Thread: Trivia and other useless but interesting items

Just the start of what's going to be repeated around the world in years and decades to come, no easy or cheap answers. At 309 metres above sea level, I think I'm ok for the time being though.

That's more erosion than rising sea level.

Originally Posted by V8Ian

That's more erosion than rising sea level.

I tend to agree here. In the top header photo, look at the amount of sand that has blown over the road, from seaward.

I think that one has not much to do with Global Warming, but everything to do with how not-so-smart planning decisions in the past, eventually played out. Unfortunately humans think short term and beaches are generally not static - so it's a bad combination when so many people want to live on the coast, like RIGHT. ON. THE. COAST.
Beach fronts move seasonally and in the longer term (decades/centuries, etc) with the sand budget being affected by many things - bathymetry, wind, wave energy, longshore drift, storm action etc. That's why you shouldn't put infrastructure too close to mobile sand dunes or the continual movement may bite you - hard.

There are examples everywhere of us dumb, hairless monkeys building things without understanding coastal processes;
- The infrastructure in the article mentioned
- On top of the white cliffs of Dover
- Tweed Heads harbour extentions in the 1960's/70's stopped the sand moving North. Very soon after the beaches started eroding and disappearing in Qld,
- nearly all of the beach has disappeared over the last 50 years in front of the holiday camps along the Busselton strip,
- New Orleans got rid of most of the mangroves and natural coastal vegetation, dredged and straightened the rivers and tributaries, removing the natural buffers against storm surges. Then Hurricane Katrina hit. Oops...

Oh, we do like to live beside the seaside. I just wish we did it smarter. A lot smarter!

I must say that I do feel sorry for that town though. They are in one big mess. Any engineering decision is going to affect other communities upstream and probably downstream if they decide to put in groynes or fortify their coastline with a seawall of some description. There will definitely be flow-on effects. Whatever happens, it's going to be expensive.

Originally Posted by cripesamighty

I think that one has not much to do with Global Warming, but everything to do with how not-so-smart planning decisions in the past, eventually played out. Unfortunately humans think short term and beaches are generally not static - so it's a bad combination when so many people want to live on the coast, like RIGHT. ON. THE. COAST.
Beach fronts move seasonally and in the longer term (decades/centuries, etc) with the sand budget being affected by many things - bathymetry, wind, wave energy, longshore drift, storm action etc. That's why you shouldn't put infrastructure too close to mobile sand dunes or the continual movement may bite you - hard.

There are examples everywhere of us dumb, hairless monkeys building things without understanding coastal processes;
- The infrastructure in the article mentioned
- On top of the white cliffs of Dover
- Tweed Heads harbour extentions in the 1960's/70's stopped the sand moving North. Very soon after the beaches started eroding and disappearing in Qld,
- nearly all of the beach has disappeared over the last 50 years in front of the holiday camps along the Busselton strip,
- New Orleans got rid of most of the mangroves and natural coastal vegetation, dredged and straightened the rivers and tributaries, removing the natural buffers against storm surges. Then Hurricane Katrina hit. Oops...

Oh, we do like to live beside the seaside. I just wish we did it smarter. A lot smarter!

Smart Planning - Often an oxymoron

Those who pick natural factors contributing as well are probably on the money "The study, led by the University of York, found evidence for a period of enhanced pre-industrial sea-level rise of about two to three millimetres per year in three locations: Nova Scotia, Maine and Connecticut.

The researchers say that the large rises at these three locations were natural, and partly related to the North Atlantic Oscillation -- a large-scale atmospheric pressure see-saw over the North Atlantic region -- and to periods of enhanced ice melt in the Arctic.

The authors of the study say cities like New York and Boston will have to take into account this natural variability in planning for future sea level rise.

The findings are based on sea level reconstructions derived from salt-marsh sediments from the Atlantic coast and from microscopic salt-marsh fossils.

"

I love trivia

Bill Gates'''s next-gen nuclear plant packs in grid-scale energy storage

While nobody wants their back yard to become synonymous with Chernobyl or Fukushima, nuclear is demonstrably one of the safest forms of energy generation. Where coal and oil-derived energy cause 24.6 and 18.4 fatalities per terawatt of energy supplied, nuclear power has caused just 0.07 – and that includes the high-profile disasters that have led to its sullied reputation.

Originally Posted by NavyDiver

While nobody wants their back yard to become synonymous with Chernobyl or Fukushima,

Well, the best way to avoid that would be, in the first case, don't let a bunch of "comrades" anywhere near it, and in the second case don't build it in one of the most geologically unstable places on the planet. Northern South Australia seems ideal in the second case, and also in the first if we hurry.