Climate Battle: New York City vs. London (average, degree, sunny)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
All or almost all of Arizona gets 3000+ hours, so even shaving off 200 or 300 hours it's comparable or better in terms of sunshine.
I don't understand why you guys tell everyone that U.S. climatology adds extra 200-300 sunshine hours when it is absolutely not true. Whatever sunshine measurment system the U.S. use is what rest of the world uses. What you see on wikipedia is from world climatology.
I don't understand why you guys tell everyone that U.S. climatology adds extra 200-300 sunshine hours when it is absolutely not true. Whatever sunshine measurment system the U.S. use is what rest of the world uses. What you see on wikipedia is from world climatology.
As for myself I don't buy the adjustment. That notion seems very inconsistent to me when applied to, say, Montreal vs. NYC. It doesn't add up everywhere. I just pointed out that Arizona performs very well vs. the sunniest European cities even if you subtracted 300 hours.
I don't understand why you guys tell everyone that U.S. climatology adds extra 200-300 sunshine hours when it is absolutely not true. Whatever sunshine measurment system the U.S. use is what rest of the world uses. What you see on wikipedia is from world climatology.
They do not - measurement systems vary, and you don't rule the world. Fahrenheit, anyone? And Wikipedia is a notoriously unreliable supplier of climate stats. of any type.
As for myself I don't buy the adjustment. That notion seems very inconsistent to me when applied to, say, Montreal vs. NYC. It doesn't add up everywhere. I just pointed out that Arizona performs very well vs. the sunniest European cities even if you subtracted 300 hours.
Not disputing Arizona. But US sources themselves have downplayed the importance of measuring sunshine (as quoted in an announcement reproduced on this forum some while back).
If you asked any international expert on sunshine measurement whether they thought quoted US values were properly comparable to most other countries' ones, you would very likely get equivocation at best.
Arizona fine - "almost all of the South" is much more debatable.
RW has a point, but I think we need to look at it another way. From my research, the US methodology, from way back, was to try to capture the amount of sunshine from dawn to dusk. That is why they added LSC to the numbers from the thermometric system. When they switched methods in the 50's, I believe in order to keep the historical record intact they tried to capture that roughly extra hour of sun per day that C-S did not capture. C-S captured "bright sunshine" basically about a half hour after sunrise and a half hour before sunset. So, a more accurate comparison may be upping the numbers from outside the US based on a LSC number. I doubt very much that if you added all the clear mornings and evenings in London it would add up to adding an extra 250 hours to their record. More likely 100 hours. A city that had 365 clear days a year would 365 hours obviously. A rough number could be arrived at by looking at how many cloudy days per year a city had, and then maybe taking some percentage of the pt cloudy days. So, how many cities in the world RW do you think would have say 300 clear days a year? I just doubt most cities would add 250 hours based on their morning and evening sunshine. I spent 10 days(September) in Barcelona one year and I remember two distinct days that were overcast the whole day and rain. I just don't think it accurate to lop off 250 hours from every US city. Not very scientific imo and of course climatologists would most likely scorn that approach.
Not disputing Arizona. But US sources themselves have downplayed the importance of measuring sunshine (as quoted in an announcement reproduced on this forum some while back).
If you asked any international expert on sunshine measurement whether they thought quoted US values were properly comparable to most other countries' ones, you would very likely get equivocation at best.
Totally untrue when you spend time reading articles from the 1930's and 40's. Sunshine hours were important for agricultural reasons from what I gathered. They took it pretty seriously in the 1930's. Don't you think that carried over into the 50's. I think as we got close to the 21st century sunshine measurement fell out of fashion and solar radiation became more important. Today I had a work meeting in Atlantic City. The skies were totally clear on that barrier island by the ocean. As soon as I got around 3 or 4 miles inland the clouds built up and the sky was much more pt cloudy with cloudy and sunny periods. I'll bet that is why there is a diff between Blue Hill, MA at 12 miles inland and Logan airport sitting right on Boston Harbor.
So If S-C is counting 2356 hours at Blue Hill, I'm sure it would count more at Logan or for sure at a place like Charleston, SC.
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 register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
