Roger, this is excellent information. Thanks a million for showing it to us. The mischief of the "climate change did it" excuse is that nobody is held to account for preventable aspects of any event which result from negligence or fecklessness.
We live in FL. The growth in our overall population is very well documented. That much of this growth is in coastal areas most prone to hurricane damage is obvious to anyone who cares to look. What this means is that losses will continue to rise as population continues to flee states like CA.
The right way is to ask via a model that links CO2 accumulations to geophysical outcomes, how different accumulations of CO2, different emissions of net CO2 in the past, lead to differences in the probability distributions of geophysical outcomes today. What is the difference in the probability distributions with and without those changes? It is the difference in probability distributions that enable saying that the probability of a geophysical event (in the case of the LA fires, a particular combination of drought and winds etc.) is p1 in distribution 1 and p2 in distribution 2 and so we can “attribute” the probability p2-p1 to the difference in the past emissions.
How changes in probabilities of economic (and insurance) losses is a subsequent step.
Neither Munich Re nor Swiss Re explain this very well.
Thanks - a fascinating post and a welcome voice of sanity amidst the hysteria: eg the FT Weekend headline: “Fire Fight California death toll rises as world breaches key warming threshold “.
You might want to share this post with The Editors of The Free Press who infer - in their January 9th piece 'Paradise Lost' - that climate change is a significant proximate contributer to the Los Angeles wildfire disaster.
The Free Press just published a piece from Newsweek titled "Stop blaming politicians. L.A. was built to burn."
I didn't (couldn't) read the article, but it's headline is so stupid I doubt it's worth reading. SoCal has always had wildfires, but don't blame politicians when they cut the firefighting budges and empty the reservoirs.
I gave up on the FP over a year ago because they were trafficking in rumors like you would find in the NYT. Now they've become apologists for the Dem establishment. And Bari Weiss has a slobbering love affair with Trump hating Peggy Noonan.
The article didn't neglect the egregious failures of city & state leadership. He simply pointed out that these failures fit into the known fire risks created by building in fire-prone locations.
That is actually the same Newsweek piece I link in this post by Leighton Woodhouse. I suggest looking past the headline (which he surely did not write, and reading his excellent essay!
My reaction is... Duh. Everyone knows this, yet fire mitigation and water management have been terrible in LA and the whole state. This is going to be the most costly fire in US history, though as you say we need to look at fire data to get a valid comparison.
This analysis puts the lie to the justification for the UN "Loss and Damage Fund". The loss and damage for which they seek compensation is not caused by climate change and not demonstrably worsened by climate change.
I personally would like to see a ‘Darwin Clause’ in all insurance weather-disaster claims. How much is poor siting, inadequate protection, substandard construction, and a couple more, human cause through neglect or arsonists. It’s always been too easy to blame god for problem mankind could have planned for.
According to derived data up to 75% of global wildfires are caused by humans. When factoring in other factors such as lightning, poor power line maintenence inadequate land use practices and general incompetence (Maui) the percentage is as high as 90 percent.
If I were a suspicious person, I would say Munich Re, is using political fear mongering to build the foundation of price gouging approved by politicians. If I were a suspicious person.
Outstanding post, sir. Thank you. First, a question. Your chart shows "average annual global insured losses." In this instance, is "average" a correct modifier, or should it be "total?" Average of what? Doesn't make sense to me.
That said, it would also be interesting to chart the increase in global GDP over the same period and compare them to the losses to see if trendlines are parallel, or to show divergence in trend lines. Ideally, a smaller slope in of the insured losses would indicate adaption and resilience is increasing (as well as forecasting and preparedness).
Roger, this is excellent information. Thanks a million for showing it to us. The mischief of the "climate change did it" excuse is that nobody is held to account for preventable aspects of any event which result from negligence or fecklessness.
Sounds like this reinsurance company just wants to be a part of the current thing club.
We live in FL. The growth in our overall population is very well documented. That much of this growth is in coastal areas most prone to hurricane damage is obvious to anyone who cares to look. What this means is that losses will continue to rise as population continues to flee states like CA.
And now, the California fires. Now those claims will be real money.
This looks unnecessarily complicated.
The right way is to ask via a model that links CO2 accumulations to geophysical outcomes, how different accumulations of CO2, different emissions of net CO2 in the past, lead to differences in the probability distributions of geophysical outcomes today. What is the difference in the probability distributions with and without those changes? It is the difference in probability distributions that enable saying that the probability of a geophysical event (in the case of the LA fires, a particular combination of drought and winds etc.) is p1 in distribution 1 and p2 in distribution 2 and so we can “attribute” the probability p2-p1 to the difference in the past emissions.
How changes in probabilities of economic (and insurance) losses is a subsequent step.
Neither Munich Re nor Swiss Re explain this very well.
“ Neither Munich Re nor Swiss Re explain this very well”
Maybe because it’s just a completely made up set of assumptions with no empirical base in reality.
Roger has written about what you are suggesting, it’s called “attribution “science””, double quotations around the science bit
Thanks - a fascinating post and a welcome voice of sanity amidst the hysteria: eg the FT Weekend headline: “Fire Fight California death toll rises as world breaches key warming threshold “.
You might want to share this post with The Editors of The Free Press who infer - in their January 9th piece 'Paradise Lost' - that climate change is a significant proximate contributer to the Los Angeles wildfire disaster.
The Free Press just published a piece from Newsweek titled "Stop blaming politicians. L.A. was built to burn."
I didn't (couldn't) read the article, but it's headline is so stupid I doubt it's worth reading. SoCal has always had wildfires, but don't blame politicians when they cut the firefighting budges and empty the reservoirs.
I gave up on the FP over a year ago because they were trafficking in rumors like you would find in the NYT. Now they've become apologists for the Dem establishment. And Bari Weiss has a slobbering love affair with Trump hating Peggy Noonan.
The article didn't neglect the egregious failures of city & state leadership. He simply pointed out that these failures fit into the known fire risks created by building in fire-prone locations.
That is actually the same Newsweek piece I link in this post by Leighton Woodhouse. I suggest looking past the headline (which he surely did not write, and reading his excellent essay!
I read it. You're right about the headline being changed. I wonder who did that.
https://www.newsweek.com/l-will-keep-having-catastrophic-fires-no-matter-who-you-blame-opinion-2012844
My reaction is... Duh. Everyone knows this, yet fire mitigation and water management have been terrible in LA and the whole state. This is going to be the most costly fire in US history, though as you say we need to look at fire data to get a valid comparison.
This analysis puts the lie to the justification for the UN "Loss and Damage Fund". The loss and damage for which they seek compensation is not caused by climate change and not demonstrably worsened by climate change.
All common sense - as we have come expect from RP.
...and not from much of the consensed climate community.
Can we guess at the narrative this year after LA?
Going be a very large year and all we’ll hear is climate change dun it.
I personally would like to see a ‘Darwin Clause’ in all insurance weather-disaster claims. How much is poor siting, inadequate protection, substandard construction, and a couple more, human cause through neglect or arsonists. It’s always been too easy to blame god for problem mankind could have planned for.
According to derived data up to 75% of global wildfires are caused by humans. When factoring in other factors such as lightning, poor power line maintenence inadequate land use practices and general incompetence (Maui) the percentage is as high as 90 percent.
If I were a suspicious person, I would say Munich Re, is using political fear mongering to build the foundation of price gouging approved by politicians. If I were a suspicious person.
No need to speculate
Climate change is the $100 word of the insurance industry, creates and sustains the narrative and enables profit.
The definition of a circular economy.
Outstanding post, sir. Thank you. First, a question. Your chart shows "average annual global insured losses." In this instance, is "average" a correct modifier, or should it be "total?" Average of what? Doesn't make sense to me.
That said, it would also be interesting to chart the increase in global GDP over the same period and compare them to the losses to see if trendlines are parallel, or to show divergence in trend lines. Ideally, a smaller slope in of the insured losses would indicate adaption and resilience is increasing (as well as forecasting and preparedness).
Thank you again.
Thanks!
Some technical details on AAL can be found here:
https://www.verisk.com/blog/Modeling-Fundamentals--FAQs-about-Average-Annual-Loss/
The fact that the 1990-2024 linear trend in losses/GDP is down tells us that GDP has increased faster than losses
Whether that is due to disaster mitigation, randomness, climate, would require a finer approach to normalizing losses beyond just GDP
thank you for the reference
It’s probably due to a change in what comprises GDP. More services and tech vs brick and mortar.
I wish you could get that chart of Global Weather Losses as a percent of Global Gdp 1990-2024 on the front page of the New York Times.
Doesn’t support the narrative
NYT doesn’t do news or facts if inconvenient.
Me too, but highly unlikely ;-)