Broads Authority Briefing September 2019

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

6 hours ago, marshman said:

Saltwater surges are still encroaching further up the Bure, but how far they come depends on the size of the surge!!!

The last time I chatted to one of the EA guys about them, the effects were to be seen up by Horning Hall Farm but other factors have to be taken into account too like the amount of freshwater coming downstream to hold it back. Anything about tides and surges is very complicated depending on many factors but it doesn't do the fish a lot of good at all. And yet some individuals are still in denial that sea levels are increasing

There is no doubt that further significant dredging away of the Bure hump would exacerbate the issue however but there are just so many differing factors to be taken into account which impact Broadland tides and surges.

Why is it MM that if anybody disagree's with your opinion, you always claim they're in denial?. Has it ever occurred to you, you may not know quite as much as you think you know, or that other people may know more than you'd like them to know?. Just asking?. 

[MauriceMynah]

Simple reason SpeedTriple, there are two types of people, those who agree with me, and those who are wrong.  ...Whoops, I'm the wrong MM !!!

[BuffaloBill]

2 hours ago, grendel said:

looking at the graph, you will notice quite a large dip (nearly 50mm) through the 1970's until the late 1970's, so going back to our childhood memories for the bridge clearances clearly is putting those memories in a significant dip of sea levels, the level then climbed steadily through the 1980's until it dropped again sharply around 1990 before starting a steady rise to today, looking at the pattern, it could be about to have another sharp drop soon (fingers crossed)

Grendel. I'm sure that you will correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the earth 'wobble' on it's axis? If so, does this correspond to that lower graph by any chance? 

[quo vadis]

I wobble from time to time 

[marshman]

ST - I do not now anything  - its all pure supposition and guesswork!!!

However thats all beside the point, as I was merely going to check with you, that you had been in touch with the NCC Roads Survey team to check whether the bridge is stable or sinking?? That would at least clear up one of your issues and I look forward to you advising us all of the true picture so we can be clear on at least one thing!

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

3 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

Simple reason SpeedTriple, there are two types of people, those who agree with me, and those who are wrong.  ...Whoops, I'm the wrong MM !!!

Sorry John, i was`nt aiming that at you, so sincerest apollogies, i was refering it to Marshman.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

2 hours ago, marshman said:

ST - I do not now anything  - its all pure supposition and guesswork!!!

However thats all beside the point, as I was merely going to check with you, that you had been in touch with the NCC Roads Survey team to check whether the bridge is stable or sinking?? That would at least clear up one of your issues and I look forward to you advising us all of the true picture so we can be clear on at least one thing!

First, no i have`nt `been in touch with any road survey team, but i used to watch plenty of science documentaries on television, sadly they are all too few and far between. Quite a few years back, i watched a very interesting science documentary with several very intellectual and experienced scientists, about how the UK land mass is continually shifting (remember Grendels post mentioning that?), hence the explaination of the East Anglian region, with a great deal of investigation into coastal erosion and its effect on their surrounding regions (the area of Potter Heigham and its surrounding region being one of them). One of the threads on that documentary was about how the Norfolk coast is being continually eroded (Happisburgh being a prime example) because of the very soft land structure due to the high ratio of water in the land due to it containing large areas of peat (remember the broads were the remains of ancient peat excavation). As a result, many ancient structures have been the victims of extreme subsidence, such as windmills and BRIDGES etc etc, and the old stone bridge at potter heigham was mentioned specifically because of the soft substructure of the land beneath it.

Now, it`s up to you Marshman, but i would much rather take the findings of a group of highly qualified and intellectual SCIENTISTS, rather than the dubious findings of a road survey teams "required" report.  However of course, if you know better because you walk around a river bank, and ex pilot drives a few boats under a bridge, AND YOU CAN PROVE IT WITH HARD EVIDENCE, i`l wilfully stand corrected?.

And NO, i will NEVER EVER feel obliged to prove anything to anybody, YOU especially.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

8 hours ago, marshman said:

 None of this alters my selfish view that nothing should be done about Potter Bridge either, as it helps preserve one of the last vestiges of a precious area harking back to a bygone age which you could so easily destroy by uncaring visitors intent on "going everywhere" with little or no regard for the consequences, especially as that facility still remains, albeit not in the conveyance of their choice.

Define the word destroy?.

To raise the airdraught of Potter Heigham bridge and allow more boats to cruise the upper Thurne network is NOT destruction, it`s called RESTORATION, something you obviously don`t agree with, but at least we can all rest assured that we ALL know how selfish you are. 

As for me, there are a great many things i don`t like in life, but i would never dream of stopping other people enjoying wildlife and stunning scenery, because i want it all to myself. But them i`m NOT selfish am i.

[grendel]

well we now have sea level data represented, expilot says there have been regular surveys of the bridge, so i guess we need to find that data too as it must be out there somewhere, it does strike me that the reported boat sizes that used to get through (shall we assume during the late 70's when the sea levels were lower) compared to the boat sizes that get through nowadays that there is a discrepancy of not just a few inches between the 4" of sea levels and shall we add the 4" difference of the tides, is still less than the difference between what could get through and what no longer can, so tidal levels and rising sea levels dont appear to account for the difference, we are told that level surveys show the bridge isnt sinking, so what other factors are there?

[grendel]

perhaps we should arrange for a drop in sea levels as that can be attributed as part of the cause, so ST i suggest a stint as King Canute is called for (though to be fair on that fair regent he wasnt out to actually stop the tides, but to demonstrate the fallibility of even a king, and that nobody could control nature.)

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

8 minutes ago, grendel said:

perhaps we should arrange for a drop in sea levels as that can be attributed as part of the cause, so ST i suggest a stint as King Canute is called for (though to be fair on that fair regent he wasnt out to actually stop the tides, but to demonstrate the fallibility of even a king, and that nobody could control nature.)

Sorry Grendel, i can`t do that, but even if i could, i don`t think Marshman would like that, as he wants the whole area to himself, and stuff everybody else .

And that`s the polite version 

[MauriceMynah]

1 hour ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

Sorry John, i was`nt aiming that at you, so sincerest apollogies, i was refering it to Marshman.

Yes, I know! I was just lightening the tone of the thread. :-)

[expilot]

1 hour ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

and ex pilot drives a few boats under a bridge

ST, snipes such as this do nothing to enhance your reputation. I drive through THAT bridge every day, but haven't "driven a few boats under a bridge" for two decades.  As I have stated before, I have no axe to grind.  I claim no superior knowledge.  If the bridge is sinking, I will suffer more than most as a direct result.

You made a claim that the bridge was sinking.  All I did was to ask you for the evidence of such.  It would be a very strange world we lived in if people made decisions based on what they thought may be true.  Come to think of it, given the present state of the nation, perhaps that is what most people do

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

2 minutes ago, expilot said:

ST, snipes such as this do nothing to enhance your reputation. I drive through THAT bridge every day, but haven't "driven a few boats under a bridge" for two decades.  As I have stated before, I have no axe to grind.  I claim no superior knowledge.  If the bridge is sinking, I will suffer more than most as a direct result.

You made a claim that the bridge was sinking.  All I did was to ask you for the evidence of such.  It would be a very strange world we lived in if people made decisions based on what they thought may be true.  Come to think of it, given the present state of the nation, perhaps that is what most people do

Yeah, reputations, i always take people at face value myself, and hope people do the same with me.

To be honest, the way your post appeared to me, it sounded as though it was coming on a bit confrontational, and because of events in my early years, that i don`t like to go into in public, i`ve grown up with the theme of "the only form of defence is attack" scenario. Unfortunately, it can mean things people say in all innocence can be taken the wrong way, and sometimes i do the same, so if i`ve misunderstood your post, then i offer my sincerest apollogies, and i`d be happy if the mods can edit my post accordingly.

[expilot]

No need to apologise, ST.  No offence taken.  It can be difficult sometimes to write things down to mean precisely what we mean without creating alternative nuances unintentionally. 

Edited October 1, 2019 by expilot
Added note

[MauriceMynah]

There is a risk of this thread becoming a bit toxic, so I choose my words carefully.

I think we can agree that the broads was at it's busiest from the mid 70s to the mid 90s, and by busiest I mean the most boats out at any one time.

In that era, the delicate ecosystem (or whatever anyone cares to call it) was not destroyed. A return to the clearances of those day would cause an increase of traffic but surely not quite to the levels of those busy days.

Does that not logically mean then, that the "delicate ecosystem" would remain equally undestroyed or even possibly even less destroyed if the clearance was restored.? (Ok, maybe I didn't choose my words so carefully there)

The argument and documentation talking of general water levels having risen is one I will refrain from commenting on until I've read the document with more care. I'm not in denial about climate change but do wonder if some people/organisations might not use it as an excuse of convenience. "Proper dredging" of the lower Bure is without a doubt far more expensive than not dredging, and the BA's remit does mention something about "maintaining the navigation".

If the problem is climate change alone, nobody would expect the BA to do much about it. But, if dredging the lower river as it used to be dredged minimises the effects of the rising sea levels, then I would say it would be the BA's responsibility to do so. (and that's me not making comment !!)

I used the word "Selfish" primarily aimed at Marshman. I shouldn't have done that, and I apologise accordingly. Feelings run high on this matter and sometimes even I can get carried away. (some say I should be.)

Please let this debate continue, with facts and opinions being clearly labelled as such. I believe there is much still to be said.

[Regulo]

16 hours ago, BuffaloBill said:

Grendel. I'm sure that you will correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the earth 'wobble' on it's axis? If so, does this correspond to that lower graph by any chance? 

Hi, Bill, Just to clear up your question, I believe the "wobble" takes place over thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of years. Don't think it will have much effect on the broads in our lifetimes!

[rightsaidfred]

I don't think anyone denies climate change exists but many understand that it has always existed and always will and is part of the natural evolution of the planet and not something we have just invented over the last few decades, I don't dismiss or disregard the information in Grendels charts or Poppys link  but it does seem somewhat misleading when they both state an increase in sea levels of approx. 4" when one is based on 120 yrs and the other 30 yrs.

I refer back to my previous question that if sea levels are responsible why is it only the Bure bridges that seem to be affected and not Breydon or the Yarmouth and Southern bridges or am I wrong and someone can tell me they are all affected in the same way, I will also confirm Buffalo Bills memories that back in the 60s and 70s both side arches at Potter were level whereas there is now a distinct difference between the two suggesting that even if the bridge hasn't sunk it has at least tilted.

Fred

[Paladin]

34 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

 "Proper dredging" of the lower Bure is without a doubt far more expensive than not dredging, and the BA's remit does mention something about "maintaining the navigation".

The 1988 Broads Act mentions this, but the whole sentence is:

"The Authority shall—

(a)maintain the navigation area for the purposes of navigation to such standard as appears to it to be reasonably required and

(b)take such steps to improve and develop it as it thinks fit".

which puts the whole of the question of the standard to which the navigation shall be maintained in the hands of the BA.

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

 

There is a risk of this thread becoming a bit toxic, so I choose my words carefully.

I think we can agree that the broads was at it's busiest from the mid 70s to the mid 90s, and by busiest I mean the most boats out at any one time.

In that era, the delicate ecosystem (or whatever anyone cares to call it) was not destroyed. A return to the clearances of those day would cause an increase of traffic but surely not quite to the levels of those busy days.

Does that not logically mean then, that the "delicate ecosystem" would remain equally undestroyed or even possibly even less destroyed if the clearance was restored.? (Ok, maybe I didn't choose my words so carefully there)

The argument and documentation talking of general water levels having risen is one I will refrain from commenting on until I've read the document with more care. I'm not in denial about climate change but do wonder if some people/organisations might not use it as an excuse of convenience. "Proper dredging" of the lower Bure is without a doubt far more expensive than not dredging, and the BA's remit does mention something about "maintaining the navigation".

If the problem is climate change alone, nobody would expect the BA to do much about it. But, if dredging the lower river as it used to be dredged minimises the effects of the rising sea levels, then I would say it would be the BA's responsibility to do so. (and that's me not making comment !!)

 

If the mean sea level has risen by any amount, let’s say 4” for arguments sake, then to compensate the BA would have to dredge the entire system by 4” on average. 

This is a totally different thing from dredging in an area to remove ‘humps’ that build up over relatively short periods. 

Dredging in a small area is very unlikely to affect the river system as a whole and quite possibly will have unintended consequences. 

 

[grendel]

16 minutes ago, Regulo said:

Hi, Bill, Just to clear up your question, I believe the "wobble" takes place over thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of years. Don't think it will have much effect on the broads in our lifetimes!

correct, the north pole location is slowly moving (the magnetic one anyway) and there is evidence in the past of the magnetic poles flipping N to S, the mechanism is not understood completely, but its not a quick process, so I think we can rule out the wobble as a cause of variance. the graph clearly shows the general trend is a rising sea level since 1900.

[Smoggy]

I think the wobble is called precession (or similar) and takes about 15,500 years to do a full cycle (or was it 21,500 years?).

Don't forget that scotland is supposed to rising and south of england sinking due to the number of jocks coming down here to find proper jobs (or was it weight of ice? same sort of thing).

[MauriceMynah]

19 minutes ago, batrabill said:

If the mean sea level has risen by any amount, let’s say 4” for arguments sake, then to compensate the BA would have to dredge the entire system by 4” on average. 

I don't agree. One only has to increase the size of the plughole to make the bath drain faster.

 

[grendel]

1 minute ago, Smoggy said:

I think the wobble is called precession (or similar) and takes about 15,500 years to do a full cycle (or was it 21,500 years?).

Don't forget that scotland is supposed to rising and south of england sinking due to the number of jocks coming down here to find proper jobs (or was it weight of ice? same sort of thing).

actually, its the lack of the weight of ice after the last ice age, the weight has reduced so scotland is rising again

[MauriceMynah]

 

20 minutes ago, batrabill said:

This is a totally different thing from dredging in an area to remove ‘humps’ that build up over relatively short periods. 

Dredging in a small area is very unlikely to affect the river system as a whole and quite possibly will have unintended consequences. 

If the "lump" is the plug then it's removal solves the problem (opinion) We all know that the lower bure hasn't been properly dredged, just look at Marina Quays, though that area was being dredged last time I passed there.