Eastbourne 'Top Town For Sunshine'

[Aaron]

I don't really see what you mean.. I know what you're saying but I am not really sure it is relevant

[Thundery wintry showers]

Your post seems to imply that New Zealand's higher sunshine totals are more down to increased daylight than reduced cloudiness, due to lower latitude. The reality is that the lower latitude does mean longer daylight hours in winter, but it also means shorter daylight hours in summer, and thus New Zealand's maximum possible annual sunshine totals come out much the same as ours. Hence a large majority of the difference does stem from reduced cloudiness.

This is reflected by the seasonal distribution of New Zealand's sunshine totals. Most lowland parts of New Zealand have average monthly sunshine of 100-140 hours during the winter, rising to 200-240 hours during the summer- i.e. their winters are more than twice as sunny as ours but the summers are only slightly sunnier. The main reason for this discrepancy is the narrower range of daylight hours.

[conor123]

This area seems to have it's own microclimate that causes it to be much cloudier than the rest of the Midlands, for example Manchester usually has more sunshine than here.

April last year was a prime example of this when it would often be cloudy here whilst the rest of the UK bathed in sunshine although it was still decent in the end, then from 5th May - 25th September there was not one clear day here last year and the year before from 24th May - late August again not one clear day, in recent years weve always been on the wrong side of these NW/SE splits.

However March, April & September always seem to be decent sunshine wise here.

[J10]

The relatively high sunshine totals in most of New Zealand, in what is, on the face of it, a similarly mild moist maritime type of climate to Britain's, has always fascinated me. It's not just about the topography- even the very wet western coastal areas of New Zealand tend not to average far short of 2000 hours per year. I guess that the most likely reasons are the relatively high amount of time spent under "clear" anticyclones and bright showery polar maritime airmasses (as the prevailing wind direction is a direct westerly rather than a north-westerly, suggesting rather less tropical maritime air- though I'm told that Tm air can be very warm and sticky in many parts of New Zealand when it does happen).

As far as the UK is concerned, sunshine differences in 2010 and 2011 reflect the prevailing synoptic patterns. 2010 had a high incidence of northerly types, resulting in most western and northern areas gaining at the expense of the southeast. In 2011 the prevailing pattern was south-westerlies with dry sunny weather in the SE and dull wet weather in the NW, and therefore south-eastern areas gained at the expense of the western third of Britain. Those differences are more starkly highlighted when you look at the rainfall.

Partly true, but for the start of the year, western areas did comparatively better than Eastern areas, include the start of summer only for the August, Autumn and December than overrun these stats, when there was a dominant SW flow.

http://www.metoffice.../anomalygraphs/

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/anomalygraphs/2011/2011_Sunshine_Anomaly_1971-2000.gif

[Thundery wintry showers]

Aye, January and February were certainly sunnier in most western areas relative to the east, and this was also the case in July and November- in November, rather contrarily many western areas were sunny and wet, and many eastern areas were cloudy and dry.

On the other hand May was also much sunnier in the east relative to the west as high pressure resided mostly to the SE.

[Scorcher]

I too find New Zealand's sunshine totals interesting, but we have to take into account that the British Isles are one of the cloudier parts of the populated world. I'm not sure what the world average would be for annual sunshine (say below or above 60 degrees north/south) in the world but I imagine it is over 2000 hours. Even places like Stockholm which is considerably further north than any part of England have higher sunshine averages than us (although admittedly with a more continental climate). Most of the east coast cities of the US average around 2500 hours annually so the New Zealand totals are actually unremarkable in a global sense. As has been mentioned above, in a sunshine sense in this part of the world we really fall down in the winter time with most places averaging around only 50 hours in December!

Another interesting comparison to make is Seattle which is considered to have a similar climate to most of the UK and has a reputation as being the dullest city in America. It still averages 2174 hours annually! I think perhaps we need to look at it the other way and say that it is the UK that is exceptional for its dullness!

[Kentish Kiwi]

New Zealand is more the equivalent in terms of latitude, to Spain and southern France then it is to Britain - so daylight hours are considerably longer in winter then here - which is why it only just averages over 2000 hours - if you put Auckland further south I can assure you it would be much much cloudier not to mention a hell of a lot colder

I think it's quite obvious it would be cooler if it were moved further south in latitude but I'm not sure it would be a 'hell of a lot colder'. The maritime climate limits the potential for extremes in temperatures and as such I don't think Auckland (wedged between a large sea and the largest ocean in the world) would be that cold or that much colder. It would certainly be milder in the winter than the SE of England due to the lack of a relatively nearby continental influence, more comparable to the south-west coast of Ireland and possibly milder still. As TWS explained, the longer sunlight hours in the winter is not a viable explanation for the difference between NZ and the UK.

The relatively high sunshine totals in most of New Zealand, in what is, on the face of it, a similarly mild moist maritime type of climate to Britain's, has always fascinated me. It's not just about the topography- even the very wet western coastal areas of New Zealand tend not to average far short of 2000 hours per year. I guess that the most likely reasons are the relatively high amount of time spent under "clear" anticyclones and bright showery polar maritime airmasses (as the prevailing wind direction is a direct westerly rather than a north-westerly, suggesting rather less tropical maritime air- though I'm told that Tm air can be very warm and sticky in many parts of New Zealand when it does happen).

I'm certainly not an expert on this and I'm just employing my general knowledge of the New Zealand's climate, but I don't think it does spend a relatively high amount of time under polar maritime airmasses. I may be wrong but I would have thought a direct westerly (as you say, the prevailing wind direction) would be far more Tm than Pm, given the latitude, particularly when you move into the top of the North Island. I would also say NWerlies are somewhat more common than SWerlies (particularly in the SI), so possibly WNW is a more apt description of the prevailing wind. Although it's worth noting that the majority of my experiences are from Auckland which has a borderline sub-tropical climate and thus may be rather unrepresentative.

Precipitation in the summer certainly does seem to come from a higher proportion of convective rainfall, over frontal, in comparison to where I live in the SE now, but I'm inclined to think this is a result of warmer sea temperatures and a much more powerful sun, rather than the air-mass being 'bright showery polar maritime', even in the winter. The summers particularly can be very stagnant, humid and sultry, giving rise to convection. It's also worth noting that this convective summer rainfall season lasts significantly longer than it does in the UK, which I would have thought is significant in that convective rainfall = more sunlight hours than frontal rainfall.

The clear high pressures in the summer are possibly a big factor. In Northern New Zealand in the summer you can usually rely on the sun to burn off any residual cloud under high pressures, particularly in the east and inland, and this is noticeable right through to the end of April, which I believe must be a result of the much stronger sun. The 'burning off' of cloud is definitely far less noticeable and reliable in the UK in my experience, although less noticeable in Auckland than many other areas of NZ.

[Aaron]

There's an island south of New Zealand, where winters are mild, but summers are arctic, and do not have average maximums above 10c in any month, so I'd think it'd be a lot colder.

And I am sure there are other factors but lower latitude does help with sunshine hours due to the longer winter daylight hours.. there are many examples where summer sunshine is not so impressive but winter sunshine is higher due to the lower latitude.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Aaron

[Interitus]

In fact latitude does make a difference in the possible total annual sunshine hours - and it is actually higher in the UK than locations closer to the equator.

It varies constantly with the orbit of the earth but recently it has been approximately about 4422 hours at the equator, 4449 @ 25degN, 4463 @ 45deg, 4487 @ 50deg, peaking at the arctic circle with 4647 hours, before tailing off towards the north pole with around 4575.

The southern hemisphere mirrors this pattern, but not precisely because the elliptical orbit makes the southern summer shorter than the north. So while the antarctic circle receives the most sunshine it is about 120 hours less than the arctic circle.

However, the apparent lack of sunshine in the UK largely because of the presence of weather systems at higher latitudes. New Zealand, like France, is more affected by the proximity of mid-latitude high pressure cells, but at it's southern tip Invercargill and Dunedin only get around 1600 hours which is comparable with here.

Seattle is also at a much lower latitude. If one looks further north on the pacific coast, Prince Rupert in British Colombia receives only 1229 hours of sunshine at 54 degN, the same latitude as southern Cumbria.

[Coast]

Oh dear, we've fallen out with the neighbours

The great and good of the East Sussex resorts have gone to war over which town can bask in the glory of the title “sunniest place in the UKâ€. Eastbourne appeared to have secured the accolade after Philip Eden, The Daily Telegraph’s weather correspondent and meteorological expert, announced that the retirement haven enjoyed 1,962 hours of sunshine last year.

But no sooner had local tourism chiefs seized on the figure as proof it offered the perfect holiday destination, than they were shot down by their counterparts in Hastings, who claimed their own evidence showed the sun shone there for 2,010 hours in 2011. They also claimed that Eastbourne was being disingenuous by taking its readings from the top of Beachy Head to maximise its sunshine hours. Just to complicate matters, Jersey in the Channel Islands has also pitched in, claiming to outshine them both. Mr Eden, who manages the websites weather-uk.com and climate-uk.com, collated figures from the UK and found that Eastbourne recorded an average of five hours and 23 minutes of sunshine each day in 2011. Its 273.9 hours of sunshine in April was almost 100 hours more than the long-term average.

Eastbourne council rushed out a press release, with Neil Stanley, its spokesman for tourism and leisure, saying: “We are absolutely delighted to hear that we are yet again the sunniest place in the UK, with our microclimate bringing us more hours of sunshine than anywhere else in the country.†The crowing did not go down well in Hastings, where officials implied that their rivals had deliberately placed weather stations on higher ground to assist with sun readings.

Tourism bosses said that readings from their own meteorologist showed that Hastings recorded 2,010.8 hours of sunshine last year. Councillor Peter Chowney, the lead member for marketing and tourism, said: “It’s an outrage. Hastings always tops the league and we rarely get the recognition. “We are very proud to say that we’re definitely first when it comes to the amount of hours of sunshine we have every year and of course, we’re the best place in the UK to live and visit, so come to Hastings and St Leonards and enjoy a sunnier holiday.â€

A council spokesman added: “If people want sun they don’t need to go to Eastbourne, they should come to Hastings. Hastings gets over 2,000 hours of sun and we do not need to take measurements from the top of Beachy Head to make those claims.â€

David de Cartere, the tourism director for Jersey, claimed the spat between Eastbourne and Hastings was for second place. He said: “We are regularly challenged on our claims to be the warmest and sunniest place in Britain. It is a status we pride the island upon as it is a natural advantage we have over all our UK competitors. “The scientific facts speak for themselves and we are happy to counter any challenges to our great record.†Mr Eden sought to play down the row yesterday, insisting that equipment used to measure sunshine differed between areas and that it was “open to interpretationâ€. “The annual figures can be different depending on whether you use electronic weather stations or traditional methods of recording,†he said. “

One year’s figures are neither here nor there. What you’ve got to do is take an average look over a number of years. Jersey and Guernsey are the sunniest in the British Islands, whilst Eastbourne is the sunniest on the UK mainland.†Staying well clear of the debate was Kinlochewe, in the Scottish Highlands, which at 855 hours of sunshine, had the lowest amount in the UK.

http://www.telegraph...e-outshone.html

[Interitus]

Unfortunately I couldn't find Hastings' figures online.

If it's any consolation the Met office figures for 1961-90 give the Hastings average as 1730.1 hours per year vs Eastbourne's 1832.9.

However they give Bognor Regis as 1847.8

[Coast]

It's all very contentious and given the rioting last year, I think I should be careful what I say as it could all kick off somewhere around Bexhill-on-Sea!!!!

[Thundery wintry showers]

The fairest thing we can say is that the sunniest spots in mainland Britain are reliably along the eastern half of the English Channel coast- though I imagine many of us could have guessed that already!

[Terminal Moraine]

I remember reading a long time ago that some coastal towns had manipulated their sunshine figures to ensure they appeared at the top, or near the top of the sunshine league; it may have been in the 60s.

I'm not suggesting that anything similar goes on now, although reading the press release quoted above the seriousness with which the local tourism boards take small differences in sunshine totals is astonishing.

If one town recorded 20, 30 or even 40 hours more sun in a year than another the casual visitor or holidaymaker would never notice the difference. I would have thought just appearing in the top twenty list would be good enough but then we do tend to have an obsession with lists and league tables,me included.

Edited January 21, 2012 by Terminal Moraine

[Coast]

I remember reading a long time ago that some coastal towns had manipulated their sunshine figures to ensure they appeared at the top, or near the top of the sunshine league; it may have been in the 60s.

Eastbourne's Campbell-Stokes Sunshine Recorder is regularly inspected by the Met O.

http://www.eastbourn...ations/station/

http://www.eastbourne.gov.uk/environment/weather/sunshine/

[Aaron]

The sunniest town in Britain is still cloudier then the cloudiest place in the US (excluding Alaska) while London is about the same as Canada's cloudiest city.

[Terminal Moraine]

Eastbourne's Campbell-Stokes Sunshine Recorder is regularly inspected by the Met O.

http://www.eastbourn...ations/station/

http://www.eastbourn...ather/sunshine/

Yes, I'm certainly not suggesting anything untoward with the current sunshine data. I can't remember which resorts were responsible in the 60s but the 'errors' were down to a rather liberal interpretation of where the intermittent burn marks on the sunshine card began and ended.

The advent of digital sunshine recorders has eliminated any potential error in reading the sunshine card of a Campbell Stokes recorder although there are many of the latter still in use if only for the sake of continuity.

The siting of a sunshine recorder will certainly have an impact on the sunshine totals recorded. My own site potentially loses about 45 minutes of sunshine at the end of the day in summer due to the moor rising steeply to the west. If I lived 500m away at the opposite side of the village my sunshine totals would undoubtedly be higher.

I can imagine it rankles a bit with local tourist boards if one town is able to site their sunshine recorder in a completely unobstructed place when theirs is partially obstructed by buildings, trees or hills.

[J10]

Does anyone has a league table for 2010, as I would Imagine that Tenby would be very close to the top.

Does anyone have stats for 2010 as I would imagine that Tenby would be very close to the top;

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/anomacts/2010/17/2010_17_Sunshine_Actual.gif

[Thundery wintry showers]

Good points by TM. I don't have doubts over the present-day Eastbourne sunshine record to be honest (the problem of overstating sunshine arose mostly around the 1960s), but it is entirely possible that nearby locations could be "handicapped" by proximity of buildings/trees/hills, or the conversion to Kipp-Zonen sunshine recorders (which typically record about 10% less sunshine, the difference being largest in summer when the Campbell-Stokes recorders are prone to overburning the measuring card).

Overall I don't doubt that Eastbourne lies in the sunniest area of mainland Britain on average- the only question is whether it really is the sunniest individual location or whether a few nearby locations might narrowly beat it (Bognor Regis has been mentioned for instance).

I don't know of any 2010 sunshine league tables but the Met Office's sunshine maps suggest that the sunniest spots were in coastal sports of SW England and south Wales rather than Cent S + SE England (probably due to the high frequency of northerly and north-easterly winds) so Tenby would probably have been there or thereabouts.