Okinawa is hit several times a year by typhoons. Which is what they call a hurricane in the Pacific. But almost every building on Okinawa is made of reinforced concrete and raised above the storm surge. Catastrophe hurricane damage is almost unknown. Florida just needs to improve their building codes.
I presume the $266.9 billion estimate of the 1926 hurricane in 2023 reflects the actual windspeed and trak characteristics of that storm, coupled with a damage algorithm, applied to the current inventory of structures. An appropriate calculation, but I think it understates the strength of the 1926 hurricane. The inventory of structures reflects buildings built to the constraints of the building code at the time of construction, rather than the building codes in effect in 1926. While we might not literally be able to accommodate the current population with buildings constructed to 1926 or earlier building codes, I think the thought experiment is sufficient to suggest that the hurricane in 1926 was quite severe.
If that thought experiment doesn't work for you, try the reverse. Assume the population of Miami in 1926 was exactly as it was, but all of the buildings reflected current building codes. The costs in 1926 would've been substantially smaller than as reported.
I live in Maui and am responsible for purchasing insurance coverage for a luxury 130-unit condominium complex. Over the past two years our costs have increased over 12% annually and many carriers are dropping coverage, or out of the Hawaii market completely. This has less to do with hurricane or tsunami risk and more with financial cycles in the industry and adverse liability judgements from the courts.
Can I assume the normalized damage estimate for Miami Beach is based in part on the fact that so much of the area is now filled with structures built in the decades right after the 1926 storm, and is functionally just as vulnerable compared to today's far stricter Florida construction standards?
In other words, is Miami (particularly Miami Beach) extra vulnerable today to some remarkably expensive damage because it hasn't really taken a bad punch in almost a century and many if its now pricey homes are disproportionately older & easier to knock down than what would replace them?
And if so, do the economic damages start to decline over the long term, say a century, because the storms have wiped out all the vulnerable old buildings and the newer stuff is too resilient to destroy?
I was in Venice 10 days after Ian and it was remarkable how hard it waa to spot damage to younger stuff, while clearly 50+ year old structures nearby were sometimes totally gone.
I read your post before adding my recent thought, but I reread it after adding my thought andrealized I hadn't fully appreciated your point. I do agree that the high cost of the normalized damage estimate incorporates the fact that substantial portions of Miami were rebuilt shortly after that storm, and those structures were built with building codes almost a century old. That said, still think it's true that the comparison of normalized image underestimates the absolute strength of the storm.
Kinda weird how the catastrophe cult doesn’t notice that the storms, even IF they were slowly increasing in average intensity, will never be able to outpace what is already some miraculous structural engineering that is rapidly getting better & better.
150 years from now people might just stay home & make a party out of watching the cat 5 roll through town.
As always well presented and argued. Still I think it is a hard sell to what you call the legacy media, they appear to be too deep into the illusjon they have built.
I know this is a bit outside your field, but I think still related. While the cost of damages is rising due to the overall rise in wealth, it sees to me that human casualties from natural disasters has much more to do with lack of wealth, and with how politics keep some from rising out of poverty. Have you looked into such issues?
By using the word "yet" NOAA obfuscates and sets the expectation that with enough time (and money) they'll show what everyone already knows.
"[F]or Atlantic hurricane activity, the attribution observed changes to increasing greenhouse gases is not yet assessed as highly confident,..............."
Great point. I remember my adviser telling me to remove “yet” from one of my papers. His point was simple -- how could I be sure that something would happen in the future?
Andy, I immediately noticed on your complexity list, “No, it’s a condition to manage, not a problem to solve.” This stands out to me, because climate policy experts almost universally frame climate change as an empirically defined problem that ‘we’ urgently need to solve, even if we need to sacrifice the resilience of the poor to prioritize mitigation.
You are obviously a very charitable person with your all-inclusive approach. But, I infer from your writings that you sense that perhaps the most likely scenario is that humanity is going to experience anthropogenic climate change, however that predicament evolves. So, a person like you, who is both well-informed and a Mensch, is going to see that resilience among the energy poor is where the moral focus should be, the Pope not-withstanding.
Currently the study that I'm trying to use for contrasting perceptions of climate risk vs the science is the flooding study that was reported as saying 175 million will be flooded yearly in 2100
The number is a reference value for what would happen if the entire world halted all construction of dikes and flood preventing infrastructure. I believe it's also the value for the total sea rise and not just warming related. This is not a number the study's authors were presenting as possible in any way
The lowest number of people flooded yearly was predicted to be 5000, with maximum flood prevention infrastructure costing a fraction of a percent of GDP. One thing I think I'll look for in the study is if there is a mid range that is considered highest probability
The fact that the media headlines were not just reporting the highest credible prediction but actually an alternate universe number that the study only used for reference to how much population would theoretically be exposed to flooding is very dramatic and clear cut. I can ask if someone's heard the 175 million number and tell them there is a much higher likelihood of it being 5000
I'm not sure how well it works but I try to explain it as an escalator. There's the core study value of the likely range of a cost of global warming, then there's the summary where the authors are likely to emphasize the highest prediction to get attention and citations. Finally there's the media headlines that will exclusively report the highest prediction, if not something that the study doesn't even actually say. The media has the highest pressure and skill to create a good headline and the near imaginary headlines resulting from all the various studies become what people think is actually happening
Okinawa is hit several times a year by typhoons. Which is what they call a hurricane in the Pacific. But almost every building on Okinawa is made of reinforced concrete and raised above the storm surge. Catastrophe hurricane damage is almost unknown. Florida just needs to improve their building codes.
Thanks for sharing this info as I like to share with friends and family who most time only see headlines or biased reporting or articles.
I presume the $266.9 billion estimate of the 1926 hurricane in 2023 reflects the actual windspeed and trak characteristics of that storm, coupled with a damage algorithm, applied to the current inventory of structures. An appropriate calculation, but I think it understates the strength of the 1926 hurricane. The inventory of structures reflects buildings built to the constraints of the building code at the time of construction, rather than the building codes in effect in 1926. While we might not literally be able to accommodate the current population with buildings constructed to 1926 or earlier building codes, I think the thought experiment is sufficient to suggest that the hurricane in 1926 was quite severe.
If that thought experiment doesn't work for you, try the reverse. Assume the population of Miami in 1926 was exactly as it was, but all of the buildings reflected current building codes. The costs in 1926 would've been substantially smaller than as reported.
I was interested in the recent NYT article linking climate change with insurance unaffordability: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/31/climate/climate-change-insurance-wildfires-california.html?searchResultPosition=5
I live in Maui and am responsible for purchasing insurance coverage for a luxury 130-unit condominium complex. Over the past two years our costs have increased over 12% annually and many carriers are dropping coverage, or out of the Hawaii market completely. This has less to do with hurricane or tsunami risk and more with financial cycles in the industry and adverse liability judgements from the courts.
Can I assume the normalized damage estimate for Miami Beach is based in part on the fact that so much of the area is now filled with structures built in the decades right after the 1926 storm, and is functionally just as vulnerable compared to today's far stricter Florida construction standards?
In other words, is Miami (particularly Miami Beach) extra vulnerable today to some remarkably expensive damage because it hasn't really taken a bad punch in almost a century and many if its now pricey homes are disproportionately older & easier to knock down than what would replace them?
And if so, do the economic damages start to decline over the long term, say a century, because the storms have wiped out all the vulnerable old buildings and the newer stuff is too resilient to destroy?
I was in Venice 10 days after Ian and it was remarkable how hard it waa to spot damage to younger stuff, while clearly 50+ year old structures nearby were sometimes totally gone.
Ken,
I read your post before adding my recent thought, but I reread it after adding my thought andrealized I hadn't fully appreciated your point. I do agree that the high cost of the normalized damage estimate incorporates the fact that substantial portions of Miami were rebuilt shortly after that storm, and those structures were built with building codes almost a century old. That said, still think it's true that the comparison of normalized image underestimates the absolute strength of the storm.
Spot on 👍
Kinda weird how the catastrophe cult doesn’t notice that the storms, even IF they were slowly increasing in average intensity, will never be able to outpace what is already some miraculous structural engineering that is rapidly getting better & better.
150 years from now people might just stay home & make a party out of watching the cat 5 roll through town.
As always well presented and argued. Still I think it is a hard sell to what you call the legacy media, they appear to be too deep into the illusjon they have built.
I know this is a bit outside your field, but I think still related. While the cost of damages is rising due to the overall rise in wealth, it sees to me that human casualties from natural disasters has much more to do with lack of wealth, and with how politics keep some from rising out of poverty. Have you looked into such issues?
Yes, I agree.
By using the word "yet" NOAA obfuscates and sets the expectation that with enough time (and money) they'll show what everyone already knows.
"[F]or Atlantic hurricane activity, the attribution observed changes to increasing greenhouse gases is not yet assessed as highly confident,..............."
Good catch!
Great point. I remember my adviser telling me to remove “yet” from one of my papers. His point was simple -- how could I be sure that something would happen in the future?
The vocal alarmists in the climate science community have succeeded in reversing the null hypothesis in the mainstream narrative.
Thank you for summarizing what’s known about hurricanes!
It’s not just the media that don’t have their facts right on hurricanes but also the constellation of climate NGOs. Some people are labeled “climate deniers” for the sin of correctly quoting the IPCC and NOAA: https://open.substack.com/pub/debunkingthedebunkers/p/false-climate-denial-2-caad-and-john
Indeed
Glad you're trying, but newsroom #narrativecapture around severe weather is a hard thing to overcome. #climaterisk is mostly not from #climatechange. More from me here: https://revkin.substack.com/i/120351651/shift-the-focus-from-climate-change-to-climate-risk
Andy, I immediately noticed on your complexity list, “No, it’s a condition to manage, not a problem to solve.” This stands out to me, because climate policy experts almost universally frame climate change as an empirically defined problem that ‘we’ urgently need to solve, even if we need to sacrifice the resilience of the poor to prioritize mitigation.
You are obviously a very charitable person with your all-inclusive approach. But, I infer from your writings that you sense that perhaps the most likely scenario is that humanity is going to experience anthropogenic climate change, however that predicament evolves. So, a person like you, who is both well-informed and a Mensch, is going to see that resilience among the energy poor is where the moral focus should be, the Pope not-withstanding.
Currently the study that I'm trying to use for contrasting perceptions of climate risk vs the science is the flooding study that was reported as saying 175 million will be flooded yearly in 2100
The number is a reference value for what would happen if the entire world halted all construction of dikes and flood preventing infrastructure. I believe it's also the value for the total sea rise and not just warming related. This is not a number the study's authors were presenting as possible in any way
The lowest number of people flooded yearly was predicted to be 5000, with maximum flood prevention infrastructure costing a fraction of a percent of GDP. One thing I think I'll look for in the study is if there is a mid range that is considered highest probability
The fact that the media headlines were not just reporting the highest credible prediction but actually an alternate universe number that the study only used for reference to how much population would theoretically be exposed to flooding is very dramatic and clear cut. I can ask if someone's heard the 175 million number and tell them there is a much higher likelihood of it being 5000
I'm not sure how well it works but I try to explain it as an escalator. There's the core study value of the likely range of a cost of global warming, then there's the summary where the authors are likely to emphasize the highest prediction to get attention and citations. Finally there's the media headlines that will exclusively report the highest prediction, if not something that the study doesn't even actually say. The media has the highest pressure and skill to create a good headline and the near imaginary headlines resulting from all the various studies become what people think is actually happening