Talk:Köppen climate classification/Archive 1

From Deep web, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2



Based on the consensus between me, Isomorphic and Dittaeva (see my talkpage), I moved the original Köppen climate classification scheme to this page, as it means the same thing, and the "scheme" was rather redundant. -- Matt Borak 13:00, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Precip less than evap

Arid/desert are "These climates are characterized by the fact that precipitation is less than evaporation." sez the page.

This makes no sense: apart from river/runoff, ppn=evap everywhere over land. In the sahara, ppn is definitely = evap, since there are no rivers.

The page actually says "These climates are characterized by the fact that precipitation is less than potential evapotranspiration." See the definition of potential evapotranspiration to understand this.

--- William M. Connolley 13:54, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)


Maybe some of the References section should be removed. It seems rather redundant to keep listing the book, publisher, and author. VashiDonsk 03:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, probably no need for references to each chapter of McKnight et al. individually. Deditos 12:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC).

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of September 26, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Fail This article gets very confusing in the first section titled "The scheme". Article also fails WP:LEAD.
2. Factually accurate?: Fail The only reference is a book. I would like to see some web references.
3. Broad in coverage?: Fail Could use a history section to tell how this idea was created.
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Neutral Try to put some picture if possible. They are however not required.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --Tarret 22:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


Milan in Italy does have summers warmer than 22 degr Celsius, the coldest winter month has an average of 1 degr C and there is, unlike most of the mediterranean, frequent summer precipitation. See here. Whether Britannica labels the climate continental or not does not say very much; many of the areas in the United States could be labeled continental as well. The temperature distinction between the humid continental (Dfa) and humid subtropical (Cfa) is the -3 degr C (0 C in the US) in the coldest month. The label subtropical might seem strange for a location where there might be snowing in winter, but that goes for many locations in the US and China as well...There is an area from the Po valley in northern Italy and in parts of the Balkan which fullfills all criteria given in the article. Orcaborealis 10:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Source for summer precipitation here. Orcaborealis 10:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion continues here: Talk:Humid subtropical climate. Dantadd 01:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


The first mention of "Köppen-Geiger" is the heading "World Map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification..." and who this Geiger fellow is doesn't get mentioned at all. I assume it's Rudolf Geiger. Anyone wish to expand the article? —Pengo 14:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

University of Melbourne map

The new map has a better resoution than the previous, but raises at least two questions:

  • There is mismatch between the text and the map, at least on Dsc, prominently colored in the map. Please change one of them.
  • The zones will vary with the time interval chosen. "Period of record: All available" is a poor description. Can this please be improved? Gabriel Kielland 19:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Better resolution?? The new map is not good. I can see many mistakes for the country I know best, Norway: Porsgrunn and Skien on the southeastern coast colored as a subarctic (Dfc) climate, Lofoten not colored as Cfc, highlands in Nord-Trøndelag colored as Dfb, and so on. I suggest you switch back to the original map. Orcaborealis 20:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
@Orcaborealis: Sorry, but this map is given to us by the University of Melbourne and is very recent and peer reviewed. So I am not going to remove this at all. Please be happy that we receive updated scientific maps.
@Gabriel: I checked the colours for Dsc and they all match, on the map and in the legend on and below the map. If you have question about the Period of record, please see the this page and read the pdf or e-mail Dr. Peel. (I will add a reference on this page, to make it more clear. Please see the image-description page for more details). --Jeroenvrp 12:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The specific problem with Dsc is that the article now says : "Dsc, like Dsa and Dsb, is confined exclusively to highland locations near areas that have Mediterranean climates, and is the rarest of the three as a still higher altitude is needed to produce this climate." The UofM map, however, shows Dsc mainly in Kamtchatca, Alaska and Yukon. Either the article or the map is wrong. A third possibility is that the time period chosen could have an influence on discrepancies of this kind. Gabriel Kielland 22:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Than I think the article is wrong. Dsc has dry summers with 4 or less months per year that the average monthly temp. is more than 10°C (also called cool or cold continental climate with dry summers). Dsa an Dsb have higher temperatures and some of them are indeed near areas that have Mediterranean climates (like the Anatolian Highlands). See also this map on commons for comparison (only for comparison, because that one has no source). See also the paper of the UoM-map. --Jeroenvrp 23:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. See also this map. --Jeroenvrp 23:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

0C or -3C?

What climate zone are NYC, southern New England and northern New Jersey in? I think that either the dividing line between Dfa and humid subtropical should be where the coldest month is -1.5C or areas with a coldest month temperature of between -3C and 0C should be called "continental-subtropical." There could also be "warm" regions of this climate (such as eastern Bergen County in New Jersey and NYC), sourced here: (, with January (the coldest month) temperatures averaging -1.5C to 0C and "cool" regions (such as southern New York), (look it up by clicking on nearest cities), whose January temperatures average between -1.5C and -3C. As for Cape Cod being Marine West Coast, its summers look way too hot to me. Maybe people in the U.S. should observe the -3C line too. Oh, and one final word about NJ's counties. Eastern Bergen County's January's are between -1.5 and 0C, while Passiac County's and western Bergen County's are between -1.5C and -3C. (on that website) In Sussex county, January's average temperature is under -3C (you guessed it- on that website). Press olive, win oil (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


Could somebody turn the map I got into an image? The map is better than the last- so don't change it. Press olive, win oil (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Source for Harbin

[[1]] shows that Harbin has a D climate with a third letter of a. The China website on the Darbin page says somewhere that 70% of its precipitation is in summer, resulting in the "w" in Dwa. Press olive, win oil (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Page fully protected per recent edit warring

Page sysop protected for 48 hours. Hash it out here, folks. Tan | 39 00:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Debatable Map

According to, New York City's coldest month temperature averages above -3C/26.6F, making it a Cfa climate according to the Köppen climate classification (the summers are hot enough). In the map, New York City is in the Dfa range, probably because the map uses 0C/32F as the coldest month's average temperature as the border between C and D climates. Köppen's system uses -3C/26.6F, making New York City Cfa, which the map does not. The map isn't actually using the Köppen climate classification. Press olive, win oil (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The system has been adjusted in many respects. Generally speaking, 0C/32F is the borderline these days. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Only by American (and, apparently, Australian) scientists. Having half of Germany and Denmark cut off makes absolutely no sense, the KCC is supposed to represent a phytogeographic as well as climatic classification, that was Köppen's ambition. The Cfb/Dfb border is supposed to represent the decidious/coniferous forest one, that happens further north/east, at ca -3C. Subfuszion (talk) 07:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Subfuszion. In addition, using a map that does not follow the KCC, and without an explanation, is misleading and thus not in line with Deep web guidelines. The temperature of 0 C is not as defining in nature as one might think, freezing of any large water body usually requires lower temperatures, and the same goes for soil freezing. And even an average temperature slightly above freezing will often see the termometer dip below freezing, so plants must take a winter break anyway. A 24-hr temperature of -3 C is regarded as the persistent snow line. Orcaborealis (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)I agree with Orceaborealis and Subfuzion. Press olive, win oil (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Even supporters of the Melbourne map (Jeroen and Sbrown1202a) use -3 as the c/d border. Press olive, win oil (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

NYC and other problems with the map

NYC is humid subtropical because its coldest month averages above -3C. One map that was here said it was Dfa, so I reverted the map. Press olive, win oil (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I support the move, the previous map was full of mistakes: Humid continental climate suddenly appearing in the most northern subarctic (Dfc) regions, wrong about the c-d border, wrong about the norwegian coast and so on...Orcaborealis (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

We are not the ones that can decide if this map is full of mistakes. That is NOT NPOV! This academic map is peer reviewed (please follow the link to the paper) and up-to-date. --Jeroen (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
If you have a better peer reviewed academic map, you're welcome, but until than we use this one. BTW: If you look carefully you see that NYC is Cfa (just on the edge of Dfa). You can read about Norway in the paper (see the source). --Jeroen (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the University of Melbourne map is better....It is much more detailed with a higher resolution, and it is very accurate. And maybe those parts of Norway have a continental climate....just because it's called continental doesn't mean it has to be located on a continent. And NYC is humid subtropical...its coldest month is above -3. Sbrown1202a (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the eastern part of Long Island is cfa, but it says dfa on the map. [[2]] shows that Montauk, on eastern Long Island, is cfa. Yes, continental climates can be coastal, but a continental spot doesn't show up randomly on the Norweigan coast surrounded by a subarctic climate. Press olive, win oil (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the map is made by an very reliable source, high resolution and a cleaner image. This image has no source to what data it's based on and is poorly done. Please stop reverting as you're edit warring as you have reverted anyone over a period of time (Content dispute) which is blockable. Bidgee (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Some mistakes in the map: There is an area in central Scandinavia (Northeast of Trondheim) which is marked as Dfb, even in the highlands at the Norwegian/Swedish border. Only a very small area in the lowland near the innermost part of Trondheimsfjord could possibly be dfb. Most of this area thus is Dfc, not Dfb. And, far north in Yukon territory in Canada is the same mistake, as there is a Dfb marked area even in the northern part of the Dfc zone.
The most serious mistake: Southern Sweden is shown as humid continental (Dfb) even if the coldest month is warmer than -3 and has more than 4 months (120 days) with summer (24-hr average at least 10 degres Celsius), see data for Malmø. The correct classification for southern Sweden (south of Stockholm) is Cfb. The same mistake goes for most of Denmark, which is also marked as humid contintenal, even if the coldest month is well above -3 Celsius. So the whole of Denmark should be Cfb. And, the same mistake goes for a long, thin area along the Norwegian coast, which should be Cfb North to Kristiansund and Cfc further north, as in Bodø and Svolvær. It is marked as Dfc on the map. Thus, the makers of this map has chosen 0 C as the C/D border, not -3 which is correct in the Köppen climate classification. This is thus a systematic mistake affecting large areas, particularly in North America and Central Europe. Have we really no better map than this? Orcaborealis (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Do you have sources? Again I'm sure University of Melbourne would have been rather careful in making this map. Bidgee (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I will give you sources, but also check the articles I have linked to. Bodø official climate statistics here. Prague should be Cfb, is marked as Dfb due to the systematic error with regard to C/D border, one source here. Malmø here. Gdansk in northern Poland, marked as Dfb on the map, but is really cfb, see here. Budapest in Hungary, same mistake here. Gothenburg in Sweden is really Cfb, see World Meteorological Organization - Gothenburg. Orcaborealis (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe, but the map proposed by Press olive, win oil (talk · contribs) isn't better or more accurate (the borders around the Black Sea are a mess on both maps). However, it is unsourced, low resolution, with hardly distinguishable tints of green - can you see a difference between Cfa and Cfb, Cwa and Cwb, let alone a border? Colchicum (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
The Melbourne map has a systematic error - not something we would like in an encyclopedia. Another example, Austria is marked as Dfb, but is Cfb, see Vienna which is Cfb, another source here; eastern Germany is Cfb and not Dfb, and so on. Orcaborealis (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Again these are not errors. I advise you to read this scientific paper carefully, especially chapter 2. Than you will hopefully understand why you see these differences. If you still have questions afterwards I advice you to e-mail Dr. Peel (see the left bottom on page 1 of the paper). --Jeroen (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I guess you mean this from the article you referred to:

"There have been many modifications proposed to the K¨oppen system but here we have used criteria that follow K¨oppen’s last publication about his classification system in the K¨oppen-Geiger Handbook (K¨oppen, 1936), with the exception of the boundary between the temperate (C) and cold (D) climates. We have followed Russell (1931) and used the temperature of the coldest month >0�C, rather than >–3�C as used by K¨oppen in defining the temperate – cold climate boundary (seeWilcox, 1968 and Essenwanger, 2001 for a history of this modification)."

Exactly what I said - a systematic error! The fact remains that this is article is about the Köppen climate classification - thus the map, without an explanation, is misleading. In addition, there are other mistakes in the map, some of which I have mentioned earlier (Yukon, central Scandinavia). I can give plenty of sources for these additional mistakes. And, if you look at Iceland, the map is a mess. Orcaborealis (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This is what the article says about the rare Dsc climate: "Dsc, like Dsa and Dsb, is confined exclusively to highland locations near areas that have Mediterranean climates, and is the rarest of the three as a still higher altitude is needed to produce this climate. Two examples are Zubački kabao, Montenegro (Dfsc perhumid Mediterranean snow climate) and Galena Summit, Idaho." On the map, however, large areas in the subarctic/arctic (northeastern Alaska, an area in northern Canada, parts of eastermost Siberia, northern Iceland) are marked as Dsc (violet) - thousands of kilometers from Mediterranean climates! And, the largest part of the southern coast of Iceland - the mildest, warmest part of the island (Cfc climate) are marked as tundra on the map! While large areas of the central highlands on Iceland, which largely are tundra, are marked as boreal (Dfc) climate -and should therefore have large areas of coniferous forest! Orcaborealis (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

And who are you to come to these interpretations about "errors"? The choices that are made for this map are very well documented, and even approved by the scientific community, and again - please e-mail Dr. Peel why you disagree with his work. --Jeroen (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
BTW: Also remember that the data used for this map is taken from a long period. The most of the other maps are from a restricted period. Anyhow if you have a better map that is also free, recent, peer reviewed and has this high resolution, etc.. you're welcome, but I already wrote that. I have nothing to add. --Jeroen (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is a map that would actually illustrate the Köppen classification in an excellent way, using -3C as the border dividing C/D climates and displaying a picture of the climate of northern latitudes which makes perfect sense. This map is based on two of the most renowned climate resesearch universites/centres in the world. Quote: "Based on recent data sets from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia and the Global Precipitation Climatology Centre (GPCC) at the German Weather Service, we present here a new digital Köppen-Geiger world map on climate classification for the second half of the 20th century." The link is here. Orcaborealis (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind that map! Problem is it looks like the image is copyrighted. Bidgee (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Orceaborealis' map is good. It shows NYC as cfa and gets Europe right. Press olive, win oil (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That map is "also" good, but is unfortunately not "free". Please contact the owners of that map and ask if they are willing to re-license the map in high resolution under a free Creative Commons license? Good luck! --Jeroen (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to look for a good map. Keep this page on your watchlists, everyone. Press olive, win oil (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Is [[3]] acceptable? It's from Britannica, but Norway is a mess. At least they have North America right. Press olive, win oil (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a better map, and -3 C is used. They have got most things right as I see it. The complicated area in Scandinavia and indeed Europe seems ok based on what is possible with that resolution. The Milan-area is marked green (Cfa), and the whole of Germany is Cfb. They have attempted to get mountain ranges show correct, as with the Alps, mountains in Scandinavia, etc, which is difficult given the resolution in a world map. Orcaborealis (talk) 08:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
It looks ok but Northern and South Eastern Australia is wrong. Top End of the Northern Territory is Aw and the whole of the East Coast of Australia isn't Cbf. Bidgee (talk) 08:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
That map by Britannica is fairly accurate, but the resolution is way too low to see any kind of detail. Furthermore, Antarctica is completely missing. I think that Orcaborealis's map is almost perfect and has an acceptable resolution...too bad we can't use it...Sbrown146 (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

We should all search for another map. Orceaborealis posted several Koppen maps when bringing up a point to Dantadd. Orceabolis proved to Dantadd Milan was cfa. Can we use a map there (Talk: Humid subtropical climate)?Press olive, win oil (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC) How about [[4]]? Though it needs a key (can we make one?), it gets North America right. Even though c climates don't go up the coast of Norway enough, Iceland is fine. It's so good that it shows a d island in a mountainous part of Scotland.Press olive, win oil (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad map as I see it, resolution is better than previous. Seems to lack the (quite rare) Cfc climate though (Alaskan islands, part of northern Norwegian coast, extreme southern Chile ++).Orcaborealis (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think one advantage of my most recent map is that it takes elevation into consideration so carefully that it shows a d island in Scotland. Elevation is often not taken into consideration.Press olive, win oil (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Tropical rain forest (Af) examples

I removed Fort Lauderdale, Florida from the list of examples of tropical rain forest (Af) climates; while it technically receives more than 60 mm (2.36 inches) all twelve months of the year [5], the area is not really a rain forest and so Fort Lauderdale is a bad example of such a climate (particularly with nearby Miami being used as an example of tropical monsoon [Am]). Rather than leave only two examples there, I searched for another (better) example and found Hilo, Hawaii, which is one of the wettest cities in the US (per its Deep web page and sources cited there), and thus have added it to the list as a particuarly good (IMHO) example. adamw4 (talk) 07:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Defining the boundary and poll

I know there is a lot of debate on what criteria to use for the C/D boundary, since that is quite disputed among scientists and maps these days. There are basically there options (leave your vote below the options):

  • Option 1: use the -3°C (27°F) boundary per traditional standards; anywhere above that is listed at the C climate in their profiles (whether it be Cfa, Cfb, Cfc, Cwa, Cwb, Cwc, Csa or Csb).
    • Option 1: Koppen used it. It's agricultural. Needle Palms can grow in New York City, which is between these lines. Also, if you look in the last section, Orceaborealis said a map used 0C instead of -3C, but Jeoren argued it used -3C as well. Press olive, win oil (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Option 1: Yes, this is the original boundary made by Koppen, so it would only make sense to classify according to the -3. sbrown146 (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Option 1: Yes, this is the original boundary. There could be a separate article (modifications to the köppen climate classification) for later modifications (in my view, possibly the most sensible modification would be to separate the C class into two classes based on a 6°C boundary for coldest month, and D class based on a -10°C boundary for coldest month or based on mean annual temperature of 0°C, which could also be used for Et climate, and could help to identify areas susceptible to permafrost).Orcaborealis (talk) 08:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Option 1: This is Köppen's definition. The article could be more specific on who first introduced the zero boundary and its overall implication. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Option 2: use the 0°C (32°F) boundary per common modern standards; anywhere below that is listed at the D climate in their profiles (whether it be Dfa, Dfb, Dfc, Dwa, Dwb, Dwc, Dsa or Dsb).
  • Option 3: make a special mention - note in their profiles that it falls in between the boundaries and may be classified either way depending on source.
    • Option 3 (Both) Sure this is a straightforward WP:NPOV issue. Some scientists think it's 0C, some -3C. As always, we include both points of view. --Matt's talk 20:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should give it till January 1 to settle this. Who (dis)agrees with that? I also think we made need to create a wikiproject whatever we choose, because some articles such as New York City use the -3C line but Missouri uses the 0C line. Press olive, win oil (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC) Also, Subfuzion agrees with -3C, too. Press olive, win oil (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC) What do you think, Crazy C83? Press olive, win oil (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

    • I would say: both. Because that reflects the factual situation. If you are forced to choose between one of the two options I think we should prefer option 1, with a footnote mentioning option 2. Hopefully this will be helpful. --Jeroen (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have any opinions about when to close this poll up? Press olive, win oil (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of polling (See Deep web:Polling is not a substitute for discussion). Bidgee (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I prefer using the modern standard of 0°C. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Bidgee, look at that polling page. This poll won't create those problems. Take "You might miss the best compromise." Jeroen voted for a compromise. I think this poll is a good idea, considering Deep web uses 0C but Koppen and most Deep webns, including me, advocate -3C. Press olive, win oil (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Also, we aren't substituting polling for discussion, we're just doing both and giving reasons for our votes. Press olive, win oil (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC) So, it's way past New Years. We have:

  • -3C: 3 votes
  • 0C: 1 vote
  • Option 3: 1 vote.

-3C. Option 1 is winning or has won (depending on whether or not we close the polls up). Should we go about editing Deep web to use the -3C line? Press olive, win oil (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes we should, but it might be good to post a final deadline for votes a few days in advance. I know that we'll still have an imperfect poll, though, since not everyone interested in this issue will know abou the poll, but I guess this is the best we can do. sbrown146 (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Okay. Polls close on Jan. 31? Also Option 1 has 3, Option 3 has 2, and option 2 has 1. Option 1 is still winning. You also forgot the t in about. Press olive, win oil (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Score: 4 or -3C 1 for 0C 2 for compromise

I will update the score. -3C is still winning. Many people blindly support 0C . After we do this poll, and we have a lot of people here, how about the h/k border for the b section (average 18C like Koppen said or modern and more widely used standard month below freezing or compromise). Anyway, I think this poll should last until January 31. Is that a good idea? Press olive, win oil (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to say but this is not about numbers (which is why it's not seen as a substitute for discussion and why some say voting is evil), this should be about a consensus and ATM there is no consensus. Please see WP:Consensus. Bidgee (talk) 10:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I concur with Bidgee's statement's above. Whilst I see that there is some discussion as to why a particular vote is being provided it still appears to be the case that this discussion is far more a numbers based poll; that is a counting of this or that vote than a consensus building discussion. This quote from official policy at Deep web:Consensus#Participating_in_community_discussions assists:
In determining consensus, consider the strength and quality of the arguments, including the evolution of final positions, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace if available. Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority. New users who are not yet familiar with consensus should realize that polls (if held) are often more likely to be the start of a discussion rather than the end of one. Editors decide outcomes during discussion.
Polls are structured discussions, not votes. Opinion has more weight when you provide a rationale during a poll, not just a vote. Convince others of your views, and give them a chance to convince you. Pure argumentativeness rarely convinces others.
As you can see if/unless this discussion is structured, with the final outcome being based on the strength and quality of the arguments then the conclusion can be easily challenged and/or ignored. Best wishes in finding that consensus. --VS talk 22:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

They're right. A poll is too arbitrary of a method to determine what we should do in this case, and it is not appropriate for this sort of discussion. I think the best way to settle this is option 3, which can be seen as a compromise between sides. I don't think anyone here would really object to that, since it should satisfy both the -3 and 0 sides. sbrown146 (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC) Okay. We should talk about this then. I think you're right. We shouldn't poll. We should discuss. I also think sbrown is right. We should show both options, buth emphasize -3C more because Koppen used it. Press olive, win oil (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


Could someone explain what does Cfwbx exactly mean? I think it may be a sub-group of Cfb, but I'm not sure. Admiral Norton (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)ˇ


I'll have to check my textbooks on this one... Agreed the Cw classification is temperate, I have a difficult time labelling it as Oceanic or Marine, as per the Cf climates. Any insight out there on common labels for Koeppen's Cw criteria? Koppenlady (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Geiger's Csb and the Mediterranean description

It seems to me that the term "Mediterranean" became associated with the original Koeppen classifications, even though it was never actually represented as such. That is understandable, since the primary area associated with this "Dry-Summer Temperate" was in the Mediterranean area. Under Geiger, the Cs zone became modified, especially the Csb (cool summer), and the extent of the zones increased to the Pacific Northwest and parts of central inland Mexico, among others. Clearly no longer "Mediterranean", but still Dry-Summer. The problem, I am seeing, is that the term "Mediterranean" is sometimes applied to the climate in places like Victoria, BC, Portland, Oregon and Seattle, and proponents point to the Csb classification. Under Geiger, this is not necessarily "Mediterranean", although places like San Francisco and Oporto clearly are. Trewartha's modified climate classification seems an improvement, although it too is flawed. Time for a better system? Nonetheless, I digress- my original point is that Csb does not necessarily mean "Mediterranean" and to call the climate of Victoria and Seattle "Mediterranean" does a huge disservice to the classification systems represented here. Any thoughts?Koppenlady (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the differences between Victoria, Seattle, Oporto and San Francisco are as pronounced as you seem to believe. I think this is due in large part to popular misconception, both of the term "mediterranean climate" (in the first place), and secondly of the intricacies of microclimates in the Pacific Northwest. Further, I would argue that the section of the article naming Victoria and Seattle as "Cfb - sometimes Csb" makes no sense at all. This is an article about Köppen's climate classification system, and these cities either conform to the Cfb definition or they don't. In the case of Victoria at least, the answer is "it doesn't". This section needs to be rewritten to reflect the climatological reality, rather than a kneejerk reaction that it doesn't "seem right" that the Pacific Northwest would have Csb microclimates. It demonstrably does, and if you put aside popular cliches for a moment, this fact isn't even surprising given the latitude and geography. (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the differences between Victoria/Seattle and Oporto/San Francisco are huge. Nonetheless, I'm not denying the Csb label, for Koeppen-Geiger is quite flawed in this regard. Much of the Pacific Northwest is Csb (Victoria included). I do, however, emphatically disagree with the "Mediterranean" monicker for Victoria/Seattle. This is not a matter of "preconception", but a matter of comparative analysis of temperatures, duration of winter rain vs. summer drought, and general ecological biomes. To me, it's an Oceanic climate with Mediterranean characteristics, but that is simply WP:POV so I can't make a case. Koeppen is Koeppen, no matter what I think. Koppenlady (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind also, that under Trewartha's modified Koeppen climate classification the two major requirements for a med climate are: at least 8 months must have average temperatures of at least 10deg C and the average annual precipitation must not exceed 900mm (35 inches). It seems Victoria is very much at the limits of (b) but clearly fails (a). Under this classification, both Victoria and Seattle fall under Trewartha's DO Temperate oceanic climate, while SF remains Mediterranean. Koppenlady (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Table defining the letters: sample

I'm not good at tables, but I think the content I did below is useful. I'm no climate expert, and would have welcomed this summary. Does anyone like it enough to improve it and add to the article? I think it works at the beginning of "scheme".

The first three letters of the climate code signify the following, in order
Main climates A: equatorial B: arid C: warm temperate D: snow E: Polar
Precipitation W: desert S: steppe f: fully humid s: summer dry w: winter dry m: monsoon
Temperature h: hot arid k: cold arid a: hot summer b: warm summer c: cool summer d: extremely continental F: polar frost T: polar tundra

B.S. Lawrence (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Absent any comment, I'm moving this to the article page. Hopefully that will generate some. -- B.S. Lawrence (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Why did no one tell me about the {{koppen}} template? Well, it's there now. -- B.S. Lawrence (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Speaking as a layperson, it took me about 20 minutes to figure out the difference between, say, Dwb and Dfa... the abbreviations are defined and scattered all throughout the article. —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Central Europe

The top map seems to be false about Central Europe. According Koppen classification, it is an oceanic climate (Cfb) until Eastern Poland. This map seems to me more accurate for Central Europe : —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Coyhaique has no Csb climate

Coyhaique has no Csb climate. The driest month has a rain of 55 mm, and this happens in spring, not in summer ... Some cities like Temuco (sometimes Cfb) o Concepción has csb climate. I edited the article --Serbesa (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

these maps need to be replaced

The colours are too similar which makes the whole confusing83.7.156.216 (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing of Cwc section

I see,there is no Cwc anymore.Why someone delete that class???? (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Veritable Synonyms for Freezing Weather

"The names of some of the places that have this climate — most notably Verkhoyansk and Oymyakon — have become veritable synonyms for extreme, severe winter cold."

Uh, yeah, when it gets cold here in New York, I hear people saying all the time, "It's like Oymyakon out there!" GeneCallahan (talk) 09:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Unclear Sentence

"Temperate temperatures are the consequence of altitude which become cooler year-round."

This sentence seems to say that "altitude become cooler year-round," which makes absolutely no sense. This should be written to make clear what is meant. GeneCallahan (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Since no one has fixed this, I just yanked the sentence. If someone knows what it was supposed to say, please fix it and put it back. GeneCallahan (talk) 09:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Discrepancy between the maps and the description

The description of the temperate climates explains that there are two minimal temperature values for these climates (0°C or -3°C average of the coldest month) but includes cities which only fit the second definition (for example Philadelphia or New York), not to mention that some cities, like Cleveland, are included despite not fitting either of the two definitions. The maps however, use only the first definition. I think this contradiction should be corrected by sticking to one of the definitions. Kostja (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Temperate Tropical Highland (Cw) is not Oceanic

This article is about the Köppen system, and among the WP:OR misconceptions in this article is the impression that Cw climates are Oceanic zones. Not true. Only Cf climatic zones are Oceanic/ Marine West Coast (even the "exeption" parts of Csb are not Marine under Köppen, only in public perception and other classifications such as Trewartha). Places like Mexico City do not get uniform rainfall throughout the year (a hallmark of Oceanic) and are Dry Winter Temperate. In fact, the dry winters are more like the dry summers of the Mediterranean climate (Cs) if we must group. Aw is a dry winter Tropical; Cw is a dry winter temperate, found most often in tropical highlands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koppenlady (talkcontribs) 00:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Cs precipitation pattern

The updated map at the top of the article uses 3* Psdry < Pwwet and Psdry <= 40 mm to classify dry summer 's' precipitation patterns (Csa, Csb) – see

So does the other updated classification source:

The article should be changed to reflect this, describing it either as a new alternative, or as the updated classification for 1981-2010, else the map (and further sources which use 1981-2010 figures) will be inconsistent.

(For those interested, I'm not familiar with these authors, but colleagues have said this change was made to keep Mediterranean climates which are normally dry, but are increasingly experiencing 'freak' wet summers (300, 400 % rainfall), which are becoming more common due to GW. These freak summers pushed some places above the 30 mm threshold. The C criteria can also take into account places which could be Cs and Cw simultaneously, but have most rainfall in either in summer or winter, allowing one to choose one over the other.)

Climatophile (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The modifications sound quite reasonable, but the name has to be changed to reflect this eg Koeppen-Geiger-Peel. If the name is not changed, total confusion results. (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Yemen highlands and Northwest & Central Somalia seem misclassified

How come these regions are classified as having the same climate as the Sahara or the Rub Al Khali?? This seems rather ridiculous if one does not notice the substantial climatic difference between those regions and proper deserts.

Examples of the landscape in said regions:

Yemeni highlands:

Northwestern/Central Somalia:

It would be more appropriate to place them under Bsh than Bsw..Wadaad (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Was Köppen revised recently?

Looking at the Köppen map, I was surprised to see that in the US the humid subtropical zone extends as far north as the Ohio River Valley and Lower Midwest. I remember when I was in high school (about a decade and a half ago) the humid subtropical region in North America only included the "Deep South" (places like Alabama, Mississipi, and such). Places like Kentucky were well within the "Humid Continental - Warm Summer" zone.

So I don't know if this means that Köppen changed within the past couple decades or if there was another system that was in common use in American schools a couple decades ago. Anybody know?... -Helvetica (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

That's it, there is an American version of Koppen-Geiger which gives the result you learned in school. They are always tinkering with the system. Vancouver was Csb when I was in school, now it is Cfb. They need to have KG 3.1, KG 4.1, etc. (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Split proposal

The Trewartha system deserves its own article, IMO. Benny White (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. Plenty of Trewartha coverage out there. Brycehughes (talk) 13:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. It's astonishing, why it's in the article of Köppen climate classification!Diako1971 (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I know many climate fans who like it and while it is based on the Köppen system, there have been many changes. Sfoske70 (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Ecological significance of koppens climatic classification

The article being merged from has insufficient material to stand alone Fiddle Faddle 16:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


There are serious problems with this map, even some which can be seen almost immediately upon opening the file. In fact the untouched version and/or individual climate maps (A, B, C...) are better than the new version in general. I strongly suggest a comprehensive edit, preferably starting country by country, then combining them for better results. There are both major (ex. half of germany portrayed as continental, excessive semi-arid regions in turkey etc.) and minor problems (microclimates and mountainous regions). There should also be a consensus on using which version of Köppen-geiger (0 or -3C). I'm not an expert on editing maps, but would be glad to work on it with some guidance. Berkserker (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you,Berkseker. I have noticed it before. Another example for it is Iran. Diako1971 (talk) 08:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I now realize that many of the major problems are locations with high average elevation. The maps probably have been created by leveling the terrain to an extent. Which almost looks a bit like a form of discrimination, favoring some locations with similar data over others. Berkserker (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
This map is seriously wrong. For example, while the alpes in Europe can be spotted as ET, the Himalayas are, according to this map no different from inland India. *sarcasm* I mean, 29,000 ft in elevation doesn't make that much of a difference, now does it? (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


According to the Ushuaia article, and according to this link, the 24-hr average in the warmest month is only 9°C. That would make it a tundra climate, as the Cfc climate need at least one month with 24-hr average at least 10°C. Thus, Ushuaia is not Cfc. Orcaborealis (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The source used in article for Ushuaia also states that the temperatures hardly rise above 9 centigrades in summer, as seen here. So it is clearly forgotten that the Cfc climate also has a criteria for minimum summer warmth, and Ushuaia is wrongly listed as Cfc. Orcaborealis (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Ushuaia is an anomaly, it supports dense forests in a climate that should not permit. It seems the local species have developed hardiness, and they are now being introduced to places like the Faeroes. (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Based on this link from the servicio meteorologico nacional (also the same data on WMO), Ushuaia has an average temperature of 10.3°C, making it Cfc and bordering on a tundra climate. Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Ushuaia's climate is clearely subpolar oceanic (Cfc). The average temperature for the warmest month is above 10°C, as suggested Ssbbplayer. Besides, data originates from the 1961-1990 period; with global warming, temperatures sure have risen enough for this daily January temperature to have increased even more. Therefore, one needs to change the numbers within the graph (according to the WMO and national meteo. service). Technically, I wouldn't mention "bordering on a tundra climate", because 3 months are hovering around 10°C (with maxima nearing 15°C) and no winter months has an average daily temperature below 0°C, so there's absolutely no chance for permafrost to settle in the area and plants naturally thrive (which Köppen said it couldn't happen in a tundra-like climate). As a result, the length of the growing season is long enough (>6 months above 5°C -> Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica. 24 January 2013. Retrieved 2 August 2014) and thus Ushuaia does not reach requirements for a tundra climate (ET). Daylon.murray (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC+1)

Though I have recently edited the weather box to use the 1961–1990 period (since a 10 year period from SMN is too short) which indicates a January mean of 9.6°C, I still think the Cfc designation is still the correct choice. The weather station is at the Airport which seems more exposed than the city center. The tundra climate label seems misleading since the surrounding vegetation is heavily forest. Using secondary sources such as this one from the Government's official tourism website, they considered the southern parts of the island to have a cold Oceanic climate (frío–oceánico). I think that this could be one of the shortcomings of the classification system because in the more exposed Isla de Los Estados, where mean temperatures are 8°C, trees can still grow there. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Koppen scheme's code (letters) description table

Table copied from source- same as source for this map File:Koppen World Map (retouched version).png. Peel, M. C. and Finlayson, B. L. and McMahon, T. A. (2007). "Updated world map of the Köppen–Geiger climate classification". Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 11: 1633–1644. doi:10.5194/hess-11-1633-2007. ISSN 1027-5606.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) (direct: Final Revised Paper)

May be, it is a good addition to the article.

A description for the letters (symbols) in code makes it easier to understand the article. Adding a table, is also discussed in this same talk page (although a different table for description of code) here. Thanks, by User 2know4power (talk) 09:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC).

Map-File-Koppen World Map (retouched version).png, lack of recording stations: Alps, Temperate zone in South India.

Extent of Temperate climate markings ( “C” zone) in South India

File:Koppen World Map (retouched version).png-

The Temperate climate markings ( “C” zone) are larger in Tropical South India, around Kodaikanal which is on the eastern side of Western Ghats mountains in Tamil Nadu state, at a higher elevation (~2300m). And also the temperate climate markings extend further South than expected. This is due to recordings from temperature station at Kodaikanal & lack of recording stations from nearby lowland areas, so markings could not be corrected due to lack of data. Source-(same as source for this map) Peel, M. C. and Finlayson, B. L. and McMahon, T. A. (2007). "Updated world map of the Köppen–Geiger climate classification". Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 11: 1633–1644. doi:10.5194/hess-11-1633-2007. ISSN 1027-5606.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) (direct: Final Revised Paper). Thanks, User: 2know4power.

Extent of Alps in Europe marked as E zone; (Himalayas-high mountains- not marked as “E” zone)

File:Koppen World Map (retouched version).png-

Alps high mountains are marked as “E” zone in this map. But “E” zone markings in the map for the Alps- high mountains do not cover the extent expected, because of lack of recording stations. Source-(same as source for this map) Peel, M. C. and Finlayson, B. L. and McMahon, T. A. (2007). "Updated world map of the Köppen–Geiger climate classification". Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 11: 1633–1644. doi:10.5194/hess-11-1633-2007. ISSN 1027-5606.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) (direct: Final Revised Paper)

About Himalayas in this map -high mountains- not marked as “E” zone, I am not able to find, in the above paper. Himalayas in this map, is discussed in this same talk page here. Thanks, User 2know4power (talk) 09:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC).

Another map from a different source, shows no "C" zone in South India, Himalayas high mountains marked as "E" zone

Source: Another map with reliable source given in this article's references list is given below. This map is based on recent data sets from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia and the Global Precipitation Climatology Centre (GPCC) at the German Weather Service.This is a digital Köppen–Geiger world map on climate classification for the second half of the 20th century. World Map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated

Kottek 2006 gif map

Kottek 2006 pdf map

Citation: Kottek, M., J. Grieser, C. Beck, B. Rudolf, and F. Rubel (2006). "World Map of the Köppen–Geiger climate classification updated" (PDF). Meteorol. Z. 15 (3): 259–263. Bibcode:2006MetZe..15..259K. doi:10.1127/0941-2948/2006/0130. Retrieved 2013-06-01.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) (direct- Kottek 2006 Paper)

This map shows no temperate "C" zone in tropical South India & Himalayas high mountains marked as polar "E" zone. Thanks, by 2know4power (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC).

Humid subtropical climate Cfa?

In the Koppen-Geiger climate classification there isn't any definition: 'Cfa' type = humid subtropical. Someone can post some official source about this definition? Because the correct definition of the Cfa type is "humid temperate (from german “feuchttemperierte”) with hot summer". And as Koppen wrote Cfa is not united to Cwa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Csc climate type?

Does anyone know if a Csc climate type (I guess a "cool-summer Mediterranean climate") exists anywhere in the world? If so, where, and if not, what conditions could theoretically give rise to it? For that matter, does Cwc exist anywhere besides La Paz, Bolivia? I found a page that said it existed in Lhasa, but the temperature regime listed on that article doesn't support that. --NetherlandishYankee (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of Lake Titicaca is Cwc e.g. Copacabana bo, an important resort and place of pilgrimage. Juliaca is borderline Cwb, but it's inland hence more continental. It would be nice to see figures for the mountains north of Titicaca, eg San Antonio de Putina and La Rinconada. (talk) 04:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
A possible candidate for a Csc climate: Røst, the outermost island in Lofoten (elevation 10 m), averages 28 mm precipitation in May (so it is less than 30 mm), and 88 mm in October, so that's more than three times as much. All months are above freezing, and less than four months are above 10 °C but more than one month ( climate data Røst). So it is at least very close, although the wettest season is autumn. Røst is a very low island, there are no mountains slowing down the clouds. Orcaborealis (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, there appear to be rare cases based on local effects. I'd call it Mediterranean subarctic. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Barely three times as much at Røst, and it is highly unlikely that May would be a true summer month in a place with a Csc climate. 28 mm of monthly precipitation would be enough annually to allow a place with even rainfall (336 mm/year) to be considered "humid" with an average annual temperature of 10°C. The middle "s" in the classification Cs(a,b,c) or Ds(a,b,c) indicates a marked summer drought and heavy winter precipitation.

Most oceanic temperate climates have marked maxima of precipitation in winter, but not a significant lack of moisture in the summer. Røst thus has a climatic classification of Cfc. --Paul from Michigan (talk) 04:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

People seem to have missed the important point: Koppen -s- and -w- depend on the April-September precip compared to the Oct.-March precip. Individual months don't count, except that one must have 30mm or less. Rost is thus Cfc. (talk) 04:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

ANSWER: Csc climate types - Government Camp, Oregon, USA, Bohemia Mountain, Oregon, USA, Schreiner Peak, Oregon, USA, White Pass, Washington, USA, and Balmaceda, Chile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I found a page on wikipdia that provides about Spokane, Washington has an adjacent to cool-summer Mediterranean climate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The falklands being ET?

Seeing the climate data Climate of the Falkland Islands#Average Conditions here would it not be more fitting of a Cfc climate than the ET climate shown on the current map here? The other pages on the falklands (Climate of the Falkland Islands#Köppen classification, Falkland Islands#Geography) have it stated as being maritime, which contradicts the map. Is the map wrong, or are these pages wrong?

Justtotalkaboutfalklands (talk) 10:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Justtotalkaboutfalklands

According to the Falkland Islands climate page, Stanley's warmest month is January, and the January high and low are 13.3 and 5.6 C. The average of that is 9.45 C. Since that's below 10 C, Stanley has a tundra climate (ET), but is on the border of subpolar maritime (Cfc; one to three months whose averages are above 10 C). Not sure why the page says the Falklands are between Cfb and Cfc; they're actually near the border of Cfc and ET. — Eru·tuon 00:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Boone, NC and Block Island, RI

@Meganesia: You said in an edit summary that Boone, North Carolina and Block Island, Rhode Island aren't Cfb because they have coldest month mean averages at -3.7 °C. I'm puzzled because neither of the Deep web articles, which reference NOAA weather data from 1981-2010, say this, and neither does Weatherbase (here are links to the page on Boone and the page on Block Island). Weatherbase says the January averages are 1.1 °C and 0.3 °C respectively. What data are you using? — Eru·tuon 19:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Unclear rainfall equation?

For Tropical wet and mosoonal (Am / Aw), the article states that the rainfall must be "less than 60mm, but more than (100 − [total annual precipitation {mm}/25])" I don't get this method of explaining what the rainfall range limit is. Solving the equation simply gives one a number...what we actually need is the other end of the range, ie "less than 60mm, but more than XXmm". We look at the region in question, find its rainfall, and then see if it falls in this range. So there are three numbers needed for this to make sense, and we only have two: upper limit = 60mm, lower limit = (missing), our location = (solve the equation). --12:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)evox (talk)

I'm not sure where your confusion lies. We do not need a lower limit – the 1/25th level differentiates between Am and Aw. To be Am or Aw, the driest month has to be less than 60 mm. To differentiate between Am and Aw, we ask whether the driest month has less or more than 1/25th the total annual rainfall. If it has more than 1/25th, it is Am, if it has less than 1/25th, it is Aw. Climatophile (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The only other lower limit that might apply is between A and B. A place with dry months (less than 60 mm, say) might be B, if PET is high enough. That is why one usually determines whether a climate is B first. If it isn't B, we go to find out which of the other categories it is first, and then apply tests like the 1/25th annual rainfall distinction to find subcategories. Climatophile (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this edit to change the wording to 1/25th does not appear to produce answers consistent with the rest of Deep web and other sources. For example, Jakarta is listed as a monsoon climate but fails the 1/25th test, but passes the test Pdry >= (100 - (Pannual/25)) as published in academic literature. Someone appears to have oversimplified something... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Athens Riviera BSh

I am proposing the Athens Riviera to be included under BSh.Please see here [6] Weatherextremes (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

In light of new evidence I will be adding Piraeus as BSh instead of the whole Riviera Weatherextremes (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Stop vandalising the page. Even the source you provided states it is borderline: "Εντύπωση προκαλεί η ύπαρξη των ημίξηρων (στεππωδών) κλιματικών τύπων BSh (σταθμοί Αίγινας και Ελληνικού) και BSk (σταθμοί Σπάτων, Βόλου, Σωτήριου, Νέας Μηχανιώνας, Σέδες, Πύργου Θεσσαλονίκης και Βραχιάς). Περιλαμβάνουν, δηλαδή, τις ξηρότερες περιοχές των νομών Αττικής, Μαγνησίας, Λαρίσης και Θεσσαλονίκης. Βέβαια, οι σταθμοί αυτοί εντάσσονται οριακά στην κατηγορία ΒS, σύμφωνα με τους μαθηματικούς τύπους του Köppen και, φυσικά, η βλάστηση των περιοχών αυτών δεν είναι στεππική." Berkserker (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Stop reverting, respond here in talk. Berkserker (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

What source?This is not the source on the Piraeus article.It says nothing on Piraeus.That is relevant only for Elliniko and Aigina stations only Weatherextremes (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The source which you provided is country specific, and includes all BS regions of Greece. The author states even the driest areas of Attica are borderline. And are you responding to my talk page comment now, after 3 reverts? Berkserker (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

No it just assumes that the driest areas of Attica are Elliniko and Aigina.This is not the case since the author of this has not included Piraeus on his analysis Weatherextremes (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Analysis by Mamara doesn't claim Piraeus is drier either. Again, you are contradicting yourself. Berkserker (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It does say that Piraeus is BSh.Word by word Weatherextremes (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

You are just trying to take advantage of the sources to prove what you want to publish on Deep web. Mamara only states it falls in the BSh category, doesn't say it has a typical BSh climate. The other source provided by you however states the driest parts of Greece are at best borderline. Berkserker (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Are you aware of the fact that the Volos station mentioned by the same author is 60 mm below threshold and still categorised as borderline? Your debate is just out of focus and pointless. Berkserker (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually the problem is your fixation of keeping only an area from Spain under B climates from Europe so that makes you desperate to twist everything.You dont even understand the Greek passage which analyses the stations and assumes these are the driest ones in Attica.Piraeus is not in there.Mamara tells us it is BSh howeverWeatherextremes (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

This Περιλαμβάνουν, δηλαδή, τις ξηρότερες περιοχές των νομών Αττικής is translated as they include the driest areas of the Attica perfecture with they he means the stations.This is what he is analysing.Piraeus station is not in there Weatherextremes (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I am only pointing out to the inconsistencies in your argument. I was never a fan of taking a single sentence from a source and apply it to everything related to that topic in a wider perspective. It is only a demonstration of how your argument is bordering on synthesis. But it seems you resort in personal attacks once you have a counter argument at hand that uses the same methodology as you always do. Berkserker (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
And if you have an objection to my contributions on Spanish articles, you are welcome to address those problems right on their respective pages, instead of speculating here. Berkserker (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh I am trust me Weatherextremes (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)