It doesn't make much sense to compare temperatures at latitudes from different sides of the Atlantic ocean. The Gulf Stream [1] makes the European cost a lot warmer at the same latitude. E.g. NYC is colder than North of Spain despite being roughly at the same latitude.
Fun fact: The Shetland Islands off the north coast of Scotland have the same USDA climate zone as south Texas (9a), but are around the same latitude as central Alaska.
It's a little misleading, because climate zones are just based on minimum average temperatures. British winters are similar to Texan winters, but British summers are more like Alaskan summers.
Speak for yourself. Texas Winters with Alaska summers sounds awesome! The best summer weather I've ever experienced was 70-80 during the day and 60s at night. Absolutely perfect weather, until snow started to fall from November to June.
If I never had to experience 100F heat again (excepting saunas), then I would die a happy man.
As someone living in Britain. Nope, not awesome. I can't remember the last time I saw sun. It's just cloud and cold wind. It feels nigh-constant (year-round) :/
It depends on where you are in the UK, but in the south the average of a good summer is 80F (26C) in the day. It can get up to 90F (32C) in cities, though usually only for a few days to a week at most.
British winters have a similar temperature as Texan winters, but they have a lot more rain and a lot less sunshine (because of the clouds, and because the day is shorter).
Not in much of the country. There have been a few unusually snowy winters in the past few years, but in much of the country you can go for years without snow. I've had no snow this winter, and it hasn't been below -2C. As someone else mentioned though, Britain is much wetter than Texas, so it's not surprising there'd be more snow.
Temperature is just a part of it. Light is another. And the populated part of Canada - being much more southern than most people realise - has light that compares to southern France, not to Scandinavia or Alaska.
Whenever I am back in Scandinavia I am struck by how dim it always is. Eternal dusk.
The idea that the Gulf Stream per se is responsible for climate changes in northern Europe has been called into question. It turns out that simply having prevailing winds crossing the ocean is by far the biggest factor. The same phenomenon is observed on the West coast of North America but the Kuroshio Current in the Pacific does not carry the same warm current as far North.
Are we talking about north or weather being cold? I know for many regions one translates to another but assuming they are the same thing is what "doesn't make sense". In this post, the author is talking about NORTH.
In popular culture and public consciousness, the two are equated very often.
See, for example, the latest hit show - Game of Thrones which shows a very cold, hardy North and a warm, indolent South. Now I know these specific books that the show is based on derive from the Wars of the Roses -- but have you ever a fantasy writer who put people on the Southern hemisphere of their planet and made the North warm?
I used to have a theory that you could tell where a fantasy author lived from the shape of their map. e.g. Maurice Gee's _The Halfmen of O_ --- good book, BTW --- has got the warm ocean to the north, with the snowy mountains to the south. He's a New Zealander.
Unfortunately, authors are way too aware of this now. I'm currently reading Jane Lindskold's Firekeeper quintet --- also really good --- and they're set on the west coast of a continent, called the New World, which was settled a couple of centuries ago by civilisations from across the sea to the East. She's American.
The latitude is an analogue for habitability. The ocean currents do enable agriculture and thus historic patterns of stable habitation at higher degrees of latitude on the east side of the Atlantic, compared to the west.
This is missing the point. People think of Canadians as tough hardy, northerners because it's -8C in Toronto and we've been having really nice February, last year it was like -20C all month. It's -12 in Montreal right now.
It's still interesting to think about it but don't try to imply that it's not actually cold, bitter and rough sledding here because we're "south" of London.
Not just "south", but actually way south; Toronto is about 43.5 N; Central London is 51.5 N. There's 60 nautical miles between each degree of latitude, so for an 8 degree difference, that's a bit more than 888 km.
Roughly the same distance further north from London and you arrive at Uppsala (north of Stockholm), and St Petersburg.
Toronto is on roughly the same latitude as Cannes, Nice, Toulouse and Monaco -- the Côte d'Azur / French Riviera.
Edmonton, Alberta is between Manchester and Leeds in England, and close to the latitude of Hamburg.
If you really want to bend your noodle, consider that Los Angeles is at the same latitude as Rabat, Morocco and Miami is at the same latitude as Luxor, Egypt.
The variation is really what makes it tricky. Sure, it's decent today. There's a predicted high of +8C, but Sunday night it's predicted to have a low of -22C. When you're outside in light clothes one day, and then need to bundle up like crazy 2 nights later... It starts to get to you.
The point is that many Americans treat 'Canada' as a bucket in which everything is cold weather. And yet the whole swathe of the northern states Minnesota, North Dakota, upper Michigan, etc. are _significantly_ further north and colder than where the bulk of the Canadian population is.
I once had a coworker from Atlanta at our office in Toronto. Overheard him on the phone talking to his wife, gobsmacked by the cold, which he said "it's just so far north!" and yet that's not the reason -- we're no further north than northern California. He happened to be here during a cold front that came out of northern Ontario. It's a classic continental climate; summer heat here is as intense as that of many southern US states.
The climate on the north side of Lake Ontario is actually milder than on the other side due to lake effect and weather patterns. Just got back from a trip to the Finger Lakes; our wines in the Niagara region are noticeably riper than those from down there.
Thats funny. I wonder if the same coworker from Atlanta would make the same comment about a city like Chicago? I've spent years in both Chicago and Toronto in the past and it seems like the climate is almost identical. Toronto maybe being a touch colder in the winter, but not by much. Summer I remember was almost identical (hot and humid). Chicago also has that classic continental climate, as does most of the upper midwest.
Actually, I think the climate on the south side of Lake Ontario is a bit warmer and wetter (thus the lake effect snow). The cold air is moderated a bit as it crosses over the lakes, but it also picks up all that moisture. In fact, I think the windward side of all the Great Lakes are similar and might be in different climate zones vs the leeward side of the lakes. I know in Western Michigan for example there is a bit of a fruit belt because of this.
The weather patterns here are predominantly with the prevailing winds of west to east. Most of the weather in this area comes over from Michigan. Most of the weather hitting upstate NY is not coming over from Lake Ontario and being moderated by the lake, but comes from the west. Yes, the lake effect snow is a thing more on the south side, but the plant growing zone for example is 1 level higher on the northwest corner of the lake than on the south bank.
> It's a classic continental climate; summer heat here is as intense as that of many southern US states.
As someone who grew up outside Buffalo and lives in NC now, this is a big NO.
There are cold streaks (or polar vortexes or whatever the weather people want to call them now) in Atlanta and heat waves in Buffalo and these might cause temperatures to seem similar for a few days per year, but it is NOT the same.
The difference is that these cold streaks last for a couple days in Atlanta and for months in Buffalo, and vice versa for heat waves. Temperatures in the 20s (Fahrenheit, sorry) with dips lower are common for Buffalo all winter, but happen only for a few days at a time (and maybe once per winter) in Atlanta.
And same with the high temps -- temps in the 90s are expected from July thru the end of September in Atlanta, but its only a few days in Buffalo that are that way. Last summer here in Durham, NC, we set a record for days above 90 in a row that was in the high 20s, if not 30s (as in 20 or 30 days in a row). I very clearly remember that my second summer down here didn't even have nightly lows in the 80s. That just doesn't happen up North.
PS: Please forgive me for substituting Buffalo weather for Toronto. It's about the same, but I wanted to accurately represent my anecdotal experiences.
PPS: This should not distract from the fact that weather in Ontario is very similar to weather in New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio and maybe better than Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana, etc.
It's an interesting climate over there because of the continentality plus the moderating influence of the lakes. For instance, I am from Minneapolis which is much colder than Toronto in the winter and also much hotter in the summer (in fact our record high is higher than Florida's record high, but I digress).
It doesn't make a lot of sense to compare latitudes of different areas of the world (I know, you did say 'fun fact', I'm referring more to the article). In CA we have a Mediterranean climate that lets me run around in t-shirts and shorts in the middle of winter. North of Cleveland (Pelee)? Not so much. I lived just off the Canadian border over in that area once. Once.
A favourite question of mine: Which reaches further south, Ontario or Oregon? As you said, the answer is Ontario, but it's counter-intuitive without a map.
The northernmost french community (of appreciable size) in the world is the remote mining town of Fermont (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermont), in Quebec near the border with Labrador. It has ~3000 inhabitants, and is based around a large bunker/building containing housing, shops, schools, etc, which let's people live their lives in the winter without having to go outside.
The second northernmost French community is Dunkirk, France...
The actual northernmost French (the Republic) community is in Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon, which is funnily enough just next to Quebec! it's an overseas territory and they use the Euro as their currency.
By the way since we're talking about France, the article seems to separate metropolitan France and the overseas regions (it lists Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon as a "country").
Otherwise maybe the chart would show quite a bit more "latitudinal population variation" with the southernmost significant populated place being 20° south of the equator.
From Wikipedia: The town is notable for the huge self-contained structure containing apartments, stores, schools, bars, a hotel, restaurants, a supermarket and swimming pool which shelters a community of smaller apartment buildings and homes on its leeward side.
I had no idea. I'm kind of ashamed I didn't know that being from the same province.
The article compares Canada mostly to Europe. It's also interesting to compare Canada to the U.S., which is "obviously" south of Canada on the map.
- If you start in downtown Detroit and go south, you end up in Canada.
- 13.7M Canadians (1/3 of the population) live in Ontario. Nearly all of these are south of Minneapolis/St. Paul (home to 3.3M Americans).
- 10M more Canadians live further north in Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward. Nearly all of these are south of Seattle/Tacoma (home to 3.6M Americans).
The only major Canadian cities that are strictly north of the contiguous U.S. are Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg. And going back to Europe, all of these are strictly south of Scandinavia.
Also to note, Ontario experiences harsh winters because of the lake effect from the Great Lakes, but it is the exact same winter that Boston, Detroit, Cleveland, Minneapolis and Chicago get. Toronto and Buffalo have the same weather essentially.
Vancouver rarely receives any snow, and is very similar to Seattle (there only 2 hours apart).
I was in Toronto last week and the temperature was in the 50s. The East coast of the US has had a colder and harsher winter than most of Canada. With that said last year in February while I was also visiting Toronto, the temperate reached -31.
Buffalo is much, much more wintery in winter. Its a much better match with Sudbury or Sault Ste Marie. (By sheer coincidence, the American channels carried by cable provider Northern Cable, which serviced those areas, were from Buffalo, at least back in the day. It didn't much matter whether you were watching the local weather or Buffalo/Rochester from December to March; the only difference was the timing of precipitation.)
A "fact" that usually gets thrown around is that 3/4ths (or more) of the Canadian population live within 100 miles of the US border. It's probably pretty accurate.
... says the guy who used to bicycle to university in -37C (-45 with wind chill!)
Fun fact: the plastic buckles on knapsacks will shatter like glass in -45 weather. Try biking to school while holding a knapsack in one hand. On snow and ice.
Biking to school in -35C weather isn't too bad if you're properly dressed and practised at it. The trick is to avoid sweating.
It's when something goes wrong when you realize just how bad an idea biking in -35C weather. Being dressed for exercise in -35C weather means that you're severely underdressed for delicate bike repairs at the side of the road, and you can get dangerously cold very quickly.
I used to bicycle commute to work in Ottawa year round (I'm not smarter now, but I work from home instead) and as you say, it's totally feasible (fun even!) as long as you dress smartly and ride at a fairly casual pace. If your bike breaks down you're definitely better off walking it somewhere warm to make repairs rather than fixing it on the side of the road!
And that a large percentage of the US population lives near the canadian boarder. The line was drawn through the great lakes. So everyone in New England, Chicago, Detroit, Cincinnati etc can be said to be living near the canadian boarder. It's not that canadians need to be near the US, but near the water routes for trade with the rest of the world.
Chicago is over 200 miles from Canada. Lake Michigan is not part of the border with Canada, so the nearest point on the border is off in Lake Erie near Detroit.
Detroit is right on the border. I assume you meant Chicago? Lake Michigan is entirely within the United States. Saying Chicago is "practically on the border" because it's on a lake which connects to another lake which contains the border doesn't make any sense to me. You might as well say that San Francisco is near Canada since it's on the Pacific Ocean.
The Detroit-Windsor Tunnel and the Ambassador Bridge both cross the Detroit River, which is only about 600m wide under the bridge and 750m over the tunnel.
Both of those links get a lot of cross-border traffic, and there has been a new bridge under construction since 2012, I think.
This is pretty silly. I just did some measurements in Google maps and not a single point in Massachusetts, Connecticut, or Rhode Island is even close to 100 miles from the Canadian border.
I didn't day 100 anything. I said near. The people of new england are near ports for trade with the "old world" of europe, just as canadians are near the great lakes. The boarder was all about ports, not population, even in the west. It's all about the waterways to the world, not being within some magic distance to any boarder as the crow flies.
When people say something is "near" something else they mean its geographically close. You were replying specifically to "Canadians live within 100 miles of the US border," in the comments of an article specifically about geography, which makes your "near" definition make even less sense. You might as well say "New York City is like in Chicago's back yard since you can get there by boat." or "Bergen is near Miami because they are both on the Atlantic Ocean."
One thing missing in the analysis is the fact that something approaching a fifth of the countries total population lives in and near one city (Toronto) that is nearly at the southernmost point of the country.
Ontario in total has nearly 40% of the population, and most of that is pretty far south relative to much of the rest of the country.
I'm not sure it's exactly missing so much as not explicitly stated in that way. The author does partially attribute the misunderstanding to the mostly uninhabited northern territory of Canada. The author also says that Canada populates it's northern regions less than Russia does. So, the focus is more on people not being in the north than the fact that they are mostly in the south, but one conclusion casually follows from the other.
As I was reading it, I looked at the map, and concluded that a bunch of the population was likely in the Toronto area which juts well below the mean longitude of Canada's southern border.
But it's not simply North/South, it is very specifically almost Toronto and surroundings, vs everywhere else.
For example, in BC the population centers are on the southern border (thanks to a) the Fraser river, and b) politics). But in Alberta they really are not. Nor Saskatchewan. Manitoba sort of is, by geography. So if you were to do this analysis on western Canada, it wouldn't be nearly as clear cut.
Most of "the south" of Canada doesn't have much similarity with south western Ontario, for that matter.
Those census divisions near Saskatoon and Regina are kind of misleading on first look. Those are certainly not sprawling metropolises as the size and color of the divisions might indicate. The map is very illustrative, nonetheless
I heard somewhere that 90% of Canadians live within 100km (about 62 miles) of the US border. It's partly for that reason I don't buy the telecom's insistance that prices are higher because of the huge amount of land they have to cover.
According to the 2011 Canadian Census, more than 23 million people, almost 70 percent of the population, live in urban areas. Ninety percent of the Canadian population lives within 100 miles of the U.S. border. This means that the overwhelming majority of the Canadian population is easily reachable through traditional distribution routes.
Canada also isn't as big as you think, as hinted at in the article. It's still big though.
Try asking people which they think is bigger, Greenland or Brazil. Brazil is of course much, much bigger but projections can be deceiving if you've only looked at flat maps.
So what projection is better at showing the relative sizes of countries, particularly when most projections seems distort at the poles (thus making greenland and canada huge)?
This reminds me of the time when I was crossing into Quebec with my parents in July many years ago, and one of the cars waiting to get across the border had Virginia (or some nearby southern state) plates and (alpine) skis on the roof of the car!
Because of this, many North Americans choose to disbelieve it when doctors in the UK say that people living in the British Isles cannot get Vitamin D from the Sun over the winter until some time in March.
Having lives in Winnipeg and Seattle I'll say that darkness when I get to work and darkness when I leave work does not help things. Sure it's also cloudy during the day if I manage to go outside at all but it had to happen during typical work hours.
For Americans... yes, they do. With a few exceptions, Canada is north of the USA. So your average person who is not living in the northern US is perfectly correct in assuming that Canadians live in colder climate than they do.
For those Americans who do live in the northernmost tier of US states, Canada's climate is more comparable to their homes. But most Americans also think people in those states are living in the Arctic north.
Thanks for pointing to that, I'm always baffled at how few people fail to acknowledge the most "basic" complexities of meteorological reality.
I have the suspicion that our inherent bias for linear thinking is the culprit here.
Some things can't ever be grasped intuitively and as long as education doesn't at least catch up with our propensity towards boundless optimism our and many more species are essentially doomed.
That said, it needs both for our children to be able to survive - boundless optimism and objective thinking.
As much as I am a kid of the 80s I don't see capitalism - with all its super exciting promises - being much else than an ever accelerating system to even more short-term
thinking and conscious/subconscious ignorance at this point.
Yes, it might be less comfortable but we need to change now - each one of us - to save what we have inherited.
Talk with people, teach them, be nice and understanding but tell them that it's all in their hands - even if that's a scary thought!
Yeah, I guess - but hey in my own defence, as somebody working with distributed systems I've seen too many a simplistic world-view blow up in my own face :)
Even though I'm not a fan of it, there is a reason for the old ops adage of "never touch a running system".
Complexity is hard (i.e. global climate) and even if life on earth is essentially anti-fragile that might not include our own cohort.
Also, I just might have pulled a human and have been subconsciously "cross-posting" as this super depressing article on "Decline of Species That Pollinate Poses a Threat to Global Food Supply" is trending on HN right now as well:
Even if maybe off-topic and too self-important - Joseph Tainter's writings might be interesting to anyone wary of the hidden complexities surrounding us:
Saw a population map of Canada once. There's a thick line right along the US-Canada border. Its as if Canadians want to be Canadian, but really don't want to live there. They go as far south as possible while still technically being in Canada. (Not counting big coastal cities).
It's the same as every other country. All big cities and population centres are on major waterways. The major waterway in Canada is the Great Lakes & St. Lawrence, which is often the border, or else very close to it. Vancouver is on the Fraser, close to the border. Ottawa/Gatineau is on the Ottawa, close to the border.
Or how about the other way around -- Americans just didn't want to be part of the old dominion anymore, and split off, leaving a chunk of population separated by a border? The settlement patterns existed before the American revolution. We settled where the land was good and the resources and fresh water and trade routes were.
Only about 12% of George III Loyalists moved to Ontario or New Brunswick after 1783, and some of them later moved back to the former colonies while they still had the opportunity.
You missed my point. I'm not talking about the loyalists who moved. I'm talking about the people who stayed. The settlement along the great lakes was already here before the American revolution, both in English/French settlements, and the natives who were here in high concentrations before that.
Modern day settlement along the border reflects a continuation of patterns that were already here.
Though Toronto being a huge population centre instead of Hamilton or Niagara area apparently has to do with the need to be some distance from the border with the expansionist militaristic 19th century Americans.
Toronto had the dual advantages of a nice big natural harbour and several handy mill streams in one tidy little location, along with navigable trails and rivers leading to timber and fur resources. It also used to have a lot of prime agricultural land within spitting distance; most of that has since been paved over.
It takes a serious flaw in reasoning to look at a map, see a large population lives near an international border, and then conclude that those people don't want to live in their country.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Stream