Daylight Savings Time (2022): Once And For All!!!

[tradephoric]

Well then don't sleep past 7:15.

When did we get the idea that the clock should adjust to our sleep schedules rather than the other way around?

The reality is there is a percentage of Bostonians who wake up at 8:15AM each morning, and that percentage won't change very much regardless if Boston is on standard time or Daylight Saving Time.  Along the East Coast people's sleep schedules are largely dictated by when they need to get up for work/school.  But with the country on permanent DST, those Bostonians who do wake up at 8:15AM each morning now maximize their waking hours of heat generating daylight during the winter.

Now if you live in the Great Plains, the position of the sun can play a key factor to your sleep schedule.  There are only so many hours of daylight each day, and if you are a farmer and got to get so much done before the sun goes down, you get up when the sun tells you.  The difference between East Coast/Great Plain bedtimes is shown pretty clearly on this map. 

[kphoger]

Daylight saving time in the winter ... gives people back waking hours of daylight.

Nope.  If it's dark when I get up instead of light, then I didn't gain any "waking hours of daylight" at all.

For what it's worth, I don't think I know a single person in my area who has the luxury of sleeping in past 7 am.

[NWI_Irish96]

Well then don't sleep past 7:15.

When did we get the idea that the clock should adjust to our sleep schedules rather than the other way around?

The reality is there is a percentage of Bostonians who wake up at 8:15AM each morning, and that percentage won't change very much regardless if Boston is on standard time or Daylight Saving Time.  Along the East Coast people's sleep schedules are largely dictated by when they need to get up for work/school.  But with the country on permanent DST, those Bostonians who do wake up at 8:15AM each morning now maximize their waking hours of heat generating daylight during the winter.

Now if you live in the Great Plains, the position of the sun can play a key factor to your sleep schedule.  There are only so many hours of daylight each day, and if you are a farmer and got to get so much done before the sun goes down, you get up when the sun tells you.  The difference between East Coast/Great Plain bedtimes is shown pretty clearly on this map. 

I don't think the entire country should be subjected to permanent DST because some Bostonians are too lazy to get out of bed before 8am.

[NWI_Irish96]

Daylight saving time in the winter ... gives people back waking hours of daylight.

Nope.  If it's dark when I get up instead of light, then I didn't gain any "waking hours of daylight" at all.

For what it's worth, I don't think I know a single person in my area who has the luxury of sleeping in past 7 am.

Yeah, I don't know what kind of life people have who can sleep past 8am regularly. Must not have school aged kids, must not have jobs that require starting before 9:30.

Even if you don't have to get up before 8am, there's nothing that says you can't. You can choose to go to bed at 11pm and get up at 7am and have an extra hour of daylight. If you don't want to do that, then I guess that extra hour of daylight isn't important.

[tradephoric]

Daylight saving time in the winter ... gives people back waking hours of daylight.

Nope.  If it's dark when I get up instead of light, then I didn't gain any "waking hours of daylight" at all.

For what it's worth, I don't think I know a single person in my area who has the luxury of sleeping in past 7 am.

I agree if you wake up in the winter and it's still dark outside, you are already maximizing your waking hours of heat generating daylight.  But you are just 1 person out of 330 million people.  I'm sure at least a few people are still asleep past 7:15AM during the winter (ie. the Boston example). 

[NWI_Irish96]

I'm sure at least a few people are still asleep past 7:15AM during the winter (ie. the Boston example). 

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

[jeffandnicole]

I'm sure at least a few people are still asleep past 7:15AM during the winter (ie. the Boston example). 

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

What are the needs?

[kalvado]

Now look at January, February, November, and December temperatures of both cities.  Wouldn't both cities benefit from having an extra hour of sunlight during the evening and have a natural heating source (the sun) help heat their homes?  People in Dallas aren't cranking their AC in January when the average high is only 57 degrees.  That extra waking hour of sunlight naturally heating homes/businesses could really put a dent on people's heating bills during the winter.

News flash: you are not changing total amount of sunlight when you move clocks. Any energy savings would depend on much smaller effect of thermostat down during colder hour in the morning vs maybe hopefully a bit warmer hour in the evening.
Major (well, few %% during few days) economic effect was about using more sunlight during normal day cycle vs loosing it while sleeping behind dark curtains and having to turn lights earlier in the evening. 

Daylight saving time in the winter (just like the summer) gives people back waking hours of daylight.  Maximizing the waking hours of heat generating sunlight would help reduce people's heating bills.  During the winter solstice the sun rises in Boston at 7:15AM and sets at 4:15PM.  So any Bostonian who sleeps in past 7:15AM isn't maximizing a free natural heating source during the winter... A.K.A. the sun.

I am at a loss. When do you turn down your thermostat and by how much? How is your house painted? What kind of windows do you have? 

[Rothman]

Well then don't sleep past 7:15.

When did we get the idea that the clock should adjust to our sleep schedules rather than the other way around?

The reality is there is a percentage of Bostonians who wake up at 8:15AM each morning, and that percentage won't change very much regardless if Boston is on standard time or Daylight Saving Time.  Along the East Coast people's sleep schedules are largely dictated by when they need to get up for work/school.  But with the country on permanent DST, those Bostonians who do wake up at 8:15AM each morning now maximize their waking hours of heat generating daylight during the winter.

Now if you live in the Great Plains, the position of the sun can play a key factor to your sleep schedule.  There are only so many hours of daylight each day, and if you are a farmer and got to get so much done before the sun goes down, you get up when the sun tells you.  The difference between East Coast/Great Plain bedtimes is shown pretty clearly on this map. 

I don't think the entire country should be subjected to permanent DST because some Bostonians are too lazy to get out of bed before 8am.

Most of the rest want permanent DST. 

No more sunsets at 4 pm!

[skluth]

Now look at January, February, November, and December temperatures of both cities.  Wouldn't both cities benefit from having an extra hour of sunlight during the evening and have a natural heating source (the sun) help heat their homes?  People in Dallas aren't cranking their AC in January when the average high is only 57 degrees.  That extra waking hour of sunlight naturally heating homes/businesses could really put a dent on people's heating bills during the winter.

News flash: you are not changing total amount of sunlight when you move clocks. Any energy savings would depend on much smaller effect of thermostat down during colder hour in the morning vs maybe hopefully a bit warmer hour in the evening.
Major (well, few %% during few days) economic effect was about using more sunlight during normal day cycle vs loosing it while sleeping behind dark curtains and having to turn lights earlier in the evening. 

Daylight saving time in the winter (just like the summer) gives people back waking hours of daylight.  Maximizing the waking hours of heat generating sunlight would help reduce people's heating bills.  During the winter solstice the sun rises in Boston at 7:15AM and sets at 4:15PM.  So any Bostonian who sleeps in past 7:15AM isn't maximizing a free natural heating source during the winter... A.K.A. the sun. 

Well then don't sleep past 7:15.

When did we get the idea that the clock should adjust to our sleep schedules rather than the other way around?

I'm always fairly amused at how many east coast people have the luxury of waking up past 7 AM or even later.  Out west the work week tends to bend towards the whims of what the largely east coast driven economy is doing, meaning a lot of people are on the road for a 6 AM or 7 AM start time to their day.

It's a real pain in the butt for US government workers in videoconferences. I worked in St Louis while our agency was HQed in DC like the rest of government. Many of our meetings would be scheduled for 7:30 or 8:00AM ET because most of them would commute early to beat the notorious DC traffic. It was tough enough for those of us in the Midwest, but for those on the West Coast and Hawaii it was awful.

[tradephoric]

Most of the rest want permanent DST. 

No more sunsets at 4 pm!

I think the most extreme example of early sunsets in the lower 48 would be Caribou, Maine.  The sunset is before 3:45PM for about a week in December. 

[thspfc]

My vote is for year-round DST. Near-total darkness at 5 PM just isn't ideal. That first Sunday of November always surprises you.

[tradephoric]

My vote is for year-round DST. Near-total darkness at 5 PM just isn't ideal. That first Sunday of November always surprises you.

You are not the only one.  Six in 10 Americans (61%) want to do away with the nation's twice-a-year time change while a little over one-third (35%) want to keep the current practice. Those who want to stick with a single year-round time prefer to have later sunrise and sunset hours (44%) than the earlier setting offered by standard time (13%).


https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_031522/

[tradephoric]

A recent YouGov poll found that 59% of respondents would like to see Daylight Saving Time made permanent while just 19% would not want to make Daylight Saving Time permanent.


https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2022/03/16/1742a/1

[kkt]

So there's not a majority for ANYthing.

[NWI_Irish96]

So there's not a majority for ANYthing.

The problem is that the best option is mainly dependent on where you are within a time zone.

Bangor, ME, and South Bend, IN, are both in Eastern Time.

On standard time in Bangor, December 21 sunrise-sunset are 7:09-3:56. Permanent DST makes sense.
On standard time in South Bend, December 21 sunrise-sunset are 8:08-5:17. Permanent DST would be ludicrous.

If we're going to do permanent DST, the the time zone boundaries need to shift at least 300 miles east.

[Duke87]

Again, a lot of DST stuff comes from the times when light was expensive. Be it candles, kerosene, or incandescent lamps.
Today, LEDs changed that completely.
I don't think AC energy use is really going to change with time setting too much.

You'd be surprised, actually. The key thing to remember here is not everyone has a thermostat or a central AC system. Many people rely on window AC units which are switched off when they are not home. If there are more hours of sunlight after someone gets home, this will increase the amount of electricity they use running their AC.

Also don't forget solar PV production. Daylight time in the summer has the benefit of making solar PV production more coincident with when people are likely to be awake and using electricity, which makes it easier to use by reducing the need to store it for later. That said this isn't so helpful in areas where electric consumption peaks in winter rather than summer.

Anyway I'd take any assertions that DST saves energy with a massive boulder of salt. This is extremely difficult to quantify and there are so many other factors affecting it that it's impossible to measure. And 0.34% savings might as well be nothing, this is a rounding error away from zero.

(note: I work with energy and utilities for a living)

Yeah, I don't know what kind of life people have who can sleep past 8am regularly. Must not have school aged kids, must not have jobs that require starting before 9:30.

A decent number of people now work from home and don't need 90 minutes between when they get out of bed and when they start working (it typically takes me 10 minutes). Many more work afternoon/evening shifts. Still more are retired and have few schedule obligations beyond those they make for themselves.

So yeah, if you're having trouble fathoming someone whose life permits them to routinely be sleeping until 9:30 - hi! I exist!
And I really don't like dealing with people who are dismissive of this, or act under the assumption that I should be awake earlier than that without bothering to ask.

One particularly aggravating example is contractors who tell me "I'll be there sometime between 8 and 10" and then show up at 10:15. Thanks asshole I needlessly forced myself to wake up 2 hours early because of you.

[NWI_Irish96]

Yeah, I don't know what kind of life people have who can sleep past 8am regularly. Must not have school aged kids, must not have jobs that require starting before 9:30.

A decent number of people now work from home and don't need 90 minutes between when they get out of bed and when they start working (it typically takes me 10 minutes). Many more work afternoon/evening shifts. Still more are retired and have few schedule obligations beyond those they make for themselves.

So yeah, if you're having trouble fathoming someone whose life permits them to routinely be sleeping until 9:30 - hi! I exist!
And I really don't like dealing with people who are dismissive of this, or act under the assumption that I should be awake earlier than that without bothering to ask.

One particularly aggravating example is contractors who tell me "I'll be there sometime between 8 and 10" and then show up at 10:15. Thanks asshole I needlessly forced myself to wake up 2 hours early because of you.

Nice that you can sleep so late--just don't insist that the clocks change to put the sunlight on the schedule of the minority. The majority are up and about before 8am and appreciate the morning light.

[kalvado]

Again, a lot of DST stuff comes from the times when light was expensive. Be it candles, kerosene, or incandescent lamps.
Today, LEDs changed that completely.
I don't think AC energy use is really going to change with time setting too much.

You'd be surprised, actually. The key thing to remember here is not everyone has a thermostat or a central AC system. Many people rely on window AC units which are switched off when they are not home. If there are more hours of sunlight after someone gets home, this will increase the amount of electricity they use running their AC.

Also don't forget solar PV production. Daylight time in the summer has the benefit of making solar PV production more coincident with when people are likely to be awake and using electricity, which makes it easier to use by reducing the need to store it for later. That said this isn't so helpful in areas where electric consumption peaks in winter rather than summer.

Anyway I'd take any assertions that DST saves energy with a massive boulder of salt. This is extremely difficult to quantify and there are so many other factors affecting it that it's impossible to measure. And 0.34% savings might as well be nothing, this is a rounding error away from zero.

(note: I work with energy and utilities for a living)

I would expect those shifts in window units activity to be offset at least partially by more use elsewhere and at different time. At work, in a car, etc.
And my understanding that pv doesn't actually come to full operation until sun is high in the sky, so limited benefit as well
0.34% is barely a thing. I had a heated argument with some utility guys at some point. They threw a lot of data at me - but my only take home message was that they have more data collection opportunities than understanding how to interpret that data.

[tradephoric]

Nice that you can sleep so late--just don't insist that the clocks change to put the sunlight on the schedule of the minority. The majority are up and about before 8am and appreciate the morning light.

Would you prefer permanent standard time or do you just want to keep the status quo and keep dealing with the bi-annual time changes?  By your previous comments i don't think you are in favor of permanent Daylight Saving Time but who knows.

[NWI_Irish96]

Nice that you can sleep so late--just don't insist that the clocks change to put the sunlight on the schedule of the minority. The majority are up and about before 8am and appreciate the morning light.

Would you prefer permanent standard time or do you just want to keep the status quo and keep dealing with the bi-annual time changes?  By your previous comments i don't think you are in favor of permanent Daylight Saving Time but who knows.

I prefer permanent standard time, with some spots where that would be really bad, like Maine, shifting one time zone to the east to compensate.

[thspfc]

Nice that you can sleep so late--just don't insist that the clocks change to put the sunlight on the schedule of the minority. The majority are up and about before 8am and appreciate the morning light.

Would you prefer permanent standard time or do you just want to keep the status quo and keep dealing with the bi-annual time changes?  By your previous comments i don't think you are in favor of permanent Daylight Saving Time but who knows.

I prefer permanent standard time, with some spots where that would be really bad, like Maine, shifting one time zone to the east to compensate.

But if more people want year round DST than any other option, how is your point about "majority over minority" relevant?

[SSOWorld]

Nice that you can sleep so late--just don't insist that the clocks change to put the sunlight on the schedule of the minority. The majority are up and about before 8am and appreciate the morning light.

Would you prefer permanent standard time or do you just want to keep the status quo and keep dealing with the bi-annual time changes?  By your previous comments i don't think you are in favor of permanent Daylight Saving Time but who knows.

I prefer permanent standard time, with some spots where that would be really bad, like Maine, shifting one time zone to the east to compensate.

good luck

Too close to boston for the time zone shift
you can argue with those in areas too far east for a decent sunset to occur in std and too far west for decent sunrise to occur in daylight

[tradephoric]

Nice that you can sleep so late--just don't insist that the clocks change to put the sunlight on the schedule of the minority. The majority are up and about before 8am and appreciate the morning light.

Would you prefer permanent standard time or do you just want to keep the status quo and keep dealing with the bi-annual time changes?  By your previous comments i don't think you are in favor of permanent Daylight Saving Time but who knows.

I prefer permanent standard time, with some spots where that would be really bad, like Maine, shifting one time zone to the east to compensate.

I appreciate your response.  This might not be the first fringe case that comes to mind, but without Daylight Saving Time the sun would set in San Diego at 6:59PM during the longest day of the year.  People in Southern California would be cool with the sun setting before the first pitch of the Padres game? 

[Scott5114]

Apparently, the Senate seems to have passed this change on accident:

When we wrote up the newly passed Senate bill that would theoretically establish year-round Daylight Savings Time, we observed that there was no indication this was coming down the pike, and also that nobody seemed to know why the senators had all of a sudden gotten on board with the idea, en masse.

It turns out that we weren't the only ones who were surprised and a bit confused. In fact, most of the senators were, as well. The bill was passed by unanimous consent, which is really the only way for there to be a unanimous vote in the Senate. What was not publicly known on Tuesday was that Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) asked for unanimous consent, and expected Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) to object. The Floridian didn't actually expect to secure passage, he just wanted to be able to send out an "I'm trying" tweet and press release in an election year. And because Rubio (and everyone else) expected an objection, there wasn't much communication among members of the Senate (or among their staffs), and most members weren't even on the floor of the chamber when the matter came up. That meant that when Wicker, in a rather big surprise, decided he didn't care enough to object, the Senate inadvertently approved the bill unanimously. A sizable number of senators only found out about it when they were asked by reporters, or when they read about it online.

It's hard to believe this is for real, and is not, say, a Marx Brothers short ("Oops! Sens. Groucho and Harpo accidentally declared war on Canada!"). In any case, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has put the legislation on the back burner for now. If she wants to kill it, or if Joe Biden does, there's now plenty of justification for them to do so.