UVA on cloudy days: how much gets through

"It's overcast, I'm fine" is one of the most reliable ways to underestimate your ultraviolet exposure — and it fails specifically for UVA. Cloud is very good at removing the things you can sense, brightness and warmth, and comparatively poor at removing the long-wave ultraviolet you cannot. On a grey day you have lost the warning signals while keeping much of the dose.

The headline numbers: thin or broken cloud typically passes 80–100% of UVA. Full, thick overcast usually still passes 20–40%. And under broken cumulus, UVA can briefly exceed the clear-sky value entirely.

Transmission by cloud type

"Cloudy" covers everything from a faint high veil to a black storm base, and the difference between them is more than an order of magnitude. What matters physically is not how much sky is covered but the optical depth of what is covering it — how much liquid water sits in the column between you and the sun.

SkyCloudUVA transmitted
Clear—100% (reference)
Thin high veilCirrus, cirrostratus~80–95%
Scattered / broken, sun visibleFair-weather cumulus~90–110%
Broken, sun obscuredCumulus, altocumulus~50–80%
Full grey overcastAltostratus, stratus~30–60%
Thick, dark overcastNimbostratus, storm cloud~10–30%

Note the third row. Under scattered cloud with the sun in a gap, the figure can sit above 100% — that is the enhancement effect, covered below and not a typo.

Why UV gets through cloud better than visible light

Cloud attenuates ultraviolet — UVA and the sunburning UVB alike — less than it attenuates visible light. Two mechanisms are at work.

UVA versus UVB under cloud

Under thick cloud, UVA can get through slightly better than UVB, because the longer paths inside the cloud let ozone absorb more UVB. Every bounce inside and below a cloud lengthens a photon's path, and with it the chance of meeting an ozone molecule; ozone absorbs strongly in the UVB and barely in the UVA, so the detour costs UVB more.

Measurements vary by cloud type, though. Light reflected upward by a cloud is partly scattered back down by the air above it, and air scatters shorter wavelengths more strongly, so under some uniform cloud layers the UVB has been measured coming through a little better instead. Either way the difference between the two is modest — and both get through far better than the light and warmth you can feel.

The cloud enhancement effect

This is the part that surprises people: a partly cloudy sky can deliver more UVA than a clear one.

The geometry is simple. When the sun sits in a clear gap between bright cumulus clouds, you receive the entire direct beam, exactly as you would under a clear sky — plus additional radiation scattered off the brilliant sunlit flanks of the clouds around the gap. Nothing is subtracted and something is added. Measured enhancements are commonly in the 5–25% range, with short-lived spikes recorded higher, particularly when a bright surface such as snow is also bouncing light back up from below.

Why this matters behaviourally: "partly cloudy" reads as a reason to relax. Physically it is the sky condition most likely to deliver above clear-sky UVA — while the intermittent shade makes the day feel cooler and more comfortable, so people stay out longer.

The effect is episodic and short-lived: it applies while the sun is in a gap, and gives way to genuine attenuation when a cloud passes in front. Averaged over an afternoon, broken cloud usually nets out a little below clear sky. But the peak instantaneous values are real, and they are not what anyone expects from a cloudy forecast.

What this changes in practice

How the UVA Index handles cloud

Cloud is the single most variable input to this site's UVA Index, and the model treats it in two ways depending on what data is available for your location.

Preferred: derived from live UV data. Open-Meteo publishes both the actual UV Index and a clear-sky UV Index for the same hour. Their ratio is a measured erythemal cloud transmission for the real sky overhead — far better than any parameterisation of a cover percentage. Because the difference between UVA and erythemal transmission is modest and varies by cloud type (see above), that transmission is applied to UVA as it is:

TUVA = TUVγ, with γ = 1

A heavy overcast that cuts erythemal UV to 30% leaves about 30% of the UVA. The exponent γ is kept as an explicit coefficient because it is the part of the model most worth checking against measurements; the project's validation script fits it against independent UVA data.

Fallback: parametric, from cloud cover. When the live UV pair is unavailable, the model falls back to the reported total cloud cover:

cloud factor = 1 − 0.4 × (cover ÷ 100)1.5

The curve is deliberately gentle, because a reported "100% cover" is a statement about sky coverage, not optical depth — so the right average behaviour at full cover is a moderate reduction to about 60%, not a blackout. The full derivation, along with every other coefficient, is in how the UVA Index is calculated.

One honest limitation: the model does not reproduce cloud enhancement. Both routes are attenuation-only, so a factor above 1 never occurs. Under broken cumulus with the sun in a gap, the real UVA can exceed what the UVA Index reports. It is listed among the factors deliberately left out, and it is the one case where the number is more likely to under-read than over-read.

Check today's UVA Index, cloud and all →