The perfect storm: human influence on the loss potential of Eunice-like cyclones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Storm Eunice was a severe windstorm that impacted Central Europe in February 2022. The meteorology and synoptic dynamics of Eunice have been studied in depth in several studies examining features of the storm such as its sting jet. The contribution of climate change to the storm dynamics and severity was examined in previous work, which found that in counterfactual weather forecasts-given an identical initial synoptic setup-climate change had measurably increased the severity of the storm. Here we move beyond meteorological attribution and quantify the role of climate change in the insured losses incurred during Eunice in, to the best of our knowledge, the first impact attribution of its kind for a European windstorm event. We combine the same counterfactual weather forecasts with three loss models, including two state-of-the-art commercial models, finding that the increases in meteorological severity do translate through to significant increases in estimated loss. We estimate a conditional increase in insured loss of nearly €2 bn between pre-industrial and present-day climates. Of particular note is the existence of several members within the forecast ensembles whose losses are far greater than what unfolded in reality. This includes one realisation, simulated in a warmer 'future' climate, in which the estimated loss could reach over 10x the realised loss during Eunice. The plausible existence of such a catastrophic loss is of considerable relevance to a wide variety of stakeholders across adaptation planning and the financial sector. We suggest that our results practically demonstrate not only the utility of counterfactual weather forecasts in quantifying impacts attributable to climate change, but also the value of academic-private partnerships in which the two sectors are able to bring different areas of expertise.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".