Detailed calculations regarding difference in sunlight between Seattle and Los Angeles. The conclusion is... (homes, tornadoes)

[Steve Bowen]

Originally Posted by certsevtxert

wrong. read the facts. read the excel chart in full. There are no debating facts. The weather isn't a democracy - you can't "vote" whether there are more sunny days. The weather is the weather, it's a solid fact. Cold hard numbers. No amount of arguing can change that.

Numbers don't lie, but interpretations of numbers frequently do.

Originally Posted by certsevtxert

Once every 2 to 3 weeks (especially in the winter), it comes out for like an hour or two, only to escape again. Often we might be at work and might this short time. This means we can go for MONTHS with absolutely no sunlight seen at all.

Can you show where in the data you have posted supports that previous statement? I'm having a hard time finding it. There are only a couple of mostly sunny days in winter in Seattle, the data clearly shows that. But the statement above that Seattle gets an hour or two of sun every three weeks in the winter is not supported. Your own spreadsheet shows the following for Seattle:

December: 42 Hours of Sunshine
January: 63 Hours of sunshine
February: 72 Hours of sunshine

That is not very much sunshine, there is no arguing that, but it does not support what you previously said at all. And pointing to that Sequim Rain Shadow site doesn't help your case either for several reasons:

1) Its data is only in the form of days, it's not broken out by hours of sunshine, so it is incompatible with the average monthly and yearly sunshine hour data in the spreadsheet. It's just talking about Cloudy vs. Partly Cloudy vs. Sunny days, which...

2) The National Weather Service bases on the amount of cloud-cover in the sky, not average sunshine hours. So, that data has nothing do with the above quoted assertion. It's equivocation, plain and simple.

3) Additionally that RainShadow page is a terrible climate data source because all of their climate data comes from only one year! Weather fluctuates so much from one year to the next that for any meaningful discussion of climate data you need data from decades, not one year. 2010-2011 was a historically crappy year for Seattle weather. University of Washington Professor of Atmospheric Sciences Cliff Mass called that period "the worst in 60 years", To use that to represent Seattle's typical climate is a flawed, sloppy methodology at best and intentionally disingenuous at worst.

[metoque]

I'm glad we're seeing more stats/facts that prove I'm not going crazy up here in Seattle. How wonderful was the weather yesterday, but then today it puts me back into a mild form of depression because it's the freaking end of June and it's cool and rainy. Hats off to y'all who don't mind it because there's no question it's beautiful here when it's sunny, but those days are just WAY too few to counteract the cold, gloomy days.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by certsevtxert

Native Seattlites tend to argue that Seattle doesn't get near as much rain or clouds as people say. However, they are wrong. They are just used to it - it's how they grew up.

The reality is, that Seattle gets a MASSIVE amount less sunlight, and comparatively ALWAYS clouds.

By taking away MORE THAN HALF of the sunlight that people from warmer climates are accustomed to, this creates lots of issues like Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD), Depression, and general sadness and a longing for the sun.

It is important that people are aware of this if they ever want to consider moving to Seattle.

I would probably not moved here if I had known this before I moved. And I definitely would not moved here if I know I would feel like I do in the over two years since I've been here.

So that's why I want to make others aware of this.

For those who already live here, especially those who have lived here for generations, your bodies are more adapted to the weather, and both physiologically and psychologically you are better able to tolerate it than people from other climates.

I would recommend for people to take this into serious consideration before moving here.

Seems like your only looking at it from a point a view of a person who loves the sun. I know this may be extremely hard to believe but there are those of us who don't. I'm very familiar with sunbelt weather as I lived in San Diego a long time. Believe it or not, I would get...well, I don't know if it was true depression but each may, knowing that it would be months until cooler weather and rain would return would sort of get me down. I hated the endless days of, what to me was heat. Day in and day out. Months on end of dry warmth and hillsides sometimes so dry that the dead plant life would turn from brown to gray-brown. areas without vegetation were dusty in a breeze. Dew points in August and early September in the mid 60's and sometimes hit 70 but no rain unless it was a muggy monsoon sprinkle.

I'll take Seattle's weather anytime! Thanks for conforming for me why me moving there is a great idea

[west seattle gal]

Originally Posted by Steve Bowen

Numbers don't lie, but interpretations of numbers frequently do.



Can you show where in the data you have posted supports that previous statement? I'm having a hard time finding it. There are only a couple of mostly sunny days in winter in Seattle, the data clearly shows that. But the statement above that Seattle gets an hour or two of sun every three weeks in the winter is not supported. Your own spreadsheet shows the following for Seattle:

December: 42 Hours of Sunshine
January: 63 Hours of sunshine
February: 72 Hours of sunshine

That is not very much sunshine, there is no arguing that, but it does not support what you previously said at all. And pointing to that Sequim Rain Shadow site doesn't help your case either for several reasons:

1) Its data is only in the form of days, it's not broken out by hours of sunshine, so it is incompatible with the average monthly and yearly sunshine hour data in the spreadsheet. It's just talking about Cloudy vs. Partly Cloudy vs. Sunny days, which...

2) The National Weather Service bases on the amount of cloud-cover in the sky, not average sunshine hours. So, that data has nothing do with the above quoted assertion. It's equivocation, plain and simple.

3) Additionally that RainShadow page is a terrible climate data source because all of their climate data comes from only one year! Weather fluctuates so much from one year to the next that for any meaningful discussion of climate data you need data from decades, not one year. 2010-2011 was a historically crappy year for Seattle weather. University of Washington Professor of Atmospheric Sciences Cliff Mass called that period "the worst in 60 years", To use that to represent Seattle's typical climate is a flawed, sloppy methodology at best and intentionally disingenuous at worst.

Actually, the data reports the results of a 2011 study measuring radiation over the period of a year in both Sequim and Seattle. If you want more data than a summary table, there are links that you can click to obtain it. You'll see that solar radiation (brightness/intensity and duration) was measured atop the atmospheric sciences building at UW. The website owner is a huge fan of Cliff Mass. Yeah, it's one year, but for that year it was informative. I would like to see data for other years; apparently it is on the web, per the blog owner.

The amounts of sunshine being disputed here are ridiculously small. 40-70 or so hours of sunshine for a complete month? Come on.

[zunshine]

But that isn't the problem, it rains so much more in other places but when it stops, it is sunny again, you need the rain to have green but why don't have the rain a couple of days and get it over with like in New England. As for the REAL issue, the lack of sunlight: somebody posted this chart and for me it was a revelation!!! Nowhere else in the country receives less sunlight than Washington state!!!!



Now compare that to this map that shows the incidence of all cancers for both male and females and see if you can find any pattern:



Source Centers for Disease Control:

[zunshine]

Some clarifications: I meant to say, nowhere in the lower 48 receives less sunlight. And forgot to give the link to the picture below: CDC - Cancer - Data and Statistics - Cancer Rates by State

I also wanted to add that Washington state has the highest incidence of breast cancer and ironically is very high in the incidence of skin cancer:





And you would be tempted to conclude that the sun is so bright when it does come out but that is not the case, what happens is that humans need the sun to regulate the production of serotonin, melatonin and other important hormones that are anti-oxidant. Except for Louisiana and Virginia that can possibly have more environmental pollution, I think the lack of sun is a very important factor that causes people to be unhealthy, but of course there are many others. You would think that the greener states would be less prone to cancer but I don't think that is the case.

[texastrigirl]

Originally Posted by certsevtxert

Fact:

Once every 2 to 3 weeks (especially in the winter), it comes out for like an hour or two, only to escape again. Often we might be at work and might this short time. This means we can go for MONTHS with absolutely no sunlight seen at all.

During the summer, usually, the sun will come out a lot. The days are longer too.

This summer however, we've still only had about 10 sunny days (or less), since March and it's already almost July.

Do we live in the same city??? For one, summer just started officially and if you are speaking since March, we had fantastic strings of days in April, May and June. I know this because I am a Little League mom and we had so many days of great weather for playing only one rain out this year! LOL.

Non Seattleites...keep in mind that partly cloudy and partly sunny are the roughly same thing weather wise in terms of cloud coverage. Yes, most "not a cloud in the sky" days usually come in the summer but if you only mean 10 days where we have seen the sun, that is WRONG! In fact, totally clear days total 13 since March 1 and we've had 46 PC days with 65 days of cloudy. So roughly 48% of the days, since March 1, we've seen the sun in some fashion with 13 of those being pretty clear Mt Rainier viewing days.

According to NWS Historical data (National Weather Service - NWS Seattle)

This was March 2013's breakdown:

NUMBER OF DAYS FAIR 3
NUMBER OF DAYS PC 11
NUMBER OF DAYS CLOUDY 17

For April 2013:

NUMBER OF DAYS FAIR 3
NUMBER OF DAYS PC 6
NUMBER OF DAYS CLOUDY 21

For May 2013:

NUMBER OF DAYS FAIR 6
NUMBER OF DAYS PC 11
NUMBER OF DAYS CLOUDY 14

Through June 22 2013 the data is trending to Fair (1), PC (18) and Cloudy (3) with 2 days where we hit 80 degrees and 11 where we were in the 70's.


Either way, sounds like you will be happier finding more sun!

[cocaseco]

Originally Posted by PollyGlott

There are only 4 hours of sunlight per day???
Which leaves 20 hours of darkness per day.
Riiiiiiiiiight...

Math makes my head hurt.

[509]

IF you really want to compare cloudy data.....here is what the astronomical community uses. Scroll down for monthy cloud cover.

For Seattle: Seattle Clear Sky Chart History

For Irvine County: OCA Silverado Clear Sky Chart History

Yeah, Seattle is cloudy. Worst cloudy weather in the country.

[509]

Originally Posted by zunshine

And you would be tempted to conclude that the sun is so bright when it does come out but that is not the case, what happens is that humans need the sun to regulate the production of serotonin, melatonin and other important hormones that are anti-oxidant. Except for Louisiana and Virginia that can possibly have more environmental pollution, I think the lack of sun is a very important factor that causes people to be unhealthy, but of course there are many others. You would think that the greener states would be less prone to cancer but I don't think that is the case.

You nailed it in the first sentence. Light at night suppresses melatonin production which suppresses hormonal cancers.

Shedding Light on a Cause of Breast Cancer - Thinking Harder (usnews.com)

The bad news is the city of Seattle is going to INCREASE the brightness of their streetlights!! How stupid can you get!! They will also be blue lights which are the worst for hormonal cancers. How bad is the light in Seattle??

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RaHdWLD1Yp...tlelightpo.jpg

In this picture that glow in the lower half of the photo is light pollution from the city of Seattle. More than a hundred miles away. Those mountains in the photo are 9,000 feet high.

Complete set of pictures: Complete set of pictures:usbackroads™: Aurora Borealis, Wenatchee, Washington

So you can see why hormonal cancers are so common in Seattle.