So I'll bite; what the hell happened to the Great Lakes? They've been demoted to Adequate Lakes!
Hmm, I think part of the problem is that the scenarios for this seem to differ wildly as to what a 'full polar ice cap melt' actually entails (compare this and this). Not everything below water level is going to be flooded and not everything above is going to remain dry. I generally did a hybrid of different 'full melt' scenarios (however unlikely this is by current scientific thought) and stirred in shrinking of freshwater lakes to reflect consumption/desertification, though it occurred to me that a world with more sea surface area is also going to be rainer; you might well get flash floods of freshwater.
A little WIP of mine, still in early stages; I just finished North America, but I have no ideas for the rest of the world. Basically, its a post-apocalyptic scenario, nukes, natural disasters, disease...y'know, the works - they've come very close to wiping out humanity, and now, in an unspecified future year, the world is bouncing back. Tech and society, at least in North America, are at a medieval level.
View attachment 259212
It's a mapping software error; the present day map does'nt show them either and I don't think he noticed until to far in to change it.
Ok, I see where part of the problem is; in the second link it's showing a 100 meter rise and incorrectly stating that it was the result of 80% of the ice melting; with a 100% Arctic and Antarctic ice melt the sea level would only rise by 65 meters.
What is the elephant in the room?
I can't see it?
I don´t get Europe Nr. 5. Is Tunesia or Malta settled by Germans?
What do the lighter/darker shades of a country's color denote? I think it might be habitable/uninhabitable land, but that feels like a stretch.
I was about to say "where is Israel"... I guess America and Israel went anti-Semitic and let the Jews die. Or they went isolationist.
But wait, Israel had nukes... how did Israel not go "Sampson Option" and depopulate the entire Near East forever? They'd do it if threatened with the annihilation of the Jewish state.
Well, I'm thinking for China having some sort of warring states, all claiming to be the real China; as for the rest of East Asia, I don't really know.
Isolationist, though I guess if Europe went particularly right-wing they could lose their desire to help if Israel went down, even if they were equally Islamophobic. The Sampson Option really should have happened, though I guess it's the old Yes Prime Minister scenario - a deterrent is great, but at what point do you actually commit to an indiscriminate strike when your country is being invaded? I suspect the temptation would always be to hope the army could turn things around, and to leave the decision too late, until you have actually lost command-and-control of the nuclear apparatus, at which point the best option might be to shell the launch sites to prevent the enemy gaining control. If Israel does have submarine-launched capability (something they of course have not confirmed) the question becomes thornier.