Climate classification battle: Köppen-Geiger vs. Trewartha (hot, warmest, temperature)

[theunbrainwashed]

I've poured over the Trewartha classification system that seems to be the preference of some of the posters on here, more so the European and Oceania posters, and it's oddly more broad and simplistic than Köppen-Geiger. I think both has their good and bad points, I haven't been on here long enough to call myself a knowledgeable person on either system. So, as the climate classification novice that I am, educate me on why you prefer one system over the other, and the criticism/shortcomings of the system you oppose I prefer Köppen because that seems to be the system with the most easily accessible information on it and looks to be the more modern one. Trewartha, on the other hand, his map is confined to 2 scanned textbook pages (not the graphic that Köppen has) and almost all Wikipedia articles on climate reference the Köppen system. So, I prefer Köppen based on availability

Also, is there a detailed website that can fully explain to me how Trewartha classified each place in the world? I can only seem to find the map (that seems to have been scanned out of an old textbook) for his system. Not looking for a battle per se, but some education for us weather/climate novices (I've spent considerable time on here, but I know most of you are more knowledgeable than me in meteorology and climatology)

[nei]

Those of us who object to both should post their climate classification

[RWood]

My (probably unpopular) take on it: I have no interest in these schemes. For a given locality or region, I'm only interested in its specific climatology as it stands, and in what phenomena (the whole range from small-scale random fluctuations through meso-scale to global scale) can affect it on various timescales. If I'm considering a holiday in place X (or moving there to live), I'm not interested in its near-relatives elsewhere.

[deneb78]

I think I prefer Trewartha over existing systems as it seems more accurate in the temperate latitudes. However, that is not to say that Trewartha is the ultimate in climate classification systems.. I think that there could be a better one out there that I either don't know about or it hasn't been developed yet. I think both Koeppen and Trewartha both have their shortcomings with Trewartha coming out on top for the reason indicated above.

[B87]

Trewartha has additional letters for the warmest and coolest month, so it's better for Oceanic climates than Koppen is.

For example; London and Sydney are both Cfb under Koppen, but under Trewartha, London is DObk and Sydney is CFbl.

From wiki:
'An option exists to include information on both the warmest and coldest months for every climate by adding a third and fourth letter, respectively. The letters used conform to the following scale:
i — severely hot: Mean monthly temperature 35 °C (95 °F) or higher
h — very hot: 28 to 34.9 °C (82 to 95 °F)
a — hot: 23 to 27.9 °C (73 to 82 °F)
b — warm: 18 to 22.9 °C (64 to 73 °F)
l — mild: 10 to 17.9 °C (50 to 64 °F)
k — cool: 0.1 to 9.9 °C (32 to 50 °F)
o — cold: -9.9 to 0 °C (14 to 32 °F)
c — very cold: -24.9 to -10 °C (-13 to 14 °F)
d — severely cold: -39.9 to -25 °C (-40 to -13 °F)
e — excessively cold: −40 °C (−40 °F) or below.'

[Nivalis]

Overall, Koeppen with the 0C threshold for temperate-subtropical. I think some of the cooler Csb climates should be in the oceanic category and that the cool desert climates (BWn in Trewartha) should be classified, but other than that, I prefer Koeppen.

Originally Posted by B87

Trewartha has additional letters for the warmest and coolest month, so it's better for Oceanic climates than Koppen is.

For example; London and Sydney are both Cfb under Koppen, but under Trewartha, London is DObk and Sydney is CFbl.
[...]

Ah, it would be interesting to see a map using this. My thoughts on Trewartha being too broad were because of the maps, but this is good. I still prefer Koeppen because of the maps, but a detailed Trewartha map would probably be more accurate.

[Patricius Maximus]

Koeppen-Geiger for me, with the -3C line between the Cxx and Dxx climate groups.

I also agree with RWood in that I'm more interested in the actual climate and history of a given place than which box it fits in.

[Weatherfan2]

Trewartha, because it makes sense in the ways others have described. and for mid-lat climates. However, it still doesn't compete with my own definition which places subtropical climates with winters at least 8°C and summers at least 24°C for example.

[Ttad]

I prefer Koppen, with 0C for temperate-subtropical (personally I'd have it higher than that)

I prefer Cfb to Do and I don't like Trewartha's precipitation limit for Cs climates.

For Australia, I prefer the Australian classifications (like how the cooler subtropical climates are thought of as being temperate) and perhaps there are other countries with their own modified system that works better for them too, but I'm voting for Koppen out of the two.


On the topic of other classification systems, I have an Australian atlas that doesn't have a subtropical zone. It has a "warm humid" zone instead. I think for Southern Hemisphere places (since they are quite mild-to-warm-to-reasonably hot for all of the year), it's a good description instead of using the term subtropical.

[dhdh]

Koppen with the 0°C threshold.

If I were to modify it slightly, I would use 5C as a threshold, suppress the B category and instead use "x" as the precipitation letter for dry climates, e.g. Las Vegas would be Cxa, etc. (Two letters could be used, one for steppe climates, another for deserts, etc.)