The foot of a primary sand dune near me has grown by about 3 metres (towards the sea) in 4 years.
The council still loves their signs, "stay off the dunes due to erosion", or similar.
I agree, the "generic" signs are a good thing. But the dunes are growing, not eroding!! 
At first glance, it looks like they are eroding badly, but they are growing so fast that the next stormy high tide cuts into the front of the dune, and causes some collapse to the unstable but rapidly growing dunes.
Note: this is just an observation... 
That's the natural scheme of things, the cut at the front of the dune is termed a storm scarp. Sand with the aid of vegetation will build up until it is battered by the next storm. The last time I visited the 90 mile beach it had a high scarp like that for as far as I could see. That's a relatively remote and undisturbed beach
If vegetation is taken out by trampling or if the dune system has been modified by sand mining this battle between vegetation and the sea may not be present.
Some of the old surfies in the Illawarra also see this as a problem, but they are recalling the good old days just following sand mining ( a lot of it was apparently shipped to Hawaii to yellow up their volcanic beaches)
The beaches then were flatter and wider. With no vegetation to bind the windblown sand it kept on blowing, across the roads and into the suburbs.
That's also caused by global warming, I mean climate change.
Any change in anything is caused by climate change.
Like when you get your food out of the oven and it cools... yup you guessed it, climate change.
When you have a hot shower and the room steams up, that's right, climate change.
I reckon they need to increase the price of CO2, that should fix your dunes.
I hear that there will be a tax on that extra sand that you are enjoying for free next financial year.
Spot on simondo, we have a very similar situation here and the council are screaming erosion. Fact is that over the past 40 years the beach has grown over 30m. I've had several conversations with oceanic and geological consultants (it's my job) and they confirmed that most of the hype is propaganda for either personal gain or to support the climate change scare mongers.
Change is the natural order of things.
It's just humans who want things to stay the same
just remember that the sand came from somewhere, and it wil also be going somewhere, it just happens to be at your beach at the moment.
staying off the really fragile vegetation will let you keep it longer
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
21st Century's developed world went into hysterical panic over
a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree,
and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections,
combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate
a roll-back of the industrial age”.
Professor Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
OK, I'll bite.
Do any of you sceptics actually read any of the studies that are done? i.e. the peer-reviewed scientific studies on climate change?
Do you understand the concept of "peer-reviewed"?
Thousands of papers are produced each year by scientists around the globe. Guys and girls with a passion for science, for discovery, for enlightenment. Their papers are then reviewed by their peers within the scientific community to ensure that their methods are sound and their conclusions are appropriate. Then it gets published.
I read a lot of this stuff. It's not "propaganda", it's science, and the vast majority of it published supports the theory that man's activities are influencing the global climate.
If you don't believe me, then I beg of you to do the following:
1) Go and meet some scientists. Learn what type of people they are and the environment in which they work. That in itself should put paid to the hilarious concept that they are fabricating a global conspiracy in order to get more funding.
2) Go and read the scientific papers themselves, rather than repeating what someone told you in the pub or what the press have told you. Then we will have an informed debate without using words like "extremist" and "propaganda"
^^^ I agree with you...and I might be labelled a sceptic, as I have doubts about the control we have over climate change, although I'm a strong supporter of anything that will minimise our footprint, just not pushed by wrongly interpreted information. To clarify my comments, I wasn't referring to the scientific 'peer-reviewed' research as propaganda & extremists, as I definitely don't have the education (or brain cells) to understand the intricate details.
My comment-
"They also have a habit of making decisions from media hype and local extremists that are pushing their own agendas in order to gain local support." also "climate change scare mongers"
My comments were loosely targeted at those who read a snippet of the journals, or make their own assumptions and then push for immediate change in government or council without the proper research. Many of these people hold powerful positions in either government &/or media. The Carbon Tax is a good example of a knee-jerk reaction to hype.
My broad-brush on the scientists lining their own pockets for funding was a bit harsh and doesn't represent the majority, although I don't doubt that this is the case in 'some' where the ego & ambition drives many to verify their own hypotheses, regardless of the scientific value. The funding is tipped toward proving climate change and the effects...I haven't heard of any funding made available for disproving it, and if climate change were scientifically disproved, I'd assume that the masses would string up the scientists in question.
Sailhack thanks for coming back and making some great reasoned responses. Can't say I agree but you put forward a logical well argued case for what you believe, which leads to good discussion.
I'll add my piece when I'm not on lunch at work - but let me say that any scientific body that didn't follow the best scientific method (ie lied or exaggerated) would get picked up and ridiculed by their peers very very quickly. So it's not in their interest.
Harry potter - as an ex IT, the y2K bug is actually a really good example of a looming problem that was almost completely averted thanks to prior preparation and planning and lots of hard work. Clearly overhyped by the media, but then again thanks to the media every IT dept in the world allocated resources and cleaned up their own little problem areas.
I know some "scientists" and they all tell me it's a bs status quo club, no independent thought allowed or you'll be ridiculed and will never get another grant.
You publish exactly what you are being paid to publish, and in your spare time you talk it up so as to become more recognized.
Nothing that doesn't have the support of your fellow club members ever gets published, this is called peer review.
They all hate it, cos it's like a religion, no debate you follow or you're not a scientist.
One likened it to Paddington station (London), you choose a line and you get on the train.
My point: There are no "Existing climate cycle" lines in science, it's been closed.
Your sand dunes are growing quicker than the ocean is rising. But if the icecaps go the ocean has 60 to 80 metres up it's sleeve. As geological time goes, ice caps are the exception, we're mostly ice free. The current interglacial is due to end any millenium now. You can see how long the last interglacial 120,000 yrs ago lasted.
Maybe get a blister on your little finger, maybe get a blister on your thumb.
