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.
No I don't. You're making a claim that vegetation is what counts, then nullify that by imposing a heat requirement.
So what is it? -does vegetation matter, or not?
I would think vegetation matters, but maybe veg should be combined with temp in some way to fine tune differences. A subtropical climate should have some kind of consistent warmth to the temperatures from some period of the year, don't you think?
It depends on the frequency of the cold spells if its once a decade then that's a high enough frequency to have doubts of calling a climate subtropical.
I think the ocean is the real reason why NYC's minimums are on par with DC's, since DC has a heat island as well. Philly has slightly cooler minimums than NYC, but slightly higher maximums, so they average out the same. Once you head further inland from I-95, winter becomes a different ballgame.
This has been discussed numerous times, but I have to disagree. There have been nights that coastal cities much further south of NYC were cooler. I think NYC has an extreme UHI (most noticeable at night).
NYC is not representative of this latitude; Northern New Jersey, New York's Hudson Valley, the Poconos, etc. are more representative. Arguably in the so-called transition zone between humid continental and subtropical, but definitely more on the continental (or temperate) side IMO.
Macon has average highs 2/3C higher every month of the year, but with average lows almost the same.
I wonder what inland area is furthest north that can truly be called subtropical because lots have lows cooler than 3C in January.
Macon averages 0.7 inches of snow per year (odd that March average 0.2 inches, but February 0 ). Should the subtropical definition be restricted to climates that don't average snowfall every winter and multiple freezes?
This has been discussed numerous times, but I have to disagree. There have been nights that coastal cities much further south of NYC were cooler. I think NYC has an extreme UHI (most noticeable at night).
NYC is not representative of this latitude; Northern New Jersey, New York's Hudson Valley, the Poconos, etc. are more representative. Arguably in the so-called transition zone between humid continental and subtropical, but definitely more on the continental (or temperate) side IMO.
I agree. Yes, there is a natural temperature difference between coastal Atlantic and more interior stations west of I95, but the growing UHI certainly impacts minimum temperatures which then skews the Mean.....
Same is true here. Yes, lakeshore stations have higher minimums than inland stations, but the UHI is certainly evident with MDW's minimums compared to even ORD and certainly suburban stations.
Northerly Island is influenced by both the lake and the UHI so it's minimums are the highest..... MDW has a strong UHI, ORD not as strong but growing, and Streamwood, which is 15 miles west of ORD, just look how much colder the minimums are....
Last edited by chicagogeorge; 10-04-2014 at 06:56 PM..
This has been discussed numerous times, but I have to disagree. There have been nights that coastal cities much further south of NYC were cooler. I think NYC has an extreme UHI (most noticeable at night).
NYC is not representative of this latitude; Northern New Jersey, New York's Hudson Valley, the Poconos, etc. are more representative. Arguably in the so-called transition zone between humid continental and subtropical, but definitely more on the continental (or temperate) side IMO.
None of the locations get much coastal influence except for maybe NJ, coastal locations even away from the city get less extreme cold snaps. Night temperatures in Islip, NY (on the coast 50 miles east of NYC) averages nights 3°F colder than NYC Central Par. Extreme mins are the same.
Please just stop, you are embarrassing yourself with every post you make! I cringe for you when I read your posts As funny as they are...
Quote:
Originally Posted by irlinit
Lol give it up, the deep south gets pretty damn cold in winter for its latitude.. you are just making everyone laugh
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom77falcons
yeah but the poster they are referring to makes the most ludicrous outlandish claims. All one can do is laugh at the silliness.
Its great that you are laughing; laughter is good for the heart and soul, and helps to ease the tension from the day. As much as you people are laughing, I'm laughing as well. Do you know what is especially funny though? The inability for you posters to grasp the simple concepts being put forth to you.
Unlike what many of you posters purport to be, real climatologists don't sit around swallowing the data blindly hook, line, and sinker, making false, inaccurate judgments from it; they actually think for themselves, and consider all the possible outside parameters that could have an effect on the implications of such data. As a result, you will never hear any reputable climatologist going around spouting the fable that the US South sees the coldest extremes in winter of any subtropical region. Yep, the real players in the field see that claim for the bs it is, so the fact that you amateurs on this forum are stating such things as if they were facts is quite laughable.
All it takes is simple ecological observation to debunk the sophomoric claim of the US South's supposed extremes in cold compared to other subtropical climates; in the US South, you see thick, undisturbed, evergreen subtropical forest, not too dissimilar to what is seen in subtropical South America, as well as South Japan. Tropical plants and animals associated with Central/South America thrive in the US South, examples including spanish moss, mangroves, jaguars, ocelots, crocodiles, flamingos, neotropic cormorants, ibises, ringtail cats, manatees etc. If the US South was very extreme in its cold, such tropical species, which are quite ubiquitous in the region by the way, would never even be seen in the US South. The native vegetation in the ecosystems of the US South have practically the same hardiness as the native vegetation of the Med basin, and India, and are way more tender than the native plants growing in oceanic climates that are supposedly less prone to cold, such as Northwest Europe, and areas of the western US, such as Brookings, OR. That fact therefore proves that the potential for cold of a certain magnitude in the US South is precisely the same as similar latitudes in the Med basin, and India, and that those oceanic west coast climates I named have a greater potential for cold than the US South. Those areas only seem less prone to cold, but that is only because they were lucky enough to escape the cold epoch that plagued Eastern North America. When those areas see cold epochs, I guarantee you that they will approach magnitudes of cold way worse than what was ever seen in the Eastern US.
Such extrapolations are what all real climatologists do when judging the climate of a place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deneb78
Torshavn in the Faroe Islands at 62N has a warmer record low than Houston, New Orleans and Jacksonville
That is only if we use the contemporary weather interval, in which the North American subtropics saw the effects of the Cold Epoch. Naturally, the three US South cities you listed are warmer in temperature than Torshavn, as in, warm to the point that it would be practically impossible for them to get colder in winter than Torshavn.
If Torshavn were to get a Cold Epoch to the same degree, it would see temps so cold, it would make the Cold Epoch-caused record lows of Houston, New Orleans, and Jacksonville, look like a sauna in comparison. Just looking at the native plants of each location would allow the common man to figure out that Torshavn obviously has a greater potential for cold than the three US South cities have, or ever will have, assuming the absence of a Cold Epoch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieOlSkool
You mean the guy claiming that the reason Dickens picked London for the setting of Christmas Carol over New Orleans and Houston was because of how brutally cold England is, right? It surely couldn't have to do with the fact that Charles Dickens was from England, and lived in England? Noooooooooooooooooooooo. He was going to pick New Orleans but his frequent Mardi Gras experiences and constant maulings by French speaking Jaguars dissuaded him.
Once again, you amateur climatologists fail to consider the various parameters that are involved in the judgment of a location's climate. The fictions Charles Dickens wrote were REALISTIC fictions, so therefore, anything in those works would have been portrayed as accurately as possible, including the snow in London. If it wasn't realistic for London to have cold, snowy winters, then Charles Dicken's never would have picked the place for a winter setting. Such extrapolations are necessary in order to be a true climatologist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom77falcons
For the PNW, around latitude of Portland, I'm not sure that is true. Portland gets around 2340 (US method).
Funny how you assume that the C-S method is flawless. Not true as it inflated hours for locales in England such that they had to adjust the numbers when switching to electronic sensors.
Regardless, subtract 200 hundred hours from Portland and you have 2100 hundred hours. Bordeaux in France, on the coast like Portland and same latitude averages 2035. Less not more than the PNW. Vancouver averages more than Le Havre France at same lat and coastal.
As far as below latitude 43, I don't think it is true either.
Perpignan, France avg 2,506 hours of sunshine (lat 42.7), Nice avg 2,724 (lat 43.7), Rome 2,473 (lat 41.9), and Barcelona 2,524 (lat 41.4), Naples 2,375 (lat 40.8), Madrid 2,840 (lat 40.4), and Athens 2,849 (lat 38N).
Not sure how we can account for the US bias, since it is based more on hazy or pt. cloudy days and not cloudy or clear days. Anyway, I used the Canadian-American difference of around 200 hours. The numbers shown below for US cities have had 200 hours shaved off their official US numbers for comparison. So even though Boise US records show 2993 hours, I'm showing 2,793 hours. Still, it seems US cities sunshine hours exceed that of European cities lat for latitude. And the bias seems to show up more in climates with lots of pt cloudy days, and the western US tends to have more clear and cloudy days I would think going on precip trends.
Rapid City, SD averages 2,657 (lat 44N), Boise, Idaho 2,793 (lat 43.6), Pocatello, Idaho averages 2,732 (lat 42.9), Sioux City, Iowa 2,516 (lat 42.5), Cheyenne, Wyoming averages 2,782 (lat 41.1), North Platte, NE 2,776 (lat 41.1), Salt Lake City 2,829 (lat 40.8), Denver, CO 2,907 (lat 39.7), Kansas City, Missouri 2,610 (lat 39.1), and Sacramento, CA 3,408 (lat 38.6).
Eastern Europe overall has lower sunshine than the Med, but looking at a span from Varna to Thessaloniki to Istanbul, from latitude 43.2N - 41N - 40.7N, hours range from 2405 at Varna to 2338 at Thessaloniki and 2218 at Istanbul. Compared to Portland, Maine (lat 43.7) 2,313 and Boston (lat 42.7) 2,434, Hartford, CT 2,385 (lat 41.8), Chicago 2,308 (lat 41.8), and NYC 2,335 (lat 40.7) it would seem the eastern US is the same or slightly greater. And the above US sunshine hours have had 200 hours subtracted from the official numbers to try to offset the US bias.
I'm curious where in Europe at 40N lat do you have a location with over 3500 hours of sunshine. Even factoring in the US bias, and subtract 300 hours no where there comes close.
You should really try to learn a little more about the US climates, and not so often infuse many of your posts with a very apparent dislike of our climates. We get it, you hate US continental climates. But many of your posts come off just like Wavehunter except in the opposite direction. You make gross generalizations that are off the mark. Even when grudgingly saying something positive about a US climate, you almost always caveat it with something negative about the latitude. I care more about the actual darn temps than whether or not I'm sitting somewhere freezing my a... off congratulating myself for being "warm" for my latitude. Funny you never mention that Melbourne, FL, Charleston, SC and Richmond, VA are all warmer on annual means that Brisbane, Newcastle, and Melbourne AU.
You and the rest of your fellow Europeans don't live in this eternal sunny subtropical paradise either. Even the Med of Europe has had bouts of cold in winter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom77falcons
Oh c'mon, I think you enjoy baiting people over here (at least the warm weather fans) almost as much as Wavehunter. You tongue in cheek state that our trees have leaves for three months, or you act very surprised our trees turn color before the heat island of London. Guess what? In September there are already a few spots of color on trees here in my area. Dropping temps play more of a part than the "actual" temps.
My September avg high/low this past month of 79/62F would be considered a very warm summer month in London. So drop the idea that somehow because your trees are green you have warmer Fall weather. Your Oct mean is cooler than here. From May to September here would be considered summer where you are.
Have you ever even been here in winter to know which would feel milder? You need to travel more. The sun to me in London was useless in January. I felt some mild warmth that didn't last more than an hour or so before the sun was barely back down hovering near the horizon. It didn't really warm me up at all like our sun does in winter on really cold days. And that is when the sun was actually shining which wasn't very often for the 10 days I was there in the month of January. When I returned home the sun angle in the sky felt euphoric to me. I remember that.
You keep going on as if all of Europe has these mild winters, always with the caveat that it is warm "for the latitude". So? That doesn't change the temps. Berlin? Warsaw? Bucharest? Sofia? Prague? Zagreb? Milan? etc. etc. My city is warmer in winter than all of them, save Milan by a very small amount. Baltimore is warmer than Milan.
The US is far lower in latitude than Europe. So yeah, 40N in the US has freezing winters with very warm summers and in Europe 40N has mild winters and warm summers. 40N and lower in Europe is the warmest part; a very small part of Europe as a whole lies at 40N and below. And the western edge of NW Europe with the oceanic climate is warmer in winter, though I would never call it "warm" as in subtropical, and summers are cool. And then the eastern part of Europe has large areas colder than where I live in winter, and warmish summers imo, though not as warm as here.
And as if those record low temps would impact the climate of the place if they don't happen for another 50-100 years. When London December 2010 is brought up, or 1963 winter, you claim it will probably never happen again in a lifetime. Well the same could be said for record cold temps in the US. They really aren't relative to what a person would experience year in and year out for years on end.
You can claim all you want that southeast US places like Savannah are "so called subtropical". The winter averages and what can grow there prove it is subtropical.
Yes, this area north of 30N on the Georgia coast has seen record lows colder than London or the south of the UK. And?
I'll wait now for you to post pics of large orange trees, bougainvillea, all these kinds of palms, fruiting bananas, etc. growing in the UK. Since the UK has warmer record lows they should be able to grow all this and more.
This is pretty much what I have been arguing the whole time, and yet whenever I say such things, the entirety of the board comes down on me for saying it. You amateur climatologists have quite the double standard. Or maybe it is anger resulting from the fact that I just debunked, and destroyed the elementary claim of the US South seeing cold more extreme than any other subtropical climate. The stuff people post on here...its like there is not a single thought put into it.
No I don't. You're making a claim that vegetation is what counts, then nullify that by imposing a heat requirement.
So what is it? -does vegetation matter, or not?
Vegetation matters. And yes, heat does count too, because you need heat to grow vegetation other than grasses otherwise Macquarie Island wouldn't be the barren rock that it is. Look at tom's photos of what is, I presume, to be photos taken in 8b climate zones. You couldn't grow any of that stuff in a Cfb climate, except 1 or 2 trees. So, yes, heat requirement is a valid measure.
Vegetation matters. And yes, heat does count too, because you need heat to grow vegetation other than grasses otherwise Macquarie Island wouldn't be the barren rock that it is. Look at tom's photos of what is, I presume, to be photos taken in 8b climate zones. You couldn't grow any of that stuff in a Cfb climate, except 1 or 2 trees. So, yes, heat requirement is a valid measure.
I bet ALL of the plants listed in Tom's photos would grow in warmer oceanic climates (Cfb) like Auckland and Melbourne without any problems which are both hardiness zone 10 and have almost no frost at all.
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.
). Should the subtropical definition be restricted to climates that don't average snowfall every winter and multiple freezes?
As funny as they are... 
