Sort of a dumb question but I was wondering, it’s kind of a what if.
I was thinking Antartica is not being used so what if you could move it north. How far north could you move it to make it habitable to humans.
But then I got to thinking if you move it north into the Pacific or Indian Oceans, (would it fit in the Atlantic?), wouldn’t that change the climates of other places like Australia or South America?
So I was thinking what is the best place to put Antarctica so it would be livable but do the least damage.
You’ll need all that new land to accommodate the people and other creatures who are displaced by the 7-metre sea-level rise when the present Antarctican ice melts…
It’s an interesting question whether de-glaciating Antarctica would result in a net increase or decrease in usable land area, given the rise in sea level that would result.
Leaving that aside, the exact latitude you moved it to would make a huge difference. Australia is largely desert because it’s at a latitude that receives little rainfall. I suppose the Pacific would have the most room for an extra continent, but I’m not certain that plate tectonics would support a continental mass intruding on the Pacific basin. Like it might sink into the Earth’s mantle or something.
And if you parked Antarctica in the middle of the Pacific, wouldn’t it plug the Hawaiian hot-spot, leading to Og knows how big a volcanic eruption millennia later?
Though once that settles down a bit, you might get a vast Mars-style shield volcano.
Antarctica has a surface area of about 5,405,430.2 square miles,
That’s equivalent to a square 2,329 miles on a side or, given the continents shape, a circle with a diameter of 2,622 miles.
Antarctica would fit nicely between New York and Portugal, leaving sea lanes of 380 miles minimal width to the east and west. About the same story holds for filling the Atlantic between Brazil and Gabon.
I think the best spot would be in the Indian ocean. You could use it as a habitable land bridge between Madagascar and Sri Lanka.
As I moved Antarctica, I’d trim off the ice to mitigate the sea level change. Then I’d perch it on top of a a desert plain like the Sahara. That should lower the sea level all over the world, and increase coast lines/intertidal zones(in lieu of a continental plain) so more of us could afford waterfront property.
There’s less land South of the equator, so I think it should stay in the Southern hemisphere. Center it roughly midway between New Zealand and Peru, in the Pacific. There aren’t a lot of islands in that part of the Pacific, and the climate should be pleasant. It will still be far away from other major land masses, so it’s climate effects should be minimal. I suppose you need to look at Ocean currents to be sure, but I’m not going to bother.
But I was thinking if you moved Antarctica north into the Indian Ocean would’nt that change the climate of Australian. If you moved it north into the Pacific wouldn’t it effect say South America, which would also change things all over.
I wasn’t talking about any realistic change but more about how the world works, like if you shift one thing it changes another?
If you remove the ice, any map wouldn’t stay accurate for very long. Three or four kilometers of ice on top of land will depress it significantly. Remove the ice and it rebounds. Some areas that are now below sealevel will rise above it without the ice. The rebound should be fairly rapid at first and then taper off but still go on for a long time. Some parts of North America are still rebounding from the ice that melted 10,000 years ago.
Counterbalancing this is the 60 meter rise in sealevel from the ice melting. I wouldn’t expect the two effects to exactly cancel each other out. The sealevel rise should be more, especially in the short run.
Hotspots can punch through continental crust, and tend to produce supervolcanoes when they do. IANAGeologist, so I don’t know how long that would take, but my guess is that “millennia” is an underestimate.
No. For a vast Mars-style shield volcano, you need the surface to stay in one place relative to the hotspot. Because of plate tectonics, that doesn’t happen on Earth.
