Skip to content

Thoughts On Storm Eunice

February 19, 2022
tags: ,

By Paul Homewood

Eunice was undoubtedly one of the most powerful storms of recent years, so it’s time to sit back and reflect:

 

 image

Forecasting

Congratulations to the Met Office who pretty much got their forecasting right.

They predicted winds along the Bristol Channel of 80 to 90 mph, and 60 to 70 mph generally across the south.

The BBC however tended to overestimate wind speeds. Certainly up here in Sheffield, where they were touting 70 mph gusts even that morning. The Met Office said 60 mph, and the actual was 55 mph.

Comparison with other storms

Although powerful, Eunice was not dissimilar to other recent storms in recent years in terms of wind. In particular, the February 2014 storm, Doris in 2017 and Ciara in 2020.

If we ignore the measurements at the Needles, there is similarity for both exposed coastal sites, and inland ones.

Eunice Ciara Doris Feb 2014
Coastal 87 93 82 108
Inland 70-80 70-80 70-80 70-80

Wind Gust Speeds  – mph

Geographical coverage was also similar, except for Doris which mainly impacted N Wales and the Midlands.

Because of hyperbolic reporting and our own limited attention spans, we tend to believe that the latest event is always the worst. In reality, storms like Eunice are not uncommon.

Comparison with Burns Day

As I have already explained in earlier posts, there is simply no comparison between Eunice and the Burns Day storm.

image

Burns Day saw gusts peak at 107 mph at Gwennap Head and Aberporth. At less exposed sites winds reached 97 mph, while large parts of England experienced winds close to 90 mph.

The BBC’s account at the time conveys just how bad it was:

image

image

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/25/newsid_3420000/3420797.stm

The Needles

I have already dealt with the ridiculous nonsense of using the Needles for climatological purposes, as this chart makes clear:

image

But I will add that the Met Office have now confirmed to me that wind readings began there in 1996.

That gust of 122 mph is now being declared as a record for England. Yet we had no meter there in 1990 when the Burns Day storm struck, or other earlier storms, which we know were much stronger.

No records of any description should be verified with such a short data period.

Long term trends

The Met Office included this table in its State of the Climate a couple of years ago. It clearly shows that storm activity peaked in the 1980s and 90s. Storm frequency and strength in the last decade appears to be back to 1970s levels:

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/image-87.png

https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joc.6213

One likely factor in the 1990s storms, including of course Burns Day, was that the Arctic was in a much colder phase, creating a bigger temperature differential with the warmer air to the south.

It is this differential which powers storms at temperate latitudes.

image

image

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

  UK Wind Speed Records

The Met Office track wind speed records by district. The pattern corresponds with the above graph, with most records set in the 1980s and 90s.

It is interesting that the Burns Day storm does not feature at all, suggesting that it was not particularly extreme by the standards of the time.

image

image

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-climate-extremes

The stormy 1920s

The UK Climate Projections Report of 2012 looked at a longer period of record:

Severe windstorms around the UK have become more frequent in the past few decades, although not above that seen in the 1920s.

There is considerable interest in possible trends in severe wind storms around the UK, but these are difficult to identify, due to low numbers of such storms, their decadal variability, and by the unreliability and lack of representativity of direct wind speed observations. In UKCIP02, we showed how the frequency of severe gales over the past century, although showing an increase over the past decade or so, did not support any relationship with man-made warming. Alexander et al. (2005) presented an analysis whereby a severe storm event is characterised by a rapid change in (MSLP) (specifically ±10hPa in a 3h period); this is different from the severe gales in UKCIP02. They found a significant increase in the number of severe storms over the UK as a whole since the 1950s. This analysis is being extended back in time using newly-digitised MSLP data from as many as possible long-period observing sites in the UK and Ireland, and some preliminary results are shown in Figure 1.14 (Allan et al. in preparation). It appears that an equally stormy period to those in the most recent full decade (1990s) was experienced in the 1920s. Similar conclusions are drawn in IPCC AR4 (Chapter 3, para 3.8.4.1 and Fig. 3.41).

Whereas it is not our purpose here to discuss detailed links between the NAO and storminess, it will be immediately apparent that the two stormiest periods in Figure 1.14, in the 1920s and 1990s, coincide with decades of sustained positive NAO index, whereas the least stormy decade, the 1960s, is a time when the smoothed NAO index was most negative (see Figure 1.13). Although work by Gillett et al. (2003) has shown that man-made factors have had a detectable influence on sea-level pressure distributions (and hence atmospheric circulation patterns) over the second half of the 20th century, there continues to be little evidence that the recent increase in storminess over the UK is related to man-made climate change.

T_Fig1.14.jpg

Figure 1.14: The total number of severe storms per decade over the UK and Ireland during the half year period October to March, from the 1920s to the 1990s. Error bars show ± one standard deviation. (Source: Rob Allan, Met Office Hadley Centre)

As we know, the latest decade has become much quieter again, compared to the 1990s. This strengthens that conclusion about the effect of climate change.

15 Comments
  1. Joe Public permalink
    February 19, 2022 6:52 pm

    Thanks for your analysis, Paul.

  2. February 19, 2022 7:07 pm

    Death and destruction fudging in forecasting has a plus side! If the gloom and doom doesn’t materialize on short term forecasting, than long term forecasting likewise is exaggerated.

  3. February 19, 2022 9:25 pm

    Edinburgh South: light snow, gone by lunchtime. Light winds. Was bent double in unnamed “storm” about 3 weeks ago. Lovely today except, inexplicably, when the clouds covered the sun. Funny that. Weather, eh?

  4. February 19, 2022 11:08 pm

    What about the 122 mph at gorleston in 1987? It seems to have been omitted

    https://norfolkblogger.co.uk/the-great-storm-of-1987/4789

  5. Bloke down the pub permalink
    February 19, 2022 11:31 pm

    Much of the concern over Eunice was connected to the storm surge which was expected to arrive about the same time as a Spring high tide. As it was, the peak winds and the surge didn’t arrive till a couple of hours after had been predicted, by which time the tide had dropped and so knocked a couple of feet off the peak height. Flooding was a fraction of what would’ve happened if the forecast had been correct.

  6. Mike Stoddart permalink
    February 20, 2022 2:25 am

    When asked about this on Radio 4’s World at One on Thursday 17 Feb (at about 30 mins) Liz Bentley Chief Executive Royal Meteorological Society said : “If you look back over the last, say, 50 years or so there isn’t a compelling trend that we’ve seen in the amount of storminess we get in the UK.”
    And later: “We’re not seeing any significant changes or trends within the number of storms or maximum wind gusts over the last five decades.”

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      February 20, 2022 9:57 am

      “A compelling trend”?

      Don’t remember “compelling” being a definition used in data analysis?

      Why can’t she just say there’s no trend. That’s what she means but she wants to fudge it.

  7. cookers52 permalink
    February 20, 2022 8:08 am

    The fact checkers and attribution science are already declaring this storm was caused by human induced climate change.
    The censorship of any different views will soon be complete.
    I just got blocked on twitter for quoting ONS stats, and I didn’t even make conclusions! Apparently the actual data is offensive.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      February 20, 2022 9:59 am

      How can anybody have already established that as “fact”? It’s literally impossible to have collected and analysed the data, written a paper, had it accepted for publication and then had it replicated/reproduced by numerous others.

      It’s just a priesthood declaring its faith.

  8. February 20, 2022 8:52 am

    Gorleston near Great Yarmouth recorded 122mph in 1987. Wind recording machines broke or were cut due to power failures at 120mph at such places as shoreham.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_storm_of_1987

    This is without the 135mph at great dun fell in 1968

  9. February 20, 2022 8:56 am

    From the Met Office:

    The strongest ever winds in the UK have been recorded on mountains, and the strongest ever gust was 150.3 knots (173 mph) recorded at Cairngorm Summit on 20 March 1986. However, some very strong gusts have been recorded at low levels too , these mostly along exposed coastal areas.

    These include:

    123.4 knots (142 mph) on 13 February 1989 at Fraserburgh in Aberdeenshire.
    107.8 knots (124 mph) on 12 January 1974 at Kilkeel in County Down.
    102.5 knots (118 mph) on 15 December 1979 at Gwennap Head in Cornwall.

    Most of the maximum recorded wind gusts given above have occurred in the winter. Winter is the windiest time of year in the UK. At this time of year, the jet stream tends to track further south allowing more Atlantic storms to affect the UK.

    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/types-of-weather/wind/windiest-place-in-uk

  10. Phoenix44 permalink
    February 20, 2022 9:55 am

    Finding trends in “extreme” events is virtually impossible as they are by definition rare and so you have very small numbers. If these events are for our practical purposes random (i.e. they require a large number of variables to coincide in a certain way) then a 50% increase could just be 2 additional storms.

    That chart by decade is an example of such nonsense – why would you use decades like that to chart continuous data? If you use different ten year periods the data will almost certainly look very different. Why not just chart a rolling average? Presumably because it doesn’t show what they want.

  11. Gerry, England permalink
    February 20, 2022 10:51 am

    The 1987 storm left a lot more tree damage as it came when they were still in leaf and the ground was saturated. This storm has not done anywhere like as much damage. The 1990 storm came during a working day and not during the night so casualties were higher but damage lower. People certainly seemed to have been scared indoors on Friday unless it was a sign of the TWATs and WFHM&F. Very little traffic. I had to edge around a fallen tree on my journey and there was one that had been sawn up earlier.

  12. Gamecock permalink
    February 20, 2022 12:47 pm

    ‘One likely factor in the 1990s storms, including of course Burns Day, was that the Arctic was in a much colder phase, creating a bigger temperature differential with the warmer air to the south.

    It is this differential which powers storms at temperate latitudes.’

    It is pressure differential, not temperature differential.

    • February 28, 2022 12:39 pm

      “It is pressure differential, not temperature differential.”

      Temperature differentials are what underlie the pressure differentials – temperature differences are the ultimate cause.

Comments are closed.