Seasonal or declination calendar

 
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.