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.
They aren't subtropical then, they are continential.
Anywhere that has large seasonal swings in temperature is Continential, I do not care if its warm most of the year.
Your way of reasoning is clearly misguided. Dallas has one of the largest seasonal swings in the US, and it is definitely not continental like you pretend it to be.
Funny because Greenland occasionally gets the remenant of a Tropical system. Are you telling me that Greenland is subtropical.
Alaska, and Arctic Russia, also occasionally receive remnants of tropical weather, but that is not the same as being traversed by the eye of a hurricane.
They aren't subtropical then, they are continential.
Anywhere that has large seasonal swings in temperature is Continential, I do not care if its warm most of the year.
I think there are two definitions of continental here - one refers to seasonal swings, on a scale of continental vs. temperate, without regard to warmth or cold. A climate that is -100F all year and a climate that's +90F all year will be equally temperate in these terms. Also, a climate that averages 50F in winter and 120F in summer would be described as continental, despite the fact that it would be subtropical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaul
Define cold. Anywhere outside the tropics that is still affected by tropical weather systems is subtropical, period! New York city and Boston are prone to bombardments by hurricanes, which makes them rightfully subtropical. Continental climates, as the name suggest, are found further inland (think of Chicago and Minneapolis) and are rarely impacted by tropical weather. The word subtropical was formulated to describe the range of climates that exist in between the tropical and subarctic zones of the world. Let's not get too fixated on the suffix "-tropical-" and forget the real mechanics by which climates are classified.
I agree somewhat with that, though there are certain continental climates that are affected by hurricanes; Newfoundland, for example. However, there seems to be a rough correlation between the Koeppen Cfa zone and the areas that are hurricane-prone, at least in North America. By the time the Dfa/Dfb zone is reached, whether far inland or far north, the hurricanes have typically dissipated or transformed into mid-latitude cyclones. The latter applies to the UK and their tropical remnants. I believe that Kaul's point only applies to the areas that get tropical cyclones while they are still tropical, not the places that are hit by tropical cyclones after they have transformed into something else.
Also, cold is relative to your perception. Most of the people here come from areas that are in the Cfa zone to begin with, so their definition of "darn cold" would spring from that. Someone outside the Cfa zone, let's say in Winnipeg (which actually gets a real winter), would discern a clear difference between his climate and the "wannabe-continentals" . Someone used to Vostok Station may consider Winnipeg to have mild winters, but it only proves my point about differing perceptions. Don't assume that your own Cfa-colored perception of "darn cold" necessarily applies everywhere. I'd also like to add that Vostok Station and Winnipeg's basic nature is roughly the same, in that they have real winters and they have to deal with the cold and the snow. Someone used to Vostok wouldn't find Winnipeg to be different in its basic nature, i.e. it's only a difference of degree (at least in winter). Move him farther south to a place like NYC or Louisville and the change is quite stark - the snowpack is gone, melting is the rule of the day, and rain is dominant over snow. There is a difference of kind here. By the time he gets past the 18C isotherm there is no cool season of any kind, and you enter the realm of the true tropics.
As for Sydney and Boston being in the same climate zone, I'd also like to point out that that's the nature of the beast. Climates that are in the same zone, but on opposite sides (like one on the warm border and the other on the cold border) will be pretty different because of their borderline natures. Timmins, Ontario and Juneau, Alaska are in the same climate zone (Dfb), but their climates are pretty different. That's because Timmins is almost subarctic, and Juneau has a lot of maritime moderation and less seasonality. Any large climate zone like this can be sliced and diced, but there really isn't much point to it.
Your way of reasoning is clearly misguided. Dallas has one of the largest seasonal swings in the US, and it is definitely not continental like you pretend it to be.
Why not? Its continental location is responsible for these large temperature swings. What does it matter if it's not as cold as Winnipeg? Not only are the temperature swings extreme among seasons, but within seasons. It could be January and 90 degrees outside or it could be 0 degrees (Farenheit) in the same month. If that's not an extremely continental characteristic, then it don't know what is.
I think one problem is the failure to categorize things hierarchically. What do Dallas and Winnipeg have in common? Continental locations, and continental climates. Not the same kind of continental climates, though; that could be further sub-divided. What do San Diego and London have in common? Maritime climates, but again, not the same type. But the superset is the same. San Diego has a Mediterranean climate, but it makes sense to think of that as a subset of an oceanic climate.
As for Sydney and Boston being in the same climate zone, I'd also like to point out that that's the nature of the beast.
That's the nature of the beast by the logic of "must have a >22C month" which is messed up in the head. It mistakes relatively cold continental climates for warm climates and warm oceanic climates for cold climates. That's what happens when you want to measure warmth but measure just the warmest month instead.
Sydney and Boston are just different climates, it's as simple as that. Any classification that has them in the same group, has it wrong.
Sure, they're different climates. Just like St. John's and Quebec City are different climates, and just like Miami and San Juan are different climates. No place has exactly the same averages as another. If the only argument you guys have left is "well, just because", then I can call it a victory and move on to other threads. *clicks "submit reply"* *closes window*
Oh right compare the differences in winter averages of Sydney to Boston, compared to St.John's and Quebec City. Difference much? Any donkey can see that Boston is nothing near subtropical and Sydney barely has a winter to speak of. Such idiocy rampant here... and not from me. No, from anyone who thinks Boston is subtropical and Sydney isn't.
Only on this forum have I ever heard such claptrap that Philadelphia is subtropical. Every single piece of local literature, reports, analysis, whatever, never, ever describes this area as subtropical. I don't give a crap what Koppen wrote, we are not subtropical, and no one here thinks so either. And if we are not, neither is Boston.
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.
. Someone used to Vostok Station may consider Winnipeg to have mild winters, but it only proves my point about differing perceptions. Don't assume that your own Cfa-colored perception of "darn cold" necessarily applies everywhere. I'd also like to add that Vostok Station and Winnipeg's basic nature is roughly the same, in that they have real winters and they have to deal with the cold and the snow. Someone used to Vostok wouldn't find Winnipeg to be different in its basic nature, i.e. it's only a difference of degree (at least in winter). Move him farther south to a place like NYC or Louisville and the change is quite stark - the snowpack is gone, melting is the rule of the day, and rain is dominant over snow. There is a difference of kind here. By the time he gets past the 18C isotherm there is no cool season of any kind, and you enter the realm of the true tropics.