San Fransisco average temp

[Irv Bromberg]

Dear Mike and Calendarists:

I have prepared an Excel spreadsheet showing the San Fransisco average temperature 1995 to end of 2008, based on U Dayton records.

It is a ZIP file, so I can't email it to anybody because most email servers reject ZIP files, but you can download it from our file transfer server:

https://filetransfer.mtsinai.on.ca/lft/Lft.html?id=757e7ecca69c9364343e3c027f9a44d3

The file will be deleted automatically from the server in seven days.

Try to use a version of Excel that is older than the Windows 2007 version, because that latest version is extremely sluggish when working with this file, and even more profoundly so is the Macintosh 2008 version (Apple Numbers spreadsheet -- totally hopeless, spinning beach ball mouse cursor for hours, I complained to Apple.)  I suspect that the newer versions have "new" but very inefficient calendrical calculations in them, probably made highly inefficient because of extra overhead for handling all of the global date format variants.

Within the Excel file are a few worksheets:

The "Landscape" chart shows just 2 years, you can change the x-axis to choose other ranges.

The "Long" chart shows all of the data as one long chart in portrait orientation, but don't try to print it -- impossible!  This is the worksheet that contain my sine-wave fits.  You can tweak the sine-wave fit coefficients over at the top right, sorry if their meaning may be obscure, this was not intended to be "user friendly", and I haven't worked out how to automatically calculate those coefficients.  It is impossible to obtain a perfect fit, because the same sine wave can't fit all of these years, and the peaks in September that Victor pointed out often occur are obviously going to be beyond the curve there, but anyhow overall the data is again consistent with a 35-day lag.

The "Data" worksheet contains the raw data.  Degrees Celcius, so there.  The SF average annual temperature is about 13.9°C, and the average half-span, well moderated by the nearby Pacific, is only ±4°C.

The "EqSolst" worksheet lists all of the equinox and solstices from 1995 to 2009.  The numbers are Windows date serial numbers (day #1 = December 31, 1899, don't believe it when Microsoft tells you otherwise, because Windows thinks that Feb 29 came after Feb 28, 1900), and the fraction is the fraction of day elapsed from midnight in terms of San Fransisco standard time.  You can format these to display date and time without adversely affecting the charts, but I didn't bother because normally there should be little interest in looking at this worksheet.  The Low and High cells are just to set the axis limits for the drawn lines that indicate the equinoxes and solstices.

-- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada

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

[Mark J. Reed]

The bug in day numbers is neither a Windows  API feature nor
Microsoft's fault; it was a bug in Lotus 1-2-3 that was introduced
into Excel for compatibility (bug-for-bug!) and has remained ever
since for the same reason.

Apple neatly sidestepped the leap year confusion (in their case it was
a system api feature) by starting with 1904 instead.

On 6/29/09, Irv Bromberg <irv.bromberg@...> wrote:

> Dear Mike and Calendarists:
>
> I have prepared an Excel spreadsheet showing the San Fransisco average
> temperature 1995 to end of 2008, based on U Dayton records.
>
> It is a ZIP file, so I can't email it to anybody because most email
> servers reject ZIP files, but you can download it from our file
> transfer server:
>
> https://filetransfer.mtsinai.on.ca/lft/Lft.html?id=757e7ecca69c9364343e3c027f9a44d3
>
> The file will be deleted automatically from the server in seven days.
>
> Try to use a version of Excel that is older than the Windows 2007
> version, because that latest version is extremely sluggish when
> working with this file, and even more profoundly so is the Macintosh
> 2008 version (Apple Numbers spreadsheet -- totally hopeless, spinning
> beach ball mouse cursor for hours, I complained to Apple.)  I suspect
> that the newer versions have "new" but very inefficient calendrical
> calculations in them, probably made highly inefficient because of
> extra overhead for handling all of the global date format variants.
>
> Within the Excel file are a few worksheets:
>
> The "Landscape" chart shows just 2 years, you can change the x-axis to
> choose other ranges.
>
> The "Long" chart shows all of the data as one long chart in portrait
> orientation, but don't try to print it -- impossible!  This is the
> worksheet that contain my sine-wave fits.  You can tweak the sine-wave
> fit coefficients over at the top right, sorry if their meaning may be
> obscure, this was not intended to be "user friendly", and I haven't
> worked out how to automatically calculate those coefficients.  It is
> impossible to obtain a perfect fit, because the same sine wave can't
> fit all of these years, and the peaks in September that Victor pointed
> out often occur are obviously going to be beyond the curve there, but
> anyhow overall the data is again consistent with a 35-day lag.
>
> The "Data" worksheet contains the raw data.  Degrees Celcius, so
> there.  The SF average annual temperature is about 13.9°C, and the
> average half-span, well moderated by the nearby Pacific, is only ±4°C.
>
> The "EqSolst" worksheet lists all of the equinox and solstices from
> 1995 to 2009.  The numbers are Windows date serial numbers (day #1 =
> December 31, 1899, don't believe it when Microsoft tells you
> otherwise, because Windows thinks that Feb 29 came after Feb 28,
> 1900), and the fraction is the fraction of day elapsed from midnight
> in terms of San Fransisco standard time.  You can format these to
> display date and time without adversely affecting the charts, but I
> didn't bother because normally there should be little interest in
> looking at this worksheet.  The Low and High cells are just to set the
> axis limits for the drawn lines that indicate the equinoxes and
> solstices.
>
>
> -- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada
>
> <http://www.sym454.org/>

--
Sent from my mobile device

Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

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

Dear Irv and Calendrists,
 
Thanks for the SF spreadsheet. I look forward to checking it out.
 
Programming an automated calculation of the sine-wave parameters to achieve a match with a temperatures-table would be quite a task (which is why I haven't done it), with the system of nonlinear equations, but manually adjusting the parameters will get a match too.
 
One other thing: Victor mentioned a Texas town, Alpine TX, with anomalous temperature-lag. In the record-books, Alpine likewise seems to have unusually short temperature lags. So Alpine would be a good town for which to make such a spreadsheet.
 
Santa Cruz, too, has fog setting in during late summer, clearing up during September, giving a two-peaked summer. My Santa Cruz lag measurement was for winter, partly because of the summer fog, and partly because the middle of thermal winter seemed a worthwhile celebration day to determine.
 
Mike Ossipoff
 

org/>

---

Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.

[Brillig]

Mike,

I picked Alpine sort of at random for the area. A large section of
west Texas has similar weather patterns. I just looked up Marfa and
Van Horn which have similar patterns. Marfa's peak average high seems
to be on the cusp between May and June. That "lag" is so small it's
negative.

My more general point is that this feature you're trying to identify
-- the peak of hot weather during the year -- is not as consistent as
you're making it out to be.  Good grief, San Francisco and Marfa are
so far apart you'd think they were in different hemispheres. Such is
not the case, obviously.

I think what you're seeing is patterns resulting from specific
topology. During the year, there is a band of tropical air that
hurricane watchers pay a lot of attention to called the Intertropical
Convergence Zone. The ITCZ moves north and south to the pulse of the
changing insolation patterns. Hurricane season results in part when
the ITCZ moves far enough north for a support system to be able to
nourish the developing storms across the Atlantic.

I don't want to get into hurricane development. My main point is that
this flow of the trade winds moves with the seasons. As the trade
winds encounter land, they attain chaotic circulation patterns. These
patterns result in anomalous temperature changes over the year from
location to location.

In short, trying to synchronize a calendar to worldwide temperatures
is an exercise in futility. Having a period of the right length is
adequate. Locals in various locales can then note specific points in
the calendar that is relevant to them. The Gregorian calendar already
accomplishes this quite nicely.

Victor

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:38 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF<nkklrp@...> wrote:

> Dear Irv and Calendrists,
>
> Thanks for the SF spreadsheet. I look forward to checking it out.
>
> Programming an automated calculation of the sine-wave parameters to achieve
> a match with a temperatures-table would be quite a task (which is why I
> haven't done it), with the system of nonlinear equations, but manually
> adjusting the parameters will get a match too.
>
> One other thing: Victor mentioned a Texas town, Alpine TX, with anomalous
> temperature-lag. In the record-books, Alpine likewise seems to have
> unusually short temperature lags. So Alpine would be a good town for which
> to make such a spreadsheet.
>
> Santa Cruz, too, has fog setting in during late summer, clearing up during
> September, giving a two-peaked summer. My Santa Cruz lag measurement was for
> winter, partly because of the summer fog, and partly because the middle of
> thermal winter seemed a worthwhile celebration day to determine.
>
> Mike Ossipoff
>
>
> org/>
> ________________________________
> Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

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

Victor--

You wrote:
 
 I picked Alpine sort of at random for the area. A large section of
> west Texas has similar weather patterns.
 
You mentioned Austin and Alpine as places that didn't conform to what I'd said about .75 months to 1.75 months. But, according to the government temperature records that I found, Austin's temperature lags _are_ within that range of values. But, as I said, Alpine has some anomalously short temperature-lags.
 
You continued:
 
I just looked up Marfa and
> Van Horn which have similar patterns. Marfa's peak average high seems
> to be on the cusp between May and June. That "lag" is so small it's
> negative.
 
I'll check that out too.
 
You continued:
 
> My more general point is that this feature you're trying to identify
> -- the peak of hot weather during the year...
 
I interrupt and reply:
 
To infer seasonal timelags from the temperature records, I look at the middle of summer and winter, as shown in the temperature records.
 
You continued:
 
 
 
 -- is not as consistent as
> you're making it out to be.
 
I said that, nearly everywhere throughout the north and south temperate regions, the seasonal timelag (as measured by how much the middle of winter and summer lag behind the solstices) is between .75 and 1.75 months. That means that the usual midrange value of 1.25 months won't be off by more than half a month, except in a few anomalous places. I stand by that statement.
 
You continued:
 
Good grief, San Francisco and Marfa are
> so far apart you'd think they were in different hemispheres. Such is
> not the case, obviously.
 
I reply:
 
I haven't yet had the opportunity to check out Marfa's temperature records, but I will do so at the earliest opportunity. Obviously I can't answer about Marfa before that.
 
San Francisco is a unique sort of anomalous place, with the Sacramento Valley convective "fog-machine" that I spoke of, accentuated by a mountain pass, and the Golden Gate, which channel fog and moist air to San Francisco.
 
You continued:
 
[...]
 
> In short, trying to synchronize a calendar to worldwide temperatures
> is an exercise in futility.
 
You say that, but you don't say how that claim can be reconciled with the near-universal seasonal timelag range of .75 months to 1.75 months, throughout the north and south temporate regions.
 
You continued:
 
Having a period of the right length is
> adequate.
 
I reply:
 
It must be adequate--civilization has survived :-) 
 
But maybe it would be nice to have more than "adquate".
 
You heard Christopher, in Australia. He said that, there, the high south-declination season is considered to arrive with December. What a coincidence--that's also what is said in the U.S., and by writers in England, going back centuries.
 
Likewise when people throughout the temporate zones agree that the high north-declination season arrives with June.
 
Mike Ossipoiff
 
 
 
 

---

Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that’s right for you.

[Brillig]

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:35 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF<nkklrp@...> wrote:
> Victor--
>
> You wrote:
>
>  I picked Alpine sort of at random for the area. A large section of
>> west Texas has similar weather patterns.
>
> You mentioned Austin and Alpine as places that didn't conform to what I'd
> said about .75 months to 1.75 months.

That is not what I said. I mentioned Austin and Alpine because they
are both in the state where I live, Austin being the city where I
live. I mentioned them both to contrast them with each other, not to
contrast them with your lag, since at the time of that post, I wasn't
sure what the lag was even in reference to. My point was that no
matter what the reference was, here you have two cities in the same
state whose peak heating is about two months apart.

Victor

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

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

 
Alternative better reply.
 
Victor--
 
You wrote:
 
> In short, trying to synchronize a calendar to worldwide temperatures
> is an exercise in futility.
 
Equatorial places don't match my lag assumption. Places in the tropical belt, but not on the equator don't do so as well as temperate places. Especially, places there don't match so well in their summertime.
 
But the agreement is remarkably good in the north and south temperate zones. As I said, the lag, very consistently, stays between .75 month and 1.75 month. Yes there are exceptions, but, when you look at the temperate-zone temperature records, the good agreement is remarkable nevertheless.
 
You continued:
 
Having a [whole year] period of the right length is
> adequate. Locals in various locales can then note specific points in
> the calendar that is relevant to them. The Gregorian calendar already
> accomplishes this quite nicely.
 
I reply:
 
Yes, and so would the Subjective Seasonal Calendar. On the equator, in the tropical belt off the equator in the summer, and in those relatively few anomalous temperate places, where .75 month to 1.75 month doesn't work so well, Subjective Seasonal would still work no less well than the calendar in use now. In fact, even in those most difficult places, the calendar, as a background framework, would be of meaningful interest, because its North and South seasons could still serve as a declination calendar, in spite of its 1.25 month lag. With that lag adjusted-out, the calendar would show the declination background against which and because of which the seasons occur. Subjective Seasonal's North and South, adjusted 1.25 months back, are times when, very nearly, the solar declination's north or south value is greater than about half of its maximum. That's of interest anywhere.
 
Our difference is that I think that it would be desirable to refer to the natural year, even if the match isn't perfect.
 
Most agree that there should be some kinds of year-divisions, and that they should be named somehow. How about this, then:
 
Let's name them for Roman emperors and a month-naming system that has been incorrect for over 2000 years. And let's start our year at a time that was chosen because it maybe was loosely-related to a new moon in 46 B.C.
 
No? You're a hard one to please! :-)
 
Maybe you prefer the above. Or maybe you prefer starting the year on a solstice or equinox and just dividing the year into roughly-equal months named for consecutive numbers from 1 to 12. Or from 1 to N, where N is the number of months.
 
Or maybe some would like the year-divisions and their names to explicitly refer to the natural year and its seasonal divisions as perceived by lots of people--Because no system of year-divisions and their names could be less arbitrary than that.
 
It's important to clarify that, though we might disagree on this choice, that DOESN'T mean that anyone is wrong. It's purely an aestshetic choice, and we wouldn't all make the same choice.
 
Therefore, the disagreement on this subject should never become angry, acrimonious or rude.
 
I've wanted to find out how people here feel about a terrestrial seasonal calendar, Subjective Seasonal in particular, or any other terrestrial seasonal calendar that people propose. I'm finding that out, and I thank you for expressing your opinion. I especially thank you if you express your opinion politely and amicably. If you don't agree with me on that, I understand. I'm only trying to present my suggestions, and then find out how you feel about such a calendar.
 
Now, if it turns out that a terrestrial seasonal calendar won't be accepted, then my next choice is a declination calendar.
 
In contradistinction to a terrestrial seasonal calendar, there are astronomical calendars, of two kinds:
 
1. Astronomical quarters calendars:
 
Fundamentally based on quarters in some way on solar ecliptic longitude measured with respect to equinoxes and solstices.
 
2. Declination Calendars:
 
Fundamentally based on the value of the solar declination. North and South seasons begin and end at a specific solar declination value, preferably a round figure such as 1/2 of maximum. 1/2 of maximum would be a very good choice, because it's the obvious and natural measure of where high north or south declination starts; and also because the widespread perception of the high north and south declination seasons beginning on June 1 and December 1, combined with the reasonable assumption of a 1.25 month seasonal timelag, suggests that those north and south declination seasons are caused (1.25 months later) by north or south solar declination greater than about half of its maximum.
 
So, if you reject a terrestrial seasonal calendar, then how would you reply about a declination calendar, such as one whose North and South seasons have north or south solar declination in the top half of its range?
 
Disregarding such things as the elliptical-ness of the Earth's orbit and nutation, sin(abs(dec)) would be in the top half of its range for periods exactly twice as long as the length of the transitional periods inbetween.
 
If you don't like a terrestrial seasonal calendar, then how about a declination calendar?
 
Mike Ossipoff
 
 
 

 

---

Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits. Check it out.