Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HurricaneTracker495 (talk | contribs) at 14:17, 22 November 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Disaster management High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Floods Template:WikiProject Tropical cyclones Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Tambayan Philippines Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

A news item involving Typhoon Haiyan was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 8 November 2013.

Typhoon Haiyan was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 18, 2014). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on November 8, 2015.

Strongest ever

On cnn it said this hit 195 mph. Typhooyn tip the previous record holder was 190. wtf.--150.216.254.206 (talk) 08:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Wind speeds yes but not pressure. Although, an unofficial Dvorak estimation made by NOAA put Haiyan's min pressure at 862 hPa but that number is suspect as the official RSMC for the Western Pacific is the JMA. IrfanFaiz 14:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

In 1934 storm winds of 231 mph (372 kph) were recorded. The record should be qualified against non tropical storms, perhaps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.170.151 (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

While this storm may have had winds greater than Tip (the JTWC kept the maximum winds at 190 mph), the deciding factor for comparing storm intensity is central pressure. Officially, the JMA (the official warning center for the region) had Haiyan's lowest air pressure as being 895 hPa which is higher than Tip. — Iune(talk) 17:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• • Added on November 12th**

All the claims about this typhoon's being "strongest" are totally wrong. JTWC made a conversion mistake and the figure 315 km/h that was the source of all the big claims was erased from their server and you won't find a trace of it. In reality, that figure should have been 275 km/h, as seen in official Philippines' meteorological sources. The right measure of the strength is via the minimum pressure, anyway, and this typhoon is just 21st-35th in that part of the Pacific Ocean since the 1950s, see . So a similarly strong or stronger typhoon appears there once in 2-3 years or so. So I ask someone to correct this whole amazing mess and erase all the wrong comments about this typhoon's being extraordinary. --Lumidek (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

When WILL America metricate? HiLo48 (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

(in response to User:Lumidek) Would like to clarify for a few things. Yes, intensity amongst tropical cyclones as a whole is usually determined via barometric pressure. That being said, the Joint Typhoon Warning Center utilizes 1-minute sustained winds, while the PAGASA and JMA utilizes 10-minute sustained winds. More precisely, the JTWC estimates wind speeds that are sustained for one minute - that is, if one were to measure winds for one minute, and then average measurements within that minute out. For the other agencies, they estimate wind speeds that are sustained for ten minutes. See maximum sustained wind for more details. As such, there was no conversion mistake, the JTWC determined winds to equate to 170 knots operationally, which equates to 315 km/h (195 mph), which is the highest since the 60s, though at that time instrumentation was rather unreliable. In reply to your comment of the JTWC wiping their servers to erase this 'mistake', this occurs with every operational advisory that the JTWC releases. Though it won't be confirmed until their annual tropical cyclone report is released this measurement was rather remarkable. The JTWC did not make a conversion mistake, and in the next advisory released from them they slightly weakened the storm to 295 km/h as the storm had passed over land and had actually weakened, again, still over 275 km/h. I hope that helps. TheAustinMan 03:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Austin Man, thanks, I understand that all the alerts are being rewritten and there are various n-minute averages used by various sources. That's exactly why one can never compare the figures obtained by differing methods and differing timings to claim that one storm or another was a record-breaker of any sort. There isn't any single metric to measure the intensity in which the storm was a record-breaker, not even among those that landed. --Lumidek (talk) 06:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I have already discussed this with you Lumidek. Please discontinue this discussion unless you can provide evidence aside from your own personal assumptions. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that JTWC's measurements are satellite based. There are no direct measurements confirming the sustained wind speeds (at any interval) that you are quoting here. In fact, all of the direct measurements are at variance with JTWC's satellite estimates. Comparing the satellite measurements to direct measurements strikes me as bad science and smacks of advocacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.215.144.201 (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If the record is measured by barometric pressure... This storm had an estimated pressure of 858 mb based on the Dvorak technique. Should Haiyan not be the most intense ever? I mean, even NOAA stated it at 858 mb. 203.218.9.66 (talk) 06:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

That's the lowest of their estimates; however, a more accurate estimate from NOAA (using a more recent wind-pressure conversion) was 884mb, but still an estimate. The official pressure for Haiyan is 895 mb according to the JMA, which ranks it among the top 30 storms in the basin. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 06:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

So I suppose you could say Haiyan is the most intense ever as measured by Dvorak technique (which is by no means official). I mean it did score a T8.0 and according to one source a T8.1. That's pretty darn high if you ask me. Though by direct/satellite measurements it is NOT most intense. 203.218.9.66 (talk) 08:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

My reanalysis says that it has 1-min sustained wind speeds of 205 mph and a pressure of 868 hPa. I’m not going to edit the page to update its wind speeds and hPa though. Bsslover371 (talk) 03:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages to censor such information.
  

Enquire (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

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:
  

• National Geographic: Supertyphoon Haiyan: Why Monster Storm Is So Unusual (2013-11-08)
  
• Washington Post: Super typhoon Haiyan strikes Philippines, among strongest storms ever (2013-11-07)
  

Enquire (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

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.

Enquire (talk) 11:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

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..."

• Typhoon Haiyan and climate change Q&A
• Typhoon Haiyan: Philippines urges action to resolve climate talks deadlock

--Nigelj (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

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:

• Tearful Speech By Philippine COP 19 Delegate About Super-Typhoon Haiyan

This has been widely reported in the media and is a topic of discussion by scientists. See, for example:

• National Geographic: Super Typhoon Haiyan: Why Monster Storm Is So Unusual: The massive typhoon striking the Philippines is both big and late in the season
• Huffington Post: Super Typhoon Haiyan Is a Wake-Up Call for UN Climate Summit (2013-11-08)
• The Guardian: Typhoon Haiyan: what really alarms Filipinos is the rich world ignoring climate change: As Haiyan batters the Philippines, the political elites at the UN climate talks will again leave poor countries to go it alone (2013-11-08)
• ClimateCentral: Historic Super Typhoon Haiyan Assaults Philippines (2013-11-07)
• The Guardian: Is climate change to blame for Typhoon Haiyan? The Philippines has been hit by 24 typhoons in the past year but the power of Haiyan was off the scale, killing thousands and leaving millions homeless. Is there even worse devastation to come?
• The Independent: Typhoon Haiyan overshadows UN climate change talks in Poland (2013-11-13)

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 Misplaced Pages pages where the issue is discussed more fully.

Enquire (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

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 ?" 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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 Misplaced Pages 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

Enquire (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

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:

1. 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:
   
   • USGS Sea Level and Climate
   • NPR Study: 634 Million People at Risk from Rising Seas
   • World Ocean Review The battle for the coast: The million dollar question: how bad will it be?
   • Greenpeace Sea level rise (2012-07-04)

2. 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.
   • National Geographic Sea Level Rise Ocean Levels Are Getting Higher—Can We Do Anything About It?
   • MIT Global Warming: Sea Level Rise
   • Nature Relative outcomes of climate change mitigation related to global temperature versus sea-level rise (2012-07-01)

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

Enquire (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

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.

Enquire (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

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.

[[File:WhereIsTheHeatOfGlobalWarming.svg|thumb|260px|alt=refer to caption|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. 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)

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)

public domain video of relief here: http://www.dvidshub.net/video/307740/operation-damayan#.UoVHsJR4ZDJ Victor Grigas (talk) 22:01, 14 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.

Many officials are on Facebook so you could try there for more info. The mayor of Iloilo (Panay Island) is gving updates on his facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/?ref=tn_tnmn#!/jedpatrickmabilog?hc_location=stream Euc (talk) 10:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

It would be except they had to clarify early that the number was actually the total count of evacuation centers currently open, not the death toll.Jason Rees (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The UN has revised this again and has said the 4460 is from local officials, not evacuation centers http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/se-asia/story/typhoon-haiyan-un-says-death-toll-4460-philippine-government-says-2360-2

also, 22,000 are mising according to the Red Cross

Tecloban officials say they have confirmed 4,000 dead in that city alone http://news.sky.com/story/1168916/typhoon-haiyan-4000-dead-in-tacloban-alone

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)

http://www.ndrrmc.gov.ph/attachments/article/1125/updatesitrep44.pdf now 5500 confirmed and the number of missing is increasing as well

209.249.14.164 (talk) 01:51, 27 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)

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)

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)

"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)

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.

Lists:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/14/world/asia/typhoon-haiyan/

http://philnews.ph/2013/11/13/international-aid-yolanda-haiyan-victims-list-donations-country-organization/

http://www.rappler.com/nation/43310-yolanda-international-community

More donors:

Iceland - http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/Iceland_to_Send_ISK_123_Million_to_the_Philippines_0_404097.news.aspx

Kuwait - http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/issues/disasters/typhoon-yolanda/43649-kuwait-aid-yolanda

Bahrain - http://www.bna.bh/portal/en/news/587979

Qatar - http://thepeninsulaqatar.com/qatar/260604-qatar-sending-two-planeloads-of-relief-to-philippines.html

Portugal - http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/portugal-sends-help-and-condolences-to-typhoon-ravaged-philippines/29883

Gift of the Givers - http://www.afriquejet.com/news/13406-philippines-south-african-aid-group-to-assist-philippines.html

Cyprus - http://cyprus-mail.com/2013/11/14/cyprus-joins-aid-effort/

Thatpopularguy123 (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

China's $100,000

Why does wiki reference the $200,000 from BBC when every other news agency reports China gave a measly $100,000? http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/522055/20131114/china-philippines-victims-typhoon-haiyan.htm#.UoVT1aMo7OB http://world.time.com/2013/11/13/china-to-philippines-here-have-a-measly-100000-in-aid/ Just Google for more — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.151.222 (talk) 23:01, 14 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. YE 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)

Links for consideration

Editors may wish to use these links to improve and expand the article.

• Philippines typhoon CRS emergency response | Catholic Relief Services | Emergencies (November 13, 2013)—Catholic Relief Services
• Super Typhoon Haiyan Pummels Central Philippines (November 14, 2013)—Jehovah's Witnesses
• What challenges does Typhoon Haiyan pose for aid agencies? (November 14, 2013)—Thomson Reuters
• Philippine Amateur Radio Volunteers Continue to Fill Communication Gap (November 12, 2013)—American Radio Relay League
• Radio Assists During and After Typhoon in Philippines | Radio Survivor (November 11, 2013)
• Scams Emerge as Typhoon Haiyan Strikes the Philippines | Symantec Connect Community (November 12, 2013)—Symantec
• Typhoon Haiyan 'the result of climate change' - Telegraph (November 12, 2013) —The Daily Telegraph
• Typhoon Haiyan: preparations leading to action for animals in the Philippines | IFAW - International Fund for Animal Welfare (November 12, 2013)—International Fund for Animal Welfare
• Typhoon Haiyan: Slow rescue operation puts lives of over four million children at risk in Philippines - Asia - World - The Independent (November 14, 2013)—The Independent

—Wavelength (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

>> Philippine GDP Growth Slowed Last Quarter on Impact of TyphoonLihaas (talk) 06:58, 30 January 2014 (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.

The title (LDS Philanthropies,) is incorrect. The correct title is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. here also is a citation for this page http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/typhoon-haiyan-update 124.107.181.128 (talk) 02:42, 15 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)

New Section:Internatiol aid and assistance

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)

Deaths

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.

Bonvallite (talk) 13:51, 18 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.

Bonvallite (talk) 13:50, 18 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 . Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding Haiyan to Portal: Tropical Cyclones

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)

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)

Is Haiyan the deadliest Philippine typhoon?

Does Haiyan now have a valid claim to being the deadliest Phillipine typhoon on record? Thelma's estimate maxes out at 8,000 deaths, well above where Haiyan's current number lands. It can't claim that title until it surpasses that mark, in my opinion.--GeicoHen (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The 8,000 value is not listed as Themla's exact total though; there isn't one. It ranges from that total to as low as 5,165. Because Haiyan's death toll is higher than that lower value, it is tied with Themla as the deadliest Philippine typhoon on record. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Tied personally sounds good except for the fact that a front cover of The Washington Herald from 1912, has been circulating around various sites for the last week or so. This cover clams that a typhoon killed 15000 people in the Philippines.Jason Rees (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

So, if Haiyan isn't the deadliest typhoon to impact the Philippines, then which typhoon is it? LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, from the information in the infobox, it seems that the September 1881 Typhoon was the deadliest Philippines typhoon, because it killed 20,000 people in that country alone. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Why article is named Haiyan not Yolanda?

This typhoon effected Malaysia, Micronesia, southern China, but mostly Phillipines. In the Phillippines it is known as Yolanda. Why are we calling it the Chinese name ? 50.242.190.197 (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The Japan Meteorological Agency is the official agency, as authorized by the World Meteorological Organization, in official charge of tropical cyclone monitoring operations in the western Pacific. As such, the names from the JMA's naming list are used for storm articles. Yolanda is a name from the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Division and is only used in the Philippines. Also, PAGASA is not the official World Meteorological Organization-RSMC in charge of western Pacific tropical cyclone monitoring operations. TheAustinMan 17:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Why are you so discriminating against the Chinese name? It has nothing to do where the typhoon hit. There is a limited set of Typhoon names available which are used again and again. Several Pacific countries contributed their sets of names and it just happened to be China's turn. --2.245.238.161 (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

There has been no discrimination. The Chinese name given to the typhoon is mentioned within the Meteorological History section of the article. If you're referring to the title of the article itself, as mentioned above, Haiyan is the name assigned by the Japan Meteorological Agency, which is the official organization for the West Pacific. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Actual land based measurements

Where is the data? This storm passed over an official PAGASA weather station in Guiuan when at peak intensity. They should have measurements of its lowest barometric pressure. All decent anemometers and barometers work perfectly well without a power source and if their wind instruments didn’t survive you know they must have good barometric readings. It would be interesting to see how these actual measurements compare to satellite estimates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.32.206 (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It would certainly be interesting to see the data but im not sure it exists or if PAGASA central office will have it, since the Guiuan weather station suffered quite a bit of damage.Jason Rees (talk)

02:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Guiuan weather station had communications knocked out long before Haiyan's central core reached it. The on-site recordings were destroyed due to damage, despite being a "typhoon-ready" reinforced structure. Its radar dome was completely blown off. Chilledsunshine (talk) 08:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually there was a good low pressure reading made at the Guiuan weather station during the eye of Haiyan of 892 mb or 26.35 inches. The only wonder is that it has taken this long for the information to come out. Dr. Jeff Masters makes mention of this reading in his blog on Weather Underground. Although yet to be officially verified there is little doubt that this is the lowest land based barometric pressure measurement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.34.183 (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

missing outside Phil.

Any updates on the missing from other countries beside the Philippines? Rmhermen (talk) 06:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Theres 30 dead, 6 missing per Chinas (inc Taiwan) Country Report to the WMO Typhoon Committee which brings it up to 36 dead including Vietnam.Jason Rees (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The article currently lists 14 dead, 4 missing in Vietnam; 8 dead in Taiwan; 11 dead and 5 missing in China for a total of 27 dead and 9 missing. But the box at the top of the page lists 36+Philippines for the death toll. Rmhermen (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Apologies when i updated the pts earlier I missed the 14 deaths in Vietnam as I had only seen a source for 6 deaths in Vietnam. Assuming that the Vietnam country report does not come out later i will double check the source of the 14 deaths and add the 8 missing ones to my working list. Unless @Cyclonebiskit: beats me too it, I will update the deaths in China to reflect the WMO report.Jason Rees (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: characteristics of the storm

178.208.221.120 posted this comment on December 4, 2013 (view all feedback).

characteristics of the storm

Any thoughts?

There is an image. ..ItsPaide.. 00:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I think he means details on the storm, what Haiyan is like. I don't know exactly what he may be referring to, but I think that it's the meteorological history of Haiyan. But still, I think that this article has plenty of information. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Article gallery

For people like us, the pictures in this article are already enough but I think other people wanted to see more. Do you think it will be good to add a gallery for more pictures for the effects of and humanitarian response after Typhoon Haiyan? That way we can satisfy both readers and "people-who-cares-more-about-images-than-words" worlds. What do you think?--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 09:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Article title name question

Why is the article at Typhoon Haiyan rather than Typhoon Haiyan (2013)? The name is not retired.2002:70D0:4589:0:A5ED:5D3F:6932:2D10 (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The name Haiyan has been retired by the Typhoon Committee during their recent meeting, besides this was one of those cases where it was so much more significant than the other Haiyans that we knew it had to have the main article.Jason Rees (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The link mentioned says, in the sections pertaining to retired names, that "the request of to retire the name has been noted". Is this the statement which retires the typhoon name in question, or is a final decision made in a different meeting? 2002:70D0:4589:0:5054:F83A:EE0C:3ADE (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thats the meeting alright - theres a second statement on Page 3 of that report which says "Approve retirement of and request TCS to issue letters to relevant Members requesting the replacement names in accordance with the Committee’s procedure."Jason Rees (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please revert this article to this rev.. I can't due to edit filter. This is due to vandalism! (t) Josve05a (c) 12:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Done (t) Josve05a (c) 12:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Need update: Camille no longer 190 mph hurricane

On March 29, 2014 the National Hurricane Center revised the top wind speed of Hurricane Camille down to 175 mph, leaving the 1935 Labor Day hurricane as the most powerful to hit the United States (185 mph in the Florida Keys, FL). I do not know if other worldwide tropical systems also hit at this wind speed. An adjustment to this article is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.254.148.168 (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The bigger question in my mind is why Camille was even mentioned in this article.Jason Rees (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Its versus her

@Bd64kcmo: I know that Misplaced Pages accepts either usage, but whatever goes first stays, and I can see that prior to my first revert of you in late-May, it said "its", not "her". Dustin (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Typhoon Haiyan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CycloneIsaac (talk · contribs) 01:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing later.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 01:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

There are 8 dead links in the article...4 links with connections timeouts...and 1 with registration required...please fix asap...

1 disambiguation link in the article...Yolanda...

5 Embedded citations...please change them to inline citations...

Ref 91...Typhoon Committee...needs to be fixed into an actual citation...

Please cut down on the see also section...too many links...

Since most of these problems could take over a week, I will fail this article. You can re-nominate it when it is in a better shape.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 02:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Falsely reported for vandalism

So I opted to revise the following statement at the beginning of the page "Typhoon Haiyan, known in the Philippines as Typhoon Yolanda, was one of the strongest tropical cyclones ever recorded, which devastated portions of Southeast Asia, particularly the Philippines, on November 8, 2013" and adequately explained my reasoning in the summary. The "was" and "which" in the statement is grammatically inaccurate, so I thought it would be better stated as the following; "Typhoon Haiyan, known in the Philippines as Typhoon Yolanda, was one of the strongest tropical cyclones ever recorded; causing monumental destruction in portions of Southeast Asia, particularly the Philippines, in early-November 2013." Now while adding "monumental" to the statement might seem controversial, the definition of "monumental" is "great in importance, extent, or size." which Haiyan was all of. In addition, after making it so that the statement actually makes sense and explaining myself adequately, I was accused of vandalism and my edit was reverted. 72.87.106.231 (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

We usually avoid using such terms like "monumental", "titanic", "of epic proportions"; because they are unencyclopedic and most used on sensationalist media. ABC paulista (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Remiscence to Yolanda Saldivar's namesake?

I know Yolanda Saldivar killed Selena, but 18 years later, in 2013, Typhoon Yolanda (namesake of Yolanda Saldivar) killed 6000+ people in Tacloban.

15 December 2014, 10:56 PM (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.209.29.61 (talk)

Climate change

I have reverted the once-but-no-longer topical claims and grandstanding from various bureaucrats and editorialists compiled into a sub-section under the "Meteorological history" section. None of their statements are supported by reputable scientific analysis of the tropical environment surrounding this particular storm. If it cannot be proven, it's not "history", just speculation. Editors who insist upon resurrecting this material are reminded to stick to official sources only.--Froglich (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

What does the fact that the ocean was anomaly warm or not have to do with anything? And FTR, yes, the ocean was anomaly warm, but that has nothing to do with the section at all. YE 23:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Where is your evidence? Cite something. None of the present sources in the section are adequate.--Froglich (talk) 08:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I have just reverted section blanking in the article. If there are problems with the sourcing in that section, please discuss the alleged issues one by one, source by source. --Nigelj (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Not one of the eight sources cites a scientific post-analysis of the atmospheric and oceanic conditions surrounding Haiyan, let along comes to conclusion the storm is related to warming. The section as it stands does NOT meet the criteria of "meteorological history", as it dwells on neither.--Froglich (talk) 08:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

So you can't find a single sentence in the article, quote it here and show how it is unsupported by its cited source? Just all eight of them at once, and the complete section as a whole? That's no use to me I'm afraid, if you want a discussion. --Nigelj (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

(to Fnglich) Correct, but the section doesn't state that at all. It's not stating that the ocean was warmer than normal, rather, the section states the Y has connected the storm to climate change due to X. What is wrong with that? YE 20:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

This claim (the first sentence of the version you wish to maintain): "Political leaders and climate scientists connected the typhoon to climate change..." is false in that it implies to the reader that such a causal link has been proven when such proof is not provided by any of the sources in the section, in any version you have sought to keep. Let's run through these sources (using the most recently-reverted version, in order, starting with the one at the end of that first sentence making the false claim:

• PBS News Hour web article. The word Haiyan appears one time. No scientific post-analysis of the storm is cited.
• BBC piece about Yeb Sano. No scientific post-analysis of the storm is cited. (It should be noted that while Sano heads speaks for an outfit named the Philippines Climate Change Commission, Sano does not appear to have any published scientific research under his name, his various Youtube videos do not evince a scientific background, and my assessment is that he is just a bureaucrat.)
• ABS-CBN piece about the hunger strike. No scientific post-analysis of the storm is cited.
• Guardian piece. No scientific post-analysis of the storm is cited. (This source is ref'd three times in the section.)
• Huffington Post editorial. No scientific post-analysis of the storm is cited.

...clearly these are insufficient to establish any kind of proof.

Lastly, we come to the first sentence of the other paragraph you wish to keep: "The correlation between the increasing intensity of storms and the progression of climate change was discussed by climate scientists..." -- Since none of the sources actually do establish any kind of connection with Haiyan, the statement is irrelevant to this article. Or o you suppose such pontificating be cut-n-pasted into every single article of every single destructive storm which has occurred over the last umpitty-um years? Such theory discussion may be appropriate in another, speculative, article, not this one.

Given the complete lack of any credible post-analysis establishing a causal link, I have removed phrasing which falsely lends the impression to the reader that such claims are proven when they are not.--Froglich (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

"Political leaders and climate scientists connected the typhoon to climate change..." that doesn't imply it's proven, it implies it has been connected (you can connected two things without proving it's true) to climate change IMO, but singe you assume otherwise, that wording could be tweaked. The PBS News article proves the fact, and while no specific scientific post-analysis has been cited, it does mention: "Studies have shown that man-made climate change contributed in a number of recent weather disasters." The BBC piece verifies the quote. Yes, Sano isn't a high-level scientist, but that doesn't change the fact that he did not say the quote. The ABS-CBN piece is fine, verifies the hunger strike tidbit. While the Guardian piece doesn't have any direct post-analysis, several quotes from officials or references to scientific assessments. Given the context, the Huffington Post editorial is IMO probably fine, but if not, I'm sure one could find a similar source that contains similar information. YE 22:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

You respond: "Political leaders and climate scientists connected the typhoon to climate change..." that doesn't imply it's proven..." -- but that is *exactly* what it implies. The sentence (and the word "connected" in particular) constitutes a WP:WEASELWORD euphemism which attempts to sneak claims in as if a causal link has been documented when none has. Politicians are neither scientists nor reputable purveyors of the truth in any event, and we don't even know what Sano's academic credentials are (it's debatable that this person is a "climate scientist" at all, and I have every reason to suspect that he's not given no research record). All we do know is that political grandstanding occurs after every disaster of any type (weather-related or not), and such is not notable due to Misplaced Pages:Run-of-the-mill.

""Studies have shown that man-made climate change contributed in a number of recent weather disasters." -- That is immaterial to this article since no such "contribution" (another weasel-word) has been demonstrated in this case. (Or are you suggesting that every weather article on Misplaced Pages include this boilerplate if it occurred within the last several decades?). Again: run-of-the-mill.--Froglich (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Studies from past year make a direct link to Haiyan and cc, http://mashable.com/2015/06/22/extreme-weather-tied-to-warming-study/ prokaryotes (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Kevin Trenberth (at that link) made a direct claim (making him no different than, say, blandishments from an IPCC functionary, or Sano). But where is his journal-published, peer-reviewed post-analysis of the storm demonstrating such? (The link at that article is to a Hurricane Sandy analysis?) Otherwise, Trenberth is clearly mired in politics from an advocacy standpoint (and has obviously reaped the rewards of being on the favored side of things in the current climate), and has painted himself far outside the bounds of dispassionate scientific neutrality. You might also wish to see the "Mixed Feelings" section at the bottom of the article you've linked.

I'll let these reversions stand for a day to see if anybody can find a real meat-on-the-bone post-analysis.--Froglich (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Froglich, notice that Trenberth has contributed considerable through his groundbreaking research at UCAR to our understanding of storms, "The environment in which all storms form has changed owing to human activities." - Warmer temperature means more water vapor, and thus more energy for storm systems. If you don't like Trenberth, take Kerry Emanuel, a republican voter, and a leading hurricane researcher, read here what he has to say. prokaryotes (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Cite the peer-review post-analysis research. -- Where is it? Generic claims in the media are just that: claims, not proof. Haiyan traveled over waters whose SSTs were not above normal, and you just removed (with your reversion) a cite showing such.--Froglich (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The science is well enough established that we don't need detailed analysis of every record-breaking storm. The fact that so many senior scientists put themselves on record at the time is notable enough for due weight to be given to the coverage. Nonetheless Haiyan continues to pop up in the peer reviewed literature as another notable example. For instance, http://www.journals.uplb.edu.ph/index.php/JESAM/article/view/1282 --Nigelj (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Typhoon Haiyan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131112123747/http://www.bt.com.bn/news-national/2013/11/11/brunei-sends-emergency-team-philippines to http://www.bt.com.bn/news-national/2013/11/11/brunei-sends-emergency-team-philippines
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131113083109/http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/indonesia-to-send-typhoon-aid-to-philippines/ to http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/indonesia-to-send-typhoon-aid-to-philippines/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131113095054/http://www.nst.com.my/latest/usd-1-million-aid-from-malaysia-to-the-philippines-1.399561 to http://www.nst.com.my/latest/usd-1-million-aid-from-malaysia-to-the-philippines-1.399561
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131114020846/http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2013/11/13/haiyan-typhoon-malaysia-aid.aspx to http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2013/11/13/haiyan-typhoon-malaysia-aid.aspx
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131128064427/http://news.asiaone.com/news/malaysia/malaysian-red-crescent-send-team-help-haiyan-victims to http://news.asiaone.com/news/malaysia/malaysian-red-crescent-send-team-help-haiyan-victims
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131128061602/http://www.thesundaily.my/news/881783 to http://www.thesundaily.my/news/881783
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131128062109/http://www.bernama.com.my/bernama/v7/wn/newsworld.php?id=993016 to http://www.bernama.com.my/bernama/v7/wn/newsworld.php?id=993016
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131113145736/http://www.redcross.org.sg/press_releases/dollar-for-dollar-matching-for-all-donations-to-singapore-red-cross-typhoon-haiyan-relief-appeal to http://www.redcross.org.sg/press_releases/dollar-for-dollar-matching-for-all-donations-to-singapore-red-cross-typhoon-haiyan-relief-appeal
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131111075535/http://www.news24.com/World/News/World-comes-to-aid-of-Haiyan-victims-20131111 to http://www.news24.com/World/News/World-comes-to-aid-of-Haiyan-victims-20131111
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131111231804/http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/Olive-Press/2013/1111/Why-Arab-presidents-and-princes-are-pledging-millions-to-Philippines-in-typhoon-Haiyan-aid-video to http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/Olive-Press/2013/1111/Why-Arab-presidents-and-princes-are-pledging-millions-to-Philippines-in-typhoon-Haiyan-aid-video
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131213095759/http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/232508921.html to http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/232508921.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Typhoon Haiyan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://archive.is/usR28 to http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/379698/govt-to-help-philippines-storm-victims

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Eye

Has anyone noticed that the eye of Haiyan has not a single cloud inside, but there usually are some clouds in the eye of other tropical cyclones? 32ieww (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course. Intense tropical cyclones often have clear eyes. Dustin (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Typhoon Haiyan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151023193946/http://thevane.gawker.com/at-200-mph-hurricane-patricia-is-now-the-strongest-tro-1738224692 to http://thevane.gawker.com/at-200-mph-hurricane-patricia-is-now-the-strongest-tro-1738224692
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150212211033/http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/11/11/13/cbcp-declares-8-days-mourning-yolanda-victims to http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/11/11/13/cbcp-declares-8-days-mourning-yolanda-victims
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202235306/http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2013/11/20131117-083725.html to http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2013/11/20131117-083725.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131128063230/http://www.pmi.or.id/ina/news/?act=detail&p_id=1099 to http://www.pmi.or.id/ina/news/?act=detail&p_id=1099
• Added archive https://archive.is/20131112114352/http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/Olive-Press/2013/1111/Why-Arab-presidents-and-princes-are-pledging-millions-to-Philippines-in-typhoon-Haiyan-aid-video to http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/Olive-Press/2013/1111/Why-Arab-presidents-and-princes-are-pledging-millions-to-Philippines-in-typhoon-Haiyan-aid-video
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/379698/govt-to-help-philippines-storm-victims
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news%2Fentertainment&id=9328475
• Added archive https://archive.is/20131114143719/http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/379698/govt-to-help-philippines-storm-victims to http://www.news24.com/World/News/World-comes-to-aid-of-Haiyan-victims-20131111
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111230223629/http://kidlat.pagasa.dost.gov.ph/cab/tc_deaths.htm to http://kidlat.pagasa.dost.gov.ph/cab/tc_deaths.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Time of arrival in Philippines Comment Suggestion

It is quite hard in the current text to find a crucial piece of information -- that is, the time of arrival of Haiyan in the Philippines. The text, in fact, is somewhat confused about the matter. Grammatical problems in some of the paragraphs, along with a rambling presentation, make it all a bit hard to understand.

The time of first landfall, 4.40am on 8 November 2013, is identified in official reports by the Philippines Government.

The easiest and clearest place to put this information is at the beginning of the piece. This way, the reader is provided with a key landmark piece of information right at the beginning of the discussion.Pmccawley (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of this article is poorly written, but that can be fixed.

It should be noted that the date is incorrect in UTC, as 4:40 am is not yet November 8 in UTC time, which is what we (and Regional Specialized Meteorological Centers too, for that matter) use to identify dates with. Even then, it does not signal the beginning of impacts from Haiyan, as basically half the storm had arrived before the time of landfall.

All readers need to know is that it impacted the Philippines in early November. The exact timing is too much information for the lead, and really isn't that important. See WP:LEAD.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

As for right now the article reads "At 20:04 UTC on November 7, the eye of the cyclone made its first landfall in the Philippines at Guiuan, Eastern Samar.". Is this not clear to you? YE 01:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I live in the Philippines, writing this from Manila. I wanted to just quickly check the precise time of arrival of Haiyan ("Yolanda" in the Philippines). Simple thing to do, surely? What I found was that I couldn't find the time easily! I spent around 10 minutes ploughing through the article and ending up with confusing references. The reference to 20.04 UTC was not very helpful, actually. I'm only vaguely aware of what UTC is at any particular time of the day, and I'm not exactly sure what Philippines time is in UTC. I have a hunch that the time difference is 8 hours but it's not a fact that I refer to often and so the 20.04 UTC reference was not all that helpful. (I'd note that I doubt that 1% of the population of the Philippines know that local time here is +8 hours from UTC.)

However, I don't feel strongly enough about this issue to press the issue. I think it's a pity that the piece is not helpful on this matter but I will now let it pass. My thanks Misplaced Pages colleagues for the discussion about this matter.Pmccawley (talk) 01:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The primary wikiproject uses UTC time out of consistency (typhoons occur in several timezones); I'll add a wikiink to clear this up. Regards. YE 01:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a matter of personal preference, I agree, but I'd prefer to see the Filipino local time shown. For me, at least, this is more meaningful. For comparison, see the Misplaced Pages page on 9/11 at September 11 attacks. There are numerous Misplaced Pages pages (probably thousands) which present information in local time, not UTC. However, as I say, best to move on past this discussion now. Many thanks. Pmccawley (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Parts of this article should be split

Parts of this article about the Philippines should be split into another article called Effects of Super Typhoon Yolanda in the Philippines. The subject is certainly notable and there is an abundance of content here to work from. This proposal also follows patterns of other tropical cyclones being split out into new articles like Effects of Hurricane Sandy in New York and Effects of Typhoon Bopha in Micronesia and Palau. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  16:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Obviously but call it Effects of Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, to match Effects of Typhoon Durian in the Philippines. YE 17:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - This article is not even that long yet, so there's still plenty of workable space. A new article should only be created if there is enough content to significantly expand the section beyond what it is right now. And if such an article is created, it should detail the effects of Typhoon Haiyan in the region, not just the Philippines. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• While it may be worthwhile, we would have to properly separate "humanitarian response" information from "effects" information. Master of Time (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Not long enough. prokaryotes (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Missing people

Should we just add the number of missing people to the death count? It’s pretty obvious none of those missing were found and are probably presumed dead. A similar thing happened with Cyclone Nargis, so I want to see if we should go with this instead of being bold. --MarioProtIV (/_contribs) 01:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Typhoon Haiyan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ndrrmc.gov.ph/attachments/article/1329/FINAL_REPORT_re_Effects_of_Typhoon_YOLANDA_%28HAIYAN%29_06-09NOV2013.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131108084801/http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/super-typhoon-haiyan--strongest-landfalling-tropical-cyclone-on-recor to http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/super-typhoon-haiyan--strongest-landfalling-tropical-cyclone-on-recor
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-philippines-typhoon-20131113,0,5789248,full.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129015940/http://www.interaksyon.com/article/75725/napocor-president-assures-iloilo-oil-spill-cleanup-to-abide-by-doh-recommendations to http://www.interaksyon.com/article/75725/napocor-president-assures-iloilo-oil-spill-cleanup-to-abide-by-doh-recommendations
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131128061425/http://www.weather.gov.hk/wxinfo/currwx/tc_pastpos_1339.htm to http://www.weather.gov.hk/wxinfo/currwx/tc_pastpos_1339.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131119094744/http://www.ndrrmc.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1124 to http://www.ndrrmc.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1124

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Archiving

This page is at ~110 KB and therefore probably needs an archive by a more compentent editor Benica11 (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Should we protect this page for infinite?

It is prone to vandalism, so it should get protected for good. Bsslover371 (talk) 03:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

No since the whole of Misplaced Pages is prone to vandalism. Jason Rees (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Effects in the Phillippines article

@Destroyeraa, Jasper Deng, Hurricanehink, SMB99thx, Cyclone Toby, Cyclone Yoris, and KN2731: thoughts on a subarticle? Article is over 200 kB and information is better covered if subsection is provided. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. That would be majority of the article if there was a Philippines article. Maybe move more of the aftermath to Humanitarian response to Typhoon Haiyan? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

​ Meh. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 14:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Disaster management articles
• High-importance Disaster management articles
• C-Class Philippine-related articles
• Top-importance Philippine-related articles
• WikiProject Philippines articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Former good article nominees
• Selected anniversaries (November 2015)