Climate change causing more change in rainfall, fiercer typhoons, scientists say

Interesting there are fewer hurricanes nowadays compared to decades ago.

And fewer people being killed by natural disasters than before.

Mother Nature.

Interesting there are fewer hurricanes nowadays compared to decades ago.

And fewer people being killed by natural disasters than before.

Mother Nature

Increases on safety technologies are not enough to keep up with the higher destruction being brought by the disasters. Even the headline is enough to contradict (again) your baseless claims. Climate change (human produced, not natural) is the cause of fiercer typhoons, which of course means more destruction and death.

Do you have any evidence that the scientists that concluded this is not natural and it is a motive for concern because of the trend towards more and more destruction? if not that means you have no other option but accept the scientists are right (and your claims false).

Do you have any evidence that the scientists that concluded this is not natural and it is a motive for concern because of the trend towards more and more destruction? if not that means you have no other option but accept the scientists are right (and your claims false).

Sure; lots of evidence that there is:

*a slight decline** in the yearly number of hurricanes that hit the U.S. Chart of hurricanes making landfall in the U.S. since 1900 *

Sure; lots of evidence that there is

It is very telling that you tried to hide from where you got the quote, in reality the source clearly discredits your claim and concludes the opposite.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/sep/09/bjorn-lomborg/hurricanes-and-climate-change-getting-real-numbers/

The study used for this claim concludes that the declines is not statistically significant, to say otherwise is to contradict what the own authors of the study say the data means, which of course is equivalent to lying.

Meanwhile the opposite of what you claimed is explicitly written

A 2019 paper concluded that human-driven climate change likely made Atlantic hurricanes stronger. The authors analyzed changes in wind speed for storms between 1982 and 2009 and found "significant increases in tropical cyclone intensification rates in the Atlantic basin that are highly unusual." 

"Concentrating on the continental U.S. landfall frequency record has become a bit of a cottage industry for anyone who wants to claim that hurricanes are not linked to climate change," Kossin said. "We're not sure that there will be more storms that form, and there may even be fewer that form, but when they do form, they are more likely to be very dangerous: stronger winds, higher storm surge, more rain and freshwater flooding, slower moving and more likely to stall."

Since this is a source your brought it means you consider it valid, and this source completely contradicts what you claimed, so you proved your own claim is false, again.

It is very telling that you tried to hide from where you got the quote, in reality the source clearly discredits your claim and concludes the opposite.

So you admit there are fewer hurricanes now than in the past decades. Well done!

Climate change (human produced, not natural) is the cause of fiercer typhoons, which of course means more destruction and death.

30 peer reviewed studies show no connection between climate change and hurricanes

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/14/30-peer-reviewed-studies-show-no-connection-between-climate-change-and-hurricanes/

 Even the headline is enough to contradict (again) your baseless claims. Climate change (human produced, not natural) is the cause of fiercer typhoons, which of course means more destruction and death.

False. According to the experts:

in the 20th century, it was common to have years where the *death toll was in the millions.

*In most years, the death toll from disasters is now in the range of 10,000 to 20,000 people.*

https://ourworldindata.org/century-disaster-deaths

So you admit there are fewer hurricanes now than in the past decades. Well done!

Do you understand the meaning of the world "opposite"? why would anybody recognize something your own source says it is a lie? If anything your source is enough to prove there are NO fewer hurricanes now.

You proved yourself wrong again.

30 peer reviewed studies show no connection between climate change and hurricanes

A reference 10 years old is supposedly contradicting science from this year? that makes no sense, much less when it is a site infamous for being manipulative and untrustworthy. Using it has become a de facto recognition you don't have any evidence against climate change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That%3F

False. According to the experts:

Again, your own source disprove your original claim

Improved food security, resilience to other disasters, and better national and international responses mean that the world has not experienced death tolls of this scale in many decades. Famines today are usually driven by civil war and political unrest.

This trend does not mean that disasters have become less frequent, or less intense. It means the world today is much better at preventing deaths from disasters than in the past. This will become increasingly important in our response and adaptation to climate change.

Disasters have not become less severe or infrequent, human response has become better, but it is projected to be severely lacking to the expected degree of disasters in the following years.

So you could not bring any source that refutes the article, and instead brought articles that explicitly contradict your point. You are doing an excellent job at proving you could not even bother to read the article nor your own sources.

The scientific consensus of the world is still correct.

Do you understand the meaning of the world "opposite"? why would anybody recognize something your own source says it is a lie? If anything your source is enough to prove there are NO fewer hurricanes now. 

You proved yourself wrong again.

False,

And, another source with the experts stating the number if hurricanes has decreased over the years:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01414-5.epdf?sharing_token=vGaGdOF9KndNfxbnzwsOs9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OYynDToZQKWfugPKO8yvFolr4YG3Qf71boUcOBIx0HeeyrEjMDbeuCCRwIcgAlGD1AyljAp6jZInfTflBosArFt0Vza0QhNOzJxCSOTdxW2AKr9t8H9Dhah-RJS28jKxUiO6kWNpzr300f0H6HuBBvAHBIQ3a5HwPiK91fC0HRjQ%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.cnn.com

So you admit there are fewer hurricanes now than in the past decades. Well done!

The data suggest otherwise. In addition the number of Category 3 or greater hurricanes show in red in the graph in the link has been increasing steadily since 1850. One the chart Bars depict number of named systems (open/yellow), hurricanes (hatched/green), and category 3 or greater (solid/red), 1886-2004

https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/images/atlhist_lowres.gif

A reference 10 years old is supposedly contradicting science from this year? that makes no sense, much less when it is a site infamous for being manipulative and untrustworthy. Using it has become a de facto recognition you don't have any evidence against climate change.

So your approach is to attack the site referencing the sources but then completely ignore the scientific studies themselves!? You're always banging on about how JT readers should trust the science and rely on the experts. Well 30 peer reviewed studies with excerpts and links were listed at the above url and the best you can do is misdirect! That's not only deceptive but hypocritical. Furthermore the article is 8 years old. In the big scheme of things that's nothing. Weather data is collected over decades to find an average and then the climate is determined from that. Sounds like you're confused. Or maybe that pesky science is an inconvenient truth when it doesn't fit with your ideology?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That%3F

LOL. A lot of people would disagree. To parrot you: Wikipedia is ... a site infamous for being manipulative and untrustworthy.

False,

And, another source with the experts stating the number if hurricanes has decreased over the years:

Not false, according with 2 of your own sources (which means you alaready recognized them as valid and correct) this is not the case.

You have already demonstrated this is not false twice, fishing for new sources do nothing to how you already proved this is not the case, much less a new source that concludes the author opinion is that there is no proper understanding to conclude hurricanes are decreasing.

So you have proved twice the hurricanes have not decreased and once that this can't be determined, in all cases your original claim has been proved false, by yourself.

So your approach is to attack the site referencing the sources but then completely ignore the scientific studies themselves!?

The attack is precisely about an ancient site already debunked because of it biased, invalid and misleading choice of studies, that have been repeatedly demonstrated to be wrong in its interpretation and that do not reflects how the best scientists of the world interpret the literature, it is not the articles are wrong because of where are collected, but that the site making the collection is wrong precisely because the invalid way it uses to collect and interpret the reports.

Can you find ANY respected institution of science that supports the conclusions of the well debunked site that is the only reference you could find? none? not even one? that is because it is just pseudoscience. Obviously the whole scientific community of the world being wrong and one person well known for lying and misrepresenting the science being right is not believable.

LOL. A lot of people would disagree. To parrot you: Wikipedia is ... a site infamous for being manipulative and untrustworthy.

Which of the links that prove the debunking were you able to disprove? none? that means that as a collection of references there is nothing manipulative or untrusty about it.

Not false, according with 2 of your own sources (which means you alaready recognized them as valid and correct) this is not the case.

As others have kindly pointed out to you, the expert sources above refute your reference-lacking opinions.

As others have kindly pointed out to you, the expert sources above refute your reference-lacking opinions.

The experts sources you have brought, and that you consider valid only refuted your own personal claim. Are you now saying your own sources are invalid and you brought them even knowing that?

Can you find any recognized institution of science that contradict the information on the article? any in the whole world? if not, that is more than clear proof there is no contradiction.

The experts sources you have brought, and that you consider valid only refuted your own personal claim. Are you now saying your own sources are invalid and you brought them even knowing that?

Lots of references contradicting your personal opinion.

*the annual number of global hurricanes, typhoons and tropical storms — or tropical cyclones, more generally — declined by roughly 13% as the planet warmed during the 20th century.*

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/27/weather/tropical-cyclone-frequency-21st-century-climate/index.html

None of them contradict the references you have provided that prove your claim was false, are you then recognizing you brought false information before? that would do nothing to increase the trustworthiness of your comments, either way you are recognizing you used false information to support your claims when it turns out that information contradicted your claims.

This among the others flat out contradicts your assertion that the number of hurricanes is increasing yearly.

the **annual number of global hurricanes, typhoons and tropical storms — or tropical cyclones, more generally — declined by roughly 13% **as the planet warmed during the 20th century.

Lots of references contradicting your personal opinion.

The previous references you brought only contradicted yours.

From your new reference:

those that do form are now feeding more energy from the warming atmosphere, so that’s why they’re getting more intense.

warmer air and ocean temperatures are making them more potent.

“It’s always important to look back to the past and use that to better understand how these events might change in the future, but also to acknowledge that it’s not just the frequency of the events that matter,” Reed, who was not involved with Monday’s study, told CNN. “It is also their intensities, other characteristics, likelihood of landfall, and a lot of aspects like that, which the broader scientific community is exploring.”

The rest of your reference again says the opposite of what you want to use the reference about, trying to misrepresent a source does not work when it is still there for anybody to read it and see how it proves the opposite of what you claim, the same as the previous ones.

This among the others flat out contradicts your assertion that the number of hurricanes is increasing yearly.

Repeating the same quoted text in several comments do not make the rest of the reference disappear, it still says that hurricanes are more potent and that frequency do not make the problem less urgent or important. What is the point of bringing references that say the opposite of what you claim and then say your own references are false?

the annual number of global hurricanes, typhoons and tropical storms — or tropical cyclones, more generally — declined by roughly 13% as the planet warmed during the 20th century.

And yet the data I posted in my link above shows not only an increase in tropical storms and hurricanes going back to 1850 but an increase in the number of high intensity Category 4 and 5 hurricanes.

https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/images/atlhist_lowres.gif

This is raw data, not somebody's study.

LOL. A lot of people would disagree. To parrot you: Wikipedia is ... a site infamous for being manipulative and untrustworthy.

Excellent point!

The previous references you brought only contradicted yours.

All the references contradict your baseless claim.

As noted:

the **annual number of global hurricanes, typhoons and tropical storms — or tropical cyclones, more generally — declined by roughly 13% **as the planet warmed during the 20th century.

All the references contradict your baseless claim.

The quoted text come from the references, you have been unable to argue against the quotes, so it is your claim that is contradicted.

As noted:

This is the third time you post the same quote, that still does not make it disappear the following text that is also from the same reference.

those that do form are now feeding more energy from the warming atmosphere, so that’s why they’re getting more intense.

warmer air and ocean temperatures are making them more potent.

“It’s always important to look back to the past and use that to better understand how these events might change in the future, but also to acknowledge that it’s not just the frequency of the events that matter,” Reed, who was not involved with Monday’s study, told CNN. “It is also their intensities, other characteristics, likelihood of landfall, and a lot of aspects like that, which the broader scientific community is exploring.”

That means the reference still say the opposite of what you are trying to use it.

Do you have any argument now against your own reference? because just copy pasting the same text is still debunked by the rest of the text of that reference, over and over again.

Also why don't you address the data from Desert Tortoise? that is also proof that your claim is false.

The topic of this article is rainfalls and typhoons, which are caused by climate change. These phenomena will cease in the near future, as the continuation of the climate crisis will lead to a monotonous and steep rise of the global temperature.

The quoted text come from the references, you have been unable to argue against the quotes, so it is your claim that is contradicted.

The quoted text proves there are fewer hurricanes and typhoons.:

*the **annual number of global hurricanes, typhoons and tropical storms — or tropical cyclones, more generally — declined by roughly 13% **as the planet warmed during the 20th century.*

This is the fourth time you post the same quote, that still does not make it disappear the following text that is also from the same reference.

those that do form are now feeding more energy from the warming atmosphere, so that’s why they’re getting more intense.

warmer air and ocean temperatures are making them more potent.

“It’s always important to look back to the past and use that to better understand how these events might change in the future, but also to acknowledge that it’s not just the frequency of the events that matter,” Reed, who was not involved with Monday’s study, told CNN. “It is also their intensities, other characteristics, likelihood of landfall, and a lot of aspects like that, which the broader scientific community is exploring.”

That means the reference still say the opposite of what you are trying to use it.

Do you have any argument now against your own reference? because just copy pasting the same text is still debunked by the rest of the text of that reference, over and over again.

Also why don't you address the data from Desert Tortoise? that is also proof that your claim is false.

This is the fourth time you post the same quote, that still does not make it disappear the following text that is also from the same reference.

The fact that typhoons and hurricanes are fewer than in decades past hasn't changed.

The fact that typhoons and hurricanes are fewer than in decades past hasn't changed.

You have not argued against the source from Desert Tortoise that proves otherwise.

Also, you have not yet addressed your own source when it says.

those that do form are now feeding more energy from the warming atmosphere, so that’s why they’re getting more intense.

warmer air and ocean temperatures are making them more potent.

*“It’s always important to look back to the past and use that to better understand how these events might change in the future, but also to acknowledge that it’s not just the frequency of the events that matter,” Reed, who was not involved with Monday’s study, told CNN. “It is also their intensities, other characteristics, likelihood of landfall, and a lot of aspects like that, which the broader scientific community is exploring.”*

Just repeating the same claim over and over and ignoring the arguments and sources that disprove that claim only makes it clear you are accepting being mistaken and that you have no counter argument.

Just repeating the same claim over and over and ignoring the arguments and sources that disprove that claim only makes it clear you are accepting being mistaken and that you have no counter argument.

The experts say hurricanes and typhoons worldwide are decreasing. We have to follow the experts.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01414-5.epdf?sharing_token=vGaGdOF9KndNfxbnzwsOs9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OYynDToZQKWfugPKO8yvFolr4YG3Qf71boUcOBIx0HeeyrEjMDbeuCCRwIcgAlGD1AyljAp6jZInfTflBosArFt0Vza0QhNOzJxCSOTdxW2AKr9t8H9Dhah-RJS28jKxUiO6kWNpzr300f0H6HuBBvAHBIQ3a5HwPiK91fC0HRjQ%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.cnn.com

The experts say hurricanes and typhoons worldwide are decreasing. We have to follow the experts.

The experts are saying the opposite, from your own source in the reference 17

The frequency, intensity, and intensification distribution of TCs all shift to higher values as the twenty-first century progresses.

What argument do you have against the references you yourself brought? if you don't have any that means you would have to follow the experts when they conclude an increase.

The evidence brought from Desert Tortoise is also still remaining, you could not argue anything against it.