NOTE: readers of this thread may be interested in this:
An ethical challenge for Greg Laden – put your money where your mouth is
================================================================
Here is the sort of headlines we had Friday, for example this one from Huffington Post where they got all excited about some early reports from Andrew Freedman:
Super Typhoon Haiyan — which is one of the strongest storms in world history based on maximum windspeed — is about to plow through the Central Philippines, producing a potentially deadly storm surge and dumping heavy rainfall that could cause widespread flooding. As of Thursday afternoon Eastern time, Haiyan, known in the Philippines as Super Typhoon Yolanda, had estimated maximum sustained winds of 195 mph with gusts above 220 mph, which puts the storm in extraordinarily rare territory.
UPDATE 5: from this NYT article:
Before the typhoon made landfall, some international forecasters were estimating wind speeds at 195 m.p.h., which would have meant the storm would hit with winds among the strongest recorded. But local forecasters later disputed those estimates. “Some of the reports of wind speeds were exaggerated,” Mr. Paciente said.
The Philippine weather agency measured winds on the eastern edge of the country at about 150 m.p.h., he said, with some tracking stations recording speeds as low as 100 m.p.h.
Ah those wind speed estimates, they don’t always meet up with reality later – Anthony
==============================================================
By Paul Homewood
Sadly it appears that at least 1000 1200 1774* lives have been lost in Typhoon Yolanda (or Haiyan), that has just hit the Philippines. There appear to have been many unsubstantiated claims about its size, though these now appear to start being replaced by accurate information.
Nevertheless the BBC are still reporting today
Typhoon Haiyan – one of the most powerful storms on record to make landfall …….The storm made landfall shortly before dawn on Friday, bringing gusts that reached 379km/h (235 mph).
Unfortunately we cannot always trust the BBC to give the facts these days, so let’s see what the Philippine Met Agency, PAGASA, have to say. Here are the surface wind reports:
http://www.pagasa.dost.gov.ph/wb/tcarchive_files.html
http://www.pagasa.dost.gov.ph/wb/wbfcst.html
So at landfall the sustained wind was 235 kmh or 147 mph, with gusts upto 275 kmh or 171 mph. This is 60 mph less than the BBC have quoted.
The maximum strength reached by the typhoon appears to have been around landfall, as the reported windspeeds three hours earlier were 225 kmh (140mph).
Terrible though this storm was, it only ranks as a Category 4 storm, and it is clear nonsense to suggest that it is “one of the most powerful storms on record to make landfall “
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffir%E2%80%93Simpson_Hurricane_Scale
Given the geography of the Pacific, most typhoons stay out at sea, or only hit land once they have weakened. But in total terms, the busiest typhoon season in recent decades was 1964, whilst the following year logged the highest number of super typhoons (which equate to Cat 3 +). Of the eleven super typhoons that year, eight were Category 5’s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon
So far this year, before Yolanda there have been just three Category 5’s, none of which hit land at that strength.
Personally I don’t like to comment on events such as these until long after the dust has settled. Unfortunately though, somebody has to set the record if we cannot rely on the BBC and others to get the basic facts right.
UPDATE
In case anyone thinks I am overreacting, take a look at the Daily Mail headlines.
Just looking at it again, is it possible the MSM are confusing mph with kmh? It seems a coincidence that PAGASA report 235 kmh.
UPDATE 2
I have just registered a complaint at the Press Complaints Commission against the Mail article. If anyone spots similar articles elsewhere, and I will add them to my complaint.
UPDATE 3
I seem to have been right about the kmh/mph confusion!
I’ve just scanned down the Mail article and seen this:
Unless they think “gusts” are less than “winds”, it looks like someone has boobed.
=============================================================
UPDATE4: Kent Noonan writes in with this addition –
CNN has had several articles stating the same numbers for wind speed as BBC and Mail. I saw these numbers first last night at 10PM Pacific time.
Today’s story: “Powered by 195-mph winds and gusts up to 235 mph, it then struck near Tacloban and Dulag on the island of Leyte, flooding the coastal communities.”
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/09/world/asia/philippines-typhoon-haiyan/index.html?hpt=hp_inthenews
If these “news” agencies don’t issue a correction, we will be forever battling the new meme of “most powerful storm in world history”.
Look at today’s google search for “most powerful storm”
stories run by Independent, NBC, dailymail, NPR, Foxnews, CNBC, WND, Business Insider, PBS, BBC, CNN, FirstPost, Bloomberg
“All you need to know Typhoon Haiyan, world’s most powerful storm” by FP Staff Nov 8, 2013
Then they go on to correctly state gusts to 170mph !!
UPDATE 6: (update 5 is at the head of the post)
BBC now reporting reduced wind speeds that would make it a Cat4 storm:
Typhoon Haiyan – one of the most powerful storms on record to make landfall – swept through six central Philippine islands on Friday.
It brought sustained winds of 235km/h (147mph), with gusts of 275 km/h (170 mph), with waves as high as 15m (45ft), bringing up to 400mm (15.75 inches) of rain in places.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24887337 (h/t David S)
UPDATE7: While hit and run haters like Greg laden deplore us pointing out the measurements of wind speeds, labeling us with all sorts of derogatory names, they conveniently ignore purposely created propaganda like this:
The juxtaposition in Tenney Naumer’s Twitter Feed says it all:
Rules for Radicals: “We are always moral and our enemies always immoral.” The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the immorality of the opposition,”
UPDATE 8: here is another number you are likely to see bandied about as supposed proof of this storm being historically unprecedented, courtesy Tenney Naumer who pointed it out in comments:
NOAA recorded Haiyan’s lowest central pressure at 858, quite possibly a record in the instrumental era:
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/DATA/2013/tdata/wpac/31W.html
Those aren’t measurements Tenney, they are ESTIMATES. Done from satellite. They are called DVORAK fixes.
And note, the estimates stay the same for several hours without any fluctuation, then repeat values in bracketing outside that period, a sure sign of a model doing rounding.
Here is the source page: http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/storms/HAIYAN.html
The technique is new, and has issues and acknowledged biases, it is a work in progress. One of the issues is that verification has only been done for near US Atlantic Basin storms within the range of hurricane hunter aircraft.
Paper on the technique is here: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2010WAF2222375.1 ]
UPDATE9: (h/t to WUWT reader StewGreen)
From the Government of the Philippines sitrep report, a screencap:
Click to access NDRRMC%20UP%20Sitrep%20No12%20re%20Effects%20of%20TY%20YOLANDA%20111113.pdf
UPDATE 10: Laden’s claims in his tirade aren’t supported by actual science and data, he writes:
But Watts and Homewood don’t want storms to be important for the simple reason that the best models strongly suggest that there will be more storms … especially in the Pacific, where Haiyan struck, over coming decades because of the changes to climate that humans are carrying out and that Anthony Watts and Paul Homewood deny to be real.
This paper shows the reality:
Kubota, H. and Chan, J.C.L. 2009. Interdecadal variability of tropical cyclone landfall in the Philippines from 1902 to 2005. Geophysical Research Letters 36: 10.1029/2009GL038108.
==================================================================
* Reports are varying wildly
The Red Cross in the Philipines says 1200 in this report: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/09/us-philippines-typhoon-idUSBRE9A603Q20131109
But now Reuters is claiming and estimate of 10,000 based on a late night meeting of officials at the Governors Office. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/10/philippines-typhoon-casualty-idUSL4N0IV00F20131110
About the same time as the Reuters 10K report, television News in the Philipines says the death toll is 151. http://anc.yahoo.com/video/ndrrmc-151-dead-due-yolanda-011610793.html
Early reports often vary widely, and it will be some time before accurate numbers are produced.
Our hearts and prayers go to the Philippine people. For those that wish to help, here is the website of the Philippine Red Cross: http://ushare.redcross.org.ph/
Monday in the WSJ:
Philippines Typhoon Death Count Rises to 1,774
Toll Exceeds Red Cross Estimates of 1,200; Likely to Rise Much Higher
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303914304579191821439194290?tesla=y
Source of the number: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/334950/news/nation/ndrrmc-confirms-1-774-fatalities-most-are-from-eastern-visayas
UPDATE: 11/12 7AM Philippine president Aquino says to CNN: Typhoon Haiyan deaths likely 2,000 to 2,500 — not 10,000
==============================================================
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mod said: [ reporting on actual measured wind speeds from the Philippine met agency is an “attempt to minimize the size and severity of the storm”? – what an odd attitude – mod]
Why is it an odd attitude? Are you really telling me that if the news stories had said that winds had hit peaks at 147 mph but the Philippines Met Agency had measured 195 mph, there would be an article here highlighting that discrepancy? I very much doubt that.
In response to Chuck Weise. Are you for real? Friction across land reduces sustained wind speeds, so the 195 mile per hour winds were reduced to around 165 miles per hour as a result. Another thing, a well defined eyewall does make a difference to the wind speed, as a perfectly symmetrical eyewall allows for greater energy uptake. As for the size of Haiyan, it was 600 kilometers across, which is a relatively moderate size for a tropical cyclone. A true tropical scientist would be aware of this. Just because the BBC made an error in publishing their article does not mean that Haiyan was not as strong as what the JTWC says it was. You call yourself a meteorologist, but you only have a B.A., which actually makes you less qualified than myself. It would seem anyone these days can claim to be a meteorologist.
BBC is correct, Typhoon Haiyan was a 170kt tropical cyclone because that’s what JTWC measured its intensity at. Actually, I’d dare say it was a conservative estimate. The satellite presentation, when compared with the directly observed via recon Super Typhoon Megi in 2010 (which had a 885mb pressure and 185mph winds at landfall in the Northern Philippines), was even more impressive. A perfect ring of -90C cloudtops surrounded by a nearly impossibly clear eye. I dare say winds in Haiyan were approaching 180kts while at peak. That being said, there was clear erosion of the eyewall before its second landfall in Tacloban, but in Guiuan it hit at full strength. Realistically, I’d argue it was ~145kts at landfall in Tacloban. That being said, Haiyan was for 100% certainty a Category 5 Super Typhoon.
Further evidence to suggest Haiyan’s status as an incredibly intense Super Typhoon is the damage being observed. There’s been wide scale tree demarkment from Haiyan’s eyewall. That’s something I’ve almost never heard of happening.
Now, regarding PAGASA and their estimate. PAGASA has been directly responsible for horrific forecasting errors, similar to what the IMD has done in the Indian Ocean. They’re horribly understaffed, underfunded, and because of this do not have the same level of credibility as JTWC does. PAGASA in short is an incompetent forecasting agency under a severely corrupt government.
Please don’t attempt to interject your political fallacies into tropical cyclone meteorology. Reading your blogs, I can tell that’s what drives you to post this bile. The notion that Haiyan was “overhyped” is absurbed, and what’s more absurbed is the fact you’re posting the death toll with it. 1,200+ people are confirmed dead, and it’s looking likely that the toll will rise to 10,000+ as the counts come in.
An ethical challenge for Greg Laden – put your money where your mouth is
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/10/an-ethical-challenge-for-greg-laden-put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is/
Stackhouse says: “In response to Chuck Weise. Are you for real? Friction across land reduces sustained wind speeds, so the 195 mile per hour winds were reduced to around 165 miles per hour as a result. Another thing, a well defined eyewall does make a difference to the wind speed, as a perfectly symmetrical eyewall allows for greater energy uptake. As for the size of Haiyan, it was 600 kilometers across, which is a relatively moderate size for a tropical cyclone. A true tropical scientist would be aware of this. Just because the BBC made an error in publishing their article does not mean that Haiyan was not as strong as what the JTWC says it was. You call yourself a meteorologist, but you only have a B.A., which actually makes you less qualified than myself. It would seem anyone these days can claim to be a meteorologist.”
Stackhouse : Your comprehension is near zero. Who said anything about whether symmetrical eyewalls allow for more energy uptake? The reference has to do with static conditions. If the eyewall is larger the potential for energy uptake is greater but the speed is less than a smaller well defined eyewall. And don’t bother readers with your frictional crap invective. That was written to insult. The ONLY people who attack me like you did with respect to my education and keep stating that I have a “BA” are the ones who read CAGW blog sites like Greg Laden’s who can never get much of anything correct and pick this crap up and keep repeating because it sounds good to the lemmings who read it. You know nothing about me, so if you want to cite qualifications or my experience try getting it correct before you open your mouth and that includes the spelling of my name. I stand by what I have said. The storm was hyped like Anthony said it was because the media reported kilometers as miles. A huge mistake. And even if it was a CAT 5 just before landfall, it does not rise to the intensity of being the “strongest tropical cyclone ever” or “in history”. The news of the day is really the CAGW climate loons who use any severe weather event as some sort of “proof” that the claim that CO2 is changing the climate is validated and it sure seems to me like that’s where this is headed, and because you can’t even get basic things correct about someone you want to pick a fight with, that’s enough to convince me you are in this category, and if that’s wrong, it is your own fault for so carelessly flapping your gums and giving the reader a wrong impression.
Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist
PAGASA measures the windspeeds using 10-minute intervals.
Mr. Watts, I would seriously consider revising your article as the latest figures come in.
Chuck Weise: (Clicking Thumbs-Up button)
KED1234:
You think your “bile” is better? One recurring theme on this thread is the fictional “moral high ground”, and all you’re doing is demonstrating it. I don’t care what your credentials are, your post comes across as an arrogant and rather dense person with no real clue.
PS: the word is “ABSURD”. I’m sure you hear that a lot.
I want to revise my earlier post. Haiyan was an outlier, however you want to defines that term, sitting on the edge of the distribution of expected intensities. Such storms occur infrequently and make landfall even more rarely. But Haiyan was still a natural phenomenon within a couple of SD of the mean.
Romulo Virola, head of the filipino government national statistics board, stated that “Filipino typhoons are getting stronger and stronger, especially since the 90s”. “From 1947 to 1960, the strongest typhoon to hit us was Amy in December 1951 with a highest wind speed recorded at 240kph in Cebu. From 1961 to 1980, Sening was the record holder with a highest wind speed of 275kph in October 1970. During the next 20 years, the highest wind speed was recorded by Anding and Rosing at 260kph. In the current millennium, the highest wind speed has soared to 320kph recorded by Reming in Nov-Dec 2006. If this is due to climate change, we better be prepared for even stronger ones in the future.” (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/08/typhoon-haiyans-force-illustrates-the-rising-power-of-tropical-storms/). It is the overall trend that matters, not any one particular storm (although this one looked devestating).
Latest Situational Report every 12 hours can be found here http://www.ndrrmc.gov.ph
Philippines National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council
7am 11/11/2013 The casualty count they listed was 255
(On Sunday the BBC websites said around 10,000 whereas their TV reports implied much more “The death count for Tacloban City alone is …. 10,000”)
(A UK gov minister just said that Yolanda is worse than the Tsunami ! well that was around 200,000 deaths)
– WUWT is not being malicious by questioning questionable figures cos TRUTH matters. When a high figure comes in a logical person would immediately question whether a mistake like reading Kph as mph had happened, as once a meme is established it’s difficult to put the genie back in the bottle. The fact that is the mistake BBC’s Matt McGrath made in writing of the news report doesn’t say much for the BBC’s credibility. The fact that Greg Laden insults people who pick up that kind of error shows what respect eh has for the truth
strange times we live in, when folks seeking TRUTH and ACCURATE information are attacked!
and the attacks are coming from those seeking to LIE to the public.
Latest death toll count, from the Wall Street Journal (original source: National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council): 1,774. These numbers are going to continue to climb. This petty squabble is shameful.
http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303914304579191821439194290?mg=reno64-wsj
I think you spoke way too soon tgis time! Clearly, this storm was as advertised, for once and the death toll is incredible.
WUWT is not being malicious by questioning questionable figures cos TRUTH matters. When a high figure comes in a logical person would immediately question whether a mistake like reading Kph as mph had happened, as once a meme is established it’s difficult to put the genie back in the bottle. The fact that is the mistake BBC’s Matt McGrath made in writing of the news report doesn’t say much for the BBC’s credibility. The fact that Greg Laden insults people who pick up that kind of error shows what respect eh has for the truth
Clearly, of course, the death count is going to be correlated with the number of people in the path of the storm.
I lived through Cyclone Tracy on Christmas Eve in 1974. We had not had a cyclone hit for a very long time, but it devastated the town (check the Wikipedia page, the pictures look as I remember it.). Only 71 people died, but there were only about 41,000 people there at the time and it was only a category three.
I would expect the death toll numbers to stabilize not much higher than we are currently hearing, but they could go higher, and, IMO, it has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with AGW idiots looking for anything to sell their religion.
http://io9.com/climate-skeptic-blog-shamefully-downplays-super-typhoon-1462172385
Another post trashing this article from a Science/Sci-fi blog on the Gawker network.
Richard, the figures that the BBC uses are DIRECTLY from the advisories issued by the JTWC which estimated before landfall the strength of Typhoon Haiyan’s strength to have winds of 195 mph gusting to 235 mph. Now on may argue about the validity of satellite estimates (though, it can just as easily be argued that the satellites may have underestimated the intensity of the storm as one could argue they overestimated) the fact is that the BBC and other news agencies are “lying” by directly quoting the advisories of a widely recognized and legitimate forecasting agency is absurb.
What also seems to be omitted (and still has not been corrected by the author) is that PAGASA uses an entirely different way of measuring winds than what the JTWC and the NHC uses. PAGASA uses a 10-minute sustained wind measurement, which results in a consistently wind estimate than the 1-minute sustained wind measurement used by the NHC and JWTC.
The 1-minute sustained measurement is used widely in meteorological records, and is, at least to my knowledge, has not seen any major dispute from meteorological authorities. All wind records for hurricanes in the Atlantic, Eastern Pacific, and many in the western Pacific/Indian ocean use the 1-minute sustained measurement. To say that this measurement, is not valid, means you are calling into question, the intensity measurements of ALL hurricanes ever recorded by the NHC.
I do not know whether you made a mistake, and simply published this before you had a full understanding of the differences, or you are deliberately trying to mislead people knowing that what you are arguing is in fact false.
If it is the former, I hope for the sake of your credibility you make a quick correction and apology (if you so choose) for the mistake. If it is the later, than frankly you embody the worst kinda of cynical callousness that you accuse your political enemies to posses. Not only that, but you are doing a GREAT disservice for the people who have died in that storm by trying to misrepresent that intensities reported, and by insinuating that the media “made up numbers” in order to make this storm “appear stronger”. We already have seen significant problems with people disregarding the intensity of storms over the interpretation that the media is simply “hyping an event” (For example, Sandy) that have lead to life-threatening situations and possibly even deaths. To assert that the media is “hyping” Haiyan, when it is in fact doing no such thing at all, not only does obfuscate the facts about this event, but could very well put the lives of people in the path of future storms at risk.
Therefore, again I hope you quickly correct the information you posted, for the sake of your credibility, for the sake of the credibility of this site and your cause, and for the sake of layman who are reading your site.
Bill G said: “If this is due to climate change, we better be prepared for even stronger ones in the future.” (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/08/typhoon-haiyans-force-illustrates-the-rising-power-of-tropical-storms/). It is the overall trend that matters, not any one particular storm (although this one looked devastating.”
Bill G : Overall trend? With respect to what? With respect to what surveillance systems? Prior to the 1960’s you had no way to determine how many tropical systems there were unless they happened to strike a populated area or pass a ship at sea who was able to measure some of the meteorological parameters. There were no satellites. So this is comparing apples to oranges. As surveillance has improved over the years so has detectability. That improvement has surely led to larger sample sizes and intensities by itself.
So what is the trend compared to a thousand or even ten thousand years? The earth is millions of years old! Do you actually believe that a decadal or even multi-decadal trend is really a trend that can validate the claims of AGW when the surveillance and ability too measure parameters has been improving? This is nonsense. Not by just the statistical inference here but the physical as well.
Those who claim AGW by CO2 is true need to first demonstrate that the SPECTRALLY INTEGRATED OLR has actually declined as GHG’s have risen. This is crucial and has NEVER been accomplished. Computing or simulating narrow band absorption due to CO2 without demonstrating exactly how the hydro cycle and water vapor optical depth responds proves absolutely nothing and the warmers who proclaim the feedbacks are positive TO THE OPTICAL DEPTH have been proven wrong by observation.
It was the kooks like Laden who once told us that “weather” is not climate when global temperatures were cooperating with modeling, and the lay person would reference a cold weather event as proof the earth was not warming. Now that this has failed, the warming crowd and AGW loons have switched gears and abandoned and contradicted themselves completely and focus on any severe weather that occurs, claiming now that this is a validation of the failed CO2 warming claims. At the same time, they converted “global warming” to “climate change”. The lying and absolute disingenuousness of this is stunning and very convincing of how fraudulent and non scientific warmers have become to defend the indefensible.
Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist
@Gregladen – you are being ignored because you are both a hypocrite and irrelevant. I know by your statement that you have never discussed 9-11, yet 3000 people died. How dare you revel in the deaths of others!
If it is the later, than frankly you embody the worst kinda of cynical callousness that you accuse your political enemies to posses. Not only that, but you are doing a GREAT disservice for the people who have died in that storm by trying to misrepresent that intensities reported, and by insinuating that the media “made up numbers” in order to make this storm “appear stronger”.
Again we see emotion being used to foist a point of view.
Do you know the number of people who lived in the path of Taiyan?
Once we know that then we can determine whether how Taiyan fares with respect to other storms.
It seems that Leyte has a population some 40 times that of those in the way of Cyclone Tracy and we are talking about a category 4 tropical cyclone.
When the numbers finally come out we can determine whether all the hype was true or not.
Richard, a cyclone’s death toll does not reflect the strength it possesses.
Let us look at two recent examples from the Philippines, (2010) Typhoon Megi was a Catergory 5 equivalent cyclone that made landfall with a one-minute sustained wind speed of 185 mph (measured by the JTWC and aircraft recon) but only killed roughly 40 people in the Philippines
(2012) Typhoon Bopha was a Catergory 5 equivalent cyclone that made landfall on the southern island of Mindanao with 1 minute sustained winds of 175 mph (measured by the JTWC) and killed (officially) 1,246 people in the Philippines.
As it stands right now, with 1,774 death Haiyan is the third most deadly typhoon in the history of the Philippines, and will very likely be officially the 2nd most deadly tomorrow (since the second deadliest typhoon in Philippines history (Angela Typhoon, 1867), and if the at least 10,000 estimate is true, will likely go down as the deadliest typhoon ever recorded in the Philippines.
Another thing to note is that in almost all other cyclones, the vast majority of deaths were the result of floods, landslides and mudslides. Another aspect unique to Haiyan, is that the vast majority of deaths so far have been the result of wind and storm surge. In all regards, Haiyan’s impact on the Philippines is unprecedented in both material, and probably, even if we hope not to, human losses.
However, as I have noted above, death tolls do not in any way correlate with intensity, therefore we should rely on the measurements done by groups like the JTWC, and from observations of damage on the ground.
(Also, everything beyond the first paragraph was for the author of the blogpost, not you, I apologize for the confusion)
However, as I have noted above, death tolls do not in any way correlate with intensity, therefore we should rely on the measurements done by groups like the JTWC, and from observations of damage on the ground.
I made only passing reference to the intensity of the intensity.
My main point was that it was correlated with the number of people in its path.
I can only estimate how many people might have been in its path based on the population of Leyte and then compare that with what we have seen.
So far the numbers do not compare with those in Cyclone Tracy, but they might get there. There were no mud slides in Darwin. It was the wind and the storm surge that killed those people. I was there in the middle of it and actually outside for some of it sheltering between a door and a wall. Fortunately, I did not know any of those who died.
With respect to Phil Jourdan’s statement that:
lack of proper notification, and protection, lack of options
We had as much notification as anyone has about those sorts of events. I don’t see who would have made the political decision to evacuate in time. We had protection, and we were more than a little skeptical that there would be any risk because there had not been a cyclone through Darwin for a very long time.
Still the death and devastation came and it had nothing to do with AGW that time either and the overreaction afterwards was much the same.
Richard, I did some quick calculations concerning Cyclone Tracey and death rates
Cyclone Tracy killed 71 people in total, 49 on land and 22 at sea. For the sake of accuracy, I decided to only use the death toll of those killed on land, since the number of people at sea can be highly variable, and compared it to the population of Darwin (47,000) at the time.
49/47,000 gives us a mortality rate of roughly 0.104255% for the city.
If the rate were to repeat itself in Tacloban (pop roughly 221,000), we would get a death toll of roughly 230 people for the city. Now, so far I have been unable to find specific breakdown of deaths by city for this storm, but based on the current and rapidly rising death toll, estimates by local officials, and anecdotal accounts of hundreds of bodies simply lying in the streets, I think it is safe to say we have easily exceeded the death rate for Tracy in Talcoban City alone
Chuck Wiese – I was quoting a statistician from the government of the Philippines – I did not say what you quoted me as saying. That is why I put the quote in quotes. (I did say there was an overall trend – what I meant to say is an overall trend over the past three decades). Perhaps you should write the statistician telling that person why they shouldn’t have any concern about the increasing storm intensity over the past three decades, since that is what the statistician was quoted as being concerned with. They were able to apparently able to record wind speeds over the last three decades, despite your misgivings. Since we are talking about a government, three decades is plenty of time to determine a trend (we are lucky if a government plans 5 years ahead, don’t you think). I don’t know the longer term trends in storm intensities. Perhaps you can find someone else to argue with regarding. It is the responsibility of government to note trends in the medium to short term and to plan accordingly. That is why Bloomberg is preparing NYC for more intense storms and storm surges – there is increasing risk over the short to medium term.