7 ms·
Some of the pictures show signs of warming (although in one of the text descriptions it's attributed to planting of trees), but there's virtually no sea level r
by unsigner 11y ago
Some of the pictures show signs of warming (although in one of the text descriptions it's attributed to planting of trees), but there's virtually no sea level rise evident?
- _delirium 11y agoThe global average sea level is only estimated to have risen about 20 cm (8 inches) since 1880, so it wouldn't really be noticeable in a photograph, especially on steep coasts like Norway's. Whether the photograph was taken at high vs. low tide would make a bigger difference in most cases.
- wcameron 11y agoGlobal sea level has risen less than a foot in the past 100 years. Although in environments like this, I would assume isostatic rebound (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound) would play a large role in apparent local sea level changes.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- dagw 11y agoThe land level in that part of the world has been rising for the past 100 years, counteracting most changes in sea levels: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound
- kbart 11y agoThe rise of see level can be seen pretty clearly in photo no. 6.
- dvdcxn 11y agoYou can't be sure that isn't just because the tide is higher. The land now covered by water looked like tideland in the older picture as well.
- lars 11y agoIt's almost certainly the tide. I'm familiar with the area around Torghatten. The high tide/low tide difference there can be ~2 meters, more than enough to explain all the variation in sealevel.
- kbart 11y agoAlso, more trees might relate to stricter environmental laws (you can't simply take an axe and chop a random tree nowadays) and more advanced and energy efficient heating sources that use biomass briquettes, electricity and gas instead of tree logs from the nearby thicket.
- evgen 11y agoInteresting. The bit that I found most noticeable in the then/now comparison was that people in the past really did not like trees :) Every bit of human habitation was surrounded by open areas denuded of trees. It actually looked unpleasant and sterile to see the lack of trees near everything man-made. Roads, fields, home...no trees anywhere in the vicinity.
- tormeh 11y agoA lot of the difference in vegetation is due to climate change. I'm Norwegian and born in the beginning of October, which was first snow at the time. Now it never snows in October. You have to wait late November or early December. That sort of thing makes a lot of difference to plants.
- WalterBright 11y ago> Every bit of human habitation was surrounded by open areas denuded of trees. I theorize that is due to the nearby trees all being used for firewood.
- akafred 11y agoLand owners can generally chop down trees as they wish; with some exceptions, which mostly don't apply in these photos. I think there are three main reasons for the increase in woodland: 1. Less cultivated land; including less land used for grazing (eg. by sheep). 2. Other sources of heating (mostly electricity, some oil, and still some wood, but usually not taken from just outside the door; there is very little use of gas in Norway). 3. Milder climate has raised the tree line. Which of these is most significant probably varies.
- Arnt 11y ago
- dogma1138 11y agoLook at the ground that is covered by water it's clearly tidal shore there are patches of water everywhere.