Talk:Oceanic climate

Bad example given

Santiago, Chile experiences a Mediterranean climate (similar to southern California). The southern part of Chile, however, is a better example for this maritime climate- although there are no notable cities to cite.

Merger Discusion

Merge proposed by user:Bluap

'13:17, 7 March 2006 Bluap (+merge)' — user talk:Bluap

1. Just MOVED newbie created: 'The Cool Western Temperate Maritime Climate' to empty alt. term already referenced in article text 'Marine west coast climate' on naming convention grounds. Asked for a speedy-D on the auto-created redirect remainder.
2. Believe the article contents are redundant, and perhaps over general

So,Support Merging, unless there is a considerable use of the alternate term. FrankB 18:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

These two articles are descriping the same climate, so I support Merging. Orcaborealis 20:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

_________________ What about Berlin? Isn't the climate there oceanic, even though it's a ways inland?

Berlin has a in-between climate, but slightly more oceanic, because there are no real mountain ranges to block the mild, humid air from the Atlantic.Orcaborealis 22:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

San Francisco reference

The articles currently says: San Francisco, California has a temperature range characteristic of an oceanic climate but so little rainfall during a summer almost indistinguishable from its winter by temperature that it must be considered part of a Mediterranean climate zone. This is insightful and perhaps it should be noted in mediterranean climate. Of interest, the inverse is true of Victoria, Canada, since it is clearly in a West Coast/ Oceanic regime but exhibits some mediterranean climate characteristics due to rain shadows- namely, relatively dry (but cool) summers. 66.183.217.31 23:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Washington and Oregon?

The article mentions Patagonia as a dry Oceanic climate. Isn't eastern Washington and Oregon a dry oceanic climate for the exact same reasons (That is, lying east of a mountain range that causes a rainshadow)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.57.220.63 (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Both Patagonia and eastern Oregon/Washington are rainshadow semideserts in lowlands and should be treated as such. They can be discussed in the context of oceanic climates for temperature range only if they are recognized as cool steppes (BSk). --Paul from Michigan 03:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Source of term Oceanic

I can't seem to find much about the use of the word "Oceanic" to describe this climate. Can someone point me to a source? I've found a few sources that use the term "Oceanic", but mostly in a very general sense that would include a lot more than "Marine west coast". I like the term "Oceanic" better than "Marine west coast", since not all such climate regions are on west coasts. But I'm wondering where the term comes from. Pfly 06:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC) I guess that means you think -3C should be the c/d border. So do I. I like the term "oceanic." Press olive, win oil (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Cwb and Cfc

I'm confused by the mention of tropical highlands, which are mentioned twice but not really explained. Is it the Cwb climate type? The Köppen climate classification page says places like Mexico City are Cwb, and that Cfb climates include places like Bogotá, Colombia. I can believe that under a strict Köppen system places like this would get classed this way, but does it make sense to call them "Marine west coast climate" and "maritime climate", as this page says "Oceanic climate" is synonymous with? The altitude of Mexico City and Bogotá may make for similar temperature and precipitation patterns, but other climatic factors associated with "Marine west coast climate", like midlatitude westerlies blowing over oceans, doesn't make sense for these tropical places. Should I edit it so the tropical statements are indicated as specific to Köppen's system and not typical of the climate as a regional zone of many factors? Pfly 06:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

List of countries

Wonder if it would be a good idea to show a list of countries or regions with this climate? Paddy Reilly from Cavan, 21:23, 17th August 2007 (UTC)

Alps in Italy

The Alps in Italy only have a climate between the Oceanic Climate and the Hemiboreal Climate between 700 and 1000 meters. For exemple, Tarvisio(750mtrs), where the winter's averages are -2.9°C, and the summer's 17°C. If the city in the Alps is above 1000 meters we find Hemiboreal Climates, (1000~1600), like in Dobbico, that is colder than Oslo and Helsink, with averages of -4.8°C during the winter and 16°C during the summer. Between 1600 and 2200 mtrs, Sub-Artic Climate, like northermost Norway. Rolle Pass's averages are -5.2°C and 11°C. Between 2200 and 3600, tundra climate, as in Pian Rosa (summer= 1.8°C, winter= -11.8°C). Above 3600 meters trere is a perpetual frost climate, EF, as Capanna Regina Margherita, where the averages are -18°C and -6°C.

So, I think it's wrong to say that Italian's Alps are 'between' Oceanic and Hemiborel climate. It depends on how high the place is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.100.188.204 (talk) 03:47, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Oceanic Climates in India

"Mountainous locations in some tropical countries (e.g. Indian subcontinent, Latin America, south-east Asia, southern and central Africa; often as cwb)"

Where on the Indian subcontinent do oceanic climates exist? What mountainous locations can it be found in? Is the climate (as well as the mountainous locations where they can be found) only found exclusively in the deep North? Zachorious 07:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Atacama desert

I don't think the Atacama desert is a proper example of an oceanic rainshadow. I believe it's more similar to Namibia or Baja California, which are caused by a very different effect. Notably, the Atacama is WEST of the mountains, not east as in Columbia Basin or Patagonia oceanic rainshadows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.27.154 (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Cfb above Cfa?

Is this correct, that some highland areas above humid subtropical areas (i.e. the southern Appalachians) fall in Cfb? I always thought the C-D line (coldest month below 0°C/32°F) was below the a-b line (warmest month above 22°C/72°F), but maps seem to suggest otherwise. CrazyC83 (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sydney?

How come Sydney appears in two separate climate zones?

Veluriel (talk) 10:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed it, since it (based on the data shown) is just inside the humid subtropical zone. CrazyC83 (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Climate charts

I removed the climate charts for Puerto Montt, Chile and Melbourne, Australia and replaced them with Tsitsikamma, South Africa and Aukland New Zealand to give a better spread of locations (One each for South America, Southern Africa, Australia and New Zealand.)

For the Northern Hemisphere I added a chart for Seattle, USA. There is room for another two Northern Hemisphere charts but as this climate is hardly found in Asia I think the spread is OK as it is. Booshank (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You said "One each for South America, Southern Africa, Australia and New Zealand", but I haven't seen a single climate chart for an Australian location on this page. I'll add Sydney, Australia.--Just James ^T/C 10:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Galicia (Spain) has Oceanic climate

That place is extremely rainy, it should be included (along with Asturias and the rest of North-Western Spain). --Taraborn (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the map is incorrect. Sothern Galicia has some mediterranean influence, especially Ourense province, but northern area is totaly oceanic.

A Coruña, Santiago de Compostela and Vigo should be included in the city list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.111.155.172 (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The map

The map, in regards to Europe, flatly contradictes the description. For example virtually all of Europe ( except the alps ) is shown in the map as an oceanic climate which is obviously inaccurate as anyone who has lived in or vistied these regions can testify! 86.33.176.57 (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Using the original boundary between the C and D climates (-3 C or snowline), the map is actually quite correct.Orcaborealis (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Oceanic has geographic variations which can be expanded upon

This climate group has many geographical variations which can be expanded upon if we can find proper references. For example, much of continental Europe experiences regular, short summer thunderstorms, probably resulting from the warmer temperatures and lack on mountain barriers. This gives many places within this climate group summer rainfall levels that keep it from being a Mediterranean climate (Csa), even though places like Bordeaux may be borderline. Northern Europe, including most of the UK, experience much more persistant cloud-cover, cooler summers, and annual rainfall is spread throughout the year. Originally from England, I'm used to rain year-round. I've been living in Vancouver for a while tho', and the summer is quite dry compared to the UK or Amsterdam, yet the winter rain more than makes up for it (Not always tho'... it's dry and sunny right now). From what I've experienced and heard, this is typical of the Pacific Northwest. In fact, many areas can be classified as Csb because the short dry period in summer meets the lower precipitation thresholds (not Vancouver, it's just over), in spite of the fact that the annual precipitation is pretty normal for Cfa. Finally, the highland subtropical could be better explained and maybe even merits its own article (Cwa).Koppenlady (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. About precipitation: The wettest location (apart from maybe some mountains) in Norway, Brekke in Gulen in Sogn og Fjordane (north of Bergen) has average annual precipitation of 3575 mm (Cfc climate due to altitude 240 m), and Takle, also in Gulen, has an average of 3179 mm (Cfb climate) as seen here:Gulen climate 1961-90.Orcaborealis (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree for the most part. I must admit I'm very uncomfortable including Seattle & Portland as Mediterranean climates. The landscape of these two cities just doesn't strike me as mediterranean and the concept of sunshine becomes very abstract for the majority of the year up there. This is something more common with Oceanic climates. As for the subtropical highland climate section, it could use more detail, but I'm not sure if it warrants a separate page. Besides, for the most part it's generally just a higher-altitude, more moderate version of an Oceanic climate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G. Capo (talk • contribs) 06:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I too am uncomfortable with the "Mediterranean" label for the Pacific Northwest. That is why I re-worked the Mediterranean climate article to distinguish between Mediterranean as a climate similar to that found throughout most of the Mediterranean Basin, and Koeppen's Cs zones. To me, the term "dry-summer subtropical" (as Koeppen calls it) and "Mediterranean" are not necessarily the same thing. This certainly sheds light on Koeppen's shortfalls, much as both Washington and New Orleans are both grouped in the same Cwa zone when one is clearly "subtropical" and the other isn't. As this Spanish bioclimate study shows (pull down "summary" from the menu), the Pacific Northwest (represented here by Chilliwack, British Columbia) has an Oceanic bioclimate, with a "sub-Mediterranean" variant. This makes much more sense to me and, hopefully, is the start of a better, more comprehensive system than Koeppen. Koppenlady (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Marine West Coast Climate subsection?

I was just thinking of creating a new sub-section for the oceanic climate page entitled "Marine West Coast climates". This which would basically describe oceanic climates that have a distinct "Mediterranean-like" drying trend during the summer months. Since this variant of the Oceanic climate is apparently found on the west coasts of some continents (and not just North America), it may warrant its own section. What do you think? G. Capo (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In principle, I agree and this dovetails with my suggestion above. However, keep in mind that "Marine", "West Coast" and "Oceanic" are synonymous terms. I suggest keeping it under a general "characteristics", "regional variations" or whatever heading to avoid confusion. Also, careful if you call places with Csb climates "Oceanic"- if we are talking about Koeppen's system, these climates are not Cfb, even if most people (you and me included) don't see eye to eye with Koeppen on this. Go for it! Koppenlady (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering where "Average monthly precipitation during the area's driest month is below 60 mm, which would constitute a dry season month" came from. Probably needs to be cited. Koppenlady (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ushuaia

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. Orcaborealis (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes but according to the WMO, the city does have one month above 10 C. It's close enough. G. Capo (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a borderline Cfc/Et climate, and this should be stated, and I added it. I can see no trees in the images from Ushuaia. But if you look at the images from Puerto Williams, (not far away) there is subpolar forest. The latter is probably more sheltered and thus slightly warmer in summer. Orcaborealis (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Bratislava

The capital of Slovakia has an oceanic climate Cfb according to Koppen as seen here.Orcaborealis (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

As the link above provided average max temp and average min temp so the 24-hr average was not explicitly stated, here is a link that provides the 24-hr average for each month, which is what is used for climate classification. As seen, Bratislava is clearly warmer than the Koppen threshold of -3 C and has precipitation well spread over the year.Orcaborealis (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Oceanic climate

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Oceanic climate's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "HKO":

• From Bogotá: "Climatological Normals of Bogota". Hong Kong Observatory. Retrieved 2010-05-09.
• From Portland, Oregon: "Climatological Normals of Portland, OR". Hong Kong Observatory. Retrieved 2010-06-26.
• From South Africa: "Climatological Normals of Cape Town". Hong Kong Observatory. Retrieved 2010-05-23.
• From Johannesburg: "Climatological Normals of Johannesburg". Hong Kong Observatory. Retrieved 2010-05-09.
• From Nairobi: "Climatological Normals of Nairobi". Hong Kong Observatory. Retrieved 2010-05-09.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Climate or climate type?

I'm a little confused about this page, epsecially the lead. It starts off saying that oceanic climate (AKA marine west coast climate, etc) is a climate. But shouldn't it be called a "climate type", or class? Or a "type of climate"? The second paragraph says of the "climate": Generally, they fall into Köppen climate classification Cfb or Cwb. Alright, but what about other climate classification systems? Is this page about the Köppen system or something more general? The way it begins suggests something more general, but as you read on it is pretty clearly about the Köppen system only. That's fine, but if so, shouldn't the lead say from the start that the page is about one of the Köppen climate classes? Pfly (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Addressed your comment about the first line of the article, where you have a good point. This climate classification is a Köppen one, so it makes sense that it is the only climate system addressed. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Vancouver should be listed under "Notable cities with oceanic climates"

If Seattle is listed under "Notable cities with oceanic climates" (and it is), then why isn't Vancouver-BC? In fact, just before it, under "North America", Seattle and Vancouver are listed together, under the general heading of "Regions/Cities with oceanic climates". Yet under "Notable cities with oceanic climates", Seattle is there but Vancouver is missing. Portland-OR is also missing, for that matter, who is also listed under "North America".
--Atikokan (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Puerto Montt hasn't csb climate

Puerto Montt hasn't csb climate. The driest month has a rain of 90 mm...http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Montt#Clima. Some cities like Temuco o Concepción has csb climate. I edited the article.--Serbesa (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Restructuring and reorganization

Per wikipedia standards, Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. Not only were there lists of cities within sections of this article, which people were squabbling about within the edit summary, but there were a whole slew of graphs at the end with information from the same cities, which essentially constituted a gallery, which violated the idea of Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_mirror_or_a_repository_of_links.2C_images.2C_or_media_files. The sections headers have been retitled, and no longer use the words oceanic climate within their titles per MoS. Some extraneous text, which introduced possible European-centered POV or led to an unencyclopedaic feel were removed. Efforts have begun to source the text of this article, which have already led to some changes. The lead should read like a lead now, acting as an article summary. If more referencing can be provided, this article can be elevated to C class. Content is not the issue. Referencing is. Tags have been placed at the top of sections which still have no references. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The free for all is beginning to resume when it comes to the cities being within certain climates. Why must people do this? I see the climate graph gallery has re-appeared. Can we agree to limit the climate graphs to one per regime? The current structure would never pass GA standards, if we were to ever think of sending this article through that process. All additions of cities without referencing will be rolled back. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The graphs as it stands now is basically one graph per continent. The graphs are there to illustrate the subtle differences in temperature and precipitation patterns between the cities. Also, even though we have two European cities here, London and Bordeaux have noticeable differences, particularly in average temps. That's why they're both there. G. Capo (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

What we have to ask ourselves is "Would an encyclopedia present its article on oceanic climate with this many city charts?" I think you'd be lucky if it included one or two total. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Another set of changes has been made, to reduce the size of the non-wikipedia supported gallery. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Csb issues - Edits proposed

The Csb Problematics section is poorly written. Someone with expertise in the topic who can also write sentences in good English should edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.57.140 (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I had edit the page about Csb areas, but apparently, there is no consensus, so some explanations and sources :

• using the expression "generally considered as oceanic" about the Csb areas is wrong, and an original POV : the most widely climatic system used (Köppen-Geiger) says that Csb is not oceanic. Some other scientists like Trewartha has edit this system by including Northern coastal areas of Spain and NW coastal US in the oceanic domain (Do), but not all the actual Csb areas (which extend until the NW Spanish meseta, also Central Turkey, California, Albania mountains...). So, it would be wrong to generalize all the Csb areas as "oceanic" with this author. Thorthwaite system is not very different than the Trewartha's work.

http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/EART/images/kottek_et_al_2006_part.gif

http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/weather/56180d1263187925-ultimate-climate-poll-koppen-climate-classification-kottek_et_al_2006.gif

http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/ad652e/ad652e33.gif Northern Portugal is not included in the Do Trewartha classification

http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/ad652e/ad652e33.gif

• about sunshine, it is wrong to say that Csb areas are not sunny. I copy past some coastal areas locations, but if you take Csb in Turkey or in Albania, the sunshine is far higher, almost the same as Csa.

Cfb: Brest, Dublin, Paris, Blackpool : about 1500-1600 hours

http://climat.meteofrance.com/chgt_climat2/climat_france?73928.path=climatstationn%252F29075001

http://www.met.ie/climate/dublinairport.asp

http://climat.meteofrance.com/chgt_climat2/climat_france?CLIMAT_PORTLET.path=climatstationn%2F75114001

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/19712000/sites/blackpool.html

Csb: La Coruna, Victoria, Vigo, Portland (not the same criterion in the US website) : about 2000-2300 hours

http://www.aemet.es/es/elclima/datosclimatologicos/valoresclimatologicos?l=1387&k=gal

http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_e.html?Province=ALL&StationName=victoria&SearchType=BeginsWith&LocateBy=Province&Proximity=25&ProximityFrom=City&StationNumber=&IDType=MSC&CityName=&ParkName=&LatitudeDegrees=&LatitudeMinutes=&LongitudeDegrees=&LongitudeMinutes=&NormalsClass=A&SelNormals=&StnId=113&

http://www.aemet.es/es/elclima/datosclimatologicos/valoresclimatologicos?l=1495&k=gal

http://monde.meteofrance.com/monde/climat?68991.path=climatstation%252F72698

• I prefer to use the comparatives ("damper", "cooler"...) than the single adjectives, because it marks a nuance. In fact, if the summer temperatures are relly cool in Western US, they remain still warm in NW Spain in the Trewartha Do area (about 19-20°C for the hottest mont in Galicia), compare with the 16°C or 17°C in NW Europe.

Conclusion : all the edits are sourced by official data and academic authors. The rest seems to be personnal view of what should be oceanic or not. I wait for comments before editing --Milkrawler (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Anything not backup up by a reference can be, and probably should be, removed. Be bold and edit away, adding the appropriate sources. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• • I just want to stress that I'm acting more like an "interested outsider" and a "copyeditor" here, rather than a subject expert. The reorganizations I made in the article were just according to my (possibly flawed) reading of the existing (possibly flawed) text. From that viewpoint, I renamed the section to "Csb climates often considered Oceanic", to stress that they're not "true" Oceanic, but I still think that it should be under "Varieties" chapter. The alternative is to remove it altogether, because it's unsourced. I believe User:G. Capo is knowledgeable on the subject, but his edits often run short of WP:NOR and WP:V. So, be bold and just change the article as you see fit, especially if you can provide the references. No such user (talk) 09:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I have moved the sentance "often considered..." because it is wrong and not sourced. First because most of the Köppen-Geiger updates do not say so, second, and because the alternative works (though less used, ex : Trewartha) include only some parts of Csb areas in the oceanic domain. I leave this section in the part "variety", but it is still debatable. --Milkrawler (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The map

Should the current map be kept, or should it be replaced by the previous map? The second map is obviously much more detailed, but it apparently uses 0°C winter isotherm (meaning that under 0°C it's not oceanic climate anymore), while the usually used isotherm in Koppen climate classification is -3°C. The second map also includes Cwb and Cwc oceanic climates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.161.214.21 (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

In my view, the choice would either be to use the map using the original Köppen isotherm of -3C (the Cfc category is virtually lost in the second map using 0C) or use both maps and explain the difference and why both is used. Orcaborealis (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The first map is the best, no discussion. The isotherm 0°C used by the American scientists is completely absurd. Originally, the continental climate is defined by long cold periods in the winter, and very short or no mild periods, hence the -3°C isotherm chosen by Köppen. It means that in a more or less extend, the frost and the snow is a reality for almost the entire winter. If you take the 0°C isotherm, regions as Eastern Germany or Danemark are considered as continental, while there, the winter regularly alternate mild and cold periods, and in some years, almost frost or snow, which is a typical oceanic feature.--92.161.48.209 (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The continental climate is defined by temperatures cold enough to support a fixed period of snow each year. Under -3°C isotherm both Prague (-2.5°C in January) and Krakow (-2.1°C) would fall under Oceanic climate and Warszaw with -3°C would be on the border between the two, although all these cities have snow regularly every winter. --Thonos (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)