Jump to content

Talk:1959 Mexico hurricane

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article1959 Mexico hurricane has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 22, 2008Good article nomineeListed
September 23, 2008Featured topic candidatePromoted
May 6, 2016Good topic removal candidateDemoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 14, 2005.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the 1959 Mexico Hurricane is the only known East Pacific hurricane to make landfall as a Category 5?
Current status: Good article

Name?

[edit]

Why didn't this hurricane have a "human" name?

No one knows. →Cyclone1→ 17:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hush. Because Eastern Pacific storms weren't named in 1959. Central Pacific storms were (i.e. Hawaii) but not ones east of 140 degrees. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 00:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Landfall strength?

[edit]

According to the national geographic source, this hurricane was a cat4 at landfall. None of the other sources seem to give a landfall strength. So where does the cat5 landfall strength come from? Jdorje 22:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look closely at the Unisys Track. You can see that the Category 5 colour (white) begins while the hurricane is over land. Hurricanes don't strengthen over land. The reason for this illusion is because Unisys draws paths (I think) by carrying the intensity from one advisory location forward to the next advisory. Since hurricanes don't strengthen over large chunks of land, I assumed that it was a Category 5 at landfall. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unisys tracks and best-track data are not a source for hurricane strength at landfall. For instance the Hurricane Andrew best-track shows Andrew as a cat4 before and after landfall, but it actually attained and lost cat5 status during the interval in between. For US storms, you can find the impact when the storm struck in the last line:
55035 08/16/1992 M=13  2 SNBR=1166 ANDREW      XING=1 SSS=5                     
55040 08/16*0000000   0    0*0000000   0    0*0000000   0    0*1080355  25 1010*
55045 08/17*1120374  30 1009*1170396  30 1008*1230420  35 1006*1310442  35 1003*
55050 08/18*1360462  40 1002*1410480  45 1001*1460499  45 1000*1540518  45 1000*
55055 08/19*1630535  45 1001*1720553  45 1002*1800569  45 1005*1880583  45 1007*
55060 08/20*1980593  40 1011*2070600  40 1013*2170607  40 1015*2250615  40 1014*
55065 08/21*2320624  45 1014*2390633  45 1010*2440642  50 1007*2480649  50 1004*
55070 08/22*2530659  55 1000*2560670  65  994*2580683  80  981*2570697  95  969*
55075 08/23*2560711 110  961*2550725 130  947*2540742 145  933*2540758 150  922*
55080 08/24*2540775 125  930*2540793 130  937*2560812 115  951*2580831 115  947*
55085 08/25*2620850 115  943*2660867 115  948*2720882 120  946*2780896 125  941*
55090 08/26*2850905 125  937*2920913 120  955*3010917  80  973*3090916  50  991*
55095 08/27*3150911  35  995*3210905  30  997*3280896  30  998*3360884  25  999*
55100 08/28*3440867  20 1000*3540840  20 1000*0000000   0    0*0000000   0    0*
55105 HRCFL5BFL4 LA3                       145kt 24/0840-0905Z
which shows that area CFL (southeast florida) had cat5-force winds and BFL (southwest florida) had cat4-force winds (note this is NOT the same as intensity at time of landfall, it means those areas experienced those winds); it also adds the 145 knots (165 mph) info for Aug 24 at 8:40-9:05 UTC (basically, landfall). One can find many other examples (beulah, hazel) where the best-track positional values seem to give incorrect data for the time of landfall; you have to look at the last line to see the correct data. However this line only gives info for the united states. For non-US storms, all information about them (not just landfall intensities but damages estimates as well) seems very hard to come by. Jdorje 00:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, also...hurricanes do occasionally strengthen over land. The Andrew re-analysis concluded that Andrew did not attain its local maximum until after it had made landfall, presumably because its eye was contracting at the time. 

03335 10/23/1959 M= 7 15 SNBR= 102 NOT NAMED   XING=1                           
03340 10 23*126 967  75    0*127 976  75    0*130 985  75    0*135 993  75    0*
03345 10 24*1401000  75    0*1451008  75    0*1501016  75    0*1561023  75    0*
03350 10 25*1611029 100    0*1651034 100    0*1681039 110    0*1701045 110    0*
03355 10 26*1721052 120    0*1751056 120    0*1781058 120    0*1831057 120    0*
03360 10 27X1881053 120    0X1931048 120    0X1971044 140  958X2011040  45    0*
03365 10 28X2051037  45    0X2101033  25    0X2161029  25    0X2221026  25    0*
03370 10 29X2281023  25    0X2341021  25    0X2401020  25    0*  0   0   0    0*
03375 HR

The 1959 storm could have been the same; however, the 'X' categorization (extratropical? unknown?) it receives in its positional estimates makes me wonder. The pressure of 958 given for the peak intensity is certainly not that of a cat5 storm. Jdorje 00:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source Climatology of Landfalling Hurricanes and Tropical Storms in Mexico says, on the top of page six, "Only one intense (Category 5) hurricane hit the seaport of Manzanillo". (My emphasis). That seems to indicate that Storm 15 (this storm) was a Category 5. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not bad. Jdorje 21:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

[edit]

Expand the lede a bit, and add a source for it being the deadliest EPAC hurricane in the records section. Good work. (Note: not a GA review - just a quick assessment). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the sentence, Unfortunately for western Mexico, this storm's label as a "sneak hurricane" was deserved. is slightly POVish. Good work otherwise. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the offending sentence, expanded the lead, and provided sources for it having the highest death toll among Pacific hurricanes that came close to or exceeded 1000 dead. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]

After a couple crashes of my web browser, I was able to confirm that the references did exist. For a system this old, there is are a lot references for impact. The language is encyclopedaic. Don't see any typos or grammar problems. I'm not expecting much in the way of imagery for a storm before the satellite era other than track, so the imagery included is fine. I'm passing the article, and changing its importance to Top due to extreme death toll from an eastern Pacific tropical cyclone. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico's worst natural disaster in recent times...

[edit]

An earthquake in Mexico City in 1985 caused around 10,000 deaths in that area. Is this statement in the article worded wrong(i.e. Mexico's worst hurricane in recent times)? Or is it not the "worst" disaster in recent times in Mexico? Rye998 (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cite error

[edit]

I removed the reference to Natural Hazards of North America (Map). National Geographic Society. April 1998. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) from ref name=National Geographic as the same reference is defined in the template {{deadliest Pacific hurricanes}} and was causing a duplicate cite error. Poltair (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1959 Mexico hurricane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1959 Mexico hurricane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Title?

[edit]

Am I the only one who thinks the title is extremely vague? Most Year X hurricane are named after a city, state, or relatively geographically small country. The name "Mexico" provides very little context of where the storm actually struck. Would 1959 Colima hurricane or 1959 Manzanillo hurricane work better? YE Pacific Hurricane 17:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1959_Mexico_hurricane&oldid=1216871273"