25th Century Earth

**Sinnyo** · 05-09-2010, 12:59 PM

I love the sound of an 'Asian Co-Prosperity League'. Lovely stuff!

I'm not sure what to add, other than: I like the colours; the subtle shading on mountain ranges and such looks great; but I wonder, is your spelling of "St. Peterberg" intentional? Just wondered in case it was an easy oversight.

**Daelin** · 05-09-2010, 03:15 PM

I'm wondering, are the new coastline based on scientific data, like topography or whatever? I should imagine that a lot more land would be submerged at sea-levels +100 feet, but please correct me if I am mistaken.
The world map looks pretty cool. The new political entities sure are interesting. Some of the island in the Asian Co-Prosperity League seem to have a weird border along their northern coasts, though.
The only thing I'd I would consider changing is maybe to give each nation their own color, to make them even more unique.

**bbzwbbzw** · 05-12-2010, 12:24 AM

Well, I used imported a .bin file from the USGS (I think) into Fractal Terrains Pro and then just raised the water level, so I'm assuming its pretty accurate. And yeah, their was a slight error on the ACPL islands that was easily fixed.

**gilgamec** · 05-13-2010, 11:27 PM

It looks like you've just made land that's below the new sea level into ocean ... this means that natural depressions (like the Dead Sea, or Lake Eyre in Australia, or the Turpan Basin in central Asia) which should be dry (as there's no connection to the ocean) are shown as lakes. I'm not sure if the Caspian Sea is the same ... there is a connection to the Black Sea at some fairly low altitude, but I don't know if your particular sea level change will connect them. (The Central Valley of California may also not be connected to the ocean.)

The other problem with using DEMs to show what land will look like after you raise the sea level is that you get a lot of tiny little islands, which don't fit in with the coastline on "normal" maps. I'm not sure whether this is from noise in the DEM, or from really low islands that would either erode away or not be drawn on a map. At your sea level, this is particularly visible in Siberia and in the Rio de la Plata in South America.

As a third thing (and this is a real nitpick!) a 100ft sea level rise would mean that a lot of the Greenland and Antarctic glaciers would be gone, exposing terrain around their coasts. (In addition, I believe they'd both rise relative to sea level because they lose the weight of the ice.) But that would be really tricky to model (are there maps of what Antarctica looks like under the ice?).