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.
So Canberra and Bergen are similar climates? -maybe you could put that in a poll, and see how many people agree with that?
They are similar enough in a global perspective. They are both similar in that they have mild summers and cool winters with evenly distributed precipitation and enough precipitation to not be arid/semi-arid.
What if I instead have the poll say whether Canberra and Bergen are more similar or NYC and Brisbane are more similar? Koppen has 30 categories in his classification and I have 37. How should I make it more accurate without increasing the categories? Increasing categories may not be a good idea because it will make classification more redundant and complex.
And also, the poll doesn't prove much because this is a subjective matter. This is my opinion that Canberra and Bergen are reasonably similar for the purpose of classification.
Any time you try to classify a continuous quantity into discrete categories you'll run into issues like this. That doesn't mean the process is inherently flawed.
It is inherently flawed, because it's subjective.
It's really just a structured way of saying very little that's worthwhile - Canberra and Bergen are essentially the same climate, but with some differences ..... would you want your kids to be taught that?
They are similar enough in a global perspective. They are both similar in that they have mild summers and cool winters with evenly distributed precipitation and enough precipitation to not be arid/semi-arid.
What if I instead have the poll say whether Canberra and Bergen are more similar or NYC and Brisbane are more similar? Koppen has 30 categories in his classification and I have 37. How should I make it more accurate without increasing the categories? Increasing categories may not be a good idea because it will make classification more redundant and complex.
And also, the poll doesn't prove much because this is a subjective matter. This is my opinion that Canberra and Bergen are reasonably similar for the purpose of classification.
What does that achieve exactly? -now your system is not about what is more similar, but what's less different. Mecca is more like Reykjavik, than Vostok -that's some real useful information.
You haven't grasped what Koppen is about -it's an attempt to align places with the global circulation of air masses, and it broadly aligns with temperature thresholds. Your system just ignores this all together.
It's really just a structured way of saying very little that's worthwhile - Canberra and Bergen are essentially the same climate, but with some differences ..... would you want your kids to be taught that?
So you see no value in the patterns revealed by this map?
What does that achieve exactly? -now your system is not what about more similar, but what's less different.
Mecca is more like Reykjavik, than Vostok -that's some real useful information.
It certainly is useful information. But an imaginary classification system that puts Mecca into the same category as Reykjavik is either too broad or classifies improperly. Similarly, an imaginary classification system that has hundreds of theoretically possible classifications is too narrow (IMO). So there must be a balance between having the individual categories be narrow enough and having the number of categories be small enough.
It certainly is useful information. But an imaginary classification system that puts Mecca into the same category as Reykjavik is either too broad or classifies improperly. Similarly, an imaginary classification system that has hundreds of theoretically possible classifications is too narrow (IMO). So there must be a balance between having the individual categories be narrow enough and having the number of categories be small enough.
The trouble with your system, is that it says nothing worthwhile -how does spending a year in Bergen, help a person relate to Canberra?
The point wasn't that Reyjavik could be in a classification with Mecca, but that linking climates because they have less differences than other climates, isn't really much of a system.
Your argument has degenerated from similar, to less different.
The trouble with your system, is that it says nothing worthwhile -how does spending a year in Bergen, help a person relate to Canberra?
This.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arcleo
They are both similar in that they have mild summers and cool winters with evenly distributed precipitation and enough precipitation to not be arid/semi-arid.
And I have to say that this system does have some standard in both the scientific aspect of climate "genetics" and the aspect of vegetation/environment. It does better than Koppen in vegetation/environment because for example, it does not classify NYC and Brisbane in the same category. It does better than Trewartha in climate "genetics" because for example, it does not classify NYC and London in the same category.
And I have to say that this system does have some standard in both the scientific aspect of climate "genetics" and the aspect of vegetation/environment. It does better than Koppen in vegetation/environment because for example, it does not classify NYC and Brisbane in the same category. It does better than Trewartha in climate "genetics" because for example, it does not classify NYC and London in the same category.
Koppen was more concerned with genetics than vegetation. Trewartha was more concerned with vegetation than genetics - their system shows a degree of rationale, while yours doesn't.
What makes you think Bergen, Motueka and Canberra share vegetation similarities -do folks in Bergen grow limes? or watermelons?
A year in Canberra, will not help a person relate to living in Bergen.
Koppen was more concerned with genetics than vegetation. Trewartha was more concerned with vegetation than genetics - their system shows a degree of rationale, while yours doesn't.
What makes you think Bergen, Motueka and Canberra share vegetation similarities -do folks in Bergen grow limes? or watermelons?
I am considering both summer and winter temperatures here. Trewartha only considers winter temperatures when he separates Do and Dc while mostly considering winter temperatures when he separates Cf/Cs from Do/Dc when we consider that winter temperatures vary much more than summer temperatures moving north and south along the eastern parts of a continent.
Note that Trewartha classifies Bergen and Washington D.C. in the same category (Do). There are yet other applications that depend on summer temperatures. For example, annual plants will depend on summer temperatures. Washington D.C. will get much more growing degree days than Bergen every year, so Trewartha's system doesn't make sense in this respect.
Meanwhile, it's easy to see why this system does better than Koppen in terms of vegetation/environment. Koppen classifies NYC and Brisbane in the same category. My system never has climates with that degree of discrepancy in the same category.
Overall, this is designed to be a multi-purpose system. It may be inferior to Koppen or Trewartha in very specific niches, but it does reasonably well in other areas.
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.
