This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
What's a super typhoon? Is it a formally recognised term?
The lead says this is "fifth super typhoon" of the season. The term is sourced in the article to an example of somebody else's seemingly rather informal usage seven years ago. I'm always cautious about using terms with "super" in them. They're often over-hyped journalistic nonsense. Love to see a source to the WMO or similar. HiLo48 (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I was just being lazy with the reference about what it is. I'll source it to NOAA at some point. Either way, a "super typhoon" is a category used by the Joint Typhoon Warning Center to classify typhoons with winds of 150mph or higher. They use the term in their warnings so it's not a hyped thing at all, unlike what happened with Sandy. However, the context of it quickly becomes lost in the world of media... Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Good. I still wish they wouldn't use the word "super". It's not very scientific on its own. HiLo48 (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
It's been used by Joint Typhoon Warning Center since 1969 at least, so although it may not be scientific, it's certainly historical. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why "super" sounds unscientific. Despite its superficial (pun intended) connection to superman and superwoman, the prefix is used in lots of scientific contexts like "Supernova" and "Superconductivity". I'm fine with it. --Ahyangyi (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
The problem is when the media pick up and run with something completely unscientific like "Superstorm Sandy", and mislead the public into thinking it has some specific meaning. HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
It hasn't been a problem so far with the article. Media can think whatever they want with misinterpreting "super typhoon", so long as it doesn't get fed into the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I agree that this article is fine. The discussion above convinced me that the prefix super- does have a meaning in connection with typhoons. I was simply responding to Ahyangyi's post. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Wording question
I see the words 'packing wind speed of' - I don't know for sure but I guess 'packing' is not a technical term, but I'm not certain, so I've not removed it, it seems like this ought to say 'with a wind speed of' EdwardLane (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Storm surge
There appears to have been a huge storm surge in Tacloban. Tacloban airport is devastated. There were waves and storm sure up to the height of the second story. Death toll is climbing. Currently estimates are about 1000 in Tacloban and 200 in Samar. Clearly these estimates are conservative, and very initial estimates. The final figures will be much higher.
There is no power throughout Leyte and Samar. Local officials are saying that it may be a month before power is resumed. The mobile phones started working in Samar about 8PM on the Saturday night. The storm surge is not uniform everywhere. There was no significant storm surge at Catbalogan. Residents are being told to keep an eye on the sea levels. Sources, CNN, BBC, local contacts.
I originally read that the storm surge was 3 meters (10 feet) in Tacloban, but now I cant find a satisfactory reference. I found the prediction of 5.2 meters, which referenced the NOAH site. Also there are sites estimating huge waves but video footage shows the storm surge as quite calm. So it is difficult to get a clear picture of what happened. Hopefully a clearer picture will emerge.
I remind people of the severe destruction in Tacloban city. This is a real place, with real people. I have been there. My understanding is that poor squatter areas in low lying areas of Tacloban city have been completely washed away. I expect the death toll in the Philippines to be 20,000 people. And we may never know how many people are just washed away, unknown, never recorded. But we must wait until the media says anything before we can document what we know happened. The media is biased, not by intent but by the need to make money for private companies. The media has already lost interest in Haiyan and the story is only starting to emerge, Everyone knows about Cyclone Katrina, but that may turn out to be a picnic compared with Haiyan. We know the media is only interested in sensationalism and making money. Yet the wiki rules only allow us to document what happened, if vested interests document it first. There is a lack of courage here. If people write what is not true, aren't there people available to correct and review it? Is this really what we want the Wikipedia to be? I think there is spirit in the wiki that is better than that. We all want the truth recorded in the Wikipedia, but I believe that the best way to achieve this is through open debate, without fixed rules. It used to be that if you wanted to know about the truth of something just assert the opposite on a wiki, and wait for the corrections. Of course references are good, but they should not be mandatory.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Speedily not moved. In light of the horrific tragedy, this is an obvious primary topic, which may not yet have been obvious when the move request was filed. Clearly there will be no further Haiyans, rendering proposer's argument moot. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 03:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Typhoon Haiyan → Typhoon Haiyan (2013) – Like all other storms with main articles or articles, they have titles ending with a year. I noticed that our title is Typhoon Haiyan not Typhoon Haiyan 2013. We need to rename this with a year with an end or leave it like this until November 13. Typhoon2013 (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Why? This is clearly the most notable Typhoon Haiyan. The one in 2001 caused minor damage, and the one in 2007 didn't even affect land. This Haiyan is far and above the most notable of the name, and with the potential to be among the costliest and deadliest Philippine typhoons, I think its status as most notable Haiyan is well-assured. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
It's very likely Haiyan as well as Yolanda will be retired. The other storms named Haiyan are insignificant compared to this. --IrfanFaiz 23:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose move per WP:UCN. We have a link at the top of the page to the disambiguation page if someone is looking for a different Typhoon Haiyan. Compare, for example, with Hurricane Katrina. VQuakr (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per VQuakr. --BDD (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose move per the reasons given above. Yes, official information regarding whether this storm has its name retired or not may not have been released, but it's quite likely that it will happen. And this Haiyan is so much more significant compared to the other storms bearing its name. Even the impacts and intensity of this storm are somewhat unprecedented for recent times. For example, Hurricane Sandy (2013) doesn't have the year in its title because of its notability, regardless of other storms bearing the same name. Likewise, I believe that this storm's article title remains the same, unless circumstances demand otherwise. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Updates
This articles needs some. It is sadly underdeveloped compared to, say, hurricanes Katrina or sandy at this stage. The Philippine Red Cross is estimating 1,200 dead.[1] "National Risk Reduction and Management Council said more tha sn 70,000 families were affected, and nearly 350,000 people were displaced..." Rmhermen (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Our systemic bias guarantees that, despite its severity, this storm won't receive as much attention from the bulk of our editors as storms impacting the USA. But give it time. There's enough editors here with a global view of things to eventually make this the great article it deserves to be. And do remember that we have no deadlines. HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Fatalities in infobox
I'm not sure whether the first infobox should be present or the "current" template takes precedence. But shouldn't there be a clear indication of how many fatalities have occurred in the infobox? 8ty3hree (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Once the storm dissipates, the normal infobox will replace it and have the fatalities listed. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
We are trying to and generally keeping to the deaths as reported by the NDRRMC.Jason Rees (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hurricanes and Typhoons
Aren't hurricanes and typhoons the same thing? I think this could also be called Hurricane Haiyan. 15:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by N92413 (talk • contribs)
Yes they are the same thing and this article could be called Hurricane Haiyan, but its most commonly known as Typhoon Haiyan.Jason Rees (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Read this at the Cyclone Wikipedia article: "In the Atlantic basin, a tropical cyclone is generally referred to as a hurricane (from the name of the ancient Central American deity of wind, Huracan), a cyclone in the Indian Ocean and parts of the Pacific, and a typhoon in the Northwest Pacific region."--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 15:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
It should also be noted that even North American media uses typhoon when discussing this storm so its unlikey that this stotm is best known as Hurricane Haiyan anywhere.--70.49.81.26 (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
195MPH winds unofficial?
Right now there are references that state the storm did have winds of 195MPH the question though is has this been confirmed? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Those winds are based on satellite estimates and will likely never be confirmed due to a lack of measurements. That said, this comes from the Joint Typhoon Warning Center which is not the official Regional Specialized Meteorological Center for the Western Pacific so the estimates are technically unofficial to begin with. The Japan Meteorological Agency is the official agency for the basin so their winds, albeit estimates as well, are considered official for the basin. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
So if it is misleading the info should not be in the infobox. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
It was never misleading. He just said it wasn't official and may never be confirmed. Unless.. the US navy and the JMA can afford flying to the typhoon with hurricane hunter aircraft. If that ever happens, it is confirmed, but we'll never know about Haiyan or any other typhoons' winds before the time that happens, because most estimates are satellite estimates. ItsPaide (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
The confusion comes from JTWC's use of 1-minute winds vs. JMA and PAGASA's use of 10-min sustained wind speeds (the latter of which would place the storm as a category four at peak strength. JMA says it was the strongest storm they have ever tracked)[2]. ~AH1(discuss!) 18:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Taiwan?
How would the storm pass over the north of Taiwan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metastasis d (talk • contribs) 00:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Intense tropical cyclones tend to produce large waves that can affect areas as far as 1,000 miles away from their center. It's a regular occurrence for Taiwan to be impacted by waves from a typhoon over the Philippines. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
The original paragraph stated that the hurricane passed over the north, but it has been fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metastasis d (talk • contribs) 03:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Still lots of pending increases in death toll yet to be reported
"Officials had yet to make contact with Guiuan, a town of 40,000 that was first hit by the typhoon. Baco, a city of 35,000 people in Oriental Mindoro province, was 80 percent under water, the U.N. said."[3]
Also, please see [4] showing massive destruction and widespread dead bodies in cities supposedly outside of even the 40 MPH wind range. There are dozens of 25,000+ cities inside that band, on the coast where the 20 foot storm surge and flash floods hit simultaneously. I think we should at least put in some wording in that there is likely a much larger death toll than can possibly be reported at present. 210.13.83.18 (talk) 06:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
No crystal balling, please. I'm sure there will be reliable sources very quickly after information becomes available.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
If you trust the media enough then the Philippine Government via the NDRMMC, are about to report a big jump to 1774 deaths from 255.Jason Rees (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
In which case, the total is at least 1,795 in all affected regions (including 13 in Vietnam and 8 in Taiwan). Somebody needs to do updating in the interwikis too, as soon as the official NDRMMC counts are published. ~AH1(discuss!) 18:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Infobox for casualities and damages
I think it would be better if someone will create an infobox tabulating all the casualties from all the countries. Same goes with the table for the damages. --AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 15:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking about that earlier, but I'm not sure.. ItsPaide (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Lets wait and see the impact come in from China etc.Jason Rees (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking of something like this. Note in the table that there is a tabulation per province too since most of the countries use this political subdivision (Taiwan use county).--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 16:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
According to Jeffrey Masters, the "official" death toll is 1,774[5]. I have used the most conservative up-to-date estimate in the Main Infobox, which should be left up there unless there are actually two different Philippine agencies responsible for counting the casualty toll. The Associated Press reports "officially" 942 dead in the Philippines, so I have given the total as 963+, but have not changed the infobox in the body text. ~AH1(discuss!) 17:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
The official tallies on loss of life and damage come from the NDRRMC, which releases situation reports roughly every 12 hours at the start of major disasters and later once per day. I've been very stingy with waiting on their reports since with any major disaster, things get misheard and misrepresented by the media. Their latest official tally was 255 fatalities. A new report is coming out in the next few hours and it's expected to have a major increase in fatalities, however. As for the table itself, a format like that may work. Though for the Philippines, I would much rather stick with regions instead of province since there are dozens of provinces affected. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Death toll
According to the military, the death toll is 942, plus the 21 from Vietnam and Taiwan totals 963, as said in the fatalities section of the info box. However, Dr. Jeff Masters from wunderground said that the official death toll is 1774, also said in the fatalities section (it has a ref that links to the article) So should we leave it as 963+, change it to 1774 or put a dash between the two numbers meaning that the deaths are between these numbers 963 - 1774? Any thoughts? ItsPaide (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
How do we know that those aren't completely separate counts which would ordinarily be summed for the total? 114.84.134.209 (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Thats why I'm asking what the fatalities section should be. ItsPaide (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd leave it at ≥963 until a higher death toll is verified. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Technically as we are following the confirmed deaths (ie:NDRMMCs figures) we shouldn't be putting the Philippine total above 255, however, i have seen at least two article within the Philippine press are saying that the NDRMMC are about to put the death toll at 1774 within their next update.Jason Rees (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
We would update ASAP when they release the next update (Sitrep No.13 re Effects of TY "YOLANDA") for Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda). ItsPaide (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
The Philippine Army is apparently releasing its own numbers (CNN). Can we find their report? Rmhermen (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Probably not anymore, as we are trusting the NDRRMC when it comes to fatalities. ItsPaide (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted the total to the 255 currently reported by the NDRRMC themselves, not through secondary sources. We're not a news agency so we don't need to have the immediate reports of higher tolls. We can serve to wait until the most reliable source is updated. They can be found here: [6]Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Yup, I've been looking through the website all day and for some reason, they have not updated on Yolanda yet. Expecting one very soon.. ItsPaide (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
They may be shifting to once-per-day reporting now, which could by why there wasn't a 6 pm update from them. But yeah, there should be one out in the next hour or so. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Surprisingly, no update yet and its been 3 hours. ItsPaide (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Maybe they're busy. 210.13.83.18 (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Since when do we pick one particular source and hold it above what the fact-checked and editor-staffed news media report? 210.13.83.18 (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Because the media reports are not so fact-checked as you might think they are. Consider earlier this year the grossly overestimated death toll of the 2013 Moore tornado. Also, in the event that sources disagree, we should turn to the official report if one is available. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
If the actual deaths were 23 what was the medias' guess?ItsPaide (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
All of the claims are still in that article as they are part of the story. So should all the reliably sourced ones for this event. Rmhermen (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The actual death toll of the tornado was 23. Just after the tornado the reported death toll was 51. The New York Times reported a death toll of 91, so yeah, I'm not sure the news media are the most reliable source for death toll just after a major disaster. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
And all of those numbers are mentioned in the tornado article. We are covering the whole event, including the reporting of it/reaction to it. Rmhermen (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, we went off-topic.. ..ItsPaide.. 00:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Well then, we cannot make it too simple either, but we can make it more comprehensible. However we also have to make it a good and organized article. ItsPaide (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I do think it's way too technical. That's what happens I suppose when you have a meteorological event paired with human disaster. The article becomes bloated with so much scientific at the start, the stuff we're actually interested in (the human side) gets lost somewhat. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
This is how just about every meteorological history goes for tropical cyclone articles. There's really not much more I can do with the meteorological history with simplifying it as I provided links to necessary articles and briefly explained lesser known things. Any simpler and it would have to be on the Simple English Wiki, in my opinion. That said, the lead could serve to have some meteo info trimmed out and the actual impact fleshed out. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for posting. Unfortunately I cannot view the comment you mentinioned (already rolled-off), but there are now 7 more comments, all of them marked as +Useful. Keep up the good work. XOttawahitech (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Looting section should be moved down - clean up and restructure needed
I think the looting section should come after explaining the devastation, not before. People now days are too willing to blame without understanding. Some sections of this document need editing to clean up and structure the content. I am hoping the right people will do the job.
I just moved the looting into aftermath where I originally put it. I removed some of the plagiarism in the article as well. Cleaning up the impact section is going to take a lot of work since it is littered with quotes. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
It's not necessary at the moment. The primary area impacted by Haiyan is the Philippines and no other country has had such dramatic impacts as to bog down the page. The sub-articles are generally for storms that cause significant impacts in several countries or over many parts of a large country. For now, it's easier just to maintain it in one article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 06:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Archived URLs
I noticed that many of the references use WebCitation archive URLs in the url field of the templates (e.g. Template:Cite web). It is good practice (though definitely not required) to pre-emptively archive URLs like this. However, the 'url' field should be the original, while 'archiveurl' should be the archived one, and 'archivedate' should be the date it was archived. For links that currently work, deadurl should be set to no. I've made a note about this at Wikipedia:Citing sources/Further considerations#Templates. This ensures that for working links, we send people direct to the source, providing readable URLs (at least if the original is) and giving them credit.
Later, if the link dies, the 'deadurl' field can be removed. This should also be done if the content of the source changes (e.g. a storm update), but it's still appropriate to use the original version as a reference. It seems that the noaa.gov pages have a tendency to do this (e.g. http://www.webcitation.org/6KsFQg1Vp vs. http://weather.noaa.gov/pub/data/raw/wt/wtpq21.rjtd..txt), so I've left out deadurl for these for now.
I'm going to update the ones in the article, but I wanted to note this for the future. Superm401 - Talk 06:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I definitely think we should use direct archives (like the 6L4KcQJ4C example above) whenever possible. Besides being simpler, and having one less site to rely on, this means you can browse the various mirrors of the same URL when looking at WebCitation.org. However, this archiving needs to be done when the advisory comes out. Superm401 - Talk 07:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Personally when citing an advisory I tend to disagree that the url should be the url that webcite visits, as it is more useful if we just include a link to the where the various product is listed on the website of the issuing agency when they are dead references or i know that it will die within a few days. (eg: Rather than A id rather use B). As for how the archiving process works, generally the website will visit the site every few minutes and then subsequently upload them to the website. When someone has a chance they can subsequently archive them and put them on the various season talkpages. Its the only reasonable way we can work it as otherwise the websites overwrite themselves within 6 to twelve hours when a new advisory is issued.Jason Rees (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
So, basically, we can't always use the "weather.noaa.gov" as a reference because it changes so quickly (6 hours) with every new update, and if we don't use the "gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/" mirror, we lose it forever? I noticed that there's a small group of dedicated people maintaining the WebCite archives, which is certainly commendable, so it makes sense that they wouldn't always be able to WebCite directly from the source. -- 140.202.10.130 (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Basically yes - but off course it varies from storm to storm and centre to centre.Jason Rees (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
We already have the meaning of the name "Haiyan" ItsPaide (talk) 12:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Edit request
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change miles-per-hour to mph or better still to kmh (mph)
194.171.7.39 (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Completed request. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Time to archive all URLs used for this article
How much time is needed to archive them? 'Cause I found articles that EMERCOM teams are already in the Philippines. Ominae (talk) 13:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
it shouldn't take too long to get them up to Webcite. :)Jason Rees (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The true scale of casualties remains unclear. The authorities say in November 12th at least 10,000 people may have died in the disaster - and according to UN officials about 11 million people have been affected, many have been left homeless.Tacloban: City at the centre of the storm BBC 12 November 2013
User:Cyclonebiskit addition deservs place in the introduction since these are key facts people in my opinion want to find from the article. Watti Renew (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
10,000 fatalities is already in the lead and infobox, triple redundancy is highly unnecessary. Moving the 11 million affected (which is not supported by the Philippine Government mind you) to later in the intro. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
External links section
Suggest combining the 2 external links sections. 31.55.25.253 (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Name
The typhoon was named Haiyan by whom and when? I suspect it was not when it "becom[e] a tropical storm and attain[ed] the name Haiyan at 0000 UTC on November 5". The name did not evolve out of nowhere when the system became a storm.119.224.91.84 (talk) 04:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Also, why does it have a different name in the Phillippines? 131.191.112.162 (talk) 05:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Different agencies have different areas of resposibility and there is sometimes little cooperation. Whether it is a "tropical cyclone" (the name used in Australia), a "Typhoon", (the name used in Asia) or a "Hurricane" (the named used in the US and Atlantic) sounds a bit haphazard but, since these are the only areas they occur, perhaps the different names could be retained so we know where it occured. As to the name, every agency is entitled to call it whatever they like. It is not up the China or Japan to tell Phil what to call it or vice versa.Euc (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The name giving is clarified further in the meteorological history section. The lead is a basic summary meant to give a general overview, whereas the individual sections will have the more in-depth details (albeit the lead itself is lacking impact-wise at the moment...). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The JMA has a list of storms; they name a tropical cyclone whenever it attains winds of 35 knots or greater. The Philippines has their own naming list, separate from the JMA, and they name a storm (no matter the strength, as long as it is a tropical cyclone) whenever it comes into range of the Philippines. -- 140.202.10.130 (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Edit request
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In section on International response, please change "Israeli Foreing Ministry" to "Israeli Foreign Ministry" 31.55.44.94 (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Corrected the typo. Thanks for letting us know. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Map needed for Philippine regions
There's a chart in the Impact:Philippines section listing some regions of the Philippines and how they were impacted, but it would be great if there was a map showing what/where each of these regions are. There is a map on the Regions of the Philippines page but that map is too complex for the needs of this page. Thanks. LovesMacs (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
That is why I suggested that we use provinces instead of regions. People mostly know a place by province not by region. Internationally, people know the disaster hit area by province or by city and not by region. Let us note that not all the readers of this article comes from the Philippines.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 16:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Listing by province would make the table far too long, which is why I'm keeping it as regions. There are dozens of affected provinces and only so much space we can reasonably give to such a table. I'd definitely opt for the map addition over making the excessive table if it's necessary (wikilinks do exist for a reason, mind you). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Non-storm but related deaths
How do we cover deaths like the two rebels killed attacking an aid convoy and the eight survivors killed looting a rice warehouse? There are probably more reports than that, just the first two I found. These are not direct casualties but still related. Rmhermen (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Those should be mentioned in the Aftermath section, but not included in the storm total. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Criticisms on the Philippine Government's slow action
This has been in the international media already. I think we should include the criticisms here. Probably include it in the aftermath section. Or make a criticism section.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 14:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
If there's enough support for it, go ahead and add it to the aftermath section under the Philippine header. Whether or not it gets its own sub-section within that depends on how much information is available. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh okay. But I will like to see the others opinion on this. Just want to have a consensus.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 16:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
There are always criticism of governments after events like this. Even people who often want minimal government involvement in their lives will still complain in these types of situations. And I have heard the counter argument, that the response resources themselves (equipment and people) have been severely damaged by the typhoon. We must keep this in perspective. Don't follow the lead of the tabloid media. HiLo48 (talk) 10:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
International response - a bad section
This section is growing out of control. It seems that everyone wants to add something special that their own country is doing. The is no sense of proportion, perspective or balance to the section. I know of things my country is doing that aren't mentioned, but I won't add them. It already needs to be dramatically reduced in size. I'm sure that just about every country that can help is doing so. It adds nothing to the article to have the current over-sized, unstructured hodge podge of content. HiLo48 (talk) 10:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Definitely agree with this. I'll look into trying to trim it down a bit later. One thing that can always be condensed is funding. Just provide a lump sum for nations and note the major contributors. Generalizing logistical assistance and relief aid will also help out. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Dissagree with this. It's important to show all the nations that contribute to give information about the solidarity and willingness around the world. If we are gonna narrow it down to just the most important countries, it would give a less balanced view and favour certain contributing countries who are wealthier and has more material resources to help. The relief efforts in the Philippines is a common effort, with big and small contributors. When that is said ... With time one should perhaps make a separate page for international response as it has been done with other dissasters and link it to the main articleMortyman (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Not saying removing the little contributions, just condense it. You can lump donations together instead of saying "A donated X in relief funds. B pledged Y in relief funds. C provided Z in relief funds." You can reduce that to "A, B, and C, collectively provided X+Y+Z in aid." It doesn't remove the names, but it takes up less space. Additionally, rattling off every condolence that a country issues is entirely pointless. It's more or less assumed that the entire world feels bad for the Philippines and would offer their condolences. Tiny details are also unnecessary, such as the specific size of relief teams or the type of military vehicle provided (unless it's notable). Right now, it's just a hodgepodge of recycled information from news sources without much condensing for simplicity. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
EDIT request not yet answered: Some countries and organizations not listed
There are still some countries and organizations not listed in the international response section.
Separate article for the effects of Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines
I think we can create a better article on the effects of the typhoon in the Philippines if we will create a separate and thorough article f it. What do you think guys? I was thinking of making separate sections for the different provinces affected by the typhoon and much more other sections needed like effects on agriculture, health, economy, water and electric supply. Also we could also add a separate section for relief operations. All the needed article needed for the article.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 14:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to add info here, especially with regards to the relief operations (which would be considered aftermath). If there gets to be too much info here, then we can split off, but the article is still relatively short. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
This section is new and I was thinking that the Section:International resistance will be removed but some of its information will be in the new section. What do you think? Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
"state of national calamity,"
The article states that "By November 11, the provinces of Aklan, Capiz, Cebu, Iloilo, Leyte, Palawan, and Samar, were placed under a state of national calamity". However, reading at the proclamation, "Aklan, Capiz, Cebu, Iloilo, Leyte, Palawan, and Samar," were just a part of the "whereas clause", with the pertinent sentence reading "NOW, THEREFORE, I, BENIGNO S. AQUINO III, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution and by law, do hereby declare a State of National Calamity." which states that the "state of national calamity" is not just restricted to those provinces, but to the entire country, even those which are not affected by the storm. –HTD 14:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
It's an outdated piece of information. At the time I wrote it, those were the only provinces mentioned by the NDRRMC. Feel free to update it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
It's not outdated, it's just the scope is questioned.
As of current posting, on the Typhoon Yolanda page at the Official Gazette, it still says "Presidential Proclamation No.682, dated November 11, 2013, declared a State of National Calamity, affecting Samar, Leyte, Cebu, Iloilo, Capiz, Aklan, and Palawan." Source. I think the "national" bit is to impose the magnanimity of the calamity over the whole country and doesn't necessarily mean price control measures would be implemented all over. Xeltran (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Proclamation No. 682 should be read as "because Aklan, Capiz, Cebu, Iloilo, Leyte, Palawan, and Samar were decimated, I, the president, declare a state of calamity all over the country," not "because Aklan, Capiz, Cebu, Iloilo, Leyte, Palawan, and Samar were decimated, I, the president, declare a state of calamity in Aklan, Capiz, Cebu, Iloilo, Leyte, Palawan, and Samar." AFAIK, the price controls are supposedly in effect everywhere, even in Metro Manila, for example. The "whereas clauses" aren't part of the proclamation per se, they're an explanation on why there's a proclamation. The gov.ph homepage and the proclamation are giving conflicting statements. Also, AFAIK, only the respective sanggunians (legislatures) can declare a state of calamity on their respective jurisdiction. The president can't impose a "state of calamity" on any place except for a "state of national calamity" which is for everywhere. –HTD 16:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
The president can't impose a "state of calamity" on any place except for a "state of national calamity" which is for everywhere. Actually, he can. Under Sec. 16 of RA 10121, "Declaration of State of Calamity. - The National Council shall recommend to the President of the Philippines the declaration of a cluster of barangays, municipalities, cities, provinces, and regions under a state of calamity..." The local sanggunian can declare a state of calamity in their respective jurisdiction as well. Xeltran (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
In any case, the proclamation states, clear as day, that the state of calamity is not restricted to any cluster of places. –HTD 09:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Wrong title of group and add citation
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: The article on LDS Philanthropies begins: "LDS Philanthropies is a department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) ...", so all we're doing by mentioning LDS Philanthropies is recognising which branch of the LDS published that article. That is what the source page itself says, so this is correct procedure. The link you provide is to a different article. If there is something you would like to see added to this page that we could cite to that source, please say what. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Add a range for both(Lihaas (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)).
Top Importance
Should Typhoon Haiyan be moved to top-importance on WikiProject Tropical Cyclones? This storm is getting unprecedented international news coverage for a non-American tropical cyclone. Even the coverage Cyclone Nargis got in 2008 pales in comparison to the amount Haiyan has gotten in the past week. --GeicoHen (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
International relationships with the Philippines are far different than with Myanmar. Countries are much more willing to lend a hand and thus, many nations are having their own stories to report. In the grand scheme of things, this storm pales in comparison to other tropical cyclones in terms of damage and loss of life even within the same basin. However, from a Philippine standard it's among the worst ever. I'd prefer to leave this as high-importance for the time being. I'm not going to be stubborn if other people support top-importance though. Just my opinion on the matter. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
What CB said. Let's wait and see. YEPacificHurricane 01:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Which one do you think got more news coverage, BTW? --GeicoHen (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest, I can't say. I don't watch cable TV anymore, read papers, or actively follow news headlines. I just look stuff up when I hear about it. I have a great dislike of media these days so I opt out of actively following it :P If there's anything important, I'll catch it through friends. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I think we should wait a bit. The event is still fairly current. We'll see if the interest keeps up, how bad it ends up being. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
According to Google Trends, searches for Haiyan dwarf those for Nargis. See for yourself. --GeicoHen (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Operation names
I'm talking about the Israeli (I know IDF's Home Command has an op name for their contingent) and Canadian ones (Maybe). Is it alright to put it in if I can find info?
PS - I'll need to find articles that JGSDF forces are to be deployed in SAR ops? Ominae (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Casualty counts
On 10,000 casualty is not yet official. The Police official who give the statement was Supt. Elmer Soria and denied by the government and even relieved from post.
About 10,000 people died and many injured not only did people die from the typhoon dogs cats animals people desperately needed food and this was also killing them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.156.229 (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Animals are not accepted in the fatalities section. Only humans, and we are using the death toll from the NDRRMC, the official site for death tolls in the Philippines. ..ItsPaide.. 23:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
On 10,000 casualty is not yet official. The Police official who give the statement was Supt. Elmer Soria and denied by the government and even relieved from post.
Re: Debate over the link of Typhoon Haiyan and climate change
I find it comical that this section of the article is named in part "Debate" and yet it includes only one guy from a university making some kind of generalized observation. There needs to be a contrasting point of view offered or else this section should be deleted. It takes two to tango. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Also, I think this narrow-scoped article is not a good place for a general discussion of climate and storms. Sepsinato (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
While it is true that it is impossible to definitively link any specific weather related event to climate change, this is now being reported as the most powerful typhoon to make land-fall in recorded history (to be verified). However, the point is that while the total number of typhoons per year are not increasing, the average strength of the ones that do happen each year are increasing very significantly. It is, therefore, appropriate to note this trend within the article with links to pages on the predicted impacts of climate change. Some laypersons may wish to dispute this, but it is not within the remit of Wikipedia to censor such information.
I do wish to note that the "increase in intensity" is grossly misrepresented by all media. They don't specify the amount of increase, which is actually relatively small and unnoticeable with our current technology. Tropical cyclones are reported with wind speeds to the nearest 5 knots, and the change is roughly 1-2 knots. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Grossly misrepresented? How can you argue that sustained winds of 315 km/h (195 mph), with gusts up to 380 km/h (235 mph ... more than four times the highway speed limit in the USA) is either small or unnoticeable by any standard, even compared to other typhoons? It is still early, but already the indications are that there are over 10,000 dead. With due respect, this is not a trivial event, even for the Philippines which has considerable experience with typhoons, but this is on a larger scale and much later in the season than they are accustomed to. For reference, see:
Refer to the end of my comments "...the change is roughly 1-2 knots." With a storm like Haiyan, we can, at most, attribute maybe 3 (4 is pushing it) knots of its intensity to climate change. This would account for 1.7% of its overall intensity (using the JTWC data), a value that makes zero difference in the damage it caused. I have a nasty pet peeve with climate change claims and tropical cyclones since our reliable records for these storms only go back into the 1960s. Prior to that, data becomes shaky. When you go back before 1851, there are no databases for tropical cyclones worldwide. We simply just don't have enough data to substantiate a connection between climate change and tropical cyclones. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 10:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
As for "this is on a larger scale and much later in the season than they are accustomed to." Typhoon season is year-round so they occur at any time. For example, Typhoon Bopha last year struck Mindanao as a Category 5 in early December, a month later than Haiyan. 2006 featured three consecutive major landfalls in the country in from late October through early December. I could honestly keep going, but it's a waste of time. The media likes to exaggerate things. I'm not trying to downplay the severity of this storm, but it's not wholly unprecedented. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 10:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
No, its not wholly unprecidented, you are correct. However, it is likely to be confirmed as the largest typhoon in recorded history (yes, the jury is still out, but this is a probable outcome). However, it is not just any single storm that matters here, it is the pattern of storms during a year. I think it is generally agreed that the number of such cyclone like storms has not increased significantly, but the distribution of storm severity has. So while it is impossible or irresponsible to associate any single storm, including this one, to climate change; it is important to note that the pattern of increasing severity of storms is exactly what climate change models predict.
I don't think we'll ever get confirmation on its true intensity. No reconnaissance planes were flown into the storm and most weather stations lost power before its arrival or were destroyed. Data in the worst of the storm most likely doesn't exist. All we have to go off is satellite estimates. Additionally, this storm doesn't even rank in the top ten in terms of most intense according to the official RSMC data (the Japan Meteorological Agency). Whatever the case may be with that, I don't think it's necessary to mention seasonal changes within a storm article. Information like that is more appropriate for the 2013 Pacific typhoon season article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I found the following two references in mainstream media. I can't at present find any mention of climate change or global warming in the article text, but it is clearly in this context being discussed by reliable secondary sources. The second ref below starts, "The Philippines government has firmly connected the super typhoon Haiyan with climate change..."
For possible later reference, I think the most recent (as of this post) removal of climate change from the article was this section-blanking edit. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
It seems to be a perversion of reductionist thinking to censor all references to the connection to climate change in this article. While it is true that it is impossible to relate any single weather related event to climate change, it is also true that Typhoon Haiyan exhibits all of the key attributes of the type of super cyclones (super typhoons in the Northwest Pacific) that are predicted by climate change models. Note that climate change models do not predict an increase in the number of such events, but does predict an increase in the intensity of such events. Note also, that Typhoon Haiyan is not only the strongest typhoon in recorded history, but also has led to one of the largest storm surges recorded. Typhoon formation requires warm water and, due to the increase in ocean temperature due to climate change (the greatest warming is of the oceans, not the atmosphere), the differential between the temperature at sea level and the top of the storm is also believed to be the greatest of any such storm observed in recorded history (still under evaluation). Also, the seas where Typhoon Haiyan were formed were unusually warm and remained so over its path towards the Philippines. More significantly, the sea surface temperature in the path behind the storm was cooled significantly, indicating the immense heat energy that Typhoon Haiyan had extracted from the ocean. Moreover, the warmer ocean would have caused larger than normal evaporation into the storm, leading to the massive rains that fell over the Philippines after it made land-fall. All of these various things combined, including: intense sustained winds of 315 km/h (195 mph), with gusts up to 380 km/h (235 mph); huge storm surge; and intense rainfall ... all contribute the massive level of destruction so caused. The cost in lives and economic costs to the Philippines is still being assessed, but it will be massive, and a significant drain on the GDP of that nation, quite aside from the human and environmental costs and impacts. It is reasonable to conclude that Typhoon Haiyan would not have been nearly as intense if climate change was not occurring, although impossible to prove. Typhoon Haiyan is a key discussion at the COP 19 meeting currently underway in Warsaw, Poland from 11 to 22 November 2013. For those who feel that climate change should not be even mentioned at all within this article, please watch the speech to the assembly by Philippine climate change representative Yeb Sano here:
While there may not be definitive proof that this specific event was caused by climate change, it is an example of the kind of event which is predicted by climate change to occur more frequently and with greater intensity than in the past. While this may not be the best page to discuss the wider implications of climate change on typhoons, it is extraordinarily remiss to censor it entirely. There should at least be a small section that acknowledges the likely connection to climate change with Wiki-links to related Wikipedia pages where the issue is discussed more fully.
At least it's not "Global Warming".... (personal pet peeve showing, don't mind that) While all the speculation is fine and dandy, at the current time, it's just that...speculation. Thankfully there's less interest in this storm so there's no overwhelming pressure like with Hurricane Sandy to include such claims, but with Haiyan we can at least hold off until definitive connections have been made. One thing I will always point to with tropical cyclones is how far back our data goes. For the Western Pacific, we only have reasonably accurate wind measurements going back to 1970 and iffy ones to 1945. Prior to that, we have nothing for millenia. There's no way anyone can safely say that Haiyan was unprecedented. It may be in the past 40-50 years, but what about 100, 200, 300 years ago? I am highly hesitant to put information about claims of its intensity being linked to climate change unless official panels state such.
Specific responses to certain points (not necessarily rebuttals though, some are just comments):
1) "...Typhoon Haiyan is not only the strongest typhoon in recorded history, but also has led to one of the largest storm surges recorded." – There have been no record-breaking storm surges from Haiyan. The highest estimate was roughly 20 ft (compare with the record of 48 ft from Cyclone Mahina), nowhere close to record-breaking. See above comments for my response to the "strongest...in recorded history" part.
2) "...the differential between the temperature at sea level and the top of the storm is also believed to be the greatest of any such storm observed in recorded history (still under evaluation)."– There was an approximate 120°C difference between the two (coldest cloud tops were roughly -90°C while the surface was near 30°C), but there have been similar instances of this in the past, though not as extreme in coverage to my knowledge. Again, however, we're talking about a very small window of record for this (no more than 40-50 years for enhanced infrared satellite imagery).
3)"...the sea surface temperature in the path behind the storm was cooled significantly, indicating the immense heat energy that Typhoon Haiyan had extracted from the ocean." – This happens with every tropical cyclone. It's a phenomenon known as upwelling and is always more significant with major cyclones. Waters in the path of Haiyan were an average (for this time of year) 30°C when it passed through, and have not decreased significantly at all. However, I don't know about sub-surface waters, which were indeed unusually warm and the source of the typhoon's intensification. The depth of warm water has likely decreased a fair amount since it's passage.
A full-blown section on this is not necessary in my opinion, and is best left to the main tropical cyclone article. The linkage of individual events and climate change is not desirable in the least as it creates a misconception of pinpointing effects of climate change. However, what is worth noting within the article is the plea by the Philippine delegate at COP 19. That stands out as something unique to the storm among the rest of the generic "Is climate change behind [insert natural disaster here]?" articles. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I think we can agree "Global Warming" is not only old hat, it is misleading. Climate Change in this context is more about introducing man-made instabilities into the climate system which will have many effects including, potentially, (and paradoxically) cooling in Europe if the Gulf Stream (North Atlantic Current), part of the Thermohaline circulation (also known as the Global conveyor belt) breaks-down and continues north into the north pole region and around Canada or Russia, possibly flowing back into the North Pacific through the Bering Strait. This potential risk is well known to politicians and the public at large in Europe who, because of their northerly latitude, are particularly concerned that Climate Change could possibly plunge Europe into a mini ice age or, at least, dramatic cooling; even as the rest of the planet continues to warm. This is why you will not see anywhere near as much climate change denial in Europe, they have a great deal to worry about the potential climate instabilities resulting from climate change as compared to other developed nations.
In regard to your numbered points, may I comment as follows:
I did not claim that Typhoon Haiyan was the largest storm surge on record, however it is most likely much higher than it would have been without climate change. The height of storm surges are stochastic and vary widely. However, climate change will undoubtedly lead to larger storm surges in general as the climate warms.
Although still under evaluation, I understand from reading your above post that you would agree that the the differential between the temperature at sea level and the top of the storm is likely the largest in recorded Pacific storm history so far.
Of course sea surface temperature cools as a result of all cyclone activity, otherwise the cyclone would not have formed. The point is that several reports indicate that the cooling behind this storm is significantly large. I do not have any original research to back up that claim, but have read several reports from others who are looking into that and indicate that preliminary measurements indicate that it was significant. Mainly it is the sea surface temperature that is significant. However, as the storm developed and slowly progressed over the birthing ocean, there would be significant and substantial transfers of heat from the sub-surface waters to the surface, leading to indirect heat transfers from the sub-sea waters to the cyclone.
I do not propose a "full-blown section" on this topic on this particular page, but do feel it deserves its own brief section to acknowledge the connections to climate change and, specifically, the political debate at COP 19 and the welling International pressures from the Philippines and the developing world who are the first to suffer the not insignificant consequences of climate change. As a public and open repository of knowledge, it is the responsibility of Wikipedia to publish these connections and not to censor them. After all, numerous well respected publications and political organizations are having these discussions on the connections between climate change and major storms such as Typhoon Haiyan. We don't need to prove definitively that Typhoon Haiyan was caused by climate change, just that Typhoon Haiyan is typical of the kinds of super cyclones we can expect to see in the future as a result of climate change
In retrospect my wording of "full blown" was a bit mislead, my apologies. Not that it matters at this point really, been reading up a bit more on the happenings behind the scenes (so to speak) with climate experts and there's enough commotion to warrant inclusion specifically for Haiyan. My main concern was pointing out specific events, regardless of their intensity, to climate change as it yields undue attention to the situation. A few passing remarks within the meteorological history section (possibly under a sub-header) are fine by me. As long as they remain generalized I have no qualms with it now.
Just a side thought/question here that popped into my head. How would climate change lead to larger storm surges? Is this through the indirect effects from higher winds/larger storms? If it's sea level rise, that seems a bit off to me. Very simplistically speaking, as the sea rises, nearby land would be submerged (I do understand it's not a uniform rise, areas to the east of the Philippines are seeing a larger rise than elsewhere in the world), and thus serve as a new higher sea level. That would account for what seems like a higher surge, when in reality, it's just higher because of the new sea level. You don't have to respond to this if you don't want, just a thought on my mind I needed to say :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Storm surges create two inter-linked effects of climate change. Climate change is leading to a general increase in sea-levels both because:
the release of solid water (ice to most mortals) from glaciers into the world's oceans makes coastal populations particularly vulnerable to storm surges. See, for example:
Equally importantly is thermal expansion of the oceans due to the increase in ocean temperatures at the surface, sub-surface and even deeper ocean (yes, water expands as it warms). Since the oceans cover two thirds of the planet's surface and, also because the open oceans have a relatively low albedo, probably around 7% (0.07) ... as compared to an albedo for the planet as a whole of 36.7% (0.367). This, in itself, is interesting because, in 1976, Vangelis released its album Albedo 0.39, with the album title based on the reported albedo in 1976 of 39% (0.39). If you listen to the album, a whole section is music with a vocal rendition of a whole laundry list of astrophysical constants, culminating in "albedo 0.39". I believe that statistic to be reliable at that time. If true, that would suggest that the earth's average albedo has decreased by 0.023 (2.3%), or 5.9% of its value 37 years ago. This would, of course, be a substantial change in the average albedo of our planet.
Of course, it is the combination of increases in mean ocean levels, as well as higher predictions of typical storm surges (on top of increased mean sea level), from increasingly frequent major storms, that is what puts a large percentage of the world's population at progressively increasing risks of devastation and drowning. See for further elaboration: Current sea level rise
that, plus most of global warming's retained energy is stored in the form of warmer ocean water. And what fuels tropical cyclones? Heat from the ocean. We have a hard time proving that any given warm water was warmed by global warming's captured energy instead of just 'normal' warm water from internal variation. But with so much energy being retained by the sea each day, it stands to reason this extra captured energy does something other than just slop around with the tides. And let's include failure to adopt/enforce building codes; developing low lying areas; population explosion near coasts..... It isn't just a single thing that sets the stage. Its a systemic thing, with many interlocking pieces.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes I would agree. The effects of climate change are multifactorial and multidimensional and, unfortunately, many of these effects are multiplicative in terms of their impacts. Since such a high percentage of human populations live in coastal regions, including some of the highest value developed real estate (including entire cities) lie on land vulnerable to inundation from rising seas, the risk to humanity (not to mention other parts of the biosphere) is massive. At least now, I see we have back a sub-section addressing the global furore over Typhoon Haiyan and Climate Change, lets hope it does not get deleted (again) and stays neutral, without attracting extreme sentiments from either side.
In the USA, flood damage has historically been a government responsibility, and in a strange political anomaly US citizen have expected the government to compensate them for rebuilding, even if their property stood in a flood plain. I understand that this policy is changing in the US and people are now expected and required to buy flood insurance. Of course, the insurance companies do not want to insure for floods if the insured property stands on a flood plain. So, over time, market forces will lead to people choose not to build in areas prone to flooding. Now, of course, as the USA becomes more established (as the old world has been for millennia), there will be a growing record and understanding of what are flood risk areas and so, hopefully, they will either avoid those areas or, at least build to the environment, maybe houses on stilts or pontoons (so that they can float up in times of severe flooding). I am sure others are more familiar with this dynamic.
So nobody is going to mention that ACE (Accumulated Cyclone Energy) is down (roughly 74% normal) for this year? One strong storm is not indicative of any system wide trend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.215.144.201 (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
If you can provide a reliable source for us to use, I'd be more than happy to add it. I know ACE globally this year, and for much of the past few years, has been unusually low despite the number of violent storms. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I can eat jalapenos all summer, no big deal. But please lord, let me never bite into a Trinidad Moruga Scorpion! That's what we're talking about here.
The increase in ocean heat content is much larger than any other store of energy in the Earth’s heat balance over the two periods 1961 to 2003 and 1993 to 2003, and accounts for more than 90% of the possible increase in heat content of the Earth system during these periods. [http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-2-2-3.html Sec 5.2.2.3 Implications for Earth’s Heat Balance]
Accumulated cyclone energy is a function of number of cyclones plus intensity over an entire season. A naked statement about its value has no significance to this Haiyan-specific article. Importantly, two of the key factors to make tropical cyclones are
a low amount of wind shear (since shear blows TCs apart before they form) and
plenty of heat in the ocean
Many climate scientists say global warming will increase wind shear, which would tend to reduce the number of storms. If all other things are equal, that would lower ACE (since ACE is number X intensity). In the real world, when storms do form by feeding off ocean heat, because of global warming there is more overall ocean heat somewhere on earth than there should be. Whether that heat is in the specific water feeding a specific storm is whole other question. But generally, this is why many RSs say we are wise to expect fewer - but bigger - tropical cyclones. Sort of like having fewer peppers show up in your chilli, but when they do, they may be more likely to pack a wallop. I think a meaningful neutral discussion of how ACE fits in with all this would be a great addition somewhere in the climate articles. Whether it is appropriate for inclusion here depends on what the RS says and how eds propose to use it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
* I agree that the attempt to immediately blame the typhoon on "Climate change" based on the unsubstantiated generalizations of some radical eco-political figureheads is comical at best. There is no rational evidence that the typhoon was caused by any kind of "climate change" (which in itself is highly refuted). This is nothing more than political opportunists trying to inject their agendas into any media possible, furthering their attempt to use WP as a propaganda soapbox. The "Climate change" section is propaganda on its face and needs to be removed in the interest of saving WP's reputation itself. 216.114.194.20 (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the "Climate change" section doesn't state that Haiyan was caused by climate change. It focuses on what happened at COP 19 with the Philippine delegate and the subsequent response. There's only a passing mention of it highlighting the debate, not being an example. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
There have been edits since your comment. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
This article is covered by the discretionary sanctions covering climate change articles
Noting this as people don't always look at the top of the talk page. See [10]. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
UK Aid
The UK number of 130 million USD seems to be official government aid mixed up with donations from the public. Should'nt these be separated into two categories ? I think the numbers from other countries listed in the table are government aid only while the aid from public donations are listed seperatly ? Mortyman (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Official sources only
In a couple of places in this article there is reference to 10,000 dead. That was a complete guess by the police chief in Tacloban city on the day of the typhoon (Saturday) before any deaths at all could be confirmed or before any investigation made.
The sensationalist international media have been copying that figure from each other and reporting it as, "estimated", "reported" or "confirmed" for Tacloban city itself, for Leyte province as a whole or the whole of the Phil.
It could be 10 or it could be a million. This encyclopedia should be better than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euc (talk • contribs) 10:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
That's why we have it listed at 1,804 deaths confirmed (1,774 in the Philippines) and >10,000 reported. We're only updating fatality confirmations in the Philippines when the NDRRMC updates with situation reports. The 10,000 figure is widely used so it warrants inclusion, but we're not claiming it to be accurate. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 10:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
We'll get there. Problems like that are, sadly, normal for articles on events like this. It's why there's a "current event" template at the top. Give it time. And help us with pointers to the best information if you can. HiLo48 (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Sadly, the 10,000 was NOT reported. It was a complete guess by a policeman. I have my own sources in the Phil on Panay Island (we own property there in Iloilo). It will take weeks before even rough estimates are available. I do appreciate the comments "We'll get there" and "Give it time". That's what I thought I said.
Is the UN a valid source? If so, they are saying 4460 is the confirmed death toll — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.26.106.2 (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
In the USA, the local officials usually have the most accurate counts as they ar ethe ones actually dealing with the officials. I'd recommend placing a rang eon the dead between the Philippine estimate and the UN estimate derived from local sources
98.200.102.230 (talk) 05:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Further clarification on that matter
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303789604579198881386393174 the low estimate may only include those identified. In addition, from the article, a spokesman for the Philippine presidential office says "The higher numbers from the aid agencies are probably the more accurate ones as we expect our figures to rise once the bodies have been positively identified"
98.200.102.230 (talk) 05:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I will let @Cyclonebiskit: decide on this but generally speaking, we are not a news agency, so it is fine that we follow the NDRRMCs figures which as far as i know are also derived from local officials.Jason Rees (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
"The 10,000 figure is widely used so it warrants inclusion" - rubbish. My point has just been confirmed in the above paragraph "we are not a news agency." The 10,000 figure was widely used because the entire international press are a bunch of mindless sheep copying each other rather than doing their own research. This is an encyclopedia not a news service and we should therefore show patience and include such figures only after they have been confirmed from a reliable source. Those sources need to quoted (references). The only source for the dozens of agencies quoting this figure was the Tacloban Police chief.Euc (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
We've never used the 10,000 figure as an official estimate of the deaths, but rather as an upper bounds estimate. The deaths that are listed are only those confirmed by the NDRRMC, and I've been as on top of this article as I can be to make sure that those are the only numbers we use as official. We're not in the business of exclusion either, so a widely reported figure such as the 10,000 deaths warrants mention, but not focus. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry but the "10,000" figure should never have been quoted unless the single source was quoted. The article presently reads "...to as high as 10,000 by various sources." There was ONLY ONE SOURCE for this fugure, the Tacloban police chief. My goal here is to raise the level of this publication (that's what Wiki is after all) to well above the level of mindless sheep.
Personally, I think the death toll was much higher than any estimate so far stated because significant numbers of older people in the Phil have no birth certificate and in the outlying villages many of the younger population don't have one either. The slow response by the authorities meant that people had to be burried in mass graves quickly with nobody counting. We may never know how mant deaths there were.Euc (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that this storm appears to be a very significant one, and probably one of unprecedented destructiveness for the Philippines. If this storm is important enough, then I think that we should add Haiyan to Portal: Tropical cyclones, even though I personally have no idea how to do that. What do you guys think? LightandDark2000 (talk)
I agree with you. We should add this to the portal. It was like the Katrina of the East! I bet it'll even set a new world record for highest death toll by typhoon, and also costliest natural disaster. Please add this to the portal. Thanks! Rehty77 (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't really know how to do this stuff. I tried to edit parts of the portal before, but the code was just too complex for me. However, Haiyan is very noteworthy, and I hope that a user will be able to add the storm. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Not done: The article on LDS Philanthropies begins: "LDS Philanthropies is a department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) ...", so all we're doing by mentioning LDS Philanthropies is recognising which branch of the LDS published that article. That is what the source page itself says, so this is correct procedure. The link you provide is to a different article. If there is something you would like to see added to this page that we could cite to that source, please say what. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
