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.
Eureka California probably isn't subarctic imho; just a VERY-feral maritime climate.
Melbourne and Hobart are both better than Eureka.
There may be parts of Oz in that can claim sub-polar at high enough altitudes however. VIC/TAS mountains?
Without a sharp winter (like Toronto or colder)
I think it might be fair to define sub-polar as no month's highs average 20 C or higher.
Canada has climates on the east coast, 47 degree N latitude where summer avg highs never reach 17 C.
Hmm. Would you consider Newfoundland (or maybe Nova Scotia) subartic? I think a good definition of subarctic is a place with cold winters (< -3C) (to rule out maritime climates) and cool summers.
These species are much, much rarer in the wild in the Ottawa Valley than in the Toronto area, though they will grow and survive in your garden if you plant them (some people do).
Ottawa is milder and/or warmer than Thunder Bay though.
I would consider Ottawa to be a transitional area to sub-Arctic climates, not truly sub-Arctic.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a truely sub-Arctic climate within 1-2 hrs drive of Ottawa though.
I have seen boreal-looking landscape around Ottawa, as well as in the Bruce Peninsula.
These areas I would also consider transitional.
Toronto imho is not the best example of a temperate climate,
but seems more temperate than anything else. (cold-temperate imho)
For me, "classic" temperate climates have annual means between 10-15 C (50's F)
I would consider Orangeville ON and Barrie ON a transitional-area like Ottawa,
as they are in the mixed forest region, and have a frost-free season up to 60 days shorter than Toronto.
Hmm. Would you consider Newfoundland (or maybe Nova Scotia) subartic? I think a good definition of subarctic is a place with cold winters (< -3C) (to rule out maritime climates) and cool summers.
Actually I have seen Canadian eco-region maps that consider most/all of the island of Newfoundland to be sub-Arctic.
Probably related to growth-stunting cool summers.
The place with the warmest month less than 17 C was Port-aux-Basques in southwest Newfoundland.
The growing season there is so short, and very feeble levels of warmth and sun hrs.
January daily mean is also -5.2 C; not very maritime.
Okay I made a mistake with Port-aux-Basques;
July is 16.7 C but August is 18.3 C. Still has summers below 20 C (68 F) though.
So maybe 42-50 is cold temperate, 50-59 is warm temperate. Below 42 is subarctic and above 59 is subtropical, and add a maritime if the winters are relatively warm.
So maybe 42-50 is cold temperate, 50-59 is warm temperate. Below 42 is subarctic and above 59 is subtropical, and add a maritime if the winters are relatively warm.
Just like how most people think of 65-72 F annual means for "classic subtropical" but many will consider annual means of 62-63 F still subtropical.
For me, a classic example of "temperate" means avg # of frost-free days of at least 6 months, (183+ days)
and either a balance in length of winter and summer, or summer being marginally-longer than winter.
Windsor comes close, but barely misses with an annual mean of 49 F and a growing season about 170-175 days long.
Just like how most people think of 65-72 F annual means for "classic subtropical" but many will consider annual means of 62-63 F still subtropical.
For me, a classic example of "temperate" means avg # of frost-free days of at least 6 months, (183+ days)
and either a balance in length of winter and summer, or summer being marginally-longer than winter.
Windsor comes close, but barely misses with an annual mean of 49 F and a growing season about 170-175 days long.
Where I grew up in Long Island had a frost-free season of about 200-210 days and a mean of 52, so perhaps it was classically temperate. Northwestern Europe has a similar mean and even longer frost-free period, so perhaps it is warm maritime temperate.
I probably wouldn't consider Nova Scotia sub-arctic,
but perhaps highland areas of Cape Breton might be.
I remember highland Cape Breton as looking a bit more boreal looking, or closer to Newfoundland. Coastal Nova Scoatia and Nova Scotia seem to have more evergreens than further inland. Perhaps that's because of the cooler summers?
Ottawa is milder and/or warmer than Thunder Bay though.
I would consider Ottawa to be a transitional area to sub-Arctic climates, not truly sub-Arctic.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a truely sub-Arctic climate within 1-2 hrs drive of Ottawa though.
I have seen boreal-looking landscape around Ottawa, as well as in the Bruce Peninsula.
These areas I would also consider transitional.
Toronto imho is not the best example of a temperate climate,
but seems more temperate than anything else. (cold-temperate imho)
For me, "classic" temperate climates have annual means between 10-15 C (50's F)
I would consider Orangeville ON and Barrie ON a transitional-area like Ottawa,
as they are in the mixed forest region, and have a frost-free season up to 60 days shorter than Toronto.
Regarding Dfb, it extends into northern Ontario on the north shore of Lake Superior. North Bay, Sudbury and Sault Ste Marie are all Dfb, though slightly colder than Ottawa. Toronto is also Dfb, although it would be pretty much the warmest variant of Dfb.
To me, the Ottawa-Montreal is classic Dfb, near-north Ontario (Sudbury, North Bay) is cold Dfb and Toronto and area are warm Dfb.
Barrie and Orangeville actually have relatively similar climates to Ottawa's.
On the other hand, the climate of Campbell Island (south of New Zealand at 53 S) is not even classified as sub-polar (can we use this term so as to be hemisphere-neutral please?) but is actually considered polar, since every month averages below 10 C / 50 F. However, it has an annual mean temp of about 7 C (about the same as Toronto), which is about 6 - 7 C warmer than the places you mentioned. Its coldest month averages well above freezing.
It seems unfair to lump in Campbell Island with the likes of Vostok Station. There is a "maritime subarctic climate" (Cfc) under Koppen, but Campbell Island doesn't even fit into this. The temperature doesn't drop below -4 C in the average year there, so it's relatively mild. "Oceanic tundra" would seem to be the most accurate description, but this kind of climate seems to be virtually limited to Campbell Island, so maybe it doesn't merit its own category. The only other places I'm aware of that has every month averaging above freezing but no month above 10 C / 50 F are nearby Macquarie Island and Ushuaia, Argentina.
The flora of Campbell Island is what you'd expect of a tundra climate. There are no trees (or at least none with rigid trunks) and not really many plants other than a few endemic "mega herbs" which I believe occur nowhere else in the world outside of the NZ subantarctic.
I came upon an interesting note in the Wikipedia article on polar climates:
By Nordenskiöl's reckoning, Campbell Island would not meet the requirement for a polar climate (if we define 'polar' as being above the latitudinal treeline) and would be categorised as sub-polar instead.
Under Holdridge's system I suppose Campbell Island would be classed as boreal or cool temperate rather than polar or sub-polar.
In terms of vegetation I would say:
Ice cap (Koppen EF) - no vegetation
Tundra (Koppen ET) - no trees but maybe a few shrubs and bushes
Sub-polar - slow growing, stunted trees, poor agricultural potential
Cool temperate and continental - extensive forest
Feel free to expand on this. Basically, I see the sub-polar region as the transition zone in the vicinity of the (ant)arctic treeline. This region is characterised by a lack of dense forests (similar to a savannah) -- trees may grow, but only in low density and with very stunted growth (such that their wood is unsuitable for carpentry / construction). In many cases, trees may only grow in sheltered microclimates, giving rise to patchy tree formations.
An analogy can be made with alpine tree lines -- seen from the ground it's a sharp transition, but on closer inspection there's a definite gray area between dense forest and a complete lack of trees. The sub-polar region is that same gray area with regard to (ant)arctic treelines.
I would consider Campbell Island to be on the boundary between Maritime Subpolar and a Polar Tundra climate because it's warmest month averages only 9.6C. This in theory should be just high enough to support the growth of some trees as Ushuaia has virtually the same average in its warmest month as Campbell Island and the Magellanic Subpolar Forests are all around there. I'm sure if you planted the same species that grow in Ushuaia on Campbell Island, they would grow there no problem.
In the northern hemisphere, it's the length of the winter rather than the short to non-existent summer that inhibits tree growth and why you can still get fairly dense forests in places with subpolar climates. The southern boundary of a subpolar climate in the Northern Hemisphere is more variable and gradually grades into temperate climates in places where the growing season is long enough to support more species of broadleaf deciduous trees than evergreens. Places like Ottawa, Ontario and Fargo, ND are 2 good examples of cities which are in this transition area between subpolar and temperate in my opinion.
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.
