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.
It depends on what you consider Leeds.. over 750,000 people live in the City Council area, but that includes towns like Wetherby. In reality, there are about 650,000 people in Leeds itself.
I think the old station was closed due to cost-cutting measures.. along with other urban stations across the UK, such as Bristol and Newcastle. Places like Hull still have weather stations though, while the two largest Scottish cities have multiple weather stations.
A lot of the Yorkshire stations are in quite stupid places. The Met Office has/had the Malham Tarn site (high up on the moor overlooking a village of 200 people!) representing central northern England once on one of the maps on its website, which would give an outsider the impression that the region as a whole was some bleak rainsodden hell, whilst the Bingley site is again fairly high up and not that representative of the weather where most people in the town actually live. I don't see the point in having one in Church Fenton either and not one in either Leeds proper or York proper.
Leeds Weather Centre was fairly unrepresentative too, at night anyway, due to the urban heat island being more pronounced. It was good during the daytime though, especially in summer.
Ideally, cities would have multiple stations in different areas to accommodate for the variable topography and urban levels. LBA, as Dean mentioned, is not representative of Leeds at all - it is much colder in the summer - it's literally located on a windswept, foggy hill - the highest commercial airport in the country in fact.
Liverpool has a weather station in the suburb of Crosby, which would be a good location IMO, but I believe it's located on sand so gets colder at night than one would expect for a coastal location
I like that the Finnish Met Institute tries to be consistent on weather stations and place them so readings are comparable with each other (as in not in microclimates, very windy places, middle of urban heat islands) and so on. If the geography changes with years, they move the weather station.
Leeds was bigger than I thought as well. Bigger than Helsinki and Oslo.
edit: And yes, it's a disgrace that cities like Leeds don't have their weather station, or fix the broken one in Sweden's second largest city.
Let's bash the FMI as well. Otherwise everything's fine and professional, but damn they treat their agency like it's some kind of secret service. The stat page is a joke, they publish only data from few stations, rarely talk to the media, rarely share any kind of info and so on. Learn some goddamn PR, will you?
Last edited by Ariete; 12-21-2013 at 01:32 PM..
Reason: What is it to you?
Well, the MO have good stats for UK weather stations, which is great. However, I wish it was more comprehensive like NOAA. I'm not sure why the MO don't have more stats for things like snow depth or first frost etc.
Helsinki and Oslo have more people if you ignore municipal boundaries though. Vantaa and Espoo seem more like suburbs of Helsinki to me.
Yes, in theory they are, even if they're different entities with own city councils, public transport and so on. But in fact both "cities" are much older than Helsinki, both had villages and people living there since the stone age when Helsinki was just swampland and rocky islands.
In fact Helsinki and Vantaa discussed a merger, but it's on hold at the moment as Vantaa is such in a debt. Espoo is a quite rich city with a large healthy middle class, and not interested in merging with anybody.
Same here in Turku. Raisio, Naantali and St. Catherine's are wealthy smaller cities, and they gladly use Turku's shopping centers, public transport and cinemas, but don't want to merge as they would have to pay for social problems and housing, and be just insignificant suburbs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunno what to put here
Well, the MO have good stats for UK weather stations, which is great. However, I wish it was more comprehensive like NOAA. I'm not sure why the MO don't have more stats for things like snow depth or first frost etc.
Yes, I've noticed it. I'm jealous of Environment Canada or the Australian B of M, they're great. And I've said to the FMI that they're crap, take a look at Environment Canada. I got no reply...
Snow depth is a bit tricky, as they aren't always reliable, and someone has sometimes go to measure it manually. Of course England rarely get that much snow. Or then they give false readings, fog and mist is often recorded falsely as snow "or other blowing phenomena" at the Turku station, and give a snow depth reading of 2 cm, I've noticed.
The biggest town in Lincolnshire is Grimsby.. have fun, lol.
Try taking a trip to Nottingham - it's a pretty fun place.
i think lincoln is bigger.
i dont have any money so i cant im stuck here
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.
