Question about currents

[JMGraber]

Did the Labrador Current play a role in the ship's demise? I heard from a documentary that ice was travelling further south than usual and that the Labrador Current seemed to be traveling different than usual.

 

[Augusto Félix Solari]

Hello!
I have never heard of that, but many people believe that since the Moon reached its closest position to Earth in January 1912, tides had increased considerably allowing the icebergs produced by the melting of glaciars in the coasts of Greenland depart more quickly and interfere in the navegation of the most important shipping lanes. Could you please specify which documentary are you talking about?

 

[Kari Holmgren]

I can't think of the documentary that talked about the current. However, in Charles Lightoller's autobiography he said due to a mild winter in the Arctic more ice had broken away. It was stretching down with the Labrador current. The ice was travelling further south then normal.

 

[Jim Currie]

Modern technology has revealed how the Labrador Current flows. It basically follows the slope of the edge of the Newfoundland Grand Banks. Running south then betwen The Banks and,round the underwater mountain of Flemish Cap before turning south southwest then westward back toward the Gulf of St, Lawrence. Historic data shows that it has always done so. It is cold water so much more dense and tends to sink below warmer water.
Icebergs and pack ice are effected by both currents and winds. The prevailing wind on the western side of the Atlanic near the coasts of Nova Scotia and to the south west of Newfoundland are from the west or northwest. Hence, if there is a great deal of ice surviving the journey from Labrador and points north, it will find its way into the path of the prevailing winds. My guess is that the ice that did for Titanic and all the pack ice with it, got there by a combination of strong winds and a previously cold winter in lower latitudes.

There is ample evidence to show that there was not a current in the vicinity of the Titanic wreck site but that the northern edge of the Gulf Stream was about 10 to 15 miles to the south of it.

Jim C.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

>>There is ample evidence to show that there was not a current in the vicinity of the Titanic wreck site but that the northern edge of the Gulf Stream was about 10 to 15 miles to the south of it.<<

I disagree with this ststement. The evidence is provided by the location of the wreck site and the position of the wreckage seen at 14:30 GMT. That amount of drift could not have been caused by windage alone.

 

[JMGraber]

Regarding that documentary discussing the current: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mwdXPgwMBJo

Start at 23:10