1990
DOI: 10.1130/spe251-p111
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A numerical model of glacial isostasy in the Lake Michigan basin

Abstract: A numerical model of a spherical viscoelastic self-gravitating Earth has been used to predict the glacio-isostatic deformation of the Lake Michigan basin during late-glacial and postglacial times. Predictions of present rate of vertical movement agree well in trend but slightly exceed in magnitude the observed rate of tilting indicated by lake-level gauges. Predicted uplift curves for the four dominant outlets controlling the ancestral lakes of the Lake Michigan basin indicate an outlet chronology comparable t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

1992
1992
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Divergence of hydrographs indicates that there has been differential vertical ground movement between sites through time and that the lake-level hydrograph created for each site shows lake-level change 'relative' only to that site. In the Great Lakes, this vertical movement is commonly attributed to isostatic rebound (Clark et al, 1990(Clark et al, , 1994Tushingham, 1992;Larsen, 1994) in response to the removal of ice following the last glacial retreat. In the upper Great Lakes, the rate of crustal rebound increases to the northeast, but the rebound is complicated because some sites (e.g., Ludington, Michigan) are rising at rates that are much slower than surrounding areas (Figure 8).…”
Section: Reconstructing Paleo Lake Levelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Divergence of hydrographs indicates that there has been differential vertical ground movement between sites through time and that the lake-level hydrograph created for each site shows lake-level change 'relative' only to that site. In the Great Lakes, this vertical movement is commonly attributed to isostatic rebound (Clark et al, 1990(Clark et al, , 1994Tushingham, 1992;Larsen, 1994) in response to the removal of ice following the last glacial retreat. In the upper Great Lakes, the rate of crustal rebound increases to the northeast, but the rebound is complicated because some sites (e.g., Ludington, Michigan) are rising at rates that are much slower than surrounding areas (Figure 8).…”
Section: Reconstructing Paleo Lake Levelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When the weight of the ice sheet was removed by melting, the Great Lakes region experienced isostatic rebound which continues to the present day ( Fig. 2) (Andrews, 1970;Clark & Persoage, 1970;Clark et al, 1990). The rate of uplift today is greatest to the north where deglaciation has occurred most recently.…”
Section: Geologymentioning
confidence: 92%
“…Lambeck et al (2007) and Goldberg et al (2016) used ice-age sea-level models to explore the timing and location of sill breach in the Black Sea flood, but neither study included a fully gravitationally self-consistent treatment of the flood event. Clark et al (1990) predict uplift across the Great Lakes during the last deglaciation. To do so, they track individual elevation curves for potential lake outlets and calculate the location of the lowest ice-free outlet to infer drainage history.…”
Section: Final Remarksmentioning
confidence: 97%