Climate zone by Population (cities, season, world, freezing)
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.
The main limitation of tropical rainforest climates is that the heat and heavy rainfall promote intense weathering and leaching of nutrients so soils are usually very infertile. They also have usually had a long time to be leached, unlike areas that have been glaciated in the recent geological past, where glaciation has ground up the bedrock and brought new material for soil formation.
Where there are newer and more fertile soils eg volcanic ones such as in parts of Indonesia they can be extremely productive.
You can see the same infertility in some tropical monsoon and savanna regions. Eg northern Australia doesn't support much agriculture even where there is enough rainfall in the wet season as soils are so infertile.
Well, the tropical rainforest still produces a lot of life and food that could sustain humans, but afaik that depends on maintaining it as a forest and having a high soil organic matter content. That means it doesn't lend itself as well to large permanent settlements (although there have been some lost to the jungle - see the recently discovered Amazon ruins), but can still sustain hunter gatherer societies, I suspect at a higher density than the subarctic, as longer as they can put up with the parasites and diseases. I'd imagine in Indonesia a lot of the population was originally sustained with fishing rather than farming too? What was Indonesian agriculture focused on before the current era of globalization and demand for palm oil?
Perhaps. Hot desert areas make up larger areas of the earth not to mention many Mediterranean areas such as Western US and Australia weren't really populated until recent centuries. Regardless Csa and Cfb climates only make up a very small portion of the world however it still has a relatively large population. I actually thought Temperate oceanic would be more populated given the nations associated with it and it's density.
Can't say I'm all that surprised that humid subtropical Is the most populated.
Yeah, Csa and Cfb still have quite high population densities, although the densities are not as high as the irrigated valleys/deltas of the Nile and Hindus. Once you include the non-irrigated portions of the hot desert climates the population density plummets of course. Egypt has a lower population density than Poland, but the Nile Delta/Nile Valley has a population density several times greater than the Netherlands, and higher than even a sprawling urban area like Atlanta.
They also included semi-arid climate in the hot desert though, so with the Sahel and semi arid parts of India, that does boost the zone's population a fair bit.
World population distribution has very little to do with personal climate preferences and almost everything to do with the ability of regions to produce food, which is mainly a product of climate, soil fertility and availability of irrigation water.
Places like Egypt, parts of India and E China have been heavily populated since antiquity because they have a good combination of those factors. It wouldn't even have entered the average Egyptian or Chinese person's head to move somewhere with a more comfortable summer. Neither could they if they wanted to typically. And when people do migrate, I think climate is typically fairly low down on the list of reasons, below things like war, persecution, seeking a better quality of life or more opportunities.
Absolutely though that's why I'm surprised the likes of temperate oceanic has a smaller population that Mediterranean even though oceanic takes up much more landmass and is able to support a greater variety of crops due to it's year round precipitation. I think the most obvious reason for this however is climate change. A dirty and evil word used by many today to spell out our impending doom. The climate changes over time and there was a time when the temperate oceanic climate of today was subject to a harsh cold period known as the little ice age which was quite devastating. Also the rise and fall of Empire's was also responsible for this.
There didn't seem to be this level of instability in subtropical regions of the world most likely due to the fact this is where most of the most civilized and advanced empires were found.
Absolutely though that's why I'm surprised the likes of temperate oceanic has a smaller population that Mediterranean even though oceanic takes up much more landmass and is able to support a greater variety of crops due to it's year round precipitation. I think the most obvious reason for this however is climate change. A dirty and evil word used by many today to spell out our impending doom. The climate changes over time and there was a time when the temperate oceanic climate of today was subject to a harsh cold period known as the little ice age which was quite devastating. Also the rise and fall of Empire's was also responsible for this.
There didn't seem to be this level of instability in subtropical regions of the world most likely due to the fact this is where most of the most civilized and advanced empires were found.
I can't say that I agree. The little ice age impacted mainly northern Europe which is very densely populated, and a net importer of food. England, the British Isles, West Germany, France, all densely populated.
The oceanic regions that are (relatively) sparsely populated are in the New World. New Zealand is 100% oceanic and almost 15x less densely populated than the UK. Tasmania is more than 30x less densely populated than the UK. The oceanic parts of Victoria and NSW are probably barely denser than NZ. The South American portions of the Oceanic zone are less densely populated than the European portions as well. We're talking about Parana around Curitiba, the area around Mar Del Plata, as well as Patagonia.
The Little Ice Age was mostly a northern hemisphere phenomenon that impacted Europe. So then why are the European portions of the Oceanic zone, which are colder than the southern hemisphere portions, and which were more impacted by the Little Age, so much denser than their southern counterparts?
How do their land areas compare btw? I would have thought the Mediterranean zone might actually be a bit more extensive.
I can't say that I agree. The little ice age impacted mainly northern Europe which is very densely populated, and a net importer of food. England, the British Isles, West Germany, France, all densely populated.
The oceanic regions that are (relatively) sparsely populated are in the New World. New Zealand is 100% oceanic and almost 15x less densely populated than the UK. Tasmania is more than 30x less densely populated than the UK. The oceanic parts of Victoria and NSW are probably barely denser than NZ. The South American portions of the Oceanic zone are less densely populated than the European portions as well. We're talking about Parana around Curitiba, the area around Mar Del Plata, as well as Patagonia.
The Little Ice Age was mostly a northern hemisphere phenomenon that impacted Europe. So then why are the European portions of the Oceanic zone, which are colder than the southern hemisphere portions, and which were more impacted by the Little Age, so much denser than their southern counterparts?
How do their land areas compare btw? I would have thought the Mediterranean zone might actually be a bit more extensive.
Thats why as i said the rise and fall of Empires would have contributed to this particularly the Roman Empire for Europe. There were no such organised and advanced Empires in New Zealand and Southern Australia that could cultivate such population levels. My point was to perhaps show why the temperate oceanic parts of the world was less populated than the Mediterranean despite making up significantly more landmass. As i said having Empires like the Egyptian, Greek, Roman Empire all situated in the Mediterranean most likely is responsible for it's large populations. The Roman Empire for example was heavily reliant of Egypt for food.
The Mediterranean zone is smaller than the temperate oceanic zone as you can see
What was Indonesian agriculture focused on before the current era of globalization and demand for palm oil?
Rice based, as with the rest of Southeast Asia. Java historically had relatively high population density because all the volcanoes on the island facilitated extensive rice cultivation, possibly even before the arrival of Austronesian speakers to the archipelago ~3000 years ago. Rice was first domesticated in present-day southern China, and is believed to have spread to Indochina and Sundaland through prehistoric migrations of rice farmers from the Yangtze and Pearl River Basins.
With the exception of inland China proper, the cuisines of East and Southeast Asia generally use liberal amounts of seafood since the terrain (big river systems, long coastlines) and warm monsoonal climate support a wide variety of aquatic life. Hence Malaysian and Indonesian cuisine being similarly seafood heavy as Thai, Vietnamese, Korean, Japanese, and coastal Chinese cuisines.
Last edited by psyche_da_mike24; 04-24-2023 at 12:20 AM..
One thing i find most interesting is how people's attitudes toward the different climate zones has changed due to our level of development. There was a time when people would have seen Australia as a vast and hot infertile landmass with little to offer them. It wouldn't have been desirable at all to go to. Fast forward centuries later and the numerous warm climates it offers is it's biggest selling point aswell of course as being a developed country. We live in an era where food security is taken for granted and so we just expect it whereever we go. Now the main reason people move to a nation is due to it's level of development. Climate has never meant less to most people because it's affects have never been more muted due to technological progress. Feeling too hot, put on the air-con. Feeling too cold, put the heating on.
As for Farming, we'll advancements in agriculture aswell as access to a globalized market has meant there is a large number of sources to choose from, so much so it means famines affecting developed nations is simply incomprehensible
One thing i find most interesting is how people's attitudes toward the different climate zones has changed due to our level of development. There was a time when people would have seen Australia as a vast and hot infertile landmass with little to offer them. It wouldn't have been desirable at all to go to. Fast forward centuries later and the numerous warm climates it offers is it's biggest selling point aswell of course as being a developed country. We live in an era where food security is taken for granted and so we just expect it whereever we go. Now the main reason people move to a nation is due to it's level of development. Climate has never meant less to most people because it's affects have never been more muted due to technological progress. Feeling too hot, put on the air-con. Feeling too cold, put the heating on.
As for Farming, we'll advancements in agriculture aswell as access to a globalized market has meant there is a large number of sources to choose from, so much so it means famines affecting developed nations is simply incomprehensible
Although I agree with most of what you're saying, I think the parts of Australia most people live in and are moving too would not have been looked upon as excessively hot.
Even the interior of the continent is comparable if not cool compared to many centers of civilization (Iran, India, the Levant, Mesopotamia, Greece, Egypt or the Khmer Empire).
But certainly the coastal cities of Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney, and Perth have very temperate climates. Even Brisbane is mild compared to most of the world's current population centers, as well as many historical population centers. Besides the civilizations I've listed as comparable to the Australian interior, the Mayan, Olmec, various Mediterranean, Chinese, Japanese, and West African civilizations have comparable temperature peaks to Brisbane during their hottest months. Only the Aztec, Incan, Ethiopian and Northern European civilizations were founded on climates that were truly less hot.
Thats why as i said the rise and fall of Empires would have contributed to this particularly the Roman Empire for Europe. There were no such organised and advanced Empires in New Zealand and Southern Australia that could cultivate such population levels. My point was to perhaps show why the temperate oceanic parts of the world was less populated than the Mediterranean despite making up significantly more landmass. As i said having Empires like the Egyptian, Greek, Roman Empire all situated in the Mediterranean most likely is responsible for it's large populations. The Roman Empire for example was heavily reliant of Egypt for food.
The Mediterranean zone is smaller than the temperate oceanic zone as you can see
The video seems to use a bit different geographies.
For Oceanic, they seem to exclude the dry winter (Cwb, Cwa) climates, using only Cfb and Cfc, and also seem to be excluding the highland Cfb climates of South America, Africa and Asia (in and around the Himalayas).
Anyways, I do think historical empires matter, but I don't think the legacy of Rome is why the Mediterranean zone is more populated.
I think that in general, the "Old World" became the center of civilization on Earth for most of the history of civilizations (only recently is that being challenged by the US). That's not entirely due to climate, although it is helpful to have a large connected landmass with temperate to warm climates stretching from China to India to West Asia to the Mediterranean to Northern Europe. But it's also the fact that the Old World had many other advantages, such as having many native animals that could be domesticated for not only sources of food, but sources of transportation, such as oxen, horses, camels and donkeys. Meanwhile the Americas had only llamas (bison were seemingly undomesticatable), which were apparently unable to make into through the jungles of Panama, and as for Australia, you can't take a kangaroo or an emu. The Old World also had a good collection of native grasses that could be domesticated into grain crops. After that, they were able to develop the wheel and large ships, including sailboats. (the Americas didn't really have wheels, or ships much beyond large canoes)
This meant that not only could civilizations arise relatively easily in the Old World, but that if one civilization fell, it's knowledge and technologies could be preserved and passed on by adjacent civilizations that interacted with it. So when Rome fell, its advances were preserved by the Byzantines and later Islamic civilizations, who then passed it on to Venetians and Genovese and Spain through the Moors, and Europe more broadly. Alexander infused Greek culture across the Old World leading to all sorts of successor states in Egypt, Persia, etc. The Chinese transferred gunpowder to the Muslims and European. The Mongols adopted and redistributed technologies across all their conquered territories. SEA was influenced by both Chinese and Arab/Islamic culture. ETC...
So the Old World in general was at an advantage, in terms of better technology, more established civilizations, and larger population bases.
Africa was isolated from the rest of the world by the Sahara, and probably didn't have the most fertile soils or best climate outside the small pocket of South Africa. Australia's temperate coasts are a rather small chunk of land too. The Americas did have potential, but not as great as the Old World.
The second really big factor was the colonial era. It allowed Europe to build up the wealth required to advance technologically and culturally far ahead of the rest of the world, and then launch the industrial revolution and develop truly urban societies that could import food from other parts of the world in exchange for industrial goods.
According to another video by the same channel, the Mediterranean zone is only slightly more densely populated than the Oceanic one, coming in at 3rd and 4th densest respectively. https://youtu.be/sXpH4dEIkZA?t=557
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.
