Severe Weather

Atlantic Hurricanes and Their Effects on the United States

On the previous page, it was shown that the official Atlantic Hurricane season lasts from June to November, and that on average, there are 10.6 tropical storms, 5.9 hurricanes, and 2.0 major hurricanes (category 3 and higher). Figure 8 shows that Atlantic hurricane activity peaks in early September and that storms occasionally form in May and December.

Figure 8: Average number of Atlantic Hurricanes per century as a function of calendar date.

In addition, there is quite a bit of variation in the number of Atlantic hurricanes from year to year as shown in figure 9.

Figure 9: The number of hurricanes (separated by category) in the Atlantic basin each year from 1944 to 2004.

An obvious question comes to mind: "Is there a significant temporal pattern in the number of Atlantic hurricanes?" Many researchers have concluded that there is a multi-decadal cycle, consisting of 20 - 30 year periods of increased hurricane activity followed by 20 - 30 year periods of decreased hurricane activity. Dr. Gray from Colorado State University, famous for his seasonal hurricane forecasts, put together the following figure, re-labelled with my caption as Figure 10. The figure shows that hurricane activity in the Atlantic was high from the late 1940s through the mid 1960s, followed by a period of low activity from the mid 1960s to the mid 1990s. Since 1995 we have been in another highly active period, which continues through this year 2006, and most likely for about another decade into the future.

Figure 10: In his research, Dr. Gray defined a unit called net tropical cyclone activity which measures number of storms and storm intensity in the Atlantic. 100% is the long-term average and there remains much variation from year to year. However, the solid line on the graph shows a smoothed running mean of net tropical cyclone activity, which indicates the multi-decadal trend.

There is much more evidence to support the claim of a multi-decadal scale in Atlantic hurricane activity. For example paleoclimate studies that search for evidence of past hurricane damage see indications of oscillating periods of hurricane activity with decadal timescales. Most researchers believe that these trends occur. The reason for the trend seems to be related to natural fluctuations in the Atlantic sea surface temperature and wind patterns. During active periods, sea surface temperatures are high and wind patterns favor storm development. Based on this information, we should expect hurricane activity in the Atlantic basin to remain high for at least the next 10 years.

While variations in the total number of hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean is interesting, keep in mind that most people only remember the ones that cause death and destruction on the coast. Many Atlantic hurricanes stay out at sea or are relatively weak when they make landfall. Those few hurricanes that reach category 4 and 5, only remain at that strength for short periods of time, which on average is less than 24 hours. The chance that one of these monsters will hit the U.S. mainland as a category 4 or 5 storm is relatively low (see table 4 below). Note that from 1851-2004 there were only 3 category 5 and only 15 category 4 hurricanes at the time of landfall with the continental United States. During the 2005 hurricane season, Katrina hit as a category 4 storm and Dennis, Rita, and Wilma hit land as a category 3 storms. The fact that major hurricanes hit the mainland U.S. so infrequently contributes to public unawareness of their potential devastion (see last section below). In particular very few powerful hurricanes struck the U.S. mainland from 1970 - 1990; People from that era became desensitized to the potential devastion of hurricanes and developed a false sense of security.

Link to Global Warming?

Public attention for hurricanes is primarily driven by lanfalling hurricanes that result in death and destruction, rather than fluctuations in the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic. In 2004, four hurricanes (three major hurricanes) hit the state of Florida, followed in 2005 by Katrina, the most costly natural disaster in United States history, as well as three other major landfalling hurricanes, Dennis, Rita, and Wilma. In fact, the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was record-breaking. The 27 named tropical storms broke the old record of 21; 15 of these tropical storms became hurricanes, breaking the old record of 12; 4 hurricanes made landfall over the United States at category 3 or higher breaking the old record of 3 set in 2004. A good summary of the record breaking hurricane season of 2005 is given in the article: 2005: A Hurricane season 'On Edge'. The result is that hurricanes are under public scrutiny. And anytime a weather disaster happens today, you can be sure that someone will try to link it to global warming.

The basis for a link to global warming is as follows ... As humans add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the average surface temperature of the Earth should increase. One consequence is that global sea surface temperatures will increase. Measurements do show that the global average sea surface temperature has been increasing since about 1990... Therefore, since hurricanes feed off warm ocean water, the recent strong landfalling hurricanes in the United States directly results from global warming.

While the above argument seems plausible, it cannot be scientifically proven at this time. As mentioned above, the recent increase in Atlantic hurricanes can be better explained as a continuation of the multi-decadal cycle discussed above. The last two years are not overly abnormal when viewed in the context of hurricane cycles over the last 100 years and beyond. The multi-decadal cycle itself certainly cannot be attributed to global warming. Furthermore, hurricane development requires more than just warm sea surface temperatures -- how are these other development factors influenced by global warming? While we cannot say with certainty that global warming has no influence on hurricane development, based on the best available scientific evidence, it is wrong to say that global warming has been directly responsible for the 2004 and 2005 hurricanes (also see statement from Dr. William Gray at the end of this section). On the other side of the issue, a recent study by Kerry Emanuel, a leading U.S. hurricane researcher, has concluded that while the number of hurricanes have not changed, the windspeeds (a measure of storm intensity) have increased in recent years. However, it has not been scientifically proved that the increased hurricane windspeed is mainly due to global warming.

In spite of the lack of scientific proof, many in the media flock to those who make assertations about influence of global warming on United States hurricanes. See Germany's Environment Minister, Juergen Trittin, cites greenhouse gas emissions as cause for Katrina. In my opinion, the German minister (among others) is using the Katrina disaster to further his agenda to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases for fear of global climate change. While this is a noble agenda, he should base his arguments on sound scientific evidence, not scare tactics.

The following statement was taken from FORECAST OF ATLANTIC HURRICANE ACTIVITY FOR SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER 2005 AND SEASONAL UPDATE THROUGH AUGUST by William Gray and Philip Klotzbach:

"Many individuals have queried whether the unprecedented landfall of four destructive hurricanes in a seven-week period during August-September 2004 and the landfall of two more major hurricanes in the early part of the 2005 season is related in any way to human-induced climate changes. There is no evidence that this is the case. If global warming were the cause of the increase in United States hurricane landfalls in 2004 and 2005 and the overall increase in Atlantic basin major hurricane activity of the past eleven years (1995-2005), one would expect to see an increase in tropical cyclone activity in the other storm basins as well (ie., West Pacific, East Pacific, Indian Ocean, etc.). This has not occurred. When tropical cyclones worldwide are summed, there has actually been a slight decrease since 1995. In addition, it has been well-documented that the measured global warming during the 25-year period of 1970-1994 was accompanied by a downturn in Atlantic basin major hurricane activity over what was experienced during the 1930s through the 1960s.

There have been similar past periods (1940s-1950s) when the Atlantic was just as active as in recent years. For instance, when we compare Atlantic basin hurricane numbers of the last 15 years with an earlier 15-year period (1950-64), we see no difference in hurricane frequency or intensity even though the global surface temperatures were cooler and there was a general global cooling during 1950-64 as compared with global warming during 1990-2004."

Arguments for a link between global warming and increased hurricane intensity are summarized in this short video segment produced by PBS: Is global warming making hurricanes more intense?

Growing and Building Toward Future Disasters?

Prior to hurricane Katrina, I would show a figure, like figure 11, which shows that the dollar cost in damage due to hurricanes is increasing, while actual loss of life has been quite low.

Figure 11: Hurricane damage and death each decade from 1900-1995. Dollar damage estimates have been normalized for inflation.

Although the data used in the plot are only through 1995, the basic trends continued through 2004. The four major hurricanes in 2004 all made the list of the top ten most costly hurricanes ever behind Andrew (1992). Correspondingly, loss of life from these costly hurricanes was relatively low (Ivan with 25 was the highest.) The explanation for these trends was quite simple. In the early part of the century before satellite imagery and sophisticated forecasting methods, people had little warning of an approaching hurricane, and many were killed. In fact the Galveston, TX hurricane of 1900 still ranks as the most deadly in U.S. history with from 8 to 12 thousand deaths. In modern times, people are warned of an approaching storm and either evacuate or make necessary preparations. The increasing trend in property damage results from the fact that much building is occuring along America's coastlines. People want to live on the coast and vacation on the coast. As competition for this property increases, the value of the property increases. High priced homes and resorts are built in hurricane prone areas.

Katrina forces us to reconsider the long-held belief that hurricanes will not cause many deaths in the United States because we have such a great hurricane monitoring system and no storm will catch anyone by surprise. Sure property damage was high (Katrina will surpass Andrew as the most expensive hurricane ever), but we have come to expect that. The question here is Even with the ample warning provided by the National Hurricane Center, why did so many people die as a result of Katrina? Last count is over 1300 confirmed deaths. This is the most deaths related to a single hurricane since 1928. There are many reasons for the large loss of life. Undoubtedly the vulnerability of the New Orleans area to levee failure and flooding was a strong contributing factor and had Katrina hit somewhere else there would have been less loss of life.

Much of the next three paragraphs are my opinions. You need to think these issues over and formulate your own opinions.

In this class, I would like to consider the question: "Why did so many residents remain even though they were warned to leave?" Yes, federal and local government screwed up in their response to the disaster, but the only sure way to save lives is for people to evacuate before the storm hits. One reason I heard over and over from survivors is that they did not leave because they didn't think things could get that bad. This reaction is probably due to the several factors: (1) major hurricanes don't strike very often; (2) many residents were either new to the gulf coast or never experienced a major hurricane before; (3) some had stayed and lived through other hurricanes, thinking that they are no big deal; and (4) some had evacuated for previous storms that may have missed their house or turned out to be not that severe, so they refused to leave this time. I am sure we can come up with some others. Individuals need to educate themselves and make responsible decisions for themselves, their families, and anyone else who relies on them. People living in hurricane prone areas need to understand the devastion that hurricanes can cause, keep informed on hurricane activity in their area, and be prepared to make intelligent decisions. People in New Orleans had the additional responsibility to understand the vulnerability of their city to the possibility of levee breaks whenever a major storm is near.

We could also get into other discussions about whether or not we as a society should continue to build-in and populate hurricane prone areas. Given that people desire to live right on warm water coasts and the very high short-term value available to investors and politicians, it would seem very unlikely to me that we as a society will not continue to build new and more lavishly on coastlines that are vulnerable to hurricanes. Another possibility is to regulate through building codes that all structures be able to withstand the worst possible hurricane, but this is quite costly as well. We will probably have to accept that hurricanes will cause major property damage from time to time. One thing that should not be ignored is that urban areas on coastlines should not become so densely populated and congested that evacuations in a reasonable time become impossible. Urban planners need to have reliable evacuation plans.

Should hurricane damaged areas be rebuilt? Who should pay for the rebuilding? Current practice is for the federal government to reimburse people for their losses due to natural disasters. Thus most rebuild in the same disaster-prone area. In a sense the federal government encourages people to rebuild at a large cost to taxpayers. My opinion is that government should not outlaw building in hurricane prone areas, but the people that build in these areas have to assume the risks involved, that is, find private insurance or risk losing everything, i.e., don't expect to be bailed out with tax money.

A Katrina-type disaster was foreseen by many people. In fact a New Orleans newspaper published an article in 2001 about a devasting senario very close to what actually happened. Others just warned about how the people living in hurricane-prone areas seemed unware of the potential damage that can occur when major hurricanes make landfall and would not take appropriate action. Quoting the sumarizing statement from a report generated by the National Hurricane Center (which was prepared prior to the 2004 and 2005 monster hurricane seasons):

"In virtually every coastal city of any size from Texas to Maine, the present National Hurricane Center Director, Max Mayfield, has stated that the United States is building toward its next hurricane disaster. The population growth and low hurricane experience levels of many of the current residents, form the basis for this statement. The areas along the United States Gulf and Atlantic coasts where most of this country's hurricane related fatalities have occurred are also now experiencing the country's most significant growth in population. This situation, in combination with continued building along the coast, will lead to serious problems for many areas in hurricanes. Because it is likely that people will always be attracted to live along the shoreline, a solution to the problem lies in education, preparedness and mitigation.

The message to coastal residents is: Become familiar with what hurricanes can do, and when a hurricane threatens your area, increase your chances of survival by moving away from the water until the hurricane has passed! Unless this message is clearly understood by coastal residents through a thorough and continuing preparedness effort, disastrous loss of life is inevitable in the future."