maybe they could finally use their navy lol

😄!!

not just game, but also novel, my idea is that some scientist try to create a portal to take water from water rich moon (such as ganymede) to solve world thirst, but inadvertently take too much water and flood earth instead

@@skyfeelan I had an idea about that when I was younger, but it was aliens draining their planet's unnecessary oceans to earth to destroy us.

I was thinking this too! It would make a great futuristic world map for a game, after some kind of disastrous mistake caused Earth to have WAY more water in the oceans than it should have!

also think of the kinds of oceanic creatures that would evolve on a planet like this, where most of the surface was covered by deep ocean with very few land masses... Gets the imagination going!

@@skyfeelan is this a Sci-Fi comedy? 🤣🤣

Nepal, Butan, and probably Chile, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Ecuador, Bolivia, Turkey and Iran (altough I think Mexico is the largest):

​​@@SebastianBaos and China,Pakistan new Zealand,Papua New Guinea,Andorra, Ethiopia etc too

@@deadhandof9108doesn’t most of china live on the coast? tibet has a population of 4 million, the mountains in mexico have over half the population

what about usa and Colorado Wyoming western Montana utah idaho and Alaska and maybe Hawaii

@@parkerwebb3470 It seems to me that in terms of percentage, they do not have most of their territory above 2,000 meters above sea level.

Move

Wikipedia says that sea level has oscillated every ~100k years from (roughly) -50 to +250 meters over the last 500 million years :) Your comment did make me think about how those deltas with/of eroded materials would be affected by ice ages. It would mean that there are a lot more deltas under water, right? So that's a lot of comparatively shallow sea, which boosts marine life (/biomass). And then, as sea level rises, we'd also expect the places that are 50 to 100 to 150 meters above sea level to look like deltas, too... Google says that, for the last 2.6 million years, there usually was an ice age of 90k years and then a warm period of 10k years, so the currently-underwater deltas should be quite dominant! However, I have _no idea_ whether erosion would just wipe it all out, over such time scales.... Anyhow, thanks for sending me down that rabbit hole 😂👍🏼

Yeah, the difference would be that the earth would be a little bit less dense and maybe there would be the same amount of continents but it would look totally different And there would be a lot of volcanism

Had the same feeling. All those small islands would have no chance (or would merge?)

@@MrNicoJac Ice ages would probably affect sea levels a lot less in that world though, since there's _way_ less land -- especially in polar and subpolar regions -- for ice sheets to collect on. Sea ice doesn't affect sea level much at all, since it displaces as much water as it melts to become.

Is this the reason why russia(siberia) is so large today

Yes! Would love to see it as well.

Yes! Great idea, I mentioned this to my dad(this video) and then he was talking about if the water was lower how the oceans has tons of mountains and basins. Very fascinating. Love your channel!!!!

Actually this is the hypothetical nonsense you get on Unveiled and What If. I expect more relevance on this channel.

That would be awesome!

Fascinating

Isn't this the climax of mission impossible fallout where they want to detonate a nuke there?

Im not reading all this numbers

Its km not miles noob

whitout food?

Yaks and birds lol

A world where Emus commiserate around the family hearth about the horrors of the Great Human War.

Fish

Maybe some pygmy moose aswell, they can swim for lomger than our mental health is prepared for, dive deeper on a breathhold than some divers on trimex and have a very "heads on" approach towards threats.....literally.

islands are the best istg

Hahaha. I’m loving the videos though. 😂

@@TheOnlyCaprisun nice profile 😂

@@louisinese thanks! i made it myself.

"Flood" doesn't actually explain where the water came from, but leaves it open for the sequel. Which also doesn't explain. On the plus side, Baxter does argue the case that with extremely elevated sea levels the climate would be much warmer, which is relevant to this video.

@@pembrokeshiredan I remember watching an Anton video, where he said that over the course of 4.5B years, the Sun has stripped away about an ocean's worth of water from the surface of the Earth through breakdown of the H2O molecules (which is still happening today), and the hydrogen escaping Earth's gravity. Perhaps that's where the water came from if this never happened? Although the oxygen levels might be different if all of that broken-down water didn't leave its oxygen behind.

@@illegal_space_alien Earth actually have more water inside the mantel. The ringwoodite trapped about 2/3 of total water in Earth. This facts actually suggest why Earth have plat tectonic movement, it being assists by the water among the mineral in the mantel. Theoretically, if Earth have a massive earthquake affected the whole world, the mantel would be less dense and volcanic eruption would happen in global scale. This will also depressurize the ringwoodite and release the water inside the mineral, and Earth will have 3x more water than in the ocean right now.

@@illegal_space_alien Hey, another Anton Petrov watcher! :) Good to see my peeps here. (Not THAT surprising--if you like one sciencey educational channel you might like others.) Anyway, two things I've learned from this: 1) I'd apparently be fine (in terms of drowning/not drowning, anyway) right where I am, if this suddenly just up and happened, and 2) I have a new sci-fi book to read. :)

@@illegal_space_alien We also get water from space. Comets are just dirty snowballs, so if they come down, we get more water. Also hydrogen inside the Earth combines with oxygen to get more H²O.

and they would be by far the oldest landmasses on the planet

​@@dane1382 That would be the Island of Roraima, and by a lot

Except it would be a whole small continent if sea levels were always 2000m higher not just a few peaks. The world would have vastly more land than in this video because erosion doesn't really cut away land to much below sea level, and runoff deposits sediment along coasts, plus erosion gets less intense with shallower slopes. So yeah, there'd be a whole content in Appalachia. There might even still be land masses from 1-2+ billion old mountains that might once have existed across the plains so the continent could have been even larger and possibly connected to the rest of North America.

And many other mountain ranges too, they are just too small to be called continents

​@@j.f.fisher5318😊

Same and lol

By the way, if you ever do a follow-up on this from an oceanographic standpoint, or do a completely different ocean-heavy video, I'd be happy to provide help! (proofing, feedback, etc.)

Man I’d love to see renders of a coupled GCM running this…

@@TAP7a Same! The problem is, such a necessarily global model would require a lot of computer time to run, and considering this is of basically no value to the kind of oceanography funding agencies care about, it would be hard to get it up and running as a proper study. On the other hand, exoplanet research might benefit from it, seeing as Earth already has real bathymetry, which means we wouldn't have to guess it or approximate it away in order to model a semi water world planet. At the very least it could be a good undergraduate senior thesis

When the ice caps melt (less weight), does the floating crustal land mass rise?

@@john9982 I do not think so. In this scenarion there is still extra 2000 meter tall water column pushing on them. And ice is less dense e.g. lighter than ice, so pressure on the landmass would be even higher IMHO.

Exactly what I was thinking. The game Worldbox is good for this type of stuff so I may see if someone can make the Tibet Plateau for it.

Also I think Erosion would probably make some of the land in Tibet flat, idk if that’s completely wrong tho lol

​@Mal_31 nah your right if the water rose then rain would rose too since many storms that happen is under that 2000m so rain would land on top where it was normally frozen eroding a little faster and flatten out the bases for more plains like area

I dropped a more comple response to this elsewhere but for example those 3 fjords wouldn't exist in a world that had 2000m higher sea level because that's the level where deposited sediment would overtake erosion and those would be river valleys near sea level instead of deep fjords. Just one tiny problem among countless issues this simplitic view of geology produces.

Tropico 5 fever dream

I don’t understand the basis for his video. Lots of area is higher than 6500 ft above sea level. Seems like an odd thing to get wrong right off the bat and it turns me off from this video and the rest of his content.

@@sleep_sounds Some areas are well above 2000m in the Rockies, but not enough to form a unified continent-sized landmass.

The clear answer would, mammals & humans wouldn't be here today, exercising these theories

I wonder, would the poles still have ice-masses? like giant permafrost adrift in the global ocean, that'd be pretty cool

Also planets bulge at their equator due to rotational forces, and adding any extra mass on top of that would itself be subject to that same bulge, so adding a uniform 2 km of water across the surface of the earth would redistribute itself to be less than that at the poles and more than that at the equator. It would never be as simple as just adding 2,000m to sea level worldwide, even disregarding differences due to long-term factors like erosion and effects of pressure from different weight distributions.

I calculated 859,074,600,000,000 tons of additional weight due to all that water. Seems like it would make a huge difference and sink all the current continental plates and eventually they would become oceanic plates as well. Only places like Hawaii built on oceanic plates would survive I think.

We'd be an intelligent fish species like in aquaman

huh

😆

Narrated by Kevin Costner!

The average density of the lithosphere (which makes up the most of the plate-material) is around 3g./cm³ and is, in the large majority of areas, significantly more than 2km. thick, so the weight of the water you're adding on top of them is a fraction of their own weight. The calculation shows that a block of the lithosphere that is one kilometer by one kilometer and two kilometers thick will weigh approximately 6 billion metric tons; 2000 meters of water on top of that is a third the weight. Given that the density of the material underlying the lithosphere is *greater* ... and that the lithosphere may well be thicker than 2 kilometers (& thus weigh even more) - how much subsidence can you expect? People who aren't used to it, have problems conceptualizing measurements where 500,000,000 tons isn't really all *that* big a number, but when doing astronomical calculations (masses of large asteroids and the like) ... meh ...

@@ephennell4ever very funny words, magic man =D

@@ephennell4ever There was major tectonic shifting at the end of the last Ice Age with the meltwater pulses raising sea levels to around their current position. Northern North America lost it's ice sheet and due to the relief of all that weight, raised up a few thousand feet. The African continent has risen 1500 feet since then. So you saying this much water would not affect plate tectonics is inaccurate. One thing you seem to be forgetting is, while the Lithosphere is dense and the magma underneath it is denser (as you would expect moving toward the center of mass), magma is a fluid and therefore more compressible, allowing it to be forced to move by increased mass above it.

@@ephennell4ever I've never seen someone try and sound this smart when saying something that even common sense tells you is wrong

@@ephennell4ever You just proved yourself wrong while still being right lol. You’re completely correct but you forgot that the water gets compressed and weighs more at lower depths, to be honest both the water and plates will end up weighing similar amounts due to the same process of pressure

Oh You see essentially Atlantis And Can walk from North America to Japan through Europe

America and Russia would have a land border, Saudi Arabia and and Iran would have a land border, God the chaos that could happen here.

Finally someone talks about the Valle del Cauca.

Yes 🙌🏽

He's talked about our country in his 7 realms of biogeography video; an honorific mention as a great transitional zone between the Neoartic and the Neotropical realms. If you take a road trip from the Mexican highlands through either one of the Sierra Madre mountain ranges, and head to the coast, you'll witness an outstanding change in flora and weather that really makes oneself feel like traveling a colossal distance when you're actually just traversing a couple hundred kilometers as the crow flies.

Too many people have no idea what Mexico is like. I sing its praises to all that listen. Too many are shocked to find it's in North America. I can't think of a South or Central American country that I haven't at one time or another had to tell someone wasn't a place in Mexico, so it's not surprising though you'd think that would mean people wouldn't think its one big desert.

@@AJNpa80 just like fox news when they called latin American countries Mexican countries 🥲

Toluca is almost one of those cities of eternal spring, just far enough from the equator to have a winter and should never feel like a steam bath (like Florida) due to the elevation

i would like to see this also

That's true, if the ice melted, the pressure would push the actual rocky continent upwards.

Apparently I have the memory of a goldfish; I just remembered that glaciers push continents downward & affect the elevation of the land beneath them, that was literally the case with Scandinavia, ignore what I originally commented

The same would happen to greenland

He made a short about that exact thing like a few dats ago.

Interesting fact, thanks!

I feel bad for the poor soul who first named it. (Joke)

La Paz, Bolivia isn't that big? Peru also has quite a few even above 3000m but they're not that big

Lhasa in Tibet, china would also survive as its above 3000m.

also greenland, he forgot to mention mongolia and antarctica / portions of siberia too

Read Flood by Stephen Baxter. It’s totally about that.

Well, many people could migrate into cities, towns that are unscathed

Very cool idea

@@cruz7579 what if its not cringe? what if its just that people dont care to enjoy what he does and only care about the fact that sure he talks in a kinda cringy american accent. the internet is full of shit, so people who look at shit would be convinced that everything here is shit, but this guy isn't. i have no idea if that made sense

It's fun until you start thinking about how erosion would have proceeded differently if sea levels were 2000m higher, how volcanic islands would have built higher as well. And how less effective erosion of ancient mountains would have allowerd future orogenies to uplift much greater areas about these higher seas.

was thinking the same thing :)

Yeah I’m surprised they didn’t talk about it past a quick glance at 14:32

also worht mentioning that there would be a small scandinavian arcipelago, which he didn't mention

That is taking into account the ice caps, if you remove the ice caps the landmass would be a lot smaller and be broken up into multiple islands

@@zraithbc They would rebound as well.

It really depends on how you define a desert. The Ka'ū Desert in Hawaii is on the leeward side of the island and experiences a rainshadow, though most of the lack of vegetation comes from volcanic-based acid rain. The Andean continent would certainly experience a rainshadow as well, as it does currently. And they would also likely have polar deserts down in the remnants of Antarctica if the temperatures remained anywhere near the current ones ( though this is unlikely). There may not be any true deserts, but there would certainly be areas of much lower precipitation.

@@BonaparteBardithion would arid climate be possible with that narrow of piece of landmass tho? I gather that with the proximity from the sea the air current would always reach the most inward land area carrying rain.

@@amirulhakim9898 Semi-arid could certainly be possible just taking wind direction into account. But that's assuming that weather patterns in any way still resemble our current ones with that much moisture in the air.

The Cape Verde Islands (Cabo Verde) in the Atlantic have an arid climate today. There is a rain shadow effect on the higher islands (all of volcanic origin) creating micro climates, but the main problem is that the sea air at that latitude doesn't reliably carry much moisture. The islands are at the same latitude as the southern edge of the Sahara desert. In most years the winds don't carry enough moisture for the uplift over the islands to cause much precipitation. Indeed, in some years there is severe drought, which has causing periodic famines in the islands' roughly 550 year recorded inhabited history. The dry air isn't primarily caused by the presence of the nearby Sahara desert, which would disappear in this water Earth scenario (the tops of the highest Cabo Verde mountain peaks would remain). Rather it is the Hadley Cell nature of atmospheric circulation of the entire planet which causes both the Sahara desert and the fluctuating, irregular but generally very arid Cabo Verde climate. Some similar type of circulation would inevitably also exist on water Earth. Basically the sun heats the ocean more at the equator than at the poles, so the atmosphere is set in motion by this. Hot wet air therefore rises from the sea surface at the equator and moves north and south. But it starts cooling, and water precipitates out, forming the generally wet regions around the equator. By about 20 degrees north and south the air is dry again and falling, creating dryer high pressure conditions on most of the planet in the 20 to 40 latitude band on today's world. Most of the present world's deserts lie within this band. Cabo Verde lies just to the south, the islands scattered around latitude 16 degrees north of the equator, where the boundary between the rising wet and falling dry air cells lie. Most of the time it is on the dry side, but it sometimes gets bursts of sudden downpours which is why anything grows there at all. This boundary zone extends around the planet at the same latitudes north and south of the equator. It moves around a bit and brings unpredictable weather. In the water Earth scenario there still would presumably be Hadley circulation cells and such boundaries between them. But the absence of most of today's continents might produce a more regular pattern with smoother transitions. So perhaps the bits of Cabo Verde's mountain peaks poking out of the water, perhaps from just today's Fogo island, would experience a more regular climate. Would this be wetter or dryer? If the circulation pattern was smoother, the boundary zone might be narrower, putting the islands more reliably on the wetter, equatorial side of the line, where their latitude suggests they should be. On the other hand, the maximum height of the islands projecting out of the water would be reduced by 2000 metres, leaving only at most 800 metres of elevation to generate relief rainfall. So the remnant islands would probably be less parched, and perhaps boasting a few rivers and streams, but probably not drenched and covered in rainforest. Edit: I have decided I don't understand the intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ), which had a bit part in the preceding analysis, now deleted. Most accounts of Cabo Verde's climate mention the ITCZ, which moves around nearby threatening various calamities including tropical storms and drought.

200m is about the depth of the edge of the continental shelf around the continents.

If the water was around 450 m higher than today, that would put a lot of area under about 100 m of water

Sea levels were an average 170 metres higher in the cretaceous than today. there was little to no ice at the poles and continents were not having that high mountains as today.

What about contemporary humans? (Us, that exist right now, like you and me) how would *we* survive on this world?

@@cons9053 it would be a little tricky, but not necessarily impossible. Considering all of the lands are quite a bit in altitude, any contemporary human living on that world would have to deal with altitude sickness and or adapt. Not to mention because of radically different evolutionary paths, there would be no recognizable animal or plants to eat, so any settlers to this version of Earth would need to figure out what they could and couldn't eat. And considering most of the globe is covered in water, storms should be a doozy, but people have been dealing with bad weather since the dawn of humanity I'm sure someone living there could adapt. Since all the land is pretty much the tops of mountains, cave systems might be an option. Those don't blow down in a stiff breeze.

Most Latin American countries that lie on the Pacific are also mountainous

@@seanthe100 More like all of them.

Period

リアル

On such time scales wouldn't it still make more sense to adapt fully to dominating the dry terrain that would exist largely the same for hundreds to thousands of generations at the very least? Amphibians wouldn't necessarily dominate coastal areas as it hasn't been dominated by amphibians by mass given more mass exists fully adapted to ocean/seas and land separately and not much that is amphibious other than swamp land.

Whales with big feet? 🐋👣🐳 Or penguins like the video suggests 🐧🐧🐧

Well it’s 7am EST right now and he is from New York so…

Whst I find interesting is how much different North America would look if the mountains raised by those ancient orogenies could only be eroded down to approach sea level, how much more massive would the forms taken by later orogenies be? Surely there would be vastly more land above the higher seas than we get by simplistically increasing sea levels after millions or in some cases billions of yeas of erosion above sea level have already proceeded.

let's say humans evolved to reach behavioral modernity in tibet. there would be a LOT going on in tibet. empires, migrations, wars, etc, but it would take very very long until humans ventured beyond the islands they could see over the horizon, like the zagros. crossing the atlantic or pacific would have to wait until a much later stage of technical developement or would require a much larger incentive than what enabled colonialism originating from europe.

The eurasian parte of the world would host a modernization of their people, while the américas would be land of maorí like types of civilizations, that would conquer the andeans, México and the rookies depending on the latitude

It would be horrible lots of war, migration so on

@@kyb2027 ah just like real life

Well, Mercury is a dead planet, meaning that it doesn't have tectonic plates or volcanic activity. It's surface is like our moon's surface: Full of craters, no life and no atmosphere It's just a boring rock that could be used to mining due to it's amounts of iron, copper and steel

That's really cool to imagine this butterfly undergoing adaptive radiation over many millions of years in that context

They may spend their winters there but their birth and growing are spent in areas that would be underwater in that senario, so they wouldn't last long.

I'd say that the Antarctic circumpolar current would likely still prevent much heat from migrating in from warmer waters. The question of polar ice sheets didn't come up in this video, but I'd imagine that they'd have a significant impact on the climate and biogeography in a world with so little land.

@@Deadlyish The Antarctic Circumpolar Current wouldn't exist without the massive circular landmass directly covering the pole. Such a world wouldn't have an ice cover at all, especially given that water vapour is a potent greenhouse gas. We're only in a temporary glacial period now because of the unusual land configuration (Antarctica blocks water from reaching the south pole, while Eurasia and North America are mostly blocking currents from reaching the north pole). Throughout most of Earth's history, there was tropical vegetation at the poles.

I think it would be the reverse: without the poleward deflection of low-latitude water and the presence of hot-summer continental regions, polar climates would probably extend to 45 degrees or so (with the possible exception of southern Andea). I realized this when imagining a world without the largest continental mainlands (for example, most of the British Isles having a tundra biome).

me in florida already dead when a single iceberg melts:

even at 2000m you'd see the top of the appalachains in parts (notably NC). Something is wrong with this video. The tibetan tableau is (on average) 14,000 ft in elevation - there are dozens of peaks in the Rockies that are that tall.

Thanks. You just confirmed some stuff about my worldbuilding. 😊

Except that the islands like Hawaii would be nearly the size they are in our world, because the level of the ocean directly influences how high the sea mount gets before it levels out. You wouldn't just have the peak of Mouna Loa and Mouna Kea sticking out of the pacific but a whole island around them where the lava hardened when it met the ocean. Similarly there'd be _vastly_ more land everywhere on Earth because mountains can't erode to below sea level - only to approach sea level. Erosive forces become less as slopes get shallower and sediments are deposited along shorelines. So for example the Appalachian range that was once taller than the Rockys couldn't possibly erode down to 4 tiny island but instead would be a low hilly continent. But wait, there's more because North America shows evidence of mountain ranges 2 billion years old that have now eroded to practically nothing - except even those should probably still be at least low-lying lands on the world with 2000m higher seas. And the later orogenies that built the Rockies, Sierras, and Cascades should have been pushing up already much more elevated lands so those mountain ranges should all have gone much higher and been eroded much less. Same thing all over. There might be something like half as much land but there'd be vastly more than this simplistic version suggests.

More water vapor from increase ocean area would mean more rain. More rain would mean a higher rate of erosion, possibly decreasing these landmasses further, or even completely over geological timescales.