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.
Alas, the Volcano/Lava Bar is no more, thanks to the earthquake. It looks like mid October to me.
One of the reasons I treasure this, one of a series taken on a South Island trip in Oct-Nov 2007. I took a number of them on this cloudless day. Shortly after I drove from Ch'ch to Cook and back to accommodation at Tekapo. Over the entire day the only occurrence of any cloud was a small wisp near one of the alpine passes on Cook, late in the afternoon.
I have never made claims that the C-S method is desirable - it was difficult to maintain consistency to say the least, just that its readings in general would come out lower than with US methods. I also have a recollection now that the expert to whom I am addressing my question stated that the C-S could need values as high as 260 in some circumstances. The 120 presumably represents an ideal average status. This would suggest that C-S sites were not generous with their readings overall.
I hope my contact can clarify things somewhat.
As a source I gave in post #57 showed, the S-C machine has gone off as low as 70Watts for bright sunshine. And also, the article I linked from the weather station in Minnesota clearly showed at the end of the article that the Foster-Foskett trigger was 120Watts.
I remember thinking the sun lacked bite in SoCal (May- July), and that was at a time that I wasn't aware of UVI differences. The thought occurred to me at the time, that was what made California such a great climate. I can't comment on the US any further east than Reno though.
Working outdoors most of my working life has given me a healthy respect for the sun here. I've seen plenty of people (local and foreign) on orchards I work on, that have had to take time off work from serious sun burn. In the worst cases (two I can think of)an overnight hospital stay was needed. Also workers from abroad, including hotter, sunnier climes comment frequently on the sun- it's crazy, insane etc. I think the lowish temps can be misleading.
It's not lying on beaches that present the biggest problem here - something that most people take precaution with. It's 10 -20 minutes doing something outside, when you've forgotten your hat or long sleeved shirt , on the wrong sort of day.
This would be an issue with the entire N. Hemisphere rather than just the US, the sun being closer in your summer, and the thinner ozone layer.
I think you need a healthy respect for the sun here as well. Also, looking at your summer temps, I feel they lack any true feeling of summer. So, though I may find your sun strong, I can't believe that would compensate for cool summer temps. I very much enjoy our summers here with temps in the mid to high 80's and sunshine in the plus 60% of possible category. I'm not impressed with temps in the low 70's for summer highs, blazing super strong sun or not. And that super strong sun certainly doesn't seem to have much impact on your surface ocean temps.
I have never made claims that the C-S method is desirable - it was difficult to maintain consistency to say the least, just that its readings in general would come out lower than with US methods. I also have a recollection now that the expert to whom I am addressing my question stated that the C-S could need values as high as 260 in some circumstances. The 120 presumably represents an ideal average status. This would suggest that C-S sites were not generous with their readings overall.
I hope my contact can clarify things somewhat.
This from the article I quoted in post #57:
"However,further investigations, especially performed with the IRSR in France, resulted in a mean value of 120W m–2, which was finally proposed as the threshold of direct solar irradiance to distinguish bright
sunshine. "
They were referencing the S-C machine and the threshold for bright sunshine. Are you going to propose that every S-C machine in the world registered bright sunshine only above 260W? Again, that is no basis for comparing sunshine levels around the world. And as I showed in post #63, the WMO chose 120Watts for the entire world. I think I'm realizing that S-C is one crappy outdated method for measuring sunshine, with some guy reading burn marks on a card.
It's the Aero (the only sunshine site around urban Sydney as far as I know), for a fairly substantial timespan, (1976-present). It's possible this may decrease a little if the current PDO phase has enough effect, but that's not really clear at this point.
I would certainly add Columbia to my list of "suspects". Perth is a case of moving averages, given the documented decrease in rainfall with the southward movement of the southern jet and associated weather systems. It has averaged a tad over 3200 hours at the airport over an 18-year timespan.
Wow – you are quite fascinated in sunshine lad. Perhaps you are solar powered (like me). Seriously, just a few other interesting things to consider in this sunshine issue…which I find as interesting as you do:
1 ) Beyond true desert climates, much of the time sun hrs in more humid climates like Miami, Brisbane, Gold Coast…etc will often some cloud in the sky on a typical day. The BIG DIFFERENCE is that the clouds in these much lower latitudes regions tend to be of the more vertical type (cumulus)….rather than the more horizontal type (stratus). The comment about Miami “feeling” really sunny all the time (Tom 77 above) is well taken: The sun always seems to be on your back/in your face in Miami, in all seasons – yet there is always some tall vertical cumulus clouds in some part of the sky. I would guess (just a guess), that if one was in Miami/ Brisbane on what was termed “a partly cloudy day”….and one was in Seattle/ South Island, New Zealand on what was termed “a partly cloudy day”….I would bet the lower latitude climate would have the look/feel of being "more sunny" due to the arrangement of clouds. Just for example – here is a pic of Ft. Lauderdale; is this a partly cloudy or sunny day?
2) In terms of summer sunshine in Sydney vs cities like NYC or Washington DC… I know two professional woman who moved to Sydney for several years - and have on/off worked and lived inside the Beltway (DC) and Manhattan. The first thing they mentioned in a conversation about Sydney’s climate was that it seemed cloudier in summer than NYC or DC. True, it matters greatly if a cities climate is experiencing anomalous conditions – but this tells me at least Sydney had the potential to seem cloudy compared to NYC or DC.
3) In relation to the very high sun hrs in interior South Carolina (in the general area of Columbia southward) - I have seen papers that in some years 3500 hrs of sun can be logged in this area. Yet, there are environmental/physiographic features to this small sub-region that create the conditions for an unusually high about of sun hrs that might not be apparent at first glance (this goes back to my comment a few pages ago how small micro-conditions can add up to a great deal):
By far the most interesting geographical feature in interior South Carolina is what is known as the “Sand Hills”. The Sand hills is a strip of hilly, unconnected bands of sand left from the ocean dunes during the Miocene Epoch. These sand hills generally divide the Piedmont from the Atlantic coastal plain. Soils in the Sandhills are extremely well drained – often the soil is nothing more than yellow/grayish loamy sand. Because they are predominantly porous, sandy soils tend to be extremely droughty. This is why there is often severe drought in interior South Carolina in some years. Although the peach industry flourishes in this area (peaches need a well drained soil), for the most part heavy irrigation is required for agriculture. The physical environmental in this region reflects the dry conditions, there are few leafy green trees – the landscape is mostly scrub pine, beach sand, and a rather large concentration of snakes (including coral snakes I think).
Climatically, this region is quick to lose moisture, so very often (esp at the time of high sun) there is surface high pressure, clear skies, and very hot temperatures in this region of South Carolina. In terms of solar intensity/sun hrs – all the ingredients seem to come together in this small sub area – a porous surface that looses moisture extremely fast, surface high pressure, and lower latitude. These environmental/geographic features are (in part) thought to be the reason why this interior region of South Carolina tends to be unusually sunny. I’ve trekked though this region a few times – hot, sunny, and dry are understatements. This is pic of the typical look of the Sand Hills in interior South Carolina:
This would be an issue with the entire N. Hemisphere rather than just the US, the sun being closer in your summer, and the thinner ozone layer.
I think you need a healthy respect for the sun here as well. Also, looking at your summer temps, I feel they lack any true feeling of summer. So, though I may find your sun strong, I can't believe that would compensate for cool summer temps. I very much enjoy our summers here with temps in the mid to high 80's and sunshine in the plus 60% of possible category. I'm not impressed with temps in the low 70's for summer highs, blazing super strong sun or not. And that super strong sun certainly doesn't seem to have much impact on your surface ocean temps.
I wouldn't mind summer to be 2-3C/4-6F warmer and a bit longer, although this is more from a plant growing perspective, rather than my comfort preferences. To me, it's been summer for about 1 month here, which I measure by swimming, not feeling cold, sometimes hot, and days like yesterday that are heavy overcast, but still really nice. That is what makes summer for me, and I've found when I'm in hotter climates, that they don't feel any more summery to me, just hotter.
I (would)have a healthy respect for sun anywhere I go, unlike your Italian friends, I wouldn't allow myself to get burnt. Thinking more about temperature , rather than the UV (the point I was trying to make) is what gets a lot of people who I work with looking like lobsters. It pays to try and understand whatever climate you are in, and any threats it could pose. Oddly enough, the sun seems rather mellow this year.
It's not lying on beaches that present the biggest problem here - something that most people take precaution with. It's 10 -20 minutes doing something outside, when you've forgotten your hat or long sleeved shirt , on the wrong sort of day.
I guess it depends on your complexion / heritage. I can't imagine sunburning after 10-20 minutes. Though, my skin gets darker as the warm season goes on so I'm less likely to burn. Most of the times I've burned it's from neglecting sun screen by doing something like be out shirtless in the middle of the day for a couple of hours in the summer. And then I discover I have a red glow to parts of me.
"However,further investigations, especially performed with the IRSR in France, resulted in a mean value of 120W m–2, which was finally proposed as the threshold of direct solar irradiance to distinguish bright
sunshine. "
They were referencing the S-C machine and the threshold for bright sunshine. Are you going to propose that every S-C machine in the world registered bright sunshine only above 260W? Again, that is no basis for comparing sunshine levels around the world. And as I showed in post #63, the WMO chose 120Watts for the entire world. I think I'm realizing that S-C is one crappy outdated method for measuring sunshine, with some guy reading burn marks on a card.
Yes, we've already established that the C-S trigger was variable if not very carefully controlled - but the 120 was figured as a general average for it, as far as I can see. Your article citing the 120 for the F-F is in conflict with the one I cited, and I think some expert input might be required to explain this. "Mine" was published in 1989 and I would expect it reflected the practice used in the period 1961-1990.
I am somewhat doubtful if all this will get resolved to the satisfaction of both of us, but perhaps there is some hope that current and future methods will converge on a common standard for the sake of comparability. Not too optimistic though.
PS: your post #57 also said... "Currently, sunshine duration measurements inthe United States are reported from ~100 NWS surface weather observing stations using the Foster-Foskett
sunshine switch (A-081). Testing by Hughes STX has
shown that the potentiometer in the Foster-Foskett requires frequent adjustment to maintain a consistent voltage threshold for sunshine (Hughes STX, 1996)."
Consistency could also have been an issue for the F-F.
Furthermore, "My" reference is from the WMO and I consider it to be more authoritative than yours.
Sorry, but you are going to have to do better than that to clarify this thing.
Yes, we've already established that the C-S trigger was variable if not very carefully controlled - but the 120 was figured as a general average for it, as far as I can see. Your article citing the 120 for the F-F is in conflict with the one I cited, and I think some expert input might be required to explain this. "Mine" was published in 1989 and I would expect it reflected the practice used in the period 1961-1990.
I am somewhat doubtful if all this will get resolved to the satisfaction of both of us, but perhaps there is some hope that current and future methods will converge on a common standard for the sake of comparability. Not too optimistic though.
Do you know how the earliest sunshine hours measurements were taken, i.e. the dubious zero hours figure for London in December 1890, and while we're on the subject when equipment for measuring other things like temperature/rain/wind etc were standardised? I find it a little strange that the averages we have in this country dating back to 1660 are taken as reliable for purposes of comparison but the individual temperatures before the late 1800s are generally not.
I guess it depends on your complexion / heritage. I can't imagine sunburning after 10-20 minutes. Though, my skin gets darker as the warm season goes on so I'm less likely to burn. Most of the times I've burned it's from neglecting sun screen by doing something like be out shirtless in the middle of the day for a couple of hours in the summer. And then I discover I have a red glow to parts of me.
I think that is why it can be a problem. On a bad day here 10-20 minutes is all it will take, tan or not. There are plenty of maori and islanders around here, as well as migrant workers from SE Asia. While they do seem to have a higher tolerance, sunburn is still an issue, they wear sunhats, just like everyone else. An indian guy I was working with had a bad case of sunstroke/heat stroke that required several days off. Even though the sunburn wasn't apparent, there was no doubt he was very uncomfortable from it.
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.
