Joining list. Calendar reforms.

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

             <E0852F5A-DB25-4752-8025-3C01144FDB17@...>
                              <BLU134-W3C4F19DBECB3B2EB3E44CCF3E0@...>
                        A<5FE429E9-AA89-43D4-A457-0F921BDAF706@...>
           
             <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D0670D237@...>
             A<87508EC9-A7FB-4CF0-852C-4ECF753B852E@...>
 <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D0670D2DB@...>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jun 2009 22:21:59.0489 (UTC) FILETIME=[07FE7B10:01C9EF9A]



=20
A calendar with the June-September North season=2C the December-March south=
 season=2C the April-May Northward=2C and the October-November Southward ha=
s two additional advantages:
=20
1. The fact that its seasons consist of whole old-calendar months means tha=
t its seasons can be advocated now=2C as a replacement for the media's curr=
ent basis-less equal "seasons" starting on equinoxes and solstices. The who=
le old-calendar months make it easy to familiarize people with and make it =
a natural new definition of the seasons. (For north and south temperate zon=
es). The familiarity thereby gained could pave the way to eventual acceptan=
ce as the basis for a calendar's main year-divisions.
=20
2. Some would accept an astronomical calendar=2C but not a terrestrial-seas=
onal calendar. Two kinds of astronomical calendars:=20
=20
A. Astronomical quarters calendar
.....It's fundamental basis is quarters of the ecliptic=2C whether divided =
by equinoxes and solstices or by
.....points 45 degrees between them.
=20
B. Declination calendar
.....Its fundamental basis is a particular declination (probably a round fi=
gure like .5 max north or south=20
.....declination).
=20
A declination calendar is much more useful than an astronomical quarters ca=
lendar=2C because a declination calendar can have a simple=2C obvious and n=
atural relation to terrestrial conditions=2C where the only difference is a=
 time-lag.
=20
With the calendar using unequal seasons consisting of whole old-calendar mo=
nths=2C June-September=2C October-November=2C December-March=2C April-May=
=2C the lagged declination at the beginning and end of summer (North=2C int=
ernationally) is about .51 of the maximum north declination. That's so clos=
d to half=2C that a declination calendar that defines North and South by a =
north or south declination of at least half of maximum would only be a time=
lag away from a good representation of typical temperate terrestrial condit=
ions.=20
=20
Mike Ossipoff
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20

=20
_________________________________________________________________
Bing=99  brings you maps=2C menus=2C and reviews organized in one place.   =
Try it now.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=3Drestaurants&form=3DMLOGEN&publ=3DWLHMTAG&cre=
a=3DTEXT_MLOGEN_Core_tagline_local_1x1=

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

             <E0852F5A-DB25-4752-8025-3C01144FDB17@...>
                              <BLU134-W3C4F19DBECB3B2EB3E44CCF3E0@...>
                        A<5FE429E9-AA89-43D4-A457-0F921BDAF706@...>
           
             <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D0670D237@...>
             A<87508EC9-A7FB-4CF0-852C-4ECF753B852E@...>
 <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D0670D2DB@...>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jun 2009 22:36:34.0655 (UTC) FILETIME=[11A236F0:01C9EF9C]



The worldwide temperature records book that I used is _The Timesbooks World=
 Guide to Weather_. Maybe it would have been better to use an academic publ=
ication=2C but there's no reason to doubt the temperature records in that b=
ook.=20
=20
The fact that the average minimum and maximum temperatures are given for mo=
nths instead of days necessarily limits the precision of the timelags that =
can be inferred.=20
=20
If one month has the highest or lowest temperature of the year=2C then I as=
sumed that that temperature occurs at the middle of that month. If an odd n=
umber of months (usually one or three) share that temperature=2C then I ass=
ume that it occurs at the middle of the middle month.
=20
If two months share that highest or lowest temperature of the year=2C then =
I assume that the point between those months has that temperature. If an ev=
en number of months shares that temperature=2C then I assume that the point=
 at the middle of those months has that temperature.
=20
I assumed that a solstice or equinox is 1/4 of a month from the end of its =
month. Though that isn't exactly true=2C it's only negligibly off=2C consid=
ering the low precision inherent in temperature records that are monthly in=
stead of daily.
=20
(By the way=2C I forgot to add in my previous posting that=2C also because =
of the low precision of any conclusions from monthly records=2C the June-Se=
ptember=2CDecember-March unequal seasons calendar's 40 day timelag is only =
negligibly different from 38 days)
=20
One result of the records being monthly=2C and being interpreted as I descr=
ibed is that that interpretation will sometimes give lags of .75=2C 1.25 an=
d 1.75 months=2C but it won't give lags of 1.0 months or 1.5 months. If=2C =
for the daily max and daily min temperatures of a month=2C I get 1.25 and 1=
.75=2C then I call that 1.5 overall.   If=2C for the dailyl max and daily m=
in temperatures for a month=2C I get .75 and 1.25=2C I call that 1.0
=20
In Toronto=2C the overal lag in winter is 1.5 months. The lag for daily min=
 and max were 1.25 and 1.75 (but I don't remember which was which).
=20
Toronto's lag in summer is .75 month. The daily max and daily min both had =
a lag of .75 month.
=20
Mike Ossipoff
=20
=20
=20
=20
_________________________________________________________________
Bing=99  brings you maps=2C menus=2C and reviews organized in one place.   =
Try it now.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=3Drestaurants&form=3DMLOGEN&publ=3DWLHMTAG&cre=
a=3DTEXT_MLOGEN_Core_tagline_local_1x1=

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Dear Karl and Calendar People,
 
Karl, you wrote:

> Irv
> has assumed (but never stated this assumption) that the time lag is the time
> that the season start occurs after its solstice or equinox (rather
> than season middle). I believe he never stated that assumption explicitly
> because, it did not occur to him that some other definition of the time lag
> could be in use.
 
Yes, I claim that the lag can meaningfully only compare the middle of a calendar summer to the middle and maximum of the high declination period that causes that summer.
 
Mike Ossipoff
 
_________________________________________________________________
Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that’s right for you.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

 
Irv and Calendar People,
 
Irv, you wrote:
 
> If Irv thinks a Northern Summer season should begin in August
> while Mike thinks it should be in June and the Chinese start of summer term is
> in May what hope is there?
 
Yes, but I have public perceptions on my side. Just the other day, a radio weather-reporter said something to this effect: "Summer won't begin till June 21, but it sure already feels like summer now."
 
That reflects everyone's perception. Everyone (north-temperate) would agree, if asked to state a time, that summer arrives with June. In Australia they say that summer arrives with December.
 
People also have a vague notion that the "official" seasons, starting with solstices and equinoxes must, in some sense, be right, because they're "official". There's a vague feeling that, because they're defined in terms of the astronomical equinoxes and solstices, then it must be that astronomy says that the seasons start on those days. People probably believe that science says that the seasons begin on the solstices and equinoxes. Of course astronomy doesn't say that, and science doesn't say that. And the regularly parroted media claim that the seasons begin on solstices and equinoxes has absolutely no basis to justify it. The media people seem to be parroting eachother, and believing eachother. Who knows who started it?
 
But, even while people believe that, in some way, science dictates the solstice and equinox season starting-dates, they, just like that radio weather-reporter, perceive, in their own experience that summer arrives with June and winter arrives with December.
 
Mike Ossipoff
 
 

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Karl
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 10(09(25
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Scanned by iCritical.
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009

[Irv Bromberg]

On 2009 Jun 17, at 15:29 , MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:

The important thing is that it compare the same parts of the calendar year and the year based on solstices and equinoxes. For instance, for Irv's proposed seasons, his calendar summer has its middle at the autumnal equinox. That means that the middle of that calendar summer is 3 months after the maximum declination time, the summer solstice. So that calendar's time-lag is 3 months.

Irv replies:  This is ridiculous.  How the <beep> did you get that impression from what I wrote?

I initially proposed that the thermal season starts 1/2 quarter after the average astronomical northward equinox or north solstice.

One quarter = 13 weeks, so 1/2 quarter = 6+1/2 weeks.

There were objections that was too long a lag, so I changed it so that the earliest equinox or solstice would land 1/2 quarter before the thermal season = 6 week lag.

Then ensued arguments whether the lag was 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 weeks, all based very crudely on only monthly minimum and maximum temperature records instead of daily mean temperatures.

If you wish to develop a seasonal calendar proposal in a meaningful way, you can't based it on such crude data.  Daily data is available, no big deal to make proper use of it.

Perhaps mid-ocean temperature data would be more useful, because there is generally much less cloud cover over oceans, and temperatures are more stable than over land, with less local variations.

Whatever lag is chosen doesn't matter, make up your mind and then start the next quarter that many days after the northward equinox or north solstice.

Placing the earliest equinox or solstice at the mid-quarter day would place it 6+1/2 weeks before the end of the quarter, so the average equinox or solstice lag would be 6 weeks (given a leap week calendar), this idea has some appeal in my mind because of the mid-quarter-day concept.  If any shorter lag is employed then that mid-quarter-day concept becomes irrelevant and any desired lag can be employed.

I proposed that all quarters be equal because my over-riding intention is to retain a perpetual leap week calendar, with closest seasonal correspondence for only the north spring (south autumn) or north summer (south winter), but not both.  This is because there is practically no use in reforming the Gregorian calendar unless the primary goal is to make it into a perpetual calendar, always starting on the same weekday without any null weekdays.  It is also calendrically complex to progressively adjust month lengths to track the periodic changes in all 4 season lengths, and to avoid silly oscillations along the way.

-- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada

<http://www.sym454.org/>

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

 
Dear Calendar People,
 
Victor wrote:
 
> I still say trying to devise a global calendar by seasons using
> temperature as the means of alignment is an excercise in futility.
 
I reply:
 
Of course saying that and demonstrating it are two different things. But I credit Victor with giving arguments to support his claim. I've only been looking for facts, and I welcome facts even if they're adverse to my proposal, because the last thing that I would want to do would be to misleadingly support a proposal by covering up facts. That's why I found that worldwide climate record book, and that's why I welcome any complete information that Victor can supply.
 
I stand by the statements that I made, based on worldwide temperature records. I'll check out Victor's statements about temperature maxima.
 
I hadn't found any anomalies in the contiguous U.S., other than San Francisco, which gets especially fogged in during the summer, due to its special "fog machine", caused by convection from the heating of the Sacramento Valley, in which humid ocean air is channeled over San Francisco by the "Golden Gate" and a mountain gap.  That gives SF a slightly greater timelag, maybe two months, or two and a quarter or something. But that anomaly has an exceptional explanation.
 
What I've found, from the climate record book is overwhelmingly good agreement for the time-lag range, throughout the north and south temperate zones. Consistently from .75 month to 1.75 month. Has Victor looked for a few exceptions? I never said there were no exceptions.
 
Victor continues:
 
The
> weatherunderground.com website can be used as a good resource to
> explore this.To illustrate my point, let's take two cities in North
> America. Mexico City doesn't get a nice graph like you get with such
> cities as Austin, where the high temperature for the year is clearly
> in August.
 
I reply:
 
Victor neglected to state Mexico City's latitude. I said, the other day, that I didn't find good lag agreement for summertime in the tropics.
 
Victor continues:
 
Then what about
> Anchorage, Alaska, where it is clearly in July?
 
I reply:
 
Yes, what about it? That isn't an anomaly or a contradiction to what I said. A 38-day timelag puts the middle of winter at July 29th.
 
Victor continues:
 
You don't even have to
> get out of Texas for the highs to move around more than a month. As I
> stated earlier, the high in Austin is August.
 
I reply:
 
Since the typical midrange lag value is 1.25, implying a midsummer on July 29, a maximum temperature in August is hardly a problem.
 
Victor continues:
 
In Alpine, it's in June
> as it is in El Paso as well.
 
I reply:
 
That I will check out. I hadn't found anything like that in the contiguous U.S., or West Europe, Scandinavia, Russia, Canada, China or Australia. Of course I haven't looked at every city in those places.
 
I did find that tropical India and even temperate South America can depart from the regularity that I've described. For one thing, in those places, some cities have timelags of .25 months, 0 months, or negative.
In both instances maybe exceptional seasonal cloudiness could have something to do with it. In India it could involve the monsoon or a negative monsoon in winter. In South America it could have to do with the narrowness of southern South America, or, especially, to the nearby equatorially-heated ocean-water.
 
But I would remind Victor that, if you live in a place where the lag is different, that needn't be a problem. Your locale is different, and you know that. No problem. The Subjective Seasonal Calendar, as I've been saying, is, even in El Paso and Alpine, a framework of declination and seasonal temperature variation. Not a precise map, but a starting point which remains meaningful even if your locale has an anomalous timelag.
 
Victor continues:
 
I could go on, but anyone else can
> explore various cities as well as I can. In Maui, it's September....
 
I reply:
 
Again, you didn't state the latitude there.
 
Mike ossipoff
 
_________________________________________________________________
Bing™  brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place.   Try it now.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MLOGEN&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MLOGEN_Core_tagline_local_1x1

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Mark wrote:

> Summer in the US is unofficially bracketed by two Federal holidays:
> Memorial Day (last Monday in May) and Labor Day (first Monday in
> September). So having a calendar Summer consisting of June, July, and
> August would be in keeping with common practice here...
 
I reply:
 
...But try telling that to the beachgoers. Everyone knows that, though labor day signals the approaching end of summer, it remains summer for all practical purposes after labor day.
 
 
Mark continues:

> Similarly, Thanksgiving (fourth Thursday in November) is regarded as
> a sort of boundary between autumn and winter.
 
I reply:
 
It is? It's true that the day after Thanksgiving marks the beginning of the Christmas Shopping season, but I don't feel that conditions become wintry with Thanksgiving. Brown and yellow leaves symbolize Thanksgiving. That's very different from winter's no-leaves. Thanksgiving is characterized by certain plantfoods being harvested, unless I'm mistaken. Food-harvesting isn't usually associated with winter.
 
 
 
Mark continues:
 
> Between winter and spring the major non-equinoctial marker is Easter.
> Of course it comes after the equinox by definition, and so is no help
> if you feel the equinox should fall inside spring instead of defining
> its onset.
 
But it is of help for showing a contradiction in Mark's use of holidays to contradict the unequal seasons. Yes, Easter always is after the vernal equinox, probably usually at least 117 days after December 1, and often in April. Yes, this is of no use for supporting Mark's position, but it weakens a case when you have to pick and choose among the evidence, to find support for your case.
 
As I said, April is the first clearly spring month. In May, the increasing warmth and nicer days are well underway, and in April they're tentatively but clearly starting out.
 
Mike Ossipoff
 
 
 
 
 
 
_________________________________________________________________
Bing™  brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place.   Try it now.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MLOGEN&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MLOGEN_Core_tagline_local_1x1

[Mark J. Reed]

I wasn't defending a position.  I have no horse in this race, since I
think a season-based calendar is untenable,  I was just offering some
popular alternative delimiters.
  And I was pointing out that Easter doesn't fit, not disregarding it.
 If I were picking and choosing I wouldn't have brought it up at all.

On Wednesday, June 17, 2009, MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkklrp@...> wrote:

> Mark wrote:
>
>> Summer in the US is unofficially bracketed by two Federal holidays:
>> Memorial Day (last Monday in May) and Labor Day (first Monday in
>> September). So having a calendar Summer consisting of June, July, and
>> August would be in keeping with common practice here...
>
> I reply:
>
> ...But try telling that to the beachgoers. Everyone knows that, though labor day signals the approaching end of summer, it remains summer for all practical purposes after labor day.
>
>
> Mark continues:
>
>> Similarly, Thanksgiving (fourth Thursday in November) is regarded as
>> a sort of boundary between autumn and winter.
>
> I reply:
>
> It is? It's true that the day after Thanksgiving marks the beginning of the Christmas Shopping season, but I don't feel that conditions become wintry with Thanksgiving. Brown and yellow leaves symbolize Thanksgiving. That's very different from winter's no-leaves. Thanksgiving is characterized by certain plantfoods being harvested, unless I'm mistaken. Food-harvesting isn't usually associated with winter.
>
>
>
> Mark continues:
>
>> Between winter and spring the major non-equinoctial marker is Easter.
>> Of course it comes after the equinox by definition, and so is no help
>> if you feel the equinox should fall inside spring instead of defining
>> its onset.
>
> But it is of help for showing a contradiction in Mark's use of holidays to contradict the unequal seasons. Yes, Easter always is after the vernal equinox, probably usually at least 117 days after December 1, and often in April. Yes, this is of no use for supporting Mark's position, but it weakens a case when you have to pick and choose among the evidence, to find support for your case.
>
> As I said, April is the first clearly spring month. In May, the increasing warmth and nicer days are well underway, and in April they're tentatively but clearly starting out.
>
> Mike Ossipoff
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Bing™  brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place.   Try it now.
> http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MLOGEN&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MLOGEN_Core_tagline_local_1x1
>

--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>

[Irv Bromberg]

On 2009 Jun 17, at 19:27 , Irv Bromberg wrote:

Perhaps mid-ocean temperature data would be more useful, because there is generally much less cloud cover over oceans, and temperatures are more stable than over land, with less local variations.

Irv adds:  How about Honolulu, Hawaii?

The highest monthly averages there are Aug-Sep, the lowest are in Feb.  Of course there is not much temperature variation there, only about 13°C swing from average low to high.

It's weird that so many places show degrees Fahrenheit to one decimal point, but also show the temperature converted to whole degrees Celcius.

There are 212-32=180° from water freezing to boiling in Fahrenheit, but only 100° in degrees Celcius, so Celcius needs the decimal point more than Fahrenheit does!

So I want to see a smoothed chart of daily mean temperatures in degrees Celcius to one decimal point...

The thermal lag will also vary with the solar sunspot cycle, we're currently near a minimum in solar radiation output.

-- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada

<http://www.sym454.org/>

[Irv Bromberg]

On 2009 Jun 18, at 01:25 , Irv Bromberg wrote:

Irv adds:  How about Honolulu, Hawaii?

The highest monthly averages there are Aug-Sep, the lowest are in Feb.  Of course there is not much temperature variation there, only about 13°C swing from average low to high.

Irv adds further:  From temperature records, I find it hard to judge when there is a thermal spring or autumn season.  That is why I previously wrote that one should find the warmest quarter and call it summer (with the hottest days centered near the middle of the quarter), find the coolest quarter and call it winter (with the coldest days centered near the middle of the quarter), and then spring and autumn become the quarters in-between.  This may make it impractical to align a seasonal calendar with respect to the northward equinox, so the north solstice "wins".  So one would reckon when the north solstice is, add the chosen thermal lag interval, and start the north summer quarter there, or employ a 389-year leap cycle with an appropriate epoch to approximate the same thing.

-- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada

<http://www.sym454.org/>

[Karl Palmen]

Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy.

Dear Mike, Irv, Victor and Calendar People

 

Thank you Mike for your reply.

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of MIKE OSSIPOFF
Sent: 17 June 2009 20:30
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: June-September season

 

 

---

Karl and Calendar People,
 
Karl, you wrote:
 
Mike can verify (or deny) my assumption that time lag is from the mid quarter days as specified in my clarification above.
 
I reply:
 
The important thing is that it compare the same parts of the calendar year and the year based on solstices and equinoxes.

I don’t understand what Mike means by “the year based on solstices and equinoxes”.

 Does he mean a year divided into four seasons (not necessarily equal) in which each season has its solstice or equinox in the middle?

 

For instance, for Irv's proposed seasons, his calendar summer has its middle at the autumnal equinox. That means that the middle of that calendar summer is 3 months after the maximum declination time, the summer solstice. So that calendar's time-lag is 3 months.

This agrees with the assumption.

To measure time-lag from temperature records, I look at the delay between the hottest and coldest months and the corresponding solstice.

This also agrees with the assumption, but is not such a good idea if the temperatures of the months are grossly asymmetrical as for El Paso as shown in ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Paso#Temperature_statistics ) where the hottest month is the first of the three or four hottest months by average high.

 
For one way of determining the length of Summer (North), I place its middle 38 days after the summer solstice--so the middle of calendar summer is lagged by the correct amount after the middle  and maximum of high declination.

As explained in another note, this leads to a Summer season of 117 days June 1 to September 25 inclusive with June 21 placed 38 days before the middle day of July 29.

Or, alternatively, the end of North could be defined as the time when the solar declination 38 days previous is equal to the solar declination 38 days before June 1, the first day of North.
 
The June-September summer (or North, for international purposes) has advantages. The whole old-calendar months make it easier to describe and simpler to define to people. The time lag of 40 days is so close to 38 days that the difference is negligible in comparison to the unavoidable imprecision of the monthly temperature records. The time lag iss 40, even if you look for the lag such that the timelagged solar dec is equal at both ends of summer (unless I made an error). The dec then is .51 of maximum.

The time-lag of 40 leads to a season of 121 days from June 1 to September 29 inclusive with June 21 placed 40 days before the middle day of July 31.

 

A 17-week season has 119 days and can be constructed from months of June to September inclusive in a calendar whose months have 4 or 5 weeks like in the Symmetry 454 calendar.

 

Karl

 

10(09(26

 
Mike Ossipoff
 

 

Karl

 

From: Palmen, KEV (Karl)
Sent: 16 June 2009 14:09
To: 'East Carolina University Calendar discussion List'
Subject: RE: Brief seasonal calendar position summary

 

Dear Irv, Mike and Calendar People

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Irv Bromberg
Sent: 16 June 2009 13:51
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: Re: Brief seasonal calendar position summary

 

On 2009 Jun 16, at 07:52 , Palmen, KEV (Karl) wrote:

I think confusion has arisen about the time that the 6-week  or 1.25 month lag is from.

I have assumed it is from the points approximately halfway between the equinoxes and solstices (mid quarter points). So the Chinese calendar seasons have no lag and the traditional Western seasons beginning at each equinox and solstice have a  lag of about 1.5 months or 6.5 weeks.

Mike seems to be proposing a slightly smaller lag, making each season begin about a week before  its equinox or solstice. Irv’s six week lag would place an equinox or solstice into the first seven days of its season with the northward equinox occurring nearest the beginning of its season.

 

Irv replies:  I don't understand Karl's attempt to clarify what I wrote.  My proposed 6-week lag would place the northward equinox 6 weeks before the start of the spring quarter of the calendar, so that the start of the thermal spring season would more or less coincide with the start of the spring quarter.  Alternatively it would place the north solstice 6 weeks before the start of the summer quarter of the calendar, so that the start of the thermal summer season would more or less coincide with the start of the summer quarter.

 

Does Irv really intend to start the Summer quarter in early August and end it in early November?

 

The Chinese calendar seasons are direct correlations between ecliptic solar longitude and observed patterns of weather or nature, so by definition they have no lag -- in China.  That is to say, they suit the Chinese climate as perfectly as is possible when using a lunisolar calendar.  

 

I’m referring to the Chinese convention of starting Spring in early February etc. as evidenced in the names of solar terms  as listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_calendar#Solar_term . I assume this is what Mike is measuring his time lag against.

 

Karl

 

10(09(24

 

---

Scanned by iCritical.

---

Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®. See how.

--
Scanned by iCritical.

[Karl Palmen]

Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy.

Dear Irv, Mike and Calendar People

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Irv Bromberg
Sent: 18 June 2009 00:28
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: Re: June-September season

 

On 2009 Jun 17, at 15:29 , MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:

The important thing is that it compare the same parts of the calendar year and the year based on solstices and equinoxes. For instance, for Irv's proposed seasons, his calendar summer has its middle at the autumnal equinox. That means that the middle of that calendar summer is 3 months after the maximum declination time, the summer solstice. So that calendar's time-lag is 3 months.

 

Irv replies:  This is ridiculous.  How the <beep> did you get that impression from what I wrote?

 

On Tuesday Irv said (first quoting me):

 

Does Irv really intend to start the Summer quarter in early August and end it in early November?

 

Irv replies:  Yes, that is the outcome of a 6-week delay after the solstice, placing the hottest part of summer at the beginning of the summer quarter.  

 

This implies a 3 month lag by Mike’s definition as I understand it.  The middle of Irv’s season is close to the Southward equinox 3 months after the North Solstice.

Irv is using a different definition of time lag and won’t own up to it.

 

I initially proposed that the thermal season starts 1/2 quarter after the average astronomical northward equinox or north solstice.

One quarter = 13 weeks, so 1/2 quarter = 6+1/2 weeks.

There were objections that was too long a lag, so I changed it so that the earliest equinox or solstice would land 1/2 quarter before the thermal season = 6 week lag.

 

Irv is using a different definition of the time lag. To him the time lag is the time that the season (always a quarter year) begins after its solstice of equinox. He has not stated this explicitly. One can convert Irv’s time lag to Mike’s by adding 1/8 year to it.

 

Then ensued arguments whether the lag was 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 weeks, all based very crudely on only monthly minimum and maximum temperature records instead of daily mean temperatures.

 

If you wish to develop a seasonal calendar proposal in a meaningful way, you can't based it on such crude data.  Daily data is available, no big deal to make proper use of it.

Perhaps mid-ocean temperature data would be more useful, because there is generally much less cloud cover over oceans, and temperatures are more stable than over land, with less local variations.

 

I don’t think it would make very much difference (perhaps a week or two at most). If Irv thinks using daily temperatures would make a big difference to monthly he could show us . I think this issue is a diversion from the absurdity or Irv’s Summer of early August to early November and the difference between Mike’s and Irv’s definitions of time lag.

 

Whatever lag is chosen doesn't matter, make up your mind and then start the next quarter that many days after the northward equinox or north solstice.

 

For quarter-year seasons, the lag could be used to work out how many days this is. If for example it’s 40 days, then you could begin the season  5 or 6 days before its solstice or equinox, given 1/8 year of 45 or 46 days ( e.g. Summer Quarter:  June 16 to  September 14  for 13 weeks). This can be expanded to 17 weeks by adding 2 weeks before and after to get ( June 2 to September 28 ).

 

Placing the earliest equinox or solstice at the mid-quarter day would place it 6+1/2 weeks before the end of the quarter, so the average equinox or solstice lag would be 6 weeks (given a leap week calendar), this idea has some appeal in my mind because of the mid-quarter-day concept.  If any shorter lag is employed then that mid-quarter-day concept becomes irrelevant and any desired lag can be employed.

 

I proposed that all quarters be equal because my over-riding intention is to retain a perpetual leap week calendar, with closest seasonal correspondence for only the north spring (south autumn) or north summer (south winter), but not both.  

 

Mike’s 17 and 9 week seasons would also work with such a leap week calendar as explained in earlier notes.

 

This is because there is practically no use in reforming the Gregorian calendar unless the primary goal is to make it into a perpetual calendar, always starting on the same weekday without any null weekdays.  It is also calendrically complex to progressively adjust month lengths to track the periodic changes in all 4 season lengths, and to avoid silly oscillations along the way.

 

Like what Yiping Zeng has proposed?

 

Or what Mike’s calendar would be if the time lag was not allowed to vary by a few days?

 

I think Irv would want a very accurate seasonal correspondence for just one season (I think that’s why daily temperatures would be so important to him), while Mike wants a more modest seasonal correspondence for all seasons, given variation across the globe. I think Irv would be lost,  if this less ambitious goal were adopted.

 

Karl

 

10(09(26

--
Scanned by iCritical.

[Irv Bromberg]

Dear Calendarists:

It seems that I completely misunderstood what Mike was proposing, because I thought he was trying to get peak heat at the start of the summer quarter, peak cold at the start of the winter quarter, etc.

In fact, it appears that he wants the summer quarter to be the warmest quarter of the year generally, with peak heat near the middle of the quarter, and so on.

This is essentially achieved by having solar declination based quarter start points, allowing the thermal lag to cause the desired weather alignment relative to the middle of the quarter, similar to the Enoch calendar (whose leap rule is uncertain from the sources that have been discovered).

Mike has repeatedly argued about public perception of the seasons, but where is the data for those claimed perceptions?

Since the actual astronomical declination-based seasons are not equal in length, he seems to be proposing flexible month lengths to compensate, which would require progressive adjustment over the centuries as perihelion advances, etc., and would not be a perpetual calendar at all.  Such progressive adjustments would become the subject of disputes.

In all 4 cases the equinoxes and solstices at about the 3rd week of the Gregorian month, so if one wished to start that quarter with that month name then it will be as if the month names all shifted ahead about 3 weeks.

-- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada

<http://www.sym454.org/seasons/>

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

 
Yes, the terrestrial-seasonal calendar with unequal seasons works very well as a fixed calendar, with the popular 4-week and 5-week months.
 
I'd name the months according to their place in a calendar season. For instance, this month would be SummerI or NorthI.
 
Maybe the 4 and 5 week months can be arranged so as to come close to an alternation of 4 and 5 week months. Myself, I like the idea of starting each calendar season with a 5-week month. That's simpler. And it gives the year's first month, the month containing the important Christmas holiday and the winter solstice, a 5-week length.
 
Mike Ossipoff
 
_________________________________________________________________
Bing™  brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place.   Try it now.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MLOGEN&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MLOGEN_Core_tagline_local_1x1

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Dear Victor and Calendar People,
 
The world weather-records book that I've been using doesn't have Austen or Alpine, but it does have Dallas and Houston.
 
In Dallas, the timelag is 1.0 month in summer and .75 month in winter.
 
In Houston, the timelag is 1.5 month in summer and .75 in winter.
 
Houston's greater summer timelag is understandable, because Houston is much closer to the ocean than Dallas is.
 
These figures are based on an average over 34 years.
 
Victor, that might be the variable that has caused us to get different results: Were your maximum and minimum annual temperature figures based only one one year or a few years?
 
Caution: Maximum annual temperatures based on one or a few years are not stable. If you're just using one or a few years, then I suggest determining the middle of summer and winter by the more stable method that I described, when I told how I made that determination for Santa Cruz, California, based on a few years' daily temperature records.
 
Let me repeat it here:
 
To test any particular date's qualification as the middle of winter:
 
Add up the daily temperatures before and after the date being tested, for some pre-chosen number of days before and after that date. Maybe add up the temperatures for the 60 days before the date being tested, and also for the 60 days after the date being tested.
 
If those sums are equal, or as equal as you can find, then the date being tested is the middle of winter.
 
Of course the procedure is the same for finding the middle of summer.
 
In Santa Cruz, California, the middle of winter lagged 38 days behind the winter solstice, when it wasn't an El Nino year.
 
Mike Ossipoff
 
 

 
_________________________________________________________________
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Dear Irv and Calendar People,
 
Thanks for your comments, Irv. You've brought up some things that needed bringing up.
 

You wrote (in response to my comments about your proposed seasonal quarters):

> Irv replies: This is ridiculous. How the did you get that impression from what I wrote?
 
I reply:
 
Well, forgive me if I misunderstood you. I was sure that you'd suggested that calendar winter coincide with the northward equinox.
 
You continued:
 
> Then ensued arguments whether the lag was 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 weeks, all based very crudely on only monthly minimum and maximum temperature records instead of daily mean temperatures.
> If you wish to develop a seasonal calendar proposal in a meaningful way, you can't based it on such crude data. Daily data is available, no big deal to make proper use of it.
 
I reply:
 
A fair point. But I repeat that the temperature records in the book that I've been using are based on averages over many years.
 
Yes, they're monthly figures, and of course daily temperatures would be better. But how much precision do you really need? After all, we agree that the lag varies from place to place anyway. In nearly all of the north and south temperate zones, it only varies by two weeks, one way or the other, from its midrange of 1.25 months. But that variation means that we needn't worry too much about the imprecision of lag determinations based on monthly temperature data.
 
The records that I checked show that, in West Europe, Scandinavia, Russia, elsewhere in East Europe, the U.S., Canada, China and Australia, the lag varies between .75 month and 1.75 month.
 
You continued:

> Perhaps mid-ocean temperature data would be more useful, because there is generally much less cloud cover over oceans, and temperatures are more stable than over land, with less local variations.
 
I reply:
 
That would be an interesting thing to check out.
 
 
You continued:

> Whatever lag is chosen doesn't matter, make up your mind and then start the next quarter that many days after the northward equinox or north solstice.
 
I reply:
 
No!! I claim that you're using an incorrect definition of lag. As I was saying yesterday, lag is meaningfully only measured between corresponding parts of two seasonal measures. For instance, say you're measuring a calendar season's lag by comparing it to the summer solstice. The summer solstice is the middle of the high north declination season, the maximum of the high declinations. So then, the meaningful part of the season from which to measure lag, with respect to the summer solstice would be the _middle_ of that calendar season, not the beginning of it.
 
You wrote:
 
...there is practically no use in reforming the Gregorian calendar unless the primary goal is to make it into a perpetual calendar, always starting on the same weekday without any null weekdays.
 
I reply:
 
Sure there is. A more rational and less arbitrary calendar. A calendar based on the natural year. What could be less arbitrary than that.
 
I agree that a fixed calendar would bring much convenience, and I would support and advocate for a fixed calendar. But which would be more likely to gain enough public support, and official suppport, to get adopted internationally?
 
It could be argued either way. Some might say that the less you're trying to change, the simpler your proposal is, and the less you're asking people to agree to. They might say, then, that a nonfixed calendar is more winnable, because it doens't require any change in the currently-used leapyear system. It would just be a more meaningful and less arbitrary sytsem for dividing the year and naming the year-divisions.
 
Someone else could argue that the more you're offering, the more people you can interested, and the more the proposal will appeal to people. That would suggest that the great convenience-gains of a fixed calendar would make for a more winnable proposal.
 
Which position is the right one? I don't know--I'm asking the members of this list. It's a practical question, because I'd like to know whether, right now, I should be talking to people about a fixed calendar or a non-fixed calendar. Anyone's, better yet everyone's, opinions would be appreciated.
 
The Subjective Seasonal Calendar is offered in fixed and nonfixed versions.
 
Of course, unless the largest year-divisions consist of whole numbers of weeks, we lose much of the computational convenience of a fixed calendar. And, to make those year-divisions have whole numbers of weeks, we necessarily lose some flexibility. For instance, with an optimally convenient fixed calendar, we couldn't have the seasons starting on the old calendar's June 1, October 1, December 1 and April 1. A terrestrial seasonal calendar with seasons defined in that way might be the most winnable unequal-seasons terrestrial seasonal calendar. If we gave it up for an optimally-convenient fixed calendar, would we have as winnable a proposal?
 
You wrote:
 
It is also calendrically complex to progressively adjust month lengths to track the periodic changes in all 4 season lengths
 
I reply:
 
...But aren't you talking about something that varies only gradually, with noticible differences only over very long periods. The very small changes over reasonable time-periods, when astronomical changes change the lengths of the seasons, surely aren't important.
 
Mike Ossipoff
 
 
 

 
_________________________________________________________________
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

> On 2009 Jun 17, at 19:27 , Irv Bromberg wrote:
> Perhaps mid-ocean temperature data would be more useful, because there is generally much less cloud cover over oceans, and temperatures are more stable than over land, with less local variations.
>
> Irv adds: How about Honolulu, Hawaii?
>
> The highest monthly averages there are Aug-Sep, the lowest are in Feb. Of course there is not much temperature variation there, only about 13°C swing from average low to high.

Hawaii is in the astronomically-defined tropical belt, and, there, the summer time-lag often isn't as expected.
Most of the world's population live in the north and south temperate regions, and so that would be the natural place on whose temperature records to base the timelag of a terrestrial seasonal calendar.
 
You wrote:
 
>
> It's weird that so many places show degrees Fahrenheit to one decimal point, but also show the temperature converted to whole degrees Celcius
 
I reply:
 
It seems to me that I've noticed that too, Fahrenheit to a tenth of a degree, but centigrade only to the nearest degree.
 
You continued:
 
> The thermal lag will also vary with the solar sunspot cycle
 
I reply:
 
Why would that substantially change the timelag? It would change the intensity of sunlight, but would a small change in the intensity sustantially change the lag? By an amount at all comparable to the temperate regions' variation in timelag?
 
Mike Ossipoff

 
_________________________________________________________________
Microsoft brings you a new way to search the web.  Try  Bing™ now
http://www.bing.com?form=MFEHPG&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MFEHPG_Core_tagline_try bing_1x1

[Brillig]

Mike,

This will be my last post on the subject. I'm simply not interested in
your proposal for reasons I've already mentioned. Having said that, I
will answer your direct questions as best I am able.

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 5:22 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF<nkklrp@...> wrote:
> Dear Victor and Calendar People,
>
> The world weather-records book that I've been using doesn't have Austen or Alpine, but it does have Dallas and Houston.

It's Austin, not Austen. I'm surprised the capital would not be
listed. In any case, the data are available from a number of
weather-related websites.

> In Dallas, the timelag is 1.0 month in summer and .75 month in winter.

I haven't followed the discussion about the definition of timelag. I
don't know what the reference zero time is. That doesn't really
matter, though, because given the numbers you've just mentioned, there
is a difference of half a month already for the summer. That proves my
point.

> In Houston, the timelag is 1.5 month in summer and .75 in winter.
>
> Houston's greater summer timelag is understandable, because Houston is much closer to the ocean than Dallas is.
>
> These figures are based on an average over 34 years.
>
> Victor, that might be the variable that has caused us to get different results: Were your maximum and minimum annual temperature figures based only one one year or a few years?

My figures came from weatherunderground.com, which gathers data from a
number of sources. I believe the maxima I cited are either 50 year or
100 year averages. I could be wrong about these numbers, but it is
abundantly clear that the numbers are averages of many years. You can
tell immediately by how smooth the graphs are. Note that I'm talking
about what weatherunderground.com refers to as seasonal averages, not
all time maxima for specific dates. The latter are all over the place
and not useful for this discussion.

> Caution: Maximum annual temperatures based on one or a few years are not stable. If you're just using one or a few years, then I suggest determining the middle of summer and winter by the more stable method that I described, when I told how I made that determination for Santa Cruz, California, based on a few years' daily temperature records.
>
> Let me repeat it here:
>
> To test any particular date's qualification as the middle of winter:
>
> Add up the daily temperatures before and after the date being tested, for some pre-chosen number of days before and after that date. Maybe add up the temperatures for the 60 days before the date being tested, and also for the 60 days after the date being tested.
>
> If those sums are equal, or as equal as you can find, then the date being tested is the middle of winter.

That definition is not well-defined.

> Of course the procedure is the same for finding the middle of summer.

And you've just demonstrated one reason why it's not well defined. You
are making an assumption, which needs first to be proved (I suggest
you can't) that there are only two such parts of the year, one for
summer and one for winter, for all parts of the globe.

Victor

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

 
Dear Karl, Irv, Victor and Calendar People,
 
Karl, you wrote:
 
> I don’t understand what Mike means by “the
> year based on solstices and equinoxes”.

I reply:
 
Ok, good question. I had some doubts about the usefulness of that wording when I wrote it.
 
This is all I meant:
 
When reckoning the lag of a seasonal calendar, it's necessary to measure that lag between the _middle_ of calendar summer or winter and the solstice that it lags behind. That's because the solstice is the middle of a high north or south declination period, and is the maximum north or south declination. So, we would be, and should be, comparing one middle to another. That's what I mean by saying we should compare corresponding parts when measuring lag.
 
Irv has been defining lag as the time between, say, the summer solstice and the beginning of calendar summer. I say that, for a meaningful measurement of lag, the lag should be measured from the summer solstice to the _middle_ of calendar summer.
 
 
You continued:
 
> Does he mean a year divided into four seasons (not necessarily
> equal) in which each season has its solstice or equinox in the middle?

I reply:
 
I just meant that, if you're going to reckon lag from the duration between the summer solstice and some part of calendar summer, then you should use the _middle_ of calendar summer.
 
But I spoke of another way to reckon lag, and it gives almost the same result. For the whole-months unequal seasons calendar, with seasons starting on June 1, October 1, December 1 and April 1, the method described in the paragraph before this one, and the method described in the paragraph after this one, both result in the same figure for the lag: 40 days:
 
The other method that I mentioned was to find the lag such that the lag-adjusted solar declinations at the beginning and the end of calendar summer are the same.
 
By "lag-adjusted declination" for a certain date, I mean the declination at the time preceding that date by the amount of the lag.
 
But, in answer to your question, I meant that, if you're going to measure lag between the summer solstice and some part of calendar summer, then the measurement should be between the summer solstice and the _middle_ of calendar summer.
 
 
I'd said:
 
> To measure time-lag from temperature records, I look at the
> delay between the hottest and coldest months and the corresponding solstice.

 
You replied:
 
> This also agrees with the assumption, but is not such a good
> idea if the temperatures of the months are grossly asymmetrical as for El Paso
> as shown in ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Paso#Temperature_statistics
> ) where the hottest month is the first of the three or four hottest
> months by average high.
 
Ok, that's true. The middle of summer is better defined as the day with equal summed temperatures before and after it, over some pre-chosen period before and after--as opposed to merely the month with the highest mean temperature.
 
I was assuming that the hottest month would also be the middle as defined above. Of course I looked at so many cities that hopefully any local skewness would tend to cancel out in the overall conclusions.
 
But yes, I too was thinking that it would be better to try to interpret the monthly temperature averages in a way similar to the method that I used for Santa Cruz, California (the method described two paragraphs before this paragraph). That takes longer, and I wanted quick answers, and so I just looked at the hottest and coldest months. Again, I hope that, because I looked at so many cities, the conclusion that the lag varies from .75  to 1.75 still means something.
 

I'd said:

> The June-September summer (or North, for international purposes)
> has advantages. The whole old-calendar months make it easier to describe and
> simpler to define to people. The time lag of 40 days is so close to 38 days
> that the difference is negligible in comparison to the unavoidable imprecision
> of the monthly temperature records. The time lag iss 40, even if you look for
> the lag such that the timelagged solar dec is equal at both ends of summer
> (unless I made an error). The dec then is .51 of maximum.
>

You wrote:

> The time-lag of 40 leads to a season of 121 days from June 1 to
> September 29 inclusive with June 21 placed 40 days before the middle day of
> July 31.
 
Ok, but I just meant that (if I didn't make an error) a calendar summer of June thru September implies a time-lag that rounds off to 40 days--40 days being the closest integer number of days.
 
A terrestrial seasonal calendar with seasons of 17 weeks and 9 weeks, with the 4-week months and 5-week months, is an appealing way to have a meaningful seasonal calendar, with the convenience that comes with a fixed calendar.
 
As I was saying in another posting today, I'd name the months for their position in a particular season. For instance, this month would be SummerI or (for international purposes) NorthI.
 
Isaac Asimov didn't use months, but his summer and winter were shorter, because he had four equal seasons. With the longer summer and winter, months become more desirable, for convenient and easy determination of days of the week for particular dates. Finding multiples of 7 greater than 91 and not more than 119 wouldn't be prohibitively time-consuming, and would certainly be easier than day-of-week/date calculations now, but, nevertheless, with 4-week and 5-week months, people can be offered an easier and more convenient determination of the day of week for any date.
 
 
Mike Ossipoff
 
_________________________________________________________________
Bing™  brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place.   Try it now.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MLOGEN&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MLOGEN_Core_tagline_local_1x1

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

 
Dear Calendarists,
 
> In fact, it appears that he [Mike] wants the summer quarter to be the warmest quarter of the year generally, with peak heat near the middle of the quarter, and so on.
 
I don't propose quarters as seasons. I propose unequal seasons.
 
But yes, I suggest that calendar summer be the season corresponding to and caused by high solar declination. Of course it's the warmest season, but I've proposed starting-dates for calendar summer and calendar summer based on widely-felt and widely-expressed public perceptions.
 
 
Irv continued:
 
> Mike has repeatedly argued about public perception of the seasons, but where is the data for those claimed perceptions?
 
I reply:
 
A radio weather reporter a few days ago. Respondents to questions at Internet websites. Opinions of people I've spoken to. In Santa Cruz, where I grew up, it was just common knowledge that June was summer. The school systems apparently agree, when they choose early June as the time to start summer vacation.
 
Where is the date then? In the statements from everyone I've heard expressing an opinion on the subject. Some will then say, "But of course officially it's June 21". But it's always clear that they believe it because authorities couldn't be wrong, not because it's their own perception.
 
 
Irv continues:

> Since the actual astronomical declination-based seasons are not equal in length, he [Mike] seems to be proposing flexible month lengths to compensate
 
I reply:
 
I don't propose month-lengths that change from one year to the next--except, of course, for the month that contains leapday or leapweek.
 
Irv continues:
 
, which would require progressive adjustment over the centuries as perihelion advances, etc., and would not be a perpetual calendar at all. Such progressive adjustments would become the subject of disputes.
 
You're an astronomical purist, and there's nothing wrong with that. You study minutiae of changes in the earth's orbit, and I don't criticize that. But those changes are not going to invalidate the seasonal calendars that I propose. How long before the obliquity changes enough to change people's seasonal perceptions? Will there still be humans on the Earth?
 
 
Mike Ossipoff
 
_________________________________________________________________
Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that’s right for you.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290