Question: I've tried researching this question myself, but the only data I can find is over huge timescales, like situations where the continents have reformed back into a Neo-Pangea.

I'm not looking for any real drastic changes in positioning, just relatively minor things like seas disappearing or continents slightly shrinking or pushing into each other. 

Would there be any noteworthy changes at all, or would it be pretty much the same as today aside from some minor changes that wouldn't affect anything?

Let's just assume humanity suddenly stopped existing today for the purposes of the question, so they don't make any more changes to the world than they already have.

As always, I'm very grateful for any answers, and if you need anything clarified feel free to leave a comment and I'll do my best to clear things up.

Answer: 
In addition to the previously noted changes due to climate and normal geology, the sudden removal of humans a la Discovery Channel's [Life After People](https://www.history.com/shows/life-after-people) would quickly lead to the breakdown of electrical and mechanical infrastructure, including pumping stations (e.g., the [California Aqueduct](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Aqueduct), [New Orleans' pumping stations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drainage_in_New_Orleans), and the Netherlands' [pumping stations in Flevoland](https://www.visitflevoland.nl/en/on-expedition/heritage/pumping-stations-in-flevoland/)), with the obvious results. In the longer term (a few centuries at most, according to Discovery), the majority of earthen and concrete structures are likely to fail, which includes essentially all of the world's dams, dikes, and levees. Their collapses will cause significant flooding, erosion, and scouring of low-lying areas downstream, and some river channels will be changed significantly enough to still show the effects a millennium hence.

Earth's cities and highways are also likely to be largely buried in vegetation (again, per Discovery), with the result that urban and linear features that are prominent from the air or even space will become much harder to see.

The disappearance of humans will also eliminate agriculture and logging, which is likely to reduce silt and fertilizer runoff in most places, with at least some visible changes in watersheds. (For example, [mangroves](https://go.nasa.gov/2FY1CnO) can be expected to make a larger comeback in some rivers; clear-cut areas of the Amazon and other forests will recover to some extent; and a number of river deltas like the [Ebro's](https://go.nasa.gov/2Ik9OQV) will stop growing so quickly and may actually erode.) The Aral Sea may make a comeback as well.

Astronomy might also play a small part; according to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_event), there's about a 20% chance of an asteroid strike large enough to create a crater actually hitting land and doing so.

By the way, spacecraft, even the ISS, are too small to make much of a mark, and what little damage they do cause would be hidden by vegetation and weathering very quickly (years, or decades at most).
"Is removing people sufficient to stop global warming?" Good question. Answer is not clear. If we have passed the tipping point for arctic permafrost collapse, arctic ocean being ice free in summer, then we may release huge amounts of methane clathrates.

On top of this while oil has to be pumped, natural gas is often under pressure. As distribuiton systems break down, more methane is released.

Net result: ALL of antarctica and Greenland melt over the space of that thousand years.

So we have an new continent free from ice in the south, we have a new archipelago of islands where Greenland was. We have new ecologies in the arctic regions, and the ocean shoreline moves in a bunch.

Details here: <https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/#/07-ice-melt-antarctica.jpg>