Talk:1950 Atlantic hurricane season
|1950 Atlantic hurricane season is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.|
|1950 Atlantic hurricane season is the main article in the 1950 Atlantic hurricane season series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 16, 2012.|
|WikiProject Tropical cyclones / Season / Atlantic||(Rated FA-class, High-importance)|
Hey, I am DYING for some info on this storm. Was it stronger than Gilbert? It had winds of the same intensity as Gilbert's and it was a Category 5 for THREE DAYS according to Unisys () Yet we didn't have the technology to measure the sea level pressure of storms out at sea (@%&#$!) Any information would be appreciated. Thanks.
-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast 18:07 hrs 12/15/04
- You might want to try the Monthly Weather Review hurricane archives. Be warned, the file for 1950 is a 17 MB PDF. Between that and the HURDAT-derived information at Unisys, I think that's pretty much it for information. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:01, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast
I highly doubt it. Judging by its location, it may have been a weak Category 5 hurricane, but I'm not buying the 165 knot deal. How reliable was the technology anyway? All they had was recon, and we saw what they did with 1960's Ethel (140 knots with 981 pressure, yea right). Just my own opinion. We'll find out when the re-analysis gets there next year. Hurricanehink 19:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- Pressure measuring technology may have been bad back then but wind measuring technology was even worse. There is absolutely no way to know how strong the storm was. Jdorje 22:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree. The wind measurement I believe was actually 160 knots and it was taken by a plane that flew into the storm. The problem was that Hurricane Hunting planes back then could not be equipped with pressure reading instruments. Technology just hadn't advanced that far yet. The planes did, however, have an anemometer on board. This would give them a pretty accurate reading of flight-level winds. The only iffy spot would be that they could have miscalculated the conversion of flight-level winds to surface winds. That part of meterological mathematics was still blurry back then.
- If wind measurement was so good in 1950, how come in 1992 they were off by a full 20 mph in measuring andrew? Not until after 1995 did they have the technology to measure ground wind speed. In older hurricanes I strongly suspect all hurricane-hunter measurements are of the air speed, meaning all older cat5 storms would need to have their top wind speed knocked down by 10% (making camille 175 mph, dog 165 mph, etc.). Jdorje 01:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Hink, I know its probably too late, but Ethel 981 measurement was taken when she was a strengthening cat 3. There is no measurement for that storm at Cat 5 status. Cyclone1 12:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ethel's a joke, IMO. There's no way it strengthened and weakened that rapidly. Most likely it was a Cat 2/3 based on the pressure. Hurricanehink 14:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The Mystery of Mike
Like Kendra, Mike was a system that was not considered tropical after-the-fact. Mike and Kendra will be addressed in the hurricane reanalysis. The associated changes have been made on this page, the 1966 Atlantic hurricane season page, and the notable tropical cyclone page. Thegreatdr 20:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Added a reference. Thegreatdr 06:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
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!
Accumulated Cyclone Energy - Atlantic Basin or Global?
There are a couple of references in the article to records for the years 1950 and 2005 in regards to Accumulated Cyclone Energy [ACE], are these for Atlantic basin numbers or are they global or a mixture of the two? If anyone has this information please update those refs, its a potentially significant issue if we're not talking about the Atlantic basin figures. Atani (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)