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.
This reminds me of something I was working on a few months ago. Here, Japan has a "west coast" climate...and the PNW has a climate more in line with Dfb. So far I've only made updated climates for a few north american locations.
I've come up with another different geography that's in the same vein, but more obviously catered to my own preferences. I think this will be an improvement, but I want your thoughts on this "plan". Elevation is increased, and temperatures are colder. Gulf moisture is blocked for the interior, but not for the East Coast . Cold air is also not as blocked from proceeding to the coast as in the previous edition. Instead of one big mountain range, I've included many smaller mountain ranges that are connected with great lakes, both new and old. The new version of the Mississippi range would also benefit from upslope snowfall. I've also included as a bonus a new lake and heightened mountain range near the Maine-Quebec border.
This maximizes the lake-effect and upslope snow. A big area would be a paradise for snow lovers .
Even fans of hot weather benefit from my new geography. All the mountains mean that all the cold air is pretty much blocked from going to the Gulf Coast or Florida, so it would have a tropical climate. I've also included a new archipelago in the Gulf of Mexico, since the yearn-for-Florida types like tropical islands. There is also a new mountain range down the spine of Florida to yield tremendous rainfall totals in the tropical and highland climates there, somewhat similar to the Dividing Range in Queensland.
As an additional bonus I've included a new peninsula and mountain range in the Atlantic Ocean to take advantage of ocean-effect snow.
To enhance polar highs and the potency of cold air outbreaks, I've also covered the Arctic ocean with land. To see the first picture's text you need to enlarge it.
Also included is the original quote when I got the inspiration for this second geography:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus
That would be a help as well. However, considering that modest elevations in the snowbelt (Tug Hill Plateau, Houghton) receive 200+ inches of snow even now, it wouldn't take all that big of an elevation increase or increase in lake area to crank up some 300-inch totals. You could even get those totals going with only a stronger polar high with no geographical changes.
If there was much larger lake area, significant mountain ranges downwind of the lakes, and stronger polar highs and minimized subtropical influence, I think that 200-300 inches would be standard for the snowbelt cities. It actually wouldn't surprise me to see some isolated 400 inch totals in some of the higher-elevation villages in that scenario.
Of course, it wouldn't be wise to have a polar high that's too strong, because then all the wintertime moisture outside of the snowbelts would be cut off! The snow totals would be suppressed. I outlined one scenario in this topic, which you commented on. Perhaps we should revive that topic....
Wow, surely the continent would be a lot drier. The population would be largely along the coasts, and the interior wouldn't nearly be as populated as it is today. The southern Plains would basically be a desert that would rival Arizona in the summer although it would have much colder days in the winter.
I wonder if the now superpowered North American High would manage to block systems from the Pacific from reaching far from the Rockies during the winter. That would shut off almost all snow for the vast majority of the North American interior. In addition, with little flow from the Gulf, summer in the interior would be dry as well. With no moisture from anywhere, a good chunk of the interior would become arid. A lack of moisture might result in many of the lakes being salt lakes (and maybe that huge lake in the plains would have dried up eventually, not sure at all about that though).
Those southern mountains look good. I certainly wouldn't mind living in a mid-elevation areas in the mid-South. All of the joys of a Dfb climate without the lopsided daylight!
I think I would like the climate on the SE facing slopes of the mountains in South Carolina. An elevation of 7,000' would probably work.
Either there or the island/mountain range off of Long Island. I can't decide if I would like the ocean facing side or the continental facing side, since I would like the snowfall on the continental side but I also like coastal storms.
Also with that new land connection, Canada but especially Alaska would be much much colder than they are now. Of course that would also translate to the lower 48.
Here's a similar scenario I came up with:
The 10,000 m high mountainous plateau bordering Asia could be a source of very cold air. The south facing coastal area north of Norway/Finland/Russia would probably have some interesting climates.
Anyway the point of this setup is to make North America as cold as possible. Barrow would be below freezing all year (average summer highs would definitely be below 0C).
The 10,000 m high mountainous plateau bordering Asia could be a source of very cold air. The south facing coastal area north of Norway/Finland/Russia would probably have some interesting climates.
Anyway the point of this setup is to make North America as cold as possible. Barrow would be below freezing all year (average summer highs would definitely be below 0C).
Your mountainous plateau would covered with an ice sheet, which would expand further south into North America, maybe close to ice age levels. To the south of the ice sheets would be extremely dry and cold.
I'd like to add that to my own scenario. That Himalayan-scale range looks great. Those huge rocky promontories peeking out from the ice sheet would be like the Antarctic mountains on steroids.
Quote:
The 10,000 m high mountainous plateau bordering Asia could be a source of very cold air. The south facing coastal area north of Norway/Finland/Russia would probably have some interesting climates.
Indeed. I'm thinking the climate in the south-facing mountains near Svalbard would be amazing. The typical, already good and moderated arctic climate there would have a colder and much wetter version on those mountain slopes. The snow totals would be monstrous.
No, I think the better solution would be to join the North Atlantic up from Newfoundland to Ireland so that Greenland blocking has a much greater influence. That way we in the British isles get cold weather aswell.
The east coast would be blazing hot and dry with little snow.
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.
. Cold air is also not as blocked from proceeding to the coast as in the previous edition. Instead of one big mountain range, I've included many smaller mountain ranges that are connected with great lakes, both new and old. The new version of the Mississippi range would also benefit from upslope snowfall. I've also included as a bonus a new lake and heightened mountain range near the Maine-Quebec border.
.
