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.
North Dakota gets extremely cold - down to -40 sometimes in the winter. But we also get hot in the summer, and we definitely don't have any tundra. I'm guessing the summer heat balances out the winter cold enough to take us out of the running for a subarctic climate.
swathes of extreme northern Minnesota and Wisconsin also have remnant boreal ecosystems (taiga)intact… although I hear warmer winters thanks to climate change threatens these remaining biomes, along with relic populations of moose though I’ve heard they’re declining apparently, the moose populations at least for some reason.
There are definitely subarctic climates in the central Rockies as well. Just pointing out that the largest areas of tundra and permanently glaciated terrain is mostly confined to Northern Rockies, and Cascades.
Colorado doesn't have glaciers, but that's due to global warming in the 20th-21st century and the drier climate compared to the Cascades. There are moose in the higher forested areas, by the way.
The Lincoln vs Marquette discrepancy is probably due to the influence of the Great Lakes, moderating extreme temperatures in Marquette. This is also seen in Chicago, where the all-time record is only -32ºC, higher than Denver despite being 4ºC colder on average in the winter.
There's a pocket of arctic vegetation in a canyon on the Canadian side of Lake Superior. The canyon walls keep temperatures cool year round. The cold waters of Lake Superior allow some sub-arctic vegetation to exist on the Canadian side (the side I'm familiar with), and I'd imagine at least some areas on the American side. But overall, I'd say these areas still have a continental climate. The current range for maple trees extends to about Wawa, ON and Thunder Bay, ON. Being warm enough for maples is not a prerequisite for continental climates but it definitely rules out "sub-arctic".
Blueberries are prevalent in the Georgian Bay and Algonquin Park, but they also have lizards (5 lined skinks), water snakes and rattlesnakes. Pine, hemlock, cedar, maple and beech are all prevalent in the areas Sault Ste Marie across the north shore of Lake Huron and in Algonquin Park. Typical "mixed forest" trees that are mostly non-existent in boreal/taiga forest.
And boreal/taiga can still be continental (rather than sub-arctic imo). The most taiga like area around Lake Superior is the White River, ON area. Basically 6 months of snow cover, lots of moose, black bears, and very typical taiga vegetation. It's still 400km south of the sporadic permafrost line, and 700km south of the continuous permafrost line though.
The Midwest is quite variable in climate. Most of the Great Plains are quite hot in the summer, and relatively mild in winter, which doesn't last that long. It's only when you get north of Sioux Falls that the winters start to get fairly harsh and long, but summers are still hot, just a typical continental climate. Eastern Midwest/Great Lakes like Indiana, Illinois and Ohio is quite warm, and much of those three states get more rain than snow in winter. About half the year is frost free, and it's mostly deciduous forest (rather than mixed forest). IMO you could make a case for these being "temperate" but not "subtropical".
The "north woods" (northern parts of WI, MI, MN) still have characteristics of mixed forest (rather than boreal/taiga) so also definitely not subarctic. Their climate is continental.
Tundra definitely doesn't support large species-rich deciduous forests, so no, there is no tundra in the Midwest.
The warm season is quite warm, with lots of precipitation, so it fuels a lot of growth -- way more than you ever get in the tundra. And the prime growing season lasts a good five months -- half the year. Tundra has a feeble growing season that lasts at best a month or two.
Not only is the Midwest not tundra, it's not even remotely close.
Tundra definitely doesn't support large species-rich deciduous forests, so no, there is no tundra in the Midwest.
The warm season is quite warm, with lots of precipitation, so it fuels a lot of growth -- way more than you ever get in the tundra. And the prime growing season lasts a good five months -- half the year. Tundra has a feeble growing season that lasts at best a month or two.
Not only is the Midwest not tundra, it's not even remotely close.
Thompson gets about 3 months of growing season, but it's still a lot colder than anywhere in the Midwest, and the composition of their forests is very different too (mostly very hardy evergreens). Even the southern shores of Lake Superior and northern Minnesota don't look like that, although you wouldn't have to go too much further north before it did.
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.
