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.
Like many of you, I enjoy speculating about alternate realities where Florida actually had mountains or Australia were situated 7 degrees further south. One scenario I've imagined is Texas with much more prominent mountains, specifically the Hill Country and the Trans-Pecos.
The Hill Country would be somewhat comparable to the Black Hills and would have a highest elevation of 1,750 m (5,741 ft), one thousand meters higher than the current highest point. Cities surrounding the Hill Country would be at least 3x higher than their current elevations (1,950 ft/596 m for San Antonio, 1,467 ft/447 m for Austin), slightly moderating their climates and making them a bit more suspectible to winter weather. The highest elevations, I predict, would experience at least moderate snowfall and provide a decent retreat from hot summer temps.
The Trans-Pecos region (at least between Van Horn and Fort Stockton and north from NM south to Big Bend NP) would be VERY rugged, with most peaks at least 50% higher than their current elevations and valley elevations at least 25% higher. The highest point, Guadalupe Peak, would have an elevation of 13,126 ft/4000 m and the Guadalupe Mountains would be the northern end of a "spine" extending south-southeast along the Rio Grande (including the Chinati Mountains) for about 275 miles before terminating in Big Bend NP. The mountains around Fort Davis and Alpine would be 50% higher in elevation as well and Mt Livermore would have an elevation of 12,264 ft/3738 m above sea level. With their increased elevation, west Texas's mountains could actually sustain extensive forests similar to the Sacramento Mountains in SE New Mexico and receive deep snowfall at the highest elevations. The cities in the region would still be fairly mild and only receive light snowfall, but they would also be significantly larger than they are now.
How different do you think the climate in both areas would be and furthermore, how different do you think Texas would be with significant mountains. Would a winter sports industry of some form be viable? This thread might be more appropriate in the Texas forum, but I decided to post it here because the weather is a significant part of my question. Feel free to move it if necessary.
Just like Flagstaff, it'd be much wet snow and difficult skiing conditions with that limited altitude. The top would probably have a wetter version of Flagstaff's climate, so would likely receive more snow and be more humid, hence milder summer lows.
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.
