![]() | List of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | List of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes is the main article in the Category 5 Pacific hurricanes series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured list |
![]() | This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There should be a {{ Category 5 Pacific hurricanes}} that parallels {{ Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes}}. Jdorje 06:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Wow! What a great "list". It's really an article not a list. Well done, everyone who edited this! ++ Lar: t/ c 15:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Article does good job at explaining why there are so few Category 5 hurricanes at Pacific, but perhaps it should extrapolate further. There have been only 8 Cat 5's at EPac since 1970, but 14 at Atlantic. This despite the fact that on total number of storms, EPac is on average much more active than Atlantic, and according to tropical cyclone article, has also about 2 times as much major hurricanes than Atlantic. I think this disparity should be addressed by someone 'in the know'. -- Mikoyan21 18:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Should some attempt be made to explain the difference between Central and Eastern, or is it better to just lump them all in together? I don't mean different tables of course - just an explanation of how Ioke is the only CPac one there, or if the others reached that strength in CPac, or what not. -- Golbez 21:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that 1994's Hurricane Emilia was not a Category 5 hurricane. Both the preliminary "Best Track" and the "official" best track both show Emilia peaking at 135 knots. The NHC's Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale page says, "Category Five Hurricane: Winds greater than 155 mph (135 kt or 249 km/hr)." (both my emphasis). Finally, the report for 2000's Hurricane Carlotta says in its abstract at the top that "Carlotta was a category 4 hurricane (on the Saffir-Simpson scale)". That report also indicates Carlotta, a Category 4 hurricane, peaking at 135 knots at 21/0600 and 21 / 1200. Thus, a hurricane peaking at 135 knots is a Category 4 hurricane, not a Category 5. As Emilia is shown in the best tracks to be peaking at 135 knots, I can't call it a Category 5. I don't know why the CPHC says Emilia was a Category 5 because it wasn't. My best guess is that it was downgraded in post analysis. I'm just telling people this so you don't try and revert me or add it back or anything. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh no, not this please not this. The case of Emilia is enough to show that the NHC differs from the CPHC. That means every single storm for which the CPHC has track data needs revision (cries).-- Nilfanion ( talk) 23:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am an editor with Wikipedia, a free online encyclopedia. With the recent strengthening (and subsequent re-strengthening) of Hurricane Ioke to a Category 5 hurricane, there have been doubts over a previous hurricane. The CPHC's 1994 summaries show that Hurricane Emilia twice obtained Category 5 status. However, I have come to understand that the NHC's best track for Emilia peaks this system as a 135-kt hurricane, that is, Category 4. Could you please help to clear this up, so that our article on "List of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes" could be cleared up? Your help is greatly appreciated.
Yours,Editor "Chacor" at Wikipedia
– Ch acor 02:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Good catch. This isn't the first time the two hurricane centers have disagreed with each other: one Central Pacific advisory on Hurricane John gave a central pressure of 910mb, much lower than the 929mb minimum which is currently accepted. Based on this alone, I'd be inclined to go with the NHC, but this sounds like too big a mistake to make (i.e. Cat. 5 or not). Furthermore, you'd think the CPHC would have got the message by now if Emilia wasn't a Cat. 5.
Oh well, it looks like Chacor has kindly sent an e-mail to those responsible so this should be resolved soon. Pobbie Rarr 03:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I quote their reply,
"Chacor",
i've been made aware that there are some discrepancies with the best track as listed at NHC. We will do additional checking to find out what that is all about, but the official records for all Central Pacific storms (140W to 180, north of the dateline [sic]) are maintained at our Central Pacific Hurricane Center office here in Honolulu. Once we get this (and some other) issues worked out in our historical database, they will be made available on our CPHC website. We expect that database to be online sometime this fall.
Hope this helps...and I'll try to get back with you once I find out what
the reason is for the Emilia discrepancy...
– Ch acor 08:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
[2] lists 3 cat 5 hurricanes:
The two missing from this article are:
1997 11 Hurricane OLIWA 28 AUG-17 SEP 140 - 5
1997 19 Hurricane PAKA 28 NOV-22 DEC 160 - 5
Is there some reason for these not being included in the article? crandles 16:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Typhoon Oliwa and Typhoon Paka were never Category 5 hurricanes. They formed in the east Pacific, but did not reach Category 5 strength until they crossed the dateline into the Western Pacific (and hence were Category 5 typhoons).-- Nilfanion ( talk) 16:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello, here are a issues that can be quickly addressed to make sure this article meets Featured List Standards and consequently, Featured Topic Standards.
I'll try to finish these up tomorrow. Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Dabomb87 ( talk) 04:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
One more thing: The first sentence is still too self-referential. How about this: "Category 5 hurricanes are hurricanes that reach Category 5 intensity on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale. They are the most catastrophic hurricanes that can form. They are rare in the eastern Pacific Ocean and generally form only once every several years. In general, Category 5's form in clusters in single years. Landfalls by such storms are rare due to the generally westerly path of tropical cyclones in the northern hemisphere."
Really? Is this a good article? The tables are incoherent and repetitive. I strongly advise those who are involved in this debacle to have a look at the Atlantic Hurricanes page and see how tight and consie that article is. This is what bugs me about this site. The information is slap dashed around there is no consistency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.250.118 ( talk) 16:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
poor grammar primarily. it reads like it was translated by a computer. probably was.
"Before 1997, the means for estimate pressure from satellite imagery was not available" 68.38.197.76 ( talk) 02:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Add it. Nanchang17 ( talk) 02:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I propose that, consistent with our other "List of Category N Atlantic/Pacific hurricanes" articles, we make a table for landfalls. Though it would have only five entries, it would allow us to also specify the locations of the landfalls much more clearly. As-is, the section specifies only landfall categories and not locations. Jasper Deng (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | List of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | List of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes is the main article in the Category 5 Pacific hurricanes series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured list |
![]() | This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There should be a {{ Category 5 Pacific hurricanes}} that parallels {{ Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes}}. Jdorje 06:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Wow! What a great "list". It's really an article not a list. Well done, everyone who edited this! ++ Lar: t/ c 15:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Article does good job at explaining why there are so few Category 5 hurricanes at Pacific, but perhaps it should extrapolate further. There have been only 8 Cat 5's at EPac since 1970, but 14 at Atlantic. This despite the fact that on total number of storms, EPac is on average much more active than Atlantic, and according to tropical cyclone article, has also about 2 times as much major hurricanes than Atlantic. I think this disparity should be addressed by someone 'in the know'. -- Mikoyan21 18:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Should some attempt be made to explain the difference between Central and Eastern, or is it better to just lump them all in together? I don't mean different tables of course - just an explanation of how Ioke is the only CPac one there, or if the others reached that strength in CPac, or what not. -- Golbez 21:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that 1994's Hurricane Emilia was not a Category 5 hurricane. Both the preliminary "Best Track" and the "official" best track both show Emilia peaking at 135 knots. The NHC's Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale page says, "Category Five Hurricane: Winds greater than 155 mph (135 kt or 249 km/hr)." (both my emphasis). Finally, the report for 2000's Hurricane Carlotta says in its abstract at the top that "Carlotta was a category 4 hurricane (on the Saffir-Simpson scale)". That report also indicates Carlotta, a Category 4 hurricane, peaking at 135 knots at 21/0600 and 21 / 1200. Thus, a hurricane peaking at 135 knots is a Category 4 hurricane, not a Category 5. As Emilia is shown in the best tracks to be peaking at 135 knots, I can't call it a Category 5. I don't know why the CPHC says Emilia was a Category 5 because it wasn't. My best guess is that it was downgraded in post analysis. I'm just telling people this so you don't try and revert me or add it back or anything. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh no, not this please not this. The case of Emilia is enough to show that the NHC differs from the CPHC. That means every single storm for which the CPHC has track data needs revision (cries).-- Nilfanion ( talk) 23:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am an editor with Wikipedia, a free online encyclopedia. With the recent strengthening (and subsequent re-strengthening) of Hurricane Ioke to a Category 5 hurricane, there have been doubts over a previous hurricane. The CPHC's 1994 summaries show that Hurricane Emilia twice obtained Category 5 status. However, I have come to understand that the NHC's best track for Emilia peaks this system as a 135-kt hurricane, that is, Category 4. Could you please help to clear this up, so that our article on "List of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes" could be cleared up? Your help is greatly appreciated.
Yours,Editor "Chacor" at Wikipedia
– Ch acor 02:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Good catch. This isn't the first time the two hurricane centers have disagreed with each other: one Central Pacific advisory on Hurricane John gave a central pressure of 910mb, much lower than the 929mb minimum which is currently accepted. Based on this alone, I'd be inclined to go with the NHC, but this sounds like too big a mistake to make (i.e. Cat. 5 or not). Furthermore, you'd think the CPHC would have got the message by now if Emilia wasn't a Cat. 5.
Oh well, it looks like Chacor has kindly sent an e-mail to those responsible so this should be resolved soon. Pobbie Rarr 03:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I quote their reply,
"Chacor",
i've been made aware that there are some discrepancies with the best track as listed at NHC. We will do additional checking to find out what that is all about, but the official records for all Central Pacific storms (140W to 180, north of the dateline [sic]) are maintained at our Central Pacific Hurricane Center office here in Honolulu. Once we get this (and some other) issues worked out in our historical database, they will be made available on our CPHC website. We expect that database to be online sometime this fall.
Hope this helps...and I'll try to get back with you once I find out what
the reason is for the Emilia discrepancy...
– Ch acor 08:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
[2] lists 3 cat 5 hurricanes:
The two missing from this article are:
1997 11 Hurricane OLIWA 28 AUG-17 SEP 140 - 5
1997 19 Hurricane PAKA 28 NOV-22 DEC 160 - 5
Is there some reason for these not being included in the article? crandles 16:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Typhoon Oliwa and Typhoon Paka were never Category 5 hurricanes. They formed in the east Pacific, but did not reach Category 5 strength until they crossed the dateline into the Western Pacific (and hence were Category 5 typhoons).-- Nilfanion ( talk) 16:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello, here are a issues that can be quickly addressed to make sure this article meets Featured List Standards and consequently, Featured Topic Standards.
I'll try to finish these up tomorrow. Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Dabomb87 ( talk) 04:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
One more thing: The first sentence is still too self-referential. How about this: "Category 5 hurricanes are hurricanes that reach Category 5 intensity on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale. They are the most catastrophic hurricanes that can form. They are rare in the eastern Pacific Ocean and generally form only once every several years. In general, Category 5's form in clusters in single years. Landfalls by such storms are rare due to the generally westerly path of tropical cyclones in the northern hemisphere."
Really? Is this a good article? The tables are incoherent and repetitive. I strongly advise those who are involved in this debacle to have a look at the Atlantic Hurricanes page and see how tight and consie that article is. This is what bugs me about this site. The information is slap dashed around there is no consistency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.250.118 ( talk) 16:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
poor grammar primarily. it reads like it was translated by a computer. probably was.
"Before 1997, the means for estimate pressure from satellite imagery was not available" 68.38.197.76 ( talk) 02:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Add it. Nanchang17 ( talk) 02:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I propose that, consistent with our other "List of Category N Atlantic/Pacific hurricanes" articles, we make a table for landfalls. Though it would have only five entries, it would allow us to also specify the locations of the landfalls much more clearly. As-is, the section specifies only landfall categories and not locations. Jasper Deng (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)