Actually, less. If we imagine our landmass as a circle for simplicity's sake, and we shrink it, the length of its circumference will decrease.
Not that I expect Trump to have any math skills.
this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2024
158 points (98.2% liked)
Fediverse vs Disinformation
297 readers
254 users here now
Propaganda and disinformation are a big problem on the internet, and the Fediverse is no exception.
What's the difference between misinformation and disinformation? The inadvertent spread of false information is misinformation. Disinformation is the intentional spread of falsehoods.
By equipping yourself with knowledge of current disinformation campaigns by state actors, corporations and their cheerleaders, you will be better able to identify, report and (hopefully) remove content matching known disinformation campaigns.
Community rules
Same as instance rules, plus:
- No disinformation
- Posts must be relevant to the topic of propaganda and/or disinformation
Related websites
founded 1 month ago
MODERATORS
On the contrary: coastline is infinite! ๐ค
As such, Trump is still definitely wrong because a new infinite coastline cannot be larger than the old infinite coastline.
(The reason your simplification doesn't work, by the way, is that a circle is a rectifiable curve and coastline isn't.)
It's not infinite though. It says so in the wikipedia article under critics and misunderstandings
Mathematically perhaps, but real estate is less concerned with genuine mathematical accuracy and more concerned with convenience. They just draw a shape with lines and say "everything inside this is the property". The actual quantity of feet of coast ends up as a ballparked figure by necessity. This ballparked figure will reduce.
That's only because they haven't yet figured a way to sell coastlines by length. Once someone solves this trivial problem, you can expect the market to boom.
Hence the self-deprecating ๐ค, LOL
Anyway, I agree with you in the sense that shapes with smaller areas tend to also have smaller circumferences, all other things being equal. However, we can't really be sure that's the case for the Earth without actually computer-modeling it to check because, for all we know, the coastline might become more 'wiggly' as sea levels rise.
Still not giving Trump any fucking credit at all, of course.
the only way weโd get more usable coastline as sea levels rise is if landmass got โthickerโ at higher elevations, but it does not.
at a fractal level, anything can happen, but at a practical/macro level itโs pretty self evident; landmasses are smaller up high and bigger the base because gravity.
First, let me say that Trump is an idiot and I'm not defending him.
That out of the way... Imagine your circle landmass has a 'C' shaped mountain range around the edge. The center of the 'C' is a sea level valley that floods when sea levels rise. Then the amount of coast would increase.
Obviously if sea level keeps rising forever then eventually the total coastline will trend to zero. Really just pointing out that the circle may be a bit of an oversimplification and in some given time frame coastline could increase.
None of the this is intended to defend Trump or deny the negative affects of climate change.
Except our landmass is not a small amount of water surrounded by land. It's a small amount of land surrounded by water.
I think you're misunderstanding. They are saying that accounting for topography different areas will becomes islands and peninsulas so total landmass might decrease but total coastline could actually increase. Your simplified model only makes sense with a landmass that constantly rises in elevation towards its center point.
Stupid statement by Trump regardless though.
Ooh, I didn't consider that. Good point. Still, without performing the actual calculations it's quite possible it could reduce. There will be a certain amount of loss from reduced total landmass that would need to be compensated for and overcome by any increases. Reductions will be very, very common after all. Many islands simply disappear, most of Florida, etc.
Exactly landmass and coastline will trend towards 0 with enough sea rise.
And looking at a topography map of the US specifically the amount of coastline that could possibly be gained (if any) would not be worth the trade-off of losing pretty much all of SE US. Trump is definitely an idiot.
Yep, this is what I was saying.
Yep.
So he not only doesn't believe in climate change but he doesn't understand that a shape with smaller area will naturally have a smaller perimeter. There will be less oceanfront property, and less property over all. Dudes unqualified for 5th grade geometry, let alone the Presidency.
(I'm excluding the possibility that rising waters would make the shoreline more fuzzy/fractal. AFAIK that isn't the case.)
I made basically this comment in another thread on this topic; the only way you'd get more beach front property is if a lot of low lying basins become bays that have more area than the shrinking perimeter.
Why didn't elon use this more recent photo for the promo image?
Guess I'm not sleeping tonight thanks
I've never had this irresistible urge to smack someone upside the head with a textbook until now.
You can't delete climate change AND claim rising sea
"This smaller box is bigger than this bigger box" is peak truth-inverting fascism.
That he ended a the question means that he doesn't even know enough to say if he's right or wrong. He's grasping at words, something that he's both skilled at and not, since he usually grabbed the wrong ones.
everyone in here talking math but he's right. See the current beachfront property is all bought up, but with rising sea levels all that will be underwater, thus creating a whole new swath of beachfront property that if you were a billionaire you probably already own and could resell as beachfront property.
It's hard to distinguish whether he's just an idiot or a rich man totally ignoring the existence of the non-rich. But your explanation does make sense.
Not that I give a shit about what douchebag Trump says because he's bullshitting like usual, but to his credit it does bring up a neat math problem.
My best approximation of a comparison model would be something like this:
- Get an elevation survey of the coast of the continental US from a reliable and detailed enough source, like USGS. If you have waaay too much time on your hands you can include islands, Alaska, Hawaii, and outlying territories.
- Pick two levels above sea level to represent the before and after.
- Draw a line that corresponds to the first countour closest to the ocean that is at or exceeds the level you picked. Do this for the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts.
- Fully enclose the lines using the Canadian border in the northwest and northeast corners, and the Mexican border in the Southwest and Southeast.
- Repeat this step at the second selected level. Use the same corner points as previously to avoid distorting the results from the size of the continent. Draw the closest line from the border point to the corner point or the closest point along the Canada/Mexico lines if you want to avoid crossing over the shape.
- Find the difference in the areas between the two enclosed shapes.
Maybe some mapping softwares have functions that can do this relatively easily compared more manual methods.
Water goes up = more land covered = less beaches
Watch Live X Show with Donald and Musk ๐คฎ