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.
Polar (ET and EF) are the worst, with EF worse than ET. There's a reason very few people live in these climates. They are the most inhospitable climates for human habitation, which is why they were the last to be settled by humans (high arctic) and the last to be explored (Antarctica).
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,587,616 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bisfbath
Polar (ET and EF) are the worst, with EF worse than ET. There's a reason very few people live in these climates. They are the most inhospitable climates for human habitation, which is why they were the last to be settled by humans (high arctic) and the last to be explored (Antarctica).
Subpolar and tundra climates also can't support modern style cities due to the permafrost. During the summer warm season, the top layer thaws, while the lower layers stay frozen, so the soil gets water logged. Impossible to build on without dredging
Hot and humid is by far the worst for me (especially Florida). Best climate for me is 4 season, preferably with a longer fall/winter season and lots of overcast days with little rain.
Subpolar and tundra climates also can't support modern style cities due to the permafrost. During the summer warm season, the top layer thaws, while the lower layers stay frozen, so the soil gets water logged. Impossible to build on without dredging
True, though there are ways of doing it. But the problem is deeper and goes back further in time. Even going back to the days of hunter gatherers, the Arctic was inhabited later than other climate zones as it took more adaptations for people to survive there. Then later, without the possibility of agriculture people could only survive by hunting or on imported goods.
People first settled in the high arctic roughly 12 thousand years ago, Arabia ~70 thousand years ago, India, South East Asia and Australia ~65 thousand years ago, the Near East ~50 thousand years ago and Europe and China ~45 thousand years ago.
Even once they crossed into the Americas, people got all the way down to southern South America (~14 thousand years ago) long before they got to Arctic Canada (~5 thousand years ago) and Greenland (~4 thousand years ago).
Simply very cold climates are more hostile, require more adaptations for survival and have fewer draws than warmer ones.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,587,616 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bisfbath
True, though there are ways of doing it. But the problem is deeper and goes back further in time. Even going back to the days of hunter gatherers, the Arctic was inhabited later than other climate zones as it took more adaptations for people to survive there. Then later, without the possibility of agriculture people could only survive by hunting or on imported goods.
People first settled in the high arctic roughly 12 thousand years ago, Arabia ~70 thousand years ago, India, South East Asia and Australia ~65 thousand years ago, the Near East ~50 thousand years ago and Europe and China ~45 thousand years ago.
Even once they crossed into the Americas, people got all the way down to southern South America (~14 thousand years ago) long before they got to Arctic Canada (~5 thousand years ago) and Greenland (~4 thousand years ago).
Simply very cold climates are more hostile, require more adaptations for survival and have fewer draws than warmer ones.
This is why modern settlements in the taiga or tundra (other than by indigenous peoples) only happen for resource extraction (oil, gold, diamonds, etc) Because they have to import all their food and what not, gets very expensive
In the boreal forest of Scandinavia, Finland and western Russia, there are many towns that have existed for a long time (hundreds of years), also with agriculture in addition to fishing og hunting, some of them with agriculture as the primary way of getting food. Those towns are mostly in the southern part of the boreal forest /taiga where there are no permafrost & somewhat milder climate than in the more continental part of the taiga. The further you go closer to the tundra, the less agriculture in those cultures.
This is a grain field near Oulu in Finland, situated in the boreal forest/taiga vegetation zone.
This is why modern settlements in the taiga or tundra (other than by indigenous peoples) only happen for resource extraction (oil, gold, diamonds, etc) Because they have to import all their food and what not, gets very expensive
Agriculture is possible in both taiga and tundra, it’s only not possible in ice caps because agriculture is possible when it’s above freezing.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,587,616 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Massiveshibe
Agriculture is possible in both taiga and tundra, it’s only not possible in ice caps because agriculture is possible when it’s above freezing.
No, it isn't really. There's generally no arable soil in the muskeg environment, as the bog is acidic in nature
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.
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.
