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.
Mine would be the requirement for the tropical rainforest climate. I think you only need about 10 months of 2.6+ inches/month, not 12. Temp requirements are OK. Miami IMO is a tropical rainforest, even though it doesn't have heavy vegetation like a typical rainforest. But, it isn't b/c of the lack of rain. 80+ inches of rain already this year will confirm that.
Another one is subtropical climates. I think any city where it's average temps range from 55 to 80+/month with a sufficient amount of rain in 9 months of the year would do.
Change the temperature threshold of subtropical climates. No climate that averages below freezing in any month deserves to be called subtropical. A mean of somewhere between 6-10C in the coldest month sounds better.
Keep the subtropics the way it is - the original Koeppen system does best with that definition*. The only real deficiency is the arid and semi-arid climate classification. That needs to be re-examined, and having only two thermal categories doesn't seem right. There are more differences in the deserts and steppes than two thermal categories.
I might also sign onto a classification of "varieties" within the bona fide climate zones, to better differentiate climate within a certain zone. This would be more for "silly, human-centric use" than the current systems which emphasize more natural factors, but I think it has some merit. There could be, within the Csa/Csb zones, a supplement added to the label which tells whether the summers still have a little rain or are just bone-dry, or whether it's on the dry side or wet side overall. Milder subarctic climates and ordinary subarctic climates could have another variety system, and we could even throw in snow categories for subtropical climates (Cfa/Cwa zones), such as whether they usually get no snow, one dusting, one significant snow, or multiple significant snows. Naturally this whole thing is subjective and would depend on whoever is writing the labels, for example in a particular database, book, or website, but it is a quixotic addition I think should be thrown out there.
*If you wish to debate the merits of that definition, there's another thread for that. This topic is for telling what we would change.
Split the subtropical zone into two, it's way too broad. Or may be something like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Thinking of a way to classify the "temperate climates" without cold winters (similar to Koppen C) I'd do a 4 way classification. First division would be those that have no month colder than about 7°C. These would have only occasional frost, able to support a large variety of plant life and not have winters cold enough to truly change usual outdoor activities and habits. They are no tropical because some months are noticeably different from the hottest season and there are some frosts — a tropical climate requires constant heat, the 18°C threshold for every month Koppen uses is about what to me would be summer-like, and is close to the requirements of some tropical plants so I'd Koppen's border.
Then I divide uses Koppen's thershold for hot summers — warmest month > 22°C. This to prevent a climate like this from getting a subtropical designation. Since I've already divided the C climates by winters, there are no issues with grouping the climates with the coldest winters with the rest of the C climates. I keep Koppen's -3°C winter boundary for C climates since that fits closer with the line of winterlong snow.So,
Then the usual dry winter, dry summer subtypes, the "humid subtropical" name obviously changes for the dry summer subtype. For D climates with mean winter temperatures < -3°C I'd use Koppen's classification, though for New England it produces odd results, "warm continental", "cold oceanic", Dfa (maybe not with the -3°C threshold), and Dfb would all occur within 100 miles of each other.
The warm oceanic climates are a mild climate lovers' paradise. My system allows one to pick them out easily, and their plant growth and weather patterns are usually quite different from the hot summer subtypes. In much of the world, the warm oceanic climates have a dry summer, with the southern hemisphere being the biggest exception. Personally, my ideal is a climate straddling the boundary between warm oceanic and humid subtropical.
I think there may also be an issue with tropical climates, the monsoon / savanna distinction seems to not have the best division. Have to think about that more… a topic not discussed here much, probably because few if any posters live in tropical climates.
Keep the subtropics the way it is - the original Koeppen system does best with that definition*. *If you wish to debate the merits of that definition, there's another thread for that. This topic is for telling what we would change.
This thread is about what one would change in that classification. If that includes the definition of subtropical climates, so be it. It's not up to you to decide whether we have the right to dislike the original definition and/or discuss it in this thread.
Quote:
The only real deficiency is the arid and semi-arid climate classification.
In your opinion.
In MY opinion - which is what this thread is about, subjective opinions, not sectarian statements - I'd say two things need to be changed:
1. Subtropical climates should stick to the 0°C threshold, not -3°C by any stretch of the imagination. We could even extend that limit; to me -4°C/4°C is more continental than subtropical...A typical subtropical climate would be Tokyo IMHO, with 2/9°C winters and 23/30°C summers.
2. The "B" Category is useless. Instead, one letter should represent dry climates, e.g. x, e.g. Cxa for Las Vegas - we could envision two letters, x and z, the former for semi-arid climates, the latter for truly arid climates. But the first and foremost component of a climate should always be its winter temperature, not its aridity; so the first letter should always indicate that, just like with all other categories (e.g. A, C, F, etc.).
Other than that, I find Koeppen's system to be very good.
Change the temperature threshold of subtropical climates. No climate that averages below freezing in any month deserves to be called subtropical. A mean of somewhere between 6-10C in the coldest month sounds better.
Definitely agree, under Koppen even where I live is almost subtropical,
January avg temp is -4c and our avg July temp is slightly over 22c.
We get nice warm long summers that can feel tropical (well some days),
winters are chilly,with most plants dormant
Cfa should be split into Subtropical and Temperate, NYC and Orlando should not be the same climate. Arid climates should be split into temperature zones, at least more than two. Finally, climates with low seasonal variation that are too cool to be tropical should have their own classification.
Cfa should be split into Subtropical and Temperate, NYC and Orlando should not be the same climate. Arid climates should be split into temperature zones, at least more than two. Finally, climates with low seasonal variation that are too cool to be tropical should have their own classification.
Quote:
Originally Posted by forgotten username
I think it should include sunshine stats.
Also, some categories are way too broad (cfa and cfb come to mind)
I agree.
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.
, 
),
