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

John F. Hultquist says:
February 9, 2014 at 9:06 pm
Gareth Phillips says:
February 9, 2014 at 8:54 am
“. . . but it’s amusing to make one when commenting on another posters intelligence I think.”
At this point it appears I am the only one still reading Gareth’s comments.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
OK, despite the missing apostrophe and comma in a post questioning someone’s English language skills, his English is far better than his grasp of science.
So why would anyone read anything by a scientific wanker who thinks you can discern a trend in extreme weather events by looking at one year (and reference Wikipedia no less).
—–
Scientific wanker says ” This is a good place to start to see if these weather events are getting more intense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_extreme_weather_events ”
———
He’s just another buffoon that thinks he’s a scientist. They come and go on here. I bet he’s got his Mum convinced though.
Speaking of which, where is RGates these days ?
Gail Combs says on February 9, 2014 at 12:22 pm
Like you I was involved in the early days of the environmental movement and like you my main worry is cooling. We are so unprepared for that possibility it is mind boggling not to mention lethal.
———————————————
Yes and if there’s one thing the CO2 hoax/f*aud/incompetence has taught us, it is that there’s pretty much no amount of CO2 we can put in the atmosphere to avert it.
Anguish about that Gareth, since you seem to need to anguish a lot.
(…… and could you please, pretty please, answer my question on the thread that you slunk away from the other day?)
Compared for example of a very cool Little Ice Age, we now have in the UK and Europe a significant decrease in the number and strength of extreme storms. A increase of temperature and pressure gradients eg. in the LIA (but also probably present – temperature data are not very reliable), as a reaction to cooling, is the main reason for the increase amount and strength of storms, not warming.
In the Little Ice Age was really powerful storms in the north Europe:
Very interesting post: “Storminess Of The Little Ice Age” (06.02.14) (http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/02/06/storminess-of-the-little-ice-age/):
“HH Lamb comes to similar conclusions, “ there was a greater intensity, and a greater frequency, of intense storm development during the Little Ice Age”, in his book “ Historic Storms of the North Sea, British Isles and Northwest Europe ”.
… and in southern Europe:
“It is worth noting, however, that increased storm activity during the LIA was not restricted to northwestern Europe, but was also recorded further south along the Atlantic coast (sic) in The Netherlands (Jelgersma et al., 1995) and northern (Sorrel et al., 2009) and southwestern France (Clarke et al., 2002).”
… once again I recall: Shah-Hossein et al. (23.12.2013, http://www.schweizerbart.de/papers/zfg_suppl/detail/57/81545/Coastal_boulders_in_Martigues_French_Mediterranean_evidence_for_extreme_storm_waves_during_the_Little_Ice_Age ):
“The boulders occur up to 100 m [!] inland from the present shoreline [!] …” “Dating of the boulders shows age ranges that correspond to the Little Ice Age (LIA), thus suggesting a relationship between their deposition and the high storm frequency that characterized the LIA.”
Shoveled Feb ’78:
Your post at February 9, 2014 at 12:08 pm says in total
Sorry, but I fail to find anything of relevance, interest and/or use in your post. I would be grateful if you were to explain the following.
What is the relevance of anything you have said to the need to spend money maintaining the railway which is essential to the entire economy of Cornwall and, instead, wasting the money on e.g. covering Cornwall in windfarms?
In light of the long-ago demise of the engineers whom you advocate, how would you suggest I overcome the environmentalist legislation which prevents me or “someone else” from taking “on the work” when such legislation prevented the people of the Somerset Levels from doing their necessary dredging so they are flooded?
Why did you spend time making that pointless post to me thus causing me to waste my time reading and replying to it?
Richard
And what about this piece of forecasting “skill” from the Met. Orifice?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/m/8/A3_plots-precip-DJF-2.pdf
Met Office 3-month Outlook
Period: December 2013 – February 2014 Issue date: 21.11.13
“The forecast presented here is for the average of the December-January-February period for the United Kingdom as a whole.
This forecast is based on information from observations, several numerical models and expert judgement.
The probability that UK precipitation for December-January-February will fall into the driest of our five categories is around 25% and the probability that it will fall into the wettest category is around 15% (the 1981-2010 probability for each of these categories is 20%).”
How that charlatan, Slingo, can have the bare-faced cheek to talk about the recent run of bad WEATHER as “being consistent with climate change” is beyond me.
philincalifornia says:
February 9, 2014 at 10:02 pm
“Speaking of which, where is RGates these days ?”
When R first wrote a comment on this site his nature was in full display. About a dozen folks objected and he apologized but that did not appear before I complained of his manner. He should have ignored that, but did not. After a time and many comments on the 40% increase of a very small number, he returned to his manner of the opening salvo. I had mostly quit looking at his repeats but did see where our host banned further rgates comments. I did not go back to find out why. I have seen his tag elsewhere. Clearly, I do not know much of this story.
Alan Robertson says: @ur momisugly February 9, 2014 at 12:58 pm
Thanks for the first person view.
Many of the bigger farms are now run by corporations who are ‘mining the soil’ they do not care about anything but returning a profit. They do not plant a cover crop to conserve the soil in the winter because that costs money. They certainly do not take the long view such as planting trees for the grandsons’ to harvest. My farm used to have the best soil in the county – over 2 feet of loam according to the 1950 soil survey. It was rented tobacco field and was sold as completely unproductive because it was nothing but bare red clay, It tested as 98% mineral with no organic material (that holds moisture) at all. In the twenty years of running livestock I have managed to add 2 inches of top soil in places.
I am afraid the destruction of wind breaks and grain silos on the US prairie is going to come back to bite us and probably sooner rather than later.
A discussion of what was going on from back in 2009: HR 2749: Food Safety’s Scorched Earth Policy
So yes sterile soil is what is wanted by these idiots.
Allan M.R. MacRae says: @ur momisugly February 9, 2014 at 9:36 pm
…I understand that “More than 40% of U.S. corn is now consumed in the production of ethanol.”
http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/wp/12-01WiseBiofuels.pdf
I suggest that this offers an immediate opportunity to quickly rebuild the strategic grain reserve by ceasing corn ethanol subsidies and instead using the money to grow grain for storage. I have not run the numbers but they should work over a few years, assuming we start ASAP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Unfortunately there are economic forces at work that WANT a grain/food shortage. Just search “Land Grab” and add names like Rothschild and Soros
If you read you can see it is abundantly clear that wealth accumulation beats out starving children any day of the week.
Dan Amstutz was president of the North American Export Grain Association.
They even named an award after him!
Richard Courtney asks my explanation for why I wasted his time.
It’s simple, Richard. You and I are in agreement. My offered civil engineers, from 170 years ago, faced difficulties both political and physical, but overcame them. Today’s engineers are totally bound by governmental restrictions and by silly governmental projects such as wind farms.
I know you cannot do it alone, but surely you are not without friends!
Get rid of the restrictions, get rid of the EU (that so famously prevented containment of foot-and-mouth disease in Devon several years ago), and stop pouring “investments” into wind farm disasters.
Meanwhile, rebuild the seawall and the railway line to good engineering standards that both Brunel and Sheldon would applaud. Use oxen, at least for publicity. Ask John and Penny Adie (guiding lights of the Two Moors Festival) for advice. They also have experience in moving heavy objects.
Gareth Phillips says:
…given that this type of [extreme] weather is likely to become more frequent we need to look at the wider issues… stop quarrelling about the reasons for this change in climate, and learn to adapt to it… we are making things worse… there is a substantial amount of data out there which states that this weather is in keeping with a changed climate…&blah, blah, etc.
Empirical [real world] evidence and observations show decisively that severe weather events are moderating. They are becoming less severe, and that is a multi-decade trend.
But when you start off with a false premise, your conclusions will necessarily be false.
The question is: will you accept reality? Will you accept real world observations? Or will you continue to parrot the pseudo-science you are parroting here?
Basic physics tells us that our [naturally] warming world will have less severe weather, because it is the difference in temperatures that causes severe weather. Thus, your belief that extreme weather increasing is contradicted by observations:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
click6
click7
click8
click9
That being the case, an honest person would admit that they were given false information. An honest person would see that extreme weather events are not increrasing, and they would reverse their climate alarmism. Honest people would, anyway. Don’t know about you yet.
Shoveled Feb ’78:
Thankyou for your reply which you provide to me at February 10, 2014 at 10:40 am and explains the intention of your earlier post. Your reply tells me
That is good advice, but I have one little problem; i.e.
You omitted to inform me how I could do that.
Richard
Gail Combs says: on February 10, 2014 at 9:26 am
Very interesting references Gail – thank you .
dbstealey says: February 10, 2014 at 12:31 pm
Thanks you for your excellent references that demonstrate that extreme weather increasing is contradicted by observations.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/61276?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=43496f7e44-Call_to_Champions&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d8f503f036-43496f7e44-291114797
Canadian Government slams the door in the face of Goliath enviro-supporting Rockefellers
In the ongoing, mammoth underground ‘Rockefeller vs. Canada Battle’, it’s Rockefeller 0, Canada 1.
You can hear the enviro screams from Canada all the way to the American EPA—latest warrior to join the battle against the long-detained Keystone XL Pipeline.
Just about everyone in the lib-left mainstream media of both Canada and the U.S.A. are shouting rape because of Canada Revenue’s 2013-2014 audit of high-profile environmental groups, including the David Suzuki Foundation, Tides Canada, Environmental Defence, the Pembina Foundation, Eqiuiterre and the Ecology Action Centre, among others.
They’re demanding to know “WHY?”
Though the environmental groups will slice the pie of reasons into thousands of pieces, it’s because the Canadian government finally decided to take a stand for the Canadian Aboriginal people and for Canadian interests.
…
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/61276?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=43496f7e44-Call_to_Champions&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d8f503f036-43496f7e44-291114797
Canadian Government slams the door in the face of Goliath enviro-supporting Rockefellers
Check out the three videos by Ezra Levant.