Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
one...two...tree

Insurance Company Ranks 2010 among Worst Years Ever for Climate Disasters

16 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline

Climate change is a culprit in the long list of catastrophic natural disasters in 2010, according to insurance company Munich Re, adding to trends pointing to more frequent and riskier events. "Fire, water, earth and air -- the four basic elements have seldom been so destructive as in 2010," said Torsten Jeworrek, chairman of Munich Re's reinsurance committee in a letter accompanying a new report.

"The overall economic loss amounted to some US$ 150bn, with earthquakes alone accounting for almost one-third of this total," Jeworrek said in the letter. "Altogether, the insurance industry had to shoulder losses in the order of US$ 37bn for natural catastrophes worldwide in 2010."

When all the data are analyzed, 2010 is expected to be among the three warmest years since the World Meteorological Organization started collecting data in 1850. The mean surface temperatures in the first 10 months of 2010 are the warmest on record.

In its report published yesterday, Munich Re found that the 960 natural disasters that resulted in financial losses in 2010 "far exceeded" the number of disasters in recent years. Last year had the second-highest number of "loss-related natural catastrophes" since the insurance company began keeping track in 1980, and natural disasters racked up $2.5 trillion in losses in the past 30 years. At the top of the heap is Hurricane Katrina in 2005, which racked up $145 billion in losses along the Gulf Coast, about half of which had been insured.

Storms create the 'lion's share' of losses

"The insured losses attributable to all 'great' and 'devastating' natural catastrophes amount to roughly US$ 600bn in total [since 1980]," says the report. "Due to the high worldwide insurance penetration for storms, meteorological events account for the lion's share of this total, with 78%."

As a global insurance company, Munich Re has a big stake in protecting against financial risks associated with natural disasters. It also stands to potentially make some money by selling more insurance policies and increasing rates if risks keep growing because climate mitigation and adaptation measures aren't put in place.

more...

http://www.scientifi...imate-disasters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Lift. Cond. (apr) Country: Spain
Timeline

Interesting. I was aware things were getting bad, contrary to what the scientifically illiterate would say. But I am curious what climate change or how a (statistically significant?) study led by insurance companies correlates to politics or religion. This might me more informative, as it was for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: AOS (pnd) Country: Canada
Timeline

Steven's answer: WE NED TO PAY MORE TAXES!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

Of coure, the economic illiterate here wouldn't realize that there are several factors in looking at and calculating how bad natural disasters really are. Things that have to be taken into consideration:

- Records have just gotten good within the last 100+ years on every storm/'disaster' that takes place.

- "Disaster Areas" in the US alone have grown exponentially in the past 15 year all thanks to politics more than anything. The same floods/storms 30 years ago were ignored by the Feds and local communities took care of themselves.

- Population has grown exponentially and ubran areas as well over the past few decades. It only stands to reason that when a disaster strikes, it's going to effect more people and more structures. SO MANY people seem to forget this aspect of things when taking into account the 'effects' of 'climate related' instances.

- Costs have risen exponentially in the past 20 years alone. With the devaluation of the US dollar and many other world currencies, things have become more costly based on the cost of materials, labor, and demand on top of that as well.

Taking those things into consideration, not everything is the 'doom and gloom' that some want to make it out to be. Rational thought gets lost in the process of 'scare tactics' no matter which side of the scientific community you are on. No one truly doubts that climate changes over time, but the ultimate goal by the poster here and a few others is to blame everything but natural occurances that we understand very little about only based on our short-lived record keeping and even limited record keeping as well. -- I mean is it fair to compare the average 'global climite' as the same as 30 years ago when you've added hundreds more monitoring stations in the years prior... Hardly so.


nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Lift. Cond. (apr) Country: Spain
Timeline

By Steven I assume we mean 8TBVBN.

Great post, by the way. Even in the 'economically illiterate' part. The insurance sector by consequence must also be economically illiterate.

The rest is what is probably considered off-off topic economical and political rhetoric, without any actual substantiation.

Nevertheless, mathematical ignorance is displayed in the following sentence:

"I mean is it fair to compare the average 'global climite' as the same as 30 years ago when you've added hundreds more monitoring stations in the years prior..."

This is an assumption that outlier data was more of a factor in the past. This is not the case, and daily average temperature readings exist for more than a century from thousands of measurement stations, giving us a pretty accurate picture of the last century's weather systems. Climate data includes more than just temperature measurements too. Please include those in those incomplete assessments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: AOS (pnd) Country: Canada
Timeline

By Steven I assume we mean 8TBVBN.

Great post, by the way. Even in the 'economically illiterate' part. The insurance sector by consequence must also be economically illiterate.

The rest is what is probably considered off-off topic economical and political rhetoric, without any actual substantiation.

Nevertheless, mathematical ignorance is displayed in the following sentence:

"I mean is it fair to compare the average 'global climite' as the same as 30 years ago when you've added hundreds more monitoring stations in the years prior..."

This is an assumption that outlier data was more of a factor in the past. This is not the case, and daily average temperature readings exist for more than a century from thousands of measurement stations, giving us a pretty accurate picture of the last century's weather systems. Climate data includes more than just temperature measurements too. Please include those in those incomplete assessments.

Climate is more than temperature, yes. However in all arguments sake the same rhetoric is 'average temp has risen, stayed the same, lowered, etc' - Tell the perpetrators there is much more to climate than temperature, then we'll talk.

more than century from thousands of measurement stations? If you know anything on the subject then you know this isn't quite right. First of all being that record keeping was horrible at first and not many were done accurantely, let alone at all, even though it was possible. Within the past century we have gotten better over time, but even today the average daily temperature is somewhat inaccurate because of how the monitors are unevenly dispersed and on top of that where they are. Not to mention the fact that in recent years we take records from less stations than what we used to....

Even after all is said and done, even if the average temp. is rising, hell even if it were cooling, that doesn't account for any 'trend' or reason behind it based off a very limited history/data recordings.

We know that the milky way has always been there because there are records of astronomers/obervers for centuries, but when it comes to things like climte and/or weather even, the only records we have are notations/stories of people who 'braved tough winters' or agonizing heat, etc...


nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Lift. Cond. (apr) Country: Spain
Timeline

Climate is more than temperature, yes. However in all arguments sake the same rhetoric is 'average temp has risen, stayed the same, lowered, etc' - Tell the perpetrators there is much more to climate than temperature, then we'll talk.

more than century from thousands of measurement stations? If you know anything on the subject then you know this isn't quite right. First of all being that record keeping was horrible at first and not many were done accurantely, let alone at all, even though it was possible. Within the past century we have gotten better over time, but even today the average daily temperature is somewhat inaccurate because of how the monitors are unevenly dispersed and on top of that where they are. Not to mention the fact that in recent years we take records from less stations than what we used to....

Even after all is said and done, even if the average temp. is rising, hell even if it were cooling, that doesn't account for any 'trend' or reason behind it based off a very limited history/data recordings.

We know that the milky way has always been there because there are records of astronomers/obervers for centuries, but when it comes to things like climte and/or weather even, the only records we have are notations/stories of people who 'braved tough winters' or agonizing heat, etc...

I think you are missing a much more basic point. Check out any basic stat book. Look up what parameters affect the mean of a set of data. While on that subject, search for statistical rules that allow for the inclusion, or exclusion of available data and their candidacy as outliers. It seems you want to broadbrush as unprecise the measurements from the past, on top of broadbrushing the frequency of data measurement. This is something you probably will want to substantiate with specifics, not general opinions.

Now if you want to label past measurements as anecdotal, so be it, but you'd be making things up.

To point out the trends you'd have to account for all known physical factors involved in said observations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steven's answer: WE NED TO PAY MORE TAXES!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

Of coure, the economic illiterate here wouldn't realize that there are several factors in looking at and calculating how bad natural disasters really are. Things that have to be taken into consideration:

- Records have just gotten good within the last 100+ years on every storm/'disaster' that takes place.

- "Disaster Areas" in the US alone have grown exponentially in the past 15 year all thanks to politics more than anything. The same floods/storms 30 years ago were ignored by the Feds and local communities took care of themselves.

- Population has grown exponentially and ubran areas as well over the past few decades. It only stands to reason that when a disaster strikes, it's going to effect more people and more structures. SO MANY people seem to forget this aspect of things when taking into account the 'effects' of 'climate related' instances.

- Costs have risen exponentially in the past 20 years alone. With the devaluation of the US dollar and many other world currencies, things have become more costly based on the cost of materials, labor, and demand on top of that as well.

Taking those things into consideration, not everything is the 'doom and gloom' that some want to make it out to be. Rational thought gets lost in the process of 'scare tactics' no matter which side of the scientific community you are on. No one truly doubts that climate changes over time, but the ultimate goal by the poster here and a few others is to blame everything but natural occurances that we understand very little about only based on our short-lived record keeping and even limited record keeping as well. -- I mean is it fair to compare the average 'global climite' as the same as 30 years ago when you've added hundreds more monitoring stations in the years prior... Hardly so.

Dead on. 100 years is nothing compared to a planet several billion (1 billion = 1,000,000,000) years old.

As our population grows we move into more and more previously unused land. More people = more claims = more $


"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies."

Senator Barack Obama
Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
March 16, 2006



barack-cowboy-hat.jpg
90f.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Isle of Man
Timeline

Dead on. 100 years is nothing compared to a planet several billion (1 billion = 1,000,000,000) years old.

As our population grows we move into more and more previously unused land. More people = more claims = more $

That is like saying "you believe those scientists and what they have said over the last 100 years. I don't believe them. 100 years is nothing compared to a planet 4.5 billion years old"


India, gun buyback and steamroll.

qVVjt.jpg?3qVHRo.jpg?1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Other Country: Russia
Timeline

Dead on. 100 years is nothing compared to a planet several billion (1 billion = 1,000,000,000) years old.

As our population grows we move into more and more previously unused land. More people = more claims = more $

Why do people always bring up 4 billion years ago anyway? How is temperature from 4 billion or 2 billion or 10 million years ago relevent when humans didn't even exist then.

The argument is that humans are contributing to and accelarating this. The time frame is the start of the industrial revolution and there is fairly accurate data for more than half of that period. Statistically that is a pretty good sample and thats why the concensus on this is overwhelmingly one sided (among actual scientists) world wide.


QCjgyJZ.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Ukraine
Timeline

That settles it. Insurance companies are always right, even more right than scientists. Steven always does what insurance companies say.


VERMONT! I Reject Your Reality...and Substitute My Own!

Gary And Alla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Lift. Cond. (apr) Country: Spain
Timeline

Why do people always bring up 4 billion years ago anyway? How is temperature from 4 billion or 2 billion or 10 million years ago relevent when humans didn't even exist then.

The argument is that humans are contributing to and accelarating this. The time frame is the start of the industrial revolution and there is fairly accurate data for more than half of that period. Statistically that is a pretty good sample and thats why the concensus on this is overwhelmingly one sided (among actual scientists) world wide.

Scientists AND insurance entities?

The whole cap and trade granny killing Obama administration thing is for real apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...