This press release from NOAA came in an email today. I’m not too impressed by the “2011 Ties Record for Billion Dollar Disasters” statement because as inflation and property values rise, so will monetary estimates for “most expensive disaster year”. It is a given, yet alarmists who have no sense of history and economics will dutifully use such numbers without explanations as to adjusted damages to make their case of “worst ever”.
NOAA’s National Weather Service taking action to build a ’Weather-ready’ nation
2011 Ties Record for Billion Dollar Disasters
NOAA is launching a comprehensive initiative to build a “Weather-ready” nation to make America safer by saving more lives and protecting livelihoods as communities across the country become increasingly vulnerable to severe weather events, such as tornado outbreaks, intense heat waves, flooding, active hurricane seasons, and solar storms that threaten electrical and communication systems.
NOAA is also announcing that the United States has so far this year experienced nine separate disasters, each with an economic loss of $1 billion or more — tying the record set in 2008. The latest event to surpass the $1 billion price tag is this summer’s flooding along the Missouri and Souris rivers in the upper Midwest. This year’s losses have so far amounted to $35 billion.
“Severe weather represents a very real threat to public safety that requires additional robust action,” said Jack Hayes, director of NOAA’s National Weather Service. “The increasing impacts of natural disasters, as seen this year, are a stark reminder of the lives and livelihoods at risk.”
In partnership with other government agencies, researchers, and the private sector, the National Weather Service is charting a path to a weather-ready nation through:
- Improved precision of weather and water forecasts and effective communication of risk to local authorities;
- Improved weather decision support services with new initiatives such as the development of mobile-ready emergency response specialist teams;
- Innovative science and technological solutions such as the nationwide implementation of Dual Pol radar technology, Integrated Water Resources Science and Services, and the Joint Polar Satellite System;
- Strengthening joint partnerships to enhance community preparedness;
- Working with weather enterprise partners and the emergency management community to enhance safety and economic output and effectively manage environmental resources.
The National Weather Service is also planning innovative, community-based test projects across the country, ranging in focus from emergency response to ecological forecasting, to enhance the agency’s preparedness efforts to better address the impacts of extreme weather. Test projects will initially be launched at strategic locations in the Gulf Coast, South and mid-Atlantic.
“These test projects serve as tangible examples of how the National Weather Service is trying to address the impact of weather-related disasters,” said Hayes. “Ultimately, these projects will provide the specific action plans necessary for us to adapt to extreme weather events and represent an important step in building a weather-ready nation.”
In the past 30 years, the United States has experienced a total of 108 weather-related disasters that have caused more than $1 billion dollars in damages. Overall, these disasters have resulted in three-quarters of $1 trillion in standardized losses since 1980, according to NOAA records.
According to Munich Reinsurance America, one of the top providers of property and casualty reinsurance in the U.S., the number of natural disasters has tripled in the last 20 years and 2010 was a record breaker with about 250. Average thunderstorm losses have increased five-fold since 1980. For the first half of 2011 there have been $20 billion in thunderstorm losses, up from the previous three-year average of $10 billion.
This increase in weather-related disasters coupled with population growth and density in high-risk areas, has moved NOAA and its partners — from the emergency management community and across America’s weather enterprise — from concern to action.
“Building a Weather-ready nation is everyone’s responsibility,” said Eddie Hicks, IAEM USA president. “It starts with National Weather Service and emergency managers, like the U.S. Council of International Association of Emergency Managers, but it ends with actions by individuals and businesses to reduce their risks. The more prepared communities are for destructive weather, the less of a human and economic toll we’ll experience in the future, and that’s a great thing for the country.”
“The partnership between the government, private, and academic sectors, all represented in the professional membership of the American Meteorological Society, is extremely strong and is essential in achieving this vision,” said Jonathan Malay, president of the AMS. “Given the resources to grow our scientific understanding of our complex environment through observations and research and to apply this knowledge in serving society, we can do amazing things together.”
NOAA’s National Weather Service is the primary source of weather data, forecasts and warnings for the United States and its territories. NOAA’s National Weather Service operates the most advanced weather and flood warning and forecast system in the world, helping to protect lives and property and enhance the national economy. Visit us online at weather.gov and on Facebook.
NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and to conserve and manage our coastal and marine resources. Join us on Facebook , Twitter and our other social media channels.
– 30 –
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Bystander says:
August 17, 2011 at 2:37 pm
Did you guys miss the “In standardized losses” part?
Well, if that’s the case then damages should be at an all time low…given what the housing market is.
That tends to indicate that the data if fudged on the part of NOAA.
The cost data was corrected for inflation, that is what they mean by standardized. @SSam, That does not mean the data was fudged. It means they removed the effect of inflation. What rate do you think they used for the inflation rate and how do you think it was indexed?
Anthony says: I’m not too impressed by the “2011 Ties Record for Billion Dollar Disasters” statement because as inflation and property values rise, so will monetary estimates for “most expensive disaster year”.
Several readers have expressed the same thought. The trouble is, a) the losses are standardized to 2011 dollars, and b) the number of natural disasters have also tripled over the last 20 years according to Munich Re. See their presentation at http://www.munichreamerica.com/webinars/2011_07_natcatreview/MR_III_2011_HalfYear_NatCat_Review.pdf. A description of how they compile their database can be found here: http://www.ccap.org/docs/resources/345/302-03901_en.pdf. The project began in 1974 so the tripling in reported natural disasters cannot obviously be attributed to the lack of historical records. I’m sure there is some kind of error in their reporting, but I’ll leave it to more knowledgeable people to flush it out. All I know is, Munich Re has a strong financial incentive to report such trends since increased risk = higher premiums.
Mike Abbott says:
August 17, 2011 at 6:15 pm
All I know is, Munich Re has a strong financial incentive to report such trends since increased risk = higher premiums.
They are measuring loss events. This does not mean weather events, and a good deal of these events are earthquake/tsunami related.
Bystander says:
August 17, 2011 at 3:45 pm
@ur momisugly (U.K.) US – now don’t go and get all ornery on me now for pointing out the fundamental error. I’m just being a skeptic.
The quote is from the very same document referenced above – and the “standardized” means inflation adjusted. Took all of 15 seconds to verify that.
=====
Now we are getting somewhere, can you now explain “inflation adjusted”.
Wait – so “follow the corporate money” is suddenly now relevant? To dismiss Munch RE requires that Heartland and anyone related to be dismissed, no?
Seems like a lot double standards being applied here…
Hmmmm.
Also, with regards to Mike Abbott’s concerns, disasters (loss events) in other countries are likely to be more costly than they were years ago, as these economies develop. This does not have any bearing on the 9 $1 billion plus disaster prices in the US. Still, the rising dollar figures of disasters is a poor proxy for the destructive power of a disaster because things like population density, increased usage of fixed assets in once manual labor processes, expanding insurance coverage on property, etc. all have an effect on what would be reported as a loss event, and what the damage that would be reported is. Especially consider the use of, and insuring of, fixed assets to replace human labor.
David Falkner says:
August 17, 2011 at 6:28 pm
They are measuring loss events. This does not mean weather events, and a good deal of these events are earthquake/tsunami related.
Actually, it DOES mean weather events. According to charts in the Munich Re presentation I referenced above, earthquake/tsunami/volcano-related events have remained relatively flat over the 30-year period and, in any case, make up a very small percentage of total natural disasters (~5% or so.) All of the increase is in storms, floods, droughts and forest fires.
David Falkner says:
August 17, 2011 at 7:00 pm
Also, with regards to Mike Abbott’s concerns, disasters (loss events) in other countries are likely to be more costly than they were years ago, as these economies develop. …
Actually, my concern is not with the economics but with the claim that the number of natural disasters has tripled in the last 20 years (and quadrupled over the last 30 years if you believe their data) and that all of the increase is in weather/climate events. That begs the question, how does Munich Re define a “natural disaster”? They answer that in the report on their methodology at http://www.ccap.org/docs/resources/345/302-03901_en.pdf, pages 6 and 7. They claim that their methodology “helps to avoid any distortions resulting from the superior global information channels of today (internet, news agencies).”
Weather forecasters are kidding themselves on their ability to predict. Yes, they’re getting better, but they don’t have the precision they’d like to think they have.
For example, I regularly check weather.com, sometimes several times a day. It’s amusing to watch the expected high / low and chance of precipitation change continuously almost from hour to hour.
I understand the chaotic nature of weather (and climate), and how difficult their job is. So, although the forecast high may change within 18 hours from 80 to 85 degrees, it’s close enough for my purposes.
I just wish they would observe their own forecasts, in order to maintain the proper level of humility.
Bystander says:
August 17, 2011 at 6:48 pm
Wait – so “follow the corporate money” is suddenly now relevant? To dismiss Munch RE requires that Heartland and anyone related to be dismissed, no?
Seems like a lot double standards being applied here…
Hmmmm.
Was “follow the corporate money” ever irrelevant? Let’s expand that to “follow the money” in general and include government funding. I’ll readily dismiss Heartland and anyone related to it if you dismiss anyone who receives government funding for climate research.
@ur momisugly Bob Shapiro. We do “observe our own forecasts.” I cannot speak for weather.com. I can tell you that we take accuracy very seriously at WeatherData and AccuWeather.
See above where I recommend my book (feel free to get it at the library or the ebook if you don’t wish to spring for the hardcover) and you’ll learn quite about how the storm warning system we take for granted came to be and how accurate it has become. And, don’t worry, “Warnings” is not a ‘science book.’ It is quick and enjoyable read.
+2
When dumb governments believe the AGW non sense they allow people to develope entire suburbs on flood plains, because the flooding rains are gone forever. When a four by two gets closer to a three by one, this is less than an advance on integrity of structures, especially when you live in tornado alley. These increased losses can be put back on local government stupidity and mandates from the federal government about water use. The fire problem is also local green government stupidity. Lessons from the past on locales of previous unkind events do not seem to matter to these new age governments, for obviously it is all our fault for living.
Bystander,
I agree, it takes about 15 seconds to see the ‘standardised’ reference.
However, it didn’t take me much longer to see the following, which I believe is the clincher:
“population growth and density in high-risk areas”
Therefore, it’s nothing to do with the warmists claims that the frequency of storms has increased (it hasn’t), it’s just because people are daft enough go and build weak/cheap buildings in high-risk areas.
This article hit the Denver paper today. I hate it when government treats us like a bunch of idiots. The timing of this release is clearly so NOAA’s programs don’t get the axe with the upcoming round of budget cuts & the use of AGW to scare people into supporting their budget. It is absolutely transparent , pathetic & patronizing. It is no wonder why this organization has little credibility.
The Pielkes, Revkin, and others have advocated a strategy of adaptation. Consider the recent post about the futility of severe legislation against CO2. If action is still desired, what we’re left with is adaptation. The above post should be a welcome response across a broad audience that supports that. CAGW skeptics and believers can disagree about causation but ought to at least be able agree that adaptation isn’t all that bad an idea in a warmer world. I think only a subset of CAGW believers who value ecosystems over humanity would reject this.
“Severe weather represents a very real threat to public safety that requires additional robust action,”
From Harvey’s Dictionary (The one between his ears)
Robust. Adj.1. Strongly formed, sturdy, powerful
2. (In climate science) – Extremely expensive and of doubtful validity.
The “standardized losses” referred to the total amounts since 1980:
“Overall, these disasters have resulted in three-quarters of $1 trillion in standardized losses since
1980, according to NOAA records.”
That is the only mention of the word standardized.
“NOAA is also announcing that the United States has so far this year experienced nine separate disasters, each with an economic loss of $1 billion or more — tying the record set in 2008.”
Nope, no mention of the word standardized there.
“In the past 30 years, the United States has experienced a total of 108 weather-related disasters that have caused more than $1 billion dollars in damages.”
Nor there.
They adjusted the total since 1980 for inflation, that is all.
+3
Reposting this note found here for those that missed it:
I realize this thread is about played out, but just came across this pertaining to flood losses (see tabs re: damages and fatalities), and thought some might find it interesting, in case they’re unaware of it:
http://www.weather.gov/hic/
There are links that also display the data in graph format.