115

Extreme Wind Events and Damage Assessment in the U.S.
Joseph H. GOLDEN
Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences (retired)
University of Colorado/NOAA
Boulder, Colorado 80302
e-mail: joegolden@g.com

Abstract
The focus of this paper is on severe windstorm events, including severe thunderstorms, tornadoes andtropical cyclones affecting the United States. Recent trends in hurricane and tornado activity in the U.S., andsome scientific controversy regarding secular changes and possible connections to global warming are
examined. Even though damages due to windstorms continue to rise, fatalities in the U.S. have generally
declined, with the exception of major hurricane impacts like KATRINA, 2005. I attribute this dichotomy tomovement of the population to areas more prone to windstorms, while the accuracy of warnings has
improved. The history of scientific post-storm damage surveys in the U.S. is summarized, and the importance of such surveys for future assessments of windstorm phenomena vs. global climate change is highlighted. Finally, I examine the various windstorm disaster risks across the U.S., and find that those risks are
increasingly dependent on construction practices (including manufactured housing) and the development ofadequate shelters.
Key words: damage surveys, mitigation, severe thunderstorms, tornadoes, tropical cyclones, windstorms

1. Introduction

2. Recent Trends

In this paper, I shall focus on the following extreme
wind events and their manifestations:
Severe thunderstorms, tornadoes and tropical
cyclones. Due to space limitations, I shall not coverlarger-scale wind events such as those caused by extratropical low pressure areas accompanied by strongpressure gradient-related wind events, even thoughsome of those do cause damage to structures. It has beenshown by the Munich Re yearly assessments of worldwide damages due to all forms of natural disasters(Munich Re Topics, 2008), that the trends over the past
twenty years have been largely influenced by wind
events (Fig. 1). Moreover, those damage trends continue
to grow at an exponential rate (Fig. 2). The upward
trends appear to be influenced both by the frequency ofnatural hazards, especially windstorms, but also by
increased human vulnerability due to poor construction
practices in windstorm-exposed areas. This thesis forms
the core of my paper, and requires a more consistent,
coordinated approach to future post-storm damage surveys if we are to sort out the issue of windstorm
damages vs. global environmental change (i.e., howmuch is caused by global warming vs. natural cycles vs.
increased human vulnerability).

Over the past few years, there has been much controversy over the possibility of a link between global
warming and possible increasing frequency or intensityof tropical cyclones worldwide. On the one hand,colleagues such as Webster, Curry and Emanuel haveargued that over roughly the past century, there havebeen secular increases in the number of hurricanes in the
Atlantic and some other tropical basins. Emanuel (2005)
has indicated that there has been a significant increase in
the power dissipation index of tropical cyclones(proportional to the integral of the cube of the maximum
winds over time) since the 1970s. This result is
supported by Webster et al. (2005) that there has been asubstantial global increase in the proportion of the most
severe tropical cyclones from the period 1970-1995,
which has been accompanied by a similar decrease in
weaker systems. The years l995-2000 experienced thehighest level of North Atlantic hurricane activity in thereliable record. Goldenberg et al. (2001) suggest that
this greater activity results from simultaneous increases
in North Atlantic sea-surface temperatures and decreases
in vertical wind shear. Other researchers, such as
Landsea (2005, 2007), have suggested that natural
cycles and the relative short time-record of Atlantic
hurricanes overwhelm any perceived trends. They alsoemphasize that there is no discernible upward trend in

Global Environmental Research
13/2009: 115-124
printed in Japan©2009 AIRIES116

J. H. GOLDEN

Fig. 1 Number of great natural catastrophes, 1950-2008.
The chart shows for each year the number of great natural catastrophes (Category 6), divided up by type of event.
(after MunichRe Topics, 2008. see website: munichre.com)

Fig. 2 Overall losses and insured losses in US$billion, 1950-2008.
The chart presents the overall losses and insured losses – adjusted to present values. The trend curves verify theincrease in Category 6 catastrophe losses since 1950.
(both from MunichRe Topics, 2008. see website: munichre.com)

Extreme Wind Events and Damage Assessment in the U.S.

the number of hurricane landfalls in the U.S. or
Caribbean over the past century.
More details on the controversy surrounding the
Emanuel and Webster et al studies are given in a recent
Statement on Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change,
prepared by the WMO CAS Committee for Project T-2(2006). One of the major conclusions is that “because of
the problems of the tropical cyclone databases utilized
for studies on trends in these extreme events, there is animmediate need to conduct an in-depth storm-by-storm
reanalysis of tropical cyclones in all basins.” Efforts areunderway now in Miami to extend the Atlantic hurricane
record back to before 1900, using ship reports, logs,
library documents, etc. However, when one examines
the yearly trends in Atlantic tropical cyclones (Fig. 3a,after Landsea, 2007), two features stand out: there was a
relative active period in hurricane activity and landfalls
during the late 1940’s and 1950’s, followed by aprolonged lull from the 1960’s through the 1980’s.
During the first period, some intense hurricanes wreaked
havoc along the U.S. East Coast (Fig. 3b). In fact, thisrash of hurricane strikes led to the funding and deployment of the first U.S. national weather radar network,
the WSR-57. Beginning with the devastating Hurricane
Andrew in Miami in 1992, the U.S. hurricane landfalls
began an upward cycle once again that continued to thesummer of 2008. In fact, the two successive Atlantic
hurricane seasons of 2004-2005 broke all records fornumber of Atlantic basin hurricanes and hurricane
damages on the U.S. coast. The total damages for those
two hurricane seasons exceeded $150 billion. Various
estimates for Hurricane KATRINA, 2005 damages alone
range upwards to two-thirds of that figure.
However, we should stress that the Hurricane
KATRINA, 2005 disaster in New Orleans was not theworst-case scenario, as it weakened to a Category 3
storm (on the Saffir-Simpson Scale) at landfall. Most of
the damage and loss of life in New Orleans was attrib(a)117

uted to flooding caused by a breach in major levees,
while to the east over Mississippi, damage was due toboth storm surge and strong winds. In fact, KATRINA’s
winds wiped out nearly all surface weather stations in
Mississippi for the next several days (due to either
instrument and/or power failures). Over the years, manyof my U.S. scientific colleagues had warned of a hurricane disaster in New Orleans, due to the fact that muchof the city lies below sea-level. A remarkable study,
funded by the Natural Hazards Center in Boulder, examined the near-miss Hurricane IVAN, 2004 that madelandfall as a stronger hurricane than KATRINA, butmuch farther east. The authors projected the damage andfatalities that would have resulted if IVAN had hit New
Orleans. Their predictions were remarkably accurate inall respects for the 2005 KATRINA scenario in New
Orleans, including damage and fatality estimates.
Regarding severe thunderstorms and attendant tornadoes, it is believed that the most accurate records start in
the early 1950’s. That is because the first public tornado
warnings were issued by Fawbush and Miller (1954) inthe U.S. Air Force in 1948 (Fig. 4, tornado trends, after
Doswell et al., 1999). More impressively, the reported
number of tornadoes began rising again during the
deployment of the NEXRAD Doppler radar network,
starting around l990. This highlights a problem with allarguments about global warming and severe storm
frequency: the history of reliable observations isrelatively short, has known population biases and isdependent on damage. There is evidence from storm
chasers with digital photography and video cameras thata significant fraction of tornadoes and other severe
thunderstorm phenomena went unreported in the past(e.g, occurred over open, sparsely populated terrain).
This is especially true in U.S. regions such as theRockies and West, where scientific interest in tornadoes
has sparked increased reports there since the 1980s(Doswell et al., 1999).
(b)

Fig. 3 (a) Number of named hurricanes, tropical storms and subtropical storms in Atlantic, 1944-2004. (b) number of major(Simpson-Saffir Scale 3,4,5) East U.S. Coast hurricanes, 1900-1944. (after Landsea, 2007)

118

J. H. GOLDEN

Fig. 4 Annual number of tornadoes for the period 1916-1995; the dashed line connecting solid
circles shows the raw data, the heavy solid line is the result of smoothing. Also shown in thelight solid line is the number of tornado days (i.e., days with one or more tornadoes) per year.
The formation of SELS (NWS Severe Local Storms Forecast Unit) is indicated. (after
Doswell et al., 1999)

3. The Report of the Intergovernmental Panelon Climatic Change (IPCC)
A cogent summary of likely future windstorm scenarios resulting from global climate change is theReport of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In the Summary for
Policymakers, the authors conclude that “there is now
higher confidence in projected patterns of warming andother regional-scale features, including changes in wind
patterns, precipitation and some aspects of extremes andice.” The Summary goes into some more specificoutlooks for extreme events, including windstorms:- “It is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves andheavy precipitation events will continue to become
more frequent.
- Based on a range of models, it is likely that future
tropical cyclones will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation
associated with ongoing increases of tropical sea surface temperatures. There is less confidence in projections of a global decrease in numbers of tropical
cyclones. The apparent increase in the proportion ofvery intense storms since l970 in some regions ismuch larger than simulated by current models forthat period.
- Extratropical storm tracks are projected to movepoleward, with consequent changes in wind, precipitation and temperature patterns, continuing thebroad pattern of observed trends over the lasthalf-century.”In meteorological terms, implications from the above
scenarios are that severe thunderstorm phenomena suchas tornadoes, gust-fronts and downburst wind events (alloften associated with heavy precipitation events) would
continue to increase in frequency. The second bullet

above regarding a likely increase in tropical cyclone
intensities has led to much controversy, as noted earlier.
That is because even though warm sea surface temperatures are a necessary condition for tropical cyclones toform and intensify, they are not a sufficient condition.
Put another way, atmospheric environmental conditions
such as moisture and wind-shear are also important inlimiting tropical cyclone intensities. Finally, the thirdbullet implies more frequent high wind events associated with wintertime cyclones across northern midlatitude regions.

4. Counterpoints to IPCC Report
In addition to the theoretical controversies surrounding global climate change and tropical cyclones noted
above, we must stress the relatively short time-records
for most extreme wind events worldwide. This is especially true for Atlantic hurricanes, for which accurate
records only now go back to around 1900, and for U.S.
tornadoes, for which reliable records start in the l950’s.
However, recent studies of regional climate change
influences suggest the warm phase of the ENSO
phenomenon affects both Atlantic hurricane seasons andtornado patterns over the U.S. (Pielke and Landsea,
1999, Cook and Schaefer, 2008). It has been shown thatthe warm phase of the ENSO phenomenon, wherein thesea surface temperature warms off the Peruvian coast ofSouth America, is accompanied by diminished hurricane
activity in the Atlantic. Such a sequence developed in
2009, although we note that during the strong ENSO
event of l992, Hurricane ANDREW formed in lateAugust and was one of the most destructive on record in
the U.S. when it made landfall in the Miami, FL area.
It seems likely, therefore, that even if the IPCC predictions of more intense tropical cyclones in the futureExtreme Wind Events and Damage Assessment in the U.S.

are accurate, regional climate change mechanisms and
ENSO events will play a major role in modulating theyear-to-year variability in tropical cyclones.
Cook and Schaefer (2008) examined winter tornado
activity from 1950-2003 to determine the possible effectof seasonally averaged sea surface temperatures in theequatorial Pacific Ocean, the ENSO phase, on the location and strength of tornado outbreaks in the U.S. In
general, U.S. wintertime tornadoes occur rarely from
December – February and are usually weak and shortlived events. They found significant differences in thepreferred location and number of tornado days depending on whether the winter ENSO phase was cold, neutral
or warm. During anomalously warm phases (the socalled “El Nino”), tornado activity was enhanced along
the Gulf Coast states, including Central Florida.
Finally, it should be noted that several recent observational and high-resolution model studies raise somedoubts about the global-model-based conclusions of the
IPCC Panel report. None of the global models used thus
far are able to adequately account for the role of aerosol
impacts or cloud-radiative forcing or precipitation physics. There is growing evidence that aerosols also play amajor role in hurricane precipitation and intensitychanges (Rosenfeld et al., 2007, Khain et al. 2008).

5. Socioeconomic Factors Affecting Current
and Future Storm Losses
One way to examine possible future hurricane landfall impacts in a warming climate is to look at normalized damage estimates, where the normalization gives
an estimate of the damage that would occur if storms
from the past made landfall under another year’s societal conditions. Pielke et al. (2008) extend and update
work first presented by Pielke and Landsea (1998) and
Collins and Lowe (2001) to provide longitudinally119consistent estimates of the economic damage that paststorms would have had under current levels of population and development. The new study normalizes
mainland U.S. hurricane damage from 1900-2005 to2005 values using two methodologies. Across bothmethodologies, there is no remaining trend of increasing
absolute damage in the data set, which follows the lackof trends in landfall frequency or intensity observed.
The period 1970-1990 was notable because of extremely
low amounts of damage compared to the other decades.
The decade 1996-2005 has the second most damage
among the past 110 years, with only the decade
1926-1935 surpassing its costs. The average annual
normalized damage in the continental U.S. is about$10 billion under both methods over the 106 years ofrecord. The most damaging single storm is the 1926
Great Miami storm, with $140-157 billion of normalized
damage – the most damaging years are 1926 and 2005.
Some recent independent analyses have found in somelocations that damage losses are doubling every ten
years (Pielke et al., 2008).
A key socioeconomic factor that had led to the above
increase in U.S. hurricane vulnerability is the large
influx of new coastal residents to hurricane-prone areas.
Fig. 5 shows the U.S. coastal population trends from
1930-2005 (after Pielke et al., 2008). It is clear that the
U.S. coastal county population has grown rapidly since
1930, especially from the east coast of Florida throughthe Gulf Coast. Other studies have shown that the vast
majority of these new residents have never experienced
a major hurricane, and are poorly prepared to takeappropriate actions to save life and property in the eventof a strike. For example, the population of Harris County,
TX (Houston area) has grown nearly three times larger
since 1960, with the 2005 population of Harris County
equaling the entire 1955 coastal county population fromthe Florida panhandle northward to South Carolina

Fig. 5 Population trends along U.S. hurricane- prone coastline, 1930-2005. (after Pielke et al, 2008)

120

J. H. GOLDEN

6. U. S. Post-Storm Damage Surveys – A Brief
History
During the 1970’s and 1980’s, the U.S. National
Academy of Science/National Research Council(NAS/NRC) funded (with interagency support) andoperated a Committee on Natural Disasters (CND). The
present author was one of the CND Chairs, and one of
our primary functions was to organize and dispatch
multidisciplinary quick-response teams of scientists toall types of natural disasters. I also served on CND
teams that surveyed Hurricanes ALICIA, 1983 andHUGO, 1989. These volunteer teams were expected to
fly to the disaster site within 36 hours of the event, study
the physical, economic and social impacts of the disaster,
identify perishable data, and write a report for the Academy within 90 days of the event. The most important
aspect of the CND teams was that they could focus on
scientific aspects of disasters, and were insulated frompolitical pressure from any one agency. Sadly, due tobudget pressures and internal reorganization in the NRC,
the CND was disbanded in the early l990’s. Since thattime, quick-response teams have been organized byseparate agencies, including FEMA, NWS/NOAA,AAWE, and various universities including Notre Dame,
Texas Tech, LSU, etc. supported by NSF. A few
non-government organizations such as the Institute for
Business and Home Safety (IBHS) and the Natural
Hazards Institute in Boulder also organize post-disasterteams. The NWS teams are Quick-Response Teams(QRT’s), but are usually only sent out for severe weather
episodes that have issues with warnings or otherservices. Therefore, some significant severe weather
events are only surveyed by local NWS offices, andonly if staff are available. The QRT’s do not always
have outside experts. It appears that the FEMA “Hazard
Mitigation Assessment Teams” have multidisciplinary
experts and come closest to replicating what was lostwith demise of the CND functions.
Starting with the infamous nocturnal Lubbock, TX
tornado of l970, there has been a healthy interplay
between wind engineers and meteorologists in the U.S.
(Golden and Snow, 1991). This was stimulated by the
independent studies of the Lubbock tornado by the lateProf. Ted Fujita, University of Chicago, who conductedaerial and ground surveys there, and the Texas Techwind engineers, who did detailed engineering studies ofthe structural damage. Dr. Fujita found evidence frommapping the aerial damage photographs for the
existence of multiple suction-spots (later termed “suction vortices”) in the Lubbock tornado. Moreover, hedeveloped a new F-Scale, which he placed between the
Beaufort and Sonic Scales of windpseeds, and had arange of 0 to 6 (Fujita, 1971). Fujita and his students
conducted aerial and ground surveys during subsequent
years. The present author participated with them in a
massive survey of the U.S. record Jumbo Tornado Outbreak, April 3-4, 1974 (tornado tracks in Figs. 6a, b). One

(a)

(b)

Fig. 6 (a) Map of all 148 tornado damage tracks,
derived from aerial mapping and ground surveys, for Jumbo Tornado Outbreak, April 3-4,
1974 (by T. Fujita, students and collaborators,
including the present author). Inset (b) shows
example of tornado damage track map for very
wide Frankfort, KY tornado (#54) in Jumbo
Outbreak.

Extreme Wind Events and Damage Assessment in the U.S.

problem that ensued, and was acknowledged by Fujita,
was the lack of independent windspeed calibration withactual surface measurements for the F-Scale. During thelast few decades, there have been successful estimates of
tornado windspeeds using motion picture/ video photogrammetry on debris motion and new mobile Doppler
radars (Golden, 2000). A vast majority of these surface
windspeed estimates in tornadoes and corresponding
damage assessments by wind engineers suggested thatthe windspeed ranges for the F3-F5 needed to havesome overlap and should be lowered. A controversy
erupted following the F5-rated Jarrell, TX tornado inl998, and NIST funded a study by Texas Tech to addressthese windspeed vs. damage issues. Texas Techappointed a committee of experts (both meteorologists
and wind engineers) and the new Enhanced Fujita(EF-Scale) was developed and adopted by the NWS (fordetails, see Texas Tech Report to NIST and Storm
Prediction Center website: www.spc.noaa.gov). This
was a major achievement of both the severe storm
meteorologists and wind engineering community work-121

ing together, but the issue of training those engaged inquick-response damage surveys has not been welladdressed. In this author’s opinion, there are somesignificant recent severe storm and tornado outbreaks
that have either not been surveyed at all, or were incompletely surveyed. Damage surveys with the detailed
mapping achieved by Fujita and his students are nolonger carried out in the U.S. As a result, the storm damage database for future global change research is becoming less robust. Golden and Adams (2000) urged thattornado and severe weather climatology must be
incorporated into an all-hazards risk assessment for
local communities and states to support all-hazards
mitigation. We shall discuss this in more detail below.

7. Windstorm Disaster Risks and Vulnerability, Dependencies on Non-Weather Factors
There are many maps showing climatologicalfrequency of various windstorms over the world(Golden and Snow, 1991), but Fig. 7 is an updated map

Severe Thunderstorm Wind Reports 1955-2001

Thunderstorm Wind Gusts > 58 mph

reports per decade per 10,000 nim2

reports per decade per 10,000 nim2

10

50

100

150

300

350

400

450

500

10

50

100

150

300

350

400

450

500

Thunderstorm Wind(>75Gusts
mph) > 75 mph

Percent of Wind Reports from Damage Only

reports per decade per 10,000 nim2

percentage

10

50

100

150

300

350

400

450

500

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Fig. 7 Frequency maps for U.S. severe thunderstorm wind reports, 1955-2001 for all windspeeds, >58 mph,
>75mph, and just from damage reports.

122

J. H. GOLDEN

for frequency of severe thunderstorm wind reports over
the U.S. from 1955-2001 (courtesy J. Schaefer, Storm
Prediction Center). The maps show frequency of damaging wind-gusts, gusts greater than 58 mph and 75 mph(26 m/s and 34 m/s, upper right/lower left resp.) andpercent of wind reports based on only damage reports.
Overall, the highest frequency of damaging thunderstorm winds occurs in Tornado Alley, the High Plains,just east of peak hail incidence (not shown). Wind
reports based only on damage are most common in theSoutheast and Appalachians. A more comprehensive
assessment of all natural hazard risks over North
American in poster form, including all windstorm types,
was compiled by a group of scientists from the U.S.,
Canada and Mexico, and published by the National
Geographic Society (1998, poster available from theSociety or the author). This poster was designed for theeducated layman, with special emphasis for schools. The
top-ten disasters for each geophysical type were listed
and/or mapped over North America with inset maps
showing frequency from past records. Over 10,000 freecopies of the hazards poster were distributed to schools
across the three participating countries. The intent wasthat children would be able to study the poster, and thengo home and educate the rest of their family. One of thebest sources of worldwide assessments of windstorm
hazard risk is the insurance industry, and MunichRe in
particular. Their yearly publication “TOPICS” has maps,
graphs and other valuable damage statistics.
Recent research has raised doubts about the safest
places to seek shelter in a tornado. Brooks and Purpura(1994) found that from 1985 to 1991 people in mobile
homes accounted for 36.1% of the tornado fatalities.
Golden (2000) emphasized that in more recent years,
that percentage was even higher (38%-51%). Manufactured housing is becoming the only affordable housing
for a growing number of retired and low-income Americans, both in Tornado Alley and in hurricane-prone areas
like Florida. Clearly, those living in older mobile homes
are at greater risk than those in adequate shelters (butthere are no uniform State or Federal laws yet requiring
permanent shelters for mobile home parks). In addition,
Schmidlin (1996) has called for research to evaluate thesafety of vehicles in tornadoes. While concurring that a
sturdy shelter is the best place to take refuge, his
research raises questions as to whether vehicles provide
more protection from tornadoes than mobile homes orlying in a ditch.
Construction practices have come more into question
following both tornado and hurricane events. Especiallywith tornadoes over the Southeast, damage surveys byengineers have shown that poor or nonexistent attachment of the house frame to the foundation played asignificant role in the damage. Poor roofing materials
and attachments are also known to contribute to bothresidential and commercial construction failures. In aremarkable engineering study, Leech (2005) found that a
combination of design oversight and material fatigue
left a century-old railroad bridge vulnerable to an F-1

weak tornado. The Kinzua Viaduct was built overKinzua Creek gorge in north-central Pennsylvania in
1882 to facilitate coal delivery to the Great Lakes. The
bridge was completely rebuilt in 1900, was named a
National Civil Engineering Landmark and stood until
July 21, 2003. On that date, a tornado brought 23 of its
spans and 11 of its towers down. Leech found that 23 of
the Kinzua Viaduct’s 41 spans collapsed in spectacular
fashion. In a recent hurricane example, Kareem (2008)
examined glass cladding damage in the downtown areaof Houston, TX from Hurricane IKE, 2008. He foundsimilar but worse damage in Houston after ALICIA,
1983 but in that case some of the glass damage wascaused by airborne debris, especially loose gravel roofing materials from one of the buildings. Kareem usedflow visualization and computational flow field models
which demonstrated that a series of vortical flow structures formed between buildings during IKE’s passage,
and that these vortices evolved from flow entering theregion between the damaged buildings. It was deduced
that the vortices which formed in between two buildings
initiated a series of events which caused the windows on
one building to fail, with windows on an adjacent tower
subsequently failing from the ensuing impact by windborne debris carrying glass chards in the entrapped
vortices (Kareem, 2009- NatHaz Modeling Lab/Notre
Dame website).
It turns out that the flooding in New Orleans andextensive storm-surge damage in Mississippi due to
KATRINA, 2005 and in Texas due to the weaker IKE,
2009 may be harbingers of disasters to come. A new
study by Syvitski et al. (2009) shows that the world’s
low-lying river deltas are sinking from human activity,
making them increasingly vulnerable to flooding. The
study concluded that 24 out of the world’s 33 majordeltas are sinking and that 85 percent experienced
severe flooding in recent years, resulting in the temporary submergence of roughly 260,000 square kilometers.
Global delta flooding could increase by 50% under current projections of about 18 inches (46 cm) in sea-level
rise by the end of the century, as forecast by the 2007
IPCC Report.

8. Mitigation Actions
There is evidence in recent NOAA storm data annual
summaries that the trend in windstorm, especially
tornado-related, deaths and injuries is continuing to
decline. Golden and Adams (2000) suggest that this may
be due to a combination of factors that include enhanced
detection, longer warning lead-times, better communications and coordination with the media, and concerted
public education efforts conducted by NWS, FEMA, theAmerican Red Cross, insurance companies and the
media. However, the continued upward trend in damage
and losses due to all windstorms (Figs. 1 & 2) is cause
for concern globally. FEMA is the lead Federal agency
on storm mitigation. They work with the States throughfunding appropriated with the Stafford Act to promote

Extreme Wind Events and Damage Assessment in the U.S.

mitigation practices. For example, following Hurricane
IKE, 2008, the State of Texas applied for, and wasawarded $300 million in storm mitigation projects by
FEMA. FEMA also organizes and dispatches hazard
mitigation assessment teams following disasters (theteam reports are available on the FEMA website).
FEMA has also supported the recent compilation andimplementation of wind engineering research over the
past 40 years by Texas Tech by publishing two documents, FEMA #320 – “Residential Shelters: Taking
Shelter from the Storm” and FEMA #361 – “Design andConstruction Guidance for Community Safe Rooms”(available on website: www.nssa.cc). More recently, theInternational Code Council (ICC) has published the
ICC-500 document, “ICC and National Storm Shelter
Association Standard for Design and Construction of
Storm Shelters” which can be used worldwide for both
tornado and hurricane shelter design and construction.
In the U.S., there is a trend towards building morecommunity shelters in schools (personal communication,
E. Kiesling, Texas Tech).
Finally, improved prediction lead-times for all windstorms should encourage procedures to reduce damages
and deaths through mitigation measures and improved
public response, e.g., storm-shutters, wind-resistant construction, mobile home park evacuations to safe havens,etc. (Golden and Snow, 1991). As forecasters worldwide
learn to better combine advanced data sets such as
Doppler radar, satellite, automated surface weather
stations with storm spotter reports and new computermodels, it is expected that warning lead-times andaccuracy will continue to increase. However, research isneeded to determine the optimal lead-times for tornado
or hurricane warnings. How much lead-time do people
need to maximize their appropriate responses? In thecase of hurricanes approaching landfall near some major
U.S. coastal cities, such as New York, Tampa Bay or
Houston/Galveston, the main road arteries for evacuation could be cut off by rising flood waters 36 hours ormore prior to landfall. Could safe-havens be found in
high-rise structures as a “shelter of last resort” forpeople unable to flee inland? Recent observations withdropsonde packages dropped from aircraft into hurricane eyewalls to measure vertical profiles of windspeeds suggest that there may be low-level jets in thehurricane eyewall, or in major rainbands, a few hundred
meters above the surface. In that case, putting coastal
residents into high-rise structures may not provide theoccupant safety sought. There are also concerns about
possible litigation.

9. Conclusions
We conclude by recommending that the Asian Disaster Reduction Center should take the lead in organizing
multidisciplinary quick-response damage survey teams,
following windstorm disasters in Asia. Such teams
should be expected to document key scientific findings
on storm impacts and perishable data, so that policy

123

makers can make informed decisions on future public
warning systems and mitigation measures.
It is clear to many in the U.S., that our severe storms
database, especially for tornadoes, is becoming increasingly unreliable. The irony is that even though many
global change scenarios predict an increase in extreme
weather events, financial and manpower support forscientifically organized, multi-disciplinary damage surveys has dwindled in recent years.
References
Brooks, H. and J. Purpura (1994) Mobile home tornado fatalities:some observations. Hazards Awareness Report, L. Kremkau,(ed.), National Weather Service Headquarters, Silver Spring,
Md.
Collins, D.J. and S.P. Lowe (2001) A macro validation dataset for
U.S. hurricane models, Casualty Actuarial Society Forum,
Casualty Actuarial Forum Arlington, VA.
Cook, A. R. and J. T. Schaefer (2008) The relation of El Niño
southern oscillation (ENSO) to Winter Tornado Activity, Mon.
Wea. Rev., 136: 3121-3137.
Doswell, C.A., A. Moller and H. Brooks (1999) Storm spotting
and public awareness since the first tornado forecasts of 1948,
weather and forecasting, Amer. Meteor. 14; 544-557.
Emanuel, K.A. (2005) Increasing destructiveness of tropical
cyclones over the past thirty years. Nature, 436: 686-688.
Fawbush, E. J., and R. C. Miller (1954) The types of air masses inwhich American tornadoes form. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 35:
154-165.
Fujita, T. T. (1971) Proposed characterization of tornadoes andhurricanes by area. SMRP Res. Paper No. 91, U. of Chicago, Il.
(papers now held at Texas Tech Univ., Civil Engr.)
Goldenberg, S. B., C.W. Landsea, A. M. Mestas-Nunez and W. M.
Gray (2001) The recent increase in Atlantic hurricane activity:
causes and implications. Science, 436: 474-479.
Golden, J.H. (2000) Storms. Pielke (eds.) Tornadoes, Chapt. 36,
Routledge Press, U.K.
Golden, J.H. and J. Snow (1991) Mitigation against extreme
windstorms. Rev. of Geophysics, 29(4): 477-504.
Golden, J.H. and C. Adams (2000) The tornado problem: Forecast,Warning, and Response. Nat. Hazards Rev., 1(2): 107-118.
Kareem, A. (2008) Saga of glass damage in urban environments
continues: Consequences of aerodynamics and debris impact
during IKE. Available on website: www.nd.edu/~nathaz
Khain, A., N. Cohen, B. Lynn, and A. Pokrovsky (2008) Possible
aerosol effects on lightning activity and structure of hurricanes.
J. Atmos.Sci., Amer. Meteor. Soc., 65: 3652-3667.
Landsea, C. W. (2005) Hurricanes and global warming. Nature(London), 438 (7071): E11-13.
Landsea, C. W. (2007) Counting Atlantic tropical cyclones backwards in time. EOS Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 88(18):197-202.
Leech, T (2005) The collapse of the Kinzua Viaduct. American
Scientist, 93: 348-354.
McCarthy, D. and J. Schaefer (2006) Tornado trends over the past
30 years. Conf. on Severe Local Storms, Amer. Meteor. Soc.
Munich Re Topics (2008) available on website: munichre.com
Pielke, R., Jr. and C. W. Landsea (1998) Normalized hurricane
damages in the U.S.: 1925-1995. Weather and Forecast., Amer.
Meteor. Soc., 13(3): 621-631.
Pielke, R., Jr. and C. W. Landsea (1999) La Nina, El Nino andAtlantic hurricane damages in the U.S., Bull. Amer. Meteor.
Soc., 80(10): 2027-2033.
Pielke, R. Jr., J. Gratz, C. W. Landsea, D. Collins, M. Saunders
and R. Musulin (2008) Normalized hurricane damage in the124

J. H. GOLDEN

United States: 1900-2005. Nat. Hazards Review, ASCE, 9(1):29-38.
Rosenfeld, D., A. Khain, B. Lynn and W. Woodley (2007)
Simulations of hurricane response to suppression of warm rain
by sub-micron aerosols. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 7:5647-5674.
Schmidlin, T. W. (1996) Cars and tornadoes: Where is theresearch? Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 77: 963-964.
Syvitski, J., A. Kettner, I. Overeem, E. Hutton, M. Hannon, G.
Brakenridge, J. Day, C. Vorosmarty, Y. Saito, L. Giosan et al.
(2009) Sinking deltas due to human activities. Nature
Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo629.
Webster, P.J., G.J. Holland, J.A. Curry and H.-R. Chang (2005)
Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity ina warming environment. Science, 309(5742): 1844-1846.

Joseph H. GOLDEN
Joseph H. Golden served NOAA in a
number of progressively more responsible
positions during his 42.5 years of Federal
service. He retired from NOAA in
September, 2005. His early career beganin Miami in the mid 1960’s, as a
Hurricane Specialist at the National
Hurricane Center, and he also worked as a
research meteorologist at the National
Hurricane Research Laboratory. Dr. Golden was an active participant in
Project STORMFURY, including the first cumulus seeding trials in the
Caribbean and later in full hurricane experiments. He then pursued his
research interest in convective vortices and severe storms at the National
Severe Storms Laboratory, Norman, OK from 1971-75.
In 1991, he was asked to assume the role of Director, NOAA
Atmospheric Modification Program in NOAA’s Office of Oceanic andAtmospheric Research. Finally, in 2000, he accepted an appointment andtransfer back into research at NOAA’s Forecast Systems Laboratory (nowthe Global Systems Division/ESRL) in Boulder, CO, as a SeniorMeteorologist. Dr. Golden retired from NOAA in September, 2005, andwas a Senior Research Scientist in the NOAA/CU Cooperative Institutefor Research in the Environmental Sciences (CIRES) up to his retirementin April, 2009.
Dr. Golden is an elected Fellow of the American MeteorologicalSociety, past member of the AGU, Royal Meteorological Society, Sigma
Xi and was on the Board of Directors for the American Association ofWind Engineers. His biography was selected to appear in WHO’S WHO
IN THE EAST twice, EMERGING LEADERS IN NEW TECHNOLOGY
and the 2008/09 10th anniversary edition of WHO’S WHO in Science andEngineering (Marquis Pub.). He is a renowned international expert on
tornadoes and waterspouts.

(Received 30 September 2009, Accepted 21 October 2009)