4 ms·

Hurricane Ike was a category 4 that traveled nearly directly over Houston in 2008. (It wasn't a category four when it passed over, since, like all major storms,

Hurricane Ike was a category 4 that traveled nearly directly over Houston in 2008. (It wasn't a category four when it passed over, since, like all major storms, they weaken as they move inland.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Ike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Ike Burying lines, especially in historic areas, is incredibly expensive and not necessarily a panacea either, although it helps. Is it worth it? Realistically, for the millions upon millions of people that live in the greater Houston MSA (and of course except for those who rely on power for healthcare equipment, who really need to invest in a small generator or get to a shelter), it's far more cost effective to simply deal with power outages every decade or two. During Ike, large parts of Houston, especially to the northeast, were literally underwater, so power wouldn't have helped anyway. The number of utility crews lined up along highways from other states, even from thousands of miles away, in the immediate aftermath of Ike is both inspiring and enlightening, especially when you recognize that they were going into a disaster zone, likely without a nice hotel to go back to or even running water after working a 12 hour shift. So, no, it's just part of living near the coast in a hurricane-prone area. If you don't like it, move somewhere else.

EasyMark 2y ago
I think part of the argument is that it’s like that the number of these events will double or trouble, or even become yearly with climate change.
- gunapologist99 2y ago
  Yes, that's the argument. Of course, some of it remains to be seen, because as of now we're not actually seeing more or more intense storms compared to historical averages (at least that we know about). Houston has, on average, one large storm event every decade or so, and that hasn't really changed much over the last 100 years. https://www.weather.gov/hgx/major_events https://www.weather.gov/hgx/major_events
  - two_handfuls 2y ago
    We’re probably about to see more and more intense storms over the Atlantic. Hurricane Beryl is the earliest category five Atlantic hurricane in records going back around 100 years ([source](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9r3g572lrno https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9r3g572lrno)). So it’s just a matter of time. Also, looking at your source, I see 2 tropical cyclones between 1900-1950, 3 between 1950-2000, and then 8 in the 24 years since. To me that looks like an increase in tropical cyclones over time.
- mturmon 2y ago
  (Not an expert, but try to follow climate science as part of $Dayjob. It’s always hard to write quick summaries in Earth Science, because the system is very complex.) We have to be careful about what is meant by “these events”. According to the sources I was able to find [1,2], sea level rise (SLR) is perhaps the dominant driver for the increasing damages from tropical cyclones (TCs). Models show some increase (I’m not finding any support for 2x or 3x though!) in the number of high-intensity TCs, and TC intensification is expected to be more rapid. But the underlying SLR will make even smaller TCs more consequential - even if the number of storms of a given intensity does not change. [1] specifically says this. And if you look at the consensus report [2], they spend most of their time discussing SLR, in effect as an amplifier for all the trouble a TC can cause. Only in one sentence in a very long discussion do they claim that TCs are themselves worsening, and the statement is quite nuanced: “For example, hurricanes are intensifying more rapidly and decaying more slowly, leading to stronger storms extending farther inland with heavier rainfall and higher storm surges…” So if you interpret “these events” as “high dollar damage TCs”, you are correct. But not in the raw number of TCs of a given intensity. And you are right that the situation is quite dire already: “Annual frequencies of both minor and moderate coastal flooding increased by a factor of 2–3 along most Atlantic and Gulf coastlines between 1990 and 2020” [2] The same source says models predict a 5-10x increase in flood events by 2100, which is truly staggering. The recommendation of the GP commenter (“If you don't like it, move somewhere else”) seems to be poorly informed about how important adaptation will be. [1] https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/a-force-of-nature-hurricanes-in-a-changing-climate/ https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/a-force-of-nat... [2] https://nca2023.globalchange.gov/chapter/9/ https://nca2023.globalchange.gov/chapter/9/, and expand out “key message 1”.

EasyMark 2y ago

I think part of the argument is that it’s like that the number of these events will double or trouble, or even become yearly with climate change.

gunapologist99 2y ago
Yes, that's the argument. Of course, some of it remains to be seen, because as of now we're not actually seeing more or more intense storms compared to historical averages (at least that we know about). Houston has, on average, one large storm event every decade or so, and that hasn't really changed much over the last 100 years. https://www.weather.gov/hgx/major_events https://www.weather.gov/hgx/major_events
- two_handfuls 2y ago
  We’re probably about to see more and more intense storms over the Atlantic. Hurricane Beryl is the earliest category five Atlantic hurricane in records going back around 100 years ([source](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9r3g572lrno https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9r3g572lrno)). So it’s just a matter of time. Also, looking at your source, I see 2 tropical cyclones between 1900-1950, 3 between 1950-2000, and then 8 in the 24 years since. To me that looks like an increase in tropical cyclones over time.
mturmon 2y ago
(Not an expert, but try to follow climate science as part of $Dayjob. It’s always hard to write quick summaries in Earth Science, because the system is very complex.) We have to be careful about what is meant by “these events”. According to the sources I was able to find [1,2], sea level rise (SLR) is perhaps the dominant driver for the increasing damages from tropical cyclones (TCs). Models show some increase (I’m not finding any support for 2x or 3x though!) in the number of high-intensity TCs, and TC intensification is expected to be more rapid. But the underlying SLR will make even smaller TCs more consequential - even if the number of storms of a given intensity does not change. [1] specifically says this. And if you look at the consensus report [2], they spend most of their time discussing SLR, in effect as an amplifier for all the trouble a TC can cause. Only in one sentence in a very long discussion do they claim that TCs are themselves worsening, and the statement is quite nuanced: “For example, hurricanes are intensifying more rapidly and decaying more slowly, leading to stronger storms extending farther inland with heavier rainfall and higher storm surges…” So if you interpret “these events” as “high dollar damage TCs”, you are correct. But not in the raw number of TCs of a given intensity. And you are right that the situation is quite dire already: “Annual frequencies of both minor and moderate coastal flooding increased by a factor of 2–3 along most Atlantic and Gulf coastlines between 1990 and 2020” [2] The same source says models predict a 5-10x increase in flood events by 2100, which is truly staggering. The recommendation of the GP commenter (“If you don't like it, move somewhere else”) seems to be poorly informed about how important adaptation will be. [1] https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/a-force-of-nature-hurricanes-in-a-changing-climate/ https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/a-force-of-nat... [2] https://nca2023.globalchange.gov/chapter/9/ https://nca2023.globalchange.gov/chapter/9/, and expand out “key message 1”.