The Truth About Happisburgh
By Paul Homewood
There was a time when the BBC were more honest about coastal erosion in Happisburgh:
This report is from 2004:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/norfolk/funstuff/360/happisburgh1.shtml
And this is from 2003:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/norfolk/senseofplace/coastal_video.shtml
No mention of climate change in either report, just talk of nature and offshore dredging.
Meanwhile the BGS study, which I believe is from 2006, on Happisburgh is worth reading:
Happisburgh, on Norfolk’s North Sea coast, is a village with a population of 1400 people in about 600 houses. The village contains a notable stone church dating from the 14th century, an impressive manor house, listed buildings and a famous red and white striped lighthouse.
Although now a coastal village, Happisburgh was once some distance from the sea, parted from the coast by the parish of Whimpwell, long since eroded away. Historic records indicate that over 250 m of land were lost between 1600 and 1850.
More recently the village was affected by the tragic floods of 1953 that claimed the lives of 76 Norfolk residents.
Coastal defences built at Happisburgh have slowed down the rate of retreat. However, large sections are now in disrepair. Sea-level rise and climate change, including increased storminess, may also increase the rate of erosion….
It is likely that the Norfolk cliffs have been eroding at the present rate for about the last 5000 years, when sea level rose to within a metre or two of its present position (Clayton, 1989). Therefore, the future predictions of sea-level rise and storm frequency due to climate change are likely to have a profound impact on coastal erosion and serious consequences for the effectiveness of coastal protection and sea defence schemes in East Anglia in the near future (Thomalla and Vincent, 2003).
https://www.bgs.ac.uk/case-studies/coastal-erosion-at-happisburgh-norfolk-landslide-case-study/
Note:
It is likely that the Norfolk cliffs have been eroding at the present rate for about the last 5000 years
Sure, they say that climate change MAY increase the rate of erosion, but this is mere speculation, and in 2006 there was no evidence it was actually happening.
Secondly there is a case study on Internet Geography, with a useful video:
Happisburgh (pronounced “Haze-bro”) is a settlement located on the Norfolk coast, eastern England. It has a population of around 1400 people in 600 houses. Although now a coastal village, this was not always the case. When founded over 1000 years ago, there was another village separating Happisbourgh from the sea. Historical records indicate that over 250m of land was lost between 1600 and 1850.
Happisburgh, situated to the southern end of one of the most active stretches of the Norfolk coast, is one of the primary providers of sediment for beaches along the east Norfolk coast. The coastal part of the village is subject to frequent coastal erosion: houses that used to be over 20 feet (6 m) from the sea now sit at the edge of a cliff and are expected to fall into the sea.
Sea Defences at Happisburgh
The civil parish shrank by over 0.2 km² in the 20th century by the erosion of its beaches and low cliffs. Groynes were constructed along the shore to try to stop erosion during the 1950s.
Sea defences were built in 1959 to slow the erosion. Changes in government policy mean that coastal protection in Happisburgh is no longer fundable from central government. The road (Beach Road) that leads into the sea is being steadily eroded.
A wooden revetment once stretched from Happisburgh to the Cart Gap seawall, but in 1990 a storm destroyed about 300 metres of it to the east of Happisburgh. The rate of erosion increased rapidly following the destruction of the wooden revetment.
In 1996 the remaining revetment was further damaged by storms, and another length was lost. At the time six cliff-top properties were lost.
https://www.internetgeography.net/topics/happisburgh-case-study/
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Great debunking, Paul.
No use just preaching to the converted, though, is it?
Last night I happened to watch the fireworks over London (on the tv),even then in the voice over the statement that London stood with all the people in the developing world that were affected by ‘climate change’ quite what that had to do with celebrating the new year escaped me as did the celebration of other minority groups.
We’re the fireworks in a ULEZ?
Yes! that thought never crossed my mind! there was a small drone display as well which lasted a couple of minutes, I presumed that the batteries went flat after that as they were not seen again. but what do I know?
Yes, the hypocacy is astounding. They ban people from burning coal to keep warm because – carbon. Then they blast massive amounts of ‘carbon’ into the air with fireworks just for entertainment.
All for the greater good! as they said in the film ‘Hot Fuzz’
Hmmm…if builders were taking the lower land out from near my property and it suffered subsidence I guess I’d have a case against them. The question I ask is, have the dredgers bought off the Norfolk council so they don’t face any liability? How are they not responsible?
Happy New year everyone!!
” Although now a coastal village , Happisburgh was once some distance from the sea . Historic records indicate that over 250 m of land were lost between 1600 and 1850 ……….It is likely that the Norfolk cliffs have been eroding at the present rate for about the last 5000 years ”
This is nonsense . 250 metres of coastal land lost to the sea between 1600 and 1850 translates to a metre on average submerged annually when the pace of sea level rise slowed and receded during the Little Ice Age. Much of the erosion must have been the result of the stormier conditions in the North Sea during the LIA And yet The Telegraph last year informed us the rate of erosion along the East Anglia coastline consisting of crumbly boulder clay sand and gravel also amounted to an estimated metre each year . It is not at all “likely that the Norfolk cliffs have been eroding at the present rate for about the last 5000 years ” The process must have been stochastically erratic and probably accelerated during the Roman Climatic Optimum transgressions and the storms and hurricanes that battered the East Anglia coasts over five millennia .
Now if we examine the historical Holderness coastline map from Flamborough to the Humber River estuary sourced from Thomas Sheppards 1912 book ” Lost Towns of East Yorkshire ” using the conservative [ the true distance may be another half a mile ] estimate of 2 miles submerged over the centuries from the start of the Roman Occupation era [43AD ] to the release of Sheppards tome [1912 AD ] this timescale translates to 3218.68 m of Holderness coastline lost to the sea – and with it nearly 30 English towns ,villages and hamlets – over the course of 1869 years which considerably exceeds the the metre on average lost annually since either 1600 or the assumed uniformitarian Norfolk cliff erosion over “the last 5000 years ”
By all means Paul send a copy of Sheppards Lost Towns of East Yorkshire ” Holderness map to the BBC and see if they can do the math https://urbanrim.org.uk/erosion%20map.htm
I’m sure I remember back in the time of the last Labour government, when they were refusing to protect Norfolk’s coastline from erosion, then government minister,Hilary Benn, managed to have his part of the coast protected.
I wonder how effective the protective measures have been and what his neighbours think about it.
I visited Southwold a few years ago where coastal erosion is common. I noted that the cliffs were made of frigging sand! What did they expect? Don’t get a lot of erosion at Filey Brigg.
The BBC reporter only needed a quick google search to find what I did.
https://happisburgh.org.uk/ccag/history/
It confirms that erosion has been going on for centuries at varying rates. Presumably, as being Johnny on the spot, they would have records and local knowledge. Should I apply for a job at the BBC?
Small point Stuart. See level rise in its self does not a dominant cause of coastal erosion even though that is what has been deliberately put about by the humanities graduates spouting nonsense in the BBC. Certainly rising and falling sea levels are only one part of a much more complex story. The cleanness of the cliff sections is very telling. That says the major component in erosion of these unconsolidated cliffs is longshore drift which is taking away the sediment once the cliff collapses. That very fact exposes new cliff all the time to erosion. If there was no longshore drift the beach would be choked with debris which would in a small way provide protection for the cliff behind. All coastlines are attempting to achieve equilibrium with the sea. That attempt to achieve equilibrium is what causes the instability. No offshore processes are in stasis or equilibrium at any time. Yes the actions of man up or down the coastline can have an effect 10s of km further along the coast as can off shore dredging but these can have only local effects at best. Unlike what the screeching activist class “believes”, human influence is piddlingly small so it is always wise to look to currents off shore and the distribution of sand bars the natural movement of which can either protect or expose a section of coastline. The BBC a few months ago were trying to claim that a cliff collapse on the N Wales coast line was caused by sea level rise. They had not even bothered to look it up on the interweb because if they had they would know the north Wales coastline is emergent not submergent due to glacial rebound. It was screamingly clear on the foto they used which showed notches in the coastline and the collapse was just part of the natural process of the cliff finding equilibrium. That the BBC are not censured for their clear science free politically motivated take on claimed climatic effects should be of concern to us all and makes me question the right of the BBC DG to draw his salary.
” Small point Stuart . Sea level in itself [ is ] not a dominant cause of coastal erosion ……rising and falling sea levels are only one part of a more complex story ”
Pardonmeforbreathing are you taking tips from the BBC ? . I never explicitly argued it was a “dominant cause ” This is what I wrote :
” when the pace of sea level rise slowed and the receded during the Little Ice Age . Much of the erosion must have been the result of the stormier conditions in the North Sea during the LIA ……the East Anglia coastline consisting of crumbly boulder clay , sand and gravel ” Consider Pevensey Castle in Sussex built as a harborside Roman fort in the 3rd century AD to watch for and fend off Saxon marauders . It now resides a mile or so inland so the only logical conclusion is Roman Optimum sea levels had reached further inland and later receded The abiding question is : what proportion of the 3218 metres of Holderness coastline submerged by the sea since the Roman Occupation was due to oceanic incursion during the Roman and Medieval warmings ?
Stuart… Calm down…..I said there are many factors. Sea level can be seen to recede or advance but not necessarily caused by any global sea level change. The issue is relative sea level and many factors affect that. One external factor which must always be considered first is to understand exactly what is going up or down. Is it the the land or the sea or both? Isostasy, post glacial rebound, something the BBC conveniently and consistently ignores must be factored in. Also tectonics which have a more long term effect. Storms themselves do not have a control knob and rely on other factors to have any significant effect and that is always short term. As unconsolidated as these cliffs are, for no net change in sea level or increase in wave energy, a wave cut platform of a km or more wide can be possible before the platform is sufficiently wide to dissipate the effects of both the wave energy and the all important longshore drift continuously presenting fresh exposed cliff to the sea. Also the erosion can reveal new geology presenting more resistant material to the effects of the sea. It is important to remember that all of the input factors are varying constantly so what is seen is the result of several factors combined.
What galls me is the deliberate lying by omission has become default in the halls of the BBC et al (including the Met Office) who have deliberately blurred the lines between empirical data based observation of natural causes and claimed baseless causes. This did not happen by chance. This distorted version of faux science like the distorted version of history being forced upon kids today is purely brute politics. They speak with feigned confidence about things which only started being measured yesterday drawing conclusions it is impossible to draw. Weather became climate suddenly( but only when it is warm as can be seen in the strangely impartial reporting of facts by the BBC in respect of the winter weather in the US. The British Geological Survey are worryingly silent on this nonsense which speaks volumes about how deep the corruption of thought has reached and how scared people are to tell the truth. The fact they are never included in discussion is probably deliberate.
Everything including sea level rise is now inferred to be caused by man (without evidence). They ignore clear evidence of sea level fall where it exists to force their religious simplistic narrative relying on ignorance within the audience. They quite often include what are the real cause in the text as in this case only because of ignorance. That being said, the BBC are very clever at writing deliberately misleading text on this subject to get Joe Public to draw a conclusion they want them to draw which has nothing at all to do with reality. When challenged they will use weasel words to try and tell you black is white.
That all aside this whole circus we are told is based on science. Science the pursuit of truth, can be claimed only when statistically significant empirical data obtained by a falsifiable methodology has been collected which supports a given thesis. The whole basis for this fraud is the absurdly simplistic claim that CO2 is driving global temperatures and Man is responsible for that. There exists no data from any source to support this “claim”. Geological history demonstrates emphatically that the claim is simply untrue. So where are the real scientists defending science you may ask?
The importance of CO2 is never mentioned neither is the atmospheric concentration put into it correct geological context. We are told about “acidification of oceans”. Throughout the whole of the Earth’s history the oceans have NEVER been acidic, even when during the Cambrian the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was around 7000ppm. The average over geological time is 2500ppm which is what it was when the plants we eat evolved. Right now they are starving! When the Primates evolved it was 1500ppm. The complete lies which have become Megan and Harry “truths” around CO2 are staggering. There IS a problem, a real problem with CO2 and the Carbon Cycle but rather than there being too much there is actually too little. For 160 million years there has been a linear decline in CO2 caused by the evolution of very efficient marine organisms which sequestrate CO2 to combine with calcium to make hard shells. (CaCO3). The success they have achieved is made clear by the shear astounding volumes of organic shelly limestone present around the world, the single largest repository of CO2 on the planet. That 160 million year decline reached a point in the depths of the first part of the current Ice Age when atmospheric CO2 fell to 180ppm, 20-30ppm above the death of plants. 410ppm is not a safe place at all and when we stop using fossil fuels which will happen without the help of the green activist slime then that decline will resume and the decline curve will meet the red line for photosynthesis in a little over 1 million years from now and then they will get the mass extinction they dream about.
The absurdity is there to be seen when the charlatan in chief Al Gore stood up and barefaced lied about temperature following CO2 as seen in ice core data when the truth is that the CO2 increase observed lags behind temperature increase by approximately 800 years. This was not a mistake. That was known before he used the data. We are living in the post Enlightenment time where pseudo science dressed up as science is touted as unassailable authority to silence dissent and to impress the ignorant believers. As George Orwell said, “in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act”.
It may interest you to learn that there exists no statistically significant empirical data of any kind which supports the claim that CO2 returned to the Carbon Cycle from which it was removed historically, by the actions of man during the last 100 years can in any measurable way be shown to be responsible for all or part of the current welcome 220 year old warming, the fourth such warming in recent human history. No data means no science underpinning this whole charade…. so what on earth is this multi billion dollar scam really all about?
” Small point ” in the singular ….. Your post is just rambling gibberish
Sea level in itself does [sic ] not a dominant cause ” ?
Gibberish indeed. Maybe you are not used to being fast with EMPIRICAL DATA BASED FACTS. Yes genius sea level alone is only ONE of many factors which affects coastal change which does not always mean erosion. Go buy a book and read about it
At Lordelate.I was disgusted also with their deliberate propaganda.
Surely Happisburgh is eroding due to intersectional prejudice and white privilege?
Even a single on shore whirligig has a 1,000 cu.m. reinforced concrete foundation.
Off shore whirligigs must need far more.
I would guess that the concrete so wasted already on that useless scam would stabilise the Norfolk Coast until the next Little Ice Age comes along. And provide useful jobs in the UK rather than in China.
No lying propaganda value in the true facts to be sure?
Famous beach 800,000 years ago before climate change dumped a load of glacial muck on it.
https://archaeology.co.uk/articles/features/first-impressions-discovering-the-earliest-human-footprints-in-europe.htm
or even faced