U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Weather
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-24-2012, 05:48 PM
 
32 posts, read 122,455 times
Reputation: 32

Advertisements

I know, totally different and they cover enormous swathes of area with different climate zones. One's a country surrounded by the ocean, and the other a major state, and I've wittled it down to their coastal areas.

Basically I'm wondering which one people think has access to a more comfortable, healthful climate overall? Parts of California can get chilly or bone dry hot, and Australia can get humid and have those days of extreme heat, but which one's more conducive to going outside throughout the year? To going into the ocean? Has longer days and hours of sunlight during the winter/ overall? Has less oppressive sunlight? Better greenery? Anything else you can think of that has to do with year round comfort?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-24-2012, 06:18 PM
 
Location: Melbourne AUS
1,156 posts, read 1,343,738 times
Reputation: 782
Which parts of coastal Australia are you comparing too? The coastal climate around Australia ranges anywhere from cool temperate (similar to northern CA) to hotter and more humid than Singapore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2012, 06:41 PM
 
Location: Laurentia
5,536 posts, read 5,511,351 times
Reputation: 2309
Default Healthier and Heartier in California

I'm assuming he means the Western Australia coastline, specifically the part that has a Mediterranean climate, the same type as coastal Southern California. I also assume we're supposed to compare the overall conditions of the california coastline (Crescent City to San Diego) to the Western Australia coastline (Broome to Perth or thereabouts), in terms of which is the healthiest.

Speaking for myself, I would say California is far healthier than Australia, because of the lesser heat, and much less humidity, plus the absence of tropical climates which I detest and find extremely deleterious to my health. In terms of outdoors access, cooler is better in this case and I'd have to go with California again, although both coasts have awful climates as far as I (a winter-lover) am concerned. I will qualify that the northern California coastline (Point Reyes, Eureka, parts of SanFran), wouldn't be too hot for me at any time of year, but the absence of anything cooler than that decent summer weather really makes it a bummer. Since California is cooler and has less heat than parts of the Australian coastline, it is also more conducive for outdoor exercise, which I assume is part of good health. Especially the cooler-summer northern portions (60F for a high in summer is perfect for a marathon run).

The only exception is the ocean, which in terms of the general population I'd have to give for Australia with its warmer water temperatures. However I like cool water, and so do a lot of other people for exercise, and California has plenty of that - it's not as if it's the Gulf of Maine with cold water . Also the warmer water breeds more coastline heat and humidity which really cancels out the overall enjoyment factor.

For the general population, again I would have to say California once everything is taken into account. For access to other climates, West Australia is entirely a hot region, whereas California offers a lot more diversity, including ski resorts and places that get abundant winter snowfall. In other words, California would be the most satisfying for the most people in terms of living conditions and access to other sorts of living conditions. That picks up the winter and cold weather lovers in addition to the mild and heat lovers, whereas W.A. would be a winter-weather-fan's or a skier's nightmare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2012, 07:55 PM
 
Location: Top of the South (Motueka), NZ
14,478 posts, read 10,526,429 times
Reputation: 4615
I haven't had a proper summer in California, but comparing it to the NSW south coast, I would say California. The feel of the sun was the biggest difference I noticed- a less intense feel in coastal California. Possibly less bugs and less of a bushfire risk as well, even though California is bad for fires, NSW has more bush (and burnt out areas). California is also warmer in winter. Coastal NSW generally looks greener

Southern NSW seems to have a California feel to despite, some obvious differences. It even has the mountains and snowy climates, not too far away.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2012, 08:11 PM
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
44,587 posts, read 35,317,298 times
Reputation: 14273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus View Post
The only exception is the ocean, which in terms of the general population I'd have to give for Australia with its warmer water temperatures. However I like cool water, and so do a lot of other people for exercise, and California has plenty of that - it's not as if it's the Gulf of Maine with cold water .
Actually, the coast of California at least from Morro Bay (maybe Monterey) northward is colder than the Gulf of Maine in the summer.

A silly San Francisco saying is no one drowns in the water; they die of hypothermia first.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2012, 08:50 PM
 
Location: Vancouver, BC
8,969 posts, read 9,598,980 times
Reputation: 3565
Coastal Australia for me.... if we're talking about the entirety of the coasts.. then Australia wins due to having tropical coasts which California lacks
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2012, 02:55 PM
 
Location: Perth, Western Australia
9,595 posts, read 21,576,683 times
Reputation: 3425
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeandikes77 View Post
but which one's more conducive to going outside throughout the year?

To going into the ocean?

Has longer days and hours of sunlight during the winter/ overall?

Has less oppressive sunlight?

Better greenery?

Anything else you can think of that has to do with year round comfort?
It all depends. If you hate heat, California, especially central and northern. Hate chilly afternoons, West Oz.

Sea Surface Temperatures in Perth are still slightly warmer than San Diego, so West Oz wins again. To get seas this mild you'd have to go a few hundred miles south into Baja California. The coolest part of the West Oz Indian Ocean coastline has SST's the same as the absolute warmest part of California's coast. Very easy choice. (except the Indian Ocean might have more of a hazard from jellyfish and sharks )

Southern California gets more winter sunlight than anywhere south of Carnarvon, WA however West Oz has longer daylight, as a function of latitude. Perth is 31.5 degrees from the equator and I think Los Angeles is around 34.5 degrees from the equator.

Oppressive sunlight? this is entirely subjective. I enjoy West Oz's strong sunlight. I like how on a 19 C/67 F sunny day, the parts of my skin in the sun feel like the temperature is really 39 C/ 103 F. The strength of the sun here makes you feel warmer when you swim too. Even if you wear strong sunscreen you can feel more heat from the sun. California's sunlight would be milder, both in UV and in infrared output. The only advantage to milder sunshine for me might be having a cooler temperature for the dry sand you have to walk through to get to the sea.

West Oz beats southern California easily for vegetation. Los Angeles only averages about 500 mm a year, San Diego only 270 mm. It's probably a harder call from Central CA up to about San Francisco. North of there CA has coastal rainforest, so obviously CA wins.

Nope, hope that helps.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2012, 06:22 PM
 
Location: Top of the South (Motueka), NZ
14,478 posts, read 10,526,429 times
Reputation: 4615
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdCanadian View Post
It all depends. If you hate heat, California, especially central and northern. Hate chilly afternoons, West Oz.

Sea Surface Temperatures in Perth are still slightly warmer than San Diego, so West Oz wins again. To get seas this mild you'd have to go a few hundred miles south into Baja California. The coolest part of the West Oz Indian Ocean coastline has SST's the same as the absolute warmest part of California's coast. Very easy choice. (except the Indian Ocean might have more of a hazard from jellyfish and sharks )

Southern California gets more winter sunlight than anywhere south of Carnarvon, WA however West Oz has longer daylight, as a function of latitude. Perth is 31.5 degrees from the equator and I think Los Angeles is around 34.5 degrees from the equator.

Oppressive sunlight? this is entirely subjective. I enjoy West Oz's strong sunlight. I like how on a 19 C/67 F sunny day, the parts of my skin in the sun feel like the temperature is really 39 C/ 103 F. The strength of the sun here makes you feel warmer when you swim too. Even if you wear strong sunscreen you can feel more heat from the sun. California's sunlight would be milder, both in UV and in infrared output. The only advantage to milder sunshine for me might be having a cooler temperature for the dry sand you have to walk through to get to the sea.

West Oz beats southern California easily for vegetation. Los Angeles only averages about 500 mm a year, San Diego only 270 mm. It's probably a harder call from Central CA up to about San Francisco. North of there CA has coastal rainforest, so obviously CA wins.

Nope, hope that helps.
How do you know that a 19C shade temp, would feel like 39C in the sun, or is that an approximation? Is there an unbiased way of working out the hot the sun feels on the skin at a given temp? I asked this question indirectly awhile ago, but didn't get much response. Thermometer in the shade/sun.

I also thought that the SoCal sun felt nice for the time of year, and lacked the burning sensation of here. There should be more energy and heat in the SoCal sun given the lower latitude, but it felt like there was less heat in the sun. I know UVI is only said to make a slight difference. Could air pollution take a bit of the sting out of the coastal California sun?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2012, 03:25 AM
 
Location: SoCal
1,499 posts, read 2,922,036 times
Reputation: 1097
California's coast is defiantly more comfortable..

The sun in California isn't like Australia, in Australia the sun feels much stronger for some reason..

In California, the summer days are dry and very sunny, in the evening they cool down, in the morning they could be slightly foggy and it clears up at around 11am.. So very much desirable

No humidity anywhere In California. That's one thing that kills it in Australia for me..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2012, 02:58 PM
 
Location: Perth, Western Australia
9,595 posts, read 21,576,683 times
Reputation: 3425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe90 View Post
How do you know that a 19C shade temp, would feel like 39C in the sun, or is that an approximation? Is there an unbiased way of working out the hot the sun feels on the skin at a given temp? I asked this question indirectly awhile ago, but didn't get much response. Thermometer in the shade/sun.

I also thought that the SoCal sun felt nice for the time of year, and lacked the burning sensation of here. There should be more energy and heat in the SoCal sun given the lower latitude, but it felt like there was less heat in the sun. I know UVI is only said to make a slight difference. Could air pollution take a bit of the sting out of the coastal California sun?
It's my own impressions on how my skin reacts to heat in the shade. It was well beyond the heat of body warmth, like from someone giving me a hug. But only on the parts of my skin most-perpendicular to the sun's rays.

The southern hemisphere has clearer air because there's less people (pollution) and less land area. Lightning won't cause a bush fire in the middle of the Pacific or Indian Ocean. This also contributes to higher UV and probably, infrared output from the sun. I notice a difference when I leave the city of Toronto more than an hour's drive. The sun has a faint increase in intensity that I could sense. Funnier still, my sister reckons summer sun in Toronto feels more intense than summer sun in Seoul, despite Seoul being nearly 6 degrees closer to the equator. *Dirty, extra humid air in Asia?*
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Weather

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top