6
$\begingroup$

I'd like to know if a climate with snowy and gloomy winters and rainy and cloudy summers is possible. Because the climate of Russia in summer is sunny enough and the Icelandic ones isn't so snowy. So a climate snowy in winter and rainy in summer but with forests and the possibility to sustain life, what characteristics are required? I want an almost always overcast sky. Thanks for the answers. I forgot to mention that this type of climate, is for a Europe-like continent in a planet that orbits a star less bright than the sun.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ English weather... $\endgroup$ – nzaman Sep 14 at 11:00
  • $\begingroup$ A cloud forest perhaps: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_forest $\endgroup$ – sdfgeoff Sep 14 at 11:01
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the answers, but English weather isn't so snowy in winter and cloud forest is tropical or subropical. I'd like to create a gloomier, colder and rainier version of Europe. $\endgroup$ – Ontan Sep 14 at 11:24
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'd like to create a gloomier, colder and rainier version of Europe Scotland it is then. :-) $\endgroup$ – StephenG Sep 14 at 17:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Did you mean Seattle? $\endgroup$ – Nierninwa Sep 15 at 20:18
4
$\begingroup$
  1. Put your place between the ocean and a mountain range. Wet air coming in from the ocean tends to dump its water on the ocean side of the mountains. You get a climate like Portland or Seattle.

  2. Put your place far enough north that it gets cold. Then the wet air dumping water will come down as snow. Possibly a lot of snow.

The ocean will prevent it from getting bitterly cold. The northern latitude will prevent it from getting too hot. You wind up with someplace like Anchorage Alaska or Buffalo NY -nice temperatures all year round, and near constant rain and snow.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, I already made a country similar to this once(a Western european-like country with a mountain range near the ocean), but I've never thought a position similar to Alaska, to make a colder and gloomier weather, despite the fact that I thought about Norway, but I find it too mild. So thanks a lot, I appreciated your answer! $\endgroup$ – Ontan Sep 14 at 21:02
  • $\begingroup$ wow surprisingly one of my permafrost land is similar like this, without me knowing geography at all. the more i see people answer in this SE (especially mine) the more my solution actually already implemented correctly without me knowing it at all (although i still need the reason or explanation though). $\endgroup$ – Li Jun Sep 15 at 5:51
4
$\begingroup$

Ursula K. LeGuin does a good job with this kind of environment in "The Left Hand of Darkness". Direct sunlight isn't needed, so long as there is enough radiant energy to grow some kind of crops, or to support a sufficient amount of wildlife for a hunter/gatherer society to live off of. A sunny region can produce 600 calories per square centimeter of arable land; an environment like you're describing might produce less than 100 per square centimeter, which puts corresponding restrictions on population size. It would probably demand a fishing industry, which could shift solar energy conversion to off-shore sources (like algae and other aquatic plants) and bring in essential fats and protiens from fish or aquatic mammals.

Technically speaking, you could create an environment with no solar energy at all, so long as you found an alternate source of energy to convert into organic sugars. Think about hydrothermal vents in the deep ocean, and their associated colonies of worms and shrimp and exotic bacteria, except on a massive scale... Not a place I'd want to live, thought.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the response, so a land like Siberia but heavily polluted can meet these criteria? $\endgroup$ – Ontan Sep 14 at 13:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm not familiar with the climate in Siberia. I'll point out that permafrost would be a problem for crop production: it might take more energy preparing the soil for production than the soil can actually return. Pollution is a separate issue. Pollution is by definition toxic, and it doesn't matter how fertile a region is if the food that's produced there can't be eaten safely. In fact, I'd imagine that a low-energy environment like you're describing would have to be careful about pollution, they can't afford to waste energy resources and they can't afford to poison their limited food supply. $\endgroup$ – Ted Wrigley Sep 14 at 14:06
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, so I have to rethink my idea. :) $\endgroup$ – Ontan Sep 14 at 15:30

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.