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.
I'm inclined to say that without Canada, US = cooler Australia, but Alaska still exists, so maybe some Japan style snowfall sometimes? One thing is for sure: winters would be warmer and more stable. Places like Minneapolis would get winters close to freezing, but they also wouldn't have random 50 degree days in January. Winters more like Northern Europe in that sense.
Or what if we erased ocean, and got rid of the Mediterranean or the Gulf of Mexico?
That is also an interesting concept, with out the Mediterranean, the region would be a lot drier most likely be just as dry as the sahara desert. and without the gulf the cold fronts would be able to penetrate even further south, how south i am not sure. It would probably be a lot less humid, but there are so many variables, so I will let someone with a better grasp on the subject to answer it.
True, though warm fronts from the south wouldn't necessarily be as warm.
Yes, we would lose those awful muggy days we sometimes get in summer courtesy of super hot humid
gulf air that comes straight up from the Gulf of Mexico.
if norway didn't exist, much of sweden would probably be a lot warmer in winter and slightly cooler in summer. the scandinavian mountains are a barrier to the the worst oceanic crap.
What you say is intuitive: in a simplified way, the USA has a source of hot weather (Gulf of Mexico) and a source of cold weather (Canada). If we erase the source of cold weather, we just keep the source of heat, so it gets much hotter overall... but it doesn't work this way. Without Canada, the general climate patterns you know for the USA would be disrupted. Now, you'd have a cool ocean that keeps winters mild, but they ease the enter of cool weather systems in the summer.
Whereas it's true that Canada doesn't give the USA heat in the summer, it does prevent cool weather systems from permanently entering the USA, so it does keep the USA hot. After all, Canada is a huge land mass, a land mass overheats during the summer months.
Look at this place in Central Eastern Argentina: Azul
With the South Atlantic Anticyclone in the East and a large plain that connects it directly to the Amazon rainforest, it should get all the tropical heat in the summer but just mild weather in the winter (as there is virtually no land mass in the south. Whereas winters are relatively mild... summers are too, and its annual average is just 14ºC, similar to a place like Richmond, Virginia, also located at a latitude of about 37º.
But what happens in the Azul's summer, why are its summers so cool? The ocean! The area gets weekly hit by cool systems originated in the South Pacific. It can't happen currently in Richmond, but would happen if there was an ocean where Canada is.
No, the only real affect on the southeastern us would be milder winters, summers would be the same .
No, the only real affect on the southeastern us would be milder winters, summers would be the same .
Could you further explain, please?
It's a bit unfair that I give that explanation and only get this as an answer.
I didn't mention the Southeastern US, what do you include in this? Florida? New Orleans? Atlanta? Richmond, Virginia? I suspect you're commiting the same mistake as the other poster: assuming that after erasing almost 10 million sq km of land, everything keeps about the same minus the weather forcings caused by that piece of land.
Take Australia as an example, with a hot sea in the north and without any landmass at middle-high latitudes.
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.