On average across the year,
yes, New Hampshire, United States is hotter than
South Dakota, United States
.
New Hampshire, United States has an average temperature of 9°C/48°F and South Dakota, United States has an average temperature of 8°C/46°F.
New Hampshire, United States's hottest month is July, with an average maximum temperature of 29°C/84°F, which is not hotter than South Dakota, United States's hottest month (also July, with an average maximum temperature of 30°C/86°F).
On average across the year, no, New Hampshire, United States is not colder than South Dakota, United States . New Hampshire, United States has an average minimum temperature of 3°C/37°F and South Dakota, United States has an average minimum temperature of 1°C/34°F.
On average across the year,
yes, New Hampshire, United States has more rain than
South Dakota, United States. New Hampshire, United States has an average annual rainfall of 1196mm and South Dakota, United States has an average annual rainfall of 498mm.
New Hampshire, United States's wettest month is October, with an average monthly rainfall of 130mm, which is wetter than South Dakota, United States's wettest month (May, with an average monthly rainfall of 74mm).
The midpoint of New Hampshire, United States is approximately 1,412 miles (2,272km) east of South Dakota, United States.
No, New Hampshire, United States is not further west than South Dakota, United States.
Yes, New Hampshire, United States is further east than South Dakota, United States. The midpoint of New Hampshire, United States is further east by approximately 1,438 miles (2,314km).
No, New Hampshire, United States is not further north than South Dakota, United States.
Yes, New Hampshire, United States is further south than South Dakota, United States. The midpoint of New Hampshire, United States is further south by approximately 53 miles (86km).
No, New Hampshire is smaller than South Dakota.
New Hampshire has an area of 24,214 km2 (62,714 miles2) and South Dakota has an area of 199,729 km2 (517,298 miles2)
which means that New Hampshire is 175,515 km2 (454,584 miles2) smaller than South Dakota.
That makes New Hampshire 8 times smaller than South Dakota.
Yes, New Hampshire is smaller than South Dakota.
New Hampshire has an area of 24,214 km2 (62,714 miles2) and South Dakota has an area of 199,729 km2 (517,298 miles2)
which means that New Hampshire is 175,515 km2 (454,584 miles2) smaller than South Dakota.
That makes New Hampshire 8 times smaller than South Dakota.
The midpoint of South Dakota, United States is approximately 1,412 miles (2,272km) west of New Hampshire, United States.
Yes, South Dakota, United States is further west than New Hampshire, United States. The midpoint of South Dakota, United States is further west by approximately 1,438 miles (2,314km).
No, South Dakota, United States is not further east than New Hampshire, United States.
Yes, South Dakota, United States is further north than New Hampshire, United States. The midpoint of South Dakota, United States is further north by approximately 53 miles (86km).
No, South Dakota, United States is not further south than New Hampshire, United States.
Yes, South Dakota is bigger than New Hampshire.
South Dakota has an area of 199,729 km2 (517,298 miles2) and New Hampshire has an area of 24,214 km2 (62,714 miles2)
which means that South Dakota is 175,515 km2 (454,584 miles2) bigger than New Hampshire.
That makes South Dakota 8 times bigger than New Hampshire.
No, South Dakota is not smaller than New Hampshire.
South Dakota has an area of 199,729 km2 (517,298 miles2) and New Hampshire has an area of 24,214 km2 (62,714 miles2)
which means that South Dakota is 175,515 km2 (454,584 miles2) bigger than New Hampshire.
That makes South Dakota 8 times bigger than New Hampshire.
Yes, New Hampshire is more populated than South Dakota.
New Hampshire has a population of 1,388,992 and South Dakota has a population of 895,376
which means that New Hampshire has 493,616 more people than South Dakota.
That makes New Hampshire 2 times more populated than South Dakota.
No, New Hampshire is not less populated than South Dakota.
New Hampshire has a population of 1,388,992 and South Dakota has a population of 895,376
which means that New Hampshire has 493,616 more people than South Dakota.
That makes New Hampshire 2 times more populated than South Dakota.
No, South Dakota is not more populated than New Hampshire.
South Dakota has a population of 895,376 and New Hampshire has a population of 1,388,992
which means that South Dakota has 493,616 fewer people than New Hampshire.
That makes South Dakota 2 times less populated than New Hampshire.
Yes, South Dakota is less populated than New Hampshire.
South Dakota has a population of 895,376 and New Hampshire has a population of 1,388,992
which means that South Dakota has 493,616 fewer people than New Hampshire.
That makes South Dakota 2 times less populated than New Hampshire.