A FEW days ago I came across a statement from TORRO (Tornado and Storm Research Organisation) which I feel sums up the situation with regard to weather scaremongering. I have known Terry Meaden, the founder, and his organisation for 40 years; it seems to me that they have been driven to make a stand as professional (non-governmental) meteorologists against the deluge of non-scientific, alarmist publicity of weather topics but the mainstream media.
‘After 20 years, TORRO has decided to cease producing forecasts for severe convective weather. This is largely due to a combination of various other outlets and individuals offering similar forecasts, and also a rapid growth in sections of the media dramatically overplaying the risks of severe weather.
‘It has now reached a point where such overblown news stories could be damaging to TORRO. Also, it takes time and effort to produce such forecasts, and – whilst not onerous – it is not always possible to be able to give as much consideration to them as we’d like.
‘TORRO’s core focus has and will continue to be in its investigations and collation/documentation of tornado and other severe weather reports – and we continue to welcome any engagement related to this.’
It occurred to my suspicious mind that perhaps the Government, Met Office and MSM are conspiring to produce panic amongst the population, as was the case over the latest named storm, Eowyn. This was nothing more nor less than a rapidly moving and intensively developing winter depression, which would produce some violent weather in places. We are after all approaching the anniversary of the North Sea storm of January 31-February 1 1953 and the sinking of the Stranraer-Larne ferry in that storm, which between them brought about more than 400 fatalities.
Discussion of the forecast for Storm Eowyn
Why a named storm? The practice of naming storms began at the UK Met Office in 2015. According to the Met Office: ‘The naming of storms using a single authoritative system provides a consistent message and aids the communication of approaching severe weather through media partners and other government agencies. In this way the public will be better placed to keep themselves, their property and businesses safe.’
The decision to name a particular storm seems to be somewhat arbitrary as explained by the Met Office: ‘In the UK a storm will be named when it has the potential to cause disruption or damage which could result in an amber or red warning. This is based on our National Severe Weather Warnings service, which is a combination of both the impact the weather may have, and the likelihood of those impacts occurring.’ Naming of storms in the eastern Atlantic is decided by the meteorological agencies of UK, Republic of Ireland and Netherlands. It follows the established practice of the United States in naming hurricanes, which began in 1953. Similarly, severe storms (hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones, which are the same meteorological phenomenon depending on the part of the world in which they occur) are named by the 6 Regional Storm Warning Centres of the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), and has developed in consistency over time. The element of subjectivity in naming storms means that the incidence from year to year does not necessarily provide a means of comparison or indicate a trend.
The use of the word ‘storm’ may be confusing to the public, who may automatically think of a localised rainfall event with thunder and lightning. Technically, a storm as defined by meteorological forecasters is an area of enclosed cyclonic circulation, identified by closely spaced isobars (lines of equal pressure).
The forecast on the evening of Wednesday January 22 said that a low pressure area in the eastern Atlantic was expected rapidly to deepen and move quickly north-eastward across the west coast of Ireland, Scotland and on towards Norway. A central pressure of 938mb was forecast for the depression over the next 24 hours, but then gradually filling as it moved northwards. Three spells of rainfall concomitant with fronts rotating around the depression were forecast from Thursday afternoon and overnight into Friday.
Warnings on Thursday January 23 included a red warning for wind for Northern Ireland and the Central Belt of Scotland, with gusts up to 100mph.
The weather forecast for January 23 in south Suffolk (where I live) was for light rain from 10-11 hours, and rain, briefly heavy, from 14.00-15.30. Wind was forecast to increase gradually between two spells of rainfall. These conditions were nowhere approaching those further north, but once broadcast on MSM, the news has a tendency to become ubiquitous.
Forecast as of Thursday January 23 evening: Consolidation of the previous forecast but emphasising the rapid moment of the system and regional differences in weather. The most severely at-risk areas were again Northern Ireland and Central Scotland, for which red warnings for wind were maintained. Snow warnings were issued for mountainous area and for lowlands in northern Scotland. My area fell within a yellow wind warning.
Weather in south Suffolk January 24: High winds and a few hours of rain occurred in late night/early morning. Strongest winds cleared by 11.00, and sunny periods with blustery winds continued into the afternoon.
The afternoon of January 24 saw warnings progressively downgraded and it was time to start reviewing what had actually happened.
My conclusions
The bottom line was that there were no fatalities [Editor’s note: Since this article was written, two deaths have been reported.] True, there was massive disruption to travel and utilities, and structural damage and fallen trees. But the forecasts by the meteorological services and the warning and emergency services obviously worked, thus fulfilling the stated objective of named storms being to warn of an impending weather impact. Having worked for a number of flood and severe weather forecasting operations, I know that in the customary review of performance, there will not be any agonising over a few micrograms of CO2, a few hectares of woodland in a catchment or the installation of another wind-farm. Storm Eowyn and the like are of magnitude and scale far and above these considerations. Similarly it is futile to attribute supposed impacts and importance of severe weather risks as extrapolated by MSM and climate emergency lobbyists, as highlighted by TORRO.
