Talk:1932 Cuba hurricane
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
todo
editMore info Storm05 12:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
It's looking good, but I'd really like more info for Cuba. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Intensity
editA ship has a confirmed pressure of 915mbar. Why can't we just say it was that instead of 'may have'? -Winter123 (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- The pressure is not recognized in HURDAT currently, although the re-analysis has not reached 1932 yet (it should be recognized once re-analyzed, and most likely it will be officially upgraded to Category 5 at that point). CrazyC83 (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- There is quite a mess on this page. First, there is no mention of "27.02 in Hg" or "915 mbar" in the original sources. This figure is attributed in "Hurricane Vulnerability in Latin America and The Caribbean: Normalized Damage and Loss Potentials" by Roger A. Pielke Jr.; Jose Rubiera; Christopher Landsea; Mario L. Fernandez; and Roberta Klein. BUT THIS 914.6 mbar REFERENCE IS IN A FOOTNOTE of a TABLE in which the authors mention no information about how that single data point was analyzed or corroborated. The ship name or country of origin is not mentioned. If it was a 40-year old ship with its original barometer, are we likely to trust it? I think we need to walk back all of the Category 5 stuff and place it as a Category 4 officially (see the path and the other sources). Mentioning it as a Cat 5 is plausible, but the Mitchell report didn't even mention this as a possibility. In a report by Wills E. Hurd, a Weather Bureau employee only talks about a "27.96 inches (uncorrected)" report from Mr. Cameron of the Forresbank, a British ship. That barometer is about an inch of mercury higher than the unnamed one, and Mr. Hurd didn't bother correcting the raw data. Mr. Mitchell's report did not mention the 27.96 in Hg. Here I will quote the footnote that is responsible for a Category 5 upgrade: I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
"cThe 1932 hurricane was also a Category 5 hurricane. Lowest pressure on a ship south of Cuba was 914.6 mb. It was remarkable for the huge storm surge of 6.5 m at Santa Cruz del Sur, Camaguey. The town was swept away. There were 2,870 deaths out of a population of 4,800 in that coastal town. Estimated winds at landfall were 140 kt, gusting up to 180 kt."
- So I personally believe that this source is unreliable for upgrading the storm to Category 5 and that disputing the historical and other data in a footnote is poor scholarship. I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- No actually since this hurricane was a Category 5 per HURDAT. Bruvtakesover (T|C) 07:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Christopher Landsea et all are currently conducting a reanalysis of HURDAT, adding in all low pressure areas that there is sufficient evidence to support the theory that this was a TC and that this was the intensity etc. Landsea's research is being heavily supervised by the National Hurricane Centres Best Track Committee (BTC), which is wading through all of his recommendations and viewing the evidence point by point. With specific regards to the 1930's - the research team found various decoders for coded ship reports and thus recommended some major changes for the 1930's, which have now been approved by the BTC and are being released to the general public in terms of the HURDAT files. However i do not see the 915 hPa in HURDAT anywhere, the only pressure i see is 918 hPa.Jason Rees (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is possible the 915 was peripheral and not an eye pressure, so that may be why it was not inserted in HURDAT. In that case, the actual pressure would be lower than that, but no idea how low. CrazyC83 (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Christopher Landsea et all are currently conducting a reanalysis of HURDAT, adding in all low pressure areas that there is sufficient evidence to support the theory that this was a TC and that this was the intensity etc. Landsea's research is being heavily supervised by the National Hurricane Centres Best Track Committee (BTC), which is wading through all of his recommendations and viewing the evidence point by point. With specific regards to the 1930's - the research team found various decoders for coded ship reports and thus recommended some major changes for the 1930's, which have now been approved by the BTC and are being released to the general public in terms of the HURDAT files. However i do not see the 915 hPa in HURDAT anywhere, the only pressure i see is 918 hPa.Jason Rees (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- No actually since this hurricane was a Category 5 per HURDAT. Bruvtakesover (T|C) 07:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- So I personally believe that this source is unreliable for upgrading the storm to Category 5 and that disputing the historical and other data in a footnote is poor scholarship. I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Indeed the 915 was peripheral with hurricane conditions at the time. It was a legitimate pressure but not in the eye, so it was surely lower than that. That means that the pressure was no higher than 909 mbar (if it was 64 kt inside the eyewall with the 10 kt rule), and likely lower than that - possibly significantly lower. In that setup, 150 kt would translate to a pressure around 902 mbar (given its large size and location). However, there is no way to prove the central pressure as any guess would be OR. CrazyC83 (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, seeing as the 915 isn't in the official best track, we should stick with the 918. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)