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.
You must mean Far West Texas, west of the Pecos River, El Paso area. Only that part of Texas is actual Chihuahuan desert.
And the desert in Texas has plenty of mountains--Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains areas.
Houston weather and scenery is nothing like Phoenix. Very flat and swampy, with lots of bayous; heat and humidity are on par with New Orleans and Orlando.
San Antonio, Austin, and Dallas are drier, but still comparable with Atlanta humidity wise. Western Austin features very hilly terrain, reservoirs, and rivers.
Houston is not southern Louisiana. It is hot and humid but it is not swampy.
I see so many people on here say that. I guess some poster like you say that and everyone runs away with it.
Houston has hard, unyielding clay soil. U might require stitches if someone throws a cloud of Houston soil at your head. Why would you and others speak so authoritatively on things you know nothing about?
You may find areas of wetlands on the far East portions of the metro but for swamps you have to go to Louisiana.
The only thing you are right about is that Houston is no where near desert. It is coastal prairie situated in the Western Gulf Coastal Plain. DFW, San Antonio and Austin straddle Texas Blackland prairie and central plains with the later two also on the Edwards Plateau.
And all 4 metros are located in areas with Rivers.
Dallas is on the Trinity. Houston is wedged between the Trinity and Brazos, San Antonio had the San Antonio and Guadeloupe Rivers and Austin is on the Colorado.
If you do not know the difference between swamps and wetlands let me school you.
Wetlands are areas that experience intermittent periods of flooding. Swamps are forested areas experiencing those intermittent periods of high water. Louisiana has flooded areas that are forested. The entire southern portion of Louisiana; that entire area from the Atchafalaya/ Mississippi deltas are forested areas that are flooded aka swamps. Houston has coastal prairies and marshes that intermittently retain water aka wetlands.
All swamps are wetlands but only forested wetlands are swamps. Flooded prairies are marshes and look quite different from swamps. Do not perpetuate ignorance. Houston is 99% coastal prairie with few wetlands. Marshes are in just about any city with large lakes or streams or are on the coasts.
Last edited by atadytic19; 04-03-2019 at 08:59 PM..
Houston is not southern Louisiana. It is hot and humid but it is not swampy.
I see so many people on here say that. I guess some poster like you say that and everyone runs away with it...
He clearly meant "swampy" in the general, rather than technical, sense. No need to get bent out of shape.
Houston is not southern Louisiana. It is hot and humid but it is not swampy.
I see so many people on here say that. I guess some poster like you say that and everyone runs away with it.
Houston has hard, unyielding clay soil. U might require stitches if someone throws a cloud of Houston soil at your head. Why would you and others speak so authoritatively on things you know nothing about?
You may find areas of wetlands on the far East portions of the metro but for swamps you have to go to Louisiana.
The only thing you are right about is that Houston is no where near desert. It is coastal prairie situated in the Western Gulf Coastal Plain. DFW, San Antonio and Austin straddle Texas Blackland prairie and central plains with the later two also on the Edwards Plateau.
And all 4 metros are located in areas with Rivers.
Dallas is on the Trinity. Houston is wedged between the Trinity and Brazos, San Antonio had the San Antonio and Guadeloupe Rivers and Austin is on the Colorado.
If you do not know the difference between swamps and wetlands let me school you.
Wetlands are areas that experience intermittent periods of flooding. Swamps are forested areas experiencing those intermittent periods of high water. Louisiana has flooded areas that are forested. The entire southern portion of Louisiana; that entire area from the Atchafalaya/ Mississippi deltas are forested areas that are flooded aka swamps. Houston has coastal prairies and marshes that intermittently retain water aka wetlands.
All swamps are wetlands but only forested wetlands are swamps. Flooded prairies are marshes and look quite different from swamps. Do not perpetuate ignorance. Houston is 99% coastal prairie with few wetlands. Marshes are in just about any city with large lakes or streams or are on the coasts.
Agreed Houston isn't swampland but it certainly isn't 99% prairie. A great deal of it is full fledged forest, but surely you knew that.
He clearly meant "swampy" in the general, rather than technical, sense. No need to get bent out of shape.
I am not bent out of shape.
I am just correcting a very often used falsehood on here.
And what are you saying? I clearly replied that Houston is not swampy.
In general or otherwise.
If by swampy you mean floods when it gets 20 inches of rain in an hour, then show me a place that does not flood after receiving then much precipitation?
While states such as Washington and Florida have similar annual precipitation rates, the rainfall in those states are consistent. Houston gets its rainfall all at once and then is dry for the next 300 days. Houston's humidity comes from it's proximity to the coast, not from precipitation.
So no matter how you define it, Houston is not swampy, or have swamps or whatever.
Water would not collect if it receives the Pacific Northwest precipitation.
Water collects when it receives heavy rainfall in a short period of time like any place would. So if this describes any place then it is NOT a good description of Houston because it does not deferentiate it.
I think the more accurate way to describe Houston is:
It is in an area prone to receiving high volumes of rainfall in a short period of time. Almost on a annual seasonal basis. Unlike Southern Louisiana which is incessantly wet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frustratedintelligence
Agreed Houston isn't swampland but it certainly isn't 99% prairie. A great deal of it is full fledged forest, but surely you knew that.
I know. But Houston's forest is still described as Prairie. It does butt up to Piney Woods to the east but the forests on the southern portion of the metro are still gulf coast Prairie
What I meant was that Houston's forests are not flooded which is the definition of swamps (a flooded woodland). Houston s flooded areas are grasses so they are marshes. And Houston has no more of those than New York or Chicago
Last edited by atadytic19; 04-04-2019 at 07:26 AM..
I am not bent out of shape.
I am just correcting a very often used falsehood on here.
And what are you saying? I clearly replied that Houston is not swampy.
In general or otherwise.
If by swampy you mean floods when it gets 20 inches of rain in an hour, then show me a place that does not flood after receiving then much precipitation?
While states such as Washington and Florida have similar annual precipitation rates, the rainfall in those states are consistent. Houston gets its rainfall all at once and then is dry for the next 300 days. Houston's humidity comes from it's proximity to the coast, not from precipitation.
So no matter how you define it, Houston is not swampy, or have swamps or whatever.
Water would not collect if it receives the Pacific Northwest precipitation.
Water collects when it receives heavy rainfall in a short period of time like any place would.
So if this describes any place then it is NOT a good description of Houston because it does not deferentiate it.
I think the more accurate way to describe Houston is:
It is in an area prone to receiving high volumes of rainfall in a short period of time. Almost on a annual seasonal basis. Unlike Southern Louisiana which is incessantly wet.
This is also not true. Miami specifically has more of a real dry season from late fall to early spring, with only occasional rainfall. Summer time rolls around and the city gets dumped on with thunderstorms nearly every day.
Houston's rainfall is more evenly distributed throughout the year, with an average of atleast 3 inches every month. But it does have those random dry weather spells that can come in air things out for weeks at a time.
I know. But Houston's forest is still described as Prairie. It does butt up to Piney Woods to the east but the forests on the southern portion of the metro are still gulf coast Prairie
Like the map shows, the southern portion that is actually dominated by prairies still wouldn't be 99% of Houston. Virtually everything north of I-10 is or was predominantly forest with trees reaching around 100 feet in height.
This is also not true. Miami specifically has more of a real dry season from late fall to early spring, with only occasional rainfall. Summer time rolls around and the city gets dumped on with thunderstorms nearly every day.
Houston's rainfall is more evenly distributed throughout the year, with an average of atleast 3 inches every month. But it does have those random dry weather spells that can come in air things out for weeks at a time.
Agreed with Miami's pronounced dry season. While Seattle might have a more drizzly kind of rain, it can actually rain very hard there, and summer is markedly drier than winter.
I like Texas. I like Florida. But, no. Walk twenty yards in from the beach and most of Florida is just ugly scrub and stunted trees. Texas, nothing really spectacular about the place.
I'm in Alabama, which is no slouch in this department, but Tennessee and North Carolina are prettier.
It could be argued, though, that from the perspective of variety, Alabama offers more than most other Southern states, with both the Appalachians/Tennessee River Valley and the Gulf Coast.
Texas offers the desert, the high plains, the Hill Country, the Gulf Coast, and the Piney Woods. Everything from cold and snowy in Amarillo to Florida-like heat and humidity in Houston to the Desert Southwest feel of El Paso to the Upper South feel of NE Texas. I'll even dare to say there's more variety in terms of scenery and climate in Texas than there is in California.
Like the map shows, the southern portion that is actually dominated by prairies still wouldn't be 99% of Houston. Virtually everything north of I-10 is or was predominantly forest with trees reaching around 100 feet in height.
Again you are missing my point.
I never said Houston does not have forest.
Like I said there are forests. And forested areas are still referred to as Prairie as in woodland prairie. And I did mention that apart from the wooded prairie there are also Pineland forest.
The 99% differentiates the areas that are usually dry (prairie which may or may not be wooded) and 1% wetlands (the marshes). Just because I said marshes are not forested does not mean that prairies cannot have trees.
A swamp is a forested wetland and Marsh is a grassed wetland. Houston has 99% prairie which includes grasslands and forests and 1% wetland marshes.
My point being is that Houston is not consistently wet like southern Louisiana. I-10 in huge portions of southern Louisiana are elevated because the land is wet even when it does not rain because of the Mississippi and the Atchafalaya tributary.
I am not going to go too much into the everything north of I10 comment because that is patently false. The land west of the city is called Katy prairie for a reason. To the north the area is so fragmented that it is no longer cakes forests and to the east those are piney Woods like I mentioned so I don't know what you are saying is incorrect. The only true forests u fragmented (I think the city defines u fragmented as more than 40 acres) is south of the city. And even that is about to be destroyed by the construction of 99. But even then the fiesta Brazoria and Fort bend are still in coastal prairies.
And I don't think you are looking at the map right. The area outside of the coastal prairies are passed highway 6, not i10. Outside 6 you get into the Katy prairie on the west and piney Woods on the east
Again you are missing my point.
I never said Houston does not have forest.
Like I said there are forests. And forested areas are still referred to as Prairie as in woodland prairie. And I did mention that apart from the wooded prairie there are also Pineland forest.
The 99% differentiates the areas that are usually dry (prairie which may or may not be wooded) and 1% wetlands (the marshes). Just because I said marshes are not forested does not mean that prairies cannot have trees.
A swamp is a forested wetland and Marsh is a grassed wetland. Houston has 99% prairie which includes grasslands and forests and 1% wetland marshes.
My point being is that Houston is not consistently wet like southern Louisiana. I-10 in huge portions of southern Louisiana are elevated because the land is wet even when it does not rain because of the Mississippi and the Atchafalaya tributary.
I am not going to go too much into the everything north of I10 comment because that is patently false. The land west of the city is called Katy prairie for a reason. To the north the area is so fragmented that it is no longer cakes forests and to the east those are piney Woods like I mentioned so I don't know what you are saying is incorrect. The only true forests u fragmented (I think the city defines u fragmented as more than 40 acres) is south of the city. And even that is about to be destroyed by the construction of 99. But even then the fiesta Brazoria and Fort bend are still in coastal prairies.
And I don't think you are looking at the map right. The area outside of the coastal prairies are passed highway 6, not i10. Outside 6 you get into the Katy prairie on the west and piney Woods on the east
I'm reading the map fine. The barrier between the Piney Woods and Coastal Prairies ecoregions is approximately north of I-10. Reread my post where I clearly said "virtually everything north of this line is or was" forest. Anyone familiar with this area knows that quite a bit of clearing has taken place, but that is beside the point. 99% prairie ("woodland" or not) is still incorrect. The true prairies exist south of town and also increase the further west you go.
The official Gulf Prairie ecoregion description is as follows:
Quote:
The region includes barrier islands along the coast, salt grass marshes surrounding bays and estuaries, remnant tallgrass prairies, oak parklands and oak mottes scattered along the coast, and tall woodlands in the river bottomlands
Notice it says nothing of the pine-hardwood forests of north Houston, which would be the beginning of the Piney Woods.
Now, if what you're really saying is that all of Houston is within the Gulf Coastal PLAIN, that much would be correct.
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.
