Talk:Storm Daniel

If there was actual proof that it underwent tropical cyclonegenesis, then prove it. 2605:8D80:408:1AF4:C569:6156:7660:4183 (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Refer to the "Source for Daniel being a tropical cyclone?" discussion on the issue. It must remain this way until an independent study from a reputable source comes out. And no CMISS and Metoffice do not count one bit. HavocPlayz (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

NHC- A tropical cyclone is a warm-core system with a circulation of maximum winds closed around a well-defined center, with convection in the center, without fronts, developed over tropical and subtropical waters of the planet. Daniel's structure fits precisely into this description even without proving it with sources. It also presented convective and outflow bands.

http://medicanes.altervista.org/Tropical_storm_cyclone_tempesta_ciclone_Daniel_mediterranean_3688.webp

Subtropical cyclones are warm-core cyclones, with wider wind circulations and often connected to fronts. Daniele italy (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Not a reliable source.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

For such a historic storm the section is severely lacking, especially since we have plenty of data to work with (as well as now a TC report from David Hernes ) Thoughts? Ikethecatto (talk) 11:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s called denialism. Sources exist but people are in denial. 2605:8D80:401:FE2E:25E9:A22E:35A9:4A2 (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ikethecatto: That is not a reliable source. It's self-published.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

" Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.". David Hernes is very reliable and has worked with EUMETSAT on mediterranean TCs

Ikethecatto (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I see no reason not to use that source, though it should still be used with some caution. A quick search reveals David Herincs has a handful of other works, including an abstract over Cyclone Ianos. Additionally, I see no suspect info within the source itself, and the source clearly provides observational bases for the meteorological history of Daniel it presents. Really, Daniel's meteorological history section is painfully underdeveloped for what is the costliest and devastating tropical cyclone worldwide in 2023, so this source could help fill in those holes. ArkHyena (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

So as of 24.10.23 the death toll figure provided in the infobox is 11,000+. However, the three sources supposed to corroborate the number does not mention this figure or they are now obsolete. Yes, the situation with the deaths confirmation is deplorable, but for the lack of updates from reliable sources I would suggest that the lower figure of 4,000+ deaths be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgedweller (talk • contribs) 11:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

When that figure has been blatantly shown to be astronomically underrepresentative of the true deathtoll from that disaster, and that it is a figure being knowingly and intentionally pushed by corrupt administrations trying to cover up for the disaster they are in part responsible for, then no. I cannot support using this lower figure. As it is a clear and blatant lie. It is an untruth. I suggest going with the estimates, and estimates alone. 2.98.194.37 (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Relatively recently, two papers were published analyzing Daniel's effects in Greece.

Tsinidis and Koutas 2025 (open-access: ) states that "New estimates from the central government led to an increase in the repair cost to €5 billion, i.e., 2.5% of Greece’s 2023 GDP." and details damages observed around Thessaly. Valavani et al. 2025 (open-access: ) investigated excess mortality in Thessaly, concluding "In the three Storm Daniel-stricken prefectures, a total of 335 excess deaths (95% CI: 250–420) was recorded during the 90 days following the storm event.", although they note that Storm Elias could have contributed to post-Daniel excess mortality.

Should we include these results? I'm particularly unsure about Valavani et al., since it does not come from an official government body or organization (then again... No RSMC/TCWC who'd usually be responsible for such statistics). As an aside, Daniel's met synopsis is also in sore need of updating for such a devastating tropical cyclone. ArkHyena (it/its) 01:10, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Drdpw: Yes, there was a discussion including RfC on the matter; the RfC closed as "inconclusive" so I don't think that means you can just say "it's settled, my opinion is correct, revert a revert" as you implied in your edit summary. Especially so when it's a question of plausibility. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 16:19, 20 July 2025 (UTC)