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.
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,..............."
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.
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,..............."
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
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