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.
On the contrary: coastline is infinite! 🤓
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 🤓, 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 we’d get more usable coastline as sea levels rise is if landmass got “thicker” at higher elevations, but it does not.
at a fractal level, anything can happen, but at a practical/macro level it’s 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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
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
deleted by creator
Watch Live X Show with Donald and Musk 🤮
