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.
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:
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 hereand after the break.