Discussion about this post

User's avatar
David R's avatar

Thank you for this information which I find extremely interesting. I make sure I pass it along to friends and family so they are aware.

Headlines in the media tend to exaggerate climate impacts. I suppose if it bleeds it leads, even if incorrect, still applies.

Expand full comment
Frank Paynter's avatar

"...The 1926 season has pushed over $300 billion and 2005 over $200 billion. In coming months I will update the global catastrophe loss time series, once 2023 comes to a close, ..."

This makes no tense! (pun intended). What was it that was 'pushed over $300 billion', and how can a season almost a century ago 'has pushed' whatever it was that was pushed?

Maybe "...The 1926 season has pushed [damage normalized to 2023$] over $300 billion and 2005 over $200 billion. In coming months I will update the global catastrophe loss time series, once 2023 comes to a close, ..."

Speculating, are you trying to say that 'the 1926 season, when (re)normalized to 2023 dollars, will slightly exceed $300b?"

If so, shouldn't the y-axis on your 'Conus Normalized Hurricane Damage (2023 values)' be labelled 'Billions (2023$)? Its clear that you have redone the graph, so adding the '(2023$)' should have been trivial to do.

Yeah, I know, these are just nits, but hey, what's a nit-picker going to do?

Frank

Expand full comment
10 more comments...

No posts