Lowest point in Switzerland is only 193m above sea level
Edit: above not below haha, in fact most of these countries have a point that is even lower. Lesotho stands out since it's lowest point is over 1km above sea level
This comment made me interested in the topic, so I'll just drop a source corroborating the trend you mentioned and providing some extra nuance.
From about 3,000 years ago to about 100 years ago, sea levels naturally rose and declined slightly, with little change in the overall trend. Over the past 100 years, global temperatures have risen about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F), with sea level response to that warming totaling about 160 to 210 mm (with about half of that amount occurring since 1993), or about 6 to 8 inches. And the current rate of sea-level rise is unprecedented over the past several millennia.
So, where is the 9 inches in height being distributed? While I don't doubt the science, I am not seeing this at either side of the smallest continent I live on. (I have the fortune to live near beaches both east and west)
Certainly, there are sand bank changes and beaches build over summer then collapse over winter. But 9 inches would mean high tides would be severely undercutting the toes of cliffs and sandbanks. There would be trees dead. Parts of beaches would be inaccessible.
Now of course, over 150 years, right? Beyond my little life. Yet, the beaches and estuaries, ports, wharves, stairs, fishing spots, caves, are pretty much as they were 150 years ago.
I'm only working on a limited understanding of the complicated mess of ocean dynamics, but NASA has this to say:
The areas farthest from the melted ice will see the most sea level rise as a result. Conversely, areas nearest to Greenland and Antarctica will see the least amount of sea level rise (and some areas will actually see sea levels drop). Scientists even track the annual cycle of ice sheet mass losses to further refine their sea level rise measurements.
Between 1993 and 2018, sea level rose 12 to 15 millimeters per year (about half an inch per year) in some regions, and went down by that amount in others. But on average, it has gone up by about 3 millimeters per year (about 28 millimeters, or 1-1/8 inches, per decade) in that same period. Most of this unevenness is caused by ocean dynamics.
So it seems like sea level rise can vary significantly based on where you are. It might even decrease a little. On average, it's increasing.
Aha, so the low lying Pacific islands will get the most effects, be most visible, of rise. The water is cycling to the middle due to ... currents or.... centrifugal effects....Got it.
Agreed, but the truth is that at Sydney Circular Quay there is no change to where and how the ferries dock, for example. That's 240 odd years of data. Same with Fremantle's port, and that's 120 odd years. Where are the over-topping of seawalls?
I only ask because, not as a sceptic, but as someone who is concerned about increased periodic inundation on high tides that will erode away the shores.
If the ocean level is only 4m off Lake Ontario then the st Lawrence River doesn't exist anymore. Lake Ontario is just a bay off the Atlantic. Tides are often higher than 4m.
I've looked into it a little as I live only about 10 minutes away from Lake Ontario. You are the first person who has suggested that sea level rise will flood the great lakes. I've heard many others who claim to have relevant scientific knowledge say the opposite. One suggested that the Great Lakes, at least at this time, is in more danger of losing water through evaporation caused by higher temperatures.
Is this scenario in Waterworld or the real world, though? In the real world the most sea levels could rise if all the ice melted would be about 70m, so plenty of places wouldn't even be touched.
Well, yeah. China’s centuries of self imposed isolationism led to them gaining remarkably few overseas territories, only after the communists took over was there really a sense of China flexing its muscles on the international scene, and that didn’t go well in N Korea or Vietnam. Their Imperial ambitions remain though, so the annexation of lands they consider to be Chinese because they might have been conquered at some point in history, and there refusal to accept break away parts, like Taiwan, are understandable, but still awful.
What’s up with you guys trying to drag in “China bad” into literally anything?
It’s like yall have a quota for these posts, it’s actually comical sometimes.
Also, Tibetan independence is as big of a movement in China as Californian independence is in the United States, that is to say non existent. Under literally no legitimate definitions of a country can Tibet be qualified to fulfill.
As someone who goes to Tibet multiple times a year, you’re mistaken that there isn’t a big independence movement. There’s a reason why China needs to keep such an authoritarian and militant presence against Tibetans in order to control Tibet.
It doesnt only depend on the lowest point. If the surroundring land is higher than 1400m and you have a pit in the Middle at 600meters, the water is not able to reach that point.
Something many people have overseen, is a country's lowest elevation might be bowl formed. Meaning that a higher lowest elevation is not simple the answer. The same reasoning as some countries have thier lowest point below sea level.
But it doesn't matter, as a few quick google search gives the same answer, Lesotho. Almost every country, with a high lowest elevation, are located on a river which eventually run to the ocean. Meaning a rising ocean level would find a way along these rivers. Giving the title to Lesotho.
The problem we already face with rising seas is the rivers having to literally be pumped uphill, and they are not small rivers.
A bigger problem still is the saltwater coming underneath the dykes. This is already happening in the west of the country, for example around the Hague, where fertility of the soil has dropped due to salt and farmers are now mostly greenhouse hydroponic farming. At some point we would need super-wide dykes to stop this from happening, and that would mean demolishing the entire coastline and spending hundreds of billions of euros to build them.
Beach widening is another effort we do, but that requires so much sand it’s not very sustainable in the long run.
So ultimately, considering we’ve practically failed to stop climate change from going past 1.5c, NL is doomed and this country will lose the battle against the water before the sea coming in through Germany or Belgium would be a problem.
The question to ask should be which country has the highest low point, of which your answer would then be Lesotho, whose lowest point is at 1400 meters. The maximum projected model for sea level rise by 2300 is 16 meters, and if all ice sheets melted, it would be 90 meters. If current borders stay the same, that would mean Bolivia is likely the lowest you can get to have all its territory perpetually landlocked. Bhutan if you want to be extra safe.
It has to be Lesotho. The whole country is based on a mountain and you can see its border on a satellite map. The southern plains of Nepal and Bhutan can be really flat, sitting at 59m (194ft) and 97m (318ft) respectively.
If Tibet got independence (without Arunachal) it would be higher though. Nyingchi is around 3000m (990ft).
No shit. Like I said, Serbia will be underwater. It’s been mapped out already. Most other landlocked countries in Europe are in the Alps. Are you gonna tell me they’re fuct?
What part of "last country standing"don't you understand? There is no specific water level they are talking about. It literally asks "to a certain point".
So what if they water level rose 2000 feet? Very few countries would be left with intact borders then. What about 3000 feet? Do you see what you are missing here?
There’s one source for rising sea levels and that’s the ice caps. Once they melt, there is no other source. That is what the map in the link I shared depicts. It’s the maximum level of rising sea levels. You get that, right?
There's a website called floodmap.net which allows you to raise sea levels by absurd amounts to see what happens (note: you need to ignore some of the lakes and inland seas).
I read somewhere that even if all of Earth's ice sheets melted completely (which is not going to happen, short of an apocalyptic event), sea levels would only rise by about 60-70 metres. That's still a lot, and the consequences would be catastrophic to life and civilisation, but very few countries would be entirely obliterated and most of Earth's land would still be above water. Almost all currently landlocked countries would survive with unchanged borders.
In this map, it has to be Andorra, but in the world, I'd go with Lesotho, this country lies entielrely behind the Drakensberg and I'm pretty sure it's entirely on a high plateau with no low-elevation areas.
That completely depends on how high ‘a certain point’ is. Top the world off with an additional 5 km high layer of water and there would be no last country standing. Add just 5 m of water and even quite a few sea bordering countries would remain with their borders intact.
409
u/nim_opet 1d ago
Switzerland, Nepal, Bhutan, Bolivia and Lesotho come to mind.