Sunshine Hours - Relevant?

[marchesarosa]

Heathrow’s Sunshine Hours which they started collecting in 1957:

Decade..............Sunshine Hours Total
1960s........................14555.7
1970s....................... 15118.6
1980s........................15264.4
1990s........................16801.9
2000s........................16776.8

www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/stationdata/heathrowdata.txt

What does this change imply? Any ideas, anyone?

I have seen this data posted by a chap called Bruce on various weblogs over the last few years and on the face of it it seems to offer some support for the "It's the sun, stupid!" hypothesis of climate change.

No-one ever picks up Bruce's data. Why? It looks interesting to me. Am I being naive? I have tried without success to get comparable sunshine hours for other UK cities from the Met Office website. Help!

How should it be investigated in view of the causes of the supposed "global" temperature rise? Your suggestions would be welcome.

[marchesarosa]

Of course, the other side of the coin of changes in sunshine is change in cloud albedo.
More clouds = cooler, fewer clouds = warmer.

I heard recently (the Canadian Senate Hearings) that the change from full sunshine to cloudy skies is equivalent to a reduction in incoming energy of 30 watts per square meter of ground area. This is something we have all experienced. It gets chilly when the sun goes in!

[mak2]

I think it is doubtful whether the figures imply anything.
They do not look statistically significant to me.

[marchesarosa]

Do you REALLY believe an increase of more than 15% in sunshine hours from 1960 to 2010 is "not statistically significant"?

What do you understand by "statistically significant", mak2 ?

I think a steady upward rise totalling 15% over four decades culminating in a plateauing out in the 5th decade is "significant" in many senses, including the "statistical".

It would be interesting to know if this trend were repeated in other UK locations. Or even if the measurement had been made. Maybe Heathrow was a one-off.

[mak2]

"Not statistically significant" means that the differences in sunshine hours could easily be random fluctuations.
The detailed Met Office figures show that sunshine hours vary considerably from year to year.
For example, 2003.5 hours in 2003 but only 1638.9 hours in 2004.

[rsmith7]

Jan 7, 2012 16:06:09 GMT 1 mak2 said:

"Not statistically significant" means that the differences in sunshine hours could easily be random fluctuations.
The detailed Met Office figures show that sunshine hours vary considerably from year to year.
For example, 2003.5 hours in 2003 but only 1638.9 hours in 2004.

If the temperature decadal average had shown a 15% increase over 50 years, the warmists would be peeing their pants.

[mak2]

Most of the data used by warmists is not statistically significant either.
However, sunshine hours are much more variable than temperatures.

[marchesarosa]

Sunshine hours are certainly variable on a day to day, week to week, season to season basis (as are temperatures) but cumulatively over decades they have to be an excellent indicator of solar/albedo variation.

Unlike temperatures, sunshine hours can be added up to give an idea of total incoming watts per square meter over time. And at Heathrow, at least, they showed a big increase over 5 decades plateauing out in the 2000s at the same time as global temperatures plateaued. That's an interesting correlation, if nothing else.

[marchesarosa]

Attribution of Variations in Maximum Temperature Records 1932 – 2010 Central United Kingdom, with Implications for Global Warming

D.Proctor, P.Geol.
Calgary, Alberta; December 30, 2011

Abstract

Previously sourced and plotted data for averaged annual maximum temperature and hours of bright sunshine covering the period 1932 to 2010 for the Central United Kingdom were analyzed. Changes in the two relative to a stable period (1962 – 1973) amounted to increases of 0.98C and 108 hours in 2010.

Three factors were found to be associated with all temperature changes:

The duration of bright sunshine, such that C = 9.27E-3C X Sunshine hour – 0.10C. This factor was constant with time, but the changes in bright sunshine hours followed (with time) a quasi-sinusoidal pattern with indeterminate amplitude, but a peak-to-peak cycle of 62 years.
A quasi-sinusoidal (with time) Pacific Decadal Oscillation-Atlantic Multidecadal Occillation-like variation, with a cycle length of 56 years and amplitude of 0.31C.
A linear (with time), consistent increase of temperature, such that C = 9.53E-4 (Yr-1873) – 0.1425 C.
The majority of temperature change was due to the sunshine duration factor. The PDO-AMO-like varying factor contributed the second most significant portion of the temperature change record, sometimes adding and sometimes subtracting from the temperature changes associated with increased/decreased bright sunshine. The third factor was tied to the PDO-AMO-like factor as a long-term warming, but added only a minor amount, 0.095C/century.


The datum period 1962 – 1973 recorded a stable period of 1315.9 hours, i.e. a daytime cloudiness of 70.0%. From 1932 to 1948, and from 1980 to 2010, the Central United Kingdom experienced increased bright sunshine of about 42 and 108 hours, respectively. This is a bright sunshine increase of 3.2% gross and 0.96% net more sunshine for the earlier period, and 8.2% gross, and 2.5% net additional sunshine for the most recent period. Stated in the reverse, in the 1932-1948 periods when temperature rose 0.32C, there was 0.96% less cloudiness; in the 1980 – 2010 period, when the average maximum temperature rose 0.98C, 2.5% less cloudiness.

The PDO-AMO –like temperature changes did not match perfectly either the timing or amount of temperature change associated with heat release and storage for either the PDO or the AMO events as individual events. The changes appear more of a non-equal combination of both, though the combination was not determined within this study.

It is concluded that changes in the Central United Kingdom Maximum temperature history of the past 70 years is fundamentally a response to changes in the amount of sunshine (i.e., cloudiness) in association with rises and falls in temperature resulting from natural heat storage and release of the from the planet’s two largest oceans. The remaining, small portion of temperature rises seen in the Central UK may as well be attributed to land-use changes or inappropriate adjustments in the temperature records as it could to CO2-related changes in heat retention. Regardless of cause, this minor temperature rise, at 0.1C/century is of no consequence to the local biosphere.

Although the UK area studied is a small portion of an island mass with its own peculiar weather, the strong similarity in patterns, i.e. its climate patterns, to various GISTemp regional and whole-globe average temperature profiles suggests that the Central UK is a good proxy for what has happened across the planet and comes from common causes. Extended to 2060, it is proposed that an increase of cloudiness of about 2.5% and a decrease of temperature of about 1.0C will occur in the Central United Kingdom by 2040. Globally, cloudiness and temperature are expected to +1.7% and -0.70C, respectively.

Suggestions are offered as areas of similar study of the sunshine-PDO/AMO correlation and, hence, causation, of temperature variations of the near-past and probable near-future....

Summary & Conclusions:

The Maximum Temperatures of the Central United Kingdom area are entirely determined by a) the amount of sunshine received, i.e. changes in cloudiness,
b) a cycling input and output of heat related to changes in energy storage and release of the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean, and
c) a very minor, long-term increase in overall temperatures.
The amount of sunshine received has a cyclic pattern similar to, but not in lockstep with, the oceanic heating and cooling cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.
The very minor, long-term increase in temperatures, at 0.1C/century may be related to anthropogenically produced CO2, but other factors, including artefacts of data manipulation and adjustments might be equally considered. Regardless, the amount of heating not attributable to additional sunshine or oceanic influences is minor to the point of invisibility.
17
CO2 as a threat to the biosphere is hereby repudiated. Nature, not man, is in charge of the current global, regional and local climate.
The coming period of 2010 to 2040 is predicted by the factors discussed here to be a time of local and global cooling and, without being dramatic, cloudiness. Temperatures are expected to drop by 0.7 to 1.0C during this period, and the amount of cloud cover increase between 1.5% and 2.5%.

In addition to determining that CO2 is not responsible for the warming of the world over the last century, the results of this study also demonstrate that “citizen-scientists” do, indeed, have the abilities to determine and reasonably comment upon matters of scientific, if not social, concern.




--------------
Full paper in pdf format
tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/maxtempvssunshineukstudy1220112.pdf

[marchesarosa]

Doug Proctor comments at the end of his paper

Political pollsters such as Gallup are able to create accurate pictures of the voting public because they recognize that a careful study of a small subset of the population gives a practical understanding of the positions of the whole population. If surveying everyone were necessary, the work would never be done. This analysis of the Central United Kingdom temperature, time and sunshine hours is obviously limited, but as only one individual, if representative of the nation, may consistently reflect the behaviour of the voting nation, so this study, in theory, may accurately reflect what is happening in the global temperature events of the near-past and near-future. Additional such studies obviously should be done, however.

It is suggested that a number of subsets, rather than large, merged data, be subjected to the analysis done here, i.e. at a national, rather than global/subglobal level. The reason is that the more data is averaged, the more significant patterns offset in time rather than cause, may confuse the general pattern. Plus, any diverse group of information, when combined and averaged, gives up “universals” as a mathematical construct without necessarily revealing anything about actual patterns within the data reflective of the universals. For example, the “global” temperature may have no more meaning than an average height of 5’ 6” to describe a room filled half with giants and half with dwarfs. In this example, a description of the separate characteristics of the height –enhanced and height-challenged would be more useful. The same may apply to the world’s climate.

The Central United Kingdom has, by the data reviewed, a non-bright sunshine history of 70%; Constable and Turner showed us in the 19th century that much of this was due to sustained low and middle altitude clouds. A bright sunshine and maximum temperature dataset from, say, the Arctic, where upper clouds are more prevalent would be interesting. One from a seasonally cloudy area, like Vancouver or San Francisco, where the Pacific Decadal Oscillation would be more significant, would be also informative. Australia, with its boom-and-bust cycle of flooding and droughts, would be another good candidate.

Again: if globally distributed CO2 changes the dynamics of the atmosphere, the results are everywhere. The small will reflect the large. If the small doesn’t reflect the large, what the “large” is, is an artefact, not an observation.

[marchesarosa]

I agree that the so-called "global mean temperature" is just a mishmash of data which conceals rather than aids the perception of causality.

[StuartG]

"What does this change imply? Any ideas, anyone?"
The first thing thought of was, the air's got cleaner. No factories. This piece from the Met Office sort of backs it up ...
"Sunshine

The number of hours of bright sunshine is controlled by the length of day and by cloudiness. In general, December is the dullest month and June the sunniest.

Sunshine duration decreases with increasing altitude, increasing latitude and distance from the coast. Industrial pollution and smoke haze can also reduce sunshine amounts but, since the Clean Air Act of 1956 and a decline in heavy industry, there has been an increase in sunshine duration over the London area particularly in the winter months.

Southern England includes the sunniest places in mainland UK, these being the coastal resorts of Sussex and Hampshire. The Isle of Wight also features in the list of high sunshine averages. On the coast average annual sunshine durations can exceed 1750 hours, but 1550-1600 hours is typical of most of the region with a decrease towards the north (e.g. 1450 hours over the higher Chilterns).

The graphs show the average monthly sunshine totals for Heathrow and Eastbourne, together with the highest and lowest totals recorded in the stated periods."

www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/so/print.html

[marchesarosa]

Well, that's what you'd expect from the anthropocentric UK Met Office, isn't it, stu? And I'm not suggesting that "cleaner air" is not a contributory factor. But what about the other possibility, "less cloud"? Cloud, of course, is not as easy to measure as air pollution and the genesis and variability of cloud are not so well understood.

Being an island must help to blow much of the airborne pollution away, anyway.

[StuartG]

"Well, that's what you'd expect from the anthropocentric UK Met Office"
Well, yes MM. Substitute NASA as the named organisation, and in terms of GW that also is true.
If these organisations' web site are delved into the truth still exists. It's as though they have a veneer of propaganda and pc sometimes, but dig around and something that contradicts their 'headline truths' will be found.

"not suggesting that "cleaner air is not a contributory factor"
but more so, "hoist with one's own petard" comes to mind. Because most vehicles are now much 'cleaner' than in the 60's and 70's, there are less man produced aerosols and other 'bits and bobs' floating around in the atmosphere to promote some types of cloud. Look at the figures, each decade is more than previous.
I agree that to study the cloud cover and all that associated climatology would be a good idea. Well we know what happened to Kirkby et al when he presented his findings to his fellow workers at CERN/or satellite research place, they jeered him, didn't like what was said, sat on by the head honcho, played down. Heard much in the news lately?

Sun. They are having difficulty with the calibration of the satellites measuring the TSI. It is generally quoted as being '1366 watts/square metre'. They can agree on the 13 bit but the 66 seems to vary, depending on where you read.

Here's some sun in/out figures ...
www.weatheronline.co.uk/reports/philip-eden/Highland-sunshine.htm
www.weatheronline.co.uk/EnglandNorth/Leeds.htm
and the Shetlands, [where ever that is]
www.weatheronline.co.uk/Scotland/ShetlandIs.htm
but it's difficult to relate it to temperature because of the chaotic nature of it all.

If You have time, this is worth a listen ...
Chaos. "... isn't the mathematics of randomness or probability, the chaotic system is still controlled by strict mathematical equations, but, ..., a very small change in starting conditions can lead to vastly different outcomes."

08 Henri Poincare
Thu, 30 Sep 10
downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/maths/maths_20100930-2330a.mp3
... note the ending!

[marchesarosa]

Interesting broadcast by Marcus du Sautoy.

The story of Poicaré's realisation that his proof was wrong and ADMITTING it is a lesson in humility that some modern climate "scientists" could well benefit from.