|
|
Post by alex992 on Dec 13, 2017 17:33:01 GMT -5
I think using 02-16 is a bit misleading, and not nearly a long enough period to use to represent a climate. Hell, I even think 30 year averages aren't enough to give the full picture of a climate. Umea has an average annual mean 5 C colder than Buxton, so it's quite easy to see which one is a colder climate. Though Umea is still quite mild for its latitude, a comparable climate in North America at 64 N has an average annual mean of -11 C (Baker Lake, Canada) and Fairbanks at 65 N has an average annual mean of -3 C. Idk, climate is changing quicker in 15 extra years than the 15 extra years add accuracy here, if you get what I'm saying. I get why you'd think so seeing as there isn't any noticeable warming in Miami, but it's plainly just ridiculous how they refer to this summer, which is the coolest since 1987, as dead on average. No. It simply isn't. Id year after year after year is above average, then the average has shifted. Yeah, I somewhat get what you mean, but 15 years is still a really short time period. One weather pattern could dominate for 15 years, not to say it's warmer than normal all the time for 15 years or vice versa, but it's quite easy for a warm or cool period to dominate in 15 years. That being said, it seems you've had a run of warm summers for the past 30 years. But it does seem a bit ridiculous to say this summer was average if it's been the coolest in 30 years....for many people the "new" pattern is all they know. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2017 17:33:47 GMT -5
A very difficult choice,
Buxton should win on temperature and less rain days, but the additional 500 sunshine hours for Umea makes it close.
I'm going out for an iced coffee and a slice of Churchill square, and expect to have made a decision by the time I return home.
|
|
|
|
Post by longaotian on Dec 13, 2017 18:35:39 GMT -5
Both are awful climates, but I think I might just choose Umea for the extra sunshine, even though the winters are freezing.
|
|
|
|
Post by knot on Dec 13, 2017 21:16:36 GMT -5
I'd prefer Buxton for its greater precipitation amount and its pleasant (albeit snowy) winter.
|
|
|
|
Post by knot on Dec 13, 2017 21:24:20 GMT -5
Umeå is the easy-ish winner (E+ vs E-). Buxton's winter cold rain is beyond disgusting along with those crummers that aren't exactly Vancouver to compensate for it. Buxton is essentially along with Penrith, Carlisle and Dumfries parodies of bad British climates and to make matters worse they're below 56°N all of 'em.Penrith, Carlisle and Dumfries are exeptionally warm for 54°-56° N. Those parallels straddle between the temperate parallels and the Arctic Circle; the subpolar parallels. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2017 22:13:24 GMT -5
After some consideration, I've awarded my vote to Buxton.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 1:50:31 GMT -5
i did umeå airports 81-10 averages far back in time on CD-weather. here is that box  I'd rather compare both at 02-16 though. I am a fan of using more up to date stats actually. The summers are still far warmer during the day. And much sunnier. That's a huge exaggeration, not to mention that the sun's strength must resemble a light bulb Personally I'm a fan of using the 30 year normals. Given how climates work, I think 10/15 years is too short a time to fully understand a particular climate. |
|
|
|
Post by Babu on Dec 14, 2017 2:21:29 GMT -5
A very difficult choice, Buxton should win on temperature and less rain days, but the additional 500 sunshine hours for Umea makes it close. I'm going out for an iced coffee and a slice of Churchill square, and expect to have made a decision by the time I return home. Umeå has 100-110 precipitation days using a 1 mm threshold. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Dec 14, 2017 3:42:13 GMT -5
That's a huge exaggeration, not to mention that the sun's strength must resemble a light bulb Personally I'm a fan of using the 30 year normals. Given how climates work, I think 10/15 years is too short a time to fully understand a particular climate. Lol, no. People tend to exaggerate the weakness/strength of the sun due to latitude tremendously. And after all, weak sun is better than no sun. --- For the thread; I really can't give a good answer. This is a very hard climate battle. |
|
|
|
Post by Babu on Dec 14, 2017 6:56:30 GMT -5
I'd rather compare both at 02-16 though. I am a fan of using more up to date stats actually. The summers are still far warmer during the day. And much sunnier. That's a huge exaggeration, not to mention that the sun's strength must resemble a light bulb Personally I'm a fan of using the 30 year normals. Given how climates work, I think 10/15 years is too short a time to fully understand a particular climate. I guess I am exaggerating. Though actually, the sun is warmer in Umeå than in Buxton when you're upright since the decrease in sun strength is negligable in comparison to the more direct angle of attack. |
|
|
|
Post by Donar on Dec 14, 2017 7:57:42 GMT -5
Buxton, reluctantly. The short winter days in Umea would drive me nuts, and it has worse shoulder seasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by flamingGalah on Dec 14, 2017 11:52:40 GMT -5
Buxton. Umeå is far too cold for too long.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 13:07:29 GMT -5
That's a huge exaggeration, not to mention that the sun's strength must resemble a light bulb Personally I'm a fan of using the 30 year normals. Given how climates work, I think 10/15 years is too short a time to fully understand a particular climate. I guess I am exaggerating. Though actually, the sun is warmer in Umeå than in Buxton when you're upright since the decrease in sun strength is negligable in comparison to the more direct angle of attack. So by that logic the sun in Umea is warmer than places in say, NZ in when standing upright? Seems like a bit of an oddball theory. |
|
|
|
Post by Babu on Dec 14, 2017 13:08:24 GMT -5
I guess I am exaggerating. Though actually, the sun is warmer in Umeå than in Buxton when you're upright since the decrease in sun strength is negligable in comparison to the more direct angle of attack. So by that logic the sun in Umea is warmer than places in say, NZ in when standing upright? Seems like a bit of an oddball theory. Well, according to the data I've looked at, yes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 13:09:52 GMT -5
So by that logic the sun in Umea is warmer than places in say, NZ in when standing upright? Seems like a bit of an oddball theory. Well, according to the data I've looked at, yes. May you please provide said Data? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 13:15:06 GMT -5
That's a huge exaggeration, not to mention that the sun's strength must resemble a light bulb Personally I'm a fan of using the 30 year normals. Given how climates work, I think 10/15 years is too short a time to fully understand a particular climate. I guess I am exaggerating. Though actually, the sun is warmer in Umeå than in Buxton when you're upright since the decrease in sun strength is negligable in comparison to the more direct angle of attack. The sun is at a steeper angle in Buxton than any time in Umea. Also the altitude here makes the sun stronger as well (UV strength increases with altitude). You're simply talking out of your ass again. |
|
|
|
Post by Babu on Dec 14, 2017 13:22:43 GMT -5
So at a 75 degree sun angle, the sun will only be hitting your vertical body with 1/3.9 strength. At a 45 degree angle it's hitting you with 1/1.41 of its power. At 45 degrees, the sun's strength is only 30% weaker than at 90 degrees, but it's angle is only 30% weaker than perpendicularity. So a 45 degree sun will hit a vertical object with about 45-50% of the strength that a 90 degree sun hits the ground. Assuming a 75 degree angle sun had the same strength as an equatorial 90 degree sun, the sun strength against a vertical object would still only be about 1/4th, so literally half as strong as the 45 degree sun against vertical objects (like most of your body). The New Zealand sun will be about 30-100% stronger on your shoulders, head and horizontal arms, but our sun will be about 80-100% stronger on your legs, torso, face and hanging arms.
This is only for heat though. In terms of UV strength we're not even close to being close.
The NZ sun would definitely be perceived as hotter/harsher since the areas of your body that are perpendicular to the sun will get hotter etc. The sun is stronger. However, wearing black jeans and a black shirt when it's 22'C outside with identical wind and humidity would be way sweatier in Umeå compared to NZ.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 13:29:30 GMT -5
So in that case the sun should feel much warmer when it's about to set than when it's high in the sky at mid-day. But it does not.
Also, by this logic, the sun should feel barely noticeable at all at the equator when it's directly overhead.
The higher the angle of the sun, the more focused is its intensity in any given area of land - so the sun is stronger here than further north when it comes to its effects on heating the ground. It's stronger in Buxton than Umea with regards to UV index and heating potential regardless of how you think it feels on your person. I'm talking purely from a climatic perspective.
|
|
|
|
Post by Babu on Dec 14, 2017 13:40:55 GMT -5
So in that case the sun should feel much warmer when it's about to set than when it's high in the sky at mid-day. But it does not. Also, by this logic, the sun should feel barely noticeable at all at the equator when it's directly overhead. The higher the angle of the sun, the more focused is its intensity in any given area of land - so the sun is stronger here than further north when it comes to its effects on heating the ground. It's stronger in Buxton than Umea with regards to UV index and heating potential regardless of how you think it feels on your person. I'm talking purely from a climatic perspective. Discussing sun strength from a climate's perspective is kinda pointless when we already know the derived climate. We were discussing whether a sunny 20'C would feel warmer in Umeå or Buxton. And once you get above 45-50 degrees, the sun's strength doesn't get all that much more intense, and "angle of attack" starts getting way more important. This is all purely in June/July though, as outside of that, Umeå will have a low enough sun angle so that there actually is a sizeable intensity loss. Btw, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a 10° sun hitting an 80° angle (perpendicular) pretty much exactly the same strength as a 90 degree sun hitting an 80 degree angle? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 13:44:38 GMT -5
That's a huge exaggeration, not to mention that the sun's strength must resemble a light bulb Personally I'm a fan of using the 30 year normals. Given how climates work, I think 10/15 years is too short a time to fully understand a particular climate. Lol, no. People tend to exaggerate the weakness/strength of the sun due to latitude tremendously. And after all, weak sun is better than no sun. --- For the thread; I really can't give a good answer. This is a very hard climate battle. Lol, I partly made that light bulb comment to entice you into a reply. I've noticed that you seem to have a heart attack whenever someone suggests that the sun is weaker at those higher latitudes, which it is! Latitude has an unmistakable effect on sun intensity. www.who.int/uv/intersunprogramme/activities/uv_index/en/index3.html |
|
