Talk:Hurricane Milton: Difference between revisions

:(as a small point, I always find that these sections fit better as a subsection in the meteorological history subsection) [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 14:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

:(as a small point, I always find that these sections fit better as a subsection in the meteorological history subsection) [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 14:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

::Per your suggestion, I changed the section heading to {{teal|Influences of climate change}}. [[User:Drdpw|Drdpw]] ([[User talk:Drdpw|talk]]) 17:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add a sentence at the end of the tornado outbreak section that says the following: “Overall, the tornado outbreak caused $681.8 million in total.” Source:https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/listevents.jsp?eventType=%28C%29+Tornado&beginDate_mm=10&beginDate_dd=08&beginDate_yyyy=2024&endDate_mm=10&endDate_dd=09&endDate_yyyy=2024&hailfilter=0.00&tornfilter=0&windfilter=000&sort=DT&submitbutton=Search&statefips=-999%2CALL MrBeast370 (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC) strike sock request — Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done HydrogenPowered (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From their About Us: “Climate Central uses science, big data, and technology to generate thousands of local storylines and compelling visuals that make climate change personal and show what can be done about it. We address climate science, sea level rise, extreme weather, energy, and related topics. We collaborate widely with TV meteorologists, journalists, and other respected voices to reach audiences across diverse geographies and beliefs.”

Their stated goal is basically to drive hysteria. This has no business in an encyclopedic article. 47.202.156.31 (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That may make it biased towards showing climate change but by no means do I take that description as a source intent to “drive hysteria”. It doesn’t seem inherently unreliable just from that. Departure– (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like if we were that worried about hysteria, many American local news stations and the Weather Channel would be out. Still though, their information is useful. This also seems like it may be an issue of WP:DUE, but it is cited and attributed to my satisfaction. ✶Quxyz✶ 15:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When the Climate Central info was first added, I questioned it. It seems a bit much to make direct links to climate change with the usage of their own models. Also, there is definitely a SPA doing this on previous hurricane articles. I would be hesitant for models that are brand new. The comparison that is stated is their own base model. I’m sure it can be validated as it’s open source:[1] but how useful is the statement:

when it made landfall at 115 mph? The sustained wind speed is rounded down to the closest five or zero which puts the storm at the lowest possible Cat 3. We know looking at the Saffir-Simpson scale is just one aspect of damage from the storm. Do we have any secondary or tertiary sources that are possible for this subject? (or WP:AIES, the “analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim”) – The Grid (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change Flagler County total rainfall to 12.5-19.14 inches.^[1] 2600:1702:4AAD:0:39DF:7942:92DE:B2F1 (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Link leads to 404 error page. LizardJr8 (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the AMP from the link does make the page work. [2] Haven’t checked to see if it’s been changed since this edit request. – The Grid (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This could be an Andrew5 sock but I’m not sure TyphoonHurricaneCyclone (talk) 05:14, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to bring attention to two issues with the article at present.

Firstly, this article contains a lengthy section about congressional hearings similar to what was removed from the Hurricane Helene page. Should whatever consensus reached on the Helene talk page apply here in regards to that section or is this substantially different?

Secondly, the Hurricane Research Division has updated its tables of US hurricanes for the 2024 season. It officially marks Milton as only bringing category 2 winds to the state, as the TCR previously hinted at. This seems to be a rather unique situation, so how should this be handled? Should this still be listed as a landfalling major hurricane despite the cat 3 winds remaining offshore? Should the costliest US hurricanes template label it as a 2 or 3? Do we keep around that climate modeling that suggested Milton would have made landfall as a 3 without climate change? MCRPY22 (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we think we need a separate MH page for Milton? Just a brief glimpse the other stuff makes this article pretty long, and Milton’s unusual track and such could be of benefit to expand upon in greater detail. Just want to see if anyone’s opposed to that idea or we can still expand the MH in the main page without getting too large page wise. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – this article is still under 6,000 words. There’s room for expansion. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I’ll probably just write up what I was gonna put in that article, and just put in the section instead. I think as it stand that section could use some revising, especially after what I’ve seen so far with your revisions on Camille. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That works. My philosophy is that it doesn’t hurt if an important storm article has a few paragraphs (up to five) for its met history. I used to think that sub-articles were a more efficient way of describing information, but often it leads to information becoming outdated, the links die, there’s a better chance vandalism isn’t fixed because it isn’t viewed as much. But that’s just my philosophy now, it’s changed over the years. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The section heading ‘possible link to climate change’ casts doubts on the influence of climate change that is not reflected in the sources. None of the three cited sources state it is possible that climate change had no effect. That’s not surprising: A zero-sized effect would be physically impossible, given how much ocean and atmosphere have warmed. The question is the size of the effect: different methodologies will differ in their estimates of how much and what of Milton can be attributed to climate change.

In terms of compromise, I’d be happy with:

• Influence of climate change

Or maybe (even though that’s more vague)

• Climate change assessment

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(as a small point, I always find that these sections fit better as a subsection in the meteorological history subsection) —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per your suggestion, I changed the section heading to Influences of climate change. Drdpw (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]