What determines the amount of daylight?

Our amount of daylight hours depends on our latitude and how Earth orbits the sun. Earth’s axis of rotation is tilted from its orbital plane and always points in the same direction — toward the North Star. As a result, the orientation of Earth’s axis to the sun is always changing throughout the year as we revolve around the sun. Sometimes the axis points toward the sun and other times away from the sun.

As this orientation changes throughout the year, so does the distribution of sunlight on Earth’s surface at any given latitude.

This tilting leads to a variation of solar energy that changes with latitude. This causes a seasonal variation in the intensity of sunlight reaching the surface and the number of hours of daylight.

The variation in intensity results because the angle at which the sun’s rays hit the Earth changes with time of year.

If you shine a flashlight at the ceiling, the region that is illuminated shrinks or grows depending on whether you point it directly at the ceiling or at an angle. Similarly, the sun’s energy spreads out over differing geographic areas when it reaches Earth’s surface. It is more concentrated during our summer months when the sun is higher in the sky.

This spinning of Earth like a top explains our daily cycle of night and day. The tilt of the Earth’s axis also defines the length of daylight. Daylight hours are shortest in each hemisphere’s winter. Between summer and winter solstice, the number of daylight hours decreases, and the rate of decrease is larger the higher the latitude. The fewer sunlight hours the colder the nights.

How fast Earth spins determines the number of hours in a given day. As Earth orbits the sun it spins about its axis approximately once every 24 hours. But this is slowly changing with time. About 650 million years ago there were only about 22 hours in a day.

Category: Seasons

Comments Off on What determines the amount of daylight?

What is the status of the ozone hole?

The ozone hole occurs high in the stratosphere, about 18 miles high, and over the continent of Antarctica. It is not actually a hole, but the appearance of very low values of ozone in the stratosphere. Typically, the Antarctic ozone hole has its largest area in early September and lowest values in late September to early October.

The Antarctic ozone hole varies in size each year, from nearly zero in 1980 to an area larger than North America in 2000. The amount of ozone in the atmosphere now is routinely measured from instruments flying on satellites. The size of this year’s ozone hole reached a maximum in mid-September of almost 400,000 square miles, which is about six times larger than Wisconsin. It was a little larger than last year’s ozone hole and about the same as in 2009 and 2010. The amount of ozone likely is reaching its lowest values of the year this week.

The winter atmosphere above Antarctica is very cold. The cold temperatures result in a temperature gradient between the South Pole and the southern hemisphere middle latitudes. These temperature gradients lead to a belt of strong westerly stratospheric winds that encircle the South Pole region. These strong winds prevent the transport of warm equatorial air to the polar latitudes. These extremely cold temperatures inside the strong winds help to form unique types of clouds called Polar Stratospheric Clouds, or PSC.

PSCs begin to form during June, winter time at the South Pole. In the winter, chemical reactions on the surface of the particles composing PSCs result in chemical reactions that remove the chlorine from the atmospheric compounds. When the sun returns to the Antarctic stratosphere in the spring (our fall), sunlight splits the chlorine molecules into highly reactive chlorine atoms and ozone is rapidly depleted. The depletion is so rapid that it has been termed a “hole in the ozone layer.”

Category: Climate

Comments Off on What is the status of the ozone hole?

How rare was that early blizzard in South Dakota?

Our autumnal weather in southern Wisconsin last week was tame in comparison to the devastating blizzard that hit the western portions of South Dakota earlier this month. On Oct. 4, Rapid City, S.D., approached its all-time single-day snowfall record when it received 19 inches, ranking it the third-snowiest day in the city’s history. Interestingly, the two record-setting days ahead of it occurred in late April (in 1970 and 2001).

The recent storm dropped 23.1 inches of snow over three days from Oct. 3-5, ranking it second all-time in that category. Once again, the first and third all-time were in April (1927 and 2013).

Not surprisingly, the 19 inches of snow that fell in Rapid City on Oct. 4 shattered the all-time single October day snowfall by more than 9 inches as the prior record occurred on Oct. 19, 1919, with 9.9 inches of snow. And even though we are only one-third of the way through October, Rapid City has already established its all-time October monthly snowfall record at 23.1 inches — a whopping 8 inches more than any other year.

At the time we were preparing this report, the Rapid City area was under the threat of a substantial rain event this past Friday. The combination of record amounts of snow, little time for it to melt in the intervening week and heavy rains just seven days later prompted flood warnings in the area with the possibility of serious damage to property and agriculture.

As we enjoy the beautiful fall days that this time of year often brings to southern Wisconsin, these weather phenomena close to home should remind us all that the coming of winter is inevitable.

Category: Meteorology

Comments Off on How rare was that early blizzard in South Dakota?

Were those the Northern Lights last Tuesday?

Yes! If you were out late on Tuesday night, you might have seen the Northern Lights. The Northern Lights, also called aurora borealis, appear as a diffuse glow or as overlapping curtains of greenish-white and sometimes red light in the night sky.

Auroras are triggered when the sun ejects a cloud of gas, called a coronal mass ejection. It takes two to three days for the charged particles in this gas to reach Earth. Earth’s magnetic field deflects these particles toward the North and South poles. When these charged particles collide with a molecule or an atom, they can excite the molecule, increasing its energy state. When these molecules or atoms shift back down to their normal energy states, they emit light.

Auroras form between 60 and 250 miles above the Earth’s surface when these charged solar particles collide with two abundant constituents of our atmosphere: nitrogen and oxygen. The interaction of the charged particles with nitrogen molecules results in pinkish or magenta light, while oxygen atoms emit greenish light. A majority of the collisions occur near the poles, so the Northern Lights are usually seen at the higher latitudes of Canada and Alaska. When a large number of particles are emitted by the sun, which usually happens after a solar flare, the lights from the collisions can be seen throughout Wisconsin and other northern states.

Our sun goes through active and quiet energy cycles. The time between 2008 and 2010 was a very quiet time for the sun, and now the sun is in an active stage, providing opportunities to see more of these great natural light shows during cloud-free nights.

Category: Phenomena

Comments Off on Were those the Northern Lights last Tuesday?

Was Superstorm Sandy a direct result of climate change?

As the one-year anniversary of Superstorm Sandy approaches, we have news to report regarding current understanding of that tremendous storm.

One of the major questions confronting atmospheric scientists in the face of that unusual event was whether Sandy was a direct result of a warmer climate. This is a difficult question because there are so many elements that conspire to produce major storms.

One condition that influenced the impact of Sandy was the sea level. It is true that the sea level has risen as the planet warms, and so it is likely that at least some of the flooding associated with Sandy would have been less severe in the absence of climate change.

On the other hand, recent research, conducted using numerical forecast models, has suggested that the intensification of Sandy from the Caribbean to the New Jersey coast most likely was not influenced by climate change.

However, the development of conditions that set up this period of intensification may be linked to climate change — though there is not yet experimental or theoretical evidence that clearly makes this case.

The atmosphere-ocean system is complicated, so questions such as whether events like Sandy are direct consequences of the changing climate are also complicated. The interested citizen, like the interested scientist, may be well advised to be skeptical of such a connection while remaining open to being convinced as the evidence and analysis continues to be considered.

Category: Climate

Comments Off on Was Superstorm Sandy a direct result of climate change?