Every natural disaster incurs a cost once it concludes. An event that submerged the Gulf States in 2005 resulted in damage worth [missing amount]. Another, which struck the northeast in 2012, [missing information]. Furthermore, a disaster that ravaged 22 midwestern and western states in 2012 cost $41.7 billion.

Since 1980, the (NOAA) has maintained a database tracking these exceptionally expensive events, documenting every drought, flood, freeze, severe storm, tropical cyclone, wildfire, or winter storm that reached a price tag of $1 billion or more. Over that period, it has recorded 403 such occurrences, [missing total cost]. The billion-dollar database is more than merely a list of crises; for the past 45 years, it has served as an invaluable resource for climate scientists, legislators, and insurance companies to conduct research, formulate public policy, and manage financial risks.

However, on [missing date], it was discontinued—a casualty of extensive White House reductions to government staff, initiatives, and departments. The existing database remains accessible online, but no new data will be gathered for 2025 and subsequent years. The reason for this decision was not provided, but Rick Spinrad, NOAA’s former head, who was appointed during the Biden presidency and vacated the position when President Donald Trump assumed office—a standard practice for political appointees during shifts in administrations—has an informed theory.

“The database possessed a connection to climate relevance and impact, and was thus compromised in the administration’s view,” he states. “Anything perceived to have a climate association is being removed. This will lead to insufficient preparation for future billion-dollar events.”

This situation is profoundly significant. In 2024, according to NOAA, the U.S. experienced [missing number of disasters] following a [missing description] in 2023. The annual average for billion-dollar storms since 1980 stands at [missing average cost]. Almost all climatologists attribute this rise to climate change, which is intensifying and increasing the frequency of storms.

Now, the non-profit sector has intervened. This morning, the environmental advocacy group Climate Central announced its intention to revive the billion-dollar database, transferring it from government oversight and relaunching it under the guidance of applied climatologist Adam Smith. Smith previously managed the project at NOAA and now holds the same role for Climate Central as the group’s senior climate impact scientist. The product, Smith asserts, will not be compromised.

“We are utilizing the identical public and private sector collaborators and top-tier datasets that we employed at NOAA,” he explains. “The demand for this dataset’s reinstatement originated from numerous segments of society. This dataset is simply too critical to cease its updates.”

In fact, the updated product may even be superior. Climate Central’s iteration of the database will offer greater detail than the government’s, monitoring events causing as little as $100 million in damage and analyzing wildfires more thoroughly by logging individual blazes rather than seasonal regional figures, as the government does.

“We are striving to continue developing certain innovations that we initiated at NOAA but never finalized,” Smith remarks. “We leveraged AI to help expedite some of the development, and it has certainly progressed more rapidly than we anticipated.”

This new undertaking is proving successful for Climate Central. In just the first six months of 2025, there have been 14 billion-dollar events, accumulating a total cost of $101.4 billion. The most expensive of these disasters were the L.A. wildfires, which alone incurred a $60 billion cost. The preceding six months have been the most expensive half-year on record.

Not everyone believes the website should be brought back—or should have existed at all—with most critiques originating from the Right. When the initiative was halted in May, Congressman Brian Babin—a Texas Republican and chair of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee—[missing verb] praising the decision. “For months, the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee has meticulously examined NOAA’s application of the Billion-Dollar Disasters dataset—a dataset increasingly depended upon by policymakers but plagued by scientific and methodological deficiencies. I commend the Trump Administration for acknowledging these flaws and taking decisive action. The American populace deserves trustworthy data, not political narratives disguised as scientific fact.”

Last year, Roger Pielke, Jr., a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and professor emeritus in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder, [missing verb] in Nature presenting arguments akin to Babin’s. Among other points, Pielke contended, “the database lacks sufficient transparency and traceability, failing to provide users with a mechanism to verify the sources of the data utilized.” Pielke also holds the view that NOAA scientists attribute the rise in billion-dollar events to climate change without adequate evidence to support this assertion.

“Public assertions promoted by NOAA concerning the dataset and its significance are flawed and occasionally misleading,” Pielke wrote.

His is a minority perspective. The vast majority of scientists, agencies, and international bodies—including [missing organization] and the United Nations’ [missing organization]—concur that greenhouse gas emissions from the industrial era are warming the planet, thereby contributing to both more expensive and more frequent storms.

While no individual storm or event can be directly linked to climate change, rising global temperatures create conditions more conducive to disasters. Warmer air, [missing explanation], enhances evaporation, which leads to increased moisture in the atmosphere, intensifying rainfalls, while warmer oceans offer an energy source for more severe hurricanes.

As Smith articulates: “The billion-dollar disaster dataset represents a long-term record of authoritative research into major disaster costs, integrating the most robust public and private sector data sources and analysis.”

Even if Climate Central’s database is scientifically sound, it could ultimately fail for one simple reason: funding. Government resources are far greater than those of a non-governmental organization, and NOAA dedicated substantial funds to keeping its version of the site operational.

“NOAA has invested millions, if not billions, of dollars into collecting and analyzing this data,” Spinrad observes. “It will be a considerable challenge for a non-governmental entity to match that level of investment.”

Regardless of how long Climate Central can sustain the database, both professionals and the public will gain from the availability of this information. Billion-dollar events are not ceasing; the initial step for an informed public is to remain knowledgeable.