But there’s a chance that, cut off from the sea, the water collected wouldn’t be enough to offset losses (evaporation, etc), right? Kind of like how the Mediterranean was dry when it was cut off from the Atlantic?
A telling sign is that the baltic sea gets less salty the further you go away from its connection to the north sea. That means that the water is flowing out of the baltic sea, so putting a dam there would only slowly rise the sea level.
I hate maps that don’t have North as up. Why why why.
As for this, usually there are rivers that drain into seas. You need to have a plan for those too. Here is the drainage basin for the baltic sea:
So no not feasible.
Alternate plan (as it would be a shame to waste a dam): Keep the dam, flood the Baltic sea until Kaliningrad is under water?
That’s a shame. I like the dam plan.
It was damned from the start.
Even worse when there’s no compass that indicates north.
But there’s a chance that, cut off from the sea, the water collected wouldn’t be enough to offset losses (evaporation, etc), right? Kind of like how the Mediterranean was dry when it was cut off from the Atlantic?
Well, no, its too far north for that to happen.
A telling sign is that the baltic sea gets less salty the further you go away from its connection to the north sea. That means that the water is flowing out of the baltic sea, so putting a dam there would only slowly rise the sea level.
What if it was a hydroelectric dam?