Talk:List of costliest Atlantic hurricanes

The wealth normalization

Could someone please delete a British kid's undergraduate project to list hurricane damage by wealth normalization. No one in the world uses these numbers, and it's absurd to say that a Miami hurricane that did 100 million in damage is actually 140 BILLION in today's money. People are using these numbers in other articles, skewing damage amounts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.148.214 (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Todo

Added tags regarding accuracy of 2008 estimates. The list does not include recorded storms that occurred before the advent of naming storms, and the estimated damages do not follow any reliable model. They do not follow any economic indicator as referenced in the 2005 model, nor do they follow the correct adjustments for inflation alone, but mix and match different methods to give them their numbers, resulting in a very skewed table. ♬♩ Felyza (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Add other countries, make prettier. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Remove Normalization

The "Cost adjusted for wealth normalization" absolutely needs to be removed. Unused anywhere else, misleading and should not be the default sorting category. Took very substantial research to find out the the credentials of the authors, and even then it has no peer review outside of itself. I don't doubt the credentials, but this is an entirely unused process and formula used. The math may technically be correct but it's still scientifically misleading. Theoretical numbers at best and do not stand up to standards of statistical review. We have no idea whatsoever how to determine the wind field of older cyclones with any degree of accuracy. All the data for the "normalization" process is based on location of current-day construction and population but is on too macro a scale.

Even if it's to be used, that table needs modern updating with newer storms and a consistent year of inflation. It's theoretical and has no place unless accredited as NOAA data. Since one of the co-authors is a NOAA researcher, that shouldn't be terribly difficult if it were considered good research and more sourcing would have appeared by now. Datheisen (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC) Edited after a lot of research; Datheisen (talk) 07:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Roger Pielke is a renowned scientist, as are his co-authors, including NOAA's Chris Landsea. His article was published in a peer-reviewed journal. If you think his study is flawed, publish a response in another journal. Anything else, like "modifying" this table, would be original research. So would be "updating" this table, thus we won't do it. Pielke actually publishes an updated version of his list every ten years or so (the current version is actually an update of Pielke/Landsea (1998)). --bender235 (talk) 02:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No, that's crap that doesn't mean anything to anyone. I'll remove it.