U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Weather
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 12-04-2011, 02:46 PM
 
Location: SW Missouri
14,716 posts, read 16,941,362 times
Reputation: 18736
Looks like it would be really tough to grow a garden.

The climate can be very unpleasant, however, owing to the persistent strong winds and extreme lack of sunshine. Tórshavn is the gloomiest place in the world with significant sunshine records at only about 2.4 hours of sunshine per day...

The average July temp being only 48 degrees. Yeesh

20yrsinBranson
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-04-2011, 08:10 PM
 
721 posts, read 806,067 times
Reputation: 633
Sunshine hours are so subjective. Some weather stations have automated sensors that track such hours and the technology is new enough that it would be very likely that there are erroneous readings. Those who still rely on humans are subject by the biases that are a part of such observations.

I agree that Torshavn is not an ideal place for sun worshippers and it may well be the most sunless large town.

There are places which have even less sunshine, perhaps far less. No one knows for certain how many hours of of bright sunshine places like Mt. Waialeale in Hawaii get for instance. There are places on Chile's South Coast that, as far as I know, have never been photographed from the air because of consistant cloud cover. Their met service doesn't track sunshine stats - or at least I can't find any - but some of those places must range down to the lower 300's for annual sunshine hours and thus average 8-10% percent possible. But I don't know for sure nor do I think anyone else does. In any case, these sun impaired spots are mostly uninhabited - probably for that reason.

The New Guinea Highlands don't get a whole lot either. I have heard about the same paucity of aerial shots of Puncak Jaya and Mt. Wilhelm for the same reason. But, again, I don't know how true that is.

Then, as mentioned previously, there is the infamous Cold Bay, Alaska....I can't speak for anyone but myself but I would simply fold up and die if I had to live in any of these places full time.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2011, 09:25 PM
 
Location: Wellington and North of South
4,044 posts, read 2,835,579 times
Reputation: 1699
Quote:
Originally Posted by FVWinters View Post
There are places on Chile's South Coast that, as far as I know, have never been photographed from the air because of consistant cloud cover. Their met service doesn't track sunshine stats - or at least I can't find any - but some of those places must range down to the lower 300's for annual sunshine hours and thus average 8-10% percent possible..
I think that's an exaggeration. At this point, there is no observational evidence for any place with an open horizon sea-level location that gets less than about 550 hours, although some old maps conjectured there may be some areas in the far northern and southern oceans that get as little as 500.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2011, 01:01 AM
 
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,693 posts, read 17,412,934 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWood View Post
I think that's an exaggeration. At this point, there is no observational evidence for any place with an open horizon sea-level location that gets less than about 550 hours, although some old maps conjectured there may be some areas in the far northern and southern oceans that get as little as 500.
Yeah I think Campbell Island is about as cloudy as it gets. If they kept weather records for the summit of some of the peaks in Heard and Macquarie Islands, and maybe the seaward slopes of some of the mountains in Chile, maybe it would be a bit less.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2011, 04:44 AM
 
2 posts, read 2,236 times
Reputation: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWood View Post
I think that's an exaggeration. At this point, there is no observational evidence for any place with an open horizon sea-level location that gets less than about 550 hours, although some old maps conjectured there may be some areas in the far northern and southern oceans that get as little as 500.
Between 1948 and 1954, Atlas Cove on Heard-Island got 1,4 h/day on average, which means 511 hours annually.
Link: Link (http://www.bom.gov.au/events/9icshmo/manuscripts/PT_B9_Stern.pdf - broken link)
If I remember well, there are some subantarctic islands with 400-500 hours of bright sunshine, but I cannot find the online document anymore.


Something interesting

Page 36: "Bryagzin (1968) distinguished a small area between Jan Mayen and Björnöya islands where annual amounts of sunshine duration do not exceed 300 h. Of all the arctic stations, the lowest values are found in Byörnöya (annual mean only 249 h) then at Hopen and Jan Mayen (both 444 h)."

So, according to an estimation from the late 60s, some areas of the open ocean get less than 300 hours annually.

The book states that Byörnöya gets 249 h/year. A very low value. Could it be correct? In the norwegian statistics, it is 590 h/year.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2011, 04:56 AM
 
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,693 posts, read 17,412,934 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovi707 View Post
Between 1948 and 1954, Atlas Cove on Heard-Island got 1,4 h/day on average, which means 511 hours annually.
Link: Link (http://www.bom.gov.au/events/9icshmo/manuscripts/PT_B9_Stern.pdf - broken link)
If I remember well, there are some subantarctic islands with 400-500 hours of bright sunshine, but I cannot find the online document anymore.


Something interesting

Page 36: "Bryagzin (1968) distinguished a small area between Jan Mayen and Björnöya islands where annual amounts of sunshine duration do not exceed 300 h. Of all the arctic stations, the lowest values are found in Byörnöya (annual mean only 249 h) then at Hopen and Jan Mayen (both 444 h)."

So, according to an estimation from the late 60s, some areas of the open ocean get less than 300 hours annually.

The book states that Byörnöya gets 249 h/year. A very low value. Could it be correct? In the norwegian statistics, it is 590 h/year.
What are the record periods for those averages? I'm thinking of some of the cloudiest stations in Australia (highland parts of Western Tasmania) or say parts of Alaska, and seem to recall even the most cloudy climates tend to average at least 12-15 clear (almost cloudless) days a year. A place with only 249 hours a year would practically get no sunshine, or seem to get no sunshine. Such a place would probably average less than a handful of clear days a year, over 300 cloudy days a year and a similar number of days of precipitation. Couldn't find stats on Mt Waialeale in Hawaii, which supposedly gets 335-360 days of rain a year (which is the highest I've seen for any station) and I wonder how it's tropical location would affect sunshine totals.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2011, 11:51 AM
 
701 posts, read 496,583 times
Reputation: 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovi707 View Post
Between 1948 and 1954, Atlas Cove on Heard-Island got 1,4 h/day on average, which means 511 hours annually.
Link: Link (http://www.bom.gov.au/events/9icshmo/manuscripts/PT_B9_Stern.pdf - broken link)
If I remember well, there are some subantarctic islands with 400-500 hours of bright sunshine, but I cannot find the online document anymore.


Something interesting

Page 36: "Bryagzin (1968) distinguished a small area between Jan Mayen and Björnöya islands where annual amounts of sunshine duration do not exceed 300 h. Of all the arctic stations, the lowest values are found in Byörnöya (annual mean only 249 h) then at Hopen and Jan Mayen (both 444 h)."

So, according to an estimation from the late 60s, some areas of the open ocean get less than 300 hours annually.

The book states that Byörnöya gets 249 h/year. A very low value. Could it be correct? In the norwegian statistics, it is 590 h/year.
A lot of these Far North/Far South Islands have topography the blocks out the sun.
For example South Georgia Island on the East coast only recorded about 1000 hours a year, but was estimated at 1500 hours without the mountains.
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Admittedly this was to the lee of mountains, on the windward side it was only 650hours.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2011, 01:19 PM
 
Location: Wellington and North of South
4,044 posts, read 2,835,579 times
Reputation: 1699
I think the topographically affected places give misleading results about cloudiness. I think my old favourite Campbell Island, which sits on open ocean with virtually unfettered horizon visibility, is still hard to beat (620-640 hours).
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2011, 03:19 PM
 
3,218 posts, read 3,290,497 times
Reputation: 3086
Quote:
Originally Posted by vaughanwilliams View Post
I don't know what the big deal is-lack of blinding sunshine doesn't mean it's pitch black out, just overcast. Torshavn looks nice.

Disclaimer for all the sun lovers:

*This is just my opinion and in no way constitutes what the rest of the world should think.*
I know I would love to live there. After living somewhere where you can't lose your sunglasses because the sun is blinding (and hot, and you still can't see because of the sun) for about 10 months of the year, that sounds like my dream home. We couldn't even go for walks last summer at 11:00 pm, because it was still over 100 degrees and so suffocating, we couldn't breathe.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2011, 03:30 PM
 
Location: New Jersey
10,436 posts, read 5,492,032 times
Reputation: 4817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jess5 View Post
I know I would love to live there. After living somewhere where you can't lose your sunglasses because the sun is blinding (and hot, and you still can't see because of the sun) for about 10 months of the year, that sounds like my dream home. We couldn't even go for walks last summer at 11:00 pm, because it was still over 100 degrees and so suffocating, we couldn't breathe.
I couldn't agree more. While this place isn't perfect, it's very comfortable and liveable. Superior to hot and sunny climates, IMO.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Weather

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top