The IPCC's 2007 report (which is now dated; they're working on a new one) has some interesting discussion here: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... ns2-4.html

My point was only that it is clear that we could use some infrastructure improvements to mitigate future damage from storms or just normal degradation of equipment and facilities. And the stimulus of making those improvements could help our economy as a side effect much as the public works projects of the 30s as well as teh interstate highway program did.

In late 2005, the suggestion was to have everyone who was in the way of a storm move, as it was a lousy use of taxpayer money to "rebuild" and put in the needed infrastructure. I am quite positive you won't hear those cries with Sandy.

It figures you'd want me to produce evidence...

Of course NY has had hurricanes. Here is the historical pattern since 1800 by 25 year period:

1800-1824: 6 storms, 0.3 per year
1825-1849: 6 storms, 0.3 per year
1850-1874: 7 storms, 0.3 per year
1875-1899: 5 storms, 0.2 per year
1900-1924: 4 storms, 0.2 per year
1925-1949: 7 storms, 0.3 per year
1950-1974: 15 storms, 0.6 per year
1975-1999: 21 storms, 0.9 per year
2000-2012: 19 storms, 1.6 per year

Prior to 1800 the rate was about 2-3 storms per century. There are records. But I'd guess they are not very reliable since only the most severe storms would have been noted and many storms that are counted today would have been missed.

I conclude that the rate of severe storms is increasing.


I think the data above generally support the claim of escalating frequency. But I was speaking loosely and can not support it quantitatively in terms of the value of the damage.

My point was not to argue global warming. I do think global warming is a fact supported by evidence. I am not 100% convinced that human action is the cause. And even if it is the cause I am not convinced that we should or can do anything to "fix" it.

My point was only that it is clear that we could use some infrastructure improvements to mitigate future damage from storms or just normal degradation of equipment and facilities. And the stimulus of making those improvements could help our economy as a side effect much as the public works projects of the 30s as well as teh interstate highway program did.


I agree. I would go so far as to say that those who choose to politicize it from both sides are being pretty stupid. One side simply takes the approach that it isn't happening, which is easily refuted by simple measurements. The other side proposes impractical "solutions" that we can't even reasonably say will have an impact.

I did want to share this paper I found from the National Hurricane Center when I went looking for data on the extent of the damage http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/dcmi.shtml?

Granted, it only lists the "most extreme" hurricanes from 1850-2010 (1900-2010 for monetary values), but it does include tables giving estimated costs (in three categories: not adjusted for inflation, inflation adjusted, and inflation, population and wealth adjusted). Katrina wins in the first two categories, but comes second in the third. Using the third metric, you can't really pinpoint a specific time period being more costly than another.

The French lost their bid to control the Atlantic coast of North America when a 1565 hurricane dispersed their fleet, allowing the Spanish to capture France's Fort Caroline near present-day Jacksonville, Florida.

And, while it's easy to blame people for not leaving, if I put myself in the position of someone who has stayed through dozens of storms in Louisiana, I'm not sure the decision was that stupid. Hindsight is usually better than foresight.