Also this report is great, which Simon was also involved with. Talks about the need to assess risks in relation to objectives or interests, like heat stress to people or crop production. www.csap.cam.ac.uk/projects/cli...

Yes, exactly. I was just coming to comment that Simon Sharp was the inspiration for our paper on normative scenarios for insurers. We reference Simon's boiling frog paper in our article.

Obviously there are the big events like AGU and EGU, but what about smaller, focused events. For example, there's a regular Worksop on European windstorms that both academics and industry people attend. Is there anything similar for earthquakes?

I was trying to find people to follow yesterday, searching for things like "catastrophe risk" and "climate risk" under people, but didn't find that many. It seems like there aren't many industry people here yet, or maybe I'm using the wrong search terms!

Thanks for posting! :)

Where do cosmic rays sit in all of this? Real or junk? I was quite skeptical about this paper, but it's peer reviewed so 🤷 www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...

And here's our article from April: www.wtwco.com/en-gb/insigh...

That also applies to the near-term risk insurers are trying to model. For example, regulatory capital is often calculated based on the modelled 1-in-200 year loss. For many perils we don't have observations in the tail to constrain models, just like we don't have observations of climate in 2100.

Risk should ideally be objective, but isn't it hard to achieve this in practice? Subjective judgements are made by model builders and model evaluators/end users.

Yes, I totally agree. Maybe my point came across wrong. Open modelling needs to be the future of our industry and will allow for more informed decision making. Maybe what I should have said is how models are used/evaluated/understood by end users is equally important as their openness.

Openness is important, but it's only one part of the challenge when it comes to making decisions with nat cat models.

Even if all models were open and built using the latest best-in-class methods, there would still be differences in 1-in-100 year risk estimates. You may trust one model, but another scientist or decision maker may trust an equally valid different model that produces the opposite result.