Talk:1950 Atlantic hurricane season

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.

I agree with several people here that they @#$% up Hurricane Andrew's wind speed in 1992 and had to upgrade it to a Cat 5 (as if 922 mb is a Cat 4-- duh!) They also had to upgrade Hurricane Emily from Cat 4/5 and Hurricane Wilma from 175mph to 185mph. The point is we will have to monitor the next 100 years to start noticing weather patterns and comparing intensity. Let's face it folks, until 1950 we were in the horse and buggy generation..... Sad, but true! Ivan (hurricane enthusiast and pragmatist since 1979/age9)

[edit] Hurricane Dog

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 ([1]) 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)

Thanks

-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.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 02:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

I agree, although there's no way to know for sure. Fortunately this is an argument we can leave to the NHC re-assessment people. — jdorje (talk) 02:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The hurricane hunter planes of the time are known to have inaccurate wind measurements. It's possible Dog wasn't even a Category 5, much less the 160kt madness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.124.148.146 (talk • contribs).

Very true. Look at Hurricane Andrew, like Jdorje said. Wind measurements weren't accurate until relatively recently. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)