![]() |
| This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Monday, October 16, 2017
Types of light pollution
Wednesday, July 19, 2017
When church lighting goes wrong
Stralsund Germany at night observed from the @NASANPP satellite. Marienkirche is located at the right border of the crosshair. pic.twitter.com/RQlJzUKxrq
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) July 19, 2017
Instead of seeing the Milky Way preserved over the (otherwise) UNESCO World Heritage city, you see these parallel lines in the sky. pic.twitter.com/bMLuLTvNo0
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) July 19, 2017
The dark lines are the shadow of the church(es), the bright parts are light that simply missed the church(es). Sankt Jakobi in this photo. pic.twitter.com/FJ07euEg9v
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) July 19, 2017
In addition to shining into the sky, the floodlights hit nearby trees, very likely causing them stress (1/2). pic.twitter.com/zZtkywOI6o
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) July 19, 2017
And attracting (and probably killing) uncounted insects every summer night (2/2). pic.twitter.com/7hp3BvzsGS
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) July 19, 2017
The glaring lamps are no picnic for pedestrians either. pic.twitter.com/YuGN65fQxr
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) July 19, 2017
And the total amount of light is also a lot more than is needed to attractively light the facade. pic.twitter.com/VIfYaov04h
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) July 19, 2017
It doesn't have to be this way. With more clever luminaires, it would be possible to light the facade only, and bring back the Milky Way! pic.twitter.com/omJ4PMCB3p
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) July 19, 2017
Friday, July 14, 2017
Great observation from Portugal
As you can see, there is a very clear separation (white line) between the stars that were visible (yellow, orange, and brown) and those that were not (black). You can also see how thanks to the observer examining so many stars, you can have a lot of confidence in the result, and can even measure how consistent the observer's result is. When you first start using the app, you might not have results as consistent as this, but with a bit of practice it becomes easier and easier to cover a lot of stars quickly.
This also demonstrates why the app is a better method for estimating limiting magnitude in bright places than star chart based methods like Globe at Night. In this case, the naked eye limiting magnitude was around 3.9 ± 0.1. The star charts of Globe at Night only allow you to choose between integer limiting magnitudes, which in this case would be "about 4". In addition, with Globe at Night we can't be sure how careful a participant is, and we found that compared to skyglow models, the standard deviation of Globe at Night observations is about 1.2 magnitudes.
While the app can provide more accurate data, I want to stress that it's not a replacement for Globe at Night! The app doesn't include stars with limiting magnitudes above about 5.2, so in areas with little light pollution, Globe at Night is a better method. In addition, the Globe at Night time series goes back over 10 years, and there is therefore a lot of value in continuing to contribute to it. In my opinion, it's the best system we have for tracking global changes in skyglow. So please consider contributing to both projects!
If you make an observation with the app, you can easily see a similar plot for your own results. Just head to My Sky at Night, zoom in to the area where you made your observation, and click on it to bring up this chart.
Monday, March 27, 2017
Unnecessary light on a field
![]() |
| This work by Andrej Mohar is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
The photo shows the light spread from single 20W 4000K LED that was recently installed. The lamp itself is designed to have no direct upward emissions (which is good), but much of the light is shining into an area which doesn't need to be illuminated (which is very bad), and even the area that is intended to be illuminated happens to be a region of very low traffic. It is so out of character for the region it is installed in, that at least two people in the nearby village have already officially complained about it.
In these sorts of cases, it doesn't matter how efficiently the lamp converts electricity into visible light. The light itself is unnecessary, so it is an inefficient use of electrical resources.
Thursday, March 23, 2017
Milky Way and Skyglow from the Fürstein
![]() |
| Fürstein 360 Panorama v2 by Martin Würzer is available under a CC BY-NC-SA license |
He took the photo on New Year's Day 2017 around 8 pm, from the peak of the Fürstein. The light from Milan is visible at the far left. It's an amazing photo, and you can see it in full resolution by clicking on the name of the photo in the caption above.
Martin also sent me this image, which shows where at least some of that waste light is coming from:
![]() |
| Illuminated facade by Martin Würzer is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.. |
That photo was taken shortly before 3 am! There is some good news associated with this photo, however. By having a polite discussion with the architect and the firm that owns the building, Martin convinced them to remove the light that illuminates the facade, and to also improve the other lamps so that they produce less skyglow. Great job Martin!
For Swiss and other German speaking readers, Martin provided two useful references:
Friday, March 17, 2017
Spotlight on air
| Misdirected floodlamp by Martin Morgan-Taylor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. |
There are some flower beds nearby, but if they are meant to illuminate the flowers they are pointed in the wrong direction! (Incidentally, surely only someone who hates fireflies, glowworms, and other nocturnal insects would do such a thing, no?)
The design is such that the lamps will produce a lot of glare, making vision in the area worse. At the same time, about half of the light emitted is going to go up into the sky, producing skyglow.
One final, but really important point: It does not matter how "efficient" this lamp is in lumens/Watt. Almost none of the light produced by this lamp will assist humans with a visual task, so the true efficiency in the commonsense meaning of the word is near zero.
Wednesday, March 8, 2017
Tweetstorm about light pollution and citizen science
Why we can only track global changes in skyglow using citizen science. A tweetstorm by @skyglowberlin, submitted for publication on Twitter.— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) March 8, 2017
First: what is skyglow? It's the artificial brightening of the night sky, due to artificial light. (Image from: https://t.co/6Yb1dzj7gv) pic.twitter.com/Lgsd2YWbbr
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) March 8, 2017
On clear nights the scatter is from aerosols (dust, smoke, haze) and molecules (N2, O2). So more haze often means more skyglow.
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) March 8, 2017
Because of this, the cloudy night sky can be hundreds of times brighter than a starlit sky far from cities. https://t.co/zl7LIIh1yT
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) March 8, 2017
Before we had artificial light, clouds made the sky darker, just like they do in daytime.
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) March 8, 2017
The amount of light on an overcast night is astounding. In my smallish German town that's not brightly lit, I can read books by it.
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) March 8, 2017
Predators can use the extra light to hunt, prey are way more exposed when trying to forage or mate.
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) March 8, 2017
IF skyglow has an ecological effect it will be most dramatic on overcast nights. https://t.co/1kE5Or5JE8
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) March 8, 2017
Why "IF"? We don't know?
For example, we know that there are all kinds of behavioral changes near lights. But do these result in ecological changes?
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) March 8, 2017
Even that's hard, because you must track individuals over several years. Thankfully, there are some experiments now: https://t.co/GtrlryQ269
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) March 8, 2017
We are currently performing the first-ever controlled experiment on ecological impact of skyglow: https://t.co/6U0K2yG3bc pic.twitter.com/oCJWEeedAb
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) March 8, 2017
@skyglowberlin Incidentally, phys/eng @AndreasJechow designed and led the implementation of the system, you probably want to follow him.
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) March 8, 2017
We've documented how a large fraction of the Earth's land surface is affected by skyglow on clear nights: https://t.co/Ta0Rqb4MeC
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) March 8, 2017
So that's the end of the introduction. Now we come to how we measure skyglow.
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) March 8, 2017
Pretty much everyone should be familiar with the famous satellite images of Earth at night. pic.twitter.com/l0Yasi7chg
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) March 8, 2017
First: the satellite sees light heading up into space, not down to the ground. That's kind of an important difference...
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) March 8, 2017
This is because the distance to the top of the atmosphere is way larger if you travel horizontally than if you head straight upward.
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) March 8, 2017
This is huge, because a change in lamp design (for example to LED) can nearly completely eliminate horizontal light.
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) March 8, 2017
But ONLY if you buy good LEDs & install correctly. There are plenty of crappy LEDs that still direct light upwards, and many are glaring. pic.twitter.com/vqt37z0msA
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) March 8, 2017
The only satellite that observes night light globally (@NASANPP ) is COMPLETELY BLIND to blue light (<500 nm).
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) March 8, 2017
That's a disaster for two reasons:
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) March 8, 2017
1) "White" LEDs have a lot of blue
2) The clear sky scatters blue light the best (i.e. the sky is blue) pic.twitter.com/8yQH019Mu1
So we need to measure skyglow from the ground. Lots of scientists are doing this. The most common device is the "Sky Quality Meter" pic.twitter.com/irDoaag8UJ
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) March 8, 2017
The SQM has spectral problems as well, particularly for LED switch as recently detailed by @pmisson et al.: https://t.co/0luP5fRQWV
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) March 8, 2017
One problem is the color switch with LEDs, but let's leave that aside (eventually color stabilizes, and you can track changes again).
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) March 8, 2017
Imagine if every single lamp in Berlin were changed (or turned off). I'd notice almost no difference in nearby Potsdam (~20 km distant)...
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) March 8, 2017
So while records from professionally maintained stations are great, they only tell us about changes in a handful of places (say ~200).
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) March 8, 2017
If we want to understand how skyglow is changing GLOBALLY, we need globally distributed observations. Here's where #citizenscience comes in.
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) March 8, 2017
You don't need expensive instruments to take part, you just need eyes and an Internet connection to take part in @GLOBEatNight.
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) March 8, 2017
.@GLOBEatNight works by getting people to say how many stars they can see, compared to several star charts. pic.twitter.com/st34VYvZzY
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) March 8, 2017
Tens of thousands of people have taken part, but unfortunately participation is dropping right as we are switching globally to LEDs! pic.twitter.com/ffGe8dG2kP
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) March 8, 2017
Each given individual @GLOBEatNight observation isn't very accurate. But the data are highly accurate in aggregate: https://t.co/g7ge6h9pAo pic.twitter.com/Knk2hRT2RD
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) March 8, 2017
1) Make cities track #lightpollution as part of environmental monitoring.
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) March 8, 2017
2) Massive global monitoring by citizen scientists.
It's also possible to improve accuracy of visual observations by using the Loss of the Night app, but only in cities https://t.co/kt14p5r0sf pic.twitter.com/QI0OjXP2Ap
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) March 8, 2017
Thank you editors of Twitter for reading my submission. I hope it will be accepted for publication
— Christopher Kyba (@skyglowberlin) March 8, 2017
(RT #FirstTweet https://t.co/hnEcFSCJHg)




