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’m not sure why deciduous trees are used as a reason why somewhere isn’t subtropical. As previously mentioned, they appear in tropical savannah climates as well. Also, the main reason why they’re not as common in the native environments of somewhere like Australia has much more to do with evolutionary biology than simple temperatures. In the Victorian Alps and Great Snowy mountains you can go skiing in the middle of July past fully leaved Eucalyptus trees in -5°C weather. It’s not like they would all die off if someone planted these in Kentucky
I cannot say enough how posters like Ed mountain and the Tom77 guy attack the inland south by contrasting it with coastal Georgia/lower South Carlonia and Florida.
One way they do this is by hunting for winter pics of inland south areas with deciduous vegetation and then selecting pics of cities like Charleston with live oak street canopies.
I try to counter this by posting pics of Augusta with plenty of winter greenery and this is kind of playing into their hand with all their false climate crap to begin with. There's patches of deciduous forest here(as well as in Savannah which I will get to), most of those trees are southern type stuff like sweetgum, water oak, turkey oak, ect.
If you listen to those two posters especially, you'd get the impression that Savannah is mostly live oaks and other evergreens but that is not the case, it's almost entirely pine trees and patches of deciduous trees, these are screen shots of Savannah in winter. One shot is of downtown where it was carefully landscaped, and the other is the more natural landscape.
Savannah(and Augusta) has areas predominantly winter green and some areas like those pics, but these guys are arguing in bad faith, I want to demolish their deceptions.
But you're right subtropical does not mean evergreen everywhere, heck many of our winter deciduous trees here like chinaberry and crepe myrtles are from tropical/subtropical Asia.
Are you saying vegetation and ecosystem is meaningless to subtropical climates?, and are just places with hot summers?
Oceanic =/= subtropical
Subtropical =/tropical
Hot, humid summers and mild winters (I.e. warmer than humid continental) are the defining features.
We already have classifications for oceanic climates and tropical climates, I don’t see why humid subtropical climates can’t be distinct from those.
Hot, humid summers and mild winters (I.e. warmer than humid continental) are the defining features.
We already have classifications for oceanic climates and tropical climates, I don’t see why humid subtropical climates can’t be distinct from those.
This doesn't really answer the question though. Are you are saying that vegetation can't be used to distinguish a humid subtropical climate, from a humid continental climate?
But you're right subtropical does not mean evergreen everywhere, heck many of our winter deciduous trees here like chinaberry and crepe myrtles are from tropical/subtropical Asia.
Subtropical can mean evergreen everywhere though and until I see the US southeast looking like this in the dead of winter at the same latitude as Myrtle Beach it will remain inferior for my tastes.
Towlers Bay AL
Anton Leddin, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
This doesn't really answer the question though. Are you are saying that vegetation can't be used to distinguish a humid subtropical climate, from a humid continental climate?
I agree with you that you can tell some things using vegetation. I disagree with the deciduous trees being used as the indicator though. Most humid continental climates in the Eastern US and East/Central Canada fit into either the mixed wood plains or taiga biomes. The transition to Carolinian forest corresponds pretty well with the Koeppen classification of subtropical. This is an area of deciduous forest, though.
Here’s Thredbo, NSW inland from Ed’s picture.
Same family of trees in both pictures but they’re not common in the US in the same way you don’t see pandas or tigers. I bet these trees would do just fine if you planted them in Louisville or Memphis
I agree with you that you can tell some things using vegetation. I disagree with the deciduous trees being used as the indicator though. Most humid continental climates in the Eastern US and East/Central Canada fit into either the mixed wood plains or taiga biomes. The transition to Carolinian forest corresponds pretty well with the Koeppen classification of subtropical. This is an area of deciduous forest, though.
Here’s Thredbo, NSW inland from Ed’s picture.
Same family of trees in both pictures but they’re not common in the US in the same way you don’t see pandas or tigers. I bet these trees would do just fine if you planted them in Louisville or Memphis
I don't see deciduousness being the indicator, but dormancy as the indicator - many deciduous plants don't go dormant, while many evergreen trees while not dormant by definition, are still in a similar state with no active growth.
The question is, are ecosystems with predominantly dormant deciduous trees and/or non active evergreens, fundamentally different to environments with non dormant deciduous and continually active evergreens?
- If the answer is yes, then wouldn't this represent a fundamental shift in how vegetation relates to climate?
- If the answer is no, then why is climate not relevant when comparing deciduous dormant/non active evergreen environments to environments that have active growth year round?
I bet these trees would do just fine if you planted them in Louisville or Memphis
And this is where the huge emphasis on Southern US record lows stem from. It seems strange to the laymen that operate on the microscale and short term, so the dots aren't as easily connected. But as you extend to the deep macroscale and long term, it become much more significant — and that is captured exemplarily in the native ecology.
Check it. Despite the high elevation, Thredbo doesn't have a record low below 0°F. Those of Memphis and Louisville are well below that. And that is huge when it comes to determining the presence of native evergreen flora: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thredb..._Wales#Climate
Subtropical can mean evergreen everywhere though and until I see the US southeast looking like this in the dead of winter at the same latitude as Myrtle Beach it will remain inferior for my tastes.
Towlers Bay AL
Anton Leddin, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
Talk about moving the goal posts, so now you're comparing coastal South Carolina to Australia?
I think I've proven well you(or the Tom77 guy) really have no substance to your climate views, it's just a bunch of arbitrary pseudo-scientific jumble and then you accuse others of "bending the rules".
And this is where the huge emphasis on Southern US record lows stem from. It seems strange to the laymen that operate on the microscale and short term, so the dots aren't as easily connected. But as you extend to the deep macroscale and long term, it become much more significant — and that is captured exemplarily in the native ecology.
Check it. Despite the high elevation, Thredbo doesn't have a record low below 0°F. Those of Memphis and Louisville are well below that. And that is huge when it comes to determining the presence of native evergreen flora: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thredb..._Wales#Climate
What’s the significance of 0 fahrenheit? This part of Australia gets deep freezes every winter. The native trees are well adapted to frosts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe90
I don't see deciduousness being the indicator, but dormancy as the indicator - many deciduous plants don't go dormant, while many evergreen trees while not dormant by definition, are still in a similar state with no active growth.
The question is, are ecosystems with predominantly dormant deciduous trees and/or non active evergreens, fundamentally different to environments with non dormant deciduous and continually active evergreens?
- If the answer is yes, then wouldn't this represent a fundamental shift in how vegetation relates to climate?
- If the answer is no, then why is climate not relevant when comparing deciduous dormant/non active evergreen environments to environments that have active growth year round?
Yes I agree they’re different environments. There has to be a range of environments under any climate classification. Ecology/botany and climate have some overlap but I don’t agree that they should be used to define one another to the same extent that you do.
If a plant sheds its leaves during a dry season isn’t it still dormant? I thought the green colour of the leaves was necessary for photosynthesis.
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.
