Last June, my peer-reviewed paper on problems with NOAA’s Billion-Dollar Disaster (BDD) tabulation was published. [emphasis, links added]
Today, NOAA announced that the BDD tabulation would no longer be updated by the agency, explaining that it has been “retired.”
While some media have chosen to make the BDD retirement about the Trump administration, there has also been some excellent reporting indicating that the retirement of the tabulation is a bit more complicated.
CBS News has excellent reporting:
According to a current NOAA employee, who spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear of losing their job, part of the reason the billion-dollar database is being decommissioned is because it is “not core” to NOAA’s mission, since its focus is on economics and an analysis of various datasets. Additionally, the lead researcher of the database resigned last month by taking a separation incentive package. . .
Criticism had been mounting against the billion-dollar database over the years, driven by Roger Pielke Jr., a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and faculty at the University of Colorado-Boulder. Pielke argued it needs better metadata, review and documentation. He published a paper in the journal Nature last year about the database, saying it failed to meet NOAA’s “criteria of procedure and substance” based on the agency’s “information quality and scientific integrity policies.”
In a phone interview with CBS News, Pielke said, “I’m a huge fan of NOAA and the National Weather Service, they play a huge public service role, and I’m not happy with the sledgehammer that is being taken to the agency.”
He said having climatologists in charge of the data was problematic and resulted in some quality-control issues that could be addressed by proper economists. He also said the current dataset isn’t fixable at NOAA, but that it would be very important for another federal agency to take disaster losses seriously and track the data.
Interestingly, according to the CBS News report, NOAA leadership under President Biden was quite sympathetic to my critique.
The Washington Post also recognizes the nuance here, building on the paper’s earlier excellent deep dive (by Harry Stevens, now at the NYT) into the Billion Dollar Disaster tabulation:
Roger Pielke, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said tracking disaster costs is essential but added that there are better approaches than the one NOAA has since taken. As a professor emeritus at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Pielke studied the database and said he found inconsistencies in how loss estimates were calculated or inflation was factored in over the nearly five decades of disasters the agency tracked.
“It’s absolutely important for the federal government to track the cost of disasters; there’s no doubt about that,” Pielke said. “Perhaps this is an opportunity to do things right.”
The Post includes an important nugget of information:
The many recent departures at the agency include Adam Smith, who led the billion-dollar disaster program for 15 years before leaving last week.
Because the methodologies used by NOAA to generate loss estimates are neither public nor (to my knowledge) written down, it may be that with Smith’s departure, the agency may have lost the capacity to carry on.
Keep a lookout for the tabulation to reappear at a climate advocacy group, which is probably where this incarnation best fits.
Interestingly, sometime after my paper was published last year, NOAA added a disclaimer of sorts to the BDD homepage:
This product has no focus on climate event attribution.
After years of saying the opposite, encouraging media to report the opposite, and watching policymakers claim the opposite, it turned out that it was too late for NOAA to get the horse back in the barn.
The Honest Broker is written by climate expert Roger Pielke Jr and is reader-supported. If you value what you have read here, please consider subscribing and supporting the work that goes into it.
Read rest at The Honest Broker
