UPDATE: Hints added
Well, ok, perhaps more in the mold of actual questions for which he has not the answer.
The Bunnies have been following with interest the harumphing over at the new place [Roger Pielke Jr.s new blog just about any post] about where the decimal point is in determining whether there is a detectable trend yet in storm damage and flooding [caused by climate change]. Eli's take on this is that the signal has not yet emerged from the noise, but there are good reasons to think that it will. Indeed this is exactly the conclusion of the WGII report, that evidence of current impacts are sketchy, but that there is great confidence that there will be very significant future impacts without mitigation and costly adaptation programs. Debating about whether there are current impacts is a diversion.
However, several thoughts occurred. First, that the cost of damage corrected for economic development not be the correct thing to look at or as AR4 WGII puts it
In all of these cases, the valuation of vulnerabilities depends considerably on the development context. For instance, vulnerabilities in more developed areas are often focused on physical assets and infrastructures and their economic value and replacement costs, along with linkages to global markets, while vulnerabilities in less developed areas are often focused on human populations and institutions, which need different metrics for valuation. On the other hand, vulnerabilities to physical and economic costs can have a greater proportional impact in developing areas.Second that as far as Eli has read, the cost estimates do not include the increasing costs of flood/damage control which have been substantial and are growing.