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.
Such a great post. It's so ridiculous to think that the southeast of North America is the archetypal subtropical continent just because European settlers happen to have lived there for 0.0002% of its lifespan.
You’re really overthinking this. The effect of the westerlies is still in play in the Southern Hemisphere. It’s simply that a small strip of land will not develop strong continental airmasses. If South America was wider, or more of its mass was centered in the midlatitudes, the effect of the westerlies would be more obvious there too. As it is, the westerlies still have an effect.
I also never said that the southeastern US is the archetypal subtropical climate (???) I said that it was a totally typical eastern subtropical climate. I.e., it is exactly what you would expect to find in the southeast of a large continent, there’s nothing surprising about its extreme characteristics.
Such a great post. It's so ridiculous to think that the southeast of North America is the archetypal subtropical continent just because European settlers happen to have lived there for 0.0002% of its lifespan.
You’re really overthinking this. The effect of the westerlies is still in play in the Southern Hemisphere. It’s simply that a small strip of land will not develop strong continental airmasses. If South America was wider, or more of its mass was centered in the midlatitudes, the effect of the westerlies would be more obvious there too. As it is, the westerlies still have an effect.
I also never said that the southeastern US is the archetypal subtropical climate (???) I said that it was a totally typical eastern subtropical climate. I.e., it is exactly what you would expect to find in the southeast of a large continent, there’s nothing surprising about its extreme characteristics.
That first statement does not follow from the second. First of all, the sample size is far too small to be able to label anything as "typical". Even if we ignore that though, at the current time the majority of southeastern subtropical climates are mild and only the minority are extreme. Just count them and you will see.
The climate of southeast North America may every be exactly what we expect to find at that particular location at this particular point in time. But that observation lacks any generalizability.
Places like Austin Texas and Tallahassee Florida can experience pretty extreme record cold temperatures given their latitude but then again this point had been mentioned a gazillion times before on this thread
That first statement does not follow from the second. First of all, the sample size is far too small to be able to label anything as "typical". Even if we ignore that though, at the current time the majority of southeastern subtropical climates are mild and only the minority are extreme. Just count them and you will see.
The climate of southeast North America may every be exactly what we expect to find at that particular location at this particular point in time. But that observation lacks any generalizability.
What I said in the sentence you bolded was that it's exactly what we should expect to find in the southeast region of a large continent. And that's true 100% of the time on Earth, as far as I can tell. So is something that's true 100% of the time 'not generalizable?'
If a large continent appeared in the Southern Hemisphere, its eastern area would be more extreme than its west coast. Seems pretty generalizable to me.
What I said in the sentence you bolded was that it's exactly what we should expect to find in the southeast region of a large continent. And that's true 100% of the time on Earth, as far as I can tell. So is something that's true 100% of the time 'not generalizable?'
If a large continent appeared in the Southern Hemisphere, its eastern area would be more extreme than its west coast. Seems pretty generalizable to me.
The issue is really generalizing about continental configurations when there are not enough continents and their configuration is too uneven to usefully generalize. With only six continents only two have large continental mass and east or west coasts in the mid latitudes. Many/most have unique configurations eg poleward facing coasts in the mid latitudes (Australia), east and west coasts meeting in the mid latitudes (Africa), are situated over a pole surrounded by ocean (Antarctica), enclose a polar sea (North America and Eurasia), have large almost landlocked seas in the west (Eurasia and Africa) etc.
Saying "if a large continent appeared in the Southern Hemisphere" is a bit like the old saying "if my grandmother had wheels, she would be a bus" i.e. a non-useful hypothetical. You could equally say "if the northern part of North America disappeared, its north coast would be like the south coast of Australia".
What I said in the sentence you bolded was that it's exactly what we should expect to find in the southeast region of a large continent. And that's true 100% of the time on Earth, as far as I can tell. So is something that's true 100% of the time 'not generalizable?'
If a large continent appeared in the Southern Hemisphere, its eastern area would be more extreme than its west coast. Seems pretty generalizable to me.
Another victim of the north-up mercator projection: Africa is 6 million square kilometers bigger than North America and there are no extreme climates in its southeast.
South Africa, Australia comparisons South to North
East London (32°59′S) and Newcastle (32°55′S) - East London is markedly less seasonal.
Durban (29°53′S) and Coffs Harbour (30°18′S) - Durban is again less seasonal in temperature, not as marked, but warmer in all seasons.
Richards Bay (28°48′S) and Byron Bay (28°38′S) - temperature patterns become more similar, but Richards Bay is warmer in all seasons.
Yes, there are beautiful climates in that part of South Africa. I think I agree with you, they probably deserve to be at the top of the list.
I do wish we could see updated 1991-2020 averages for them. Back in 1990 East London was probably the warmest oceanic climate in the world; I suspect it's in the Cfa zone now.
Unobtainum's statement has some merit. In German, the Cfa climate is often called Ostseitenklima which would translate to "East Side Climate" while the Csa/Csb Mediterranean climate is called Westseitenklima i.e. "West Side Climate". Now that's of course just German, but that is after all the language Köppen and Geiger worked in, so in some ways this entire discussion is based on German-centric concepts.
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.
