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.
So parts of the UK gets around 200 hours less sunshine than parts of the rest of Central and Northern Europe (notice its only parts), which amounts to 30 minutes difference a day and we are supposed to believe that this makes the countryside in the whole country 'gloomy'?
Their weather isn't a reference at all when it comes to sun...
When the reference is pretty low, and you go 200 hours lower, at the end you are seriously low. Besides, this map is really basic, intervals are large.... So hard to make conclusion. We see anyway 95% of Uk in blue or deep blue = forget the sun.
Because the yardstick to define something 'superlative' is 'the rest of the world' no ? We can compare euro features to others...and it's true that almost everything in Europe is modest. But it's here, easy to access with great cities, cultures, blablabla... Europe isn't the continent of superlative, it's the continent of everything next to you, with the prettiest cities
Sure, but the Himalayas being for sure the superlative mountain chain on this planet, I don't see the point comparing the Alps with the Rockies for example.
But hmm... how about the hot springs in Iceland?
IIRC there's some cold-water coral reef outside Norway, something that isn't found anywhere else on the planet, so how about that one? And the Great Barrier Reef being the warm water equivalent.
Their weather isn't a reference at all when it comes to sun...
When the reference is pretty low, and you go 200 hours lower, at the end you are seriously low. Besides, this map is really basic, intervals are large.... So hard to make conclusion. We see anyway 95% of Uk in blue or deep blue = forget the sun.
We also see large parts of Europe north of Switzerland in blue - is the countryside here not 'gloomy' as well then? What about the South Coast of England where the colour is yellow - are we to believe that the countryside here is fabulous while 150 miles north its 'gloomy'?
We also see large parts of Europe north of Switzerland in blue - is the countryside here not 'gloomy' as well then? What about the South Coast of England where the colour is yellow - are we to believe that the countryside here is fabulous while 150 miles north its 'gloomy'?
Open a thread about the unfair and fake 'gloomyness' of UK on the climate thread. I won't enter deeply here in the debate in a thread that has nothing to do with it
Open a thread about the unfair and fake 'gloomyness' of UK on the climate thread. I won't enter deeply here in the debate in a thread that has nothing to do with it
I was originally asking why the British countryside was described as 'gloomy', the British countryside is anything but 'gloomy', there are beautiful 'features' all across the continent, perhaps the answer to the question posed is Iceland? I've never been but I hear its pretty spectacular.
I suppose gloominess might have been stated in regards to the climate and sky, and not so much the scenery itself. I think that the Scottish and Irish highlands are some of the most picturesque and stunning places on earth, and hiking from town to town there through the countryside is about as high as something can get on my to do list. But I would acknowledge the gloominess, in this sense: I am sure there may be even more grey places in the area, but Edinburgh only gets 1,400 hrs. of sunlight per year, and not a single month exceeding 200 hrs. Checking around, most world cities anywhere aren't that grey (gloomy?) by comparison... for example, people in the states consider the PNW to be as "grey/gloomy" as it gets, yet Seattle gets around 2,200 hrs. of sunlight per year, including 6 months well exceeding 200 hrs. So, while I wouldn't use gloomy to describe it personally, that is probably what was meant: https://www.visitbritainshop.com/wor...=0&h=349&w=620
This is the general image that I have in my mind when I think of the scenery of the upper UK, replete with skyline (still a stunner, though!)
Now that that is hopefully resolved, a few points about Norwegian Fjords (it almost certainly belongs at least enough in the discussion to warrant inclusion). From, Howard Hillman's "Wonders" page, where he ranks the fjords among the global Top 10:
-Sognefjord, within the group, is the world's deepest, and 2nd longest.
-Their sheer vastness (26,500 km.) enough to stretch halfway around the world.
-Can't find any specific stats on it, but I've never seen a more stunning sheer cliff/view in pictures than Trolltunga.
-The ability to witness both the Aurora Borealis and Midnight Sun there (most natural wonders can't claim this).
-The barrier reef mentioned by an earlier poster.
All this, in combination, I think means that it certainly belongs enough in the discussion to be a worthy choice.
I suppose gloominess might have been stated in regards to the climate and sky, and not so much the scenery itself. I think that the Scottish and Irish highlands are some of the most picturesque and stunning places on earth, and hiking from town to town there through the countryside is about as high as something can get on my to do list. But I would acknowledge the gloominess, in this sense: I am sure there may be even more grey places in the area, but Edinburgh only gets 1,400 hrs. of sunlight per year, and not a single month exceeding 200 hrs. Checking around, most world cities anywhere aren't that grey (gloomy?) by comparison... for example, people in the states consider the PNW to be as "grey/gloomy" as it gets, yet Seattle gets around 2,200 hrs. of sunlight per year, including 6 months well exceeding 200 hrs. So, while I wouldn't use gloomy to describe it personally, that is probably what was meant: https://www.visitbritainshop.com/wor...=0&h=349&w=620
This is the general image that I have in my mind when I think of the scenery of the upper UK, replete with skyline (still a stunner, though!)
Now that that is hopefully resolved, a few points about Norwegian Fjords (it almost certainly belongs at least enough in the discussion to warrant inclusion). From, Howard Hillman's "Wonders" page, where he ranks the fjords among the global Top 10:
-Sognefjord, within the group, is the world's deepest, and 2nd longest.
-Their sheer vastness (26,500 km.) enough to stretch halfway around the world.
-Can't find any specific stats on it, but I've never seen a more stunning sheer cliff/view in pictures than Trolltunga.
-The ability to witness both the Aurora Borealis and Midnight Sun there (most natural wonders can't claim this).
-The barrier reef mentioned by an earlier poster.
All this, in combination, I think means that it certainly belongs enough in the discussion to be a worthy choice.
Are the Norwegian Fjords also considered to be 'gloomy'? I think they get less 'sun' than a lot of the UK yet nobody seems to mention 'gloomy' when they talk of the very beautiful Fjords.
I suppose gloominess might have been stated in regards to the climate and sky, and not so much the scenery itself. I think that the Scottish and Irish highlands are some of the most picturesque and stunning places on earth, and hiking from town to town there through the countryside is about as high as something can get on my to do list. But I would acknowledge the gloominess, in this sense: I am sure there may be even more grey places in the area, but Edinburgh only gets 1,400 hrs. of sunlight per year, and not a single month exceeding 200 hrs. Checking around, most world cities anywhere aren't that grey (gloomy?) by comparison... for example, people in the states consider the PNW to be as "grey/gloomy" as it gets, yet Seattle gets around 2,200 hrs. of sunlight per year, including 6 months well exceeding 200 hrs. So, while I wouldn't use gloomy to describe it personally, that is probably what was meant: https://www.visitbritainshop.com/wor...=0&h=349&w=620
This is the general image that I have in my mind when I think of the scenery of the upper UK, replete with skyline (still a stunner, though!)
Now that that is hopefully resolved, a few points about Norwegian Fjords (it almost certainly belongs at least enough in the discussion to warrant inclusion). From, Howard Hillman's "Wonders" page, where he ranks the fjords among the global Top 10:
-Sognefjord, within the group, is the world's deepest, and 2nd longest.
-Their sheer vastness (26,500 km.) enough to stretch halfway around the world.
-Can't find any specific stats on it, but I've never seen a more stunning sheer cliff/view in pictures than Trolltunga.
-The ability to witness both the Aurora Borealis and Midnight Sun there (most natural wonders can't claim this).
-The barrier reef mentioned by an earlier poster.
All this, in combination, I think means that it certainly belongs enough in the discussion to be a worthy choice.
Are the Norwegian Fjords also considered to be 'gloomy'? I think they get less 'sun' than a lot of the UK yet nobody seems to mention 'gloomy' when they talk of the very beautiful Fjords.
Technically they are in term of weather (sun). So is a big part of Europe... and UK is in the first place, taking Atlantic depressions straight in the face often time
I think the difference is that in Norway nature totally destroys the one in UK -and Europe in general- so people tend to picture it through its Fjords and glaciers, a rough place with a rough weather far in the north. (With a terrible wather if you want to tan ofc...).
In UK Scotland is like that, has a special aura, with the castles, lakes during a grey day, nobody around, tempests during winter blablabla... Wales too probably, but I personally don't picture it as mysterious and rough as Scotland.
While when you are in Bradford, well, it's essentially flat around (sorry for peak district, 636m is flat, height of the shangai tower...a human construction), a green green countryside, 1260 hours of sun with 860 mm of water (= a little bit of water a lot of days)
(Paris, far from being a model, = 1664 hours of sun, 640 mm)
Sorry, that's kinda a grey-type weather that gives the gloomy-side of the british landscapes. Without the impressive nature around. And it's not because people tend to picture UK like this that they don't do it for other countries.
The maelstrom of Saltstraumen is the Earth's strongest maelstrom, and is located close to the Arctic Circle, 33 km (20 mi) round the bay on the Highway 17, south-east of the city of Bodø, Norway. The strait at its narrowest is 150 m (490 ft) in width and water "funnels" through the channel four times a day. It is estimated that 400 million cubic meters of water passes the narrow strait during this event. The water is creamy in colour and most turbulent during high tide, which is witnessed by thousands of tourists. It reaches speeds of 40 km/h (25 mph), with mean speed of about 13 km/h (8.1 mph). As navigation is dangerous in this strait only a small slot of time is available for large ships to pass through. Its impressive strength is caused by the world's strongest tide occurring in the same location during the new and full moon. A narrow channel of 3 km (2 mi) length connects the outer Saltfjord with its extension, the large Skjerstadfjord, causing a colossal tide which in turn produces the Saltstraumen maelstrom.
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.
