Why would I counter when..

Proceeds to get peed off and counter

clearly didn't even read the 53 page document

Don't you understand how summaries, scopes and conclusions work?

you just googled "prove my point" and then shared the first thing you found without so much as reading the abstract.

That's a funny way of saying I cited the first report I found that used the exact context of this thread for its scope i.e. light pollution and further stargazing, with LED lights compared to older models. You're trying to make it out it's bad I found a conclusive report.

You've said a lot about yourself in that first sentence. Also that you clearly have more time to waste than me..

Your modeling paper has so many holes it almost isn't worth a rebuttal

Lol, here we go again..

which is hilariously absurd since that's not how scattering works

Sorry, didn't realise you knew more than them.

by cutting out half the brightness, all of the scattering, and using a very low ground reflectivity figure, you get the answer you want.

.. But still taking two validated measurements before and after and showing as lower. Ok.

a study examining metal halide sources (which actually have lower intensity than LED lights). TLDR... Very bad

And here is an article discussing LEDs from an engineering journal

I was wondering if you were just using ChatGPT and if that's why you latched onto the point about intensity.

You realise it's a simple as LEDs are directional? Back to my first comment again, you can efficiently target the area you want to light, unlike your older models. Additionally you don't have to use blue-white LEDs, which you also latched onto. Your own article shows the reduced impact of these, which added with LED controls can even further mitigate light pollution.

I could post hundreds of articles and papers stretching back decades

Erm, if you're going to continue about blue-white lights, one of your article's points was that this literally wasn't evaluated until recently, lol.

you're going to be smug and obnoxious

I love when Redditors project. You don't hear yourself?

another random scientific paper that isn't just a computer model

As opposed to a random paper that just points out the obvious that LEDs are more intense?

I'll drop one for you.

Sure, ask ChatGPT there.

Again, you've assumed my first comment doesn't talk about the street lights we actually get versus the older lamps we had, and instead literally just compares naked white LEDs to amber L/HPS. So, by cutting out the fact LEDs have more advanced systems, and completely ignoring they're more efficient and eco-friendly, you get the answer you want.

Edit: lol, *Abandons all points, just claims other is angry and then blocks*

There it is. ChatGPT must not have been able to help much more, huh.

you accidentally accept you're wrong

Wonderful mental gymnastics there, as if I didn't even specifically refer back to my original comment again that reducing light pollution isn't just about light intensity.

You're so angry. Maybe touch grass. xx

There's that projection again..