Insurance Company Ranks 2010 among Worst Years Ever for Climate Disasters

[one...two...tree 2,762]

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

[Ban Hammer 12,840]

[Zero Sum 305]

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.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

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

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.

[Zero Sum 305]

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.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

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...

[^_^ 5,021]

If you know anything on the subject then you know this isn't quite right.

Zero Sum's lack of scientific bona fides is obvious. Thanks for pointing this out.

[Zero Sum 305]

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.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

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

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 $

[mawilson 2,133]

2010 was worse than 2005 when Katrina devastated the gulf coast?

(Unless you count the BP oil spill as a "climate disaster" which it wasn't.)

[웃 910]

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"

[Dakine10 5,452]

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.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

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

[Zero Sum 305]

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.

[mawilson 2,133]

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