(Before anyone asks, this is related to the Sahara, Makgadikgadi and Himalaya questions.)
The Sahara may take credit at being the hottest desert, but the Australian Outback is hardly a pushover by comparison.
Here, dehydration is the easiest way to die. The most iconic animals of Australia--marsupials, monitor lizards and cockatoos--must be especially tough to call this hellhole home.
The Outback in this alternate Australia might have a different personality. First and foremost, it's not called "Australia", but "Sahul".
Here, it looks as though the islands of Tasmania, New Guinea and New Zealand have merged to become part of the continent. The brown lines are the Great Dividing Range, a series of volcanic peaks no taller above sea level than 18,500 feet.
The next difference is Lake Eyre, a megalake over 460,000 square miles in area and 170.5 feet at the deepest.
The final difference between Australia and Sahul is that the distance from Sahul to Antarctica is 1400 miles, half the distance between Australia and Antarctica.
Would these three listed differences turn the Outback from unforgiving desert into something more comparable to the Garden of Eden, or would it still be desert, just a little on the chilly side?