Talk:1959 Mexico Hurricane

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.

[edit] Name?

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

No one knows. →Cyclone1→ 17:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Landfall strength?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Not bad. Jdorje 21:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)