Nepal or Tibet
2006-11-30 02:35:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
As noted, total ice melt would raise sea levels about 80m. That would cover a huge amount of land, but far more would be left above water. But when we look at world populations however, the majority of people live much lower than 80m; it would displace the bulk of the population.
Even worst case scenarios don't currently predict total melt however. By far the biggest ice sheet is the Antarctic Eastern Sheet, and the bulk of that is expected to remain (it first formed at least 15 million years ago, and there have been several much warmer periods in Earth history since then). If the Antarctic Western sheet melted, and Greenland, and some of the Eastern Sheet went, we might look at 6 to 8m. Which would be disastrous in itself as hundreds of millions of people live below that.
And, by the way, if any other genius trots out this "ice cubes in the coke" idea to "prove" that sea levels won't rise, I'll scream. The ice cubes aren't in the coke, they are sitting on the wide rim of a dish of water. When the ice melts, it runs into the bowl and raises the level. The major ice sheets are on LAND. Don't they teach geography in schools anymore?
2006-12-02 22:53:40
·
answer #2
·
answered by Paul FB 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
If global warming continues unstopped and the ice caps melt, then not all of the land we currently have will be covered. But the majority of population centres will be flooded because they tend to built next to rivers and the coast. New York, Bangladesh, Holland, London and many many other of the most densely populated areas will be lost.
Indeed parts of the world are already going under water due to sea rises, these are mainly Pacific islands.
But for the purpose of this question, I would say that Nepal would be the last country remaining since it is completely composed of the Himilayan mountains and is home to Mount Everest: the highest point on earth.
2006-11-30 03:42:02
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
When all of the world's ice caps melt, the ocean levels will only rise about 80 meters (270 feet). Because of this, many countries will still be around. Any country will an elevation above sea level higher than this will not be completely covered.
2006-11-30 04:59:27
·
answer #4
·
answered by blueice111605 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
If all of the icecaps and glaciers melt, it will raise global eustatic sea levels by approximately 200 meters.
So several coastal areas, including large areas of the Mississippi basin, will be underwater, but the majority of land in North America will be quite high and dry.
I'm not sure if I'd make any long-term investments in Venice, Holland or Bangladesh though.
2006-11-30 03:17:01
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Pretty much all of them. Remember ice displaces it's own mass and the vast majority of an iceburg or cap are under water. When you have ice in your Coke, you're glass doesn't over flow when the ice melts. Same thing with the Earth. The waters will rise somewhat, but nothing like a bad Kevin Costner movie.
2006-11-30 02:37:42
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Except for a few small low lying nations, no nation will be below water IF all the icecaps melt...
Global warming is a tempest in a teapot...
The sky is not falling..
Mankind will be just fine...
2006-11-30 03:01:19
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
over the stunning 100 years, the international sea element has risen by about 10 to twenty-5 cm. using the IS92 emission circumstances, projected international advise sea element will advance relative to 1990 were calculated as a lot as 2100. taking into interest the degrees contained in the estimate of climate sensitivity and ice melt parameters, and the completed set of IS92 emission circumstances, the fashions project an advance in international advise sea element of between 13 and ninety 4 cm. in case you bypass to the 2d link there is an interactive map which shows the parts of land which will be inundated by the sea at given stages of sea element upward thrust!
2016-11-29 23:28:04
·
answer #8
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
It isn't quite that dramatic. There may be coastal areas that are submerged including major US population centers of the east coast, west coast and Gulf coasts. We may also have the formation of in-land seas that are currently the river valleys of major rivers. However, the substantial increase in the water coverage of the earth will likely give rise to increased and thickened cloud formations which will cause the earth to cool leading to a reversal of global warming and a slow reestablishment of the ice caps.
2006-11-30 02:43:02
·
answer #9
·
answered by b_steeley 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
There is a limit. Will not be like waterworld.
Everything between 1 to 7 meters above sea level will be underwater, but someplaces will be more affected than others, based in a more complex model due global extension, valleys and natural barriers to hold it.
2006-12-01 02:39:11
·
answer #10
·
answered by carlos_frohlich 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Any that have hills more than a few hundred feet tall. If you melted all the polar ice, it still wouldn't provide enough water to cover the whole earth. Just the lowlying parts along the current coasts.
2006-11-30 02:35:34
·
answer #11
·
answered by Ralfcoder 7
·
5⤊
0⤋