|
|
Post by american2006 on Mar 1, 2021 12:53:20 GMT
So global warming would be averted as the earth (or the north at least) would face major cooling. My best guess is this results in a migration southward, with much of Europe moving to Italy, the Balkans, or North Africa. What would be the situation in northern Mexico as migrants have no where to go?
Well if the loss of the US affects ocean currents as expected then global warming would be drastically impacted in most of Europe and probably a mass death scenario there. How the rest of the world would be affected would be unclear. If the warm water is now staying around Canada it could heat that up faster and if the permafrost melts more rapidly and releases a lot more methane then in a few years that might mitigate what happens in Europe and would make the average world temperature rise even higher.
There's a possibility, in such an emergency situation you might even see a massive movement of Europeans to N Africa and the ME, if necessary by force, although that could be very bloody. What people will do when their desperate shouldn't be underestimated. Although since the latter are more heavily armed than much of Europe currently this could be more difficult than a lot of Europeans may initially think. Similarly depending on how badly Russia is hit you could well see a desire there for it to expand southwards into the former Soviet central Asia. Although again that would be bloody and put a lot of pressure on already strained ecologies.
My point with the climate is the Atlantic waters which cool much of Europe won’t go to Europe, and Canada and Europe will exchange climates. Canada’s permafrost will melt at the same time Europe develops permafrost. As to moving southward, some countries (the UK and Germany in particular although potentially France) would have the easiest time doing so while somewhere like Sweden wouldn’t. Regardless, we are probably looking at a very large regional war. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856 
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Mar 1, 2021 12:56:14 GMT
Well if the loss of the US affects ocean currents as expected then global warming would be drastically impacted in most of Europe and probably a mass death scenario there. How the rest of the world would be affected would be unclear. If the warm water is now staying around Canada it could heat that up faster and if the permafrost melts more rapidly and releases a lot more methane then in a few years that might mitigate what happens in Europe and would make the average world temperature rise even higher.
There's a possibility, in such an emergency situation you might even see a massive movement of Europeans to N Africa and the ME, if necessary by force, although that could be very bloody. What people will do when their desperate shouldn't be underestimated. Although since the latter are more heavily armed than much of Europe currently this could be more difficult than a lot of Europeans may initially think. Similarly depending on how badly Russia is hit you could well see a desire there for it to expand southwards into the former Soviet central Asia. Although again that would be bloody and put a lot of pressure on already strained ecologies.
My point with the climate is the Atlantic waters which cool much of Europe won’t go to Europe, and Canada and Europe will exchange climates. Canada’s permafrost will melt at the same time Europe develops permafrost. As to moving southward, some countries (the UK and Germany in particular although potentially France) would have the easiest time doing so while somewhere like Sweden wouldn’t. Regardless, we are probably looking at a very large regional war.
You could well get permafrost in a lot of Europe, at least in the short term, but it wouldn't in itself contain much methane, as that builds up over a long period. Otherwise would be in general agreement.
|
|
jjohnson
Chief petty officer
Posts: 144
Likes: 219
|
Post by jjohnson on Jun 12, 2021 17:18:21 GMT
So the scenario, tonight at midnight EST America just disappears into the ocean, all 50 states, DC, and territories and all embassies and military bases are restored to there natural form. All other American properties stays. How does the world react? Are the United States replaced with ocean/water creating new bodies of water everywhere, or is everything replaced with 'blank' territory reverted to its pre-civilization form, or are just overseas bases/embassies reverted to natural form while all states/territories are turned into water? Scenario 1: economic and political chaos, and climate chaos. Mexico's climate and Canada's climate will be altered with ocean waters coming so close now, possibly warming Canada and mildening their winters, while making Mexico's deserts less desert-like. China loses its major economic importer and all those US Treasuries are now worthless. Russia will try to assert itself in eastern Europe and Asia, while China tries to assert itself over Japan and the Pacific. It may try to economically colonize Mexico/Canada to help prop up its own economy, which needs exports to survive. Scenario 2: Canada and Mexico will scramble to claim and colonize the vacant land, with Mexico likely taking its pre-1821 borders, and Canada trying to assume the rest, including Alaska, while Hawaii may be taken by China or Japan. Puerto Rico may be taken by Bahamians and UK Virgin Islanders who also take the US Virgin Islands. Again, China will attempt to make Canada/Mexico their main trade partners and may try to fight them for the now vacant territory. Scenario 3: still economic/political/climate chaos. Canada/Mexico climate changes, the Atlantic currents will be thrown into chaos as the Pacific and Atlantic mix for the first time in millions of years. Sailing will be made slightly more difficult. Overseas bases/embassies are wondered about, but buildings are built there to use the empty land, while bases that are now gone, where they are remote, are just left empty, while bases near shores might gain useful settlements. In all 3 scenarios, I think China will try to scramble to take advantage and colonize, as they have 1.4 billion people to feed, which they are having difficulty doing, as well as a bubble economy that is very dependent on exports, requiring them to seek out economic colonies, as they're doing in Africa right now. |
|
|
|
Post by american2006 on Jun 12, 2021 17:45:10 GMT
So the scenario, tonight at midnight EST America just disappears into the ocean, all 50 states, DC, and territories and all embassies and military bases are restored to there natural form. All other American properties stays. How does the world react? Are the United States replaced with ocean/water creating new bodies of water everywhere, or is everything replaced with 'blank' territory reverted to its pre-civilization form, or are just overseas bases/embassies reverted to natural form while all states/territories are turned into water? Scenario 1: economic and political chaos, and climate chaos. Mexico's climate and Canada's climate will be altered with ocean waters coming so close now, possibly warming Canada and mildening their winters, while making Mexico's deserts less desert-like. China loses its major economic importer and all those US Treasuries are now worthless. Russia will try to assert itself in eastern Europe and Asia, while China tries to assert itself over Japan and the Pacific. It may try to economically colonize Mexico/Canada to help prop up its own economy, which needs exports to survive. Scenario 2: Canada and Mexico will scramble to claim and colonize the vacant land, with Mexico likely taking its pre-1821 borders, and Canada trying to assume the rest, including Alaska, while Hawaii may be taken by China or Japan. Puerto Rico may be taken by Bahamians and UK Virgin Islanders who also take the US Virgin Islands. Again, China will attempt to make Canada/Mexico their main trade partners and may try to fight them for the now vacant territory. Scenario 3: still economic/political/climate chaos. Canada/Mexico climate changes, the Atlantic currents will be thrown into chaos as the Pacific and Atlantic mix for the first time in millions of years. Sailing will be made slightly more difficult. Overseas bases/embassies are wondered about, but buildings are built there to use the empty land, while bases that are now gone, where they are remote, are just left empty, while bases near shores might gain useful settlements. In all 3 scenarios, I think China will try to scramble to take advantage and colonize, as they have 1.4 billion people to feed, which they are having difficulty doing, as well as a bubble economy that is very dependent on exports, requiring them to seek out economic colonies, as they're doing in Africa right now. Scenario 3 is what I had in mind but 1 and 2 are still very interesting. The China aspect is very interesting but a massive area of land disappearing would affect the climate, but would it affect the climate in China in such a way to where mass death occurs in China, depending on the way the currents go. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Jun 13, 2021 10:35:48 GMT
Are the United States replaced with ocean/water creating new bodies of water everywhere, or is everything replaced with 'blank' territory reverted to its pre-civilization form, or are just overseas bases/embassies reverted to natural form while all states/territories are turned into water? Scenario 1: economic and political chaos, and climate chaos. Mexico's climate and Canada's climate will be altered with ocean waters coming so close now, possibly warming Canada and mildening their winters, while making Mexico's deserts less desert-like. China loses its major economic importer and all those US Treasuries are now worthless. Russia will try to assert itself in eastern Europe and Asia, while China tries to assert itself over Japan and the Pacific. It may try to economically colonize Mexico/Canada to help prop up its own economy, which needs exports to survive. Scenario 2: Canada and Mexico will scramble to claim and colonize the vacant land, with Mexico likely taking its pre-1821 borders, and Canada trying to assume the rest, including Alaska, while Hawaii may be taken by China or Japan. Puerto Rico may be taken by Bahamians and UK Virgin Islanders who also take the US Virgin Islands. Again, China will attempt to make Canada/Mexico their main trade partners and may try to fight them for the now vacant territory. Scenario 3: still economic/political/climate chaos. Canada/Mexico climate changes, the Atlantic currents will be thrown into chaos as the Pacific and Atlantic mix for the first time in millions of years. Sailing will be made slightly more difficult. Overseas bases/embassies are wondered about, but buildings are built there to use the empty land, while bases that are now gone, where they are remote, are just left empty, while bases near shores might gain useful settlements. In all 3 scenarios, I think China will try to scramble to take advantage and colonize, as they have 1.4 billion people to feed, which they are having difficulty doing, as well as a bubble economy that is very dependent on exports, requiring them to seek out economic colonies, as they're doing in Africa right now. Scenario 3 is what I had in mind but 1 and 2 are still very interesting. The China aspect is very interesting but a massive area of land disappearing would affect the climate, but would it affect the climate in China in such a way to where mass death occurs in China, depending on the way the currents go.
Well there would be world wide climatic impacts but weather by its nature is chaotic so it would be difficult to predict details. In the shorter medium term - i.e. a decade or two - with the probable warming of Canada and possibly Siberia, a lot of global warming is likely to be the dominant factor but this could be accompanied by dramatic regional changes in temperatures, rainfall and other factors. Mass deaths being threatened in many areas is very likely. China has the advantage, with a centralised and ruthless political system and a pretty advanced technological and industrial base that it could respond faster and more dramatically to such a crisis than most in looking for new lands in such circumstances although the most promising option, to the north and west, could be blocked by what's left of Russia's nuclear forces. However a slower colonization by stealth, which already seems to be occurring in parts of Siberia is likely to be speeded up.
|
|
ukron
Commander
"Beware of the French"
Posts: 1,433
Likes: 2,383
|
Post by ukron on Jun 13, 2021 14:39:53 GMT
In geopolitical terms: Europe would probably get along Russia pretty fast, in order to secure borders and energy supply.
|
|
|
|
Post by american2006 on Jun 13, 2021 14:48:17 GMT
Scenario 3 is what I had in mind but 1 and 2 are still very interesting. The China aspect is very interesting but a massive area of land disappearing would affect the climate, but would it affect the climate in China in such a way to where mass death occurs in China, depending on the way the currents go.
Well there would be world wide climatic impacts but weather by its nature is chaotic so it would be difficult to predict details. In the shorter medium term - i.e. a decade or two - with the probable warming of Canada and possibly Siberia, a lot of global warming is likely to be the dominant factor but this could be accompanied by dramatic regional changes in temperatures, rainfall and other factors. Mass deaths being threatened in many areas is very likely. China has the advantage, with a centralised and ruthless political system and a pretty advanced technological and industrial base that it could respond faster and more dramatically to such a crisis than most in looking for new lands in such circumstances although the most promising option, to the north and west, could be blocked by what's left of Russia's nuclear forces. However a slower colonization by stealth, which already seems to be occurring in parts of Siberia is likely to be speeded up.
That is fair enough, I don’t know about global warming in General rather then major climatic changes. I agree with Siberia and Canada, but I think Europe would probably cool a lot because of the mid Atlantic current being disrupted. Otherwise, I don’t see why China wouldn’t move in should the US be replaced with just blank land. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Jun 13, 2021 21:33:31 GMT
Well there would be world wide climatic impacts but weather by its nature is chaotic so it would be difficult to predict details. In the shorter medium term - i.e. a decade or two - with the probable warming of Canada and possibly Siberia, a lot of global warming is likely to be the dominant factor but this could be accompanied by dramatic regional changes in temperatures, rainfall and other factors. Mass deaths being threatened in many areas is very likely. China has the advantage, with a centralised and ruthless political system and a pretty advanced technological and industrial base that it could respond faster and more dramatically to such a crisis than most in looking for new lands in such circumstances although the most promising option, to the north and west, could be blocked by what's left of Russia's nuclear forces. However a slower colonization by stealth, which already seems to be occurring in parts of Siberia is likely to be speeded up.
That is fair enough, I don’t know about global warming in General rather then major climatic changes. I agree with Siberia and Canada, but I think Europe would probably cool a lot because of the mid Atlantic current being disrupted. Otherwise, I don’t see why China wouldn’t move in should the US be replaced with just blank land.
Very likely Europe would cool, probably drastically in the short term. Might end up even warmer or at least warm up to some degree after a decade or so.
If the US was replaced with empty land then there's going to be one hell of a land race and the areas with the power are Europe, Russia, China and India but the latter two, along with Latin America which has proximity have the demographics. The latter is also true of Africa and much of the Muslim world but they lack the combination of location and power to really influence things significantly.
|
|
belushitd
Warrant Officer
Posts: 205
Likes: 258
|
Post by belushitd on Jul 6, 2021 14:37:31 GMT
I thought I had read the entire thread, thanks to the internet here dropping me. I had put together a nice long post talking about the geological and oceanographic issues and discovered that they had been dealt with already!
My apologies.
Belushi TD
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Jul 6, 2021 14:59:33 GMT
I thought I had read the entire thread, thanks to the internet here dropping me. I had put together a nice long post talking about the geological and oceanographic issues and discovered that they had been dealt with already! My apologies. Belushi TD
No problem. It might be useful, if your still got it to post anyway as another viewpoint would be useful and you would probably have at least a point or two that everybody else has missed.
|
|
belushitd
Warrant Officer
Posts: 205
Likes: 258
|
Post by belushitd on Jul 6, 2021 18:17:45 GMT
No, my concerns were mostly about what the ocean would do once the continent had been removed to X number of feet below the surface. Tsunami, water heated by the rock surface exposed turning to steam/vapor, depending on the depth, that sort of thing.
I'm still not clear on how deep the removal of rock would go. A post by the OP states that it would be the depth a thousand meters from shore, which isn't particularly much in some places. Mainly just turn the US into a shallow sea. In high evaporation areas, like the desert southwest, it would not at all surprise me if there was suddenly limestone and various halides being deposited.
Isostasy would be an issue. The sudden removal of X feet of bedrock would cause the remaining material to rebound, much like Hudson Bay is rebounding following the removal of the Canadian ice sheet after the glacial period. Of course, rock is denser than ice, and (again, depending on depth) there's more thickness to remove. Particularly along the Rockies, the Cascades and up in Alaska. I don't know if the sudden boyancy would be enough to actually break the continental crust along the borders completely, but there would be earthquakes. Lots of them. Enough to make the planet ring like a bell. Removing Alaska would probably permit the entire Pacific plate to slide a good chunk of itself underneath the North American plate. Northern Nevada, Utah, western Colorado and southern Idaho would bulge up in short order, making it difficult to sail from Asia to Europe.
As stated by many others huge economic disruptions. One bright spot is that the great lakes would remain deep water ports for them, as their lowest depths are significantly deeper than sea level. The Canadians would have to rebuild them at sea level, but its certainly possible. Getting ships to them would be a different story.
Ocean currents wouldn't change all that much if we're only talking a shallow sea kind of change. The gulf stream is a fairly deep current (800 to 1250 meters according to wiki) so it would still be blocked by the North American plate, akin to how the grand banks push it to the east. I don't see much reason for most currents to change immediately. Canada would likely be warmer, because of shifting from a continental climate to a oceanic climate. Northern Mexico is unlikely to experience much change. The littoral parts perhaps, but not the rest of it. Northern Mexico is directly under the Hadley cell where evaporation is concentrated, so there will still be a lot of evap, and I don't see a whole lot of rain. I think it would end up similar to the north african littoral.
Oh, lots of warm shallow seas with rocks at the bottom. Shellfish would be ABUNDANT. Oysters, crabs, lobsters? All those delicious critters.
Just a few thoughts from a geologist.
Belushi TD
|
|
|
|
Post by american2006 on Jul 6, 2021 19:29:18 GMT
www.floodmap.net/?ll=45.050687,8.827472&z=4&e=-27 there's a map assuming laws of physics still somewhat hold. Sea levels fall just over 27 meters, which makes things interesting. The Baltic Sea becomes a giant lake, a Russia loses its only warmwater port as it is on a lake. A new island seems to of appeared off the coast of England. The Isle of Man is now one with the UK. Australia now shares a border with Papua New Guinea. The Bahamas have united. Farewell to the Suez and Panama canals, along with global trade. Istanbul has now dried up, leaving the city in the middle of rural Turkey now. China and Tiawan are closer together now, Indonesia has become an extension of Malaysia. The only thing somewhat good is the Netherlands continues its tradition and now has more territory.
|
|
belushitd
Warrant Officer
Posts: 205
Likes: 258
|
Post by belushitd on Jul 7, 2021 12:14:36 GMT
I thought an earlier post stated that the rock would be removed and replaced by water at sea level, magically? If such is the case, wouldn't that mean there wouldn't be any drop in sea level?
Or are we looking at a removal of rock to 1,000 meters below sea level? Like I said, I'm not really sure about the depth. Can you specify?
If it is being removed to 1,000 meters below sea level, the Yellowstone Caldera might just let go. THAT would be fun.
Thanks
Belushi TD
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Jul 7, 2021 15:11:16 GMT
No, my concerns were mostly about what the ocean would do once the continent had been removed to X number of feet below the surface. Tsunami, water heated by the rock surface exposed turning to steam/vapor, depending on the depth, that sort of thing. I'm still not clear on how deep the removal of rock would go. A post by the OP states that it would be the depth a thousand meters from shore, which isn't particularly much in some places. Mainly just turn the US into a shallow sea. In high evaporation areas, like the desert southwest, it would not at all surprise me if there was suddenly limestone and various halides being deposited. Isostasy would be an issue. The sudden removal of X feet of bedrock would cause the remaining material to rebound, much like Hudson Bay is rebounding following the removal of the Canadian ice sheet after the glacial period. Of course, rock is denser than ice, and (again, depending on depth) there's more thickness to remove. Particularly along the Rockies, the Cascades and up in Alaska. I don't know if the sudden boyancy would be enough to actually break the continental crust along the borders completely, but there would be earthquakes. Lots of them. Enough to make the planet ring like a bell. Removing Alaska would probably permit the entire Pacific plate to slide a good chunk of itself underneath the North American plate. Northern Nevada, Utah, western Colorado and southern Idaho would bulge up in short order, making it difficult to sail from Asia to Europe. As stated by many others huge economic disruptions. One bright spot is that the great lakes would remain deep water ports for them, as their lowest depths are significantly deeper than sea level. The Canadians would have to rebuild them at sea level, but its certainly possible. Getting ships to them would be a different story. Ocean currents wouldn't change all that much if we're only talking a shallow sea kind of change. The gulf stream is a fairly deep current (800 to 1250 meters according to wiki) so it would still be blocked by the North American plate, akin to how the grand banks push it to the east. I don't see much reason for most currents to change immediately. Canada would likely be warmer, because of shifting from a continental climate to a oceanic climate. Northern Mexico is unlikely to experience much change. The littoral parts perhaps, but not the rest of it. Northern Mexico is directly under the Hadley cell where evaporation is concentrated, so there will still be a lot of evap, and I don't see a whole lot of rain. I think it would end up similar to the north african littoral. Oh, lots of warm shallow seas with rocks at the bottom. Shellfish would be ABUNDANT. Oysters, crabs, lobsters? All those delicious critters. Just a few thoughts from a geologist. Belushi TD
My gods an actual expert rather than us amateurs blundering about the issue.  Very useful info thanks. A number of points I hadn't considered. As you say the region and quite possibly the planet as a whole, or at least the ring of fire is likely to see a lot of activity. If that causes a new Cascadia quake that could also be very nasty, both for western Canada and any regions the tsunamis that results hits. Could be a significant cause of millions of deaths in itself. 
Good to hear about the Gulf Stream surviving, especially since I'm British! While I'm, concerned about global warming I didn't particularly want even a new Little Ice Age. Going to be some more ecological impacts I presume because of assorted speices interacting that haven't done some before. As well as nonmigratory patterns being affected. For instances the butterflies that migrant in large numbers between N Mexico and northern US/southern Canada could well be screwed, which would in turn affect those creatures that live off them. Not sure what would happen to the whales and dolphins that live along the Pacific coast but seals and otters who rely on local islands could also be in serious trouble even of they survive the initial ISOT.
With the Isostasy issue would it happen that rapidly, at least in human terms? I mean the last Ice Age ended several millennia ago and affected lands are still rising but fairly slowly. True its rocks that have been replaced instead of ice but sounds like your suggestion some parts of the western US could be able sea level within a human lifespan? Although if as you say the level to which land is removed matches that about 1km from shore then its going to be pretty shallow in places. I had been thinking that the land was replaced by sea down to 1km below sea level which is a far more drastic change. [Ah the actually quote is.
Which would not only mean that in most cases the former coastal lands are replaced by quite shallow water and also if by gradually meet in the middle it could mean it gets shallower as it goes inland. Which would mean that by say the former Mississippi valley it could be pretty much paddling depth. Good point. In that case as you say sea traffic across the new ocean could be impossible and new lands, albeit initially small swampy islands could well emerge fairly quickly, and be a possible source of contention.
In terms of the Great Lakes presumably a fair amount of water could be lost because their American shore is now below sea level but deeper parts of the lakes, below the land of the new sea could well stay as a separate fresh water body. Which will still provide a water supply to the St Lawrence which Canada has a new southern border from part of the former Lake bed that is above the level of the new reduced lakes.
I will refrain from commenting on your later post, about if the rock was removed to 1km below sea level then the Yellowstone super-volcano could blow as I would rather not think about that! 
Again many thanks for the detailed information.
Steve
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Jul 7, 2021 15:37:53 GMT
www.floodmap.net/?ll=45.050687,8.827472&z=4&e=-27 there's a map assuming laws of physics still somewhat hold. Sea levels fall just over 27 meters, which makes things interesting. The Baltic Sea becomes a giant lake, a Russia loses its only warmwater port as it is on a lake. A new island seems to of appeared off the coast of England. The Isle of Man is now one with the UK. Australia now shares a border with Papua New Guinea. The Bahamas have united. Farewell to the Suez and Panama canals, along with global trade. Istanbul has now dried up, leaving the city in the middle of rural Turkey now. China and Tiawan are closer together now, Indonesia has become an extension of Malaysia. The only thing somewhat good is the Netherlands continues its tradition and now has more territory.
Well if that happened, land removed down to 1km and no replacement of it by water then the ecological, economic and political impacts are going to be dramatic.
For instance taking a close look at around the UK we have a fair bit more land and don't have to worry about coastal erosion in many areas but a lot of ports would be screwed until new channels were dredged, which could be a huge task. Also Jersey is now linked by land to France, which removes the tension over French boats in British waters there as the waters aren't there any longer but likely to have tension over new land and sea borders. Similarly the Channel near Dover is a lot narrower and there are three new islands that are likely to also cause tension, along with a couple further north near the upper end of the of the strait as well as a fairly large Dogger island. Going to be a lot of land disputes further east as well especially probably between Denmark and Sweden who now have a land border.
Interesting that there seems to be no real change to the borders of the Med, other than for Tunisia and as you say the closing of the Bosporus. Since a lot of water flows from the Black Sea to the Med this prompts two questions. If it doesn't force a new channel to the Med where does this water go? Could end up with sea level rises around the Black Sea and also the Med becoming saltier as you get less fairly fresh water from the Black Sea and more water from the Atlantic flowing in as a result.
In the east I see what you mean about Taiwan as there's now a blob of China reaching about half way to Taiwan, a Taiwanese expansion going the other way a bit further north and a couple of new islands that China is likely to claim. Coupled with the complete removal of US power if its ships at sea and overseas forces go I fear Taiwan can't survive as an independent state. The only issue is that this new land along most of the Chinese coasts does mean most/all of their current ports are now landlocked, as elsewhere in the world other than possibly along major rivers as I assume they will make new channels.
For our Filipino members it has a lot fewer islands as a number have linked up and part of it now connects with Borneo. Further south Java and Sumatra link up with each other and with Malaysia so the latter is likely to be absorbed into a greater Indonesia, while Singapore is now totally land-locked. This means that unless and until a new channel is made traffic that used to go through the straits there have to go as far east as just east of Bali, which is now also part of Java. Further south still as you say Australia has a new border with both Papua New Guinea and Indonesia's New Guinea lands which is going to cause tension. Also Tasmania is no longer a separate island.
All in all this would produce a massively different planet.
|
|
Very useful info thanks. A number of points I hadn't considered. As you say the region and quite possibly the planet as a whole, or at least the ring of fire is likely to see a lot of activity. If that causes a new Cascadia quake that could also be very nasty, both for western Canada and any regions the tsunamis that results hits. Could be a significant cause of millions of deaths in itself. 
