********************************************************************************
1891/01
10675 07/03/1891 M= 6 1 SNBR= 282 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
10675 07/03/1891 M= 6 1 SNBR= 293 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
*** *
10680 07/03* 0 0 0 0*217 930 35 0*220 932 45 0*224 935 55 0
10685 07/04*229 939 65 0*234 942 75 0*240 945 80 0*247 948 85 0
10685 07/04*229 939 65 0*234 942 75 0*240 945 80 0*247 948 80 0
**
10690 07/05*254 951 85 0*262 954 85 0*271 956 85 0*281 956 85 0
10690 07/05*254 951 80 0*262 954 80 0*271 956 80 0*281 956 80 0
** ** ** **
10695 07/06*292 954 80 0*303 951 70 0*312 947 60 0*319 943 50 0
10695 07/06*292 954 70 0*303 951 60 0*312 947 55 0*319 943 50 0
** ** **
10700 07/07*325 938 45 0*331 931 40 0*337 923 40 0*342 911 35 0
10700 07/07*325 938 45 0*331 931 40 0*337 923 35 0*342 911 30 0
** **
10705 07/08*350 881 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
10705 07/08*346 897 25 0*350 881 25 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
*** *** ** *** *** **
10710 HR
10710 HRBTX1CTX1
********
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). A peripheral pressure of 990 mb (at
0230Z on the 6th) suggests winds of at least 62 kt from the Gulf of Mexico
wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track, which reduces
the peak intensity originally in HURDAT slightly. Decay to tropical
depression stage over land included before dissipation. Additional
six-hourly position added at end of track to allow for reasonable
translational speed of system.
********************************************************************************
1891/02
10715 08/17/1891 M=13 2 SNBR= 283 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
10715 08/17/1891 M=13 2 SNBR= 294 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
10720 08/17* 0 0 0 0*133 244 35 0*136 255 35 0*138 266 35 0
10725 08/18*140 277 35 0*142 288 40 0*144 299 50 0*146 310 60 0
10730 08/19*149 320 70 0*152 330 75 0*154 340 80 0*156 349 85 0
10730 08/19*149 320 65 0*152 330 65 0*154 340 65 0*156 349 65 0
** ** ** **
10735 08/20*158 358 85 0*161 367 85 0*163 375 85 0*165 383 85 0
10735 08/20*158 358 65 0*161 367 65 0*163 375 65 0*165 383 65 0
** ** ** **
10740 08/21*167 390 85 0*170 398 85 0*173 406 85 0*177 415 85 0
10740 08/21*167 390 65 0*170 398 65 0*173 406 65 0*177 415 65 0
** ** ** **
10745 08/22*182 426 85 0*187 436 85 0*192 446 85 0*196 455 85 0
10745 08/22*182 426 65 0*187 436 65 0*192 446 65 0*196 455 65 0
** ** ** **
10750 08/23*200 463 85 0*205 471 85 0*209 480 85 0*214 489 85 0
10750 08/23*200 463 65 0*205 471 65 0*209 480 65 0*214 489 65 0
** ** ** **
10755 08/24*218 498 85 0*224 508 85 0*230 518 85 0*237 529 85 0
10755 08/24*218 498 65 0*224 508 65 0*230 518 65 0*237 529 65 0
** ** ** **
10760 08/25*245 540 85 0*253 552 85 0*260 563 85 0*267 573 85 0
10760 08/25*245 540 65 0*253 552 65 0*260 563 65 0*267 573 65 0
** ** ** **
10765 08/26*274 583 85 0*281 592 85 0*288 600 85 0*295 608 85 0
10765 08/26*274 583 65 0*281 592 65 0*288 600 65 0*295 608 65 0
** ** ** **
10770 08/27*302 615 85 0*309 621 85 0*316 627 85 0*324 633 85 0
10770 08/27*302 615 65 0*309 621 65 0*316 627 65 0*324 633 65 0
** ** ** **
10775 08/28*335 637 85 0*347 641 85 0*360 644 80 0*373 646 70 0
10775 08/28*335 637 65 0*347 641 65 0*360 644 65 0*373 646 65 0
** ** ** **
10780 08/29*388 645 65 0*403 644 55 0*419 641 35 0*433 640 25 0
10780 08/29*388 645 65 0E403 644 55 0E419 641 35 0E433 640 25 0
* * *
10785 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Gale force and
greater observations available for this system were the following: 997 mb
sea level pressure (suggestive of at least 53 kt from the subtropical
pressure-wind relationship) at Bermuda on the 27th, a ship (the steamer
"Dunsmurry") capsized in the "hurricane" on the 29th (but no specific
observations were provided), and 50 kt S wind on the 30th and 31st from the
steamer "La Touraine". Thus available observational evidence suggests
that the system may have achieved minimal hurricane intensity, but not
reaching Category 2 status as shown originally. Winds reduced for much of
the system's lifecycle.
********************************************************************************
1891/03
10790 08/18/1891 M= 8 3 SNBR= 284 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
10790 08/18/1891 M= 8 3 SNBR= 295 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
*** *
10795 08/18* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*139 578 35 0*147 597 40 0
10795 08/18* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*133 580 90 0*139 594 100 0
*** *** ** *** *** ***
10800 08/19*155 614 65 0*162 629 75 0*168 640 80 0*174 649 85 0
10800 08/19*147 611 110 961*153 625 110 0*160 640 105 0*165 650 100 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
10805 08/20*179 657 85 0*184 665 80 0*190 672 80 0*196 679 80 0
10805 08/20*170 661 95 0*175 671 90 0*180 680 85 0*187 684 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
10810 08/21*202 686 85 0*207 693 85 0*213 700 85 0*218 709 85 0
10810 08/21*196 686 85 0*203 689 85 0*210 695 85 0*215 702 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
10815 08/22*222 718 85 0*226 727 85 0*230 736 85 0*234 744 85 0
10815 08/22*218 710 85 0*221 717 85 0*225 726 85 0*229 735 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
10820 08/23*237 752 85 0*240 759 85 0*243 767 85 0*246 775 85 0
10820 08/23*233 745 85 0*238 755 85 0*243 767 85 0*246 775 85 0
*** *** *** ***
10825 08/24*248 782 85 0*251 789 80 0*253 797 75 0*255 806 65 0
10825 08/24*248 782 80 0*251 789 75 0*253 797 70 0*255 806 55 0
** ** ** **
10830 08/25*258 815 60 0*260 826 50 0*262 837 45 0*262 848 35 0
10830 08/25*258 815 50 0*260 826 45 0*262 837 40 0*262 848 35 0
** ** **
10835 HR
10835 HRCFL1
****
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track changes are
found to be reasonable. A central pressure reading of 961 mb (01Z on the
19th) suggests winds of 99 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship
- 110 kt used in best track because of indications of a small radius of
maximum wind (from Father Benito Vines' analysis quoted in the Partagas
and Diaz report) as well as extensive destruction in Martinique. Hurricane
is considered Category 1 (70 kt) at landfall in South Florida, but such
designation is quite uncertain given the lack of observations near the
landfall location. Complete lifecycle of this hurricane is not available
as neither the genesis nor the decay of the system was not documented. The
hurricane is also known as "San Magin", due to the rainfall-induced
flooding that occurred in Puerto Rico.
********************************************************************************
1891/04
10840 09/02/1891 M= 9 4 SNBR= 285 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
10840 09/02/1891 M= 9 4 SNBR= 296 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
10845 09/02* 0 0 0 0*193 582 35 0*197 592 40 0*199 600 40 0
10850 09/03*201 607 45 0*204 615 50 0*208 623 55 0*213 631 60 0
10855 09/04*218 639 70 0*223 647 75 0*228 655 80 0*234 662 85 0
10860 09/05*239 669 85 0*246 676 85 0*252 683 85 0*260 690 85 0
10865 09/06*271 697 85 0*283 703 85 0*296 710 85 0*310 714 85 0
10870 09/07*327 715 85 0*347 713 85 0*368 703 85 0*395 680 85 0
10875 09/08*426 646 80 0*458 609 75 0*486 579 70 0*509 555 65 0
10880 09/09*529 533 60 0*547 511 55 0*562 492 50 0*575 475 45 0
10880 09/09E529 533 60 0E547 511 55 0E562 492 50 0E575 475 45 0
* * * *
10885 09/10*585 459 40 0*592 445 35 0*597 433 30 0* 0 0 0 0
10885 09/10E585 459 40 0E592 445 35 0E597 433 30 0* 0 0 0 0
* * *
10890 HR
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Only intensity alteration is to
indicate extratropical stage for the hurricane north of 52N.
********************************************************************************
1891/05
10895 09/16/1891 M=11 5 SNBR= 286 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
10895 09/16/1891 M=11 5 SNBR= 297 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
10900 09/16*193 465 35 0*198 471 35 0*202 478 35 0*207 488 35 0
10905 09/17*213 498 35 0*218 507 35 0*223 516 40 0*228 524 40 0
10910 09/18*232 532 45 0*237 539 50 0*242 547 55 0*248 556 60 0
10915 09/19*254 566 65 0*260 575 70 0*266 583 70 0*272 590 75 0
10920 09/20*277 596 80 0*282 601 80 0*288 607 85 0*294 613 85 0
10920 09/20*281 600 80 0*288 607 80 0*295 615 85 0*300 621 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
10925 09/21*300 618 85 0*306 623 85 0*312 628 85 0*318 631 85 0
10925 09/21*305 627 85 0*310 633 85 0*315 637 85 0*320 640 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
10930 09/22*324 632 85 0*330 631 85 0*336 630 85 0*342 628 85 0
10930 09/22*325 641 85 0*329 641 85 0*333 640 85 0*340 635 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
10935 09/23*349 624 85 0*356 617 85 0*363 607 85 0*370 591 85 0
10935 09/23*348 627 85 0*356 618 85 0*363 607 85 0*370 591 85 0
*** *** ***
10940 09/24*375 573 85 0*379 555 85 0*382 538 85 0*382 523 85 0
10945 09/25*382 508 80 0*382 493 80 0*382 478 75 0*384 463 65 0
10950 09/26*388 448 55 0*394 433 40 0*402 418 35 0*413 397 30 0
10950 09/26*388 448 55 0*394 433 40 0E402 418 40 0E413 397 40 0
* ** * **
10955 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). A peripheral
pressure reading of 980 mb (05Z on the 22nd) suggests winds of at least
75 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 85 kt retained in
the best track.
********************************************************************************
1891/06
10960 09/29/1891 M=10 6 SNBR= 287 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
10960 09/29/1891 M=10 6 SNBR= 298 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
10965 09/29* 0 0 0 0*207 546 35 0*212 547 35 0*217 550 40 0
10970 09/30*222 554 45 0*228 558 45 0*233 562 50 0*238 566 50 0
10975 10/01*244 571 55 0*249 576 60 0*255 582 60 0*261 590 65 0
10980 10/02*267 600 70 0*274 611 75 0*280 620 80 0*283 626 80 0
10980 10/02*266 597 70 0*271 604 75 0*277 613 80 0*283 620 80 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
10985 10/03*287 633 85 0*291 639 85 0*295 645 85 0*301 653 85 0
10985 10/03*289 627 85 0*294 634 85 0*300 640 85 0*308 646 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
10990 10/04*310 662 85 0*318 671 85 0*328 680 85 0*338 684 85 0
10990 10/04*318 654 85 0*327 660 85 0*335 667 85 0*346 675 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
10995 10/05*350 686 85 0*364 688 85 0*380 688 85 0*399 678 85 0
10995 10/05*353 681 85 0*365 687 85 0*380 688 75 0*399 678 65 0
*** *** *** *** ** **
11000 10/06*425 650 85 0*453 616 85 0*472 580 80 0*484 549 75 0
11000 10/06E425 650 55 0E453 616 50 0E472 580 50 0E484 549 50 0
* ** * ** * ** * **
11005 10/07*496 517 70 0*506 484 65 0*516 450 65 0*525 414 60 0
11005 10/07E496 517 50 0E506 484 50 0E516 450 50 0E525 414 50 0
* ** * ** * ** * **
11010 10/08*534 373 60 0*542 331 55 0*550 295 50 0*568 255 45 0
11010 10/08E534 373 50 0E542 331 50 0E552 295 50 0E568 255 45 0
* ** * ** **** *
11015 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). A peripheral
pressure reading of 981 mb (01Z on the 4th) suggests winds of at least
74 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 85 kt wind retained
in the best track. Winds reduced from the 5th to the 8th due to
observations supporting tropical storm intensity south of and over Canada.
Position altered slightly on last day of system to allow a more realistic
translational velocity.
********************************************************************************
1891/07
11020 10/01/1891 M=10 7 SNBR= 288 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
11020 10/01/1891 M=10 7 SNBR= 299 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
11025 10/01* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*175 598 35 0*176 608 40 0
11030 10/02*177 619 40 0*177 629 45 0*178 639 45 0*178 649 45 0
11035 10/03*179 659 45 0*179 670 45 0*179 680 45 0*180 690 45 0
11040 10/04*180 701 45 0*182 712 40 0*183 723 40 0*185 734 40 0
11045 10/05*189 745 40 0*193 756 45 0*198 767 45 0*204 778 45 0
11050 10/06*210 788 45 0*218 798 40 0*228 807 40 0*239 812 45 0
11055 10/07*250 812 45 0*262 810 40 0*273 804 40 0*284 797 40 0
11060 10/08*295 789 40 0*306 781 40 0*317 772 45 0*326 763 45 0
11065 10/09*334 753 45 0*342 743 45 0*350 732 45 0*360 718 45 0
11070 10/10*371 702 40 0*384 682 40 0*398 661 35 0* 0 0 0 0
11075 TS
No changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made no alterations to the
track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). (This storm along
with storms 8 and 9 is being further investigated by the re-analysis team.
Alterations - if any - will await the collection of all possible ship and
land based observations.)
********************************************************************************
1891/08
11080 10/06/1891 M= 6 8 SNBR= 289 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
11080 10/06/1891 M= 6 8 SNBR= 300 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
11085 10/06* 0 0 0 0*159 830 35 0*164 832 40 0*171 837 40 0
11090 10/07*178 841 45 0*186 844 45 0*193 847 45 0*200 849 45 0
11095 10/08*208 850 45 0*215 850 45 0*223 848 45 0*233 844 45 0
11100 10/09*246 837 45 0*259 831 45 0*270 825 45 0*278 819 40 0
11105 10/10*284 813 35 0*291 807 35 0*298 801 40 0*307 793 45 0
11110 10/11*316 784 45 0*326 774 40 0*337 762 35 0* 0 0 0 0
11115 TS
No changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made no alterations to the
track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). (This storm along
with storms 7 and 9 is being further investigated by the re-analysis team.
Alterations - if any - will await the collection of all possible ship and
land based observations.)
********************************************************************************
1891/09
11120 10/08/1891 M= 9 9 SNBR= 290 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
11120 10/08/1891 M= 9 9 SNBR= 301 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
11125 10/08* 0 0 0 0*238 572 35 0*245 582 40 0*251 591 40 0
11130 10/09*256 601 45 0*262 612 50 0*268 625 55 0*274 639 60 0
11135 10/10*280 653 70 0*287 666 75 0*293 680 80 0*299 694 85 0
11140 10/11*305 708 85 0*312 721 85 0*321 735 85 0*330 740 85 0
11145 10/12*340 742 85 0*350 741 85 0*359 740 85 0*366 737 85 0
11150 10/13*373 733 85 0*380 728 85 0*388 721 85 0*395 715 85 0
11155 10/14*403 706 85 0*412 694 85 0*422 681 85 0*433 665 85 0
11160 10/15*446 647 80 0*460 626 75 0*475 602 70 0*500 571 65 0
11165 10/16*530 522 65 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
11170 HR
No changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made no alterations to the
track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). (This storm along
with storms 7 and 8 is being further investigated by the re-analysis team.
Alterations - if any - will await the collection of all possible ship and
land based observations.)
********************************************************************************
1891/10
11175 10/12/1891 M= 9 10 SNBR= 291 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
11175 10/12/1891 M= 9 10 SNBR= 302 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
11180 10/12* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*125 613 35 0*136 620 45 0
11180 10/12* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*125 613 35 0*136 620 35 0
**
11185 10/13*147 627 60 0*156 632 70 0*162 636 80 0*167 639 80 0
11185 10/13*147 627 40 0*156 632 40 0*162 636 45 0*167 639 45 0
** ** ** **
11190 10/14*172 641 85 0*177 644 85 0*182 646 85 0*187 648 85 0
11190 10/14*172 641 50 0*177 644 50 0*182 646 55 0*187 648 55 0
** ** ** **
11195 10/15*192 650 85 0*197 652 85 0*202 654 85 0*213 656 85 0
11195 10/15*192 650 60 0*197 652 60 0*202 654 65 0*213 656 70 0
** ** ** **
11200 10/16*224 658 85 0*234 660 85 0*245 662 85 0*256 663 85 0
11200 10/16*224 658 75 0*234 660 75 0*245 662 75 0*256 663 75 0
** ** ** **
11205 10/17*267 662 85 0*277 661 85 0*288 660 85 0*297 659 85 0
11205 10/17*267 662 75 0*277 661 75 0*288 660 75 0*297 659 75 0
** ** ** **
11210 10/18*303 659 85 0*310 658 85 0*320 657 85 0*334 655 85 0
11210 10/18*303 659 75 0*310 658 75 0*320 657 75 0*334 655 75 0
** ** ** **
11215 10/19*353 653 85 0*372 649 85 0*390 639 85 0*409 623 85 0
11215 10/19*353 653 75 0*372 649 75 0*390 639 70 0*409 623 65 0
** ** ** **
11220 10/20*430 602 80 0*448 582 65 0*465 570 60 0*485 575 35 0
11220 10/20*430 602 60 0*448 582 50 0*465 570 40 0*485 575 35 0
** ** ** **
11225 HR
Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any track changes from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999) for this hurricane. Gale force and
greater observations available for this system were the following:
"gales of hurricane force" on the 17th east-northeast of the Bahamas,
60 kt SE-SW wind and 992 mb on the 18th at Bermuda (this peripheral
sea level pressure suggests winds of at least 61 kt from the subtropical
wind-pressure relationship - 75 kt utilized), 70 kt wind on the 19th
("Ocean Prince") at 36 N, 62 W. Available observational evidence
suggests that the peak intensity for this hurricane was a minimal
hurricane (Category 1), rather than the standard Category 2 (85 kt)
originally in HURDAT. Winds are reduced accordingly from the 13th to
the 20th. Hurricane intensity attained after passing through the Lesser
Antilles.
********************************************************************************
1891/11
11230 11/03/1891 M= 4 11 SNBR= 292 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
11230 11/03/1891 M= 4 11 SNBR= 303 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
11235 11/03*241 738 35 0*250 725 35 0*257 716 40 0*268 703 45 0
11240 11/04*279 687 45 0*291 668 50 0*302 647 50 0*313 621 50 0
11245 11/05*325 592 50 0*338 562 50 0*352 538 45 0*380 512 40 0
11250 11/06*416 490 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
11255 TS
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). The only change is to renumber the
storm number for the year.
********************************************************************************
1891 - Additional Notes:
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) mentioned four additional systems considered
for inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team agreed to leave them out
of HURDAT for the following reasons:
1) July 9-12, 1891: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
2) September 11-12, 1891: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
3) September 14-15, 1891: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
2) September 18-21, 1891: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
********************************************************************************
1892
********************************************************************************
1892/01
11260 06/10/1892 M= 7 1 SNBR= 293 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
11260 06/09/1892 M= 8 1 SNBR= 304 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
** * ***
(9th not in HURDAT previously.)
11262 06/09*208 831 35 0*213 834 35 0*217 837 35 0*221 838 35 0
11265 06/10*237 853 35 0*245 844 35 0*250 836 40 0*258 824 40 0
11265 06/10*229 839 35 0*238 838 35 0*247 833 40 0*252 822 40 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
11270 06/11*265 812 45 0*272 801 45 0*278 792 35 0*283 781 35 0
11270 06/11*258 810 35 0*264 799 35 0*270 787 35 0*276 776 35 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ***
11275 06/12*287 771 40 0*290 761 45 0*293 751 45 0*296 740 45 0
11275 06/12*282 767 40 0*289 758 45 0*293 751 45 0*296 740 45 0
*** *** *** ***
11280 06/13*299 728 45 0*302 719 45 0*304 716 45 0*310 716 45 0
11285 06/14*314 720 45 0*313 727 45 0*312 736 45 0*312 741 45 0
11290 06/15*313 747 45 0*315 753 45 0*318 758 45 0*320 760 45 0
11295 06/16*323 760 45 0*326 760 40 0*330 760 40 0*335 760 35 0
11300 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track changes are found
to be reasonable.
********************************************************************************
1892/02
11305 08/16/1892 M= 9 2 SNBR= 294 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
11305 08/15/1892 M=10 2 SNBR= 305 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
** ** ***
(15th not previously in HURDAT.)
11307 08/15*180 545 35 0*180 555 35 0*180 565 35 0*181 575 35 0
11310 08/16* 0 0 0 0*181 563 35 0*181 573 40 0*184 585 45 0
11310 08/16*182 585 35 0*185 595 35 0*189 605 40 0*193 614 40 0
*** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** **
11315 08/17*187 597 55 0*192 609 60 0*197 620 65 0*203 631 70 0
11315 08/17*197 622 45 0*201 630 45 0*206 637 50 0*211 643 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
11320 08/18*210 642 75 0*218 652 80 0*228 662 80 0*241 673 85 0
11320 08/18*215 650 55 0*220 657 55 0*228 663 60 0*240 670 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** *** *** **
11325 08/19*258 677 85 0*274 678 85 0*288 679 85 0*299 678 85 0
11325 08/19*249 673 65 0*259 677 65 0*270 680 65 0*284 684 65 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
11330 08/20*310 676 85 0*320 673 85 0*331 669 85 0*342 665 85 0
11330 08/20*300 686 65 0*318 686 65 0*335 680 65 0*351 672 65 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
11335 08/21*354 660 85 0*368 652 85 0*400 630 85 0*417 616 85 0
11335 08/21*364 662 65 0*382 647 65 0*400 630 65 0*417 616 65 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** ** **
11340 08/22*435 598 80 0*452 578 70 0*470 552 70 0*492 515 70 0
11340 08/22E435 598 60 0E452 578 55 0E470 552 50 0E492 515 50 0
* ** * ** * ** * **
11345 08/23*519 470 70 0*547 435 70 0*570 410 70 0*584 393 70 0
11345 08/23E519 470 50 0E547 435 50 0E570 410 50 0E584 393 50 0
* ** * ** * ** * **
11350 08/24*595 370 70 0*601 336 65 0*606 310 60 0*609 283 55 0
11350 08/24E595 370 45 0E601 336 45 0E606 310 40 0E609 283 40 0
* ** * ** * ** * **
11355 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999) for this hurricane.
Available gale force or greater observations are as follows: 40 kt SE wind
on Aug. 17 at 21.6 N, 60.1 W (steamship "Francia"), 60 kt S-SE wind at 00 UTC
on Aug. 19 at 24.3 N, 65.4 W (steamer "Duart Castle"), 35 kt SW wind and
1006 mb at 10 UTC on Aug. 20 at Bermuda, and NW-N "gales of hurricane force
along the trans-Atlantic shipping routes between 50 and 65 W on Aug. 22.
These observations indicate that the system peaked at minimal hurricane
status, rather than the standard Category 2 (85 kt) originally found in
HURDAT. The hurricane is estimated to have transitioned to extratropical on
the 22nd based upon ship reports of strong northerly gales between 50 and 65W.
********************************************************************************
1892/03
11360 09/03/1892 M=15 3 SNBR= 295 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
11360 09/03/1892 M=15 3 SNBR= 306 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
11365 09/03* 0 0 0 0*115 330 35 0*116 346 35 0*119 363 40 0
11370 09/04*122 378 40 0*124 391 40 0*127 402 45 0*129 410 50 0
11375 09/05*132 417 50 0*134 423 55 0*137 431 60 0*142 442 65 0
11380 09/06*148 454 65 0*154 466 70 0*161 475 75 0*168 482 75 0
11385 09/07*174 488 80 0*181 494 85 0*187 499 85 0*193 504 85 0
11390 09/08*199 509 85 0*205 513 85 0*212 518 85 0*220 523 85 0
11395 09/09*229 527 85 0*238 531 85 0*247 534 85 0*256 536 85 0
11400 09/10*264 538 85 0*273 540 85 0*281 541 85 0*290 543 85 0
11405 09/11*298 544 85 0*307 545 85 0*317 546 85 0*329 545 85 0
11410 09/12*345 540 85 0*361 532 85 0*376 522 85 0*389 509 85 0
11415 09/13*403 493 85 0*415 473 85 0*428 450 85 0*440 423 80 0
11420 09/14*451 393 75 0*461 363 70 0*470 338 65 0*477 316 60 0
11425 09/15*482 294 60 0*485 272 55 0*487 250 55 0*482 228 50 0
11430 09/16*475 206 50 0*468 184 50 0*462 162 50 0*456 144 50 0
11435 09/17*451 131 45 0*447 122 40 0*443 115 35 0* 0 0 0 0
11440 HR
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). No observations of gale force or
greater winds were found for this system. Without data for substantiating
changes to HURDAT's original intensity estimates, no alterations are made
for this hurricane.
********************************************************************************
1892/04
11445 09/09/1892 M= 9 4 SNBR= 296 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
11445 09/08/1892 M=10 4 SNBR= 307 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
** ** ***
(The 8th is new to HURDAT.)
11447 09/08* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*220 928 35 0
11450 09/09*220 928 35 0*228 934 35 0*241 942 40 0*249 944 45 0
11450 09/09*227 932 35 0*234 937 35 0*241 942 40 0*249 944 45 0
*** *** *** ***
11455 09/10*256 942 50 0*261 939 50 0*266 936 50 0*269 933 50 0
11460 09/11*271 929 50 0*274 924 50 0*276 920 50 0*279 916 50 0
11465 09/12*283 912 50 0*289 907 50 0*297 901 45 0*309 889 40 0
11470 09/13*327 877 35 0*347 865 35 0*368 854 35 0*392 843 35 0
11470 09/13*327 877 35 0*347 865 35 0E368 854 40 0E392 843 45 0
* ** * **
11475 09/14*419 831 35 0*443 820 35 0*462 808 35 0*476 792 35 0
11475 09/14E419 831 50 0E443 820 50 0E462 808 45 0E476 792 45 0
* ** * ** * ** * **
11480 09/15*489 771 35 0*502 746 35 0*514 720 35 0*526 689 35 0
11480 09/15E489 771 40 0E502 746 40 0E514 720 35 0E526 689 35 0
* ** * ** * *
11485 09/16*539 652 35 0*551 615 35 0*563 584 35 0*574 560 35 0
11485 09/16E539 652 35 0E551 615 35 0E563 584 35 0E574 560 35 0
* * * *
11490 09/17*584 542 35 0*594 528 35 0*603 519 35 0* 0 0 0 0
11490 09/17E584 542 35 0E594 528 35 0E603 519 35 0* 0 0 0 0
* * *
11495 TS
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Track extended back in time slightly
and adjusted to provide for a more reasonable translational velocity at
the beginning of the storm. Winds are intensified overland while
undergoing extratropical transition due to wind and pressure observations.
********************************************************************************
1892/05
11500 09/13/1892 M=11 5 SNBR= 297 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
11500 09/12/1892 M=12 5 SNBR= 308 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
** ** ***
(12th not originally in HURDAT.)
11502 09/12*153 195 35 0*154 205 40 0*155 215 45 0*156 223 50 0
11505 09/13* 0 0 0 0*153 194 35 0*154 207 35 0*156 219 35 0
11505 09/13*157 230 55 0*159 236 60 0*160 241 65 0*162 248 70 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
11510 09/14*158 231 35 0*160 242 40 0*163 254 50 0*166 266 60 0
11510 09/14*164 255 75 0*166 262 80 0*169 270 85 0*171 277 85 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
11515 09/15*169 277 70 0*172 289 75 0*176 300 80 0*180 311 80 0
11515 09/15*173 284 85 0*174 292 85 0*176 300 85 0*180 311 85 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** ** **
11520 09/16*184 323 85 0*189 334 85 0*194 345 85 0*199 356 85 0
11525 09/17*205 367 85 0*210 378 85 0*215 389 85 0*220 398 85 0
11530 09/18*224 406 85 0*229 414 85 0*234 422 85 0*239 431 85 0
11535 09/19*245 440 85 0*250 449 85 0*256 458 85 0*261 466 85 0
11540 09/20*267 474 85 0*272 482 85 0*277 489 85 0*283 495 80 0
11545 09/21*290 500 80 0*298 504 80 0*306 507 75 0*316 509 70 0
11550 09/22*326 507 70 0*337 503 70 0*347 497 65 0*355 487 60 0
11555 09/23*363 473 50 0*369 454 45 0*375 432 35 0*382 419 25 0
11560 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999) for this hurricane.
Winds increased from the 12th to the 15th to account for hurricane
conditions experienced in and near the Cape Verde Islands.
********************************************************************************
1892/06
11845 09/25/1892 M= 3 6 SNBR= 298 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
11845 09/25/1892 M= 3 6 SNBR= 309 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
11850 09/25* 0 0 0 0*195 922 35 0*196 929 40 0*199 936 40 0
11855 09/26*203 943 45 0*208 949 50 0*213 955 50 0*219 961 50 0
11860 09/27*225 966 50 0*231 971 50 0*238 976 45 0*243 979 35 0
11865 TS
Partagas and Diaz (1996a) introduced no changes from that shown in Neumann
et al. (1999).
********************************************************************************
1892/07
11590 10/05/1892 M=11 7 SNBR= 299 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
11590 10/05/1892 M=12 7 SNBR= 310 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
** ***
11595 10/05*115 562 35 0*113 570 40 0*112 576 45 0*112 578 50 0
11595 10/05*115 562 35 0*113 570 40 0*112 576 45 0*112 582 50 0
***
11600 10/06*112 583 55 0*111 589 55 0*111 598 60 0*111 609 65 0
11600 10/06*112 587 55 0*111 592 55 0*111 600 60 0*111 609 65 0
*** *** ***
11605 10/07*111 620 70 0*112 632 75 0*113 644 80 0*115 657 80 0
11610 10/08*116 670 85 0*118 683 85 0*120 696 85 0*122 708 85 0
11615 10/09*124 720 85 0*125 731 85 0*127 743 85 0*129 756 85 0
11620 10/10*131 769 85 0*134 783 85 0*137 795 85 0*140 805 85 0
11625 10/11*143 813 85 0*146 821 85 0*150 830 85 0*155 841 85 0
11625 10/11*143 813 85 0*146 821 85 0*150 830 85 0*155 841 80 0
**
11630 10/12*159 851 85 0*164 862 85 0*169 872 80 0*174 883 75 0
11630 10/12*159 851 75 0*164 862 80 0*169 872 85 0*174 883 85 0
** ** ** **
11635 10/13*179 893 70 0*183 904 70 0*187 914 70 0*190 923 70 0
11635 10/13*179 893 60 0*183 904 55 0*187 914 55 0*190 923 65 0
** ** ** **
11640 10/14*193 930 70 0*195 935 75 0*198 941 80 0*200 947 85 0
11645 10/15*203 954 85 0*206 960 85 0*209 966 80 0*213 973 35 0
11645 10/15*203 954 85 0*206 960 85 0*209 966 80 0*213 973 70 0
**
(16th not previously in HURDAT.)
11647 10/16*217 980 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
11650 HR
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Positions on the 5th and 6th are
adjusted slightly to provide realistic translational velocities. Winds are
adjusted to better accommodate passage over land. Additional six hour
position/intensity added on the 16th to allow for reasonable (but quick)
decay over the mountainous terrain of Mexico.
********************************************************************************
1892/08
11655 10/13/1892 M= 8 8 SNBR= 300 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
11655 10/13/1892 M= 8 8 SNBR= 311 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
11660 10/13* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*262 695 35 0
11660 10/13*260 712 40 0*265 707 50 0*270 700 60 0*275 691 70 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
11665 10/14*269 682 35 0*275 671 35 0*280 661 40 0*285 650 40 0
11665 10/14*280 683 70 0*285 677 75 0*290 670 80 0*296 662 80 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
11670 10/15*290 640 45 0*295 632 45 0*300 626 50 0*302 623 50 0
11670 10/15*301 656 80 0*306 649 80 0*310 643 80 0*315 634 80 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
11675 10/16*304 620 50 0*307 616 50 0*311 609 50 0*316 599 50 0
11675 10/16*320 626 75 0*325 617 70 0*330 609 60 0*337 597 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** *** ***
11680 10/17*322 588 50 0*330 575 50 0*339 561 50 0*350 547 50 0
11680 10/17*344 582 50 0*350 572 50 0*355 560 50 0*362 546 50 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
11685 10/18*363 532 50 0*376 517 50 0*388 502 50 0*397 487 50 0
11685 10/18E370 531 50 0E378 518 50 0E388 502 50 0E397 487 50 0
**** *** **** *** * *
11690 10/19*404 473 50 0*411 463 50 0*419 455 45 0*432 446 45 0
11690 10/19E404 473 50 0E411 463 50 0E419 455 45 0E432 446 45 0
* * * *
11695 10/20*448 441 45 0*462 449 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
11695 10/20E448 441 45 0E462 449 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
* *
11700 TS
11700 HR
**
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Intensity is
increased to Category 1 (80 kt) hurricane based upon reports of hurricane
force ship observations on the 13th as well as 60 kt observed wind in
Bermuda in the weak semi-circle of the storm on the 15th.
********************************************************************************
1892/09
11705 10/21/1892 M= 9 9 SNBR= 301 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
11705 10/21/1892 M= 9 9 SNBR= 312 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
11710 10/21*230 926 35 0*232 922 35 0*235 917 40 0*237 914 40 0
11715 10/22*239 910 40 0*242 906 45 0*246 900 45 0*251 894 45 0
11720 10/23*255 887 45 0*260 879 45 0*262 872 45 0*266 863 45 0
11720 10/23*255 887 45 0*259 879 45 0*262 872 45 0*266 863 45 0
***
11725 10/24*269 855 45 0*271 848 45 0*273 840 45 0*276 830 45 0
11725 10/24*269 855 45 0*271 848 45 0*273 840 45 0*276 827 45 0
***
11730 10/25*278 820 40 0*280 810 40 0*282 799 35 0*284 780 35 0
11730 10/25*280 810 40 0*283 792 35 0*285 777 35 0*286 765 35 0
*** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** ***
11735 10/26*287 763 35 0*290 748 40 0*293 735 40 0*297 721 45 0
11735 10/26*288 756 35 0*290 746 40 0*293 735 40 0*297 721 45 0
*** *** ***
11740 10/27*305 710 45 0*312 702 45 0*320 695 45 0*327 689 45 0
11745 10/28*333 683 45 0*340 678 45 0*347 672 45 0*358 666 45 0
11750 10/29*366 662 45 0*375 660 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
11755 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999).
********************************************************************************
1892 - Additional Notes:
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) mentioned three additional systems considered
for inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team agreed to leave them out
of HURDAT for the following reasons:
1) September 11-14, 1892: Gale force intensity, but likely extratropical.
2) September 12, 1892: Possible new hurricane, but location not known.
3) October 1-2, 1892: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
********************************************************************************
1893/01
11760 06/12/1893 M= 9 1 SNBR= 302 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
11760 06/12/1893 M= 9 1 SNBR= 313 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
*** *
11765 06/12* 0 0 0 0*205 952 35 0*212 947 40 0*217 943 45 0
11770 06/13*222 939 55 0*227 934 65 0*233 927 75 0*240 919 80 0
11770 06/13*222 939 50 0*227 934 55 0*233 927 60 0*240 919 60 0
** ** ** **
11775 06/14*245 912 85 0*252 904 85 0*258 897 85 0*262 889 85 0
11775 06/14*245 912 60 0*252 904 60 0*258 897 60 0*262 889 60 0
** ** ** **
11780 06/15*266 882 85 0*270 874 85 0*275 867 85 0*286 853 80 0
11780 06/15*266 882 60 0*270 874 60 0*277 865 60 0*286 853 60 0
** ** *** *** ** **
11785 06/16*301 834 70 0*317 815 55 0*331 798 50 0*343 784 50 0
11785 06/16*301 834 50 0*317 815 45 0*331 798 50 0*343 784 50 0
** **
11790 06/17*355 771 50 0*366 757 55 0*375 743 60 0*383 729 65 0
11795 06/18*390 716 70 0*398 702 75 0*405 688 80 0*412 668 80 0
11795 06/18*390 716 65 0*398 702 65 0*405 688 65 0*412 668 65 0
** ** ** **
11800 06/19*420 641 85 0*427 613 85 0*434 593 85 0*440 580 85 0
11800 06/19*420 641 65 0*427 613 65 0*434 593 65 0*440 580 65 0
** ** ** **
11805 06/20*445 568 80 0*450 558 75 0*454 550 70 0*459 540 65 0
11805 06/20E445 568 60 0E450 558 60 0E454 550 60 0E459 540 60 0
* ** * ** * ** * **
11810 HR
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Available observational data for
Florida indicates that the system was likely of strong tropical storm
intensity at landfall. Hurricane is downgraded from the original standard
Category 2 (85 kt) to a Category 1 (65 kt) hurricane at peak intensity,
since observational evidence suggests that it was (at most) a minimal
hurricane.
********************************************************************************
1893/02
11815 07/04/1893 M= 4 2 SNBR= 303 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
11815 07/04/1893 M= 4 2 SNBR= 314 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
11820 07/04* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*111 792 35 0*118 798 40 0
11825 07/05*126 804 50 0*133 812 60 0*140 820 70 0*147 829 80 0
11825 07/05*126 804 50 0*133 812 60 0*140 820 70 0*147 829 85 0
**
11830 07/06*154 839 85 0*160 849 85 0*167 860 85 0*172 870 80 0
11830 07/06*154 839 75 0*160 849 70 0*167 860 80 0*172 870 80 0
** ** **
11835 07/07*179 882 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
11835 07/07*179 882 80 0*184 895 60 0*187 910 40 0*190 925 30 0
** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
11840 HR
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Winds reduced slightly on the 6th
due to the center of the hurricane passing over Honduras, though original
landfall intensity at Nicaragua/Honduras retained (85 kt). Three position and
intensity values were added on the 7th because original final position was
not over land. These allow for a reasonable decay of the hurricane over
land by using the Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) inland decay model.
********************************************************************************
1893/03
11845 08/13/1893 M=13 3 SNBR= 304 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
11845 08/13/1893 M=13 3 SNBR= 315 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
11850 08/13* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 96 505 35 0*103 515 40 0
11855 08/14*109 526 40 0*116 537 45 0*122 548 50 0*129 560 55 0
11860 08/15*135 573 60 0*142 585 65 0*148 597 65 0*154 608 70 0
11865 08/16*160 618 75 0*166 629 80 0*172 639 80 0*178 649 85 0
11865 08/16*160 618 75 0*166 629 80 0*172 639 90 0*176 649 100 0
** *** ***
11870 08/17*183 660 90 0*188 670 90 0*194 680 95 0*200 689 100 0
11870 08/17*180 659 100 0*185 670 90 0*190 680 95 0*196 689 100 0
*** *** *** *** *** ***
11875 08/18*206 697 100 0*212 704 105 0*218 712 105 0*225 721 105 0
11875 08/18*202 697 100 0*209 704 105 0*218 712 105 0*225 721 105 0
*** ***
11880 08/19*232 729 105 0*240 738 105 0*248 747 105 0*257 754 105 0
11885 08/20*267 757 105 0*279 758 105 0*301 753 105 0*308 750 105 0
11885 08/20*267 757 105 0*279 758 105 0*291 755 100 0*308 750 95 0
*** *** *** ***
11890 08/21*327 738 105 0*348 723 105 0*370 706 105 0*395 686 100 0
11890 08/21*327 738 90 0*348 723 90 0*370 706 90 0*395 686 80 0
*** *** *** ***
11895 08/22*422 663 100 0*448 638 95 0*474 597 90 0*499 553 85 0
11895 08/22*422 663 70 0E448 638 60 0E474 597 50 0E494 553 50 0
*** * ** * ** **** **
11900 08/23*507 525 80 0*513 500 75 0*519 480 70 0*511 451 65 0
11900 08/23E507 525 50 0E513 500 50 0E516 480 50 0E511 451 50 0
* ** * ** **** ** * **
11905 08/24*504 431 65 0*496 418 60 0*491 400 60 0*492 387 60 0
11905 08/24E504 431 50 0E496 418 50 0E491 400 50 0E492 387 50 0
* ** * ** * ** * **
11910 08/25*494 371 60 0*497 360 60 0*500 350 60 0*506 339 60 0
11910 08/25E494 371 50 0E497 360 45 0E500 350 40 0E506 339 35 0
* ** * ** * ** * **
11915 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Analysis from
Boose et al. (2003) documents widespread Fujita-scale F2 wind-caused
damage over Puerto Rico. Thus winds increased to 100 kt (Category 3) at
landfall over that island. Winds are increased accordingly on the
16th and 17th. Observational evidence found in Partagas and Diaz suggests
a weakening of the system after recurvature - winds are reduced from the
20th to the 22nd accordingly. Additionally, no evidence is available that
indicates that the storm struck as a hurricane in Canada. Winds reduced
from the 23rd to the 25th accordingly. The hurricane is known as "San
Roque III" in Puerto Rico from the impacts in that island.
********************************************************************************
1893/04
11920 08/15/1893 M=12 4 SNBR= 305 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
11920 08/15/1893 M=12 4 SNBR= 316 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
*** *
11925 08/15* 0 0 0 0*140 365 35 0*142 377 40 0*144 386 45 0
11930 08/16*147 396 45 0*149 405 50 0*151 415 55 0*153 426 60 0
11935 08/17*156 437 65 0*159 448 65 0*161 459 70 0*163 469 75 0
11940 08/18*165 479 80 0*168 489 85 0*172 499 85 0*176 513 85 0
11945 08/19*180 529 85 0*185 545 85 0*191 558 85 0*197 570 85 0
11950 08/20*203 581 85 0*210 592 85 0*216 603 85 0*222 614 85 0
11955 08/21*227 624 85 0*233 635 85 0*239 649 85 0*244 658 85 0
11955 08/21*227 624 85 0*233 635 85 0*239 646 85 0*244 658 85 0
***
11960 08/22*252 671 85 0*261 684 85 0*271 698 85 0*284 707 85 0
11960 08/22*252 671 85 0*261 684 90 0*271 698 95 0*284 707 100 0
** ** ***
11965 08/23*298 716 85 0*314 725 85 0*331 732 85 0*353 737 85 0
11965 08/23*298 716 100 952*314 725 100 0*331 732 100 0*350 737 95 0
*** *** *** *** *** **
11970 08/24*373 740 85 0*394 739 80 0*414 735 80 0*434 724 75 0
11970 08/24*368 740 85 0*386 739 80 0*407 739 75 986*430 730 60 0
*** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** **
11975 08/25*454 707 70 0*474 685 65 0*493 660 60 0*506 631 60 0
11975 08/25E454 710 55 0E474 685 50 0E493 660 45 0E506 631 45 0
* *** ** * ** * ** * **
11980 08/26*511 597 60 0*511 565 60 0*507 538 60 0*500 514 60 0
11980 08/26E511 597 40 0E511 565 40 0E507 538 40 0E500 514 40 0
* ** * ** * ** * **
11985 HR
11985 HR NY1 VA1
*** ***
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Track near landfall slightly altered
to better fit passage of the eye over New York City. A central pressure
of 952 mb (03Z on the 23rd) suggests winds of 101 kt from the subtropical
wind-pressure relationship - supporting upgrading this hurricane to a 100 kt
Category 3 for best track. A peripheral pressure of 990 mb (11Z on the 24th)
suggests winds of at least 63 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship
- 75 kt chosen for best track. Estimate of RMW of 45 nmi provided by
Coch and Jarvinen (2000), while an estimate of 30 nmi for RMW was provided
by Boose et al. (2001) based upon observations and modeling of observed
wind-caused damages. The latter estimate is chosen here, as this may provide
a more direct RMW result for this region. Given the track of the hurricane
and the estimated RMW, SLOSH model runs suggest a central pressure of 986 mb
(Jarvinen, personal communication) - which corresponds to 67 kt maximum
sustained winds from the northern wind-pressure relationship. 75 kt winds
chosen for best track at landfall, which is reasonable given the slightly
smaller than usual RMW at this latitude and central pressure. Thus the U.S.
landfall intensity determined here is a 75 kt Category 1 hurricane in New
York, which is at the low end of the range of the Fujita-scale F2 (upper
Category 1 to all of Category 2) damage analyzed in Boose et al. (2001).
Additionally, the changes introduced here in intensity on the 24th and 25th
after landfall match closely the analysis of wind-caused damage by Boose
et al. (2001). Hurricane also known as the "Midnight Storm" (Coch and
Jarvinen 2000).
********************************************************************************
1893/05
11990 08/15/1893 M= 5 5 SNBR= 306 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
11990 08/15/1893 M= 5 5 SNBR= 317 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
11995 08/15* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*322 604 35 0*331 621 40 0
12000 08/16*342 640 45 0*355 661 55 0*370 670 60 0*384 661 70 0
12005 08/17*402 647 80 0*419 627 85 0*434 608 85 0*448 588 85 0
12010 08/18*461 568 85 0*473 547 80 0*484 525 70 0*499 497 65 0
12010 08/18*461 568 85 0*473 547 80 0*484 525 70 0*495 497 65 0
***
12015 08/19*505 479 65 0*517 445 65 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
12015 08/19*505 474 65 0*517 445 65 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
***
12020 HR
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Small track changes are introduced on
the 18th and 19th for more realistic translational velocities. No
observations of gale force or greater wind reports could be located for
this system (except for an indirect report from Bermuda of a "hurricane ...
moving northward between that station and Halifax" on the 15th). Without
data for substantiating changes to HURDAT's original intensity estimates, no
alterations are made to the intensity for this hurricane.
********************************************************************************
1893/06
12025 08/15/1893 M=19 6 SNBR= 307 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
12025 08/15/1893 M=19 6 SNBR= 318 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
*** *
12030 08/15* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*181 202 40 0*176 209 40 0
12035 08/16*172 216 40 0*168 224 40 0*165 232 40 0*162 241 40 0
12040 08/17*160 250 40 0*158 260 40 0*156 269 40 0*155 278 45 0
12045 08/18*154 286 45 0*154 294 50 0*155 303 50 0*156 313 55 0
12050 08/19*158 324 55 0*161 338 60 0*165 354 65 0*170 374 70 0
12055 08/20*175 396 75 0*180 419 80 0*186 440 85 0*192 458 90 0
12055 08/20*175 396 75 0*180 419 80 0*186 440 85 0*192 458 85 0
**
12060 08/21*198 476 90 0*205 494 95 0*210 510 100 0*214 525 100 0
12060 08/21*198 476 85 0*205 494 85 0*210 510 85 0*214 525 85 0
** ** ** **
12065 08/22*217 540 100 0*219 555 105 972*220 570 105 0*221 585 105 0
12065 08/22*217 540 85 0*219 555 85 972*220 570 90 0*221 585 95 0
** ** *** ***
12070 08/23*223 600 105 0*224 614 105 0*225 627 105 0*226 639 105 0
12070 08/23*223 600 100 0*224 614 105 0*225 627 105 0*226 639 105 0
***
12075 08/24*228 649 105 0*229 659 105 0*230 670 105 0*232 681 105 0
12080 08/25*235 693 105 0*238 704 105 0*241 716 105 0*244 729 105 0
12085 08/26*247 742 105 0*251 756 105 0*255 769 105 0*261 780 105 0
12090 08/27*270 789 105 0*281 797 105 0*292 804 105 0*303 809 100 0
12090 08/27*270 789 105 0*280 798 105 0*290 803 105 0*297 806 100 0
*** *** *** *** *** ***
12095 08/28*315 812 95 0*327 812 90 0*340 810 85 0*354 805 80 0
12095 08/28*306 807 100 954*321 812 90 958*339 811 75 0*354 805 65 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** **
12100 08/29*368 796 75 0*384 782 70 0*402 760 70 0*420 737 65 0
12100 08/29*368 796 60 0*384 782 55 0*402 760 55 0*420 737 55 0
** ** ** **
12105 08/30*443 707 60 0*466 677 60 0*490 647 55 0*501 630 55 0
12105 08/30*443 707 50 0*466 677 50 0*486 650 50 0*501 630 50 0
** ** *** *** ** **
12110 08/31*513 609 55 0*522 589 50 0*530 570 50 0*536 552 50 0
12110 08/31E513 609 50 0E522 589 50 0E530 570 50 0E536 552 50 0
* ** * * *
12115 09/01*541 535 50 0*545 518 50 0*547 500 50 0*545 481 50 0
12115 09/01E541 535 50 0E545 518 50 0E547 500 50 0E545 481 50 0
* * * *
12120 09/02*544 461 50 0*542 441 50 0*540 420 50 0*539 391 50 0
12120 09/02E544 461 50 0E542 441 50 0E540 420 50 0E539 391 50 0
* * * *
12125 HR
12125 HR GA3 SC3 NC1 DFL1
*** *** *** ****
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Track altered slightly based upon
analysis from Ho (1989). A central pressure on the 22nd of 972 mb (was
already in best-track) suggests winds of 87 kt from the southern wind-
pressure relationship - 85 kt chosen for best track. A peripheral pressure
of 965 mb (on the 26th) suggests winds of at least 90 kt from the
subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 105 kt retained in best track.
For the intensity near landfall, the analysis from Ho is not accepted
because of concerns of two aspects. First the 18.2 foot storm tide
reported for Savannah Beach likely also includes a large wave component as
well. B. Jarvinen (personal communication) estimates that the storm tide
itself was closer to 11-13 foot, 2-3 foot of which was due to the astronomical
high tide. (Thus a storm surge of 9-10 foot appears to be the most
credible estimate.) A central pressure shortly after landfall of 958 mb
(05Z on the 28th in Savannah) suggests winds of 96 kt from the subtropical
wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt retained in best track since the center
of the hurricane has already made landfall. Ho discounted this central
pressure measurement from the Weather Bureau office in Savannah in favor of
a measurement of 938 mb taken by a private citizen. This 938 mb value
is dubious since it was not a calibrated instrument and that the eye of
the hurricane clearly went over the Savannah Weather Bureau office.
Using the 958 mb central pressure, a central pressure of 954 mb
at landfall is estimated via methodology from Ho et al. (1987) which
uses inland central pressure and time from landfall to the inland
central pressure measurement. (In this case, the time was approximately
one hour for the hurricane to transit from the coast to Savannah - a
distance of 17 nmi.) A landfall value of 954 mb for the central pressure
corresponds to 99 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship -
100 kt is chosen as the wind speed at landfall, since the RMW estimate
of 23 nmi (Ho 1989) is very close to the average value for that latitude
and central pressure (Vickery et al. 2000). Thus the hurricane is
determined here to be a 100 kt Category 3 at landfall with a central
pressure around 954 mb, not the 931 mb of a Category 4 hurricane
suggested by Ho (1989). Winds after landfall were reduced to reflect
no observation of hurricane force north of North Carolina as described
in Partagas and Diaz (1996b). Small track changes are introduced on
the 30th for more realistic translational velocities. Storm is known as
the "Sea Islands Hurricane" for its impact in Georgia and South Carolina.
********************************************************************************
1893/07
12415 08/20/1893 M=10 7 SNBR= 308 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
12415 08/20/1893 M=10 7 SNBR= 319 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
12420 08/20* 0 0 0 0*118 272 35 0*120 280 40 0*123 287 45 0
12425 08/21*126 294 45 0*129 301 50 0*132 308 55 0*136 315 60 0
12430 08/22*140 321 65 0*144 328 70 0*148 334 75 0*151 340 75 0
12435 08/23*154 346 80 0*158 353 80 0*161 359 85 0*165 365 85 0
12440 08/24*170 371 85 0*175 378 85 0*181 384 85 0*187 390 85 0
12445 08/25*193 396 85 0*201 401 85 0*210 407 85 0*221 411 85 0
12450 08/26*233 414 85 0*246 413 85 0*260 410 85 0*274 403 85 0
12455 08/27*289 391 85 0*305 376 85 0*321 359 85 0*338 340 85 0
12460 08/28*353 323 85 0*373 305 80 0*400 280 75 0*409 265 70 0
12460 08/28*353 323 85 0*373 305 80 0*393 285 75 0*409 265 70 0
*** ***
12465 08/29*414 251 65 0*418 240 60 0*420 230 55 0*421 216 50 0
12470 HR
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) introduced no changes from that shown in Neumann
et al. (1999). Small track changes are introduced on the 28th for more
realistic translational velocities.
********************************************************************************
1893/08
12190 09/04/1893 M= 6 8 SNBR= 309 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
12190 09/04/1893 M= 6 8 SNBR= 320 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
*** *
12195 09/04* 0 0 0 0*184 853 35 0*190 861 40 0*195 870 45 0
12200 09/05*201 879 55 0*209 887 60 0*221 899 65 0*229 908 70 0
12200 09/05*201 879 40 0*209 887 35 0*221 899 45 0*229 908 55 0
** ** ** **
12205 09/06*240 918 80 0*252 925 85 0*269 930 85 0*274 928 85 0
12205 09/06*240 918 65 0*252 925 75 0*264 930 85 0*274 928 85 0
** ** ***
12210 09/07*279 923 85 0*283 919 85 0*290 913 85 0*298 905 80 0
12210 09/07*279 923 85 0*283 919 85 0*290 913 85 0*298 905 70 0
**
12215 09/08*307 900 75 0*317 894 70 0*328 890 65 0*330 889 60 0
12215 09/08*307 900 55 0*317 894 45 0*325 890 40 0*330 889 35 0
** ** *** ** **
12220 09/09*333 888 55 0*340 887 45 0*348 885 40 0*351 885 35 0
12220 09/09*333 888 35 0*340 887 30 0*348 885 30 0*351 885 30 0
** ** ** **
12225 HR
12225 HR LA2
***
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Winds from the 5th to the 6th reduced
to take into account moving over the Yucatan of Mexico. Observations
show no evidence for hurricane intensity for nearly a full day over
the southeast U.S. Winds reduced inland via the Kaplan and DeMaria (1995)
inland decay model modified to allow slightly less weakening while
transit over the swamps of southeast Louisiana. Small track changes are
introduced on the 6th and the 8th for more realistic translational velocities.
********************************************************************************
1893/09
12230 09/25/1893 M=21 9 SNBR= 310 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
12230 09/25/1893 M=21 9 SNBR= 321 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
*** *
12235 09/25* 0 0 0 0*116 250 35 0*116 258 40 0*117 267 45 0
12240 09/26*117 275 50 0*117 283 55 0*117 291 60 0*117 298 65 0
12240 09/26*117 275 45 0*117 283 45 0*117 291 50 0*117 298 50 0
** ** ** **
12245 09/27*117 305 70 0*117 311 75 0*117 319 80 0*117 328 85 0
12245 09/27*117 305 55 0*117 311 55 0*117 319 60 0*117 328 60 0
** ** ** **
12250 09/28*117 336 90 0*118 345 95 0*118 354 95 0*118 363 100 0
12250 09/28*117 336 65 0*118 345 65 0*118 354 65 0*118 363 65 0
** ** ** ***
12255 09/29*118 372 100 0*118 381 105 0*118 390 105 0*118 398 105 0
12255 09/29*118 372 65 0*118 381 65 0*118 390 65 0*118 398 65 0
*** *** *** ***
12260 09/30*119 405 105 0*119 412 105 0*120 420 105 0*121 430 105 0
12260 09/30*119 405 65 0*119 412 65 0*120 420 65 0*121 430 70 0
*** *** *** ***
12265 10/01*123 439 105 0*125 449 105 0*128 459 105 0*130 469 105 0
12265 10/01*123 439 75 0*125 449 80 0*128 459 85 0*130 469 90 0
*** *** *** ***
12270 10/02*133 480 105 0*136 490 105 0*140 500 105 0*144 509 105 0
12270 10/02*133 480 95 0*136 490 100 0*140 500 105 0*144 509 105 0
*** ***
12275 10/03*148 516 105 0*152 522 105 0*157 527 105 0*163 532 105 0
12280 10/04*169 537 105 0*176 542 105 0*182 547 105 0*188 552 105 0
12285 10/05*193 557 105 0*198 562 105 0*203 567 105 0*208 572 105 0
12290 10/06*212 577 105 0*215 582 105 0*218 587 105 0*220 592 105 0
12295 10/07*222 598 105 0*224 604 105 0*226 610 105 0*228 617 105 0
12300 10/08*229 625 105 0*231 633 105 0*233 642 105 0*235 651 105 0
12305 10/09*237 660 105 0*239 669 105 0*241 678 105 0*243 687 105 0
12310 10/10*245 695 105 0*248 703 105 0*250 712 105 0*252 722 105 0
12315 10/11*255 732 105 0*258 742 105 0*261 752 105 0*264 762 105 0
12320 10/12*268 771 100 0*272 781 100 0*276 790 100 0*282 797 95 0
12320 10/12*268 771 105 0*272 781 105 0*276 790 105 0*282 797 105 0
*** *** *** ***
12325 10/13*293 801 95 0*309 801 90 0*329 797 85 0*357 793 80 0
12325 10/13*293 806 105 0*308 808 105 0*326 797 105 955*350 786 80 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** **
12330 10/14*391 786 70 0*427 776 60 0*457 764 55 0*483 748 50 0
12330 10/14*387 781 65 0*427 776 60 0E457 764 60 0E483 748 60 0
*** *** ** * ** * **
12335 10/15*507 729 45 0*529 707 40 0*549 682 35 0*570 660 35 0
12335 10/15E507 729 60 0E529 707 60 0E549 682 50 0E570 660 40 0
* ** * ** * ** * **
12340 HR
12340 HR SC3 NC2 VA1
*** *** ***
The only minor change from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), is to use the track
analyzed by Ho (1989) near the landfall in the United States. Partagas
and Diaz otherwise made reasonable small track changes from that shown in
Neumann et al. (1999). It is to be noted, however, that such a long
slow translational speed of this hurricane before recurvature is very
unusual and does open the possibility that there were actually two
separate tropical cyclones instead of just the one indicated here. Until
more definitive information is uncovered, this will be retained relatively
unchanged from Neumann et al. (1999). A reduction in winds from the 28th
until the 2nd was included to make it consistent with available observations,
which indicate at most a minimal (Category 1) hurricane on these dates. A
peripheral pressure of 972 mb (21Z on the 12th) suggests winds of at least
84 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship. Peripheral pressures
(possibly central pressures) of 962 mb (on the 13th) and 959 mb (16Z on
the 13th) suggests winds of at least 93 and 95 kt, respectively, from
the wind-pressure relationship. Ho (1989) utilized these reports and
an estimate of the RMW of 15 nmi to obtain an estimated central pressure
of 955 mb. This supports winds of 99 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure
relationship. Given the small RMW for this latitude and central pressure,
winds in the best track are boosted slightly to 105 kt at landfall.
Storm tide values of 14 foot are reported in Ho (1989) for Pawley's Island.
Intensity increased after landfall on the 14th and 15th due to indications
that it became a strong extratropical storm in Canada.
********************************************************************************
1893/10
12345 09/27/1893 M= 9 10 SNBR= 311 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
12345 09/27/1893 M= 9 10 SNBR= 322 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=4
***
12350 09/27* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*164 817 35 0*170 826 40 0
12355 09/28*177 834 55 0*183 842 65 0*190 850 75 0*197 858 85 0
12360 09/29*203 865 85 0*210 873 80 0*217 880 80 0*224 887 80 0
12365 09/30*231 892 85 0*238 897 85 0*245 902 85 0*251 906 85 0
12370 10/01*257 908 85 0*262 910 85 0*269 910 85 0*276 909 85 0
12370 10/01*257 908 85 0*262 910 85 0*269 910 95 0*276 909 105 0
** ***
12375 10/02*284 905 85 0*291 900 85 0*299 893 80 956*305 887 75 0
12375 10/02*284 905 115 0*291 900 115 948*299 893 95 0*305 887 85 0
*** *** *** ** *** **
12380 10/03*313 878 65 0*320 867 55 0*327 855 50 0*334 839 45 0
12385 10/04*340 818 40 0*346 797 40 0*351 780 35 0*354 760 35 0
12390 10/05*353 740 35 0*352 722 35 0*350 704 35 0* 0 0 0 0
12395 HR
12395 HR LA4 MS2 AL2
*** *** ***
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Ho (1989) provided central pressure
estimates for the two U.S. landfalls that this hurricane made. For landfall
in Mississippi, a central pressure of 956 mb was derived from a peripheral
pressure measurement of 970 mb (at 16Z on the 2nd) and an estimated
17 nmi RMW. Ho also indicated that there was a 20 foot storm tide reported
in Caminadaville, Louisiana and 10-12 foot storm tide in Pass Christian,
Mississippi. However, examination of the pressure measurements reveals
that the 970 mb was likely a true central pressure value, not a peripheral
observation. (However, this pressure measurement is not included above
since the timing was at 1530 UTC, not within the +/-2 hours of synoptic
time needed for inclusion in HURDAT. This value is though included in the
U.S. landfalling table.) This central pressure corresponds to 89 kt from the
Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship. Since Ho's reported RMW is smaller
than what would be expected on average for this central pressure and
latitude (Vickery et al. 2000), a windspeed of 95 kt is chosen for the best
track. This places the storm as a landfalling Category 2 in Mississippi
and Alabama, though near the lower boundary of Category 3.
For landfall in Louisiana, there also appear to be concerns with Ho's (1989)
estimate of intensity. Ho used an inland decay pressure model (Ho et al.
1987) to obtain an estimate of 940 mb central pressure. (The south
Florida inland decay pressure model was utilized for this particular
hurricane, since this is more appropriate given its track over marsh-covered
south Louisiana.) Using instead the landfall value at Mississippi of
970 mb central pressure, an estimate of 948 mb at landfall in Louisiana is
obtained. This central pressure corresponds to 112 kt from the Gulf of
Mexico wind-pressure relationship. Since the Ho estimated RMW at the
Louisiana landfall (12 nmi) is smaller than what is average for this central
pressure and latitude, a maximum sustained wind at landfall in Louisiana is
estimated at 115 kt. SLOSH runs with these central pressure and RMW values
(B. Jarvinen, personal communication), however, can simulate a maximum storm
tide of only about 8 feet at Caminadaville - much smaller than supposedly
observed. As this island has a maximum height of 5 feet above mean sea
level and is completely overtopped by storm surges from strong hurricanes,
the 20 foot value is suspect. 115 kt at landfall in Louisiana makes this a
Category 4 hurricane, though it is near the upper boundary of Category 3.
The hurricane is known as the "Chenier Caminanda Hurricane" for its impacts
in Louisiana.
********************************************************************************
1893/11
12400 10/20/1893 M= 4 11 SNBR= 312 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
12400 10/20/1893 M= 4 11 SNBR= 323 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
12405 10/20* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*180 820 35 0*195 806 45 0
12405 10/20* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*180 820 30 0*195 806 30 0
** **
12410 10/21*210 794 50 0*225 785 50 0*240 780 45 0*256 777 45 0
12410 10/21*210 794 30 0*225 785 30 0*240 780 35 0*256 777 40 0
** ** ** **
12415 10/22*272 778 50 0*288 778 50 0*305 776 50 0*323 771 50 0
12415 10/22*272 778 45 0*288 778 50 0*305 776 50 0*323 771 50 0
**
12420 10/23*342 760 50 0*363 751 45 0*384 759 40 0*400 780 35 0
12425 TS
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Perez (2000 and personal communication)
indicate that this system was not of tropical storm intensity until
north of Cuba. Thus intensities reduced on the 20th through the 22nd.
********************************************************************************
1893/12
12430 11/05/1893 M= 6 12 SNBR= 313 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
12430 11/05/1893 M= 8 12 SNBR= 324 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
* *** *
12435 11/05* 0 0 0 0*178 797 35 0*186 798 40 0*197 797 50 0
12435 11/05*267 708 35 0*268 717 35 0*270 725 40 0*272 731 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** ***
12440 11/06*208 795 50 0*220 792 45 0*233 789 45 0*247 785 45 0
12440 11/06*274 736 50 0*277 741 45 0*280 745 45 0*284 749 45 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
12445 11/07*260 782 50 0*273 778 50 0*287 774 50 0*301 770 50 0
12445 11/07*291 753 50 0*298 755 50 0*305 757 55 0*315 759 55 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** **
12450 11/08*314 767 50 0*328 764 50 0*341 760 50 0*352 753 50 0
12450 11/08*325 759 60 0*336 757 60 0*345 753 60 0*356 746 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
12455 11/09*359 747 45 0*364 739 45 0*368 731 40 0*373 719 35 0
12455 11/09*366 736 55 0*372 727 55 0*377 713 50 0*384 691 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
12460 11/10*379 705 30 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
12460 11/10E391 663 45 0E396 632 45 0E400 605 40 0E404 576 40 0
**** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** **
(11th and 12th are new additions to HURDAT.)
12462 11/11E406 548 40 0E408 521 40 0E410 490 40 0E410 469 40 0
12464 11/12E410 449 40 0E410 426 40 0E410 405 40 0E410 379 40 0
12465 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track changes are found
to be reasonable. Winds increased from the 7th to the 9th based upon wind
measurements along U.S. coast. Storm did not actually hit land as per best
track positions and track book, so "XING=0" is utilized.
********************************************************************************
1893 - Additional Notes:
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) mentioned two additional systems considered
for inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team agreed to leave them out
of HURDAT for the following reasons:
1) May 12-13, 1893: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
2) July 6, 1893: Damage reports in Cuba leave it uncertain if system was a
tornado or tropical storm.
********************************************************************************
1894
********************************************************************************
1894/01
12466 06/06/1894 M= 4 1 SNBR= 325 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
12467 06/06*190 774 35 0*190 778 35 0*190 783 35 0*190 789 35 0
12468 06/07*191 794 35 0*192 801 35 0*193 807 35 0*194 812 35 0
12469 06/08*195 821 35 0*196 827 35 0*197 833 35 0*199 838 35 0
12469 06/09*201 844 35 0*204 850 35 0*207 855 35 0*210 860 35 0
12469 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b) for this newly documented
tropical storm.
********************************************************************************
1894/02
12470 08/05/1894 M= 4 1 SNBR= 314 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
12470 08/05/1894 M= 5 2 SNBR= 326 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
* * ***
12475 08/05* 0 0 0 0*264 893 35 0*270 890 40 0*275 886 40 0
12480 08/06*279 882 45 0*283 879 50 0*287 876 50 0*290 874 50 0
12480 08/06*279 882 45 0*283 879 50 0*287 876 50 0*290 875 50 0
***
12485 08/07*294 872 50 0*297 871 50 0*300 871 50 0*304 872 50 0
12485 08/07*294 874 50 0*297 874 50 0*300 875 50 0*303 876 50 0
*** *** *** *** ***
12490 08/08*308 874 45 0*312 876 40 0*316 880 35 0*318 885 30 0
12490 08/08*306 877 45 0*309 882 40 0*310 887 35 0*311 891 30 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
(9th of August newly added to HURDAT.)
12492 08/09*312 895 30 0*313 899 25 0*315 905 25 0*317 915 25 0
12495 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm
number 1.
********************************************************************************
1894/03
12500 08/30/1894 M=11 2 SNBR= 315 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
12500 08/30/1894 M=11 3 SNBR= 327 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
* ***
12505 08/30*132 348 35 0*134 360 35 0*136 375 40 0*138 387 40 0
12510 08/31*140 399 45 0*142 411 45 0*144 423 45 0*147 435 50 0
12515 09/01*149 447 50 0*152 458 55 0*158 470 55 0*165 482 60 0
12520 09/02*172 495 65 0*179 508 65 0*186 521 70 0*193 533 75 0
12525 09/03*200 545 75 0*207 555 80 0*214 564 80 0*221 571 85 0
12530 09/04*227 576 85 0*234 580 85 0*240 584 85 0*247 588 85 0
12535 09/05*254 592 85 0*261 595 85 0*268 597 85 0*276 597 85 0
12540 09/06*284 595 85 0*293 592 85 0*301 588 85 0*309 583 85 0
12540 09/06*284 595 90 0*293 592 95 0*301 588 100 0*309 583 100 0
** ** *** ***
12545 09/07*318 577 85 0*327 569 85 0*336 560 85 0*347 549 85 0
12545 09/07*318 577 100 0*327 569 100 0*336 560 100 0*347 549 100 0
*** *** *** ***
12550 09/08*362 534 85 0*380 516 85 0*400 496 85 0*423 473 80 0
12550 09/08*362 534 100 948*380 516 100 0*400 496 100 0*423 473 90 0
*** *** *** *** **
12555 09/09*450 445 80 0*480 414 75 0*513 380 70 0*540 357 70 0
12555 09/09*450 445 80 0*480 414 75 0*513 380 70 0E540 357 70 0
*
12560 HR
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 2. Pressure
measurement (may have been a central pressure) of 948 mb (on the 8th) suggests
winds of at least 98 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 100 kt
chosen for best track. Winds increased from the 6th to the 8th accordingly,
as hurricanes tend to reach maximum intensity at or just after recurvature.
********************************************************************************
1894/04
12565 09/18/1894 M=13 3 SNBR= 316 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
12565 09/18/1894 M=14 4 SNBR= 328 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
** * *** *
12570 09/18*120 503 35 0*122 511 40 0*124 522 45 0*126 531 50 0
12570 09/18*134 505 35 0*134 510 40 0*135 517 45 0*136 526 50 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
12575 09/19*128 540 55 0*131 549 65 0*133 558 70 0*135 567 80 0
12575 09/19*137 535 55 0*139 545 65 0*140 555 70 0*141 563 80 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
12580 09/20*138 577 85 0*141 588 90 0*145 599 95 0*149 612 100 0
12580 09/20*143 575 85 0*145 586 90 0*147 597 95 0*149 611 100 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
12585 09/21*153 627 105 0*158 642 105 0*162 655 105 0*166 667 105 0
12590 09/22*169 678 100 0*173 690 95 0*178 702 90 0*183 715 85 0
12590 09/22*170 679 100 0*176 693 95 0*183 710 90 0*188 727 75 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** **
12595 09/23*188 728 85 0*194 740 85 0*199 753 85 0*204 766 85 0
12595 09/23*194 743 80 0*199 758 85 0*205 770 70 0*209 782 70 0
*** *** ** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** **
12600 09/24*210 779 85 0*215 791 80 0*220 804 75 0*227 812 70 0
12600 09/24*214 794 70 0*218 806 70 0*225 815 65 0*229 817 60 994
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** ***
12605 09/25*236 817 75 0*247 819 90 0*257 820 105 0*267 819 105 0
12605 09/25*234 819 65 0*240 820 70 0*250 820 80 985*263 820 90 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** ***
12610 09/26*276 817 95 0*286 815 80 0*295 812 70 0*305 809 70 0
12610 09/26*276 817 75 0*286 815 60 0*295 812 65 0*304 810 70 0
** ** ** *** ***
12615 09/27*314 806 75 0*324 803 75 0*332 798 80 0*338 792 80 0
12615 09/27*312 809 75 0*320 807 80 0*330 803 70 0*337 794 65 0
*** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
12620 09/28*342 786 80 0*346 781 70 0*351 774 60 0*355 767 60 0
12620 09/28*340 785 60 0*344 776 60 0*347 767 60 0*352 763 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ***
12625 09/29*360 761 65 0*365 756 65 0*370 750 70 0*375 745 70 0
12625 09/29*358 758 60 0*365 754 70 0*370 750 75 0*375 745 70 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** **
12630 09/30*381 739 65 0*386 734 50 0*392 729 35 0*398 723 30 0
12630 09/30*384 739 65 0*392 732 50 0*397 725 40 0*402 715 35 0
*** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** **
(October 1st new to HURDAT.)
12632 10/01*407 700 35 0*412 676 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
12635 HR
12635 HRBFL2DFL1 SC1 VA1
******** *** ***
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm
number 3. Peak winds of 105 kt in the eastern Caribbean are retained, since
the wind-caused damage in Puerto Rico is consistent with a strong hurricane
passing south of the island (Boose et al. 2003). 85 kt retained at landfall
in Cuba - agreeing with assessment by Perez (2000). Changes made to the track
near Cuba are consistent with modifications suggested by Perez (2000). A
central pressure of 994 mb (21Z on the 24th) suggests winds of 58 kt from the
southern wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt utilized. Central pressure of
985 mb (11Z on the 25th) suggests winds of 71 kt from the southern wind-
pressure relationship - 80 kt used due to observed winds in Key West. A
peripheral pressure of 986 mb (07Z on the 27th) suggests winds of at least
68 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt utilized in best
track at 06Z and at landfall in South Carolina. A storm tide of 10' was
observed in Charleston (Partagas and Diaz 1996b). Landfall in southwest
Florida is suggested to be at a windspeed of 90 kt (with an estimated central
pressure of 975 mb) given the intensification from a 60 kt tropical storm (with
994 mb central pressure) over Havana to a 80 kt Category 1 hurricane (with
985 mb central pressure) over Key West. Analysis of historical tropical storms
and hurricanes impacting Georgia and Northeast Florida by Sandrik (2001)
suggests that the hurricane had also impacted Northeast Florida with Category 1
hurricane conditions as it reintensified quickly as it left the Northeast
Florida coast. System regained hurricane intensity again right as it made
oceanfall from North Carolina, as shown in the sustained hurricane force winds
in Cape Henry, Virginia (Roth and Cobb 2001). Hurricane is known as
"San Mateo" for its impacts in Puerto Rico. Hurricane is known as "Huracan
de Sagua la Grande" for its impacts in Cuba.
********************************************************************************
1894/05
12640 10/01/1894 M=12 4 SNBR= 317 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
12640 10/01/1894 M=12 5 SNBR= 329 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
* *** *
12645 10/01*125 791 35 0*130 795 35 0*135 798 40 0*140 802 40 0
12650 10/02*145 806 45 0*149 809 45 0*154 813 50 0*159 816 55 0
12655 10/03*163 820 60 0*167 823 60 0*172 826 65 0*177 830 70 0
12660 10/04*183 834 75 0*189 838 75 0*195 842 80 0*200 845 85 0
12665 10/05*206 849 90 0*212 853 90 0*217 856 95 0*223 859 95 0
12665 10/05*206 849 90 0*212 853 90 0*217 856 95 0*220 859 95 0
***
12670 10/06*228 862 100 0*234 865 100 0*240 867 105 0*247 869 105 0
12670 10/06*225 862 100 0*230 865 100 0*237 870 105 0*243 875 105 0
*** *** *** *** *** ***
12675 10/07*255 870 105 0*264 870 105 0*271 870 105 0*276 869 105 0
12675 10/07*247 877 105 0*252 881 105 0*257 883 105 0*261 884 105 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
12680 10/08*279 867 105 0*282 864 105 0*286 861 100 0*292 856 95 0
12680 10/08*266 884 105 0*271 884 105 0*277 883 105 0*287 877 105 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
12685 10/09*300 848 90 0*310 836 80 0*322 822 75 0*339 797 70 0
12685 10/09*297 863 105 0*307 847 85 0*317 830 70 0*330 803 60 0
*** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
12690 10/10*355 775 65 0*374 755 65 0*394 740 60 0*420 719 55 0
12690 10/10*352 775 60 0*374 755 65 0*394 740 75 0*420 719 55 0
*** ** **
12695 10/11*448 702 55 0*476 689 50 0*500 673 45 0*520 662 40 0
12695 10/11E448 702 45 0E476 689 45 0E500 673 45 0E520 662 40 0
* ** * ** * *
12700 10/12*537 652 35 0*551 643 35 0*563 635 35 0* 0 0 0 0
12700 10/12E537 652 35 0E551 643 35 0E563 635 35 0* 0 0 0 0
* * *
12705 HR
12705 HRAFL3 GA1 NY1 RI1
**** *** *** ***
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm
number 4. Peripheral pressure of 961 mb (14 UTC on the 8th) suggests winds of
at least 99 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 105 kt in
best track used here and at landfall in Florida. Peripheral pressure of 984 mb
(on the 10th) suggests winds of at least 69 kt from the northern wind-
pressure relationship - 75 kt chosen for best track and landfall in
New York/Rhode Island, which is also supported by wind observations at Block
Island, R.I.
********************************************************************************
1894/06
12710 10/11/1894 M=10 5 SNBR= 318 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
12710 10/11/1894 M=10 6 SNBR= 330 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
* ***
12715 10/11*108 577 35 0*113 583 40 0*120 590 40 0*126 597 45 0
12715 10/11*108 577 35 0*113 583 45 0*120 590 55 0*126 597 65 0
** ** **
12720 10/12*132 603 50 0*138 609 55 0*145 615 60 0*152 621 65 0
12720 10/12*132 603 75 0*138 609 85 0*145 615 85 0*149 621 85 0
** ** ** *** **
12725 10/13*159 626 70 0*166 631 75 0*173 636 80 0*180 640 85 0
12725 10/13*154 628 85 0*159 634 85 0*167 640 85 0*175 645 85 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ***
12730 10/14*187 644 85 0*194 648 85 0*201 652 85 0*208 656 85 0
12730 10/14*181 649 85 0*187 652 85 0*193 655 85 0*202 658 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
12735 10/15*216 659 85 0*224 662 85 0*231 665 85 0*238 667 85 0
12735 10/15*209 660 85 0*217 662 85 0*225 665 85 0*231 665 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** ***
12740 10/16*244 668 85 0*251 669 85 0*258 669 85 0*266 668 85 0
12740 10/16*237 666 95 0*243 666 105 0*250 667 115 0*261 667 115 931
*** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
12745 10/17*274 666 85 0*282 663 85 0*290 657 85 0*298 650 85 0
12745 10/17*274 666 115 0*282 663 115 0*290 657 110 0*300 647 105 0
*** *** *** *** *** ***
12750 10/18*305 641 85 0*312 631 85 0*320 620 85 0*329 608 85 0
12750 10/18*311 632 100 0*323 617 95 0*333 603 90 0*341 593 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ***
12755 10/19*340 595 85 0*351 582 85 0*360 570 85 0*367 563 80 0
12755 10/19*348 584 85 0*354 577 85 0*360 570 85 0*367 563 80 0
*** *** *** ***
12760 10/20*373 558 80 0*377 555 75 0*380 552 70 0*384 548 70 0
12765 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm
number 5. Winds increased from the 11th to the 13th based upon destruction
in St. Lucia. Central pressure of 931 mb (21Z on the 16th) suggests winds of
116 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 115 kt chosen for
best track. Winds increased from the 16th to the 18th accordingly. Full
lifecycle of this hurricane is not known, due to lack of information about
its decay after the 20th.
********************************************************************************
1894/07
12770 10/21/1894 M=11 6 SNBR= 319 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
12770 10/21/1894 M=11 7 SNBR= 331 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
* ***
12775 10/21* 0 0 0 0*210 603 35 0*215 610 40 0*218 617 40 0
12780 10/22*221 624 45 0*224 632 45 0*227 640 50 0*228 649 50 0
12785 10/23*229 659 55 0*232 670 60 0*235 681 65 0*241 695 65 0
12790 10/24*247 711 70 0*254 728 75 0*261 740 75 0*268 745 80 0
12790 10/24*245 706 70 0*249 718 75 0*255 730 75 0*258 735 80 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
12795 10/25*274 746 85 0*281 744 85 0*288 741 85 0*296 737 85 0
12795 10/25*262 742 85 0*266 743 85 0*270 740 85 0*280 726 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
12800 10/26*305 732 85 0*317 724 85 0*331 710 85 0*351 689 85 0
12800 10/26*290 710 85 0*300 695 85 0*310 680 85 0*329 654 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
12805 10/27*378 662 85 0*403 632 85 0*421 600 85 0*433 563 85 0
12805 10/27*349 624 85 0*371 594 85 0*390 570 85 0*411 544 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
12810 10/28*443 522 85 0*451 484 85 0*458 458 85 0*464 441 85 0
12810 10/28*432 515 90 0*447 487 90 0*458 458 95 0*464 441 95 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** ** **
12815 10/29*470 426 85 0*476 413 85 0*481 400 85 0*486 388 85 0
12815 10/29*470 426 95 955*476 413 90 0E481 400 85 0E486 388 85 0
** *** ** * *
12820 10/30*490 376 85 0*494 363 80 0*499 350 80 0*505 334 75 0
12820 10/30E490 376 85 0E494 363 80 0E499 350 80 0E505 334 75 0
* * * *
12825 10/31*513 315 70 0*521 293 65 0*530 270 65 0* 0 0 0 0
12825 10/31E513 315 70 0E521 293 65 0E530 270 65 0* 0 0 0 0
* * *
12830 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 6.
These track changes are found to be reasonable. Peripheral pressure (possible
central pressure) of 975 mb on the 28th suggests winds of at least 78 kt from
the northern wind-pressure relationship - winds kept at 85 kt in best track.
A possible central pressure of 955 mb on the 29th suggests winds of at least
93 kt - 95 kt chosen for best track. Winds are increased accordingly on the
28th and 29th.
*******************************************************************************
1894 - Additional Notes:
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) mentioned three additional systems considered
for inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team agreed to leave them out
of HURDAT for the following reasons:
1) August 27-31, 1894: Gale observations found, but likely was an
extratropical storm.
2) September 16-21, 1894: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
3) October 16-18, 1894: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
*******************************************************************************
1895
*******************************************************************************
1895/01
12835 08/14/1895 M= 4 1 SNBR= 320 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
12835 08/14/1895 M= 4 1 SNBR= 332 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
12840 08/14* 0 0 0 0*272 913 35 0*276 910 40 0*279 908 45 0
12845 08/15*283 905 45 0*286 903 50 0*289 900 50 0*292 897 50 0
12850 08/16*296 894 50 0*299 891 45 0*302 888 45 0*307 886 40 0
12855 08/17*313 884 40 0*321 882 40 0*330 881 35 0*338 879 30 0
12855 08/17*313 884 35 0*321 882 30 0*330 881 25 0*338 879 25 0
** ** ** **
12860 TS
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Winds reduced after landfall with the
Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) inland wind decay model.
********************************************************************************
1895/02
12865 08/22/1895 M= 8 2 SNBR= 321 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
12865 08/22/1895 M= 9 2 SNBR= 333 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
* *** *
12870 08/22*134 583 35 0*137 596 40 0*140 607 45 0*143 619 50 0
12875 08/23*145 631 55 0*148 644 55 0*150 658 60 0*153 672 65 0
12880 08/24*155 687 70 0*158 702 75 0*160 717 75 0*162 731 80 0
12880 08/24*155 687 70 0*158 702 75 0*160 717 75 0*164 733 80 0
*** ***
12885 08/25*164 745 80 0*167 758 80 0*170 772 85 0*175 789 85 0
12885 08/25*169 751 80 0*174 770 80 0*180 790 85 0*184 802 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
12890 08/26*184 809 85 0*194 829 85 0*202 845 85 0*209 858 85 0
12890 08/26*188 813 85 0*194 829 85 0*202 845 85 0*209 858 85 0
*** ***
12895 08/27*215 870 85 0*221 880 85 0*226 890 85 0*230 899 85 0
12900 08/28*234 907 85 0*239 916 85 0*243 925 80 0*248 935 80 0
12900 08/28*233 905 85 0*236 914 85 0*240 923 85 0*243 931 90 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** **
12905 08/29*252 946 75 0*257 958 70 0*262 970 65 0*266 978 35 0
12905 08/29*245 939 95 0*246 947 95 0*247 955 95 0*248 963 95 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
(30th is new to HURDAT.)
12907 08/30*249 971 95 0*250 979 65 0*251 987 40 0*252 995 30 0
12910 HR
12910 HRATX1
****
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track changes are
found to be reasonable. Perez (2000) analyzed this hurricane as causing
Category 1 conditions in western Cuba, which is consistent with the existing
track and intensity of Category 2 hurricane passing just offshore of the
island. Winds increased to 95 kt (Category 2) until landfall in Mexico, due
to destruction in Mexico described in Ellis (1988). Hurricane analyzed as
causing Category 1 conditions in extreme southern Texas based upon
description in Ellis.
********************************************************************************
1895/03
12915 09/28/1895 M=10 3 SNBR= 322 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
12915 09/28/1895 M=10 3 SNBR= 334 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
12920 09/28*193 860 35 0*196 866 35 0*199 872 35 0*203 882 35 0
12920 09/28*193 860 35 0*196 866 35 0*199 872 35 0*203 882 30 0
**
12925 09/29*207 890 35 0*212 895 35 0*216 897 40 0*221 897 40 0
12925 09/29*207 890 30 0*212 895 30 0*216 897 40 0*221 897 40 0
** **
12930 09/30*227 895 45 0*232 892 45 0*237 885 50 0*238 871 50 0
12935 10/01*238 858 50 0*238 845 50 0*239 834 50 0*240 825 50 0
12940 10/02*242 815 50 0*245 807 50 0*249 799 50 0*252 792 50 0
12945 10/03*256 786 50 0*262 780 50 0*270 772 50 0*280 762 50 0
12950 10/04*290 751 50 0*301 740 50 0*311 729 50 0*321 719 50 0
12955 10/05*330 710 50 0*340 700 50 0*350 690 50 0*362 678 50 0
12960 10/06*376 664 50 0*392 648 50 0*409 630 50 0*426 611 45 0
12965 10/07*444 590 40 0*463 568 40 0*482 544 40 0* 0 0 0 0
12970 TS
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Winds reduced on the 28th and 29th
due to passage over the Yucatan.
********************************************************************************
1895/04
12975 10/02/1895 M= 6 4 SNBR= 323 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
12975 10/02/1895 M= 6 4 SNBR= 335 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
12980 10/02*174 829 35 0*177 837 40 0*180 846 45 0*183 855 50 0
12980 10/02*174 829 35 0*177 837 35 0*180 846 35 0*183 855 35 0
** ** **
12985 10/03*186 863 50 0*190 872 45 0*193 880 35 0*196 888 35 0
12985 10/03*186 863 35 0*190 872 35 0*193 880 30 0*196 888 30 0
** ** ** **
12990 10/04*200 895 35 0*203 902 40 0*207 910 45 0*211 919 50 0
12990 10/04*200 895 30 0*203 902 30 0*207 910 35 0*211 919 35 0
** ** ** **
12995 10/05*214 928 50 0*218 938 50 0*222 947 50 0*226 955 50 0
12995 10/05*214 928 35 0*218 938 35 0*222 947 35 0*226 955 35 0
** ** ** **
13000 10/06*232 960 50 0*239 963 50 0*247 965 50 0*259 964 50 0
13000 10/06*232 960 35 0*239 963 35 0*247 965 35 0*259 964 35 0
** ** ** **
13005 10/07*277 956 45 0*299 944 35 0*324 926 30 0* 0 0 0 0
13005 10/07*277 956 35 0*299 944 30 0*324 926 25 0* 0 0 0 0
** ** **
13010 TS
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). No gale force winds (or equivalent
in sea level pressure) were found for this system. Peak winds observed were
only 25-30 kt in Texas and Louisiana. Partagas and Diaz commented that
since the system was not mentioned in _Monthly Weather Review_, it must have
been a "very weak" storm. Thus winds are reduced for lifetime of storm since
available observations indicate that the system was, at best, a minimal
tropical storm.
********************************************************************************
1895/05
13015 10/12/1895 M=15 5 SNBR= 324 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
13015 10/12/1895 M=15 5 SNBR= 336 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
13020 10/12*120 448 35 0*120 455 40 0*120 465 45 0*120 475 50 0
13020 10/12*120 448 35 0*120 455 35 0*120 465 40 0*120 475 40 0
** ** **
13025 10/13*120 485 55 0*120 494 60 0*120 504 65 0*121 514 70 0
13025 10/13*120 485 45 0*120 494 45 0*120 504 50 0*121 514 50 0
** ** ** **
13030 10/14*122 524 75 0*123 535 80 0*124 546 85 0*125 558 90 0
13030 10/14*122 524 50 0*123 535 50 0*124 546 50 0*125 558 50 0
** ** ** **
13035 10/15*125 570 90 0*126 583 95 0*127 596 95 0*129 610 100 0
13035 10/15*125 570 50 0*126 583 50 0*127 596 50 0*129 610 50 0
** ** ** ***
13040 10/16*131 624 100 0*133 639 105 0*135 653 105 0*136 666 105 0
13040 10/16*131 624 55 0*133 639 60 0*135 653 65 0*136 666 70 0
*** *** *** ***
13045 10/17*138 679 105 0*139 692 105 0*140 704 105 0*141 715 105 0
13045 10/17*138 679 75 0*139 692 80 0*140 704 85 0*141 715 90 0
*** *** *** ***
13050 10/18*142 726 105 0*144 737 105 0*149 747 105 0*156 757 105 0
13050 10/18*143 730 90 0*146 745 90 0*150 760 90 0*153 775 90 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
13055 10/19*163 766 105 0*170 775 105 0*178 783 105 0*185 789 105 0
13055 10/19*157 795 90 0*161 810 90 0*165 815 90 0*171 818 90 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
13060 10/20*193 794 105 0*200 797 105 0*208 799 105 0*215 800 100 0
13060 10/20*177 820 90 0*183 820 90 0*189 820 90 0*195 820 90 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
13065 10/21*223 799 95 0*230 799 90 0*238 797 85 0*245 795 85 0
13065 10/21*201 820 90 0*207 817 90 0*213 813 90 0*222 807 85 0
*** *** ** *** *** *** *** ** *** ***
13070 10/22*251 791 85 0*258 787 90 0*264 782 95 0*271 775 95 0
13070 10/22*234 800 85 0*248 792 90 0*262 784 90 0*271 775 90 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ** **
13075 10/23*278 765 100 0*285 752 100 0*292 735 100 0*300 715 105 0
13075 10/23*278 765 90 0*285 752 90 0*292 735 90 0*299 717 90 0
*** *** *** *** *** ***
13080 10/24*309 692 105 0*318 666 105 0*327 638 105 0*339 609 105 0
13080 10/24*304 702 90 0*309 689 90 0*315 670 90 0*327 638 90 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
13085 10/25*350 579 105 0*352 549 105 0*350 515 100 0*347 486 95 0
13085 10/25*342 595 90 0*349 549 90 0*350 515 85 0*347 486 75 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** **
13090 10/26*344 454 90 0*342 421 65 0*340 388 35 0* 0 0 0 0
13090 10/26*344 454 65 0E342 421 55 0E340 388 45 0* 0 0 0 0
** * ** * **
13095 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track changes are
found to be reasonable. Winds reduced from the 12th to the 15th, since the
observations indicate that the system was, at most, a moderate tropical storm
going through the Lesser Antilles. Perez (2000) documents that this hurricane
made landfall as a Category 2 hurricane in Cuba - winds reduced from the 16th
to the 21st accordingly. A peripheral pressure of 973 mb (at 17Z on the 21st)
suggests winds of at least 86 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship
- 90 kt chosen for best track in agreement with assessment of Category 2 by
Perez. Changes made to the track near Cuba are consistent with modifications
suggested by Perez (2000). Winds reduced from the 22nd to the 26th since
observations indicate that the storm was only a moderate (Category 1 or 2)
hurricane in the Atlantic.
********************************************************************************
1895/06
13440 10/13/1895 M= 5 6 SNBR= 325 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
13440 10/13/1895 M= 5 6 SNBR= 337 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
13445 10/13* 0 0 0 0*194 937 35 0*200 930 35 0*206 924 35 0
13450 10/14*212 918 35 0*217 911 35 0*222 904 35 0*226 897 35 0
13455 10/15*231 888 35 0*235 880 35 0*239 870 35 0*243 859 35 0
13460 10/16*248 846 35 0*252 832 35 0*256 816 35 0*264 802 30 0
13465 10/17*276 786 25 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
13470 TS
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) introduced no changes from that shown in Neumann
et al. (1999).
*******************************************************************************
1895 - Additional Notes:
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) mentioned two additional systems considered
for inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team agreed to leave them out
of HURDAT for the following reasons:
1) September 21, 1895: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
2) November 1-3, 1895: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
********************************************************************************