Talk:Hurricane Harvey/Archive 1

"Reusing" a name
Is it usual for a storm which has fallen completely out of named range to reuse the same name if it restrengthens? I thought it wasn't the usual practice? Circéus (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Great question! Speaking as an educated layman, not as a meteorologist... the standard seems to be whether there is "reasonable continuity" in the system's recognizability as a low-pressure feature between earlier and later instances of tropical development. A very illustrative example is the Atlantic storm(s) named Ivan in 2004. Let me refer you to the Redevelopment and demise section of the Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan article, and its references. — Jaydiem (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move - August 24, 2017
Hurricane Harvey (2017) -> Hurricane Harvey - This is definitely the primary topic, it's the first major hurricane to make landfall in the US in 12 years. Jdcomix (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Because impacts have been minimal so far. The threat of being a catastrophic hurricane doesn't mean it is one (yet). Not the primary topic yet (WP:CRYSTAL). TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 19:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll close this for the time being and reopen it after landfall. Jdcomix (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Reopened. !votes are appreciated. Jdcomix (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support the move. While normally we should be cautious, this is going to turn into an obviously retired name very quickly. CrazyC83 (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as well – strongest incarnation and about to break a 12-year old drought of majors in the US tonight. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 21:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - This system is definitely going to be the most notable Harvey, not that there was much competition. 2601:987:401:A275:FDD6:6605:E559:D382 (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Consensus is clearly to move, can you move the page please? Jdcomix (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Category 3 Declaration
I remember from around 12:30 PM CDT that Harvey became a Category 3, if anyone wants to add the times the category bumped up. Randomphoenix03 (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

More images here
https://twitter.com/Space_Station/status/901178755502153728 Victor Grigas (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * and here http://www.dobbins.afrc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1290556/hurricane-hunters-track-harvey/

Victor Grigas (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * and here https://twitter.com/NWSNHC?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nhc.noaa.gov%2Ftwitter.php

Victor Grigas (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * more here: https://www.facebook.com/uscoastguardairstacorpus/posts/1618177171566167

Victor Grigas (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The Six and Final "Harvey"????
From what I hearing this storm will very highly likely be the six and "final" Tropical Storm to be named "Harvey" (the third [and final] to become a Hurricane and the second [and final] to to be rated a Category 4).

It is reported as having caused (and is causing) "Devastating" and "Catastrophic" damage due to storm surge, high winds, debris, high floods, tornadoes, etc.

As mentioned by Power~enwiki and Titoxd on their thread above, Harvey "the first major hurricane" to make landfall in Texas "since Bret (1999), and the first hurricane (whether major or not) since Ike (2008)." It's also the first Cat. 4 to make landfall there since Carla (1961).

It's the first major hurricane to make landfall in the United States since Wilma (2005) and the first Cat. 4 since Charley (2004).

And (as of 8/26/17 2:00 CDT) it's still going!!. (Guess we'll see if they retire the name next year.) --Halls4521 (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Still shows up as a cat 1


 * I'm sorry, but I can't tell what help you're looking for. Does something in the article need changing? What, based on what sources? Huon (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Charley
Anyone else have a problem mentioning Charley in the lead since that was the last Cat 4 to hit the USA since Harvey and Harvey was the strongest storm to hit USA since Charley? YE Pacific Hurricane  04:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, its redundant to mention charley when a stronger hurricane (Wilma) hit the United States. What's next Harvey is the first hurricane to hit the United States that began with the latter "H" since "insert hurricane"--Fruitloop11 (talk) 08:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Wilma wasn't stronger though in terms of winds. YE Pacific Hurricane  17:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * On one hand, Wilma made U.S. landfall as a Cat.3 while Charley did it as a Cat. 4; on the other hand Wilma peek strength was as a Cat. 5 (which is what a lot of people will only recognized, thus people will read "Wilma a Cat. 5 Hurricane was the last major/strong hurricane to hit the U.S. till Harvey. (The problem is Hurricane Matthew last year was also a Cat. 5 and also hit the U.S. - though as a Cat. 1/Trop. Storm.)--Halls4521 (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, Cat. 3 is still a major hurricane, Wilma did make major U.S. landfall. And Charley is mentioned in the article.--Halls4521 (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't know how many people here know more than the people on the Weather Channel, but the storms that the Weather Channel compared Harvey to on the bottom banner were Carla (the last Category 4 storm in Texas) and Charley the last to make landfall as a Category 4 in the U.S. Why are we as a collective group overruling the weather Channel (see this story). Furthermore, we are a tertiary news source and summarizing the secondary sources which largely compare Harvey to Carla and Charley ABC News, Time magazine, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Side not for post-dissipation discussion
Hey, first time talking to you guys here during the storm....I was looking through the Weather Channel's interactive map of harvey's path, and I noticed something that I at least found rather interesting. What I found was that the moment of peak intensity...came at Fri Aug 25, 2017, 10:00 PM CDT. At that time Harvey was making its final landfall in the city of Rockport. I found this interesting because in my experience at least, this is a rarity: where a hurricane makes landfall AT PEAK strength. It's far more common for them to start the process of losing "steam" and weaken somewhat before landfall occurs. For the purpose of recording it for post-storm discussion...the conditions inside the eye were as follows: Winds - 130 mph Pressure - 938 mb

pressure before this reading was at 941 mb, and post-rockport was 940 mb, which squarely puts peak intensity at 938....right on top of Rockport. On a more serious note, I find that nearly unthinkable that the storm kept intensifying up until the final moments before landfall and completely blasted the city of rockport.....this one's gonna be a doozy for sure. GokuSS400 (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I would like to remind you that this talk page is not a forum for people to chat about Hurricane Harvey. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 03:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

potential for stalling and "feet of rain"
No mention of this widely publicized speculation yet. Not time for it, too speculative for now to maintain hurricane article standards? B137 (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The talk of feet of rain continues from major sources that can be easily cited. The European model foretasted 60 inches of rain.Highly respected computer model projects up to 60 inches of rain


 * There is good reason to suspect that the "60 inches of rain" diagram and report is a mistake resulting from applying U.S. measurement labels to quantities that were actually calculated in centimeters. It is, after all, a European model. 60 cm is roughly 24 inches, which is in line with other current forecasts of the storm's total rainfall. — Jaydiem (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * There was some talk about it being a translation error, but it came across as joking. Are you just speculating? B137 (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually FEET is in line with what i've been finding from the NHC and Weather Channel. Here's the link to the NHC's newest graphic advisory: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/news/AL092017_key_messages.png?008 "an additional 15 - 25 inches" "isolated storm totals as high as 40 inches" while not 60, certainly a lot more than 24.  Not to mention this is in addition to the rain that's ALREADY been dropped over the past 2 days of interaction with Texas. Also I found this graphic on the NHC's website, running totals of the rain dropped thus far from Harvey in Texas over the past 2 days: http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/discussions/nfdscc1.html So far Austwell has received 15.1 inches, and if we combine that with the prediction of an additional 15 - 25 inches... the total becomes 40.1 inches of rain dropped maximum in that area alone.  --GokuSS400 (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Yup, I'm quite certain it was not a 'mistake', not a simple imperial translation error. B137 (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Now they are moving the number back up to 50", from the 40" range cited yesterday into today. B137 (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Info suggestions
Houston to receive more rainfall in a few days, than annually (~49 inch), tornado warnings already record amount, national guard deployed. Unprecedented event per NWS This event is unprecedented & all impacts are unknown & beyond anything experienced. https://twitter.com/NWS/status/901832717070983169 prokaryotes (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

2005 model for Houston flooding (months before Hurricane Katrina) :  presentation TGCP (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

video to migrate if anyone wants to
https://www.dvidshub.net/video/546389/hurricane-harvey-texas-national-guard-rescue-operations Victor Grigas (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Protection
Any reason why this page appears to be under both pending changes and semi-protection at the same time? (Log for reference.) ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 10:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Probably just an oversight (in the sense of not noticing something). Pending changes was applied and then two days later semi-protection following a request at RfPP. The pending changes protection could be removed since it expires before the semi-protection but it's not doing any harm. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Coldplay song: "Houston"
Not sure a standalone article is justified, or if we even want to mention Coldplay's tribute song in this article, but I threw some sources together about the song here: Talk:Houston (Coldplay song). Thanks, --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

NPOV tag
So other than the "Environmental factors" section, what else is disputed here? Having the tag at the top of the article does little to address the specific problem. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What problem exactly? prokaryotes (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Knowledge 87 responded why he added a NPOV tag, I am looking for more balanced opinions
 * Feel free to extent the section, to add more content, as long it is reliable sourced, aligns with the event, and is based in reality and facts. prokaryotes (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

National Climate Assessment
"The most recent draft of a sweeping climate science report pulled together by 13 federal agencies as part of the National Climate Assessment suggested that the science linking hurricanes to climate change was still emerging. Looking back through the history of storms, 'the trend signal has not yet had time to rise above the background variability of natural processes,' the report states." --Source: The New York Times.

The consensus of the climatologists who wrote the National Climate Assessment trumps the opinion of one climatologist. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The information you've been reverting isn't about the"trend signal", [trend in what?] it's about the impacts of various factors once the hurricane happened. Multiple climatologists are cited in the info you've deleted, the one you've highlighted is cited many times in the report. . .  dave souza, talk 04:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * And so does the EPA:


 * "According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, "The total number of hurricanes and the number reaching the United States do not indicate a clear overall trend since 1878" and "changes in observation methods over time make it difficult to know whether tropical storm activity has actually shown an increase over time." --Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I'm somewhat blinded by the bold print, and I'm probably one of those dumb, dense people, one of "those who are having trouble telling mainstream science from fringe theories". Drmies (talk) 03:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, if you doubt that that the EPA and the National Climate Assessment are reliable sources for determining what the mainstream scientific view is then you certainly appear to be having trouble telling mainstream science from fringe theories. Michael E. Mann is almost certainly right about many things, but his views on global warming and tropical storms are clearly fringe. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Guy, with all due respect you seem to be misrepresenting the National Climate Assessment linked below, and don't seem to understand that Mann isn't commenting on the overall trend, but on the impacts of agreed factors. . dave souza, talk 04:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC) Mann's statement: "In conclusion, while we cannot say climate change “caused” Hurricane Harvey (that is an ill-posed question), we can say is that it exacerbated several characteristics of the storm in a way that greatly increased the risk of damage and loss of life. Climate change worsened the impact of Hurricane Harvey." We should restore the information, with more emphasis on that caveat, shown in the context of no clear trend as discussed in the Assessment and mentioned in the NYT. and mention the comments of other scientists quoted in the NYT article. . dave souza, talk 04:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The NYT's brief comment about the draft report is about "trend signal", this section isn't about the trend, but about the impact once the storm occurred. There is clear consensus about these factors, as discussed in detail in the draft report. It also discusses the recent "drought" in hurricanes [or tropical cyclones, TCs] making landfall in the US, commentary which has been superseded by TC Harvey. Read the Draft National Climate Assessment for clarification, particularly '''Chapter 9. Extreme Storms'''. There's a lot of relevant detail, expanding on the points in the Key Findngs that "Both theory and numerical modeling simulations (in general) indicate an increase in tropical cyclone (TC) intensity in a warmer world, and the models generally show an increase in the number of very intense TCs." Also, "Tornado activity in the United States has become more variable, particularly over the 2000s, with a decrease in the number of days per year with tornadoes and an increase in the number of tornadoes on these days (medium confidence). Confidence in past trends for hail and severe thunderstorm winds, however, is low. Climate models consistently project environmental changes that would putatively support an increase in the frequency and intensity of severe thunderstorms (a category that combines tornadoes, hail, and winds), especially over regions that are currently prone to these hazards, but confidence in the details of this projected increase is low." Harvey is affecting a region prone to these hazards. . dave souza, talk 04:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * We are not talking about tornados or thunderstorms, and Hurricane Harvey is neither. Why do you bring them up? We are talking about tropical cyclones (Hurricanes and Typhoons).


 * Would that be that same chapter nine of the same Draft National Climate Assessment (section 9.2) that clearly says:


 * "Detection and attribution of past changes in tropical cyclone (TC) behavior remaim a challenge ... there is still low confidence that any reported long-term (multidecadal to centennial) increases in TC are robust... This is not meant to imply that no such increases in TC activity have occurred, but rather that the data are not of a high enough quality to determine this with much confidence. Furthermore, it has been argued that within the period of highest data quality (since around 1980) the globally observed changes in the environment would not necessarily support a detectable trend of tropical cyclone intensity (Kossin et al. 2013). That is, the trend signal has not had time to rise above the background variability of natural processes."


 * That chapter nine? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Guy Macon, this article here is about Hurricane Harvey and the related coverage from reliable sources, not about cherry picked report conclusions. The broader spectrum of resreach on various topics belongs into the main space. This was already pointed out yesterday in above section. prokaryotes (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I do not believe that any amount of peer-reviewed sources will cause you to abandon your fringe theories, but here is another one for you to ignore:


 * "Observed regional climate variability comprises a number of factors, both natural and anthropogenic, and the response of tropical cyclones to each factor is not yet well understood. Long-term trends in tropical climate due to increasing greenhouse gas can be regionally dominated by shorter-term decadal variability forced by both internal and external factors such as changes in natural and anthropogenic aerosol concentrations ... In concert with these natural and anthropogenic external forcings, internal variability can play a substantial, and possibly dominant, role in regional decadal variability. Thus, when interpreting the global and regional changes in tropical cyclone intensity shown in the present work, it is clear that framing the changes only in terms of linear trends forced by increasing well-mixed greenhouse gasses is most likely not adequate to provide a complete picture of the potential anthropogenic contributions to the observed changes."


 * Source: Trend Analysis with a New Global Record of Tropical Cyclone Intensity, NOAA/National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina, and Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin --Guy Macon (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * And another:


 * "It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate)."


 * Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory --Guy Macon


 * And another: Recent research in this area suggests that hurricanes in the North Atlantic region have been intensifying over the past 40 years. Since the mid-1970s, the number of hurricanes that reach Categories 4 and 5 in strength—that is, the two strongest classifications—has roughly doubled. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/hurricanes-and-climate-change.html prokaryotes (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Seriously? You actually have the unmitigated gall to reject multiple citations to peer-reviewed science with a non-peer-reviewed article from the Union of Concerned Scientists? Either come up with a proper peer-reviewed scientific paper of take your fringe theories elsewhere.. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

And yet another:


 * "The term climate change detection as used in this abstract refers to a change which is anthropogenic in origin and is sufficiently large that the signal clearly rises above the background “noise” of natural climate variability (with the “noise” produced by internal climate variability, volcanic forcing, solar variability, and other natural forcings). As noted in IPCC AR42, the rise of global mean temperatures over the past half century is an example of a detectable climate change; in that case IPCC concluded that most the change was very likely attributable to human-caused increases in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.


 * In the case of tropical cyclones, the WMO team concluded that it was uncertain whether any changes in past tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the levels due to natural climate variability. While some long (century scale) records of both Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm counts show significant rising trends, further studies have pointed to potential problems (e.g., likely missing storms) in these data sets due to the limited density of ship traffic in the pre-satellite era.  After adjusting for such changes in observing capabilities for non-landfalling storms, one study3 found that the rising trend in tropical storm counts was no longer statistically significant.  Another study4 noted that almost the entire trend in tropical storm counts was due to a trend in short-duration (less than two days) storms, a feature of the data which those authors interpreted as likely due in large part to changes in observing capabilities.


 * A global analysis of tropical cyclone intensity trends over 1981-2006 found increases in the intensities of the strongest tropical cyclones, with the most significant changes in the Atlantic basin5. However, the short time period of this dataset, together with the lack of “Control run” estimates of internal climate variability of TC intensities, precludes a climate change detection at this point."

Source: Article in Nature Geoscience


 * How many citations to reliable sources will it take? A hundred? A thousand? I have yet to see a single argument saying that any of the sources I am citing are unreliable.


 * "A satisfactory answer to the question of what sets the annual global rate of tropical cyclone formation, roughly 80 per year, has thus far evaded climate scientists. Several empirical relationships have been derived to relate tropical cyclone formation to large-scale climate variables, such as genesis potential indices, but there is to date no established theory relating tropical cyclone formation rate to climate."


 * Source: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science


 * --Guy Macon (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thst's a strawman, no-one's arguing that the annual global rate of TC formation has been determined. The point is that, although multiple complex factors are involved and the hurricane can't [yet] be attributed to climate change, one of the factors is global warming which is likely to have contributed to the exceptional circumstances and impact of Harvey. As Hayhoe said in the NYT article quoted for the National Climate Assessment, 'tropical storms and hurricanes do gain energy from warm water, so the unusually warm water that has accompanied climate change “can have a role in intensifying a storm that already exists.” More moisture in the atmosphere, she said, means the amount and intensity of rain associated with hurricanes and other storms is growing.' An aspect of Harvey which should be proportionately covered, instead of dismissing sources on the basis of your synthesis from previous research. . dave souza, talk 21:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * So why don't you edit the section to say that multiple complex factors are involved and the hurricane can't [yet] be attributed to climate change? That is indeed the mainstream scientific view. It doesn't say that now. Why not? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Time, dear boy. If you can add that using the sources discussed, that will be most welcome and a starter for continuing improvement. See also the WMO statement below. Will try to get on with it when time permits. . . dave souza, talk 21:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Top of article, redundancy re: Wilma
The top of the intro says Harvey is the first major hurricane to hit Texas since Wilma, but then it repeats this by saying it is the strongest hurricane to hit Texas since Wilma. Just suggesting these sentences might be merged.Cdg1072 (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The first sentence is wrong. "Texas" there should be the USA as a whole.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The first two sentences of the article (as of 8/29/17) is:Hurricane Harvey is an active tropical cyclone that is causing unprecedented and catastrophic flooding in southeastern Texas. It is the first major hurricane to make landfall in the United States since Wilma in 2005, ending a record 12-year period with no hurricanes of Category 3 intensity or higher making landfall in the United States. It's not meant that it's the first major Atlantic hurricane since Wilma, but that it's first since Wilma to make landfall on the U.S. at major hurricane intensity (Cat. 3 or higher). All the other major hurricanes had weakened to Cat. 2 or lower by time they made U.S. landfall (thus they weren't major hurricanes upon landfall).--Halls4521 (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Environmental factors undue issue
Yes I know there is an undue tag in the article related to climate change. Like it or not we here on Wikipedia have to take a neutral opinion on the issue as some readers out there feel that this issue is "fake". All I am asking for are some opinions by other scientists showing little to no link, doing a brief search I would some mentioned by Fox News and the like. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * NPOV doesn't mean we represent all sides equally, so no, the side of cranks and pseudoscientists and fringe theories about how climate change is fake do not get any coverage here. The fact that we don't give them any space in this article is not a violation of NPOV, in fact to exclude them IS npov.  If Fox News is taking them seriously, that's the first sign that we should NOT.  The article is NOT imbalanced because it fails to treat seriously the delusions of crackpots.  -- Jayron 32 15:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Only cranks and pseudoscientists with delusional claims that make global warming sound worse should get coverage here.  "Facts be damned" is standard Wikipedia policy.  12.48.88.1 (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree as this is a political issue. Even if you were to go by WP:FRINGE then it would still be notable enough for inclusion as you have the sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. No one is saying climate change isn't real. If there are enough sources saying that attributing a single storm to climate change is incorrect, then it's this website's duty to include those sources. Jdcomix (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is the source I found: "University of Washington atmospheric scientist Cliff Mass said that climate change is simply not powerful enough to create off-the-chart events like Harvey's rainfall." "You really can't pin global warming on something this extreme. It has to be natural variability," Mass said. "It may juice it up slightly but not create this phenomenal anomaly." - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know how I feel about "Duane Thresher" opinion (cited by Breitbart). If we are going by level of respect then yeah she is considered a crackpot by sources like the Washington Post, but she did graduate with a degree in the field. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Cited by Breitbart" should be enough of a warning to stay well clear. We document reality here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree, but I do find the Fox source more credible. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's some more links that may be useful for that section:, , , . I included the last one because I thought the section can talk about the environmental factors of the regions vulnerability to floods and storm surge.--Halls4521 (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * While the section doesn't have to be neutral, the subject should not be given undue WP:WEIGHT. The thing about climate change is that with just about every significant natural disaster there are news articles saying something like 'an X% increase in Y made this disaster Z% worse'. I think there has been enough media reports about climate change in relation to Harvey that it is notable enough to mention in the article. However, the section should be kept relatively short so as not to give it too much prominence (see WP:PROPORTION). While saying that climate change is fake is a WP:FRINGE theory, the section could (and probably should) include some discussion from people who don't think that climate change was as much a factor with Harvey. Said another way, I am concerned that the section may only quote/present the climate scientists who are more agenda-driven to place more blame on climate change than reasonable. For example, I saw one BBC News story on YouTube that had a discussion between their meteorologist and a man (not sure what his job was) who was placing a lot of blame on climate change and suggesting that the day will be soon that people will be able to bring lawsuits against polluters and national governments for their role in climate change. In contrast, even the The Atlantic article used to support some of the section states this before delving into the climate change aspects of the story: "Climate scientists, who specialize in thinking about the Earth system as a whole, are often reticent to link any one weather event to global climate change. But they say that aspects of the case of Hurricane Harvey—and the recent history of tropical cyclones worldwide—suggest global warming is making a bad situation worse." I really think we should be cautious about which statements about climate change should go in the article and that it doesn't just present the most extreme view. AHeneen (talk) 04:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Ike or Bret?
Which is correct? "Hurricane Harvey is a tropical cyclone currently threatening to make landfall in Texas as a major hurricane, ..."
 * "the first to hit the state since Hurricane Bret in 1999"
 * "the first to hit the state since Hurricane Ike in 2008"

Power~enwiki (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Both. It's the first major hurricane since Bret, and the first hurricane (whether major or not) since Ike. Tito xd (?!?) 23:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

What about Hurricane Sandy in 2012?

The second sentence is misleading if not inaccurate. Ike made landfall in 2008, Irene made landfall in 2011 and Sandy in 2012. "Major" doesn't apply as a qualifier because Sandy was the second costliest hurricane in the states, so that's major. It should be removed. -Fogelmatrix (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * A major hurricane is defined by the National Hurricane Center to be a hurricane at or above Category 3 intensity on the Saffir–Simpson scale. Neither Irene nor Sandy was at that intensity at landfall in the US. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 10:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Track map uselessness
Can we get a blow up of the track map over Texas? The superimposed dots are making it far less useful than usual at the normal size and interval. A blowup inset might even be the way to go.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing I can do to remedy this at the moment unless I upload a new file. The present image is protected until Sep 3 since it's on the main page. In the process of swapping it out though. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , now they have a satellite map rather than the track map. Not sure if it is still protected.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's protected until Sep 3. Just asked to have it unprotected. I'll update it then and see what I can do about an insert for Texas. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Working on a version with an insert. Here's the first version of it, likely going to zoom in a bit more for the insert but any additional suggestions? ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for your efforts and responsiveness. However, the point of zooming in is to try to zoom in enough to separate the dots that are clumped together on top of each other and obscuring each other. You would need to zoom in way more than that for a zoom to be useful. I don't think the proposed insert enables us to see anything that we couldn't see with the basic map.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm...We start running into a resolution issue if I make things smaller and zoomed in farther. Since we don't have a version of the track generator that can produce labels or even country borders, this types of inserts are rather difficult. Everything has to be done manually, but I'll try and see what I can do. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , I don't know what type of software situation you are dealing with. If you are just doing a digital zoom, maybe the insert won't be useful. If you can do a true optical zoom, where we can see details of a lot tighter crop that would be helpful.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

30 deaths
The New York Times reports that the death toll has increased to 30. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/us/hurricane-harvey-storm-flooding.html?referer=


 * WP is not a newsticker. --Neun-x (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Should the article include mention of climate connections?
Since editor Jdcomix and MarioProtIV, removed the entire section on climate change, with the argument it is fringe, the question to other editors if we should keep this section. Do you think the article should include the section on climate change (click link to read well sourced article section on climate change)?


 * Keep Per above. prokaryotes (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Have a brief mention in the lede - I feel that having an entire section is both FRINGE and UNDUE. Jdcomix (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you mentioned on your talk page, the amount of references as a reason to entirely remove the complete section without discussion, notice that literally every major online news source has at least 1 story about Hurricane Harvey and climate change. The amount of refs is not a removal reason, or an argument it fits fringe views. prokaryotes (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand as further reliable sources cover this aspect. Indeed,WP:FRINGE is about ideas which depart significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in the particular field – hurricanes are a climate event, and the mainstream expert view is clearly that climate change due to global warming is significant. The news articles refer to published research, and this mainstream view should be given wp:due weight. Ignoring climate change is the fringe view, and as noted above coverage of other hurricanes including hurricane Sandy duly cover climate change. . . dave souza, talk 17:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In this case, couldn't we have an article titled Hurricanes and climate change talking about this? Jdcomix (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We do, Tropical cyclone. That section looks large enough for a wp:summary style spin-off, but maybe best to keep it in the context of the main article – you could discuss that there. . dave souza, talk 18:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This article is about Hurricane Harvey, which includes the coverage by reliable sources. The article has a reasonable size, and the section in question is rather small. Why exactly remove said content from the article space? prokaryotes (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep in a highly reduced form. Some mention of the role of climate change in connection to the strength and severity of this storm should be included as a sentence or two in another section.  Creating an entire section for it seems unwise, since every hurricane will have the same influences due to recent climate change, it seems unnecessary to include a dedicated section like this for this one hurricane.  A sentence or two would suffice.  I strongly disagree that this is FRINGE material, this is highly relevant and widely-agreed-upon science.  However, that doesn't mean it wasn't WP:UNDUE; bad writing is still bad writing.  -- Jayron 32 18:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The section as added was pretty concise, note that it also covered the non-climatic effect of drilling on local sea level rise – a more general heading will be useful, other aspects are covered by sources shown above. . dave souza, talk 18:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: And I don't think the section was too long, each significant hurricane event can have it's own unique climate change section, because there are local variations that make each impact unique, such as the prevalent oil drilling in the area this hurricane hit. At first I thought the earlier climate change attributions in the news might be premature, but they cited valid science and scientists, and were not as blindly speculative as I thought. B137 (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, but oil drilling is not "climate change"; you're conflating different human-caused environmental impacts. A broader section on unique human-caused issues that affected the outcome of the storm is fine, but multiple paragraphs under the header "climate change" is just bad writing.  -- Jayron 32 20:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is why I think the heading should change, or perhaps best to have an overall heading such as Environmental factors with Climate change as a subheading. The source highlights coastal subsidence due to drilling, but there may also be natural factors. The Boomtown, Flood Town article shown in above discusses the impact of lax planning allowing extensive paving of previously absorbent soil, increasing the impact of flooding. All points worth a mention. . dave souza, talk 20:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. Besides talk of Climate change can also be considered a "political debate/argument", even if it's considered that wrongfully; an article about current natural event can thought of as inappropriate for discussing political views.--Halls4521 (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's all fine, but 1) We don't need any header or sub-header on climate change because 2) we don't need more than a sentence or three, maybe a paragraph, on it. Such a small amount of text doesn't need a header.  I'm fine with including all of that under another header, but "climate change" isn't it.  -- Jayron 32 20:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

This is STRICTLY MY OPINION....I think that it is TOO EARLY at this point to speculate on whether global warming/climate change contributed to this storm or not. Additionally I think that it is best to wait until NOAA and the NHC complete their post-season analysis before we start tackling this topic due to the loaded/controversial nature of it. The reason I say we should wait until NOAA and the NHC complete their post-season analysis is because if we DO breach this topic, it's important that only the facts be presented. At this point in time, the experts regarding this storm are still NOAA and the NHC, and their exclusive focus right now is simply on reporting the storm's condition and getting people to safety and such. Once the storm dissipates and all the recorded information concerning Harvey is available to be reviewed by all...that's when the discussion of Climate Change can come in (again this is all MY OPINION, for whatever it's worth). GokuSS400 (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOR – your unsourced opinions are irrelevant. . dave souza, talk 22:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Include it in the inevitable article on Meteorological history of Hurricane Harvey. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That could be useful for detail, which should of course be summarised in this main article, WP:SUMMARY STYLE. . . dave souza, talk 22:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

It is a joke to have a section on climate/global warming. Get rid of it. This is a hurricane folks. There have been hurricanes for hundreds of years, long before the invention of the internal combustion engine. Including this section is nothing more than pandering to the pseudo-science of Al Gore. Remember it was Gore who said we only had 15 years left--about 17 years ago. All this pseudo-science will have to get scrubbed from wiki eventually when the fad fades and real science once again emerges, so might as well drop it now. ChickDaniels (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOR – your unsourced opinions are irrelevant. . dave souza, talk 22:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Besides, it is pretty clear why all the flooding. Instead of the hurricane quickly moving inland and falling apart, or getting pushed east to Louisiana, and inland from there, the storm stalled and sat over the Texas coast for a week. When it rains incessantly in one place for a week, there is going to be a lot of flooding in that one place. This isn't hard to figure out.ChickDaniels (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Nor is it hard to read the sources provided about research that examines why this storm stalled in the way it did. Go thou, and find reliable sources. . . dave souza, talk 22:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources and scientists who have exposed the myths of the climate change movement, especially the global warming end of it. But your mind is closed to it anyway so its not worth the time. But in the end it will be proven to be the hoax that it always was. Just like Al Gore's predictions which have already failed to come to pass. ChickDaniels (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Here is but one article, not that you will read it or open your mind to it: http://cornwallalliance.org/2017/08/why-houston-flooding-isnt-a-sign-of-climate-change/?utm_source=Cornwall+Alliance+Newsletter&utm_campaign=0909c84ff3-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_08_28&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b80dc8f2de-0909c84ff3-131695449 ChickDaniels (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * HAHAHAHAHA. That's a good one! I thought for a minute you were serious.  Thanks for the laugh.-- Jayron 32 03:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation isn't a rs. . dave souza, talk 05:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Laugh all you want, but the author of that article has full credentials: "Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D., is Principal Research Scientist in Climatology in the University of Alabama’s National Space Science & Technology Center. When he worked at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, he and Dr. John Christy, who heads the NSSTC, jointly received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. He is a Senior Fellow of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation."

Keep you mind closed to your own hurt. The facts are hurricanes come and they go. We had since 2005 since a major hurricane event hit the USA. But back in 2005 there were all sorts of boastful claims among the proponents of man-caused global warming. But then the devastating storms went away for a dozen years.ChickDaniels (talk) 12:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of climate scientists do not share your opinion despite what you say. I'm not suggesting this article make hard statements about the relationship between hurricanes (including Harvey) and global warming when there is still data being analyzed on the specifics of this relationship, but claiming that global warming is a hoax is a fringe view among climate scientists. Master of Time   ( talk ) 03:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Master of Time is correct. In fact, claiming that global warming is a hoax is a fringe view among all scientists, not just climate scientists. There are legitimate minority views about how much of it is caused by humans or about whether various proposed solutions will be effective, but nobody in science contests the basic facts regarding the rate of global warming over the 20th century (warming from the 1910s-1940s, a hiatus from the 1940s-1970s, and resumed warming from the 1970s-2000s). Alas, some politicians disagree, but the scientific consensus is clear. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Multiple reliable sources say that this is a fringe theory and that the mainstream scientific view is that we do not have enough data to connect either the frequency or severity of tropical storms/hurricanes with climate change. See Talk:Hurricane Harvey. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As discussed there, multiple sources confirm the mainstream scientific view that climate change has contributed to sea level rise and sea surface warming, both of which have worsened the impact of TC Harvey, regardless of the robustness of the relationship between CC and frequency or severity of TCs. Two different aspects, and regrettably we now have significantly more data then when the Assessment was drafted. . dave souza, talk 05:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:SYNTH is not allowed here. The mainstream scientific view is that we do not have enough data to connect either the frequency or severity of tropical storms/hurricanes with climate change. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Guy, you're synthesising a relationship between past research and this specific event, and ignoring nuances in the various sources. Please be more constructive and propose detailed improvements rather than trying to keep out valid content. . dave souza, talk 18:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: While the section does risk going into WP:POLD (as does "Urban Planning", "Coastal subsidence" and "Environmental factors" as a whole), it's still an informative section. Such a section exist in other articles about Hurricanes, and it does discuss both for and against the argument of such.--Halls4521 (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose inclusion. Other hurricanes don't have this section. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, comparable Hurricanes have such section, Sandy Hurricane Sandy Relation to global_warming or see Hurricane Katrina and global warming. prokaryotes (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't know about the article Hurricane Katrina and global warming. I don't like it; it's mostly "this is a summary of that week's newspaper articles". Power~enwiki (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep section about climate change, as this argument has already been included in The Guardian, citing the Clausius–Clapeyron relation, which is very plausible. &mdash; Climate and other interested scientists know about it, but the relation (equation) has not been publicized in the mass media. For example, I learned about the equation today. - Mardus /talk 10:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Environmental factors
Now that this info is included in a section with this name, I would point out that it omits the local sea level rise mentioned in the lead. Since a fact should not be isolated in the lead like that, it should be added to the section. Also, as some of the rise is caused by subsidence, which is attributed to local drilling, that should be mentioned to. In fact, it is more relevant as an 'environmental factor' than it would be in a 'climate change' section, which it only indirectly relates to. B137 (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If anything it should be taken out of the lede and moved to the main bulk of the section. Lede sections are supposed to be a brief summary of the entire article, and really should not be introducing material that is not expanded elsewhere in the text. Tito xd (?!?) 00:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Multiple reliable sources say that this is a fringe theory and that the mainstream scientific view is that we do not have enough data to connect either the frequency or severity of tropical storms/hurricanes with climate change. See Talk:Hurricane Harvey. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to be misreading the sources, see linked discussion. Even the NYT article you've cited notes the point that, while predictability of trends is uncertain, there's agreement about rising ocean temps and rising sea levels worsening the impact when the drought in TCs landfalling in the US ended with Harvey. The frequency of TCs is uncertain, but once is enough. . dave souza, talk 04:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Guy Macon, citation needed, and you seem to ignore all the reliable sources. prokaryotes (talk) 04:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There seems be, as far as I can tell, plenty of reliable sources showing discussions on Climate/Environment/Global Warming is not "a fringe theory"; and the believe of such maybe due to bringing politics into it. Please, give your reliable source showing any discussion of it is wrong, because most of what I see is backed by most experts in the scientific and meteorological communities.--Halls4521 (talk) 05:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As now added to, the NYT has an article by Noah S. Diffenbaugh, a professor of earth system science at Stanford who has published research in this topic area. "Climate science has repeatedly shown that global warming is increasing the odds of extreme precipitation and storm surge flooding. ... Although seas have risen and warmed, and the atmosphere now holds more moisture, we can’t yet draw definitive conclusions about the influence of climate change on Hurricane Harvey. Hurricanes are complex events, and the role of historical warming in their development continues to be studied. But it is well established that global warming is already influencing many kinds of extremes, both in the United States and around the world, and it is critical to acknowledge this reality as we prepare for the future. ... [studies have shown] that global warming has already increased the odds of record-setting heat waves ... and influenced record-setting wet and dry events ... including the extreme rainfall that caused floods on the central Gulf Coast last year. There is now so much evidence of increasing extremes that anyone who understands the science — or trusts the scientists in their government doing the research — should expect that records will continue to be broken." . . dave souza, talk 06:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I've just reworded the section slightly to focus more on how global warming & climate change were thought to have increased impacts from Hurricane Harvey alone. Also, a reminder that the debate whether global warming & climate change are affecting hurricanes in general—which the discussions above seem to be trending towards—belongs solely in Tropical cyclone; let's keep the article here focused on Harvey. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 12:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: Guy's assertion that this is a "fringe theory," that is exceedingly hard to swallow when CNN is reporting that "the dominant scientific consensus is that climate change is increasing the odds that storms will be more powerful and destructive." Many other sources say the same/similar things. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I an citing peer-reviewed scientific journals written by qualified climatologists. You are citing CNN.
 * I have so far provided the following sources (see Talk:Hurricane Harvey):
 * The United States Environmental Protection Agency
 * The Draft National Climate Assessment
 * National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
 * Nature Geoscience
 * Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science
 * ...and I can provide many more.
 * Please name your "many other sources", limiting yourself to actual climate scientists as opposed to magazine articles and cable news networks. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Political factors
The climate change coverage here should not be about science, models or statistics. It should be about the political debate, the effect on and of Trump's denial policies (it is long established here on Wikipedia that climate denial is real and can be mentioned by name), the coverage this is leading to in the US and international media, and the political debate. The coverage and the debate is huge. To ignore it in a Wikipedia article would clearly be wrong. --Nigelj (talk) 11:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, this is an article about a Hurricane. Wikipedia's coverage about the greater political debate regarding climate change is fine, but can be handled elsewhere.  This is not the correct article for such information.  -- Jayron 32</b> 12:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Related Hurricane Katrina and global warming Media coverage of Hurricane Katrina Political effects of Hurricane Katrina prokaryotes (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

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

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
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 Summary style-necessitated splitting, and any text there can be handled here in the existing prose.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 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? --<strong style="color:#555555;">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 &#34;Roach&#34; 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)

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)

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)


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

First sentence
<BLOCKQUOTE>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.</BLOCKQUOTE> 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. 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)

✅ ~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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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 Katrinas 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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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)
 * 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)