Talk:Hurricane Beryl

Several sources are claiming that Beryl's intensity is connected to climate change, would it be worth it to mention? ✶Quxyz✶ 16:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

These days, the media loves to go on about climate change after any significant weather event. The exact influence of climate change on Beryl is not something that is going to be established in a matter of days - that will require months of modelling and analysing the environmental conditions that Beryl has experienced up to this point, so as to separate natural trends from anthropogenic influence. Generic commentary about how higher water temperatures result in higher intensities or quicker intensification should be covered in Tropical cyclones and climate change; commentary about this season's abnormally high sea surface temperatures should be in 2024 Atlantic hurricane season#Seasonal summary and even that will be difficult to evaluate until after the season. Hurricane Harvey#Climate change is a good example of what a climate change-related section should look like in a specific tropical cyclone's article. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 17:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

In summary: no, not yet, especially if there's nothing actually specific. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 17:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree. I think the line suggesting that Beryl's strength was due to human-caused climate changed be stricken from the article. Since the climate is indeed changing (human-caused or otherwise) there's no need speculating what the source of the change is. Therefore no reason to include that sentence. 52.144.111.232 (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Possibly. But I’d say it might be a little too early to to that. Are there any reputable sources saying this? And if so, who? West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Quxyz: Yes, if reliable sources are reporting that, then so should we. What are the sources? Nosferattus (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Id have to go throw a few sources to find exact webpages but I remember that at least CNN reported on it. ✶Quxyz✶ 17:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Here are three sources that talk about the record warm temperatures at least: [1][2][3]. ✶Quxyz✶ 17:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

None of those three sources make a direct link between CC and Beryl. France24 has one sentence on the increased frequency of extreme weather events, and the Guardian only has generic statements on increasing tropical cyclone intensity. AP at least mentions three factors contributing to the record Atlantic SSTs (La Nina, negative NAO, CC-induced slowing AMOC) but I'm of the opinion detailed commentary on the record SSTs should go in the season article instead. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 17:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

CNN isn't an unbiased source. Are there any scientific, NGOs, and neutrally funded organizations saying so? 52.144.111.232 (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Any connection to climate change should be mentioned in the meteorological history, such as the warm water temperatures. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Anything else would be speculation and conjecture. Drdpw (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think a separate CC section is needed, since that's just part of the met history. Can we get a discussion on whether this section is even necessary? The fact that the waters were warm is more of a factor of the season, not this individual storm, so some of that content might be inappropriate for this article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I honestly don't know why record SSTs aren't in the season article. I am on the fence on climate change being added, however, enough news stations mentioned it where I might as well ask. ✶Quxyz✶ 17:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have no opinion on whether it's a separate section or not. I just wasn't sure where to put it. Since the current coverage is linking the warm waters specifically to Beryl's unprecedented development (rather than the hurricane season, which hasn't really developed yet), it seems like it makes sense to have it in this article. Although I imagine people will be talking more about the hurricane season in general once it is later in the year. Nosferattus (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

In recent years, it's become a bit of a cottage industry for news sources to link storms with climate change. That doesn't mean it is or it isn't happening, but climate is about long-term averages, not individual events like this. That's why it's important to document the various factors at play, and include them where appropriate. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

True, but this specific storm seems to be focusing some attention on the issue. For example, the Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines apparently was chewing out Europe and the US for not meeting climate goals as Hurricane Beryl was smashing through SVG.[4] That's not something that happens with every storm. Nosferattus (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Interesting! I'd consider that "aftermath", since there's a political element to the storm that has exasperated the effects, namely the inability to get anything done on climate change. These leaders of island nations are rightly frustrated. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do we want to scoot some of the CC stuff into a new aftermath section or is it too early? ✶Quxyz✶ 18:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Definitely not too early for an aftermath section. In the coming days, we'll be getting reports out of the islands how they plan to rebuild and restore everything. A political leader's first statement would be a great start to the section. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well now the content has been deleted entirely, due to it being "speculative". Regardless of it being speculative or not, it is being discussed by the media (and scientists and politicians) and it seems like the discussion is significant enough to warrant inclusion per WP:WEIGHT. Nosferattus (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Putting these here for reference... Nosferattus (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• BBC - Entire article is about link to climate change. Includes quotes from several scientists.
• Salon - Entire article is about link to climate change. Includes quotes from several scientists.
• Time - Entire article is about link to climate change. Includes quotes from a climate scientist.
• Forbes - Several paragraphs of discussion. Includes quote from climate scientist.
• AP News - Two paragraphs and an audio interview discuss the link to climate change.
• NPR - Audio interview about link to climate change.
• Washington Post - Four paragraphs discussing the link to climate change.
• The Guardian - Article about the Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines complaints about climate inaction in the wake of Hurricane Beryl.
• Mother Jones - Another article about the statements by the Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines.
• France 24 - One sentence about link to climate change.
• Axios - Several sentences interspersed in article, although only one specifically links climate change to Beryl specifically (rather than to the season). Includes a quote from a climate scientist.
• NPR - One paragraph about link to climate change.
• Reuters - Section about link to climate change.
• Haaretz - Two sentences about climate change link.
• CNN - Small section on link to climate change. Includes quote from climate scientist.
• The New York Times - One paragraph about the link to climate change.
• Los Angeles Times - Two paragraphs about the link to climate change.
• The Times of India - Several sentences interspersed in article.
• CBC/Radio-Canada - Another story about the statements by the Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines.

Put your opinion here.

• Yes - There's significant discussion of this in reliable sources, including coverage entirely devoted to this specific topic, so per WP:WEIGHT it should be mentioned. Nosferattus (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
• Maybe, Conditions of the Atlantic should be mentioned though. Already in article. ✶Quxyz✶ 21:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  My opinion has changed slightly, I'd prefer to wait for a few months for some case studies to be done on Beryl. ✶Quxyz✶ 17:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Strong support I think it goes without saying that Hurricane Beryl is an unprecedented storm of the likes that we have never seen before. If you can reliable sources for this topic, I'm all for it. ChessEric 21:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
• Leaning no on specifically covering the media discussion of climate change and Beryl, but yes to covering the facts about unseasonably and persistently very warm sea surface temperatures in the Main Development Region being conducive to early rapidly intensifying tropical development as occurred with Beryl. Drdpw (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  • Neutral to leaning no - don’t really care what you all do when it comes to mentioning climate change. But I lean ever so slightly against it just based on the fact that climate change is a months and years long process.

  West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  @WestVirginiaWX and Drdpw: To be clear, no one is saying that climate change caused Hurricane Beryl. Climate scientists are saying that climate change contributed to the unusually warm waters that helped fuel Beryl's unprecedented intensification, which is not a particularly controversial statement.[5][6][7] And even if it was, Wikipedia doesn't take sides in controversies, we just report what reliable sources say (with attribution), and there is no question that this is a major aspect of the media coverage of Hurricane Beryl (see above). It's a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR for us to omit such a significant aspect of the media coverage just because we personally disagree with it or find it speculative. Nosferattus (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I agree on that. Still going to stay neutral in this one though. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  A bit of me still has a feeling that it may be fear mongering. Based on what User:Zzzs says, it might just be better to wait a few months for some case studies to be done on Beryl. ✶Quxyz✶ 13:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  @Quxyz: If there's fear-mongering, we report the fear-mongering. That's how Wikipedia works. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth and WP:WEIGHT. We don't pick and choose what to report based on our own personal opinions. If RFK Jr. says vaccines cause autism, we report that. If Trump says the election was stolen, we report that. Even if you think climate change is just a conspiracy theory, we still have to "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". Nosferattus (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Wait Although people are saying it has a connection to climate change because of the warm waters, we should wait until further, concrete evidence strongly supports the hurricane's connection with climate change. I'm not saying it wasn't caused by climate change. I'm just suggesting we wait a little longer until a scientific consensus is reached. --_ZZ^Z'S 03:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Changing my vote to No since the media is not a reliable source, especially for topics like this. When more peer-reviewed academic sources about Beryl's relationship with climate change are published, then we can use those instead of whatever social media says. --_ZZ^Z'S 15:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Weak support as media coverage is clearly extensive and notable as demonstrated by Nosferattus. Of course, media sources are significantly less ideal than published and peer-reviewed academic sources when it comes to a topic like this, but we'll have to wait longer for that. ArkHyena (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
• Yes, given that storms like this are only going to be more common in the future and it's likely climate change played a part in this storm's strengthening. Poxy4 (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
• No. The news media are not reliable for scientific topics; they're journalists, not scientists. Anything you're finding now is also a primary source, because it's published at the time of the event rather than being a later summation of sources dating from the time of the event. Wait until it's discussed by scientific journals or scientific monographs from major publishers. In the mean time, we can introduce something saying that climate change is generally making these storms worse; such a statement will be sourceable by existing scientific journals or scientific monographs. Nyttend (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
• No per Nyttend and my comments above. Mainstream media is not reliable (in Wikipedia terms) for describing the existing scientific consensus on how anthropogenic climate change influenced Hurricane Beryl; higher sourcing standards (WP:SCIRS) should be applied here. This exclusion of mainstream media from reliable sources also addresses the WP:WEIGHT concerns. I'm still of the opinion that wider commentary on the record-breaking sea surface temperatures should stay in the season article, where it can be described in more detail (especially as it looks to be a recurring theme for this season). The current sentence on the anomalously favourable conditions in the meteorological history is sufficient and doesn't go into excessive detail. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The first (brief) scientific analysis of the influence of climate change on Hurricane Beryl has been published here: "Hurricane-force Winds and Heavy precipitation in Hurricane Beryl mostly strengthened by human driven climate change". Nosferattus (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Quxyz, Drdpw, and Zzzs: Would you object to me adding the following summary to the end of the Meteorological history section: According to an analysis by ClimaMeter, a project of the Climate and Environment Sciences Laboratory, hurricane-force winds and heavy precipitation in Hurricane Beryl were strengthened by climate change. However, natural climate variability, notably the Pacific decadal oscillation and the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation, likely played a role as well. Nosferattus (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think a paragraph such as that would fit better in the Records section. Drdpw (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I added it to the Records section. Feel free to edit or move. Nosferattus (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

If this is going to be truly balanced, let's find sources that question if it's climate changed. Everyone in Europe thinks they're causing climate change. 52.144.111.232 (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

That is not necessarily what balanced means. Please read: WP:DUE. ✶Quxyz✶ 01:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

ive noticed that the deaths in Jamaica has been increased to 8, But in my opinion, the deaths are not 8, Other articles such as this one implied there are 8 deaths in Jamaica in the title but in the actual article it was said there are 8 deaths across the Caribbean, There are also some other examples of the title being a bit misleading, but since it would've taken a long time to put them all here, I decided not to, in this case, the title of the source where the 8 deaths are based from (CTV) said there are 8 deaths caused by Hurricane Beryl, but in the article it implied that the 8 deaths were in Jamaica, Only CTV supported the idea that there were 8 deaths in Jamaica, while basically all other news channels said there were 8 deaths across the Caribbean. However, since I don't exactly understand some of Wikipedia's policies, I might be wrong, so I want to hear some opinions from other people. SomeoneWiki04 (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm working to fix that. I have a full death toll from the Hurricane, so I can fix it up. I added the In Use template so hopefully I don't get edit conflicted. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

From searching around on the Jamaican Observer, I can see 3 names mentioned as having passed away, rather than the two listed. [8] speaks of 1 death in a community, and links to another article [9], where it speaks of a further 2 deaths. Haven't seen anything else mentioned, so I think the total in Jamaica is 3 unfortunately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beast01998 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also on Jamaica Gleaner [10], came across an article suggesting 11 fishermen may have sunk in the storm, yet this is unconfirmed currently. Beast01998 (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The 11 people missing were actually 9, and all of them has been found according to this article, Reportedly, it was because they were trapped in Morant Bay due to the rip currents of the hurricane. SomeoneWiki04 (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah seen an article confirming that all were rescued, great news! Must've been terrifying for them Beast01998 (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

What caused that, just wondering? NesserWiki (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is really 12, not 22. There is a lot of miscommunication in the media right now, but the highest confirmed death toll is 12. If Wikipedia went by every source (i.e. not the confirmed death toll), it would be 24 right now. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see. Is the death toll expected to rise again? NesserWiki (talk) 02:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, it is more likely than not to rise as more info comes out and due to people succumbing to injuries or accidents. A finalized tally should be known by the time Beryl's TCR is released next spring. ArkHyena (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see. NesserWiki (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm hopeful that this is a positive sign as communications are reestablished in the hardest hit areas of Grenada and St. Vincent and the Grenadines and that this trend continues, but we shall see. Raskuly (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is there estimate as to when communication will be established? NesserWiki (talk) 02:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good afternoon, everyone. I want to address the issue of which image of Beryl we should use before it could get out of hand in the future. Personally, I prefer Image 1—not because I uploaded it, but because it has several advantages. Yes Image 2 is closer to the peak but the resolution seems overblown. The maximum resolution of the GOES-16 satellite is 500m, which is the resolution of the image I uploaded. It looks like Image 2 was taken at 250m, which shouldn't be used for geostationary satellite images only 1km and 500m images should be used, that resolution is only appropriate for polar orbiting satellites like the Terra and Aqua satellites. Additionally, Image 2 includes artificial lighting from cities though not as prominent in the image, it could still be distracting to readers. We discussed a similar issue on the Hurricane Idalia's talk page last year, which led us to use the IR image for Idalia, I know a lot on weather satellites and their instrumentations. TheWxResearcher (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I prefer Image 1 to Image 2 because the latter has a tighter crop, which makes it more difficult for readers to visualize the storm's approximate location (the crop also affects the image's appearance, though not in a positive way IMO). Additionally, the artificial lighting in Image 2 bothers me because it can be misleading to users if they perceive it as real without it being clearly stated. _ZZ^Z'S 20:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also going to note that Image 2 is inferior in technical quality per TheWxResearcher _ZZ^Z'S 20:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Image 1 looks way better, and it was only taken less than two hours after Beryl peaked. OhHaiMark (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Image 2. Beryl is losing symmetry in image 1 and WP:WPTC emphasizes representativeness of the peak intensity. Since infoboxes use small images, the technical qualities are very low in weight.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure if it is the angle the image was captured by or the dimensions are wonky, but Beryl looks far more elliptical in Image 2 than 1. ✶Quxyz✶ 02:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Image 1 given it is far superior in quality. The two images are identical in storm structure and little change is discernible between the two so this claim of “losing symmetry” falls flat. It was still a Cat 5 in the first image, so that’s what we should go with. Additionally, the running best track from NHC itself and the 8AM (1200 UTC) intermediate advisory both have the peak of 165 mph / 934 mb pegged at 12z, so in essence with WPTC guidelines we go with the image closest to peak, which is the first image. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 23:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@MarioProtIV: Wrong. The discussion explicitly calls 10-12z the peak, so image 2 is completely in the peak and image 1 is not. The loss of symmetry between the two is obvious.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Actually they said “suggest”, meaning they can change it (and it will be in the TCR) and is fluid in nature. This is such an arbitrary nature to argue about when clearly the second image has issues of its own as stated above. The degradation again is not obvious at all, so this preference over one on the basis of “degradation” in which the outermost band looks slightly different just smells of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 23:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Suggest" or not, it supersedes the operational BT by virtue of its higher temporal resolution, so you are still incorrect.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Image 1, but I don't think the lights in Zulia in image 2 degrades its quality. I feel like Beryl Image 2 is too tall. Not sure if this matters, but Image 1 also gives better context for location; the only reference point for Image 2 is Hispaniola as Lake Maracaibo is really hard to see in Image 2. ✶Quxyz✶ 23:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
• Image 1 – Image 1, at near-peak (just after) is sharper and provides a better overall presentation of the system; image 2, at peak, is cropped too close and provides a poorer overall presentation of the system. Furthermore, the everyday viewer would not look at Image 1 and think, "that storm picture is not at peak intensity", nor be bothered by the fact that Beryl is beginning to lose symmetry in that image. Drdpw (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
• Image 1 – Much more of the storm and the area around it is present to show how the storm looked in full, gives better context as to where the image is located, and looks overall more natural and clear than Image 2. That image looks too closely zoomed in on the storm, only showing its core and its closer outer bands completely, cutting off all the other details, and not giving much context as to where the storm is actually located, making it look less clear and natural compared to Image 1. For these reasons, I prefer Image 1 over Image 2. With that being said, I wouldn't be opposed to a zoomed out version of Image 2 showing its areas of outflow, its more distant outer bands, and some more of the area around where the storm was located like what's shown in Image 1, as an alternate, Image 3 option, as Image 2 is closer to peak intensity than Image 1, but Image 1 looks better and more clear with it being zoomed out the way it is. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 01:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Would You prefer a zoomed out version? Funnynick259 (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I can do that quite easily Funnynick259 (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  The quality would still be low, but if @TheWxResearcher: can upload a better quality version, I will consider changing my vote. _ZZ^Z'S 18:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  @Zzzs A few days ago, I attempted to redo the 07/02 1120Z image. However, since I download raw GOES-16 data and convert it into an image, the result appeared too dark where Beryl was located, making it look off. In my opinion the 1230Z image should suffice since the structure of the storm didn't degrade much between 1120Z and 1230Z, and at 1230Z, it was still classified as a Category 5 hurricane, with only a 1 millibar increase in pressure. TheWxResearcher (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  @TheWxResearcher Was it possible for you to make some adjustments so the image looked more natural? _ZZ^Z'S 20:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  @Zzzs Unfortunately, no. I tried all sorts of adjustments, but the result still looked unnatural. I think it's because, at 1120Z, the sun had barely risen in the area where Beryl was located, making the image appear extremely orange, and I don't think we would want that representing the storm on here. TheWxResearcher (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  @TheWxResearcher So that explains the artificial lighting. Normally, I would nag people on trying different dates or methods, but I guess Image 1 will do. Thanks for trying. _ZZ^Z'S 20:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I have a version without any tweaks Funnynick259 (talk) 03:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  @TheWxResearcher I uploaded the untweaked version, I hope this helps! Funnynick259 (talk) 04:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I think that it looks much more natural this way. Funnynick259 (talk) 04:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Image 1 – I too prefer this image. The cyclone looks quite healthy and is near its peak so I don't think it not being taken when it was taken at its true peak to be an issue. Raskuly (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
•   Why is this not the front Image for Beryl? it shows the hurricane right at peak intensity, the current image shows it when it started to weaken. Hoguert — Preceding undated comment added 19:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  It's a nighttime image (infrared), which is false colored. It is also not at its peak, which was at 12Z. _ZZ^Z'S 19:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I still believe we need to show Beryl close or right at peak Hoguert (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  See WP:WPTC/IMG _ZZ^Z'S 19:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I’d prefer a daytime image that is close to peak intensity. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  With that said, I support image #1. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  the thing is, the peak happened at night time Hoguert (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  No, it didn't _ZZ^Z'S 09:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I would like to note that this is what fr:Ouragan Beryl currently uses. ✶Quxyz✶ 01:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

It appears that at least seven people have been killed in Houston due to Beryl. I was wondering if the current death toll number accounts for some of those people. https://www.fox26houston.com/news/beryl-death-toll-houston-fallen-trees-flooding-fire NesserWiki (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, but yes. Not all of these deaths happened in Houston itself but in the Houston metro. You can read the citations to know which have already been included. One drowning off of Interstate 45, two from fallen trees in Humble and Ponderosa Forest, and a house fire in southeast Houston. Raskuly (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see. My question is- does this report increase the death toll to 19? NesserWiki (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Given the number of tornado warnings, and the fact that it was considered an outbreak, would it be worthwhile to ultimately create a separate article for the Hurricane Beryl tornado outbreak? The NWS will probably need several days to finish conducting surveys and collecting data to determine the number and ratings of the twisters, but is there a consensus for creating the article, like the ones for TS Debby (2012) and Hurricane Agnes? KirkCliff2 (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I support at least creating a draft for this. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

And its remnants are currently spawning an additional batch of tornadoes in Western NY. I feel like we should seek a consensus on creating a separate article for the tornado outbreak, especially since it’s reportedly record-breaking for a tropical system. KirkCliff2 (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Support creating said article. Will Béryl challenge Ivan 2004 (120) or Beulah 1967 (115) for number of tornadoes spawned? Drdpw (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Support too. It seems very possible and even if it comes short of the record, it is still very much notable as it was probably the most prolific hurricane-related tornado outbreak since Ivan. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

And not to mention we have tornado outbreak articles for hurricanes that didn’t produce anywhere near the number of tornadoes that Beryl has. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not to mention we have a Hurricane Ida tornado outbreak article and there were “only” 36 twisters. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

And 39 from Isaias. Although one was a fatal EF3. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

My long drawn out point is that if we can have tropical cyclone tornado outbreak articles where only a couple dozen twisters touched down; we can easily have one that produces over or at least close to a hundred twisters. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Y A Beryl-tornado article was published yesterday: Hurricane Beryl tornado outbreak. Drdpw (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well I didn’t know that at the time that I put that there. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 10:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Per: [11]. This would bring the death toll in the country to 7. --Kuzwa (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is not necessary to start a talk page discussion to announce new non-controvertial information when you can simply add it to the article directly. If challenged (reverted), then bring it here per WP:BRD. Drdpw (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just link the source and I'll update the death toll. NesserWiki (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I updated the death toll. NesserWiki (talk) 04:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

By the way, does this update account for the four people missing? NesserWiki (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I believe that the four missing people is from Venezuela SomeoneWiki04 (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Three of them (the missing in Venezuela) have been accounted for as their bodies were discovered. NesserWiki (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

May their memories be blessings. NesserWiki (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is AccuWeather a reliable source on this matte? And are there any sources estimating the damage elsewhere? NesserWiki (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

No they are not reliable for damage totals. There will be reliable totals in the coming weeks though. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see. Thank you. NesserWiki (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was unable to find any records of someone dieing due to Beryl in Canada. NesserWiki (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Young person in Canada dies from Hurricane Beryl’s remnants | AP News 128.147.28.93 (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was unable to find anything about a 41st beyond the article saying it. Also, it isn't listed in the impact table. NesserWiki (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply