Is the USA the most geographically diverse country in the world? (parks, places to visit)
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.
A polar biome its the equivalent of having glaciers at sea level "EF climate on the koppen system" At sea level, outside antartica, it only can be found "that I know of" in greenland and the extreme north of Russia and Canada
Chile has glaciers at the sea level; it’s not necessarily related to having EF Köppen climates in the coast. In fact, I’m not sure if places with all months below freezing in coastal Canada and Greenland exist, albeit they start developing at very low altitude in the far north. Anyway, I don’t think there is any substantial difference between the ice-covered areas in Ellesmere Island and Greenland respect to the ones in Southern Alaska or even the Patagonian Ice field.
All of them are extensive, high latitude ice fields with significant thickness and low-slope areas, contrasting to the smaller, steeper, ice-covered mountain tops of the high peaks at the lower latitudes.
Chile has glaciers at the sea level; it’s not necessarily related to having EF Köppen climates in the coast. In fact, I’m not sure if places with all months below freezing in coastal Canada and Greenland exist, albeit they start developing at very low altitude in the far north. Anyway, I don’t think there is any substantial difference between the ice-covered areas in Ellesmere Island and Greenland respect to the ones in Southern Alaska or even the Patagonian Ice field.
All of them are extensive, high latitude ice fields with significant thickness and low-slope areas, contrasting to the smaller, steeper, ice-covered mountain tops of the high peaks at the lower latitudes.
You are right, but aren't those glaciers in patagonia and southern alaska formed at higher altitudes in the mountains and then move downward towards the sea? because the climatic conditions on both Alaska and Patagonia "at sea level" is not cold enough all year round to be classified as polar or EF climate. perhaps I shuld have used a different wording and instead of glaciar at sea level, it should have been "conditions for glaciars to be formed at sea level"
Last edited by jfbatemanz; 11-18-2020 at 01:06 PM..
You are right, but aren't those glaciers in patagonia and southern alaska formed at higher altitudes in the mountains and then move downward towards the sea? because the climatic conditions on both Alaska and Patagonia "at sea level" is not cold enough all year round to be classified as polar or EF climate. perhaps I shuld have used a different wording and instead of glaciar at sea level, it should have been "conditions for glaciars to be formed at sea level"
I suppose the question is how different are these areas really? How different is it for glaciers to branch into the sea from elevation than to be formed at sea level?
I suppose the question is how different are these areas really? How different is it for glaciers to branch into the sea from elevation than to be formed at sea level?
A very good question. They look exactly the same, no matter if they are in patagonia, southern alaska, or at higher latitudes in canada, Russia or even antartica. The only difference is the type of climate itself or Biome. places below the freezing point all year round at sea level "does not matter if they are not coastal" outside antartica are rare, and as I said before, I think can only be found in russia and canada most northern islands and greenland.
I have a question for you.
you once mentioned the differences between eastern and western climates. how does that affect the climate of a region?? is that as important as the latitudinal factor?
I have a question for you.
you once mentioned the differences between eastern and western climates. how does that affect the climate of a region?? is that as important as the latitudinal factor?
I'm not sure that was me but when you say Eastern and Western do you mean at a global level eg. Asia Pacific vs Americas? I suppose the Jet stream and other wind patterns are highly influential as are the land masses that block those wind patterns such as the Himalayas and Andes. Not necessairily whether you're on the East or West of the globe.
I wonder what country technically covers the largest number of climate zones or biomes. The US and China cover a lot of ground, but the US has a lot of far-flung territories in different parts of the world unlike China and two states of the US are discontiguous with the other states and thus cover climates and biomes that can be very different from that found in the contiguous US. Meanwhile, there are a lot of colonial holdovers for France and the UK, so potentially these technically cover as much or more, but just far-flung from each other and often quite small.
You are right, but aren't those glaciers in patagonia and southern alaska formed at higher altitudes in the mountains and then move downward towards the sea? because the climatic conditions on both Alaska and Patagonia "at sea level" is not cold enough all year round to be classified as polar or EF climate. perhaps I shuld have used a different wording and instead of glaciar at sea level, it should have been "conditions for glaciars to be formed at sea level"
Indeed, but be careful with this, as the glaciers in Northern Canada and Greenland aren’t formed at sea level either. They may form as low as at 500/600 m, but not at sea level. Climate in the coast of Ellesmere Island or Northern Greenland is still of Tundra, with a very short but definite melting season.
I guess the best conditions for glaciers formed at sea level out of Antarctica are in some Russian Arctic Islands. Not completely sure, but I think Ostrov Ushakova is the only one which has an ice cap actually forming at sea level. On the other hand, nearby Ostrov Vize, albeit with summers that barely go above 0°C, is a very flat island without glaciers.
Indeed, but be careful with this, as the glaciers in Northern Canada and Greenland aren’t formed at sea level either. They may form as low as at 500/600 m, but not at sea level. Climate in the coast of Ellesmere Island or Northern Greenland is still of Tundra, with a very short but definite melting season.
I guess the best conditions for glaciers formed at sea level out of Antarctica are in some Russian Arctic Islands. Not completely sure, but I think Ostrov Ushakova is the only one which has an ice cap actually forming at sea level. On the other hand, nearby Ostrov Vize, albeit with summers that barely go above 0°C, is a very flat island without glaciers.
Interesting, then it would be Russia the only country in the world with a true EF climate and Polar biome, "I still have my doubts regarding the northenrmost points of both greenland and Canada"
I have a question for you. I cited on a previous post what I consider the main factors that determine a country's diversity "Lenght, topographic diversity, rainfall range and coastal features" but you once mentioned the differences between the eastern and westrn realms on climate. how does that affect the diversity of a country? "I doubt longitudinal width is as important as latitudinal lenght"
When I say karst pinnacles I mean like this (there are lots of areas of karst in the world - the ones in China cover an area of France and Spain combined), but not many that are fractured and eroded into the pinnacle form like this, and in several different types, that cover vast areas of southern China. We're talking entire landscapes of multiple forms from 17ft to 7000ft
Having been to southeast China (a beautiful place) these pictures definitely exaggerate the apparent scale of some of these landforms a bit. Not sure how, but the red flag is that the pictures look more spectacular than a lot of these areas look in person, which should never be the case.
Those pictures of Guilin, Wulong, and Tianmen are particularly exaggerated - non of the karst pinnacles in Guilin look that narrow and tall. They look more like big hills in person - very pretty, but if you've seen the US southwest, you've seen it all
Where China wins in the karst figures department, the US wins in the canyon department:
West Virginia has some decent karst figures, most prominently, Seneca Rocks:
Last edited by magicinterest; 01-21-2021 at 09:46 PM..
Both countries have coniferous, deciduous and subtropical forests, tea plantations, badlands, wetlands, deserts, tundra, montane, volcanic, coral reefs, alpine, bayous, canyons, temperate rainforests, sequoia forests, wind valleys, lava tubes, glaciers (china has 46,000 of them), cave systems, underwater rivers, salt lakes, rice paddies, frozen seas, natural arches, fault lines- you name it they got it
However:
Geographical features/ landscapes USA lacks:
loesslands
atolls
tropical rainforest (not to be confused with subtropical forest) - though a case can be made for Kauai's mesic rainforests
bamboo forests
High plateau
karst pinnacles
rhododendron forests
stepped rice paddy landscape
ice deserts
'red earth' landscapes
Yardangs (wind sculpted linear valleys)
You're kind of getting down to differentiating landscapes by naming differences in the tiniest abiotic factors to embellish your lists of landscapes the US "lacks".
The US has loesslands all over the Midwest
The US has atolls, way more than China does - how can you argue China has atolls but the US doesn't?
The US has tropical rainforest in Hawaii - it has tropical moist forests in Florida. It has tropical-adjacent forests in certain areas of the Gulf Coast, particularly in Texas. Don't know how you're acting like it doesn't. "A case can be made for Kauai" - um - if those aren't tropical rainforests, what are they to you? Why are you bizarrely holding out on saying the US has tropical rainforest when it objectively does? "A case can be made", no, a case doesn't need to be made, they are.
The US has bamboo forests, and it's own species of bamboo. They aren't as widespread.
The US has high plateaus all tf over the place - that's the literal definition of the Colorado plateau. Are you really this ignorant?
Karst features are found in abundance in areas of the east and southeast - namely West Virginia and Arkansas.
Rhododendron forests all over the US southeast, come on, please stop with this nonsense.
"stepped rice paddy landscape"? That's a cultural practice unique to Asia. It's a man made landscape, for christ's sake
"ice deserts"? There isn't really such thing. Alaska has polar deserts - China doesn't.
What is a "red earth landscape"? You're embellishing your list. Are you referring to red soil? Because the US has tons of that - everywhere. It has more red sandstone landscapes as well.
Last edited by magicinterest; 01-21-2021 at 09:54 PM..
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.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/18301554/Antelope_Canyon_3.jpg)
