2
$\begingroup$

If such iconic landscapes as the Great Lakes, the Mississippi Basin and New York Harbor are proof of anything, it's that the North America we know has been shaped by ice ages coming and going and coming back again in the last two-and-a-half million years of Earth's history.

What sorts of geographical differences within Western North America (from Nebraska to the Pacific coast) would I expect to see if the ice ages have been lasting for 14 million years instead of two-and-a-half?

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Do you mean if it started 14 million years ago and is still going on? $\endgroup$
    – John
    Jul 7 at 2:56
  • $\begingroup$ That is correct. $\endgroup$ Jul 7 at 2:58
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I'm by no means qualified to answer this question, but here's a thought. Most of the ice-age formations are due to the motion of ice as it grows and recedes. Things get gouged out. So long as the ice just sits there, there isn't particularly erosion - but there is depression of the tectonic plates. Finally, things eroded after the ice age for some time. If it ended proverbially yesterday, you'd have sharp edges where things were cut rather than soft edges. My jump-to-a-conclusion is that, ultimately, it wouldn't change much $\endgroup$ Jul 7 at 3:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For the record, using both science-based and hard-science is redundant. Simplistically, science-based requires an answer to be based within the reality of known science without substantial proof and hard-science requires respondents to prove their answers. Also, note that I personally have known of only one user who I know could answer this question with the hard-science tag (Arkenstein XII) and he hasn't posted in 18 months. $\endgroup$ Jul 7 at 7:03

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.