Talk:1899 San Ciriaco hurricane

Track
See. Jdorje 18:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Storm duration
According 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
Also 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
Shouldn'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)

Todo
This 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?
Why 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)