Misplaced Pages

Talk:Hurricane Harvey: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:58, 29 August 2017 editKnowledgekid87 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers96,776 edits NPOV tag?← Previous edit Revision as of 14:59, 29 August 2017 edit undoKnowledgekid87 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers96,776 edits →NPOV tagNext edit →
Line 264: Line 264:
==NPOV tag== ==NPOV tag==


So other than the "Environmental factors" section, what else is disputed here? - ] (]) 14:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC) 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. - ] (]) 14:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:59, 29 August 2017

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hurricane Harvey article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 4 days 
In the newsA news item involving Hurricane Harvey was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 28 August 2017.
Misplaced Pages
Misplaced Pages
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconHouston (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Houston, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HoustonWikipedia:WikiProject HoustonTemplate:WikiProject HoustonHouston
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconDisaster management High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSouth America: Guyana / Suriname Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Guyana (assessed as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Suriname (assessed as Low-importance).

Template:Hurricane

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Louisiana / Texas Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana (assessed as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as High-importance).
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hurricane Harvey article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 4 days 

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 (/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, @Cyclonebiskit: can you move the page please? Jdcomix (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 Done ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:23, 26 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)

"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)

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. Titoxd 23:34, 25 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)

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)

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 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 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)

The Six and Final "Harvey"????

Not a forum. Jdcomix (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

From what I hearing this storm will very highly likely be the six and "final" Tropical Storm to be named "Harvey" (the third to become a Hurricane and the second 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

check-markThis help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.
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)

Side not for post-dissipation discussion

Not a forum. Jdcomix (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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)

@GokuSS400: 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)

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 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 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 23:26, 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) : "Models show 'massive devastation' in Houston". Retrieved 28 August 2017. presentation TGCP (talk) 13:36, 28 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)

@TonyTheTiger: 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)

Event attribution

There's a lot of climate change attribution going on already, a relatively new field that so far usually waits till after an event to study it and maybe come to conclusions. Some of this early stuff is probably a little too speculative, but there's been a lot of it, compared to other modern events. B137 (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

This is just FYI. Another place that has an example for storm attribution is the article for hurricane sandy and note that climate change aspects of this article fall under WP:ARBCC. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the hurricane Sandy article, I'd expect a section to be included as sources give coverage. At this stage, the most appropriate place for a brief mention of context is the lead, so I've added a couple of sentences – "The storm struck a coastline which has seen sea level rise exceeding 6 inches (15 cm) in recent decades, partly due to coastal subsidence caused by oil drilling or other activities, and partly an effect of global warming. Increased regional sea surface temperatures have led to more moisture in the atmosphere, causing more rainfall, and have contributed to the strength of the storm." cited to Mann, Michael E (28 August 2017). "It's a fact: climate change made Hurricane Harvey more deadly". the Guardian. Retrieved 28 August 2017. That's about the existing situation intensifying the effects of the storm, not storm attribution. . dave souza, talk 15:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Oops, didn't notice the Climate change section, so have now added some expanded info from the above. The brief mention in the lead remains valid. . dave souza, talk 16:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't have access to edit this wikipedia page, but should we note that the relative sea level rise has been 6 inches? I think that would be more accurate to what's explained here. --12.231.202.7 (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
A rise has to be relative to some previous state, so that's implicit: got a source saying more? . . dave souza, talk 18:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources

I'd expect more sources to cover this in due course, but the small section so far has been deleted with the claim that more sources are needed: since it's clearly the mainstream expert view, that goes agains due weight, but sources can be listed here, covering climate and other factors. . . dave souza, talk 18:32, 28 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)?

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)
(edit conflict) We do, Tropical cyclone#Global warming. 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. --Jayron32 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. --Jayron32 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 #Sources 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. --Jayron32 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.--Jayron32 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)

(edit conflict) 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)
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)

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. Titoxd 00:34, 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 #Sources, 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. ... 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#Climate change; let's keep the article here focused on Harvey. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 12:44, 29 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages article would clearly be wrong. --Nigelj (talk) 11:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

No, this is an article about a Hurricane. Misplaced Pages'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. --Jayron32 12:07, 29 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)

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", 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 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)

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)

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)

Categories:
Talk:Hurricane Harvey: Difference between revisions Add topic