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.
Europe is not a country, but even if it was, the United States and China would still have more climactic diversity. Look at the Koppen Classification map:
According to this, Europe appears to be the least diverse continent.
You appear to have overlooked all the European overseas territories all over the world, which we conquered when other countries were still being inhabited by buffalo's and Indians, making Europe almost by definition the most climatically diverse, ranging from near polar to tropical and everything in between.
You appear to have overlooked all the European overseas territories all over the world, which we conquered when other countries were still being inhabited by buffalo's and Indians, making Europe almost by definition the most climatically diverse, ranging from near polar to tropical and everything in between.
But Europe still is not a country
There were no "European overseas territories;" there were overseas territories that were owned by the Dutch, English, French, Spanish, Belgians, Portugese, etc etc etc. Emphasis on were, i.e. Vietnam, Haiti, South Africa, Indonesia, Brazil, Cuba, Ethiopia, the Philippines, India, etc etc etc are all now self-governing, autonomous sovereign states.
If you want to go continent-to-continent, Asia has jungles, tundra, desert, high desert, plains, steppes, mountains, all sorts of forests, rainforests... so even still, no, it really isn't!
You appear to have overlooked all the European overseas territories all over the world, which we conquered when other countries were still being inhabited by buffalo's and Indians, making Europe almost by definition the most climatically diverse, ranging from near polar to tropical and everything in between.
right, not to mention all the pictures of different places in the world...in books that are on bookshelves...in Europe!
You have to look at the title of the thread which is geographic diversity and not just biodiversity. In this regard of Canada, it is no laggard when it comes to diversity in landscapes, geography and climate. For anyone interested in the geographic and climactic diversity of Canada, these article do a good job displaying Canada's panopoly of geoclimatic regions.
Clearly anyone who says Canada is uniformly anything uniformly does not understand the country. I would agree it isn't on the same level as the U.S but I just find your post too dismissive and narrowly focused regarding Canada's geoclimatic/geographic diversity.
You appear to have overlooked all the European overseas territories all over the world, which we conquered when other countries were still being inhabited by buffalo's and Indians, making Europe almost by definition the most climatically diverse, ranging from near polar to tropical and everything in between.
I'm not sure i'd be proud of 'overseas' territories' thousands of miles away that were 'claimed' hundreds of years ago through nefarious means. Regardless, the further away some Island or territory is from the homeland I think makes less of a case for the geographic/geoclimatic diversity of the mother country.
Did you look through the articles and explore the country or are just saying that for the sake of saying it? You can't ignore large swaths of the country because of preconceived notions and whatever you just plant in your head so everything is neat.
Canada is for sure geographically diverse. However, it is not as diverse as it could have been inferred for such a huge country. The same may be said about Russia, Brazil and Australia. Although very large countries, in all of them there is a very prevalent natural environment.
Checking the biggest countries of the world - the ones likely to be the most geographically diverse, we have:
1) Russia -> Huge, "homogeneous"
2) Canada -> Huge, "homogeneous"
3) China -> Huge, extremely diverse
4) USA -> Huge, extremely diverse
5) Brazil -> Huge, "homogeneous"
6) Australia -> Huge, "homogeneous"
7) India -> Very Large, very diverse
8) Argentina -> Very Large, very diverse
9) Kazakhstan -> Very Large, "homogeneous"
10) Algeria -> Very Large, "homogeneous"
11) DP Congo -> Very Large, diverse
12) Saudi Arabia -> Very Large, "homogeneous"
13) Mexico -> Large, very diverse
14) Indonesia -> Large, diverse
15) Sudan -> Large, "homogeneous"
16) Lybia -> Large, "homogeneous"
17) Iran -> Large, "very diverse"
18) Mongolia -> Large, "homogeneous"
19) Peru -> Medium-Large, diverse
20) Chad -> Medium-Large, "homogeneous"
Where I put "homogeneous", I mean "not as diverse as one could expect due to its size".
My ranking of Geographic diversity would be:
1) USA
2) China
3) Argentina
4) India
5) Mexico
Canada is for sure geographically diverse. However, it is not as diverse as it could have been inferred for such a huge country. The same may be said about Russia, Brazil and Australia. Although very large countries, in all of them there is a very prevalent natural environment.
Not really the case re Canada - Canada is more than just tundra and the north and One, two or three prevalent natural environments.. If Canada ended at the 55th parallel i'd agree with your observation but it doesn't! Understanding the actual geography of Canada would help. Points of the southern portions of the country reach as far south as the U.S state of California. Areas just north of the U.S 49th parallel are also extremely diverse including a desert, badlands, plains, deciduous forests and of course we have the longest coastline in the world and this along with our already well known mountainous, boreal and arctic/tundra regions. I posted some links of the various landscapes of Canada in an earlier post. You might want to do a more thorough review of it. Heck we even have winegrowing regions in Ontario (Niagara) and B.C the Okanogan valley. While I agree that there are prevalent natural environments (even the U.S has large prevanlent natural enviro's), because of the size of the country and its lat and long breadth it actually has tons of diverse natural environments. You could fit many European countries in landscapes south of the 55th parallel in Canada people don't even know about such as the Alberta Badlands
there were overseas territories that were owned by the Dutch, English, French, Spanish, Belgians, Portugese, etc etc etc. Emphasis on were, i.e. Vietnam, Haiti, South Africa, Indonesia, Brazil, Cuba, Ethiopia, the Philippines, India, etc etc etc are all now self-governing, autonomous sovereign states.
Anyway: Since it's only about countries, I'd say that India and China seem to be equally diverse to me.
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.
