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.
Technically, these are both Cfb climates. One of these months is a summer in Lerwick, and the other is a winter in London, both in the same year. In this case, the classification is useless. Lerwick should probably be demoted to Cfc.
Neither do any systems that I can think of, and a Wiki box will still paint a better picture.
Because Deneb suggested including std deviation which I think is useful to describe what a climate would actually be like to live in as opposed to seeing averages which can be very broad.
Because Deneb suggested including std deviation which I think is useful to describe what a climate would actually be like to live in as opposed to seeing averages which can be very broad.
Std Deviation added to the Wiki box, would be very useful.
Classifications can never describe what a climate would actually be like to live in, other than polar ones maybe.
Location: João Pessoa,Brazil(The easternmost point of Americas)
2,540 posts, read 2,005,587 times
Reputation: 644
I think they have to atualizate Koppen Map,For example,All of New Zealand fall into only one classification in Koppen map(Cfb),but we know that have a lot of Diference like Central Otago and the West Coast climates.
I think they have to atualizate Koppen Map,For example,All of New Zealand fall into only one classification in Koppen map(Cfb),but we know that have a lot of Diference like Central Otago and the West Coast climates.
The qualitative aspect of Koppen describes NZ as a whole, quite well -moderated in all seasons and generally with regular rainfall. But no, it can't really explain how living in Dargaville (Northland) is the same as living in Five Rivers (Southland)
Classifications should give you an idea of what climate you're looking at, without having to look up the averages for a specific location. No one can remember the averages of hundreds of different locations.
Tokyo and Atlanta are similar enough to be grouped together, they aren't exactly the same, but their similarities outweigh their differences. Most of the current groups should be at least 2-3 times smaller than they currently are.
Classifications should give you an idea of what climate you're looking at, without having to look at averages. No one can remember the averages of hundreds of different locations.
So experiencing Melbourne's climate, would help you appreciate what Copenhagen's weather would be like?
I think that is the basic aim of climate classification...to group similar climates broadly into groups for the sake of a general understanding. Tokyo and Atlanta both share the sImilar long hot summers, semi cool winter, with rainfall peak in the hotter months. They are both different than say London or Seattle, that have cool summers, of San Deigo that has dry summers...etc. Yet no single place has the same climate as another. Climate classifications are just rough groupings.
If they don't share the same experience of day to day weather, then there is no general understanding.
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.
