Comparison of sunshine recorded

by Campbell–Stokes and
automatic sensors
Andrew Kerr and years, but it is relatively recently that sensors daily) sunshine totals, since this is the time-
Weather – April 2004, Vol. 59, No. 4

have been developed that were suitable for scale for which spatial and temporal com-
Richard Tabony inclusion in automatic weather stations. The parisons are mostly required.
Met Office, Glasgow Met Office chose the Kipp and Zonen CSD-1
sensor (Shearn 1999).
The World Meteorological Organization
Data
Energy reaching the earth as sunlight is
(WMO) reference instrument for measuring There is a scarcity of overlapping measure-
clearly important as it is one of the main
sunshine duration is a pyrheliometer, and ments of sunshine. The first AUTO systems
factors responsible for the development of
radiation-based sensors are not entirely free were not deployed until 2000 and, at many
life. It drives the ‘atmospheric engine’ that
from error. However, Green (personal com- sites, their installation marked the closure of
gives the world its weather. On a more mun-
munication) showed that measurements manned observations and CS recordings of
dane level, it is useful to distinguish
from the CSD-1 sensor were very close to sunshine. Nevertheless, simultaneous CS
between radiation and sunshine. Radiation
those obtained from a pyrheliometer. WMO and AUTO measurements of sun are avail-
from the sun is the fundamental physical
have defined sunshine as an irradiance able from 16 sites. Details are provided in
quantity alluded to above and, on a practical
reaching or exceeding a threshold of Table 1, where the stations are listed from
level, has applications in agriculture and –2
120 W m . For the CS recorder, the threshold south to north. Edinburgh is the only loca-
building design. However, human percep-
necessary to produce a burn averages tion where the measurements are based on
tion of radiation is mainly related to –2 –2
170 W m , but ranges from 106 to 285 W m two different sites. AUTO measurements
sunshine, and many leisure and other activi-
(Painter 1981). from the Met Office station at Gogarbank
ties are strongly influenced by whether the
In the UK, the situation has arisen where- are compared with CS observations from the
sun is shining or not. This is the main reason
by sunshine is measured by a mixture of CS voluntary climatological station at East
why the measurement of sunshine has been
and automatic (AUTO) sunshine recorders. By Craigs. These stations are only 3 km apart.
pursued.
October 2003 the number of AUTO sensors Within each month, there were often
The Campbell–Stokes (CS) recorder has
installed by the Met Office was of the order missing values from either the AUTO or CS
been the established instrument for meas-
of 60. It is therefore necessary to calculate recorders. A common reason was the
uring sunshine for over 100 years. It is a glass
conversion factors between the two types of absence of CS readings over a weekend
sphere that focuses the sun’s rays on to a
measuring systems in order that a coherent when a station was not manned.
strip of cardboard, burning a trace when-
picture of sunshine across the country can Measurements from both instruments were
ever the sun is shining. A description of the
be derived. This paper concentrates on a required on a given day. If the number of
instrument is given in the Observer’s hand-
comparison of monthly (as opposed to valid days derived from a month was less
book (Meteorological Office 1982) and a
good historical account is provided by
Stanhill (2003). Some of its weaknesses are Table 1
discussed by Painter (1981) who points out
Simultaneous measurements of sunshine
that on days of strong and intermittent sun-
shine the burn spreads, leading to an over- 2000 2001 2002 2003
estimate of the duration of sunshine. When Camborne, Cornwall Mar.–Dec. Jan.–Mar.
conditions are cold and damp, more energy Herstmonceux, East Sussex Sept.–Nov.
is required to burn a trace in the card than Odiham, Hampshire Nov.–Dec. Jan.–Dec. Jan.–Dec. Jan.–Mar.
when it is warm and dry. Around the dawn Wattisham, Suffolk Sept.–Dec. Jan.–Dec. Jan.–Mar.
period, dew or hoar frost may cover the Aberporth, Ceredigion Mar.–Dec. Jan.–Dec. Jan.–Mar.
sphere, reducing the intensity of sunlight Wittering, Cambridgeshire July–Nov. Jan.–Mar.
passing through. Shawbury, Shropshire Sept.–Dec. Jan.–Dec. Jan.–Mar.
These factors have been known about Waddington, Lincolnshire May–Dec. Jan.–Mar.
since the instrument was deployed. Valley, Anglesey Oct.–Dec. Jan.–Dec. Jan.–Mar.
Observers have been informed and instruct- Leeming, North Yorkshire Sept.–Dec. Jan.–Dec. Jan.–Mar.
ed to take them into account when Boulmer, Northumberland Sept.–Dec.
analysing the card. Nevertheless, the defi- Edinburgh, Lothian Feb.–Dec. Jan.–Dec. Jan.–Feb.
ciencies are not easily overcome and have Tiree, Inner Hebrides July
led to a relatively high degree of subjectivity Aviemore, Inverness-shire May–Dec. Jan.–Mar.
affecting sunshine measurements. Stornoway, Western Isles Nov.–Dec. Jan.–Aug.
Radiation-based instruments have been Lerwick, Shetland July–Dec. Jan.–Mar.
90 available to measure sunshine for many
than 10, then data from that month were
not used. This procedure resulted in the
rejection of 7 station-months with data. The
average number of days in a month with
simultaneous measurements of CS and AUTO
was 24.
Background
The irradiance threshold of the AUTO instru-
ment is less than that of the CS recorder and
therefore, all other things being equal, the
sunshine measurements from the former
should exceed the latter. However, the solar
elevation, and hence the radiation, change
rapidly at sunrise and sunset, when the dif-
ference in the sensitivity of the instruments
has most effect. Consequently, there is a dif-
ference of only a few minutes in the maxi-
mum possible daily sunshine, and this is
ignored in the work that follows.
Painter (1981) comments on the strong
seasonal variation in the difference between
the CS sunshine measurements and the
‘truth’. The primary reason is the spreading
of the burn on the card when sunshine is
strong and intermittent. This depends on
the cloud amount and the solar elevation, as
explained below.
Consider a situation in which, when
viewed directly from above, a given area is
half covered by cumulus clouds. If the sun is
overhead, and the clouds are moving, then,
at a given location, the sun will be shining
for half the time. As the solar elevation is
reduced, the sun shines on the ground for
progressively less time as the sun’s rays are
intercepted by the sides of the clouds. When
the sun is at a low elevation, a half cover of
scattered cloud will prevent the sun from
shining at the ground for most of the time. It
is a matter of common experience that skies
appear more clouded near the horizon than
overhead. This is due to the effect of cloud
geometry in obscuring a view of the clear
sky at low elevations.
The relevance of this is that the situation
of the sun going in and out of the clouds
occurs mostly when the sun is high in the
sky. When the sun is near the horizon, the
sky needs to be mainly clear for the sun to
shine. When the solar elevation is low, and
the sky is half covered with scattered clouds,
the sun will be shielded from the ground for
most of the time. Therefore the situation
that gives rise to the spreading of the burn
on a sunshine card occurs mostly when the
sun is high in the sky. It is evident that if the
sky is completely overcast or completely
clear, then there is no scope for spreading of
a burn on the card. Under these conditions
(ignoring the effect of differing irradiance
thresholds) both the CS and AUTO measure-
ment techniques will deliver similar
sunshine totals.
In summary, the major difference
between the CS and AUTO measurement
techniques is due to spreading of the burn
on the CS card. This occurs when there are
scattered clouds and, when these con-
ditions are met, the extent to which the sun
goes in and out of the clouds depends on
the solar elevation.
Physical–statistical model
Linear relationship
The requirement is to produce conversion
factors between CS and AUTO for each calen-
dar month. Producing separate equations
for each month accommodates the variation
of the relationship with solar elevation.
In midlatitudes the variation of solar ele-
vation between the winter and summer
solstices is 47 degrees. The difference in
latitude between the most northerly and
southerly stations used in the UK is about 10
degrees. This is similar to the change in solar
elevation that occurs during an equinoctial
month. Therefore, for each calendar month,
all station data were pooled together.
Regression relationships were developed for
each calendar month. Each point on the
graph represents measurements from a
given station in a given year. Thus, for
January (taking the stations in the order in
which they are listed in Table 1), the data
points are:
Camborne 2003,
Herstmonceux no entry,
Odiham 2001,
Odiham 2002,
Odiham 2003,
Wattisham 2002,
Wattisham 2003,
and so on.
The graphs for January to December are
shown in Fig. 1. The monthly sunshine totals
are expressed as a percentage of the poss-
ible in order to facilitate comparisons
between the months. The maximum
possible sunshine was calculated from the
difference between the times of sunrise and
sunset for each day, and then scaled accord-
ing to the number of days of data in the
month. A single set of figures was used, cor-
responding to the average over all the sta-
tions, i.e. the variation of latitude with
location was ignored. The dashed lines indi-
cate the 1:1 relationship.
The regression analysis gives equal weight
to each point on the graph. Some of the
points represent only 10 days, while others
represent a complete month. No significant
error is expected to be introduced by this
approximation.
The regressions were forced through the
origin, in recognition of the fact that over-
cast conditions give rise to zero amounts of
sun from both measurement techniques.
This means that the slopes of the regres-
sions are the ratios between the AUTO and
CS measurements. The formal equation is:
AUTO = m.CS .
The slopes, m, are listed in the first data
column of Table 2 and reflect the expected
Comparison of sunshine
seasonal variation. During the summer, the
CS measurements exceed the AUTO due to
spreading of the burn. In the winter months
the CS and AUTO measurements are closer
together.
In Table 2, some sampling variation is
superimposed on the seasonal variation.
This is greater than might be surmised from
a visual inspection of the graphs, as the data
points are not independent of one another.
Weather – April 2004, Vol. 59, No. 4
Most of the data are drawn from a small
number of years, and the points from neigh-
bouring stations will be highly correlated
with one another. A large number of years of
data, with an associated variation of weath-
er types, would be needed to obtain statisti-
cal stability. A good statistical text that
discusses these issues is Snedecor and
Cochran (1967).
The dependence of the relationship on
solar elevation is recognised by smoothing
the coefficients obtained from the raw data.
This was achieved by the use of a 5-point
binomial filter, which gave weights of (1, 4, 6,
4, 1) to adjacent months. The results are list-
ed in the second column of data in Table 2.
Also provided in Table 2 are the correspon-
ding raw and smoothed values of the coeffi-
cient, R, that enables CS to be estimated
from AUTO (i.e. CS = R.AUTO).
Curved relationship
The coefficients listed in Table 2 provide a
quick and easy way of converting monthly
sunshine totals from one recording method
to the other. However, most of the data
points are drawn from between 20% and
50% of the maximum possible sunshine.
Extrapolation of the linear regression rela-
tionships to higher amounts of sunshine will
result in errors. For example, for a complete-
ly sunny month, both measurement systems
record similar amounts of sun, close to the
maximum possible. Yet extrapolation of the
linear relationships implies that AUTO will
record less sun than CS.
The true relationship between AUTO and
CS is a curve that passes through the origin
and the maximum possible sun. It is in the
central portion of the relationship, when the
sun shines for about half the time, that there
is most opportunity for CS totals to exceed
AUTO due to spreading of the burn.
The curve was fitted analytically by
choosing an equation of the form:
2
y = bx + cx . (1)
Three points were supplied:
(i) The origin, i.e. zero sun for both CS
and AUTO in completely overcast
months. 91
Comparison of sunshine
Weather – April 2004, Vol. 59, No. 4

Fig. 1 Plots of monthly sunshine totals obtained from Campbell–Stokes (CS) and automatic (AUTO) recorders

92
Table 2 Sensitivity of quadratic
Conversion of sunshine by linear regression relationship to centroid of
observations
Raw m Smoothed m Raw R Smoothed R The ‘third point’ in the fit of the quadratic

Comparison of sunshine
Jan. 0.934 0.933 1.063 1.065 relationship was chosen to correspond to
Feb. 0.916 0.935 1.084 1.063 one third of the maximum possible sun. In
Mar. 0.969 0.927 1.026 1.075 the data sample, the sun shone for about
Apr. 0.905 0.889 1.100 1.125 one third of the time, and this corresponds
May 0.794 0.842 1.252 1.185 to the long-term average for Britain. Thus
June 0.823 0.825 1.208 1.206 the choice of one third of the possible sun to
July 0.834 0.833 1.187 1.192 represent the centroid of observations is
Aug. 0.834 0.851 1.189 1.165 entirely reasonable. However, the long-term
Sept. 0.893 0.873 1.107 1.136 average undergoes a seasonal variation
Oct. 0.881 0.892 1.124 1.112 from about 20% in winter to 50% in summer,

Weather – April 2004, Vol. 59, No. 4

Nov. 0.909 0.912
Dec. 0.946 0.928
(ii) The point (100%, 100%), i.e. the maxi-
mum possible sun for both CS and
AUTO in completely sunny months.
(iii) The third point was chosen from the
regressions between CS and AUTO
that took the form AUTO = m.CS.
The data points ranged from about 20% to
50% of the possible sun with a centroid at
about one third of the possible sun. Thus, in
units of percentage of possible sun, and
with the AUTO value quoted first, the cen-
troid of the regression is (33m%, 33%).
Changing the units from percentage to
fraction of possible sun, and substituting
the point (1, 1) into Eq. (1) yields the relation:
b+c=1.
Substituting the point (m/3, 1/3) into Eq. (1)
then gives:
b = 0.5 (3m–1) and
c = 1.5 (1–m).
1.093 1.090
1.052 1.071
The full equation for obtaining AUTO from CS
is therefore:
2 example where the slope of the linear
AUTO = 0.5.(3m–1).CS + 1.5.(1–m).CS
where m is the slope of the regression of
AUTO on CS corresponding to CS recording
one third of the maximum possible sun.
A similar relation holds for obtaining CS
from AUTO, i.e.
2
CS = 0.5.(3R–1).AUTO + 1.5.(1–R).AUTO
where R is the slope of the regression of CS
on AUTO corresponding to AUTO recording
one third of the maximum possible sun. In
Eqs. (2) and (3), the units of CS and AUTO are
fractions of the maximum possible sun.
For June and December, the curved
relations are shown along with the linear
regressions and the data points in Fig. 2. It
can be seen that the curved relations form a
marginally better fit to the data than the lin-
ear regressions.
and this is reflected in the data sample. It is
therefore relevant to examine the effect on
the quadratic relationship of a variation in
the ‘third point’ from one fifth to one half of
the maximum possible sun.
The results are illustrated in Fig. 3 for the
(2)
regression between AUTO and CS is 0.8. The
graph displays two straight lines correspon-
ding to a 1:1 relationship and a slope of 0.8
(i.e. AUTO = 0.8.CS). There are three quadratic
curves in which the third point has been
assigned to a CS of one fifth, one third, and
one half of the maximum possible sun. The
(3) ‘one third’ curve is the central of the three,
with ‘one fifth’ being the least curved and
‘one half’ being the most curved. The three
quadratic curves are much closer to one
another than they are to either of the linear
relationships. This demonstrates that the
quadratic fit is not unduly sensitive to the
placement of the third point, and that the
choice of one third of the maximum
possible sun is reasonable.

Fig. 2 Curved relationship between monthly sunshine totals obtained from Campbell–Stokes (CS) and automatic (AUTO) recorders
93
 Table 3
Coefficients of quadratic relationships
between monthly totals of sun obtained from
Campbell–Stokes and automatic recorders
Comparison of sunshine

b c d e
Jan. 0.900 0.101 1.098 –0.097
Feb. 0.903 0.097 1.095 –0.094
Mar. 0.891 0.110 1.113 –0.113
Apr. 0.834 0.167 1.188 –0.188
May 0.763 0.237 1.278 –0.278
June 0.738 0.263 1.309 –0.309
July 0.750 0.251 1.288 –0.288
Aug. 0.777 0.224 1.248 –0.248
Weather – April 2004, Vol. 59, No. 4

Sept. 0.810 0.191 1.204 –0.204

Oct. 0.838 0.162 1.168 –0.168
Nov. 0.868 0.132 1.135 –0.135
Fig. 3 Quadratic relationship between Campbell–Stokes (CS) and automatic (AUTO ) recorders. Effect of the Dec. 0.892 0.108 1.107 –0.107
choice of the ‘third point’ – example for the case of AUTO = 0.8 CS.

Conversion factors The seasonal variation of R, the slope of March and May were the months with the
the regression of CS on AUTO, is displayed in lowest and highest values of R.
The relationships between CS and AUTO take Fig. 4. The smoothed curve shows that CS
the form:
sunshine totals exceed AUTO values by Summary
2
AUTO = b.CS + c.CS and about 20% in summer and 7% in winter. The relationship between monthly sunshine
2
CS = d.AUTO + e.AUTO . There is an asymmetry in the distribution, totals obtained from CS and AUTO instru-
with the summer maximum in phase with ments was examined based on 16 stations
The coefficients for use in these equations solar elevation (as expected), whereas the with an average of about 18 months of data.
are set out in Table 3. These are based on the lowest value in winter is delayed until The CS recorder overestimates the sunshine
smoothed values of m and R. The units of CS February. It is unclear whether this is a real due to a spreading of the burn on the card.
and AUTO are fractions of the maximum phenomenon, or whether it is an artefact of This occurs mostly when cloud cover is
possible sun. the available data sample. In the raw data, broken and the sun is high in the sky.

Box 1 independent data points is six. This is a obtain the true standard errors associated
Error bands subjective estimate, but it is unlikely to be with this investigation, the values obtained
misleading. The number of independent from the statistical package were multi-
It is evident that this investigation is based data points in a regression was estimated plied by ÖOBS/IND , where OBS is the total
on a small amount of data and therefore by assigning a maximum number of six in a number of observations.
sampling errors will be relatively large. given year. The results are shown in Table 1, Box 1,
Typically, each monthly regression has The procedure is best illustrated by where this procedure results in the esti-
been derived from about ten stations and means of an example. The regression for mated standard error increasing from
two years of data. An even smaller amount January is based on 1 station from 2001, 8 about 0.026 to 0.032. This means that the
of data was available in the months of April stations from 2002 and 11 stations from seasonally smoothed regression coeffi-
to August. 2003, giving a total of 20 data points. To cients fall comfortably within the 95% con-
The regression equations were calculat- estimate the number of independent data fidence limits of all the monthly values. It
ed using a software package provided by points, the maximum number from a given remains an open question as to whether
Microsoft Excel that also includes standard year is limited to 6. Thus the number of the asymmetry in the seasonal distribution
errors. For the regression coefficients dis- independent points is 1 from 2001 plus 6 is real or due to sampling errors. This can
played in Fig. 4, the standard errors are from each of 2002 and 2003, giving a total only be resolved by more data becoming
about 0.026. The seasonally smoothed of 13. available. A large number of years, with a
value of R fell just within the 95% confi- As the number of independent observa- variety of weather types, will be needed to
dence limit of the observed value for May, tions, IND , increases, standard errors obtain statistical stability.
while that for March fell just outside it. The decrease according to ÖIND . Therefore, to
calculation of standard errors in the statisti-
cal package assumes that all the data
points are independent, which is not true. Table 1, Box 1
For a given calendar month, the data
Standard errors of regression coefficient, R, calculated from number of observations (OBS)
obtained from different years are clearly
and number of independent data points (IND)
independent, but those drawn from neigh-
bouring stations will not be. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
In order to take this effect into account, it
OBS 0.025 0.023 0.023 0.024 0.026 0.024 0.027 0.026 0.029 0.026 0.020 0.020
was assumed that monthly sunshine totals
IND 0.029 0.028 0.024 0.028 0.040 0.035 0.039 0.037 0.037 0.034 0.027 0.024
across the UK are characterised by six
degrees of freedom, i.e. the number of
94

Fig. 4 Slope of regression, R, between monthly sunshine totals obtained from Campbell–Stokes and auto-
matic recorders
A simple linear regression technique
shows that the CS recorder overestimates
the sunshine by about 20% in summer and
7% in winter. This seasonal variation is attrib-
uted mainly to the influence of solar eleva-
tion. There is a secondary effect due to the
proportion of time with broken cloud, and
manifest as a variation with the percentage
of possible sun. This causes a curvature in
the relationship, as both measuring systems
record similar amounts of sun in completely
clear or overcast months. A quadratic equa-
tion was fitted and avoided the indignity of
Perlucid altocumulus patch lit by early-morning sun in mid-September 2003 east of Manchester Airport
(© Ian Simpson)
the linear regression being extrapolated
to give physically unreasonable results. The
coefficients of the equations are listed
in Table 3 and incorporate seasonal
smoothing.
Acknowledgement
This work built on a preliminary analysis
carried out by Malcolm Lee. Thanks are also
due to Dr Brian Golding, whose comments
led to an increased statistical rigour of the
paper.
References
Meteorological Office (1982) Observer’s
handbook. HMSO, London
Painter, H. E. (1981) The performance of a
Campbell–Stokes sunshine recorder
Comparison of sunshine
compared with a simultaneous record of
the normal incidence irradiance. Meteorol.
Mag., 110, pp. 102–109
Shearn, P. D. (1999) Automatic sunshine
sensor trial interim report summary. Met
Office, unpublished internal document
from OLA Branch
Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, S. G.
(1967) Statistical methods. Iowa State
University Press
Stanhill, G. (2003) Through a glass
Weather – April 2004, Vol. 59, No. 4
brightly: Some new light on the
Campbell–Stokes sunshine recorder.
Weather, 58, pp. 3–11
Correspondence to: Mr R. Tabony, Met Office,
Saughton House, Broomhouse Drive,
Edinburgh EH11 3XQ.
e -mail: richard.tabony@metoffice.com
© Crown copyright, 2004.
doi: 10.1256/wea.99.03
95