6
$\begingroup$

Lets imagine that instead of being located around Southern Pole Antartica is located around Northern Pole like this.

enter image description here

How this would change climate of Northern hemisphere? When I tried to google myseld I understood only that it would screw up ocean currents in North Atlantic, that it would make inner parts of north of Eurasia and North America drier and that that would radically alter rivers which flow in Arctic ocean cause no ocean to flow in. However different people in the internet gave different answers on how it would effect temperature. Some claim it would make artic region cooler cause continental mass winds cold from poles and cools land around it, some claim it would make arctic warmer because Antarctica is so cold because it is surrounded by ocean and continents would break circumpolar current and transfer heat from hot rock in tropics to cold rock in poles (I personally think that artic region would be cold and that at least its inner part would be ice cap).

What I am actually interested in is what ocean currents of Northern Atlantic would be like with such geography and would the arctic coast of artic landmass (area east to Canada, Greenland, area west to Scandinavia) a tundra or the ice cap would grow up to the coast like it grows up to the coast in Antartica?

Edit: people asked me to specify elevation. I would say that there is a clock-wise circle of mountains with hight comparable to Himalayas which begins at northern Canada and ends in northern Scandinavia (Greenland is exception, unlike other parts of North America it is not separated from the rest of Arctic by high elevation). Basically, it is like a line which follows the coast of Arctic ocean within borders specified in the attached picture (except of Greenland of course).

$\endgroup$
15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Antarctica is much colder than the Arctic is because land can get much colder than ocean, which is always around 4°C at lower levels. I'd imagine this would cause a larger ice shelf to develop with more ice than the Arctic sea ice has today. However, having land there instead of ocean would displace the water if the amount of water is still the same, leading to higher sea levels worldwide (from my understanding?) $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 2, 2024 at 12:25
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ VTC:Needs More Focus. Climate questions are among the most difficult that we find here. Climate is ridiculously complicated which means questions must be very focused and specific. As written, this is an off-topic high concept question. HCQs make a seemingly simple change (move an entire continent to the other side of the planet) and then ask for enormous consequences (how would this change, frankly, the planet). They're too broad at best. See help center, help center and How to Ask. Happy to retract if you can narrow this. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Commented Nov 2, 2024 at 19:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DartWert That specific area is massive, but more to the point, that portion of the planet is affected by the rest of the planet. Dropping a continent-sized landmass onto the north pole will most certainly affect the entire planet and that, in turn, affects the region you're interested it. I'm not entirely sure how you can narrow the question. It's asking for a lot on a service that doesn't like such large questions (see help center and the "Book Rule"). $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Commented Nov 3, 2024 at 5:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Climate is a vast chaotic system where outcomes are not linearly related to inputs. I'd add to the assertion that it's a very big question with no simple answer. Narrowing the question in some way is really the only way to go here to get any reasonable answer that fits reasonably on this site. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 3, 2024 at 6:31
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I'm going to concur with the VTC group. This is the kind of question that they throw huge supercomputers at, and even then their answers don't agree. Such little things as "how high are the mountains" and "what do the glaciers look like" would make significant changes in the result. @DartWert, let me point you to Christian Shorey's online course on climate science: youtube.com/playlist?list=PL29-1bJ5x6d7TJFfrZS60Cpi4Y34wrB0X That will get you started on answering this question. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 12, 2024 at 23:44

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

Unfathomably cold.

I don't have a supercomputer at hand, but you're postulating adding a land mass covering 4% of the Earth's surface, larger than 2.75% for Antarctica, surrounded by more cold land masses. Additionally, there is a ring of Himalaya-sized mountains that both elevates and chills this landmass, and prevents glacial ice from readily escaping it. As a result, precipitation will pile up and freeze, at least double the thickness of the Antarctic ice sheet.

The question is still a little vague, but I'm going to start with the premise you want to send out European polar exploration missions with an outcome that is unpredictable to the readers. There will be some tip-offs that this isn't our Earth. Because the glaciers are open to the Atlantic, there are immense ice sheets pushing melt water into that ocean. I'll take a guess (allegedly aided by bathymetry, but you may disagree) and say that the ocean is covered in grounded ice roughly 3 km thick all the way to a line from Newfoundland to Ireland. The North Atlantic and North Sea are frozen. Glaciers cover the land to well south of our own Ice Age moraines. The Gulf Stream still functions near the southern edge of the ice sheet, helping to carve out colossal icebergs that float on the Atlantic for decades. The Southern Hemisphere, by contrast, is substantially warmer. The 'Antarctic Sea' is convected by major currents, and remains a low-albedo blue nearly all of the year. Asymmetry of rising air (a warmer South Pole creates stronger updrafts, pushing the Hadley Cell northward) pushes deserts like the Sahara well north - perhaps there is a narrow range of temperate conditions and fresh water at the fringes of the glaciers, with a desert just south of them.

To make things more interesting, I'd suggest:

  • The ice sheet over the Arctic land is high enough to encompass the entire troposphere - anywhere water can reach in significant amounts - meaning it goes up about 12 kilometers over perhaps 6% of the Earth's surface. That is enough to lower the oceans by at least one kilometer. Doggerland, Sundaland ... those are just appetizers compared to all the extra lands are exposed now.
  • The Arctic Pangaea is already starting to break up a little. The Mid-Atlantic Ridge, extending north from Iceland, continues into an immense rift valley. While most of that valley is invisible, choked with glacial ice, there are large volcanic features scattered along it that create isolated oases of warmth, immensely deep between walls of ice, in the midst of the cold north. An explorer surviving to reach one of them might conceivably have a chance to encounter lost civilizations or relict populations.
  • The increased salinity of the ocean, occurring over a single geologic era, combined with a need for frantic growth during the southern summer, has led to alternative directions of evolution for floating algae and plants, which cannot easily tolerate these conditions. Explorers approaching the Antarctic find floating rafts of vegetation and associated herbivores that are as extreme as any tall tale of our Sargasso Sea.
$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Could you please explain what do you mean by "assimetry of rising air" please? $\endgroup$
    – user117813
    Commented Nov 15, 2024 at 11:51
  • $\begingroup$ And what would change if arctic landmass wasn't separated from Eurasia and North America by mountains? (I guess ice would go even more south on continents but wouldn't push so far into ocean) $\endgroup$
    – user117813
    Commented Nov 15, 2024 at 11:55
  • $\begingroup$ Over time ice flows in glaciers. So the ring of high mountains should make it much slower for precipitation in the Arctic to reach the sea, and therefore the ice sheet should be thicker than Antarctica's. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 15, 2024 at 12:40
  • $\begingroup$ Cool. But this doesn't fully answer what would chnage if we remove ring of high mountains. $\endgroup$
    – user117813
    Commented Nov 15, 2024 at 13:01
  • $\begingroup$ Some of the ice sheets are lower. Temperatures above them are higher. The katabatic winds are weaker. Weather is inevitably complex - in some cases you may have more glaciation because you reduce the winds - but I think in general that lowering the land mass will physically reduce the premise of the question and move you closer to our own Earth's Arctic conditions. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 15, 2024 at 19:12

You must log in to answer this question.