I found this very interesting:
We've had an innordinate number of officially declared major disasters, no? We've had 24 major disasters declared, and we're only halfway through
the year. Last year we had 67 major ones, the year before that we had 53, the year before that we had 48, the two years before that we had 44, before
that 49, 64, 43, 75, 32, 35, 33, 44, 42, 37, 30, 10, 23, 27, 26, 33, 20, 23, 14, 22, 41, 24, 21, 29, 37, 45, 45, 47, 16, 16, 28, 18, 10, 10, 24.
That's 30 years, not much, but something to look at. The FEMA site goes back another 12 years, FYI.
That looks like a moving average to me, but I didn't graph it to check. So is this politics or weather? Does this increase reflect more liberal
declarations brought on by complaints from the states, or does this accurately depict a rise in the number of major disasters in America?
The pattern speaks to severe storms and flooding across the country, from Maine to California, and from Arizona to Ohio.
What does this mean for disaster spending? Does the increase in spending reflect need, or do the increased number of declarations reflect a "we have
it, let's spend it" mentality? Like the guys who dig up a street to repave it, so they can justify their budget.
Do these events get tied together for the average citizen watching television? Should they be? I'm not sure about this one myself.
Is there any reason to assume more disasters won't follow for the rest of the year? Not that I can think of. Wildfire season promises to be
exciting, as does hurrican season. The heat is hellish in the SouthWest, I wouldn't be surprised if they issued a heat disaster. It's damn hot,
like 110 in the shade.
I'm curious because this appears out of the ordinary. With all the talk around this place (ATS) about climate shift and polar reversal, I thought
this might interest some people.