Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [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)
View Poll Results: Which climate do you prefer?
Humid Climate 74 22.84%
Arid Climate 39 12.04%
Mediterranean Climate 211 65.12%
Voters: 324. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-24-2016, 02:30 PM
 
Location: So California
8,704 posts, read 11,045,271 times
Reputation: 4794

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ABQConvict View Post
I prefer humid climates. With a caveat: They should have short summers, so I am not talking about the American south, but rather the Northeast, New England, northern Europe, etc.

I like living in a place where moss grows on trees and rooftops and the sidewalks and rocks are damp and dripping. In winter, exposed rock are a fantastic frozen waterfall of 10 foot long icicles and the everpresent ponds and lakes are frozen.

For the summer, dewpoints above 65 should exist for under 30 days ideally.

The second best climate for me would be Mediterranean, especially a higher elevation or damper area. The summers can be unbearable at times (and often just as humid as cooler 'humid' climates).
sounds like you are a northern california guy, so why are you in albuquerque?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-24-2016, 11:56 PM
 
Location: The Future
172 posts, read 206,521 times
Reputation: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by :-D View Post
Recorded farming in the Yellow River happened about 2,000 years after the recorded farming in the Fertile Crescent. Are you sure about that? Do you have proof? I think a lot of people and ideas can migrate over the course of 2,000 years even back then when technology was slower. The Yellow River and the Fertile Crescent are on the same continent, separated by deserts which had to be crossed for human beings to be even living in China in the first place...

The Americas much later time-wise as far as what has archeologically been proven. By the time they developed farming in the Americas, people in Europe, Asia, and Africa where technologically farther along... This is because they had more time so to speak to acclimate to where they live, understand the resources/weather/vegetation etc. and make technology that was appropriate and useful to the location they lived in. I'm sure if the first humans were not found in modern-day Ethiopia but rather in the Americas this would be flipped. However due to the sheer distance of the Americas and the Middle East I'd agree that this would be developed independently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_agriculture
Quote:
The Fertile Crescent of Western Asia, Egypt and the Indus Valley were sites of the earliest planned sowing and harvesting of crops which had previously been gathered in the wild. Independent development of agriculture occurred in northern and southern China, Africa's Sahel, New Guinea, parts of India and several regions of the Americas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by :-D View Post
I strongly disagree. I don't know about you but I think most people would think Hawaii is perfect in weather. Occasionally an eruption here or there but climate wise relatively perfect. Almost all plants can grow there. But when "we" found Hawaii were they technologically farther than us? No... We had giant ships take us there for starters that they did not have when we saw them. That's because they did not NEED them. The Hawaiian Islands are already perfect, they didn't need to sail out for miles to find food, it was already easy access for them. Long growing season and rather clockwork precipitation patterns which prevented famines and because of Hawaii's climate didn't need to invent large-scale irrigation like places in the Middle East and East Asia did. Tropical places are also perfect breeding grounds for almost every other living land creature... In particular mosquitoes which are hosts to numerous deadly infectious diseases. It's hard to develop technology like that when too many people die early from malaria, which is why places like the Congo and the Amazon aren't home to technological innovation, despite all this as well.

I can't name a single tropical country that is also considered a first world country. You would think in a place with a year-long growing season and enough rain to provide water for lots of people, lots of trees to make shelter, a large variety of fruits and meat they would have more time to do what you are saying they can do. But the reality is is that because they are already perfect, they didn't try to make them better. Why try to make something better if it's already perfect?
No the lack of progress in tropical countries has to do with the disorder amongst the people caused by Imperialists, and their artificial borders imposed on much of the great kingdoms at those latitudes. Hawaii was once a kingdom, only to get overthrown by the US forces, which had ideals of Imperialism at the time. Many tropical African kingdoms were put to disarray when the Berlin Conference artificially carved political boundaries into their widespread territories. Said tropical countries only recently gained their independence a few decades ago, relatively recent from a historical perspective; they didn't have time to establish great foundations to lead them to First World success, since in the time before, they were oppressed by colonialists. In the US, look at the struggle the Black population has to go through even to this day, in terms of the gaps of achievement between them and Whites/Asians, all for the same reasons why tropical countries are in disarray; history of oppression and sub ordinance which only recently was abolished.

Sure, tropical diseases and the like can make innovation in tropical countries difficult, but it is no more so than the threat of frost-bite towards people living in the Great North, or the dust storms that could strike old arid civilizations. As you said, in all other respects, tropical climates were ideal; that means people settling in those areas already basically had their house in order, and could then go on to thinking about other innovations for advancing their civilization in general (mathematics, societal values, culture, etc). On the other hand, those of harsher climates didn't have time to think of such things until they made sure their environment was suitable for them.

Anyways, First-World tropical areas include Singapore, far northern Australia (including cities like Cairns and Darwin), South Florida and Hawaii. Hong Kong and Taipei also are quite developed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by :-D View Post
Places like Europe (also mostly humid...) do not have 12-month long growing seasons because they aren't near the equator. So to maximize the whatever months they had to grow food they needed to maximize irrigation. They needed to maximize the acreage for their farms to provide enough food for their growing populations. Europe used to be an entire forest like the Northeast here in the States. They had to figure out a way to take the trees down to make more land for farms. They had to build homes strong enough to keep snow from breaking through the roofs. It led to the innovation of pitched roofs. The weather was colder so they needed more clothing... so they started raising animals to make clothing rather than just hunting them (like sheep for wool)... Being further from the equator meant days were shorter in the winter so they needed more light in order to provide more efficiency during this season... Eventually led to the light bulb and so on. Europe is a rather small continent with lots of different city-states living close together was efficient for trading and eventually led to a desire to improve trade leading to larger cargo ships and trains etc. Romans invented aqueducts to retrieve water as Rome grew above carrying capacity and it led to the first plumbing system with working toilets and everything. The plumbing provided water which provided more baths improving hygiene... When you become more technologically-minded due to using other tools you can start applying similar concepts to other things. It builds on to each other... It because their climate was not as ideal for humans, not because it was more ideal. So we, being the awesome species we are, made this climate ideal for us from our intelligence. Tell me if every piece of technology was lost, so no houses, no plumbing, no farming, nothing... Where would you want to be living?
Areas of Europe do have 365 day growing seasons (the southern areas of the Med, including islands). Regardless, the point still stands that in tropical areas, advancements were just for human betterment in general, not just for getting "the house in order."

Quote:
Originally Posted by :-D View Post
I could go on but I don't feel like writing a research paper. You have an opinion that humid subtropical climates are the perfect climate. If they are why aren't the real estate values the highest in places like that in the U.S.? It is almost the entire South yet the South is cheap as a whole, however in contrast Hawaii and California have some of the highest real estate prices and that is because their weather is desirable to most people. California's Mediterranean climate is winning this poll by leagues and you can't argue that. Human beings have evolved to desire certain climates because we can function best within them. California's and Spain's Mediterranean climates are this climate for most people, along with Hawaii though isn't an option in this thread. You are the unpopular opinion in this thread and even though you think humid subtropical climates are perfect clearly not everyone else does. And in terms of providing for necessities your ideal climate does not rank number one, tropical climates do, as I already stated.
The South cover larges amounts of land and territory, unlike California and Hawaii, so real estate is cheaper as a whole; even if lots of people moved in, plenty of land still would be available. Even then, areas of the South do have high prices, including Florida, and the urban cores of the region's large cities (Austin, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Charlotte, etc).

The preference of the Med climate is largely an American phenomenon; look around the world at other continents, and you won't see such large populations in their Med areas. For instance, Western Australia has a Med climate, but the population on that continent is concentrated on the eastern half of the continent, with multiple large cities like Brisbane and Sydney; Western Australia's only large city of note is Perth. In South Africa, Capetown is not seen as more desirable than Durban, just because the former has a Med climate. Even in Europe itself, the population is not disproportionately concentrated in the Med areas.

This preference of a Med climate is an American phenomenon because the settlers of the US were northern Europeans, whose idea of warm escapes was Med areas like California. They had heavy experience with Med climates, due to trades and cooperation with Spain, Portugal, Italy, etc in history. On the other hand, they didn't really have as intimate experience with warm, humid climates, like that seen in the Southeast, and thus, were not really that equipped to handle the environment in the region. Asians and Africans, on the other hand, have had heavy experience with such climates, and can utilize it to the fullest; if the US was dominated by mostly Asians and Africans, then I bet that the humid climates of the Southeast would be seen as most desirable, not the Med.

Humid subtropical climates are seen as ideal by me because they have all the climate features of the tropics, encouraging flourishing of life, but with a cooler period during winter, cool enough to suppress the disease causing pest/micro-organism activity, but warm enough to still ensure very long growing seasons. The top 5 largest metro areas in the world are all in humid subtropical climates (all in East Asia except 1, which is in South Asia).

Quote:
Originally Posted by :-D View Post
Also to use East Asia for inventing isn't exactly correlated to this thread because Asians as a whole prioritize education significantly in their cultures where such a cultural prominence in prioritizing education is not seen to nearly the same degree in the other races on Earth. In lots of countries in Asia they spend almost their entire childhoods studying what seems like 24/7... If our culture put a prominence on education like that the U.S. would be extremely different than what it's like today, I'll tell you that. A better country, most definitely.

The South shares the same climate but they aren't the home to innovation in this country... This is a thread about the United States... start talking about this country.
The humid subtropical climate of the South is ideal for innovation, due to aforementioned reasons. The problem is, Americans just haven't exploited the climate to the advantage, unlike East Asians, and a large part of that comes from the regions history of political control by right-wing nuts, which contributed to holding back the region in pretty much every category, whether through social life (Jim Crow Laws, Christian-Taliban, Anti-LGBT laws, etc), or fiscally (not wanting to take the fiscal measures needed to ensure greater good for the society). For the longest time, people from other regions of the US and the world, have avoided the South for these policies, but recently, immigration and transplanting picked up, and more and more Americans are starting to learn how to exploit the climate to their advantage.

Even in its worst state, the South still had loads of innovation; Atlanta and Houston were leaders in the Civil Rights movement, desegregating swiftly and peacefully while other cities still fell into riots. Such peaceful actions were inspired by the actions of great people from the South like MLK and Rosa Parks. Houston, along with areas of Florida, participated heavily in gearing the nation to the next frontier, space, through affiliation with NASA. Many Southern cities, such as Nashville, Memphis, New Orleans, Atlanta, Houston, Austin, etc, are some of the most rhythmic cities in the US, putting out many forms of music; there would be no Rock, Hip Hop, R/B and Soul, Blues, and Jazz without the innovation from the South. Great forms of literature came from writers in the region, like Ernest Hemingway, Edgar Allen Poe, and Harper Lee. There would be no CNN without the bright ideas of a man from Atlanta, and the last president actually born in Texas, LBJ, proposed the Great Society.

And with East Asia coming out with concepts like robots, maglevs, subway grocery shopping, and bullet trains, it can be seen that humid cities, especially of the subtropical variety, are key areas of innovation world-wide. That hover-car in the video I posted was invented in China, which has some of the most technologically advanced cities on the planet, along with Japan and South Korea. You just have to thank East Asia for giving the world quirky new innovations from companies like Mitsubishi, Toyota, Nintendo, Sony, and Sega, Tamagotchi, Hello Kitty, and also influential anime like Dragon Ball Z, Bleach, Pokemon, and Naruto.

Last edited by Wipe0ut; 01-25-2016 at 12:07 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2016, 12:09 AM
 
Location: Westminster/Huntington Beach, CA
1,780 posts, read 1,744,119 times
Reputation: 1218
If Asians preferred humid climates, then why does CA have such an overwhelming share? Same goes for the northeast US if they prefer warm climates.

They can obviously handle it, but might prefer something else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2016, 02:03 AM
 
Location: So California
8,704 posts, read 11,045,271 times
Reputation: 4794
Quote:
Originally Posted by NativeOrange View Post
If Asians preferred humid climates, then why does CA have such an overwhelming share? Same goes for the northeast US if they prefer warm climates.

They can obviously handle it, but might prefer something else.

And apparently he didnt check the poll results. Thats a large enough sample size to give a strong indication what humans prefer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2016, 02:32 AM
 
Location: The Future
172 posts, read 206,521 times
Reputation: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by NativeOrange View Post
If Asians preferred humid climates, then why does CA have such an overwhelming share? Same goes for the northeast US if they prefer warm climates.

They can obviously handle it, but might prefer something else.
For the same reason the Northeast is the most populated part of the US, despite the fact that people, apparently, find Med climates ideal.

Regardless, the Asian population in the South is booming big-time, and from all over the continent (from India to Cambodia, and from Vietnam to Korea). African immigrant populations also continue to surge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by slo1318 View Post
And apparently he didnt check the poll results. Thats a large enough sample size to give a strong indication what humans prefer.
If Med climates really were held to ideal status in the world like they are in the US, then Western Australia would be the most populated state in Australia, western South Africa would be the part of the country that was heavily populated, and Chile would be disproportionately heavily populated compared to the rest of South America. Said areas on said continents also would have very high real-estate prices compared to the other areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2016, 03:09 AM
 
Location: So California
8,704 posts, read 11,045,271 times
Reputation: 4794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wipe0ut View Post
For the same reason the Northeast is the most populated part of the US, despite the fact that people, apparently, find Med climates ideal.

Regardless, the Asian population in the South is booming big-time, and from all over the continent (from India to Cambodia, and from Vietnam to Korea). African immigrant populations also continue to surge.



If Med climates really were held to ideal status in the world like they are in the US, then Western Australia would be the most populated state in Australia, western South Africa would be the part of the country that was heavily populated, and Chile would be disproportionately heavily populated compared to the rest of South America. Said areas on said continents also would have very high real-estate prices compared to the other areas.

They are. You are discounting history and migration/settlement patterns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2016, 04:15 AM
 
Location: The Future
172 posts, read 206,521 times
Reputation: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by slo1318 View Post
They are. You are discounting history and migration/settlement patterns.
Only in America, apparently. Elsewhere in the world, they are viewed as just another climate, nothing special.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2016, 10:22 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,958 posts, read 32,418,045 times
Reputation: 13588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wipe0ut View Post
For the same reason the Northeast is the most populated part of the US, despite the fact that people, apparently, find Med climates ideal.

Regardless, the Asian population in the South is booming big-time, and from all over the continent (from India to Cambodia, and from Vietnam to Korea). African immigrant populations also continue to surge.



If Med climates really were held to ideal status in the world like they are in the US, then Western Australia would be the most populated state in Australia, western South Africa would be the part of the country that was heavily populated, and Chile would be disproportionately heavily populated compared to the rest of South America. Said areas on said continents also would have very high real-estate prices compared to the other areas.
Most people don't move based on climate but rather economic, social, political, and family reason over climate.

Mediterranean climates essentially are the most ideal climates for the human body.

Weatherwise Magazine -- March-April 2014
Quote:
So how do we describe humanity's hypothetical optimal weather place, known for our purposes as (tongue residing a bit in cheek) “Anthro-Weathertopia”? Winds don't blow in Anthro-Weathertopia, nor do any clouds dare drift above this mythical place. Fog never invades this land, neither would the related smog, should the inhabitants decide to build a factory. Despite the ideal state of sun supremacy, however, the temperature never strays from 68°F throughout the day, and remains at that level all night long, throughout the year—a year experiencing no seasons, save for the effect of the tilt of the planet on day length throughout the earth's revolution about the sun. The relative humidity in Anthro-Weathertopia remains constant at 50%. Lightning, which starts fires, never strikes here. And no lightning means no thunder, which shocks the business ends of ears, causing a dramatic reduction in mental acuity and instills fear in many. Hail, which at pea-sized stings and at grapefruit proportions might easily kill, never falls. Hurricanes never smash ashore, nor do tornados grind through the landscape. Devoid of what most would call “weather,” Anthro-Weathertopia lies at sea level, providing the densest air for human inhabitants to breathe most efficiently and providing the greatest protection from carcinogenic ultraviolet radiation.

Nothing on our planet, of course, comes even remotely close to Anthro-Weathertopia's ideal conditions. So then what 10 places, in increasing order of similarity, come closest to this hypothetical meteorological anthropocentric ideal?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2016, 02:20 PM
 
Location: Østenfor sol og vestenfor måne
17,919 posts, read 24,174,688 times
Reputation: 39021
Quote:
Originally Posted by slo1318 View Post
sounds like you are a northern california guy, so why are you in albuquerque?
I wonder sometimes. Actually it is not so bad as far as arid climates go.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2016, 02:24 PM
 
1,687 posts, read 1,423,713 times
Reputation: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Most people don't move based on climate but rather economic, social, political, and family reason over climate.

Mediterranean climates essentially are the most ideal climates for the human body.

Weatherwise Magazine -- March-April 2014
Exactly. .if climate was such a big deal Chicago would be far smaller.

People put up with the bad weather just most put up with the humidity.
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

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. > City vs. City
Similar Threads

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