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.
Of course it's not right, the subjective "habitable" zone doesn't depend only on the latitude, but on the longitude as well (usually the further east you go, the coldest the winter gets).
Is Cordova, Alaska cold? And even then, Saguenay, Quebec is supposed to be "habitable", when those winters are far colder than Cordova's.
Florida = Death. Yes, Florida's climate is really bad (to me at least) because it's hot and humid year round.
Hawaii = Death.
The Yellow no part = I totally agree
Satan's Armpit = Yes, that area is extremely hot.
Cold = Yes, that area is extremely cold (in winter).
Nope = That area is basically tundra
Things I partly agree with:
The Habitable Zone: I think Vancouver and Seattle have good climates but I don't agree with Winnipeg and Sept-Iles having a pleasant climate, because their winters are far too harsh.
Final thought: the map is too latitude based, it would have been interesting if the map included changes based on the longitude.
I think it's way wrong, California has the best climates in the USA (especially the inland centre and north) and imo -30°C, which occurs in most of the green area, is not habitable, but that's just me.
Of course I realise it's just a joke map though.
Well at least Philly has never ever approached -22F. But that temp is probably all time record lows in many parts of that green zone.
Not correct for me. I'd put the habitable line in a circle from the eastern frontier strip (Kansas, Nebraska, etc.) going around to eastern California, Oregon, and Washington then south cutting off southern Arizona all of Texas except the far west and the panhandle and cutting off North Dakota and northeastern Montana in the north. North and east of the circle would be cold, ending at about the boundary on this map. North of that and the west coast would be uninhabitable. The Midwest/northeast would be no and the I would agree on the southeast. Death would be reserved for a section of the west coast from Northern California to southern Alaska. In addition, I would put a great zone around the high plains from the Texas panhandle up to the black hills and west to the Rockies, and then across southern Montana up to northwest Montana.
I'd put the habitable zone hugging the BC coast, then following but slightly north of the 'NO' line and turning north to hug the east coast up to NYC.
Everywhere south of that is habitable, apart from a few small areas of desert in the SW.
So a large part of the breadbasket of the US is "uninhabitable"? Here we go again. Because of the "bitterly cold winter" right? Uninhabitable is where you cannot sustain life and can't grow crops. Those green areas were settled in the 1800's and people survived fine there.
And Australia is probably vastly more uninhabitable than the US given their paltry rainfall and vast desert areas that could not sustain settlements in the 1800's. Interesting that the vast population of Australia hugs the coast. That is because early explorers went over those hills into the interior and never came back. The opposite happened here. Lewis and Clark went west and came back with amazing stories.
Well at least Philly has never ever approached -22F. But that temp is probably all time record lows in many parts of that green zone.
Parts of the yellow zone as well, including Louisville and Knoxville.
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.