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.
"Hundreds" of climate regimes would be too narrow, but 100-150 would be manageable, provided there was a reasonable structure to them. For instance, 5 categories with 5 subcategories and 5 subcategories of each of those would be 125 classifications, that's pretty manageable. However I'd say a number between 70 and 100 would be ideal.
Perhaps "subpolar" is a bit broad for this classification, a climate with a 7.9 C / 46.2 F annual mean could easily be a Dfa under Koppen's system, and that's not subpolar.
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.
It should be remembered that Koppen and Trewartha are classifications, not climates - London and Washington share the characteristic of time spent under 10C mean, which is regarded as an important threshold to vegetation -for example my climate can grow anything Washington DC can because it's above the 8 months>10C rule, but D.C can't grow anything I can.
Brisbane and NYC broadly speaking share a seasonal change of airflow, that is not typical of continental or oceanic climates.
What rationale does your system have - subjective similarity?
What use is saying that Canberra is more like Bergen, than Brisbane is like NYC?
It should be remembered that Koppen and Trewartha are classifications, not climates - London and Washington share the characteristic of time spent under 10C mean, which is regarded as an important threshold to vegetation -for example my climate can grow anything Washington DC can because it's above the 8 months>10C rule, but D.C can't grow anything I can.
Brisbane and NYC broadly speaking share a seasonal change of airflow, that is not typical of continental or oceanic climates.
What rationale does your system have - subjective similarity?
What use is saying that Canberra is more like Bergen, than Brisbane is like NYC?
It is useful to group relatively similar climates together to satisfy multiple purposes. Using specific rationale will lead to excelling in specific niches like Koppen and Trewartha's classifications. Grouping relatively similar climates will do the opposite - creating an multipurpose classification that has a wide variety of uses.
"Hundreds" of climate regimes would be too narrow, but 100-150 would be manageable, provided there was a reasonable structure to them. For instance, 5 categories with 5 subcategories and 5 subcategories of each of those would be 125 classifications, that's pretty manageable. However I'd say a number between 70 and 100 would be ideal.
Perhaps "subpolar" is a bit broad for this classification, a climate with a 7.9 C / 46.2 F annual mean could easily be a Dfa under Koppen's system, and that's not subpolar.
Koppen only has 30 classifications and I tried to limit them like Koppen. Trewartha is even more broad and only has 12 classifications. I personally prefer to have somewhat similar climates on a global scale just be in the same classification anyways, although it is a subjective matter and I respect your opinion on this.
My idea of "subpolar" is like Koppen's Dxb, i.e. hemiboreal climates that are dominated by cold weather when looking at the entire year. Cxc, Dxc, and Dxd climates aren't as commonly referred to as Cxa, Cxb, Dxa, and Dxb climates simply because 95% or so of the people in the world live in climates that average warmer than 8 C, so I didn't feel the need to distinguish non-polar climates with average annual temperatures below 8 C. However, I agree that it might be useful from a scientific perspective.
Koppen only has 30 classifications and I tried to limit them like Koppen. Trewartha is even more broad and only has 12 classifications. I personally prefer to have somewhat similar climates on a global scale just be in the same classification anyways, although it is a subjective matter and I respect your opinion on this.
My idea of "subpolar" is like Koppen's Dxb, i.e. hemiboreal climates that are dominated by cold weather when looking at the entire year. Cxc, Dxc, and Dxd climates aren't as commonly referred to as Cxa, Cxb, Dxa, and Dxb climates simply because 95% or so of the people in the world live in climates that average warmer than 8 C, so I didn't feel the need to distinguish non-polar climates with average annual temperatures below 8 C. However, I agree that it might be useful from a scientific perspective.
Your classification has some good ideas and I'm going to reduce the complexity of my proposed classification, you made a good point, it is too complex. I like your idea of a continental/oceanic letter and I LOVE that you got rid of the semi-arid and arid grouping and made all the categories consistently about temperature.
Your classification has some good ideas and I'm going to reduce the complexity of my proposed classification, you made a good point, it is too complex. I like your idea of a continental/oceanic letter and I LOVE that you got rid of the semi-arid and arid grouping and made all the categories consistently about temperature.
What actual use is it though? -Canberra and Bergen are similar - how does that improve your understanding of climate?
It is useful to group relatively similar climates together to satisfy multiple purposes. Using specific rationale will lead to excelling in specific niches like Koppen and Trewartha's classifications. Grouping relatively similar climates will do the opposite - creating an multipurpose classification that has a wide variety of uses.
What uses? - What applications can I apply here, from understanding Bergen's climate?
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.
Only really from a Paleactic or Holarctic-centric point of view in my opinion. The climate of Bogota for example has practically nothing in common with that of London in terms of 'genetics' yet Koppen places them in the same Csb category. In vegetation terms Bogota is an OK match with the most oceanic mid-latitude climates such as parts of the south coast of South Africa and parts of New Zealand, but it definitely has nothing to do with them in terms of mechanism.
On a planet of seven continents, for historical-cultural reasons two (North America and Eurasia) have been regarded as "typical" (eg talk of east and west coast climates) and the others pretty much shoe-horned into systems, when I think there aren't enough continents and their configuration is too uneven for this to really be useful.
Only really from a Paleactic or Holarctic-centric point of view in my opinion. The climate of Bogota for example has practically nothing in common with that of London in terms of 'genetics' yet Koppen places them in the same Csb category. In vegetation terms Bogota is an OK match with the most oceanic mid-latitude climates such as parts of the south coast of South Africa and parts of New Zealand, but it definitely has nothing to do with them in terms of mechanism.
On a planet of seven continents, for historical-cultural reasons two (North America and Eurasia) have been regarded as "typical" (eg talk of east and west coast climates) and the others pretty much shoe-horned into systems, when I think there aren't enough continents and their configuration is too uneven for this to really be useful.
Subtropical highland climates are definitely a weakness in Koppen's system, as are the thresholds. Overall Koppen's system explains the basic mechanisms of an area's climate due to geography. Thresholds are a weakness in any system, and having a system that is just thresholds, without a link to a logic, is just subjective.
Suitability for introduced species provide a more reliable guide on what actual day to day conditions are like betweens different regions -not just whether they'll survive, but rates of growth, cropping levels, ability to reproduce etc. Living in an area with citrus, olive, avocado, passionfruit orchards, etc, isn't logically going to be the same climate as a place in which those species won't even survive a single year.
Subtropical highland climates are definitely a weakness in Koppen's system, as are the thresholds. Overall Koppen's system explains the basic mechanisms of an area's climate due to geography. Thresholds are a weakness in any system, and having a system that is just thresholds, without a link to a logic, is just subjective.
Suitability for introduced species provide a more reliable guide on what actual day to day conditions are like betweens different regions -not just whether they'll survive, but rates of growth, cropping levels, ability to reproduce etc. Living in an area with citrus, olive, avocado, passionfruit orchards, etc, isn't logically going to be the same climate as a place in which those species won't even survive a single year.
Joe, you disparage numeric thresholds as arbitrary yet your continual use of avocados et al to define climate is actually just another equally arbitrary threshold.
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.
