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.
Basically I think if a place stays above 30f for 3 years but drops to 20-29f lows six times in the next 2 years
we should not say 32, 31, 33, 20, 20 = 32 (median)
nor say 32, 31, 33, 20, 20 = 20(mode)
we should count the five coldest lows from the five years like
20, 28, 27, 24, 20 =24 (median of the five coldest in five years)
but instead of 5 years do this with 30 year periods.
Basically I think if a place stays above 30f for 3 years but drops to 20-29f lows six times in the next 2 years
we should not say 32, 31, 33, 20, 20 = 32 (median)
nor say 32, 31, 33, 20, 20 = 20(mode)
we should count the five coldest lows from the five years like
20, 28, 27, 24, 20 =24 (median of the five coldest in five years)
but instead of 5 years do this with 30 year periods.
Maybe for plant growing but not for weather monitoring. I would just stick to whatever temperature most winters don't go below in that 30 year period for weather monitoring, since there is no monitoring-killing drawback to the odd colder temperature and it is more realistic with what can be expected most of the time too.
A definition that does not work, because it only takes into account the lowest temperature and nothing more.
And again, even if it did, the definition does not apply to the subjects of the matter. So even if we give it the time of day, the median takes precedence over the mean for Charleston and Tybee Island since nobody grows commercial crops there but anybody can monitor the weather.
None of that matters.
The USDA hardiness zone is defined by the average annual minimum winter temperature.
Any other calculation produces a different metric. This new metric may be better or it may be worse--but it's not the USDA hardiness zone.
So go ahead and calculate the median but you'll have to call it something different. You can call it "Can't think of zone" if you want; just don't call it the USDA hardiness zone.
Maybe for plant growing but not for weather monitoring. I would just stick to whatever temperature most winters don't go below in that 30 year period for weather monitoring, since there is no monitoring-killing drawback to the odd colder temperature and it is more realistic with what can be expected most of the time too.
Yeah I think that the way I mentioned is best for agriculture. If there are 3 warm years and 1 cold year with 4 cold days or 4 years with 1 cold day each it will create a different metric using median, and even the mean. However for agriculture the 4 cold days in 1 year is not likely to be better than 1 cold day per year. In some cases it might be much worse.
As Ed mention though all of this I guess is besides the point. I have my quibble with the USDA zone now that I'm thinking it through carefully, but in reality it is what it is.
The USDA hardiness zone is defined by the average annual minimum winter temperature.
Any other calculation produces a different metric. This new metric may be better or it may be worse--but it's not the USDA hardiness zone.
So go ahead and calculate the median but you'll have to call it something different. You can call it "Can't think of zone" if you want; just don't call it the USDA hardiness zone.
Oh, THAT's what you meant. I see what you mean, the Can't think of zone sounds like a pretty good name then.
The only matter of importance, lay among the mean temperature. Deviations from the mean on no account constitute any form of defining characteristic of climate at hand. Indeed the Southeast United States, are sub-tropical.
Which brings us back to the observation that the average for downturn Charleston 1973-2002 was 24°F which is USDA hardiness zone 9A.
Even so I would expect it to easily jump to 9b for 1991-2020 (bringing us back to the other observation concerning what it would be for the area away from the water in 1991-2020). It's a very small jump from removing a ton of freak cold, or in other words overkill to be simply borderline 9b.
100+m from the water could be not far from -3C for 1991-2020? Not sure.
But as everywhere else in the world agrees, Paddy... they ain't 'quintessentially subtropical', lol
( oh dear... gunna get old mate OP started again...lol...
They absolutely are quintessentially SUBtropical. The Koppen climate classification correctly links those climates from their causes, and the quintessential subtropical climate I chose is smack dab in the middle of it.
And, like it or not, SUBtropical climates are easily allowed to get all the forms of weather you allude to further down below. It fits with the root cause and is especially reasonable for those that go continental transitioning.
I say this with respect, but across all these various threads you have consistently ignored this point. It's coming across as being very ignorant to what the full continental-to-tropical transition is due to not experiencing it, or not liking the results and just deliberately ignoring that they are correct.
Quote:
More likely 'quintessential subcontinental',
Besides what I said above, you do realize subcontinental is not an accurate label right? Sub-(insert climate) would imply it has some features of whatever climate comes after the sub, but some features distinctly unlike it (hence the sub).
For subtropical that's easy: hot summers and overall warmth dominance, but some non-tropical weather (like cool-mild winter averages and some freezing temperatures). Continental is generally the full range of all 4 seasons, which.....you can't really put as only a partial feature of a climate.
Quote:
what with ice days,
Ice days specifically are a non-regular occurrence in Dallas. Most winters in the 1991-2020 normals did not get any.
Even if it did regularly get ice days, that would be perfectly reasonable for the SUB part of subtropical.
Quote:
frost, snow and stuff....
Which are also perfectly reasonable for the SUB part of subtropical. Tell me, why can't a quintessential SUBtropical climate like Dallas get a median of like 23 frosts a year, not normally dipping below -7C, and a day of snow on the ground every other year (which by the way does not mean it is any colder, it is just precipitation and can even snow at up to 10C)?
That's objectively very reasonable for a climate halfway between continental and tropical. It does not just magically make the transition from cold winters to warm winters, there must be a middle ground and in Dallas' case that is mild averages but some cold weather thrown in (and of course some winter heat too).
Quote:
as well as hot humid summers.
Subtropical climates are indeed hot and humid in the summer! In fact, they tend to get hotter in the summer than tropical climates - Dallas' 30.8C hottest month of July is 2.9C hotter than Everglades City's 28.8C hottest month of August and 6.5 C hotter than Everglades City's annual average of 24.3C!
Quote:
But yes, I like them myself, but if they cant grow a Jacaranda Tree, well....stuff that....too cold for my liking.... lol
I know nothing about the all-so-popular vegetation, so I can't comment on whether they can grow Jacaranda Trees. But even if they can't and are therefore too cold for your liking, that means your liking is a warmer subtropical climate compared to a quintessential subtropical (yes, subtropical, not subcontinental) climate.
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.
? Sub-(insert climate) would imply it has some features of whatever climate comes after the sub, but some features distinctly unlike it (hence the sub).
