Helsinki Presentation 2009-05-28 · Tabasco Flood (2007) 700 Hurricane Gilbert (1997) 567 Mexico City Earthquake (1985) 473 Hurricane Isidore (2002) 308 Hurricane Emily (2005) 302

Evaluating the Impact of theEvaluating the Impact of the Increase in Hurricane Frequency q yUsing and Internal Model. A

Simulation Analysis

Enrique de AlbaINEGIandand

University of Waterloo

Ricardo AndradeINEGI

Hurakan (“One legged")Hurakan ( One legged )

Hurakan, also known as Heart of Heaven, was a Mayan god of wind, storm and fire. Dwelt indarkness and mist he repeated the word "earth" until land rose from the sea He planned thedarkness and mist, he repeated the word earth until land rose from the sea. He planned thecreation of life and participated at creating mankind. When gods became angry with the first“wood” humans, Hurakan sent a resin flood to destroy them.

In appearance he has one leg the other being transformed into a serpent a zoomorphic snout orIn appearance he has one leg, the other being transformed into a serpent, a zoomorphic snout orlong‐nose, and a smoking object such as a cigar, torch holder, or axe head which pierces a mirror onhis forehead.

INTRODUCTION

Tropical Cyclone ClassificationTropical Cyclone Classification

Saffir‐Simpson Scale Category Wind Speed (Km/h)

Tropical Storm (TS) 61 to 118 Hurricane Category 1 (H1) 119 to 153Hurricane Category 1 (H1) 119 to 153 Hurricane Category 2 (H2) 154 to 177 Hurricane Category 3 (H3) 178 to 209

S N ti l O i At h i Ad i i t ti U S

Hurricane Category 4 (H4) 210 to 249 Hurricane Category 5 (H5) More than 249

Source: National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, U.S.

H1 and H2 hurricanes thathit Mexico between 1970hit Mexico between 1970and 2006

NORTH ATLANTIC OCEANOCEAN

EAST PACIFICEAST PACIFIC OCEAN

Hurricane Category 2 H i C 1Hurricane Category 1

Source: National Meteorological Service, Mex. (2009).

H3, H4 and H5 hurricanesthat hit Mexico betweenthat hit Mexico between1970 and 2006

NORTH ATLANTIC OCEANOCEAN

EAST PACIFICEAST PACIFIC OCEAN

Hurricane Category 5H i C 4Hurricane Category 4 Hurricane Category 3

Source: National Meteorological Service, Mex. (2009).

Most Expensive Catastrophes in MexicoMost Expensive Catastrophes in Mexico

Highest Losses for Mexican Insurance SectorHighest Losses for Mexican Insurance SectorCatastrophe Loss (million USD)

Hurricane Wilma (2005) 1,752Tabasco Flood (2007) 700Hurricane Gilbert (1997) 567Mexico City Earthquake (1985) 473Mexico City Earthquake (1985) 473Hurricane Isidore (2002) 308Hurricane Emily (2005) 302Hurricane Stan (2005) 228Hurricane Kenna (2002) 176Hurricane Julliette (2001) 90

Source: Mexican Association of Insurance Institutions (2007).

Hurricane Julliette (2001) 90Hurricane Pauline (1997) 62

Hurricane Hits in 2005 (North Atlantic)Hurricane Hits in 2005 (North Atlantic)-120 -110 -100 -90 -80 -70

4030

lat

200

210

Emily (H4, H3)Stan (TS, H1)Wilma (H4)

lon

240 250 260 270 280 290

Increase in Hurricane Activity?Increase in Hurricane Activity?

• K t T R d T l R E (2004) I t f CO2 i d d

(In Favour)

• Knutson, T.R., and Tuleya, R.E. (2004), Impact of CO2‐induced warming on simulated hurricane intensity and precipitation: Sensitivity to the choice of climate model and convective parameterization Journal of Climate 17(18) 3477 3495parameterization. Journal of Climate 17(18), 3477‐3495.

• Emanuel, K. (2005), Increasing Destructiveness of Tropical Cyclones O th P t 30 Y N t 436 686 688Over the Past 30 Years. Nature 436, 686‐688.

• Webster, P.J., Holland, G.J., Curry, J.A., Chang, H.‐R. (2005), Changes , , , , y, , g, ( ), gin Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment, Science Vol. 309, 1844‐1846.

• Agata, H. (2007), El Cambio Climático: Repercusiones Económicas para el Seguro, XIX Seminario Internacional de Seguros y Fianzas de la CNSF.la CNSF.

Increase in Hurricane Activity?Increase in Hurricane Activity?

L d CW (2005) H i d Gl b l W i

(Against)

• Landsea, C.W. (2005), Hurricanes and Global Warming, Nature 438(22), E11‐E12.

• Pielke, R.A. (2005), Are there trends in hurricane destruction?, Nature 438, E11‐E13.

• Landsea, C.W., Harper, B.A., Hoarau, K., Knaff, J.A. (2006), Can We Detect Trends in Extreme Tropical Cyclones?,Can We Detect Trends in Extreme Tropical Cyclones?, Science Vol. 313, 452‐454.

• Kerr, R.A. (2008), Hurricanes Wont Go Wild, According to Climate Models, Science Vol. 320, 999.

Tropical Cyclone Frequency (1950 2007)Tropical Cyclone Frequency (1950‐2007)Tropical Cyclones per Year in the North Atlantic

quen

cy

15202530 29 Years

All Tropical CyclonesHurricanes

Freq

50 60 70 80 90 00 10

05

10

195

196

197

198

199

200

20

Tropical Cyclones per Year in the East Pacific

y 2530

All Tropical CyclonesHurricanes

29 Years2530

Freq

uenc

y

05

101520

Hurricanes

05

101520

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

0

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

0

Intense Hurricane Activity (H4 and H5)Intense‐Hurricane Activity (H4 and H5)

Intense Hurricanes1975‐1989 1990‐2004

N b P t N b P tNumber Percentage Number Percentage

North Atlantic 16 20 25 25

Source: Webster et al. (2005).

East Pacific 36 25 49 35

Intense Hurricanes in North Atlantic and East Pacific Basins

Percentage of Intense Hurricanes (5-Year Moving Average)

70%go

ry

50%

60%

urric

anes

/Cat

eg

40%

50%

erce

nt T

otal

Hu

20%

30%

Pe

10%

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0%

THE LOSS MODEL

Tropical Cyclones Considered in ERN Software

D t f N ti l O i d At h i• Data from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), US.

North Atlantic Data: since 24/June/1851– North Atlantic Data: since 24/June/1851.– East Pacific Data: since 10/June/1949.

• Only those that reached hurricane category• Only those that reached hurricane category (Saffir‐Simpson scale) at some point of their trajectory.j y

• Only those that get closer than 200 km from Mexican coasts.

• 269 hurricanes considered.

Gaussian Perturbations of the TrajectoriesGaussian Perturbations of the Trajectories

60

-120 -110 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60

4050

lat

304

200

10

WilmaSimulations

lon

240 250 260 270 280 290 300

Wilma Trajectory Yucatan Peninsula-92 -90 -88 -86 -84

Wilma Trajectory‐Yucatan Peninsula(Readings every six hours)

23

Wilma´s Trajectory 23/10/05 18:00 H2

122

22/10/05 12:00 H322/10/05 18:00 H2

23/10/05 0:00 H223/10/05 6:00 H2

23/10/05 12:00 H2

lat

202

21/10/05 6:00 H4

21/10/05 12:00 H421/10/05 18:00 H422/10/05 0:00 H4

22/10/05 6:00 H322/10/05 12:00 H3

YUCATAN PENINSULA

819

20/10/05 0 00 H420/10/05 6:00 H4

20/10/05 12:00 H420/10/05 18:00 H4

21/10/05 0:00 H4

21/10/05 6:00 H4YUCATAN PENINSULA

171

19/10/019/10/05 18:0

20/10/05 0:00 H4

lon

268 270 272 274 276

RESULTADOS DE LA EVALUACIÓN DE RIESGO HIDROMETEOROLÓGICO DE LA CARTERA

Fecha de creación:Octubre 25, 2007

Fecha de corte:Septiembre 30, 2007

Responsable:ERN, Evaluación de Riesgos Naturales

Archivos analizadosTipo 1 D:\HIDRO_PML\2007\0907\Eval00\Cartera Independientes.mdbTipo 2 D:\HIDRO_PML\2007\0907\Eval00\Cartera Colectiva.mdb

AsegurableSuma $ 294,034,316,768.20

Prima pura total $ 165,721,091.73 0.564al millarPrima pura total $ 165,721,091.73 0.564al millar

Prima pura devengada $ 89,908,029.04 0.306al millar

Prima pura no devengada $ 73,499,610.37 0.250al millar

PML $ 5,090,101,229.93 1.731%

RetenciónSuma $ 148,208,815,642.91 50.405% a retención

Prima pura total $ 133,122,681.25 0.453al millar

Prima pura devengada $ 68,415,630.00 0.233al millar

Prima pura no devengada $ 61,960,192.75 0.211al millar

PML $ 4,067,898,539.50 1.383%

PMLPeriodo de Retorno Total Retenidae odo de e o o o e e d

50 $ 1,145,466,254.99 0.39% $ 895,054,421.03 0.30%

100 $ 1,655,063,203.53 0.56% $ 1,306,720,915.40 0.44%

200 $ 2,310,906,381.48 0.79% $ 1,840,514,265.06 0.63%

500 $ 3 421 428 457 69 1 16% $ 2 735 722 879 08 0 93%500 $ 3,421,428,457.69 1.16% $ 2,735,722,879.08 0.93%

1,000 $ 4,436,054,144.60 1.51% $ 3,546,556,914.15 1.21%

1,500 $ 5,090,101,229.93 1.73% $ 4,067,898,539.50 1.38%

2,500 $ 5,966,994,230.56 2.03% $ 4,767,003,433.55 1.62%Análisis realizado con el sistema RH-Mex v1.0 desarrollado por ERN Evaluación de Riesgos Naturales

Additional Output (Fuentes File)Additional Output (Fuentes‐File)

Loss Statistics of Each Tropical Cyclone

Site MagnitudeExpected Loss

Expected Loss (%)

Occurrence Probability

Variation Coefficient

P0 P1 a b Exposure( ) y

1 0 1.08E+06 3.24E‐04 7.04E‐03 0 0E+00 0E+00 0.0541 166.9303 3.32E+09

2 0 2.27E+07 3.48E‐03 7.04E‐03 0 0E+00 0E+00 0.1450 41.4889 6.52E+09

3 0 7.86E+07 7.66E‐04 7.04E‐03 0 0E+00 0E+00 0.1439 187.7655 1.03E+113 0 7.86E 07 7.66E 04 7.04E 03 0 0E 00 0E 00 0.1439 187.7655 1.03E 11

4 0 1.42E+07 2.72E‐03 7.04E‐03 0 0E+00 0E+00 0.2415 88.3976 5.21E+09

5 0 8.40E+06 4.39E‐03 7.04E‐03 0 0E+00 0E+00 0.1277 28.9752 1.92E+09

6 0 4.54E+06 1.27E‐03 7.04E‐03 0 0E+00 0E+00 0.1906 150.1830 3.58E+09

7 0 1.56E+06 2.26E‐04 7.04E‐03 0 0E+00 0E+00 0.0544 240.8914 6.89E+09

Reinsurance SchemeReinsurance Scheme

Non‐Proportional Reinsurance Scheme

i i CReinstatement

l iLayers Priority CoverReinstatement

PremiumRol Reins

1 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ 1,586 21.1% 22 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 1,890 12.6% 2$ , $ , $ ,3 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 2,268 7.6% 14 $ 60,000 $ 40,000 $ 1,548 3.9% 15 $ 100,000 $ 130,000 $ 2,574 2.0% 1

(Monetary Quantities in Thousands of Dollars)

$ , $ , $ ,

10% Quota share before $ 7,500.

Simulation 1: Internal Model ResultsSimulation 1: Internal Model Results

Loss Summary: Simulation with Internal Model Results

Min Q1 Median Mean Q3 Max

Gross loss $ 0 $ 42 $ 720 $ 8,087 $ 5,381 $ 1,189,000

Net loss $ 0 $ 42 $ 720 $ 2,927 $ 5,142 $ 952,000

Net loss w.o. reins. $ 0 $ 42 $ 720 $ 2,399 $ 5,000 $ 944,100

R t ti 5% 100% 100% 88% 100% 100%Retention 5% 100% 100% 88% 100% 100%


Our ModelOur ModelSimulation :

NOAA Data (1950‐2007)(217 tropical cyclones)

Tropical Cyclone FrequencyModel 1) Number of

occurrences by year.(217 tropical cyclones)

Tropical Cyclone IntensityModel

2) Intensity of each tropical cyclone.

3) Loss due to each tropical cyclone.

ERN Data(269 tropical cyclones)

4) Annual Insurer losses.

5) 150 000 yearsLoss Distribution

by Intensity(269 tropical cyclones) 5) 150,000 years.by Intensity

What We Did with NOAA DataWhat We Did with NOAA Data

d if hi h i l l hi i• Identify which Tropical Cyclones hit Mexico.– Between 1970 and 2007: Registries from Mexican National Meteorological Service.

– Before 1970: • Hit: If the tropical cyclone got closer than 100 km from Mexican coasts.C t M i t i t d t th i t• Category: Maximum category registered at those points in the trajectory that were closer than 100 km from Mexican coasts.

• 217 hits (1950‐2007).

Additional Information Requested to ERNAdditional Information Requested to ERN

Complementary Information to Fuentes‐File

# By Catalog # By Ocean Ocean Name Date Max Speed Max Category

91 91 Atl NOT NAMED 1.82E+04 212.7903 H492 92 Atl BAKER 1.85E+04 194.2867 H393 93 Atl ITEM 1.85E+04 175.7832 H294 94 Atl CHARLIE 1.89E+04 212.7903 H495 95 Atl HOW 1 89E+04 175 7832 H295 95 Atl HOW 1.89E+04 175.7832 H296 96 Atl FLORENCE 1.96E+04 203.5385 H397 97 Atl ALICE 19899 129.5245 H1

What We Did with ERN DataWhat We Did with ERN Data

Cl if h 269 i l l di h• Classify the 269 tropical cyclones according to the category they had when they hit Mexico.

Between 1970 and 2007: Registries from Mexican National– Between 1970 and 2007: Registries from Mexican National Meteorological Service.

– Before 1970:Before 1970: • Hit: If the tropical cyclone got closer than 100 km from Mexican coasts.

• Category: Maximum category registered at those points in the• Category: Maximum category registered at those points in the trajectory that were closer than 100 km from Mexican coasts.

• Only 184 hits.y• The remaining 85 tropical cyclones were considered as tropical storms (similar range of losses).

Classifications ComparisonClassifications ComparisonClassification of Hurricanes in Fuentes‐FileTS H1 H2 H3 H4 H5

ERN Classification

0 115 68 41 32 130% 43% 25% 15% 12% 5%124 81 35 13 11 5New

Classification124 81 35 13 11 546% 30% 13% 5% 4% 2%

Expected Loss by Category Expected Loss by Categoryp y g y(ERN Classification)

on U

SD

)

50

60

p y g y(New Classification)

on U

SD

)

50

60

d Lo

ss (M

illio

20

30

40

50

d Lo

ss (M

illio

20

30

40

50

Exp

ecte

d

H1

H2

H3

H4

H5

0

10

20E

xpec

ted

TS H1

H2

H3

H4

H5

0

10

20

Category

H H H H H

CategoryT H H H H H

Rank of Losses per BasinRank of Losses per BasinExpected Loss by Ocean and Categoryp y g y

(New Classification)

SD

)

6070

North AtlanticEast Pacific

ss (M

illio

n U

S

040

506 East Pacific

Exp

ecte

d Lo

s

1020

30

E

TS H1 H2 H3 H4 H5

0

Category

SCENARIOS

IPCC Criteria for Assessing Future Climate Scenarios

• Consistency at regional level with global projections.

Ph i l l ibilit d li• Physical plausibility and realism.

• Appropriateness of temporal and spatial scale.pp p p p

• Representativeness of the potential range of future

regional climate change.

• Accessibility of information• Accessibility of information.

Frequency Distributions FittedFrequency Distributions FittedDistribution Fitted to North Atlantic Data

(1950 2007)Distribution Fitted to East Pacific Data

(1950 2007) (1950-2007)

0.4PoissonTD-Gumbel

(1950-2007)

0.4PoissonTD-Gumbel

Mean = 1.15 Mean = 2.58

0.3 0.3

Den

sity

0.2

Den

sity

0.2

0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0

Tropical Cyclone Hits per Year

0 2 4 6 8


0 2 4 6 8

Intensity ModelIntensity Model

Hits by Category (1950 2007)Hits by Category (1950‐2007)TS H1 H2 H3 H4 H5

North Atlanti34 13 3 6 6 5

North Atlantic51% 19% 4% 9% 9% 7%

East Pacific82 46 12 5 4 155% 31% 8% 3% 3% 1%55% 31% 8% 3% 3% 1%

Simulation 2: Base ScenarioSimulation 2: Base Scenario

Loss Summary: Base Scenario


Gross loss $ 0 $ 61 $ 1,136 $ 1,910 $ 8,236 $ 1,027,000

Net loss $ 0 $ 6 $ 114 $ 1,682 $ 853 $ 780,000

Net loss w.o. reins. $ 0 $ 6 $ 114 $ 905 $ 750 $ 770,100

R t ti 0% 10% 10% 10% 10% 78%Retention 0% 10% 10% 10% 10% 78%


Change in Mean FrequencyTropical Cyclones per Year in the North Atlantic

Change in Mean Frequency

quen

cy20

30

40 TotalHitsMeans

Period 1 Period 2

+19%Fr

eq

950

960

970

980

990

000

0

10+19%

‐14%

Year

19 19 19 19 19 20

Period 1: 1950‐1978Period 2: 1979‐2007

Tropical Cyclones per Year in the East Pacific

cy 30

40 TotalHits

Period 1 Period 2

Freq

uenc

0

10

20

30Means

+38%

‐23%

Year

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

0

Extreme Frequency ScenarioExtreme‐Frequency ScenarioFrequency Distribution (North Atlantic) Frequency Distribution (East Pacific)

0.4 19% mean increase

Base Scenario (lambda=1.15)Extreme Scenario (lambda=1.37)

0.4 38% mean increase

Base Scenario (lambda=2.58)Extreme Scenario (lambda=3.57)

0.3 0.3

Den

sity

0.2

Den

sity

0.2

0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0


0 2 4 6 8 10


0 2 4 6 8 10

Scenario ComparisonScenario ComparisonExtreme‐Frequency Scenario v s Base ScenarioExtreme‐Frequency Scenario v.s. Base Scenario


Gross lossBase $ 0 $ 61 $ 1,136 $ 11,910 $ 8,236 $ 1,027,000

Extreme $ 0 $ 259 $ 2 483 $ 15 330 $ 12 800 $ 1 285 000Gross loss Extreme $ 0 $ 259 $ 2,483 $ 15,330 $ 12,800 $ 1,285,000(+/‐ %) 0% 328% 119% 29% 55% 25%

Net lossBase $ 0 $ 6 $ 114 $ 1,682 $ 853 $ 780,000

Extreme $ 0 $ 26 $ 248 $ 2 153 $ 1 635 $ 1 064 000Net loss Extreme $ 0 $ 26 $ 248 $ 2,153 $ 1,635 $ 1,064,000(+/‐ %) 0% 328% 119% 28% 92% 36%

Net loss Base $ 0 $ 6 $ 114 $ 905 $ 750 $ 770,100

Extreme $ 0 $ 26 $ 248 $ 1 156 $ 770 $ 1 054 000w.o. reins.

Extreme $ 0 $ 26 $ 248 $ 1,156 $ 770 $ 1,054,000(+/‐ %) 0% 328% 119% 28% 3% 37%

RetentionBase 0% 10% 10% 10% 10% 78%

Extreme 0% 10% 10% 11% 10% 83%


Retention Extreme 0% 10% 10% 11% 10% 83%(+/‐ pp) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.45 4.75

Observed Intensity in 29 Year PeriodsObserved Intensity in 29‐Year PeriodsPercentage by Category (North Atlantic Total) Percentage by Category (North Atlantic Hits)

20%

30%

40%

50%

Period 1Period 2

30%

40%

50%Period 1Period 2

TS H1

H2

H3

H4

H5

0%

10%

20%

TS H1

H2

H3

H4

H5

0%

10%

20%

Percentage by Category (East Pacific Total) Percentage by Category (East Pacific Hits)

20%

30%

40%

50%

Period 1Period 2

30%

40%

50%Period 1Period 2

TS H1

H2

H3

H4

H5

0%

10%

20%

TS H1

H2

H3

H4

H5

0%

10%

20%

Period 1: 1950‐1978Period 2: 1979‐2007

Observed Intensity in 29 Year PeriodsObserved Intensity in 29‐Year Periods

Change in Category Proportions in the North AtlanticTotal Hits

P1 P2 +/‐ pp P1 P2 +/‐ ppTS 39% 45% 6.1 53% 48% ‐4.4H1 22% 25% 2 1 19% 19% 0 1H1 22% 25% 2.1 19% 19% ‐0.1H2 11% 9% ‐1.4 3% 6% 3.7H3 15% 9% ‐6.5 8% 10% 1.3H4 9% 9% ‐0.2 11% 6% ‐4.7H4 9% 9% 0.2 11% 6% 4.7H5 4% 4% ‐0.1 6% 10% 4.1

Change in Category Proportions in the East PacificTotal Hits

P1 P2 +/‐ pp P1 P2 +/‐ ppTS 52% 44% ‐7.8 61% 46% ‐15.0H1 30% 19% 11 6 32% 29% 2 5H1 30% 19% ‐11.6 32% 29% ‐2.5H2 6% 10% 3.9 1% 17% 15.7H3 5% 10% 5.1 2% 5% 2.3H4 6% 15% 9.2 2% 3% 0.7H5 1% 2% 1.2 1% 0% ‐1.2

Period 1: 1950‐1978Period 2: 1979‐2007

MaximumWind Speed RegisteredMaximum Wind Speed Registered Maximum Speed (North Atlantic Total 1950-2007) Maximum Speed (North Atlantic Hits 1950-2007)

ensi

ty

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012

ensi

ty

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012

De

50 100

150

200

250

300

0.000

0.002

0.004 De

50 100

150

200

250

300

0.000

0.002

0.004

Wind Speed (Km/h)

Maximum Speed (East Pacific Total 1950-2007)

Wind Speed (Km/h)

Maximum Speed (East Pacific Hits 1950-2007)

ensi

ty

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012

ensi

ty0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012

De

50 100

150

200

250

300

0.000

0.002

0.004 De

50 100

150

200

250

300

0.000

0.002

0.004

Wind Speed (Km/h) Wind Speed (Km/h)

Fitted Generalized Pareto Distribution to Wind Speed (North Atlantic Total)

Probability Plot Quantile Plot

0.6

0.8

1.0

el 0025

030

0

cal

0.0

0.2

0.4

0

Mod

e

100

150

20

Em

piri

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0

Empirical

100 150 200 250 300

Model

300

Return Level Plot

l

Density Plot

0.00

8

100

200

Ret

urn

leve

f(x)

00.

004

1

Return period (years)

0.1 1 10 100 1000

x

50 100 150 200 250 300

0.00

0

Fitted Generalized Pareto Distribution to Wind Speed (East Pacific Total)

Probability Plot Quantile Plot

0.6

0.8

1.0

el 200

250

300

cal

0.0

0.2

0.4

0

Mod

e

100

150

2

Em

piri

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0

Empirical

100 150 200 250 300

Model

250

300

Return Level Plot

l

Density Plot

.008

100

150

200

2

Ret

urn

leve

f(x)

00.

004

0.

Return period (years)

0.1 1 10 100 1000

x

100 150 200 250 300

0.00

0

Extreme Intensity Scenario AExtreme‐Intensity Scenario A

• Proportions according to the Generalized Pareto Distribution fitted.

Extreme‐Intensity Scenario A v.s. Base ScenarioTS H1 H2 H3 H4 H5

Base 51% 19% 4% 9% 9% 7%North Atlantic

Base 51% 19% 4% 9% 9% 7%Extreme A 43% 21% 11% 11% 9% 5%

(+/‐ pp) ‐7.28 1.12 6.61 2.31 ‐0.01 ‐2.75Base 55% 31% 8% 3% 3% 1%

East PacificBase 55% 31% 8% 3% 3% 1%

Extreme A 49% 21% 11% 10% 7% 2%(+/‐ pp) ‐5.49 ‐9.45 2.64 6.56 4.05 1.69

Proportion of Intense Hurricanes is reduced!

Extreme Intensity Scenario BExtreme‐Intensity Scenario B

• East Pacific proportions as in Extreme‐Intensity Scenario A.

• Increase Intense Hurricanes in the North Atlantic in the same ti i E t P ifiproportion as in East Pacific.

Extreme‐Intensity Scenario B v.s. Base ScenarioTS H1 H2 H3 H4 H5

Base 51% 19% 4% 9% 9% 7%North Atlantic

Base 51% 19% 4% 9% 9% 7%Extreme B 49% 18% 3% 8% 13% 9%

(+/‐ pp) ‐1.44 ‐1.44 ‐1.44 ‐1.44 4.05 1.69Base 55% 31% 8% 3% 3% 1%


Extreme B 49% 21% 11% 10% 7% 2%(+/‐ pp) ‐5.49 ‐9.45 2.64 6.56 4.05 1.69

Extreme Intensity Scenario CExtreme‐Intensity Scenario C

Extreme‐Intensity Scenario C v.s. Base ScenarioTS H1 H2 H3 H4 H5

North AtlanticBase 51% 19% 4% 9% 9% 7%

Extreme C 49% 18% 7% 7% 10% 8%/(+/‐ pp) ‐2.17 ‐0.96 2.88 ‐1.48 1.10 0.64


Extreme C 49% 21% 11% 10% 7% 2%( / )(+/‐ pp) ‐5.49 ‐9.45 2.64 6.56 4.05 1.69

Scenario ComparisonScenario ComparisonExtreme‐Intensity Scenario A v.s. Base Scenario


Gross lossBase $ 0 $ 61 $ 1,136 $ 11,910 $ 8,236 $ 1,027,000

Extreme A $ 0 $ 92 $ 1,700 $ 15,134 $ 11,525 $ 1,319,968(+/‐ %) 0% 52% 50% 27% 40% 29%

Net lossBase $ 0 $ 6 $ 114 $ 1,682 $ 853 $ 780,000

Extreme A $ 0 $ 9 $ 170 $ 2,162 $ 1,421 $ 1,100,584(+/‐ %) 0% 52% 50% 29% 67% 41%

Net loss w o reins

Base $ 0 $ 6 $ 114 $ 905 $ 750 $ 770,100Extreme A $ 0 $ 9 $ 170 $ 1,171 $ 752 $ 1,090,718

w.o. reins.(+/‐ %) 0% 52% 50% 29% 0% 42%

RetentionBase 0% 10% 10% 10% 10% 78%

Extreme A 0% 10% 10% 11% 10% 83%(+/‐ pp) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 5.33


Scenario ComparisonScenario ComparisonExtreme‐Intensity Scenario B v.s. Base Scenario


Gross lossBase $ 0 $ 61 $ 1,136 $ 11,910 $ 8,236 $ 1,027,000

Extreme B $ 0 $ 92 $ 1,778 $ 17,036 $ 12,846 $ 1,237,688(+/‐ %) 0% 52% 56% 43% 56% 21%

Net lossBase $ 0 $ 6 $ 114 $ 1,682 $ 853 $ 780,000

Extreme B $ 0 $ 9 $ 178 $ 2,511 $ 1,684 $ 1,018,019(+/‐ %) 0% 52% 56% 49% 98% 31%

Net loss w o reins

Base $ 0 $ 6 $ 114 $ 905 $ 750 $ 770,100Extreme B $ 0 $ 9 $ 178 $ 1,416 $ 753 $ 1,008,153

w.o. reins.(+/‐ %) 0% 52% 56% 56% 0% 31%

RetentionBase 0% 10% 10% 10% 10% 78%

Extreme B 0% 10% 10% 11% 10% 82%(+/‐ pp) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.05 4.20


Scenario ComparisonScenario ComparisonExtreme‐Intensity Scenario C v.s. Base Scenario


Gross lossBase $ 0 $ 61 $ 1,136 $ 11,910 $ 8,236 $ 1,027,000

Extreme C $ 0 $ 90 $ 1,670 $ 15,958 $ 11,956 $ 1,349,655(+/‐ %) 0% 49% 47% 34% 45% 31%

Net lossBase $ 0 $ 6 $ 114 $ 1,682 $ 853 $ 780,000

Extreme C $ 0 $ 9 $ 167 $ 2,341 $ 1,506 $ 1,123,610(+/‐ %) 0% 49% 47% 39% 77% 44%

Net loss w o reins

Base $ 0 $ 6 $ 114 $ 905 $ 750 $ 770,100Extreme C $ 0 $ 9 $ 167 $ 1,306 $ 752 $ 1,113,744

w.o. reins.(+/‐ %) 0% 49% 47% 44% 0% 45%

RetentionBase 0% 10% 10% 10% 10% 78%

Extreme C 0% 10% 10% 11% 10% 83%(+/‐ pp) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 5.20


Scenarios ComparisonScenarios ComparisonExtreme Intensity Scenarios v s Base ScenarioExtreme‐Intensity Scenarios v.s. Base Scenario

Min Q1 Median Mean Q3 MaxBase $ 0 $ 61 $ 1,136 $ 11,910 $ 8,236 $ 1,027,000

Extreme A (+/ %) 0% 52% 50% 27% 40% 29%Gross loss

Extreme A (+/‐ %) 0% 52% 50% 27% 40% 29%Extreme B (+/‐ %) 0% 52% 56% 43% 56% 21%Extreme C (+/‐ %) 0% 49% 47% 34% 45% 31%

Base $ 0 $ 6 114 $ 1 682 $ 853 $ 780 000

Net loss

Base $ 0 $ 6 114 $ 1,682 $ 853 $ 780,000Extreme A (+/‐ %) 0% 52% 50% 29% 67% 41%Extreme B (+/‐ %) 0% 52% 56% 49% 98% 31%Extreme C (+/ %) 0% 49% 47% 39% 77% 44%Extreme C (+/‐ %) 0% 49% 47% 39% 77% 44%

Base $ 0 $ 6 $ 114 $ 905 $ 750 $ 770,100

Net loss Extreme A (+/‐ %) 0% 52% 50% 29% 0% 42%Extreme B (+/‐ %) 0% 52% 56% 56% 0% 31%

w.o. reins.Extreme B (+/‐ %) 0% 52% 56% 56% 0% 31%Extreme C (+/‐ %) 0% 49% 47% 44% 0% 45%


Scenario ComparisonScenario ComparisonExtreme Frequency & Extreme Intensity (B) Scenario v s Base ScenarioExtreme‐Frequency & Extreme‐Intensity (B) Scenario v.s. Base Scenario


Gross lossBase $ 0 $ 61 $ 1,136 $ 11,910 $ 8,236 $ 1,027,000

Extreme $ 0 $ 400 $ 3 888 $ 21 770 $ 19 326 $ 1 197 047Gross loss Extreme $ 0 $ 400 $ 3,888 $ 21,770 $ 19,326 $ 1,197,047(+/‐ %) 0% 561% 242% 83% 135% 17%

Net lossBase $ 0 $ 6 $ 114 $ 1,682 $ 853 $ 780,000

Extreme $ 0 $ 40 $ 389 $ 3 238 $ 2 753 $ 967 474Net loss Extreme $ 0 $ 40 $ 389 $ 3,238 $ 2,753 $ 967,474(+/‐ %) 0% 561% 242% 92% 223% 24%

Net loss Base $ 0 $ 6 $ 114 $ 905 $ 750 $ 770,100

Extreme $ 0 $ 40 $ 389 $ 1 857 $ 833 $ 956 750w.o. reins.

Extreme $ 0 $ 40 $ 389 $ 1,857 $ 833 $ 956,750(+/‐ %) 0% 561% 242% 105% 11% 24%

RetentionBase 0% 10% 10% 10% 10% 78%

Extreme 0% 10% 10% 11% 11% 81%Retention Extreme 0% 10% 10% 11% 11% 81%(+/‐ pp) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 1.48 3.03


ReferencesReferences

( )• Agata, H. (2007), El Cambio Climático: Repercusiones Económicas para el Seguro, XIX Seminario Internacional de Seguros y Fianzas de la CNSF.la CNSF.

• Bernardo, S.M. and Smith, A. F. M. (1994), Bayesian Theory, Wiley and Sons.

• Clark, K. M. (2002), The Use of Computer Modelling in Estimating and Managing Future Catastrophe Losses, Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance 27: 181 195and Insurance, 27: 181‐195.

• Coles, S. and Casson, E. (1998), Extreme Value Modelling of Hurricane Wind Speeds. Structural Safety, Vol. 20, 283‐296.p f y, ,

• Eeckhoudt, L., Gollier, C. and Lambson, V. (1996), Risk: Evaluation, Management and Sharing, Harvester Wheatsheaf.


( )• ERN (2007), Estudio Metodológico y Sistema de Cómputo Sobre la Estimación del Valor de las Pérdidas Originadas por EventosHidrometeorológicos. Technical Note.Hidrometeorológicos. Technical Note.

• Gilleland, E. and Katz, R.W. (2006), Analyzing seasonal to interannual extreme weather and climate variability with the extremes toolkit (extRemes), 18th Conference on Climate Variability and Change, 86th American Meteorological Society (AMS) Annual Meeting Atlanta Georgia P2 15 (contributed poster)Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia. P2.15 (contributed poster).

• Goldberg, S.B., Landsea, C.W., Mestas‐Nuez, A., Gray, W.M. (2001), The Recent Increase in Atlantic Hurricane Activity: Causes and Implications, Science Vol. 293, 474‐479.


( )• McNeil, A.J., Frey, R. and Embrechts, P. (2005), Quantitative Risk Management. Concepts, Techniques and Tools, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Press, Princeton.

• Verlaak, R. and Beirlant, J. (2003), Optimal reinsurance programs: An optimal combination of several reinsurance protections on a heterogeneous insurance portfolio, Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 33,2, 381‐403.

• Woo G (1999) The Mathematics of Natural Catastrophes Imperial• Woo, G. (1999), The Mathematics of Natural Catastrophes, Imperial College Press.

Documents

Helsinki Presentation 2009-05-28 · Tabasco Flood (2007) 700 Hurricane Gilbert (1997) 567 Mexico City Earthquake (1985) 473 Hurricane Isidore (2002) 308 Hurricane Emily (2005) 302