NOTE: Figure above updated 8 January to correct an error in 2017 values (I failed to correct 2017 for inflation).Correction reduces the value from 0.44% to 0.41%. 2017 stays in 2nd place. Apologies.
The figure above shows the annual costs of weather disasters (data from Munich Re) as a proportion of global GDP (data from the UN), from 1990 to 2017.
Takeaways:
- 2017 ranks 2nd to 2005;
- The dataset is dominated by US hurricanes (accounting for about 70% of losses);
- The trend from 1990 to 2017 is downward;
- Mean and median are both 0.24%;
- 6 of past 10 years have been below average;
The most important caveat: don’t use disasters to argue about trends in climate. Use climate data. Duh. (Pielke 2015 below has an accessible summary of IPCC conclusions on trends in weather extremes. See also IPCC SREX and AR5 .) Trends in the incidence of extreme weather help to explain this graph as the world has experienced a long stretch of good fortune (see Pielke 2017, linked below).
Comments, questions welcomed.
Further reading:
Mohleji, S., & Pielke Jr, R. 2014. Reconciliation of trends in global and regional economic losses from weather events: 1980–2008. Natural Hazards Review, 15(4).
Murray, V., & Ebi, K. L. 2012. IPCC special report on managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation (SREX).
Pielke, Jr., R. 2017. Weather-related Natural Disasters: Should we be concerned about a reversion to the mean? Risk Frontiers
Pielke, Jr. R. 2015. The rightful place of science: disasters and climate change. (CSPO/ASU).
Stocker, T. F., et al. 2013. IPCC 2013: climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change.
UPDATE 8 January 2018 – Data for the chart above
| YEAR | Weather-related losses in 2013 $ | Global GDP in 2013 $ | losses/GDP |
| 1990 | 80.7 | 34558.3 | 0.23% |
| 1991 | 94.0 | 34916.9 | 0.27% |
| 1992 | 112.0 | 35538.7 | 0.32% |
| 1993 | 132.8 | 36056.9 | 0.37% |
| 1994 | 82.2 | 37179.5 | 0.22% |
| 1995 | 100.3 | 38283.0 | 0.26% |
| 1996 | 113.6 | 39539.4 | 0.29% |
| 1997 | 63.5 | 41015.9 | 0.15% |
| 1998 | 170.4 | 42111.2 | 0.40% |
| 1999 | 123.0 | 43448.9 | 0.28% |
| 2000 | 63.5 | 45238.7 | 0.14% |
| 2001 | 41.5 | 46076.7 | 0.09% |
| 2002 | 111.6 | 47042.0 | 0.24% |
| 2003 | 88.5 | 48243.0 | 0.18% |
| 2004 | 144.1 | 50159.9 | 0.29% |
| 2005 | 266.3 | 51943.4 | 0.51% |
| 2006 | 69.7 | 54113.6 | 0.13% |
| 2007 | 96.3 | 56259.6 | 0.17% |
| 2008 | 141.8 | 57067.2 | 0.25% |
| 2009 | 70.9 | 55707.6 | 0.13% |
| 2010 | 123.0 | 57952.2 | 0.21% |
| 2011 | 170.8 | 59595.5 | 0.29% |
| 2012 | 153.9 | 61647.7 | 0.25% |
| 2013 | 125.3 | 63805.4 | 0.20% |
| 2014 | 94.5 | 66038.6 | 0.14% |
| 2015 | 77.3 | 68350.0 | 0.11% |
| 2016 | 128.2 | 70742.2 | 0.18% |
| 2017 | 298.6 | 73218.2 | 0.41% |
The Climate Fix 
What about in absolute terms? One would hope the trend vs gdp is negative we spend millions of dollars to achieve this goal. Not sure what the fuck this has to do with climate. Obviously, im aware of the relationship but the implied bs here is that climate chataspohies are on the decline which i don’t believe is actually the case.
LikeLike
sorry missed the final caveat:
“The most important caveat: don’t use disasters to argue about trends in climate. Use climate data. Duh. (Pielke 2015 below has an accessible summary of IPCC conclusions on trends in weather extremes. See also IPCC SREX and AR5 .) Trends in the incidence of extreme weather help to explain this graph as the world has experienced a long stretch of good fortune (see Pielke 2017, linked below).”
Ignore the previous comment.
LikeLike
Isn’t the peak in 2005 thanks to the Indian Ocean Tsunami?
LikeLike
Arnim Kuhn- These data are just for weather-related catastrophes.
LikeLike
I think there is a flaw in using the global GDP with the climate change data. The flaw would be that global GDP may be somewhat increased when dealing with the repairs, including labor and materials, resulting from climate disasters. Unfortunately GDP does not represent productivity only.
LikeLike
I think there is a flaw in the use of global GDP with climate change data. The flaw is that Global GDP, as far as I know, includes expenses that come from the repairs due to climate disaster, material and labor, etcetera. This would inflate GDP. Unfortunately GDP cannot be used as a measure of productivity only.
LikeLike
In WordPress, users have to leave a comment, then log in. I thought my comment had been erased.
LikeLike
Can’t argue with ‘don’t use disasters to argue about trends in climate’. How about…don’t use gdp/economical metrics to argue about trends in climate?
LikeLike