Great Storm, 1703 - worse than today, or an event we need to plan for again

[whole diary]

[grahame]

320 year ago, from WikiPedia

The Great storm of 1703 was a destructive extratropical cyclone that struck central and southern England on 26 November 1703. High winds caused 2,000 chimney stacks to collapse in London and damaged the New Forest, which lost 4,000 oaks. Ships were blown hundreds of miles off-course, and over 1,000 sea men died on the Goodwin Sands alone. News bulletins of casualties and damage were sold all over England – a novelty at that time ...

I read this in absolute horror at the death and destruction wrought by the weather. I compare it to the recent extreme weather events we have seen which, though descructive in parts amd places, have not lead in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) to the same loss of life and the same effect on property and transport.  Is this because it was more extreme in weather terms, or because of the less robust infrastructure and lack of warning systems in place in those days??

[ellendune]

Is this because it was more extreme in weather terms, or because of the less robust infrastructure and lack of warning systems in place in those days??

I suspect elements of all three.

We are certainly getting extreme events more frequently these days due, almost certainly to man made climate change, but that does not mean that does not mean that events as extreme as those we are experiencing now did not happen before, merely that they are happening more frequently. 

Storm Babet had that sort of impact on buildings in the Chanel islands and northern France, but building regulations and the test of time (weak buildings have not survived) mean that buildings are generally more resilient. 

As recently as the 1953 east coast floods, lack of warning was the major factor in the loss of life and that may well have been the issue with the number of lives lost at sea in 1703. 

[Mark A]

It was a terrible storm, and yes, shipping and buildings more vulnerable - but yes, we'd struggle today (and did with the October 1987 event even though it was of a different nature, impacted a smaller area, and though it was very violent, was of short duration).

Mark

[CyclingSid]

Well worth reading Daniel Defoe's book on it, available as a Penguin Classic. Similarly his book on the Great Plague, think we had a problem with Covid?

[TaplowGreen]

320 year ago, from WikiPedia

The Great storm of 1703 was a destructive extratropical cyclone that struck central and southern England on 26 November 1703. High winds caused 2,000 chimney stacks to collapse in London and damaged the New Forest, which lost 4,000 oaks. Ships were blown hundreds of miles off-course, and over 1,000 sea men died on the Goodwin Sands alone. News bulletins of casualties and damage were sold all over England – a novelty at that time ...

I read this in absolute horror at the death and destruction wrought by the weather. I compare it to the recent extreme weather events we have seen which, though descructive in parts amd places, have not lead in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) to the same loss of life and the same effect on property and transport.  Is this because it was more extreme in weather terms, or because of the less robust infrastructure and lack of warning systems in place in those days??

I can find no accounts of any infrastructure or staff shortage related delays or cancellations on the Transwilts or in the Thames Valley on the date in question, therefore I assume that the infrastructure and staff were in fact MORE robust and resilient in those days 

[froome]

320 year ago, from WikiPedia

The Great storm of 1703 was a destructive extratropical cyclone that struck central and southern England on 26 November 1703. High winds caused 2,000 chimney stacks to collapse in London and damaged the New Forest, which lost 4,000 oaks. Ships were blown hundreds of miles off-course, and over 1,000 sea men died on the Goodwin Sands alone. News bulletins of casualties and damage were sold all over England – a novelty at that time ...

I read this in absolute horror at the death and destruction wrought by the weather. I compare it to the recent extreme weather events we have seen which, though descructive in parts amd places, have not lead in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) to the same loss of life and the same effect on property and transport.  Is this because it was more extreme in weather terms, or because of the less robust infrastructure and lack of warning systems in place in those days??

I can find no accounts of any infrastructure or staff shortage related delays or cancellations on the Transwilts or in the Thames Valley on the date in question, therefore I assume that the infrastructure and staff were in fact MORE robust and resilient in those days 

Do you mean that the Coffee Shop archives do not go back that far? 

[froome]

Is this because it was more extreme in weather terms, or because of the less robust infrastructure and lack of warning systems in place in those days??

I suspect elements of all three.

We are certainly getting extreme events more frequently these days due, almost certainly to man made climate change, but that does not mean that does not mean that events as extreme as those we are experiencing now did not happen before, merely that they are happening more frequently. 

Storm Babet had that sort of impact on buildings in the Chanel islands and northern France, but building regulations and the test of time (weak buildings have not survived) mean that buildings are generally more resilient. 

As recently as the 1953 east coast floods, lack of warning was the major factor in the loss of life and that may well have been the issue with the number of lives lost at sea in 1703. 

The 1953 East coast floods are a good example to study. 307 lives lost altogether, but as with most extreme weather events, the damage was local, and the effect in those localities was immense, while for much of the country it would have been forgotten about quite quickly. 59 were killed in Canvey Island, a small town on the Essex coast, and 35 in Jaywick, a much smaller Essex community. 41 in Felixstowe and 31 in Hunstanton. If it happened today, one advantage we would have is that news of the events would spread much more quickly, so some awareness of what was happening in Hunstanton would have been known in Essex before the damage occurred there. But the scale of damage would not be known until it happened. So today's instant communications, 24 hours news, social media and so on, should reduce the likelihood of loss of life, but would be unlikely to eliminate it (and would obviously have no effect on the scale of damage).

To an extent, Britain has been lucky with extreme weather events so far. The 1953 floods killed 1800 in the Netherlands. Last winter, immense flooding occurred in much of the nearby continent, and just these last few weeks, the worst of the storms affected northern France rather than England. Wildfires, extreme heat events, all have affected nearby countries more than us. But it won't always be like that, and one day climate change will impact this country in ways that most people will think are unimaginable.

[Mark A]

Given that we already seem to be doomscrolling on Wikipedia it's worth reflecting on the Bristol Channel flood event of 1607, thought to be a tidal surge rather than a tsunami (another risk to which the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) is exposed).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1607_Bristol_Channel_floods

Mark

[paul7575]

Was it the 1953 floods that eventually led to the construction of the Thames Barrier?  Took about 30 years to go from idea to operational?

Paul

[ellendune]

Was it the 1953 floods that eventually led to the construction of the Thames Barrier?  Took about 30 years to go from idea to operational?

Paul

according to Wikipedia, Yes

[ellendune]

The 1953 East coast floods are a good example to study. 307 lives lost altogether, but as with most extreme weather events, the damage was local, and the effect in those localities was immense, while for much of the country it would have been forgotten about quite quickly. 59 were killed in Canvey Island, a small town on the Essex coast, and 35 in Jaywick, a much smaller Essex community. 41 in Felixstowe and 31 in Hunstanton. If it happened today, one advantage we would have is that news of the events would spread much more quickly, so some awareness of what was happening in Hunstanton would have been known in Essex before the damage occurred there. But the scale of damage would not be known until it happened. So today's instant communications, 24 hours news, social media and so on, should reduce the likelihood of loss of life, but would be unlikely to eliminate it (and would obviously have no effect on the scale of damage).

To an extent, Britain has been lucky with extreme weather events so far. The 1953 floods killed 1800 in the Netherlands. Last winter, immense flooding occurred in much of the nearby continent, and just these last few weeks, the worst of the storms affected northern France rather than England. Wildfires, extreme heat events, all have affected nearby countries more than us. But it won't always be like that, and one day climate change will impact this country in ways that most people will think are unimaginable.

Yes but it should not have been left to the media. The very high tides were observed all down the East coast and had there been a monitoring and warning system it is almost certain that most of the lives could have been saved.  Of course we had telephone system and so all that was lacking was institutional arrangements to bring this about. 

[broadgage]

As has already been said, extreme weather events are increasing in both frequency and severity.
Modern communications help a lot to reduce the death toll by giving warning of the need to evacuate, communications dont much help in reducing destruction of infrastructure.

In some ways, society is becoming more vulnerable to extreme weather events, in particular the increasing reliance on electric power.
In the 1953 floods many areas still lacked electricity, and in those areas that DID^▸ (Didcot Parkway) have the new fangled electric lights, these were considered new and untrustworthy, most households still had oil lamps and candles.

These days lack of electricity increasingly means no telephone or internet service. And soon no internet will mean no food in supermarkets, reordering is increasingly automatic and on line.

The lack of telephone and internet service was heavily criticised during and after storm Arwen.In many places the ONLY means of summoning help in case of fire or sudden illness was amateur radio or an Inmarset satelite telephone.
Satellite telephones can be a literall lifesaver in such conditions, they are too expensive for general use.
IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion), EVERY remote village should have a satellite phone available for emergencies, keep it at the village shop or pub, or other suitable location.

I repeat my earlier advice that those living remote places should store food and fuel for at least a months use, two months would be better.
Have a means of heating at least one room for a month without re-supply.
Non perishable foods that require no, or minimal preperation, for at least a month.
Oil lamps and fuel for at least a month.

[CyclingSid]

If you want to get into doomscrolling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrington_Event

nowadays would probably take out most landline and radio communication, and satellites.

[broadgage]

Yes a modern day Carrington event could be very serious indeed and result in very substantial loss of life.
I have taken such precautions as I can for my own safety, but can not do much about the wider effects on infrastructure.

There MIGHT be a days warning during which time HMG could make limited preperations, but would they do anything effective ?

[broadgage]

BT have announced plans to end traditional copper wire telephone service in the near future. This means total reliance on an electricity supply in order to make or receive a phone call.
No electricity=no telephone or internet service.

concerns have been expressed about this policy, after storm Arwen in particular.