happy, no change for them…
seals live in the sea, seals live in the sea, seals live in the sea.
seals live in the sea, seals live in the sea, seals live in the sea.
seals live in the sea, seals live in the sea, seals live in the sea.
seals live in the sea, seals live in the sea, seals live in the sea.
seals live in the sea, seals live in the sea, seals live in the sea.
seals live in the sea, seals live in the sea, seals live in the sea.
seals live in the sea, seals live in the sea, seals live in the sea.
seals live in the sea, seals live in the sea, seals live in the sea.
seals live in the sea, seals live in the sea, seals live in the sea.
hopefully I will remember
1 Like
My understanding is that tectonic plate movement creates and destroys whole islands overnight. A tsunami can wash away islands.
The end of the last age in Europe put a large chunk of land under water while the people of the period just watched. There is a really great show called Time Team and the spin-off Time Team Digs, where they talk about it. One of those great shows to watch if you’re stuck at home because of quarantines or lockdowns or whatever the heck is happening lately.
Bangladesh is a country on a separate tectonic plate and it’s made of different stuff than the ones it’s stuck in between, causing it to naturally sink. If it’s visibly going under, it’s not because of man-made climate change.
This link is about an island off the coast of Pakistan:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145265/the-sea-takes-back-a-baby-island#:~:text=The%20mud%20volcanoes%20along%20Pakistan's%20coast%20are%20a%20byproduct%20of%20plate%20tectonics.&text=About%20125%20kilometers%20(75%20miles,emerging%20in%201999%20and%202010).
Miami and islands in the Pacific are not being destroyed by tectonic plate movement. They are being destroyed by steadily increasing sea levels. Makes sense if you think about it. There is another thread on this forum about northern sea routes being open that formerly were impassable for much of the year. Glaciers are shrinking as is the continent of Antarctica. The water has to go somewhere. This is all accelerating in my lifetime and I am not thousands of years old contrary to some of my offspring’s occasional comments.
Miami is a metropolis. When building on the coastline, the natural sand dunes that protect the coastline are destroyed.
Metropolises have large sewers and sewers end up at sea further damaging coral reefs.
I believe that buildings should not be allowed to exist in certain coastal zones in order increase resilience against erosion and strong weather events.
That’s the problem with many cities built on coastlines: nobody thinks of the consequences, everybody thinks coastlines have always stayed the same, that Nature doesn’t change and then they cry “Climate Change!!!” to deflect from their own responsibilities in the creation of disaster. Nobody wants to be pointed out that some building project that the city approved after hands were greased is the destroyer of their little paradise.
Cities like New York were built on a swamp. London was built on a swamp. Berlin was built on a swamp. And Miami was built on “highly porous and permeable Miami Limestone”.
The islands in the Pacific exist due to tectonic plate movement. And they accumulate sand too. Sand can appear after a storm and disappear after a storm. And islands have appeared and disappeared plenty of times.
Some of them were nuked to non-existence in the last 65 years.
1 Like
Agree with all you stated. One thing that would help stop building in areas known to be susceptible to flooding would be to stop federally backed flood insurance at subsidized rates. As it is now flood insurance is very inexpensive because the taxpayers are on the hook for the loss. Let the commercial insurance companies cover the risk, if they want to. Otherwise build at your own risk.
I had a house on the ICW in Florida. The likelihood of it being damaged by a hurricane was significant but insurable at $5500/yr when I sold it. On the other hand, the likelihood of it being damaged by flood during a hurricane was almost certain. I paid less than $1000 a year for my federally guaranteed flood insurance.
1 Like
Norway has such a law; “Strandsone loven”;
Tilgang til strandsonen - regjeringen.no
PS> Sorry, not available in English, but those interested can use Google Translation.
But that is not because of erosion, since most of the coastline is solid granite.
It is to ensure that the coastline and beaches are accessible for everybody. (As are the mountains and forests)
That’s socialist!
Yes that may be so, but it reflects the Norwegian view on life and the rights of people to use the nature.
Freedom and Democracy at work.
1 Like
But only rich countries can follow this way of life; rich on asked valuables in their soil…
Our insurance companies and the government have taken your advice. The government covers you for natural disasters with a levy on your insurance payments but only enough to maybe rebuild a garage. Insurance companies then charge according to risk and the insured has to estimate how much remedial action will cost and insure for this amount. To arrive at a figure you have to price demolition of your damaged property, the latest cost of permits, labour, building materials etc. There are companies that will do this for you for a price.
Some parts of New Zealand on coastal areas and in earthquake zones are becoming uninsurable.
1 Like
Whether granite or any other rock, this is how erosion works on the coast.
As far as free access to coast and riparian zones, there are other countries with that rule too, especially in Europe. It makes sense since the cost of maintaining safety with coast guard and navy is paid by the public.
With valuable water in their reservoirs that can create cheap electricity that can be used to make sought after ferro alloys, aluminium, fertiliser and exported to other countries that is not so blessed.
Oh and with a huge EEZ full of fish, oil, gas and minerals that is also needed in other countries.
Contrary to popular belief Norway is not a “Petrostate” a la Kuwait, nor was it an underdeveloped country before oil and gas was found off the coast.
It take some time to erode solid granite though. Not like sand bars, or even sandstone cliffs, like shown in your example.
But yes even granite gets eroded. That is how the Norwegian fjords and coastline was created. By repeated ice ages and over millennia.
I don’t think the cost of guarding the coastline from some enemies is a consideration behind the Norwegian law to protect the right of people to use the coastal zone, without being stopped by fences and private property claims.
I presume the right of the masses over that of property owners can be called Socialism.
(Or Freedom??)
1 Like
most countries have laws that prevent private beaches
Florida has a rising sea level because they keep putting boats and cruise ships in it.
Less room for the water.
3 Likes
Not to mention Floridians who on average are not known for being svelte.
1 Like
Is Bondi Beach sinking as well??
There are a lot of people in the water:
OK, maybe WAITING to get their turn in the water.
They are intelligent people who think it is not refreshing to be in water much colder than their body temperature for long. They took a dip and now are trying to get warm.
Water is mightier than the stone. Even granite has weak areas the water will infiltrate and the layers of stone where the waves hit will further weaken the cliff. I assume Norway has plenty of rock falls and landslides to keep them busy and take their mind out of being bored every winter.
The USA is not most countries. Though the beaches may be public private landowners can restrict access. Then there is the constant argument about where public beach begins. Then when the beach washes away during a hurricane and takes the wealthy beach “owner’s” house away the taxpayers pay to rebuild the beach and the beach “owner’s” house from flood damage.
When I was a kid my great-grandfather went with us to the beach for vacation. He was amazed at the houses and hotels. He used to make the journey by horse and wagon over sandy roads when he was a young man to go fish. He said back then the land could be bought for $.50/acre on the beach and $10/acre on the high land a few miles from the beach. When my mom asked why it was so cheap he said no one could afford rebuild every few years after a hurricane came through and you couldn’t grow a crop on it so what real value did it have?
2 Likes