Abstract
ANY classification system which man invents must represent a compromise between detail and simplicity. The Kbppen system of classifying climates has for decades provided such a compromise for geographers. Though attacked periodically and altered occasionally, it has proved to be a relevant and valuable reference frame and teaching tool. Fortunately, geographers have succeeded in suppressing urges to make further subdivisions in Kbppen's climatic classes. Most dissatisfaction with refinement has been directed at an alleged oversimplification of the humidity classes. Thus McDougall' expanded Koppen's dry climate equations to yield five humidity classes, and dissatisfaction among others, notably Thornthwaite,2 has led to abandonment of the Kbppen system rather than alteration within its basic framework. Kbppen,3 perhaps more than many who have grown to view his system as a product of divine inspiration, considered it still in a state of flux at the time of his death. It is interesting that one suggestion on refinement, made by Kbppen himself, has not been pursued. Kbppen suggested that the Polar Tundra (ET) climate might be broken into two classes in order to avoid such disparity of climates as stations like Evangelist's Island and Sagastyr (U.S.S.R.) represent. By Kbppen's system of classification, those climates in which the mean temperature of the warmest month is less than 50'F. are called Polar. These he then subdivided into Tundra, where at least one month has a mean temperature above 320F. and Frost or Ice Cap, in which all months have mean temperatures below the freezing point. The 50'F. warmest-month isotherm was considered to represent fairly well the poleward limit of tree growth. Whether or not this is the active
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call