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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.