Natural disasters caused big losses for insurers in 2010
The catastrophes show evidence of climate change, reinsurer Munich Re says.
by the Associated Press, The Los Angeles Times, January 4, 2011Leading reinsurer Munich Re said Monday that extreme natural catastrophes in 2010 led to the sixth-highest total loss for insurers since 1980 and showed evidence of climate change.
Severe earthquakes, floods and heat waves last year led to $37 billion in insured losses, according to Munich Re's annual review. Total economic losses, included those not covered by insurance, rose to $130 billion from $50 billion in 2009.
Altogether, 950 natural catastrophes were recorded last year, including floods in Pakistan, a heat wave in Russia and major quakes in Haiti, Chile and central China.
The events caused an exceptionally high number of fatalities, according to Munich Re. More than 220,000 people were killed in the Haiti earthquake, and at least 56,000 died in the Russian heat wave.
Out of the last 100 years, 2010 was one of the most intense for storms, with 12 of 19 tropical cyclones attaining hurricane strength. Floods caused by monsoons in Pakistan caused $9.5 billion in damage.
Out of the last 100 years, 2010 was one of the most intense for storms, with 12 of 19 tropical cyclones attaining hurricane strength. Floods caused by monsoons in Pakistan caused $9.5 billion in damage.
"The high number of weather-related natural catastrophes and record temperatures both globally and in different regions of the world provide further indications of advancing climate change," Munich Re said in a statement.
The company also mentioned the volcano Eyjafjallajokull, which erupted in Iceland in April, bringing European air traffic to a standstill. Interruptions in deliveries meant that the event ended up costing billions of dollars.
Posts
4 comments:
."The high number of weather-related natural catastrophes and record temperatures both globally and in different regions of the world provide further indications of advancing climate change,"
That is correct. But natural catstrophes and record temperatures are merely evidence of climate change only, they are not evidence that CO2 is the cause.
Cheers.
Yeah, I know.
It's probably just cosmic rays.
Cheers.
Anonymous, you are completely incorrect. We know exactly the sources of the warming. We know what percentage is from solar influence, what percentage from CO2. We can identify the types of CO2, so know their sources, and we know the heat rapping properties of the various pars of the system. And, we can also test for the effects of non-CO2 drivers. One of the ways to do this is to remove CO2's effects and them measure. Surprise, surprise! There is no warming when GHG's are removed from the analysis.
So, by direct measurement of various parts of the system AND by subtraction we know GHGs are the primary cause of increasing warming.
You are fortunate Tenney allows falsehoods to be posted. On my blog the lies told by denialists are not allowed to stand. Legitimate questions of science, yes. Lies? No.
Thank you Killian!
Post a Comment