As others have said, the human cost (in terms of lives lost) has in general decreased. This can be attributed to better construction and greater warning due to the rapid advance in atmospheric science. There is still the potential for grave loss of human life, especially with regard to floods If you look at the paper in Raisin Caine's link you will see that loss of life from flooding is highly concentrated in just a few enormous--but infrequent--events. That means that if the stars align so that flooding in the most vulnerable spots does not occur, then deaths will be low, while if flooding occurs in the vulnerable locations, the numbers of deaths can be extremely large. That particular study ended before Cyclone Nargis, which killed about 140,000 people in Myanmar and would have been a significant "bump" on the plots contained in the paper.

In contrast, the economic costs of Nargis were not particularly large, being substantially smaller than Superstorm Sandy or Hurricane Katrina. This demonstrates the high economic costs are associated with large infrastructure value that is typical of developed countries. In general, the more developed a geographic region is the smaller the human costs and the greater the economic costs from extreme weather events.

http://www.csccc.info/reports/report_23....

The human loss from extreme weather events have been on the decline. In fact, a rapid decline. It will start leveling off as the percentage of deaths from extreme weather events approaches low numbers. Technology can only do so much.

As far as economic costs, as the value of the property increases, the cost of extreme events is naturally going to increase.

The wide and smooth Potomac River flows lazily past the marble and concrete structures of Washington, D.C., and bends south in its course to the Chesapeake Bay. Before it reaches Mount Vernon, the hillside plantation that once belonged to the first president of the United States, the river flows through tree-lined parks and forest that hides quiet suburban neighborhoods. Kirsten and Graham McCoulloch and their two young sons live in one such neighborhood, a full six blocks, a highway, and a riverside park away from the river’s edge. On September 18, 2003, the family was at home waiting for Hurricane Isabel to blow over when the word came to evacuate. “They told us, ‘Go fast because we don’t want you driving during the storm,’” recalls Kirsten. “The next day, we couldn’t get near our neighborhood.” Flood water had rushed up from the Potomac and pooled around their house. A neighbor swam to his house and returned in a canoe. “He told us, ‘It’s worse than you can imagine. The water is as deep as the kitchen counters,’” says Kirsten.

There should'nt be any costs for Global Warming, since people in my Global Teams from all walks of Life and I turned off Global Warming in another Nation without taking any payment, because we wanted to get rid of this Global problem so nature could turn to normal naturally. Global command

More people and more expensive infrastructure. If a tornado hits a city today, it's more expensive than if the same strenght tornado hit a small fsrm centuries ago. There is also a rise in frequency and strenght of weather events, even the insurance industry acknowledges that.

Because the cost of property has risen. Take Super Storm Sandy, for instance. It wasn't even a hurricane when it hit the coast, yet it did great damage cost wise. It isn't the severity of the storm, but the locality and the value of where they hit.

A recent study looking into this very question sums it up as follows:

"...our overall conclusion is that the increasing exposure of people and economic assets is the major cause of increasing trends in disaster impacts. This holds for long-term trends in economic losses as well as the number of people affected." http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007...

no ,you just get the story now ,befor what happened in your town was your tows story .