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.
Decide on start something other than a typical rate the climate. There is only one similar thread on the forum like this and that is the critique the climate for Houston. I will allow for multiple selections on the poll and I want to see what exactly people on the forum feel about certain climates around the world. I have about 6 climates in mind to start with, but I decided on San Francisco as it isn't too offensive to most people. So let's get started.
I would say too cool in the summer is my biggest complaint. When I went there in July, I had to wear a light jacket. Otherwise, it is a pretty inoffensive climate IMO.
Too boring, too cool in summer, too mild in winter, too foggy, too dry in summer, not enough thunderstorms. I remember a late August morning there that felt like a (rather mild) Seattle winter day. I suspect San Francisco would get significantly less sunshine hours closer to the coast.
Also, you should add "too cold in winter" as an option. Many people would vote for that, starting with deneb78.
Too cool in the summer is by far the largest problem with this climate. If summers were at least 3 celsius warmer in average high, that would raise the score from a B- to an A-.
Three smaller complaints of mine include: 3-4 celsius too warm in the winter, too sunny (2300-2600 annual hours would be ideal), and the lack of moderate rain in the summer.
Too boring, too cool in summer, too mild in winter, too foggy, too dry in summer, not enough thunderstorms. I remember a late August morning there that felt like a (rather mild) Seattle winter day. I suspect San Francisco would get significantly less sunshine hours closer to the coast.
Also, you should add "too cold in winter" as an option. Many people would vote for that, starting with deneb78.
Actually San Francisco's winters aren't that bad. It isn't my ideal winter by any stretch but it is alright. At least there is no snow unlike Chicago or Minneapolis. So, it is not really a major complaint.
Well the seasonal lag calculation simply calculates April's mean temperature (October's if Southern Hemisphere) relative to that of the coldest and warmest month. If April's mean temperature is at least halfway between the coldest and warmest month, it gets 100%. If April's mean temperature is less than 35% of the way between the coldest and warmest month, it gets 50% or less.
For instance, if Climate A and Climate B both average 30 F / -1 C in January and 80 F / 27 C in July, and those are the coldest and warmest months, April must average at least 55 F / 13 C to get the full 100%, because ideally in such a climate April would be 55-60 degrees. If April averages 47 F / 8 C, that's 17/50 or 34% of the way, and the "seasonal lag" rating would be low.
In San Francisco's case, the coldest month (January) averages 51.3 F / 10.7 C and the warmest month averages 62.7 F / 17.1 C, for a difference of 11.4 F / 6.4 C. April averages 56.2 F / 13.4 C, that's 4.9 F / 2.7 C warmer than January. 4.9/11.4 is 43%, on the chart 43% is defined as an 80 grade. (46% is a 90 and 40% is a 70)
Too boring, too cool in the summer, too foggy and too windy. Had it been warmer in summer those summers would've been too dry as well, but with 21/12 warmest month averages it doesn't matter much.
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.