As reviewer for WG2 I have repeatedly (3 times) asked to put a clear statement in the SPM that is in line with the general literature, and underlying WG2 chapters. In my view, WG2 has not succeeded in adequately quoting and discussing all relevant recent papers that have come out on this topic — see above-mentioned chapters.

Initial drafts of the SPM had relatively nuanced statements such as: “Global economic losses from weather-related disasters have risen substantially since the 1970s. During the same period, global temperatures have risen and the magnitude of some extremes, such as the intensity of tropical cyclones, has increased. However, because of increases in exposed values …, the contribution of these weather-related trends to increased losses is at present not known.”

For unknown reasons, this statement (which seems to implicitly acknowledge Roger’s and the May 2006 workshop conclusion that societal factors dominate) was dropped from the final SPM. Now the SPM has no statement on the attribution of disaster losses, and we do not know what is the ‘consensus’ here.

During the 2005 season some argued the large number of storms were due to Global Warming, and there were multiple responses citing the approximate 30 year cycle as being the reason for the active season.

So even if there was an increase in hurricanes over this time period, how does one filter out the effect of this 30 year cycle?

This is indeed what the IPCC WG II says! But, as we have documented here many times, many advocates of action on climate change present adaptation as an alternative to mitigation. The reality is that both must occur. Thanks.

Is that in private when they are being candid and realistic or in public when they are advocating action?

If it’s just sotto voce because of the poisonous atmosphere around climate change debate then it’s not worth much.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000973sterns_cherry_picki.html

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001168here_we_go_again_ch.html

I discuss the US part of the record in my own paper prepared for the same workshop:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/sparc/research/projects/extreme_events/munich_workshop/pielke.pdf

The bottom line is as follows:

1. There is indeed an increase in disaster losses after accounting for societal changes in the data for the period 1970-2005.

2. This increase can be attributed to increasing hurricane losses in the US.

3. Hurricane losses show no trend for the entire data record of losses that are available adjusted in the same manner

4. Logically, anyone suggesting that there is a trend since 1970, is necessarily compelled to accept that the exact same data set shows no trend over a longer time period, and this is exactly as Muir-Wood et al. shows back to 1950 in the paper that the IPCC and Stern selectively quoted!

5. Greenhouse gases have increased steadily since the 1950s, disaster losses have not, once adjusted for societal trends.

6. Therefore greenhouse gases do not have any obvious or simple relationship with disaster losses.

7. Everyone agrees that societal factors dominate the record.

Maybe this is worth a blog post . . . Thanks!

Doesn’t the following paper

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/sparc/research/projects/extreme_events/munich_workshop/muirwood.pdf

(archived at your site, so I assume you know it well), indicate that even over the 1970 – 2005 period there is a significant upward trend in loss data normailized for inflation, population and GDP growth only at the national level? They indicate that US losses dominate the trend, and they have not accounted intra-country population movements. Given the huge importance of movement into coastal Florida, doesn’t this leave open the question of whether there is any trend? Is there some other relevant paper that has adequately adjusted for this effect?

Thanks,
Jim

Yes, I’d say that. Also, I’d say correlation ***IS*** causation. IPCC Figure S&M-XXX proves that.

Bush shouldn’t fire all the U.S. attorneys. He should fire all the U.S. patent clerks. It’s the only way we can avoid more weather-related catastrophes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A trend in global loss data properly normalized from 1970 will really reflects trends in US hurricane losses (and to a lesser extent floods, because these losses are so large when compared to others. For instance, Katrina was an $80B+ event)), which indeed have gone up since 1970. However, there is no such trend in US hurricane losses over the entire record of available loss data.

I am still waiting for a pointer to the Miller et al. paper, which I assume is not in the peer-reviewed literature! If we had the data we could take a close look . . . Thanks!