Probabilistic assessment and projections of US weather and climate risks and economic damages

  • Christian L. E. FranzkeEmail author
  • Marcin Czupryna


Weather and climate extremes cause significant economic damages and fatalities. Over the last few decades, the frequency of these disasters and their economic damages have significantly increased in the USA. The prediction of the future evolution of these damages and their relation to global warming and US economic growth is essential for deciding on cost-efficient mitigation pathways. Here we show using a probabilistic extreme value statistics framework that both the increase in US Gross Domestic Product per capita and global warming are significant covariates in probabilistically modeling the increase in economic damages. We also provide evidence that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation affects the number of fatalities. Using the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scenarios, we estimate the potential future economic risks. We find that by 2060, the extreme risks (as measured by 200-year effective return level) will have increased by 3–5.4 times. The damage costs due to extreme risks are projected to be between 0.1 and 0.7% of US Gross Domestic Product by 2060 and could reach 5–16% by 2100.


Weather extremes Climate extremes Mortality Non-stationarity Generalized Pareto distribution 



We thank three anonymous reviewers for the helpful comments which improved the clarity of this manuscript. We acknowledge the EM-DAT database (EM-DAT: The Emergency Events Database - Universite catholique de Louvain (UCL) - CRED, D. Guha-Sapir -, Brussels, Belgium) for providing us with the disaster data.

Funding information

CF was financially supported by the German Research Foundation through the collaborative research center TRR181 at the University of Hamburg. MC was supported by statutory means by Cracow University of Economics.


  1. Bouwer LM (2011) Have disaster losses increased due to anthropogenic climate change? Bull Amer Meteorol Soc 92(1):39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bouwer LM (2013) Projections of future extreme weather losses under changes in climate and exposure. Risk Anal 33(5):915–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burke M, Davis WM, Diffenbaugh NS (2018) Large potential reduction in economic damages under UN mitigation targets. Nature 557(1):549–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2003) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer Science & Business Media, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  5. Campiglio E, Dafermos Y, Monnin P, Ryan-Collins J, Schotten G, Tanaka M (2018) Climate change challenges for central banks and financial regulators. Nat Clim Chang 8:462–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chavas D, Yonekura E, Karamperidou C, Cavanaugh N, Serafin K (2012) US Hurricanes and economic damage: extreme value perspective. Nat Hazard Rev 14 (4):237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheng L, AghaKouchak A, Gilleland E, Katz RW (2014) Non-stationary extreme value analysis in a changing climate. Clim Change 127(2):353–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christensen P, Gillingham K, Nordhaus W (2018) Uncertainty in forecasts of long-run economic growth. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA., CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Church JA, White NJ (2011) Sea-level rise from the late 19th to the early 21st century. Surv Geophys 32(4-5):585–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coles S (2001) An introduction to statistical modeling of extreme values, vol 208. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cooley D (2009) Extreme value analysis and the study of climate change. Clim Change 97(1–2):77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cooley D Aghakouchak A, Easterling D, Hsu K, Schubert S, Sorooshian S (eds) (2013) Extremes in a changing climate. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  13. Diffenbaugh NS, Scherer M, Trapp RJ (2013) Robust increases in severe thunderstorm environments in response to greenhouse forcing. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 110(41):16361–16366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Elsner JB, Kossin JP, Jagger TH (2008) The increasing intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones. Nature 455 , pages= 92–95,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Estrada F, Botzen WW, Tol RS (2015) Economic losses from us hurricanes consistent with an influence from climate change. Nature GeoscienceGoogle Scholar
  16. Field CB, Barros V, Stocker TF, Dahe Q (2012) Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation: special report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Franzke CLE (2017) Impacts of a changing climate on economic damages and insurance. Economics of Disasters and Climate Change 1(1):95–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Füssel HM (2010) Modeling impacts and adaptation in global iams. WIREs Clim Change 1(2):288–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gilleland E, Katz RW (2016) Extremes 2.0: an extreme value analysis package in r. J Stat Software 72:1–39. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Guha-Sapir D, Below R (2002) The quality and accuracy of disaster data: a comparative analyse of 3 global data sets. Tech. Rep. 191, Disaster Management facility, World Bank, Working paper ID, URL, last Accessed 22 03 2018
  21. Guha-Sapir D, Hoyois P, Wallemacq P, Below R (2017) Annual disaster statistical review 2016. Tech. rep., Centre for Research on the Epidemology of Disasters (CRED),, last Accessed 12 01 2018
  22. Herring SC, Christidis N, Hoell A, Kossin JP, Schreck CJ III, Stott PA (2018) Explaining extreme events of 2016 from a climate perspective. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 99(1):S1–S157Google Scholar
  23. Hessl AE, McKenzie D, Schellhaas R (2004) Drought and pacific decadal oscillation linked to fire occurrence in the inland Pacific Northwest. Ecol Appl 14 (2):425–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heyerdahl EK, McKenzie D, Daniels LD, Hessl AE, Littell JS, Mantua NJ (2008) Climate drivers of regionally synchronous fires in the inland northwest (1651–1900). Int J Wildland Fire 17(1):40–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hoeppe P (2016) Trends in weather related disasters–consequences for insurers and society. Wea Clim ExtrGoogle Scholar
  26. Hsiang S (2016) Climate econometrics. Ann Rev Resour Econ 8:43–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hsiang S, Kopp R, Jina A, Rising J, Delgado M, Mohan S, Rasmussen DJ, Muir-Wood R, Wilson P, Oppenheimer M, Larsen K, Houser T (2017) Estimating economic damage from climate change in the United States. Science 356(6345):1362–1369. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Huang B, Thorne PW, Banzon VF, Boyer T, Chepurin G, Lawrimore JH, Menne MJ, Smith TM, Vose RS, Zhang HM (2017) Extended reconstructed sea surface temperature, version 5 (ersstv5): upgrades, validations, and intercomparisons. J Climate 30(20):8179–8205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Katz RW (2015) Economic impact of extreme events, American geophysical union (AGU), chap 16, pp 205–217., CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Katz RW, Parlange MB, Naveau P (2002) Statistics of extremes in hydrology. Adv Water Resour 25(8-12):1287–1304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Klotzbach PJ (2007) Recent developments in statistical prediction of seasonal Atlantic basin tropical cyclone activity. Tellus 59(4):511–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Klotzbach PJ, Bowen SG, Pielke R Jr, Bell M (2018) Continental United States hurricane landfall frequency and associated damage: observations and future risks. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 99:1359–1376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Knutson TR, McBride JL, Chan J, Emanuel K, Holland G, Landsea C, Held I, Kossin JP, Srivastava A, Sugi M (2010) Tropical cyclones and climate change. Nat Geosci 3(3):157–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kunreuther HC, Michel-Kerjan EO (2007) Climate Change, insurability of large-scale disasters and the emerging liability challenge. Tech. rep. National Bureau of Economic Research, last Accessed 21 02 2016Google Scholar
  35. Mantua NJ, Hare SR (2002) The pacific decadal oscillation. J Oceano 58 (1):35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McCabe GJ, Palecki MA, Betancourt JL (2004) Pacific and atlantic ocean influences on multidecadal drought frequency in the united states. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 101(12):4136–4141. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Meinshausen M, Smith SJ, Calvin K, Daniel JS, Kainuma MLT, Lamarque JF, Matsumoto K, Montzka SA, Raper SCB, Riahi K, Thomson A, Velders GJM, van Vuuren DP (2011) The rcp greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300. Clim Change 109(1):213. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Monier E, Paltsev S, Sokolov A, Chen YHH, Gao X, Ejaz Q, Couzo E, Schlosser CA, Dutkiewicz S, Fant C, et al. (2018) Toward a consistent modeling framework to assess multi-sectoral climate impacts. Nat Commun 9(1):660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morice CP, Kennedy JJ, Rayner NA, Jones PD (2012) Quantifying uncertainties in global and regional temperature change using an ensemble of observational estimates: the hadcrut4 data set. J Geophys Res 117(D8)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Munich Re (2018b) Topics geo: Natural catastrophes 2017: analyses, assessments, positions. Tech. rep., Munich Re, last Accessed 10 05 2018Google Scholar
  41. Nadarajah S (2005) Extremes of daily rainfall in west Central Florida. Clim Change 69(2-3):325–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Neumayer E, Barthel F (2011) Normalizing economic loss from natural disasters: a global analysis. Glob Environ Chang 21(1):13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Newman M, Alexander MA, Ault TR, Cobb KM, Deser C, Lorenzo ED, Mantua NJ, Miller AJ, Minobe S, Nakamura H, Schneider N, Vimont DJ, Phillips AS, Scott JD, Smith CA (2016) The pacific decadal oscillation, revisited. J Climate 29(12):4399–4427. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nordhaus W (2018) Evolution of modeling of the economics of global warming: changes in the dice model, 1992–2017. Clim Change 148(4):623–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nordhaus WD (1992) An optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases. Science 258(5086):1315–1319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pielke RA Jr, Gratz J, Landsea CW, Collins D, Saunders MA, Musulin R (2008) Normalized hurricane damage in the united states: 1900–2005. Nat Hazard Rev 9(1):29–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Riahi K, Van Vuuren DP, Kriegler E, Edmonds J, O’neill BC, Fujimori S, Bauer N, Calvin K, Dellink R, Fricko O, et al. (2017) The shared socioeconomic pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob Environ Chang 42:153–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rogelj J, Den Elzen M, Höhne N, Fransen T, Fekete H, Winkler H, Schaeffer R, Sha F, Riahi K, Meinshausen M (2016) Paris agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 c. Nature 534(7609):631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rootzén H, Katz RW (2013) Design life level: quantifying risk in a changing climate. Wat Resources Res 49(9):5964–5972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stern N (2007) The economics of climate change: the Stern review. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stern N (2016) Economics: current climate models are grossly misleading. Nature 530(7591):407–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Van Oldenborgh G, Te Raa L, Dijkstra H, Philip S (2009) Frequency-or amplitude-dependent effects of the atlantic meridional overturning on the tropical pacific ocean. Ocean Sci 5(3):293–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Villarini G, Vecchi GA (2012) North atlantic power dissipation index (pdi) and accumulated cyclone energy (ace): Statistical modeling and sensitivity to sea surface temperature changes. J Climate 25(2):625–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Walsh KJ, McBride JL, Klotzbach PJ, Balachandran S, Camargo SJ, Holland G, Knutson TR, Kossin JP, Tc Lee, Sobel A, et al. (2016) Tropical cyclones and climate change. WIREs Clim Change 7(1):65–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Weinkle J, Landsea C, Collins D, Musulin R, Crompton RP, Klotzbach PJ, Pielke R (2018) Normalized hurricane damage in the continental United States 1900–2017. Nature Sustainability 1:808–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wilks DS (2011) Statistical methods in the atmospheric sciences, vol 100. Academic Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Meteorological Institute and Center for Earth System Research and SustainabilityUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Faculty of Finance and LawCracow University of EconomicsCracowPoland

Personalised recommendations