The 2006 hurricane season was an amazing flop – only nine storms instead of the predicted 17 and none of the hurricanes even made landfall in the United States.
But you’d never know it reading The Washington Post’s Style story “A Dream Blown Away.” According to writer Joel Garreau, we should “Call 2006 the Batten Down the Hatches Moment.”
Why? Because insurance companies are now being more particular about insuring properties on the coasts and are insuring against (that is what they do) the possible dangers of climate change.
Garreau’s major thesis was that insurance companies are driving a new global warming acceptance because of their 2005 losses due to hurricanes. “The 2005 hurricane season gave the United States supposedly once-in-a-century storms, one right after the other. Katrina, Rita and Wilma were among the seven most expensive hurricanes ever to hit the country. Companies that had to eat too much of the $51.5 billion in insured losses went under,” he wrote.
Of course, he left out that the 2006 losses were… almost nothing. No hurricane hit the United States and the tropical storms that did were so minor as to be almost laughable.
That fact seemed to escape Garreau who warned “But if weather losses get worse, upheaval will become more common,” in the insurance market. Naturally, the weather would almost have to get worse or we’d have almost no storms at all.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The non-hurricane season this
December 2, 2006 - 14:13 ET by bigtimerThe non-hurricane season this year has made the networks find excuses of why they were so wrong....something to do with Sahara sands (I may have that wrong) nevertheless my point is they will never ever say they were wrong...just a little five letter word...wrong wrong wrong....
No one can predict what mother nature is going to do for sure...only the Good Lord can.
By the way, I just love it when our Global Warming (for those of you in Rio Linda that was sarcasm, I am talking about the Ice Age we just had and that has moved east, we lost our power too...) storm hits the mid-west or east coast...man it is major news....it really is aggravating if you live in the NW...oh well, I should be used to it by now.
Drill Often!....Drill Everywhere!
"Once the coffers of the federal government are opened to the public, there will be no shutting them again." - Grover Cleveland
Of ignoring the great speed bump of the truth
December 2, 2006 - 18:37 ET by UnsaneWhat a shock...quietly sweeping this non-event under the rug. Bet this upsets some averages.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Dan, let's cut to the chase..
December 2, 2006 - 21:52 ET by Gary HallDan, let's cut to the chase.. The 2006 season was being tame was probably a fluke - and a number of intense years still lie ahead.
The "record cost" of the 2005 season has to do with: inflation (over time), increased development along our coast lines, and "insured loses" (a significantly smaller % of folks (and there were less folks) had insurance coverage in the 1940's), and the hurricane cycle doing exactly what they had been telling us for the past 30+ years - being cyclic. According to what I see, if normal is normal, then the hurricane cycle should continue to be in the above average reange for a number of years yet to come. And it has absolutely zip to do with man-made global warming.
Check out these stats these numbers:
Philip Klotzbach (@ Colorado State University, they do the annual hurricane forecasts) in a presentation this past year offered the following information in one of his slides:
Florida - No. of major hurricanes (Cat. 3-5) making landfall.
1933 - 1965 (33 years) - 11 major hurricanes
1965 - 2005 (40 years) - 4 major hurricanes (I counted 5??)
Note: No "major" hurricanes struck Florida between 1965 and 1992 (Andrew). Hurricane Besty which hit New Orleans in 1965, was almost as bad as Katrina - flooding wise. One has to remember, New Orleans has sunk about another 3-4 feet below sea level since 1965.
There are several drop dead points in those numbers; the scariest is that if past cycles repeat themselves, the folks in Florida have not seen anything as of yet. Of course if the cycle continues to repeats itself, the media will continue to keep the historical facts to itself (do they really know how to do research?) and will continue to try to sell the public that it's never happened before and, of course, man's GW caused it all this increased activity [return to normal].For those of you who want to read an interesting report from Chris Landsea at NOAA - check out this. ftp://ftp.aoml.noaa.gov/pub/hrd/landsea/amshurr-globwarm-short.ppt If the link doesn't work, try cutting and pasting the URL into your broswer. I draw your attention to slides no. 7 and 8 - Atlantic Major Hurricanes 1944-2005. In the first one, Landsea has blocked out the left side of the chart -- showing the part of the chart that the media has been showing us all year long, in their effort to promote "fear." In the second on (slide 8?) he uncovers the left side. WaLa. In the 30 years or so before the last 30 years, the number of major hurricanes were dropping like a rock.Hurricane Warning
December 2, 2006 - 22:23 ET by BlondeGary,
The scariest part is my insurance premiums, which increased over ONE HUNDRED PERCENT to $5,000....and that doesn't include flood insurance. Incidently, I was directly rolled by Hurricane Wilma last year, with total damage of one loose roof tile. So how does this relate to my premium increase?
In Florida, we mitigate the damages by being prepared. A Cat 4 / 5 on a high tide from the east would probably be catastrophic, but even though I'm in a mandatory evacuation zone, I probably wouldn't go unless it was Cat 3 inbound.
Thank you Al Gore and the lunatic media for scaring everyone out of their minds....and more money out of my pocket.
Blondie -
December 3, 2006 - 14:46 ET by Gary HallBlondie, in Sep't. 1988, I was on vacation in Cozumel when Hurricane Gilbert came to visit. In the pic. the eye of Gilbert was right over Cozumel at that time. We had just experienced about 13 hours of hurricane force winds - during the leading 1/2 of the storm. Sustained winds were in the 160 mph range with gusts to 225 mph. Wilma broke Gilbert's old reccord of 888 mb - but at the time was out at sea causing little damage.
By the way, I lost an aunt in Hurricane Francis, a couple of years ago. She was crushed by a big old oak tree that fell on her house - well, they were visiting relatives at the time.
Also rode out the Northridge quake in the early 90's. I/ve been grazed by lightning, had my windows blown out and 1/2 the roof ripped off in a "micro - burst" (huge dump of air from a thunderstorm, have watched tornados go by - just waiting for a tsunami. I have great respect for these events.
Pretty much everything along the beach was destroyed by the waves (an island effect limits the storm surge - as the swell simply goes around an island). We had moved a few blocks inland the night before - good thing, only 1 wall was left standing in our old second floor room at the beach, the balcony, bedroom, etc. was gone.
We moved into a two story concrete reinforced motel. OK, it was still interesting enough, a few broken windows -a tree on our bed, a 2 foot deep drift of leaf mulch in the corner of the bedroom - but the structure sufferred no damage. The roof was of the same construction - reinforced concrete. In fact, it was a two foot deep concrete pool - designed to hold rain water. Handy, as we received over 3 feet of rain.
If buildings were built properly, the insurance rates would not go thru the roof, so to speak. The flood problem is a different issue, I understand that. Homeowners policy's just don't cover floods - or strom surge. Leaving aside the valid complaints of whether or not one's home was first destroyed by the storm winds before the flood got it, the media's shock each and every time that policies do not cover flood damage is a disgrace.
I do think that there is room for a national discussion on how to treat these flood and strom surge isssues. It will be a tough debate, however, because in order for all to agree, I suspect it will have to cover those who live in tornado and earthquake county as well - otherwise it's going to be a "hey you decided to live there number." Who should pay for the risk for folks who decide to live in flood prone areas, including areas subject to storm surge, etc.
You're right. Al Gore's message does nothing but drive up fear and your premiums. It does nothing to address the problems which face the people.