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.
I am pulling my hair out here, do you want me to make three Oceanic groups then, since you don't want Nelson in the same group as Paris or Sydney?
Well, it's your system, so it's really up to you. I'm more interested in seeing Motueka and Nelson being correctly grouped today, rather than trying to make Nelson appear like Paris or Sydney.
You have set yourself a lofty goal in devising a system that reflects the commonality of day to day weather. That can't really be done unless a lot more climate data is used and a lot more groups are created.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,596,838 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe90
Well, it's your system, so it's really up to you. I'm more interested in seeing Motueka and Nelson being correctly grouped today, rather than trying to make Nelson appear like Paris or Sydney.
You have set yourself a lofty goal in devising a system that reflects the commonality of day to day weather. That can't really be done unless a lot more climate data is used and a lot more groups are created.
I like my summer divisions, so really, I think that you think I'm trying to be more specific than I am trying to be. My groups are designed to be more specific than Koppen while still being general, hence Atlanta and Ft Lauderdale are both Bhb in my system despite a 24°F difference between coldest months
Well, it's your system, so it's really up to you. I'm more interested in seeing Motueka and Nelson being correctly grouped today, rather than trying to make Nelson appear like Paris or Sydney.
You have set yourself a lofty goal in devising a system that reflects the commonality of day to day weather. That can't really be done unless a lot more climate data is used and a lot more groups are created.
Very much agree. If we were going to do that we would have to create sooooo many more groups. I could see subtropical being divided like this, warm subtropical (gulf Coast, central florida) temperate subtropical ( inland deep south, parts of upper south) warm continental ( Appalachian mountains, parts of the foothills, mid Atlantic, up to nyc), then temperate continental ( midwest, boston, and parts of new england) then cold continental ( northern new england, Montreal, quebec) and so on and so on. Would be many divisions lol.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,596,838 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by muslim12
Very much agree. If we were going to do that we would have to create sooooo many more groups. I could see subtropical being divided like this, warm subtropical (gulf Coast, central florida) temperate subtropical ( inland deep south, parts of upper south) warm continental ( Appalachian mountains, parts of the foothills, mid Atlantic, up to nyc), then temperate continental ( midwest, boston, and parts of new england) then cold continental ( northern new england, Montreal, quebec) and so on and so on. Would be many divisions lol.
This is why I think Joe is being too nitpicky. I think I have an appropriate amount of divisions, and even in my system, it doesn't mean each place has the exact same temps. But the ranges are narrower than in Koppen, which is what I like about it
Well, it's your system, so it's really up to you. I'm more interested in seeing Motueka and Nelson being correctly grouped today, rather than trying to make Nelson appear like Paris or Sydney.
You have set yourself a lofty goal in devising a system that reflects the commonality of day to day weather. That can't really be done unless a lot more climate data is used and a lot more groups are created.
But isn't this a problem with whatever climate classification system is used, that in drawing boundaries you end up with places on either side of the boundary that are similar to each each other but end up in different categories? The flip side of course is that a place just inside a category will be more similar to a place just inside the neighbouring category than it is to a place on the far side of its own category.
Eg Durban is fairly similar to Maputo, as one might expect given the cities are on the same coastline 450 km apart. In the Koppen system it is Cfa as the July average is 16.5 placing it below the 18C threshold, while Maputo is Aw as July is 18.8C. A city on the far side of the Cfa category from Durban like New York with a January average of 0.3 °C is inevitably much, much less like Durban than a place just inside the neighbouring category like Maputo.
You can argue that the size of the Cfa category is a weakness or flaw, but not that it is wrong that similar places can end up one just inside and one just outside, as that is inevitable however you draw up your categories.
But isn't this a problem with whatever climate classification system is used, that in drawing boundaries you end up with places on either side of the boundary that are similar to each each other but end up in different categories? The flip side of course is that a place just inside a category will be more similar to a place just inside the neighbouring category than it is to a place on the far side of its own category.
Eg Durban is fairly similar to Maputo, as one might expect given the cities are on the same coastline 450 km apart. In the Koppen system it is Cfa as the July average is 16.5 placing it below the 18C threshold, while Maputo is Aw as July is 18.8C. A city on the far side of the Cfa category from Durban like New York with a January average of 0.3 °C is inevitably much, much less like Durban than a place just inside the neighbouring category like Maputo.
You can argue that the size of the Cfa category is a weakness or flaw, but not that it is wrong that similar places can end up one just inside and one just outside, as that is inevitable however you draw up your categories.
With a system like Koppen's, the qualitative definition is more important than the threshold, and only the most pedantic see climate A, becoming a completely different climate at an exact temperature. If Durban and Maputo share the sane genetics, then that is what is important. Otherwise, Koppen's work was nothing more than a temperature guide.
With subjective systems that don't attempt to align etc,with genetics, vegetation etc, the numeric thresholds become absolute, and the situation arises whereby somewhere I can see out my kitchen window becomes a different climate, to where I am
Classification without an attempt at being scientific, is worthless.
H = 64 - Temperate, bordering on continental. Makes sense, as winters are around the 0ºC mark on average.
x = 0.83 - Semi-arid.
Classification: Ctb.
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.
