By P Gosselin
Charts by Kirye
Pacific typhoons have been trending downward for 70 years
The Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) presents the latest data for Pacific typhoons — going back to 1951.
This summer climate alarmists in Europe have been chasing “heat waves”, likely because hurricanes and typhoons have been on the quiet side.
Today we look at the data from the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) for the number of typhoons formed in the Pacific in the month of July, now that the July data are available:
Clearly the world has warmed somewhat since 1951, but contrary to what the climate bedwetters claim, the trend in typhoons has been downward – suggesting that a warmer climate leads to less Pacific storms in terms of typhoons formed. This is the opposite of what climate “experts” said would happen.
Next we look at the number of typhoons formed in the Pacific from January to July, going back to 1951:
Though the data for 2022 are not yet complete, we look as a reminder at the number of typhoons formed each year up through 2020:
Data source: JMA.
The climate experts have been wrong, and the media have been misleading us. Typhoons are not intensifying and becoming more frequent.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well, Blow me…………..
Most would expect dinner first…
Or at least a movie!
I’ve never found it necessary to go that far. Do you think I’m made of money? 🤣
That could be arranged. Are you offering? 🤣
Careful, the alarmists are whores and could be carrying disease.
I have met lot’s of alarmists, none of them diseased. Well, other than mentally and I don’t believe that’s transmissible by this particular method. 🤣
So they are whores that are just mentally diseased? I find that improbable.😉
How did I just know this post would deteriorate………..🤣
Great posts as usual Kirye. If this keeps up, hurricane & typhoon forecasters will be without a job.
Shaman get paid?
Except that “Typhoons are
notintensifying.” Total energy is rising. Gosling knows that so I guess he just forgot to include the intensity graph.From 2001 to 2021, the Pacific Ace has been below normal in six years, near normal in eight years, and above normal seven years. In the last five years, it has been above normal once, near normal three times, and below normal once.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulated_cyclone_energy
No trend at all.
If you do not show the data and source, the default position for you, loydo, is that you are wrong.
Lol, but it’s ok for Goose? afterall he’s only the author and serial cherry-picker/arm-waver. You seem to think that MO is ok too.
“Trending down for 70 years”, blah, blah. Why do you think he made no reference to this?
Sorry for being skeptical of him, but someone had to.
Somebody looking objectively at the real numbers . . . imagine that!
Alarmists are Objective.
Edit: Sorry, Objectionable.
Well, hell, where the msm going to find more disaster porn? Oh, they will just CGI that shit, like AlGore:The Goreacle does.
CGI: Catastrophic Global Imagination
Close ups of chorizo.
Was just now reading about that. What a clown show science has become.
Don’t we measure hurricanes differently from today versus 10 years ago, 20 years ago or 50 years ago?
We probably need the Final Nail to tell us how we should fill in “missing” data with Simon and Griff’s shared brain.
The odds are that typhoons were more common in the pre-satellite era than what is shown. That is, the real slope of the regression line should be steeper.
Good point, and there is this famous one:
Haiphong cyclone, (Oct. 8, 1881), one of most catastrophic natural disasters in history and the third deadliest tropical cyclone ever recorded. The cyclone smashed into the Gulf of Tonkin, setting off tidal waves that flooded the city of Haiphong in north eastern Vietnam, caused widespread destruction, and killed an estimated 300,000 inhabitants.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Haiphong-cyclone
But come on now, it could be worse than we thought, couldn’t it?
Nope.
Oh, they will just change their models and show climate change decreases number & intensity of typhoons. Climate change does whatever is most useful to give governments cover when it ruins your life in order to benefit billionaire campaign contributors,
They have taken to searching out and counting minor squalls. After some of the coldest winters in multi-decades, failed warming forecasts despite egregiously fiddled data – selectively cooling the past and warming the present to get rid of the warmest temperatures of the 20th century (1930s and 40s) and the 35yr cold period (late 1940s to 1980) and an almost 2-decade ‘The Pause’ in temperature rise to 2015, with CO2 up almost 50% from 1850 and no slowdown in sight, they morphed Catastrophic Global Warming into meaningless Climate Change so they could name howling winter storms as part of manmade climate disaster instead of being obliged to convince us that the cold was just weather and it was hot in Timbucto.
When was the last time sharks frozen solid washed up on Massachusetts beaches before 2017 to February 2022? At the same time turtles from the Gulf of Mexico were immobilized by hypothermia and had to be rescued and warmed up to prevent a major dying off. Yeah, Climate Change hunters had a job selling this Bull.
Oops:
https://blog.mares.com/cold-spell-in-the-us-frozen-sharks-on-the-beach-6330.html
“…show climate change decreases number & intensity…”
Numbers are down, but intensity?
Some scientists said this back in 2015…
Dominant climatic factors controlling the lifetime peak intensity of typhoons are determined from six decades of Pacific typhoon data.
We find that upper ocean temperatures in the low-latitude north western Pacific (LLNWP) and sea surface temperatures in the central equatorial Pacific control the seasonal average lifetime peak intensity by setting the rate and duration of typhoon intensification, respectively.
An anomalously strong LLNWP upper ocean warming has favoured increased intensification rates and led to unprecedentedly high average typhoon intensity during the recent global warming hiatus period, despite a reduction in intensification duration tied to the central equatorial Pacific surface cooling.
Continued LLNWP upper ocean warming as predicted under a moderate [that is, Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5] climate change scenario is expected to further increase the average typhoon intensity by an additional 14% by 2100.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1500014
yeah? be sure to post the empirical evidence in 2100
“Figure 1A shows the evolution of the seasonal mean lifetime peak intensity of typhoons between 1951 and 2010, computed using TC data from the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) best track data set (20), with the intensity data before 1973 being adjusted to account for shifting wind-pressure relationship”
What even is this metric ‘seasonal mean lifetime peak intensity ? It seems to be a wind speed
“Significant interannual-to-decadal variability is evident with a period of weak decrease from the late 1950s to the mid-1970s followed by a rising trend.”
So they found a need to adjust the data before 1973 , lucikly after the 70s theres a rising trend
The bingo number is 5m/s increase in the seasonal mean peak…etc.
Thats 11 mph. Over 20 years . The data increase seems to be because of a higher proportion of stronger cyclones …since the satellite era I might add. ( not that they would)
The study only covers ‘NW Typhoons’ not the complete cyclones for the Pacific or Indians Oceans – which occur above and below the equator
And this year, like last is liable to be a very below average year for Typhoons.
Even NOAA admits it.
As I write this the ACE for the NW Pacific is at 28% of the average for this time of year.
Since the largest part of the Global ACE is derived from the NW Pacific basin, as long as it is depressed, the Global ACE is likely to continue to show below average numbers.
The last thing the alarmists want is to bring attention to those facts.
The 2022 Pacific typhoon season is an ongoing event in the annual cycle of tropical cyclone formation, in which tropical cyclones form in the western Pacific Ocean. The season runs throughout 2022, though most tropical cyclones typically develop between May and October.
Most typhoons hit Japan between May and October with August and September being the peak season.
It is puzzling why a chart for only the month of July (first chart), and another chart for January through July (second chart), would be presented when the typhoon season runs from May through October. And the number of typhoons that affect Japan typically peaks in August and September.
For the third chart, there is probably bias in the data.
Prior to the satellite age (roughly pre-1980) it is more likely that a typhoon was formed and never recorded in the record books, compared with after 1980.
Hurricanes / typhoons tended to be undercounted in the era before weather satellites. That bias can be significantly reduced by only counting hurricanes / typhoons that made landfall — for the US they have been declining since the late 1800s.
Global warming reduces extreme weather events by reducing the temperature differential between the poles and the tropics. Data charts on extreme weather events are at the link below:
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2022/07/global-warming-reduces-extreme-weather.html
The big news for 2022 that was not mentioned
(I don’t now why)
Not a single hurricane or typhoon so far this season
in the Northern Hemisphere. There were three
Atlantic Ocean tropical storms so far:
Alex, Bonnie and Colin.
Hurricane season extends through November
but this seems like big news to me.
Richard Greene posted:
“Prior to the satellite age (roughly pre-1980) it is more likely that a typhoon was formed and never recorded in the record books, compared with after 1980.”
That statement is not supported by facts.
The first weather satellite, Tiros N, was launched in 1960. ESSA and NOAA were soon to follow, launching weather satellites into orbit in the late 1960s. The Nimbus 3 satellite vastly improved weather data in 1969, when it could measure temperature information in the troposphere. The GOES series of satellites began in the 1970s. By the late 1970s, polar orbiting satellites had the capabilities of relaying wind data from near the ocean’s surface. This was pivotal in developing the study of tropical storm intensification.
— https://www.whsv.com/content/news/Weather-satellites-A-brief-history-and-how-they-are-used-today-569304071.html
Change the date and the statement is correct.
Pre-satellite counts are likely to undercount hurricanes
roughly pre-1970, rather than “roughly pre-1980”.
Do you disagree?
Or are you just nitpicking?
I thought he was just informing you of a fact you obviously didn’t know. And yes two decades do matter.
Yes. And when did satellites begin to estimate ‘peak sustained windspeed’ of cyclonic storms until…… ?
Tiros N was launched in 1978 not 1960s – you mean Tiros 1 which lasted 70 odd days TIROS was the acronym for TV infra red
Tiros 10 lasted a year in 1965-66
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIROS-N
According to Wikipedia, Tiros N was launched in 1978, not 1960. Tiros 1 was launched in 1960. It was, however, an experimental satellite and only operated for 78 days. The early weather satellites had low spatial resolution and might have missed small typhoons.
Clyde, you are right. I was thinking Tiros 1 at the time I composed my above post but my fingers typed in the more famous (and longer lasting) Tiros N . . . I guess by reflex.
Anyway, good catch . . . and mea culpa.
The development and deployment of weather satellites is the one thing that justifies every cent spent on space research and technoloy over the last 60 years. Countless millions of lives saved, often in the poorest countries, by their early warnings.
I remember well the surprise of most people (myself included) at the extent of global cloud cover they revealed…prior to this we all thought the world looked something like a desk top globe.
It is puzzling why a chart for only the month of July (first chart), and another chart for January through July (second chart), would be presented when the typhoon season runs from May through October. And the number of typhoons that affect Japan typically peaks in August and September.
Perhaps because the author is showing numbers relative to the period of data we have so far this year.
As I stated, the NW Pacific ACE is at 28% of what the average is for this date according to Dr. Maue’s index. Is that not a significant metric to you?
At the CSU ACE site they show ACE in the NW Pacific as of today at 22.4 while the climatology data shows it would normally be at 86 on this date. That sure seems significant to me.
Real-Time Global Tropical Cyclone Activity (colostate.edu)
BTW it was December of 1944 when Halsey’s 3rd fleet was blind sided by a powerful Typhoon.
Funny that these sorts of data aren’t prominently in UN IPCC and U.S. National Climate Assessment reports or even mentioned.
Well, if that is true about hurricane undercounts before 1970 that would mean the decline to now would be steeper.
Gotta hide the decline…
Climate seancers would never do that!
Would they?
Beep-beep-boop-beep! This just in: Typhoons are now endangered, due to climate change! Film at 11.
We now return you to our regularly-scheduled climate
propagandaprogramming.Our children won’t know what typhoons are!
They should be so lucky!
Damn! I should have read before commenting.
Typhoons are now endangered…
___________________________
I bet you thought that was a ridiculous parody didn’t you?
The U.S. coast is in an unprecedented hurricane drought –
why this is terrifying –
The Washington Post 08/04/2016
The Global Warming theory says when more western Pacific typhoons form, it’s indicative of global warming. But the Climate Change theory says whenever and where ever weather changes it is indicative of climate change.
So there is no inconsistency and your oil company funded right wing Trumpist science denialist blog won’t fool anyone for a minute. We are in a crisis and your data proves it.
/sarc tag missing?
Its not true sarcasm if it has a /sarc tag.
The sarcasm was pretty obvious to me.
Oops
Are you the Grifter, using a new moniker, Doofusman?
Slight decline, but is it significant?
The answer is NO.
I would agree except that it is exactly opposite of what the doomsters have been selling.
They suddenly got excited a couple days ago about a little invest coming off Africa. But it is almost certainly going nowhere with dry dusty air, cool SSTs, and shear ahead.
I was in Hong Kong quite a few years back during a Typhoon. Visiting an expats home in an upper floor of a high rise. A little scary especially when the building seemed to move with the winds. If you look at how these high rises are constructed with (at the time) bamboo or wood scaffolding and the fact that the scaffolding never collapsed it was reassuring.
Bamboo makes extremely good scaffolding. The reduced weight compared to steel scaffolding is very beneficial, and probably makes them much less likely to collapse, and much less dangerous if they do.
It’s no coincidence that it’s used for scaffolding pretty much everywhere that it grows prolifically.
Chinese make sh!tyy concrete however.
I was on a guided tour of SE Asia courtesy of the US Navy in 1971. Our operations were frequuently intetrupted by unanticipated storms. We had to depart Hong Kong early on two ocassions and were caught off guard by the strength and size of Typhoon Rose. What a ride!
I have always been at a loss to understand the prediction of windier weather. They always said global warming would effect the poles more than the equator and since winds are largely generated by the temperature difference should that not result in less winds
Climate change is a miraculous system whereby only subjectively “bad” things get worse and subjectively “good” things happen less. Science is still working on an objective metric for bad and good, but they’ll get there, no matter how much tax money it takes.
Both the historical record and the geological record show that warmer eras produce milder weather and fewer storms. Cold eras where the contrast between the equator and the poles is greatest produce more severe storms.
Extreme weather is on the decline and some of that is due to the increase in CO2.
How so?
Increases in CO2 slightly help reduce the energy differences between the poles and the tropics.
As a violently interested non-scientist, my reading tells me that the climate, the earth, is a giant heat pump moving heat from the tropics to the poles then out to space.
“Classic” AWG used to say that the upper latitudes would warm much faster than the tropics, decreasing the differential between equator and poles and thereby must reduce the number and size of storms.
So it it seems like the Scientologists have corrupted their own “science” in insisting that hurricanes like everything else MUST get worse.
Data shows that the original theory may be correct, just one more aspect of the mild warming we have experienced being almost 100% positive.
I say almost as there must be some negatives, nothing is perfect.
I just don’t know of any.
It’s what they can get the public to believe. And they hammer away at it relentlessly never admitting mistakes while blaming us greedy folks living a normal life.
It’s what you have to do when you are selling windmills and solar panels and assuming dictatorial powers.
Even in an ostensibly limited frame of reference, the science born of chaos confounds the experts.
“The climate experts have been wrong, and the media have been misleading us.”
The “experts” and the media have been bought and paid for by entities interested in creating chaos.
In chaos there are ample opportunities to subjugate people and denude them of their rights and dignity.
Let’s get this straight:
The IPCC tells us that most warming of the planet will occur mainly in the hemispheres, in winter, overnight, and it will be the T min, not the T max mostly affected. Equatorial regions will be largely unaffected.
That logically means, cold weather fronts from the hemispheres, meeting warm equatorial fronts, will have a smaller temperature difference and therefore be less disruptive i.e. hurricane’s and typhoons will be less frequent/destructive/smaller etc.
We also know that if every bit of sea ice were to melt due to rising ocean temperatures sea levels wouldn’t rise at all. That only happens when land locked ice melts e.g. Artic, Antarctic and Greenland.
Being that air temperatures are expected to rise anywhere between 1.5C and 8.5C (LOL), and Scott was believed to have perished in the summer Antarctic temperature of -45C, how will land based ice ever melt, if the warming oceans can’t rise to melt it?
We also know that NASA told us a few years ago that the planet had greened by 14% in 35 years of satellite observations, 70% of it directly attributed to elevated atmospheric CO2 levels.
And why is the Great Barrier Reef flourishing if, as we have been persistently assured, warming oceans are bleaching the coral? Are the oceans then, not warming? Or is the GBR expanding in warmer waters and ‘The Science’ was just plain wrong?
I’m really struggling to find something bad about a warming planet.
This “hemispheres” is a new description of somewhere in specific?
AR6 WG-I report, section 11.7.1.4, “Detection and attribution, event attribution”, page 1588 :
The IPCC admits that when it comes to TCs (tropical cyclones) there are several aspects of the past (and present) that they are unable to explain.
– – – – –
Section 11.7.1.5, “Projections”, on page 1590 :
They openly admit that when it comes to future “projections” on the frequency of TCs up to 2100 they haven’t got even the beginnings of an idea of which factors will affect how many TCs will form in the future …
The last paragraph of section 11.7.1.5 (on page 1592) :
… but that doesn’t stop them putting limits on how those numbers “will” evolve anyway.
NB : “The western North Pacific” = the area the JMA was talking about in the ATL article.
The IPCC may highlight “intensity” and a “likely” increase in the strongest (Category 4-5) TCs in the future — i.e. claiming they will be “more destructive” as you might put it — but even they admit that the frequency of TCs may well go down (or stay the same) as GMST rises.
Great info.
“This is the opposite of what climate “experts” said would happen.”
Who are those “experts” and what did they actually say?
Here is the AR4 SPM:
“Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical SSTs. There is less confidence in projections of a global decrease in numbers of tropical cyclones.”
They actually predict a decrease, though not confidently.
“Typhoons are not intensifying…”
No information is given to support that.
Thanks for that wonderful IPCC quote.
So let’s get this straight…both an increase AND a decrease in typhoon numbers/intensity are a sure sign of the dreaded global warming. What would steady numbers indicate…we’re all doomed?
They are not prescribing diagnostics. They think there could be fewer hurricanes (not sure) but more intense. Totally different to what is claimed here.
Based on a range of models. Of course, the observations are what is claimed here. So much for a range of models.
This ^
Nicks models cure cancer too 😉
You seem to be totally missing the point. The headline here says
“Pacific Typhoons Defy Climate Experts’ Dire Forecasts…”
based on a supposition that “experts” says they would increase. But the IPCC didn’t say that. They said they would possibly decrease.
NOAA:
“Declines are projected in most regions except in the Central Pacific, including Hawaii, where tropical cyclones activity is expected to increase.“
(I don’t know if they count as “experts”)
There was no point to miss. The IPCC was not quoted in the article.
IPCC? No, just “experts”. But no names, no quotes.
Nick, They don’t “think”. They used a model=GIGO>
Everything indicates that we are very, very doomed. Can’t get much doomeder.
A summer storm rolled through town today, knocking the muggy 30C air down to a slightly less muggy 23C. Of course, the usual suspects are blaming global warming (or whatever it’s called this week) for an increase in storms. They’re not talking typhoons this far inland, but it seems any sufficiently intense stormy weather must be our fault. I shake my head.
Oh no! Our children won’t know what a typhoon is.