********************************************************************************
1879/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) for this
newly documented hurricane. The storm is determined to have reached
hurricane intensity based upon several ship reports.
********************************************************************************
1879/02: Only substantial change from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) is to alter
the track near the U.S. eastern seaboard to accommodate observations
described in Ho (1989). Track has otherwise reasonable though large
alterations by Partagas and Diaz (1995b) from that shown in Neumann et al.
(1993), originally storm number 1. Inland decay model of Kaplan and
DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the eastern United States.
Ho (1989) estimated 971 mb at landfall in North Carolina with a small radius
of maximum wind (16 n mi). 971 mb central pressure suggests 85 kt from the
subtropical wind-pressure relationship. However, due to the small RMW,
winds are chosen for the best track to be 100 kt. This is the basis for
determining that this storm reached major hurricane intensity. 979 mb
central pressure (while back over water) suggests winds of 74 kt from the
northern wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt chosen to take into account the
small RMW. 984 mb central pressure (twice) suggest winds of 69 kt from the
northern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen, again because of small
RMW. The best track provided appears to describe the full life cycle of
this tropical cyclone (from its formation as a tropical storm to its peak as
a major hurricane until its dissipation as an extratropical storm).
1879/02 - 2003 REVISION:
06425 08/13/1879 M= 8 2 SNBR= 190 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
06425 08/13/1879 M= 8 2 SNBR= 193 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
***
06430 08/13*190 580 40 0*190 590 40 0*190 600 40 0*190 613 40 0
06435 08/14*191 629 40 0*192 645 40 0*192 656 40 0*195 668 40 0
06440 08/15*197 680 40 0*201 690 40 0*205 700 50 0*212 711 50 0
06445 08/16*217 721 60 0*225 729 60 0*232 736 70 0*242 746 70 0
06450 08/17*252 756 80 0*265 769 80 0*277 776 90 0*293 784 90 0
06455 08/18*312 784 100 0*328 779 100 0*345 768 100 971*373 754 90 979
06455 08/18*312 784 100 0*328 779 100 0*345 768 100 971*373 754 80 979
**
06460 08/19*395 734 80 984*414 708 80 984*433 680 70 0*448 654 60 0
06460 08/19*395 734 70 0*414 708 70 984*433 680 60 0*448 654 60 0
** *** ** **
06465 08/20*465 617 60 0*482 583 60 0*493 550 50 0*502 515 50 0
06470 HR NC3 VA1 MA1
06470 HR NC3 VA2
*** ***
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States
Winds Simpson Pressure Affected
2-8/18/1879 1200Z 34.7N 76.7W 100kt 3 971mb NC3,VA1
2-8/18/1879 1200Z 34.7N 76.7W 100kt 3 971mb NC3,VA2
***
2-8/19/1879 0600Z 41.4N 70.8W 80kt 1 984mb MA1
2-8/19/1879 0600Z 41.4N 70.8W 60kt TS 984mb (None)
** ** ******
Analysis of this hurricane's impacts in Virginia by Roth and Cobb (2001)
from wind and storm surge caused damage suggest that Category 2 conditions
are more representative of what occurred in and around Norfolk, Virginia.
(Note that Category 1 sustained windspeeds were observed in Cape Henry,
Virginia before the anemometer was destroyed by the wind. Presumably
higher winds would have been measured if the anemometer continued to
function.) A storm surge of 7' (personal communication - B. Jarvinen,
total storm tide of 8' from Roth and Cobb) was observed at Norfolk. (No
changes were needed to the 6 hourly intervals in HURDAT.)
Boose et al. (2001) did not include this hurricane in their publication
on New England hurricanes. Boose (personal communication) indicated
that their analysis found only F0 damage in Massachusetts, New York and
Rhode Island, not reaching their criterion for hurricane-intensity impacts.
The original supposition that the hurricane retained a tight RMW at a second
landfall in Massachusetts (after landfall in North Carolina) does not
have much substantiation, though the 984 mb central pressure is valid.
Given the observations of only 40 kt in New England and lack of hurricane-
wind caused damages it appears that either the RMW stayed offshore, the
hurricane had weakened or both was true. The 979 mb central pressure
at 1930Z on the 18th had been utilized to support a 90 kt wind at 18Z,
under the supposition that the small RMW would cause the maximum winds to
be substantially higher than the northern wind-pressure relationship
suggested winds (of 74 kt). This has been reduced slightly down to 80 kt
at 18Z on the 18th. The 984 mb central pressure is used directly to
estimate the peak winds while the hurricane made landfall - 69 kt from the
northern pressure-wind relationship. Thus 70 kt chosen for the best track
at 06Z on the 19th, reduced from 80 kt. Highest estimated wind in New
England is 60 kt, as the RMW with hurricane force winds likely remained
offshore.
While the 100 kt estimate for maximum 1 min surface winds to impact North
Carolina appears at first glance to be too high to be supported by a 971 mb
central pressure, a review of the available evidence does support a major
hurricane at landfall. As stated above, 971 mb suggests winds of 85 kt
from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship. Ho (1989) suggested a
rather small RMW of 16 nmi based upon the peak observed winds in Cape
Lookout and the eye passing just over/slightly west of Moorehead City.
This estimate appears reasonable, but certainly could be plus/minus 5 nmi.
However, the measured winds in Cape Lookout themselves are probably
the best evidence for maintaining major hurricane status. The winds
there measured by the Signal Corp officer reached 120 kt maximum wind
(typically measured as a 5 min wind in that era) when the anemometer
blew away. The observer estimated that the winds increased and
reached about 145 kt at their peak. It turns out that the
measurement of 120 kt is the highest ever observed by the old 4 cup
Robinson anemometer in a hurricane during the 19th Century (Kadel
1926). These older anemometers had a rather nasty high bias, however,
and the 120 kt value likely represented a true value of 91 kt
(Fergusson and Covert 1924). Converting this 5 min wind to today's
1 min standard (Powell et al. 1996) gives 97 kt. If one were to
trust the observer's estimate of a highest wind of 145 kt, this would
also convert to about 115 kt peak 1 min wind. However, winds
estimated visually are notoriously unreliable so little stock is
placed in this value (which would even place this hurricane into the
Category 4 status), except to say that the winds peaked higher than
the 97 kt when the anemometer was destroyed. Another consideration
for boosting the winds above the wind-pressure relationship is the
forward speed of the hurricane. The hurricane was in the process of
accelerating northward as it recurved and had a translational
velocity of about 25 kt, which is above the climatological value of
about 18 kt for that location (Neumann 1993). A faster than usual
system would have enhanced winds on the right semi-circle of the storm.
Finally, corroborating evidence to retain this as a major hurricane at
landfall is found in the descriptions in Partagas and Diaz (1995b),
Barnes (1998b), and Ho (1989) of a quite destructive hurricane from
both wind and surge. Dunn and Miller (1960) also termed it an
"extreme" hurricane. The bottom line is that the available evidence
is that it was a small, swiftly moving hurricane with maximum 1 min
winds at landfall in North Carolina of about 100 kt.
********************************************************************************
1879/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made large
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm
number 2. These track changes appear to be reasonable. Inland decay model
of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the Yucatan of
Mexico and the SE United States. 982 mb estimated central pressure at
landfall in Texas suggest 74 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure
relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track. The storm is determined to
have reached hurricane intensity while in the Caribbean based upon reports
from the ship "Elvina". The storm reintensified into a hurricane in the
Gulf of Mexico based upon destruction reported in Orange, Texas and the
estimated central pressure value.
1879/03 - 2003 REVISION:
06460 08/19/1879 M= 6 3 SNBR= 191 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
06460 08/19/1879 M= 6 3 SNBR= 194 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
*** *
06465 08/19*167 811 60 0*171 821 60 0*175 830 60 0*180 841 60 0
06470 08/20*185 854 70 0*191 865 70 0*197 876 70 0*202 890 60 0
06475 08/21*210 903 60 0*220 915 60 0*230 925 70 0*240 930 70 0
06480 08/22*250 935 70 0*261 938 70 0*273 940 80 0*281 941 80 0
06480 08/22*250 935 80 0*261 938 80 0*271 940 90 0*281 942 90 0
** ** *** ** *** **
06485 08/23*290 943 80 982*300 944 70 0*310 943 50 0*322 938 40 0
06485 08/23*293 944 90 964*308 942 70 0*323 938 50 988*335 933 40 0
*** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
06490 08/24*335 928 40 0*350 916 40 0*360 905 40 0*372 886 40 0
06490 08/24*344 926 40 0*352 916 30 0*360 905 30 0*368 886 30 0
*** *** *** ** ** *** **
06495 HRCTX1 LA1
06495 HRCTX2 LA2
**** ***
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States
Winds Simpson Pressure Affected
3-8/23/1879 0300Z 29.5N 94.4W 80kt 1 982mb CTX1,LA1
3-8/23/1879 0200Z 29.6N 94.4W 90kt 2 964mb CTX2,LA2
**** **** ** * *** **** ***
Details of this hurricane near and after landfall were reconsidered given
the information from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) of a possible central
pressure of 988 mb inland at Shreveport, Louisiana. The central pressure
decay relationship from Ho et al. (1987) is utilized along with a
10 hour over land trek by the hurricane to estimate a 964 mb central
pressure at landfall. The Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship
suggests winds of 95 kt - 90 kt chosen for the best track at landfall.
The 988 mb central pressure at Shreveport suggests winds of 65 kt from
the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure - 50 kt chosen for HURDAT because of the
inland location of the system. The track and intensity were adjusted
accordingly on the 22nd and 23rd. Decay stage of this hurricane to a
tropical depression before dissipation over land inadvertently left out
from the first revision of the best track, leading to slight revisions
downward in intensity on the 24th.
********************************************************************************
1879/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Track
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 3. Inland
decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over
the SE United States. Morgan City's sea level pressure of 972 mb not in
storm's center (at 12 UTC, the 1st of September) suggests winds of at
least 86 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 110 kt
chosen for best track. Storm is determined to have reached major
hurricane status at landfall based upon destruction described in Morgan
City, Louisiana as well as the peripheral pressure report.
1879/04 - 2003 REVISION:
06500 08/29/1879 M= 5 4 SNBR= 192 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
06500 08/29/1879 M= 5 4 SNBR= 195 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
***
06505 08/29*235 885 50 0*237 888 50 0*240 891 50 0*242 893 50 0
06510 08/30*244 896 70 0*247 900 70 0*250 903 80 0*254 906 80 0
06515 08/31*258 910 90 0*262 913 90 0*268 916 100 0*273 916 100 0
06515 08/31*258 910 90 0*262 913 90 0*268 915 100 0*273 916 100 0
***
06520 09/01*278 917 110 0*283 916 110 0*288 916 110 0*299 911 90 0
06520 09/01*278 917 110 0*283 916 110 0*288 915 110 0*299 911 90 0
***
06525 09/02*312 905 60 0*324 899 50 0*335 885 40 0*348 871 40 0
06525 09/02*312 905 60 0*324 899 50 0*335 885 40 0*348 871 30 0
**
06530 HR LA3
Track altered slightly on the 31st and 1st to provide a more realistic
smooth track. Decay stage of this hurricane to a tropical depression before
dissipation over land inadvertently left out from the first revision of the
best track.
********************************************************************************
1879/05: Storm was originally #6 in 1879 in Partagas and Diaz (1995b).
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Track unaltered from
Neumann et al. (1993). Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995)
utilized for inland winds over the SE United States. The best track
provided appears to describe the full life cycle of this tropical cyclone
(from its formation as a tropical storm until its dissipation below
tropical storm intensity).
1879/05 - 2003 REVISION:
06535 10/03/1879 M= 5 5 SNBR= 193 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
06535 10/03/1879 M= 5 5 SNBR= 196 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
06540 10/03*145 776 40 0*154 786 40 0*162 795 40 0*172 804 40 0
06545 10/04*182 814 40 0*191 821 40 0*200 830 40 0*207 839 40 0
06550 10/05*216 846 40 0*224 854 40 0*231 859 40 0*237 864 40 0
06555 10/06*244 869 50 0*250 874 50 0*258 879 50 0*267 884 50 0
06560 10/07*280 889 50 0*293 893 50 0*312 900 40 0*330 905 40 0
06560 10/07*280 889 50 0*293 893 50 0*312 900 40 0*330 905 30 0
**
06565 TS
Decay stage of this tropical storm to a tropical depression before dissipation
over land inadvertently left out from the first revision of the best track.
********************************************************************************
1879/06: Storm was originally #7 in 1879 in Partagas and Diaz (1995b).
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Track unaltered from
Neumann et al. (1993). Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995)
utilized for inland winds over the SE United States. The best track
provided appears to describe the full life cycle of this tropical cyclone
(from its formation as a tropical storm until its dissipation below
tropical storm intensity).
1879/06 - 2003 REVISION:
06570 10/09/1879 M= 8 6 SNBR= 194 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
06570 10/09/1879 M= 8 6 SNBR= 197 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
06575 10/09*142 560 40 0*142 572 40 0*143 585 40 0*144 599 40 0
06580 10/10*146 614 40 0*148 632 40 0*150 650 40 0*152 664 40 0
06585 10/11*154 681 40 0*157 700 40 0*160 720 50 0*162 736 50 0
06590 10/12*167 751 50 0*175 768 50 0*181 783 50 0*187 793 50 0
06595 10/13*192 803 50 0*200 811 50 0*204 819 50 0*210 826 50 0
06600 10/14*217 831 50 0*225 835 50 0*232 839 50 0*241 841 50 0
06605 10/15*249 843 50 0*259 845 50 0*268 848 50 0*277 851 50 0
06610 10/16*287 856 50 0*299 864 50 0*313 871 40 0*330 880 40 0
06610 10/16*287 856 50 0*299 864 50 0*313 871 40 0*330 880 30 0
**
06615 TS
Decay stage of this tropical storm to a tropical depression before dissipation
over land inadvertently left out from the first revision of the best track.
********************************************************************************
1879/07: Storm was originally #8 in 1879 in Partagas and Diaz (1995b).
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993). These track changes are found
to be reasonable. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized
for inland winds over Florida. Storm is documented to have reached
hurricane status based upon several ship reports.
********************************************************************************
1879/08: Storm was originally #9 in 1879 in Partagas and Diaz (1995b).
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993). These track changes are found
to be reasonable. Central pressure of 968 mb suggests winds of 84 kt from
northern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen, in part because the
hurricane had transitioned to an extratropical storm about six hours
previously. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane intensity based
upon the central pressure measurement and several ship observations.
1879/08 - 2003 REVISION:
06765 11/18/1879 M= 4 8 SNBR= 196 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
06765 11/18/1879 M= 4 8 SNBR= 199 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
06770 11/18*217 735 60 0*225 735 60 0*235 735 60 0*242 735 60 0
06775 11/19*252 735 70 0*263 735 70 0*280 735 80 0*306 730 80 0
06780 11/20*335 720 90 0*363 700 90 0*390 680 80 0*425 648 80 968
06780 11/20*335 720 90 0*363 700 90 0E390 680 80 0E425 648 80 968
* *
06785 11/21*458 618 70 0*493 587 60 0*530 555 50 0*550 540 50 0
06785 11/21E458 618 70 0E493 587 60 0E530 555 50 0E550 540 50 0
* * * *
06790 HR
Despite the description in the original writeup of an extratropical stage
beginning on the 20th, no such stage was indicated in HURDAT. This is now
corrected for the 20th and 21st.
********************************************************************************
1879 - Additional Notes:
1. The tropical storm listed as #5 in 1879 in Partagas and Diaz (1995b)
and storm number 4 in Neumann et al. (1993) was not included into the
HURDAT because of evidence suggesting that the storm did not actually
exist as a tropical cyclone. Following the suggestion by Partagas and
Diaz, this event was instead determined to be an unusually early, long-
lasting and intense "norther" (cold front). Additional investigation for
this system found that the September 1879 issue of _Monthly Weather
Review_ showed no track drawn for this storm, nor any record of
significant rainfall in any of the Florida stations. A researcher at the
time - Loomis (1881) - also did not identify this system as being a
tropical storm. The first report that did put together a track for this
storm was Garriott (1900); however, no supporting documentation was
provided by Garriott for how the track was determined. All subsequent
track books and climatologies have reproduced Garriott's track as is.
Thus, there appears to be no corroborating evidence in support of the
track apparently first provided by Garriott (1900), this system is
removed as a tropical storm from the database.
********************************************************************************