New Beach For Clacton – Naze And Seawick Falling Into Sea

Upgrade of groynes and beach at Clacton and Holland-on-Sea continues.  Nothing is done to stop sea eroding beach, sea wall and cliffs at Naze and Seawick

Clacton

New groynes and recharged beach at Clacton near pier

newClactonBeach  

Photo from earlier year shows how much sand had dropped – about 20 feet

 

In the distance you can see a reef that has been built out to sea, for boats to shelter behind

Presumably this touches the bottom

So the groynes could have been built much further out

 

clactonNewGroynesBeforeRecharge  

The new beach is still much smaller than south of the pier

  clactonSouthPier

 

The previous policy of putting rocks against wall and letting groynes fall to pieces didn’t work.

Why was nothing done to change this policy for about 15 years?

On the other hand if previous policy did work why was it changed?

 rocksAgainstWall

Seawick- St Osyth

 In October 2013 the path just south of the groynes looked like this

Looking north

 6Oct2013_stOysthPathLookingNorth

Looking south

 In both photos can clearly see properties behind the sea wall 6Oct2013_stOysthPathLookingSouth

In 2015 path looks like this

It is clear the sea has eroded almost all the sand and mud from in front of the sea wall

And once this has gone the sea will start eroding the sea wall

Eventually there will be a hole in the sea wall and the properties and caravans will be flooded.

 stOysthPath_2015

This is not guess work, there is the experience from Holland-on-Sea to go by

Sea wall fails

 2007_queensway_holland

Digger falls through promenade as sea has washed away material from underneath promenade,  greatly reducing the promenade’s strength.

  diggerFallingInHoleSeaWall

 

Another failure at Seawick

This reef is covered by seaweed, clearly showing it is covered by the sea at high tide – which allows the sea to wash sand on beach away

 

stOysth_weedShowsSeaCoversReef

which it has, compare the level of this beach

 stOsythBeachLowered2

with the level just the other side of the groyne to north

 stOysthNextGroyne

not only is there a better beach there is a bank of dry sand in front of the wall, protecting it from the destructive effect of the sea.

This beach is only a few yards from the one where there is a reef and the sand has been washed away.

So the Environment Agency and TDC know exactly how to protect the beach and sea wall, because they’ve done it here.

 stOsythNextGroyneByWall

 In October 2013 the foundations of ramp at Seawick was being eroded away

 

stOsythSeaErosion

Environment Agency solution is to pile rocks against ramp

This is the solution which didn’t work and has been abandoned a few miles to the north in Clacton and Holland on Sea

I guess the reason the stones are in wire mesh is someone is worried about them being washed away!

EA_repair_which_wont_work

At The Naze

Mean while the Naze continues to fall into the sea and the only remedy is to put up a fence!

   naze_pathContinuesToFallIntoSea  

A view from the beach – Jun 2015 – note the slabs on the sea wall

 naze_cliffsCrumbleToBeach

January 2013 view from the beach, where are the slabs?

 jan2013NazeBeach

It’s not the slabs are behind the vegetation

The slabs and sea wall are at least 10 yards from the cliff

 

jan2013_slabsNazePath

It looks like the sea will soon break through the sea wall here.

There is a sewage works at the Naze when the sea breaks through what will happen to sewage works?

EA solution is to ‘protect’ the sewage works.

In other words they’re going to allow the sea to destroy the existing sea defenses,
and the build new defenses.

Brilliant

 

 

 The sea and rain continue to erode all of  the Nazenaze_erosion

The solution is known and has already been implemented in Tendring at Clacton, Holland Frinton and Walton

 

Naze Cliffs Fall Into Sea Even Though It’s Known How To Stop It

 

1  Build Groynes

2  Sculpt the cliffs so there is not a sheet vertical drop

3  Drain the cliffs.

 

It is a strange that at a time when one part of government has ordered Tendring to plan for 10,000 new homes another government agency is planning for lots of Tendring coastline to fall into the sea.

Posted in Beaches, Breakwaters, Groynes, Sea Level | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Nasa Makes False Claims About Sea Level Rise

Nasa recently announced likely 900cm rise in sea levels by 2100 based on work by Colorado University.  News media uncritically broadcast this around world.

 The Nasa press release is here

www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-science-zeros-in-on-ocean-rise-how-much-how-soon

It quotes Steve Nerem of the University of Colorado, Boulder, and lead of the Sea Level Change Team.

The front page of Sea Level team at Coloradu U (sealevel.colorado.edu/) has the following two graphs.

This shows sea levels as measured by satellites since 1993.  The fact someone has fitted a straight line to the graph shows they think the rate of sea level rise is constant, more or less.

sl_ns_global

You might think there is a bit of an uptick in the last few months, but the second graph makes it clear this is due to the current El Nino.  The graph above shows sea levels above the trend line in 1998, a big El Nino year.

sl_mei

This page shows tide gauge measurements

sealevel.colorado.edu/content/tide-gauge-sea-level

Which I’ve copied below

Tide Gauge Estimates of Mean Sea Level Rise

Estimates of global sea level rise which were derived from tide gauge records are found in the table below. Most of the investigators reported that the estimated values were sensitive to the choice of record length and the tide gauges selected. This sensitivity coupled with different computational techniques and modeling would certainly explain some of the differences shown below.

 

Sea Level Rise (mm/yr)

Error (mm/yr) Data Used (years) # of Tide Gauges References
2.8 ±0.8 1993-2009 ~200 Church & White (2011)
1.7 ±0.2 1900-2009 >38 since 1900 Church & White (2011)
1.9 ±0.4 1961-2009 >190 since 1960 Church & White (2011)
1.43 ±0.14 1881-1980 152 Barnett (1984)
2.27 ±0.23 1930-1980 152 Barnett (1984)
1.2 ±0.3 1880-1982 130 Gornitz and Lebedeff (1987)
2.4 ±0.9 1920-1970 40 Peltier and Tushingham (1989)
1.75 ±0.13 1900-1979 84 Trupin and Wahr (1990)
1.7 ±0.5 N/A N/A Nakiboglu and Lambeck (1991)
1.8 ±0.1 1880-1980 21 Douglas (1991)
1.62 ±0.38 1807-1988 213 Unal and Ghil (1995)

 

It is clear satellites are measuring a greater rate of sea level rise than tide gauges.

Two reasons for this are

  1. They are not measuring the same thing, tide gauges measure sea levels by land while satellites attempt to measure sea levels across the whole ocean.
  2. Satellites have only measured sea levels for the last 23 years or so. The 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption depressed sea levels around the world for a year or two.  The 1998 El Nino boosted sea levels around the world.  So satellites caught the rebound from the Pinatubo depression and the 1998 El Nino which together gave a higher rate of sea level rise, but only for a short while.

Permanent Service for Mean Sea Levels holds data for tide gauges around the world.

I have used PSMSL data to analyse sea levels around UK

and around the world.

Whilst I mean be wrong my results from around UK agree closely with those published by Prof Philip Woodworth of Proudman of UK’s Proudman Oceanographic Lab.

 

The Past And The Future

A rise of 3.3mm/year for 23 years is 7.59cm, a bit less than 3½ inches.

And on the basis of this we are supposed to believe there will be 90cm (around 3 feet) rise by 2100 – in 85 years.

In other words the rate of sea level rise, which according to satellites has been roughly constant for 23 years at 3.3mm/year, is going to jump to more than 10 mm/year.

 

I started blogging in 2011 because UK Environment Agency wanted to knock down a sea wall about 1/2 mile from my house.  Their ‘logic’ was

  1. the rate of sea level rise is going to increase exponentially
  2. this means it will be too expensive to maintain sea defenses
  3. so the best thing to do is knock them down now

This graph has been on front page of JeremyShiers.com since 2011.  It shows

  • data PSMSL hold for Felixstowe,
  • the trendline,
  • and the claimed future rate of sea level rise.

uksealevel_felixstowe_proj

 

David Middleton, writing at WattsUpWithThat.com, has a lengthier and more sophisticated analysis of Nasa’s  false claims from which I’ve shamelessly copied the following 2 graphs.

This is similar to the graph of sea levels at Felixstowe – do you believe the projections?

global-mean-sea-level-1931-2013-2

The claim is sea levels will raise at over 10mm/year for next 85 years.

Sea levels did rise at about this rate after the last ice age, but nothing like it for the last 6000 years.

global-mean-sea-level-1931-2013-3

Measurement Errors

Any measurement will have an error, or uncertainty.

What are the errors for satellite sea level measurements?

In 2013 Tony Heller aka Steven Goddard published the following 2 images in a post titled

Shock News Satellite Sea Level Error Is 100% Of The Trend.

 screenhunter_198-apr-12-21-41 screenhunter_1387-oct-11-10-33

Both images came from Colorado University.

Whilst the link for sea levels still works (sealevel.colorado.edu/content/map-sea-level-trends).  The link for measurement error does not.  I wonder why. (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/current/sl_err_sm.jpg)

 

Government Bodies Wouldn’t Release False Information?

We’ve been here before.

In April 2012 the Envisat, the European satellite measuring sea levels, was shut down.

It had been showing rates of sea level rise much lower than other satellites.  Within a day or two Envisat records had been adjusted to bring them into line with other satellites.

By chance I had saved Envisat data just before the records were changed so I was able to do a comparison Sea Levels Still Rising And Envisat Records Altered To Show This/

Amusingly who ever made the changes bungled.  In making Envisat agree with other satellites overall they destroyed the existing agreement during the overlapping periods when 2 or more satellites had been operational.

 

Why Are They Doing This

 The short answer is I don’t know.

There is a big climate change conference scheduled for later in 2015 in Paris.

It seems we are likely to see an increasing number of wild claims prior to this in order to justify whatever action is deemed necessary despite what actual data says.

As a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.

 

Media Uncritically Repeats False Claims

On Friday 28 August around 19:45 in UK Sky news featured the Nasa report.

For around 5 minutes they uncritically interviewed a single expert who was allowed to make what ever claims he felt like unchallenged.

Why?

Normally 2 people with opposing views are lined up so each can say the other is wrong – and no conclusion is reached.

There was a time when reporters actually investigated themselves finding the facts to justify their stories.

I guess alarm sells and ‘everything is all right’ doesn’t.

 

 

Posted in Climate Change, Sea Level | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Saltmarsh Erosion At Quay Lane – Are Ducks Responsible?

Rising sea levels are eroding saltmarsh claim EA(Environment Agency) and NE(Natural England). Here is one place where something else is doing it.

At the north end of Quay Lane, Kirby le Soken there is a tidal pool protected by the Quay.  In the middle of this pool is a saltmarsh island where something has created a hole at one end.

hole_island

 

It seems impossible for this hole to have been caused by rising sea levels.

Here is another one, by the shore.

 

tunnelThroughMud

 

I don’t know what caused this hole but ducks regularly congregate here.

 hollowsInMud

 

and often sunbathe

 ducksLyingOnMud

 

It certainly seems possible they are causing these holes

 moreHollowsInMud

 

 closeUpHollowInMud

 

Why Should Anyone Care About Saltmarsh Erosion?

DEFRA has tasked EA with creating 100 hectares of new saltmarsh every year by flooding land.

This was the reason for EA’s plan to knock a hole in the sea wall near Peters Point and why they have actually knocked a hole in the seawall at Rigdons.

The rational is rising sea levels are eroding saltmarsh, these posts give more detail.

What is Saltmarsh?

Holland Haven Sea Wall – Will Tendring District Council Let The Sea Destroy It?

Were Early Saltmarsh Surveys Wrong?

Saltmarsh is regarded as important as it provides

  • a place for young fish to develop
  • a habitat for migrating birds

In this video EA are quoted as answering the question “Do crabs cause saltmarsh erosion?”

It wouldn’t be feasible to carry out detailed enough study to assess the sole affect
of crabs. while other factors are considered, including crab burrowing, sea level rise
remains as it’s focus as its responsibility is to respond to man made activities.

 

In February 2014 there was an Information Tribunal hearing with me on one side and EA and the Information Commissioner on the other.  The hearing was over EA’s answers (or lack of them) to various FOI requests I had made about EA’s policy of attempting to create saltmarsh in Essex and South Suffolk.

EA did not attend the hearing to be cross examined but Mark Johnson, Area Coastal Manager for East Area of Anglian Region of Environment Agency, gave written answers to my written questions.

I explained that this statement was made in response to a request from a BBC journalist.  It is expected practice that such responses to media will need to be responded to in a matter of a few hours.  We feel that this statement is perfectly reasonable and stand by it.  The word ‘feasible’ is subjective and what is feasible to one person may not be feasible to another.

Am I alone in thinking Mark is really saying we just said the first thing that came into our head?

Anyway he went on.

To assist Dr Shiers, we sought advice from Suffolk Coasts and Heaths Unit (part of Suffolk County Council).  They paid for independent advice on crabs and their contribution to erosion in Deben estuary.  They advised us that the independent consultant concluded that there were a number of factors contributing to saltmarsh erosion and that burrowing crabs were not a significant factor.  We referred Dr Shiers to the relevant Unit to obtain a copy of the report.

Strange.  I had previously made an FOI request to Suffolk Council and they replied they held no information about this.  Perhaps I should try again.

If you watch the video you may decide crab burrowing does play a part in saltmarsh erosion.

But what about the migrating birds?  In Hamford  Water thousands come every year to live and feed.  Are we really to believe they have no effect on the saltmarsh?

Perhaps not.  Natural England conducted a survey of saltmarsh between 1997 and 1998.  For Hamford Water they found (table 9, page 66 of Essex Coastal SSSIs: Assessment of Changes in Extent of Saltmarsh Over the Period 1997 to 2008 VOLUME 1 )

1997    694.82 hectares of saltmarsh

2008   698.13 hectares of saltmarsh.

So there’s no need to knock down sea walls and flood farm land to try and recreate saltmarsh. 

It’s growing back all by itself!

Posted in Climate Change, Coastal Squeeze, EA, Salt Marsh Erosion | Leave a comment

New Holland Haven Groynes Covered By Super High Tide

High tide at Holland on 22 March 2015 was 4.9m over ½ meter higher than normal and about level predicted in 100 years time. The new groynes were completely covered.

 

The locations in Tendring where the sea covers the groynes at high tide are those were the sea has washed away the sand the most. The most that is apart from the Naze and south of Seawick where there aren’t any groynes at all!

So either EA are not expecting that much sea level rise, or they don’t expect the groynes to keep the beach and seawall safe for 100 years.

 

allGroynesCoveredSuperHighTide

There is a green buoy at the end of most groynes

 

greenBuoyMarksEndGroyne

But not this one, which would clearly be dangerous in summer.

 

noGreenBuoyHere

So while it’s great there’s now a beach.  It looks like the groynes aren’t high enough.

Posted in Beaches, Groynes | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Holland Haven – New Groynes New Beach And A Surprise

The new beach at Holland Haven is open now new groynes have been built. I went to have a look and found a surprise. Sea level rise in next 100 years?

 

There’s now a beach at Holland Haven!

newGroynesHolland

 

 With plenty of dry sand in front of the sea wall.

 drySandInFrontSeaWall

 

 

And the sand almost reaches the prom – who needs steps?

  sandHigherStepsCovered

 

 

But the groynes don’t reach the sea wall,  I counted a gap of 15 paces.

 groynesDontReachSeaWall

 

 

There are 15 more paces to the high water mark and 59 to the sea at round about low tide.
So 89 paces in all.  Noticeably more than the 55 paces I found with old groynes in April 2012.  Still a bit less than 90-100 paces at Walton and quite a bit less than the 120 paces at Frinton.

The groynes are spaced about 200 meters apart which leads to the sea coming a significant distance closer to the sea wall in the middle of the groynes.

 seaMoreInlandMidway

 

Round about low tide some of the shorter northern branch of the Y was in the sea

 shorterY

 

 

But almost all the longer southern branch was out of the sea

 bothBranchesY

 

 It seemed to me the groynes might be covered by the sea at high water so I went back close to high tide on 9 March 2015 when high tide was estimated to be 4.3meters.

 And it looks like I was wrong as the groynes are still clearly out of the sea.

highTideHolland

 

closeupHollandHighTide

But not nearly as much as the large rock groyne at Walton (groyne 84).

 

walton_groyne84

High tide on 21 March is estimated to be 4.9meters – about 2 feet higher than on 9 March,  which I guess will cover the groynes.  If I’m free I’ll go back and take more photos, perhaps someone else can take photos as well just in case I’m not free.

Photos of super tide on 22 March covering groynes here.

So What’s The Surprise?

The new groynes at Holland are largely paid for my Environment Agency.

The groynes and new beach are supposed to last for 100 years.

EA follow DEFRA’s guidance of sea level rise for the next century which indicates sea levels are due to rise by between 0.37 and 0.53 meters (14 to 21 inches). 

So the highest high tides could be 4 feet higher than those shown in pictures I took on 9 March 2015, which would clearly cover the groynes.

The locations in Tendring where the sea covered the groynes at high tide are those were the sea has washed away the sand the most. The most that is apart from the Naze and south of Seawick where there aren’t any groynes at all!

So either EA are not expecting that much sea level rise, or they don’t expect the groynes to keep the beach and seawall safe for 100 years.

Posted in Beaches, Groynes, Sea Level | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

EA Say Sea Levels Risen Less Than Expected

David Evans emailed to point out wikipedia Thames Barrier entry quotes EA saying Environment Agency responded that it does not plan to replace the Thames Barrier before 2070, as the barrier was designed with an allowance for sea level rise of 8 mm per year until 2030, which has not been realised in the intervening years.

The Thames Barrier was opened in 1982,  48 years before 2030.  Which suggests the barrier was built to cope with a rise in sea level from 1982 of  48 × 8 = 484 mm.

There are 88 years between 1982 and 2070 which suggests EA now expects an average rise of no more than 5.5 mm/year.

This is curious as rate of sea level rise as measured by tide gauges at nearby location are

Southend 1.2  ±  0.2 mm/year
Sheerness 1.67 ±  0.04 mm/year
Tilbury 1.7  ±   0.6 mm/year

An article in Telegraph on 18 Feb 2014 quotes Dick Tappin, an engineer who helped design in the barrier in 1970s and who has worked on it ever since, the barrier will work into 22th century.

If the barrier lasted until 2200,  218 years from when it opened,  this would suggest an average rate of sea level rise of 2.2 mm/year, still more than what is measured by tide gauges.

Posted in EA, Sea Level | Leave a comment

No Correlation CO2 & Temperature From 2004-14 & 1960-76

Lack of correlation disproves causation. Correlation only suggests it. Lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature shows CO2 does not cause rising temperatures.

Correlation measures how well 2 quantities are linked.

A correlation

  • of around 1 indicates things move together
  • of  around 0 indicates things are not linked
  • of around -1 indicates things move in opposite direction

It is very important to remember whilst 2 quantities may have a correlation close to 1, this may arise by coincidence.  Hence the mantra

Correlation is not causation

Which students are encouraged to repeat when they say their prayers.

But perhaps not climate scientists.

Using HADCRUT4 temperature anomalies and CO2 levels from Mauna Loa there are 2 periods between 1960 and 2014 where CO2 levels are not correlated with temperature anomalies and one where CO2 levels and temperature anomalies are reasonably well correlated.

 So if CO2 levels cause rising temperatures did someone switch this off from 1960 to 1976 and again from 2004 to 2014?

1960-1976
-0.02
1976-2004
0.78
2004-2014
0.02

This graph of CO2 Levels and temperature anomalies illustrates this

  CO2 Level V Temperature

The three periods clearly have very different trends

Temperature Anomalies And Trends

However the plot of net change in CO2 from the same month the previous year appears to follow changes in temperature much more closely.

 Net Change CO2 V Temperature AnomalyThis was pointed out by Prof Murray Salby

 The following graph compares observed CO2 levels with those where the current months CO2 level, C, is calculated from

  • The current months temperature anomaly T
  • The CO2 level in the same month the previous year Cl
  • 2 numbers A and B

 using the formula

C = A + Cl + T x B

A = 1.22 ± 0.03

B = 1.66 ± 0.09

 

So the first year is used to provide the annual shape

Each year there is an increment of a constant 1.22 ppm

For each month in the year add 1.66 x that months temperature anomaly and the CO2 level for the same month in the previous year.

 

It seems to be to simple to be true and no iterative models or supercomputers

Until you remember CO2 levels show a more or less linear increase with each year and the shape within each year is roughly the same.

 

Observed And Calculated CO2 LevelsThe correlation between observed and calculated levels is 0.99971717

Correlation is not causation

But this method matches the entire period which is not true for CO2 drives temperature theory.

As Prof Murray Salby pointed out this method has a simple physical model

CO2 levels are the integral of past temperatures + annual constant increase

It is just about impossible (for me at any rate) to see how this can be true and simultaneously CO2 causing temperature rise

So I conclude rising CO2 levels do not cause temperature rise

And thus all the money being spent on renewable energy, and knocking down flood defences is being completely wasted.

Oh – it’s our money by the way.

 

 

Posted in Climate Change, CO2, Temperature | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

2ºC Warmer 5000 years Ago In Orkneys

Temperatures were 2ºC warmer 5000 years ago according to archaeological and geological evidence from Skara Brae in Orkneys, Scotland

Professor Ian Stewart presented the series Making Scotland’s Landscape, one program focused on historic climate.

I produced the following chart from 3 separate charts shown on the program, the original charts are shown lower down.

Temperature Scotland 4000BC to 1400AD

It is clear

  1. current temperatures are not unusual
  2. there have been a number of changes in temperature over the millenia

Here is the section which presents the archaeological and geological evidence temperatures were 2ºC higher around 3000BC and have cycled since then.

Here are the 3 individual charts I spliced together

 Temperatures Scotland 4000 to 1000BC

 Temperature Scotland 3000BC to 1000AD

For whatever reason the scale on this chart was different to the previous two, so I had to guess (err I mean estimate) rescaling to fit on one chart.

 Temperature Scotland Little Ice Age

It is interesting to compare the temperatures from Making Scotland’s Landscape with these 3 charts which come from page 202 of Working Group 1 of IPCC AR1, the first IPCC report issued in 1990.  Whilst they not exactly identical they show the same pattern of falling and rising temperatures and more or less the same times.

 IPCC AR1 Temperatures last 1000 years

 IPCC AR1 Temperatures since 10000 BC

 IPCC AR1 Temperature Last Million Years

It seems to me as these records show past temperatures being higher than at present

  1. If CO2 is responsible for higher temperatures then CO2 was higher in the past and this higher level could not be caused by humans.
  2. Some mechanism other than CO2 was reponsible for previous higher temperatures, so how do we know current warming is solely due to CO2, in fact how do we know CO2 makes any appreciable difference?
  3. As there has been cooling of several degrees in the past some mechanism must have caused this, how do we know it will not cause more cooling in the future?

Which ever way you look at it the past temperature record seems to show there is no reason to believe either

  • Human emissions of CO2 are solely responsible for current temperature
  • Temperatures will not fall at some time in the future.

If this is true all the measures being taken to avoid raising CO2 (and hence temperatures) are a waste of money, e.g.

  • Windfarms
  • Closing coal fire power stations
  • Burning wood from USA in UK power stations
  • Trying to stop using fossil fuels
  • Knocking down sea walls in face of rising sea levels

 What do you think?

 

Posted in Climate Change, CO2, Temperature | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on 2ºC Warmer 5000 years Ago In Orkneys

Naze Cliffs Fall Into Sea Even Though It’s Known How To Stop It

The Naze cliffs are crumbling into sea.  This is EA and so UK government policy. A few yards to south the cliffs have been stopped from falling into sea.

Here are cliffs near Naze Tower, the people on cliffs probably help the erosion.

 peopleOnNazeCliffs

At the north east end of Naze the part of path along sea wall has already been eroded away.

 pathNorthEastNazeFallenInSea

EA’s plan for how this area should look from 2055 to 2105 shows they plan to allow most of the eastern sea facing part of Naze to fall into sea.  And they plan to manage realign the seawall (ie knock down the sea wall) to the north and west (along Walton Channel).

In other words not only do Environment Agency plan for sea to wash the Naze away, they are going to actively speed up the process.

 pdz_b

Here are the SMP colour codes. SMP stands for Shoreline Management Plan, how EA plan to ‘protect’ the coast until 2105.

smpPolicyColorCodeIf we zoom in on the Naze, for the plan up to 2025 we can see EA plan to manage realign the cliffs by the Naze Tower, and let most of the rest of sea facing cliffs fall into the sea, NAI or No Active Intervention.

This strikes me as insane.

The cliffs are supposed to be eroding at 1-2metres per year, so in a few years the sea will be able to attack the Naze Tower from the north.  So much for saving the Naze Tower.

nazeSmpTo2025

From Clacton to the Naze, action has been taken to stop cliffs falling into the sea.

Three things are required.

  1. Scuplt the cliffs so they have a gentle slope and not a shear drop.
  2. Build groynes so a bank of dry sand accumulates in front of the cliffs which prevents the sea attacking the base of the cliffs.
  3. Install drains so water can run away

 

There is a notice by Crag Walk which explains how the sea attacks the base of the cliffs.

 wavesErodeCliff

Apart from the people who like to climb on the cliffs, another problem are these holes

 

 rabbitHolesNaze

 

Which are almost certainly made by rabbits, who tend to hide during the day

 rabbitHiding

but not always

 rabitDayLight

 

 

rabbit1

 

There are layers of sand and clay in the cliffs. 

In the summer these dry out, when it rains the clay becomes slippery and sand layer tends to slide over the clay.

 nazeStrata

Scuplting and draining the cliffs helps to prevent this.

I remember in the 1960s there were cliff slides in Frinton, after the cliffs where sculpted to their current shape, the problem went away.

So lets look at the cliffs along Tendring coastline

Clacton south of pier

cliffClactonSouthPier

Clacton north of pier

 cliffClacton

Holland Haven

 cliffHollandHaven

Frinton from near Pole Barn Lane looking south

 cliffFrintonPoleBarnLaneSouth

Frinton from near Pole Barn Lane looking north

 cliffFrintonPoleBarnLaneNorth

Naze below Sunny point, a few yards from Crag Walk

 slopeCliffNazeSunnyPoint2

Groynes at Jaywick and Seawick, courtsey of Google.

Clearly showing a bank of dry sand protecting sea wall.

 jaywickGroynes

Groynes at Clacton south of pier, again a bank of dry sand in front of sea wall.

 groynesClactonSouthPierLookingNorth

Groynes at Walton

groynesWalton

 Groynes at Dovercourt/Harwich

 groynesHarwichDovercourt

But don’t build groynes like these at Holland Haven (actually they’re being replaced)

 

groynesHollandHaven

 Cliff drainage near Sunny Point, Naze

drainNazeCliff

 Cliff drainage at Holland Haven

hollandHaveCliffAndDrain

Just in case you have any doubt, this aerial picture from Google clearly shows how the cliff falls start immediately there are no groynes and cliffs have not been sculpted.

 geNazeSunnyPoint

 

Returning to the north east part of Naze, it looks to me this is part of the area where EA said they would hold the line until 2025

 neNazeFromCliffs

 

neNazeFromBeach

 

nazeSmpTo2025

I guess their idea of hold the line must be different to mine

 

Why is the Naze being allowed to fall into the sea?

I guess there are 2 main reasons

People want to be able to find fossils.

Cost

People want to be able to find fossils

What will happen to the houses on the Naze as it erodes away?

What will happen once the sea breaks into Backwaters (aka Hamford Water)?

pdz_b

The EA map shows the Naze protects this area of intertidal habitat.  So EA who have spent time and money attempting to increase salt marsh and intertidal habitat are simultaneously, by their neglect, threatening the very habitat they tried to protect.

 

On the bright side it will be quicker to get out to sea from the marina.

Is it really worth allowing this destruction just so people can find fossils?

Cost

The cost of Crag Walk was about £1.2 million for 110 million, very roughly £10,000/metre, curiously about the same cost as TDC have spent on defending coast elsewhere

The current repair and renovation to Holland and Clacton sea wall and groynes are budget at around £30million for around 5km or £6000/metre.

Very roughly there is about 1.5km of sea facing undefended cliff at the Naze so the cost might be in the region of £10-15 million.

Seems a lot until  you consider the cost of the Gunfleet Sands wind farm is given by Wikipedia as £300 million.

gunfleetSandWindMills

As I was writing gridwatch.templar.co.uk gave the TOTAL contribution of ALL UK windfarms as 2/3 of  one percent.

gridWatch_4Sep2014_1800

Windfarms produce no electricity when there is no wind. Although the maximum power Gunfleet Sands can produce is 172MW it is rated (optimistically) to be able to only deliver 35.4% of this  – around 60MW.  At a build cost of £300million this represents a cost of £5million/MW.

Here is a report of a gas electric power station which costs £300million and delivers 300MW, £1million/MW.  Five times better value.

And guess what it will produce power when the wind doesn’t blow.

And it will not have to be paid NOT to produce electricity when there is too much.

To get 300MW of electricity from Gunfleet Sands there would have to be 5 times as many windmills costing £1.5 billion.

Am I making the case that if government stopped wasting money on pointless pet projects there would be ample money for defending the Naze (and rest of UK coast).  There would also be more money for schools, NHS, defense.

But it’s worse.

The reason for building windfarms (at 5 times the expense of gas power stations) is so your electricity bills double.

I mean, to avoid emitting CO2 in order to stop global warming.  But not only have global temperatures stopped rising,  global temperaturs are actually FALLING.  Since 2000 according to the RSS satellite.

It’s kind of hard to believe in global warming when global temperatures are falling, or that is necessary to stop emitting CO2 as CO2 is causing global warming, when there is global cooling.

 

Let’s look at how EA spends money.

In  February 2014 John Redwood reported EA spent £540 million on staff but only £20 million on drainage.

EA Spend £593Million On Staff £20Million On Drainage – See more at: http://jeremyshiers.com/blog/ea-spend-593million-on-staff-20million-on-drainage-john-redwood/#sthash.fgbtrE4B.dpuf

EA Spend £593Million On Staff £20Million On Drainage – See more at: http://jeremyshiers.com/blog/ea-spend-593million-on-staff-20million-on-drainage-john-redwood/#sthash.fgbtrE4B.dpuf
EA Spend £593Million On Staff £20Million On Drainage – See more at: http://jeremyshiers.com/blog/ea-spend-593million-on-staff-20million-on-drainage-john-redwood/#sthash.fgbtrE4B.dpuf

In January 2014, during Somerset floods, it emerged EA had spent £31 million on wild life centre, but could not afford to dredge the levels.

 

By now I hope I have convinced you

It is possible to stop the Naze eroding away

What needs to be done has already been done in Tendring, and at the Naze

The amount of money required is peanuts compared to what has already been wasted on other unnecessary vanity projects.

There is never a shortage of money for projects politicians or bureaucrats want to pursue.

So what are we waiting for?

Normally at this point I would suggest you write to your mp, but if you live in Tendring Clacton constiutency you don’t have one at the moment as resigned.  But why not write to Douglas Carswell anyway.  As he’s joined a party which does not believe in global warming/climate change and is committed to get rid of the mitigation (much of prompted by EU) it’s just possible he might be more responsive.

If he want’s your vote.

On the other hand he might feel he has enough votes already.

Posted in Beaches, Breakwaters, Climate Change, CO2, EA, Electricity From Wind Power, Groynes, Salt Marsh Erosion, SMP, Temperature | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Naze Cliffs Fall Into Sea Even Though It’s Known How To Stop It

Global Temperature Pause September 1996 to July 2014

Global temperature measurements from RSS satellite show temperatures have been flat from September 1996 to July 2014.  No change for 18 years 10 months despite rising CO2.

This is a serious problem for the idea that CO2 causes global warming.  If nothing else it means there is another more powerful mechanism which has been causing cooling.

One possibility is having risen for some years, temperatures are pausing before falling.

Just like slack water at high tide before sea level falls only to rise again on the next high tide.

 

rssFromSep1996ToJuly2014

RSS showing no change has already been reported by many websites.  However this report relies just on the trend value.  If we take into account the error in determining the trend we can say there has been no rise in temperature since January 1996, as the trend is 0.002 ± 0.002ºC/year.  Here the error is the same size as the trend so it is not possible to say the trend is different from 0.

rssFromJan1996ToJuly2014

 

The HADCRUT4 dataset shows a rise of 0.007ºC/year from September 1996 to July 2014,  larger  the rise reported from 1880 to 2010 (about 0.0061ºC/year), which the UK Met Office claim is “statistically significant” – thought it’s entirely unclear what they mean by this.

This Met Office statement seems to have been taken by politicians and media to mean

Global Warming Is Real

 

hadcrut4Sep1996ToJuly2014

The UAH satellite measurements shows a larger rise of 0.009/year from September 1996 to July 2014

uahFromSep1996ToJuly2014

 

On the other hand CET (Central England Temperature record – the longest running instrumental temperature record in the world) shows a fall from September 1996 to July 2014.

 

cetFromSep1996ToJuly2014

 

UAH temperatures are flat from January 2002 to July 2014, as the error is larger than the trend.

 

uahFromJan2002ToJuly2014

 

Or from February 2001 if you are happy to count from when the trend is the same size as the error in calculating the trend.

 

uahFromFeb2001ToJuly2014

 

HADCRUT4 is flat from January 2001 to September 2014

hadcrut4Jan2001ToJuly2014

 

or November 2000, if you are content to count from when trend is same size as error.

hadcrut4Nov2000ToJuly2014

 

So depending on which dataset you pick temperatures have been

  • flat for  19 years 6 months
  • flat for 12 years 6 months
  • flat for something in between
  • or falling for 18 years 10 months

CET shows a rise of 0.02 ºC/year from September 1966 to September 2014 which would amount to a rise of 2.6 ºC over 130 years, over 3 times as much as the 0.8ºC UK Met Office got so worried about from 1880 to 2010.

 

cetSep1966ToJuly2014

The CET record runs from 1659 and the trend is 0.0026ºC/year, ie about 10 times smaller than for the period 1966 to 2014.

 

cet1659ToJuly2014

 

The CET record show recurring rises and falls from 1659 to 2014.

There have been regular maximums in temperature anomaly of about 4ºC from about 1677 to 2014.   There has been effectively not increase in these maximums.

It seems any warming trend is due to the reduction in number of minimum temperature anomaly.

There are several lows of below -6ºC below about 1820 but none after.

It is known that temperatures were lower from 1650 to 1820.

Using a linear trend implies you think the temperatures (or at least average temperatures) will rise continuously in a straight line for ever.

CET record clearly shows there are cycles in the temperature record.

Sometimes temperature go up.

Sometimes temperatures go down.

This is hardly news to anyone who has realised winters are colder than summers.

Cycles look something like this (which should be familiar to anyone who lives by the sea).

sinCyclePlot
Depending on which part of the cycle you fit a linear trend to, you may find it is

  • rising
  • flat
  • falling

sinTrends

As CET shows there have been cycles of temperature rise and fall of temperatures for over 350 years, the simplest explanation for the pause (be it 19 years or 12) is temperatures are about to fall globally and we should expect a fall of at least 4ºC, possibly 6ºC and a worst case of 8ºC.

A fall of 4ºC would be dramatic and have a huge negative effective on agricultural yields.

A fall of 6ºC let alone 8ºC is likely to be catastrophic.

If temperature is rising and falling in cycles, as it has for at least the last 350 years then CO2 is having a negligible effect.

On the other hand if CO2 was responsible for the rise in temperatures towards the end of the 20th century what is causing the pause.  Do we have to invoke some other, as yet unknown mechanism which can overpower CO2.

Just suppose CO2 was responsible for the 20th century temperature rise, how do we know the unknown mechanism which is causing the pause will ever stop and let temperatures rise again.

How do we know this unknown mechanism causing the pause will not get even stronger and cause temperatures to fall?

RSS shows a fall  from November 2000

rssFromNov2000ToJuly2014

HADCRUT4  falls from June 2004, which you can check with the wonderful wood for trees

woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1995/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2004.42/trend
UAH shows a fall from July 2008
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/from:2008.42/trend
As we have seen CET shows a fall from September 1996.

So it’s a FALL not a pause

The next time I hear anyone talking about the pause I think I’ll complain to Advertising Standards.

Finally it temperatures continue fall, at the very least it makes continued sea level rise less likely and we may even see sea levels fall.

 

Technical note

Months follow the woodfortrees scheme

Months are counted as 1/12 of a year, starting from January which is 0/12, through to December which is 11/12.

Month fractions are rounded to 2 decimal places so the sequence for January to December goes

0.00, 0.08, 0.17, 0.25, 0.33, 0.42, 0.5, 0.67, 0.75, 0.83, 0.92

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Climate Change, Temperature | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Global Temperature Pause September 1996 to July 2014