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.
Question I guess is there any major quantitative difference between Seaside, OR and Eureka, CA? If Eureka is considered Subtropical according to Trewartha and Seaside is not?
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,615,202 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by deneb78
Question I guess is there any major quantitative difference between Seaside, OR and Eureka, CA? If Eureka is considered Subtropical according to Trewartha and Seaside is not?
I consider both climates warm oceanic, but I'm sure the 7° latitude difference makes a big difference in winter daylength and sun angle as far as vegetation goes
Eureka does have cooler summers than you, that might be part of it
I see that Eureka also has CIDPs after looking further
If two areas can't grow similar species due to summer conditions, that's almost as significant as not growing due to winter conditions.
My notion that subtropical-ness is a feature of environment rather than climate, also infers that it doesn't matter whether it is the warm season or cool season that allows more species to thrive, only that they do.
A subtropical-ness index could be based on the amount of species that thrive in an area based on temperature
I consider both climates warm oceanic, but I'm sure the 7° latitude difference makes a big difference in winter daylength and sun angle as far as vegetation goes
It would make some difference but I always thought that temperature is the main defining factor for growing palms and not sun angle. Otherwise why are Windmill palms which are native to Subtropical latitudes in Asia able to grow in places like Scotland where the sun is very close to the horizon in winter and likely does not make much difference? Curious to know...
If two areas can't grow similar species due to summer conditions, that's almost as significant as not growing due to winter conditions.
My notion that subtropical-ness is a feature of environment rather than climate, also infers that it doesn't matter whether it is the warm season or cool season that allows more species to thrive, only that they do.
A subtropical-ness index could be based on the amount of species that thrive in an area based on temperature
And to add to that, it could be adjusted for aridity as well as Mediterranean/monsoon precipitation patterns. Even made to be a "tropical-ness index" once it crosses a certain threshold. I imagine such a formula being very very difficult, though, whether aridity and dry seasons are added to it or not. I bet people from New York City, Louisville and even Baltimore would be shocked to find how low on the index they'd be; I could easily bet Nashville and Oklahoma City would beat them, as well as some mild-summer climates that have few to no warm winter days and actually fail to meet Trewartha's 8 months over 10C criteria. It's complicated...
There are even non-frost-free climates in the U.S. like Houston, Austin, San Antonio, Tucson, Jacksonville and especially Tampa that are semi-tropical in nature. For that matter, San Francisco (which is frost-free) is itself more tropical than temperate. I think of subtropical climates as those below 10C/50F in winter, but above 3C/37.4F for hot-summer climates or 6C/42.7F for mild-summer. You'd be hard-pressed to find a frost-free climate like that! However, I still don't believe any fully tropical climate has a winter mean below 18C/64.4F; a semi-tropical category needs to be added for the "lower", very-warm-winter subtropical climates that can easily support citrus, some other less sensitive tropical vegetation and year-round tree growth.
Why is there no heat requirement for your "semi-tropical" category? Absolutely ludicrous to group Tampa with San Francisco. Tampa's January mean temperature is almost as high as San Francisco's mean temperature in SEPTEMBER (the warmest month). And indeed, some years Tampa records a higher January mean temp than the average September mean for SF. Gets even more ridiculous if you consider areas like Ft. Myers (Page Airport) which average 64.2F in winter. What does a borderline tropical climate just a few degrees away from the geographic tropics have in common with San Francisco???
This (Ft. Pierce, FL) is in the same cateogry as SF??? SF is exactly what Koppen classified it as, Csb, "warm" (aka cold) summer Mediterranean. Far from tropical.
Why is there no heat requirement for your "semi-tropical" category? Absolutely ludicrous to group Tampa with San Francisco. Tampa's January mean temperature is almost as high as San Francisco's mean temperature in SEPTEMBER (the warmest month). And indeed, some years Tampa records a higher January mean temp than the average September mean for SF. Gets even more ridiculous if you consider areas like Ft. Myers (Page Airport) which average 64.2F in winter. What does a borderline tropical climate just a few degrees away from the geographic tropics have in common with San Francisco???
This (Ft. Pierce, FL) is in the same cateogry as SF??? SF is exactly what Koppen classified it as, Csb, "warm" (aka cold) summer Mediterranean. Far from tropical.
Haven't I mentioned repeatedly about the year-round tree growth? BTW, San Francisco is NOT cold; maybe it's not good beach weather because of the oceanic wind, but days are warm (but not hot) year-round if you head a few blocks inland to get away from the wind. For me, a winter mean over 6C/42.8F is somewhat warm (solidly subtropical, very mild) and 10C/50F very warm (semi-tropical, many trees can grow year-round), and San Francisco is above the latter.
Don't forget, Tampa and San Francisco would be on opposite ends of the semi-tropical range, and Auckland (a wetter-summer version of San Francisco) is extremely close to the tropical-like rainforests that extend southwards from Cape Reinga. I hope this has cleared things up for you. If you still don't understand my logic, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Haven't I mentioned repeatedly about the year-round tree growth? BTW, San Francisco is NOT cold; maybe it's not good beach weather because of the oceanic wind, but days are warm (but not hot) year-round if you head a few blocks inland to get away from the wind. For me, a winter mean over 6C/42.8F is somewhat warm (solidly subtropical, very mild) and 10C/50F very warm (semi-tropical, many trees can grow year-round), and San Francisco is above the latter.
Don't forget, Tampa and San Francisco would be on opposite ends of the semi-tropical range, and Auckland (a wetter-summer version of San Francisco) is extremely close to the tropical-like rainforests that extend southwards from Cape Reinga. I hope this has cleared things up for you. If you still don't understand my logic, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
22C mean maximums year round is warm? Maybe warm compared to Alaska Don't you know the famous quote by Mark Twain? The coldest winter I ever spent was summer in San Francisco.
Year round tree growth of what? Spruce? Lemons? Coconuts? If northern New Zealand was even remotely tropical, the beaches would be lined with coconuts. New Zealand is one of the few areas settled by Polynesians that is not able to support many of their staple crops grown elsewhere in the Pacific like coconuts, breadfruit, candlenut etc.
22C mean maximums year round is warm? Maybe warm compared to Alaska Don't you know the famous quote by Mark Twain? The coldest winter I ever spent was summer in San Francisco.
Year round tree growth of what? Spruce? Lemons? Coconuts? If northern New Zealand was even remotely tropical, the beaches would be lined with coconuts. New Zealand is one of the few areas settled by Polynesians that is not able to support many of their staple crops grown elsewhere in the Pacific like coconuts, breadfruit, candlenut etc.
And to add to that, it could be adjusted for aridity as well as Mediterranean/monsoon precipitation patterns. Even made to be a "tropical-ness index" once it crosses a certain threshold. I imagine such a formula being very very difficult, though, whether aridity and dry seasons are added to it or not. I bet people from New York City, Louisville and even Baltimore would be shocked to find how low on the index they'd be; I could easily bet Nashville and Oklahoma City would beat them, as well as some mild-summer climates that have few to no warm winter days and actually fail to meet Trewartha's 8 months over 10C criteria. It's complicated...
Not if they understood that it's not a climate rating, but an index based on how many species an area can support due to warmth - the beauty of an index related to range of species, is that in would in no way contradict existing classification systems.
I see no difficulty at all with it, as it's just a mater of cataloguing that which already exists.
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 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.
Don't you know the famous quote by Mark Twain? The coldest winter I ever spent was summer in San Francisco. 
If northern New Zealand was even remotely tropical, the beaches would be lined with coconuts. New Zealand is one of the few areas settled by Polynesians that is not able to support many of their staple crops grown elsewhere in the Pacific like coconuts, breadfruit, candlenut etc.