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 guess that raises the question of whether any current or possible climate classification system could represent this difference. If not, then what is the point to have a system? Most people want a system that can represent differences in how a climate feels and not differences only in climate genetics I think. It is more useful for the average person.
No possible climate classification system could represent such small differences accurately unless if you have a huge number of categories. I tried my best with a comparatively limited number of categories because I think classification can kind of lose its purpose and get too complex with too many categories.
You've also managed to do the opposite - calling climates that here subtropical vegetation and environments, temperate.
So somewhere like Bergen, Toronto, or NYC has the same subtropical forest, grows the same subtropical crops, grows grass year round, and only needs heating for only 2-3 months, just like my climate?
I think you're arguing against yourself now as that was the opposite of what I was saying . If you consider the weather patterns that are the mechanism for the climate then they might be similar, but if you are more interested in the actual temperatures and precipitation and vegetation then they're rather different.
Here's an analogy. Phylogeneticists classify living things by descent. This is a useful system and reveals how different species are related, how they evolved etc. But is it the only useful system? Does it invalidate every other system? Clearly not. If you were an ecologist studying a forest, you might be interested in what plants that grow there are canopy trees. Or if you were a forester you might be interested in what species to plant for timber. Those categories might have very little to do with the phylogenetic ones. The canopy trees or good wood producing trees will have much less genetic relationship to each other than to some other plants. One tree might be in the bean family, but for those purposes you'd consider it with a conifer or a eucalypt even though it is much more closely related to a green bean. You wouldn't go looking for tree-living birds in a green bean field or plant green beans for timber on the basis of a forest tree being in the bean family and them being genetically similar.
I think you're arguing against yourself now as that was the opposite of what I was saying . If you consider the weather patterns that are the mechanism for the climate then they might be similar, but if you are more interested in the actual temperatures and precipitation and vegetation then they're rather different.
Here's an analogy. Phylogeneticists classify living things by descent. This is a useful system and reveals how different species are related, how they evolved etc. But is it the only useful system? Does it invalidate every other system? Clearly not. If you were an ecologist studying a forest, you might be interested in what plants that grow there are canopy trees. Or if you were a forester you might be interested in what species to plant for timber. Those categories might have very little to do with the phylogenetic ones. The canopy trees or good wood producing trees will have much less genetic relationship to each other than to some other plants. One tree might be in the bean family, but for those purposes you'd consider it with a conifer or a eucalypt even though it is much more closely related to a green bean. You wouldn't go looking for tree-living birds in a green bean field or plant green beans for timber on the basis of a forest tree being in the bean family and them being genetically similar.
This system that arcleo proposes, doesn't seek to rate climates by mechanism. It's thresholds are arbitrary, and make no attempt to provide any greater understanding of climate.
What is this system going to tell you about the vegetation and environments of Bergen and Motueka?
No possible climate classification system could represent such small differences accurately unless if you have a huge number of categories. I tried my best with a comparatively limited number of categories because I think classification can kind of lose its purpose and get too complex with too many categories.
I agree. I think there shouldn't be a huge number of categories as then it just gets too cumbersome and misses the point. I think overall your system strikes a decent balance between climate similarity and genetics.
I guess that raises the question of whether any current or possible climate classification system could represent this difference. If not, then what is the point to have a system? Most people want a system that can represent differences in how a climate feels and not differences only in climate genetics I think. It is more useful for the average person.
I don't think it would be practical to have such a system -real world will win every time.
I don't really see that classification has a purpose beyond an attempt at putting the global circulation of air masses into some sort of context. Beyond that, a system like this is of no practical use - Understanding what the weather is like in Motueka, will be of no use to folks in Bergen.
A wiki box is far more useful than any classification, for understanding how a climate feels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deneb78
I agree. I think there shouldn't be a huge number of categories as then it just gets too cumbersome and misses the point. I think overall your system strikes a decent balance between climate similarity and genetics.
These cities would both be regarded as similar climates - not really seeing it myself.
I don't think it would be practical to have such a system -real world will win every time.
I don't really see that classification has a purpose beyond an attempt at putting the global circulation of air masses into some sort of context. Beyond that, a system like this is of no practical use - Understanding what the weather is like in Motueka, will be of no use to folks in Bergen.
A wiki box is far more useful than any classification, for understanding how a climate feels.
These cities would both be regarded as similar climates - not really seeing it myself.
Would you feel satisfied if the oceanic category was further subdivided into warm and cool oceanic?
Bergen would be cool oceanic and Motueka would be warm oceanic.
Albury is humid subtropical.
Are you talking about this system or Koppen? - Albury is the same as Bergen under this system.
Under this system, splitting oceanic climates into smaller categories would only create more inconsistencies.
Under Koppen, I don't think C oceanic climates need to be split up, because it's not attempting to group climates on how they feel, but how they operate.
Maybe I went too far with raising the threshold for subtropical climates. Lowering it slightly will make Albury subtropical. However, Albury is nowhere near tropical. I'd say Albury is borderline subtropical anyways.
Wow, a few months away and when I return I see not much has changed. Joe still refuses to believe his climate shares any similarities with northern hemisphere oceanic climates!
Maybe I went too far with raising the threshold for subtropical climates. Lowering it slightly will make Albury subtropical. However, Albury is nowhere near tropical. I'd say Albury is borderline subtropical anyways.
The statement doesn't explain anything though - don't you say that your climates are about similarity?
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.
. If you consider the weather patterns that are the mechanism for the climate then they might be similar, but if you are more interested in the actual temperatures and precipitation and vegetation then they're rather different.
