U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Weather
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which classification system do you prefer?
Köppen-Geiger 18 37.50%
Trewartha 17 35.42%
Neither 13 27.08%
Voters: 48. You may not vote on this poll

Old 08-19-2012, 06:36 PM
24,130 posts, read 18,532,988 times
Reputation: 10955


I've poured over the Trewartha classification system that seems to be the preference of some of the posters on here, more so the European and Oceania posters, and it's oddly more broad and simplistic than Köppen-Geiger. I think both has their good and bad points, I haven't been on here long enough to call myself a knowledgeable person on either system. So, as the climate classification novice that I am, educate me on why you prefer one system over the other, and the criticism/shortcomings of the system you oppose I prefer Köppen because that seems to be the system with the most easily accessible information on it and looks to be the more modern one. Trewartha, on the other hand, his map is confined to 2 scanned textbook pages (not the graphic that Köppen has) and almost all Wikipedia articles on climate reference the Köppen system. So, I prefer Köppen based on availability

Also, is there a detailed website that can fully explain to me how Trewartha classified each place in the world? I can only seem to find the map (that seems to have been scanned out of an old textbook) for his system. Not looking for a battle per se, but some education for us weather/climate novices (I've spent considerable time on here, but I know most of you are more knowledgeable than me in meteorology and climatology)

Last edited by theunbrainwashed; 08-19-2012 at 06:56 PM..
Quick reply to this message

Old 08-19-2012, 07:09 PM
Location: Western Massachusetts
42,711 posts, read 32,231,925 times
Reputation: 13737
Those of us who object to both should post their climate classification
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-19-2012, 07:32 PM
Location: Wellington and North of South
4,809 posts, read 5,274,743 times
Reputation: 2250
My (probably unpopular) take on it: I have no interest in these schemes. For a given locality or region, I'm only interested in its specific climatology as it stands, and in what phenomena (the whole range from small-scale random fluctuations through meso-scale to global scale) can affect it on various timescales. If I'm considering a holiday in place X (or moving there to live), I'm not interested in its near-relatives elsewhere.
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-19-2012, 09:27 PM
Location: Vancouver, BC
8,535 posts, read 8,769,388 times
Reputation: 3342
I think I prefer Trewartha over existing systems as it seems more accurate in the temperate latitudes. However, that is not to say that Trewartha is the ultimate in climate classification systems.. I think that there could be a better one out there that I either don't know about or it hasn't been developed yet. I think both Koeppen and Trewartha both have their shortcomings with Trewartha coming out on top for the reason indicated above.
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-19-2012, 10:36 PM
Location: SW London
9,289 posts, read 4,909,921 times
Reputation: 2183
Trewartha has additional letters for the warmest and coolest month, so it's better for Oceanic climates than Koppen is.

For example; London and Sydney are both Cfb under Koppen, but under Trewartha, London is DObk and Sydney is CFbl.

From wiki:
'An option exists to include information on both the warmest and coldest months for every climate by adding a third and fourth letter, respectively. The letters used conform to the following scale:
i — severely hot: Mean monthly temperature 35 °C (95 °F) or higher
h — very hot: 28 to 34.9 °C (82 to 95 °F)
a — hot: 23 to 27.9 °C (73 to 82 °F)
b — warm: 18 to 22.9 °C (64 to 73 °F)
l — mild: 10 to 17.9 °C (50 to 64 °F)
k — cool: 0.1 to 9.9 °C (32 to 50 °F)
o — cold: -9.9 to 0 °C (14 to 32 °F)
c — very cold: -24.9 to -10 °C (-13 to 14 °F)
d — severely cold: -39.9 to -25 °C (-40 to -13 °F)
e — excessively cold: −40 °C (−40 °F) or below.'
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-20-2012, 12:07 AM
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
1,709 posts, read 2,265,214 times
Reputation: 1180
Overall, Koeppen with the 0C threshold for temperate-subtropical. I think some of the cooler Csb climates should be in the oceanic category and that the cool desert climates (BWn in Trewartha) should be classified, but other than that, I prefer Koeppen.

Originally Posted by B87 View Post
Trewartha has additional letters for the warmest and coolest month, so it's better for Oceanic climates than Koppen is.

For example; London and Sydney are both Cfb under Koppen, but under Trewartha, London is DObk and Sydney is CFbl.
Ah, it would be interesting to see a map using this. My thoughts on Trewartha being too broad were because of the maps, but this is good. I still prefer Koeppen because of the maps, but a detailed Trewartha map would probably be more accurate.
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-20-2012, 06:33 AM
Location: Laurentia
5,508 posts, read 5,154,814 times
Reputation: 2280
Koeppen-Geiger for me, with the -3C line between the Cxx and Dxx climate groups.

I also agree with RWood in that I'm more interested in the actual climate and history of a given place than which box it fits in.
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-20-2012, 06:36 AM
Location: Buxton, England
7,032 posts, read 7,058,247 times
Reputation: 3486
Trewartha, because it makes sense in the ways others have described. and for mid-lat climates. However, it still doesn't compete with my own definition which places subtropical climates with winters at least 8°C and summers at least 24°C for example.
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-20-2012, 08:42 AM
504 posts, read 664,282 times
Reputation: 401
I prefer Koppen, with 0C for temperate-subtropical (personally I'd have it higher than that)

I prefer Cfb to Do and I don't like Trewartha's precipitation limit for Cs climates.

For Australia, I prefer the Australian classifications (like how the cooler subtropical climates are thought of as being temperate) and perhaps there are other countries with their own modified system that works better for them too, but I'm voting for Koppen out of the two.

On the topic of other classification systems, I have an Australian atlas that doesn't have a subtropical zone. It has a "warm humid" zone instead. I think for Southern Hemisphere places (since they are quite mild-to-warm-to-reasonably hot for all of the year), it's a good description instead of using the term subtropical.
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-20-2012, 08:47 AM
Location: London, UK
2,690 posts, read 3,594,736 times
Reputation: 1584
Koppen with the 0°C threshold.

If I were to modify it slightly, I would use 5C as a threshold, suppress the B category and instead use "x" as the precipitation letter for dry climates, e.g. Las Vegas would be Cxa, etc. (Two letters could be used, one for steppe climates, another for deserts, etc.)
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Over $99,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Weather

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top