Talk:Hurricane Hilary

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 August 2023 (2)[edit]

Please add under the impact section that 6.00 in (152 mm) of rain fell in Bristlecone, setting a preliminary state record. Source: https://x.com/nwswpc/status/1693460051946807403?s=46&t=w8Gp3NcH6th9VzdY5gs4Pw (I know it’s a tweet but it’s directly from the WPC) 2610:130:109:12:6DCE:2418:948B:2085 (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE It was actually 9.2 inches. Also, Oregon, Idaho and Montana set records (3.29, 3.00 and 2.30 respectively). Please add all this information to the article.2610:130:109:12:6DCE:2418:948B:2085 (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton: https://x.com/nwswpc/status/1693843314368467074?s=46&t=w8Gp3NcH6th9VzdY5gs4Pw 173.23.45.183 (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter is not a reliable source. This doesn't prove anything. LoveHop123 (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
exclamation mark  This, from NBC News: "four states — Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Oregon — broke their rainfall records,[1]. Key storm impacts and reliably sourced. Drdpw (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reinstating edit request because it wasn’t added to the article yet. (It also needs to be updated on List of wettest tropical cyclones in the United States.) 173.23.45.183 (talk) 01:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edit  Pending – Drdpw (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drdpw Are you going to make the edit? It’s been over an hour since you put pending. 173.23.45.183 (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do not be so impatient. Drdpw (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In general, it is considered impolite to close an edit request saying pending and then not do it. Normally I wouldn’t care so much, but this affects rainfall records in 4(!) states and so is important to be added ASAP. 173.23.45.183 (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your impatience and expectation of immediate request fulfillment is what's impolite. Please curb it in the future. Drdpw (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Drdpw (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry.[edit]

I'm sorry for all the trouble. Also, deleting the source was an accident and I was trying to get it back for you. I'll just stay out of this discussion. Thanks. LoveHop123 (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there is anything else you want me to delete (including warnings on your talk page regarding this article), let me know on my talk page. Again, I'm very sorry. User:LoveHop123 01:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated earthquake[edit]

@Drdpw: If an earthquake is brought up on an article about a hurricane, I think it's important to unambiguously explain that it's just a coincidence, and why it is. I can't really imagine a situation where it's worth mentioning an earthquake happened at the same time, but *not* worth mentioning that they're unrelated. I've personally seen several people guessing they were related, so a debunk doesn't seem frivolous to me, personally. Of course it's obvious to us that it's not related, but I think it's not fair to assume everyone reading the page will implicitly know that already. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When mention of the earthquake was initially included in the article, the paragraph also noted a decade-old research study on the possible cause/effect relationship between hurricanes and earthquakes, and implying that there might have been one in this instance. Lengthy discussions ensued (up page). I proposed the current paragraph as a compromise. You make a good point in favor of mentioning that the two were unrelated. Has the USGS issued a statement to the effect that they were not related? Drdpw (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The USGS has not issued an official statement to that effect on this specific earthquake, but having read through the discussion above I'll address the points brought up. (Lovett 2013) covers aftershocks of a recent (and confidently unrelated) earthquake, which he notes are "[mostly] less than magnitude 2" - and yes, there is evidence that low-magnitude earthquakes & aftershocks can be related to storm systems. Furthermore, the cited Palm Beach Post article, which seems to be mainly referencing This paper is not talking about conventional earthquakes per se, but instead long, low-frequency seismic tremors which are too slow to be felt and behave fundamentally differently to more conventional, shorter-duration, higher-frequency earthquakes. Also, said study only detects an 'equivalent' magnitude of 3.5, which is a bit removed from the 40x more energetic 5.1. This discussion with geologist science communicator Lucy Jones does not cite its sources but she reiterates the statement that nobody has ever found evidence that individual storm events can cause major (generally informally defined as M>3) earthquakes. This statement from the USGS says that there is no known link between any weather system and an increased/decreased risk of earthquakes aside from the aforementioned tremors. This is the only study I can find claiming any sort of link to major earthquakes - and even this study rests on some shaky footing, calling certain earthquakes related to multiple direct-hit category 5 hurricanes from years prior and the supposed large-scale long-term changes in the topography and water table of the region. It seems safe to say that if they only found a weak link with that, then single tropical storms meaningfully causing major earthquakes within hours of their arrival would stick out like a sore thumb in their analysis. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Damages[edit]

How much damages did the storm do? [2] The headline of FOX5 says that there was minimal damage but then later says it was just normal (and it also might only be tallying Baja California's and San Diego's damages). While looking up "Hurricane Hilary damages" brings up article after article describing catastrophic damages. ✶Mitch199811✶ 15:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitch199811 AccuWeather gave a preliminary estimate of $7 to $9 billion in damage and economic loss in the United States. SF Chronicle reported this detail with attribution. I am not sure if AccuWeather is reliable for this especially since other preliminary damage calculations published so far such as this and this do not indicate total damage that high. Should we add this or wait for more reports to come out? StellarHalo (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The community determined years ago that AccuWeather is not a reliable source for damage estimates as they have consistently been wildly inaccurate (sometimes by a factor of 10 or more). The most reliable we have for Hilary at the moment are the assessed $126 million in Riverside County and overall $600 million from insurance companies. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we hold off until Hilary makes NOAA's list once calculations are finalized and total costs determined. Drdpw (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Drdpw: it doesn't appear the Hilary will be added to the billion-dollar disaster list. Idalia has been added which was after Hilary. I think it's fine to use reliable sources to add non-NOAA damage totals until one is available. At the very least the $126 million is directly from Riverside County Government so it's fine to add. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most definitely. Drdpw (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Canada[edit]

This storm made it to British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, shouldn't it merit some mention? --64.16.13.2 (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It might. Upper-level energy from Hilary absorbed by the jet stream was undoubtedly pulled that far north, but has the regional Storm Prediction Centre made mention of Hilary-related winds and rain reaching there? Drdpw (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Damage totals[edit]

We really got to put one in soon. It’s off the noaa billions list, and Aon likely doesn’t have an update until January at earliest. We have the $600m estimate - should we put that in? 70.23.39.2 (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The $600 million estimate has already been added to the article. JayTee⛈️ 17:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Hilary&oldid=1219338723"