This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the
project page for details.
Almost immediately after the upgrades, the storm's track shifted from southwestward to westward in response to a trough weakening to the north, which also promoted increased upper level outflow and decreased wind shear due to a thinner pressure gradient between the trough and a nearby ridge, starting on November 4. - you need to explain this in more simple terms. I'm usually pretty good with synoptics, and I got well and truly tripped up here.
Cut the bits about increased upper level outflow out after looking at the JTWC's wording "Almost immediately after the first warning, the track became westward. The most probable explanation for this change appeared in the low-level northeasterly gradient flow. The pressure gradient between the winter high and the lower pressure associated with Tess had sustained a persistent flow of at least 30 kt (15 m/stX) ups~am of the tropical cyclone since 1 November. This upstream pressure gradient relaxed on 4 November and the gales clustered around Tess."
YEPacificHurricane06:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
This decreased shear promoted intensification. - I think "allowed" might be more accurate than "promoted".
75 were confirmed to have been killed on November 10 - they died before November 10, presumably.
Probably, but on November 10, there was an abrupt increase in the death count in press reports, likely due to poor communications, but I don't really wanna make any assumptions.
YEPacificHurricane06:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
One person was injured. - I'm having a super hard time believing that with nearly 700 deaths and a similar number destitute, only a single person was non-fatally injured.
That's literally what the NDCC has reported and press reports seem to avoid the mention of injuries altogether (I just did a quick search for [typhoon tess 1988 injured] and got as many results as snow this year- zero).
YEPacificHurricane07:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I'm sure you've done your due diligence, but you know I have to ask: isn't there any more Vietnam info out there?
I don't think so, but let me search by looking at some other GA's not done by me, and looking at their sources, if possible. I'm not really familiar with Vietnam sources; the one time I looked it was for a different storm in 1983 and didn't turn anything up.
YEPacificHurricane06:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
EMDAT has 101 dead and 93k affected. Not sure what the later means exactly in EMDAT's context, and the I don't trust its death tolls over the HKO in this instance (seems odd it would shoot up from 37 to 101 somehow given the HKO report is done the following year and doesn't mention any missing people, plus the HKO is the best with impact in this area, at least compared to press reports, so I trust it more than say the NHC with impact. Otherwise, nothing else.
YEPacificHurricane07:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Alright, looking a lot better. I made a couple minor edits to smooth out the new additions. My only complaint at this point is that I really think you should remove the one injury statistic, unless you have reliable sources aside from one database. It's just too strongly at odds with everything else we know about the disaster. – Juliancolton |
Talk15:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the
project page for details.
Almost immediately after the upgrades, the storm's track shifted from southwestward to westward in response to a trough weakening to the north, which also promoted increased upper level outflow and decreased wind shear due to a thinner pressure gradient between the trough and a nearby ridge, starting on November 4. - you need to explain this in more simple terms. I'm usually pretty good with synoptics, and I got well and truly tripped up here.
Cut the bits about increased upper level outflow out after looking at the JTWC's wording "Almost immediately after the first warning, the track became westward. The most probable explanation for this change appeared in the low-level northeasterly gradient flow. The pressure gradient between the winter high and the lower pressure associated with Tess had sustained a persistent flow of at least 30 kt (15 m/stX) ups~am of the tropical cyclone since 1 November. This upstream pressure gradient relaxed on 4 November and the gales clustered around Tess."
YEPacificHurricane06:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
This decreased shear promoted intensification. - I think "allowed" might be more accurate than "promoted".
75 were confirmed to have been killed on November 10 - they died before November 10, presumably.
Probably, but on November 10, there was an abrupt increase in the death count in press reports, likely due to poor communications, but I don't really wanna make any assumptions.
YEPacificHurricane06:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
One person was injured. - I'm having a super hard time believing that with nearly 700 deaths and a similar number destitute, only a single person was non-fatally injured.
That's literally what the NDCC has reported and press reports seem to avoid the mention of injuries altogether (I just did a quick search for [typhoon tess 1988 injured] and got as many results as snow this year- zero).
YEPacificHurricane07:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I'm sure you've done your due diligence, but you know I have to ask: isn't there any more Vietnam info out there?
I don't think so, but let me search by looking at some other GA's not done by me, and looking at their sources, if possible. I'm not really familiar with Vietnam sources; the one time I looked it was for a different storm in 1983 and didn't turn anything up.
YEPacificHurricane06:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
EMDAT has 101 dead and 93k affected. Not sure what the later means exactly in EMDAT's context, and the I don't trust its death tolls over the HKO in this instance (seems odd it would shoot up from 37 to 101 somehow given the HKO report is done the following year and doesn't mention any missing people, plus the HKO is the best with impact in this area, at least compared to press reports, so I trust it more than say the NHC with impact. Otherwise, nothing else.
YEPacificHurricane07:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Alright, looking a lot better. I made a couple minor edits to smooth out the new additions. My only complaint at this point is that I really think you should remove the one injury statistic, unless you have reliable sources aside from one database. It's just too strongly at odds with everything else we know about the disaster. – Juliancolton |
Talk15:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply