MawHtI ihlsgrejwuip, [url=http://drwihsqerggv.com/]drwihsqerggv[/url], [link=http://qctdsumtqkpg.com/]qctdsumtqkpg[/link], http://wxxkvlothyjz.com/
Just to put things in perspective, a mere 12,000 years ago the state was covered in glacial ice, several thousand feet thick in the interior of the state. Hunter/gatherer paleo indians would have been running down Mastodons in Pennsylvania, at the edge of the glacier.
This ice was so heavy, it compressed the plastic Mantle of the Earth and the ground surface sunk as much as 300 feet below today's levels.
Then the ice melted, and it seems to have melted rapidly.
This started delivering a lot of water back into the ocean.
But the land remained pushed down, because it could not rebound as quickly as the ice was melting.
So as the ice melted toward the north, the sea flooded the land.
It flooded all the way to Gray, Windham, Augusta where there are delta deposits of sand. And all the way up the river valleys to Bangor etc. Anywhere you find blue clay soil shows the ocean was there.
After the ice was thinned and melted back, the earth's mantle rebounded in a series of earthquakes from the weight being removed. This eventually brought all the submerged land out of the ocean. This happened quickly, because there are very few beach deposits from the glacial days. So things were happening so quickly that beaches could not be established.
As the land rebounded, the sea level was not quite as high as it could be, because there was still a lot of water frozen in the glaciers covering Canada and northern Europe. So with less water in the ocean, much of the Gulf of Maine was brought up out of the sea.
There were no plants on the land and no topsoil. So there was nothing to hold the sand and mud and gravel in place and terrific erosion took place as the land went up.
Eventually, the glacier melted, the water was returned to the ocean, the land rebounded to the present level and the Gulf of Maine went back under water. (Even this is not the whole story, because the coast of Maine has been going back down for the last several hundred years.)
Once out of the ocean Maine looked like a scrubby wasteland for hundreds of years. Eventually trees took hold. Probably a whole state of poplar and gray birch and alder. Over time, as top soil was formed the present mixed forest took hold.
Researchers have drilled out core samples from Maine lake beds and bogs and have counted the pollen grains, going back in time. This gives a sense of what plants were dominant in any given year, because they can count the yearly layers back through time. These studies show the climate changed several times between then and now. There were warmer and colder periods and wetter and dryer periods over the centuries.
To think that some sea level changes is an aberration is laughably simplistic.
Maybe core samples taken 10,000 years from now will reveal Volvos and BMWs, along with a few F-150s.
Or at least a bunch of tires. Maybe some snow mobiles.
[quote]While NRCMâ€™s press release used words like downtown Portland being "wiped out" and Bath Iron Works being "ruined" by rising sea levels, a representative acknowledged in an interview that most of the scenarios laid out in the report would happen gradually over decades or even centuries.
But they said the report should serve as a wake-up call to state and local officials, businesses and average citizens about the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
"Itâ€™s something thatâ€™s preventable," said Dylan Voorhees, the groupâ€™s clean energy director. "We wanted to take this sense of urgency and do something with it."[/quote]
... where "doing something" with the envirochondriacs' own "sense of urgency" means trying to stampede people into an artificially created panic on behalf of the viro's Anti Industrial Revolution.
Anyone concerned with being "wiped out" in 400 years should ponder the more realistic threat of being wiped out by the viros' politics much sooner.
thanks for the rational, well written and thought out informative piece.
See, things change.
I can see the Kennebunk assessor deep in thought, after reading the article above... "hmmm... if the coast is [i]eventually[/i] going to be under water, that means I should do spot revals now, and tax everything [i]inland[/i] as water-view, too - heck, it would only be PRO-ACTIVE!"
Not only those changes, but consider this.
There is solid evidence from across America that over the past few million years glaciers advanced over the northern states at least 4 different times.
That means that 4 different complete ecosystems were entirely wiped out.
And four ecosystems became re-established after the glaciers melted.
Think about that. Each time the glaciers came through, every lake, every river, every wetland every forest, every habitat and every animal was dislocated, destroyed, or pushed south.
And during each period between glaciers a new set of lakes, wetlands, rivers, forests, habitats and animals was established.
All the way from the Dakotas to Maine and south to Pennsylvania.
All done with no permits.
How can we arrange for this to happen in Augusta before November?
it's called "get out the vote"
[quote="Mark T. Cenci"]Not only those changes, but consider this.
That means that 4 different complete ecosystems were entirely wiped out....
All done with no permits.[/quote]
It was more than 4. Contrary to the viros, "ecosystems" are not static "things". An "ecosystem" is an abstration refering to a collection of selected entities and the relations between them, all of which are constantly changing (also without permits!).
The NRCM repeats the error in its panic-mongering promotion: How do they know that in 400 years there will even be streets in Portland or anything else about what will or won't be there? They want us to think of it as a static entity as it is familiar to people now and without regard for natural changes in future generations. Their intended emotional manipulation for their political purposes is obvious.
Interesting that they're concerned with the loss of Portland in 400 years (which wasn't even there 400 years ago) and not concerned that we've been losing Aroostook County for decades.
I'm reminded of a cartoon in Playboy about 100 years ago. It showed a scientist in his lab, looking at a mouse caught in a mousetrap.
He's on the phone, and the balloon says "Hello, FDA? I've got datalinking cheese with death in mice."
I had to deal with one of these doomsayers at the U. Machias on Monday. Wish Mark Was there to shut her up----but they never shut up do they. Fear driven people dominate environmental discussions in Maine. Science means nothingto them. Doom & GLOOM scenarios are everything.
[quote]Thus, local relative sea level fell, at rates up to 43 mm/yr (1.7 in/yr), until it reached a local lowstand 55 m (180 ft) below present sea level. This caused the coastline to move well offshore of the present coast, as recorded by terraces, lowstand deltas, and patterns of erosion and deposition on the Maine inner continental shelf (Figure 4). After this lowstand, global sea-level rise rates again became dominant as the rate of isostatic rebound waned. Local relative sea-level rose at rates up to 22 mm/yr (0.9 in/yr), until the rate of rise slowed again, dramatically, about 9000 BP. We are still investigating this slower rate, but theorize that is relates to large-scale warping of the crust at a distance from the ice sheet. Finally, sea-level rise resumed, and approached its present level over the past 5000 years.[/quote]Maine Geological Service FAQ on sea levels in Maine. http://www.maine.gov/doc/nrimc/mgs/explore/marine/facts/sealevel.htm
see [img]http://www.maine.gov/doc/nrimc/mgs/explore/marine/facts/sea-06.gif[/img] note comments on tidal measuring of sea level changes.
or this piece of advice re coastal erosion:
[b][quote]We have seen tragic cases of new development where homeowners have told us of their plans to leave the property to their grandchildren. In some places that will not be possible, as the houses will fall down the bluff in 10-30 years without massive, costly intervention[/quote][/b]
So, how soon will my husband's middle-of-the-island property on Peaks be waterfront?
It's taxed as if it is, already.
Does anyone know why they've started calling this problem "climate change" instead of "global warming?"
[quote="Melvin Udall"]Does anyone know why they've started calling this problem "climate change" instead of "global warming?"[/quote]
It's no accident that the change is so widespread. You can be sure that the word went out based on political strategy, polling and focus group research. Global warming was becoming a cliche, and it doesn't work so well to frighten people in the winter (where is global warming when we need it?), and the normal changes in temperature are too gradual too cause the desired panic; they needed something broader and more immediate. People have always complained about the weather. The whole agenda is to politicize the weather to get all the complaints on their side.
With oil and gas prices the way they are I'm hoping for a little global warming. Besides maybe my house in Westbrook will have a water view at some point.
Wait a minute, I thought I read a while back on AMG that the world was only 10,000 years old or so?
[quote="Paul Mattson"]...An environmental organization predicted Tuesday that rising ocean levels tied to global warming could submerge tens of thousands of acres along coastal Maine, severely damaging popular oceanfront communities and inflicting "incalculable" harm to local tourism.[/quote]
Send your thoughts and concerns to:
I think this presents a great investment opportunity.
I do like the idea that the new hotel on city property on the waterfront in Portland may soon be flooded.
Scientists have suspected in recent years that Mars might be undergoing some sort of global warming. New data points to the possibility it is emerging from an ice age.
NASA's Mars Odyssey orbiter has been surveying the planet for nearly a full Martian year now, and it has spotted seasonal changes like the advance and retreat of polar ice. It's also gathering data of a possible longer trend.