Skip to main content

Hurricanes are doing more damage and it’s our own fault

[ad_1]


As our oceans warm, hurricane rainfall and intensity are going to rise. But more water and wind aren’t the reason that today’s storms destroy more communities in their wake—it's simply that there are more communities sitting in that path.



From 1970 to 2016, the number of Americans living in states directly exposed to tropical cyclones grew by 60 million. Most of that growth was in coastal counties, though there are also many people living inland who can still see impacts from lingering storms. Along with the burgeoning coastal population has come an increase in the number of houses. The Atlantic and Gulf Coast regions, the two most prone to hurricanes, have 34 million more homes in the current decade than they did in 1940.



This shift toward vulnerable regions, not an increase in storm severity, is what climate scientists think is causing the rapid increase in apparent destructiveness. A new analysis supporting that conclusion appeared in Nature Sustainability this week, spearheaded by a group of researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and several other top climatological research centers. Their work actually isn’t new, though—it’s an update to data that these scientists have been working with for decades. We just don’t hear much about it, because the most common way to hear about hurricane destructiveness is simply the cost of each storm adjusted for inflation. Here’s what that looks like charted out:


From that graph alone, you’d conclude that hurricanes are causing far more damage today than they ever have. And that’s true. But it misses one crucial point.



“In the aftermath of a natural disaster people are quick to place blame on nature: ‘The hurricane caused billions of dollars in damages.’ However, it is often the case that "natural" disasters are a consequence of human failures.” That’s how Roger Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist at the University of Colorado Boulder, put it in a workshop on the social and economic impacts of weather. He’s also a co-author on this recent paper, as he has been on prior estimates of destruction from natural disasters. His research has shown that it is exposure to hurricanes, not the intensity or frequency of the storms themselves, that has so drastically increased the destruction in recent years.



To figure that out, he and other researchers use a measure called normalized losses. Rather than only adjusting for inflation, this method also adjusts for societal changes like increases in housing or population over time. Normalized losses consequently allow you to directly compare the destruction caused by a storm in the 1910s and the 2010s. When Pielke and colleagues chart that out, it looks very different from the inflation-only data:


These numbers show no overall trend towards more destruction once you remove the influence of a changing society.



So does that mean hurricanes aren’t getting any worse? This might sound a bit confusing, but no.



NOAA, in its overview of global warming and hurricanes, notes that “it is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense globally and have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes,” but also that these increases haven’t necessarily been borne out yet. Storm surges are also likely to become worse as sea levels rise, but again, those increases haven’t been all that significant yet. Similarly, we’ve seen a very small rise in the number of high-category storms, but NOAA’s summary says there’s only low confidence that the increase within the Atlantic basin is of statistical significance. Projections suggest it might become significant, but any large effect isn’t likely to happen until the second half of this century.



The apparent overall rise in the number of hurricanes is probably due to changes in how we detect them. Early in the 20th century, the only recorded hurricanes were those humans happened to encounter—ones that either made landfall or hit a ship. Today we have satellites that pick up every single storm, no matter the location. When researchers adjust for that observation shift, it becomes clear that the number of hurricanes hasn’t changed, and we may even be having fewer storms.



None of this is to say that global warming isn’t impacting hurricanes, however. Those individual storms are likely getting worse as ocean surface temperatures increase and sea levels rise, they’re just not already so much worse that they’re causing massively more damage to the coastal U.S. We can't blame nature for that one: it's all about where we're building.




[ad_2]

Written By Sara Chodosh

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ice technicians are the secret stars of the Winter Olympics

[ad_1] The emphasis of this year's two-week-long Winter Olympic Games has been placed squarely on the Olympians themselves. After all, the stated purpose of the international competition is to bring together the world’s greatest athletes in a nail-biting competition across fifteen different winter sports. But before the curlers, skiers, and skaters even arrived in Pyeongchang, South Korea, the Olympians of the ice technician world were already a few weeks deep in a competition of their own. Mark Callan of the World Curling Federation and Markus Aschauer of the International Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation both say they’re hoping to make the best ice the Winter Olympics have ever seen. To transform the barren concrete jungle of existing tracks and arenas into an ice- and snow-covered wonderland is an enormous undertaking. And it takes a keen understanding of the physics and chemistry that keeps frozen precipitation pristine. Curling Callan has been making and maintaining ic...

With Operation Popeye, the U.S. government made weather an instrument of war

[ad_1] It was a seasonably chilly afternoon in 1974 when Senators Claiborne Pell, a Democrat from Rhode Island, and Clifford Case, a Republican from New Jersey, strode into the chambers of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for a classified briefing. While the meeting was labeled “top secret,” the topic at hand was rather mundane: They were there to discuss the weather. More specifically, Pell, the chairman of the now-defunct subcommittee for Oceans and International Environment, and his colleague were about to learn the true extent of a secret five-year-old cloud seeding operation meant to lengthen the monsoon season in Vietnam, destabilize the enemy, and allow the United States to win the war. Though it cycled through several names in its history, "Operation Popeye" stuck. Its stated objectives—to ensure Americans won the Vietnam War—were never realized, the revelation that the U.S. government played God with weather-altering warfare changed history. The...

University supercomputers are science's unsung heroes, and Texas will get the fastest yet

[ad_1] Supercomputers are powerful machines with great names—Blue Waters, Bridges, Jetstream, Comet. But a new one will soon be joining that list: Frontera. The $60 million machine will live at the University of Texas at Austin and is scheduled to come online next year. “It will be the fastest machine ever deployed at a university in the US,” says Dan Stanzione, the executive director of the Texas Advanced Computing Center. With supercomputers, the title of fastest is a moving target—what’s perhaps more important is not the exact ranking, but that they’re available for researchers to use in the first place. Right now, the fastest supercomputer in the world is called Summit, and it’s at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, part of the Department of Energy (DOE), and is specifically tailored for AI. But supercomputers located not at government labs but at universities—like Frontera and its ilk—play a crucial role in the ever...