By Paul Homewood
Brizlee Wood
I have now had a response from the Met Office about Brizlee:
No wonder we had not heard of 99 mph winds in Northumberland before!
Comments are closed.
 | Phillip Bratby on ‘Green’ renewable… |
 | vickimh234 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… |
| vickimh234 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… |
| vickimh234 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… |
 | Phoenix44 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… |
| Phoenix44 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… |
| Phoenix44 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… |
 | bnice2000 on Global Heating Will Increase P… |
| vickimh234 on How Wet Was The Spring? |
| vickimh234 on Labour’s Green Obsession… |
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Strongest winds since records began…………
(Sarc intended)
Should be Breezy Wood.
Re. Brizlee Wood:
Feeble Britain needs to stop catastrophising the weather
ROSS CLARK, 23 January 2024
‘Given that 99 is higher than 74 then, bingo, Britain suffered hurricane force winds. There is just the one problem: 99 mph was the speed of a gust recorded at one exposed location, while 74 mph is the sustained wind speed required for a storm to be declared a hurricane. There is a world of difference.’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/23/britain-needs-to-stop-catastrophising-the-weather/
Maybe it was a sustained gust 🙄
107MPH on the Tay Bridge according to the Mail today.
So good news that forecasts expect the Ofgem price cap will drop in April and again in July, but hidden in the April price is a 15% increase in the standing charge for electricity. Anyone want to bet that it will go up again in July. We will also having to pay to cover the suppliers loses due to customer debts.
Here is the Google maps image.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/55%C2%B025'04.8%22N+1%C2%B045'57.6%22W/@55.4182774,-1.7685736,80m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d55.418!4d-1.766?entry=ttu
How on earth does the Met Office expect to be taken seriously? Which CIMO rating does this make? Beyond a joke.
“Observations made at synoptic stations should represent the wider area around the station and not be unduly influenced by local effects. The ideal site should be on level ground with no trees, buildings or steep ground nearby that might influence the measurements. Undesirable influences include the warming effect of buildings on the measurement of temperature and the sheltering or shading effects of trees on the measurement of sunshine and wind. Wherever possible, a station should not be located in a frost hollow where overnight temperatures on still clear nights may be far lower than at neighbouring locations. In a similar way, winds measured at the top of a hill or steep escarpment will be unrepresentative of the wider area.
“https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/guides/observations/uk-observations-network
Is it possible to take the likes of the Met Office to court?
Probably.
But you’d likely get the same Judge / Prosecution team that managed to allow the carefully “picked” jury (asking for details of the Paris COP “Climate Treaty”, as if it was relevant) to acquit JSO loonies (funded apparently by “Sir” Chris Hohn) for half a million pounds of criminal damage, on the basis that “if the owners of the building were aware of the climate catastrophe that faces us all, they would surely have given the “protestors” their encouragement to bash away.”
All part of the kunning plan.
Not a bug, a feature.
Martin, the PO/Fujitsu scandal have proved that it is easy to ignore the rules of disclosure and then ignore and avoid any repercussions for decades afterwards.
I’ve watched a lot of the inquiry. The Climate Change programmers and Fujitsu developers have a lot in common. I saw a comment that the next 3 hours would be continuous playing of Shaggy’s “It Wasn’t Me”. Can’t watch it without hearing it in the background!
Ray, if Ross Clarke can get items in the press perhaps you should write to him and explain that definition for met sites. Best of luck – and well done.
Shouldn’t it be replaced by a wind turbine? Can’t have such valuable sites going to waste, surely? /sarc
The RAF are already there…
The site is located at 820 feet (250 m) above sea level and is notable from the surrounding area being known locally as “The Golf Ball”.
. . .
The placement of windfarms near to remote radar heads (RRH) has raised several objections by the MoD. Studies have shown that aircraft flying over windfarms appear “invisible” no matter what [height] they are flying at, nor that distance from the RRH.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RRH_Brizlee_Wood
Footnote: ‘The area the base is located in recorded the strongest winds during Storm Arwen in November 2021. Wind speeds at Brizlee Wood were registered at 98 miles per hour (158 km/h).’ — Wikipedia
Deception and lies from the MetOffice . .
Go figure….
Brizlee Wood
“In 2008, it was reported that BAE Systems had won a contract to supply new radar equipment which would combat the effects of windfarms on the radar tracking stations. The beam which is bounced back into radar stations can have a “shadow” caused by windfarms causing confused or non-existent signals.” (Wikipedia)
It can be seen when driving along the A66 which is bleak enough but Brizlee Wood is several hundred feet higher than the road.
OTT
El Nino seems to be on the wane:
I guess this is the same Met Office that keeps reporting “record” temperatures from the hottest heat trap in the UK, Heathrow, a hell of concrete, tarmac and jet breath…
Off topic question:
WHY is wind supplying only 14.8GW currently?
Whilst we are IMPORTING about 17% of our electricity, and 1% is being provided by coal.
The wind capacity is meant to be something like 27GW. The wind is certainly blowing, so why is it not generating at full capacity, and why are importing electricity?
Wind turbines get switched off in winds above a certain force, to avoid excessive strain on components. Imports are likely to be from windproof sources like nuclear, gas, coal, hydro.
I thought that was a possibility, but I wondered if the real reason is connected with rinsing the customers.