There are three major differences that make Great Lakes Earth’s Arctic considerably cooler from our Arctic. First off, compared to our oceans, the Arctic Ocean of Great Lakes Earth seems to have a little elbow room. The reason is that the Atlantic on Great Lakes Earth is 2177 kilometers wider than ours, pushing Eurasia, Africa and Sahul eastward. This creates a land bridge connecting Asia to North America, as it had been for 45 million uninterrupted years.

Also, the island of Greenland has been moved to the extent that Mont Forel, the island’s highest peak, is located in the North Geographic Pole.

Another major difference is the depth of the Arctic Ocean. Back home, the average depth is only 1205 meters, almost 4,000 feet. By contrast, the Arctic’s average depth on Great Lakes Earth is a staggering 3460 meters. That’s 11,352 feet!

Antarctica is the same as back home. However, the Southern Ocean differs in depth. Back home, the average depth is 4500 meters. On Great Lakes Earth, it is merely 2735 meters.

One other difference between our Antarctica and the one on Great Lakes Earth is the terrain. 65 million years ago, Antarctica was the center of a vast pool of lava, estimated to cover an area of seven million square kilometers and a volume of seven million cubic kilometers.

With all these changes mentioned above, how would climate and landscape be affected? Would their effects reach the entire planet?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Congratulations @JohnWDailey. This is the most literal interpretation of "World Building" I have encountered on this forum. +1. It is way beyond my ability to answer, but there is no denying it. You are building a world! $\endgroup$ – Henry Taylor Jan 30 '16 at 16:01
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @HenryTaylor, the problem with this kind of question is that it is way too broad. John needs to grab a climate model and tweak it, not ask here. cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0 $\endgroup$ – o.m. Jan 30 '16 at 16:21
  • $\begingroup$ @o.m., good point. I try to stay away from judging questions, as many of my questions wouldn't (and haven't) survive(d) such judgement, despite containing specific requests which would help my writing. I was just so stunned that the OP was actually building a world, that I overlooked his question being planet-spanningly broad. $\endgroup$ – Henry Taylor Jan 30 '16 at 16:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @HenryTaylor, the question contains a couple of data points with four-digit accuracy, but not nearly enough information to build even a crude climate model. How does all this affect currents? Does the Norwegian current stay where it is? $\endgroup$ – o.m. Jan 30 '16 at 16:45
  • $\begingroup$ As I said, this kind of question is way above my knowledge level. @o.m., I commend you for knowing enough to even recognize what is missing. $\endgroup$ – Henry Taylor Jan 30 '16 at 17:06

You now have both poles on land, so a lot more water is located at the poles, reducing the sea level a lot.

Furthermore, repositioning Greenland to close the Arctic ocean and reducing the depth of the Southern ocean is going to almost stop the currents in the ocean, making the areas closer to the poles colder and the equator hotter. The lava pool is not that important, as the basalt layer is only a meter thick with your numbers. It does however cover the whole continent. The American-Asian land-bridge makes the plant and animal life on both continents a lot more similar than today.

Would the effects reach the whole planet? Almost certainty. Especially the part about resizing oceans has a vast effect on the climate.

| improve this answer | |

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.