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.
Overall I would say that Trewartha’s climate classification system is more accurate, as I find it absolutely ludicrous that the Koeppen classification designates climates like Indianapolis as being “Subtropical” using the -3 C/27 F temperature threshold, so since Trewartha designates Indianapolis as being continental in climate, rather than being Subtropical or even warm temperate, I am going to have to say Trewartha is better in many respects, at least for the mid latitude climate zones.
Trewartha's Do classification is the biggest joke in the history of climate classification. It's a horrendously broad dustbin classification that includes so many climates that clearly aren't marine oceanic.
NYC, Philadelphia, and Washington DC are also considered "oceanic" by Trewartha which is a complete joke. Yet the Isles of Scilly off the western coast of the UK at 50ºN almost meet the subtropical classification. The highest temperature EVER recorded there is 82ºF, but of course that doesn't matter to Trewartha.
I'm not saying Koppen is perfect. It isn't. However, Trewartha just messes up in so many more ways than Koppen. Washington DC being subtropical is understandable considering the winters are fairly short and the summers are hot and resemble the tropics, but Washington DC being temperate oceanic is a complete joke.
Ladies and gentlemen! If I may, I would like to cordially suggest we criticize these systems in their strongest forms rather than their weakest. For example:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isleofpalms85
I find it absolutely ludicrous that the Koeppen classification designates climates like Indianapolis as being “Subtropical” using the -3 C/27 F temperature threshold
It is now widely understood by climatologists that the 0 degree isotherm is more accurate than -3; Indianapolis is more properly categorized as continental. Köppen's system may still be terrible, but not because it pushes Indianapolis into C.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omegaraptor
NYC, Philadelphia, and Washington DC are also considered "oceanic" by Trewartha which is a complete joke.
Many people do not know this, but, in Trewartha & Horn (1980) An Introduction to Climate, 5th Ed, Trewartha proposes a cold month isotherm of 2 C "in some locations inland" (p. 229). He used this to classify Berlin as continental even though its minimum monthly temperatures were (barely) above 0 C. This was a procedure he actually used since his system's conception in 4th edition. Thus, New York City and Philadelphia are both continental. Trewartha's system may be awful, but not because it fails to classify those two cities.
I prefer Koppen, Trewartha pretty much disregards seasonality of rainfall patterns. For instance in Koppen the oceanic climates split up in csb (dry summer oceanic), cwb (dry winter oceanic) and cfb (humid oceanic) whereas Trewartha just combines them all into one. However one of my biggest faults with Koppen are his arid and semi arid climates, he doesn’t stay consistent with his temperature and rainfall distribution thresholds like he does for the wetter climates and instead throws them all into very broad climate categories.
NYC, Philadelphia, and Washington DC are also considered "oceanic" by Trewartha which is a complete joke. Yet the Isles of Scilly off the western coast of the UK at 50ºN almost meet the subtropical classification. The highest temperature EVER recorded there is 82ºF, but of course that doesn't matter to Trewartha.
I'm not saying Koppen is perfect. It isn't. However, Trewartha just messes up in so many more ways than Koppen. Washington DC being subtropical is understandable considering the winters are fairly short and the summers are hot and resemble the tropics, but Washington DC being temperate oceanic is a complete joke.
In all honesty, I'd say that they are more "oceanic" than "continental", especially DC and Philadelphia. For starters, they are on the coast and they are reasonably damp, despite their strong continental elements (hot summer, cold winter). But I don't know.
In all honesty, I'd say that they are more "oceanic" than "continental", especially DC and Philadelphia. For starters, they are on the coast and they are reasonably damp, despite their strong continental elements (hot summer, cold winter). But I don't know.
Well first of all Philadelphia and DC aren't on the coast.
The amount of precipitation doesn't matter in classifying a climate as oceanic vs. continental, and neither does geography by itself. NYC to Washington, D.C. are all continental due to what you said (hot summer and cold winter). Mid-latitude climates on the eastern side of a large continent tend to be continental because ocean-influenced moderating winds tend to blow from the west.
I agree with Omegaraptor. Prefer Koppen. One of the biggest reasons is because Trewartha's oceanic classification is ridiculous.
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.
