We need a better way to measure hurricanes. Categories just aren’t cutting it: https://t.co/8PsOj0fZMU pic.twitter.com/5I0DY4hKgf
— Slate (@Slate) September 21, 2017
Very nice article, David. I agree with you. Given the sophistication of today's models, measurements more useful than Saffir-Simpson should be possible.One quibble: You write, ...global reinsurance broker, Willis Towers Watson—a company he says is specifically interested in climate change because “they understand it will impact their bottom line.” (This is a reassuring converse to Upton Sinclair’s pithy line that “It’s hard to get a man to believe something when his salary depends on his not believing it.”)I think you're implying that the reinsurance industry would rather not believe that storms are getting worse because of climate change. I think the reverse is the case. Insurance companies and reinsurance companies are thrilled to find evidence that storms are worsening, because it justifies them to charge higher premium rates. I recall that after Katrina and other storms of 2005, the various catastrophe models had their loss probabilities substantially increased because of the belief that global warming had changed the long-term pattern of hurricanes.CheersDavid
Thanks for the compliment, David.Why shouldn't insurers raise rates if they anticipate more losses?
Post a Comment