Talk:Köppen climate classification/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Proposal for consistent name for Csc climate

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:

• standardizing and simplifying the name to the more concise "Mediterranean subalpine climate"
  
• moving the Csc sections in this article from the "Oceanic climates" heading to the "Mediterranean climates" heading

This is for the following reasons:

• Csa and Csb are both referred to as Mediterranean climates. "Cs" is understood to equal "Mediterranean", not "dry-summer oceanic/maritime" and it makes sense to extend this convention to the Csc climate type. Also provides are more concise name
  
• Subalpine makes sense for the second qualifier, as all locations where this climate are found are in association with mountain ranges (e.g. the Cascades and the Andes). Due to altitude, these locations are able to reach cooler temperatures than the adjacent Csb climates.
  • Admittedly, Balmaceda (one of the three known locations with a Csc climate) is also adjacent to a Cfc (Oceanic subpolar) climate, so a case could be made to call Csc a "Mediterranean subpolar climate". However, Cfc climates extend significantly poleward, while the three known locations of Csc climates don't and are restricted to a narrow latitude range, being at 46°N, 45°S, and 43°N latitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redtitan (talk • contribs) 03:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

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)

Well, yes, it is very rare. This is probably why there isn't a special name for it like Med. However all letters have officially described names like humid, dry summer, etc. This is why I proposed using these names to define the abbreviation. In this case it would be dry-summer for s and cool-summer/subarctic/subalpine for c. Berkserker (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Made the changes, please take a look. Berkserker (talk) 05:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I take back what I said earlier. I did a bit more searching, and just tracked down an academic source listing Csc as "Mediterranean": https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257742374_Using_the_Koppen_classification_to_quantify_climate_variation_and_change_An_example_for_1901-2010 (I found another, although it's for a slightly modified Koppen system for paleoclimatology and so wouldn't count). Looks like Csc is listed as Mediterranean in Wikimedia commons as well: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mediterranean_climate

Using the existing terms in the table given in the current article (Table 1): http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/11/1633/2007/hess-11-1633-2007.html, a description of 'cold-summer Mediterranean' seems justified. Currently, Csa is listed as 'hot summer Mediterranean' and Csb is listed as 'warm summer Mediterranean', so it'd fit the existing terminology for Mediterranean types. Redtitan (talk) 06:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Now that Csc is defined properly, we need to differentiate between Csc and Dsc (subalpine) zones. Two of the examples on the article are actually Dsc since the D/C isotherm is no longer -3 C but 0 C according to the revised Köppen system. Berkserker (talk) 06:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Redtitan: Even though I said subpolar is defined by D, I want to point out to an inconsistency regarding this term. Subpolar oceanic climate (Cfc) which is clearly a C climate is defined as subpolar, which raises the question, is subpolar really defined by a coldest mean of 0C? If not then Dsc and Csc would be the same.. Berkserker (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Good point. The only academic source that provides a definition for something synonymous with subpolar (e.g. subarctic), lists only Dxc climates as being subarctic: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257742374_Using_the_Koppen_classification_to_quantify_climate_variation_and_change_An_example_for_1901-2010.

Going by that definition, it would seem that the both D and c are the thresholds for subpolar. (That'd make sense, since if the threshold was just D, then there's the awkward situation of Dsa climates in Iran, fairly far away from the poles)

But as you note, we have subpolar oceanic (Cfc). Looking at the subpolar oceanic wiki page, I actually can't find any academic resources justifying using 'subpolar/subarctic' for Cfc (and the article I just linked to, actually leaves out Cfc from the climates listed as 'subarctic'). Seems like we could rename Cfc to 'cold-summer oceanic' to be more in line with that academic source.

I'd possibly support that, but subpolar oceanic seems pretty established, and it makes sense for considering all places with this climate are close to the poles.

If we ventured into redefining 'subpolar' (ignoring original research worries) to be just a XXc climate, then we run into the problem of how to distinguish Csc from Dsc, like you mention. Both would be a dry-summer subpolar climate. But Csc climates are pretty far away from the poles.

What makes the most sense to me would be to call Csc "cold-summer Mediterranean", and Dsc as "dry-summer subarctic/subpolar". Then for Cfc, we could either keep it as is, or change it to "cold-summer oceanic". What are your thoughts? Redtitan (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Just realized I left out mention of d climates, which would be subpolar. Assume I mean c as a cold threshold and inclusive of 'd'. Redtitan (talk) 19:26, 11 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)

Madrid only borderline BSk

According to the Spanish version Madrid is borderline BSk [1].So it needs to go Weatherextremes (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, good, then you agree 20-60 mm is borderline. Berkserker (talk) 08:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

There is one more important thing to point out here. Since you are comparing different language versions, it is crucial to understand that what is written on Spanish, French, or any other language version doesn't really matter since each country has its own take on the Köppen climate system. If a country has most of its area dominated by one climate; say Spain by BS, or France by Cfb, then climatologists in those countries may customise the criteria for these climates. For instance:

• Some French sources have divided Cfa into three and include a "continentalised" version of the oceanic climate that is far from a true continental climate. [2][3]
• Some Spanish sources have redefined aridity and continentality to prevent a single climate from dominating the entire country. [4][5]

However these redefined climates can be only be taken as reference in a country-specific context and they do not apply to a global perspective.

Therefore the only safe way to identify the climate of a given locale is to apply the criteria on the data from climate stations. Berkserker (talk) 17:03, 9 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)

In fact Spain doesn't have few areas that have a BS climate no matter which period you take. It is true that Madrid and Valencia are closer to the limit compared to the most of central and eastern Spain, thus they are debatable based on the period taken. They are also closer to the border geographically. On this article Madrid and Valencia were featured only because they are larger and well known cities. The limited zones in Spain are in fact the BW (arid/desert) zones, which are comparable in size to the BS zones in Greece.

The Spanish source you posted, is very off from the Köppen aridity index. In these maps (there are quite a few others in Spanish), they probably use the Trewartha aridity scale. Here you can see some other maps [8][9][10] that are similar to your source. The last one also has a different continentality scale.

As for whether to include Madrid and Valencia in the article, we should compare Spanish and Greek normals as well their respective 61-90 and recent data sets. I will explain what I mean by that when we have the Piraeus data sent from HNMS. Berkserker (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Trewartha

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)

I'm not shure. It seems to me that it is here on purpose because it depends on / references so much to the Köppen scheme. I think you should wait for a comment from the original author or ask him trough his talk page. Dittaeva 08:16, 29 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 outer coast is Cfb, but Puget Sound and Willamette Valley (where most people live) are Csb - like large areas of California (and south Vancouver Island).24.108.58.1 (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2013 (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)

On the Trewartha note, it has its issues. I noticed there were no quality maps for the Trewartha zones. I decided to make a map in GIS, applying Trewartha's climate zone criteria to high-quality climate data from PRISM, and ended up with this map for the continental US:

US trewartha

Trewartha did successfully keep the PNW as oceanic, but look at the new oceanic belt that extends from Delaware to Kansas. I happen to live in western Washington state, in a temperate rainforest classified as "Mediterranean". I feel like that's a lesser sin than calling Kansas oceanic. Also, the whole Mediterranean zone in California nearly disappears altogether - due to higher precipitation along the coast, it exceeds Trewartha's standards for Mediterranean, giving California a lot of 'humid subtropical' land. Redtitan (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Southern Hemisphere "D" climates

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)

I've never seen climate statistics indicating D climates in the S. hemisphere. Without that, it's all guesswork.24.108.58.1 (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I made a Koeppen map for New Zealand drawing on WorldClim.org climate rasters. They're calculated using weather station data and then interpolate the climate in between by incorporating factors such as elevation. I did end up with a few pixels of continental climate on the South Island of New Zealand, but they're really rare. Again, without direct weather station data, it's an estimate at best and it probably wouldn't good to include that in the article without data normals from an actual weather station meeting the D climate criteria. But there does seem to be good reason to suspect that climate type is there. Redtitan (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Alternate criteria for 'Cw' climate?

There's currently a statement in the "Group C" subsection that states that for the 'w' subtype

". . . one variation also requires that the driest winter month have less than 30 mm average precipitation"

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)

Dsd?

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)

Orotukan http://www.worldweatheronline.com/Orotukan-weather-averages/Magadan/RU.aspx seems to be theoretically Dsd, but the above objections apply -the wet season is July-November, not in winter.24.108.58.1 (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Going strictly by Köppen standards, Omsukchan would still qualify as Dsc. The 's' and 'w' classifications go off half-years, not off just the three summer months. If you look at the summer half-year (April-September), the driest month in the summer-half year is April, with 21 mm. So it's below 40 mm. It's also less than 1/3 as dry as the wettest month in the winter half-year (Oct-March), which is October, with 99 mm precipitation. The third and final condition is that the driest month in the summer half-year must be drier than the driest month in the winter half-year, which also passes (April with 21 mm is drier than both the next driest months of March and December, which both have 24 mm precipitation).

Reviewing that source posted above for Orotukan, it appears that it would also qualify as Dsd, so it's not entirely theoretical. However, the figure on that website obscures the average low temperatures for January and December. While they have to be low enough to push the average temp below -38C, I'd feel uncomfortable adding Orotukan to the Köppen page without having the actual values for those two months.

Here's a academic reference that says that precipitation goes off half-years: http://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at/pdf/Paper_2006.pdf (see pg. 262)

There's another odd instance of Koeppen classifying areas in the American southwest and western Mexico as Mediterranean (Csa and Csb), which get most of their rainfall in late summer. Their driest periods are actually in spring, within the summer-half year, and also meet all the requirements for a 's' type climate. See the climate section of Flagstaff, Arizona for a good example. Redtitan (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Cf vs Cs climates

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)

When Psdry >= 30mm but still Psdry <= 1/3 Pwwet, the climate is classified as Cfs, which is an intermediate type between Cf and Cs. Instances of Cfsa can be found in NW Italy and of Cfsb in Galicia (NW Spain). Talskubilos (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I noticed something else in that section:

"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)..

It also contradicts Köppen by giving a 30 mm threshold instead of a 40 mm threshold. I've seen 30 mm listed elsewhere as a threshold, while the main literature source for this article all give 40 mm. That should be changed. Redtitan (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Some authors apply the 30 mm threshold, and others 40 mm. There's no consensus about that. Talskubilos (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

There is consensus on the 40 mm threshold in the academic literature. The only place I've noticed 30 mm be used as a threshold is here on Wikipedia. The only place in the literature I've seen 30 mm be used is in the Trewartha system, but that's separate from the Köppen system. If you know of any literature sources for a 30 mm threshold in the Köppen system, please post them here. Redtitan (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

However, I don't see this text anywhere in the article: "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)"

Where are you seeing that? I checked the oceanic climate article as well, but am not finding anything. Redtitan (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

If you read the signature, you'll see it was written by somebody elese in 2010. :-) Talskubilos (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, now I feel stupid. Thanks for writing that out. I now see you just wrote that one sentence. Sometimes hard to read who wrote what on here. Redtitan (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Also about the text: "When Psdry >= 30mm but still Psdry <= 1/3 Pwwet, the climate is classified as Cfs, which is an intermediate type between Cf and Cs. Instances of Cfsa can be found in NW Italy and of Cfsb in Galicia (NW Spain)." are you making a statement that this is something that should be added to the article? (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

My primary goal was to answer the 2010 comment, but now I think it could be added to the article.

I was thinking of adding a separate section to the Köppen wiki page for national or regional variations. Cfs or Cfsb would all be non-standard types, but I think worthy of mentioning. If it was added to the main article as a part of the standard Köppen system, it would probably be quickly deleted, since it wouldn't be supported in the existing academic literature for the standard Köppen system. Redtitan (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I've never seen Cfsa before - sounds like one of the many regional or national modifications to the Köppen system. Could you explain a bit more about that? Thanks! Redtitan (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

In it:Clima italiano#Tipi di clima they locate the Cfsa climate in the inland region around Genoa, but there's also a Cfsb climate in parts of Galicia (NW Spain). Talskubilos (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Definition of "summer" and "winter" months

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)

Actually, Köppen's original definition of summer and winter semesters is inconsistent, because is doesn't take into account the seasonal lag, so in the Northern Hemisphere the summer half-year is defined from from May to October and the winter half-year from November to April.[1] Of course, this has in impact on climates such as e.g. Barcelona's, where July is the driest month and the rainiest ones are September-October. As November rainfall doesn't triple that of of July, it can be no longer been classified as Csa but Cfa. Talskubilos (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Talskubilos:Do you have an academic source for that? I noticed you added a link to a tourism website: https://www.destatis.de/EN/FactsFigures/EconomicSectors/DomesticTradeAccommodationFoodServicesActivitiesTourism/Tourism/_ExplanationsOfTerms/WinterSummer.html

However, in the text of the webpage it says: "In the context of official tourism statistics, the summer half-year is defined from May to October and the winter half-year from November to April." Since we're talking about climatology and not tourism statistics for German government agency, that's not a valid source. Köppen may have overlooked seasonal lag, but we can't change the system ourselves if we feel it's inadequate. I was able to find an academic source from a open-source peer-reviewed journal that defined the winter half-year for a location in the Northern Hemisphere as October-March: http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/19/2353/2015/ Based on this new evidence, I'm going to revert your edits. Feel free to discuss here. Redtitan (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I won't call that "evidence", as there're other sources which say otherwise, for example: source #1, source #2, source #3, source #4, source #5, source #6 and so on. But I think this one would suffice: A Restrictive Definition of Mediterranean Climates, as it defines the winter half-year as November-April. Talskubilos (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for finding academic sources for that definition! It's always best to document things with reliable sources. With some more reseach, I found some even more documented sources for the summer half-year as April-September and for the winter half-year as October-March: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=summer-half+year+%28April-September%29+climate&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C48

I even found a journal article defining the winter half-year as October-April: http://hol.sagepub.com/content/13/6/933.short. So they oddly have a seven month half-year there.

LOL. I've noticed the authors are Chinese, so possibly this is a feature of their country. Talskubilos (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems there's significant disagreement on the exact definition of half-year in climatology. And unfortunately, none of the articles that I've seen talk about how they came to choose those months as defining a half-year. Seems it would be best to document the various definitions of half-years in the wiki, similar to how the wiki refers to -3°C and 0°C as two thresholds used to separate C from D climates. Frustratingly, the main two journal articles cited for the Köppen climate classification system don't list the actual months they used to calculate half-years. Redtitan (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm affraid this "controversy" about half-years is much like the one about the year centuries begin and end. For example, some people say the 20th century ended in December 31, 1999 and the 21th century begun in January 1, 2000, while others say it happened one year later, between 2000 and 2001. But for the classification of Mediterranean and sub-Mediterranean climates that difference is crucial. For example, Barcelona climate is often classified as Csa because the October rainfall is more than three times the one of July, but if we take the winter half-year as November-April it no longer qualifies as such. Talskubilos (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

If we list both definitions as academically supported like they are, then both definitions could be used on Wikipedia, with clarification that the climate definition uses a particular definition for climatic half year. You could use the May-Oct & Nov-April definition for the half-year that allows Barcelona to be Cfa, and elsewhere, where the other half-year definition is crucial, then the April-Sep & Oct-March definition could be used. Keeping both definitions and citing the journal articles that support each definition would be accurately reflecting the current lack of concensus in the literature.

You found some very reputable sources to support the Nov-April definition, and I found some - including an article in the journal Nature - that supports the other. Redtitan (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe you're making a very valid point about Barcelona. I'm just afraid if we go with only a Nov-April & May-Oct definition for half-year and ignore the support for both definitions in the literature, we're not showing the whole picture. It would also result in thousands of Köppen types for various cities to no longer follow the definition for types currently given in the current Köppen wiki page. Redtitan (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

In fact, an editor has put an "original research" tag to my last edit of Barcelona#Climate, as well as done some controversial edits to other articles. Talskubilos (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Talskubilos, you wrote: "done some controversial edits to other articles" - no, I (partly) reverted your controversial edits. You done many new changes, part of this are controversial. Also, please read: Talk:Barcelona#Climate: your sentence in Barcelona#Climate is typical "original research", user:Redtitan tries to hook it under "Routine Calculations", however, it requires discussion and consensus in a larger group of users [ not three :p ]. PS. I agree that summer in Barcelona lasts half a year (May-Oct). Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 19:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on this page, and welcome the opportunity to figure out what's the right way to move forward. If I may say one thing, I would worry that requiring a citation for every Köppen climate classification given to a town could result in thousands of Köppen climate desgnations being deleted. I know you say that not having citations is controversial, but deleting thousands of Köppen climate classification designations seems like a significant move. If changing Barcelona's climate type is controversial to you, removing thousands of climate types from articles for cities around the world feels like an even more controversial step. Redtitan 21:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Subtropical man, I think you aren't acquainted with Köppen climate classification. One of the salient features of mediterranean (without capitals) climates is the concentration of rainfall in the winter half-year, either defined by lower sun altitude (Oct-Mar in the northern hemisphere) as in Köppen's original work, or lower average temperature (Nov-Apr). Köppen's formula requires rainfall of the driest month in the summer half-year to be less than 40 (or 30 according to other authors) mm as well as less of one third of the wettest month in winter half-year. The thing is the July rainfall in Barcelona is less than 30 mm as well as less of one third the October rainfall, so it's **routinely** classified as Csa. But if we take the alternative definition of winter half-year by avg temp instead of sun altitude, then its wettest month would be November, which doesn't meet the 3 times rainfall requirement for being classified as mediterranean. There're in addition more restrictive definitions of the mediterranean climate (e.g. Aschmann's) which would even exclude the French coast of Gulf of Lion (e.g. Marseille). Talskubilos (talk) 11:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

In fact, Aschmann points out the 30 mm rainfall threshold defined by Köppen works well with typical mediterranean climates (e.g. Lisbon or Naples) but not with the ones found in the West Mediterranean. The climate of the coast around the Gulf of Lion (e.g. Marseilles) can be defined as a "Provençal" mediterranean subtype with a rainfall maximum in autumn (Oct-Nov) and a secondary minimum in winter (Jan-Feb) like the humid subtropical of the Po Valley (e.g. Milan). But south of the Pyrenees the rainfall maximum is in Sep-Oct and the winter secondary minimum becomes more marked, both things getting away from a true mediterranean climate. As suggested by User:Berkserker in Tortosa#Climate, this kind of climate could be described as transitional between humid subtropical (Cfa) and semi-arid (BSk) with mediterranean (Csa) influences. Possibly this would be original research, but we as editors should acknowlegde the limitations implicit in Köppen climate classification. Talskubilos (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Random Patches of Dsc/Dwc?

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)

Reference problem and those pretty flag bits

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)

I’ve again included the flags. There isn't a problem here. If you go to each city’s climate section, you should find the climate chart for that city, which is typically sourced. Utilizing Koppen’s parameters (or calculations in some instances) you’ll find that the climate classifications for the cities are generally accurate. As for those “pretty flag bits”, since you’re the only one who has raised objections about it (and the only one who seems hell-bent on removing them), is there any reason why you feel it is of utmost importance to take the flags down? Other editors have thanked me for including them in the article. G. Capo (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

And you have re-added a bunch of redundant links:

• Quibdó, Colombia (Af)

In this single line you have two links to Colombia and that is redundant. Beyond that in your revert you re-added that link to Colombia even though Colombia is linked in the line just four lines above:

• Medellín, Colombia (Af) - the result is four links to Colombia in close proximity - and that is rather in violation of MOS:OLINK and that problem is abundant in the article. And just below are 4 links to Brazil. As for the United States in the article - how many links are there? Each line of a US city has two links to the United States. I do see you were a bit inconsistent on that in your last edits.

I consider the "colorful" flag icons to be unhelpful verging on unneeded jingoism; they simply add nothing to the article and are a distraction in addition to violating overlinking policy.

As for the reference needed tags - Wikipedia articles essentially need to be independent and are not referenced by articles linked within. Examples: the Valdivia, Chile article which does say Oceanic climate, but with no source except for the climate table. But, if you look at the Collinsvale, Tasmania article - there is no climate data. So it seems the article does need references - as the linked articles don't always provide that support.

So, the problems are excessive link redundancy, lack of references in the article, and what I call colorful clutter which adds nothing to the article except redundancy and distractive jingoism. Please address each point in your response. Thank you. Vsmith (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

-3 instead of 0

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)

What is the reason for the different isotherms? I’ve been searching all over the place and usually the article reference the works written by Russell (Dry climates of the United States. I. Climatic map - Russell - 1931), Wilcox (or sometimes Wilcock -- Köppen after Fifty Years - Wilcock - 1968), Essenwanger (Classification of Climates - Essenwanger - 2001). I can’t find any of these online and nobody who references them bothers to explain their reasoning for the -3 --> 0 change.

Some bits I found:

The delimitation of California's areas of microthermal climate (Ds) is based on the January isotherm of -30 C. in Figure 3 and on the January isotherm of o? C. in Figure 4. The latter delimitation yields a better correlation of the regions of D climates with the areas of heavy snowfall where snow commonly remains on the ground for more than a month. The use of the o? C. isotherm for the delimitation of D climates in California is thus preferable, as was shown by Russell fifteen years ago.

and

He discusses at length the most suitable criteria for separation of cold (microthermal) and warm (mesothermal) climates, and claims that for North America as a whole the line of the 32° F. January isotherm is superior to the 50° F. isotherm proposed by van Royden (Monthly Weather Review, 1927) or the more elaborate basis in Koppen' s later classification (mesothermal = mean temperature of one month under 18° C. [c. 64° F.] and at least 8 months above Io C. [c. 34° F.]). He has already shown the value of the 32° F. line in California in an earlier field study (The Climates of California, this series, Vol. 2, No. 4) and now points out its close correspondence with important vegetational boundaries in the arid areas (especially between the creosote scrub to the south and sage brush to the north). Further east it corresponds remarkably closely with the northern boundary of the Corn

How is this US-centric system gaining traction?

Does anyone have any of the 3 articles I mentioned?

Where can I read more about the change of the average temperature of the coldest month classification change? (btw, sorry if this isn’t formatted properly. I don’t normally edit wiki talk pages and I don’t have an account. This was added on 29th May 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.15.137.53 (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

BWn

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)

The BWn/BSn is used as a modification for classifying the climate of Chile to describe the desert climate founded in the coastal areas in Chile, which is described already above by Pbrower2a as being a unique case. I thinking the n is more of description than rather than being used for classifying the climate as the Peel et al (2007) nor the Beck et al. (2018) uses it. For example, one of the sources describes Central Chile's climate as Csbn with frequent fog in the winter, indicating that n is just used for descriptive purposes and not really based on some temperature or precipitation thresholds that the other letters would use. It is a misnomer to call it mild desert climate as originally, the BWn is technically described as a desert climate with frequent fog without regards to temperature and would be original research and unsourced. My biggest concern is what is the criteria used to define a location as having a "mild desert climate"? In fact, the section on mild desert climates, since it was first added in November 2009 (based on the desert climate editing history) has been unsourced for 9 years. I have removed the BWn, BSn categories in the Köppen climate classification with this edit but kept the definition of using the n (it is not a third letter). Ssbbplayer (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Calculation of Köppen types - is it original research or a routine calculation?

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:

-All non-sourced Köppen types would need to be removed from this page and the respective pages of towns and cities, as they’d violate a core Wikipedia policy, unless a cited source could be found directly referencing that location having a certain Köppen type. That’d require edits on thousands of different pages.

-Giving a town a Köppen climate designation would require sourcing, rather than applying the rules of the Köppen system to climate data, in order for a certain place to be given a particular Köppen climate designation.

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:

1) First, Wikipedia’s policy on when to cite states that citation depends on its likelihood to be challenged (Wikipedia:When_to_cite:

• If, based on your experience, a given statement has a greater than 50% chance of being challenged in good faith, either by removal, in a discussion on the talk page, or by the addition of a [citation ::needed] or similar tag, then you should supply an inline citation for that material.

• If, based on your experience, a given statement has a less than 50% chance of being challenged, then inline citations are not required for that material.

• If you are adding a controversial fact, it is best to always cite your source (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).

For pages where there’s continual controversy over a city’s climate type – say Madrid or Barcelona – having a citation makes sense. The climate types for those places are constantly being challenged. However, the climate type for a smaller town such as Wick, Scotland isn’t likely to draw much controversy (it’s quite firmly in the oceanic climate type).

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).

2) Secondly, about the charge of “Original Research”, I believe applying Köppen type boundaries to climate table data would fall under the “Routine calcuations” exemption (for reference: Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine_calculations.

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):

A: Minimum mean monthly temperature ≥18°C

f: All months ≥60 mm mean monthly precipitation

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

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)

I do not really see the need for sources for climate classifications of locations. I mean, the criteria are objective and there's no uncertainty about the classification as long as you know which formulas are being used (for instance, whether the winter isotherm between C and D is -3 or 0 C, or which month range is used for the summer–winter half-years), what dataset you're using them on, and whether you did the math right. The math could actually be done automatically by a module, if someone wanted to create that. Then the determination would be completely objective and not open to dispute. It would be kind of neat if {{weather box}} had a function to automatically determine the climate classification based on the data displayed in the table. Then we wouldn't have to do the math ourselves, but just put the data into the table and see the result.

Using a source would be confusing when the source is using a dataset from one station and time period, and the weather box in the article is displaying a dataset from another station or time period. Then the article text would have to state that the classification doesn't agree with the temperature and precipitation variables that are actually displayed.

I'm curious, what sources could we use for climate classifications of locations? Weatherbase.com gives climate classifications, but often they are just plain wrong if you actually look at the data for average temperature and precipitation and do the calculations using the formulas. (I don't remember any specific examples at the moment.) I've also noticed errors on other sites. So those are not good sources to use. I don't know why they are often wrong (if they are using the wrong formulas or something), but for whatever reason they are. — Eru·tuon 00:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I really like the idea of a weatherbox that automaticaly calculates climate types. I have no experience in setting such a thing up, but I can look into it. It'd automate a lot of work and would automatically update with new climate data.

I'm envisioning a cell in the weatherbox table with a background color matching the Köppen climate types in the maps. The text in the cell could be the type, linking to that climate type's article, like this: Cfb - Oceanic

Heck, maybe we could even have a cell with the Trewartha type. Just thinking out loud there. I know how to do the Köppen type calculations in my GIS program (I've even done some work in Excel). Maybe there's overlap in that coding and what would need to be done in a Wikipedia template. Redtitan 00:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that idea of integrating the climate classification into the table sounds like what I was envisioning too. I would try to integrate climate classification into Module:WeatherBox (the module behind {{weather box}}), but I don't understand how it works enough to be able to find the average temperature and precipitation values in the module. I think it might work by only creating one row at a time, though, which might make it complicated to take the values from the average highs and lows, or average temperature, and the average precipitation, and do something with them... I'm very new to module coding anyway.

It would be easier to try making a separate module (maybe titled Module:Climate) that you can plug the monthly average temperature and precipitation values (or high and low temperatures, from which average temperature can be somewhat inexactly calculated) and that will output a climate classification. There could be an array of climate codes, names, and color values for each climate, which the module could use in producing the output text. — Eru·tuon 01:03, 5 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, Brazil

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)

The article. Recife receives nearly 2500 mm of precipitation and it has at least one dry season month. If you run the calculations based on the data, it isn’t a tropical savanna climate. I've changed this article to reflect that fact. G. Capo (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Climate map of Europe

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)

Azores is not a country

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)

Cwc & Dsd

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)

Too many "example" links

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)

That is a really good idea. There are about 40 examples of BS climates, which is at least 30 too many. It would be best to pare these down to a half dozen or so well known places so the reader gets a better idea of what a climate is like. In fact I may be boldly start doing just that. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Apparently when we need to prune examples, we need to prune “third world” examples. Tropical Rainforest Climates are most commonly found in “third world” nations. They should be represented here. G. Capo (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that a lot of these locations cites climatedata.org, which is unreliable because on their website, they explicitly stated how their data is modelled data and not observed data. Observed data is obviously more reliable than modelled data due to the inherent errors that modelled data has (e.g. not taking in account of local topography and microclimates). Any city that cites that source and included in here, should be removed from the list. Ssbbplayer (talk) 05:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)