Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
*In India, it will be Drass with its subarctic climate. Srinagar is also good with its cool winters, although the summers are slightly hot.
*Saudia Arabia's Al Bahah is situated in the mountains, so the year temperatures seem temperate compared to any a places in that hellishly hot country. The temps are similar to inland LA, give or take a few degrees. Turaif in the north, while still having scorching summers, has frosty-cool winters.
*Rasht in northern Iran. It's like a Chinese city that made its way to the Middle East. The city is overly wet & humid, having little yearly sunshine hours. The temps are very mild for a place in Middle East.
*Ifrane in Morocco with its cool, slightly snowy winters. We'd all think that Morocco is a hot desert - well it isn't. This also goes against the African continent's stereotype; 'SNOW IN AFRICA'.
*Charlotte Pass & Perisher Blue in mainland Australia. These places have a borderline subarctic climate with their cold snowy winters and mild/cool summers. They're also very wet.
*When you think of Russia you wouldn't think of mild winters: Well, they have Sochi with its mild winters (at least for Russia's standards).
*Mexico City. Mild/coolish temps year round and rainy summers. Goes against the stereotype of Mexico as a scorching and arid place.
*Johannesburg. Many people wouldn't expect a large African city to regularly dip below freezing in winter.
*Zagreb? I'd say Croatia is rather known for its coastal, Mediterranean-climate resorts, while Zagreb is closer to continental and gets quite cold in winter.
*Milan - despite being in Italy, I've heard many people surprised that it is quite colder than Paris in winter.
Despite it still is cold in winter and cool in summer, Stockholm is a relatively dry (drier than Rome) and sunny (sunnier than Paris and Vienna) city.
Brazil is usually viewed as having summer all year round, but some areas such as São Joaquim can get some snow and cold weather.
Deserts are usually viewed as hot and sunny, but the driest deserts (Atacama desert, Namib desert) are usually formed by cold currents so they are cool year round, with frequent fog, and cloudy. Also, Turpan, for example, still is really hot in summer but it's also quite cold in winter. The coldest desert in the world is the Gobi desert which is both really cold in winter and not very hot in summer.
Tromsø has record low only −18.3°C, which is much warmer than most people expect from such high latitude.
Also, Yalta a few months ago (because Crimea seems not to be part of Ukraine anymore) is much warmer than rest of Ukraine and warmer in winter than even most of Northern Italy.
Also: Ukraine is usually viewed as mostly steppes, but most of its northern part (called "Ukrainian Polesia" - from the Slavic word les, which means forest) is a forest.
When I was a child, I thought Ukraine was mostly forested with all the documentaries about Chernobyl. It's only later that I found out it was a breadbasket.
Despite it still is cold in winter and cool in summer, Stockholm is a relatively dry (drier than Rome) and sunny (sunnier than Paris and Vienna) city.
Except, Stockholm has 105 rainy days, whilst Rome has 79 (both based on the 1mm threshold). So I don't think I'd bluntly say that Stockholm is drier. You can say one city gets a lot of drizzle while the other gets more heavier rain thus raising the gauge quicker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeteoMan
Parts of east anglia england, which average barely 500mm of rain a year, and many years border on arid climate.
Again, the amount of rainy days are a factor. These oceanic places (which get less than 700mm of rain) have a lot of days of light rain, like drizzle. Since drizzle is light, it won't raise the gauge that much in a year.
Btw, a (semi) arid climate wouldn't have over 100 days of rain. Most of England has over 100 days of rain (based on 1mm threshold) and that's a lot. So 500mm of rain with over 100 days of rain is still far from semi-arid, let alone arid.
Melbourne, Seattle and Portland also have a lot of wet days (they are known to be 'rainy cities') and yet their yearly precipitation hardly hits 1000mm. This place is one extreme example (look at the high number of rainy days & compare them to the low monthly precipitation):
Except, Stockholm has 105 rainy days, whilst Rome has 79 (both based on the 1mm threshold). So I don't think I'd bluntly say that Stockholm is drier. You can say one city gets a lot of drizzle while the other gets more heavier rain thus raising the gauge quicker.
Again, the amount of rainy days are a factor. These oceanic places (which get less than 700mm of rain) have a lot of days of light rain, like drizzle. Since drizzle is light, it won't raise the gauge that much in a year.
Btw, a (semi) arid climate wouldn't have over 100 days of rain. Most of England has over 100 days of rain (based on 1mm threshold) and that's a lot. So 500mm of rain with over 100 days of rain is still far from semi-arid, let alone arid.
Most people's stereotype of the UK is as a very wet place where it rains all day when it rains. In reality this is not the case for many places.
Also, if you read my post correctly, you would notice that I did not say the climate is semi-arid, I said that some years it is close to it. So do read my post properly before critiquing it and starting a petty boring argument. Thanks.
My original quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeteoMan
Parts of east anglia england, which average barely 500mm of rain a year, and many years border on arid climate.
Indeed, the driest parts of England have recorded less than 100 days with precipitation in a year numerous times. My point still stands though, many places in the UK do indeed buck the ignorant's opinions and ideas about our climate being wet and rainy, I lived in SE England, and even going by rainfall frequency and indeed duration, it is not "rainy" in that area, for sure. Learn something before spouting crap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by theropod
Melbourne, Seattle and Portland also have a lot of wet days (they are known to be 'rainy cities') and yet their yearly precipitation hardly hits 1000mm. This place is one extreme example (look at the high number of rainy days & compare them to the low monthly precipitation):
Those places, particularly the PNW, are all wetter than the driest areas of the UK in terms of quantity, frequency and duration.
Portland and Seattle have a reputation for "rainy" weather not least because of the more or less constant rain concentrated in the winter season, which we do not get in that way, here it is more evenly distributed (and a lot less anyway). Anyone in the PNW would find the weather from October - March there to be much rainier than anything in the driest parts of England.
The driest parts of England are anything but "rainy" by any standard, is the point I am making; even though other parts of the UK are quite "rainy". You are trying to make out that even the driest parts of the UK are still "rainy" somehow, and you are WRONG, for I have lived in areas near there (though not in the driest area itself), collected weather records, and KNOW what I am talking about. The weather often goes through long, long periods with barely any rain, and the grass often turns yellow/brown in the summer. Hell, even in winter there are long periods with very little rain in those areas. You're just ignorant I'm afraid, and do not know what you are talking about at all. London, at 110 days with rain at or over 1mm, gets fewer days with rain than Sydney, and the drier parts of England than that get even fewer, possibly below 100 in some areas. That's not a lot at all, especially considering that many days it is just a shower of a few minutes, and wet weather comes in periods of low pressure domination with long dry spells in between.
So yes, based on the statistics, my knowledge and experience with the drier climates of the UK, and data collection, among other things, they are a very very good example of "places that go against their country's stereotype". Not rainy, not wet, and nobody would think so unless they had just come from the Atacama desert
Melbourne. A fatal aberration in a country that is famous for heat and sunshine, and which is predominantly tropical and subtropical.
Last edited by nei; 03-27-2014 at 09:38 AM..
Reason: language
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd say Croatia is rather known for its coastal, Mediterranean-climate resorts, while Zagreb is closer to continental and gets quite cold in winter.
