Slashdot Mirror
US Disaster Costs Shatter Records In 2017, the Third-Warmest Year On Record (cnbc.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC: Major hurricanes and wildfires fueled a record year for costs related to natural disasters in the United States, according to a new report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That report also said 2017 was the third-warmest year in 123 years of record keeping, behind only 2014 and 2012. Natural disasters in the United States cost more than $300 million last year, far surpassing the previous record of $214.8 billion set in 2005, NOAA said Monday. NOAA counted 1 drought event, 2 flooding events, 1 freeze event, 8 severe storm events, 3 tropical cyclone events, and 1 wildfire event during the year that bore losses exceeding $1 billion each. There were also 362 deaths. That would tie with 2011 for the largest number of such billion-dollar disasters, the agency said.
If you're going to cause panic with statistics, at least get your millions/billions straight:
"Natural disasters in the United States cost more than $300 million last year, far surpassing the previous record of $214.8 billion set in 2005, NOAA said Monday."
Why would anyone expect the cost of natural disasters to do anything but go up? The price of everything is going up, from real estate to building materials to labor. Every time there is damage the cost of repair will be greater, sometimes much greater. Every year is probably going to be the most expensive. To claim (or imply) we had larger disasters than ever before is simply false, we've had bigger hurricanes, and worse wildfires. Especially speaking of wildfires, THAT is due to Californias stupid policy on never doing controlled burns and the sky-high price of real estate there. Wildfires there are nothing but a man-made disaster, probably caused by "Raw Water" freaks smoking pot as they collect.
I also like how they casually imply the year being warm has strong ties to all the disasters - which include things like a freeze.
I'm not quite sure of your premise, one thing about natural disasters is that we get to learn from them.
For example, the Loma Prieta earthquake (California 6.9, 1989), worth $5.6 in damages, caused changes in building codes to make the buildings more tolerant of earthquakes. There have been further earthquakes of roughly the same magnitude, with much less damage. It's not completely comperable, the 1994 Northridge earthquake caused more damage, because earthquakes happen at different places and magnitudes.
The New Orleans Levee breaches that caused all the flooding: OK, we should have seen that coming, but have we fixed the problems there? Would another hurricane cause as much damage?
And there are near disasters that cause us to harden our defenses. The recent Oroville Dam crisis in California is getting fixed to better withstand seasonally unusual conditions, and no one wants to build nuclear reactors after Fukishima.
Historically speaking, I'm not entirely sure that the costs of disasters should keep going up.
Disasters tend to have happened before, and people tend to make plans.
Holy fucken shit, no climate scientists ever in the history of the world has ever thought of "solar cycles" impacting climate change!
Motherfucker, you're the smartest person on the planet!
Oh wait, no, a few seconds in Google proves you're a moron, here's the first link I clicked on:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/rese...
and here's the second link:
https://www.scientificamerican...
you may continue to keep clicking on the list, just Google "do solar cycles cause climate change".