How would you change the climate classification? (meteorology, map, North)
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.
Motueka can breed the exact same kind of Oryza Sativa that's common in Cfa zones in East Asia and the Southeastern U.S.?
The given example classification to fruit comparison isn't linked to each other, just showing apple and grape both are fruit but growing different ways fundamentally.
Not sure about exact kind of rice, but rice can and has been grown where I'm, so it can't be used as an example of something that grows in NYC, but not here.
Quote:
If you were living in Hong Kong or Xi'an, sure you'd complain why Haikou or Beijing doesn't contain same letters. This is paradoxical what you saying.
Not quite sure what you're getting at here with your talk of paradoxes, but separating my climate from a very similar climate only 20km away, and lumping it in with Copenhagen, is essentially pointless and misleading if it doesn't highlight a fundamental change.
Like you said, the botanical approach of "subtropical" might be reasonable if using 8 months >10°C, despite January average temperature seems too cold for Mokpo having similar as Washington D.C., I've heard articles that they're projecting to plant massive subtropical crops in the southern coasts of South Korea near future. Then counting "subtropical" a literal sense: A climate resembles the tropical-like condition partial time of the year, C*a climates are only considered here.
Map(Source: bonap.org) on the linked thread also uses approximately 10°C isotherm as borderline of (Warm) Temperate and Subtropical. Take account it's based on 1971-2000 normals. I edited the photo by marking it along with the color.
Here's my conclusion, anyone may use 3 methods depending on their preference:
①Progressive view: 8 months >10°C monthly mean
②Conservative view: Coldest month average between 10~18°C
â‘¢Realistic view: Cfa, Cwa, Csa under Koppen Classification
Not sure about exact kind of rice, but rice can and has been grown where I'm, so it can't be used as an example of something that grows in NYC, but not here.
Not quite sure what you're getting at here with your talk of paradoxes, but separating my climate from a very similar climate only 20km away, and lumping it in with Copenhagen, is essentially pointless and misleading if it doesn't highlight a fundamental change.
I'll ask once again, rephrase your sentence, separating Zhanjiang to Haikou(135km away), and lumping together with Xi'an(1,460km away) is acceptable for you?
I'll ask once again, rephrase your sentence, separating Zhanjiang to Haikou(135km away), and lumping together with Xi'an(1,460km away) is acceptable for you?
Nope, but then I'm not actually advocating doing that.
When you say a certain type of climate, that doesn't mean anything in the real world - People from Denmark that come here, don't talk about familiarity of climate. The biggest effect of Koppen's classification schemes is to take general ideas about climates,and mold them to to strong stereotypes about climates, that may or may not be true.
I'm arguing that it doesn't matter what category Motueka is in, as long as it's defined by it's single most relevant climatic feature, which for Motueka, is moderation in all seasons and only minor (50%)seasonal rainfall distribution. For deserts, the single most relevant feature is lack of rainfall (for whatever reason) and that's the logical way to group.
Similarity of nearby climates (and for the same reason) is absolutely a reason not to separate them - classification is an attempt at science, and as such should not create artificial divisions that lessen understanding of any place's climate. Taking place A, which is a near copy of place B (and only 20 km away), and saying it's actually a climate that can be somehow found to be fundamentally actually more like place C (10000km away)even though it's 6C cooler, is leading people to conclusions that don't exist.
Not sure what your Singapore-Dikson example means, but why would you take a climate 20km from Singapore, and say it's actually a climate fundamentally more similar to Dikson?
I don't think I even understand your position to criticise it as it seems too confused. Are you against even the idea of grouping climates into categories? As soon as you group climates into categories you get neighbouring places and climates that fall into different categories.
My Singapore-Dikson example is that clearly the two places are radically different but at each point in between the climate is going to be very similar to its immediate neighbours. If you insist that two similar climates should never be separated into different categories, the only way to achieve that would be to have Singapore, Dikson and everything in between in the same category (or not have categories at all). Otherwise at some point you're going to go from one place that is just wet enough in its dry season to be a tropical rainforest climate to a near neighbour that is barely dry enough to be a tropical monsoon climate. We can quibble all day about exactly where the boundary should be, but where ever it's put you're going to get an Af place right next to an Am with the two only ever so slightly different.
No-one is going to say that somewhere 20 km from Singapore is more like Dikson than Singapore. But they would say that Singapore is more like distant Belem than it is like closer Bangkok.
I don't think I even understand your position to criticise it as it seems too confused. Are you against even the idea of grouping climates into categories? As soon as you group climates into categories you get neighbouring places and climates that fall into different categories.
My Singapore-Dikson example is that clearly the two places are radically different but at each point in between the climate is going to be very similar to its immediate neighbours. If you insist that two similar climates should never be separated into different categories, the only way to achieve that would be to have Singapore, Dikson and everything in between in the same category (or not have categories at all). Otherwise at some point you're going to go from one place that is just wet enough in its dry season to be a tropical rainforest climate to a near neighbour that is barely dry enough to be a tropical monsoon climate. We can quibble all day about exactly where the boundary should be, but where ever it's put you're going to get an Af place right next to an Am with the two only ever so slightly different.
No-one is going to say that somewhere 20 km from Singapore is more like Dikson than Singapore. But they would say that Singapore is more like distant Belem than it is like closer Bangkok.
Essentially I don't really believe in classifications at all, other than vague groupings climate linked by the single most relevant feature of those climates - in the case of Oceanic climates, that single relevant feature is temperature moderation in all seasons. For deserts, that single relevant feature is low rainfall, and so on.
I see even less use for rigid numerical thresholds, that create an all or nothing situation, and drives a wedge between otherwise similar climates and then links them with much different climates - it's the opposite of good science.
If I want to understand any climate between Singapore and Dikson, I would be far better served by checking it's wiki box, rather than applying some very broad label.
In the real world, climate classification doesn't actually have a use.
Splitting the Cfb group up so as to have Motueka distinct from Auckland or Wellington, but the same as Copenhagen , has no basis under the genetic model, or under a day to day weather model
Genetically, would you say Motueka's climate is more like Sydney or Paris? And why?
The problem with the "arid" classification is that it's inconsistent.
In the Koppen classification we have five bands: A, B, C, D and E. Four of those bands are temperature classifications, while B is a precipitation classification. In the other climates (except E) the second letter denotes precipitation pattern, such as the f in Dfa or the m in Am. It wouldn't be hard to add letters for semi-arid and arid. B should be a temperature band like the others, with cooler winters than the tropical A but warmer than the temperate C.
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.
