Australian definitions are ecological-structural rather than climatic:
Closed canopy of trees excludes at least 69% of the sky.
Forest is composed mainly of tree species which do not require fire for regeneration, but with seedlings able to regenerate under shade and in natural openings.[3]
Australian definitions would exclude some temperate rainforests of western North America that are Coast Douglas-fir dominant, such as parts of the Klamath Mountains in southern Oregon and northern California, the Puget Lowlands of western Washington and the Georgia Depression in British Columbia,[4][5] as their dominant tree species, the Coast Douglas-fir, requires stand-destroying disturbance to initiate a new cohort of seedlings.[6] The North American definition would in turn exclude a part of temperate rainforests under definitions used elsewhere.[7]
TIL
The kid was right. So what is a rainforest? Very good question. Our rainforests are not rainforests.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperate_rainforest#
Closed canopy of trees excludes at least 69% of the sky. Forest is composed mainly of tree species which do not require fire for regeneration, but with seedlings able to regenerate under shade and in natural openings.[3] Australian definitions would exclude some temperate rainforests of western North America that are Coast Douglas-fir dominant, such as parts of the Klamath Mountains in southern Oregon and northern California, the Puget Lowlands of western Washington and the Georgia Depression in British Columbia,[4][5] as their dominant tree species, the Coast Douglas-fir, requires stand-destroying disturbance to initiate a new cohort of seedlings.[6] The North American definition would in turn exclude a part of temperate rainforests under definitions used elsewhere.[7]
69%. Nice