Talk:1899 San Ciriaco hurricane
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Track
editStorm duration
editAccording to the NHC "best track" data the storm lasted 33 days!
15065 08/03/1899 M=33 3 SNBR= 364 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 15070 08/03*117 310 35 0*118 324 45 0*120 340 50 0*122 357 55 995* 15075 08/04*124 374 60 0*126 388 60 0*127 403 60 0*130 420 60 0* 15080 08/05*135 440 60 0*137 455 60 0*140 470 60 0*143 487 65 0* 15085 08/06*146 506 70 0*148 524 75 0*151 542 80 0*154 558 90 0* 15090 08/07*157 574 100 0*159 590 110 0*162 605 120 0*165 620 130 930* 15095 08/08*169 634 130 0*174 648 125 0*180 662 120 940*186 673 105 0* 15100 08/09*189 681 105 0*193 689 105 0*197 698 105 0*201 706 105 0* 15105 08/10*204 714 105 0*207 722 105 0*210 730 105 0*214 737 105 0* 15110 08/11*220 745 105 0*225 753 105 0*230 760 105 0*234 765 105 0* 15115 08/12*238 770 105 0*242 774 105 0*245 777 105 0*251 780 105 0* 15120 08/13*256 782 105 0*262 784 105 0*270 786 105 0*276 788 105 0* 15125 08/14*283 790 105 0*290 791 105 0*297 790 105 0*303 789 105 0* 15130 08/15*309 787 105 0*313 784 105 0*317 780 105 0*322 775 105 0* 15135 08/16*326 769 105 0*328 762 105 0*330 755 105 0*333 750 105 0* 15140 08/17*337 746 105 0*341 744 105 0*345 745 105 0*348 750 105 0* 15145 08/18*351 757 105 0*357 760 90 0*363 757 80 0*364 755 75 0* 15150 08/19*364 753 75 0*364 750 70 0*365 747 70 0*370 740 70 0* 15155 08/20*377 729 70 0*383 719 70 0*388 707 70 0*393 690 70 0* 15160 08/21*394 673 70 0*395 654 70 0*397 635 70 0*395 613 65 0* 15165 08/22E393 589 60 0E391 565 55 0E387 543 50 0E383 529 50 0* 15170 08/23E379 520 50 0E373 509 45 0E367 500 45 0E360 490 45 0* 15175 08/24E354 482 45 0E347 472 40 0E343 460 40 0E342 450 40 0* 15180 08/25E343 441 40 0E346 433 40 0E353 430 40 0E356 430 40 0* 15185 08/26*360 432 40 0*363 433 40 0*365 435 40 0*368 437 40 0* 15190 08/27*372 440 40 0*375 442 40 0*377 445 40 0*382 447 40 0* 15195 08/28*387 449 40 0*394 450 40 0*400 450 40 0*403 447 40 0* 15200 08/29*406 441 40 0*406 435 40 0*405 430 40 0*405 427 40 0* 15205 08/30*405 423 40 0*405 419 40 0*403 415 40 0*402 412 40 0* 15210 08/31*401 409 40 0*400 405 40 0*400 400 40 0*399 393 40 0* 15215 09/01*399 387 40 0*399 379 40 0*400 370 40 0*399 357 40 0* 15220 09/02*397 347 45 0*395 333 50 0*390 320 55 0*383 311 60 0* 15225 09/03*379 305 65 0*375 296 70 0*373 287 70 0*378 275 65 0* 15230 09/04E390 255 60 0E415 225 55 0E450 185 50 0E490 155 45 0* 15235 HR NC3
The M=33 entry on the first line means it lasted for 33 days (though this includes time as an extratropical storm).
The first line's entry shows the storm emerging on 8/03 at 12AM as a 35-knot storm (I think 35knots is a TS...but by 6AM it was a 45knot storm, definitely a TS). The third-to-last line shows that on 9/03 at 6PM it was still a 65-knot hurricane. On the second-to-last line the storm is extratropical but still at 60 knots at 12AM (and drops to 45 knots by 6PM).
August has 31 days...so it looks to me like this storm existed for 31.75 days (plus another day as extratropical gives their total of 33). Note that the hurdat data is not really "official" but is a research product (though it's probably more accurate than the official data in many cases). Jdorje 18:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- According to UNISYS, it spent 34 full days as anything (midnight on August 3 to midnight on September 4). Minus 5 full days as an extratropical storm = 29 days as a tropical cyclone. Only 18 of those were consecutive. Ginger spent 27 consecutive days as a tropical cyclone. That far out-classes this storm, but regardless, it is amazing. 29 days spent as a tropical system. Wow! -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 03:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- Midnight on August 3 to midnight on September 4 is only 32 days according to my calculations. Jdorje 20:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- This is one storm that should be re-evaluated. I think it was a Category 5 hurricane at least once in the open Atlantic...unfortunately 106-year-old technology wouldn't be able to prove it! CrazyC83 18:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
NC landfall
editAlso noteworthy, you can see that it made landfall around Cape Hatteras as a category 3 storm. This is fairly notable but isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. Jdorje 18:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed. It was moving pretty slow too at the time. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 03:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Name
editShouldn't "San Ciriaco" come before "hurricane"? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 02:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think in Spanish it does not. See Hurricane San Felipe Segundo also. Jdorje 21:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- But in English it would be "1899 San Ciriaco hurricane"; this would also be closer to Wikipedia convention on naming historical events (eg 2001 southern Peru earthquake or 2007 United Kingdom floods). Totnesmartin (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think with the 1899 in there, we have to do the English way. I'd imagine that it would be Huracan San Felipe Segundo (de 1928) in Spanish. Would anyone be opposed to moving this to 1899 San Ciriaco hurricane? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Anyone watching this page have any thoughts? I think the current title is rather awkward. I think either it should be a standalone title of Hurricane San Ciriaco, or the year should be put at the end. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'd agree with moving it, since the current title seems like an unattractive mix of Spanish and English naming conventions. Juliancolton (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
So exactly what are you proposing? Seems in 2008 you proposed it be moved to its current 1899 San Ciriaco hurricane title. Are you now proposing it still be moved once more yet to Hurricane San Ciriaco? If so, how is the 2008 rationale no longer valid? Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, I still like the sound of "1899 San Ciriaco hurricane", as I did two years ago. I think the current title is awkward and doesn't sound right. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- OK, go for it! There are no objections and, in any event, "1899 San Ciriaco hurricane" does run smoother. One thing, let's make sure the new title has a lower case "h" in hurricane (as you already correctly included). Mercy11 (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- KL, that move change was five years in the making. --Hurricanehink (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- OK, go for it! There are no objections and, in any event, "1899 San Ciriaco hurricane" does run smoother. One thing, let's make sure the new title has a lower case "h" in hurricane (as you already correctly included). Mercy11 (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Todo
editThis article has very little actual notable info. More impact is needed. Jdorje 19:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
As I stated in summary, I've added temp. space breaks to make the article look less knotted. I also added a surface weather analysis from the NOAA documents library. Hurricane Angel Saki My own personal NHC 03:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
"See also" immigration to Hawaii?
editWhy this there a "see also" for Puerto Rican Immigration to Hawaii? That's the only mention of Hawaii anywhere on the page. (I'm not linking in case someone was trying to increase the number of inward links to that page, relevant or not.) Vicki Rosenzweig (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- I am not sure I know enough about this part of the history, but the answer is *probably* because, since at the time both Hawaii and Puerto Rico were U.S. territories, and both grew sugar as a major agricultural crop, upon Hurricane San Ciriaco hitting Puerto Rico, it initiate a large labor force migration from Puerto Rico to Hawaii. My somewhat educated guess. You can see this at the Puerto Rican immigration to Hawaii article, although -- admittedly -- that article does not do an excellent job at showing that cause/effect relationship as it lacks a good and smooth transition from one (San Ciriaco) to the other (the immigration). BTW, the Hawaii article does make this connection, and in a much clearer fashion. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
- Exactly. BTW, Norma Carr wrote her Ph.D thesis dissertation on the migration from Puerto Rico to Hawaii and it may be available at a library near you. N. Carr, The Puerto Ricans in Hawaii, 1900-1958, Ph. D. University of Hawaii at Manoa 1989, Theses for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (University of Hawaii at Manoa)., American Studies ; no. 2420.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)