Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-22-2012, 06:58 PM
 
Location: Somewhere extremely awesome
3,130 posts, read 3,073,305 times
Reputation: 2472

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
yes, he should raise all three. It is silly giving Texas a 2 for forests when you can fit entire states in Texas's forests.

as for the rest I agree. if a state does not have something, give it a zero
Obviously Texas has forests. But the forest category was based on a comparison of the whole state. A lot of Texas is not forested. So even though Texas may have more forest area than Vermont, for example, Vermont is known for the forests it does have much more so than Texas is. Otherwise I'd just be giving higher ratings to states based on size. It might work that way for cities, but it's a bit unfair for more natural resources.

As for the 1 or 0 thing - I chose to give a "1" for not having anything resembling a desert. I gave a "2" for some states that were semiarid and had grasslands but not deserts.

I would like to revise Massachusetts, however, from 18 to 19 as I think their initial beaches score was too low.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-22-2012, 07:54 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,495 posts, read 32,943,565 times
Reputation: 7752
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbmsu01 View Post
Obviously Texas has forests. But the forest category was based on a comparison of the whole state. A lot of Texas is not forested. So even though Texas may have more forest area than Vermont, for example, Vermont is known for the forests it does have much more so than Texas is. Otherwise I'd just be giving higher ratings to states based on size. It might work that way for cities, but it's a bit unfair for more natural resources.
well duh Sherlock. You expect a state to win the most diverse list if it was all forest? The beauty of it is that Texas has lots of different scapes, but forest just as large as the states with 5's.


if you rank things you have to be relative. A state blanketed with forests warrants a 5 but so do states with really large forests. Giving Texas a 2 (which is lower than New Mexico and tied with Arizona) is misleading
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2012, 08:55 PM
 
Location: Pacific NW
6,413 posts, read 12,142,138 times
Reputation: 5860
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
well duh Sherlock. You expect a state to win the most diverse list if it was all forest? The beauty of it is that Texas has lots of different scapes, but forest just as large as the states with 5's.

if you rank things you have to be relative. A state blanketed with forests warrants a 5 but so do states with really large forests. Giving Texas a 2 (which is lower than New Mexico and tied with Arizona) is misleading
You know, being rude really isn't necessary. And it's contrary to the terms of service here.

I would support that ranking, personally. The "forests" in Texas are not as varied as I think they need to be to be ranked higher.

Besides, it's his ranking system. Not yours. You do one, and you can determine how things are ranked. And then, I guess, people can be rude towards you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2012, 09:13 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,495 posts, read 32,943,565 times
Reputation: 7752
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnricoV View Post
You know, being rude really isn't necessary. And it's contrary to the terms of service here.

I would support that ranking, personally. The "forests" in Texas are not as varied as I think they need to be to be ranked higher.

Besides, it's his ranking system. Not yours. You do one, and you can determine how things are ranked. And then, I guess, people can be rude towards you.
no one is being rude. its just common sense.

and he never said anything about varied forest, but you are very very wrong if you think Texas forests are not varied. Do you know how many different plant zones are in Texas?

Finally this is a forum where people discuss things. If people are too touchy to have people scrutinize their ideas they would not post them here. People can be rude to me if they want to, but if you are going to call everyone who disagrees with you rude then you have a lot of growing up to do.

Its just life dude. Not everyone is going to go with everything you propose.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2012, 09:21 PM
 
Location: Rome, Georgia
2,745 posts, read 3,958,276 times
Reputation: 2061
Not exactly the same thing, but here is a list of the most biologically diverse states according to the number of species of life.

Total Number of Species

1 California.................6,717
2 Texas.......................6,273
3 Arizona....................4,759
4 New Mexico............4,583
5 Alabama..................4,533
6 Georgia ..................4,436
7 Florida ...................4,368
8 Oregon....................4,136
9 North Carolina........4,131
10 Utah.......................3,892
11 Nevada...................3,872
12 Virginia..................3,803
13 Tennessee..............3,772
14 South Carolina.......3,701
15 Oklahoma..............3,616
16 Colorado................3,597
17 Mississippi.............3,580
18 Louisiana...............3,495
19 Arkansas................3,415
20 Washington...........3,375
21 Missouri.................3,340
22 New York...............3,333
23 Kentucky................3,258
23 Illinois....................3,258
25 Idaho......................3,205
26 Wyoming................3,184
27 Ohio........................3,152
28 Maryland................3,148
29 Michigan................3,135
29 Pennsylvania..........3,135
31 Indiana...................3,098
32 New Jersey.............3,022
33 Montana ................2,921
34 West Virginia.........2,873
35 Wisconsin...............2,869
36 Minnesota...............2,817
37 Kansas.....................2,778
38 Massachusetts........2,765
39 Nebraska.................2,587
40 Iowa........................2,533
41 Connecticut.............2,497
42 South Dakota..........2,406
43 Maine......................2,352
44 New Hampshire......2,327
45 Vermont..................2,274
46 Delaware.................2,244
47 Rhode Island...........2,078
48 North Dakota..........1,889
49 Alaska......................1,835
50 Hawaii.....................1,418

Source: Biodiversity in the United States (Map) | Ecopolitology
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2012, 09:39 PM
 
Location: Oklahoma City
793 posts, read 1,111,769 times
Reputation: 907
"Mile for mile, Oklahoma offers the nation’s most diverse terrain. It’s one of only four states with more than 10 ecoregions, and has by far, the most per mile in America according to the EPA. Oklahoma’s ecoregions – or, terrains/subclimates – include everything from Rocky Mountain foothills to cypress swamps, tallgrass prairies, and hardwood forests to pine-covered mountains. Each is graced with wide blue lakes, rivers and streams."



Oklahoma Office of the Secretary of Environment: Land
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2012, 10:43 PM
 
Location: Tulsa, OK
2,572 posts, read 4,251,139 times
Reputation: 2427
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
How does texas get a 2 for forests? Texas has massive forests
The forests area of East Texas, is as big as some of the states mentioned on your list.

Also how is PA, NY and MD considered that diverse. I have been working up in that area for the last 5 years and PA looks the same pretty much all over. Where are the plains, canyons, deserts, you cold be set down in any area in those three states and it would be difficult identify what state you are in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2012, 10:50 PM
 
Location: Tulsa, OK
2,572 posts, read 4,251,139 times
Reputation: 2427
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbmsu01 View Post
Obviously Texas has forests. But the forest category was based on a comparison of the whole state. A lot of Texas is not forested. So even though Texas may have more forest area than Vermont, for example, Vermont is known for the forests it does have much more so than Texas is. Otherwise I'd just be giving higher ratings to states based on size. It might work that way for cities, but it's a bit unfair for more natural resources.

As for the 1 or 0 thing - I chose to give a "1" for not having anything resembling a desert. I gave a "2" for some states that were semiarid and had grasslands but not deserts.

I would like to revise Massachusetts, however, from 18 to 19 as I think their initial beaches score was too low.
If a state has more forest how would that be more diverse. Diverse means more different things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2012, 11:02 PM
 
Location: Tulsa, OK
2,572 posts, read 4,251,139 times
Reputation: 2427
Quote:
Originally Posted by KayneMo View Post
"Mile for mile, Oklahoma offers the nation’s most diverse terrain. It’s one of only four states with more than 10 ecoregions, and has by far, the most per mile in America according to the EPA. Oklahoma’s ecoregions – or, terrains/subclimates – include everything from Rocky Mountain foothills to cypress swamps, tallgrass prairies, and hardwood forests to pine-covered mountains. Each is graced with wide blue lakes, rivers and streams."



Oklahoma Office of the Secretary of Environment: Land
Hey please don't confuse these folks with the facts. They all think the North East is diverse because its mostly covered in trees. Plus they already know Oklahoma is nothing but dusty flat plain, because that what they have seen in the movies. Hollywood is famous for it's accuracy.

Last edited by okie1962; 12-22-2012 at 11:28 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2012, 11:57 PM
 
Location: Pacific NW
6,413 posts, read 12,142,138 times
Reputation: 5860
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
no one is being rude. its just common sense.
Beginning a post with "Well duh sherlock" is being rude in the extreme.

Can you not see that? Or else, why did you bother putting it there ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top