How would you change the climate classification? (warmest, temperatures, cities)
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 think using average annual temp solves the oceanic/continental divide. If we use 10C annual average temp as the cut off between cold and warm temperate, then places like NYC and Vancouver are warm temperate (barely in Vancouver's case) and Toronto and Glasgow are cold temperate. Whether a place is continental or oceanic shouldn't matter as long as they meet the average annual temp thresholds IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe90
This wouldn't enable someone to draw as many conclusions about the respective climates though.
Toronto resembles the NYC climate much more than it does Glasgow's, and Vancouver is closer to Glasgow than NYC, but this system would disguise that fact.
The terms Oceanic cool/warm and Continental cool/warm would be far more useful.
I think we need to include both how Continental a place is as well as the average annual temp. So vancouver ends being called Warm temperate Oceanic and a place like toronto get's called Cool Continental while New york is Warm Continental.
I think we need to include both how Continental a place is as well as the average annual temp. So vancouver ends being called Warm temperate Oceanic and a place like toronto get's called Cool Continental while New york is Warm Continental.
Yes, this doesn't make any sense. Many/most continental climate becomes 'cool' just because of the winters, despite having an average high of 30C in the summer. If we have a warm summer/hot summer classification already, why not extend it to the winters?
Well, boreal and subarctic are exactly the same thing, so...
Not for all. Some researchers and some countries do not see these as the same.
For instance, in Canada, taiga is the northernmost part of forest, in climate terms not far away from the tundra; while boreal is the forests further south, bordering the temperate forest.
I suggest to use this distinction in categorizing the current huge and very broad "subarctic" climate zone, so that subarctic would equal the area in Canada known as taiga.
Last edited by Jakobsli; 11-08-2013 at 10:37 AM..
Reason: spelling
NO i don't and I wouldn't call it sub arctic either, it's boreal. if you asked me if Fairbanks,Alaska is subarctic I would say no it's a highly continental boreal climate.
Mean annual temperature in Fairbanks is -2.8 / 26.9F so it is below freezing /0C, I would classify it as subarctic. Permafrost should be common.
Little precipitation in winter, much more in summer, but total is low. So it is continental subarctic/ continental taiga climate. http://www.climate-zone.com/climate/...centigrade.htm
Last edited by Jakobsli; 11-08-2013 at 11:00 AM..
Reason: link added
This wouldn't follow any logical order though. Melbourne for example, has a higher average temperature than NYC, but is only mild temperate. Your warm/mild distinction would give no indication as to who actually has the warmer climate.
I'm aware, and I never intended to leave it that way. I just wanted to distinguish the two.
Quote:
Wouldn't it just be better to say hot summer or cool summer if you want to highlight the warm season?
I actually did that at first, but the naming was tacky.
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.
