This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
There's inconsistent naming for the Csc climate on this article. It's referred to as the "dry-summer maritime subalpine climate" and as "dry-summer maritime" climate, and is grouped in with the oceanic climates. Elsewhere, in the articles for the few locations the Csc climate type, it's listed as a "dry-summer subpolar oceanic climate".
I can find no reputable academic references to this climate by a particular name. I'd like to propose:
This is for the following reasons:
Your argument makes a lot of sense, however in order to avoid original research (i.e. until we find a published source that says Med. subalpine/subarctic), I would recommend using dry-summer subalpine/subarctic climate instead. Berkserker ( talk) 04:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
The various names currently given for the Csc climate type are all unsourced. They seem to be different derivations of the current naming conventions for the other Köppen types. To avoid OR, would it make more sense to eliminate any name altogether and simply refer to it as the Csc Köppen type? I can't find any citation for dry-summer subalpine/subarctic, or really anything at all in the literature. I'm guessing that's due to Csc's extreme rarity. Redtitan ( talk) 05:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually the real identifier for the subarctic climates is the third letter c for only 1-3 months above 10 C.
However as subarctic climates are boreal, having a D would be a prerequisite since even hemiboreal climates require a max winter mean of 0 C. The third letter c is what actually separates subarctic from continental due to summers failing to meet the criterion to be classified as warm.
Another important thing that needs clarification is that the terms subarctic/subpolar/subalpine are used interchangeably and actually mean the same thing. Therefore the term subarctic doesn't really have anything to do with the location's proximity to the poles. A region can meet the criteria even if it is on the equator.
Like you said, instead of defining Cfc zones as cool summer oceanic, it has been established to call these regions subpolar oceanic, which makes me think this name was given due to convenience and practicality (since mostly these zones are closer to the poles) instead of using a scientific identifier.
The truth is, the only thing that separates Med. climates from oceanic climates is the summer precipitation. The temperature range is the same. The only reason Cfc zones are closer to the poles is because the closer you are to the poles the higher chance you have of having a pronounced summer precipitation, not that they are cooler.
So, if we are not calling Cfc zones cool-summer oceanic but subpolar oceanic instead, in this regard we need to call Csc regions sub polar Med instead of cool-summer Med. Otherwise it will simply be a case of positive discrimination for the oceanic zones just because they sound colder, which is further away from the truth.
However, if we then name the Csc zones subpolar Med, then we are left with the question "how to name the Dsc regions?" which again require the term subpolar/subarctic Med..
At the end of the day we have no other choice but to stick with the sources. Maybe this is exactly why Csc zones were called maritime subpolar/subalpine while Dsc zones were called Med subarctic.. For instance take a look at this page for brainstorming, even though I don't know where they have taken these terms.
I think the safest thing would be to research publications further, before coming to a conclusion. I will also look into this issue when I have the time. Berkserker ( talk) 22:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
According to the Spanish version Madrid is borderline BSk [1].So it needs to go Weatherextremes ( talk) 01:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Well the 1961-1990 WMO normals suggest Madrid is borderline [6].In fact Valencia is borderline according to these normals so Valencia needs to go as well.
Also the Spanish article has 3 sources one of which is the AEMET Koppen Atlas which again shows Madrid as borderline.Most importantly this source [7] gives us the AEMET Koppen maps for older time series which again confirms that very few areas in Spain are BSh/BSk according to older climate normals. Weatherextremes ( talk) 03:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
So since I conceded that Elliniko is borderline in bona fide until HNMS provides the data it would show consistency among wiki articles to apply the same standards to Spanish stations as well. Weatherextremes ( talk) 03:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Suggestion: it seems to me that there is enough detail in the Trewartha climate article to split it off into its own article, then link to it. Comments? -- hike395 15:29, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Who wrote that Koppen-Geiger classifies Western WA and OR the same as SOUTHERN CA???? No way! Western WA and OR classify as Cfb (marine west coast), central coastal CA classify as Cs (Mediterranean), and southern CA classifies as BWk (cool desert) and BSh (Semiarid steppe). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.22.26 ( talk) 04:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The section on Trewartha refers to "standard Köppen" and "old Köppen", but those terms are not defined. This section lists several seemingly significant problems with Köppen, yet suggests that Trewartha is not, or no longer, used. Was Köppen changed after Trewartha to address these deficiencies? Why else not use the improved scheme? 2602:306:CEAE:E60:6C18:646D:2ABF:EF73 ( talk) 01:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
No "D" climates in the Southern hemisphere?
It's almost a quibble, but some highland areas in New Zealand have winters cold enough to qualify for "D" climates, but have cool summers just warm enough to remain outside of montane tundra (ET). These zones of D climates (Dfb or Dfc) are small, but they exist. They barely appear on most worldwide climatic maps or are treated with the portmonteau label as 'highland' climates.
More precisely, one can state that because of the configuration of land and seas in the Southern Hemisphere, "D" climates exist only in restricted areas of mountainous zones in the middle latitudes.-- 66.231.41.57 06:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
There's currently a statement in the "Group C" subsection that states that for the 'w' subtype
I can find no academic source to support that alternate criteria. The current citation for that section is to Peel et al. 2007, which does not provide any support to this. In fact, looking back in the history of the article, this statement appears to be present as far back as 2008 without a citation.
Does anyone here know of academic sources that could support that statement? One other user has already spent significant time making a climate map using this alternate criteria, and I fear it might be misleading people if it has no basis here. If no one can produce any articles supporting that alternate classification scheme, I'll plan to delete that statement. Redtitan ( talk) 18:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone have climate statistics for a Dsd climate? It seems that this is just a theoretical construct.
If it comes to that, the Dsc figures for Siberia, eg Omsukchan http://www.worldweatheronline.com/Omsukchan-weather-averages/Magadan/RU.aspx are unconvincing. Omsukchan meets the strict criteria for Dsc, but its wet season is clearly August-November. Can anyone come up with statistics for convincing Dsc climates in Siberia (ie other than high-altitude Mediterranean-type climates)? 24.108.58.1 ( talk) 19:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion of C climates includes the following information: "The second letter indicates the precipitation pattern — w indicates dry winters (driest winter month average precipitation less than one-tenth wettest summer month average precipitation; one variation also requires that the driest winter month have less than 30 mm average precipitation), s indicates dry summers (driest summer month less than 30 mm average precipitation and less than one-third wettest winter month precipitation) and f means significant precipitation in all seasons (neither above mentioned set of conditions fulfilled).
Later, the article includes the following wiggly statements: "In parts of the Pacific Northwest of North America and parts of south-western South America, Cfb climates are also somewhat similar to Mediterranean climates in that their summers are relatively dry. Examples: Seattle, Washington, United States (Cfb, sometimes Csb), Victoria, British Columbia, Canada (Cfb, sometimes Csb), Puerto Montt, Chile (Cfb, sometimes Csb)"
There's no explanation for this in the article. What does it mean to say that they are "Cfb, sometimes Csb"? Do you mean that in some recorded periods (say, 30-year intervals) they are Cfb, and they switch to Csb at other times? Or does it mean that they are actually Cfb climates - in which case they must have significant precipitation in all seasons, and the driest summer month in each location must have more than 30 mm average precipitation - and more than one-third the wettest winter month precipitation. This is not the case, so clarity or correction is needed in this section. It seems that what has happened is that places that are not popularly imagined to be "mediterranean-ish" are being arbitrarily reclassified as "Cfb - sometimes Csb", even though this makes little sense. 24.85.35.167 ( talk) 04:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Redtitan brought to my attention on Wikimedia Commons that the "winter" and "summer" months used in the determination of dry-summer, dry-winter, and humid (s, w, f) are actually the low-sun and high-sun halves of the year (October to March and April to September in the Northern Hemisphere), not the three highest-sun and lowest-sun months (December, January, and February; June, July, and August). See this paper, page 262.
So, Skagway, Alaska actually does qualify as Dsb, because while December, January, and February (61.7 mm, 55.1 mm, 46.7 mm) don't have precipitation three times the lowest summer month average (28.2 mm), October does (107.7 mm), and it's in the low-sun half of the year (October to March).
I don't know why I assumed "winter" and "summer" months meant three months and not half-years, because the article doesn't currently say that, but regardless, there are some climate classifications that I need to fix now. The article should be updated to give clearer information, too. — Eru· tuon 19:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that in the map, there are random patches of Dsc and Dwc climates in Dfc climates. Can anyone explain what that is? By the way, I don't know why there is a thing saying "Apia Climate Info" on this. It just randomly appeared there. 67.241.78.77 ( talk) 22:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
The lists in the article are unsourced (only one location has a ref). I've also again removed the redundant links including the "colorful" but meaningless (in this article) flag icons. Please address the reference problem and explain the need for the flags (other than making the article "more attractive". Vsmith ( talk) 01:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Using 0 as the border between temperate and continental is apparently only an American thing, so I think we should use the -3 system instead, as that is apparently the normal in other parts of the world, and the vast majority of people are not American. Socialistboyy ( talk) 23:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Some bits I found:
What's the definition of the mild desert climate (BWn) climate? Both this page and mild desert climate just give general adjectives to describe it, no definition in terms of average monthly temperatures. — Eru· tuon 07:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
...also applicable to BSn as in coastal San Diego, California) and some humid climates (San Francisco, California, has a Csbn climate)...
The small n (N for German Nebel, or fog) refers to the commonness of fog in places in which cold currents frequently preclude hot weather at a coastline in tropical, subtropical, and temperate locations. It applies to places that are too cool in the summer to be truly hot but too warm in the winter to qualify as having cold winters. Most deserts and steppes have hot summers and cold winters for the latitude. Along western coastlines of the continents, the offshore cold current may prevent rainstorms that would otherwise create humid conditions. (In zones of Mediterranean climate, like the central coast of California, the cold current moves poleward in the summer and establishes a zone of extreme seasonal drought. But the air may be saturated in moisture! Pbrower2a ( talk) 03:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello all,
I'd like to start a discussion about Köppen types and proper citation/sourcing. User Subtropical-man ( talk / en-2) has called for a discussion and says that giving a location a certain Köppen climate classification type (such as by applying the rules for the Köppen climate classification system to climate data within an article, such as sourced data in a weatherbox) constitutes original research (for reference: Wikipedia:No_original_research). I welcome the chance to discuss this and come to a proper conclusion on how to move forward in line with Wikipedia policies.
According to what Subtropical-man ( talk / en-2) is saying, any claim that a particular location has a certain Köppen type should be backed up with a citation to an academic source, otherwise it constitutes original research and should be removed. If I interpret that correctly, that change would mean some fairly radical changes to this article and to Köppen climate classifications for towns and cities across Wikipedia:
For instance:
Please feel free to weigh in below.
I’d now like to add my own personal thoughts. I would respectfully dispute
Subtropical-man (
talk / en-2) ’s point on two levels:
In such cases, a citation would not need to be used. It still needs to be verifiable of course, as Verifiability is a core Wikipedia policy (see my next point).
That policy states that, “Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources.”
The Köppen climate type guidelines are spelled out on the article, with a source attached. I think it’s fairly routine to look at the following climate table for Apia, Samoa and say it meets the standard of being ‘Af’ (Rainforest):
Climate data for Apia (Elevation: 2 m or 6.6 ft) | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Month | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Year |
Record high °C (°F) | 32 (90) |
33 (91) |
32 (90) |
32 (90) |
32 (90) |
32 (90) |
32 (90) |
32 (90) |
32 (90) |
33 (91) |
33 (91) |
32 (90) |
33 (91) |
Mean daily maximum °C (°F) | 30 (86) |
29 (84) |
30 (86) |
30 (86) |
29 (84) |
29 (84) |
29 (84) |
28 (82) |
28 (82) |
29 (84) |
30 (86) |
29 (84) |
29 (84) |
Daily mean °C (°F) | 26 (79) |
26 (79) |
26 (79) |
26 (79) |
26 (79) |
26 (79) |
26 (79) |
25 (77) |
25 (77) |
26 (79) |
26 (79) |
26 (79) |
26 (79) |
Mean daily minimum °C (°F) | 23 (73) |
24 (75) |
23 (73) |
23 (73) |
23 (73) |
23 (73) |
23 (73) |
23 (73) |
23 (73) |
23 (73) |
23 (73) |
23 (73) |
23 (73) |
Record low °C (°F) | 20 (68) |
21 (70) |
21 (70) |
20 (68) |
19 (66) |
19 (66) |
17 (63) |
18 (64) |
18 (64) |
18 (64) |
20 (68) |
21 (70) |
17 (63) |
Average rainfall mm (inches) | 450 (17.7) |
380 (15.0) |
350 (13.8) |
250 (9.8) |
160 (6.3) |
120 (4.7) |
80 (3.1) |
80 (3.1) |
130 (5.1) |
170 (6.7) |
260 (10.2) |
370 (14.6) |
2,850 (112.2) |
Average rainy days | 19 | 18 | 17 | 15 | 13 | 11 | 8 | 9 | 12 | 14 | 16 | 17 | 173 |
Average relative humidity (%) | 81 | 80 | 80 | 78 | 77 | 75 | 76 | 75 | 75 | 77 | 77 | 78 | 77 |
Source: Weatherbase [1] |
I think it’s reasonable to expect that multiple editors could conclude that a Af classification for Apia, Samoa is obvious, correct, and properly reflects the sources provided. It’s a simple mathematical process. It’s not as simple as calculating someone’s age – which Wikipedia lists as an example of a routine calculation – but it involves comparing a few numbers.
The only possible complication is for where there exist multiple isotherms for separating climate types, all with academic backing. In situations, I’m in agreement with the current situation for the two isotherms used in separating C and D climates: If you’re using the 0 deg C isotherm or the -3 deg C isotherm, it should be stated in the text.
I welcome all your input and hope we can have a calm and civil discussion about this.
Subtropical-man, I hope I've properly and accurately represented your thoughts here. If not, I apologize and I'd ask if you could clarify them here. Thank you. Redtitan 20:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
But that location is so obvious in one category. Some cities are borderline due to being close to a dividing line between climate zones (New York City is a prime example because the 0°C January isotherm goes through the city). Thus Coney Island is Cfa and the Bronx is Dfa by that criterion. A city that has a wide variety of terrains, like San Diego (the coast is steppe, but high elevations are Mediterranean due to higher rainfall). Because of differences in topography manifesting themselves in climate I would not use Salt Lake City or Denver as examples of any climate. One can use New York City, San Diego, Los Angeles, Denver, or Salt Lake City as examples of places in which classification creates controversy.
Locations used as examples should be unambiguous. There is some controversy on whether the isotherm dividing C and D climates is rightly 0°C (which puts New York City on the borderline between the Cfa zone Dfa zone, Coney Island Cfa and the Bronx Dfa, and puts Boston clearly in the Dfa zone) or -3°C (which puts the whole of New York City within the Cfa zone and Boston on the borderline between Cfa and Dfa climates. The difference? Daily averages under -3°C make the melting of snow unlikely, which means that snows can accumulate, and under bright sunlight, snow will evaporate at a temperature of 0″C. Koeppen established this in his original classification. Thus Mecca is definitely BWh, Tokyo Cfa, San Francisco Csb, London Cfb, Chicago Dfa, Stockholm Dfb, and the Scott-Amundsen Station at the South Pole as EF.
One could use Koeppen classifications for reconstructions (giving some leeway for imprecision) for the prehistoric past or projections of climate change. Models of climate change would find expression as climate boundaries change. Would the eastern divide between steppe and humid continental climates move into Minnesota from North Dakota and South Dakota? Would desert climates appear in southeastern Spain where they do not exist yet? Would tropical climates appera in southern Louisiana? I am not saying that projections and reconstructions fit Wikipedia standards. Pbrower2a ( talk) 07:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
First, if the climate data is sourced and Koppen’s climate parameters are sourced, then there is no original research if you merely apply the sourced Koppen’s parameters to the sourced climate data. It’s firmly based on sourced material. Secondly, some seem to be in an uproar that NYC is humid subtropical. This seemingly bizarre classification for NYC is almost certainly symptomatic of climate change. NYC has almost always used Central Park as the official weather station. Most of the city is within the category. If we started to get specific about climate types based on specific locations we can overload on details. San Francisco and San Jose has a number of microclimates. Los Angeles’ climate can go from mild-summer Mediterranean to hot-summer Mediterranean to semi-arid. Miami can go from tropical monsoon climate, to tropical savanna climate to tropical rainforest climate depending on the station used. Sections of the Tampa Bay area are apparently tropical depending on location. The best guideine is whether most of a specified area falls within an area, particularly its main weather station. G. Capo ( talk) 21:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
References
Recife's climate is classified here as Dry-Summer Tropical Savanna (As), but according to the city's article page, it has a Tropical Monsoon (Am) climate. Which one is correct? Heavyarms2025 ( talk) 02:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
At the end, where we find the climate maps for continent, on the map of Europe is missing the climate type BSh, which is refered with color pink, and is located in the southeast Iberian Peninsula (near to Murcia). Thanks!-- 186.59.227.179 ( talk) 19:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I see that for the subtropical humid (Cfa) climate, (Horta) Azores appears as a country. But Azores is in Portugal. There´s no country with the name of Azores. So I removed Azores and placed Horta, Portugal there. Also there are some cities on the Cfa list, that have dry months in the summer... Those exact locations, therefore cannot have a Cfa climate. Be careful with that and confirm with their respective climatograms. And I´m not even sure that Horta is Cfa. Corvo or Flores island (both also in the Azores islands), one of those surely is, because I do remember to have discussed that in the past and saw some climatograms that confirmed it. It´s possible that other Azores islands have it, but I´m sure that one of those 2 (Flores and Corvo) had it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.37.171.168 ( talk) 03:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
There are two criteria for determining a dry summer. One is that the place must have a dry summer month under 30 mm. Secondly the wettest winter month must have over 3 times that of the driest summer month. So a place could have a driest summer month of 29, a wettest winter month of 85 and therefore it would not be considered "dry summer." Such a place might still have enough rain to avoid an overall dry classification, particularly if there were also very wet summer months. I will give a fictional data set, don't have time to look for a real example. The location has a mean temperature of 17°C and is in the Northern Hemisphere. The rainfall figures are 81, 62, 73, 44, 28, 60, 53, 105, 89, 72, 64, 69. This equals 800 mm. The summer/winter distribution is even. Therefore it needs under 480 to be B (assuming I don't have to explain that math). So it is clearly not a dry climate. The summer month of May has 28 mm, but the wettest winter month (January) has 81, therefore it falls under the necessary 3 ratio for a dry winter (2.9). So it is not dry summer. The ratio of the wettest summer month to the driest winter month is 1.7, under the 10 necessary for a dry winter. So overall it does not have a dry summer or winter and is therefore Cfa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galen1982 ( talk • contribs) 03:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Why are there no listed samples of climate type Cwc and Dsd? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.181.191 ( talk) 01:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
The article is cluttered with far too many links to cities or locations supposedly exhibiting the climate types, especially as the lists are not supported by references. I would suggest paring down those lists to just a few examples that can hopefully be backed with solid references. Vsmith ( talk) 00:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
There's inconsistent naming for the Csc climate on this article. It's referred to as the "dry-summer maritime subalpine climate" and as "dry-summer maritime" climate, and is grouped in with the oceanic climates. Elsewhere, in the articles for the few locations the Csc climate type, it's listed as a "dry-summer subpolar oceanic climate".
I can find no reputable academic references to this climate by a particular name. I'd like to propose:
This is for the following reasons:
Your argument makes a lot of sense, however in order to avoid original research (i.e. until we find a published source that says Med. subalpine/subarctic), I would recommend using dry-summer subalpine/subarctic climate instead. Berkserker ( talk) 04:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
The various names currently given for the Csc climate type are all unsourced. They seem to be different derivations of the current naming conventions for the other Köppen types. To avoid OR, would it make more sense to eliminate any name altogether and simply refer to it as the Csc Köppen type? I can't find any citation for dry-summer subalpine/subarctic, or really anything at all in the literature. I'm guessing that's due to Csc's extreme rarity. Redtitan ( talk) 05:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually the real identifier for the subarctic climates is the third letter c for only 1-3 months above 10 C.
However as subarctic climates are boreal, having a D would be a prerequisite since even hemiboreal climates require a max winter mean of 0 C. The third letter c is what actually separates subarctic from continental due to summers failing to meet the criterion to be classified as warm.
Another important thing that needs clarification is that the terms subarctic/subpolar/subalpine are used interchangeably and actually mean the same thing. Therefore the term subarctic doesn't really have anything to do with the location's proximity to the poles. A region can meet the criteria even if it is on the equator.
Like you said, instead of defining Cfc zones as cool summer oceanic, it has been established to call these regions subpolar oceanic, which makes me think this name was given due to convenience and practicality (since mostly these zones are closer to the poles) instead of using a scientific identifier.
The truth is, the only thing that separates Med. climates from oceanic climates is the summer precipitation. The temperature range is the same. The only reason Cfc zones are closer to the poles is because the closer you are to the poles the higher chance you have of having a pronounced summer precipitation, not that they are cooler.
So, if we are not calling Cfc zones cool-summer oceanic but subpolar oceanic instead, in this regard we need to call Csc regions sub polar Med instead of cool-summer Med. Otherwise it will simply be a case of positive discrimination for the oceanic zones just because they sound colder, which is further away from the truth.
However, if we then name the Csc zones subpolar Med, then we are left with the question "how to name the Dsc regions?" which again require the term subpolar/subarctic Med..
At the end of the day we have no other choice but to stick with the sources. Maybe this is exactly why Csc zones were called maritime subpolar/subalpine while Dsc zones were called Med subarctic.. For instance take a look at this page for brainstorming, even though I don't know where they have taken these terms.
I think the safest thing would be to research publications further, before coming to a conclusion. I will also look into this issue when I have the time. Berkserker ( talk) 22:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
According to the Spanish version Madrid is borderline BSk [1].So it needs to go Weatherextremes ( talk) 01:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Well the 1961-1990 WMO normals suggest Madrid is borderline [6].In fact Valencia is borderline according to these normals so Valencia needs to go as well.
Also the Spanish article has 3 sources one of which is the AEMET Koppen Atlas which again shows Madrid as borderline.Most importantly this source [7] gives us the AEMET Koppen maps for older time series which again confirms that very few areas in Spain are BSh/BSk according to older climate normals. Weatherextremes ( talk) 03:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
So since I conceded that Elliniko is borderline in bona fide until HNMS provides the data it would show consistency among wiki articles to apply the same standards to Spanish stations as well. Weatherextremes ( talk) 03:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Suggestion: it seems to me that there is enough detail in the Trewartha climate article to split it off into its own article, then link to it. Comments? -- hike395 15:29, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Who wrote that Koppen-Geiger classifies Western WA and OR the same as SOUTHERN CA???? No way! Western WA and OR classify as Cfb (marine west coast), central coastal CA classify as Cs (Mediterranean), and southern CA classifies as BWk (cool desert) and BSh (Semiarid steppe). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.22.26 ( talk) 04:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The section on Trewartha refers to "standard Köppen" and "old Köppen", but those terms are not defined. This section lists several seemingly significant problems with Köppen, yet suggests that Trewartha is not, or no longer, used. Was Köppen changed after Trewartha to address these deficiencies? Why else not use the improved scheme? 2602:306:CEAE:E60:6C18:646D:2ABF:EF73 ( talk) 01:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
No "D" climates in the Southern hemisphere?
It's almost a quibble, but some highland areas in New Zealand have winters cold enough to qualify for "D" climates, but have cool summers just warm enough to remain outside of montane tundra (ET). These zones of D climates (Dfb or Dfc) are small, but they exist. They barely appear on most worldwide climatic maps or are treated with the portmonteau label as 'highland' climates.
More precisely, one can state that because of the configuration of land and seas in the Southern Hemisphere, "D" climates exist only in restricted areas of mountainous zones in the middle latitudes.-- 66.231.41.57 06:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
There's currently a statement in the "Group C" subsection that states that for the 'w' subtype
I can find no academic source to support that alternate criteria. The current citation for that section is to Peel et al. 2007, which does not provide any support to this. In fact, looking back in the history of the article, this statement appears to be present as far back as 2008 without a citation.
Does anyone here know of academic sources that could support that statement? One other user has already spent significant time making a climate map using this alternate criteria, and I fear it might be misleading people if it has no basis here. If no one can produce any articles supporting that alternate classification scheme, I'll plan to delete that statement. Redtitan ( talk) 18:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone have climate statistics for a Dsd climate? It seems that this is just a theoretical construct.
If it comes to that, the Dsc figures for Siberia, eg Omsukchan http://www.worldweatheronline.com/Omsukchan-weather-averages/Magadan/RU.aspx are unconvincing. Omsukchan meets the strict criteria for Dsc, but its wet season is clearly August-November. Can anyone come up with statistics for convincing Dsc climates in Siberia (ie other than high-altitude Mediterranean-type climates)? 24.108.58.1 ( talk) 19:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion of C climates includes the following information: "The second letter indicates the precipitation pattern — w indicates dry winters (driest winter month average precipitation less than one-tenth wettest summer month average precipitation; one variation also requires that the driest winter month have less than 30 mm average precipitation), s indicates dry summers (driest summer month less than 30 mm average precipitation and less than one-third wettest winter month precipitation) and f means significant precipitation in all seasons (neither above mentioned set of conditions fulfilled).
Later, the article includes the following wiggly statements: "In parts of the Pacific Northwest of North America and parts of south-western South America, Cfb climates are also somewhat similar to Mediterranean climates in that their summers are relatively dry. Examples: Seattle, Washington, United States (Cfb, sometimes Csb), Victoria, British Columbia, Canada (Cfb, sometimes Csb), Puerto Montt, Chile (Cfb, sometimes Csb)"
There's no explanation for this in the article. What does it mean to say that they are "Cfb, sometimes Csb"? Do you mean that in some recorded periods (say, 30-year intervals) they are Cfb, and they switch to Csb at other times? Or does it mean that they are actually Cfb climates - in which case they must have significant precipitation in all seasons, and the driest summer month in each location must have more than 30 mm average precipitation - and more than one-third the wettest winter month precipitation. This is not the case, so clarity or correction is needed in this section. It seems that what has happened is that places that are not popularly imagined to be "mediterranean-ish" are being arbitrarily reclassified as "Cfb - sometimes Csb", even though this makes little sense. 24.85.35.167 ( talk) 04:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Redtitan brought to my attention on Wikimedia Commons that the "winter" and "summer" months used in the determination of dry-summer, dry-winter, and humid (s, w, f) are actually the low-sun and high-sun halves of the year (October to March and April to September in the Northern Hemisphere), not the three highest-sun and lowest-sun months (December, January, and February; June, July, and August). See this paper, page 262.
So, Skagway, Alaska actually does qualify as Dsb, because while December, January, and February (61.7 mm, 55.1 mm, 46.7 mm) don't have precipitation three times the lowest summer month average (28.2 mm), October does (107.7 mm), and it's in the low-sun half of the year (October to March).
I don't know why I assumed "winter" and "summer" months meant three months and not half-years, because the article doesn't currently say that, but regardless, there are some climate classifications that I need to fix now. The article should be updated to give clearer information, too. — Eru· tuon 19:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that in the map, there are random patches of Dsc and Dwc climates in Dfc climates. Can anyone explain what that is? By the way, I don't know why there is a thing saying "Apia Climate Info" on this. It just randomly appeared there. 67.241.78.77 ( talk) 22:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
The lists in the article are unsourced (only one location has a ref). I've also again removed the redundant links including the "colorful" but meaningless (in this article) flag icons. Please address the reference problem and explain the need for the flags (other than making the article "more attractive". Vsmith ( talk) 01:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Using 0 as the border between temperate and continental is apparently only an American thing, so I think we should use the -3 system instead, as that is apparently the normal in other parts of the world, and the vast majority of people are not American. Socialistboyy ( talk) 23:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Some bits I found:
What's the definition of the mild desert climate (BWn) climate? Both this page and mild desert climate just give general adjectives to describe it, no definition in terms of average monthly temperatures. — Eru· tuon 07:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
...also applicable to BSn as in coastal San Diego, California) and some humid climates (San Francisco, California, has a Csbn climate)...
The small n (N for German Nebel, or fog) refers to the commonness of fog in places in which cold currents frequently preclude hot weather at a coastline in tropical, subtropical, and temperate locations. It applies to places that are too cool in the summer to be truly hot but too warm in the winter to qualify as having cold winters. Most deserts and steppes have hot summers and cold winters for the latitude. Along western coastlines of the continents, the offshore cold current may prevent rainstorms that would otherwise create humid conditions. (In zones of Mediterranean climate, like the central coast of California, the cold current moves poleward in the summer and establishes a zone of extreme seasonal drought. But the air may be saturated in moisture! Pbrower2a ( talk) 03:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello all,
I'd like to start a discussion about Köppen types and proper citation/sourcing. User Subtropical-man ( talk / en-2) has called for a discussion and says that giving a location a certain Köppen climate classification type (such as by applying the rules for the Köppen climate classification system to climate data within an article, such as sourced data in a weatherbox) constitutes original research (for reference: Wikipedia:No_original_research). I welcome the chance to discuss this and come to a proper conclusion on how to move forward in line with Wikipedia policies.
According to what Subtropical-man ( talk / en-2) is saying, any claim that a particular location has a certain Köppen type should be backed up with a citation to an academic source, otherwise it constitutes original research and should be removed. If I interpret that correctly, that change would mean some fairly radical changes to this article and to Köppen climate classifications for towns and cities across Wikipedia:
For instance:
Please feel free to weigh in below.
I’d now like to add my own personal thoughts. I would respectfully dispute
Subtropical-man (
talk / en-2) ’s point on two levels:
In such cases, a citation would not need to be used. It still needs to be verifiable of course, as Verifiability is a core Wikipedia policy (see my next point).
That policy states that, “Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources.”
The Köppen climate type guidelines are spelled out on the article, with a source attached. I think it’s fairly routine to look at the following climate table for Apia, Samoa and say it meets the standard of being ‘Af’ (Rainforest):
Climate data for Apia (Elevation: 2 m or 6.6 ft) | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Month | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Year |
Record high °C (°F) | 32 (90) |
33 (91) |
32 (90) |
32 (90) |
32 (90) |
32 (90) |
32 (90) |
32 (90) |
32 (90) |
33 (91) |
33 (91) |
32 (90) |
33 (91) |
Mean daily maximum °C (°F) | 30 (86) |
29 (84) |
30 (86) |
30 (86) |
29 (84) |
29 (84) |
29 (84) |
28 (82) |
28 (82) |
29 (84) |
30 (86) |
29 (84) |
29 (84) |
Daily mean °C (°F) | 26 (79) |
26 (79) |
26 (79) |
26 (79) |
26 (79) |
26 (79) |
26 (79) |
25 (77) |
25 (77) |
26 (79) |
26 (79) |
26 (79) |
26 (79) |
Mean daily minimum °C (°F) | 23 (73) |
24 (75) |
23 (73) |
23 (73) |
23 (73) |
23 (73) |
23 (73) |
23 (73) |
23 (73) |
23 (73) |
23 (73) |
23 (73) |
23 (73) |
Record low °C (°F) | 20 (68) |
21 (70) |
21 (70) |
20 (68) |
19 (66) |
19 (66) |
17 (63) |
18 (64) |
18 (64) |
18 (64) |
20 (68) |
21 (70) |
17 (63) |
Average rainfall mm (inches) | 450 (17.7) |
380 (15.0) |
350 (13.8) |
250 (9.8) |
160 (6.3) |
120 (4.7) |
80 (3.1) |
80 (3.1) |
130 (5.1) |
170 (6.7) |
260 (10.2) |
370 (14.6) |
2,850 (112.2) |
Average rainy days | 19 | 18 | 17 | 15 | 13 | 11 | 8 | 9 | 12 | 14 | 16 | 17 | 173 |
Average relative humidity (%) | 81 | 80 | 80 | 78 | 77 | 75 | 76 | 75 | 75 | 77 | 77 | 78 | 77 |
Source: Weatherbase [1] |
I think it’s reasonable to expect that multiple editors could conclude that a Af classification for Apia, Samoa is obvious, correct, and properly reflects the sources provided. It’s a simple mathematical process. It’s not as simple as calculating someone’s age – which Wikipedia lists as an example of a routine calculation – but it involves comparing a few numbers.
The only possible complication is for where there exist multiple isotherms for separating climate types, all with academic backing. In situations, I’m in agreement with the current situation for the two isotherms used in separating C and D climates: If you’re using the 0 deg C isotherm or the -3 deg C isotherm, it should be stated in the text.
I welcome all your input and hope we can have a calm and civil discussion about this.
Subtropical-man, I hope I've properly and accurately represented your thoughts here. If not, I apologize and I'd ask if you could clarify them here. Thank you. Redtitan 20:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
But that location is so obvious in one category. Some cities are borderline due to being close to a dividing line between climate zones (New York City is a prime example because the 0°C January isotherm goes through the city). Thus Coney Island is Cfa and the Bronx is Dfa by that criterion. A city that has a wide variety of terrains, like San Diego (the coast is steppe, but high elevations are Mediterranean due to higher rainfall). Because of differences in topography manifesting themselves in climate I would not use Salt Lake City or Denver as examples of any climate. One can use New York City, San Diego, Los Angeles, Denver, or Salt Lake City as examples of places in which classification creates controversy.
Locations used as examples should be unambiguous. There is some controversy on whether the isotherm dividing C and D climates is rightly 0°C (which puts New York City on the borderline between the Cfa zone Dfa zone, Coney Island Cfa and the Bronx Dfa, and puts Boston clearly in the Dfa zone) or -3°C (which puts the whole of New York City within the Cfa zone and Boston on the borderline between Cfa and Dfa climates. The difference? Daily averages under -3°C make the melting of snow unlikely, which means that snows can accumulate, and under bright sunlight, snow will evaporate at a temperature of 0″C. Koeppen established this in his original classification. Thus Mecca is definitely BWh, Tokyo Cfa, San Francisco Csb, London Cfb, Chicago Dfa, Stockholm Dfb, and the Scott-Amundsen Station at the South Pole as EF.
One could use Koeppen classifications for reconstructions (giving some leeway for imprecision) for the prehistoric past or projections of climate change. Models of climate change would find expression as climate boundaries change. Would the eastern divide between steppe and humid continental climates move into Minnesota from North Dakota and South Dakota? Would desert climates appear in southeastern Spain where they do not exist yet? Would tropical climates appera in southern Louisiana? I am not saying that projections and reconstructions fit Wikipedia standards. Pbrower2a ( talk) 07:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
First, if the climate data is sourced and Koppen’s climate parameters are sourced, then there is no original research if you merely apply the sourced Koppen’s parameters to the sourced climate data. It’s firmly based on sourced material. Secondly, some seem to be in an uproar that NYC is humid subtropical. This seemingly bizarre classification for NYC is almost certainly symptomatic of climate change. NYC has almost always used Central Park as the official weather station. Most of the city is within the category. If we started to get specific about climate types based on specific locations we can overload on details. San Francisco and San Jose has a number of microclimates. Los Angeles’ climate can go from mild-summer Mediterranean to hot-summer Mediterranean to semi-arid. Miami can go from tropical monsoon climate, to tropical savanna climate to tropical rainforest climate depending on the station used. Sections of the Tampa Bay area are apparently tropical depending on location. The best guideine is whether most of a specified area falls within an area, particularly its main weather station. G. Capo ( talk) 21:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
References
Recife's climate is classified here as Dry-Summer Tropical Savanna (As), but according to the city's article page, it has a Tropical Monsoon (Am) climate. Which one is correct? Heavyarms2025 ( talk) 02:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
At the end, where we find the climate maps for continent, on the map of Europe is missing the climate type BSh, which is refered with color pink, and is located in the southeast Iberian Peninsula (near to Murcia). Thanks!-- 186.59.227.179 ( talk) 19:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I see that for the subtropical humid (Cfa) climate, (Horta) Azores appears as a country. But Azores is in Portugal. There´s no country with the name of Azores. So I removed Azores and placed Horta, Portugal there. Also there are some cities on the Cfa list, that have dry months in the summer... Those exact locations, therefore cannot have a Cfa climate. Be careful with that and confirm with their respective climatograms. And I´m not even sure that Horta is Cfa. Corvo or Flores island (both also in the Azores islands), one of those surely is, because I do remember to have discussed that in the past and saw some climatograms that confirmed it. It´s possible that other Azores islands have it, but I´m sure that one of those 2 (Flores and Corvo) had it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.37.171.168 ( talk) 03:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
There are two criteria for determining a dry summer. One is that the place must have a dry summer month under 30 mm. Secondly the wettest winter month must have over 3 times that of the driest summer month. So a place could have a driest summer month of 29, a wettest winter month of 85 and therefore it would not be considered "dry summer." Such a place might still have enough rain to avoid an overall dry classification, particularly if there were also very wet summer months. I will give a fictional data set, don't have time to look for a real example. The location has a mean temperature of 17°C and is in the Northern Hemisphere. The rainfall figures are 81, 62, 73, 44, 28, 60, 53, 105, 89, 72, 64, 69. This equals 800 mm. The summer/winter distribution is even. Therefore it needs under 480 to be B (assuming I don't have to explain that math). So it is clearly not a dry climate. The summer month of May has 28 mm, but the wettest winter month (January) has 81, therefore it falls under the necessary 3 ratio for a dry winter (2.9). So it is not dry summer. The ratio of the wettest summer month to the driest winter month is 1.7, under the 10 necessary for a dry winter. So overall it does not have a dry summer or winter and is therefore Cfa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galen1982 ( talk • contribs) 03:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Why are there no listed samples of climate type Cwc and Dsd? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.181.191 ( talk) 01:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
The article is cluttered with far too many links to cities or locations supposedly exhibiting the climate types, especially as the lists are not supported by references. I would suggest paring down those lists to just a few examples that can hopefully be backed with solid references. Vsmith ( talk) 00:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)