NASTY SANDY CHURNING UP THE COAST

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Oh as far as humans causing climate change the earth in it history had gone from a hot house earth to a snow ball earth long before humans so no humans is needed to get vary large swings in climate.

While it's true that large climate changes can occur without humans, that doesn't mean that human activity can't have a large effect on climate patterns, we simply don't know.

This particular disaster is in the past now so it can't be avoided. But for future generations, I think coastal areas should be considered risky places to make long term plans (and permanent structures). I'm sure the actuarial models for insurance companies will be modified to reflect this, if they don't already.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

I agree; I also believe that the extraction of oil and gas has some effect on this planet's climate. Co2/carbon dioxide into the atmosphere definitely affects our environment negatively.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Sorry you do not try to force the bulk of the human race aways from the coasts and have them abandon their major cities because unvalidated computer models are predicting sea level raises.

Where ever the coast lines move to the human race will be on those shore lines as the benefits of being there had always far outweighs the costs.

The oceans are the highways of the world and there is no likely technology in the future that will change that fact.

When the Romans told the Carthaginians to move their city 20 miles inlands as a condition to not be facing a war they could not win, they decided to fight that helpless war instead of settling that far away from the sea.

3 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Sorry you do not try to force the bulk of the human race aways from the coasts and have them abandon their major cities because unvalidated computer models are predicting sea level raises.

I wasn't proposing forcing anyone. I think people should be aware of it for their own benefit and make their own choices. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that. I don't believe in regulating things like this, I believe in educating people to the likely probabilities and letting them choose.

And I agree with you that in reality people are not likely to move away from the shore any time soon. There is simply going to be a high cost for maintaining structures in those environments for any long period of time.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Part of Bills strategies (if you let him) is to conflate various extremes of positions. Now he is charging that we are moving New Yoek hen nothing of the kind was even hinted at.
Building vanity "Second homes" on dune lines is idiotic and as sea level rise continues, these homes are targets of flooding. WHY do we allow them to be rebuilt when, like the light at Nags HEad, its gotta be realized that the inevitability of trnsgression by the sea is only stopped by cooling of climate.
Ima fan of Pilkeys ordinances. They dont rely on us constantly putting in our tax dollars to rebuild private property that is built on areas of whats gonna ultimate sea bottom.

We practice "eminent domain" all the time , why not here in an area of ocean transgression. I see the same things in Calif where all these cantileiver houses were built in high seismic risk zones.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

When the Romans told the Carthaginians to move their city 20 miles inlands as a condition to not be facing a war they could not win, they decided to fight that helpless war instead of settling that far away from the sea.

That's a nice try but nevertheless pseudohistory. (Hint: "Delenda est Carthago!")

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Sorry but I got the moving of the city from a numbers of history books so I question if it pseudohistory.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Hmmm.... Yet you fail to actually cite your sources. So the alleged credibility of these alleged history book authors can't be questioned, right? So basically we're supposed to take your so called researched information at face value, right? Just because something has been published into a book doesn't make it an accurate fact.

So called primary sources from these classical periods often exaggerated and/or made up facts to fit any agenda of the author or to simply create an interesting story.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Punic_War

The consuls then demanded that Carthage hand over all weapons and armour. After those had been handed over, Rome additionally demanded that the Carthaginians move at least ten miles inland, while the city itself was to be burned. When the Carthaginians learned of this they abandoned negotiations and the city was immediately besieged, beginning the Third Punic War.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

I'm not disputing the moving of the city (though it was 80 stadiie = 10 miles).

2 Replies

@tsarstepan,

Dear heart I do not normally take details notes of what I had read over the years however fast research seems to support this 'myth'.

0 Replies

@tsarstepan,

http://www.heritage-history.com/www/heritage.php?Dir=wars&FileName=wars_punic.php

sentiment within Rome in favor of removing Carthage before it became an active threat, and with this in mind, Rome took Carthaginian hostages, forced the Carthaginians to disarm, and then forced concessions on them that were impossible to accept—namely, that the Carthaginians themselves destroy their own city and rebuild it several miles inland. Carthage was entirely a sea-faring, merchant-based civilization and could not consider such a possibility. The siege lasted for over a year, before Scipio the

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

I'm not disputing the moving of the city (though it was 80 stadiie = 10 miles).

Big deal ten or twenty miles who cares!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My memory was that it were 20 miles but it could had been ten that issue is not the main concern of my statement about the Roman demanding that they move the city away from the sea!!!!!!!!!

footnote converting units in any case from the ancient days to current units always had a lot of wiggle room

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

footnote converting units in any case from the ancient days to current units always had a lot of wiggle room

Converting Roman length units has a lot of wiggle room? You can do so easily down to a millimetre ... you can see their "yardsticks" in any museum with Roman artefacts.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Not only was the units of conversions in question but the art of surveying was not great at that time period and the distances on maps were not shown with any great accurately.

When the art of surveying came in to it own a 'French king' who had hired a surveyor to update his nation maps complained that the man was causing his Kingdom be become a great deal smaller.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Not only was the units of conversions in question but the art of surveying was not great at that time period and the distances on maps were not shown with any great accurately.

The conversion of Roman units is very simple ...
Certainly, their maps didn't show a great accurately - the distance was measured in day marches. But since we know the distance of those places in today's units - that's not a problem at all, too.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

you can see their "yardsticks" in any museum with Roman artefacts.

Yes and all those yardsticks match each other over the thousand of years of the Rome republic and empire!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There was no NIST or similar institution to maintain standards!!!!!!!

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

The conversion of Roman units is very simple ...
Certainly, their maps didn't show a great accurately - the distance was measured in day marches. But since we know the distance of those places in today's units - that's not a problem at all, too.

Yes, there is a problem as the distances they gave even between major population centers was all over the place.

You can get an idea of what they meant by averaging all their numbers and comparing them to modern day measurements but it is only a rough idea.

Hell they only had rough ideas themselves concerning distances.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Well, Cassini wasn't a surveyor but a mathematician, astronomer, engineer, and astrologer. He moved to France through a grant from Louis XIV. Cassini's method of determining longitude was used to measure the size of France accurately for the first time. Thus, France was smaller than the king thought ... (This year, it has been the 300th of his Cassini's death by the way)

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

Well, Cassini wasn't a surveyor but a mathematician, astronomer, engineer, and astrologer.

He was acting as a surveyor and a map maker for the King so for the purp0se of his position with the King he was a surveyor no matter what else he might had been.

Hell astronomers allow the first good means of determining longitude by getting a time check from the predicted positions of the moons of Jupiter.

3 Replies

NASTY SANDY CHURNING UP THE COAST

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know