No, it’s very relevant. This whole argument is confusion over the ambiguity between tropical as a climate designation and tropical as a physical, geographical designation. The reason for the confusion lies in the reality that a truly tropical location, when it happens to have what we would term tropical flora, is always going to be different from what we find outside of the tropics, including in South Florida, where we do have tropical vegetation and, in general, a tropical climate. In the case of Bogota, there is just gonna be more winter sunshine than you’ll have outside of the tropics.
I’m pretty sure most of us here understand all of this. Yes, South Florida has a broadly tropical climate, and supported a subset of tropical Laura natively, and now a huge number of tropical plants have been brought in successfully. No, no part of Florida is within the tropics, and this partly explains why every single corner of the state gets colder than it would were it in the tropics. Yes, there are places within the true tropics that are at the same elevation as Florida that can get colder than Florida, but there is no peninsula or island in the true tropics of which I am aware they can get as cold as Florida does as regularly as it does.
This is where Florida’s physical location outside of the tropics matters: there’s a natural limit to how far you can push things over the course of a century because it’s tropical climate is not in the true tropics. were Florida more temperate and in the tropics, we wouldn’t have these long discussions because we’d all be like people who live in Puerto Rico and it would be nothing to plant all these plants and there wouldn’t be an annual white-knuckle terror about this or that freeze.