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.
So, we should ask first, what’s wrong with the current classification?
The current one is effective, although it still has several flaws:
1- A tundra without any month below 0 and a continental tundra with some months below -30 are the same climate
2- No distinction between subtropical climates with rare frosts and the ones with regular frosts
3- Deserts and semi deserts are either hot or cold, the mild deserts of coastal Namibia can’t fit into those classifications
4- Continental climates have way too many subtypes, most subtypes barely even appear in the map
So here’s my attempt to improve it, so basically each climate in the list below contains:
[Letter] [name of the climate]
[temperature patterns]
[precipitation patterns]
[name of a town classified with that climate]
[where that climate is usually found]
So here’s the list
A tropical
Coldest month 18+
Af tropical rainforest
Driest month 2.4+
Manaus
Latitude 0-10
Am tropical monsoon
Driest month 2.4-
Wettest month 10+
Qionghai
Latitude 0-15
As tropical savanna
Driest month 2.4-
Wettest month 10-
Campo Grande
Latitude 5-25
B dry
Same as Köppen
Bwh hot desert
Same as Köppen
Aral
Latitude 15-35
Bsh hot semi arid
Same as Köppen
Petrolina
Latitude 5-40
Bsk cold semi arid
Same as Köppen
Reno
Latitude 30-50
Bwk cold desert
Same as Köppen
Latitude 30-45
Ba tropical dryland
Coldest month 18+
Agadez
Latitude 5-20
Bo mild dryland
Hottest month 18-
Luderitz
Latitude 15-30 in west coasts located in Africa and South America
subtropical
Coldest month 0-18
Cfaa humid subtropical
Hottest month 22+
Coldest month 10+
New Orleans
Latitude 20-30
Cfab hot summer temperate
Hottest month 22+
Coldest month 0-10
Huntsville
Latitude 35-40
Cfc oceanic
Hottest month 18-
Coldest month 0+
Neah Bay
Latitude 45-55
18C is too low, by this standard Melbourne(21.6), Paris(20.5) and even London(18.7) aren't oceanic. That means most Western Europe and southeastern Australia aren't oceanic, the only place that satisfy is San Francisco.
According to Koppen, the warmest month having a mean temperature below 22°C is considered oceanic. Maybe 20-21 is better than 18-.
18C is too low, by this standard Melbourne(21.6), Paris(20.5) and even London(18.7) aren't oceanic. That means most Western Europe and southeastern Australia aren't oceanic, the only place that satisfy is San Francisco.
According to Koppen, the warmest month having a mean temperature below 22°C is considered oceanic. Maybe 20-21 is better than 18-.
I don't really like the "oceanic" category anyway as I feel a major ecological boundary cuts it in half - that between climates where there is mostly winter plant dormancy eg in much of NW Europe and those where there is mostly year-round activity eg the S coast of South Africa, parts of SE Australia, the warmer parts of NZ, higher altitudes in the tropics such as Bogota etc.
To me the "oceanic" climates of NW Europe belong more naturally with the less extreme continental climates, being more like say New York than Port Elizabeth or Auckland.
I don't really like the "oceanic" category anyway as I feel a major ecological boundary cuts it in half - that between climates where there is mostly winter plant dormancy eg in much of NW Europe and those where there is mostly year-round activity eg the S coast of South Africa, parts of SE Australia, the warmer parts of NZ, higher altitudes in the tropics such as Bogota etc.
To me the "oceanic" climates of NW Europe belong more naturally with the less extreme continental climates, being more like say New York than Port Elizabeth or Auckland.
Where would you put the boundary between the two types of oceanic climates? I would guess a winter mean in the coldest month of around 7C would be the dividing line between the cool oceanic climates and the warm ones. This line would place Wellington, Hobart and Port Elizabeth in the warm oceanic category.
So, we should ask first, what’s wrong with the current classification?
The current one is effective, although it still has several flaws:
1- A tundra without any month below 0 and a continental tundra with some months below -30 are the same climate
2- No distinction between subtropical climates with rare frosts and the ones with regular frosts
3- Deserts and semi deserts are either hot or cold, the mild deserts of coastal Namibia can’t fit into those classifications
4- Continental climates have way too many subtypes, most subtypes barely even appear in the map
So here’s my attempt to improve it, so basically each climate in the list below contains:
[Letter] [name of the climate]
[temperature patterns]
[precipitation patterns]
[name of a town classified with that climate]
[where that climate is usually found]
So here’s the list
A tropical
Coldest month 18+
Af tropical rainforest
Driest month 2.4+
Manaus
Latitude 0-10
Am tropical monsoon
Driest month 2.4-
Wettest month 10+
Qionghai
Latitude 0-15
As tropical savanna
Driest month 2.4-
Wettest month 10-
Campo Grande
Latitude 5-25
B dry
Same as Köppen
Bwh hot desert
Same as Köppen
Aral
Latitude 15-35
Bsh hot semi arid
Same as Köppen
Petrolina
Latitude 5-40
Bsk cold semi arid
Same as Köppen
Reno
Latitude 30-50
Bwk cold desert
Same as Köppen
Latitude 30-45
Ba tropical dryland
Coldest month 18+
Agadez
Latitude 5-20
Bo mild dryland
Hottest month 18-
Luderitz
Latitude 15-30 in west coasts located in Africa and South America
subtropical
Coldest month 0-18
Cfaa humid subtropical
Hottest month 22+
Coldest month 10+
New Orleans
Latitude 20-30
Cfab hot summer temperate
Hottest month 22+
Coldest month 0-10
Huntsville
Latitude 35-40
I see you made a four letter category only for humid subtropical vs temperate(they're the same thing), why is there this ridiculous obsession with humid subtropical climates? Koppen mostly got it right, except for his temperature gradient from subtropical/continental to semi arid climates.
Where would you put the boundary between the two types of oceanic climates? I would guess a winter mean in the coldest month of around 7C would be the dividing line between the cool oceanic climates and the warm ones. This line would place Wellington, Hobart and Port Elizabeth in the warm oceanic category.
Probably around there, though I'm really more interested in the idea of broader categories rather than deciding precisely where the boundaries lie.
Where would you put the boundary between the two types of oceanic climates? I would guess a winter mean in the coldest month of around 7C would be the dividing line between the cool oceanic climates and the warm ones. This line would place Wellington, Hobart and Port Elizabeth in the warm oceanic category.
I'm thinking more of a shake-up of the system rather than just subdividing Koppen's Cfb category. Something along the lines of a new C-category (or whatever letter you want to use to denote a highest level group, roughly equivalent in size to Koppen's A, C or D etc categories) that groups together all the non-arid climates that are too cool to be tropical but warm enough year-round for significant plant growth. With subdivisions of course.
A - icecap and tundra climates
B - arid and semi-arid climates
C - tropical climates
D - climates too cool to be tropical, but with enough warmth year round for significant plant growth.
E - continental climates - including cooler-winter Koppen C climates. Mostly to all winter dormancy.
I've rearranged Koppen's order as according to his system you first identify whether a climate is icecap/tundra, then arid/semi-arid etc so it seems to make sense to order them in that way.
My biggest criticisms of Koppen-Geiger are 1) not having a subtropical temperature category and 2) not dividing arid/semiarid climates into tropical/subtropical/temperate/etc. temperature zones.
My system divides dry climates into their respective temperature zones.
My biggest criticisms of Koppen-Geiger are 1) not having a subtropical temperature category and 2) not dividing arid/semiarid climates into tropical/subtropical/temperate/etc. temperature zones.
My system divides dry climates into their respective temperature zones.
I can see his logic in having fewer temperature divisions for dry climates, as their dryness is their main feature. In a more extreme way, the polar and icecap climates are totally defined by their (cold) temperatures with precipitation being of minor importance so he didn't subdivide them by precipitation at all. If you divide the arid and semi-arid climates into as many temperature divisions as the Koppen A, C and D categories have, the effect is the arid subcategories are much small/less significant than the A, C and D ones are.
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.
