Talk:Hurricane Harvey/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

General 'environmental factors', 'climate change', and records, building and sourcing area

Miami Herald "Scientists say Harvey may be the soggy sign of future storms" article:

• The 9 trillion gallons record is days old and outdated, this source from last night puts it up to 15 trillion already (neat popular stat is that it's about a million gallons per person in the region).Scientists say Harvey may be the soggy sign of future storms

• The new field of climate change-related event attribution takes time: "There's a scientifically accepted method for determining if some wild weather event has the fingerprints of man-made climate change, and it involves intricate calculations. Those could take weeks or months to complete, and then even longer to pass peer review."

Earlier stuff may be considered speculation.

• "Jeff Masters. Hurricanes need at least 79 degrees F (26 C) as fuel, and water at least that warm ran more than 300 feet (100 meters) deep in the Gulf, according to University of Miami hurricane researcher Brian McNoldy." Water was not only several degrees F above normal on the surface (SST, sea surface temperature, anomaly), but the water was warmer deeper than normal. The storms stir the water and can bring colder deep water up, weakening the storm, which may not have happened here due to warmer deeper waters.

• "Several studies show that the top 1 percent of the strongest downpours are already happening much more frequently." There have been so many events in the past few years that were considered 1 in 100, or 500, or 1,800 year events. This just is. The numbers aren't the controversy, but a premature tie to climate change might be.

• This single source sums up a lot of what has been mentioned in individual sources so far, including the need to wait for more official analysis for some of the claims. Note that this would be to say whether the warm water in the area is attributable to global warming, but not that the water was in fact warmer. That's just a fact. There isn't doubt about the records the rainfall broke, just the degree of attribution to climate change. The article mentions the high pressure stalling that happened, but it's hard to directly tie the single event to global warming, even if it is made more likely by global warming. B137 (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• It should be mentioned just how big of a section of Interstate 10 in Texas is shut down between Houston and Beaumont, it's at least 50 miles' worth. B137 (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• As relates to this being considered the largest rainstorm in US history, the gallons figure should be added, and it should perhaps be up to date with the later flooding in the Beaumont/Port Aruthur area yesterday and today. B137 (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Trillions of gallons - cubic miles of water

This metric of the rain record should be added back in. As of April 30, the storm dropped 24.5 trillion gallons of water, or a 2.8 mile square, meaning 22 cubic miles of water. 19 trillion gallons in Texas, and 5.5 trillion gallons in Louisiana.Harvey has unloaded 24.5 trillion gallons of water on Texas and Louisiana This is as of mid day on August 30, while the storm was still raining on Louisiana at least, if not some additional rain in Texas left out as well. B137 (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Time for a WN external link?

wikinews:Many in Texas still reeling following hurricane Harvey199.7.157.49 (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence of this article is rather long for the first sentence of an article. Vorbee (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Louisiana

Should this article note that Hurricane Harvey has now reached Louisiana?Vorbee (talk) 06:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2017

The direct economic losses have been estimated for Texas at around 58 billion USD by the Center for Disaster Management and Risk Reduction Technology (CEDIM), Germany. This is the 9th highest natural disaster loss of all-time globally in 2017-adjusted dollars according to the global database, CATDAT. Jduser23 (talk) 08:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

 Already done. Jdcomix (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

References

150 mph?

In the infobox it says Harvey peaked at 150 mph, I thought Harvey peaked at 130...did someone put in 130 knots instead, which translates to 150 mph? 98.253.222.235 (talk) 08:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done Fixed it a couple of hours ago. Peak was 115 knots. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 15:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Records

It might be a bit early for it, but I think, really soon, we should make a section for the records Hurricane/Tropical Storm Harvey is (unfortunately) breaking Currently (and will break).--Halls4521 (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

From the Weather Channel website: News Article--Halls4521 (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I think this should include the 19 trillion gallons of rain in Texas and 5.5 trillion in Louisiana thing. 22 cubic miles of water. B137 (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

rescue efforts: Cajun Navy

Someone started editing the Cajun Navy article to reflect the rescue efforts they are assisting with in regards to Hurricane Harvey. We should include a mention of this somewhere near the Aftermath section, since they are coordinating efforts with the National Guard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cajun_Navy http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/29/us/harvey-cajun-navy/index.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/us/cajun-navy-brings-its-rescue-fleet-to-houstons-flood-zone.html Halyonix (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

World Meteorological Organisation briefing

Useful summary links to a Rsuters report on a World Meteorological Organisation briefing: "“Climate change means that when we do have an event like Harvey, the rainfall amounts are likely to be higher than they would have been otherwise, ... Climate change does very likely increase the associated rainfall", in some locations Harvey’s rainfall may approach 50 inches, or 1.2 meters, and the U.S. National Weather Service had to introduce a new color on its graphs to deal with the volume of rain. “Climate change doesn’t cause tropical cyclones. They’ve always been there. The relationship between climate change and the frequency of hurricanes and tropical cyclones is not clear, there’s still a lot of research going on into that". Think that's a fair overview. . dave souza, talk 21:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes. prokaryotes (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I am ignoring you. Ether provide a peer-reviewed source for your fringe theories or go away. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Although I disagree with Prokaryotes, please be civil. Jdcomix (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

No. That's as much civility as Prokaryotes is going to get from me unless he either [A] follows the sources, or [B] provides a reasonable explanation as to why he is rejecting the conclusions of climatologists publishing academic papers in peer reviewed journals. Until then, he gets treated like anyone else pushing fringe views and rejecting mainstream science. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

For some reason you say since yesterday that I do not follow sources, or that i reject the conclusions from studies. Can you cite where this is the case? Can you cite where I reject mainstream science, or push fringe views? prokaryotes (talk) 08:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

To dave souza; True, the mainstream science does say that the relationship between climate change and the frequency of hurricanes and tropical cyclones is not clear, but the mainstream science also says that the relationship between climate change and the intensity of hurricanes and tropical cyclones is not clear. But that's not what the article claims. The science says "the globally observed changes in the environment would not necessarily support a detectable trend of tropical cyclone intensity. That is, the trend signal has not had time to rise above the background variability of natural processes." The article says "climate scientists pointed out that the high amount of rains was attributable to increased temperatures, a by-product of global warming." (with a citation to a non-peer-reviewed article in The Atlantic that uses far more cautious language). I am just asking that we follow what is in the peer-reviewed sources rather than popular science articles. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:Guy Macon here. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Guy, some of the wording in the section lacked nuance, I've been editing it to bring it in line with the cited sources. Please assist. . . dave souza, talk 20:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

More reliable sources, with basically the same content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hurricane_Harvey#Sources Scientist interviewed in the related articles argue based on peer reviewed studies. If you want to make study links for sourcing in regards to climate a requirement then you have to change how we currently treat this topic (for example see MEDRS). prokaryotes (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Nope. You are dead wrong. Peer-reviewed science published in recognized academic journals trumps magazine articles and cable news shows everywhere on wikipedia. WP:MEDRS says that in medical articles, if you can't find peer-reviewed science, you must not settle for using magazine articles and cable news shows. Elsewhere on Wikipedia magazine articles and cable news shows are acceptable as sources unless they directly contradict peer-reviewed science. Which is what you have been trying to do, repeatedly, on multiple articles. If you continue with this disruptive behavior you will be reported at WP:AE with the probable result of a topic ban from all climate change articles. (Please note that this does not imply that there is anything wrong with what editors such as Dave souza are doing, which is to vigorously disagree with me on what the peer-reviewed science actually says while agreeing that peer-reviewed science trumps magazine articles and cable news shows.) --Guy Macon (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Guy, articles cited make multiple references to peer-reviewed science as well as relating published science to this particular hurricane. These are aspects which you seem to be ignoring; at present it still needs brief coverage of the point you seem to be making, based on sources which specifically discuss Harvey, such as the WMO. Something to do. . . dave souza, talk 16:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

No problem with that. My problem is with Prokaryotes' attempts to remove the mainstream scientific view and leave in only the fringe view, acting as if it was the mainstream. Covering both with appropriate weight is fine. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2017: Add {{main|2017 Texas floods}} to Effects/Texas subsection

In the Hurricane Harvey § Texas 2 section, please add {{main|2017 Texas floods}}. You could in theory delete that article instead, but even though it's currently a stub, I think there's ample source material to justify a separate article, leaving this one for a broader overview of the hurricane. (There's plenty in direct effects, plus political finger-pointing, and there's sure to be a gusher of editorial ink gloating over the karmic reward to the oil industry for funding climate change denial.) 104.153.72.218 (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done As of now that article is entirely redundant to this one and is not needed. All information can be conveyed here. I went ahead and redirected it accordingly. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Also that would more properly be located - when/if the time comes - at Effects of Hurricane Harvey in Texas (or portions of Texas if more than one such article). CrazyC83 (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: As I noted, we should either delete that article, or use it. Even though it's currently a redundant stub, I think it's worth using, because the amount of material will easily overwhelm this article. We may as well get ahead of the puck and start the split now.

@CrazyC83: Indeed, the title of a split off article is something I'm not very fussy about. Your suggestion (Effects of Hurricane Harvey in Texas) fits with the pattern of Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, but there's nothing obviously wrong with 2017 Texas floods, so I proposed the minimal edit. 104.153.72.218 (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually it might turn out that 2017 Texas floods makes more sense as a title given how some future scenarios could play out (94L, Irma). If those would affect the same area, the effects of Harvey cannot clearly differenciated from those other. If 94L won't develop and Irma would affect a totally different area the 2017 Texas floods article could be moved to Effects of Hurricane Harvey in Texas though. --Matthiasb (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Yea they would be able to be differentiated, but regardless, I don't see a point in a sub-article yet, but when more info from Texas gets added to the main article, it can be split off. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump signed away Obama-era flood standards

Not relevant right now. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 02:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Donald Trump signed away Obama-era flood standards just weeks before .. Harvey .. in a bid to get infrastructure projects approved more quickly" Imo worth to mention. Is there a native speaker able + willing to add this to the article ? --Neun-x (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC) Ah yes, political issues are emerging – Preston, Benjamin (29 August 2017). "Trump's rollback of flood protections risks further Houston-style calamity". the Guardian. Retrieved 30 August 2017., Kentish, Ben (28 August 2017). "Trump removed Obama's flood protection laws just days before Hurricane Harvey hit". The Independent. Retrieved 30 August 2017.. I don't speak native, and am currently rather pressed for time, but this is a useful source. Even interestinger, "Myron Ebell, who headed the EPA’s transition team when Trump became president, said the last decade has been a period of ‘low hurricane activity’....", Milman, Oliver (30 August 2017). "Conservative groups shrug off link between tropical storm Harvey and climate change". the Guardian. Retrieved 30 August 2017. . . dave souza, talk 20:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC) Great read that The Guardian article. Another one for that section Billionaires stopping climate change action have a hold on Trump, GOP prokaryotes (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC) These seem to pretty obviously be about a change that is related politically, but materially has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual subject of this article. TimothyJosephWood 22:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC) I think that we should wait for some more coverage before adding it in personally, only a few sources such as The Guardian and The Hill are covering it right now. Certainly wouldn't be against adding it in later, though. Jdcomix (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC) Question: is there any evidence at all that any changes Trump made to flood control standards resulted in any change that in any way affects Hurricane Harvey? If he abolished a number of flood standards in an attempt to get infrastructure projects approved more quickly just days before Hurricane Harvey, did someone get approval for a new infrastructure project in Texas and then actually complete the project in those few days? If not, why are we even discussing this? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC) I'm with Guy Macon here, this is irrelevant to Harvey's article...tangentially related at best. This article concerns the hurricane itself, not flood policies that were changed before the system even hit Texas. If and only if this policy change causes problems in the hurricane's aftermath, then it can be considered for inclusion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC) As was raised above, there are political aspects of this event, in these cases as a result of Harvey, rather than an influence on the storm. The Trump administrations rollback of flood standards and other environmental protection may be affected, and already Ebell and other political lobbyists are denying that climate change was a factor in the formation and impact of Harvey, as they would. Will leave it with others to review what coverage these aspects should have in the article. . . dave souza, talk 16:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Image edits

I uploaded this image of rainfall totals for Harvey, but there is a lot of white space at the left. Would someone else please crop the key, place it over the water (bottom right of image), and then crop out the white part to the left of the map? Upload the file as a new version of that Commons page (click "Upload a new version of this file" in the "File history" section) rather than as a new file through the upload wizard. AHeneen (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Link to charities be a good idea?

Not sure if they did this with Hurricane Katrina, but would it be a good idea to possibly add an external link where users can go to a website that provides a list of organizations that are helping out with relief efforts? Zul32 (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

There's too many to provide a list. Maybe a brief mention that there are charities and certain big-named celebrities helping out. ElCheche (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia is not a directory of places to donate. However, J. J. Watt's fundraising activity is a notable part of the recovery story; things like that should be covered in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems that there is a mention under "Non-governmental organization response" although it is slightly heavy with Operation BBQ. J.J. Watt's story is more notable than brisket and a side of ribs, no matter how tasty they are. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

WPC advisories

Any reason why we're not including them now? Given that's it's current information available, I never understood the resistance against it by some. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The storm is post tropical. Jdcomix (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Even if a storm is "post-tropical," if it continues to have advisories, we should keep them on the main article. EBGamingWiki said "Finally, Harvey's over." This is false. A storm is not "over" just because it is not tropical. It looks like the WPC is planning to issue another advisory, so I think the infobox should be restored with the top reading "Post-Tropical Cyclone Harvey." It doesn't necessarily need to be followed at 2017 Atlantic hurricane season anymore, though. Master of Time (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I was saying over as in it's moving away, and the flooding can die down slowly, but surely. EBGamingWiki (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

What does it being post-tropical have to do with anything given that we include the infobox for potential tropical cyclones? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

PD (US Govt) aerial imagery

If anyone is interested, NOAA is publishing up-to-date aerial imagery relating to this storm here. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request

The sentence "Although Operation BBQ relief has been in effect since May 2011 with the 2011 Joplin tornado, they estimate that the Houston 2017 relief project to be their biggest ever." should read "Although Operation BBQ relief has been in effect since May 2011 with the 2011 Joplin tornado, they estimate the Houston 2017 relief project to be their biggest ever." Note removal of the word "that" after "estimate". Fzzr (talk) 08:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Meteorological history of Hurricane Harvey & Effects of Hurricane Harvey in Texas

Is it time to create these articles? I think there's enough content to warrant an article for each of them. What are you guys' thoughts? Jdcomix (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Main article still has ample room for expansion. Prose is only 31 kb so far. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

In the future maybe as CB's words, but I think the latter may be needed sooner due to the sheer destruction it caused in Texas. The MH could be done when the TCR comes out (which won't be until next year). --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Whoops, I started on the MH here just hours before this thread was posted. Wouldn't mind waiting for the TCR to continue though. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 14:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for Edit: Hurricane's Over

Hurricane Harvey is all done. There's no more.

Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:91de:faa5:7513:4104:862:fffe (talk)

 Done by User:MarioProtIV with this edit. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

CNN flood water testing being censored?

Certainly the rationale that the results are " too in-depth and disgusting" is no rationale at all for removal. No wonder we have trouble getting and keeping new editors when such a simple, well sourced and important content gets thrown out for no good reason at all. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

MarioProtIV pinging editor involved. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd mostly wonder how this is news... I mean this is just what happens when you have floods for longer than just a few hours. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

TheDJ, CNN is a "news" network so if its news to them, maybe it is news even if its happened before; similar to the fact a hurricane is news even though its happened before. Also, if you check the source, you'll see the e-coli levels are higher than the testing service has ever seen before. Otoh, this is an encyclopedia so maybe the content is useful for a general increased awareness of the health risks when wading into flood waters. Just because you had pre-knowledge that all flood waters are loaded with this dangerous bacteria does not mean its common knowledge to the point of not being worthy of mention. I, for example, am quite surprised at how high these fecal content levels are. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Lone highest damage estimate in intro, $160 billion

The lead mentions the USA Today-reported, AccuWeather-based $160 billion damage estimate, but the Aftermath and Damage estimates section is still going by the now old $10 to $50 billion estimates, that were made prematurely but by actual financial entities. At the very least, the eye popping headline making $160 billion estimate should be mentioned and expanded in the article. This is the "Katrina plus Sandy" number that surely has generated more press and opinions that just the original USA Today article. It's literally triple the other estimates, with no explanation. B137 (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I added it to the Damage estimates section, with the revised upward $190 billion figure. B137 (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Death count

I know the storm haven't dissipated yet, but so far all the deaths seems to be from indirect causes (and while one death is too many the count is still thankfully low). Should we even indicate in either the infobox or the article whether there are direct or indirect deaths from this storm?--Halls4521 (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

What is an indirect death though? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Car accident involving emergency vehicle, or someone has fatal heart attack while evacuated? prokaryotes (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd argue in some cases where it becomes more subjective. If someone dies in a fall on mud due to the storm is that direct or indirect? That's not really anything different from an automobile accident. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I think in a Hurricane/Tropical Storm's case some might argue that a direct death would be due to storm surge or wind/debris during the storm.--Halls4521 (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but given how this sort of stuff is hard to verify (ie few disaster listings split up deaths between direct/indirect), we're bordering the WP:OR line here. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• Direct: Person(s) or vehicle swept away, drowning, electrocution when in water, falling debris or falling tree on vehicle or person. Related accidents, and any kind of trauma caused by force of nature. Also heat stroke and/or dehydration due to lack of clean/drinkable water. During one of the past hurricanes, a bus carrying elderly people went on fire, and the poor seniors perished. Also killings by officials with guns. If it's between civilians, then typically over something valuable related to a distaster (food/water), but that's usually harder to evaluate.
• Indirect: Heart attack or stroke during evacuation.

-Mardus /talk 10:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Mardus. So in Harvey's case, would an example of an indirect death be when one person was unfortunately killed, in Rockport, Texas, in a fire that happened during it's first landfall?--Halls4521 (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Halls4521 yes, the Rockport fatality is considered indirect. I've been keeping a userspace tally of the deaths in the US and that's the only indirect death I've found thus far. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Cyclonebiskit.--Halls4521 (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Halls4521, that depends. If the fire was caused by the landfall, then it appears direct to me. If the fire had other causes (overuse of electricity, mishandling of hazardous equipment, carpet catching fire from a burning cigarette, or a blocked chimney), then it's indirect. One could ask, if the fire was caused by a short when water entered the building. That should be determined by an investigation, though the fire and rescue people are very much inundated and overworked with search & rescue, and cleanup. -Mardus /talk 00:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Conversion from inches to mm needs fixing

"The 39.11 in (790 mm) of rain in August made the month the wettest ever recorded in Houston"

Please change 790mm to 993mm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.167.76.70 (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2017‎ (UTC)

 Done ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2017

Remove the sentence fragment that includes the phrase "run to the pump." The sentence fragment occurs after the semi-colon, which is inappropriate as semi-colons are supposed to connect two complete sentences. "a 'run to the pump' ensued" is not a complete sentence; it leaves out the by whom. "Run to the pump" is not a phrase, and removing it does not leave out any important information. SwegWrestlur (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Done Thanks for pointing this out. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Reference #30- I found the article

^ John L. Beven II (August 18, 2017). c_a.005.shtml? Tropical Storm Harvey Intermediate Advisory Number 5A Check |url= value (help) (Report). Miami, Florida: National Hurricane Center. Retrieved August 25, 2017.

Here is the correct link to that article:

http://origin.www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2017/al09/al092017.public_a.005.shtml

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NicoleteT. (talk • contribs) 18:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2017

So far, 51 deaths have been confirmed, so the estimate of 49 is outdated. 68.84.249.199 (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. And please include a reliable source and make your request in the form of "change X to Y". Various reliable sources differ in their estimates, but our wording ("At least") and note that the figure is expected to rise make our coverage factual. Wikipedia is not a news outlet, and we're not going to raise the figure every time a source raises theirs. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Article says no Hurricanes have hit the US since Wilma

Not sure if it's a typo or something, but we definitely have not gone 12 years without a hurricane hitting the United States, I don't want to make the edit myself as I don't have the time, but maybe someone can look into it! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesA 94 (talk • contribs)

• The article states that Wilma was the last major hurricane (category 3 or higher, as defined by the NHC) to hit the U.S. before Harvey, which appears to be correct. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2017

According to data from https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/em/, the affected population in Texas and Louisiana combined is 16 million. I think that this fact is important and should be added to the article. 172.101.50.228 (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. You may also want to consider whether "affected" is adequately specific or if it needs defining. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Houston hurricanes

There's a CATEGORY: Houston hurricanes ; shouldn't this article be a member of that category? -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

 Added. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 05:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request on Sept. 4 Beneath Heading: "Effects in the United States: Houston metropolitan area flooding" -- It is imprecise to say "a levee collapsed along Columbia Lakes in Brazoria County." It "breached," but never collapsed.

Request to change "collapsed" to "breached" in the following sentence: "On the morning on August 29, a levee collapsed along Columbia Lakes in Brazoria County, prompting officials to urgently request everyone in the area evacuate.[66]" The given source is sufficient as it indicates that the levee was "breached" and "some water did get through but it wasn't substantial." I have provided an additional source. Can we please make the change? The levee is still functioning as it should. The neighborhood is dry as of Sept. 4th. Thank you. Kmercermclellan (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 03:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2017

the first paragraph is somewhat misleading, because hurricane Gustav ravaged Texas as a Cat 2 hurricane, which yes is not a major hurricane, it must be cat 3 or greater to be known as that, but when it hit Lousiana its wind speeds were off 105mph, instead of a Cat 3 hurricane of 111mph Source http://www.hurricanescience.org/history/storms/2000s/gustav/ Victorkeesee (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Also I don't see Hurricane Gustav mentioned anywhere in the article. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 03:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Lead sentence is confusing

The lead sentence chooses to describe how this hurricane was verus a previous hurricane. However, this makes it seem like this hurricane landed in 2005 e.g. "Hurricane Harvey was the first major hurricane to make landfall in the United States [since Wilma] in 2005". I propose that the sentence "The eighth named storm, third hurricane, and the first major hurricane of the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season, Harvey developed from a tropical wave to the east of the Lesser Antilles, reaching tropical storm status on August 17." replace the lead sentence with minor modifications. Mount2010 (talk) 05:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The lead sentence is both uncited and extremely misleading, it doesn't account for Hurricane Sandy (Category 3), or even Hurricane Matthew (Category 5) last year. 216.84.105.2 (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Hurricane Sandy was a Catergory 2 when it made landfall in the U.S., and Hurricane Matthew was a Category 1 when it made landfall in the U.S. Keep looking. You'll not find any Category 3+ to make landfall in the U.S. since Wilma, but you'll certainly learn more about hurricanes in your futile search. --Jayron32 13:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Most expensive since Sandy

Should that fact be mentioned in the article or should we wait for an official source before making any changes to the article 216.24.109.110 (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

It would be best to wait until estimates stabilize. Titoxd^(?!?) 19:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2017

Reqosted (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Reqosted: What's the requested edit? —C.Fred (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Audio player of Al Sharpton is irrelevant

The audio sound byte of Al Sharpton and the mayor of Houston is not pertinent to Hurricane Harvey; I believe that it is on here just to bring politics into this article and it's a way for more anti-Trump rhetoric to be displayed on Wikipedia. We all know that it is on here spread false negativity about Trump. I also noticed that when listing the names of celebrities who donated $1 million, that conveniently Trump was left off of the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thndwolf86 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Astros hastag

the home games have the #astrosharvey hashtag for flood relief. Notable to put n the sports reactions.Lihaas (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

How about no. It just adds clutter. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 04:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Then what d o yu cherry pick to put? There is a relevant section.Lihaas (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

How about nothing. Good day sir! Heyyouoverthere (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Sidebar

Info Box on right says tropical cyclone and not hurricane. Its called Hurricane Harvey. Should be changed to hurricane. Right now its factually wrong.24.44.69.210 (talk) 02:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

A hurricane is a tropical cyclone. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 08:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2017

It says that it was the first major hurricane since 2005, however hurricane Sandy was in 2012 and cost $75 billion in damages. Thereby making the 05 comment in correct and neglecting the destruction of hurricane Sandy. 47.206.99.73 (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.

Such queries are likely to continue to appear as long as the phrase "major hurricane" is used in the lead sentence without being defined. (The wikilink is apparently not enough.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 12:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

It was explicitly noted once. I have added the note to other uses of the word "major". --Jayron32 17:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

You now have three identical notes all saying what a major hurricane is. Could someone combine them, please. I am at work and for reasons, I won't login while here to fix it. refer to Template:Efn for how.
To answer the OP, Sandy was only a Cat-2 when it made landfall in the U.S., therefore not considered a "major" hurricane. 216.195.128.250 (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Putting a note at almost every single usage of "major hurricane" in the lead is akin to WP:REPEATLINK. Just the first time should do. (Also Sandy wasn't a tropical cyclone when it made landfall, it became post-tropical 2.5 hours before that.) ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 08:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2017

Add a sentence under the Foreign government response section about the support that Mexico has sent "volunteers from the Mexican Red Cross, firemen from the border state of Coahuila and rescue teams from Guanajuato began arriving in Houston to assist." Shawn174 (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done with slight rephrases to avoid direct copying. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 03:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2017

In the sidebar... "Fatalities 71000 confirmed" change to "Fatalities 71 confirmed" OniSyphon (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)OniSyphon

Already done 72 confirmed jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Death Toll

So it looks like the death toll on this article has been updated today after the Texan governor stated that 82 perished in his state + 1 in Guyana. However there are other indirect deaths in other states including 2 in Arkansas, 1 in Kentucky and 1 in Tennessee. Why are they not included? --Kuzwa (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Jersey City

The article's 'Subsidence' section states that: "Areas affected by subsidence, such as Jersey Village, are among the worst affected by the flooding from Hurricane Harvey.[152]" Not so (and not part of the cited article).

The good news: according to the JV mayor's Sep. 2017 newsletter, "Jersey Village received over 30” of rain during the storm.... I am pleased to write that the City received no reports of home flooding during Hurricane Harvey from bayou flooding or street drainage." This improvement over the 2016 season is attributed to ongoing flood mitigation efforts. Twang (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

On that basis, I've commented out the claim, since you've access tot he sources you're welcome to remove it entirely. Recall vaguely seeing that flood mitigation focussed on getting water away from homes, and letting streets or roads flood to act as canals. . . dave souza, talk 08:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Direct and Indirect fatalities... Shouldn't that be mentioned, as it is with other hurricanes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:880:C000:9A00:FC27:6364:775A:85E0 (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

It should be but hasn't been yet due to uncertainty of details of all the deaths. --Kuzwa (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Brief overview in political context

Potential source, with links to other references: . . . dave souza, talk 16:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

References

2nd Paragraph 1st Sentence needs an edit

Harvey was the first Category 4 - Harvey was not Category 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.59.92 (talk) 2:21 am, 10 September 2017, last Sunday (6 days ago) (UTC+8)

The intent there, I think, is to convey that it is the first major hurricane (C3+) to strike at that intensity since Hurricane Wilma. This is not an error. Master of Time (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

This sentence also needs sources. Niacarual (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The lead doesn't usually require sources. If you're looking for the sources though, they're found in this section. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 10:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Criticism of government response to Hurricane Harvey

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 result of this discussion was a strong consensus to merge, no need to wait another 13 days.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

---

As a one time event, it is unlikely this specific topic will continue to grow and there is only enough content now to be a section of the main article. giso6150 (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge select content here. This article is not long enough to mandate invoking Wikipedia:Summary style-necessitated splitting, and any text there can be handled here in the existing prose. --Jayron32 01:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge I can see no rationale for having a separate article. We don't have a separate article for e.g. The effects of Hurricane Harvey in the Caribbean and Latin America so why on this particular topic? --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Merge - The article in question is quite minimal and bare in content. Also, the main Hurricane Harvey article isn't that long, and as other editors have stated, we don't have separate articles for the effects/impacts of Hurricane Harvey. Just merge the articles together. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Merge Its content isn't much to have a article of it. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk)
• Strong Merge: Like LightandDark2000 said, the article in question just focuses on a subtopic of the recent Hurricane Harvey; given that there is little to say, it should become a section within this article.--OfficerAPC (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Merge – Entire article is basically a few sentences heavily criticising the US government, and can (and should) be rewritten and merged in with a more impartial tone. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 10:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Merge, but prefer that the article is rewritten The article should be rewritten entirely. Its paragraphs aren't even complete sentences and appear to be in a bullet-point format. I don't doubt that an article such as this could be warranted and would have sufficient information, but for now this article feels very out of place on Wikipedia. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I request that whoever merged the article in discussion into Hurricane Harvey wait for this discussion to close before performing the merge. There clearly was a snow consensus to merge it, but the action shouldn't be done until a formal closure. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2017 (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.

Effects in the United States: Texas: Houston metropolitan area flooding: rainfall record

The first sentence in this section needs revision, I believe. It currently reads "Many locations in the Houston metropolitan area observed at least 30 in (76 cm) of precipitation,[65] with a maximum of 64.58 in (164.0 cm) in Nederland.[66]" I clicked through to the original source (National Weather Service in Shreveport, Louisiana "Post Storm Hurricane Report") and found that it had been updated at least twice since the archived September 21st version and that in these updates the rainfall amount for Nederland had been reduced to 60.58 inches. I do not know the source of the revision, but I assume it was based on revised data available to the NWS, maybe even the discovery of a typo. As far as I can tell this would still be "the wettest tropical cyclone on record for both Texas and the United States,[67]"

I recommend that the maximum be changed to 60.58.

--Rjdegray (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Move to top importance?

Given Harvey's very high damage totals, it might be a good idea to move him to top importance on the tropical cyclones project. ChowKam2002 (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Jdcomix did that some time ago. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 05:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

First sentence

Hurricane Harvey in August 2017 was the costliest tropical cyclone on record, and confirmed as the second-costliest natural disaster worldwide, inflicting nearly $200 billion in damage primarily from widespread flooding in the Houston metropolitan area.

I don't think this is a good first sentence. Per WP:LEADSENTENCE: "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." It should start by saying what it was (a tropical cyclone), where it hit/what countries or regions it affected and when it hit. Everything else can come after that. Prinsgezinde (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Costliest hurricane on record?

In terms of raw dollar amounts, Harvey has the highest cost of any U.S. hurricane on record, but if we adjust for inflation, which more appropriately reflects real values, Hurricane Katrina still holds the #1 spot. Why are we not adjusting for inflation? TornadoLGS (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I actually mentioned this much earlier at Talk:Hurricane Katrina#Hurricane Harvey comparison using recent estimate and adjusting for inflation. Nobody cared to respond, though. Master of Time (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

In either case, the IP using the edit summary "Regarding the damage estimates from Hurricane Harvey." is clearly committing WP:SYNTH to use Wikipedia as a WP:CRYSTAL ball. --Jasper Deng (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Currently, the NHC has the damage estimates for Harvey on par with Katrina, although this is subject to change, (and I do think that a new damage estimate will increase Harvey's total beyond Katrina's). While Katrina of 2005 still would be the costliest tropical cyclone on record *adjusted for inflation*, I don't think inflation values are more appropriate than yearly values, as inflation values basically say "the damage estimate if this storm happened today", which that storm cannot happen today. --CooperScience —Preceding undated comment added 20:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Harvey and Katrina

Harvey and Katrina are NOT tied with each other for the costliest hurricane. One article said Katrina's cost was $160 billion. So could you please fix the cost of Harvey and Katrina? Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:c400:357:e0db:2c3b:7f17:b56c (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

No. Katrina and Harvey are tied as the costliest tropical cyclone on record. The $160 billion value for Katrina is adjusted to inflation. Personally, I do not believe that adjusting for inflation is an accurate method, as raw dollar amounts between years have the same significance impact-wise, and only the monetary value changes. For now, Katrina and Harvey will remain tied, a destructive duo of powerful storms, as the costliest tropical cyclone on record. Due to damage surveys and re-estimates still ongoing for Harvey, it is possible that Harvey will end up surpassing Katrina (again) as the costliest tropical cyclone on record, not adjusted for inflation. CooperScience (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Leading sentence / paragraph

It feels very unnatural to directly start compare it to Hurricane Katrina in the first sentence, without giving some basic information first. Would someone minde to revise that a little bit?

Thanks! --fireattack (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done ~mitch~ (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2018

Harvey and Katrina are NOT tied for the costliest hurricane, because one article that's not on Wikipedia said Katrina's cost was $160 billion in damages, which meant Harvey is the second-costliest Atlantic hurricane on record at $125 billion. So could you please fix are things about costliest hurricanes and about Katrina's cost? Please. 2601:401:C400:357:D905:4CA:467:CA5F (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

We don’t typically use the inflation-adjusted value (esp for Katrina) and NHC seems to be more lenient in using unadjusted totals, although they sometimes mention the inflation adjusted value. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 00:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.--B dash (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Everyone on Wikipedia, listen to me. You are all wrong. An article that's not on Wikipedia said Katrina's cost is $160 billion in damages, making Harvey the 2nd-costliest Atlantic Hurricane on record. Please fix things about Harvey and Katrina and this chart? Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:5d47:ec19:349d:7d60:5c0f:8d39 (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I just don’t know how to add a source. I want you guys to add sources. Katrina's cost was $160 billion. Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:c400:357:9080:3b9d:5281:368e (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Here's a source, and it says they both clocked in a $125b. So at this point, reopening this question yet again without providing a source is starting to get openly disruptive. GMG^talk 20:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

This website has mentioned that the damage of Katrina is $160b, but that is inflated value. The original damage of Katrina is also $125b. --219.78.190.62 (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment: To the OP: The official records of damage cost for storms (Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Blizzards, etc.) do not account for "adjustments for inflation". Articles that mentions the adjusted cost usually note something like "if/when adjusted for inflation..", because it is not apart of the official record cost. Wikipedia (for the most part) tries to go by the official record cost, as determined by NOAA & the WMO (which is the cost of the event AT the TIME of the event), even when noting the adjusted cost. In Katrina's case, the damage cost in 2005 was $125 billion, and NOT $160 billion, thus Harvey now ties with Katrina.--Halls4521 (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Would you please listen to the website that said Katrina's cost is $160 billion? Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:c400:357:b131:18fc:4e20:9e9f (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Per above, it is not adjusted for inflation. Until you can provide a source that says $160b at the time, it will remain. The fact the National Hurricane Center states here that they were equal, makes it highly unlikely such a source exists. To add your source, literally pasting the URL here is good enough. — IVORK _Discuss 21:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The actual cost for Katrina is $160 billion. Why, because a source said that. So please listen to THAT source, and use the inflated version. Please.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:c400:357:b131:18fc:4e20:9e9f (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

 No. A consensus would need to be formed to change this accross all articles, clearly there are multiple edittors that feel damage at the time is more reliable than adjusting all for inflation. — IVORK _Discuss 21:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Ivork's statements. If we adjusted for inflation, we would end up with skewed values and would constantly have to uldate every single storm for inflated values, which would be much too tedious. Cooper 16:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to note that Wikipedia has a template for calculating inflated money values, so we would not need to constantly update hurricanes. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Energy section, last paragraph

Hi. This is re: "However, the increase was not as extensive as Hurricane Katrina due to the development of more fuel-efficient vehicles as well as fracking technology having been refined since Katrina to allow oil drilling in shale areas such as the Marcellus Formation.[85]" The citation doesn't support the portion of the sentence that is "due to the development of more fuel-efficient vehicles as well as fracking technology having been refined since Katrina to allow oil drilling in shale areas such as the Marcellus Formation." I recommend ending the sentence after "Hurricane Katrina." An additional problem with the balance of the sentence, besides not source-supported, is that the Marcellus formation produces natural gas and not oil. Without getting too deep in the weeds of the complexity of the workings of the U.S. energy portfolio and infrastructure, I'll just leave it there. Thanks. RobertaBoucher (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)RobertaBoucher, 9-6-19

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2019

2602:306:8BB9:4E20:45BD:3B7F:A705:DCD0 (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

HurricaneNerd changed Harvey's costliest rank to 2nd when it is obviously tied with Katrina according to the NHC. Please change to "Tied as costliest tropical cyclone on record." Thanks! 2602:306:8BB9:4E20:45BD:3B7F:A705:DCD0 (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC) The user's change: User's contributions

 Done ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)