Comparing Sunshine Hours and Max Annual Temperature in the UK.

Posted: August 30, 2011 by tallbloke in atmosphere, climate, Politics, solar system dynamics

Contributor ‘Green Sand’ on WUWT offers this useful page on the Met Office site:

Where I grabbed a couple of graphs of annual sunshine hours and annual max temp for the UK:

Now I don’t know about you, but I’d say there was a stronger correlation between sunshine hours and temperature than there is between co2 levels and temperature. I know correlation isn’t causation, but I’m sure you might see the possible relationship here… 🙂

Last year I posted this item:

Which tells a similar story.

  1. Doug Proctor says:

    The breakdown of temperature by region is showing how regional “global” is. Since cloud cover is regional, although a global phenomena, this is important.

    The Goreites will refuse such regionalization of the global record. They are fixated on CO2. Regionalization is weather, they’ll say, not climate; you have to lump it all together to see the “facts”.

    The global oceans show the temperature regionalization. Sunshine hours in warm Pacific areas would be most interesting.

  2. Green Sand says:

    Hi Tallbloke, I have been trying, so far unsuccessfully, to locate the data behind the charts. Wanted to check if there are any indications of lag/lead or accumulation. Will keep trying.

  3. tallbloke says:

    Hi Green Sand, and welcome. It looks like temp leads sunshine on these plots. Not that that tells us much about anything. 🙂

  4. T G Watkins says:

    Just for fun. I remember the scorching holiday we spent in Paignton in 1959 and even stronger the memory of a wet, windy and miserable holiday in Bournemouth in 1961. Plastic ‘pac-a-macs’ with accompanied plastic hats and endless evenings spent in shelters near the Wintergardens singing songs (we are Welsh) with no money to do anything else. Perfect for a 13 year old. Sorry but the graphs brought it all flooding back.
    Maybe clouds do have an effect on local weather!

  5. Ulric Lyons says:

    @tallbloke says:
    August 30, 2011 at 5:14 pm

    “It looks like temp leads sunshine on these plots.”

    Check the dates on the x axis, temp`s are 85/90/95 ect but sunshine is 84/89/94/99 etc.

  6. tallbloke says:

    Hi Ulric, also some matches at 1949 1959 etc. I’ll plot up the mean temp vs sunshine as well so we can compare.

  7. Tenuc says:

    There are problems with how sunshine duration is defined and measured…

    Sunshine duration is defined by WMO as the time during which solar radiation exceeds the level of 120 W/m². According to Willis, there are 330 W/m2 (atmospheric DLR), so it looks like we have a theoretical system of perpetual sunshine… 🙂 – or am I missing something?

  8. tchannon says:

    Ignore the radiation wallahs.

    The 120W/sqm is twaddle

    It is a point source at 5500K. A diffuse 240W will not burn the paper. Try this, lay a sheet of white paper in full sun (1kW sqm), get beer, wait until it bursts into flames otherwise test beer is wet, get more beer, repeat until beer is needed to put out flames. This is a popular experiment.

    We have a point source 5500K x attenuation and the other side of an optical imager 500k or whatever it takes to produce a mark, A switch to radiative is daft, not dealing with parasitic bodies and all the hand waving that involves.

  9. Richard111 says:

    Have a look at the solar page on this site:
    Note the watts per square metre of sunshine. 🙂

  10. tallbloke says:

    And from Germany, Potsdam (EU Global warming central) no less 🙂

    Same drop from 1954-1980

    Of course, the AGW folk tell us this ‘dimming’ was somehow due to ‘aerosols’.

  11. AusieDan says:

    Maybe the AGW folk are right – ‘dimming’ IS somehow due to ‘aerosols’.
    What causes the aersols to clump?
    CERN anybody?

  12. Brian H says:

    Warming drops RH and reduces clouds which increases sunshine, which causes warming which …. OMG! IT’S A RUNAWAY! RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!

    With apologies to Monty.

  13. tchannon says:

    Dayside… but what happens nightside?

  14. Frank Legge says:

    Seeing the reference here to sunshine hours, reminded me of some experiments I did years ago when studying the effects of using a tracking device to permit solar panels to follow the sun. The purpose of the solar panels was to provide power for pumping water in rural Australia. We found that, if a pump is properly matched to the power supply it will stop pumping when the solar intensity falls to about 30%. We also found that clouds were typically bimodal; it was mostly either sunny or cloudy. When sunny, there was 100% sun. When a cloud came over there was 30% sun and the pump would stop. We concluded that the best way to predict the output of a solar powerd pump at a particular location and season was to use “hours of sunshine”. It is surprising that all solar pump suppliers, as far as I know, do not use hours of sunshine, however, but total irradiation data. Their predictions therefore cannot be as accurate as ours were.

    All this makes me wonder whether “hours of sunshine” might be better than TSI for studies of the global warming effect. For it to be better there has to be a difference in efficiency of utilization at different intensities. That was certainly the case for pumps. I have read reports that it is also the case for solar powered water heating, as it is necessary to have a reasonable intensity before the solar absorber will become hotter than the reservoir and thus able to supply energy to it by convection.

    Is it possible that a similar difference in efficiency might occur in heating the earth at different intensities?

  15. lgl says:

    “Of course, the AGW folk tell us this ‘dimming’ was somehow due to ‘aerosols’.”

    But the real cause was a more negative AO, sending chunks of cold air to mid latitudes, and we all know what happens when warm moist air is cooled.