I was on wikipedia and it listed Ivans damage at 17.7 Billion and Charleys at 15.4
error or new correction?
strange
Moderator: S2k Moderators
Forum rules
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecasts and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.
-
terstorm1012
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 1314
- Age: 43
- Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 5:36 pm
- Location: Millersburg, PA
-
Derek Ortt
-
jax
-
Audrey2Katrina
- Category 5
- Posts: 4252
- Age: 76
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
- Location: Metaire, La.
Having read the NHC's costliest, deadliest, and most intense archives, Charley was decidedly ahead of Ivan. Wiki is sometimes fun to read; but as one already suggested, it is user edited which makes it hardly "the" source of info.
I notice (as is to be expected) the way they had them listed prior to 2005 the most intense were: (winging it from memory--could be a tad off but it's reasonably close.)
1.) Labor Day Storm
2.) Gilbert
3.) Camille
---after those 3 it's too cloudy; but I know they were the top 3--
Costliest:
1.) Andrew
2.) Charley
3.) Ivan
4.) Hugo
cloudy after that
But when adjusted for inflation Andrew was still on top, but I think Hugo might have nudged up to 2nd.
Deadliest:
1.) Galveston (may this NEVER be surpassed!)
2.) Lake Okechobee
3.) Chernier-Caminada
4.) --some other storm with around 1,000-1500
5.) Audrey (360-600)
All of the top spots will be changed except deadliest (Thank God for small favors) with this years storms. Wilma will undoubtedly be the most intense, probably followed by Labor Day or Rita (not sure about their exact numbers), then perhaps Gilbert (I might have Gilbert and Rita reversed), then possibly Katrina.
The Costliest will be Katrina by a light year, adjusted or not; although the figures do seem to be coming down from original astronomical figures. After that who knows what will be the final damage estimates.. Wilma did a lot in Florida, and Rita did in Tex/SW La... they might not be able to refigure this chart till well into the '06 season if then.
Okay, so I rambled... but I like keeping up with the "standings" and pray the deadliest one never changes albeit that's unrealistic--one surpassing Galveston's is almost unimaginable --but not impossible-- today.
A2K
I notice (as is to be expected) the way they had them listed prior to 2005 the most intense were: (winging it from memory--could be a tad off but it's reasonably close.)
1.) Labor Day Storm
2.) Gilbert
3.) Camille
---after those 3 it's too cloudy; but I know they were the top 3--
Costliest:
1.) Andrew
2.) Charley
3.) Ivan
4.) Hugo
cloudy after that
But when adjusted for inflation Andrew was still on top, but I think Hugo might have nudged up to 2nd.
Deadliest:
1.) Galveston (may this NEVER be surpassed!)
2.) Lake Okechobee
3.) Chernier-Caminada
4.) --some other storm with around 1,000-1500
5.) Audrey (360-600)
All of the top spots will be changed except deadliest (Thank God for small favors) with this years storms. Wilma will undoubtedly be the most intense, probably followed by Labor Day or Rita (not sure about their exact numbers), then perhaps Gilbert (I might have Gilbert and Rita reversed), then possibly Katrina.
The Costliest will be Katrina by a light year, adjusted or not; although the figures do seem to be coming down from original astronomical figures. After that who knows what will be the final damage estimates.. Wilma did a lot in Florida, and Rita did in Tex/SW La... they might not be able to refigure this chart till well into the '06 season if then.
Okay, so I rambled... but I like keeping up with the "standings" and pray the deadliest one never changes albeit that's unrealistic--one surpassing Galveston's is almost unimaginable --but not impossible-- today.
A2K
0 likes
-
terstorm1012
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 1314
- Age: 43
- Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 5:36 pm
- Location: Millersburg, PA
Derek Ortt wrote:Wiki may be among the most useless places to get info on the web, since anyone can upload info
Wiki's not that useless. The links that most articles provide almost always link back to good sources like journals.
I think Wiki's gotten a bad rap as of late because of a few boneheads and general idiots, but I really believe there are a lot more intelligent people out there in the world that people give credit for, and Wiki is proof of that.
You don't need higher level degrees to know something.
0 likes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: ljmac75 and 79 guests