[AZ-Observing] Re: Weather in AZ
- From: "Richard Harshaw" <rharshaw2@xxxxxxx>
- To: <az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:31:28 -0700
I don't know, AJ. But then, don't forget Gumperson's Inverse Square Law =
of New Optical Systems, which states that when an amateur buys a new =
optical unit (telescope, finder scope, eyepiece, binos, etc.) that there =
will be awful seeing centered on his location for a radius in km equal =
to the square of the aperture of the gizmo in cm; this awful seeing will =
continue for as many days as cm of the objective. =20
Example: AJ buys a new 20 cm scope. He can expect to have 20 nights of =
bad seeing, and this mess will cover a circle 400 km in radius centered =
over AJ's house.
Friedrich von Gumperson developed this law after living next to William =
Herschel for thirty years.
DH
(tongue in cheek)
-----Original Message-----
From: az-observing-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx =
[mailto:az-observing-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of AJ Crayon
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 10:25 AM
To: az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AZ-Observing] Re: Weather in AZ
It seems Dick has motivated Tom to come up with some interesting data.=20
Something I've come to enjoy. While the numbers from Tom's analysis =
seem to=20
indicate we have had better weather than what we believe, I think we are =
missing some part of the discussion. That part has to do with nights =
when=20
most of us are able to get out with our telescopes. Normally this is =
one or=20
two weekends per month and not the entire month. It is this kind of =
weekend=20
where the weather has an impact on our hobby. Yet the data doesn't seem =
to=20
reach this level of detail - does it?
Clear skies,
aj
----- Original Message -----=20
From: "Tom Polakis" <tpolakis@xxxxxxx>
To: <az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 9:07 AM
Subject: [AZ-Observing] Re: Weather in AZ
--- Richard Harshaw <rharshaw2@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm not a big fan of the "man is causing global warming" scare-- I =
think=20
> it
> is more likely due to solar activity and natural planetary cycles. =
But=20
> one
> does wonder if this may not be due to a global climate change?
I am a big fan of analyzing data, and drawing conclusions from it, as=20
everybody on this list should be. If I am not intimately involved in a=20
particular discipline such as climatology, I trust the conclusions of =
the=20
science community more than anybody.
The recent cloudiness in Arizona hasn't been any more than slightly =
below=20
average. Brian Skiff has been gathering cloudiness data for Flagstaff =
since=20
1980 (http://www.lowell.edu/Research/cloudiness_data/clouds.html), and i =
have the yearly data plotted through 2006 here.
http://members.cox.net/tpolakis/astro/clouds1.jpg
You can see that there really was no "golden age" when it was always =
clear=20
in Arizona.
Now look at this monthly plot of average with 1-sigma standard =
deviation.
http://members.cox.net/tpolakis/astro/clouds3.jpg
Typical number of "clear" nights for for Winter are:
December: 11 +/- 4
January: 10.5 +/- 4
What we have so far for 2007-08 (assuming cloudy nights through the rest =
of=20
January) are:
December: 8
January: 7
So you could say that this Winter storm season has been worse than =
average=20
for observing, but only slightly so.
Tom
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and =
please
send personal replies to the author, not the list.
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and =
please=20
send personal replies to the author, not the list.
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
send personal replies to the author, not the list.
Other related posts:
