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.
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:
.
Interesting points. I have always thought citing amounts of cloud cover fractions as averages/categories is too simplistic anyway - for the sorts of reasons you give above, among others. The Sand Hills area does indeed look to be rather "sun-blasted".
The summer/winter thing for Sydney is already pretty clear I think - the curve is inverse to that of NYC or DC, and it is cloudier in summer. What was (possibly) in contention was the cities' comparative strength of that sun when it was out...
Yes, as an inhabitant of a maritime temperate land I appreciate the sun, since the NZ average is not that flash.
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 you NH guys need to put the matter of the intensity of our sunlight to the test!
I can cite one small story as an example of how one can be blindsided: I went to a cricket match one December day some years ago - throughout the day there was a considerable amount of high cloud veiling the sun which was generally either invisible or at best a very vague shape. {sunshine registration for the day was NIL - for the benefit of tom77falcons}. Nevertheless I copped a fairly significant facial sunburn after a couple of hours and took shelter.
I can also recall some story of some Perth schoolkids who were taken on an outing on an overcast day in a February (I think). A number of them got sunburnt and the school was critcised for not taking precautions. Trimac20 can probbaly recall the details of this.
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.
The UKWW forum has a number of people who could answer that question, I'm sure. There's also Philip Eden. In NZ, I think the C-S wasn't in standard use until about 1930. There was an older type of instrument called a Jordan recorded, but I don't know anything about it.
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.
Re-read my post. My friends learned their lesson long ago as kids, just like I did. They use sunscreen early on when it's first warm enough to go to the beach. They don't let themselves get burned now.
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.
Refer my earlier reply. One more thing - the set of successive decadal normals (1935-60, 1941-70, 1951-80 ...through 1971-2000) developed for NZ sites from the S-C observations did show the following:
(1) Very good statistical consistency between pairs of "related" sites in the great majority of cases;
(2) Very good agreement with the perceived and measured climatologies of the various sites as reflected by other observed parameters. There were no real surprises in average annual rankings when considered in the light of common sense and general knowledge of the climates.
Not bad for such a "crappy" setup.
It is true however that centralised checking was key to this, and it was relatively labour-intensive.
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.
Sorry, but your idea of lopping off 200-300 hours from US sunshine data, to somehow compensate for every S-C machine around the globe won't cut it with me. Not being nasty, just doesn't make sense given variability of all these machines and people reading them.
As far as your feelings about Chicago, I could say the same for my friend from Sydney (via Liverpool). He said without a doubt it is sunnier here in DC (he goes there a lot) and Philly. And he much prefers summer here, due to that sunshine. BTW, if you google something along the lines "sun stronger in Southern H vs N etc. etc. , you would be surprised what comes up. Some people claim they could not tell one itota of diff to the sun in either place, and this from a guy spending a lot of time in both locations.
As far as UV goes, it is not detectable at all by humans as heat or otherwise. Though of course it damages the skin. The heat you feel on your body is Infared Radiation. This notion of UV being 14 in NZ vs 10 in FL is meaningless as far as feeling the heat of the sun. The heat being from IR, the short wavelengths don't get absorbed by Ozone. Hence thinner Ozone doesn't cause impact. And as far as pollution, this from NASA:
"The November 1981 mission provided surprising results in that the greatest concentrations of carbon monoxide in the lower atmosphere were found over the Earth's tropical regions rather than over the industrialized Northern Hemisphere, as had been expected. The 1981 mission also showed that carbon monoxide concentrations vary greatly from region to region. The October 1984 mission (Fig. 1) confirmed the November 1981 finding that the burning of forests in South America and grasslands in Africa are significant sources of global tropospheric carbon monoxide during the Southern Hemisphere dry season."
"Results from the April 1994 (STS-59) MAPS mission (Fig. 2) show low carbon monoxide mixing ratios in the Southern Hemisphere (very clean air), with a gradual increase in carbon monoxide levels in the Northern Hemisphere. In October 1994 (STS-68), the data (Fig. 3) revealed that the latitudinal gradient was reversed from the situation observed in April. The highest levels of carbon monoxide were measured over central Brazil, southern Africa, and over Indonesia where extensive fires and smoke plumes w reported by the astronaut crew."
Apparently, the S. Hemisphere has pollution also, maybe not as bad as the North, but it is present.
Finally, I really will have to travel there and see for myself.
I'm thinking the biggest reason for the strong sun there is in your summer Earth is closer to the sun. Conversely, the Miami sun in January would therefore feel a heck of a lot stronger than the sun in Queensland in July (equal latitude of course). No wonder winter temps in Australia seem rather low compared to equal latitude in the N. Hemisphere.
As far as UV goes, it is not detectable at all by humans as heat or otherwise. Though of course it damages the skin. The heat you feel on your body is Infared Radiation.
To nitpick a bit, radiation of any wavelength will cause you to heat up (UV, visible and infrared). UV is a rather small portion of solar radiation so whether UV is stronger or not shouldn't cause a big difference in the heat you feel from the sun.
The total of the red curve is the radiation we feel (and you can see UV is a fairly small portion of it with or without ozone):
Sorry, but your idea of lopping off 200-300 hours from US sunshine data, to somehow compensate for every S-C machine around the globe won't cut it with me. Not being nasty, just doesn't make sense given variability of all these machines and people reading them.
As I've just said, one can at least hope for some sort of consistency in the kinds of measuring technologies being adopted now. Then there might be some chance of comparing apples with apples. And to support my claim about S-C averages being unflattering, in NZ there are now quite a number of sites using sensor methods (with the old instrument still retained in some cases for direct comparison purposes). Invariably the initial state after installation shows that the sensor total is quite a lot higher than for the previous manual case - a typical example being a town that was quick to proclaim itself as the nation's new "sunshine capital" with annual values 300-350 hours higher than it was previously logging. This gives the met. agency a problem about whether or not it should try and establish a translation formula to allow comparison between new values and older ones.
As far as your feelings about Chicago, I could say the same for my friend from Sydney (via Liverpool). He said without a doubt it is sunnier here in DC (he goes there a lot) and Philly. And he much prefers summer here, due to that sunshine. BTW, if you google something along the lines "sun stronger in Southern H vs N etc. etc. , you would be surprised what comes up. Some people claim they could not tell one itota of diff to the sun in either place, and this from a guy spending a lot of time in both locations.
As far as UV goes, it is not detectable at all by humans as heat or otherwise. Though of course it damages the skin. The heat you feel on your body is Infared Radiation. This notion of UV being 14 in NZ vs 10 in FL is meaningless as far as feeling the heat of the sun. The heat being from IR, the short wavelengths don't get absorbed by Ozone. Hence thinner Ozone doesn't cause impact. And as far as pollution, this from NASA:
As I also said, it sneaks up on you - if the UV were felt as heat, there would be some warning.
"The November 1981 mission provided surprising results in that the greatest concentrations of carbon monoxide in the lower atmosphere were found over the Earth's tropical regions rather than over the industrialized Northern Hemisphere, as had been expected. The 1981 mission also showed that carbon monoxide concentrations vary greatly from region to region. The October 1984 mission (Fig. 1) confirmed the November 1981 finding that the burning of forests in South America and grasslands in Africa are significant sources of global tropospheric carbon monoxide during the Southern Hemisphere dry season."
"Results from the April 1994 (STS-59) MAPS mission (Fig. 2) show low carbon monoxide mixing ratios in the Southern Hemisphere (very clean air), with a gradual increase in carbon monoxide levels in the Northern Hemisphere. In October 1994 (STS-68), the data (Fig. 3) revealed that the latitudinal gradient was reversed from the situation observed in April. The highest levels of carbon monoxide were measured over central Brazil, southern Africa, and over Indonesia where extensive fires and smoke plumes w reported by the astronaut crew."
Apparently, the S. Hemisphere has pollution also, maybe not as bad as the North, but it is present.
Finally, I really will have to travel there and see for myself.
Do that...
I'm thinking the biggest reason for the strong sun there is in your summer Earth is closer to the sun. Conversely, the Miami sun in January would therefore feel a heck of a lot stronger than the sun in Queensland in July (equal latitude of course). No wonder winter temps in Australia seem rather low compared to equal latitude in the N. Hemisphere.
See reply inline.
Re Australia - a quick check at the BOM website doesn't give any indication of a conversion exercise to electronic methods. When they do get around to it, it will be interesting to see how the sunniest parts of Australia stack up against the US southwest.
Sorry, but your idea of lopping off 200-300 hours from US sunshine data, to somehow compensate for every S-C machine around the globe won't cut it with me. Not being nasty, just doesn't make sense given variability of all these machines and people reading them.
As far as your feelings about Chicago, I could say the same for my friend from Sydney (via Liverpool). He said without a doubt it is sunnier here in DC (he goes there a lot) and Philly. And he much prefers summer here, due to that sunshine. BTW, if you google something along the lines "sun stronger in Southern H vs N etc. etc. , you would be surprised what comes up. Some people claim they could not tell one itota of diff to the sun in either place, and this from a guy spending a lot of time in both locations.
As far as UV goes, it is not detectable at all by humans as heat or otherwise. Though of course it damages the skin. The heat you feel on your body is Infared Radiation. This notion of UV being 14 in NZ vs 10 in FL is meaningless as far as feeling the heat of the sun. The heat being from IR, the short wavelengths don't get absorbed by Ozone. Hence thinner Ozone doesn't cause impact. And as far as pollution, this from NASA:
"The November 1981 mission provided surprising results in that the greatest concentrations of carbon monoxide in the lower atmosphere were found over the Earth's tropical regions rather than over the industrialized Northern Hemisphere, as had been expected. The 1981 mission also showed that carbon monoxide concentrations vary greatly from region to region. The October 1984 mission (Fig. 1) confirmed the November 1981 finding that the burning of forests in South America and grasslands in Africa are significant sources of global tropospheric carbon monoxide during the Southern Hemisphere dry season."
"Results from the April 1994 (STS-59) MAPS mission (Fig. 2) show low carbon monoxide mixing ratios in the Southern Hemisphere (very clean air), with a gradual increase in carbon monoxide levels in the Northern Hemisphere. In October 1994 (STS-68), the data (Fig. 3) revealed that the latitudinal gradient was reversed from the situation observed in April. The highest levels of carbon monoxide were measured over central Brazil, southern Africa, and over Indonesia where extensive fires and smoke plumes w reported by the astronaut crew."
Apparently, the S. Hemisphere has pollution also, maybe not as bad as the North, but it is present.
Finally, I really will have to travel there and see for myself.
I'm thinking the biggest reason for the strong sun there is in your summer Earth is closer to the sun. Conversely, the Miami sun in January would therefore feel a heck of a lot stronger than the sun in Queensland in July (equal latitude of course). No wonder winter temps in Australia seem rather low compared to equal latitude in the N. Hemisphere.
You must only be referring to subtropical and tropical latitudes since at temperate latitudes that is completely false. Hobart for example is much warmer than Boston in winter which is at the same latitude.
Re Australia - a quick check at the BOM website doesn't give any indication of a conversion exercise to electronic methods. When they do get around to it, it will be interesting to see how the sunniest parts of Australia stack up against the US southwest.
BTW, google Stokes-Campbell and enter the term "dry air". It seems that Stokes-Campbell record bright sunshine at 70Watts when conditions are very dry, as in parts of Australia during dry spells.
I wonder what method the Germans use, as that may be the best.
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.
