A total of 950 natural catastrophes were recorded last year by the major re-insurance company MunichRe. The company says nine-tenths of the incidents were weather-related events like storms and floods. This total made 2010 the year with the second-highest number of natural catastrophes since 1980, markedly exceeding the annual average for the last ten years (785 events per year).
The overall losses amounted to around US$ 130bn, of which approximately US$ 37bn was insured. This puts 2010 among the six most loss-intensive years for the insurance industry since 1980. The level of overall losses was slightly above the high average of the past ten years.
“2010 showed the major risks we have to cope with. There were a number of severe earthquakes. The hurricane season was also eventful – it was just fortunate that the tracks of most of the storms remained over the open sea. But things could have turned out very differently”, said Torsten Jeworrek, Munich Re’s Reinsurance CEO. “The severe earthquakes and the hurricane season with so many storms demonstrate once again that there must be no slackening of our efforts to analyse these risks in detail and provide the necessary insurance covers at adequate prices. These prices calculated by the insurance industry make it possible to assess the economic consequences of these otherwise difficult-to-evaluate risks.”
In all, there were five catastrophes last year assignable to the top category of “great natural catastrophes” based on the definition criteria of the United Nations: the earthquakes in Haiti (12 January), Chile (27 February) and central China (13 April), the heatwave in Russia (July to September), and the floods in Pakistan (also July to September). These accounted for the major share of fatalities in 2010 (around 295,000) and just under half the overall losses caused by natural catastrophes.
One of the most devastating earthquakes in the history of the past 100 years, the quake in Haiti on 12 January killed more than 220,000 people. Only the 1976 Tangshan earthquake in China claimed more lives (242,000). Whilst the earthquake in Haiti resulted in human tragedy on a staggering scale, it gave rise to only negligible losses for the insurance industry, as is so often the case in developing countries.
Five-hundred times more energy than in the Haiti quake was released by the earthquake that hit Chile just over a month later. With overall losses of US$ 30bn and insured losses of US$ 8bn, this quake was last year’s most expensive natural catastrophe. Chile is a highly developed country with very strict building codes to take account of the high earthquake exposure. As a result, there were comparatively few human casualties, despite the severity of the quake – the fifth-strongest ever measured – although people were killed in Chile, too.
In the summer, floods following extreme monsoon rainfall had devastating consequences in Pakistan. For weeks, up to one-quarter of the country was flooded. Countless people lost all their worldly possessions. The overall loss totalled US$ 9.5bn – an extremely high amount for Pakistan’s emerging economy.
A widescale catastrophe also resulted from the heatwave in Russia and neighbouring countries between July and September. Many places, including Moscow, experienced record temperatures. In some regions of central Russia, they exceeded 30°C for two months on end. Forests burned, with the fires threatening nuclear facilities and areas where the ground had been contaminated by radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. At least 56,000 people died as a result of heat and air pollution, making it the most deadly natural disaster in Russia’s history.
The hurricane season in the North Atlantic was benign – but only at first glance. Favourable weather patterns meant that the US coast was not hit by a single hurricane. In Mexico, however, a few storms caused substantial damage. Otherwise, the tropical cyclones turned away in a northeasterly direction over the sea, only grazing some islands in the Caribbean.
But what appeared benign was, in terms of the number and intensity of the storms, one of the severest hurricane seasons of the past 100 years. Altogether, there were 19 named tropical cyclones, equalling the number recorded in 1995 and putting 2010 in joint third place after 2005 (28) and 1933 (21). Twelve of the storms attained hurricane strength, with five of these falling into the top hurricane categories (wind speeds over 178 km/h). This means the forecasts of various institutes about the number of storms turned out to be very accurate. “The number of storms was indeed well above average. It is just that it is impossible to forecast whether and where such storms will make landfall”, said Prof. Peter Höppe, Head of Munich Re’s Geo Risks Research.
Right at the start of the 2010 hurricane season, the water temperatures in the tropical North Atlantic were up to 2°C above the long-term mean – and thus significantly higher than the level to be expected for the cyclical warm phase in the North Atlantic that has persisted since 1995. The water temperatures thus provided ideal conditions for the occurrence and high intensity of hurricanes. As from the beginning of August, atmospheric conditions also favoured the occurrence of Atlantic tropical cyclones (“La Niña” conditions).
“That is in line with the trend of the past 30 years, in which all ocean basins show an increase in water temperatures. This long-term trend can no longer be explained by natural climate oscillations alone. No, the probability is that climate change is contributing to some of the warming of the world’s oceans”, said Höppe. “This influence will increase further and, together with the continuing natural warm phase in the North Atlantic, is likely to mean a further high level of hurricane activity in the coming years.”
10 Comments
And the terrifying part of this analysis is that it doesn’t include the cost of the QLD floods… the severity of which has probably been contributed to by climate change (increased precipitation from the hot-house effect).
Catastrophic man-made global warming in the troposphere is now increasing the frequency and severity of earthquakes!!!!!
Oh and Richiebabe …….. it’s not catastrophic ‘global warming’ anymore ok?
It’s catastrophic…..wait-for-it… ‘man-made’ ‘climate change’.
That covers all eventualities….(well except earthquakes)…… too hot/cold/wet/dry …etc
If you watched the ABC news flood report (4/1/12) you would have noted that the flood levels are almost as high as 1991 and not as high as 1954. Therefore, how can it be said that this year’s flood is at all linked to a climate change?
Sorry, meant 4/1/11.
JamesK, do you intend to present any credible argument to support your position?
We have a credible article which very relevantly points out that large insurers who have significant resources at their disposal and much to lose from climate change (and it is climate CHANGE not just warming, scientific predictions are that overall warming will affect the climate in a whole range of ways, including colder extremes in some places) have accepted the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and human activity is almost certainly to blame.
You criticise the article on absolutely no basis. As it stands, your contribution to this forum is zero.
JamesK, everyone but you knows that the language change from “global warming” to “climate change” was a deliberate Republican strategy to make the issue sound less scary. It’s written in a memo from Frank Luntz, Republican PR expert, to President Bush’s re-election committee:
“It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation.
“Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”. As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.”
source: http://lightbucket.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/pr-versus-science-the-luntz-memo/
It is true, however, that global warming will make the weather increasingly chaotic, and will lead to more droughts in some areas and more rain in others as climate patterns shift. This is hardly suprising.
Though it doesn’t have any effect on earthquakes it’s worth noting that global warming will make tsunamis (which often result from earthquakes) more damaging as they are boosted by sea level rise and therefore reach further inland.
Like it or not, the world’s climate is changing. In general, the inhabitants of the Earth has a much better time when it’s warmer, and there have been other periods in Earth’s history when it happened. What alarms the scientist is the rate at which the change is occurring, and what used to take thousands of years are now occuring over a decade. The only event which seems to explain this is the increased amount of green house gases in the atmosphere.
Maybe there are just more people living in more areas. Some people say that the 2009 fires in Victoria that destroyed towns and killed 173 people were in some way a result of climate change/ global warming. Almost 430,000 hectares of land were directly affected during these ‘Black Saturday’ fires.
This assumption ignores history. In 1851 there was a major bush fire. 5 million hectares were affected! Over 4.5 million hectares more than in 2009. 12 people lost their lives and 1 million sheep and thousands of cows were killed.
The 2009 fires didn’t kill more people because it was a bigger fire caused by global warming. It destroyed whole towns and killed a lot more people than in 1851, despite being 10 times smaller than the 1851 fire, because in 1851 nobody lived there!
Don’t take my word for it http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/dse/nrenfoe.nsf/childdocs/-D79E4FB0C437E1B6CA256DA60008B9EF?open
The Boxing Day tsunami was a similar story (again not caused by global warming). A lot of the places that were hit by it were not populated 50 or 100 years ago.
I just read that, despite warnings from early Aboriginal people, many Australian towns were founded on flood plains. Hmmm……
Also, local councils are starting (better late than never) to map “100-year flood areas so that the extent of the flood plain can be mapped for town planning, building regulations and zoning for land use to avoid building on flood-prone areas.” Good idea ne?
Some people have started saying that the current Queensland flood has something to do with global warming but data from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. In the Brisbane/ Ipswich area, during the 60 years between 1940 and 1900 there were 17 floods that were classified as “major” (ie over 12m in Ipswich/ 3.5m in Brisbane). This can be compared to the 100 years of the 20th century where there were 13 “major” floods.