Jump to content

Talk:1926 Miami hurricane

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Total Damages

[edit]

Total damages of this hurricane cannot be put at 100 billion. That is adjusted for inflation *and* growth, and thus is fairly meaningless except as a predictor of what future hurricanes could do. We want the value adjusted only for inflation. Jdorje 17:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's opinion not fact. I put both the actual 1926 figure and the inflation figure ($98 billion). People need to have an idea of how bad this storm was. They shouldn't have to guess how much $100 million was to people back then.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 20:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, E. Brown? The inflation calculator [1] says that $100 million in 1926 is $1.05 billion in 2005 dollars. Inflation over the last 80 years was not 100,000%. --Golbez 20:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I never believe that online crap. They are notorious for being wildly inaccurate. That is without question a conservative estimate. In addition, $100 million dollars was the damage estimate for Florida (which was actually rounded up from $76 million). What about the storm's impact on the Gulf coast? That figure also does not include interior furnishings of the homes (half their total cost) nor does it include office and business furnishings (which would be very high). Also, this is only insured damages. The figure that was given was not mathmatically adjusted for total cost (usually twice the insured cost). I estimate that true damages were no less that $150 million dollars and as high as $200 million. That would bring the raw inflation to $1.58 billion to $2.11 billion and this could be an underestimate. There really is no way to know, as the damage figures for the Gulf coast, uninsured property, and interior furnishings were not published.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 21:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, $2.11 billion is still a far cry from $98 billion. I have no problem with you figuring out if it should be $1.05 billion or $2.11 billion - but it is most assuredly not $98 billion. --Golbez 21:46, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

When people today see even the $2.11 billion figure, they'll say 'Wow, they got off easy.' No they didn't. $100 million was close to earth shattering to people back then. I personally believe that in reading this article, readers fail to comprehend the enormity of the disaster. The economic boom was over and this caused hundreds of businesses to loss hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue between the hurricane and the start of the Great Depression. This fact would slip by readers in this article. The hurricane was the Andrew of its day. The damage it did far surpassed every other hurricane up until that time, including the Galveston Hurricane; yet another fact that is not expressed in the article. The wealth normalization figure does give a good idea as to how people felt about the tragedy then. People thought of Andrew's $23 billion in damage like we would think of a $44 billion-dollar hurricane today. People thought of the '26 storm's $100 million in damage like we would think of a $98 billion-dollar hurricane today. This is the goal of wealth normalization. Does this make sence? It should.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 22:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well and good, but the fact remains it didn't cause $98 billion in damage. By all means, mention it - properly - in the article, but don't cite it as "2003 dollars" in the infobox. The $98 billion is an opinion, a wild guess. The $100 million is fact. --Golbez 22:18, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Wild is a little aggressive. I'm sure they had some educated reasoning behind it.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 23:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. But you get my point, I hope. --Golbez 23:16, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

E Brown, I think you are completely off base here. Those figures (like the 100B one) aren't supposed to show how damaging the hurricane was, or how much damage it caused, they are supposed to estimate how much damage it would cause if it hit today. This is really good for PR since it makes it easier to get better hurricane-preparedness legislation to go through (for instance) but it doesn't have much historical use. Wealth normalization may be useful but it normalizes to *today*'s wealth - on an absolute standard I'm sure the 1970 Bhola Hurricane was by _far_ the most damaging hurricane ever. Population normalization is absurd to use in the context of an encyclopedia because this is extrapolation of the future rather than a recording of past events. Jdorje 02:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The wealth normalization figure does give a good idea as to how people felt about the tragedy then." This figure is not just saying what the damage would be if a Category 4 hurricane of the same intensity hit Miami today, it's saying if a hurricane today destroyed the exact same percentage of structures in Miami as the 1926 storm did, $98 billion is the estimated total cost. My quoted sentence now stands firm, explained and defined. I will carry the arguement no farther. My point has been made, take it or leave it.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 00:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it. This is supposed to be a historical article. To quote Pielke et al, "A normalization provides an estimate of the damage that would occur if storms from the past made landfall under another year's societal conditions." The template being added (to many pages) is highly misleading because the accompanying text doesn't even clarify that it shows a speculative projection of the damages if the Miami hurricane were to hit today, not a (reasonable) inflation-adjusted estimate of the actual historical damages.Kbk (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

[edit]

Needs content. I'm sure there's a lot out there. Jdorje 07:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the 1926 issue of the Monthly Weather Review as a resource to the article. It has tons of good information about the storm that could really improve the article. I might add some information to the artucle later. CapeVerdeWave 11:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot more could be written about "The Great Miami Hurricane of 1926"

[edit]

The lack of more to say is just one more thing that goes to show the lack of historical richness to Miami. Always just a cold place where developers could express their rampant ways. Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

poor writing,.

[edit]

"Several events, including the sinking of a ship in the Miami harbor, and a Florida East Coast railway embargo before the storm that weakened the boom. " 76.117.72.131 (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluded reference causing cite error

[edit]

I have removed Pielke, Roger A., Jr.; et al. (2008). "Normalized Hurricane Damage in the United States: 1900–2005" (PDF). Natural Hazards Review. 9 (1): 29–42. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2008)9:1(29). Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 June 2013. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) from the main body of the text as the same reference is defined in the transcluded {{Costliest U.S. Atlantic hurricanes by wealth normalization}} template. Poltair (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 1926 Miami hurricane. 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:

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) 04:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1926 Miami hurricane. 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:

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) 18:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name Change Of Article

[edit]

This storm Is best known as the “Great Miami hurricane Of 1926” Builder900 (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1926_Miami_hurricane&oldid=1211211688"