I always love to see data analysis on tolerable weather. I've done a lot of research on weather in the US and its a perpetually challenging problem. There are a small list of cities where its consistently nice (Solely in california and miami), and a larger list of cities that are have 4 nice seasons. But the data will never tell you the full story - Denver doesn't rank incredibly well in the data but the winters are mild and the summers surprisingly hot because its always sunny and closer to the sun. SLC ranks well, but has unbearable smog. It seems that every city has caveats that can't be captured in the data. Portland seemingly has great weather.. when its not raining.
Miami has some weird weather patterns where it’s always humid, but the temperature never reaches triple digits so you don’t have the crazy hot muggy unbearable summers like the Midwest.
>Denver doesn't rank incredibly well in the data but the winters are mild and the summers surprisingly hot because its always sunny and closer to the sun.
Difference in distance to the sun is completely negligible. Maybe you’re thinking of UV index?
UV index is definitely a more accurate representation. I had to look it up because people always say it’s the elevation, which turns out to be partly true.
The link below says an increase of 2% for every 1000 feet, so most of Denver gets 10% more uv index because it’s closer to the sun (more accurately higher elevation/less atmosphere).
Well, there’s less air between you and the sun. Most of that 94 million miles are void of anything blocking/filtering light. The last 10 miles aren’t. It likely makes a difference if it only 8-9 miles.
