Topic ID #4316 - posted 10/22/2008 8:51 PM
paleoface
Requesting aid in broad aspect Great Lakes survey
paleoface
Here's the rub: I am researching the Great Lakes and associated shoreline artifacts etc. To better understand the geophysical nature of not only Lake Erie but the neighboring Lakes I began reading the literature on formation theories, glaciation patterns and depositions, erosion, et al........
One caveat- there is still ongoing debate in all of these research areas and clearly the history of the Great Lakes is incredibly complex.
So, I started by studying historical maps then moved into satellite maps etc. An idea occurred to me:
While trying to imagine how the Great Lakes may have looked millions of years ago, I found that in some cases under close observation, many shoreline features on one side of any given Lake can "fit" into a feature on the other side.
This will make more sense if you consider "Pangea" the early conception of the Earth's landmasses when they were joined. If you do not already know of this model, please take a moment and search the internet for an example or have a look here:
.
What I am asking is simple: Can anyone here on the forum recommend a PC based solution to modify an existing map? I have been crudely using Paint to move around .jpg map's and I need more finesse.
I could use some help in this step of imaging the Great Lake area when either 1) there weren't any Great Lakes, just a land mass and/or
2) there was one central much smaller body of water but much deeper and a surrounding land mass
As a quick conclusion, if you look at a map of Lake Superior consider moving the Keweenaw Peninsula into the East shoreline of Wawa which would mean covering up or moving Michipicoten Island. This process should be repeated for all of the Great Lakes until there is a resultant land mass or a single, topographically small but deep lake and land mass. Sort of like the Pangea concept mapped to the Great Lakes.
ps I realize that this posting might not fit into the geophysical survey topic of the forum and I don't mind if the mod wants to move it.
One caveat- there is still ongoing debate in all of these research areas and clearly the history of the Great Lakes is incredibly complex.
So, I started by studying historical maps then moved into satellite maps etc. An idea occurred to me:
While trying to imagine how the Great Lakes may have looked millions of years ago, I found that in some cases under close observation, many shoreline features on one side of any given Lake can "fit" into a feature on the other side.
This will make more sense if you consider "Pangea" the early conception of the Earth's landmasses when they were joined. If you do not already know of this model, please take a moment and search the internet for an example or have a look here:
.
What I am asking is simple: Can anyone here on the forum recommend a PC based solution to modify an existing map? I have been crudely using Paint to move around .jpg map's and I need more finesse.
I could use some help in this step of imaging the Great Lake area when either 1) there weren't any Great Lakes, just a land mass and/or
2) there was one central much smaller body of water but much deeper and a surrounding land mass
As a quick conclusion, if you look at a map of Lake Superior consider moving the Keweenaw Peninsula into the East shoreline of Wawa which would mean covering up or moving Michipicoten Island. This process should be repeated for all of the Great Lakes until there is a resultant land mass or a single, topographically small but deep lake and land mass. Sort of like the Pangea concept mapped to the Great Lakes.
ps I realize that this posting might not fit into the geophysical survey topic of the forum and I don't mind if the mod wants to move it.
Post ID#11576 - replied 10/23/2008 11:46 AM
Dmack89
Paleoiface -
Before going any further I suggest you look at any existing evidence that there are actually tectonic plate boundaries in the area ( I don't think so). In reality most of the shoreline features are in constant flux from wave action, storms, etc. along the great lakes. Many sites along the existing shoreline have eroded out and are still changing. Additionally, you may want to look quite a bit into glacial geomorphology, as that played a huge part in shaping the basins of the lakes and the whole northeast. (complex of advancing and retreating glaciers, depositon of extensive deltas, etc form massive flooding and channel creation - all followed by extensive sedimentation and beach formation deposits as the glaciers melted, became lakes much larger than are known today, and them more massive flooding as the dams creating those lakes fel and water was released.
If you want to follow the pangea type model, I would suggest first getting a handle on the shape of bedrock formations, as those are keys to understanding what existed pre-glaciers.
Good Luck
DM
Before going any further I suggest you look at any existing evidence that there are actually tectonic plate boundaries in the area ( I don't think so). In reality most of the shoreline features are in constant flux from wave action, storms, etc. along the great lakes. Many sites along the existing shoreline have eroded out and are still changing. Additionally, you may want to look quite a bit into glacial geomorphology, as that played a huge part in shaping the basins of the lakes and the whole northeast. (complex of advancing and retreating glaciers, depositon of extensive deltas, etc form massive flooding and channel creation - all followed by extensive sedimentation and beach formation deposits as the glaciers melted, became lakes much larger than are known today, and them more massive flooding as the dams creating those lakes fel and water was released.
If you want to follow the pangea type model, I would suggest first getting a handle on the shape of bedrock formations, as those are keys to understanding what existed pre-glaciers.
Good Luck
DM
Post ID#11582 - replied 10/23/2008 8:48 PM
rtx2
I think that you need to get a hold of some geology books of our region and start from there. This area is very complex, that is correct. In order to get a real handle on it you have to look at some of the established material as suggested above. "Retrieving Michigan Buried Past" is a good place to start off with for recent glacial forward.
Post ID#12099 - replied 12/13/2008 6:16 PM
gabybonney
You need to get ahold of ArcMap.
|
Next topic: "BAJR Federation - " |
|
Previous topic: "Help identifying these figurines please " |
|
Looking for something else? Show recent posts in Discussion |