Comment by tndl
10 months ago
> Factors like these mean in prior decades the total damage costs may have been more similar to today's than they appear but a lot of the damage data we gather and report now wasn't counted or gathered then
This is definitely part of it. Another part is that people live in more at-risk regions now than in the past (Florida is a great example, population has more than 10x'd since 1950).
Ultimately, the way we think about it is no matter what the underlying cause, weather-related damages could be significantly reduced with better data/forecasts
> weather-related damages could be significantly reduced with better data/forecasts
I agree. My point was only so those surprised by the massive increase in cost estimates can put those numbers in perspective since neither the average quantity nor severity of adverse weather events have changed substantially over the decades.
Providing more granular data to enable more accurate and timely weather forecasts is a sound business thesis even if adverse weather isn't happening 2x more frequently or energetically. It's still a large economic impact where money can be saved. More broadly, better forecasts can improve agricultural yields, reduce business disruption and increase throughput of transportation networks.