Rainfall, Flooding, Finding Weather data sources

[Halbhh]

The record flooding on the Arkansas River involving Oklahoma and Arkansas, along with the unusually high repeated rain in our own location far from that region made me curious about the widespread U.S. precipitation data.

Since the U.S. as a whole is large enough that an overall national precipitation would perhaps be meaningful about global climate (?) (or more than only a regional one). Comments about whether the nation is a large enough region would be interesting for those that have read up more on climate.

Curious if others know good data sources.

Here's what I found so far:
National Temperature and Precipitation Maps | Temperature, Precipitation, and Drought | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

You can select for instance Year-To-Date, and then look through the maps for about the 4th one for National Precipitation Rank. It seems to rank as higher is more, where 125 would be wettest ever on record in all the 125 years data is available. For Jan-April 2019 the nation is at 119 on that ranking so far it appears. But it seems lately in May there is quite a bit more news of flooding and very high rainfall, so when May 2019 gets included it might change the rank. Curious if others know of a more to date data source.

 

[Dave-W]

The Weather Service from NOAA (the guys next door) have very reliable data. I know several of them.

 

[GodsGrace101]

NASA?

 

[Paulos23]

For world wide insurance losses from catastrophe, the Insurance Information Institute.

Facts + Statistics: Global catastrophes | III

 

[Halbhh]

For world wide insurance losses from catastrophe, the Insurance Information Institute.

Facts + Statistics: Global catastrophes | III

I noticed in that page the interesting bar graph:
Number Of World Natural Catastrophes, 1980-2018

num_world_nat_cats_80-18.gif

Source: © 2019 Munich Re, Geo Risks Research, NatCatSERVICE. As of March 2019.

 

[Yttrium]

I noticed in that page the interesting bar graph:

Yes, but keep in mind that the company records catastrophes that incurred insurance losses. There have been violent storms and earthquakes and such in the past that had no impacts on humans. As time goes by, civilization fills up more of the globe, and there are more catastrophes among humans. Tornadoes in the United States, for example, have more and larger targets to hit as time goes by.

(Which isn't saying that the weather isn't getting more violent because of global warming.)

 

[Halbhh]

Yes, but keep in mind that the company records catastrophes that incurred insurance losses. There have been violent storms and earthquakes and such in the past that had no impacts on humans. As time goes by, civilization fills up more of the globe, and there are more catastrophes among humans. Tornadoes in the United States, for example, have more and larger targets to hit as time goes by.

(Which isn't saying that the weather isn't getting more violent because of global warming.)

Insured losses would have been a different graph than the one just above. You can find that different graph you were expecting about losses there on the page --
Facts + Statistics: Global catastrophes | III

See? So....The graph in post #5 is simply a count of all significant natural disasters, without regard to insurance. Also, the events are not contingent on population density very strongly, because only 1 death is needed for the event to be counted or losses above a relatively modest level dependent on region income levels. Is it more clear now? Basically, it's a count of significant natural disasters, though not a perfect one. Since forecasting is so drastically improved, with far better storm warnings, and also generally better building practices over the recent decades vs 50 or 100 years ealier, the count is then not as high as it would be if not for those counteracting mitigations.

 

[Paulos23]

Yes, but keep in mind that the company records catastrophes that incurred insurance losses. There have been violent storms and earthquakes and such in the past that had no impacts on humans. As time goes by, civilization fills up more of the globe, and there are more catastrophes among humans. Tornadoes in the United States, for example, have more and larger targets to hit as time goes by.

(Which isn't saying that the weather isn't getting more violent because of global warming.)

There is also losses that never reach the level of a catastrophe, but over time adds up to large losses for an insurance company. The company I work for has seen increases in hail losses in the mountain states over the past decade, which has caused us to change our policies and rates. Same with wildfires.

Based on our data set, we have to assume the climate is changing and we have to adjust our business. Ignoring it means the business will fail.

 

[Halbhh]

Update: through the end of May, this year to date first 5 months was the wettest for the U.S. In the 125 years of data. Rank: most rain on record for nation as a whole ever in the 125 years.
National Temperature and Precipitation Maps | Temperature, Precipitation, and Drought | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)