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.
I'll take Minnesota's lakes and green space over the Grand Canyon any day. Not only that, but we do have mountains in northeastern MN. Northern MN is like Alaska - very beautiful, northern, and wild.
Oh please! I've got to see that! How about a photo to prove that Minnesota has mountains and then prove that they "look like Alaska"!
Northern MN is great but is completely different than Alaska, that was a stupid claim. Back on topic, I'd still take MN nature (and climate) over AZ though.
How does MN's lack of mountains take away from it? How do mountains impact the quality of one's existence? Most of the extreme sports nuts who go biking/hiking/kayaking/rock climbing/etc. in the mountains are usually givin'er so hard that they couldn't possibly be taking in any of their surroundings, let alone appreciating them. I lived in Denver for nearly 5 years, and I can honestly say that I enjoy a day on the boat or a gentle ride/hike through the woods here in WI over giving myself a heart attack traversing the harsh mountain landscape of the West. There's little to no tree cover out west, so the sun just beats down on you in the summer. The higher in elevation you go, the colder it gets. So even if you're fortunate enough to come across a waterfall or a stream when you're up in the mountains, chances are the water is freezing cold, so you can't even enjoy it.
BTW, Lake Superior is to ordinary lakes what the Grand Canyon is to ordinary canyons. The Great Lakes are a natural wonder unto themselves. Over 20% of the Earth's entire freshwater resources are contained in just those 5 lakes.
I think it's just a personal preference. Some people enjoy the beauty of mountains, and enjoy the activities that they offer such as hiking or mountain biking. Others enjoy the beauty of lakes and enjoy the activities they offer such as swimming and boating. Both are nice, and how it impacts the quality of one's existence is entirely based on the preferences of the individual. You don't think that a lack of mountains takes away from how nice MN is, and others don't think a lack of lakes take away from how nice AZ is.
Personally, I could be happy with either. Mountains, lakes, oceans, etc.- they're all beautiful. It's actually driving in the snow that would bother me most about living in a climate like MN, but that's mainly just because I've never had to do it, so it's a bit intimidating.
Arizona has one of the longest rivers in the country on its border, the Colorado river that creates the scenic wonder of the Grand Canyon. The Mississippi is the nation's longest river [I think] and forms in Minnesota. So there actually is something in common. This thread is about climate but the physical beauty of Arizona is amazing in a way that Minnesota is not [plus it has more climates than Minnesota].
Northern MN is great but is completely different than Alaska, that was a stupid claim. Back on topic, I'd still take MN nature (and climate) over AZ though.
Northern MN does have many affinities with Alaska (minus the mountains), like boreal forest, northern lights, moose, bears, wolves, lakes, emptiness/wilderness, extremely cold temperatures. There are many places in Alaska - away from the mountains - that look much like northern Minnesota.
No, I have never been in the state of Minnesota. My comment was comparing Arizona's [a place I have been to several times] physical diversity\ land forms to Minnesota. Few if any states can match the beauty of the Grand Canyon and I know there is nothing like it in Minnesota.
Arizona has one of the longest rivers in the country on its border, the Colorado river that creates the scenic wonder of the Grand Canyon. The Mississippi is the nation's longest river [I think] and forms in Minnesota. So there actually is something in common. This thread is about climate but the physical beauty of Arizona is amazing in a way that Minnesota is not [plus it has more climates than Minnesota].
The Missouri River is longer than the Mississippi River.
Northern MN is great but is completely different than Alaska, that was a stupid claim. Back on topic, I'd still take MN nature (and climate) over AZ though.
I wouldnt say "Completely Different"...
I have met many of people that will jus say "It's a lot like Northern MN" When explainging 'what Alaska is like'
Both areas are home to wildlife such as Moose Populations and Timberwolves, and Bears.
Geographically, the forests are similar as are the marshlands and bogs too. The amount of lakes too... Same goes for the cold weather.
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.
I've got to see that! How about a photo to prove that Minnesota has mountains and then prove that they "look like Alaska"!
