Skip to content

Storm Eleanor’s “100 MPH Winds”–Fake News From The Telegraph

January 3, 2018

By Paul Homewood



Storm Eleanor has lashed the UK with violent storm-force winds of up to 100mph, leaving thousands of homes without power and hitting transport links.

Gusts of 100mph were recorded at Great Dun Fell in Cumbria at 1am.


Wow! Hurricane force winds, as has been reported elsewhere.

Only one slight problem though. Great Dun Fell is the second highest mountain in England’s Pennines , and the weather station is sat at the very top, at an altitude of 847m.


 Cross Fell and Great Dun Fell

Great Dun Fell Radar Station


Even then, mean wind speeds only reached 75 mph.



At nearby Warcop, just seven miles away and at an altitude of 224m, wind speed never got above 29 mph, a “strong breeze” on the Beaufort Scale.




This all comes from a Press Association report, which in turn appears to have been fed by the Met Office.

Why the Met Office should decide to deliberately mislead the public is anybody’s guess.


The Telegraph goes on to mention that 77mph gusts were recorded in High Bradfield, South Yorkshire.

I live 5 miles away from High Bradfield, and it was no more than a bit windy. So it won’t come as any surprise that High Bradfield is also a high altitude site, high up in the Peak District at 395m.




The nearest site with up to date data, according to the Met Office, is Watnall, 32 miles away in Nottinghamshire.

There wind speeds only reached 24 mph, a “Fresh Breeze” on the Beaufort Scale.




Even in Southern Scotland, the area worst affected in Britain, where the Met Office reported gusts of 72 mph high up on exposed cliffs above the Solway near Dundrennan, the mean wind speed peaked at 54 mph, still only a “Strong Gale”



The headline claim that Storm Eleanor has lashed the UK with violent storm-force winds of up to 100mph is quite fraudulent.



Great Dun Fell is the second highest mountain in the Pennines, not in England – now corrected

  1. January 3, 2018 2:14 pm

    The Met Office have to justify their ridiculous storm naming and all papers are desperate for sensational news, even once respected ones like the Telegraph.

    • Greg permalink
      January 3, 2018 2:18 pm

      I believe it’s one of the biggest negatives of the internet. They now make most of their income from online advertising based on the number of clicks, so even once somewhat respectable publications are reduced to spewing out click bait.

      • quaesoveritas permalink
        January 3, 2018 2:54 pm

        As in the BBC.
        The link on the main home page says, “Storm Eleanor disruption as 100 mph gusts batter Britain”
        The actual article says, “Storm Eleanor: Travel disruption and homes without power”
        The BBC are increasingly using this technique.

  2. quaesoveritas permalink
    January 3, 2018 2:16 pm

    Example of the current trend in the MSM of attributing extreme weather in one part of the UK to the whole of the UK.

  3. 1saveenergy permalink
    January 3, 2018 2:27 pm

    I heard the ‘Britain lashed by 100mph winds’ lie
    on the BBC news at 13:00 giving the impression of 100mph winds everywhere.

    It appears there was ONE gust of 100mph at Great Dun Fell see –

  4. Malcolm Bell permalink
    January 3, 2018 2:35 pm

    Now now Paul. Whilst I support your argument you are playing tge same game as the press except in reverse. You say about Warcop that the wind never got above 29 mph. That is only correct if you say “the MEAN speed” never got above 29 mph when the chart you attach shows that there was at least one gust up to 53 mph.

    I used to sail a lot in the Irish Sea. A gust of 53 mph, even very briefly (and in force 7 and 8 conditions they turn up not infrequently out there I can tell you) is very bad news.

    So, you are right, the press are playing with numbers for dramatic effect but maybe this time in reply you too are being naughty. Understandable – but not science.

    • January 3, 2018 6:45 pm

      The Met Office seem to refer to “mean speeds” as “speed”

      • Malcolm Bell permalink
        January 4, 2018 1:36 pm

        Yes Paul, they do, and we know why. But “we” are trying to be absolutely clear without ambiguity, and 99% of the time we (you) achieve it brilliantly.

        Thank you for doing it – you are an endless source of ammunition for doscussion with those largely mislead green-ish friends of mine.

  5. January 3, 2018 2:40 pm

    The good news is that the “gales” brought down an old and dying ash tree that I was going to fell myself. It fell in just the right direction so that all I have to do now is saw it up into slices and then split them and I will have at least a year’s supply of logs. Where do I apply for my renewable energy subsidy? I’m onto a good thing here since when I burn the logs I will release lots of CO2 which will increase global warming which will increase the frequency and severity of storms which will bring down more trees which …. Thank goodness for positive feedback.

    • HotScot permalink
      January 3, 2018 3:16 pm

      Phillip Bratby

      And of course, with more CO2 there will be more trees which will grow taller, so ore wood to burn.

      Win Win.

      (Wind, Wind?) 🙂

      • HotScot permalink
        January 3, 2018 3:16 pm


  6. Joe Public permalink
    January 3, 2018 2:44 pm

    BREAKING: (In more ways than one)

    • quaesoveritas permalink
      January 3, 2018 2:48 pm

      Whats the betting that doesn’t get a mention on the BBC?

  7. Jack Broughton permalink
    January 3, 2018 2:48 pm

    Of course gales and freezing in North America are all proof of climate change.
    However, it seems that the climate change meme is only now read by the believers and 97% of climate scientists at UEA and NASA.

  8. quaesoveritas permalink
    January 3, 2018 2:55 pm

    As in the BBC.
    The link on the main home page says, “Storm Eleanor disruption as 100 mph gusts batter Britain”
    The actual article says, “Storm Eleanor: Travel disruption and homes without power”
    The BBC are increasingly using this technique.

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      January 3, 2018 6:12 pm

      I recall a comment from when this whole fiasco started:
      “Storm Abigail now upgraded to ‘normal Hebridean weather’.”

      I think that says it all, really.

      Here in the south of Burgundy we also have been threatened with dire warnings with most of France under a Méteo orange alert for “vent violent” up to 100km/h. It’s been a bit breezy today and that’s about it. Most people are more interested in the fact that temperatures are due to stay above 10C for the next few days.

      (And they’re not blaming “global warming” either. Not after the two metre “dump” last week that blocked most of the accesses to the Alps!)

      • Athelstan permalink
        January 4, 2018 8:26 am

        “And they’re not blaming “global warming” either.”

        Have you informed monsieur manny micron? Le Froggieleg prez, he seems to be a fervent global warming loony and ex investment banker – so tempted to use an alternative consonant with – ‘banker’.

  9. roger permalink
    January 3, 2018 3:54 pm

    Here in D&G on the Solway there is very little visible sign of damage wreaked by last night’s storm.
    No powerlines down nor trees that I have seen – just storm tossed wrack and littoral debris stranded on last night’s high tide mark which was a little higher than normal.
    So sad – fake news disseminated by the accusers!

  10. January 3, 2018 4:08 pm

    Second highest mountain in the Pennines.
    Several higher in the Lake District.

    • Nordisch-geo-climber permalink
      January 3, 2018 4:51 pm

      I am 20 miles from Dun fell. As a mountaineer, I watch the weather constantly. Last night was pretty wild, my house is 900 feet up.

      To compare – this was a brief strong blow, perfectly normal weather for this time of year. Not a single lost slate, not a single missing branch, no power cut or phone interruption, not a bin blown over, just a few twigs lying around on the way back from the pub. The potholes are more of a hazard. No damage to the Christmas lights. We have had a lifetime of weather like this – it’s called “Winter”. Some winters there is not a single Atlantic storm. In others a depression can pass every single week – it is completely random and highly variable. A “chaotic, non-linear random unpredictable system” I think the IPCC stated?

      At least I feel a connection with nature, the weather and the land, more than the journos in London do. Giving names to these depressions is totally stupid and manufactured.

      Meanwhile, Kangerlussuaq and Grytviken at opposite ends of the Earth are both 10 degrees C below normal.

      • John F. Hultquist permalink
        January 3, 2018 10:23 pm

        At least I feel a connection with nature,

        I’ve been out in some fairly strong winds, maybe 80 mph mean speed. That’s enough to start moving things around. You can get a connection with nature that you would rather not have.
        At age 8 or so, from a small hill, I and cousins watched trees fall over about 200 yards away. When we realized the action was headed our way we ran for the house. The front yard had a 30 ft. tree that started down as I, the youngest and smallest, ran past it. Its top almost tackled me.
        Now I work on hiking trails. We have been taught to look up a lot. Strong winds and lightening will get us to leave.
        And finally, a storm with thunder and lightening above a mountain cirque is something everyone ought to experience. Been there, done that, too!

    • January 3, 2018 6:13 pm

      Yes, my bad!!

    • Athelstan permalink
      January 4, 2018 8:28 am


  11. January 3, 2018 5:54 pm

    Don’t let the truth ruin the D.Tel. story. Gotta keep ringing that climate alarm bell…Bong!

  12. January 3, 2018 8:39 pm

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
    My thoughts pretty much this morning when I saw where the winds were recorded – a quick Google search showed how it was not surprising considering how high up it was. A 73mph gust was recorded in Northolt, West London which is notable as gusts in the 70-80mph region are rare according to a MetO write up about the St Jude storm* (which Piers predicted the month before). Locally about ~30mph mean with gusts up to ~50mph. A few branches down and some litter blown about but no fences down that I saw although some damage to industrial roofing reported in local media. Pretty standard winter fare as I’ve seen others comment on various sites.


  13. tom0mason permalink
    January 4, 2018 1:09 am

    What the ToryDailygraph, the Sun, BBC, or even the Daily Mail (don’t panic) has not caught on to is that all the major weather model are predicting a very cold blast for next week, and it may last for a while!
    Also there may even be the opportunity for the polar winds to dip a far south as North Africa (but that is fairly uncertain).

    Even the brass monkeys are worried!

    • tom0mason permalink
      January 4, 2018 3:22 pm

      OK, hands-up the models have moved on cancelling the cold snap!

      Considering the technology for the weather models (GFS, CFS, ECMWF, etc) is similar to that used in climate models, just how sure can anyone be that climate model can indicate probable climate change in decades to come?

    • RAH permalink
      January 7, 2018 12:45 am

      I passed that one on.

  14. mikewaite permalink
    January 4, 2018 9:29 am

    There is an interesting paper (2004) on the connection between storminess in Northern Europe and arctic temperatures:

    Historical storminess and climate ‘see-saws’ in the
    North Atlantic region

    Click to access dawsonetal2004.pdf

    The introduction leads with:
    -It is generally believed that climate change in the
    North Atlantic region during recent decades has
    resulted in an increase in winter storminess (Gu¨nther
    et al., 1998). The implication for coastal scientists is
    that many soft coastlines bordering the North Atlantic
    are likely to be subject to accelerated erosion in
    the future. Despite such predictions, we know relatively
    little about past patterns of winter storminess.
    Is it the case, for example, that the last ca. 30 years
    represents the stormiest interval of the last century?
    Or is it the case that winter storminess was at its
    most severe during the 19th century rather than
    during recent decades?-

    and the summary in the Abstract reads:

    -The existence of a well-defined climate ‘see-saw’ across the North Atlantic region and surrounding areas has been known for over 200 years. The occurrence of severe winters in western Greenland frequently coincides with mild winters in northern Europe. Conversely, mild winters in western Greenland are frequently associated with cold winters across northern Europe.Whereas this ‘see-saw’ is normally discussed in terms of air temperature and pressure differences, here we explore how the climate ‘see-saw’ is reflected in records of historic storminess from Scotland, NW Ireland and Iceland.
    It is concluded that the stormiest winters in these regions during the last ca. 150 years have occurred when western Greenland temperatures have been significantly below average. In contrast, winters of reduced storminess have coincided with winters when air temperatures have been significantly above average in western Greenland. This reconstruction of winter storminess implies a relationship between chronologies of coastal erosion and the history of North Atlantic climate ‘see-saw’ dynamics with sustained winter storminess, and hence increased coastal erosion, taking place when the Icelandic low pressure cell is strongly anchored within the circulation of the northern hemisphere. Considered over the last ca. 2000 years, it would appear that winter storminess and
    climate-driven coastal erosion was at a minimum during the Medieval Warm Period. By contrast, the time interval from ca. AD 1420 until present has been associated with sustained winter storminess across the North Atlantic that has resulted in accelerated
    coastal erosion and sand drift-

    So, if the BBC believes in AGW affecting the Arctic as I am sure that it does , then the storminess over the British Isles will be reduced – contrary to its claims . Or does the BBC not believe the peer reviewed work of professional climate scientists?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: