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.
Lets not forget forget that Koppen drank 4 bottles of Vodka every day. I mean he did group Sydney into the same classification as all of NZ and Tasmania.
That's cool. Dogmatically clinging to ideology is the root of all evil.
That is a good point. I am constantly re-thinking my feelings about weather and climate. A recent trip to Vermont to ski in bright sunshine and deep snow was amazing. Temps were single digits F to high teens but with proper clothing and light winds was very comfortable. You can't glide down mountains alone taking in beautiful scenery in warm climates. So imo winter and snow have their place in scenic rural areas and mountains.
I have also visited the "subtropical paradise" of the US South three winters in a row and have modified my thoughts on that also.
To shortly answer the OP: yes, objectively, London has the worst climate of any sizeable city. I must be especially infuriating for Londoners knowing that the best climates on earth are found only a couple hundred miles away, just across the Channel.
Out of cities with over 5,000,000 people yes it's the worst IMO. The summers while somewhat dry are very poor with poor temperatures and sunshine. The winters are poor too because any month with less than 100 hrs of sun is horrific. Also it is not cold enough. Though it isn't the worst overall... Lerwick and Edinburgh of the Seven Seas take the cake there.
Out of cities with over 5,000,000 people yes it's the worst IMO. The summers while somewhat dry are very poor with poor temperatures and sunshine. The winters are poor too because any month with less than 100 hrs of sun is horrific. Also it is not cold enough. Though it isn't the worst overall... Lerwick and Edinburgh of the Seven Seas take the cake there.
Moscow? 6 month of winter, much of that being incredibly brutal, and summers that are only slightly better than London's, and even that's debatable.
I don't understand how anyone other than cold weather lovers could place it above London.
During a typical year, London will experience several days where the highs are above 30°C, so it does have occasional "heatwaves". But the reason why it comfortably beats Moscow, as you've said, is because it doesn't have 5/6 months of brutal winter every year. I don't see how that is a price worth paying for slightly better summers.
You could say that compared to Moscow, London doesn't even have a winter, just an extended fall.
True, only when London has a below or well below normal would I say they had a "winter". I think of their average winters as an extension of late November/early December here. That is about as bad as they get in a normal year. Moscow and Chicago otoh are far colder and have longer winters, with no nice mountains around to compensate.
I work with a Nigerian guy, and even he said that he found Seville's summer temperatures unbearable. He said it felt like his skin was on fire.
Seville has a fantastic climate, and I was there in the month of September. At their latitude, I never felt fire on my skin. The temps were in the 90'sF and pure sun, but in the shade was very comfortable. Nights were even more comfortable than where I live in the summer.
My skin was on fire in Miami and Key West one year in the month of May. Literally I hid under palm trees and their skimpy shade trying to prevent being fried and feeling like I was going to pass out.
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.