Hurricane
Katrina: seeking answers
By Peter Schwartzman
Working
in the Virginia State Climatology Office for five years while completing my
graduate work in atmospheric science gave me an opportunity to follow
hurricanes a bit more closely than the average person. The hurricane season,
which runs from June to November in the Atlantic, was a time that my
officemates and I spent many hours keeping tabs on the atmospheric conditions
in the eastern Atlantic—the location where many tropical cyclones are
born. Thus, given this past experience, as well as a Òclose encounterÓ that I
had with a Category 4 hurricane in July, my curiosity was heightened at word of
KatrinaÕs landfall in Florida. Having followed the storm pretty closely since
then, there are many important questions that remain unanswered. The one question
that warrants our consideration, perhaps more so than any other, is: ÒWho is
responsible?Ó As easy as this question rattles off the tongue, a meaningful response
requires a great deal of thought. First of all, we are compelled to follow it immediately
with the qualifier, Òresponsible for what?Ó There are so many things to which one
might attribute responsibility, including, but not limited to, the strength of
Katrina (i.e., wind speed, storm surge, duration), the awareness of the
residents in affected areas, the preparedness and response of the emergency
personnel, the physical damage incurred, the media ÒspinÓ in its aftermath, and
the long-term economic and psychological support to the victims. As a
climatologist and environmental scientist, I will focus on two of these aspects.
As a recent visitor to Mexico and a resident concerned about the welfare of
fellow citizens, I will respond to another.
First,
with regards to the strength of Katrina, hurricanes derive their energy from
the water below them—warm ocean water evaporates (a process that takes
energy from the surface), rises, and condenses forming thick clouds (a process
that releases energy). Thus, the warmer the ocean water, the more energy is
available to build the storm. So when Katrina left the southwestern part of
Florida (as a tropical storm, having diminished in intensity because of its
loss of a fuel source while it moved over land) and made its way in the Gulf of
Mexico, it gathered strength quickly. It isnÕt surprising to see storms pick up
strength this way, but it was remarkable to see how quickly Katrina intensified.
At 11 AM Friday morning, Katrina was a Category 1 storm (with a central
pressure of 981 mbar and maximum wind speeds of 80 mph). Only 48 hours later,
Katrina was a Category 5 storm (with central pressure of 907 mbar and maximum
wind speeds of 175 mph). What caused this incredible growth in such a short
time and was this growth expected? The ocean waters over which Katrina was
moving had temperatures at 90¼F, at the very high end of the range usually
observed in the Gulf. So warm water had a lot to do with it. And since climate
change models do predict increasing oceanic temperatures over the Gulf, it is
very possible that KatrinaÕs rapid expansion is a sign of things to come
(assuming we do little to curtail the emission of greenhouse gases which are
expected to continue to warm the planet). Consistent with this trend as well, a
recent paper published in the most prestigious scientific journal, Nature, provides additional evidence that wind speeds and
durations of Atlantic and Pacific hurricanes are increasing quite substantially
over the past 30 years. Regarding whether we should have expected Katrina
specifically, consider that her torrential impact on the New Orleans area was
predicted 60 hours before landfall. On Friday afternoon, the National Hurricane
Center forecasted that Katrina would become a major hurricane and that it would
hit New Orleans on Monday morning. Now, while it is true that hurricanes can
behave in unpredictable ways, if governmental leaders had taken this warning
seriously, and prepared for what was anticipated, many fewer lives would have
lost and much less trauma and suffering would have occurred.
Second,
with regards to the physical damage incurred, one should not be surprised about
what happened (despite how tragic it may have been). Everyone has been repeatedly
told that New Orleans resides below sea level. Not surprisingly, then, the
levees are the only impediments preventing this city of nearly a half a million
residents from being inundated on a normal day. Yet even with these extensive
levees in place, nearly five years ago, FEMA warned that a major (here Category
4 or 5) hurricane hitting New Orleans would be a disaster of unprecedented
proportions. From this information, some might conclude that the damage
observed this past week was inevitable. Unfortunately, this conclusion fails to
consider two very important developments. A levee system on the Mississippi
River, which extends for over 2,200 miles, has prevented the river delta from
receiving its needed sediment. Without the sediment, the Mississippi delta can
no longer serve as a barrier to protect New Orleans from tropical weather
systems. Over time, so much sediment has been washed into the Gulf that land
loss in Louisiana represents 80% of the coastal land loss observed in the
entire country. Our demand to control the Mississippi seems to have only
increased the danger posed by hurricanes (as well as Midwestern rains, remember
1993). Additionally, massive development of the wetlands south and east of New
Orleans has further endangered residents along the Gulf coast. Many environmental
scientists have argued that we need to protect all coastal wetlands as a means
of protecting ourselves (not to mention wildlife, both on land and in the
ocean). Katrina should convince everyone of this basic ecological principle.
Lastly,
with regards to the preparedness and response of emergency personnel, I am
astonished how unprepared our government seems to have been in advance (as well
as in the wake) of Katrina. I was staying in Playa del Carmen, Mexico this
summer (from June 10-August 1). While there, another major Atlantic Hurricane
(Emily by name) landed just a few miles south of where I was staying. And while
I was able to escape by literally pushing my way on to a bus less than 24 hours
before EmilyÕs arrival, I was still able to witness the build up to Emily as
well as the clean up afterwards (as I returned to Playa del Carmen only two
days after Emily passed). In contrast to what happened in Katrina, anticipating
the potential loss of human life, MexicoÕs President Vicente
Fox ordered the deployment of thousands of military personnel and truckloads of
emergency supplies to the Yucatan peninsula in advance of the storm (not several days afterwards). As far as I know (and final
reports are limited), very few lives were lost due to Emily, despite it being a
storm of the same intensity to Katrina. Perhaps most amazingly, electricity was
restored within less than 24 hours to most areas of Playa del Carmen (the
coastal community that received the heaviest winds, ~135 mph). Upon my return
to Playa del Carmen post-Emily, it was amazing to witness how quickly things
returned to normal. Just the next weekend, I was still able to take a cultural
tour of Coba, one of the more remote ancient Maya villages. And while the native
monkeys that I observed while walking in the jungle neighboring Coba were
obviously shaken and disoriented by the pounding that their habitat had
obviously endured (large trees had clearly been toppled by EmilyÕs fierce
winds), human welfare wasnÕt noticeably diminished in this rural village (even
though one of their water wells had been damaged). It is disturbing for me to
recall these memories in light of all that we have observed on our TV screens
over the past week-and-a-half. When we consider that Mexico is a much, much
poorer country, where large numbers of residents of the Yucatan still live in
structures made of wood, I am nonplussed by the lack of attention paid to
Katrina by our national leaders. I shudder to think how many lives could have
been saved if our leaders had acted with the foresight and aggressiveness that
I witnessed elsewhere. (In saying this, I do not want in any way to take away
from the praise and gratitude that we all feel for those brave and dedicated
individuals that put (and continue to put) their lives in harms way trying to
rescue and protect victims of the storm.)
In
conclusion, Katrina was an immense storm that may have derived some of its
power from an ocean under the influence of hyper-industrialization. The damage
that it did to our coastline as well as our brothers and sisters can be
attributable to human developments that have made our coasts more susceptible
to natural forces. And, lastly, the lack of proactive or immediate response to
Katrina created a tragedy of unimaginable proportions. May we all continue to
question and seek answers, so that we can better understand what really
happened in Aug-Sept 2005.
Peter Schwartzman is
associate professor and chair of the Environmental Studies Program at Knox
College. He is a climatologist with publications in the area of climate change
and human population growth.