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.
I wonder if anyone has tried Washingtonia in Sequim, WA. At 16” per year their soil must not be all that damp even in the winter rainy season. In BC, southeastern areas of Greater Victoria would be driest. Oak Bay or thereabouts (24” per year). I’m sure CIDP could survive in Oak Bay, not sure about Washingtonia.
So what are the minimum sunshine, temperature and rain conditions in the winter then that create a suitable environment for Washingtonias that will keep ground conditions warm and dry most of the time? I would like to try and recreate it if I can.
I would think Victoria would probably be fine if the palms are planted like the London one, right beside a building, and with a paved area immediately around the base. I think Vancouver might just be too cool and damp, for even that though.
Wow, how cool is that! What I find more surprising is how healthy it looks - palms growing in suboptimal conditions often look pretty bad. But this one looks better than most Washingtonias growing near the coast in South Africa where the persistent winds usually damage the leaves badly and leaves them quite beaten up and stunted.
I have to agree with the other posters on here that there should be a further climate delineation that separates the humid subtropical and the continental climate zones.
I'm not sure that they need partitioning though -Auckland and London both fit the Cfb description well, and variation would be expected in any climate classification. Although I do agree the the two cities have very different biomes due to climate
Classification describes "type" of climate, rather than actual climate
That's how Washingtonia will survive in Victoria -dry ground and heat retention.
I still think such an important ecological transition as the one between areas where winters are cold enough to induce widespread dormancy and the dominant natural vegetation is broadleaf deciduous woodland and areas where winters are warm enough for mainly year-round activity and the biome is evergreen broadleaf forest should more or less align with a climate boundary and not cut across the middle of a classification. So London would be in the former, nearer the warmer-winter boundary but grouped with climates that can be a lot colder in winter while Auckland would be in the latter and grouped with climates that can be significantly warmer.
The whole idea is to have broad categories, but to try to align their boundaries with important, non-arbitrary biome transitions, such as the transition from tropical forest to savanna, tundra to taiga etc.
I still think such an important ecological transition as the one between areas where winters are cold enough to induce widespread dormancy and the dominant natural vegetation is broadleaf deciduous woodland and areas where winters are warm enough for mainly year-round activity and the biome is evergreen broadleaf forest should more or less align with a climate boundary and not cut across the middle of a classification. So London would be in the former, nearer the warmer-winter boundary but grouped with climates that can be a lot colder in winter while Auckland would be in the latter and grouped with climates that can be significantly warmer.
The whole idea is to have broad categories, but to try to align their boundaries with important, non-arbitrary biome transitions, such as the transition from tropical forest to savanna, tundra to taiga etc.
While vegetation does say a lot about actual climates, I think that ignoring the global circulation model and focusing on vegetation, will lessen understanding of climate for the average classification user.
Trying to reconcile London and NYC's climate, really only comes down to sharing cool enough winters for widespread dormancy - nothing else can discerned about these climates based on just that.
While vegetation does say a lot about actual climates, I think that ignoring the global circulation model and focusing on vegetation, will lessen understanding of climate for the average classification user.
Trying to reconcile London and NYC's climate, really only comes down to sharing cool enough winters for widespread dormancy - nothing else can discerned about these climates based on just that.
Well clearly it's not the only way to classify climates, but I think it's a good one. Winter dormancy isn't the only similarity - both climates are also warm to hot in summer and have adequate precipitation compared with potential evapotranspiration year round. Plants native to London should grow without much trouble in New York and vice versa, and not just marginally like the Washingtonia.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,610,214 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bisfbath
Well clearly it's not the only way to classify climates, but I think it's a good one. Winter dormancy isn't the only similarity - both climates are also warm to hot in summer and have adequate precipitation compared with potential evapotranspiration year round. Plants native to London should grow without much trouble in New York and vice versa, and not just marginally like the Washingtonia.
Different warm seasons in the 2, different climates.
Using Heathrow for London and Central Park for NYC, they both have a coolest month between 0 and 6; but London only has 2 months 18°C+; making them cool oceanic; while NYC has 4 months 18°C+; making them temperate transitional
Well clearly it's not the only way to classify climates, but I think it's a good one. Winter dormancy isn't the only similarity - both climates are also warm to hot in summer and have adequate precipitation compared with potential evapotranspiration year round. Plants native to London should grow without much trouble in New York and vice versa, and not just marginally like the Washingtonia.
The similarities between the two are only chance - plenty of NZ climates with winter <4C, have drought for the summer, or even close to year round.
Not sure I'd compare London and NYC summers -summer in London is about as close to the Shetland Islands, as to NYC
Different warm seasons in the 2, different climates.
Using Heathrow for London and Central Park for NYC, they both have a coolest month between 0 and 6; but London only has 2 months 18°C+; making them cool oceanic; while NYC has 4 months 18°C+; making them temperate transitional
London (Heatrow) is just too dry to be Cool Hyperoceanic (C3ch) in my system, wich is the temperate climate of the Redwoods environment, for instance. So, it's a temperate/subtropical transitional (Tts) similar to New York, their only difference is that the latter has a more subtropical sided, continental variation (TstC) (>=18ºC in mean Tº between coldest month and warmest month)
Their very similar environments verify this and it's no wonder that the british and dutch settlers choosed NYC as a favorite spot to live in.
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.
