Guest essay by Tony Brown
The sun was warm and the wind a friendly zephyr as we enjoyed coffee and a cake on Dawlish sea front. A place known to millions of British holidaymakers as a pretty, if rather faded, seaside resort
Black swans –a symbol of the town-and perhaps a metaphor of this time and place*- glided serenely by, whilst the first daffodils showed their faces to the sun.
Just across the road, Brunel’s railway from Paddington to the far west of Britain at Penzance hugs the coast of scenic South Devon. At Dawlish it picturesquely threads it way through a series of tunnels along the amber coast of red sandstone in one of the most spectacular train rides in Britain.
Here the sea is a constant companion, sometimes washing the sea wall with a frivolous salty spray that glistens in the sun, and at other times is a treacherous and dangerous companion that threatens to overwhelm trains that edge circumspectly along the track. This is perhaps the only main line railway in the world where it useful to consult a tide table in conjunction with the railway time table.
But on Tuesday, three days before our morning coffee, Dawlish had become known worldwide when a giant storm hit the area. As luck would have it this storm- unlike many others-arrived during a Spring tide-when tides are extra high-and the winds came howling in from a direction-roughly from the south-which causes most damage to this part of the coast. From another direction, or at a lower state of tides, the storm would probably have passed unremarked except for a paragraph in the local newspaper. But this one… This one smashed a large hole in the sea wall which carries and protects the main railway line to the South West of England, causing a gaping chasm to open up under the railway, leaving a 30 metre length of track hanging in the air.
Several of the houses directly behind the sea wall and the railway hang precariously close to the void, exposed to the elements and which caused evacuation of the residents. Fortunately no one was hurt-although many were traumatised- and tribute must be paid to the community spirit of this town and the efforts of the council, the emergency services and those involved in the railway in a textbook response showing a high degree of compassion and professionalism.
This line is of prime importance to the economy of the West country. There has however been talk of rerouting it for decades as its tourism value and scenic beauty is precisely because of its vulnerability as trains scurry along just yards from the ocean. Talk has been renewed as obviously the initial reactions to this disaster are that this was due to climate change and with rising sea levels it would be foolish to invest too much money in reinstating the old, when a new inland solution is surely needed.
The history of Brunel’s Great Western railway is well documented and is entirely relevant in examining whether the events of Tuesday-and indeed this winter as a merciless conveyor belt of Atlantic storms have marched in to Britain- are a harbinger of climate change. These few references below are taken as the most relevant for our story, but readers will find the entire history, linked below, to be fascinating.
http://www.greatcliff.co.uk/pages/railway_history.php
Firstly, Brunel never wanted to run the line along a sea wall as he foresaw problems with the sea. He wanted to run it inland, but due to environmental reasons-including protests from landowners- and no doubt cost concerns, he had to defer in agreeing to a new route next to the sea and through tunnels.
It is highly ironic that the first year of operation in 1846 also saw the first breach in the line. In that year Brunel personally inspected 8 breaches in the line, The original newspaper report from 1846 is here.
https://twitter.com/LeoHickman/status/431559126838030336/photo/1
In a space of 15 years from 1853 the line was breached continually, with many other breaches since. Just prior to the history linked above, I note that there were great storms locally in 1817 and 1824, the latter described as an ‘extreme hurricane’.
Perhaps the most significant event in the lines history was 1901 when part of the sea wall was rebuilt 5 metres further out into the sea. It was noted this had a dramatic effect on lowering the beach levels. Sand is an extremely good ‘soft defence’ and we mess with levels at our peril. The groynes along the beach that gather sand around them have been left to decay all along this part of the coast as more fashionable –but less effective- methods of coastal defence are implemented.
A local resident next to the breach tells me of large heavy objects sucked off the ground before hurtling sideways as the storms fury vented itself against the sea wall, the railway line, and the houses that huddle alongside it. A curious echo of the 1824 reference.
The 1901 reference is especially interesting as the remainder of the wall –badly constructed of stone backfilled with rubble-was scheduled to be re-built at that time, but never was. It was that old part that collapsed . This can be clearly seen in the picture below where the sea wall drops to just above sea level (where us locals scurry quickly past at anything other than low tide)
(Full story and many pictures are partway down this article here)
No doubt other breaches would have occurred in this papier mache thin wall if, over the years, the storms had coincided with spring tides and the winds came from the ‘wrong’ direction. One can only imagine the hammering it has taken over the many years of its existence. That a key section of the country’s only main line railway to the South West should be of such flimsy construction will be a surprise to many, and I suspect will be the main cause of delays in the line reopening, as clearly it does not begin to meet modern standards of construction.
So, has modern climate change caused the damage? The historic record shows numerous breaches and damage from severe storms in the past. This link shows the breach in the line in 1855; London Illustrated news
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/victorian_periodicals_review/v046/46.1.fyfe_fig02.html
This next more modern photo shows a train stranded in Dawlish station with mountainous waves crashing over it and is often touted as proof of climate change. 
Those able to visit Teignmouth Museum –just along the coast from Dawlish- will see a lithograph there from around 1850 showing an identical scene.
In 1846, Brunel went to inspect sea damage to the railway at Dawlish, as reported in The Standard. Brunel personally inspected 8 breaches in the line in 1846, the first year of the railways operation!
It seems that storms are no different now to those over the last couple of centuries. The real story is that an already inadequate sea wall structure which carries the main line railway, has taken numerous hits from waves and storms since its inception and has become steadily weakened. Sand levels have been allowed to drop, thereby reducing soft protection to the base of the wall.
The line was clearly built to a budget in the 1840’s and the measures needed to compensate for its problematic location have only sporadically been implemented ever since. Decaying infrastructure-from sewers to roads to sea walls- is the plague of this country, with its make do and mend philosophy in sharp contrast to the high profile expensive grand follies beloved by our Politicians. The latest planned is a £50 billion project for a new rail line from London to Birmingham to shave 20 minutes off the journey. As Dawlish residents bitterly note, a tiny fraction of that budget would enable a proper sea wall built to modern standards to be built here, that would provide protection to the railway for a century.
That modern climate conditions seem no different to the past may be of no concern to those deciding the future of our railway. A new inland route may ultimately be more appealing than properly repairing and maintaining what we have already got, as the siren voices of climate change are loud and strident and emanate from influential people.
=================================================================
*black swans. The black swan theory or theory of black swan events is a metaphor that describes an event that comes as a surprise, has a major effect, and is often inappropriately rationalized after the fact with the benefit of hindsight
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory
Reblogged this on esngblog and commented:
It seems there are three things not to talk about in polite company – politics, religion and climate change. I can’t be that polite, as only politics is off limits…. However, this article gives a good history of the Dawlish coastal main line, with historic pictures and some interesting weather statistics. The WUWT site is always worth a look – it is sceptical about climate change, but in a balanced way (until you read the comments, that is!)
Sorry, I’ll get back to N gauge railways soon….
simon abingdon says: February 9, 2014 at 2:35 am
Tony Berry “one of the main reasons for Brunel choosing the line through Dawlish was because he wanted a very flat line to route his atmospheric railway”.
——————
Rubbish. The South Devon Atmospheric Railway was famous for its severe gradients.
_____________________________
True.
One of the main reasons Brunel chose the atmospheric (vacuum) rail system is it because it could cope with steep gradients. The other is that stationary engines (producing the vacuum) were much more powerful than mobile (locomotive) engines.
But one of the great drawbacks, apart from vacuum leakage, was the inability to make a track junction. Which is not much good for today’s complex rail systems.
R
Alan Robertson says:
February 9, 2014 at 2:55 am
Gareth Phillips says:
February 9, 2014 at 2:13 am
“… given that this type of weather is likely to become more frequent we need to look at the wider issues and not treat this as if it is a one off, one hundred year event. ”
_____________________________
Do you have any actual data to support that claim? No, you don’t. You are repeating a lie. The actual data shows the exact opposite effect, that extreme weather events are diminishing is size and frequency. if warming actually happens. As you statists are fond of saying, when weather events make a joke of your foolish claims: “it’s only weather.”
Didn’t you read rjt1211‘s appeal for honesty, above?
Hullo Alan, there is a substantial amount of data out there which states that this weather is in keeping with a changed climate Here is a reasonable place to start if you are interested in following up the studies. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10197566/Flooding-in-winter-to-get-worse-scientists-warn.html
You are correct in that you can never correlate one weather event with climate change, that does not make sense. It is the overall data that matters and the totality of the events. Someone who beat Babe Ruth’s record on home runs was found to be using steroids. It was not one home run that got him nicked, it was the totality of his performance which rang alarm bells. I posted a link above in a previous response showing how records are being set which also may be worth your while reading. Even if you completely disbelieve the conclusions of many climate experts, I think it is hard to deny that we are experiencing weird weather which is testing our infrastructure. Not dredging the rivers on the Somerset levels is on reflection a bad mistake which made a critical situation worse. However there are other factors and lots of issues where we are not doing all we can to prevent further disasters. After all, who was worrying about dredging before the floods? It takes something like this to nudge us into action regardless of the reasons for deteriorating weather conditions.
Gareth Phillips says:
February 9, 2014 at 4:57 am
” It takes something like this to nudge us into action regardless of the reasons for deteriorating weather conditions.”
From the telegraph article:
“Scientists have found that an atmospheric event behind the heavy flooding in Cornwall last year and in Cumbria in 2009 is to grow more intense and more frequent over the next century. ”
They have found that it will happen more often. Say, Gareth, do you actually believe any of that? I mean, that is all? You don’t have data? You say:
“It takes something like this to nudge us into action ”
Stuff like that nudges you into action? Oh my, oh my. Do I have a bridge to sell.
I’m starting to get annoyed with the “climate change causes extreme weather” meme. Since climate is the aggregate and average of weather over a 30-year period, surely it’s more accurate to say that the increased/decreased frequency of what was once normal weather shows that the climate is changing. IOW, weather drives climate change, not the other way around.
The current meme is like saying a change in the color of my living room walls caused two gallons of paint to appear in my house.
Hi DirkH report you may like to read. It could be immediately dismissed as not being in keeping with skeptic philosophy, but it seems to make sense. If you do accept it, should we be taking any action? http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/n/i/Recent_Storms_Briefing_Final_07023.pdf
A very good article, thank you for that, Brunel was one of our great men!
Without wishing to beat my own drum, I said on this forum a few weeks ago, that if the weather continues to be mild and wet and dominated by the Atlantic, then someone will blame it on climate change. Right on cue up pops Julia Slingo, she was very quiet during our last three very cold winters and despite officially there being no warming for 18 years, she seems very insistent that indeed there has. It is very worrying when the head of the Met Office cannot differentiate between weather and climate!
With regard to the debate over HS2, according to Christopher Booker, the reason for HS2 is due to an EU directive, which basically wants fast integrated rail links throughout Europe. Our “government” has no choice in the matter, anymore than they did over gay marriage which was also at the behest of the EU.
A protective layer of sprayed concrete (gunite) could have been applied to the rubble stone wall at a cost of about £90 per square metre, this damage could have been prevented for about £2000.
correction should have said £20000
Gareth Phillips:
I take severe exception to your post at February 9, 2014 at 4:57 am.
You assert
EVERY BODY WHO WAS LIVING ON THE LEVELS WAS BEGGING FOR THE DREDGING TO BE RESUMED SO THEY WOULD NOT BE FLOODED!
I told you that on the other thread. And I explained to you why stopping the dredging was CERTAIN to cause the flooding.
You now still have the cheek to claim it was”deteriorating weather conditions”!
No, it was the campaign run by you lunatics who put your imaginary idea of “the environment” above the pleading of the people on the receiving end of your insane ideology.
But, yes, “It takes something like this to nudge us into action” to oppose the insane ideology of you and your ilk. Some of us have been opposing it for years. Now, as Tony Brown reports above (at February 9, 2014 at 4:23 am), “this” has “nudged” even the government away from your madness and a little of the way back towards sanity.
Richard
PS If anybody wants to complain at my restrained language – as they did last time I used the same language to this eco-loon – then they can take a running jump.
Gareth Philips: It’s not a case of “We should be taking action” It is more a case of We (the EA) should have taken/continued taking action.
Well said Richard (in your (very restrained) response to Gareth Phillips. 😉
Gareth, the article you cite from the Telegraph quotes Dr David Lavers as saying:
“As the atmosphere warms up they will carry more moisture, meaning they will deliver greater rainfall, so flood events will be larger.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10197566/Flooding-in-winter-to-get-worse-scientists-warn.html
I suggest this statement is fundamentally misleading and false, because:
a) There has been no net global warming for about 17 years.
b) There are early signs of imminent global cooling.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that current storms are more intense than the historic norm, and global warming has not made them worse.
Cooler weather, when it arrives due to natural causes, will probably bring more frequent and intense storms.
I dislike the term “climate change” because it is imprecise, and allows activists to muddle the debate. A recent example was in the USA, where two extreme cold snaps were cited by certain authorities as evidence of global warming.
The “consensus” of the IPCC and the global warming alarmists is that atmospheric CO2 strongly drives global warming and there will be much more global warming in the future.
BUT there has been essentially NO global warming in the past approx. 17 years, despite significant increases in CO2.
In fact, every major dire prediction by the IPCC and the global warming alarmists has failed to materialize.
In science, the quality of one’s predictive track record is the best objective measure of one’s competence.
The IPCC and the global warming alarmists have NO successful predictive track record – and hence no demonstrable competence.
Gareth Phillips says:
February 9, 2014 at 5:44 am
“Hi DirkH report you may like to read. It could be immediately dismissed as not being in keeping with skeptic philosophy, but it seems to make sense. If you do accept it, should we be taking any action?”
Gareth, amongst others, they report the most wind gusts for a January in the last 17 years. I say 17 years because it has not gotten warmer in the last 17 years. So we can agree that temperature, and specifically AGW, is not the driver of this. If the singular event they report is a harbinger of future trends then the only reason can be the grand solar minimum because that is what changed over the last 17 years.
As we have no technology to influence the state of the sun I suggest you fix your seawalls and dredge your rivers. I think that would be the most reasonable way of action.
climatereason says:
February 9, 2014 at 4:23 am
Hey Anthony (hi there, Anthony filter), that’s Quote of the Week material!
Where what the article — here on wuwt, perhaps? — pointing out “climatology 101”, namely, that temperature differentials drive weather: the more extreme the difference between region A and region B, the stronger the winds blow (down the entropy slope, so to speak). The warmists themselves predict a flattening of the energy slope, with “slight” warming of the tropics to “extreme” warming of the poles, so basic physics says that warming should lead to milder storms.
Now I notice that many of the historical references in this article date from the Dalton Minimum. If a warmer world should have milder storms, then a colder one should have wilder ones, yes? And here’s solar cycle 24, so very quiet, and the pictures from then & now so similar.
Will I tell you why warmists cling so desperately to their belief? If humans have the power to cause bad climate change, then humans have the power to create “good” climate, to make it how we want it. If humans don’t have this power, then we are helpless in the face of titanic (in the ancient, mythic sense of that word) forces, at the mercy of Fate.
We are, of course, individually and collectively. None of us can know if we will live out a full lifespan or get hit by a train (or a storm). The only sane way to live is to come to terms with that uncertainty.
Plead the science as we will, in dealing with the warmists we are dealing with the existentially terrified. Frightened people don’t reason well.
It seems climatologists prefer to ignore chaos theory when it suits them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
Chaos theory explains why weather & climate cannot be predicted beyond 3 weeks
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/09/chaos-theory-explains-weather-climate.html
The Chaos theoretic argument that undermines Climate Change modelling
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/13/the-chaos-theoretic-argument-that-undermines-climate-change-modelling/
Alan Robertson said:
Do you have any actual data to support that claim?
Then Gareth Phillips says: February 9, 2014 at 4:57 am
…… there is a substantial amount of data out there which states that this weather is in keeping with a changed climate Here is a reasonable place to start if you are interested in following up the studies. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10197566/Flooding-in-winter-to-get-worse-scientists-warn.html
With all due respect, Gareth, that is simply an MSM interpretation of scientific opinion, not data.
It is one of the great frustrations with climate science that scientists are carefully phrasing their statements along the lines of “…. this type of weather is an indication of the type of weather we expect to see more of in the future in line with our predictions (sotto voice: but we fully acknowledge that statistically, this is currently just another storm/flood/drought) ….
..and still the MSM goes to town on it as if it is a statement of terrifying fact.
Your link is typical of the low art; a convoluted, layered structure of assumptions, models and theorized conclusions. And entirely data free.
Hi Dirk, did you read the other long term data? The GSM is interesting, but we are in a period of exceptional weather which needs to be addressed. We can as you say, we ensure sea walls are robust, that rivers where appropriate are dredged, but these are only part of the answer. If the Met office report is valid, and I have no reason to suspect it is not, it’s a new ball game.
Measures we took in the past to defend the coasts and low lying areas are no longer valid, agriculture will need to adapt, transport links will have be considered. There is much to be done. Some people may whine that river dredging is the answer to everything without realising that is a part of the solution, but only one factor. There is much else to be considered. However, before all that can be done it has to be recognised that things have changed, and we may not return our genial climate for a long time. I accept you consider the current weather to be due to solar activity, I don’t agree, but I believe that is a much more positive statement than to stick one’s head in the sand and say there is no problem, nothing has changed, all is normal. Once a problem is recognised, we are on the road to adaptation.
Hi MarkX, Have look at the Met office data I posted for more detailed and objective studies and data. The Telegraph was meant to give an in initial briefing and links, not conclusive studies. Generally speaking the right wing press is a poor source of reliable detailed data, but they can be a start for sceptics to explore an issue.
“Right wing press”, Gareth? That’s a bit ‘sinister’…..
Gareth Phillips:
re your delusional post at February 9, 2014 at 6:38 am.
You say
Nothing has changed!
Weather continues to vary within the limits it has always had during the holocene.
Read the article by Tony Brown above this thread.
There certainly is a problem. Some of us have recognised it and “are on the road to adaptation” because we proclaim that the best way to adapt is to ridicule you, those who ‘think’ like you, and the delusional assertions you make.
Such “adaptation” has been inadequate with the result that we have had the disasters which are the subject of this thread.
Richard
If you mean mitigation of CO2 emissions, any effective action will have to be global, meaning “we” will have to include china and India. If it doesn’t any mitigating action the rest of us take will be a costly futility.
rtj1211 says lots of things!!!!
: Why no real name, I loathe this practice of using meaningless initials.
I had to read your assertions twice, after which I wondered how on earth you came to write such nonsense. If you dislike misinformation so intensely as you claim then it hardly makes sense to present the same. It is easy to find out that the city of London contributes more than its fair share to the national economy, without this money the Exchequer would be totally unable to pay its bills never mind build the proposed rail links. As for your references to our many faults, well what is there to say, if you live here leave, if you do not, never come.
Big coastal storms damage infrastructure on coastlines. Yet infrastructure is always built, and rebuilt there. Rail lines have always had issues with grade. Low flat or gently rising land works well. You get lots of valuable usage at relatively low construction cost, but from time to time nature will intervene. So save a bit for the obvious need for infrequent emergency repair, and do your maintenance.
As we are talking about government, however, thus endeth the fairy tale.
I’d wager that every line built on a coast or in a flood plain has a disaster story — but clearly, in the real world, the cost-benefits of putting lines in harms way works out.
Which is why, in the real world, we don’t end up with much ‘high-speed’ rail. The cost-benefits don’t really work. Please forgive the exerable pun….that train has left the station and there is little profit in reliving the 19th century.
Ad-hoc “trains” of sometimes-self-driving cars moving in efficient unison where reasonable, and with individual freedom where useful will evolve normally and their inherant logic will drive most short haul people transport from the market…is one reasonable direction for the future…there are others.
Living in people pods, surround by a restored nature and a restored and benign climate, moving inter-pod by high speed rail, managed for our benefit by an omnipotent and beneficient governnment….somewhat less likely.
300 legislators can bloviate for years , and 30 workmen will patch the track so the trains can run. It was always thus.