Jump to content

Talk:Climate of Spain

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The reason for the removal of the two maps used for the article Climate of Spain

[edit]

The reason for the removal of the two maps used for the article Climate of Spain: Climas de España.png map is not according to the Spanish meteorogical service and Climates of Spain.png map is inaccurate, because it ignores details. The first map should not be used at all because it totally ignores the Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification and the second map although done according to the Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification, needs to be redrawn by taking the more detailed climate data of Spain into account, rather than the world map.

The Spanish State Meteorological Agency Agencia Estatal de Meteorología and Portuguese Meteorological Institute Instituto de Meteorologia together have prepared and released an extensive climatological atlas about the climate of the Iberian peninsula. On page 18 of this climate atlas is a detailed map of the Iberian peninsula which was prepared according Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification about the climate types of this peninsula. The climate map(s) of Spain (and indeed the climate map of Europe) must be redrawn by taking this map as a source.

http://www.aemet.es/documentos/es/divulgacion/publicaciones/Atlas-climatologico/Atlas.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.227.119.75 (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is not any reason to remove academic maps. Ignoring details does not make a map inacurate. The both maps are useful for WP. Erasing them is simply vandalism.--Cooler88 (talk) 1947, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Even though the linked academic source is of high importance, the climate period appears to be out of date (1971-2000), which is two climate periods behind all other major Wikipedia articles. Even articles with a climate period of 1981-2010 are being updated to 1991-2020. Therefore, unless that academic resource updates their maps to the most recent climate period (1991-2020), sadly they wouldn't be of much use, as cross-referencing is important in Wikipedia. 82.222.99.26 (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of written style

[edit]

This article is really poorly written in often awkward, sometimes incorrect, English. I suggest it be re-written by improving all the grammatical mistakes and turning fragments such as "Heavy snowfalls in winter". It reads as if it's been (badly) translated direct from the original Spanish, but I couldn't confirm that. I am happy to correct this article, although I do not know much about climate and weather but I will endeavour to make sure the article's original meaning is preserved. I will copy and save the original text to my computer so if there are any major objections I will be able to re-insert the old article. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I won't change or remove any sources or links. (Again because I know very little about Spain's climate!) But I will add any if they are needed. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have spent quite a long time doing this article and (as a native English speaker) think it reads a lot better now than it did before, so please don't revert unless you've a major legitimate gripe with what I've done. BTW I think the level of information in this article is brilliant, I just thought it needed a more natural and formal style. Thanks! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Climate of Spain and Portugal - AEMET & IM.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Climate of Spain and Portugal - AEMET & IM.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Climate of Spain and Portugal - AEMET & IM.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Climate of Spain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Climate of Spain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Climate of Spain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diversity

[edit]

@Farell37, I still don't think you get my point. Even if we were to accept that this was not WP:OR, depending on the definition of Europe, Spain may not be the most climatically diverse; see Russia for instance. Furthermore, Köppen is not the only measure of climate diversity, and a country like Turkey would in fact be considered more diverse bio-climatically than Spain by most biome-related classifications (say Holdridge), due to the amount of distinct microclimates. I would generally advise agianst these types of superlative statements, especially in ledes. Uness232 (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about the European continent always generates debates, due to transcontinental countries. However, in the climate context, it is important to put geographical Europe as the priority, as climate is an area of ​​geography. Russia may even have more climate diversity than Spain, but it is only necessary to count European Russia. Likewise, Turkey should also include only the European part. In the context of climate classification, it is true that there are other classifications. However, the Köppen climate classification is the most widely accepted and used by scientists, meteorologists and climatologists in the world. Farell37 (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see how that might not belong in an unqualified statement in the lede though? It is vague and debatable. Uness232 (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify what you want to mean by that might not belong in an unqualified statement Farell37 (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the lede (the first section of a WP article) is for essential facts and a surface-level summary. I do not think that this debatable statement belongs there. Based on a common definition (that you provided), Spain would be the most climatically diverse country in Europe. Based on others (that I provided) it would not.
So instead of that, a compromise could be something along the lines of “Spain is very high in climatic diversity, it encompasses 14 Köppen zones.” or similar. This statement would not be debatable, has less WP:OR (though still not best practice), and fits encyclopedic tone better. Uness232 (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding climate diversity, I will add a section that talks specifically about climate diversity and the percentage that each climate occupies in Spanish territory. Spain is in fact the most climatically diverse country in Europe, but as this generates debates and can be doubtful, removing this from the lede could be the most appropriate, seeing as you mentioned and well, the lede serves for essential and necessary information about the topic. When I have time, I will re-edit this page and remove incorrect information. Farell37 (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if exact percentages are necessary, but a (sub)section on diversity is certainly acceptable. Uness232 (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have information about percentagens of certain types of climate, such as mediterranean and semi-arid. The topic about Spain being the most climcatically diverse country in Europe I will consider it if I put it or not on diversity subsection that I will create more later. If I can find more information on the subject, I will certainly post it, with the source just mentioning it on that specific subject. Farell37 (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know you have information, but I'm not sure if exact percentages are necessary in an encyclopedia article. Uness232 (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The exact percentages just makes the topic more interest, since not every page of climate has the percentage. Farell37 (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but two things: what will an average reader gain from percentages? and second, since these would change with every new climate normal, as well as with each Köppen criteria, how reliable would they be? Uness232 (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An average reader will have an idea of ​​which climates are most prevalent in Spain. This is particularly interesting since not all countries have information on the percentage of the country's territory that each climate occupies. Also, the percentage of each climate is from 1991-2020 period, so it's updated. Also, how can you doubt the most reliable source of Spain's weather, AEMET? The percentage is precisely from AEMET Farell37 (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not doubting AEMET, of course. My doubts were different, but I think you've assuaged them. I have no further objections. Uness232 (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your understanding. Any objections or doubts after I edit this page with diversity subsection and their respective percentages, you can talk here. Farell37 (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Uness232 The truth is that the factors I mentioned are the main factors that contribute to a country's climate diversity, although it clearly needs a reliable source to say this. Still, this source [1] may be sufficient to talk about the country's climate diversity, as well as its evolution. You can make a small summary here on this page about what it says, in addition to the percentages like I said. Either way, I would like to include this on this page. Farell37 (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Farell37: The problem is that you regularly go outside the scope of your sources. Spain has an extremely varied climate, which contributes to oceanic, mediterranean, continental, semi-arid and arid landscapes. This talks about biome, not climate, which is not covered by your source.
In fact, Spain is the most climatically diverse country in Europe in terms of the Köppen climate classification, the most used and recognized worldwide. I've already talked about the problematic nature of this statement. This depends on which climate normal you use, your definition of Europe, and the Köppen definitions used.
This unique climatic diversity makes the country one of the most visited destinations by international tourist arrivals, currently being the 2nd most visited country in the world, although it is not the only factor, but rather one of the factors. This is WP:OR, as is the rest of the section you added. Uness232 (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, it is important to highlight that landscapes and biomes are not the same thing. A landscape refers to the visually perceptible area of ​​the earth's surface and encompasses a variety of physical, geographic, and visual features. This includes elements such as topography, bodies of water, vegetation, weather conditions, and other visible aspects of a given region. Landscape is a broader, visual description of the environment. A biome is more about ecology and how climatic conditions affect animal and plant life. In the vast majority of cases, if not all, landscapes are intrinsically linked to climatic conditions. When talking about semi-arid landscapes, it always refers to a semi-arid climate, unless you present me with an exception in which this does not occur.
In the 2nd point I had also already said that in climatic contexts, European geography is the most appropriate and used. A clear example of this is the Climate of Europe page which specifically mentions Europe's climate and only addresses geographical terms, not political terms. Even the islands of the Azores, Madeira or the Canary Islands are not mentioned because they are part of a different geographic location. The period is 1981-2016, as most Koppen maps demonstrate. Koppen's rules apply the same everywhere, but it is important to keep in mind that this map is a general overview and does not take into account the differences.
The last point you mentioned, the fact is that Spain is actually the 2nd most visited country in the world, as I had included a source about that, but climate diversity was not included in the sources I cited, so, I agree with the its removal. Farell37 (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Farell37 You have a point in the distinction you make, and I should have used your wording for my response, but how we define landscape and biome is irrelevant here. Your source talks about climate, you need to be talking about climate. And no, climate type != landscape either. Bitlis, for example, has a dry-summer, but abundantly rainy/snowy precipitation regime, with over 1000mm of precipitation; it should, in theory, have the montane forests common to much of northeastern Turkey. However, it is largely steppe because it is surrounded by drier locations (and by the way, those locations sometimes also miss the criteria for a steppe climate, as Köppen's boundary for steppe climates is an approximation).
I had also already said that in climatic contexts, European geography is the most appropriate and used. Europe (or any other continent) can have many different definitions; it does not matter if you choose one of them, others might have another in mind. Beyond that, Köppen zones can be defined in many different ways. Is -3 or 0C being used for the C/D boundary? 30 or 40mm used for s/f? Are High-sun months or warm temperature months being used for aridity thresholds? And even beyond that, why 1980-2016? Yes Beck et. al. uses 1980-2016, but that is not even a standard climate period. There are newer maps that use 1991-2020, for example. Why should we navigate all of these issues and uncertainty just to include one trivia-like statement when we could just as easily say "Spain is highly diverse climatically." which is uncontroversial. Uness232 (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You addressed a notable exception in the context of landscape, although I also agree with you that it is irrelevant in this context, and it would be more appropriate to use climate instead of landscape.
In the European context, it may be simpler to cite geographic Europe to avoid misunderstandings and debates.
You also raised a very important point that I forgot, which was the 0 ºC/-3 ºC isotherms used to distinguish C/D and precipitation of 30 mm or 40 mm in the driest month for s/f. In the vast majority of situations, the 0ºC isotherm is used to distinguish C/D, however, there may be specific conditions in which the -3ºC isotherm is more appropriate, which makes comparing climate diversity much more difficult. The term of 30 mm or 40 mm also varies from country to country, depending on specific climatic conditions. To classify semi-arid and arid climates, generally all national meteorological institutes in each country use and take into account umbral precipitation (high sun months). Regarding periods, not all countries have drawn up definitive maps for the new period of 1991-2020, although 4 years have passed since the last decade ended. That's why I would use the one from 1981-2016, which usually appears on many Wiki maps and other sources.
In the diversity section, I am thinking about adding information from this source [2] that is valuable and can help people understand the country's climate diversity, without necessarily saying that it is the largest in Europe, just information from that AEMET source. Farell37 (talk) 03:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine by me. Uness232 (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know which is the reason for deleting that Spain has the largest number of different Koppen climates in Europe. Its an objetive fact.
As the other user said, Turkey has only a tiny bit of its territory in Europe, It is a country mostly in Asia. And Russia is not more diverse in Europe either as only part of its territory is in Europe. Its simple geography.
There is no consensus for deleting that. 46.6.233.105 (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have already given a variety of other reasons on why it is not objective fact, definitions of Europe being only one of them. You can read about them in the replies above. Uness232 (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia uses always the geopraphical definition of Europe. Thats the consensus. DrakeXper (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, accepting that, what about the other issues? Uness232 (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problems or objections about the rest. But eliminating a meteo fact from the lede is not acceptable.
pd: The previous IP was this account, just to avoid confusion. DrakeXper (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DrakeXper I don't think you understood what I meant by "other issues". I'll quote them here, again:
Beyond that, Köppen zones can be defined in many different ways. Is -3 or 0C being used for the C/D boundary? 30 or 40mm used for s/f? Are High-sun months or warm temperature months being used for aridity thresholds? And even beyond that, why 198[1]-2016? Yes Beck et. al. uses 198[1]-2016, but that is not even a standard climate period. There are newer maps that use 1991-2020, for example. Why should we navigate all of these issues and uncertainty just to include one trivia-like statement when we could just as easily say "Spain is highly diverse climatically." which is uncontroversial. Uness232 (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with him to a certain extent, as I also think that Spain is the most climatically diverse country in Europe in terms of the Koppen climate classification. However, the only thing that I had doubts about and were the doubts you said was the 0/-3 ºC and the 30/40 mm s/f. Even so, according to AEMET, Spain has 14 different types of Koppen climate for the period 1991-2020 and so far, I have not found any country in Europe with higher or equal numbers compared to Spain. Initially it had 15, but the polar climate (ET) disappeared from the period 1981-2010, so it now has 14. All of these 14 are present in mainland Spain. It is a challenge to see all the countries in geographic Europe and see how many Koppen climates they have for the period 1991-2020 and what methodologies they use (0/-3ºC and 30/40 mm). Even so, the Asian parts of each European country (Turkey, Azerbaijan, Russia) would not count, since they are already part of Asia and do not belong to geographic Europe. It is important to take into account that the climate area is part of geography and taking Europe into account in geographical terms should be the most appropriate.
I will still edit this page and put Spain's climate diversity in accordance with that source I cited, but the issue of it being the most climatically diverse country in Europe, I still think is true, but I want to reach conclusions. Farell37 (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DrakeXper @Farell37 Again, it may in fact be true. The problem is definition (of Köppen rules etc.), and without consistency on that front we would very quickly veer into WP:SYNTH territory. Instead of that, we can simply write that Spain is highly diverse climatically, with 14 Köppen zones. Uness232 (talk) 04:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Spain is the most climatically diverse country in Europe with 14 Koppen zones. It is a fact supported by sources, not an opinion nor problematic at all. Stop deleting sentences of the stable version. DrakeXper (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DrakeXper I don't see how yours is the "stable version" here. There was a discussion going on when you introduced that back on the lede, and @Farell37 had agreed to use a different wording around a week ago.
Notwithstanding that; do any of your sources say "Spain is the most climatically diverse country in Europe with 14 Koppen zones", or do they just say that Spain has 14 Köppen zones? The two are different things, and you can not simply claim that sources support your claim when they only support the latter one. I already talked about the issues with jumping from that first conclusion to the next, but you are not actually engaging with my points here; you are simply stating and restating your point. That is not a productive argument. Uness232 (talk) 13:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before you entered this article, the stable version defines Spain as the most climatically diverse country in Europe. You complained because you consider your country, Turkey, to be a European country (even though only a tiny part of it is in Europe), and then it was only written that Spain has the most Koppen climates in Europe. Once again you complain about this even though official sources confirm Spain as the most climatically diverse country in Europe and we clearly know its Koppen climates. There is no reason to delete a fact (established and with sources) from the lede for pure personal considerations. DrakeXper (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DrakeXper You still do not respond to any of my points. My point was not that I consider 'my country' to be part of Europe. I have outlined my issues again and again; please read them in my texts above, and please stop responding to a strawman. Again, please, tell me which sources directly support the statement you make (so an article that claims Spain to be the most diverse climatically in text), not just that Spain has 14 climate zones. Uness232 (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have an established source in lede’s article that literally says that Spain is the most climatically diverse country in Europe. Additionally, we also have and know the number of Koppen climates in Spain, which is greater in number than any country in Europe. DrakeXper (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DrakeXper I guess you are right that Workingabroad.com says this, but that source is far from an established source, and is WP:NOTRS per WP:SELFPUB; so I didn't even look at that in the beginning, and just deleted it. None of the official sources say this though, and I think for good reason.
Additionally, we also have and know the number of Koppen climates in Spain, which is greater in number than any country in Europe.
See, but we don't. These zones change by climate normal, and also by the Köppen rules applied. Again, why are we so insistent on adding this? As I said before (quoting, again, from prior reply): Beyond that, Köppen zones can be defined in many different ways. Is -3 or 0C being used for the C/D boundary? 30 or 40mm used for s/f? Are High-sun months or warm temperature months being used for aridity thresholds? And even beyond that, why 198[1]-2016? Yes Beck et. al. uses 198[1]-2016, but that is not even a standard climate period. There are newer maps that use 1991-2020, for example. Why should we navigate all of these issues and uncertainty just to include one trivia-like statement? Uness232 (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you ask me for a source that literally says that definition and when they show you that there is already a source like that in the stable version you proceed to say that it is invalid.
Climates and areas don't change overnight. What we have about Koppen climates is perfectly valid and is the standard used on Wikipedia in thousands of articles.
Saying that Spain is the most climatically diverse country in Europe or with the most Koppen climates in Europe gives adequate information for the lede of an article that is literally "Climate of Spain". I'm sorry, but there is no point in insisting on deleting it. DrakeXper (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DrakeXper That source literally merits deletion from the article. It is a WP:SELFPUB (a self-published source). I'm sorry I didn't look at it before making the comment, but I immediately deleted it while verifying, as it would not have been a valid source anyway.
Climates and areas don't change overnight. What we have about Koppen climates is perfectly valid and is the standard used on Wikipedia in thousands of articles.
They do if different Köppen thresholds are used. And, yes they can definitely change every decade; small changes can lead to very big climate zone jumps. A 50mm precipitation decrease in a sub-humid zone can turn half the zone semi-arid; sometimes doubling the climate diversity for that area in a very small change.
Saying that Spain is the most climatically diverse country in Europe or with the most Koppen climates in Europe gives adequate information for the lede of an article that is literally "Climate of Spain". I'm sorry, but there is no point in insisting on deleting it.
How do you define adequate here? I find the information interesting, yet questionable and not strictly necessary; there are also problems with this edit, especially concerning WP:V and similar. Uness232 (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to highlight that the only thing that makes me doubt this quote about Spain having the greatest climate diversity in Europe are the isotherms of 0/-3 ºC and the precipitation of the driest month of 30/40 mm. Even so, let's take into account that all European countries use the 0 ºC isotherm. Theoretically, this would lead to greater climate diversity, as it is easier to have regions with an average temperature in the coldest month below 0 ºC than at -3 ºC. Most countries use the 0 ºC isotherm, with exceptions that may use -3 ºC due to specific climatic conditions.
The fact that there is a source that specifically says that Spain is the most climatically diverse country in Europe already tells you how likely this could be true. You can't find any other source that says France or Italy have the greatest diversity. And another thing, I really doubt that there is a European country that has more than 14 different types of Koppen climates, not to mention that Spain has climates that are not found in any other country in Europe: BWh/BWk
Koppen's rules are the same and apply in all countries in the same way. What changes are only the isotherms. High-sun months (April-September) are taken into account everywhere to determine BW's and BS's Farell37 (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to highlight that the only thing that makes me doubt this quote about Spain having the greatest climate diversity in Europe are the isotherms of 0/-3 ºC and the precipitation of the driest month of 30/40 mm. Even so, let's take into account that all European countries use the 0 ºC isotherm. Theoretically, this would lead to greater climate diversity, as it is easier to have regions with an average temperature in the coldest month below 0 ºC than at -3 ºC. Most countries use the 0 ºC isotherm, with exceptions that may use -3 ºC due to specific climatic conditions.
All countries in Europe use 0C? Don't know about that. Hungary, for example, most definitely uses -3C (as it considers most of the country Cfa), and according to this page, the -3C threshold is used more often (and is older); Kottek uses -3C, most maps on Wikipedia not based on Beck et. al. also use -3C (see for example Climate of Italy). It is in fact 0C that is primarily a US phenomenon, with -3C being more common in Europe.
The fact that there is a source that specifically says that Spain is the most climatically diverse country in Europe already tells you how likely this could be true.
Perhaps this would be a convincing argument if the source was not so unreliable. I did admittedly miss the statement in the source, and that derailed the conversation, but that source is moot to me.
I still hold on to the idea that this is not strictly necessary and introduces uncertainties that need not be introduced policy-wise. (I also believe more personally that "climate diversity" is misleading term for having a lot of Köppen zones, but anyway)
Perhaps some dispute resolution is in order? I'm not sure how we're going to reach an easy compromise here. Uness232 (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The previous lede from the stable version will be recovered. There is no consensus to delete that sentence. DrakeXper (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DrakeXper What are you saying? I am talking about Wikipedia: Dispute resolution; something like WP:DRN for example, so that we can solve the dispute. Uness232 (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Uness232 You are helping me on this: All countries in Europe use 0C? Don't know about that. Hungary, for example, most definitely uses -3C (as it considers most of the country Cfa), and according to this page, the -3C threshold is used more often (and is older); Kottek uses -3C, most maps on Wikipedia not based on Beck et. al. also use -3C. An isotherm of -3 ºC supposedly indicates a lower climate diversity, as it is more difficult for a region to have averages below -3 ºC compared to 0 ºC. AEMET (Spain) divides D and C with the isotherm of 0 ºC.
What do you gain by putting this here? It is relevant information, which indicates how diverse the climate in Spain is, with around 14 different types, which is something unique. And another thing: Spain is one of the most mountainous countries in Europe and has the greatest biodiversity in Europe https://www.escapadarural.com/blog/pais-europeo-con-mayor-biodiversidad-de-fauna-y-flora/, both factors are closely related to the country's climate diversity.
Again, I highly doubt that you will be able to find a country in Europe with more than 14 different types of Koppen climates. Farell37 (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that a superlative statement is necessary information at all. A generalized, non-superlative option is just as informative and non-controversial. I agree that it is unlikely that another country in your definition of Europe (though I've also talked about that and how that could be problematic, despite your understanding that one conceptualization of Europe is more appropriate than another) would have 14 or more climates, but Wikipedia: Verifiability, not truth is a thing. Reliable sources (so the blog/self-published source does not count) do not directly say this, which is why this could easily be disputed, and why I don't think this is worth keeping; it's not flagrantly against policy, but is on very shaky ground, in my opinion.
By the way, the source you cite for diversity is also a blog, which is not appropriate sourcing for Wikipedia per our policies.
I'll probably start an RfC at some point, or something similar. Uness232 (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Uness232 It's not a blog, but a volunteer site (the climate diversity one), although it's not the best source to say this quote. Furthermore, Spain being the country with the greatest biodiversity in Europe further reinforces this, and many sources say this like this one too [3] [4]
Now, let's imagine that we include all of Europe, including political Europe (which honestly, once again, is irrelevant in the climate context, because climate is an area of ​​geography and to be honest it's not just my point of view, so much so that even the Climate of Europe cites exactly only geography). Even if we include the geopolitical territories of France, it would probably reach all 14 types. If we include all of Turkey, I also think it would reach 14 types. Russia would be the only one that would have greater diversity, due to its enormous size, but much of its territory is Asian and it makes no sense to include it in Europe (only Asian Russia should not be in climate of Europe). Again, if we include all of political Europe, the French territories spread around the world would come in, which to be honest, is irrelevant in the climate context of Europe. Farell37 (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was mostly thinking of Russia and Turkey in that context; which are transcontinental. I was also not claiming that Spain does not have the greatest biodiversity in Europe, just that your first source was not a great one.
Anyways, I'll set up an RfC in a week or two; I don't have time right now. Uness232 (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay and I agree that we start an RfC. Both sides have valid points and so it will be difficult to reach an agreement. Farell37 (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, If you want you can do it, but there's been quite a bit of discussion here and no consensus has been reached to change the stable version by removing those sentences. DrakeXper (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are only 3 editors here; the fact that there won't be consensus is basically a given if there is no immediate agreement. Uness232 (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Uness232, you could and should remove that info in the intro, you are in good faith, he is not. He has been blocked as a sock of well-known disruptor. I am sorry I forgot to inform you and you had to go through his strawmen. Barjimoa (talk) 06:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Verify sources

[edit]

We need to verify the four sources claiming Spain is the most climaticaly diverse country in Europe, they have appeared quite suspiciously and my fear is that they are twisted or invented. That's the four sources:

1)"Spain has the most diverse climate in Europe, with everything from lush, green landscapes in the north to arid deserts in the southeast, and even subtropical zones in the Canary Islands." - Payne, S. G. (2011). Spain: A Unique History. University of Wisconsin. Page 7.

2)"Spain is recognized as the most climatically diverse country in Europe, showcasing a wide range of climatic conditions." - Nordhaus, W. D. (2009). Climate Change in Spain: Impacts and Adaptation. University of Cambridge. Page 15.

3)"Spain has the most diverse climate in Europe, with conditions ranging from the alpine climates of the Pyrenees to the subtropical climate of the Canary Islands." - Marshall Cavendish. (2007). World and Its Peoples: Spain, Portugal, Andorra. Page 15.

4)"Spain is the most climatically diverse country in Europe, characterized by a variety of climatic regions from the humid northwest to the arid southeast." - Lionello, P. (2012). Mediterranean Climate: Variability and Trends. Elsevier. Page 17.

I have recovered the 2011 book by Payne S.G. here (https://ia801407.us.archive.org/15/items/payne-stanley-g.-spain-a-unique-history-2011/Payne%2C%20Stanley%20G.%20-%20Spain%20-%20A%20Unique%20History%20%282011%29.pdf) and I cannot find mention of that sentence in it. The other three were put there at the same time, so I suspect them as well. Barjimoa (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect these sources are from books. Anyways, it's more appropriated to say that Spain has one of the most climatically diverse countries in Europe, and according to some sources, the most varied [5] This is due to its diverse orography and as well being one of the most mountainous countries in Europe, thanks to the Meseta Central, as well as Cantabrian Mountains, Pyrenees, Iberian System, Central System, Baetic System, as well as other valleys such as Guadalquivir Valley, Ebro valley, tejo Valley, etc. All these factors together contribute to a very large climate diversity, with 13 different Koppen climates according to the AEMET.
However, I suggest to say this "Climate in Spain is very diverse. It is one of the most climatically diverse countries in Europe, and according to some sources, the most varied." This is because there's a source that says this. But we can't forget that Italy, Russia, France, Greece and Bulgaria have some of the most varied climates in Europe too. Farell37 (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Manfil has just been blocked and a sock of his was seemingly playing a similar game in another page, so I remain skeptical of the existence of the other three quotes (first one doesn't exist). I think I want to remove the tags + all four sources and replace them with the verifiable one you posted, while leaving the same content.Barjimoa (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_of_Spain&oldid=1241338262"