Interesting (and sad) article from YAHOO Travel...

This has been discussed at length many times here. Any beach is an ever changing entity, the phrase "shifting sands" did not come about without merit. Until we get the results of CaptD's study, let me give some photographic information.

Here is a photo of the late Kirk Douglas on the Negril beach back in the late 50's. You can see how wide the beach was on that day.

Attachment 38805

I dont think two beach lounges would fit comfortably in that space end to end - the beach being maybe 20 feet wide. And that is without any concrete structures on the beach back then.

And now, some 50 years later, according to the current article in the OP's post, one agency says that in some sections the "sand is receding at a rate of more than a meter (yard) a year."

In January 2012, another article claimed that beach would be gone in 10 years.

http://negril.com/forum/showthread.p...try-as-we-know

In that thread I posted part of a reply as follows:


"Here is a picture that I took just a couple minutes ago on the beach at Charela Inn. Please note the position of their sign as well as the curve of the bay off in the distance.

Attachment 38806

Here is a picture I took at this same location back in March of 1998. It was featured on the Negril.com Negril Today page.

Attachment 38807

Once again note the sign and the curve of the bay in the background. As you notice, they are taken from approximately the same position, but some 14 years apart."

For the above "meter per year", there would need to be 42 feet of beach no longer there in the first picture, the current, "after" photo. I dont see it missing, do you?

I think this article may have more to do with the coincidental timing of the "breakwater controversy" of late.

In the "news" reporting world, it can be hard to get your story out there to the public. Sensational articles, by their very nature get more publicity. And with the Ebola outbreak in the States and the ISIS crisis as "Breaking News" on all the major networks and news sources today, to get a story printed and read can be quite a task.

Knowing some of the background information can help to understand the timing and reasons of some of these articles.

But I have to agree with Stoner6 and CaptD as well as my own daily observations over the past 20 some years - the majority of the beach today is as wide or wider than it has been in years.

Thanks Rob!

Thanks, Rob, for your insight. I did dig up that paper on Academia this morning ( https://www.academia.edu/1829845/Sho...estern_Jamaica ) and re-reviewed its contents. I appreciate the photos, but they still represent just two waypoints in time. Great pics, by the way; they truly depict the way we hope the beach will be on arrival, and I do hope that its like that when we arrive in April!

I still find the evidence shown in the paper (particularly the photo in Figure 7) disturbing. I will agree that the timing of the article (and the publication of the paper) coincides with the controversy surrounding the efficacy of the proposed barrier; I suspect that the paper may come from a commission that eventually recommended the darn thing. But it still presents a compelling argument that the distance between the waterline and NMB, particularly in the hot spot they seem to want to focus on along the front of the Issa property, has changed significantly since 1971, and not for the better. The recession in the vegetation line is also significant, which goes hand in hand with development and loss of erosion barriers. The photo of Mr. Douglas is a great example of how pristine the beach area depicted there looked before development cut back the veg line.

Granted, the development between the Issa property and Barry's, along with the expansion of the Sandals property toward Cosmos, was a major change to that stretch of beach, and one should expect a change in the dynamics! But the trend, I still maintain, is disturbing.

Look... I'm not looking for conversions to my interpretation of what's going on... I've given up on that quite a few years ago. I'm only hoping that people come to understand that something IS going on, that there is evidence to support that there is something going on. And the last thing I'm trying to do with this post is to espouse support (or not) of the proposed barrier (for the record, I personally do not).

I AM trying to say that there are costs to the system for our enjoyment of that amazing beach. And I personally believe that there are forces that we (humanity) have unleashed that will have (and probably ARE having) adverse effects on beach and reef areas around the world. Feel free to kick the soap box out from under me at any time.... ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris B

. . . . But the trend, I still maintain, is disturbing.

. . . I'm only hoping that people come to understand that something IS going on, that there is evidence to support that there is something going on.

---

What trend? What is going on? What is the evidence? You've just seen empirical evidence to the contrary.

My first visit to Negril was in 1976. I walked the whole beach. I still walk the whole beach. I don't see any 'disturbing trend'. I've seen the sands go and then come back. If the waves and the wind are right, the sand gets pulled into the sea and settles off shore a little way out. Then the sea action brings it back in. Sometimes it shifts north, sometimes it shifts south. When the sand 'goes away', it doesn't evaporate, it's just off shore.

If there was a direct hit by a Cat 5 hurricane - then you would have something to worry about, but even then, over time, the beach would likely come back. I know, many people would believe 'we' caused the hurricane. I heard a guy on the radio the other day saying that humans caused earthquakes.

Why do people need to believe that 'we are destroying the planet'? What does that mean anyway? This planet will be here for another 4 billion years - until the sun goes supernova. Then it will be destroyed. We, on the other hand, will have disappeared several billions of years before that happens. We might not even be around for another 2,000 years. Given our current technology, we couldn't 'destroy' this planet - even if we wanted to.

So, chill out people, stop proselytizing. Have a Red Stripe, stop worrying, take a walk on the beach. Enjoy life.

Here is a photo taken last January of Footprint's and that tree at Barry's. We will be getting an updated picture - but the last time we were there a few months ago the beach was wider at Barry's than it was in this January pic.

Attachment 38808

I think that "disturbing" photo was taken a few years ago after a storm had passed, which with the active wave action always pulls the sand out, but then puts it back as nature sees fit.

Kahuna, only because you asked..... I'm really not trying to get into a p'ing match here. Like I said, I gave up on that long ago. As for where the evidence is, as well as the trend, the paper I referenced gives quite good data (good as in empirical) using satellite and flyover imagery overlaid on circa 2001 photos. It depicts the data very clearly for ease of understanding. And you're tight... the sand isn't "going anywhere"... its just being moved around and covered by the warm, crystal blue waters of the Caribbean. Take a look at the link if you want to see it... or don't... I don't really care.

I, too, and many of us here have also seen the sands go, and then wash up again... that's the dynamic of the beach. But again, the paper shows that over about 40 years (the study was published in 2012), since 1971, in the study area, the sand is doing more going out than coming in. Rob's beautiful photographs capture two moments in time some 14 years apart, from the same vantage point. And that's wonderful for anyone who was there around those particular times... money well spent, I'd say!

Not proselytizing, either. I'm only expressing my concerns relative to the OP's link, and noting that our enjoyment of the beach and our standard of living do have consequences. I'm sorry that the information doesn't jive with our hopes and wishes... but pointing to momentary ideals and extremes will not change the real data.

As for me, I WILL chill, I WILL have plenty of Stripes, I WILL walk the beach in whatever state it is come April. And I WILL, and normally do, enjoy life. But sorry... I won't stop worrying.

I hope, we are not trying to discuss with people, who claim that a melting Arctic ice [it is a floating ice, mind you] is going to raise level of oceans...

Agree with you Rob - my first thoughts when I saw this article was - this is an attempt to get people behind the breakwater project - sad that most people reading will not know that the info in the article is distorted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris B

I'm sorry that the information doesn't jive with our hopes and wishes... but pointing to momentary ideals and extremes will not change the real data.

---

My point exactly.

Here is a photo of the late Kirk Douglas on the Negril beach back in the late 50's.

Rob
With all due respect, reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.
Yours truly,
Kirk