Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45
... which is precisely why it's correct! Aren't you reading?
Wait, you did not understand why I'd be okay with a map that has all of Canada having the same generic climate called just "cold" (from a tropical point of view), while panning a map of Canada that has nearly all of Canada having that climate called "cold" but has an area of Southern Alberta with a different climate, that one labeled "Continental Semi-Arid"...?
Being more general - the former map - is why that map is correct / defensible.
The second climate map I'm describing is committing a capital sin - blatantly mismatched levels of detail. That's such a basic concept I can't believe I'm having to explain it.
|
This is the most bizarre argument I have heard in a long time.
First of all you seem to be mixing up climatic maps (which are based on more than just temperature) with forest cover maps.
Southern Alberta and Saskatchewan (and south east Manitoba to a lesser degree) will always be differentiated because they are semi arid grassland dominated regions.
You obviously have no idea what the fuck you are talking about so no point in arguing anymore. To be honest your posts on this last page have been so nonsensical that I honestly can determine if you are being like this simply to troll. You drunk or something?
Now go on arguing that you know more than people who spend their lives in these fields creating these maps.