![[Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory]](../hrd_top_logo7.jpg){kind=logo}
| Staff | Data Center | Contact Information |
|
The Atlantic Hurricane Database Re-analysis Project Documentation for 1851-1910 Alterations and Addition to the HURDAT DatabaseChristopher W. Landsea*
|
OUTLINE
A re-analysis of the Atlantic basin tropical storm and hurricane database ("best track") for the period of 1851 to 1910 has been completed. This reworking and extension back in time of the main archive for tropical cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico was necessary to correct systematic and random errors and biases in the data as well as to incorporate the recent historical analyses by Partagas and Diaz. The re-analysis project provides the revised tropical storm and hurricane database, a metadata file detailing individual changes for each tropical cyclone, a "center fix" file of raw tropical cyclone observations, a collection of U.S. landfalling tropical storms and hurricanes, and comments from replies to the OAR's Best Track Change Committee. This chapter details the methodologies and references utilized for this re-analysis of the Atlantic tropical cyclone record. IntroductionThis chapter provides documentation of the first efforts to re-analyze the OAR's (NHC's) North Atlantic hurricane database (or HURDAT, also called “best tracks” since they are the “best” determination of track and intensity in a post-season analysis of the tropical cyclones). The original database of six-hourly tropical cyclone (i.e. tropical storms and hurricanes) positions and intensities was assembled in the 1960s in support of the Apollo space program to help provide statistical tropical cyclone track forecasting guidance (Jarvinen et al. 1984). Since its inception, this database, which is freely and easily accessible on the Internet from NHC's webpage <http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastall.shtml>, has been utilized for a wide variety of additional projects: setting of appropriate building codes for coastal zones, risk assessment for emergency managers, analysis of potential losses for insurance and business interests, intensity forecasting techniques, verification of official and model predictions of track and intensity, seasonal forecasting, and climatic change studies. Unfortunately, HURDAT was not designed with all of these uses in mind when it was first put together and not all of them may be appropriate, given its original motivation and limitations. There are many reasons why a re-analysis of the HURDAT dataset was both needed and timely. HURDAT contained many systematic and random errors that needed correction (Neumann 1994). Additionally, as our understanding of tropical cyclones had developed, analysis techniques at NHC changed over the years, and led to biases in the historical database that had not been addressed (Landsea 1993). Another difficulty in applying the hurricane database to studies concerned with landfalling events was the lack of exact location, time and intensity information at landfall. Finally, recent efforts led by Jose Fernandez-Partagas to uncover previously undocumented historical tropical cyclones in the mid-1800s to early 1900s have greatly increased our knowledge of these past events (Partagas and Diaz 1996a), which also had not been incorporated into the HURDAT database. Currently, the HURDAT database is updated at the end of each year's hurricane season after the NHC hurricane specialists perform a post-season analysis of that year’s storms. The most recent documentation generally available for the database is a NOAA Technical Memorandum by Jarvinen et al. (1984). While this reference is still valid for most descriptions of the tropical cyclone database, it too is in need of revision. This chapter is designed to help provide a more up to date documentation for HURDAT. A re-analysis of the Atlantic tropical cyclone database is justified by the need to address these deficiencies as well as to extend the historical record back in time. This chapter details the first efforts to improve both the accuracy and consistency of HURDAT for the years of 1886 to 1910 as well as to provide an additional thirty-five years (1851-1885) into the archived database of Atlantic tropical storms and hurricanes. Outline of Databases Provided in the Re-Analysis As part of the re-analysis effort, five files have been made available:
These files along with track maps showing all tropical storms and hurricanes for individual years are available on the HURDAT re-analysis web page: <http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/data_sub/re_anal.html>. The Work of Jose Fernandez-Partagas “Storm 1, 1856 (Aug. 10-11).Center Fix Files From the observations uncovered by Partagas for this storm – Storm 1, 1856, the following “center fix” data were archived as shown in Table 2a. (A center fix position observation was unavailable for this storm, so a sample data point for Storm 5, 1852 is shown as an example in Table 2b.) The conversion from descriptive measures of winds to quantitative wind speeds, while quite subjective, is assisted by the usage of the Beaufort Scale, which was developed as a wind force scale for sailing ships by Admiral Francis Beaufort in 1805 and made mandatory for log entries in the British Royal Navy by 1838 (Kinsman 1969). Subsequently, the scale evolved into one associated with specific wind speed ranges as specified by interpretations of the sea state, rather than the wind’s impact on sails (Table 3). Due to limitations at the top end of the Beaufort Scale, the center fix and best track data in the re-analysis generally list ship reports of “hurricane” force winds as 70 kt (36 m s-1) winds. The listed wind speeds were boosted to 90 kt (46 m s-1) when ship reports included terms such as “severe”, “violent”, “terrific”, or “great hurricane”. Hurricanes at sea were not assigned a best track intensity value of major hurricane (Saffir-Simpson Scale Category 3, 4 or 5; 96 kt [50 m s-1] or greater maximum sustained surface wind speeds) unless corresponding central pressure data was able to confirm such an intensity. Caution was warranted in the direct use of these Beaufort Scale wind estimates for tropical storm and hurricane intensity assignments due to lack of consistency and standardization in the scale during the late 19th and early 20th Centuries (Cardone et al. 1990). However, in many cases these Beaufort Scale measurements by mariners were the only clues available for estimating the intensity of tropical cyclones of this era. Occasionally, there were ship observations with no specific dates available. These were primarily utilized to provide information about the track of the storm (e.g. a southwest gale noted by a ship captain would indicate a tropical cyclone located to the northwest of the ship’s position) as long as other ship/land observations could help pinpoint its timing. “Dateless” ship observations were also infrequently utilized to assist in the intensity estimates. For land based observations of wind speed, there were generally two types available during the second half of the 19th and early 20th Centuries: visual estimates and the four cup Robinson anemometer (Ludlum 1963, Ho 1989). Visual estimates, though crude, were somewhat standardized by use of a ten point scale for use by volunteers of the Smithsonian Institute as well as by Army observers at various forts (Table 4, M. Chenoweth, personal communication, 2001). Of modestly more reliability was the four cup anemometer, first developed by Robinson in the 1840s (Kinsman 1969). Of primary difficulties were calibrating the instrument and its mechanical failure in high wind conditions. Even as late as 1890, the highest wind that could be reliably calibrated with this instrument was only about 30 kt (from a whirling machine), due to lack of a strict comparison with a known quantity of stronger winds (Fergusson and Covert 1924). By the early 1920s, wind tunnels allowed for calibration against much stronger winds. These showed that the winds from these early cup anemometers had a strong overestimation bias, which was most pronounced at very strong wind speeds (Fergusson and Covert 1924). For example, an indicated wind of minimal hurricane force (64 kt) in actuality was only about 50 kt. Moreover, most of these early four cup anemometers were disabled or destroyed before sampling the highest winds of hurricanes. The strongest observed winds in an Atlantic hurricane by this type of anemometer was a 5-min sustained wind measurement of 120 kt in storm 2, 1879, just before the instrument was destroyed by this North Carolina-landfalling hurricane (Kadel 1926). (A standard of 5-min was typically utilized in U.S. Army Corps and Weather Bureau reports of “maximum winds”, due to instrumental uncertainties in obtained reliable values for shorter time period winds.) With reliable calibrations available in the 1920s, this extreme wind’s true velocity was only about 91 kt. Current understanding of gustiness in hurricane conditions suggest a boost of 1.05 to convert from a 5-min to a 1-min maximum sustained wind (Dunion et al. 2002), giving a best estimate of the maximum 1-min sustained wind of about 96 kt. Coastal station wind data listed in the center fix files are the original measurements provided. It is in the interpretation of these data for inclusion into the best track that these various biases and limitations (i.e., strong overestimation in high wind regime, conversion of 5-min to 1-min wind, and instrumental failure) are taken into account. More on the difficulties of the intensity estimations is found in the Limitations and Errors section Wind-Pressure Relationships where PR is the sea level pressure at radius R, Po is the central pressure
at sea level, and Pn is the environmental (or surrounding) sea level
pressure at the outer limit of a tropical cyclone where the cyclonic
circulation ends. 1) For GMEX Wind (kt)=10.627*(1013-Po)0.5640 Sample size =664; r=0.991The central pressure for these equations is given in units of millibars and r refers to the linear correlation coefficient. Dashes in Table 5 indicate that the pressure is lower than that available in the developmental dataset. Wind and pressure data used for the regression were obtained from the HURDAT file, 1970-1997. The developmental dataset excludes all overland tropical cyclone positions. Data for the < 25oN zone were obtained from longitudes of 62°W and westward. Data for the 25-35oN zone are from 57.5°W and westward. Data for 35-45°N include the longitudes of 51°W and westward. GMEX includes all over-water data west of a line from northeastern Yucatan to 25°N, 80°W. These locations were chosen based on their accessibility by aircraft reconnaissance that can provide both actual wind speed and pressure measurements. When developing the wind-pressure relationships, attempts were first made to develop the equations with all of the available data for each region. However, the overwhelming numbers of observations at the low wind speed ranges overweighted the observations of the tropical storms and Category 1 hurricanes at the expense of the major hurricanes. When the derived equations were compared against the observations of wind and pressure at the very high wind values (> 100 kt [51 m s-1]), the fit was quite poor. This was overcome by binning the observations into 5 mb groups and then performing the regression. Using this methodology, the observations at the 981-985 mb range, for example, were weighted equally to those of the 931-935 mb range. After performing the regression this way, a much more accurate set of regression equations with the wind and pressure estimates for the Category 3, 4 and 5 hurricane ranges was obtained. Because this method reduces the standard deviation of the sample as well as the sample size, the correlation coefficients are inflated. In general, the Dvorak formulation is most similar to the Gulf of Mexico and southern latitude relationships. For example, a 960 mb hurricane is suggested to have 102 kt (52 m s-1) sustained surface winds from Dvorak's relationship, which is quite close to the 100 kt (51 m s-1) estimate provided by both the Gulf of Mexico and southern latitude relationships. However, there is a tendency for the Dvorak wind values to be higher than winds provided by the Gulf of Mexico and southern latitude wind-pressure relationships for the extremely intense (< 920 mb) hurricanes, though the number of data points available for calibration of this end of the wind-pressure curves is quite low. In addition, the Dvorak wind-pressure relationship systematically overestimates the wind speeds actually utilized by NHC for the subtropical and northern latitude hurricanes with central pressures less than 975 mb. For the case of a hurricane with a 960 mb central pressure, the subtropical and northern latitude equations suggest 94 kt (48 m s-1) and 90 kt (46 m s-1), respectively. The weaker winds in higher latitudes can be explained physically with the following reasoning: As hurricanes move poleward encountering cooler sea surface temperatures and begin to evolve into an extratropical cyclone, the tight pressure gradient and resulting wind field typically weakens and expands outward. This is due in part to structural evolution, but also due to less efficient vertical momentum transport by convection in a more stable environment. In addition, increases in the Coriolis force causes a corresponding, but small, decrease in tangential wind speed (Holland 1987). Since these changes become more pronounced as the tropical cyclones move into higher latitudes, an even larger reduction in wind speed was utilized poleward of 45oN. It is thus consistent that the Dvorak wind-pressure relationship overestimates of winds in higher latitudes because the original formulation of Kraft is based primarily upon observations from the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. The use of wind-pressure relationships to estimate winds in tropical cyclones has a few associated caveats. First, for a given central pressure, a smaller-sized tropical cyclone (measured either by RMW or radius of hurricane/gale force winds) will produce stronger winds than a large tropical cyclone. From Vickery et al. (2001), the mean RMW (in km) of Atlantic tropical cyclones can be expressed as a function of central pressure (Po), environmental pressure (Pn) and latitude (L): ln(RMW) = 2.636 - 0.00005086*( Po - Pn )2 + 0.0394899*(L).Tropical storms and hurricanes with observed/estimated RMW that deviated by 25-50% from the average RMW values had wind speeds adjusted accordingly by about 5 kt. Tropical cyclones with RMW dramatically (more than 50%) different from climatology had winds adjusted by about 10 kt. A second caveat concerns the translational speed of the tropical cyclone. In general, the translational speed is an additive factor on the right side of the storm and a negative factor on the left (Callaghan and Smith 1998). For example, a tropical cyclone moving westward in the Northern Hemisphere at 10 kt (5 m s-1) with maximum sustained winds of 90 kt (46 m s-1) on the west and east sides would produce approximately 100 kt (51 m s-1) of wind on the north side and only 80 kt (41 m s-1) on the south side. At low to medium translational speeds (less than around 20 kt [10 m s-1]), the variation in storm winds on opposite sides of the storm track is approximately twice the translational velocity, although there is substantial uncertainty and non-uniformity regarding this impact on tropical cyclone winds. At faster translational speeds, this factor is somewhat less than two (Boose et al. 2001). Storms that move significantly faster than the regionally-dependent climatological translational speeds (Neumann 1993, Vickery et al. 2001) have been chosen in the re-analysis to have higher maximum sustained wind speeds than slower storms with the same central pressure. Similarly, storms with slower than usual rates of translational velocity may have slightly lower winds for a given central pressure. Such alterations to the standard wind-pressure relationship were previously accounted for to some degree in the original version of HURDAT (Jarvinen et al. 1984), so the period of 1886 to 1910 was checked for consistency in the implementation of translational velocity impacts upon maximum sustained surface winds and changes made where needed. A third caveat of the wind-pressure relationships is that these algorithms were derived assuming over-water conditions. The use of the relationship for tropical cyclones overland must consider the increased roughness length of typical land surfaces and the dampening of the maximum sustained wind speeds that result. In general, maximum sustained wind speeds over open terrain exposures (with roughness lengths of 0.03 m) are about 5-10% slower than over-water wind speeds (Powell and Houston 1996), though for rougher terrain the wind speed decrease is substantially greater. Finally, the derivation of the new regional wind-pressure relationships here is quite different from those originally analyzed by Kraft (1961) and Dvorak (1984). In these earlier efforts, observed central pressures were directly matched with observed maximum sustained surface winds. One substantial limitation in such efforts was in obtaining a sizable sample upon which to derive the wind-pressure equations. Here this limitation is avoided by using the actual HURDAT wind and central pressure values in recent years, which does provide a large dataset to work with. However, this approach lacks a degree of independence, as NHC used the Kraft and Dvorak wind-pressure curves to provide estimates of maximum sustained surface winds from observed central pressures. This was especially the case during the 1970s, when aircraft flight-level winds were often discarded in favor of using the measured central pressure since there was considerable uncertainty as to how to extrapolate flight-level winds to the surface (Paul Hebert, personal communication). Such interdependence between recent HURDAT winds and central pressures may somewhat account for the close match between the Dvorak formulation to the Gulf of Mexico and southern latitude relationships. Despite these concerns, the development of regionalized wind-pressure relationships represents a step toward more realistic wind-pressure associations, though improvements beyond what has been presented here could certainly be achieved. For many late 19th and early 20th Century storms, the central pressure could not be estimated from peripheral pressure measurements with the Schloemer equation because of unknown values for the RMW. Such peripheral pressure data were noted accordingly in the metadata file and used as a minimum estimate of what the best track winds were at the time. In most of these cases, the best track winds that were chosen were substantially higher than that suggested by the wind-pressure relationship itself. For Storm 1, 1856, maximum sustained winds consistent with the ship report of a 955 mb peripheral pressure measurement should be at least 105 kt (54 m s-1) based on the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship (Table 5). In this case, 130 kt (67 m s-1) was chosen for the best track at the time of this ship report (see Metadata Files section for more details). Best Track Files Limitations and Errors 1800s: Ship logs provided tropical cyclone observations (after returning to port)Note that until the invention of radio (1902), the only way to obtain ship reports of hurricanes at sea was after the ships made their way back to port. Observations from ship reports were not of use to the fledgling weather services in the United States and Cuba operationally, though some of them were available for post-season analyses of the tropical cyclone activity. These ship reports – many not collected previously - proved to be invaluable to Ludlum (1963), Ho (1989) and Partagas and Diaz (1995a, 1995b, 1996b, 1996c, 1997) and others in their historical reconstruction of past hurricanes. While geographical positions of tropical cyclones in HURDAT were estimated to the nearest 0.1 degrees latitude and longitude (~6 nmi or ~11 km), the average errors were typically much larger in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries than this precision might imply (Table 7). Holland (1981) demonstrated that even with the presence of numerous ships and buoys in the vicinity of a strong tropical cyclone that was also monitored by aircraft reconnaissance, there were substantial errors in estimating its exact center position from the ship and buoy data alone. Based upon this, storms documented over the open ocean during the period of 1851 to 1885 were estimated to have position errors that averaged 120 nmi (220 km), with ranges of 180 to 240 nmi (330 to 440 km) errors being quite possible. In the later years of 1886 to 1910, this is improved somewhat to average position errors of around 100 nmi (185 km). At landfall, knowledge of the location of the tropical cyclone was generally more accurate, as long as the storm came ashore in a relatively populated region (Table 7). Users should consult the corresponding center fix files to see if there are actual location center fixes available from ships or coastal observations. If so, the location error for the nearest six-hourly best track position would be smaller - on the order of 30 nmi (55 km). Storm intensity values for 1851 to 1885 were estimated to the nearest 10 kt (5 m s-1), but were likely to have large uncertainty as well (Table 7). Starting in 1886, winds were given in intervals of 5 kt (2.5 m s-1), consistent with the previous version of HURDAT. Best track intensity estimates for 1851 to 1910 were based mainly upon observations by ships at sea, which more often than not, would not sample the very worst part of the storm (typically only 30-60 nmi (55-110 km) in diameter). Holland (1981) demonstrated that even in a relatively data-rich region of ship and buoy observations within the circulation of a tropical cyclone, the actual intensity was likely to be substantially underestimated. Figures 3 and 4 provide a graphic demonstration of this for Major Hurricane Erin of 2001 that made a close by-pass of Bermuda. Aircraft winds extrapolated to the ocean surface indicated maximum sustained surface winds of just above 100 kt (51 m s-1) in Major Hurricane Erin (Figure 3). However, despite transiting within 85 nmi (160 km) of Bermuda, the highest observed surface winds from ships and coastal stations were only around 40 kt (20 m s-1) (Figure 4). Such an underestimation of tropical cyclone intensities was likely common in the pre-satellite and pre-aircraft reconnaissance era. It was estimated that the intensity measurements for 1851 to 1885 were in error an average of 25 kt (13 m s-1) over the open ocean, with a bias toward underestimating the true intensity (Table 7). For the later period of 1886 to 1910, this was slightly improved – to an average error of 20 kt (10 m s-1) over the ocean. At landfall, intensity estimates were improved and show a negligible bias as long as the landfall occurs over a populated coastline (Table 7). Metadata Files 1856/01: Utilized Ho's (1989) work - apparently not used in Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis - to alter the track and intensity near the US. Inland winds over SE US reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model. Ship with pressure measurement of 955 mb not in the hurricane's eye suggests at least 105 kt with the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship, utilize 130 kt in best track. Ho's estimate of 934 mb at landfall gives 125 kt, utilize 130 kt in best track - a major hurricane. A small RMW of 12 nmi supports slight increase of winds over suggested wind-pressure relationship. Surge value of 11-12' provided by Ludlum (1963) for Last Island, Louisiana. The storm is also known as the “Last Island Hurricane” after the destruction caused at that location.For the cases where Partagas and Diaz or the original HURDAT had listed a storm, but it was not for some reason included into the revised HURDAT, an addendum to the Metadata File for that year is included. For example, here is a case for 1851: 1851 - Additional Notes: United States
Tropical Cyclones Evaluation
of the HURDAT Revision by NHC Historical tropical cyclone reconstructions are inevitably subject to revisions whenever new archived information is uncovered. Thus while several thousand alterations and additions to HURDAT have been completed for the years 1851 to 1910, this does not insure that there may not be further changes once new information is made available. Such an archive of historical data – especially one based upon quasi-objective interpretations of limited observations – should always be one that can be revised when more data or better interpretations of exisiting information becomes available. However, much more work still needs to be accomplished for the Atlantic hurricane database. One essential project is a Partagas and Diaz style re-analysis for both the years before 1851 and for the pre-aircraft reconnaissance era of 1911 to 1943. The former may lead to a complete dataset of U.S. landfalling hurricanes for the Atlantic coast from Georgia to New England back to at least 1800, given the relatively high density of population extending that far into the past. The latter project would likely yield a much higher quality dataset for the entire Atlantic basin – especially for frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones – given the availability of revised compilations of ship data (e.g. Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set, Woodruff et al. 1987). Another possibility is to re-examine the intensity record of tropical cyclones since 1944 by utilizing the original aircraft reconnaissance data in the context of today’s understanding of tropical cyclone eyewall structure and best extrapolations from flight-level winds to the surface winds (e.g. Dunion et al. 2002). Finally, efforts could be directed to extending the scope of the HURDAT database to include other parameters of interest, such as RMW and radii of gale and hurricane force winds by quadrant. Regardless of the final direction pursued by future research into the re-analysis of Atlantic hurricanes, it is hoped that efforts detailed here have already expanded the possibilities for the utilization of the Atlantic hurricane database. Users now have access to a more complete record of Atlantic hurricanes, one that extends further back in time and one that provides more information regarding the limitations and error sources. In any planning for the future, a thorough appreciation of past events helps one prepare for possibilities to come. Atlantic hurricanes, arguably the most destructive of all natural phenomena in the Western Hemisphere, demand our attention for their understanding to better prepare society for the impacts that they bring. This re-analysis of Atlantic basin tropical storms and hurricanes that now provide users with 150 years of record may be able to assist in such endeavors in at least a small way. Acknowledgments References Academia de Ciencias, 1970: Atlas Nacional de Cuba. Havana, Cuba, 132 pp. Alexander, W. H., 1902: Hurricanes, especially those of Puerto Rico and St. Kitts. Bulletin 32, Weather Bureau, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 79 pp. Barnes, J., 1998a: Florida's Hurricane History. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 330 pp. Barnes, J., 1998b: North Carolina's Hurricane History. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 256 pp. Bender, M. A., R. E. Tuleya, and Y. Kurihara, 1985: A numerical study of the effect of a mountain range on a landfalling tropical cyclone. Mon. Wea. Rev., 113, 567-582. Boose, E. R., K. E. Chamberlin, and D. R. Foster, 2001: Landscape and regional impacts of hurricanes in New England. Ecological Monographs, 71, 27-48. Boose, E. R., M. I. Serrano, and D. R. Foster, 2002: Landscape and regional impacts of hurricanes in Puerto Rico. (In preparation.) Callaghan, J. and R. K. Smith, 1998: The relationship between maximum surface wind speeds and central pressure in tropical cyclones. Aust. Met. Mag., 47, 191-202. Cardone, V. J., J. G. Greenwood, and M. A. Cane, 1990: On trends in historical marine wind data. J. Climate, 3, 113-127. Cline, I. M., 1926: Tropical Cyclones, The Macmillan Company, New York, 301 pp. Coch, N. K. and B. Jarvinen, 2000: Reconstruction of the 1893 New York City hurricane from meteorological and archaeological records – Implications for the future. Preprints of the 24th Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology, Amer. Meteor. Soc., Ft. Lauderdale, FL, 546. Connor, 1956: Preliminary Summary of Gulf of Mexico Hurricane Data. Report from the New Orleans Forecast Office. Department of Interior, 1895: Report on Population of the United States at the Eleventh Census: 1890_. Part I. Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office. Doehring, F., I.W. Duedall, and J.M. Williams, 1994: Florida Hurricanes and Tropical Storms, 1871-1993, An Historical Survey. Tp-71, Florida Sea Grant College Program, Gainesville, Florida, USA, 118 pp. Dunion, J. P., C. W. Landsea, and S. H. Houston, 2002: A re-analysis of the surface winds for Hurricane Donna of 1960. Accepted to Mon. Wea. Rev. Dunn, G. E., and Miller, B. I., 1960: Atlantic Hurricanes, Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, La., 326 pp. Dvorak, V.F., 1984: Tropical cyclone intensity analysis using satellite data. NOAA Technical Report. NESDIS 11, 47 pp. Ellis, M. J., 1988: The Hurricane Almanac - 1988 Texas Edition. Hurricane Publications, Inc., Corpus Christi, Texas, 213 pp, (ISBN 0-9618707-1-0). Fergusson, S. P., and R. N. Covert, 1924: New standards of anemometry. Mon. Wea. Rev., 52, 216-218. Fitzpatrick, P. J., 1999: Natural Disasters: Hurricanes. ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara, CA, 286 pp. Garcia-Bonnelly, J. U., 1958: Hurricanes which caused damage on the Island of Hispanola. Final report of the Caribbean hurricane seminar, Ciudad Trujillo, D.N., Dominican Republic, Feb. 16-25, 1956, 401 pp. Garriott, E. B., 1900: West Indian Hurricanes. Bulletin H, U.S. Weather Bureau, Washington, D. C., 69 pp. Gutierrez-Lanza, M., 1904: Apuntes historicos acerca del Observatorio del Colegio de Belen. Imprenta Avisador Comercial, Havana, 178 pp. Hall, M., 1913: A Report on the Storms and Hurricanes in Jamaica. No. 411, Government Printing Office, Kingston, Jamaica, 16 pp. Hebert, P. J., and C. J. McAdie, 1997: Tropical cyclone intensity climatology of the North Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS TPC 2, Miami, Florida, 48 pp. Ho, F. P., 1989: Extreme hurricanes in the nineteenth century. NOAA Technical Memorandum, NWS Hydro 43, Silver Spring, Maryland, 134 pp. Ho, F. P., J. C. Su, K. L. Hanevich, R. J. Smith, and F. P. Richards, 1987: Hurricane climatology for the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States. NOAA Technical Report, NWS 38, 193 pp. Holland, G. J., 1981: On the quality of the Australian tropical cyclone
data base. Aust. Met. Mag., 29, 169-181. Instituto Cubano de Geodesia y Cartografia, 1978: Atlas de Cuba. Havana, Cuba, 143 pp. Jarvinen, B., 1990: Storm surge atlas for Southwest Florida. NOAA Technical Memorandum Jarvinen, B. R., C. J. Neumann, and M. A. S. Davis, 1984: A tropical cyclone data tape for the North Atlantic Basin, 1886-1983: Contents, limitations, and uses. NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS NHC 22, Coral Gables, Florida, 21 pp. Jarrell, J. D., P. J. Hebert, and M. Mayfield, 1992: Hurricane experience levels of coastal county populations from Texas to Maine. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NWS NHC-46, 152 pp. Jelesnianski, C. P., 1993: The habitation layer. Global Guide to Tropical Cyclone Forecasting. WMO/TC-No. 560, Report No. TCP-31, World Meteorological Organization; Geneva, Switzerland. Kadel, B. C., 1926: An interpretation of the wind velocity record at Miami Beach, Fla., September 17-18, 1926. Mon. Wea. Rev., 54, 414-416. Kagan, H. H. (Ed.), 1966: American Heritage, American Heritage Publishing Co., New York. Kaplan, J., and M. DeMaria, 1995: A simple empirical model for predicting the decay of tropical cyclone winds after landfall. J. Appl. Meteor., 34, 2499-2512. Kaplan, J., and M. DeMaria, 2001: On the decay of tropical cyclone winds after landfall in the New England area. J. Appl. Meteor., 40, 280-286. Kinsman, B., 1969: Who put the wind speeds in Admiral Beaufort’s Force Scale? Oceans., 2, 18-25. Kraft, R. H., 1961: The hurricane's central pressure and highest wind. Mar. Wea. Log, 5, 155. Ludlum, D. M., 1963: Early American Hurricanes 1492-1870. Amer. Meteor. Soc., Boston, 198 pp. Martinez-Fortun, J. A., 1942: Ciclones de Cuba. Revista Bimestre Cubana, 50, 232-249. Mitchell, C. L., 1924: West Indian hurricanes and other tropical cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean. Mon. Wea. Rev.,, Supplement 24, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 47 pp. Neumann, C. J., 1993: Global Overview - Chapter 1, Global Guide to Tropical Cyclone Forecasting, WMO/TC-No. 560, Report No. TCP-31, World Meteorological Organization, Geneva. Neumann, C. J., 1994: An update to the OAR “Track Book”. Minutes of the 48th Interdepartmental Conference, Miami, FL, Office of Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research, NOAA, A-47 – A-53. Neumann, C. J., B. R. Jarvinen, C. J. McAdie, and J. D. Elms, 1993: Tropical Cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean, 1871-1992. NOAA NESDIS, Historical Climatology Series 6-2, 193 pp. Neumann, C. J., B. R. Jarvinen, C. J. McAdie, and G. R. Hammer, 1999: Tropical Cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean, 1871-1999. NOAA/NWS/NESDIS, Historical Climatology Series 6-2, 206 pp. Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research (OFCM) 2001: National Hurricane Operations Plan (NHOP). FCM-P12-2001, NOAA, Washington, D.C. Ortiz-Hector, R., 1975: Organismos ciclonicos tropicales extemporaneous. Serie meteorological No. 5, Academia de Ciencias de Cuba, Havana, 99 pp. Parkes, G. S., L. A. Ketch, C. T. O'Reilly, J. Shaw and A. Ruffman, 1998: The Saxby Gale of 1869 in the Canadian maritimes. Preprints of the 23rd Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology, Amer. Meteor. Soc., Dallas, Texas, 791-794. Partagas, J. F.-, and H. F. Diaz, 1995a: A reconstruction of historical tropical cyclone frequency in the Atlantic from documentary and other historical sources 1851 to 1880. Part I: 1851-1870. Climate Diagnostics Center, NOAA, Boulder. Partagas, J. F.-, and H. F. Diaz, 1995b: A reconstruction of historical tropical cyclone frequency in the Atlantic from documentary and other historical sources 1851 to 1880. Part II: 1871-1880. Climate Diagnostics Center, NOAA, Boulder. Partagas, J. F.-, and H. F. Diaz, 1996a: Atlantic Hurricanes in the second half of the Nineteenth Century. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 77, 2899-2906. Partagas, J. F.-, and H. F. Diaz, 1996b: A reconstruction of historical tropical cyclone frequency in the Atlantic from documentary and other historical sources. Part III: 1881-1890. Climate Diagnostics Center, NOAA, Boulder. Partagas, J. F.-, and H. F. Diaz, 1996c: A reconstruction of historical tropical cyclone frequency in the Atlantic from documentary and other historical sources. Part IV: 1891-1900. Climate Diagnostics Center, NOAA, Boulder. Partagas, J. F.-, and H. F. Diaz, 1997: A reconstruction of historical tropical cyclone frequency in the Atlantic from documentary and other historical sources. Part V: 1901-1908. Climate Diagnostics Center, NOAA, Boulder. Partagas, J. F.-, and H. F. Diaz, 1999: A reconstruction of historical tropical cyclone frequency in the Atlantic from documentary and other historical sources. Part VI: 1909-1910. Climate Diagnostics Center, NOAA, Boulder. Perez Suarez, R., R. Vega y M. Limia, 2000: Cronologia de los ciclones tropicales de Cuba. En Informe Final del Proyecto "Los ciclones tropicales de Cuba, su variabilidad y su posible vinculacion con los Cambios Globales". Instituto de Meteorologia. La Habana. Cuba.100 pp. Pielke R. A., and C. W. Landsea, 1998: Normalized hurricane damages in the hurricane United States: 1925-95, Wea. Forecasting, 13, 621-631. Powell, M. D., and S. H. Houston, 1996: Hurricane Andrew's landfall in South Florida. Part II: Surface wind fields and potential real-time applications. Wea. Forecasting, 11, 329-349. Ramsey, R., and M. J. Reilly, 2002: The Hurricane of October 21-24, 1878. Delaware Geological Survey, Special Publication No. 22, 88 pp. Rappaport, E. N., and J. F.-Partagas, 1995: The deadliest Atlantic tropical cyclones, 1492-1994. NOAA Technical Memorandum, NWS NHC-47, Coral Gables, 41 pp. Rodriguez-Demorizi, E., 1958: La marina de Guerra domincana. Editorial Montalvo, Ciudad Trujillo, R.D., 430 pp. Rodriguez-Ferrer, M., 1876: Naturaleza y civilizacion de la grandiose Isla de Cuba. Imprenta J. Noriega, Madrid, 942 pp. Roth, D. M., 1997a: Louisiana Hurricane History. National Weather Service, Lake Charles, Louisiana, <http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lch/research/lahur.htm> Roth, D. M., 1997b: Texas Hurricane History. National Weather Service, Lake Charles, Louisiana, <http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lch/research/txhur.htm>. Roth, D. M. and H. D. Cobb, III, 2000: Re-analysis of the gale of '78 - Storm 9 of the 1878 hurricane season. Preprints of the 24th Conferenceon Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology, American Meteorological Society, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 544-545. Roth, D. M. and H. D. Cobb, III, 2001: Virginia Hurricane History. Hydrometeorological Prediction Center, Camp Springs, Maryland, <http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/roth/vahur.htm>. Salivia, L. A., 1972: Historia de los temporales de Puerto Rico y las Antillas (1492-1970). Editorial Edio, Inc., San Juan, Puerto Rico, 325 pp. Sandrik, A. and B. Jarvinen, 1999: A re-evaluation of the Georgia and northeast Florida tropical cyclone of 2 October 1898. Preprints of the 23rd Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology, American Meteorological Society, Dallas, TX, 475-478. Sarasola, S., 1928: Los huracanes en las Antillas. Imprenta Clasica Espanola, Madrid, 254 pp. Schloemer, R. W., 1954: Analysis and synthesis of hurricane wind patterns over Lake Okeechobee, Florida. Hydrometeorological Report No. 31, U.S. Weather Bureau, Department of Commerce and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. Schwerdt, R. W., F. P. Ho, and R. R. Watkins, 1979: Meteorological criteria for standard project hurricane and probable maximum hurricane windfields, Gulf and East Coasts of the United States, NOAA Technical Report NWS 23, National Weather Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Silver Spring, MD, 317 pp Simpson, R. H., and H. Riehl, 1981: The Hurricane and its Impact. Louisiana University Press, Baton Rouge and London, 398 pp. Sullivan, C. L., 1986: Hurricanes of the Mississippi Gulf Coast. Gulf Publishing Co., MS, 139 pp. Tannehill, I. R., 1938: Hurricanes, their nature and history. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 257 pp. Tanner, H. H. (Ed.), 1995: The Settling of North America, Macmillan, New York, (ISBN 0-02-616272-5). Tucker, T., 1982: Beware the Hurricane! The Story of the Cyclonic Tropical Storms that have Struck Bermuda 1609-1982. Island Press Limited, Hamilton, Bermuda, 173 pp. Vickery, P. J., P. F. Skerlj, and L. A. Twisdale, 2000: Simulation of hurricane risk in the U. S. using empirical track model. J. of Structural Engineering, 126, 1222-1237. Vines, B., 1877: Apuntes relativos a los huracanes de las Antillas en septiembre y octubre de 1875 y 76. Tipografia El Iris, Havana, 256 pp. Vines, B., 1895: Investigaciones relatives a la circulacion y translacion ciclonica en los huracanes de las Antillas. Imprenta El Aviasador Comercial, Havana, 79 pp. Woodruff, S. D., R. J. Slutz, R. L. Jenne, and P. M. Steurer, 1987: A Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 68, 1239-1250. |
![[OAR/DOC/NOAA Logos]](../oar_noaa_doc_logos3.jpg)
