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've heard some people say if it weren't for the Gulf Stream, England would have the same climate as Labrador. But that's not right at all, Labrador is on the opposite side of the continent, bringing much different weather. Anyway, British Columbia is at the same latitude as England, so that's a better comparison. And not much of a warm current, either, so perhaps a good judge of what England would be without a Gulf Stream. How do you like? Prefer London better?
It's a bit inland, so it's somewhat continental. If I picked a coastal location, the summers would be cooler but the winter warmer (and wetter, a nearby coastal town gets 172 inches of rain). At 52°N, like London.
I could live there. Just like us (well, not London but somewhere further north or west perhaps with no heat island) only with proper bracing snowy winters unlike the mild nothingness we sometimes get. I like the idea of a maritime climate which occasionally gets extreme weather like there. Summers could be slightly warmer, but they are sunny enough to make up for it. Annual sun overall is 1486 hours, similar to my part of London (but with NDJ sun 21, 8 and 17 hours?! Unbearably grey winters even for me!) I'd actually rate it slightly lower than here because those winters are so dull. Winters are meant to be dull and wet, but 45 hours of sun over three months is far too little, much as I'd like the snow and gales.
Thanks for the sunshine data. I think it's a bit low. The 6.3% in January(!)
This might give an explanation:
It is important to note that the amount of "bright sunshine" is less than the amount of "visible sunshine" because the sun's rays are not intense enough to record especially just after sunrise and towards sunset.
With the lowest sun angle in winter, this might explain why the numbers are so low. It's not right no the coast, so the numbers should be extremely low. I suspect it should be less than Vancouver, but not by a huge amount. Maybe 1600-1800 hours.
Thanks for the sunshine data. I think it's a bit low. The 6.3% in January(!)
This might give an explanation:
It is important to note that the amount of "bright sunshine" is less than the amount of "visible sunshine" because the sun's rays are not intense enough to record especially just after sunrise and towards sunset.
With the lowest sun angle in winter, this might explain why the numbers are so low. It's not right no the coast, so the numbers should be extremely low. I suspect it should be less than Vancouver, but not by a huge amount. Maybe 1600-1800 hours.
Those % values are too pessimistic. The same measuring methods in NZ for 1971-2000 and earlier normals were accompanied by a 30 minute deduction per day for attenuation (can't record the rays). At this place's latitude, there should probably be a higher deduction. We also don't know if there is any horizon obstruction at the site. The % recordable could be as high as 35%.
This place gets a hell of a lot of rain, and climate is barely acceptable. C.
Summers look more like a mild shoulder season, by standards here.
Would live here in preference to some hot and humid tropical, or even hot subtropical place.
Nonetheless, could not/would not tolerate any further north than this place.
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.
