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.
2) Cold, well the mean Central England Temperature (let alone London which is much warmer) is 9.75C / 49.6F.
Your typical English Midlands temp is warmer than:
Boston, MA (9.3C)
Detroit, MI (9.5C)
Minneapolis, MN (7.0C)
Rapid City, SD (8.2C)
Sioux City, IA (9.0C)
Helena, MT (6.6C)
Madison, WI (7.7C)
Grand Rapids, MI (9.0C)
Buffalo, NY (8.4C)
Albany, NY (8.5C)
The south of England is considerably warmer than the midlands, with mean temps of 10-11C (50-52F).
The clincher of course being that England is as much as 10 degrees latitude NORTH of these cities. So actually, it is a lot warmer than you think.
3) Wet
Let's see. Average rainfall of several major UK cities:
London - 23.2"
Birmingham - 26.5"
Cambridge - 21.8"
Durham - 25.3"
Lincoln - 23.7"
Manchester - 35.4"
Bristol - 40"
Now what about the US?
New York City - 41.9"
Chicago, IL - 35.1"
San Francisco, CA - 19.6"
Miami, FL - 57.7"
Seattle, WA - 38.1"
Atlanta, GA - 48.7"
Kansas City, MO - 36.5"
Dallas, TX - 36.1"
New Orleans, LA - 62.2"
Omaha, Nebraska - 29.9"
Apart from the the South West, most everywhere is wetter than most parts of England, with the wettest parts of England being localised areas of the North West, where hardly anyone lives anyway.
I think the number of rainy days is a better comparison than total preicipation. England seems to get more long drizzlely rather than big downpours compared to the Northeast US, so it might feel like it's rainier because it's around more
London gets 141 days per year with precipitation, only around 20 more than NYC. Outside of the winter months, precip is usually showery rather than drizzly.
I think the number of rainy days is a better comparison than total preicipation. England seems to get more long drizzlely rather than big downpours compared to the Northeast US, so it might feel like it's rainier because it's around more
Well I live in one of the wettest places in England (because it's on a windward slope) and even here in my years of weather records we only get around a quarter to a third of the days in an average month with any kind of measurable precipitation, and the occasional days with "trace" amounts the precip lasts very briefly.
I think it's better to compare two places at the same latitude when it comes to climate. London is 4 degrees latitude north of Seattle. Seattle is at the same latitude as Nantes in France. I think the sunshine hours would be more comparable. I think one of the reasons why the PNW in general gets a lot more precipitation than places like London, Paris and Nantes is because of the mountains here. They cause orographic uplift which forces most of the rain that the clouds are carrying to get dropped whereas in England, the mountains aren't as high and so there is less of that effect.
There is not as much of a difference as people suggest. Seattle gets an extra 400 sunshine hours (equivalent to about 30 extra sunny days), but London gets more days with sunshine, fewer rainy days and much less rainfall.
The 400 more hours would be decisive for me. As would the overall vast superiority of the US over the UK for sunshine. However there are non-climate factors, which aren't appropriate for comment here.
I think someone hit it on the head earlier. Temp-wise, Seattle and London are probably the closest of any two major cities. But precip is a different story, as someone else also mentioned, Seattle gets dumped on due to a major mountain range (Cascades) keeping that rain over the metro. London has no such obstacle. That is the major difference. However, marine influences with similar ocean temps keeps these cities at a relative tie with temperature.
and also, Seattle usually has much nicer summers than London, when you get 20-30 sunny/rainless days in a row (depending on the year)
I really can't think why you're so bothered about comparing Seattle to London all the time. For one thing, London is further north anyway, it's also a far more significant and interesting place than Seattle, what the hell's the deal with trying to prove how "Seattle's summer is better" and all this inane crap that frankly gets on my nerves. Find something useful to do!
London gets 20-30 rainless days in a row in spring and summer as well in most years.
Seattle hasn't even seen 75F yet this year, while London has already had 7 days above 80, with another 6 on the way this week.
LOL even up here in Buxton, Derbyshire over 1000ft above sea level has seen 80F this year!
The difference between Seattle and London's weather is generally so slight that some years London would be the better place to be for warmth etc.. and other years Seattle would be. Take July 2006, London had a higher average max temperature than Seattle has ever had in any month on record.
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.
