Would a supercontinent automatically be a desert for the most part?

Can you repeat the question?

D none of the above.
Remember kids just fill in a bubble even if your guessing out your ass.
Wrong answers don't count against you on Veeky Forums

Depends on the shape and positioning. Would also have a lot of pretty huge mountains from where all the plates are smooshed up (and resulting gigantic rain shadow) and a ton of wet valleys and such. Probably some pretty horrific storms affecting the coast as they blow in from the massive unbroken ocean. Deserts could well be types other than sand ones though. Some pretty huge contrasts going on.

Not a geology authority of any means, just had to look it up for setting development in the past so am entirely able to be wrong

What's the planet's opinion on this?

>Would a supercontinent automatically be a desert for the most part?

Soft no; since it's more about how far and what sort of obstacles water has to overcome to get to the interior of a supercontinent. Vegetation can also act as a buffer zone and make places significantly moister and wetter- extending the distance that water can travel.

Australia used to be covered in jungles with few badlands since the trees locked in all that moisture and kept things humid, but when the Abos burned everything the fuck down they turned it into a wasteland since the rain couldn't piggyback off of the tree-line.

Depends on the shape and where the mountain ranges are desu. So no, it wouldn't automatically be a desert for the most part, but there's a good chance it could be.
I thought it was rabbits that fucked things up?

rabbits (and other introduced pests) have been fucking things up recently.

but humans have been playing with the enviroment here for 50000 years.

>I thought it was rabbits that fucked things up?

Nope. Abos.

Australians indigenous aborigines never invented a proper precision ranged hunting tool (I.E: The Bow) and so they become grossly over dependent on setting brush fires to smoke out or otherwise kill their food for them.
This hunting technique is what was largely responsible for the mad-max Australia we see today.

While rabbits certainly didn't help; they were just making an already bad situation worse.

Oh, right, Australia also had a Cactus Plague in the 1940's.

You wouldn't consider something as unassuming as cactuses to be capable of "plaguing" a land, but when they first introduced them to australia: nothing could eat them, and it was their ideal climate, so it was perfect.

So Australia was briefly smothered in cactuses and it strangled some of their forests/grasslands before they introduced a species of moth that ate cactuses.

AND NOTHING BUT CACTUSES(this wasn't a cane toad episode, cactuses have become naturalized in australia.)

>This hunting technique is what was largely responsible for the mad-max Australia we see today.

Australia's been more or less a desert for 100,000 years, and has been drying out for that entire time. Aborigines didn't show up until 50,000 years ago at the earliest.

>Probably some pretty horrific storms affecting the coast as they blow in from the massive unbroken ocean.

For the record: Just because the world is a supercontinent, doesn't mean it'll have a "massive unbroken ocean", since there's still the chance or opportunity for dozens or hundreds of reefs, atolls, isolated islands n' so forth.

But otherwise, yes, you're right: waves and ocean storms just keep gaining momentum if there's nothing in the way to stop them.

yeah. though the regular burning off has had an effect, turning more dry forrest into savannah and is likely one of the reasons australian megafauna went extinct.

>dat stormweenie revisionism
How about some sources

>fair dinkum crikey drongo them bleeding Abos rip me guts cobber
Never met a bigger bunch of racists than white Australians, and I've been to Zimbabwe.

A supercontinent is whatever biome the Greco-Roman precursor society of Giants has terraformed it it into being.

If the mountains are coastal then yes

if it has a decent inner sea or no major rainshadows then not necessarily

The planet doesn't get one, it has no rights.

And here we see the violence inherent in the system.

no, depends on the mountains. Also if it has an inland sea. If there's major rivers, they would contribute to no deserts.
remember kids, the largest desert on earth is Antarctica.

Megafauna goes extinct wherever humans go. The sole exception is Africa, since animals there had a chance to evolve alongside humans and develop various adaptations against humans (the super-thick hides of hippos, elephants, and rhinos, for example). And even that is failing as human technology continues to advance.

But Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and the Americas? Wherever humans go, megafauna goes extinct.

no obstructions can also cause a dry interior.
Western and central australia is dry largely in part because its all flat, so moist air just blows all the way across it until they hit the western side of the dividing range.

In the Dreamtime, Fires precede the spark that creates.

Not the user, but I read a book describing the colonial history of Australia, and it did document the bush fire techniques of the aboriginals.

It's been a while though, and I lost the book. (It focused primarily on the criminal/officer relationship in the colony)

Hey, You're not the boss of me now!