Milton Becomes Rare Category 5 Hurricane, Joins Elite Atlantic Basin List
"Milton Joins Beryl in Historic 2024 Hurricane Season, Becoming One of the Few Category 5 Storms in Atlantic Basin History"
Hurricane Milton made headlines by reaching Category 5 status, the highest level a hurricane can attain, making it part of an elite group of Atlantic Basin storms. Milton's rapid intensification occurred on Monday, placing it alongside Hurricane Beryl, which had also achieved Category 5 status earlier this season. This accomplishment adds Milton to a list of only 40 Category 5 storms recorded in the Atlantic since 1924.
Category 5 hurricanes are the most powerful in the Atlantic Basin, requiring sustained winds of at least 157 mph, similar to the destructive winds of an EF3 tornado. These extreme hurricanes usually occur in the Gulf of Mexico or the Caribbean Sea during the peak hurricane months of August, September, and October.
Milton's Impact and Historical Significance
Milton became a Category 5 hurricane at 11:55 a.m. EDT on Monday, marking only the second time since 1966 that a Gulf of Mexico storm has reached this intensity in October. The previous instance was Hurricane Michael in 2018. Milton joins Beryl, which became the earliest recorded Category 5 hurricane on July 1, 2024, smashing the previous record held by 2005's Hurricane Emily by a remarkable 15 days.
Hurricanes like Milton and Beryl are extremely rare, as only a small number of Atlantic hurricanes reach Category 5 intensity. Dr. Phil Klotzbach, a tropical weather expert from Colorado State University, explained that such storms typically form in areas with a deep supply of warm ocean water, low wind shear, and favorable conditions for rapid intensification. The majority of these hurricanes, like Milton, Beryl, and others, have occurred in the southwestern Atlantic, the Caribbean Sea, and the Gulf of Mexico.
Rare Occurrence of Multiple Category 5 Hurricanes
What makes this hurricane season even more unique is that two Category 5 storms have already formed, a rare event in the Atlantic. Only five other seasons in the Atlantic's recorded history have produced two or more Category 5 hurricanes. The last time this occurred was in 2019, when Dorian and Lorenzo both hit this strength.
Hurricane seasons producing multiple Category 5 storms are not common. For instance, the 2005 season holds the record with four Category 5 hurricanes, including Emily, Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. Recent years have seen a string of such storms, with ten Category 5 hurricanes occurring in the Atlantic since 2016. Besides Milton and Beryl, other recent Category 5 storms include Lee in 2023, Ian in 2022, and Dorian and Lorenzo in 2019.
Category 5 Hurricanes Over the Decades
Despite recent years seeing more Category 5 hurricanes, there have been periods of inactivity. Between Hurricane Allen in 1980 and Hurricane Gilbert in 1988, there was an eight-year gap without a Category 5 storm. Similarly, the Atlantic experienced another "drought" before Hurricane Matthew reached Category 5 strength in 2016, marking the end of an eight-year stretch without one.
The increase in Category 5 hurricanes in recent years has been attributed to favorable conditions in the Atlantic, including warm waters and conducive weather patterns. These storms typically maintain their intense strength for only a short period—on average, less than 24 hours. This is due to natural cycles within the hurricane, such as eyewall replacement, where the inner ring of thunderstorms weakens and is replaced by a new, larger eyewall.
Historical Landfalls and U.S. Impact
In U.S. history, only four Category 5 hurricanes have made landfall. The most recent was Hurricane Michael, which hit Florida’s Panhandle in October 2018. Before that, hurricanes like Andrew (1992), Camille (1969), and the infamous 1935 Labor Day hurricane also made landfall in the U.S. at Category 5 strength. Each of these storms left a lasting impact, causing widespread destruction due to their extreme winds and storm surges.
Hurricane Ian in 2022 narrowly missed joining this list, reaching Category 5 intensity but weakening slightly to Category 4 before making landfall in Florida. Still, these hurricanes demonstrate the immense power and danger of storms that reach the upper echelon of hurricane intensity.
The Future of Category 5 Hurricanes
With climate conditions favoring warmer ocean waters and frequent tropical disturbances, the Atlantic Basin may continue to see more powerful hurricanes in the coming years. As scientists and meteorologists study patterns and weather conditions, there is a growing need for preparedness and understanding of the potential risks that come with such powerful storms.
The season of 2024 has already been historic with the emergence of Beryl and Milton, and the possibility of more intense storms remains on the horizon. These hurricanes serve as a reminder of the natural forces at play and the importance of staying vigilant, especially during the peak months of hurricane activity.
About the Creator
Inside Trump's $11 Billion Health Plan to Replace “Neo-Colonial” USAID
In the landscape of global health aid, few proposals have stirred as much debate as former President Donald Trump’s ambitious plan to restructure American assistance abroad. Dubbed an $11 billion health initiative aimed at replacing USAID’s current framework, the plan seeks to pivot away from what Trump and his allies have criticized as the “neo-colonial” approach of U.S. foreign aid. While the plan promises greater efficiency and impact, experts are split on whether it is a practical solution or a politically driven gamble. Trump’s Critique of USAID The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a central pillar of American foreign assistance, distributing billions in aid annually to address health crises, food insecurity, and development challenges worldwide. However, Trump’s administration and its supporters have often described USAID’s approach as bureaucratic, inefficient, and reflective of a “neo-colonial” mindset. In public statements, Trump argued that the U.S. was spending taxpayer dollars on programs that benefited foreign governments or contractors more than the intended local communities. Critics of the plan say that while USAID has flaws—as any large bureaucracy does—its extensive networks and decades of experience provide an unmatched capacity to deliver aid efficiently and safely. The Core of the $11 Billion Proposal At the heart of Trump’s proposal is an $11 billion fund designed to consolidate, modernize, and streamline U.S. health aid. Unlike the traditional USAID model, which relies heavily on long-term partnerships with governments and NGOs, the new plan emphasizes: Direct Impact Funding: Allocating resources to frontline health workers and local initiatives rather than intermediaries. Data-Driven Investments: Using real-time health data to target outbreaks and crises more efficiently. Private Sector Partnerships: Leveraging U.S. pharmaceutical companies, tech firms, and healthcare startups to deliver vaccines, treatments, and medical infrastructure. Shorter Program Cycles: Moving away from multi-year funding commitments in favor of more flexible, results-oriented programs. Proponents argue that this approach could reduce bureaucratic overhead and ensure U.S. aid reaches communities faster. By “cutting out the middlemen,” Trump supporters claim, America can avoid the pitfalls of slow-moving aid programs that sometimes fail to adapt to crises. Reactions from the Global Health Community Global health experts, however, have expressed concern about both the logistics and philosophy of the plan. Dr. Melissa Ortega, a senior researcher at the Global Health Policy Institute, explained, “The idea of bypassing established structures like USAID may sound appealing on paper, but in practice, it risks undermining decades of institutional knowledge. Health systems are complex, and short-term projects cannot replace long-term capacity building.” Some critics have also questioned the characterization of USAID as “neo-colonial.” While U.S. foreign aid has historically been tied to geopolitical interests, many programs today are designed collaboratively with recipient countries and local organizations. Reducing oversight could unintentionally increase the risk of misuse, corruption, or health inequities. On the other hand, supporters of Trump’s plan point to examples of inefficiency in USAID programs, citing cases where aid was delayed or mismanaged. By introducing more direct funding models, they argue, U.S. taxpayer dollars could achieve a higher “return on health outcomes.” Political Implications Trump’s health aid overhaul proposal is not just about international development—it is also deeply political. Framing USAID as a “neo-colonial” institution resonates with a populist narrative that America should prioritize its own citizens and assert greater control over how taxpayer money is spent abroad. Domestically, the $11 billion plan faces scrutiny from Congress. Lawmakers from both parties have questioned whether dismantling USAID’s systems could destabilize ongoing health programs in countries where the U.S. has long-term commitments. The potential impact on global health security—including the fight against pandemics like COVID-19—adds another layer of concern. Internationally, U.S. allies and partner nations are watching closely. Sudden shifts in aid delivery could disrupt health programs in low- and middle-income countries, many of which rely on predictable funding cycles to maintain vaccination campaigns, maternal health services, and disease surveillance. Possible Benefits and Risks If executed carefully, the Trump-backed model could bring several benefits: Faster Response Times: Direct funding could accelerate delivery of vaccines, treatments, and emergency support. Innovation Boost: By partnering with private sector companies, the plan could accelerate development of new health technologies. Accountability: With performance-based metrics, the plan may better measure the impact of U.S. aid. However, the risks are equally significant: Disruption of Existing Programs: Abrupt changes could destabilize ongoing health projects. Loss of Expertise: USAID’s decades of experience in navigating local governance, supply chains, and community engagement may be hard to replace. Geopolitical Fallout: Allies accustomed to collaborating with USAID might see the move as destabilizing, reducing cooperation on global health initiatives. Looking Ahead As Trump and his allies continue to advocate for this $11 billion overhaul, the debate over the future of U.S. health aid is intensifying. Proponents view it as a necessary modernization of an outdated system, while critics fear it could undercut decades of carefully built infrastructure and global partnerships. Ultimately, the success of this plan will hinge on its ability to balance efficiency with stability, innovation with oversight, and political objectives with humanitarian needs. For now, the proposal remains controversial, representing a dramatic departure from traditional approaches to U.S. foreign aid. Whether it will reshape global health for the better—or simply create more uncertainty—remains to be seen. In the end, the Trump health plan is as much about ideology as it is about dollars. It challenges the conventional wisdom of international development and asks whether a more streamlined, results-focused approach can truly replace a system built over decades. As the world watches, the stakes could not be higher: the future of U.S. global health aid—and the lives it touches—hangs in the balance.
By Muhammad Hassan3 days ago in Earth
Nitrogen is necessary for young tropical rain forests to combat climate change.
By absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it in wood, tropical rainforests contribute to the slowing of climate change. Forests that develop quickly are even more important because they absorb carbon more quickly.
By Francis Dami2 days ago in Earth
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.