A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 15, 2005, October 15, 2006, and October 15, 2007. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
This article isn't consistant, comparible to Cat3 hurricane (as stated by air pressure) or, Cat2? -- Grand Edgemaster 17:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
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)
I have moved this section beneath "Effects" as it is arguably not as significant. Halsteadk 16:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
Thank you, Yorkshiresky
WiffleTree 13:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
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) Cheers, thanks, my mistake. Lacunae ( talk) 21:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if anyone can advise on whether the fair use policy would cover the use of a still image of Michael Fish's forecast or use of the forecast video on this page? Lacunae ( talk) 17:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I've removed a clause stating that the storm of 1703 was alleged to be a myth. This statement was not contained in either of the sources cited for it. It seems that there was confusion about it being called a "hurricane" (with scare quotes). The quote marks do not indicate that the Guardian doesn't believe it happened, they just mean that the storm (like the storm of 1987) was not a hurricane, as it did not originate in the tropics. There is nothing else in the two sources given that I could see implying the storm was a myth. Quantum Burrito ( talk) 15:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Great Storm of 1987. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
So, I noticed that the Great Storm is linked somewhat to the Glanrhyd Bridge collapse that occurred four days later (Due to the rain and winds caused by the storm). Are the four fatalities of the Glanrhyd bridge collapse counted as fatalities of the storm? -- 2A02:C7D:52C6:3600:70B7:DCD8:5C:59DA ( talk) 13:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I was in Britain at the time and I remember Michael Fish predicting, but minimizing, the storm. That's just my recollection. Also, the comments suggest another one of those misunderstandings between British and American readers: Britons routinely (e.g. the daily "shipping forecast") talk about "hurricane-force winds"; this is not the same as saying there's a hurricane. ("Two great nations divided by a common language.")
I was told that meteorologists were required to sign the Official Secrets Act - by which Brits are sworn to secrecy before being allowed access to restricted information. At the time, this restricted information included the data from the special satellites used by the military and for weather forecasting. At least one Brit of my acquaintance used to joke that this meant that meteorologists weren't allowed to give you an accurate forecast... alacarte ( talk) 15:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 15, 2005, October 15, 2006, and October 15, 2007. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
This article isn't consistant, comparible to Cat3 hurricane (as stated by air pressure) or, Cat2? -- Grand Edgemaster 17:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
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)
I have moved this section beneath "Effects" as it is arguably not as significant. Halsteadk 16:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
Thank you, Yorkshiresky
WiffleTree 13:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
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) Cheers, thanks, my mistake. Lacunae ( talk) 21:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if anyone can advise on whether the fair use policy would cover the use of a still image of Michael Fish's forecast or use of the forecast video on this page? Lacunae ( talk) 17:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I've removed a clause stating that the storm of 1703 was alleged to be a myth. This statement was not contained in either of the sources cited for it. It seems that there was confusion about it being called a "hurricane" (with scare quotes). The quote marks do not indicate that the Guardian doesn't believe it happened, they just mean that the storm (like the storm of 1987) was not a hurricane, as it did not originate in the tropics. There is nothing else in the two sources given that I could see implying the storm was a myth. Quantum Burrito ( talk) 15:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Great Storm of 1987. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
So, I noticed that the Great Storm is linked somewhat to the Glanrhyd Bridge collapse that occurred four days later (Due to the rain and winds caused by the storm). Are the four fatalities of the Glanrhyd bridge collapse counted as fatalities of the storm? -- 2A02:C7D:52C6:3600:70B7:DCD8:5C:59DA ( talk) 13:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I was in Britain at the time and I remember Michael Fish predicting, but minimizing, the storm. That's just my recollection. Also, the comments suggest another one of those misunderstandings between British and American readers: Britons routinely (e.g. the daily "shipping forecast") talk about "hurricane-force winds"; this is not the same as saying there's a hurricane. ("Two great nations divided by a common language.")
I was told that meteorologists were required to sign the Official Secrets Act - by which Brits are sworn to secrecy before being allowed access to restricted information. At the time, this restricted information included the data from the special satellites used by the military and for weather forecasting. At least one Brit of my acquaintance used to joke that this meant that meteorologists weren't allowed to give you an accurate forecast... alacarte ( talk) 15:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)