Talk:Hurricane Ethel (1960)
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Thegreatdr in topic Original research on "false" category 5
 | Hurricane Ethel (1960) 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. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | ||||||||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Images
editThere were no images found, sorry. Satellites back then were not so advance. : Irfan Faiz at October 22 (GMT +8) 9.17PM
After Skirting around Louisiana?
editWhat does that even mean? Cyclone1 12:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- It means curving around it, hugging the coast, usually at a fairly swift rate of speed. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 04:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Oh ok. Thanks. Cyclone1 19:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Todo
editExternal links section, more impact (if possible), better intro. Jdorje 04:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- More structure is needed. This article's format should be no different than any other hurricane article. Hurricanehink 00:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yep. Lengthening the storm history section and adding subsections is possible (see Hurricane Wilma) but I would doubt that it is worth much all that much time. — jdorje (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Original research on "false" category 5
editI know it is pretty obvious that this should be disputed somewhere in more modern literature, but do we have a source anywhere? The MWR presents the 140kt as fact. We need a source to say its disputable, not editors saying "its obvious".--Nilfanion (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- I too have heard Ethel's status disputed but I can't remember where. I vaguely remember it being in a PDF document. Sorry I can't be of more help. I don't believe someone just made that up. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 22:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think I remember reading that the 140 kt was a flight level report. If that's the case, here's the NHC recon data for Ethel. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- That was it! I heard the exact same thing! I clearly remember thinking, "Wait, aren't surface winds different from those at flight level?" 140 knots at flight level corresponds to about 125 knots by my rough (and unofficial) calculations. That's a bit more believeable and I think that Ethel's actual peak intensity was 125 knots or less. I hope somebody who's smarter than I am can interprit those recon reports you linked to, Hink. I sure can't. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 23:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah but ALL wind speeds before like 1990 are flight level. 185 mph in gilbert: flight level. 190 mph in Camille: flight level. And so on. — jdorje (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the bit about it being disputed (as unsourced). Find a source and reinsert it guys...--Nilfanion (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- About as much as you can say is that it is questionable. And not all flight level winds prior to 1990 were used for sustained winds. In the 1960's they seemed to be. The Atlantic hurricane reanalysis will sort this out, likely in 7-8 years using past progress as a guide. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)