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.
^ That's around Portland, OR but that's still not enough for a CIDP.
Portland is at 45N so a bit further north now that the newly located Vancouver. Portland is also a ways inland from the ocean whereas Vancouver is righy on the water. Vancouver would be more like Newport, OR than Portland. The CIDP may still struggle in exceptional years but 99% of the time would be fine.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 11 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,606,161 times
Reputation: 5697
As fascinating as I find this discussion, you have to ask how different history would turn out. Assuming we've hit rewind all the way back to Pangaea's separation, then shifted it south from there* would mean that the northern edge of the cotton growing to within 100 miles of Chicago, Cleveland, and maybe just touching Boston. Plus, the northern limit of commercial sugar cane growth would be roughly where the real-world north edge of cotton growth is. Perhaps the extreme south of Appalachia (in Alabama and Georgia) would be suitable for coffee trees. In short the eastern half of the USA would be analogous to present world Brazil. Draw what historic implications from this that you will.
Western US - All of CA east of the coast range and not just the SE 1/4 or so of the state would be desert - as would possibly southern inland British Columbia - and Canadian Prairies most likely too.
There'd be no Great Lakes (at least as we know them) because there'd be no ice sheet at the location of those lakes. If it did exist there, then it'd be at least 4 degrees further north.
*Of course shifting the Americas south would shift Antarctica in the direction of India, Australia, SE Asia 5 degrees north. So to be truly consistent, we have to imagine if the North Pole were shifted south along latitude 100 Deg West or so. But I'll ignore that for the sake of this thread.
I don't really buy into this economic potential hypothesis. Is there any data which indicates that warmer cities, all else equal, actually have greater economic output?
Norway, as a whole country, seems to be doing just fine all the way up north. NYC has the 2nd highest GDP of any city on Earth. Chicago has the 6th highest. Tokyo is first but mainly because of a higher population.
I usually hate these sort of threads, but I got thinking, wouldn't it be sick if the Americas moved 5 degrees latitude to the south?
The Northeast Corridor, a hyper-important economic region which is haunted by crappy weather for most of December to April, would get a monstrous lift in its climates. It would occupy the 33-38 latitudes in this case, with Washington DC having a climate somewhat similar to Atlanta in the new case, while Boston would be like the new Washington DC. Imagine all the new economic activity that would happen that is currently being lost to the nasty January-March months, and the improvements in the quality of life as a result of lower heating costs and less energy spent. Boston which spends countless funds each year plowing snow from the streets, would only have to do so on a few occasions in this situation
Montreal would move to the 40th latitude, so it would have a climate similar to Central PA. It would still be mad cold, but it would be very manageable. The Great Lakes, being more isolated from the source of cold in the north, would be much warmer year round. Perhaps the southern shores of the Great Lakes could become French rivieras
Here would be the new latitudes of the major cities in South America
Rio de Janeiro: 28S
Sao Paolo: 28S
Florianopolis: 33S
Porto Alegre: 35S
Cordoba: 36S
Mendoza: 37S
Santiago: 38S
Buenos Aires: 39S
Montevideo: 40S
Tropical cities like Salvador, Lima, Cartagena, etc, are just going to be stuck in the tropics either way so they're still going to have almost the same climate. But look at the changes for other cities! Southeast Brazil, which is one of the most densely populated places in South America, would get a massive boost if this happened. The oppressively hot RdJ would have a much milder climate, that's quite a bit better, no? Rio would be much nicer and milder, as opposed to being Singapore 2.0
Porto Alegre and Florianopolis meanwhile, would turn into pure heaven
Montevideo and Buenos Aires would become a bit colder, something like this, but that's hardly a bad climate
Yes would be kinda cool.
My area would have climate like Kentucky or Tennessee....good in a way, bad in a way.
Milder winter but hotter summer is the trade off.
Portland is at 45N so a bit further north now that the newly located Vancouver. Portland is also a ways inland from the ocean whereas Vancouver is righy on the water. Vancouver would be more like Newport, OR than Portland. The CIDP may still struggle in exceptional years but 99% of the time would be fine.
Very good observation. Vancouver is not directly on the Pacific Ocean....that would be
the west coast of Vancouver Island....even the east coast of Vancouver Island enjoys being
sheltered from the big bad Pacific....that's why Victoria, Duncan, and Nanaimo are so good
Nah, but it would still be worse lol. Summers would probably be the same, but winter would be about 5-7 F warmer. Horrible.
Miami is just awful. Even Havana is a better climate, with more tolerable summer nights and the lack of Arctic cold blasts in the winter
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.