DOCSLIB.ORG

The Rms Hurricane Model

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Rms Hurricane Model THE RMS HURRICANE MODEL Submitted in Compliance with the 2002 Standards of the Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodology February 2003 Information submitted to the Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodology, February 2003 © 2003 Risk Management Solutions, Inc 1 FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HURRICANE LOSS PROJECTION METHODOLOGY Model Identification Name of Model and Version: RiskLink Version 4.3a 4.2 SP1a Name of Modeling Company: Risk Management Solutions, Inc. Street Address: 7015 Gateway Boulevard City, State, Zip: Newark, CA 94560 Mailing Address, if different from above: Risk Management Solutions Limited 10 Eastcheap London EC3M 1AJ U.K. Contact Person: Brian Owens Phone Number: +44 (0)20 7256 3807 Fax Number: +44 (0)20 7256 3838 E-mail Address: [email protected] Date: February 2003 Information submitted to the Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodology, February 2003 © 2003 Risk Management Solutions, Inc FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HURRICANE LOSS PROJECTION METHODOLOGY Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS I LIST OF FIGURES IV LIST OF TABLES V 2002 STANDARDS 1 5.1 General Standards 1 5.1.1 Scope of the Computer Model and Its Implementation 1 5.1.2 Qualifications of Modeler Personnel and Independent Experts 1 5.1.3 Model Revision Policy 2 5.1.4 Independence of Model Components 2 5.1.5 Risk Location 3 5.1.6 Identification of Units of Measure and Conversion Factors 3 5.1.7 Visual Presentation of Data 3 5.2 Meteorological Standards 4 5.2.1 Units of Measure for Model Output 4 5.2.2 Damage Function Wind Inputs 4 5.2.3 Official Hurricane Set or Suitable Approved Alternatives 5 5.2.4 Hurricane Characteristics 5 5.2.5 Landfall Intensity 6 5.2.6 Hurricane Probabilities 7 5.2.7 Hurricane Probability Distributions 9 5.2.8 Land Friction 10 5.2.9 Hurricane Overland Weakening Rate 12 5.2.10 Temporal and Spatial Wind Field Characteristics 13 5.3 Vulnerability Standards 13 5.3.1 Derivation of Vulnerability Functions 13 5.3.2 Required Vulnerability Functions 15 5.3.3 Wind Speeds Causing Damage 15 5.3.4 Construction and Codes 16 5.3.5 Mitigation Measures 16 5.3.6 Additional Living Expenses (ALE) 18 5.4 Actuarial Standards 18 5.4.1 Underwriting Assumptions 18 5.4.2 Actuarial Modifications 19 5.4.3 Loss Cost Projections 19 Information submitted to the Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodology, February 2003 © 2003 Risk Management Solutions, Inc i 5.4.4 Insurer Inputs 19 5.4.5 Demand Surge 20 5.4.6 Logical Relation to Risk 21 5.4.7 Deductibles and Policy Limits 23 5.4.8 Contents 24 5.4.9 Additional Living Expenses (ALE) 25 5.4.10 Replication of Known Hurricane Losses 26 5.4.11 Comparison of Estimated Hurricane Loss Costs 28 5.4.12 Output Ranges 29 5.5 Computer Standards 34 5.5.1 Primary Document Binder 34 5.5.2 Requirements 34 5.5.3 Model Architecture and Component Design 34 5.5.4 Implementation 35 5.5.5 Verification 35 5.5.6 Model Maintenance and Revision 36 5.5.7 User Documentation 37 5.6 Statistical Standards 37 5.6.1 Use of Historical Data 37 5.6.2 Comparison of Historical and Modeled Results 37 5.6.3 Uncertainty Characterization 38 5.6.4 Sensitivity Analysis for Model Output 38 5.6.5 Uncertainty Analysis for Model Output 38 5.6.6 County Level Aggregation 39 MODULES 40 MODULE 1 41 I. General Description of the Model 41 A. In General 41 B. Loss Costs 61 C. Other Considerations 63 II. Specific Description of the Model 68 A. Model Variables 68 B. Methodology 72 C. Validation Tests 77 MODULE 2 80 Background/Professionalism 80 1. Company Background 80 2. Professional Credentials 82 3. Multi-discipline Team 92 4. List of Clients 94 Information submitted to the Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodology, February 2003 © 2003 Risk Management Solutions, Inc ii 5. Independent Expert Review 96 MODULE 3 99 Meteorology - Hurricane Set 99 Hurricane Wind Field 108 Vulnerability Functions 109 Insurance Functions 111 Average Annual Loss Functions 118 General 138 Data Flow Chart 139 TESTS 141 Form A 141 Form B 142 Form C 144 Form D 145 Form E 148 Form F 149 OUTPUT RANGES 154 ATTACHMENTS 219 ATTACHMENT A 220 ATTACHMENT B 221 ATTACHMENT C 224 Information submitted to the Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodology, February 2003 © 2003 Risk Management Solutions, Inc iii List of Figures Figure 5.1 Sample Visualization 4 Figure 5.2 Segments Used for Parameter and Rate-Smoothing 8 Figure 5.3 Comparison of Historical and Modeled Rates 9 Figure 5.4 Variation in Friction Coefficients for Florida ZIP Codes 12 Figure 5.5 Sample Event Claims Data - Wood Frame Construction 15 Figure 5.6 Relative Loss Costs by ZIP Code and Historical Hurricane Landfalls 22 Figure 5.7 Example Loss Distribution 24 Figure 5.8 Relative Structure and Contents Damage Ratios: Actual Claims Data 25 Figure 5.9 Relative Structure and ALE Damage Ratios: Actual Claims Data 26 Figure 5.10 Industry Loss Estimates (Residential and Commercial) for Recent Storms 27 Figure 5.11 Company Specific Loss Comparisons 28 Figure 5.12 Changes in Loss Costs by County 33 Figure 1.I.1 Mean Translational Velocities for ‘Type 2’ Hurricanes on a 2º x 2º Grid 45 Figure 1.I.2 150 Simulated ‘Type 2’ Tracks 45 Figure 1.I.3 Segments Used for Parameter and Rate-Smoothing 46 Figure 1.I.4 Sketch Showing Hurricane Model Parameters 47 Figure 1.I.5 Model Flow Chart 55 Figure 2.3.1 Business Workflow Diagram 94 Figure 3.I.1 Modeled Degradation Rates Compared to the Kaplan-DeMaria Curve 102 Figure 3.I.2 Modeled 102-year Historical and 100-year Stochastic One-Minute Windspeeds (mph) (thematic plots) 103 Figure 3.I.3 Modeled 102-year Historic and 100-year Stochastic One-Minute Windspeeds mph) (contour plots) 104 Figure 3.I.4 Comparison of Historical and Modeled Rates (category assigned based on 1-minute windspeeds) 105 Figure 3.V.1 Observed Damage (dots) vs. Modeled Damage (solid line) Curve 119 Figure 3.V.2 Relative Loss Costs (Woodframe – Ground Up) by ZIP Code and Historical Hurricane Landfalls (category based on 1-minute windspeed) 120 Figure 3.V.3 Ground-up loss costs for frame, masonry and mobile home 122 Figure 3.V.4 Percentage Change in County Loss Costs from Previous Year 126 Information submitted to the Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodology, February 2003 © 2003 Risk Management Solutions, Inc iv List of Tables Table 5.1: Differences in County Level Loss Costs and Principal Drivers of Change 30 Table 1.I.1 Model Variables 56 Table 1.I.2 Model Variables With Range of Possible Values 57 Table 1.I.3 Building Classification 59 Table 1.I.4 Impacts on Loss Costs Using Engineering Modifications 63 Table 1.II.1 Primary Databases Used by the Model 71 Table 1.II.2 Sample of Datasets Used for Development and Calibration of Vulnerability Functions 72 Table 1.II.3 Sample Client Loss Data Comparison 78 Table 1.II.4 Comparison of Actual and Estimated Industry Loss ($ million) 78 Table 2.2.1 Individuals Involved in Meteorological Aspects of the Model 90 Table 2.2.2 Individuals Involved in Vulnerability Aspects of the Model 91 Table 2.2.3 Individuals Involved in Actuarial Aspects of the Model 91 Table 2.2.4 Individuals Involved in Computer Science Aspects of the Model 91 Table 2.2.5 Individuals Involved in Statistical Aspects of the Model 92 Table 2.3.1 Sample List of Clients 95 Table 2.3.2 Mix of Company Clients Over the Last 5 Years 95 Table 2.3.3 Time Since Ratemaking Clients Became Clients 96 Table 3.I.1 Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale (for displayed parameters) 99 Table 3.I.2 Hurricane Parameters 103 Table 3.I.3 Historical and Modeled Hurricane Characteristics for Florida 106 Table 3.I.4 Model Results Probability of Hurricanes by Year 107 Table 3.IV.1 Example of Insurer Loss Calculation 111 Table 3.IV.2 Comparison 1: Mobile Home Losses - Various Events 115 Table 3.IV.3 Comparison 2: Hurricane Hugo - Losses by Construction Class 115 Table 3.IV.4 Comparison 3: Hurricane Andrew - Losses by Coverage Type 115 Table 3.IV.5 Comparison 4: Hurricane Andrew - Losses by County 116 Table 3.IV.6 Comparison 5: Various Companies - Total Losses 116 Table 3.V.1 Percentage change in weighted average loss costs from previous year statewide 124 Table 3.V.2 Percentage change in weighted average loss costs from previous year by region 124 Table 3.V.3 Percentage change in weighted average loss costs from previous year by coastal and inland counties. 125 Information submitted to the Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodology, February 2003 © 2003 Risk Management Solutions, Inc v Table 3.V.4 Monetary Contribution to the Average Annual Loss for each Storm in the Official Storm Set 126 Table 3.V.5 Contribution from Hurricane Andrew for Each Affected ZIP Code 128 Table 3.V.6 Model Results - Distribution of Hurricanes by Size 136 Table 3.VII.1 Summary of Form F Input and Output Files 149 Table 3.VII.2 Filling parameter values used for the first quantile input 150 Information submitted to the Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodology, February 2003 © 2003 Risk Management Solutions, Inc vi 2002 Standards: 5.1 General Standards FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HURRICANE LOSS PROJECTION METHODOLOGY 2002 Standards 5.1 General Standards 5.1.1 Scope of the Computer Model and Its Implementation The computer model shall project loss costs for personal lines residential property from hurricane events, excluding flood and storm surge, except as flood and storm surge apply to Additional Living Expense (ALE).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Investigation and Prediction of Hurricane Eyewall
    INVESTIGATION AND PREDICTION OF HURRICANE EYEWALL REPLACEMENT CYCLES By Matthew Sitkowski A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences) at the UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON 2012 Date of final oral examination: 4/9/12 The dissertation is approved by the following members of the Final Oral Committee: James P. Kossin, Affiliate Professor, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Daniel J. Vimont, Professor, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Steven A. Ackerman, Professor, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Jonathan E. Martin, Professor, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Gregory J. Tripoli, Professor, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences i Abstract Flight-level aircraft data and microwave imagery are analyzed to investigate hurricane secondary eyewall formation and eyewall replacement cycles (ERCs). This work is motivated to provide forecasters with new guidance for predicting and better understanding the impacts of ERCs. A Bayesian probabilistic model that determines the likelihood of secondary eyewall formation and a subsequent ERC is developed. The model is based on environmental and geostationary satellite features. A climatology of secondary eyewall formation is developed; a 13% chance of secondary eyewall formation exists when a hurricane is located over water, and is also utilized by the model. The model has been installed at the National Hurricane Center and has skill in forecasting secondary eyewall formation out to 48 h. Aircraft reconnaissance data from 24 ERCs are examined to develop a climatology of flight-level structure and intensity changes associated with ERCs. Three phases are identified based on the behavior of the maximum intensity of the hurricane: intensification, weakening and reintensification.
    [Show full text]
  • 1989 Hurricane Hugo - September 1989
    1989 Hurricane Hugo - September 1989. Category 4 hurricane devastates SC and NC with ~ 20 foot storm surge and severe wind damage after hitting PR and the U.S. Virgin Islands; over $9.0 (13.9) billion (about $7.1 (10.9) billion in Carolinas); 86 deaths (57--U.S. mainland, 29--U.S. Islands). Hurricane Hugo was a powerful Cape Verde hurricane that caused widespread damage and loss of life in Guadeloupe, Saint Croix, Puerto Rico, and the Southeast United States. It formed over the eastern Atlantic near the Cape Verde Islands on September 9, 1989. Hugo moved thousands of miles across the Atlantic, rapidly strengthening to briefly attain category 5 hurricane strength on its journey. It later crossed over Guadeloupe and St. Croix on September 17 and 18 as a category 4 hurricane. Weakening slightly more, it passed over Puerto Rico as a strong category 3 hurricane. Further weakening occurred several hours after re-emerging into the Atlantic, becoming downgraded to a category 2 hurricane. However, it re-strengthened into a category 4 hurricane before making landfall just slightly north of Charleston, on Isle of Palms on September 22 with 140 mph sustained winds (gusts to more than 160 mph). It had devolved to a remnant low near Lake Erie by the next day. As of 2016, Hurricane Hugo is the most intense tropical cyclone to strike the East Coast north of Florida since 1898. Hurricane Hugo caused 34 fatalities (most by electrocution or drowning) in the Caribbean and 27 in South Carolina, left nearly 100,000 homeless, and resulted in $9.47 billion (1989 USD) in damage overall, making it the most damaging hurricane ever recorded at the time.
    [Show full text]
  • Storm Tide Simulations for Hurricane Hugo (1989): on the Significance of Including Inland Flooding Areas
    STORM TIDE SIMULATIONS FOR HURRICANE HUGO (1989): ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF INCLUDING INLAND FLOODING AREAS by DANIEL DIETSCHE B.S. Basle Institute of Technology, Switzerland, 1993 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering in the College of Engineering and Computer Science at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Summer Term 2004 ABSTRACT In this study, storm tides are simulated by performing a hindcast of water surface levels produced by Hurricane Hugo (1989). The region of interest incorporates inundation areas between Charleston and Shallotte Inlet (120 miles northeast of Charleston) and includes Bulls Bay where the highest storm surge of about 20 feet occurred. The study domain also contains an important riverine system which is connected to the Winyah Bay: the Waccamaw River up to Conway including all pertinent tributaries (Sampit River, Black River, and Pee Dee River), and the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIW) within the Grand Strand (Myrtle Beach). Five different two-dimensional finite element models with triangular elements are applied in order to simulate the storm tides, allow for inundation, and provide a basis of comparison to assess the significance of including inundation areas and two extents of spatial discretization. Four computational regions comprise a semicircular mesh encompassing the South Carolina coast including all relevant estuaries and bays as well as the continental shelf. Two of these four computational regions include inland topography allowing the model to simulate inland flooding. One of the floodplain meshes is then incorporated into the Western North Atlantic Tidal (WNAT) model domain to produce a fifth computational region.
    [Show full text]
  • Hurricane & Tropical Storm
    5.8 HURRICANE & TROPICAL STORM SECTION 5.8 HURRICANE AND TROPICAL STORM 5.8.1 HAZARD DESCRIPTION A tropical cyclone is a rotating, organized system of clouds and thunderstorms that originates over tropical or sub-tropical waters and has a closed low-level circulation. Tropical depressions, tropical storms, and hurricanes are all considered tropical cyclones. These storms rotate counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere around the center and are accompanied by heavy rain and strong winds (NOAA, 2013). Almost all tropical storms and hurricanes in the Atlantic basin (which includes the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea) form between June 1 and November 30 (hurricane season). August and September are peak months for hurricane development. The average wind speeds for tropical storms and hurricanes are listed below: . A tropical depression has a maximum sustained wind speeds of 38 miles per hour (mph) or less . A tropical storm has maximum sustained wind speeds of 39 to 73 mph . A hurricane has maximum sustained wind speeds of 74 mph or higher. In the western North Pacific, hurricanes are called typhoons; similar storms in the Indian Ocean and South Pacific Ocean are called cyclones. A major hurricane has maximum sustained wind speeds of 111 mph or higher (NOAA, 2013). Over a two-year period, the United States coastline is struck by an average of three hurricanes, one of which is classified as a major hurricane. Hurricanes, tropical storms, and tropical depressions may pose a threat to life and property. These storms bring heavy rain, storm surge and flooding (NOAA, 2013). The cooler waters off the coast of New Jersey can serve to diminish the energy of storms that have traveled up the eastern seaboard.
    [Show full text]
  • Hurricane Marãa Tripled Stem Breaks and Doubled Tree Mortality Relative
    ARTICLE https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09319-2 OPEN Hurricane María tripled stem breaks and doubled tree mortality relative to other major storms María Uriarte 1, Jill Thompson2 & Jess K. Zimmerman3 Tropical cyclones are expected to intensify under a warming climate, with uncertain effects on tropical forests. One key challenge to predicting how more intense storms will influence these ecosystems is to attribute impacts specifically to storm meteorology rather than dif- 1234567890():,; ferences in forest characteristics. Here we compare tree damage data collected in the same forest in Puerto Rico after Hurricanes Hugo (1989, category 3), Georges (1998, category 3), and María (2017, category 4). María killed twice as many trees as Hugo, and for all but two species, broke 2- to 12-fold more stems than the other two storms. Species with high density wood were resistant to uprooting, hurricane-induced mortality, and were protected from breakage during Hugo but not María. Tree inventories and a wind exposure model allow us to attribute these differences in impacts to storm meteorology. A better understanding of risk factors associated with tree species susceptibility to severe storms is key to predicting the future of forest ecosystems under climate warming. 1 Department of Ecology Evolution and Environmental Biology, Columbia University, 1200 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10027, USA. 2 Centre for Ecology & Hydrology Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian EH26 0QB, UK. 3 Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00925, USA. Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to M.U. (email: [email protected]) NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2019) 10:1362 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09319-2 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications 1 ARTICLE NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09319-2 yclonic storms (hurricanes, cyclones, and typhoons) exposure to wind or the structure and composition of forests at Crepresent the dominant natural disturbance in coastal the time the storm struck.
    [Show full text]
  • ANNUAL SUMMARY Atlantic Hurricane Season of 2005
    MARCH 2008 ANNUAL SUMMARY 1109 ANNUAL SUMMARY Atlantic Hurricane Season of 2005 JOHN L. BEVEN II, LIXION A. AVILA,ERIC S. BLAKE,DANIEL P. BROWN,JAMES L. FRANKLIN, RICHARD D. KNABB,RICHARD J. PASCH,JAMIE R. RHOME, AND STACY R. STEWART Tropical Prediction Center, NOAA/NWS/National Hurricane Center, Miami, Florida (Manuscript received 2 November 2006, in final form 30 April 2007) ABSTRACT The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was the most active of record. Twenty-eight storms occurred, includ- ing 27 tropical storms and one subtropical storm. Fifteen of the storms became hurricanes, and seven of these became major hurricanes. Additionally, there were two tropical depressions and one subtropical depression. Numerous records for single-season activity were set, including most storms, most hurricanes, and highest accumulated cyclone energy index. Five hurricanes and two tropical storms made landfall in the United States, including four major hurricanes. Eight other cyclones made landfall elsewhere in the basin, and five systems that did not make landfall nonetheless impacted land areas. The 2005 storms directly caused nearly 1700 deaths. This includes approximately 1500 in the United States from Hurricane Katrina— the deadliest U.S. hurricane since 1928. The storms also caused well over $100 billion in damages in the United States alone, making 2005 the costliest hurricane season of record. 1. Introduction intervals for all tropical and subtropical cyclones with intensities of 34 kt or greater; Bell et al. 2000), the 2005 By almost all standards of measure, the 2005 Atlantic season had a record value of about 256% of the long- hurricane season was the most active of record.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida Hurricanes and Tropical Storms
    FLORIDA HURRICANES AND TROPICAL STORMS 1871-1995: An Historical Survey Fred Doehring, Iver W. Duedall, and John M. Williams '+wcCopy~~ I~BN 0-912747-08-0 Florida SeaGrant College is supported by award of the Office of Sea Grant, NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce,grant number NA 36RG-0070, under provisions of the NationalSea Grant College and Programs Act of 1966. This information is published by the Sea Grant Extension Program which functionsas a coinponentof the Florida Cooperative Extension Service, John T. Woeste, Dean, in conducting Cooperative Extensionwork in Agriculture, Home Economics, and Marine Sciences,State of Florida, U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, U.S. Departmentof Commerce, and Boards of County Commissioners, cooperating.Printed and distributed in furtherance af the Actsof Congressof May 8 andJune 14, 1914.The Florida Sea Grant Collegeis an Equal Opportunity-AffirmativeAction employer authorizedto provide research, educational information and other servicesonly to individuals and institutions that function without regardto race,color, sex, age,handicap or nationalorigin. Coverphoto: Hank Brandli & Rob Downey LOANCOPY ONLY Florida Hurricanes and Tropical Storms 1871-1995: An Historical survey Fred Doehring, Iver W. Duedall, and John M. Williams Division of Marine and Environmental Systems, Florida Institute of Technology Melbourne, FL 32901 Technical Paper - 71 June 1994 $5.00 Copies may be obtained from: Florida Sea Grant College Program University of Florida Building 803 P.O. Box 110409 Gainesville, FL 32611-0409 904-392-2801 II Our friend andcolleague, Fred Doehringpictured below, died on January 5, 1993, before this manuscript was completed. Until his death, Fred had spent the last 18 months painstakingly researchingdata for this book.
    [Show full text]
  • TROPICAL STORM TALAS FORMATION and IMPACTS at KWAJALEIN ATOLL Tom Wright * 3D Research Corporation, Kwajalein, Marshall Islands
    J16A.3 TROPICAL STORM TALAS FORMATION AND IMPACTS AT KWAJALEIN ATOLL Tom Wright * 3D Research Corporation, Kwajalein, Marshall Islands 1. INTRODUCTION 4,000 km southwest of Hawaii, 1,350 km north of the equator, or almost exactly halfway Tropical Storm (TS) 31W (later named Talas) between Hawaii and Australia. Kwajalein is the developed rapidly and passed just to the south of largest of the approximately 100 islands that Kwajalein Island (hereafter referred to as comprise Kwajalein Atoll and is located at 8.7° “Kwajalein”), on 10 December 2004 UTC. north and 167.7° east. Kwajalein is the southern-most island of Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands (see figure 2.2 Topography/Bathymetry 1). Despite having been a minimal tropical storm as it passed, TS Talas had a significant impact The islands that make up Kwajalein Atoll all lie not only on the residents of Kwajalein Atoll, but very near sea level with an average elevation of on mission operations at United States Army approximately 1.5 m above mean sea level. The Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA)/Ronald Reagan Test Site highest elevations are man-made hills which top (RTS). out at approximately 6 m above mean sea level. This paper will describe the development and evolution of TS Talas and its impacts on Kwajalein Atoll and USAKA/RTS. Storm data, including radar, satellite, and surface and upper air observations, and a summary of impacts will be presented. A strong correlation between Tropical Cyclone (TC) frequency and the phase of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) has been observed for the Northern Marshall Islands.
    [Show full text]
  • Insurer Stock Price Responses to Hurricane Floyd: an Event Study Analysis Using Storm Characteristics
    JUNE 2006 E W I N G E T A L . 395 Insurer Stock Price Responses to Hurricane Floyd: An Event Study Analysis Using Storm Characteristics BRADLEY T. EWING Jerry S. Rawls College of Business, and Wind Science and Engineering Research Center, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas SCOTT E. HEIN Jerry S. Rawls College of Business, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas JAMIE BROWN KRUSE Natural Hazards Mitigation Research Center, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina (Manuscript received 20 January 2005, in final form 30 September 2005) ABSTRACT This research uses an event study methodology to examine the effect of Hurricane Floyd and the associated scientific and media releases on the market value of insurance firms. The research is unique in that information describing the development of the storm over time and space is incorporated to determine how the financial market reacted to changing news about a storm’s characteristics. Key empirical results can be summarized as follows. Overall, there was a negative effect on insurer stock price changes around the synoptic life cycle of the storm; however, this effect was neither constant nor was it always negative on each day of the cycle. Significant market reaction to the news concerning the path and strength of the storm prior to the storm landfall was found. The results herein suggest that markets find reliable time-sensitive reports provided by the National Weather Service, the National Hurricane Center, and other media outlets to be valuable information. 1. Introduction tops the list (the 11 September terrorist attack ranks second). Given the large amount of physical and eco- In September 1999 Hurricane Floyd hit the area nomic damage it should not be surprising that insurance around Wilmington/New Hanover County, North firms were materially affected by these windstorms.
    [Show full text]
  • Hazus Hurricane Wind for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands
    Hazus Hurricane Wind for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands May 2021 Hazus Hurricane Wind for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands Table of Contents Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... i List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................. vi List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................. viii Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................... x Section 1. Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 1-1 Section 2. Adapting the Hazus Model for Caribbean Territories ........................................................ 2-1 2.1 A Need for Hazus following Hurricanes Irma and Maria.............................................................. 2-1 2.2 Leveraging Damage Inspections and Local Caribbean Conditions Data ................................... 2-2 2.2.1 Topographic Differences ....................................................................................................... 2-3 2.2.2 Differences in the Built Environment ................................................................................... 2-4 2.2.2.1 Residential
    [Show full text]
  • 2009 FCHLPM Submission
    FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HURRICANE LOSS PROJECTION METHODOLOGY November 2010 Submission May 17, 2011 Revision Florida Hurricane Model 2011a A Component of the EQECAT North Atlantic Hurricane Model in WORLDCATenterpriseTM / USWIND£ Submitted under the 2009 Standards of the FCHLPM 1 Frankfurt Irvine London Oakland Paris March 28, 2011 Tokyo Warrington Scott Wallace, Vice Chair Wilmington Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodology c/o Donna Sirmons Florida State Board of Administration 1801 Hermitage Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, FL 32308 Dear Mr. Wallace, I am pleased to inform you that EQECAT, Inc. is ready for the Commission’s review and re-certification of the Florida Hurricane Model component of its WORLDCATenterpriseTM / USWIND£ software for use in Florida. As required by the Commission, enclosed are the data and analyses for the General, Meteorological, Vulnerability, Actuarial, Statistical, and Computer Standards, updated to reflect compliance with the Standards set forth in the Commission’s Report of Activities as of November 1, 2009. In addition, the EQECAT Florida Hurricane Model has been reviewed by professionals having credentials and/or experience in the areas of meteorology, engineering, actuarial science, statistics, and computer science, as documented in the signed Expert Certification (Forms G-1 to G-6). We have also completed the Editorial Certification (Form G-7). Note that we are seeking certification for our Florida Hurricane Model, which is contained in both our standalone software USWIND and our client-server software WORLDCATenterprise, as the Florida Hurricane Model is the same in the two platforms. In our submission, for simplicity we refer to the Florida Hurricane loss model common to both platforms as USWIND, and only refer to specific platform or version numbers as relevant.
    [Show full text]
  • Storms Are Thunderstorms That Produce Tornadoes, Large Hail Or Are Accompanied by High Winds
    From February 17 to 19, a severe storm blasted the Lebanese coast with 100- kilometer (60-mile) winds and dropped as much as 2 meters (7 feet) of snow on parts of the country, news sources said. Temperatures dropped to near freezing along the coast, while snowplows struggled to clear the main roadway between Beirut and Damascus. The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Terra satellite captured this natural-color image on February 20, 2012. Snow covers much of Lebanon, and extends across the border with Syria. Another expanse of snow occurs just north of the Syria-Jordan border. Snow in Lebanon is not uncommon, and the country is home to ski resorts. Still, this fierce storm may have been part of a larger pattern of cold weather in Europe and North Africa. References The Daily Star. (2012, February 18). Lebanon hit by extreme weather conditions. Accessed February 21, 2012. Naharnet. (2012, February 19). Storm subsides after coating Lebanon in snow. Accessed February 21, 2012. NASA image courtesy LANCE/EOSDIS MODIS Rapid Response Team at NASA GSFC. Caption by Michon Scott. Instrument: Terra - MODIS Flooding is the most common of all natural hazards. Each year, more deaths are caused by flooding than any other thunderstorm related hazard. We think this is because people tend to underestimate the force and power of water. Six inches of fast-moving water can knock you off your feet. Water 24 inches deep can carry away most automobiles. Nearly half of all flash flood deaths occur in automobiles as they are swept downstream.
    [Show full text]