I gotta' know your thoughts on this!
https://www.yahoo.com/travel/jamaica...062081327.html
See you in November...
Bruce
Printable View
I gotta' know your thoughts on this!
https://www.yahoo.com/travel/jamaica...062081327.html
See you in November...
Bruce
Cosmo's one month ago.
Back in the 80s I kept some Hobies there.
The beach was less than half as wide as now
Attachment 38801
I wonder when the picture in the article was taken? When I was that location in Feb. the beach was as wide as it has ever been in my 30 years of visiting. Ps. having jerk pork and red stripes for supper with friends and watching the Blue Bombers kick some Ottawa butt!
Good thing Jamaica has more to offer than just sand and sea.
Music, food, people, etc.
But, I really hope the sand stays.
Gotta stay some way????
Thanks capt.
We can generally say about any stretch of beach that the ocean giveth and the ocean taketh away... and if you spend enough time on our favorite beach, we see this happen from week to week. But of greater concern is the general decade over decade trend, and the news is not good. I recently Googled the "Negril Tree" that everyone is familiar with at Barry's Bar near SweptAway. I found a scholarly report about the recession of beach along what we know as Seven Mile; the report uses photographic evidence dating back to the '60's and '70's, as well as known soundings of the beach bottom out into those crystal clear, warm Caribbean waters. I'd have to dig the darn thing up again from the interweb, but I was quite discouraged at the findings.
I get it that we all have our own opinions about global warning and (my opinion) the cop-out term climate change. I've been personally building an awareness of my metaphorical footprint since reading 1970's Future Shock by Alvin Toffler. Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, though controversial, offered me no surprises given this awareness. I guess I'm saying that I might be hypersensitive to this issue, but that's my thing.
I appreciate the photo that captaind gives us at Cosmo's last month, but we need to also be aware that development and beach use, including sand compaction, power boat use, and other human activity, also affects the character of the beach over time. Over the years, I've seen the beach at SweptAway swallow the beach bars there, and spit them back out over the course of six months. The beach along the new development there has generally narrowed over the last 10 years since that expansion, near to Barry's Negril Tree. I'm quite sure that others have had the opposite experience based on when they had their toes in that sand, but I don't know how many of them have been there consistently at the same time of year as I have over the last 20 years.
Yes, storms and weather also take their toll, and there can be no arguing that those are cyclic over time. But I'd be really interested to see how those who have spent their entire lives there perceive these cycles... is the trend one way or another? The folks quoted in the article appear pessimistic, which gives me a bit of an answer. I, for example, grew up in east-central Wisconsin. I have memories of winters that have been harsh more often than mild... that has changed in my 60 years on this planet to be more frequently mild than severe (ok, last year was a real bear, but that has to be considered weather... not climate).
So yeah... I find what I'M seeing to be a bit disturbing.
Humans are the most invasive and destructive species on the planet. And a lot of drama in that article, as writers are wont to do.
I live in Pensacola FL and our beach is dwindling also.. the powers that be did a lot of research and are bringing back the beach by dredging sea sand back onto the beach.. it worked great here, and with the added bonus of finding unbelievable sea shells (we usually don't get much) for days after the dredging..
"I wonder when the picture in the article was taken? When I was that location in Feb. the beach was as wide as it has ever been in my 30 years of visiting." - This statement is totally false. I have observed the Negril Beach, in February, for the past 30 years and it has been Much larger than it was this past February. Not Even Close!
I’m going to do some research later this month while I’m home.
There are three properties I’m very familiar with. They are at 2 mile 4 mile and Cosmo’s.
I have occasion to be pulling title documents for Zion Hill and while I’m at it I’m going to look at the title maps for those three properties. It’s public record and cost 1,500 JA to get a copy
The plats are drawn from the middle of the surveyed road (Manley Blvd) and that hasn’t moved.
Those titles have boundaries and acreage measurements and can be compared with the actual measurements today.
My guess it that the sand bar you call the “beach” is narrower at the south end of the bight and wider at the North end.
The issue may be that the South end has more build up that encroaches.
I think the beach is moving North.
Cap
Great idea - looking forward to your findings :)
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.... ;-)
What trend? What is going on? What is the evidence? You've just seen empirical evidence to the contrary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris B
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.
My point exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris B
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
To me the beach has made a comeback in the last couple of years! In 2012 the water was hitting the bar in front of Treehouse. This past May, there was plenty of sand.
Attachment 38809
This picture was taken at least 4-5 years ago or more. That's Lazy Dayz and that roof was built long time ago.
My first reaction was that it was a "hit piece"
My apologies Mr.Douglas. 97 years and still with us.Quote:
Originally Posted by slimjim
Attachment 38814
I don't want to get into the debate on size but when if first saw this pic and the vid of "natives" chasing him down the beach I never equated it to less beach back then. I always assumed that because of the lack of development the jungle encroached further into what we think of as the beach today. Bulldoze the beach resorts and remaining jungle and you would have one heck of a deep beach.
I loved the beach 26 years ago and I still love it today. Remember, it's not the size it's how you use it.
I think as you RumloverQuote:
Originally Posted by Rumlover
Another opinion...
http://jablogz.com/2014/10/negril-is-doomed/
An article like this befuddles me...I have never seen the beach as wide as it is now and have been going there for 20 years..but I am easily befuddled..close inspection will be done in 3 weeks..with a red stripe in hand..
The beach in Negril ebbs and flows with the storms. I think the only way we can really judge is as Cap D suggests - measure from a fixed point, in this case, the middle of the road.
Mary Veira from Couples asked me to post these pics, taken on the beach at Lazy Dayz. These are meant to demonstrate Mother Nature at work.
March 29th, 2013:
Attachment 38832
May 19th, 2013:
Attachment 38833
April 19th, 2014:
Attachment 38834
October 6th, 2014:
Attachment 38835
I love Negril and will always enjoy my visits there. However, my other favourite spot is a less known gem of a place in Cuba. Same issue there too. One day there is lots of beach then a storm comes along and the very next day there is almost no beach at all. Then another storm hits and then there is plenty of beach again. It is the beautiful ebb and flow of mother nature doing what she does best... change.