Why Matthew Matters

In 2012, just days before Hurricane Sandy made landfall on the US East Coast I wrote the following opinion piece:

Computer monitors.
That is how most atmospheric scientists see the subject of their careers. Across countless monitors flash high resolution satellite images of entire continents, data and maps just received from the latest computer model run, or maybe just some point observations. Your hometown, maybe even the state you live in might be represented by a single station model on a map or a handful of pixels on a satellite image. We atmospheric scientists sometimes have the rather unbecoming tendency to see weather at a large scale. Most of the time, weather appears as charts depicting the smoothed out distribution of parameters such as pressure or temperature. Even our computer models lead to disconnect; their resolution might be on the order of twenty or thirty miles, sometimes even more. All this can lead to the desensitization of what is actually happening on the ground. It can be all too easy to forget that below the anvils of supercells in an impressive squall line, there might be a tornado tearing through someone's house, or hail destroying a season's worth of crops. Tropical cyclones are even worse. Who could not marvel at a perfectly shaped spiral of brilliant white clouds spinning its way across the ocean? This is all perfectly fine when the cyclone is over open water, but what about when it makes landfall? Is the first thing that comes to mind that densely populated city on the coast in a country where people can't always afford the sturdiest of dwellings? A lot of people, including atmospheric scientists probably won't. This does not mean they're bad people; it’s just an unfortunate tendency of human behavior. On the other hand, those who study these various spectacles of weather should try to keep those affected firmly in mind. I myself am guilty of this sort of detached perspective; I might be mentally cheering on a storm, hoping to see it break some record, or become overly excited when I correctly forecast a storm. What it all boils down to is a reminder that when viewing a forecast made by a supercomputer or an image straight from the heavens, there are those beneath the clouds that might have a very different perspective on the weather.

Now, as Hurricane Matthew approaches Florida after already making landfalls in Haiti and Cuba, I believe this message still applies. However, this storm highlights not only the socio-meteorological issues, but geopolitical ones as well. It seems that no matter what the event, weather included, society tends to truly care primarily about what is happening in their "backyard". Sadly, the level of interest seems proportional to both racial and economic factors.

One telling factor is what level of damage a tropical cyclone needs to cause in order for its name to be retired by the World Meteorological Organization. It is not uncommon for Atlantic storm names to be retired despite only causing a few dozen fatalities. For example, Isidore was retired in 2002 after causing 19 fatalities and Igor was retired in 2012 with only 4. What these, and other relatively low fatality Atlantic storms typically have in common is their high price-tag. On the other side of the globe, typhoons often cause far greater loss of life, yet are not delisted. The 2010 typhoon season was a great example: neither Conson (111 fatalities) nor the incredibly intense Megi (69 fatalities) were retired. The fact is that neither of the storms caused more than 100 million US dollars in damage. In both cases The Philippines were the hardest hit, however the economic strength of that country is quite low, hence the low damage costs. Thus, it would seem that economic damage is at least as important for retiring a name as is the loss of life. By extension, it also appears that the more influential the affected country, the higher likelihood that the storm name will be removed.

As news agencies across the US provide near-continuous coverage of Matthew and its potential impact on the States, it seems much of the devastation the storm has already caused is swept under the rug. One has to do some research to find out that at least 142 people have already died from this storm; 136 in Haiti alone. The fact that relatively few people in the US die from tropical cyclones is forgotten. Really, the economic damage is what is devastating about US storms, where even a weak system can cause over a billion dollars in damage. At the end of the day, though, financial losses can be restored, human lives cannot.