Coastal erosion disgrace - Sky news
Discussion
Cobnapint said:
He also posts a very interesting case of the longshore drift dynamics being disrupted by the installation of groynes at Mappleton. This I can understand. But I still maintain my view that a sea wall at one point would not automatically cause the erosion hungry sea to increase its damaging energy elsewhere.
It doesn't. As I, and several other learned gents have patiently tried to explain (with pictures and everything) is that there is always erosion on the shore, all the time, at every single spot on the coast. There is nowhere on the coast of the UK where material is not removed from the shore by wave action.However, along all of the shore there is also deposition - after all, all that material the waves have removed has to go somewhere. In some places there is more erosion than deposition, in others it's the other way around. That has a lot to do with the hardness of the rock being eroded, the direction of the prevailing wind, tide height, amongst other things.
If there is more deposition than erosion, beaches form. Beaches are pretty much the best form of coastal defence because they are naturally sustaining provided there is a ready supply of sediment being deposited on the shore.
In the example of the north east coast, the material from those cliffs is transported south to Spurn Head and the marshes of Lincolnshire. If you stopped the cliffs eroding by building a wall, there would be no material being moved south. The eroding action of the sea continues unabated, but there is no deposition to go with it. Thus those beaches, sand bars and marshes erode as a result of building a sea wall.
Still going? Much more patience than me, I was out three days ago - about the same time we lost another chunk of cliff near to us...Cobnapint said:
DonkeyApple said:
And what exactly are you going to fix your board to? 
As a conscientious school teacher, you would hold it in the correct position whilst one of your favourite pupils (yours truly) conducted the experiment.DonkeyApple said:
And why the almost religious denial of proven fact and physics?
I'm not denying the facts. I'm denying your statement that 'by protecting one spot you are '100% catagorically shifting the issue to another point'.As blueg33 points out - it is very probable, not a 100% certainty - there is a difference.
He also posts a very interesting case of the longshore drift dynamics being disrupted by the installation of groynes at Mappleton. This I can understand. But I still maintain my view that a sea wall at one point would not automatically cause the erosion hungry sea to increase its damaging energy elsewhere.
DonkeyApple said:
And just why the obsession with linking to overseas aid?
I tried earlier linking it to HS2, but nobody liked that, so I thought I'd try something that really makes my (and others, quite rightly) blood boil.There are many other examples of disjointed prioritys on the governmental spending front I could have chosen.
DonkeyApple said:
And why the refusal to nip down to the library?
What is a library?With your protection in one place that you cannot fix to anything so lets just say you have leant it against the cliff. How do you stop the erosion at either end and then the subsequent back erosion that will occur behind your defenses?
Do you have a sand pit at home? Make a cliff with the sand, prop a book up against the section in the middle and then swash water against it. Report back how long the book stays there and what has happened to the sand that was behind it? And during the process at what two points on your 'cliff' did erosion suddenly accelerate from when you positioned the book.
As a conscientious teacher, I have to say that you would have been defenestrated some time ago
Cobnapint said:
There are many other examples of disjointed prioritys on the governmental spending front I could have chosen.
And not one of you has answered his point on this, in typical PH fashion just pointing and laughing with selective answers. Shame on (most) of you.There may well be, and are, technical answers why not in one place or another on the coast, or indeed not at all, but being impartial about this, one can understand property owners seeing £20 million schemes being spent elsewhere to protect 200 or so properties and consequently them feeling they are outcasts.
FiF said:
And not one of you has answered his point on this, in typical PH fashion just pointing and laughing with selective answers. Shame on (most) of you.
There may well be, and are, technical answers why not in one place or another on the coast, or indeed not at all, but being impartial about this, one can understand property owners seeing £20 million schemes being spent elsewhere to protect 200 or so properties and consequently them feeling they are outcasts.
I don't know of anywhere where that has happened?There may well be, and are, technical answers why not in one place or another on the coast, or indeed not at all, but being impartial about this, one can understand property owners seeing £20 million schemes being spent elsewhere to protect 200 or so properties and consequently them feeling they are outcasts.
FiF said:
And not one of you has answered his point on this, in typical PH fashion just pointing and laughing with selective answers. Shame on (most) of you.
There may well be, and are, technical answers why not in one place or another on the coast, or indeed not at all, but being impartial about this, one can understand property owners seeing £20 million schemes being spent elsewhere to protect 200 or so properties and consequently them feeling they are outcasts.
I think to be fair many people have spent a lot of time answering the posts but the OP has made his mind up about his views and doesn't appear to be listening. There may well be, and are, technical answers why not in one place or another on the coast, or indeed not at all, but being impartial about this, one can understand property owners seeing £20 million schemes being spent elsewhere to protect 200 or so properties and consequently them feeling they are outcasts.
It's a bit pointless to keep going in this scenario which does lead some of us to being just a touch flippant
davepoth said:
It doesn't. As I, and several other learned gents have patiently tried to explain (with pictures and everything) is that there is always erosion on the shore, all the time, at every single spot on the coast. There is nowhere on the coast of the UK where material is not removed from the shore by wave action.
However, along all of the shore there is also deposition - after all, all that material the waves have removed has to go somewhere. In some places there is more erosion than deposition, in others it's the other way around. That has a lot to do with the hardness of the rock being eroded, the direction of the prevailing wind, tide height, amongst other things.
If there is more deposition than erosion, beaches form. Beaches are pretty much the best form of coastal defence because they are naturally sustaining provided there is a ready supply of sediment being deposited on the shore.
In the example of the north east coast, the material from those cliffs is transported south to Spurn Head and the marshes of Lincolnshire. If you stopped the cliffs eroding by building a wall, there would be no material being moved south. The eroding action of the sea continues unabated, but there is no deposition to go with it. Thus those beaches, sand bars and marshes erode as a result of building a sea wall.
That's alot more of a considered response than some on here that have been stating, unequivocally, that the result of the instalation of a sea wall at one point always makes the matter worse in another, when it clearly doesn't - always. There are far too many site specific variables in play for their statments to hold water.However, along all of the shore there is also deposition - after all, all that material the waves have removed has to go somewhere. In some places there is more erosion than deposition, in others it's the other way around. That has a lot to do with the hardness of the rock being eroded, the direction of the prevailing wind, tide height, amongst other things.
If there is more deposition than erosion, beaches form. Beaches are pretty much the best form of coastal defence because they are naturally sustaining provided there is a ready supply of sediment being deposited on the shore.
In the example of the north east coast, the material from those cliffs is transported south to Spurn Head and the marshes of Lincolnshire. If you stopped the cliffs eroding by building a wall, there would be no material being moved south. The eroding action of the sea continues unabated, but there is no deposition to go with it. Thus those beaches, sand bars and marshes erode as a result of building a sea wall.
The fact remains, the cliffs are crumbling and I think more should be done to protect our coastline and the people that live near them. I'll leave the dynamics of preserving the integrity of existing beaches etc to the experts.
Cobnapint said:
That's alot more of a considered response than some on here that have been stating, unequivocally, that the result of the instalation of a sea wall at one point always makes the matter worse in another, when it clearly doesn't - always. There are far too many site specific variables in play for their statments to hold water.
The fact remains, the cliffs are crumbling and I think more should be done to protect our coastline and the people that live near them. I'll leave the dynamics of preserving the integrity of existing beaches etc to the experts.
Fine, you figure out the economics of it, but you cannot use one penny more of public money. As has been pointed out time and again, the current economic model predicts the shorthold nature of this land. See how many people want to live there paying x for the mortgage and 2x for the sea defences.The fact remains, the cliffs are crumbling and I think more should be done to protect our coastline and the people that live near them. I'll leave the dynamics of preserving the integrity of existing beaches etc to the experts.
I refer you bac to Rollcage's post from 27/12:
Rollcage said:
The costline in that area erodes at the rate of approx 1.9m per year (average since 1951). However, in recent years this rate has been measured at 7m per year.
You can see why the residents would be worried, but you would have to be seriously stupid to buy a property anywhere along that coastline and not expect it to fall into the sea, and sooner rather than later.
The above image shows settlements in the East Riding area that the sea has claimed over the centuries.
You can see why the residents would be worried, but you would have to be seriously stupid to buy a property anywhere along that coastline and not expect it to fall into the sea, and sooner rather than later.
The above image shows settlements in the East Riding area that the sea has claimed over the centuries.
Cobnapint said:
That's alot more of a considered response than some on here that have been stating, unequivocally, that the result of the instalation of a sea wall at one point always makes the matter worse in another, when it clearly doesn't - always. There are far too many site specific variables in play for their statments to hold water.
If anyone versed in the science had read what I wrote, they would have said the opposite. If the flow of sediment is disrupted in order to hold more of that sediment in one place, be it as a cliff or a beach, to stop erosion or cause deposition, it is an inalienable fact that places along the shore that relied on that sediment drifting along the coast to maintain their shore will suffer erosion. Edited by davepoth on Wednesday 2nd January 23:02
Cobnapint said:
DonkeyApple said:
Do you have a sand pit at home? Make a cliff with the sand, prop a book up against the section in the middle and then swash water against it...
You really are taking this infant school teacher thing to a whole new level aren't you?The experiment I detailed above is not taught at infant school but forms part of a somewhat higher level of education.
Seriously, you should carry out the above elementary experiment and see first hand the results. You will be genuinely amazed and enlightened.
Rollcage said:
The costline in that area erodes at the rate of approx 1.9m per year (average since 1951). However, in recent years this rate has been measured at 7m per year.
You can see why the residents would be worried, but you would have to be seriously stupid to buy a property anywhere along that coastline and not expect it to fall into the sea, and sooner rather than later.
The above image shows settlements in the East Riding area that the sea has claimed over the centuries.
Thats intersting, and a scary rate of the increase in erosion. Does anyone know where I may be able to find the rate of erosion on the south coast of Bembridge? Ive googled it to death but cant get a number. Theres a house im interested in thats about 300m from the shoreline and im wondering how long its got!You can see why the residents would be worried, but you would have to be seriously stupid to buy a property anywhere along that coastline and not expect it to fall into the sea, and sooner rather than later.
The above image shows settlements in the East Riding area that the sea has claimed over the centuries.
If there is data it will be here: http://www.bgs.ac.uk/
However, if the coastline is prone to erosion then the Local Authority will have data and any surveyor would include an element on this in their report.
However, if the coastline is prone to erosion then the Local Authority will have data and any surveyor would include an element on this in their report.
Thanks FiF, thats really useful, and exactly what I couldnt find!
I had read that the area close to where the property is located is an area of 'no active intervention' for at least the next 100 years. I also read that there was sufficient time for homeowners to adapt to the receeding costline...ie.time for them to firesell/commit suicide.
The house in question is in the small development directly to the south of the 'OS' of Styene CrOSs in the picture. No more than 300m max from the coastline.
What is noteworthy is that the Footpath shown to the south east of this, between Bembridge Boarding Campus, and Forelands Fields, is now closed due to erosion and slippage. So that map is already a little out of date compared to where the coastline is now.
The erosion predictions for that area over the next 20, 50 and 100 years is 20m, 50m and 100m (approx worst case). But how can they know that, when were having the worst weather in recent history?
Is this a safe buy, or potentially a stupid place to put my life savings?
I had read that the area close to where the property is located is an area of 'no active intervention' for at least the next 100 years. I also read that there was sufficient time for homeowners to adapt to the receeding costline...ie.time for them to firesell/commit suicide.
The house in question is in the small development directly to the south of the 'OS' of Styene CrOSs in the picture. No more than 300m max from the coastline.
What is noteworthy is that the Footpath shown to the south east of this, between Bembridge Boarding Campus, and Forelands Fields, is now closed due to erosion and slippage. So that map is already a little out of date compared to where the coastline is now.
The erosion predictions for that area over the next 20, 50 and 100 years is 20m, 50m and 100m (approx worst case). But how can they know that, when were having the worst weather in recent history?
Is this a safe buy, or potentially a stupid place to put my life savings?
Edited by Burnham on Thursday 3rd January 21:45
Burnham said:
The erosion predictions for that area over the next 20, 50 and 100 years is 20m, 50m and 100m (approx worst case). But how can they know that, when were having the worst weather in recent history?
Is this a safe buy, or potentially a stupid place to put my life savings?
Have you Zoopla'd the area? Is there a rapidly accelerating downward trend in house prices in the locale? Is this a safe buy, or potentially a stupid place to put my life savings?
Personally, having walked the Hornsea beach every week for the last couple of years, I'd not be investing.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff