2022 Global Wide Hurricane Season Ends with Weakest Storm Levels of the Last 42 Years

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

After nearly 4 decades of Democrat driven flawed and failed politically contrived climate alarmist propaganda claims of worsening global climate impacts NOAA’s measured worldwide hurricane season science data for all year 2022 tropical storms shows that global wide storms were at their lowest strength levels in the last 42 years (since 1981) as shown by the ACE (Accumulated Cyclone Energy reflecting the combined frequency, intensity and duration of all storms) data below from Colorado State University’s Department of Atmospheric Science which tracks NOAA’s National Hurricane Center tropical storm data.

The year 2022 global wide ACE data outcome is about 29% lower than the average over the 30 year-long (1991 through 2020) climatology period tracked by Colorado State University’s Tropical Meteorology Project data base.

This decades long measured global wide tropical storm declining strength data trend outcome contradicts the data deficient and unsupported climate alarmist claims that tropical storms and hurricanes are growing ever stronger because of “climate change” that is falsely hyped by both the climate alarmist propaganda media and their Democrat political leaders.   

Additionally, NOAA’s science measured tropical storm data through year 2022 clearly demonstrates that global hurricanes are not trending stronger in numbers, duration or intensity in the Northern Hemisphere Oceans, Southern Hemisphere Oceans and North Atlantic Ocean (as shown by ACE data graphs for these ocean regions below) despite the alarmist media concealment of this science data from public view.

The Northern Hemisphere year 2022 ACE is about 33.5% lower than the average of the 1991 to 2020 climatology period, the Southern Hemisphere year 2022 ACE is about 36% lower than the 1991 to 2020 climatology period and the North Atlantic year 2022 ACE is about 22.4% lower than the 1991 to 2020 climatology period.

The Northern Hemisphere Oceans and North Atlantic Ocean year 2022 Colorado State University Real Time TC Statistics ACE profiles compared to the 1991 to 2020 climatology 30-year period are shown below that clearly display the significantly reduced year 2022 ACE levels despite flawed propaganda hype by climate alarmists and media to falsely fabricate claims of increasing storm strengths.

Not only does the climate alarmist media conceal data clearly establishing the fact that global and ocean region hurricanes and tropical storms are not trending stronger they are also grossly misrepresenting the trend in global weather storm costs by erroneously using absolute dollar cost trend comparisons between years instead of using comparisons of these costs configured as a percentage of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) data as established by the United Nations as the appropriate economic basis for making weather damage yearly cost comparison trends.

AP climate alarmist propaganda reporter Seth Borenstein and other alarmist reporters continue to falsely misrepresent cost trend comparisons of global weather events by deliberately concealing GDP global weather event cost trend data comparisons and incompetently reporting these costs in absolute dollars as noted below from a recent AP article. 

“That’s the state of climate change in the 2020s that $268 billion in global disaster costs is a 12% drop from the previous year, where damage passed $300 billion.

The number of U.S. weather disasters that caused at least $1 billion in damage is only at 15 through October and will likely end the year with 16 or 17, down from 22 and 20 in the last two years, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. But because of Hurricane Ian, overall damage amounts are probably going to end up in the top three in American history.

Weather disasters, many but not all of them turbocharged by human-caused climate change, are happening so frequently that this year’s onslaught, which 20 years ago would have smashed records by far, now in some financial measures seems a bit of a break from recent years.”


The graphs below address that the total number of global weather events and their costs as expressed as a percentage of GDP are not trending upward which contradicts claims of increasing cost trends as erroneously hyped by climate alarmist flawed methodology which inappropriately use absolute dollars figures in attempting to make these cost trend comparisons.

The graphs below represent analysis by Dr. Roger Pielke that addresses the number of global events and costs as a percentage of GDP for global weather damage losses covering the period 1990 through 2022.

The climate alarmist AP article noted above as well as many other climate alarmists articles trying to falsely portray increasing severe weather events fail to address at all the lack of increasing numbers and severity of U.S. tornadoes over the last 18 years (2005 through 2022) as shown by the latest NOAA data below which shows only 5 of the last 18  storm year totals were above the mean range with the two highest values occurring 12 to 15 years ago. Year 2022 totals were below the mean.

The number of strongest tornadoes (EF3+) has in fact been consistently declining from 1970 through 2020 as shown by NOAA data in the graph below.

This blatant failure by the climate alarmist media to address the reality of declining weather event severity and instead conceal such data is just another example establishing the dishonesty and deception of climate alarmist propaganda articles in their efforts to hide measured science data from public view and instead rely upon science data unsupported claims and contrived propaganda.    

NOAA’s measured hurricane strength data both globally and regionally over many decades exposes the flawed and failed climate alarmist claims that hurricanes are growing stronger as being both erroneous and dishonest. 

UN adopted methodology of measuring global weather storm cost trends using percentage of GDP assessments (instead of flawed assessments using absolute dollar yearly total comparisons as employed by climate alarmists) show the costs of global weather events are not trending upward as erroneously claimed by climate alarmists and media.

4.8 28 votes
Article Rating
34 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
It doesnot add up
January 5, 2023 6:13 am

What is also falling is the credibility if alarmist projections.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  It doesnot add up
January 5, 2023 6:35 am

Oh I’m not so sure about that; it suggests that at SOME point they had SOME credibility.

Remember, the SAME claims that the weather would become “more extreme” were made about the “ICE AGE COMETH” global COOLING in the 1970s, and some of the SAME so-called “scientists” were on BOTH bandwagons.

I don’t think alarmist climate projections have EVER had ANY credibility.

It doesnot add up
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
January 5, 2023 2:18 pm

Unfortunately they have had too much credibility. That is why politicians have latched on to them. But as the predictions unwind, even the politicians will eventually have less faith in them.

Ron Long
January 5, 2023 6:29 am

Well, my fear of the doomsday clock reaching zero is more important than your made-up data and denial. Signed: Exalted Doomster Princess (Ron Long agreed to post this for me).

abolition man
Reply to  Ron Long
January 5, 2023 7:19 am

Ron,
I think you misattributed; that should have been Exalted Dumpster Princess! Probably the just accent.

abolition man
January 5, 2023 7:16 am

Climate alarmists lie and exaggerate; in other news dog bites man!

Tom in Florida
January 5, 2023 7:36 am

One has to be very careful when using cost basis evaluation. If Hurricane Ian had struck the Tampa/St Pete area instead of Ft Myers, the cost would have been 10’s of times higher. So location is just as important as strength when doing those numbers.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 6, 2023 11:37 am

I believe Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr.’s methods account for the actual infrastructure development patterns at different locations in making estimates of current-cost damages from similar sized storms.

daveandrews723
January 5, 2023 7:57 am

As with all scams, follow the money.
The alarmists have too much invested in promoting the catastrophic-climate-change narrative to turn back now. A lot of lucrative careers have been built on it.
The beauty of this scam is that it can run for several generations without the scammers having the fear of being held accountable.

Ben Vorlich
January 5, 2023 8:59 am

I’m not holding my breathe to hear Justin Rowlatt reporting on this story.
He’s done the UK’s hottest year evah, I don’t know if that’s all areas of the UK or not. Also no snow in the Alps in the last couple of days.

Editor
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
January 5, 2023 12:38 pm

It sickens me that the absolute best possible European winter weather – probably better beyond even the wildest hopes – coming in the middle of a life-threatening energy crisis, has been reported negatively right across the media. The European weather has briefly been unusually warm, thus saving many people’s energy costs. Had it been unusually cold instead, I am sure that many people, unable to afford to warm their homes, would have died. Yet the media reported these few days of wonderfully good weather as dangerous global warming.

The leaders (political, big-tech and media) of most of the western democracies are sick. The sooner we find a cure, the better.

It doesnot add up
Reply to  Mike Jonas
January 5, 2023 3:37 pm

The latest evidence on excess deaths was published today. Because of delays in reporting deaths there are still wide uncertainty bounds, but in the week ending 23 December, excess deaths for England and Wales are estimated at around 4,000, which is a big leap over levels of around 1,000 during November, and likely driven by inadequate heating during the pre-Christmas cold snap.

Editor
January 5, 2023 9:01 am

Nicely done.

(However, I would not have included graphs that attempt to report weather/climate data back to the late 1800s. Broad geographical coverage of weather/climate before the World Wars is not dependable in any way.)

Cost of Disasters is correctly reported as rising, but only because things cost more and there is more “expensive stuff” to be damaged, particularly by hurricanes — we foolingly build more and more expensive homes and infrastructure knowingly in harms way,

Richard Greene
Reply to  Kip Hansen
January 5, 2023 9:14 am

COMING CLIMATE CHANGE CRISIS PROPAGANDA IS SO EFFECTIVE THAT IT PREVENTS MOST PEOPLE FROM ENJOYING TODAY’S WONDERFUL CLIMATE. 

U.S. HURRICANES MAKING LANDFALL HAVE BEEN IN A DOWNTREND SINCE THE LATE 1800s. 

MAJOR US TORNADOES HAVE BEEN IN A DOWNTREND 
SINCE THE 1950s. 

US HEAT WAVES, DROUGHTS AND FOREST FIRE ACRES BURNED PEAKED IN THE 1930s. 

THE 1930s STILL HAVE THE MOST US STATE MAXIMUM HEAT RECORDS OF ANY DECADE, BY FAR. 

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Richard Greene
January 5, 2023 9:12 am

This is proof of climate change
Because everything is proof of climate change
And what is needed now is more bird and bat shredders (windmills)
With enough windmills, they will absorb the wind energy of hurricanes and prevent deaths and destruction.

The answer to any problem is building more bird and bat shredders.
Covid epidemic?
Build more windmills
Open border with Mexico?
Build more windmills
Inner city crime?
Build mote windmills
Jumpin’ Joe Biden is a dingbat
Build more windmills
You can’t have too many windmills !

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Fraizer
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 5, 2023 12:48 pm

Kind of like more cow bell.

ResourceGuy
January 5, 2023 10:59 am

And now on to the next no-consequences forecast after a word from our sponsors

JoeF
January 5, 2023 11:08 am

It looks like the data is repeated in the 2nd and 3rd graphs. That is, it shows 1971-2019 data twice on the same graph.

Hivemind
Reply to  JoeF
January 5, 2023 1:50 pm

That’s a trick the Australian BOM did to its raw temperature data. It is really good to conceal inconvenient data.

Last edited 1 month ago by Hivemind
David Wojick
January 5, 2023 11:14 am

Lots of good data but I do not see a diminishing trend. I see no trend, which says we have nothing to do with it.

rah
January 5, 2023 11:53 am

The only way to end this is to pull them away from the government/tax payers tits.

Scarecrow Repair
January 5, 2023 12:07 pm

“After nearly 4 decades of Democrat driven flawed and failed politically contrived climate alarmist propaganda claims of worsening global climate impacts”

Not enough adjectives. But there should be a comma at the end; it took me a few seconds to figure out where the adjectives ended.

Bob Hunter
January 5, 2023 12:12 pm

Rather obvious to this layman, who to trust with their analysis? Dr. Roger Pielke or Dr. Judith Curry who the insurance industry with a financial stake rely on for extreme weather events OR the academic scientists and govt scientists/bureaucrats who are not held accountable.

antigtiff
January 5, 2023 12:27 pm

Yes….yes….but whatabout these new “Bomb” Cyclones?…seems to be a lot of ’em.

Duane
January 5, 2023 12:42 pm

What is a “climate disaster”?

That is a senseless term.

David Wojick
Reply to  Duane
January 5, 2023 1:04 pm

Yes, given that climate is a long term average. But the new semantic trick is to refer to extreme weather as a “climate event”. A truly meaningless but scary term.

The scare has its own nonsensical language.

aaron
January 5, 2023 2:53 pm

The same for arctic blasts.

The highs get slightly higher, but the lows are even higher. The swings are smaller and less frequent. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab4867/meta

https://twitter.com/aaronshem/status/1610772184854667269

“ The confusion I’m talking about stems from a mantra that has emerged from the climate communication community:

“A small change in the average means a large change in extremes.”

Taken at face value, this phrase is misleading. The phrase is not true if ‘small change’ and ‘large change’ both refer to the same thing: a change in temperature.

The way it becomes true is by applying the ‘small change in the average’ part to temperature change but then flipping the meaning and applying the ‘large change in extremes’ part, not to temperature change, but to the frequency of crossing a temperature threshold.

If you are consistent and look at the change in temperature for both the average & extremes, what you’ll actually find is that a more accurate phrase would be “a small change in the average means a SMALLER change in extremes.” At least for extreme heat over land.

That’s right, the most extreme hot temperatures are increasing slightly SLOWER than the annually-averaged temperatures in most locations over land (magenta and green lines).“

https://mobile.twitter.com/PatrickTBrown31/status/1555920248817127425

E272F37E-03A5-4D32-9A5D-43352C89C270.jpeg
Last edited 1 month ago by aaron
rah
January 5, 2023 8:03 pm

Should not the title read” 2022 Global Wide Tropical Cyclone Season Ends with Weakest Storm Levels of the Last 42 Years”
I have always understood that Tropical Cyclone is the generic term used for all such storms.

Pat from Kerbob
January 5, 2023 8:05 pm

From the last line, it’s not “erroneously claimed”, it’s fraudulently claimed.

zzebowa
January 5, 2023 11:57 pm

BOOM! There goes CAGW, deader than Phlogiston.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  ccmsd
January 6, 2023 2:58 pm

NOAA always predicts an above average hurricane season.

NOAA is SO predictable. 🙂

Tom Abbott
January 6, 2023 2:37 pm

From the article: “Weather disasters, many but not all of them turbocharged by human-caused climate change,”

There is no evidence that any weather disasters are being supercharged by CO2. This is an unsubstantiated assumption/assertion.

jcdntexas
January 7, 2023 12:46 pm

Paging Al Gore . . . is there an Al Gore in the house . . . ? Al Gore . . . .

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights