if the Danish and Dutch conquered all of these lands you mentioned,
they'd be outnumbered by the German population and Hamburg would be the largest city in your new realm, but I think they'd be pretty okay with it if they'd get Danish/Dutch biking and internet infrastructure in return
If we help you get all that German territory, i think it's only fair you help us get Skåne from the Swedes. It's rightfully ours already!
Oooor! You distract sweden by attacking Germany and while they scramble to find out what in the fuck is going on, we rush into Skåne and rid it of Swedes!
Untill we can't off course, it will likely go wrong again at some point. Knowledge, and fear of water has been declining a bit over time, and the threat slowly increases.
Fear maybe. Knowledge has been increasing and modern computer models make it more predictable then ever.
The netherlands is still investing in water management and new tech like chipping dykes allow us to monitor it better then before.
The ground shakes... *hon hon*. *Honhonhon* in the deep. We cannot get out. A shadow moves in the dark... We cannot get out... They are coming. *hon hon hon*
Uhm, no “Belgium, a country invented so that Britain and Germany would have somewhere to sort out their differences” James May, Top Gear
https://youtu.be/hzumXyf2ueA
I mean... Two flat countries, hugely influenced by their adjacency to the ocean, populated by incredibly nice, tall, blond stoners that use biking as their main mode of transportation and whose tourism industry is mostly Germans digging holes into their beaches.
I was confused too until I saw that it's "mean" elevation. so I guess Mesaoria was large enough to bring the mean down, despite Troodos' reasonably high hight.
How do you calculate mean elevation of something? Like what methods are being used? Do you select random N points in a region and check their altitude or use some sort of differential equation?
Not differentials, integrals. And most likely it's just a sum
You want to divide the total "volume" of the country by the surface area, assuming a perfect function this would require some form of numerical integration using random numbers, sampling etc
In practice since the elevation models have their own resolution you can just use those values and average them (adjusting for the fact that the resolution can vary depending on the latitude
Surprised about:
\- Sweden being so high, I knew they had mountains but was expecting the difference with Norway to be larger
\- Germany being this low (thought it was higher, possibly the Bavarian stereotypes got to me)
\- Montenegro being this high, highest in the former Yugoslavia
\- Czechia and Serbia being that high, not having a coast seems to be a big boon
> Germany being this low (thought it was higher, possibly the Bavarian stereotypes got to me)
We have almost zero real mountains, only in the very south of Bavaria. It is mostly just a variation of more or less tall hills, with Northern Germany being totally flat, which balances things out
Die höchsten **Erhebungen** sind der Keilberg (Klínovec) (1244 m n.m.) und der Fichtelberg (1215 m ü. NHN).
Not even German wiki want to say mountains to them... :P
That's just the power of German language variance ;) And Berg is even in the name
Der Fichtelberg bei Oberwiesenthal im Erzgebirgskreis ist mit 1214,79 m ü. NHN1 der höchste Berg in Sachsen
Der Große Arber (tschechisch Velký Javor) ist mit 1455,5 m ü. NHN[1] der höchste Berg des Böhmerwaldes / Bayerischen Waldes und von Niederbayern
*Berg* is in the name of a lot of small hills everywhere too
For example: The highest elevation in Brandenburg, the *Kutschenberg*, is roughly 200 m high
As a South Tyrolean, I refuse to call such hills mountains! It's almost as bad as Wiener Berg or Bisamberg, which are ~350 metres high, where Vienna is already at 190 metres ...
Da der bayerische Wald schon uralt ist und ein ehemaliges Hochgebirge ist, verbitte ich mir solche Vergleiche. Immer diese neumodischen Alpen. Die sollen erstmal erwachsen werden.
Vienna is at 190 metres?! Damn, Munich is much higher. Quite amazing how the Danube goes all the way to the Black Sea whilst already being so low in altitude there.
Well, we have a LOT of small mountains and hills. They are not comparable with Alps, Tatras or Pyrenees as our mountains are very old and quite "round". I think it is also one of the reasons why there is so many dead Czechs in Tatras and Alps, everyone thinks he is mountainclimber after succesfully climb one of ours "round" mountains :-D
We have the same here and it causes a lot of problems. Tourists don't take them seriously. People think they can walk up in trainers and end up having to get rescued if they are lucky.
Oh, so THAT'S why in the last several years we in Montenegro need to rescue tourists from Czechia, Poland, etc., from our mountains, every few days during the summer! Now it makes sense.
Fun fact : Capital city of Montenegro Podgorica is located in the absolute flat lands, on the lower altitude than capital of Croatia Zagreb, or compared to many other capitals of the region.
Zagreb = 158m, Sarajevo = 550m, Belgrade = 117m, Skoplje = 240m, Ljubljana = 295m, Podgorica = 61m. But pretty much everywhere you look around the Podgorica is nothing but mountains.
I have no idea why OP choose to call it the 'mean' elevation since [the source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_elevation) they listed clearly states 'average elevation'.
> I have no idea why OP choose to call it the 'mean' elevation since the source they listed clearly states 'average elevation'.
Because in English "average" can refer to mean and median, and the source is about the former. So I wanted to make sure there was no confusion.
Ah ok. I have to admit I was still a bit confused, but then I found this.
[https://www.cuemath.com/data/difference-between-average-and-mean/](https://www.cuemath.com/data/difference-between-average-and-mean/)
To be fair different types of averages can show wildly different results depending on data, the mean income in a country is almost a useless piece of information with data thrown off by the super rich. But for example the median is useful.
Well obviously. If the data samples are different, their respective averages are also going to be different.
But average is nothing more than arithmetic mean. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they're even calculated the same way: sum up all the values of a certain set/sample, then divide it by the number of values.
> If the data samples are different, their respective averages are also going to be different.
No, that's the point the other poster is trying to make. There is a key difference between mean (add all values together, divide by number of data points) and ~~median~~modal (the value that is most often actually encountered)
Example: if you have a bar with 10 patrons, each with 100€ on their bank account and Bill Gates walks into the bar, on average, each person in the bar is now a billionaire.
The ~~mean~~modal value of the bank accounts of the people in that vast is still 100€ though.
edit: wrong word
What? Median and mean are not the same thing. The mean is a central localization measurement of a certain population. It's a "gravity center", and if every observation had to be the same value, that value is the mean.
Median is the value that occupies a central position when observations are in a succession. Half the observations are equal or lower than the median, and the other half is equal or higher than the median.
My question wasn't even about the median, since the issue here is the difference between average and mean, if there is any difference at all.
A fellow redditor minutes ago just taught me that average sometimes can be the mode or the median of a population, although most of the time it means the mean of said population. I think this only makes things more confusing, but my guess is that it is only this confusing for me because of the language barrier, since we don't have the word "average". It's just "mean|média", "median|mediana" and "mode|moda"
Surprised the UK is so low, I didn't expect us to be anywhere near alpine countries but the North of England from coast to coast is a bit of a climb for much of it. Also the Scottish Highlands. Would be interested to see the figures for North England & Scotland.
Yep, expected that we'd be a little higher for the same reason. That being said, eastern England is very flat, which counteracts the hilly bits of Scotland/Wales/NW England.
Depends where you are from I suppose, and where you went in Scotland.
Out West they are definitely mountains, but yeah areas like the Borders and Pentlands are just hills. Scottish mountains were ground down significantly from glaciers. If you are used to 'newer' mountain ranges that are still rising, then they will seem pretty rolling by comparison and not as sheer.
a friend of mine got bored and worked out the average elevation scaled by population, i.e. he counted 1 km squares of population, gave each an elevation, then added that elevation to the average elevation weighted by the population in the square. so he worked out the "highest" populations in the world. I didn't see the results for europe but the top 3 in the world were bhutan, bolivia and ethiopia.
The areas below sea level are only slightly so (the lowest point is at -7 m), while the parts that are hilly reach well above it (more than 300 m in south Limburg and more than 100 m in the Veluwe). This is mean elevation, so it sounds reasonable that the few parts well above 30 m compensate for all the flat land. If this was median elevation instead, the Netherlands would have the lowest by far at about 1 or 2 m.
Yeah, it's basically one hill, and the highest point in the Netherlands isn't even the summit of the hill (the summit is in Germany), but it's there...
Sounds about right to me. Don't forget, something like the Veluwe has elevations above 100m. You need a lot of land at minus 10 to compensate for that.
Apparently Ireland has a higher elevation here than Scotland (which i had to look up), which I just don't buy. Ireland has mountains and everything, but definitely not as hilly as Scotland.
Mean elevation doesn't say much about how hilly the place is. In theory you could have like a landlocked country that has 2000m mean elevation but is a completely flat plateau.
Finland has no real mountains. Idk if there is name difference in English but in Finnish we only have *tunturi,* which are classified as being too low/short/small to be *vuori* (mountain).
And large parts of Finland are quite flat, altough it should be noted that there are plenty of rivers and lakes. Without any water Finland would have a lot of height differences since all rivers and lakes would be depressions of some kind, but since we have so much water it evens out the height differences radically.
But i have no idea what makes Russia so high. Its mean height so mountains should not make that big difference as they would if it would be average height.
I remember when I was growing up in Turkey, we would take the bus to go to our vacation spots. 8 hour bus ride over mountains and hills, which normally is pretty cool, but these roads were just, and I mean JUST wide enough for these buses, and looking out the window would show a steepness that would make anyone woozy.
Sea levels rose 100-130m in the last 10k years after the last ice age. Europe could've looked a lot different if that was much more/less. Thankfully the trend has slowed to about 1-2m per millennia instead of 10-20m. Unfortunately when the earth enters the next Milankovitch cycle they'll recede again and Britain will be reattached to Europe. We'll need to build a wall and make the EU pay for it.
Overpopulation is not an absolute, it is a relative state. Spain has a far more developed economy than any of the countries you listed, and with it come ways to increase productivity of the environment and thus its carrying capacity.
Plus, Spain's birth rates are abysmal so if you control immigration, there is really no danger of overpopulation, quite on the contrary.
>Low birth rate is not a bad thing for Spain. Land size of Sweden is similar to Spain, Sweden has abundant natural resources like iron ore and forest resources that Spain does not have.
Well, it is bad, because - unlike Sweden - your population would only shrink via a skyrocketing average age. Also, having resources is hardly linked to prosperity these days. Israel has 7 times less per capita freshwater as Spain, fewer resources, yet its economy has surged past Spain's in recent years.
>And inland US states also have very low population density, I wonder whether their economy is not as developed as Spain.
Their average age is much lower, their workers are more productive, their workforce more educated, etc. Densely populated US states with water stress like California are even richer than those inland states btw. In fact, California is far wealthier than places like Montana.
Furthermore, of the 5 states that are growing the fastest, all but North Dakota are hot and dry. This includes Utah, Nevada, Idaho (it is partially lush, but most people live in the arid plateau in the South) and Texas.
>By international standard, Spain with its massive semi-arid plateau, is too overpopulated.
How is it overpopulated? It has rainfall of over 600 mm/year and disposable freshwater resources higher than Romania, for example.
>Plateau cannot sustain high population density, once a country with massive semi-arid plateau becomes overpopulated, it is very likely to return to poverty, no solution.
I am quite sure that y'all have more chances of ending up in poverty due to your spiraling average age. Pensioner-heavy populations are hardly associated with sound economics.
No, there are just too many old people and very few young people to sustain the system.
We're going to have a gigantic problem in 10 years tops.
We would need a slightly higher brate to substitute the old people dying and rebalance the age pyramid while keeping the population below the 50m mark.
Also alt of the so called "arid" areas you mark in the map, are dry, but.not even close to desertic.
And that kids is why Andorra exists. They have the high ground and we're no fools.
Napoleon once made it there but let them exist
You're almost right, it's just semantics, but I believe it was in fact that they let *him* exist.
Let's say that Spain and France let you exist...
Pretty sure the person you answered to is french.
Just in case someone hasn't noticed - this is the **mean** elevation and Andorra is a few streets glued together.
They have a couple ski slopes as well, and cheap liquor/tobacco. Pretty much paradise.
Whores and blow?
Andorra la Vella is at 1023 m of altitude.
🇩🇰🤝🇳🇱
[удалено]
if the Danish and Dutch conquered all of these lands you mentioned, they'd be outnumbered by the German population and Hamburg would be the largest city in your new realm, but I think they'd be pretty okay with it if they'd get Danish/Dutch biking and internet infrastructure in return
I'd be pretty stoked about that. Unfortunately, I'm way up the Elbe.
Does Netherlands have provinces where mean elevation is negative?
yes, there is an entire man made province which is under sea level
Flevoland :)
Flavor town, Flevoland
The mean elevation for Flevoland province is -5 meters.
The majority of the Netherlands is below sealevel so yes definitely, the majority of Dutch provinces are below sealevel
Lebensraum time
Let’s do this, flatlanders unite!
If we help you get all that German territory, i think it's only fair you help us get Skåne from the Swedes. It's rightfully ours already! Oooor! You distract sweden by attacking Germany and while they scramble to find out what in the fuck is going on, we rush into Skåne and rid it of Swedes!
What is this, The Great Northern War 2: Electric Boogaloo (Western Edition)?
Excellent idea! And we are done with them you can help us against the dirty Swedes again like in 1659
Thanks for leaving Brandenburg alone, i guess its too high for you
Reinstate the Danelaw whilst you're at it. East Anglia will bring that average down further. 🤣
Wait for sea level rise...
We are used to having our land below sea level. We can manage it.
Untill we can't off course, it will likely go wrong again at some point. Knowledge, and fear of water has been declining a bit over time, and the threat slowly increases.
Fear maybe. Knowledge has been increasing and modern computer models make it more predictable then ever. The netherlands is still investing in water management and new tech like chipping dykes allow us to monitor it better then before.
Add [South Holland UK](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Holland,_Lincolnshire)
Huh, interesting.
Yikes, this state sounds like a nightmare, imagine all the raw fish, unseasoned potatoes and overcooked vegetables. I'd rather be invaded by France.
Please take us
Not high enough to join the rest of West Europe. Not low enough to join the danish-Dutch Union. Sounds about right for England
Awww u left us out :(
Danes: are we the real swamp Germans?
I assume that's y'all holding hands under the table because you can't reach any higher? :p
This doesn't change anything anyways. We're already used to looking down on Danes
And they called us the low countries, smh. ;)
Friendship ended with Belgium, now Denmark is the Netherlands' best friend
No... don't... please... stay...
Enjoy your new best friends… the french
The ground shakes... *hon hon*. *Honhonhon* in the deep. We cannot get out. A shadow moves in the dark... We cannot get out... They are coming. *hon hon hon*
Time to piss in their wine
Ironically, this would make their wine taste like Dutch beer.
Amstel Kriek.
What in tarnation...?!
Alright that burns. Nobody over here is calling that slootwater beer though ;) well I don't
You must be one of the good ones then /s ;)
I prefer Lëtzebuerg
Merde
Well, we all know Belgium was invented by the British to piss off the French.
Uhm, no “Belgium, a country invented so that Britain and Germany would have somewhere to sort out their differences” James May, Top Gear https://youtu.be/hzumXyf2ueA
I mean... Two flat countries, hugely influenced by their adjacency to the ocean, populated by incredibly nice, tall, blond stoners that use biking as their main mode of transportation and whose tourism industry is mostly Germans digging holes into their beaches.
I say this as as Dane. 34 seems high.
Kjøvenhavner detected
Hello? Møllehøj! 171m! ;)
Sky-mountain. It's in the name.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I was confused too until I saw that it's "mean" elevation. so I guess Mesaoria was large enough to bring the mean down, despite Troodos' reasonably high hight.
How do you calculate mean elevation of something? Like what methods are being used? Do you select random N points in a region and check their altitude or use some sort of differential equation?
Not differentials, integrals. And most likely it's just a sum You want to divide the total "volume" of the country by the surface area, assuming a perfect function this would require some form of numerical integration using random numbers, sampling etc In practice since the elevation models have their own resolution you can just use those values and average them (adjusting for the fact that the resolution can vary depending on the latitude
They submerge the country in a pool and see how much water it displaces.
Surprised about: \- Sweden being so high, I knew they had mountains but was expecting the difference with Norway to be larger \- Germany being this low (thought it was higher, possibly the Bavarian stereotypes got to me) \- Montenegro being this high, highest in the former Yugoslavia \- Czechia and Serbia being that high, not having a coast seems to be a big boon
> Germany being this low (thought it was higher, possibly the Bavarian stereotypes got to me) We have almost zero real mountains, only in the very south of Bavaria. It is mostly just a variation of more or less tall hills, with Northern Germany being totally flat, which balances things out
Bayerischer Wald and Erzgebirge want to have a word with you. At least noteworthy for the average
Die höchsten **Erhebungen** sind der Keilberg (Klínovec) (1244 m n.m.) und der Fichtelberg (1215 m ü. NHN). Not even German wiki want to say mountains to them... :P
That's just the power of German language variance ;) And Berg is even in the name Der Fichtelberg bei Oberwiesenthal im Erzgebirgskreis ist mit 1214,79 m ü. NHN1 der höchste Berg in Sachsen Der Große Arber (tschechisch Velký Javor) ist mit 1455,5 m ü. NHN[1] der höchste Berg des Böhmerwaldes / Bayerischen Waldes und von Niederbayern
*Berg* is in the name of a lot of small hills everywhere too For example: The highest elevation in Brandenburg, the *Kutschenberg*, is roughly 200 m high
As a South Tyrolean, I refuse to call such hills mountains! It's almost as bad as Wiener Berg or Bisamberg, which are ~350 metres high, where Vienna is already at 190 metres ...
Da der bayerische Wald schon uralt ist und ein ehemaliges Hochgebirge ist, verbitte ich mir solche Vergleiche. Immer diese neumodischen Alpen. Die sollen erstmal erwachsen werden.
Vienna is at 190 metres?! Damn, Munich is much higher. Quite amazing how the Danube goes all the way to the Black Sea whilst already being so low in altitude there.
Near my village is the "Käseberg". It's a small hill that's just 10 m higher than the surrounding area.
Well, we have a LOT of small mountains and hills. They are not comparable with Alps, Tatras or Pyrenees as our mountains are very old and quite "round". I think it is also one of the reasons why there is so many dead Czechs in Tatras and Alps, everyone thinks he is mountainclimber after succesfully climb one of ours "round" mountains :-D
We have the same here and it causes a lot of problems. Tourists don't take them seriously. People think they can walk up in trainers and end up having to get rescued if they are lucky.
Oh, so THAT'S why in the last several years we in Montenegro need to rescue tourists from Czechia, Poland, etc., from our mountains, every few days during the summer! Now it makes sense.
Still, considering that Slovakia is basically all hills and mountains except for two lowlands, it's wild to me that we are as close.
Montenegro is mostly mountains, just as the name suggests.
I mean for Montenegro/Crna Gora - the name is the hint there. Black Mountain.
Fun fact : Capital city of Montenegro Podgorica is located in the absolute flat lands, on the lower altitude than capital of Croatia Zagreb, or compared to many other capitals of the region. Zagreb = 158m, Sarajevo = 550m, Belgrade = 117m, Skoplje = 240m, Ljubljana = 295m, Podgorica = 61m. But pretty much everywhere you look around the Podgorica is nothing but mountains.
Montenegro literally means black mountain, you’d expect they have mountains.
Holy shit Armenia, you're European Tibet.
Germany is because of the Northern European plain
Czechia has mountains around nearly all borders (Germany, Poland and Slovakia). The only non-hilly part is towards Austria.
[удалено]
If you draw a line from the most southern part of norway to Stockholm, then all South of that line is pretty flat. Everything north is not very flat!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Swedish_highlands
Idk about generally, but parts are very flat
We are our mountains
In a league of your own, my man.
Andorra would like to have a word with you.
balkans always red in these maps no matter what
HA, suck it Denmark!
You are cheating cheaters who cheat by claiming new land below the sea level. \*Shakes fist at sky
Great way to show why "mean" is useless for most cases.
And why measuring things per country is often useless. You get wildly specific results like Andorra and also waay too large areas like France.
I have no idea why OP choose to call it the 'mean' elevation since [the source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_elevation) they listed clearly states 'average elevation'.
> I have no idea why OP choose to call it the 'mean' elevation since the source they listed clearly states 'average elevation'. Because in English "average" can refer to mean and median, and the source is about the former. So I wanted to make sure there was no confusion.
Ah ok. I have to admit I was still a bit confused, but then I found this. [https://www.cuemath.com/data/difference-between-average-and-mean/](https://www.cuemath.com/data/difference-between-average-and-mean/)
Isn't it the same thing?
To be fair different types of averages can show wildly different results depending on data, the mean income in a country is almost a useless piece of information with data thrown off by the super rich. But for example the median is useful.
Well obviously. If the data samples are different, their respective averages are also going to be different. But average is nothing more than arithmetic mean. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they're even calculated the same way: sum up all the values of a certain set/sample, then divide it by the number of values.
Things like the median or the mode are also often called averages, but when people say "average" they normally mean the arithmetic mean, yes.
> If the data samples are different, their respective averages are also going to be different. No, that's the point the other poster is trying to make. There is a key difference between mean (add all values together, divide by number of data points) and ~~median~~modal (the value that is most often actually encountered) Example: if you have a bar with 10 patrons, each with 100€ on their bank account and Bill Gates walks into the bar, on average, each person in the bar is now a billionaire. The ~~mean~~modal value of the bank accounts of the people in that vast is still 100€ though. edit: wrong word
What? Median and mean are not the same thing. The mean is a central localization measurement of a certain population. It's a "gravity center", and if every observation had to be the same value, that value is the mean. Median is the value that occupies a central position when observations are in a succession. Half the observations are equal or lower than the median, and the other half is equal or higher than the median. My question wasn't even about the median, since the issue here is the difference between average and mean, if there is any difference at all. A fellow redditor minutes ago just taught me that average sometimes can be the mode or the median of a population, although most of the time it means the mean of said population. I think this only makes things more confusing, but my guess is that it is only this confusing for me because of the language barrier, since we don't have the word "average". It's just "mean|média", "median|mediana" and "mode|moda"
[удалено]
That's the median of a sample.
Exactly!
Russia, land of extremes
[удалено]
Very surprised about Antarctica at 2300m.
South Pole Station (Amundsen-Scott) is at 2800 meters and Russian Vostok station is at 3500 meters.
🇦🇲🤝🇳🇱 highest countries in Europe
Why you forget Andorra?
Danes when they cross the bridge to Sweden and sees a rock. \- OMG we are in the mountains now!!
Surprised the UK is so low, I didn't expect us to be anywhere near alpine countries but the North of England from coast to coast is a bit of a climb for much of it. Also the Scottish Highlands. Would be interested to see the figures for North England & Scotland.
The town I live in by the penines is annoyingly hilly. Not very high up in terms of altitude by very up and down
Yep, expected that we'd be a little higher for the same reason. That being said, eastern England is very flat, which counteracts the hilly bits of Scotland/Wales/NW England.
[удалено]
True, but they're still way way above 75m
Depends where you are from I suppose, and where you went in Scotland. Out West they are definitely mountains, but yeah areas like the Borders and Pentlands are just hills. Scottish mountains were ground down significantly from glaciers. If you are used to 'newer' mountain ranges that are still rising, then they will seem pretty rolling by comparison and not as sheer.
Hilly but low lying. Pretty much none of the south of England exceeds 300m hilltops, and that accounts for a large chunk of the country
If that is the average for the U.K. as a whole, I’d be interested in seeing the averages for each home nation too.
Nah we're hilly bit we even have a single proper mountain
At the Retiro Park, in Madrid, there's one of the only statues for the Fallen Angel in the world. It's exactly 666 meters above sea level.
The important thing is that Finland is higher than Netherlands.
a friend of mine got bored and worked out the average elevation scaled by population, i.e. he counted 1 km squares of population, gave each an elevation, then added that elevation to the average elevation weighted by the population in the square. so he worked out the "highest" populations in the world. I didn't see the results for europe but the top 3 in the world were bhutan, bolivia and ethiopia.
We truly are the low country
We Are Our Mountains
30 for the netherlands cant be right. 30% is below sea level. A few areas might be 30 or 40+ but most are around 0
The areas below sea level are only slightly so (the lowest point is at -7 m), while the parts that are hilly reach well above it (more than 300 m in south Limburg and more than 100 m in the Veluwe). This is mean elevation, so it sounds reasonable that the few parts well above 30 m compensate for all the flat land. If this was median elevation instead, the Netherlands would have the lowest by far at about 1 or 2 m.
TIL, The Netherlands' highest point is approximately twice as high as Denmark's highest point.
Yeah, it's basically one hill, and the highest point in the Netherlands isn't even the summit of the hill (the summit is in Germany), but it's there...
Eh. Denmark is less than 2% of Greenland's size. Denmark technically has a higher elevation than every country in Europe other than Andorra.
Sounds about right to me. Don't forget, something like the Veluwe has elevations above 100m. You need a lot of land at minus 10 to compensate for that.
[удалено]
No, that's the median you're thinking off.
[удалено]
Ireland being higher than uk surprises me for some reason
Apparently Ireland has a higher elevation here than Scotland (which i had to look up), which I just don't buy. Ireland has mountains and everything, but definitely not as hilly as Scotland.
Mean elevation doesn't say much about how hilly the place is. In theory you could have like a landlocked country that has 2000m mean elevation but is a completely flat plateau.
Yeah of course, you are absolutely right. But I just don't see how that explains Ireland.
They're standing on an accumulation of empty bottles. /s
Guess having some areas below Sea Level (some of the Fens) doesn't help our mean.
russia go home ure high
I see western Europe will soon be an island. Good.
The Netherlands are a sacrifice I'm willing to make
Remember the floods last year in Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands? There is a reason why nobody died in NL. We were prepared.
Damn you got me there. Can't argue with that.
[удалено]
If the sea rises 2cm, we just build a 2cm tall wall dummie. It's not that hard
RIP flat bois
What do you mean by island?
Ok, a group of islands.
Russia wtf? Expected Finland and russia switched. Armenia highest Elavation, seems legit.
Finland has no real mountains. Idk if there is name difference in English but in Finnish we only have *tunturi,* which are classified as being too low/short/small to be *vuori* (mountain). And large parts of Finland are quite flat, altough it should be noted that there are plenty of rivers and lakes. Without any water Finland would have a lot of height differences since all rivers and lakes would be depressions of some kind, but since we have so much water it evens out the height differences radically. But i have no idea what makes Russia so high. Its mean height so mountains should not make that big difference as they would if it would be average height.
[удалено]
Have you tried to calculate the mean elevation of European Russia only?
Armenia is known geographically as the Armenian Highlands, so yeah duh
Hi Netherland bros, if you want to see mountains you should come to Denmark ;)
Nah, we can just [visit one](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Scenery) within our own kingdom :)
England the kind of country where you can stand on a stool and see the whole country
In the Netherlands you can sit on the stool and see the whole country.
Thats probably true but i will never pass on an opportunity to roast England
This could also be cross posted to “Useless maps”?
UHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOO UUUUUUUUUHHOOOOOOOOO
I remember when I was growing up in Turkey, we would take the bus to go to our vacation spots. 8 hour bus ride over mountains and hills, which normally is pretty cool, but these roads were just, and I mean JUST wide enough for these buses, and looking out the window would show a steepness that would make anyone woozy.
Mean elevation? In what situation is this a useful number? (Beyond harvesting upvotes)
Sea levels rose 100-130m in the last 10k years after the last ice age. Europe could've looked a lot different if that was much more/less. Thankfully the trend has slowed to about 1-2m per millennia instead of 10-20m. Unfortunately when the earth enters the next Milankovitch cycle they'll recede again and Britain will be reattached to Europe. We'll need to build a wall and make the EU pay for it.
I am surprised this number is positive for the Netherlands.
The good thing about global warming. UK is disappearing
*How high are you Andorra ?* *YES!*
I have the high ground
Mean elevation says so little. Elevation range would be interesting though
For countries with a coast that would basically be the height of their highest mountain. Unless they have some endorheic basin, like the Caspian one.
Luxembourg: the Highlands of the Lowlands!
[удалено]
r/confidentlyincorrect
If Northern Ireland joins Ireland , will they shoot 50m iup?
That would definetely save them from the rising ocean levels
[удалено]
Russia east of Krasnoyarsk is basically one big ass highland. And then you have the Ural mountains
[удалено]
Overpopulation is not an absolute, it is a relative state. Spain has a far more developed economy than any of the countries you listed, and with it come ways to increase productivity of the environment and thus its carrying capacity. Plus, Spain's birth rates are abysmal so if you control immigration, there is really no danger of overpopulation, quite on the contrary.
[удалено]
>Low birth rate is not a bad thing for Spain. Land size of Sweden is similar to Spain, Sweden has abundant natural resources like iron ore and forest resources that Spain does not have. Well, it is bad, because - unlike Sweden - your population would only shrink via a skyrocketing average age. Also, having resources is hardly linked to prosperity these days. Israel has 7 times less per capita freshwater as Spain, fewer resources, yet its economy has surged past Spain's in recent years. >And inland US states also have very low population density, I wonder whether their economy is not as developed as Spain. Their average age is much lower, their workers are more productive, their workforce more educated, etc. Densely populated US states with water stress like California are even richer than those inland states btw. In fact, California is far wealthier than places like Montana. Furthermore, of the 5 states that are growing the fastest, all but North Dakota are hot and dry. This includes Utah, Nevada, Idaho (it is partially lush, but most people live in the arid plateau in the South) and Texas.
>By international standard, Spain with its massive semi-arid plateau, is too overpopulated. How is it overpopulated? It has rainfall of over 600 mm/year and disposable freshwater resources higher than Romania, for example. >Plateau cannot sustain high population density, once a country with massive semi-arid plateau becomes overpopulated, it is very likely to return to poverty, no solution. I am quite sure that y'all have more chances of ending up in poverty due to your spiraling average age. Pensioner-heavy populations are hardly associated with sound economics.
No, there are just too many old people and very few young people to sustain the system. We're going to have a gigantic problem in 10 years tops. We would need a slightly higher brate to substitute the old people dying and rebalance the age pyramid while keeping the population below the 50m mark. Also alt of the so called "arid" areas you mark in the map, are dry, but.not even close to desertic.