New at Reason

Are hurricanes becoming stronger and more numerous? Ron Bailey investigates.

Comments

getyourfactsright | August 21, 2007, 1:08pm | #

"Are hurricanes becoming stronger and more numerous?"

No.

BTW, El Nino is not caused by a warming of the ocean, it's the slackening of the trade winds which cause the warm water. When the winds die off, water that is usually pushed towards Asia comes sloshing back towards the west.

Ron Bailey | August 21, 2007, 1:18pm | #

getyourfactsright: I didn't say one or other on stronger and numerous--I did link to a pretty wide variety of peer-reviewed articles debating question. Have you read any of them?

As for what the El Nino, I didn't say anything about its causes, I just correctly pointed out that the waters off the coast of South America warm up which has global effects.

MikeP | August 21, 2007, 1:30pm | #

Nevertheless, the coasts will remain population and development magnets and a richer society will be able to afford better hurricane defenses, such as, stronger buildings, higher levees, and protective surge barriers.

Or, frankly, disposable buildings.

As higher and higher wealth and population bids for limited coastal property, the price of the land will far outstrip the price of the structures on it. If your beach house is expected to be hit by a category 5 hurricane every 20 years, then you build a house that you don't mind replacing every 20 years. And you don't even insure it. Perhaps you add a sealed underground shelter you can toss all your valuables into before the storm hits. Then you rebuild the house and repopulate it with the valuables.

Bee | August 21, 2007, 1:37pm | #

ONLY 15,000 people killed in hurricanes? I understand that that number pales in comparison to other killers of American life, but it still seems like a lot for a disaster that you know, more or less, is heading your way. That's a sad total.

joe | August 21, 2007, 1:42pm | #

Doesn' offereing the choice of dealing with increases in hurricaine damage from global warming via abandoning the coasts vs. dealing with the increase in hurricaine damage from global warming by learing to live with stronger storms leave out a rather notable third option? At least over the long term?

joe | August 21, 2007, 1:47pm | #

Ron's point about hurricaines not killing as many people as thuderstorms or tornadoes should come with a caveat - global warming would likely cause increases in the number and/or severity of those events, too.

The atmosphere is a chaotic, complex system, and global warming is the introduction of additional energy into that system. Chaotic systems never - never - react to an increase in energy inputs by becoming calmer, or by smoothly spreading the increase across the system. Additional enery increases the roiling effect, and the number and intensity of severe events of all sorts. Roiling is exactly what causes tornadoes and thunderstorms - hot air masses are hotter, cold air masses are colder, and the two are thrown together more often, with greater force, and at greater temperature differentials.

BTW, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society would be a great name for an album. Especially if the band was called the Royal Society.

MikeP | August 21, 2007, 1:51pm | #

Which third option?

That global warming will decrease hurricane damage?

Or that global warming will neither increase or decrease hurricane damage, and only people's desire to build more stuff in hurricanes' paths will increase hurricane damage?

I can think of another third option that might be on your mind, but taking it is possibly far more expensive than dealing with hurricane damage that can be predicted long-term and handled much more cheaply by fortification, abandonment, or tolerance.

Cesar | August 21, 2007, 1:58pm | #

Slightly off topic, bit did anyone notice the number of deaths in Mexico from Dean? Only 11 people from a category 5 storm. Reports indicate that the vast majority of people stayed calm the entire time, not looting rioting etc.

Isn't it pretty said that a poor area of the world like the Yucatan peninsula handled themselves better during a hurricane than New Orleans?

joe | August 21, 2007, 1:59pm | #

I'd like to go a single thread without seeing someone play dumb.

Just one. That would be nice.

MikeP | August 21, 2007, 1:59pm | #

Chaotic systems never - never - react to an increase in energy inputs by becoming calmer, or by smoothly spreading the increase across the system.

You should be very careful about using never never language when discussing chaotic systems. Your addition of those terms make your statement patently untrue.

Think about frogs swimming and hopping in a pot of water. I can't tell where they are going to swim or hop next. Can you? It's chaotic. Now put the pot on the stove. Yep, they're swimming and hopping. Maybe swimming and hopping a little faster now. Oh, now they aren't moving at all. Now you can pretty well predict where they are going to float, their being dead and all. Hmm... You added energy to a chaotic system, and the system lost its chaotic motion.

Chaotic systems require being in a gray area of tension between opposing influences -- the hot and cold that you bring up. It is the tension and the difference between those opposing influences that defines the scope of the chaos. Since global warming will warm cold air more than it will warm warm air, it is not at all obvious that extreme chaotic effects won't decrease with global warming.

Syloson of Samos | August 21, 2007, 2:09pm | #

Nevertheless, the coasts will remain population and development magnets and a richer society will be able to afford better hurricane defenses, such as, stronger buildings, higher levees, and protective surge barriers.

A lot of money was poured into NOLA's system of levees, etc. to no effect. As I recall, it was determined that some of the levees collapsed prior to the storm surge; which sounds like they couldn't have withstood even a fairly weak hurricane.

Anyway, other methods - like expanding Louisiana's "natural defenses" (the marsh system and the like) - may prove more useful over time. Particularly since levees and pumping stations can exacerbate problems - that is lead to a gradual sinking of an area (which is what is happening in NOLA).

joe | August 21, 2007, 2:09pm | #

Mike P,

There is one thing you can depend on chaotic systems to do, and that's to be chaotic.

The frogs leaving the pot is not a chaotic system - once you introduce the pain of boiling, the system ceases to be chaotic, and the linear behavior of the frogs to avoid pain kicks in, converting it to a non-chaotic system.

There is no such override in the atmosphere.

getyourfactsright | August 21, 2007, 2:13pm | #

Ron,

My point is that it's the slackening of the trade winds which have a global effect on climate, one of those being a warming of the water off the coast of South America. The water warming is not a cause, it's an effect. To me, your statement implies it is the cause.

Syloson of Samos | August 21, 2007, 2:16pm | #

Bailey,

Did you read the Independent Levee Investigation Team Final Report?

MikeP | August 21, 2007, 2:23pm | #

Syloson of Samos,

What's the deal? Bailey mentions in his first paragraph that the disaster of New Orleans was due to "poorly designed Army Corps of Engineers levees".

I'm guessing that your point is that Katrina wasn't really a "natural" disaster. Is your point rather that New Orleans cannot be protected at any price?

Syloson of Samos | August 21, 2007, 2:36pm | #

MikeP,

Levees of any sort might be a poor way to protect NOLA (particularly as a primary or first line of defense). So it isn't that they were simply poorly designed.

ed | August 21, 2007, 2:43pm | #

Are hurricanes becoming stronger and more numerous?

I don't know nothing about the weather, but I do know a still-shell-shocked governor of Louisiana declared a state of emergency when it was obvious to everyone that Hurricane Dean would miss her by a thousand miles. What's becoming more numerous are soft-shelled politicians covering their asses at the slightest breeze.

MikeP | August 21, 2007, 2:48pm | #

Syloson of Samos,

No disagreement there. I don't think Ron Bailey would disagree either, but you are right that he doesn't mention it in the article as an alternative -- or more likely a supplement -- to levees.

Nonetheless, restoring dampening wetlands is yet another reason to place hurricane abatement measures under local control and payment. The Corps of Engineers has a hammer called levees, so they use them. If the Corps of Greenpeace were in control, their hammer would be the wetlands -- vital local commercial interests nearer the gulf be damned. Better to localize the issue and let New Orleans and greater Louisiana decide the measures and whether they are worth the costs they have to pay.

MikeP | August 21, 2007, 2:48pm | #

joe,

The frogs didn't leave the system: The frogs died. Yes, the addition of energy pushed them out of the realm of the temperature where frogs can live into the less nonlinear realm where they die. But most chaotic systems survive only in the nonlinear realm between more predictable realms.

Think of an orbital bumper for a space station. Hit it with something slow, and the something bounces off in a very predictable manner. Hit it with something traveling at orbital speeds, and the something punches a hole in the bumper as it vaporizes into a harmless and perfectly predictable cloud. Hit it with something in the hazardous nonlinear region in between, where it punctures the bumper yet does not vaporize, and the behavior is chaotic.

There is no such override in the atmosphere.

There need not be an override. There need only be a mechanism by which more of the planet becomes horse latitudes or the like.

Perhaps you are thinking of something besides chaotic behavior. Chaotic is neither equal to nor necessarily implied by high energy.

Syloson of Samos | August 21, 2007, 2:57pm | #

MikeP,

As for the price, I'd say that NOLA as it existed prior to Katrina will be hard to defend at the price tag. I hope that whatever the city looks like in the future that it will be a place that works as much with nature as against it. This is coming from someone who happens to love NOLA.

sixstring | August 21, 2007, 3:13pm | #

joe,

If we agree that the global atmosphere is a closed system, then the second law of thermodynamics would apply. I mean that's the whole global warming argument - that what we do locally is added into the system and spread globally.

Neu Mejican | August 21, 2007, 3:42pm | #

joe,

"Chaotic systems never - never - react to an increase in energy inputs by becoming calmer, or by smoothly spreading the increase across the system."

Let me join the pile up here... this statement is in error based on a misunderstanding of what is meant by a chaotic system.

Read your Prigogine again and get a report to MikeP's (or Dr T's) desk by morning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Prigogine

Neu Mejican | August 21, 2007, 3:51pm | #

fwiw,

The frog analogy is a really, really, really bad analogy.

robc | August 21, 2007, 3:59pm | #

Despite our previous chaos argument (in which I was right and NM was wrong), I have to agree with Neu Mejican here:

"The frog analogy is a really, really, really bad analogy."

sixstring | August 21, 2007, 4:03pm | #

But I found it ribbeting...

MikeP | August 21, 2007, 4:11pm | #

The frog analogy is a really, really, really bad analogy.

I have to agree with Neu Mejican and robc.

But when given a statement so wrong because is it so unequivocal, a really, really bad and perhaps ridiculous counterexample is adequate.

Having thought about it more, next time I'll go with a marble in a pot of water heated until the water is gone. For extra credit, I'll make it a little earth marble...

joe | August 21, 2007, 4:15pm | #

Mike P,

But most chaotic systems survive only in the nonlinear realm between more predictable realms.

OK, if we put enough heat into the system that the atmosphere burned off, it would become a steady-state system.

But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about changes within a chaotic system that don't alter what kind of system it is. In such circumstances, we won't see a result of greater overall calm - your horse lattitudes example. The horse lattitudes exist as a pocket within a larger chaotic system, not a break from that system.

But you're right, when I said "never," I didn't take into account the introduction of enough energy to destroy the system.

joe | August 21, 2007, 4:16pm | #

sixstring,

You are right, of course, the energy gets spread through the system. But not smoothly, and that was my point. It gets spread unevenly, increasing the height of the peaks and the depths of the troughts, was my point.

Jennifer | August 21, 2007, 4:36pm | #

After 1985, the number of Americans who died as a result of hurricanes averaged 16 per year (in comparison, about 67 people are killed by lightning and 65 by tornadoes each year).

Might this have more to do with the fact that when a hurricane's approaching, you generally have at least a day's notice to prepare or get out of the way, whereas lightning and tornadoes are more likely to be unexpected?

MikeP | August 21, 2007, 5:15pm | #

We're talking about changes within a chaotic system that don't alter what kind of system it is. In such circumstances, we won't see a result of greater overall calm - your horse lattitudes example.

Yet Bailey gives an example where exactly that happens: The characteristics of the chaotic system change because global warming increases upper level wind shear that counters hurricane formation. There is more energy in the atmosphere, but less concentrated energy hits the coasts in the form of hurricanes.

And, taking your tornado example, there are few places in the world where tornadoes readily form. The most prevalent happens to be in the middle of the US. It is clear that that particular chaotic behavior requires a careful balance of conditions. There is absolutely no a priori reason to think that global warming will induce more tornadoes due to the input of energy rather than fewer tornadoes due to upsetting the delicate meteorological balance of Tornado Alley.

Neu Mejican | August 21, 2007, 5:21pm | #

joe,

You are not quite getting the overall error.

It gets spread unevenly, increasing the height of the peaks and the depths of the troughts, was my point.

This is not a predictable outcome in a chaotic system. The additional energy might smooth out the peaks and valleys. (a more stable hotter state, for instance). Or maybe not. Can't be predicted in detail 'cuz it is a chaotic system.

Climate and weather should not be mixed in discussions of what will occur when additional energy is put into the system.

Neu Mejican | August 21, 2007, 5:27pm | #

robc,

I am sure you are remembering that incorrectly.

Not that I even remember what you are talking about...

(^o^)

MikeP | August 21, 2007, 6:13pm | #

The frog analogy is a really, really, really bad analogy.

By the way, just so you don't think I went with the very first thing to cross my mind...

My first thought for an example of chaotic behavior suppressed by the addition of energy was a butterfly getting stomped on.

madpad | August 21, 2007, 8:46pm | #

Most of this article is selective and ad hoc garbage except for the last 2 paragraphs. In those 2 graphs were the sole statements of any kind of wisdom in the whole piece.

The rest was a bunch of interesting facts and second-hand suppositions loosely strung into a not very convincing opinion piece more typical of Cathy Young's "this guy says this and that guy says that" approach.

You could have made a much better piece expanding on those last 2 paragraphs.

Sorry...I usually like your stuff but this was kinda weak.

Why spend 12 graphs arguing about the weather - on par with arguing about politics or religion - when your whole point in the first place was a (very accurate) slam regarding the pointlessness of government financing human folly?

Syd | August 22, 2007, 12:11am | #

"Jennifer | August 21, 2007, 4:36pm | #
After 1985, the number of Americans who died as a result of hurricanes averaged 16 per year (in comparison, about 67 people are killed by lightning and 65 by tornadoes each year).

Might this have more to do with the fact that when a hurricane's approaching, you generally have at least a day's notice to prepare or get out of the way, whereas lightning and tornadoes are more likely to be unexpected?"

Also the decision that the deaths from Katrina are not the results of a hurricane. It's like saying that if an earthquake collapses a dam, you shouldn't count the deaths from the dam collapse as resulting from the earthquake. In this case, the purpose is to make hurricanes look less deadly than they are.

Mark Bahner | August 22, 2007, 12:17pm | #

Hi,

Nevertheless, the coasts will remain population and development magnets and a richer society will be able to afford better hurricane defenses, such as, stronger buildings, higher levees, and protective surge barriers.

Let's talk about storm surge barriers. The U.S. Gulf Coast is about 1600 miles long. The U.S. East Coast from Miami to Boston is about the same 1600 miles long. That's 3200 miles of coastline to protect from storm surge.

Does it make sense to build permanent storm surge barriers for Galveston, New Orleans, Tampa, Miami, Jacksonville, Charleston, Wilmington, Virginia Beach, New York, etc. etc. etc.?

No, it doesn't. What makes more sense is to develop a storm surge protection system that can be deployed *anywhere* along that 3200 total miles within a few days.

Is that doable? In a word, "Of course!" Engineers can do anything. (Except count words.)

The real questions are:

1) How effective would such a system be?, and

2) How much would it cost?

The answer to question #2 depends on the answer to question #1. For example, a system that can protect 10 miles of coastline from a 5 foot storm surge obviously will cost a small fraction of the cost of a system that would protect 100 miles of coastline from a 20 foot storm surge.

So a decision would need to be made about the length of coast to be protected, and the maximum height of storm surge for which protection is needed. Let's say we go with 100 miles of protection, with the 50 miles in the center having 20 foot storm surge protection, decreasing linearly to 5 foot of storm surge protection at the edges.

What would that cost? Well, let's spitball $100 million a mile in for the 50 miles in the center, and an average of $50 million a mile for the 50 miles on the two edges. That would be $7.5 billion. Is that a reasonable cost to pay? Well, the storm surge damage from Katrina was $80 billion!

Further, Roger Pielke Jr. has estimated that if the Great Miami hurricane of 1926 were to hit Miami this year, the cost would be over $130 billion. This is further estimated to rise to almost $500 billion by 2020.

The U.S. government, or coastal state governments, should be setting up conferences to discuss designs for a hurricane storm surge protection system capable of being deployed within days, to protect anywhere along the Gulf or East coasts.

It will be a lot cheaper than cleaning up after hurricanes, as Katrina alone demonstrated.

R.J. Lehmann | August 22, 2007, 10:11pm | #

On top of any effects that global warming may have on the future intensity and number of hurricanes, many researchers believe that we have also entered into a multi-decadal period in which hurricane activity is naturally higher. The bad news is that this period of higher activity could persist for the next four decade.

The next three decades would be the high end of the average. If you presume the multi-decadal oscillation theory is valid, then we're already a dozen years into the period of high activity. And the 10 to 40 year span given in that paper is a lot broader than the consensus -- generally, the oscillations are expected every 15 to 25 years. So it's also possible we're nearly through with the high period.

Multidecadal oscillation is consensus among meteorlogists, but not necessarily among climate scientists. The most prominent weather modeler when it comes to Atlantic hurricane forecasts is Bill Gray, who also happens to be a global warming skeptic. Many of the climate modelers -- including Kerry Emmanuel and Peter Webster -- cast doubt on the entire multidecadal oscillation theory, basically because they believe the trough years can be attributed to volcanic eruptions and high emissions of sulfate aerosols, which have since been overwhelmed by greenhouse gases. It ends up being statistical noise that gives a false appearance of oscillation in what is, after all, only about 100 years of solid data.

TokyoTom | August 24, 2007, 9:19am | #

Ron, you're certainly pointing in all the right directions with this.

I would just note that the denial of climate change from the right certainly detracts from people and communities focussing with on investing in local adaptation (not only for hurricanes, but also droughts and sudden weather events), which will largely be a private matter but still involve significant public infrastructure.

It would of course be salutary if the federal government left levees and coastal defenses to the coasts, rather than subsidizing risky build up with taxpayer dollars where we get bit twice (subsidy and then disaster relief). The NO levee failure would have been less likely to happen if NO residents had to invest in it and had control over it.

Deltas need to be rebuilt as well - what are your thoughts on how that should happen?

Another undiscussed aspect of course is the role of subsidence from petroleum development. Affected parties just have difficulties getting together and establishing causation.

TT

TokyoTom | August 24, 2007, 9:23am | #

Mark, your storm surge program might be perfectly feasible technically, but it would almost certainly be a boondoggle, encourage risky development and lead to legal claims against the government if the barriers were not deployed on a timely basis - which would of course occur.

TT

Floccina | August 27, 2007, 1:25pm | #

From the article
"Well, one idea is to eliminate incentives like the Federal government's National Flood Insurance Program. "

Not only would I eliminate the National Flood Insurance Program, I would also sue the home owners who built in coastal areas and on barrier Islands for environmental damage caused by the debris from their homes after a hurricane.

Skeptikon | August 30, 2007, 5:08am | #

The article says: "research suggests that man-made global warming will produce more and more intense hurricanes in the future"
The problem with all this modeled research predicting the future is that it ignores the available data showing what has happened in the past (which often contradicts the scary future predictions)
Take a look at www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part4_ClimaticEvents.htm for documentation of actual data. Empirical science provides better information than theortical models do.