NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: New Moon, Perigee, and Solstice
From: Frank Reed CT
Date: 2003 Dec 29, 17:50 EST
From: Frank Reed CT
Date: 2003 Dec 29, 17:50 EST
Trevor Kenchington wrote:
"While I am pointing out errors, your earlier message supplied a few."
Probably one, yes. But not a "few", as far as I can see. But please do point out anything you believe to be in error.
I wrote earlier:
"Then you would be pleasantly surprised. These calculations were do-able even thirty or forty years ago."
You replied:
"I wasn't around here when Fundy tidal power was being seriously
considered but I was in England for the parallel debates on a tidal
barrage in the Severn Estuary. That would have been circa 1975, hence
some 30 years ago. Very clearly, the calculations were NOT "do-able".
Among the rage of answers produced would that there would only be a
negligible increase in tidal range as close as Milford Haven and that
there would be a major increase as far away as Liverpool. I really doubt
that the estimates for the proposed Fundy project were any more precise."
But that's mere anecdote, Trevor. Interesting anecdote, of course. But it doesn't invalidate what I wrote earlier.
I wrote previously:
"The tides will slice right through that isthmus in New Brunswick (?? pardon my ignorance of Canadian province boundaries) in a few thousand years."
You replied:
"Hardly. New Brunswick is rising out of the ocean quite quickly. Unless
the ice caps hurry up and melt, raising sea level even faster than the
land is rising, the Tantramar marshes are more likely to dry up than get
eroded away."
Yes, I agree with your logic, and I assume I was wrong earlier. I vividly remember hearing that comment I quoted from a geologist at college 20 years ago, but that's probably the only place I heard it.
Regarding land uplift in NB, do you know where the "zero point" is as you go up the coast? All of the US East Coast has been sinking steadily for as long as people have been keeping records. Relative sea level in southern New England is rising at a rate of about 0.8 feet per century. Even in Eastport, Maine, close to the Canadian border, sea level has been rising at something like 0.7 feet per century. Do you know where it flips negative as you move north?
Frank E. Reed
[X] Mystic, Connecticut
[ ] Chicago, Illinois
"While I am pointing out errors, your earlier message supplied a few."
Probably one, yes. But not a "few", as far as I can see. But please do point out anything you believe to be in error.
I wrote earlier:
"Then you would be pleasantly surprised. These calculations were do-able even thirty or forty years ago."
You replied:
"I wasn't around here when Fundy tidal power was being seriously
considered but I was in England for the parallel debates on a tidal
barrage in the Severn Estuary. That would have been circa 1975, hence
some 30 years ago. Very clearly, the calculations were NOT "do-able".
Among the rage of answers produced would that there would only be a
negligible increase in tidal range as close as Milford Haven and that
there would be a major increase as far away as Liverpool. I really doubt
that the estimates for the proposed Fundy project were any more precise."
But that's mere anecdote, Trevor. Interesting anecdote, of course. But it doesn't invalidate what I wrote earlier.
I wrote previously:
"The tides will slice right through that isthmus in New Brunswick (?? pardon my ignorance of Canadian province boundaries) in a few thousand years."
You replied:
"Hardly. New Brunswick is rising out of the ocean quite quickly. Unless
the ice caps hurry up and melt, raising sea level even faster than the
land is rising, the Tantramar marshes are more likely to dry up than get
eroded away."
Yes, I agree with your logic, and I assume I was wrong earlier. I vividly remember hearing that comment I quoted from a geologist at college 20 years ago, but that's probably the only place I heard it.
Regarding land uplift in NB, do you know where the "zero point" is as you go up the coast? All of the US East Coast has been sinking steadily for as long as people have been keeping records. Relative sea level in southern New England is rising at a rate of about 0.8 feet per century. Even in Eastport, Maine, close to the Canadian border, sea level has been rising at something like 0.7 feet per century. Do you know where it flips negative as you move north?
Frank E. Reed
[X] Mystic, Connecticut
[ ] Chicago, Illinois
