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 would say it's because so many people don't think it through properly- winter is what links climates, because it's what links environments, flora and fauna.
Thinking that summer defines the climate and explains the environment, is a failure of logic.
This is why I like the Koppen classification system. People often object to Koppen classifications because their assumptions and biases have nothing to do with the actual data. Per Koppen, Victoria is Csb, simple as that. And if you look at the natural vegetative landscape, it looks similar to other Csb landscapes.
This is why I like the Koppen classification system. People often object to Koppen classifications because their assumptions and biases have nothing to do with the actual data. Per Koppen, Victoria is Csb, simple as that. And if you look at the natural vegetative landscape, it looks similar to other Csb landscapes.
I like the Koppen system as well. It generally does okay at linking climate groupings to vegetation, but not always - my Cfb climate doesn't resemble European or North American Cfb climates at all.
I think it's fine to categorise temperate climates into cold, cold/mild and warm groups, but it should be consistent and logical in relating to the environment - a hot summer will never make up for a cold winter in terms of vegetation, but a mild winter will make up for a cool summer in terms of vegetation.
So then that begs the question, why do people want to say that Victoria is not warm temperate if it looks very green in winter? People here seem to want to put it in the same temperate category as places like Minneapolis. I mean look at the poll 21 to 3.
Don't believe most on here are arguing that Victoria is in the same climatic grouping as Minneapolis. "Warm temperate" is admittedly in some aspects a vague term. If you mean Cxx in Koppen's terms, then Victoria clearly qualifies and somewhere like Minneapolis obviously does not. If you are referring to a distinction between places like Berkeley and Porto and places like Brussels, Dublin, and Glasgow, then most (as do myself) view Victoria as more similar to the latter group despite a Mediterranean precipitation pattern, which a lot of the rest of the Pacific Northwest shares.
If you are referring to a climate dominated by warm weather, most in here I presume are arguing that Victoria doesn't fit within those parameters, as it merely has mild (especially at Gonzales), or lukewarm perhaps (more at the university station), summers, and cool winters. With an annual mean of 10 or 11c, Victoria is only 'warm' in the Canadian context, still with cooler summers than many other Canadian cities.
If you are referring to a distinction between places like Berkeley and Porto and places like Brussels, Dublin, and Glasgow, then most (as do myself) view Victoria as more similar to the latter group despite a Mediterranean precipitation pattern, which a lot of the rest of the Pacific Northwest shares.
This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say Koppen is superior to people's subjective judgements. Victoria's natural landscape looks a LOT like Porto and Berkeley, and nothing at all like Glasgow or Brussels. In fact, it's got many of the same species as Berkeley.
This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say Koppen is superior to people's subjective judgements. Victoria's natural landscape looks a LOT like Porto and Berkeley, and nothing at all like Glasgow or Brussels. In fact, it's got many of the same species as Berkeley.
It's temperature profile is still clearly closer to somewhere like London, despite perhaps having some vegetation in common with California, as vegetation doesn't neatly straddle climatic boundaries. Also, despite superficially somewhat similar temperature and precipitation regimes, Victoria's winters are substantially gloomier and cooler than Mediterranean northern California, which has significantly higher sunshine totals and much longer breaks between storm systems, and much more akin to those of oceanic NW Europe in quality, even while its summers may have more in common with California in terms of the dryness and sunshine. Porto and Berkeley also have substantially milder record low temps, in the mid-20s compared to Victoria's in the lower teens and single digits, again more consonant with NW Europe.
Agree the Pacific Northwest does have Mediterranean features in terms of its precipitation pattern that is expressed to some extent in its vegetation but it doesn't alter that its temperature profile is still more consistent with NW Europe, and which places like coastal California, Portugal, Chile, or Morocco do not share. It would be akin to describing Pyongyang as "(sub)tropical monsoonal" and having more akin to somewhere like Hong Kong because it has a marked summer precipitation peak while it shares more in common with other temperate continental climates like Chicago overall.
It's temperature profile is still clearly closer to somewhere like London, despite perhaps having some vegetation in common with California, as vegetation doesn't neatly straddle climatic boundaries. Also, despite superficially somewhat similar temperature and precipitation regimes, Victoria's winters are substantially gloomier and cooler than Mediterranean northern California, which has significantly higher sunshine totals and much longer breaks between storm systems, and much more akin to those of oceanic NW Europe in quality, even while its summers may have more in common with California in terms of the dryness and sunshine. Porto and Berkeley also have substantially milder record low temps, in the mid-20s compared to Victoria's in the lower teens and single digits, again more consonant with NW Europe.
Agree the Pacific Northwest does have Mediterranean features in terms of its precipitation pattern that is expressed to some extent in its vegetation but it doesn't alter that its temperature profile is still more consistent with NW Europe, and which places like coastal California, Portugal, Chile, or Morocco do not share. It would be akin to describing Pyongyang as "(sub)tropical monsoonal" and having more akin to somewhere like Hong Kong because it has a marked summer precipitation peak while it shares more in common with other temperate continental climates like Chicago overall.
Would you say that Cfb climates also need to be split into different categories due to relatively minor differences in temperatures? Or would you just call Victoria Cfb, and ignore the Med precip pattern when it suits you to?
Perhaps there could even be a Oceanic Mediterranean designation (Cfsb), just to try and cover all bases - although you would probably also need a (Humid Subtropical Med designation (Cfsa) to be consistent.
Would you say that Cfb climates also need to be split into different categories due to relatively minor differences in temperatures? Or would you just call Victoria Cfb, and ignore the Med precip pattern when it suits you to?
Perhaps there could even be a Oceanic Mediterranean designation (Cfsb), just to try and cover all bases - although you would probably also need a (Humid Subtropical Med designation (Cfsa) to be consistent.
Agree the Pacific Northwest is a complex region, because it spans the latitudinal range that is comparable to that of NW Europe while having its own distinct precipitation and sunshine patterns, with a sharp winter precipitation peak and summer sunshine peak. Parts of Chile also seem to have this pattern, but to a lesser extent.
Believe a classification that accounts for a Mediterranean precipitation regime (Which does create a similarity with places like Porto and Berkeley, but not one based on thermal profiles) and a cool-temperate, upper-mid-latitude temperature profile would probably be apt to describe places like Victoria.
For mild-summer (<22c) and mild winter (>0c) climates (where this distinction is relevant):
cool-temperate-mediterranean - Seattle, Portland, Victoria, Vancouver (borderline with uniform-precip), etc
cool-temperate uniform-precip - London, Paris, Dublin, Invercargill, Hanover (borderline with continental climates) etc.
warm-temperate-mediterranean - Santa Cruz, Caldas da Rainha, Essaouira etc.
Perhaps something like Trewartha's cutoff of 8 months >10c could be used as the cutoff between warm-temperate and cool-temperate locations.
Warm-temperate climates would have mild-to-warm weather most of the year, and less seasonality/dormancy than cool-temperate climates which have a cooler winter and harsher cold extremes than warm-temperate climates but less so than continental climates. I would thus view warm-temperate climates as having subtropical features to a greater degree than cool-temperate ones. Warm-temperate climates are typically located at lower latitudes on the coasts of continents or on islands, but are moderated by their coastal position compared to inland areas which often (but not always) that have hotter summers, where we find climates like Marrakesh or Sacramento.
The "warm-temperate-mediterranean" term thus effectively captures that somewhere like Berkeley is more similar to Sacramento overall in terms of climatic patterns than it is to somewhere like Brussels that also has mild summers, and also as more similar to Sacramento than it is to Seattle, which a common Csb classification alone does not clarify. The precipitation pattern still remains relevant though, as Mediterranean precipitation regimes allow for different vegetation/environments dominated by sclerophyll vegetation to exist than in areas with uniform precipitation patterns.
I would therefore view the question of whether Victoria is "mediterranean" as independent of the question as to whether it is warm-temperate or cool-temperate. Places like Auckland or Melbourne do not have Mediterranean precipitation patterns but still would be warm-temperate climates in my view based on their temperature profiles which are more akin to those of coastal Calfornia and Portugal/Morocco (i.e. lower-mid latitudes) than those of NW Europe (i.e. upper-mid latitudes).
Agree the Pacific Northwest is a complex region, because it spans the latitudinal range that is comparable to that of NW Europe while having its own distinct precipitation and sunshine patterns, with a sharp winter precipitation peak and summer sunshine peak. Parts of Chile also seem to have this pattern, but to a lesser extent.
Believe a classification that accounts for a Mediterranean precipitation regime (Which does create a similarity with places like Porto and Berkeley, but not one based on thermal profiles) and a cool-temperate, upper-mid-latitude temperature profile would probably be apt to describe places like Victoria.
For mild-summer (<22c) and mild winter (>0c) climates (where this distinction is relevant):
cool-temperate-mediterranean - Seattle, Portland, Victoria, Vancouver (borderline with uniform-precip), etc
cool-temperate uniform-precip - London, Paris, Dublin, Invercargill, Hanover (borderline with continental climates) etc.
warm-temperate-mediterranean - Santa Cruz, Caldas da Rainha, Essaouira etc.
Perhaps something like Trewartha's cutoff of 8 months >10c could be used as the cutoff between warm-temperate and cool-temperate locations.
Warm-temperate climates would have mild-to-warm weather most of the year, and less seasonality/dormancy than cool-temperate climates which have a cooler winter and harsher cold extremes than warm-temperate climates but less so than continental climates. I would thus view warm-temperate climates as having subtropical features to a greater degree than cool-temperate ones. Warm-temperate climates are typically located at lower latitudes on the coasts of continents or on islands, but are moderated by their coastal position compared to inland areas which often (but not always) that have hotter summers, where we find climates like Marrakesh or Sacramento.
The "warm-temperate-mediterranean" term thus effectively captures that somewhere like Berkeley is more similar to Sacramento overall in terms of climatic patterns than it is to somewhere like Brussels that also has mild summers, and also as more similar to Sacramento than it is to Seattle, which a common Csb classification alone does not clarify. The precipitation pattern still remains relevant though, as Mediterranean precipitation regimes allow for different vegetation/environments dominated by sclerophyll vegetation to exist than in areas with uniform precipitation patterns.
I would therefore view the question of whether Victoria is "mediterranean" as independent of the question as to whether it is warm-temperate or cool-temperate. Places like Auckland or Melbourne do not have Mediterranean precipitation patterns but still would be warm-temperate climates in my view based on their temperature profiles which are more akin to those of coastal Calfornia and Portugal/Morocco (i.e. lower-mid latitudes) than those of NW Europe (i.e. upper-mid latitudes).
I agree with this.
I believe mild-summer climates should be split between harsh hemiboreal (< 18F in coldest month), moderate hemiboreal (18-27F in coldest month), cold-winter maritime (27-36F in coldest month), temperate maritime (36-43F in coldest month), subtropical maritime (43-50F in coldest month) and mild-summer tropical transitional (50-64F in coldest month).
Hot-summer climates would be similarly split, except 27-36F would be warm temperate transitional and 36-43F upper/semi-continental (depending on how hot summers are) subtropical.
Don't believe most on here are arguing that Victoria is in the same climatic grouping as Minneapolis. "Warm temperate" is admittedly in some aspects a vague term. If you mean Cxx in Koppen's terms, then Victoria clearly qualifies and somewhere like Minneapolis obviously does not. If you are referring to a distinction between places like Berkeley and Porto and places like Brussels, Dublin, and Glasgow, then most (as do myself) view Victoria as more similar to the latter group despite a Mediterranean precipitation pattern, which a lot of the rest of the Pacific Northwest shares.
If you are referring to a climate dominated by warm weather, most in here I presume are arguing that Victoria doesn't fit within those parameters, as it merely has mild (especially at Gonzales), or lukewarm perhaps (more at the university station), summers, and cool winters. With an annual mean of 10 or 11c, Victoria is only 'warm' in the Canadian context, still with cooler summers than many other Canadian cities.
But doesn't Koppen give Cxx a warm temperate designation and Dxx a cold temperate designation? If not, then what are Cxx and Dxx climates then?
its temperature profile is still more consistent with NW Europe, and which places like coastal California, Portugal, Chile, or Morocco do not share.
I think temperatures in coastal Northern California actually have quite a bit in common with coastal NW Europe. The big difference between those two is definitely precipitation seasonality. If the Isle of Scilly had a Med rainfall regime it would be a lot like coastal Northern California. Anyway, I think so much of this is based on perception of a climate rather than the reality. Victoria may have winters that are a few degrees cooler than most Med climates, but it’s still Csb and the plants reflect that. It’s summers are drier than Rome or Marseille! Drought-stressed plants will care more about that than the fact that its January high is three degrees cooler.
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.
