Koko

This part of the debate, as far as I see it, is not so much what can be done to mitigate
hurricane disasters - which is what needs to be addressed from a pragmatic and effective
disaster management point of view. The contentious issue is whether people may be barking 
up the wrong tree if they think that global warming is the *key* issue raised by hurricane
Katrina. I have attached a couple of additional comments that may shed some additional 
light on this debate.

Regards
Benny


---------------

IS THE DESTRUCTION FROM HURRICANE KATRINA DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING?

Climate Science, 31 August 2005
http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/?p=44

By Roger Pielke Sr.

The catastrophic destruction that has occurred in the central Gulf coast of the United States due to Hurricane Katrina is occupying our thoughts. This calamity will consume enormous time and cost to recover from and to provide as much protection as possible from the inevitable next hurricane of this magnitude in this region and elsewhere. This is a sad time.

However, little time has passed before the disaster is being blamed by some of the media on global warming (see, for example, articles in The Belfast Telegraph and the Los Angeles Times). This narrow perspective completely misses the real reason for this disaster. As we, and others, have discussed (see Pielke, R.A. Sr., 2000: Discussion Forum: A broader perspective on climate change is needed and Pielke Jr. et al. 2005: Hurricanes and global warming), the significant risks are due to crossing thresholds in our vulnerability to environmental threats of all types. In this case, construction of towns on the immediate coastline and of a city below sea level (New Orleans) makes these regions particularly vulnerable to hurricanes. In the book,

Pielke, R.A., Jr. and R.A. Pielke, Sr., 1997: Hurricanes: Their nature and impacts on society. John Wiley and Sons, England, 279 pp. 

the exposure of the coastal population to hurricanes in the eastern United States is clear (see Figure 2.8 (d) on page 52), with New Orleans clearly at risk. What this figure also shows is that other urban areas along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts have also become increasingly vulnerable as population grows, and, therefore, infrastructure development accelerates.

Even with respect to global warming, its reasons for occurring over the past several decades, while predominately due to humans (see our Climate Science post of August 29th), is not predominately due to the increase in the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, nor is global warming the more significant way humans are altering the climate system (see our Climate Science post of July 28th; What is the Importance to Climate of Heterogeneous Spatial Trends in Tropospheric Temperatures?). The media have almost universally ignored an accurate description of the spectrum of human forcings on climate as presented in the National Research Council 2005 report.

Thus the advocates of blaming global warming erroneously assume that carbon dioxide emissions are the main cause of this disaster, but miss the other human caused global warming forcings that we summarized in our August 29th blog. They miss that other climate change effects, both due to natural and human- caused influences, such as atmospheric and ocean circulation changes due to spatially heterogeneous climate forcings such as landscape changes and aerosol emissions, have a greater effect than the relatively small magnitude of global warming that has actually been documented (see Pielke and Christy 2005)

The media fail to recognize that climate is complex and involves numerous natural and human climate forcings and feedbacks. To focus on the radiative warming forcing of carbon dioxide shows a complete misunderstanding of the climate system. We recommend they read the 2005 National Research Council report . They also need to understand that we cannot rely on even the complete description of climate change to understand our vulnerability to hurricanes and other weather events. We need to focus on an integrated assessment of the vulnerability of specific societal and environmental resources, (such as an urban center) to the entire spectrum of risks (see Table E.7 in Pielke, R.A. Sr., and L. Bravo de Guenni, 2004, for a summary of the vulnerability perspective as contrasted with using climate models to define risk).

Thus the answer to the question posed in this blog, is that we cannot attribute this disaster to global warming, or even climate change. It is a human-caused disaster resulting from decisions made as to where to locate our population and commerce, without enough protection to avoid inevitable catastrophic consequences.

========
DEATHS, DEATH RATES & PROPERTY LOSSES DUE TO HURRICANES IN THE USA (1900-2004)

Commons Blog, 31 August 2005
http://commonsblog.org/archives/000539.php

Indur M. Goklany

Since hurricanes are in rage -- are they ever not! -- here are trends in deaths, death rates, and property losses due to hurricanes in the United States from 1900 to 2004.[1]

[graphs at http://commonsblog.org/archives/000539.php]

The first bar chart provides deaths per year and death rates per year for each decade starting in 1900. Note that the last period only covers 2000 through 2004.

This indicates that both deaths and death rates have declined quite significantly (and substantially over this period). The bars for the first period, 1900-1909, are much larger than subsequent ones because of the hurricane in 1900 that killed anywhere between 8,000 and 12,000 people in Galveston, Texas.

If I remove the first set of bars, the declining trends from 1910 to 2004 are still significant (and substantial), as your eyeballs will confirm.

The declines result from the fact that as a society we are more resilient than we used to be because we are wealthier and have the ability to obtain and implement more effective technologies to cope with adversity in general and extreme weather events in particular. Such resilience is more important than whether hurricanes have strengthened or whether there are more of them hitting the US. In other words, wealth, technology and human capital trump meteorology and climate, as has been noted elsewhere.[2] 

The second bar chart provides trends from 1929-2004 for property losses from hurricanes in terms of the "wealth" in the 19 Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic states that have received at least one direct hit from a hurricane between 1850 and 2004.[3] I weighted each state's "wealth" by the frequency with which hurricanes scored a direct hit on them over this period. This helps account for the fact that if a hurricane hits a rich state, one should expect damages to be higher. Also measuring property damage in terms of "wealth" allows for the fact that with time as society becomes richer, it probably has more assets at risk. In developing this figure, I use state income as a proxy for wealth, hence the quotes around "wealth".[4] [This was done because although I could not locate data on wealth and/or fixed assets and consumer durables for each state, I did find data on each state's income going back to 1929.]

The second bar chart shows that through 2004 at least, there has been no significant trend in property losses in terms of weighted wealth, although there should be an upward trend if one looks at losses in constant dollars.[5] These findings essentially re-affirm what other researchers have found.[6]

So here is a paradox: As we get wealthier, we are safer and healthier, but we also have more physical assets (homes and "stuff") at risk. Also, I suspect, we become more cavalier about putting property at risk. Insurance - and Uncle Sam's largesse - also help mould this mindset. But I'd rather be safer and healthier, even if that means I have more stuff at risk. All things considered, richer is indeed more resilient.[7] 

------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
[1] Data are from Eric S. Blake, Jerry D. Jarrell, Max Mayfield, and Edward N. Rappaport, The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States Hurricanes from 1851 to 2004 (and other Frequently Requested Hurricane Facts), Table 13a.

[2] Indur M. Goklany, "Strategies to Enhance Adaptability: Technological Change, Economic Growth and Free Trade." Climatic Change 30: 427-449 (1995); Indur M. Goklany, "Richer is More Resilient: Dealing With Climate Change and More Urgent Environmental Problems" in R. Bailey, ed., Earth Report 2000, Revisiting the True State of the Planet (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1999), pp. 155-187.

[3] These data are also from Blake et al.; see note 1. This is taken from this table. 

[4] This procedure should automatically incorporate growth in assets at risk as a result of higher population growth. An alternate approach would have been to explicitly use population growth and a national average of wealth per capita. However, that would not capture the fact that on a per capita basis the affected states might be wealthier now relative to the average US person than they used to be (which I suspect to be the case).

[5] Some may discern an upward trend toward the end of the record. However, through 2004, this trend is not significant.

[6] Roger A. Pielke, Jr., and Christopher W. Landsea, Normalized Hurricane Damages in the United States: 1925-95," Weather and Forecasting, American Meteorological Society 13: 621-631 (1998); Indur Goklany, "Potential Consequences of Increasing Atmospheric CO2 Concentration Compared to Other Environmental Problems." Technology 7S: 189-213 (2000); Goklany, "Richer is More Resilient: Dealing With Climate Change and More Urgent Environmental Problems" in R. Bailey, ed., Earth Report 2000, Revisiting the True State of the Planet (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1999), pp. 155-187.

[7] Goklany, "Richer is More Resilient."