Almost half of the world’s sandy beaches will have retreated significantly by the end of the century as a result of climate-driven coastal flooding and human interference, according to new research.

The sand erosion will endanger wildlife and could inflict a heavy toll on coastal settlements that will no longer have buffer zones to protect them from rising sea levels and storm surges. In addition, measures by governments to mitigate against the damage are predicted to become increasingly expensive and in some cases unsustainable.

In 30 years, erosion will have destroyed 36,097km (22,430 miles) or 13.6% of sandy coastlines identified from satellite images by scientists for the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European commission. They predict the situation will worsen in the second half of the century, washing away a further 95,061km or 25.7% of Earth’s beaches.

These estimates are far from the most catastrophic; they rely on an optimistic forecast of international action to fight climate breakdown, a scenario known as RCP4.5. In this scenario of reduced ice-cap melting and lower thermal expansion of water, oceans will only have risen by 50cm by 2100.

Note that this is climate plus human interference. Yet at no point are we told how much is climate, how much the idiots sticking up flood defences, or dredging, or whatever, that changes the currents and thus the beach.

Three is also the obvious point that whatever is depositing sand at its current location will almost certainly be depositing it 50 cm further up after climate change as well. Not so much vanishing beaches as moved a couple of feet that is…..

22 thoughts on “Err, yes?”

  1. Since, at this point, we haven’t seen a single millimetre of sea level rise around anyone’s coasts either climate change had better get its act together smartish or more climatebollocks

  2. Bloke in North Dorset


    But the forecasts are rising and that’s what counts in the clown world of climate hysteria. Via the GWPF:

    “ Just look at the video, which only runs for a few seconds.

    Note that the title states that “climate change is accelerating sea level rise”.

    And watch how the video actually shows that predictions of sea level rise by the end of the century have been rising.

    In other words, it is not actual sea level rise which is accelerating, it is the increasingly implausible predictions which have been accelerating away from the actual rise.

    This is the make believe world, which Harrabin, Hausfather and their chums now inhabit.”

    It also seems to have been deliberately forgotten that England is still sinking and Scotland still rising (to a lose geographical approximation) after the the last ice age. I’d be willing to bet that there’s some similar effects elsewhere.

  3. How does more sea–which is a pack of Marxist lies in itself–abolish beaches. The most it would do is move it inland a few feet–if sea level rise was even a real thing which it isn’t.

  4. By the end of the century native Europeans, Brits included, will be well on their way to extinction. Why should I care about leaving a nice clean beaches for the diversity?

  5. Monsieur Le Jour is correct. Anyways up, I thought that lot didn’t do swimming or sunbathing?

  6. ‘In 30 years, erosion will have destroyed 36,097km (22,430 miles) or 13.6%’

    They use a decimal point to show they have a sense of humor.

    ‘of sandy coastlines identified from satellite images by scientists for the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European commission.’

    So it’s just the ones identified by satellite that are at risk?

  7. If the beach is sandy, this means it is subject to sufficiently severe wave action to grind the local rocks to powder. Not surprisingly, the sand is also washed to and fro.

    If you build a house right on the beachfront, you can expect to have to build flood defences and try and stop the ocean doing what it wants. This probably won’t work.

  8. I’ll be done with the earth in around 40 or so years at best so it can explode after that for all I care.

    In fact if it did explode in exactly 40 years time I wouldn’t complain.

  9. Someone better tell Barack Obama then,the nice $15m beach front property he’s just bought will be worthless soon!

  10. The primary cause, 99%, of coastal erosion is, always has, and probably ever shall be the sea… the waves. All those grains of sand started off as part of large rocks.

    Coastal currents then move sand along the coast. Man’s interference was building groins to prevent sandy beeches being washed away by the currents. This meant sand was washed away distal to the groin, but nothing arrived to replace it. The depth of the sea has nothing to do with it.

  11. Astonishing lack of self-awareness. Note the complaint about “very expensive” mitigation and possibly “unsustainable” costs. The author of the quoted article is concerned about costs? Really? Given that he/she is probably on board with the demand that we spend trillions of dollars/Euros/Yen to literally change the way every man, woman, and child on the planet lives, by force if necessary? Good god, shoot me now.

  12. And aren’t we already doing RCP 2.5 anyway?

    Yesterday I had to fight off attempts by a couple of our parish councillors to have the council declare a Climate Emergency. I won them around with the application of facts backed up with graphs from Tim’s site – ta. 🙂

  13. @Gamecock
    “Comment awaiting moderation.
    Moot point

    Erosion is the geological process in which earthen materials are worn away and transported by natural forces such as wind or water. A similar process, weathering, breaks down or dissolves rock, but does not involve movement

    Weathering: how does it not involve movement by wind, rain, heat, cold etc?

    Erosion works for me

  14. @Gamecock the scientist

    Please explain difference and how Weathering does not involve movement by wind, water, rain, heat, cold etc

  15. I’m not your teacher. Look it up.

    It’s grade school stuff. Seriously, an adult who doesn’t know the difference????

  16. @Gamecock

    I did “Look it up” and see little difference when used in conversation

    Maybe it’s a UK v USA difference?

    As a BSc I’d appreciate your explanation of the fundamental difference

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *