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
LOL I'll be keeping an eye on it.
Maybe I should clarify. There is a good chance of rain along the frontal boundary/leftover surface trough extending to the west. Maybe not so much of a tropical rainmaker for JAX.
Storm, you should not spam your own website.
I think I just broke the + key.
Oh my, LOL
wait?? I miss the legend?
Hey Bob, I haven't seen you on WU much lately. Welcome back! You are just in time for the Cape Verde fireworks to start.
How can you tell?
Thee eye of Ma-on will apear in an hour or two.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I remember correctly, that isn't showing water temps so much, but moisture content in the air, so that would be really moist air coming down.
Hurricane Jeanne 2004
Jeanne formed from a tropical wave, becoming a tropical depression on September 13 near the Leeward Islands, and strengthening to a tropical storm the next day. Moving west-northwestward, Jeanne struck Puerto Rico on the 15th with 70 m.p.h. winds and then strengthened to a hurricane just before making landfall in the Dominican Republic. Jeanne spent nearly 36 hours over the rough terrain of Hispaniola, generating torrential rainfall before emerging into the Atlantic north of the island. Steering currents in the western Atlantic were weak, and Jeanne moved slowly through and north of the southeastern Bahamas over the next five days while it gradually regained the strength it had lost over Hispaniola. By the 23rd , high pressure had built in over the northeastern United States and western Atlantic, causing Jeanne to turn westward. Jeanne strengthened and became a major hurricane on the 25th while the center moved over Abaco and then Grand Bahama Island. Early on the 26th , the center of Jeanne's 60-mile-wide eye crossed the Florida coast near Stuart, at virtually the identical spot that Frances had come ashore three weeks earlier. Maximum winds at the time of landfall are estimated to be near 120 m.p.h.
Jeanne weakened as it moved across central Florida, becoming a tropical storm during the afternoon of the 26th near Tampa, and then weakening to a depression a day later over central Georgia. The depression was still accompanied by heavy rain when it moved over the Carolinas, Virginia, and the Delmarva Peninsula on the 28th and 29th before becoming extratropical.
Live in Port St Lucie, was here for Jeanne and her predecessor, Frances. Could have been alot worse, but it wasn't alot of fun. The winds around the center at landfall were 120mph, major hurricane status, was pretty wild. Not trying to rub it in, just educate. For what it's worth. Mel
David 1979
Your correct that no major has made land fall up your way however, you need to be more specific than ECentral FL because that covers a couple hundred miles.
1893 Sea Islands Hurricane
Actually ended up hitting Georgia but still skirted the Florida coast as a category 3.
You are right! Check this out..
Link
Givin it only goes through the first part of '04, but it is all of the majors to hit Florida.
Exactly. Guess he's gotta generate traffic somehow.
Very true, and thanks for reminding me about the storm surge factoid.
Which I had seen that map 9 years ago when I made the decision to move here, lol.
Viewing: 851 - 891
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 — Blog Index