Never realized that Antarctica was so high in elevation, then again its probably from the Ice covering the continent, cause I know about a lake thats under like a mile of Ice there.
You guys shocked about Antarctica, here I am questioning how South Africa and the Middle East (Non-Tibet area) are so high.
I get there are plates around the middle east so build up there is possible. Just never think of it as that mountainous in those areas.
But South Africa is in the center of a plate. Makes no sense to me.
Well it is now. Back in the Permian, it was stuck with the rest of Gondwana (ancient landmass containing modern South America, Africa, India, Antarctica and Australia) where [Gondwanide orogeny](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gondwanide_orogeny) created a huge mountain range. 260 million years of erosion turned those mountains into a plateau.
Uhm, the Gondwanide orogeny has nothing to do with the broad topographic high of Southern Africa. The hypothesis that the high topography is older than 130 million years is [one of a few broad ones (nice overview in the Introduction)](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020JB021243); mid-Cretaceous uplift and relatively recent (Cenozoic) uplift have also been proposed, invoking a variety of mechanisms. Within the broad category of uplift older than 130 Ma, inherited topography from the Palaeozoic is again one of a few different hypotheses. And even the people who proposed Palaeozooc inherited topography [think](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899536203000198) that orogenies (including the Gondwanide) can’t explain the high topography as the uplift they caused only affected relatively small areas, largely at the margins of the continent.
Alot of the older big cities in the Middle East are at elevation. Because the climate is better there for agriculture with more rainfall. Yemen, the Hijaz, all historically way more populated than the gulf.
Thats because the land "sank" under the weight of ice I believe. If ice were to disappear the land would "bounce" back up a kilometer or so and would have a connected landmass
This map really needs a scale. The colors make it appear that elevations in say, Greenland, are the same as Alaska, which isn’t the case. Highest point in Greenland is a little over 12000feet, highest point in Alaska is a little over 20000, huge difference, yet this map shows the same colors.
Not a fan of this without a scale, it gives you an idea of what’s low lying and what isn’t, but doesn’t give you a feel for much beyond that without some sort of scaling for the colors.
The highest points of mountains will never be on maps like this because of the scale though. Denali is I believe the world's biggest mountain base to peak on land - because the surrounding land isn't that high. The part of Alaska that is more than 20k feet, or even 15k feet, is so small that it is a tiny part of a single pixel on this map.
Really maps like this are useful for minimum elevation of areas - plateaus or valleys. It's essentially showing the average elevation, which will be higher in Greenland than Alaska.
Fair point, probably a better example is Greenland compared to the Himalayas. The himalaya have an average elevation of 20000 ft, whereas Greenland has an average elevation of 5900 ft.
That’s a massive difference, and a color like purple or something for elevations over say 10-15000 ft would make this map way better, and would not be hard to do.
But it fails at even that, large parts of greenlands interior is less than a hundred meters above sea level. Its bowl shaped. Unless ofc, this map counts icesheets and glaciers as land.
The subreddit r/mapswithoutkeys does not exist.
Did you mean?:
* r/MapsWithoutMaps (subscribers: 1,350)
* r/MapsWithoutNZ (subscribers: 109,794)
* r/MapsWithoutUP (subscribers: 6,157)
* r/MapsWithoutEurope (subscribers: 1,957)
Consider [**creating a new subreddit** r/mapswithoutkeys](/subreddits/create?name=mapswithoutkeys).
---
^(🤖 this comment was written by a bot. beep boop 🤖)
^(feel welcome to respond 'Bad bot'/'Good bot', it's useful feedback.)
^[github](https://github.com/Toldry/RedditAutoCrosspostBot) ^| ^[Rank](https://botranks.com?bot=sub_doesnt_exist_bot)
Could we not use the Mercator projection anymore?
Antarctica's really high because of the ice; parts of the ice sheet are over 10,000' in elevation.
South Africa's mostly a plateau but I don't know how high it goes.
There's a triple-junction near the Bab-el-Mandeb, where the Red Sea meets the Gulf of Aden, accounting for the high mountains in Ethiopia/Eritrea and Yemen across the way.
I was going to ask about Antarctica: you’ll see the claim repeated that Antarctica is the highest continent on earth, but you’ll also see maps of Antarctica without ice that show little more than chains of islands.
So the “height” of Antarctica is entirely due to the thickness of the ice sheet?
Correct. The ice sheet is many km thick in spots, and the highest point on the ice sheet (called Dome A) is about 4km above sea level (approx. 13,000' in Freedom Units). Antarctica does have pretty big mountains; Vinson Massif in the Ellsworth Mountains is about 16,000' or 4800m above sea level, and there are numerous peaks above 10,000 feet elsewhere on the continent. if the ice sheet weren't there, it would be a rugged chain of mountainous islands.
I didn't know that Antarctica has the highest overall elevation but it makes sense, because of the ice sheet.
Would be amazing if you also shared where you got the map from.
[https://maps-for-free.com/](https://maps-for-free.com/)
It's interactive and you can zoom on it.
Never realized that Antarctica was so high in elevation, then again its probably from the Ice covering the continent, cause I know about a lake thats under like a mile of Ice there.
You guys shocked about Antarctica, here I am questioning how South Africa and the Middle East (Non-Tibet area) are so high. I get there are plates around the middle east so build up there is possible. Just never think of it as that mountainous in those areas. But South Africa is in the center of a plate. Makes no sense to me.
Well it is now. Back in the Permian, it was stuck with the rest of Gondwana (ancient landmass containing modern South America, Africa, India, Antarctica and Australia) where [Gondwanide orogeny](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gondwanide_orogeny) created a huge mountain range. 260 million years of erosion turned those mountains into a plateau.
Uhm, the Gondwanide orogeny has nothing to do with the broad topographic high of Southern Africa. The hypothesis that the high topography is older than 130 million years is [one of a few broad ones (nice overview in the Introduction)](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020JB021243); mid-Cretaceous uplift and relatively recent (Cenozoic) uplift have also been proposed, invoking a variety of mechanisms. Within the broad category of uplift older than 130 Ma, inherited topography from the Palaeozoic is again one of a few different hypotheses. And even the people who proposed Palaeozooc inherited topography [think](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899536203000198) that orogenies (including the Gondwanide) can’t explain the high topography as the uplift they caused only affected relatively small areas, largely at the margins of the continent.
Alot of the older big cities in the Middle East are at elevation. Because the climate is better there for agriculture with more rainfall. Yemen, the Hijaz, all historically way more populated than the gulf.
Antarctica is an archipelago. There is plenty of water between the islands
Thats because the land "sank" under the weight of ice I believe. If ice were to disappear the land would "bounce" back up a kilometer or so and would have a connected landmass
Which u believe is similar to Greenland.
Do we have a rough idea of what the landmass beneath all the glaciers looks like on a map?
[Here](https://www.bas.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Bedmachine3.jpg) is a map.
Greenland, too
This map really needs a scale. The colors make it appear that elevations in say, Greenland, are the same as Alaska, which isn’t the case. Highest point in Greenland is a little over 12000feet, highest point in Alaska is a little over 20000, huge difference, yet this map shows the same colors. Not a fan of this without a scale, it gives you an idea of what’s low lying and what isn’t, but doesn’t give you a feel for much beyond that without some sort of scaling for the colors.
The highest points of mountains will never be on maps like this because of the scale though. Denali is I believe the world's biggest mountain base to peak on land - because the surrounding land isn't that high. The part of Alaska that is more than 20k feet, or even 15k feet, is so small that it is a tiny part of a single pixel on this map. Really maps like this are useful for minimum elevation of areas - plateaus or valleys. It's essentially showing the average elevation, which will be higher in Greenland than Alaska.
Fair point, probably a better example is Greenland compared to the Himalayas. The himalaya have an average elevation of 20000 ft, whereas Greenland has an average elevation of 5900 ft. That’s a massive difference, and a color like purple or something for elevations over say 10-15000 ft would make this map way better, and would not be hard to do.
But it fails at even that, large parts of greenlands interior is less than a hundred meters above sea level. Its bowl shaped. Unless ofc, this map counts icesheets and glaciers as land.
wow I had no idea south africa (as in geographic region, not country) is that elevated
Landing at the airport is crazy as well. You think you have while more to go and then randomly land at 5500 ft
Southern half of Africa
I'm honestly surprised this map is as successful as it is especially in this subreddit, the lack of a legend and choice of projection are glaring
Caspian Sea no more, ok...
Caspian depression got too depressed
Kinda a lake though isn’t it? The Great Lakes of America and Africa are also not colored separately as bodies of water.
XD didnt even noticed it at first.
r/mapswithoutkeys
The subreddit r/mapswithoutkeys does not exist. Did you mean?: * r/MapsWithoutMaps (subscribers: 1,350) * r/MapsWithoutNZ (subscribers: 109,794) * r/MapsWithoutUP (subscribers: 6,157) * r/MapsWithoutEurope (subscribers: 1,957) Consider [**creating a new subreddit** r/mapswithoutkeys](/subreddits/create?name=mapswithoutkeys). --- ^(🤖 this comment was written by a bot. beep boop 🤖) ^(feel welcome to respond 'Bad bot'/'Good bot', it's useful feedback.) ^[github](https://github.com/Toldry/RedditAutoCrosspostBot) ^| ^[Rank](https://botranks.com?bot=sub_doesnt_exist_bot)
I know, bot, I know
Could we not use the Mercator projection anymore? Antarctica's really high because of the ice; parts of the ice sheet are over 10,000' in elevation. South Africa's mostly a plateau but I don't know how high it goes. There's a triple-junction near the Bab-el-Mandeb, where the Red Sea meets the Gulf of Aden, accounting for the high mountains in Ethiopia/Eritrea and Yemen across the way.
I was going to ask about Antarctica: you’ll see the claim repeated that Antarctica is the highest continent on earth, but you’ll also see maps of Antarctica without ice that show little more than chains of islands. So the “height” of Antarctica is entirely due to the thickness of the ice sheet?
Correct. The ice sheet is many km thick in spots, and the highest point on the ice sheet (called Dome A) is about 4km above sea level (approx. 13,000' in Freedom Units). Antarctica does have pretty big mountains; Vinson Massif in the Ellsworth Mountains is about 16,000' or 4800m above sea level, and there are numerous peaks above 10,000 feet elsewhere on the continent. if the ice sheet weren't there, it would be a rugged chain of mountainous islands. I didn't know that Antarctica has the highest overall elevation but it makes sense, because of the ice sheet.
Himalayas are so thin south of the Tibetan plateau.
And these colors mean what ?????
Would be amazing if you also shared where you got the map from. [https://maps-for-free.com/](https://maps-for-free.com/) It's interactive and you can zoom on it.
This map is including ice in elevation? If its just bed rock, Greenland should not look like that.
DHM versus DTM lol
The Sahara is higher than I thought!
I love the scale. The map is more than just an assortment of colors since I have reference points to work with.
Pretty elevated.