Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Sandy/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Political Impact

The "political impact" section completely violates WP:NPOV. It's written like an editorial, and MUST be rewritten in a more neutral way, instead have implying not-so-subtle political accusatons. ypnypn (talk) 23:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. FEMA could very likely handle Sandy at 60% of budget, so cutback impact may not be relevant. McCain/Libya is offtopic. Rove/Bloomberg are notable examples of Political Impact. Christie is only notable if experts deem his actions to have influence on voters. TGCP (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Agree the first three subsections are poorly done. I thought the voter turnout section was alright. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with NewsAndEventsGuy about the voter turnout section, and think all 4 sections can be viable (as they can be easily sourced and are notable), although the 1st and 3rd need new names and the 2nd section needs massive expansion and due weight. If FEMA could likely handle Sandy at 60% of its budget, then that could only be relevant to this article if reliably sourced and added to the existing section, as Romney's FEMA comments have certainly become significant in the storm's political aftermath and should be included here for that reason. I have posted a full proposal as a series of 6 edit requests in the above "Post edit requests here" section. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The first three sections should be removed with the voter turnout remaining as that was a result of the storm. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Obviously I very much agree. Too political and FEMA belongs in FEMA or under romney, not in the weather.Kennvido (talk) 10:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't edit the article

What's going on? HiLo48 (talk) 01:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It's recently been fully protected because of an edit war about the inclusion of climate change.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Block the warriors, not the article! HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Pity you don't apply the same logic to IP editors, HiLo48. You said nothing when the page was semi-protected. (And no, it is not different, except that it did not affect *you* then.) - Tenebris 15:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.17 (talk)

Only six New England Hurricanes? Doesn't seem so.

I must not be parsing this right, but "Sandy was the 6th hurricane to hit the New England area in the history of the USA, after a 74 year hiatus following the 1938 New England Hurricane." is in sharp disagreement with the List of New England hurricanes. For instance, the list of NE hurricanes says: "The 20th century saw eight hurricanes making landfall in New England; out of these the more notable include the New England Hurricane of 1938 (also called the Long Island Express) whichmade landfall as a major hurricane; Hurricane Carol did the same sixteen years later. The last hurricane to make landfall in new England was Hurricane Bob in 1991 as a moderate category 2 hurricane with the highest sustained winds of 100 MPH." What are we trying to say? JMOprof (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hit is a bad word to use, the last hurricane to hit New England in terms of landfall was Hurricane Bob, first in Long Island then in CT. (Irene was in New York only) Hurricane Sandy effected New England but did not make landfall there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. "6th" isn't right, and "hiatus" isn't either. The list shows 7 (yet says eight) storms making landfall at hurricane strength in the 20th century alone, all starting with the storm of 1938, and 5 more in the 19th century. If we can't discern what the author meant to say, I propose to delete the sentence. JMOprof (talk) 06:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
New Jersey's not New England, isn't it? However, the term hit in tropical cyclone terminology refers mostly to direct hit which is defined as a close approach of a tropical cyclone to a particular location. For locations on the left-hand side of a tropical cyclone's track (looking in the direction of motion), a direct hit occurs when the cyclone passes to within a distance equal to the cyclone's radius of maximum wind. For locations on the right-hand side of the track, a direct hit occurs when the cyclone passes to within a distance equal to twice the radius of maximum wind. while a strike, spoken of a hurricane, occurs if that location passes within the hurricane's strike circle, a circle of 125 n mi diameter, centered 12.5 n mi to the right of the hurricane center (looking in the direction of motion). This circle is meant to depict the typical extent of hurricane force winds, which are approximately 75 n mi to the right of the center and 50 n mi to the left. --Matthiasb (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Mathias - you're late to the conversation. A nice lady named NancyS deleted the nonsensical sentence ref'd in my 1st para above. Many more than 6 hurricanes have hit New England by any definition. JMOprof (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested edit

Hello, I think I am seeing some vandalism on this article and it needs to be fixed, but I can't due to full protect. On Reference #14, the footnote title reads "Tropica I LIKE HUGE CCAWQKl Depression Eighteen Discussion Number 1". It should say simply "Tropical Depression Eigtheen Discussion Number 1". Thanks! --12george1 (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Changed to semi-protection

I can see lively discussion here. I encourage folks to voice an opinion on sections above, to use rationales in edit summaries and not revert. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney's 2011 FEMA Comments

With all respect intended, this is from 2011 and about FEMA. When I put something in there about last year, an editor took it out and said, it was last year...even though I thought it had weight to be put in the article like the poster did. I just think it's too political for an article that is supposed to be about a hurricane. Would think what it had would be great in the FEMA section under something like controversies. I just don't want a beautiful piece of work like the Sandy article to be bogged down with any kind of political stuff. That's why I didn't want global warning in it. I believe in climate change, but that's not the point. One can speculate all they want about IF warming caused anything at any time. That still won’t make it fact. Wikipedia is supposed to be unleaning and with tht entry, I believe it leans, even if romney said it. I deleted it twice and that all I will do. Please open a discussion on this. Respectfully Submitted. Kennvido (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with that thinking. This article is about the storm. The other issues go elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 10:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Scholarly articles discussing the correlation between Sandy and climate change will be aplenty soon enough and so I'm guessing that eventually we'll have a well written section on it, but you are spot on that a 2011 article about a different topic is not applicable in this article (with minor hypothetical exceptions not worth discussing - as with almost anything). Sædontalk 10:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Just as this can be looked at as anti romney, the Effect on campaigning can be looked as pro romney and ought not be in the Sandy article. Put it as a factoid in the Mitt Romney article.Kennvido (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Pre-Sandy I doubt 1% of the voting population even knew about Romney's 2011 remarks. Now we all do and his campaign is doing damage control. Among the impacts on presidential politics connected to Sandy (the ones I know about anyway) to me (an independent voter) this is the most significant. It needs some polish to better comply with NPOV though. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
So put it in the campaign article. HiLo48 (talk) 11:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
It can go there too I do not mind. Since many people are asking - as reported in the media - whether the storm will change the presidential election outcome it is nuts to not have a section on that aspect of the storm. And this is one of the biggest items to include. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Your post has just again highlighted that this is more about the presidential election campaign than the storm. HiLo48 (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Changes in campaigning happened. Obama touring New Jersey happened. Cancellation of the NY Marathon happened. Speculation and point-making on what the effects of Romney's desire to streamline and transfer responsibility to State and local authorities would have on FEMA's budget are just that, speculation and point-making. Speculation on what effects Sandy MAY have in a week is just that. The former can be included, the latter two, no. Basic WP editing standards. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Whether a given material is relevant for inclusion in this particular article is determined by whether sources mention it in relation to the article's subject. If sources discuss Romney's comments in relation to Sandy, and FEMA's response to it, then it is relevant to mention in this article. Nightscream (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry, but this is an article about Hurricane Sandy. Not about global warming, and not about politics in any way, shape or form. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. None of this political material should be in the article at all. μηδείς (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Climate change is being discussed among scientists as a possible contributing factor to Hurricane Sandy. Mitt Romney is not. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Experts say?

This [1] replaces a direct quote ("Experts say to use caution in singling out climate change as the culprit when major storms occur. But scientists say warming oceans and greater atmospheric moisture are adding to the intensity of storms while rising sea levels are making coastal impacts worse") with an apparently pointless reversal ("Scientists say warming oceans and greater atmospheric moisture are adding to the intensity of storms while rising sea levels are making coastal impacts worse. Experts say to use caution in singling out climate change as the culprit when major storms occur"). Either way, at present its probably a copyvio. It would be better to quote directly from the article, if we want the text, and make it clear its a quote William M. Connolley (talk) 11:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree and revise Meteorological history of Hurricane Sandy treatment of same Hill report to match NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

So what happened after?

If possible could someone please make a section on what Hurricane Sandy did after giving the US and Canada a hit? I for one wish to know what happened after it happened. Your friendly Wikipedia prefect :) - (I can haz Cheezburger?) 13:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It is over Greenland now. This sunday (now) it should be raining in Nuuk - not snowing. But I can only find danish and greenlandish references for this. Looking around for english ones. This is from the Danish National Weather Center [2] Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Its raining in Nuuk? Stop the presses!! Just kidding :). Not sure this is significant enough to include, but thats me. --Malerooster (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
That is what Sandy is doing right now. I dont know if it ever have rained in Nuuk (and the rest of southgreenland) in november before. It is very unusual to not have subzero temperatures in any case. Normally it cold and snowy in Greenland by now. If it is significant I dont know, when we have some info on it I think it would made a good end to the article. I mean otherwise it would look like Sandy simply stopped after Canada. Of course it is not dangerous anymore, at least I hope not. It will make problems of course, it normally does in Greenland when it doesn't snow when it is suppose to. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
As far as I know, it has either dissipated completely or is just a small part of another weather feature. But the OPC maps might be able to help - and if news sources in places like Iceland cite Sandy as a factor (mentioned by name), then continue...I am seeing posts but not reliable sites showing hurricane winds reported there. CrazyC83 (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Most hurricanes / strong post-tropical storms which reach Canada head to Greenland afterward. Usually they are accompanied by stiff (but not gale-force) winds (possibly with an occasional stronger gust) and fairly warm air. I think the temperature in southern coastal Greenland rose to 23 C post Igor. Some storms south of Greenland stay together and go on to affect the UK, but this is not one of them. Sandy's strong winds fell apart before it even left Canada. - Tenebris 15:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.17 (talk)

Based on my analysis looking at OPC maps:

  • It hovered over the Great Lakes through early Thursday.
  • Late Thursday/early Friday, it seemed to merge with a Polar low with an associated cold front and move northward over Greenland with the help of a strong storm near Iceland, crossing southern Greenland on Friday at a very rapid clip. Some moisture held back over North America, but most of ex-Sandy jumped over the northern part of the ridge across Greenland.
  • It seemed to attach to the Iceland low (which itself was about 960 mbar with hurricane-force winds) late Friday with all of Sandy's energy taking over there.
  • Saturday the low meandered around Iceland as it slowly weakened.
  • It is currently near the western British Isles with a pressure near 982 mbar. The only question is - how much does Sandy really connect to all of this? In my mind, that is mostly/all Sandy, but to professional sources? CrazyC83 (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
So it's near Wales / Ireland or another part in the west of the UK but in a weaker form? Uhhoh jeez >_> Well thanks for clearing that up for me CrazyC ^_^ Your friendly Wikipedia prefect :) - (I can haz Cheezburger?) 22:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
That is hard to analyze perfectly due to the complexity of fronts, but that seems to be how it moved around. Some of the lower-level moisture remained in North America, but the surface circulation and energy appeared to be absorbed into the new systems that moved off Labrador and hooked into the Icelandic low. The latest I could identify Sandy well was on Thursday afternoon northeast of the Great Lakes. CrazyC83 (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Media feedback to this article's POV - this is shameful for our entire project

Meet The Climate Change Denier Who Became The Voice Of Hurricane Sandy On Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.152.37.108 (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

We made the news. And not in a good way.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-11/wikipedia-sandy

Please try to keep your personal biases out of this stuff. If there's tons of discussion about the issue as relates to Sandy, make a section for it and put some stuff there with some links so people can make up their own minds. Cheers all. We can all get along and make the world a better place because people come here looking for information and find it and then they go away smarter and happy. If you want to make a page calling global warming a conspiracy theory, I'm all for it. Pär Larsson (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

That would likely be a WP:POVFORK with Climate change denial and Global warming controversy among others. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, this pretty confirms Ken's POV editing. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
No, this pretty confirms Wikipedia has a strong protection against press pushed-bias, that this space is in fact neutral and proves definitively that Wikipedia can survive in a world of controlled information, lies and deceptive purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.93.172 (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Wait, so you're the only one that can tell us what is truth and what's lies, and the Press is nothing but controlled information, lies and deception? How do we know that you're not part of the conspiracy?Pär Larsson (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Remember when you read this, I have seen the raw studies on climate change, and I find climate change to be a valid explanation of what is happening. That being said, I have also read the linked article (including the ones at the top, all effectively carbon copies of each other). Those articles did not understand the difference between news articles and an encyclopaedia. It bears repeating: Wikipedia is not a news source. And I will add to that - news is not neutral. Incidentally, no matter who would have made the most edits and what the slant of the coverage, someone in the news media would have pointed out that the coverage was "biased". It so happened that Ken was first and dominant, and that he does not believe in global warming. Partly because of him, partly because many others agreed with neutrality, there was no global warming section until now. Does the coverage of a few reporters then demand that we at Wikipedia immediately follow the part of the news rush which is in the other direction? Do you somehow think *that* would make us neutral? - Tenebris 18:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.126 (talk)

The dude is nuts. He's not neutral. What more do you need? Incidentally I applaud everything else he's done for Wikipedia, and by extension, the world - but this single-minded focus on denying this one and one thing only is the mark of manic conspiracism. Pär Larsson (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
You are overlooking many, many fairly good parts to this article which he is also responsible for. The objections here are simply because he did not put in a section that many people voraciously want to be put in. If you actually do want to go on strict scientific terms, no scientist -- not just the outliers and industry schills, but no reputable scientist whatsoever -- will directly say that global warming caused Sandy. That is because the direct cause-effect smoking gun cannot be said scientifically based on the available evidence. (Oh, incidentally, you also won't hear a scientist use the word "proof". That is a media and political word. There is evidence and significant evidence to support a hypothesis. Some hypotheses come close to what the lay world would consider proven, but nevertheless, they must always be open to constant retesting and reverification.) - Tenebris 15:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.17 (talk)
That's a strawman argument, I'm afraid. No one sensible ever wanted to say there was 'proof' that a caused b. All people wanted was for the most reliable sources on these matters to be reported accurately. --Nigelj (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
You may want to reread these comments again before you call it a strawman argument. Anytime anyone says X causes Y, that implies that it has been proved. And you may be overlooking that I posted this particular comment in a different section, by way of holding off the witchhunt on Ken. - Tenebris 16:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.17 (talk)

Just because Wikipedia was mentioned in a news article doesn't mean that there is (or even isn't) a problem with the lack of climate change in the article. It's just some article written by some guy who has his own biases and needs to find things to write about to pay his bills. You should use your own Wikipedia policies and best practises and precedent etc. to work out if climate change should be in the article. Otherwise you're essentially allowing one person (the guy who wrote the popsci article) that isn't even here and doesn't intimately know your policies and doesn't have a breadth of experience writing Wikipedia articles to tell you what you should put in your article. Why should his single view trump your guidelines, policies, opinions and experience? N-gauge (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I found out about this article by one of the recent news stories. I have no personal stake in this and no strong opinion on climate change, but it is so much a part of the national dialogue over climate change that it is ridiculous not to include a balanced discussion of the subject. Coretheapple (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of the GW section

So, we have a small section on the relation to GW, and its even got a NPOV tag on it (for unclear reasons), and yet we still have people deleting it for apparently spurious reasons. Someone thought it was related to "Mckibben" for unclear reasons; and someone else makes bizarre allegations of "just off wiki attacks and canvassing". Neither of those are reasons for removal. The section itself is all well sourced, and it doesn't say "ZOMG its all GW". What is supposed to be wrong with it? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

People are trying to hash it out above, but the latest removal of it was completely without explanation. This is getting to be silly, with people removing it just because readers and press want it in. Steven Walling • talk 21:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not peer-reviewed science, and it's now the subject of a politically motivated personal attack campaign off wiki. When there's peer-reviewed science we can post it. The opinion of bloggers are irrelevant, and we should really have admin involvement at this point to block the WP:CIVIL and WP:CANVAS violations. This is an encyclopedia, not a branch of any propaganda outfit. μηδείς (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Agree. Arzel (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
You're both ignoring the fact that established editors are calling for the inclusion of well-cited material. It's clearly attributed to the sources, which are plenty reliable. WP:V reigns supreme on the issue. Steven Walling • talk 21:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
The science behind the statements is peer-reviewed and judging by the commentary coming from the right wing noise machine, the off wiki "attacks" seem to be well-organized against the critics of Kennvido, not against him, contrary to your claim. Climate change is not "propaganda". We do need admin involvement, however, in order to implement a topic ban on Kennvido and to stop him from pushing his agenda of "idiocracy". Since the Wikimedia Foundation is incapable of doing anything about POV pushing, I assume this issue will drag on for the next several months as admins do nothing but chew popcorn and point and laugh. Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Where is it a requirement that it has to be peer-reviewed science? The fact that it's being widely reporteed across news agencies is alone enough to satisfy notability. No, until we have peer reviewed science that says that it was caused by Global Warming, we do not need to make that claim. However, socially, there is a connection being drawn between the two, and this merits inclusion. We do not need to say "Global Warming caused this", but I think we would be remiss to censor it to the point of not saying that media and officials across the US are drawing a connection; as I said, I believe that it is enough to be notable. If we demanded "peer-reviewed science", as a condition for inclusion, then we could not mention miracles in the Jesus article, for example. Falconusp t c 21:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Edit, I'm not trying to compare Global Warming to miracles, I'm just making the point that causality does not have to be established for inclusion in an encyclopedia. We just should not claim an established causality when it is not, just as we do not have to confirm that the miracles happened to discuss them in the article about Jesus. Falconusp t c 21:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I get that you're not trying to be anti-religious, but darn that was funny.Pär Larsson (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
No, I am absolutely not trying to be anti-religious or anti-Christian; that would be problematic because it would require opposing myself :-). Falconusp t c 01:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
There are respectable opinions, such as Ben Garrett, who wrote "Don't blame Sandy on Global Warming", appearing in the November 2, 2012 edition of The New York Post (check here), which plausibly deny that GW is the cause of extreme weather patterns. I don't know, I am not an expert, but both sides should be presented. Quis separabit? 21:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
The NYP is a tabloid and Garrett is a political "independent" (read leaning right-wing) journalist from an area of East Tennessee famous for coal mining whose hobby is meteorology. I think it is safe to say where his bias on this issue lies. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
No -- what matters is the data he puts forward, which you have not rebutted (or cannot rebut). The NYP may be a tabloid, but I am glad for the info it provides which is often not been available otherwise in a one party city and increasingly one party state (NY). I could call the New York Times a left-wing, if hypocritical, organ of the Democratic Party, but that's hardly a secret. Quis separabit? 22:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
He hasn't "put" any data forward and he's not a scientist. Tabloid journalism isn't a reliable source. NYT columnist Maureen Dowd's biggest critics are demos, not rethugs. Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Most of the article is comprised of data. "Extreme weather events have plagued mankind for all of recorded history... [T]he New York Hurricane of 1938 killed more people - 60 in New York alone. Hurricane Edna, in 1954, killed 29 and caused massive damage... In 1955, two hurricanes - Connie and Diane - struck in the same month, causing significant flooding in the city. And the frequency of tropical storms to make landfall at or near NYC in the 2000s wasn't as great as in the 1990s... As hurricane expert Judith Curry of Georgia Tech points out on her Web site, and as meteorologist Joe Bastardi echoed in a Fox News interview, ocean temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere are now in the same cycle as in the 1950s. The Atlantic is going through its warm cycle while the Pacific is going through its cold cycle - a perfectly normal pattern in the oceans' ebb and flow between warm and cool anomalies... Seven years ago, we were told that Katrina's devastation of New Orleans was just the beginning. But Mother Nature didn't play along; the Atlantic Basin experienced unusually quiet hurricane seasons for the better part of a decade." Quis separabit? 22:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Maureen Dowd is occasionally accurate but hardly a reliable unbiased source. And what are "rethugs"?? Quis separabit? 22:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
That is mostly data (and it may even be accurate) but the connection of that data to "was Sandy caused/influenced/whatever" by GW isn't so clear. That connection is BGs opinion; and since he's just a journo (no?) this article shouldn't be reporting his opinion of science. We want actual scientists for that. If you were thinking of putting that data into the article, then maybe; but we wouldn't use BG for a source for the data, of course William M. Connolley (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm not desperately convinced by the connection myself (see here if you want). But I don't know Ben Garrett. If you can find anyone with the scientific clout of Trenberth who says No, then we should include their views. We should not include the views of political commentators or the like William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Agreed which currently is not happening, we as an encyclopedia need to be neutral here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Read the sources and comments in the article. No source says it was caused by global warming. Only exacerbated. Steven Walling • talk 21:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for that, I was just going to say the same. It has a quote from Trenberth ending "...enhanced by global warming influences" which is very different to "Sandy was caused by GW" William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Here is another university level expert (Solecki) confirming that Sandy was not caused by GW, but an illustrative event of it. TGCP (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that is what he is saying; at the very least, your paraphrase is far too abrupt. And unlike Trenberth, he doesn't seem to be a climatologist [3] and certainly not a specialist in attribution. Also... Kevin Trenberth is notable but William Solecki isn't William M. Connolley (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

This is getting silly. It got removed again (thankfully back again) on the grounds of "http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-11/wikipedia-sandy". As a reason for removal, thats about the worst I've ever seen William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Steven Walling • talk 21:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
So, we could mention that Kennvido is deleting the section, in the section he's deleting? Trippy. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

True neutrality would require recognizing that *every* media agency -- not just Fox, not just CNN, not just Sun, not just the NYT -- has an agenda. This is why I propose that we stay away from media opinion altogether on this one for the time being. Please, everyone, recognize that pro or con, anything we can possibly write into a GW section here *will* be taken as a political statement just now, even if it should not be. (Be honest with yourself. If you have a driving need to put anything about GW into this article RIGHT NOW, you have a political agenda in so doing -- and ideally WP should be agenda-free.) Let's keep this article out of the election campaigns. If people still don't like it after next week, let that be a separate argument, as science-based as you like it -- and be clear about the ability to prove direct causality. - Tenebris 22:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.181 (talk)

I really do not understand why there's such major fuss and hyper-activity about this. The WP article, in accordance with WP policy and standards of NPOV and neutrality and objective tone, should simply state that (and please spare me the "weasel word" accusation, because it doesn't apply if there are names or refs attached) "some have said" or "it's been proposed by such and such" that Sandy may have been caused or made worse by what some believe is the climate change phenomenon.
It's simply stating what's what, WITHOUT NECESSARILY SAYING THAT WIKIPEDIA ITSELF BELIEVES THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS EITHER a) REAL, OR b) MAN-CAUSED. It would simply be stating that others believe or hold to such views (in and out of the "scientific community"). So what? I personally believe in climate change and in man's pollution contributing to it. But I do NOT think that Wikipedia should say (ala the Darwinian evolution macro speculations and assumptions and issues) that IT'S DEFINITELY A PROVEN UNQUESTIONABLE OBSERVABLE FACT. Just that the majority "scientific view" holds to it. And maybe a couple of the reasons. And also that, in this case, with Sandy, some think (without having all the facts necessarily, because Sandy would still need to be studied more obviously) that Global Warming etc probably played into this natural disaster.
Bottom line is, objectively speaking, though I understand the point about not pushing an agenda or overblown propaganda, etc, that there's nothing so terrible about this Sandy article simply mentioning that some in the news and in science have speculated or surmised that what's called "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" probably played a role in this mess. I can't believe that there's been this much craziness (and shutting out comments now with "protection") because of this. The earth is definitely getting warmer, that's not debatable, the only "debate" is whether man's greed and stupidity and pollution is what has either mainly caused it, only caused it, or has caused it at all. But the idea of it with Sandy (per news pronouncements etc etc) should be at least mentioned somewhere in the article. Thank you for reading my comment. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 07:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
There is no reason for the cause of global warming to be in this article, and it is not in this article. That the ocean is warmer is a scientific fact and that is in the article, because it clearly has a bearing on the affect it had on the storm. Apteva (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
The reason for the denial is simple: The USA votes for a new president on Tuesday, and one party claims that there is no GW.--Oneiros (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not so much that one party (the Republican party) claims there is no Global Warming. Many of them may admit (like O'Reilly and others) that there is global warming, but they just deny or question whether MAN IS CAUSING IT. I believe man has at least contributed to it. But some others (even in the "scientific" community) are not 100% sure. Yes, some deny that there is even any global warming temp trend at all. But others that admit there is simply wonder or question if man's pollution has either caused it or contributed to it. I personally believe, as I said, that man's nonsense in the past 150 years HAS done it...but some may not be so sure. Especially in the Republican pro-Big Oil pro-big business pro-jobs etc party. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia looks silly by deemphasizing global warming in this article. It needs to be included. If Wikipedia policy doesn't allow it then there is something fundamentally wrong with Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

marathon runners delivering relief supplies

[4][5] This is pretty cool and maybe should be mentioned in the marathon section. After the marathon was cancelled, runners decided to start delivering relief supplies on foot. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a good addition to me. Sources are okay. Your friendly Wikipedia prefect :) - (I can haz Cheezburger?) 22:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I have already added it the NY sub section, because it is so wonderful. Kennvido (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

{POV-section} tag

I may be missing it, but I can't see any current discussion here that justifies the {{POV-section}} tag on the Meteorological history section. Can someone summarise the current problem here, or shall we remove the tag? --Nigelj (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

2 or 3 editors feel that global warming doesn't exist and have been removing all mention of it from that section (regardless of how well-sourced it is to all the news reports discussing global warming and the hurricane). This has resulted in an edit war and also in the poll in a section higher up on what information should be included. SilverserenC 23:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Try clicking on the link at "may be found on Talk:Hurricane Sandy". Apteva (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
By "global warming does not exist" what they mean is that humans have no impact on the temperature of the Earth, and the assumption is that any place they see the words "global warming" it must refer to AGW, human caused global warming. The world has been warming for almost the last 22,000 years, since the last ice age. Without AGW it is expected to start cooling soon, and the opponents of AGW like to point to decreases in temperature as signs that it has started on the long slide back to the next ice age. It is possible that without the industrial revolution the slide would have been more pronounced by now (we know we are sort of near the top of what would have been the warming period but on a scale of 100,000 years it is hard to pinpoint where the top would have been or where it is). Conjecture on that does not belong in this article, and does not appear in this article. Apteva (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. There are no serious arguments for retaining it, and indeed no-one has presented any. If you want the tag back, please provide some justification. "This article should not mention GW" is not a justification William M. Connolley (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hurricane Sandy's political impact

I have redirected this extraneous content to a separate article. The current one is too big and this ephemeral material needs to be fought over separately without disrupting the main article. μηδείς (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You need to start such things with a discussion via appropriate template such as {{Merge to}} or {{Split-apart}} NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Minor changes

I changed the United States section to say "killed over a hundred" instead of "hundreds" - a more exactnumber would be good - with cite.

I removed...

"Free gasoline was also provided by the U.S. federal government. People could get up to 10 gallons of free gas."

As I believe that is wrong, at least without qualification.

Rich Farmbrough, 06:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC).
06:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I put back in with NPR ref in the NY sub article Rich. If you don't think the report from NPR is valid, please delete again. Kennvido (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Aggggghhhhhh..... After your recent block I had hoped you would return with a better grasp of wiki. Whether an editor thinks some reliable source is right or wrong is irrelevant. What matters is what all reliable sources say about it - with attention paid to WP:WEIGHT and other wiki policies and guidelines. That means sometimes we end up reporting on disagreements among the sources. Editor evaluation for rightness and wrongness is impermissible original research NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 November 2012

In the section entitled "Great Lakes Region", please change "the morning of the October 30" to "the morning of October 30" (minor grammatical correction). In the first instance of (West Virginia's) "Governor Tomblin", please use the full name: "Governor Earl Ray Tomblin" to be consistent with the other initial mentions of individuals' names. Misterfirley (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done. United States Man (talk) 13:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - fix WP:EGG

This edit creates an WP:EGG. There are political effects that go beyond the 2012 election; for example Waxmans requested Global warming hearing after the 2012 election. This edit has restricted the scope of the sentence to the point that it is not accurate. I wrote the original text and am sure it could be better phrased. But this attempt is not the answer.... I would try again but I have lost track of my 3RR status. Anybody have a better way to say it that does not create the problems created in the above diff? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I would consider waiting until tomorrow night as a precaution to avoid violating the 3RR Rule. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Sandy

This is interesting. Might be usable per WP:NEWSBLOG, or there might be more stuff about it (I haven't looked, just came across that). 67.119.3.105 (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggested Images

The Earth Observatory has several good images for Hurricane Sandy : Natural Hazards which could be added.Smallman12q (talk)

I've added images showing the difference before and after the loss of power. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Article's opening statement inaccurately refers to Hurricane Sandy as a tropical cyclone.

The article opens with the line:

Hurricane Sandy was a tropical cyclone of the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season ....

The article "The only difference between a hurricane, a cyclone, and a typhoon is the location where the storm occurs" found at website http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/cyclone.html. The article indicates:

Hurricanes, cyclones, and typhoons are all the same weather phenomenon; we just use different names for these storms in different places. In the Atlantic and Northeast Pacific, the term “hurricane” is used. The same type of disturbance in the Northwest Pacific is called a “typhoon” and “cyclones” occur in the South Pacific and Indian Ocean.

I'm assume the noaa knows what they are talking about. Given that the opening line should be changed to:

Hurricane Sandy was a tropical hurricane of the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season ....

- rfengler, (talk), November 3, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.88.181.206 (talk) 12:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It is accurate. Tropical cyclone is the generic term for tropical storms, hurricanes, typhoons etc. TornadoLGS (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it is horribly confusing. I would prefer

Hurricane Sandy, the eighteenth named storm and tenth hurricane of the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season, was the largest Atlantic hurricane on record, as measured by diameter, with winds spanning 1,100 miles (1,800 km). Hurricane Sandy devastating portions of the Caribbean, Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern United States in late October 2012.

While the article on hurricanes is at tropical cyclone, this was, in fact, a hurricane. -- Apteva (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

devastated, not devastating — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.130.15 (talk) 11:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed devastating → devastated Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

low confidence

I removed:

it [the IPCC] had "low confidence" that humans were currently affecting tropical cyclone patterns,"

because its either wrong, or misleading. What the IPCC actually said was:

There is low confidence in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (i.e., intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. It is likely that there has been a poleward shift in the main Northern and Southern Hemisphere extratropical storm tracks. There is low confidence in observed trends in small spatial-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems. [3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.4.4, 3.4.5]" [6]

which isn't the same thing. See-also their Assigning ‘low confidence’ in observed changes in a specific extreme on regional or global scales neither implies nor excludes the possibility of changes in this extreme. What they are trying to say is that they have low confidence in being able to attribute the change. Not that they have low confidence that humans are affecting them. Its not a positive low confidence, but a negative one William M. Connolley (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

(PART A) I get it that the tools and records for analysis are not what we would like. So is this a bit like asking a blind person how certain they are about how dark it has become as the sun goes down? At any point in the process they might have a hunch about light levels but since they lack the tools to assess the evidence they still have low confidence their hunch is correct? (PART B) Consider adding reinsurer Munich re analysis that shows first statistical evidence on this and was ironically released a few days before the storm. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

This article featured in Popular Science

See "Meet The Climate Change Denier Who Became The Voice Of Hurricane Sandy On Wikipedia". -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

This has already been covered. See the box at the top that says "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations" TornadoLGS (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I love the Walsh quote though: "Climate change is a bastard" -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request Nov 6

Typo in the first line of the article: "Hurricane Sandy, dubbed Superstorm Sandy be several media outlets". Please change to "Hurricane Sandy, dubbed Superstorm Sandy be several media outlets". Note that "be" should be "by". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tihm (talk • contribs) 19:05, 6 November 2012‎

Done. Dpmuk (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Climate change in the article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The consensus of this discussion was Proposal A - include climate change as a subsection in Meteorological History. The consensus that something should be included was quite clear, and the arguments for A over B or B over A were close to non-existent. Most users !voting for A did not state why they thought the article deserved its own section/subsection, and most users !voting for B did not discuss why they thought the material should go inside Meteorological History as opposed to its own section/subsection. NewsAndEventsGuy also made the most compelling argument for A in that technically, the climatological impacts on Sandy should not be labelled "meteorological". Thus, I feel that a including climate change as a subsection of Meteorological History is the best choice, as it meets in the middle of proposals A and B, and is technically more accurate as pointed out by NewsAndEventsGuy. Inks.LWC (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

For new editors... although the following poll sort of looks like a vote that is not what it is. Wikipedia treats polls such as these as a way of organizing discussion of the principles and the strength of the reasons underlying editors opinions. It is not a majority rule voting process. As it says in WP:Consensus "...consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight." NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, so this article has gone back and forth between containing statements on climate change / global warming and not, and the discussion is spread out all over the talk page. So I've come up with 4 proposals (similar to what I did with the use of "Frankenstorm" in the article). Since none of the sources that have been used so far (and none that I've seen) directly talk about anthropomorphic global warming / climate change, these proposals only refer to general climate change, as it would violate WP:OR for us as editors to take an article that talks about climate change and imply that it means anthropomorphic climate change. Apparently a couple sources from an early climate change revision that I hadn't seen did discuss specifically human-caused global warming. While we can use those articles, it would probably be best to avoid specifically stating that human-caused climate change influenced Sandy and just leave it at climate change. Whether climate change is human-caused or naturally-caused is probaly a debate that should stay on the climate change article. So here are 4 proposals that I feel should encompass any possible solution:

  • Proposal A - the possible effects of climate change / global warming on this storm should be included in its own section (probably a subsection of Meteorological History; if you feel otherwise, state in your comments).
  • Proposal B - the possible effects of climate change / global warming on this storm should be included in the Meteorological History section.
  • Proposal C - the possible effects of climate change / global warming on this storm should be included somewhere else in this article (I can't think of a logical place to put it, but I included this option to allow all viewpoints).
  • Proposal D - the possible effects of climate change / global warming on this storm should not be included anywhere in this article.

Again, I feel that these 4 options encompass all possible viewpoints. So, let's see what the consensus is. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Proposal B - Agreed. I can't think of any other place it would fit. Though in line with what I said in the section above I think we should minimize the emphasis placed on it. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

This political nonsense has got to stop. When a notable peer-reviewd article is published linking the hurricane to global warming it should be added. But just because a blog in a reliable source makes a non-scientific claim we do not need to give it any weight, just as we do not need to give any weight to the Imams whose claims this is their god's punishment of the United States just because those claims are reported in reliable sources. μηδείς (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Proposal D - Agree, However, considering that the political class is trying to use this event in the 2012 election I could see a mention of that Bloomberg cited the storm as a result of GW and that is the reason he is endorcing Obama. Arzel (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Proposal B is a good compromise. The sources that User:Kennvido seems to be removing, such as the New Scientist and Scientific American, are plenty reliable for this page.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 00:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Here is an article that actually uses some science to state that Global Warming could not have been the reason. [10]. Arzel (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Proposal B -For reasons I stated in the previous discussion. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Proposal D -- there can be no direct causal evidence. (I say this as a person who agrees that climate change is happening, but wrt Sandy, there can be no smoking gun.) Equally, there should be no mention that global warming was not involved. There is no direct causal proof of that either. However, if a major political figure (president, governor, NYC mayor) or a large council of scientists makes a statement either way, the article can record it. Hyperlinks can be used from those quotes to link to the relevant article on Wikipedia. (No matter what the media says, it is not Wikipedia's job to advocate either position to its readers. Let verifiable statements from high-ranking officials and scientists be recorded, and let the readers make up their own minds.) - Tenebris 01:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.149 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Proposal A/B - I think A is best (as a subsection, that is) but I would rather see B than split my votes. Sources like the New Scientist and the Scientific American are worth including, and maybe even a mention of Bloomberg's mention of GW since it is a) newsworthy and b) well referenced.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would strongly recommend avoiding media sources on this one, even if they are scientific magazines. There are too many ways in which that can lead to a battle of media opinion -- and yes, that does include scientific magazines. (Besides, some science magazines are industry magazines in disguise.) - Tenebris 01:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.149 (talk)

It's Kennvido, I go for Proposal D first and A second. Kennvido (talk) 02:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Proposal A/B Option D - the censorship option - sounds like a stealth political position in which partisans would like to explicitly say all the coverage asking is this global warming is simple "Bullshit" if they could get away with it. But since they know that will not fly Option D proponents would agree to pretend to just not hear it. Given this questions roaring social dialogue Option Ds total censorship is hardly NPOV. So I am for A/B. Although related there is a difference between weather and climate and between Meteorology and climatology. Therefore the global warming discussion should be a subsection under Meteorological history; but I could live without the subsection heading even though that would be technically erroneous.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)

This is a fine process but that opening post contains a surprisingly large error. Fully 3 out of 4 reliable sources I used in the first global warming text (fully cited) posted to this article specifically refer to human-caused global warming and for all I know so do some of the RSs posted by others. Here is a review of mine:

1 From Framing the way to relate climate extremes to climate change (a peer-reviewed article in the professional science literature)

In opening paragraph

How big is the human influence on climate? Is it big enough that a question such as “Is this event due to global warming?” even makes sense? Here these questions are addressed along with improved ways to frame the questions that inevitably arise when new climate extremes occur, and there have been many over the past 2 years. (underline added)

In conclusion

The climate has changed; global warming is unequivocal (IPCC 2007) and human activities have undoubtedly changed the composition of the atmosphere and produced warming. Moreover there is no other plausible explanation for the warming. [ ] Scientists are frequently asked about an event “Is it caused by climate change?” The answer is that no events are “caused by climate change” or global warming, but all events have a contribution. Moreover, a small shift in the mean can still lead to very large percentage changes in extremes. In reality the wrong question is being asked: the question is poorly posed and has no satisfactory answer. The answer is that all weather events are affected by climate change because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be. (underline added; bold italics in original)

2. From Slow-moving hurricanes such as Sandy on the rise

'Sandy is expected to linger for days, thanks to blocking patterns that make weather systems move slowly. Climate change will create more such situations in future', says Kerry Emanuel at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.... Emanuel says it's pretty clear that Atlantic hurricanes are on the rise, though, driven in part by warming oceans, made warmer through greenhouse gas emissions (underline added)

3. From the caption to the educational video Steroids, baseball, and climate change: What do home runs and weather extremes have in common?

AtmosNews takes a lighthearted look at an unexpected analogy, explaining why some people call carbon dioxide (and the other greenhouse gases) the steroids of the climate system. (underline added)

This rather astonishing mis-characterization of the sources that have been posted aside this is a fine process. Perhaps RSs offered by others also explicitly refer to human-causes too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't lookd all the way back to October 29. I guess I should've clarified my initial statement that none of the sources used so far since the debat has really heated up (the past couple days), have mentioned human-caused climate change. Also, your diff only has two citations, not four. And remember that not all greenhouse gases are human caused, so I'm not sure why "greenhouse gases" are underlined in number 3. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Oops I had forgotten that initially I posted with a couple of CN tags but as that was reverted it gave a chance to restore the entire thing with all four. I have replaced the diff with the fully cited version. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Gotcha. Well, I've edited the initial post to strikethough my previous statements. Although, the discussion of whether climate cahnge is human-caused is probably best left to the climate change article. If climate change exists (and don't interpret my "if" to mean that I do or don't believe it does... I'm just trying to remain neutral for the time being while this discussion is ongoing), it doesn't matter what caused it in determining if and how it impacted Sandy. Also, if we do go forward with including a climate change discussion in the article, I think the steroid video would be great to use. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment - May I also suggest that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL? The current section already has a quote which says it directly - "We cannot yet attribute increasing dollar losses to human-caused climate change. Maybe we will one day, but not at present." - Tenebris 02:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.149 (talk) Edited 03:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC), because I apparently cannot link.
You cited a political scientist Roger A. Pielke, Jr. who gets paid to talk and opine. I prefer the analyses of private insurance companies because those folks really have to eat their words.... they either accurately assess risk or they go hungry. The study itself - released just a couple weeks ago - is behind a paywall but it and related info is discussed here (this blog post is for background I know blogs are usually not RS) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Proposal D (later B) - Right now the weight is still shifted towqards this being pro global warming which it shouldnt be, the info should be presented in a neutral way which it is still not, I think we should wait until after the election and then add some balanced info in about this, right now things are super heated in other areas than just global warming. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
"still shifted towqards pro global warming". We are not going to pretend global warming doesn't exist to suit some peoples anti-science opinions; they have no weight and are quite frankly irrelevant. This isn't "pro global warming", on wikipedia we report the non-controversial scientific consensus on the issue as fact; that it exists. That is what we are doing here, reporting non-controversial scientific opinions, so make do, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I believe in global warming myself but I also see the need to balance out the section with the other side's POV. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
No you are incorrect. There is no "other side" to balance on this. Fringe views have no weight outside their own articles unless there is a substantive link to the topic. See WP:FRINGE. It's the same reason we don't balance creationism with evolution in the article elephant, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Yet another comment - It is not censorship to not include opinion pieces -- and without hard science linking Sandy *specifically* to global warming, it cannot be anything but opinion, no matter what the source. However, opinion statements from scientist groups (not single scientists) have a different weight, and opinion from political leaders is relevant for public policy post-Sandy. Link those quotes to the climate change or global warming pages, but we should not be a party to speculation where we (and our sources) cannot back it up with verifiable fact. - Tenebris 03:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.149 (talk)
  • Comment - Regardless of "cause", many sources are discussing Global Warming in the context of Hurricane Sandy; this should be reflected. No, this should not be politicized; unless causality is established, we do not need to say that global warming caused Hurricane Sandy. But when reputable sources speculate that it might have, that should be mentioned. If people insist upon drawing a distinction between science and culture, then I think that the percieved [potential] relationship between Hurricane Sandy and Global Warming is very relevant from a cultural standpoint.[11] Falconusp t c 05:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I support a subsection in Proposal B or C, C being a discussion in a cultural impacts section. Falconusp t c 05:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Proposal A/B, deserves significant coverage; at the very least, the storm has opened up multiple inquiries from mainstream news sources into whether climate change played a factor. Businessweek's "It's Global Warming, Stupid" cover story epitomizes this.--69.122.246.50 (talk) 08:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • A/b Small rant: By suggesting that we don't mention it "because of NPOV", people are completely and utterly in violation of neutrality. When there is an article discussing mutations in bacteria, we mention evolutionary trends; it's not NPOV to drop it so creationists are happy; that would be unbalanced towards their position and away from the scientific position. Global warming denial is not the mainstream scientific position, but a fringe position so expect it to be treated as such in actual articles. Fringe positions have their place, in their own articles with WP:ONEWAY linkage. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Just fyi - the scientific position -- and I am not just talking about the few climate change deniers or outliers or industry puppets -- is that it is impossible to say that climate change caused Sandy. No reputable scientist would say such a thing, because this kind of proof is absolutely impossible at our current level of knowledge. All this argument is about how the media (sometimes science-related media, but not a proper scientific study) is correlating previous climate change talk with Sandy's existence. I will be the first to say that climate change is thought to make mid-latitude hurricanes stronger than they would otherwise be -- there *is* a modelling study on that -- but as a wise Wikipedian said on an unrelated talk page, we can write 2 and we can write 4, but we cannot say 2+2=4 until someone authoritative says it first. A news story is not a scientific authority. - Tenebris 15:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
No one has argued that climate change caused Sandy that I can see. That is a strawman, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't want an extreme believer or a non believer in GW to make the final decision. That is not fair and just. It will be years to PROVE anything. Why not put a disclaimer that SOME BELIEVE THIS IS TRUE before the statement in the article. That would satisfy everyone IMHO. Kennvido (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Contrary to what you seem to imply, climate science is not a belief system, so your request makes no more sense than arguing that 'some people believe in this' be added to the gravity article. --Nigelj (talk) 12:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
It does make perfect sense. It is a belief, like God. Can't wait to see how you pull that apart. Proof, it's all based on proof. Of which in both subjects some believe and others do not. I believe the climate is changing, but on its own terms like it has for millions of years. Not so greatly enhanced by man as some BELIEVE. You probably believe fracking causes earthquakes. Maybe yes, maybe no. For many the jury is still out on MANMADE GW, God and fracking. Kennvido (talk) 12:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
The scientific method is based on looking at the evidence. There are other beliefs which have no evidence, are based on ignorance, and contradict the evidence. If someone is engaged in gravity-denial, I'm not going to pretend his view is equal to the evidence based position that gravity exists. You choose to not believe in global warming despite the evidence to the contrary, and no doubt you will have some antiscience postmodernist reason for thinking so, but please don't try and act as if your ill-founded opinions have any actual validity and should be treated seriously in this article. Anyway, for the wiki reasons: we have coverage in reliable sources and it has due weight. Per WP:FRINGE, we present the mainstream scientific assesment without equivocation. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I can only respond to you with Proverbs 26:4 Kennvido (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
As a Christian, what Proverbs 26:4 suggests to me is that you, sir, should be indefinitely blocked from any further contributions to this article. Your behavior is embarrassing to all of us who believe, as did Einstein, both in the scientific method as well as the infinite wonders of God's Creation. The more relevant piece of scripture that comes to mind, is 2 Corinthians 11:19. Garth of the Forest (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm IRWolfie- (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Kennvido your attempt to hide incivility (calling some of us fools) behind the words of the Holy Bible just make your incivility more offensive. I am not going to bother initiating an ANI proceeding but I would support one. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I think it's just Kennvido's poor grasp of WP policies, particularly WP:CONSENSUS. There's no need to start a fuss at ANI ... at least at this point. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Agree, I think it was done more for rhetoric than actual incivility (and so I did not take it as such). IRWolfie- (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Proposal A or B Clearly it cannot be expunged or ignored. The sources exist. Equally, it should not be ghettoised and may come up again in any place in the text where the sources providing context make the link. I wholeheartedly agree that demanding 'balance' between mainstream science and extremist views is nonsense and contravenes WP:NPOV policy, specifically WP:FRINGE. Just because this event included damage in the USA where such fringe views may have greater prominence than elsewhere does not alter WP's worldwide view of such matters. --Nigelj (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Proposal D. Of course GW happens and makes mighty hurricanes. Many other topics, such as Gulf Stream and the designing of flood walls, are also common to many hurricanes. That doesn't mean every storm article should discuss each of them. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
There are sources which discuss it, with ample weight attached to them. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and sources that discuss how the inadequacies of design of electrical systems left them vulnerable to Sandy. They take advantage of interest in this event to address a wider issue. That's good for them but not for Wikipedia, which ought to focus. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Those sources do not compare in terms of due weight in comparison to Scientific America and New Scientist etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually, both the electical systems and global warming can be mentioned; why not? Here is a good source for the electical issues: [12]. There is no dichotomy of one or the other. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Not only can be but should beNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Proposal A - The topic has gotten too much press coverage to ignore. I don't like B because, I don't think the ongoing debate is relevant in the context of each stage of the storms development. The section should also focus on the reactions, like Mayor Bloomberg's comments on global warming. Reub2000 (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Proposal D I once drove a Muslim gentleman to Sydney to collect his wife, returning home from the Middle East. Just we two in the cab, discussing all sorts of philosophical matters. He was a real sweetie, and I enjoyed his company immensely. Only later, reviewing the pleasant trip in my mind, did I realise that he had been attempting to convert me. In the most subtle fashion. There had been a run of storms and earthquakes and natural disasters recently, and after he mentioned the decline of standards in things like binge drinking, promiscuity, respect for the elderly and so on - as a cab driver I fully agreed with him, though not on his notion that women should cover up more; one of the perks of the job is admiring young, beautiful, and scantily dressed ladies wanting a lift home from a night out. Anyways, he looked at me, referred to the storms and volcanoes and asked, "How much more warning do we need?". I find that this gentleman is now editing Wikipedia and pushing his global warming religion by using Sandy as a weapon. --Pete (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Proposal B/C as per Meteorological_history_of_Hurricane_Sandy#Global_warming_effect - GW doesn't cause individual storms, but increase the likelihood and severity. TGCP (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Proposal C or A Discussion of global warming and climate change are clearly relevant here when we look at the coverage in reliable sources (like Nature and Businessweek) instead of personal opinions and taxi cab passengers. WP:NPOV does not mean we can't state a politically controversial point of view, and we should state that point of view when it's prevalent in the scientific community and sources on this topic.--Bkwillwm (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Proposal A/B - I was the first to provide a rational for why such a section should not be in this article; that a dedicated section gave undue weight to low-importance minority viewpoint. At that time, there were many dozens of articles about Hurricane Sandy from all manner of publications, of which very few (albeit some) mentioned global warming. Thus, at that time, a dedicated section was too much, and I suggested what amounts to "Proposal B". Since then, the percentage of articles mentioning global warming has exploded, and now there is enough coverage to support a dedicated section. Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT) 22:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Additional Comment: This discussion has (or should have) nothing to do with global warming itself. Whether or not global warming exists, is irrelevant. Whether or not global warming is man-made, is irrelevant. Whether or not global warming had any influence on the storm, is irrelevant. What matters is that a growing number of reliable sources have mentioned it. Whether it's science, gospel, propaganda, or insanity, we must mention anything a large number of the available reliable sources mention. Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT) 14:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Proposal A/B Considering how extensively global warming has been discussed in RS's recently, there should definitely be a section included. I should also note in regard to some of the uninformed opinions in above sections: No, Hurricane Sandy is not a direct result of global warming. Hurricane Sandy likely would have occurred anyways. However, Sandy was made worse because of global warming. That's the significant difference. SilverserenC 05:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Proposal B It isn't necessary for an article on a specific hurricane to have its own section or subsection on GW. A passing reference and link to the effects of global warming article is enough. After all, we don't include the factors leading up to WW2 in an article about a specific battle, do we? Vegemighty (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Proposal B - I said it above and I would like to reiterate it here.
    The climate's effects on Sandy is a valid subtopic of this article. The storm didn't emerge from nothing. The environmental factors that contributed to the strength and size of this significant storm are very much important and relevant. To exclude them is to not give due weight.
    Some people here may oppose the concept of 'man made' climate change, but that is irrelevant. We can include due facts without engaging in the debate on the changing climate's causes. That can be left to the climate change article.
    —Sowlos (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposal E

  • Proposal E = the possible effects of climate change / global warming on this storm should be mentioned only when a head of government (mayor, governor, president) mentions it, or if there is a consensus statement from a group of qualified scientists. The media storm on the subject can be acknowledged with a simple sentence saying that there is a media storm on the subject and giving a few references. - Tenebris 15:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC), fixed 16:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Edit to add the media storm sentence to the proposal 18:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


I don't really think that works. What does a politician know about climatology? Additionally, one of the main reasons this whole topic has become such an issue is that we want to avoid the political element as much as possible.TornadoLGS (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Give me a second to finish fixing it! There are so many edits here that I had to do this in pieces to get it through. - Tenebris 15:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

This proposal strikes a different compromise which neither ignores mention nor forces an opinion. It acknowledges every important mention of Sandy + climate change which is said by a major person who is directly involved or by a highly informed group of people. The media storm on the subject can be ackonwledged with a simple sentence saying that there is a media storm on the subject and giving a few references. Other Wikipedia articles on the subject can be hyperlinked in the quote, but should not be discussed on this page.

As to "what does a politician know about climatology?" -- one might point out that a politician knows as much as a reporter, and several know as much as the average science writer. (Most science articles are not written by scientists.) However, what a head of government says makes a difference for present and future public policy, including disaster planning, and thus is noteworthy. - Tenebris 15:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. Proposal E is now in its final form. Thank you for your patience. - Tenebris 16:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

This proposal sets the bar arbitrarily high and is inconsistent with core policies about content. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment. This is overtly political. So Hurricane Sandy was caused by global warming... but other hurricanes weren't? If there were any connection to global warming, it should be discussed in the various global warming articles. At least fight these stupid political battle on the usual pages, spreading your thoughts to other articles doesn't magically give your argument more merit. --NINTENDUDE64 17:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposal D - no inclusion in the article. I forgot to explicitly state my !vote. And spare us the "this isn't political" statements, a very large number of people see it that way for pretty obvious reasons. --NINTENDUDE64 19:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I think that not including Global Warming is overtly political. To do so would be to ignore the very large number of people making a connection. I think that it is certainly notable enough to necessitate inclusion, so the only problem I see remaining is that people do not like it. Falconusp t c 17:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposal A - Climate change is a scientific issue, not a political one, and politically or religiously motivated scepticism should not be given undue weight. Some people would probably like the page Elephant to leave out information on the evolution of elephants. They would insist that the science is not settled on evolution, that discussing it on pages about individual animals gives undue weight to unproven claims, and that information about the alleged evolution of elephants can be included at Evolution. Wikipedia policy doesn't give their views equal validity, though. - Cal Engime (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what should be a purely scientific question has become political indeed ( helium.com/items/2349770-reasons-why-some-have-called-global-warming-a-hoax ) -- and that fact will continue to spill over into every venue which could conceivably be touched by climate change. Ignoring this fact is a good way to ensure the continuation of the present rifts between belief and evidence. - Tenebris 22:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The proposals miss the most important point: it's not about "the possible effects of climate change," and the related question of "why mention it for this storm and not for every other? The issue is that Sandy is now the "poster child" of the climate change debate. No other storm has this status in political and media commentary -- Katrina certainly did not. The issue should have its own sub-section within the article, along the lines of "Effect of Sandy on climate change commentary," completely without debating whether this storm itself is specifically different from any other in terms of whether or not it is attributable to climate change. I'm amazed that the "poster child" aspect isn't the bottom-line question being discussed, instead of red herrings like "Well, why isn't this brought up for EVERY storm?" which is a non-starter and a rhetorical trump card, nothing else.76.218.9.50 (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Bingo! This type of commentary from politicians and pundits tends to follow newsworthy events. You don't hear any talk about global warming causing a record breaking hurricane like Ioke. The fact that politicians are talking about it is notable, and wikipedia is not purely a scientific website. Reub2000 (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

→ Actually, I wanted to first make a couple of comments on the meteorology. Some of these should be vetted, as I'm using these based on secondary sources. There are three items that I'd heard about Sandy that I'd like to see clarified. The first is that I'd heard a Rossby wave in the polar jet stream 'swallowed' Sandy. I don't know if that is correct, but if so, it definitely belongs in the meteorology section. The second is the role of warm North Atlantic sea temperatures in the intensification of the storm. It is true that the N. Atlantic sea temperatures are warmer than usual, but I've heard conflicting reports as to whether this was a significant factor. Third, it was said that a cold front to the west merged or was going to merge with Sandy creating stronger conditions. I don't see a mention of these in the meteorology section. I would like to see some discussion since these were at least mentioned in the news reports. Whether they're correct or have some causal link to the storm, I don't know, but it would be helpful to see a resolution. For anyone trying to sift through all the newspaper reports, it would be helpful to have a retrospective on these points that is authoritative.

On the climate change issue - it strikes me that a separate section on GW would be warranted, but that might be divided into two parts. The first part has some evaluation of possible factors associated with GW that *might* have led to the intensity of the storm. In particular was the Rossby wave (if true) one causal factor? Was the warm N. Atlantic temperature? I'd heard both sides of this argued. In fact, the most reliable source I'd heard argued that the warm N. Atlantic temperatures weren't sufficient to cause the increase in intensity. Either way, I'd like to see some statement about it. Even if there is no resolution, it would be helpful to have references. The second part could be devoted to news coverage and political statements about possible linkage. The point, to me, is that Sandy has been linked by some to GW, and if there are limits to our ability to pin down causation, that's important to sort out. signed NSHSDad ← — Preceding unsigned comment added by NSHSDad (talk • contribs) 13:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

A Rossby wave is simply a fancy way of saying "big dip in the jet stream". You have seen them before in forecasts. This time, it happened to coincide with a hurricane. (There are some studies which link differences in snow cover in Siberia to changes in the number of Rossby waves, which in turn can make weather more extreme.) - Tenebris 16:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.17 (talk)
  • Proposal A/B No matter what the personal beliefs of many editors here are about global warning, there has been discussion on it in reliable sources. That discussion must be included. It is not necessary for the article to say that "Hurricane Sandy was caused by global warning", but it is necessary for the article to say that some people think the hurricane was caused by global warning. The article should mention something about dissent; however, I feel that global warming is the majority view in this case. Ryan Vesey 18:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
The sources don't say it was caused by global warming; but that global warming increases the strength of storms like this, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
My apologies, and totally understood. Ryan Vesey 19:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Proposal A/B The scientific evidence in support of anthropogenic global warming theory is plentiful and compelling, whereas the evidence against it is practically non-existent. As such, it is not in itself controversial (denial of the scientific theory is, but not the theory itself). Many scientists have commented on the Global Warming link to Hurricane Sandy since the storm passed. The consensus is that no one single event is "caused" by Global Warming, but that Global Warming certainly influenced the storm's intensity, and that higher sea levels in that area contributed to making the storm surge more damaging. As such, the tie to global warming needs to be mentioned, either in its own subsection or in the Meteorological History subsection. Archiesteel (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Proposal A/DWe have policies dealing with such connected facts/trivia, that is when a significant percentage of reliable sources connects two ideas then we do so as well. The "cause for Sandy" subtopic itself may or may not warrant a mention in the context of this article. 341 million search results in 2.4 billion results for Sandy make it a rarely mentioned fact. But if we are writing a "cause for Sandy" subtopic then global warning should be definitely mentioned (223 million results in 341 million makes it a majority). Of course this calculation is done in a general search, if academic data are available something like Google Scholar should be used.--Skyfiler (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Proposal D/E - This article is about the storm and its effects, not storms in general. Even mentioning climate change in this article makes sense only if a reliable, authoritative source says that climate change had something specific to do with this storm as opposed to storms of this nature in general. It may also merit a mention in a section called "reactions by politicians"/"reactions by public figures" if a reliable source mentions a public figure saying "Sandy was caused by climate change." In this case though, the focus is on the public statement, not on climate change.
I do recommend that if a reliable, authoritative source cites this storm as an example of climate change, then add that quote to articles related to Climate change, weather, climate, hurricanes, and the like as needed, and, once that happens, add those articles to the See Also section of this article if they are not already linked from this article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Sandy is relatively late in the normal hurricane season, which began on June 1 and ends on November 30[13]. But no one would argue that hurricanes only exist because of global warming or that hurricane Sandy only occurred because of global warming. What we currently correctly state is that due to the warmer ocean temperatures Sandy was stronger than it otherwise would be. No where in the article do we suggest that global warming or climate change is human caused. That would not be appropriate here because that belongs in other articles anyway. I would suggest that the current article[14] is reasonably NPOV and the tag can be removed. Apteva (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Proposal A is my preference with B or C as the compromise positions. Garth of the Forest (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Proposal A interestingly there is no discussion on this topic on Talk:Meteorological history of Hurricane Sandy which currently has a much clearer section on global warming than this topic, so it seems to me that there is a strong bias to hide the discussion of global warming on some sub page of this article. This is politics, not WP:NPOV.--Oneiros (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Proposal A or B would work, the issue is being discussed in reliable sources and the article should give due weight to the science of attribution as well as describing the impacts. Given that Meteorological history of Hurricane Sandy covers the influence of global warming on the storm in more detail, we should summarise that and cover the main points. The impacts do of course include political effects, including bringing climate change into political discussions: these could be included in A as an independent section, if it is a subpara of the meteorological section or B is chosen, then that aspect will remain in the political effects section. . . . dave souza, talk 23:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Proposal A/B - 'Global warming impact' as a subsection of Meteorological History. AGW could have been what pushed this storm from being a run of the mill sized storm into a noteworthy storm and thus AGW should be mentioned - like it is mentioned in so many sources. Sepsis II (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
    As mentioned above, I would leave off the A of AGW - the GW is what increased Sandy, whether or not there is an A is not important to the article. It is scientific fact that the ocean is warmer. Apteva (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposal F: You all fail. Read some of the other fantastic hurricane articles that are so frequently earning Featured Article status here on Wikipedia, and then leave this article to that dedicated group that wrote those articles. Global warming or not, it has no place in the Meteorological History section. --- More specifically, I go with Proposal C or D.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.173.242 (talk) 07:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Just to clarify: I started this discussion, and I am an active member of WikiProject Tropical cyclones. Inks.LWC (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposal D - Given the recent nature of the phenomenon there is obviously no causal and direct evidence to say that this is a specific case of man made global warming of the political variety. And given its highly political nature, and its general irrelevancy to the discussion of the storm, it seems the only reason to include a section on climate change would be to support a position of that science. Given that it seems unnecessary for the purpose of the article, it seems pretty reasonable to simply leave it out. We shouldn't be drawing the speculative conclusions -- let the MSM do that. MHP Huck (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Question - When I started this discussion, I specifically stayed out of it because I had originally planned on closing the discussion myself. It's received more attention than I had originally thought, so if there are objections to me closing this, let me know and in a couple days I will ask an admin to do it instead. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I support closing and would just like to reiterate my comment at the top
For new editors... although the following poll sort of looks like a vote that is not what it is. Wikipedia treats polls such as these as a way of organizing discussion of the principles and the strength of the reasons underlying editors opinions. It is not a majority rule voting process. As it says in WP:Consensus "...consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight."
As between A and B; one is technically correct and the other is not for reasons I articulated in my !vote NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Technically, I don't think you can call any of them 'correct.' MHP Huck (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
guess I was assuming folks were willing to accept basic vocabulary without RSs but RSs can be supplied on request. Option A (explicit subheading) reflects the common meaning of the words where (weather <> climate) and meteorology <> climatology). Option B (no heading) would perpetuate anyones ignorance of this common knowledge and make our article appear to not grasp these basic fundamentals thereby reducing its professionalism. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean. To add it in stills seems like a stealth political tactic, if you ask me. MHP Huck (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Request the admin close; it's too close between A or B, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Anybody else? If only one person thinks an admin is necessary, I'm just going to go ahead and close it tomorrow. Otherwise, if more people want an admin, I'll try to find one. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposal D - GW does not belong in an article about Sandy. Sandy belongs in an article about (evidence/arguments for) GW. The political campaign to insert GW into this article reminds me of the medieval placement of God and Jesus in every text to ensure that due deference was paid to the ideology of the time. With that thought in mind, we could find authoritative religious sources from the Middle East and the 700 Club who have said that the Jews and the gays caused the hurricane. Should we add a section about Jew/Gay responsibility for the hurricane? It would be no less absurd. I second everything that davidwr said earlier. Dturover (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post edit requests here

Please use this section for the time being to request edits not related to the content being disputed above until the protection is lifted. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Can some friendly admin change City Island to City Island, Bronx? Thanks --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Request to append to the paragraphs on climate change:

Following the storm, Bloomberg Businessweek devoted their cover to the topic of the impact of climate change, declaring "It's global warming, stupid."<ref>{{citation |url=http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-01/its-global-warming-stupid |title=It's Global Warming, Stupid |last=Barrett |first=Paul M. |date=November 1, 2012 |work=[[Bloomberg Businessweek]] }}</ref>

People mentioned this source above, but strangely it doesn't seem to be cited. Rather than pretend Businessweek is a particular authority to settle the matter, I think it makes more sense to point out their level of coverage. Steven Walling • talk 00:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


Edit request on 4 November 2012

Please delete the least meaningful phrase in the English language from this sentence in the summary, and replace it with the proper preposition: "It is having various political effects in the United States especially in terms of [sic] the general election scheduled for November 6, 2012." Should read, " ... especially on the general election ... ".Autodidact1 (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Typo in section "Reactions to Obama administration disaster response" The end of the sentence preceding reference 268 should read: "criticized the administration for responding too quickly to the storm" instead of "criticized the administration for responding to quickly to the storm" (note the words in bold) Rishi.bedi (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Rishi.bedi (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST- tax deduction for us citizens

Itemized_deduction#casualty Ottawahitech (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Uh, this is not a proper edit request.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 November 2012

Typo in section "Effect on campaigning"

The final sentence of the section, preceding references 256 and 266 should read:

"Also, the campaign purchased $5,000 dollars worth of supplies and gave them to attendees to give back for victims of the Hurricane."

instead of

"Also, the campaign purchased $5,000 dollars worth of supplies and gave them to attendees to give back for victims of the Hurricane. ."

(note the double punctuation in bold at the end of the sentence) Jscottcc (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit Requests by RedSoxFan2434 on 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The "Political Impact" section has several issues which I think should be addressed.

  1. The first and 3rd subsections need new titles; I'm recommending "Mitt Romney's 2011 FEMA comments" for the first one and "Reactions to Government Response" for the 3rd one.
  2. In the subsection about Mitt Romney's FEMA comments, the clause "and Romney would bring dramatic cuts to the agency" should have the word "that" added before "Romney", so the clause's claim is attributed directly to the NYTimes editorial. The following sentence should also be omitted as it also implies anti-Romney bias, including that he is a flip-flopper, rather than that some have accused him of being a flip-flopper.
  3. The "Effect on campaigning" subsection must be overhauled. This article is about Hurricane Sandy, and John McCain telling rally attendees about Libya has nothing to do with Hurricane Sandy. Also, details about other campaign events should be included with reliable sources, such as information about cancelled events, events that went on as scheduled anyways, and the many campaign events by both candidates recast as disaster relief efforts. If only one or two events are included in the article, then the section should be omitted. Due weight is also important here: we need mentions of both Obama and Romney events that have been effected, as well as the various affected events I have just mentioned.
  4. The subsection about reactions to the FEMA response should mention why it is significant that Chris Christie praised Obama. At no point in this section does it even mention Christie's Republican ties, let alone his endorsement of Romney or political opposition to Obama. These should all be included.
  5. In this same subsection, ex-FEMA director Michael Brown's criticism of Obama's response is sourced by an opinion article saying he is wrong. Could we find a neutral source? One I found: Michael Brown: Obama spoke too soon on Sandy. This article also includes Brown's defense of his statements, which could be included, and does not have any written bias for or against Brown's statements.
  6. There should also be some explanation of why Karl Rove thinks Obama was politically helped by the election, and that he still thinks Romney will win the election. This can all be found in the given source from POLITICO: that Rove thinks it created "a stutter in the campaign" that drew the attention from economic issues and allowed Obama to become a bipartisan "Comforter-in-Chief". However, Rove still predicts a Romney victory, except by a much closer margin.

So there you have it. Are any of these doable, admins? RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 02:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request by Anonymous on 4 November 2012

Please edit the first sentence. It makes absolutely no grammatical sense: "Hurricane Sandy was a tropical cyclone of that devastated portions of the Caribbean, Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern United States in late October." 'Hurricane Sandy was a tropical cyclone OF THAT devastated portions of...' Really? That's all the proofreading it gets? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.180.73 (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done I just took out 'of', I'm sure it was a stray word left behind by some previous edit. --Nigelj (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


Edit requests November 4:

The following section contains speculative hypothesis which do not agree with the scientific consensus of experts in the field of hurricane study. It should be made clear that this opinion is not based on an actual analysis of physical data as is implied here but rather it is based on the predictions of climate change models developed by individuals with no expertise in hurricanes as proposed by the following:

According to their analysis (replace "analysis" with: "models"), global warming is expected (replace "expected" with: "predicted") to continue to increase ocean surface temperatures and the frequency of blocking patterns in the future.[34][35]


The following sentences are media coverage and of no scientific value in this debate and as such should not be in the section "Meteorological history". They should either be deleted or moved to the section "Political Impact" or a new section on media coverage:

Mark Fischetti of Scientific American proposed (replace "proposed" with: "speculates that") a more explicit link, arguing that the melting of Arctic ice caused a negative North Atlantic Oscillation, which fueled the expansion of Sandy by pushing the jet stream south.[36]

Bloomberg Businessweek devoted their cover to the topic of the impact of climate change, declaring "It's global warming, stupid."[37]

This inclusion of media speculation in this section by activist authors who lack any science credentials is troubling to say the least. There should be no debate needed about the inappropriate inclusion of these sentences in this section of the article.

It is clear to me that Wikipedia has still not cleaned up its act and that people of a like mind with William Connolley are still vandalizing articles here to promote their belief system. This is making Wikipedia a source of disinformation instead of the valuable resource that it could be. This is a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.111.158 (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Sentence fragment and minor cleanup

The second sentence in the article is a fragment: "The eighteenth named storm and tenth hurricane of the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season". Also, the first paragraph compares Sandy to Katrina twice -- seems a bit redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.188.227 (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Mention the coverage of lack of climate change info in this article?

This article is getting press attention for a period in which there was a lack of information on climate change within it. It appears to me to be noteworthy that arguably the most widely read single article on the internet on Sandy had no climate change info. However user:NewsAndEventsGuy appears to disagree. What do we think about mentioning this meta-issue? Is it of no relevance whatsoever that a possible contributory cause of Sandy is whitewashed out of Sandy coverage?

Specifically, I think the article should have a sentence referenced to the PopSci article along the lines of "Wikipedia's coverage of climate change within its Hurricane Sandy article itself became a subject of media coverage."

I note the PopSci piece has been picked up by some other media, e.g. [15]

NewsAndEventsGuy thinks such a mention is 'hounding' and 'offpoint'. I don't think it is hounding, and I do think it is the whole point: out GW para begins "Global warming's influence on the storm is the subject of ongoing media discussion." So too is whether or not wikipedia, through the actions of a particular wikipedian, has in effect censored discussion of GW. It is certainly "related to meteorology or global warming" in that we're living in a time in which, arguably, the political is obscuring the scientific, just as we see in this article the political decision to denude the article of clime change information. Thoughts?--Tagishsimon (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course I disagree. The editor in question is Kennvido (talk · contribs). He was blocked for 24hr and our policy says the point of sanctions is reform and not punishment. Kennvido has (so far) refrained from repeating that bad behavior. This is all past news and is against our basic policy regarding WP:CIVIL conduct. See also Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment. The orange box at the top of this talk page has a collection of links for this coverage. It does not belong in the article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
PS and of course there is no longer a "lack of climate change info in this article" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I emphatically reject your CIVIL and harassment related lines of argument as specious misdirection. My view is that it is of note if at the time of greatest readership of the article, pertinent information was deliberately edited out of the article; and that this being picked up by the general media, mention of this lack is appropriate in the page. This has nothing to do with the intent of wikipedia sanctions. It is to do with our reaction (if any) in our article of press criticism of the article. As I noted above, I think we should include the suggested sentence. Kennvido has already been comprehensively outed, and complaints that he would be further outed by the suggested sentence are fairly ridiculous and in any event greatly subsidiary to the - to me at least - substantive issue raised in the PopSci article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment. The orange box at the top of this talk page has a collection of links for this coverage. It does not belong in the article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) -- I want to throw up now. Are you seriously saying that using reliable sources constitutes "linking to external harassment"? Please stop embarassing yourself. Stop censoring the article on Ken Mample's behalf. --84.44.230.252 (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
The subject of this article is Hurricane Sandy. Criticism of Wikipedia belongs at Criticism of Wikipedia. As you say, this a meta-issue. It has no relevance to the subject of this article. Resolute 20:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Kennvido's climate change denialism is directly related to this very article. It has been covered in reliable, highly circulated media outlets worldwide. It belongs in this article, anything else is meta-censorship. --84.44.230.252 (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
The climate change debate is related to the Wikipedia article on Hurricane Sandy, it is not related at all to Hurricane Sandy itself. The subject of this article is the hurricane, not the politics and agendas of Wikipedia editors and the media. See the point below about Stephen Colbert and the elephant article. Resolute 21:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Clarifying changes added later shown in italics NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)In my opinion offsite editor behavior articles like the one in PopSci lack any substance at all and are most akin to the Jerry Springer show; where someone is trying to foment readership by exploiting someone elses (emphatic) dysfunction. The real story - if the world made sense - is that our process worked and the problem was internally resolved. That is the only substantive issue this saga presents in my opinion; and its subject heading is neither Global Warming nor Hurricane Sandy but Wikipedia. To illustrate let me borrow some more of your words:
It is to do with our reaction (if any) in our article ((about X )) of press criticism of the article ((about X )) where X is either Abraham Lincoln; Hokey pokey; or Particle physics
In other words the subject is wikipedia process in response to press criticism. It is not about Global Warming or Hurricane Sandy. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)



Tagishsimon, I'm not quite sure why you're starting a new discussion just a few sections down from the previous discussion where this was already decided against. As Nyttend said in the first discussion, "media coverage of Stephen Colbert's urging his readers to vandalise the elephant article shouldn't be mentioned in the article, since they're not relevant to the actual animals. Likewise, media coverage of this article shouldn't be mentioned here, since it's not relevant to the hurricane itself." This article is about Hurricane Sandy. That article is not about Hurricane Sandy. It's about Wikipedia. It just doesn't make sense to include it in this article. And if you truly want to keep discussing this, I suggest merging your new thread with the original thread, although like I said, the consensus was already against doing this, other than the one user who proposed it up above. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
way too self referential and naval gazing. in the context of Sandy what people say about the wikipedia article is WP:UNDUE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Far too "inside baseball" to mention this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coretheapple (talk • contribs) 22:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Should the Full Moon be mentioned?

Full moon brings high tide and it happened at the same time the hurricane hit the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.20.10 (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if we can find sources talking about how it impacted the storm surge (which I'm sure sources are out there). Inks.LWC (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Moon does impact oceans by gravity, whetever with Hurricane or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.88.201 (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It was constantly on the news. There has to be some mention of it somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coretheapple (talk • contribs) 18:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Spring tide should be mentioned with a link, but the question doesn't need a whole sentence here. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Sure it should be mentioned so long as we are clear that its addition to storm surge was in addition to that resulting from sea level rise. Here is a possible RS to use for the full moons addition to storm surge though it does not quantify exactly how much extra height was due to the full moon (are the earth science nerds even able to do that?) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Not very well, would be my impression. After seeing this thread, I created this one on the Science reference Desk, to get the science nerds' response. Go see for yourselves. I'm still not much the wiser. HiLo48 (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

The Intro section should give an overview of the whole article. It is currently missing any mention of the global warming connections, since these are a significant part of the article. Can someone put a concise mention in the Lead? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

More on Sandy and climate:
-- Ssilvers (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Politico articles can be reliable; ThinkProgress articles cannot. If that's the best you can do, it leans toward reduction of any reference to global warming in this aritcle. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - add blocking pattern over Greenland to meteorological history

Whether the revised/updated AGW section survives or not the effect (not the cause) of the blocking pattern over Greenland really belongs in the meteorological section prior to the GW section. Anybody wanna work on that? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you have forecast discussions in mind that mentioned it? Inks.LWC (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Jeff masters reviewed all this after the fact in detail. See link in the new GW section.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Second storm

A second storm is heading to the Northeast: [16]. Should this mentioned in the article? Maybe in a new aftermath section? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Not unless it directly impacts the cleanup from Sandy. And even then, 1 or 2 sentences would suffice. Inks.LWC (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Mention the climate change edit war in the article itself?

This seems reliable. But is it notable? Undue? Other? This article had a lot of traffic (and still likely does). This disruption deserves a mention, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be pretty hard to be wholly neutral about the thing. It's also very meta in a silly way, especially since there is a neutrality disputed tag already on the section. Let's hold off and see if other sources cover the issue (and not just re-blog with a link to Popular Science). Steven Walling • talk 06:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Very meta in a silly way is a positive, in my books, so long as it's also educationally valuable and doesn't violate policy. But yeah, while I'm waiting on specifying Sandy's "gender", I have time to also wait on this. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
If the edit war itself isn't mentioned in the article, then a brief mention of this discussion about the edit war would be a reasonable substitute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.169.226 (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's that significant, but it may merit a paragraph or two at Reliability of Wikipedia. - Cal Engime (talk) 06:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree on that. Since an outside article picked it up I think it could noteworthy enough for the reliability article. TornadoLGS (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
There's a convenient space at the bottom of that article, right under another climate change issue. It's like it was meant to be...InedibleHulk (talk) 07:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
And now a guy with the same name as the guy in that section deletes my comment for no apparent reason. That's weird. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I can't believe you actually proposed this. Remember, this is an encyclopedia and you should know that this is non-encyclopedic. United States Man (talk) 06:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
If I knew, I wouldn't have asked (not proposed). I know what I think belongs on Wikipedia, and this is one of those things. We may be on different wavelengths, but assume good faith. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Ask yourself What does a 56-year-old man in Florida have to do with Hurricane Sandy? The answer is absolutely nothing so the answer to this question is absolutely no. And I wasn't attacking you by the way. United States Man (talk) 07:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
But what does a 56-year-old Florida man have to do with coverage of and reactions to the storm? A few sentences worth, in an appropriate existing section. In my opinion. I didn't feel attacked, I just want you to know I'm not trolling. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I think it's a reasonable proposal, even if I disagree. Steven Walling • talk 07:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I dislike this reasonable proposal although I can see including it in one of the articles about wikipedia.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
This is an article about a hurricane in which many people died and countless lost their homes, including information about some pathetic people who don't understand what an encyclopedia is for (information) would be disrespectful. http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-11/wikipedia-sandy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.235.14.181 (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
See WP:SUBJECT. To paraphrase what that page says — media coverage of Stephen Colbert's urging his readers to vandalise the elephant article shouldn't be mentioned in the article, since they're not relevant to the actual animals. Likewise, media coverage of this article shouldn't be mentioned here, since it's not relevant to the hurricane itself. Nyttend (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

(od) It was also in Grist.org 2 Nov 2012: Meet the man who’s kept climate change off the Hurricane Sandy Wikipedia page ... found on Climate change denial. 99.109.127.40 (talk) 05:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 November 2012

Remove the global warming crap, it has no place on the page. None of it even has anything to do with Sandy, it's just a bunch of media quotes asking general questions about climate change and global warming.

99.136.196.166 (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Begoon talk 16:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This has already been determined above. Inks.LWC (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing was determined except that useless quotes from media outlets asking questions passes for citation of facts by reputable sources. This type of thing is exactly why most people think this site is a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.136.196.166 (talk) 07:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Despite assorted hypothesize about possible factors contributing to Global Climate change, nobody has successfully proven that CO2 plays a major role. Any links and or references to IPCC, NASA or other organizations well known for lauding these hypothesize as theories, should be counter balanced with references to organizations with a different view point, like the NIPCC.

To preserve the integrity of WIKI, any mention of "Global Warming" at all, should contain disclaimers that its causes are currently matters of debate and specifically that Man Made AGW has never been proved.

Personally, in my opinion, the Idea that miniscule increases in a naturally occurring, sub 400 ([1]) ppm gas (CO2) has some larger impact on temperatures doesn't add up - especially when other gases with close IR absorption rates exist in much higher quantities (like O2 at 21%); while, increased solar activity (and the accompanying increases in UV output) contributing more energy to the earth (most of which translates into heat at some point - for example: at the Ozone layer (UV), the Ionosphere (CME), throughout the atmosphere or after contact with objects on the ground) makes a whole lot more sense.

Ed34222 (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Ed34222 2012-11-07 Ed34222 (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Although this is not a WP:FORUM and I usually abide by WP:DNFT for the sake of any newcomers passing by lets talk ppm briefly. Consider just 100ppm of sarin gas which will kill nearly everyone in less than half an hour. If such small amounts can have such a large effect so darn fast why is it hard to think that changes happen when the round-the-clock atmosphere goes from ~250ppm CO2 (as it was from the pyramids to the American Civil War) to 400ppm now? This represents a 10x faster rise in CO2 than during the mass extinction known as the PETM. See Carbon Release to Atmosphere 10 Times Faster Than in the Past, Geologists Find; It is also key to understand the link between CO2 and water vapor feedback. Pontification mode off. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
PPM discussion aside for a moment (as I could easily see us going back and forth on that and related items in an extended discussion), is there any reason not to add the disclaimer I mentioned, when adding GW references to this and/or other weather related items? Ed34222 (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Please draft proposed text and post it here including the specific-down-to-the-page-number WP:reliable sources you cite to support it and then we can talk about something more than a vague waving of hands. If you are hanging your hat on no-peer-review-research-champion-of-2nd-hand-smoke-turned-no-peer-review-research-climate change denial-champion Fred Singer then the short answer to your question is WP:FRINGENewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Trenberth and what he said about the negative NAO

I do not think the current version accurately reports what Dr. Trenberth said about the NAO. Our text reads Dr. Trenberth, however, argued that the negative NAO was just part of the oscillation's natural phases However the cited source says he only said this has to be the null hypothesis and he opined that the studies have not (yet) shown cause and effect. Isn't that a more of a "so far we are speculating" type of opinion than the "it definitely did not happen that way" sort of thing we currently say he said? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Good point, have altered it along these lines. It will be helpful if someone can check the other sources of statements by Trenberth to see if they touch on this point. Have made a start on removing Dr.s, more to be done per MOS . . dave souza, talk 10:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Proprosed merge section of information for Occupy Sandy

Not sure if the above article stands alone-- it seems to make a note of it on this page. Can other editors offer an opinion on the matter? I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You should probably go and check out the news on it before putting up a merge template 3 minutes after I make it. It has gotten a ton of news coverage. Such as:
Occupy Sandy: A Movement Moves to Relief - The New York Times
Occupy Sandy: Onetime Protesters Find New Cause - ABC News
Post-Storm, 'Occupy Wall Street' Becomes 'Occupy Sandy' - Voice of America
Occupy Sandy gift registries makes it just a 'click' away to give online to victims of hurricane - New York Daily News
Occupy Sandy’s Street Medics Go Door-to-Door in Coney Island - New York Magazine
And that's just a tiny, tiny fraction of the coverage. SilverserenC 09:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
It's just as well that you should probably have included more than one source when you initially created the page, because leaving it with a single source doesn't exactly leave a strong impression. That said, given the above sources, it's probably inappropriate to merge the contents here, but it might be appropriate to add a brief section in the article here under "Relief Efforts." I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 09:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I just wanted to get a basic stub set up so I could work on it tomorrow (and I hoped that, maybe, some other interested people would come along to do a little work on it too). But its 3 AM here right now and i'm heading to bed. I'll expand the article tomorrow and put a bunch of sources in. As I showed above, there's a lot of varying coverage of them and different aspects to consider. The ground relief forces verses the online relief efforts of the group is just one facet. SilverserenC 09:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I would definitely support including info about Occupy Sandy in the "Relief efforts" section. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Death toll

It seems that CNN is reporting that 110 have died in the United States. However, UPI and other news outlets are saying 113 died. Unfortunately, the death toll is likely to rise, however is there a way to confirm the exact number now? -- Luke (Talk) 15:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't know if this helps Luke. I have run into the same problem for days. I usually take the higher number, because unfortunately it has always ended up there. Also, CNN usually is right regarding the total. Kennvido (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Hurricane related death tolls are inherently inaccurate. All we can do is pick the best numbers that someone else says is the total. Apteva (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
One thing to consider is that at this point it is probably difficult to distinguish between direct and indirect deaths. We will probably have to wait a while before that is resolved. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

PageInformer: The death toll is bound to rise after floods and disease caused by rats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PageInformer (talk • contribs) 02:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Apteva is correct in that such numbers are inherently inaccurate, especially early on. The slow response and under reporting for several areas has also likely exasperated the issue. Given the glacial speed at which information about this is making it out into the media, my guess is it will be weeks before we have proper numbers.
—Sowlos (talk) 12:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The first part of the article mentions 52 deaths in Jamaica and 11 in Cuba, but the final death toll doesn't include those? Why don't they "count"? 41.10.165.213 (talk) 06:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The death toll is listed as 191. That includes the 54 from Jamaica and 11 from Cuba, so I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that they haven't been counted. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Name change by National Hurricane Center

Apparently the National Hurricane Center declared Sandy a post-tropical storm before landfall.[17] [18] Shouldn't this be reflected in the article name? If not, this should be mentioned in the article, possibly in a "Cleanup" section.--Auric (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, it was a hurricane first and foremost, and it became post-tropical later on. So the article title is correct. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Whether or not it was post-tropical at the time of landfall has nothing to do with the article name. But it does need mentioning in the Meteorological History section. Also this is the most official source to use. United States Man (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Why the heck would it matter, in regards to this article's title, that the storm was declared post tropical when it landed in the US? Are you implying that the other countries it hit while it was a hurricane are irrelevant and shouldn't be considered? WP:BIAS, 100%. SilverserenC 05:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
No, just that some people are quibbling if it was a hurricane at landfall, because that apparently affects insurance payouts.--Auric (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

How can thus NOT be featured? Of all the hurricanes in HISTORY, there's only one -- THIS one -- that is the POSTER CHILD for climate change debate

It's not about "the possible effects of climate change," and the related question of "why mention it for this storm and not for every other?" The issue is that Sandy is now the "poster child" of the climate change debate. No other storm IN HISTORY has this status in political and media commentary -- Katrina certainly did not. The issue should have its own sub-section within the article, along the lines of "Effect of Sandy on climate change commentary," completely without debating whether this storm itself is specifically different from any other in terms of whether or not it is attributable to climate change. I'm amazed that the "poster child" aspect isn't the bottom-line question being discussed, instead of red herrings like "Well, why isn't this brought up for EVERY storm?" which is a non-starter and a rhetorical trump card, nothing else.76.218.9.50 (talk)! —Preceding undated comment added 07:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we'd need a reliable source. A picture of a child's face in the storm clouds, in poster format, should suffice. That is, if I understand your question (which I don't). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/opinion/sunday/climate-change-lessons-from-ronald-reagan.html?pagewanted=all dick76.218.9.50 (talk) 08:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Erwin, Sandra I. (2012-10-31). "Superstorm Sandy Topples Traditional Notions of National Security". National Defense Magazine. Retrieved 2012-11-05. DICK 76.218.9.50 (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Let's keep the discussion civil, please. Inks.LWC (talk) 09:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

We have about 200 years of solid data with quite a few east coast hurricanes. Sandy isn't anything special. --Matthurricane (talk) 09:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

"Largest" definition not clear

Lead sentence says "largest Atlantic hurricane on record" - but rest of lead and the Meterological section do not make it clear what that means, unless it's in jargon deep down there somewhere that the casual reader might not catch it. I get the impression from what I've read it means in actual size and width, but it's not as strong as, say, the 1938 New England hurricane which was category 3 or more. So maybe that could be clarified in both sections so in the future people hearing about a "smaller" hurricane (that's category 2 or 3) coming and reading this article think they can relax. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 19:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The lead used to say it was the largest in diameter, but apparently that was removed somewhere along the way. I guess if people don't like it in the first sentence, maybe we can at least make it clear in the meteorology section. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 19:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree; I have combined the good parts of prior text with good parts of current text; at least as I see it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Looks good to me! Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 20:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, much better. One has to be vigilant for drift, unfortunately... CarolMooreDC 02:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

In President Obama's news conference

Doesn't this belong in the pol section rather than the met one? He's a great guy, and so on, but his views on the linkage to GW aren't a scientist / climatologist / meteorologists views; he's a pol William M. Connolley (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

seems reasonable to me NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I also agree with your tweak about him being asked and declining because he was not asked. Just for reference here is the full text of the question he was asked form page 10 of the source) Q: Thank you, Mr. President. In his endorsement of you a few weeks ago, Mayor Bloomberg said he was motivated by the belief that you would do more to confront the threat of climate change than your opponent. Tomorrow you’re going up to New York City, where you’re going to, I assume, see people who are still suffering the effects of Hurricane Sandy, which many people say is further evidence of how a warming globe is changing our weather. What specifically do you plan to do in a second term to tackle the issue of climate change? And do you think the political will exists in Washington to pass legislation that could include some kind of a tax on carbon? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Revisiting question of noting hurrigender.

I still think inquiring minds still want to know: Is Sandy a woman's name or a man's? As this perfectly acceptable reliable source says, she's a lady (or a storm with a woman's name, anyway). Thoughts, after weeks of consideration? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If anyone missed the original proposal, please save me from repeating myself. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not so much the source so much as there's no reason to note it since Sandy is obviously a woman's name. Perhaps we could consider it for a more ambiguous name such as Chris, or Alex, but not for Sandy.TornadoLGS (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I've known four "Sandy"s, personally. Zero were women. But I know of Sandy Allen. Sandy Koufax as well. If it was "Hurricane Sandra", I'd agree it's unnecessary. But Sandy is ambiguous. I'll reiterate that even Larry King (the smartest man in the universe) pointed this out. Alex is clearly a guy's name, in my books. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Sandy (name) is leaning towards men (at least notable men). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't be strongly opposed to including a footnote, but why does it really matter? Inks.LWC (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Simple. If a reader is wondering, there it is. We have a few long sentences dedicated to where the names "Frankenstorm" and "Superstorm" came from, why not three words to clarify this about the storm's actual name?
It doesn't matter. It is a storm, not a person. And I, personally, do not think that any argument in the world is going to make me change my position. I'm sorry, but what a ridiculous proposal. United States Man (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not a storm or a person. It's a name. Names can be masculine or feminine. In this case, it's verifiably feminine and obviously ambiguous. It's not ridiculous at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Please name one other hurricane article in which the gender of the name is specified. I think I can safely say there isn't one. And do not say that it's because the names are not ambiguous. What makes you think the public cares about the gender. One stupid celebrity named Larry King is not enough to include it in the article. United States Man (talk) 03:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
That nobody's thought to do it yet doesn't make it wrong. Lots of articles could use improvement; that's no reason to not improve others. What makes you think that Joe Public gives a shit about tolls being waived in Delaware or negative North Atlantic oscillation? If we help one person, it's worth whatever imaginary detriment these three words pose to people who don't care. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
It's trivial at best. If it is included, it shouldn't be anything more than a footnote. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd originally had it as "(a woman's name)" after the bit about it being named Sandy in Meteorological History. Can't see how it can carry less weight than that, or be in a more relevant spot. I realize it isn't worth its own section or anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I remember reading somewhere that nowadays tropical cyclone names are alternately male and female. At "List of historic tropical cyclone names#Names used and scheduled between 2010–2017", the name preceding Sandy this year was "Rafael", a male name, therefore "Sandy" is a female name in this instance.
—Wavelength (talk) 04:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but should we mention this here? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Should be mentioned somewhere in the article, but it clearly doesn't need a full sentence, if it can be avoided. I think I like InedibleHulk's suggestion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Yay, this silliness for a third (fourth?) time. During a previous debate, I added a wikilink to Tropical cyclone naming in see also, though that attempt at compromise was ignored by the editor who feels "hurrigender" is an important topic to cover in the meteorological history. Just adding "(a woman's name)" is simply inaccurate for reasons previously stated; hurricanes don't have gender, even if they are named after gender-specific names. Adding the extra explanation to note that Hurricane Sandy was named alphabetically from an alternating list, and named after a female name (even though it has no gender itself), would be undue weight. That's what the naming article is for, since it covers those details. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Second time. For the fifth or sixth time, I'll point out that I'm talking about the name of the hurricane, not the hurricane itself. I'd imagine most readers won't be as confused. Nitpicking the distinction between naming something and naming something after a name is absurd. If something is "named after" a feminine name, it takes that name. It does not grow genitals. We're all in agreement here. So let's stay focused on the actual matter. Would you like it better if I said "(a feminine name)? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose footnote or any mention of the name meaning male/female With all the articles that need work we are going on about this? Let the reader choose and go through their minds here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The only "going on" here comes from the opposition. This should have been a simple, two-second edit. If letting uninformed readers decide a simple question for themselves, when we have a verifiable answer for them, is how Wikipedia should work, we may as well remove every fact. Anyway, I'm not proposing we say this means the hurricane is a woman. Only that the ambiguous name is feminine, in this case. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Assuming this is a serious discussion, gender involves having genital organs. Hurricanes have none. --Auric (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I think the original post mischaracterized what he's trying to say. It's not that the hurricane has gender, but the name it was given does. That being said, I 1) disagree with the use of "hurrigender", even on the talk page, because it clearly confused people and does not exist; and 2) still think that it's unnecessary if we're talking about the gender of the name the hurricane was named after. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for any confusion that may have caused. From now on, I'll stick to familiar, actual words. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead: was it a category 1 that was really big or was it "only" a cat 1 that was really big?

Numerous meteorological RSs talk about the extraordinary energy and size of Sandy despite it being "only" a category 1 (or words to that effect)..... Lots of EMS people were tearing out there hair trying to convince folks to take it seriously even though it was "only" a category 1..... In this diff Prototime (talk · contribs) says we should not repeat the adjective used by these RSs (even though it is part of their main point) because Prototime feels we should not repeat RS language that is UNENCYCLOPEDIC. This a non-argument, much less a reason for trumping RS content, for reasons found in WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. What do others think? BTW... Prototime also defended the deletion saying that the data speaks for itself. Star Treks Dr McCoy would disagree. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

There have been many strong storms that were small and large storms that were weak. My gut feeling is to leave it out of the lead, but possibly include a small mention of it in the actual article. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I should have added that I do not particularly care except I do care that editors base opinions about RS content on reasons better than it should be deleted because it should be deleted Inks' compromise works for me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Records

I know Sandy was becoming extratropical as it bore down on the coast but could it be mentioned that it was the first tropical cyclone to cross into NJ while still carrying hurricane force winds since 1903? I know that Irene was still a minimal hurricane in NJ but technically it wasn't. Maybe in Post analasis they'll say it was still tropical in NJ. 76.124.224.179 (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean "technically it wasn't"? It made landfall in New Jersey with winds of 75 mph, meaning that NHC's classification of it being a Category 1 hurricane was correct, and it hadn't transitioned into being post-tropical. So, it WAS a hurricane, in every way. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Check the advisories and tropical cyclone updates. They called it post-tropical/extratropical an hour prior to landfall, which isn't designated in HURDAT, and probably won't be indicated in HURDAT2 because of their "poor" temporal resolution. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Irene was reclassified a tropical storm when it made landfall in New Jersey and Sandy was an extratropical cyclone with hurricane-force winds (pending post-storm analysis) when it struck New Jersey. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect photo caption

Not sure where to post this. It is not a big deal, but one of the pictures you have in the Hurricane Sandy article of several damaged beachfront houses is posted as being Long Beach Island, but it is actually Mantoloking. One of the houses in the picture is my house, which is why I'm sending the correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.216.149 (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Canada Impact

As a Canadian I am surprised Canada is included in this article. This storm had very little impact in Canada compared to any number of other annual storms we have in this country, especially in the winter. I don't know why space is being wasted on Canada in various places here. I can point to any random blizzard during the winter in Central Canada or Quebec and likely find higher numbers of people without power or lives lost or any other diaster metric, and none of these have Wikipedia articles. Just because Sandy was big news doesn't mean we have to stick every country it touched into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.88.123 (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, for storms that have their own articles we generally do mention every country where damage or fatalities take place. Fatalities from a storm are almost always considered notable. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Definitely worth a paragraph or so here, but Effects of Hurricane Sandy in Canada is a ridiculous article, for the reasons the IP gives. I get hit by harder storms a few times each year, but they don't have the inherited notability (which Wiki frowns upon) of being the remains of a superhyped hurricane. Guess that's a discussion for another talk page, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Lets wait till the fuss of Sandy has died down a bit more before talking more about subarticles, as it might turn out that its better to have a short article on the damage in Canada, then two underwhelming paragraphs.Jason Rees (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

$100 million in insured damage (total damage likely higher) is hardly an insignificant impact. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Official source cited and used Wikipedia article

NWS Morehead City/Newport appeared to primarily use this article to write their report. While the data has since been updated (death toll increased to 253 from 191), the track and wording mostly comes off an old version. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Not to sound rude, but what's your point? Wikipedia content is free to copy and use by anyone, and this report clearly attributes its info to here. Is there something you'd like to change in the article, or is this just an observation? Remember, talk pages are not forums for general discussion of a subject. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
His notification has ramifications for the article. We shouldn't use sources that use Wikipedia as a source itself. As per Crazy's example, we shouldn't mention the death toll being 191 as an updated source, since they got it from an outdated version of our article. The observation reports should be fine, but we should be careful about the damage by county. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize this source was used for this article. We certainly shouldn't cite information from Wikipedia itself, even indirectly. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The article hasn't used their report, but we should be careful if we do. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Or just use a reliable source instead, for whatever we'd theoretically cite with this. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, their meteorological data is sound, they didn't use us for that. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
No, they got that from the National Hurricane Center, it seems. We'd be better off citing the NHC directly, rather than the middle-man. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
No, the NHC gets the rainfall, wind speeds, and pressure reports from each National Weather Service office. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

What I meant was that they used us as the source. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Bias

This article is clearly biased. Like it or not, Global Warming/Climate Change is a *theory,* not an established fact; and yet the article is presenting it as if it were established. Even more importantly, there are no alternative perspectives or theories presented. There's no room for debate on that, it clearly, definitely meets the definition of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.204.112 (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

"Theory" is not an insult; it's what a hypothesis becomes after you have proof to support it. The idea that the Earth goes around the Sun is also a theory. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 04:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
"Unequivocal" is not an insult either. None of the national science academies around the world - not a single one - characterize warming of the climate system as a mere theory. Instead, we have enough consistent observations to conclude we are definitely - unequivocally - warming the place up. This just in. Oh... and this should not be a general discussion WP:FORUM, but instead we should stick to proposed article improvements. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me. I'm telling the anon that the so-called theory is essentially a fact (like the heliocentric model) and is obviously suitable for inclusion. I'm not sure who you're directing the WP:FORUM thing at; everyone is talking about this article. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 13:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Someone misunderstood someone, it is true. I was talking to the Anon about unequivocal, and all of us about forum. The anon just trolled a vague wave about bias without addressing specific suggestions for article improvement. All of our comments, mine included, are reasonably characterized as a general discussion of the subject, and are not debating pros/cons of specific suggestions for article improvement. That makes us all guilty of forum-ming (and is part of the reasoning behind WP:DNFT.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Um, no. People are by absolutely no means required to discuss specific suggestions. He wants to remove the section in the article or add alternate theories for balance. That's specific enough. If you wanted to reply to the original anon's comment, as I did, you should have used one colon to thread the discussion properly and make your comment even with mine. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 17:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
You are reading in specific details to the anon comment. Granted, that is a reasonable interpretation of what he might have silently been wanting to suggest. But it is not right there on the face of the text. Instead of deleting what is there, it is equally reasonable to interpret the comment as wanting to add something new. That is the definition of ambiguity: where outside reasonable minds can reasonably arrive at different meanings. If you are really truly upset with what I wrote, I apologize for ambiguity in my own writing, but suggest you might be reading something into what I wrote as well. I suggest we leave it at that unless someone posts some unambiguous suggestion to discuss for article improvement, and if you are still wanting to talk about process please post to my talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC) I read too fast. Sorry. Anyway, I will wait for something tangible to discuss. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

“affected many, many more people and places than Katrina,” addition

Andrew M. Cuomo declared that Hurricane Sandy had been “more impactful” than Hurricane Katrina.[2]

“affected many, many more people and places than Katrina,”

This would be ae an encyclopedic addition with the suggested quotation from the Governor of New York.

216.250.156.66 (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
  2. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/27/nyregion/governor-cuomo-says-hurricane-sandy-was-worse-than-katrina.html

Etymology section

Should we create a section based on the various names that Hurricane Sandy acquired (either from the media or the NHC etc.) as it moved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.80.209 (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Sandy/Archive_2&oldid=1155034271"