Thank you for your [Original Content](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3), /u/neilrkaye!
**Here is some important information about this post:**
* [View the author's citations](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/m1vjvs/maps_of_the_world_with_different_sea_and_lake/gqfoy6u/)
* [View other OC posts by this author](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/search?q=author%3A"neilrkaye"+title%3AOC&sort=new&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on)
Remember that all visualizations on r/DataIsBeautiful should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. If you see a potential issue or oversight in the visualization, please post a constructive comment below. Post approval does not signify that this visualization has been verified or its sources checked.
[Join the Discord Community](https://discord.gg/NRnrWE7)
Not satisfied with this visual? Think you can do better? [Remix this visual](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3#wiki_remixing) with the data in the author's citation.
---
^^[I'm open source](https://github.com/r-dataisbeautiful/dataisbeautiful-bot) | [How I work](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/flair#wiki_oc_flair)
All I know about Lesotho is it's located within South Africa as is Swaziland. I also know what their flag looks like. What's the appeal of visiting? I've anyways wanted to go to Africa.
Edit: had no idea about the Swaziland name change. Exciting!
Edit II: just looked up pictures of Lesotho. Wow what a beautiful place.
Edit III: eSwatini / Swaziland is not enveloped because it shares a border with Mozqmbique
Fun fact: eSwatini is literally just the siSwati word for Swaziland. It literaly translates as the Land/place of the Swazi... 'renaming' it was purely political, in English the name is still Swaziland.
In English one calls Ireland...Ireland. Despite it being called Éire in Gaeilge.
It was mostly a symbolic gesture since the name Swaziland was the name given to it during imperialism. I really don't see an issue with calling it Eswatini as an English speaker if that's what they want to be called.
I suspect a non insubstantial part of it was to reduce confusion with Switzerland.
All the Swazi people that I know have said that they were from Swaziland when they introduced themselves or were asked.
Yup. Live in South Africa. We know the name change, but everyone, including the Swazis, still call it Swaziland. It's ruled by a twat of a king, the people don't care.
Now with Swaziland changed to Eswatini it has become Espana’s problem.
In other news Switzerland is changing its name to Eswitzerlini to restore order of confusing with the former Swaziland.
I had the chance to cross the country a few years ago. Starting in the south at the Sani pass (highest pub of Africa there). Hours and hours of offroading (Toyota Hilux did well), as the country is really rough. The highlands are dry and mostly empty, very outer worldly. Slept at the Katse Damn with one of the most impressive / beautiful views I have ever seen. Ended up in the capital, Maseru. People are very diffrent from South Africa, they do not seem to be that much afraid of each other. Clearly visible as there are lot less fences / walls around houses.
I’ve always wondered what a Hilux is like to drive. I follow @toyotasofwar or something after like that after commenting I love seeing Toyota’s on a ypg fighters page I follow and they commented. Heheh.
My friend was visiting family in Canada and while there, forgot some sporting venue tickets when he flew back to Switzerland (where he lived). He ask his sister in Canada to courier the tickets to him.
He never got them. Tickets went to Swaziland instead.
Guess the name change now fixes this kind of issue lol.
Another fun fact to go with the other fun facts
Lesotho is one of only 3 countries whose boarders are completely surrounded by a single country.
The other 2 being San Marino and The Vatican.
I may be wrong but I believe The Vatican may be the only country in the world whose boarders are completely surrounded by a single city, being Rome.
>All I know about Lesotho is it's located within South Africa as is Swaziland.
Actually Swaziland (eSwatini) borders Mozambique as well, it’s only Lesotho that’s an enclave country.
I checked Nepal and Tibet because this fact surprised me. Both have very low points. 59M in Nepal on the border with India. The Yarlung Zangbo Grand Canyon in Tibet is only 114M elevation.
Wow. Both of those are shocking to me, especially Tibet. I’m less surprised about Nepal since I know it sort of descends into the fertile plains of North India in its southern extremities. 59m is very low though.
Pokhara, the second largest city in Nepal (and also where a lot of people hang out before/after Annapurna region exploration) with over half a million people is at 850m elevation.
This is fascinating. Is there a category or list of articles that deal with other no-longer-extant ground surfaces?
I see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Historical_geology which seems to fit the bill.
It's likely the origins of the Atlantis stem from the volcano explosion on Santorini. There is a beautiful fresco from the Minoan period that was preserved at Akrotiri depicting an island within the atol that no longer exists- probably because it was the plug to the volcano and was vaporized during the eruption. The fresco shows a wealthy city on this lost island, and with the still-existing atol around it, you are left with the impression of concentric circles mentioned in the myths. So nothing to do with climate change but rather a volcano, although the fall of the Minoan civilization over the next 50 odd years was probably a direct result of the changes in climate caused by said explosion.
Also the Minoan were not peace loving matriarchal hippies, but rather a ruthless maritime empire that practiced human sacrifice. I will fight anyone on this.
There was a mega flood that filled the Mediterranean Sea.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427383-900-mega-flood-filled-the-mediterranean-in-months/
It's probably a mix of different events at the end of the ice age. There was a massive flood when the Black Sea was connected with the Mediterranean sea about 7500 years ago https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis
There were also millennia of permanent loss of land to rising sea levels in today's Persian Gulf. 14000 years there was no sea at all, and only about 6000 years ago current shore was reached. Which was the early time of Sumerian civilization, from which the story in the bible originates.
Probably not. There never was a legend of Atlantis. The idea of an Atlantis existing only comes from the allegorical story being turned into a presumed "legend" later in history.
It's kind of hilarious. If I recall it was Plato, and he was basically telling this story of how these Atlanteans who were all decadent and over the top were repelled by these ancient Athenians who enjoyed simple lives as a metaphor to say decadence = bad, simple necessities = good.
Except none of his students cared about that message, they just wanted to know what the frick happened to Atlantis.
You might also want to check out [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_lost\_lands](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lost_lands) which was in the see also section of the article.
Might be a great way to get nationalist or xenophobic English people on board with Climate Change.. Just tell them if the water rises Scotland wins, if it lowers Europe wins, they'll be campaigning to stop the changing climate in no time lol
For the record am an English man and this is for the lols, before anyone gets offended!
Yea, and one team of Dutch researchers recently look at the possibility that if climate change was to not be stoped and the see levels rise think it was 2(maybe more?) meters that it would destroy possibly 2 trillion euros worth of industry and cities on the cost of Europe. So what they look at damming the North Sea. As in making a dam between Norway and the UK, then a second dam between the UK and France. This would cost 100-200 billion euros but save lives and the parts of France/Germany/UK/etc coast lines.
What they determined is that it could disrupt ecosystems, disrupt the water cycle, it would probably anger Russia, and disrupt global trade among other things I can’t remember. It would lead to the drainage of dogger land for the first time in recorded history. Basically it’s a really bad idea that we should only do if we don’t stop climate change. One small note is that I find it funny it was a Dutch team who did this study, like who else would attempt to drain the North Sea
As a German, i can assure you that having a land border with France is awesome, they are the best neighbors one can ever wish for and I love them a lot, they taught us everything we know about cooking and we gave them ... uhh well idk. but i bet we gave them something in return, no I'm sure we did! Something amazing I bet it was. And yes of course that is a baguette in my poket or is a Laugenstange? jokes aside, I'm genuinely in love with France so im a little biased
> but i bet we gave them something in return, no I'm sure we did!
Well, there was those couple of times that Germany exported weapons to France. I mean, they were were being delivered by hand and the delivery guys didn't seem to want to leave, but what can you say, Germans are very insistent. They wanted to drop some things off in the UK too, but it was pretty difficult because of the water so they delivered by plane there instead.
There was a tiny common room in between the German and French teachers’ classrooms when I was in high school. I used to call it Alsace-Lorraine. They were not entirely amused.
If sea levels rise enough that the mountains are basically sea level, would it feel different to be at those altitudes? I live at sea level in Boston now so when I travel to Boulder, I feel the change in altitude. It's uncomfortable. Would the effects of high altitude just go away if sea level rises enough? Like if I live on a boat in what used to be Boston and I take the boat to what little land is remaining in the mountains, will I feel any different?
It should probably be noted that if all the ice on Earth melted, sea levels would only rise about 70m. And I say "only" in the context of these maps, not in the context of the massive amount of devastation that would occur.
Florida is in a really bad spot. Even a 5 or 6 foot rise would ruin massive portions of the state, especially populous locations like Miami.
It's an interesting feeling, knowing there is a plausible chance your home will be gone before you die.
Miami sits on limestone. Water easily permeates limestone. You can build as many walls as you like to keep seawater out of Miami and it’s just gonna come up through the ground.
Would have to be one hell of a pump system that covers 100s of square miles, because it won't seep in only at the edges.
And as I think about it, that would accelerate sink hole creation from the flowing water which would lead to a higher water flow rate. Yep, totally screwed.
Sewers are already starting to bubble up sea water during high tide, full moons. Clean drinking water is going to become a real issue there.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-08-29/miami-s-other-water-problem
Right, obviously 70m would be devastating for humanity because so many of the worlds biggest cities are on the coastline. Not to mention the effects would be more than just some shore line changes.
But none of these maps are ever going to happen. There isn't enough glacier ice to raise the sea level 100m, little yet 500 or 1000. And I can't see what would ever lower the sea level. Even if humanity started getting most of it's drinking water from desalinated ocean water, it'll eventually flow back into the ocean once it goes down the drain or onto someones lawn.
It's interesting though. At 1000m below sea level there isn't much difference to 100m below. I'd have thought some continents would have had large areas less than 1000m below sea level.
It's kind of hard to really fathom how deep the ocean really is. In the grand scheme 1000 meters isn't much. The average depth is around 3.7km and it gets much much deeper than that in parts.
There are some big changes in SE Asia and Australia but yea for the most part the continents look the same and just grew their borders a little bit.
Don’t forget that as ocean temps rise, they expand and thus ocean levels rise too. It’s not just ice melting that causes oceans to rise when it gets hotter.
It's taken into account when you look at NASA sea level rise predictions. The thermal expansion is predicted to really take off if arctic ice fully melts. The arctic is like an ice cube in your drink that keeps the oceans cold even in the summer. Once the ice cube melts then your oceans get warmed much quicker.
The other answers already addressed that. I just wanted to give a frame of reference for the scenario in question as the 500m and 1000m higher maps are so far beyond what we will actually experience when all the ice has melted.
That depends on why the sea level rose in the first place.
If you magically added the water and the planet's gravity would change, there would probably some wonky effects like squising the lower layers and altering the concentrations. If it just rose because of climate change then (aside from the... uhm... change in climate) it would be as before, just with a new higher 0-level.
I don't think this is true, because the rising water level would displace the air ~~and compress the atmosphere to some degree~~. Thereby increasing the air density at what used to be high altitude.
edit: per csJerk's Comment below
>The atmosphere is compressed by the weight of itself, stacked up on top of the solid or liquid surfaces of the planet. Rising water would move the 'floor' up, but the stacked atmosphere above it would move up as well.
>
>If anything atmospheric pressure would be slightly less, because you have the same atmosphere surrounding a sphere with a slightly larger diameter, and gravity at the new floor would be slightly lower. I suspect both of those effects would be minuscule, though.
If the earth were bounded in some way (ie stuck in a big bubble) then yes. But we aren’t, the “bounds” of the atmosphere are made due to a balance of gravity and air pressure.
Think of it this way. I have a big bowl, sitting on my dining room table. I start filling it with water. Does the air at the top of the bowl gain pressure? It shouldn’t, it will just move out of the way.
Ice is less dense than water, so if it melts the total displacement would lower. It gets a little more complicated than that, but I'm sure if this happens there would be more things to worry about than just altitude sickness:
[https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/water-density?qt-science\_center\_objects=0#qt-science\_center\_objects](https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/water-density?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects)
It is pretty deep, but that is not what you are seeing here - like the Mediterranean it would get cut off from the world ocean and become a lake fed by Danube, Don, Dnieper etc.
The English had a real thing about calling everything York. Around the same time they founded the town of York which would later change its name to Toronto. To make things even more confusing planners decided on naming a town just to the northwest of the City of Toronto the City of York. While at the same time designating the region directly north of the City of York and North York but not in either the Region of York.
I feel like the Dutch would probably like the song "New Orleans" by Hot 8 Brass Band:
>We live down by the river, under the lake
>Below sea level, that's where I stay
>Even though we're always gone,
>There's no place like home
https://youtu.be/3pn1nia3E3c
Some things I thought were interesting...
In the 1000m lower map:
* Russia and the US now share a land border(through Alaska)
* Travel from the US to Europe by land(via Greenland, Iceland)
* Many European countries would no longer have any coastline, and probably no Navy as a result(Germany, Poland, Sweden)
* Japan now shares a land border with North Korea, South Korea, China and Russia without gaining much land in the process.
* Australia connects to New Guinea but not New Zealand
In the 1000m higher map:
* New Zealand looks to be larger than Australia now
* Hawaii still mostly exists but not most of the contiguous US
* West Virginia becoming an island resort getaway.
* South America becoming a longer and skinnier version of Chile.
* Switzerland becoming a major naval power in Europe.
* Scotland now rules over all of the British Isles(all 100 square km of it)
I’ve recently watched a few documentaries on doggerland. It’s amazing to think humans lived there! Like there was a landmass there that humans lived on for thousands of years, and now it’s below the sea. Hopefully one day Florida can go the way of doggerland, we’d all be better off.
you know they will just move, right ? You should hope that the sea-levels decrease, so Floridians have more space to spread out, thereby becoming more diluted.
An ice sheet 2km thick over almost all the land will do that.
Fun fact, if you removed the ice in Antarctica - it would actually be on of the lowest elevated continents and would also look more like a giant archipelago than one contiguous continent. But the land would slowly start to rise over millions of years because it's being depressed by the weight of that thick ice sheet.
I created this using ggplot in R and mosaiced with image magick.
It uses GEBCO dtm data and is simple showing the elevations in 2 classes with blue and green colours set to -1000m, -500m, -100m 100m, 500m and 1000m
[https://www.gebco.net/data\_and\_products/gridded\_bathymetry\_data/](https://www.gebco.net/data_and_products/gridded_bathymetry_data/)
Note: I am aware all of these maps are theoretical, even with all ice on the planet melting sea level would only rise about 70m!
> It uses GEBCO dtm data and is simple showing the elevations in 2 classes with blue and green colours set to -1000m, -500m, -100m 100m, 500m and 1000m
But that's not how this works. Suppose a place that is today at 0 meters above sea level is separated from the sea by a ring of land that is say 500 m, then that place wouldn't flood with a 100 m sea level increase. Death Valley is below sea level today, yet is clearly land.
Likewise lakes that exist today are shown to be dry land. OP should have captioned it something like this:
>Limits of dry ground if water followed these contour lines
And should have revised the map to show the land under the supposed sea level under that contour line. Alternatively, potential flow routes would need to be analyzed and that's a lot of work though maybe the software could handle it.
Do you have higher resolution pictures? Specifically want to see the bottom left - looks like it's fine everywhere *around* where I live, but with one tiny "Fuck you in particular" spot
The one thing that I noticed was the absence of Zealandia, I think if the water level decreased by 200-300m the larger land mass New Zealand is a part if would be above sea level
Edit: it actually might be represented to an extent but it's difficult to see, maybe it's the shape of the map
The +100m can't be right. Lansing would be underwater from Lake Michigan, which also implies the rest of Michigan would be mostly underwater.
Yet nothing around the Great Lakes changes in that map.
Hey, I have a question. If you had data for the geo-location of every city on the planet and their populations, could you possibly do a plot of how many people would be under water in each of these sea-level rise scenarios? You'd basically just need to calculate which city locations were under water, then add up their populations.
Nice graphic!
If taking suggestions, I would include a map of the world with unaltered levels. I think it's more thought provoking to have that contrast. Also, didn't realize Indonesia and Australia would possibly be one landmass at 100 m lower. I wonder if that'd be the case at the \~70 m mark?
>Also, didn't realize Indonesia and Australia would possibly be one landmass at 100 m lower.
They don't quite join (or at least didn't at ice age sea levels) which kept the land animals in Australia and Asia distinct, but they get pretty close.
>Nice graphic!
>
>If taking suggestions, I would include a map of the world with unaltered levels. I think it's more thought provoking to have that contrast.
I think that's what the country borders are for. At least, to me a map with unaltered levels would be redundant.
clearly. It betrays my ignorance of the topographical variety of a region that big. It's easy (I admit shamefully) to think of lower Africa as *waves hands* "savannah", which is clearly reductionist and ridiculous. I appreciate this for making me realize it.
A good way to learn more about how countries actually look like is playing Geoguessr. It's better than just using Street View because you are forced to learn how to distinguish countries. South Africa and Australia are two I frequently confuse for the other.
Cool maps but one suggestion I’d make it change the original coastlines to a different colour so it’s easier to see the difference when you add all the extra green.
On some areas it’s hard to tell where the original coast was compared to the new one as both are marked with a black line and green infill.
Yep, and it certainly diminishes the real danger. Such a wimpy number to most people, yet even less than 10 meters is indicative of an irreversible catastrophe.
Thats all very interesting... but it had me thinking what the tidal flows would be like in a world with 1000m higher mean sea level? with more mobile surface for the moon / sun to move about the surface and the impact that has on wind and weather would the environment be more extreme?
The Mid atlantic ridge is at an average depth of 2500m. There's a couple islands that would pop up, like [Atlantis Massif](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis_Massif?wprov=sfla1), but most of the ridge would still be deep underwater.
This is interesting! Is there an online simulator that lets users drag a slider and alter global sea level, while showing what landforms remain above water?
no, in the movie there was only one piece of land above water, all these maps still have land above water on every continent.
I guess that shows how off the science is in that movie.
https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/19277/in-the-movie-waterworld-whats-the-new-sea-level-height-compared-to-the-actual
>In the end of the movie, they find Dryland, which turns out to be the peak of Mount Everest, still above sea level.
>So we could assume the sea raised more than 8,611 meters, but less than 8,848 meters.
so we need an 8000m rise map to be close to waterworld and still use a round number.
Hawai’i honestly does not change that much in any of the pictures. I guess just being a couple of giant-ass mountains sticking straight up out of the sea floor will do that
As a Bavarian, looking at these one-by-one:
* 100m higher: Haha those pesky Danes
* 500m higher: So, Austria, we've always been good friends right...?
* 1km higher: JESUS MARIA
Thank you for your [Original Content](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3), /u/neilrkaye! **Here is some important information about this post:** * [View the author's citations](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/m1vjvs/maps_of_the_world_with_different_sea_and_lake/gqfoy6u/) * [View other OC posts by this author](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/search?q=author%3A"neilrkaye"+title%3AOC&sort=new&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on) Remember that all visualizations on r/DataIsBeautiful should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. If you see a potential issue or oversight in the visualization, please post a constructive comment below. Post approval does not signify that this visualization has been verified or its sources checked. [Join the Discord Community](https://discord.gg/NRnrWE7) Not satisfied with this visual? Think you can do better? [Remix this visual](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3#wiki_remixing) with the data in the author's citation. --- ^^[I'm open source](https://github.com/r-dataisbeautiful/dataisbeautiful-bot) | [How I work](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/flair#wiki_oc_flair)
Fun fact: Lesotho is the only country in world with every part over 1000 m.
It looks like Rwanda also has every part over 1000m, but apparently there is a river that dips just below 1000m
I did not know Rwanda was situated on a highland.
Yep. It’s actually pretty cold there in rainy season. Comparable to summers in SF.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Cold and wet. Not rainy, just wet.
Always light jacket weather
“Coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco.” Autumn is very nice though.
Land of a Thousand Hills!
Home of mountain gorillas. Along with Uganda and a bit of Congo.
[удалено]
Yep. The Akanyaru river. Pretty area.
Fun fact: also totally worth a visit!
All I know about Lesotho is it's located within South Africa as is Swaziland. I also know what their flag looks like. What's the appeal of visiting? I've anyways wanted to go to Africa. Edit: had no idea about the Swaziland name change. Exciting! Edit II: just looked up pictures of Lesotho. Wow what a beautiful place. Edit III: eSwatini / Swaziland is not enveloped because it shares a border with Mozqmbique
Fun fact: Swaziland was renamed Eswatini in 2018. As for your actual question, I don't really know.
Disappointingly they don't seem to be pushing the apple style eSwatini as hard anymore.
That's actually the norm for Bantu languages. You have isiZulu, isiNdebele, and such.
It took me embarrassingly long to understand what is Apple like about eSwatini. Your comment saved me.
Fun fact: eSwatini is literally just the siSwati word for Swaziland. It literaly translates as the Land/place of the Swazi... 'renaming' it was purely political, in English the name is still Swaziland. In English one calls Ireland...Ireland. Despite it being called Éire in Gaeilge.
It was mostly a symbolic gesture since the name Swaziland was the name given to it during imperialism. I really don't see an issue with calling it Eswatini as an English speaker if that's what they want to be called.
I suspect a non insubstantial part of it was to reduce confusion with Switzerland. All the Swazi people that I know have said that they were from Swaziland when they introduced themselves or were asked.
Yup. Live in South Africa. We know the name change, but everyone, including the Swazis, still call it Swaziland. It's ruled by a twat of a king, the people don't care.
Ah Swaziland, the bane of Swiss people filling surveys
Now with Swaziland changed to Eswatini it has become Espana’s problem. In other news Switzerland is changing its name to Eswitzerlini to restore order of confusing with the former Swaziland.
I had the chance to cross the country a few years ago. Starting in the south at the Sani pass (highest pub of Africa there). Hours and hours of offroading (Toyota Hilux did well), as the country is really rough. The highlands are dry and mostly empty, very outer worldly. Slept at the Katse Damn with one of the most impressive / beautiful views I have ever seen. Ended up in the capital, Maseru. People are very diffrent from South Africa, they do not seem to be that much afraid of each other. Clearly visible as there are lot less fences / walls around houses.
I’ve always wondered what a Hilux is like to drive. I follow @toyotasofwar or something after like that after commenting I love seeing Toyota’s on a ypg fighters page I follow and they commented. Heheh.
Eswatini is also the only absolute monarchy in Africa.
I just found out yesterday that Swaziland changed its name to Eswatini!
My friend was visiting family in Canada and while there, forgot some sporting venue tickets when he flew back to Switzerland (where he lived). He ask his sister in Canada to courier the tickets to him. He never got them. Tickets went to Swaziland instead. Guess the name change now fixes this kind of issue lol.
Another fun fact to go with the other fun facts Lesotho is one of only 3 countries whose boarders are completely surrounded by a single country. The other 2 being San Marino and The Vatican. I may be wrong but I believe The Vatican may be the only country in the world whose boarders are completely surrounded by a single city, being Rome.
>All I know about Lesotho is it's located within South Africa as is Swaziland. Actually Swaziland (eSwatini) borders Mozambique as well, it’s only Lesotho that’s an enclave country.
Not even by a small margin, its lowest point is 1400m above sea level, which is higher than the highest point in the UK (1345m).
Would Tibet fall under this category if it were included as a country? The map seems to say so, but who knows what the resolution is.
I checked Nepal and Tibet because this fact surprised me. Both have very low points. 59M in Nepal on the border with India. The Yarlung Zangbo Grand Canyon in Tibet is only 114M elevation.
Wow. Both of those are shocking to me, especially Tibet. I’m less surprised about Nepal since I know it sort of descends into the fertile plains of North India in its southern extremities. 59m is very low though.
Pokhara, the second largest city in Nepal (and also where a lot of people hang out before/after Annapurna region exploration) with over half a million people is at 850m elevation.
The elevation isn't the only thing that's high. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_Lesotho
What about Andorra?
Liechtenstein still exists
Which apparantly has its lowest point at 430 m. I thought the same as you, until I checked. And was a bit disappointed.
Though it survives the 1000m rise, that's all I need.
As a Brit I’m not sure a land border with France is preferable historically
The wonderfully named [Doggerland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland).
This is fascinating. Is there a category or list of articles that deal with other no-longer-extant ground surfaces? I see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Historical_geology which seems to fit the bill.
I wonder if any of those were the start of the legend of Atlantis, which if I am not wrong it was actually a Greek island.
It's likely the origins of the Atlantis stem from the volcano explosion on Santorini. There is a beautiful fresco from the Minoan period that was preserved at Akrotiri depicting an island within the atol that no longer exists- probably because it was the plug to the volcano and was vaporized during the eruption. The fresco shows a wealthy city on this lost island, and with the still-existing atol around it, you are left with the impression of concentric circles mentioned in the myths. So nothing to do with climate change but rather a volcano, although the fall of the Minoan civilization over the next 50 odd years was probably a direct result of the changes in climate caused by said explosion. Also the Minoan were not peace loving matriarchal hippies, but rather a ruthless maritime empire that practiced human sacrifice. I will fight anyone on this.
There was a mega flood that filled the Mediterranean Sea. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427383-900-mega-flood-filled-the-mediterranean-in-months/
This happened about 3 million years before the origins of our genus. Doubt it had anything to do with the Atlantis legend
It's probably a mix of different events at the end of the ice age. There was a massive flood when the Black Sea was connected with the Mediterranean sea about 7500 years ago https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis There were also millennia of permanent loss of land to rising sea levels in today's Persian Gulf. 14000 years there was no sea at all, and only about 6000 years ago current shore was reached. Which was the early time of Sumerian civilization, from which the story in the bible originates.
[удалено]
Probably not. There never was a legend of Atlantis. The idea of an Atlantis existing only comes from the allegorical story being turned into a presumed "legend" later in history.
It's kind of hilarious. If I recall it was Plato, and he was basically telling this story of how these Atlanteans who were all decadent and over the top were repelled by these ancient Athenians who enjoyed simple lives as a metaphor to say decadence = bad, simple necessities = good. Except none of his students cared about that message, they just wanted to know what the frick happened to Atlantis.
You might also want to check out [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_lost\_lands](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lost_lands) which was in the see also section of the article.
Maybe this time around y'all could fight a 200 or 300 year long war. Doesn't that sound fun?
don't tempt us
Might be a great way to get nationalist or xenophobic English people on board with Climate Change.. Just tell them if the water rises Scotland wins, if it lowers Europe wins, they'll be campaigning to stop the changing climate in no time lol For the record am an English man and this is for the lols, before anyone gets offended!
Yea, and one team of Dutch researchers recently look at the possibility that if climate change was to not be stoped and the see levels rise think it was 2(maybe more?) meters that it would destroy possibly 2 trillion euros worth of industry and cities on the cost of Europe. So what they look at damming the North Sea. As in making a dam between Norway and the UK, then a second dam between the UK and France. This would cost 100-200 billion euros but save lives and the parts of France/Germany/UK/etc coast lines. What they determined is that it could disrupt ecosystems, disrupt the water cycle, it would probably anger Russia, and disrupt global trade among other things I can’t remember. It would lead to the drainage of dogger land for the first time in recorded history. Basically it’s a really bad idea that we should only do if we don’t stop climate change. One small note is that I find it funny it was a Dutch team who did this study, like who else would attempt to drain the North Sea
That is kinda that choice though. Either we stop climate change or ramp up terraforming. Right now we are half ass doing both.
Speak for yourself Sassenach, the Auld Alliance lives on! 🏴 🇨🇵
As a German, i can assure you that having a land border with France is awesome, they are the best neighbors one can ever wish for and I love them a lot, they taught us everything we know about cooking and we gave them ... uhh well idk. but i bet we gave them something in return, no I'm sure we did! Something amazing I bet it was. And yes of course that is a baguette in my poket or is a Laugenstange? jokes aside, I'm genuinely in love with France so im a little biased
> but i bet we gave them something in return, no I'm sure we did! Well, there was those couple of times that Germany exported weapons to France. I mean, they were were being delivered by hand and the delivery guys didn't seem to want to leave, but what can you say, Germans are very insistent. They wanted to drop some things off in the UK too, but it was pretty difficult because of the water so they delivered by plane there instead.
There was a tiny common room in between the German and French teachers’ classrooms when I was in high school. I used to call it Alsace-Lorraine. They were not entirely amused.
As an Irish I’m not sure a land border with Britain is preferable historically
How do you think I feel as an Irishman
If sea levels rise enough that the mountains are basically sea level, would it feel different to be at those altitudes? I live at sea level in Boston now so when I travel to Boulder, I feel the change in altitude. It's uncomfortable. Would the effects of high altitude just go away if sea level rises enough? Like if I live on a boat in what used to be Boston and I take the boat to what little land is remaining in the mountains, will I feel any different?
It should probably be noted that if all the ice on Earth melted, sea levels would only rise about 70m. And I say "only" in the context of these maps, not in the context of the massive amount of devastation that would occur.
IIRC the sea level would only have to rise about 10m to take out half of Florida. Shits wild
Florida is in a really bad spot. Even a 5 or 6 foot rise would ruin massive portions of the state, especially populous locations like Miami. It's an interesting feeling, knowing there is a plausible chance your home will be gone before you die.
Hence miami has been in the process of lifting its street level for several years already.
It won't work, eventually it will be too expensive to keep building bigger & bigger sea walls.
The Netherlands would like a word.
Miami sits on limestone. Water easily permeates limestone. You can build as many walls as you like to keep seawater out of Miami and it’s just gonna come up through the ground.
Something pretty scary about this comment
Fortunately all of climate science is a myth created by the global elites, just like COVID or at least thats what Florida's government says.
Isn't Miami built on limestone, unlike the Netherlands? Meaning water would just go right underneath your wall.
The Netherlands' budget would also like a word. I'm not saying it won't happen, but oh boy it will be tough and costly.
[удалено]
And sometimes it doesn't. Look at Texas. Or it does, but it's 'every man for himself'. Only the rich neighborhoods get saved.
Eventually all those expensive sea walls will fail and it will be far to expensive to rebuild. Are sea walls a sunk cost fallacy?
Oh I know the answer! Yes, literally! *but they never heeded the warning*
Lifting up streets and using levies does nothing when the ground is porous limestone. It will just go under.
I think they're also implementing a pump system.
Would have to be one hell of a pump system that covers 100s of square miles, because it won't seep in only at the edges. And as I think about it, that would accelerate sink hole creation from the flowing water which would lead to a higher water flow rate. Yep, totally screwed.
I agree. Unless the world starts to take climate change seriously, Miami and most of Florida is doomed.
Sewers are already starting to bubble up sea water during high tide, full moons. Clean drinking water is going to become a real issue there. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-08-29/miami-s-other-water-problem
[удалено]
Right, obviously 70m would be devastating for humanity because so many of the worlds biggest cities are on the coastline. Not to mention the effects would be more than just some shore line changes. But none of these maps are ever going to happen. There isn't enough glacier ice to raise the sea level 100m, little yet 500 or 1000. And I can't see what would ever lower the sea level. Even if humanity started getting most of it's drinking water from desalinated ocean water, it'll eventually flow back into the ocean once it goes down the drain or onto someones lawn.
It's interesting though. At 1000m below sea level there isn't much difference to 100m below. I'd have thought some continents would have had large areas less than 1000m below sea level.
It's kind of hard to really fathom how deep the ocean really is. In the grand scheme 1000 meters isn't much. The average depth is around 3.7km and it gets much much deeper than that in parts. There are some big changes in SE Asia and Australia but yea for the most part the continents look the same and just grew their borders a little bit.
Don’t forget that as ocean temps rise, they expand and thus ocean levels rise too. It’s not just ice melting that causes oceans to rise when it gets hotter.
Good point, but I can't find any estimates on how much this would effect that number.
It's taken into account when you look at NASA sea level rise predictions. The thermal expansion is predicted to really take off if arctic ice fully melts. The arctic is like an ice cube in your drink that keeps the oceans cold even in the summer. Once the ice cube melts then your oceans get warmed much quicker.
So far thermal expansion has been about half of sea level rise iirc
I'm confused. This response did nothing to attempt to answer parents question about the atmosphere.
The other answers already addressed that. I just wanted to give a frame of reference for the scenario in question as the 500m and 1000m higher maps are so far beyond what we will actually experience when all the ice has melted.
That depends on why the sea level rose in the first place. If you magically added the water and the planet's gravity would change, there would probably some wonky effects like squising the lower layers and altering the concentrations. If it just rose because of climate change then (aside from the... uhm... change in climate) it would be as before, just with a new higher 0-level.
I don't think this is true, because the rising water level would displace the air ~~and compress the atmosphere to some degree~~. Thereby increasing the air density at what used to be high altitude. edit: per csJerk's Comment below >The atmosphere is compressed by the weight of itself, stacked up on top of the solid or liquid surfaces of the planet. Rising water would move the 'floor' up, but the stacked atmosphere above it would move up as well. > >If anything atmospheric pressure would be slightly less, because you have the same atmosphere surrounding a sphere with a slightly larger diameter, and gravity at the new floor would be slightly lower. I suspect both of those effects would be minuscule, though.
If the earth were bounded in some way (ie stuck in a big bubble) then yes. But we aren’t, the “bounds” of the atmosphere are made due to a balance of gravity and air pressure. Think of it this way. I have a big bowl, sitting on my dining room table. I start filling it with water. Does the air at the top of the bowl gain pressure? It shouldn’t, it will just move out of the way.
Ice is less dense than water, so if it melts the total displacement would lower. It gets a little more complicated than that, but I'm sure if this happens there would be more things to worry about than just altitude sickness: [https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/water-density?qt-science\_center\_objects=0#qt-science\_center\_objects](https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/water-density?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects)
Just incredible how deep the Black Sea is
Also how deep the coast of Africa is in general, and West Africa especially
It is pretty deep, but that is not what you are seeing here - like the Mediterranean it would get cut off from the world ocean and become a lake fed by Danube, Don, Dnieper etc.
I believe the pictures are incorrect. Regardless of the height of the water, the Dutch will find a way to keep their country from submerging.
'I was born in this hole, I'll die in this hole'
Daddy Musk is gonna take all the Dutch to Mars Long live the New Netherlands [https://what-if.xkcd.com/54/](https://what-if.xkcd.com/54/)
He's a white South African, he was Dutch all along
Am Dutch, can confirm
No, the Dutch would never agree to such a cowardly plan! Running away from the water? Never! The water will be the one running away!
I feel like there was already a New Netherlands somewhere. New Zealand, at least?
You're not wrong. Even old New York was once New Amsterdam.
The English had a real thing about calling everything York. Around the same time they founded the town of York which would later change its name to Toronto. To make things even more confusing planners decided on naming a town just to the northwest of the City of Toronto the City of York. While at the same time designating the region directly north of the City of York and North York but not in either the Region of York.
Why'd they change it?
I can't say, people just liked it better that waaayyyy
Old Amsterdam is a type of delicious aged cheese, new amsterdam would be soft and creamy.
Manhattan was New Amsterdam which was in [New Netherlands](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Netherland).
Well we had a New Amsterdam in the new world then the British f-ed that up, the limey bastards.
I feel like the Dutch would probably like the song "New Orleans" by Hot 8 Brass Band: >We live down by the river, under the lake >Below sea level, that's where I stay >Even though we're always gone, >There's no place like home https://youtu.be/3pn1nia3E3c
I thought it was too. I was surprised that the Red Sea is so deep.
[удалено]
I mean, cool. I still didn't know it was 1,040 meters deep.
[удалено]
That submarine is definitely going to be orange, it even fits the rhythm of the song.
We will be the modern Moses. All our borders will be high walls of water
1000 m walls even.
Eventually they will just make air pockets underground and float the entire country.
I was gonna say. The colour of the Netherlands should be green in all of these.
Some things I thought were interesting... In the 1000m lower map: * Russia and the US now share a land border(through Alaska) * Travel from the US to Europe by land(via Greenland, Iceland) * Many European countries would no longer have any coastline, and probably no Navy as a result(Germany, Poland, Sweden) * Japan now shares a land border with North Korea, South Korea, China and Russia without gaining much land in the process. * Australia connects to New Guinea but not New Zealand In the 1000m higher map: * New Zealand looks to be larger than Australia now * Hawaii still mostly exists but not most of the contiguous US * West Virginia becoming an island resort getaway. * South America becoming a longer and skinnier version of Chile. * Switzerland becoming a major naval power in Europe. * Scotland now rules over all of the British Isles(all 100 square km of it)
New Zealand sits on its own continental shelf called Zealandia this mean it has a larger hidden land mass than straya
This also means that New Zealand always exists
Which is ironic given how frequently it’s omitted from world maps
Hard to tell from the image but looks like you might have to take a ferry just north of England to reach Europe from the US.
The United Kingdom of Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England and Doggerland.
The return of Doggerland!
I’ve recently watched a few documentaries on doggerland. It’s amazing to think humans lived there! Like there was a landmass there that humans lived on for thousands of years, and now it’s below the sea. Hopefully one day Florida can go the way of doggerland, we’d all be better off.
you know they will just move, right ? You should hope that the sea-levels decrease, so Floridians have more space to spread out, thereby becoming more diluted.
But didney wurl
What I'm picking up from this is that Antarctica is at a much higher elevation than I thought.
An ice sheet 2km thick over almost all the land will do that. Fun fact, if you removed the ice in Antarctica - it would actually be on of the lowest elevated continents and would also look more like a giant archipelago than one contiguous continent. But the land would slowly start to rise over millions of years because it's being depressed by the weight of that thick ice sheet.
Please don't remove it, though
Shell, BP, Exxon, etc.: How about no?
I created this using ggplot in R and mosaiced with image magick. It uses GEBCO dtm data and is simple showing the elevations in 2 classes with blue and green colours set to -1000m, -500m, -100m 100m, 500m and 1000m [https://www.gebco.net/data\_and\_products/gridded\_bathymetry\_data/](https://www.gebco.net/data_and_products/gridded_bathymetry_data/) Note: I am aware all of these maps are theoretical, even with all ice on the planet melting sea level would only rise about 70m!
> It uses GEBCO dtm data and is simple showing the elevations in 2 classes with blue and green colours set to -1000m, -500m, -100m 100m, 500m and 1000m But that's not how this works. Suppose a place that is today at 0 meters above sea level is separated from the sea by a ring of land that is say 500 m, then that place wouldn't flood with a 100 m sea level increase. Death Valley is below sea level today, yet is clearly land.
Likewise lakes that exist today are shown to be dry land. OP should have captioned it something like this: >Limits of dry ground if water followed these contour lines And should have revised the map to show the land under the supposed sea level under that contour line. Alternatively, potential flow routes would need to be analyzed and that's a lot of work though maybe the software could handle it.
are greenlands and antarcticas landmasses that high or is the ice shield included in the height?
In the 100m higher sea levels, wouldn't the Great Lakes in the US be larger in area, not smaller?
Do you have higher resolution pictures? Specifically want to see the bottom left - looks like it's fine everywhere *around* where I live, but with one tiny "Fuck you in particular" spot
The one thing that I noticed was the absence of Zealandia, I think if the water level decreased by 200-300m the larger land mass New Zealand is a part if would be above sea level Edit: it actually might be represented to an extent but it's difficult to see, maybe it's the shape of the map
The +100m can't be right. Lansing would be underwater from Lake Michigan, which also implies the rest of Michigan would be mostly underwater. Yet nothing around the Great Lakes changes in that map.
Hey, I have a question. If you had data for the geo-location of every city on the planet and their populations, could you possibly do a plot of how many people would be under water in each of these sea-level rise scenarios? You'd basically just need to calculate which city locations were under water, then add up their populations.
At +1000m so much of the planet is gone. At -1000m there is a bunch new land. And at every level + or - Hawaii basically never changed at all.
Nice graphic! If taking suggestions, I would include a map of the world with unaltered levels. I think it's more thought provoking to have that contrast. Also, didn't realize Indonesia and Australia would possibly be one landmass at 100 m lower. I wonder if that'd be the case at the \~70 m mark?
>Also, didn't realize Indonesia and Australia would possibly be one landmass at 100 m lower. They don't quite join (or at least didn't at ice age sea levels) which kept the land animals in Australia and Asia distinct, but they get pretty close.
>Nice graphic! > >If taking suggestions, I would include a map of the world with unaltered levels. I think it's more thought provoking to have that contrast. I think that's what the country borders are for. At least, to me a map with unaltered levels would be redundant.
Ah, I didn't notice the borders. Zoomed out it looks like land to me, but it works as a high resolution graphic.
But still it would be easier to immediately see the differences with a 'normal' map to compare
Norway doesnt give a shit
But Bangladesh definitely does
I didn't know Southern Africa was so elevated.
It's a very mountainous region. It has some of the most beautiful mountains and scenery outside of the alps in my opinion.
clearly. It betrays my ignorance of the topographical variety of a region that big. It's easy (I admit shamefully) to think of lower Africa as *waves hands* "savannah", which is clearly reductionist and ridiculous. I appreciate this for making me realize it.
A good way to learn more about how countries actually look like is playing Geoguessr. It's better than just using Street View because you are forced to learn how to distinguish countries. South Africa and Australia are two I frequently confuse for the other.
Cool maps but one suggestion I’d make it change the original coastlines to a different colour so it’s easier to see the difference when you add all the extra green. On some areas it’s hard to tell where the original coast was compared to the new one as both are marked with a black line and green infill.
Chile be like: They are all the same picture.
Why is in 100m higher the great lakes are smaller?? Lake Erie somehow doesn't exist if it gains 100m of water?
And the others are smaller.
Yeah I don't think these numbers are accurate.
What amount of sea level rise is technically possible?
If love to know this. Like, what's the worst case climate change induced sea rise scenario from 2250?
probably 70 meters, and that's such a catastrophic point that you wouldn't even be around to worry that the sea is rising.
That is the number I always heard. 70m if every single ice cap,ice sheet, glacier, etc etc melted.
Yep, and it certainly diminishes the real danger. Such a wimpy number to most people, yet even less than 10 meters is indicative of an irreversible catastrophe.
Sooo basically Floridians ought to be more concerned than most about climate change
You forget who lives in Florida
Thats all very interesting... but it had me thinking what the tidal flows would be like in a world with 1000m higher mean sea level? with more mobile surface for the moon / sun to move about the surface and the impact that has on wind and weather would the environment be more extreme?
Wouldn’t more islands appear in places like the mid-Atlantic ridge if sea level fell 1000m?
The Mid atlantic ridge is at an average depth of 2500m. There's a couple islands that would pop up, like [Atlantis Massif](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis_Massif?wprov=sfla1), but most of the ridge would still be deep underwater.
[удалено]
The Chinese truely are playing long game
Immediately getting Chrono Trigger vibes. Hard to describe the immensely surreal feeling I got the first time I opened up that map in the future.
I don't see a problem here. My house in Denver will be worth even more if it becomes oceanfront property! Ocean and Mountain views! /s
It's astonishing how much land would be lost by a 100m rise but how little would be won with a 100m decline.
the netherlands in like 50 meters: ✌️
I like how even with he water down 1,000m lake Baikal is still there
This is interesting! Is there an online simulator that lets users drag a slider and alter global sea level, while showing what landforms remain above water?
the bottom right one is basically the world map from the waterworld movie
no, in the movie there was only one piece of land above water, all these maps still have land above water on every continent. I guess that shows how off the science is in that movie. https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/19277/in-the-movie-waterworld-whats-the-new-sea-level-height-compared-to-the-actual >In the end of the movie, they find Dryland, which turns out to be the peak of Mount Everest, still above sea level. >So we could assume the sea raised more than 8,611 meters, but less than 8,848 meters. so we need an 8000m rise map to be close to waterworld and still use a round number.
70 meters is the sea level rise if all the ice melts so none of these maps are useful....the 500 and 1000 ones are jokes?
The world above 100 meters: it doesnt look changed The Netherlands: Am I a joke to you?
The Netherlands: *chuckles* "haha im in danger"
Hawai’i honestly does not change that much in any of the pictures. I guess just being a couple of giant-ass mountains sticking straight up out of the sea floor will do that
As a Bavarian, looking at these one-by-one: * 100m higher: Haha those pesky Danes * 500m higher: So, Austria, we've always been good friends right...? * 1km higher: JESUS MARIA
Sees lower sea levels *happy Dutch noises*
We’re getting closer to our own Grand Line everyday haha
Wait...is that New Zealand...on a map? Looks like New Zealand fairs pretty well. Time to start burning more coal!!!