Coastal erosion disgrace - Sky news
Discussion
Cobnapint said:
It does if they are done properly.
If you go on google maps and look a little further down the coast there is a proper concrete wall section running parallel to Doggett's Lane down to Eccles-on-sea which has quite clearly stopped the erosion in it's tracks.
This is exactly what's needed along many parts of that particular coast and others around the UK, before there's nothing left. It's not exactly difficult - the Germans (and the allies for that matter) slung up concrete walls and structures in next to no time during WWII.
If we're that short of cash, then it's time to divert a bit of foreign aid to where it would be appreciated, I feel.
do you live in one of these areas? Is that why you feel this is so important?If you go on google maps and look a little further down the coast there is a proper concrete wall section running parallel to Doggett's Lane down to Eccles-on-sea which has quite clearly stopped the erosion in it's tracks.
This is exactly what's needed along many parts of that particular coast and others around the UK, before there's nothing left. It's not exactly difficult - the Germans (and the allies for that matter) slung up concrete walls and structures in next to no time during WWII.
If we're that short of cash, then it's time to divert a bit of foreign aid to where it would be appreciated, I feel.
I live in Blackpool and this is a bit like the people who moved into houses along the beachfront and then complain about all the sand getting in their homes.
Oakey said:
do you live in one of these areas? Is that why you feel this is so important?
I live in Blackpool and this is a bit like the people who moved into houses along the beachfront and then complain about all the sand getting in their homes.
No, I live about 140 miles inland so it's nowhere near me. I just wouldn't want it happening to my house, and I don't get why the government isn't doing anything about it.I live in Blackpool and this is a bit like the people who moved into houses along the beachfront and then complain about all the sand getting in their homes.
Even if it meant committing to protecting half a mile a year it would be something.
Just because it's not near doesn't mean you can't be concerned about it. Israel isn't near me either but I'm still concerned about Iran enriching Uranium way beyond the purity it needs for a nuclear power station.
Cobnapint said:
zetec said:
A walk along the beach at Happisburgh in Suffolk will show that building defences won't always work.
It does if they are done properly. If you go on google maps and look a little further down the coast there is a proper concrete wall section running parallel to Doggett's Lane down to Eccles-on-sea which has quite clearly stopped the erosion in it's tracks.
This is exactly what's needed along many parts of that particular coast and others around the UK, before there's nothing left. It's not exactly difficult - the Germans (and the allies for that matter) slung up concrete walls and structures in next to no time during WWII.
If we're that short of cash, then it's time to divert a bit of foreign aid to where it would be appreciated, I feel.
Until it becomes cost effective to protect a section of coast (i.e. if a major town or strategic installation is threatened) the best thing to do is nothing.
And for the person above who asked why we spend money on knocking down houses that are about to fall off the cliff, the houses are quite often full of nasties like asbestos and lead which you don't really want to leave on a beach.
Cobnapint said:
zetec said:
A walk along the beach at Happisburgh in Suffolk will show that building defences won't always work.
It does if they are done properly. <b>If you go on google maps and look a little further down the coast there is a proper concrete wall section running parallel to Doggett's Lane down to Eccles-on-sea which has quite clearly stopped the erosion in it's tracks.
This is exactly what's needed along many parts of that particular coast and others around the UK, before there's nothing left. It's not exactly difficult - the Germans (and the allies for that matter) slung up concrete walls and structures in next to no time during WWII.</b>
If we're that short of cash, then it's time to divert a bit of foreign aid to where it would be appreciated, I feel.
The wall caused enormous damage to the beach from reflected wave energy and accelerated the erosion at Happisburgh -
The problem with building defences is that it's a pretty long stretch of coastline to defend, and the erosion is so bad because of the height of the tides there.
Some beaches, when the tide is high still have some beach left before the cliff base - on that neck of coastline when the tide is in, the water height can be several feet in calm seas, which the North Sea rarely is!
Some beaches, when the tide is high still have some beach left before the cliff base - on that neck of coastline when the tide is in, the water height can be several feet in calm seas, which the North Sea rarely is!
Rollcage said:
The problem with building defences is that it's a pretty long stretch of coastline to defend, and the erosion is so bad because of the height of the tides there.
Some beaches, when the tide is high still have some beach left before the cliff base - on that neck of coastline when the tide is in, the water height can be several feet in calm seas, which the North Sea rarely is!
That is not the problem with building defences.Some beaches, when the tide is high still have some beach left before the cliff base - on that neck of coastline when the tide is in, the water height can be several feet in calm seas, which the North Sea rarely is!
The problem is that building defences causes issues elsewhere
Cobnapint said:
No, I live about 140 miles inland so it's nowhere near me. I just wouldn't want it happening to my house, and I don't get why the government isn't doing anything about it.
Even if it meant committing to protecting half a mile a year it would be something.
Just because it's not near doesn't mean you can't be concerned about it. Israel isn't near me either but I'm still concerned about Iran enriching Uranium way beyond the purity it needs for a nuclear power station.
What would you like to be protected? The entire country, in which case you lose the beaches with their lapping waves? Or would you prefer it the way it is, with coastal defences put where they might do some good - major seaside areas, and areas of natural beauty, and we lose some bits of coastline with nothing particular about them. To be objective, Alborough is a small village where this has been happening for a long time, the residents have known about this for a while, and have been compensated economically already, either via insurance, or by buying really cheap housing. Even if it meant committing to protecting half a mile a year it would be something.
Just because it's not near doesn't mean you can't be concerned about it. Israel isn't near me either but I'm still concerned about Iran enriching Uranium way beyond the purity it needs for a nuclear power station.
blueg33 said:
Rollcage said:
The problem with building defences is that it's a pretty long stretch of coastline to defend, and the erosion is so bad because of the height of the tides there.
Some beaches, when the tide is high still have some beach left before the cliff base - on that neck of coastline when the tide is in, the water height can be several feet in calm seas, which the North Sea rarely is!
That is not the problem with building defences.Some beaches, when the tide is high still have some beach left before the cliff base - on that neck of coastline when the tide is in, the water height can be several feet in calm seas, which the North Sea rarely is!
The problem is that building defences causes issues elsewhere
A lex said:
Aldbrough cliff top this morning.
Tide was out, which is a shame as its blowing a bloody gale at the moment.
Id guesstimate its slipped about 10m (at the top) since I was last here in October, although it will be considerably less at the bottom, where they measure the erosion figures IIRC.
Interested to know what Cowden is like these days. Remember the old carriages and bungalows disappearing along with the road and the next road further inland. Also an RAF box on the top of the cliffs at the time. Fond memories of pilots doing target practice in the North Sea with the aircraft flying low over the cliff tops. And playing on the beach only to find later that there was loads of unexplored ordnance nearby.Tide was out, which is a shame as its blowing a bloody gale at the moment.
Id guesstimate its slipped about 10m (at the top) since I was last here in October, although it will be considerably less at the bottom, where they measure the erosion figures IIRC.
Happy days!
randlemarcus said:
What would you like to be protected? The entire country, in which case you lose the beaches with their lapping waves?
The bits that are being eroded would be a good start. The whole country doesn't need protecting. Much of it doesn't suffer from high erosion rates in the first place because of either existing man made or natural sea defences. And some of it is composed of highly resistant solid rock (eg Cornwall and Scotland, amongst many other places) which is able to hold it's own against the elements.And you don't loose any beaches, they remain as they are. There are countless places along the coastline where a sea walls co-exist with beautiful beaches that are enjoyed by thousands of locals and holiday makers year on year.
And I still don't understand the logic of 'extra' erosion being introduced further up/down the coast from a place which has sea defences. Thats like saying during a rain shower that somebody across the street from you will get wetter quicker because you've had the good sense to put an umberella up.
I can understand how the erosion may 'appear' to be worse, if one part of the coastline stops eroding.
And this 'longshore drift' that a few are quoting on here has more to do with the 'transportation' of silt, sediment and stone along the coastline, and the installation of groynes to help prevent whole beaches being washed away. It has nothing to do with the subject matter of this thread, which is the vertical collapse of unprotected shallow cliffs through direct impact of either the sea at its base, or gravity induced land slippage accelerated by rainfall.
Anyway, HNY one and all.
Cobnapint said:
And I still don't understand the logic of 'extra' erosion being introduced further up/down the coast from a place which has sea defences. Thats like saying during a rain shower that somebody across the street from you will get wetter quicker because you've had the good sense to put an umberella up.
I can understand how the erosion may 'appear' to be worse, if one part of the coastline stops eroding.
And this 'longshore drift' that a few are quoting on here has more to do with the 'transportation' of silt, sediment and stone along the coastline, and the installation of groynes to help prevent whole beaches being washed away. It has nothing to do with the subject matter of this thread, which is the vertical collapse of unprotected shallow cliffs through direct impact of either the sea at its base, or gravity induced land slippage accelerated by rainfall.
Anyway, HNY one and all.
I think you have finally got it. I can understand how the erosion may 'appear' to be worse, if one part of the coastline stops eroding.
And this 'longshore drift' that a few are quoting on here has more to do with the 'transportation' of silt, sediment and stone along the coastline, and the installation of groynes to help prevent whole beaches being washed away. It has nothing to do with the subject matter of this thread, which is the vertical collapse of unprotected shallow cliffs through direct impact of either the sea at its base, or gravity induced land slippage accelerated by rainfall.
Anyway, HNY one and all.
When you put an umbrella up does the rain that land on it then disappear?
What happens to this rain?
Is it not moved to the periphery of the protection?
Is it also not at that point more concentrated and heavier drops?
Your analogy is a perfect example of how man made defenses work.
When the wave energy is not being absorbed by the soft cliff wall but being bounced back off hard concrete it has to go elsewhere.
Just like beaches absorb wave energy so do sedimentary cliff structures. They are a defense system in their own right. A natural one and a more efficient one than any man made system.
The glacial till cliffs of this area have been monitored for nearly 200 years and have receded at a rate of 1-2m a year over this time. Cliffs erode in blocks not mm by mm so you need to look at the average and over the range of the geo strata.
Now, if you knew that a length of coast was receding on average 1-2m a year but it did so by cutting in many metres in one place and not cutting in at all in others then you would know that you have a working erosion range of between 1 and 10 metres. So why would you ever buy a property within a few hundred metres of the edge? It is either because you are thick or because the pricing model of such coastal land is a very well known and robust system that is a duplicate of the short dated lease model.
So you pay x years of lease value. You cannot complain when x is up.
Another very important thing that you need to understand is that once the waves have cut deep enough into this short section of till the changed shape of the local coast will change the wave action and where the energy dissipation is focussed so that section will stop eroding at the rapid rate and another section which has appeared stable will begin to erode.
So, no the State should not be giving free money to people.
DonkeyApple said:
I think you have finally got it.
When the wave energy is not being absorbed by the soft cliff wall but being bounced back off hard concrete it has to go elsewhere.
So, no the State should not be giving free money to people.
No, still not got it.When the wave energy is not being absorbed by the soft cliff wall but being bounced back off hard concrete it has to go elsewhere.
So, no the State should not be giving free money to people.
I'm no expert, but the energy in one particular wave won't indefinitely ricochet down the coastline until it meets a soft object that will absorb it. Much of that energy goes straight up in the air in the form of great columns of sea water/spray, momentarily sidewards to be absorbed by the surrounding sea water, downwards onto the beach/shingle, or backwards to be overwhelmed by the next wave.
And even if your theory were true, I don't believe the difference in energy absorbing qualities between a concrete wall and a cliff when faced with the enormous power of the sea would be enough to incur any noticeable acceleration in erosion elswhere along the particular coastline in question.
And I'm not professing that the state should be giving free money to people of this green and pleasant land. Heaven forbid, that would be an outrage. That money is for other things like funding deportation court cases and charter flights for illegal immigrants that should never have been let in in the first place, and handouts to foreign nations that either hate us or have absolutely nothing to do with us. But thats another story.
All I'm saying is that something needs to be done to save our coastline, after all, not all of it is owned by individuals, some of it is owned by the state.
http://news.sky.com/story/1029857/coastal-erosion-... for those that missed it.
Cobnapint said:
All I'm saying is that something needs to be done to save our coastline,
No it doesn't. The coastline has been changing for millions of years. Rather than expecting the all-providing Nanny State to spend millions/billions of taxpayers money on potentially futile attempts to mitigate coastal erosion people need to start looking after themselves.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff