Reply to Pielke (2025)

Abstract Pielke deprecates both the ICAT database, which he once recommended, and U.S. tropical cyclone (TC) damage estimates from the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). We do not share these views. Willoughby et al. (hereafter WL24) is based upon ICAT damage for 1900–2017, both then-year and normalized for inflation, population, and individual wealth, extended to 2022 with National Hurricane Center (NHC) official figures from NCEI. Pielke represents the data of Weinkle et al. (hereafter WK18) as a superior source. We find troubling anomalies in the WK18 data. The issue is that WK18 find that normalized TC damage is constant, but WL24 find that it is increasing. Here, we replicate the WL24 analysis with WK18 data and find a statistically significant growth of then-year damage relative to the U.S. economy, a statistically significant increase in the occurrence of the most damaging TCs, and a 0.6% per year increase in TC normalized damage. The last of these is not statistically significant because of the large variance due to the modulation of TC impacts by the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation. Thus, the increase in U.S. TC damage is sufficiently robust to survive the shortcomings of both datasets.