Talk:Climate of Miami

Inadequate information
If you are going to create a separate article for information on a particular aspect of a city, you ought to have more information in the sub-article than in the corresponding section of the main article. Mathpianist93 (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Record low and high temperature
While the page says that the lowest temperature ever recorded in Miami is 30°, the referenced page no longer exists and this page says that the record low (for January) is 28°. Thicks001 (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The record low was 27F on February 3, 1917. The record high was 100F on July 21, 1940. That does not seam right because Michigan had a higher record tempature! Unfortunately, "some" information outlets only report "reporting station" data, not historical data. I removed the incorrect references, but I don't have time to add the correct ones. They can be found here:

http://www.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=mfl

This shows the record highs and lows for each month. One can see that the record low for February was 27F on February 3, 1917.

There was also a 28F on Jan 27 and 28, 1940.

The record high was 100F (one can check all the months and see that). Ryoung 122 17:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Snow
Here is a good source for the snow in Miami as well as the rest of florida in 1977. Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I believed it to be a good source until it said the snow continued out to the city of Freeport in the Bahamas, over 50 miles over the ocean. No way. The couple miles of biscayne bay makes miami beach warmer than Miami sometimes by several degrees on cold nights. Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

water temperature
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/wtg12.html

Tourist spam
Miami does not have a "truly tropical climate" because it has rained less times than I could could count on my hands in the last six months. Bananas cannot grow here, cocnuts barely can, and it's just plain too cold at times. Only one source says it's tropical monsson, it's really humid subtropical. Saying it's tropical is just a sign that it's a full of shit resort city. Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

WOW, look. Even the Four Seasons promotional site says Miami has a subtropical climate. http://www.fourseasons.com/miami/weather/

Miami is blessed with a sunny, sub-tropical climate and miles of inviting seashore caressed by gentle surf and warm Gulf Stream waters. Winter offers dry, clear blue skies, temperatures of 60-70°F (16-21°C), cotton-puff clouds and humidity-free days. Even better, there is very little difference between late fall, winter and early spring. In the summer, ocean breezes along the coast add comfort to the relatively hot and humid weather, and afternoon thunderstorms disappear as quickly as they come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.254.97.60 (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no single definition of a "tropical" climate, but the most commonly used one, the Köppen climate classification, classifies as "tropical" climates in which all months have average daily temperatures of 18C or more. By that definition Miami does have a tropical climate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.72.129 (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record, January 2012 had consistantly way above average temperatures, close to an 80 high and 65-70 low, while the rest of the country sees a mild winter. Do I just trade the car in for a jet ski or gondola now or...? Daniel Christensen (talk) 02:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"Typical afternoon shower"
I have lived in Miami all my life, and this does not look "typical" this is a "world is ending" storm. Who decided this was typical must stand under that storm and prove me wrong. 2607:FB90:1B02:7E41:BF7F:5159:3A5A:B44E (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Old data, category changes, location limits
I have been using the 90s style interactive NOAA reference site to try to confirm some records, such as Miami Beach's all time low of 32 from the chart on the Miami Beach page, as well as the notorious and bone chilling figure of 27* F for Miami on February 3, 1917. Turns out the only way I could find that record was going by "Miami area," as record for MIAirport and Miami Beach is unavailable for 1917. This makes the record dubious, especially considering that Miami Beach was incorporated in 1915 and by that point weather records were not all that uncommon. I've added quite a bit to Climate of Miami to make it a little more candid and informative. With several category changes (a recent half step up in USDA plant hardiness zone, and probably a whole step if pre-mid-century could be considered, changes in Koppen, and dubious and varying reporting sites pre-MIA time, it's a wonder if the older data should be discarded. At the very least, referencing is easier to more recent history (though some hard copy of a book of older more lauded history could perhaps be found). A bragging right is Key West's status as the "only city to not have a frost" in the continental US, but Miami Beach's apparent all time record low of 32 is pretty dubious in that regard, either way it is significant. If it was a frost, it should be mentioned to clarify that Miami Beach was considered in this bragging right. If it wasn't, then the bragging right is a lie. B137 (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Miami, FL (City of Miami) was incorporated in 1896 is not Miami Beach, FL. The 1917 data comes from the US National Weather Service. Ryoung 122 22:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

subtropical debate??
Miami is 5 degrees F above the threshold set for tropical climates. In climatic terms this is a huge difference. It is equivalent to the difference in January means between Los Angeles and San Francisco. If Miami was only 0.5 degrees F above the threshold, then I would understand the purpose of a debate, which is plausible for Southern Okeechobee for instance. You can only debate the northern end of the tropical zone, otherwise it is like suggesting Boston has a subtropical climate, but New York is another story. I hope my point is clear. I am removing that section, which is misleading and further away from the truth. Berkserker (talk) 02:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * January is barely above the threshold, which is a single metric arbitration by a single entity. Please give this climate contention a break. B137 (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * For years you have abused and violated this article, the history log is very clear and self explanatory. Yes, this article needs a break from vandalism, synthesis and original work. It isn't "barely" above the threshold, see the examples provided above, which don't really matter either, since all this is fabrication. I only provided those examples to help you understand the situation, not to prove my point. The facts are clear, I don't need to give examples to convince you. The purpose of those examples are simply educational. Also you are borderline 3RR, take this as a last warning. Berkserker (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * What makes Koppen so scholarly and what makes them (or you) the final word? To remove many things, including relevant images? B137 (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I add major content to articles instead of festering over trivialities. B137 (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I only removed the images for page layout; as the article wasn't long enough after the changes to support all the images. Berkserker (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Now you are questioning the credibility of the top climate experts in the world like Köppen, Geiger and Trewartha? Berkserker (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Where are the references to Geiger and Trewartha? B137 (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * All climate classifications take the coldest month means and the average annual minimum (average of annual record lows) to define tropical climates and frost free zones. Cold fronts happen in all non-equatorial tropical climates, it is just a characteristic of the climate. Climate is not determined by the effects of a once in a century cold period (that period in 2010 was the coldest since at least 1940). You can see the average annual minimum maps on USDA plant hardiness zone maps, the 0 C isotherm passing through hardiness zone 10a, lying closer to the 10a-9b line (roughly two thirds). Both the coldest month means (18+) and well as the average annual minimum (0 C) isotherms pass almost through the same line (give or take a few miles), roughly a few clicks south of Lake Okeechobee in landlocked areas, west of Lake Okeechobee on the Gulf coast and northeast of Lake Okeechobee on the Atlantic coast. As for the sources, I can provide you with as many as you like, however it is a really strange request when you have non to back up your claims. In science outlying information need more proof, therefore actually it is you who needs to present the sources that contest the consensus. As someone who has taken so much time to prove your subtropical point of view, you should have already seen the criteria for tropical climates and that it is the same everywhere, in all classification systems. So it is a red flag that you are asking me to source something that isn't even contested and is the only fact that is published everywhere. Berkserker (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have been fairly busy in real life but let me just break the fourth wall here and say this is a ridiculous overreaction. The article starts out with and only includes that is is a tropical climate according to Koppen in the first paragraph. But to say a place that has recorded snow flurries and has had multiple instances of freezing weather, as well as weather that kills tropical flora and fauna, and then you add to that that it is literally outside the tropics and is also landlocked to the north, allowing occasional cold fronts that align just right to have little modification from water as Key West sees and even Miami Beach sees, enough for their all time record low to be five degrees Fahrenheit over Miami's. And when I say the data has recently changed. I mean that Miami (and much of the United States) moved up a half step in plant hardiness rating for the 2012 update, so if anything climate chage/AGW is now relevant to the discussion. The monthly averages chart has increased over the past five years as well.
 * http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/global/climate_max.htm Frost is mentioned for some climates but for tropicals there is no mention of frost danger.
 * This USDA research center is title "Subtropical Horticulture Research" http://www.ars.usda.gov/main/site_main.htm?modecode=60-38-05-00 - The only mention of [not sub]tropical research is for their location in Puerto Rico.
 * Even tourism and advertising sites (who try to spam the great weather) refer to Miami as subtropical: http://www.miamihabitat.com/Miami-Weather_en.asp
 * http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-01-21/news/fl-thin-blooded-floridians-20110121_1_community-blood-centers-south-florida-blood-thickness You can do your own Google searches and determine what, or how much of what, passes as sufficient evidence, but I suppose you may only tout Koppen, who painted the world with a broad brush going by a single climate metric.
 * Sorry for my copy and paste reaction, but I'm busy. B137 (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I would agree with Berkserker's comments on this. Plus, some tropical places do receive frosts (e.g Bolivia, which is tropical but can receive devastating frosts due to the channeling effect of the Andes in bringing up cold air from Patagonia) or flurries (e.g Tampico). The only thing is that they are extremely rare (snow flurries in Miami were only recorded once). To say "Koppen, who painted the world with a broad brush going by a single climate metric" is not really scientific and does not invalidate the classification scheme. If you wish to question the validity of a scheme used by scientists, you better have good evidence for it. That's how science works. Also, tourism and advertising sites are not reliable sources since they usually do not give a clear definition of what is a subtropical climate while Koppen makes clear distinctions in classifying which places belong in which climate type. Latitude is a factor but not the sole factor in determining whether a climate is tropical or not. Miami is tropical while Hanoi, which is further south has a subtropical climate so the claim that Miami is not tropical based on latitude is not correct in this case. While the Koppen system is not perfect, it's the best we have currently. Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * All I am saying is we can't be subjective when contributing to a Wikipedia article. If you come up with a +-2.2 C deviation debate, then someone else can come up and say "There is some contention over whether or not Orlando is subtropical or tropical" since it is equally distant from the isotherm as Miami is. Simply there is no contention about the climate of these two cities, since they lie well inside their respective climate limits. You may contend however, whether Lake Okeechobee has a tropical or subtropical climate as it lies on the transition zone. But still you can't create a title for it on the Lake Okeechobee article without having appropriate sources that contend its climate. As for snow flurries, that isn't official, just a claim (not that it will change its climate categorisation even if the claim was correct). About the increasing means, yes they do increase all across the world due to the obvious global warming factors, but the Miami area was tropical even during the little ice age (the other end of the abnormality scale) that lasted until the end of the 19th century. For the rest of South Florida however, the tropical limit is expanding northward. The original map (with the limited tropical zone in S. Florida) is more like how the climate was in the 1800s mini ice age. The other map by Elizabeth Donelan represents the current situation (since the 1980s). Also the increase in the last 5 years is yet not represented in any of the US cities. The normals are for the 1980-2010 period, they are still to update these normals, and will probably do so in the next few years, since many locations around the world already have done so. Berkserker (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Also you really don't need to try to find examples for those extremes, since more than 25% of the tropical zones experience these extreme conditions such as frost, and more than 50% experience cold fronts. So it is just a characteristic of the climate outside the very proximity of the equator. Berkserker (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

As for your statement: Where are your and your scholars' sources? And how about an explanation for Koppen's single metric to determine the world's climate? - This isn't a single metric or a single classification scheme. All known classification methods use the same criteria, and those criteria are plural, not a single metric as you suggest. Both precipitation and temperature is taken into consideration. For instance if only one criterion was used then likes of Tampa and Orlando would be tropical due to their tropical precipitation regimes. As for the temperature criteria, again it is not a single metric, but a combination of two metrics that double check one another, like I said in one of my previous posts. The two temperature criteria are 1) Mean of the coldest month 2) Average annual minimum temperatures. However you seem to read only what you want to see. This is not the first time I have to repeat what I had to explain before. Berkserker (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. I did not know that before regarding tropical climates (in terms of area). I did used an example to illustrate the fact that tropical places can receive frost (since some will not believe it unless an example is used). The scholars' sources are these two that I found (Peel et al) and (Kottek et al). This obviously shows that the Koppen climate classification is scholarly. Ssbbplayer (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Köppen-Geiger & Trewartha climate classification systems are the most if not the only scholarly classification systems in the world. All we know about climates today come from these systems. In fact Trewartha is another twist on the Köppen system. Basically the Köppen system is the one and only system out there. So any climate based article you read on Wikipedia or hear about elsewhere is based on this original system. And nobody has to prove anybody that it is scholarly especially when they have no sources for their claims. It is simply not a case open to debate. It is not a subjective matter. But thanks for trying to help the user understand the situation. Berkserker (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Btw those percentages are rough estimates, so we need to check the exact figures. Berkserker (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This curvier koppen map seems to disagree with the blocky Florida climate map used on the page. It shows that your Latitude argument is invalid, and that Miami is on the transition zone longitudinally. If anything it is narrowly tropical by way of urban heat island and or coastal proximity, but either way it is on the bleeding edge. B137 (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * And when I say one metric I mean between humid subtropical and tropical I see only the single metric of average monthly temperature used to differentiate. I do not mean that that is the only metric for all climates, just the pertinent ones here. This discussion is not over, perhaps the section could be renamed to "cold fronts" or "cold snaps". Either way it is referenced to the degree Wikipedia requires. The sources do not have to all be scholarly, in fact among the whole project that represents a minority of the sourcing, though when available it is often the most highly regarded type. B137 (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you are doing this, but explaining things that were discussed over and over again is really tiring. I can understand you may be busy in real life, all of us are, but please wait to respond until you have the time to read and comprehend all the discussion someone has put forth. It makes the conversation pointless when somebody here tries to put in all the effort and you bring up the exact same thing that has already been explained. You have been doing this from the moment we had contact, it isn't something new. For this map you inserted here, reading my previous message is sufficient. I already told you (thinking you would be contesting the other map), that the original maps for the region better represent the the mini ice age normals, while the other "blocky" map is closer to what is true for the 20th and 21st century. Yes it is a general map, in reality those lines are not straight, nature doesn't come in straight lines, but for the coverage in terms of area it is more accurate. This was also why in my previous messages I had given the link to USDA hardiness zones map where you can see the actual "curvy" isotherms, so that you don't need to ask these questions again. But it seems they didn't help. I will give the effort to explain it one last time, but really don't expect any more goodwill from me.


 * Take a look at this map.


 * Now here are your facts:


 * Annual mean temperatures have increased about 0.85 C since 1880.


 * Mean temperature changes will be slightly less in tropical zones compared to temperate zones - it will be a lot less than 0.85 C


 * Even though you can't correlate these changes with the change in hardiness zones with a 100% accuracy, it will give you an estimate to satisfy your curiosity. This is why I will also take the original the higher 0.85 C figure to make the comparison.


 * As you can see 10b and 10a isotherms are 1.7 C and -1.1 C respectively. (average annual extreme minimums - no frost zones 0 C)


 * The 0 C isotherm we are interested in goes through the 10a zone, closer to the 10a-9b border (appx one to two)


 * Apply the 1880 difference of 0.85 C, it will give you a 0 C isotherm closer to the current 10b border on the recent USDA map. There you have your 1800s map tropical limit. (the one you inserted here - it is from Köppen's original 1884 map later translated and digitalised)


 * The current isotherm is closer to the 9b border, so the "blocky" map represents the major area/coverage more accurately.


 * As for the monthly means, it approximately corresponds to the same isotherm. So this is a double checking system to satisfy your curiosity about no-frost zones.


 * Also please note that most maps are inaccurate since they are the visual translation of the formulas not the other way around. There is always human error when vectorising these maps since people "paint" them by looking at only several weather stations and estimating the rest. Therefore when you have weather station data at hand you can immediately rule out the maps for a given locale. You can access these weather stations from NOAA. This was how I could tell you Jan means appx correspond to the average annual extremes map by the USDA. Therefore the map you inserted is not very accurate for representing the Glades. Köppen probably only had major city data at hand at the time. So even for the mini ice age data this map falls slightly short of representing the era. As for the "blocky" map, I believe it was drawn like that on purpose as it also aims to represent precipitation regimes correctly as well as roughly correcting the incorrect map previously known to science. You wouldn't find special maps like these anywhere else except for problematic regions that weren't represented correctly in the first place. The actual "curves" would in fact stretch further up north on both coasts.


 * I hope this explanation has finally answered all the questions in your mind, because I don't think I have the motivation to explain a third time. Berkserker (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I made a quick screen and edit for a rough visualisation of the above 0 C isotherm (average annual extremes) discussion. Berkserker (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In actuality the green line will be slightly further away from the 10b border, and the blue line further up north in certain pockets. Berkserker (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * http://climate.umn.edu/doc/journal/sticky99.htm "Dew point temperatures in the 70's are considered tropical"
 * Just another small point. In the winter, dew points tend more to the fifties, even dipping below 32, which is unequivocally dry and frigid.


 * The section should be renamed "cold fronts" or similar, and any language such as "contentious" or debate removed. The cold fronts remain notable, just as they are in the aforementioned fringe tropical location where the mountains cause the occasional frost. When you look at the massive size of the southeast considered humid subtropical, Miami and much of South Florida remains a sliver in the corner. B137 (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Like I told you before, I gave the above explanation only to satisfy your curiosity. Extremes do not determine the categorisation of any climate. Then all climate types would have the same problems. You would have to change the entire world map.. As for your dew point suggestion, it is just an example for the humid "tropical feel" (mostly referring to rainforests) and is not a limit or criterion. Tropical dew points vary all across the world, and subtypes of the tropical climate. Tropical Savanna and Monsoonal climates have more variation within the year, while Rainforest climates have less. Take tropical Australia (for instance Darwin), tropical India, tropical Southeast Asia (excluding Indonesia), majority of tropical Africa and Central & South America as an example. As you can see, the regions I listed cover the majority of the tropical climate zones. They all have a huge difference in dew points and the humidity index throughout the year. The rainforest climate is a minority within tropical climates in terms of area covered globally. The same goes for the extremes, it is not a phenomena specific to continental USA like you suggest, all non-equatorial tropical climates experience extremes and cold fronts. Therefore a separate title for cold fronts is redundant, it can be mentioned in the text but a title is misleading the reader to believe they happen only in South Florida. Berkserker (talk) 07:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Found an isotherm map that proves the notion that the average annual minimum map (USDA hardiness) roughly coincides with the 18 C monthly mean isotherm. Although the data set for this map may be a little old, unlike the latest USDA map. Also please note that 64 F is taken not the 64.4 F (18 C) as pictured on this map when determining the climate threshold, meaning the limit will be slightly up north, therefore coincides even more accurately with the USDA map even though the data set for the NOAA map is older (less affected by global warming). The only way to exactly compare the two maps would be to take a data set with 2016 as the median year for the means map, or take the older USDA map to compare with the current means map. The rest you have to use your imagination to comprehend. Berkserker (talk) 10:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Found even some more sources that are consistent with the above maps and argument. Made some screens to show the tropical limit (isotherm):


 * The first four maps show three selected locations above the isotherm (PRISM System - 4km PRISM cells - can be as set as low as 800 meters for even more precise localisation)
 * The fifth map is is regional translation/homogenisation of the point map (PRISM System - Oregon State University)
 * The last one is a separate source (bonap.org - climate translation of the first bonap isotherm map provided on June 23rd)


 * Here are the links   to the sources, so everyone can see the data and methods. Berkserker (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * From the fifth map (PRISM System map in color), it is clear that Miami area doesn't even belong to the 64-68 F group, belongs to the 68-72 F category. Both categories are tropical nonetheless. However this shows the additional effect of the Gulf Stream, placing the southeastern coastline in the 68-72 F category. Berkserker (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I made the necessary changes, as a first step at least. The article needs further editing. Also we should refrain from comparisons as some other user may come up and say then Miami is more tropical/warmer than Bangladesh or Central Vietnam. Berkserker (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Not to revive this dumbass argument, but here is the old 1990 plant hardiness zone map of North America. It confirms the 2006 findings by the arbor and plant societies that tried to redo the maps in the 2000s, showing a half step increase over much of the country. 09:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Everyone's gonna hate me now but we've all been wrong. It's not tropical monsoon, it's tropical wet-and-dry (savannah).
Look at the climate chart. I just did the math and I am mortified. Am climate requires the driest month to have no less than 1/25 of the total annual rainfall. If the driest month has less than 1/25 of the annual total, it's an Aw climate instead (like Cuba's). The chart featured in the article, the one with the 1981-2010 data said we have an average of 1314.1 mm (51.73 in) of rainfall per year in Miami. So 1/25 of that is 52.564 mm (2.07 in). So the driest month would have to have more than 2.07 inches of rainfall to be an Am instead of Aw climate. But... the chart says that our driest month, December, gets... 2.05 inches (52.1 mm).

So unless there's a newer chart, one showing that December and January are getting more rain in recent years than they did before - which is unlikely since this last December only saw an infinitesimal 0.66 inches of rain, which is about one quarter of the lower cutoff for Am climate - we're gonna have to amend this article significantly... plus all the other articles that reference Miami's Koppen status.

I'm sorry about this, I'm sorry, for the biggest darkest reason you guys could imagine, which I will now never admit to anyone. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Koppen charts have been updated recently such that 1981-2010 is well outdated, many city articles have text in climate section that is incongruous with the warming shown in adjacent 2016 Koppen maps. Such as saying hot summer humid subtropical, when states like Indiana, Iowa, and Rhode Island are mostly humid subtropical now. B137 (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Miami FL records
Greetings, Record lows and highs for Miami FL can be located directly from the local Miami National Weather Service page:

https://www.weather.gov/mfl/

https://www.weather.gov/media/mfl/climate/Daily_Records_Miami.pdf

Ryoung 122 22:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Stop reverting to humid subtropical
Just because Miami gets the occasional frost and freeze, and is located above the Tropic of Cancer, does not mean it doesn't have a tropical climate. The Koppen system does not care about geographic positioning or frosts. The Koppen system cares about averages. In its coldest month, Miami is above 64.4 F. It also meets the rainfall threshold for tropical monsoon, but falls short of tropical rainforest. This means that Miami has a tropical monsoon climate. Period. Climate maps may dispute about the interior of southern Florida, but it is abundantly clear that the southeast coast of the state, the keys, and the extreme southwest portion of the state have a tropical climate. You can look at the Koppen article for more information about this.

73.118.241.67 (talk)

20 C 68 F min sea isotherm
68 F, even though both coasts have had colder temps and upwelling, such as the frigid 50 F water off North Carolina this Dec/Jan. B137 (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)