Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
View Poll Results: Is Milford Sound's climate livable?
Yes 32 91.43%
No 3 8.57%
Voters: 35. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-29-2018, 03:13 AM
 
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
143 posts, read 158,641 times
Reputation: 150

Advertisements

People could definitely live there, the most comparable example of somewhere inhabited that I could find is Villa Puerto Edén https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_Puerto_Edén#Climate.
It receives around 1000mm of rain less a year but its average annual temperature is 3.5 degrees colder so the climate would probably seem quite a bit worse in my opinion with 5/6 the average rainfall and only 2/3 the average temperature.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-29-2018, 07:57 AM
 
3,500 posts, read 2,784,549 times
Reputation: 2148
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220 View Post
Exactly, that's why civilization (not counting Inuit settlements) in Canada only goes up to the Dfb/Dfc border, places like Ft McMurray for example are generally the end of the paved road headed poleward. And Ft McMurray exists because of the Athabaskan Tar Sands (petroleum).

Even here in the states, places like Leadville and Fairplay are mining communities

The final point being if Milford Sound doesn't have a valuable natural resource that can be extracted and sold, then civilization wouldn't be possible
And once again for half the year Canada can't grow anything. Everything has to be imported in. So I would suppose that most of Canada is also unlivable for half the year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2018, 07:58 AM
 
3,500 posts, read 2,784,549 times
Reputation: 2148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raysuxx View Post
People could definitely live there, the most comparable example of somewhere inhabited that I could find is Villa Puerto Edén https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_Puerto_Edén#Climate.
It receives around 1000mm of rain less a year but its average annual temperature is 3.5 degrees colder so the climate would probably seem quite a bit worse in my opinion with 5/6 the average rainfall and only 2/3 the average temperature.
Good find. Milford Sound may be a bit more rainy but it's also warmer, so I'll say that MS is a bit more livable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2018, 08:00 AM
 
3,500 posts, read 2,784,549 times
Reputation: 2148
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWood View Post
No, the other way around, is the "from" direction.
It makes me wonder if New Zealand was turned facing straight south, would the precipitation pattern be different.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2018, 08:20 AM
 
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,587,616 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by gordo View Post
And once again for half the year Canada can't grow anything. Everything has to be imported in. So I would suppose that most of Canada is also unlivable for half the year.
I guarantee that most of the areas of Canada more than about 100km north of the border that aren't Inuit communities have some type of natural resource whether it be lumber, or petroleum, or a valuable mineral.

So if there are no natural resources in Milford Sound (or near it), then it wouldn't make sense to build a town there
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2018, 08:27 AM
 
3,500 posts, read 2,784,549 times
Reputation: 2148
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220 View Post
I guarantee that most of the areas of Canada more than about 100km north of the border that aren't Inuit communities have some type of natural resource whether it be lumber, or petroleum, or a valuable mineral.

So if there are no natural resources in Milford Sound (or near it), then it wouldn't make sense to build a town there
Sure Milford Sound has a resource. Tourism.

Visitors expected to top 1 million in 2019.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/941...sitors-in-2019
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2018, 09:10 AM
 
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,587,616 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by gordo View Post
Sure Milford Sound has a resource. Tourism.

Visitors expected to top 1 million in 2019.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/941...sitors-in-2019
Tourism doesn't really pay well, just ask the people of Hawaii, who are mainly in poverty, especially after adjusting for COL
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2018, 09:36 AM
 
Location: Seattle WA, USA
5,699 posts, read 4,920,492 times
Reputation: 4942
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220 View Post
I guarantee that most of the areas of Canada more than about 100km north of the border that aren't Inuit communities have some type of natural resource whether it be lumber, or petroleum, or a valuable mineral.

So if there are no natural resources in Milford Sound (or near it), then it wouldn't make sense to build a town there
it’s a sound, meaning it’s connected to the ocean, meaning that fishing could easily be its industry, there is a lot of fish in the southern ocean.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2018, 04:44 PM
 
Location: Wellington and North of South
5,069 posts, read 8,594,884 times
Reputation: 2675
Quote:
Originally Posted by gordo View Post
It makes me wonder if New Zealand was turned facing straight south, would the precipitation pattern be different.
You mean by 180 degrees? Or shifting the SW-NE orientation to direct N-S? The biggest change would be to realign horizontally, when the main mountain ranges - primarily the Southern Alps - would no longer cause a large east-west difference in rainfall.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2018, 05:19 PM
 
3,500 posts, read 2,784,549 times
Reputation: 2148
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWood View Post
You mean by 180 degrees? Or shifting the SW-NE orientation to direct N-S? The biggest change would be to realign horizontally, when the main mountain ranges - primarily the Southern Alps - would no longer cause a large east-west difference in rainfall.
I meant shifting to a direct N-S.

It seems to me that systems normally travel from west to east at that latitude, so I would assume that South Island would still have a large east-west difference in rainfall.
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 > General Forums > Weather

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