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.
Not 2000 meters, but something like 2500 feet (13,300 down to 10,700) The higher elevation is the Altiplano, a very high plateau that basically ends in a cliff that overlooks the city, which is actually nestled in a huge valley, with a really tall mountain rising behind it (like 22,000 feet I think). I visited there on my backpacking tour around South America, and the air was so thin that I flew down to Chile a day early so I could get some...gasp...oxygen...lol. Breathing never felt so good once I landed at sea level after the 30 minute flight from the world's highest commercial airport....lol.
In 4 days there I didn't notice the oxygen shortage at all. Possibly having a daytrip to a Chilean mountain a week or so before helped acclimatisation.
Looking at one of the pics in the Wikipedia article, there's a street with a row of healthy looking Canary Island date palms
With a highest average high of 15 and highest low of 3C, and average lows of 0C or under 4 months of the year I find it hard to believe the picture.
The lower elevations would probably be about 5 C warmer than the airport, so that means highs in the 17 - 20 C range year-round and lows of 3 - 8 C. Add to that the hot sun and CIDP's should have no problem. After all, they have no problem here in Christchurch with a similar annual mean temp.
I've been thinking about subtropical highland climates and whether they really should be classified as subtropical. The wiki article states that La Paz is subtropical highland but is this really a misnomer? When I look at the stats, there is nothing subtropical about La Paz any more than there would be about Reykjavik or Torshavn.
Should highland climates in the tropics particularly have a different classification structure all their own which doesn't take into account other climate criteria in use by either Koeppen or Trewartha? I know that many climate maps label mountainous areas as "H" but this doesn't really do justice the differences in elevation that produce different climates.
Perhaps just a sub-category of "subtropical"? I don't really see the need for a totally separate classification. They mirror tropical temperature patterns, but are simply cooler year-round because of altitude, rather than being cooler in "winter", as is the case with classic "subtropical" climates. Perhaps La Paz, is just a little atypical as it's one of the world's highest major cities. But apart from the more extreme cases, the differences with "subtropical proper" is pretty minor, IMO.
The lower elevations would probably be about 5 C warmer than the airport, so that means highs in the 17 - 20 C range year-round and lows of 3 - 8 C. Add to that the hot sun and CIDP's should have no problem. After all, they have no problem here in Christchurch with a similar annual mean temp.
At that latitude and altitude solar radiation can be extremely strong.
So 18 C in La Paz feels like 25 C in Christchurch under otherwise identical (sunny) conditions?
Could well do. I also recall being on the western flanks of the Andes in Chile (road to geysers) at about 3000m ASL - clear day, probably barely 15C. Midday sun had to be treated with great respect. Latitude about 22S.
I tend to classify Subtropical Highland climates as "awesome" but La Paz is a little on the chilly side for me. It does seem to be kind of an outlier compared to most of the other Subtropical Highlands I've seen.
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.