Jump to content

Talk:Great storm of 1987

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Murraystrain (talk | contribs) at 17:26, 21 January 2014 (→Climatological context). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Untitled

The article isn't consistant about the number of people who died. Is it 18 or 19? Richard W.M. Jones 15:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Addressed, it is 19 confirmed in England and "at least 4" in France. I put this in the lead. Zerbey 16:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Atlantic Hurricanes category

Even though the article states that the storm wasn't a hurricane per se, should this article be placed in Category:Atlantic Hurricanes? --Andrew 20:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, for the reason you stated. It's not a hurricane nor should it be classified as such. Zerbey 20:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the Met Office

I think that the section where it says "The Met Office was severely criticised by journalists for failing to forecast the storm correctly.[citation needed]" does not need the [citation needed] in my opinion. --SkylordHedgehog (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Found a citation for it, reworded slightly from journalists to national press, changed to most as it seems some publications were more sympathetic to the Met Office (having interviewed the DG).--Lacunae (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparable hurricane strength?

This article isn't consistant, comparible to Cat3 hurricane (as stated by air pressure) or, Cat2? --Grand Edgemaster 17:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, comparable to a Cat 3 by air-pressure, but by it's mean windspeed of 86mph (recorded at sea) it would rate as a Cat 1. To be honest though, with sustained winds at just over 50mph when it hit land, it doesn't even rate as a hurricane at that point. Reference for the windspeed comes from the Met Office (http://www.metoffice.com/corporate/pressoffice/anniversary/storm1987.html). It'd be nice to see this information included and linked properly, and also maybe having the search phrases "October Hurricane" and "October 1987 Hurricane" lead here (although again I do not know how).
Actually the wind speeds given by the Met Office are comparable to a low cat 2 hurricane. We don't use the same measurement period as they do at the NHC. Still there is no way it was a hurricane though so it isn't really relevant.

Michael Fish

I have added info about the popular myth that weatherman Michael Fish reassured British viewers that there was "no hurricane on the way". He was talking about Florida when he said that, in a link to a news item. Unfortunately for him, it always gets replayed out of context. 143.252.80.110 10:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DOesn't that comment in the article need a citation?--206.165.32.108 14:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this section beneath "Effects" as it is arguably not as significant.Halsteadk 16:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it needs citation. After lots of searching on this, these seem to be Fish's claims but there seem to be no video records available. 213.210.52.122 16:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that Michael Fish is now making the claim, but I am unconvinced. My recollection was that severe weather had been forecast in France for France and Southern England, and a viewer who had heard the French forecast rang to enquire if it was true. The Met office at that point supposed that the storms would hit Spain, though some time later decided they might have a limited effect in England.Chemical Engineer 16:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, what Fish says is true. I remember seeing him do that weather broadcast in 1987, and the following day, after the storm and the media claptrap I was saying "but he never said that!" even then StanPomeray (talk) 13:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

michael fish himself recently issued a podcast about his forecast via netweather.tv Crimsone 00:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The tone of this section indicates that Michael Fish's subsequent claims are entirely true - it is more than a possibility that this was just a positive spin after the event. I've therefore edited the paragraph to (hopefully) sound more neutral. Also, I don't think the technicality on the use of the word hurricane is valid, as it may have been referring to hurricane force, which is perfectly valid in the UK. Halsteadk (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon LeVay's book, When Science Goes Wrong has an interview with the actual woman who had made that call to the office, Mrs. Anita Hart of Pinner (near London). She was talking about a caravan trip to Wales, not the Caribbean. And when told that Michael Fish insisted it was about Florida, she said, "That's absolute nonsense. That's not true at all. Obviously his story changed." US ISBN 9780452289321, page 48.

You can judge for yourselves. The forecast is on YouTube. Both at the time, and on looking at the clip now, I don't see how anyone could possibly say he was talking about anywhere other than England. I don't even see why Fish should need to deny. The Met Office (a) predicted strong winds, and (b) undersetimated the actual strength. There's no dispute about that. And Michael Fish's intro to his forecast reflected both aspects. Escoville ([[User talk:Escoville|talk]]) 15:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is right to remain neutral and be left as it is. However, I too am sure on looking at the clip and from memory that Fish was talking about Britain. My mother in law who lives in France phoned us that noght to take care as they had warned of the storm on the French news. If the French knew, why did'nt we. Ok , so that's hearsay, but what should be stated is that it was also the dismissive way that Fish answered the questioner that has not helped his case.

Mystery?

It's no mystery how a low could form that strong, it has happened on occasion, just rare. Also, I do not believe the explanation with the jet stream and Hurricane Floyd is anything but rubbish. -Runningonbrains 05:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to agree with you completely before quickly checking via google. It certainly seems odd that after all this time nobody would have been able to identify the precise reason for the deepening. Unfortunately though, the best explanation I've been able to find is here. It seems that not even the Met Office has an explanation on the site beyond simply saying that it originated in the Bay of Biscay and then deepened. Whether Floyd had anything to do with it is quite questionable being speculative as it is, and the assertion may have its roots (perhaps) in the popular mix-up of the two storms at the time. Being at the ideal position at the Jet Stream though seems like a plausible explanation. The above link at least contains a link to satellite images from formation to dissipation. I guess the only way to know for sure with regards to the relative position of the Jet and the Low would be to look up archived charts for that period - something I don't have immediately available. All in all, I think it right that the section should be disputed, though I don't know if it's nessecarily incorrect. Crimsone 09:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Three months on and it seems no-one proposes any correction and that there is, effectively, no dispute. I propose to remove the disputed tag although if any editor reading this can take the point further forward, it would be wonderful if they would edit to do so. In the meantime, I may have a tinker myself to address the points made above. Cheers. Chelseaboy 12:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sting Jet

There is a theory emerging that a phenomenon, which is being called a "Sting Jet", may have been responsible for the more intense winds and therefore more disastrous effects of this storm in 1987.

The idea seems to involve very dry air from the stratosphere being drawn into the cyclonic activity which then, by evaporating ice crystals and water droplets, cools further and becomes more dense. As a consequence, it then descends rapidly, possibly aided by jetstream activity, and forms a narrow band of very intense wind at the surface.

Does anyone have access to further information about or research into this phenomenon, in order to provide an appropriate link for this article?

WiffleTree 16:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Yorkshiresky

WiffleTree 13:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane comparison

Oh, come on peeps! I made that edit in the lede for two reasons - one was because any such comparison is grossly inaccurate and misleading, not becoming of an encyclopedic entry. The second was to make sure that it gave the facts about that comparison (and even there I could go further!), which to tell the truth, appears to me as enough to read like a joke were it not for real. I pointed out something that I'm sure would otherwise have been argued over quite fervantly had the point not been correctly made... and yet nobodies seen fit to remove the comparison... The mind boggles Crimsone (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, a recent edit trying to address it... unfortunately the way in which it was addressed was not appropriate owing to the fact that the storm was not a hurricane by any definition (even asking the question is a form of weasel wording), even as per stated by the met office in source six... I've (sadly) reverted back to the original prior to that edit, as it is the most factually correct. Ideally, that entire lot about it being "categorty whatever on the saffire simpson scale", and any referece to it being a hurricane because of the beufort scale (which says hurricane force... being quite different) needs to be removed. The alternative, is to explain such references away with material facts per the way the article appears now. Crimsone (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath: Subjective?

Surely "when in hindsight it could have been better to simply let nature re-assert itself." is purely subjective opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JcFxJcFx (talk • contribs) 19:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Seven Oaks

The association of the seven oak trees on The Vine with the name of Sevenoaks is comparatively late. The fact is that the oak trees on the Vine were planted as recently as 1902 to commemorate the coronation of Edward VII, as described in the WP entry for Sevenoaks. I believe it was in the early 1960s that a group of seven oak trees beside the Tonbridge Road were deemed unsafe and were felled and replaced with saplings. There was some fuss locally at the time because there was a body of opinion that these were the relevant seven oaks and that the old trees could have been made safe for many years with comparatively little work. Whatever the truth of that, the erroneous story that the Vine was the site of the seven oaks grew from of journalistic urge to create a story when six of these seven trees were felled in the great storm. It was then reported that Sevenoaks should be renamed Oneoak, this being a far better story than that the actual seven oaks had survived the storm so the version purveyed here gained currency. treesmill (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derecho? / Remove [citation needed] ?

A question and a thought for the stakeholders of this article:

Q: Would this be what has recently been called a derecho? (Perhaps use of this term by the US NOAA has no relevance to the Met. Office.)

T: Re: "Peak wind velocities were in the early hours of the morning, which probably reduced the death toll.[citation needed]". This is in the nature of a common sense discussion of the topic with the less informed, the author(s) with the reader, by way of giving perspective. I feel this is appropriately encyclopedic. (I feel Wikipedia sometimes goes too far towards term paper / thesis / dissertation rules, sacrificing understandability by lay audiences and the feel of an encyclopedia ["Medieval Latin encyclopaedia course of general education, from Greek enkyklios + paideia education, child rearing, from paid-, pais child" -- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/encyclopedia.) If necessary, this could be weakened to, "Peak wind velocities were in the early hours of the morning, possibly reducing the death toll;" but no cite is needed since this is just discussion, and it is common sense that more people are at home in bed in the early hours--one could add, "See circadian rhythm", but really?

No response needed for either; edit if appropriate. Thank you. Cheers! Laguna CA (talk) 07:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't a derecho which is associated with mesoscale convective systems but a more common, though exceptionally strong, extra-tropical storm with a sting jet.yorkshiresky (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"GREAT" STORM HITTING WHERE MEDIA LIVE MEANS IT WAS EXAGERRATED FOR MUCH OF ENGLAND.

It appears obvious to me that the only reason we're even hearing about this storm over 25 years later is that it cut a swathe through just the areas where the national media live ie London, Surrey, Essex, Kent etc. In much of the rest of the country it was nowhere near as exceptional as is portrayed - it was even completely true of all the South-East qv I was living in Wycombe, south Bucks at the time and it wasn't particularly memorable there. The storm which lasted around 2 days in 1990 was far more damaging and I personally remember watching most of a small wood ot trees blow over mid-morning that year there was nothing like that around there in 1987. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.75.48 (talk) 08:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel

Deleted this line because it was irrelevant - who cares that there will be another storm, of significantly less power, in 2013? Also, it was phrased in the wankiest fashion ('a sequel is expected'). Twat.87.115.23.197 (talk) 11:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, thanks for the edit. Twat. – Juliancolton | Talk 13:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Climatological context

I've added a note which I hope makes it clearer why this is considered a "myth". In short it seems like media and even the Met Office took the return period of the winds in this storm to mean a storm of this kind would only occur on average once in 200 years, not as having a 0.05% chance of happening every year (see note and return period) then scoured the history books, and found a storm occurring in a similar area 284 years earlier and decided that this was close enough to 200 years and declared 1987 as the worst storm since, in southern England, Britain, even Europe. -of course there is no adequate reference I have found for this, to make it clearer in the article- But the 1990 storm was certainly more powerful.

Hanley and Caballero (2012) Characteristics of the top 25 most destructive Western Continental European storms for the period 1958-2001 top 10 ranking.[1]

That this storm only reaches 15th in 40 years of late 20 Century storms, only makes the claim of worst in 200 years seem less likely. Though yes, it did cause a lot of damage in a highly populated region, and caused a lot of media sensation due to the forecasting.Lacunae (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Hanley, John (2012). "The role of large-scale atmospheric flow and Rossby wave breaking in the evolution of extreme windstorms over Europe". Geophysical Research Letters. 39 (21): n/a–n/a. doi:10.1029/2012GL053408. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

1-in-200 = 0.5% not 0.05% - that would be 1-in-2000. You probably knew that anyway. Murraystrain (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_storm_of_1987&oldid=591740281"