Kevin Druff Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 One point that I could have made a bit more clearly in my conversation with Max relates to the measurable divergence now observed between the frequency of geophysical catastrophes and weather-related disasters. This is an important, statistically meaningful trend that has caught the eye of the insurance industry and was clearly visible to me when I saw the recent Munich Re Report on catastrophe-losses to the industry. Better still, Joe Romm at Climate Progress communicated directly with Munich Re about the report: Dr. Peter Höppe, Head of the Geo Risks Research Department at Munich Re, the co-author of Schmidt, Kemfert and Höppe, wrote me: For me the most convincing piece of evidence that global warming has been contributing already to more and more intense weather related natural catastrophes is the fact that while we find a steep increase in the number of loss relevant weather events (about tripling in the last 30 years) we only find a slight increase in geophysical (earthquake, volcano, tsunami) events, which should not be affected by global warming. If the whole trend we find in weather related disaster should be caused by reporting bias, or socio-demographic or economic developments we would expect to find it similarly for the geophysical events. By the way the assumption that climate change is increasing the risk of extreme weather events is backed by IPCC. As Max Keiser and I agreed during our interview, it’s no longer a political position to acknowledge global warming. The global reinsurance industry is already pricing it in as observable, measurable, and costly. I’m growing more confident that the global resource extraction industry is going to start bearing more of the cost–via the insurance mechanism–of increased weather-related risk. Source: Gregor.US Emphasis mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbutts Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 No mention of coastal population boom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Druff Posted January 19, 2011 Author Share Posted January 19, 2011 No mention of coastal population boom? That would affect the DOLLAR amount of losses. It would not, however, affect the number of events: If the whole trend we find in weather related disaster should be caused by reporting bias, or socio-demographic or economic developments we would expect to find it similarly for the geophysical events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 That would affect the DOLLAR amount of losses. It would not, however, affect the number of events: He is comparing the rate of increase in dollar losses for weather events to the rate of increase in dollar losses for geophysical disasters. However, I think this is extremely poor methodology. Weather disasters tend to occur in particular areas (coastlines, flood prone areas etc.), while geophysical disasters tend to occur in others (surrounding volcanoes, along fault lines etc.). If the population growth in the weather disaster prone areas has grown faster than in the geophysical disaster areas, it would bias the result. I think there is good reason to believe that the weather prone areas have had a much faster increase in both population and increasing prices. Coastal areas have experienced both a population boom and soaring housing prices. This might be enough to account for some or all of the difference in growth rates for the two types of disaster costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 He is comparing the rate of increase in dollar losses for weather events to the rate of increase in dollar losses for geophysical disasters. However, I think this is extremely poor methodology. Weather disasters tend to occur in particular areas (coastlines, flood prone areas etc.), while geophysical disasters tend to occur in others (surrounding volcanoes, along fault lines etc.). If the population growth in the weather disaster prone areas has grown faster than in the geophysical disaster areas, it would bias the result. I think there is good reason to believe that the weather prone areas have had a much faster increase in both population and increasing prices. Coastal areas have experienced both a population boom and soaring housing prices. This might be enough to account for some or all of the difference in growth rates for the two types of disaster costs. Good points. I would also argue that since weather related disasters happen much more frequently and widespread than major earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc, population growth is much more likely to show up in their statistics. Not to mention the fact that modern construction is much, much better at withstanding earthquakes than it used to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 We have had a very quiet decade and a half for earthquakes in the USA. There have been significant earthquakes in other countries including Haiti, Chile, as well as the underwater earthquake causing devastation and flooding in Indonesia. Looking at US Fatalities: http://earthquake.us.../historical.php 2003 - 2 1995 - 1 1994 - 60 1993 - 2 1992 - 3 1991 - 2 1989 - 54 1987 - 11 1983 - 2 1975 - 2 1971 - 65 1969 - 1 1965 - 7 1964 - 128 1959 - 28 1958 - 5 1957 - 1 1955 - 1 1954 - 1 1952 - 13 1949 - 8 1946 - 165 1940 - 9 1935 - 4 1934 - 2 1933 - 115 1932 - 1 1926 - 1 1925 - 13 1918 - 1 1915 - 6 1906 - 3000 1899 - 6 The Tectonic factors that caused 3000 deaths in 1906 have not gone away. Nor has global warming caused a reduction in the earthquake devastation. I'd agree that basic research on earthquake tolerant construction methods, has helped significantly. However, if an earthquake similar to the 1964 Alaska earthquake was to occur in San Francisco... Hurricane Katrina would look like afternoon breeze. One of the big issues with Katrina in particular is that part of the construction of New Orleans, and all the Mississippi cities was walling off the Mississippi River off from the natural Flood Plains, and the prevention of soil deposition during flood cycles. Consequently New Orleans has been sinking at a rate at least double the rest of the Eastern USA, unlike parts of the Western USA that are actually rising. The low lying terrain then exacerbates the problem. A huge part of the Katrina damages were not caused by the wind, but rather uncontrolled flooding. I blame the FRENCH Napoleon made the deal of a lifetime, selling the city and surrounding territory for $15 Million. And... thus avoided $81 Billion (or more) in losses due to a single storm!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter M Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Science was a political/religious position in the the 1500-1600 hundreds. When zealots of the Powerful Catholic church- an Oligarchy controlled civilization. Back then the stakes where low- today you have a similar Plutocracy in place- today however the stakes are very high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.