Eleanor overnight wind speeds

Figure 1

Nothing, except being on top of Great Dun Fell, topped the 96 mph gust that we saw at Connaught yesterday evening, and storm Eleanor is now in the mid North Sea with a minimum central pressure of around 967 hPa at 06 UTC (fig 1).

The original yellow warning of gusts to “60-70 mph along exposed coasts” with “the more exposed locations seeing gusts close to 80 mph” just about covered it, and they were completely correct in saying “inland gusts exceeding 60 mph are possible“, but an open-ended threshold like that is not precise and works even for the gust of 96 mph at Connaught airport! The Met Office underplayed it for Dylan which worked, and I think they decided to take a similar approach with Eleanor, but the gust to 87 mph at Mace Head at 17 UTC rattled them, and they decided to play it safe and go for amber which is good.

A very windy night across a large part of northwest Europe with gusts to gale force in many places. A gust of 67 mph at Exeter at 01 UTC must have been the highest for quite a while, accompanied by a couple of rumbles of thunder (fig 2). All in all Dylan and Eleanor have made it an eventful start to the New Year, I wonder if there are more storms waiting to come in the pipeline, or should that be the jet stream?

Figure 2 – Courtesy of Blitzortung

Author: xmetman

An ex-metman passionate about all things to do with weather, climate and clouds

17 thoughts on “Eleanor overnight wind speeds”

  1. Peter, you have been a busy boy whilst I was away:- asking more questions, reading & quoting AR5 as diversionary tactics, but you still can’t show any law of physics that would allow 1 molecule in 2,500 to heat something that’s warmer than it’s self, or any actual scientific evidence of man-made carbon dioxide induced global warming.

    But nice to see you now finally accept the fact that “water vapour has the largest ‘greenhouse effect’ in the Earth’s atmosphere”…not anthropogenic CO2.

    To answer your questions in order.
    PeterH says:
    1 • Would ‘ignore basic laws of maths, physics and chemistry’ be as defined by what you believe and think?
    =>No, the basic laws of maths, physics and chemistry always rule…no mater how arrogant you are.

    2 • Why should I believe you?
    => You shouldn’t believe anyone, you should do the research but accept the basic laws of maths, physics and chemistry; not pseudo-science & junk models based on unproven theory.

    3 • Why do you think that water vapour is 4% of the atmosphere?
    => I don’t…. Water vapor varies by volume in the atmosphere from a trace to about 4%. Therefore, on average, only about 2 to 3% of the molecules in the air are water vapor molecules. (See- http://use-due-diligence-on-climate.org/home/climate-change/greenhouse-gases/ )
    & strangely, NASA, IPCC & most textbooks on atmospheric gasses… agree with me (:-)) https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/pdf/245893main_MeteorologyTeacherRes-Ch2.r4.pdf
    Although to be pedantic we are mainly talking of the ‘Troposphere’ (where all the weather happens ).

    4 • Where do you get the figure (for warming effect) of 3.6% for CO2 and 95% for water vapour, that you seem to believe, from? Sources please.
    => IPCC AR5 is not a good place for you to start;
    [The IPCC does not treat H2O in the same way that it does the other GH gases.
    In its view, the other GH gases produce radiative forcing & they assume H2O always produces positive feedback. In its last report, the IPCC admits that H2O is the strongest GH gas (as you quote), but it does not report concentrations or warming potentials for it. (why is that I wonder?) ]

    But these sources are easy for you to find & understand – https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128045886000094
    This is from 1979 http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0450%281979%29018%3C0822%3AQCTPIO%3E2.0.CO%3B2 Before it all got politicly correct.

    For synopsis (To save the cost of purchasing all the relevant papers), see –
    http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/pdfs/CO2_atmospheric-carbon-dioxide.pdf
    http://notrickszone.com/2017/07/31/new-paper-co2-has-negligible-influence-on-earths-temperature/#sthash.SxkYPctI.bDvc0Tpn.dpbs
    also this convenient list of 17 new papers – http://notrickszone.com/2017/06/08/17-new-scientific-papers-dispute-co2-greenhouse-effect-as-primary-explanation-for-climate-change/#sthash.sl6KnW3X.dpbs

    In this 2012 paper the author suggested H20 = 87% & CO2 =10% of the greenhouse effect; but even so it’s a good read. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273079885_The_Roles_of_Greenhouse_Gases_in_Global_Warming

    However, as you like to go with consensus, lets stick with ~95% & ~3.6%.

    #

    It was interesting re-reading AR5/8; I’d forgotten how many uncertainties they have in the data feeding the ACCMIP models, no wonder they are so out with the observations… GIGO.

    Keep warm & have a nice day reading & learning.

  2. Further, what is wrong (in your opinion) with this chapter of the most recent IPCC reports (which, it seems to me, comes closest to answering your question “When are YOU going to show any actual evidence that CO2 is the main driver of climate
    & how the green house theory works in an open convective atmosphere ???????”
    ) – http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf ? And which of the authors are ignoring your basic laws of maths, physics & chemistry? All of them? None of them?

    I think this (FAQ 8.1 from the same chapter) explain the view I accept (btw, it looks like it might not format properly here) : “Currently, water vapour has the largest greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere. However, other greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, are necessary to sustain the presence of water vapour in the atmosphere. Indeed, if these other gases were removed from the atmosphere, its temperature would drop sufficiently to induce a decrease of water vapour, leading to a runaway drop of the greenhouse effect that would plunge the Earth into a frozen state. So greenhouse gases other than water vapour provide the temperature structure that sustains current levels of atmospheric water vapour. Therefore, although CO2 is the main anthropogenic control knob on climate, water vapour is a strong and fast feedback that amplifies any initial forcing by a typical factor between two and three. Water vapour is not a significant initial forcing, but is nevertheless a fundamental agent of climate change

  3. BUT…Please do not include any –
    Computer model predictions.
    Theory’s that ignore the basic laws of maths, physics & chemistry.
    News paper & TV claims.
    Quotations by politicians.
    Any thing that contains words like – Could, Should, May, I think / believe…..

    Would ‘ignore basic laws of maths, physics and chemistry’ be as defined by what you believe and think? Why should I believe you?

    Where do you get the figure (for warming effect) of 3.6% for CO2 and 95% for water vapour, that you seem to believe, from? Why do you think (via the .jpg from earlier) that water vapour is 4% of the atmosphere? Sources please.

  4. Peter, I agree its very difficult to debate with someone who when asked a simple question, not only refuses to answer (why is that I wonder), but goes off at a tangent & then asks 6 questions (are you attempting to demonstrate your prowess as a mass debater ? ).

    But I’ll ignore your diversionary tactics & play along & answer in order –

    1. “we are all eager to learn.” You speak for others here? => No, just supposition, I imagine the majority of people on here have enquiring minds.

    2. Are you eager to learn? => Always.

    3. Can I ask if there is any evidence that could convince you that the reports, and the science within them, is correct? => Yes.

    4. Clearly the evidence and science within the reports doesn’t convince you. I’ll be honest I don’t think there is anything that could change your mind to thinking the is correct… Am I right? => No.

    5. As a start, do you accept CO2 is a ‘greenhouse gas’? => No & Yes

    There is a group of atmospheric gasses…. mistakenly called “green house gases”
    Carbon Dioxide CO2: Methane CH4: Water Vapor H2O: Nitrous Oxide N2O:  Ozone O3 :
    They absorb & re-radiate long wave infra-red: –
    They are in fact radiative gases
    & could be loosely described as blanketing or insulating gases, as they slow the rate of heat loss to space;
    But NOT “green house gases”.
    Nevertheless “green house gas” has entered the language so that’s the term we’ll use.

    6. If so, how big is its (warming) effect? = > ~ 3.6% : Water H2O ~ 95%

    7. I don’t think you even agree CO2 is a greenhouse gas. => Wrong – See 5 above.

    When are YOU going to show any actual evidence that CO2 is the main driver of climate
    & how the green house theory works in an open convective atmosphere ???????

    BUT…Please do not include any –
    Computer model predictions.
    Theory’s that ignore the basic laws of maths, physics & chemistry.
    News paper & TV claims.
    Quotations by politicians.
    Any thing that contains words like – Could, Should, May, I think / believe…..

  5. we are all eager to learn.

    You speak for others here?

    Are you eager to learn? Can I ask if there is any evidence that could convince you that the IPCC reports, and the science within them, is correct? Clearly the evidence and science within the IPCC reports doesn’t convince you. I’ll be honest I don’t think there is anything that could change your mind to thinking the IPCC is correct. Am I right?

    As a start, do you accept CO2 is a ‘greenhouse gas’? If so, how big is its (warming) effect?

    I don’t think you even agree CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Its difficult to debate if everything anyone could post to counter your view you’d simply dismiss.

  6. Let me guess, Teletubbies weekly or maybe it’s The New Adventures of Captain Planet

    And respect to you to!

  7. ” perhaps I wont mention which newspaper that is…”
    Let me guess, Teletubbies weekly or maybe it’s The New Adventures of Captain Planet

  8. Not everyone has access to the internet!

    But we both clearly do, and this is an internet based discussion so it’s not wholly wrong to mention such sources?

    I’m also pretty sure I remember seeing reports of the US cold weather on BBC TV news too. I’ve also read about it in the newspaper i occasionally read but, for the sake of your and 1save’s blood pressure, perhaps I wont mention which newspaper that is…

  9. The BBC might as well stop broadcasting news on t.v. and stick to “Strictly Come Dancing” and other garbage then?
    That’s not what I pay a licence fee for.
    Not everyone has access to the internet!

  10. Q,
    You are absolutely right; over the last few yrs the BBC will do major reporting on any story (real or fake), that promotes HOT,HOT,HOT,CAGW, but rarely anything that shows natural variation or any cooling events.

    Like I say, I’ve been kept well up to date by the BBC News website, or the Met Office, about any cold weather there is. And, I see winds from a cold quarter are on the way for us, perhaps I’ll get my first real frost for years.

  11. They have also dropped the story of Ben Saunders’ attempt at the South Pole, saying it was due to him running short of food, without really mentioning that was due to the adverse conditions he had been experiencing.

  12. Q,
    You are absolutely right; over the last few yrs the BBC will do major reporting on any story (real or fake), that promotes HOT,HOT,HOT,CAGW, but rarely anything that shows natural variation or any cooling events.

    Remember Pen Hadow sailing to the North Pole, BBC were all over him like a rash, reports on almost every news bulletin about an ‘Arctic free of ice’…then he hit the ice &….true to form…..silence from BBC, they dropped him like a brick.

  13. “Interesting one developing over the pond…”
    There seems very little coverage of the cold weather in the USA on BBC News.
    I understand there has been more coverage on ITV, although I haven’t been watching that.

  14. Wind peaked here at 36 mph just after 2am (bit earlier than forecast) and has now fallen back to around 10 mph.
    Unfortunately due to problems with my ws I don’t have any separate gust figures.
    I still feel that the blanket amber warning, with the implication that the risk was equal in all areas, is slightly misleading and i think there is a need for a more sophisticated system, which better reflects the actual forecasted wind speeds.