U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Weather
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-11-2012, 10:19 PM
 
Location: In transition
10,669 posts, read 14,202,982 times
Reputation: 5081

Advertisements

I was thinking what the climates of various cities would be like if you moved both North and South America further south by 10 latitude and also pushed Antarctica so that it remained the same distance from Tierra del Fuego which means making Antarctica a closer to Australia.
So what do you think the climate of the following cities at the different latitudes would be:

i.e.
Yellowknife, NT - 52°N
Prince Rupert, BC - 44°N
Quebec City, QC - 36°N
Boston, MA - 32°N
Washington, DC - 28°N
Los Angeles - 24°N
Miami - 15°N
Mexico City - 9°N
San Jose - 0°N
Quito - 10°S
Lima - 22°S
Rio de Janeiro - 32°S
Buenos Aires - 44°S
Ushuaia - 64°S


interesting food for thought...
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-11-2012, 10:44 PM
 
Location: Leeds, UK
22,256 posts, read 26,576,163 times
Reputation: 8760
Lol.. Ushuaia would be uninhabitable? It's at 54S by the way.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 10:46 PM
 
Location: In transition
10,669 posts, read 14,202,982 times
Reputation: 5081
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunno what to put here View Post
Lol.. Ushuaia would be uninhabitable? It's at 54S by the way.
I know.. I put it at 64°S - 10 degrees further south... whether it would be habitable is up for interpretation I think.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 11:26 PM
 
6,459 posts, read 12,083,092 times
Reputation: 3262
-Yellowknife Canada: It would be a bit warmer if was moved 10 latitude South. However, winters in Yellowknife would still be very cold such as Winnipeg, Calgary, or Edmonton winter cold. Winters would have even more snow.

Spring, and Autumn mild weather would last longer and Summers a bit warmer but still mostly mild for summer.

Yellowknife 10 latitude more South would at least make it habitable instead of being not habitable. There could even be a major city in the new location.


-Prince Rupert: Prince Rupert would be much less cloudy and have more sunshine.

However, temperatures and precipitation would not actually change that much.


-Quebec City: Quebec City’s climate would change a lot more than Prince Rupert and Yellowknife.

Quebec City would have a climate similar to North Carolina/South Carolina.
Much warmer and longer summers. Much more mild winters and with almost no snow most years instead of having a ton of snow. Winters would be mostly mild but still with a few blasts of cold a few times but not nearly as much as in the current location.


-Boston: Summers would be much longer and quite a bit warmer.
It would be like Coastal Georgia where Savannah is located.

Boston would go from a classic 4 seasons climate to a subtropical climate with almost no winter.

However, annual sunshine and annual precipitation/precipitation pattern would actually not change for the most part.


-Washington DC: Washington DC would go from a 4 seasons climate to a Subtropical climate with mostly Tropical tendencies such as what Central Florida has.

It would have slightly more annual sunshine and less evenly annual distributed precipitation. However the actual annual precipitation amount would still be similar.


-Miami: Miami would be warm/hot year round all 12 months of the year, with no mild months and no chance of mildness/cold. Right now it has around 2 or 3 mildish months.

Miami’s tropical storm/hurricane risk would be even higher.

However, it if was just a little bit more south such as 15 latitude south instead of 10 latitude south, it would actually have almost zero tropical storm/hurricane risk then.


-Los Angeles: Los Angeles would be less mild and more warm/hot year round. However, still not quite warm/hot year round.

Los Angeles would be even more dry annually, so instead of being semi-arid, it would be a desert climate. The little precipitation it would get would mostly be evenly distributed year round. It would lose Mediterranean climate status.

However, ironically LA would also have a much higher tropical storm/hurricane risk.

Last edited by Thepastpresentandfuture; 01-11-2012 at 11:41 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 11:33 PM
 
6,459 posts, read 12,083,092 times
Reputation: 3262
Mexico City: It would be very close to the equator. However, if it still has the same relatively high elevation, it would still be mild year round instead of warm/hot year round. It would still be a subtropical highland climate.


San Jose: San Jose also has quite a bit of elevation. This is actually one of those climates that wouldn’t change that much like Mexico City.


Quito: Same as San Jose. However, temperatures would be slightly less evenly distributed. Also, because of its high elevation it is actually mild year round. It would still be mostly mild year round but with some winter like cold.


Lima: I think it would stop being such a cloudy desert.

It would get much more rain such as around 15 to 20 inches instead of less than one inch annually. And also get more annual sunshine too.


Buenos Aires: Summers would be much colder, such as mostly entirely mild summer instead of a mostly warm/hot summer.

It would also be drier annually but also more cloudy and less sunny.
It would get more cold winters as well.


Ushuaia: Well, it is currently already sub polar, similar to Reykjavik Iceland.

With the new change, it would be a bit colder but still subpolar (almost polar), especially with the same distance from Antarctica and a little bit of ocean in between. It would still be very cloudy, and windy.



* If Antarctica was closer to Australia and New Zealand in distance, those 2 places would be much more cloudy/less sunny, a bit more windy, and a bit colder such as actual real winters with cold and snow for plenty of those places.

The most southern parts of mainland Australia and New Zealand could even be similar to Macquarie island: Macquarie Island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Last edited by Thepastpresentandfuture; 01-11-2012 at 11:44 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2012, 12:39 AM
 
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
5,929 posts, read 9,486,195 times
Reputation: 4436
Awesome!!! I bet Buenos Aires at 44 s wont have summers as unbearable and hot as it haves now! and long! and be probably less sunny?

Anyways, it looks like it will be awesome for BA. I wouldnt mind colder winters either. Basically a northern patagonia climate, wich seems awesome!
I wish it happens for real
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2012, 06:12 AM
 
Location: Vancouver, Canada
1,255 posts, read 2,444,482 times
Reputation: 816
I'm wondering if Antarctica pushed further north would interfere with the strength of the Humbolt currently ( possibly deflecting it at a different angle? )

I think Deneb nailed most of the climates on the list, but some other places become more intriguing due to the contour of the continent:

St. John's, NF at 37N, about the same as Richmond, VA. St. John's is positioned quite aways from the main body of the continent, enough to start getting more maritime influences. I'm imagining it would be sort of a Bermuda - Virginia Beach hybrid, experiencing some cold outbreaks and something of a real winter, but with a much smaller seasonal range than extant east-coast climates.

Adak, AK at 41N is an interesting question, as there is nothing at a comparable spot in the Pacific. Adak is ridiculously cold for its lattitude given there's no large landmass around, but what would that climate be like further south? Perhaps something like Wellington, NZ, or perhaps a little colder.

Great Lake climates put around 35N instead of 45N would be interesting. I'm imagining the subtropical area extending further north around Thunder Bay, perhaps. Many years lake-affected areas would get rain instead of snow, but lake effect snows would still happen, especially in upper Michigan, where they might possibly be more crippling than they are now, due to greater warmth in the lakes leading to more evaporation, and likely an infrastructure less well adapted to snowy months.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2012, 06:13 AM
 
Location: Vancouver, Canada
1,255 posts, read 2,444,482 times
Reputation: 816
Also - would a low-lattidude Alaska block some of the westerly-current influence that effects the west coast?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2012, 08:47 AM
 
702 posts, read 1,087,182 times
Reputation: 468
In the southern hemisphere, you would probably get more northern levels of 'continentality' as the landmass increases to the north, and continentality peaks around 45-60 n/s

Buenos aires would probably have a climate very similar to NYC imo,
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2012, 09:02 AM
 
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
838 posts, read 2,484,332 times
Reputation: 584
Very interesting thread really! Very good idea, deneb, and very thorough info, Thepastpresentandfuture.

As Sophie said, Buenos Aires would be much more livable if it was at 44 S. TPPF, you said that BA would be dryer... you mean as dry as it is now Comodoro Rivadavia, whose current location is at 45 S? In CR there's just 229 mm/ around 9 inches annually. If that would be the case for BA, that means that the chance of snow would still be small. But then I thought: well, if the whole landmass next to BA would be placed at 44 S, then it would be a more continental climate than that of CR, meaning perhaps there would be a colder winter than that of CR (in CR avgs for July are 10 C / 3 C (50 F / 37 F). Not only that, but the interior of Buenos Aires Province (that stretch of land covering approx. from Buenos Aires City to Mar del Plata to Bahía Blanca) would have much colder winters, probably with guaranteed snow every year. I'm thinking of places like Tandil (it's one of the few cities surrounded by hills in the Province), which currently has 12 C / 3 C (54 F / 37 F) for July.

All this gave me the idea of constructing the climate charts for these places in the hypothetical new locations. Maybe one day I'll do that.
Rate this post positively 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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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 > General Forums > Weather

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, 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