"Given the numbers were from Munich Re, I quickly came across...

First 130 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
madamswer

16,402 Posts.

7958

13/01/22

02:00

Post #: 58821047
Share

Originally posted by Penny Pincher ↑

I was merely concerned about your health.

That bit about "I get a little bit of vomit in my mouth" reaction you wrote about got me worried... so I investigated.

Given the numbers were from Munich Re, I quickly came across the following 2016 article:

"Innovative new ways of analysing historical loss events"

From which it is clear the authors do adjust for inflation, as they note the following:

"... it is enough to apply inflation to the historically determined loss data with the help of an established price index. It is important to ensure that the index represents the actual development of prices in the region in question and is based on the currency of the country concerned."

i.e. Not only are they aware of how to make such inflation adjustments, they also allow for regional and currency specific circumstances.

Oh, and if you notice, the author of that article is none other than the same author who published the article about the historic natural disaster costs - i.e. Petra Löw.

I do agree that blueballs was a bit sloppy by quoting those numbers which were quite meaningless, as they include natural disasters unrelated to climate change (earthquakes and tsunamis, etc).

However, I would seek further advice from your personal physician about your vomit problems.

There might be some other cause, rather than whether the Munich Re reports in real or nominal dollars.

Expand

"Given the numbers were from Munich Re, I quickly came across the following 2016 article:

Not sure how you know that those numbers quoted by blueballs came from Munich Re given he at no point provided any reference to that end.

But even if that is the case and they are quoted in real terms, as I've shown in my preceding post, the rate of increase is no more than the rate of increase in the global economy.

And, of course, more important than just money is the loss of human life and as was shown in an earlier post per capita deaths due to natural disasters fell by 21% over the last 2 decades compared to the previous two decades.

So any claims that weather-related disasters are becoming more impactful on society are not supported by the facts (well, the facts as supplied by the poster in question, which is why I pointed it out).

.
4 Upvote

Reply