLS). Originally designed to view clouds by moonlight, the OLS is also used to map the locations of permanent lights on the Earth’s surface."; and according to the second source, "The nighttime view of Earth was made possible by the “day-night band” of the Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite. VIIRS detects light in a range of wavelengths from green to near-infrared and uses filtering techniques to observe dim signals such as gas flares, auroras, wildfires, city lights, and reflected moonlight." I dont think both of them are comparable. Akash (talk) 05:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question that these images are not comparable, as noted above. I am familiar with both satellites, have published research using data from both DMSP and VIIRS. Cluginbuhl (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]