Critical review reveals major geographic disparities and disaster-driven surges in climate-related storm research, highlighting the need for global programs supporting vulnerable regions.
The frequency and intensity of storms are influenced by climate change. That will lead to more dangerous disasters that will reach additional parts of the world, claim human lives, destroy environmental niches, reduce biodiversity, and cause enormous economic costs. Assessing, preparing for, and understanding what lies ahead is essential for all stakeholders, but it is also challenging, as many uncertainties remain. To enable better planning, financing, and research, this study aims to provide relevant scientific background information on previous scientific efforts and on what should be done and by whom. Most publications deal with tropical cyclones. In addition to the principal scientific players, the USA and China, several European countries are particularly involved in research into storms related to climate change (S CC ). Australia and New Zealand are at the top of the socioeconomic indicator rankings. Measured by the number of S CC articles per storm-related death, Israel leads. These countries have their own regional interests in S CC , but tropical cyclone disasters in the USA have the greatest impact on the global scientific landscape. Hurricane Katrina in 2005 significantly increased the number of publications on S CC , and Hurricanes Sandy and Harvey further increased it. Various research approaches are already being brought together internationally in scientific networks, particularly for modeling and simulating storm behavior under changing climatic conditions. However, there is an urgent need for globally supported regional programs and strategies to address and anticipate future storm-related disasters. These efforts should continue to be underpinned by scientific evidence, particularly considering the interconnectedness and vulnerability of severely affected low-income countries.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Klingelhöfer et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: