Climatic Change

, Volume 116, Issue 3–4, pp 693–704 | Cite as

A 101 year record of windstorms in the Netherlands

  • Stephen CusackEmail author


A 101 year time-series of storm losses in the Netherlands is developed from the near-surface wind speed records at five Dutch stations. Station metadata combined with results from statistical tests were used to homogenise the data and retain the temporal variability driven solely by changes in climate processes. The wind speed data were transformed into storm damage using a model measuring loss impacts upon society.

The resulting windstorm loss time-series for the Netherlands contains some interesting features. Annual losses are stable over the whole period and have a dominant cycle with a period of about 50 years. The Netherlands is currently experiencing the minimum aggregate storm damage of the past 100 years, though only slightly lower than a quiet period of 50 years ago. Both of these minima are driven primarily by lowered rates of occurrence of damaging storms. However, further analysis reveals the present-day minimum has different characteristics from the previous lull: currently, the frequency of stronger storms is slightly above the previous minimum whereas the frequency of weaker storms is uniquely low. A seasonal analysis provides more information: there is a dearth of damaging storms in the earlier half of the storm season in the present day; since this period contains generally weaker storms, this seasonality is also manifested as a lack of weaker storms. These results suggest a different mix of climate forcing mechanisms in modern times compared to 50 years ago, in the earlier half of the storm season.


Wind Speed Loss Ratio Annual Loss Damage Storm Loss Index 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The author is grateful to Christos Mitas for his advice, Robert Muir-Wood and Steve Jewson for the initial motivation to study temporal variability of storminess in Europe, Paul Wilson for his advice on loss indices in the re/insurance sector, Arno Hilberts for assistance with KNMI datasets, and the constructive criticisms of two reviewers.

Supplementary material

10584_2012_527_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (75 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 75.2 kb)


  1. Alexandersson H, Tuomenvirta H, Schmith T, Iden K (2000) Trends of storms in NW Europe from an updated pressure data set. Clim Res 14:71–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barredo JI (2010) No upward trend in normalised windstorm losses in Europe: 1970–2008. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 10:97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barring L, von Storch H (2004) Scandinavian storminess since about 1800. Geophys Res Lett. doi: 10.1029/2004GL020441
  4. Belcher SE, Hunt JCR (1998) Turbulent flow over hills and waves. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 30:507–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bouwer LM (2011) Have disaster losses increased due to anthropogenic climate change? Bull Am Meteorol Soc 92:39–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Businger S, Businger JA (2001) Viscous dissipation of turbulence kinetic energy in storms. J Atmos Sci 58:3793–3796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chandler AM, Jones EJW, Patel MH (2001) Property loss estimation for wind and earthquake perils. Risk Anal 21:235–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Collins DJ, Lowe SP (2001) A macro validation dataset for U.S. hurricane models. Casualty Actuarial Society Forum, Casualty Actuarial Society, Arlington, VA, United States, pp 217–251Google Scholar
  9. Cook NJ (1997) The Deaves and Harris ABL model applied to a heterogeneous terrain. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 66:197–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dawson S, Smith DE, Jordan J, Dawson AG (2004) Late Holocene coastal sand movements in the Outer Hebrides, N.W. Scotland. Mar Geol 210:281–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Donat MG, Renggli D, Wild S, Alexander LV, Leckebusch GC, Ulbrich U (2011a) Reanalysis suggests long-term upward trends in European storminess since 1871. Geophys Res Lett 38. doi: 10.1029/2011GL047995L14703
  12. Donat MG, Pardowitz T, Leckebusch GC, Ulbrich U, Burghoff O (2011b) High-resolution refinement of a storm loss model and estimation of return periods of loss-intensive storms over Germany. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 11:2821–2833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kalnay E, Kanamitsu M, Kistler R, Collins W, Deaven D, Gandin L, Iredell M, Saha S, White G, Woollen J, Zhu Y, Chelliah M, Ebisuzaki W, Higgins W, Janowiak J, Mo KC, Ropelewski C, Wang J, Leetmaa A, Reynolds R, Jenne R, Joseph D (1996) The NCEP/NCAR 40-year reanalysis project. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 77:437–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Klawa M, Ulbrich U (2003) A model for the estimation of storm losses and the identification of severe winter storms in Germany. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 3:725–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lamb HH (1991) Historic storms of the North Sea, British Isles and Northwest Europe. Cambridge PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Leckebusch GC, Ulbrich U, Froehlich L, Pinto JG (2007) Property loss potentials for European midlatitude storms in a changing climate. Geophys Res Lett 34:L05703. doi: 10.1029/2006GL027663 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Munich Re (1993) Wintersturme in Europa. Publication of Munich Re, Order Number 2041-E-dGoogle Scholar
  18. Munich Re (2001) Winter storms in Europe (II)—analysis of 1999 losses and loss potentials, Publication of Munich ReGoogle Scholar
  19. Palutikof JP, Skellern AR (1991) Storm severity over Britain, a report to commercial union general insurance, climatic research unit. University of East Anglia, Norwich, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  20. Pielke RA, Gratz J, Landsea CW, Collins D, Saunders M, Musulin R (2008) Normalized hurricane damages in the United States: 1900–2005. Nat Hazards Rev 9:29–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pinto JG, Froelich EL, Leckebusch GC, Ulbrich U (2007) Changing European storm loss potentials under modified climate conditions according to ensemble simulations of the ECHAM5/MPI-OM1 GCM. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 7:165–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Smits A, Klein Tank AMG, Konnen GP (2005) Trends in storminess over the Netherlands, 1962–2002. Int J Climatol 25:1331–1344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Swiss Re (2010) Natural catastrophes and man-made disasters in 2009: catastrophes claim fewer victims, insured losses fall. Swiss Re sigma report.
  24. Uppala SM, Kallberg PW, Simmons AJ, Andrae U, Bechtold VD, Fiorino M, Gibson JK, Haseler J, Hernandez A, Kelly GA, Li X, Onogi K, Saarinen S, Sokka N, Allan RP, Andersson E, Arpe K, Balmaseda MA, Beljaars ACM, Van De Berg L, Bidlot J, Bormann N, Caires S, Chevallier F, Dethof A, Dragosavac M, Fisher M, Fuentes M, Hagemann S, Holm E, Hoskins BJ, Isaksen L, Janssen PAEM, Jenne R, McNally AP, Mahfouf JF, Morcrette JJ, Rayner NA, Saunders RW, Simon P, Sterl A, Trenberth KE, Untch A, Vasiljevic D, Viterbo P, Woollen J (2005) The ERA-40 re-analysis. Q J R Meteorol Soc 131:2961–3012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vautard R, Cattiaux J, Yiou P, Thepaut JN, Ciais P (2010) Northern Hemisphere atmospheric stilling partly attributed to an increase in surface roughness. Nat Geosci 3:756–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Verkaik JW (2000) Evaluation of two gustiness models for exposure correction calculations. J Appl Meteorol 39:1613–1626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Von Storch H et al (1998) Changing waves and storms in the north-east Atlantic? Bull Am Meteorol Soc 79:741–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wan H, Wang XL, Swail VR (2010) Homogenization and trend analysis of Canadian near-surface wind speeds. J Clim 23:1209–1225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wieringa J (1993) Representative roughness parameters for homogeneous terrain. Bound-Layer Meteorol 63:323–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Risk Management SolutionsLondonUK

Personalised recommendations