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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
That would be good Roger if we could get China and India on board, but I suspect that would be a challenge to say the least. The action I was discussing is at UK level. We may not be the primary cause of the deteriorating climate, but we a certainly a victim of it, so the place to start any action is at home. In a perfect world I would like to see a reduction in emissions across the world where it can be achieved with harming wellbeing, but I don’t think that is going to happen in my lifetime.
So we are left with what I believe are the impacts. Hopefully everyone will have had a look at the Met Office report which confirms that no one weather event can be correlated to climate change and much of the reasoning is based on ‘likelyhoods’ in a given situation. Sea level along the English Channel has already risen by about 12cm in the last 100 years. With the warming we are already committed to over the next few decades, a further 11-16cm of sea level rise is likely by 2030. This equates to 23-27cm of total sea level rise since 1900 So things are panning out as predicted, we are seeing the effects, but we cannot address the problems on any long term basis unless, as in other aspects of life, we acknowledge that we have a problem. May take a while to respond as the Rugby has just started!
Bwahahahaha, Gareth! I love it. We, the UK should take unilateral ‘action against AGW’ – and that will stop the Channel from rising? And not the China Sea? That’s what I conclude from your rant. Brilliant. you should apply for the soon to be vacant head of the EA.
Gareth, I read the Met article, and it’s full of unsupported assertions and assumptions. For just one example of outlandishness, there’s this:
“Sea level along the English Channel has already risen by about 12cm in the last 100 years.
With the warming we are already committed to over the next few decades, a further 11-16cm
of sea level rise is likely by 2030.”
Note the use of “already risen by about 12cm in the last 100 years.” That comes out to 1.2mm/year, which is the same rate as has ever been measured, but the usage of “already risen” makes it sound ominous. “With the warming we are already committed to” is an assertion; there has been no warming for at least the past 17 years, nor any evidence that there is some amount more we are due. Finally, to get a further 11-16cm in the next 16 years means the rate will have to jump to 6.9-10.0mm/year to get there. Has anyone measured a 475% increase in sea level rise anywhere in the world, much less in England? I think we know the answer to that one.
About the flooding in Somerset politicians arw now throwing the Environment Agency under a bus:
The Environment Agency has faced criticism that it has not done enough to help those affected.
Repeated calls for dredging were made to government departments by farmers and others in the region at least six months ago but funding was declined.
The area has not been dredged – a process which removes silt from river channels so that water can flow through – since the late 1990s, according to Prime Minister David Cameron who visited the area on Friday.Speaking on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, Mr Pickles, who has now been put in charge of the government’s flood defence, said: “We made a mistake, there’s no doubt about that.”We perhaps relied too much on the Environment Agency’s advice.”I think we recognise now that we should have dredged and I think it’s important now that we get on with the process of getting people back into their houses, and really do some serious pumping.”
He added: “I apologise unreservedly and I’m really sorry that we took the advice, we thought we were dealing with experts.”
The last sentence especially noteworthy. Shape of things to come?
Dame Julia Slingo said the variable UK climate meant there was “no definitive answer” to what caused the storms.
===================
Surely we had storms in the past. What caused them? Are we suggesting that the mechanism that caused storms in the past is not longer with us? That some new mechanism is causing storms? What caused the old mechanism to stop causing storms? What was the old mechanism?
p.s. this was from the BBC:
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26106290
Gareth Phillips:
At February 9, 2014 at 7:11 am you say
The sea level change along the English Channel is isostatic rebound.
During the last ice age Scotland was covered in kms thickness of ice. The weight of ice pushed Scotland down into the mantle and Southern England tilted up. The ice went about ten thousand years ago so Scotland began to come back up and Southern England started to go back down. That recovery from the weight of ice continues and is why sea level is rising relative to the South Coast of England. And sea level is falling relative to Scotland.
Stopping the isostatic rebound requires cooling to put the ice back on Scotland.
And there is NO “committed warming”. The committed warming has vanished along with Trenberth’s missing heat. Perhaps you can tell us if they have eloped together?
Simply, Gareth, you have spouted yet more lies in promotion of your evil ideology.
Richard
Similar weather combinations are not unprecedented by any means in the UK, the east coast had similar savagery inflicted on it in the 50’s.
As has been said by other”s the real story here is of neglect and ‘green doctrine’, of sea walls not maintained or updated. Of many trees cut down that would have held water, of building on flood plains.
For just a couple of past ‘extreme’ weather events I recall from my own childhood in Bristol and surrounds:
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Undefined-Headline/story-11274338-detail/story.html
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/day-rains-came/story-11251988-detail/story.html
Back then of course the somerset levels were being managed properly..
Aidan
Gareth Phillips says:
February 9, 2014 at 7:11 am
we cannot address the problems on any long term basis unless, as in other aspects of life, we acknowledge that we have a problem.
==================
Everyone I read on this site agrees there is a problem. Little or no money is being spend on maintaining public infastructure. Instead it is being squandered on headline grabbing.
for example, say you build a new house. The house has a roof that protects it from rain. Depending on how well it is built, the roof should last 20 years. Then you need a new roof.
Now you may believe it will rain more in the future due to climate change, or it may rain less, but in reality that is all a nonsense. It doesn’t matter if it will rain more or less. What matters is that it will rain and you better have enough money in 20 years to replace the roof or your house will be destroyed by rain.
So in the end there is no purpose to delay or debate over what is causing the rain, because no matter what you do it will still rain and you will still need a new roof. So when politician stand around pontificating about cliamte change as an excuse, that is all it is. An excuse for doing nothing until the roof falls in, then their excuse is that climate change caused the roof to fail.
No one needs to acknowledge that rain is a problem. We know rain is a problem and more frequent rain or less frequent rain isn’t going to change that. The existing infrastrucutre exists for a reason. It is a nonsense to sit around and say the builders didn’t know what they were doing, that we know better, that we don’t need to make repairs.
The people that came before us, that built the world around us, they did it for a reason. Many of those reasons are now hidden from us, protected as we are from the natural environment by this very infastructure. So we have largely forgotten many of the reasons why things were built as they were. But to assume that since those dangers no longer exists, simply because they are hidden by what has been built, therein lies the problem
ferdberple:
re your post at February 9, 2014 at 7:45 am.
Yes! Well said.
Richard
Gareth said;
‘The GSM is interesting, but we are in a period of exceptional weather which needs to be addressed.’
Yes, exceptional according to the last few decades. Exceptional in a historic context-even the relatively short history of this line(1846) no its not.
Regarding sea levels, they have been rising since around 1700 after reaching their previous peak around 1300. Sea levels oscillate around a 1 metre or so basic level. We are currently still somewhat below Roman levels. What confuses the issue is the land rising or falling. For us to reach that UP TO 160mm rise in the next 15 years sea levels would need to increase from an annual rate of around 1mm a year (according to tide gauges) to around 10mm a year. Do you really think that is likely? Satellites have a very short and unreliable history concerning sea levels, one of the problems being that they don’t measure the height at the coast hence the use of tide gauges.
I wrote about sea level rise here;
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/12/historic-variations-in-sea-levels-part-1-from-the-holocene-to-romans/
That was an edited version of a much longer article here;
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/document.pdf
As regards climate variability, the period pre 1850, which I research thoroughly as one of my special interests, has far worse incidences of extreme weather than post 1850. I wrote about that here.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/01/a-short-anthology-of-changing-climate/
We need to build in resilience to our structures and looking at the extremes of the past is probably a good indicator of what MAY happen in the future.
tonyb
Good to see posters found the quote from the `Met office report interesting enough to respond. Here is another quote supporting the change in climatological events manifesting as damaging rainfall and storms in the UK and cold weather in North America. Interestingly most posters from North America acknowledge the cold and snow cover is very unusual, but attribute this to alternate explanations. Hopefully Pottymouth will not have another fit when he sees the quote and scream and scream until someone cares. The whole report is well worth a read, I’d be really interested in a critique from the other side as it were if there are any volunteers. By the way France 9 Italy 3, half time.
A comprehensive study of trends in storminess, for the period 1871-2010 from an ensemble of reanalyses by Wang et al. (2013)12 provides some important insights. They show a robust signal of increasing numbers of strong winter cyclones and with increasing intensity for the high latitude North Atlantic (Figure 21), covering the region to the north of the UK and including Iceland. This is associated with a reduction in storminess further south and supports a wide body of evidence for a poleward shift of the Atlantic storm track.
Excellent, Tony.
As crosspatch says: @ur momisugly February 9, 2014 at 12:27 am
The ultimate problem is that politicians don’t get as much praise for maintaining existing infrastructure as they do for building new. There is no glory in shoring up…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The USA had the same problem with the New Orleans Leeves and the mess on the East Coast from Sandy. Politicians are NOT doing the job they are supposed to. Instead they are wasting taxpayer money on crony pet projects instead of updating the country’s infrastructure.
The Spectacular Failure of the Outfall Canals in New Orleans during Katrina
Myth Busters by Levees.org
One of their PDFs at the above link shows this from a FOIA in the USA
Now that is a real eye opener!
It might be interesting to do the same sort of FOIA in the UK and other countries.
(The internet must be turning into a real headache for the politicians I bet as the sheeple grab the reins back.) {:>)
Dang, forgot to link to The Spectacular Failure of the Outfall Canals in New Orleans during Katrina
http://levees.org/the-spectacular-failure-of-the-outfall-canals-in-new-orleans-during-katrina/
Excellent article as always Tony !!! I am grateful for the amount of research you do. The historic records are completely inconvenient for the purveyors of misinformation. Keep up the great work.
I feel sorry for Gareth. He (like many other alarmists who have come and gone) is clearly unable to recognize propaganda and falls victim to it every time. He does not question the weasel words used in the articles he presents as evidence and is unaware of his place in history and the importance of historic records. The articles he presents are made for him. The lad is not to bright. Hence, my sympathy for him. It must be terrible not knowing when one is being manipulated.
Gareth, for your own sake, be more skeptical.
@ur momisugly Climatereason. Thanks for that, I agree, these things have previously occurred. The difference is that the world then was a very different place , much lower populations and less crowding. The recording of those times is also not as accurate as currently available, so I agree, these things also happened in the deep time scale, but would you be reassured when Vesuvius rumbles that it was not too much to worry about as it had happened before?.Or if the Ice caps advanced, would we also say, don’t worry, it’s happened before? Ultimately most things have happened previously in the history of our planet, but we need to look at the here and now and acknowledge we have a problem which is still evolving. Previous defences are just not going to be enough.
hunter says on February 9, 2014 at 4:46 am
Environmental and climate change based policies are leading to bad government policy.
_________
All too true Hunter.
And these imbecilic enviro-loon policies are causing human suffering, wasting scarce global resources and costing lives.
My sincere sympathies to the good people of the Somerset Levels.
Southern Alberta was flooded this summer, and we are still recovering from the devastation. The disruption in peoples’ lives was extreme, with many losing their homes and all their cherished family photos, mementos and belongings. Fortunately there were few fatalities.
On a positive note, tens of thousands of volunteers worked for months to clean up the mess. I worked with a group that included four Members of the Canadian Parliament and the wife of our Prime Minister, cleaning the silt out of flooded homes – there were no TV cameras – just long days of hard dirty work.
Recently there was a rail disaster in Lac Megantic Quebec where 47 people were incinerated when an oil unit-train derailed in the town. I suggest that those who opposed the Keystone XL pipeline share some responsibility for their deaths. We have always known that pipelines are safer and better than the alternatives. The opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline has been political and destructive, and has nothing to do with the environment.
I was involved in the early days of the environmental movement, but today’s environmental movement has been taken over by politically motivated extremists. It now takes longer to approve a major project than to build it, which is ridiculous. We need to set a reasonable limit on the time it takes to for environmental approvals. I suggest 6 to 12 months would be appropriate.
We should also hold the environmental extremists legally responsible for the damage they have caused society. I have made specific proposals to my USA friends that may bear fruit – watch this space.
My greatest concern for the UK and Western Europe is described below, from a previous post:
So here is my real concern:
IF the Sun does indeed drive temperature, as I suspect, Baroness Verma, then you and your colleagues on both sides of the House may have brewed the perfect storm.
You are claiming that global cooling will NOT happen, AND you have crippled your energy systems with excessive reliance on ineffective grid-connected “green energy” schemes.
I suggest that global cooling probably WILL happen within the next decade or sooner, and Britain will get colder.
I also suggest that the IPCC and the Met Office have NO track record of successful prediction (or “projection”) of global temperature and thus have no scientific credibility.
I suggest that Winter deaths will increase in the UK as cooling progresses.
I suggest that Excess Winter Mortality, the British rate of which is about double the rate in the Scandinavian countries, should provide an estimate of this unfolding tragedy.
As always in these matters, I hope to be wrong. These are not numbers, they are real people, who “loved and were loved”.
Best regards to all, Allan MacRae
Silver ralph says:
February 9, 2014 at 1:13 am
Thanks Blair, you were the biggest political waste of space the UK has ever had the misfortune to be governed by.
Don’t mention the war! Half a million Iraqi’s killed (most of them children) by the illegal invasion by Blair and Bush.
Gareth Phillips says:
February 9, 2014 at 8:04 am
”
@ur momisugly Climatereason. Thanks for that, I agree, these things have previously occurred. The difference is that the world then was a very different place , much lower populations and less crowding. The recording of those times is also not as accurate as currently available, so I agree, these things also happened in the deep time scale, but would you be reassured when Vesuvius rumbles that it was not too much to worry about as it had happened before?.Or if the Ice caps advanced, would we also say, don’t worry, it’s happened before? Ultimately most things have happened previously in the history of our planet, but we need to look at the here and now and acknowledge we have a problem which is still evolving. Previous defences are just not going to be enough.”
This is a great example of the convoluted and backwards thinking. How many climate changes has mankind been through, and yet we remain. Gareth, your loathing for mankind is showing.
@David, note that when using the words ‘not to bright’ the correct spelling is ‘not too bright’ Grammar is so important when commentating on a persons IQ don’t you think? I’ve also been posting here for a few years, in fact longer than most people here today. It would be easy for me to post on websites that accept the science, but that is a bit like preaching to the choir, it’s a good challenge to debate in a forum where one is the only person proposing a point to a group of sometimes abusive opponents. You have to be pretty confident in your own beliefs to do it. Try it on one of the opposing sites, challenge yourself, be brave, if you really believe what you say is correct it can be a very sobering experience. Posting here for a skeptic is easy.
Gareth, even the brightest here have made grammar errors. Please show me one of your posts from say, three years ago. I do not recall seeing your name here before three months ago.
Gareth reveals his short stint on WUWT? Had he been here for as long as he claims, he would know that the vast majority of us have been censored at alarmist sites. Unrealclimate has NEVER allowed even ONE of my posts. All were reasonable and polite, but thoroughly inconvenient. Same at SkS. Same at Desmogblog. Gareth, you may want to stop digging.
Good Lord! These days it seems that if one gets more sand up their arse after a day at the beach it’s because of climate change!
@climatereason
I’d only read a line quoted out of context, and not read the post by rjt1211, which I regrettable referenced in an earlier post. For that, Sir, I apologize. I do not wish to give any credence to that person’s words vis a vis your excellent article, the subject of this thread.
Gareth could you please tell me the ideal Co2 level? There must be some historical Co2/climate relationship to indicate an ideal level.
What mitigating factors would come into play if we go under the level. Is there a level we should not go under? Plants have an interest.