Costliest Hurricanes by month

[Audrey2Katrina]

But the NHC is the official source. It's the Government. Until they update it, it is what will go down in the History Books.

I can assure you that whether they update it or not, history will record the death toll at well over the 1200 reported... every bit of 1800 will go in the books, the NHC notwithstanding... the facts/truth remains the facts/truth.

A2K

[wxmann_91]

But the NHC is the official source. It's the Government. Until they update it, it is what will go down in the History Books.

I can assure you that whether they update it or not, history will record the death toll at well over the 1200 reported... every bit of 1800 will go in the books, the NHC notwithstanding... the facts/truth remains the facts/truth.

A2K

Where's the source of the 1800 (besides news reports)? 1800 direct and indirect deaths is not the same as 1200 direct deaths...

[Audrey2Katrina]

Where's the source of the 1800 (besides news reports)? 1800 direct and indirect deaths is not the same as 1200 direct deaths...

I don't know why you always need a "source" for everything; but I can assure you that the NHC for all the reverence you bestow upon it, is NOT the final word on a lot of things, albeit I have great respect for it and the folks that work there. The figures in Louisiana ALONE are "officially" 1577 Katrina deaths directly from the Department of Health for the state. Trust me... the "official" death toll will be well over 1200, like I said, NHC reports notwithstanding... it WILL be far more than 1200. If you wish to prefer to believe their report, go for it; but I can assure you the "history books" will NOT put a number anywhere near that low... and I DO know a lot of folks in the history book business....

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

This is a NOAA site, and even IT is old (reference some of the data) and IT states a death toll at THAT time of 1428.... Like I said, the 1200 simply won't stand, updates or not. You can't hide that sort of thing or play semantic games with it... a Katrina death is a Katrina death... end of story. I know folks who worked on DMORT teams after the storm, and I trust them implicitly, and even the figures given now (1800) aren't telling the whole story; but I won't even go into that in deference to what is appropriate on this board. Suffice it to say, the 1200 is specious and will never stand.

http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/tropical/rain/katrina2005.html

Just remember... they're great when it comes to meteorology; but they're NOT the final word on many other things.

A2K

[wxmann_91]

Where's the source of the 1800 (besides news reports)? 1800 direct and indirect deaths is not the same as 1200 direct deaths...

I don't know why you always need a "source" for everything; but I can assure you that the NHC for all the reverence you bestow upon it, is NOT the final word on a lot of things, albeit I have great respect for it and the folks that work there. The figures in Louisiana ALONE are "officially" 1577 Katrina deaths directly from the Department of Health for the state. Trust me... the "official" death toll will be well over 1200, like I said, NHC reports notwithstanding... it WILL be far more than 1200. If you wish to prefer to believe their report, go for it; but I can assure you the "history books" will NOT put a number anywhere near that low... and I DO know a lot of folks in the history book business....

A2K

You should know a lot about history books; after all, you're a teacher!

The 1577 deaths are both direct and indirect deaths, and I'm not trying to say that's important, a death is a death for Pete's Sake, but unless they update it, that's what going in the Books (if both indirect and direct deaths) IMO. But, in the end, the author decides what figure they put in the book, after all it is just a number, a statistic, that does injustice to every single victim who lost their lives, and a very moot point to argue about.

P.S. I care much about the source, since, that's the way I've been taught in school. They fail me if one of my sources in my Works Cited page is from Wikipedia.

[Audrey2Katrina]

that's what going in the Books

wouldn't want to bet on that would you.... I guarantee you'd lose!

A2K

[wxmann_91]

that's what going in the Books

wouldn't want to bet on that would you.... I guarantee you'd lose!

A2K

I don't gamble, so no, I wouldn't.

[Audrey2Katrina]

They fail me if one of my sources in my Works Cited page is from Wikipedia.

That's rather shortsighted, because you can easily check further to see the "source" of the data in Wikipedia. I never cite it as a bona-fide source; but I will use its info IF it's footnoted with a bona-fide source.

And FWIW... whether direct or indirect... the death toll includes all... the storm caused both... both are storm deaths. This direct/indirect drivel is semantic nonsense... a death is a death.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

don't gamble, so no, I wouldn't.

Wise choice... you've just saved some money

A2K

[wxmann_91]

And FWIW... whether direct or indirect... the death toll includes all... the storm caused both... both are storm deaths. This direct/indirect drivel is semantic nonsense... a death is a death.

That I think we will both agree on.

[Audrey2Katrina]

That I think we will both agree on.

Yup... and like I said... checking the Wikipedia article, I followed the footnote on the Louisiana death toll... and it led to this site:

http://www.dhh.louisiana.gov/offices/page.asp?ID=192&Detail=5248

Now these are governmental OFFICIAL records..Note this line:

"Deceased Victims – There have been 1,577 deceased victims of Hurricane Katrina from Louisiana."...

These are government figures, and I assure you they trump a report by the NHC done back in December. Any history book worth it's salt would go to genuine coronor's offices for these figures, and not a meteorological report... once again, on this point I know whereof I speak. Don't mean to beat a dead horse; but just trying to show you--those 1200 figures are just flat out wrong--update or no, and everyone will know it.

A2K

[Jim Cantore]

I meant official figures thats all

the NHC do have revisions tho

It was Ivan or Charley in 2004 that has been revised twice since the initial report

Both I think, the damage totals on both have changed a few times

[Jim Cantore]

That I think we will both agree on.

Yup... and like I said... checking the Wikipedia article, I followed the footnote on the Louisiana death toll... and it led to this site:

http://www.dhh.louisiana.gov/offices/page.asp?ID=192&Detail=5248

Now these are governmental OFFICIAL records..Note this line:

"Deceased Victims – There have been 1,577 deceased victims of Hurricane Katrina from Louisiana."...

These are government figures, and I assure you they trump a report by the NHC done back in December. Any history book worth it's salt would go to genuine coronor's offices for these figures, and not a meteorological report... once again, on this point I know whereof I speak. Don't mean to beat a dead horse; but just trying to show you--those 1200 figures are just flat out wrong--update or no, and everyone will know it.

A2K

with Katrinas death toll I go with the highest number, which now is 1,836. because likely over 3000 perished

[Audrey2Katrina]

with Katrinas death toll I go with the highest number, which now is 1,836. because likely over 3000 perished

I don't disagree with the viewpoint; but with the "official" missing now under 200, I doubt it will be anything over 2,000--but close enough when all is said and done. "unofficially" you're probably closer to the mark.

A2K

[Hurricanehink]

If this is U.S. only, then that should be stated. There were some costlier storms outside of the U.S. in some months.

[Audrey2Katrina]

If this is U.S. only, then that should be stated. There were some costlier storms outside of the U.S. in some months.

That may well be true, I'm not privy to the costs in other nations, as a lot of them actively suppress the damages. Certainly some Typhoons must have; but this is primarily about "hurricanes" and I think the costliest (in terms of true expense/dollars) would be in the US, as there is so much greater damage to property that can be done; albeit your point is well taken.

A2K

[jasons2k]

Where's the source of the 1800 (besides news reports)? 1800 direct and indirect deaths is not the same as 1200 direct deaths...

I don't know why you always need a "source" for everything; but I can assure you that the NHC for all the reverence you bestow upon it, is NOT the final word on a lot of things, albeit I have great respect for it and the folks that work there. The figures in Louisiana ALONE are "officially" 1577 Katrina deaths directly from the Department of Health for the state. Trust me... the "official" death toll will be well over 1200, like I said, NHC reports notwithstanding... it WILL be far more than 1200. If you wish to prefer to believe their report, go for it; but I can assure you the "history books" will NOT put a number anywhere near that low... and I DO know a lot of folks in the history book business....

A2K

You should know a lot about history books; after all, you're a teacher!

The 1577 deaths are both direct and indirect deaths, and I'm not trying to say that's important, a death is a death for Pete's Sake, but unless they update it, that's what going in the Books (if both indirect and direct deaths) IMO. But, in the end, the author decides what figure they put in the book, after all it is just a number, a statistic, that does injustice to every single victim who lost their lives, and a very moot point to argue about.

P.S. I care much about the source, since, that's the way I've been taught in school. They fail me if one of my sources in my Works Cited page is from Wikipedia.

Well, they shouldn't. That's a shame, really. Regardless of some of the high-profile errors that were reported awhile back, an article came out not long ago (sorry, can't rememeber the source - hehe) that the information on Wikipedia is just as accurate as Brittanica. This is probably b/c if something inaccurate is posted on Wikipedia, it is quickly challenged....and Britannica has been found to have its own glaring errors in the past as well.

Besides, with the sloppiness that journalists and other so-called "official" sources get away with these days, I think a source should be allowed as long as it's cited.

This is coming from someone who double-majored in History and English. I had to cite everything in school.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Well, they shouldn't. That's a shame, really. Regardless of some of the high-profile errors that were reported awhile back, an article came out not long ago (sorry, can't rememeber the source - hehe) that the information on Wikipedia is just as accurate as Brittanica. This is probably b/c if something inaccurate is posted on Wikipedia, it is quickly challenged....and Britannica has been found to have its own glaring errors in the past as well.

Yup, that news item came out only last week... got the Britannica folks in a bit of a twit. But I find Wikipedia helpful, and always look for the "footnotes" so I can trace their sources... more often than not, it's just as reliable.

A2K

[AussieMark]

altho some hurricanes in the third world can knock out the bulk of the countries infrastructure

look at Mitch in 1998

totally decimated the infrastructure of Honduras and Nicaragua in particular

[Audrey2Katrina]

No question about it... Mitch was a calamity in terms of human loss even moreso than the doubtless widespread devastation.

A2K