Talk:Hurricane Ethel (1960)

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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 11, 2005	Articles for deletion	Kept
June 22, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
November 3, 2013	Good topic candidate	Not promoted

Current status: Good article

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	The possible merging of this article has been discussed by editors of the WikiProject.

Images

There 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?

What does that even mean? Cyclone1 12:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It means curving around it, hugging the coast, usually at a fairly swift rate of speed. -- §Hurricane E RIC§^Damagesarchive 04:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok. Thanks. Cyclone1 19:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

External links section, more impact (if possible), better intro. Jdorje 04:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More structure is needed. This article's format should be no different than any other hurricane article. Hurricanehink 00:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Original research on "false" category 5

I 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".--Nilf anion (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- §Hurricane E RICarchive 22:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. -- §Hurricane E RICarchive 23:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've removed the bit about it being disputed (as unsourced). Find a source and reinsert it guys...--Nilf anion (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]