You know solar noon is not necessarily noon. Right? Pretty sure it changes throughout the year, too. If so, that seems more an argument for dst. I'll check in a bit. Someone may just know, though.
DST doesn’t have anything to do with the oscillation of the true noon at any location by +/-15 minutes around the year (that cycle is not even summer/winter).
The chart shows at what time noon happens when you have a 24-hour clock calibrated to get it right on average. For example, a clock showing GMT assuming you’re in Greenwich.
If you add or subtract hours to your clock instead of keeping a 24 hours day length then yes, you will have jumps. But those jumps are caused by you playing with the clock, they are not real.
The fact that Daylight Savings Time exists doesn’t have anything to do that the duration of the day is sometimes a few seconds longer and sometimes a few seconds shorter than 24 hours.
If noon was always 24 hours after the previous one the line in that chart would be flat. With discontinuities if you want to include DST shifts in the chart, but I really don’t see the interest in doing so.
The rationale for applying DST has nothing to do with that variation, it would be just the same if the time from noon to noon was always 24 hours.
This feels like a classic case of talking past each other.
First, I will acknowledge you answered precisely what I asked. Thank you.
I would like to get DST back in context, since it is in that context that I asked. The assertion seemed to be that solar noon being at local noon had some advantages. I agree that is begging the question to assume it, but I am just exploring the consequences.
So, assuming I was asking for drift of solar noon to local noon, we have to account for our messing with the clock. Because we do and did. Would there be advantage to us having a mechanism that more closely aligned them? More, what would that mechanism look like? I was guessing that it would look similar to DST, just with 30 minute swings, not 60.