I wonder if the silence on this interesting posting demonstrates that we
ought to work harder to involve physical / environmental geographers in the
list?
There are many physcial / environmental geographers who share 'critical'
perspectives on society. Out of interest, are there any physical
geographers participating in this list? If so, how do you think we could
make the list more PG-friendly?
Nick
--On 10 July 2003 16:49 +0000 Hillary Shaw <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Well several have asked me, in effect, 'what else could we debate on this
> forum, apart from Iraq-related topics'.
> Here's a bit of a puzzling one. Old photographs, of places like Dover,
> Arundel. I have photos of these, and other tidal places on the South
> coast, going back to the 1920s, or even 1900, 1910s. Also modern ones,
> late 1990s, exactly the same place. Now over 70 years, with sea level
> rise, and sinking of SE England, I expected to see some evidence of
> higher sea level, but there wasn't any. Arundel shows the bridge over the
> river in the middle of town, apparently no change in the discolouration
> mark where the tides come up the stonework to. Dover, shows promenade in
> 1908, and also today. No indication of changes to sea level here either.
> Of course state of tide is likely to be different in each one, but one
> can estimate where high tide is, approx, in each one, and if SE of UK is
> sinking, at 0.8-1.0 mm per year, that with gen sea level rise should show
> some 10-15cm of change.
> Far more of these photo pairs show increased tree/shrub cover than show
> less such cover. One might have expected 2 photos, taken some years
> apart, to show roughly the same tree/shrub cover - some older trees would
> have died, new ones grown up, between the two photos. On average, cover
> ought to stay the same. On average, 50% of the photos should show an
> increase, 50% a decrease, in tree/shrub cover.
> Now the 20th century was the century for suburbanisation (at least
> area-wise), and when a rural area is suburbanised the tree cover may tend
> to get taken out, then slowly regrow as gardens mature. So maybe the
> early 20th century suburban photos would show less tree/shrub cover than
> the late 20th century ones. Only many of these photos are of farmland and
> rural public open space, eg the Downs. Maybe changes in estate
> management, more conservation, or less grazing animals have allowed trees
> to grow more?
> I was chary about putting this email out, as it seems to imply we have
> not so much to worry about CO2, global warming, and that is not a school
> of thought I think is advisable, given possible maximum worst
> consequences of global warming. The global-warming-optimists say
> increased plant cover will mop up much of the CO2 rise, although
> apparently these plants haven't done so yet, as its still rising; I don't
> think its good to rely on this possible mechanism. It doesnt really fit
> in with message from Newlyn, where I have read sea level records show a
> rise of some 8 cm over 100 years. Or with those Pacific/Indian Ocean
> islands where Guardian said some islands have already vanished.
>
> So do any other crit-geog members have similar photo-pairs, of
> semi-wooded, or of coastal, areas, spanning several decades like this?
> I'd be interested to hear of what any other photo pairs like this show.
>
> Hillary Shaw, School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT
|