“…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.
There’s always creative accounting by AGWers, like the claim that wind is cheaper than fossil fuels…after you factor in “health and environmental damages ” which are more made up stats.
Don’t know that it’s working so well because I look at Yahoo’s news page everyday and their top story is ALWAYS a global warming/worse than we thought story. The commentators are having none of it though.
folks keep talking about all the Big Oil money behind climate change skeptics, yet no one really bats an eye when an insurance company (Munich Re) comes out with a paper that basically supports them raising rates simply because a new day dawns?
Imagine the uproar if Exxon or BP came out with a study that shows how many lives oil has saved this year – it fuels every emergency vehicle going to save lives, every helicopter that med vacs a patient, it fuels the trucks and ships that carry food to people all over the world. Oil saves lives, so we need to raise prices. That would never happen.
Yet that’s what the insurance industry is doing. Clever, clever people they are!
NRG22
Interesting stats from Munich Re, particularly the global one on their interpretation of the total number of disasters. The value one is of no importance from a climate perspective, one incident can dwarf all if it hits the right spot.
This compares to the UN disaster stats as per below link which shows a rather different picture.
http://www.preventionweb.net/files/20120613_ClimateDisaster1980-2011.pdf
The only one where you see a clear upward trend is the flood statistic, the other 3 show either a decline or basically no change.
Most floods where there is damage to property are indeed anthropogenic in nature, happy to concede that and the increase in floods is likewise.
Some evidence to that is that if not I would expect the storm statistic to show an increase also but this is in decline, although even if it that was to go up it does not necessarily prove a human link.
While I don’t necessarily trust the UN numbers either I like to think that they have less of a financial interest, other then empire building and organizing another round of discussions on mitigation, in this data then Munich Re.
As such one would have to conclude that the Munich Re numbers are disasters in their own right.
jbenton2013 says:
Nothing that comes out of Munich Re should be believed…
Very true. Their business depends on hyping disasters so they can raise rates.
Here is a chart of the actual trend in natural disasters.
Sorry Gunga, that was a bit terrible 🙂 No, the number of people who watched a movie does NOT change if you adjust for inflation 😉
markx says:
February 28, 2014 at 10:58 pm
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.
=====
damn you got a tv included?
I musta got robbed:-)
bought a fallen down cottage for 18k at 32
spent 16 years rebuilding it and still had no tv..couldnt afford an aerial
and really for whats on wasnt worth the cost anyway:-)
but yes you are right, they want it all like the parents or the TV shows but dont have the income..bu the banks dont mind theyll get the payments and the repo it sometime in the next few yers the way the economys going lately.
most Aussies just dont get how many middle class americans lost the lot, reckon it cant happen here..
big shocks coming.
===================================================================
http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm
@Gunga Din Thank for the link to the adjusted numbers! I guess Hollywood is based upon dollars and not head count, but at least one can do honest comparisons with the information from your link,
Here’s a couple of more references.
http://mrob.com/pub/film-video/topadj.html
http://www.ask.com/question/what-movie-sold-the-most-tickets-of-all-time
But the point is that by using dollars to say current storm damage is worse than past storm damage is misleading at best. Just like saying more people saw Titanic than Gone With the Wind based on boxoffice dollars.
Not sure how reliable this site is, but it ties in with this thread. Can’t find the video anywhere else.
http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/sean-long/warren-buffett-supposed-increase-extreme-weather-hasnt-been-true-so-far