The hurricanes we are now getting are no longer “natural disasters” as their strength, water load, wind speeds, duration, are all far out of the normal. They have been greatly affected the increased water temperatures of the ocean that they’ve traversed. Humans need to attach the concept of climate change to these storms. At this writing, thousands are still missing who simply were unable to grasp that Michael’s “hurricane” winds would be tornadic strength but not the minute or two duration of a tornado but hours of those winds combined with torrential rains and storm surge. I expect the eventual death numbers to be horrendous.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/10/health/sutter-natural-disaster-hurricane-michael/index.html
How to talk about hurricanes now
(CNN)Hurricane Michael isn’t a truly “natural disaster.”
It’s not about semantics, said Ksenia Chmutina, a lecturer at Loughborough University in the United Kingdom. She and colleagues issued a news release this year asking journalists to banish the phrase from our lexicon. “By blaming nature on disasters, we’re saying there is nothing we can do about this — we can’t do anything to reduce the risks. Which is not the case.”
You have to consider climate change
Michael E. Mann✔@MichaelEMann
I prefer “unnatural disaster” when talking about impacts that have been exacerbated by climate change.
John D. Sutter✔@jdsutter
Question: Should we banish the term “natural disaster” from our vocab in the era of climate? Particularly interested in thoughts from climate/disaster experts/writers like @HazCenter @KHayhoe @MichaelEMann @Revkin @EricHolthaus @AndreaTWeather @HeidiCullen @johnupton. Tx all.
Henk Ovink@henkovinkNatural & man made are both true. The real problem is the impact these disasters have on ecology, environment, economies and societies. The most vulnerable are as always hit hardest. Example, when a storm hits it hits true industrial zones & water becomes toxic w worst impact
Scientists are getting better at looking for human ‘fingerprints’
Neil deGrasse Tyson✔@neiltyson
Earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes — traditionally “Acts of God” on Insurance Forms. But as climate-change continues, and coastal flooding from hurricanes worsens, the Forms might now include “Acts of Humans”.
Where people live also matters — as does preparedness
Katharine Hayhoe✔@KHayhoe
I use this figure in every class I teach to explain that disaster is the result of three things: the hazard itself, who/what is exposed to it, and how prepared/vulnerable they are. If a hurricane never makes landfall, it’s not a disaster!
Emanuel, the hurricane expert at MIT, says the global population exposed to hurricane risks has tripled since the 1970s as more people move toward coastal regions and hurricane-prone areas.
“The problem in the United States is that we not only stop adaptation but we’re actually engaged in what you might call a ‘negative adaptation’ to the risks posed by storms and climate change,” Emanuel said. “The government — both at the state and federal level — has strong policies in place that encourage people to live and build in risky places.”Examples, he said, include the National Flood Insurance Program, which is funded by taxpayers, and state-level policies that put a cap on the amount people pay for flood insurance.The way governments response to disasters is also related. I spent much of the last year in Puerto Rico writing about Hurricane Maria. A colleague of mine, Omaya Sosa Pascual from the Center for Investigative Journalism, wrote in an email that it would be a mistake to call Maria a “natural disaster” because the federal and territorial governments neglected infrastructure projects before the storm and then responded with painful slowness after it hit the island last year.Even very simple changes to construction standards and zoning could make a difference in terms of preparedness, said Chmutina, the lecturer in the UK. Putting power outlets higher on walls, for instance, reduces the chance of power going out during a flood, she said. But largely, people and governments do not opt for these preventative measures because they’re slightly more expensive up-front, she said, even though some adaptations could save money and lives.“When we’re saying this phrase, ‘natural disaster,’ we pretend we are not responsible for creating disaster,” she told me. “We blame everything on nature. We make nature responsible for disasters, and that is not the case.”The philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, she pointed out, famously made this point in the 1700s.“[N]ature did not construct twenty thousand houses of six to seven stories there,” he wrote in a letter responding to debate about a deadly earthquake in Lisbon, Portugal. “[I]f the inhabitants of this great city had been more equally spread out and more lightly lodged, the damage would have been much less and perhaps of no account.”What should we say instead?
OK, so if you concede that these disasters and their fallout are no longer truly “natural” (and never really were), then what’s the best term to use instead?John Upton, a writer at Climate Central, suggested dropping the term “natural” in favor of just “disaster.”John D. Sutter✔@jdsutter
John Upton✔@johnupton
I think we can just skip over the ‘natural’ part and say “disaster.”
We build homes where wildfires burn and waters swell, then rebuild after they’re trashed. We don’t help the poor or working class weather or escape effects of storms. Evacuation routes are often limited. Etc.
Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech, had a longer turn of phrase, suggesting that we call them “what used to be entirely natural disasters … now amplified or exacerbated by human-induced change.”“I know it’s a mouthful,” she wrote on Twitter, “but I think it’s worth it, because it addresses the misconception and presents the facts, all in one.”Katharine Hayhoe✔@KHayhoe
I call them “what used to be entirely natural disasters” … and if I have another 5s, I add: “now amplified or exacerbated by human-induced change”. I know it’s a mouthful but I think it’s worth it, because it addresses the misconception and presents the facts, all in one.
Reed, the Stony Brook professor, suggested simply “extreme events.”The important thing, experts said, is that we humans accept some blame.And then use that knowledge to prevent suffering associated with storms yet to come.
Abycats' Thoughts 