Belisarius
Bluelighter
<<^^^ actually it is. I remember them saying that with hurricane camille the damage was $20 billion in 1969 dollars.
So $29 billion in 2005 dollars isn't that bad, comparatively speaking.>>
The NHC lists Camille's unadjusted damage as ~$1.4 billion.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastcost.shtml
Adjusted for inflation, that brings the cost up to $7.45 billion today.
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
The damage figure that was quoted was probably a newer measure that estimates what the damage would be if Camille had hit today, with current levels of coastal development.
Notice something interesting about the list of most damaging hurricanes from the NHC--all but two of them (Hugo and Andrew) happened in the last ten years.
So $29 billion in 2005 dollars isn't that bad, comparatively speaking.>>
The NHC lists Camille's unadjusted damage as ~$1.4 billion.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastcost.shtml
Adjusted for inflation, that brings the cost up to $7.45 billion today.
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
The damage figure that was quoted was probably a newer measure that estimates what the damage would be if Camille had hit today, with current levels of coastal development.
Notice something interesting about the list of most damaging hurricanes from the NHC--all but two of them (Hugo and Andrew) happened in the last ten years.