2011 the most expensive year for natural disasters in history
An exceptional accumulation of very severe natural catastrophes, including earthquakes in Japan and New Zealand, tornadoes and flooding in the U.S., and flooding in Australia and New Zealand, make 2011 the highest-ever loss year on record, even after the first half-year, said re-insurance giant Munich Re in a press release this week. The $265 billion in economic losses accumulated this year exceeds the previous record year, 2005, which had $220 billion in damage (mostly due to $125 billion in damage from Hurricane Katrina.) Unlike 2005, this year's losses have been headlined by two huge earthquakes--the March 11 quake in Japan ($210 billion) and the February 22 quake in New Zealand ($20 billion.) But with the Northern Hemisphere's hurricane season just beginning, this year's record losses may see a significant boost from hurricanes.
Figure 1. Stunned survivors survey the destruction left by the EF-4 Tuscaloosa-Birmingham tornado of April. With a price tag estimated at $2 billion, this was the single most expensive tornado of all-time. The record stood only three weeks, being surpassed by the $3 billion in damage from the Joplin Missouri, tornado. The two tornado outbreaks that spawned these tornadoes rank as the globe's 3rd and 5th most destructive natural disasters so far this year. Image from an anonmous posting to Twitter.
Climate change and damage from weather-related disasters
In an interview with MSNBC, Peter Hoppe, who runs Munich Re's Geo Risks Research/Corporate Climate Center, said that while the damage trend for earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions is fairly stable, damage from severe weather events is on the upswing, even after factoring in increases in population and wealth. He cited natural events such as La Niña and El Niño as factors in some of the damaging weather events, but added that warming temperatures appear to be adding a layer "on top" of that natural variability. In particular, he noted that the floods this January in Australia--that nation's most expensive natural disaster of all time--occurred when ocean temperatures off the coast were at record warm levels. That meant "more evaporation and higher potential for these extreme downpours", and "it can only be explained by global warming."
Figure 2. The five most expensive natural disasters of 2011, as estimated by Munich Re.
However, the there is a lot of controversy on whether economic losses due to weather-related disasters is increasing due to climate change. A 2010 paper in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society by Netherlands researcher Laurens Bouwer titled, "Have disaster losses increased due to anthropogenic climate change?", looked at 22 disaster loss studies in various parts of the world. All of the studies showed an increase in damages from weather-related disasters in recent decades. The big question is, how much of this increase in damage was due to increases in population, and the fact people are getting wealthier, and thus have more stuff to get damaged? Fourteen of the 22 studies concluded that there were no trends in damage after correcting for increases in wealth and population, while eight of the studies did find upward trends even after such corrections. In all 22 studies, increases in wealth and population were the "most important drivers for growing disaster losses."
Bouwer's review of these 22 disaster loss studies was critiqued this year by Neville Nicholls of the School of Geography and Environmental Science of Montash University, Australia. His analysis, published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, notes that Bouwer's study of damage losses did not include the impact of improvements in building codes and weather forecasting. We can expect both factors to have significantly reduced damages due to storms in recent years. Nicholls concludes, "The absence of an upward trend in normalized losses may be due to a balance between reduced vulnerability (from improved weather forecasting and building techniques) and increased frequency or intensity of weather hazards." In his reply to Nicholls' comments, Bouwer states that Nicholls "provides no support that these factors have actually contributed to a substantial reduction in losses over the period of the last decades."
Jeff Masters
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 — Blog Index
None of the reliable models predict tropical cyclone development over the next seven days.
Jeff Masters
Looks like the center of the prediction cone has Ma-on making landfall on the HamaokaNuclearPowerPlant, 116miles(~186kilometres)SouthWest of centralTokyo
Hamaoka shown as the left end of the red connection-bar, centralTokyo as the right end
I beg to differ.
That all goes into the what is considered south, central, and north florida debate.
I like the Integrated Kinetic Energy scale..it better
descibes the damage potential..of course most laymen will continue to focus on Saffir-Simpson values
Glad to see jeff and dewey show today..need some humor on here
STS-135 Execute Packages,› Flight Day 7 (694 Kb PDF)
I just did.
If your being specific to your exact location you'll have to elaborate. Jeanne made landfall in East Central FL as a CAT 3, period.
Ondoy: tropical storm but est. 200 fatalities and flooding
There should be a rainfall scale which is similar to SS scale for us to prepare for floods.
A building low level ridge N of the boundary will keep this area in a fairly stable NE flow regime and will also provide dry air subsidence associated with the very strong upper ridge centered over the middle of the country. May just end up with a trough across FL from NE to SW.
Moisture for meaningful development affecting land dwellers may be lacking.
GFS Forecast Soundings @ 72 hrs (00Z Monday) for St Simmons Island, GA and Jacksonville, FL showing some dry air in the mid/lower levels.
click to open in new window
Was curious what this graphic shows? Thanks!!!
It's pretty far south, but not too far south, and looks to me as if it might be starting to get a little bit of rotation to it.
Link
Yup. The SSHS totally sucks we need a rainfall scale
Who's with me?
Did you believe it when they said another hurricane was hitting the same spot 3 weeks apart?
That's quite a distance from the landfall location if your talking up by Cocoa.
No I didn't but, I quickly realized when I had to rehang the plywood on my Uncles two story house, lol. I had just moved there in 02, Frances was my first. I hated that storm....
000
FXUS62 KMFL 151415
AFDMFL
AREA FORECAST DISCUSSION
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE MIAMI FL
THE SHORT RANGE
MODELS ARE ALSO SHOWING THAT A WEAK LOW COULD DEVELOP ALONG THE
TROUGH OF LOW PRESSURE ON SATURDAY AND DRIFT WEST INTO CENTRAL
FLORIDA ON SUNDAY. IF THIS HAPPENS...THEN THE SURFACE WINDS WILL
BECOME MORE SOUTHWEST OVER THE CWA FOCUSING THE CONVECTION OVER
THE EASTERN AREAS OF THE CWA. SO AT THIS TIME WILL INCREASE THE
POPS A LITTLE BIT BUT STILL REMAIN BELOW THE GUIDANCE POPS
ESPECIALLY FOR THE EAST COAST AREAS UNTIL THERE IS A PRECEDENT IN
THE MODELS SHOWING THE LOW DEVELOPING OVER THE WEEKEND.
haha I see... basically is it moisture in the air?
Do you live in or near Port St Lucy? If not you probably didn't experience the highest winds. It sounds like you were just far away from the landfall location. It doesn't have to hit you to be considered east central Florida..
I hate them all.
It looks like everyone in Maine flushed their toilet at once... O.O
I don't think you will see a lot of rain from this, doggie. And I will easily be able to explain why if you do...I was wrong.
Wow! That high pressure looks like "Gandalf of the Gulf": "None shall pass!" If anything gets turning in the CATL, it has no where to go but Central America.
Different disturbance. A somewhat stationary mid level vort max and the frontal boundary. Movement, if any, should be slowly west. But a rainmaker for sure.
It made landfall there as a major. It doesn't mater what the winds were where you lived. It made landfall as a major Cat. 3.
sad...so very, very sad...I want rain...you won't be wrong.
Who banned the Wave that was supposed to bring me some rain???
Yesterday it was looking fine, and now it's been minussed!
Please put it back where you found it!!
It is getting a little too dry around here at 11n 61w.
nice link
Viewing: 801 - 851
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 — Blog Index