|
|
Post by Babu on Mar 29, 2018 5:06:19 GMT -5
I thought it might be interesting to compare the climates with the highest average highs of Sweden and England.   Lund is colder in every month except July in terms of highs. From April-September it's very close though. The rest of the year is significantly chillier with much more snow. It's also a lot sunnier in spring. So which do you prefer? Personally London's warmer winters outweigh the loss of sunshine for me so I'll go with London. |
|
|
|
Post by Lommaren on Mar 29, 2018 5:18:02 GMT -5
Lund knocks out anything north of Birmingham by a mile, but no chance against London due to the stratocrap 2-7°C boring stuff for five months.
|
|
|
|
Post by knot on Mar 29, 2018 5:30:29 GMT -5
Lund, easily. Much more exciting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2018 5:32:14 GMT -5
London by miles!
|
|
|
|
Post by Steelernation on Mar 29, 2018 6:01:05 GMT -5
Lund
|
|
|
|
Post by flamingGalah on Mar 29, 2018 6:13:14 GMT -5
London.
Why is the Lund weather box using temperature data from 2002-2015?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lommaren on Mar 29, 2018 6:13:59 GMT -5
London. Why is the Lund weather box using temperature data from 2002-2015? There are no high/low data available from before that due to SMHI's "daily mean"-fetish and love for 1961-1990 "daily mean" averages that say nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by Hlidskjalf on Mar 29, 2018 6:27:45 GMT -5
London by far. The difference between 2c and 8c in winter is quite significant.
|
|
|
|
Post by flamingGalah on Mar 29, 2018 7:01:25 GMT -5
London. Why is the Lund weather box using temperature data from 2002-2015? There are no high/low data available from before that due to SMHI's "daily mean"-fetish and love for 1961-1990 "daily mean" averages that say nothing. Not really a fair representation of the actual averages there though, as 13 years is too short a time frame. Would be better to compare to the same time period for Heathrow. |
|
|
|
Post by Babu on Mar 29, 2018 7:16:55 GMT -5
There are no high/low data available from before that due to SMHI's "daily mean"-fetish and love for 1961-1990 "daily mean" averages that say nothing. Not really a fair representation of the actual averages there though, as 13 years is too short a time frame. Would be better to compare to the same time period for Heathrow. Well, 14 years. And I wouldn't object to using 02-15 averages for London either, though London doesn't seem to have warmed all that much, and instead of getting sunnier they seem to have got cloudier instead. I don't think it would've been much of an advantage for London. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2018 7:25:34 GMT -5
London by far.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2018 7:38:10 GMT -5
London, more tolerable winters, stronger shoulder seasons, and more prone to heatwaves in the warmer months.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2018 7:40:20 GMT -5
Not really a fair representation of the actual averages there though, as 13 years is too short a time frame. Would be better to compare to the same time period for Heathrow. Well, 14 years. And I wouldn't object to using 02-15 averages for London either, though London doesn't seem to have warmed all that much, and instead of getting sunnier they seem to have got cloudier instead. I don't think it would've been much of an advantage for London. The 02-15 averages give most Swedish climates a big advantage since it was a notably warm period up there. Why do most Swedish climates use 02-15? Lommie explained this but I forgot. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2018 7:51:01 GMT -5
Because their met office only uses poverty 61-90 averages.
02-15 would make London's winter milder, but some hot summers of the 80s and 90s are gone, and the notable poor summers from 2007-12 lower the August average.
I'll work it out from official data after work, but a quick check on the weatheronline climate robot gives 21.6c, 23.7c, 22.9c for the summer highs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lommaren on Mar 29, 2018 8:47:03 GMT -5
The 02-15 averages give most Swedish climates a big advantage since it was a notably warm period up there. Why do most Swedish climates use 02-15? Lommie explained this but I forgot. I explained above why I did it  Only averages 1961-90 exist and those only take into account 24 h means and not even lows and highs. Scandinavia has been warming much faster than the rest of Europe since then, so Stockholm at 21.9/13.2 or whatever just looks ludicrous when the 1981-10 averages were 23.1/14 something (can't remember exactly, but I took Stockholm 81-10 and put it on Wikipedia from Météo Climat). Had that not occurred most Swedish places would have zero weather data on Wikipedia at all and 2002-15/16 is way better than nothing. Météo Climat only calculated averages for Stockholm, Linköping, Gothenburg, Malmö, Stensele, Östersund and Växjö. Not much to work with there at all. |
|
|
|
Post by aabc123 on Mar 29, 2018 9:03:14 GMT -5
2002-15 vs 81-10, comparison of apples and oranges. Voted for London as it has longer reference period.
|
|
|
|
Post by Babu on Mar 29, 2018 9:13:44 GMT -5
2002-15 vs 81-10, comparison of apples and oranges. Voted for London as it has longer reference period. We're rating climates, not reference periods you idiot. |
|
|
|
Post by Nidaros on Mar 29, 2018 9:17:46 GMT -5
2002-2015 can not be compared to real climate data using 30 years. Two stations should use the same years to compare.
|
|
|
|
Post by AJ1013 on Mar 29, 2018 9:18:20 GMT -5
Lund.
Similar summers, more eventful winters (if it’s going to be cold and dark I’d rather have snow) and more sun. Easy choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by aabc123 on Mar 29, 2018 9:22:26 GMT -5
2002-15 vs 81-10, comparison of apples and oranges. Voted for London as it has longer reference period. We're rating climates, not reference periods you idiot. Ok, thank you calling me idiot, my friend but it is elementry one should use the same reference period. So use for London years of 2002-15. And why the records of Lund are since ... 1901 (!)? The records of Lund should be from 2002-2015 period  |
|
Only averages 1961-90 exist and those only take into account 24 h means and not even lows and highs. Scandinavia has been warming much faster than the rest of Europe since then, so Stockholm at 21.9/13.2 or whatever just looks ludicrous when the 1981-10 averages were 23.1/14 something (can't remember exactly, but I took Stockholm 81-10 and put it on Wikipedia from Météo Climat).
