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.
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.
Year round growth of all species - the more species an area can support due to warmth, the higher up a temperate/subtropical/ tropical index it is
Year round growth of all species - the more species an area can support due to warmth, the higher up a temperate/subtropical/ tropical index it is
I understand the logic behind an increasing gradient. What I don't understand is why he constantly states 10C/50F to be the isotherm for "year round tree growth". Most tropical trees are not actively growing if sustained mean temp is 10C.
Classifying subtropical climates without accounting for quality and quantity of summer heat and year round warmth leads to a flawed classification system. Simply lumping in climates with the mean temp between 10C and 18C in their coldest month into one category leads to borderline tropical climates (or even just deep subtropical climates) being categorized with Csb and Cfb climates. It doesn't make any sense considering many borderline tropical climates (just under 18C) average a higher mean temp in their coldest month than many Csb and Cfb climates average in their warmest month.
"semi-tropical" if meaning somewhere between subtropical and tropical should be more like an area that averages above 18C for 9+ months, dominated by tropical airmass for most of the year.
I understand the logic behind an increasing gradient. What I don't understand is why he constantly states 10C/50F to be the isotherm for "year round tree growth". Most tropical trees are not actively growing if sustained mean temp is 10C.
Classifying subtropical climates without accounting for quality and quantity of summer heat and year round warmth leads to a flawed classification system. Simply lumping in climates with the mean temp between 10C and 18C in their coldest month into one category leads to borderline tropical climates (or even just deep subtropical climates) being categorized with Csb and Cfb climates. It doesn't make any sense considering many borderline tropical climates (just under 18C) average a higher mean temp in their coldest month than many Csb and Cfb climates average in their warmest month.
"semi-tropical" if meaning somewhere between subtropical and tropical should be more like an area that averages above 18C for 9+ months, dominated by tropical airmass for most of the year.
Agreed -I think climate classifications are fine as they are, as they generally match cause and effect well. Where classifications don't match well, is in environment, and there's little point in trying to shoehorn nature into rigid groupings that don't reflect it's actual requirements.
Subtropical-ness is best understood (imo), not as presence of heat, but as absence of cold, that allows for greater ecological diversity. - just as Tropical and subtropical are determined by the absence of cold, so are subtropical and more traditional temperate climates, determined by the absence of cold.
Agreed -I think climate classifications are fine as they are, as they generally match cause and effect well. Where classifications don't match well, is in environment, and there's little point in trying to shoehorn nature into rigid groupings that don't reflect it's actual requirements.
Subtropical-ness is best understood (imo), not as presence of heat, but as absence of cold, that allows for greater ecological diversity. - just as Tropical and subtropical are determined by the absence of cold, so are subtropical and more traditional temperate climates, determined by the absence of cold.
Warmer temperatures (not just simply absence of cold) are also generally correlated with higher ecological productivity (biomass) and greater biodiversity. A frost-free climate at 25 degrees from the equator is in most cases much more diverse and productive than a frost-free climate at 35 degrees from the equator. Even if you compare an area that gets an occasional frost at 25 degrees compared to a frost free area at 35 degrees, the location at 25 degrees would still be far more productive due to being generally much warmer overall.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,615,202 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asagi
I understand the logic behind an increasing gradient. What I don't understand is why he constantly states 10C/50F to be the isotherm for "year round tree growth". Most tropical trees are not actively growing if sustained mean temp is 10C.
Classifying subtropical climates without accounting for quality and quantity of summer heat and year round warmth leads to a flawed classification system. Simply lumping in climates with the mean temp between 10C and 18C in their coldest month into one category leads to borderline tropical climates (or even just deep subtropical climates) being categorized with Csb and Cfb climates. It doesn't make any sense considering many borderline tropical climates (just under 18C) average a higher mean temp in their coldest month than many Csb and Cfb climates average in their warmest month.
"semi-tropical" if meaning somewhere between subtropical and tropical should be more like an area that averages above 18C for 9+ months, dominated by tropical airmass for most of the year.
We're over 18°C 9 months, does that make us "semi-tropical"?
Last edited by FirebirdCamaro1220; 04-19-2020 at 02:56 PM..
Warmer temperatures (not just simply absence of cold) are also generally correlated with higher ecological productivity (biomass) and greater biodiversity. A frost-free climate at 25 degrees from the equator is in most cases much more diverse and productive than a frost-free climate at 35 degrees from the equator. Even if you compare an area that gets an occasional frost at 25 degrees compared to a frost free area at 35 degrees, the location at 25 degrees would still be far more productive due to being generally much warmer overall.
The temperate rainforests of the Pacific Northwest have forests with higher biomass than the tropics and yet the temperatures are fairly cool year round. How do you explain that?
We're over 18°C 9 months, does that make us "semi-tropical"?
Sure, why not. The low deserts of CA/AZ are certainly more connected to the tropical biomes in southern Sonora/Sinaloa than somewhere like San Francisco. There's even a slight summer peak in rainfall. A lot of heat demanding tropical plants actually grow much better (with irrigation) in the warmest parts of the inland deserts than heat-deprived coastal SoCal. Royal poinciana and mangoes (farmed in the Coachella Valley) for instance. Also of mention are some decent looking coconuts growing in the Coachella Valley. You even have some tropical fauna like jaguars and thick-billed parrot near the border. Lots of reptilian life as well.
The temperate rainforests of the Pacific Northwest have forests with higher biomass than the tropics and yet the temperatures are fairly cool year round. How do you explain that?
It might be possible temperate rainforests have more total physical biomass (due to slower decomposition and nutrient turnover) but that's not the same as net primary productivity. Tropical forests are generally going to have much higher rates of photosynthesis and total carbon fixation annually than temperate forest. Dead biomass or even soil humus is not a thing in the wet tropics due to the extremely high rates of decomposition (cellular respiration). That's why tropical soils are so poor for agriculture, nearly all of the mineral nutrients is contained in living biomass due to extremely efficient nutrient cycling. Any nutrients from falling leaves etc is quickly recycled back into the canopy. Slash and burn agriculture works because it releases all of these nutrients but after all of the ash is washed away, the topsoil is left very nutrient poor because there is very little soil carbon to retain these minerals.
The condensed version is that tropical forests produce much more biomass annually and support higher total biological activity.
I say that there will have to be a hot summer with a distinct cool period as well. I would say that there wouldn't be four seasons, and instead two (summer and a fall/spring combo, with no period of dormant vegetation). Places would include Florida and the Gulf Coast.
Therefore a subtropical climate, for me, would be one with hot summers and all months above 50 F
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.
