-3
$\begingroup$

What pieces of land will be the first and the last to drawn because of the current temperature rise causing the ice in the northern antarctic and so on and so forth to melt. it is reported that the temperature will rise globally about 2 degrees, this is a serious issue because in the ice age the temperature was only -4. please correct me if i am wrong.

$\endgroup$

closed as off-topic by Mike Scott, Renan, Mark Olson, Mołot, cobaltduck Dec 28 '18 at 14:00

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "This question does not appear to be about worldbuilding, within the scope defined in the help center." – Mike Scott, Renan, Mark Olson, cobaltduck
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 5
    $\begingroup$ This question is more at home in another part of this site, Worldbuilding focusses more on fictional places. Furthermore the question is very broad and hard to answer. $\endgroup$ – Borgh Dec 28 '18 at 11:28
  • $\begingroup$ The first country has already drowned. I don't recall it's name (so this is a comment), but it was all over the news a few years ago. It may well be the last, too. $\endgroup$ – pojo-guy Dec 28 '18 at 13:25
  • $\begingroup$ This is more of a climate science question than a worldbuilding question. Consider asking this either on another stackexchange site or on Quora or a similar site. $\endgroup$ – The Weasel Sagas Dec 28 '18 at 16:01
5
$\begingroup$

The following map will answer your questions and show all answers in between.

http://www.floodmap.net/


If all the ice covering Antarctica, Greenland, and in mountain glaciers around the world were to melt, sea level would rise about 70 meters (230 feet). The ocean would cover all the coastal cities. And land area would shrink significantly. But many cities, such as Denver, would survive. https://www.amnh.org/explore/ology/earth/ask-a-scientist-about-our-environment/will-the-world-ever-be-all-under-water

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The map seems to assume that sea-level rise is distributed evenly, but things are more complicated than that. Depending on how quickly things happen, post-glacial rebound can also affect sea levels relative to land. $\endgroup$ – Geoffrey Brent Dec 28 '18 at 23:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, also tides will continue to rise and fall on a daily basis. Also some people will reinforce their tidal barriers for as long as possible. The map does however give a first approximation. I'm sure the full answer would receive a well-deserved PhD. $\endgroup$ – chasly from UK Dec 28 '18 at 23:21
3
$\begingroup$

We don't know.

And that is part of what makes this scary. A slight rise in temperature might cause glaciers to break off and slide into the oceans, make other glaciers shrink, change the albedo of Earth, and lead to even more changes.

Regarding the first land to vanish, there will be some of that at every coastline which isn't a straight cliff. Some countries have dikes to keep the oceans out. If they are wealthy enough they can build them higher. Those who can't afford dikes will flood.

Regarding the last land to vanish, you can be confident that there will be plenty of land sticking out. The movie Waterworld got it quite wrong.

On a global scale mankind could handle the loss of living and farming areas without many problems. Eating less meat would be healthier and reduce food consumption (a pig or cow needs lots of animal feed to produce meat). And people don't need hundreds of square feet of living space, either.

But it would be hard on the people who live in low-lying areas.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This ignores the other effects of global warming. And while humans may be able to survive in less than hundreds of square feet of living space, very few voluntarily choose to do so. About the only common instance I can think of are people in prisons. $\endgroup$ – jamesqf Dec 28 '18 at 19:29
  • $\begingroup$ @jamesqf, the last part is a very Western-centric view. Quite a lot of people cannot afford more living space. $\endgroup$ – o.m. Dec 29 '18 at 5:18
  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean by "living space"? I take it to mean the space in which they can move, not the size of a dwelling. So it's not necessary for people to be able to afford the space themselves: they might own or rent a small dwelling, but be able to go outside at any time. $\endgroup$ – jamesqf Dec 29 '18 at 5:37
  • $\begingroup$ @jamesqf, I mean the dwelling. I don't think one would call public roads and the like "living space." $\endgroup$ – o.m. Dec 29 '18 at 7:01

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.