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.
What do you think of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilt...ealand#Climate.
Obviously geographic location killed it for civilisation but in terms of climate????
It was the most densely populated area of the country before colonisation with warm but not hot highs, winter frosts, but never severe, high sunshine and rainfall?
Any 4-season temperate climate with adequate precipitation would do. Remember, you need a place with cold winters to kill off insects and agricultural pests. Warm is not necessarily better. But the winters should be fairly short. I vote for the U.S Midwest.
Even though your screen name betrays a love of Arctic gardening?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say Northern European climate. Why? Because that climate created the most successful people and societies in the history of civilisation.
I think that the U.S. and Canada are far more successful than the charnel house Europe created.
Somehow wars have been the exception rather than the rule in North America. Basically there's the Civil War, Mexican-American War (really doesn't count) and the War of 1812. About 8 years of war. That's it.
What do you think of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilt...ealand#Climate.
Obviously geographic location killed it for civilisation but in terms of climate????
It was the most densely populated area of the country before colonisation with warm but not hot highs, winter frosts, but never severe, high sunshine and rainfall?
I'd think that would be too cool, almost year-round. Being outside in 40*F with little to no clothing probably wouldn't be very pleasant; 58*F isn't warm by any stretch either. I wouldn't exactly consider just over 2000 hours of sunshine to be "high" either; my location sees roughly about 2200 and it seems about average.
I'd think that would be too cool, almost year-round. Being outside in 40*F with little to no clothing probably wouldn't be very pleasant; 58*F isn't warm by any stretch either. I wouldn't exactly consider just over 2000 hours of sunshine to be "high" either; my location sees roughly about 2200 and it seems about average.
Hamilton's average annual temperature is only 1.4 degrees lower than a mediterranean city like, say Rome, and it's actually warmer for quarter of the year. Also couldn't you equally argue that it being more temperate for 7 months of the year would leave allow a population to be more productive? Also 2000 hours of sunshine allows for 5.5 hours a day which is sufficient for high crop yields, and apart from that what does cloud cover really matter?
Hamilton's average annual temperature is only 1.4 degrees lower than a mediterranean city like, say Rome, and it's actually warmer for quarter of the year. Also couldn't you equally argue that it being more temperate for 7 months of the year would leave allow a population to be more productive? Also 2000 hours of sunshine allows for 5.5 hours a day which is sufficient for high crop yields, and apart from that what does cloud cover really matter?
I never said cloud cover mattered. I simply said that 2000 hours of sun isn't that high, contrary to your original claim, especially considering that my climate sees about 2200 and I wouldn't call it anywhere near very sunny.
As for temperatures, spend a day outside in 40*F with no clothes on and tell me how you feel.
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.