ISOT September 1901 - USA moves to Pacific, Canada and Mexico meet in the middle

Buba

A total creep
From what I understand, Antarctica became the frozenwasteland it is today due to South America seperating from it, which led it it being encircled by cold currents in perpetuity, instead of some cold getting diverted north and some warm getting diverted south.
Yes, that's the current (hehe, I so funny!) Science on the subject.

Although I would not expect such a magnitude of changes, IMO you make a good point. The Arctic ACC (Antarctic Circumpolar Current) analog could dip southwards encircling Greenland, making it even colder. Maybe even Iceland is affected and becomes more icy (LOL! I so into puns today!).
 

stevep

Well-known member
From what I understand, Antarctica became the frozenwasteland it is today due to South America seperating from it, which led it it being encircled by cold currents in perpetuity, instead of some cold getting diverted north and some warm getting diverted south. Due to the new gaps and spots that have appeared in the map as well as the presence of the US in what used to be "empty" Ocean, I expect temperature changes. That space between Mexico and Canada will likely widen and turn Canada into a new Antarctica making it even colder than before while Mexico manages to stay warm despite moving north to the currents riding its "top" instead of being forced along Canada. I suspect that Alaska is gonna get fucked as current exchange is interuppted by the USA blocking and it will completely cease to have non winter phases.

Since Canada is being moved some way south and there isn't a gap between it and Mexico I find that assumption for a much colder climate rather strange? After all its southern reaches are about where Virginia is in terms of latitude and you would probably get its southern coastline receiving warm currents from the Caribbean and associated Atlantic waters - albeit probably also hurricanes and the like. Can you expand on your conclusions please?

Given the greater isolation of Greenland with Canada moving south and also that Alaska and Siberia are more widely separated - albeit that there isn't much space between Washington state and Kamchatka - I would suspect that you could see a lot more water reaching the Arctic ocean and possible large scale melting of the sea ice - which in turn could set off a nasty chain reaction in Greenland.
 

stevep

Well-known member
Yes, that's the current (hehe, I so funny!) Science on the subject.

Although I would not expect such a magnitude of changes, IMO you make a good point. The Arctic ACC (Antarctic Circumpolar Current) analog could dip southwards encircling Greenland, making it even colder. Maybe even Iceland is affected and becomes more icy (LOL! I so into puns today!).

Possibly although Greenland is the only real mass that is an island in a place north enough to be affected in such a way and that is quite a way south for such currents to go. It might stop Greenland suffering a lot of melting and could affect Iceland and possibly even parts of northern Britain.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
I could see this being viewed by 1901 Americans as God exhibiting his displeasure towards TR becoming US President, which in turn could possibly trigger a movement to impeach TR. Thankfully this event occurs in September 1901 rather than in October 1901 since in the latter scenario, white American racists, especially but not only in the Southern US, could say that God was punishing TR and the US as a whole for having a black man (Booker T. Washington) dine at the White House:


The racists will say that "God doesn't like N-lovers"! :(
 

stevep

Well-known member
Even if there is melting in Greenland - which I doubt - the effects will be felt centuries if not millenia later. Nothing to worry about :)

It would take some time but probably not as long as that. If the polar sea ice cap goes that means that Earth, especially in that region collects a lot more solar radiation and you would have warmer water undercutting some of the coastal glaciers that would speed up their eroison. Probably still decades or centuries before its completely gone - although if there's a big methane surge from the Canadian tundra that wouldn't help - you could see worrying effects in decades as sea levels rise. Mind you that would depend on other effects of the change which could either counter or accelerate such a melt.
 

Buba

A total creep
@raharris1973
You are correct (I think), as to the ease of a canal along the old Colorado riverbed.
arizona.jpg


Soft silt, c. 70-80km, maximum elevation 10 or 15m asl.
Technically as easy as the Suez Canal.
So, don't fill that gap between Mexico and Canada :)

ADDED LATER:
This canal is not a must have, unlike Suez or Panama, but a nice to have effort. Yet it seems much more economically valid than the talked about for centuries but never built Kra Canal, i.e. larger savings on fuel and cheap&cheerful to dig.
Also - I was wrong on the elevation. I went by my hazy recollections, whereas in fact it is GASP! ZOMG!!!!11 22m asl :)
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top