The figure above courtesy Ryan Maue (@ryanmaue) updates our analysis of tropical cyclones which made landfall anywhere on Earth from 1970 to 2018. The dataset starts in 1970 because this is where Weinkle et al. (2012) judged global data to be reliable. Data for individual basins is available back in time much further than 1970 (see the paper, linked below).

Last year saw 17 total landfalls at hurricane strength (S/S Category 1+) — slightly above average, with 4 of those being major hurricanes (S/S Category 3+) — slightly below average.

This updates our 2012 analysis:

• Weinkle, J., Maue, R., & Pielke Jr, R. 2012. Historical global tropical cyclone landfalls. Journal of Climate, 25:4729-4735. (free to read, here in PDF).

Some summary statistics for global TC landfalls, 1970 to 2018:

• All landfalls: 15 (median), 15.3 (average), 4.4 (sd)
• Categories 1 & 2 at landfall: 10, 10.5, 3.8
• Category 3+ at landfall: 4, 4.8, 2.5
• Most total landfalls in one year: 30 (1970)
• Fewest total landfalls in one year: 7 (1978)
• Most Category 3+ landfalls in one year: 9, (1999, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008)
• Fewest Category 3+ landfalls in one year: 0 (1981)
• Most total landfalls over a 10-year period: 177 (1988-1997)
• Fewest total landfalls over a 10-year period: 120 (1975-1984)
• Total landfalls 2009-2018: 140
• Most Category 3+ landfalls over a 10-year period: 65 (1999-2008)
• Fewest Category 3+ landfalls over a 10-year period: 33 (1978-1987)
• Total Category 3+ landfalls 2009-2018: 44
• Total landfalls 1970-2018: 750, (516 were Categories 1 & 2, 234 were Category 3+)

Below is a graph showing Categories 1 & 2 (black) and Category 3+ (red). There are no significant trends in the data.

Here in PDF is the 2019 syllabus for my spring graduate seminar, Quantitative Methods of Policy Analysis ENVS 5120, at the University of Colorado Boulder.

Above is the abstract for our new paper just accepted in the Asser International Sports Law Journal.

• Pielke, Jr. R., R. Tucker and E. Boye, (2019, in press). Scientific Integrity and the IAAF Testosterone Regulations, International Sports Law Journal.

Here is a long Twitter thread with details and background.

Here is a New York Times article on this research from last summer.

And here is my 2017 paper on the history of “sex testing” in international athletics, flaws in problem definition and a better way forward.

• Pielke Jr, R. (2017). Sugar, spice and everything nice: how to end ‘sex testing’ in international athletics. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 9:649-665.

If you’d like a copy of either paper, just email me rpielkejr at gmail.

Here in PDF is the 2019 syllabus for my spring undergraduate class, Introduction to Sports Governance, ETHN-3104 at the University of Colorado Boulder.

The figure above shows disaster losses as tracked by Munich re from 1900 to 2018, based on an update published earlier this week (here). The update allows me to add another year to the data reported in this paper:

Pielke, R. (2018). Tracking progress on the economic costs of disasters under the indicators of the sustainable development goals. Environmental Hazards, 1-6.

The graphs below show losses as a percentage of global GDP from 1990 to 2018, for all catastrophes (top) and those that are weather/climate related (bottom)

• Overall losses were at about the 1990-2017 average ($160b vs $163b)
• Weather/Climate losses were above the 1990-2017 average ($147B vs $129B)
• Overall losses are well below the 1990-2017 average (0.19% vs 0.28%)
• Weather/Climate losses are slightly below 1990-2017 average (0.18% vs 0.22)

Bottom line:

• 2018 saw substantial disasters with large costs.
• However, in terms of economic damage it was a fairly typical year in historical context.
• 2018 contributes to the trend (1990-2018) of disaster losses decreasing as a proportion of global GDP.

This is good news.

I have a letter in the current issue of issues in Science and Technology. It is a response to an article by Adam Briggle that calls for what he labels the “responsible rhetoric of research” (RRR) to sit alongside the “standard definition of research misconduct” as falsification, fabrication and plagiarism (FFP). My work is offered up as an example of irresponsible research, even though, in Briggle’s word it appears to be “logically, or empirically, flawless.”

My irresponsibility apparently results from the fact that Briggle’s political opponents might cite my work in support of their views. It is not clear if Briggle is intimating a need for formal sanctioning (a la FFP) or simply rallying social approbation upon me. Either way, it is a chilling message. My full letter appears here and after the break.