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 took this picture on the train from Stavanger to Oslo on 28 March 2006. Those snowbanks are definitely much bigger than anything I've ever seen in this country at any time of year, plus that place is only 141 metres above sea level and about 20 km from the south coast, no further north than parts of Scotland. Impressed!
Yeah, a lot of snow. I logged into the database and checked data from March 2006.
Nelaug has an official weather station (142 m asl). I also checked Stavanger, Oslo and Trondheim (Airport/Værnes), and a few other places.
March 2006 Mean snow depth / max snow depth
Stavanger (Sola, 7 m): 3 cm / 8 cm
Nelaug (142m): 89 cm / 145 cm (!)
Oslo (94 m): 48 cm / 60 cm (Oslo city forest at 360 m asl had up to 124 cm!)
Trondheim (12 m): 25 cm / 35 cm (near Røros up to 107 cm max depth)
Data provided by met.no.
Very stark difference from the west coast (Stavanger) to Nelaug.
The south coast can see more extreme snowfall than Trondheim and Olso.
As you travel east of the southernmost point in Norway (Lindesnes), the Atlantic influence decreases. Nelaug (near Arendal) is E of Lindesnes.
At the same time, the topography of the south coast makes it more vulnerable to large snowfall than either Oslo or Trondheim, if just a winter low is in the right position to give persistent S/SW flow cold enough for snow.
Nelaug is on average almost the same as Trondheim wrt temperatures in mid-winter, only very slightly colder than here. Torungen, at the coast 30 km from Nelaug, is 4C warmer in winter.
Nelaug had a record low of -23.7C, Stavanger -13.3C, Oslo -15C.
Both Fort Worth Texas and Indianapolis Indiana are warmer and wetter overall in the 1991-2020 climate normals when compared to the 1981-2010 climate normals
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,604,784 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
I think they should go to using a 50 or 60 year average. A lot less prone to being influenced by freak events.
The problem is that average low temps would be too low, because you would have several years before UHI in those numbers
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.
