https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1463500314001164?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S146350031... (reference [13] f

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1463500314001164?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S146350031... (reference [13] from Wikipedia) comments: > The north-eastern coast of the UK experienced waves between 3–6 m, much like the eastern coast of Scotland ... Wave heights are predicted to be around 1 m on the UK coast and up to 5 m on the northern coast of Doggerland. The maximum elevation of Doggerland here is less than 10 m, with large areas of less than 5 m. It is therefore possible that much of Doggerland would have been flooded by such a wave. In reading now about the factors involved in this work, one issue is the amount of post-glacial rebound. While I've found that Scotland has rebounded a lot, I can't figure out how much that has been since 8,000 years ago. If I read figure 1 of http://people.rses.anu.edu.au/lambeck_k/pdf/152.pdf http://people.rses.anu.edu.au/lambeck_k/pdf/152.pdf correctly, the Bridge of Earn, Firth of Fourth was 4 meters lower, relative to sea level rise back then. I also know that geography can cause tsunamis to have local effects which are much stronger than average, as when a narrowing bay channels the wave upward. But I have no clue how that relates to the deposits seen in Scotland. Edit: and figure 3 seems to say Dogger Bank was 6 meters higher (relative to sea level) than now, again, due to post-glacial rebound effects.