Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="woodelf" data-source="post: 2338685" data-attributes="member: 10201">Well, if we just assume there's a mechanism to drive the water cycle, and therefore there are rains and rivers and so on [perhaps increased volcanism means more particulate matter in the atmosphere, maybe just on a seasonal, or at least cyclical, basis, and thus clouds condense more easily?], my first thoughts are:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">You need much less altitude variation. If there's enough water to form rivers, it's gonna run downhill and form lakes or oceans. If there's no &quot;downhill&quot;, that won't happen. More reasonably, if you have large areas that are only slightly lower, instead of deep areas, you'll get swamps instead of oceans. </li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Much higher temperature, year-round, keeping more of the water in the atmosphere, rather than condensed and on the ground. Thus more greenhouse effect, as well as less standing water.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Minimal seasonal change implies equatorial, not polar. Equatorial regions have the least seasonal change in solar radiation intensity--and if you take out local moisture (as in a desert), this allows daily changes in solar radiation intensity to be as or more significant than the seasonal changes.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Not sure how you have canyons, rivers, and no oceans without the canyons flooding. In our own world, canyons are dry, or only have a [relatively] small river at the bottom because there's other places much lower than them for the water to go to. </li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">I think your notion of really impressively vast swamp regions is a must-have. Picture something the size of the Mediterranean or Caribbean, but with an average depth of 50' or so--plenty shallow enough for anchored plants to completely fill.</li>
</ul>Just some off-the-top-of-my-head thoughts, not all guaranteed to be correct or supportable.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="woodelf, post: 2338685, member: 10201"] Well, if we just [b]assume[/b] there's a mechanism to drive the water cycle, and therefore there are rains and rivers and so on [perhaps increased volcanism means more particulate matter in the atmosphere, maybe just on a seasonal, or at least cyclical, basis, and thus clouds condense more easily?], my first thoughts are: [list] [*]You need much less altitude variation. If there's enough water to form rivers, it's gonna run downhill and form lakes or oceans. If there's no "downhill", that won't happen. More reasonably, if you have large areas that are only slightly lower, instead of deep areas, you'll get swamps instead of oceans. [*]Much higher temperature, year-round, keeping more of the water in the atmosphere, rather than condensed and on the ground. Thus more greenhouse effect, as well as less standing water. [*]Minimal seasonal change implies equatorial, not polar. Equatorial regions have the least seasonal change in solar radiation intensity--and if you take out local moisture (as in a desert), this allows daily changes in solar radiation intensity to be as or more significant than the seasonal changes. [*] Not sure how you have canyons, rivers, and no oceans without the canyons flooding. In our own world, canyons are dry, or only have a [relatively] small river at the bottom because there's other places much lower than them for the water to go to. [*]I think your notion of really impressively vast swamp regions is a must-have. Picture something the size of the Mediterranean or Caribbean, but with an average depth of 50' or so--plenty shallow enough for anchored plants to completely fill. [/list] Just some off-the-top-of-my-head thoughts, not all guaranteed to be correct or supportable. [/QUOTE]

Verification