Much of the next few hundred miles north through the Salton Sea and Death Valley is already under sea level and all of Nevada has thinning crust that will eventually fall under sea level.
in fact, most of the valleys in Nevada, in spite of typical elevations around 4000 feet, are already below sea level. It's just that they presently don't have any outlet to the sea in the Great Basin so alluvium has collected as the fault-block mountains created by spreading erode.  When a river has a chance to cut down through that soft debris, the valley floors will quickly drop below sea level also.
But I also think he's wrong: as said in http://www.netstate.com/states/geography/mapcom/nv_mapscom.h..., I quote "[...] but the lowest point in Nevada is actually only 479 feet above sea level at the Colorado River at the southern end of the state." .
Article is from 2010 btw.
I'd love to see how this turns out.
Thank you for pointing this out. I find a tendency to not seek out date of publish and assume content from places like hackernews is current. From 2010 feels a lot less like current events which is part of what I read the front page here.
New years resolution is to check dates and sources of articles, thanks!
There's glacial, and then there's continental drift.
Is this something only I can see, or was it edited since your comment?
Also a story like this without a map is very annoying; my best guess as to where it is is here:
The last supercontinent was Pangea Asia, Europe and Africa are what is left and they are continuing to break up. The next one will meet where the Pacific plate now is.
So this starts as a rift, then a valley, then an inlet, then that will widen into an ocean, and then the barriers between oceans will disappear.
So yes, this will be a sea before it is an ocean. But it is also correct to talk about it as the birth of a new ocean. (The Red Sea is also on its way to being an ocean. It is just farther along. And the Atlantic is farther along still.)
Is there evidence for any changes in convection currents?
i.e. what do we have to go on, besides back-extrapolation of observed drift (happening today, and in "recent" geologic past, e.g. reversal of magnetized direction)?
Why should the continents recombine into a supercontinent, rather that drift arbitrarily? Is the idea that, sooner or later, a traffic jam will occur, where first two bang into each other and can't move, creating a larger obstacle, which another then collides with... but since there's some process for a supercontinent to separate, what's the neccessity for this process to not tear apart the collided continents before a full supercontinent is formed?
Unless I'm wrong, and the tectonic plates existed and were moving long before the oceans did?
For further reading I can recommend 'Supercontinent' by Ted Nield.
Seems to indicate otherwise, but I'm certainly no expert on geology or whatever sub-specialization is concerned with plate tectonics and history of them.
Here's the map image alone: http://cdn.mg.co.za/crop/content/images/2015/03/31/easplitma...
This is where the explosion was https://email@example.com,40.5202369,1118a,20y,...
No the rift is here:
and the image:
But, yes, the initial body of water that will form will not be what anyone would characterize as an ocean.
To quote Blade Running, "the flame that burns twice as bright burns half as long." We could be here another million years, or we could be here only 50,000 more years .. or 5 year or 5 days, if Dr. Strangelove gets his way.
Behaviorly modern humans: ~60k years
Anatomically modern humans: ~200k years
Divergence from apes: ~6M years ago
Mammals: ~200M+ years
Dinosaurs: ~165M years
Dragonflies: ~325M+ years
(Being in a robot doesn't count, since you'd merely be exchanging one body for another.)
[The following is intended philosophically, not religiously] There is an old, I believe Jewish, tradition that demons are spirits without a body. Their whole goal is to regain a body (hence demonic possession). In one interpretation of Mark 5, when Jesus tells the demons to leave the Gerasene man, they ask for permission to go into the pigs nearby.  I guess a pig body is better than none (but it doesn't work, the pigs rush off the cliff and drown, leaving the demons bodyless again).
I've thought about that interpretation over the years as a philosophical exercise. If you are only spirit and no body, then maybe you cannot interact with the world. That would be a bummer... You'd be stuck trying to get spirits with bodies to use them for you.
So if you are a disembodied computer program, how would you see? How would you communicate? How would you repair yourself? How would you influence world events? You'd be stuck experiencing things vicariously, by snooping on Google images and people's FB accounts and reading their emails, and hacking their computers/Google glass/VR/cars/robots. If you couldn't find someone to do your bidding willingly, you would have to start manipulating people to get them to do what you want. You manipulate people through fear and through temptation. All this is starting to sound rather demonic. You'd end up as a digital demon...
http://www.gregegan.net/DIASPORA/01/Orphanogenesis.html is a great read on the concept.
We probably don't agree that mind is a program running in the brain, and is equivalent to spirit. But it's always fun to debate ;-)
My question about uploading consciousness is in the transition point. As I sit here in front of my computer could I click a button and upload my memories and consciousness to a computer? Would they for some reason leave my body at the same time? Would it be instantly fatal? Why?
Wouldn't I really just be forking my consciousness? One version of me would continue forward inside a computer with the memory of the transition and the corporeal me would continue wondering if it even worked. The corporeal me would still die at some point but I could die with the satisfaction(?) that I created a copy of myself at some point in time.
I'm not sure that's much different than writing a book and having children.
There's no reason to believe we'll find a way to transfer the consciousness rather than make a copy of it (or something that is indistinguishable from it to an outside observer).
When you upload your consciousness, you're left behind to die. When you use a transporter, the transporter kills you. Your consciousness ends with your body. Lt Barclay in Star Trek was right to be afraid of the cloning death machines.
The question, I guess is, whether the knowledge that an exact replica of yourself will live on for eternity is good enough for you. Or whether you're religious enough to forego our understanding of the physical world and believe in the existence of a non-physical "soul" that will automatically attach itself to the copy when the host is destroyed (though this creates all kinds of questions if the host isn't instantly destroyed during the process of the "upload").
If we threw the Earth into the sun, and the sun managed to dissolve all of us and all we have made, would that mean we ascended, that a molten sea is a higher stage of evolution because it "won"? Of course not. We're like a magician who makes himself disappear.. okay fine, neat trick, now what? If there was anyone to applaud, we wouldn't hear it anyway. Am I too cynical? But I'm biting my tongue!
Though I don't really mean the body, I think that's kind of orthogonal. Someone can be paralyzed from their neck down and still think straight, while others walk about, go to the gym regularly, and still don't see the woods for all the trees.
What really strikes me is that reading intelligent people had more interesting things to say about automation decades and if you squint hard maybe even centuries ago, than we have today. We are at the court of the king exchanging platitudes so to speak, not in the halls of scholars describing that king freely and in depth.
I don't think that two works of fiction from the last century are reliable indicators of the longevity of our species. I look more to the historical evidence we have of the resilience of humans. I don't know if we will be around for millions of years but I don't think we have reached midlife.
This caught my eye. How big is this region that is just 20m away from being flooded? And 20m of Eritrea at that. Not exactly comparable IMHO to the rather more politically stable Netherlands.
This sounds like the sequel to Madagascar
What??? The birth of oceans usually happens "beneath the seas"...?
Then again, this zone does end up in the East African Triple Junction so you are technically correct.
Well you can get away with making any prediction this way