Planetocopia Map Thread

[PecuTheGreat]

For the people on Jaredia, I am not to sure that the Hudson would be dry if we go by 26 metres drop that the World Map was using(Tho, it'll be half dry at my 82-6 metres drop).

Earth, 3.7 million years ago before the last proper Ice age(which started 2.5 mil)

Earth 6.3 million years ago, less Ice than today but similar Ice to today.

Similar to today again but less Ice and similar to the water level for my Jaredia.

Last time no Ice at all in the North.

All from. https://www.academia.edu/11082185/Atlas_of_Neogene_Paleogeographic_Maps 2014

I don't know if this is like old source as its fro m 2014 so I checked his videos but the last frame of that before modern day is Miocene in 10 million years ago.

From.

Which just looks like the Glacial Maximum map, which is actually somewhat similar to the map that you gave me.

Which looks somewhat similar to the first 3 million years ago map I was supplied with. At least in the North.

 

[PecuTheGreat]

I don't know if this is like old source as its fro m 2014 so I checked his videos but the last frame of that before modern day is Miocene in 10 million years ago.

From.

Which just looks like the Glacial Maximum map, which is actually somewhat similar to the map that you gave me.

Which looks somewhat similar to the first 3 million years ago map I was supplied with. At least in the North.

To continue the confusion.

4 and 2 million years ago from a 2016 group connected to a petroleum studies and we have the Hudson closed at both. Did it like flood for a short time in 3.7 and 6.3?.

And its not Just North America but Europe as well with the Berent's Sea above water here. I feel like these are 2 simulations for how much sinking the Ice caused.


So which do you think looks better? Scorsese's or the Petroleum approximation for the Arctic?. I'll follow the Petroluem for my lower Jaredia Map but for the one closer to the original map I am confused which one to use and if I should use the Petroluem map for Canada but Scotese's for Europe?.

From.

Global Paleogeography and Tectonics in Deep Time - Deep Time Maps™

Global Paleogeography and Tectonics in Deep Time Global Paleogeography and Tectonics in Deep TimeGlobal Paleogeography and Tectonics in Deep Time Series The Global Paleogeography and Tectonics in Deep Time series was completed in early 2016. The maps were completely redone using latest data and...

deeptimemaps.com

One possible way to recover the two is that Scotese is depending to much on modern Bathymetry for the later Neogene maps.

 

[PecuTheGreat]

@Mt.82-9 what do you think? Which map displays the pre-glaciation period better, Scotese's or the Petroleum studies one?.

 

[Forbiddenparadise64]

I pretty much agree with the points mentioned, I will say that I think you should not discount the rivers from the leeward side of the Andes as possible centers of civilization. OTL Peru has numerous rivers cutting through the desert, and these valleys are where some of the very first civilizations in the entire Americas formed. I see an analogue to this in the Salado, Bermejo, and Pilcomayo rivers, except massively increased in scale with the inland delta of Rio De La Plata being rather Mesopotamian. Even the Amazon, while diminished from OTL with far fewer rivers in the basin, may host some complex societies at its delta. The Orinoco delta too is as dry as the OTL Indus, and I would not forget that the northern coast of South America is much more arid than you would expect at that latitude due to the very cold Carolina current stretching down the coast, an analogue to the Humboldt in OTL south America. Venezuela may have a climate similar to the coast of OTL Peru or Ecuador.

In North America, the Great Basin is another candidate for possible complexity. Its almost like Southern China but even more mountainous, the Colorado is the Changjiang, and the Central Valley might be like the Zhongyuan. (Central Plain) Not sure how much stronger the North American Monsoon is though, how much will decide where the forested hills and mountains of Nevada thin out into steppe. Western Oregon is definitely like a milder Mongolia, no matter how much stronger the North American Monsoon is, it won't match the OTL Asian Monsoon in breadth.

Yeah as you said, eastern Venezuela has similar humidity to our Indus, but in a tropical climate zone, so could certainly allow a distinct culture to develop there that may trade with Caribbean peoples as well as a smaller Amazon to the south. Given it’s climate and natural resources, this national region may be highly sought after by foreign powers like west Africans, but would certainly run into economic issues in time. The Amazon did have some complex societies in our timeline, but with a more open Congo like climate in this to develop there too. As mentioned, Plata in northern Argentina might be the most intriguing to me in terms of how it operates, being far from other urban societies and perhaps competing with the Peruvians over a milder Patagonia [a little warmer and much wetter akin to otl southern Chile but larger and with more longitude]. Peru now having a tropical forest coast instead of desert will be truly prosperous though, so the different corners of South America may set up a rivalry of sorts this way as they compete for resources and trade routes

With California and the Great Basin wetter and milder than otl, that regions lakes likely didn’t dry up here too, enabling the eastern regions of such a state to sustain substantially higher populations. Oregon and northern Mexico would almost certainly end up tributaries if not subjects of such a regime. Should a power from across the pacific like the *Japanese or *Russian Far East, they would certainly be in a good position to resist.

The last continent (beside Antarctica obviously) is Australia, which overall is significantly more fertile than otl, but not exactly “China in island form” as Wayan predicted. The fertility is focussed in the west rather than the east as well, and this along with lower sea levels (due to a larger arctic ice cap) connects it to New Guinea, and in all likelihood allows native Australians to become involved in the Indian Ocean trade system. Having asked an Australian biologist about the fertility of TTL’s land down under, he said it roughly compares to otl Australia during the late Miocene, and thus could sustain a much higher biomass of plants, animals, and of course humans than either Pleistocene or Holocene Sahul did. Using Wayan’s methods already discussed, Australia here could likely form some states of its own in the west and even the outback’s grasslands.

 

[PecuTheGreat]

I don't know if this is like old source as its fro m 2014 so I checked his videos but the last frame of that before modern day is Miocene in 10 million years ago.

From.

Which just looks like the Glacial Maximum map, which is actually somewhat similar to the map that you gave me.

Which looks somewhat similar to the first 3 million years ago map I was supplied with. At least in the North.

How do you think Australia would look if we replace its salt Pans with Lakes that empty into the Ocean?.

And would Australia's Lakes in the Temperates empty into the Ocean or evapourate?.

 

[Mt.82-9]

@Mt.82-9 what do you think? Which map displays the pre-glaciation period better, Scotese's or the Petroleum studies one?.

I'm inclined towards the Petroleum study ones from Deep Time Maps, but I would have to read more into their methodologies to be sure. You're probably right that Scotese is relying more on modern bathymetry or just has lower resolution data-sets. In terms of aesthetics I definately prefer the stuff from Deep Time Maps, this Neogene one does a good job showing off the massive river basin that probably existed in the area. (As well as the mountains in Nunavut and Quebec)

 

[Forbiddenparadise64]

I'm inclined towards the Petroleum study ones from Deep Time Maps, but I would have to read more into their methodologies to be sure. You're probably right that Scotese is relying more on modern bathymetry or just has lower resolution data-sets. In terms of aesthetics I definately prefer the stuff from Deep Time Maps, this Neogene one does a good job showing off the massive river basin that probably existed in the area. (As well as the mountains in Nunavut and Quebec)

View attachment 789355

Of course the world was also a little warmer and wetter overall back then, even more so in previous eras, so the climate may have been fairly interesting there.


Has anyone done semi-speculative Koppen climate maps for prehistoric eras with different global climates, colder or warmer? I’d be interested in what effects it would have had.

 

[Mt.82-9]

Has anyone done semi-speculative Koppen climate maps for prehistoric eras with different global climates, colder or warmer? I’d be interested in what effects it would have had.

Not climate per se, but a lot of studies I've read predict general biomes that far back as that's what most proxies tend to tell you, what was growing or living in a particular area. You can probably infer the first, and maybe the second letter of Koppen's system by those, but overall the proxies and simulations based on them tend to be too low resolution to determine things like summer temperature highs and rainfall peaks. Mapping by hand would be very difficult I imagine, as a lot of the assumptions someone used to mapping earth-like climates would know start to break down once you go that far back.

That being said, I've attached a map of Carboniferous proxy-data that's reasonably digestible, a paper on a simulation of the Miocene Australian Monsoon, (I would take any model with a grain of salt though, there's especially had some discontinuities with the proxy-data. Might still be explained by proxies being from fluvial zones, but could also be a dry-bias in the model) and finally this there's this map from 2014 mapping the general biomes of the early Eocene:

For LGM stuff there's lots, the LGM wikipedia page has a pretty good one, there's just a bias towards temperate regions in terms of resolution because of less proxy-data. India especially looks kind of odd because it doesn't take topography into account. Fewer of proxies from the contemporary coastlines (Because they are mostly underwater now) also may mean a lot of LGM maps are missing coastal strips of forest that probably existed close to sea-level.

Another one with a different color scheme

You just have to keep in mind different sources may use different definitions for their zones, especially if its predicted based on modeled temperature data, which may cause some misunderstanding if you don't read how exactly how the zone is defined. A great example of this is in the Environmental Change Model of the Climate Reanalyzer developed by the University of Maine. Because it uses average summer temperatures to determine its zones, Southern China doesn't change, and ends up having "Tropical Rainforest" at higher elevations than "Warm Broadleaf Forest", even though its wet for different reasons during the LGM. Much more because of Orthographic lift than there being any sort of stability in the East Asian Monsoon at the time, plus the temperature threshhold for warm broadleaf forest (23) is actually higher than Tropical Rainforest (21) oddly enough, so Broadleaf Forest constitutes basically anywhere that never gets a hard-frost, temperate or tropical. (C or A in Koppen) The Reanalyzer model also just overall seems to have a wet-bias if you look around its vegetation predictions for present day, so probably unsurprising that it does this.

There are also these, I forget where I found them, but they definately have some major problems with how zones are being classified, looks to me like someone without a complete understanding of what the climate types actually mean, or a custom GIS gone wrong. I actually made some edits to both, but the LGM one is far from done.

 

[PecuTheGreat]

Not climate per se, but a lot of studies I've read predict general biomes that far back as that's what most proxies tend to tell you, what was growing or living in a particular area. You can probably infer the first, and maybe the second letter of Koppen's system by those, but overall the proxies and simulations based on them tend to be too low resolution to determine things like summer temperature highs and rainfall peaks. Mapping by hand would be very difficult I imagine, as a lot of the assumptions someone used to mapping earth-like climates would know start to break down once you go that far back.

That being said, I've attached a map of Carboniferous proxy-data that's reasonably digestible, a paper on a simulation of the Miocene Australian Monsoon, (I would take any model with a grain of salt though, there's especially had some discontinuities with the proxy-data. Might still be explained by proxies being from fluvial zones, but could also be a dry-bias in the model) and finally this there's this map from 2014 mapping the general biomes of the early Eocene:
View attachment 793731

For LGM stuff there's lots, the LGM wikipedia page has a pretty good one, there's just a bias towards temperate regions in terms of resolution because of less proxy-data. India especially looks kind of odd because it doesn't take topography into account. Fewer of proxies from the contemporary coastlines (Because they are mostly underwater now) also may mean a lot of LGM maps are missing coastal strips of forest that probably existed close to sea-level.
View attachment 793733
Another one with a different color scheme
View attachment 793737
You just have to keep in mind different sources may use different definitions for their zones, especially if its predicted based on modeled temperature data, which may cause some misunderstanding if you don't read how exactly how the zone is defined. A great example of this is in the Environmental Change Model of the Climate Reanalyzer developed by the University of Maine. Because it uses average summer temperatures to determine its zones, Southern China doesn't change, and ends up having "Tropical Rainforest" at higher elevations than "Warm Broadleaf Forest", even though its wet for different reasons during the LGM. Much more because of Orthographic lift than there being any sort of stability in the East Asian Monsoon at the time, plus the temperature threshhold for warm broadleaf forest (23) is actually higher than Tropical Rainforest (21) oddly enough, so Broadleaf Forest constitutes basically anywhere that never gets a hard-frost, temperate or tropical. (C or A in Koppen) The Reanalyzer model also just overall seems to have a wet-bias if you look around its vegetation predictions for present day, so probably unsurprising that it does this.

There are also these, I forget where I found them, but they definately have some major problems with how zones are being classified, looks to me like someone without a complete understanding of what the climate types actually mean, or a custom GIS gone wrong. I actually made some edits to both, but the LGM one is far from done.
View attachment 793743
View attachment 793742

I usually see Sundaland presented the opposite with the exposed continental shelf between Malaya and Borneo presented as grassland and everything else as Jungle. Similarly with Africa being more giant Savannah during the period of larger Sahara, instead of turning continental.

 

[Mt.82-9]

I usually see Sundaland presented the opposite with the exposed continental shelf between Malaya and Borneo presented as grassland and everything else as Jungle. Similarly with Africa being more giant Savannah during the period of larger Sahara, instead of turning continental.

Quite right, those areas in Sundaland should definately not be Af. Like I said, I did not make those koppen maps, and plan to make more edits to them in the future. The LGM one especially has A LOT of problems so feel free to make your own edits if you want as well.

I forgot to mention this Youtube channel too:
https://youtube.com/@Kaldisti
They make historical climate timelapses roughly according to the koppen system using simulation data. Doesn't always align with proxies, and there are glitches here and there, but overall they're mostly accurate and pretty cool-looking at least.

 

[Forbiddenparadise64]

Regarding Retrograde rotation, what works here as analogies for the African continent? In contrast to the Americas discussed before, it’s more than doubled in green land, due to being cooler and much wetter in many places. Even Somalia is dense rainforest here, while the central Sahara has a tree cover >20%, comparable to otl Kenya, though definitely cooler especially in winter and subtropical rather than fully. Obviously the Saharan Great Lakes never would have dried up here, and even the Great Lakes we know are more humid than otl. Only Mozambique, Madagascar and eastern Cape are significantly less so. My thoughts are the main areas for large elaborate societies would be the Maghreb, Egypt and the western and eastern Sahel (or Mali and Chad respectively), with the Congo and Namibia being possible options too.

As well as human terms, how might Africa be affected ecologically ittl, depending on the PoD? I put mine at 1.5mya personally, but even a more recent one could have a big impact.

 

[Mt.82-9]

Regarding Retrograde rotation, what works here as analogies for the African continent? In contrast to the Americas discussed before, it’s more than doubled in green land, due to being cooler and much wetter in many places. Even Somalia is dense rainforest here, while the central Sahara has a tree cover >20%, comparable to otl Kenya, though definitely cooler especially in winter and subtropical rather than fully. Obviously the Saharan Great Lakes never would have dried up here, and even the Great Lakes we know are more humid than otl. Only Mozambique, Madagascar and eastern Cape are significantly less so. My thoughts are the main areas for large elaborate societies would be the Maghreb, Egypt and the western and eastern Sahel (or Mali and Chad respectively), with the Congo and Namibia being possible options too.

As well as human terms, how might Africa be affected ecologically ittl, depending on the PoD? I put mine at 1.5mya personally, but even a more recent one could have a big impact.

The Sahara seems most like North America to me, but with a stronger summer monsoon. Unsure of how far the jet could dip down in winter, but its likely to bring winter rainfall to the Sahara, probably even snow to the north. Further south the highlands of the East African Rift looks like a giant, slightly wetter version of Mesoamerica, and everything south of the Congo looks like Brazil. Natal and Mozambique would be largely desert, not Atacaman though, more like OTL Sonora or Baja.There might be a small mediterranean strip in the Drakensbergs, but Xhosaland looks wetter than the OTL Western Cape, so there may not even be any summer-dry areas in South Africa anymore.

Closest analogue to Somalia and Ethiopia is probably Colombia, west-facing coast with Tropical Rainforests in the lowlands rising to subtropical highlands further inland.

 

[Libandlearn]

Greater Sundaland is probably the best comparison. Stretching from the Burmese mountains down to java, which makes sense as they both occupy each others mirrored position in the Afro-Eurasian Megacontinent.

 

[Forbiddenparadise64]

The Sahara seems most like North America to me, but with a stronger summer monsoon.

Yeah and warmer I think if the climate maps indicate, though with much milder summers than otl generally. The Maghreb I think compared to our southeastern USA or southern China roughly, though the eastern and central Sahara along with Arabia is more monsoonal. The Sahel is even warmer and consistently humid, so seems to have a more savannah like climate akin to otl Indochina and Indonesia but with even more longitude to work with. The new Great Lakes and surrounding river deltas would undoubtedly help for elaborate urban development.

Further south the highlands of the East African Rift looks like a giant, slightly wetter version of Mesoamerica, and everything south of the Congo looks like Brazil.

Hmm seems very interesting how things might work here, perhaps room for some elaborate societies, connected with the green Sahara to the north as well as Sahel and further south.

Natal and Mozambique would be largely desert, not Atacaman though, more like OTL Sonora or Baja.There might be a small mediterranean strip in the Drakensbergs, but Xhosaland looks wetter than the OTL Western Cape, so there may not even be any summer-dry areas in South Africa anymore.

Agreed. Subtropical or even temperate Namibia and Xhosaland is interesting, and Angola is like an extension of the Congo dense jungle here. Some of the greenest land in Southern Africa is ironic now.

Closest analogue to Somalia and Ethiopia is probably Colombia, west-facing coast with Tropical Rainforests in the lowlands rising to subtropical highlands further inland.

Yeah the dense jungles and it’s flora and fauna would be economically valuable to the very subtropical regions of Arabia, the Middle East and India who I think would compete for influence or settlement there. Ttl as shown, North Africa and Southern Asia would have the climate of China and India and longitude of Europe combined, a formidable combination. Definite biodiversity hotspot and could easily be isolated from west Africa. The dense forests may push African elephants and buffalo more to the west into the now green Sahara, allowing east crossover with west Asia in flora and fauna.

Greater Sundaland is probably the best comparison. Stretching from the Burmese mountains down to java, which makes sense as they both occupy each others mirrored position in the Afro-Eurasian Megacontinent.

Yeah for Sahel ittl, Mali and Chad would likely be highly influential ecologically and in human terms. Sahara wouldn’t be a single giant nation like otl China, but the Four Corners of you will could each form formidable economic blocks.

 

[Forbiddenparadise64]

In hindsight, my decision to have a mongol analogue emerge out of Kazakhstan was pretty lazy when the ultra-harsh Mongolia-Manchuria style weather can also be achieved out of southern Russia ittl as well, perhaps even Ukraine or Hungary. Someone else who thought of the idea suggested that the main steppe nomad area would be Ukraine-southern Russia-Kazakhstan instead of Kazakhstan-Mongolia-Manchuria, which sounds more fun from a worldbuilding pov.

 

[Mt.82-9]

Just some notes here.

A ) I think this part of the world will be very, very pleasant in climate, with Arabia resembling the Ukraine or American Midwest. I think the people will be connected to nomads moving in the much drier regions to the north, and to maritime peoples to the south.

B ) This is getting lakes once GProjector is up and running, or if I figure out a better way to transfer altitude data than by hand. It is my prediction that the water flows out, ultimately, through the Persian Gulf. Could also end up in the Mediterranean and go out the Red Sea.

C ) Will this be very extreme desert? I'm starting to think so.

D ) Seems too warm inland, but I think the coasts will be fine for humans.

E ) Not sure if the water mixes here.

F ) Is Iceland green? Suggestions on a postcard.

Working on a koppen climate map for this, thoughts? I made it in gimp using a partially transparent overlay of an altitude map generated with the Map Designer Raster posted by finnosam. I think I may be over-estimating the impact of mountains and rain shadows, but I tried to make it as accurate as possible. Even took my best guess at alternate elevations from glacial depression/rebound.

Not sure how much the ice-cap is really going to extend. Scandinavia reminds me of Greenland, and so I will probably free up the Baltic and keep a diminished cap seperate from the main cap over Europe. For Central Asia I am still unsure how much rain the enlarged Caspian will produce, so it may be dryer than I have it here. For North America I agree that it will be pretty dry, but how far the monsoon will actually stretch through Texas is up in the air. Same goes for Africa, I may have kneecapped the monsoon there.

I couldn't post the actual file because its a 4320 x 2160 PNG, so these are snips. If anyone wants me to send a zip of the project folder for their own version, just let me know.

ITCZ map, my understanding is that it is pulled poleward by mid-latitude land in the respective hemisphere's summer, and stays close to the equator otherwise. It also seems to snap abruptly instead of gradually based on the maps I have seen of the OTL ITCZ.

 

[PecuTheGreat]

Working on a koppen climate map for this, thoughts? I made it in gimp using a partially transparent overlay of an altitude map generated with the Map Designer Raster posted by finnosam. I think I may be over-estimating the impact of mountains and rain shadows, but I tried to make it as accurate as possible. Even took my best guess at alternate elevations from glacial depression/rebound.

Not sure how much the ice-cap is really going to extend. Scandinavia reminds me of Greenland, and so I will probably free up the Baltic and keep a diminished cap seperate from the main cap over Europe. For Central Asia I am still unsure how much rain the enlarged Caspian will produce, so it may be dryer than I have it here. For North America I agree that it will be pretty dry, but how far the monsoon will actually stretch through Texas is up in the air. Same goes for Africa, I may have kneecapped the monsoon there.

I couldn't post the actual file because its a 4320 x 2160 PNG, so these are snips. If anyone wants me to send a zip of the project folder for their own version, just let me know.
View attachment 811431

ITCZ map, my understanding is that it is pulled poleward by mid-latitude land in the respective hemisphere's summer, and stays close to the equator otherwise. It also seems to snap abruptly instead of gradually based on the maps I have seen of the OTL ITCZ.
View attachment 811442

I feel like the Tarim Basin has to be a Lake in this timeline.

 

[Forbiddenparadise64]

Working on a koppen climate map for this, thoughts? I made it in gimp using a partially transparent overlay of an altitude map generated with the Map Designer Raster posted by finnosam. I think I may be over-estimating the impact of mountains and rain shadows, but I tried to make it as accurate as possible. Even took my best guess at alternate elevations from glacial depression/rebound.

Not sure how much the ice-cap is really going to extend. Scandinavia reminds me of Greenland, and so I will probably free up the Baltic and keep a diminished cap seperate from the main cap over Europe. For Central Asia I am still unsure how much rain the enlarged Caspian will produce, so it may be dryer than I have it here. For North America I agree that it will be pretty dry, but how far the monsoon will actually stretch through Texas is up in the air. Same goes for Africa, I may have kneecapped the monsoon there.

I couldn't post the actual file because its a 4320 x 2160 PNG, so these are snips. If anyone wants me to send a zip of the project folder for their own version, just let me know.
View attachment 811431

ITCZ map, my understanding is that it is pulled poleward by mid-latitude land in the respective hemisphere's summer, and stays close to the equator otherwise. It also seems to snap abruptly instead of gradually based on the maps I have seen of the OTL ITCZ.
View attachment 811442

Wow, I really enjoy how alien and yet how familiar it looks! Including in the climatic sense. I wonder where the best places for elaborate societies would be?

My bets are that west Africa for more temperate type zones, along with practically the whole of east Asia and the “west coast”, quite like with Jaredia but not as extreme. The Yellow and Yangtze rivers may still be major hubs of civilisation, but they’d be many, with the rivers of the Russian far east as well as Southeast Asia offering regional competition.

 

[Petros >Peter Fergus<]

Working on a koppen climate map for this, thoughts? I made it in gimp using a partially transparent overlay of an altitude map generated with the Map Designer Raster posted by finnosam. I think I may be over-estimating the impact of mountains and rain shadows, but I tried to make it as accurate as possible. Even took my best guess at alternate elevations from glacial depression/rebound.

Not sure how much the ice-cap is really going to extend. Scandinavia reminds me of Greenland, and so I will probably free up the Baltic and keep a diminished cap seperate from the main cap over Europe. For Central Asia I am still unsure how much rain the enlarged Caspian will produce, so it may be dryer than I have it here. For North America I agree that it will be pretty dry, but how far the monsoon will actually stretch through Texas is up in the air. Same goes for Africa, I may have kneecapped the monsoon there.

I couldn't post the actual file because its a 4320 x 2160 PNG, so these are snips. If anyone wants me to send a zip of the project folder for their own version, just let me know.
View attachment 811431

ITCZ map, my understanding is that it is pulled poleward by mid-latitude land in the respective hemisphere's summer, and stays close to the equator otherwise. It also seems to snap abruptly instead of gradually based on the maps I have seen of the OTL ITCZ.
View attachment 811442

Wow! This is really amazing, I hope you work on it some more! I took a peek at your other stuff in this thread as well, it's all top tier.

I'm not making involved posts or working on projects like this these days, but I'm hoping to get going again later this year.

That said (let me put in a few minutes on the subject at hand) - The water system in the north here will be fairly complicated. A lot of seasonal ice-dams, seasonal flooding over permafrost (washing away soil), and with a few separated Antarctic or Greenland style ice-caps wherever the elevation is high enough. A Scandinavian ice-cap being split off from the Alpine ice-cap is very possible. Maybe the Baltic is frozen over permanently in the north, but it goes seasonally in south? There could be some massive Lake Vostok style bodies of water under permanent ice, which we don't see in our Arctic (floating ice-cap not leaving anywhere under a land-locked ice-shelf for centuries at a time) or Antarctic (entirely land-locked, Lake Vostok being relatively small and unique). I'm thinking the Adriatic is a good bet for that, though it would have a watery entrance to the rest of the Mediterranean (so not precisely like Vostok).

And in North America the monsoon season will be drawing in waterlogged air from all sides (over the Rockies?) so that continents weather could be more extreme than in our world.

Really great job here, already much improved from my earlier take.

OK, later, keep on mapping everyone.

- Peter

 

[RaptorWolf]

ANTARCTICA
Of all of Great Lakes Earth’s continents, Antarctica has the fewest number of differences from back home. It’s still cold, and it’s still icy. But there are still differences.


For one thing, it’s got company. Extending 1500 miles northwest to southeast is an island three times the size of California. The microcontinent of Kerguelen used to exist back home, but it has been hidden beneath the waves for 20 million years. But that’s not what happened on Great Lakes Earth. Here, repeated waves of magma intrusion have thickened its granitic core, keeping the microcontinent perfectly and stably afloat. The uplift is so successful that its highest point, Mount Ross, stands not 6,070 feet above sea level like back home, but 19,916.


The mountains within Antarctica are much taller than they are back home. Mount Kirkpatrick, the highest point in the mighty Transantarctic Range, stands 19,393 feet above sea level, not 14,856. Its highest point, the Vinson Massif of the Ellsworth Mountains, is even taller, at 20,942 feet above sea level.


ASIA
Asia is surprisingly similar geographically on Great Lakes Earth to back home. Despite this, the Chukotka and Koryak mountains of Russia stand 19,840.6 and 27,580 feet above sea level at the tallest, respectively. Being so close to the Pacific, they are a part of one of the crowning achievements of the Golden Age of Granite, the “Monstrosities of the Ring of Fire”, as they are informally called. This same process is why modern-day Great Lakes Earth still has Beringia, a thousand-mile-wide body connecting Asia to North America. We’ll talk more about Beringia once we get to North America.


The monstrosities of the Chukotkas and the Koryaks are just small demonstrations of the contrast between the Pacific differences and the mainland differences. The mountains of the Pacific, both here and on Great Lakes Earth, are not affected in any way by the Himalayas. Instead, the broken pieces of earth that make up the world’s largest ocean do the hard work in that particular region. Mount Fuji is still Japan’s highest peak, but it’s a lot higher—29,083 feet above sea level, as opposed to the 12,395.8 feet back home. Incidentally, this higher elevation has transformed the Japanese chain from an archipelago to a coastal barrier standing between the Pacific Ocean and the 1,752-foot-deep Lake Yamato. Kamchatka is not a peninsula like back home, but an extension of Beringia, with its highest peak, Klyuchevskaya Sopka, standing 20,334 feet above sea level. The millions of years of granitic uplift have ensured that, regardless of sea level, the Sunda Peninsula, or “Sundaland”, will always stay above the surface. Further demonstration is proven by the heights of the three “islands’” highest points—Kinabalu in Borneo, 17,530 feet above sea level; Kerinci in Sumatra, 16,289 feet above sea level; and Semeru in Java, 15,745 feet above sea level.


On Great Lakes Earth, Africa has played a huge part in what we humans would call the southwestern portions of Asia. Back home, the Red Sea was born sometime in the Eocene but really got into work in the subsequent Oligocene. But on Great Lakes Earth, that never happened, and Arabia had always been an extension of northeastern Africa. With no Red Sea, there is a debate as to whether or not certain nations like Israel would be considered African or Asian. And as a result of the magmatic uplifts, the Persian Gulf does not exist, just more land that will be mentioned in further detail when we get to Europe and Africa. By contrast, what’s not controversial is that the mountains are much higher than they are back home. The Pontides stand no taller than 16,854 feet above sea level, the Taurus Mountains 16,079 feet, the Caucasus 24,152 feet, the Zagros Mountains 18,874 feet, the Albroz Mountains 24,020 feet and Kopet Dagh 13,660 feet above sea level. To the southwest, the geological story is the same. In what we’d call Saudi Arabia, the mountains stand tall at 12,907 feet above sea level. Yemen, 15,698 feet. Jordan is still primarily plateau, like back home, only much taller, standing between 7,557 and 12,675 feet above sea level. The sacred mountain of Meron in Israel could be considered many miles more so on Great Lakes Earth, at 13,001 feet above sea level. Lebanon may be small, but its highest point is really high, at 13,219 feet above sea level. In what we would call Palestine, the mountains don’t get any taller than 11,092 feet above sea level. The totally-landlocked Qatar is now a mountain standing 1,109 feet above sea level. These geographical differences are the result of magmatic uplifts combined with Africa continuously pushing northwards and squishing into Europe.


In the absence of the Persian Gulf is an elongated lake, 300 square miles in area, 98 feet below sea level at the deepest and elongated to a northwest-southeast direction. Despite its resemblance to Mundafan, a paleolake from Saudi Arabia, this one has enough differences to warrant its own name. In its case, Bahr-Alqasab, from the Arabic for “Sea of Reeds”.


SOUTH AMERICA
As with Antarctica, the geographical differences between our South America and the South America of Great Lakes Earth are minimal. The Andes are still present and Aconcagua is still the highest peak, but it stands even higher than back home, at 29,799 feet above sea level. By comparison, Mount Everest back home stands 29,031.7 feet above sea level. Which makes the Andes of Great Lakes Earth the planet’s highest mountains, with or without the Himalayas. The highest point in the neighboring Guiana Shield is still Pico da Neblina, but instead of 9,826 feet above sea level, it stands 27,795 feet. Pico da Bandeira is still the highest point in the plateau dominating southeastern Brazil, but it too stands taller at 28,411.5 feet above sea level.


During the Golden Age of Granite, magma had transformed the Rio Grande Rise and raised it to the surface as an archipelago covering an area exceeding 50,000 square miles in area. Its highest point isn’t much, no taller than 66 feet above sea level.


OCEANIA
Australia, New Guinea, Tasmania and the Aru Islands are one and the same landmass, Sahul, covering a total of four million square miles. On Great Lakes Earth, the distance between it and Antarctica is 700 miles. This is because of the historical difference between our Earth and Great Lakes Earth. Back home, Tasmania, Australia and New Guinea broke off from Antarctica between 40 and 30 million years ago. On Great Lakes Earth, that happened no sooner than 20 million years ago.


Sahul’s highest point, Mount Kosciuszko, measures 23,984 feet above sea level.


The other major ranges of Australia, Hamersley and Macdonnell, are also far taller than back home—respectively, they reach elevations of 13,445.6 and 16,480 feet above sea level. Mount Ossa, the highest point in what we’d call Tasmania, rises up to 17,404 feet above sea level.


Where we’d expect to find the Gulf of Carpentaria, we find instead Lake Carpentaria, 82 feet below sea level at the deepest.


New Guinea, other than being connected to mainland Australia as a part of Sahul, isn’t that much different from back home. That said, its mountains, like so many others, are so much higher. Its highest point, Puncak Jaya, stands 20,908 feet above sea level.


750 miles southwest of Sahul is Broken Island, a 250-mile-wide piece of Kerguelen that is currently 900 miles northeast of its original parent. It’s a very mountainous island, with a maximum height of 10,000 feet above sea level. It rose from the surface thanks to magma during the Golden Age of Granite.


On the opposite direction is perhaps the most familiar contribution to the Golden Age of Granite. Back home, Zealandia was a very real continent. But between 50 and 35 million years ago, it sank to the bottom of the South Pacific, leaving only six percent of it above the surface. This six percent—a total of 113,514 square miles—consists of the islands of New Zealand and New Caledonia. But that’s not what happened here on Great Lakes Earth. From 50 to 35 million years ago, multiple episodes of magmatic intrusions had thickened the granite, floating it back up to the surface. The uplifts were so successful that Mount Cook, its highest peak, stands not 12,218 feet above sea level, as is the case back home, but 25,232 feet.


There is another large island in Oceania on Great Lakes Earth. Once a basaltic province that sank during the Cretaceous Period, granitic magma lifted the Manihiki Plateau up to the surface. Measuring in at 300,000 square miles in area, it stands no taller than 980 feet above sea level.


There is another basaltic plateau uplifted by granitic magma, Ontong Java. It measures in at 580,000 square miles in area and doesn’t get any higher than 5,600 feet above sea level. With Australia and New Guinea being placed more southerly, it doesn’t stand so close to a subduction zone as it does back home, which means that the Solomon Islands either never existed on Great Lakes Earth or are submerged beneath the waves. The uplfitings of both Ontong Java and Manihiki are the only explanations we can think of as to why Galapagos never existed and why the Hawaiian hotspot expired a long time ago.


EUROPE
The Golden Age of Granite had done a real number on Europe, and then some. The magmatic uplifts had also conspired with Africa’s northward trek to make all of the mountains so much higher than they are back home. The Alps, now the western coastline of Lake Colchis, stand no higher than 20,585.43 feet above sea level. The Carpathians, now a peninsula within the inner circle of Lake Colchis, have a maximum elevation of 28,581 feet above sea level. The Great Horn of the Apennines in Italy is even greater on Great Lakes Earth, with an elevation of 12,466 feet above sea level. Botev Peak is still the highest peak in the Balkan Mountains, but now it stands 25,573 feet above sea level. The quote-unquote “Black Forest” might be a double misnomer on Great Lakes Earth, with its highest point standing 16,068.6 feet above sea level. The Spanish coastal range of Cantabria has a maximum height of 28,505 feet above sea level. The other ranges follow suit:

• Dinarides. Maximum elevation: 29,001 feet above sea level. (Unbelievably close to Everest’s current height back home!)
• Skanderbeg Mountains. Maximum elevation: 3,799 feet above sea level.
• Gennargentu, the highest peaks in the “island” of Sardinia. Maximum elevation: 19,741 feet above sea level.
• The Harz. Maximum elevation: 12,283 feet above sea level.
• MacGillycuddy’s Reeks. Maximum elevation: 11,176 feet above sea level.
• Wicklow Mountains. Maximum elevation: 9,958.1 feet above sea level.
• Mourne Mountains. Maximum elevation: 9,158 feet above sea level.
• The Sperrins. Maximum elevation: 7,295 feet above sea level.
• Jura Mountains. Maximum elevation: 18,494 feet above sea level.
• Massif Central. Maximum elevation: 20,303 feet above sea level.
• Mount Olympus. Maximum elevation: 12,487 feet above sea level.
• Owl Mountains. Maximum elevation: 10,921 feet above sea level.
• Ore Mountains. Maximum elevation: 13,388 feet above sea level.
• Pennines. Maximum elevation: 9,613.5 feet above sea level.
• Pindus. Maximum elevation: 28,387 feet above sea level.
• The Pyrenees. Maximum elevation: 14,572 feet above sea level.
• Rila. Maximum elevation: 12,521 feet above sea level.
• Rhodope Mountains. Maximum elevation: 23,582 feet above sea level.
• Sharr Mountains. Maximum elevation: 11,764 feet above sea level.
• The Scandinavian Mountains. Maximum elevation: 25,573.5 feet above sea level.
• The Scottish Highlands. Maximum elevation: 14,479 feet above sea level.
• Sierra Morena. Maximum elevation: 14,337 feet above sea level.
• The Baetic System. Maximum elevation: 14,891.6 feet above sea level.
• The Central System. Maximum elevation: 27,900 feet above sea level.
• The Iberian System. Maximum elevation: 24,900 feet above sea level.
• Sredna Gora. Maximum elevation: 17,262 feet above sea level.
• Strandzha. Maximum elevation: 11,100.6 feet above sea level.
• The Holy Cross Mountains. Maximum elevation: 6,606 feet above sea level.
• Sudetes. Maximum elevation: 17,253 feet above sea level.
• Swabian Jura. Maximum elevation: 10,925 feet above sea level.
• Serra de Tramuntana, the highest range in the Balearic “Islands”. Maximum elevation: 15,455.1 feet above sea level.
• Vogelsberg. Maximum elevation: 8,320.6 feet above sea level.
• Vosges. Maximum elevation: 15,328 feet above sea level.
• Black Mountains, Wales. Maximum elevation: 8,731.1 feet above sea level.
• Brecon Beacons. Maximum elevation: 9,538 feet above sea level.
• Snowdonia. Maximum elevation: 11,681 feet above sea level.
• Baba Mountain, North Macedonia. Maximum elevation: 27,994 feet above sea level.
• Jakupica Range. Maximum elevation: 27,318.5 feet above sea level.
• Voras Mountains. Maximum elevation: 27,169 feet above sea level.
• Kožuf Mountain. Maximum elevation: 23,370 feet above sea level.

Even the “islands” of the Mediterranean are higher than they are back home:

• Sicily, 14,251 feet above sea level.
• Sardinia, 19,740.6 feet above sea level.
• Corsica, 29,127.5 feet above sea level.
• Crete, 26,411.6 feet above sea level.
• Euboea, 18,765 feet above sea level.
• Lesbos, 10,420 feet above sea level.
• Rhodes, 13,092 feet above sea level.
• Chios, 13,959 feet above sea level.
• Kelafonia, 17,522 feet above sea level.
• Corfu, 9,749 feet above sea level.
• Lemnos, 5,046 feet above sea level.
• And so on and so forth…

Such greater heights mean that more land would get pushed upwards, which has led many within the scientific community to speculate that their uplifts had initially reduced the Mediterranean Sea, and that Africa’s northward push was merely the last straw, the final nail in the sea’s coffin. Today, on Great Lakes Earth, its lowest point, Calypso, is not 17,280 feet below sea level, but 49 feet above. This ultimately transformed the Mediterranean Sea into a large portion of what we’ve christened “The Forbidden Desert”, an arid expanse covering an area of 9.2 million square miles, almost three times the size of the Sahara back home!


Greenland is far more mountainous than back home, with its highest point, Gunnbjørn Fjeld, standing in at 27,027 feet above sea level. Nearby, Iceland has the same origin as back home, except that it is not an island, and its highest point standing 22,695 feet above sea level. The story of how Iceland came to be—an oceanic ridge being pushed upward by a stationary mantle plume—is the same for another piece of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the island of Atlantis. Split in the middle by a volcanic rift valley, Atlantis is a very mountainous island, no higher in elevation than 25,305 feet above sea level.


NORTH AMERICA
From north to south, the differences between our North America and the North America of Great Lakes Earth are vast. Starting with the very north, the Beaufort is not a sea, nor is there a “Gulf” of Alaska. Indeed, the entire Inside Passage—spanning from Alaska to Washington—is a single coastal strip of mainland, not a labyrinth of islands. They are all extensions of the landbridge Beringia. The Aleutians are not islands, but yet even more extensions of Beringia. But the volcanoes still line up the coast, with its highest point, Mount Shishaldin, standing 18,667 feet above sea level.


Further eastward, Denali is no longer the continent’s highest peak, but it’s still higher on Great Lakes Earth than back home, standing in at 26,500 feet above sea level. The Brooks Range, standing on the north side of Alaska, are also higher on Great Lakes Earth, with Mount Isto standing in at 29,447.6 feet above sea level.


Combine the magmatic uplifts typical of the Golden Age of Granite with the activities of the Pacific being more intensive than back home, and you’d get a Canadian Arctic with higher mountains and no islands at all.

• King Christian. Maximum elevation: 1,773.8 feet above sea level.
• Mackenzie King. Maximum elevation: 1,202.6 feet above sea level.
• Emerald. Maximum elevation: 3,001 feet above sea level.
• Melville. Maximum elevation: 8,202.1 feet above sea level.
• Byam Martin. Maximum elevation: 1,674 feet above sea level.
• Banks. Maximum elevation: 7,890 feet above sea level.
• Stefansson. Maximum elevation: 2,765.25 feet above sea level.
• Russell. Maximum elevation: 2,600 feet above sea level.
• Prince of Wales. Maximum elevation: 4,563 feet above sea level.
• Somerset. Maximum elevation: 5,621 feet above sea level.
• Victoria. Maximum elevation: 7,050.7 feet above sea level.
• King William. Maximum elevation: 1,520 feet above sea level.
• Ellesmere. Maximum elevation: 28,160.5 feet above sea level.
• Axel Heiberig. Maximum elevation: 23,784 feet above sea level.
• Elef Ringnes. Maximum elevation: 2,779 feet above sea level.
• Amund Ringnes. Maximum elevation: 2,850 feet above sea level.
• Cornwall. Maximum elevation: 4,225 feet above sea level.
• North Kent. Maximum elevation: 6,667 feet above sea level.
• Cornwallis. Maximum elevation: 3,865 feet above sea level.
• Devon. Maximum elevation: 20,672 feet above sea level.
• Bylot. Maximum elevation: 21,001 feet above sea level.
• Good ol’ Baffin. Maximum elevation: 23,110 feet above sea level.
  [*]Prince Charles. Maximum elevation: 800 feet above sea level.
  [*]Qikiqtaaluk. Maximum elevation: 3,960 feet above sea level.
  [*]Southampton. Maximum elevation: 6,730.6 feet above sea level.
  [*]Coats. Maximum elevation: 1,992 feet above sea level.

On Great Lakes Earth, the two most iconic mountain ranges of North America are barely hanging on, victims of erosion by millions of years of rain, snow and ice. Mount Elbert, the highest in the Rockies, is only 4,401 feet above sea level. The Appalachians no longer exist, unable to withstand 23 million years of ice ages coming and going and coming back again. The Sierra Madre Oriental is not far off, no higher than 3,700 feet above sea level. But the mountains of the Pacific, fed by more intense tectonic activity than back home, are far mightier. Mount Whitney, the highest peak in the Sierra Nevada, stands 27,227 feet above sea level. Mount Rainier, the highest of the Cascades, is 27,438 feet above sea level. The Pacific Coast Ranges stand no taller than 26,571 feet above sea level. Sierra Madre del Sur, on Mexico’s southwestern coast, stands 15,920 feet above sea level. Pico de Orizaba is a true monster, standing in at 25,236 feet above sea level. Beyond Mexico, the highest points of each “nation” are as follows:

• Guatemala. Maximum elevation: 27,471 feet above sea level.
• El Salvador. Maximum elevation: 25,631 feet above sea level.
• Belize. Maximum elevation: 23,646.4 feet above sea level.
• Honduras. Maximum elevation: 25,875.5 feet above sea level.
• Nicaragua. Maximum elevation: 26,320 feet above sea level.
• Costa Rica. Maximum elevation: 24,404 feet above sea level.
• Panama. Maximum elevation: 29,244 feet above sea level.

These massive walls are a formidable barrier against the Pacific. They are so massive that they drain their rivers down to lakes atop active fault systems that have not been carved over by glaciers.


On Great Lakes Earth, the entirety of the Great Caribbean Arc is uplifted to the surface, turning the island chain into a singular land bridge connecting Venezuela and Colombia to Mexico’s Yucatán Peninsula. The Caribbean Oceanic Plateau is also dry land, 7,686 feet at the highest, uplifted by the formation of the Panama Isthmus. All that remains of the Caribbean “Sea” are the Caiman Trough and the Yucatán Basin. How is that possible? Well, unlike back home, the subduction zone never went extinct, which results in each of the following “islands” being far higher in elevation than back home.

• Cuba. Maximum elevation: 21,245.5 feet above sea level.
• Haiti. Maximum elevation: 28,850 feet above sea level.
• The Dominican Republic. Maximum elevation: 13,262 feet above sea level.
• Puerto Rico. Maximum elevation: 25,422 feet above sea level.
• Jamaica. Maximum elevation: 24,286 feet above sea level.
• The Cayman Islands. Maximum elevation: 21,386 feet above sea level.
• The Windward Islands. Maximum elevation: 26,858 feet above sea level.
• The Leeward Islands. Maximum elevation: 16,520 feet above sea level.

Back home, the Black Hills of South Dakota are impressive enough. But on Great Lakes Earth, they are even more so, standing no higher than 23,764 feet above sea level and covering an area of 13,000 square miles, extending to North Dakota and Nebraska. Similarly, the US Interior Highlands, consisting of the Ozarks and the Ouachitas, are also much bigger than back home, 9,033 feet above sea level and covering 122,000 square miles of Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Kansas.


The Hawaiian Hotspot first formed sometime during the Cretaceous period. Back home, that mantle plume is still active, creating the current islands of the 50th United State. But on Great Lakes Earth, magma from a different corner of the Pacific had sucked that away to recreate the two formerly basaltic landmasses of Manihiki and Java-Ontong.


The mountains of the Western interior are so low in elevation that the Colorado Plateau stands from 610 to 3,960 feet above sea level. If the Grand Canyon does exist on Great Lakes Earth, it may not have been as grand as back home.


AFRICA
It goes without saying that North Africa is yet another extension of the Forbidden Desert. Like with Europe and the Mediterranean, the mountains are higher than they are back home.

• Aïr Mountains. Maximum elevation: 21,765.6 feet above sea level.
• Hoggar Mountains. Maximum elevation: 12,449 feet above sea level.
• Atlas Mountains. Maximum elevation: 17,814 feet above sea level.
• Tibesti Mountains. Maximum elevation: 14,619 feet above sea level.
• Adrar des Ifoghas. Maximum elevation: 9,580 feet above sea level.
• Mount Sinai. Elevation: 24,597 feet above sea level, way too high for any prophet to receive God’s Ten Commandments without dying of frostbite first.
• Mount Catherine. Elevation: 28,296 feet above sea level.
• Mount Helal. Elevation: 9,824 feet above sea level.

The East African Rift first developed back home between 25 and 22 million years ago. But on Great Lakes Earth, that never happened, so Africa on Great Lakes Earth doesn’t have Malawi, Tanganyika or Victoria. In their place, right in the middle of Central Africa is Lake Congo, covering in at 598,458 square miles in area and 720 feet below sea level at the deepest. This lake exists because it stands on top of an active fault zone. It quickly discharges into another large fault lake, this one covering all 940,000 square miles of the Chad Basin. At its deepest, this lake plunges down to 902 feet below sea level. Surrounding it are the Tassili n’Ajjer Mountains (maximum elevation: 23,228 feet above sea level), the Ennedi Plateau (maximum elevation: 15,626 feet above sea level), the Marrah Mountains (maximum elevation: 13,022 feet above sea level), the Adamawa Plateau (maximum elevation: 28,496.7 feet above sea level) and the Mandara Mountains (maximum elevation: 16,071 feet above sea level).


The Horn of Africa, like so many of Great Lakes Earth’s mountains, has been uplifted as a result of magmatic push. Djibouti’s highest point is 21,832 feet above sea level. Eritrea, 19,378 feet. Ethiopia, 20,852 feet. Somalia, 26,479 feet. Further down south, the Great Escarpment, which includes the Drakensberg, is far higher, too, with Thabana Ntlenyana standing 23,622 feet above sea level.


Off the coast of Namibia stands the lightning-bolt-shaped Walvis Peninsula, uplifted when magma transformed its basaltic rock into granite. Almost 2,000 miles in length, it covers an area of 280,000 square miles and can get as high as 2,573 feet above sea level. On the opposite side stands the island of Agulhas, 310 miles south of South Africa, 120,000 square miles in area and standing no higher than 2,500 feet above sea level. But Africa’s most noticeable contribution to the Golden Age of Granite is Madagascar itself. Back home, it measures in at 587,041 square kilometers, or 226,658 square miles. But that’s literally the tip of the iceberg, the whole of it being actually 1,140,000 square kilometers, or 440,156.5 square miles. On Great Lakes Earth, Maromokotro, the island’s highest point, stands 21,270 feet above sea level.


The history of the boomerang-shaped Mascarene Island is similar to back home, its northern half being far older and more granitic than its southern half. However, on Great Lakes Earth, most of it is land, its highest point standing 22,880 feet above sea level.





Made all of this in hopes of getting some feedback on climate.