Talk:Hurricane Polo

888 MB recorded from NOAA43, 166 kts recorded on flightlevel

888 MB recorded from NOAA43, 166 kts recorded on flightlevel, should we update the article? ~2026-51232-85 (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

No, only official advisories and reports can be used. Mesocyclonic93 ^(t)_(c) 18:38, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

That is not recogized officially HurricaneMelissa 02:35, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Officially, we use peak wind and pressure levels from the National Hurricane Center's official advisories on Polo. If you look at this archive, (or look at Zoom Earth) you can see that the lowest pressure level officially stated was 892 millibars and not 888. It is like that claimed 865 in Typhoon Rita of 1972. That is why 892 millibars is shown and should not be changed. CycloneTheta ^talk 07:29, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Wait best track. H-FinaL-FantasY-H ^{- Talk} 09:04, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

@Final-Fantasy-HH I think IBTrACS uses the NHC advisories for its database. I am not sure if the NHC does a summary for the basin but that might change things. CycloneTheta ^talk 09:28, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

For now, we can only await the results from the NHC's final best track, or note a minor exception regarding Hurricane Genevieve, where the NHC adjusted the pressure from 925 to 924 in the TCR table. H-FinaL-FantasY-H ^{- Talk} 10:12, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Image

@2003 LN6 and MarioProtIV: The likely peak of the storm was earlier than the 19z time of the TCU, so "closer to peak" is not a great argument for the 1820z image. The 1820z image barely resolves the eye at all and is grossly oversaturated. Ideally we would have something approximately halfway in between, when lighting is better. Jasper Deng (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@ViridLeWiki: I'm not sure the 2007z image is better, because the storm has begun a clear eyewall replacement cycle, and that image also doesn't resolve the eye well. Jasper Deng (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Polar imagery > geostationary imagery me personally and not every image has to be exactly at peak intensity, I don’t see anything too wrong with the image visually for the storm and even then with the ongoing EWRC you can’t notice all too much from that NOAA-20 pass (like a moat or anything), you can ask the original uploader @OneFortyTwoK if he can render the image a little cleaner then in terms of how the eye looks but otherwise the worldview version would be fine as well once that comes out. A recent dispute regarding Lowell’s image between the AWS render and Worldview render (current image) had also occurred as well. ViridLeWiki (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Polar versus geostationary alone is not an argument. The goal is to pick the picture that will be most useful to article readers, not what you personally like. Jasper Deng (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I already mentioned in the polar pass, you can’t really tell any degradation due to said EWRC in the image, there’s not much difference between the GOES & NOAA-20 images storm structure wise and polar imagery is usually of higher resolution than GOES imagery. ViridLeWiki (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

The eye is pretty clouded over in the polar image you selected. Why not select earlier polar images that caught it with better lighting and closer to the actual peak of the storms? I know those exist. Jasper Deng (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Both Terra and NOAA-21 were partial passes, Suomi wasn’t a bullseye pass which will make the crop/zoom look weird, if zoomed out too much the scan besides it will be in view. ViridLeWiki (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

i can nab that 1635 polar pass (the one with the 27c eye)

time isnt ideal but its one of the clearest images of the storm ~2026-51260-89 (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

If you could, that would be great. It should be right around the true peak and resolve the eye well. Jasper Deng (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

might take me a bit to figure out because apparently eumetsats newer satellites r absolutely atrocious to deal with ~2026-51260-89 (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

hi sorry didnt know i was logged out, i got an image from someone else though it is B&W, is that fine for now? Featherweight.wx (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Images in true/natural color are usually preferred over black and white, also it’s too zoomed in. ViridLeWiki (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

i never understood why all TC images are that tall rectangle shape, is it just tradition?

can we at least keep this one while i figure out another image Featherweight.wx (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Usually to fit for the infobox which is horizontal-oriented, and i’d rather not prefer the black and white image from Zeb over any of the true color images available unless that one can be adjusted to include a wider view and maybe be colorized, although that colorization would be more so artificial than the natural colorization from the GOES & polar images available of Polo. ViridLeWiki (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

The reason why OneFortyTwoK's images look blurry is because he is uploading them as PNGs instead of JPGs. If he converted them into JPGs, then they would look cleaner and nearly retain their scientific quality data. TheWxResearcher (talk) 02:23, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I’ll check it I can plot them as jpgs when I am home next. OneFortyTwoK (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Here is the image as a jpg OneFortyTwoK (talk) 05:48, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I do not see such effect, pngs usually do not cause an image to be more blurry over a jpeg. Z136a1 (talk) 09:59, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

(sorry for readding it i didnt check history) ~2026-51260-89 (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Add to my comment: someone can upload a GOES image at or around 17Z since it's "close to peak intensity," but the eye isn't as clouded over yet. We wouldn't know when the true peak intensity actually occurred until the NHC decides it in the postanalysis. TheWxResearcher (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

i can do that right quick, id hope to get the polar pass in the future though Featherweight.wx (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Done. JXthemeteorologist (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

this is the other GOES satellite, image i added has a more overhead view of the eye Featherweight.wx (talk) 03:34, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

GOES-East imagery was unavailable at 17Z for whatever reason, at least on NASA Worldview. Really wish it was since having the eye overhead is probably better. JXthemeteorologist (talk) 03:38, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

How did you process your 1730Z GOES-19 image? Curious because the high clouds look a lot different on a render I did and on the 17Z image done by @JXthemeteorologist, and same with the land colors being very brown on yours. I also noticed that the resolution is much lower for what that satellite should produce for RGB, and was wondering if its possible you could render it with a higher satellite resolution. Thanks for any info! OneFortyTwoK (talk) 07:52, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I uploaded this image derived from Z136a1’s version, using the JPG format to avoid blurriness because I don't know why Wikimedia defaults to PNGs being blurrier, but this is the file name.

Polo 2026-09-22 1730Z (RAW Data JPG).jpg

I am unsure whether this appears in the discussion, as my iPhone limits how images display on Wikipedia talk pages.

Anyway, this image is near or at peak intensity, and the eye remains quite clear. The current image that ZonResearcher uploaded at 2230Z shows when the storm began to degrade and enter an eyewall replacement cycle, the apparent clarity is an illusion because the sun’s angle was no longer perpendicular as it started to set. We should use an image between 1700Z and 1850Z, such as the one I uploaded or any others captured in that window.

It's the best of both worlds the eye is clear and it's close enough or at peak intensity.

TheWxResearcher (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Hey, sorry, so the image i did upload was pretty sloppy because i was about to head to sleep. The terrain looks like that because it was a temporary fix to avoid a B&W background, from an old clear-sky polar pass of the area, which unfortunately tends to be nearer to winter. I do see that there is a new image though, that one is better Featherweight.wx (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

(although--maybe it should be a bit more zoomed in?) Featherweight.wx (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

nevemind found the same thing but zoomed Featherweight.wx (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Request: Can the preparations and impact be split?

Anyone? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

This is a short article. I am honestly kinda surprised no one has tried merging it. Anyways, until there are a few sections filled out fully besides "There was minor damage here. There was minor damage there." I do not think there needs to be a split preps and impacts. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I think that I have pretty much went through every state in the southwest so that section will be as long as that unless someone else does research. Perhaps the northwest will be longer. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

With an expected landfall in Baja and the very complex meteorological history, this article is here to stay and merging is out of the question. Jasper Deng (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

MH article

Polo's MH is almost over, but it currently dominates the article and the impacts are likely to need more content. Its story is a very unique one among Pacific hurricanes and I think we should have a separate MH article, condensing the existing MH section in this article. @Hurricanehink: What do you think? Jasper Deng (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:SIZERULE, an article on just the meteorological history is likely not necessary. The article currently sits at 1,382 words. I also doubt that the meteorological history is skewing the balance of the article unfairly as its long-term significance will lie in its intensity and longevity as a Category 5 hurricane. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - many met history articles have been merged in recent articles (along with effects articles) per the size rule. Except in cases like Cyclone Freddy where the met history lasts for weeks, then it's rarely detailed enough to need to be split off. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Oppose for now, but if the impacts in the USA turn out to be bad, an MH article could be justified with enough impacts. ~2026-52691-39 (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Update Regions in Intro

The first paragraph mentions the cyclone affected "the Mexican states of Baja California Sur and Sonora"; at this point it's already affected the other Baja California state, plus the southwestern US into Texas and the Great Plains. I think we ought to update that... Briantin de Montrei (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Update the track map

Polo was still a hurricane at its second landfall in Sonora, can the tropical storm dot be replaced by a hurricane dot? ~2026-52677-39 (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

No. It reflects the official track file at which usually reflects a more thorough analysis than the intermediate advisories. Also, the position as depicted is inland of the landfall point, where more weakening definitely had occurred. Jasper Deng (talk) 08:39, 1 October 2026 (UTC)