Atlantic Storms Winter 2015/16

[Mapantz]

1 minute ago, William Grimsley said:

Lol, think this needs to be updated again, very quickly. It's been changed to rain not kept as wind!

Rain does look like being problematic for the western parts of the UK, the NetWx MR hints at that..

[William Grimsley]

3 minutes ago, Mapantz said:

Rain does look like being problematic for the western parts of the UK, the NetWx MR hints at that..

Hmm, I'm a bit sad that the wind warning has gone, was looking forward to a good storm even though today was windy we need something like 3rd December 2006.

[The PIT]

mini squall line going through.

[Liam J]

The wind warning hasn't gone it's still there for Tuesday, just been adjusted.

Latest GFS gust charts for Tuesday.

ECM, very strong winds far west of Ireland and NW Scotland.

 

Perhaps a wind warning will be issued for Wednesday also, gales more widespread than Tuesday on latest model runs.

GFS  ECM 

And yet more rain.

 

 

 

Edited December 26, 2015 by *Sub*Zero*

[Allseasons-Si]

26 minutes ago, Thunderbolt_ said:

The storm system on Tuesday and into Wednesday will almost certainly be named Storm Frank. I expect we will here about the naming of it pretty soon, and by the looks of it, it could be quite a severe storm. Not good news for the North West of England and Southern Scotland, that's for sure.

That will be the sixth storm this winter and we haven't got to 2016 yetze,i just hope it will get deflected away from our shores by this battle from the east.

[heccygabber]

Hopefully it brings gusts over 60mph here, we've had enough crisp packet blowers

[Liam J]

Looks like the wind warning will be adjusted to Wednesday based on the latest outputs, the chief forecasters assessment in the warning did mention that it could be pushed back to Wednesday.

The very strongest of the winds during Tuesday could stay out over the Atlantic but some very strong winds brushing past Western Ireland.

By Wednesday southerly gales becoming more widespread although not looking as severe as it was a few days ago, 60-70mph gusts in the west and perhaps 70-80mph in the far north and north west instead of the 90-100mph that was predicted a couple of days ago, still very windy though and with the ground absolutely saturated in many places a heightened risk of uprooted trees. 

Further heavy rain expected this week so flooding will be an ongoing issue unfortunately.

 

Edited December 27, 2015 by *Sub*Zero*

[Liam J]

Warnings being updated, the wind warning has been adjusted further north west and covers N Ireland and Scotland now - http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/warnings/#?tab=map&map=Warnings&zoom=5&lon=-3.50&lat=55.50&fcTime=1451174400

[tinybill]

this what  the  gfs  saying about frank   its the last thing parts of the  uk needs

[Liam J]

Amber rain warnings now issued for Scotland on Wednesday and yellow warnings over a wider area, the rain warnings also include reference to winds - http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/warnings/#?tab=map&map=Warnings&zoom=5&lon=-3.50&lat=55.50&fcTime=1451433600

Edited December 27, 2015 by *Sub*Zero*

[ForeverPomeroysnow]

Liam just want to say a big thanks for all the updates and work you put into the Storm thread, cheers buddy 

[cheese]

Take a hint, Atlantic - sling your hook. P**s off. Stop destroying lives. Useless ocean.

Edited December 27, 2015 by cheese

[Liam J]

14 minutes ago, Pomeroysnow said:

Liam just want to say a big thanks for all the updates and work you put into the Storm thread, cheers buddy 

Cheers  unfortunately the updates mean that more disruptive weather is on the cards which is likely to bring further misery to those who have been affected by the severe weather events of recent weeks.

Edited December 27, 2015 by *Sub*Zero*

[knocker]

Sadly.............it's in Whalley

Edited December 27, 2015 by knocker

[Bristawl Si]

19 hours ago, P-M said:

The rain is relentless I can't ever remember seeing scenes like that over the North West currently. The Tyne is about to burst it's banks up stream again and Rothbury under threat from the River Coquet in Northumberland. I am currently sat in the dark after a power cut. Cameron needs to get his finger out now and spend a hell of a lot of money in better defenses. Poor folk out there over Xmas flooded out of their properties me heart and thoughts go out to them all. 

I think the Environment agency needs to start dismantling some of its bureaucracy that, over the years, effectively puts barriers in the way of local people who know their local terrain.

Once again, as in Somerset, a couple of years ago the issue of dredging has featured. Environment concerns around disturbing newts, voles and the like needs to be disregarded. The humans living near the streams and rivers should come first. Action required.

This is one issue the govt can order the agencies to get moving on.

[The PIT]

I don't think destroying the environment is the way forward. If the climate scientists are right destroying the environment is one of the reasons why we are having floods.

[Bristawl Si]

56 minutes ago, The PIT said:

I don't think destroying the environment is the way forward. If the climate scientists are right destroying the environment is one of the reasons why we are having floods.

Who said anything about "destroying the environment"? There are some communities crying out for dredging and many of them 'warned' the agencies and authorities on numerous occasions over last few years. And.....

For those communities living in picturesque areas be prepared for concrete flood defences if you REALLY want proper flood defences. Ugly looking construction that has a far better chance of diverting cascades of water away from communities.

[The PIT]

You did Bristol in your last post.

Building flood defenses only diverts the problem elsewhere there is a reason why a plain is called a flood plain. If we are going to build on such areas then either expect flooding or build property that takes flooding into account. 

I think the way forward maybe more flow control combined with proper housing development so a couple of feet of water don't damage a property.  http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/10/flood-defence-nature-experiments

 

[Methuselah]

I agree with all you say about new housing, PIT, of course it should be constructed away from flood-plains; however, Bristle is talking about existing homes, so I hope you're not suggesting we abandon those whose homes are already under constant threat of inundation?

[P-M]

21 hours ago, Love Snow said:

Hard to blame the Government for extreme weather events it's called nature 

Who's blaming the government? I'm  saying they need to do more in future? 

[The PIT]

23 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

I agree with all you say about new housing, PIT, of course it should be constructed away from flood-plains; however, Bristle is talking about existing homes, so I hope you're not suggesting we abandon those whose homes are already under constant threat of inundation?

Wrong thread really to discuss this. However where it cannot be funded either via the Government or by the Council or even physically impractical yes the houses will have to be abandoned since they won't have any practical value anyway. In those cases you are looking at the other suggestions.

[toggerob]

A lot of problems caused by flooding is due to the funneling effect that is created by diverting or building up alongside waterways so that the excess water has nowhere to go, debris hits bridges and causes a damming effect. One measure to prevent this would be to build large underwater aqueducts under existing homes and towns where such issues arise. Allowing the excess water a means of a 50/50 escape route instead of individually having to follow the same route downstream.

It would cost a lot (when you're factoring in local geology and individual towns) but perhaps a subsidiary of this would be the lowering insurance prices, aswell as possibly having a separate means of water storage for any-time there is a dry period.

[cheese]

3 hours ago, The PIT said:

You did Bristol in your last post.

Building flood defenses only diverts the problem elsewhere there is a reason why a plain is called a flood plain. If we are going to build on such areas then either expect flooding or build property that takes flooding into account. 

I think the way forward maybe more flow control combined with proper housing development so a couple of feet of water don't damage a property.  http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/10/flood-defence-nature-experiments

 

Not all of the areas being flooded are flood plains though - Hebden Bridge certainly isn't in a flood plain. Leeds isn't either. The type of flooding seen yesterday has never been seen before, or at least not for many decades. I don't think any of us expected yesterday' scenes - so it isn't like the people living in these areas should have expected their properties and businesses to be flooded.

[Evening thunder]

 

6 hours ago, Bristle boy said:

I think the Environment agency needs to start dismantling some of its bureaucracy that, over the years, effectively puts barriers in the way of local people who know their local terrain.

Once again, as in Somerset, a couple of years ago the issue of dredging has featured. Environment concerns around disturbing newts, voles and the like needs to be disregarded. The humans living near the streams and rivers should come first. Action required.

This is one issue the govt can order the agencies to get moving on.

Like many things of course, this depends on the constraints and funding put in place by the government. Before the Somerset issue blew up a couple years back, the EA had already put forward £400,000 for dredging, the maximum it was allowed to at the time. 

An issue with dredging can be that where rivers are constrained and channelised in towns (where much of the expensive flooding occurs) you may not be able to dredge there without taking out the riverside development and buildings with it, or risking bank instability issues, as well as completely re-designing bridges and their foundations which would act as bottlenecks. If you (effectively) dredge upstream of towns, this of course could lead to more water arriving in these constrained sections at once, actually increasing flood risk. There are various other potential issues (such as increased erosion even if flooding is decreased slightly) but these would make this post even longer.

Local knowledge is important, although I know from experience that local opinions are not always the best solution, and dredging can be the 'go-to' word, but would not prevent flooding in many communities that have experienced it. Although, there will of course be some spots where dredging is required, such as where recent floods have deposited large amounts of material streams/rivers running through communities (also, the Somerset Levels are an example of an area that requires dredging to sustain the current state in the long term, being an effectively man-made landscape (though studies show this doesn't so much prevent flooding, but helps most with reducing flood duration)).


Personally I think more money should be allocated to defences where needed, ways to slow run-off, and also to avoid building in flood prone locations (or take account of that in the design of any property built there). Ultimately, if you live on a floodplain, you should expect flooding from time to time, and in some places it may not be particularly easy to defend against the worst floods.

So as ever, sound-bytes such as 'Action required' are easier said than done, and are unlikely to prevent the next event (not everywhere, anyway). That conflict between pretty locations and ugly construction is one issue that may have be weighed up (there are some places/restaurants etc were picturesque locations bring in more revenue than floods cost them).
It would be interesting to hear how many homes have been flooded, I know in 2013/14 only a small percentage of homes that would have flooded without defences actually flooded. However, unfortunately in these major events some failures occur, particularly when defences are built for e.g. a 1 in 100 year event (with such events often based on gauging station records too short to accurately calculate their return intervals), and there are hundreds of rivers in the UK, so most years you'd expect somewhere to experience such an event?

This post kind of ended up longer than expected, if anyone gets this far.

Edited December 27, 2015 by Evening thunder

[Evening thunder]

1 hour ago, cheese said:

Not all of the areas being flooded are flood plains though - Hebden Bridge certainly isn't in a flood plain. Leeds isn't either. The type of flooding seen yesterday has never been seen before, or at least not for many decades. I don't think any of us expected yesterday' scenes - so it isn't like the people living in these areas should have expected their properties and businesses to be flooded.

Interesting, was the run-off just too great for the drains etc to cope?

How does one defend against that sort of flooding without changing the design of pretty much every urban development that might get it, if you can't easily pinpoint prone locations by identifying floodplains etc.
Of course, any part of these towns that were flooded by the streams/rivers that flow through them are technically on floodplains.