Not really a surprise that there's a decline relative to GDP because the newer stuff in the way of the storms is built a lot sturdier than the other half of the stuff that took most of two centuries to build up.
Touché. At least someone is paying attention. And there is no question that the Chinese know perfectly well that they have no intention of honoring the environmental commitments they are making. Hong Kong anyone?
Another confounding factor to consider is building codes in developed countries get stricter all the time. This is in part driven by insurance companies who don't want to pay out billion dollar losses.
For example there has been a drive in Canada over the past 2 decades to make buildings more earthquake proof even through we don't get the severe earthquakes occurring in other parts of the world.
Lol. The clock tower in the lead photo seems to be the only thing UNchanged.
If 1) weather events are getting worse, and 2) causing more damages [both promoted by the climate "consensus"] wouldn't you expect insurance as a whole and reinsurance specifically, to have been bad stock investments since 1990?
And in other news, NASA declared 2023 to be the warmest in human history.
“NASA and NOAA’s global temperature report confirms what billions of people around the world experienced last year; we are facing a climate crisis,” said NASA Administrator Bill Nelson. “From extreme heat, to wildfires, to rising sea levels, we can see our Earth is changing."
This was of course picked up as a 10 second mention on the local news.
NASA's fight for relevancy takes them farther and farther from science
It really is a shame that NOAA has lost it's way in the 'Whole of Government' race to be the very best cheerleader for !!! CLIMATE CHANGE !!! regardless of the actual facts.
I found the bullet point: "Can we conclude from this trend that climate change signals are not detectable in trends in various extreme events? No" to be a bit confusing. Are you really trying to say
"Can we conclude from this trend that climate change signals [are or are not] detectable in trends in various extreme events? No"
The developers of the commercial real estate in the Shanghai photos don't appear overly concerned about rising sea levels. What do the Chinese know that we don't know?
The graph of both losses and normalised losses starts in 1990. The graph trend implies normalised losses would have been higher historically. Is the insurance data in earlier decades prior to 1990 reliable enough to say cover the last century? How far into the past can the methodology be pushed?
FWIW I don't think wildfires should be lumped in with floods and other "weather related" disasters. Weather is only one of many things that affect wildfires and there are human forces working to reduce damage in real time with varying success due to various factors. Imagine a hurricane-slowing technology.. or a real-time flood reduction technology. They don't exist. Wildfires are a different kettle of fish. IMHO.
I’d like to see a 2023 pic
They are prepping us for the same thing here. (Nebraska)
Not really a surprise that there's a decline relative to GDP because the newer stuff in the way of the storms is built a lot sturdier than the other half of the stuff that took most of two centuries to build up.
Touché. At least someone is paying attention. And there is no question that the Chinese know perfectly well that they have no intention of honoring the environmental commitments they are making. Hong Kong anyone?
My analogy to the first graph, total losses, is personal taxes.
A graph of my personal taxes paid over the previous 30 years looks exactly like that.
Catastrophe!!!!
Yet, most of that change is due to making a lot more money.
Such a foolish thing to do;
“no good deed ever goes unpunished”.
Roger should make that his motto?
Another confounding factor to consider is building codes in developed countries get stricter all the time. This is in part driven by insurance companies who don't want to pay out billion dollar losses.
For example there has been a drive in Canada over the past 2 decades to make buildings more earthquake proof even through we don't get the severe earthquakes occurring in other parts of the world.
Lol. The clock tower in the lead photo seems to be the only thing UNchanged.
If 1) weather events are getting worse, and 2) causing more damages [both promoted by the climate "consensus"] wouldn't you expect insurance as a whole and reinsurance specifically, to have been bad stock investments since 1990?
And in other news, NASA declared 2023 to be the warmest in human history.
“NASA and NOAA’s global temperature report confirms what billions of people around the world experienced last year; we are facing a climate crisis,” said NASA Administrator Bill Nelson. “From extreme heat, to wildfires, to rising sea levels, we can see our Earth is changing."
This was of course picked up as a 10 second mention on the local news.
NASA's fight for relevancy takes them farther and farther from science
It really is a shame that NOAA has lost it's way in the 'Whole of Government' race to be the very best cheerleader for !!! CLIMATE CHANGE !!! regardless of the actual facts.
I found the bullet point: "Can we conclude from this trend that climate change signals are not detectable in trends in various extreme events? No" to be a bit confusing. Are you really trying to say
"Can we conclude from this trend that climate change signals [are or are not] detectable in trends in various extreme events? No"
Frank
Love those pictures of Shanghai. I was there in 1985 and again in 2012.
I couldn't remember what was across the river in 1985, where all those massive buildings are now.
Most excellent! Graphs like these are why I'm a subscriber.
The developers of the commercial real estate in the Shanghai photos don't appear overly concerned about rising sea levels. What do the Chinese know that we don't know?
The graph of both losses and normalised losses starts in 1990. The graph trend implies normalised losses would have been higher historically. Is the insurance data in earlier decades prior to 1990 reliable enough to say cover the last century? How far into the past can the methodology be pushed?
FWIW I don't think wildfires should be lumped in with floods and other "weather related" disasters. Weather is only one of many things that affect wildfires and there are human forces working to reduce damage in real time with varying success due to various factors. Imagine a hurricane-slowing technology.. or a real-time flood reduction technology. They don't exist. Wildfires are a different kettle of fish. IMHO.
At 79, I have lost my ability to be surprised, Roger.