The 12th Americas Conference on Wind Engineering (12ACWE)

Seattle, Washington, USA, June 16-20, 2013

Projection of Future US Design Wind Speeds due to Changes in

Hurricane Activity: Storm Frequency and Sea Surface
Temperature
Fangqian Liua, Weichiang Pangb
a
b

Glenn Department of Civil Engineering, Clemson University, SC, USA

Glenn Department of Civil Engineering, Clemson University, SC, USA

ABSTRACT: This paper investigates the effects of climate change on tropical cyclone activities
in the Atlantic basin and potential change in design wind speeds along the U.S. coastal region.
Projections of tropical cyclone activities were made up to year 2100 under three speculated future
climate conditions: I. low greenhouse gas emission, II. high greenhouse gas emission and III. increased annual storm frequency with high greenhouse gas emission. Three synthetic hurricane
databases each consists of 49,970 simulation years (526 realizations for years 2006 to 2100) were
produced for the three future climate scenarios. Characteristic hurricane parameters (e.g. landfall
rate, central pressure etc.) for mileposts along the U.S. coastline were examined. Compared to
current hurricane activities, appreciable decreases in central pressure are observed for scenarios II
and III, while the hurricane intensity remains at around the same level for scenario I. The projected future surface wind speeds were evaluated for selected locations and were compared to the design wind speeds in the current structural design code (ASCE 7-10) for mean recurrence intervals
(MRIs) of 10, 25, 50, 100, 300, 700 and 1700 years. The most noticeable increases in surface 3-s
gust wind speeds were found to be between 10m/s to 15m/s for locations in Florida and along
Eastern coast of the United States.
KEYWORDS: hurricane, climate change, stochastic, long-term simulation, design wind speed,
MRI
1 INTRODUCTION
Hurricane is among the most dangerous and costliest natural hazards that affect the coastal environment of the United States (U.S.). The average normalized annual hurricane loss from 1900 to
2005 was estimated at $10 billion U.S. dollars (2005 dollars) (Pielke et al. 2008 1). Continued
population growth along the coastal areas with more high value properties being exposed to hurricane risk compounds with climate change will likely result in future hurricane damage greatly
exceeds the current estimated annual loss of $10 billion dollars.
In 2007, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its
fourth assessment report (AR4) on scientific information and global issues concerning climate
change (Metz et al. 2007 2). The AR4 report is a synthesis of the assessments of three working
Groups (WGs). WG1 focuses on the physical science basis behind climate change, which includes summaries of observed changes in climate and their effects on natural and human systems,
assessment on causes of the observed changes (Metz et al. 2007 2).
The AR4 report includes the summaries of over thousands of scientific studies around the
world, making it the most detailed report on the latest climate change situation. According to the

AR4 report, the average sea surface temperature (SST) has risen by approximately 1C from
1850 to 2006 and the projected global average surface warming will continue to increase by as
much as 6.4C by the end of the century.
According to a study conducted by the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), a program
established by the U.S. government, there is a strong statistical connection between the rise in sea
surface temperature (SST) in hurricane formation regions and increased hurricane activities observed over the past 50 years (CCSP 2008 3). Figure 4 shows the number of storms recorded in
HURDAT since 1851. It can be seen in Figure 4 that the number of storms spawned in the Atlantic Ocean per year follows the pattern of multi-decadal oscillation cycles (Goldenberg et al. 2001
4
). However, the amplitude of the oscillation appears to increase following each subsequent oscillation cycle. It can be observed that the annual storm frequency exhibits an increasing trend over
the entire period with records and the most notable upswing in storm activities can be observed
since 1995. The CCSP study projects the increase of hurricane surface wind speed at 1%- 8% for
every 1C increase in SST. Multiple studies cited increases in means of tropical cyclone peak
wind speeds in the Atlantic basin (Field et al. 2012 5, Knutson et al. 2010 6). The extent to which
climate change contributes to change in hurricane risk along the coastal environment is not well
understood at this point. This paper presents the preliminary results of an on-going study conducted by the authors to quantify the impacts of hurricane climate change on future wind speeds.
1.1 Relevant Previous Studies
A study conduct by Jagger and Elsner (2005) 7 examined the relationships between change in extreme wind returning and change in climate conditions including El NioSouthern Oscillation,
the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, and global temperature.
The distributions of extreme near-coastal hurricane winds were determined for three general divisions of U.S. coastline (Gulf coast, Florida and East coast) with the evaluation of the effect
from the aforementioned climate variables using statistical tools. The study estimated the 100-yr
return level wind speed for the entire coast to be 81(5) m/s.
Projections of future hurricane activities were performed by Wang et al. (2012) 8 and Nishijima et al. (2012) 9. Their approaches directly considered the relationships between tropical cyclones and certain basic climatic data (e.g. sea surface temperature) derived from climate projection models to simulate future tropical cyclone activities. In Wang et al. (2012) 8, stochastic
hurricane simulation techniques were used to generate 10,000 years of hurricane events under
both the current and possible future climate conditions based on the scenarios from Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) (Van Vuuren et al., 2011 10). The 50-year maximum wind
speed distribution at selected coastal locations and the joint distribution of maximum wind speed
and storm size for the Northeast US coastline were compared between the current and future climate conditions. In their case study at New York City, an increase between 25 m/s to 35 m/s On
50-year maximum hurricane wind speed cumulative distribution function (CDF) was found under
the future climate scenario considered herein. In Nishijima et al (2012) 9, in addition to the wind
speed distribution from the stochastic typhoon events generated for current and future climate
conditions, the wind resistance of residential buildings was coupled with the simulation results to
quantify the change in risk level from current climate to future condition in Japan.
Another approach to quantify the relationship between climate and tropical cyclone activity is
to down-scale tropical cyclone activity from re-analysis or climate model datasets (Emanuel
2011 11; Emanuel et al. 2008 12). Different from the simulation techniques used in Wang et al.
(2012) 8, the approach by Emanual et al. (2008) 12 does not rely heavily on historical tropical cyclone data. The main advantage of the downscaling approach is that it enables long-term projection of tropical cyclone activities with limited tropical storm records. On the other hand, kinemat-

The 12th Americas Conference on Wind Engineering (12ACWE)

Seattle, Washington, USA, June 16-20, 2013

ic and thermo-dynamic quantities from climate models or from re-analysis data are required for
the downscaling approach. Using the downscaling method, hurricanes were simulated for the 20th
century climate (for a period of 1981 2000) and they were compared to the simulations for a
speculated future warming climate period of 20812100. In this study, the author used these synthetic hurricanes to damage a portfolio of insured property according to an aggregate winddamage function. It was found that hurricanes from three of the four climate models produced increasing damage with the global warming signal emerging on time scales of 40, 113, and 170
year respectively.
1.2 Sea Surface Temperature
The concept of power dissipation index (PDI) was introduced to describe the relationship between storm frequency, wind speed and duration (Emanuel 2005 13). The PDI index is considered
a better indicator of hurricane threat than frequency or intensity alone. By analyzing the PDI values of historical hurricanes, Camargo et al. (2007) 14 showed that the PDI value is directly correlated to the Atlantic sea surface temperature. This suggests that the recent increase in global average temperature will likely result in more intense storms with increased wind speeds. A
separate study conducted by the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) independently confirmed that there is a strong statistical connection between the rise in sea surface temperature in
the hurricane formation regions and the increased hurricane activity observed over the past 50
years (CCSP 2008 3). A study by Holland and Webster (2007) 15 also confirmed that the overall
trends and changes in sea surface temperatures, tropical cyclone activities and frequency of major
hurricanes are influenced by greenhouse warming.
1.3 Annual Storm Frequency
Based on the records in the Hurricane Database (HURDAT) maintained by the United States National Hurricane Center (NHC), there has been an increase in the number of storms (both tropical
storms and hurricanes) observed over the past decades. Figure 1 shows the number of storms
recorded in HURDAT since 1851. The mutidecadal oscillation is a well-documented phenome-

Number of Storms per Year

30
25
20

HURDAT
Moving average over 20yr
Linear regression of mean
Linear regression of standard deviation

15
10
5
0

1900

1950
Year

2000

Figure 1: Number of storms per year since 1851.

2050

non (e.g. Landsea et al. 1999 16; Goldenberg et al. 2001 4), and it can be clearly seen in Figure 1
that the number of storms spawned in the Atlantic Ocean per year follows the mutidecadal oscillation cycle. However, the amplitude of the oscillation (i.e. the number of storms) appears to increase following each subsequent oscillation cycle.
1.4 Future Climate Scenarios
Human activities result in emissions of four long-lived greenhouse gases (GHGs): CO2, methane
(CH4), nitrousoxide (N2O) and halocarbons. Changes in the atmospheric concentrations of GHGs
are among the reasons that alter the energy balance of the climate system and are drivers of climate change. It has been shown that the global atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4 and N2O
have increased dramatically because of human activities since 1750 (Nakicenovic et al. 2000 17).
The levels of these GHGs are anticipated to continue to grow over the next few decades even
with the current climate change mitigation policies and related sustainable development practices
(IPCC 2007 18).
The Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) is the latest set of GHGs emission scenarios developed to facilitate future assessment of climate change prepared by IPCC since 2007
(Van Vuuren et al. 2011 9). This new set of emission scenarios is intended to replace and extend
the scenarios used in earlier IPCC assessments. These new RCPs have been shown to provide a
good basis for exploring the range of future climate scenarios (Van Vuuren et al. 2011 9). The
RCPs are directly named according to the projected radiative forcing for the year of 2100. Radiative forcing is used to quantify warming of the earth, expressed in terms of the difference between radiant energy received on the surface of the earth and that radiated back to space.
There are four RCPs projections, which include one climate change mitigation scenario leading to a very low forcing level (RCP2.6), two medium stabilization scenarios (RCP4.5/RCP6)
and one high emission scenarios (RCP8.5). The scenarios are sufficiently separated (by about 2
W/m2) in terms of the radiative forcing pathways to provide distinguishable future climate scenarios. Table 1 lists the hypothetical considerations for each RCP scenario and the corresponding
projected range of temperature change for each scenario. In this study, the low emission RCP 2.6
and high emission RCP 8.5 scenarios were used to simulate future hurricane activities.
Table 1. RCP Projections (Van Vuuren et al. 2011 9, Rogelj et al. 2012 19)
Scenario component
RCP 2.6
RCP 4.5
Medium-low mitGreenhouse gas emissions
Very low
igation
Medium for
Very low for both
Agricultural area
cropland and pas- cropland and pasture
ture
Air pollution
Medium-Low
Medium
Temperature
change (C at
Median
1.5
2.4
2090-2099 relative
to 1980-1999

RCP 6
Medium baseline;
high mitigation
Medium for
cropland but very
low for pasture
Medium

RCP 8.5

2.9

4.6

High baseline
Medium for both
cropland and pasture
Medium-high

The 12th Americas Conference on Wind Engineering (12ACWE)

Seattle, Washington, USA, June 16-20, 2013

2 STOCHASTIC HURRICANE SIMULATION PROCEDURE

2.1 Hurricane Parameters
The time history of a storm is defined by seven parameters. These seven parameters are: (1) latitude and (2) longitude of storm eye, (3) storm forward speed, (4) heading angle, (5) central pressure, (6) storm size expressed as radius to maximum wind (Rmax) and (7) pressure profile parameter (also known as Holland B parameter). The following sections briefly discuss the models used
to simulate these parameters.
2.2 Hurricane Simulation Procedure
The stochastic hurricane simulation model proposed by Vickery et al. (2000) 20 was employed in
this study to simulate hurricanes. The outline of the simulation framework is shown in Figure 2.
The stochastic hurricane model is consisted of several modules, which included hurricane formation (genesis) model, tracking model, intensity (central pressure) model, central pressure fillStorm
Statistics

Frequency

30

Annual Hurricane Frequency

And Storm Genesis

20

10

1950

Temperature

1900

2000

2050

No
Time
1850

1875

1900

1925

1950

1975

Tracking Model

Storm Inside
Land Boundary?

Yes

2000 2011

Sea Surface
Temperature

Decay Model

Relative Intensity Model

Central Pressure

Storm Parameters
Rmax , Pressure Profile Parameter B

Generate New Storm

Figure 2: Hurricane simulation framework.

ing rate (decay) model and wind field model. Each module in the hurricane simulation framework was represented by a series of statistical models calibrated using historical hurricane data
(HURDAT). The Marko Chain Monte Carlo simulation technique was applied to simulate the
spatial and temporal evolutions of the storm states from their generation to final dissipation.
2.2.1 Genesis Model
The simulation domain was defined by latitudes from 10N and 60N and longitudes from 0 to
100W (Figure 3). For modeling purpose, the simulation domain was sub-divided into 5o by 5o
grids and a set of statistical models (e.g. tracking model, intensity model and etc.) were developed for each grid. In the baseline model (i.e. without consider climate change), for each simulation year, the number of storms in that particular year was randomly generated using a negative
binomial distribution with a mean of 8.4 storms pear year and a standard deviation of 3.56 storms
per year. The mean value was based on the average number of storms from 1851 to 2012. Note
that Figure 1 shows that the annual storm frequency appears to increase in recent years. This
phenomenon was not considered in the baseline model. In the climate change model, which will
be discussed in later sections, three annual storm frequency projection models were developed
and used to account for the increasing trend of storm frequency shown in Figure 1.

Figure 3: 5o by 5o grids and initial locations of hurricanes in Atlantic Basin.

2.2.2 Tracking Model

Each hurricane simulation began with a random sampling of the initial location (latitude and longitude) of the storm eye from the actual initial locations of historical events recorded in HURDAT. The subsequent positions of the storm eye were updated every 6 hours using the tracking
model developed by Vickery et al. (2000) 20. The tracking model describes the movement of the
storm in terms of its forward speed (c) and heading angle ():
ln c a1 a2 a3 a4 ln ci a5i c

(1)

b1 b2 b3 b4 ci b5i b6i 1

(2)

where a1-a5 are the grid specific coefficients for the storm forward speed regression model; b1-b5
are the grid specific coefficients for the heading angle regression model; and are the latitude and longitude of storm eye, respectively; ci forward speed at time step i; i heading
angle at time step i. The grid specific coefficients a and b were determined via least-square fitting

The 12th Americas Conference on Wind Engineering (12ACWE)

Seattle, Washington, USA, June 16-20, 2013

of Eqns. (1) and (2) using historical observations (hurricane data from the year of 1851 to
2012). c and are the error terms which quantify the modeling errors (differences) between the
regression models and the actual observations for forward speed and heading angle, respectively.
2.2.3 Central Pressure Model
In the simulation framework, when the storm eye was on the ocean, the storm central pressure
was converted into a transformed quantity, termed relative intensity which is a function of the sea
surface temperature (SST). The expression for relative intensity is given by Vickery et al. (2000)
20
:
ln( I i 1 ) co c1 ln( I i ) c2 ln( I i 1 ) c3 ln( I i 2 ) c4Ts c5 (Tsi1 Tsi ) I

(3)

where co-c4 are the grid specific intensity coefficients; Ii relative intensity at step i; Tsi sea
surface temperature (SST) at location i; I random error term.
Once a storm made landfall, the central pressure deficit decay model (or filling rate model)
was used to quantify the reduction of hurricane intensity. The filling rate model describes the decay of a storm (or rise in central pressure) as a function of time after landfall. A storm was
deemed dissipated when its central pressure was at or above the standard atmospheric pressure
(1013 mbar).The simulation process of a storm is ended when it was dissipated or exited the
simulation domain.
2.2.4 Gradient Wind Speed
The following asymmetric wind field model (Georgiou 1985 21) was utilized to compute the gradient wind speeds at top of the boundary layer:
B
Rmax B
1
1
Bp Rmax
2
V c sin fr
exp
c sin fr

2
4
r
r

(4)

where, V gradient wind speed; f Coriolis parameter; air density; the angle (clockwise positive) from the translational direction to the location of interest; r distance from
storm center to location of interest; c translational wind speed; Rmax location parameter,
taken as the radius-to-maximum wind speed. The radius-to-maximum wind speed (Rmax) was determined using an empirical model (Vickery et al. 2000 20):
ln Rmax 2.636 0.00005086p 2 0.0394899 R

(5)

where, is the latitude of the storm center and R is the modeling error of the radius-tomaximum wind model. The following regression model developed by Vickery et al. (2000) 20
was utilized to simulate parameter B (also known as the Holland B parameter):
B 1.38 0.00184p 0.00309 Rmax

(6)

The gradient wind field of a storm can be computed using Eqns. (4) to (6). Conversion factors
were used to convert wind speed from boundary layer height (around 500-1000m) to surface level (10 m).

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Projections of hurricane activities were made up to year 2100 under three speculated future climate scenarios:
I. low greenhouse gas emission (RCP 2.5)
II. high greenhouse gas emission and (RCP 8.5)
III. increased annual storm frequency + high greenhouse gas emission(RCP 8.5).
Three synthetic hurricane databases each consists of 49,970 simulation years (526 realizations
for years 2006 to 2100) were produced for each of these three climate scenarios. In addition to
the three future climate scenarios, a baseline hurricane database was also generated based on the
current hurricane climate.
Note that for the baseline model, the current monthly average SSTs data were used in the central pressure model (see Section 2.2.3). For the RCP 2.6 and RCP 8.5 scenarios, the latest SST
projections from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) experiments resources
were used. The SST data were downloaded from the CMIP5 website (http://cmippcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/).
Based on the analysis of historical storm statistics, three storm frequency projection models
were developed in this research (Figure 4). The benchmark model 1 had a constant annual storm
frequency which was taken as the average of the historical annual storm frequencies from 1851
to 2012. The second annual storm projection model was an extrapolation model based on the
moving average mean (MAM) of historical annual storm frequencies. A moving average window
Projection

Historical Trend
Number of Storms per Year

30
25
20

HURDAT
Constant
MAM
OSM

Mean

15
10
5
0

Baseline
1900

1950
Year

2000

2050

Figure 4: Annual storm frequency models.

of 20 years was used. Projection model 3 was a decadal oscillation model (OSM) with an increasing moving average storm frequency. More details on the formulation of the storm frequency models can be found in (Liu and Pang 2012 22). For the climate condition III considered in this
study, the decadal oscillation model was used.
3.1 Storm Occurrence Rate and Central Pressure
The simulated hurricane parameters (central pressures and etc.) were examined for each of the
three future climate conditions. 62 evenly spaced mileposts along the Gulf coast and eastern
coast of the U.S. (Figure 5) were used to summarize the statistics of the simulated hurricanes.
The annual occurrence rate of hurricanes for a particular milepost was computed by dividing the
total number of storms observed within 250 km from that milepost by the total simulation years.

The 12th Americas Conference on Wind Engineering (12ACWE)

Seattle, Washington, USA, June 16-20, 2013

Figure 6 shows the comparisons for the annual occurrence rates and central pressures at the 62
mileposts for the baseline model and the three climate change scenarios.
From the annual occurrence plot (Figure 6a), it can be observed that the annual storm rates do
not vary with the change in SSTs (Scenarios I and II). However, the annual occurrence rate increases dramatically for scenario III. This is directly attributed to the use of decadal oscillation
model (OSM) with more storms spawned in the Atlantic Ocean. With more storms spawned in
the ocean, there are more chances for storms to make landfall or approach the mileposts. For the
central pressure statistics (Figure 6b), central pressures decrease slightly for low emission scenario I (RCP 2.6). This finding suggests that under the low greenhouse gas emission scenario I, the
future hurricane hazard (in the next 90 years) would remain more or less the same as the current
hurricane hazard as both the annual storm occurrence rates and central pressures are not sensitive
to the levels of change in SSTs for the RCP 2.6 scenario. For the high emission scenarios II and
III (with RCP 8.5), noticeable decreases in central pressures can be observed for milepost 0-500
(along the Texas coastline) and 800-1800 (Gulf coast to Florida). The largest drop in central
pressure is found to be about 15mb occurs at milepost 1400, which is at the tip of Florida Penin

50 N

40 N

30 N

800900
400
300 500 600 700 1000
1100
200
1200
100
1300

3100
3000
2900
2800
2700
2600
2500
2400
2300
2200
2100
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
Mileposts-100
Mileposts-50

20 N
100 W

90 W

80 W

70 W

Figure 5: Locations of mileposts.

sula. There are no significant differences on the central pressure statistics between the two high
emission scenarios II and III.
3.2 Surface wind speed
In hurricane loss assessment, surface wind speed distribution plays an important role. The surface
wind speed (at 10 m height) at a specified location can be determined using Eqns. (4) to (6)
and conversion factors that adjust the wind speed to appropriate height and duration. The mean

Annual Occurrence Rate

2

(a)
1.5

0.5
0

500

1000

1500
2000
Mileposts

2500

3000

2500

3000

Central Pressure (mbar)

1020
1000
980
960
940

(b)
920
0

500

1000

1500
2000
Mileposts

HURDAT
Low Emission
High Emission
High Emission+Increasing Frequency
HURDAT
Low Emission
High Emission
High Emission+Increasing Frequency

Figure 6: Comparisons of (a) annual storm occurrence rates, and (b) central pressures for different climate change scenarios

recurrence interval (MRI) of a given wind speed, V, for a particular site can be determined using
the following equation:
MRI vi V

1
Y

P vi V n

(7)

where P vi V is the probability that vi V in any one hurricane; is the mean annual occurrence rate of hurricanes; n is the total number of candidate hurricanes those having peak wind
speed vi larger than V and Y is the number of simulation years (Pei et al. 2013 23). The 3-s gust
wind speeds versus MRI for two selected locations (Miami, FL and Charleston, SC) are comput-

The 12th Americas Conference on Wind Engineering (12ACWE)

Seattle, Washington, USA, June 16-20, 2013

MIA 25.82,-80.28
100

3-sec Gust (m/s)

80
60
40
20
0 1
10

Low Emission
High Emission
High Emission+Increasing Frequancy
ATC design wind
2

10
Mean Recurrence Interval (yr)
CHS 32.9,-80.03

10

100

3-sec Gust (m/s)

80
60
40
20
0 1
10

Low Emission
High Emission
High Emission+Increasing Frequancy
ATC design wind
2

10
Mean Recurrence Interval (yr)

10

Figure 7: 3-s gust surface wind speeds vs. MRI for selected locations.

ed and plotted in Figure 7. The benchmarking values from current design code (ASCE 7-10)
were
extracted
from
the
Applied
Technology
Council
website
(http://www.atcouncil.org/windspeed) for MRIs 10, 25, 50, 100, 300, 700 and 1700 years.
From the plots it can be seen that the design wind speeds of low emission level (RCP 2.6) is
very close to that of the benchmarking level (i.e. the current design wind speeds shown as boxes
in Figure 7), which indicates future hurricane wind would remain approximately the same under
scenario I. While for scenarios II and III, noticeable increase in design wind speeds can be expected. For Miami (MIA), under scenarios II and III, the design wind speeds can be expected to
increase by approximately 10 m/s for MRIs between 25 to 1700 years and the 10-year MRI wind
speed can be expected to increase by as much as 15 m/s. In general, the wind speeds for the high
emission scenario plus OSM frequency model (i.e. scenario III) are approximately 2 m/s higher
than that of high emission scenario with a constant annual storm frequency (scenario II). The effects of high emission scenarios II and III (RCP 8.5) on the change in design wind speeds for
Charleston, SC (CHS) are not as significant as that observed for Miami, FL. The increase in wind
speed from the high emission scenario with a constant annual storm frequency (scenario II) is

about 5 m/s for all MRIs. For the scenario with increased annual storm frequency (scenario III),
the increase in wind speeds at Charleston can reach as high as 10 m/s.
4 CONCLUSION
In this study, stochastic hurricane simulation models were developed to estimate future hurricane
wind speeds along the U.S. coast. Two climate related changes were considered in this study,
namely change in sea surface temperature and annual storm frequency. A baseline scenario and
three climate change scenarios were investigated. The three future climate scenarios considered
are I. low greenhouse gas emission, II. high greenhouse gas emission and III. increased annual
storm frequency with high greenhouse gas emission. It is found that for the two high emission
scenarios II and III, dramatic increases in surface wind speeds for all MRIs can be observed. The
magnitude of the increase varies from location to location in different segment of the US coastline. From the two example locations considered in this study (Miami FL and Charleston SC), it
was observed that the increase in future wind speeds can be as high as 10 m/s and 15 m/s. Since
the wind pressure exerted on a building envelope is directly proportional to the square of wind
speed, the observed levels of wind speed changes might bring significant increase in future hurricane risk.
5 REFERENCES
1

R.A. Pielke Jr., J. Gratz, C.W. Landsea, D. Collins, M.A. Saunders and R. Musulin, Normalized hurricane
damage in the United States:19002005, Nat. Hazards Rev., 2008, 9, 29-42.
2 B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave and L.A. Meyer, Contribution of Working Group III to the
fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
3 CCSP. Weather and climate extremes in a changing climate. Regions of focus: North America, Hawaii, Caribbean, and U.S. Pacific Islands. A report by the U.S. climate change science program and the subcommittee on global change research. Department of Commerce, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, Washington, D.C., USA, 2008, pp 164.
4 S. B. Goldenberg, C. W. Landsea, A. M. Mestas-Nuez, and W. M. Gray (2001). The recent increase in Atlantic hurricane activity: Causes and implications. Science, 293(5529), 474-479.
5 C.B. Field, V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D. J. Dokken, K. L. Ebi, M. D. Mastrandrea, Managing the
risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
6 T.R. Knutson, J.L. McBride, J. Chan, K. Emanuel, G. Holland, C. Landsea, I. Held, J.P. Kossin, A.K. Srivastava, and M. Sugi, Tropical cyclones and climate change. Nature Geoscience, 2010, 3(3), 157-163.
7 T.H. Jagger, and J.B. Elsner. Climatology models for extreme hurricane winds near the United
States. Journal of Climate 19, 2006, no. 13: 3220-3236
8 Y. Wang, L. Mudd, C. Letchford and D. Rosowsky, Considering climate change impact on hurricane wind
hazard, part 1: storm size and intensity, 2012 Joint Conference of the Engineering Mechanics Institute and
the 11th ASCE Joint Specialty Conference on Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural Reliability, Notre
Dame, IN, 2012.
9 K. Nishijima, M. Takashi, and G. Mathias. A preliminary impact assessment of typhoon wind risk of residential buildings in Japan under future climate change. Hydrological Research Letters 6.0, 2012: 23-28.
10 D.P. Van Vuuren, J. Edmonds, M. Kainuma, K. Riahi, A. Thomson, K. Hibbard and S.K. Rose, The representative concentration pathways: an overview, Climatic Change, 2011, 109(1), 5-31.
11 K. Emanuel, "Global warming effects on US hurricane damage.Weather, Climate, and Society 3.4, 2011:
261-268.
12 K. Emanuel, R. Sundararajan, and J. Williams, Hurricanes and global warming: Results from downscaling
IPCC AR4 simulations Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 2008, 89,347367.

The 12th Americas Conference on Wind Engineering (12ACWE)

Seattle, Washington, USA, June 16-20, 2013

13 K. Emanuel. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature, 436(7051), 686688, 2005.
14 S. J. Camargo, A. H. Sobel, A. G. Barnston, and K. A. Emanuel. Tropical cyclone genesis potential index in
climate models. Tellus A, 59(4), 428-443, 2007.
15 G. J. Holland, and P. J. Webster, Heightened tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic: natural variability or climate trend?. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 365(1860), 2695-2716, 2007.
16 C. W. Landsea, R. A. Pielke Jr, A. M. Mestas-Nunez, and J. A. Knaff. Atlantic basin hurricanes: Indices of
climatic changes. Climatic change, 42(1), 89-129, 1999.
17 N. Nakicenovic, J. Alcamo, G. Davis, B. de Vries, B. Fenhann, S. Gaffin and Z. Dadi. Special report on
emissions scenarios: a special report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (No. PNNL-SA-39650). Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA (US), Environmental Molecular Sciences LaborJ.atory (US), 2000.
18 IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, 2007.
19 J. Rogelj, M. Meinshausen, and R. Knutti. Global warming under old and new scenarios using IPCC climate
sensitivity range estimates. Nature Climate Change, 2(4), 248-253, 2012.
20 P.J. Vickery, P. F. Skerlj, and L.A. Twisdale. Simulation of hurricane risk in the U.S. using empirical track
model, J. Struct. Eng., 2000, 126 12221237.
21 P.N. Georgiou, Design wind speeds in tropical cyclone-prone regions, Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, 1985.
22 F. Liu, and W. Pang, Influence of climate change on the future hurricane wind hazards along the US Eastern
Coast and Gulf of Mexico, ATC-SEI Advanced in Hurricane Engineering Conference, Miami, FL, 2012.
23 B. Pei, W. Pang, F.Y. Testik, N. Ravichandran and F. Liu, Mapping joint hurricane wind and surge hazards
for Charlestion, South Carolina, Nat. Hazards Rev., 2013, submitted.