“…societal change is sufficient to explain the increasing costs of disasters at the global level…”
We often hear of the wailing by climate activists and in the MSM about the huge cost numbers related to weather disasters, as if somehow these numbers are indicative of a trend linkable with ‘climate change’. For example, USA Today’s Doyle Rice reported in 2012 this headline:
Report: Climate change behind rise in weather disasters
The number of natural disasters per year has been rising dramatically on all continents since 1980, but the trend is steepest for North America where countries have been battered by hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, searing heat and drought, a new report says.
The study being released today by Munich Re, the world’s largest reinsurance firm, sees climate change driving the increase and predicts those influences will continue in years ahead, though a number of experts question that conclusion.
…
Atmospheric scientist Clifford Mass of the University of Washington also has a problem with Munich Re’s findings, saying that once the data are adjusted for population there is no recent upward trend in tornado or hurricane damages. Also, he adds that there is no evidence that global warming is causing more extreme weather in the USA.
Of course, any time an insurance company dabbles in science related to losses, you can be sure there’s a motivation other than pure science behind it. Shalini Mohleji and Roger Pielke Jr. thought this was worth examining to see if it such claims held up, and it turns out, they don’t.
The new paper:
Reconciliation of Trends in Global and Regional Economic Losses from Weather Events: 1980–2008
Shalini Mohleji and Roger Pielke Jr.
In recent years claims have been made in venues including the authoritative reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and in testimony before the US Congress that economic losses from weather events have been increasing beyond that which can be explained by societal change, based on loss data from the reinsurance industry and aggregated since 1980 at the global level. Such claims imply a contradiction with a large set of peer-reviewed studies focused on regional losses, typically over a much longer time period, which concludes that loss trends are explained entirely by societal change. To address this implied mismatch, we disaggregate global losses from a widely utilized reinsurance dataset into regional components and compare this disaggregation directly to the findings from the literature at the regional scale, most of which reach back much further in time. We find that global losses increased at a rate of $3.1 billion/year (2008 USD) from 1980–2008 and losses from North American, Asian, European, and Australian storms and floods account for 97% of the increase. In particular, North American storms, of which U.S. hurricane losses compose the bulk, account for 57% of global economic losses. Longer-term loss trends in these regions can be explained entirely by socioeconomic factors in each region such as increasing wealth, population growth, and increasing development in vulnerable areas. The remaining 3% of the global increase 1980 to 2008 is the result of losses for which regionally based studies have not yet been completed. On climate time scales, societal change is sufficient to explain the increasing costs of disasters at the global level and claims to the contrary are not supported by aggregate loss data from the reinsurance industry.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If there has been little societal change on the African continent in the period under study, then there will be no reported increase of events related to climate factors such as global warming.
Does the Munich Re report mention Africa? Or does it confine itself, like the legendary dermatologist, to diseases of the rich?
What is a “climate timescale”? Seems a nonsensical phrase.
REPLY: Typically 30 years is used for a climate data timescale – Anthony
@Jeff Alberts-It just means the long term trend. There’s almost 30 years worth of data, so they are talking about the trend from 1980-2008.
This is what I’ve always suspected. Everything costs more now, so natural disasters will be much more expensive.
Geoff,
The reinsurance industry offers guarantees against catastrophic losses where insurance carriers are writing policies. Not so many policies are written in Africa compared to Long Island or the Texas Gulf Coast. Additionally, the values of the properties are lower in Africa, as a whole, than in the more developed areas.
But that’s arbitrary.
It’s not only this kind of insurance that has increased due to weather events. In Australia the 2010/11 Queensland floods were “assisted” by an increase in the Medicare levy (A levy to fund the public health system) on every taxpayer in the country. That was supposed to be for only 12 months only. The increase of 0.5% is still in place AFAIK.
I have a friend who works in the insurance industry in Africa, Kenya. She is finding it hard to sell any kind of insurance to anyone. I guess most people are more focused on finding enough money to buy food and shelter. Another friend in the industry here in Australia. According to him, there has been no signifiant increase in claims against insurance policies due to weather events, but policy costs still continue to rise. Bush fires are another story as many of them are started by arsonists.
Jeff Alberts on February 28, 2014 at 8:20 pm
Yes, well known as cherry picking … 30 years may be a long time compared to a human life, but in geological time it’s not even a blink of an eye; statistically w/o value.
There would be no use for insurance if the weather behaved itself. Nations that have nothing to generate jobs rather then consumerism need disasters to unlock cash that has been locked away by insurance companies to help slow inflation . Just like a bailout package for the trades ,you know the people that actually work for a living . A lot of money changes hands when disasters strike.
How about we work backwards from the scare and figure out who benefits financially?
Physics for Fututre Presidents on this point:
Starting at 49.20, some words on the damage at 51.09
so the MSM could know this for 6 years, and the President, too…
Jeff Alberts says:
February 28, 2014 at 8:20 pm
But that’s arbitrary.
Yes. Just like 360 degrees in a circle or seven days in a week.
Insurance, like gambling or stock market investing, is an estimate of risk vs. reward. Unlike the gambler or investor the insurance industry can dictate the rules of the risk. We will be paying once again for an unproven hypothesis.
Perhaps costs are rising due to the divorce of city man and weather?
City man saw those lovely green fields sitting empty by the river, raised taxes, drove the farmers off and proclaimed subdivisions for all.
Happened all over North America.
The computer models inform us that floods are a thing of the past.
That was the answer to long term residents questions about building on flood plains.
Of course costs are increasing.
Stupid costs serious money, even when adjusting for population increase and inflation.
Now after the floods, its climate change that caused them, I guess institutional memory is as good as their other promises and competency.
see http://www.theeuroprobe.org/ 2013 – 032 The EU Coudenhove Kalergi Plan and 2014 – 014, The UN Wildlands plan for comment and 2012 – 021 The Origins of the EU.
Mick G
WillR says:
February 28, 2014 at 9:19 pm
Jeff Alberts says:
February 28, 2014 at 8:20 pm
But that’s arbitrary.
“Yes. Just like 360 degrees in a circle or seven days in a week.”
Not unless “the” climate changes every 30 years.
If I remember correctly, the movie Titanic broke the box office record set by Gone with the Wind. But if you adjust for inflation and ticket price more people went to see Gone with the Wind in the theater than Titanic.
If you don’t adjust for inflation and increased development then of course the dollar figures are greater now than in the past.
Repairing a “fender bender” today cost more than a new car several decades ago.
You guys are missing the point. The paper is say that 1980-2008, the entire trend in disaster losses is explained by there being more and more valuable stuff to destroy.
In other words, there is no trend left to be caused by CAGW.
@dbstealey-What you are describing is inflation. That’s not what they are talking about. They are saying that more people, with more property, with greater real (not nominal) value. That explains any trend in disaster losses.
dbstealey says:
February 28, 2014 at 7:54 pm
This is what I’ve always suspected. Everything costs more now, so natural disasters will be much more expensive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Huh. I knew you could by things like vowels, juries, and elections, but I had no idea you could buy a natural disaster. Even mother nature is on the take!
Could not be simpler.
You now have have more people with greater wealth building bigger, more expensive, high technology equipped structures everywhere, including places where people would not consider building any sort of structures in the past.
You can take as an example the complaints of the younger generation in Australia, bitching that houses are too expensive now, and the baby boomers had it easy and spoiled it for everyone.
Well, they expect to buy a 4 bedroom, 2 bathroom brick house with a double lock up garage and a lovely garden, all equipped with air-con, dishwashers, stoves, flatscreen tvs.
Well, the first house I bought was 2 bedroom, no bathroom (well it had a room with a tub and a toilet in it that I had to rebuild), weatherboard with no garden fence or car shelter. Seller would not come down on the price so I jokingly said I’d take it if he threw in the (very old) TV. When I took it over, to my surprise there was that TV sitting in the otherwise empty house.
First TV I’d ever owned, and I was 32 years old.
A couple of charts from MunichRE:
US http://www.wrsc.org/attach_image/natural-disasters-inthe-united-states-1980-2008
Global http://www.munichreamerica.com/site/mram/get/documents_E-205039058/mram/assetpool.mr_america/PDFs/5_Press_News/Press/natcat012014/1980_2013_events_and_losses.pdf
Is there a way to make hyperlinks in posts? Those look so sloppy.
@NRG22-That is literally, the data used in this study.
also, just use the a tag, html should work.
Insurance companies make money when they sell premiums.
They lose money when they pay claims.
The best scenario therefore is when they sell premiums but don’t have to pay claims.
So the best strategy is to scare people into buying policies for which there is little likelihood of a claim occurring. From Munich Re’s point of view they would be negligent if they didn’t drum up business with these stories.
Password Protected on February 28, 2014 at 9:22 pm
Insurance, like gambling or stock market investing, is an estimate of risk vs. reward. Unlike the gambler or investor the insurance industry can dictate the rules of the risk. We will be paying once again for an unproven hypothesis.
————
Insurance companies will be all too happy to raise rates based on the perceived increase in risk. A terrorist does something in the Middle East and instantly gas at my local pump jumps up 10 cents a gallon. The MSM claims damages cost more, I’m sure insurance companies can use that perception alone to justify raising rates.