
Guest essay by Patrick J. Michaels
Global warming buffs have been fond of claiming that the roaring winds of Typhoon Haiyan were the highest ever measured in a landfalling tropical cyclone, and that therefore (?) this is a result of climate change. In reality, it’s unclear whether or not it holds the modern record for the strongest surface wind at landfall.
This won’t be known until there is a thorough examination of its debris field.
The storm of record is 1969 Hurricane Camille, which I rode out in an oceanfront laboratory about 25 miles east of the eye. There’s a variety of evidence arguing that Camille is going to be able to retain her crown.
The lowest pressure in Haiyan was 895 millibars, or 26.42 inches of mercury. To give an idea, the needle on your grandmonther’s dial barometer would have to turn two complete counterclockwise circles to get there. While there have been four storms in the Atlantic in the modern era that have been as strong or a bit stronger, the western Pacific sees one of these approximately every two years or so.
Camille’s lowest pressure was a bit higher, at 905 mb (26.72 inches). At first blush it would therefore seem Haiyan would win the blowhard award hands down, but Hayian had a very large eye around which its winds swirled, while Camille’s was one of the smallest ever measured. At times in its brief life, Camille’s was so small that the hurricane hunter aircraft could not safely complete a 360 degree turn without brushing through the devastating innermost cloud band, something you just don’t want to be near in a turning aircraft. In fact, the last aircraft to get into Camille, which measured 190mph sustained winds, lost an engine in the severe turbulence and fortunately was able to limp home.
Haiyan’s estimated 195mph winds were derived from satellite data, rather than being directly sensed by an aircraft. But winds over the open ocean are always greater than those at landfall because of friction, and the five mph difference between the two storms is physically meaningless.
The chance that an onshore anemometer (wind-speed and direction sensor) will survive such a storm isn’t very high, so the winds are inferred by scientists and engineers from the texture and distribution of what’s left behind.
Every year, our National Hurricane Center summarizes the Atlantic hurricane season in painstaking detail in article published in the prestigious journal Monthly Weather Review. Describing Camille’s destruction, it said:
Maximum winds near the coastline could not be measured, but from an appraisal of splintering of structures within a few hundred yards of the coast, velocities probably approached 175 k[nots].
That’s 201 mph.(Higher winds have been measured on small islands. With Haiyan and Camille, we are talking about storms running into large landmasses, where friction takes place.)
Camille killed 143 along the Gulf Coast, while Haiyan’s toll is currently estimated to be more than 2,500.
The difference, which is more than an order of magnitude, is largely (but not completely) due to poverty. Despite experiencing roughly five landfalling tropical cyclones per year, Philippine infrastructure simply isn’t as sound as it is in wealthier countries. As a grim example, a number of Haiyan’s casualties actually occurred in government-designated shelters that collapsed in the roaring eyewall.
In addition, the transportation infrastructure simply couldn’t handle a mass evacuation. If a similar situation applied to the U.S. Gulf Coast, Camille would have killed thousands at landfall, a fact noted in the Hurricane Center’s report on the 1969 season. Where Haiyan hit in the Philippines, there simply weren’t any roads capable of evacuating the citizens of Tacloban City safely inland, forcing them to ride it out dangerously close to the invading ocean and exposed to winds that pulverized most structures.
So, while we really don’t know which storm had higher winds, we do know that more affluent societies are much less affected by even the strongest storms. As Indur Goklany, (who writes frequently for Cato) has pointed out, if left to develop, the entire world will be much more resilient to climate change than it would be if the ineffective policies to “stop” it slowed economic growth.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Perhaps one of the most intensely speculated upon…..
What we need is a new characterization of hurricanes. Haiyan was only a category 4 typhoon at landfall, but its eye and size was enormous.
May I suggest a number-letter system where Haiyan would be a 4E typhoon, Sandy would be a 0E hurricane and Camille a 5B hurricane. The letter signifies total energy in the system, the number maximum wind speed.
lenbilen says:
November 18, 2013 at 8:07 am
IMO, the largest & probably most intense cyclone of the satellite era was Tip in 1979:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Tip
The Philippine national weather bureau, the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration, or PAGASA, showed that Typhoon Haiyan’s intensity – measured by the wind strength at its center and the speed of gusts at landfall – Haiyan ranks at number 7 among the strongest storms ever to have hit the Philippines.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/11/was-haiyan-strongest-storm-ever-no.html
Haiyan is 58th Super Typhoon since 1950 to reach central pressure of 900 mb or lower from historical records.
https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/401934044394303488
50 of 58 Super Typhoons with pressure of 900 mb or lower occurred from 1950-1987 — only 8 in past 25 years.
https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/401934987605209088
It’s a poor counterargument, tactically, to debate whether Haiyan was the strongest cyclone. The issue is the number and fierceness of cyclones in these days of global warming, and on that score we can confidently state that we have seldom had so few cyclones that did so little damage. If global waming is resposible for the cyclonic activity these past few years, then we should be quite happy with the state of our planet’s temperature.
“It’s a poor counterargument, tactically, to debate whether Haiyan was the strongest cyclone.”
Agreed completely. Engaging in this silly debate only lends credence to the hopeful fantasy from the warmists, that global warming caused/worsened this particular storm.
Anyone read UK’s Independent front page? States the 17 year non-warming is untrue – Arctic figs diferent…. Could this be followed up? Quickly…
Just imagine if we took all the money from the IPCC and anything related to climate change and invested in infrastructure improvements in poorer countries. But, of course, the bureaucrats would be forced to *gasp* work for a living, the scientists would be forced to *gasp again* perform actual science, and people’s lives would be improved. I will start believing in CAGW when those who promote the belief live the way they tell us we have to live. Lead by example.
Where’s that hidden heat now? Hiding in the ocean depths? Hiding in the Attic (Ed. ITYM Arctic)?
Its got to be hiding somewhere – anywhere – we haven’t looked yet.
Waiting to jump out and go ‘boo!’.
We know this must be so because Global Warming Due to CO2 is Settled Science!
We all say it, so it must be true*
*Cf Kiplings Jungle Book: The Hunting of Kaa, where Mowgli gets kidnapped by the Money People (Bandar Log) who consider themselves to be the wisest people in the jungle as confirmed by the above statement. They never achieve anything however except incessant chatter.
Is 895 Mb pressure an estimate or actual reading and from where? I see the number tossed about, but cannot find it actually verified and documented.
TIA
Not only is the transportation infrastructure of the Philippines inadequate to a mass evacuation, and the structures incapable of withstanding typhoon-strength winds, but many if not most residents have no autos.
As for high levels of damage, death and destruction, Goklany and others have continued to point out that in many cases population and investment in coastal areas subject to these kinds of events continue to grow, and existing investments (hotel and other property values, for example) continue to appreciate in value. That will always serve as a complication that is not easily separate out in the post-mortem assessments, and easily twisted to suggest a conclusion that is not so clear and often WRONG.
“As Indur Goklany, (who writes frequently for Cato) has pointed out, if left to develop, the entire world will be much more resilient to climate change than it would be if the ineffective policies to “stop” it slowed economic growth.”
Perhaps, but this still maintains the position that the climate is changing for the worse. It cannot be determined by counting casualties or property damage as neither are constant and have been increasing at a significant rate. So that if storms appear exactly the same with the intensity there would be an increase in destruction as population increases.
In addition much has been made of rising global sea levels which have supposedly risen 7.7in since 1870 (wikipedia). so if sees hadn’t risen 7.7in then the 20 foot storm surge would have only been 19 ft 4 in. Is that an improvement.
Poverty in a growing population is the main issue as it is in Haiti or anywhere subject to the full force of nature. .
See Here: http://climateaudit.org/2013/11/18/cotwan-and-way-2013/
Joseph Adam-Smith says:
Anyone read UK’s Independent front page? States the 17 year non-warming is untrue – Arctic figs diferent…. Could this be followed up? Quickly…
The very simple answer is that GISS do infill all the gaps in the Arctic with their 1200km smoothing. And they still come up with a pause, just the same as the other datasets.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/missing-heat-has-left-the-deep-ocean-last-seen-in-arctic/
Everyone wants to be, or survive “#1”. Eventually sanity returns and the real scientists do their work and categorize each of the storms. Right now, no one wanting to believe Haiyan was the strongest, will be pursuaded of anything else.
Typhoon Tip had a central pressure of 870 mb but it did not hit any consequential landmass at that level. Pressure measured by airborne dropsondes. Haiyan’s was inferred from satellite imagery. Clearly the difference in radial velocity in the eyewall between Haiyan and Camille was easily enough to negate the 10mb pressure difference. Whether or not it actually did will be determiined by Haiyan’s debris fields.
Joseph Adam-Smith says:
November 18, 2013 at 9:14 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/14/curry-on-the-cowtan-way-pausebuster-is-there-anything-useful-in-it/
Cyclone Nargis hit Burma in 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_Nargis
“and there have been allegations that government officials stopped updating the death toll after 138,000 to minimize political fallout.”
I wonder how many people remember this disaster?
.If Typhoon Haiyan had hit Burma with its government it may have been forgotten by now.
Q) What does this mean?
Is it compared to the previous debris / splinters in the Philippines or another country like the USA? If structures, then poorly build homes would fair badly compared to structures in Tokyo?
A totally obsolete article that doesn’t point out that the “Biggest Typhoon” ever was only a PR stunt in support of COP 19 in Warsaw.
In Warsaw the hard core ECO NAZI’s who already saw all their catastrophic claims debunked not only by sane scientists, skeptic blogs and ClimateGate I and II but also by mother nature have undertaken another attempt to put the shackles on our Global Populations and kill our economies for good.
Ryan Maue has the exact rank and classification of this storm and put it on number 58 since 1950.
Case closed
Compare the 1970 Bhola cyclone that hit East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). While only a category 3 cyclone, some 300,000 to 500,000 people perished for lack of civil action to prepare and lack of cyclone shelters.
Adaptation, by building cyclone shelters and improving civil defense warnings has drastically reduced the death toll in subsequent cyclones. More are needed.
“This won’t be known until there is a thorough examination of its debris field”
If this were most other fields, we might have some confidence that the examination would provide information that led examiners to objectively determine wind speeds. However, in this particular field, bias, politics and ego’s rule. Why wouldn’t examiners with a preconceived notion and number in mind in their head, look for evidence to support that?
In this case, we couldn’t get any actual measurements but an assessment of damage and debris fields would seem to have plenty of room for subjective interpretation.
Is this concern legit or have my learned experiences in the real world of climate science made me overly skeptical of related fields?
I
Sure, the warmist claims are worthless. But this take on the matter leaves with no more than a hmmmm…
I wouldn’t pay attention to the Independent.
The funny thing is that in the front page of today’s independent I see this news story.
By the way, how old is Tacloban, the city destroyed by Typhoon Haiyan?http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/11/16/how-old-is-tacloban/