-3
$\begingroup$

This is sub-Himalayan Asia back home.

enter image description here

As one can see, it's pretty much India, Bangladesh and Pakistan surrounded by the warm waters of the Indian Ocean.

And this is Everest, the world's highest peak, standing 29,029 feet above the level of the sea.

enter image description here

The Himalayas, the range in which Everest is a part of, are so tall that they amplify the power of the Indian Ocean monsoon, bringing water to one billion people.

This is an alternate sub-Himalayan Asia:

enter image description here

As you can see, Borneo has blocked off the Bay of Bengal and Sumatra has become an extension of western India. The rest of Indonesia and the Philippines don't exist physically.

The location, shape, length and width of the Himalayas are the same. But in this alternate scenario, the highest number has shifted from 29,029 feet above sea level to 33,500 feet, the equivalent to Mauna Kea, Hawaii, the REAL tallest peak in the world.

Another change is that the sea dividing Europe from Africa isn't Mediterranean, but Tethys.

enter image description here

This super-sea that connects the alternate Asia to the alternate Atlantic, as it used to back home, averages 1205 meters in depth and has a maximum of 7,000 meters.

Would these three changes bring a dramatic difference to the Indian Monsoon, or would it stay the same?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Hi John, it's easy for you to say "would these three changes bring a dramatic difference to the Indian Monsoon, or would it stay the same?" But you could improve the question by repeating in words what your three changes actually are. I can't wrap my mind around them without having to back and forth to look at the earlier sections of your lead-up, and I still can't make sense of it. $\endgroup$ – a4android Aug 23 '16 at 6:30
  • $\begingroup$ I was going to make a comment in your previous question, but this will do. Can you put up a map of your entire alternate world with your mountain ranges drawn in like you had for the Sahara. Then when we answer we can take into account the global environment to your specific questions. I'm not asking for you to ask about the global changes in a question. I think that would be closed as a tad wee broad. It's just that local weather is a complicated global affair. Eg. There is a little current off S.America that affects the chances of drought all over the world. $\endgroup$ – EveryBitHelps Aug 23 '16 at 7:03
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I don’t think it's too broad since the Indian monsoon is highly specific. This might be a case where the close reasons are not mapping well to what people are thinking, so more critical comments would be useful. $\endgroup$ – JDługosz Aug 23 '16 at 11:41
  • $\begingroup$ Hey, I didn't even get a chance to answer! I saw this question this morning (no good detailed answer ever came while riding on the bus) and have been thinking about it all day, and now that I'm home from work and have a chance to properly answer... it's on hold! I don't think the question is too broad - weather is complex. Of course there are going to be lots of things the OP can't say/or doesn't say at first. But if you have questions that can help narrow down the answer for you, ask them in the Comments don't just say, "too broad!" $\endgroup$ – EveryBitHelps Aug 23 '16 at 17:52
1
$\begingroup$

The crust is plastic at this scale. It will sag slowly scross the contenent and is being kept propped up by the ramming of the Indian plate.

The Himalayas could not be any higher. The contenent sinks under the weight, and flows outward from the piled up mass.

So you need to consider (literally) deeper changes: is India moving faster? Is the rock stronger due to different composition? Making the crust generally thicker would entail a different history of techtonic activity up to that point.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The base of the Himalayas is granite. Is there a continental rock that's tougher than granite? The speed in which the landmasses are colliding I haven't taken into consideration. All I did was rewind the age of the Himalayas from 50 million years to 65. $\endgroup$ – JohnWDailey Aug 23 '16 at 1:42
  • $\begingroup$ @JohnWDailey, I think I see where the difference in opinion are making things hard for your questions. Generally when we rewind AGE, we go from 50million to 35million years old :) when we rewind TIME, then we go from 50million to 65million years ago. Sorry, I had to add a comment, I actually had snorted in laughter when I read your comment. Good thing I wasn't drinking anything! $\endgroup$ – EveryBitHelps Aug 23 '16 at 6:52

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.