UK tsunamis
N_Cook
tonight on the box
04 Oct 2008 20:10 BBC Two
Tsunamis are among the most destructive forces known to Man, but most of us
in Britain think they are one thing we don't need to worry about. Professors
Simon Haslett and Ted Bryant have already challenged this view, with their
belief that the Bristol Channel flood of 1607 - one of Britain's greatest
natural disasters - was in fact a tsunami. But the story doesn't stop
there - in Britain's Forgotten Floods, Simon and Ted investigate evidence
for what they believe are at least four more British tsunamis.
Joining them on their journey around the British coastline is historian and
scientist Vanessa Collingridge, presenter of Radio 4's Making History.
Vanessa will be weighing up the evidence, and also looking back to the
Lisbon tsunami of 1755, an almost forgotten disaster that had a profound
effect on Britain, and changed the course of European history.
--
General electronic repairs, other than TVs and PCs
http://www.divdev.fsnet.co.uk/repairs.htm
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
Martin Rowley
> 04 Oct 2008 20:10 BBC Two
>
> Tsunamis are among the most destructive forces known to Man, but
> most of > us in Britain think they are one thing we don't need to
> worry about.
> Professors Simon Haslett and Ted Bryant have already challenged this
> view, with their belief that the Bristol Channel flood of 1607 - one
> of
> Britain's greatest natural disasters - was in fact a tsunami.
... I wasn't convinced regarding the 1606 (or 1607 - depending which
dating system is used) flood being due to under-sea plate movement.
Using the quoted contemporary reports here:-
http://www.soton.ac.uk/~imw/chestorm.htm
[scroll down to 1606]
I can't see anything which *significantly* suggests an event that was
anything other than a wind-driven storm surge. Given the geography of
the Bristol Channel / Severn Estuary, I wonder why we need a more
convoluted explanation?
However, that's not to deny that a tsunami couldn't afflict these
islands, either in the past or the future. It's just that I haven't
yet seen any evidence that this particular event should be used as
evidence.
Martin.
--
Martin Rowley
West Moors, East Dorset (UK): 17m (56ft) amsl
Lat: 50.82N Long: 01.88W
NGR: SU 082 023
Anne Burgess
> these islands, either in the past or the future. It's just
> that I haven't yet seen any evidence that this particular
> event should be used as evidence.
How on earth can anyone make a whole programme about the threat
of tsunamis to the British Isles without at least mentioning the
Storegga Slide, and still expect the programme to be credible?
Certainly, the most recent Storegga event was long before the
very short (in geological terms) period they chose to examine,
but that and the potential La Palma collapse are more widely
accepted as tsunami threats than any of the speculative causes
mentioned in the programme apart from Lisbon.
And did I hear right when someone referred to the Lisbon
earthquake as a minor event? It may have produced only a minor
tsunami in Britain, but surely it was a major event as far as
European history was concerned?
Anne
Col
"Martin Rowley" <booty.wea...@REMOVEvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:zb%Fk.2254$qx1...@newsfe13.ams2...
> "N_Cook" wrote ...
> > 04 Oct 2008 20:10 BBC Two
> ... interesting programme: quite watchable and not _too_ 'dramatic'.
> >
> > Tsunamis are among the most destructive forces known to Man, but
> > most of > us in Britain think they are one thing we don't need to
> > worry about.
> > Professors Simon Haslett and Ted Bryant have already challenged this
> > view, with their belief that the Bristol Channel flood of 1607 - one
> > of
> > Britain's greatest natural disasters - was in fact a tsunami.
> <snip rest>
>
> ... I wasn't convinced regarding the 1606 (or 1607 - depending which
> dating system is used) flood being due to under-sea plate movement.
> Using the quoted contemporary reports here:-
>
> http://www.soton.ac.uk/~imw/chestorm.htm
> [scroll down to 1606]
>
That page insists that the 1703 Daniel Defore storm and one in 1824
(which I wasn't aware of) were true hurricanes. Surely not??
Col
--
Bolton, Lancashire.
160m asl.
Martin Rowley
<snip>
>
> That page insists that the 1703 Daniel Defore storm and one in 1824
> (which I wasn't aware of) were true hurricanes. Surely not??
>
... not sure what that statement was based on, but I don't think there
is any argument amongst historical climatologists that at the least, a
strong 'extra-tropical' element was involved, despite the lateness of
the season. Here some extracts from Lamb (Historic Storms / published
1991 / Cambridge UP):-
.. " Defoe .. adds that 'we are told they felt upon that coast
[Florida and Virginia] an unusual Tempest a few days before the fatal
27th of November (old - style dating); the respected climatologist
C.E.P. Brooks wrote that ' a few days before the 26th a West Indian
hurricane travelled up the coast of Florida and out into the
Atlantic'."
.. " The progress of the great storm in early December (New Style)
1703 across Europe is consistent with an origin near Florida about
four days earlier. It also appears remarkable how this storm continued
its steady march, seemingly uninfluenced either in direction or speed
by the proximity near the coast of Europe of an older, and still deep,
depression. These observations probably support the suggestion that it
originated as a tropical storm, possibly of hurricane strength. "
(etc.)
.. " There is some support for the hint already made by Defoe in 1704
that the great storm may have originated as a West Indian hurricane
.."
Whether modern analysts drawing up a chart at Exeter or elsewhere
would recognise it as a *pure* hurricane (with the attendant upper
thermal structure) I can't say - my *instinct* says that this was an
amalgam of a rapidly developing/running mid-latitude storm sweeping up
a strong core of tropical moisture/heat running underneath the
developmental area of a powerful upper jet, this latter being enhanced
by the injection of the heat (sensible & latent) from the tropical
disturbance.
Norman
> would recognise it as a pure hurricane (with the attendant upper
> thermal structure) I can't say - my instinct says that this was an
> amalgam of a rapidly developing/running mid-latitude storm sweeping
> up a strong core of tropical moisture/heat running underneath the
> developmental area of a powerful upper jet, this latter being
> enhanced by the injection of the heat (sensible & latent) from the
> tropical disturbance.
>
> Martin.
Florida to western Europe in 4 days seems a bit quick. From the waters
off Florida to the waters off the west of the British Isles is about
3500 miles. This implies a speed of movement averaging around 35 knots
over 4 days.
--
Norman Lynagh
Chalfont St Giles, Buckinghamshire
85m a.s.l.
(remove "thisbit" twice to e-mail)
Weatherlawyer
There seems to be an unknown reason for such assertions. The route was
well travelled by men who were pragmatists if uninspired.
Or even if they had a measure of insight; stymied by ignorance.
It just wasn't possible in those times. Even with satellites and
internet connections I can't knock the obvious into the blockheads who
know better.
> Whether modern analysts drawing up a chart at Exeter or elsewhere
> would recognise it as a *pure* hurricane (with the attendant upper
> thermal structure) I can't say - my *instinct* says that this was an
> amalgam of a rapidly developing/running mid-latitude storm sweeping up
> a strong core of tropical moisture/heat running underneath the
> developmental area of a powerful upper jet, this latter being enhanced
> by the injection of the heat (sensible & latent) from the tropical
> disturbance.
Google being up the stump at the moment and the alternative not
accepting my new password until I can supply the one I have
forgotted....
Norman[_2_] writed:
> Florida to western Europe in 4 days seems a bit quick.
> From the waters off Florida to the waters off the west
> of the British Isles is about 3500 miles.
>
> This implies a speed of movement averaging around 35 knots
> over 4 days.
Or more likely another storm.
Search and see if wet weather in Britain isn't concurrent with wet
weather in Florida.