Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2018 16:35:12 GMT -5
Finland, Sweden, Norway have shocking climates, closely followed by Denmark. "Shocking" climates? They're all quite mild for their latitude. Don't see what's so "shocking" about any Scandinavian climate. You should know that I hate climates with very cold winters. I consider Stavanger to have very cold winters too, and they are among the mildest in Scandinavia. Even somewhere like NYC or Philly is only a D in my classification, and nowhere in Scandinavia has warm enough summers or shoulder seasons to make up for the fail winters. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Jun 14, 2018 17:01:02 GMT -5
You should know that I hate climates with very cold winters. I consider Stavanger to have very cold winters too, and they are among the mildest in Scandinavia. Even somewhere like NYC or Philly is only a D in my classification, and nowhere in Scandinavia has warm enough summers or shoulder seasons to make up for the fail winters.
If this region has the mildest climates for the latitude on this planet they can hardly be called "shocking".
Vladivostok could be called a shocking climate, because it's colder than Turku despite being at the latitude of Marseille.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2018 17:05:34 GMT -5
You should know that I hate climates with very cold winters. I consider Stavanger to have very cold winters too, and they are among the mildest in Scandinavia. Even somewhere like NYC or Philly is only a D in my classification, and nowhere in Scandinavia has warm enough summers or shoulder seasons to make up for the fail winters.
If this region has the mildest climates for the latitude on this planet they can hardly be called "shocking".
Vladivostok could be called a shocking climate, because it's colder than Turku despite being at the latitude of Marseille.
Relative to the latitude they are ok, but I am rating them on an absolute scale. Vladivostok is shocking as well. London and Portsmouth are the warmest cities in the world north of 50N, but nobody ever rates them relative to their latitude. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Jun 14, 2018 17:07:48 GMT -5
London and Portsmouth are the warmest cities in the world north of 50N, but nobody ever rates them relative to their latitude.
Yes they do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Babu on Jun 15, 2018 7:48:18 GMT -5
I'm with Gior on this
|
|
|
|
Post by alex992 on Jun 15, 2018 15:00:12 GMT -5
If this region has the mildest climates for the latitude on this planet they can hardly be called "shocking".
Vladivostok could be called a shocking climate, because it's colder than Turku despite being at the latitude of Marseille.
Relative to the latitude they are ok, but I am rating them on an absolute scale. Vladivostok is shocking as well. London and Portsmouth are the warmest cities in the world north of 50N, but nobody ever rates them relative to their latitude. What? Literally the #1 thing people mention about London's climate is how mild it is for the latitude. |
|
|
|
Post by aabc123 on Jun 15, 2018 16:01:04 GMT -5
Spasibo. Russians ate Estonian meat, Russians ate Estonian sausages, Russians ate Estonian dairy producs, Russians ate Estonian butter, cabbages, ate other Estonian agricultural products back in soviet times... How could a shithole produce all those things if a shithole was just a such a shithole? Yeah, and Northern Sweden is the major exporter of spruce here. Doesn't mean it's warm there.
I suppose one can not eat spruce. Not a single piece of crop would be grown anywhere in Europe if it wasn't for heavy agricultural subsidies. That's a fact.
The talk was about climate not about EU and it's policy. England and London have very mild climates. London's geographical analogue in the eastern side of our large Eurasian supercontinent would be Petropavlovsk-Kamchatski which is very cold, albeit sunnier than London. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2018 6:21:55 GMT -5
Relative to the latitude they are ok, but I am rating them on an absolute scale. Vladivostok is shocking as well. London and Portsmouth are the warmest cities in the world north of 50N, but nobody ever rates them relative to their latitude. What? Literally the #1 thing people mention about London's climate is how mild it is for the latitude. The number 1 thing people say about London is that it drizzles or rains a lot, even though it doesn't. If people were rating London or Portsmouth relative to the latitude, they wouldn't be receiving mostly D, E, F grades. I rate southern England a C, but compared to anywhere else above 50N it's an A+. I don't see the problem with me rating it on an absolute scale when I don't like the climate. |
|
|
|
Post by knot on Jun 16, 2018 6:32:02 GMT -5
The number 1 thing people say about London is that it drizzles or rains a lot, even though it doesn't. If people were rating London or Portsmouth relative to the latitude, they wouldn't be receiving mostly D, E, F grades. I rate southern England a C, but compared to anywhere else above 50N it's an A+. I don't see the problem with me rating it on an absolute scale when I don't like the climate. Oi dickhead  That is certainly NOT the case with me in the slightest. "People" is far too general; not everykunt likes endless warm boring shithole Schlommo climates! For me—and quite a few other fellas on this forum—the SE United Kingdom is extremely gay for its latitude. Weather enthusiasts>>>>>>>>>comfort wankers. Always! |
|
|
|
Post by alex992 on Jun 16, 2018 8:47:25 GMT -5
What? Literally the #1 thing people mention about London's climate is how mild it is for the latitude. The number 1 thing people say about London is that it drizzles or rains a lot, even though it doesn't. If people were rating London or Portsmouth relative to the latitude, they wouldn't be receiving mostly D, E, F grades. I rate southern England a C, but compared to anywhere else above 50N it's an A+. I don't see the problem with me rating it on an absolute scale when I don't like the climate. No problem rating it on an absolute scale, just calling Scandinavian climates "shocking" is silly. And one of the most mentioned things about London is how mild it is for the latitude. You can't deny that. Btw I'm talking about from a weather enthusiast's perspective, not the average Joe who's a fucking idiot 99% of the time. From a weather enthusiast's perspective, at least in general, London gets rated down because it's boring. Nondescript winters and lukewarm summers, not many thunderstorms, not much snow, etc. The heatwaves are decent from time to time but they are few and far in between. Just nothing much to look forward to as a weather enthusiast. It's not some personal vendetta against London. Plenty of people mention that London is really good climate for it's latitude. |
|
|
|
Post by aabc123 on Jun 22, 2018 9:09:38 GMT -5
And Estonia has still better weather from April to October than Norway in general. You overall should not compare yourselves with Estonia but with Faroese and Iceland, humble me thinks.  irlinit said:
Norway, Finland, EstoniaPerhaps there are very nice baobabs etc somewhere in London's backyards but Britain is said to be one of those countries whose own agriculture can not feed it's own population. The warmest corner of Norway and a location in central UK and now let's watch how their growing degree days are ![]()  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2018 9:24:23 GMT -5
Soil quality is just as important as climate when is comes to agriculture. The best soil is in the UK is the Fens, East Anglia, a small area which produces about 60% of our crops. If the whole island had soil like that we'd not only be feeding our 65 million people (65x larger more than Estonia), we'd also be exporting large amounts of food to the rest of the world.
Also why are you comparing a climate in southern Estonia to a climate in northern England? Compare it to southern England instead, the most agriculturally productive region.
|
|
|
|
Post by aabc123 on Jun 22, 2018 10:22:06 GMT -5
England is in fact not a country but a part of a country, UK is a country and Leeds is in middle of UK. The soil is important, i agree. Northern-Estonian place of Paide what is believed to have the most fertile soils of Estonia has still better growing degree days than Leeds eg. Besides, this place in fact owns the largest number of growing degree days in Estonia, still a very little bit more than eg Luton   Only the very southernmost south England outperforms estonia, yes. (65x larger more than Estonia)
50x larger in fact. nagilum: Estonia no parts that are located further south than 58N
not correct in fact. |
|
|
|
Post by Cadeau on Jun 22, 2018 12:30:27 GMT -5
Regionally,
Southern Greece
Southern Italy
Southern Spain
It is rather easier to pick countries with the best climates.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nidaros on Jun 22, 2018 13:01:01 GMT -5
And Estonia has still better weather from April to October than Norway in general. You overall should not compare yourselves with Estonia but with Faroese and Iceland, humble me thinks. irlinit said:
Norway, Finland, EstoniaPerhaps there are very nice baobabs etc somewhere in London's backyards but Britain is said to be one of those countries whose own agriculture can not feed it's own population. The warmest corner of Norway and a location in central UK and now let's watch how their growing degree days are ![]() 1) Growing Degree Days (GDD) is one of the important factors for planth growth; it is a measure of how much warmth there are for growth. However, it does not very well take into account the possibility of large deviation from normal and killing freezes. But the plants have to take that in account, indeed plants are extremely good at adapting to the local climate over time. In some inland areas, the theoretical GDD can not be used in spring or fall due to killing freezes. The high seems to be more important than the low for GDD, as the low is clipped and set to the base in the equation if lower than the base. The baseline is often 10C (like here) but can also be lower, such as 5C or 8C, depending on which plant it is and the possibilites in the local climate. For cool oceanic climates a lower baseline is often used, as the deviation from normal is much smaller than in inland climates so a lower baseline can be used by plants as the risk of killing freees is low. In inland areas, this is a bad idea as plants will not grow at that temperature in spring or have stopped growing in autumn due to the risk of killing freezes, which plants must adapt to. So in oceanic climates, plants can use lower temps due to less risk of killing freeze and thus more of the year for growth. In Norway, scientist usually use 5C baseline. But it can vary according to which plant species even here.
2) For this particular example, I have looked for normals for Ski, and the only one in the database is from a station 130 m ASL, but only for mean (no avg high/low). My guess is that Ski here is used for Ås, where the university for biological sciences is located, only 7 km away (Ski is the closest town to Ås). The weather station there is 92 m ASL, and there only exist normals for 1961-90 - Norway's met office is one of the few which still only use those, there are no official 1981-2010 normals. As 1961-90 was very cold here compared to both earlier and later years, it seems our met office work hard to make us look extra cold. The large difference from Ski/Ås to Voru in that chart seems strange, as Voru's summers are pretty similar to Oslo and Drammen. Drammen even has warmer June and Sep than Voru according to this page - which should be impossible looking at your chart.
So what climate normals are used? Is it 61-90 for all stations?
Further, the Ås/Ski weather station at that university has pretty cool highs for it's location in the SE lowland. For instance, June high (61-90) is only 19.8C at Ås while it is 21.2C on the warmest stations in the SE; such as Gvarv, and July only 20.8C compared to 22.2C for Gvarv. 1981-2010 would be ca 1C warmer.
|
|
|
|
Post by alex992 on Jun 22, 2018 14:22:38 GMT -5
And Estonia has still better weather from April to October than Norway in general. You overall should not compare yourselves with Estonia but with Faroese and Iceland, humble me thinks. irlinit said:
Norway, Finland, EstoniaPerhaps there are very nice baobabs etc somewhere in London's backyards but Britain is said to be one of those countries whose own agriculture can not feed it's own population. The warmest corner of Norway and a location in central UK and now let's watch how their growing degree days are ![]() Why do you have to "defend" Estonia's climate so much lol? Fucking chill. You're always trying to pick a fight over stupid shit like this. Also saying shit like it has "better weather" is meaningless because weather preferences are subjective. What's better for you isn't better for someone else. Just because someone doesn't like Estonia's climate doesn't mean they have some personal agenda against Estonia. FFS. |
|
|
|
Post by aabc123 on Jun 23, 2018 11:20:45 GMT -5
Nidaros,I will answer soon.Right now i am not in Estonia and i have no computer here.
|
|
|
|
Post by aabc123 on Jun 30, 2018 12:47:45 GMT -5
And Estonia has still better weather from April to October than Norway in general. You overall should not compare yourselves with Estonia but with Faroese and Iceland, humble me thinks. Perhaps there are very nice baobabs etc somewhere in London's backyards but Britain is said to be one of those countries whose own agriculture can not feed it's own population. The warmest corner of Norway and a location in central UK and now let's watch how their growing degree days are ![]() 1) Growing Degree Days (GDD) is one of the important factors for planth growth; it is a measure of how much warmth there are for growth. However, it does not very well take into account the possibility of large deviation from normal and killing freezes. But the plants have to take that in account, indeed plants are extremely good at adapting to the local climate over time. In some inland areas, the theoretical GDD can not be used in spring or fall due to killing freezes. The high seems to be more important than the low for GDD, as the low is clipped and set to the base in the equation if lower than the base. The baseline is often 10C (like here) but can also be lower, such as 5C or 8C, depending on which plant it is and the possibilites in the local climate. For cool oceanic climates a lower baseline is often used, as the deviation from normal is much smaller than in inland climates so a lower baseline can be used by plants as the risk of killing freees is low. In inland areas, this is a bad idea as plants will not grow at that temperature in spring or have stopped growing in autumn due to the risk of killing freezes, which plants must adapt to. So in oceanic climates, plants can use lower temps due to less risk of killing freeze and thus more of the year for growth. In Norway, scientist usually use 5C baseline. But it can vary according to which plant species even here.
2) For this particular example, I have looked for normals for Ski, and the only one in the database is from a station 130 m ASL, but only for mean (no avg high/low). My guess is that Ski here is used for Ås, where the university for biological sciences is located, only 7 km away (Ski is the closest town to Ås). The weather station there is 92 m ASL, and there only exist normals for 1961-90 - Norway's met office is one of the few which still only use those, there are no official 1981-2010 normals. As 1961-90 was very cold here compared to both earlier and later years, it seems our met office work hard to make us look extra cold. The large difference from Ski/Ås to Voru in that chart seems strange, as Voru's summers are pretty similar to Oslo and Drammen. Drammen even has warmer June and Sep than Voru according to this page - which should be impossible looking at your chart.
So what climate normals are used? Is it 61-90 for all stations?
Further, the Ås/Ski weather station at that university has pretty cool highs for it's location in the SE lowland. For instance, June high (61-90) is only 19.8C at Ås while it is 21.2C on the warmest stations in the SE; such as Gvarv, and July only 20.8C compared to 22.2C for Gvarv. 1981-2010 would be ca 1C warmer.
GDD is still an important thing. Many plants can not survive harsh winters, true but one can grow watermelons near Yakutsk, no mater the brutal winters of it as watermelons grow in warm months. I believe one can not grow watermelons near Aberdeen and in other oceanic, wet, cloudy climates such as most of uk, Ireland etc. However, the coldness of estonia's winters are overrated by some posters here. Even here, in eastern part of country with colder winters ivy can climb on wall although not that well as in the islands. I believe noone even thinks about growing ivy outside in garden in Perm or in Novosibirsk. The infoclimat.fr's data for years 81-10 is not correct, at least not for Võru. My charts are from weather spark and they say their data is from 1980-2016. I took Ski as the Ski area looks nature wise similar to estonia, I have lived there. We can take Drammen as well but using Drammen the difference with Võru at weather spark would be even bigger: weatherspark.com/compare/y/95188~68655/Comparison-of-the-Average-Weather-in-V%C3%B5ru-and-Drammen |
|
|
|
Post by aabc123 on Jun 30, 2018 12:48:43 GMT -5
And Estonia has still better weather from April to October than Norway in general. You overall should not compare yourselves with Estonia but with Faroese and Iceland, humble me thinks. irlinit said:
Norway, Finland, EstoniaPerhaps there are very nice baobabs etc somewhere in London's backyards but Britain is said to be one of those countries whose own agriculture can not feed it's own population. The warmest corner of Norway and a location in central UK and now let's watch how their growing degree days are ![]() Why do you have to "defend" Estonia's climate so much lol? Fucking chill. You're always trying to pick a fight over stupid shit like this. Also saying shit like it has "better weather" is meaningless because weather preferences are subjective. What's better for you isn't better for someone else. Just because someone doesn't like Estonia's climate doesn't mean they have some personal agenda against Estonia. FFS. lol, I am not trying to ''defend'' here anything. I want that the forum members to have an accurate general idea. As for preferences- it would be finally good to understand that there are some posters whose preferences are different from mine. Their slogan could be "the worse, the better", so, yes, most of things what is good for them are just bad from point of view of mine and most other people:  |
|
|
|
Post by Babu on Jun 30, 2018 13:00:54 GMT -5
Weatherspark is also not very accurate.
|
|
Lived:
Residence:
