11
$\begingroup$

On the planet I’m making, there was a big flood that happened and raised the sea level by 30 meters.

I want the planet to have a cold climate, so I can’t simply explain the flood by saying it was global warming (because then the planet would be too hot). Also, the temperature before this flood was -10°c but it warmed to 4°c because of a lower albedo

How would I explain it?

$\endgroup$
12
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ FYI: you don't have to accept an answer in a rush. Unsolved questions tend to attract more attention and increase the chances for you to get quality answers. $\endgroup$
    – L.Dutch
    Commented Oct 6, 2021 at 13:52
  • $\begingroup$ All of the answers are equally great answers! How do I figure out which one to use? $\endgroup$
    – Katze
    Commented Oct 6, 2021 at 13:52
  • $\begingroup$ I usually go by whichever is the most interesting, well researched and/or well-presented, and thank everyone else who contributed. I don't believe there are any hard feelings for not having one's answer accepted - it's not that many internet points being lost. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 6, 2021 at 16:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ During last ice age there were many seriously large flood events in the Oregon badlands due to ice dams forming and breaking. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 6, 2021 at 18:20
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Gault Drakkor: While those floods were major local events, they were nowhere near large enough to cause a noticable sea level rise. $\endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Commented Oct 7, 2021 at 3:42

11 Answers 11

14
$\begingroup$

Volcanic activity can effectively melt large quantities of ice even though the climate is cold, and that molten water will cause floods.

Just look at Iceland: once a volcano starts erupting under the ice cap, large floods ensue.

Mýrdalsjökull is subject to large jökulhlaups when the subglacial volcano Katla erupts, roughly every 40 to 80 years. The eruption in 1755 is estimated to have had a peak discharge of 200,000 to 400,000 $m^3/s$.

Therefore you just need to take Iceland example and expand it on a larger scale: you have already extensive ice caps, since the planet is cold, so you just need to add large scale volcanic activity.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ But those volcanic floods, while large on a local scale, are trivial on a global one. A volcanic episode that's large enough to melt globally-significant amounts of ice is also going to emit large emounts of greenhouse gasses, which will cause their own warming & ice-melting. See e.g. the Permian-Triassic extinction event. $\endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Commented Oct 6, 2021 at 18:15
  • $\begingroup$ @jamesqf the greenhouse effect will happen on a different timescale than the icemelting. And the op didn't say they don't want warming as a consequence $\endgroup$
    – L.Dutch
    Commented Oct 6, 2021 at 18:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @jamesqf, instead of having a volcano erupt under a glacier, have a large igneous province form under an ice cap. That solves the scale problem for you. $\endgroup$
    – Mark
    Commented Oct 6, 2021 at 23:14
  • $\begingroup$ @Mark: I haven't done the math, but I'd be surprised if even a large igneous province (which I think happens on a million-year timescale, anyway) would provide enough heat to raise sea level as much as the OP wants. $\endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Commented Oct 7, 2021 at 16:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Pere: True, but I don't think that's what the OP is asking for. Nor do you need volcanos for that sort of flooding: just consider the flooding of the Black Sea basin about 7600 years ago en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis and the flooding of the Mediterranean around 5 MYA en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanclean_flood $\endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Commented Oct 8, 2021 at 5:15
14
$\begingroup$

"I want the planet to have a cold climate, so I can’t simply explain the flood by saying it was global warming (because then the planet would be too hot)."

That's no problem. Just have it warm up from 'very cold' to merely 'cold'. When an ice age ends, the ice sheets melting can release large floods when meltwater is pent up behind ice dams that suddenly break. Consider the real-world example of meltwater pulse 1A which raised sea levels 16-25 metres. Although the globe was warming, it was still globally colder 14,000 years ago than it is today.

Although very abrupt climate change with jumps of 5-10 C can occur in a matter of a few years (e.g. The Younger Dryas), Meltwater Pulse 1A is thought to have taken about 400-500 years, so that may be a bit slow for your purposes.

If you want something a bit faster than that, I suggest volcanoes, earthquakes, landslides, tsunamis, meteorites, etc. Also have a look at the Zanclean flood, or the similar event postulated for the Black Sea, for another idea.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ +1 That's what I was going to say: "cold" and "hot" are relative adjectives. Ice caps are a fairly recent development; throughout its lifespan, the Earth has had them only for the last 33 million years. And despite the planet being much colder than historically, we still have places like Atacama or the Sahara. When the planet was much hotter there were still snow peaks and even glaciers. $\endgroup$
    – Rekesoft
    Commented Oct 7, 2021 at 7:22
  • $\begingroup$ You might include 'solar flare' in your answer as a cause of higher temps. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 8, 2021 at 21:13
7
$\begingroup$

Salt Meteors or Meteorites

http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/Nov99/PurpleSalt.html A large enough salt meteor or shower of salt meteorites spiked salinity levels within a large enough region and de-iced a large enough portion of the planet to cause global sea level rise of about 30 meters. After the sea level rose, and salinity concentration became diluted (or reason X, like the additional salt reacting to existing chemicals on the planet and causing them to fall out of suspension as sediment, etc.), then the water is able to freeze again.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ How long would it take for the water to be able to freeze again? $\endgroup$
    – Katze
    Commented Oct 6, 2021 at 13:37
  • $\begingroup$ It looks like 1m surface ice can naturally occur seasonally during cold months, and for $500b can be manually forced: google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/12/… I’m sure the problem doesn’t simply scale linearly the thicker the frozen layer, but this would suggest it’s easily possible probably within geologic terms. If you can freeze 1m in a few months, then you could probably freeze the 30m in a century? A thousand years or two? Probably short enough time you might need. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 6, 2021 at 14:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In addition, impacts themselves generate a lot of heat, and would melt a significant amount of ice. Say nothing if it penetrated the surface and cause a volcano to form. A stream of lava would definitely melt ice for a while. You could have 1+ miles thick ice suddenly melt depending on the severity,number,size, and composition of impacts. $\endgroup$
    – cybernard
    Commented Oct 6, 2021 at 18:45
  • $\begingroup$ Depends how cold the planet actually is, when the salty meteorite impacts. A salty meteorite/asteroid will only lower the freezing point of water (or watery ice) the salt dissolves in, it will not melt ice on a global scale. Water will melt locally, in the impact zone, because of the heat. It would not cause a world wide flood. The icy planet would cool down the meteorite rapidly, leaving a just a salty lake of fluid water. $\endgroup$
    – Goodies
    Commented Oct 6, 2021 at 22:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Goodies at the time of impact the planet was -10°c but then it warmed to 4°c (because there was less ice to reflect light and make the planet cold) $\endgroup$
    – Katze
    Commented Oct 7, 2021 at 8:26
7
$\begingroup$

Ice dam breaks.

ice dam

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy_m_2zQFX4

I think this was done best in the movie Ice Age: the Meltdown. I like the squirrel and it should be in more movies. But it happened for real in our world. The Missoula floods were big ones. Lake Missoula was formed by melting glaciers and the water impounded behind an ice dam.

lake missoula http://hugefloods.com/LakeMissoula.html

When the dam broke (probably because of a squirrel somehow) the water rushed across the land and seriously washed things away. Similar actions on the North American East coast formed the Hudson river valley. You can check out images or maps of these places for ideas about topography formed by megafloods.

That said, in our world it was not enough water to raise sea level 30 meters. But the principle is sound. If your world has small and shallow oceans relative to Earth, and a colossal amount of water locked into glaciers on one of your continents, a relative thaw and unfreezing of some of that water could wind up with a continent spanning meltwater lake, and then a big dump into the ocean. Several big dumps might be more realistic; that is apparently how the Missoula floods worked, although I read somewhere that the Hudson River Valley was carved over the course of a week.

That does not mean your world needs to get hot - a transient heating and melt for some reason will do. I like a volcanic eruption not for hot lava and heating (too local) but ashy eruptions that paint the glaciers black and alters their albedo. Or a Fortean rain from space of nitrogen and phosphorus that stimulates the snow algae... and alters glacier albedo.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Perhaps a once-a-millenia super-volcano far beneath the ice would serve to melt enough to flood far and wide. $\endgroup$
    – Ruadhan
    Commented Oct 6, 2021 at 15:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Ruadhan: But the outburst floods aren't due to ice melting, they happen because an ice dam (or a rock one: see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonneville_flood ) breaks, releasing the water trapped behind it. $\endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Commented Oct 6, 2021 at 18:20
  • $\begingroup$ This is the best answer offered yet. You'll have to fine-tune the amount of debris on the glaciers, however--in depths beyond about 50 cm debris actually insulates glaciers despite the albedo change. $\endgroup$
    – neph
    Commented Oct 7, 2021 at 18:14
5
$\begingroup$

This is roughly the same problem that creationists face in explaining the flood of Noah, therefore we can borrow some of their theories for this case.

Canopy Theory:

Some layer of water surrounded your planet and eventually became rain due to a disturbance. This could be a layer of water vapor maintained by same (possibly biotic?) phenomena, or a belt of water-ice that got disturbed by a passing body or caught by an expanding atmosphere.

Hydroplate Theory:

Water is fairly common in the universe, so it's not that outlandish that there could have been huge aquifers beneath the earth that eventually emptied themselves due to the movement of the tectonic plates.

Catastrophic Plate Tectonics

If your planet has oceans, all you need to do to flood it is have the ocean floor rise significantly and rapidly. The creationists have proposed somewhat plausible mechanisms for how this could happen.

Disclaimer: This answer was written with the intent to neither endorse nor condemn creationism, but merely to borrow inspiration from the thought given to the problem.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I was thinking about this myself; but those really are some spectacularly bad theories. They just open more questions. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 7, 2021 at 16:37
  • $\begingroup$ Sadly, all these theories fail in light of simple density/buoyancy issues. Nothing is solid on geological time/spatial scales--it's all fluid. Resultingly, density variations resolve themselves rapidly (within 10000s of years). Especially the water one--there's a ton of water in the mantle, but it's all dissolved in the hot ionic fluid we call magma. It's very important water, too--it causes melting of the deep mantle during subduction & thus enables island arc creation, and by extension every single bit of the continents. (very overgeneralized, sorry) $\endgroup$
    – neph
    Commented Oct 7, 2021 at 18:09
  • $\begingroup$ but what if "10000s of years" is longer than the world has already existed? $\endgroup$
    – ths
    Commented Oct 8, 2021 at 0:26
  • $\begingroup$ Fair enough, you can't argue against the "Creation with the Appearance of Age" solution to it all. That of course comes down to your epistemological origin--faith or sight? $\endgroup$
    – neph
    Commented Oct 8, 2021 at 16:31
4
$\begingroup$

The only plausible ways I can think of that don't also create sea level rise from global warming is to have some large amount of ice or water trapped above sea level and suddenly released. There are parallels to both in Earth's geologic history, though on a smaller scale.

For an ice-based flood, imagine a polar continent where the ice sheets are even more delicately-balanced than Antartica's are. Some event such as an earthquake or volcano breaks the keystone of that balance, causing a catastrophic collapse. On Earth, a collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet could cause a sea level rise of about 4 meters: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/04/study-says-antarctic-ice-sheet-melt-to-lift-sea-level-higher-than-thought/ Just increase the size of the collapsing sheet as needed for your world.

For a land-based flood, imagine we have a large, closed basin at some elevation above sea level, something like the Great Basin of western North America, but larger & deeper. This collects water over the ages (perhaps it's not in the rain shadow of the Sierra & Cascades), until it finally over-tops the rim. The rock at that point is fairly weak, and erodes, emptying the basin in weeks or months. This actually did happen, though not on a large enough scale to affect global sea levels: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonneville_flood The catastrophic filling of the Mediterranean & Black Sea basins are similar, though they would have lowered global sea levels - an anti-flood, if you will.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "ice sheets are even more delicately-balanced" sadly, ice sheets are not remotely solid--on human timescales ice is a slow but obviously flowing fluid and on geologic timescales it might as well be oil with how low its viscosity is. The Antarctic ice sheets are flowing down off the continent continuously and rapidly, even without global warming. $\endgroup$
    – neph
    Commented Oct 7, 2021 at 18:11
  • $\begingroup$ @neph: But absent global warming, the flow is a steady state. Like water, that flow could be dammed somehow (just as Antartic ice shelves hold back the flow of interior ice). If that dam is ruptured, the flow can speed up considerably. $\endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Commented Oct 8, 2021 at 5:18
  • $\begingroup$ That's not quite right. The flow is a steady state absent changes in mass loss (surface ablation, calving rate) and precipitation. Antarctic ice shelves do not hold back the flow of interior ice, they are the flow of interior ice--ice shelves are moving. The only things that can dam ice are mountain ranges, and those are ground down rapidly in geologic timescales--basically immediately as soon as the ice overflows the basin. Ice is incredibly erosive, and has the unique property that its rate of flow is almost entirely bound to its surface slope, not its basal slope: hard to contain. $\endgroup$
    – neph
    Commented Oct 8, 2021 at 21:56
2
$\begingroup$
  1. Sudden stellar flare. Either by itself (red dwarfs are especially prone to month-long flares, but perhaps not so much as to rule out habitability), or a collision with a (hot) jovian planet (but that will take thousands of years to stabilize)

or even simpler:

  1. (big) meteorite impact directly on the icecap, resulting in the icecap melting
$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

It's a cold(er) climate but there is still liquid water. So frozen water entering the planet would become liquid, generally. So, you just need a giant ice meteor that evaporates into, basically, really thick, clouds as it enters the atmosphere. This gives you mass amounts of suspended water (briefly) as it begins a slowly circulating global-level thunder/rain storm for the next 4(99?) years

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

enter image description here

Source

Baby geologist here. You don't need a flood. You don't need anything exceptional. As ice ages develop, sea level goes up.

Well, let me actually clarify a bit--the coastlines go up. There's less water in the oceans--it's all turning to ice through the precipitation cycle--but the shores still go back up the coast anyways.

Why? Well, because rock's a fluid on geologic timescales. Imagine you're in a boat, and then somebody puts a bunch of stuff in it: the boat's going to settle. In this case, the continents are a boat floating in a sea of rock, and all the ice developing is the stuff. We call this state isostasy, and when you add ice to the continents, you disrupt it.

That's right, baby, it's isostatic depression. When you cover the planet in ice, the continents sink into the earth a bit & the coastlines go up, by up to 200 m during the last ice age.

The opposite is also why sea levels are still falling on Canada shorelines today--North America is still rebounding after all the ice came off a short 10s of 1000s of years ago.

EDIT: Surprised to see downvotes without comments. Added some sources for you skeptics.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

A nearby supernova inside a cloud of dust.

The supernova released an immense amount of heat and light, but this energy was trapped by the dust cloud that surrounded it, heating the dust cloud to many thousands of degrees.

For a year or two, there was a moon-apparent-diameter "second sun" in the sky, that gave of immense amounts of infrared heat, heating the planet surface by 10-15 degrees C.
This has caused a mass melting of the polar caps, ice sheets and glaciers, thus raising the sealevel by a lot.
After several months, maybe a year, the cloud cools below visible, and within 5 years it stops emitting any significant infrared heat, thus allowing the planet to slowly regain its old thermal equilibrium. The planet is a cold planet again. However it will take millenia for the water to be deposited into new icecaps, icesheets and glaciers.

The fun is over.

For now.. In about 5000 years, the shockwave of that dust cloud that got clobbered by the supernova will reach the planet, and then all hell breaks loose.

Assumptions:

  • The supernova is a bog-standard type 1a, thus emitting about 1e44joules
  • it is at a distance of 20-30ly when it pops. (to provide enough energy to heat the planet by 10C for 1 year)
  • You make no mention of global radioactive devastation, mass dying-offs, or really weird mutants flying around. Something needed to shield you from the intense gamma emission of the supernova, but still allow the heat to reach your planet. Hence the small and very dense dust cloud.
  • The dust cloud got heated to 10000K or so. So a lot of UV, tapering off to IR over time. This heats first the upper atmosphere, then the surface.
  • In the process, the dustcloud got kicked to a linear velocity of about 1200km/s. It will arrive in 5000 years. And it will hit like a good solid Coronal Mass Ejection (think Carrington event) that goes on and on and on nonstop for a thousand years.
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Wouldn’t this kill all life on the planet? $\endgroup$
    – Katze
    Commented Oct 8, 2021 at 1:11
  • $\begingroup$ @SN9 the initial IR heat from the dust cloud, no. Some problem with UV damage to eyes and such, but mostly it will be absorbed by the air. Expect a lot of clouds. For the second wave of accelerated dust to hit the planet, maybe. It will wreck the ozone layer, form some interesting compounds of Oxygen and Nitrogen in the upper atmosphere, confuse the heck out of anything that can sense magnetic fields, and absolutely devastate any electrical technology. Surface life will be somewhat off, subsurface and ocean life will be fine. The dust cloud, by the time it reaches the planet, is very diffuse. $\endgroup$
    – PcMan
    Commented Oct 8, 2021 at 13:27
  • $\begingroup$ @sn9 that's why the dust cloud is needed. a naked type 1a supernova at 20 ly is just about a guaranteed death sentence, theres just too much gamma and xray and hugemongous amounts of UV arriving within a very short period. (Same energy but harsher frequencies, and over some hours only instead of the several months to a year for this scenario) $\endgroup$
    – PcMan
    Commented Oct 8, 2021 at 13:29
0
$\begingroup$

A relatively small ice shelf on a coastline is holding back a continent's worth of glaciers from sliding into the ocean.

Picture a massive polar continent covered in ice sheets and glaciers (Antarctica but bigger, maybe). The geology of the continent is such that a majority of the glacier flow all converges to a coastline that has a significant ice sheet in the water that effectively "dams" the glacial flow. Or perhaps there are multiple convergence points, that are all dammed in a similar way.

The minor warming of your planet has been just enough to allow the ice sheet dam (or dams) to weaken and break away from the continent as massive icebergs. These icebergs themselves will not cause an increase is sea level since they were already floating on the ocean. However, without those dams in place, the continental glaciers are now free to dump their contents of centuries (millennia?) of accumulated ice and snow into the oceans, which will cause a rise in sea level.

The timeframe of this may be not be swift enough for your story as the pace of this flow of ice into the ocean will be, by definition, glacial. It could be a contributing factor though.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .