An important new study shows that several hurricanes in the 20th century would have caused Katrina-like devastation, if they’d occurred in more modern times:
If the Great Storm of 1900 had hit Galveston two years ago, it would have inflicted $72 billion in damage, nearly as much as Hurricane Katrina, researchers say. …
Under the new analysis, which adjusted for inflation, population and coastal development, Hurricane Katrina and its $81 billion cost ranked second to the Great Miami Hurricane of 1926, which caused damage estimated at almost $140 billion. Another Galveston hurricane, in 1915, ranked fourth with $57 billion in damage.
Put simply, the devastation wrought by Katrina in 2005 was not unprecedented.
That’s significant in an era when some blame global warming for catastrophic hurricanes. The research concludes that economic damage from hurricanes, after being adjusted, has remained relatively constant during the last century.
Furthermore, scientists involved in the study say, a $500 billion storm in a major metropolitan area along the U.S. coast, such as Miami or possibly even Houston, is conceivable by 2020 if present development trends continue, as expected.
When it comes to hurricanes, these scientists say, coastal development  not warming oceans  should perhaps be policymakers’ biggest concern.
This is proof of something I was musing about the other day in the wake of the Bill Proenza kerfuffle: the need to increase funding for hurricane forecasting and research — for satellite systems, reconaissance aircraft, and all sorts of other important tools — should not be subsumed within the “global warming” debate. Indeed, given how thoroughly politicized that debate has become, proponents of increased funding are probably hurting their own cause by using the argument that “we need more funding because there are going to be more and stronger hurricanes.”
Even if hurricanes are getting stronger and more numerous (and, whatever one thinks about global warming, the jury is still out about the overall effects of a warmer climate on tropical development), it’s still not the best argument for adequately funding the NHC, HRD, etc. The best argument is that increased coastal development — which entails not only heightened potential for damage to life and property, but also increased costs for unnecessary evacuations — makes it absolutely imperative that we continue to improve the accuracy of hurricane forecasts as much as humanly possible.
|
Categories: Hurricanes
|
July 11th, 2007 at 6:22:02 pm
Well said.
To wit, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure…the more information available to improve short & long-term forecasts, the more likely that human and infrastructure losses can be minimized. Such is true no matter what changes do or do not occur in the global climate.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:10:05 pm
I can’t say as this comes as a surprise. I still can’t help but think that better satellites for observing the weather and climate couldn’t hurt.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:28:38 pm
Would it not make more sense to put the funds into hurricane-proofing coastal properties at risk ?
July 11th, 2007 at 8:36:07 pm
You can’t “hurricane-proof” against a Category 4 or 5 hurricane, Alasdair. Unless you want to build coastal cities made out of windowless, reinforced concrete, I suppose. And even then…
July 11th, 2007 at 8:39:32 pm
Also, “coastal properties at risk” would entail the entire Gulf Coast and Eastern Seaboard.
So, to answer your question directly: No, it wouldn’t.
(What would make sense would be for people to STOP DEVELOPING right along the coast. But that ain’t going to happen.)
July 12th, 2007 at 12:06:45 am
I have some reservations about the article you cited here. The quote that it ends with, something like “Oh, we struck a nerve saying that global warming is not responsible for everything,” perhaps hints that the forces behind this study are not without their own political agenda. I agree with you that the need to increase funding for hurricane forecasting and research need not mirror the ups and downs of debates on global warming. However, research on hurricaine forecasting does need to contend with the impact/potential impact of the effects of global warming; thus, it may have very important bearing on the global warming debates. While I think it is somewhere between a shame and an absurdity that the debate over global warming has taken shape the way it has, it seems to me that - because, as you say, the jury is still out about the effects of global warming on tropical development - it is vital that researchers in this area have the freedom to inquire about global warming. This inserts them squarely in the arena of global warming debates (along with the results of their work). And, actually, if researchers feel the need to justify their inquiry into the effects of global warming, they’re almost shoved into a box before they even begin.
When the arena for these serious debates occurs on the level of “See? Global warming isn’t responsible for everything!” we won’t get very far.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:14:22 am
I don’t disagree with the gist of the article, but did anyone stop to think that building a city below sea level next to a massive river along a Coast riddled with hurricane danger might not be a good idea?
Not to mention, I still don’t think those empty school buses have fully dried out from the soaking they received….
July 12th, 2007 at 2:33:17 am
Andrew:
One must remember who built New Orleans in the first place…..
July 12th, 2007 at 4:49:26 pm
Brendan - would it not constitute “hurricane-proofing” an area if one didn’t build in the areas where hurricanes are likely to wipe out chunks of the area ?
Particularly in low-lying coastal areas most-at-risk, are there not structures which can be functionally water-proof and hurricane-proof which could be public structures, for storage perhaps ? And leave the areas above MHWM+30′ for residential (which would also have to be built so as to be hurricane-tolerant (no big windows, low profile, ground-hugging/semi-buried, etc ?)? ?
July 12th, 2007 at 7:54:48 pm
It seems that we have folk willing to put their money where their mouth is …
A challenge to accurately forecast climate change is being issued - see Global Warming Forecasting Challenge …
If someone *can* manage to get it right, then more sensible decisions could be made as to whether or not to build on low-lying coastal properties !