skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Grenen is the most northerly point in Jutland, and is effectively where the North Sea meets the Kattegat (which then meets the Baltic). Near the town of Skagen, it translates as 'the branch', as that is what it would be if Denmark were a tree. At the time of writing 'you can't stand up out there' which a resident of Skagen, John Skånberg, said. This is due to strong gales. This is because it is where the south westerly Atlantic maritime and Polar continental prevailing winds have gathered most energy before meeting each other and dispersing.
The spit is formed by a meeting of the Atlantic Ocean's currents and the Baltic's currents. As the Atlantic is far larger than the Baltic it carries far more energy and therefore it deposits some of its load where the two currents meet, thus creating 'Grenen'. It is as though the Atlantic is the sea and the Baltic is the estuary as you would find with the more conventional spits, such as Spurn Head. However a major difference with this particular landform is that the currents of the two seas defelct upwards, which allows more sediment to be deposited as both seas lose even more energy. Like a spit, it will not be able to reach its nearest landform, likely to be a Swedish island, depending on its direction, as the Atlantic current will be able to squeeze through. Once Grenen reaches its maximum length there will be wave refraction giving the end a hook shape.
However, as the Baltic loses a lower percentage of its energy as the Atlantic absorbs it, there is a problem on the eastern side of Grenen. This problem is erosion. The Danish government and Skagen council have an effective, cheap and environmentally friendly approach to this using soft coastal management. Stony wave breakers have been built. It is evident that this has stopped erosion, as the beach is about 10m back in areas where there are no wave breakers. However, as evident in the picture, the longshore drift may erode the longer strips of beach protected by the wave breakers and alienate them as islands, meaning a slightly harder approach is needed, which will unfortunately be unfriendly to finance and nature alike. As bathing is banned, a possible approach could be to line the vast majority of the east side with these wave breakers, without ruining the experience for tourists. A beach nourishment or sea wall scheme would also see erosion cut much less. A sea wall would help greatly as long as the wave breakers were kept, but this would be expensive and not aesthetically pleasing.
Due to changes in wind speed, temporary changes in prevailing winds, changes in sediment output and wave refraction, means that the tip of Grenen is changing on an almost daily basis. If you're a resident or regular visitor to the area this is what makes the experience every time and is one of the reasons why it's such a popular tourist destination, as well as the excitement of standing at the end of Denmark and Europe. It would be interesting to see what the trend change in Grenen is, so we could make a prediction into where this spit will soon travel.
Dedicated to Oliver Skånberg Tippen, whose family is from Skagen. Unfortunately whilst on a trip to Colombia in April he was kidnapped. Despite losing two fingers and his left ear in this messy process, the ransom money is slowly being coughed up. Hang on in there and kick the cocaine habit. FREE OLLIE!
With North Korea almost constantly being in the news I thought that I'd give this post a bit of a twist. I will Contrast the two capitals and make a final judgement on which one should be the nation's capital if and when they unify. Pyongyang is the capital of the generally poorer and communist north, whereas Seoul is the capital of the richer and capitalist south.
Population wise both cities are the largest in their region. Pyongyang has a population of almost 3,500,000 in a country with a population of 23,000,000. Whereas Seoul is one of the largest cities in the world with a population of about 10,500,000 in a country with a population of 48,000,000. Pyongyang is in a larger country area wise and both are located close to the border, so it would be slightly more central and accessible to those in remote mountainous areas. However London, like Seoul, is the UK's largest city and imagine the uproar if they moved parliament to Birmingham (as well as Seoul being more central than Birmingham) and for that reason round 1 goes to Seoul.
It does seem a bit stupid to have a round on economics, but I will make points anyway. Seoul is renowned for its 'miracle on the Han river' when its financial centre saw the South Korean economy grow from 0 after the Korean war to $1 trillion+. Seoul is the tenth most important business centre in the world and the over GDP is in excess of $200bn. Its economy is driven by banking (Deutsche Bank) and hi-tech industries (Samsung), so has obviously been hit pretty hard by the recession. The infrastructure of the city is world class with an underground and more broadband connections than anywhere else in the world, which is in contrast to Pyongyang which has no worldwide internet connection. Pyongyang's economy is self-sufficient and is mainly concentrated on state run heavy industries, such as tool making. Famine and financial crisis are common, but the recent nuclear tests shows North Korea's determination to become as developed as its southerly neighbour. Unsurprisingly I have awarded round 2 to Seoul.
The final round is based on culture. There are many stereotypes about Korean culture, mainly involving dog meat, but both cities are very different. Seoul is much like Tokyo in the sense that its an east meets west culture shock. However it keeps to its Korean traditions with 5 grand palaces and original city walls. It has Korea's national museum and the Bukchon Hanok Village where original Korean housing still stands (being a cynic you could see this all over Pyongyang). Perhaps its clincher is the major sports events it has held. The 1988 Summer Olympics were held here in the Olympic stadium and the opening ceremony and a semi final of the 2002 FIFA World Cup was held in its atmospheric football stadium. Pyongyang, does however, provide sterner competition than in the previous two rounds. Despite there being unwanted sites of historic Korea there are far more traditional sites than in Seoul. However the entire centre of Pyongyang is quite chilling with huge monuments and the 330m hotel that is yet to be opened (making it the world's largest unopened structure). Another modern wonder is the world's largest stadium. Home to athletics and the national football team it is more than double the capacity of any stadium in South Korea at 150,000 and is one of the greatest engineering feats of all time. The Tomb of King Dongmyeyong is perhaps the most impressive site in the whole of Korea and it is after all the country's traditional capital and held that post until the war. I'm going to go a bit soft and call this a draw, as they both have a lot of positives.
Overall Seoul is the obvious choice, because of its far greater population and its links have been firmly rooted into the wider world, whereas Pyongyang's haven't at all.
There are many ways in which green energy on an island nation such as the UK should be utilised. The best way in which I believe (other than offshore wind farms off of the west coast of Scotland) is a barrage over the River Severn.
The River Severn's energy has a huge amount of energy stored in it, because of the sheer amount of water flowing into it, more than any other river in England and Wales. The best way to utilise this would be too build the barrage slightly further back from the outer barrage area on the map, so the barrage can achieve its full potential with both the energy of the tides and Severn bore. This would generate approximately 15 GW of energy (5% of UK total), however it has been stated the bore could be eliminated by a barrage.
The advantages of this scheme would see 25% of the governments green energy targets met. Another green advantage would be its carbon payback, which would take around a year. It'll also protect the immediate area from coastal flooding as well as benefiting the area's economy by providing jobs in construction and tourism. It could also provide new road and rail links which will have a longer lifetime than the suspension bridges. Many have argued about the wiping out of habitat, but the reduced turbidity of the water will see more birds and fish come to the area.
There are some disadvantages however. The main two are the assessment and eventual change of industrial activity and discharge into the Severn and the difficulty of ships being able to navigate it, meaning the building of locks and the loss of some energy produced. There would also be increased coastal erosion around the barrage and the potential loss of habitat and feeding ground for birds, as it is one of the largest areas of mud flats in Europe.
Whatever the environmental costs of this operation, it is potentially the largest energy producing region inside the UK and if left untouched with green energy as a whole the cost would be much greater worldwide.
When water freezes into ice it floats on top of the denser water. This is because water molecules are less spread out than the colder ice particles. This helps the movement and flow of water as the ice melts seasonally, helping the major currents of the ocean along with prevailing winds.
The gulf stream is largely responsible for such a mild climate in the UK, as well as being an island, meaning the sea will store the heat much better than land. If the gulf stream stops or slows down this could see a very different climate for the UK, especially in winter. As the gulf stream is a warm current, a slow down in it will see colder and more extreme winters, something, which as proved by the snowy period in January, the government is clearly not prepared for. Personally I believe that the gulf stream will not grind to a halt, because of the warm south westerly prevailing wind that drives it, but I do think that the melting of the ice will slow it down to a noticeable effect. If another major snowfall occurs, this should back up my prediction.
Some scientists have predicted that the melting of the ice caps will see a chemical imbalance in the world gases, due to the ice storing them, and seeing a vast amount of poisonous gas, such as methane, being released into the atmosphere. It has been proved in Russia that some ice contains methane, but not enough to have catastrophic effects on society, which I agree with, as other life had lived for millions of years with no ice sheets, such as the dinosaurs.
Obviously a very well known problem is the rising sea levels that the melting ice sheets will bring on. This could see cities such as London, Portsmouth and Hull. These cities can be saved if the sea is allowed to reclaim some unused or agricultural land. This will please and save the majority of people, whilst allowing nature take its course.
As the name of the isle suggests, the Isle of Wight is fast becoming a ghost town. Having been there last Tuesday the place had a feel of nothingness about it, despite claims that it is the South East's fastest growing economy. With little job prospects for 9 months of the year, is it any wonder why the centre of Ryde is looking a bit worse for wear? I wouldn't say it was horrible at all, safety is not an issue, but a tourist resort should surely be a bit more pleasing on the eye.
The Royal York Hotel, once the pride of the town, has gone into disrepair. This is a stinging message that something must be done, especially since Vestas, the Danish wind turbine manufacturer,and the island's largest employer relocated to the USA. In my opinion there needs to be more of a link with the main land, no matter what the ultra traditional Conservative council says. However, the Isle should remain a perfect plae for retirement and should never lose its rural roots.
What I propose, which the island's MP will agree with, is to immediately demonopolise Wightlink, and make it cheaper for everyone to visit the island, as quite frankly the public are being had. It becomes very hard for the islanders to see family and get jobs elsewhere, no matter how skilled they are. After Wightlink has been demonopolised the serious work can start without the opposition on the greedy ferry company. Firstly the train links need to be improved, with the Island Line being extended to Ventnor, with other branch lines going from Ryde to Yarmouth, via Fishbourne and Newport, as well as a branch line from Newport to Cowes. Then one bridge can be built from Yarmouth to Lymington. The rail will link with the Lymington branch line and the road will link the A3054 to the A337 on the mainland. This will act as a route for residents to find work in cities such as Southampton and Bournemouth, whilst businesses may set up on the island as its the cheapest place in the South East. The beauty spots will be protected and due to the fairly remote location of the bridge, the island will not become overpopulated by commuters.
On the image the blue shows the current island line, the red shows the Ventnor extension, the purple shows the Ryde-Yarmouth line, the pale yellow shows the Newport-Cowes line. The yellow shows the road/rail bridge.
