he Category 6 weather blog issued their annual assessment of big weather disasters for the past year across the globe. As you would expect 2017 was not a good year.
That applies both for the United States in particular and the world in general.
There were 29 events costing at least a billion dollars in damage. That number is not a record high for all years. (adjusted for inflation.) Five other years had more billion dollar disasters.
However, some of the disasters were extremely expensive, so 2017 was the costliest on record, for the world as a whole and the United States in particular.
If you're into America First I have good/bad news for you. The United States had more billion dollar disasters than any other country, according to insurance broker Aon Benfield.
The good ole' US of A had 16 weather disasters with at least a billion dollars in damage. The country that came in Number 2 was China, with four such disasters.
Overall, weather disasters during 2017 in the United States cost $306 billion, definitely a new record. The hurricanes and wildfires got most of the headlines, and caused most of the expense. But there were other billion dollar plus weather disasters in the United States last year, including a drought in the Dakotas, floods in Missouri and Arkansas, and hail in Texas and Oklahoma.
Before you right off this report as another climate change screed, do know that it's apparent that climate change was only one factor that made 2017 so expensive.
Worldwide and in the United States, general wealth has increased. So when things are destroyed in a weather disaster, the tally is more expensive.
Likely a bigger factor in all these monetary losses is that more and more people live in places that are prone to big disasters. For instance, people flock to places along or near coastllines, many of which are sitting ducks for hurricanes.
Which helps explain why hurricanes Irma and Harvey were so expensive in the United States.
Wildfires contributed to the expensive tally in the United States. Again, more and more of us are getting in the way of these things. People keep building houses in and along the edges of the wilderness, for instance. Some of the damage from two billion plus dollar wildfire disasters was because houses and businesses were newly located in these interface regions.
As noted, tornadoes, flash floods and severe thunderstorms factored into the expensive 2017. Again, part of the problem is our habits. In the olden days, cities and towns were concentrated in pretty small areas. Now, urban and suburban sprawl extends over so many more square miles than it used to.
Tornadoes and severe thunderstorms are pretty narrow. When you had compact cities and towns, the targets were small. Tornadoes would often miss these communities and instead blast through rural farmland.
With suburbs extending further and further out from central cities the target is larger. Tornadoes used to need to be precise to wreck a community. Now, all they have to do is figuratively hit the broad side of a barn to cause a lot of destruction.
Still, climate change is certainly still a factor in some of these disasters. For instance, it's definitely possible the downpours with Hurricane Harvey in Texas were heavier than they otherwise would have been without climate change.
Harvey would have caused immense property damage with or without climate change, but the extra rain likely made things worse.
Those fires in California were probably made worse with climate change as well. True, the state's population increased and more people were in the way of the wildfires than decades ago. But California's extreme weather - drought to heavy rain last winter back to drought this year - increased the amount of dry vegetation that could catch fire.
Plus, the winter rains that normally hit California have largely failed to materialize, contributing to the fire problems.
I mentioned that 2017 didn't have the most $1 billion disasters in history, but it was the most expensive year.
Here's the major reason why: Incredibly, according to Aon Benfield, and this is pretty wild, three of the five most expensive weather disasters in world history occurred in 2017.
The figures, again adjusted for inflation, show that Hurricane Harvey was the second most expensive disaster, with $100 billion in losses. (Number 1 was 2005's Hurricane Katrina, with $161 billion in inflation-adjusted losses.
Also in 2017, Hurricane Maria was the fourth most expesnive disaster with $65 billion in losses. Hurricane Irma was fifth, with $55 billion in damage. (Number 3 was Hurricane Sandy in 2012, with $70 billion in losses.
About 10,000 people died in natural disasters, including earthquakes, in 2017. That sounds absolutely terrible and it is. Still, if you want a silver lining, the number of deaths from these disasters in 2017 was definitely below the 2001-2016 average of 71,000 fatalities.
The worst single disaster, in terms of fatalities, was a landslide in Sierra Leone caused by a flood, About 1,100 people died in that one. The death toll from Hurricane Maria is still hard to come by, but that storm might have killed 1,000 or so people.
And by the way, yes, I'm accusing the Trump administration of helping to cover up the number of deaths in Puerto Rico from Maria. Public relations, is of utmost importance to Trump, even more so than human lives. Or facts for that matter.
The worst disasters, as I noted, hit the United States. While there was an unacceptably high death toll in these U.S. disasters, we do have an excellent National Weather Service and plenty of other non-govermental meteorologists who got people out of the way of impending doom, thus saving lots of lives.
If you were lucky enough to escape damage from 2017's weather disasters, I still have some bad news. You still might end up paying.
According to PRI:
"Insurers are going to start passing these consts on to policyholders......People living in places that are at high risk for fires are going to end up seeing higher costs because that's the only way insurance companies can afford to cover increased damage."
It's not just fires. Insurance costs might go up because of payouts for other calamities, like floods, hail and the like.
Here in New England, we weren't really ground zero for any billion dollar disaster in 2017, but we did have expensive weather issues. One of the biggest were severe storms, tornadoes and flooding in New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine on June 30 and July 1. The other big, expensive weather issue in the region was the severe windstorm and flooding in late October.
I have to say 2018 is totally off to a bad start in the billion dollar disaster department. We're barely into February, and there are at least a couple contenders for billion dollar losses. One of them was a nor'easter in the northeastern United States and southeastern Canada in early January. That storm caused immense coastal flooding and other losses due to high winds and snow.
Also in January, there were two epic wind storms in western Europe, either one of which might have caused more than a billion dollars in losses.
And by the way, spring, summer and early autumn in the Northern Hemisphere seem to garner the most terrible disasters. More people live in the north than in the south. Spring, summer and early autumn in the Northern Hemisphere is the most likely season for expensive, fatal disasters like tornado outbreaks, hail and severe thunderstorms, serious floods, wildfires and hurricanes.
Matt's Weather Rapport is written by Vermont-based journalist and weather reporter Matt Sutkoski. This blog has a nationwide and worldwide focus, with particular interest in Vermont and the Northeast. Look to Matt's Weather Rapport for expert analysis of weather events, news, the latest on climate change science, fun stuff, and wild photos and videos of big weather events. Also check for my frequent quick weather updates on Twitter, @mattalltradesb
Showing posts with label insurance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label insurance. Show all posts
Saturday, February 3, 2018
Friday, April 28, 2017
Progressive Insurance's Hail Advice Is Dangerous
Like most competent insurance companies, Progressive sends out "what to do" press releases informing consumers what to do if, say, they've had a house fire, a car accident or what have you.
![]() |
| Cars blocking a highway beneath an overpass during a hailstorm. Don't do this, despite what Progressive says |
Recently, Progressive put out a statement on what to do if you encounter a hail storm when driving.
One of their suggestions was downright dangerous. They said, "Stop under an overpass, and don't forget to pull out of traffic lanes and onto a shoulder Avoid ditches due to possible high rising water. "
The parts about avoiding ditches is great. Pulling over to the shoulder is good, too
Here's the problem: Very commonly, a bunch of people stop under an overpass during hail. Even if people are somewhat pulled over, oncoming cars can encounter the building traffic jam at the overpass.
Visibility is poor during severe thunderstorms. The rain and the hail make the roads slippery. The hail sure is distracting when you're driving. Stopping under overpasses is a great way to cause a very messy pileup.
Stopping beneath overpasses is very dangerous in another respect: Sometimes, a tornado is attached to the supercell thunderstorm producing the hail.
Typically, the hail core of a tornadic thunderstorm passes over an area first. Then the tornado follows. People under the overpass are sitting ducks for the oncoming tornado. Plus, tornadic winds funnel through the overpass, making the wind even stronger and more dangerous.
And by stopping beneath the overpass, you've blocked traffic behind you on the highway, and now all those motorists can't get out of the way from the approaching tornado.
If it is hailing badly, it's probably best to pull over while driving, onto a shoulder and outside of traffic. But please don't gum up the overpasses and block traffic.
You might be killing people in an effort to prevent your car from getting dinged. Is it worth it?
Thursday, November 3, 2016
The "Desert Southeast": Drought Intensifies In Alabama, Georgia
As I sit and write this Thursday morning, it's starting to rain outside my home in St. Albans, Vermont.
We're going to get another half inch to an inch of rain today, which will further ease the drought in the Northeast.
Today's rain if affecting most of New York and New England, which has been the epicenter of a drought that developed in the spring and lasted all summer and fall.
This drought is far from over, but at least we're getting a little wetting.
The Northeast drought has been getting all the attention, but a worse one has taken shape in northern Alabama and Georgia.
They can't seem to catch a break, as all the rain storms have missed them this fall. Rains from Hurricane Matthew missed. Tropical systems often move inland from the Gulf of Mexico in the summer and fall, dumping torrential rains on the South.
Not this year.
The lack of rain has been building for months. Now, in the fall, a strong high pressure system has been pretty much stuck over the Southeast, deflecting rain away from the region. Worse, that high pressure system has been causing an incredibly long streak of record high temperatures.
The record warmth increases evaporation, making the drought intensify even faster. That dry, hot weather is expected to remain over the region for at least another week.
According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, about 75 percent of Alabama is in at least severe drought, and 14 percent is in exceptional drought, the highest category you can get on the drought scale.
No measureable rain has fallen on Birmingham, Alabama since September 18. Only a trace fell there in October, a month that usually brings about 3.5 inches of rain. Temperatures in Birmingham in September and October were five to seven degrees warmer than normal.
The drought in the Southeast is worse than the one in New England. The Weather Channel's Jim Cantore has taken to calling the region the "Desert Southeast."
So far, the Southeast's principal crops, including cotton, peanuts and peaches, have not suffered too badly because the main growing regions are outside the worst drought zone, says the Insurance Journal.
Still, other crops have suffered, and the normally green, wet region of the nation is having rare forest fires.
Unfortunately, drier than normal conditions are expected to continue through the winter in the Southeast, according to admittably dicey long range outlooks.
Let's hope that's wrong and plenty of winter rains hit the Southeast. (Lots of winter snow in New England wouldn't be too upsetting, either.)
![]() |
| A rare, intense drought is hitting parts of Southeast Image from U.S. Drought Monitor. |
We're going to get another half inch to an inch of rain today, which will further ease the drought in the Northeast.
Today's rain if affecting most of New York and New England, which has been the epicenter of a drought that developed in the spring and lasted all summer and fall.
This drought is far from over, but at least we're getting a little wetting.
The Northeast drought has been getting all the attention, but a worse one has taken shape in northern Alabama and Georgia.
They can't seem to catch a break, as all the rain storms have missed them this fall. Rains from Hurricane Matthew missed. Tropical systems often move inland from the Gulf of Mexico in the summer and fall, dumping torrential rains on the South.
Not this year.
The lack of rain has been building for months. Now, in the fall, a strong high pressure system has been pretty much stuck over the Southeast, deflecting rain away from the region. Worse, that high pressure system has been causing an incredibly long streak of record high temperatures.
The record warmth increases evaporation, making the drought intensify even faster. That dry, hot weather is expected to remain over the region for at least another week.
According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, about 75 percent of Alabama is in at least severe drought, and 14 percent is in exceptional drought, the highest category you can get on the drought scale.
No measureable rain has fallen on Birmingham, Alabama since September 18. Only a trace fell there in October, a month that usually brings about 3.5 inches of rain. Temperatures in Birmingham in September and October were five to seven degrees warmer than normal.
The drought in the Southeast is worse than the one in New England. The Weather Channel's Jim Cantore has taken to calling the region the "Desert Southeast."
So far, the Southeast's principal crops, including cotton, peanuts and peaches, have not suffered too badly because the main growing regions are outside the worst drought zone, says the Insurance Journal.
Still, other crops have suffered, and the normally green, wet region of the nation is having rare forest fires.
Unfortunately, drier than normal conditions are expected to continue through the winter in the Southeast, according to admittably dicey long range outlooks.
Let's hope that's wrong and plenty of winter rains hit the Southeast. (Lots of winter snow in New England wouldn't be too upsetting, either.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


