Are humid continental climates underrated?

[pdw]

Even the Kermadec islands are very oceanically influenced, although they do have a humid subtropical climate due to the warm overnight temperatures. I don’t believe anywhere in the mainland of New Zealand meet these classifications, unless I am wrong? One feature of humid subtropical climates is hot summers and although some of New Zealand has winter temperatures that are very mild, the heat dominance that keeps being brought up is what I don’t see a lot of. Chicago has a continental climate, but places like St Louis or Evansville, Indiana are definitely more heat dominant and subtropical than New Zealand IMO

[MeesterJ]

Originally Posted by secondbreakfast

A lot of Europe is humid continental isn't it? Or at least Eastern Europe is. Due to the lower standard of living and political concerns in some places, I can understand why moving there would be unappealing for most. But what about Sweden and Finland? They have some humid continental climates, too.

Yeah there are some in Eastern Europe, but they are not quite comparable to the North American ones. They are way drier and don't have Great Lakes nearby to allow for very frequent snow events. Often, the winters are not cold enough as well, unless you are in the mountains or really eastern, like in Russia. Finland has a nice climate, but there the summers are not comparable to US/Canada border region.

[Joe90]

Originally Posted by paperruler

Florida isn’t “naturally more deciduous”, I don’t care how you’re characterizing the photos I posted, it’s clear that New Zealand is more significantly temperate, whether temperate deciduous or evergreen, than Florida or Hawaii,…Florida has a much greater abundance of native (and introduced) plants that are actually of a subtropical and tropical evergreen ecology, because it is a subtropical and tropical native climate. New Zealand isn’t.

Every time pictures of the native evergreen canopy in the south are posted, you weirdly pretend it doesn’t exist.

Parts of New Zealand’s flora is obviously anomalously adapted to a temperate oceanic environment from a historic tropical environment.

As has been pointed out, Bermuda has a number of northern temperate deciduous trees ranging into it, but it looks decidedly more “evergreen” and tropical than New Zealand.

I don’t care if they’re “artificial landscapes” or not, as you routinely depend on artificial landscapes to paint American climates and environments a certain way. If New Zealand looks that deciduous and wintry in its countryside, how can you claim it remotely equals Florida or Hawaii in its ecology and environment? It does not. Florida’s native and nativized palms include coconut palms and royal palms. Big, big difference from those ridiculous oceanic Nikau palms.

Yes, it's fairly obvious that NZ doesn't have a Cfa climate, but it does have an ecosystem that hasn't evolved to seasonal dormancy, or leaf loss.

Florida is just naturally more deciduous than NZ ... it is what it is paperruler... it is what it is.

Originally Posted by paperruler

None of this looks at all subtropical or tropical, a lot of the forests in your pictures don’t look “broadleaf evergreen”.

Most of your pictures look like the temperate rainforests of the PNW.

Within the NZ contest, the vegetation in Ed's photos represent one of the major divisions of NZ forest (lowland Beech forest). It is very much temperate rainforest (quite a bit wetter than the PNW) , with a large reduction in species compared to further north, and a look that is associated with colder snowier climates than the vast majority of NZers are used to.

Pretending that a broadleaf evergreen, isn't a broadeaf evergreen, just oesn't work - it is what it is paperruler.... it is what it is.