**************************************************************************** Documentation of Atlantic Tropical Cyclones Changes in HURDAT - **************************************************************************** By Chris Landsea, Craig Anderson, Noel Charles, Gil Clark, Jason Dunion, Charlie Neumann, Mark Zimmer, Jose Fernandez-Partagas, William Bredemeyer, John Gamache, and Lenworth Woolcock. Special thanks to: Sim Aberson, Auguste Boissonnade, Emery Boose, Mike Chenoweth, Hugh Cobb, Jose Colon, Paul Hebert, Paul Hungerford, Brian Jones, Lorne Ketch, Cary Mock, Ramon Perez Suarez, David Roth, Al Sandrik, David Vallee, Mark Jelinek, and James Belanger. Introduction 1) Original re-analysis efforts completed in 2000 provided an addition to HURDAT for the years 1851 to 1885, based upon the encyclopedic work of Partagas and Diaz as well as other sources. Unless otherwise stated, observations mentioned here are from the Partagas and Diaz reports. 2) In August 2002, a re-analysis of 1992's Hurricane Andrew's intensity was approved and incorporated into HURDAT. A brief synopsis of the results of this re-analysis are provided here. A full description of presentations made and minutes of deliberations are provided on-line at: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/andrew.html 3) Re-analysis work completed in 2003 focussed upon the period of 1886 to 1910, with some additional changes to the earlier 1851 to 1885 era. Again the main sources utilized for this effort were the Partagas and Diaz reports and all observations described come from these reports unless otherwise explicitly referenced. 4) In 2005, changes and additions are made for the period of 1911 to 1914. This is the first era completed in the reanalysis that did not have the benefit of Jose Fernandez Partagas' efforts. Co-authors on these changes are William Bredemeyer, John Gamache, and Lenworth Woolcock, with special thanks are due to Michael Chenoweth and Cary Mock. We revised all 15 existing tropical storms and hurricanes during this four year period, added 5 new tropical storms, and discussed (but did not add in) an additional 19 suspect systems. While there were no major US hurricanes during this relatively quiet period, Jamaica experienced one of their worst hurricanes ever in a late season system in November 1912. A surprising finding was the lack of any new tropical storms or hurricanes for 1914, which was and remains the quietest hurricane season ever for the Atlantic basin with just one tropical storm. 5) In 2006, many corrections were made for U.S. landfalling tropical cyclones based upon research conducted by Mark Jelinek and James Belanger. Additionally, explicit notation was given for U.S. hurricanes during the entire 1851 to 2005 period that caused hurricane conditions (estimated maximum sustained surface winds of 64 kt or greater) in an inland state. ******************************************************************************* 1851/01 - 2003 ADDITION: 00001 06/25/1851 M= 1 1 SNBR= 1 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 00002 06/25* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*285 965 70 0* 0 0 0 0 00003 HRBTX1 Ellis' (1988) Hurricane History of the Texas Coast (and mirrored in Roth's (1997b) Texas Hurricane History website) includes the following description: "June 25th, 1851: A short but severe storm which passed over Matagorda Bay and was described as the most disastrous experienced there to date. Caused widespread damage at Saluria on Matagorda Island where saltwater contaminated the fresh water cisterns. Wind damage at Port Lavaca was widespread and every wharf destroyed. Indianola suffered damage to waterfront buildings, but the storm tide did not cover the spit of land at Power Horn." Based upon this account, a single-point hurricane is analyzed and added to the best track database. It is quite possible that this hurricane was Category 2 (or stronger) given the sparseness of the population in the region. 1851/01 - 2004 REVISION: 00001 06/25/1851 M= 1 1 SNBR= 1 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 00001 06/25/1851 M= 4 1 SNBR= 1 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 * 00002 06/25* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*285 965 70 0* 0 0 0 0 00002 06/25*280 948 80 0*280 954 80 0*280 960 80 0*281 965 80 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** (The 26th through the 28th are new to HURDAT.) 00002 06/26*282 970 70 0*283 976 60 0*284 983 60 0*286 989 50 0 00002 06/27*290 994 50 0*295 998 40 0*3001000 40 0*3051001 40 0 00002 06/28*3101002 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 00003 HRBTX1 U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data ---------------------------- #/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States Winds Simpson Pressure Affected 1-6/25/1851 1200Z 28.5N 96.5W 70kt 1 (985mb) BTX1 1-6/25/1851 2000Z 28.1N 96.7W 80kt 1 (977mb) BTX1 **** **** **** ** *** Prof. Cary Mock of the University of South Carolina obtained some observations that pertain to this hurricane from Corpus Christi and Fort Brown. Additionally, Prof. Mock and Mr. David Roth of the Hydrometeorological Prediction Center obtained newspaper accounts of the impact of its landfall in Texas. (The observations were primarily from Army Forts that observed the weather four times a day: near sunrise, 9 a.m., 3 p.m., and 9 p.m. Winds could range from a range of 0 to 10, with a 6 being equivalent to about 40 kt gusts, a 7 about 50 kt gusts and an 8 about 65 kt gusts.) A search of the NCDC archives revealed, in addition to those provided by Prof. Mock, observations from the following Texas forts: Fort Graham, Fort Mcintosh, Fort Croghan, Fort Lincoln, Fort Martin Scott, Fort Ringgold, San Antonio, Fort Merrill, Fort Duncan and New Wild. Relevant observations are shown below: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Corpus Christi, Texas: Jun. 25, 1851 - ENE1 NE1 NE4 NW1 80/85/89/83 Jun. 26, 1851 - S5 SSW2 SSW3 ESE4 74/76/78/74 rain 1am to 6 1/2 pm 3.00" Jun. 27, 1851 - S1 S3 SE6 SSE6 79/83/88/83 Fort Mcintosh (Laredo), Texas: Jun. 25, 1851 - E2 SE2 SE2 NE2 73/93/98/88 Jun. 26, 1851 - N2 NW2 NW2 SE3 75/92/98/83 rain began ? Jun. 27, 1851 - NW2 E2 SW2 SE2 70/78/92/79 rain ended ? 2.48" Fort Croghan (30.5N, 98.3W), Texas: Jun. 25, 1851 - S3 SE4 SE4 SE3 75/85/95/80 Jun. 26, 1851 - NE2 E3 E3 E3 70/80/86/82 0.19" Jun. 27, 1851 - S3 SE4 S4 SE4 82/81/82/79 Notes from Jun. 26th: At 10 A.M. a slight shower. Showers from 11 P.M. through the night. Fort Lincoln (29.4N, 99.5W), Texas (no temperatures): Jun. 25, 1851 - SE1 SE2 SE3 SE2 Jun. 26, 1851 - NW3 N4 N4 SE8 11 a.m. rain began, 9 p.m. rain ended 0.8" Jun. 27, 1851 - SE1 E4 ENE5 SE2 9 a.m. rain began, 3 p.m. rain ended 0.35" Notes from Jun 26th: Rain fell in showers at intervals, accompanied by heavy winds. Fort Martin Scott (30.2N, 98.8W), Texas (no precipitation totals): Jun. 25, 1851 - SE1 SE1 NE2 SE1 70/80/93/74 Jun. 26, 1851 - E1 NE3 NE3 SE1 69/76/82/71 rain at intervals during day Jun. 27, 1851 - E1 SE2 SW3 SE4 68/76/83/72 rain at intervals during day San Antonio, Texas: Jun. 25, 1851 - E1 E2 N2 NE3 75/81/87/82 Jun. 26, 1851 - N1 NE4 NE4 E2 72/78/74/72 Jun. 27, 1851 - E2 SE1 SE1 NE3 70/74/78/74 rain began 11 a.m. Addendum: Rain ended on the 28th at 11 a.m. 1.00" Fort Merrill (28.2N, 98.1W), Texas: Jun. 25, 1851 - 0 NE2 NE4 NE5 77/85/91/81 Jun. 26, 1851 - W5 SW5 S2 S2 75/85/77/82 rain began 6 a.m. Jun. 27, 1851 - S1 S4 S3 S4 78/83/82/80 rain ended 3 a.m. 1.25" Fort Duncan (Eagle Pass), Texas: Jun. 25, 1851 - E2 E2 S2 S3 80/84/95/89 Jun. 26, 1851 - E2 N2 N3 N2 81/83/94/87 Jun. 27, 1851 - N2 E2 E2 S3 80/82/90/84 Notes: No rain on these dates. Wind apparently reported to nearest 90 degree interval. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Daily Picayune (New Orleans) July 9, 1851, p.2 This vessel [The Maria Burt] left Galveston on the 24th ult. That night a heavy gale commenced blowing, and the next day, about 10 A.M., the steamer put back for Sabine Pass. The Matagorda Tribune, June 30, 1851 Violent Gale on Matagorda Bay - The Shipping driven Ashore - Several Houses Blown down at Indianola, Saluria, and Port Cavallo. One of the heaviest gales that has perhaps ever been experienced in this section of country, occurred within the past week. Early on Wednesday morning [June 25th], it commenced raining furiously, and continued to pour down in torrents for nearly the whole of that day and the following night, with few intermissions, accompanied by violent gales of wind, frequently veering from the east, northeast and southeast. Although we believe no material damage has been done hereabouts, beyond perhaps the leveling of some of the more exposed garden patches, the result, we understand, has been calamitous to the shipping and to our neighbors, situated on the lower bay. From Port Lavaca, we have not, as yet, had any tidings, but Indianola, Saluria, and Port Cavallo, appear to have suffered considerable loss from the fury of the gale. At the former place, we learn, every wharf has been carried away, and a number of houses had either been leveled to the earth, or blown from their foundations. At Saluria, considerable damage has also been Done. Port Cavallo, however, has escaped with less injury, as will be seen by The following extract from a letter from thence, addressed to a gentleman in this city, under date of 27th June. The loss and injury sustained among the shipping on the bay, has doubtless been far greater than we have yet had any particulars of. We learn at the present writing by a vessel just up from below, that the Steamship Mexico was driven ashore opposite, or near Powder Horn Bayou, and was still lying on the flats in that vicinity when our informant left - that the depot or freight steamer Portland shared the same fate, together with several other smaller crafts. The steamer Wm. Penn was driven ashore from her anchorage near Saluria, and will probably be a total loss. Port Cavallo, June 27, 1851 Our place has been visited by the most terrible storm which has occurred on this coast within the memory of the oldest inhabitant. It commenced Wednesday the 25th inst. The sun rose clear, with the exception of a few heavy clouds hanging to the northward, but the tide commenced rising with unprecedented rapidity - the storm in the meantime increasing to that degree, that by 4 P.M., it was blowing a perfect hurricane. Thus it continued all night, coming with frightful violence. What with the torrents of rain, the howling of the winds and the roaring of the sea, it was a scene baffling all description. The damage here had been quite trifling, considering the great strength of the gale. Mr. Doerow had one of the chimneys to his new house blown over, and his fields much injured - the fences being generally prostrated. The warehouse and wharf stood it bravely. The wharf is uninjured - the warehouse had a few blocks washed from under it, which is the only damage it sustained. Mr. Maverick's house was blown from its blocks - that is to say, the small house in his yard. This is the total amount of damage done here, except a few more fences blown down. The schr. Velasco, with a heavy cargo of cotton and molasses, returned back over the bar, having sprung a leak - She made fast to the wharf there and commenced discharging, but the gale and leak still increasing, she was winded around on the flat below the wharf where she now lies. The schr. Buena Vista, lying at anchor on the Saluria side, dragged and went ashore. The morning she got off, and came to on this side. Mr. Harrison's pilot boat went ashore on the Saluria side, and is a complete wreck. Mr. Givins' house was blown from the blocks and broke in two. Judge Rose's warehouse at Saluria was also blown from the blocks. Gen. Summerville's house is blown and destroyed. Dr. McCreary's house in much injured - gallery gone. In addition to the above, a letter was last night received by Messrs. Doswell, Hill & Co., from Capt. Talbot, dated on Tuesday, the 26th ult., which states that the freight of the Mexico had been discharged before the heavy blow came on. The Mexico was then dropped astern of the Portland, and both anchors thrown out. At 10 P.M. on Wednesday, the gale increased to great violence, and grew more violent until 11 1/2, when the Portland broke adrift and went ashore. The Mexico had then gotten steam up, and was working full stroke with 20 inches of steam, and two anchors out with 60 fathoms of chain, but all could not resist the violence of the storm. About one o'clock, the Mexico broke from her anchorage, and was driven on a hard bottom with six feet of water. Capt. Boehner says he never before saw so high a tide in that bay. All Capt. Talbot's hands were at work getting out coal, and every exertion was being made to get her off, but the captain has very little hope of success until he can have the assistance of the Louisiana. Captain Talbot adds: Captain Boehner's lighter is ashore, the Wm. Penn is a total wreck, all the wharves at Indianola are gone, and some few houses prostrated. The J. Smith, although sunk decks under water, was driven three quarters of a mile, and is pretty much all to pieces. The Advocate, Victoria TX, July 3, 1851, p. 2 A storm of wind and rain, unprecedented in violence in this region, passed over this place, in common with every other point from which we have heard, from the Bay and Gulf immediately below us as high up as the Western portion of De Witt county, and extending as far West as the "Mission of Refugio," on Wednesday night of last week, (the 25th and 26th ult.) The damage done to buildings, fences, fruit and shade trees in this place is by no means inconsiderable. No serious injury occurred to any building that was inhabited, or occupied, except by workmen engaged in the completion of the same. At Saluria, we learn, several buildings were injured by the violence of the gale and the wash of the tide. Another evil resulting from the storm there, we understand, is the mixture of the water and spray from the Gulf with the water of the cisterns of the place, to such an extent as to render it unfit for use. At Indianola, and its vicinity, the effects of the storm are given somewhat in detail by our correspondent. It is spoken of us being the severest storm ever experienced in that place. At Lavaca, in slip from the office of the "Commercial," informs us the ravages of the storm were quite disastrous to property, though most happily, not to life. Our friend of the "Commercial" says: Every one of the wharves belonging to the merchant of this place was destroyed. Of some, scarce vestige was left. The warehouse of Mr. Ross was swept away by the violence of the tide, whilst other sustained slighter injuries. The schooner William & Morris, trading between this place and Galveston, and which was anchored at the wharf of R. M. Forbes & Co., was thrown by the fury of the waves on the beach, where she remains high and dry. Ornamental and fruit trees have been blown down, fences and pilings prostrated. We have not learned the amount of damage sustained by this destructive tornado, but it will be several thousand dollars. Some damage has been done to dwellings and farm houses in the country, not only in the valley of the Guadelupe, but in the Colette settlement. The injury done to corn in all this region will be considerable. Some fields have been laid entirely level with the earth, and place beyond the possibility of yielding more than one third of a crop. Quite an amount of timber along the Guadelupe and San Antonio rivers, between this and the Espiritu Santa Bay, have been blown down and destroyed. At Carlos' Ranch, we heard quite a number of buildings are prostrated. The damages done to the property there is considerable, and will be severely felt, as it falls upon those who are poorly able to sustain such losses. At the Mission, in Refugio county, the progress and force of the storm were manifested in the injury done to buildings, fences and trees. In one instance, it is reported, one of the residents of the place - a female at that - while attempting to return to her house on foot, across an open place, was blown out quite a distance on to the prairie, and by the time she could retrace her steps against the wind and reach the village, she was almost entirely divested of her clothing. At Goliad, the severity of the storm was felt, we understand, in the demolition of several buildings, and other injuries done to property. It is somewhat remarkable, that in all the accounts we have thus far received, no other injury appears to have accrued to human life than that occasioned by exposure to the rain, at an unseasonable hour of the night. It is possible, however, when we come to receive the history of the storm more in detail, this happy exemption will be dashed by incidents of a painful and heart- rendering character. Since the above was in type, we learn, from a gentleman just arrived from Espiritu Santa Bay, that the houses of Messrs. Kuykendall, Burns, Hays, Tucker, and Judge Duke, in that vicinity, were all demolished, or seriously injured by the gale. One or two persons are said to have been more or less injured, either by falling timbers, or by exposure to the storm. Mrs. Burns is said to have dies the next morning after the occurrence of the storm, having been sick for sometime previous. We regret to learn that the new mail Steamship Mexico is so hard aground in the Bay, that it will be necessary to take out her engines, &c., before she can be removed from her present dangerous position. The Daily Picayune (New Orleans) July 11, 1851, p.2 More of the Texas Gale - Indianola, Texas, June 27, 1851 [To the] Editors Picayune - I have to advise you of the effects of one of the worst gales every known on this bay. The storm commenced on the 25th, and continued till daylight of the 26th. The wind prevailed from northeast to southeast. The wharves at this place were carried away; the steamboat Wm Penn was blown aground, filled with water, and was badly damaged; all the small boats in the bay were stranded and greatly injured. Several small houses on the water's edge were more or less injured, and considerable damage was done in various ways. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The hurricane's landfall near Matagorda Bay was not closely observed from any of the fort locations, though Fort Merrill likely was just to the south of the inland center just before 12 UTC on the 26th and Fort Lincoln was just to the north of the inland center around 00 UTC on the 27th. From the impacts described in the newspaper accounts - especially the peak winds shifting from northeast to southeast in Indianola and only easterly component in Matagorda - indicate a landfall southwest of those locations. The observations then indicated a track at landfall toward the northwest with a turn to the north over the next two days as it decayed. It is estimated that the storm dissipated early on the 28th over central Texas. Thus a track for this hurricane has now been attempted and data from the ship "Maria Burt" allow for a portion of track to be determined on the 25th before landfall. The winds are increased slightly at landfall to better match the original damage descriptions as well as to account for a long-lasting system after landfall (estimated 65 kt gusts at 00 UTC on the 27th at Fort Lincoln). It is noted that high winds seen at some forts on the 27th were due to straight-line southeasterly flow not directly related to the hurricane itself. ******************************************************************************* 1851/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis (was storm #1 in Partagas and Diaz), except to assume a date of July 5th for storm "before July 7th". No track available, only one point. Storm determined to be a hurricane based upon destruction that occurred in Tampico. ******************************************************************************** 1851/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis (was storm #2 in Partagas and Diaz), though storm documentation is somewhat weak. No track available, only one point. ******************************************************************************** 1851/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis (was storm #3 in Partagas and Diaz). Inland winds over Hispanola, Cuba and SE US reduced via methodology of Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model, but windspeed values over Hispanola and Cuba had an accelerated rate of decay due to the enhanced topography. Storm tide value of 12' obtained from Ludlum (1963) and Barnes (1998) for St. Marks, Florida. Storm determined to have reached major hurricane status based upon storm tide and extreme damage at landfall. Ludlum also called this storm the "Great Middle Florida Hurricane of August 1851". 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 below tropical storm strength). 1851/04 - 2006 REVISION: 00065 08/16/1851 M=12 4 SNBR= 4 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 00070 08/16*134 480 40 0*137 495 40 0*140 510 50 0*144 528 50 0* 00075 08/17*149 546 60 0*154 565 60 0*159 585 70 0*161 604 70 0* 00080 08/18*166 625 80 0*169 641 80 0*172 660 90 0*176 676 90 0* 00085 08/19*180 693 90 0*184 711 70 0*189 726 60 0*194 743 60 0* 00090 08/20*199 759 70 0*205 776 70 0*212 790 70 0*219 804 70 0* 00095 08/21*226 814 60 0*232 825 60 0*239 836 70 0*244 843 70 0* 00100 08/22*250 849 80 0*256 855 80 0*262 860 90 0*268 863 90 0* 00105 08/23*274 865 100 0*280 866 100 0*285 866 100 0*296 861 100 0* 00110 08/24*307 851 90 0*316 841 70 0*325 830 60 0*334 814 50 0* 00115 08/25*340 800 40 0*348 786 40 0*358 770 40 0*368 751 40 0* 00120 08/26*378 736 40 0*389 718 40 0*400 700 40 0*413 668 40 0* 00125 08/27*428 633 40 0*445 602 40 0*464 572 40 0*485 542 40 0* 00130 HRAFL3 GA1 00130 HRAFL3IGA1 **** Revision indicated in continental U.S. impacts to specify that the Georgia hurricane impact from this cyclone was inland, rather than along Georgia's Atlantic coast. ******************************************************************************** 1851/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis (was storm #4 in Partagas and Diaz). Storm assumed to be stationary for 4 days. ******************************************************************************** 1851/06: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Inland winds over NE US reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model. 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 strength). ******************************************************************************** 1851 - Additional Notes: 1. The tropical storm listed as #5 in 1851 in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) was not included into the HURDAT because of the evidence suggesting that the storm did not actually exist. Partagas and Diaz had found an unsupported reference to it in Tannehill (1938), but no other information. ******************************************************************************** 1852/01: Utilized Ho's (1989) work - apparently not used in Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis - to alter the track and intensity near the US. Inland winds over SE US reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model. FL Keys experienced hurricane conditions, but not landfall of center. Storm tide value of 12' obtained from Ho (1989) and Barnes (1998) for Mobile, Alabama. Using Ho's suggested central pressure of 961 mb at landfall in AL/MS gives 99 kt with the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship, thus utilizing 100 kt in best track - a major hurricane. Storm is also known as the "Great Mobile Hurricane of 1852" from Ludlum (1963). 1852/01 - 2003 REVISION: 00165 08/19/1852 M= 9 1 SNBR= 5 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 00165 08/19/1852 M=12 1 SNBR= 6 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 ** * 00170 08/19*205 671 60 0*207 680 60 0*209 688 60 0*211 696 60 0 00175 08/20*212 706 70 0*215 719 70 0*217 730 70 0*219 740 70 0 00180 08/21*221 749 80 0*222 761 80 0*226 771 80 0*229 781 80 0 00185 08/22*232 793 90 0*235 801 90 0*238 811 90 0*242 821 90 0 00190 08/23*247 831 90 0*252 839 90 0*257 846 90 0*262 853 90 0 00195 08/24*267 860 100 0*272 866 100 0*277 871 100 0*282 875 100 0 00200 08/25*286 878 100 0*288 880 100 0*291 881 100 0*294 884 100 0 00200 08/25*286 878 100 0*288 880 100 0*291 882 100 0*294 884 100 0 *** 00205 08/26*298 886 100 0*302 886 100 961*306 885 90 0*312 881 70 0 00210 08/27*319 876 50 0*325 869 40 0*330 861 40 0*334 850 40 0 00210 08/27*318 874 50 0*323 863 40 0*328 848 40 0*332 828 40 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** (28th to the 30th are new to HURDAT) 00211 08/28*335 805 40 0*338 782 40 0*340 760 40 0*344 742 40 0 00212 08/29*352 728 50 0*364 718 50 0*380 708 50 0*396 696 50 0 00213 08/30*410 680 50 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 00215 HRBFL1 AL3 MS3AFL1 00215 HRBFL1 AL3 MS3 LA2AFL1 *** U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data ---------------------------- #/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States Winds Simpson Pressure Affected 1-8/26/1852 0600Z 30.2N 88.6W 100kt 3 961mb AL3,MS3,AFL1 1-8/26/1852 0600Z 30.2N 88.6W 100kt 3 961mb AL3,MS3,LA2,AFL1 *** Roth (1997a) provided the following description of this hurricane's impacts in Louisiana's Chandeleur Island: "Four new channels were cut through Chandeleur Island. The storm claimed the 55 foot tall Chandeleur Island lighthouse and replaced it with a broad 10 foot deep lagoon. The keepers were rescued three days later, on the verge of starvation." On this basis, the hurricane is also listed as causing Category 2 hurricane conditions in Louisiana. Prof. Cary Mock of the University of South Carolina uncovered evidence that this system crossed over Georgia and South Carolina as a tropical storm and modestly redeveloped in the Atlantic. Thus three additional days (28th to the 30th) are included for this storm into HURDAT. Details from his research are provided below: Georgia Information on the Great Mobile Hurricane ------------------------------------------------- Savannah GA. Elevation 77 ft. Observer: John F Posey. August 1852 Date Time Temp. Pres. Wind Cloud. Rain 8/25 6am 77.2 30.189 SE 0 8/25 2pm 87.1 30.141 SE2 6 8/25 10pm 81.0 30.100 SSE 0 8/26 6am 77.6 30.058 ESE 3 8/26 2pm 87.0 30.011 S 5 8/26 10pm 81.5 30.005 SSE 5 8/27 6am 79.0 29.934 SE 10 8/27 2pm 83.0 29.857 SSE4 10 8/27 10pm 80.4 29.778 SW4 10 0.164 8/28 6am 75.0 29.885 S 0 8/28 2pm 84.5 29.960 WSW 5 8/28 10pm 81.2 30.086 WNW 4 Additional Observations Date Time Temp. Pres. Wind Cloud. Remarks 8/27 8am M 29.901 SSE2 10 Began to blow 8/27 11am 80.0 29.893 SSE4 10 8/27 12mid 84.6 29.893 SSE4 10 8/27 1pm 82.8 29.873 SSE4 10 8/27 2pm 83.0 29.857 SSE4 10 raining slowly at short times 8/27 3:40 83.0 29.793 SSE3 9 8/27 5:25 82.5 29.780 SSE4 10 8/27 7:38 80.7 29.779 S4 10 8/27 10pm 80.4 29.778 SW4 10 rained after ten o'clock 0.165 Mercer University, Buford GA, Prof. J.E. Willet, August 1852, 400 ft? (Note that Prof. Mock determined that the pressure readings were unreliable because of an uncalibrated barometer.) Date Time Att. Ther. Pres.Wind (1-6) Cloud. 8/27 10:10am 75 29.15 8/27 11:45am 76 29.09 8/27 2:00pm SSE3 10 8/27 2:40pm 76 28.96 8/27 3:40pm 76 28.94 8/27 4:50pm 76 28.91 8/27 6:00pm 76 28.90 8/27 8:00pm 75 28.90 8/28 5:30am 70 29.12 8/28 6:30am 70.5 29.15 8/28 7:00am W2 5 8/28 8:20am 71 29.20 8/28 9:30am 72 29.23 8/28 2:00pm NNW2 9 8/28 4:00pm 82 29.32 Remarks: 8/27 7am-3:40pm: Rain continues almost constant sometimes violent 8/27 4:50pm: Rain continues more moderate 8/27 6:00pm: Rain continues more moderate Min Baro observed 8/27 8:00pm: Rain ending. Wind veered SSE, SE, SSE, SE, NW 8/28 5:30am-8:20am: Clearing away 8/28 9:30am: Clearing away. Perfectly clear at 10 a.m. 8/28 2:00pm: Total of Rain during Storm (say 27 hours) 3.925 Inches 8/30 12noon: Maximum Barometer after Storm (29.63) Whitemarsh Island (Savannah) GA. Elevation 18 ft. Observer: Richard Gibson. August 1852 Date Time Wind Cloud. Rain Remarks 8/25 Sunr. 0 8 8/25 9am SE3 5 8/25 3pm SE3 7 8/25 9pm S1 9 A sprinkle of Rain only fell 8/26 Sunr. 0 8 8/26 9am SW2 7 8/26 3pm S3 5 8/26 9pm S1 6 0.06 Weather looked stormy again 8/27 Sunr. SSW2 6 8/27 9am S4 5 8/27 3pm S5 7 8/27 9pm S5 7 Very little Rain. The wind has increased gradually since Sunrise and tonight is blowing a Gale 8/28 Sunr. SW2 9 8/28 9am W4 8 8/28 3pm W3 6 8/28 9pm 0 7 0.02 The wind moderated after 9 o'clock last night South Carolina Information on the Great Mobile Hurricane -------------------------------------------------------- At Charleston, high wind on afternoon of 27th, and until midnight; wind S, very little rain. (Too much material to reproduce here in entirety - see Charleston Courier article by Lewis R. Gibbes on this storm in September 10th issue). J.L. Dawsons Meteorological Observations from the Charleston Courier. Date Temp (7/2/9). Pres (7/2/9). Wind (sr/4pm) Wx. 8/25 80/84/82 30.246/30.178/30.156 SE1/SE2 Fair 8/26 81/86/83 30.114/30.020/30.018 SW2/SW2 Fair 8/27 82/84/83 30.002/29.928/29.876 SW3/SE4 Rain 0.07" rainfall 8/28 80/84/81 29.008/29.982/30.196 SW3/SW3 Fair Black Oak Agricultural Society, Pinopolis, SC. (elevation 300 ft) Date Pres (sr/2/9). Wind Wx. Rain 8/25 29.48/.40/.35 SE changeable 8/26 29.33/.35/.27 SE clear/cloudy 8/27 29.23/.20/.10 SE/S Clear/rain/high Wind 0.05 8/28 29.10/.23/.32 WSW clear/drizzle/cloudy 8/29 29.40/.45/.45 W clear Rev. Clark B. Stewart (Laurens): 25th - Rain, heavy in Evening 26th - The Rain fell from an early hour of the day - in perfect torrents until after night some time - My fence on the Creek all gone - only 1/2 an acre of Corn in that field - Sand left in abundance - God to praised for his goodness. Uncle John Stewarts saw mill all gone and half the dam left - Broke and all gone - Bridges; Mill Factorys &c. nearly all gone - Great loss sustained in this country Jacob Schirmer (Charleston): 30th Freshes dreadful Account from the up country, Bridges washed away, Crops destroyed cars could not reach Hamburg, great fears of the Columbia Bridge 31st Weather the past Month a good deal of rain and hot Sun, the whole Country is inundated with water Jesse James Hammond (Silver Bluff): 27th - there is a fresh 28th -The rain yesterday not heavy but enough for the season - windy River rising Thomas Chaplin (St Helena): Storm I neglected to state that the wind commenced blowing violently on Friday [Aug. 28] about midday, from south. Continued till Saturday morning, with driving rain Friday night. I hope this is the [last] storm of the season for it has done little damage & a trifle in comparison with the storms about the same time last year. Alexander Glennie: 27th near Georgetown SC- [late in the day] - SW. Gale [pressure is about 29.76] 28th SW, Clear, High Wind. James Davis Trezevant (Orangeburg Dist.): 27th - Commenced raining about 12 N and rained heavily nearly all the afternoon 28th - Commenced blowing and raining heavily during the night and continued to blow and rain until after sunrise when it cleared off. The river very full today, and rising fast. 30th - The river came to a stand today about 1 P.M. The water was 4 ft 10 in higher than the May fresh of 1846 and more than 2 ft higher than the great Yazoo fresh of 1792[6?]. Charleston Courier, Friday, Sept. 10: Georgetown, S.C., September 8. - The Weather and the Crops. - The rainy weather which we announced as commencing in June last has continued up to the present time with some short intervals; and early much annoyed the labour in hoeing and killing grass, and during the last month was greatly detrimental to the curing of blades The great fall of rain on the 27th and 28th of August, and which spread vast injury from Mobile to New York, on the various rivers, is to-day with us on the Santee and Pee Dee rivers, and is likely to do much damage to the rice crop, and especially to those who plant the most fruitful tide lands highest up. All the lands in the neighborhood of Lynch's causeway on Santee was under water yesterday. From Pee Dee we heard yesterday and the water was not then over the banks; but it is feared that to-day, the freshet is upon all the rice. The wind is now high at N.E., and has been so for several days preventing the freshet from going to sea. - Winyah Observer New York Herald, September 3, 1852 Aug. 30, lat 39, lon 71. Spoke brig Extra (Br), from Savannah for Halifax; 29th and 30th, experienced a heavy gale from NW. 1852/01 - 2006 REVISION: 00195 08/19/1852 M=12 1 SNBR= 7 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 00200 08/19*205 671 60 0*207 680 60 0*209 688 60 0*211 696 60 0* 00205 08/20*212 706 70 0*215 719 70 0*217 730 70 0*219 740 70 0* 00210 08/21*221 749 80 0*222 761 80 0*226 771 80 0*229 781 80 0* 00215 08/22*232 793 90 0*235 801 90 0*238 811 90 0*242 821 90 0* 00220 08/23*247 831 90 0*252 839 90 0*257 846 90 0*262 853 90 0* 00225 08/24*267 860 100 0*272 866 100 0*277 871 100 0*282 875 100 0* 00230 08/25*286 878 100 0*288 880 100 0*291 882 100 0*294 884 100 0* 00235 08/26*298 886 100 0*302 886 100 961*306 885 90 0*312 881 70 0* 00240 08/27*318 874 50 0*323 863 40 0*328 848 40 0*332 828 40 0* 00245 08/28*335 805 40 0*338 782 40 0*340 760 40 0*344 742 40 0* 00250 08/29*352 728 50 0*364 718 50 0*380 708 50 0*396 696 50 0* 00255 08/30*410 680 50 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 00260 HRBFL1 AL3 MS3 LA2AFL1 00260 HRBFL2 AL3 MS3 LA2AFL1 **** Based upon research provided by Mark Jelinek and James Belanger from Georgia Institute of Technology, the impact from this cyclone in the Florida Keys (southwest Florida - "BFL") is revised to be a Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale Category 2. This upgrade from a Category 1 is due to the likelihood that some portion of the Keys experienced the most intense portion of the hurricane, which was 90 kt Category 2 at that time. It was suggested previously that the radius of maximum wind on the cyclone's right semi-circle may have gone between the Dry Tortugas and Key West. ******************************************************************************** 1852/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm is also known as "San Lorenzo" in Puerto Rico from impact there. ******************************************************************************** 1852/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Inland winds over Florida reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model. The storm is determined to have reached hurricane status both in the Gulf of Mexico and again over the Atlantic Ocean based upon ship reports from the "Union" and the "Emily Banning". 1852/03 - 2003 REVISION: 00255 09/09/1852 M= 5 3 SNBR= 8 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 00255 09/09/1852 M= 5 3 SNBR= 9 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 * 00260 09/09*264 904 70 0*265 896 70 0*266 888 70 0*266 881 70 0 00265 09/10*268 874 70 0*269 866 70 0*271 861 70 0*273 854 70 0 00265 09/10*268 874 70 0*269 866 70 0*271 861 70 0*273 856 70 0 *** 00270 09/11*274 846 70 0*276 838 70 0*278 828 70 0*284 816 60 0 00270 09/11*275 851 70 0*277 846 70 0*278 840 70 0*279 834 70 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** 00275 09/12*289 805 50 0*295 793 60 0*302 778 70 0*310 765 70 0 00275 09/12*280 828 70 0*281 822 60 0*282 815 50 0*285 805 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** 00280 09/13*318 750 60 0*325 735 60 0*333 721 50 0*342 706 50 0 00280 09/13*292 790 60 0*304 770 70 0*320 745 70 0*340 715 70 0 *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 00285 HRBFL1 U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data ---------------------------- #/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States Winds Simpson Pressure Affected 3-9/11/1852$ 1200Z 27.8N 82.8W 70kt 1 (985mb) BFL1 3-9/12/1852$ 0000Z 28.0N 82.8W 70kt 1 (985mb) BFL1 ** **** **** Mr. Brian Jones of the University of Miami uncovered the following observations from the historic Army Surgeon weather archives from the Florida fort data: Fort Meade (27.7N, 81.8W): Date Sunrise 13Z 19Z 01Z 9/11/1852 NE-1 NE-1 NE-1 NE-1 .55" showers and violent storm during the night 9/12/1852 W-8 W-6 NE-1 NE-1 Military Post Wind Force Scale (values are estimates of the highest gusts) ------------------------------------------- 1 - Very light breeze 2 mph (2 kt) 2 - Gentle breeze 4 mph (4 kt) 3 - Fresh breeze 12 mph (10 kt) 4 - Strong breeze 25 mph (22 kt) 5 - High breeze 35 mph (30 kt) 6 - Gale 45 mph (39 kt) 7 - Strong gale 60 mph (51 kt) 8 - Violent gale 75 mph (65 kt) 9 - Hurricane 90 mph (78 kt) 10 - Most violent 100 mph (87 kt) These observations indicate that while the track of the hurricane and its intensity are reasonable, the track of the hurricane's passage across Florida was about 12 hours too early. Such a discrepancy is not implausible, given the relative scarce and ambiguous data obtained in the original Partagas and Diaz (1995a) study. Track and intensity values adjusted accordingly from the 10th to the 14th. ******************************************************************************** 1852/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status from multiple ship reports. ******************************************************************************** 1852/05: Added an additional day - Oct. 11th - to track based upon ship "Peerless" in Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) writeup. Inland winds over SE US reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model. Storm tide value of 7' obtained from Ludlum (1963) and Barnes (1998) for Newport, Florida. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status from destruction in Jamaica, conditions from the ship "Hebe" and damage that occurred in Newport. Storm also known in Ludlum as the "Middle Florida Storm of October 1852". 1852/05 - 2006 REVISION: 00375 10/06/1852 M= 6 5 SNBR= 11 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 L 00380 10/06*170 738 90 0*171 750 90 0*172 763 90 0*172 778 90 0* 00385 10/07*177 796 90 0*182 815 90 0*187 831 90 0*195 844 90 0* 00390 10/08*204 855 90 0*212 864 90 0*224 869 90 0*240 868 90 0* 00395 10/09*256 864 90 0*269 859 90 0*280 855 90 0*292 849 90 0* 00400 10/10*305 839 80 0*318 828 60 0*330 811 50 0*340 795 50 0* 00405 10/11*350 770 50 0*360 740 50 0*380 700 60 0*400 660 60 0* 00410 HRAFL2 GA1 00410 HRAFL2IGA1 **** Revision indicated in continental U.S. impacts to specify that the Georgia hurricane impact from this cyclone was inland, rather than along Georgia's Atlantic coast. ******************************************************************************** 1853/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No track available, only one point. ******************************************************************************** 1853/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No track available, only one point. ******************************************************************************** 1853/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Central pressure measurement of 924 mb with the southern wind-pressure relationship gives 132 kt - 130 kt utilized, a major hurricane. Ludlum (1963) named this system the "Cape Verde and Cape Hatteras Hurricane (offshore)". ******************************************************************************** 1853/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm is determined to have reached major hurricane status from observations taken from the ships "Gilbert Gallatin", "Harvester Queen" and "Chesapeake". ******************************************************************************** 1853/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No track available, only one point. ******************************************************************************** 1853/06: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon reports from ships "Samuel and Edward" and "Werada". ******************************************************************************** 1853/07: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No track available, only one point. ******************************************************************************** 1853/08: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm assumed to be stationary for 2 days. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon several ship reports. 1853/08 - REVISION: 00565 10/19/1853 M= 2 8 SNBR= 18 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 00565 10/19/1853 M= 4 8 SNBR= 19 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 * ** * * 00570 10/19*275 785 70 0*275 785 70 0*275 785 70 0*275 785 70 0 00570 10/19*275 785 70 0*280 789 70 0*285 793 80 0*289 796 80 0 *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** 00575 10/20*275 785 70 0*275 785 70 0*275 785 70 0*275 785 70 0 00575 10/20*293 799 80 0*297 802 80 0*300 805 90 0*303 807 90 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** (The 21st and 22nd are new to HURDAT.) 00577 10/21*306 809 90 0*309 809 90 0*313 806 80 0*317 801 80 0 00579 10/22*321 794 80 0*325 785 80 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 00580 HR 00580 HR GA1 *** Analysis of historical tropical storms and hurricanes impacting Georgia and Northeast Florida by Sandrik (2001) shows that the hurricane moved northward to just offshore Georgia and caused hurricane conditions along the Georgia coast. This was based upon ship reports and wind reports from Jacksonville, Brunswick and Charleston. (The hurricane was previously listed as being stationary for two days.) 1853/08 - 2006 REVISION: 00610 10/19/1853 M= 4 8 SNBR= 19 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 L 00610 10/19/1853 M= 4 8 SNBR= 19 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=1 L * 00615 10/19*275 785 70 0*280 789 70 0*285 793 80 0*289 796 80 0* 00620 10/20*293 799 80 0*297 802 80 0*300 805 90 0*303 807 90 0* 00625 10/21*306 809 90 0*309 809 90 0*313 806 80 0*317 801 80 0* 00630 10/22*321 794 80 0*325 785 80 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 00635 HR GA1 As the hurricane's center did not cross the U.S. coastline (but did cause Category 1 conditions at the coast), the XING (continental U.S. landfall indicator) is changed to "0". ******************************************************************************** 1853 - Additional Notes: 1. The tropical storm listed as #9 in 1853 in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) was not included into the HURDAT because of evidence suggesting that the storm did not actually exist. Partagas and Diaz had found an unsupported reference to it in Garcia-Bonnelly (1958), but no other information. ******************************************************************************** 1854/01 - 2004 ADDITION: 00621 06/25/1854 M= 3 1 SNBR= 20 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 00622 06/25*260 925 60 0*260 930 60 0*260 935 70 0*260 940 70 0 00623 06/26*260 947 70 0*261 957 70 0*262 970 70 0*264 985 50 0 00624 06/27*2681000 40 0*2741015 40 0*2801030 40 0* 0 0 0 0 00624 HRATX1 Prof. Cary Mock of the University of South Carolina and Mr. David Roth of the Hydrometeorological Prediction Center found evidence of a newly uncovered hurricane that made landfall in southern Texas from Army Fort data and historical newspaper accounts. (The Army Forts observed the weather four times a day between sunrise and sunset. Winds could range from a range of 1 to 10, with a 6 being equivalent to about 40 kt gusts, a 7 about 50 kt gusts and an 8 about 65 kt gusts.) Fort Brown (Brownsville, Texas): Jun. 25, 1854 - E2 NE3 NW2 NW3 78/79/84/77 3 1/2 am rain 0.79" Showers Jun. 26, 1854 - W4 W5 W3 SW2 76/76/76/80 11 pm to 6pm rain 5.65" Storm Jun. 27, 1854 - SW1 SW2 W1 SW1 78/84/86/81 Light showers Barometer (altitude 50 ft - surface pressure values) Jun. 25, 1854 - 30.08 30.08 30.05 30.02 Jun. 26, 1854 - 29.75 29.82 29.96 30.04 Jun. 27, 1854 - 30.08 30.10 30.18 30.26 Corpus Christi, Texas: Jun. 25, 1854 - N2 N3 N4 N7 79/80/83/80 0.70" rain Jun. 26, 1854 - E7 E7 E8 E8 80/80/81/80 0.50" rain Jun. 27, 1854 - SE4 SE4 SE3 SE3 80/84/84/83 Fort Ringgold (26.4N, 99.3W), Texas: Jun. 25, 1854 - N2 N2 N4 N4 75/86/84/84 Rain 8a.m.-5p.m. 0.73" Jun. 26, 1854 - NW2 NW4 W4 S3 75/77/76/74 Rain 3a.m.-2a.m. (27th) 5.05" Jun. 27, 1854 - S1 S3 S3 S3 72/76/84/78 Rain 9a.m.-6p.m. 0.85" Barometer (altitude ~200 ft - surface pressure values) Jun. 25, 1854 - 29.87 29.89 29.80 29.81 Jun. 26, 1854 - 29.67 29.60 29.40 29.80 Jun. 27, 1854 - 29.91 29.95 29.95 29.96 Note on 27th: Showers. Distant thunder S. and S.W. during day. Fort McIntosh (27.5N, 99.5W), Texas: Jun. 25, 1854 - NE1 NE2 NE3 NE2 76/82/88/79 Jun. 26, 1854 - SW2 N3 NE4 SE5 74/78/76/74 0.20" Jun. 27, 1854 - SE2 SE2 E1 E1 72/79/75/76 0.70" Note on 25th: Rain at intervals during the day Note on 26th: Rain at intervals from 11 o'clock a.m. until 8 p.m. Fort Duncan (28.7N, 100.5W), Texas: Jun. 25, 1854 - SE2 SE2 SE3 SE2 75/83/93/81 Jun. 26, 1854 - SE1 SE3 SE3 SE2 75/82/89/77 0.20" Jun. 27, 1854 - SE2 SE2 SE2 SE2 75/78/82/77 Rain 6 1/2a.m.-3p.m. 0.14" Note on 25th: Rain at intervals Note on 26th: Rain at intervals and moderate during the day Note on 27th: Rain at intervals and moderate during the day Fort Ewell (28.2N, 99.0W), Texas: Jun. 25, 1854 - NW1 NW2 N3 N1 74/83/94/77 Rain 5a.m.-7p.m. 0.73" Jun. 26, 1854 - N4 N4 N2 SE0 75/76/78/72 Rain 1 1/2a.m-2a.m. 0.40" Jun. 27, 1854 - SE3 SE4 SE3 SE2 73/80/90/77 The Daily Picayune (New Orleans) July 2, 1854, p.2 The Galveston News, of the 27th ult., has these items:... The wind commenced blowing very strong from the eastward on Saturday last [24th], and has continued since, sometimes almost a gale. It caused a slight overflow of the strand yesterday and day before. It has been accompanied with occasional showers, and with some very severe thunder and lightning. The Daily Picayune (New Orleans) July 2, 1854, p.2 FROM BRAZOS SANTIAGO [26.1N, 97.2W] - Severe Storm - By the arrival of the steamship Perseverance, Capt. John Y. Lawless, yesterday, we are placed in possession of intelligence from that place to the 27th ult. On Sunday last, the 25th of June, we learn that the city was visited by a very severe storm, which caused a great deal of damage and caused yet more disastrous consequence. The wind was higher than it had ever been experienced since the establishment of the city, blowing, in fact, a perfect hurricane from the S.S.E., and at the same time very heavy rain fell. Many buildings were unroofed and otherwise damaged, while some were completely turned round. The large cistern belong to the U.S. Quartermaster's Department, and which contained 2,000 gallons of water, was destroyed. Several boats employed between Point Isabel and Brazos were driven ashore, and some sank; and at one time the greatest fears were entertained that the partial deluge of the island actually experienced, would extend to a complete and disastrous overflow. The Daily Picayune (New Orleans) July 5, 1854, p.1 By the steamship Louisiana, which arrived here from Galveston, this morning, we have advices from that city and Houston to the 2d inst. ... The Lavaca Commercial, of the 28th, says: We were visited by another terrible gale last evening, from the south- east. The wind commenced blowing last evening, and continued all night, accompanied by heavy falls of rain. The tide is very high - several bath houses have been washed away, and some little damage has been done to the whaves. The Daily Picayune (New Orleans) July 12, 1854, p.1 The Nueces Valley, of the 1st inst., has the following: Our sea board was visited on Saturday last with one of the most tremendous gales that has ever been known of this coast. It commenced blowing severely on Saturday evening, the 24th ult., and continued, accompanied with rain until Tuesday morning, when the storm abated. Some little damage was done to the shipping in this harbor, but not in proportion of the violence of the storm. We are informed that the current was driven into Aransas Bay through the Pass, at the rate of ten or twelve knots per hours. It was with difficulty that the vessels at anchorage in Aransas harbor could hold on...It is said that Aransas Bar is much improved by the storm, being increased both in depth and width. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- These observations indicate a tropical cyclone of about Category 1 hurricane conditions (70 kt) made landfall around 12 UTC on the 26th north of Brownsville, just north of Brazos Santiago, Texas. The system then passed north of Fort Ringgold around 20 UTC on the 26th. The sea level pressure at that fort was a minimum of about 1002 mb at that time. 1002 mb suggests winds of at least 41 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship, though this would be for an over open water exposure. Winds are estimated to be about 50 kt at 18 UTC on the 26th. The system then passed west of Fort McIntosh around 00 UTC on the 27th and then is estimated to have dissipated by about 12 UTC on the 27th. Intensity at landfall is based primarily upon impacts of the system at Brazos Santiago. A search of the COADS ship database did not reveal any observations in the Gulf of Mexico near this storm. ******************************************************************************** 1854/02: (Was originally storm 1854/01 in Partagas and Diaz - May 2004 change). No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. ******************************************************************************** 1854/03: (Was originally storm 1854/02 in Partagas and Diaz - May 2004 change). Utilized Ho's (1989) work - apparently not used in Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis - to alter the track and intensity near the US. Inland winds over SE US reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model, though not as fast as suggested with this model due to extreme duration of damaging winds along Georgia and South Carolina. Ship with central pressures observation of 938 mb gives with subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship a 112 kt reading - utilizing 110 kt. Peripheral pressure reading of 973 mb (at 20 UTC on the 8th of September in Savannah, Georgia) suggest winds of at least 83 kt utilizing the same subtropical wind-pressure relationship. Ho used this value with other information to estimate a 950 mb central pressure at landfall which gives 103 kt again from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - here we are choosing 100 kt for the best track. Both reports (of 938 mb and 950 mb) suggest that the storm reached major hurricane status over the Atlantic. The storm is determined to have reintensified to hurricane status after moving back over the Atlantic Ocean after landfall. Have also adjusted track to the north by about 60 nmi as the hurricane returned to the Atlantic to better match observed strong gales over Northeastern U.S. The storm is named in Ludlum's (1963) book as the "Great Carolina Hurricane of 1854" for its impacts in the Carolinas and the "Coastal Hurricane of September 1854" for its impacts in the Middle Atlantic and New England coasts. 1854/03 - 2003 REVISION: 00600 09/07/1854 M= 6 2 SNBR= 20 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 00600 09/07/1854 M= 6 2 SNBR= 21 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 ** 00605 09/07*264 766 110 0*272 776 110 0*280 786 110 938*288 796 110 0 00610 09/08*296 803 110 0*304 806 110 0*311 809 100 0*316 811 100 950 00615 09/09*320 813 80 0*325 815 70 0*332 815 60 0*343 805 50 0 00620 09/10*355 781 40 0*368 759 40 0*378 740 50 0*384 719 60 0 00625 09/11*388 695 70 0*390 673 80 0*394 650 90 0*395 618 90 0 00630 09/12*398 583 90 0*400 551 90 0*400 520 80 0*402 480 80 0 00635 HR GA3 SC2 00635 HR GA3 SC2DFL1 **** U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data ---------------------------- #/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States Winds Simpson Pressure Affected 2-9/8/1854 2000Z 31.7N 81.1W 100kt 3 950mb GA3,SC2 2-9/8/1854 2000Z 31.7N 81.1W 100kt 3 950mb GA3,SC2,DFL1 **** 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 well in its landfall in Georgia. ******************************************************************************** 1854/04: (Was originally storm 1854/03 in Partagas and Diaz - May 2004 change). No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis for track. Inland winds over Texas reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model. The storm is determined to reach hurricane status based upon damage that occurred in Matagorda. Storm is known in Ludlum's (1963) work as the "Matagorda Hurricane of 1854". ******************************************************************************** 1854 - Additional Notes: 1. The tropical storm listed as #4 in 1854 in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) was not included into the HURDAT because of evidence suggesting that the storm did not actually exist. Partagas and Diaz had found an unsupported reference to it in Tannehill (1938), but it is likely that this reference was really referring to storm 1854/03 which hit the coast at the same exact location. ******************************************************************************** 1854/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. ******************************************************************************** 1855/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No track available, only one point. Storm determined to have been a hurricane based upon destruction in Tampico. ******************************************************************************** 1855/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm determined to have reached hurricane status from multiple ship reports. ******************************************************************************** 1855/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No track available, only one point. Storm determined to have reached hurricane status from the ship "Walverine". ******************************************************************************** 1855/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Utilized the southern wind-pressure relationship for ship with central pressure observation of 997 mb to get 53 kt, using 50 kt in best track. Review of this storm in conjunction with the 1855/05 hurricane reveals that they may be the same system. However, without more supporting evidence for the intervening days (of August 28-30) between the systems, we are opting to keep these as separate storms. ******************************************************************************** 1855/05 - 2000 ORIGINAL: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis for track. Ludlum (1963) describes that "the tide at places between Lake Ponchartrain and Bay St. Louis was said to have risen ten to fifteen feet above normal high tide." Storm determined to have reached major hurricane status at landfall based upon storm tide and destruction along Louisiana and Mississippi. Inland winds over SE US reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model. Hurricane known as the "Middle Gulf Shore Hurricane of 1855" (Ludlum 1963). (Note that this storm was originally labeled 1855/06 in the 2000 version of HURDAT. It was renumbered in 2003 because of the removal of storm 1855/05.) 1855/05 - 2004 REVISION: 00810 09/15/1855 M= 3 5 SNBR= 28 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 00810 09/15/1855 M= 3 5 SNBR= 29 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 ** 00815 09/15*267 891 70 0*271 891 80 0*275 893 90 0*281 894 100 0 00820 09/16*288 895 110 0*296 895 100 0*302 894 90 0*310 891 60 0 00820 09/16*288 895 110 0*296 895 110 0*302 894 100 0*310 891 70 0 *** *** ** 00825 09/17*320 888 50 0*330 883 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 00830 HR LA3 MS3 After a thorough review of all U.S. landfalling hurricanes for the 1851 to 1910 period by Dickinson et al. (2004 and pers. comm.) using their numerical analysis and modeling system, two hurricanes were found to have inconsistencies between the assigned Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale and the estimated maximum 1-min surface winds: 1855/05 and 1878/05. In this case, the Category 3 impact assigned for Mississippi was not consistent with the original 12 UTC winds for this hurricane of 90 kt, while just offshore of the Mississippi coast. The original intensity for this system was based primarily upon the storm tide amount both in Louisiana and Mississippi (see above) and it was intended to analyze this hurricane as a Category 3 in both states. Thus the winds have been boosted up to 100 kt at the 12 UTC time to retain the Category 3 assignment for Mississippi. Again utilizing the Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) inland decay model after landfall in Mississippi suggests increasing the 18 UTC winds up to 70 kt. ****************************************************************************** 1855 - Additional Notes: 1855/05 - 2003 REVISION: STORM REMOVED FROM HURDAT. 1855/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm determined to have reached hurricane status from observations from ships "Catherine" and "Rebecca". Review of this hurricane in conjunction with the 1855/04 tropical storm reveals that they may be the same system. However, without more supporting evidence for the intervening days (of August 28-30) between the systems, we are opting to keep these as separate storms. 00770 08/31/1855 M= 3 5 SNBR= 27 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 00775 08/31*414 675 70 0*424 650 70 0*434 620 70 0*445 588 70 0 00780 09/01*455 551 70 0*465 514 70 0*475 472 70 0*484 445 70 0 00785 09/02*495 414 60 0*505 384 60 0E513 355 50 0E522 330 50 0 00790 HR (System removed from revised HURDAT.) This hurricane is, with additional information, shown instead to be a strong extratropical storm with well-defined baroclinic structure. New data sources were provided by Michael Chenoweth for Sable Island and Halifax, Canada and by Prof. Cary Mock of the University of South Carolina for Bridgeport, Massachusetts. This tropical cyclone is thus removed from the HURDAT database. Details about these new data sources are provided in full below. The two Canadian sources are (1) a weather diary kept by Alexander Muirson at Halifax, 1828-1860 and (2) a daily record of occurrences at the "Principal Station" on Sable Island, Nova Scotia from 1853-1855. The first is a 'pure' meteorological register, with instrumental temperature and barometer data; the second is what appears to be some type of government or corporate record of activity at a fishing station. Weather is recorded daily, but is only non-instrumental. Both records were obtained by Michael Chenoweth from the Provincial Archives of Nova Scotia, Halifax. Sable Island Observations: 30 August 1855 First part moderate SE winds and clear....Latter part strong north winds and cloudy weather. 31 August 1855 A heavy northwardly blow throughout. 1 September 1855 Moderate WSW winds and clear weather. The terminology of the time units suggests that the record is kept by a mariner. However, the dates appear to be civil calendar dates (midnight-midnight) and not the seaman's day of noon to noon. This assessment is based on a scan of other day's records in the diary. Halifax Observations: Temperature and barometer are labeled M, N, E (morning, noon, evening). Winds are "prevailing". Remarks give prevailing weather conditions and register (without specifying the time usually) a change to another prevailing weather type. Temperature and barometer readings are most likely read at 0800, 1300-1400, and 2200 based on analysis of hourly means. Muirson never states the morning and evening times but states once in his journal that his mid-day reading was between 1 and 2 P.M. His thermometer also has an eastern exposure and there is evidence for sunlight reaching the thermometer as his morning readings in the summer are higher than his evening reading. Muirson's barometer during the summer and early autumn rarely exceeds 29.9 inches. Without knowing the details of his location, cannot assume an elevation but the barometer appears not to have been calibrated. He did routinely record the names of ships arriving in port. Date Temp (F) Pressure (") Winds Description 29 Aug. 1855 56 70 60 29.8 29.7 29.5 changeable Clear very fine, this morning a white frost 30 Aug. 1855 72 64 42 29.4 29.5 29.6 SW to NW Cloudy & windy -- clear & cool 31 Aug. 1855 50 64 44 29.7 29.8 29.9 N Clear & fine, frost last night 1 Sep. 1855 53 57 56 30.0 29.9 29.7 SW Cloudy, frost last night -- heavy rain Massachusetts Observations: Prof. Cary Mock provided the following additional information regarding this system: Leonard Hill's Meteorological Register. Hill kept a weather diary at Bridgewater, MA (42.0N, 71.0W). For the dates of interest, he recorded the following: Aug. 29. Clear, cool. Aug. 30. Clear, cool N Aug. 31. Frost - killed beans, &c Sept. 1. Rain. S.W. & S. This early freeze helps to confirm the analysis of a strong extratropical storm system as was also observed in the Sable Island and Halifax observations. Prof. Mock also checked his records from the Carolinas, which showed no storm system (tropical or otherwise) moving up from the south near or over the mid-Atlantic coast. ******************************************************************************** 1856/01: Utilized Ho's (1989) work - apparently not used in Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis - to alter the track and intensity near the US. Inland winds over SE US reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model. Ship with pressure measurement of 955 mb not in the hurricane's eye suggests at least 105 kt with the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship, utilize 130 kt in best track. Ho's estimate of 934 mb at landfall gives 125 kt, utilize 130 kt in best track - a major hurricane. A small RMW of 12 nmi supports slight increase of winds over suggested wind-pressure relationship. Storm tide value of 11-12' provided by Ludlum (1963) for Last Island, Louisiana. The storm is also known as the "Last Island Disaster" after the destruction caused at that location. ******************************************************************************** 1856/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm determined to have reached hurricane status from destruction felt in Grenada and Barbados. ******************************************************************************** 1856/03: This storm was not identified by Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Enough evidence was retrieved from Ludlum's (1963) analysis (see pages 99 and 100) to provide track and intensity estimates. Note that the track provided here keeps the tropical storm's center offshore of New England, which disagrees with Ludlum's assessment. This is due to all wind reports from New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and - especially - Massachusetts which remained at an easterly component for the duration of this storm. If, as Ludlum suggested, the storm crossed the neck of Cape Cod, there would have been a wind shift to a westerly component at Cape Cod and/or Nantucket. Both remained easterly, thus suggesting a just-offshore track. Ludlum referred to this storm as the "Charter Oak Storm of August 1856" for the destruction of the famous Charter Oak that was a witness to the founding of the Connecticut Colony in 1636. ******************************************************************************** 1856/04: This storm was listed as #3 in 1856 originally in Partagas and Diaz (1995a). No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. ******************************************************************************** 1856/05: This storm was listed as #4 in 1856 originally in Partagas and Diaz (1995a). No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis for track. Inland winds over SE US reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model. Storm tide value of 6' obtained from Barnes (1998) for Apalachicola, Florida. Havana's central pressure observation of 969 mb gives 90 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship, which is used directly. Pressure reading of 968 mb not in hurricane's center (on 18 UTC of the 30th of August) suggests winds of at least 91 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 100 kt is chosen for best track. This last reading supports that this storm reached major hurricane status, but likely weakened slightly before making landfall in the United States. Ludlum (1963) referred to this storm as the "Southeastern States Hurricane of 1856". 1856/05 - 2003 REVISION: 00910 08/25/1856 M=10 5 SNBR= 33 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 00915 08/25*210 698 70 0*210 708 70 0*211 719 70 0*212 728 70 0 00920 08/26*216 739 70 0*217 748 70 0*220 759 80 0*222 766 80 0 00925 08/27*224 776 80 0*226 786 80 0*227 795 90 0*227 806 90 0 00925 08/27*224 776 80 0*226 786 80 0*227 795 90 0*227 806 80 0 ** 00930 08/28*229 816 90 969*230 829 90 0*232 840 90 0*236 846 90 0 00930 08/28*229 816 80 0*230 829 90 969*232 840 90 0*236 846 90 0 ** *** *** 00935 08/29*239 851 90 0*242 856 90 0*247 864 90 0*249 868 90 0 00940 08/30*252 871 100 0*256 873 100 0*262 874 100 0*275 873 100 0 00945 08/31*289 866 90 0*302 859 90 0*311 848 70 0*322 833 60 0 00950 09/01*330 816 50 0*340 796 50 0*347 779 50 0*355 753 50 0 00955 09/02*363 728 50 0*368 700 50 0*372 673 50 0*377 646 50 0 00960 09/03*382 618 50 0*388 586 50 0*390 560 50 0*395 523 50 0 00965 HRAFL2 AL1 GA1 Re-analysis effort by meteorologists in Cuba (Perez 2000) confirms landfall as Category 2 hurricane (90 kt). However, winds reduced after landfall in Cuba until center re-emerges off of the coast. Central pressure of 969 mb in Havana corrected from 00Z to a 06Z value. 1856/05 - 2006 REVISION: 00965 08/25/1856 M=10 5 SNBR= 34 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 00970 08/25*210 698 70 0*210 708 70 0*211 719 70 0*212 728 70 0* 00975 08/26*216 739 70 0*217 748 70 0*220 759 80 0*222 766 80 0* 00980 08/27*224 776 80 0*226 786 80 0*227 795 90 0*227 806 80 0* 00985 08/28*229 816 80 0*230 829 90 969*232 840 90 0*236 846 90 0* 00990 08/29*239 851 90 0*242 856 90 0*247 864 90 0*249 868 90 0* 00995 08/30*252 871 100 0*256 873 100 0*262 874 100 0*275 873 100 0* 01000 08/31*289 866 90 0*302 859 90 0*311 848 70 0*322 833 60 0* 01005 09/01*330 816 50 0*340 796 50 0*347 779 50 0*355 753 50 0* 01010 09/02*363 728 50 0*368 700 50 0*372 673 50 0*377 646 50 0* 01015 09/03*382 618 50 0*388 586 50 0*390 560 50 0*395 523 50 0* 01020 HRAFL2 AL1 GA1 01020 HRAFL2IAL1IGA1 ******** Revision indicated in continental U.S. impacts to specify that the Georgia and Alabama hurricane impacts from this cyclone were inland, rather than along either states' coastal region. ******************************************************************************** 1856/06: No major change from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon reports from the ship "Utah". 1856/06 - 2003 REVISION: 00970 09/18/1856 M= 5 6 SNBR= 34 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 00975 09/18*320 488 50 0*325 489 50 0*329 490 50 0*335 493 50 0 00980 09/19*345 498 60 0*352 505 60 0*357 512 70 0*358 514 70 0 00980 09/19*345 498 60 0*352 505 60 0*356 510 70 0*358 514 70 0 *** *** 00985 09/20*360 517 70 0*360 520 70 0*362 523 70 0*363 524 70 0 00985 09/20*360 517 70 0*361 520 70 0*362 523 70 0*363 524 70 0 *** 00990 09/21*364 525 60 0*365 526 60 0*365 527 60 0*365 528 60 0 00995 09/22*365 529 60 0*365 530 60 0*365 530 60 0*365 530 60 0 01000 HR Track altered slightly for a more realistic translational velocity. ******************************************************************************** 1856 - Additional Notes: 1. The tropical storm listed as #5 in 1856 in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) was not included into the HURDAT because of evidence suggesting that the storm did not actually exist. Partagas and Diaz had found an unsupported reference to it in Dunn and Miller (1960), but it is likely that this reference was really referring to storm 1856/04 which hit the coast at the same exact location. ******************************************************************************** 1857/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. ******************************************************************************** 1857/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Ship with central pressure observation of 961 mb gives 94 kt with the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship, utilizing 90 kt in best track - supporting hurricane status. Storm is known in Ludlum's (1963) work as the "Central America Disaster in 1857" due to the loss of the ship the "S.S. Central America". ******************************************************************************** 1857/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm is suggested to be stationary throughout its four day existence. This storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon reports from the ship "Ocean Express". ******************************************************************************** 1857/04: Combined Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis of storms #4 and #5 into one continuous track. Utilized Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model for storm's winds over Texas and Mexico. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon report from the ship "Cadet". ******************************************************************************** 1857 - Additional Notes: 1. The tropical storm listed as #5 in 1857 in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) was not included into the HURDAT because we determined that this storm and storm 1857/04 were likely the same system. Thus information on this storm is now carried in its entirety as 1857/04, while Partagas and and Diaz's storm #5 in 1857 is removed. ******************************************************************************** 1858/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No track available, only one point. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon observations from ship "L. H. Sampson". ******************************************************************************** 1858/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No track available, only one point. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon observations from ship "Shelter". ******************************************************************************** 1858/03: Only major change to Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis was to extend the track 12 hr into Canada to account for observations in Maine. Utilized the northern wind-pressure relationship of hurricanes for winds at landfall. A peripheral pressure reading of 978 mb (around 17 UTC on the 16th) suggests winds of at least 75 kt - 80 kt chosen for the best track. Central pressure observation of 979 mb gives 74 kt, for the second landfall in Connecticut/Rhode Island - 70 kt is utilized for the second landfall. Both of these pressure measurements support hurricane status for this storm. Also used the Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model for winds over New England. Ludlum (1963) referred to this storm as the "New England Tropical Storm of 1858". 1858/03 - 2003 REVISION: 01185 09/14/1858 M= 4 3 SNBR= 41 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 01190 09/14*252 846 60 0*260 839 60 0*269 831 60 0*279 820 50 0 01195 09/15*289 808 50 0*300 796 60 0*312 785 80 0*324 773 90 0 01200 09/16*340 758 90 0*360 746 90 0*385 733 80 0*414 720 70 979 01205 09/17*455 700 60 0*500 670 50 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 01205 09/17*455 700 50 0*500 670 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 ** ** 01210 HR NY1 CT1 RI1 MA1 As the first Kaplan and DeMaria inland decay model was utilized for this hurricane, it was appropriate to review the results with the inland decay model explicitly designed for New England landfalling tropical cyclones (Kaplan and DeMaria 2001). This model does decay systems faster and suggests a downward revision to the winds at 00 and 06Z on the 17th, which is reflected in the revised HURDAT. Additional information on this hurricane was also obtained by Boose et al. (2001). They analyzed this hurricane as a Category 2 at U.S. landfall based upon a Fujita-style analysis of hurricane wind-caused destruction, but had a slight high bias in the reconstructed versus actual damage in their damage- based empirical wind modeling work. Thus landfall as a high end Category 1 hurricane (80 kt) in New York is reasonable to retain. Boose et al. (2001) also estimated a RMW of 45 nmi at landfall. ******************************************************************************** 1858/04: Combined Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis of storms #4 and #5 into one continuous track. No other changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. The storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon observations from the ships "Phantom", "Hudson" and "City of Washington". ******************************************************************************** 1858/05: Storm was originally #6 in 1858 in Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status from observations from ship "Priscilla". 1858/05 - 2003 REVISION: 01265 09/22/1858 M= 4 5 SNBR= 43 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 01270 09/22* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*219 740 50 0*232 740 50 0 01275 09/23*246 740 60 0*261 740 60 0*279 740 70 0*293 741 70 0 01280 09/24*307 741 70 0*322 740 70 0*333 738 80 0*339 736 80 0 01280 09/24*307 741 70 0*322 740 70 0*333 738 80 0*339 737 80 0 *** 01285 09/25*345 736 80 0*352 734 80 0*359 731 80 0*365 726 80 0 01290 HR Track adjusted slightly to allow for a more realistic translational velocity. ******************************************************************************** 1858/06: Storm was originally #7 in 1858 in Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status from destruction in Bermuda and several ship reports. ******************************************************************************** 1858 - Additional Notes: 1. The tropical storm listed as #5 in 1858 in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) was not included into the HURDAT because we determined that this storm and storm 1858/04 were likely the same system. Thus information on this storm is now carried in its entirety as 1858/04, while Partagas and Diaz's storm #5 in 1858 is removed. ******************************************************************************** 1859/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No track available, only one point. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon damage in Tuxpan and Tecoluta, Mexico. ******************************************************************************** 1859/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Pressure readings of 989 and 982 mb not in the hurricane's center (on 00 UTC of August 17th and 18th, respectively) suggest winds of at least 64 and 71 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt chosen for best track because of these values and from description of winds from ship reports, supporting hurricane status for this storm. ******************************************************************************** 1859/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status from reports provided from St. Kitts. 1859/03 - 2003 REVISION: 01375 09/02/1859 M= 2 3 SNBR= 47 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 01380 09/02*172 597 70 0*174 607 70 0*176 618 70 0*177 630 70 0 01380 09/02*173 597 70 0*174 607 70 0*175 618 70 0*175 630 70 0 *** *** *** 01385 09/03*177 641 70 0*179 654 70 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 01385 09/03*174 641 70 0*173 654 70 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 *** *** 01390 HR Re-examination of Salivia's (1972) Puerto Rican hurricane history, Boose et al. (2003) and J. Colon (personal communication) reveals that this hurricane did not impact Puerto Rico. The track is adjusted slightly southward to avoid a direct impact on the island, yet still cause the observed hurricane conditions in St. Kitts and St. Croix described in Partagas and Diaz (1995a). ******************************************************************************** 1859/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No track available, only one point. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status from report from ship "Liberty". 1859/04 - 2003 REVISION: 01395 09/12/1859 M= 1 4 SNBR= 48 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 01395 09/12/1859 M= 2 4 SNBR= 48 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 * 01400 09/12* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*395 505 90 0* 0 0 0 0 01400 09/12* 0 0 0 0*355 575 90 0*370 545 90 0*390 520 90 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** *** ** (The 13th is new to HURDAT.) 01402 09/13*410 500 80 0*430 485 80 0*455 465 70 0*490 435 70 0 01405 HR Mr. Doug Mayes at the University of South Carolina uncovered additional ship observations, which allow for a track to be determined for this hurricane from 06Z on the 12th through 18Z on the 13th. New York Tribune Oct 1. 1859 p. 8 (and New York Times Oct 1 1859 p. 8) Ship Coronet, Flowers, Liverpool. . . .12 inst lat 42 lon 50 experienced a heavy gale which split fore and topsails, main spencer and done other damage. New York Tribune Oct 5 1859 p. 8 (and New York Times Oct 4 1859 p. 8) Bark Etiwan (of Charleston) . . . . Sept 12th lat 36 lon 56 30 had a very heavy gale from SE which lasted for six hours veering suddenly to NW with equal force; split sails &c. New York Tribune Sept 30 1859 p. 8 Ship Cordelia, Bishop, . . . Sept 13th lat 49 48 lon 4? 08 experienced a hurricane from E to SW which blew away entire suite of sails, sprung foreyard, main topmast crosstrees, and strained the ship badly, causing her to leak. New York Tribune Oct 5 1859 p. 8 (and New York Times Oct 4 1859 p. 8) Brig Bell Flower (of Pittston). . . . . Experienced heavy gales, split sails &c. Sept 13 lat 45 30 Lon 47 23, during the violent gale from NE, was boarded by a sea which stove the deck cabin, filling the cabin with water, and washed the Captain and a seaman named Samuel Thomas overboard who were lost. New York Times Oct 5 1859 p. 8 Ship Anna Decatur, Parsons, Sunderland. . . . Sept 13 in lat 46 experienced very heavy gales. ******************************************************************************** 1859/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No track available, only one point. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon destruction which occurred in Mobile. 1859/05 - 2003 REVISION: 01410 09/16/1859 M= 1 5 SNBR= 49 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 01410 09/15/1859 M= 4 5 SNBR= 49 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 ** * (15th not in HURDAT originally.) 01413 09/15*280 890 70 0*285 890 70 0*290 889 70 0*296 886 70 0 01415 09/16*305 880 80 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 01415 09/16*303 881 70 0*311 875 50 0*320 868 40 0*331 848 40 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** (The 17th and 18th are new to HURDAT.) 01416 09/17*343 825 40 0*356 800 40 0*370 775 50 0*385 745 60 0 01417 09/18*400 710 70 0*412 665 70 0*420 610 70 0*425 550 70 0 01420 HR AL1 01420 HR AL1AFL1 **** U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data ---------------------------- #/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States Winds Simpson Pressure Affected 5-9/16/1859 0000Z 30.5N 88.0W 80kt 1 (977mb) AL1 5-9/16/1859 0000Z 30.3N 88.1W 70kt 1 (985mb) AL1,AFL1 **** **** ** *** **** Ship and land station observations uncovered by Mr. Doug Mayes and Prof. Cary Mock at the University of South Carolina and Mr. Michael Chenoweth are able to well document a track for this hurricane during its passage over the southeast United States and back out over the Atlantic. All of these newly analyzed data are documented in full below. The data reconfirms a minimal hurricane making landfall near Mobile, Alabama which also caused Category 1 hurricane conditions in Pensacola, Florida. The landfall intensity though was reduced slightly due to the lack of strong pressure drop at Warrington, FL just east of the landfall point and relatively weak winds observed just north of Mobile (at Mt. Vernon, AL) soon after landfall. This system then trekked to the northeast and reemerged back over the Atlantic near Virginia/Maryland. Ship reports indicate that the storm re-acquired hurricane intensity over the open Atlantic. A peripheral pressure of 996 mb (at 19Z on the 17th in Annapolis) suggests winds of at least 55 kt from the northern wind pressure relationship - 60 kt chosen for best track. Newspaper Reports: The Daily Picayune (New Orleans) Sunday, Sept 18, 1859, p.3 The Late Storm in Mobile. - Our Mobile exchanges, of Friday morning, come to us with full accounts of the storm in that city the day and night previous. It appears that the rain began to fall as early as 3 o'clock in the morning, and continued without the slightest cessation during the whole day, at times accompanied by a heavy gale of wind, which shifted at the edge of evening from northeast to southeast. At this time the alarm became very great. The wind blew a hurricane and the water flooded the wharf at the foot of Conti, and was still rising when the authorities ordered the water alarm bells to be rung, and "the bell on the tower pealed forth its ten strokes with fearful import. Great excitement prevailed, and the merchants on Commerce and Front streets set about removing the merchandise into the second stories." About half-past 9, however, the wind shifted to the south, the rain ceased, and the water began to recede and fears to subside. As to the damage, it is not, from the lateness of the hour, fully reported. It is stated, however, that the telegraph wires were broken down in every direction; the wharves and bath houses along the city side of the bay were carried away; boxes, barrels and bales set afloat; and at a late hour intelligence, from along the line of railroad track, was received, which caused serious apprehensions that the trains would be interrupted for two or three days, to the great inconvenience of a large amount of freight at the depot. Accidents from Thursday's Blow.- The schooner W. W. Harkness, Capt. Peterson, hence for Tampico, when about two miles above the head of the Southwest Pass, during a heavy gale on Thursday last, lost her anchors and chains and went ashore in four feet water. The steamboat Crescent, Capt. Carlton, left the levee on Wednesday afternoon last . . . While proceeding on her voyage she encountered a gale when off the Chandeleurs, which carried away her chimneys, pilot house, texas and nearly all the bulwarks of the cabin. The main boat California, Capt. Myers, met the gale when opposite Point Clear. The Daily Picayune Monday, Sept 19, 1859, p.4 The Storm on the Coast. Damage to Shipping and other Property - The furious and destructive gale, which swept over the coast Thursday last appears to have been much more violent at Pensacola and vicinity than even at Mobile. The [Pensacola] Tribune of Friday says: "On Wednesday night the first of the equinoctial storms commenced with a vengeance, and yesterday the Storm King reigned supreme, the wind blowing a hurricane and the rain falling a deluge. Trees were uprooted and fences prostrated. During the forepart of the day the wind blew, at different intervals, from every point of the compass, with terrible force, sweeping everything before it. At noon it settled in the southeast, from which point it blew with increased violence. The shipping in the bay was in a very critical condition, and greatly confused. The wind sporting with the smaller craft as with ebaff[?] - throwing them out on the beach and dashing them to pieces against the wharves. The schooner Hornet, with her cargo, was thrown ashore, and is now high and dry. At about 5 o'clock, the Palafox street wharf which had during the day, up to the hour mentioned, nobly withstood the storm, succumbed to the combined force of wind and wave, and was entirely demolished. The new wharf also received damages to a considerable extent. The bath-houses, the property of various individuals, situated along the shore, were all completely destroyed. It is almost miraculous how the entire shipping in the bay escaped demolition. Considering the violence of the storm, the damage done, though great, might have been, and we fear is, far greater than here reported. Vessels on the coast must have been greatly distressed, and we shall be agreeably surprised, when sufficient time has elapsed, if we do not hear of a greater loss of life and property than has ever been known on the coast of Florida. . . During Thursday night the wind shifted round to northeast, still blowing hard but somewhat inclined to lull. At daylight this morning the beach presented an indescribable mass of timbers from the different wrecks, drifted ashore during the night. In the city, nothing more serious than fences blown down and shade trees topped, have, as yet, been heard of. On the beach, there are numerous different estimates as to the value of property destroyed. In lieu of authentic information, we give the lowest estimate rumored, $10,000. . . At the time we go to press it has abated its fury, though the winds still blow in stiff breeze." Safety of the Galveston - By a letter of the same date, but written some hours later, in the Mobile Tribune, we are gratified to learn of the safety of the Galveston, Capt. Hutchings, which left this port with the Florida mails the morning of the 14th. She arrived at Pensacola about 10 o'clock Friday morning. The writer says: "After getting to sea the wind commenced to blow fresh from the southeast, and increased to a gale, and blowed from almost every point of the compass. At 5 A. M. Thursday she was within twenty miles of Pensacola bar, but the gale increasing, it was dangerous to keep on her course, and consequently she headed off the land and rode the gale out. At midnight the gale moderated, and the ship was again on her course for this place. The wheel houses are stove in, and the forward part of the ship above the deck is stove in also. It was necessary to throw off part of her deck load, and most of that on deck is damaged, as the water washed through the ship from fore to aft. She has not sustained damage though to detain her." . . . The Damage at Mobile - Our neighbors of Mobile appear to have been more frightened than hurt. Only some sugar, flour, &c., on the ground floors of a few of the warehouses were injured. At Point Clear nearly all of the little bath houses and wharves were swept away, and the sojourners were much alarmed. Higher up, on the eastern shore, every wharf and bath house, except Hudson's and Stark's is gone. In the neighborhood of Short's wharf, two oyster boats capsized, one of them the Sea Bird, and two persons, names unknown, were drowned. The Daily Picayune Sunday, Sept 18, 1859, p.3 Heavy Storm at New York. Extensive Damage to Property. New York, Sept. 17. - A very violent storm of wind a rain passed over this city today doing considerable damage to shipping. Among the disasters, the bark Mary Ellen, from Bremen, dragged her anchors and went ashore on Governor's Island. There was also considerable damage to other property. A five-story warehouse in progress of erection, in Duane street, was blown down and completely demolished. The house adjoining was also thrown down and the tenants buried beneath the ruins. Daily National Intelligencer (Washington) Tuesday Sept. 20 1859 p. 2 The ravages of the storm of Friday and Saturday have been general and severe. The amount of water was over eight inches. The damage to the ungathered crops and to mill dams and fences has been very great. Daily National Intelligencer Tuesday Sept 20 1859 p. 2 The Fresh, subsequent to the date of our report of yesterday, raised sufficiently on Sunday night to do some damage. Scantling and other lumber was carried off from some of the lumber yards in Georgetown, and more or less of it lost. In addition to the loss of salt by a Georgetown merchant, about fifty barrels of flour belonging to Mr. Cruikshank were damages. This is all we hear of worth mentioning in addition. Daily National Intelligencer Tuesday Sept 20 1859 p. 2 Of the Chesepeake and Ohio canal it is yet in our power to say but little. Unauthenticated reports were current yesterday of a breach on the nine mile level, and also east of the Great Falls, but they received little credence. A telegraph dispatch from Harper's Ferry yesterday announced Dam No. 4 as swept away, but this was deemed altogether extravagant. The coffer-dam lately inserted and the yet unfinished guard bank were most likely injured, but that the solid masonry of the dam has suffered is scarcely credible. Daily National Intelligencer Tuesday Sept 20 1859 p. 2 Extraordinary Fall of Rain. --- The amount of rain at Grafton Cottage near Washington, in the storm of the 16th and 17th instant, was six inches and four-tenths September 19, CHAS. G. PAGE. Daily National Intelligencer Monday Sept 19 1859 p. 3 The freshet in the Potomac caused by the heavy rains of Friday and Saturday was a source of considerable excitement yesterday all along the river banks. . . . . At five o'clock the river was rising at the Georgetown wharves, but we were assured that at the little falls bridge it was falling. Some apprehension was felt for what might take place at the next flood tide. Daily National Intelligencer Monday Sept 19 1859 p. 3 A good many persons were hard at work at the western wharves scouring private and public property there. The new depot of New York Steamship company was considered in much peril if the river should rise higher; as it was the water was up more than 100 feet beyond shore. The contents of the depot were removed in good time. Daily National Intelligencer Monday Sept 19 1859 p. 3 The current in the Potomac was very rapid, and large quantities of driftwood passed down. In some cases lodging against vessels at the wharves somewhat to there risk. The Long Bridge, in its present fragile state, appeared to be in danger, but may withstand the pressure against it. Daily National Intelligencer Monday Sept 19 1859 p. 3 The Chesapeake and Ohio canal, so far as heard from has suffered no damage from the fresh. The water was let out of the Georgetown level to prevent breaches there, and it is hoped that similar precaution was observed all along the line. Some solicitude is felt for dams No. 4 and 5, but nothing is known, as the telegraph was not at work yesterday. New York Tribune Monday Sept 19, 1859 p. 8 Brig Tangent, Plummer, from Boston, for Elizabethport, in Ballast for coal, arrived at the Hook on Friday night, and during the gale of Saturday dragged both anchors into two fathoms of water. Her foremast was cut away, which with the yards and main topmast, went over the side, when she held. She was towed up to the city on Sunday. New York Tribune Tuesday Sept. 19 1859 p. 8 Steamship Potomac, Watson, Savannah, . . . . On the 17th inst . . . 9 P.M. 10 miles off Cape Hatteras, passed steamship Parkersburg hence for Savannah. The P. experienced a heavy gale from the N.E. New York Tribune Tuesday Sept. 19 1859 p. 8 Ship Marathon, Tyler Liverpool, . . . 17th inst, Lat 40 30, Lon ?9 in a gale from SE to NNE carried away main topmast trestletrees. New York Tribune Tuesday Sept. 19 1859 p. 8 Ship Manhattan, Dixon, Liverpool Aug. 6. . . . has been twenty days west of the banks with light westerly winds; had to haul off shore Saturday night during the heavy easterly gales. New York Tribune Tuesday Sept. 19 1859 p. 8 Bark Milton, Bradford, Liverpool Aug 10. . . . Saturday 17th had a heavy gale from ESE to NNE with a bad sea, vessel laboring very heavy, Montauk bearing North 50 miles. New York Tribune Sept 21, 1859 p. 12 Ship Havre, Askins, . . . Sept 17 and 18, Lat 40 20 Lon 70 experienced a heavy gale from SE to NNE. New York Tribune Sept 21 1859 p. 12 Ship Martha (of Boston) Arr. Off the Hook 17th and hauled off shore in a heavy gale from E. Had heavy weather off Algoa Bay; slit split sails, washed away bulwarks, &c. New York Tribune Sept 21 1859 p. 12 Ship Wm H Prescott (of Boston) . . . .17th inst, had a gale from SE to W; 18th had hurricane from the N during which shifted cargo. New York Tribune Sept 21 1859 p. 12 Bark Kepler . . . 17th inst, highlands bearing WNW bearing 40 miles passed schr Oregon lying to; experienced heavy westerly gales up to Lon 50. since then light westerly winds and calms and on the 17th inst had a head easterly gale. New York Tribune Sept 21 1859 p. 12 Schr Alma . . . 17th inst5 miles E of Sandy Hook, took a gale from ESE and was compelled to haul off shore, during which split foresail, stove bulwarks, &c. New York Tribune Sept 22 1859 p. 8 Ship Messenger, Hooper . . . . Sept 17 off the Capes of Delaware, experienced a hurricane fm NE which blew away foretopsail and jib. New York Tribune Sept 22 1859 p. 8 Brig Salus Arkle, Palmero 70 days, and Gibraltar 36 days fruit to order. Sept 18 in a heavy gale from N., split sails &c. New York Tribune Sept 22 1859 p. 8 Schr Sir Colin Campbell, Virgens, Sagua 11 days, sugar, &c. to Whitman Bros. Sept 17 experienced a heavy gale from ENE lost deck load of Molasses. New York Tribune Sept 23 1859 p. 8 Ship Constitution . . . . 17th Lat. 41 Lon. 67 had another very heavy blow from S and NW with a high cross sea running. New York Tribune Sept 23 1859 p. 8 Bark R G W Dodge. . . 16th and 17th inst had heavy gale from SE New York Tribune Sept 24 1859 p. 8 Bark Harvest Hammond Savannah 7days, in ballast to Sturgis Clearman and Company. Sept 17 SE of Hatteras experienced a very heavy gale from Southeast. New York Tribune Oct 1 1859 p. 8 (and New York Times Oct 1 1859 p. 8) Schr. Louisa A. Johnson (of Brookhaven). . . . 18th inst, lat 41 52 lon 56 49 in a hurricane from NW lost mainboom and received other damage. New York Times Oct 3 1859 p. 8 Ship Lady Franklin, Jordan, Liverpool. . . . Sept 18 lat 44 lon 58 experienced a hurricane from SE did no damage. New York Times Sept 23 1859 p. 8 (and Charleston Daily Courier Sept 22 1859 p. 4) Steamer Chesapeake . . . .during the NE gales of the 18th while off Cape Cod sprang a leak and threw overboard 400lbs of sugar and syrup. She still leaks and is kept free by her donkey pumps. She will, after discharging her cargo, go to the docks for repairs. New York Times Sept 20 1859 p. 8 Steamer George's Creek On the 16th experienced a heavy gale from the NE and was compelled to put into Hampton Roads for harbor. New York Times Sept 19 1859 p. 8 (and Charleston Daily Courier Sept 22 p. 4) Steamship Nashville. . . . The Nashville experienced very heavy gales from Hatteras to the Lower Bay where she anchored last evening the 17th. Instrumental Records -------------------- Date Time Station Temp in Cloudiness Wind Wind Comments Pressure Open Amount Dir. Speed Annapolis, Maryland 16SEP 7am 30.12 63 10 NE 2 2pm 30.06 65 10 ESE 3 9pm 29.94 64 10 ENE 3 Rain began 9pm 17SEP 7am 29.51 67 10 NE 3 2pm 29.37 60 10 N 4 9pm 29.72 63 10 NW 2 Rain ended 9pm, 4.8" 18SEP 7am 29.86 57.5 0 NW 1 2pm 29.84 72.5 3 N 1 9pm 29.86 65 3 N 1 Fort Monroe, Virginia 16SEP 7am 30.30 73 Cloudy E 4 Rain began 6am 2pm 30.20 72 Cloudy E 5 9pm NA 71 Cloudy E 5 17SEP 7am 29.71 75 Cloudy SW 4 Rain ended 5am, 0.86 2pm 29.80 75 Cloudy NE 2 9pm 30.00 68 Fair NW 2 18SEP 7am 30.15 70 Fair NW 2 2pm 30.18 73 Fair NE 2 9pm NA 70 Fair SW 2 US Naval Ob., Wash. D.C. (selected) 16SEP noon 30.22 68 10 SE 1 Rain began 2.5am 2.5pm 30.18 66 10 E 2 8.5pm 30.07 63 10 E 3 17SEP 0.5am 29.95 64 10 NE 3 Rain cont., 0.93" 2.5am 29.90 63 10 NE 3 6.5am 29.60 64 10 E 4 8.5am 29.59 68.5 10 E 5 9.5am 29.44 69 10 E 4 10.5am 29.42 68 10 NNE 5 noon 29.54 61 10 NW 6 2.5pm 29.66 60 10 NW 6 3.5pm 29.73 60 10 NW 6 4.5pm 29.78 60 10 NW 6 6.5pm 29.82 60 10 WNW 6 8.5pm 29.89 60 10 WNW 4 9.5pm 29.90 60 10 NW 3 Rain ended 9pm, 3.34" 18SEP 2.5am 29.95 60 4 NW 3 8.5am 30.04 64 1 NW 2 noon 30.03 74 10 NW 3 Washington D. C. 16SEP 7am 30.28 60 10 NE 2 Rain began 1am 2pm 30.20 67 10 SE 3 9pm 30.08 63 10 NE 4 17SEP 7am 29.51 69 10 NE 4 2pm 29.61 61 10 NW 4 cont., 4.00" 9pm 29.89 62 10 NW 4 Rain ended 9.5pm, 0.34" 18SEP 7am 30.03 61 0 NW NA 2pm 30.06 71 3 NW 1 9pm 30.08 64 0 0 0 Other records and diary entries ------------------------------- (These observations are typically taken on a 7am/2pm/9pm timeframe.) Mt Vernon Barracks AL 13th N2/N3/NE0 14th NE1/NE0/N0 15th NE0/NE6/NE5 16th W3/W1/N0 17th N0/NE0/NE0 On the 15th, 3.05 inches of rain, "Rained all day without ceasing" Columbus MS 15th SE2/SE3/E3 0.108 inches of rain 16th N3/N3/N1 17th N1/S2/E1 Pauling MS 15th NE3/NE4/NE4 16th NE2/NW3/NE1 17th N1/M/E2 On the 15th, "wind at 6 pm NE5", rain 1.650 from 12 M to 1 AM New Orleans LA 15th NE4/N5/NW5 16th W2/NW3/SW1 17th E1/NE2/E2 On the 15th, High wind in the evening. 0.39 inches of rain. Barometer on the 15th down to 29.85 in the middle of the day. Baton Rouge LA 15th NE2/NE4/NE2 16th W1/NE2/NE1 17th E1/E2/SE1 Thomaston GA 14th 72/76/72 29.05/29.05/29.05 SW/SE2/SE0 3.35" rain 15th 73/74/71 28.8/28.8/29.0 E1/SE2/SE4 16th 70/84/77 29.0/29.0/29.0 S5/S4/SW_ 17th 70/84/77 29.0/29.0/29.0 NE/SW/SW Whitemarsh Island, GA 14th 71/84/75 W1/SSE3/M 15th 73/80/77 N1/NE3/SE3 1.35" rain 16th 77/82/79 S4/S5/WSW5 0.08" rain 17th 72/83/75 WNW3/WNW3/M Sparta, GA 14th 61/85/70 SW1/NW1/N1 15th 65/72/69 E1/NE2/E4 rain afternoon night 16th 70/74/69 SE1/SW3/SW4 rain During day 17th 63/83/71 W1/NW3/NE1 Augusta GA 14th 65/91/75 30.25/30.30/30.34 W0/W1/W0 15th 72.5/75/72 30.30/30.24/30.18 W0/W0/W0 16th 74/79/73 30.10/30.05/30.00 SE3/SE2/SW2 1.88" rain 17th 69/88/72 30.02/30.07/30.15 W0/W1/W0 0.42" rain St Augustine, FL 14th 84/88/87 29.92/29.92/29.97 SW1/SE3/SW1 15th 84/86/84 30.10/30.10/30.10 SE3/SE4/SE4 16th 83/78/77 30.04/30.00/29.97 S3/SW3/SW2 0.40" rain 17th 80/90/87 30.00/30.00/30.00 NW2/SW3/SW1 Note most winds were 3+ in strength all month Cedar Keys, FL 14th 80/86/80 S1/SW1/0 15th 80/85/81 E3/SE2/SE4 16th 76/81/80 SE3/SW3/SW4 17th 77/82/77 NW2/W2/NW2 Barrancas Barracks, FL 14th 72/88/84 N2/SE3/SE3 15th 76/81/79 NE3/SE7/SE8 3.30" rain 16th 75/87/77 NW5/NW2/N2 17th 75/87/81 N1/SW1/NW2 Warrington FL (US Naval Hospital) 14th 78/80/86/79 29.90/29.90/29.90/29.90 SW2/SW3/SW3/SW5 rain 15th 78/76/79/75 29.90/29.88/29.83/29.73 NE7/NE7/E7/SE7 rain 16th 74/80/87/80 29.79/29.80/29.84/29.87 NW7/SW5/SW4/SW3 17th 74/80/88/80 29.92/29.92/29.92/29.93 SW2/SW2/SW2/SW3 Lake City, FL 14th 77/92/78 S1/S2/0 0.50" rain 15th 79/87/75 SE1/S2/S2 16th 74/82/78 S3/SW5/SW2 1.60" rain 17th 76/88/76 SW1/0/0 A. Glennie, Pawley's Island SC 14th 74/80/62 30.05 E/S/S 15th 67/79/77 30.05 N/SE/E 16th 79/83/80 29.80 S/S/SW 0.22 17th 72/82/72 30.02 W/W/W Black Oak, Pinopolis SC 14th 61/82/72 30.05/30.13/30.14 NW/NE/SE 15th 67/81/76 30.15/30.23/30.21 NE/NE/SE Cloudy/Rain/Cloudy Rain 0.01" 16th 76/83/80 30.14/30.03/29.92 SE/SE/E Squally with high wind. Rain 0.09" 17th 70/82/71 29.95/30.02/30.03 NW/NW/W Clear Charleston Board of Health, SC 14th 69/81/78 30.11/30.15/30.21 SW2/E2 Fair 15th 76/80/78 30.24/30.26/30.25 NE2/SE2 Fair - rain 0.12" 16th 80/84/82 30.11/30.09/30.00 SE3/S5 Cloudy 17th 73/83/75 30.08/30.05/30.12 SW3/W1 Fair Fort Moultrie, SC 14th 74/81/78 30.19/30.24/30.27 SW1/E2/E2 f/f/f - rain 0.23" 15th 76/80/77 30.22/30.24/30.26 NE1/E2/E1 cloudy/cloudy/f rain at intervals 16th 80/82/81 30.27/30.17/30.10 SE1/SE3/S5 f/cloudy/cloudy stormy at 4 PM and 10 PM 17th 72/84/76 30.13/30.13/30.22 SW3/NW2/NW1 f/f/f Arsenal Academy, Richland County (Columbia), SC 14th 68/86/71 NE0/SE2 15th 70/83/72 E3/SE3 [rain] 4.5 PM continued during night 16th 73/78/68 W6/SE5 1.8" rain 17th 66/85/72 NE0/SW3 Aiken, SC 14th 63/87/72 E2/E2/E2 15th M/72/66 M/E1/NE3 0.85" rain 16th 73/80/66 NE4/SE4/W4 0.94" rain 17th 67/81/69 W3/S2/SW1 David Golightly Harris. Spartanburg, SC 16th Night before last and yesterday and last night it rained very hard Charleston Courier, Saturday, September 17: The winds and waves prevented the boat race which was eagerly expected on Friday afternoon. We shall no doubt have a trial on the first fair afternoon; and after the gales and "blows" of this period, we may expect frequent occasions of such a delightful and exciting pastime. Dr. Louis M. Desaussure. Beaufort Dist., SC 16th - rain, threatening Sepr gale from N.E. - warm ... Late in eveng, hard blow or gale of wind & rain from S.E. threw cotton down funneled it & injured it. John McPherson DeSaussure (Kershaw Dist.): Rain fell 0.05 In. wind S.E., S. or S.W. Samuel Porcher Gaillard. Sumter Dist., SC: 14th Cool this morning, 68°. Cloudy this evening 15th Cloudy this morning & heavy fog. About 9 am sun came out, overcast all morning from 11 am until 2 pm at which time the clouds were threatening at south & S.W. At 3 pm had a few drops of rain & from that time to this, 8 pm, occasionally a few drops, likely to rain before morning. 16th Had a little rain last night. Cloudy & unsettled all morning. Had a slight shower just after daylight & ceased at 7 am. At a ¼ of 12 (& previous) heard thunder & by 20 after 12 a heavy cloud came over from S.S.W. A very heavy fall of water. It did not cease raining until near 2 pm. At 4 pm had a heavy shower all evening. About sunset every appearance of clearing up as it has been clear at west but soon became cloudy & has been raining off & on up to this time 9 pm the wind indicates stormy weather. 17th Had a very heavy rain last night & wind very high, by 12 o'clock ceased & was clear before morning. I heard this morning (which was ???? by a letter from my sister, Mrs. Rembert) that yesterday a tornado passed over Col. James Rembert's plantation. Every building except smokehouse unroofed even his dwelling, which is a very large building. All his fencing down. I have no doubt it was [serious] to the crops. He said it all was done in 5 minutes. Charles Heyward, Charleston SC 15th Good weather until today, Cloudy & rain 16th Overcast. Threatening weather but passed off during the night with a little high wind Chapel Hill, NC 14th 68/80/65 29.61/29.66/29.69 NW1/W1/W1 15th 62/76/68 29.78/29.63/29.43 NE2/NE2/N2 16th 66/70/68 29.73/29.63/29.43 NW3/NW3/NW1 17th 66/80/69 29.33/29.46/29.56 NW3/NW3/SW1 0.15" rain Murfreesboro, NC 14th W1/SE1/NE1 15th 63/76/68 29.4/29.55/29.35 E2/NE2/E2 16th 69/70/69 29.3/29.25/29.2 SE4/SW3/NW1 0.60" rain 17th 72/82/71 28.9/29.0/29.1 NW1/NW1/NW1 0.50" rain Basil Armstrong Thomason. Yadkin County, NC 15th Cloudy and cool. Wind from the north east. 16th A real "north easter." Came as near raining all day as common. Guess this is the equinoctial storm. 17th Clear and quite warm. It rained a small flood last night, so the creeks are past fording to-day. Halifax, Nova Scotia 16th 42/60/37 29.9/29.9/29.9 NW & SW clear and fine Thermometer at sunrise 32 17th 45/64/44 29.9/29.8/29.7 SE Cloudy rain at night 18th 50/56/53 29.5/29.4/29.4 ENE Heavy rain nearly all day 19th 57/65/47 29.4/29.4/29.6 WNW Cloudy - clear and fine ******************************************************************************** 1859/06: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Utilized the northern wind-pressure relationship for hurricanes from ship on 6th. Ship with central pressure observation of 938 mb gives 105 kt, used 110 kt in best track - supporting major hurricane status of this storm. ******************************************************************************** 1859/07: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Inland winds over Florida reduced via methodology of Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model. ******************************************************************************** 1859/08: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Pressure reading of 989 mb not in hurricane's center (on 12 UTC, 28th of October) suggests winds of at least 65 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track, supporting hurricane status for this storm. ******************************************************************************** 1860/01: Extended track three days into the Atlantic as was suggested by Partagas and Diaz (1995a). However, it is noted by Prof. Cary Mock of the University of South Carolina and Sandrik (2001) that all of the available historical accounts from this time showed no evidence for tropical storm strength during its transit over Georgia. It may very well be the case that this system dropped to tropical depression stage before redeveloping into a moderate-intensity tropical storm over the Atlantic. Due to format chosen, however, that tropical depression stage is not utilized in HURDAT until 1871, this system will be retained here formally as a minimal tropical storm over the southeast United States. Inland winds over SE US derived from utilizing Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model. Storm tide values from Ludlum (1963) for Fort St. Philip, Louisiana (12 ft) and Mobile, Alabama (10 ft). Storm determined to have reached major hurricane status based upon destruction and storm tide values along U.S. Gulf coast. ******************************************************************************** 1860/02: Extended the track to the 26th to take into account ship observations reported by Partagas and Diaz's (1995a). Otherwise, no major changes. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon reports from the ships "Sabine", "Mary Rusell" and "Zurich". ******************************************************************************** 1860/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No track available, only one point. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon report from ship "Ocean Spray". ******************************************************************************** 1860/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Inland winds over SE US reduced via methodology of Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model. Storm tide value of 10' from Ho (1989) for Mobile, Alabama. Storm determined to have reached hurricane status from destruction and tide experienced along the U.S. Gulf coast. 1860/04 - 2003 REVISION: 01620 09/11/1860 M= 6 4 SNBR= 56 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 01625 09/11*251 838 90 0*252 841 90 0*252 845 90 0*252 848 90 0 01630 09/12*252 851 90 0*252 856 90 0*254 860 90 0*255 866 90 0 01630 09/12*252 852 90 0*253 856 90 0*254 860 90 0*255 866 90 0 *** *** 01635 09/13*256 871 90 0*257 876 90 0*259 881 90 0*262 886 90 0 01640 09/14*267 893 90 0*272 896 90 0*277 899 90 0*283 898 90 0 01640 09/14*267 893 90 0*272 896 90 0*277 898 90 0*283 898 90 0 *** 01645 09/15*289 896 90 0*295 896 90 0*301 894 90 0*308 891 70 0 01645 09/15*289 897 90 0*295 896 90 0*301 894 90 0*308 891 70 0 *** 01650 09/16*318 886 50 0*330 880 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 01655 HR LA2 MS2 AL1 Track altered slightly to allow for a more realistic translational velocity. ******************************************************************************** 1860/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. ******************************************************************************** 1860/06: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Inland winds over SE US reduced via methodology of Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model. Storm determined to have reached hurricane status based upon destruction in Louisiana. ******************************************************************************** 1860/07: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. inland decay model. Storm determined to have reached hurricane status based upon several ship reports. ******************************************************************************** 1861/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm determined to have reached hurricane status based upon several ship reports. ******************************************************************************** 1861/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm determined to have reached hurricane status based upon ship reports from the "Santiago de Cuba" and the "Kate Stevens". Storm is known as the "Key West Hurricane" from its impacts in Key West, Florida (Ludlum 1963). 1861/02 - 2003 REVISION: 01800 08/14/1861 M= 4 2 SNBR= 61 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 01800 08/13/1861 M= 5 2 SNBR= 61 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 ** * (The 13th is new to HURDAT.) 01805 08/13* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*205 700 40 0*210 715 40 0 01805 08/14*230 756 70 0*231 765 70 0*232 775 70 0*232 783 70 0 01805 08/14*215 730 50 0*220 745 60 0*225 760 70 0*229 774 70 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** 01810 08/15*235 793 80 0*237 801 80 0*237 810 90 0*239 816 90 0 01810 08/15*232 787 80 0*235 799 80 0*237 808 80 0*239 815 80 0 *** *** *** *** *** ** *** ** 01815 08/16*240 823 90 0*240 828 90 0*240 835 80 0*240 839 80 0 01815 08/16*242 820 80 0*246 825 80 0*250 830 70 0*254 835 70 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 01820 08/17*240 843 80 0*240 846 80 0*240 851 80 0*239 856 80 0 01820 08/17*258 840 60 0*262 845 60 0*266 850 50 0*270 856 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** 01825 HRBFL1 U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data ---------------------------- #/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States Winds Simpson Pressure Affected 2-8/15/1861$* 2100Z 24.0N 82.0W 70kt 1 (970mb) BFL1 2-8/16/1861$* 0000Z 24.2N 82.0W 70kt 1 (970mb) BFL1 **** Additional observations for this hurricane were obtained from a weather record kept by the U.S. Consul at Turk's Island (Salt Cay) for the Smithsonian Institute that is located in the US National Archives. (Thanks to Michael Chenoweth for providing this additional data.) These are provided in full below: Date 0900L 1400L 2100L 0900L 1400L 2100L August 12, 1861 29.95" 29.94" 29.94" August 13, 1861 29.90" 29.70" 29.60" NE 6 SE 5 NE 6 August 14, 1861 29.95" 29.96" 29.96" Comment for 13 August: This was a very stormy day. Generally persons prepared for a hurricane. Smithsonian Wind Force Scale (values are estimates of the highest gusts) ------------------------------------------- 1 - Very light breeze 2 mph (2 kt) 2 - Gentle breeze 4 mph (4 kt) 3 - Fresh breeze 12 mph (10 kt) 4 - Strong breeze 25 mph (22 kt) 5 - High breeze 35 mph (30 kt) 6 - Gale 45 mph (39 kt) 7 - Strong gale 60 mph (51 kt) 8 - Violent gale 75 mph (65 kt) 9 - Hurricane 90 mph (78 kt) 10 - Most violent 100 mph (87 kt) Best track is extended back one-half day to the 13th and the track is adjusted on the 14th and 15th accordingly. The 1002 mb peripheral pressure measurement suggests winds of at least 43 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 50 kt chosen for best track. Winds are adjusted accordingly on the 14th. Further additional observations were provided by Brian Jones of the University of Miami in his analysis of military fort observations in Florida: Fort Jefferson (24.7N, 82.8W): Date 12Z 19Z 02Z 8/13/1861 E-3 E-2 E-1 "night 0.39" 8/14/1861 NE-2 NE-1 NW-3 "rain at night .24" 8/15/1861 N-4 N-4 N-6 "light showers at intervals .06" 8/16/1861 NW-6 SW-5 W-4 (No comments provided) 8/17/1861 SW-4 SW-4 SE-3 (No comments provided) Military Post Wind Force Scale (values are estimates of the highest gusts) ------------------------------------------- 1 - Very light breeze 2 mph (2 kt) 2 - Gentle breeze 4 mph (4 kt) 3 - Fresh breeze 12 mph (10 kt) 4 - Strong breeze 25 mph (22 kt) 5 - High breeze 35 mph (30 kt) 6 - Gale 45 mph (39 kt) 7 - Strong gale 60 mph (51 kt) 8 - Violent gale 75 mph (65 kt) 9 - Hurricane 90 mph (78 kt) 10 - Most violent 100 mph (87 kt) These data strongly suggest that the hurricane passed to the east, north and then northwest of the fort, rather than moving south of the fort. The change of track provided for the 16th and the 17th now matches these newly available observations, while still being consistent with the impact in Key West and the sparse ship reports. The Fort Jefferson observations also indicate a weaker system than the 90 kt hurricane originally estimated, even after accounting for the hurricane's weaker side impacting the fort. Since the only data for hurricane conditions in this system were observed on the 15th and 16th and that this system is not recorded as making landfall anywhere on the Gulf coast, a weakening to below hurricane force is deduced for the 17th. 1861/02 - 2006 REVISION: 01875 08/13/1861 M= 5 2 SNBR= 62 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 01875 08/13/1861 M= 5 2 SNBR= 62 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=1 * 01880 08/13* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*205 700 40 0*210 715 40 0* 01885 08/14*215 730 50 0*220 745 60 0*225 760 70 0*229 774 70 0* 01890 08/15*232 787 80 0*235 799 80 0*237 808 80 0*239 815 80 0* 01895 08/16*242 820 80 0*246 825 80 0*250 830 70 0*254 835 70 0* 01900 08/17*258 840 60 0*262 845 60 0*266 850 50 0*270 856 50 0* 01905 HRBFL1 As the hurricane's center did not cross the U.S. coastline (but did cause Category 1 conditions at the coast), the XING (continental U.S. landfall indicator) is changed to "0". ******************************************************************************** 1861/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Pressure reading of 958 mb not in hurricane's center (on 12 UTC, 30th of August) suggests winds of at least 91 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt chosen for best track. Storm judged to have reached hurricane force based upon this pressure reading and wind observations from the ships "Harvest Queen" and "Marianne". ******************************************************************************** 1861/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No track available, only one point. Storm determined to have reached hurricane force based upon observations from the ship "David G. Wilson". ******************************************************************************** 1861/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Inland winds over NE US reduced via methodology of Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model. Storm determined to have reached hurricane force based upon observations from the ship "Virgina Ann". Hurricane is also known as the "Equinoctial Storm" as described in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) and Ludlum (1963). ******************************************************************************** 1861/06: Have extended the storm out four additional days as was suggested in Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) writeup to the 9th based upon the ship "Wellington". ******************************************************************************** 1861/07: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No track available, only one point. ******************************************************************************** 1861/08: Have started track over Gulf of Mexico instead of over Florida as was drawn in Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Inland winds over Florida and NE US reduced via methodology of Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model. Values of 1000mb and 999mb give winds of 49 and 50 kt, respectively, utilizing the northern wind-pressure relationship; 50 kt is used in the best track. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane force based upon observations from Hatteras Inlet and the ship "Honduras". Hurricane is also known as the "Expedition Hurricane" as described in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) and Ludlum (1963). ******************************************************************************** 1862/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. ******************************************************************************** 1862/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon several ship reports. ******************************************************************************** 1862/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon several ship reports. ******************************************************************************** 1862/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No track available, only one point. ******************************************************************************** 1862/05: The only major change from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis was to add an additional half day on the 17th to accommodate the end of the track. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane intensity based upon several ship reports. ******************************************************************************** 1862/06 - 2003 ADDITION: 02126 11/22/1862 M= 4 6 SNBR= 73 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 02127 11/22*105 795 60 0*105 795 60 0*105 795 60 0*105 795 60 0 02128 11/23*105 795 60 0*105 795 60 0*105 795 60 0*105 795 60 0 02129 11/24*105 795 60 0*105 795 60 0*105 796 50 0*105 797 50 0 02130 11/25*105 798 40 0*105 800 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 02131 TS A new storm (possibly hurricane intensity) was uncovered from the meteorological register kept at Aspinwall, Panama (9 22 53.7N 79 52 58.2 W) by A.F. Holmes, Acting Master Navigating Officer of the U.S. Steamer "James Adger", part of the voluntary Smithsonian Institute network. (Thanks to Mike Chenoweth for providing the information for this new storm.) Below are the temperature, wind direction/force, cloud cover (in tenths), and rainfall from November 20-25, 1862 (unfortunately, the barometric record appears to be defective): Date Temp. Temp. Temp. Wind Wind Wind Cloud Cloud Cloud Rainfall 0700L 1400L 2100L 0700L 1400L 2100L 0700L 1400L 2100L 20 74.7F 80.6F 76.3F S 1 W 2 SE 1 9 6 3 0.12" 21 74.6F 79.4F 77.0F SE 1 NW 2 WNW 2 8 8 10 0.12" 22 75.2F 78.6F 76.9F NW 7 NNW 7 NW 6 10 10 10 3.45" 23 76.3F 78.0F 78.8F NNE 6 NNW 5 NW 5 10 10 10 6.18" 24 78.8F 78.3F 77.5F NNW 6 WNW 4 WxN 5 10 10 10 0.64" 25 75.4F 76.9F 77.0F WxN 3 WxN 3 WxN 4 10 10 10 0.61" Comments: 22 November - At 2a.m. gale commenced blowing from NW. Heavy sea came in suddenly. 23 November - Gale continued, more sea than yesterday. 24 November - Gale continues. 25 November - Gale over. Smithsonian Wind Force Scale 1 - Very light breeze 2 mph 2 - Gentle breeze 4 mph 3 - Fresh breeze 12 mph 4 - Strong breeze 25 mph 5 - High breeze 35 mph 6 - Gale 45 mph 7 - Strong gale 60 mph 8 - Violent gale 75 mph 9 - Hurricane 90 mph 10 - Most violent 100 mph Based upon this, a strong tropical storm was centered to the northeast of this location from the 22nd to the 25th with weakening late on the 24th and on the 25th. No apparent motion of the storm could be detected until late on the 24th and on the 25th when a slow westward drift is indicated by the change in wind direction to more westerly. ******************************************************************************** 1863/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon reports from the ships "Francis B. Cutting" and "Rapid". ******************************************************************************** 1863/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon reports from the ships "American Congress" and "Herzogin". ******************************************************************************** 1863/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Ship with central pressure observation of 975 mb gives 83 kt with the northern wind-pressure relationship, utilizing 80 kt in best track. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon reports from several ships. ******************************************************************************** 1863/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon report from the ship "Dolphin". ******************************************************************************** 1863/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon several ship reports. ******************************************************************************** 1863/06: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Inland winds over NE US reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model. 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 strength). ******************************************************************************** 1863/07: A 36 hr track was achieved for this storm - Partagas and Diaz (1995a) had kept the storm stationary. Inland winds over Mexico reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model with an accelerated decay rate used to account for enhanced topography. ******************************************************************************** 1863/08: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. ******************************************************************************** 1863/09 - 2003 ADDITION: 02341 09/29/1863 M= 3 9 SNBR= 82 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 02342 09/29*285 957 60 0*289 953 60 0*293 948 60 0*296 943 50 0 02343 09/30*298 937 50 0*300 931 50 0E301 925 40 0E302 919 40 0 02344 10/01E303 913 40 0E304 907 40 0E305 901 40 0E306 895 40 0 02345 TS Prof. Cary Mock and Mr. David Roth have uncovered substantial evidence for a previously undocumented tropical storm that made landfall in Texas/Louisiana in the United States. The storm did exhibit some baroclinic characteristics at landfall in Texas/Louisiana, but was retained as a tropical cyclone until 12Z on the 30th. A peripheral pressure of 999 mb (around 12Z on the 29th) suggests winds of at least 47 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt chosen for the best track. Below are excerpts from the Houston weather observer's record along with newspaper accounts of the storm's impacts. Houston weather observer record, September/October 1863 (Temperatures taken at sunrise, 1-3pm, and sunset. Pressure, winds and clouds were monitored 4-5 times a day between sunrise and sunset. Pressure given in inches - 30" for values between .01 to .09 and 29" for values between .49 and .96. Winds are given between 0 [calm] and 6 [violent storm]. Clouds are given in tenths.) Date Temperatures Pressure Winds Clouds ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9/26 62/90/80 .07/.09/.04/.05 NE2/S3/S2/S3 3/6/7/8 9/27 69/83/78 .03/.04/.01/.96 E2/SE2/S4/S2 10/10/10/10 9/28 70/69/66 .84/.86/.76/.71/.63 E3/E4/SE5/E5/E6 10/10/10/10/10 9/29 68/72/71 .50/.50/.50/.49/.53 NE3/E3/NE4/M/N3 8/8/10/10/9 9/30 68/71/71 .73/.81/.85/.89 N4/N5/N5/N5 9/10/10/9 "The Storm of the 28th and 29th much more severe at Galveston & East of Galveston than here. At Sabine Pass wind took off limbs of trees. At Washington but little wind but heavy rain. At Velasco wind very high as on the coast generally. Heaviest fall of water I remember in these times". From the _Tri-Weekly Telegraph_ published in in Houston, TX: Friday October 2, 1863 "SABINE PASS, Sept. 29 - This morning our forces captured a fine Yankee schooner, the Manhassett, with her crew, consisting of seven men. She was loaded with coal and was used as a tender to the blockading fleet. The heavy gale last night drove her in near the coast, seven miles below the Pass, and coming within range of one of our batteries, which at once prepared to fire on her, she hoisted the white flag and surrendered. Her stores are all safe in our hands." "The late equinoctial storm has undoubtedly lashed the waves of the Gulf into unusual commotion. The federal fleet now cruising about will be truly fortunate if they have escaped disaster from the fury of the elements. Rarely in past years has such a storm occurred without more or less wrecks on the Louisiana and Texas coast." October 14, 1863 "The Fordache Fight Morgan's Ferry, Sept. 30, 1863 - ...On the night of the 28th September, our forces crossed the Atchafalaya, at the same time that a 60 hours rain set in. Our troops bivouacked on the east bank of the Atchafalaya on that night, under a drenching rain." From the New Orleans _Picayune_: Tuesday, September 29, 1863 "The drouth (sic) still continues, but there are signs that it will not be of much longer duration. A change is much wished for in the city, as most of the cisterns are empty, and the dust, when agitated, is very annoying, especially to notable house-wives." Wednesday, September 30, 1863 "Long wished for, come at last - the refreshing and welcome rain. Now it has commenced, the prospect is we shall have it in abundance." Friday, October 2, 1863 "A gloomy and disagreeable day was yesterday - neither good for man nor beast. It was a day to incite one to commit suicide - uncomfortably wet and warm, and very debilitating. Well, a few days ago we were praying for rain. Now we sigh for fair weather. How unsatisfied and inconsistent men are! and women too, for that matter. For instance, a few days ago, house-wives were complaining that there was no water for the family washing. Now they complain that though there is an abundance of water, they cannot get the clothes dry when they are washed. According to present appearances, this will be a difficulty to be overcome only by ingenuity and good management for some time to come. 'The rain it raineth every day' is likely to be the cry for lo, many days. Well, 'Man never is, but always to be, blest.'" "The blustering norther that came upon us yesterday, although not the pleasantest of visitors, was decidly (sic) welcome as the successor of the disagreeable weather that immediately preceded it. We have fairly entered on the few weeks of changeable weather - now hot, now cold, and alternately dry and wet - usual at this season. It is trying to the constitution and productive of sickness, and those who have any care for their health will be careful to avoid all unnecessary exposure." It was hot and uncomfortable again in New Orleans on the 2nd. ******************************************************************************** 1864/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon observations from the ship "Hattie Eaton". ******************************************************************************** 1864/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No track available, only one point. ******************************************************************************** 1864/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Inland winds over Central America reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model with an accelerated decay rate used to account for enhanced topography. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon observations from Martinique and Belize. ******************************************************************************** 1864/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm analyzed to be stationary for four days duration. An alternative solution to being stationary for four days is that the storm completed a tight (but slow) loop during this time. However, the data available does not provide enough detail to fully document that a loop actually occurred. ******************************************************************************** 1864/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon several ship observations. ******************************************************************************** 1865/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No track available, only one point. ******************************************************************************** 1865/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No track available, only one point. ******************************************************************************** 1865/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. ******************************************************************************** 1865/04: This hurricane was originally listed as #5 in 1865 in Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Added additional day at end of the track over Louisiana and Arkansas to provide a reasonable decay of the hurricane. Inland winds over SE US reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon observations from Guadeloupe and Louisiana. This system is known as the "Sabine River- Lake Calcasieu Storm" in Ludlum (1963). ******************************************************************************** 1865/05: This storm was originally listed as #7 in 1865 in Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No major changes from their analysis. No track is available, only one point. ******************************************************************************** 1865/06: This hurricane was originally listed as #6 in 1865 in Partagas and and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No major changes from their analysis. No track available, only one point. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon observations from the ship "Teresa". ******************************************************************************** 1865/07: This hurricane was originally listed as #8 in 1865 in Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Havana central pressure observation of 975 mb gives 83 kt with the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship, utilizing 80 kt in best track. Inland winds over Cuba and Florida reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon numerous ship reports and observations taken in Cuba. 1865/07 - 2003 REVISION: 02695 10/18/1865 M= 8 7 SNBR= 92 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 02695 10/18/1865 M= 8 7 SNBR= 94 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 ** 02700 10/18* 95 804 40 0* 97 804 40 0*100 805 40 0*102 806 40 0 02705 10/19*105 806 40 0*107 808 40 0*110 810 50 0*113 811 50 0 02710 10/20*118 813 50 0*123 814 50 0*129 816 60 0*137 818 60 0 02715 10/21*143 820 60 0*152 823 60 0*159 824 70 0*169 826 70 0 02720 10/22*179 828 80 0*189 830 80 0*200 830 90 0*212 829 90 0 02725 10/23*227 825 80 975*242 819 90 0*257 810 90 0*271 798 80 0 02725 10/23*226 826 80 975*238 821 90 0*250 814 90 0*265 802 80 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 02730 10/24*286 783 80 0*301 769 80 0*314 753 80 0*325 731 80 0 02730 10/24*282 788 80 0*299 772 80 0*314 753 80 0*325 731 80 0 *** *** *** *** 02735 10/25*335 706 70 0*347 683 70 0*360 660 70 0*373 635 70 0 02740 HRBFL2CFL1 U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data ---------------------------- #/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States Winds Simpson Pressure Affected 7-10/23/1865$ 0700Z 24.6N 81.7W 90kt 2 (969mb) BFL2 7-10/23/1865$ 1000Z 24.6N 81.7W 90kt 2 (969mb) BFL2 **** 7-10/23/1865$ 1100Z 25.5N 81.2W 90kt 2 (969mb) BFL2,CFL1 7-10/23/1865$ 1400Z 25.4N 81.1W 90kt 2 (969mb) BFL2,CFL1 **** **** **** Mr. Brian Jones of the University of Miami uncovered observations from the U.S. military base Fort Jefferson west of Key West: Fort Jefferson (24.7N, 82.8W): Date 12Z 19Z 02Z 10/20/1865 NE-2 NE-2 NE-2 "9AM-?, 1.60" 10/21/1865 NE-4 NE-4 NE-10 10/22/1865 NE-10 N-4 N-4 "Rain 11AM-?, 2.50" Military Post Wind Force Scale (values are estimates of the highest gusts) ------------------------------------------- 1 - Very light breeze 2 mph (2 kt) 2 - Gentle breeze 4 mph (4 kt) 3 - Fresh breeze 12 mph (10 kt) 4 - Strong breeze 25 mph (22 kt) 5 - High breeze 35 mph (30 kt) 6 - Gale 45 mph (39 kt) 7 - Strong gale 60 mph (51 kt) 8 - Violent gale 75 mph (65 kt) 9 - Hurricane 90 mph (78 kt) 10 - Most violent 100 mph (87 kt) These observations indicate that the hurricane's landfall over the Florida Keys was somewhat later than the 07Z on the 23rd as originally estimated. Based upon these data, the timing of the track is adjusted back in time on the 23rd and 24th slightly. This allows for landfall to occur in the Keys around 10Z. ******************************************************************************** 1865 - Additional Notes: 1. The tropical storm listed as #4 in 1865 in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) was not included into the HURDAT because of evidence suggesting that the storm did not actually exist. Partagas and Diaz had found an unsupported reference to it in Tannehill (1938), but no other information. ******************************************************************************** 1866/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No track available, only one point. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon reports from Matagorda, Texas. 1866/01 - 2003 REVISION: 02685 07/15/1866 M= 1 1 SNBR= 93 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 02685 07/11/1866 M= 6 1 SNBR= 95 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 ** * ** (The 11th to the 14th are new to HURDAT.) 02686 07/11* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*280 873 90 0*280 878 90 0 02687 07/12*280 883 90 0*280 888 90 0*281 893 90 0*281 899 90 0 02688 07/13*281 905 90 0*281 911 90 0*282 917 90 0*282 923 90 0 02689 07/14*282 929 90 0*282 935 90 0*283 941 90 0*283 947 90 0 02690 07/15* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*285 965 90 0* 0 0 0 0 02690 07/15*284 953 90 0*285 959 90 0*285 965 90 0*286 971 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** (The 16th is new to HURDAT.) 02691 07/16*286 977 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 02695 HRBTX2 Analysis by Roth (1997a) provides additional information for this hurricane which was previously listed as a "single-point" storm in HURDAT. Roth writes: "July 12-13th, 1866: A storm moved well off the coast of Louisiana. On the 11th at 28.5N 87.3W, a three-masted schooner was dismasted in heavy seas. Winds "blew hard" at New Orleans for a few hours on the evening of the 12th. Tides increased until daybreak the 13th. Damage was seen at the Timbalier Bay lighthouse. "Ugly, threatening weather" hit on the 12th. Three feet of water surrounded the tower. Wave action knocked away two brick piers, as 24 hours of pounding surf broke against the lighthouse. The keeper became spooked by the combination of weather condition and loneliness, and "promptly resigned"." Based upon this description, the track was extended back to the 11th for this hurricane. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Texas. ******************************************************************************** 1866/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Inland winds over Mexico reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model with an accelerated rate of decay to account for enhanced topography. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon observations from the ship "A. E. Patterson" and the Fortress Monroe. ******************************************************************************** 1866/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon reports from ships "Messina" and "Robert Wing". ******************************************************************************** 1866/04: Major change from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis is to not assume that the hurricane was stationary for three days at 15N and 29.5W. Only one six-hourly position/intensity is provided on 12 UTC of the 18th. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon ship reports from the "Iddo Kimball". ******************************************************************************** 1866/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. ******************************************************************************** 1866/06: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Central pressure observation from Nassau with 938 mb gives 120 kt with the southern wind-pressure relationship, which is used in the best track. Storm is determined to have reached major hurricane status based upon this central pressure measurement as well as several ship reports. This system is known as the "Great Nassau Hurricane of 1866" (Ludlum 1963). ******************************************************************************** 1866/07: Major change from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis is to extend track back one day to the 28th based upon discussion in their analysis. Inland winds over New England reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon observations at Fortune Island, Bahamas. ******************************************************************************** 1866 - Additional Notes: 1. The tropical storm listed as #8 in 1866 in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) was not included into the HURDAT because of evidence suggesting that the storm did not actually exist. Partagas and Diaz had found an unsupported reference to it in Tannehill (1938), but no other information. It is likely that this case was confused with storm 1867/09, which hit at the exact same place at exactly the same time of year. 2. The tropical storm listed as #9 in 1866 in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) was not included into the HURDAT because of evidence suggesting that the storm did not actually exist. Partagas and Diaz had found an unsupported reference to it in Tannehill (1938) and Dunn and Miller (1960), but no other information. It is likely that this case was actually storm 1866/01. ******************************************************************************** 1867/01 - 2003 ADDITION: 02901 06/21/1867 M= 3 1 SNBR= 102 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 02902 06/21* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*295 800 50 0*303 801 60 0 02903 06/22*311 800 60 0*318 799 70 0*325 798 70 0*332 796 60 0 02904 06/23*339 794 50 0*345 792 40 0*350 790 40 0*355 788 40 0 02905 HR SC1 This is a new hurricane that has been uncovered by the work of Prof. Cary Mock at the University of South Carolina. The information that he provided (included in total below) shows that a Category 1 hurricane made landfall in South Carolina. As the storm made landfall just to the east of Charleston and the city received approximately 60 kt of winds (based upon wind-caused damage) while on the weak side of storm, peak intensity is judged to be about 70 kt at landfall occurring between Charleston and Georgetown. Here are excerpts from local papers that Prof. Mock was able to obtain: Charleston Daily Courier, Monday, June 24: THE WEATHER. - The heavy and continuous rains from Wednesday last, reported in Saturday's Courier, culminated Friday night and Saturday morning in the heaviest rains and one of the severest gales witnessed here for several years. On Friday night the shipping at the wharves had to be doubly secured, and between nine and ten o'clock, Saturday morning, the wind seemed to reach its highest, blowing almost a perfect hurricane from the Northeast, for nearly two hours. Its effects at sea, we fear, have been disastrous. The harbor presented a very black and terrible appearance. In the city a number of wharves sustained considerable damage, houses were unroofed, chimneys blown down, trees torn up by their roots, and large branches blown from others, blocking up streets and sidewalks. The tin roof of the New Custom House on East Bay, near Market-street, was blown off and carried by the wind to the corner of Cumberland and East Bay, a distance of between three and four hundred feet. The tin was afterwards removed by the Custom House laborers into the Custom House yard. Two large derricks on the South side of the building were also blown down, crushing in their fall a number of the beautifully cut and costly cap and cave stones, besides killing a cow belonging to Mrs. Jenkins. The steamer Huron, lying at the Custom House Wharf, was overflowed and sunk. The gale moderated Saturday afternoon, and on Sunday the skies had again become clear. We learn from Dr. George S. Pelzer, City Registrar, that the fall of rain from Wednesday to Saturday inclusive, was seven and a half inches, three inches of which fell on Saturday. This is said to have been the heaviest fall of rain since 1824. Charleston Daily Courier, Monday, June 24: Marine News: A GALE IN JUNE. - After some days of unsettled weather, accompanied with rain, the wind commenced blowing a heavy gale from the Northeast at an early hour on Saturday, and about seven to eight o'clock it had increased to the force of an equinoctial blow, but moderated about midday. The shipping and wharves being generally in fair order, got off with little damage, the injuries being quite unimportant. The steamers Pilot Bay, from Savannah, and Dictator, from Florida, arrived safely on Sunday, without injury. The Dictator experienced the blow on her passage from Fernandina to Savannah, and had a part of it after she anchored in Savannah River. She reports the wind from North to Northwest, with a very heavy sea. A brig, name unknown, had dragged ashore near Tybee. Charleston Daily Courier, Tuesday, June 25: THE WEATHER. - After four days of rain and wind, the sun shone out beautifully yesterday, imparting new life and hope to Nature and her children. What damage has been done to the crops we are not yet sufficiently informed to speak with certainty. There is reason to apprehend that the cotton and corn in the low country, at least, have been seriously injured, and there is little doubt that the whole rice crop on Cooper River has been largely, if not entirely destroyed. So far as we have been able to learn, the wind-storm prevailed only immediately on the coast, though the rain fell continuously three days in most of the Districts in the State. We hope to receive more detailed intelligence to-day. Charleston Mercury, Monday, June 24: Marine News. SAVANNAH, June 23. - The brig W.H. Parks was blown ashore on Tybee, during the gale of yesterday. It is supposed that she will get off. Charleston Mercury, Monday, June 24: DANGEROUS RUINS. - During the gale on Saturday the walls of Tobias' old building, at the corner of Vendue Range and East Bay, were rocked to and fro to such a degree that their fall was momentarily expected... Charleston Mercury, Monday, June 24: THE GREAT STORM. - DAMAGE DONE THE TREES, WHARVES, THE BUILDINGS, AND THE CITY CROPS. - The storm of rain which has been passing over the city for more than four days reached its height on Saturday, and was then accompanied by a storm of wind which might fully be termed a hurricane. Such a storm at this season has not been known in the memory of citizens who have resided here for nearly a century, and the last storm which equaled it in power and fury took place in the Fall of 1854. In the city the amount and value of injury done cannot be well estimated, but a few particulars will enable our readers to judge for themselves. Trees were blown down in every direction. On Orange-street a tree one yard in diameter was uprooted, and all the fruit and ornamental trees throughout the city have been damaged. The grape vines suffered particularly, and all of the corn in the various garden lots has been blown down almost without exception. The tin roof of the new Custom House was rolled up by the wind and carried by it to the corner of Cumberland-street, and the derricks in front of the Custom House were blown down, killing a cow in their fall. A portion of the roof of the South Carolina Railroad freight depot was rolled up, but secured and fastened down before any damage had been done to the building or its contents. The roof of the shed on Brown's wharf was damaged, the roof of that on Kerr's wharf was also damaged, and some little damage was done to the roof of Atlantic wharf. The bathing house was injured; three breaches were made in the East Battery, and an iron stand near the corner of Church and Broad streets were forced to the ground. Yet, whatever the damage done in the city, it will be nothing in comparison with that done in the country districts. In another column will be found some account of the injury done by the rains alone, and we await with many misgivings, the accounts of the ravages of the great storm of June 22, 1867. Samuel Porcher Gaillard (Sumter Dist.), June 22: Thermometer at 5 A.M. 70, 12 N 65, 9 PM 60. Rain all night and ceased about daylight at half past 6 A.M. began again & [never ceased] at times very hard up to this time 9 P.M. has not ceased. Wind & clouds from N. East from 12 N Wind ???? David Golightly Harris (Spartanburg), June 22: Rain... The land was entirely too wet. This evening it is raining again June 23 - Rain. All last night there was a constant gentile rain. It has been raining incessantly to day (11 o'clock) and no prospect of its ceasing. Much fear is entertained that wheat will be injured in the shock. None has been threshed yet & no prospect of suitable weather for the business. This is a gloomy Sunday June 24 - Rain. Rain. Rain. Jacob Schirmer (Charleston): June 22nd - Weather the past week has been almost one Continuous Rain and that in torrents and this morning, something of a Severe Gale, and quite cool. Great fears are entertained that our staple crops have suffered very materially. William J. Ball (Limerick Plantation): June 19-22 - Heavy & Continuous Rain, Heaviest Freshet since 1837 Elias Horry (Georgetown): June 22 - Gale Hilton Head weather record: June 22nd - 7am:SE4, 2pm:NE4, 9pm:NE4, 2.04" precipitation. (The numbers indicate force with a scale from 0 to 6. 0 indicates calm and 6 indicates a violent storm.) Glennie weather record, Georgetown, SC: June 22nd - Sunrise:NE6-very heavy rain, 2pm:E6-rain/gale, 9pm:E2-showery. Statesville NC weather record: June 22 (7/2/9) - E4 E4 E4... rain started at 8 pm June 23 - rain ended at 11 am... total 2 inches for storm... E4 E4 E4 The Daily News and Herald (Savannah), June 24, p. 3: The Gale of Saturday Morning One of the most terrific gales that has ever passed over the city since 1854, occurred on Saturday morning last. It commenced at half-past six o'clock. At seven it was at its height, destroying beautiful shade trees, carrying away awnings, portions of tin roofs gutters under the eaves of houses, conductors on the sides of buildings, window shutters, etc. The steamer Gen. Berry, lying moored to the wharf at Capt. Rufus P. Hawkes' ship yard, opposite Abercorn street, parted her fastenings and was driven to the Savannah shore of the river. No damage was done to her. The steamer Annie, lying at the Hutchinson Island shore of the Savannah river, at the pilings opposite West Broad street, had her sails, which were chewed up, blown into ribbons, and her sides, which are torn, chafed by coming in contact with the pilings to which she is moored. On the Thunderbold Road a frame two-story building, in the course of erection for Mr. Frederick A. Schultz by Bostock & Hobson, was blown down. A tree, during the gale, fell at the southwest corner of Indian and West Broad streets, carrying away the brick fence of the Guerard buildings. Further up Indian street, a large tree fell on a building owned by Mrs. Farry, crushing in the roof. On Bryan street, a tree fell against the residence of Mrs. Sarah Puder, crushing in the windows of the second story. Messrs. Wylly and Meinhard's building, on the south side of Broughton street, had a portion of its tin roof blown away. At Mr. Maupu's farm on the White Bluff Road, had several trees prostrated, breaking down his fences, which were newly erected. Up to the hour of writing we have not heard of any accidents. The crops in every portion of this county have greatly suffered, although we are hopeful that the destruction is not so great as is apprehended. The Daily News and Herald (Savannah), June 24, p. 2: THE WEATHER - We have never experienced more unpleasant and depressing weather than that which has been prevailing hereabouts for the last five days, and we regret to learn that the continued heavy rains have thrown a deep gloom upon the countenances of planters in this section. New York Times, Marine Intelligence, July 1: Brig, Alex Milliken - June 21 and 22, had a very heavy N.E. gale; split and lost sails, and lost deck-load of molasses. New York Times, Marine Intelligence, June 30: Brig Agnes (Br) - June 21, lat. 30 12, lon. 79 18, had a heavy gale from S.E. to N.E., and back to S.E., with increased violence, with high sea running, sprung a leak, lost one boat, stove bulwarks, started headrails, &c. New York Herald, Marine Disasters, July 5: BRIG W H PARKS, which was blown ashore at Tybee during the recent heavy gale, and from her position was considered as being virtually lost and only worthy of abandonment, was got off 30th ult, sustaining but little damage, and as she was fully repaired. New York Herald, Marine Disasters, July 4: SCHR MARTHA ANN, McCormick, which sailed from Charleston some days since for New York, with a cargo of lumber, returned to Charleston on Saturday last, having experienced heavy gales on the 21st and 22d June, off Cape Lookout, during which lost deck load, sprung a leak, split sails, and has sustained other damage. She has put back to C for repairs. New York Herald, Marine Disasters, July 3: BRIG HENRY LAURENS,... for New York, before reported put into Charleston 28th ult. leaky, reports June 19 off Sand Key Light, coast of Florida, experienced heavy blows, varying from NE to SE, with short cross seas, causing the vessel to labor and sprung a leak; on the 22d, had heavy gales from the south, with short head sea, the vessel making water badly... New York Herald, Marine Disasters, July 2: BARK J CUMMING (Br), Hookway, at Charleston from Newport... June 22, when near Charleston, experienced a severe gale from the northeast to northwest in which lost two lower topsails, split other sails, and caused the bark to leak... New York Herald, Marine Disasters, July 2: SCHR FOAMING SEA, North, at Charleston, from Baltimore on the 22nd ult, off Cape Romain, experienced a severe eastern gale, and had part of the bulwarks carried away... flying jib, and sustained other damage. New York Herald, Marine Disasters, July 1: BRIG WM SPARK, of Philadelphia, parted her chains in a NE gale June 22, and went ashore Tybee Island. From the _Wadesboro Argus_, North Carolina: On Sunday [June 23] last this immediate section was visited by another heavy and destructive rain storm, heavier, it is said to have been, than those mentioned by us a week or two ago. For three hours, from 8 to 11 A.M., the rain fell in torrents, beating down small grain not yet cut, also corn and cotton, and washing lands. We hear of great destruction on all sides of us in consequence of the creeks and branches being unusually swelled, and of large quantities of wheat in the shock, left in the low grounds, floated off, and fences swept away. From the _Wilmington Dispatch_, North Carolina: The Wilmington Dispatch [from the Raleigh Weekly Sentinel], July 2, speaking of the freshet in the Cape Fear: We learn that, in consequence of recent rains, the Cape Fear has risen thirty feet at Fayetteville, at which it stood when our informant left. But it was the general opinion that the volume of water poured out from the clouds within the last ten days had not yet affected the river, the present freshet being the result of the previous rains. The Lincolnton Courier says of the rains of that region [from the Raleigh Weekly Sentinel, July 2]: The terrible rains that have fallen during the past week will ruin the Planting interest on low lands throughout this section of country. Reports received are truly distressing. The Asheville News says of the late rains [from the Raleigh Weekly Sentinel, July 2]: On Sunday last the windows of heaven were opened and poured out another deluge of rain upon Asheville, almost as destructive as that we received a few weeks ago. Gardens suffered considerably, and many of the new fences and bridges were washed off. We have heard that in some places the wheat was injured. From the _Asheville News_, North Carolina: On Sunday last the windows of heaven were opened and poured out another deluge of rain upon Asheville, almost as destructive as that we received a few weeks ago. Gardens suffered considerably, and many of the new fences and and bridges were washed off. We have heard that in some places the wheat was injured. The Wilmington Journal speaking of the damage done the crops in the Eastern Counties by the late rains says [from the Raleigh Weekly Sentinel, July 2]: The effect of the recent rains upon the crops in all the Eastern portion of the State has been most disastrous. The damage sustained by planters in Brunswick, Bladen, New Hanover, Onslow, Dunlin, Sampson, Edgecombe, and all the Eastern counties, so far as heard from, has been very serious and almost irreparable. The corn and cotton crop have received a most severe blow, while the rice crop in this section has been almost entirely ruined. Along the line of the Cape Fear, and in fact in all the lowlands of the countries named, the damage is very apparent, and the pernicious results of the recent terrible rains will be long remembered. At no time could a more severe blow in this section befall us than at present, when our future prosperity so greatly depends upon an abundant yield. Weekly North Carolina Standard (Raleigh),Wen. July 3, 1867, p. 3: Sunday was the hottest day we have had so far this year, the thermometer reaching 99 deg. in the shade. It was also the first day since Sunday the 16th in which there has not some rain, at least a few drops, fallen here in Raleigh. The amount of rain for the month has been enormous, measuring nine inches and a half in depth between the 16th and 27th, and over fourteen inches in all. James Harvey Greenlee (McDowell Ct., NC): June 22 - Cloud warm June 23 - It rained all day June 24 - Rained last night creek quite flush... A wet day. Weather observer data from Fort Monroe, VA, located near Norfolk: On June 23, it started to rain beginning at 4 pm and by 4:40 pm the next day it rained 1.95 inches. Written comments indicate "Rain began in the night. Foggy & high winds during the day, Thunder & Lightning at night & Showers." Observations of winds at 7 am, 2 pm and 9 pm on the 23rd were E 1, E 2, and E 2 respectively, changing to SE 1, SE 2, and NE 1 the next day. ******************************************************************************** 1867/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis (was storm #1 originally in the Partagas and Diaz report). Ship with a central pressure observation of 969 mb gives 83 kt with the northern wind-pressure relationship, 80 kt is used in the best track. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon the above central pressure measurement as well as several ship reports. Storm is known as the "Early August Offshore Hurricane of 1867" in Ludlum (1963). ******************************************************************************** 1867/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis (was storm #2 originally in the Partagas and Diaz report). No track available, only one point. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon observations from the ship "Suwanee". ******************************************************************************** 1867/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis (was storm #3 originally in the Partagas and Diaz report). Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon observations from the ship "Helen R. Cooper". ******************************************************************************** 1867/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis (was storm #4 originally in the Partagas and Diaz report). No track available, only one point. ******************************************************************************** 1867/06: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis (was storm #5 originally in the Partagas and Diaz report). Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon several ship observations. ******************************************************************************** 1867/07: Added a track for October 6-9th to database from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) writeup suggestion (was storm #6 originally in the Partagas and Diaz report). Also moved track closer to Brownsville, Texas, as it appears that the town was in the western eyewall. Inland winds over SE US reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model. Storm tide value of 7' from Ludlum (1963) for Galveston, Texas. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon damage and storm tide observations from Texas and Louisiana. System is known as the "Galveston Hurricane of 1867" in Ludlum (1963). ******************************************************************************** 1867/08: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis (was storm #7 originally in the Partagas and Diaz report). No track available, only one point. ******************************************************************************** 1867/09: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis (was storm #8 originally in the Partagas and Diaz report). Ship with central pressure observation of 952 mb gives 108 kt with the southern wind-pressure relationship, but since the RMW may have been on the order of 5 nmi, a higher wind of 120 kt is assigned in best track. Storm is determined to have reached major hurricane status based upon the above central pressure and destruction that occurred in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. Hurricane is also known as "San Narciso" for effects in Puerto Rico on October 29th. 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 below tropical storm strength). 1867/09 - 2003 REVISION: 03205 10/27/1867 M= 5 9 SNBR= 108 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 03205 10/27/1867 M= 5 9 SNBR= 110 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 *** 03210 10/27*190 505 40 0*190 515 40 0*190 526 50 0*190 537 50 0 03215 10/28*190 550 60 0*190 563 60 0*190 577 70 0*191 592 80 0 03215 10/28*190 550 60 0*190 563 60 0*190 577 70 0*190 592 80 0 *** 03220 10/29*190 607 90 0*189 620 100 0*185 633 110 0*182 648 120 952 03220 10/29*190 607 90 0*189 620 100 0*186 633 110 0*184 648 100 952 *** *** *** 03225 10/30*182 665 110 0*182 681 100 0*182 696 100 0*184 715 70 0 03225 10/30*183 665 80 0*182 681 70 0*182 696 80 0*184 715 60 0 *** *** *** *** ** 03230 10/31*186 735 50 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 03230 10/31*186 735 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 ** 03235 HR Boose et al.'s (2003) analysis of hurricanes that made landfall in Puerto Rico documented that this hurricane caused only Fujita-scale F1 damages in the eastern and central portions of the island, not the F3 destruction expected from a 120 kt Category 4 hurricane making landfall. Additionally, E. Boose (2003, personal communication) suggested that the track may, instead of going over Puerto Rico, have skirted just to the north of the island. However, after a re-review of the limited meteorological data available as well as the descriptive accounts from local reports at the time of the hurricane (J. Colon, 2003, personal communication) suggest that the hurricane did indeed cross the island from east to west, but as a substantially weaker system (Category 2 - 90 kt). While good evidence exists for major hurricane status farther east in the Virgin Islands with the 952 mb central pressure, it is surmised that the hurricane began weakening fairly rapidly thereafter - which would not be unusual for a late October hurricane. Winds are thus adjusted downward from the 29th to the 31st and the track is slightly adjusted to better match a track crossing over Fujardo, Caguas and Mayaguez in Puerto Rico. This adjustment to Category 2 landfall in Puerto Rico is now consistent with descriptions of more intense events (Category 4 - 1899, Category 3 - 1876, 1893, 1894) during the second half of the 19th Century. ******************************************************************************** 1868/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon several ship reports. ******************************************************************************** 1868/02: No major alterations from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. ******************************************************************************** 1868/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon reports from ships "Mary E. Mangan" and "Haidee". ******************************************************************************** 1868/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon observations from multiple ship observations. ******************************************************************************** 1869/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon observations from the ships "Olaf Nicklesen" and "Prinze Frederik". ******************************************************************************** 1869/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Inland winds over Texas reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model. Storm determined to have reached hurricane status based upon observations from the ship "Julia A. Rider" and from central Texas. The storm is also known as the "Lower Texas Coast Hurricane of 1869" in Ludlum (1963). ******************************************************************************** 1869/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon observations from the ship "Siene". ******************************************************************************** 1869/04: Major change for this storm: A 48 hr track was achieved, while Partagas and Diaz (1995a) had originally kept the storm stationary. Track was achieved by considering the observations from the "Harriet" and "Mary Celeste". ******************************************************************************** 1869/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Inland winds over the Louisiana reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon reports from Grand Isle and New Orleans. ******************************************************************************** 1869/06: Have altered significantly the track from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis based upon Ho's (1989) work, which was apparently not utilized by Partagas and Diaz. Storm tide value of 8' provided by Ho (1989) for Providence, Rhode Island. Ship with central pressure observation of 950 mb gives 97 kt with new northern wind-pressure relationship and Ho's estimated landfall central pressure of 963 mb gives 88 kt. Have assigned 100 kt for six hourly intensity based upon the ship observation and 90 kt at landfall time. Central pressure measurement of 973 mb measured at Milton, MA gives 80 kt with northern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt used in best-track. Storm determined to have reached major hurricane status based central pressure reading of 950 mb as well as several ship reports. Storm also known as the "September Gale of 1869 in Eastern New England" in Ludlum (1963). Inland winds over New England reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model. 1869/06 - 2003 REVISION: 03375 09/07/1869 M= 3 6 SNBR= 117 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 03375 09/07/1869 M= 3 6 SNBR= 119 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 *** * 03380 09/07*270 745 90 0*280 745 90 0*290 744 90 0*301 741 90 0 03385 09/08*313 740 100 0*325 736 100 0*350 733 100 0*388 726 100 950 03390 09/09*428 711 80 973*470 690 60 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 03390 09/09*428 711 80 973*470 690 50 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 ** 03395 HR NY1 RI2 MA2 CT1 03395 HR NY1 RI3 MA3 CT1 *** *** U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data ---------------------------- #/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States Winds Simpson Pressure Affected 6-9/8/1869& 2100Z 41.0N 71.9W 70kt 1 963mb NY1 6-9/8/1869& 2100Z 41.0N 71.9W 80kt 1 963mb NY1 ** 6-9/8/1869 2200Z 41.4N 71.7W 90kt 2 965mb RI2,MA2,CT1 6-9/8/1869 2200Z 41.4N 71.7W 100kt 3 965mb RI3,MA3,CT1 *** * *** *** Boose et al. (2001) analyzed this hurricane as a Category 3 at U.S. landfall, based upon widespread reports of wind-caused Fujita-scale 2 damage in New England. Additionally, their reconstructed damage work analyzes a RMW of 30 nmi at landfall, which is substantially smaller than the earlier estimate of 40 nmi from Ho (1989). Ho's 963 mb central pressure estimate suggests 88 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship. With a RMW slightly smaller than that expected climatologically (around 34 nmi) for that central pressure and latitude (Vickery et al. 2000), winds somewhat higher than what the wind-pressure relationship suggests should be used. Additionally, the extremely rapid forward motion of the hurricane (around 40 kt) would also argue for higher winds than is usual on the right semi-circle of the hurricane. Based upon all of these points, the estimated maximum sustained winds at landfall are increased from 90 kt (Category 2) to 100 kt (Category 3), making this a major hurricane landfall in New England. (No changes were needed for the 6 hourly intervals within HURDAT.) Additionally, as the first Kaplan and DeMaria inland decay model was utilized for this hurricane, it was appropriate to review the results with the inland decay model explicitly designed for New England landfalling tropical cyclones (Kaplan and DeMaria 2001). This model does decay systems faster and suggests a downward revision to the winds at 06Z on the 9th, which is reflected in the revised HURDAT. ******************************************************************************** 1869/07: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Ship with central pressure observation of 979 mb gives 79 kt with southern wind-pressure relationship, thus 80 kt is assigned to the best track. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon the above central pressure reading and several ship observations. ******************************************************************************** 1869/08: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No track available, only one point. ******************************************************************************** 1869/09: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No track available, only one point. ******************************************************************************** 1869/10: Major alteration is to shift track farther to the west over New England to account for observations at Nantucket Island and Gardiner as described in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) and to take into account new analysis by Abraham et al. (1998). Abraham et al. showed that this hurricane was undergoing extratropical transition as it interacted with (and was likely absorbed by) a secondary, baroclinic low on the 5th of October. Pressure reading of 972 mb not in hurricane's center (at 18 UTC, 4th of October) suggests winds of at least 80 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt chosen for best track. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon above peripheral pressure reading, several ship reports and the destruction caused in Massachusetts and Maine. Inland winds over New England and Canada reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model. Storm surge of 6-7' is estimated to have occurred in the Upper Bay of Fundy, Canada (Parkes et al. 1998). Hurricane is also known as the "Saxby's Gale" from description given in Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) and Ludlum's (1963) report. 1869/10 - 2003 REVISION: 03480 10/04/1869 M= 2 10 SNBR= 121 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 03480 10/04/1869 M= 2 10 SNBR= 124 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 *** 03485 10/04*315 755 90 0*345 730 90 0*377 715 90 0*407 706 90 0 03490 10/05*440 700 80 0*465 685 70 0*480 655 60 0* 0 0 0 0 03490 10/05*440 700 80 0*465 685 60 0*480 655 50 0* 0 0 0 0 ** ** 03495 HR MA1 ME1 U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data ---------------------------- #/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States Winds Simpson Pressure Affected 10-10/4/1869& 1900Z 41.3N 70.5W 70kt 1 (960mb) MA1 10-10/4/1869& 1900Z 41.3N 70.5W 80kt 1 (965mb) MA1 ** *** 10-10/4/1869& 2000Z 41.7N 70.4W 70kt 1 (960mb) MA1 10-10/4/1869& 2000Z 41.7N 70.4W 80kt 1 (965mb) MA1 ** *** 10-10/4/1869 2300Z 43.7N 70.1W 80kt 1 (972mb) ME1 10-10/4/1869 2300Z 43.7N 70.1W 90kt 2 (968mb) ME2 ** * *** *** Boose et al. (2001 and personal communication) analyzed this hurricane as a Category 2 impact in Massachusetts and Category 3 impact in Maine during its U.S. landfall. The original HURDAT had this hurricane listed as being a high end Category 2 as it made U.S. landfall (90 kt), but with the RMW staying offshore near Massachusetts. Given the low number of reports utilized in the reconstructed versus actual damage in their damage-based empirical wind modeling work for this case, a boost to the winds at landfall to this extent is does not have enough substantiation. However, estimates of winds at landfall are increased moderately, though this does not necessitate any changes to the 6-hourly HURDAT itself. Boose et al. (2001) also estimated a RMW of 30 nmi at landfall, which does suggest a slightly higher central pressure to match the 90 kt given a slightly smaller than usual RMW for this windspeed and latitude (Vickery et al. 2000). Additionally, as the first Kaplan and DeMaria inland decay model was utilized for this hurricane, it was appropriate to review the results with the inland decay model explicitly designed for New England landfalling tropical cyclones (Kaplan and DeMaria 2001). This model does decay systems faster and suggests a downward revision to the winds at 06 and 12Z on the 5th, which is reflected in the revised HURDAT. ******************************************************************************** 1870/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No track available, only one point. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon damage reports from Mobile, Alabama. Storm is also known as the "Mobile Storm of July 1870" in Ludlum (1963). ******************************************************************************** 1870/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status from several ship reports. ******************************************************************************** 1870/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Ship with central pressure observation of 1004 mb gives 39 kt with southern wind-pressure relationship, thus 40 kt is assigned to the best track. ******************************************************************************** 1870/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Ship with central pressure observation of 948 mb gives 98 kt with northern wind-pressure relationship, thus 100 kt is assigned to the best track. Storm is suggested to have reached major hurricane status based upon the above central pressure reading. ******************************************************************************** 1870/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Ship with central pressure observation of 969 mb gives 83 kt with northern wind-pressure relationship, thus 80 kt is assigned to the best track. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon above central pressure reading as well as several ship reports. ******************************************************************************** 1870/06: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Central pressure observation over Cuba of 969 mb gives 91 kt with southern wind-pressure relationship, thus 90 kt is assigned to the best track. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon the above central pressure measurement, several ship reports and destruction that occurred in Cuba. This system is known as the first of the "Twin Key West Hurricanes in 1870" in Ludlum (1963). 1870/06 - 2003 REVISION: 03635 10/05/1870 M=10 6 SNBR= 127 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 03635 10/05/1870 M=10 6 SNBR= 130 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 *** 03640 10/05*175 740 40 0*181 750 40 0*187 760 50 0*191 770 50 0 03645 10/06*195 780 60 0*200 791 60 0*205 800 70 0*210 804 70 0 03650 10/07*214 809 80 0*217 813 80 0*221 816 90 969*224 819 90 0 03650 10/07*214 809 80 0*217 813 90 0*221 816 100 959*224 819 100 0 ** *** *** *** 03655 10/08*227 821 80 0*231 821 80 0*234 820 90 0*237 819 90 0 03655 10/08*227 821 90 0*231 821 80 0*234 820 90 0*237 819 90 0 ** 03660 10/09*239 818 90 0*241 816 90 0*242 814 90 0*244 811 90 0 03665 10/10*245 810 90 0*246 808 90 0*247 806 90 0*249 803 90 0 03670 10/11*251 800 90 0*252 798 90 0*255 795 90 0*258 790 90 0 03675 10/12*262 786 90 0*265 781 90 0*268 776 80 0*273 770 80 0 03680 10/13*278 763 70 0*283 756 70 0*289 749 60 0*295 740 60 0 03680 10/13*278 763 80 0*283 756 80 0*289 749 70 0*295 740 70 0 ** ** ** ** 03685 10/14*301 729 60 0*307 718 60 0*314 705 60 0*322 691 60 0 03685 10/14*301 729 70 0*307 718 70 0*314 705 70 0*322 691 70 0 ** ** ** ** 03690 HRBFL1 03690 HRBFL1CFL1 **** U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data ---------------------------- #/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States Winds Simpson Pressure Affected 6-10/10/1870$* 0500Z 24.6N 80.8W 70kt 1 (970mb) BFL1 6-10/10/1870$* 0500Z 24.6N 80.8W 70kt 1 (970mb) BFL1,CFL1 **** Re-analysis effort by meteorologists in Cuba (Perez 2000) have uncovered that the central pressure for this hurricane was 959 mb (at Nueva Paz on the 8th), which suggests winds of 101 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 100 kt used for the best track. This is consistent with the assessment of landfall as a Category 3 hurricane at landfall in Cuba (Perez 2000). The original listing of 969 mb for a central pressure (12Z on the 7th) was determined to be, instead, a peripheral pressure from Matanzas. The hurricane is known as El Huracan de San Marcos for its impacts in Cuba (Perez 2000). The U.S. landfall designation also includes the CFL1 (Southeast Florida) because of the new geographical designation implemented by NHC in 2000. 1870/06 - 2006 REVISION: 03820 10/05/1870 M=10 6 SNBR= 131 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 03820 10/05/1870 M=10 6 SNBR= 131 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=1 * 03825 10/05*175 740 40 0*181 750 40 0*187 760 50 0*191 770 50 0* 03830 10/06*195 780 60 0*200 791 60 0*205 800 70 0*210 804 70 0* 03835 10/07*214 809 80 0*217 813 90 0*221 816 100 959*224 819 100 0* 03840 10/08*227 821 90 0*231 821 80 0*234 820 90 0*237 819 90 0* 03845 10/09*239 818 90 0*241 816 90 0*242 814 90 0*244 811 90 0* 03850 10/10*245 810 90 0*246 808 90 0*247 806 90 0*249 803 90 0* 03855 10/11*251 800 90 0*252 798 90 0*255 795 90 0*258 790 90 0* 03860 10/12*262 786 90 0*265 781 90 0*268 776 80 0*273 770 80 0* 03865 10/13*278 763 80 0*283 756 80 0*289 749 70 0*295 740 70 0* 03870 10/14*301 729 70 0*307 718 70 0*314 705 70 0*322 691 70 0* 03875 HRBFL1CFL1 As the hurricane's center did not cross the U.S. coastline (but did cause Category 1 conditions at the coast), the XING (continental U.S. landfall indicator) is changed to "0". ******************************************************************************** 1870/07: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No track available, only one point. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon report from the ship "Horatio Harris". ******************************************************************************** 1870/08: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon several ship observations. ******************************************************************************** 1870/09: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Inland winds over Cuba and Florida reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model. Storm is determined to have reached major hurricane status at landfall in Cuba based upon severe damage in Vuelta Abajo and Batabano. This system is known as the second of the "Twin Key West Hurricanes in 1870" in Ludlum (1963). 1870/09 - 2003 REVISION: 03730 10/19/1870 M= 4 9 SNBR= 130 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 03730 10/19/1870 M= 4 9 SNBR= 133 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 *** 03735 10/19*195 841 100 0*199 840 100 0*204 840 100 0*211 839 100 0 03735 10/19*195 841 90 0*199 840 90 0*204 840 90 0*211 839 90 0 *** *** *** *** 03740 10/20*219 836 100 0*229 834 90 0*239 829 80 0*252 820 80 0 03740 10/20*220 837 90 0*231 835 80 0*243 831 80 0*255 823 80 0 *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** 03745 10/21*266 808 70 0*280 793 60 0*291 781 70 0*303 766 70 0 03745 10/21*267 811 70 0*279 797 60 0*291 781 70 0*303 766 70 0 *** *** *** *** 03750 10/22*314 754 70 0*325 740 70 0*335 726 70 0*345 711 70 0 03755 HRBFL1 U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data ---------------------------- #/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States Winds Simpson Pressure Affected 9-10/20/1870$ 1400Z 24.7N 82.8W 80kt 1 (977mb) BFL1 (Landfall over Fort Jefferson is additional strike in U.S.) 9-10/20/1870$ 2100Z 25.9N 81.5W 80kt 1 (977mb) BFL1 9-10/20/1870$ 2000Z 26.0N 81.6W 80kt 1 (977mb) BFL1 **** **** **** Re-analysis effort by Perez (2000) has analyzed this hurricane as a Category 2 landfall in Cuba, instead of a Category 3 assigned in HURDAT (mainly on the hurricane-caused damage). Winds are adjusted accordingly on the 19th and 20th. Mr. Brian Jones of the University of Miami uncovered observations from the U.S. military base Fort Jefferson west of Key West: Fort Jefferson (24.7N, 82.8W): Date 12Z 19Z 02Z 10/19/1870 E-4 E-4 E-3 10/20/1870 E-10 NW-9 SE-5 Remarks: "For several days past the wind has been blowing first from the E and SE. At 9 P.M. Oct. 19th, it began increasing and at 3 A.M. Oct. 20th amounted to a Hurricane. Heavy rainfall, but not lightning or thunder accompanied it. Trees and fences protested, buildings surroofed & debris flying in every direction, making it dangerous to be out. At 8:15 A.M., the wind died completely out in 3 minutes, so close as to be uncomfortable. Suddenly at 9:40 A.M. it set in from the opposite direction, and in twenty minutes increased to a Hurricane. At 2 P.M. began diminishing and at 9 P.M. amounted to a moderate breeze." Military Post Wind Force Scale (values are estimates of the highest gusts) ------------------------------------------- 1 - Very light breeze 2 mph (2 kt) 2 - Gentle breeze 4 mph (4 kt) 3 - Fresh breeze 12 mph (10 kt) 4 - Strong breeze 25 mph (22 kt) 5 - High breeze 35 mph (30 kt) 6 - Gale 45 mph (39 kt) 7 - Strong gale 60 mph (51 kt) 8 - Violent gale 75 mph (65 kt) 9 - Hurricane 90 mph (78 kt) 10 - Most violent 100 mph (87 kt) These additional observations indicate that the hurricane made a direct landfall over the fort at 14Z on the 20th, rather than passing to the east. The track has been adjusted on the 20th and 21st appropriately. ******************************************************************************** 1870/10: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No track available, only one point. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon observations from the ships "R. Murray, Jr." and a Spanish bark. ******************************************************************************** 1870/11: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995b) analysis. Inland winds over Mexico reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model with an accelerated rate of decay to account for the enhanced topography. Storm determined to have reached hurricane status based upon reports from ships "Silver Star" and "Nymph". 1870/11 - 2003 REVISION: 03775 10/30/1870 M= 5 11 SNBR= 132 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 03775 10/30/1870 M= 5 11 SNBR= 135 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 *** 03780 10/30*170 855 60 0*171 856 60 0*172 860 60 0*172 861 60 0 03785 10/31*174 864 70 0*175 866 60 0*177 869 70 0*177 871 70 0 03785 10/31*174 864 70 0*175 866 70 0*177 869 70 0*177 871 70 0 ** 03790 11/01*180 876 70 0*182 878 70 0*185 880 70 0*187 880 60 0 03795 11/02*192 879 50 0*197 876 40 0*204 874 40 0*214 869 50 0 03800 11/03*222 863 60 0*230 856 60 0*237 850 70 0*242 840 70 0 03805 HR Typographical error - the storm was designated as being of hurricane force from 00Z on the 31st until 12Z on the 1st. ******************************************************************************** 1871/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995b) analysis. Track unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993). Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Texas. 999 mb central pressure provides guidance of 47 kt using the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 50 kt chosen in best track. 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 depression strength). 1871/01 - 2003 REVISION: 03915 06/01/1871 M= 5 1 SNBR= 133 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 03915 06/01/1871 M= 5 1 SNBR= 136 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 *** 03920 06/01*241 810 40 0*241 821 40 0*242 836 40 0*247 846 40 0 03925 06/02*252 854 50 0*258 861 50 0*261 873 50 0*265 886 50 0 03930 06/03*268 898 50 0*270 911 50 0*273 924 50 0*277 933 50 0 03935 06/04*282 941 50 0*289 950 50 999*297 956 50 0*303 960 40 0 03935 06/04*282 941 50 0*289 950 50 999*297 956 40 0*303 960 40 0 ** 03940 06/05*311 961 40 0*320 961 40 0*332 958 30 0*350 950 30 0 03945 TS Winds not reduced after landfall occurred until well-inland. Winds decreased at 12Z on the 4th for more realistic decay. ******************************************************************************** 1871/02: 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 Texas. 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 depression strength). ******************************************************************************** 1871/03: Only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) was to extend track of storm one full day into the SE United States to accommodate a typical decay of the hurricane to tropical depression strength, as suggested by the inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995). Partagas and Diaz (1995b) did make large changes to the track found in Neumann et al. (1993), though these are found to be reasonable. 952 mb central pressure provides guidance of 101 kt using the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship - 100 kt used in the best track. 955 mb central pressure provides guidance of 99 kt using the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship - 100 kt used in the best track. Storm is determined to have reached major hurricane status based upon above central pressure measurements. 1871/03 - 2003 REVISION: 03870 08/14/1871 M=10 3 SNBR= 134 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 03870 08/14/1871 M=10 3 SNBR= 137 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 *** * 03875 08/14*265 724 80 0*266 730 80 0*267 736 80 0*268 743 80 0 03875 08/14*265 724 80 0*266 730 80 0*267 736 80 0*267 743 80 0 *** 03880 08/15*269 750 90 0*269 756 90 0*270 765 100 0*270 773 100 952 03880 08/15*268 750 90 0*268 758 90 0*268 767 100 0*268 777 100 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 03885 08/16*271 780 100 0*272 785 100 955*273 791 100 0*274 795 100 0 03885 08/16*268 785 100 952*268 791 100 955*268 795 100 0*269 798 100 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 03890 08/17*275 796 100 0*276 799 100 0*277 800 100 0*279 801 100 0 03890 08/17*270 801 100 0*272 805 90 0*276 811 80 0*283 817 70 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 03895 08/18*282 803 90 0*287 804 90 0*290 805 90 0*294 806 90 0 03895 08/18*290 821 70 0*297 825 60 0*304 823 60 0*308 819 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 03900 08/19*300 806 80 0*307 806 80 0*315 805 80 0*322 798 80 0 03900 08/19*313 814 50 0*318 808 60 0*321 802 60 0*323 796 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 03905 08/20*325 788 80 0*327 776 80 0*327 766 80 0*324 764 80 0 03905 08/20*325 788 60 0*327 776 60 0*326 768 60 0*324 764 60 0 ** ** *** *** ** ** 03910 08/21*320 761 80 0*317 763 80 0*315 765 80 0*311 771 80 0 03910 08/21*320 761 60 0*317 763 60 0*314 765 60 0*312 771 60 0 ** ** *** ** *** ** 03915 08/22*310 780 80 0*310 786 90 0*310 795 90 0*311 804 90 0 03915 08/22*311 780 60 0*310 786 60 0*310 795 60 0*311 804 60 0 *** ** ** ** ** 03920 08/23*312 814 90 0*313 824 60 0*314 835 40 0*314 845 30 0 03920 08/23*312 814 60 0*313 824 50 0*314 835 40 0*314 845 30 0 ** ** 03925 HR GA2DFL1 03925 HRCFL3DFL1AFL1 **** **** U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data ---------------------------- #/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States Winds Simpson Pressure Affected 3-8/18/1871$* 0000Z 28.2N 80.3W 80kt 1 (965mb) DFL1 3-8/17/1871$* 0200Z 27.1N 80.2W 100kt 3 955mb CFL3,DFL1,AFL1 ** ***** ***** ***** ***** * ******* **** **** 3-8/23/1871 0000Z 31.2N 81.3W 90kt 2 (965mb) GA2,DFL1 3-8/23/1871 0000Z 31.2N 81.3W 60kt TS ----- --- **** ** ******* ******** Hurricane is revised from the previously accepted analysis of Partagas and Diaz due to inclusion of work by Ho (1989). In particular, additional observations were provided from New Smyrna, Fairview, Ocala, Picolata, Tampa, Jacksonville (FL), and Savannah (GA). These land-based measurements from Ho's study were key in providing the track alteration to one that made landfall in central east Florida, passed over Ocala, moved west of Jacksonville, then back over water off of southern Georgia. However, Ho's intensity analysis of a 945 mb central pressure is likely too low an estimation as a 955 mb central pressure recorded by the ship "Victor" (as recorded in Partagas and Diaz 1995b) occurred very near the coast, along Jupiter. Hurricane is re-analyzed to come ashore early on the 23rd as a tropical storm in Georgia since there is no evidence that it reintensified to a hurricane after weakening to a tropical storm while over Florida. ******************************************************************************** 1871/04: 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. 965 mb central pressure provides guidance for 95 kt utilizing the southern wind- pressure relationship - 100 kt chosen for best track. 962 mb central pressure suggests 98 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 100 kt chosen for best track. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the SE United States. Storm is determined to have reached major hurricane status based upon above central pressure measurements. This hurricane is known as "Santa Juana" for its impacts in Puerto Rico. 1871/04 - 2003 REVISION: 04035 08/17/1871 M=14 4 SNBR= 136 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 04035 08/17/1871 M=14 4 SNBR= 139 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 *** 04040 08/17*112 307 40 0*115 322 40 0*118 339 40 0*123 355 40 0 04045 08/18*129 374 50 0*135 392 50 0*140 410 50 0*142 425 50 0 04050 08/19*143 445 60 0*145 464 60 0*147 480 70 0*149 499 70 0 04055 08/20*151 522 80 0*153 545 80 0*154 564 90 0*158 582 90 0 04060 08/21*164 600 100 0*171 616 100 0*177 629 100 965*182 640 100 0 04065 08/22*189 653 100 962*195 665 100 0*200 675 90 0*207 686 90 0 04070 08/23*212 696 90 0*220 710 90 0*225 723 90 0*232 735 90 0 04075 08/24*241 750 90 0*250 764 90 0*257 776 90 0*263 786 90 0 04080 08/25*270 795 90 0*277 805 90 0*283 813 70 0*289 819 50 0 04080 08/25*270 795 90 0*277 805 90 0*283 813 70 0*289 822 50 0 *** 04085 08/26*294 825 40 0*299 831 40 0*305 843 40 0*309 845 40 0 04085 08/26*294 831 40 0*299 838 40 0*305 843 40 0*309 845 40 0 *** *** 04090 08/27*313 845 30 0*317 844 30 0*320 840 30 0*320 835 30 0 04090 08/27*313 845 30 0*317 844 30 0*320 840 30 0*321 835 30 0 *** 04095 08/28*322 831 30 0*322 825 30 0*323 820 30 0*324 810 30 0 04095 08/28*322 830 30 0*322 825 30 0*323 821 30 0*324 810 30 0 *** *** 04100 08/29*325 799 40 0*327 786 40 0*330 775 50 0*340 761 50 0 04105 08/30*355 743 50 0*373 724 50 0*395 705 60 0*420 685 60 0 04110 HRCFL2DFL1 Track adjusted to provide for more realistic translational velocity. ******************************************************************************** 1871/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) for this newly documented hurricane. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon several ship reports. ******************************************************************************** 1871/06: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made reasonable small track changes from that shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 5. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Florida. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon reports from the ship "Robert Myhan" and "Lizzie M. Merrill". 1871/06 - 2006 REVISION: 04225 09/05/1871 M= 4 6 SNBR= 142 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 04230 09/05*260 901 70 0*265 890 70 0*270 876 70 0*275 861 70 0* 04235 09/06*281 849 70 0*286 841 70 0*290 833 70 0*296 825 50 0* 04240 09/07*302 818 50 0*307 811 50 0*313 803 60 0*317 793 60 0* 04245 09/08*319 783 60 0*322 770 60 0*324 759 60 0*327 750 60 0* 04250 HRAFL1 04250 HRAFL1BFL1 **** Based upon research provided by Mark Jelinek and James Belanger from Georgia Institute of Technology, the impact from this cyclone as a Category 1 hurricane for southwest Florida ("BFL") is added. This is based upon ship observations of hurricane force winds south of the dividing line between northwest ("AFL") and southwest Florida. ******************************************************************************** 1871/07: Only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) is to extend out the track of the storm an additional one day to the 7th of October based upon suggestion in the Partagas and Diaz writeup due to the ship "Robert Cadwell". Track otherwise unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 6. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over 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 to its peak as a hurricane until its dissipation below tropical storm strength). Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon loss of steamships "Hall" and "Twelfth Era". ******************************************************************************** 1871/08: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) for this newly documented hurricane. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane force based upon reports from ships "Nellie Antrim" and "Armida" as well as destruction in Halifax, Nova Scotia. ******************************************************************************** 1872/01: 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 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 depression strength). 1872/01 - 2003 REVISION: 04255 07/09/1872 M= 5 1 SNBR= 141 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 04255 07/09/1872 M= 5 1 SNBR= 144 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 *** 04260 07/09*235 920 40 0*241 918 40 0*246 916 40 0*251 911 40 0 04260 07/09*235 920 40 0*241 918 40 0*246 916 40 0*251 912 40 0 *** 04265 07/10*258 908 50 0*263 904 50 0*270 900 50 0*277 896 50 0 04265 07/10*257 908 50 0*263 904 50 0*270 900 50 0*277 896 50 0 *** 04270 07/11*284 893 50 0*292 891 50 0*300 890 50 0*305 890 50 0 04275 07/12*309 891 40 0*313 891 40 0*316 893 40 0*320 895 40 0 04275 07/12*309 890 40 0*313 891 40 0*316 893 40 0*320 895 40 0 *** 04280 07/13*325 895 30 0*330 894 30 0*335 890 30 0*342 885 30 0 04285 TS Track altered slightly to provide a more realistic translational velocity. ******************************************************************************** 1872/02: 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. The storm reached hurricane status based upon observations from several ships. 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 hurricane until its dissipation as an extratropical cyclone). ******************************************************************************** 1872/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made reasonable small track alterations from that shown in Neumann et al. (1993). Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon observations from several ships. ******************************************************************************** 1872/04: 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. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane force based upon report from the ship "Tare". ******************************************************************************** 1872/05: Track considerably altered from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). The track chosen is a compromise between that shown in Neumann et al. (1993) and that advocated by Partagas and Diaz. The reasoning is that observations in the 1872 _Monthly Weather Review_ show that 7 1/2 inches of rain occurred in Norfolk , which is unlikely to be produced by a separate extratropical storm alone as is what is suggested by Partagas and Diaz to have caused the gales and low pressures throughout the middle Atlantic states. Additionally, the U.S. Army Signal Corp did provide overland tracks of extratropical storms, none of which matched up to the one that Partagas and Diaz suggested to have occurred. This new track takes it across Florida a bit farther south than both previous tracks to allow for a turn northward near the ship "Cardenas", then the new track brings the system ashore as a tropical storm in North Carolina just a bit farther east of Neumann et al.'s landfall. The new track then stays east of Neumann et al.'s track while over the middle Atlantic states to correspond with the the northeast to north winds over Washington and the low pressures measured in New York City. After leaving New England, the new track rejoins the original Neumann et al. track. 1872/05 - 2003 REVISION: 04395 10/22/1872 M= 7 5 SNBR= 143 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 04395 10/22/1872 M= 7 5 SNBR= 146 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 *** 04400 10/22*234 893 40 0*240 883 40 0*247 873 40 0*257 862 40 0 04405 10/23*267 848 50 0*276 833 50 0*284 818 50 0*290 803 50 0 04405 10/23*267 848 50 0*276 833 50 0*284 818 40 0*290 803 40 0 ** ** 04410 10/24*300 790 60 0*313 785 70 0*326 782 70 0*336 779 60 0 04410 10/24*300 790 50 0*313 785 60 0*326 782 70 0*336 779 60 0 ** ** 04415 10/25*343 777 50 0*350 775 50 0*357 772 40 0*365 769 40 0 04420 10/26*375 765 40 0*386 758 40 0*397 748 40 0*406 738 40 0 04425 10/27*413 726 40 0*418 713 40 0E424 692 40 0E429 672 40 0 04430 10/28E436 650 40 0E445 625 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 04435 HR No weakening indicated in original HURDAT while passing over Florida. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Florida. Winds reduced accordingly on the 23rd and 24th. ******************************************************************************** 1873/01: 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 Georgia. 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 depression strength). ******************************************************************************** 1873/02: 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. 962 mb central pressure suggests 88 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt used in best track. Storm is determined to have reached major hurricane status for the two days before the above central pressure measurement was made at latitude 44N. 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 cyclone). 1873/02 - 2003 REVISION: 04550 08/13/1873 M=16 2 SNBR= 147 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 04550 08/13/1873 M=16 2 SNBR= 150 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 *** 04555 08/13*139 250 40 0*140 260 40 0*140 270 40 0*141 281 40 0 04560 08/14*141 293 50 0*142 306 50 0*143 320 50 0*144 330 50 0 04565 08/15*145 344 50 0*145 359 50 0*145 373 50 0*146 384 50 0 04570 08/16*147 397 60 0*148 412 60 0*150 427 60 0*153 440 60 0 04575 08/17*156 455 70 0*160 470 70 0*165 490 70 0*169 505 70 0 04580 08/18*175 520 70 0*182 536 70 0*187 550 70 0*195 564 70 0 04585 08/19*202 579 80 0*212 595 80 0*220 610 80 0*229 621 80 0 04590 08/20*239 635 80 0*249 646 80 0*260 656 80 0*268 666 80 0 04595 08/21*278 673 90 0*290 678 90 0*303 683 90 0*310 684 90 0 04595 08/21*278 673 90 0*290 678 90 0*303 682 90 0*310 684 90 0 *** 04600 08/22*317 685 90 0*325 686 90 0*333 685 90 0*343 683 90 0 04605 08/23*352 680 100 0*360 676 100 0*370 670 100 0*383 664 100 0 04610 08/24*395 658 100 0*409 646 100 0*420 635 90 0*430 614 90 0 04615 08/25*437 589 90 962*444 566 90 0*450 550 80 0*457 543 80 0 04620 08/26*460 541 80 0*465 541 80 0*470 540 70 0*474 540 70 0 04625 08/27*478 539 70 0*482 537 70 0E485 535 60 0E494 526 60 0 04630 08/28E504 513 60 0E510 498 60 0E520 480 50 0E530 460 50 0 04635 HR Minor track alteration on the 21st for more realistic motion. ******************************************************************************** 1873/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993). Pressure reading of 992 mb not in hurricane's center (at 12 UTC, 19th of September) suggests winds of at least 59 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind- pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the SE United States. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane force in the Gulf of Mexico based upon destruction that occurred in Tallahassee, Florida; storm regained hurricane strength in the Atlantic based upon above peripheral surface pressure report along with several ship observations. ******************************************************************************** 1873/04: 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 Florida. ******************************************************************************** 1873/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made large alterations to the track reasonably 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 Hispanola, Cuba and the SE United States. Used an accelerated decay rate over Cuba to account for enhanced topography. Pressure reading of 969 mb not in hurricane's center (on 12 UTC, September 28th) suggests winds of at least 91 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 100 kt chosen for best track. Pressure reading of 971 mb not in hurricane's center (on 00 UTC, September 29th) suggests winds of at least 88 kt - 90 kt chosen for best track. Estimate of 959 mb for central pressure at landfall in SW Florida from Ho (1989) appears reasonable and matches SLOSH modeling work by Jarvinen (1990). 959 mb central pressure suggests 101 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 100 kt chosen for the best track. Storm tide value of 14' at Punta Rassa, Florida from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Storm is determined to have reached major hurricane status on the 28th of September based upon peripheral surface pressure reading of 969 mb and destruction that occurred in Jacmal, Haiti. Storm regained major hurricane status on the 7th of October based upon the estimate of central pressure of 959 mb and surge/destruction in Punta Rassa. 1873/05 - 2003 REVISION: 04690 09/26/1873 M=15 5 SNBR= 150 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 04690 09/26/1873 M=15 5 SNBR= 153 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 *** 04695 09/26*147 623 40 0*148 631 40 0*150 640 50 0*153 651 50 0 04700 09/27*157 665 60 0*160 676 60 0*162 690 70 0*166 701 70 0 04705 09/28*169 711 80 0*174 723 90 0*180 730 100 0*190 739 90 0 04710 09/29*197 745 90 0*202 755 80 0*202 765 60 0*202 771 50 0 04715 09/30*201 778 40 0*200 784 40 0*200 790 40 0*201 796 40 0 04720 10/01*201 801 40 0*201 806 40 0*200 810 40 0*200 814 40 0 04725 10/02*200 818 50 0*200 821 50 0*200 825 50 0*200 828 50 0 04730 10/03*200 831 60 0*200 836 60 0*200 840 70 0*200 846 70 0 04735 10/04*200 851 70 0*201 856 70 0*202 860 80 0*206 861 80 0 04735 10/04*200 851 70 0*201 856 70 0*202 860 80 0*204 861 80 0 *** 04740 10/05*210 864 80 0*212 865 80 0*215 865 90 0*219 864 90 0 04740 10/05*208 864 80 0*212 865 80 0*215 865 90 0*219 864 90 0 *** 04745 10/06*224 861 90 0*230 859 90 0*237 855 100 0*247 841 100 0 04750 10/07*262 825 100 959*281 803 80 0*297 786 80 0*311 771 80 0 04755 10/08*324 756 90 0*337 741 90 0*350 726 80 0*363 709 80 0 04760 10/09*375 685 70 0*388 661 70 0E395 645 60 0E400 630 60 0 04765 10/10E405 615 60 0E410 600 60 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 04770 HRBFL3CFL2DFL1 Track slightly altered to provide a more realistic motion. ******************************************************************************** 1874/01: 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 Texas. 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 depression strength). ******************************************************************************** 1874/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Track unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993). Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon a report from "a sailing vessel". ******************************************************************************** 1874/03: 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. Pressure reading of 980 mb not in storm's center (on 18 UTC, 7th of September) suggests winds of at least 73 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track as it is determined that the storm had already undergone extratropical transition by this point. Storm determined to have reached hurricane status based upon several ship observations. ******************************************************************************** 1874/04: 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 Mexico and Texas. 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 depression strength). 1874/04 - 2003 REVISION: 04905 09/02/1874 M= 6 4 SNBR= 154 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 04905 09/02/1874 M= 6 4 SNBR= 157 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 *** 04910 09/02*204 946 40 0*207 950 40 0*212 953 40 0*215 956 40 0 04915 09/03*220 959 40 0*224 962 40 0*229 965 40 0*234 968 40 0 04920 09/04*239 970 50 0*244 971 50 0*250 976 50 0*255 978 50 0 04920 09/04*239 971 50 0*244 974 50 0*250 976 50 0*255 978 50 0 *** *** 04925 09/05*261 980 40 0*267 981 40 0*273 982 30 0*278 983 30 0 04930 09/06*283 984 30 0*288 985 30 0*292 985 30 0*297 985 30 0 04935 09/07*303 985 30 0*310 984 30 0*317 984 30 0*325 983 30 0 04940 TS Track slightly adjusted to provide for a more realistic motion. ******************************************************************************** 1874/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Track unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993). ******************************************************************************** 1874/06: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993). Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Mexico, Florida and the eastern United States. A pressure reading of 996 mb not in the storm's center (at 06 UTC, September 28th) suggests winds of at least 53 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt chosen for best track. A central pressure of 984 mb suggests 71 kt using the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track. A central pressure of 987 mb suggests 67 kt using the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track. A central pressure of 980 mb suggests 73 kt using the northern wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt chosen as it is determined that the storm transitioned to extratropical. The storm is determined to have reached hurricane force from the 984 mb central pressure and reports from the ship "Emma D. Finney". 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 hurricane until its dissipation as an extratropical storm). 1874/06 - 2003 REVISION: 04870 09/25/1874 M= 7 6 SNBR= 156 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 04870 09/25/1874 M= 7 6 SNBR= 159 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 *** 04875 09/25*175 864 40 0*181 871 40 0*185 875 50 0*190 880 50 0 04875 09/25*175 864 40 0*181 871 40 0*185 875 50 0*190 880 40 0 ** 04880 09/26*196 884 40 0*204 886 40 0*212 888 40 0*222 885 40 0 04880 09/26*196 884 40 0*204 886 30 0*212 888 30 0*222 885 40 0 ** ** 04885 09/27*232 880 50 0*241 875 50 0*252 865 60 0*268 851 60 0 04885 09/27*232 880 50 0*242 875 50 0*252 865 60 0*268 851 60 0 *** 04890 09/28*282 836 70 0*295 825 60 0*310 810 70 0*324 801 70 984 04890 09/28*282 836 70 0*298 823 60 0*314 810 70 0*328 800 80 981 *** *** *** *** *** ** *** 04895 09/29*339 795 70 987*354 789 60 0*368 780 50 0*389 760 50 0 04895 09/29*340 790 70 0*352 780 60 0*368 770 50 0*389 755 50 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 04900 09/30*409 736 60 0*427 716 60 0E443 700 60 0E460 680 60 980 04905 10/01E480 655 50 0E500 630 50 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 04910 HRAFL1 SC1 NC1 U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data ---------------------------- #/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States Winds Simpson Pressure Affected 6-10/28/1874 0400Z 29.1N 82.8W 70kt 1 (985mb) AFL1 6-10/28/1874 0300Z 29.1N 82.9W 70kt 1 (985mb) AFL1 **** **** 6-10/28/1874 1900Z 32.6N 80.0W 70kt 1 984mb SC1,NC1 6-10/28/1874 1800Z 32.8N 80.0W 80kt 1 981mb SC1,NC1 **** **** ** *** Unrealistically small weakening indicated in original HURDAT while passing over the Yucatan of Mexico. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Mexico. Winds reduced accordingly on the 25th and 26th. Recent research by Prof. Cary Mock of the University of South Carolina that there was a measurement of 981 mb from Georgetown which does appear to be a central pressure value. (The hurricane appears to have maintained intensity or slightly intensified between Charleston (984 mb) and Georgetown (981 mb).) 981 mb suggest winds of 74 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track in part based upon destruction that occurred in Charleston. The track is adjusted slightly to the east at and after landfall to accommodate this new data (included in full below): Sept. 28, 1874, from the weather diary of Alexander Glennie at Georgetown, SC. Wind strength was recorded in a numerical scale from 1-6, with 1 indicating a very light breeze and 6 indicating a violent storm. Total precipitation at Georgetown was 1.5 inches, which suggests it didn't receive the brunt of the rainfall. * Morning and Forenoon (probably sunrise, as the temperature observation is at sunrise): 72 F, SE wind at 5, Rain, Gale * Noon and Afternoon (temperature reading is at 2 pm): 73 F, E wind at 6, heavy Gale Rain; wind changed 3 pm to W.. Bar [barometer] at 3 pm 28.96 * Evening and Night (temperature reading is at 9 pm): 65 F, SW 3. The News and Courier, Tuesday, Sept. 29, 1874, p. 1. THE GREAT GALE OF 1874 A MEMORABLE DAY-FULL DETAILS OF THE AWFUL STORM. The long immunity which Charleston has enjoyed from disastrous gales was interrupted yesterday by a disaster which has probably destroyed over a quarter of a million dollars' worth of property. In the early part of the present month everybody was on the lookout for the equinoctial storm, because there exists a kind of tradition that severe and disastrous equinoxes occur once in every twenty years, and it is just twenty years since the destructive gale of 1854. But when the 21st of the month had passed without bringing the disagreeable visitor people began to think that Charleston would after all escape the dreadful infliction. For over a fortnight the wind had been blowing steadily from the east, and at times the weather had assumed a threatening aspect, but not sufficiently so to warrant the apprehension of a gale. On Sunday evening at a late hour it began to blow stiffly in puffs and to rain, and by daylight the wind had increased considerably, blowing from the east and southeast. The steamer Dictator, which arrived in the morning, reported heavy weather at sea, but the captain failed to observe any indications of the coming blow. About half-past six or seven o'clock in the morning the wind grew stronger, with heavy squalls and severe puffs, which created general apprehensions. At eight o'clock it was evident that THE GALE WAS UPON US. The sea was heaving and tossing in the harbor, and the rapidly encroaching tide began to flood the wharves and streets. The squalls kept constantly increasing in strength, and the masters of vessels in port began to look anxiously to their moorings. At nine o'clock the tide had risen so high that it covered all the wharves on the eastern front of the city and flooded the streets to the depth of several feet. Many of the wharves were washed up, and several vessels parted from their moorings and were driven on shore. THE SCENE FROM THE WHARVES at this time was terrific. In every direction drift wood, bales of cotton, wrecked boats and debris were being tossed about. The wind, whistling through the rigging of the shipping, made melancholy music, and the blinding rain falling in torrents rendered efforts to save anything almost useless. The tide rose to a great height, in many instances lifting the flooring from the piers and rendering it extremely hazardous for anybody to stand in the vicinity. The sea in the harbor rolled mountain high, and the waves dashed over the piers in huge rollers. At Accommodation wharf a bark was driven from her moorings high up on the landing into the wharf office of Campbell Wylly & Co., but was blown off a gain when the wind shifted. So great was the force of the wind that the bowsprit of the vessel entered the second story of the building, which was of brick, and cut it completely in two, making a clean split. At the wharf of the Sullivan's Island steamers the waves washed clear over the wood work, and the anxious crowd who had gathered there to hear tidings from friends on the Island were fairly driven back by the blinding rain and rapidly rising waters. East Bay and Calhoun street were flooded with water to such a depth as to FLOAT THE CARS of the Enterprise Railway from the track. All the wharves above Market street were more or less damaged, but those below that point suffered the most. At Vanderhorst wharf, a large flat loaded with phosphate rock intended for the ship Border Chieftain parted the fastenings, and was blown into three sloops in the dock, sinking them almost immediately. The flat was then lifted by the waves and thrown transversely across the dock, making a complete bridge between the two piers. The British bark Beltiate, which had lately arrived from Liverpool and was anchored in the stream, was blown from her moorings despite two heavy anchors held by seventy-five and forty-five feet of iron chain and dragged into the dock between Boyce and Atlantic wharf. The wharf on the extreme southern limit of the eastern water front was completely washed away, and the piers immediately adjoining on the north, at which were moored the steamers City Point and Dictator, were also badly damaged. The work of destruction continued without interruption until about half-past twelve, when THE WIND MODULATED for a short time, and then shifted around to the south and west, when it again blew with full force for about an hour, tearing the slate and tin from the roofs of many buildings and blowing down trees and fences in every direction. The change in the direction of the wind, however, had the effect of turning the tide, and in an incredible short time the waters began to fall, and people began to breathe easier. As soon as the wind shifted the rain ceased to fall, and the streets, which had up to this time been dangerous to pedestrians on account of the falling shingles, signs, and fences, were now crowded with people who had come out to view the effects of the storm. ******************************************************************************** 1874/07: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993). These track changes appear to be reasonable. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Jamaica and Cuba. Used an accelerated decay rate over Cuba to take into account the enhanced topography. The storm is determined to have reached hurricane force based upon description of severe damage in Jamaica. 1874/07 - 2003 REVISION: 05020 10/31/1874 M= 5 7 SNBR= 157 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 05020 10/31/1874 M= 5 7 SNBR= 160 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 *** 05025 10/31*135 784 40 0*141 783 40 0*147 781 50 0*151 781 50 0 05030 11/01*157 779 60 0*160 778 60 0*164 776 70 0*171 775 80 0 05030 11/01*157 779 60 0*160 778 60 0*164 776 70 0*171 774 80 0 *** 05035 11/02*177 771 90 0*184 770 70 0*191 766 60 0*199 761 50 0 05035 11/02*177 772 90 0*184 770 70 0*191 766 60 0*199 761 60 0 *** ** 05040 11/03*205 758 50 0*210 754 50 0*215 750 60 0*222 744 60 0 05045 11/04*231 739 70 0*237 734 70 0*245 730 70 0*255 725 70 0 05050 HR Track slightly adjusted to provide for a more realistic motion. Winds brought up to 60 kt at 18Z on the 2nd, since the storm had not yet made landfall in Cuba. 1874/07 - 2006 REVISION: 05100 10/31/1874 M= 5 7 SNBR= 161 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 L 05100 10/31/1874 M= 5 7 SNBR= 161 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 L * 05105 10/31*135 784 40 0*141 783 40 0*147 781 50 0*151 781 50 0* 05110 11/01*157 779 60 0*160 778 60 0*164 776 70 0*171 774 80 0* 05115 11/02*177 772 90 0*184 770 70 0*191 766 60 0*199 761 60 0* 05120 11/03*205 758 50 0*210 754 50 0*215 750 60 0*222 744 60 0* 05125 11/04*231 739 70 0*237 734 70 0*245 730 70 0*255 725 70 0* 05130 HR Based upon research provided by Mark Jelinek and James Belanger from Georgia Institute of Technology, this cyclone should not have been indicated to be a continental U.S. landfalling system. The landfall indicator is thus switched (from "XING=1" to "XING=0"). ******************************************************************************** 1875/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) for this newly documented hurricane. The storm is determined to have reached hurricane force based upon several ship reports. ******************************************************************************** 1875/02: The only major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) is to extend the track of this tropical cyclone back to the 1st of September to take into account that this was the first day of its existence reported in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 1. However, the other track modifications that Partagas and Diaz (1995b) provided from that shown in Neumann et al. (1993) were large, but reasonable. 982 mb central pressure suggests 75 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track. The storm is determined to have reached hurricane force based upon the central pressure measurement and several ship reports. ******************************************************************************** 1875/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 2. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Cuba and Texas. 978 mb central pressure suggests 80 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track. 992 mb central pressure suggests 61 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt chosen for best track. A pressure reading of 979 mb not in the hurricane's center (at 00 UTC, September 17th) suggests winds of at least 78 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt is chosen for best track. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane force in the Caribbean based upon severe damage reports from Barbados, St. Vincent, Martinique, Dominica and Cuba, several ship reports and the 978 mb central pressure. A storm tide estimate of 15' is reported in Roth (1997b). Storm regained hurricane force and reached major hurricane status in the Gulf of Mexico based upon ship reports, wind and storm surge produced destruction in Indianola and Galveston, Texas, and the peripheral pressure at landfall. ******************************************************************************** 1875/04: 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. The best track provided appears to describe the full life cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its formation as a tropical storm to its dissipation below tropical depression intensity). ******************************************************************************** 1875/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) for this newly documented hurricane. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon several ship reports. ******************************************************************************** 1875/06: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 4. These track changes are found to be reasonable. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane force based upon reports from the ship "E.E. Ruckett". ******************************************************************************** 1876/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) for this newly documented hurricane. 970 mb central pressure suggests 82 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane intensity based upon the 970 mb central pressure measurement. ******************************************************************************** 1876/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 1. These track changes are found to be reasonable. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Hispanola, Cuba and the NE United States. Used accelerated decay rate to take into account enhanced topography over Hispanola and Cuba. 990 mb central pressure (twice) suggests 64 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track. 991 mb central pressure suggests 63 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track. 999 mb central pressure suggests 49 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 50 kt chosen for best track. 985 mb central pressure suggests 68 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt chosen for best track, which is reduced as storm was inland at this position. A central pressure of 980 mb at landfall is estimated, which suggests 75 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane intensity in the Caribbean based upon damage accounts from St. Kitts and Vieques and upon the 990 mb and 991 mb central pressure measurements. Storm is determined to have regained hurricane intensity in the Atlantic based upon ship and land (Cape Lookout, North Carolina) wind reports as well as the 980 mb estimated central pressure at landfall. 1876/02 - 2003 REVISION: 05230 09/12/1876 M= 8 2 SNBR= 165 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 05230 09/12/1876 M= 8 2 SNBR= 168 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 *** 05235 09/12*177 585 70 0*177 597 70 0*179 610 70 0*180 621 70 0 05235 09/12*177 585 70 0*177 597 70 0*179 610 80 0*180 621 90 0 ** ** 05240 09/13*180 634 70 0*181 643 70 990*182 653 70 990*184 666 70 991 05240 09/13*180 634 100 0*180 646 100 0*181 660 90 0*183 676 70 991 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 05245 09/14*187 684 70 0*190 701 60 0*192 720 50 0*197 734 50 0 05245 09/14*186 692 70 0*189 707 60 0*193 720 50 0*197 734 50 0 *** *** *** *** *** 05250 09/15*201 748 50 0*204 761 50 0*207 776 50 0*210 786 50 0 05250 09/15*201 748 70 0*204 761 60 0*207 776 50 0*210 786 50 0 ** ** 05255 09/16*217 796 50 0*229 800 50 999*245 800 60 0*266 794 60 0 05260 09/17*288 786 70 0*314 783 70 0*335 778 80 980*360 773 60 985 05260 09/17*288 786 70 0*314 783 70 0*335 778 80 980*360 773 70 985 ** 05265 09/18*382 773 50 0*408 781 40 0*425 775 40 0*430 761 40 0 05265 09/18*382 773 60 987*408 781 50 0*425 775 40 0*430 761 40 0 ** *** ** 05270 09/19*430 745 30 0*427 730 30 0*423 715 30 0*420 700 30 0 05275 HR NC1 05275 HR NC1 VA1 *** U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data ---------------------------- #/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States Winds Simpson Pressure Affected 2-9/17/1876 1400Z 34.4N 77.6W 80kt 1 980mb NC1 2-9/17/1876 1400Z 34.4N 77.6W 80kt 1 980mb NC1,VA1 *** Boose et al.'s (2003) analysis of hurricanes that made landfall in Puerto Rico documented that this hurricane caused widespread Fujita-scale F2 damage and occasional F3 destruction. Additionally, the 990 mb pressures originally thought to be central pressures in HURDAT were found, instead, to be peripheral pressure measurements. Thus this hurricane is estimated here to be a Category 3 (100 kt) at landfall in Puerto Rico, a major hurricane. Mitchell's (1924) report also allowed for changes to both track and intensity. A peripheral pressure of 979 mb (11 UTC on the 13th) suggests winds of at least 79 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship. Mitchell's report estimated an eye diameter of 9 nmi and rapid translational velocity of about 17 kt, both of which would suggest increases in maximum winds above the standard wind-pressure relationship. These facts are consistent with a 100 kt hurricane at landfall. A central pressure of 991 mb (at 1530 UTC on the 13th) after the hurricane transited the spine of Puerto Rico suggests winds of 63 kt. Due to the small size and fast translational velocity, 70 kt is chosen for the best track. Additionally, a re-analysis by Perez (2000 and personal communication) of Cuban hurricanes indicate that this system re-attained hurricane force at landfall in Cuba as a Category 1 hurricane based upon moderate wind damage on the eastern end of the island. Winds are adjusted accordingly on the 14th and 15th. Observations of sustained hurricane force winds in Cape Henry, Virginia from Roth and Cobb's (2001) Virginia Hurricane History are the basis for slightly boosting winds late on the 17th and early on the 18th. A central pressure of 987 mb (at 2130Z on the 17th) suggest winds of 66 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt chosen for best track because of inland location. The hurricane is known as "San Felipe" for its impacts in Puerto Rico (Boose et al. 2003). ******************************************************************************** 1876/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Track unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 2. ******************************************************************************** 1876/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) for this newly documented hurricane. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Central America with an accelerated decay rate to account for enhanced topography. The storm is determined to have reached hurricane intensity based upon reports from the ship "Nile" and from the destruction that occurred in Nicaragua. ******************************************************************************** 1876/05: Two major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). The first is to start the track of the tropical cyclone in the southwest Caribbean Sea to take into account heavy swells observed in Tunas de Zaza, Cuba as reported in Partagas and Diaz (1995b). The second major change is to position the hurricane on 12 UTC 20th of October near Melbourne, Florida based upon observations reported in Doehring et al. (1994). Otherwise, track is reasonably and dramatically altered from that shown in Neumann et al. (1993) - originally storm number 3 - by Partagas and Diaz. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Cuba and Florida. 971 mb central pressure suggests 88 kt using the southern wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt chosen for best track. 973 mb central pressure suggests 86 kt using the southern wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt chosen. 976 mb central pressure suggests 80 kt using the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon destruction reported in Grand Cayman and Cuba, the central pressure observations of 971, 973 and 976 mb, several ship reports and wind observations from Key West, Florida. 1876/05 - 2003 REVISION: 05350 10/12/1876 M=12 5 SNBR= 168 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 05350 10/12/1876 M=12 5 SNBR= 171 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 *** 05355 10/12*120 790 40 0*122 790 40 0*124 790 50 0*126 790 50 0 05360 10/13*128 790 50 0*130 791 50 0*132 792 50 0*135 792 50 0 05365 10/14*138 794 50 0*141 795 50 0*144 796 50 0*147 797 50 0 05370 10/15*150 798 50 0*154 799 50 0*158 800 50 0*162 801 50 0 05375 10/16*166 802 50 0*170 803 50 0*174 804 60 0*178 805 60 0 05380 10/17*182 806 70 0*186 807 70 0*190 808 80 0*194 809 80 0 05385 10/18*197 811 90 0*202 813 90 0*207 816 90 0*212 818 90 0 05385 10/18*197 811 90 0*202 813 90 0*207 815 90 0*212 817 90 0 *** *** 05390 10/19*217 819 90 0*221 819 90 0*227 820 90 0*236 820 90 971 05390 10/19*217 819 100 0*223 822 100 0*227 823 100 958*236 823 90 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 05395 10/20*247 819 90 973*260 813 90 0*275 805 80 0*288 796 80 976 05400 10/21*300 788 80 0*310 779 80 0*319 767 80 0*325 749 80 0 05405 10/22*330 726 80 0*333 698 80 0*335 678 70 0*335 666 70 0 05410 10/23*338 656 70 0*339 646 70 0*340 635 60 0*342 620 60 0 05415 HRBFL2CFL1 Re-analysis effort by Perez (2000) has revealed that the central pressure for this hurricane was 958 mb (at Bejucal on the 19th), which suggests winds of 102 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 100 kt used for the best track. This is consistent with the assessment of landfall as a Category 3 hurricane at landfall in Cuba (Perez 2000). The original listing of 971 mb for a central pressure (18Z on the 19th) was determined to be, instead, a peripheral pressure. The track is shifted slightly to the west to take into account this new center fix location. The hurricane is known as El Huracan de Gran Cayman-La Habana for its impacts in Cuba (Perez 2000). ******************************************************************************** 1877/01: 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. 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). ******************************************************************************** 1877/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993). Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over SE United States after final landfall in Florida. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane intensity based upon the description of winds and effects along the Gulf coast. 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 hurricane until its dissipation below tropical storm intensity). ******************************************************************************** 1877/03: 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. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane force based upon reports from the ship "Harlcy John" and from wind reports at St. Paul Island, Canada. ******************************************************************************** 1877/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993). Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the eastern United States. Storm tide is reported as 12' for St. Marks, Florida from Barnes (1998). Storm is determined to have reached major hurricane intensity based upon storm tide in St. Marks as well as reports from the ship "Sarah Hall". 05655 09/21/1877 M=15 4 SNBR= 172 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 05655 09/21/1877 M=15 4 SNBR= 175 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 *** 05660 09/21*117 555 50 0*117 565 50 0*117 577 60 0*118 591 60 0 05665 09/22*118 605 70 0*118 620 70 0*117 633 80 0*116 644 80 0 05670 09/23*116 658 90 0*116 670 90 0*117 680 90 0*118 691 90 0 05675 09/24*121 703 90 0*123 714 90 0*127 725 90 0*130 736 90 0 05680 09/25*133 746 80 0*137 759 80 0*140 770 80 0*143 780 80 0 05685 09/26*147 791 70 0*150 801 70 0*153 810 70 0*157 816 70 0 05690 09/27*161 821 70 0*167 826 70 0*171 831 70 0*177 836 70 0 05695 09/28*182 843 70 0*189 851 70 0*195 855 70 0*201 859 70 0 05700 09/29*206 861 70 0*212 864 70 0*219 868 70 0*224 870 70 0 05705 09/30*227 871 70 0*234 873 70 0*237 875 70 0*244 876 70 0 05705 09/30*229 871 70 0*234 873 70 0*239 875 70 0*244 877 70 0 *** *** *** 05710 10/01*247 878 80 0*254 878 80 0*260 876 80 0*265 876 80 0 05710 10/01*249 878 80 0*254 878 80 0*260 877 80 0*265 876 80 0 *** *** 05715 10/02*271 875 90 0*275 873 90 0*280 870 90 0*288 864 90 0 05720 10/03*295 859 100 0*301 853 90 0*307 845 70 0*317 833 50 0 05725 10/04*328 821 40 0*339 808 40 0E350 793 50 0E369 774 50 0 05730 10/05E393 749 60 0E408 724 60 0E420 695 50 0E435 660 50 0 05735 HRAFL3 GA1 Track adjusted slightly to provide for a more realistic translational velocity. 1877/04 - 2006 REVISION: 05735 09/21/1877 M=15 4 SNBR= 176 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 05740 09/21*117 555 50 0*117 565 50 0*117 577 60 0*118 591 60 0* 05745 09/22*118 605 70 0*118 620 70 0*117 633 80 0*116 644 80 0* 05750 09/23*116 658 90 0*116 670 90 0*117 680 90 0*118 691 90 0* 05755 09/24*121 703 90 0*123 714 90 0*127 725 90 0*130 736 90 0* 05760 09/25*133 746 80 0*137 759 80 0*140 770 80 0*143 780 80 0* 05765 09/26*147 791 70 0*150 801 70 0*153 810 70 0*157 816 70 0* 05770 09/27*161 821 70 0*167 826 70 0*171 831 70 0*177 836 70 0* 05775 09/28*182 843 70 0*189 851 70 0*195 855 70 0*201 859 70 0* 05780 09/29*206 861 70 0*212 864 70 0*219 868 70 0*224 870 70 0* 05785 09/30*229 871 70 0*234 873 70 0*239 875 70 0*244 877 70 0* 05790 10/01*249 878 80 0*254 878 80 0*260 877 80 0*265 876 80 0* 05795 10/02*271 875 90 0*275 873 90 0*280 870 90 0*288 864 90 0* 05800 10/03*295 859 100 0*301 853 90 0*307 845 70 0*317 833 50 0* 05805 10/04*328 821 40 0*339 808 40 0E350 793 50 0E369 774 50 0* 05810 10/05E393 749 60 0E408 724 60 0E420 695 50 0E435 660 50 0* 05815 HRAFL3 GA1 05815 HRAFL3IGA1 **** Revision indicated in continental U.S. impacts to specify that the Georgia hurricane impact from this cyclone was inland, rather than along Georgia's Atlantic coast. ******************************************************************************** 1877/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993). ******************************************************************************** 1877/06: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Track unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993). ******************************************************************************** 1877/07: 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. ******************************************************************************** 1877/08: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Track unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993). 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 as an extratropical storm). ******************************************************************************** 1878/01: 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 Florida. 1878/01 - 2003 REVISION: 05790 07/01/1878 M= 3 1 SNBR= 175 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 05790 07/01/1878 M= 3 1 SNBR= 178 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 *** 05795 07/01*254 873 40 0*254 866 40 0*255 860 40 0*256 850 40 0 05800 07/02*257 843 40 0*258 835 40 0*259 824 40 0*263 810 40 0 05800 07/02*257 843 40 0*258 835 40 0*259 824 40 0*263 810 30 0 ** 05805 07/03*273 796 40 0*280 783 40 0*287 770 40 0*294 756 40 0 05810 TS No weakening indicated in original HURDAT while passing over Florida, even though description mentioned utilizing the Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) inland decay model. In this revision, Kaplan and DeMaria's model was used to reduce the winds after landfall in Florida on the 2nd. ******************************************************************************** 1878/02: 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 Mexico with an accelerated decay rate to account for enhance topography. The storm is determined to have reached hurricane intensity based upon reports from the ship "Padang". 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 hurricane until its dissipation below tropical depression intensity). 1878/02 - 2003 REVISION: 05905 08/08/1878 M=12 2 SNBR= 178 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 05905 08/08/1878 M=12 2 SNBR= 181 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 *** 05910 08/08*150 605 40 0*149 610 40 0*147 615 40 0*146 619 40 0 05915 08/09*146 624 40 0*146 628 40 0*145 633 40 0*145 641 40 0 05920 08/10*144 649 40 0*144 656 40 0*143 665 40 0*142 676 40 0 05925 08/11*141 686 40 0*140 700 40 0*140 713 40 0*141 730 40 0 05930 08/12*143 746 50 0*145 761 50 0*150 775 50 0*159 786 50 0 05935 08/13*166 796 50 0*174 806 50 0*180 815 50 0*187 825 50 0 05940 08/14*195 833 60 0*202 841 60 0*210 850 60 0*215 856 60 0 05945 08/15*220 861 70 0*225 868 70 0*228 875 70 0*229 881 70 0 05950 08/16*230 890 70 0*230 896 70 0*230 903 70 0*230 911 70 0 05955 08/17*230 921 70 0*230 930 70 0*230 940 70 0*230 948 70 0 05960 08/18*229 956 70 0*227 965 70 0*227 975 70 0*226 985 40 0 05960 08/18*229 956 70 0*228 965 70 0*227 975 70 0*226 985 40 0 *** 05965 08/19*225 992 30 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 05970 HR Track adjusted slightly to provide a more realistic translational velocity. ******************************************************************************** 1878/03: Only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) for this newly documented hurricane is to extend the storm for a full day to the 21st of August as suggested by Partagas and Diaz. 963 mb central pressure suggests 88 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track because of extremely high latitude and cold waters. Storm determined to have reached hurricane intensity based upon several ship reports, the 963 mb central pressure measurement and the destruction that occurred at Magdalene Islands, Canada. ******************************************************************************** 1878/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) for this newly documented hurricane. 996 mb central pressures suggests 55 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship - 50 kt chosen for best track. 972 mb central pressure suggests 84 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt chosen for best track. 975 mb central pressure suggests 78 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane intensity based upon the 972 and 975 mb central pressure readings as well as several ship reports. ******************************************************************************** 1878/05 - 2000 ORIGINAL: Major track changes are made to this storm from that shown in Partagas and Diaz (1995b) and Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 3. These include indicating a loop in the track from the 8th to the 11th of September rather than a stationary track. Loop determined primarily from observations at Key West reported in Partagas and Diaz. A pressure reading of 984 mb not in the hurricane's center (at 06 UTC, 2nd of September) suggests winds of at least 72 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track. A pressure reading of 999 mb not in the storm's center (at 06 UTC on the 5th) suggests winds of at least 49 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt chosen for best track. A pressure reading of 1000 mb not in the storm's center (on 18 UTC on the 7th) suggests winds of 47 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 50 kt are chosen for best track. A pressure reading of 990 mb not in the hurricane's center (at 18 UTC on the 11th) suggests winds of 63 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt is chosen for best track. A pressure reading of 993 mb not in the hurricane's center (at 12 UTC on the 12th) suggests winds of at least 59 kt from the subtropical latitude wind- pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Hispanola, Cuba and the eastern United States. Used an accelerated decay rate for Hispanola and Cuba to account for enhanced topography. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane intensity in the Caribbean based upon the 984 mb peripheral pressure, the destruction in Trinidad, Dominican Republic, Haiti and Cuba, and several ship reports. The storm regained hurricane force status in the Gulf of Mexico based upon several ship reports. The storm attained hurricane intensity for a third time in the Atlantic Ocean based upon the periphery pressure readings of 990 and 993 mb, reports from the ships "Sabre" and "City of New York", as well as wind reports from Cape Lookout, North Carolina. 1878/05 - 2003 REVISION: 05935 09/01/1878 M=13 5 SNBR= 181 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 05935 09/01/1878 M=13 5 SNBR= 184 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 *** * 05940 09/01* 85 542 50 0* 87 556 50 0* 90 570 60 0* 96 584 60 0 05945 09/02*103 599 70 0*113 617 80 0*123 633 80 0*133 648 80 0 05950 09/03*143 663 80 0*152 678 80 0*160 693 80 0*167 701 80 0 05955 09/04*175 711 80 0*182 721 80 0*190 730 70 0*196 739 70 0 05955 09/04*175 711 80 0*182 721 70 0*189 730 60 0*195 739 70 0 ** *** ** *** 05960 09/05*199 746 70 0*202 756 60 0*205 766 60 0*207 771 60 0 05960 09/05*200 746 70 0*205 756 60 0*210 766 60 0*215 771 60 0 *** *** *** *** 05965 09/06*211 778 50 0*214 783 50 0*217 786 50 0*221 793 50 0 05965 09/06*219 778 50 0*221 784 50 0*223 790 50 0*225 795 50 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 05970 09/07*222 799 50 0*226 804 50 0*230 806 50 0*237 809 50 0 05970 09/07*228 800 50 0*231 805 50 0*236 808 50 0*243 809 50 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 05975 09/08*246 810 60 0*252 810 60 0*260 815 60 0*266 821 60 0 05975 09/08*250 810 60 0*258 812 50 0*265 815 40 0*269 819 40 0 *** *** *** ** *** ** *** *** ** 05980 09/09*266 829 70 0*259 831 70 0*255 834 70 0*252 831 70 0 05980 09/09*272 824 40 0*274 829 50 0*276 833 60 0*278 835 70 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** 05985 09/10*251 826 70 0*252 818 70 0*260 811 60 0*270 808 50 0 05985 09/10*280 834 80 0*283 830 90 0*287 825 80 970*292 820 70 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ** 05990 09/11*279 806 50 0*288 806 60 0*297 806 70 0*305 806 70 0 05990 09/11*297 815 60 985*301 811 70 0*305 809 80 0*309 807 80 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 05995 09/12*312 806 80 0*317 806 80 0*325 805 80 0*345 801 60 0 05995 09/12*313 806 80 0*318 805 80 0*325 804 80 0*340 801 60 0 *** *** *** *** 06000 09/13*368 798 50 0E392 794 50 0E415 790 40 0E440 785 40 0 06000 09/13*365 798 50 0E390 794 50 0E415 790 40 0E440 785 40 0 *** *** 06005 HRBFL1 NC1 SC1 GA1 06005 HRBFL2DFL1 NC1 SC1 GA1 ******** U.S. Tropical Storm Landfall Data --------------------------------- #/Date Time Lat Lon Max Landfall Winds State 5- 9/ 8/1878$ 0100Z 24.7 81.0 60 FL 5- 9/ 7/1878$ 2100Z 24.7 80.9 60 FL * ***** **** 5- 9/ 8/1878$ 0600Z 25.2 81.0 60 FL 5- 9/ 8/1878$ 0200Z 25.2 81.0 60 FL ***** U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data ---------------------------- #/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States Winds Simpson Pressure Affected 5-9/10/1878$ 1000Z 25.7N 81.3W 70kt 1 (985mb) BFL1 5-9/10/1878$ 1100Z 28.6N 82.6W 90kt 2 (970mb) BFL2,DFL1 ***** ***** ***** **** * ******* **** **** 5-9/12/1878 1000Z 32.2N 80.5W 80kt 1 (976mb) NC1,SC1,GA1 5-9/12/1878 1200Z 32.5N 80.4W 80kt 1 (976mb) NC1,SC1,GA1 **** **** ***** Hurricane is revised from the initial analysis due to the inclusion of work by Ho (1989). In particular, additional observations were provided from Key West, Punta Rassa and St. Augustine, FL that provided alterations in both track and intensity. Observations from Key West showed that the system made its closest approach to the east of that town around 21 UTC on the 7th as a tropical storm, made landfall over the Florida peninsula shortly thereafter. All measurements indicated that it proceeded slowly to the north and drifted back offshore, where it reintensified. Early on the 10th, it began moving back toward the east and made landfall just before 12 UTC on the 10th, likely north of Tampa. Observations from St. Augustine showed that the center of the hurricane passed overhead around 02 UTC on the 11th with a central pressure of 985 mb. (The wind intensity from St. Augustine is in conflict with those at nearby Jacksonville and it is believed that the observer may have had a high bias at the former station. However, strong winds along the coast from the 7th to the 9th were likely due to a combination of the system's wind field along with a large pressure gradient induced by a strong ridge to the north. This ridge also blocked the storm and induced a slow motion for the same days.) The hurricane's track was altered from the 7th until the 13th based upon these new data. The 985 mb central pressure corresponds to 70 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt used in the best track after oceanfall back to the Atlantic at 06 UTC on the 11th . From this 985 mb central pressure and that the hurricane was over Florida for about 16 hours, a 970 mb central pressure was estimated for its landfall in Southwest Florida from the pressure- decay relationship of Ho et al. (1987). A 970 mb central pressure suggests winds of 89 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt is chosen for the winds at landfall. Winds are reduced on the 4th to account for realistic weakening while tracking over Hispanola. Track also adjusted during trek over Cuba from the 4th until the 7th based upon re-analysis efforts for Cuban hurricanes by Perez (2000). Assignment of Category 1 hurricane landfall in Cuba agrees with assessment by Perez (2000). 1878/05 - 2004 REVISION: 06080 09/01/1878 M=13 5 SNBR= 184 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 06080 09/01/1878 M=13 5 SNBR= 185 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 *** 06085 09/01* 85 542 50 0* 87 556 50 0* 90 570 60 0* 96 584 60 0 06090 09/02*103 599 70 0*113 617 80 0*123 633 80 0*133 648 80 0 06095 09/03*143 663 80 0*152 678 80 0*160 693 80 0*167 701 80 0 06100 09/04*175 711 80 0*182 721 70 0*189 730 60 0*195 739 70 0 06105 09/05*200 746 70 0*205 756 60 0*210 766 60 0*215 771 60 0 06110 09/06*219 778 50 0*221 784 50 0*223 790 50 0*225 795 50 0 06115 09/07*228 800 50 0*231 805 50 0*236 808 50 0*243 809 50 0 06120 09/08*250 810 60 0*258 812 50 0*265 815 40 0*269 819 40 0 06125 09/09*272 824 40 0*274 829 50 0*276 833 60 0*278 835 70 0 06130 09/10*280 834 80 0*283 830 90 0*287 825 80 970*292 820 70 0 06135 09/11*297 815 60 985*301 811 70 0*305 809 80 0*309 807 80 0 06140 09/12*313 806 80 0*318 805 80 0*325 804 80 0*340 801 60 0 06145 09/13*365 798 50 0E390 794 50 0E415 790 40 0E440 785 40 0 06150 HRBFL2DFL1 NC1 SC1 GA1 06150 HRAFL2BFL2DFL1 SC1 GA1 **** *** U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data ---------------------------- #/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States Winds Simpson Pressure Affected 5-9/10/1878$ 1100Z 28.6N 82.6W 90kt 2 (970mb) BFL2,DFL1 5-9/10/1878$ 1100Z 28.6N 82.6W 90kt 2 (970mb) AFL2,BFL2,DFL1 **** 5-9/12/1878 1200Z 32.5N 80.4W 80kt 1 (976mb) NC1,SC1,GA1 5-9/12/1878 1200Z 32.5N 80.4W 80kt 1 (976mb) SC1,GA1 *** After a thorough review of all U.S. landfalling hurricanes for the 1851 to 1910 period by Dickinson et al. (2004 and pers. comm.) using their numerical analysis and modeling system, two hurricanes were found to have inconsistencies between the assigned Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale and the estimated maximum 1-min surface winds: 1855/05 and 1878/05. In this case, the assignment of Category 1 hurricane impact for North Carolina does not appear consistent with landfall in southern South Carolina. The original assessment of Category 1 conditions for North Carolina were based upon observed 65 kt winds at Cape Lookout (see above). It has subsequently been learned since 2000 that the 4 cup Robinson anemometer of the time had a severe high bias. These 5 min observed winds of 65 kt convert to 50 kt after accounting for their high bias (Fergusson and Covert 1924) and then to 53 kt after converting from a 5 min to a maximum 1 min wind (Powell et al. 1996). While peak 1 min winds were likely somewhat higher than this somewhere in North Carolina, direct and indirect evidence suggests that only tropical storm conditions impacted the state. There were three other peak observations available between Myrtle Beach, SC and Cape Lookout, NC: Smithville, NC (now Southport) - SE 42 kt, Wilmington, NC - SE 26 kt, Sloop Point, NC (northeast of Wilmington near Top Sail Beach) - 55 kt (estimated), and Cape Lookout. Thus these other measurements are also consistent with tropical storm conditions in North Carolina and North Carolina is removed from the listing as having sustained hurricane force conditions from this hurricane. Northwest Florida added as Category 2 impact due to location of the landfall. 1878/05 - 2006 REVISION: 06120 09/01/1878 M=13 5 SNBR= 185 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 06125 09/01* 85 542 50 0* 87 556 50 0* 90 570 60 0* 96 584 60 0* 06130 09/02*103 599 70 0*113 617 80 0*123 633 80 0*133 648 80 0* 06135 09/03*143 663 80 0*152 678 80 0*160 693 80 0*167 701 80 0* 06140 09/04*175 711 80 0*182 721 70 0*189 730 60 0*195 739 70 0* 06145 09/05*200 746 70 0*205 756 60 0*210 766 60 0*215 771 60 0* 06150 09/06*219 778 50 0*221 784 50 0*223 790 50 0*225 795 50 0* 06155 09/07*228 800 50 0*231 805 50 0*236 808 50 0*243 809 50 0* 06160 09/08*250 810 60 0*258 812 50 0*265 815 40 0*269 819 40 0* 06165 09/09*272 824 40 0*274 829 50 0*276 833 60 0*278 835 70 0* 06170 09/10*280 834 80 0*283 830 90 0*287 825 80 970*292 820 70 0* 06175 09/11*297 815 60 985*301 811 70 0*305 809 80 0*309 807 80 0* 06180 09/12*313 806 80 0*318 805 80 0*325 804 80 0*340 801 60 0* 06185 09/13*365 798 50 0E390 794 50 0E415 790 40 0E440 785 40 0* 06190 HRBFL2DFL1 SC1 GA1 06190 HRAFL2BFL2DFL1 SC1 GA1 **** Based upon research provided by Mark Jelinek and James Belanger from Georgia Institute of Technology, this cyclone should have been listed as a Category 2 hurricane for northwestern Florida ("AFL") as well as southwestern Florida, based upon the intensity of the hurricane at landfall and its location. Thus "AFL2" is added into the listing of U.S. continental hurricane impacts. ******************************************************************************** 1878/06: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Track unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 4. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon several ship reports. ******************************************************************************** 1878/07: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 5. These track changes are found to be reasonable. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Haiti with an accelerated decay rate to account for enhanced topography. 938 mb central pressure suggests 105 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 110 kt chosen for best track. This storm is determined to have reached hurricane intensity in the Caribbean Sea based upon reports from the ships "Princess Alexandra" and "William Phipps". The hurricane is determined to have reached major hurricane status based upon the central pressure reading of 938 mb as well as several ship reports. 06160 09/24/1878 M=15 7 SNBR= 183 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 06160 09/24/1878 M=15 7 SNBR= 186 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 *** 06165 09/24*151 719 40 0*155 719 40 0*160 720 50 0*162 720 50 0 06170 09/25*164 720 60 0*167 721 60 0*170 721 70 0*176 723 70 0 06170 09/25*164 720 60 0*167 721 60 0*170 721 70 0*176 722 70 0 *** 06175 09/26*180 724 70 0*184 724 60 0*187 725 50 0*192 726 50 0 06175 09/26*180 723 70 0*184 724 60 0*187 725 50 0*192 726 40 0 *** ** 06180 09/27*195 726 50 0*197 726 50 0*201 726 60 0*205 726 60 0 06180 09/27*195 726 40 0*197 726 40 0*201 726 50 0*205 727 60 0 ** ** ** *** 06185 09/28*209 728 70 0*212 728 70 0*216 730 70 0*221 731 70 0 06185 09/28*209 728 70 0*212 729 70 0*216 730 70 0*221 731 70 0 *** 06190 09/29*224 733 80 0*227 734 80 0*232 735 80 0*236 735 80 0 06195 09/30*239 735 90 0*242 735 90 0*247 735 90 0*254 735 90 0 06200 10/01*258 735 100 0*263 734 100 0*268 733 100 0*274 731 100 0 06205 10/02*276 731 110 0*280 731 110 0*285 730 110 0*289 729 110 0 06210 10/03*293 726 120 0*298 725 120 0*302 721 120 0*308 719 120 0 06215 10/04*314 715 120 0*319 711 120 0*325 706 120 0*333 700 120 0 06220 10/05*339 693 110 0*344 686 110 0*350 677 110 0*360 666 110 0 06225 10/06*373 648 110 0*385 626 110 0*397 605 110 0*407 583 110 0 06230 10/07*417 555 110 0*427 519 110 0*435 485 110 938*448 443 100 0 06235 10/08*462 395 100 0*475 355 100 0*485 310 90 0*495 270 90 0 06240 HR Track slightly adjusted to provide for a more realistic motion. Winds slightly decreased on the 26th and 27th, due to transit over Hispanola and accounting for reasonable weakening. ******************************************************************************** 1878/08: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 6. These track changes are found to be reasonable. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the SE United States. 982 mb central pressure suggests 71 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track. The storm is determined to have reached hurricane status over the Atlantic Ocean based upon several ship reports as well as the 982 mb central pressure reading. 1878/08 - 2003 REVISION: 06245 10/09/1878 M= 7 8 SNBR= 184 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 06245 10/09/1878 M= 7 8 SNBR= 187 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 *** 06250 10/09*235 913 40 0*246 911 40 0*256 906 40 0*263 901 40 0 06255 10/10*268 896 50 0*273 891 50 0*281 881 50 0*292 866 50 0 06260 10/11*306 838 50 0*315 808 50 0*327 781 60 0*335 766 60 0 06260 10/11*306 838 40 0*315 808 40 0*327 781 50 0*335 766 60 0 ** ** ** 06265 10/12*345 750 70 0*358 736 70 0*370 725 70 0*388 705 70 0 06270 10/13*402 681 70 0*418 651 70 0*429 626 70 982*438 597 70 0 06275 10/14*445 568 70 0*452 533 70 0*455 500 70 0*455 475 70 0 06280 10/15E455 440 60 0E455 409 60 0E455 375 60 0E455 340 60 0 06285 HR Winds reduced on the 11th to account for weakening while tracking over Florida and Georgia, utilizing the Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) inland decay model. ******************************************************************************** 1878/09: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Track unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 7. Note that storms 8 and 9 likely merged as a large extratropical storm on the 16th of October. The storm is determined to have reached hurricane intensity based upon several ship observations. ******************************************************************************** 1878/10: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Track unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 8. 951 mb central pressure suggests 103 kt from the subtropical latitude wind- pressure relationship - 100 kt chosen for best track. The storm is determined to have reached major hurricane intensity based upon the 951 mb central pressure measurement. ******************************************************************************** 1878/11: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 9. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the eastern United States. 975 mb central pressure suggests 78 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track (storm was inland by this point suggesting lower winds than 78 kt, yet fast moving suggesting higher winds than 78 kt). 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 hurricane until its dissipation as an extratropical storm). The storm is determined to have reached hurricane intensity based upon destruction in Cuba and the mid-Atlantic U.S. states, wind reports in North Carolina, Virginia and New Jersey, and the central pressure reading. 1878/11 - 2003 REVISION: 06280 10/18/1878 M= 8 11 SNBR= 187 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 06280 10/18/1878 M= 8 11 SNBR= 190 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 *** 06285 10/18*172 796 40 0*177 801 40 0*180 805 50 0*182 806 50 0 06290 10/19*185 809 60 0*187 811 60 0*190 813 60 0*194 816 60 0 06295 10/20*197 819 70 0*202 821 70 0*207 824 70 0*212 824 70 0 06295 10/20*197 819 70 0*202 821 70 0*207 824 80 0*212 824 80 0 ** ** 06300 10/21*219 824 70 0*225 823 70 0*232 820 70 0*244 810 70 0 06300 10/21*219 824 90 0*225 822 90 0*232 818 80 0*244 810 70 0 ** *** ** *** ** 06305 10/22*259 798 70 0*273 793 70 0*287 788 80 0*312 780 80 0 06305 10/22*259 798 70 0*273 793 70 0*287 788 80 0*307 780 80 0 *** 06310 10/23*340 776 90 0*365 775 80 0*389 770 80 975*405 760 70 0 06310 10/23*330 774 90 963*357 770 90 0*390 772 80 975*415 754 70 0 *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** 06315 10/24*422 740 60 0*427 716 60 0*425 689 60 0*415 666 60 0 06315 10/24E427 736 60 0E429 714 50 0E425 688 50 0E415 666 50 0 **** *** **** *** ** * *** ** * ** 06320 10/25E409 650 50 0E402 631 50 0E395 613 50 0E390 598 50 0 06325 HR NC2 VA1 MD1 DE1 NJ1 PA1 U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data ---------------------------- #/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States Winds Simpson Pressure Affected 11-10/23/1878 0100Z 34.4N 77.6W 90kt 2 (965mb) NC2,VA1,MD1,DE1,NJ1,PA1 11-10/23/1878 0400Z 34.8N 77.1W 90kt 2 (963mb) NC2,VA1,MD1,DE1,NJ1,PA1 ***** ***** ***** ******* Re-analysis of Cuban hurricanes from Perez (2000) suggests that this system impacted Cuba as a Category 2 hurricane based mainly upon wind-caused damages, with a track slightly to the east of the original HURDAT estimate. Winds increased on the 20th and 21st and track altered on the 21st, accordingly. Altered track and intensity over the United States from the 22nd until the 24th based upon re-analysis effort by Roth and Cobb (2000). Changes do indicate a later (04Z rather than 01Z) landfall along North Carolina. They estimate a landfall central pressure of 963 mb which would correspond to 92 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship. 90 kt is kept for landfall intensity. Additional observations were obtained from the new report by Ramsey and Reilly (2003). A 10 foot storm tide was observed in Little Creek, Delaware; 11 foot in Fort Mifflin, Pennsylvania; and 12 foot in Pea Patch Island, Delaware (Ramsey and Reilly 2003). 1878/11 - 2006 REVISION: 06465 10/18/1878 M= 8 11 SNBR= 191 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 06470 10/18*172 796 40 0*177 801 40 0*180 805 50 0*182 806 50 0* 06475 10/19*185 809 60 0*187 811 60 0*190 813 60 0*194 816 60 0* 06480 10/20*197 819 70 0*202 821 70 0*207 824 80 0*212 824 80 0* 06485 10/21*219 824 90 0*225 822 90 0*232 818 80 0*244 810 70 0* 06490 10/22*259 798 70 0*273 793 70 0*287 788 80 0*307 780 80 0* 06495 10/23*330 774 90 963*357 770 90 0*390 772 80 975*415 754 70 0* 06500 10/24E427 736 60 0E429 714 50 0E425 688 50 0E415 666 50 0* 06505 10/25E409 650 50 0E402 631 50 0E395 613 50 0E390 598 50 0* 06510 HR NC2 VA1 MD1 DE1 NJ1 06510 HR NC2 VA1 MD1 DE1 NJ1IPA1 **** Based upon research provided by Mark Jelinek and James Belanger from Georgia Institute of Technology, this cyclone should be indicated as causing Category 1 hurricane impact in Pennsylvania based upon the track and intensity shown in HURDAT. This is consistent with observations of high winds and storm surge that occurred in Philadelphia. ******************************************************************************** 1878/12: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 10. Storm is also named the "San Rufo" for its impact in Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic. 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). ******************************************************************************** 1879/01: 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. 1879/02 - 2006 REVISION: 06595 08/13/1879 M= 8 2 SNBR= 194 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 06600 08/13*190 580 40 0*190 590 40 0*190 600 40 0*190 613 40 0* 06605 08/14*191 629 40 0*192 645 40 0*192 656 40 0*195 668 40 0* 06610 08/15*197 680 40 0*201 690 40 0*205 700 50 0*212 711 50 0* 06615 08/16*217 721 60 0*225 729 60 0*232 736 70 0*242 746 70 0* 06620 08/17*252 756 80 0*265 769 80 0*277 776 90 0*293 784 90 0* 06625 08/18*312 784 100 0*328 779 100 0*345 768 100 971*373 754 90 979* 06630 08/19*395 734 80 984*414 708 70 984*433 680 60 0*448 654 60 0* 06635 08/20*465 617 60 0*482 583 60 0*493 550 50 0*502 515 50 0* 06640 HR NC3 VA2 06640 HR NC3 VA2 MA1 *** Based upon research provided by Mark Jelinek and James Belanger from Georgia Institute of Technology, this cyclone should be indicated as causing a Category 1 hurricane impact in Massachusetts. Previously, it was estimated that the hurricane force winds stayed offshore as the hurricane clipped New England. However, upon further inspection of the track and intensity, it is likely that hurricane force winds were felt in southeastern Massachusetts. ******************************************************************************** 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 60 988*335 933 50 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 - 60 kt chosen for HURDAT. 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. ******************************************************************************** 1880/01: 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 Texas. 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). 1880/01 - 2003 REVISION: 06690 06/21/1880 M= 5 1 SNBR= 197 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 06690 06/21/1880 M= 5 1 SNBR= 200 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 *** 06695 06/21*267 865 40 0*268 873 40 0*270 880 40 0*272 886 40 0 06700 06/22*275 894 40 0*278 901 40 0*280 910 40 0*280 916 40 0 06705 06/23*280 923 40 0*280 928 40 0*281 934 40 0*282 940 40 0 06710 06/24*283 945 40 0*284 950 40 0*286 955 40 0*288 959 40 0 06715 06/25*291 963 40 0*295 966 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 06715 06/25*291 963 30 0*295 966 30 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 ** ** 06720 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. ******************************************************************************** 1880/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993). Estimate from Ho (1989) of 931 mb at landfall in Mexico just south of the United States-Mexico border corresponds to 128 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 130 kt chosen for best track. This, along with the extreme destruction in Matamoros, Mexico and Port Isabell and Brazos, Texas, is the basis for determining that this storm reached major hurricane intensity. When the hurricane crossed into the United States at about 06 UTC on the 13th of August, it is estimated that the central pressure had filled to 943 mb which corresponds to 117 kt - 110 kt chosen for best track because hurricane was inland by this point. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Mexico and Texas. 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 below tropical storm intensity). 1880/02 - 2003 REVISION: 06725 08/04/1880 M=11 2 SNBR= 198 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 06725 08/04/1880 M=11 2 SNBR= 201 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 *** 06730 08/04*160 598 40 0*159 618 40 0*160 640 40 0*161 655 40 0 06735 08/05*162 670 50 0*162 684 50 0*165 698 50 0*166 711 50 0 06740 08/06*167 725 60 0*167 738 60 0*170 751 70 0*171 763 70 0 06745 08/07*172 775 80 0*175 786 80 0*177 800 90 0*181 811 90 0 06750 08/08*185 821 90 0*189 831 90 0*192 840 90 0*196 846 90 0 06755 08/09*200 853 90 0*202 860 90 0*207 866 90 0*210 874 70 0 06755 08/09*200 853 90 0*204 860 90 0*207 867 90 0*210 874 70 0 *** *** 06760 08/10*212 881 60 0*216 889 50 0*220 896 60 0*222 904 60 0 06760 08/10*213 881 60 0*216 889 50 0*220 896 60 0*223 904 60 0 *** *** 06765 08/11*226 911 70 0*230 920 70 0*234 926 80 0*237 933 80 0 06765 08/11*226 911 70 0*230 919 70 0*234 926 80 0*237 933 80 0 *** 06770 08/12*240 938 90 0*242 944 100 0*247 950 110 0*252 960 120 0 06770 08/12*240 938 90 0*243 944 100 0*247 950 110 0*252 960 120 0 *** 06775 08/13*257 969 130 931*261 976 110 943*265 985 70 0*271 995 60 0 06780 08/14*2781002 50 0*2861010 40 0*2971015 40 0*3101010 40 0 06780 08/14*2781002 50 0*2861010 40 0*2971015 30 0*3101010 30 0 ** ** 06785 HRATX3 Track altered slightly on the 9th to the 12th 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. ******************************************************************************** 1880/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993). 987 mb central pressure corresponds to 68 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track. 980 mb central pressure corresponds to 78 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track. 992 mb central pressure corresponds to 61 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt chosen for best track. The observations of winds and central pressures of 987 mb and 980 mb from Jamaica and Cuba are the basis for determination that this storm reached hurricane intensity. 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 hurricane until its dissipation below tropical storm intensity). ******************************************************************************** 1880/04: Only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1995) is to remove the track from September 2nd as the storm is determined to have decayed below tropical storm strength by then. The track is otherwise unchanged from that of Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made reasonable small alterations to the track of Neumann et al. (1993). 972 mb central pressure corresponds to 84 kt from the subtropical latitude wind- pressure relationship - 90 kt chosen for best track. A pressure reading of 999 mb not in the storm's center (at 18 UTC on the 25th of August) suggests winds of at least 50 kt from the subtropical latitude wind- pressure relationship - 60 kt used in best track. A pressure reading of 993 mb not in the hurricane's center (at 12 UTC on the 31st of August) suggests winds of at least 58 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the S.E. United States. Storm is determined to be a hurricane based upon several ship reports and pressure measurements both in the Atlantic and again in the Gulf of Mexico. 1880/04 - 2003 REVISION: 06830 08/24/1880 M= 9 4 SNBR= 200 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 06830 08/24/1880 M= 9 4 SNBR= 203 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 *** 06835 08/24*247 575 50 0*249 586 50 0*250 597 50 0*252 607 50 0 06840 08/25*255 618 60 0*257 628 60 0*260 638 60 0*262 650 60 0 06845 08/26*264 661 70 0*266 673 70 0*267 685 80 0*269 696 80 0 06850 08/27*271 709 90 0*272 721 90 0*273 734 90 0*274 744 90 0 06855 08/28*275 754 90 0*277 765 90 0*278 775 90 0*279 785 90 0 06860 08/29*280 794 90 972*281 801 90 0*282 806 90 0*283 811 70 0 06865 08/30*284 816 60 0*285 821 60 0*287 826 60 0*290 833 70 0 06870 08/31*294 841 70 0*298 850 70 0*302 860 60 0*307 870 60 0 06875 09/01*314 878 50 0*322 884 40 0*330 890 40 0*335 891 40 0 06875 09/01*314 878 50 0*322 884 40 0*330 890 30 0*335 891 30 0 ** ** 06880 HRCFL2DFL1AFL1 Decay stage of this hurricane to a tropical depression before dissipation over land inadvertently left out from the first revision of the best track. ******************************************************************************** 1880/05: 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. A pressure reading of 987 mb not in the hurricane's center (at 06 UTC on the 30th of August) suggests winds of at least 67 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track. 977 mb central pressure corresponds to 79 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane intensity based upon several ship reports and pressure measurements. ******************************************************************************** 1880/06: No major changes from this newly documented storm from Partagas and Diaz (1995). 987 mb central pressure corresponds to 67 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Florida. Storm determined to have reached hurricane intensity based upon central pressure reading, destruction at Cape Henry, Virginia and reports from the ship "T.H.A. Pitts". 1880/06 - 2003 REVISION: 06960 09/06/1880 M= 6 6 SNBR= 203 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 06965 09/06*239 886 40 0*242 884 40 0*246 880 40 0*249 876 40 0 06970 09/07*252 873 40 0*256 870 40 0*260 866 40 0*266 863 40 0 06975 09/08*271 860 50 0*277 856 50 0*287 846 50 0*301 831 50 0 06975 09/08*271 860 50 0*277 856 50 0*287 846 50 0*301 831 40 0 ** 06980 09/09*317 804 60 0*335 781 70 987*353 765 70 0*370 743 70 0 06985 09/10*389 720 70 0*408 689 70 0*423 660 70 0*432 639 70 0 06990 09/11E440 617 60 0E447 591 60 0E453 567 60 0E460 542 60 0 06995 HR NC1 No weakening indicated in original HURDAT while passing over Florida. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Florida. Winds reduced accordingly on the 8th. ******************************************************************************** 1880/07: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 6. These track changes are found to be reasonable. Pressure reading of 982 mb (at 12 UTC on the 8th of September) not in the hurricane's center suggests winds of at least 73 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon peripheral pressure reading and wind reports from several ships. ******************************************************************************** 1880/08: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 7. These track changes are found to be reasonable. 928 mb central pressure (twice) corresponds to 118 kt from the subtropical latitude wind- pressure relationship - 120 kt chosen for best track. The storm is determined to have reached major hurricane intensity based upon these two central pressure measurements. ******************************************************************************** 1880/09: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 8. These track changes are found to be reasonable. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Florida. The storm is determined to have reached hurricane intensity both in the Gulf of Mexico and again over the Atlantic based upon several ship observations. ******************************************************************************** 1880/10: No major changes from this newly documented hurricane from Partagas and Diaz (1995). 970 mb central pressure corresponds to 85 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen due to cooler SSTs in October. 979 mb central pressure corresponds to 76 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen partially due to cooler SSTs in October. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon these central pressure readings and several ship reports. ******************************************************************************** 1880/11: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995), except to add 12 and 18 UTC positions for the 20th of October to accommodate beginning of track portrayed. Track otherwise unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 9. 991 mb central pressure corresponds to 61 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt chosen. 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 as an extratropical storm). 1880/11 - 2006 REVISION: 07330 10/20/1880 M= 5 11 SNBR= 211 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 L 07330 10/20/1880 M= 5 11 SNBR= 211 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 L * 07335 10/20* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*271 753 40 0*282 746 40 0* 07340 10/21*293 745 40 0*302 741 40 0*310 740 40 0*317 738 40 0* 07345 10/22*324 736 50 0*332 733 50 0*340 730 50 0*353 726 50 0* 07350 10/23*375 718 60 0E402 705 60 0E435 690 60 991E460 680 50 0* 07355 10/24E478 673 50 0E490 663 50 0E500 650 50 0E508 635 50 0* 07360 TS Based upon research provided by Mark Jelinek and James Belanger from Georgia Institute of Technology, this cyclone should be not be indicated as a U.S. landfall ("XING=1") as it already had become extratropical before striking New England based upon the existing track and intensity in HURDAT. ******************************************************************************** 1881/01: Only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996) is to remove the 12 and 18 UTC from the best track on the 4th of August as the storm was determined to have decayed below tropical storm force by those times. Track otherwise unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993). Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the S.E. 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). 07180 08/01/1881 M= 4 1 SNBR= 208 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 07180 08/01/1881 M= 4 1 SNBR= 211 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 *** 07185 08/01*230 855 40 0*235 858 40 0*240 860 40 0*246 863 40 0 07190 08/02*252 866 40 0*261 868 40 0*270 870 40 0*277 874 40 0 07195 08/03*285 878 50 0*293 881 50 0*301 883 50 0*309 884 40 0 07200 08/04*315 886 40 0*320 888 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 07200 08/04*315 886 30 0*320 888 30 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 ** ** 07205 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. ******************************************************************************** 1881/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), who kept the track as shown in Neumann et al. (1993). Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Texas. 07315 08/11/1881 M= 4 2 SNBR= 209 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 07315 08/11/1881 M= 4 2 SNBR= 212 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 *** 07320 08/11* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*256 887 40 0*256 896 40 0 07325 08/12*256 905 40 0*257 915 40 0*258 924 40 0*261 934 40 0 07330 08/13*264 943 40 0*268 952 40 0*272 958 40 0*277 966 40 0 07335 08/14*283 972 40 0*289 977 30 0*296 983 30 0*308 990 30 0 07335 08/14*283 972 30 0*289 977 30 0*296 983 30 0*308 990 30 0 ** 07340 TS Winds reduced to account for weakening after landfall more realistically. ******************************************************************************** 1881/03: This hurricane was newly documented by Partagas and Diaz (1996) and no major changes are made to their track. The storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon reports from the ship "Fonthill". ******************************************************************************** 1881/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), who made large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 3. These track changes are found to be reasonable. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon reports from the ships "Cohasset" and "Anna". ******************************************************************************** 1881/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), who made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 4. A sea level pressure reading of 985 mb (at 00 UTC on the 27th of August) not in the storm's center suggests sustained winds of at least 70 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt chosen for the best track. Sandrik (1999) utilized this peripheral pressure of 985 mb along with an estimate of a RMW of 15 nmi to get a 970 mb estimate of central pressure at landfall. 970 mb suggests 85 kt winds from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt chosen for best track. 1002 mb central pressure corresponds to 45 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship - 40 kt chosen for best track as storm was well inland at this point. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the S.E. United States. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon several ship reports, the 985 mb peripheral pressure reading and winds from Tybee Island and Augusta, Georgia. 1881/05 - 2003 REVISION: 07330 08/21/1881 M= 9 5 SNBR= 212 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 07330 08/21/1881 M= 9 5 SNBR= 215 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 *** 07335 08/21*176 570 60 0*177 580 60 0*177 590 60 0*177 599 60 0 07340 08/22*180 609 60 0*182 620 60 0*186 630 60 0*189 639 60 0 07345 08/23*192 649 60 0*196 659 60 0*201 670 60 0*207 680 60 0 07350 08/24*216 691 70 0*222 700 70 0*230 708 70 0*237 719 70 0 07355 08/25*244 728 70 0*249 736 70 0*255 746 80 0*260 754 80 0 07360 08/26*267 764 80 0*274 773 80 0*282 781 80 0*286 786 90 0 07365 08/27*293 790 90 0*299 793 90 0*307 796 90 0*313 801 90 0 07370 08/28*316 809 90 970*319 819 70 0*320 830 50 0*320 844 50 0 07375 08/29*325 863 40 0*332 876 40 0*340 890 40 1002*347 904 40 0 07375 08/29*325 863 40 0*332 876 40 0*340 890 40 1002*347 904 30 0 ** 07380 HR GA2 SC1 Decay stage of this hurricane to a tropical depression before dissipation over land inadvertently left out from the first revision of the best track. ******************************************************************************** 1881/06: Only major change from Partagas and Diaz is to adjust the track near U.S. landfall to account for analyses by Ho (1989). Track is otherwise unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 5. Estimated central pressure at landfall of 975 mb corresponds to 81 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt chosen for best track due to small (15 n mi) radius of maximum winds. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the eastern United States. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon several ship reports and estimated central pressure reading of 975 mb. ******************************************************************************** 1881/07: No major changes from this newly documented storm from Partagas and Diaz. ******************************************************************************** 1881 - Additional Notes: 1. The tropical storm listed as #8 in 1881 in Partagas and Diaz (1995b) and storm number 6 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. Partagas and Diaz suggested that the storm was likely an extratropical storm for the duration of its lifetime. ******************************************************************************** 1882/01: No major changes from this newly documented hurricane by Partagas and Diaz (1996). Storm is determined to have reached hurricane intensity based upon reports from the ships "Case" and "Ida". ******************************************************************************** 1882/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), who made large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 1. These track changes are found to be reasonable. 981 mb central pressure suggests winds of 76 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track. 961 mb central pressure corresponds to 94 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt chosen for best track. 949 mb central pressure corresponds to 103 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 100 kt chosen for best track. 1000 mb central pressure suggests 49 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 50 kt chosen for best track. A pressure reading of 980 mb not in the hurricane's center (at 06 UTC on the 4th of September) suggests winds of at least 78 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for the best track. A pressure reading of 986 mb not in the hurricane's center (at 18 UTC on the 5th) suggests winds of at least 70 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for the best track. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the S.E. United States. Storm is determined to have reached major hurricane intensity based upon central pressure reading of 949 mb from the ship "Cato" while over the Gulf of Mexico. 1882/02 - 2003 REVISION: 07485 09/02/1882 M=12 2 SNBR= 216 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 07485 09/02/1882 M=12 2 SNBR= 219 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 *** 07490 09/02*195 675 50 0*197 685 50 0*202 693 50 0*207 701 50 0 07495 09/03*212 709 60 0*217 718 60 0*220 725 70 0*222 734 70 0 07500 09/04*225 743 80 0*225 751 80 0*225 761 80 0*224 770 80 0 07500 09/04*225 743 80 0*225 751 80 0*225 761 90 0*224 770 90 0 ** ** 07505 09/05*224 778 80 0*222 786 80 0*222 795 80 0*222 809 70 0 07505 09/05*224 778 90 0*224 786 80 0*224 795 80 0*224 809 70 0 ** *** *** *** 07510 09/06*222 820 70 0*222 829 70 0*222 838 70 0*222 846 70 0 07510 09/06*224 820 70 0*224 829 70 0*224 838 70 0*224 846 70 0 *** *** *** *** 07515 09/07*225 858 80 981*231 866 80 0*237 873 80 0*242 876 80 0 07515 09/07*226 858 80 981*231 866 80 0*237 873 80 0*242 876 80 0 *** 07520 09/08*247 880 90 0*254 883 90 0*260 886 90 0*264 886 90 0 07520 09/08*247 880 90 0*254 883 90 0*260 886 90 0*264 887 90 0 *** 07525 09/09*268 888 90 0*273 886 90 0*277 884 90 0*288 880 90 961 07525 09/09*268 888 90 0*272 887 90 0*277 884 90 0*288 880 90 961 *** *** 07530 09/10*300 871 100 949*311 861 80 0*319 851 60 0*330 841 40 0 07535 09/11*337 833 40 0*345 821 40 0*353 808 40 0*367 783 40 0 07540 09/12*384 749 50 0*400 715 60 0*417 681 50 1000*437 645 50 0 07545 09/13E452 610 40 0E465 575 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 07550 HRAFL3 AL1 Re-analysis effort by Perez (2000) has analyzed this hurricane as a Category 2 landfall in Cuba, instead of a Category 1 assigned in HURDAT. Winds are adjusted accordingly on the 4th and 5th. Perez' track was slightly farther north on the 5th and 6th, so the latitudes on those dates have also been changed accordingly. Track altered slightly on the 8th and 9th to provide a more realistic translational velocity. 1882/02 - 2006 REVISION: 07670 09/02/1882 M=12 2 SNBR= 220 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 07675 09/02*195 675 50 0*197 685 50 0*202 693 50 0*207 701 50 0* 07680 09/03*212 709 60 0*217 718 60 0*220 725 70 0*222 734 70 0* 07685 09/04*225 743 80 0*225 751 80 0*225 761 90 0*224 770 90 0* 07690 09/05*224 778 90 0*224 786 80 0*224 795 80 0*224 809 70 0* 07695 09/06*224 820 70 0*224 829 70 0*224 838 70 0*224 846 70 0* 07700 09/07*226 858 80 981*231 866 80 0*237 873 80 0*242 876 80 0* 07705 09/08*247 880 90 0*254 883 90 0*260 886 90 0*264 887 90 0* 07710 09/09*268 888 90 0*272 887 90 0*277 884 90 0*288 880 90 961* 07715 09/10*300 871 100 949*311 861 80 0*319 851 60 0*330 841 40 0* 07720 09/11*337 833 40 0*345 821 40 0*353 808 40 0*367 783 40 0* 07725 09/12*384 749 50 0*400 715 60 0*417 681 50 1000*437 645 50 0* 07730 09/13E452 610 40 0E465 575 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 07735 HRAFL3 AL1 07735 HRAFL3IAL1 **** Revision indicated in continental U.S. impacts to specify that the Alabama hurricane impact from this cyclone was inland, rather than along Alabama's Gulf coast. ******************************************************************************** 1882/03 - 2003 ADDITION: 07566 09/14/1882 M= 3 3 SNBR= 220 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 07567 09/14*280 890 90 0*282 900 90 0*285 910 90 0*289 920 90 0 07568 09/15*294 930 90 0*299 938 80 0*304 945 60 0*309 950 40 0 07569 09/16*315 953 30 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 07570 HR LA2CTX1 Roth (1997a,b) documents a newly described system that made landfall along the U.S. coastline near the Texas-Louisiana border: "A strong tropical storm hit the mouth of the Sabine River. A "terrific wind and rain storm" caused damage to homes in Sabine Pass, Tx. The Lake Charles Echo, La. reported it as a "hurricane" that destroyed a house and injured its occupant. Streets in town were covered by 3 feet of water. Fences were blown over a mile from their previous location. That night [the 14th], a "Hard wind and rain" visited Lake Charles, described as a lively gale". Port Eads, La. had winds of 70 m.p.h. and a pressure of 29.38". Abbeville, La. reported no damage with the storm." From this description a rough track of the storm was created that goes from southeast to northwest, making landfall just east of Sabine Pass. Storm surge modeling (B. Jarvinen, personal communication) suggests that 3' of standing water in the streets of Lake Charles requires a Category 2 at landfall. Thus this system is estimated as 90 kt at landfall. The inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Texas and Louisiana. ******************************************************************************** 1882/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), (was originally storm #3 in the Partagas and Diaz report). Track unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993), their storm number 2. 1005 mb central pressure corresponds to 40 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship, which is utilized as the best track intensity value. 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). 1882/04 - 2003 REVISION: 07570 09/21/1882 M= 4 3 SNBR= 218 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 07570 09/21/1882 M= 4 4 SNBR= 218 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 * 07575 09/21*285 768 40 0*292 771 40 0*300 775 40 0*308 776 40 0 07580 09/22*315 776 40 0*322 776 40 0*330 774 50 0*340 771 50 0 07580 09/22*315 776 40 0*322 776 40 0*330 775 50 0*340 773 50 0 *** *** 07585 09/23*350 770 40 0*360 766 40 1005*370 761 40 0*382 755 40 0 07590 09/24*394 745 40 0*410 725 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 07595 TS Track altered slightly on the 22nd to provide a more realistic smooth track. ******************************************************************************** 1882/05: No major changes from this newly documented hurricane from Partagas and Diaz (1996), (was originally storm #4 in the Partagas and Diaz report). Storm is determined to have reached hurricane intensity based upon reports from the ships "R.A. Allen" and "Sedmi Dubrovacki". ******************************************************************************** 1882/06: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), (was originally storm #5 in the Partagas and Diaz report). Track unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993), their storm number 3. 975 mb central pressure corresponds to 84 kt in the southern wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt chosen for best track. 981 mb central pressure corresponds to 76 kt of sustained winds from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt utilized in best track. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Florida and Georgia. Storm is determined to have been of hurricane intensity while in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico based upon these central pressure readings, ship reports and a 9 foot storm tide experienced at the mouth of the Colona River, Cuba. Storm regained hurricane intensity while over the Atlantic based upon several ship reports. 07620 10/05/1882 M=11 5 SNBR= 219 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 07620 10/05/1882 M=11 6 SNBR= 223 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 * *** 07625 10/05*142 816 40 0*146 819 40 0*150 820 40 0*154 821 40 0 07630 10/06*158 821 50 0*162 823 50 0*166 824 50 0*170 825 50 0 07635 10/07*172 826 60 0*177 828 60 0*180 829 70 0*184 830 70 0 07640 10/08*187 831 80 0*191 831 80 0*195 831 90 0*202 835 90 0 07640 10/08*187 831 80 0*191 832 90 0*195 833 100 0*202 835 110 0 *** ** *** *** *** 07645 10/09*212 836 90 975*222 839 80 981*235 840 80 0*244 840 80 0 07645 10/09*212 837 120 0*222 839 100 0*235 840 90 0*244 841 80 0 *** *** *** *** *** ** *** 07650 10/10*254 841 70 0*265 841 70 0*275 840 70 0*283 838 70 0 07655 10/11*291 836 70 0*298 831 60 0*305 826 50 0*312 815 50 0 07660 10/12*320 804 60 0*330 790 60 0*338 775 70 0*342 760 70 0 07665 10/13*347 748 70 0*350 733 70 0*355 720 70 0*358 711 70 0 07670 10/14*360 704 70 0*362 696 70 0*365 690 70 0*367 683 70 0 07675 10/15*370 676 60 0*372 670 60 0*375 661 60 0*378 651 60 0 07680 HRAFL1 Re-analysis effort by Perez (2000) has analyzed this hurricane as a Category 4 landfall in Cuba, instead of a Category 2 assigned in HURDAT. The pressure values of 975 mb and 981 mb on 00 and 06Z on the 9th are found to be peripheral pressures, instead of central pressures based upon additional information provided by Perez (2000). Winds are adjusted accordingly on the 4th and 5th. ******************************************************************************** 1883/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), who made large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993). These track changes are found to be reasonable. Pressure reading of 975 mb not in hurricane's center (at 18 UTC on the 26th of August) suggests winds of at least 78 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track. 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 hurricane until its dissipation as an extratropical storm). Storm is determined to have reached hurricane intensity based upon the peripheral pressure and several ship reports. 1883/01 - 2003 REVISION: 07815 08/18/1883 M=11 1 SNBR= 224 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 07820 08/18*192 485 40 0*194 495 40 0*195 510 40 0*197 526 40 0 07825 08/19*202 544 40 0*207 560 40 0*212 575 50 0*217 590 50 0 07830 08/20*222 605 50 0*231 623 50 0*240 640 50 0*247 651 50 0 07835 08/21*258 666 60 0*270 680 60 0*281 690 60 0*287 694 60 0 07835 08/21*258 666 60 0*270 680 60 0*281 690 60 0*290 694 60 0 *** 07840 08/22*295 696 70 0*306 700 70 0*315 701 70 0*320 703 70 0 07840 08/22*299 697 70 0*307 700 70 0*315 702 70 0*322 703 70 0 *** *** *** *** *** 07845 08/23*328 701 70 0*333 700 70 0*339 696 70 0*343 691 70 0 07845 08/23*328 702 70 0*334 700 70 0*339 696 70 0*343 691 70 0 *** *** 07850 08/24*349 684 70 0*353 678 70 0*358 671 70 0*364 661 70 0 07855 08/25*369 653 80 0*375 641 80 0*384 625 80 0*395 603 80 0 07860 08/26*412 574 80 0*429 541 80 0*443 509 80 0*458 480 80 0 07865 08/27*477 438 70 0*493 400 70 0E510 360 60 0E521 328 60 0 07870 08/28E534 289 60 0E547 247 60 0E557 207 50 0E567 175 50 0 07875 HR Track altered slightly to provide a more realistic translational velocity. ******************************************************************************** 1883/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), who made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993). 983 mb central pressure suggests winds of 70 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt used in best track. A pressure reading of 948 mb not at the hurricane's center (at 00 UTC on the 29th of August) suggests winds of at least 98 kt from the northern wind- pressure relationship - 110 kt utilized in best track. A 963 mb central pressure measured during the storm's extratropical stage suggests winds of 88 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track as it had already undergone extratropical transition. Storm is determined to have reached major hurricane intensity based upon the 948 mb peripheral pressure measurement. ******************************************************************************** 1883/03: Only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996) is to remove 12 and 18 UTC on the 13th of September as it is suggested that the hurricane had decreased below tropical storm force winds by that time. Track from Partagas and Diaz (1996) otherwise has reasonable small alterations from that shown in Neumann et al. (1993). Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the eastern United States. A pressure reading of 955 mb not at the hurricane's center (at 12 UTC on the 4th of September) suggests winds of at least 105 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 110 kt chosen for best track. A pressure reading of 978 mb not at the hurricane's center (at 18 UTC on the 8th) suggests winds of at least 80 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt chosen for best track. A pressure reading of 982 mb not at the hurricane's center (at 06 UTC on the 10th) suggests winds of at least 73 kt - 90 kt chosen for best track. Storm determined to have reached major hurricane intensity while over the Atlantic based upon peripheral pressure reading of 955 mb and from extreme damage in Martinique. 1883/03 - 2003 REVISION: 07810 09/04/1883 M=10 3 SNBR= 222 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 07810 09/04/1883 M=10 3 SNBR= 226 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 *** 07815 09/04*140 579 110 0*144 592 110 0*147 603 110 0*150 615 110 0 07820 09/05*154 628 110 0*159 641 110 0*162 655 110 0*167 668 110 0 07825 09/06*174 683 110 0*180 699 110 0*187 715 80 0*197 726 70 0 07830 09/07*209 739 70 0*214 748 70 0*220 755 70 0*225 760 70 0 07830 09/07*207 737 70 0*214 748 70 0*220 755 70 0*225 760 70 0 *** *** 07835 09/08*231 763 80 0*235 765 80 0*240 766 90 0*247 771 90 0 07835 09/08*230 763 80 0*235 766 80 0*240 769 90 0*247 772 90 0 *** *** *** *** 07840 09/09*255 774 90 0*264 778 90 0*273 780 90 0*280 781 90 0 07840 09/09*255 775 90 0*264 778 90 0*273 780 90 0*280 781 90 0 *** 07845 09/10*287 781 90 0*295 783 90 0*302 784 90 0*312 786 90 0 07845 09/10*287 782 90 0*295 783 90 0*302 784 90 0*312 785 90 0 *** *** 07850 09/11*322 786 90 0*330 786 90 0*338 785 90 0*344 784 70 0 07855 09/12*350 783 50 0*354 783 50 0*360 781 40 0*370 779 40 0 07855 09/12*350 783 50 0*354 782 50 0*360 781 40 0*370 779 40 0 *** 07860 09/13*380 776 40 0*393 773 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 07860 09/13*380 776 30 0*393 773 30 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 ** ** 07865 HR NC2 SC1 Decay stage of this hurricane to a tropical depression before dissipation over land inadvertently left out from the first revision of the best track. Track is adjusted slightly to provide for a more realistic translation velocity. ******************************************************************************** 1883/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), who made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993). A pressure reading of 983 mb (at 18 UTC on the 27th of October) suggests winds of at least 70 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen in best track as the storm had already undergone extratropical transformation. Storm did not reach hurricane intensity as a tropical cyclone, but did obtain hurricane-force sustained winds on the 27th of October as an extratropical storm. ******************************************************************************** 1884/01: No major changes from this newly documented hurricane from Partagas and Diaz (1996). Storm is determined to have reached hurricane intensity based upon reports from the ships "Oder" and "Engelbert". ******************************************************************************** 1884/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996). Track unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 1. Central pressure of 957 mb corresponds to winds of 103 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 100 kt chosen for best track. A pressure reading of 983 mb not in the hurricane's center (at 00 UTC on the 15th of September) suggests winds of at least 70 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track. 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 below tropical storm intensity). Storm is determined to have reached major hurricane intensity based upon the central pressure reading of 957 mb. ******************************************************************************** 1884/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), who made large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 2. These track changes are found to be reasonable. 982 mb central pressure corresponds with 73 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track. 982 mb central pressure corresponds to 71 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track. A pressure reading of 982 mb not at the hurricane's center (at 18 UTC on the 16th of September) suggests winds of at least 73 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track. 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 hurricane until its dissipation as an extratropical storm). Storm is determined to have reached hurricane intensity based upon pressure measurements and several ship reports. 1884/03 - 2003 REVISION: 08035 09/10/1884 M=11 3 SNBR= 226 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 08035 09/10/1884 M=11 3 SNBR= 230 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 *** 08040 09/10*287 791 40 0*297 801 40 0*306 806 40 0*310 809 40 0 08045 09/11*315 811 40 0*319 815 40 0*325 816 40 0*330 813 40 0 08045 09/11*315 811 40 0*319 815 40 0*325 816 30 0*330 813 30 0 ** ** 08050 09/12*332 810 40 0*332 804 40 0*330 799 40 0*322 796 40 0 08050 09/12*332 810 30 0*332 804 30 0*330 799 30 0*322 796 40 0 ** ** ** 08055 09/13*314 791 50 0*305 785 50 0*303 773 50 0*305 764 50 0 08060 09/14*307 755 60 0*305 744 60 0*300 740 60 0*296 739 60 0 08060 09/14*307 755 60 0*305 744 60 0*300 740 60 0*296 739 70 0 ** 08065 09/15*293 739 70 982*288 739 70 0*285 740 70 0*283 744 70 0 08065 09/15*293 739 70 982*288 740 70 0*284 744 70 0*281 749 70 0 *** *** *** *** *** 08070 09/16*283 748 80 0*284 751 80 0*285 753 80 0*292 754 80 0 08070 09/16*279 754 70 0*278 760 70 988*278 758 70 0*279 755 70 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** 08075 09/17*302 751 80 0*310 746 80 0*320 735 80 0*333 719 80 0 08075 09/17*281 751 80 0*284 746 80 0*288 735 80 0*292 715 80 0 *** *** *** *** *** 08080 09/18*350 694 70 0*365 669 70 0*380 640 70 0*393 611 70 0 08080 09/18*296 680 80 0*302 653 80 979*314 613 80 0*340 585 80 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** 08085 09/19*410 577 70 0*427 537 70 982*440 505 70 0*459 458 70 0 08085 09/19*390 560 70 0*427 535 70 982*445 505 70 0*460 458 70 0 *** *** *** *** *** 08090 09/20E477 404 60 0E495 345 60 0E510 290 50 0E530 230 50 0 08095 HR Additional ship observations for this hurricane were obtained from the _American Meteorological Journal_ of 1884 (pages 298-300). In particular, the ship "Alpine" reported hurricane-force winds late on the 14th - thus winds in the best track for that day are increased. A central pressure value of 988 mb from the ship "R. M. Walls" (06Z on the 16th) suggests winds of 66 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - winds reduced down to 70 kt in best track along with a repositioning farther south and west on the 15th and 16th. A central pressure value of 979 mb from the ship "Stephen Hart" (06Z on the 18th) suggests winds of 76 kt - winds are increased to 80 kt and the hurricane is repositioned farther to the south and to the east on the 17th to the 19th. Decay stage of this storm to a tropical depression while over land on the 11th and 12th inadvertently left out from the first revision of the best track. (A thank you to Sim Aberson for pointing out these additional ship observations.) ******************************************************************************** 1884/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), who made large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 3. These track changes are found to be reasonable. Pressure readings of 982 and 980 mb not in the hurricane's center (on 00 UTC and 18 UTC on the 14th of October) suggest winds of at least 73 and 75 kt, respectively, from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt chosen for best track. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane intensity while in the Caribbean based upon reports from the ship "Cienfuegos" and from damage in Santiago de Cuba, Cuba. The storm then regained hurricane intensity over the Atlantic based upon the pressure measurements and several ship reports. 1884/04 - 2003 REVISION: 08230 10/07/1884 M=11 4 SNBR= 227 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 08230 10/07/1884 M=11 4 SNBR= 231 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 *** 08235 10/07*162 766 40 0*165 766 40 0*169 764 50 0*175 761 50 0 08240 10/08*180 760 60 0*185 758 60 0*191 756 70 0*196 755 70 0 08245 10/09*200 754 70 0*202 754 60 0*207 753 50 0*210 751 50 0 08245 10/09*200 754 70 0*204 753 60 0*207 753 50 0*210 752 50 0 *** *** *** 08250 10/10*214 751 50 0*217 751 50 0*220 750 50 0*222 750 50 0 08250 10/10*214 751 50 0*217 750 50 0*220 750 50 0*222 750 50 0 *** 08255 10/11*222 750 60 0*225 750 60 0*227 750 70 0*230 750 70 0 08255 10/11*224 750 60 0*225 750 60 0*227 750 70 0*230 750 70 0 *** 08260 10/12*232 750 70 0*235 750 70 0*237 750 70 0*240 750 70 0 08265 10/13*244 750 80 0*250 750 80 0*255 750 80 0*257 750 80 0 08270 10/14*257 750 90 0*257 750 90 0*257 746 90 0*258 741 90 0 08275 10/15*261 728 80 0*264 720 80 0*268 708 80 0*272 699 80 0 08280 10/16*276 688 70 0*279 678 70 0*282 668 70 0*284 654 70 0 08285 10/17*286 637 60 0*289 618 60 0*291 601 60 0*293 580 60 0 08290 HR Track slightly adjusted to provide for a more realistic motion. It was suggested by Perez (personal communication, 2003) that instead of a hard right turn by this storm, that a cyclonic loop may have been tracked from late on the 12th to the 14th. Without more definitive information, the original track in HURDAT is retained. ******************************************************************************** 1885/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), who made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993). 990 mb central pressure corresponds to 63 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track. 981 mb central pressure corresponds to 72 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track. 983 mb central pressure corresponds to 70 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track. A pressure reading of 975 mb not in the hurricane's center (at 18 UTC on the 10th of August) suggests winds of at least 78 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track. The storm is determined to have reached hurricane intensity from these pressure reports and several other ship reports. ******************************************************************************** 1885/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), 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 the S.E. United States. 958 mb central pressure corresponds to 91 kt in the northern wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt chosen for best track. A pressure reading of 976 mb not in the hurricane's center (at 06 UTC on 25th of August) suggests winds of at least 80 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship - 100 kt chosen for best track (because of this information as well as extreme damage caused by winds in South Carolina). This is the basis for determining that the storm reached major hurricane intensity. ******************************************************************************** 1885/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996). Track unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993). Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the S.E. 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). ******************************************************************************** 1885/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996). Track unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993). Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the S.E. United States. Two pressure readings of 973 mb and 975 mb not in the hurricane's center (both at 06 UTC on the 23rd of September) suggests winds of at least 80 kt and 79 kt respectively from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track. This storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon these peripheral pressures. ******************************************************************************** 1885/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996). Track unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993). 999 mb central pressure corresponds to a wind of 49 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 50 kt utilized in best track. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane intensity based upon reports from the ship "Sirius". ******************************************************************************** 1885/06: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996). Track unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993). Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the S.E. United States. Storm determined to have reached hurricane intensity while over the Atlantic based upon reports from the ship "Lone Star". 1885/06 - 2003 REVISION: 08370 09/24/1885 M= 9 6 SNBR= 233 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 08370 09/24/1885 M= 9 6 SNBR= 237 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 *** 08375 09/24*264 878 40 0*267 879 40 0*270 880 40 0*274 881 40 0 08380 09/25*278 883 50 0*282 884 50 0*287 886 50 0*290 888 50 0 08385 09/26*293 889 60 0*297 890 60 0*300 891 60 0*302 890 60 0 08390 09/27*303 889 60 0*304 888 50 0*305 886 50 0*306 884 40 0 08395 09/28*306 881 40 0*306 878 40 0*306 874 40 0*306 870 40 0 08400 09/29*306 865 40 0*306 860 40 0*305 854 40 0*304 848 40 0 08400 09/29*306 865 30 0*306 860 30 0*305 854 30 0*304 848 30 0 ** ** ** ** 08405 09/30*303 840 40 0*302 833 40 0*302 828 40 0*302 818 40 0 08405 09/30*303 840 30 0*302 833 30 0*302 828 30 0*302 818 30 0 ** ** ** ** 08410 10/01*304 808 40 0*307 796 40 0*312 788 50 0*320 778 60 0 08415 10/02*329 770 60 0*338 763 60 0*345 756 70 0*355 741 70 0 08420 HR Decay stage of this storm to a tropical depression while over land on the 29th and 30th inadvertently left out from the first revision of the best track. ******************************************************************************** 1885/07: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996). Track unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993). A pressure reading of 982 mb not in the hurricane's center (at 12 UTC on the 29th of September) suggests winds of at least 71 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for the best track. Storm determined to have reached hurricane intensity based upon this peripheral pressure reading and wind reports from the ship "Mistletoe". ******************************************************************************** 1885/08: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), who made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993). Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the eastern 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 as an extratropical storm). 1885/08: 2003 REVISION 08585 10/08/1885 M= 7 8 SNBR= 235 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 08585 10/10/1885 M= 5 8 SNBR= 239 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 * *** 08590 10/08*172 805 40 0*176 806 40 0*180 809 40 0*187 811 40 0 08595 10/09*195 815 40 0*201 816 40 0*209 821 40 0*217 823 40 0 (The 8th and 9th are omitted from the revised HURDAT.) 08600 10/10*225 826 40 0*232 828 40 0*239 830 40 0*247 833 40 0 08600 10/10* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*239 830 40 0*247 833 40 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** 08605 10/11*257 836 50 0*265 839 50 0*273 840 60 0*286 836 60 0 08610 10/12*300 830 50 0*314 824 50 0*330 815 40 0*340 808 40 0 08615 10/13*349 800 40 0*362 790 40 0E374 784 40 0E390 780 40 0 08620 10/14E405 775 40 0E420 770 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 08625 TS Re-analysis of Cuban tropical storms and hurricanes (Perez 2000) reveals that this system was not yet of tropical storm strength from the 8th until early on the 10th based upon the Cuban observational network. While it is quite possible that the system was of tropical depression intensity on these dates, formative tropical depression stage is not included in HURDAT until 1886. ******************************************************************************** 08500 06/13/1886 M= 3 1 SNBR= 236 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9 08500 06/13/1886 M= 3 1 SNBR= 240 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 *** * 08505 06/13* 0 0 0 0*232 957 35 0*247 959 40 0*260 960 45 0 08510 06/14*269 958 45 0*279 954 50 0*289 946 50 0*298 938 50 0 08510 06/14*269 958 55 0*279 953 65 0*289 947 75 0*299 940 85 0 ** *** ** *** ** *** *** ** 08515 06/15*304 928 50 0*309 918 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 08515 06/15*306 930 60 0*310 918 45 0*312 904 35 0*312 890 30 0 *** *** ** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 08520 TS 08520 HRCTX2 LA2 ****** *** The only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996a) is to continue the storm until 18Z on the 15th to allow for decay to tropical depression stage. Partagas and Diaz otherwise made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Storm is upgraded to a Category 2 hurricane (85 kt) at landfall based upon damage and 7 foot storm tide at Sabine Pass, Texas (Partagas and Diaz 1996a). Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Texas and Louisiana. ******************************************************************************** 08525 06/18/1886 M= 6 2 SNBR= 237 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9 08525 06/17/1886 M= 8 2 SNBR= 241 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 ** * *** * (17th not in HURDAT previously.) 08530 06/17*191 848 35 0*196 851 35 0*200 853 40 0*204 854 40 0 08530 06/18* 0 0 0 0*194 850 35 0*198 853 50 0*201 856 65 0 08532 06/18*207 856 45 0*211 856 50 0*217 857 55 0*221 857 65 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 08535 06/19*204 858 70 0*208 861 75 0*214 864 80 0*218 865 80 0 08535 06/19*225 857 70 0*229 856 75 0*233 853 80 0*238 851 80 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 08540 06/20*224 868 85 0*232 869 85 0*242 870 85 0*254 868 85 0 08540 06/20*243 849 85 0*247 847 85 0*253 845 85 0*263 844 85 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 08545 06/21*267 864 85 0*280 857 85 0*294 850 85 0*308 843 75 0 08545 06/21*277 842 85 0*289 841 85 0*303 840 80 0*313 838 65 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** 08550 06/22*323 832 50 0*338 822 40 0*352 810 35 0*363 793 35 0 08550 06/22*323 832 45 0*338 822 40 0*352 810 35 0*363 793 35 0 ** 08555 06/23*373 780 35 0*384 769 35 0*393 753 35 0*399 732 35 0 08555 06/23*373 780 30 0*384 769 30 0*393 753 30 0*399 732 30 0 ** ** ** ** (24th not in HURDAT previously.) 08557 06/24*402 700 30 0*401 660 30 0*400 615 30 0*399 570 30 0 08560 HR 08560 HRAFL2 GA1 ****** *** 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. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the eastern United States. 1886/02 - 2006 REVISION: 08725 06/17/1886 M= 8 2 SNBR= 242 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 08730 06/17*191 848 35 0*196 851 35 0*200 853 40 0*204 854 40 0* 08735 06/18*207 856 45 0*211 856 50 0*217 857 55 0*221 857 65 0* 08740 06/19*225 857 70 0*229 856 75 0*233 853 80 0*238 851 80 0* 08745 06/20*243 849 85 0*247 847 85 0*253 845 85 0*263 844 85 0* 08750 06/21*277 842 85 0*289 841 85 0*303 840 80 0*313 838 65 0* 08755 06/22*323 832 45 0*338 822 40 0*352 810 35 0*363 793 35 0* 08760 06/23*373 780 30 0*384 769 30 0*393 753 30 0*399 732 30 0* 08765 06/24*402 700 30 0*401 660 30 0*400 615 30 0*399 570 30 0* 08770 HRAFL2 GA1 08770 HRAFL2IGA1 **** Revision indicated in continental U.S. impacts to specify that the Georgia hurricane impact from this cyclone was inland, rather than along Georgia's Atlantic coast. ******************************************************************************** 08565 06/27/1886 M= 6 3 SNBR= 238 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9 08565 06/27/1886 M= 6 3 SNBR= 242 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 *** * 08570 06/27* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*170 801 35 0*176 823 45 0 08570 06/27* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*183 797 35 0*192 800 45 0 *** *** *** *** 08575 06/28*183 842 65 0*191 859 80 0*200 871 85 0*211 881 80 0 08575 06/28*199 803 55 0*207 807 65 0*215 815 75 0*220 825 80 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** 08580 06/29*223 882 80 0*235 883 85 0*247 884 85 0*255 881 85 0 08580 06/29*224 835 70 0*229 842 70 0*237 853 75 0*246 860 80 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 08585 06/30*260 878 85 0*266 875 85 0*273 869 85 0*282 859 85 0 08585 06/30*256 864 85 0*264 867 85 0*273 867 85 0*288 860 85 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 08590 07/01*289 848 85 0*309 828 80 0*324 818 60 0*338 803 45 0 08590 07/01*304 844 70 0*318 827 55 0*330 813 50 0*338 803 45 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 08595 07/02*349 791 40 0*361 780 35 0*372 770 35 0*382 753 35 0 08600 HR 08600 HRAFL2 **** 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. Analyses from Perez (2000) indicates that the hurricane was only Category 1 at its landfall in Cuba; winds are adjusted downward on the 28th and 29th. Changes made to the track near Cuba are consistent with modifications suggested by Perez (2000). Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the eastern United States. 1886/03 - 2006 REVISION: 08775 06/27/1886 M= 6 3 SNBR= 243 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 08780 06/27* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*183 797 35 0*192 800 45 0* 08785 06/28*199 803 55 0*207 807 65 0*215 815 75 0*220 825 80 0* 08790 06/29*224 835 70 0*229 842 70 0*237 853 75 0*246 860 80 0* 08795 06/30*256 864 85 0*264 867 85 0*273 867 85 0*288 860 85 0* 08800 07/01*304 844 70 0*318 827 55 0*330 813 50 0*338 803 45 0* 08805 07/02*349 791 40 0*361 780 35 0*372 770 35 0*382 753 35 0* 08810 HRAFL2 08810 HRAFL2IGA1 **** Based upon research provided by Mark Jelinek and James Belanger from Georgia Institute of Technology, this cyclone should be indicated as causing inland hurricane conditions in Georgia based upon the existing track and intensity in HURDAT. ******************************************************************************** 08605 07/14/1886 M= 7 4 SNBR= 239 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9 08605 07/14/1886 M=11 4 SNBR= 243 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 ** *** * 08610 07/14* 0 0 0 0*189 829 35 0*192 834 40 0*197 839 40 0 08610 07/14* 0 0 0 0*189 829 35 0*192 834 40 0*194 838 40 0 *** *** 08615 07/15*202 844 45 0*207 850 50 0*213 855 55 0*219 861 60 0 08615 07/15*196 842 45 0*198 846 45 0*200 850 50 0*202 853 50 0 *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 08620 07/16*226 868 65 0*234 875 70 0*241 881 75 0*251 883 75 0 08620 07/16*204 856 55 0*206 858 55 0*207 860 60 0*209 859 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 08625 07/17*260 883 80 0*270 882 85 0*274 876 85 0*277 869 85 0 08625 07/17*211 857 60 0*213 855 60 0*215 853 65 0*224 848 65 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 08630 07/18*278 860 85 0*279 851 85 0*281 843 85 0*286 832 85 0 08630 07/18*237 844 70 0*251 839 70 0*265 835 70 0*276 833 70 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 08635 07/19*291 824 85 0*299 813 80 0*305 803 75 0*312 792 70 0 08635 07/19*287 828 70 0*295 821 55 0*303 810 50 0*314 786 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 08640 07/20*319 781 70 0*328 770 70 0*338 758 70 0*347 738 70 0 08640 07/20*327 756 70 0*339 726 75 0*350 700 75 0*358 680 75 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** (21st to 24th not in HURDAT previously.) 08641 07/21*368 653 70 0*377 626 70 0*387 600 70 0*398 569 70 990 08642 07/22*414 535 70 0*430 498 70 0*443 463 70 0*451 431 65 0 08643 07/23E461 395 60 0E470 356 60 0E480 320 60 0E495 290 60 0 08644 07/24E515 258 60 0E537 227 60 0E555 210 55 0E573 195 50 0 08645 HR 08645 HRAFL1 **** The only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996a) is to start the storm on the 14th as depicted in Neumann et al instead of Partagas and Diaz' start date of the 16th. Partagas and Diaz otherwise made large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), which are found to be reasonable. A possible central pressure of 990 mb at 21Z on the 21st suggests 63 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship. Peripheral pressures of 993 mb at 06Z on the 22nd suggest at least 59 kt. 70 kt chosen for best track for the 21st and early on the 22nd. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Florida. Winds from the 17th to the 19th lowered slightly as available observations indicate this system was likely of minimal hurricane intensity while in the Gulf of Mexico and at landfall in Northwest Florida. Observations from Sandrik (2001) suggest that the system weakened quickly over Florida, before re-intensifying over the Atlantic after oceanfall. ******************************************************************************** 08650 08/12/1886 M=10 5 SNBR= 240 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9 08650 08/12/1886 M=10 5 SNBR= 244 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=4 *** * 08655 08/12* 0 0 0 0*105 580 35 0*111 589 50 0*117 606 60 0 08655 08/12* 0 0 0 0*105 580 35 0*111 589 40 0*118 598 45 0 ** *** *** ** 08660 08/13*123 621 70 0*129 635 75 0*133 646 80 0*137 654 80 0 08660 08/13*125 607 50 0*132 617 55 0*140 627 60 0*146 639 65 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 08665 08/14*140 661 85 0*143 667 85 0*147 676 85 0*151 687 85 0 08665 08/14*152 652 70 0*157 662 75 0*163 673 80 0*169 683 85 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** 08670 08/15*155 698 85 0*159 708 85 0*164 719 85 0*169 729 85 0 08670 08/15*174 693 85 0*179 702 85 0*183 713 80 0*186 726 75 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** 08675 08/16*174 740 85 0*180 750 85 0*187 760 85 0*199 769 80 0 08720 08/16*188 739 70 0*191 752 80 0*195 765 85 0*204 773 80 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** 08680 08/17*211 775 75 0*221 782 70 0*229 796 55 0*238 811 60 0 08680 08/17*213 781 75 0*221 790 70 0*225 797 55 0*231 805 60 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 08685 08/18*247 833 65 0*255 856 70 0*261 873 75 0*263 886 75 0 08685 08/18*238 817 65 0*243 830 70 0*247 843 75 0*253 861 75 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 08690 08/19*262 898 80 0*262 910 80 0*263 919 85 0*265 933 85 0 08690 08/19*256 879 80 0*259 897 90 0*263 919 100 0*265 933 110 0 *** *** *** *** ** *** *** 08695 08/20*268 945 85 0*274 956 85 0*280 966 85 0*288 976 70 984 08695 08/20*268 945 120 0*274 956 130 0*280 966 135 925*290 980 85 965 *** *** ** *** *** *** ** *** 08700 08/21*297 984 60 0*308 993 50 0*3201000 35 0*3351013 25 0 08700 08/21*300 990 60 0*310 999 50 0*3201007 35 0*3351013 25 0 *** *** *** *** **** 08705 HR 08705 HRBTX4 ****** The only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996a) is to start the storm on the 12th as depicted in Neumann et al. instead of Partagas and Diaz' start date of the 13th. Partagas and Diaz otherwise made large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), which are found to be reasonable. A slower intensification of the storm was indicated here compared with the original HURDAT for the 12th to the 14th due to evidence of tropical storm intensity until the 14th. The analysis by Perez (2000) confirms landfall in Cuba as a Category 2 hurricane. Changes made to the track near Cuba are consistent with modifications suggested by Perez (2000). Estimated central pressure from Ho (1989) of 915 mb at landfall in Texas is incorrect since it relied upon a pressure measurement from San Antonio, Texas, which has been found to be a surface pressure rather than a sea level pressure value. Additionally, it is likely that this was not a central pressure measurement either as strong winds were still observed at the time of lowest pressure and that winds only shifted from northeast to southeast. This sea level pressure measurement of 971 mb (corrected from the 948 mb surface pressure value) at 19Z on the 20th implies a central pressure of around 965 mb, assuming that the RMW estimate of Ho (of 12 nmi) is slightly too small (15 nmi utilized instead). 965 mb suggests winds of 94 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship for a marine exposure - 85 kt utilized in best track for this inland location. Using methodology in Ho et al. (1987) as modified by B. Jarvinen (personal communication), a 6.5 hr transit time from landfall to a position near San Antonio, and the 965 mb central pressure near San Antonio, a new value of 925 mb at landfall is estimated for this hurricane. This suggests winds of 133 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship. The estimate of 15 nmi for RMW is slightly smaller than climatology (18 nmi) for this latitude and central pressure (Vickery et al. 2000), supporting slightly stronger winds for this particular storm. 135 kt is chosen as the maximum sustained winds at landfall. This is consistent with the very high storm tide and extreme destruction in Indianola, Texas. Storm surge modeling efforts with the SLOSH model (B. Jarvinen, personal communication) indicate that a 925 mb central pressure and RMW of 15 nmi provides reasonable matches to observed surge values. Positions are altered slightly after landfall to better account for passage of the hurricane's center near San Antonio at 19Z on the 20th.A storm tide of 15' was reported for Indianola, Texas in Roth (1997b). ******************************************************************************** 08710 08/16/1886 M=12 6 SNBR= 241 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 08710 08/15/1886 M=13 6 SNBR= 245 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 ** ** *** (15th not in HURDAT previously.) 08712 08/15*146 545 55 0*144 555 60 0*143 565 65 0*141 577 70 0 08715 08/16* 0 0 0 0*120 600 45 0*120 612 50 0*121 624 60 0 08715 08/16*138 589 75 0*135 600 85 0*130 613 95 0*127 624 95 0 *** *** ** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** 08720 08/17*122 636 70 0*123 649 75 0*125 662 80 0*127 676 85 0 08720 08/17*125 637 95 0*125 651 90 0*125 665 85 0*125 678 85 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** *** *** 08725 08/18*129 691 85 0*131 706 85 0*134 720 85 0*137 731 85 0 08725 08/18*126 692 85 0*128 706 85 0*130 717 85 0*132 725 85 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 08730 08/19*140 741 85 0*144 749 85 0*148 755 85 0*153 760 85 0 08730 08/19*137 733 85 0*141 739 85 0*147 745 85 0*159 753 90 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** 08735 08/20*159 768 85 0*165 775 85 0*170 779 85 0*175 782 85 0 08735 08/20*170 762 95 0*179 768 95 0*185 773 95 0*190 778 95 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 08740 08/21*180 785 85 0*185 787 85 0*190 791 85 0*195 794 85 0 08740 08/21*197 784 95 0*204 788 100 0*210 790 105 0*213 790 105 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 08745 08/22*199 796 85 0*205 798 85 0*214 800 85 0*228 805 80 0 08745 08/22*215 790 105 0*217 790 90 0*220 790 80 0*231 790 80 0 *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** 08750 08/23*241 802 80 0*260 791 85 0*280 779 85 0*298 768 85 0 08750 08/23*246 790 80 0*263 787 85 0*280 779 85 0*298 768 85 0 *** *** *** *** 08755 08/24*318 755 85 0*336 743 85 0*350 732 85 0*360 723 85 0 08760 08/25*367 716 85 0*374 708 85 0*382 700 85 0*391 690 85 0 08765 08/26*399 678 85 0*408 665 80 0*416 650 75 0*420 632 70 0 08770 08/27*422 611 65 0*425 586 60 0*430 560 60 0*436 533 60 0 08775 HR 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. 979 mb peripheral pressure at 00Z on the 18th suggests at least 79 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 85 kt retained in best track. 977 mb peripheral pressure at 06Z on the 20th suggests at least 81 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 95 kt used in best track. 989 mb peripheral pressure on 18Z on the 26th suggests at least least 64 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt used in best track. Winds increased from the 15th to the 17th and the 19th to the 23rd compared to original HURDAT based upon numerous ship reports, the peripheral pressure readings and moderate to severe damage in St. Vincent, Jamaica and Cuba. Hurricane is analyzed by Perez (2000) to be a Category 3 hurricane at landfall in Cuba; winds increased on the 21st and 22nd accordingly. Changes made to the track near Cuba are consistent with modifications suggested by Perez (2000). Lifecycle of this hurricane is not complete as information on the genesis (and possibly decay) are not available. ******************************************************************************** 08777 08/20/1886 M= 6 7 SNBR= 246 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 08777 08/20* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*317 710 40 0*301 690 50 0 08777 08/21*292 655 60 0*300 627 75 0*323 617 95 0*338 624 100 0 08777 08/22*350 634 100 0*359 642 100 0*370 650 100 0*381 660 95 0 08777 08/23*397 669 90 0*411 665 85 0*423 650 80 0*441 622 75 0 08777 08/24*459 584 70 0*476 541 65 0E485 500 60 0E486 461 55 0 08777 08/25E485 413 50 0E483 373 50 0E483 333 50 0E483 295 50 0 08777 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a) for this newly documented hurricane. Peripheral pressure measurements of 962 mb at 15Z on the 21st and 963 mb at 04Z on the 22nd suggest at least 93 and 94 kt, respectively, from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 100 kt used in the best track, which makes the storm a major hurricane. 983 mb peripheral pressure value at 00Z on the 23rd suggests at least 70 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt utilized in best track. ******************************************************************************** 08780 09/15/1886 M=10 7 SNBR= 242 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9 08780 09/16/1886 M= 9 8 SNBR= 247 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 ** ** *** * 08785 09/15* 0 0 0 0*140 602 35 0*144 613 45 0*148 626 60 0 (Track on the 15th is removed, since storm is relocated and begun on 16th.) 08790 09/16*150 640 70 0*152 654 80 0*153 668 80 0*152 682 85 0 08790 09/16*210 655 35 0*210 666 35 0*210 677 35 0*210 689 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 08795 09/17*152 697 85 0*152 712 85 0*152 727 85 0*159 748 85 0 08795 09/17*210 704 40 0*210 717 40 0*210 730 45 0*210 747 45 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 08800 09/18*174 761 85 0*190 781 85 0*203 802 85 0*213 825 85 0 08800 09/18*210 763 40 0*210 775 35 0*210 790 35 0*212 805 40 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 08805 09/19*221 852 85 0*226 879 85 0*229 902 85 0*226 920 85 0 08805 09/19*213 819 45 0*214 830 50 0*215 843 55 0*217 857 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 08810 09/20*221 931 85 0*219 943 85 0*220 950 85 0*222 952 85 0 08810 09/20*220 870 65 0*222 883 70 0*223 897 75 0*223 909 80 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 08815 09/21*224 955 85 0*227 957 85 0*230 959 85 0*233 961 85 0 08815 09/21*223 921 85 0*224 933 85 0*225 947 85 0*228 954 85 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 08820 09/22*237 963 85 0*240 965 85 0*244 967 85 0*249 969 85 0 08820 09/22*234 960 85 0*240 965 85 0*244 967 85 0*249 969 85 0 *** *** 08825 09/23*254 971 85 0*259 972 85 0*265 974 85 0*271 975 80 0 08825 09/23*254 971 85 0*259 972 85 0*265 974 80 0*271 975 75 0 ** ** 08830 09/24*278 975 75 0*285 974 65 0*292 973 45 0*309 970 30 0 08830 09/24*278 975 70 0*285 974 65 0*292 973 45 0*300 970 30 0 ** *** 08835 HR 08835 HRATX1BTX1 ******** No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 7. These track changes are found to be reasonable. Storm is reduced in intensity relative to original HURDAT from the 16th to the 20th since available observational evidence suggests that the storm reached hurricane strength after it reached the Gulf of Mexico. A peripheral pressure reading of 987 mb on 03Z on the 23rd suggests at least 67 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 85 kt retained in best track at landfall in Mexico. Category 1 conditions (80 kt) in Texas are supported by moderate wind-caused damage in Brownsville. Track slightly altered at the storm's end for a more realistic motion. ******************************************************************************** 08840 09/26/1886 M= 5 8 SNBR= 243 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 08840 09/22/1886 M= 9 9 SNBR= 248 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 ** * * *** (22nd to the 25th not in HURDAT previously.) 08841 09/22*229 667 50 0*232 666 50 0*235 665 55 0*237 664 55 0 08842 09/23*240 663 60 0*244 661 65 0*247 660 70 0*248 660 75 0 08843 09/24*250 659 80 0*252 657 85 0*253 655 85 0*254 654 85 0 08844 09/25*255 652 85 0*257 650 85 0*258 650 85 0*260 650 85 0 08845 09/26* 0 0 0 0*215 655 35 0*223 662 40 0*235 666 45 0 08845 09/26*261 651 85 0*262 652 85 0*263 653 85 0*266 657 85 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 08850 09/27*246 669 55 0*256 673 60 0*262 676 65 0*267 679 70 0 08850 09/27*267 660 85 0*268 663 85 0*270 670 85 0*272 674 85 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 08855 09/28*271 683 75 0*275 686 75 0*279 690 80 0*283 695 85 0 08855 09/28*275 679 85 0*279 683 85 0*283 687 85 0*288 689 85 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** 08860 09/29*287 701 85 0*290 707 85 0*294 712 85 0*298 715 85 0 08860 09/29*292 691 85 0*297 692 85 0*300 693 85 0*305 695 85 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 08865 09/30*301 715 80 0*305 714 75 0*311 710 50 0*317 705 35 0 08865 09/30*310 697 80 0*314 699 75 0*317 700 50 0*322 701 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 08870 HR No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 8. These track changes are found to be reasonable. Storm is increased in intensity relative to original HURDAT from the 26th to the 28th based upon ship reports in Partagas and Diaz. A peripheral pressure of 990 mb on 12Z on the 23rd suggests at least 63 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt utilized in best track. Complete lifecycle of this hurricane is not available as the genesis was not documented. ******************************************************************************** 08875 10/08/1886 M= 6 9 SNBR= 244 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9 08875 10/08/1886 M= 6 10 SNBR= 249 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 ** *** * 08880 10/08*199 825 35 0*203 830 35 0*208 833 40 0*212 837 45 0 08880 10/08*199 825 50 0*203 830 55 0*208 833 60 0*212 837 65 0 ** ** ** ** 08885 10/09*217 841 50 0*222 844 55 0*227 848 55 0*233 851 60 0 08885 10/09*217 841 65 0*222 844 60 0*227 848 60 0*233 851 65 0 ** ** ** ** 08890 10/10*239 854 65 0*246 857 70 0*252 860 75 0*257 864 80 0 08895 10/11*262 869 85 0*267 875 85 0*272 881 85 0*276 890 85 0 08895 10/11*262 869 85 0*267 875 90 0*272 881 95 0*276 890 100 0 ** ** *** 08900 10/12*279 903 85 0*282 917 85 0*286 927 85 0*292 933 85 0 08900 10/12*279 903 105 0*282 917 105 0*286 927 105 0*292 933 105 0 *** *** *** *** 08905 10/13*301 936 75 0*311 937 65 0*323 935 50 0*332 929 35 0 08905 10/13*301 936 80 0*311 937 65 0*323 935 50 0*332 929 35 0 ** 08910 HR 08910 HR LA3CTX2 ******* No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 9. Peripheral pressures of 991 mb (20Z on the 9th), 985 mb (12Z on the 10th), 987 mb (16Z on the 10th) and 983 mb (12Z on the 11th) suggest at least 61 kt, 70 kt, 67 kt and 72 kt, respectively, from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship. Winds are increased from the 8th and the 9th to accommodate ship reports and effects in Western Cuba consistent with landfall of a Category 1 hurricane, which matches the assessment by Perez (2000). Winds are increased for the 11th and 12th based upon ship reports and effects at landfall in Texas and Louisiana. A storm tide of 12' was reported in Johnson Bayou, La. by Roth (1997a). This suggests landfall of a Category 3 (955 mb/105 kt) hurricane based upon SLOSH runs (B. Jarvinen, personal communication.) Lifecycle of this hurricane is not complete as information on the genesis is not available. ******************************************************************************** 08911 10/10/1886 M= 6 11 SNBR= 250 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 08911 10/10*291 605 35 0*295 603 35 0*300 600 35 0*304 598 35 0 08911 10/11*307 597 40 0*311 595 40 0*313 593 40 0*316 590 40 0 08911 10/12*318 587 40 0*321 584 40 0*325 580 40 0*328 576 40 0 08911 10/13*331 571 45 0*334 566 45 0*337 560 45 0*340 553 45 0 08911 10/14*343 545 45 0*345 539 45 0*347 530 45 0*348 517 45 0 08911 10/15*350 502 40 0*350 484 40 0*350 470 35 0*350 459 35 0 08911 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a) for this newly documented tropical storm. ******************************************************************************** 08915 10/22/1886 M= 4 10 SNBR= 245 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 08915 10/21/1886 M= 6 12 SNBR= 251 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 * ** *** (21st not in HURDAT previously.) 08920 10/21* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*178 730 35 0 08920 10/22* 0 0 0 0*199 687 35 0*210 686 35 0*220 682 40 0 08920 10/22*187 727 35 0*196 724 35 0*205 720 35 0*212 715 40 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** 08925 10/23*229 676 45 0*239 669 50 0*248 660 50 0*258 650 50 0 08925 10/23*219 708 45 0*227 699 50 0*237 687 55 0*244 675 60 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** 08930 10/24*267 639 50 0*277 626 50 0*286 612 50 0*295 600 45 0 08930 10/24*249 666 60 0*253 657 60 0*257 645 60 0*260 634 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 08935 10/25*305 585 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 08935 10/25*264 626 55 0*267 617 50 0*270 607 45 0*272 597 45 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** (26th not in HURDAT previously.) 08937 10/26*274 589 40 0*275 581 40 0*277 570 35 0*279 560 35 0 08940 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large alterations to track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 10. These track changes are shown to be reasonable. Peripheral pressure of 992 mb at 09Z on the 24th suggests at least 61 kt from the southern wind- pressure relationship - 60 kt chosen in best track because of lack of hurricane winds reported and very large size of system (implying a weaker pressure gradient for a given central pressure). Peripheral pressure of 997 mb on the 24th suggests at least 53 kt from the subtropical wind- pressure relationship - 60 kt utilized. ******************************************************************************** 1886 - Additional Notes: Partagas and Diaz (1996a) 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) July 6-7, 1886: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity. 2) September 7, 1886: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity. 3) October 1-14, 1886: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity. ******************************************************************************* 08941 05/15/1887 M= 6 1 SNBR= 252 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 08941 05/15*293 638 35 0*298 642 35 0*303 647 40 0*308 652 40 0 08941 05/16*313 655 45 0*318 657 50 0*323 660 55 0*327 663 60 0 08941 05/17*332 665 60 0*337 667 60 0*343 667 60 0*349 667 55 0 08941 05/18*354 667 50 0*359 667 45 0E365 667 40 0E377 667 40 0 08941 05/19E395 664 40 0E411 658 35 0E423 650 35 0E440 635 35 0 08941 05/20E470 605 35 0E510 555 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 08941 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a) for this newly documented tropical storm. A peripheral pressure of 997 mb at 16Z on the 16th supports at least 53 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt utilized in best track. ******************************************************************************** 08945 05/17/1887 M= 5 1 SNBR= 246 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 08945 05/17/1887 M= 5 2 SNBR= 253 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 * *** 08950 05/17*184 786 35 0*187 787 35 0*192 788 40 0*196 789 40 0 08950 05/17*156 769 35 0*160 772 35 0*165 775 40 0*171 779 40 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 08955 05/18*201 789 45 0*205 790 45 0*210 790 50 0*215 791 50 0 08955 05/18*177 783 45 0*183 786 45 0*189 787 50 0*195 787 50 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 08960 05/19*221 791 50 0*227 791 40 0*233 790 35 0*238 782 35 0 08960 05/19*203 784 50 0*213 780 40 0*220 775 35 0*226 770 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 08965 05/20*237 771 40 0*238 759 45 0*240 748 45 0*245 738 50 0 08965 05/20*232 765 40 0*236 758 45 0*240 748 45 0*245 738 50 0 *** *** *** *** 08970 05/21*252 728 50 0*261 718 50 0*271 708 45 0*282 703 35 0 08975 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 1. These track changes are found to be reasonable. Peripheral pressure of 1002 mb at 20Z on the 18th suggests at least 43 kt - 50 kt used in best track. ******************************************************************************** 08976 06/11/1887 M= 4 3 SNBR= 254 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 08976 06/11* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*205 840 30 0*212 847 30 0 08976 06/12*219 853 30 0*227 859 35 0*235 865 35 0*243 869 35 0 08976 06/13*251 873 35 0*260 877 35 0*270 880 35 0*280 883 35 0 08976 06/14*290 885 35 0*300 887 35 0*310 888 30 0*320 888 30 0 08976 TS Moderate changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a) for this newly documented tropical storm. Storm is also carried for an additional day to account for reasonable decay to tropical depression over land. ******************************************************************************** 08980 07/20/1887 M= 9 2 SNBR= 247 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9 08980 07/20/1887 M= 9 4 SNBR= 255 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 * *** * 08985 07/20* 0 0 0 0*120 582 35 0*121 594 45 0*125 621 55 0 08985 07/20*120 576 60 0*121 592 60 0*123 610 60 0*125 624 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** 08990 07/21*127 636 60 0*129 649 70 0*132 663 75 0*134 676 75 0 08995 07/22*137 689 80 0*140 702 80 0*142 714 85 0*144 726 85 0 09000 07/23*146 738 85 0*147 750 85 0*150 765 85 0*151 774 85 0 09005 07/24*153 788 85 0*156 803 85 0*161 817 85 0*169 840 85 0 09010 07/25*179 855 85 0*189 862 85 0*203 869 85 0*215 872 85 0 09010 07/25*179 855 85 0*189 862 85 0*202 869 85 0*215 872 75 0 *** ** 09015 07/26*227 873 85 0*239 875 85 0*251 876 85 0*263 877 85 0 09015 07/26*227 873 75 0*239 875 75 0*251 876 75 0*263 877 75 0 ** ** ** ** 09020 07/27*275 876 85 0*287 872 85 0*299 868 85 0*309 863 80 0 09020 07/27*275 876 75 0*287 872 75 0*299 868 75 0*309 863 65 0 ** ** ** ** 09025 07/28*317 858 70 0*323 854 60 0*328 850 50 0*336 844 35 0 09025 07/28*317 858 50 0*323 854 40 0*328 850 35 0*336 844 30 0 ** ** ** ** 09030 HR 09030 HRAFL1 **** No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 2. Storm intensity increased on the 20th based upon destruction in Barbados. The hurricane is listed in Perez (2000) as a Category 1 hurricane for its impacts in Cuba, which is consistent with a Category 2 hurricane passing offshore of the island. Storm intensity decreased after striking the Yucatan of Mexico. No evidence for the storm to be considered stronger than a Category 1 hurricane in Northwest Florida, but it could be that it struck an unpopulated stretch and that it was more intense than listed here. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Florida, Alabama and Georgia. 1887/04 - 2006 REVISION: 09390 07/20/1887 M= 9 4 SNBR= 256 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 09395 07/20*120 576 60 0*121 592 60 0*123 610 60 0*125 624 60 0* 09400 07/21*127 636 60 0*129 649 70 0*132 663 75 0*134 676 75 0* 09405 07/22*137 689 80 0*140 702 80 0*142 714 85 0*144 726 85 0* 09410 07/23*146 738 85 0*147 750 85 0*150 765 85 0*151 774 85 0* 09415 07/24*153 788 85 0*156 803 85 0*161 817 85 0*169 840 85 0* 09420 07/25*179 855 85 0*189 862 85 0*202 869 85 0*215 872 75 0* 09425 07/26*227 873 75 0*239 875 75 0*251 876 75 0*263 877 75 0* 09430 07/27*275 876 75 0*287 872 75 0*299 868 75 0*309 863 65 0* 09435 07/28*317 858 50 0*323 854 40 0*328 850 35 0*336 844 30 0* 09440 HRAFL1 09440 HRAFL1IAL1 **** Based upon research provided by Mark Jelinek and James Belanger from Georgia Institute of Technology, this cyclone should be indicated as to causing inland hurricane conditions in Alabama based upon the existing track and intensity in HURDAT. ******************************************************************************** 09250 07/30/1887 M=10 3 SNBR= 248 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 09250 07/30/1887 M=10 5 SNBR= 256 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 * *** 09255 07/30* 0 0 0 0* 99 501 35 0*100 511 35 0*103 522 35 0 09260 07/31*105 532 35 0*108 542 40 0*110 550 40 0*112 557 40 0 09265 08/01*113 562 40 0*115 567 40 0*117 574 40 0*121 584 45 0 09270 08/02*125 595 45 0*129 606 45 0*133 615 45 0*136 623 50 0 09275 08/03*140 632 50 0*143 640 50 0*146 648 50 0*149 656 50 0 09280 08/04*152 664 50 0*155 672 50 0*158 680 50 0*161 688 50 0 09285 08/05*164 695 50 0*167 702 45 0*170 710 45 0*174 720 45 0 09290 08/06*178 732 45 0*184 745 40 0*190 760 40 0*195 771 40 0 09295 08/07*200 785 35 0*206 799 35 0*210 810 35 0*213 827 35 0 09300 08/08*214 840 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 09305 TS Partagas and Diaz (1996a) introduced no changes from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 3. ******************************************************************************** 09095 08/15/1887 M= 8 4 SNBR= 249 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 09095 08/14/1887 M=10 6 SNBR= 257 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 ** ** * *** * * (The 14th is new to HURDAT.) 09098 08/14* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*170 590 35 0*180 600 35 0 09100 08/15* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*227 623 35 0*230 635 40 0 09100 08/15*190 610 35 0*200 622 35 0*210 634 35 0*218 646 40 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** 09105 08/16*233 647 40 0*236 658 45 0*238 670 50 0*240 681 50 0 09105 08/16*224 658 40 0*229 669 45 0*234 680 50 0*238 691 50 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 09110 08/17*242 693 55 0*244 704 60 0*246 714 65 0*249 724 70 0 09110 08/17*242 702 55 0*246 713 60 0*250 725 65 0*255 738 70 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 09115 08/18*252 733 75 0*255 741 80 0*258 750 85 0*261 759 90 0 09115 08/18*260 749 75 0*265 758 80 0*270 767 85 0*276 775 90 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 09120 08/19*264 767 90 0*268 775 95 0*272 783 100 0*274 787 100 0 09120 08/19*281 782 90 0*286 788 95 0*295 790 100 0*309 788 100 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 09125 08/20*276 790 100 0*278 792 105 0*280 794 105 0*292 796 105 0 09125 08/20*324 780 100 0*336 767 105 0*350 750 105 0*367 731 105 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 09130 08/21*305 791 100 0*322 780 95 0*339 761 90 0*361 738 80 0 09130 08/21*382 709 100 0*398 684 95 0*410 660 90 0*420 620 80 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 09135 08/22*387 701 60 0*404 669 50 0*418 635 40 0*429 590 35 0 09135 08/22*428 577 75 0*434 536 70 0E440 495 70 0E449 456 75 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** (23rd not in HURDAT previously.) 09137 08/23E460 420 70 0E476 386 70 0E490 350 70 972E506 300 70 0 09140 HR 09140 HR NC1 *** No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 4. These track changes are found to be reasonable. Peripheral pressures of 967 mb (07Z 20th) suggest winds of at least 88 kt from the subtropical wind- pressure relationship - 105 kt retained as HURDAT winds. Central pressure of 972 mb (18Z 23rd) suggest winds from the northern wind-pressure relationship of 80 kt, respectively - 70 kt chosen for best track since hurricane had transitioned to extratropical storm stage. Additional observations obtained by Michael Chenoweth from the _St. Christopher Advertiser and Weekly Intelligencer_ newspaper (St. Kitts, 17.4N, 62.7W) allow for an extension back a day and moderate adjustments to existing positions. All observations made at 10am and 4pm. Read: date, station pressure (inches mercury), temperature (F), weather, and wind: Tuesday, August 16, 1887 Meteorological Register 10 Aug 29.80 29.78 84 83 Cloudy Clear E mod E light 11 Aug 29.77 29.78 83 83 Cloudy Cloudy E mod E mod 12 Aug 29.78 29.78 84 83 Clear Clear E mod E mod 13 Aug 29.79 29.79 85 82 Clear Clear E mod E light 14 Aug 29.78 29.70 84 84 Cloudy Cloudy ENE mod N fresh 15 Aug 29.70 29.72 81 82 Overcast Cloudy SW fresh SW fresh 16 Aug 29.80 29.80 85 82 Hazy Clear E light E light General Remarks 10th - Fine bright day and clear moonlight night. 11th - 10 a.m. passing rain squalls, balance of day cloudy to fair, and fine night. Last Quarter. 12th - Weather very fine and warm, and bright starry night. 13th - 120 p.m. A shower. Fine bright day and night. 14th - The weather today is very suspicious. During the night it blew in gusts with light drizzly rain, and the wind went round to the NE. At 2 p.m. it began to get squally and gusty accompanied with short showers of rain. The barometer became depressed,and went down one tenth. The wind then began to blow from the N. At 6 o'clock it became quite clear that a cyclone was passing to the North of this island. The wind later veered very rapidly from N to NNW, then NW, with lightning in that region and some distant thunder. Later in the night the wind hauled to the Westward and finally settled at SW blowing fresh all the next day. It is evident from the rapid changes of the wind that the stormfield was not very extensive. 15th - Blowing fresh from the SW and cloudy. Towards afternoon and evening it became clearer. Night clear and starry. 16th - Clear and pleasant day, night clear and starry. Based upon these observations, it is analyzed that the system had a closed circulation (i.e. westerly wind component) and was nearly due north of the island around 09Z on the 15th. The track is extended back to 12Z on the 14th, with a track substantially closer to St. Kitts than analyzed before (but still outside any gale force wind region). However, little can be deduced for intensity. Thus, continuing the system with minimal (35 kt) tropical storm strength appears prudent. 1887/06 - 2006 REVISION: 09505 08/14/1887 M=10 6 SNBR= 258 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 09505 08/14/1887 M=10 6 SNBR= 258 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=1 * 09510 08/14* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*170 590 35 0*180 600 35 0* 09515 08/15*190 610 35 0*200 622 35 0*210 634 35 0*218 646 40 0* 09520 08/16*224 658 40 0*229 669 45 0*234 680 50 0*238 691 50 0* 09525 08/17*242 702 55 0*246 713 60 0*250 725 65 0*255 738 70 0* 09530 08/18*260 749 75 0*265 758 80 0*270 767 85 0*276 775 90 0* 09535 08/19*281 782 90 0*286 788 95 0*295 790 100 0*309 788 100 0* 09540 08/20*324 780 100 0*336 767 105 0*350 750 105 0*367 731 105 0* 09545 08/21*382 709 100 0*398 684 95 0*410 660 90 0*420 620 80 0* 09550 08/22*428 577 75 0*434 536 70 0E440 495 70 0E449 456 75 0* 09555 08/23E460 420 70 0E476 386 70 0E490 350 70 972E506 300 70 0* 09560 HR NC1 As the hurricane's center did not cross the U.S. coastline (but did cause Category 1 conditions at the coast), the XING (continental U.S. landfall indicator) is changed to "0". ******************************************************************************** 09145 08/18/1887 M=10 5 SNBR= 250 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 09145 08/18/1887 M=10 7 SNBR= 258 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 * *** 09150 08/18* 0 0 0 0*169 574 35 0*172 584 50 0*177 593 65 0 09150 08/18* 0 0 0 0*180 600 35 0*188 610 35 0*196 620 35 0 *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** 09155 08/19*182 602 85 0*189 611 90 0*195 620 95 0*203 630 100 0 09155 08/19*204 632 40 0*212 645 45 0*220 660 50 0*228 675 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** 09160 08/20*212 639 105 0*220 648 105 0*227 657 105 0*239 680 105 0 09160 08/20*236 690 55 0*243 705 55 0*250 720 60 0*255 733 60 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 09165 08/21*250 710 105 0*260 737 105 0*267 753 105 0*271 761 105 0 09165 08/21*259 744 65 0*261 753 75 0*263 760 85 0*264 766 95 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 09170 08/22*273 765 105 0*275 769 105 0*279 772 105 0*284 776 105 0 09170 08/22*265 772 105 0*266 778 110 0*270 783 110 0*278 786 110 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 09175 08/23*289 780 105 0*294 782 105 0*300 783 105 0*306 782 105 0 09175 08/23*286 787 110 0*293 786 110 0*300 785 110 0*307 784 110 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 09180 08/24*311 778 105 0*318 771 105 0*326 760 105 0*336 747 105 0 09180 08/24*314 782 110 0*318 780 110 0*323 777 110 0*333 767 110 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 09185 08/25*347 731 105 0*359 714 105 0*370 695 105 0*380 675 105 0 09185 08/25*342 756 110 0*350 744 110 0*357 733 110 0*367 713 110 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 09190 08/26*389 654 100 0*399 632 95 0*410 610 85 0*426 582 75 0 09190 08/26*379 691 105 0*390 663 105 0*400 640 100 0*420 603 100 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 09195 08/27*447 558 70 0*467 535 65 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 09195 08/27*443 560 95 0*463 514 85 0E485 460 75 0E507 397 65 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 09200 HR Only one major change (detailed below) from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who otherwise made large, but reasonable alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 5. Intensities reduced from the 18th to the 21st, since available observations indicate that the system remained a tropical storm until the 21st and moderate (Category 1 and 2) hurricane status until the 22nd. Winds boosted on the 26th and 27th based upon ship reports. Peripheral pressure of 994 mb (09Z on the 21st) suggests winds of at least 58 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 75 kt chosen in best track (lowered from 105 kt). Peripheral pressure of 955 mb (14Z on the 22nd) suggests winds of at least 99 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 110 kt chosen for best track. Peripheral pressures of 952 mb (12Z on the 26th) and 955 mb (17Z on the 26th) suggest winds of at least 96 kt and 93 kt, respectively, from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 100 kt chosen for best track. Peripheral pressure of 963 mb (00Z on the 27th) suggests winds of at least 88 kt - 95 kt chosen for best track. Additional observations obtained by Michael Chenoweth from the _St. Christopher Advertiser and Weekly Intelligencer_ newspaper (St. Kitts, 17.4N, 62.7W) allow for repositioning of the storm on the 18th to the 20th. All observations made at 10am and 4pm. Read: date, station pressure (inches mercury), temperature (F), weather, and wind: Tuesday, 23 August 1887 Meteorological Register 17 Aug 29.80 29.80 84 83 Clear Clear ENE light NE mod 18 Aug 29.75 29.72 86 85 Clear Clear NE light SW mod 19 Aug 29.80 29.80 85 85 Clear Clear S light S mod 20 Aug 29.80 29.78 84 82 Clear Cloudy E light ENE mod General Remarks 17th - Bright and sunny day, and clear starry night. 18th - Today has been exceedingly hot and sultry, night bright starlight. 19th - The weather today has been very fine, and warm, sea moderately smooth. Night overcast. At 8 p.m. a sudden flash of lightning followed by a low roll of distant thunder. New moon. 20th - Weather bright with sunshine throughout the day. Afternoon sky lightly overcast. Night clear and starry. These observations suggest a closest approach to St. Kitts around 18Z on the 18th (lowest pressure and wind shift to SW) as a relatively weak system. Southerly winds on the 19th clearly indicate that the system has moved to the west of the island. Large adjustment to track proposed by Partagas is not too surprising given the lack of data that Partagas could locate for the 18th through the 20th. ******************************************************************************** 09205 09/01/1887 M= 6 6 SNBR= 251 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 09205 09/01/1887 M= 6 8 SNBR= 259 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 * *** 09210 09/01*279 533 35 0*288 539 40 0*297 545 45 0*306 554 50 0 09210 09/01*281 537 35 0*286 544 40 0*290 550 45 0*296 559 50 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 09215 09/02*314 560 55 0*325 567 65 0*334 571 75 0*357 572 80 0 09215 09/02*304 570 55 0*311 578 65 0*320 585 75 0*342 587 80 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 09220 09/03*380 567 85 0*403 553 85 0*428 518 85 0*447 475 85 0 09220 09/03*367 578 85 0*388 564 90 0*410 540 90 0*437 497 90 0 *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 09225 09/04*465 430 85 0*482 392 75 0*500 350 65 0*519 320 60 0 09225 09/04*464 445 90 963*492 397 90 0E520 350 80 0E530 324 70 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** 09230 09/05*533 296 55 0*549 269 50 0*557 230 50 0*553 181 50 0 09230 09/05E540 297 60 0E549 269 60 0E557 230 60 0E553 181 60 0 **** *** ** * ** * ** * ** 09235 09/06*552 146 50 0*554 110 50 0*559 72 50 0* 0 0 0 0 09235 09/06E552 146 55 0E554 110 50 0E559 72 50 0* 0 0 0 0 * * * 09240 HR No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 6. Intensities increased from the 3rd to the 6th based upon ship reports. A possible central pressure of 963 mb (22Z on the 3rd) suggests winds of 88 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt chosen for best track. A peripheral pressure measurement of 985 mb (17Z on the 4th) suggests winds of at least 68 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track. ******************************************************************************** 09245 09/11/1887 M=12 7 SNBR= 252 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9 09245 09/11/1887 M=12 9 SNBR= 260 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 * *** * 09250 09/11* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*133 570 35 0*134 582 50 0 09250 09/11* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*133 570 35 0*134 582 40 0 ** 09255 09/12*134 593 70 0*135 604 75 0*136 614 80 0*137 623 80 0 09255 09/12*134 593 45 0*135 604 50 0*136 614 55 0*137 623 60 0 ** ** ** ** 09260 09/13*138 631 80 0*139 639 85 0*140 648 85 0*141 662 85 0 09260 09/13*138 631 65 0*139 639 70 0*140 648 75 0*141 662 80 0 ** ** ** ** 09265 09/14*142 678 85 0*144 695 85 0*145 710 85 0*147 723 85 0 09270 09/15*150 735 85 0*153 747 85 0*157 760 85 0*162 778 85 0 09275 09/16*167 796 85 0*173 815 85 0*180 830 85 0*187 841 85 0 09280 09/17*195 851 85 0*203 859 85 0*210 866 85 0*214 872 85 0 09280 09/17*195 851 85 0*203 859 85 0*210 866 85 0*214 872 75 0 ** 09285 09/18*219 877 85 0*223 883 85 0*230 890 85 0*231 893 85 0 09285 09/18*219 877 80 0*223 883 85 0*227 888 85 0*231 893 85 0 ** *** *** 09290 09/19*235 898 85 0*239 903 85 0*245 910 85 0*250 917 85 0 09295 09/20*254 923 85 0*258 931 85 0*260 940 85 0*260 945 85 0 09295 09/20*254 923 85 0*258 931 85 0*260 940 85 0*261 948 85 0 *** *** 09300 09/21*260 949 85 0*260 954 85 0*260 959 85 0*260 964 85 0 09300 09/21*261 956 85 0*261 962 85 0*261 968 85 0*261 973 80 973 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** 09305 09/22*259 972 80 0*257 980 75 0*255 989 65 0*252 997 35 0 09305 09/22*260 979 60 0*258 984 45 0*255 989 35 0*250 996 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** ** *** *** ** 09310 HR 09310 HRATX2 ****** No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 7. Intensities reduced from the 11th to the 13th since hurricane conditions were not noted in the Windward Islands. A central pressure (16Z on the 21st) of 973 mb suggests winds of 85 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 85 kt chosen for best track at landfall. (Winds at 18Z on the 21st are slightly weaker.) Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Texas and Mexico. ******************************************************************************** 09315 09/14/1887 M= 5 8 SNBR= 253 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 09315 09/14/1887 M= 5 10 SNBR= 261 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 ** *** 09320 09/14* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*230 537 35 0 09325 09/15*243 541 40 0*262 547 40 0*281 550 45 0*299 552 50 0 09325 09/15*243 541 40 0*262 547 40 0*281 550 45 0*295 553 50 0 *** *** 09330 09/16*318 553 60 0*336 552 65 0*355 549 70 0*374 545 75 0 09330 09/16*308 555 55 0*325 556 60 0*340 553 65 0*354 551 70 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 09335 09/17*393 539 80 0*413 530 85 0*432 520 85 0*450 507 85 0 09335 09/17*374 547 70 0*393 541 70 0*410 535 70 0*428 527 70 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 09340 09/18*467 489 80 0*483 470 75 0*500 450 65 0*516 429 55 0 09340 09/18*457 514 70 983*480 498 65 0E505 480 60 0E531 445 55 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** 09345 HR No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 8. Intensities reduced from the 16th to the 18th since ship observations only support category one conditions. A possible central pressure of 983 mb (02Z on the 18th) suggests 70 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt utilized in best track. ******************************************************************************** 09350 10/06/1887 M= 3 9 SNBR= 254 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 09350 10/06/1887 M= 4 11 SNBR= 262 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 * *** 09355 10/06* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*197 847 35 0*197 860 45 0 09360 10/07*197 873 50 0*197 886 45 0*198 899 40 0*198 912 40 0 09365 10/08*198 925 45 0*199 937 50 0*200 950 50 0*201 978 35 0 09365 10/08*198 925 45 0*199 937 50 0*200 950 50 0*201 963 50 0 *** ** (9th not in HURDAT previously.) 09367 10/09*202 976 30 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 09370 TS Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any changes for this storm from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 9. Translational speed too high at end of track. Adjustments made to correct this required the addition of an extra six hourly position. ******************************************************************************** 09375 10/09/1887 M= 3 10 SNBR= 255 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 09375 10/08/1887 M= 2 12 SNBR= 263 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 * * ** *** (8th not in HURDAT previously.) 09377 10/08* 0 0 0 0*210 741 55 0*217 743 60 0*227 745 60 0 09380 10/09* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*190 805 35 0*202 812 45 0 09380 10/09*237 748 55 0*246 749 50 0*255 750 45 0*269 751 40 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 09385 10/10*213 822 50 0*221 834 50 0*228 850 45 0*233 861 50 0 09390 10/11*236 871 50 0*238 882 50 0*238 892 45 0*237 904 35 0 (10th and 11th removed from HURDAT.) 09395 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 10. These dramatic track changes are found to be reasonable. A peripheral pressure reading of 994 mb (10Z on the 8th) suggests winds of at least 58 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt chosen for best track. Complete lifecycle of this tropical storm is not available as the genesis (and possibly the decay) were not documented. ******************************************************************************** 09400 10/09/1887 M=11 11 SNBR= 256 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9 09400 10/09/1887 M=14 13 SNBR= 264 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 ** ** *** * 09405 10/09* 0 0 0 0*191 597 35 0*192 610 45 0*193 624 55 0 09405 10/09* 0 0 0 0*191 597 35 0*192 610 40 0*193 624 45 0 ** ** 09410 10/10*193 638 65 0*194 652 75 0*194 666 80 0*194 680 85 0 09410 10/10*193 638 50 0*194 652 55 0*194 666 60 0*194 680 60 0 ** ** ** ** 09415 10/11*194 693 85 0*194 707 75 0*195 720 65 0*196 735 60 0 09415 10/11*194 697 60 0*194 711 50 0*195 727 45 0*195 743 55 0 *** ** *** ** *** ** *** *** ** 09420 10/12*198 750 60 0*201 765 60 0*204 777 65 0*206 785 70 0 09420 10/12*196 760 65 0*197 774 70 0*200 787 75 0*203 798 75 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 09425 10/13*208 792 75 0*210 798 80 0*212 804 80 0*214 811 85 0 09425 10/13*207 809 75 0*211 819 75 0*215 827 75 0*217 834 75 0 *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 09430 10/14*216 819 85 0*218 826 85 0*220 833 85 0*222 840 85 0 09430 10/14*220 841 70 0*222 847 65 0*225 853 65 0*226 859 70 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 09435 10/15*224 847 85 0*226 854 75 0*228 861 70 0*231 868 70 0 09435 10/15*229 865 75 0*231 870 75 0*233 875 75 0*235 878 75 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** 09440 10/16*234 875 70 0*238 882 75 0*241 888 80 0*243 893 80 0 09440 10/16*237 882 75 0*239 885 75 0*241 888 75 0*243 893 75 0 *** ** *** *** ** ** 09445 10/17*245 896 85 0*248 899 85 0*251 902 85 0*256 905 85 0 09445 10/17*245 896 75 0*248 899 75 0*251 902 75 0*256 905 75 0 ** ** ** ** 09450 10/18*263 909 85 0*271 912 85 0*277 913 85 0*283 911 85 0 09450 10/18*263 909 75 0*271 912 75 0*277 913 75 0*283 911 75 0 ** ** ** ** 09455 10/19*288 907 85 0*294 900 85 0*299 896 65 0*309 880 35 0 09455 10/19*289 907 75 0*295 900 65 0*302 891 55 0*309 880 45 0 *** ** *** ** *** *** ** ** (20th and 21st not in HURDAT previously.) 09457 10/20*315 861 35 0*322 841 30 0*330 825 30 0*344 799 30 0 09458 10/21E357 771 35 0E376 740 40 0E395 720 45 0E420 690 45 0 09459 10/22E466 652 45 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 09460 HR 09460 HR LA1 ** No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 11. These track changes are found to be reasonable. A peripheral pressure reading of 989 mb (12Z on the 12th) suggests winds of at least 66 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 75 kt used in best track. A peripheral pressure reading of 989 mb (on the 19th) suggests winds of at least 64 kt from the Gulf wind-pressure relationship - 75 kt used in best track. Hurricane status east of and at landfall into Hispanola is reduced to tropical storm status since there is no evidence for this intensity. The hurricane is reduced from the standard Category 2 (85 kt) in the original HURDAT down to Category 1 (75 kt) while in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico as available observation data suggests minimal hurricane status. This is consistent with analysis by Perez (2000) indicating landfall as Category 1 hurricane over Cuba. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the Southeast U.S. ******************************************************************************** 09465 10/10/1887 M= 3 12 SNBR= 257 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 09465 10/10/1887 M= 3 14 SNBR= 265 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 ** *** 09470 10/10* 0 0 0 0*282 390 35 0*290 400 45 0*299 405 55 0 09470 10/10* 0 0 0 0*282 390 35 0*290 400 45 0*301 402 55 0 *** *** 09475 10/11*309 410 65 0*321 414 75 0*334 417 80 0*348 416 85 0 09475 10/11*313 402 65 0*325 401 75 0*337 400 75 0*352 399 75 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** 09480 10/12*364 412 85 0*381 407 85 0*400 395 75 0*412 381 35 0 09480 10/12*368 398 75 0*384 397 75 0E400 395 60 0E412 381 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** * ** * 09485 HR No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 12. A peripheral pressure reading of 989 mb (22Z on the 11th) suggests at least 64 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 75 kt used in best track. Peak winds reduced from the standard Category 2 (85 kt) in the original HURDAT down to Category 1 (75 kt) on the 11th and 12th, since evidence suggests only a minimal hurricane occurred. ******************************************************************************** 09490 10/16/1887 M= 4 13 SNBR= 258 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 09490 10/15/1887 M= 5 15 SNBR= 266 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 ** * ** *** (The 15th is new to HURDAT.) 09492 10/15* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*140 480 70 0*146 490 75 0 09495 10/16* 0 0 0 0*161 512 35 0*170 520 35 0*184 530 40 0 09495 10/16*153 500 80 0*161 510 85 0*170 520 90 0*184 530 90 0 *** *** ** *** ** ** ** 09500 10/17*197 538 45 0*209 544 45 0*220 550 50 0*229 554 50 0 09500 10/17*197 538 90 0*209 544 90 0*220 550 85 0*229 554 80 0 ** ** ** ** 09505 10/18*237 556 50 0*244 557 50 0*253 557 50 0*264 553 50 0 09505 10/18*237 556 70 0*244 557 60 0*253 557 55 0*264 553 50 0 ** ** ** 09510 10/19*276 547 45 0*290 537 40 0*304 525 35 0*317 513 25 0 09515 TS 09515 HR ** Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any changes for this storm from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 13. Additional observations obtained by Michael Chenoweth from the _St. Christopher Advertiser and Weekly Intelligencer_ newspaper (St. Kitts, 17.4N, 62.7W) allow for an extension back a day and an increase in intensity: "Tuesday, 25 October 1887 - Royal Mail Steam Moselle arrived at Barbados on October 18th and a couple of days before making port encountered a hurricane: Wind began at noon of 15th from ENE. At 6pm strong breeze. 8pm moderate gale, barometer steady. 10 pm fresh gale, barometer falling. Midnight, strong gale. barometer falling, wind NE. 3 a.m. wind had increased to a hurricane, barometer 29[.00], wind NNE. Between 3 am and 530am lost seven Boats, all Sheep Pens, and Fowl Coops, with all Live Stock overboard and damaged one boat, leaving only two small ones serviceable. Blew away Foretopsail and Foresail, and Awning, and considerable damage was sustained around decks. At 5:30 a.m. wind NNE, barometer 28.80 blowing a fierce hurricane, with furious squalls, wind North, backing West. 6 a.m. wind WSW with mountainous seas. 7 a.m. Ship hove to on port tack, wind and sea decreasing." These observations clearly indicate hurricane intensity was achieved by this storm. The 975 mb peripheral pressure (around 1030 UTC on the 6th) suggests winds of at least 84 kt from the southern wind- pressure relationship - 90 kt used in best track. Winds adjusted for the 15th to the 18th, accordingly. Complete life cycle for this hurricane is not known due to lack of knowledge of its genesis. ******************************************************************************** 09520 10/29/1887 M= 4 14 SNBR= 259 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 09520 10/29/1887 M= 9 16 SNBR= 267 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 * ** *** 09525 10/29* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*251 849 35 0*268 823 40 0 09525 10/29* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*265 860 35 0*272 845 40 0 *** *** *** *** 09530 10/30*284 798 35 0*298 783 35 0*310 772 40 0*321 765 40 0 09530 10/30*280 830 40 0*289 815 35 0*300 800 40 0*313 787 45 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** 09535 10/31*330 759 40 0*339 752 40 0*346 745 40 0*353 738 40 0 09535 10/31*327 774 50 0*339 761 55 0*348 748 60 0*354 734 60 993 *** *** ** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** 09540 11/01*359 731 40 0*364 723 40 0*368 716 35 0*373 708 35 0 09540 11/01E360 720 65 0E365 703 70 0E370 690 70 0E378 678 70 0 **** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** (2nd to 6th not in HURDAT previously.) 09541 11/02E385 666 65 0E392 654 65 0E400 640 60 0E406 617 60 0 09542 11/03E411 580 60 0E415 548 60 0E420 520 60 0E440 478 60 0 09543 11/04E474 442 60 0E511 402 60 0E530 360 60 0E536 320 60 0 09544 11/05E536 277 60 0E534 231 60 990E530 190 60 0E524 154 60 0 09545 11/06E518 114 55 0E508 73 50 0E500 40 45 0E483 4 40 0 09545 TS U.S. Tropical Storm Landfall Data --------------------------------- #/Date Time Lat Lon Max States Winds Affected 16-10/29/1887$ 1800Z 26.8 82.3 40 FL 16-10/30/1887$ 0100Z 28.1 82.8 40 FL ** **** **** **** Only one major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who otherwise made large reasonable track alterations to that shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 14. A possible central pressure reading of 993 mb (17Z on the 3lst) suggests winds of 59 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt used in best track. A central pressure of 990 mb (08Z on the 5th) suggests winds of 63 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt used in best track since storm had transformed to extratropical. Windspeeds increased from the 30th to the 1st to account for ship and coastal observations (from Hudgins 2000, Roth and Cobb 2001). The major change from Partagas and Diaz is due to work by Mr. Brian Jones of the University of Miami, who uncovered observations from the U.S. military base Fort Meade east of Tampa: Fort Meade (27.7N, 81.8W): ----- Wind ------ --- Pressure --- Rain Date 14Z 20Z 02Z 14Z 20Z 02Z 10/28/1887 E E 0 29.90 29.88 29.90 0.83" 10/29/1887 S S SW 29.82 29.78 29.78 0.16" 10/30/1887 NW NW NW 29.70 29.65 29.65 10/31/1887 NW NW NW 29.75 29.74 29.74 These observations suggest the point of closest approach to Fort Meade occurred between the SW and NW wind directions, nearest to about 06Z on the 30th. The track is shifted to go just north of the Fort based upon these west winds. The minimum surface pressure value corresponds to a sea level pressure of 1007 mb, which is supportive of just minimal tropical storm conditions while crossing Florida already in HURDAT. ******************************************************************************** 09550 11/27/1887 M= 8 15 SNBR= 260 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 09550 11/27/1887 M= 8 17 SNBR= 268 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 ** *** 09555 11/27* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*221 670 35 0*231 686 40 0 09560 11/28*238 700 40 0*242 712 45 0*245 724 50 0*247 735 55 0 09560 11/28*238 700 40 0*242 712 45 0*245 724 50 0*245 728 55 0 *** *** 09565 11/29*246 748 60 0*236 752 70 0*230 747 75 0*232 730 80 0 09565 11/29*244 732 60 0*241 734 65 0*237 735 70 0*233 732 70 0 *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 09570 11/30*239 712 80 0*248 699 85 0*256 685 85 0*260 676 85 0 09570 11/30*234 726 70 0*237 718 70 0*240 713 70 0*245 704 65 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 09575 12/01*264 667 85 0*268 659 85 0*272 653 85 0*275 648 80 0 09575 12/01*251 694 60 0*256 686 60 0*263 673 60 0*268 664 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 09580 12/02*278 644 80 0*280 640 75 0*283 635 70 0*287 629 70 0 09580 12/02*274 653 55 0*279 645 55 0*285 635 55 0*291 627 55 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** *** *** ** 09585 12/03*291 623 65 0*296 617 60 0*303 610 55 0*311 601 50 0 09585 12/03*298 619 50 0*305 610 50 0*310 603 50 0*315 595 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 09590 12/04*320 588 50 0*329 575 45 0*339 565 40 0*349 555 35 0 09590 12/04*320 588 50 0*329 575 50 0*339 565 45 0*349 555 40 0 ** ** 09595 HR No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 15. These track changes are found to be reasonable. Winds reduced from the 28th until the 3rd since available observational data indicate that the system peaked as a minimal hurricane (65 kt is chosen as peak winds), rather than the standard Category 2 (85 kt) intensity in the original HURDAT. Winds slightly increased on 4th due to a ship observation. ******************************************************************************** 09600 12/04/1887 M= 7 16 SNBR= 261 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 09600 12/04/1887 M= 7 18 SNBR= 269 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 ** *** 09605 12/04* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*192 541 35 0*207 574 40 0 09605 12/04* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*192 541 35 0*207 574 35 0 ** 09610 12/05*221 600 40 0*235 619 50 0*248 628 50 0*261 632 55 0 09610 12/05*221 600 40 0*235 619 40 0*248 628 45 0*261 632 45 0 ** ** ** 09615 12/06*276 630 65 0*286 620 65 0*298 609 65 0*312 589 70 0 09615 12/06*276 630 50 0*286 620 50 0*298 609 55 0*312 589 60 0 ** ** ** ** 09620 12/07*326 571 75 0*340 556 75 0*353 543 80 0*361 518 80 0 09620 12/07*326 571 65 0*340 556 70 0*353 543 70 0*361 518 70 0 ** ** ** ** 09625 12/08*364 491 85 0*367 464 85 0*371 439 85 0*377 417 85 0 09625 12/08*364 491 70 0*367 464 70 0*371 439 70 0*377 417 65 0 ** ** ** ** 09630 12/09*384 396 85 0*392 377 85 0*400 360 80 0*409 346 75 0 09630 12/09E384 396 60 0E392 377 60 0E400 360 60 0E409 346 55 0 * ** * ** * ** * ** 09635 12/10*419 334 70 0*430 325 60 0*442 318 50 0*454 313 35 0 09635 12/10E419 334 50 0E430 325 45 0E442 318 40 0E454 313 35 0 * ** * ** * ** * 09640 HR Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any changes for this storm from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 16. All gale force or greater observations obtained for this system were the following: 50 kt from the southeast veering to the northwest around 02 UTC on the 7th (Bark "Leocadia"), 70 kt around 17 UTC on the 7th (Steamship "Kate Fawcett"), 40 kt from the south-southwest veering to the west-northwest on the 8th (Steamship "Orsino"), and 60 kt from the south veering to the northwest around 17 UTC on the 9th (Steamship "Westergate"). Winds are thus reduced for the whole lifecycle of the storm since best available observations indicate that the system likely peaked on the 7th and 8th as a minimal hurricane (70 kt chosen as peak winds), rather than the standard Category 2 (85 kt) intensity originally suggested in HURDAT. ******************************************************************************** 09900 12/07/1887 M= 6 17 SNBR= 262 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 09900 12/07/1887 M= 6 19 SNBR= 270 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 ** *** 09905 12/07* 0 0 0 0*125 585 35 0*127 596 35 0*129 606 40 0 09910 12/08*131 616 40 0*132 626 40 0*133 636 45 0*133 646 45 0 09915 12/09*133 657 45 0*132 668 50 0*130 680 50 0*128 695 50 0 09920 12/10*126 713 50 0*123 732 50 0*121 750 50 0*118 766 50 0 09925 12/11*115 782 50 0*113 796 50 0*110 810 50 0*109 815 45 0 09930 12/12*108 820 45 0*107 825 40 0*106 831 35 0*105 836 25 0 09935 TS Partagas and Diaz (1996a) introduced no changes from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 17. ******************************************************************************** 1887 - Additional Notes: Partagas and Diaz (1996a) 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) June 10-15, 1887: Gale force intensity, but likely extratropical. 2) September 1-5, 1887: At least one (possible two) gale force wind reports, but unclear if system was closed circulation. 3) October 22-23, 1887: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity. 4) Observations obtained by Michael Chenoweth from the _St. Christopher Advertiser and Weekly Intelligencer_ newspaper (St. Kitts, 17.4N, 62.7W) suggest the occurrence of (at least) a tropical depression that passed south and then west of St. Kitts. However, without additional information documenting tropical storm strength for this system, it will not be added into HURDAT. All observations made at 10am and 4pm. Read: date, station pressure (inches mercury), temperature (F), weather, and wind (The altitude of the observations were at approximately 30 m. Thus the surface pressures provided below must be corrected by 0.1" to convert to sea level pressure values.) Tuesday, September 27, 1887 Meteorological Register 20 Sep 29.80 29.78 78 81 Cloudy Overcast NE light E mod 21 Sep 29.80 29.75 83 84 Cloudy Cloudy E light S light 22 Sep 29.78 29.70 82 82 Cloudy Overcast S mod SW mod 23 Sep 29.80 29.80 85 84 Cloudy Hazy SSW light SW light 24 Sep 29.80 29.80 86 85 Clear Clear SW light SW light 25 Sep 29.80 29.80 86 86 Clear Clear SW light SW light 26 Sep 29.80 29.77 85 84 Clear Clear S light SE light General Remarks 20th - Weather densely overcast with heavy showers of rain all day. Night cloudy with passing showers. 21st - Commences with a cloudy sky and calm sultry atmosphere. Mid-day intermittent sunshine. 5 p.m. raining. Night showery with sheet lightning. 22nd - Commences with squalls of wind and rain. At 1 a.m. the wind became boisterous, and the squalls reached the force of a moderate gale, with frequent heavy showers. Barometer at 29.68. Noon very squally in South, thick and raining. Night cloudy and squally. 23rd - (No account.) 24th - After the squally weather of the day before yesterday, the sky cleared, the wind still from the southwest but light. Fine sunny day. Night clear and dull. Plenty of sheet lightning. 25th - Bright and sunny day, clear and starry night. 26th - Warm and sunny day. 5 p.m. overcast and raining - clear starlight night. 5) Another possible new system has been identified by Mr. Michael Chenoweth to have struck southern Belize in October 1887. Below are some excerpts from the _Colonial Guardian_ newspaper of Belize: "The storm which swept last week [October 15-16, 1887] over the town, has caused great havock in the country, blowing down trees, strewing the truck-paths with them and rendering travelling impossible. We have been credibly informed that many of the banana plantations of the Southern District have been levelled with the ground; so that for three months these plantations will produce little or nothing." In the same day's issue, they identify the "City of Dallas" as sailing from New Orleans and being a day late in arriving in Belize (with the new Colonial Secretary) "due to a severe storm shortly after leaving", but the exact date is not given. It arrived in Belize Wednesday afternoon, October 19. The difficulty in ascribing this destruction to a new tropical cyclone is that storm 13 was occurring just 300-400 nmi to the north while passing between Cuba and the Yucatan of Mexico. While it is not impossible for two tropical systems to be that physically close to one another, it is an unlikely event. It is also a possibility that the destruction described here is due to storm 13, which may need a large alteration in its track. At this point, it is recommended that this system be retained as a possible new system (or storm 13 in need of revision of track) until more information can be obtained to clarify the situation. ******************************************************************************** 09685 06/16/1888 M= 3 1 SNBR= 263 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9 09685 06/16/1888 M= 3 1 SNBR= 271 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 *** * 09690 06/16*275 932 35 0*277 937 55 0*280 943 70 0*282 948 85 0 09690 06/16*275 932 35 0*277 937 45 0*280 943 55 0*282 948 65 0 ** ** ** 09695 06/17*284 953 85 0*287 957 80 0*290 960 70 0*294 963 65 0 09695 06/17*284 953 70 0*287 957 70 0*290 960 50 0*294 963 40 0 ** ** ** ** 09700 06/18*299 965 55 0*304 967 50 0*310 968 45 0*313 966 35 0 09700 06/18*299 965 35 0*304 967 30 0*310 968 30 0*313 966 25 0 ** ** ** ** 09705 HR 09705 HRBTX1 **** Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any changes for this storm from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Winds reduced moderately for the whole lifecycle of the storm as available observation evidence suggests that this system reached minimal (70 kt) hurricane status, rather than the standard Category 2 (85 kt) utilized in the original HURDAT. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) used for inland winds over Texas. ******************************************************************************** 09710 07/04/1888 M= 3 2 SNBR= 264 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 09710 07/04/1888 M= 3 2 SNBR= 272 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 *** 09715 07/04* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*260 944 35 0*264 948 40 0 09720 07/05*270 951 50 0*276 953 50 0*283 955 50 0*291 956 45 0 09725 07/06*300 956 40 0*309 955 35 0*320 954 35 0* 0 0 0 0 09725 07/06*300 956 40 0*309 955 35 0*320 954 30 0* 0 0 0 0 ** 09730 TS Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any changes for this storm from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Texas. ******************************************************************************** 09735 08/14/1888 M=11 3 SNBR= 265 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9 09735 08/14/1888 M=11 3 SNBR= 273 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 *** * 09740 08/14* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*213 713 35 0*218 724 40 0 09740 08/14* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*230 710 35 0*233 721 40 0 *** *** *** *** 09745 08/15*223 734 50 0*228 745 60 0*233 755 70 0*238 765 80 0 09745 08/15*238 734 50 0*241 745 60 0*243 755 70 0*246 765 80 0 *** *** *** *** 09750 08/16*243 774 90 0*248 783 95 0*253 793 95 0*257 806 90 0 09750 08/16*248 774 90 0*251 782 100 0*253 790 110 0*257 799 110 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 09755 08/17*262 822 85 0*266 838 90 0*269 853 90 0*271 867 95 0 09755 08/17*262 809 85 0*266 820 70 0*269 833 80 0*271 847 90 0 *** *** ** *** ** *** ** 09760 08/18*271 880 95 0*272 891 95 0*273 899 95 0*276 904 95 0 09760 08/18*271 862 95 0*272 876 95 0*273 886 95 0*276 894 95 0 *** *** *** *** 09765 08/19*279 907 95 0*283 910 95 0*288 913 95 0*293 916 90 0 09765 08/19*279 900 95 0*283 904 95 0*288 906 95 0*293 908 85 0 *** *** *** *** ** 09770 08/20*299 918 80 0*307 920 70 0*318 921 65 0*332 916 60 0 09770 08/20*299 909 75 0*307 910 70 0*318 910 65 0*332 908 60 0 *** ** *** *** *** 09775 08/21*348 901 55 0*365 878 50 0*380 850 45 0*393 813 45 0 09780 08/22*406 765 40 0*419 718 40 0*432 681 35 0*447 653 35 0 09780 08/22*406 765 40 0*419 718 40 0E432 681 50 0E447 653 50 0 * ** * ** 09785 08/23*462 628 35 0*477 605 35 0*492 590 35 0*506 571 35 0 09785 08/23E462 628 50 0E477 605 50 0E492 590 45 0E506 571 45 0 * ** * ** * ** * ** 09790 08/24*518 558 35 0*530 550 35 0*540 540 35 0*552 530 35 0 09790 08/24E518 558 40 0E530 550 40 0E540 540 35 0E552 530 35 0 * ** * ** * * 09795 HR 09795 HRCFL3BFL1 LA2 ********** *** U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data ---------------------------- #/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States Winds Simpson Pressure Affected 3-8/16/1888$ 1700Z 25.6N 80.4W 100kt 3 (953mb) CFL3,BFL1 3-8/16/1888$ 1900Z 25.8N 80.1W 110kt 3 (945mb) CFL3,BFL1 **** **** **** *** *** 3-8/19/1888 2100Z 29.6N 91.7W 95kt 2 (964mb) LA2 Only one major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made otherwise made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). A peripheral pressure of 994 mb (around 21Z on the 20th) suggests winds of at least 56 kt from the wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt at 18Z and 55 kt at 00Z are chosen for best track since reading was for inland station. A peripheral pressure reading of 992 mb (around 12Z on the 22nd) suggests at least 60 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 50 kt chosen for best track since the storm had likely transitioned to extratropical status. Winds increased while extratropical from the 22nd to the 24th to account for wind and peripheral pressure data. A value of 14 foot storm tide for Miami, Florida is reported in Barnes (1998a) - supporting (at least) a high end Category 3 intensity at landfall. The major change from Partagas and Diaz is due to work by Mr. Brian Jones of the University of Miami, who uncovered observations from the U.S. military base Fort Meade east of Tampa: Fort Meade (27.7N, 81.8W): ----- Wind ------ --- Pressure --- Rain Date 14Z 20Z 02Z 14Z 20Z 02Z 8/16/1888 NE NE NE 29.85 29.80 29.52 0.68" 8/17/1888 SE SE SE 29.50 29.88 29.65 0.50" 8/18/1888 E E 0 29.88 29.90 29.90 0.13" These observations suggest the point of closest approach to Fort Meade occurred between the NE and SE wind directions, nearest to about 06Z on the 17th. This is an impact in Florida about 6 hours later than estimated in the Partagas and Diaz analysis. The track is adjusted accordingly on the 16th through the 18th. The minimum surface pressure value corresponds to a sea level pressure of 1002 mb, though the hurricane center likely passed a substantial distance to the south of the fort. ******************************************************************************** 09800 08/31/1888 M= 9 4 SNBR= 266 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 09800 08/31/1888 M= 9 4 SNBR= 274 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 *** 09805 08/31*193 603 35 0*195 613 40 0*197 623 40 0*201 637 45 0 09805 08/31*193 603 60 0*195 613 65 0*197 623 70 0*201 637 70 0 ** ** ** ** 09810 09/01*205 649 50 0*208 661 55 0*210 671 60 0*211 679 60 0 09810 09/01*205 649 75 0*208 661 75 0*210 671 80 0*211 679 80 0 ** ** ** ** 09815 09/02*212 685 65 0*213 692 70 0*214 701 75 0*216 713 75 0 09815 09/02*212 685 85 0*213 692 85 0*214 701 90 0*216 713 90 0 ** ** ** ** 09820 09/03*218 724 80 0*219 736 85 0*221 748 85 0*223 759 85 0 09820 09/03*218 724 95 0*219 736 100 0*221 748 105 0*223 759 110 0 ** *** *** *** 09825 09/04*224 770 85 0*226 781 85 0*227 792 85 0*227 805 75 0 09825 09/04*225 770 110 0*227 782 110 0*229 797 110 0*230 808 90 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** 09830 09/05*226 820 70 0*223 834 70 0*221 847 70 0*219 856 70 0 09830 09/05*230 819 80 0*228 828 75 0*225 837 70 0*222 849 70 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** 09835 09/06*216 864 70 0*214 871 70 0*211 880 70 0*208 890 70 0 09835 09/06*218 861 70 0*214 871 70 0*211 880 60 0*208 890 55 0 *** *** ** ** 09840 09/07*205 900 70 0*202 911 80 0*199 923 85 0*195 933 85 0 09840 09/07*205 900 50 0*202 911 60 0*199 923 70 0*195 933 85 0 ** ** ** 09845 09/08*188 942 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 09845 09/08*190 943 75 0*180 952 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** 09850 HR No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Winds increased on 31st and 1st based upon ship report of hurricane force winds. Peripheral pressure of 980 mb (17Z on the 2nd) suggests winds of at least 78 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt used in best track. Peripheral pressure of 972 mb (12Z on the 3rd) suggests winds of at least 87 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 105 kt used in best track. Peripheral pressure of 979 mb (14Z on the 4th) suggests at least 79 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship. The pressure readings on the 3rd and 4th along with extreme destruction in Sagua, Cuba leads to a best track wind estimate of 110 kt at landfall, which is consistent with the analysis of Perez (2000) of a Category 3 hurricane landfall in Cuba. Changes made to the track near Cuba are consistent with modifications suggested by Perez (2000). Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the Yucatan of Mexico. Track extended six hours on the 8th for reasonable (though quick) final decay of hurricane over Mexico. Complete lifecycle of this tropical storm is not available as the genesis was not documented. The hurricane is known as "El Huracan de Faquineto" for its impact in Cuba and "San Gil" for its impact in Puerto Rico. ******************************************************************************** 09855 09/06/1888 M= 8 5 SNBR= 267 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 09855 09/06/1888 M= 8 5 SNBR= 275 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 *** 09860 09/06* 0 0 0 0*233 720 35 0*239 730 35 0*244 743 40 0 09860 09/06* 0 0 0 0*235 717 35 0*239 730 35 0*244 743 40 0 *** *** 09865 09/07*248 755 40 0*253 768 45 0*258 780 45 0*262 792 45 0 09870 09/08*266 803 45 0*270 814 35 0*274 824 35 0*279 829 40 0 09870 09/08*267 801 45 0*272 811 35 0*277 818 35 1002*283 824 40 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** **** *** *** 09875 09/09*285 831 45 0*292 831 50 999*301 829 35 0*312 823 35 0 09875 09/09*286 826 45 0*292 829 50 999*301 829 45 0*312 823 40 0 *** *** *** ** ** 09880 09/10*325 815 35 0*339 806 35 0*350 797 35 0*359 788 35 0 09885 09/11*367 779 35 0*376 769 35 0*385 759 35 0*395 747 35 0 09885 09/11*367 779 35 0*376 769 35 0E385 759 35 0E395 747 35 0 * * 09890 09/12*406 733 35 0*418 716 35 0*430 699 35 0*442 675 35 0 09890 09/12E406 733 35 0E418 716 35 0E430 699 35 0E442 675 35 0 * * * * 09895 09/13*458 648 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 09895 09/13E458 648 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 * 09900 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). While the storm's center does not get completely over water, this storm apparently began to re-intensify while over land - as observed by the strong winds and low pressure at Cedar Key. However, it is quite uncertain how intense the storm was at landfall in Southeast Florida. Winds decreased to below storm strength on the 11th to the 13th since observations in Partagas and Diaz show no storm force winds north of Virginia. Confirmation of the inland Florida portion of the track and intensity was deduced by Mr. Brian Jones of the University of Miami, who uncovered observations from the U.S. military base Fort Meade east of Tampa: Fort Meade (27.7N, 81.8W): ----- Wind ------ --- Pressure --- Rain Date 14Z 20Z 02Z 14Z 20Z 02Z 9/7/1888 NE NE NE 29.75 29.72 29.62 0.55" 9/8/1888 S SE SE 29.50 29.60 29.62 1.93" These observations match Partagas and Diaz analysis that the storm tracked over or very close to Fort Meade around 12Z on the 8th. The surface pressure minimum above corresponds to a sea level pressure of 1002 mb, which is may very well be a central pressure reading. 1002 mb suggests marine winds of 45 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 35 kt retained due to over-land position. ******************************************************************************** 09905 09/23/1888 M= 5 6 SNBR= 268 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 09905 09/23/1888 M= 5 6 SNBR= 276 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 *** 09910 09/23* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*243 810 35 0*255 802 35 0 09915 09/24*266 797 40 0*277 791 40 0*287 786 45 0*295 782 45 0 09920 09/25*301 778 45 0*307 775 50 0*317 769 50 0*335 757 50 0 09920 09/25*301 778 45 0*307 775 50 0*317 769 55 0*335 757 60 0 ** ** 09925 09/26*361 739 50 0*389 719 50 0*412 702 50 0*430 689 50 0 09925 09/26*361 739 65 0*389 719 70 0*412 702 70 985*430 689 60 0 ** ** ** *** ** 09930 09/27*448 675 50 0*464 663 40 0*478 652 35 0* 0 0 0 0 09930 09/27E448 675 50 0E464 663 40 0E478 652 35 0* 0 0 0 0 * * * 09935 TS 09935 HR ** Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any changes for this storm from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). A central pressure of 985 mb (12Z on the 26th) suggests winds of 68 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track making this a minimal hurricane. However, given the rapid translational speed, only winds of estimated 55 kt were sustained along the U.S. coast. ******************************************************************************** 09940 10/08/1888 M= 5 7 SNBR= 269 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 09940 10/08/1888 M= 5 7 SNBR= 277 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 *** * 09945 10/08* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*217 934 35 0*223 926 45 0 09950 10/09*229 918 50 0*236 909 60 0*242 900 65 0*249 891 75 0 09955 10/10*256 882 80 0*263 872 85 0*271 860 85 0*281 846 85 0 09955 10/10*256 882 80 0*263 872 85 0*270 860 90 0*277 846 95 0 *** *** 09960 10/11*295 829 80 0*310 811 75 0*327 793 70 0*345 775 60 0 09960 10/11*290 833 95 970*305 813 70 0*323 795 60 0*345 775 55 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** ** 09965 10/12*364 756 50 0*384 737 45 0*406 718 40 0*419 672 35 0 09970 HR 09970 HRAFL2DFL1 ******** Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any changes for this storm from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Landfall time from Cedar Key measurements in Partagas and Diaz is suggested to be slightly later than that originally in best track - thus positions altered slightly on the 10th and 11th. A nine foot storm tide (likely also to be storm surge value based upon tidal data - B. Jarvinen, personal communication) occurred at Cedar Key, Florida (Partagas and Diaz 1996a). B. Jarvinen (personal communication) utilized the SLOSH model with the observed storm surge and an estimated track at landfall to the north-northeast to analyze the central pressure at 970 mb and RMW of 11 nmi at landfall. A 970 mb central pressure suggests winds of 89 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship. Given an RMW substantially smaller than climatology for this central pressure and latitudinal position (22 nmi from Vickery et al. 2000), winds at landfall are estimated at 95 kt - near the border of Category 2 and 3. This assessment is substantially stronger than the directly observed winds of 65 kt at Cedar Key. However, it is strongly suspected that this was either an estimated wind and/or that the anemometer failed after recording this minimal hurricane conditions before the peak winds occurred. Observations at Jacksonville and destruction in Fort George Island, Florida indicate that the center crossed just to the east of the city and may have still retained minimal hurricane force as it was making oceanfall (Sandrik 2001). The best track is adjusted accordingly on the 11th. ******************************************************************************** 10230 11/01/1888 M= 8 8 SNBR= 270 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 10230 11/01/1888 M= 8 8 SNBR= 278 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 *** 10235 11/01* 0 0 0 0*123 599 35 0*133 610 35 0*144 611 35 0 10240 11/02*155 612 35 0*166 613 35 0*175 613 40 0*184 613 40 0 10245 11/03*192 613 40 0*200 612 40 0*208 611 45 0*217 610 45 0 10250 11/04*226 607 45 0*235 602 45 0*245 597 50 0*255 588 50 0 10255 11/05*266 579 50 0*277 570 50 0*287 560 50 0*295 550 50 0 10260 11/06*306 539 50 0*315 530 50 0*323 520 50 0*331 513 50 0 10265 11/07*337 508 50 0*344 504 50 0*351 498 45 0*360 490 45 0 10270 11/08*369 482 45 0*379 472 40 0*390 462 35 0*400 452 35 0 10275 TS Partagas and Diaz (1996a) introduced no changes from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). ******************************************************************************** 10025 11/17/1888 M=16 9 SNBR= 271 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 10025 11/17/1888 M=16 9 SNBR= 279 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 *** 10030 11/17* 0 0 0 0*246 560 35 0*247 567 40 0*248 575 40 0 10030 11/17*232 560 50 0*235 565 55 0*238 571 60 0*242 578 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 10035 11/18*249 583 40 0*250 590 45 0*251 598 45 0*252 605 45 0 10035 11/18*246 585 60 0*249 592 60 0*251 598 60 0*252 605 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** ** ** 10040 11/19*253 612 50 0*254 619 50 0*255 626 55 0*257 634 55 0 10040 11/19*253 612 60 0*254 619 60 0*255 626 60 0*257 634 60 0 ** ** ** ** 10045 11/20*258 642 60 0*261 651 60 0*263 660 60 0*265 670 65 0 10045 11/20*260 642 60 0*263 650 60 0*267 657 60 0*269 664 65 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 10050 11/21*267 680 65 0*270 690 70 0*272 700 70 0*274 710 70 0 10050 11/21*271 671 65 0*275 680 70 0*277 687 70 0*281 695 70 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 10055 11/22*276 721 75 0*278 731 75 0*282 741 80 0*284 745 80 0 10055 11/22*284 705 75 0*288 714 75 0*293 723 80 0*296 729 80 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 10060 11/23*287 747 80 0*290 749 85 0*292 750 85 0*295 751 85 0 10060 11/23*298 735 80 0*301 742 85 0*305 747 85 0*310 751 85 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 10065 11/24*299 752 85 0*305 752 85 0*310 752 85 0*314 752 85 0 10065 11/24*315 755 85 0*321 758 85 0*327 757 85 0*331 755 85 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 10070 11/25*319 752 85 0*324 751 85 0*329 748 85 0*337 742 85 0 10070 11/25*336 752 85 0*340 750 85 0*345 747 85 0*353 742 85 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** 10075 11/26*348 733 85 0*359 725 85 0*370 720 85 0*379 714 85 0 10075 11/26E361 736 80 0E370 730 80 0E380 723 80 0E385 719 80 0 **** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** 10080 11/27*389 708 85 0*398 703 85 0*407 697 85 0*415 691 85 0 10080 11/27E393 712 80 0E400 704 80 0E407 697 80 0E415 691 80 0 **** *** ** **** *** ** * ** * ** 10085 11/28*424 684 85 0*433 676 85 0*441 666 80 0*448 652 70 0 10085 11/28E424 684 80 0E433 676 80 0E441 666 80 0E448 652 70 0 * ** * ** * * 10090 11/29*455 635 60 0*460 617 50 0*464 600 45 0*467 587 45 0 10090 11/29E455 635 60 0E460 617 50 0E464 600 45 0E467 587 45 0 * * * * 10095 11/30*469 575 45 0*471 561 45 0*472 543 45 0*472 520 45 0 10095 11/30E469 575 45 0E471 561 45 0E472 543 45 0E472 520 45 0 * * * * 10100 12/01*472 497 40 0*472 473 50 0*472 450 55 0*472 427 55 0 10100 12/01E472 497 40 0E472 473 50 0E472 450 55 0E472 427 55 0 * * * * 10105 12/02*473 404 60 0*474 381 60 0*475 358 60 0*480 333 60 0 10105 12/02E473 404 60 0E474 381 60 0E475 358 60 0E480 333 60 0 * * * * 10110 HR No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Ship observation on the 17th suggests stronger winds than originally in HURDAT - winds increased from the 17th to the 19th. Peripheral pressure of 982 mb (on the 25th) suggests winds of at least 71 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 85 kt retained in best track. Peripheral pressure of 973 mb (14Z on the 26th) suggests winds of at least 80 kt - 80 kt chosen in best track as storm likely transitioned to an extratropical storm around 00Z on the 26th. It is to be noted that this system had hurricane force winds (and produced these along the U.S. coast) during its extratropical stage on the 26th to the 28th. Complete lifecycle of this tropical storm is not available as the genesis was not documented. ******************************************************************************** 1888 - Additional Notes: Partagas and Diaz (1996a) 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) August 13, 1888: One gale force report, insufficient to determine if system was tropical storm or waterspout. 2) September 12-13, 1888: One gale force report, insufficient to determine if system was new tropical storm, was continuation of storm 5, or was an extratropical storm. ********************************************************************************* 10115 05/16/1889 M= 7 1 SNBR= 272 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 10115 05/16/1889 M= 7 1 SNBR= 280 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 *** 10120 05/16* 0 0 0 0*215 641 35 0*217 648 40 0*219 652 40 0 10125 05/17*221 657 45 0*224 663 50 0*228 670 55 0*233 678 60 0 10125 05/17*221 657 45 0*224 663 50 0*228 670 50 0*233 678 50 0 ** ** 10130 05/18*239 686 65 0*245 695 70 0*253 704 75 0*262 714 80 0 10130 05/18*239 686 50 0*245 695 50 0*253 704 50 0*262 714 50 0 ** ** ** ** 10135 05/19*273 726 85 0*283 738 85 0*292 748 85 0*299 754 85 0 10135 05/19*273 726 50 0*283 738 50 0*292 748 55 0*299 754 55 0 ** ** ** ** 10140 05/20*305 755 85 0*312 753 85 0*319 749 80 0*328 741 75 0 10140 05/20*305 755 55 0*312 753 60 0*319 749 65 0*328 741 70 0 ** ** ** ** 10145 05/21*337 731 70 0*346 720 60 0*358 708 55 0*371 702 45 0 10145 05/21*337 731 70 0*346 720 60 0E358 708 55 0E371 702 45 0 * * 10150 05/22*384 698 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 10150 05/22E384 698 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 * 10155 HR Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any changes for this storm from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Gale force and greater observations available for this system were the following: 50 kt NNW at 38.3 N, 74.8 W (no date - Schooner "Joseph W. Fish"), unspecific hurricane force winds and pressure of 1002 mb on the 21st. The writeup in the Monthly Weather Review indicated that the system "possessed moderate energy" from the 16th to 19th and that the winds for this systems "were not severe in their character, save on the 21st, when gales of hurricane force were reported." This suggests that peak intensity was reached on the 21st and that it was below hurricane force for the days preceding, which is consistent with available observations. Thus winds are retained as is on the 21st and reduced to tropical storm intensity on the 18th through late on the 20th. ******************************************************************************** 10415 06/15/1889 M= 6 2 SNBR= 275 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 10415 06/15/1889 M= 6 2 SNBR= 281 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 *** 10420 06/15*198 847 35 0*206 850 35 0*213 853 40 0*220 857 40 0 10420 06/15*198 837 35 0*206 840 45 0*213 843 55 0*220 846 65 0 *** *** ** *** ** *** ** 10425 06/16*228 859 40 0*237 859 45 0*246 858 45 0*256 855 45 0 10425 06/16*228 850 65 0*237 854 60 0*246 855 55 0*256 854 50 0 *** ** *** ** *** ** *** ** 10430 06/17*266 851 45 0*276 845 45 0*286 835 45 0*296 822 40 0 10435 06/18*307 809 35 0*317 795 40 0*327 782 40 0*337 770 45 0 10440 06/19*345 759 45 0*354 747 45 0*363 734 45 0*373 716 45 0 10445 06/20*384 694 45 0*397 668 45 0*410 640 40 0*425 612 35 0 10450 TS 10450 HR ** Partagas and Diaz (1996a) introduced no changes from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). However, Perez (2000) analyzed this system as reaching minimal hurricane intensity while tracking over western Cuba. It is listed by Perez (2000) as a Category 1 hurricane impact in Cuba based primarily upon wind-caused damages in Pinar del Rio. The track and intensity are adjusted on the 15th and 16th accordingly. ******************************************************************************** 10200 08/19/1889 M= 9 3 SNBR= 274 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 10200 08/19/1889 M=10 3 SNBR= 282 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 ** *** 10205 08/19* 0 0 0 0*168 692 35 0*173 696 40 0*178 699 50 0 10210 08/20*183 703 50 0*187 706 50 0*192 709 45 0*196 712 45 0 10210 08/20*183 703 50 0*187 706 35 0*192 709 30 0*196 712 30 0 ** ** ** 10215 08/21*200 715 45 0*204 718 50 0*208 721 55 0*213 725 60 0 10215 08/21*200 715 35 0*204 718 50 0*208 721 55 0*213 725 60 0 ** 10220 08/22*218 728 60 0*223 732 65 0*230 736 70 0*237 740 75 0 10220 08/22*218 728 60 0*223 732 60 0*230 736 60 0*237 740 60 0 ** ** ** 10225 08/23*245 744 75 0*253 748 80 0*262 752 80 0*271 755 85 0 10225 08/23*245 744 60 0*253 748 60 0*262 752 60 0*271 755 60 0 ** ** ** ** 10230 08/24*280 757 85 0*289 757 85 0*298 755 85 0*307 751 85 0 10230 08/24*280 757 60 0*289 757 60 0*298 755 60 0*307 751 60 0 ** ** ** ** 10235 08/25*315 745 85 0*322 739 85 0*329 734 85 0*335 730 80 0 10235 08/25*315 745 60 0*322 739 60 0*329 734 60 0*335 730 60 0 ** ** ** ** 10240 08/26*341 726 80 0*345 723 75 0*350 720 75 0*354 718 70 0 10240 08/26*341 726 60 0*345 723 60 0*350 720 65 0*354 718 65 0 ** ** ** ** 10245 08/27*359 717 65 0*362 717 60 0*366 718 50 0*371 721 35 0 10245 08/27*359 717 70 0*362 716 70 0*366 715 70 0*371 715 70 0 ** *** ** *** ** *** ** (28th new to HURDAT.) 10247 08/28*375 715 65 0*380 715 60 0*385 715 50 0*390 715 40 0 10250 HR Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any changes for this storm from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Winds reduced on 20th and 21st due to passage of storm over Hispanola. Available observational data indicates that the system reached minimal (70 kt) hurricane intensity between the 26th and 28th, rather than the standard Category 2 (85 kt) hurricane peak intensity originally in HURDAT. Winds reduced throughout much of this system's lifetime. Additional day added to the track on the 28th from ship observations (the "Red Wing") described in the Partagas and Diaz report. ******************************************************************************** 10255 09/01/1889 M=12 4 SNBR= 275 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 10255 09/01/1889 M=12 4 SNBR= 283 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 *** 10260 09/01*119 550 35 0*124 557 40 0*130 563 40 0*135 571 45 0 10260 09/01*119 550 35 0*124 557 40 0*130 563 45 0*137 572 50 0 ** *** *** ** 10265 09/02*140 579 45 0*146 587 50 0*152 594 55 0*159 605 55 0 10265 09/02*144 582 55 0*151 593 60 0*157 603 65 0*161 613 70 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 10270 09/03*167 615 60 0*175 626 60 999*182 635 65 0*188 644 70 0 10270 09/03*169 623 75 0*174 632 80 0*180 640 90 0*187 650 90 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** 10275 09/04*194 651 70 0*199 658 75 0*206 665 80 0*214 671 80 0 10275 09/04*194 660 90 0*199 668 90 0*205 675 90 0*211 681 90 0 *** ** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 10280 09/05*223 677 85 0*233 681 85 0*243 684 85 0*254 685 85 0 10280 09/05*217 685 90 0*224 687 90 0*233 687 90 0*247 685 90 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** 10285 09/06*265 686 85 0*277 687 85 0*287 687 85 0*296 687 85 0 10285 09/06*258 679 90 0*270 669 90 0*283 663 90 0*292 663 90 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 10290 09/07*304 687 85 0*310 687 85 0*316 687 85 0*321 687 85 0 10290 09/07*299 664 90 0*309 665 90 0*320 670 90 0*326 674 90 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 10295 09/08*326 688 85 0*331 689 85 0*336 690 85 0*341 692 85 0 10295 09/08*331 677 90 0*335 680 90 0*340 683 90 0*343 685 90 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 10300 09/09*346 694 85 0*350 695 85 0*355 697 85 0*359 699 85 0 10300 09/09*347 688 90 0*351 692 90 0*355 695 90 0*360 698 90 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** *** *** ** 10305 09/10*363 701 85 0*366 702 80 0*370 704 80 0*374 707 75 0 10305 09/10*363 700 85 0*366 702 80 0*370 704 80 0*374 707 75 0 *** 10310 09/11*377 711 70 0*380 716 70 0*383 721 65 0*384 725 60 0 10315 09/12*384 729 55 0*381 734 45 0*378 738 40 0*366 745 35 0 10315 09/12*384 729 55 0*381 734 45 0*377 739 40 0*370 745 35 0 *** *** *** 10320 HR No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). 981 mb peripheral pressure (around 12Z on the 3rd) suggests winds of at least 76 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt used in best track. (999 mb at 06Z on the 3rd formerly in HURDAT is not correct. A 995 mb peripheral pressure was observed at 07Z.) Slight adjustment in last positions of the system to allow for more realistic translational velocity. The hurricane is known as "San Martin de Hinojosa" for its impacts in Puerto Rico. ******************************************************************************** 10325 09/02/1889 M=10 5 SNBR= 276 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 10325 09/02/1889 M=10 5 SNBR= 284 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 *** 10330 09/02*159 429 35 0*162 438 35 0*166 446 40 0*169 454 45 0 10330 09/02*159 429 35 0*162 438 35 0*166 446 40 0*169 454 40 0 ** 10335 09/03*173 462 45 0*178 471 50 0*185 482 55 0*194 495 60 0 10335 09/03*173 465 45 0*177 479 45 0*180 490 50 0*183 504 50 0 *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 10340 09/04*205 512 65 0*216 528 70 0*225 540 70 0*232 549 75 0 10340 09/04*187 519 50 0*193 531 50 0*200 543 50 0*205 550 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 10345 09/05*239 555 80 0*246 561 80 0*252 565 85 0*257 570 85 0 10345 09/05*212 556 50 0*218 561 50 0*225 565 50 0*237 572 50 0 *** *** ** *** ** *** ** *** *** ** 10350 09/06*262 572 85 0*267 573 85 0*273 572 85 0*283 568 85 0 10350 09/06*246 576 50 0*254 578 50 0*263 580 50 0*275 579 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 10355 09/07*297 561 85 0*311 551 85 0*320 540 85 0*328 525 85 0 10355 09/07*291 573 55 0*303 563 60 0*313 553 65 0*321 541 70 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 10360 09/08*333 510 85 0*338 494 85 0*340 480 85 0*342 468 85 0 10360 09/08*329 524 70 0*336 507 70 0*340 490 70 0*341 477 70 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** *** *** ** 10365 09/09*343 458 85 0*344 448 85 0*345 436 85 0*346 421 85 0 10365 09/09*342 463 70 0*343 448 70 0*345 430 70 0*345 411 70 0 *** *** ** *** ** *** ** *** *** ** 10370 09/10*348 403 85 0*349 382 80 0*350 360 75 0*355 336 70 0 10370 09/10*346 390 70 0*348 371 70 0*353 350 70 0*358 329 70 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** 10375 09/11*366 309 65 0*382 281 60 0*390 270 50 0*407 245 40 0 10375 09/11*366 309 65 0*377 290 60 0*390 270 50 0*407 245 40 0 *** *** 10380 HR No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Evidence for this storm does not support Category 2 intensity (and only marginally supports Category 1 intensity from the 8th to the 10th); winds are reduced for much of the duration of this storm. ******************************************************************************** 10385 09/11/1889 M=16 6 SNBR= 277 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9 10385 09/12/1889 M=15 6 SNBR= 285 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 ** ** *** * 10390 09/11*155 585 35 0*155 594 35 0*155 604 40 0*155 612 40 0 (11th deleted from HURDAT.) 10395 09/12*155 621 45 0*156 631 50 0*156 641 55 0*156 652 55 0 10395 09/12*157 595 35 0*157 607 35 0*157 620 40 0*156 633 40 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** 10400 09/13*157 664 60 0*157 676 65 0*158 688 70 0*159 701 75 0 10400 09/13*156 645 45 0*156 659 45 0*157 675 50 0*157 688 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 10405 09/14*160 714 80 0*161 728 80 0*162 740 85 0*163 751 85 0 10405 09/14*157 705 50 0*159 721 50 0*160 733 50 0*162 742 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 10410 09/15*165 763 85 0*167 774 85 0*169 787 85 0*170 798 85 0 10410 09/15*163 757 50 0*164 766 50 0*167 777 50 0*171 790 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 10415 09/16*171 809 85 0*173 821 85 0*174 830 85 0*175 842 85 0 10415 09/16*174 797 50 0*177 807 50 0*180 815 55 0*185 827 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 10420 09/17*177 851 85 0*178 860 85 0*179 870 85 0*179 878 85 0 10420 09/17*188 836 65 0*191 846 75 0*193 855 85 0*194 865 95 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** ** 10425 09/18*180 886 80 0*180 894 70 0*181 902 60 0*184 913 60 0 10425 09/18*195 877 90 0*195 886 75 0*195 895 65 0*195 903 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** 10430 09/19*189 921 60 0*195 926 65 0*202 929 70 0*209 931 75 0 10430 09/19*196 913 70 0*198 923 85 0*202 929 85 0*209 931 85 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** ** 10435 09/20*213 931 80 0*217 931 85 0*222 931 85 0*226 930 85 0 10435 09/20*213 931 85 0*217 931 85 0*222 931 85 0*226 930 85 0 ** 10440 09/21*230 930 85 0*235 930 85 0*241 929 85 0*247 928 85 0 10445 09/22*252 927 85 0*261 924 85 0*270 920 85 0*279 914 85 0 10445 09/22*252 927 85 0*261 924 85 0*270 920 80 0*279 914 75 0 ** ** 10450 09/23*286 906 85 0*293 894 85 0*301 880 85 0*313 862 80 0 10450 09/23*286 906 70 0*293 894 65 0*301 880 60 0*313 862 50 0 ** ** ** ** 10455 09/24*328 839 70 0*343 816 60 0*357 795 50 0*365 779 45 0 10455 09/24*328 839 45 0*343 816 45 0E357 795 40 0E365 779 40 0 ** ** * ** * ** 10460 09/25*371 767 40 0*377 754 40 0*386 738 35 0*403 717 35 0 10465 09/26*428 691 35 0*459 662 35 0*495 629 35 0* 0 0 0 0 10465 09/26E428 691 35 0E459 662 35 0E495 629 35 0* 0 0 0 0 * * * 10470 HR 10470 HR LA1 *** 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. Available observational evidence indicates that the system did not reach hurricane intensity until the 17th - intensities reduced accordingly. Intensities increased on the 17th and 18th to account for great damage that occurred in the Yucatan of Mexico. Observations indicate that the hurricane weakened to a tropical storm by landfall in Florida, but may have still been a minimal hurricane while passing briefly over coastal Louisiana. It is to be noted that the Cuban meteorologists (Father Benito Vines) believed that this system was actually two separate tropical cyclones. ******************************************************************************** 10725 09/12/1889 M= 8 7 SNBR= 278 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 10725 09/12/1889 M= 8 7 SNBR= 286 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 *** 10730 09/12* 0 0 0 0*152 257 35 0*157 267 35 0*162 279 35 0 10735 09/13*168 290 35 0*175 301 35 0*184 312 40 0*194 323 40 0 10740 09/14*205 333 40 0*218 342 40 0*232 350 45 0*249 355 45 0 10745 09/15*270 359 45 0*291 362 45 0*306 366 45 0*317 371 50 0 10750 09/16*326 377 50 0*333 383 50 0*340 390 50 0*345 399 50 0 10755 09/17*350 410 50 0*355 423 50 0*361 435 50 0*370 457 50 0 10760 09/18*375 475 50 0*383 488 45 0*397 494 45 0*404 494 45 0 10765 09/19*414 493 45 0*423 491 40 0*431 489 35 0*440 485 35 0 10770 TS Partagas and Diaz (1996a) introduced no changes from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). ******************************************************************************** 10525 09/29/1889 M= 8 8 SNBR= 279 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 10525 09/29/1889 M= 8 8 SNBR= 287 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 *** 10530 09/29* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*113 520 35 0*118 536 35 0 10535 09/30*123 551 35 0*127 564 40 0*132 575 40 0*137 585 40 0 10540 10/01*142 594 40 0*146 603 45 0*151 610 45 0*156 617 45 0 10545 10/02*162 623 45 0*169 629 50 0*179 637 50 0*188 643 50 0 10550 10/03*200 650 50 0*214 657 50 0*229 665 50 0*243 669 50 0 10555 10/04*258 672 50 0*273 674 45 0*288 674 45 0*303 670 40 0 10555 10/04*258 672 50 0*273 674 50 0*288 674 55 0*303 670 55 0 ** ** ** 10560 10/05*318 660 40 0*332 650 40 0*347 644 35 0*364 630 35 0 10560 10/05*318 660 60 0*332 650 60 0*347 644 55 0*364 630 50 0 ** ** ** ** 10565 10/06*378 612 35 0*391 594 35 0*404 575 35 0* 0 0 0 0 10565 10/06*378 612 45 0*391 594 40 0*404 575 35 0* 0 0 0 0 ** ** 10570 TS Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any changes for this storm from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Winds increased on the 4th to the 6th based upon ship observations, though the peak intensity was kept at just below hurricane force. ******************************************************************************** 10575 10/04/1889 M= 7 9 SNBR= 280 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 10575 10/05/1889 M= 7 9 SNBR= 288 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 ** *** 10580 10/04* 0 0 0 0*208 821 35 0*216 820 45 0*228 816 50 0 (4th removed in revised HURDAT.) 10585 10/05*237 813 45 0*248 810 50 0*258 806 50 0*270 801 45 0 10585 10/05* 0 0 0 0*200 825 30 0*215 820 30 0*234 815 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 10590 10/06*288 795 45 0*303 789 45 0*317 780 50 0*340 757 50 0 10590 10/06*250 810 40 0*271 802 40 0*300 788 45 0*330 765 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** 10595 10/07*361 730 50 0*383 703 50 0*403 680 50 0*425 659 50 0 10600 10/08*445 640 50 0*464 623 45 0*480 610 40 0*496 607 40 0 10600 10/08E445 640 50 0E464 623 45 0E480 610 40 0E496 607 40 0 * * * * 10605 10/09*510 602 40 0*522 596 40 0*533 590 40 0*544 588 40 0 10605 10/09E510 602 40 0E522 596 40 0E533 590 40 0E544 588 40 0 * * * * 10610 10/10*555 584 40 0*565 580 40 0*574 575 40 0*585 570 40 0 10610 10/10E555 584 40 0E565 580 40 0E574 575 40 0E585 570 40 0 * * * * (00 and 06Z on the 11th added into HURDAT.) 10612 10/11E605 560 35 0E630 553 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 **** *** ** **** *** ** 10615 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large reasonable alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Partagas and Diaz recommended beginning the storm on the 5th south of Cuba (rather than the 4th) based upon available observation data indicating formation of closed circulation on the 5th. R. Perez (2001, personal communication) analyzed this system as of tropical depression intensity crossing Cuba based upon observations from the Cuban weather observing network. ******************************************************************************** 1889 - Additional Notes: Partagas and Diaz (1996a) 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) June 24-25, 1889: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity. 2) October 14-16, 1889: Numerous gale to hurricane force observations, but likely was an extratropical storm. ******************************************************************************** 10616 05/27/1890 M= 3 1 SNBR= 289 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 10617 05/27* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*205 830 30 0*211 833 30 0 10618 05/28*217 836 30 0*223 838 30 0*230 840 35 0*235 842 40 0 10619 05/29*240 843 45 0*244 844 50 0*248 846 50 0*252 848 50 0 10619 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a) are introduced for this newly documented storm. Complete lifecycle of this tropical storm is not available as the decay was not documented. ******************************************************************************** 10616 08/18/1890 M=11 2 SNBR= 290 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 10617 08/18* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*140 620 35 0*142 628 35 0 10618 08/19*144 636 40 0*145 644 40 0*147 655 40 0*148 663 40 0 10619 08/20*150 672 40 0*151 681 40 0*153 690 40 0*154 700 40 0 10620 08/21*155 709 40 0*156 717 40 0*157 725 40 0*159 736 40 0 10621 08/22*160 745 40 0*162 755 40 0*165 765 40 0*167 773 40 0 10622 08/23*169 782 45 0*172 790 45 0*175 800 45 0*178 809 45 0 10623 08/24*182 817 50 0*186 825 50 0*190 833 50 0*196 841 50 0 10624 08/25*202 849 50 0*209 858 50 0*215 867 50 0*221 876 50 0 10625 08/26*227 884 50 0*232 892 50 0*240 900 50 0*248 905 50 0 10626 08/27*258 908 50 0*268 909 50 0*280 910 50 0*295 908 40 0 10627 08/28*315 905 35 0*340 900 30 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 10628 TS One major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a) for this newly documented storm. The track of the tropical storm was placed closer to Pt. Eads, Louisiana, at landfall in order to be more consistent with tropical storm force winds that occurred there. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Louisiana and Mississippi. Track extended twelve hours on the 28th for reasonable decay of the storm. ******************************************************************************** 10620 08/26/1890 M= 9 1 SNBR= 281 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 10620 08/26/1890 M= 9 3 SNBR= 291 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 * *** 10625 08/26* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*166 543 85 0*173 557 85 0 10625 08/26* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*166 543 85 0*173 557 90 0 ** 10630 08/27*180 570 85 0*186 583 85 0*193 596 85 0*200 609 85 0 10630 08/27*180 570 95 0*186 583 100 0*193 596 105 0*200 609 105 0 ** *** *** *** 10635 08/28*207 621 85 0*213 633 85 0*220 645 85 0*228 657 85 0 10635 08/28*207 621 105 0*213 633 105 0*220 645 105 0*228 657 105 0 *** *** *** *** 10640 08/29*239 669 85 0*250 680 85 0*261 691 85 0*272 697 85 0 10640 08/29*239 669 100 0*250 680 95 0*261 691 90 0*272 697 85 0 *** ** ** 10645 08/30*283 698 85 0*294 696 85 0*305 692 85 0*317 684 85 0 10650 08/31*329 671 85 0*345 654 85 0*364 634 85 0*388 610 85 0 10655 09/01*416 584 85 0*445 554 85 0*472 522 85 0*497 485 85 0 10655 09/01*416 584 85 0*445 554 80 0*472 522 70 0*497 485 60 0 ** ** ** 10660 09/02*522 446 85 0*546 406 85 0*570 370 85 0*587 338 85 0 10660 09/02E522 446 50 0E546 406 50 0E570 370 50 0E587 338 50 0 * ** * ** * ** * ** 10665 09/03*603 308 85 0*615 281 85 0*625 256 85 0* 0 0 0 0 10665 09/03E603 308 50 0E615 281 45 0E625 256 45 0* 0 0 0 0 * ** * ** * ** 10670 HR Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any changes for this storm from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 1. A peripheral pressure of 965 mb (at 07Z on the 28th) suggests winds of at least 95 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 105 kt used in best track. Winds from the 26th to the 29th adjusted upward accordingly. Winds from the 1st to the 3rd lowered based upon ship observations of a hurricane transitioning to a (weaker) extratropical storm. Complete lifecycle of this hurricane is not available as the genesis was not documented. ******************************************************************************** 10671 10/31/1890 M= 2 4 SNBR= 292 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 10672 10/31*143 803 80 0*144 813 80 0*145 823 80 0*147 833 80 0 10673 11/01*149 844 55 0*151 855 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 10674 HR No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a) for this newly documented hurricane. Track extended twelve hours on the 1st for reasonable decay of this hurricane over Central America. No dissipating tropical depression intensity is indicated for a six hour location estimate because of rapid dissipation over mountainous terrain. ******************************************************************************** 1890 - Additional Notes: Partagas and Diaz (1996a) 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) October 2, 1890: One report of gale force winds, insufficient to determine if system was a tropical storm. 2) October 21-26, 1890: Numerous gale to hurricane force observations, but likely was an extratropical storm. 3) October 26-28, 1890: Numerous gale to hurricane force observations, but likely was an extratropical storm. ******************************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************************** 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 - 2003 REVISION: 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.) 1891/07 - 2004 REVISION: 11555 10/01/1891 M=10 7 SNBR= 299 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 11020 10/04/1891 M= 7 7 SNBR= 300 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 ** ** *** (The 1st through the 3rd are removed from HURDAT.) 11560 10/01* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*175 598 35 0*176 608 40 0 11565 10/02*177 619 40 0*177 629 45 0*178 639 45 0*178 649 45 0 11570 10/03*179 659 45 0*179 670 45 0*179 680 45 0*180 690 45 0 11575 10/04*180 701 45 0*182 712 40 0*183 723 40 0*185 734 40 0 11025 10/04* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*150 790 35 0*160 795 40 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** 11580 10/05*189 745 40 0*193 756 45 0*198 767 45 0*204 778 45 0 11030 10/05*170 800 45 0*175 805 45 0*180 810 45 0*187 815 45 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** 11585 10/06*210 788 45 0*218 798 40 0*228 807 40 0*239 812 45 0 11035 10/06*195 820 45 0*205 823 45 0*215 825 45 0*226 823 45 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 11590 10/07*250 812 45 0*262 810 40 0*273 804 40 0*284 797 40 0 11040 10/07*237 820 40 0*248 815 45 0*260 810 40 0*271 803 40 1004 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** **** 11595 10/08*295 789 40 0*306 781 40 0*317 772 45 0*326 763 45 0 11045 10/08*282 793 40 0*293 782 40 0*305 770 40 0*318 755 40 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** 11600 10/09*334 753 45 0*342 743 45 0*350 732 45 0*360 718 45 0 11050 10/09E332 740 40 0E346 725 40 0E360 710 45 0E370 695 40 0 **** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** **** *** ** 11605 10/10*371 702 40 0*384 682 40 0*398 661 35 0* 0 0 0 0 11055 10/10E375 675 35 0E378 650 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 **** *** ** **** *** ** *** *** ** 11610 TS U.S. Tropical Storm Landfall Data --------------------------------- #/Date Time Lat Lon Max States Winds Affected 7-10/7/1891$ 0000Z 25.0N 81.2W 45kt FL 7-10/7/1891$ 0800Z 25.2N 81.3W 45kt FL **** **** **** Three tropical systems in early October were first suggested by Mitchell (1924), which was utilized in the HURDAT database as well as Neumann et al. (1999) (storms 7, 8 and 9). In contrast, the Monthly Weather Review summary of the era suggested one primary low forming in the Caribbean on the 6th, moving across Cuba and Florida, impacting the U.S. mid-Atlantic states and dissipating near Nova Scotia on the 14th. MWR also had a secondary low pressure forming near the Florida Keys on the 9th and merging with the main low on the 11th. Partagas and Diaz (1996a) believed that, "most likely, only one storm ... was what happened in reality". However, they "did not find enough evidence to entirely disprove the existence of the three storms and, consequently, [they] decided to keep unchanged the tracks for Storms 7, 8 and 9, 1891." Subsequent research by the re-analysis team has uncovered evidence to support a different conclusion to all the above: two storm systems existed - 1) a moderate tropical storm forming in the Caribbean on the 4th, moving across Cuba and Florida, being absorbed in a frontal boundary and decaying on the 10th (storm 7); and 2) a weak tropical storm also forming in the Caribbean on the 7th and becomming extratropical storm system near near the Florida Keys on the 9th, crossing Florida, slowing and becoming a strong "Nor'easter" on the 11th to the 13th and decaying on the 15th and 16th over Nova Scotia and Newfoundland (was storms 8 and 9, now combined into 8). Storm 9 apparently never existed as a separate storm system, but was in fact part of the extratropical storm stage for storm 8. Thus the two original tropical storms and one original hurricane in HURDAT have been replaced with two tropical storms. Evidence for this scenario comes from both the COADS ship database, U.S. station data obtained from NCDC, and Bermuda observations provided by Mike Chenoweth. These were then plotted and analyzed twice daily from 1 to 15 October, 1891. (Figures showing the station and ship observations and the team's analyses are provided.) The remainder of this writeup focusses upon storm 7. The discussion for the storm 8 (originally storm 8 and storm 9) is contained in that storm's metadata file. The early portion of original storm 7's track (1st through the 5th) has been discounted partly by ship data (especially on the 4th and 5th) but primarily by the climatological studies of Puerto Rico (Salivia 1972), Hispanola (Garcia-Bonnelly 1958), and Cuba (Sarasola 1928). The first two comprehensive tropical cyclone listings indicated that no tropical storm or hurricane impacted those locations in October 1891. Perez (2003 - personal communication) reconfirmed the earlier Cuban historical study that the tropical system in October 1891 formed in the Caribbean and made landfall in south central Cuba late on the 6th of October, not moving in along eastern Cuba as suggested in HURDAT and Neumann et al. Ship data first indicate a closed circulation late on the 4th in the western Caribbean. Peripheral pressures of 1004 and 1005 mb on the 5th and 6th from ships and Havana suggest winds of at least 39 and 36 kt, respectively. These along with ship observations suggest a maximum 1 min wind of about 45 kt for this time period. (Some small weakening over Cuba is accounted for on the 7th with a return to 45 kt intensity for landfall in south Florida.) Station observations clearly locate the center of the storm during its trek across Florida on the 7th. A sea level pressure of 1004 mb in Jupiter, Florida at 1940 UTC may have been a central pressure. This suggests winds of about 40 kt, which is utilized for the HURDAT revision. Over water observations are somewhat sparse on the 8th and 9th, but enhanced winds in North Carolina (peak of 39 kt at Kitty Hawk and 35 kt at Cape Hatteras) suggest a relatively close pass east of the state early on the 9th. This likely occurred soon after the system's extratropical transformation. The storm then likely dissipated north of Bermuda on the 10th. It is noted that the track provided here is quite similar from that found in HURDAT and Neumann et al. (1999) for storm 7 from the 7th to the 10th. ******************************************************************************** 1891/08 - 2003 REVISION: 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.) 1891/08 - 2004 REVISION: 11615 10/06/1891 M= 6 8 SNBR= 300 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 11615 10/07/1891 M=10 8 SNBR= 301 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 ** ** *** * (The 6th removed from HURDAT.) 11620 10/06* 0 0 0 0*159 830 35 0*164 832 40 0*171 837 40 0 11625 10/07*178 841 45 0*186 844 45 0*193 847 45 0*200 849 45 0 11625 10/07* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*180 850 30 0*185 850 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 11630 10/08*208 850 45 0*215 850 45 0*223 848 45 0*233 844 45 0 11630 10/08*190 850 35 0*195 850 35 0*200 848 35 0*207 844 35 0 *** ** *** ** *** ** *** ** 11635 10/09*246 837 45 0*259 831 45 0*270 825 45 0*278 819 40 0 11635 10/09*215 840 35 0*225 837 40 0*240 835 40 0E255 828 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** **** *** ** 11640 10/10*284 813 35 0*291 807 35 0*298 801 40 0*307 793 45 0 11640 10/10E270 815 30 0E284 807 30 0E298 800 30 0E310 788 30 0 **** *** ** **** ** * *** ** **** *** ** 11645 10/11*316 784 45 0*326 774 40 0*337 762 35 0* 0 0 0 0 11645 10/11E320 770 30 0E326 758 35 0E332 750 40 0E338 745 45 0 **** *** ** * *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** (The 8th to the 11th from storm 9 removed. The track from storm 9 on the 12th to the 16th incorporated into storm 8's track.) 11655 10/08/1891 M= 9 9 SNBR= 301 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 11660 10/08* 0 0 0 0*238 572 35 0*245 582 40 0*251 591 40 0 11665 10/09*256 601 45 0*262 612 50 0*268 625 55 0*274 639 60 0 11670 10/10*280 653 70 0*287 666 75 0*293 680 80 0*299 694 85 0 11675 10/11*305 708 85 0*312 721 85 0*321 735 85 0*330 740 85 0 11680 10/12*340 742 85 0*350 741 85 0*359 740 85 0*366 737 85 0 11680 10/12E344 740 50 0E348 737 55 0E350 735 55 0E354 733 55 0 **** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** 11685 10/13*373 733 85 0*380 728 85 0*388 721 85 0*395 715 85 0 11685 10/13E360 731 55 0E370 729 55 0E380 725 55 0E390 715 55 0 **** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** **** ** 11690 10/14*403 706 85 0*412 694 85 0*422 681 85 0*433 665 85 0 11690 10/14E400 705 55 0E410 695 55 0E420 685 50 0E433 665 45 0 **** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** * ** 11695 10/15*446 647 80 0*460 626 75 0*475 602 70 0*500 571 65 0 11695 10/15E446 640 40 0E460 620 40 0E475 602 35 0E500 571 30 0 * *** ** * *** ** * ** * ** 11700 10/16*530 522 65 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 11700 10/16E530 522 30 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 * ** 11650 TS U.S. Tropical Storm Landfall Data --------------------------------- #/Date Time Lat Lon Max States Winds Affected 8-10/9/1891$ 1400Z 25.8N 81.7W 45kt FL (Removed from listing) 9-10/12/1891* 0600Z 35.0N 74.1W 60kt NC (Removed from listing) Three tropical systems in early October were first suggested by Mitchell (1924), which was utilized in the HURDAT database as well as Neumann et al. (1999) (storms 7, 8 and 9). In contrast, the Monthly Weather Review summary of the era suggested one primary low forming in the Caribbean on the 6th, moving across Cuba and Florida, impacting the U.S. mid-Atlantic states and dissipating near Nova Scotia on the 14th. MWR also had a secondary low pressure forming near the Florida Keys on the 9th and merging with the main low on the 11th. Partagas and Diaz (1996a) believed that, "most likely, only one storm ... was what happened in reality". However, they "did not find enough evidence to entirely disprove the existence of the three storms and, consequently, [they] decided to keep unchanged the tracks for Storms 7, 8 and 9, 1891." Subsequent research by the re-analysis team has uncovered evidence to support a different conclusion to all the above: two storm systems existed - 1) a moderate tropical storm forming in the Caribbean on the 4th, moving across Cuba and Florida, being absorbed in a frontal boundary and decaying on the 10th (storm 7); and 2) a weak tropical storm also forming in the Caribbean on the 7th and becomming extratropical storm system near near the Florida Keys on the 9th, crossing Florida, slowing and becoming a strong "Nor'easter" on the 11th to the 13th and decaying on the 15th and 16th over Nova Scotia and Newfoundland (was storms 8 and 9, now combined into 8). Storm 9 apparently never existed as a separate storm system, but was in fact part of the extratropical storm stage for storm 8. Thus the two original tropical storms and one original hurricane in HURDAT have been replaced with two tropical storms. Evidence for this scenario comes from both the COADS ship database, U.S. station data obtained from NCDC, and Bermuda observations provided by Mike Chenoweth. These were then plotted and analyzed twice daily from 1 to 15 October, 1891. (Figures showing the station and ship observations and the team's analyses are provided.) The remainder of this writeup focusses upon storm 8. The discussion for the storm 7 is contained in that storm's metadata file. Original storm 8 and 9 were each depicting a portion of the same storm system that occurred. The genesis of the revised system is delayed a day until the 7th in the northwestern Caribbean. By the time it reached the Florida Keys on the 9th, it had merged with a pre-existing baroclinic zone and became an extratropical storm. During the two day period when the system maintained tropical cyclone status, peak observed winds were 35 kt N from a ship at 14 UTC on the 9th at 21.0N 86.0W and lowest observed pressures were from same ship: 1004 mb at 22 UTC on the 7th at 20.0N 84.0W and 1005 mb at 10 UTC on the 9th at 21.0N 86.0W (though a time series of pressure from this ship suggests that the values may be consistant 2-4 mb too low. 1004 mb peripheral pressure suggests winds of at least 39 kt from the southern pressure-wind relationship. Peak estimated winds as a tropical storm are 40 kt on the 9th. However, by the time the system reached the Florida Keys as an extratropical system, either it had weakened slightly or had not actually attained tropical storm intensity. Peak conditions observed were only 21 kt and 1012 mb in Key West as the system passed just to the west of the city. The extratrpical storm then moved slowly northeastward across Florida into the Atlantic and then drifted to the north beginning on the 11th for about 36 hours southeast of Cape Hatteras. During this time a high built in from the north and west and in conjunction with the extratropical storm caused strong northeasterly winds along the U.S. mid-Atlantic and New England coasts. Peak (uncorrected) 5 min sustained winds reached 57 kt at Kitty Hawk, 63 kt at Cape Hatteras, 41 kt at Atlantic City, 63 kt at Block Island, and 50 kt at Nantucket. The estimated maximum 1 min winds for this system during its extratropical stage were about 55 kt. On the 13th to the 15th, the baroclinic low moved northeastward and weakened. The baroclinic nature of this system is quite clear - it had at times a 25F east-west temperature gradient while along the Atlantic coast. The early portion of the original storm 9 also appears to be incorrect based upon ship and Bermuda data on the 8th to the 11th. There is no indication that a low (tropical or baroclinic) came toward the U.S. Atlantic seaboard from the southeast. However, the portion of original storm 9's track from the 12th to the 15th does closely match the analysis here of the extratropical storm stage for this revised storm 8. However, it is to be noted that the evidence for retaining this system in HURDAT at all as a tropical storm is marginal given one gale force report and a couple suspect low pressure readings. ******************************************************************************** 1891/09 - 2004 REVISION: Note: Storm was originally 1891/10, but became 1891/09 after the removal of the original 1891/09 - May 2004. 1891/09 - 2003 REVISION: 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. ******************************************************************************** 1891/10 - 2004 REVISION: Note: Storm was originally 1891/11, but became 1891/10 after the removal of the original 1891/10 - May 2004. 1891/10 - 2003 REVISION: 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 - 2004 REVISION: 1) The NHC Best Track Change Committee requested further investigation into the possible storm system first identified by Partagas and Diaz (1996b) in mid-July 1891: "1891 additional system #1 (July) MWR mentions 'gale' winds. This system may warrant further research. Is there any COADS?" Upon investigation of this system in the Monthly Weather Review, from the COADS ship database, and coastal station data, this system was of tropical depression intensity at its peak. The COADS data were sparse in the vicinity of the system until the 12th, when it was east of the U.S. mid-Atlantic states. Peak ship observations were 25 kt and 1014 mb, though a weak closed circulation was analyzed. Station data were also obtained for Jacksonville, Jupiter, Titusville, Savannah, Charleston, Wilmington, Cape Hatteras, Kitty Hawk, Baltimore, Atlantic City, New York City, New London, New Haven, Block Island and Nantucket. Peak observed winds were 36 mph at Kitty Hawk (10th and 11th) and at Cape Hatteras (11th). These observations also support tropical depression status for this system. While "fresh to strong gales" were mentioned in the Monthly Weather Review, no evidence for these were to be found from any source. Thus this system is not added into HURDAT. 2) September 11-12, 1891: Partagas and Diaz (1996b) had investigated this system for possibility of inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team agreed with Partagas and Diaz to leave it out of HURDAT as there was not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity. 3) September 14-15, 1891: Partagas and Diaz (1996b) had investigated this system for possibility of inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team agreed with Partagas and Diaz to leave it out of HURDAT as there was not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity. 4) The NHC Best Track Change Committee requested further investigation into the possible storm system first identified by Partagas and Diaz (1996b) in mid-September 1891: "1891 additional system #4 (Sept) MWR gives TS force winds at coastal stations. This system is also given a high probability by P+D, and bears further investigation." Upon investigation of this system in the Monthly Weather Review, from the COADS ship database, and coastal station data, a closed circulation for this system could not be found. The COADS ship data did not provide any observations near the system, though the station data was quite thorough with observations obtained for Key West, Jupiter, Titusville, Tampa, Jacksonville, Pensacola, Mobile, Port Eads, New Orleans and Galveston. These data indicate that a disturbance did cross the Gulf of Mexico being located roughly along longitude 78W on the 17th, 80W on the 18th, 82W on the 19th, 85W on the 20th, 88W on the 21st, and 90W on the 22nd. Peak winds recorded in association with this system were 40 mph E at Titusville on the 19th, 48 mph NE at New Orleans on the 20th, and 40 mph NE at Galveston on the 20th. However, only easterly winds were reported from these locations and lowest pressure recorded was only 1014 mb at Key West on the 19th. It is possible that this was a tropical storm, but confirming observations for having a closed circulation were not found. (It is also possible that the system was a vigorous easterly wave with no closed circulation and a NNE-SSW oriented wave axis.) Thus because of the uncertainty and lack of having an observed closed circulation, this system is not included into HURDAT. 5) Storm 9 in Partagas and Diaz (1996a) and Neumann et al. (1999) apparently did not exist as a separate tropical cyclone, but was in fact part of the extratropical storm stage for storm 8. Thus this system is removed from HURDAT. Details on the observations for this removal can be found within the discussion of storm 8. (Figures showing the station and ship observations and the team's analyses are provided.). Below is the original HURDAT entry for this system: 11120 10/08/1891 M= 9 9 SNBR= 290 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 ******************************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************************** 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). ******************************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************************** 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 *** 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). 1893/04 - 2006 REVISION: 12470 08/15/1893 M=12 4 SNBR= 316 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 12475 08/15* 0 0 0 0*140 365 35 0*142 377 40 0*144 386 45 0* 12480 08/16*147 396 45 0*149 405 50 0*151 415 55 0*153 426 60 0* 12485 08/17*156 437 65 0*159 448 65 0*161 459 70 0*163 469 75 0* 12490 08/18*165 479 80 0*168 489 85 0*172 499 85 0*176 513 85 0* 12495 08/19*180 529 85 0*185 545 85 0*191 558 85 0*197 570 85 0* 12500 08/20*203 581 85 0*210 592 85 0*216 603 85 0*222 614 85 0* 12505 08/21*227 624 85 0*233 635 85 0*239 646 85 0*244 658 85 0* 12510 08/22*252 671 85 0*261 684 90 0*271 698 95 0*284 707 100 0* 12515 08/23*298 716 100 952*314 725 100 0*331 732 100 0*350 737 95 0* 12520 08/24*368 740 85 0*386 739 80 0*407 739 75 986*430 730 60 0* 12525 08/25E454 710 55 0E474 685 50 0E493 660 40 0E506 631 45 0* 12530 08/26E511 597 40 0E511 565 40 0E507 538 40 0E500 514 40 0* 12535 HR NY1 VA1 12535 HR NY1 CT1 *** Based upon research provided by Mark Jelinek and James Belanger from Georgia Institute of Technology, this cyclone passed too far to the east of Virginia for that state to be counted as a hurricane impact. Moreover, inspection of the track and intensity in HURDAT suggests that Connecticut likely experienced Category 1 hurricane impact along a portion of their coastline. Despite passing quite close to New Jersey, this cyclone likely did not cause hurricane force winds along that state's coast due the hurricane's translational speed and induced wind asymmetries. ******************************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************************** 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. 1893/06 - 2006 REVISION: 12575 08/15/1893 M=19 6 SNBR= 318 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 12580 08/15* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*181 202 40 0*176 209 40 0* 12585 08/16*172 216 40 0*168 224 40 0*165 232 40 0*162 241 40 0* 12590 08/17*160 250 40 0*158 260 40 0*156 269 40 0*155 278 45 0* 12595 08/18*154 286 45 0*154 294 50 0*155 303 50 0*156 313 55 0* 12600 08/19*158 324 55 0*161 338 60 0*165 354 65 0*170 374 70 0* 12605 08/20*175 396 75 0*180 419 80 0*186 440 85 0*192 458 85 0* 12610 08/21*198 476 85 0*205 494 85 0*210 510 85 0*214 525 85 0* 12615 08/22*217 540 85 0*219 555 85 972*220 570 90 0*221 585 95 0* 12620 08/23*223 600 100 0*224 614 105 0*225 627 105 0*226 639 105 0* 12625 08/24*228 649 105 0*229 659 105 0*230 670 105 0*232 681 105 0* 12630 08/25*235 693 105 0*238 704 105 0*241 716 105 0*244 729 105 0* 12635 08/26*247 742 105 0*251 756 105 0*255 769 105 0*261 780 105 0* 12640 08/27*270 789 105 0*280 798 105 0*290 803 105 0*297 806 100 0* 12645 08/28*306 807 100 954*321 812 90 958*339 811 75 0*354 805 65 0* 12650 08/29*368 796 60 0*384 782 55 0*402 760 55 0*420 737 55 0* 12655 08/30*443 707 50 0*466 677 50 0*486 650 50 0*501 630 50 0* 12660 08/31E513 609 50 0E522 589 50 0E530 570 50 0E536 552 50 0* 12665 09/01E541 535 50 0E545 518 50 0E547 500 50 0E545 481 50 0* 12670 09/02E544 461 50 0E542 441 50 0E540 420 50 0E539 391 50 0* 12675 HR GA3 SC3 NC1DFL1 12675 HR GA3 SC3INC1DFL1 **** Revision indicated in continental U.S. impacts to specify that the North Carolina hurricane impact from this cyclone was inland, rather than along North Carolina's Atlantic coast. ******************************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************************** 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. 1893/09 - 2006 REVISION: 12780 09/25/1893 M=21 9 SNBR= 321 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 12785 09/25* 0 0 0 0*116 250 35 0*116 258 40 0*117 267 45 0* 12790 09/26*117 275 45 0*117 283 45 0*117 291 50 0*117 298 50 0* 12795 09/27*117 305 55 0*117 311 55 0*117 319 60 0*117 328 60 0* 12800 09/28*117 336 65 0*118 345 65 0*118 354 65 0*118 363 65 0* 12805 09/29*118 372 65 0*118 381 65 0*118 390 65 0*118 398 65 0* 12810 09/30*119 405 65 0*119 412 65 0*120 420 65 0*121 430 70 0* 12815 10/01*123 439 75 0*125 449 80 0*128 459 85 0*130 469 90 0* 12820 10/02*133 480 95 0*136 490 100 0*140 500 105 0*144 509 105 0* 12825 10/03*148 516 105 0*152 522 105 0*157 527 105 0*163 532 105 0* 12830 10/04*169 537 105 0*176 542 105 0*182 547 105 0*188 552 105 0* 12835 10/05*193 557 105 0*198 562 105 0*203 567 105 0*208 572 105 0* 12840 10/06*212 577 105 0*215 582 105 0*218 587 105 0*220 592 105 0* 12845 10/07*222 598 105 0*224 604 105 0*226 610 105 0*228 617 105 0* 12850 10/08*229 625 105 0*231 633 105 0*233 642 105 0*235 651 105 0* 12855 10/09*237 660 105 0*239 669 105 0*241 678 105 0*243 687 105 0* 12860 10/10*245 695 105 0*248 703 105 0*250 712 105 0*252 722 105 0* 12865 10/11*255 732 105 0*258 742 105 0*261 752 105 0*264 762 105 0* 12870 10/12*268 771 105 0*272 781 105 0*276 790 105 0*282 797 105 0* 12875 10/13*293 806 105 0*308 808 105 0*326 797 105 955*350 786 80 0* 12880 10/14*387 781 65 0*427 776 60 0E457 764 60 0E483 748 60 0* 12885 10/15E507 729 60 0E529 707 60 0E549 682 50 0E570 660 40 0* 12890 HR SC3 NC2 VA1 12890 HR SC3 NC2IVA1 **** Revision indicated in continental U.S. impacts to specify that the Virginia hurricane impact from this cyclone was inland, rather than along Virginia's Atlantic coast. ******************************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************************** 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. 1894/05 - 2006 REVISION: 13240 10/01/1894 M=12 5 SNBR= 329 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 13245 10/01*125 791 35 0*130 795 35 0*135 798 40 0*140 802 40 0* 13250 10/02*145 806 45 0*149 809 45 0*154 813 50 0*159 816 55 0* 13255 10/03*163 820 60 0*167 823 60 0*172 826 65 0*177 830 70 0* 13260 10/04*183 834 75 0*189 838 75 0*195 842 80 0*200 845 85 0* 13265 10/05*206 849 90 0*212 853 90 0*217 856 95 0*220 859 95 0* 13270 10/06*225 862 100 0*230 865 100 0*237 870 105 0*243 875 105 0* 13275 10/07*247 877 105 0*252 881 105 0*257 883 105 0*261 884 105 0* 13280 10/08*266 884 105 0*271 884 105 0*277 883 105 0*287 877 105 0* 13285 10/09*297 863 105 0*307 847 85 0*317 830 70 0*330 803 60 0* 13290 10/10*352 775 60 0*374 755 65 0*394 740 75 0*420 719 55 0* 13295 10/11E448 702 45 0E476 689 45 0E500 673 45 0E520 662 40 0* 13300 10/12E537 652 35 0E551 643 35 0E563 635 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 13305 HRAFL3 GA1 NY1 RI1 13305 HRAFL3IGA1 NY1 RI1 CT1 **** *** Revision indicated in continental U.S. impacts to specify that the Georgia hurricane impact from this cyclone was inland, rather than along Georgia's Atlantic coast. Based upon research provided by Mark Jelinek and James Belanger from Georgia Institute of Technology, this cyclone also caused a Category 1 hurricane impact in Connecticut based upon the existing track and intensity in HURDAT. ******************************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************************* 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. ******************************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************************** 13135 07/04/1896 M= 9 1 SNBR= 326 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9 13135 07/04/1896 M= 9 1 SNBR= 338 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 *** * 13140 07/04* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*209 811 35 0*218 820 45 0 13140 07/04* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*209 811 35 0*218 820 40 0 ** 13145 07/05*226 828 50 0*234 836 60 0*242 842 75 0*249 847 80 0 13145 07/05*226 828 45 0*234 836 45 0*242 842 55 0*249 847 65 0 ** ** ** ** 13150 07/06*256 852 85 0*263 856 85 0*270 860 85 0*277 862 85 0 13150 07/06*256 852 75 0*263 856 85 0*270 860 85 0*277 862 85 0 ** 13155 07/07*284 862 85 0*290 862 85 0*297 861 80 0*305 861 75 0 13155 07/07*284 865 85 0*290 866 85 0*297 867 85 0*305 864 85 0 *** *** *** ** *** ** 13160 07/08*314 860 65 0*326 854 60 0*340 850 55 0*356 847 45 0 13160 07/08*316 853 60 0*324 843 45 0*333 835 35 0*345 829 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 13165 07/09*373 844 40 0*390 842 40 0*406 840 35 0*421 838 35 0 13165 07/09*364 832 30 0*385 840 30 0*406 840 25 0*421 838 25 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** ** ** 13170 07/10*436 835 30 0*451 833 30 0*467 830 25 0*483 822 25 0 13170 07/10*436 835 25 0*451 833 25 0*467 830 25 0*483 822 25 0 ** ** 13175 07/11*500 808 25 0*517 788 25 0*535 765 25 0*553 741 25 0 13180 07/12*571 713 25 0*589 683 25 0*608 649 25 0* 0 0 0 0 13185 HR 13185 HRAFL2 **** No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Winds reduced from the 4th to the 6th since there were no observations in Cuba of a strong tropical storm or hurricane. Based upon the 72 mph sustained wind out of the north at Pensacola reported in _Monthly Weather Review_, the Category 2 (85 kt) at landfall originally in HURDAT appears reasonable. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the Southeast U.S. ******************************************************************************** 13190 08/30/1896 M=13 2 SNBR= 327 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9 13190 08/30/1896 M=13 2 SNBR= 339 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 *** * 13195 08/30* 0 0 0 0*140 596 35 0*145 605 50 0*149 614 65 0 13200 08/31*153 624 80 0*158 633 95 0*163 642 100 0*169 651 105 0 13200 08/31*153 624 80 0*158 633 85 0*163 642 85 0*169 651 85 0 ** *** *** 13205 09/01*175 660 105 0*181 669 100 0*186 678 90 0*190 686 85 0 13205 09/01*175 660 85 0*181 669 85 0*186 678 75 0*190 686 80 0 *** *** ** ** 13210 09/02*193 692 85 0*197 699 85 0*200 706 85 0*203 714 85 0 13215 09/03*206 722 85 0*209 731 90 0*212 739 95 0*215 747 95 0 13215 09/03*206 722 85 0*209 731 85 0*212 739 85 0*215 747 85 0 ** ** ** 13220 09/04*218 754 100 0*222 762 100 0*227 768 105 0*233 772 105 0 13220 09/04*218 754 85 0*222 762 85 0*227 768 85 0*233 772 90 0 *** *** *** *** 13225 09/05*239 773 105 0*245 773 105 0*252 772 105 0*259 770 105 0 13225 09/05*239 773 95 0*245 773 100 0*252 772 100 0*259 770 100 0 *** *** *** *** 13230 09/06*265 768 105 0*272 764 105 0*278 758 105 0*285 750 105 0 13230 09/06*265 768 100 0*272 764 100 0*278 758 100 0*285 750 100 0 *** *** *** *** 13235 09/07*291 741 105 0*298 732 105 0*304 723 105 0*313 715 105 0 13235 09/07*291 741 100 956*298 732 100 0*304 723 100 0*313 715 100 0 *** *** *** *** *** 13240 09/08*324 707 105 0*336 700 105 0*346 695 105 0*354 692 105 0 13240 09/08*324 707 100 0*336 700 100 0*346 695 100 0*354 692 100 0 *** *** *** *** 13245 09/09*362 691 105 0*370 691 105 0*378 691 105 0*386 691 105 0 13245 09/09*362 691 100 0*370 691 95 0*378 691 90 0*386 693 85 0 *** *** *** *** *** 13250 09/10*393 692 100 0*400 692 100 0*408 693 95 0*417 694 90 0 13250 09/10*393 697 80 0*400 702 75 0*410 706 70 0*420 707 55 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** 13255 09/11*426 694 85 0*437 695 80 0*448 696 80 0*460 700 75 0 13255 09/11E430 705 50 0E439 701 45 0E448 696 40 0E457 690 40 0 **** *** ** **** *** ** * ** **** *** ** 13260 HR 13260 HR RI1 MA1 *** *** 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. Boose et al. (2003) analyze the wind-caused damage for this hurricane at landfall in Puerto Rico as only isolated Fujita-scale F1 damage, which does not support intensity as a major hurricane landfall. Winds are reduced accordingly on the 31st and 1st to Category 2 (85 kt) intensity. Perez (2000 and personal communication) indicate that this hurricane produced only tropical storm conditions over Cuba during its close trek just offshore the coast. Thus winds are reduced somewhat on the 3rd through the 5th. A central pressure of 956 mb at 00Z on the 7th suggests winds of 98 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 100 kt is utilized in the best track. Winds adjusted from the 5th to the 9th accordingly. Hurricane is determined from wind observations to be a Category 1 hurricane in New England; winds adjusted accordingly from the 9th to the 11th. Winds at landfall (Category 1) and inland agree with assessment by Boose et al. (2001), based upon modeling of wind-caused damages. Boose et al. (2001) also estimated a RMW of 30 nmi. Hurricane is known as "San Ramon Nonato III" or "San Gil" for its impacts in Puerto Rico. ******************************************************************************** 13605 09/18/1896 M=11 3 SNBR= 328 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 13605 09/18/1896 M=11 3 SNBR= 340 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 *** 13610 09/18*171 551 35 0*175 565 40 0*178 580 40 0*182 593 45 0 13615 09/19*187 606 50 0*191 618 55 0*196 628 60 0*201 637 65 0 13620 09/20*206 645 70 0*211 653 75 0*216 662 80 0*221 672 85 0 13625 09/21*227 683 85 0*234 694 85 0*241 705 85 0*249 715 85 0 13630 09/22*258 724 85 0*269 733 85 0*280 740 85 0*292 741 85 0 13635 09/23*304 738 85 0*317 727 85 0*330 710 85 0*344 690 85 0 13640 09/24*360 669 85 0*375 647 85 0*389 627 85 0*402 608 85 0 13645 09/25*413 589 85 0*425 570 85 0*438 550 85 0*452 529 85 0 13650 09/26*467 505 85 0*482 479 85 0*497 450 85 0*512 419 85 0 13655 09/27*528 388 85 0*543 357 80 0*558 325 80 0*571 293 75 0 13660 09/28*582 261 70 0*592 229 70 0*600 197 65 0* 0 0 0 0 13665 HR Partagas and Diaz (1996b) introduced no changes from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). ******************************************************************************** 13330 09/22/1896 M= 9 4 SNBR= 329 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9 13330 09/22/1896 M= 9 4 SNBR= 341 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 *** * 13335 09/22* 0 0 0 0*167 618 35 0*167 628 40 0*167 638 45 0 13335 09/22* 0 0 0 0*167 618 35 0*167 628 35 0*167 638 35 0 ** ** 13340 09/23*167 647 50 0*168 656 60 0*168 665 65 0*168 673 70 0 13340 09/23*167 647 40 0*168 656 40 0*168 665 45 0*168 673 45 0 ** ** ** ** 13345 09/24*169 680 80 0*169 687 85 0*170 698 90 0*171 711 95 0 13345 09/24*169 680 50 0*169 687 50 0*170 698 55 0*171 711 55 0 ** ** ** ** 13350 09/25*171 724 100 0*172 736 100 0*173 749 105 0*174 762 105 0 13350 09/25*171 724 60 0*172 736 60 0*173 749 65 0*174 762 65 0 *** *** *** *** 13355 09/26*177 774 105 0*180 787 105 0*185 800 105 0*191 812 105 0 13355 09/26*177 774 70 0*180 787 75 0*185 800 80 0*188 809 85 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** 13360 09/27*199 822 105 0*207 831 105 0*216 840 105 0*225 848 105 0 13360 09/27*191 819 90 0*194 828 95 0*197 837 100 0*201 842 105 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 13365 09/28*234 854 105 0*244 856 105 0*254 855 100 0*265 850 100 0 13365 09/28*206 849 110 0*214 853 110 0*223 855 110 0*238 853 110 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 13370 09/29*279 841 95 0*295 832 90 0*312 824 80 0*338 808 75 0 13370 09/29*253 851 110 0*270 842 110 960*296 829 100 963*322 812 85 973 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** 13375 09/30*369 790 65 992*410 775 50 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 13375 09/30*357 792 70 988E395 785 60 987E420 790 50 0* 0 0 0 0 *** *** ** ******* *** ** ******* *** ** 13380 HR 13380 HRAFL3DFL3 GA2 SC1 NC1 VA1 ******** *** *** *** *** The only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who otherwise made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), is to use the track analyzed by Sandrik et al. (2001) near the landfall in the United States. Winds reduced from the 22nd until the 27th since observations from Partagas and Diaz only support intensification to hurricane status as it approached Cuba. Perez (2001) analyzes the impacts of this hurricane as Category 1 in Cuba, consistent with the track chosen as just offshore the west tip of Cuba as a major hurricane. Sandrik et al. (2001) analyzed the landfall as a 960 mb hurricane in Florida with a 15 nmi radius of maximum winds. This central pressure suggests 100 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship. With a smaller than usual RMW for this central pressure and latitude (22 nmi on average - Vickery et al. 2000) and a rapid forward motion (30 kt at landfall), winds are estimated at 110 kt at landfall. A 963 mb central pressure estimated via Ho's methodology for 12Z on the 29th suggests 92 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 100 kt chosen due to small RMW and fast speed of motion although the hurricane is overland. A 973 mb central pressure estimated via Ho's methodology for 18Z on the 29th suggests winds of 83 kt for maximum sustained winds, 85 kt is chosen for the best track for the same reasons above. A 988 mb central pressure estimated for 00Z on the 30th suggests winds of 65 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship, which is boosted to 70 kt for the same reasons above. (Note that this was originally recorded in HURDAT as 992 mb, which was a peripheral pressure measurement not a central pressure.) Finally, an observed central pressure (at 04Z on the 30th) of 987 mb occurred as the storm was going extratropical. 1896/04 - 2006 REVISION: 13935 09/22/1896 M= 9 4 SNBR= 341 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 13940 09/22* 0 0 0 0*167 618 35 0*167 628 35 0*167 638 35 0* 13945 09/23*167 647 40 0*168 656 40 0*168 665 45 0*168 673 45 0* 13950 09/24*169 680 50 0*169 687 50 0*170 698 55 0*171 711 55 0* 13955 09/25*171 724 60 0*172 736 60 0*173 749 65 0*174 762 65 0* 13960 09/26*177 774 70 0*180 787 75 0*185 800 80 0*188 809 85 0* 13965 09/27*191 819 90 0*194 828 95 0*197 837 100 0*201 842 105 0* 13970 09/28*206 849 110 0*214 853 110 0*223 855 110 0*238 853 110 0* 13975 09/29*253 851 110 0*270 842 110 960*296 829 100 963*322 812 85 973* 13980 09/30*357 792 70 988E395 785 60 987E420 790 50 0* 0 0 0 0* 13985 HRAFL3DFL3 GA2 SC1 NC1 VA1 13985 HRAFL3DFL3 GA2 SC1INC1IVA1 ******** Revision indicated in continental U.S. impacts to specify that the North Carolina and Virginia hurricane impacts from this cyclone were inland, rather than along these states' Atlantic coast. ******************************************************************************** 13385 10/07/1896 M=10 5 SNBR= 330 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9 13385 10/07/1896 M=10 5 SNBR= 342 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 *** * 13390 10/07*225 912 35 0*230 902 40 0*234 890 50 0*236 882 60 0 13390 10/07*225 912 35 0*230 902 40 0*234 892 45 0*236 882 50 0 *** ** ** 13395 10/08*239 873 70 0*242 863 80 0*248 852 85 0*255 839 85 0 13395 10/08*239 873 50 0*242 863 50 0*248 852 50 0*255 839 50 0 ** ** ** ** 13400 10/09*262 825 85 0*270 811 80 0*278 800 70 0*286 791 70 0 13400 10/09*262 825 50 0*270 811 40 0*278 800 35 0*286 791 45 0 ** ** ** ** 13405 10/10*294 782 75 0*302 774 80 0*310 767 80 0*318 760 85 0 13405 10/10*294 782 50 0*302 774 55 0*310 767 60 0*318 760 65 0 ** ** ** ** 13410 10/11*327 753 85 0*335 747 85 0*343 739 85 0*351 731 85 0 13410 10/11*327 753 75 0*335 747 85 0*343 739 85 0*351 731 85 0 ** 13415 10/12*358 723 85 0*366 714 85 0*373 706 85 0*380 698 85 0 13420 10/13*386 689 85 0*393 680 85 0*400 672 85 0*408 664 85 0 13420 10/13*386 689 80 0*393 680 75 0*400 672 70 0*408 664 65 0 ** ** ** ** 13425 10/14*416 657 85 0*424 649 85 0*432 642 85 0*440 635 85 0 13425 10/14E416 657 60 0E424 649 55 0E432 642 50 0E440 635 45 0 * ** * ** * ** * ** 13430 10/15*449 629 80 0*458 622 75 0*467 615 70 0*481 600 65 0 13430 10/15E449 629 40 0E458 622 35 0E467 615 35 0E481 600 35 0 * ** * ** * ** * ** 13435 10/16*502 570 55 0*528 528 45 0*557 482 40 0* 0 0 0 0 13435 10/16E502 570 35 0E528 528 35 0E557 482 35 0* 0 0 0 0 * ** * ** * ** 13440 HR Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Winds reduced while in Gulf of Mexico since observations do not support hurricane status there or at landfall in Florida. Winds reduced from the 13th until the 16th since observations do not indicate hurricane intensity north of 41N or at landfall in Canada. Small alteration to the track on the 7th provides a more realistic translational velocity. ******************************************************************************** 13445 10/26/1896 M=15 6 SNBR= 331 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 13445 10/26/1896 M=15 6 SNBR= 343 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 *** 13450 10/26* 0 0 0 0* 87 442 35 0* 87 450 35 0* 88 455 40 0 13455 10/27* 89 460 40 0* 90 466 45 0* 92 474 45 0* 95 483 50 0 13460 10/28* 98 492 55 0*101 501 60 0*105 510 65 0*109 519 65 0 13465 10/29*114 528 70 0*120 537 75 0*126 546 80 0*134 553 85 0 13470 10/30*142 557 85 0*151 559 85 0*161 560 85 0*172 560 85 0 13475 10/31*183 558 85 0*194 555 85 0*204 550 85 0*214 543 85 0 13480 11/01*223 536 85 0*231 529 85 0*239 523 85 0*247 517 85 0 13485 11/02*254 512 85 0*261 506 85 0*267 500 85 0*273 494 85 0 13490 11/03*279 488 85 0*285 481 85 0*291 475 85 0*297 468 85 0 13495 11/04*303 461 85 0*309 454 85 0*315 446 85 0*323 436 85 0 13500 11/05*333 424 85 0*345 411 85 0*356 403 85 0*370 393 85 0 13505 11/06*384 390 85 0*398 397 85 0*404 410 80 0*404 415 80 0 13510 11/07*401 421 80 0*396 426 75 0*390 430 75 0*385 430 75 0 13515 11/08*379 425 70 0*374 417 70 0*370 407 65 0*366 396 60 0 13520 11/09*364 383 55 0*362 367 50 0*360 350 45 0*360 339 35 0 13525 HR Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). The only observation possibly available for this system is from Bark "Gerald C. Tobay" on Oct. 28th at 21.2N 62.5W where "it came in a whirlwind with rain, thunder and lightning ... lasted only 20 minutes" and caused substantial damage to the ship. As Partagas and Diaz discussed, this ship was about 800 miles to the northwest of the hurricane's position on the 28th. So either the observation is unrelated to the hurricane or the storm was a large system with an outer rainband (and possible embedded tornado) that impacted the ship. Without additional data for substantiating changes to HURDAT's original intensity estimates, no alterations are made to this hurricane. ******************************************************************************** 13527 11/27/1896 M= 3 7 SNBR= 344 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 13527 11/27*109 611 35 0*112 613 35 0*115 615 40 0*120 617 40 0 13527 11/28*127 618 45 0*134 619 45 0*140 620 50 0*149 622 50 0 13527 11/29*160 623 50 0*170 624 50 0*180 625 40 0*196 623 35 0 13527 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b) for this newly documented tropical storm. ******************************************************************************* 1896 - Additional Notes: Partagas and Diaz (1996b) mentioned one additional system considered for inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team agreed to leave it out of HURDAT for the following reason: 1) August 28-29, 1896: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity. ******************************************************************************** 13530 08/31/1897 M=11 1 SNBR= 332 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 13530 08/31/1897 M=11 1 SNBR= 345 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 *** 13535 08/31* 0 0 0 0*140 240 35 0*140 250 35 0*141 261 35 0 13540 09/01*142 273 35 0*143 284 40 0*145 295 55 0*147 306 65 0 13545 09/02*150 317 70 0*153 328 75 0*156 339 75 0*160 350 80 0 13550 09/03*164 361 80 0*169 372 85 0*175 383 85 0*181 395 85 0 13555 09/04*188 408 85 0*195 422 85 0*203 435 85 0*211 448 85 0 13560 09/05*220 462 85 0*229 475 85 0*239 488 85 0*250 498 85 0 13565 09/06*262 502 85 0*275 502 85 0*286 499 85 0*296 494 85 0 13570 09/07*304 487 85 0*313 480 85 0*322 472 85 0*332 464 85 0 13575 09/08*344 455 85 0*356 443 85 0*370 425 85 0*387 402 85 0 13580 09/09*408 373 85 0*430 345 80 0*448 319 80 0*463 294 75 0 13585 09/10*477 269 65 0*489 244 55 0*499 219 50 0*511 194 50 0 13585 09/10E477 269 65 0E489 244 55 0E499 219 50 0E511 194 50 0 * * * * 13590 HR Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). A peripheral pressure of 972 mb apparently close to the eye (11 UTC on the 7th) supports at least 84 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 85 kt retained in the best track. Extratropical stage is suggested to begin on the 10th, while north of 45N. ******************************************************************************** 13595 09/10/1897 M= 4 2 SNBR= 333 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9 13595 09/10/1897 M= 4 2 SNBR= 346 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 *** * 13600 09/10* 0 0 0 0*237 800 65 0*240 810 65 0*244 819 65 0 13600 09/10* 0 0 0 0*237 800 50 0*240 810 55 0*244 819 60 0 ** ** ** 13605 09/11*248 829 65 0*254 836 75 0*260 846 80 0*266 856 85 0 13605 09/11*248 829 65 0*254 836 75 0*260 846 75 0*266 856 75 0 ** ** 13610 09/12*272 868 85 0*278 879 85 0*284 892 80 0*289 906 75 0 13610 09/12*272 868 75 0*278 879 75 0*283 892 75 0*288 905 75 0 ** ** *** ** *** *** 13615 09/13*295 920 70 0*299 936 65 0*304 952 50 0*327 965 40 0 13615 09/13*293 922 75 0*298 941 75 0*303 957 50 0*312 975 40 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** 13620 HR 13620 HRCTX1 LA1 **** *** No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). The hurricane is lowered to a tropical storm on the 10th, since observations in Key West do not indicate hurricane force had yet been reached. The hurricane is downgraded from Category 2 (85 kt) to Category 1 (75 kt) over the Gulf of Mexico and at landfall in Texas/Louisiana, due to evidence from observed winds, 6 ft of storm tide in Sabine Pass (Partagas and Diaz 1996b) and damage in Texas/Louisiana. Full lifecycle of this hurricane is not known, due to lack of information about its genesis. ******************************************************************************** 13625 09/20/1897 M= 6 3 SNBR= 334 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 13625 09/20/1897 M= 6 3 SNBR= 347 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 *** 13630 09/20*221 844 40 0*232 842 40 0*243 838 40 0*253 831 40 0 13630 09/20* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*243 838 40 0*253 831 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** ** 13635 09/21*263 825 40 0*273 819 40 0*283 814 35 0*293 808 35 0 13635 09/21*263 825 60 0*273 819 50 0*283 814 45 0*293 807 40 0 ** ** ** *** ** 13640 09/22*303 802 35 0*314 795 40 0*324 789 40 0*333 783 40 0 13640 09/22*303 799 45 0*314 790 50 0*324 783 55 0*333 776 60 0 *** ** *** ** *** ** *** ** 13645 09/23*342 777 40 0*349 772 40 0*358 766 40 0*368 759 40 0 13645 09/23*341 769 60 0*348 762 60 0*355 753 60 0*366 746 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 13650 09/24*381 751 40 0*396 740 40 0*412 728 35 0*433 706 30 0 13650 09/24*383 741 60 0*397 736 55 0*410 725 45 0*433 706 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** ** 13655 09/25*459 667 30 0*490 612 30 0*525 550 25 0* 0 0 0 0 13660 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. Storm is boosted to a strong tropical storm at landfall in Florida based upon description of impacts. Storm is boosted to a strong tropical storm while passing along the Atlantic seaboard, but not enough evidence was found to support Partagas and Diaz' suggestion to upgrade this to a hurricane. ******************************************************************************** 13661 09/25/1897 M= 5 4 SNBR= 348 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 13662 09/25*196 829 35 0*198 832 35 0*200 835 35 0*203 838 35 0 13663 09/26*205 840 35 0*207 842 35 0*210 845 35 0*214 848 35 0 13664 09/27*219 851 35 0*224 853 35 0*230 855 40 0*238 856 40 0 13665 09/28*247 857 40 0*254 856 40 0*259 855 40 0*263 854 40 0 13666 09/29*266 852 40 0*268 849 40 0*270 845 40 0*272 838 35 0 13667 TS This newly documented tropical storm is incorporated from Partagas and Diaz (1996a) without alteration. ******************************************************************************** 13665 10/09/1897 M=14 4 SNBR= 335 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 13665 10/09/1897 M=14 5 SNBR= 349 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 * *** 13670 10/09* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*124 617 40 0 13675 10/10*125 626 40 0*127 638 40 0*130 649 40 0*132 661 40 0 13680 10/11*134 672 40 0*136 684 40 0*138 696 40 0*140 708 40 0 13685 10/12*141 720 40 0*142 733 40 0*144 745 40 0*146 758 40 0 13690 10/13*148 771 40 0*151 784 40 0*155 796 40 0*160 807 40 0 13695 10/14*166 815 40 0*172 823 40 0*178 829 40 0*184 835 40 0 13695 10/14*163 811 40 0*167 816 40 0*170 820 40 0*173 823 40 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 13700 10/15*189 841 40 0*195 846 40 0*200 850 40 0*205 854 40 0 13700 10/15*176 826 40 0*178 828 40 0*180 830 40 0*183 831 40 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 13705 10/16*210 857 40 0*214 859 40 0*219 860 40 0*225 861 40 0 13705 10/16*184 831 40 0*185 831 40 0*187 830 40 0*190 828 40 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 13710 10/17*231 860 40 0*236 859 40 0*241 857 40 0*245 854 40 0 13710 10/17*192 825 40 0*194 823 45 0*197 820 50 0*199 816 55 0 *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 13715 10/18*248 851 40 0*251 847 40 0*254 844 40 0*257 841 40 0 13715 10/18*201 811 60 0*203 808 65 0*206 803 70 0*212 796 70 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 13720 10/19*260 837 40 0*263 834 40 0*266 830 35 0*277 822 35 0 13720 10/19*218 789 70 0*225 782 60 0*233 777 55 0*253 772 55 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 13725 10/20*299 807 40 0*323 787 40 0*343 765 40 0*358 742 40 0 13725 10/20*275 767 55 0*298 765 55 0*322 763 55 0*346 758 55 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 13730 10/21*372 718 40 0*383 693 40 0*390 670 40 0*393 651 40 0 13730 10/21*372 744 50 0*388 719 45 0E397 690 40 0E401 663 40 0 *** ** *** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** 13735 10/22*396 636 40 0*398 619 40 0*400 595 40 0*401 574 40 0 13735 10/22E399 640 40 0E398 619 40 0E400 595 40 0E401 574 40 0 **** *** * * * 13740 TS 13740 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 4. These track changes are found to be reasonable. Peripheral pressure of 993 mb (on the 18th) suggests winds of at least 59 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt used in best track which is consistent with analysis of a Category 1 landfall in Cuba (Perez 2000). Changes made to the track near Cuba are consistent with modifications suggested by Perez (2000). Storm is thus upgraded to a hurricane and winds are increased accordingly from the 17th until the 21st. The hurricane is known as "Ciclon de Tunas de Zaza" due to its impacts in Cuba (Perez 2000). ******************************************************************************** 13745 10/23/1897 M= 9 5 SNBR= 336 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9 13745 10/23/1897 M= 9 6 SNBR= 350 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 * *** * 13750 10/23* 0 0 0 0*245 773 50 0*258 769 50 0*275 761 50 0 13755 10/24*291 755 50 0*306 750 50 0*321 745 50 0*335 740 50 0 13760 10/25*347 737 50 0*359 732 55 0*370 741 55 0*367 753 55 0 13760 10/25*347 735 50 0*359 732 55 0*370 741 55 0*367 753 55 0 *** 13765 10/26*359 758 50 0*350 754 45 0*348 750 40 0*345 748 40 0 13765 10/26*359 758 50 0*350 754 45 0*347 751 40 0*345 748 40 0 *** *** 13770 10/27*343 744 45 0*340 738 50 0*338 730 50 0*337 721 50 0 13775 10/28*337 712 50 0*336 702 50 0*336 692 50 0*340 681 50 0 13775 10/28*336 712 50 0*336 702 50 0*336 692 50 0*340 681 50 0 *** 13780 10/29*348 668 50 0*355 657 50 0*365 647 50 0*372 639 50 0 13780 10/29*348 668 50 0*355 657 50 0E365 647 50 0E372 639 50 0 * * 13785 10/30*378 633 50 0*385 627 50 0*392 620 50 0*400 613 50 0 13785 10/30E378 633 50 0E385 627 50 0E392 620 50 0E400 613 50 0 * * * * 13790 10/31*409 606 50 0*418 598 50 0*426 590 50 0*436 574 50 0 13790 10/31E409 606 50 0E418 598 50 0E426 590 50 0E436 578 50 0 * * * * *** 13795 TS Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 5. Slight adjustments to track made on the 25th, 26th, 28th and 31st to allow for more realistic translational velocities. Extratropical stage indicated for portion of track as it moved toward the northeast north of 36N in late October. Full lifecycle of this tropical storm is not known, due to lack of information about its genesis. ******************************************************************************* 1897 - Additional Notes: Partagas and Diaz (1996b) mentioned one additional system considered for inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team agreed to leave it out of HURDAT for the following reason: 1) August 15, 1897: Damage reports in Nicaragua leave it uncertain if system was a tornado or tropical storm. ******************************************************************************* 13800 08/02/1898 M= 2 1 SNBR= 337 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9 13800 08/02/1898 M= 2 1 SNBR= 351 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 *** * 13805 08/02*268 792 35 0*274 810 70 0*280 826 65 0*289 838 65 0 13805 08/02*268 792 35 0*274 810 30 0*280 826 35 0*289 838 55 0 ** ** ** 13810 08/03*298 849 65 0*306 861 60 0*315 872 35 0*320 882 25 0 13810 08/03*298 849 70 0*306 861 50 0*315 872 35 0*320 882 25 0 ** ** 13815 HR 13815 HRAFL1 **** Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the Southeast U.S. Category 1 landfall status maintained in Northwest Florida, but available observational data (i.e., the _Monthly Weather Review_ described it as a "feeble disturbance near Jupiter" with maximum sustained winds of 32 kt from the east on Aug. 1st) suggests that the system was only a weak tropical storm at its first landfall in peninsular Florida. ******************************************************************************** 13820 08/30/1898 M= 3 2 SNBR= 338 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9 13820 08/30/1898 M= 3 2 SNBR= 352 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 *** * 13825 08/30* 0 0 0 0*293 791 35 0*301 794 65 0*309 798 80 0 13825 08/30* 0 0 0 0*293 791 35 0*301 794 65 0*309 798 75 0 ** 13830 08/31*315 802 85 0*320 807 85 0*324 814 65 990*326 822 60 0 13830 08/31*315 802 75 0*320 807 75 0*324 814 60 *326 822 50 0 ** ** ** *** ** 13835 09/01*326 831 45 0*327 841 40 0*328 853 35 0*331 866 30 0 13840 HR 13840 HR GA1 SC1 *** *** Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the Southeast U.S. A peripheral pressure (incorrectly listed as a central pressure in original version of HURDAT) of 990 mb (at 09Z on the 31st) suggests winds of at least 63 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 75 kt chosen for best track. ******************************************************************************** 13841 09/03/1898 M= 4 3 SNBR= 353 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 13842 09/03* 0 0 0 0*408 421 70 0*420 410 70 0*429 398 70 0 13843 09/04*439 383 70 0*449 369 70 0*460 355 70 0*468 343 70 0 13844 09/05*477 328 70 0*486 314 70 0E495 300 60 0E507 280 50 0 13845 09/06E520 253 45 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 13846 HR No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b) for this newly documented hurricane. ******************************************************************************** 13845 09/05/1898 M=16 3 SNBR= 339 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 13845 09/05/1898 M=16 4 SNBR= 354 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 * *** 13850 09/05* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*112 269 35 0*114 290 35 0 13855 09/06*115 310 40 0*116 328 45 0*117 344 55 0*117 358 65 0 13860 09/07*117 372 70 0*118 385 75 0*119 399 80 0*119 414 80 0 13865 09/08*120 430 85 0*120 446 85 0*120 462 85 0*120 481 85 0 13865 09/08*120 430 85 0*120 446 85 0*120 462 85 0*120 477 85 0 *** 13870 09/09*120 501 85 0*120 521 85 0*121 537 85 0*121 549 85 0 13870 09/09*120 491 85 0*120 503 85 0*120 515 85 0*120 526 85 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** 13875 09/10*122 559 85 0*123 569 85 0*125 579 85 0*130 595 85 0 13875 09/10*121 541 85 0*122 556 85 0*123 570 85 0*123 580 90 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** 13880 09/11*136 609 85 0*145 620 85 0*153 628 85 0*162 630 85 0 13880 09/11*125 589 95 0*127 598 95 0*130 607 95 0*136 615 95 965 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** 13885 09/12*169 632 85 0*177 633 85 0*185 634 85 0*191 635 85 0 13885 09/12*145 622 95 0*157 628 95 0*170 633 95 0*183 635 95 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** 13890 09/13*197 636 85 0*204 637 85 0*210 639 85 0*217 640 85 0 13890 09/13*197 636 95 0*204 637 95 0*210 639 95 0*217 640 95 0 ** ** ** ** 13895 09/14*223 642 85 0*229 644 85 0*236 648 85 0*239 649 85 0 13895 09/14*223 642 90 0*229 644 85 0*236 648 85 0*239 649 85 0 ** 13900 09/15*243 652 85 0*247 655 85 0*250 658 85 0*254 662 85 0 13905 09/16*258 666 85 0*262 671 85 0*266 675 85 0*272 679 85 0 13910 09/17*281 685 85 0*290 690 85 0*300 693 85 0*309 691 85 0 13915 09/18*319 687 85 0*330 680 85 0*340 672 85 0*352 659 85 0 13920 09/19*366 647 85 0*382 634 80 0*400 620 75 0*422 603 65 0 13925 09/20*451 583 55 0*485 563 45 0*520 541 40 0* 0 0 0 0 13925 09/20E451 583 55 0E485 563 45 0E520 541 40 0* 0 0 0 0 * * 13930 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 3. A central pressure of 965mb (on 16Z on the 11th) suggests winds of 95 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship. Given the estimated motion of the hurricane and wind reports from St. Vincent, a RMW of 15 nmi is analyzed which is close to the climatological RMW for that central pressure and latitude (14 nmi, from Vickery et al. 2000). Thus 95 kt is chosen for landfall in the Lesser Antilles. Winds are altered from the 8th to the 14th accordingly. ******************************************************************************** 13935 09/12/1898 M=11 4 SNBR= 340 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 13935 09/12/1898 M=11 5 SNBR= 355 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 * *** 13940 09/12* 0 0 0 0*129 791 50 0*132 795 50 0*135 797 50 0 13945 09/13*138 799 50 0*141 802 50 0*144 804 50 0*147 807 50 0 13950 09/14*149 809 50 0*152 812 50 0*154 815 50 0*156 818 50 0 13955 09/15*159 821 50 0*161 825 50 0*163 831 50 0*166 840 50 0 13960 09/16*169 851 50 0*172 863 50 0*176 875 50 0*180 887 50 0 13960 09/16*169 851 50 0*172 863 50 0*176 875 50 0*180 887 40 0 ** 13965 09/17*185 900 45 0*191 913 40 0*199 924 40 0*208 932 45 0 13965 09/17*185 900 35 0*191 913 40 0*199 924 40 0*208 932 45 0 ** 13970 09/18*217 936 45 0*225 938 50 0*234 939 50 0*243 939 50 0 13975 09/19*252 939 50 0*260 938 50 0*269 937 50 0*277 935 50 0 13980 09/20*284 933 50 0*291 930 50 0*298 928 50 0*305 925 45 0 13980 09/20*284 933 50 0*291 930 50 0*298 928 45 0*305 925 40 0 ** ** 13985 09/21*313 923 40 0*320 920 35 0*327 917 35 0*339 913 35 0 13985 09/21*313 923 35 0*320 920 35 0*327 917 30 0*339 913 30 0 ** ** ** 13990 09/22*358 910 35 0*380 905 35 0*399 900 35 0* 0 0 0 0 13990 09/22*358 910 30 0*380 905 25 0*399 900 25 0* 0 0 0 0 ** ** ** 13995 TS Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 4. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Central America and the Southeast U.S. ******************************************************************************** 14055 09/20/1898 M= 9 6 SNBR= 342 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 14055 09/20/1898 M= 9 6 SNBR= 356 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 *** 14060 09/20* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*110 798 50 0*121 806 50 0 14065 09/21*131 813 50 0*140 820 50 0*148 826 50 0*154 831 50 0 14070 09/22*161 835 50 0*167 840 50 0*173 845 50 0*180 851 50 0 14075 09/23*187 857 50 0*194 863 50 0*200 869 50 0*205 875 50 0 14075 09/23*187 857 50 0*194 863 50 0*200 869 50 0*205 875 40 0 ** 14080 09/24*210 881 45 0*214 886 40 0*218 892 40 0*222 897 40 0 14080 09/24*210 881 35 0*214 886 35 0*218 892 40 0*222 897 40 0 ** ** 14085 09/25*225 902 45 0*229 907 50 0*233 912 50 0*237 918 50 0 14090 09/26*241 924 50 0*245 931 50 0*250 937 50 0*255 942 50 0 14095 09/27*261 945 50 0*267 947 50 0*273 948 50 0*279 949 50 0 14100 09/28*286 948 45 0*293 947 40 0*300 945 35 0*309 944 30 0 14100 09/28*286 948 50 0*293 947 50 0*300 945 40 0*309 944 30 0 ** ** ** 14105 TS Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Central America and the Texas. 50 kt sustained winds maintained until landfall in Texas, rather than weakening indicated in original HURDAT before reaching the coast. ******************************************************************************** 14110 09/25/1898 M=12 7 SNBR= 343 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9 14110 09/25/1898 M=12 7 SNBR= 357 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=4 *** * 14115 09/25*162 583 35 0*166 587 40 0*171 592 40 0*175 598 45 0 14115 09/25*162 583 35 0*166 587 40 0*171 592 40 0*177 598 45 0 *** 14120 09/26*179 605 50 0*183 611 60 0*187 617 65 0*191 623 70 0 14120 09/26*184 608 50 0*191 617 60 0*197 625 65 0*205 634 65 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** 14125 09/27*194 630 80 0*197 636 85 0*201 642 90 0*205 648 95 0 14125 09/27*213 643 65 0*219 651 70 0*225 660 75 0*232 670 80 977 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** 14130 09/28*210 654 95 0*216 661 95 0*222 667 95 0*228 673 95 0 14130 09/28*237 678 85 0*244 689 90 0*250 700 95 0*254 706 95 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** 14135 09/29*234 679 95 0*241 684 95 0*247 690 95 0*254 696 95 0 14135 09/29*258 712 95 0*262 719 95 0*265 725 95 0*268 730 95 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14140 09/30*260 703 95 0*267 710 95 0*273 717 95 0*278 724 95 0 14140 09/30*271 735 95 0*272 739 95 0*275 745 95 0*279 752 95 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14145 10/01*283 732 95 0*287 741 95 0*292 751 95 0*297 763 95 0 14145 10/01*283 759 95 0*287 766 100 0*290 773 105 0*293 780 110 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14150 10/02*302 779 90 0*307 794 90 0*312 808 85 0*317 820 75 0 14150 10/02*296 787 115 0*299 796 115 0*304 806 115 938*311 818 90 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** 14155 10/03*323 831 65 0*329 842 60 0*335 852 55 0*343 861 50 0 14155 10/03*319 831 65 0*327 842 45 0*335 852 35 0*343 861 30 0 *** *** ** ** ** 14160 10/04*352 869 45 0*364 875 40 0*376 879 40 0*391 876 35 0 14160 10/04*352 869 30 0*364 875 30 0*376 879 30 0*391 876 30 0 ** ** ** ** 14165 10/05*410 862 35 0*429 838 30 0*445 808 30 0*456 770 30 0 14165 10/05*410 862 25 0*429 838 25 0*445 808 25 0*456 770 25 0 ** ** ** ** 14170 10/06*464 720 25 0*468 658 25 0*470 588 25 0*480 528 25 0 14175 HR 14175 HR GA4DFL2 ******* The major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), was to incorporate the findings of Sandrik and Jarvinen (1999). Partagas and Diaz otherwise made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), A central pressure of 977 mb (on 18Z on the 27th) suggests winds of 81 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt used in the best track. Winds adjusted on the 26th to the 28th accordingly. Sandrik and Jarvinen (1999) analyzed a 938 mb central pressure at landfall based upon SLOSH runs with observed storm surge values (16' maximum at Brunswick, Georgia) and an estimated RMW of 18 n.mi. 938 mb central pressure suggests winds of 112 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship. A slightly higher value - 115 kt - is chosen at landfall because of the slightly smaller RMW than would be expected climatologically (Vickery et al. 2000). Inland winds adjusted downward based upon inland decay model and analysis of observations from Sandrik (1998). ******************************************************************************** 14000 09/20/1898 M= 9 5 SNBR= 341 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 14000 09/25/1898 M= 4 8 SNBR= 358 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 ** * * *** * 14005 09/20* 0 0 0 0*155 593 50 0*157 600 50 0*160 607 50 0 14010 09/21*164 614 50 0*167 620 50 0*170 627 50 0*173 633 50 0 14015 09/22*175 639 50 0*178 645 45 0*181 651 40 0*185 659 40 0 14020 09/23*189 669 40 0*193 678 45 0*197 686 50 0*200 692 50 0 14025 09/24*203 698 50 0*207 704 50 0*210 710 50 0*214 716 50 0 (20th through the 24th are omitted. Storm started on the 25th.) 14030 09/25*217 722 50 0*221 728 50 0*225 734 50 0*229 740 50 0 14030 09/25* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*241 830 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 14035 09/26*234 747 50 0*239 754 50 0*244 760 50 0*250 765 50 0 14035 09/26*248 814 35 0*254 800 40 0*260 790 40 0*264 782 45 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 14040 09/27*256 768 50 0*262 770 50 0*268 770 50 0*273 768 45 0 14040 09/27*268 775 50 0*272 768 50 0*276 762 50 0*279 758 45 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14045 09/28*277 764 45 0*281 758 40 0*285 750 35 0*289 740 30 0 14045 09/28*281 755 45 0*283 752 40 0*285 750 35 0*287 748 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** ** 14050 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 5. These dramatic track changes are found to be reasonable. Track altered slightly on the 28th to provide for a more realistic translational velocity. ******************************************************************************** 1898/08 - 2003 REVISION: 14000 09/20/1898 M= 9 5 SNBR= 341 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 14000 09/25/1898 M= 4 8 SNBR= 358 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 ** * * *** * 14005 09/20* 0 0 0 0*155 593 50 0*157 600 50 0*160 607 50 0 14010 09/21*164 614 50 0*167 620 50 0*170 627 50 0*173 633 50 0 14015 09/22*175 639 50 0*178 645 45 0*181 651 40 0*185 659 40 0 14020 09/23*189 669 40 0*193 678 45 0*197 686 50 0*200 692 50 0 14025 09/24*203 698 50 0*207 704 50 0*210 710 50 0*214 716 50 0 (20th through the 24th are omitted. Storm started on the 25th.) 14030 09/25*217 722 50 0*221 728 50 0*225 734 50 0*229 740 50 0 14030 09/25* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*241 830 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 14035 09/26*234 747 50 0*239 754 50 0*244 760 50 0*250 765 50 0 14035 09/26*248 814 35 0*254 800 40 0*260 790 40 0*264 782 45 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 14040 09/27*256 768 50 0*262 770 50 0*268 770 50 0*273 768 45 0 14040 09/27*268 775 50 0*272 768 50 0*276 762 50 0*279 758 45 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14045 09/28*277 764 45 0*281 758 40 0*285 750 35 0*289 740 30 0 14045 09/28*281 755 45 0*283 752 40 0*285 750 35 0*287 748 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** ** 14050 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 5. These dramatic track changes are found to be reasonable. Track altered slightly on the 28th to provide for a more realistic translational velocity. 1898/08 - 2004 REVISION: 14830 09/25/1898 M= 4 8 SNBR= 358 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 14830 09/25/1898 M= 4 8 SNBR= 358 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 * 14835 09/25* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*241 830 35 0 14835 09/25* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*205 845 30 0 *** *** ** 14840 09/26*248 814 35 0*254 800 40 0*260 790 40 0*264 782 45 0 14840 09/26*210 840 30 0*217 833 30 0*225 825 30 1008*235 813 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** **** *** *** ** 14845 09/27*268 775 50 0*272 768 50 0*276 762 50 0*279 758 45 0 14845 09/27*245 800 35 0*255 790 40 0*265 780 45 0*270 772 45 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** 14850 09/28*281 755 45 0*283 752 40 0*285 750 35 0*287 748 35 0 14850 09/28*275 764 45 0*280 757 40 0*285 750 35 0*287 748 35 0 *** *** *** *** 14855 TS U.S. Tropical Storm Landfall Data --------------------------------- #/Date Time Lat Lon Max States Winds Affected 8-9/26/1898 0600Z 25.1 80.8 40 FL (Removed from listing) The NHC Best Track Change Committee requested that additional research be done into this tropical storm and storm 1898/8: "1898, Storms #7 and #8: While the series of events that Chris has gone with matches what was originally stated in the Monthly Weather Review, the meteorology of this situation troubles me. Storm #8 is moving northeastward on the northwest side of storm #7 - a developing major hurricane - and by 28 September the two systems are only 400-500 n mi apart. Would a northeastward motion for storm #8 be reasonable under those conditions? Chris needs to give this situation a closer look." Upon investigation of this system from the Monthly Weather Review, the COADS ship database, and coastal station data, this system's track and intensity record has been substantially altered. However, that there was a tropical cyclone that moved generally to the northeast in advance of an intensifying hurricane was confirmed. The relevant ship and station data are included in the attached spreadsheet. Ship data on the 25th and early on the 26th indicated a disturbance becoming organized in the south central Gulf of Mexico/northwestern Caribbean Sea. A weak vortex moved across western Cuba on the 26th accompanied by winds of less than gale force. (The 1008 mb pressure minimum recorded in Havana may have been a central pressure measurement, which suggests winds of 28 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship. 30 kt utilized at 12 UTC on the 26th.) Tampa's pressure readings reached a minimum of 1011 mb at 1930 UTC on the 26th, indicating a closest point of approach near that time. While no gale force winds (or equivalent in pressure) were recorded at any time for this system, the combination of coastal and ship observations do confirm that a closed circulation existed and that it moved off to the northeast (just off of the southeast coast of Florida) on the 27th and 28th with a gradual decrease in forward speed. The track was adjusted for the lifetime of the system. The intensity was reduced to a tropical depression during its trek across Cuba and ramped back up to the original tropical storm intensity thereafter. It is possible, however, that this system never achieved tropical storm status, as no COADS or station data provide any direct evidence of tropical storm intensity. ******************************************************************************** 14251 10/21/1898 M= 3 10 SNBR= 360 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 14252 10/21*185 858 35 0*190 856 35 0*195 853 35 0*200 850 35 0 14253 10/22*206 847 40 0*211 843 40 0*218 837 40 0*226 828 40 0 14254 10/23*235 816 35 0*242 804 40 0E250 790 35 0E263 769 35 0 14255 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b) for this newly documented tropical storm. ******************************************************************************** 14255 10/27/1898 M= 9 9 SNBR= 345 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 14255 10/27/1898 M= 9 11 SNBR= 361 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 ** *** 14260 10/27* 0 0 0 0*179 612 50 0*177 626 50 0*176 637 50 0 14265 10/28*175 648 50 0*174 659 50 0*174 670 50 0*174 681 50 0 14270 10/29*174 692 50 0*174 703 50 0*174 713 50 0*174 723 50 0 14275 10/30*174 732 50 0*174 741 50 0*174 749 50 0*174 757 50 0 14280 10/31*174 766 50 0*174 774 50 0*174 782 50 0*174 791 50 0 14285 11/01*175 800 50 0*176 808 50 0*177 817 50 0*177 824 50 0 14290 11/02*177 830 50 0*178 836 50 0*178 843 50 0*179 851 50 0 14295 11/03*180 859 50 0*180 868 50 0*181 878 50 0*181 889 45 0 14295 11/03*180 859 50 0*180 868 50 0*181 878 40 0*181 889 35 0 ** ** 14300 11/04*182 901 40 0*182 913 30 0*182 927 25 0*183 938 20 0 14300 11/04*182 901 30 0*182 913 30 0*182 927 25 0*183 938 20 0 ** 14305 TS Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 9. Partagas and Diaz did indicate substantial doubt that the storm did in fact exist (since their only documentation of this system comes from Mitchell [1924], which offers no details on the storm). However, observations from Rivas, Nicaragua (11.4N, 85.8W) from the December 1898 _Monthly Weather Review_ do indicate a closed circulation to the north at the time that this tropical storm would have been by passing that location. Thus this tropical storm will be kept in the HURDAT database. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Central America. Full lifecycle of this tropical storm is not known, due to lack of information about its genesis stage. ******************************************************************************** 1898 - Additional Notes - 2004 ADDITION: 1) The NHC Best Track Change Committee identified a possible new tropical storm to add into HURDAT for 1898: "1898 - note possible additional system. Significant rainfall in Jamaica found in MWR. No wind data, but a pressure is given of 28.66. (May 23-27)." Upon investigation of this system in the Monthly Weather Review and from the COADS ship database, this system - while producing huge amounts of rainfall in Jamaica and some reports of gusty winds - did not have a closed circulation and thus was not a tropical cyclone. (The "28.66" report was actually the rainfall, not pressure, that occurred in one day at Cinchona Plantation, Jamaica on the 25th.) 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: 2) September 9-11, 1898: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity. 3) November 5-7, 1898: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity. ******************************************************************************* 14306 06/26/1899 M= 2 1 SNBR= 362 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 14307 06/26* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*275 930 35 0*278 936 35 0 14308 06/27*282 942 35 0*288 948 35 0*295 955 30 0*303 962 25 0 14309 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b) for this newly documented tropical storm. It is noted, however, that the evidence that this was a tropical cyclone of tropical storm intensity was not completely conclusive, as no reports of gale force winds (or pressure/damage equivalent) were obtained. ******************************************************************************** 14310 07/31/1899 M= 3 1 SNBR= 346 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 14310 07/28/1899 M= 6 2 SNBR= 363 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 * * *** * (28th to the 30th are new to HURDAT.) 14311 07/28* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*170 695 70 0*183 708 70 0 14312 07/29*196 723 50 0*205 739 40 0*213 755 40 0*220 768 40 0 14313 07/30*229 781 40 0*241 796 40 0*251 808 35 0*258 817 35 0 14315 07/31* 0 0 0 0*262 846 60 0*270 850 65 0*277 853 70 0 14315 07/31*263 823 45 0*269 830 55 0*275 835 65 0*279 838 75 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** ** 14320 08/01*285 852 70 0*290 850 70 0*297 846 65 0*301 844 55 0 14320 08/01*283 841 85 0*288 843 85 0*293 845 85 0*298 848 85 979 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** 14325 08/02*305 843 45 0*308 841 40 0*311 839 35 0*313 837 30 0 14325 08/02*304 852 60 0*310 856 45 0*315 860 35 0*323 865 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** 14330 HR 14330 HRAFL2 **** No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 1. These dramatic track changes are found to be reasonable. Hurricane status is indicated at landfall in the Dominican Republic based upon description of damages in Partagas and Diaz (1996b). A central pressure of 979 mb (on the 1st from Barnes 1998a) suggests winds of 78 kt - 85 kt chosen for best track because of analysis described in Partagas and Diaz (1996b) that the hurricane had a smaller than usual size. (For a given central pressure, a hurricane with a smaller radius of maximum winds will have stronger winds than a larger RMW hurricane.) Assessment as Category 2 at landfall in Florida is an upgrade from tropical storm at landfall status indicated in Neumann et al. (1999). Full lifecycle of this tropical storm is not known, due to lack of information about its genesis stage. ******************************************************************************** 14335 08/03/1899 M=22 2 SNBR= 347 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 14335 08/03/1899 M=33 3 SNBR= 364 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 ** * *** 14340 08/03*118 330 35 0*120 347 35 0*121 360 35 0*123 373 35 0 14340 08/03*117 310 35 0*118 324 45 0*120 340 50 0*122 357 55 995 *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** 14345 08/04*125 385 35 0*128 399 40 0*130 412 45 0*132 426 50 0 14345 08/04*124 374 60 0*126 388 60 0*127 403 60 0*130 420 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 14350 08/05*135 440 50 0*137 455 55 0*140 470 60 0*143 487 65 0 14350 08/05*135 440 60 0*137 455 60 0*140 470 60 0*143 487 65 0 ** ** 14355 08/06*146 506 70 0*148 524 75 0*151 542 80 0*154 558 80 0 14355 08/06*146 506 70 0*148 524 75 0*151 542 80 0*154 558 90 0 ** 14360 08/07*157 574 85 0*159 590 85 0*162 605 90 0*165 620 90 0 14360 08/07*157 574 100 0*159 590 110 0*162 605 120 0*165 620 130 930 *** *** *** *** *** 14365 08/08*169 634 90 0*174 647 95 0*178 658 100 940*183 668 100 0 14365 08/08*169 634 130 0*174 648 125 0*180 662 120 940*186 673 105 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14370 08/09*187 678 100 0*192 687 100 0*196 697 100 0*199 707 105 0 14370 08/09*189 681 105 0*193 689 105 0*197 698 105 0*201 706 105 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14375 08/10*202 716 105 0*205 726 105 0*208 735 105 0*211 744 105 0 14375 08/10*204 714 105 0*207 722 105 0*210 730 105 0*214 737 105 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14380 08/11*214 751 105 0*218 758 105 0*222 764 105 0*229 772 105 0 14380 08/11*220 745 105 0*225 753 105 0*230 760 105 0*234 765 105 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14385 08/12*235 779 105 0*243 784 105 0*250 789 105 0*255 791 105 0 14385 08/12*238 770 105 0*242 774 105 0*245 777 105 0*251 780 105 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14390 08/13*260 793 105 0*265 795 105 0*270 796 105 0*276 798 105 0 14390 08/13*256 782 105 0*262 784 105 0*270 786 105 0*276 788 105 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** 14395 08/14*283 800 105 0*290 800 105 0*297 800 105 0*303 798 105 0 14395 08/14*283 790 105 0*290 791 105 0*297 790 105 0*303 789 105 0 *** *** *** *** 14400 08/15*308 796 105 0*314 793 105 0*319 789 105 0*322 784 105 0 14400 08/15*309 787 105 0*313 784 105 0*317 780 105 0*322 775 105 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14405 08/16*325 778 105 0*328 774 105 0*330 770 105 0*338 762 105 0 14405 08/16*326 769 105 0*328 762 105 0*330 755 105 0*333 750 105 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** 14410 08/17*341 758 105 0*345 755 100 0*349 755 95 0*352 758 90 968 14410 08/17*337 746 105 0*341 744 105 0*345 745 105 0*348 750 105 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14415 08/18*355 761 85 969*359 761 80 0*363 757 80 0*366 751 75 0 14415 08/18*351 757 105 0*357 760 90 0*363 757 80 0*364 755 75 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** 14420 08/19*370 744 75 0*374 737 70 0*378 730 70 0*381 723 65 0 14420 08/19*364 753 75 0*364 750 70 0*365 747 70 0*370 740 70 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** 14425 08/20*385 715 65 0*388 703 65 0*390 688 60 0E391 671 60 0 14425 08/20*377 729 70 0*383 719 70 0*388 707 70 0*393 690 70 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** **** *** ** 14430 08/21E392 653 55 0E391 636 55 0E390 621 55 0E389 606 50 0 14430 08/21*394 673 70 0*395 654 70 0*397 635 70 0*395 613 65 0 **** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** 14435 08/22E387 591 50 0E384 575 50 0E380 557 50 0E376 538 50 0 14435 08/22E393 589 60 0E391 565 55 0E387 543 50 0E383 529 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** 14440 08/23E372 518 50 0E369 500 45 0E365 483 45 0E362 468 45 0 14440 08/23E379 520 50 0E373 509 45 0E367 500 45 0E360 490 45 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14445 08/24E359 455 45 0E357 440 40 0E357 425 40 0* 0 0 0 0 14445 08/24E354 482 45 0E347 472 40 0E343 460 40 0E342 450 40 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** (25th through the 4th are new to HURDAT.) 14446 08/25E343 441 40 0E346 433 40 0E353 430 40 0E356 430 40 0 14447 08/26*360 432 40 0*363 433 40 0*365 435 40 0*368 437 40 0 14448 08/27*372 440 40 0*375 442 40 0*377 445 40 0*382 447 40 0 14449 08/28*387 449 40 0*394 450 40 0*400 450 40 0*403 447 40 0 14450 08/29*406 441 40 0*406 435 40 0*405 430 40 0*405 427 40 0 14451 08/30*405 423 40 0*405 419 40 0*403 415 40 0*402 412 40 0 14452 08/31*401 409 40 0*400 405 40 0*400 400 40 0*399 393 40 0 14453 09/01*399 387 40 0*399 379 40 0*400 370 40 0*399 357 40 0 14454 09/02*397 347 45 0*395 333 50 0*390 320 55 0*383 311 60 0 14455 09/03*379 305 65 0*375 296 70 0*373 287 70 0*378 275 65 0 14456 09/04E390 255 60 0E415 225 55 0E450 185 50 0E490 155 45 0 14450 HR NC3 The only major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b) are to extend the track through the 4th as an extratropical storm based upon available ship observations and to reposition the hurricane slightly more offshore Florida to account for relatively weak winds along the coast despite having a strong hurricane offshore. Partagas and Diaz otherwise made reasonable though large alterations to the track that shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 2. Central pressure of 995 mb (18Z on the 3rd) suggests winds of 56 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 55 kt utilized in best track. Winds are adjusted accordingly on the 3rd to the 5th. A central pressure of 930 mb (on the 7th) suggests winds of 128 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 130 kt utilized in best track. Winds are adjusted accordingly on the 6th to the 8th. A central pressure of 940 mb (around 12Z on the 8th) suggests winds of 119 kt from the southern wind- pressure relationship - 120 kt used in best track. This agrees with the assessment of Boose et al. (2003) in their wind-caused damage estimates of extensive Fujita-scale F3 damage from this hurricane. The 968 and 969 mb central pressures originally listed in HURDAT are determined to be peripheral pressures (though they do suggest winds of at least 83 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship) - 105 kt retained in best track up to landfall in North Carolina. Landfall as a Category 3 (~105 kt) supported by peripheral pressure and wind reports along with extensive wind and surge damage reported in Barnes (1998b). Assessment as Category 3 retains that indicated in the U.S. hurricane characterization in HURDAT/Table 6 of Neumann et al. (1999). Peripheral pressure of 983 mb (at 12Z on the 3rd) suggests winds of at least 70 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 75 kt utilized in best track. The hurricane is known as "San Ciriaco" for its impact in Puerto Rico. ******************************************************************************** 14455 08/29/1899 M=11 3 SNBR= 348 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 14455 08/29/1899 M=11 4 SNBR= 364 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 * *** 14460 08/29* 0 0 0 0*150 582 60 0*150 585 60 0*150 598 60 0 14460 08/29* 0 0 0 0*168 573 60 0*168 585 60 0*168 597 60 0 *** *** *** *** *** 14465 08/30*150 611 65 0*151 624 70 0*153 637 70 0*156 654 70 0 14465 08/30*168 608 65 0*168 619 70 0*167 630 70 0*166 641 70 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14470 08/31*159 671 70 0*164 688 70 0*169 704 70 0*172 712 70 0 14470 08/31*166 654 70 0*166 667 70 0*165 680 70 0*166 690 70 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14475 09/01*177 720 70 0*182 726 70 0*189 731 70 0*195 733 70 0 14475 09/01*167 700 70 0*170 710 70 0*175 720 70 0*185 722 55 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** 14480 09/02*202 735 70 0*209 735 75 0*216 734 80 0*225 731 85 0 14480 09/02*192 721 40 0*200 719 50 0*207 717 55 0*217 712 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 14485 09/03*233 728 90 0*242 724 90 0*250 720 95 0*264 712 100 0 14485 09/03*226 708 65 0*236 703 75 0*245 700 85 0*257 693 90 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** 14490 09/04*278 703 105 0*291 693 105 0*304 683 105 0*315 671 105 0 14490 09/04*270 687 90 0*282 681 90 0*295 675 85 0*316 660 80 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14495 09/05*327 657 105 0*339 640 100 0E350 623 95 0E359 604 90 0 14495 09/05*333 639 75 0*345 617 65 0E355 595 60 0E361 583 60 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** 14500 09/06E366 583 90 0E372 562 85 0E380 544 85 0E389 530 85 0 14500 09/06E366 571 60 0E372 558 60 0E380 544 60 0E389 530 60 0 *** ** *** ** ** ** 14505 09/07E398 517 75 0E408 507 70 0E418 498 60 0E429 490 55 0 14505 09/07E398 517 60 0E408 507 60 0E418 498 60 0E429 490 55 0 ** ** 14510 09/08E441 482 50 0E454 476 45 0E467 471 40 0E481 470 40 0 14515 HR No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made reasonable small alterations to the track and moderate changes to the intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 3. Available observations of gale force or greater winds (or equivalent in sea level pressure) are as follows: 60 kt S at 12 UTC on Aug. 31 from a ship at 15.5N, 67W; 45 kt SW on Aug. 31 at San Juan; 50 kt SE at 12 UTC on Sep. 3 from a ship at 25N, 67.5W; 70 kt on Sep. 3 from the ship "Kilpatrick" at 25N, 68.6W; 40 kt NE at 12 UTC on Sep. 4 from a ship at 30N, 69W; 50 kt SSE at 12 UTC on Sep. 4 from a ship at 30N, 63.7W; "winds of hurricane force blew over Bermuda in a 12 hours storm" on Sep. 4. Winds unchanged along track through Caribbean as available observations from ships and coastal stations are consistent with a strong tropical storm/weak hurricane. Winds reduced while storm transited over Hispanola from Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) inland decay model, modified to account for mountainous terrain. Peak winds reduced from Category 3 (105 kt) to Category 2 (90 kt), since data from ship reports and observations in Bermuda supports a weaker hurricane. Winds reduced accordingly from the 3rd to the 7th. ******************************************************************************** 14520 09/03/1899 M=13 4 SNBR= 349 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 14520 09/03/1899 M=13 5 SNBR= 366 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 * *** 14525 09/03*132 384 35 0*132 402 35 0*134 420 35 0*138 440 35 0 14530 09/04*142 458 35 0*145 473 35 0*147 483 40 0*149 490 45 0 14535 09/05*150 497 50 0*151 504 55 0*153 511 60 0*155 519 65 0 14540 09/06*158 527 70 0*160 534 70 0*162 542 70 0*164 549 70 0 14545 09/07*165 554 70 0*166 560 75 0*168 568 80 0*170 577 85 0 14550 09/08*173 587 85 0*177 596 90 0*180 606 95 0*183 615 100 0 14550 09/08*172 586 85 0*173 595 90 0*175 605 95 0*180 617 100 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14555 09/09*187 625 100 0*192 634 105 0*198 643 105 0*206 654 105 0 14555 09/09*184 626 100 0*189 636 105 0*195 645 105 0*200 657 105 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14560 09/10*216 667 105 0*225 680 105 0*234 691 105 0*243 698 105 0 14560 09/10*205 668 105 0*211 677 105 0*217 687 105 0*225 694 105 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14565 09/11*251 701 105 0*260 701 105 0*268 699 100 0*277 694 100 0 14565 09/11*232 696 105 0*242 698 105 0*250 700 105 0*259 698 105 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14570 09/12*285 688 95 0*294 680 90 0*302 672 90 0*309 663 85 0 14570 09/12*269 696 105 0*278 690 105 0*287 683 105 0*298 673 105 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14575 09/13*315 654 85 0*323 643 85 0*333 632 85 0*348 619 85 0 14575 09/13*310 660 105 0*322 646 105 939*335 632 105 0*349 619 100 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14580 09/14*364 604 80 0*381 589 80 0*398 575 70 0*414 563 65 0 14580 09/14*365 605 95 0*385 588 90 0*405 570 85 0*431 551 80 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 14585 09/15*431 552 55 0E447 541 50 0E464 532 45 0E484 522 40 0 14585 09/15*458 535 75 0E489 525 60 0E520 525 50 0E550 530 40 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** 14590 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 4. A central pressure of 939 mb (07Z on the 13th) suggests winds of 111 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship. Wind reports from Bermuda allow an estimation of 30 nmi for the RMW, which is larger than usual (~21 nmi) for this central pressure and latitude (Vickery et al. 2000). Thus 105 kt chosen for best track during track near Bermuda and winds are adjusted accordingly from the 11th to the 13th. Winds increased on the 14th and 15th based upon ship observations and damage reports in Canada. Extratropical transition delayed, as per Partagas and Diaz' suggestion, until after landfall in Canada. ******************************************************************************** 14595 10/02/1899 M= 7 5 SNBR= 350 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 14595 10/02/1899 M= 7 6 SNBR= 367 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 * *** 14600 10/02* 0 0 0 0*200 841 35 0*205 847 35 0*211 852 35 0 14600 10/02* 0 0 0 0*200 841 35 0*205 847 35 0*211 851 40 0 *** ** 14605 10/03*217 856 35 0*223 860 35 0*230 862 35 0*238 863 35 0 14605 10/03*218 855 40 0*227 860 40 0*237 865 45 0*245 868 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 14610 10/04*246 863 35 0*254 862 40 0*262 860 40 0*268 857 35 0 14610 10/04*255 871 50 0*265 872 50 0*273 870 50 0*278 860 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 14615 10/05*273 852 35 0*280 843 40 0*290 830 40 0*305 812 40 0 14615 10/05*278 848 50 0*278 835 50 0*280 825 40 0*293 811 40 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** 14620 10/06*322 792 40 0*339 769 40 0E357 745 35 0E374 720 35 0 14620 10/06*309 796 40 0E324 783 40 0E344 763 35 0E371 727 35 0 *** *** **** *** *** *** *** *** 14625 10/07E391 695 35 0E408 669 35 0E426 642 35 0E445 614 35 0 14625 10/07E403 688 35 0E436 648 35 0E463 613 35 0E493 575 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14630 10/08E468 585 35 0E492 556 35 0E518 525 35 0E543 502 35 0 14630 10/08E522 537 35 0E550 499 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 *** *** *** *** **** *** ** **** *** ** 14635 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 5. Winds increased slightly based upon ship reports and land stations for the 2nd to the 5th. ******************************************************************************** 14636 10/10/1899 M= 5 7 SNBR= 368 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 14637 10/10* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*100 350 40 0*107 357 40 0 14638 10/11*113 363 40 0*119 369 40 0*125 375 40 0*132 382 40 0 14639 10/12*138 388 40 0*144 394 40 0*150 400 40 0*157 405 40 0 14640 10/13*163 410 40 0*169 414 40 0*175 418 40 0*183 423 40 0 14641 10/14*193 427 40 0*204 431 40 0*215 435 40 0* 0 0 0 0 14642 TS Evidence provided in the "Special statement" section of Partagas and Diaz (1996b) suggests strongly that a tropical storm existed in the eastern Atlantic from at least the 10th through the 14th of October. Thus a best track was created for this newly documented tropical storm. Based upon two ships showing gale force winds on the 10th and 14th, respectively, 12Z positions of 12.5N 37.5W (10th) and 21.5N 43.5W (14th) were estimated. A smooth track was created based upon these two positions. Full lifecycle of this tropical storm is not known, due to lack of information about its genesis and decay stages. ******************************************************************************** 14640 10/23/1899 M=13 6 SNBR= 351 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 14640 10/26/1899 M=10 8 SNBR= 369 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 ** ** * *** * 14645 10/23* 0 0 0 0*117 803 50 0*120 804 50 0*123 805 50 0 14650 10/24*125 806 55 0*128 807 60 0*130 808 65 0*133 809 70 0 14655 10/25*135 810 70 0*138 810 65 0*140 811 65 0*142 811 70 0 (The 23rd through the 25th are deleted from the revised HURDAT.) 14660 10/26*145 812 70 0*148 813 70 0*152 813 70 0*157 814 70 0 14660 10/26*162 788 35 0*166 789 35 0*170 790 35 0*174 791 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 14665 10/27*163 816 70 0*169 817 70 0*175 818 70 0*181 818 70 0 14665 10/27*178 792 40 0*182 793 40 0*185 794 45 0*188 795 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 14670 10/28*187 817 70 0*193 814 70 0*199 811 70 0*205 807 70 0 14670 10/28*191 796 55 0*194 797 60 0*200 798 65 0*206 797 70 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** 14675 10/29*213 803 70 0*221 798 70 0*229 794 70 0*243 789 70 0 14675 10/29*213 796 70 0*221 795 70 0*229 794 60 0*239 790 65 0 *** *** ** *** *** 14680 10/30*255 786 75 0*267 783 80 0*280 780 85 0*293 780 85 0 14680 10/30*255 786 75 0*267 783 85 0*280 780 95 0*293 783 95 0 ** ** *** ** 14685 10/31*305 783 85 0*319 788 85 0*332 789 80 0*350 784 70 0 14685 10/31*310 786 95 0*327 789 95 0*345 790 75 0*362 783 55 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 14690 11/01E375 773 55 0E401 758 50 0E422 739 45 0E438 717 45 0 14690 11/01E381 771 50 0E401 758 50 0E422 739 45 0E438 717 45 0 *** *** ** 14695 11/02E453 689 40 0E466 654 40 0E476 612 40 0E484 559 40 0 14700 11/03E489 497 45 0E495 435 50 0E503 380 50 0E513 332 50 0 14705 11/04E524 285 45 0E536 242 40 0E550 202 40 0E578 175 40 0 14710 HR SC1 NC1 14710 HR SC2 NC2 *** *** One major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who otherwise made large, but reasonable alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 6. After reconsideration of the available observations, it was analyzed that the system did begin on the 26th, but likely south of Jamaica instead of east. Track is adjusted accordingly on the 26th through the 28th. With deletion of the 23rd through the 25th and a new genesis point on the 26th south of Hispanola, winds are reduced from the 26th to the 28th to reflect a reasonable intensification rate. A peripheral pressure of 996 mb (on 05Z on the 29th) suggests winds of at least 55 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track which is consistent with available ship observations and re-analysis work of Perez (2000) that suggests landfall in Cuba as a Category 1 hurricane. Winds reduced slightly on the 29th after Cuban landfall. Ho (1989) estimated a central pressure of 955 mb at landfall in the Carolinas, based upon a peripheral pressure measurement of 979 mb (10Z on the 31st), an estimated RMW of 35 nmi, and an environmental pressure of 1012 mb. This central pressure suggests winds of 99 kt from the subtropical wind- pressure relationship. Given the larger than climatology (~25 nmi from Vickery et al. 2000) RMW, 95 kt chosen in the best track for landfall in the Carolinas. Winds increased accordingly on the 30th and 31st. Landfall as a Category 2 in the Carolinas (95 kt) is lowered from the Category 3 shown in Table 6 of Neumann et al. (1999), but increased from the Category 1 in the U.S. hurricane characterization in HURDAT. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the middle Atlantic states. A storm tide of 8' was observed in Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina (Ho 1989) and 9' was observed in Norfolk, Virginia (Roth and Cobb 2001). ******************************************************************************** 14711 11/07/1899 M= 4 9 SNBR= 370 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 14712 11/07*117 783 35 0*122 779 35 0*127 775 40 0*136 772 40 0 14713 11/08*146 768 45 0*159 765 50 0*170 765 55 0*180 765 55 0 14714 11/09*189 766 45 0*198 767 45 0*207 767 35 0*225 761 35 0 14715 11/10*244 748 30 0*260 733 30 0*275 713 30 0*284 695 30 0 14716 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b) for this newly documented tropical storm - storm number 8 in Partagas and Diaz. ******************************************************************************** 1899 - Additional Notes: Partagas and Diaz (1996b) mentioned three additional systems considered for inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team decided that there was enough information to include the third system as a new tropical storm into HURDAT. (See storm 7, 1899.) The re-analysis team agreed to leave the first two out of HURDAT for the following reasons: 1) September 24-26, 1899: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity. 2) October 7-9, 1899: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity. ******************************************************************************* 14715 08/27/1900 M=20 1 SNBR= 352 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=4 14715 08/27/1900 M=20 1 SNBR= 371 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=4 *** 14720 08/27*160 435 35 0*160 448 35 0*162 458 35 0*162 470 35 0 14720 08/27*150 421 35 0*152 434 35 0*153 447 35 0*154 456 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14725 08/28*163 482 35 0*163 494 35 0*164 505 35 0*165 516 35 0 14725 08/28*156 466 35 0*158 479 35 0*160 491 35 0*161 503 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14730 08/29*165 527 35 0*166 537 35 0*167 548 40 0*168 559 40 0 14730 08/29*163 514 35 0*164 524 35 0*165 537 40 0*166 551 40 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14735 08/30*168 570 40 0*169 581 40 0*170 592 45 0*171 605 45 0 14735 08/30*168 566 40 0*169 580 40 0*170 593 45 0*170 606 45 0 *** *** *** *** *** 14740 08/31*172 620 45 0*174 635 45 0*175 647 45 0*176 657 45 0 14740 08/31*171 619 45 0*172 633 45 0*173 647 45 0*174 656 45 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14745 09/01*178 668 45 0*179 678 45 0*181 688 45 0*183 699 40 0 14745 09/01*175 664 45 0*176 674 45 0*177 683 45 0*180 692 40 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14750 09/02*186 709 40 0*189 720 35 0*192 730 35 0*194 740 35 0 14750 09/02*183 703 40 0*187 713 35 0*190 723 35 0*193 732 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14755 09/03*195 748 35 0*196 757 35 0*198 765 35 0*202 773 35 0 14755 09/03*195 741 35 0*197 750 35 0*200 760 35 0*203 766 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14760 09/04*206 782 35 0*210 790 35 0*215 797 35 0*220 803 40 0 14760 09/04*206 772 35 0*210 777 35 0*213 783 35 0*216 789 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** ** 14765 09/05*225 808 50 0*230 813 55 0*235 817 60 0*240 823 80 974 14765 09/05*220 795 35 0*224 801 35 0*230 807 45 0*235 815 55 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** 14770 09/06*246 829 85 0*251 835 90 0*255 841 95 0*258 853 100 0 14770 09/06*241 823 60 0*248 832 65 0*255 841 75 0*261 852 85 974 *** *** ** *** *** ** ** *** *** *** *** 14775 09/07*260 865 105 0*262 874 105 0*264 887 110 0*266 897 110 0 14775 09/07*265 862 95 0*268 874 105 0*270 887 115 0*272 897 125 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14780 09/08*269 906 115 0*273 915 115 0*278 924 115 0*284 935 115 0 14780 09/08*274 906 125 0*276 915 125 0*278 924 125 0*282 935 125 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14785 09/09*291 946 115 964*300 958 65 0*310 969 50 0*322 976 45 0 14785 09/09*289 947 125 936*298 959 90 0*310 969 65 0*322 976 50 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** ** ** ** 14790 09/10*334 978 40 0*347 978 40 0*360 976 35 0*374 973 35 0 14790 09/10*334 978 45 0*347 978 40 0*360 976 35 0*374 973 30 0 ** ** 14795 09/11*388 965 35 0*402 951 35 0E415 924 35 0E426 886 35 0 14795 09/11*388 965 30 0*402 951 30 0E415 924 40 0E426 886 50 0 ** ** ** ** 14800 09/12E434 842 40 0E443 794 40 0E452 745 40 0E463 693 40 0 14800 09/12E434 842 55 0E443 794 60 0E452 745 65 0E463 693 65 0 ** ** ** ** 14805 09/13E475 640 45 0E486 587 45 0E497 539 45 0E506 498 45 0 14805 09/13E475 640 65 0E486 587 65 0E497 539 65 0E506 498 60 0 ** ** ** ** 14810 09/14E514 462 45 0E521 430 45 0E530 400 45 0E541 372 45 0 14810 09/14E514 462 55 0E521 430 50 0E530 400 45 0E541 372 45 0 ** ** 14815 09/15E553 346 45 0E567 322 40 0E582 300 40 0E600 280 35 0 14820 HRCTX4 No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). A peripheral pressure of 996 mb (at 23Z on the 5th) suggests winds of at least 53 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt chosen for best track. The 974 mb central pressure originally listed as occurring at 18Z on the 5th actually occurred at 19Z on the 6th. This central pressure suggests winds of 84 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 85 kt chosen for best track. Winds adjusted on the 5th to the 7th based on these pressure reports. Winds maintained at 35 kt during the 4th and 5th while traversing over Cuba based upon reports of no more than minimum gale force winds over land. The 964 mb pressure listed as a central pressure (at 00Z on the 9th) is actually a peripheral pressure. Ho et al. (1987) utilized this information to analyze this hurricane as a 936 mb hurricane at landfall in Texas with a 14 nmi RMW. This value is close to the 931 mb central pressure estimated in Jarrell et al. (1992) at landfall, which is from an estimate by Connor (1956). A 936 mb central pressure suggests winds of 123 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship. Given the slightly smaller than climatological RMW (Vickery et al. 2000, ~18 nmi), maximum sustained winds at landfall are estimated at 125 kt. This is consistent with the assessment of Category 4 at landfall from Neumann et al. (1999) in their Table 6/U.S. hurricane characterization in HURDAT. Winds are adjusted accordingly on the 7th through the 9th. A storm tide of 20' in Galveston is reported in Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the central U.S. Intensities increased from the 11th to the 14th based upon observations of strong winds during extratropical phase in the northern United States and Canada (Partagas and Diaz 1996b). ******************************************************************************** 14950 09/13/1900 M= 6 4 SNBR= 355 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 14950 09/07/1900 M=13 2 SNBR= 372 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 ** ** * *** (7th to the 12th are new to HURDAT.) 14951 09/07*145 280 35 0*147 295 40 0*150 310 45 0*152 323 50 0 14952 09/08*153 336 55 0*154 348 60 0*155 360 60 0*157 373 60 0 14953 09/09*158 386 60 0*159 398 60 0*160 410 60 0*162 423 60 0 14954 09/10*163 436 60 0*164 448 60 0*165 460 60 0*167 472 60 0 14955 09/11*168 483 60 0*169 494 60 0*170 505 60 0*172 517 60 0 14956 09/12*173 528 60 0*174 539 60 0*175 550 60 0*177 561 60 0 14955 09/13*185 549 60 0*187 559 60 0*190 570 65 0*193 579 70 0 14955 09/13*180 572 60 0*185 583 60 0*190 593 65 0*195 600 70 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14960 09/14*197 587 75 0*202 596 80 0*206 606 80 0*210 615 85 0 14960 09/14*200 606 75 0*205 613 80 0*210 620 80 0*214 625 85 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14965 09/15*215 624 85 0*221 632 85 0*227 640 85 0*234 647 85 0 14965 09/15*218 631 85 0*222 635 85 0*227 640 85 0*234 647 85 0 *** *** *** *** 14970 09/16*242 652 90 0*251 655 95 0*260 658 100 0*270 659 105 0 14970 09/16*238 650 90 0*243 653 95 0*250 655 100 0*260 657 105 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14975 09/17*280 657 105 0*290 652 100 0*300 645 95 0*310 635 85 0 14975 09/17*271 656 105 0*282 654 105 0*293 650 100 0*311 641 95 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** 14980 09/18*321 620 75 0*331 601 65 0*342 580 50 0*350 560 35 0 14980 09/18*332 626 85 0*351 604 75 0*365 580 65 0*380 560 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** *** *** ** (19th new to HURDAT.) 14982 09/19*397 533 35 0*415 498 30 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 14985 HR The only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996b) is to extend the track back to the 7th based upon ship observations. Partagas and Diaz otherwise made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 4. Winds are increased on the 17th and 18th to account for observations in Bermuda on weak (west) side of hurricane. ******************************************************************************** 14825 09/09/1900 M=15 2 SNBR= 353 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 14825 09/08/1900 M=16 3 SNBR= 373 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 ** ** * *** (8th not previously in HURDAT.) 14828 09/08* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*100 185 40 0*103 194 45 0 14830 09/09* 0 0 0 0*123 223 60 0*128 232 60 0*131 240 65 0 14830 09/09*106 203 50 0*109 212 55 0*112 221 60 0*116 230 65 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** 14835 09/10*133 248 70 0*134 255 70 0*136 263 70 0*137 270 70 0 14835 09/10*120 239 70 0*125 248 70 0*130 257 70 0*135 263 70 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14840 09/11*138 277 70 0*140 283 70 0*141 290 75 0*142 298 80 0 14840 09/11*140 270 70 0*145 277 70 0*150 283 75 0*155 291 80 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14845 09/12*144 308 85 0*147 318 85 0*150 327 85 0*158 334 85 0 14845 09/12*159 299 85 0*164 306 85 0*171 313 85 0*186 320 85 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14850 09/13*173 342 85 0*189 344 85 0*202 345 85 0*212 345 85 0 14850 09/13*197 326 85 0*208 330 85 0*220 335 85 0*230 339 85 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14855 09/14*221 344 85 0*230 343 85 0*237 341 85 0*243 340 85 0 14855 09/14*240 343 85 0*250 347 85 0*260 350 85 0*269 346 85 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14860 09/15*248 338 80 0*253 336 75 0*258 333 75 0*264 329 75 0 14860 09/15*281 339 80 0*290 331 75 0*297 323 75 0*300 318 75 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14865 09/16*268 327 75 0*270 323 75 0*274 319 75 0*276 316 75 0 14865 09/16*302 313 75 0*304 307 75 0*304 300 75 0*303 295 75 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14870 09/17*278 312 75 0*279 308 75 0*280 303 75 0*278 295 75 0 14870 09/17*301 290 75 0*295 288 75 0*290 290 75 0*288 295 75 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14875 09/18*273 294 75 0*270 300 75 0*268 312 70 0*265 323 70 0 14875 09/18*286 301 75 0*284 307 75 0*282 315 70 0*278 325 70 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14880 09/19*263 336 65 0*262 351 65 0*261 366 65 0*264 382 65 0 14880 09/19*272 337 65 0*267 349 65 0*265 365 65 0*266 381 65 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14885 09/20*270 399 65 0*275 416 60 0*280 430 50 0*284 442 45 0 14890 09/21*289 451 40 0*293 459 40 0*296 466 35 0*298 472 35 0 14895 09/22*299 477 35 0*300 483 35 0*301 489 35 0*302 495 30 0 14900 09/23*303 502 30 0*303 508 25 0*304 515 25 0*306 522 20 0 14905 HR The only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), is to extend the track back to the 8th based upon ship observations. Partagas and Diaz otherwise made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 2. A peripheral pressure of 1004 mb (at 12Z on the 8th) suggests winds of at least 39 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 40 kt chosen for best track. ******************************************************************************** 14910 09/10/1900 M= 6 3 SNBR= 354 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 14910 09/11/1900 M= 5 4 SNBR= 374 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 ** * * *** 14915 09/10* 0 0 0 0*211 831 35 0*218 837 35 0*227 851 35 0 (10th deleted from HURDAT.) 14920 09/11*235 863 35 0*243 874 40 0*251 880 40 0*259 893 45 0 14920 09/11*200 852 35 0*209 860 40 0*218 870 40 0*228 876 45 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14925 09/12*266 901 45 0*273 905 45 0*280 905 45 0*287 901 45 0 14925 09/12*238 882 45 0*248 887 45 0*260 893 45 0*270 897 45 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 14930 09/13*294 896 45 0*300 891 35 0*306 887 35 0*310 884 35 0 14930 09/13*281 898 45 0*291 895 40 0*300 890 35 0*305 886 35 0 *** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** 14935 09/14*313 881 35 0*316 878 35 0*320 874 35 0*324 869 35 0 14935 09/14*310 883 30 0*315 878 30 0*320 874 30 0*324 869 30 0 *** *** ** *** ** ** ** 14940 09/15*328 863 35 0*333 855 35 0*337 847 30 0*340 833 25 0 14940 09/15*328 863 25 0*333 855 25 0*337 847 25 0*340 833 25 0 ** ** ** 14945 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). This tropical storm was originally storm 3 in Neumann et al. The track changes are found to be reasonable. A peripheral pressure of 1005 mb (around 12Z on the 13th) suggests winds of at least 34 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 35 kt retained in best track. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the southeast U.S. ******************************************************************************** 14990 10/04/1900 M=11 5 SNBR= 356 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 14990 10/04/1900 M=11 5 SNBR= 375 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 *** 14995 10/04* 0 0 0 0*212 613 35 0*223 623 35 0*232 628 35 0 14995 10/04* 0 0 0 0*212 613 30 0*222 623 30 0*232 628 30 0 ** *** ** ** 15000 10/05*245 631 35 0*253 637 35 0*259 644 40 0*263 653 40 0 15000 10/05*242 631 30 0*251 637 30 0*259 644 30 0*263 653 30 0 *** ** *** ** ** ** 15005 10/06*267 662 40 0*270 671 40 0*272 680 40 0*273 688 40 0 15005 10/06*267 662 30 0*270 671 30 0*272 680 30 0*273 688 30 0 ** ** ** ** 15010 10/07*273 695 40 0*273 702 45 0*274 709 45 0*275 716 45 0 15010 10/07*273 695 35 0*273 702 35 0*274 709 40 0*275 716 45 0 ** ** ** 15015 10/08*277 722 50 0*280 727 50 0*283 728 55 0*287 726 55 0 15015 10/08*275 724 50 0*271 729 50 0*265 730 55 0*264 721 55 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 15020 10/09*293 721 60 0*299 715 60 0*306 708 60 0*313 701 60 0 15020 10/09*269 715 60 0*276 711 60 0*290 705 60 0*307 695 60 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 15025 10/10*321 695 60 0*329 688 55 0E340 680 50 0E355 672 45 0 15025 10/10*334 688 60 0E364 685 55 0E385 685 50 0E398 685 45 0 *** *** **** *** *** *** *** *** 15030 10/11E376 664 40 0E397 655 40 0E415 647 40 0E428 639 40 0 15030 10/11E412 685 40 0E428 681 40 0E440 670 40 0E452 639 40 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 15035 10/12E438 631 40 0E448 623 40 0E462 615 40 0E480 597 40 0 15035 10/12E460 606 40 0E471 584 40 0E485 565 40 0E497 549 40 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 15040 10/13E499 564 35 0E519 527 35 0E537 500 35 0E553 482 35 0 15040 10/13E511 531 35 0E523 516 35 0E537 500 35 0E553 482 35 0 *** *** *** *** 15045 10/14E568 468 35 0E582 457 35 0E595 451 35 0* 0 0 0 0 15050 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made large alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track and intensity changes are found to be reasonable. However, the track change on the 11th to bring it inland as an extratropical storm over Nova Scotia has only moderate evidence and thus is altered with some uncertainty. Small track alterations on the 4th and 5th to allow for a more realistic translational velocity. ******************************************************************************** 15055 10/08/1900 M= 8 6 SNBR= 357 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 15055 10/10/1900 M= 6 6 SNBR= 376 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 ** * *** 15060 10/08* 0 0 0 0*178 855 35 0*181 866 40 0*189 879 40 0 15065 10/09*196 889 35 0*203 898 35 0*210 905 35 0*216 910 35 0 (8th to 9th deleted in new HURDAT.) 15070 10/10*220 913 35 0*225 913 35 0*232 910 35 0*241 904 35 0 15070 10/10* 0 0 0 0*210 914 35 0*220 910 35 0*235 907 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** 15075 10/11*250 896 35 0*260 885 40 0*270 872 40 0*280 857 40 0 15075 10/11*248 902 35 0*261 894 40 0*273 885 40 0*285 866 40 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 15080 10/12*290 840 40 0*300 824 35 0E311 808 35 0E322 793 35 0 15080 10/12*292 842 40 0*300 824 35 0E311 808 35 0E322 793 35 0 *** *** 15085 10/13E334 780 35 0E346 766 35 0E358 754 35 0E369 749 35 0 15090 10/14E380 745 35 0E392 741 35 0E403 737 35 0E419 724 30 0 15095 10/15E441 707 30 0E468 686 25 0E497 661 25 0E528 638 25 0 15100 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. ******************************************************************************** 15105 10/23/1900 M= 7 7 SNBR= 358 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 15105 10/24/1900 M= 6 7 SNBR= 377 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 ** * *** 15110 10/23* 0 0 0 0*133 602 35 0*138 612 35 0*142 621 35 0 (23rd removed from HURDAT.) 15115 10/24*146 630 35 0*151 638 35 0*157 646 35 0*163 653 35 0 15115 10/24*150 645 30 0*155 652 30 0*160 660 30 0*165 668 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15120 10/25*170 660 35 0*176 667 35 0*183 674 35 0*190 682 35 0 15120 10/25*170 676 30 0*175 685 30 0*180 695 30 0*185 705 30 0 *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15125 10/26*196 690 35 0*203 699 35 0*210 708 35 0*216 719 40 0 15125 10/26*190 715 30 0*195 725 30 0*200 733 35 0*206 739 40 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** 15130 10/27*222 729 40 0*231 739 40 0*240 749 40 0*251 749 45 0 15130 10/27*212 744 40 0*218 748 40 0*225 750 40 0*236 748 45 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 15135 10/28*279 742 45 0*293 729 45 0*307 712 45 0*321 697 45 0 15135 10/28*256 744 45 0*272 738 45 0*290 728 45 0*315 714 45 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 15140 10/29*335 683 45 0*348 668 45 0*360 653 45 0E388 630 45 0 15140 10/29E348 693 45 0E380 673 45 0E415 650 45 0E450 630 45 0 **** *** **** *** **** *** *** 15145 TS One major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who otherwise made large, but reasonable alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Track is extended back to the 24th based upon available observational data that indicates the system existed as a tropical depression in the Caribbean. ******************************************************************************** 1900 - 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) June 9-13, 1900: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity. 2) June 12-17, 1900: One gale force report, insufficient to determine if system was tropical storm intensity. 3) July 25-27, 1900: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity. 4) October 4-5, 1900: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity. ******************************************************************************* 15150 06/10/1901 M= 5 1 SNBR= 359 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 15150 06/11/1901 M= 5 1 SNBR= 378 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 ** *** 15155 06/10*171 822 35 0*179 827 35 0*187 830 35 0*195 832 35 0 (10th is removed from the revised HURDAT.) 15160 06/11*204 835 35 0*212 837 35 0*219 840 35 0*226 843 35 0 15160 06/11*193 823 25 0*200 830 25 0*207 835 30 0*214 839 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15165 06/12*233 846 35 0*240 849 35 0*247 852 35 0*254 856 35 0 15165 06/12*221 843 35 0*229 847 35 0*240 850 35 0*251 852 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 15170 06/13*262 860 35 0*269 864 35 0*276 868 35 0*283 871 35 0 15170 06/13*261 852 35 0*274 850 35 0*285 847 35 0*295 846 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 15175 06/14*290 874 35 0*297 877 35 0*304 880 35 0*313 883 35 0 15175 06/14*305 847 30 0*315 848 30 0*325 850 25 0*338 854 25 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** (15th is new to HURDAT.) 15177 06/15*349 862 25 0*359 870 25 0*370 880 25 0*385 897 25 0 15180 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations to the track and intensity from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track and intensity changes are found to be reasonable. Winds reduced to tropical depression status on 11th, since observations indicate that tropical storm status was not reached until the 12th. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the southeast U.S. ******************************************************************************** 15185 07/02/1901 M= 9 2 SNBR= 360 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 15185 07/01/1901 M=10 2 SNBR= 379 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 ** ** *** (1st is new to HURDAT.) 15187 07/01* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 90 540 35 0* 95 550 35 0 15190 07/02* 0 0 0 0*132 575 35 0*131 590 35 0*130 607 35 0 15190 07/02*102 562 35 0*108 574 35 0*115 587 35 0*123 601 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** 15195 07/03*130 624 35 0*130 640 40 0*131 657 40 0*132 674 40 0 15195 07/03*132 619 35 0*142 636 40 0*153 657 40 0*159 674 40 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** 15200 07/04*133 690 45 0*135 706 50 0*137 720 55 0*140 732 55 0 15200 07/04*163 692 45 0*166 708 50 0*170 725 55 0*174 736 55 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 15205 07/05*142 742 60 0*145 752 60 0*149 762 60 0*154 774 60 0 15205 07/05*178 746 60 0*183 755 60 0*187 765 60 0*189 774 60 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 15210 07/06*159 787 55 0*164 799 55 0*170 810 55 0*176 820 50 0 15210 07/06*192 783 60 0*194 793 60 0*197 803 60 0*201 810 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15215 07/07*181 829 50 0*187 838 50 0*193 846 50 0*199 854 45 0 15215 07/07*206 819 60 0*210 826 60 0*215 835 60 0*219 843 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15220 07/08*206 862 45 0*213 870 45 0*220 878 45 0*227 884 45 0 15220 07/08*222 850 60 0*226 859 60 0*230 870 60 0*235 879 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15225 07/09*235 894 45 0*243 903 45 0*251 912 40 0*260 924 40 0 15225 07/09*241 887 60 0*248 896 60 0*253 905 60 0*260 919 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** 15230 07/10*269 938 40 0*279 952 40 0*289 965 35 0*300 978 30 0 15230 07/10*269 935 55 0*279 950 50 0*289 965 35 0*300 978 30 0 *** ** *** ** 15235 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Winds boosted from the 6th to the 10th based upon 60 kt ship observation on the 9th. A 4' storm tide was reported in Galveston, Texas (Connor 1956). ******************************************************************************** 15240 07/05/1901 M= 9 3 SNBR= 361 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 15240 07/04/1901 M=10 3 SNBR= 380 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 ** ** *** (4th is new to HURDAT.) 15242 07/04* 95 555 30 0*102 558 30 0*110 563 30 0*118 570 30 0 15245 07/05* 0 0 0 0*136 600 35 0*141 608 35 0*146 617 35 0 15245 07/05*125 578 35 0*132 587 35 0*137 597 35 0*144 608 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** 15250 07/06*150 625 35 0*155 633 40 0*159 641 45 0*163 648 50 0 15250 07/06*150 619 35 0*155 630 40 0*159 641 45 0*166 651 50 0 *** *** *** *** 15255 07/07*168 655 60 0*172 661 65 0*177 668 70 0*189 680 75 0 15255 07/07*174 663 55 0*182 676 60 0*190 690 60 0*200 702 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15260 07/08*205 697 80 0*222 715 80 0*238 730 85 0*254 742 85 0 15260 07/08*213 713 60 0*228 722 60 0*245 733 60 0*264 745 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15265 07/09*269 752 85 0*285 757 85 0*300 756 85 0*314 748 85 0 15265 07/09*277 758 60 0*290 766 60 0*305 767 60 0*318 759 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15270 07/10*326 740 85 0*336 738 85 0*345 737 85 0*352 739 85 0 15270 07/10*330 751 65 0*337 742 70 0*346 738 70 0*357 738 70 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15275 07/11*356 741 80 0*360 750 75 0*356 762 65 0*353 764 50 0 15275 07/11*361 746 70 0*361 756 70 0*356 762 60 0*353 764 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** ** 15280 07/12*347 766 40 0*342 768 40 0*340 771 35 0*339 776 35 0 15285 07/13*338 781 35 0*338 788 35 0*338 795 35 0*339 802 30 0 15285 07/13*340 781 35 0*342 788 35 0*345 795 35 0*348 802 30 0 *** *** *** *** 15290 HR NC1 No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made reasonable small alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Winds are reduced from the 7th to the 11th, since observations indicate that the system did not obtain hurricane force until about the 10th. Additionally, there is no evidence for the system attaining more than a Category 1 hurricane status, thus peak winds are reduced from 85 kt down to 70 kt. Landfall as a Category 1 hurricane in the U.S. as reported in Table 6 of Neumann et al. (1999)/U.S. hurricane characterization in HURDAT is retained. The storm is known as "San Cirilo" for its impacts in Puerto Rico. ******************************************************************************** 15295 08/04/1901 M=15 4 SNBR= 362 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 15295 08/02/1901 M=17 4 SNBR= 381 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 ** ** *** * (2nd and 3rd are new to HURDAT.) 15296 08/02*326 384 25 0*323 391 25 0*320 400 25 0*316 411 25 0 15298 08/03*311 423 25 0*305 437 25 0*300 450 25 0*293 463 25 0 15300 08/04* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*264 495 35 0*263 516 35 0 15300 08/04*286 473 30 0*277 488 30 0*270 500 30 0*263 516 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** ** 15305 08/05*261 535 35 0*258 553 35 0*257 569 35 0*256 583 35 0 15305 08/05*256 532 30 0*249 548 30 0*245 565 30 0*242 579 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15310 08/06*256 596 35 0*255 609 35 0*254 623 35 0*253 639 35 0 15310 08/06*239 593 30 0*237 608 30 0*237 623 30 0*239 639 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** *** ** 15315 08/07*252 656 35 0*250 673 35 0*249 688 35 0*249 702 40 0 15315 08/07*242 657 30 0*246 675 30 0*250 690 30 0*253 702 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** 15320 08/08*248 714 40 0*248 725 40 0*248 734 40 0*249 743 40 0 15320 08/08*255 716 30 0*255 727 30 0*255 740 30 0*254 745 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15325 08/09*250 750 40 0*250 756 40 0*252 764 40 0*253 771 40 0 15325 08/09*250 750 35 0*250 756 35 0*252 764 40 0*253 771 40 0 ** ** 15330 08/10*254 778 40 0*256 784 40 0*258 790 40 0*261 796 40 0 15335 08/11*264 803 40 0*267 809 35 0*269 815 35 0*270 821 40 0 15335 08/11*264 804 35 0*267 813 35 0*269 821 40 0*270 827 45 0 *** ** *** *** ** *** ** 15340 08/12*272 828 45 0*273 835 55 0*274 842 65 0*274 850 70 0 15340 08/12*272 832 50 0*273 837 55 0*274 842 65 0*274 848 70 0 *** ** *** *** 15345 08/13*275 859 75 0*275 868 80 0*275 876 80 0*276 884 85 0 15345 08/13*275 854 75 0*275 860 80 0*275 867 80 0*276 876 80 0 *** *** *** *** ** 15350 08/14*278 890 85 0*279 895 85 0*281 897 85 0*284 898 85 0 15350 08/14*279 887 80 0*283 893 80 0*287 897 80 0*291 898 80 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** *** ** 15355 08/15*288 898 80 0*293 897 75 0*299 895 65 973*305 892 50 0 15355 08/15*294 895 80 0*297 892 80 0*300 890 80 0*305 887 70 973 *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ** *** 15360 08/16*311 890 40 0*318 889 35 0E326 892 35 0E335 895 30 0 15360 08/16*310 883 60 0*315 881 45 0*320 880 40 0*330 887 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** 2 15365 08/17E344 898 30 0E354 900 30 0E363 899 25 0E371 893 25 0 15365 08/17E340 895 30 0E350 900 30 0E363 899 25 0E371 893 25 0 *** *** *** 15370 08/18E378 887 25 0E384 878 25 0E390 868 25 0E398 854 25 0 15375 HR LA2 MS2 15375 HR LA1 MS1 AL1 *** *** *** No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track and intensity changes are found to be reasonable. Analysis of 973 mb central pressure from Ho et al. (1987) is based upon a peripheral pressure of 993 mb from Mobile along with an estimated 33 nmi radius of maximum wind. (This analysis of central pressure was very similar to the estimation in Jarrell et al. (1992) taken from Connor (1956) of 972 mb.) A 973 mb central pressure suggests 85 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship. Given that this radius of maximum wind is larger than climatological value (of 23 nmi for this latitude and central pressure - Vickery et al. 2000), a maximum sustained windspeed of 80 kt is chosen at landfall making this system a Category 1 hurricane. This is a downgrade from the Category 2 at U.S. landfall reported in Table 6 of Neumann et al. (1999)/U.S. hurricane characterization in HURDAT. Winds from the 13th to the 15th adjusted accordingly. Winds increased on the 16th based upon observed wind reports for the day. Storm tides of 8' were observed in Port Eads, Louisiana and Mobile, Alabama (Connor 1956, Cline 1926). ******************************************************************************** 15376 08/18/1901 M= 5 5 SNBR= 382 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 15377 08/18* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*115 530 30 0*116 540 30 0 15378 08/19*117 548 30 0*119 557 30 0*120 567 35 0*121 577 35 0 15379 08/20*122 586 40 0*122 595 40 0*123 603 45 0*123 612 45 0 15380 08/21*124 622 40 0*124 633 35 0*125 645 30 0*126 658 30 0 15381 08/22*126 671 25 0*126 683 25 0*127 695 25 0*128 710 25 0 15382 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997) for this newly documented tropical storm. ******************************************************************************** 15380 08/30/1901 M=13 5 SNBR= 363 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 15380 08/29/1901 M=14 6 SNBR= 383 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 ** ** * *** (29th new to HURDAT.) 15383 08/29* 0 0 0 0*136 224 30 0*137 240 35 0*139 259 35 0 15385 08/30*141 360 50 0*142 372 50 0*145 380 55 0*147 387 60 0 15385 08/30*141 274 40 0*142 288 40 0*143 302 45 0*144 315 45 0 *** ** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15390 08/31*149 395 65 0*152 404 70 0*156 414 70 0*160 426 75 0 15390 08/31*145 330 50 0*147 345 50 0*150 363 55 0*151 377 55 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15395 09/01*165 440 80 0*171 453 80 0*176 462 85 0*181 470 85 0 15395 09/01*154 390 60 0*157 404 60 0*163 420 65 0*168 432 65 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15400 09/02*185 474 85 0*190 480 85 0*195 486 85 0*200 492 85 0 15400 09/02*174 446 70 0*180 460 70 0*185 475 75 0*189 488 75 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15405 09/03*206 498 90 0*212 504 90 0*219 510 95 0*227 517 95 0 15405 09/03*192 501 80 0*196 514 80 0*200 527 85 0*207 542 85 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15410 09/04*237 526 100 0*246 535 100 0*255 543 105 0*262 550 105 0 15410 09/04*215 556 90 0*226 570 90 0*240 580 90 0*250 584 90 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15415 09/05*268 557 105 0*275 564 105 0*282 570 105 0*290 576 100 0 15415 09/05*261 587 90 0*271 589 90 0*280 590 90 0*288 591 90 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15420 09/06*298 581 95 0*307 585 90 0*315 587 85 0*323 583 85 0 15420 09/06*295 592 90 0*301 591 90 0*307 590 85 0*316 586 85 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** 15425 09/07*330 578 85 0*336 570 85 0*342 561 85 0*347 553 85 0 15425 09/07*326 578 85 0*336 570 85 0*342 561 85 0*347 553 85 0 *** 15430 09/08*352 540 85 0*356 519 80 0*358 500 80 0*360 475 80 0 15430 09/08*352 540 85 0*356 520 80 0*358 500 80 0*360 475 80 0 *** 15435 09/09*360 444 80 0*362 413 80 0*370 390 80 0*381 381 75 0 15435 09/09*360 444 80 0*362 413 80 0*370 390 80 0*381 374 75 0 *** 15440 09/10*397 377 70 0*415 379 70 0E431 378 65 0E445 368 65 0 15440 09/10*395 357 70 0*410 338 70 0*430 320 65 0*444 309 65 0 *** *** *** *** **** *** **** *** 15445 09/11E469 325 55 0E480 290 45 0E486 250 40 0E492 200 35 0 15445 09/11E458 293 55 0E473 277 45 0E486 250 40 0E492 200 35 0 *** *** *** *** 15450 HR No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 5. These track and intensity changes are found to be reasonable. A 991 mb peripheral pressure on 12Z of the 8th supports winds of at least 62 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - winds maintained at 80 kt. Peak winds are reduced from 105 kt down to 90 kt, since observations available support only a Category 1 hurricane, or Category 2 hurricane at most. Winds reduced from the 1st to the 6th accordingly. ******************************************************************************** 15455 09/09/1901 M=11 6 SNBR= 364 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 15455 09/09/1901 M=11 7 SNBR= 384 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 * *** 15460 09/09* 0 0 0 0*188 493 35 0*186 504 35 0*184 518 35 0 15460 09/09* 0 0 0 0*176 507 35 0*175 520 35 0*175 532 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** 15465 09/10*184 532 35 0*183 546 35 0*183 560 35 0*182 574 35 0 15465 09/10*174 546 35 0*174 560 35 0*173 573 35 0*174 588 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 15470 09/11*182 587 35 0*181 600 40 0*182 614 40 0*183 630 40 0 15470 09/11*175 601 35 0*176 613 40 0*178 627 45 0*181 643 50 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15475 09/12*185 647 40 0*186 665 40 0*186 682 40 0*188 698 35 0 15475 09/12*184 656 50 0*185 669 50 0*186 682 50 0*187 696 40 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** ** *** *** ** 15480 09/13*190 714 35 0*192 730 35 0*194 742 35 0*197 757 40 0 15480 09/13*188 710 35 0*189 726 35 0*190 743 45 0*191 757 50 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** ** 15485 09/14*199 770 40 0*201 783 45 0*204 796 45 0*208 809 50 0 15485 09/14*192 770 55 0*194 783 60 0*197 795 65 0*201 806 65 0 *** ** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15490 09/15*214 822 50 0*221 834 50 0*228 847 50 0*234 857 50 0 15490 09/15*205 819 70 0*210 833 70 0*215 845 70 0*220 856 65 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15495 09/16*240 864 50 0*245 869 50 0*251 875 50 0*257 880 50 0 15495 09/16*226 865 60 0*233 873 55 0*243 880 50 0*253 885 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** 15500 09/17*263 883 50 0*270 885 50 0*278 887 45 0*289 882 45 0 15500 09/17*265 885 50 0*277 881 50 0*290 875 50 0*303 867 50 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15505 09/18*302 873 40 0*316 850 35 0E330 812 35 0E342 770 35 0 15505 09/18*316 853 40 0*325 834 35 0*330 812 35 0*342 770 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** * * 15510 09/19E358 742 35 0E371 725 35 0E387 700 35 0E405 672 35 0 15510 09/19E358 742 40 0E371 725 45 0E387 700 50 0E405 672 50 0 ** ** ** ** 15515 TS 15515 HR ** The only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1997) is to upgrade the storm to a hurricane in the vicinity of Cuba. Partagas and Diaz otherwise made reasonable small alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 6. This upgrade to a hurricane is based upon the re-analysis work of Perez (2000), which analyzed the storm as a Category 1 hurricane in the vicinity of Cuba. Winds are increased accordingly on the 13th to the 16th. A peripheral pressure of 1001 mb (06Z on the 12th) suggests winds of at least 45 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 50 kt used in best track. Winds adjusted accordingly on the 11th and 12th. The storm is known as "San Leoncio" or "San Vicente IV" for its impacts in Puerto Rico. ******************************************************************************** 15520 09/12/1901 M= 6 7 SNBR= 365 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 15520 09/12/1901 M= 6 8 SNBR= 385 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 * *** 15525 09/12*111 281 35 0*115 285 35 0*121 289 35 0*127 291 35 0 15530 09/13*133 294 35 0*138 295 35 0*143 296 35 0*148 296 35 0 15530 09/13*133 294 40 0*138 295 40 0*143 296 45 0*148 296 45 0 ** ** ** ** 15535 09/14*153 296 35 0*158 294 40 0*162 292 40 0*166 291 40 0 15535 09/14*153 296 50 0*158 294 50 0*162 292 50 0*166 291 50 0 ** ** ** ** 15540 09/15*170 290 40 0*174 290 35 0*178 292 35 0*181 294 35 0 15540 09/15*170 290 45 0*174 290 40 0*178 292 35 0*181 294 35 0 ** ** 15545 09/16*184 298 35 0*186 302 35 0*189 307 35 0*191 309 35 0 15550 09/17*194 311 35 0*198 314 35 0*202 316 35 0*208 320 30 0 15555 TS Partagas and Diaz (1997) introduced no changes to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 7. However, ship reports indicate that the storm was somewhat stronger than originally indicated in HURDAT. Winds increased on the 13th to the 15th accordingly. ******************************************************************************** 15560 09/21/1901 M=12 8 SNBR= 366 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 15560 09/21/1901 M=12 9 SNBR= 386 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 * *** 15565 09/21*110 802 35 0*115 804 35 0*120 806 35 0*125 808 35 0 15565 09/21*137 730 35 0*138 740 35 0*140 750 35 0*142 759 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 15570 09/22*130 810 35 0*135 813 35 0*140 815 35 0*146 817 35 0 15570 09/22*144 769 35 0*147 780 35 0*150 790 35 0*152 798 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 15575 09/23*151 820 35 0*157 822 35 0*163 825 35 0*168 828 35 0 15575 09/23*155 806 35 0*159 813 35 0*165 820 35 0*169 823 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 15580 09/24*173 831 35 0*178 834 35 0*183 837 35 0*189 840 35 0 15580 09/24*174 825 35 0*180 828 35 0*185 830 35 0*188 832 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 15585 09/25*194 843 35 0*201 846 35 0*207 849 40 0*213 852 40 0 15585 09/25*192 833 35 0*196 834 35 0*200 835 40 0*203 837 40 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 15590 09/26*220 853 40 0*228 854 45 0*238 855 45 0*250 855 45 0 15590 09/26*207 838 40 0*211 839 45 0*215 840 45 0*221 842 45 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 15595 09/27*263 853 40 0*275 851 40 0*288 848 40 0*300 843 40 0 15595 09/27*232 845 40 0*243 848 40 0*255 850 40 0*270 849 40 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 15600 09/28*312 839 40 0*325 835 40 0E337 830 35 0E354 823 35 0 15600 09/28*288 847 40 0*306 845 35 0E325 840 35 0E351 827 35 0 *** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** 15605 09/29E378 814 30 0E403 801 25 0E425 786 25 0E442 765 25 0 15610 09/30E457 745 25 0E470 725 25 0E480 674 25 0E482 639 30 0 15610 09/30E457 745 25 0E470 725 25 0E480 685 25 0E482 639 30 0 *** 15615 10/01E482 601 30 0E483 559 35 0E485 515 35 0E490 461 40 0 15620 10/02E508 394 40 0E531 326 45 0E553 270 45 0* 0 0 0 0 15625 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 8. These track changes are found to be reasonable. Track adjusted slightly on the 30th to allow for a more realistic translational velocity. ******************************************************************************** 15630 10/07/1901 M= 8 9 SNBR= 367 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 15630 10/05/1901 M=10 10 SNBR= 387 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 ** ** ** *** (The 5th and 6th are new to HURDAT.) 15632 10/05*120 515 35 0*122 517 35 0*125 520 35 0*127 523 35 0 15634 10/06*130 526 40 0*132 529 40 0*135 533 40 0*138 537 45 0 15635 10/07*147 508 35 0*148 520 35 0*150 531 35 0*151 542 35 0 15635 10/07*142 541 50 0*146 545 55 0*150 550 60 0*155 556 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15640 10/08*153 554 35 0*155 567 35 0*158 581 35 0*161 597 35 0 15640 10/08*162 567 60 0*169 576 60 0*175 585 55 0*184 596 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15645 10/09*165 615 35 0*172 634 35 0*178 650 35 0*185 662 35 0 15645 10/09*194 606 45 0*202 614 40 0*210 623 35 0*218 637 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** 15650 10/10*193 675 35 0*204 689 35 0*220 700 35 0*240 702 35 0 15650 10/10*227 655 35 0*240 670 35 0*256 685 35 0*277 690 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 15655 10/11*261 689 40 0*281 670 40 0*302 651 45 0*323 638 45 0 15655 10/11E303 685 40 0E330 672 40 0E350 650 45 0E358 638 45 0 **** *** **** *** **** *** **** 15660 10/12*346 625 45 0*366 613 40 0E381 600 35 0E392 587 35 0 15660 10/12E365 625 45 0E373 613 40 0E381 600 35 0E392 587 35 0 **** **** 15665 10/13E402 570 35 0E411 556 35 0E420 541 35 0E430 516 35 0 15670 10/14E439 484 35 0E449 444 35 0E458 400 35 0* 0 0 0 0 15675 TS The only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1997) is to provide a more realistic position on the 5th. The Partagas and Diaz position on the 5th required a motion toward the northeast, which is not supported by climatology or available ship observations. Partagas and Diaz otherwise made large though reasonable alterations to the track and intensity from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 9. Winds increased from the 7th to the 9th based upon ship reports in Partagas and Diaz. ******************************************************************************** 15676 10/15/1901 M= 4 11 SNBR= 388 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 15677 10/15*210 800 30 0*215 793 30 0*220 785 30 0*225 777 35 0 15678 10/16*229 767 40 0*233 758 45 0*237 750 50 0*243 737 50 0 15679 10/17*252 724 50 0*258 711 50 0*265 695 45 0*269 684 40 0 15679 10/18*273 672 40 0E276 661 40 0E280 650 40 0E284 637 40 0 15679 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997) for this newly documented tropical storm. ******************************************************************************** 15680 10/31/1901 M= 7 10 SNBR= 368 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 15680 10/30/1901 M= 8 12 SNBR= 389 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 ** * ** *** (The 30th is new to HURDAT.) 15682 10/30* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*193 673 30 0*205 672 30 0 15685 10/31* 0 0 0 0*217 688 35 0*225 680 35 0*235 672 35 0 15685 10/31*217 671 35 0*229 669 35 0*240 667 35 0*247 664 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** 15690 11/01*243 665 35 0*251 659 35 0*258 653 40 0*263 648 40 0 15690 11/01*254 661 40 0*261 657 45 0*267 653 50 0*274 649 55 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15695 11/02*268 644 45 0*273 639 45 0*278 634 45 0*284 628 50 0 15695 11/02*280 646 55 0*286 642 60 0*293 635 60 0*296 628 65 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** 15700 11/03*290 622 50 0*297 616 50 0*305 610 50 0*313 604 50 0 15700 11/03*300 620 70 0*305 611 70 0*312 603 70 0*324 591 70 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15705 11/04*322 599 50 0*331 594 50 0*340 590 50 0*351 585 50 0 15705 11/04*340 581 65 0*356 571 60 0*368 563 55 0*374 557 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** 15710 11/05*364 578 50 0*374 565 50 0*378 550 45 0*380 538 45 0 15710 11/05*379 555 50 0*383 550 50 0*385 545 45 0*383 534 45 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 15715 11/06*381 525 40 0*381 512 40 0*381 500 35 0*383 485 30 0 15715 11/06E378 525 40 0E373 515 40 0E370 505 35 0E370 492 30 0 **** **** *** **** *** **** *** 15720 TS 15720 HR ** The major change from Partagas and Diaz (1997) is to upgrade the storm to a hurricane. A peripheral pressure of 989 mb (12Z on the 3rd) suggests winds of at least 65 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for the best track. Partagas and Diaz otherwise made reasonable small alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 10. A peripheral pressure of 1001 mb (12Z on the 1st) suggests winds of at least 45 kt from the southern wind- pressure relationship - 50 kt chosen for the best track. Winds changed accordingly from the 1st to the 4th based upon these measurements. ******************************************************************************* 1901 - Additional Notes: Partagas and Diaz (1997) mentioned one additional system considered for inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team agreed to leave it out of HURDAT for the following reason: 1) October 5, 1901: One gale force report, insufficient to determine if system was tropical storm intensity. ******************************************************************************* 15725 06/10/1902 M= 7 1 SNBR= 369 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 15725 06/12/1902 M= 6 1 SNBR= 390 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 ** * *** 15730 06/10* 0 0 0 0*134 817 35 0*138 819 35 0*141 821 35 0 15735 06/11*144 823 35 0*150 826 35 0*158 828 35 0*168 831 35 0 (The 10th and 11th are removed from HURDAT.) 15740 06/12*178 834 35 0*189 837 35 0*201 840 35 0*213 843 35 0 15740 06/12* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*177 840 30 0*191 836 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15745 06/13*226 845 35 0*238 847 40 0*250 848 40 0*262 848 45 0 15745 06/13*207 833 35 0*222 831 40 0*238 830 45 0*249 832 50 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15750 06/14*275 847 45 0*287 845 45 0*299 841 40 0*306 838 30 0 15750 06/14*259 835 50 0*269 838 50 0*280 840 50 0*290 839 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15755 06/15*312 835 25 0*320 832 25 0*331 825 25 0*336 821 25 0 15755 06/15*300 836 45 0*310 832 40 0*320 825 35 0*330 817 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15760 06/16E344 814 25 0E352 807 25 0E360 798 25 0E370 780 25 0 15760 06/16*340 807 35 0*352 795 35 0E367 780 40 0E386 749 40 0 **** *** ** * *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** (The 17th is new to HURDAT.) 15762 06/17E419 715 35 0E450 682 35 0E475 660 30 0E494 640 30 0 15765 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track and intensity changes are found to be reasonable. Winds increased slightly from the 13th to the 16th based upon ship and coastal observations. ******************************************************************************** 15770 06/19/1902 M=10 2 SNBR= 370 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 15770 06/21/1902 M= 9 2 SNBR= 391 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 ** ** *** 15775 06/19* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*170 850 35 0*173 858 35 0 15780 06/20*175 866 40 0*177 873 40 0*181 880 40 0*183 885 35 0 (The 19th and 20th are removed from HURDAT.) 15785 06/21*185 890 35 0*187 895 35 0*189 899 35 0*192 907 35 0 15785 06/21*172 921 25 0*176 924 25 0*180 927 25 0*182 929 25 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15790 06/22*195 915 35 0*197 922 35 0*199 928 40 0*202 932 40 0 15790 06/22*184 930 30 0*187 932 30 0*190 935 30 0*192 937 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15795 06/23*205 935 45 0*208 938 45 0*211 942 50 0*215 946 50 0 15795 06/23*195 939 30 0*197 941 30 0*200 943 30 0*203 945 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15800 06/24*219 950 55 0*223 954 60 0*228 958 65 0*233 961 70 0 15800 06/24*205 946 30 0*207 948 30 0*210 950 35 0*215 953 40 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15805 06/25*238 964 70 0*243 966 70 0*248 968 70 0*253 969 70 0 15805 06/25*221 956 45 0*227 960 50 0*233 963 55 0*239 966 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15810 06/26*258 970 70 0*264 970 70 0*270 970 75 0*278 970 80 0 15810 06/26*247 968 65 0*255 969 70 0*264 970 65 0*272 971 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15815 06/27*288 969 65 0*299 967 50 0*310 965 40 0*321 962 30 0 15815 06/27*281 972 50 0*290 973 45 0*300 974 40 0*315 972 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** ** 15820 06/28*332 959 30 0*343 954 25 0E354 949 25 0* 0 0 0 0 15820 06/28*328 966 35 0*342 959 35 0E358 945 35 0E376 923 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** (The 29th was not in HURDAT previously.) 15822 06/29E395 886 35 0E406 854 35 0E415 820 35 0E418 786 35 0 15825 HR No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track and intensity changes are found to be reasonable. Despite HURDAT having 80 kt at landfall originally and Neumann et al. (1999) showing hurricane intensity in the track plot up to landfall in Texas, this storm was not listed in Neumann et al.'s Table 6 or HURDAT's U.S. hurricane characterization as a U.S. landfalling hurricane. More significantly, Connor (1956) specifically listed this system as being "not hurricane intensity" at landfall in Texas. For the re-analysis here, it was decided to reduce the hurricane to just below hurricane force before landfall in Texas based upon Connor's assessment, but still maintaining a peak intensity of 70 kt while over the open Gulf of Mexico. A peripheral pressure of 995 mb (on the 26th) suggests winds of at least 54 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship at landfall - 60 kt chosen for best track, which is a reduction from 80 kt previously in HURDAT. ******************************************************************************** 15830 09/16/1902 M=10 3 SNBR= 371 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 15830 09/16/1902 M=10 3 SNBR= 392 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 *** 15835 09/16* 0 0 0 0* 82 330 35 0* 85 336 35 0* 90 342 35 0 15835 09/16* 0 0 0 0* 77 308 35 0* 80 320 35 0* 85 332 35 0 ** *** ** *** ** *** 15840 09/17* 95 350 35 0* 99 360 35 0*104 375 35 0*110 394 35 0 15840 09/17* 92 345 35 0* 98 360 35 0*104 375 35 0*109 389 35 0 ** *** ** *** *** 15845 09/18*116 411 40 0*123 430 40 0*129 448 40 0*134 464 45 0 15845 09/18*114 403 40 0*119 417 40 0*123 430 40 0*126 444 45 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 15850 09/19*139 480 50 0*146 498 50 0*153 514 55 0*167 523 60 0 15850 09/19*131 461 50 0*136 477 50 0*143 493 55 0*153 509 60 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 15855 09/20*180 528 65 0*194 530 70 0*210 530 75 0*229 526 80 0 15855 09/20*168 523 65 0*189 530 70 0*210 530 75 0*229 526 80 0 *** *** *** 15860 09/21*250 515 85 0*271 502 85 0*290 490 85 0*305 480 85 0 15860 09/21*247 517 85 0*265 505 85 0*283 495 85 0*302 484 85 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 15865 09/22*322 469 80 0*336 460 75 0E348 448 75 0E359 422 70 0 15865 09/22*321 473 80 0*336 460 75 0E348 448 75 0E358 429 70 0 *** *** *** *** 15870 09/23E369 401 65 0E379 381 65 0E389 361 60 0E399 349 55 0 15870 09/23E368 414 65 0E378 399 65 0E387 385 60 0E395 371 55 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 15875 09/24E407 341 55 0E416 332 50 0E426 323 50 0E439 314 45 0 15875 09/24E404 358 55 0E413 345 50 0E423 331 50 0E440 317 45 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 15880 09/25E456 303 45 0E476 296 45 0E498 288 40 0E516 292 40 0 15880 09/25E457 304 45 0E476 296 45 0E498 288 40 0E516 292 40 0 *** *** 15885 HR No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made reasonable small alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). A peripheral pressure of 981 mb (12Z on the 21st) suggests winds of at least 74 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 85 kt retained in best track. ******************************************************************************** 15890 10/03/1902 M=11 4 SNBR= 372 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 15890 10/03/1902 M=11 4 SNBR= 393 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 *** 15895 10/03* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*140 930 50 0*150 930 50 0 15895 10/03*140 938 30 0*145 940 30 0*150 942 30 0*155 943 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15900 10/04*159 930 50 0*167 929 45 0*172 929 40 0*176 928 40 0 15900 10/04*160 944 30 0*165 945 30 0*170 946 30 0*175 947 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15905 10/05*179 927 40 0*182 927 45 0*184 926 50 0*186 926 55 0 15905 10/05*180 948 30 0*185 949 30 0*187 949 35 0*188 947 45 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15910 10/06*188 926 60 0*189 925 60 0*191 925 65 0*193 925 70 0 15910 10/06*189 944 55 0*191 940 60 0*193 937 65 0*195 933 75 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** 15915 10/07*195 924 70 0*198 923 75 0*201 924 75 0*205 923 80 0 15915 10/07*197 929 85 0*200 925 90 970*203 920 90 0*207 915 90 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15920 10/08*211 922 80 0*219 921 85 0*228 920 85 0*235 918 85 0 15920 10/08*211 911 90 0*215 908 90 0*220 905 90 0*227 902 90 0 *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15925 10/09*243 916 85 0*251 913 85 0*260 909 80 0*269 906 70 0 15925 10/09*234 900 90 0*239 899 85 0*245 897 80 0*253 895 70 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** 15930 10/10*277 903 65 0*285 898 60 0*294 892 60 0*303 883 50 0 15930 10/10*262 891 65 0*271 888 60 0*280 885 55 0*294 878 50 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** 15935 10/11E314 874 40 0E325 863 35 0E337 848 35 0E349 828 35 0 15935 10/11*310 869 40 0E325 859 35 0E337 848 35 0E349 828 35 0 **** *** *** 15940 10/12E366 799 35 0E376 780 35 0E388 728 35 0E399 691 35 0 15940 10/12E364 805 35 0E376 780 35 0E388 728 35 0E399 691 35 0 *** *** 15945 10/13E409 655 35 0E419 610 40 0E428 551 40 0* 0 0 0 0 15950 HR One major change from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who otherwise made large, but reasonable alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). The formation of the system in the Gulf of Tehuantepec as found in Neumann et al. has been retained, though slightly altered in track based upon observations collected by Partagas and Diaz. Trek across the Mexico likely to be at tropical depression intensity. A central pressure of 970 mb (at 09Z on the 7th) suggests winds of 89 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt utilized in best track. Winds are adjusted according on the 6th through the 9th. Slight alteration in track on the 12th to provide for a more realistic translational velocity. ******************************************************************************** 15955 11/01/1902 M= 6 5 SNBR= 373 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 15955 11/01/1902 M= 6 5 SNBR= 394 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 *** 15960 11/01* 0 0 0 0*221 621 35 0*231 630 35 0*242 638 35 0 15960 11/01*200 673 30 0*210 683 30 0*225 673 35 0*246 663 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** 15965 11/02*253 640 35 0*266 642 35 0*279 642 40 0*295 637 40 0 15965 11/02*266 653 35 0*287 639 40 0*305 626 45 0*318 613 50 0 *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15970 11/03*311 625 40 0*327 611 40 0*342 590 45 0*352 575 45 0 15970 11/03*327 603 55 0*335 592 60 0*343 580 60 0*348 572 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 15975 11/04*362 560 45 0*372 543 45 0*377 530 50 0*381 520 50 0 15975 11/04*352 565 60 0*357 557 55 0*360 550 50 0*363 538 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** 15980 11/05*385 510 50 0*388 500 50 0*390 490 50 0*392 480 40 0 15980 11/05*366 528 50 0*368 519 50 0*370 510 50 0*371 498 40 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 15985 11/06*394 470 35 0*396 460 30 0*397 450 25 0*398 439 20 0 15985 11/06*371 486 35 0*370 474 30 0*370 465 25 0*371 454 20 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 15990 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made reasonable small alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). A peripheral pressure of 993 mb (at 12Z on the 3rd) suggests winds of at least 59 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt chosen for best track. (A slightly higher wind speed could have been chosen, but given the time of year - early November - with cooler SSTs prevailing a more conservative value is chosen.) Winds are adjusted accordingly on the 2nd through the 4th. ******************************************************************************* 1902 - Additional Notes: Partagas and Diaz (1997) mentioned one additional system considered for inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team agreed to leave it out of HURDAT for the following reason: 1) August 25-28, 1902: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity. ******************************************************************************** 15995 07/19/1903 M= 8 1 SNBR= 374 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 15995 07/21/1903 M= 6 1 SNBR= 395 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 ** * *** 16000 07/19* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*165 618 35 0*172 639 35 0 16005 07/20*179 656 35 0*185 668 35 0*193 683 35 0*200 697 40 0 (The 19th and 20th are omitted from the new HURDAT.) 16010 07/21*209 710 45 0*216 720 55 0*225 732 60 0*236 742 60 0 16010 07/21*200 678 35 0*207 689 35 0*215 700 35 0*225 712 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16015 07/22*248 748 60 0*261 750 70 0*273 750 80 0*284 747 85 0 16015 07/22*237 726 35 0*249 738 35 0*265 750 40 0*276 755 40 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16020 07/23*295 742 90 0*305 737 90 0*316 730 90 0*324 723 90 0 16020 07/23*288 756 45 0*299 754 50 0*310 750 55 0*322 736 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16025 07/24*332 716 90 0*340 705 90 0*347 696 85 0*353 685 85 0 16025 07/24*334 716 65 0*343 701 70 0*353 685 70 0*364 669 70 0 *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16030 07/25*358 672 80 0*364 656 75 0*370 638 70 0*378 605 70 0 16030 07/25*373 652 70 0*379 636 65 0*385 615 60 0*393 580 55 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16035 07/26*388 570 60 0*398 535 50 0E410 503 45 0E425 466 40 0 16035 07/26*399 547 50 0E405 514 50 0E410 485 45 0E414 457 40 0 *** *** ** **** *** *** *** *** 16040 HR No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track and intensity changes are found to be reasonable. Partagas and Diaz' analysis documented that this hurricane reached, at best, a Category 1 hurricane status. Thus peak winds are reduced from 90 kt to 70 kt and winds are adjusted downward accordingly for the lifetime of this system. ******************************************************************************** 16045 08/06/1903 M=11 2 SNBR= 375 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 16045 08/06/1903 M=11 2 SNBR= 396 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 *** 16050 08/06* 0 0 0 0*125 432 50 0*125 450 50 0*127 470 50 0 16050 08/06* 0 0 0 0*118 423 50 0*120 435 50 0*123 447 50 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** 16055 08/07*130 488 55 0*132 505 65 0*134 520 70 0*136 533 70 0 16055 08/07*126 460 55 0*131 475 65 0*135 490 70 0*137 509 70 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 16060 08/08*138 544 70 0*139 556 70 0*141 569 70 0*143 583 75 0 16060 08/08*138 526 70 0*138 541 70 0*140 560 70 0*143 578 75 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 16065 08/09*144 598 75 0*145 614 80 0*147 630 80 0*149 647 80 0 16065 08/09*144 598 80 0*145 614 90 970*147 630 100 0*149 647 105 0 ** ** *** *** *** 16070 08/10*152 664 85 0*156 682 85 0*160 700 90 0*165 720 90 0 16070 08/10*152 664 105 0*156 682 105 0*160 700 105 0*166 720 105 0 *** *** *** *** 16075 08/11*170 741 90 0*176 762 95 0*182 780 100 0*189 796 105 0 16075 08/11*172 738 105 0*177 756 105 0*183 773 105 0*186 787 105 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 16080 08/12*193 810 105 0*197 823 105 0*200 836 105 0*203 849 100 0 16080 08/12*190 800 105 0*194 811 105 958*197 825 105 0*201 840 105 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 16085 08/13*206 861 95 0*208 873 90 0*210 884 90 0*211 892 85 0 16085 08/13*204 856 105 0*208 873 85 0*210 884 70 0*212 894 65 0 *** *** *** ** ** *** *** ** 16090 08/14*212 900 85 0*213 909 85 0*215 914 85 0*217 923 85 0 16090 08/14*214 904 70 0*217 914 70 0*220 925 70 0*221 934 70 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16095 08/15*220 930 85 0*224 940 85 0*228 950 85 0*230 960 80 0 16095 08/15*223 943 70 0*226 951 70 986*230 960 70 0*231 968 70 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16100 08/16*232 968 75 0*234 975 50 0*234 986 40 0*232 996 35 0 16100 08/16*230 976 70 0*228 983 50 0*225 990 40 0*220 996 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** 16105 HR No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made reasonable small alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). A central pressure of 970 mb (0430Z on the 9th) suggests winds of 89 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt utilized in best track, up from 80 kt previously. A peripheral pressure of 975 mb (0930Z on the 11th) suggests winds of at least 84 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship and a wind measurement of 105 kt was observed - 105 kt used in the best track, up from 100 kt previously. A central pressure of 958 mb (05Z on the 12th) suggests winds of 102 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship and a wind measurement of 100 kt was observed - 105 kt retained in best track. A central pressure of 986 mb (03Z on the 15th) suggests winds of 68 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt used in best track, down from 85 kt. Winds adjusted accordingly from the 9th to the 16th. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the Yucatan of Mexico. Full lifecycle of this hurricane is not known, due to lack of information about its genesis stage. ******************************************************************************** 16110 09/09/1903 M= 8 3 SNBR= 376 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 16110 09/09/1903 M= 8 3 SNBR= 397 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 *** * 16115 09/09* 0 0 0 0*214 724 50 0*218 734 50 0*222 740 50 0 16120 09/10*226 747 55 0*232 753 60 0*238 760 65 0*240 765 70 0 16120 09/10*226 747 55 0*232 753 60 0*238 760 65 0*245 767 70 0 *** *** 16125 09/11*244 769 80 0*249 775 85 0*254 784 85 0*258 791 85 0 16125 09/11*251 775 75 0*255 782 75 0*257 789 75 0*259 796 75 976 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** 16130 09/12*264 803 75 0*269 812 65 0*273 821 60 988*278 829 50 0 16130 09/12*262 803 70 0*267 812 60 0*273 821 55 988*277 829 50 0 *** ** *** ** ** *** 16135 09/13*281 836 55 0*285 842 60 0*289 848 65 0*295 853 70 0 16135 09/13*281 836 60 0*285 842 70 0*289 848 80 0*295 853 80 0 ** ** ** ** 16140 09/14*303 857 65 0*310 859 55 0*316 860 35 0*320 860 35 0 16140 09/14*303 857 80 0*310 859 60 0*316 860 45 0*320 860 35 0 ** ** ** 16145 09/15*324 859 35 0*327 856 35 0*330 853 35 0*333 849 35 0 16150 09/16*336 843 35 0*338 837 35 0*340 830 35 0*339 823 30 0 16150 09/16*336 843 30 0*338 837 30 0*340 830 30 0*339 823 30 0 ** ** ** 16155 HRCFL2AFL1 16155 HRCFL1AFL1 **** Two major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997) where made to the track of this hurricane. The first alteration is to bring the center of the system to just west of Nassau near 00 UTC on the 10th, based upon wind and pressure observations. The second major alteration is to utilize the Ho et al. (1987) landfall position for Southeast Florida, which does better match the possible central position from Cat Cay. Partagas and Diaz otherwise made reasonable small alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). A central pressure of 976 mb (11th) suggests winds of 80 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship. However, Ho et al. estimate a large (43 nmi) RMW, so that winds are chosen to be 75 kt which matches the observed winds in Jupiter, Florida - this is a moderate reduction from the original HURDAT. Ho et al.'s estimate of 977 mb at landfall in Southeast Florida was based upon a peripheral pressure of 996 mb from Tampa. This is consistent with the measured 976 mb central pressure from Cat Cay, Bahamas. The 75 kt at landfall in Southeast Florida makes this hurricane a Category 1, which is downgraded from the estimate of Category 2 in Neumann et al.'s (1999) Table 6/U.S. hurricane characterization in HURDAT. A storm tide of 8' was recorded at Jupiter, Florida (Barnes 1998a). A peripheral pressure of 985 mb (at 22Z on the 13th) suggests winds of at least 70 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship. A storm tide value of 10' was recorded at Apalachicola, Florida (Barnes 1998a). Winds at landfall are estimated at 80 kt based upon these observations, which is increased slightly from the 70 kt originally in HURDAT. The 80 kt at landfall in the panhandle of Florida retains the Category 1 in Neumann et al.'s assessment. Winds are adjusted accordingly on the 13th and 14th. Full lifecycle of this hurricane is not known, due to lack of information about its genesis stage. ******************************************************************************** 16160 09/12/1903 M= 6 4 SNBR= 377 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 16160 09/12/1903 M= 6 4 SNBR= 398 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 *** 16165 09/12*225 556 60 0*233 564 60 0*242 573 70 0*251 583 70 0 16165 09/12*225 556 60 0*233 564 60 0*242 573 60 0*254 587 60 0 ** *** *** ** 16170 09/13*260 594 70 0*268 607 70 0*275 620 70 0*281 636 70 0 16170 09/13*265 604 60 0*274 622 60 0*280 640 60 0*284 652 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16175 09/14*286 654 70 0*292 672 70 0*297 686 70 0*303 696 70 0 16175 09/14*288 665 60 0*291 678 60 0*295 690 60 0*301 703 65 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16180 09/15*309 704 70 0*315 712 75 0*321 718 80 0*331 723 85 0 16180 09/15*308 715 70 0*316 726 75 0*325 733 80 0*341 740 85 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 16185 09/16*346 728 85 0*364 733 80 0*384 739 70 0*400 747 65 0 16185 09/16*362 745 80 0*380 746 75 0*393 747 70 990*403 750 55 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** ** 16190 09/17*410 756 55 0*419 764 45 0E430 772 40 0E448 770 30 0 16190 09/17*411 755 55 0*419 763 45 0E430 770 40 0E448 770 30 0 *** *** *** *** 16195 HR NJ1 NY1 CT1 16195 HR NJ1 DE1 *** *** No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made reasonable small alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). A peripheral pressure of 997 mb (15Z on the 16th) suggests winds of at least 53 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track which is the same as the original HURDAT. 990 mb was analyzed as the central pressure at landfall in Jarrell et al. (1992), which suggests winds of 63 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship. Intensity at landfall is retained as a Category 1 at New Jersey (70 kt) - which agrees with Table 6 in Neumann et al. (1999)/U.S. hurricane characterization in HURDAT. A ship report of hurricane force winds at the Delaware Capes (from Roth and Cobb 2001) suggests that the Delaware coast also experienced Category 1 conditions. However, observations collected by Partagas and Diaz indicate that New York and Connecticut were not likely affected by sustained hurricane winds so that they are removed from being listed as a Category 1 at landfall. Full lifecycle of this hurricane is not known, due to lack of information about its genesis stage. ******************************************************************************** 16200 09/20/1903 M= 7 5 SNBR= 378 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 16200 09/19/1903 M= 8 5 SNBR= 399 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 ** * *** (The 19th is new to HURDAT.) 16202 09/19*208 716 30 0*213 717 30 0*217 717 30 0*220 717 30 0 16205 09/20*219 716 35 0*225 714 35 0*230 712 35 0*234 713 35 0 16205 09/20*223 717 30 0*226 717 30 0*230 717 30 0*235 718 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16210 09/21*239 714 35 0*243 716 35 0*247 718 40 0*251 720 40 0 16210 09/21*241 720 30 0*246 722 30 0*250 725 30 0*255 727 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16215 09/22*254 722 45 0*258 724 45 0*262 726 45 0*267 728 45 0 16215 09/22*260 729 30 0*265 731 30 0*270 733 35 0*275 735 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16220 09/23*272 729 45 0*278 729 45 0*284 729 45 0*290 729 45 0 16220 09/23*279 736 40 0*285 736 40 0*290 737 45 0*300 739 45 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** 16225 09/24*297 727 50 0*303 724 50 0*310 720 50 0*318 713 50 0 16225 09/24*314 740 50 0*328 738 50 0*340 730 50 0*347 716 50 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 16230 09/25*328 703 50 0*339 691 45 0*347 675 45 0*351 659 40 0 16230 09/25*351 704 50 0*354 690 45 0*355 675 45 0*360 653 40 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 16235 09/26*358 637 35 0*360 611 30 0*366 582 25 0* 0 0 0 0 16235 09/26*367 627 35 0*373 601 30 0*378 575 25 0*382 556 25 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** 16240 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track and intensity changes are found to be reasonable. A peripheral pressure of 1003 mb (12Z on the 24th) suggests winds of at least 43 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 50 kt retained in HURDAT. A peripheral pressure of 1004 mb (12Z on the 25th) suggests winds of at least 42 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 45 kt retained in HURDAT. ******************************************************************************** 16245 09/26/1903 M= 5 6 SNBR= 379 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 16245 09/26/1903 M= 5 6 SNBR= 400 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 *** 16250 09/26* 0 0 0 0*229 588 40 0*233 600 40 0*236 616 40 0 16255 09/27*239 628 45 0*243 638 50 0*248 646 50 0*261 653 55 0 16255 09/27*239 628 45 0*243 638 50 0*248 646 55 0*260 653 60 0 ** *** ** 16260 09/28*274 654 60 0*288 652 65 0*302 647 70 0*316 637 75 0 16260 09/28*273 657 70 0*287 657 80 0*300 655 90 0*321 642 95 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16265 09/29*331 624 80 0*346 606 85 0*362 576 85 0*379 530 85 0 16265 09/29*341 623 95 0*360 591 95 0*375 563 90 0*394 528 85 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** 16270 09/30*388 500 80 0E406 462 75 0E435 410 70 0* 0 0 0 0 16270 09/30*412 486 80 0E427 448 75 0E445 405 70 0E465 355 60 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** **** *** ** 16275 HR No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made reasonable small alterations to the the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). A peripheral pressure of 988 mb (16Z on the 28th) suggests winds of at least 66 kt - 95 kt is chosen for the best track which is appropriate given hurricane force winds were observed in Bermuda on the weak side of the storm. ******************************************************************************** 16280 10/01/1903 M=10 7 SNBR= 380 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 16280 10/01/1903 M=10 7 SNBR= 401 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 *** 16285 10/01*202 575 60 0*204 588 60 0*208 600 65 0*214 612 70 0 16285 10/01*170 560 60 0*177 573 60 0*185 585 60 0*194 597 60 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16290 10/02*221 620 70 0*229 628 70 0*237 634 70 0*247 636 70 0 16290 10/02*203 610 65 0*215 622 70 0*230 635 70 0*243 638 70 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** 16295 10/03*259 633 70 0*271 629 70 0*281 622 75 0*290 612 75 0 16295 10/03*254 637 70 0*263 634 70 0*273 630 75 0*280 627 75 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 16300 10/04*297 603 80 0*301 593 80 0*301 580 85 0*299 566 85 0 16300 10/04*289 622 80 0*295 616 80 0*300 607 85 0*305 591 85 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 16305 10/05*296 552 85 0*293 538 85 0*289 525 85 0*286 510 80 0 16305 10/05*306 572 85 0*304 552 85 0*300 534 85 0*295 519 80 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 16310 10/06*284 497 75 0*282 484 70 0*279 471 70 0*273 470 70 0 16310 10/06*289 502 75 0*281 488 70 0*270 480 70 0*268 482 70 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 16315 10/07*268 478 70 0*269 488 70 0*272 493 70 0*279 489 70 0 16315 10/07*267 484 70 0*268 487 70 0*270 490 70 0*276 488 70 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 16320 10/08*281 482 70 0*282 472 70 0*283 465 70 0*284 450 65 0 16320 10/08*280 482 70 0*282 472 70 0*283 462 70 0*285 450 65 0 *** *** *** 16325 10/09*285 434 65 0*286 419 60 0*288 404 50 0*293 390 45 0 16325 10/09*290 431 65 0*295 415 60 0*300 400 50 0*305 387 45 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 16330 10/10E301 375 40 0E312 362 35 0E324 350 35 0* 0 0 0 0 16330 10/10E309 375 40 0E316 362 35 0E324 350 35 0E336 332 35 0 *** *** **** *** ** 16335 HR No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made reasonable small alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Full lifecycle of this hurricane is not known, due to lack of information about its genesis stage. ******************************************************************************** 16340 10/05/1903 M= 6 8 SNBR= 381 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 16340 10/05/1903 M= 6 8 SNBR= 402 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 *** 16345 10/05*240 688 40 0*244 691 45 0*250 695 50 0*257 695 55 0 16345 10/05*255 725 35 0*257 723 35 0*260 720 40 0*263 717 40 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16350 10/06*263 694 55 0*268 692 60 0*272 690 65 0*275 688 70 0 16350 10/06*266 713 40 0*269 709 40 0*272 705 40 0*275 701 40 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** *** ** 16355 10/07*278 685 70 0*280 683 70 0*283 680 70 0*286 676 70 0 16355 10/07*278 697 40 0*281 693 40 0*285 688 40 0*290 682 45 0 *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16360 10/08*289 671 70 0*292 666 70 0*297 661 75 0*300 660 75 0 16360 10/08*295 674 50 0*300 669 55 0*305 665 60 0*311 662 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16365 10/09*304 660 80 0*309 662 85 0*313 668 85 0*316 677 85 0 16365 10/09*317 659 60 0*323 657 60 0*330 655 60 0*337 653 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16370 10/10*319 691 85 0*322 709 75 0*330 730 70 0E344 737 70 0 16370 10/10*345 652 55 0*353 651 50 0E361 650 50 0E372 648 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** 16375 HR 16375 TS ** Major changes were made to this system from that proposed by Partagas and Diaz (1997). Portions of track that they proposed are not reasonable. After re-examination of available observations for this system from the Historical Weather Map series, new track positions are proposed for the 5th through the 8th, which are different from both Neumann et al. (1999) as well as Partagas and Diaz. These position are only moderately altered from those seen in Neumann et al. (Partagas and Diaz' apparent error was in focusing upon a possible position based on one ship [at 23N, 75W] on the 6th. However, space-time continuity with data on the 7th and 8th was not consistent with what they believed occurred on the 6th.) Positions for the 9th and 10th proposed by Partagas and Diaz are large alterations to what appears in Neumann et al., but do look quite reasonable and are retained as suggested. (On the 9th, a strong front entered the Atlantic from the U.S. east coast accompanied by an extratropical low centered near 35N, 73W. On the 10th, the extratropical low had drifted north (37N, 73.5W) and intensified, while the tropical storm was becoming absorbed into the extratropical system near the warm frontal boundary on the east side of the extratropical low.) Partagas and Diaz analyzed this tropical system as peaking as a tropical storm, rather than as a hurricane as found in Neumann et al. and HURDAT. Partagas and Diaz' characterization of the intensity is retained here. Two peripheral pressures of 997 mb (both at 12Z on the 9th) suggest winds of at least 53 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt chosen for the best track. Peak winds reduced from the standard Category 2 (85 kt) down to a strong tropical storm (60 kt), since available observations support a substantially weaker system. A storm tide of 9' attributed to this system observed in Norfolk, Virginia (Roth and Cobb 2001) was instead caused by the separate, strong extratropical storm system. ******************************************************************************** 16376 10/21/1903 M= 7 9 SNBR= 403 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 16376 10/21* 0 0 0 0*212 720 30 0*215 725 30 0*219 729 30 0 16376 10/22*225 733 30 0*232 736 30 0*240 740 30 0*248 742 30 0 16376 10/23*256 743 30 0*263 743 30 0*270 743 35 0*279 745 40 0 16376 10/24*290 748 45 0*301 751 50 0*312 750 50 0E324 745 50 0 16376 10/25E336 731 50 0E345 715 50 0E358 695 50 0E380 669 50 0 16376 10/26E405 637 50 0E428 604 50 0E450 575 45 0E473 554 40 0 16376 10/27E491 537 40 0E511 524 40 0E530 510 35 0E552 495 35 0 16376 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997) for this newly documented tropical storm. ******************************************************************************** 16380 11/17/1903 M= 9 9 SNBR= 382 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 16380 11/17/1903 M= 9 10 SNBR= 404 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 ** *** 16385 11/17* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*197 396 35 0*201 410 35 0 16385 11/17* 0 0 0 0*190 370 35 0*195 385 35 0*199 397 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** *** 16390 11/18*205 420 35 0*211 432 35 0*219 444 35 0*228 456 35 0 16390 11/18*204 413 35 0*211 429 35 0*219 444 35 0*228 456 35 0 *** *** *** 16395 11/19*237 468 35 0*245 480 40 0*255 493 45 0*264 500 50 0 16395 11/19*237 468 35 0*245 480 40 0*255 493 45 0*264 498 50 0 *** 16400 11/20*273 502 60 0*282 500 65 0*290 492 70 0*292 483 70 0 16400 11/20*273 496 60 0*282 493 65 0*290 485 70 0*292 477 70 0 *** *** *** ** *** 16405 11/21*293 473 70 0*293 462 75 0*293 454 75 0*295 447 80 0 16405 11/21*293 471 70 0*293 462 70 0*293 454 70 0*295 447 70 0 *** *** ** ** ** 16410 11/22*297 441 80 0*300 436 85 0*304 432 85 0*313 429 85 0 16410 11/22*297 441 70 0*300 436 70 0*304 432 70 0*313 429 70 0 ** ** ** ** 16415 11/23*328 427 85 0*343 425 80 0*354 423 75 0*363 421 70 0 16415 11/23*328 427 70 0*343 425 70 0*354 423 70 0*363 421 70 0 ** ** ** 16420 11/24*370 419 70 0*377 417 70 0*385 414 70 0*394 409 70 0 16425 11/25*403 405 65 0*413 400 65 0*422 396 65 0E435 389 50 0 16430 HR No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made reasonable small alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 9. Peak winds are reduced from the standard Category 2 (85 kt) down to Category 1 (70 kt) based upon available observations that suggest that the system was, at most, a minimal hurricane. ******************************************************************************** 1903 - Additional Notes - 2004 REVISION: 1) The NHC Best Track Change Committee requested further investigation into the possible storm system first identified by Partagas and Diaz (1997) in mid-June 1903: "1903 Additional system #1 Block Island and Nantucket observations suggest tropical storm force winds, although the structure of the system is not clear. Needs further research." Upon investigation of this system from the Monthly Weather Review, the COADS ship database, the Historical Weather Map series, and coastal station data, this system did cause winds of gale force both over the Atlantic and at the coast, but it had an extratropical storm structure at that time. The system formed near the northern Bahamas on the 9th; apparently achieved tropical depression status on the 10th near 28N, 78W; moved to the north-northeast on the 11th with maximum winds of 30kt; merged with a frontal boundary and intensified on the 12th; made landfall late on the 12th in New York; moved northward and occluded over land on the 13th; and weakened on the 14th near Lake Erie. Peak winds from this storm were 63 kt E at Block Island (this corrects to 52 kt after accounting for the high bias of the anemometer and converting to a peak 1 min wind), 42 kt SE at Nantucket, 36 kt E at Boston, 35 kt E at Portland, and a COADS ship of 35 kt SE at 37N, 70W. Lowest sea level pressure observed was 997 mb at New York City. (All peak observations were on the 12th of June). However, the system at the time of tropical storm force conditions had already acquired a baroclinic structure. As an example, New York City experienced 67 F temperature and 65 F dewpoint with a 27 kt E wind under light rain conditions at 12 UTC on the 12th. This became 57 F temperature, 54 F dewpoint with a 5 kt W wind under cloudy conditions a day later. Such changes are typical of that experienced in the region. This structure is consistent with a moderate cold frontal feature. Thus the system was likely not a tropical storm and is not included into HURDAT. Partagas and Diaz (1997) mentioned two additional systems considered for inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team agreed to leave them out of HURDAT for the following reasons: 2) August 20-23, 1903: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity. 3) November 23-26, 1903: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity. 4) The NHC Best Track Change Committee requested further investigation into a possible storm system identified by the Committee from information within Monthly Weather Review: "1903 Additional system for 10-11 Sept. A possible depression in the Gulf of Mexico. Isaac Cline states that warnings were issued. System not noted in P+D. Needs further research." Upon investigation of this system from the Monthly Weather Review, the COADS ship database, the Historical Weather Map series, and coastal station data, this system did cause heavy rains and winds up to 25 kt in the northern Gulf of Mexico and in Louisiana and Texas. However, there was no closed circulation with this system and it did not produce gale force winds. Therefore, this system will not be included into HURDAT. ******************************************************************************** 16435 06/11/1904 M= 4 1 SNBR= 383 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 16435 06/10/1904 M= 5 1 SNBR= 405 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 ** * *** (The 10th is new to HURDAT.) 16437 06/10* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*130 805 30 0*136 807 30 0 16440 06/11* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*155 793 35 0*159 792 35 0 16440 06/11*142 807 30 0*146 805 30 0*150 803 30 0*157 802 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16445 06/12*164 792 35 0*168 791 35 0*172 790 35 0*176 788 35 0 16445 06/12*162 801 35 0*168 799 40 0*173 797 45 0*177 795 50 0 *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16455 06/13*180 786 40 0*184 783 45 0*188 780 50 0*192 778 55 0 16450 06/13*181 792 55 0*184 789 60 0*187 785 65 0*194 777 70 0 *** *** ** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16455 06/14*195 774 60 0*197 770 55 0*199 765 35 0*201 760 25 0 16455 06/14*203 768 55 0*211 760 40 0*220 753 35 0*229 746 25 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** 16460 TS 16460 HR ** The only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1997) is to increase the storm to minimal hurricane status (Category 1 - 70 kt) at landfall in Cuba, based upon the analysis from Perez (2000). Partagas and Diaz otherwise made reasonable small alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Winds are also boosted from the 12th and the 13th based upon observations in Jamaica listed by Partagas and Diaz. Winds reduced on the 14th, due to earlier landfall in revised HURDAT. ******************************************************************************** 16465 09/08/1904 M= 8 2 SNBR= 384 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 16465 09/08/1904 M= 8 2 SNBR= 406 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 *** 16470 09/08*193 539 60 0*196 550 60 0*200 561 65 0*205 575 70 0 16470 09/08*162 540 50 0*167 548 50 0*173 557 50 0*181 571 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16475 09/09*210 586 70 0*214 596 70 0*218 606 70 0*223 615 70 0 16475 09/09*190 586 50 0*199 603 50 0*210 620 50 0*217 630 50 0 *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16480 09/10*226 621 70 0*230 630 70 0*236 640 70 0*241 650 70 0 16480 09/10*225 642 50 0*234 655 50 0*240 665 50 0*247 673 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16485 09/11*245 659 70 0*249 667 70 0*254 676 75 0*259 685 75 0 16485 09/11*251 680 50 0*255 690 50 0*259 700 50 0*262 708 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16490 09/12*263 693 75 0*267 702 80 0*271 711 85 0*275 721 85 0 16490 09/12*266 716 55 0*268 723 60 0*270 730 65 0*272 738 70 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16495 09/13*280 732 85 0*284 742 85 0*290 753 85 0*296 760 85 0 16495 09/13*276 747 70 0*281 757 70 0*290 767 70 0*297 774 70 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** *** *** ** 16500 09/14*305 770 85 0*315 780 80 0*327 790 75 0*346 792 65 0 16500 09/14*304 780 70 0*315 785 70 0*327 790 70 0*346 795 60 0 *** *** ** *** ** ** *** ** 16505 09/15E365 776 65 0E391 750 65 0E420 703 65 0E459 640 55 0 16505 09/15*365 776 55 0E391 750 65 0E420 703 75 0E459 640 55 0 * ** ** 16510 HR SC1 No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made reasonable small alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Peak winds reduced from Category 2 (85 kt) down to Category 1 (70 kt) as a hurricane since observations indicate that the system was, at best, a minimal hurricane. Winds reduced accordingly from the 8th to the 14th. Winds are increased on the 15th due to observations over New England in Partagas and Diaz while during its extratropical stage. Landfall at South Carolina as a 70 kt Category 1 agrees with assessment in the U.S. landfall categorization in HURDAT/Table 6 of Neumann et al. (1999). It is to be noted that this system had hurricane force winds (and produced these along the U.S. coast) during its extratropical stage on the 15th. Full lifecycle of this hurricane is not known, due to lack of information about its genesis stage. ******************************************************************************** 16515 10/12/1904 M=10 3 SNBR= 385 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 16515 10/12/1904 M=10 3 SNBR= 407 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 *** * 16520 10/12* 0 0 0 0*153 757 35 0*153 764 35 0*154 771 35 0 16525 10/13*156 777 35 0*159 782 35 0*164 787 35 0*171 791 35 0 16525 10/13*159 777 35 0*164 782 35 0*170 787 40 0*175 791 40 0 *** *** *** ** *** ** 16530 10/14*179 793 35 0*186 795 35 0*193 797 40 0*199 798 40 0 16530 10/14*180 793 40 0*186 795 40 0*193 797 45 0*198 798 50 0 *** ** ** ** *** ** 16535 10/15*204 799 45 0*209 799 45 0*215 800 40 0*221 799 40 0 16535 10/15*201 799 55 0*206 799 60 0*210 800 65 0*214 800 65 0 *** ** *** ** *** ** *** *** ** 16540 10/16*228 797 40 0*235 795 45 0*242 793 55 0*248 791 65 0 16540 10/16*217 800 65 0*220 800 55 0*225 800 50 0*233 799 55 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16545 10/17*253 792 65 0*256 794 65 0*260 798 65 0*260 805 60 0 16545 10/17*242 799 65 0*251 801 70 0*257 807 60 0*259 809 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16550 10/18*260 809 55 0*257 814 45 0*252 816 40 0*253 809 35 0 16550 10/18*262 811 45 0*265 814 40 0*267 817 40 0*268 823 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** 16555 10/19*259 808 30 0*263 809 25 0*267 810 25 0*269 809 20 0 16555 10/19*267 825 35 0*266 826 35 0*263 827 35 0*259 826 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16560 10/20*271 807 20 0*273 806 20 0*275 805 20 0*277 802 20 0 16560 10/20*256 822 35 0*254 816 35 0*255 810 35 0*258 800 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16565 10/21*280 799 20 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 16565 10/21*261 790 25 0*265 782 20 0*270 770 20 0*274 759 20 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16570 HR 16570 HRCFL1 **** The only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1997) is to increase the storm to minimal hurricane status (Category 1 - 65 kt) at landfall in Cuba, based upon the analysis from Perez (2000). Winds increased accordingly on the 14th through the 16th. Partagas and Diaz otherwise made reasonable small alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). A peripheral pressure of 1004 mb (12Z on the 12th) suggests winds of at least 39 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 40 kt chosen for best track. A peripheral pressure of 989 mb (05Z on the 17th) suggests winds of at least 65 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track. Winds at landfall in southeast Florida are estimated at 70 kt, making this a Category 1 landfall which is consistent with the original HURDAT 6 hourly intensity estimate just before landfall (which had 65 kt). However, Table 6 in Neumann et al. (1999)/U.S. hurricane characterization in HURDAT did not list this as a U.S. landfalling hurricane. A peripheral pressure of 1001 mb (12Z on the 20th) suggests winds of at least 43 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 35 kt chosen for best track since the center had already made a second landfall by this time. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Florida. ******************************************************************************** 16575 10/19/1904 M= 5 4 SNBR= 386 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 16575 10/19/1904 M= 7 4 SNBR= 408 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 * *** 16580 10/19* 0 0 0 0*260 462 35 0*258 470 35 0*255 479 35 0 16580 10/19* 0 0 0 0*258 454 35 0*250 463 35 0*238 475 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** 16585 10/20*250 488 35 0*247 497 35 0*245 506 35 0*244 514 35 0 16585 10/20*227 488 35 0*221 503 35 0*225 516 35 0*230 522 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 16590 10/21*244 522 40 0*244 529 40 0*245 537 45 0*246 544 45 0 16590 10/21*236 523 40 0*243 522 40 0*250 520 45 0*260 522 45 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 16595 10/22*250 550 45 0*254 555 45 0*260 560 40 0*265 564 35 0 16595 10/22*267 528 45 0*275 536 45 0*285 545 40 0*296 553 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 16600 10/23*275 570 35 0*286 573 35 0*300 578 30 0* 0 0 0 0 16600 10/23*311 561 35 0*328 568 35 0*350 575 35 0*367 575 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** (24th and 25th are new to HURDAT.) 16601 10/24E392 567 35 0E417 556 35 0E445 540 35 0E473 512 35 0 16602 10/25E504 484 35 0E534 454 35 0E560 425 35 0E578 395 35 0 16605 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track and intensity changes are found to be reasonable. A peripheral pressure of 1005 mb (12Z on the 21st) suggests winds of at least 38 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 45 kt retained in best track. ******************************************************************************** 16610 10/29/1904 M= 8 5 SNBR= 387 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 16610 10/31/1904 M= 7 5 SNBR= 409 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 ** * *** 16615 10/29* 0 0 0 0*199 860 35 0*203 868 40 0*206 875 35 0 16620 10/30*208 881 35 0*212 889 35 0*217 896 35 0*222 901 35 0 (The 29th and 30th are deleted from HURDAT.) 16625 10/31*226 906 35 0*231 911 35 0*237 916 35 0*242 919 35 0 16625 10/31* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*200 913 35 0*204 918 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** 16630 11/01*246 920 35 0*251 920 40 0*257 919 40 0*262 918 45 0 16630 11/01*210 920 35 0*216 922 40 0*223 920 40 0*231 917 45 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 16635 11/02*268 915 45 0*274 911 45 0*282 906 40 0*290 899 35 0 16635 11/02*238 914 45 0*244 911 45 0*253 907 40 0*265 898 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 16640 11/03*300 891 35 0*309 879 35 0*316 864 35 0*316 843 35 0 16640 11/03*278 889 35 0*291 881 35 0*303 867 35 0*313 848 30 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** 16645 11/04*319 828 35 0*328 806 35 0*336 786 35 0*340 765 35 0 16645 11/04*321 827 30 0*329 804 30 0E335 780 35 0E338 760 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** **** *** **** *** 16650 11/05*344 745 35 0*349 724 35 0*353 703 30 0*360 685 25 0 16650 11/05E345 734 35 0E351 711 35 0E360 687 35 0E377 660 35 0 **** *** **** *** **** *** ** **** *** (The 6th is new to HURDAT.) 16652 11/06E400 624 35 0E424 593 35 0E450 575 35 0E466 557 35 0 16655 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track and intensity changes are found to be reasonable. A peripheral pressure of 1005 mb (12Z on the 31st) suggests winds of at least 34 kt - 35 kt retained in best track. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the Southeast U.S. ******************************************************************************** 1904 - Additional Notes: Partagas and Diaz (1997) mentioned five additional systems considered for inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team agreed to leave them out of HURDAT for the following reasons: 1) September 3-5, 1904: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity. 2) September 24-30, 1904: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity. 3) October 10-16, 1904: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity. 4) October 28-November 2, 1904: Gale force intensity, but likely extratropical. 5) November 9-14, 1904: Numerous gale to hurricane force observations, but likely was an extratropical storm. ******************************************************************************** 16660 09/06/1905 M= 2 1 SNBR= 388 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 16660 09/06/1905 M= 3 1 SNBR= 410 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 * *** 16665 09/06* 0 0 0 0*140 580 50 0*140 590 50 0*140 600 50 0 16665 09/06* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*116 585 50 0*120 598 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** *** 16670 09/07*141 609 50 0*141 618 50 0*141 627 40 0*141 640 30 0 16670 09/07*125 611 50 0*130 628 50 0*135 643 40 0*139 658 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** (The 8th is new to HURDAT.) 16672 09/08*144 673 30 0*149 689 30 0*153 703 30 0*159 721 25 0 16675 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track and intensity changes are found to be reasonable. Full lifecycle of this tropical storm is not known, due to lack of information about its genesis stage. ******************************************************************************** 17350 09/11/1905 M= 6 2 SNBR= 389 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 17350 09/11/1905 M= 6 2 SNBR= 411 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 *** 17355 09/11* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*195 510 35 0*197 521 35 0 17360 09/12*200 533 35 0*202 541 35 0*205 550 40 0*210 560 40 0 17365 09/13*214 568 40 0*218 574 45 0*221 579 50 0*223 583 50 0 17370 09/14*226 586 50 0*229 588 50 0*232 591 45 0*238 594 40 0 17375 09/15*244 597 35 0*250 600 35 0*255 603 35 0*259 606 35 0 17380 09/16*263 611 35 0*267 615 35 0*270 620 30 0*272 625 30 0 17385 TS Partagas and Diaz (1997) introduced no changes from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). ******************************************************************************** 16720 09/24/1905 M= 7 3 SNBR= 390 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 16720 09/24/1905 M= 7 3 SNBR= 412 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 *** 16725 09/24* 0 0 0 0*177 840 35 0*182 847 35 0*186 854 35 0 16730 09/25*190 860 35 0*194 867 40 0*199 874 40 0*204 881 35 0 16735 09/26*209 888 35 0*215 897 35 0*222 905 35 0*229 909 40 0 16735 09/26*209 888 35 0*215 897 35 0*222 905 45 0*229 909 45 0 ** ** 16740 09/27*237 914 40 0*245 918 40 0*253 920 40 0*259 922 45 0 16740 09/27*237 914 45 0*245 918 45 0*253 920 45 0*259 922 45 0 ** ** ** 16745 09/28*265 924 45 0*272 926 45 0*277 927 45 0*283 928 45 0 16750 09/29*287 927 45 0*292 926 45 0*298 925 40 0*306 918 35 0 16755 09/30*317 909 35 0*330 912 35 0*341 920 35 0*348 934 30 0 16760 TS Partagas and Diaz (1997) did not introduce any changes for this storm from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). A peripheral pressures of 1002 mb (12Z on the 26th) suggests winds of at least 41 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 45 kt chosen for best track. Winds are adjusted accordingly on the 26th and 27th. Another peripheral pressure of 1002 mb (on the 28th) suggests winds of at least 41 kt - 40 kt retained for best track at 12Z since the storm was inland by this time. ******************************************************************************** 16765 10/01/1905 M=13 4 SNBR= 391 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 16765 10/01/1905 M=13 4 SNBR= 413 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 *** 16770 10/01* 0 0 0 0*107 797 60 0*110 797 60 0*111 797 60 0 16770 10/01* 0 0 0 0*110 792 30 0*110 790 30 0*111 788 30 0 *** *** ** *** ** *** ** 16775 10/02*113 796 60 0*115 796 60 0*117 795 60 0*119 794 60 0 16775 10/02*113 787 30 0*115 786 30 0*117 785 30 0*119 783 30 0 *** ** *** ** *** ** *** ** 16780 10/03*121 793 70 0*124 792 70 0*128 790 70 0*133 788 70 0 16780 10/03*121 782 35 0*124 781 35 0*127 780 35 0*132 779 35 0 *** ** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16785 10/04*138 786 70 0*145 782 70 0*150 779 70 0*158 773 70 0 16785 10/04*137 778 40 0*141 777 40 0*145 775 45 0*152 770 45 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16790 10/05*164 769 70 0*171 764 70 0*178 758 70 0*184 754 70 0 16790 10/05*158 765 50 0*163 760 50 0*170 755 55 0*181 748 55 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16795 10/06*190 749 70 0*196 742 70 0*202 737 70 0*211 729 70 0 16795 10/06*192 742 60 0*202 736 60 0*210 730 60 0*221 723 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16800 10/07*222 717 70 0*233 707 70 0*242 697 70 0*249 690 70 0 16800 10/07*232 717 60 0*243 711 60 0*253 705 60 0*264 696 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16805 10/08*255 684 70 0*262 677 70 0E270 670 75 0E280 660 75 0 16805 10/08*273 686 65 0*281 676 70 0*290 665 75 0*301 650 85 0 *** *** ** *** *** **** *** **** *** ** 16810 10/09E290 650 80 0E300 640 80 0E310 630 85 0E320 613 85 0 16810 10/09*308 637 95 0*317 621 105 0*323 605 105 0*329 575 105 0 **** *** ** **** *** *** **** *** *** **** *** *** 16815 10/10E330 593 85 0E340 571 85 0E350 550 85 0E363 528 85 0 16815 10/10*333 548 105 0*340 522 100 0*350 500 95 0*363 486 90 0 **** *** *** * *** *** * *** *** * *** ** 16820 10/11E379 502 85 0E396 479 85 0E410 460 75 0E421 450 65 0 16820 10/11*379 479 85 0E396 471 80 0E410 460 80 0E429 448 80 945 * *** *** ** ** *** *** ** *** 16825 10/12E431 448 55 0E442 449 50 0E455 452 45 0E467 458 40 0 16825 10/12E452 450 75 0E470 460 70 0E490 475 65 0E501 484 55 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16830 10/13E480 464 40 0E493 478 35 0E508 498 35 0E523 512 35 0 16830 10/13E510 492 45 0E521 501 35 0E530 510 35 0E540 521 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** 16835 HR The only major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997) are to retain the 1st and 2nd as a tropical depression rather than eliminating it from the best track and to delay the extratropical stage until the 11th. Partagas and Diaz otherwise made reasonable small alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). A peripheral pressure of 1004 mb (12Z on the 4th) suggests winds of at least 39 kt - 45 kt chosen for best track. A possible central pressure of 945 mb (20Z on the 11th) suggests winds of 100 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track since the hurricane had already transitioned to an extratropical storm. However, because of the very low pressures encountered, it is likely that it retained tropical characteristics close to the observation date. It is concluded that this hurricane reached Category 3 hurricane status (105 kt) before becoming extratropical. Winds are adjusted accordingly on the 8th through the 13th. ******************************************************************************** 16840 10/05/1905 M= 6 5 SNBR= 392 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 16840 10/05/1905 M= 7 5 SNBR= 414 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 * *** 16845 10/05* 0 0 0 0*230 889 35 0*230 895 35 0*230 899 35 0 16845 10/05* 0 0 0 0*230 889 35 0*230 895 40 0*230 899 40 0 ** ** 16850 10/06*231 904 35 0*233 908 35 0*236 911 35 0*240 916 35 0 16850 10/06*231 904 40 0*233 908 40 0*236 911 40 0*240 916 40 0 ** ** ** ** 16855 10/07*244 920 35 0*249 924 35 0*252 926 35 0*256 928 40 0 16855 10/07*244 920 40 0*249 924 40 0*252 926 40 0*256 927 40 0 ** ** ** *** 16860 10/08*258 929 45 0*260 930 45 0*263 930 45 0*267 931 45 0 16860 10/08*258 927 45 0*260 926 45 0*263 925 45 0*267 924 45 0 *** *** *** *** 16865 10/09*273 930 45 0*280 927 45 0*287 920 40 0*296 913 35 0 16865 10/09*273 923 45 0*280 922 45 0*287 920 45 0*296 913 40 0 *** *** ** ** 16870 10/10*307 905 35 0*320 898 30 0*335 887 25 0* 0 0 0 0 16870 10/10*307 905 35 0E320 898 30 0E335 887 25 0E347 865 25 0 * * **** *** ** (The 11th is new to HURDAT.) 16872 10/11E356 843 25 0E364 824 25 0E373 800 25 0E385 777 25 0 16875 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track and intensity changes are found to be reasonable. A peripheral pressure of 1003 mb (12Z on the 5th) suggests winds of at least 39 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 40 kt chosen for best track. ******************************************************************************** 1905 - Additional Notes: Partagas and Diaz (1997) 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) August 18-20, 1905: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity. 2) August 27-30, 1905: Gale force intensity, but likely extratropical. 3) September 27, 1905: Gale to hurricane force observations found, but likely was an extratropical storm. 4) November 28-December 3, 1905: Gale force intensity, but likely extratropical. ******************************************************************************** 16880 06/08/1906 M= 6 1 SNBR= 393 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 16880 06/08/1906 M= 7 1 SNBR= 415 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 * *** 16885 06/08* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*194 836 35 0*204 839 35 0 16885 06/08* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*194 836 35 0*204 837 35 0 *** 16890 06/09*214 842 35 0*222 844 35 0*229 845 35 0*234 846 35 0 16890 06/09*214 838 35 0*222 839 35 0*230 840 40 0*235 841 45 0 *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16895 06/10*239 847 40 0*244 847 40 0*250 848 45 0*258 849 45 0 16895 06/10*239 842 45 0*244 842 45 0*250 843 45 0*254 844 45 0 *** ** *** ** *** *** *** 16900 06/11*264 850 45 0*268 851 45 0*274 852 45 0*278 853 45 0 16900 06/11*258 846 45 0*261 848 45 0*265 850 45 0*270 852 45 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 16905 06/12*282 854 45 0*286 855 45 0*291 856 45 0*300 856 40 0 16905 06/12*275 854 45 0*280 855 45 0*287 855 45 0*296 856 45 0 *** *** *** *** *** ** 16910 06/13*307 856 40 0*318 857 35 0*330 857 35 0*341 860 30 0 16910 06/13*307 856 40 0*318 857 35 0*330 857 35 0*346 865 30 0 *** *** (The 14th is new to HURDAT.) 16912 06/14E362 877 30 0E380 891 30 0E400 895 30 0E418 898 30 0 16915 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These large track and intensity changes are found to be reasonable. A peripheral pressure of 1002 mb (21Z on the 9th) suggests winds of at least 41 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - winds chosen to be 45 kt in best track and winds on the 9th and 10th are adjusted accordingly. ******************************************************************************** 16920 06/14/1906 M=10 2 SNBR= 394 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 16920 06/14/1906 M=10 2 SNBR= 416 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 *** 16925 06/14* 0 0 0 0*226 752 35 0*226 757 35 0*226 762 35 0 16925 06/14* 0 0 0 0*229 764 35 0*230 775 35 0*231 782 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** 16930 06/15*226 767 35 0*227 773 40 0*227 778 40 0*228 784 45 0 16930 06/15*231 790 35 0*232 798 40 0*233 805 40 0*233 808 45 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 16935 06/16*229 791 45 0*230 797 50 0*231 803 55 0*238 808 60 0 16935 06/16*233 811 50 0*233 813 55 0*235 815 60 0*240 815 65 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16940 06/17*246 810 65 0*255 809 70 0*267 804 70 0*279 795 75 0 16940 06/17*245 813 70 0*250 809 75 979*257 803 75 0*267 790 75 0 *** *** ** *** ** *** *** *** ** *** *** 16945 06/18*291 785 80 0*300 772 80 0*310 761 85 0*324 744 85 0 16945 06/18*281 775 80 0*295 761 80 0*310 747 85 0*324 734 85 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** 16950 06/19*336 728 90 0*344 714 90 0*351 701 90 0*353 695 85 0 16950 06/19*338 723 90 0*351 712 90 0*363 695 90 0*367 682 85 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 16955 06/20*355 689 80 0*357 682 75 0*357 674 65 0*356 664 65 0 16955 06/20*366 672 80 0*363 660 75 0*360 650 65 0*357 646 65 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 16960 06/21*354 652 55 0*353 641 50 0*353 630 45 0*355 623 45 0 16960 06/21*354 641 55 0*351 636 50 0*350 630 45 0*352 623 45 0 *** *** *** *** *** 16965 06/22*358 616 45 0*360 608 40 0*363 600 40 0*367 590 40 0 16965 06/22*356 616 45 0*358 608 40 0*360 600 40 0*363 590 40 0 *** *** *** *** 16970 06/23*372 578 35 0*377 565 35 0*382 551 35 0E390 530 30 0 16970 06/23*365 578 35 0*368 565 35 0*370 551 35 0E373 530 30 0 *** *** *** *** 16975 HRCFL1 16975 HRBFL1CFL1 **** No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Ho et. al. (1987) analyzed a central pressure at landfall of 979 mb and a RMW of 26 nmi in peninsula Florida. This central pressure suggests winds of 79 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship. Given an RMW slightly larger than what is typical at this latitude and central pressure (Vickery et al. 2000), the maximum sustained windspeed at landfall is estimated at 75 kt. Thus the hurricane is retained as a Category 1 hurricane at landfall in the Florida Keys and southern Florida, agreeing with Table 6 in Neumann et al. (1999)/ U.S. hurricane categorization in HURDAT. ******************************************************************************** 16976 08/22/1906 M= 4 3 SNBR= 417 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 16977 08/22* 0 0 0 0*287 531 30 0*290 540 30 0*294 548 30 0 16978 08/23*299 556 35 0*305 565 35 0*313 567 40 0*321 564 45 0 16979 08/24*326 558 50 0*330 551 55 0*338 541 60 0*349 528 60 0 16979 08/25*364 512 55 0E375 497 50 0E390 480 45 0E402 463 40 0 16979 TS No changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997) for this newly documented tropical storm. ******************************************************************************** 16980 08/25/1906 M=19 3 SNBR= 395 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 16980 08/25/1906 M=19 4 SNBR= 418 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 * *** 16985 08/25*127 265 65 0*129 276 65 0*131 287 70 0*133 298 70 0 16985 08/25* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*140 210 35 0*140 225 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16990 08/26*135 309 70 0*137 321 70 0*139 332 70 0*139 343 70 0 16990 08/26*140 240 40 0*140 255 40 0*140 270 45 0*140 285 45 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 16995 08/27*140 355 70 0*140 366 70 0*140 380 70 0*141 386 70 0 16995 08/27*140 300 50 0*140 315 50 0*140 330 55 0*140 346 55 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17000 08/28*141 394 70 0*142 401 70 0*142 410 70 0*143 421 70 0 17000 08/28*139 362 60 0*139 378 60 0*138 395 65 0*138 412 65 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17005 08/29*144 432 70 0*144 442 70 0*145 453 70 0*145 465 70 0 17005 08/29*137 428 70 0*137 444 70 0*136 460 70 0*136 477 70 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17010 08/30*145 477 75 0*145 491 75 0*146 506 75 0*148 524 80 0 17010 08/30*136 493 75 0*135 509 75 0*135 525 75 0*137 540 80 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17015 08/31*151 539 80 0*154 554 80 0*158 569 85 0*160 577 85 0 17015 08/31*141 553 80 0*145 565 80 0*150 575 85 0*155 583 85 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17020 09/01*164 585 85 0*168 593 85 0*172 601 90 0*175 608 90 0 17020 09/01*160 590 85 0*165 600 85 0*170 607 90 0*175 614 90 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17025 09/02*178 613 90 0*181 619 90 0*184 625 90 0*188 633 95 0 17025 09/02*180 622 90 0*185 631 90 0*190 640 90 0*193 647 95 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17030 09/03*192 643 95 0*194 650 100 0*197 659 100 0*199 668 105 0 17030 09/03*196 654 95 0*198 660 100 0*200 667 100 0*203 676 105 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17035 09/04*202 675 105 0*206 683 110 0*211 692 110 0*215 700 110 0 17035 09/04*206 683 105 0*209 690 110 0*213 696 110 0*216 702 110 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17040 09/05*220 706 115 0*225 712 115 0*231 720 115 0*235 727 115 0 17040 09/05*221 708 115 0*225 714 115 0*231 720 115 0*235 727 115 0 *** *** *** 17045 09/06*239 734 115 0*244 740 115 0*250 747 115 0*259 750 110 0 17045 09/06*239 734 115 0*244 740 115 0*250 747 115 0*258 756 110 0 *** *** 17050 09/07*269 750 110 0*276 747 110 0*283 740 105 0*290 731 100 0 17050 09/07*268 764 110 0*279 766 110 0*290 760 110 0*295 748 110 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17055 09/08*296 722 100 0*301 714 95 0*307 704 95 0*311 693 95 0 17055 09/08*298 735 110 0*300 721 110 0*303 705 110 0*307 693 110 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17060 09/09*315 682 90 0*319 673 90 0*324 664 90 0*334 650 85 0 17060 09/09*313 681 105 0*319 669 105 0*325 657 105 0*336 643 105 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17065 09/10*344 638 85 0*357 621 85 0*378 600 80 0*398 581 80 0 17065 09/10*347 629 100 0*358 614 100 0*370 600 100 0*384 569 100 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17070 09/11*421 561 80 0*447 533 75 0E470 490 70 0E490 427 65 0 17070 09/11*400 528 95 950*422 488 85 0E450 450 75 0E475 404 65 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** 17075 09/12E508 367 60 0E536 314 55 0E564 259 50 0* 0 0 0 0 17075 09/12E495 354 60 0E513 303 55 0E530 250 50 0E540 203 45 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** **** *** ** 17080 HR Major changes are made to the track proposed by Partagas and Diaz (1997) for the 25th through the 30th. The track is begun on the 25th farther to the east based upon re-examination of the Historical Weather Map series. Track determined through the 30th based upon analysis of available observational data along with a reasonable extrapolation of the storm in time. Partagas and Diaz otherwise made reasonable small alterations to the track and large changes (early in the hurricane's lifecycle) to the intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 3. A peripheral pressure of 982 mb (07Z on the 7th) suggests winds of at least 72 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 110 kt retained in the best track. A possible central pressure of 950 mb (01Z on the 11th) suggests winds of 97 kt - 95 kt chosen for the best track. Winds are adjusted upward from the 7th to the 11th accordingly. ******************************************************************************** 17085 09/03/1906 M=16 4 SNBR= 396 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 17085 09/03/1906 M=16 5 SNBR= 419 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 * *** * 17090 09/03* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*102 330 35 0*103 337 35 0 17095 09/04*103 342 35 0*104 349 35 0*105 357 35 0*106 366 35 0 17100 09/05*109 376 35 0*112 385 35 0*116 395 35 0*120 405 35 0 17105 09/06*124 414 40 0*128 423 40 0*132 432 45 0*137 442 45 0 17105 09/06*124 414 35 0*128 423 35 0*132 432 35 0*137 442 35 0 ** ** ** ** 17110 09/07*141 449 45 0*146 456 45 0*151 462 50 0*153 466 50 0 17110 09/07*141 449 40 0*146 456 40 0*151 462 40 0*153 466 40 0 ** ** ** ** 17115 09/08*155 471 55 0*157 475 55 0*160 480 60 0*164 487 60 0 17115 09/08*155 471 40 0*157 475 40 0*160 480 40 0*164 484 40 0 ** ** ** *** ** 17120 09/09*169 495 60 0*174 503 65 0*179 510 65 0*183 515 70 0 17120 09/09*169 488 45 0*175 491 45 0*180 493 45 0*184 496 45 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17125 09/10*187 520 70 0*190 524 70 0*195 529 70 0*201 536 75 0 17125 09/10*188 499 50 0*193 503 50 0*197 507 50 0*202 513 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17130 09/11*207 544 75 0*216 556 75 0*224 569 80 0*230 581 80 0 17130 09/11*206 521 55 0*208 530 55 0*210 540 55 0*214 553 55 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17135 09/12*233 593 80 0*237 606 80 0*240 619 80 0*242 626 85 0 17135 09/12*218 565 60 0*222 577 60 0*227 590 65 0*230 602 65 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17140 09/13*245 632 85 0*249 639 85 0*254 645 85 0*260 650 85 0 17140 09/13*232 612 70 0*236 623 70 0*243 633 75 0*253 641 75 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17145 09/14*265 654 85 0*271 657 90 0*280 660 90 0*289 664 90 0 17145 09/14*266 647 80 0*279 655 80 0*290 663 80 0*295 667 80 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17150 09/15*296 668 95 0*303 670 95 0*310 675 100 0*314 683 105 0 17150 09/15*299 671 80 0*302 675 80 0*305 680 80 0*309 685 80 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17155 09/16*317 692 110 0*319 701 115 0*321 711 125 0*323 722 125 0 17155 09/16*312 690 80 0*315 697 80 0*317 707 80 0*320 720 80 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17160 09/17*325 735 120 0*328 748 110 0*332 763 100 0*335 781 85 0 17160 09/17*320 734 80 0*321 751 80 0*323 767 80 0*329 782 80 977 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** 17165 09/18*338 795 60 0*341 808 40 0*347 821 30 0*353 834 30 0 17165 09/18*335 798 60 0*343 815 40 0*350 830 30 0*355 845 30 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17170 HR SC3 NC3 17170 HR SC1 NC1 *** *** No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large but reasonable alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). This hurricane - originally storm number 4 - was listed as a Category 3 at landfall in North and South Carolina with a central pressure of 947 mb (Neumann et al. 1999; Jarrell et al. 1992). This was based upon a supposed surface pressure reading of 945 mb at Cape Fear, North Carolina. Both Ho et al. (1987) and Partagas and Diaz (1997) reject this measurement as being erroneous since it does not correspond to nearby pressure measurements nor do wind observations suggest that the center went over Cape Fear. (Instead, landfall is analyzed at being near Georgetown, South Carolina - over 60 nmi to the southwest of Cape Fear.) It is worth noting that the _Monthly Weather Review_ at the time did not mention this supposed 947 mb central pressure reading, nor did Tannehill (1938). Barnes (1998b) corroborates the damages and impacts of having a much weaker hurricane than a 947 mb hurricane in the shipping, coastal and inland effects in the Carolinas. The apparent source for 947 mb was Dunn and Miller (1960), which gave the surface pressure value without any attribution. Instead, Ho et al. (1987) analyze this hurricane as a 977 mb hurricane with a RMW of 30 nmi at landfall in the Carolinas, which much better matches the observed wind observations, pressure observations and damage incurred along the coast. Such a central pressure with a near-climatological RMW (for that central pressure and latitude) supports a wind speed of 79 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt utilized in best track. Such an intensity corresponds well with the moderate wind damage incurred in South Carolina, from newspaper archives in Charleston and Georgetown analyzed by Prof. Cary Mock at the University of South Carolina. Without evidence for a major hurricane at landfall in the United States, there is no support for this hurricane ever being more than a minimal (Category 1) hurricane at its peak. Winds are adjusted from the 13th to the 19th accordingly. ******************************************************************************** 17175 09/19/1906 M=11 5 SNBR= 397 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 17175 09/19/1906 M=12 6 SNBR= 420 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 ** * *** * 17180 09/19* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*149 725 35 0*149 730 35 0 17180 09/19* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*120 770 30 0*121 775 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** 17185 09/20*149 736 35 0*150 742 35 0*150 751 35 0*150 760 35 0 17185 09/20*122 779 35 0*123 783 35 0*125 787 35 0*128 792 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17190 09/21*151 771 35 0*152 781 35 0*154 791 35 0*157 799 35 0 17190 09/21*132 797 35 0*136 801 35 0*140 805 35 0*146 809 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17195 09/22*161 806 40 0*165 812 40 0*170 819 45 0*175 826 45 0 17195 09/22*152 813 40 0*158 818 40 0*163 823 45 0*169 828 45 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17200 09/23*180 830 50 0*185 835 50 0*193 840 55 0*200 844 60 0 17200 09/23*175 832 50 0*181 837 50 0*187 840 55 0*193 843 60 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17205 09/24*206 847 65 0*212 850 70 0*220 854 75 0*227 856 80 0 17205 09/24*200 846 65 0*206 848 70 0*214 851 75 0*219 852 80 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17210 09/25*234 859 85 0*240 861 90 0*248 863 95 0*255 865 100 0 17210 09/25*223 855 85 0*228 857 90 0*233 860 95 0*240 863 100 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17215 09/26*261 867 105 0*268 870 110 0*275 872 120 0*284 877 125 0 17215 09/26*247 866 105 0*255 868 105 0*263 870 105 953*273 874 100 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17220 09/27*292 880 125 0*298 882 120 0*306 886 115 0*312 888 60 0 17220 09/27*284 879 100 0*294 884 95 0*304 887 95 958*314 890 65 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** 17225 09/28*324 892 50 0*336 896 40 0*347 899 40 0*357 901 35 0 17225 09/28*324 893 50 0*336 896 40 0*347 899 40 0*356 902 35 0 *** *** *** 17230 09/29*367 901 35 0*376 899 30 0E385 897 30 0* 0 0 0 0 17230 09/29*366 904 35 0*373 905 30 0E380 903 30 0E382 894 30 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** **** *** ** (The 30th is new to HURDAT.) 17232 09/30E380 884 30 0E373 875 30 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 17235 HR MS3 AL3 17235 HR MS2 AL2AFL2 LA1 *************** The only major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997) are to retain the 19th as a tropical depression rather than eliminating it from the best track and to extend the extratropical stage until 06Z on the 30th. Partagas and Diaz otherwise made large alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track and intensity changes are found to be reasonable. This hurricane was formerly storm number 5 in Neumann et al. (1999). Perez (2000) analyzed this hurricane causing Category 1 hurricane conditions in western Cuba, but did keep the center of the storm just offshore the coast. This is in agreement with the small changes that Partagas and Diaz introduced for the hurricane near Cuba. A central pressure of 953 mb (at 12Z on the 26th) suggests winds of 107 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 105 kt are utilized in the best track. A pressure value of 965 mb (at 12Z on the 27th) measured by a ship in the eye of the hurricane anchored off Scranton, MS suggests winds of 94 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship. Ho et al. (1987) utilized this 965 mb observation as the hurricane's landfall central pressure at the U.S. coastline and estimated a RMW of 43 nmi. However, Jarrell et al. (1992) (from Connor 1956) suggested a central pressure value at U.S. landfall of 958 mb. This value is likely closer to the actual central pressure given that the ship's 965 mb was a "pegged" value for at least 45 minutes, leading to the probability that the value was an underestimate of how deep the hurricane was. 958 mb central pressure in the Gulf of Mexico suggests maximum sustained winds of 102 kt. The RMW value of 43 nmi from Ho et al. is much larger than what climatology for a central pressure value of 958 mb and 30 deg N latitude calls for (22 nmi), suggesting the winds should be moderately lower than what the standard wind-pressure relationship calls for. 95 kt at landfall are chosen for the best track, making this a Category 2. This is a change from that shown in Table 6 of Neumann et al. (1999)/U.S. hurricane characterization in HURDAT. Winds are adjusted accordingly on the 26th and 27th. Storm tide measurements of 14' in Galt, Florida (Barnes 1998a) and 11' in Pensacola, Florida were observed (Cline 1926). ******************************************************************************** 17240 09/22/1906 M=11 6 SNBR= 398 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 17240 09/22/1906 M=11 7 SNBR= 421 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 * *** 17245 09/22* 0 0 0 0*244 339 35 0*250 344 35 0*256 352 35 0 17245 09/22*303 319 50 0*296 329 50 0*290 338 50 0*283 347 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17250 09/23*261 358 35 0*265 365 35 0*269 371 40 0*270 377 40 0 17250 09/23*277 356 55 0*273 364 55 0*269 371 60 0*266 378 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17255 09/24*271 381 40 0*272 386 40 0*272 392 40 0*276 405 45 0 17255 09/24*263 385 60 0*261 392 60 0*260 400 60 0*258 407 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17260 09/25*285 430 45 0*288 439 45 0*290 449 45 0*290 461 45 0 17260 09/25*257 415 60 0*257 422 60 0*257 430 60 0*257 437 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17265 09/26*285 468 50 0*276 469 50 0*270 464 50 0*270 457 50 0 17265 09/26*260 443 60 0*264 446 60 0*270 447 60 0*275 447 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17270 09/27*271 447 50 0*274 438 50 0*278 430 50 0*284 424 50 0 17270 09/27*279 444 60 0*282 440 60 0*286 433 60 0*292 423 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17275 09/28*290 420 50 0*297 415 50 0*304 406 50 0*312 386 55 0 17275 09/28*299 410 60 0*305 397 60 0*310 385 60 0*317 370 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17280 09/29*320 365 55 0*329 343 60 0*339 322 60 0*351 302 60 0 17280 09/29*324 354 60 0*331 337 60 0*339 322 60 0*347 308 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** *** 17285 09/30*365 284 60 0*381 265 55 0E398 245 50 0E409 229 45 0 17285 09/30*358 296 60 0*367 287 55 0*377 277 50 0*392 263 45 0 *** *** *** *** **** *** **** *** 17290 10/01E418 217 40 0E427 203 35 0E437 187 35 0E448 167 35 0 17290 10/01*408 244 40 0E421 225 35 0E433 205 35 0E448 180 35 0 **** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17295 10/02E461 144 30 0E474 119 30 0E488 92 30 0* 0 0 0 0 17295 10/02E465 150 30 0E485 112 30 0E500 80 30 0E515 47 30 0 **** *** *** *** *** *** **** *** ** 17300 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 6. A loop which was originally described by the track of the storm is now removed. A peripheral pressure of 1000 mb (at 12Z on the 22nd) suggests winds of at least 48 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 50 kt used in best track. A peripheral pressure of 994 mb (at 12Z on the 23rd) suggests winds of at least 58 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt used in best track. Winds are increased accordingly from the 22nd through the 29th (which had 60 kt in the original HURDAT). Lifecycle of this tropical storm is not complete as information on the genesis is not available. ******************************************************************************** 17305 10/08/1906 M= 3 7 SNBR= 399 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 17305 10/08/1906 M=16 8 SNBR= 422 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 ** * *** * * 17310 10/08* 0 0 0 0*110 790 35 0*111 797 35 0*113 804 50 0 17310 10/08* 0 0 0 0*113 764 35 0*113 773 35 0*113 783 50 0 *** *** *** *** *** 17315 10/09*114 809 65 0*115 815 85 0*117 820 85 0*120 827 85 0 17315 10/09*113 793 65 0*113 804 75 0*115 815 85 0*117 824 95 0 *** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** ** 17320 10/10*123 835 85 0*125 843 60 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 17320 10/10*121 831 105 0*126 839 80 0*130 846 70 0*132 851 65 0 *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17325 HR 17330 10/11/1906 M=12 8 SNBR= 400 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 (These two lines are removed from the new HURDAT.) 17335 10/11* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*144 611 50 0*145 625 50 0 17335 10/11*134 855 60 0*137 859 55 0*140 863 50 0*144 867 45 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** ** 17340 10/12*145 639 55 0*146 653 60 0*147 667 65 0*149 681 70 0 17340 10/12*147 869 40 0*151 871 40 0*155 873 50 0*158 874 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17345 10/13*150 696 70 0*152 711 70 0*154 725 70 0*156 739 70 0 17345 10/13*161 876 65 0*164 878 70 0*167 880 75 0*169 881 80 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17350 10/14*158 752 75 0*160 764 75 0*162 776 75 0*164 787 80 0 17350 10/14*171 882 70 0*174 883 65 0*177 883 60 0*179 883 55 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17355 10/15*167 798 80 0*170 808 80 0*174 818 85 0*181 828 85 0 17355 10/15*181 882 50 0*183 881 50 0*185 880 50 0*188 878 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17360 10/16*189 838 85 0*197 845 90 0*205 847 95 0*213 846 100 0 17360 10/16*191 876 50 0*193 873 60 0*195 870 70 0*198 863 80 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** 17365 10/17*221 842 105 0*229 836 110 0*237 826 115 0*244 818 115 0 17365 10/17*200 857 90 0*203 851 100 0*207 840 105 0*215 827 105 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17370 10/18*249 811 110 0*255 806 105 0*261 800 100 0*268 792 95 0 17370 10/18*226 821 105 0*239 816 105 0*253 807 105 953*266 795 95 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17375 10/19*276 786 90 0*283 782 85 0*291 779 80 0*300 780 80 0 17375 10/19*279 786 90 0*290 781 85 0*300 780 80 0*305 780 80 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** 17380 10/20*306 781 75 0*311 783 70 0*318 790 65 0*312 797 50 0 17380 10/20*309 780 75 0*314 781 75 0*317 783 70 0*321 793 70 0 *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17385 10/21*307 800 45 0*300 804 40 0*293 807 40 0*287 810 35 0 17385 10/21*317 804 60 0*307 812 50 0*295 815 40 0*290 815 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** 17390 10/22*282 812 30 0*276 815 30 0*271 817 25 0*266 819 25 0 17390 10/22*283 816 30 0*273 817 30 0*260 820 25 0*249 828 25 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** (The 23rd is new to HURDAT.) 17392 10/23*240 838 25 0*231 848 25 0*223 857 25 0*215 866 25 0 17395 HRCFL2 17395 HRBFL3CFL3 ******** No major changes were made to the track suggested by Partagas and Diaz (1997). They made large alterations from Neumann et al. (1999) by combining storm numbers 7 and 8 into a single hurricane with a revised track and intensity. These dramatic changes are found to be reasonable. The hurricane is increased to Category 3 intensity at landfall in Nicaragua (105 kt) based upon the reported 15' storm tide and the vast destruction in the country. Winds are thus increased on the 9th and 10th. Perez (2000) analyzed this hurricane as a Category 3 hurricane at landfall in Cuba. Winds for the hurricane at Cuba landfall are thus lowered from 115 kt down to 105 kt on the 17th and 18th. Perez also altered the track for this hurricane eastward even more than provided by Partagas and Diaz such that the hurricane went on the east side of the Isle of Pines. The track here reflects this re-analysis. Ho et al. (1987) had analyzed a central pressure of 967 mb and an RMW of 16 nmi for landfall in southern Florida. However, land-based readings of pressure were as low as 953 mb in Miami. This is taken to be the central pressure for this hurricane, which suggests winds of 100 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship. Descriptions from Barnes (1998a) suggest a small inner core of this system with an RMW on the order of 10-12 nmi. Such an RMW is somewhat smaller than that expected from this central pressure and latitude (~17 nmi - Vickery et al. 2000). Thus highest winds near the time of landfall in southern Florida are suggested to be 105 kt, making this system a major (Category 3) hurricane for the region. A Category 3 categorization is an upgrade from the Category 2 listing found in Table 6 or Neumann et al. (1999)/U.S. hurricane characterization in HURDAT. This upgrade does, however, agree with the assessment by Partagas and Diaz. A peripheral pressure of 987 mb (at 22Z on the 20th) suggest winds of at least 67 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - winds chosen to be 70 kt for best track. Winds are adjusted accordingly on the 20th and 21st. ******************************************************************************** 17400 10/13/1906 M= 5 9 SNBR= 401 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 17400 10/14/1906 M= 4 9 SNBR= 423 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 ** * *** * 17405 10/13* 0 0 0 0*331 609 35 0*333 616 35 0*335 623 35 0 (The 13th is omitted from HURDAT.) 17410 10/14*337 630 35 0*338 637 35 0*338 644 35 0*337 658 35 0 17410 10/14* 0 0 0 0*337 620 35 0*337 635 35 0*337 651 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** 17415 10/15*336 671 35 0*334 684 35 0*332 697 35 0*329 710 35 0 17415 10/15*336 669 40 0*334 682 40 0*332 697 45 0*327 714 45 0 *** ** *** ** ** *** *** ** 17420 10/16*326 723 35 0*322 737 35 0*318 750 35 0*313 764 35 0 17420 10/16*321 731 45 0*312 749 45 0*305 765 45 0*301 773 40 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17425 10/17*308 779 35 0*303 794 35 0*297 810 35 0* 0 0 0 0 17425 10/17*299 780 40 0*296 787 35 0*293 795 30 0*288 806 25 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17430 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made reasonable small alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Peripheral pressures of 1003 mb (at 12Z on the 15th and 16th) suggests winds of at least 43 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 45 kt chosen for best track. Winds increased accordingly on the 15th to the 17th. XING set equal to "0" since landfall occurred after decay to tropical depression status. ******************************************************************************** 17435 10/16/1906 M= 5 10 SNBR= 402 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 17435 10/15/1906 M= 6 10 SNBR= 424 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 ** * *** (The 15th is new to HURDAT.) 17438 10/15* 0 0 0 0*210 694 35 0*217 700 35 0*227 707 35 0 17440 10/16* 0 0 0 0*263 706 35 0*266 700 35 0*269 694 35 0 17440 10/16*239 713 35 0*252 716 35 0*262 713 35 0*271 710 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17445 10/17*271 689 35 0*273 685 35 0*275 680 35 0*278 675 35 0 17445 10/17*278 704 35 0*282 698 35 0*285 693 35 0*288 685 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17450 10/18*281 670 40 0*284 666 40 0*286 660 45 0*284 645 45 0 17450 10/18*290 677 40 0*292 669 40 0*293 660 45 0*293 650 45 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17455 10/19*279 635 40 0*275 621 35 0*274 605 30 0*275 597 30 0 17455 10/19*293 640 40 0*293 630 40 0*293 620 35 0*293 610 35 0 *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17460 10/20*276 590 30 0*277 583 25 0*278 576 25 0*280 569 25 0 17460 10/20*292 600 30 0*291 590 30 0*290 580 25 0*289 571 25 0 *** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** 17465 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track and intensity changes are found to be reasonable. ******************************************************************************** 17470 11/06/1906 M= 4 11 SNBR= 403 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 17470 11/05/1906 M= 6 11 SNBR= 425 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 * *** (The 5th is new to HURDAT.) 17472 11/05*185 825 30 0*190 825 30 0*195 825 35 0*199 824 40 0 17475 11/06* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*150 767 35 0*163 780 35 0 17475 11/06*203 821 45 0*207 818 50 0*210 815 55 0*213 810 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17480 11/07*175 788 35 0*188 793 35 0*200 796 35 0*212 795 35 0 17480 11/07*215 805 65 0*217 800 70 0*220 793 60 0*224 784 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17485 11/08*224 789 35 0*236 776 35 0*247 760 35 0*252 749 35 0 17485 11/08*227 776 45 0*230 766 40 0*233 757 35 0*236 748 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17490 11/09*255 740 35 0*257 731 35 0*260 720 30 0*266 706 30 0 17490 11/09*239 739 35 0*242 730 35 0*245 723 35 0*248 715 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** (The 10th is new to HURDAT.) 17492 11/10E251 705 30 0E255 695 30 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 17495 TS 17495 HR ** No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track and intensity changes are found to be reasonable. Perez (2000) analyzed this as a Category 1 landfall in Cuba, agreeing with Partagas and Diaz' assessment. Thus this tropical storm is upgraded to a hurricane in the vicinity of central Cuba. A peripheral pressure of 997 mb (at 02Z on the 7th) suggests winds of at least 53 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 65 kt utilized in best track. ******************************************************************************** 1906 - Additional Notes: Partagas and Diaz (1997) 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 16, 1906: Possible new hurricane, but location not known. 2) October 13, 1906: At least one gale force wind report, but unclear if system was closed circulation. 3) October 14-15, 1906: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity. ******************************************************************************** 17500 06/24/1907 M= 6 1 SNBR= 404 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 17500 06/24/1907 M= 7 1 SNBR= 426 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 * *** 17505 06/24* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*160 780 35 0*161 788 35 0 17510 06/25*164 797 35 0*167 806 35 0*170 815 35 0*177 824 35 0 17515 06/26*186 834 35 0*196 843 35 0*206 853 40 0*218 862 40 0 17520 06/27*229 871 45 0*240 880 45 0*252 889 45 0*262 892 45 0 17520 06/27*229 871 45 0*240 880 45 0*252 889 45 0*262 894 45 0 *** 17525 06/28*272 891 45 0*281 880 45 0*288 869 50 0*296 850 50 0 17525 06/28*270 896 45 0*276 894 45 0*283 890 50 0*293 878 50 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17530 06/29*304 825 45 0*310 810 40 0*322 791 35 0E349 770 30 0 17530 06/29*303 858 50 0*308 835 45 0*318 808 55 0E340 780 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** (The 30th is new to HURDAT.) 17532 06/30E365 760 45 0E392 733 40 0E420 705 35 0E450 675 30 0 17535 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made reasonable small alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These changes include shifting the landfall location in Florida westward of its original position. Winds are increased on the 29th based upon wind observations from Jacksonville. ******************************************************************************** 17540 09/17/1907 M= 7 2 SNBR= 405 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 17540 09/18/1907 M= 6 2 SNBR= 427 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 ** * *** 17545 09/17*225 756 35 0*227 767 35 0*228 778 40 0*229 789 40 0 (The 17th is deleted from HURDAT.) 17550 09/18*230 800 40 0*232 810 40 0*234 819 40 0*236 827 45 0 17550 09/18* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*250 790 30 0*255 803 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17555 09/19*239 835 45 0*242 842 50 0*246 850 50 0*251 859 50 0 17555 09/19*259 816 30 0*263 828 35 0*267 840 35 0*271 850 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17560 09/20*256 865 50 0*261 873 45 0*267 881 45 0*272 887 40 0 17560 09/20*275 858 40 0*279 864 40 0*283 870 40 0*287 876 40 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** 17565 09/21*278 891 40 0*284 895 40 0*290 897 40 0*297 898 35 0 17565 09/21*291 882 40 0*295 887 40 0*300 890 40 0*305 889 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17570 09/22*305 897 35 0*314 889 35 0*322 881 35 0E330 860 35 0 17570 09/22*310 888 35 0*315 884 35 0*321 876 35 0E329 863 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17575 09/23E336 848 35 0E341 835 35 0E356 802 35 0E377 773 30 0 17575 09/23E338 847 35 0E347 830 35 0E357 813 35 0E368 796 30 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17580 TS The only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1997) is to begin the storm on the 18th (as a tropical depression) rather than on the 19th (as a tropical storm) that Partagas and Diaz suggested. This is based upon the (limited) data on the 18th that suggests that the storm had developed as a tropical depression just east of Florida. Partagas and Diaz otherwise made large track and intensity alterations to that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track and intensity changes are found to be reasonable. Peak winds for this storm reached, at most, minimal tropical storm status from available observations. Thus winds are lowered on the 19th and 20th. ******************************************************************************** 17585 09/27/1907 M= 3 3 SNBR= 406 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 17585 09/27/1907 M= 4 3 SNBR= 428 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 * *** 17590 09/27* 0 0 0 0*223 941 35 0*233 933 35 0*243 925 35 0 17590 09/27* 0 0 0 0*223 941 35 0*233 933 35 0*245 925 35 0 *** 17595 09/28*251 919 35 0*262 907 35 0*274 893 40 0*287 879 45 0 17595 09/28*257 913 35 0*270 900 35 0*283 885 40 0*296 866 45 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17600 09/29*301 858 40 0*315 835 35 0*332 786 35 0E352 745 30 0 17600 09/29*309 843 40 0*318 819 35 0*327 790 35 0E340 755 30 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** (The 30th is new to HURDAT.) 17602 09/30E355 715 30 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 17605 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made reasonable small alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). ******************************************************************************** 17610 10/17/1907 M= 5 4 SNBR= 407 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 17610 10/17/1907 M= 4 4 SNBR= 429 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 * *** 17615 10/17*273 598 35 0*280 606 35 0*288 616 35 0*295 623 35 0 17615 10/17* 0 0 0 0*263 674 45 0*264 660 45 0*268 646 45 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17620 10/18*301 627 35 0*310 630 35 0*318 631 40 0*331 629 40 0 17620 10/18*275 632 45 0*283 618 45 0*290 605 45 0*304 594 45 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17625 10/19*354 622 45 0*378 602 45 0*402 571 45 0*428 535 40 0 17625 10/19*317 582 45 0*328 573 45 0*340 560 45 0E356 540 40 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** **** *** 17630 10/20E454 498 40 0E477 467 35 0E500 439 35 0E524 421 35 0 17630 10/20E376 491 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 *** *** **** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** 17635 10/21E545 414 35 0E565 409 35 0E587 400 35 0* 0 0 0 0 (The 21st is omitted from the new HURDAT.) 17640 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track and intensity changes are found to be reasonable. A peripheral pressure of 1003 mb (at 12Z on the 17th) suggests winds of at least 43 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - winds are chosen at 45 kt for the best track. Winds are increased accordingly on the 17th and 18th. The full lifecycle of this tropical storm is not known due to lack of information on its genesis. ******************************************************************************** 17641 11/06/1907 M= 7 5 SNBR= 430 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 17642 11/06*315 397 35 0*308 399 35 0*300 400 35 0*295 401 35 0 17643 11/07*289 402 35 0*282 403 35 0*275 405 35 0*272 409 35 0 17643 11/08*269 414 40 0*267 419 40 0*267 425 40 0*272 435 40 0 17643 11/09*281 440 40 0*291 442 40 0*300 445 40 0*308 447 40 0 17643 11/10*318 450 40 0*326 454 40 0*335 460 40 0*341 464 40 0 17643 11/11*347 469 40 0*354 476 40 0*365 480 40 0*377 480 40 0 17643 11/12*387 473 35 0*396 467 35 0*405 460 35 0E417 450 35 0 17643 TS No changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997) for this newly documented tropical storm. ******************************************************************************** 1907 - Additional Notes - 2004 REVISION: 1) The NHC Best Track Change Committee requested further investigation into the storm system first identified by Partagas and Diaz (1997) in late March to early April 1907: "1907 additional system #1 This system bears re-evaluation in light of Ana (2003). There is no doubt of 35 kt winds, but the structure is not known." Upon investigation of this system from the Monthly Weather Review, the COADS ship database and the Historical Weather Map series, this system did produce tropical storm and hurricane force winds as an extratropical storm system, but the winds weakened considerably by the time the baroclinic structure had dissipated. Numerous gale force to hurricane force winds were observed on the 25th and 26th of March, but the storm system had a well-defined surface baroclinic frontal feature associated with it. By late on the 27th, the temperature contrast had dissipated (though with temperatures in the upper 60s), but no high wind observations were present. From the 28th until the 31st, the system drifted south but contained no gale force winds near the center. On the 1st of April, it began moving back to the northeast without intensification and was likely absorbed by a vigorous extratropical storm system on the 2nd. Thus during its non-baroclinic phase (from the 27th of March until the 1st of April), it does not appear that tropical storm intensity was maintained. Thus this system is not added into HURDAT. Partagas and Diaz (1997) mentioned three additional systems considered for inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team agreed to leave them out of HURDAT for the following reasons: 2) September 11-15, 1907: One gale force report, insufficient to determine if system was of tropical storm intensity. 3) October 3-17, 1907: One gale force report, insufficient to determine if system was of tropical storm intensity. 4) October 30, 1907: Damage reports in Texas leave it uncertain if system was a tornado or tropical storm. ******************************************************************************** 17645 03/06/1908 M= 4 1 SNBR= 408 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 17645 03/06/1908 M= 4 1 SNBR= 431 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 *** 17650 03/06* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*238 602 50 0*227 607 55 0 17655 03/07*216 611 65 0*206 615 70 0*197 619 80 0*188 622 85 0 17660 03/08*180 625 85 0*173 628 70 0*166 631 65 0*160 634 65 0 17665 03/09*154 637 65 0*149 640 50 0*144 642 40 0*138 646 35 0 17670 HR Partagas and Diaz (1997) did not introduce any changes to the track or from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). The full lifecycle of this tropical storm is not known due to lack of information on its genesis. ******************************************************************************** 17671 05/24/1908 M= 8 2 SNBR= 432 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 17672 05/24* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*210 717 30 0*217 720 30 0 17672 05/25*224 723 30 0*233 728 30 0*240 735 30 0*247 743 30 0 17672 05/26*254 750 35 0*260 756 35 0*267 763 35 0*272 773 35 0 17672 05/27*277 781 40 0*285 791 45 0*295 795 50 0*301 795 55 0 17672 05/28*306 792 60 0*312 788 65 0*317 783 65 0*323 779 65 0 17672 05/29*328 774 65 0*334 770 65 0*340 765 65 0*348 759 65 989 17672 05/30*356 753 65 0*363 747 60 0*373 740 50 0*394 730 40 0 17672 05/31*418 717 35 0E438 703 35 0E455 690 35 0E464 683 35 0 17673 HR No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997) for this newly documented hurricane. A possible central pressure of 989 mb suggests winds of 64 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 65 kt chosen in best track. Despite this hurricane making landfall, no observations of hurricane force wind were recorded on the U.S. coast and it is likely the such winds stayed offshore. ******************************************************************************** 17675 07/25/1908 M=10 2 SNBR= 409 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 17675 07/24/1908 M=11 3 SNBR= 433 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 ** ** * *** (24th is new to HURDAT.) 17677 07/24* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*275 750 30 0*278 752 30 0 17680 07/25* 0 0 0 0*285 790 35 0*287 785 35 0*289 780 35 0 17680 07/25*281 755 30 0*284 759 30 0*287 763 35 0*289 766 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** 17685 07/26*289 776 35 0*290 773 35 0*290 770 35 0*287 765 35 0 17685 07/26*290 769 35 0*290 772 35 0*290 775 35 0*289 778 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** 17690 07/27*279 763 35 0*273 764 35 0*270 768 35 0*270 772 35 0 17690 07/27*287 780 35 0*283 783 35 0*277 785 35 0*273 783 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17695 07/28*272 775 40 0*275 778 55 0*278 780 60 0*281 781 60 0 17695 07/28*271 777 40 0*271 772 55 0*273 770 60 0*277 770 60 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17700 07/29*285 782 60 0*289 783 60 0*294 783 65 0*302 784 70 0 17700 07/29*280 775 60 0*282 779 60 0*285 782 60 0*294 783 60 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17705 07/30*312 785 75 0*322 785 80 0*330 783 85 0*335 781 85 0 17705 07/30*304 783 65 0*314 782 70 0*325 780 70 0*331 779 70 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17710 07/31*339 778 85 0*343 774 85 0*348 767 75 0*354 760 70 0 17710 07/31*337 776 70 0*342 774 70 0*347 770 70 0*352 758 60 0 *** *** ** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17715 08/01*362 749 70 0*371 737 75 0*380 725 80 0*391 710 85 0 17715 08/01*356 741 60 0*361 728 60 0*365 717 60 0*372 700 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17720 08/02*403 693 85 0*416 675 85 0*430 652 85 0E445 630 75 0 17720 08/02*378 685 60 0*387 669 60 0*400 655 60 0E417 630 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17725 08/03E464 603 60 0E481 585 55 0E496 569 50 0E528 552 50 0 17725 08/03E440 606 60 0E463 585 55 0E485 565 50 0E506 543 50 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17730 HR NC1 No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 2. These track and intensity changes are found to be reasonable. A peripheral pressure of 988 mb (at 21Z on the 30th) suggests winds of at least 66 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track at landfall in North Carolina. This agrees with the assessment of Table 6 in Neumann et al. (1999)/U.S. hurricane characterization in HURDAT. Winds are adjusted downward moderately accordingly from the 30th and the 31st. There is no indication that the system regained hurricane strength after passing back into the open Atlantic. Winds reduced accordingly on the 1st and 2nd to a 60 kt tropical storm intensity. ******************************************************************************** 17735 08/30/1908 M= 4 3 SNBR= 410 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 17735 08/30/1908 M= 4 4 SNBR= 434 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 * *** 17740 08/30* 0 0 0 0*325 722 35 0*327 728 35 0*329 732 35 0 17740 08/30* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*330 725 35 0*330 732 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** 17745 08/31*331 737 35 0*333 741 40 0*336 748 40 0*339 750 40 0 17745 08/31*330 741 35 0*330 750 40 0*330 760 40 0*332 765 40 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17750 09/01*342 752 45 0*345 753 45 0*349 753 45 0*353 749 45 0 17750 09/01*338 768 45 0*344 767 45 0*350 763 45 0*361 750 45 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17755 09/02*357 743 40 0*362 733 40 0*367 721 35 0*374 709 25 0 17755 09/02*372 736 40 0*382 723 40 0*390 707 35 0E398 682 25 0 *** *** *** *** *** **** *** 17760 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made reasonable small alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 3. ******************************************************************************** 1908/04 - 2004 ADDITION: 18900 07/29/1908 M= 6 4 SNBR= 434 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 18901 07/29*296 940 30 0*293 935 30 0*290 930 35 0*287 925 40 0 18902 07/30*284 920 45 0*281 917 50 0*280 915 50 0*281 914 50 0 18903 07/31*283 913 50 0*286 914 50 0*290 915 50 0*293 917 50 0 18904 08/01*297 921 40 0*301 927 35 0*305 930 35 0*309 931 35 0 18905 08/02*312 929 30 0*316 925 30 0*320 920 30 0*324 915 30 0 18906 08/03*328 911 25 0*331 908 25 0*335 905 25 0*340 902 25 0 18907 TS The NHC Best Track Change Committee requested further investigation into the storm system first identified by Partagas and Diaz (1997) in late July 1908: "1908 additional system #2 It is noted that Isaac Cline felt that warnings in the Gulf were justified for this system." Upon investigation of this system from the Monthly Weather Review, the COADS ship database, the Historical Weather Map series, and station data, this system was a tropical storm and is thus added into HURDAT. July 28: Surface trough forming over eastern Texas and Louisiana. Closed low not yet formed. July 29: System moves off of the U.S. Gulf coast and develops into a tropical cyclone. Closed circulation is found from combination of coastal stations and ship observations. Ship highlight: 25 kt SW and 1004 mb at 27.5N, 91.5W at 22 UTC (COA). July 30: HWM gives a low of at most 1010 mb at 27.5N, 90W. Center from additional ship observations in COADS suggests a location closer to 29.0N, 91.5W. Ship highlights: 25 kt SW and 1004 mb at 27.5N, 91.5W at 02 UTC (COA), 50 kt SW and 1006 mb at 27.5N, 90.5W at 10 UTC (COA), 45 kt SW and 990 mb at 26.0N, 89.0W at 18 UTC (COA). Coastal station highlights: lowest observed pressure: 1009 mb at 00 UTC at Galveston, 1009 mb at 12 UTC at New Orleans; peak winds 30 kt SE winds in New Orleans at 13 and 14 UTC. July 31st: HWM gives a low of at most 1012.5 mb at 28N, 92.5W. Center from additional ship observations in COADS suggests a location closer to the coast at 29N, 91.5W. No reports of gale force winds. August 1st: HWM gives a low of at most 1012.5 mb at 31.5N, 93.5W. Center from additional stations suggests a location closer to 30.5N, 93.0W. No reports of gale force winds. August 2nd: HWM gives a low of at most 1010 mb at 32.5N, 91.5W. Center from additional stations suggests a location closer to 32N, 92W. No reports of gale force winds. August 3rd: Station data suggests a closed low near 33.5N, 90.5W. No reports of gale force winds. August 4th: The system dissipated. Status of system as tropical storm was confirmed by several ship wind and pressure observations. Peripheral pressure of 1004 mb (at 22 UTC on the 29th and 02 UTC on the 30th) from a ship suggests winds of at least 37 kt. 50 kt chosen for the nearest synoptic times to these pressure readings up until landfall late on the 31st based primarily upon ship wind observations. No reports of gale force winds (or equivalent from sea level pressure readings) were observed over land. However, landfall likely west of New Orleans, Louisiana in an area of quite sparse meteorological stations. Thus it is analyzed that the system came ashore as a 50 kt tropical storm around 2130 UTC on the 31st near 29.5N, 91.9W. ******************************************************************************** 1908/05 - 2004 REVISION: Note: Storm was originally 1908/04, but became 1908/05 after the addition of a new storm in July (new 1908/04) - May 2004 1908/05 - 2003 REVISION: 17735 08/30/1908 M= 4 3 SNBR= 410 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 17735 08/30/1908 M= 4 4 SNBR= 434 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 * *** 17740 08/30* 0 0 0 0*325 722 35 0*327 728 35 0*329 732 35 0 17740 08/30* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*330 725 35 0*330 732 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** 17745 08/31*331 737 35 0*333 741 40 0*336 748 40 0*339 750 40 0 17745 08/31*330 741 35 0*330 750 40 0*330 760 40 0*332 765 40 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17750 09/01*342 752 45 0*345 753 45 0*349 753 45 0*353 749 45 0 17750 09/01*338 768 45 0*344 767 45 0*350 763 45 0*361 750 45 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17755 09/02*357 743 40 0*362 733 40 0*367 721 35 0*374 709 25 0 17755 09/02*372 736 40 0*382 723 40 0*390 707 35 0E398 682 25 0 *** *** *** *** *** **** *** 17760 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made reasonable small alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 3. 1908/05 - 2006 REVISION: 18930 08/30/1908 M= 4 5 SNBR= 435 NOT NAMED XING=0 18930 08/30/1908 M= 4 5 SNBR= 435 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 * ***** 18935 08/30* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*330 725 35 0*330 732 35 0* 18940 08/31*330 741 35 0*330 750 40 0*330 760 40 0*332 765 40 0* 18945 09/01*338 768 45 0*344 767 45 0*350 763 45 0*361 750 45 0* 18950 09/02*372 736 40 0*382 723 40 0*390 707 35 0E398 682 25 0* 18955 TS Based upon research provided by Mark Jelinek and James Belanger from Georgia Institute of Technology, this cyclone's track taking it over the Outer Banks of North Carolina should make it a U.S. landfall ("XING=1") as a tropical storm ("SSS=0"). ******************************************************************************** 1908/06 - 2004 REVISION: Note: Storm was originally 1908/05, but became 1908/06 after the addition of a new storm in July (new 1908/04) - May 2004 1908/06 - 2003 REVISION: 17765 09/07/1908 M=13 4 SNBR= 411 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 17765 09/07/1908 M=13 5 SNBR= 435 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 * *** 17770 09/07* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*154 517 40 0*159 528 40 0 17775 09/08*163 538 40 0*167 548 40 0*170 558 45 0*172 566 45 0 17780 09/09*174 573 45 0*176 580 50 0*180 595 55 0*183 605 55 0 17780 09/09*174 573 45 0*176 580 50 0*180 591 55 0*183 605 55 0 *** 17785 09/10*187 630 60 0*190 650 65 0*194 668 70 0*197 679 75 0 17785 09/10*187 630 60 0*190 650 60 0*194 668 60 0*197 680 60 0 ** ** *** ** 17790 09/11*200 689 80 0*203 700 85 0* 06 711 85 0*211 720 90 0 17790 09/11*198 692 60 0*201 707 65 0*205 720 75 0*210 729 85 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17795 09/12*216 728 95 0*221 735 95 0*226 742 100 0*231 749 100 0 17795 09/12*215 737 95 0*219 743 95 0*225 750 100 0*229 755 100 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17800 09/13*235 754 105 0*240 759 105 0*245 761 105 0*251 759 105 0 17800 09/13*232 758 105 0*238 761 105 0*245 761 105 0*251 759 105 0 *** *** *** *** 17805 09/14*257 755 105 0*264 748 105 0*270 742 105 0*281 729 100 0 17805 09/14*257 755 105 0*262 751 105 0*267 745 105 0*275 736 100 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** 17810 09/15*291 715 100 0*301 704 95 0*310 695 90 0*317 691 85 0 17810 09/15*284 726 100 0*291 718 95 0*300 710 90 0*308 702 85 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17815 09/16*323 687 85 0*329 684 80 0*338 679 80 0*351 670 75 0 17815 09/16*316 694 85 0*325 686 80 0*338 677 80 0*351 672 75 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17820 09/17*363 663 75 0*378 654 70 0*396 641 70 0*407 631 70 0 17820 09/17*363 668 75 0*378 660 70 0*393 650 70 0*404 639 70 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** 17825 09/18*420 620 70 0*429 610 70 0*438 597 70 0E456 564 60 0 17825 09/18*411 629 70 0*419 618 70 0*430 600 70 0*454 570 60 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17830 09/19E470 535 55 0E484 514 55 0E500 483 50 0E518 450 50 0 17830 09/19E486 530 55 0E515 496 55 0E540 465 50 0E562 438 50 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17835 HR No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made reasonable small alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 4. A peripheral pressure of 993 mb (at 12Z on the 15th) suggests winds of at least 59 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt retained in the best track. A peripheral pressure of 993 mb (at 12Z on the 18th) suggests winds of at least 59 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt retained in the best track. Slight adjustment in the track on the 9th provides a more realistic translational velocity. ******************************************************************************** 1908/07 - 2004 REVISION: Note: Storm was originally 1908/06, but became 1908/07 after the addition of a new storm in July (new 1908/04) - May 2004 1908/07 - 2003 REVISION: 18655 09/16/1908 M= 3 5 SNBR= 414 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 18655 09/16/1908 M= 3 6 SNBR= 436 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 * *** 18660 09/16* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*247 905 40 0*251 911 40 0 18665 09/17*256 917 45 0*260 921 45 0*265 926 50 0*270 931 55 0 18670 09/18*274 934 60 0*279 938 55 0*283 938 35 0*287 934 25 0 18675 TS Partagas and Diaz (1997) introduced no changes from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 5. ******************************************************************************** 1908/08 - 2004 REVISION: Note: Storm was originally 1908/07, but became 1908/08 after the addition of a new storm in July (new 1908/04) - May 2004 1908/08 - 2003 REVISION: 17865 09/21/1908 M=17 6 SNBR= 413 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 17865 09/21/1908 M=17 7 SNBR= 437 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 * *** 17870 09/21* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*120 500 35 0*122 507 35 0 17870 09/21* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*125 460 35 0*127 472 35 0 *** *** *** *** 17875 09/22*124 513 35 0*126 520 35 0*128 527 35 0*130 534 35 0 17875 09/22*129 483 35 0*132 495 35 0*135 507 35 0*138 518 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17880 09/23*132 541 35 0*135 548 35 0*138 556 40 0*142 563 40 0 17880 09/23*139 530 35 0*140 542 35 0*143 553 40 0*145 563 40 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17885 09/24*146 570 40 0*149 578 40 0*153 584 45 0*157 592 45 0 17885 09/24*148 572 40 0*150 579 40 0*153 587 45 0*155 594 50 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** 17890 09/25*160 600 45 0*164 609 50 0*168 618 50 0*171 627 50 0 17890 09/25*157 603 55 0*158 610 60 0*160 617 65 0*162 627 70 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17895 09/26*172 637 50 0*173 650 50 0*173 665 50 0*175 673 50 0 17895 09/26*164 641 70 0*165 651 70 0*165 663 70 0*165 674 70 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17900 09/27*176 680 50 0*178 687 50 0*181 695 45 0*184 705 40 0 17900 09/27*167 685 70 0*168 695 70 0*170 705 70 0*173 711 70 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17905 09/28*187 713 35 0*190 720 35 0*192 727 35 0*194 733 35 0 17905 09/28*176 716 70 0*181 722 70 0*185 727 65 0*187 731 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17910 09/29*196 738 35 0*199 744 35 0*202 750 35 0*206 753 35 0 17910 09/29*191 737 65 0*197 742 70 0*200 745 75 0*204 750 65 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17915 09/30*210 758 35 0*216 764 40 0*222 769 55 0*229 774 65 0 17915 09/30*210 754 70 0*214 759 75 0*220 763 80 0*225 767 85 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17920 10/01*235 778 70 0*248 784 70 0*258 785 70 0*268 781 75 0 17920 10/01*232 772 90 0*239 777 95 0*247 780 95 0*259 778 95 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17925 10/02*276 773 75 0*284 764 80 0*290 752 85 0*292 739 85 0 17925 10/02*268 765 95 0*275 746 95 0*280 730 95 0*284 721 95 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17930 10/03*294 726 85 0*296 712 85 0*302 698 85 0*304 713 80 0 17930 10/03*287 716 95 0*293 711 90 0*300 715 85 0*297 720 80 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** 17935 10/04*295 727 75 0*287 716 70 0*285 702 70 0*287 693 70 0 17935 10/04*292 721 75 0*288 716 70 0*285 710 70 0*290 700 70 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17940 10/05*290 685 70 0*294 679 70 0*298 673 70 0*303 665 70 0 17940 10/05*297 692 70 0*301 684 70 0*305 675 70 0*308 662 70 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17945 10/06*308 655 70 0*314 645 70 0*320 634 65 0*325 626 55 0 17945 10/06*311 650 70 0*313 638 70 0*315 627 65 0*318 613 55 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17950 10/07*331 618 45 0E337 609 40 0E343 600 40 0E354 593 40 0 17950 10/07*320 600 45 0E323 587 40 0E325 575 40 0E328 561 40 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17955 HR The was one major change from Partagas and Diaz (1997), originally storm number 5. Partagas and Diaz did not provide evidence that the hurricane status was retained until transitioning to an extratropical on the 7th, though this was depicted in their track map. Thus the switch to tropical storm status on the 6th found in Neumann et al. is kept in the best track. Partagas and Diaz otherwise made reasonable small alterations to the track reasonably from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Partagas and Diaz analysis of hurricane force through the Caribbean from the 25th to the 28th necessitated large increases to the existing HURDAT intensity estimates. A peripheral pressure of 990 mb (at 10Z on the 28th) suggests winds of at least 64 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for the best track. Perez (2000) had analyzed this as a Category 2 hurricane at landfall in Cuba based upon wind and surge caused damage, which does not seem completely reasonable because of the interaction of the system with Hispanola. Thus Category 1 hurricane at landfall in Cuba is retained. A peripheral pressure of 971 mb (at 15Z on the 1st) suggests winds of at least 85 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 95 kt chosen for the best track. Winds increased accordingly from the 25th until the 3rd. ******************************************************************************** 1908/09 - 2004 REVISION: Note: Storm was originally 1908/08, but became 1908/09 after the addition of a new storm in July (new 1908/04) - May 2004 1908/09 - 2003 REVISION: 17960 10/15/1908 M= 4 7 SNBR= 414 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 17960 10/14/1908 M= 6 8 SNBR= 438 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 ** * * *** (The 14th is new to HURDAT.) 17962 10/14* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*117 785 30 0*117 788 30 0 17965 10/15* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*116 778 45 0*117 785 45 0 17965 10/15*117 792 35 0*117 796 40 0*117 800 45 0*117 803 45 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** 17970 10/16*118 791 50 0*120 797 60 0*122 802 65 0*124 807 70 0 17970 10/16*118 807 50 0*119 811 60 0*120 815 65 0*121 818 70 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17975 10/17*126 811 70 0*127 815 70 0*129 820 70 0*130 825 70 0 17975 10/17*122 821 75 0*123 824 80 0*125 827 85 0*126 830 90 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 17980 10/18*132 831 70 0*134 837 70 0*136 843 60 0*138 849 35 0 17980 10/18*127 834 90 0*128 837 65 0*130 840 50 0*133 843 35 0 *** *** ** *** ** *** *** ** (The 19th is new to HURDAT.) 17982 10/19*138 848 30 0*145 855 25 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 17985 HR No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made reasonable small alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 7. Intensity is increased at landfall to a Category 2 hurricane (90 kt) to match descriptions of widespread destruction ("destroying the towns of Rio Grande and Prinzapolca") in Nicaragua. ******************************************************************************** 1908/10 - 2004 REVISION: Note: Storm was originally 1908/09, but became 1908/10 after the addition of a new storm in July (new 1908/04) - May 2004 1908/10 - 2003 REVISION: 17990 10/21/1908 M= 3 8 SNBR= 415 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 17990 10/19/1908 M= 5 9 SNBR= 439 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 ** * * *** * (The 19th and 20th are new to HURDAT.) 17992 10/19* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0E350 720 35 0E343 715 35 0 17994 10/20E337 710 35 0E331 705 35 0*325 697 35 0*317 686 35 0 17995 10/21* 0 0 0 0*274 667 35 0*277 682 35 0*280 694 35 0 17995 10/21*307 673 35 0*296 663 35 0*285 660 35 0*275 676 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** 18000 10/22*284 707 35 0*290 721 35 0*297 735 35 0*305 750 35 0 18000 10/22*274 699 35 0*282 721 35 0*290 740 35 0*303 754 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 18005 10/23*314 765 35 0*324 781 35 0*334 797 35 0*342 810 30 0 18005 10/23*314 766 35 0E324 782 35 0E334 797 35 0E342 810 30 0 *** * *** * * 18010 TS There is one major change from Partagas and Diaz (1997), originally storm number 8. The storm - obviously of extratropical origins from Partagas and Diaz' analysis - is given extratropical status on the 19th and early on the 20th, until transforming to more tropical in nature late on the 20th. Partagas and Diaz otherwise made large alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track and intensity changes are found to be reasonable. Since the storm was determined to have transitioned back to extratropical before landfall in South Carolina, XING was changed from "1" to "0". ******************************************************************************** 1908 - Additional Notes: Partagas and Diaz (1997) 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) June 2-5, 1908: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity. 2) July 29-30, 1908: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity. 3) August 5, 1908: One gale force report, insufficient to determine if system was of tropical storm intensity. 4) October 25-31, 1908: Gale force intensity, but likely extratropical. ******************************************************************************** 18011 06/15/1909 M= 5 1 SNBR= 440 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 18012 06/15*106 825 30 0*108 825 30 0*110 825 35 0*112 825 35 0 18013 06/16*115 825 40 0*117 825 40 0*120 825 40 0*122 825 40 0 18014 06/17*124 825 40 0*126 825 40 0*128 825 40 0*130 825 40 0 18014 06/18*132 826 40 0*134 827 40 0*135 828 40 0*137 830 40 0 18014 06/19*138 833 40 0*139 836 35 0*140 840 30 0*140 845 25 0 18014 TS This newly documented tropical storm comes from the "Case of Jun. 15-18, 1909" in Partagas and Diaz (1999). They had described a low pressure center in the southwestern Caribbean Sea with two ship reports (on the 15th and 18th) of gale force winds, but had decided not to add this system as a new storm. After reviewing the data in the June 1909 Historical Weather Maps, it was determined that there did exist a closed circulation with convection for five consecutive days and that the two ship reports of gale force winds were enough evidence that it did reach tropical storm status. Following the methodology in Partagas and Diaz (1999), positions for 12Z on the 15th through the 19th were estimated from the Historical Weather Maps and the remaining synoptic time positions were interpolated. Ship observations indicate that the system likely reached only weak tropical storm intensity. ******************************************************************************** 18015 06/25/1909 M= 6 1 SNBR= 416 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 18015 06/25/1909 M= 6 2 SNBR= 441 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 * *** * 18020 06/25* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*250 840 35 0*252 847 35 0 18020 06/25* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*250 840 35 0*255 847 35 0 *** 18025 06/26*254 853 35 0*256 859 35 0*257 865 40 0*258 871 40 0 18025 06/26*259 855 35 0*263 862 35 0*267 870 40 0*267 877 40 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 18030 06/27*259 876 45 0*259 881 45 0*260 887 50 0*260 895 50 0 18030 06/27*266 885 45 0*266 893 45 0*265 901 50 0*265 909 50 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 18035 06/28*260 904 50 0*260 913 50 0*261 921 50 0*262 930 50 0 18035 06/28*264 917 50 0*264 925 50 0*263 933 50 0*263 941 55 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** 18040 06/29*263 938 50 0*264 945 50 0*266 952 50 0*267 959 45 0 18040 06/29*262 949 65 0*262 957 75 0*261 965 85 0*261 973 70 972 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** 18045 06/30*268 965 40 0*269 971 40 0*270 977 30 0* 0 0 0 0 18045 06/30*260 980 50 0*260 986 35 0*260 990 30 0* 0 0 0 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** 18050 TS 18050 HRATX2 ****** Major changes near landfall in Texas are made from Partagas and Diaz (1999), storm number 1. Based upon analysis of Ellis (1988), this storm is increased in intensity up to a Category 2 hurricane over the western Gulf of Mexico and at landfall in Texas and the track is altered to make landfall near Brownsville. Ellis provides description of damaging impacts in Brownsville and Harlington, along with a storm tide of 7' and a possible central pressure of 972 mb. This pressure suggests winds of 86 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 85 kt chosen at landfall in Texas making it a Category 2 hurricane. Thus this is a new U.S. landfalling hurricane, previously unlisted in Table 6 of Neumann et al. (1999)/U.S. hurricane characterization in HURDAT. Partagas and Diaz otherwise made reasonable small alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Below is an analysis provided by David Roth from the _Houston Post_ and _San Antonio Daily Express_ newspapers from the storm's aftermath (July 1-10) (though a portion of the rainfall and flooding that occurred likely was not the direct effect of the hurricane itself): It rained a great deal from the cyclone...10" fell in 24 hours at Mercedes TX. Rains swelled the Rio Grande...so much so that is was expected to cause lowland flooding by July 3. By the 4th, flooding was occurring along the Rio Grande and San Juan valleys. It was considered the biggest rise in 5 years for the Rio Grande. This cyclone set the stage for quite a flood. By the 9th, the Rio Grande was still rising at Brownsville, and levees gave way west of the city. Flood conditions were reaching serious proportions in Hidalgo and Starr counties, as canals began flooding. By that time, Mercedes was surrounded on 3 sides by water, when Llano Grande Lake overflowed. The Arroyo Colorado and El Fuest rivers were raging torrents. Many were forced to abandon their homes throughout the region. The river was just beginning to fall on the 10th at Fordyce and Rio Grande City. A number of passengers on a train stranded at Donna were rescued by boat, and sailed two miles to the railroad tracks near Mercedes. A large section of the Mexican settlement near Brownsville (it does not specify) was flooded. A levee break at Ramireno caused lowlands between there and Brownsville to be flooded. In Mexico, by the 10th floods in the state of Vera Cruz caused the Orizaba river to rise out of its banks, surrounding the country with 5- 6 feet of water. Thousands in damage was reported. Railroad tracks were underwater between Laredo and Monterey on the 2nd. Trains leaving Laredo could get no farther than Lampasas. Railroad service was "completely demoralized" in northern Mexico due to washouts between the 1st and the 3rd. Bridges at Salinas, Morelos, and Villaldama were washed out. Monterey lost 25 railroad bridges and over 200 km of track were washed away in its vicinity. Railroad damage in this region of Mexico was estimated at $750,000. Rumors circulated that Sabinas Hidalgo was "gone" after the cyclone...I could not find anything to substantiate it though. Several km of track was reported missing north of Zacatecas on the 8th. An additional $500,000 of damage was incurred there. As for winds, Brownsville reported a "hurricane from the northwest" on the 30th, which tore down fences and trees, but did little damage to buildings. Sounds like a gale for sure...would need to get their observations from that time period to be certain. Winds reached "high velocity at times" in Mercedes. At Falfurrias, the winds at times was "alarming." Winds at Point Isabel reached 65 mph. Several dwellings and buildings were blown down in Harlingen, Point Isabel, Donna, San Benito, Norias, and Brazos Pass. Windmills were leveled at Chapin, along with the Santa Anita and Mesenas ranches. Damages listed: McAllen $1,000 Brownsville $2,000 Vera Cruz "thousands" San Benito $10,000 Harlingen $100,000 Mexico railroads $1,250,000 The Point Isabel storm surge was at least 5 feet when the telegraph went out...I never saw a later report to see what its final level was. The Washington Post reported tides over 10 feet above normal in northeast Mexico, between the Mouth of the Rio Grande and Tampico. ******************************************************************************** 18055 06/26/1909 M= 6 2 SNBR= 417 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 18055 06/26/1909 M= 9 3 SNBR= 442 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 * * *** 18060 06/26* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*235 746 35 0*237 751 35 0 18060 06/26* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*210 720 30 0*212 731 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** 18065 06/27*240 756 35 0*243 762 35 0*247 768 35 0*252 775 35 0 18065 06/27*214 741 30 0*217 751 30 0*220 760 35 0*227 769 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** 18070 06/28*258 783 35 0*263 791 40 0*268 798 45 0*273 805 40 0 18070 06/28*234 776 35 0*242 785 40 0*250 793 45 0*258 799 45 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** 18075 06/29*278 812 35 0*282 818 35 0*287 825 35 0*292 832 35 0 18075 06/29*265 805 40 0*273 811 35 0*280 817 35 0*284 822 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** 18080 06/30*296 839 35 0*301 847 35 0*306 855 35 0*311 864 30 0 18080 06/30*290 829 35 0*295 834 35 0*300 840 35 0*302 843 30 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 18085 07/01*315 876 30 0*319 890 30 0*322 904 25 0* 0 0 0 0 18085 07/01*304 845 30 0*306 846 30 0*310 847 30 0*313 846 25 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** (The 2nd through the 4th are new to HURDAT.) 18086 07/02*316 843 25 0*319 838 25 0*320 835 25 0*322 828 25 0 18087 07/03*324 817 25 0*324 807 30 0*323 797 30 0*320 783 30 0 18088 07/04*315 770 30 0*310 757 30 0*303 745 30 0*296 732 30 0 18090 TS There is one major change from Partagas and Diaz (1999), originally storm number 2. The storm is kept as a tropical depression on the 26th rather than dropping this date from HURDAT as suggested by Partagas and Diaz, since there is no strong evidence that a closed circulation did not exist at that point. Partagas and Diaz otherwise made large alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track and intensity changes are found to be reasonable. ******************************************************************************** 18095 07/13/1909 M=10 3 SNBR= 418 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 18095 07/13/1909 M=10 4 SNBR= 443 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 * *** 18100 07/13* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*123 605 35 0*123 620 35 0 18100 07/13* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*123 605 30 0*123 620 30 0 ** ** 18105 07/14*124 635 35 0*126 649 35 0*130 662 35 0*135 674 35 0 18105 07/14*124 635 30 0*126 649 30 0*130 662 30 0*135 674 30 0 ** ** ** ** 18110 07/15*140 686 35 0*145 698 35 0*149 710 40 0*152 724 40 0 18110 07/15*140 686 30 0*145 698 30 0*149 710 30 0*152 722 30 0 ** ** ** *** ** 18115 07/16*158 740 40 0*163 755 40 0*168 768 45 0*174 778 45 0 18115 07/16*155 733 30 0*158 744 30 0*160 755 30 0*162 767 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 18120 07/17*180 788 45 0*186 797 50 0*192 807 50 0*200 818 55 0 18120 07/17*164 778 35 0*167 789 40 0*172 800 45 0*180 810 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 18125 07/18*208 829 55 0*215 840 60 0*222 850 60 0*229 859 65 0 18125 07/18*190 820 55 0*200 830 60 0*210 840 60 0*220 850 65 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 18130 07/19*235 868 70 0*241 875 75 0*244 882 85 0*250 888 95 0 18130 07/19*230 859 70 0*240 867 70 0*250 875 70 0*256 883 70 0 *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 18135 07/20*255 894 105 0*260 900 110 0*264 906 115 0*269 913 120 0 18135 07/20*261 889 70 0*266 897 70 0*270 906 70 0*274 915 70 985 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 18140 07/21*273 919 120 0*278 927 115 0*282 935 105 0*287 945 95 982 18140 07/21*278 925 80 0*282 935 90 0*286 945 100 0*290 955 90 959 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** 18145 07/22*293 958 65 0*296 972 30 0*302 988 25 0* 0 0 0 0 18145 07/22*293 965 65 0*296 976 30 0*302 988 25 0* 0 0 0 0 *** *** 18150 HRCTX3 There are two major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1999), originally storm number 3. First, the storm is kept as a tropical depression on the 13th to the 16th rather than dropping these dates from HURDAT as suggested by Partagas and Diaz, since there is no evidence that a closed circulation did not exist then. Secondly, the storm's landfall location in Texas is adjusted to better fit the analysis by Ho et al. (1987). Partagas and Diaz otherwise made reasonable small alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). A central pressure of 985 mb (at 17Z on the 20th) suggests winds of 70 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship, which are utilized in the best track. Winds are adjusted accordingly on the 19th and 20th. Ho et al. also analyzed a central pressure estimate of 959 mb and a RMW of 19 nmi at landfall in Texas. (This was partially based upon a peripheral pressure value of 982 mb at 2030Z on the 21st, which was mistakenly recorded as a central pressure previously.) Jarrell et al. (1992) (based upon Connor 1956) provided a very similar estimate of 958 mb at landfall in Texas. The central pressure of 959 mb suggests winds of 101 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship. Since the RMW is very close to the climatological RMW for this intensity and central pressure (Vickery et al. 2000), a value of 100 kt is chosen for the best track at landfall. Winds are adjusted accordingly on the 21st. The 959 mb/100 kt at landfall in Texas making this a Category 3 hurricane agrees with that recorded in Table 6 of Neumann et al. (1999)/U.S. hurricane characterization in HURDAT. A storm tide of 10' in Galveston and Velasco, Texas was reported by Connor (1956) and Ellis (1988). ******************************************************************************** 18155 07/27/1909 M=16 4 SNBR= 419 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 18155 07/27/1909 M= 5 5 SNBR= 444 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 ** * *** 18160 07/27* 0 0 0 0*107 516 35 0*108 522 35 0*109 528 35 0 18165 07/28*110 536 35 0*111 544 35 0*113 553 35 0*116 564 35 0 18170 07/29*119 576 35 0*121 587 35 0*124 598 35 0*126 607 35 0 18175 07/30*129 616 35 0*131 624 35 0*134 632 35 0*136 639 40 0 18180 07/31*139 647 40 0*141 653 40 0*143 658 45 0*144 662 45 0 18185 08/01*146 666 45 0*147 669 45 0*148 673 45 0*149 677 45 0 18190 08/02*151 682 45 0*152 686 45 0*153 690 45 0*154 693 45 0 18195 08/03*154 696 45 0*154 698 45 0*155 701 45 0*156 705 45 0 18200 08/04*158 709 45 0*159 713 45 0*160 718 50 0*161 723 50 0 18205 08/05*161 729 50 0*162 735 50 0*163 742 50 0*164 749 50 0 (The 27th to the 5th removed from HURDAT.) 18210 08/06*164 757 50 0*165 766 50 0*166 775 50 0*168 785 50 0 18210 08/06*166 795 30 0*173 800 30 0*180 805 30 0*188 812 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 18215 08/07*171 795 50 0*175 802 50 0*179 809 50 0*183 828 50 0 18215 08/07*196 820 35 0*206 830 35 0*210 843 40 1004*209 854 40 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** **** *** *** ** 18220 08/08*187 835 45 0*191 842 45 0*195 851 45 0*200 862 45 0 18220 08/08*208 865 40 0*206 876 35 0*205 885 30 0*204 893 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 18225 08/09*205 875 35 0*211 888 35 0*216 903 35 0*219 915 35 0 18225 08/09*204 904 30 0*204 914 35 0*205 925 35 0*209 939 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** 18230 08/10*222 932 35 0*223 949 35 0*224 961 35 0*225 973 35 0 18230 08/10*215 954 35 0*223 970 35 0*230 985 30 0*237 998 25 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** 18235 08/11*226 984 30 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 (The 11th is removed from HURDAT.) 18240 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1999), who made large alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 4. Partagas and Diaz recommended removing July 27th through August 5th as no closed circulation existed during its supposed trek across the eastern and central Caribbean Sea. These dramatic track and intensity changes are found to be reasonable. A possible central pressure of 1004 mb (at 12Z on the 7th) suggests winds of 39 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 40 kt chosen for best track. ******************************************************************************** 18245 08/20/1909 M= 9 5 SNBR= 420 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 18245 08/20/1909 M= 9 6 SNBR= 445 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 * *** * 18250 08/20* 0 0 0 0*154 545 60 0*156 555 60 0*157 564 70 0 18250 08/20* 0 0 0 0*154 553 60 0*155 563 60 0*157 573 70 0 *** *** *** *** 18255 08/21*158 574 70 0*159 585 70 0*160 598 70 0*161 612 75 0 18255 08/21*159 582 70 0*161 594 70 0*163 605 70 0*165 619 75 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 18260 08/22*162 626 75 0*164 641 75 0*165 655 80 0*167 670 80 0 18260 08/22*167 630 75 0*170 642 75 0*173 657 80 0*176 675 80 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 18265 08/23*168 684 80 0*171 699 85 0*174 714 85 0*178 731 90 0 18265 08/23*179 691 80 0*183 707 70 0*188 723 65 0*199 740 75 0 *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 18270 08/24*184 751 90 0*192 772 90 0*199 791 95 0*204 808 95 0 18270 08/24*203 758 65 0*205 776 65 0*206 795 75 0*207 811 85 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 18275 08/25*208 825 100 0*212 841 100 0*214 854 100 0*217 865 105 0 18275 08/25*208 826 95 0*209 841 100 0*210 855 100 0*211 869 90 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 18280 08/26*220 875 105 0*223 885 105 0*228 896 105 0*232 908 105 0 18280 08/26*213 884 80 0*216 897 90 0*220 910 100 0*225 925 105 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 18285 08/27*237 920 100 0*241 932 95 0*244 944 90 0*248 956 85 0 18285 08/27*229 940 105 0*233 955 105 0*237 967 105 0*238 973 105 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 18290 08/28*252 967 70 0*256 979 65 0*260 990 35 0* 0 0 0 0 18290 08/28*237 979 85 0*237 983 55 0*237 987 35 0* 0 0 0 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** 18295 HRATX2 18295 HRATX1 **** There is one major change from Partagas and Diaz (1999), originally storm number 5. The analysis of Perez (2000) showed that the hurricane made landfall near Baracoa, Cuba, rather than near Santiago de Cuba as shown in Partagas and Diaz. Perez' Cuba landfall location is utilized here. Partagas and Diaz made large alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track and intensity changes are otherwise reasonable. Perez also analyzed this hurricane to have made landfall as a Category 2 system, based upon wind-caused damage. However, this does not appear to be completely reasonable given the hurricanes' interaction with Hispanola and Category 1 at landfall in Cuba is utilized. The hurricane is maintained in the Gulf of Mexico as a Category 3 hurricane up until landfall in northeast Mexico, based upon damages incurred there. The storm had been listed as causing Category 2 hurricane conditions in southern Texas (Table 6 in Neumann et al. 1999/U.S. hurricane landfall characterization in HURDAT), but this is reduced down to Category 1 hurricane impact due to observations of only minimal hurricane conditions in Texas and due the to distance from the hurricane center to the Texas coast. The full lifecycle of this tropical storm is not known due to lack of information on its genesis. ******************************************************************************** 18300 08/27/1909 M= 6 6 SNBR= 421 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 18300 08/28/1909 M= 4 7 SNBR= 446 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 ** * * *** 18305 08/27*208 689 35 0*214 697 35 0*221 706 35 0*228 717 35 0 (The 27th is omitted from HURDAT.) 18310 08/28*234 730 35 0*239 741 35 0*244 750 40 0*248 757 40 0 18310 08/28*237 730 35 0*246 744 35 0*255 760 40 0*260 773 40 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 18315 08/29*251 764 45 0*255 770 45 0*259 777 45 0*263 784 45 0 18315 08/29*263 785 45 0*264 796 45 0*265 805 40 0*266 809 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** 18320 08/30*268 790 45 0*272 797 45 0*277 803 35 0*282 807 35 0 18320 08/30*268 812 30 0*271 815 30 0*277 817 30 0*285 813 30 0 *** ** *** *** ** *** ** *** *** ** 18325 08/31*287 809 35 0*292 810 35 0*297 810 35 0*302 809 30 0 18325 08/31*295 805 35 0*304 797 35 0*310 790 35 0*315 784 30 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 18330 09/01*307 804 30 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 (The 1st is omitted from the revised HURDAT.) 18335 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1999), who made reasonable small alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 6. ******************************************************************************** 18340 09/10/1909 M=12 7 SNBR= 422 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=4 18340 09/13/1909 M=10 8 SNBR= 447 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 ** ** * *** * 18345 09/10* 0 0 0 0*134 563 35 0*136 579 35 0*137 595 35 0 18350 09/11*138 611 35 0*139 625 35 0*139 636 35 0*139 646 35 0 18355 09/12*139 655 35 0*139 665 35 0*139 674 35 0*139 683 35 0 (The 10th to the 12th were omitted from the revised HURDAT.) 18360 09/13*139 693 35 0*140 702 35 0*141 708 35 0*141 717 35 0 18360 09/13* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*175 710 30 0*178 725 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 18365 09/14*142 723 35 0*143 729 35 0*144 738 35 0*145 742 35 0 18365 09/14*181 739 30 0*183 752 30 0*185 765 30 0*187 775 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 18370 09/15*146 749 40 0*148 756 40 0*151 764 45 0*157 775 50 0 18370 09/15*189 784 35 0*191 793 40 0*193 800 45 0*195 806 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** 18375 09/16*167 791 55 0*178 806 60 0*187 812 65 0*194 821 70 0 18375 09/16*197 810 55 0*200 815 60 0*203 820 65 0*206 824 70 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 18380 09/17*202 827 70 0*209 831 70 0*214 836 70 0*218 841 75 0 18380 09/17*209 829 70 0*213 833 75 0*217 837 80 0*220 842 85 976 *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** 18385 09/18*223 845 75 0*227 849 80 0*231 854 80 0*235 859 85 0 18385 09/18*223 845 75 0*226 849 80 0*229 854 80 0*232 859 85 0 *** *** *** 18390 09/19*240 864 95 0*244 868 110 0*255 873 115 0*262 878 120 0 18390 09/19*235 867 95 0*239 874 105 0*243 880 105 0*248 885 105 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 18395 09/20*272 884 120 0*280 890 110 0*284 896 95 0*296 905 85 0 18395 09/20*254 890 105 0*261 895 105 0*269 901 105 0*277 907 105 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 18400 09/21*310 910 65 990*325 917 50 0*342 918 35 0*359 912 30 0 18400 09/21*295 913 105 952*314 917 75 0*332 915 55 0*350 913 40 0 *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** (The 22nd is new to HURDAT.) 18402 09/22*368 911 30 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 18405 HR LA4 18405 HR LA3 MS2 *** *** One major change from Partagas and Diaz (1999), who otherwise made large, but reasonable alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 7. The 13th is retained in HURDAT based upon a re-examination of the Historical Weather Map series, which indicated a probable closed circulation existed on that date south of Hispanola. The track and intensity changes are found to be reasonable. A possible central pressure of 976 mb (21Z on the 17th) suggests winds of 83 kt - 85 kt chosen for best track. This agrees with the classification of the hurricane as a Category 2 at landfall in Cuba (Perez 2000). Winds are adjusted accordingly on the 17th and 18th. Jarrell et al. (1992) (from Connor 1956) classified this hurricane at landfall in the United States as 931 mb central pressure apparently based primarily upon the storm tide of 15' observed in Terrebonne Bay, Louisiana (Cline 1926). Ho et al. (1987) on the other hand analyzed a 965 mb central pressure from a 990 mb peripheral pressure measurement and an estimated RMW of 28 nmi. (Note that this 990 mb was mistakenly listed in HURDAT previously as a central pressure.) Jarvinen (2001, personal communication), however, showed with SLOSH runs that such an estimate of central pressure and RMW could not correctly simulate the observed large storm surge values. David Roth was able to provide descriptions (see below) of the storm's impact in Louisiana, which corroborated altering the positions of the hurricane consistent with Cline's analysis of making landfall farther west than Ho's analysis and substantially faster forward motion. Jarvinen utilized the new position estimates and iterated possible central pressure and RMW values with SLOSH to arrive at a best fit of 952 mb and 28 nmi. This value of central pressure falls between the estimates of Jarrell et al. and Ho. A 952 mb central pressure suggests winds of 108 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship. Given a RMW which is moderately larger than that expected climatologically for this central pressure and latitude (e.g. Vickery et al. 2000) tempered by being a quick moving (18 kt) hurricane at landfall, the maximum sustained winds at U.S. landfall are a slightly reduced estimate of 105 kt - making this a Category 3 hurricane at landfall. A Category 3 designation at landfall in the U.S. is lower than the Category 4 shown in Table 6 of Neumann et al. (1999)/U.S. hurricane characterization in HURDAT. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Louisiana and Arkansas. Winds are adjusted accordingly on the 20th through the 22nd. From the _New Orleans Time-Democrat_ as obtained by David Roth: The only hurricane to destroy capital domes at both Baton Rouge, LA and Jackson, MS. Mobile AL....High southeast gale. Pass Christian MS....The worst storm that ever struck this place reached its height last night at 12 o'clock and ruin and wreckage are strewn from one end of town to the other. The great storm in 1893 did not do so much damage and cannot surpass this in amount of loss at the Pass and other points. Bayou Portage MS (just north of Pass Christian)...the water rose at least fifteen feet and spread over an area of several miles. Donaldsonville LA...In the morning the wind blew with some velocity and a heavy rain followed, but it was between 4 and 9 pm that the greatest damage was done. New Orleans LA...The wind increased in violence until 6:15 last night (the 20th) when it reached a velocity of 66 mph. An hour later the barometer began rising, and at an early hour this morning, the disturbance had almost subsided. Brusly Landing LA...One of the worst storms that has visited this section in years swept over West Baton Rouge parish yesterday, doing heavy damage. The wind started at 6 am and steadily increased until 9 pm, when it attained the force of a hurricane. At 10 pm last night, after the winds abated... Thibodaux LA...Worst between 4 and 6 pm the 20th. Norwood LA...Worst between 8 and 10:30 pm, when wind veered to southwest and lessened in force. Wilson LA...Severe wind and rain storms between 8 and 11:30 pm. Washington LA...Stiff NW wind blew all day....worst at night. Zachary LA....Terrific gale from noon until midnight the 20th. St. Francisville LA...Most severe wind and rain storm this immediate section has known in many years came last night (20th) between 6 and 11 pm after a stormy day. Lutcher LA..."Terrific gale" reached maximum intensity beginning at 7:30 pm, continuing for some time. Lulling LA...A gale of considerable violence from the SE began to blow early on the morning of the 20th, increasing in violence until 10 pm. Port Hudson LA...The rain and wind which raged all yesterday (the 20th) culminated in a hurricane, lasting from 7 to 10 pm. Covington LA...At 11 pm last night the wind attained a velocity of 50 mph. Plaquemines LA...Storm at its height at 8 pm. Abbeville LA...A tropical hurricane raged from 9 am the morning of the 20th until a late hour that night. The barometer was 28.75 and fell steadily. It has been thirty years since this section experienced such an equinoctial storm. ******************************************************************************** 18410 09/22/1909 M= 9 8 SNBR= 423 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 18410 09/24/1909 M= 6 9 SNBR= 448 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 ** * * *** * 18415 09/22* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*121 795 35 0*125 797 35 0 18420 09/23*130 800 35 0*136 803 35 0*144 806 35 0*153 810 35 0 (The 22nd to the 23th are omitted in the revised HURDAT.) 18425 09/24*162 816 35 0*171 821 35 0*181 823 35 0*191 828 35 0 18425 09/24*220 830 30 0*225 830 30 0*230 830 30 0*235 830 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 18430 09/25*200 829 35 0*210 830 35 0*220 830 40 0*230 830 45 0 18430 09/25*241 830 30 0*247 830 30 0*253 828 30 0*258 822 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 18435 09/26*241 830 45 0*252 828 40 0*262 823 40 0*272 815 35 0 18435 09/26*263 813 30 0*269 804 30 0*275 795 35 0*280 789 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** 18440 09/27*281 807 35 0*289 798 35 0*295 790 35 0*300 783 35 0 18440 09/27*284 784 40 0*290 778 45 0*295 770 50 0*301 750 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** *** *** ** 18445 09/28*304 777 35 0*308 770 40 0*312 758 40 0*318 743 45 0 18445 09/28*306 728 50 0*311 706 45 0*315 687 40 0*318 669 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ** 18450 09/29*322 729 45 0*327 714 35 0*331 700 35 0*334 685 35 0 18450 09/29*322 655 30 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 18455 09/30*336 671 35 0*338 657 30 0*340 642 25 0*341 621 25 0 (The 30th is omitted in the revised HURDAT.) 18460 TS There is one major change from Partagas and Diaz (1999), originally storm number 8. Perez (2000 and personal communication), in his analysis of Cuban tropical cyclones, agrees with not calling this system a tropical storm over Cuba, but indicated that a closed low did exist near Havana on the 24th. Thus a track beginning early on the 24th along Neumann et al.'s track just south of Cuba, but about a day earlier is included. However, Partagas and Diaz were correct about the lack of a closed circulation on the 22nd and 23rd and thus these dates are removed from HURDAT. Partagas and Diaz otherwise made large alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track and intensity changes are found to be reasonable. A peripheral pressure of 1000 mb (at 12Z on the 27th) suggests winds of at least 48 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 50 kt chosen for best track. A peripheral pressure of 1004 mb (at 12Z on the 28th) suggests winds of at least 40 kt from the subtropical wind- pressure relationship - 40 kt chosen for best track. ******************************************************************************** 18465 10/06/1909 M= 8 9 SNBR= 424 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 18465 10/06/1909 M= 8 10 SNBR= 449 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 ** *** 18470 10/06* 0 0 0 0*112 778 50 0*121 780 60 0*123 781 65 0 18470 10/06* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*107 760 30 0*112 763 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 18475 10/07*127 782 70 0*132 783 70 0*139 783 70 0*146 784 75 0 18475 10/07*120 768 35 0*128 772 40 0*137 777 45 0*145 782 50 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 18480 10/08*157 786 75 0*165 790 80 0*172 798 80 0*175 805 85 0 18480 10/08*154 786 55 0*164 792 60 0*172 798 65 0*177 805 70 0 *** ** *** *** ** ** *** ** 18485 10/09*180 811 90 0*184 817 95 0*190 825 95 0*194 830 100 0 18485 10/09*182 811 80 0*186 817 90 0*190 825 95 0*193 832 100 0 *** ** *** ** *** *** 18490 10/10*200 832 105 0*205 834 105 0*210 836 105 0*220 834 105 0 18490 10/10*196 838 105 0*200 842 105 0*205 844 105 0*211 845 105 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 18495 10/11*230 830 105 0*235 825 100 0*240 818 90 957*251 804 85 0 18495 10/11*218 845 105 0*226 841 105 0*237 830 105 0*247 810 100 957 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 18500 10/12*260 791 80 0*270 776 75 0*278 765 70 0*289 744 70 0 18500 10/12*260 789 90 0*275 768 80 0*290 748 70 0*303 726 60 0 *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** ** 18505 10/13*299 725 65 0*309 706 55 0*315 690 45 0*340 648 30 0 18505 10/13*316 700 50 0*329 675 40 0*340 650 35 0*349 629 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** 18510 HRCFL3 18510 HRBFL3CFL3 **** No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1999), who made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 9. Partagas and Diaz also suggested reasonable large changes to the intensity on the 6th to the 8th and smaller changes elsewhere. Peripheral pressure of 965 mb (at 15Z on the 10th) suggests winds of at least 95 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship. Winds are retained at 105 kt for the 10th and 11th. This agrees with the assessment of a Category 3 impact in Cuba by Perez (2000). A central pressure reading at Knight's Key (from Ho et al. (1987) and Barnes (1998a) of 957 mb (on the 11th) suggests winds of 103 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship. Ho et al. also analyzed a RMW of 22 nmi for this hurricane at landfall in the Florida Keys. Since this RMW is slightly larger than that expected climatologically for the center pressure and latitude observed, winds at landfall in the Keys are estimated at 100 kt. This makes this system a Category 3 hurricane at landfall in south Florida, which agrees with what is listed in Table 6 of Neumann et al. (1999)/U.S. hurricane characterization in HURDAT. ******************************************************************************** 18515 11/08/1909 M= 7 10 SNBR= 425 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 18515 11/08/1909 M= 7 11 SNBR= 450 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 ** *** 18520 11/08* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*111 810 35 0*115 808 35 0 18520 11/08* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*105 810 35 0*107 808 35 0 *** *** 18525 11/09*119 806 35 0*122 804 35 0*126 802 35 0*129 800 35 0 18525 11/09*109 806 35 0*111 804 35 0*113 802 35 0*116 800 35 0 *** *** *** *** 18530 11/10*133 797 35 0*136 794 40 0*139 791 40 0*141 788 45 0 18530 11/10*121 797 35 0*127 794 40 0*133 791 40 0*139 788 45 0 *** *** *** *** 18535 11/11*143 785 45 0*146 780 50 0*149 774 50 0*155 765 50 0 18535 11/11*145 785 45 0*151 780 50 0*157 774 50 0*165 767 55 0 *** *** *** *** *** ** 18540 11/12*161 752 50 0*167 737 50 0*173 722 50 0*179 707 50 0 18540 11/12*174 760 60 0*182 753 65 0*190 745 70 0*196 735 75 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 18545 11/13*185 691 50 0*191 675 45 0*196 660 45 0*201 645 40 0 18545 11/13*201 721 80 0*206 704 85 0*210 685 90 0*213 663 90 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 18550 11/14*204 630 40 0*207 615 40 0*209 600 35 0*215 565 30 0 18550 11/14*214 640 90 0*215 615 85 0*215 590 80 0*215 565 75 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** ** 18555 TS 18555 HR ** There are two major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1999), originally storm number 10. First, Partagas and Diaz recommended keeping this as a tropical storm. However, two ship reports and hurricane impacts in Hispanola, Grand Turk and Cuba described in Partagas and Diaz all suggest that this system reached hurricane strength, likely up to Category 2 intensity at its peak late on the 13th and early on the 14th. Perez (2000) analyzed this system as causing Category 1 hurricane conditions in eastern Cuba (on the weak side of the system). Thus it is estimated that this system was a hurricane from the 12th to the 14th with a peak intensity of 90 kt. Secondly, Perez described a major change to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999) with a track that took the hurricane closer to Jamaica and between Cuba and Hispanola, with the center grazing the coast of Haiti. A compromise track between Perez and Partagas/Diaz was utilized here with Partagas/Diaz track mainly chosen from the 8th to the 10th, Perez' track primarily used from the 11th to the 13th and Partagas/Diaz track chosen for the 14th. Complete lifecycle of this hurricane is not available as its decay was not documented. The hurricane is known as "San Savero" for its impacts in Hispanola. ******************************************************************************** 1909 - Additional Notes: Partagas and Diaz (1999) mentioned three additional systems considered for inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team decided that there was enough information to include the first system as a new tropical storm into HURDAT. (See storm 1, 1909.) The re-analysis team agreed to leave the first and third out of HURDAT for the following reasons: 1) June 2-4, 1909: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity. 2) October 16-24, 1909: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity. ******************************************************************************** 18560 08/20/1910 M=12 1 SNBR= 426 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 18560 08/23/1910 M= 7 1 SNBR= 451 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 ** ** *** 18565 08/20* 0 0 0 0*124 592 35 0*125 604 35 0*127 616 35 0 18570 08/21*130 629 35 0*133 640 35 0*136 649 35 0*138 657 35 0 18575 08/22*140 665 35 0*142 671 35 0*146 681 35 0*149 691 35 0 (The 20th to the 22nd are omitted from the revised HURDAT.) 18580 08/23*154 702 35 0*159 714 35 0*163 725 35 0*166 735 35 0 18580 08/23* 0 0 0 0*150 620 35 0*155 637 35 0*159 654 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** 18585 08/24*169 745 35 0*171 754 35 0*174 763 35 0*176 771 35 0 18585 08/24*165 673 35 0*172 695 35 0*180 715 35 0*187 728 30 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** 18590 08/25*178 778 35 0*180 785 35 0*183 792 35 0*187 801 40 0 18590 08/25*194 740 30 0*203 754 30 0*213 767 30 0*225 775 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 18595 08/26*191 808 40 0*195 816 40 0*199 825 40 0*202 832 45 0 18595 08/26*239 781 30 0*256 787 30 0*275 790 30 0*284 790 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 18600 08/27*205 839 45 0*208 846 45 0*211 852 50 0*215 858 50 0 18600 08/27E296 790 35 0E307 790 35 0E317 787 35 0E323 784 35 0 **** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** 18605 08/28*219 863 50 0*222 869 50 0*225 876 50 0*227 883 50 0 18605 08/28E329 780 40 0E335 776 40 0E340 770 40 0E349 761 40 0 **** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** 18610 08/29*229 891 50 0*231 899 50 0*233 907 50 0*235 915 50 0 18610 08/29E356 754 35 0E363 747 35 0E370 740 30 0E376 734 30 0 **** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** 18615 08/30*237 924 50 0*239 932 50 0*241 939 45 0*243 948 45 0 18620 08/31*246 961 40 0*248 970 40 0*251 979 35 0*254 988 30 0 (The 30th and 31st are omitted from this storm and included as part of storm number 450.) 18625 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1999), who made large alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Note that the original storm number 1 of 1910 in Neumann et al. was instead found by Partagas and Diaz to be two separate tropical storms. These dramatic changes are found to be reasonable. This system is the first of the two separate storms. ******************************************************************************** 18560 08/20/1910 M=12 1 SNBR= 426 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 18526 08/26/1910 M= 6 2 SNBR= 452 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 ** ** * *** 18565 08/20* 0 0 0 0*124 592 35 0*125 604 35 0*127 616 35 0 18570 08/21*130 629 35 0*133 640 35 0*136 649 35 0*138 657 35 0 18575 08/22*140 665 35 0*142 671 35 0*146 681 35 0*149 691 35 0 18580 08/23*154 702 35 0*159 714 35 0*163 725 35 0*166 735 35 0 18585 08/24*169 745 35 0*171 754 35 0*174 763 35 0*176 771 35 0 18590 08/25*178 778 35 0*180 785 35 0*183 792 35 0*187 801 40 0 (The 20th to the 25th are omitted from this storm and parts of this track are included in storm number 445.) 18626 08/26*191 808 40 0*195 816 40 0*199 825 40 0*202 832 45 0 18626 08/26* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*267 917 30 0*267 920 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 18626 08/27*205 839 45 0*208 846 45 0*211 852 50 0*215 858 50 0 18626 08/27*267 923 30 0*267 927 30 0*267 930 30 0*267 934 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 18626 08/28*219 863 50 0*222 869 50 0*225 876 50 0*227 883 50 0 18626 08/28*266 938 30 0*266 942 30 0*265 945 30 0*265 948 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 18626 08/29*229 891 50 0*231 899 50 0*233 907 50 0*235 915 50 0 18626 08/29*264 950 30 0*264 952 30 0*263 955 30 0*262 958 30 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 18626 08/30*237 924 50 0*239 932 50 0*241 939 45 0*243 948 45 0 18626 08/30*262 960 35 0*261 962 35 0*260 965 40 0*259 969 40 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 18626 08/31*246 961 40 0*248 970 40 0*251 979 35 0*254 988 30 0 18626 08/31*257 972 40 0*255 976 35 0*253 980 30 0*251 985 25 0 *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 18626 TS No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1999), who made large alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Note that the original storm number 1 of 1910 in Neumann et al. was instead found by Partagas and Diaz to be two separate tropical storms. These dramatic track and intensity changes are found to be reasonable. This system is the second of the two separate storms. ******************************************************************************** 18630 09/05/1910 M=11 2 SNBR= 427 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 18630 09/05/1910 M=11 3 SNBR= 453 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 * *** 18635 09/05* 0 0 0 0*170 570 60 0*171 595 65 0*171 606 70 0 18635 09/05* 0 0 0 0*170 583 60 0*171 595 65 0*171 606 70 0 *** 18640 09/06*171 617 75 0*172 627 80 0*174 638 80 0*175 649 85 0 18645 09/07*175 660 85 0*176 671 85 0*176 682 80 0*177 694 75 0 18645 09/07*175 660 85 0*176 671 85 0*176 682 80 0*176 697 75 0 *** 18650 09/08*177 706 70 0*178 719 70 0*179 731 70 0*181 742 70 0 18650 09/08*177 712 70 0*178 729 70 0*180 747 70 0*183 764 70 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** 18655 09/09*183 754 70 0*185 765 70 0*188 776 70 0*190 788 70 0 18655 09/09*186 778 70 0*190 792 70 0*195 807 70 0*200 818 70 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 18660 09/10*194 801 70 0*198 814 75 0*201 825 80 0*207 835 80 0 18660 09/10*205 829 70 0*209 838 75 0*213 847 80 0*217 851 80 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 18665 09/11*213 845 85 0*220 855 85 0*225 863 85 0*232 872 85 0 18665 09/11*221 856 85 0*225 862 85 0*229 870 85 0*232 876 85 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 18670 09/12*237 878 90 0*240 883 90 0*244 890 95 0*249 898 100 0 18670 09/12*236 883 90 0*240 889 90 0*244 895 95 0*249 903 95 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** 18675 09/13*253 904 105 0*257 913 105 0*260 922 105 0*262 931 105 0 18675 09/13*253 912 95 0*257 918 95 0*260 925 95 0*262 934 95 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 18680 09/14*263 941 100 0*265 952 85 0*266 961 65 0*268 973 65 0 18680 09/14*263 943 95 0*265 953 95 0*266 963 95 0*268 969 95 0 *** *** *** ** *** ** *** ** 18685 09/15*269 982 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 18685 09/15*269 976 65 0*270 983 45 0*270 990 35 0*270 996 30 0 *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 18690 HRATX2 There are two major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1999), originally storm number 2. First, hurricane intensity was maintained from the 9th through the 12th, since Perez (2000) analyzed this system as causing hurricane conditions in western Cuba. Perez also recommended keeping the hurricane just offshore of western Cuba (as seen in Neumann et al.) rather than making landfall in Cuba. Secondly, the landfall position of Partagas and Diaz being in northeastern Mexico rather than southern Texas is discarded in favor of the position analyzed by Connor (1956) which was shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Partagas altered the landfall position incorrectly based upon sparse, once-daily observations from the Historical Weather Map series. Partagas and Diaz otherwise made reasonable small alterations to the track and intensity to that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Jarrell et al. (1992) (from Connor 1956) listed this hurricane as a having a central pressure at landfall of 965 mb, based primarily upon a description of the storm tide entirely inundating Padre Island, Texas. (It is to be noted that Ho et al. (1987) did not system as being a U.S. impacting hurricane in their analysis and that the _Monthly Weather Review_ at the time considered the system a strong tropical storm.) Assuming that the 965 mb central pressure is valid (though the evidence supporting it is somewhat sparse), this would suggest a 94 kt sustained windspeed from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 95 kt utilized in best track. 95 kt at landfall in Texas makes this hurricane a Category 2 in the United States, which agrees with the assessment in Table 6 of Neumann et al. (1999)/U.S. hurricane characterization in HURDAT. The 95 kt windspeed is taken as the peak intensity reached by this system and winds are adjusted accordingly on the 12th to the 14th. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Texas and Mexico. Track of storm is slightly altered on the 5th to provide for a more realistic translational velocity. The hurricane is known as "San Zacarias II" for its impacts in Puerto Rico. ******************************************************************************* 18695 09/23/1910 M= 6 3 SNBR= 428 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 18695 09/23/1910 M= 6 4 SNBR= 454 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 * *** 18700 09/23*255 594 60 0*262 600 65 0*268 606 70 0*272 611 70 0 (The 23rd is omitted from the revised HURDAT.) 18705 09/24*276 615 75 0*283 620 80 0*291 625 85 0*301 631 90 0 18705 09/24* 0 0 0 0*278 605 35 0*283 613 45 0*289 621 55 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 18710 09/25*311 636 95 0*322 639 100 0*333 641 105 0*345 640 105 0 18710 09/25*298 628 65 0*308 634 75 0*320 637 85 0*336 634 85 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 18715 09/26*357 635 100 0*369 629 95 0*380 620 90 0*389 611 85 0 18715 09/26*348 628 85 0*360 619 85 0*370 610 80 0*381 602 75 0 *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 18720 09/27*395 602 80 0*399 591 75 0E402 580 70 0E405 565 70 0 18720 09/27*391 594 70 0*401 586 65 0E410 575 60 0E413 563 60 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 18725 09/28E406 550 70 0E407 533 70 0E408 517 70 0E406 501 65 0 18725 09/28E411 549 60 0E409 537 60 0E407 520 60 0E405 496 55 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** (The 29th is new to HURDAT.) 18727 09/29E408 461 50 0E410 428 45 0E415 400 40 0E421 374 35 0 18730 HR No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1999), who made large alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 3. These track and intensity changes are found to be reasonable. The peak intensity of this hurricane is reduced from 105 kt (Category 3) down to a 85 kt (Category 2) due to available observations that suggest that the system was substantially weaker. Another solution considered but discarded was to reduce the peak winds for this hurricane to Category 1 intensity. Winds are adjusted accordingly on the 24th to the 28th. ******************************************************************************* 18735 10/09/1910 M=15 4 SNBR= 429 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 18735 10/09/1910 M=15 5 SNBR= 455 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 * *** * 18740 10/09* 0 0 0 0*112 795 50 0*113 797 50 0*113 797 50 0 18740 10/09* 0 0 0 0*112 795 30 0*113 797 30 0*113 797 30 0 ** ** ** 18745 10/10*114 798 50 0*116 799 50 0*118 800 55 0*121 801 55 0 18745 10/10*114 798 30 0*116 799 30 0*118 800 30 0*121 801 30 0 ** ** ** ** 18750 10/11*124 803 55 0*128 805 60 0*132 807 65 0*137 810 70 0 18750 10/11*124 803 35 0*128 805 35 0*132 807 40 0*138 809 45 0 ** ** ** *** *** ** 18755 10/12*142 813 75 0*148 815 80 0*155 818 80 0*165 821 85 0 18755 10/12*146 811 50 0*152 813 55 0*160 815 65 0*169 818 75 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 18760 10/13*178 824 90 0*191 827 90 0*199 829 95 0*203 830 95 0 18760 10/13*177 821 85 0*186 823 90 0*195 825 95 0*204 827 95 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 18765 10/14*207 832 100 0*210 833 105 0*215 834 105 0*219 835 105 0 18765 10/14*214 830 100 0*223 836 100 960*230 840 90 0*233 842 85 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 18770 10/15*225 837 105 0*230 838 95 0*234 839 90 0*242 842 90 0 18770 10/15*236 844 90 0*237 847 90 0*237 850 90 0*236 852 90 0 *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 18775 10/16*245 848 90 0*238 854 90 0*231 852 95 0*226 845 100 0 18775 10/16*234 853 100 0*232 854 110 0*229 855 120 0*224 854 130 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 18780 10/17*227 841 100 0*231 834 105 0*236 830 105 0*245 823 105 0 18780 10/17*221 849 130 924*225 843 125 0*234 835 120 0*244 828 115 941 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 18785 10/18*254 819 100 941*265 817 65 0*275 818 60 0*283 819 60 0 18785 10/18*255 822 105 0*265 820 95 955*275 819 70 0*283 819 60 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** 18790 10/19*292 820 60 0*301 819 60 0*310 816 60 0*320 806 60 0 18790 10/19*292 819 50 0*301 819 50 0*310 816 50 0*320 806 60 0 *** ** ** ** 18795 10/20*327 798 60 0*336 785 60 0*344 771 55 0*353 751 50 0 18795 10/20*327 798 60 0*336 785 60 0*344 771 55 0*353 750 50 0 *** 18800 10/21*363 726 45 0E373 696 45 0E382 671 45 0E388 651 40 0 18800 10/21*360 723 45 0E366 690 45 0E370 660 45 0E370 644 40 0 18805 10/22E390 634 40 0E391 618 40 0E385 603 40 0E379 596 40 0 18805 10/22E368 632 40 0E364 618 40 0E360 610 40 0E358 601 40 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 18810 10/23E376 592 35 0E369 586 35 0E361 580 35 0* 0 0 0 0 18810 10/23E357 589 35 0E357 582 35 0E357 573 35 0E357 564 35 0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** 18815 HRBFL3 18815 HRBFL2 **** There is one major change from Partagas and Diaz (1999), originally storm number 4. They recommended removing the 9th and the 10th from HURDAT, but it was decided to keep these dates in HURDAT since observations do support the system having a closed circulation on both days though with tropical depression intensity. Partagas and Diaz (1999) otherwise made reasonable small alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). A central pressure of 960 mb (at 07Z on the 14th) suggests winds of 100 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 100 kt used in best track at the first Cuban landfall of this hurricane. Perez (2000) analyzed this hurricane at its second landfall on the 17th as having a central pressure of 924 mb, based upon a peripheral pressure of 947 mb from the ship "Prince Crown" (listed in the Partagas and Diaz report). This central pressure suggests winds of 134 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 130 kt utilized in best track. A central pressure of 941 mb (at 1625Z on the 17th) suggests winds of 119 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship. 120 kt chosen for 12Z and 115 kt chosen for 18Z on the 17th. Ho et al. (1987) utilized this ship measured central pressure and an estimate of 28 nmi RMW to be conditions at landfall for this hurricane in the Southwest Florida. However, observed storm surge for the region does not correspond with a Category 4 (or even Category 3) hurricane making landfall (B. Jarvinen, personal communication). Jarrell et al. (1992), instead, listed this hurricane as making landfall with a central pressure of 955 mb based upon a measurement in Ft. Myers, Florida. (The pressure observation can also be found in Partagas and Diaz (1999).) A 955 mb central pressure suggests winds of 105 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship. With an estimated RMW (from Ho et al.) substantially larger than expected climatologically for this central pressure and latitude (about 19 nmi from Vickery et al. 2000), maximum sustained winds at landfall in Southwest Florida are estimated at 95 kt. This makes this hurricane a Category 2 hurricane (though near the Category 2-3 boundary) at landfall in the United States, which is weaker than the Category 3 listing found in Table 6 or Neumann et al. (1999)/U.S. hurricane characterization in HURDAT. A peripheral pressure of 985 mb (at 21Z on the 18th) suggests winds of at least 70 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt retained for best track at 18Z and 50 kt chosen for best track at 00Z on the 19th since the hurricane was inland at that time. A storm tide measurement of 15' in Key West, Florida was described in Barnes (1998a). The storm is known as "El Huracan De Los Cinco Dias" for its impact in Cuba (Partagas and Diaz 1999, Perez 2000). ******************************************************************************* 1910 - Additional Notes: Partagas and Diaz (1999) mentioned one additional system considered for inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team agreed to leave it out of HURDAT for the following reason: 1) September 13-18, 1910: Gale force intensity, but likely extratropical. ******************************************************************************** Documentation of Atlantic Tropical Cyclones Changes in HURDAT - 2005 Changes/Additions for 1911 to 1914 **************************************************************************** By Chris Landsea, William Bredemeyer, John Gamache, and Lenworth Woolcock. (Special thanks are due to Michael Chenoweth and Cary Mock.) ******************************************************************************* 1911/01 - 2005 ADDITION: 19889 08/04/1911 M= 9 1 SNBR= 457 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 19889 08/04* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*310 860 20 0*311 848 20 0* 19889 08/05*312 837 20 0*313 826 20 0*315 815 25 0*317 805 25 0* 19889 08/06*318 795 25 0*319 785 25 0*320 775 25 0*320 764 25 0* 19889 08/07*320 753 30 0*320 742 30 0*320 730 30 0*320 719 30 0* 19889 08/08*320 708 30 0*320 697 30 0*320 685 30 0*323 672 30 0* 19889 08/09*328 660 35 0*334 647 35 0*340 635 35 0*346 623 35 0* 19889 08/10*352 611 40 0*358 599 45 0*365 585 50 0*374 568 50 0* 19889 08/11*384 546 50 0*395 520 45 0*410 490 40 0*425 460 35 0* 19889 08/12*440 430 30 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 19889 TS This is a new tropical storm, previously not documented in _Monthly Weather Review_ or Neumann et al. (1999). Evidence for this system comes from the Historical Weather Map series and the COADS ship database. August 4: A closed circulation formed over the southeast U.S., centered near 31N, 86W. No frontal boundaries can be detected near the system and heavy rain occurred mainly to the east and north of the center. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. August 5: The system moved to the east, reaching the ocean along the Georgia border. HWM indicated a low of at most 1015 mb surface pressure at 32N, 80.5W, though the center appears to have been farther west and south near 31.5N, 81.5W. Heavy rainfall again fell near and to the northeast of the system. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. August 6: The system moved to the east with little observed change in intensity. HWM indicated a low of at most 1015 mb at 32N, 79W, though the center appears to have been father east near 32N, 77.5W. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. August 7: The system moved to the east with little observed change in intensity. HWM indicated a low of at most 1015 mb at 31N, 75.5W, though the center appears to have been farther east and north near 32N, 73W. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. August 8: The system moved to the east and the observations indicated some intensification. HWM indicated a low of at most 1015 mb at 31N, 67W, though the center appears to have been farther west and north near 32N, 68.5W. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. August 9: The system moved toward the northeast with evidence of near gale force winds close to the center of the system. HWM indicated a low of at most 1015 mb at 35N, 61W, though it appears that the center was farther west and south near 34N, 63.5W. Heavy rain was also reported at Bermuda as this system moved eastward just to the north of the island. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. Ship highlight: 30 kt SW at 33.7N, 61.8W at 12 UTC (HWM). August 10: The system continued to move toward the northeast, along with a few reports of gale force winds. HWM indicated a low of at most 1010 mb at 36.5N, 58W, though it appears that the center was farther west near 36.5N, 58.5W. A stationary front was located to the northeast of the system. Ship highlight: 45 kt N at 36.1N, 60.4W at 12 UTC (HWM). August 11: The system accelerated to the northeast and wind observations available were weaker. HWM indicated a baroclinic low of at most 1010 mb at 41N, 49W with a cold front extending southwest from the center and a warm front extending east of the center. However, evidence is weak that the cold front exists and that the warm frontal feature may not have extended into the center of the system. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. August 12: The system apparently continued to weaken and no closed circulation center could be found. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. The system began on the 4th as a tropical depression (over land), reaching the ocean early on the 5th, reached tropical storm intensity on the 9th, achieved maximum intensity on the 10th, weakened on the 11th and dissipated early on the 12th. Given that the strongest observed wind was a northerly ship measurement of 45 kt on the 10th as the system was moving to the northeast, an estimate of (at least) 50 kt in the strong semi-circle is indicated. ******************************************************************************* 1911/02 - 2005 REVISION: 19890 08/09/1911 M= 6 1 SNBR= 456 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 19890 08/09/1911 M= 7 2 SNBR= 458 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 * * *** (The 8th is new to HURDAT.) 19893 08/08* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*255 825 30 0*255 826 30 0* 19895 08/09* 0 0 0 0*248 820 60 0*254 825 65 0*260 830 70 0* 19895 08/09*255 827 30 0*255 828 35 0*257 830 35 0*260 833 35 0* *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** 19900 08/10*265 833 70 0*271 838 70 0*278 843 70 0*281 848 70 0* 19900 08/10*265 836 40 0*271 839 45 0*276 843 50 0*281 848 55 0* *** ** *** ** *** ** ** 19905 08/11*286 854 70 0*290 859 70 0*295 865 70 0*300 871 70 0* 19905 08/11*286 854 60 0*290 859 65 0*295 865 70 0*300 871 70 0* ** ** 19910 08/12*305 876 65 0*310 881 60 0*315 886 50 0*320 890 40 0* 19910 08/12*304 877 65 0*306 883 55 0*308 890 45 0*309 898 40 0* *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** 19915 08/13*324 893 35 0*329 897 30 0*334 900 30 0*339 904 30 0* 19915 08/13*310 907 35 0*310 916 30 0*310 925 30 0*314 930 30 0* *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 19920 08/14*344 907 25 0*350 911 20 0*355 915 20 0* 0 0 0 0* 19920 08/14*322 933 25 0*334 934 20 0*350 935 20 0* 0 0 0 0* *** *** *** *** *** *** 19925 HRAFL1 AL1 Major changes from the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 1. Evidence for these alterations comes from the Historical Weather Map series, the COADS ship database, Original Monthly Record station data from NCDC, _Monthly Weather Review_, Tannehill (1938), Connor (1956), Dunn and Miller (1960), Ho et al. (1987), and Jarrell et al. (1992). August 8: Possible closed low (or southwest to northeast trough) centered near 25.5N, 82.5W from HWM. No HURDAT position/intensity on this date. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. August 9: Possible closed low (or southwest to northeast trough) centered near 25.7N, 83W from HWM. HURDAT listed this as a Category 1 hurricane at 12 UTC at 25.4N, 82.5W. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed, but peak observations were 27 kt and 1012 mb at 21 UTC in Key West. "A moderate atmospheric depression was evident in the east Gulf" (MWR). August 10: No closed circulation indicated in HWM from available observations. HURDAT listed this as a Category 1 hurricane at 12 UTC at 27.8N, 84.3W. Peak winds observed were 50 kt E at Pensacola (PEN) at 22 UTC (likely in outer band, as gale force winds were not observed again at Pensacola until 18 UTC on the 11th). August 11: Closed low indicated near 27.5N, 86.5W with 1010 mb pressure at most from HWM. HURDAT listed this as a Category 1 hurricane at 12 UTC at 29.5N, 86.5W. Station highlight: 70 kt SE and 1007 mb at 2248 UTC at Pensacola (MWR). "[The storm] appeared as a distinct disturbance between Burwood, near the mouth of the Mississippi River, and Pensacola on the morning of the 11th. The atmospheric pressure at Pensacola fell slowly from 29.95 inches [1014 mb] at 11 a. m. to 29.73 inches [1007 mb] at 5 p. m., the lowest attained, and the 7 p. m. weather map revealed that the storm was then central between Pensacola and Mobile ... at 5.48 p. m. a maximum [5 min velocity] of 80 miles was registered ... total precipitation on 11th and 12th, 4.48 inches ... At Pensacola ... considerable damage was done to property in the city and harbor ... One-third of the roof of the Monarch pavilion on Santa Rosa Island was torn off, and also a few portions of old roofs in the city ... About 12 barges dragged anchors and grounded, some small launches and fishing smacks were wrecked, and some coal barges belonging to the navy yard went ashore. In the city telegraph and telephone lines were blown down and the street car and electric light services were interrupted. The damage at Pensacola is conservatively estimated as follows: To electric lines, $500; local lumber interests $500; to launches, barges, etc., $3,000; fishing smacks, $2,500; loss of coal belonging to hay yard, $1,100; total, $12,600. The highest wind at Mobile was 35 miles an hour and no damage resulted at that place" (MWR). "Passed inland near Pensacola on August 11. It was of small diameter but of considerable intensity; the wind reached 80 miles an hour from the southeast at Pensacola" (Tannehill). "Aug 12 1911; center crossed coast near Pensacola; Pensacola 1 ft tide" (Connor). "Aug. 11, NW FL, Minimal" (Dunn and Miller). This U.S. landfalling hurricane not mentioned. The implication is that it was not deeper than 982 mb at landfall, which was Ho's criterion for inclusion (Ho et al. 1987). 1911 Aug NW-FL1 (AFL1) and AL1, U.S. landfalling minimum sea level pressure missing (Jarrell et al. 1992). August 12: Closed low indicated near 30N, 90W with 1010 mb pressure at most in HWM, but wind observations suggest a position somewhat farther north and east. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 12 UTC at 31.5N, 88.6W. Station highlight: 56 kt S at 03 and 05 UTC at Pensacola (PEN). "The storm drifted slowly westward to Louisiana and Texas on the 12th, with heavy rains causing some washouts. Rain and high southeast winds continued at Pensacola on the 12th" (MWR). August 13: Possible closed low centered near 31N, 92.5W in HWM. HURDAT listed this as a tropical depression at 12 UTC at 33.4N, 90.0W. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. August 14: Possible closed low centered near 35N, 93.5W in HWM. HURDAT listed this as a tropical depression at 12 UTC at 35.5N, 91.5W. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. Track of this system is begun a day early (8th) than in HURDAT based upon HWM data. Track is also adjusted slightly to the west on the 9th and 10th based upon HWM/COADS data. Larger changes to the track made on the 12th to the 14th (biggest on the 13th) again based upon synoptic data. Note that the changes after landfall are now consistent with the description on the system's position given in MWR. The system was substantially weaker than originally estimated in HURDAT early in its lifetime as shown by Key West observations on the 9th. Observational evidence for intensity suggests that hurricane stage achieved earlier on the 11th. Winds reduced on the 9th and 10th, accordingly. Peak observed winds of 70 kt from that era's anemometer converts to 54 kt after accounting for their high bias (Fergusson and Covert 1924) and then to 57 kt after converting from a peak 5 min wind to a maximum 1 min wind (Powell et al. 1996). As it is unlikely that the observed wind in Pensacola sampled the highest winds existing in the storm, a higher intensity estimate is appropriate. The 70 kt at landfall (Category 1) originally in HURDAT is consistent with winds somewhat higher than seen at Pensacola and also with the resulting wind-forced damage in the same town. Thus no change to the landfall intensity is made to HURDAT. Landfall near the Alabama/Florida border occurred around 2300 UTC on the 11th. Utilizing the Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) inland decay model, this suggests winds of 63, 51, 44, and 38 kt for the 12th at 00, 06, 12, 18 UTC. Peak observed winds after landfall within two hours of the synoptic time were 70, 56, 43 and 36 kt. (These convert to 57, 46, 36 and 30 kt, respectively after for correction for bias and time averaging.) Inland winds reduced slightly in HURDAT at 06 and 12 UTC on the 12th based upon these observations. (The winds in HURDAT could be reduced even more after landfall based upon measurements, but as these were only available at Pensacola and Mobile, higher winds likely did occur but were not measured.) Peak observed storm tide was 1 ft at Pensacola (Connor), though it is likely that higher values would have occurred near the Florida-Alabama border. ******************************************************************************* 1911/03 - 2005 REVISION: 19930 08/23/1911 M= 8 2 SNBR= 457 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 19930 08/23/1911 M= 9 3 SNBR= 459 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 * * *** 19935 08/23* 0 0 0 0*237 668 50 0*241 674 50 0*245 680 55 0* 19935 08/23* 0 0 0 0*252 655 35 0*255 665 40 0*258 674 40 0* *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 19940 08/24*250 687 65 0*254 693 70 0*258 700 70 0*262 707 75 0* 19940 08/24*261 683 45 0*263 692 50 0*265 700 55 0*267 707 60 0* *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** *** ** 19945 08/25*265 714 75 0*269 721 80 0*273 728 85 0*279 735 85 0* 19945 08/25*269 714 65 0*272 721 70 0*275 728 70 0*280 735 75 0* *** ** *** ** *** ** *** ** 19950 08/26*287 743 85 0*296 751 85 0*301 758 85 0*305 764 85 0* 19950 08/26*287 743 80 0*296 751 80 0*301 758 80 0*305 764 80 0* ** ** ** ** 19955 08/27*308 771 85 0*311 778 85 0*315 787 85 0*317 792 80 0* 19955 08/27*308 771 80 0*311 778 80 0*315 787 85 0*318 792 85 0* ** ** *** ** 19960 08/28*318 796 65 983*320 803 65 0*322 810 65 0*323 815 45 0* 19960 08/28*320 796 85 0*321 803 85 972*322 810 65 0*323 815 50 0* *** ** *** *** ** *** ** 19965 08/29*324 820 45 0*324 825 45 0*325 829 45 0*328 830 40 0* 19965 08/29*324 820 45 0*323 825 35 0*321 830 35 0*320 834 30 0* *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 19970 08/30*332 830 40 0*336 830 40 0*340 828 35 0*345 822 35 0* 19970 08/30*322 837 30 0*330 839 30 0E340 840 30 0E348 835 30 0* *** *** ** *** *** ** * *** ** **** *** ** (The 31st is new to HURDAT.) 19972 08/31E354 825 25 0E358 810 25 0E360 795 20 0* 0 0 0 0* 19975 HR GA2 SC2 19975 HR GA1 SC2 *** Minor changes from the track and major alterations to the intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 2. Evidence for these alterations comes from the Historical Weather Map series, the COADS ship database, Original Monthly Record station observations from NCDC, _Monthly Weather Review_, Cline (1926), Tannehill (1938), Dunn and Miller (1960), Schwerdt et al. (1979), Ho et al. (1987), and Jarrell et al. (1992). August 23: No closed low indicated from observations, though not much data available to south and west of system. Troughing indicated along about 66.5W longitude. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 12 UTC at 24.1N, 67.4W. "First observations of this storm were at about 27N and 66W" (Tannehill). No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. August 24: No closed low indicated from observations, though not much data available to east, south, and west of system. Troughing indicated along about 70W longitude. HURDAT listed this as a Category 1 hurricane at 12 UTC at 25.8N, 70.0W. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. August 25: Closed low indicated on HWM at 26N, 73W with 1010 mb pressure at most, but center with additional COADS observations appears to be closer to the original HURDAT location. HURDAT listed this as a Category 2 hurricane at 12 UTC at 27.3N, 72.8W. Peak ship observations: 45 kt ESE at 01 UTC at 29.5N, 70.5W (COA), 45 kt SE at 17 UTC at 28.5N, 71.5W (COA), and 45 kt SSE at 21 UTC at 28.5N, 71.5W (COA). August 26: Closed low indicated on HWM at 26.5N, 75.5W with 1010 mb pressure at most, but little data is available west and south of the center. HURDAT listed this as a Category 2 hurricane at 12 UTC at 30.1N, 75.8W. Peak ship observation: 35 kt NW at 21 UTC at 30.0N, 77.0W (COA). August 27: Closed low indicated on HWM at 31.N, 79.0W with 1010 mb pressure at most. Cline gave positions for this system of 31.4N, 77.3W (am) and 32.1N, 78.7W (pm). HURDAT listed this as a Category 2 hurricane at 12 UTC at 31.5N, 78.7W. Center of low shown in MWR at 12 UTC at 32N, 77.2W with 1010 mb central pressure. Peak ship observation: 60 kt WNW, 1000 mb at 01 UTC at 30.0N, 77.0W (COA). Peak station wind: 52 kt NE at 2250 UTC at Charleston, SC (MWR). "[At Charleston] the wind in force from the north [during the afternoon] attaining a velocity of 46 miles an hour ... At 6.50 p. m. the velocity was 60 miles an hour" (MWR). August 28: Closed low indicated just inland on HWM at 32.5N, 81W with 1005 mb pressure at most. Cline gave positions for this system of 32.9N, 80.3W (am) and 32.8N, 81.8W (pm). HURDAT listed this as a Category 1 hurricane at 12 UTC at 32.2N, 81.0W. Center of low shown in MWR at 00 UTC at 32N 79W with 1000 mb central pressure and at 12 UTC at 32.2N 80.5W with 983 mb central pressure. Peak ship observation: 35 kt SE at 12 UTC at 28.2N, 78.7W (HWM). Peak station observations: 82 kt E at 0320 UTC, 992 mb at 0350 UTC at Charleston (MWR); 76 kt NW at 0710 UTC, 982 mb at 0810 UTC at Savannah (MWR). "Pursuing a west-northwest course, it passed inland between Savannah and Charleston on the 28th. There was great damage from winds and high tides between those cities. At Charleston, the barometer fell to 29.30 inches [992 mb] and the wind reached 106 miles an hour [estimated by observer after instrument failure] from the northeast at 11:50 p.m. of the 27th. On the 28th, at 3:10 a.m. the center was closest to Savannah, barometer 29.02 inches [983 mb], wind 88 miles northwest" (Tannehill). Aug. 27-28 Ga., S.C., Major Hurricane, 17 killed near Charleston (Dunn and Miller). Aug GA2, SC2. No mention of MSLP (Jarrell et al.). Aug. 28, 1911 Storm direction toward 280 deg. Est MSLP 979 mb (computed from pressure profile and adjusted to the coast). Lowest obs. Pressure 983 mb, Savannah, GA, 27 nmi RMW observed from wind speed record at Savannah, GA, 8 kts translational speed, landfall point 32.2N 80.6W (Ho et al.). 75 kt estimated max 1 min, surface wind at landfall, 1011 mb environmental pressure (Schwerdt et al.). "The Charleston-Savannah hurricane of August 27-29, 1911, was characterized by its relatively small diameter but intense energy, its unusual path directly from east to west, and its rapid loss of power after entering the coast line ... At Charleston the lowest pressure, 29.30 inches [992 mb], occurred at 11:50 p.m., August 27, wind southeast; at Savannah it was 29.02 inches [983 mb] at 8 a. m., August 28, wind northwest. The diameter of the isobar of 29.30 inches [992 mb] surrounding the storm was approximately 100 miles. The center or eye of the storm passed a few miles north of Savannah, where for two hours, from 8.10 a. m. to 10.10 a. m., the 28th, the pressure remained lowest and the wind decreased to only 20 miles an hour. The eye of the storm was about 14 or 15 miles in diameter. At Savannah the wind backed from northwest to south about 10 a. m., the 28th, and the wind again increased suddenly in velocity, heavy rain began, and the pressure rose rapidly. At Charleston the wind veered from northeast to east and southeast, and the destruction of property was much greater than at Savannah because the winds were onshore. At Charleston the damage to property is estimated to have exceeded $1,000,000 and 17 lives were lost. The damage at Savannah was of a minor nature though large in the aggregate ... [In Charleston the wind velocity reached] at 8.40 p. m. [27th] 68 miles, at 9.15 p. m. 72, and at 9.45 p. m. 86. The wind shifted to east ... and at 11.20 was blowing with a velocity of 94 miles an hour when the anemometer ceased to properly record. After 11.20 the wind became southeast and was estimated to have attained a velocity of 106 miles an hour. It continued to blow steadily from the southeast all of next day (28th), remaining above 50 miles an hour most of the forenoon ... the barometer reached its lowest point, 29.30 inches [992 mb], at 11.50 p. m. Great damage was done by the wind ... Tin roofs began to be blown off and hundreds of houses were unroofed and chimneys were blown down. A great many windows and display signs were broken. The streets were a tangle of fallen trees and wires. Many houses were destroyed and 4 persons were killed by falling walls and 13 were drowned ... The high tide that night reached a point 10.6 fee above mean low water, or somewhat lower than the tide of 1893. A great deal of damage was done by water in the wholesale districts and in other low portions of the city. The water front next day was a confused mass of wrecked vessels and damaged wharfs ... [In Savannah] the wind attained a maximum (5 minute) velocity of 88 miles an hour shortly after 3 a. m. on August 28, with an extreme (1 mile) velocity of 96 miles an hour at 3.08 a. m. during one of the terrific gusts ... The wind reached 62 miles an hour at 11.40 p. m., still blowing from the northwest with strong gusts, and at midnight the pressure registered 29.50 inches [999 mb]. The wind attained a velocity of 66 miles an hour at 12.05 a. m. August 28, 74 miles at 1.40 a. m., 78 at 2.45 a. m., and between 3.05 and 3.10 a. m. it reached its maximum force of 88 miles an hour from the northwest. From 3 a. m. to 6.05 a. m. the wind maintained a velocity ranging between 80 and 90 miles an hour from the northwest ... At 8 a. m. the lowest pressure, 29.02 inches [983 mb], was recorded, the wind diminished with astonishing quickness, and from 8.10 to 10.10 a. m., the vortex of the storm passed practically over Savannah, the wind dying down to 20 miles an hour and shifting to south about 10 a. m. Immediately ... the velocity rapidly increased and the rainfall became heavier. The highest velocity attained after the passage of the center was 64 miles an hour at 11.30 a. m. and at 12.05 p. m. ... Considering the severity of the storm it is remarkable that the damage in the city of Savannah and contiguous territory was not larger. No lives were lost, and while the aggregate property loss was large, the damage done was mostly of minor nature ... Small craft in the river and at nearby resorts suffered greatly. That the storm was not more destructive on the water front was due to the fact that the wind was westerly and southerly and not at any time from the east. The hotel and residences on Tybee Island were greatly damaged" (MWR). August 29: Low centered near 32.5N, 83.5W in HWM with 1010 mb pressure at most. A stationary front was analyzed to the north and west of the storm. Cline gave positions for this system of 32.1N, 82.4W (am) and 31.8N, 83.7W (pm). HURDAT listed this as a storm at 12 UTC at 32.5N, 82.9W with 45 kt of wind. Low centered near 32.5N, 82.0W with 1004 mb central pressure at 00 UTC in MWR. Low centered near 32.8N, 83.5W with 1005 mb central pressure at 12 UTC in MWR. Peak station observation: 52 kt S at 00 UTC at Savannah (MWR). "The storm drifted slowly to southeastern Georgia on the 29th, with the pressure below 29.70 inches [1006 mb], and was accompanied by exceptionally heavy rains near the coast of Georgia, where much damage was done to crops and live stock and numerous washouts occurred on the railroads. County roads suffered and many bridges were washed away ... [In Charleston the wind did not fall] below 36 miles an hour until after 4. a. m. on the 29th ... [In Savannah] the wind fell below the verifying velocity of 36 miles at 2.10 a. m." (MWR). August 30: No closed low indicated in HWM, but a center may have been near 34.5N, 83.5W. The system is shown to be along a stationary frontal boundary. Cline gave positions for this system at 33.5N, 94.1W (am) and 35.5N, 83.5W (pm). HURDAT lists this as a storm at 12 UTC 34.0N, 82.8W with 35 kt of wind. Center of system plotted near 32.0N 84.5W and with 1009 mb central pressure at 00 UTC in MWR. Center of system is plotted near 34.0N, 84.5W with 1011 mb central pressure at 12 UTC in MWR. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. August 31: No closed low indicated in HWM. Cline gave a position in the morning at 36.2N, 80.2W. Moderate adjustments to the track are made on the 23rd and 24th to better agree with available ship observations indicating a position farther north than originally shown. Another moderate change to the track on the 29th and 30th was made to better match inland reports showing a position somewhat farther west than originally indicated as well as to better match Cline's detailed analysis after landfall. Track extended an additional day based upon HWM and Cline analyses. Winds reduced from the 23rd to the 26th based upon available ship observations. For the intensity at landfall (which may also in this case be the peak intensity of the system), evidence was available from winds, pressure, storm surge and damages. Highest observed winds were 82 kt in Charleston, with an estimate that the maximum that they reached after the anemometer was disabled was 92 kt. However, reducing for the high-bias of the instrument at the time alters these to 63 kt observed and 70 kt estimated (Fergusson and Covert 1924). Altering these to a maximum 1 min wind (Powell et al. 1996) gives 67 kt observed and 74 kt estimated. Ho et al.'s estimated central pressure of 979 mb suggests winds of 76 kt from the subtropical pressure-wind relationship. However, Ho et al. did not take into account that the hurricane's central pressure would have filled some between the time of landfall (~0930 UTC on the 28th) and the time it made its closest approach to Savannah (~1300 UTC). A run of the inland pressure deficit decay model (also in Ho et al.) suggest a central pressure at the coast of 970 mb from the Atlantic coast model (South Carolina to New England) and 974 mb from the Florida peninsula model. As the landfall location was at the Georgia- South Carolina border, a compromise of these two analyses was utilized to come up with the final estimate of 972 mb at landfall at the coast. (The 983 mb observed in Savannah, originally was listed in HURDAT as a central pressure, is replaced with this revised 972 mb value.) 972 mb central pressure suggests 84 kt from the subtropical pressure-wind relationship. Ho et al.'s analysis of 27 nmi RMW has been reconfirmed and is close to that expected from climatology for this latitude of landfall and central pressure (25 nmi - Vickery et al. 2000), so no large deviation from 84 kt would be expected. A storm tide of 10.6 feet was reported in Charleston with moderate wind forced damage. Given that it is unlikely that Charleston experienced the exact peak winds of the hurricane at landfall, a value higher than that observed (and even estimated with some caution being taken) would be reasonable. Thus 85 kt maximum 1 min winds are analyzed for this hurricane at landfall near the Georgia/South Carolina border near 0930 UTC on the 28th. This is at the low end of a Category 2, which is what is analyzed for conditions occurring in South Carolina. However, Georgia's impact is reduced to Category 1 based in part on the modest winds reported in Savannah and in part on the moderate sized RMW which would have kept the peak winds on the front right quadrant in South Carolina and would have avoided Georgia. Category 2 in South Carolina retains what was estimated previously in HURDAT, Jarrell et al. and Neumann et al., though Category 1 in Georgia is a reduction by one category from those references. After landfall, a run of the Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model gave 60 kt at 28th/12 UTC, 47 kt at 18 UTC, 36 kt at 29th/00 UTC, and 30 kt at 06 UTC. Highest observed winds within 2 hours of these times were 73, 56, 52, and 37 kt. These correct to 59, 46, 43, and 31 kt after adjusting for bias and to 1 min peak values, which are very close to that suggested by the inland decay model. (It should be noted that data coverage at landfall for this system was quite good with observations available at Charleston, Savannah, Columbia, Macon, and Augusta.) No gales were observed after 07 UTC on the 29th. Winds in HURDAT slightly increased at 18 UTC on the 28th and reduced on the 29th and 30th, accordingly. The system is characterized on the 30th as extratropical in its decay over land, due to being absorbed by frontal system. ******************************************************************************* 1911/04 - 2005 REVISION: 19980 09/03/1911 M=10 3 SNBR= 458 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 19980 09/03/1911 M=10 4 SNBR= 460 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 * *** 19985 09/03* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*137 579 35 0*138 598 35 0* 19985 09/03* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*120 570 30 0*122 584 30 0* *** *** ** *** *** ** 19990 09/04*139 616 35 0*140 630 35 0*140 640 35 0*140 647 35 0* 19990 09/04*124 598 30 0*126 612 30 0*128 625 35 0*129 637 35 0* *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** 19995 09/05*140 653 35 0*140 658 35 0*140 667 35 0*141 672 40 0* 19995 09/05*130 648 35 0*130 659 35 0*130 670 35 0*130 680 40 0* *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 20000 09/06*141 680 40 0*142 688 45 0*143 696 45 0*144 705 50 0* 20000 09/06*130 690 40 0*130 700 45 0*130 710 45 0*129 718 50 0* *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 20005 09/07*146 714 50 0*147 723 55 0*147 732 55 0*146 741 60 0* 20005 09/07*128 724 50 0*127 730 55 0*125 735 55 0*123 741 60 0* *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 20010 09/08*144 751 60 0*141 761 65 0*139 770 70 0*136 777 70 0* 20010 09/08*122 747 60 0*121 753 65 0*120 760 70 0*120 768 70 0* *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 20015 09/09*134 784 75 0*131 791 80 0*130 800 85 0*130 811 85 0* 20015 09/09*121 777 75 0*122 787 80 0*123 797 85 0*124 809 85 0* *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 20020 09/10*130 823 85 0*131 834 80 0*132 846 60 0*133 857 45 0* 20020 09/10*126 822 85 0*128 834 85 0*130 846 60 0*132 857 45 0* *** *** *** ** *** *** 20025 09/11*133 868 40 0*134 879 40 0*134 890 35 0*136 902 35 0* 20030 09/12*138 916 35 0*140 931 35 0*140 935 30 0*141 940 30 0* 20035 HR Major changes from the track and minor changes to the intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 3. Evidence for these alterations comes from the Historical Weather Map series, the COADS ship database and _Monthly Weather Review_. September 3: Likely closed circulation near 12N, 57W. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 12 UTC at 13.7N, 57.9W. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. September 4: No closed circulation was apparent, but there was a lack of data on west and south sides of storm at HURDAT location. Despite this lack, a low was indicated in HWM near 13.5N, 64W with 1010 mb pressure at most. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 12 UTC at 14.0N, 64.0W. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. September 5: No closed circulation was apparent, but there was a lack of data on north, west and south sides of storm at HURDAT location. Despite this lack, a low was indicated in HWM near 12.5N, 66W with 1005 mb pressure at most. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 12 UTC at 14.0N, 66.7W. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. September 6: No closed circulation was apparent, but there was a lack of data on west and south sides of storm at HURDAT location. Despite this lack, a low was indicated in HWM near 13.5N, 69.5W with 1005 mb pressure at most. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 12 UTC at 14.3N, 69.6W. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. September 7: No closed circulation was apparent, but there was a lack of data on west, south and east sides of storm at HURDAT location. Despite this lack, a low was indicated in HWM near 12.5N, 73W with 1000 mb pressure at most. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 12 UTC at 14.7N, 73.2W. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. September 8: No closed circulation was apparent, but there was a lack of data on north and south sides of storm at HURDAT location. Despite this lack, a low was indicated in HWM near 11.5N, 76W with 995 mb pressure at most. HURDAT listed this as a Category 1 hurricane at 12 UTC at 13.9N, 77.0W. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. September 9: Possible closed circulation near 12.5N, 80W with 990 mb pressure at most in HWM, but there was a lack of data near the center of the storm at HURDAT location. HURDAT listed this as a Category 2 hurricane at 12 UTC at 13.0N, 80.0W. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. September 10: No closed circulation was apparent, but there was a lack of data on all quadrants of the storm at the HURDAT location. Despite this lack, a inland low over Nicaragua was indicated in HWM near 13N, 85W with 990 mb pressure at most. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 12 UTC at 13.2N, 84.6W. "A cable report ... from Corinto, Nicaragua ... states that a hurricane struck that city, causing the death of 10 and injury to 50 persons. Eight city blocks, comprising 250 houses, were razed to the ground with an estimated loss of $2,000,000" (MWR). No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. September 11: No closed circulation was apparent, but there is a lack of data on north and east sides of storm at HURDAT location. Despite this lack, an inland low over El Salvador was indicated in HWM near 13.5N, 89W with 995 mb pressure at most. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 12 UTC at 13.4N, 89.0W. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. September 12: No closed circulation was apparent, but there is a lack of data on all quadrants of storm at HURDAT location. Despite this lack, a low (back over water) was indicated in HWM near 14N, 95W with 1000 mb pressure at most. HURDAT listed this as a tropical depression at 12 UTC at 14.0N, 93.5W. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. September 13: No closed circulation was apparent, but there is a lack of data on the east side of storm. Despite this lack, a low was indicated in HWM near 15N, 99.5W with 1005 mb pressure at most. However, available ship observations to the west of this position are inconsistent with a low located there. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. The track is adjusted to the south by 100-200 km from the 3rd through the 9th. While data for most dates is sparse near the center, indications for a more southerly track are most apparent on the 3rd and the 8th. Additionally, these more southerly positions are for most days quite consistent with that shown in HWM. No changes are made to the storm for the 11th and 12th. Winds are reduced slightly on the 3rd and 4th in accordance with no gale force winds recorded in its passage through the Lesser Antilles. The only other change to its intensity is at 06 UTC on the 10th to maintain Category 2 intensity (85 kt) until landfall. Making few changes is primarily because of the lack of inner core data throughout most of its history and that the existing intensity estimates are consistent with the system becoming a hurricane on the 8th and making landfall as a destructive hurricane in Nicaragua on the 10th around 07 UTC. Utilizing the inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995), the following inland winds of 57, 41 and 41 kt were obtained for 10th/12, 18, and 11th/00 UTC. These are close to existing HURDAT values and no changes are made to the inland winds. ******************************************************************************* 1911/05 - 2005 ADDITION: 20036 09/15/1911 M= 6 5 SNBR= 461 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 20037 09/15* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*340 550 45 0*340 550 45 0* 20038 09/16*340 550 45 0*340 551 50 0*340 555 50 0*340 563 50 0* 20039 09/17*340 573 55 0*340 587 55 0*340 600 55 0*345 610 55 0* 20039 09/18*355 618 50 0*370 626 50 0*380 635 45 0*388 645 45 0* 20039 09/19*394 657 40 0*398 667 40 0E400 675 40 0E399 678 40 0* 20039 09/20E396 676 35 0E393 673 35 0E390 670 30 0E387 667 25 0* 20039 TS This is a new tropical storm, previously not documented in _Monthly Weather Review_ or Neumann et al. (1999). Evidence for this system comes from the Historical Weather Map series, the COADS ship database and Tucker (1995). September 14: No data in vicinity of where system may have been. September 15: Closed non-baroclinic system indicated. Center indicated in HWM near 32.5N, 57.5W with 1005 mb pressure at most. Gale force winds indicated in two ship observations, though westernmost one appears suspect as flow is away from system's center. Center suspected to be closer to 34N, 55W due to placement with eastern observations and continuity with better defined center on the 16th. Peak ship observation: 40 kt S at 33.9N, 53.2W at 12 UTC (HWM). September 16: System either remained stationary or moved slowly to the west. Center near 34N, 55.5W in HWM with 1005 mb pressure at most. No gale force winds (or implied by pressures) were observed. September 17: System moved westward and intensified. Center was near 34N, 60W in HWM with 995 mb pressure at most. At the same time a weak extratropical system approached from the west and was located near 36N, 69W. Winds well to the north of the system increasing due to enhanced pressure gradient. Peak ship observations: 30 kt ENE and 999 mb at 35.2N, 59.4W at 12 UTC (HWM) and 35 kt SE at 38.8N, 52.6W at 12 UTC (HWM). Tucker (1995): "September 17th., St. Georges again suffered a freak storm, -- a local tornado passed over the Sanatorium grounds uprooted trees, injured the bathehouse tops and balustrades, blew blinds off the old house and unroofed the stables The wind passed over Market Wharf shortly before 5 p.m. A general blow had been, on account of the falling glass, anticipated at St. Georges; and all the coal hulks and other floating property had been specially moored to withstand it." September 18: System moved toward the northwest and apparently merged with the decaying extratropical low, though a main stationary frontal boundary remained to the north of the system. A trailing cold front in HWM extending from the center of the storm appears suspect. Center was near 38N, 63W in HWM with 1005 mb pressure at most. Numerous gale force wind reports were observed poleward of the frontal boundary, not directly related to the system. Ship highlight: 35 kt S at 38.9N, 61.3W at 12 UTC (HWM). September 19: System continued to move toward the northwest and the frontal boundary apparently reached the circulation center as gale force winds with temperatures around 60F were observed just west and north of the center. Center of system near 40N, 67.5W in HWM with 1005 mb pressure at most. September 20: System weakened and moved slightly to the southeast. Frontal boundary associated with system also weakened. Center of system near 39N, 67W in HWM with 1005 mb pressure at most. September 21: System absorbed by stronger frontal system that moved in from the northwest. The system is started on the 15th as a tropical storm, reached peak intensity on the 17th, became extratropical on the 19th and dissipated late on the 20th. The conditions reported by Tucker likely was due to the periphery of the storm and a rainband-induced tornado. The 999 mb peripheral pressure on the 17th suggests winds of at least 50 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship. 55 kt chosen for the best track at this time, which may have been the peak intensity. The storm did exhibit some hybrid characteristics and might, in a later era, be classified as a subtropical storm. Note that complete lifecycle of this system is not known, as its genesis before the 15th is uncertain due to lack of data. ******************************************************************************* 1911/06 - 2005 REVISION: 20040 10/23/1911 M=10 4 SNBR= 459 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 L 20040 10/26/1911 M= 7 6 SNBR= 462 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 L ** ** * *** (The 23rd through the 25th are removed from HURDAT.) 20045 10/23* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*175 702 35 0*178 719 35 0* 20050 10/24*181 735 35 0*184 748 35 0*188 759 35 0*188 767 35 0* 20055 10/25*191 775 35 0*192 781 35 0*194 787 35 0*195 792 35 0* 20060 10/26*196 797 35 0*198 801 35 0*199 805 35 0*200 808 40 0* 20060 10/26*225 755 30 0*225 770 30 0*225 785 30 0*224 799 30 0* *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 20065 10/27*201 810 40 0*203 812 40 0*204 815 45 0*205 818 45 0* 20065 10/27*223 813 30 0*222 827 35 0*220 840 40 0*217 848 40 0* *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 20070 10/28*207 822 45 0*208 825 45 0*210 828 45 0*212 831 45 0* 20070 10/28*214 853 40 0*212 857 40 0*210 860 40 0*208 862 40 0* *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 20075 10/29*214 834 45 0*216 837 40 0*219 840 40 0*223 844 35 0* 20075 10/29*206 864 40 0*205 865 40 0*205 865 40 0*208 864 35 0* *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** 20080 10/30*228 849 35 0*233 855 35 0*239 859 35 0*245 862 35 0* 20080 10/30*212 863 35 0*218 861 35 0*225 859 35 0*235 860 40 0* *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** 20085 10/31*251 863 35 0*258 864 35 0*265 863 35 0*273 859 30 0* 20085 10/31*245 861 45 0*255 861 45 0*265 860 45 0E275 850 35 0* *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** **** *** ** 20090 11/01*285 847 30 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 20090 11/01E290 825 25 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* **** *** ** 20095 TS Major changes from the track and minor changes from the intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 4. Evidence for these alterations comes from the Historical Weather Map series, the COADS ship database, the _Monthly Weather Review_, the Original Monthly Records station data, Perez (2000), and ship observations provided by Dr. Ramon Perez. October 23: No closed circulation was apparent from HWM and COADS observations, but there was a lack of data on south side of storm at HURDAT location. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 12 UTC at 17.5N, 70.2W. "A decided pressure fall over the West Indies indicated the presence of a disturbance in the Caribbean Sea not far from Porto Rico and Santo Domingo" (MWR). No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. October 24: No closed circulation apparent from HWM and COADS observations. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 12 UTC at 18.8N, 75.9W. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. October 25: No closed circulation was apparent, but there is a lack of data on south side of storm at HURDAT location. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 12 UTC at 19.4N, 78.7W. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. October 26: No closed circulation was apparent in HWM, but observations from HWM, COADS and the Cuban ship data indicate a center near 22.5N, 78.5W. A warm front was analyzed extending from near the system's center north through Cuba and Florida, but evidence for this feature is weak. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 12 UTC at 19.9N, 80.5W. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed near the storm. October 27: A weak circulation with 1010 mb pressure at most in the HWM was indicated in the southeastern Gulf of Mexico, with an embedded stationary front extending northeastward across Florida. Evidence for the front is weak from available observations. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 12 UTC at 20.4N, 81.5W. Observations suggest that the center was near 22N, 84W. "The disturbance was of small diameter and moved slowly west-northwestward, passing south of and near Habana, Cuba, early on the morning of Friday, October 27th, and moving into the Gulf of Mexico during the day" (MWR). Peak station observation: 40 kt SE "early morning" at Havana (MWR). October 28: Circulation center ill-defined, but farther west than indicated in HURDAT is likely. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 12 UTC at 21.0N, 82.8W with 45 kt winds. A stationary front is analyzed to begin near the storm's center and extend off to the northeast over Florida though the evidence is weak for this feature. Center likely located near 21N, 86W. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed near the storm. October 29: Circulation center ill-defined, but appears to be farther west and south than indicated in HURDAT is likely. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 12 UTC at 21.9N, 84.0W. A stationary front is analyzed to begin near the storm's center and extend off to the northeast over Florida though the evidence is weak for this feature. Center likely located near 20.5N, 86.5W. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed near the storm. October 30: Circulation center ill-defined, but appears to be farther south than indicated in HURDAT is likely. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 12 UTC at 23.9N, 85.9W. Center likely located near 22.5N, 86W. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed near the storm. October 31: Circulation center near 26.5N, 86.5W in HWM with 1005 mb pressure at most, close to that indicated by HURDAT. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 12 UTC at 26.5N, 86.3W. Moderate cold front analyzed to be approaching the system from the north and west. "On Tuesday, October 31, there were strong indications that the storm had recurved and was approaching the northwest coast of Florida" (MWR). Ship highlight: 35 kt N at 27.2N, 87.7W at 12 UTC (HWM). Station highlight: 10 kt S with 1009 mb (minimum for month) at Tampa at 18 UTC (OMR). November 1: "By night [Oct. 31-Nov. 1] the storm center was over northern Florida. It still retained its moderate character and passed northeastward over the Atlantic Ocean during the [next] night with decreasing intensity" (MWR). In partial support of this statement, 00 UTC observations showed SW winds at Tampa and NE winds at both Pensacola and Jacksonville. However, by 12 UTC all three stations reported N winds a substantially cooler temperature behind the front and no remnant circulation remained. Observations are sufficient to determine that a delay in the genesis of this tropical storm is required. The storm is now begun as a tropical depression on the 26th just northeast of Cuba, rather than having genesis on the 23rd just south of Hispanola. Ship data of the "Regina" provided by Dr. Ramon Perez were crucial in determining that the system had developed into a tropical depression east of Cuba rather than south of Cuba. Winds recorded by this ship were SW-SSW at 20-25 kt for 12 hours late on the 26th and early on the 27th and minimum pressure was 1010 mb at 21Z on the 26th (though pressure values appear to be about 4 mb too high for this ship - a minimum of 1006 mb looks more reasonable). The system crossed Cuba as a tropical depression moving just south of due west and it became a tropical storm on the 27th while south of Havana. The track is adjusted to the west on the 28th and to the south and west on the 29th to better match ship observations and to better correspond with pressure changes in Havana. Track moved to the south on the 30th to match observations and continuity with the position on the 29th. These track changes around Cuba on the 26th to the 30th are in agreement with that suggested by Perez (2000). Winds are analyzed to have peaked around 45 kt on the 31st. Due to being absorbed by the cold front late on the 31st and early on the 1st, the status is changed to an extratropical cyclone at those times. ******************************************************************************* 1911 - Additional Notes: 1) Historical Weather Maps and COADS indicate a trough present near 50W on 17 February 1911. The trough progressed westward on the 18th near 53W and eventually became a tropical depression on the 19th near 22N, 52W (HWM). Available observations indicate a clear circulation of 30 kt winds (HWM,COA) with peak observations of 45 kt and 1008 mb early on the 20th. The system's brief stint as a tropical depression ended on the 21st as it quickly dissipated. One ship reported (somewhat suspect) gale force wind observations of 35 and 45 kt on the 19th and early on the 20th (COA). However, without additional pressure and/or wind observations this system is considered a tropical depression and not added to HURDAT. DAY LAT LON STATUS Feb 17 --- --- Open Inverted Trough along ~50W Feb 18 --- --- Open Inverted Trough along ~53W Feb 19 22N 52W Tropical Depression Feb 20 25N 49W Tropical Depression Feb 21 --- --- Dissipated 2) Historical Weather Maps and COADS indicate that a tropical cyclone developed near 36N, 55W on 22 May 1911 from an existing extratropical storm. The system then meandered around 35N, 53W over the next three days before being absorbed by a second extratropical cyclone on the 24th. Highest winds observed from this tropical cyclone were 35 kt on the 23rd (HWM). Lowest pressures observed were 1009 mb on the 23rd (HWM). Although one gale of 35 kt is present, not enough evidence is available that the system reached tropical storm intensity. Thus it is considered a tropical depression (or perhaps a subtropical depression) and not added to HURDAT. DAY LAT LON STATUS May 19 35N 53W Extratropical May 20 36N 49W Extratropical May 21 37N 52W Extratropical May 22 36N 55W Tropical Depression May 23 32N 53W Tropical Depression May 24 33N 53W Tropical Depression (being absorbed) May 25 35N 53W Extratropical 3) A cyclone formed on the 29th of June northwest of Bermuda, moved toward the east-northeast, reached a peak intensity of around 50 kt on the 2nd of July, and was absorbed by a large extratropical cyclone on the 3rd. Peak observations were a ship with winds of 45 kt on the 30th and 997 mb peripheral pressure on the 1st. While the system may have gained some tropical (or subtropical) characteristics on the 1st and 2nd, it was judged to still retain baroclinic features and thus is not added into HURDAT. Information for this system was obtained from the Historical Weather Map series and the COADS ship database. DAY LAT LON STATUS Jun 29 36N 69W Extratropical Jun 30 37N 64W Extratropical Jul 01 39N 61W Extratropical Jul 02 41N 56W Extratropical Jul 03 -- -- Absorbed by larger extratropical system 4) Mr. Michael Chenoweth uncovered this information from _The Voice of St. Lucia_ newspaper dated 7 Oct. 1911: "Extract from The Jamaica Gleaner, undated. Port Limon, Costa Rica, Sept. 4 [Monday]. The tail of a hurricane struck this locality on Tuesday [29 August], doing some heavy damage to some farms. Westfalia, a comparatively small banana farm, is said to have lost 10,000 bunches of bananas, while others escaped entirely." A review of the Historical Weather Map series for the 28-30 August time frame does suggest a tropical disturbance moved through Central America during these dates. However, perhaps because of the lack of both ship and station data, no closed circulation could be identified nor were there any gale force observations. Likewise, a search of the COADS ship database while also being somewhat sparse for observations in the region did not provide any evidence of a closed low or gale force winds (or equivalent in pressure). Thus this system will be kept here in the additional notes section as a possible new storm, but one needing additional corroborative evidence to be added into HURDAT. 5) An area of disturbed weather in mid-September in the Caribbean was investigated for possible inclusion as a tropical cyclone. Information was obtained from summaries in the Monthly Weather Review, the Historical Weather Map series and COADS database. "On the morning of the 16th a decided fall in barometer set in over the West Indies ... the center of the disturbance and its intensity were not definitely known ... Some indications disturbance south of Haiti. On the morning of the 17th ... placing the center of the disturbance south-southwest of Jamaica. On the 18th ... indications disturbance in Caribbean Sea is west of Jamaica and approaching Yucatan Channel. Intensity unknown. At Habana a wind velocity of 32 miles an hour from the northeast was reported as having occurred during the night of the 17th-18th. No further evidence of this storm has been reported" (MWR). This system appears to be a strong easterly wave that moved across the Caribbean without becoming a tropical cyclone. It is possible though that it did become a tropical depression on the 17th and/or 18th, but definite evidence for a closed circulation does not exist. Additionally, no winds (or winds implied from pressure) support tropical storm intensity. Thus this system is not included into HURDAT. DAY LAT LON STATUS Sep. 16 --- --- Open wave (trough along 70W) Sep. 17 --- --- Open wave? (trough along 75W) Sep. 18 --- --- Open wave? (trough along 80W) Sep. 19 --- --- Open wave (trough along 85W) 6) The Historical Weather Map series and COADS database indicate the presence of a storm system from 16-20 October, 1911 in the North Atlantic. This system moved eastward for 5 days at about latitude 35N. While no frontal features could be determined during most of the storm's lifetime, gale force winds in the were storm were primarily to be found well away from the storm's center. This system is judged to be a large non-tropical gale center. While the storm was non-baroclinic, it lacked the high wind mesoscale structure required of tropical cyclones. The one possible exception during its lifetime occurred on the 20th, when a gale force report was found just to the south of the center. However, lack of collaboration with additional data make this single report ambiguous for knowing the structure of the system at that time. Thus this storm is not included as an additional system for HURDAT. DAY LAT LON STATUS Oct. 16 38N 66W Non-tropical low Oct. 17 34N 56W Non-tropical gale center Oct. 18 36N 53W Non-tropical gale center Oct. 19 35N 52W Non-tropical gale center Oct. 20 34N 49W Non-tropical gale center Oct. 21 --- --- Dissipated 7) Historical Weather Maps, Monthly Weather Review, and COADS indicate a that a low pressure area formed near 21.5N, 71W on 11 December 1911 and appeared to be a tropical cyclone in structure. The system was likely a tropical depression on the 11th as indicated by MWR, "maximum winds of 36 mph [30 kt], southwest, in the afternoon and lowest pressure of 29.68 inches [1005 mb] in the morning" for the Turks Islands. This pressure observation implies at least 36 kt from the southern pressure-wind relationship, unless the observation is considered a central pressure which would in turn indicate maximum winds of ~35 kt. The depression maintained its intensity and "moved westward, centered immediately north of eastern Cuba" on the 12th (MWR). It is also noted to, "soon dissipate as it moved into the Gulf as indicated by pressures and winds in Havana and south Florida" (MWR). On the 13th, the system was weakening and by the 14th was completely dissipated. Although this system contained one observation of gale force, such pressures (1008 mb and higher) do not support winds of tropical storm force from the southern pressure-wind relationship. Therefore, this storm is considered a tropical depression and should not be added to HURDAT. Dec 09 19N 69W Extratropical Dec 10 20N 68W Extratropical Dec 11 21N 73W Tropical Depression Dec 12 22N 77W Tropical Depression Dec 13 32N 53W Tropical Depression - Dissipating Dec 14 33N 53W Dissipated ******************************************************************************* 1912/01 - 2005 REVISION: 20190 06/07/1912 M=10 1 SNBR= 460 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 20190 06/07/1912 M=11 1 SNBR= 463 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 ** *** 20195 06/07* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*230 853 35 0*235 855 35 0* 20195 06/07* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*280 880 35 0*277 877 35 0* *** *** *** *** 20200 06/08*239 858 35 0*242 860 35 0*245 863 35 0*246 866 35 0* 20200 06/08*274 874 40 0*272 871 45 0*270 870 50 0*268 873 50 0* *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 20205 06/09*247 869 35 0*248 873 35 0*248 876 35 0*248 879 40 0* 20205 06/09*267 878 50 0*266 884 50 0*265 890 50 0*264 895 50 0* *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 20210 06/10*248 883 40 0*247 886 45 0*247 890 45 0*247 894 45 0* 20210 06/10*262 900 50 0*261 905 50 0*260 910 50 0*261 912 50 0* *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 20215 06/11*247 899 50 0*247 903 50 0*248 908 50 0*250 914 50 0* 20215 06/11*262 913 55 0*263 914 60 0*265 915 60 0*268 917 60 0* *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 20220 06/12*255 919 50 0*261 925 45 0*269 929 45 0*277 931 45 0* 20220 06/12*272 920 60 0*276 923 60 0*280 925 60 0*285 924 60 0* *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 20225 06/13*286 929 45 0*295 921 45 0*305 908 40 0*316 888 35 0* 20225 06/13*291 920 60 0*298 915 55 0*305 908 50 0*315 895 45 0* *** *** ** *** *** ** ** *** *** ** 20230 06/14*328 862 35 0*340 835 35 0*350 814 35 0*355 798 35 0* 20230 06/14*325 875 40 0E335 845 35 0E345 810 35 0E350 785 35 0* *** *** **** *** **** *** **** *** 20235 06/15*358 784 35 0*360 769 35 0*360 752 35 0*359 734 35 0* 20235 06/15E353 770 35 1005E354 756 40 0E355 745 40 0E355 730 40 0* **** *** ******** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** 20240 06/16*358 715 35 0*355 696 35 0*351 675 30 0* 0 0 0 0* 20240 06/16*355 710 35 0*355 694 35 0*355 680 30 0*353 670 30 0* *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** (17th is new to HURDAT.) 20242 06/17*351 661 30 0*348 653 30 0*345 645 30 0* 0 0 0 0* *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 20245 TS Major changes from the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Evidence for these alterations comes from the Historical Weather Map series, the COADS ship database, and _Monthly Weather Review_. June 5: Closed low shown in HWM at 23.5N, 92.5W with pressure 1010 mb at most. The MWR Map of Low Pressure Tracks locate it at 23N, 92.5W (a.m.) and 24N, 94W (p.m.). However, available observations depict only an open trough. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. June 6: Closed low shown in HWM at 25N, 92W with pressure 1010 mb at most. The MWR tracks locate it at 25.5N, 92.8W (a.m.) and 27N, 90.2W (p.m.). However, available observations depict only an open trough. Station highlight: 38 kt SE wind at Pensacola (MWR). June 7: Closed low shown in HWM at 28.5N, 88W with pressure 1010 mb at most. The MWR tracks locate it at 28N, 87.8W with 1008 mb pressure (a.m) and 28.2N, 85W (p.m.). HURDAT first lists this system at 12 UTC as a tropical storm at 23.0N, 85.3W. the MWR track appears to be most accurate from available observations. Ship and coastal station data do at this point indicate a closed circulation. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. June 8: Closed low shown in HWM at 26N, 85W with pressure 1005 mb at most. The MWR tracks locate it at 27.2N, 83.5W with 1010 mb pressure (a.m.) and 25.7N, 84.2W with 1004 mb pressure (p.m.). HURDAT lists this system as a tropical storm at 24.5N, 86.3W at 12 UTC. Available observations suggest a position north and slightly west of HURDAT. Ship highlight: 1005 mb pressure at 10 UTC at 27.0N, 87.0W (COA), 50 kt NE wind at 14 and 18 UTC at 28.0N, 87.0W (COA). June 9: Closed low shown in HWM at 25N, 89.5W with pressure 1005 mb at most. The MWR tracks locate it at 25.3N, 87.2W with 1000 mb pressure (a.m.) and 25.3N, 89.2W with 1005 mb pressure (p.m.). HURDAT lists this system as a tropical storm at 24.8N, 87.6W at 12 UTC. Available observations suggest a position north and west of HURDAT. Ship highlight: 50 kt NE wind at 02 UTC at 28.0N, 88.0W (COA) and 50 kt NE wind and 1003 mb pressure at 12 UTC at 27.2N, 89.8W (HWM). "On the 9th a wireless vessel report from the middle Gulf of Mexico indicated the presence of a disturbance of moderate intensity in that region" (MWR). June 10: Closed low shown in HWM at 25.5N, 91W with 1010 mb pressure at most. The MWR tracks locate it at 23.5N, 88.5W with 1007 mb pressure (a.m.) and 25.5N, 91.2W (p.m.). HURDAT lists this system as a tropical storm at 24.7N, 89.0W at 12 UTC. Available observations suggest a position just north of HWM. Ship highlight: 35 kt E wind at 06 UTC at 28.0N, 88.0W (COA); 35 kt ENE wind at 12 UTC at 28.3N, 88.3W (HWM). June 11: Closed low shown in HWM at 26.5N, 91W with 1005 mb pressure at most. The MWR tracks locate it at 27N, 93W (a.m.) and at 26N, 94.3W (p.m.). HURDAT lists this system as a tropical storm at 24.8N, 90.8W at 12 UTC. Available observations suggest a position just north of HWM. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. June 12: Closed low shown in HWM at 27.5N, 92.5W with 1000 mb pressure at most. The MWR tracks locate it at 28N, 94.2W with 1011 mb pressure (a.m.) and at 28.5N, 93W with 1008 mb pressure (p.m.). HURDAT lists this system as a tropical storm at 26.9N, 92.9W at 12 UTC. Available observations suggest a position just east of HURDAT. Ship highlight: 40 kt NNE wind and 995 mb pressure at 12 UTC at 28.4N, 92.5W (HWM). "On the morning of the 12th observations from west Gulf stations indicated that the disturbance was apparently approaching the eastern Texas or the Louisiana coast and advices were accordingly sent to Gulf stations and vessel interests" (MWR). June 13: Closed low has moved inland over Louisiana as shown in HWM at 31N, 91.5W with 1005 mb pressure at most. The MWR tracks locate it at 30.7N, 90.7W with 1006 mb pressure (a.m.) and at 33.2N, 86.8W with 1000 mb pressure (p.m.). HURDAT lists this system as a tropical storm at 30.5N, 90.8W at 12 UTC. Station highlight: 37 kt wind at New Orleans (MWR); 1000 mb pressure at Birmingham (MWR). "By the morning of the 13th the center had passed inland over Louisiana causing some damage by the spreading of flood waters; no damage however was reported to shipping" (MWR). June 14: Closed low still inland over South Carolina is shown in HWM at 35N, 80.5W with 1005 mb pressure at most and with a stationary front draped across it from WNW to ESE. (However, observations do not appear to support such a frontal analysis.) The MWR tracks locate it at 34.7N, 80.7W with 1004 mb pressure (a.m.) and at 35N, 75.5W with 1004 mb pressure (p.m.). HURDAT lists this system as a tropical storm at 35.0N, 81.4W at 12 UTC. Available observations suggest a position closest to the MWR center. Station highlight: 42 kt wind at 0215 UTC in Atlanta (MWR); 1002 mb pressure at 00 UTC in Montgomery (OMR). "The storm, which was of moderate intensity, passed east-northeastward to the North Carolina coast by the evening of the 14th, causing storm winds over the south Atlantic coast warnings of which were issued on the 14th. A severe local storm was reported near Fayetteville, N.C., during the 14th" (MWR). June 15: Closed low back over water in the Atlantic is shown in HWM at 35N, 75W with 1010 mb pressure at most. The MWR tracks locate it at 34.5N, 73.7W with 1010 mb pressure (a.m.). HURDAT lists this system as a tropical storm at 36.0N, 75.2W at 12 UTC. Available observations suggest a position just south and east of HURDAT. Station highlight: 4 kt E and 1005 mb at 00 UTC at Cape Hatteras (OMR) - possible central pressure. June 16: Closed low is shown in HWM at 34N, 67.5W with 1015 mb pressure at most. HURDAT lists this system as a tropical depression at 35.1N, 67.5W at 12 UTC. Available observations suggest a position just north and west of HURDAT. No gale force winds (or implied by pressure) were observed. June 17: An open trough is shown in HWM, but available observations indicate a closed low near 34.5N, 64.5W. No gale force winds (or implied by pressure) were observed. Major adjustments to the track on the 7th through the 10th to the north and west are justified by ship and coastal observations. Minor changes to the track are made from the 11th through the 16th. Additional day added to the track on the 17th based upon ship and Bermuda observations. Intensity increased from the 8th to the 13th based upon ship observations. 995 mb pressure from HWM ship at 12 UTC on the 12th suggests winds of at least 54 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt utilized. 60 kt tropical storm at landfall around 05 UTC on the 13th is consistent with high winds (42 kt in Atlanta) and low pressures (1004 mb in Charlotte) found inland along track. This wind adjusts to 35 kt after accounting for the high bias of the anemometer of the era and converting to a peak 1 minute wind (Fergusson and Covert 1924 and Powell et al. 1996). Utilizing the Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) inland decay model, this suggests winds of 52, 43, 35, and 27 kt for the 13th at 06, 12, 18 UTC and 14th at 00 UTC. Peak observed winds after landfall were 35 kt (after adjustment) at 02 UTC on the 14th. This suggests a slower than usual decay. Winds of 55, 50, 45, and 40 kt, respectively, are chosen for the intensities. Intensity increased slightly on the 15th due to coastal observations as the system reached the ocean. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1912/02 - 2005 REVISION: 20250 07/12/1912 M= 6 2 SNBR= 461 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 20250 07/12/1912 M= 6 2 SNBR= 464 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 *** 20255 07/12* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*264 711 35 0*270 718 35 0* 20255 07/12* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*250 740 35 0*258 745 35 0* *** *** *** *** 20260 07/13*275 724 35 0*280 731 35 0*284 738 35 0*287 745 35 0* 20260 07/13*266 750 35 0*273 755 35 0*280 760 35 0*285 764 35 0* *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 20265 07/14*291 752 35 0*294 759 35 0*297 767 35 0*300 776 40 0* 20265 07/14*289 767 35 0*293 771 35 0*297 775 35 0*300 781 40 0* *** *** *** *** *** *** 20270 07/15*304 784 40 0*309 792 40 0*313 807 45 0*313 819 45 0* 20270 07/15*304 788 40 0*309 797 40 0*313 807 45 0*313 819 40 0* *** *** ** 20275 07/16*313 831 35 0*313 843 30 0*313 855 30 0*314 865 25 0* 20275 07/16*313 831 40 0*313 843 35 0*313 855 30 0*314 865 25 0* ** ** 20280 07/17*315 875 25 0*316 884 20 0*317 893 20 0* 0 0 0 0* 20285 TS Major changes from the track and minor alterations to the intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Evidence for these alterations comes from the Historical Weather Map series, the COADS ship database, _Monthly Weather Review_, and Dunn and Miller (1960). July 12: No closed low depicted in HWM; however, a center may be present near 25N, 74W. HURDAT lists this system as a tropical storm at 26.4N, 71.1W at 12 UTC. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. July 13: No closed low depicted in HWM; however, a center may be present near 28N, 76W. The MWR Map of Low Pressure Tracks locate it at 29.8N, 79.7W with 30.08" pressure (p.m.). HURDAT lists this system as a tropical storm at 28.4N, 73.8W at 12 UTC. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. July 14: No closed low depicted in HWM; however, a center is located from ship and coastal observations near 29.5N, 77.5W. The MWR tracks locate it at 28.5N, 78.5W with 30.00" pressure (a.m.) and at 32N, 80.2W with 1011 mb pressure (p.m.). HURDAT lists this system as a tropical storm at 29.7N, 76.7W at 12 UTC. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. July 15: No closed low depicted in HWM; however, a center is located from ship and coastal observations near 31.5N, 80.5W. The MWR tracks locate it at 31N, 81.3W with 1014 mb pressure (a.m.) and at 31.3N, 83W with 1011 mb pressure (p.m.). HURDAT lists this system as a tropical storm at 31.3N, 80.7W at 12 UTC. Station highlight: 43 kt SE wind at Savannah at 16 UTC. "The following report on the storm near the Georgia coast is taken from notes furnished by Mr. C. J. Doherty, local forecaster, in charge at Savannah, Ga.: A decided fall in the barometer took place on the 14th, with increasing winds. The regular p. m. reports showed an incipient disturbance near the Georgia coast, and high winds with unusually rough seas prevailed at Tybee Beach during the night. The morning reports of the 15th indicated that the storm had increased slightly in intensity. The weather was thick and threatening, with light intermittent showers which continued during the day and night. After midnight the wind became fresh and gusty. A verifying velocity was attained at 7.35 a. m. of 36 miles an hour, and thereafter the wind continue high until 10 p. m., with a maximum velocity of 49 miles from the southeast shortly after 11 a. m. on the 15th. During the day the displayman at Tybee reported unusually wild seas, with high winds and swell from the southeast. Northeast storm warnings were displayed from Jacksonville to Charleston. No material damage was reported" (MWR). "On the evening of the 14th there was an unsettled condition off the Georgia coast, and by the morning of the 15th pressure had fallen slightly over that region, and a maximum wind velocity of 36 miles from the east was reported from Charleston. Storm warnings were ordered from Charleston to Jacksonville, and special observations were called for, but no further development was noted. Heavy rains, however, occurred over Georgia and South Carolina" (MWR). 1912 July 14-15 ; Ga., S.C.; Minimal intensity; Center near Tybee Beach (Dunn and Miller). July 16: No closed low depicted in HWM; however, a circulation center can be identified inland near 31.5N, 85.5W from available ship and station reports. The MWR tracks show the system at 31.1N, 85.7W with 1013 mb pressure (a.m.) and at 32N, 87.8W with 1012 mb pressure (p.m.). HURDAT lists the system as a tropical depression at 31.3N, 85.5W at 12 UTC. Station highlight: 40 kt SE wind at Charleston at "morning" (MWR). "... and a maximum wind velocity of 46 miles from the southeast was reported on the morning of the 16th from Charleston. This disturbance caused showers and thunderstorms over the East Gulf and South Atlantic States for several days following the 16th" (MWR). July 17: No closed low depicted in HWM; however, a possible circulation center could be seen near 31.5N, 89.5W based upon station reports. It is possible though that the circulation has decayed to an open trough oriented west-east. HURDAT lists this system as a tropical depression at 31.7N, 89.3W at 12 UTC. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. A large west shift in the track was analyzed for the 12th to the 14th based upon available ship and coastal station reports. Intensity not altered before landfall in Georgia. Landfall around 16 UTC on the 15th with winds of 45 kt from HURDAT originally matches observed peak winds of 43 kt from Savannah. (This wind adjusts to 36 kt after accounting for the high bias of the anemometer of the era and converting to a peak 1 minute wind [Fergusson and Covert 1924 and Powell et al. 1996]). Observed 40 kt (33 kt true) winds early on the 16th are the reason for slightly increasing the intensity on the 16th. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1912/03 - 2005 ADDITION: 20286 09/02/1912 M= 5 3 SNBR= 465 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 20287 09/02*382 725 30 0*381 725 30 0*380 725 35 0*378 725 40 0* 20288 09/03*376 725 45 0*373 725 45 0*370 725 45 0*365 728 45 0* 20289 09/04*360 732 40 0*355 735 40 0*350 740 40 0*345 747 40 0* 20289 09/05*340 754 35 0*335 762 35 0*330 770 35 0*326 780 30 0* 20289 09/06*322 792 30 0*318 807 30 0*315 825 25 0*313 845 20 0* 20289 TS This is a new tropical storm, previously not documented in _Monthly Weather Review_ or Neumann et al. (1999). Evidence for this system comes from the Historical Weather Map series, the COADS ship database, and Original Monthly Record station data from NCDC. September 2: A low forms off of the North Carolina/Virginia coast centered at 36.5N, 72.5W with 1015 mb pressure at most from HWM. Additional COADS observations indicate the center was farther north. Low appears to be tropical as no frontal features are apparent in the vicinity of the storm. Ship highlight: 45 kt ESE at 38.0N, 71.0W at 21 UTC (COA). September 3: The low was located at 37N, 72.5W with 1015 mb pressure at most from HWM. Ship highlights: 35 kt SE at 37.5N, 71.5W at 13 UTC (COA) and 15 kt SW and 1007 mb at 35.2N, 70.8W at 12 UTC (HWM). September 4: The low was located at 35N, 73.5W with 1015 mb pressure at most from HWM. Additional COADS observations indicate the center was somewhat farther east. A dissipating cold front was analyzed in HWM to be just north of the storm, which is reasonable. No gale force winds (or equivalent in pressure) were observed for this day. September 5: The low was located at 32N, 77W with 1015 mb pressure at most from HWM. Additional COADS observations indicate the center was somewhat farther north. Peak station observation: 32 kt E and 1015 mb at Charleston at 22 UTC. No gale force winds (or equivalent in pressure) were observed for this day. September 6: The low was located inland over Georgia at 32N, 83W with 1015 mb pressure at most from HWM. Additional data indicates the center was somewhat farther south and east. No gale force winds (or equivalent in pressure) was observed for this day. September 7: The low dissipated by the 12 UTC analysis in HWM. The system began on the 2nd as a tropical storm, quickly reached its peak intensity of 45 kt on the 3rd, gradually weakened over the next two days with a decay to tropical depression stage on the 5th, made landfall early on the 6th and dissipated by late on the 6th. Individual hourly observations from Savannah indicate that landfall occurred just north of Savannah around 03 UTC on the 6th. Peak observed winds at the coast were 32 kt from Charleston at 22 UTC on the 5th. These adjust to 28 kt after accounting for the high bias of the anemometer of the era and converting to a peak 1 minute wind (Fergusson and Covert 1924 and Powell et al. 1996). Additionally, the lowest pressure recorded in Savannah was 1014 mb (00 UTC on the 6th) and in Charleston was 1015 mb (22 UTC on the 5th). Thus the system is analyzed to have made landfall near the Georgia/South Carolina border as a 30 kt tropical depression. ******************************************************************************* 1912/04 - 2005 REVISION: 20290 09/11/1912 M= 4 3 SNBR= 462 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 20290 09/10/1912 M= 6 4 SNBR= 466 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 ** * * *** (The 10th is new to HURDAT.) 20292 09/10* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*290 840 30 0*290 843 35 0* 20295 09/11* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*290 841 60 0*288 843 60 0* 20295 09/11*290 845 40 0*290 848 45 0*290 850 50 0*289 852 55 0* *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** *** *** ** 20300 09/12*286 845 65 0*285 848 70 0*283 854 70 0*282 857 70 0* 20300 09/12*287 854 60 0*286 857 65 0*285 860 70 0*285 863 75 0* *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** ** 20305 09/13*281 862 70 0*280 867 70 0*280 872 70 0*283 876 70 0* 20305 09/13*286 867 80 0*288 871 80 0*290 875 80 0*293 878 75 0* *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 20310 09/14*292 880 70 0*304 884 65 0*318 888 50 0*350 885 30 0* 20310 09/14*297 881 70 0*301 883 65 0*308 885 50 0*318 885 40 0* *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** (The 15th is new to HURDAT.) 20312 09/15*330 885 35 0*350 885 30 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 20315 HR AL1 20315 HR AL1AFL1 **** Major changes from the track and minor alterations to the intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Evidence for these alterations comes from the Historical Weather Map series, the COADS ship database, the Original Monthly Record station observations from NCDC, _Monthly Weather Review_, Connor (1956), Dunn and Miller (1960), and Jarrell et al. (1992). September 6-9: Beginning on the 6th of September as storm 1912/03 was inland over Georgia, a trough of low pressure formed in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. This trough appears to be a separate entity to storm 1912/03 or its remnants. The trough remained in the eastern Gulf of Mexico from the 6th through the 9th, though it did not seem possible to close off a well-defined center of circulation. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. September 10: A closed low is indicated in HWM near 29N, 84.5W with 1010 mb pressure at most. The MWR tracks have the center at 29N, 84W for both a.m. and p.m. Available observations indicate that the center indicated in MWR is most reasonable. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. September 11: A closed low is indicated in HWM near 28.5N, 86W with 1010 mb pressure at most. The MWR tracks have the center at 29N, 84W (a.m.) and at 27N, 87W (p.m.). (The MWR tracks then keep this system stationary until the 13th p.m.). HURDAT lists this system as a tropical storm at 29.0N, 84.1W at 12 UTC. Available observations indicate that the center was likely west of the HURDAT position. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. September 12: A closed low is indicated in HWM near 29N, 86W with 1010 mb pressure at most. The MWR tracks have the center at 27N, 87W at both a.m. and p.m. HURDAT lists this system as a Category 1 hurricane at 28.3N, 85.4W at 12 UTC. Available observations suggest that the center was likely just north and west of HURDAT's position. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. "The period of 6 days from the 7th to 12th was noteworthy for excessive rains on the west coast of Florida, Tampa, receiving 13.71 inches, Pinellas Park 15.31, and Cedar Keys 23.15 inches" (MWR). "From the 6th to the 13th conditions were unsettled off the east Gulf coast and reports from land stations as well as those from vessels by wireless indicated the existence of a disturbance of slight intensity in that region. On the afternoon of the 12th, special observations indicated that the storm was increasing in intensity" (MWR). September 13: A closed low is indicated in HWM near 29N, 86W with 1000 mb pressure at most. The MWR tracks have the center at 27N, 87W (a.m.) and at 28N, 87.5W with 1002 mb pressure (p.m.). HURDAT lists this system as a Category 1 hurricane at 28.3N, 85.4W at 12 UTC. Ship highlight: 70 kt wind and 982 mb pressure from the barkentine Golden Rod near 29.4W, 87.2W at 03 UTC (MWR). Station highlight: 41 kt at Pensacola at 22 UTC (HWM). Available observations suggest a position north and just west of HURDAT. "The barkentine Golden Rod ... encountered the storm off Cape San Blas on the night of the 12th. The squalls grew more frequent and severe and at night he was driven along before them under bare poles, passing about 60 miles south of Pensacola at 11 p.m., when his barometer fell to 29 inches [982 mb]. He [the captain] said the squalls were terrific and the ship remained over on her beam ends during the height of the storm" (MWR). September 14: A closed low is indicated in HWM near 30N, 89W with 1005 mb pressure at most and with an ill-defined warm front to the north and west of the system. (The frontal analysis appears suspect.) The MWR tracks have the center at 31.5N, 88.5W with 1002 mb pressure (a.m.) and at 33N, 92.5W (p.m.) HURDAT lists this system as a tropical storm at 31.8N, 81.8W at 12 UTC. Station highlight: 64 kt SE wind at 0600 UTC and 1003 mb pressure at 0730 UTC at Pensacola (MWR); 45 kt SE wind at 0850 UTC and 995 mb pressure at 0830 UTC at Mobile (MWR). Available observations suggest a center south and just east from HURDAT. "[At Pensacola on the 13th] fifty-three miles from the southeast was registered at 7.18 p. m., 50 southeast at 8.14 p. m., 59 southeast at 9.21 p. m., with an extreme 62 miles; 58 southeast at 10.57 p. m., and 58 southeast at 11.56 p. m. ... at 7 p. m., the tide was 1 foot above normal. On the 14th extremely severe southeast squalls continued to 7 a. m., reaching 68 miles southeast at 12.24 a. m., and 74 southeast at 2 a. m., with an extreme velocity of 86 miles at 1.58 a. m. The next squall, at 2.26 a. m., carried away the anemometer, which had worked loose on its stand. The anemometer record was started again at 8.26 a. m. It was the general opinion that the squall at 2 a. m. was the hardest, but the severe squalls of about 60 miles continued to 6 a. m., south winds prevailing after 3 a. m. ... Pressure fell to 29.62 inches [1003 mb] at 2.30 a. m., then began rising rapidly, reaching 30 inches [1016 mb] at 9 p. m. ... The tide during the night of the 13th-14th rose 2 feet above normal high water, the waves were about 4 feet high, and the wind carried the spray over the American National Bank Building ... Beginning at Pensacola entrance and making a circuit of Pensacola Bay, the following damage by the storm was observed: Fishing smack Two Boys ashore. The tracks of the Pensacola Electric Co. were undermined for a distance of about 1,200 feet immediately south of Bayou Grande: also about 1,000 feet on Maine Street; their tracks were also inundated by high tide at the corner of Intendencia Street and Ninth Avenue. Private wharves along the bay shore from Fort Barrancas to Baylen Street were generally carried away, together with numerous small houses for fishermens equipment. The entire beach was strewn with timber and about 20 barges went ashore; only a few barges remained at anchor and retained their cargoes of lumber. The British SS. Meltonian, moored along the east side of Perdido Wharf, broke away and went aground on Rat Island... One of them [coal barges] damaged the steamer Edna C, the quartermasters steam yacht Page, and rammed and sank the revenue cutter Penrose. At Jefferson Street Wharf a house-lighter sank with a cargo of naval stores. Traffic over the L. & N. R. R. was suspended for about 18 hours on account of the damage to the bridge by being rammed with rafts of timber. The west end of the roof of Monarch Pavilion on Santa Rosa Island was blown off and a portion of the southeast corner of the roof of the Gulf Beacon Inn was torn off by the gales. The British S. S. Conniston went ashore about 75 miles east of Pensacola. The fishing smack Isabelle went ashore about 12 miles west of Pensacola entrance...The damage by wind throughout the city was slight. The Western Union lines went down during the night and were out of order until 1 p. m. of the 14th. Electric light circuits were cut off about 1 a. m. of the 14th. Telephone lines to the navy yard were blown down...The estimated damage by tide and waves in Pensacola is $23,500, and by winds $1,500" (MWR). "The storm that passed inland from the Gulf on the night of September 13-14, with its center probably not over 20 miles west of Mobile, was much less destructive than several other storms recorded in the meteorological history of Mobile. The short duration of the high winds, the comparatively low accompanying tides, and the absence of heavy rainfall for an extended period tended to lessen its disastrous effects...The tides in Mobile River had been abnormally low, but during the east and southeast winds rose rapidly, and reached the level of the top of the lowest wharves at about 4.30 a. m. ... A maximum rate of 32 miles and hour was attained at 2.50 a. m., and the highest velocity, 52 miles an hour, at 3.50 a. m. No high winds occurred after 6 a. m. On September 14 east winds prevailed from 1.30 a. m. to 3.15 a.m., and were followed by southeast winds changing to south at 4.45 a. m. At Pascagoula, Miss., about 35 miles southwest of Mobile, the wind backed from northeast to southwest, and the highest wind was from the northwest. The wind did not reach dangerous velocities at Gulfport, Miss., or other storm warning stations farther west...A rapid fall began after midnight; the lowest atmospheric pressure, 29.37 inches [995 mb], occurred at 3.30 a. m., the pressure remaining almost stationary for half an hour, and then rising steadily until 29.65 inches [1004 mb] was reached at 8 a. m. on the 14th. The loss of property in the city of Mobile from the high winds is estimated at $8,000. A church, a very weak structure, on the corner of Delaware and Cedar Streets, was blown down, as were also some business signs and many fences. The wire systems also sustained considerable damage. The loss to vessels in the bay and river is estimated at $4,000. The larger vessels had been made fast with extra cables, and many of the smaller vessels had ascended the river to places of safety. The principal loss to shipping interests was a barge, valued at $2,000, which was lost in Mobile Bay, and the steamboat National, which sank in shallow water about 3 miles up the river. During the storm a watchman on a barge fell overboard and was drowned" (MWR). "1912 Sep 13; Pensacola; Minimal intensity; Center moved W of Mobile... 1912 Sep 13-14; Mobile; Minor intensity; Tide 5.2 ft above MLW" (Dunn and Miller). "Estimated lowest pressure 29.32" [993 mb]" (Connor). AL Category 1 hurricane, no central pressure provided (Jarrell et al.). This U.S. landfalling hurricane not mentioned. The implication is that it was not deeper than 982 mb at landfall, which was Ho's criterion for inclusion (Ho et al. 1987). September 15: The system appears to have dissipated in HWM by 12 UTC. The MWR Tracks indicated the system was at 38.2N, 85.5W with 1010 mb pressure (a.m.) and at 42N, 74.5W with 1008 mb pressure (p.m.). (MWR Tracks also gave a 16th a.m. position of 40.5N, 69W with 1006 mb pressure.) Genesis of this system is begun a day early, due to evidence from HWM and COADS data of a closed circulation. Track has minor alterations from the 11th to the 14th to better match available observations. Additional half day added on the 15th for more realistic translational velocity at end of track and to better match observations of the decaying system. Intensity slightly reduced on the 11th and 12th to accommodate weak surface observations, which is also in accordance with MWR assessment. Intensity chosen to peak at 80 kt on the 13th over the Gulf of Mexico, rather than 70 kt originally, due to 982 mb peripheral pressure report. (This supports winds of at least 74 kt from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind relationship.) However, landfall of this system as a weaker hurricane (winds 65 kt) as originally found in HURDAT is supported by available wind data as well as observations of modest wind-caused damages primarily in Pensacola. The peak observed 5 min winds of 64 kt convert to about 53 kt after accounting for bias of that era's anemometer (Fergusson and Covert 1924) and going to a maximum 1 min wind (Powell et al. 1996). Landfall as a minimal hurricane is also consistent with the assessment by Connor of central pressure near 993 mb. (This pressure would suggest maximum 1 min winds of 58 kt from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind relationship. Thus no changes are made to the intensity around the time of U.S. landfall around 08 UTC on the 14th of a 65 kt Category 1 hurricane. Category 1 conditions are the same as that listed in HURDAT/Neumann et al., though Northwest Florida (AFL) is added as experiencing hurricane conditions. It appears that the peak winds for this system were likely found between Pensacola and Mobile, so that the radius of maximum winds for this system were somewhere between 40 and 60 nmi. After landfall, a run of the inland decay model (Kaplan and DeMaria 1995) suggests winds of 50 kt, 37 kt and 29 kt at 12 and 18 UTC on the 14th and 00 UTC on the 15th. Highest observed winds within 2 hours of these synoptic times were: 42 kt, 41 kt, and 32 kt. Winds in HURDAT are thus increased from 30 to 40 kt at 18 UTC, but kept at 50 kt at 12 UTC as higher winds may have been present though not observed. Highest observed storm tide was 2' in Pensacola from MWR. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1912/05 - 2005 REVISION: 20320 10/04/1912 M= 6 4 SNBR= 463 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 20320 10/03/1912 M= 8 5 SNBR= 467 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 ** * * *** (The 3rd is new to HURDAT.) 20322 10/03* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0E285 885 30 0E286 872 30 0* 20325 10/04* 0 0 0 0*283 768 50 0*294 764 50 0*300 759 55 0* 20325 10/04E287 858 30 0E288 844 30 0E290 830 30 0E292 814 30 0* **** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** 20330 10/05*306 754 55 0*311 751 60 0*316 749 65 0*321 746 70 0* 20330 10/05E294 796 35 0E297 778 40 0E310 760 45 0E313 750 50 0* **** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** 20335 10/06*325 744 70 0*329 744 75 0*332 750 75 0*331 753 80 0* 20335 10/06*316 744 55 0*318 741 65 0*320 740 75 0*322 743 80 0* *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** 20340 10/07*327 757 80 0*323 760 80 0*321 758 80 0*320 751 80 0* 20340 10/07*324 749 80 0*323 755 80 0*321 758 80 0*320 755 80 0* *** *** *** *** 20345 10/08*319 743 75 0*321 734 75 0*324 724 75 0*326 716 70 0* 20345 10/08*319 749 75 0*321 742 75 0*324 735 75 0*326 726 70 0* *** *** *** *** 20350 10/09*327 708 60 0*327 699 55 0*329 690 35 0*333 677 25 0* 20350 10/09*327 717 60 0*327 708 50 0*329 700 40 0*331 695 35 0* *** *** ** *** ** *** *** ** (The 10th is new to HURDAT.) 20352 10/10*334 692 30 0*337 691 30 0*340 690 30 0*345 690 25 0* 20355 HR Major changes from the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Evidence for these alterations comes from the Historical Weather Map series, the COADS ship database, and _Monthly Weather Review_. September 30-October 2: Moderate cold front pushed into the Gulf of Mexico. While the HWM showed a closed low on the 1st and 2nd, evidence from observations for this is inconclusive. "On September 27 a moderate depression (Brownsville 29.92 inches [1013 mb]) appeared at the mouth of the Rio Grande. It moved slowly across the Gulf of Mexico in an east-northeast direction without any material increase in intensity" (MWR). October 3: HWM depicts an extratropical system centered near 28.5N, 88.5W with 1012 mb pressure at most and with a cold front extending southwestward and a warm front extending eastward from the center. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. October 4: HWM depicts an extratropical system centered near 29N, 83W with 1010 mb pressure at most and with a cold front extending southwestward and a warm front extending eastward from the center. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 12 UTC at 29.4N, 76.4W. Available observations suggest a position just east of HWM. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. "[The storm] crossed the Florida Peninsula on October 4" (MWR). October 5: HWM depicts an extratropical system centered near 32N, 75W with 1010 mb pressure at most and with a cold front extending southwestward and warm fronts extending eastward from the center. HURDAT listed this as a Category 1 hurricane at 12 UTC at 31.6N, 74.9W. Available observations suggest a center south and west of HURDAT. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. October 6: HWM depicts the system centered near 32N, 76W with 1010 mb pressure at most and with weakening frontal features. HURDAT listed this as a Category 1 hurricane at 12 UTC at 33.2N, 75.0W. Available observations indicate a center south and west of HURDAT. Station highlight: 40 kt N at Cape Hatteras (MWR). Ship highlight: 45 kt NNE wind at 12 UTC at 32.7N, 79.6W (HWM) and four other ship reports of 45 kt). "[The storm] then followed a sharp turn to the north-northeastward with rapidly increasing intensity attendant upon a change in direction to the northward" (MWR). October 7: HWM depicts the system centered near 32.5N, 76W with 1005 mb pressure at most as a non-baroclinic closed low. HURDAT listed this as a Category 1 hurricane at 12 UTC at 32.1N, 75.8W. Ship highlight: 996 mb pressure and 50 kt E wind at 05 UTC at 32.5N, 74.5W (MWR/COA) and two other ship reports of 50 kt. "On the evening of October 6 the storm was central about 350 miles east of Charleston, S. C., a vessel observation in that locality showing a barometer reading of 29.42 inches [996 mb]" (MWR). October 8: HWM depicts the system centered near 32N, 72.5W with 1005 mb pressure at most as a closed low. A new cold front approached the storm from the north and west and was located a couple hundred miles away. HURDAT listed this as a Category 1 hurricane at 12 UTC at 32.4N, 72.4W. Available observations indicate a center west of HURDAT. Ship highlight: 1001 mb pressure and 50 kt W wind at 05 UTC at 31.5N, 74.5W (COA); 1000 mb pressure and 50 kt W wind at 09 UTC at 31.5N, 74.5W (COA). "Heavy rains and winds of hurricane force attended the storm which continued north-northeastward with slowly decreasing intensity" (MWR). October 9: HWM depicts the system centered near 32.5N, 69W as a closed low with 1015 mb pressure at most and a weakening stationary front extending from near the center off to the northeast. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 12 UTC at 32.9N, 69.0W. Available observations indicate a center west of HURDAT. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. "...it was lost somewhere between the North Carolina coast and the island of Bermuda" (MWR). October 10: System not indicated in HWM, but available observations place a center near 34N, 69W. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. Genesis for this system is begun on the 3rd as a weak extratropical storm in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, rather than on the 4th as a tropical storm in the Atlantic east of Florida. Available observations indicated that the system moved eastward with little change in intensity through the 5th. This is consistent with the assessment in the Monthly Weather Review. The storm appears to have both attained a tropical cyclone structure and intensified early on the 6th. Thus intensity reduced on the 4th and 5th and system is indicated as an extratropical system in the revision for these dates. Minor changes in the location of the system was included for most of its lifetime, except for the 4th where translation of the system from the west is indicated rather than formation just north of the Bahamas. No direct observations of hurricane force winds were obtained which would have substantiated HURDAT's listing of this system as peaking as a Category 1 hurricane. However, the MWR indicated "winds of hurricane force" were found on the 8th, though these could not be confirmed in either HWM or COADS. Several 50 kt reports were found on the 7th through the 8th and a low pressure of 996 mb on the 7th suggests winds of at least 55 kt from the subtropical pressure-wind relationship. Thus maintaining this system as a minimal hurricane would appear prudent. Enough evidence was found on the 10th to extend the track for this system an additional day, though it was only of tropical depression status at the time. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1912/06 - 2005 REVISION: 20360 10/11/1912 M= 7 5 SNBR= 464 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 20360 10/11/1912 M= 8 6 SNBR= 468 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 * * *** * 20365 10/11* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*196 807 60 0*197 817 65 0* 20365 10/11* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*185 807 35 0*189 815 35 0* *** ** *** *** ** 20370 10/12*198 826 70 0*199 836 75 0*201 845 75 0*203 854 80 0* 20370 10/12*193 823 40 0*197 831 45 0*201 840 50 0*205 850 55 0* *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** *** *** ** 20375 10/13*205 864 80 0*208 873 85 0*210 882 85 0*213 890 85 0* 20375 10/13*209 861 60 0*212 872 50 0*215 882 45 0*217 890 50 0* *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** *** ** 20380 10/14*215 897 85 0*218 903 85 0*221 910 85 0*224 918 85 0* 20380 10/14*218 897 55 0*219 903 60 0*221 910 65 0*224 918 70 0* *** ** *** ** ** ** 20385 10/15*228 926 85 0*232 933 85 0*238 941 85 0*243 949 85 0* 20385 10/15*228 926 75 0*232 933 80 0*238 941 85 0*244 949 85 0* ** ** *** 20390 10/16*250 956 80 0*255 962 80 0*262 968 75 0*268 972 70 0* 20390 10/16*251 957 85 0*258 964 85 0*265 970 85 0*271 974 85 0* *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 20395 10/17*273 976 65 0*279 980 50 0*286 982 30 0*292 969 25 0* 20395 10/17*277 976 50 0*283 977 40 0*288 978 30 0*292 977 25 0* *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** (The 18th is new to HURDAT.) 20397 10/18*295 975 25 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 20400 HRATX1 20400 HRATX2 **** Minor changes to the track and major changes to the intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Evidence for these alterations comes from the Historical Weather Map series, the COADS ship database, Original Monthly Record station data from NCDC, _Monthly Weather Review_, Connor (1956), Dunn and Miller (1960), Ho et al. (1987), Ellis (1988), and Jarrell et al. (1992). October 7 to 10: A strong wave moved through the Lesser Antilles and into the Caribbean Sea, as indicated by wind shifts, pressure drops and rainfall amounts. Highest daily rainfall amount indicated was 1.82" for 24 hours up to 12 UTC on the 8th in San Juan (HWM). From the _St. Kitts Daily Express_, 8 October 1912, courtesy of Michael Chenoweth: "Yesterday was a day of rain. Copious showers fell all day and business in nearly all departments was at a standstill." However, a closed circulation was not evident, nor were there any observations of gale force winds (or pressure equivalents). October 11: HWM depicts a closed low centered near 17.5N, 80W with pressure at most 1005 mb. However, observations do not completely support a closed circulation, though data near the southerly side of the system are lacking. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 12 UTC at 19.6N, 80.7W. Available observations suggest a center between the HWM and HURDAT estimates. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. October 12: HWM depicts a closed low centered near 20N, 84W with pressure at most 1005 mb. HURDAT listed this as a Category 1 hurricane at 12 UTC at 20.1N, 84.5W. The MWR Map of Low Pressure Tracks locate a center at 19.5N, 86.5W with 999 mb pressure (p.m.). Available observations suggest that HWM is the most reasonable center. Ship highlight: 35 kt E wind at 23.5N, 82.5W at 09 UTC (COA), 999 mb pressure near 21N, 86W (MWR). "A week later [October 12] it was off the eastern coast of Yucatan, with reported barometer readings of 29.50 inches [999 mb]" (MWR). October 13: HWM depicts a closed low near 21N, 87.5W with pressure at most 1005 mb. A stationary front is depicted to the north of the system in HWM, which could have been extended westward to just south of Brownsville, Texas. HURDAT lists this as a Category 2 hurricane at 12 UTC at 21.0N, 88.2W. The MWR Tracks locate a center at 20.5N, 89W and pressure 998 mb (a.m.) and 23N, 89.5W (p.m.). Available observations suggest a position just north of HURDAT's estimate. Ship highlight: 35 kt ENE at 23.6N, 88.3W at 12 UTC (HWM). Station highlight: 1004 mb pressure at Merida at 12 UTC (HWM). October 14: HWM depicts a closed low near 22.5N, 90W with pressure at most 1005 mb. HURDAT lists this as a Category 2 hurricane at 12 UTC at 22.1N, 91.0W. The MWR Tracks locate a center at 24N, 91.5W (a.m.) and 24.5N, 94W (p.m.). A dissipating stationary front is depicted in the HWM north of the system, though it appears that the temperature contrast was still quite strong and the front should have been extended to south of Brownsville, Texas. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. October 15: HWM depicts a closed low near 24.5N, 94W with pressure at most 1000 mb. HURDAT lists this as a Category 2 hurricane at 12 UTC at 23.8N, 94.1W. The MWR Tracks locate a center at 25N, 94W (a.m.) and 25N, 95W (p.m.) with 1008 mb pressure. While no frontal boundary was depicted in HWM, there does appear to be a significant front just north of the storm. However, while data are sparse near the storm's center, the system is likely to still be a tropical cyclone. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. October 16: HWM depicts a closed low on the coast near the border of Texas and Mexico near 26N, 97W with pressure at most 995 mb. HURDAT lists this as a Category 1 hurricane at 12 UTC at 26.2N, 96.8W (just offshore). The MWR Tracks locate a center at just offshore at 26N, 97W (a.m.) with 996 mb pressure and inland at 27.5N, 97.5W (p.m.). The previously mentioned frontal feature - still not depicted in HWM - is likely dissipating at this time, though temperatures themselves are still quite cool. Station highlight: 48 kt wind and 996 mb pressure at Brownsville at "morning" (MWR). "... at the morning observation of October 16, [Corpus Christi] reporting a barometer reading (reduced to sea level) of 29.86 inches [1011 mb] and [Brownsville] 29.40 inches [996 mb]. In the meantime a steady rain set in along the entire Texas coast and the weather continue squally, with high tides and approaching the mouth of the Rio Grande ... On Wednesday, October 16, the storm moved inland between Corpus Christi and Brownsville ... the steamship Nicaragua ... foundered on October 16 about 100 miles southeast of Corpus Christi. The following is an extract from the report of this storm, made by Mr. Joseph L. Cline, local forecaster, in charge of the Weather Bureau office at Corpus Christi: ... Northerly winds prevailed for several days at this station, shifting to the east on October 16. the maximum wind velocity was 30 miles from the north on the 14th and 37 miles from the north on the 15th. On the 16th storm velocities prevailed from 12.03 a. m. to 8.18 a. m., with a maximum velocity of 51 miles from the north at 4.10 a. m., and from 6.32 p. m. to 7.46 p. m. 110th a maximum velocity of 40 miles from the southeast at 7.05 p. m. The wind lulled and shifted to the southwest during the night of October 16-17. Rain fell from 4.57 a. m. to 7.14 p. m. of October 15, and from 7.52 p. m. of the 15th to 5.33 p. m. of October 16. the total amount was 3.99 inches of which 3.33 inches fell in 22 hours and 50 minutes from 4.31 p. m. of the 15th. The barometric pressure remained above 30 inches [1016 mb] until the afternoon of October 15, when it commenced falling and continued to fall until the afternoon of the 16th, reaching the lowest, 29.75 inches [1007 mb] about 5 p. m. Moderately high tides were reported on the morning of October 16, doing several hundred dollars damage to property on Harbor Island and nearly $1,000 damage to the municipal wharf now under construction at this place. Considerable damage was reported from Point Isabel near Brownsville, Tex. No other damage was reported, except the sinking of the steamer Nicaragua in the Gulf of Mexico east of Padre Island, or southeast of Corpus Christi, on the morning of October 16. This boat sailed from Tampico, Mex., October 11 for Port Arthur, Tex., loaded with cotton and miscellaneous freight valued at $20,000. It had length of 286 feet and a net tonnage of 310 tons and was owned by the Cia Consolidita de Maderas, of Tampico, Mex. The crew consisted of 27 men. Capt. E. Eschevarra and 12 members of his crew were picked up in the Gulf of Mexico by members of the United States life-saving station at Port Aransas, Tex., on the afternoon of October 22. They were in two lifeboats. The captain believes that six of the crew were lost at the time the vessel foundered and that the others may still be drifting in lifeboats somewhere along the south Texas shore line. (Sinking of Nicaragua taken from newspaper reports.) [End of Cline's report.] Considerable damage was caused along the Texas coast between Rockport and Brownsville by wind and tide. Padre and Brazos Islands were reported submerged for several hours and a number of buildings were washed away. At Point Isabel, a fishing station about 22 miles from Brownsville, the damage to buildings and fishing boats is estimated at $7,000. At Brownsville several windmills were wrecked, trees were blown down, and poorly constructed buildings more or less damaged. No loss of life was reported. The total damage, however, is insignificant when compared with the benefits resulting from the heavy rains accompanying this storm. About two-thirds of the entire area of Texas received a copious supply of moisture, the amounts ranging from 1 to over 5 inches, which not only relieved the droughty conditions existing in many localities, but also prepared the ground for fall plowing and sowing. By far the greater portion of the moisture soaked into the ground as evidenced by an extremely small run-off. The heaviest rainfall occurred at Brownsville, where the total amount from this storm measured 8.26 inches, and in a large number of localities northward as far as Corsicana the amounts ranged from 4 to 5 inches ... the highest wind velocities reported were 55 miles an hour at Brownsville, Tex." (MWR). "Oct 15 1912; Ft. Point (GLS) 1.8 ft; (Connor). "1912; Oct. 15-16; Lower coast of Texas; Minimal damage; Damage $28,000 (Dunn and Miller). "1912 October 16 Hurricane with winds of 100 mph struck central Padre Island [estimated, not observed] ... In Brownsville, the Herald complained that the tropical storm was not tropical enough. They wrote 'On the contrary it was a blue norther cold wet rain of the damp chilly variety so familiar to the people in the semi-arctic regions around San Antonio and Austin.' At Point Isabel, a number of buildings were wrecked and several boats were capsized. The tide rose about six feet in less than four hours and the rain fell non-stop day and night. The oldest inhabitant said he had never seen such a storm" (Ellis). This U.S. landfalling hurricane not mentioned. The implication is that it was not deeper than 982 mb at landfall, which was Ho's criterion for inclusion (Ho et al. 1987). TXA1 [South Texas Coast], no central pressure given (Jarrell et al.). October 17: HWM depicts a closed low inland 29.5N, 97.5W with pressure at most 1010 mb. HURDAT lists this as a tropical depression at 12 UTC at 28.6N, 98.2W (inland). The MWR Tracks locate a center inland at 28N, 98W (a.m.) with 1010 mb pressure and at 30N, 96.5W (p.m.) with pressure 1009 mb. Station highlight: 35 kt SE wind at Corpus Christi at 0005 UTC (MWR). "[The storm was] decreasing rapidly in energy and breaking up on October 17 as an independent storm with general and heavy rains over the eastern two-thirds of Texas" (MWR). October 18-20: HWM and available observations suggest that the system dissipated late on the 17th. HURDAT did the same. The MWR Tracks, however, continued to track a remnant center: 33.8N, 94.5W with 1008 mb pressure on 18th a.m.; 32N, 88W with 1009 mb pressure at 18th p.m.; 31.2N, 85.5W with 1012 mb pressure at 19th a.m.; 30N, 84.2W with 1011 mb pressure at 19th p.m.; 27.7N, 84.7W (back over the Gulf) with 1011 mb pressure at 20th a.m. Minor changes to the track from the 11th to the 13th and the 16th and 17th are primarily based upon HWM and COA data. Track extended until 00 UTC on the 18th to match available data and for a more realistic (slower) translational velocity at the last point in HURDAT. Intensity is reduced from the 11th to the 13th based on data that indicates that the system did not reach hurricane strength until the getting back over the Gulf of Mexico. Winds also reduced on the 13th and 14th after landfall in the Yucatan of Mexico, which was not accounted for in the original HURDAT. No direct measures of hurricane force winds (or implied by pressures) were observed for this system. The peak observations were 48 kt of wind and 996 mb pressure measured in Brownsville, Texas. (The 996 mb peripheral pressure measurement suggests winds of at least 53 kt from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind relationship.) However, the 6' storm tide and inundation at Padre and Brazos Islands suggests landfall of a low-end Category 2 hurricane (~85 kt) in southern coastal Texas around 1800 UTC on the 16th. This is an increase from the Category 1 assessment at landfall by Jarrell et al. and Neumann et al., but is the same as the 85 kt shown originally in HURDAT. A issue arose as to whether this system was or evolved into an extratropical storm at any point. Evidence is clear until the 14th that it was definitely a tropical cyclone. However, the data is ambiguous on the 15th and 16th. It was decided to retain the system as a tropical cyclone on these dates in part because of the rise in temperature at Brownsville by 8F (56F to 64F) from 12 UTC 15th to 12 UTC 16th, even though the winds remained out of the northwest. This suggested that both the temperature contrast of the existed frontal feature was decaying in addition to the arrival of a warm core system. Thus the system is retained as a tropical cyclone throughout its lifetime. Utilizing the Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) inland decay model, this suggests winds of 58, 44, and 35 kt for the 00, 06, and 12 UTC on the 17th. Peak observed winds after landfall within 2 hours of these synoptic times were 35 kt, 32 kt, and 20 kt, respectively. It appears that this system filled faster than what the model would suggest, though the data coverage was (as usual) somewhat sparse near the system's center. Winds are chosen to be 50, 40, and 30 kt, respectively. Peak observed storm tide was 6' at Point Isabel (Ellis). ******************************************************************************* 1912/07 - 2005 REVISION: 20405 11/11/1912 M=15 6 SNBR= 465 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 L 20405 11/11/1912 M=11 7 SNBR= 469 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 L ** * *** 20410 11/11* 0 0 0 0*112 790 35 0*114 800 35 0*117 803 35 0* 20410 11/11* 0 0 0 0*112 797 35 0*114 800 35 0*117 803 35 0* *** 20415 11/12*119 805 35 0*122 807 35 0*124 807 35 0*126 806 35 0* 20415 11/12*119 805 35 0*122 807 35 0*124 807 40 0*126 806 45 0* ** ** 20420 11/13*128 805 35 0*130 804 35 0*131 803 35 0*132 802 35 0* 20420 11/13*128 805 50 0*130 804 55 0*131 803 60 0*132 802 65 0* ** ** ** ** 20425 11/14*132 801 35 0*132 801 40 0*133 800 40 0*135 799 45 0* 20425 11/14*132 801 70 0*132 801 70 0*133 800 70 0*134 799 70 0* ** ** ** *** ** 20430 11/15*138 798 50 0*141 797 60 0*144 796 65 0*148 796 70 0* 20430 11/15*135 798 70 0*137 797 70 0*140 796 70 0*145 796 75 0* *** ** *** ** *** ** *** ** 20435 11/16*152 798 80 0*157 799 85 0*160 800 95 0*168 800 100 0* 20435 11/16*150 798 80 0*155 799 85 0*160 800 90 0*163 800 95 0* *** *** ** *** 20440 11/17*165 798 105 0*168 797 115 0*170 795 120 0*173 792 125 0* 20440 11/17*165 798 100 0*168 797 100 0*171 795 100 0*174 792 100 0* *** *** *** *** *** *** 20445 11/18*176 787 130 0*178 784 130 0*181 782 130 0*188 777 130 0* 20445 11/18*177 789 100 0*180 786 100 0*183 784 100 965*184 781 85 0* *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 20450 11/19*191 780 125 0*187 787 125 0*184 793 120 0*183 797 115 0* 20450 11/19*185 775 80 0*187 765 75 0*190 757 70 0*189 760 65 0* *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 20455 11/20*182 800 110 0*180 804 105 0*179 808 100 0*181 811 95 0* 20455 11/20*187 767 60 0*185 780 55 0*183 793 50 0*182 803 45 0* *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** 20460 11/21*185 812 85 0*192 810 85 0*200 805 75 0*209 796 75 0* 20460 11/21*181 810 40 0*180 815 35 0*180 820 30 0*180 825 25 0* *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** (The 22nd through the 25th are removed from HURDAT.) 20465 11/22*219 785 70 0*233 773 70 0*252 762 70 0*275 751 65 0* 20470 11/23*299 744 65 0*323 738 65 0*346 729 65 0*369 714 65 0* 20475 11/24*391 690 65 0E413 658 60 0E435 620 60 0E455 575 55 0* 20480 11/25E473 518 55 0E489 451 50 0E504 375 45 0E520 300 45 0* 20485 HR Major changes are made to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Evidence for these alterations comes from the Historical Weather Map series, the COADS ship database, _Monthly Weather Review_, Hall (1913), Mitchell (1924), Tannehill (1956), Perez (2000), and and ship observations provided by Dr. Ramon Perez from the Cuban journal Resena Meteorologica. November 6-9: HWM observations show lowered pressures (by up to 4 mb) occurred throughout the Lesser Antilles on the 6th and 7th, but without a closed circulation. Despite this, HWM analyzed a closed center near 14N, 67W on the 7th; 15N, 70W on the 8th; and 14N, 68W on the 9th. A severe squall impacted Trinidad on the 9th (see details extracted from the _Trinidad Mirror_, provided by Mike Chenoweth). It was investigated to see whether either the HWM closed circulation and/or the squall in Trinidad had any direct association with storm #7. However, surface observations from HWM, COADS and newspaper accounts show no closed circulation existed from the 6th through the 9th, though the data is sparse away from the Lesser Antilles. While the wave that went through the Lesser Antilles on the 6th and 7th may have been associated with the tropical disturbance that later formed into a tropical storm on the 11th, it appears unlikely that the squall that impacted Trinidad on the 9th had any direct association with the subsequent tropical cyclone. "There was a severe depression of the barometer here Wednesday night [6th] but happily nothing came of this warning. We have been getting some heavy showers of rain since Sunday." (_Dominica Guardian_, Friday, Nov. 8, 1912 - provided by Mike Chenoweth). The Grenada Chronicle and Gazette newspaper mentions nothing of the system (provided by Mike Chenoweth). _Trinidad Mirror_, Monday, 11 November 1912 "HEAVY SQUALL IN THE GULF! MANY VESSELS DAMAGED, SEVERAL SUNK, No Human Casualties An old mariner told one of our representatives on Saturday that in all his local experience in the Gulf, which extended over more than thirty years, he had never known of such a sharp squall as that which occurred at about 5 a.m. on Saturday morning. For the past week there were many indications of bad weather; vivid sheet lightning, slight winds, and some rains alternated, in the meantime the barometer sinking continuously. Among local shipowners and others who had business with the sea this occasioned at first some serious apprehension and efforts were made to put every thing in ship shape, ready for any eventuality. Since last week, as already stated, the barometer was exceedingly low and on Thursday last we were informed that it was seen at its lowest (locally) for the past ten years. Nothing untoward having occurred, however, apprehension was cast aside and people were lulled into a sense of security and began to pursue their wonted course. Friday night was rather gloomy and there were sharp flashes of distant lightning from a very early hour on Saturday morning. Then at about 5 o'clock, the lightning increased and the south-west wind began to rise. The latter increased in violence as a slight rain began falling and the sea began to rise. It rose in mountainous, huge, towering billows, thundering against the wharves and jetties, sending up masses of water topped with wavy plumes of angry spray and banging and bashing and battering all the craft moored alongside, soon making driftwood of many of them.The tug Edith of the Trinidad Shipping and Trading Company, which was moored against the St. Vincent Street Jetty, seeing the great danger and the damage that was occurring, kept up a shrill wailing with her siren in order to arouse mariners and apprise them of the state of affairs. People hearing the whistles all over the town, seeing the lightning and rain and feeling the wind, began to get rather uncomfortable, and made up their minds to experience a bad time of it, but nothing worse occurred. Several boat and lighter owners, of course, hastened to the wharves to see what was up, while several others did not make any stir owing to the fact that November is not considered a hurricane month. It must be borne in mind that though we in Trinidad have been visited with no marine misfortunes of any appreciable magnitude within the last 50 years or so, still it is the custom, as is the case also all over the West Indies, to look our for bad weather from about 25 June to October 25, and we are told that in some of the Northern Islands at the latter date, the people unite in public thanksgiving for having passed that trying time of the year without any mishaps. November 8, therefore was not thought to be a likely date for bad weather and as a consequence lighters were heedlessly moored alongside the wharves, barges were anchored near to lighters and boats and particularly none but the most elementary precautions were observed as the lightermen and others, left the boats on Friday night. As a result when the winds blew and the seas rose, a scene which almost beggars description was witnessed by those who were either on the wharves or in the snug security of the coastal and other steamers and vessels near by or out at their moorings a safe distance away. Boats, barges, and lighters dragged at their anchors and strained at their moorings. They banged and cannoned against each other, creating a fearful din and doing great damage. Spars were broken and fell overboard, bowsprits snapped off, while others served as rams which stove in their neighbors, making big holes into which the fierce seething waves impetuously flowed, soon filling and finally engulfing the vessels.... ....We know as a fact that a boat belonging to Messrs. J. T. Hamlyn & Sons, which for many years has been used in going off to the lighters at their moorings in rough weather, capsized with five men aboard, some of whom had a very narrow escape from a watery grave. Another boat carrying four oars with seven men aboard was then sent out to assist in rescuing the people, but this one also got swamped. The squall began to subside about 9:30 a.m. .... The weather moderated about 11 a.m. and at about mid-day the gulf had practically assumed its normal condition." [large list of losses and other details of damages done are omitted] The same day's paper on another page carried news from San Fernando, Trinidad. "HEAVY WEATHER IN THE GULF FLATS DAMAGED AND SUNK, GALLANT RESCUE WORK BY SERGEANT RILEY AND HIS MEN. NO LIVES LOST. DAMAGE TO FLATS AND GOODS ESTIMATED AT $6,000. San Fernando woke on Saturday morning to find that much damage had been done in the Gulf by heavy winds.... THE SQUALL At about 5:30 a.m. on Saturday the sea was calm as usual though the sky was a bit cloudy and the air worst [sic]. But about ten minutes or so after a strong southwesterly wind began blowing and conditions were immediately upset. A squall set in. Boats and lighters were tossed about vigorously, the launch Guapo was constantly beating against the jetty...The sea was rough and rowing difficult and dangerous, for as the boat attempted to go forward it seemed that the angry waves would upset her. [were able to save men on flat going down] On the way back they saw two fisherman in the water clinging on their capsized boats. These men were also taken in and brought to shore." [Other accounts of damages follow]. The Trinidad Mirror, Tuesday, November 12, 1912 "The squall which wrought such havoc to the gulf on Saturday morning was not confined to Trinidad solely as the Dutch mail steamer Prins der Nederlandern, which arrived here yesterday morning coming from Curacao via Venezuelan posts reports that La Guayra was left on Friday evening about half three o'clock and there was a heavy swell along the coast until about midnight when it began to blow a gale which lasted about four hours. Evidently the squall which struck this steamer is the same one which struck the gulf about five o'clock, the duration being about the same length of time, as matters began to quiet down in the gulf four hours after the start." [Further damage reports follow concerning the storm at Port of Spain on Saturday, and clean-up efforts] (The above extracts from Trinidad papers provided by Mike Chenoweth.) November 10: HWM depicts a closed low centered near 15N, 71.5W with pressure at most 1010 mb. However, observations do not support a closed circulation, though data near the southerly, westerly and easterly sides of the system are lacking. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. November 11: HWM depicts a closed low centered near 14.5N, 75.5W with pressure at most 1010 mb, though evidence for a closed circulation is somewhat weak. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 12 UTC at 11.4N, 80.0W. The limited data suggest that the HURDAT position is likely more correct than HWM. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. "The first was a tropical disturbance of which the first reported indications were violent thunderstorms on the 11th over the island of Jamaica. During the 11th and 12th radiograms from vessels in the Caribbean Sea east of Nicaragua showed falling pressure" (MWR). November 12: HWM depicts a closed low centered near 15.5N, 78.5W with pressure at most 1010 mb, though evidence for a closed circulation is somewhat weak. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 12 UTC at 12.4N, 80.7W. The limited data suggest that the HURDAT position is likely more correct than HWM. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. November 13: HWM depicts a closed low centered near 15N, 79W with pressure at most 1010 mb, though evidence for a closed circulation is somewhat weak. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 12 UTC at 13.1N, 80.3W. The limited data suggest that the HURDAT position is likely more correct than HWM. Ship highlight: 992 mb at 13N, 80W (MWR). "On the 13th, through the aid of vessel radiograms, a definite center of disturbance was noted from 100 to 150 miles east of the Nicaragua coast, with a barometer reading of 29.30 inches" (MWR). November 14: HWM depicts a closed low centered near 14.5N, 78.5W with pressure at most 1005 mb. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 12 UTC at 13.3N, 80.0W. The limited data suggest that the HURDAT position is likely more correct than HWM. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. November 15: HWM depicts a closed low centered near 14.5N, 78W with pressure at most 1000 mb. HURDAT listed this as a Category 1 hurricane at 12 UTC at 14.4N, 79.6W. Observations suggest that the center is likely somewhat south of the HURDAT position. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. "The hurricane began over the island [Jamaica] on the 15th and continued for several days" (MWR). November 16: HWM depicts a closed low centered near 16.5N, 78.5W with pressure at most 1000 mb. HURDAT listed this as a Category 2 hurricane at 12 UTC at 16.0N, 80.0W. The HURDAT position appears to be accurate from available observations. Ship highlight: 35 kt NE at 12 UTC at 19.1N, 81.7W (HWM). Station highlights: 48 kt SE and 1004 mb at 19 UTC at Woodlawn, Jamaica (HALL) ; 26 kt NE and 1002 mb at 18 UTC at Negril Point, Jamaica (HALL). November 17: HWM depicts a closed low centered near 16.5N, 77W with pressure at most 995 mb. HURDAT listed this as a Category 4 hurricane at 12 UTC at 17.0N, 79.5W. The HURDAT position appears to be accurate from available observations. Ship highlight: 40 kt ENE at 12 UTC at 21.7N, 77.2W (HWM). Station highlight: 52 kt SE and 995 mb at 18 UTC at Negril Point (HALL). November 18: HWM depicts a closed low centered near 18.5N, 78W with pressure at most 995 mb. HURDAT listed this as a Category 4 hurricane at 12 UTC at 18.1N, 78.2W. The position based on observations appears to be just north and west of the HURDAT position. Ship highlight: 70 kt ENE and 980 mb at 03 UTC at 18.2N, 78.5W (HALL). Station highlight: 105 kt NE and 979 mb at 0703 UTC, calm and 965 mb at 11 UTC at Negril Point, Jamaica (HALL). "The pressure fell steadily until 6 a. m. of the 18th, at which hour the barometer at Negril Point read 28.487 inches, while at Kingston at the same time the reading was about 1 inch higher. Vessels in the path of the storm reported wind velocities of more than 100 miles an hour, and at Negril Point, the anemometer recorded a velocity of 120 miles an hour from the northeast at 2.03 a. m. of the 18th, when two of the cups were wrenched off, with the wind still increasing. The barometer at that time read 28.90 inches, and for 12 hours previously the wind had been blowing between 60 and 80 miles an hour from the southeast. By 10 a. m. the wind had shifted to northwest, but was still blowing with hurricane force with a barometer reading of 28.78 inches. From 7 a. m. of the 17th to 2 a. m. of the 18th the average wind velocity was 66 miles an hour, while the rainfall for the 24 hours ending at 7 a. m. of the 18th was 12.79 inches. There had also been 3.34 inches during the previous 24 hours" (MWR). "Great damage was wrought in Jamaica. Several towns were practically wiped out by winds and tidal waves, and the loss of approximately 100 lives was reported. At the town of Savannah La Mar, on the south coast of the island, the tidal wave was the highest in a century" (MWR). "The following account of the hurricane by Rev. J. J. Williams, S. J., of Black River, Jamaica (about 40 miles southeast of Negril Point Lighthouse), is take from "America," December 21, 1912: It was the night of Sunday, the 17th, however, that the real storm commenced. The southeasterly wind, increasing in violence at every puff, until its velocity exceeded 150 mile per hour [estimated], was accompanied by a torrential downpour, such as passes description. During the course of Monday morning the rains stopped for a time, while the wind continued with unabated fury until the middle of the day, when it suddenly sank to rest, without any noticeable change of direction. Then succeeded a breathless calm for a few hours, that seemed to indicate that the very vortex of the storm was passing over us. The lull lasted for about three hours. The unnatural stillness, marred only by an occasional drizzle, was itself portentous of approaching trouble. As there had been no change of the wind, the knowing ones prepared for the worst. Suddenly the low-scudding clouds swept in from the north, and a perfect deluge of rain again swept the land. The wind did not immediate resume its former fury; that was to come later. For the time being it moaned dismally. Toward the hour of sunset the sky took on a most terrible aspect. No one recalls having ever seen anything of its kind before. The heavy yellow fog that mystified the world subsequent to the eruption of Krakatoa some 30 years ago was nothing in comparison. It was like the judgment day. The rain was coming in fitful gusts, when suddenly we seemed to be standing in the midst of a blazing furnace. Around the entire horizon was a ring of blood-red fire, shading away to a brilliant amber at the zenith. The sky, in fact, formed one great fiery dome of reddish light that shone through the descending rain ... The burst forth the hurricane afresh, and for two hours or more (I have lost track of the hours that night) it raged and tore asunder what little had passed unscathed through the previous blow. In some places, as Savanna la Mar, the ocean swept in and carried away the very debris. In other places, as Montego Bay, the inrushing torrents sweeping down the gullies leaped their banks and without a moment's warning bore out to sea row after row of houses. Despite the heroic efforts at rescue, many were the unfortunates who found a water grave. All along the coast vessels were wrecked upon the reefs or foundered in the open sea. At Montego Bay along 14 sailing craft were lost, while at Savanna la Mar more than one hulk was left high and dry in the public market. Meanwhile, inland the wind was playing havoc everywhere wiping out whole plantations of bananas, obliterating files of sugar cane, laying low the cocoanut groves, scattering like chaff the hovels of the poor, reducing to shapeless masses of ruins the better class of dwellings, and sparing nothing it its fury. Practically one-third of the entire island was thus laid waste ... The total loss on the island is estimated at 200 lives, with the destruction of property valued at $1,000,000" (Mitchell). November 19: HWM depicts a closed low centered near 17.5N, 79W with pressure at most 995 mb. HURDAT listed this as a Category 4 hurricane at 12 UTC at 18.4N, 79.3W. Mitchell (1924) indicated a center near 18.5N, 77W. Perez (2000) suggests a center near 19.5N, 76W. Observations available suggest a more eastward and northward position than that in HURDAT, not as far as that by Perez, but close to Mitchell's estimate. Ship highlights: 70 kt NE and 998 mb at 0330 UTC at 18.4N, 76.9W (HALL); NE-NW winds and 1000 mb at 06 UTC at 20.0N, 75.8W at Santiago de Cuba (Cuba). "The storm apparently recurved after reaching Jamaica" (MWR). "The storm rapidly decreased in intensity and filled up between the island of Jamaica and the Windward Passage" (Mitchell). "The damages in all of the province of Oriente are not much considering, although trees were uprooted and roofs of buildings damaged, telegraph communications were interrupted, banana plantations were knocked over and other impacts of moderate importance occurred" (Cuba). November 20: HWM depicts a closed low centered near 16.5N, 80W with pressure at most 995 mb. HURDAT listed this as a Category 3 hurricane at 12 UTC at 17.9N, 80.8W. Perez (2000) suggests a center near 20.5N, 74.0W. Observations available indicate a center east of the HURDAT position. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. "After leaving Jamaica the intensity of the storm decreased and on the morning of the 20th, a vessel radiogram from the Windward Passage showed a barometer reading of 29.84 inches with a moderately strong northeast wind" (MWR). "The storm lost intensity rapidly after passing Jamaica and was not traced beyond extreme eastern Cuba" (Tannehill). Perez (2000) indicated a Category 1 impact in southeastern Cuba from this system. November 21: HWM depicts a closed low centered near 19N, 81.5W with pressure at most 995 mb. HURDAT listed this as a Category 1 hurricane at 12 UTC at 20.0N, 80.5. Perez (2000) suggests a center near 24N, 73.5W. Available observations suggest a weakened and disorganized center to the south and west of the position in HURDAT. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. November 22: HWM depicts a closed low centered at 25.5N, 76W with pressure of at most 995 mb. HURDAT listed this as a Category 1 hurricane at 12 UTC at 25.2N, 76.2W. Perez (2000) suggest a center near 29N, 73W. MWR Map of Lows indicates a center at 22.5N, 78W with 1013 mb pressure (a.m.) and 27.7N, 77.7W with 1014 mb pressure (p.m.). Observations do not indicate a closed circulation near any of the possible positions. A cold front can be analyzed as extending from a developing extratropical low at 28.5N, 79.5W, southward to near Miami and then over western Cuba. Ship highlight: 45 kt ESE at 12 UTC at 25.8N, 75.7W (HWM). "The storm apparently continued northward a short distance to the westward of Turks Island" (MWR). November 23: HWM depicts a closed low centered near 34.5N, 73W with pressure of at most 995 mb. HURDAT listed this as a Category 1 hurricane at 12 UTC at 34.6N, 72.9W. The MWR Map of Lows analyzed the center at 31.5N, 73.5W with 1004 mb pressure (a.m.) and 35N, 73W with 1004 mb pressure (p.m.). A cold front can be analyzed from the observations extending from the low southwestward as well as a warm front going east-northeastward from the low. Ship highlight: 50 kt NW at 01 UTC at 30.5N, 78.5W (COA). "It was next noted on the morning of the 23rd about 300 miles east of Charleston, S. C." (MWR). November 24: HWM depicts an extratropical low centered at 42N, 63W with pressure of at most 995 mb. HURDAT listed this as an extratropical storm at 43.5N, 62.0W at 12 UTC. The MWR Map of Lows indicated a center at 39.8N, 75.5W and 1002 mb pressure (a.m.) and 42N, 73.5W and 996 mb pressure (p.m.). Ship highlight: 50 kt S and 998 mb at 04 UTC at 38.5N, 64.5W (COA); 30 kt S and 992 mb at 12 UTC at 42.1N, 62.0W (HWM). "It then continued due northward with slowly increasing energy" (MWR). November 25: HWM depicts an extratropical low centered at 51N, 36W with pressure of at most 1000 mb. HURDAT listed this as an extratropical storm at 50.4N, 37.5W. MWR Map of Lows indicated a center near 45N, 73W with pressure 993 mb (a.m.) and 46N, 67W with pressure 998 mb (p.m.). Ship highlight: 35 kt W at 12 UTC at 47.9N, 40.0W (HWM). "By the morning of the 25th had reached northern New York. After this time it moved northeastward and was last noted over Nova Scotia on the morning of the 26th" (MWR). [Note: apparently the analysis in the Monthly Weather Review on the 24th to the 26th was following a secondary, extratropical low pressure system, which was not utilized in HWM or HURDAT.] The track is adjusted on the 11th to provide a realistic initial motion. Small additional modifications were made on the 15th through the 18th based upon available observations. A larger change to the track of this hurricane was made on the 19th, which now takes the system over the northern half of the island based upon observations in Hall (1913). The positions of the system were similar to HURDAT on the 20th, as the storm turned back to the west after reaching the ocean off of Jamaica. For the 21st to the 26th, there are a variety of opinions as to what happened to this system: 1) MWR suggested it went northward across Cuba and the Bahamas and made landfall in New York on the 23rd before decaying over Nova Scotia on the 26th; 2) HWM and HURDAT suggested it went northward across Cuba and the Bahamas, but then turned to the northeast at the latitude of the Carolinas, became extratropical, clipped Newfoundland on the 24th and decayed over the far north Atlantic on the 25th; 3) Perez suggested it went northeastward passing between Cuba and Hispanola, then northward to the latitude of the Carolinas, then following the HWM/HURDAT scenario; and, finally, 4) Tannehill and Mitchell suggested that it decayed near extreme eastern Cuba. The MWR and HWM/HURDAT tracks are not correct, as observations from Cuba (Perez 2000) indicate that no tropical storm or hurricane made landfall in central Cuba, though the system did cause a Category 1 impact in southeastern Cuba. However, available ship and coastal observations indicate that the Perez track cannot be correct either with a track through the Windward Passage. The Tannehill/ Mitchell scenario appears closest to being accurate, though available observations indicate that the system dissipated instead on the 21st in the western Caribbean. The system tracked in HWM and HURDAT from the 22nd until the 25th was a separate, extratropical storm that underwent cyclogenesis on the morning of 22nd near 28.5N, 79.5W along a well defined frontal zone. (It is to be noted that on the 22nd the HWM had the baroclinic low well to the southeast of its actual position.) Thus the dates of the 22nd through the 25th are removed from HURDAT. The intensity of the system was boosted substantially on the 12th to the 15th, based upon MWR reports of ship observations of pressures around 992 mb. 992 mb peripheral pressure on the 13th suggests winds of at least 61 kt from the southern pressure-wind relationship - 65 kt chosen at 18 UTC on the 13th. Thus it is estimated that the system became a hurricane late on the 13th, rather than the 15th as originally shown in HURDAT. The intensity at landfall in Jamaica on the 18th can be ascertained from a central pressure reading in Negril Point of 965 mb at 11 UTC. This suggest winds of 95 kt from the southerly pressure-wind relationship. Winds of 105 kt were also recorded at this station, which reduces to 84 kt after accounting for the high bias of the instrumentation of the time (Fergusson and Covert 1924) and converting to a peak 1 min observation (Powell et al. 1996). Detailed hourly measurement of the winds at Negril Point allows for an estimate of a 10 nmi RMW, which is smaller than that expected by climatology (14 nmi) for this latitude and central pressure (Vickery et al. 2000). Thus an increase over the winds suggested by the pressure-wind relationship to 100 kt (Category 3) is selected for winds at landfall in Jamaica, as well as the peak intensity of the storm. (No other observations exceeded 70 kt wind or less than 983 mb pressure for the lifetime of the system.) Winds are thus reduced significantly from the 17th to the 19th. A peripheral pressure of 1000 mb and winds shifting from NE-NW on the 19th from a ship at Santiago de Cuba indicates a close pass just south of Cuba. This is consistent with the moderate impact in southeast Cuba and assessment of Category 1 conditions by Perez (2000). Observations indicate that the system weakened to tropical storm intensity on the 20th, decreased to a tropical depression on the 21st, and dissipated by early on the 22nd. The impact and severity of this hurricane, while not being as intense as originally suggested, was probably enhanced by the extreme, prolonged rainfall on the island beginning on the 11th up through the time of landfall of the hurricane as well as the lengthy duration that hurricane force winds were felt at Jamaica during landfall. ******************s************************************************************ 1912 - Additional Notes: 1) Historical Weather Maps and COADS indicate that a tropical cyclone developed in the open Atlantic near 29N, 40W on 4 April 1912 from an existing extratropical storm. The system moved toward the southwest for two days and was absorbed by the frontal boundary of a second extratropical cyclone on the 6th. Highest winds observed from this tropical cyclone were 35 kt on the 4th (HWM). Lowest pressures observed were 1015 on the 4th (HWM). With only one observed gale and moderately low pressures, not enough evidence exists to designate this a tropical storm. Thus this system is considered a tropical depression (or perhaps a subtropical depression) and will not be added to HURDAT. DAY LAT LON STATUS Apr 03 37N 39W Extratropical Apr 04 29N 40W Tropical Depression Apr 05 26N 43W Tropical Depression (Dissipating) Apr 06 --- --- Dissipated/Merged with Frontal Boundary 2) Historical Weather Maps and COADS data indicate a baroclinic low leaving the northeastern US to September 20 with winds of about 35 kt. It gains intensity on the 21st by having a fall in central pressure to near 1010 mb. On the 22nd, pressures fall to 1005 mb and gale force winds up to 40 kt are observed. On the 23rd, the storm changes little in intensity, but the frontal features are beginning to dissipate. On the 24th, the system weakens, but starts to gain tropical characteristics. On the 25th, winds reach 30 kt with a central pressure of 1006 mb. On the 26th, it has winds of 30 kt with a central pressure of not more than 1002 mb, indicating the possibility of a tropical storm. However, since there were no gale force wind reports and since the system is very broad, it is uncertain whether it had obtained tropical storm intensity. On the 27th, it loses tropical characteristics and weakens. On the 28th, it has evolved into an extratropical system and has the strongest winds far from the center. This system raced across the north Atlantic with pressures below 1000 mb. On October 1st, its forward momentum slows and pressures reach 985 mb. Weakening occurs on the 2nd and 3rd with pressures returning to over 1000 mb. On the 4th, the remnants move over Italy and by the 5th the system has dissipated. Thus this system was not included into HURDAT because of the lack of confirmation of tropical storm intensity on the days that it appeared to have tropical cyclone characteristics (24-26). DAY LAT LON STATUS Sep. 20 42N 66W Extratropical Sep. 21 39N 62W Extratropical Sep. 22 42N 58W Extratropical Sep. 23 41N 54W Extratropical Sep. 24 36N 52W Extratropical or Tropical Depression Sep. 25 35N 52W Tropical Depression Sep. 26 37N 54W Tropical Depression Sep. 27 42N 53W Extratropical Sep. 28 48N 48W Extratropical Sep. 29 47N 30W Extratropical Sep. 30 48N 22W Extratropical Oct. 1 49N 13W Extratropical Oct. 2 47N 7W Extratropical Oct. 3 45N 3E Extratropical Oct. 4 43N 12E Extratropical Dissipating 3) The Connor (1956) reference has a map of a tropical storm for 21-25 Sep. 1912, which began in the Gulf of Mexico south of Texas, made landfall in Northwest Florida on the 23rd and reached the ocean late on the 24th off of North Carolina. This system was also briefly mentioned in the Monthly Weather Review (page 1305) and it was included in its Map of Low Pressure Tracks. It is noted that the estimated central pressures listed in the MWR Tracks peaks over water, then weakens over land - which is characteristic of a tropical cyclone. One gale force wind report was noted (Jacksonville on the 24th). However, after inspection of the Historical Weather Maps, the system is clearly extratropical in structure throughout its lifetime and thus will not be added to the HURDAT database. DAY LAT LON STATUS Sep. 21 25N 95W Extratropical Sep. 22 29N 91W Extratropical Sep. 23 29N 87W Extratropical Sep. 24 36N 74W Extratropical Sep. 25 --- --- Extratropical Dissipating 4) Historical Weather Maps indicate that a low pressure area formed on the 17th of October southeast of Bermuda, moved generally northwestward until the 20th, recurved and moved toward the northeast from the 21st until the 24th, and dissipated on the 25th southeast of Cape Race. Available HWM and COADS ship data suggest that it was a tropical depression from the 17th until the 20th, then became extratropical as a cold front moved from the northwest and overtook the storm on the 21st. Peak intensity during its tropical depression stage was 25-30 kt, though there was a single, isolated 35 kt NNW ship report (COA) at 12 UTC on the 20th at 35.0N, 62.0W. Without corroborating additional evidence for tropical storm intensity, this system is not added to HURDAT but is listed here as a possible tropical storm. DAY LAT LON STATUS Oct. 17 29N 54W Tropical Depression Oct. 18 26N 52W Tropical Depression Oct. 19 30N 55W Tropical Depression Oct. 20 34N 59W Tropical Depression Oct. 21 38N 53W Extratropical Storm Oct. 22 38N 51W Extratropical Storm Oct. 23 38N 51W Extratropical Storm Oct. 24 41N 48W Extratropical Storm 5) Historical Weather Maps indicate a closed extratropical low west of Spain on November 4th, 1912. A pressure of 1005 is observed and maximum winds were 30 kt. There was little change on Nov. 5th with a pressure of 1003 mb. On November 7th, it obtained some tropical characteristics with winds of about 20 kt and it moved slowly to the south. On the 8th, winds near the center were unknown and minimum pressure was likely below 1009 mb. On the 9th, central pressure increased to near 1014 mb with maximum winds of 20 kt. Winds increase on the 10th to 25 kt and the depression moved west on November 8-10. On the 11th, it turned NE and was absorbed into a frontal boundary. There was no evidence of gale force winds for this system, thus it was not added as an additional system into HURDAT. DAY LAT LON STATUS Nov. 4 37N 24W Extratropical Nov. 5 34N 24W Extratropical Nov. 6 32N 24W Extratropical Nov. 7 30N 25W Tropical Depression Nov. 8 29N 26W Tropical Depression Nov. 9 30N 39W Tropical Depression Nov. 10 30N 46W Tropical Depression Nov. 11 32N 42W Tropical Depression Being Absorbed by Front ***************************************************************************** 1913/01 - 2005 REVISION: 20460 06/22/1913 M= 7 1 SNBR= 466 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 20460 06/21/1913 M= 9 1 SNBR= 470 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 ** * *** (The 21st is new to HURDAT.) 20462 06/21* 0 0 0 0*110 800 30 0*110 805 30 0*111 806 30 0* 20465 06/22* 0 0 0 0*110 800 60 0*118 810 65 0*124 818 70 0* 20465 06/22*112 807 30 0*113 808 35 0*115 810 40 0*121 813 45 0* *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** *** *** ** 20470 06/23*131 825 70 0*138 832 70 0*145 837 70 0*153 841 70 0* 20470 06/23*127 816 45 0*134 820 45 0*140 825 45 0*146 830 40 0* *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 20475 06/24*161 845 75 0*170 850 75 0*178 854 80 0*185 860 80 0* 20475 06/24*152 835 35 0*158 840 35 0*165 845 40 0*175 850 45 0* *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 20480 06/25*191 865 85 0*197 869 85 0*203 874 85 0*212 878 85 0* 20480 06/25*185 855 50 0*195 860 50 0*205 865 50 0*214 871 40 0* *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 20485 06/26*222 881 85 0*232 884 85 0*240 892 85 0*245 902 85 0* 20485 06/26*223 878 40 0*232 885 45 0*240 892 50 0*245 902 55 0* *** *** ** ** ** ** 20490 06/27*249 917 80 0*252 933 80 0*257 947 75 0*263 959 70 0* 20490 06/27*249 917 60 0*252 933 65 0*257 947 65 0*263 959 65 0* ** ** ** ** 20495 06/28*270 972 65 1004*277 984 55 0*285 995 35 0*3001008 20 0* 20495 06/28*270 972 65 *277 984 45 0*285 995 35 0*2931003 30 0* **** ** ******* ** (The 29th is new to HURDAT.) 20497 06/29*3001008 25 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 20500 HRATX1 Minor changes are made to the track and major changes to the intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Evidence for these alterations comes from the Historical Weather Map series, the COADS ship database, _Monthly Weather Review_, Original Monthly Record station data from NCDC, Connor (1956), Dunn and Miller (1960), Ho et al. (1987), Ellis (1988), and Jarrell et al. (1992). June 21: Observations from HWM and COADS suggests a closed low near 11N, 80.5W. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. June 22: Observations from HWM and COADS suggests a closed low near 11.5N, 81W. HURDAT listed this as a Category 1 hurricane at 12 UTC at 11.8N, 81.0W. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. June 23: Observations from HWM and COADS suggests a closed low near 14.0N, 82.5W. HURDAT listed this as a Category 1 hurricane at 12 UTC at 14.5N, 83.7W. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. June 24: Observations from HWM and COADS do not show a closed circulation, though data to the south of the possible center are sparse. If a center exists, it is likely near 16.5N, 84.5W. HURDAT listed this as a Category 1 hurricane at 12 UTC at 17.8N, 85.4W. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. "On the morning of the 24th vessel reports indicated the presence of a disturbance in the extreme western Caribbean Sea" (MWR). June 25: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1010 mb at 20.5N, 85.5W, HURDAT listed this as a Category 2 hurricane at 12 UTC at 20.3N, 87.4W. Observations suggest that the center is likely between the HWM and HURDAT positions. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. June 26: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1007.5 mb at 25.5N, 90.5W. HURDAT listed this as a Category 2 hurricane at 12 UTC at 24.0N, 89.2W. Observations suggest that the center is likely close to the HURDAT position. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. "During the following 48 hours the disturbance moved north-northwest to about latitude 25, and longitude 89" (MWR). June 27: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1007.5 mb at 24.5N, 96W. HURDAT listed this as a Category 1 hurricane at 12 UTC at 25.7N, 94.7W. Observations suggest that the center is likely close to the HURDAT position. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. June 28: Observations indicate a closed low over land near the Texas- Mexico border at 28.5N, 99.5W. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 12 UTC at 28.5N, 99.5W. Station highlight: 43 kt SE at 08 UTC at Corpus Christi (OMR); 10 kt NW and 1003 mb at 01 UTC at Brownsville (OMR). "It thence moved about northwest until the evening of the 27th when it was off the mouth of the Rio Grande with pressure at Brownsville, Tex., 29.62 inches. By morning of the 28th, it had passed inland over the Texas coast between Corpus Christi and Brownsville, a maximum wind velocity of 52 [50] miles from the southeast being reported on that morning at Corpus Christi. ... The storm apparently broke up over the upper Nueces watershed after giving copious rains in that section. The center of heaviest precipitation was at Montell, Uvalde County, where from 2.30 p. m. June 28 to 9 a. m. June 29 the fall amounted to 20.60 inches ... Uvalde, in the same county, and less than 30 miles southeast of Montell, reported a rainfall of 8.50 inches from 1 p. m. June 28 to 6 a. m. June 29. These rains caused considerable damage in that section, flooding the lowlands, washing away houses and stock, and interrupting traffic and communication by telegraph and telephone for several days. One person was drowned in the vicinity of Montell" (MWR). "June 27. Lower Texas Coast. Minor. Torrential rains" (Dunn and Miller). "Tide information - 1.4' Ft. Point, Galveston" (Connor). "1913 Jun TX, 1S [southern coast of Texas]" (Jarrell et al.). "Hurricane made landfall on Central Padre Island near Big Shell with 100 mph winds [~85 kt] ... Storm surge peaked at 12.7' in Galveston" (Ellis). [These storm surge and wind wind values are erroneous as can be shown from the Weather Bureau Galveston station Original Monthly Records: "27th - The tide was about 1.5 feet above normal most of the day...Maximum velocity 39 mph [34 kt]". This U.S. landfalling hurricane not mentioned. The implication is that it was not deeper than 982 mb at landfall, which was Ho's criterion for inclusion (Ho et al. 1987). June 29: System appears to have dissipated over south central Texas from HWM observations by 12 UTC, but may still have been a tropical cyclone at 00 UTC. Genesis for this hurricane is begun a day earlier in the southwestern Caribbean on the 21st, based upon available observations. Minor alterations to the track are made on the 22nd to the 26th due to ship and coastal data. Track extended to 00 UTC on the 29th based upon observations indicating its existence through early on the 29th as well as for a more realistic translational velocity. Intensity reduced dramatically from the 22nd to the 25th as observations indicate that it did not reach hurricane intensity until reaching the Gulf of Mexico. No observations of hurricane force winds or equivalent in central pressure were ever measured for this system. (Highest observed winds were 43 kt and lowest observed pressure was 1003 mb.) However, due to landfall in a relatively sparsely monitored part of Texas between Brownsville and Corpus Christi, it is quite possible that the system did obtain minimal hurricane force intensity and made landfall in Texas as a Category 1 (65 kt) hurricane around 0100 UTC at 27.1N, 97.4W. (The 1004 mb pressure in HURDAT at 00 UTC on the 28th is a peripheral pressure and is thus removed from HURDAT.) Utilizing the Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) inland decay model, this suggests winds of 44, 34, and 28 kt for 06, 12 and 18 UTC on the 28th. Peak observed winds after landfall within 2 hours of these synoptic times were 43, 41, and 28 kt, respectively. These adjust to 37, 35 and 24 kt after accounting for the high bias of the anemometer of the era and converting to a peak 1 minute wind (Fergusson and Covert 1924 and Powell et al. 1996). Thus winds are reduced from 55 to 45 kt at 06 UTC, kept at 35 at 12 UTC, and increased from 20 to 30 kt at 18 UTC. Peak storm tide observed was 1.4' at Ft. Point, Galveston (Connor). ***************************************************************************** 1913/02 - 2005 ADDITION: 20501 08/14/1913 M= 3 2 SNBR= 471 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 20502 08/14* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*320 680 30 0*330 655 30 0* 20503 08/15*340 632 35 0*350 610 35 0*360 590 40 0*370 575 40 0* 20504 08/16*382 565 40 0*395 562 40 0E410 560 35 0E425 560 30 0* 20504 TS This is a new tropical storm, previously not documented in _Monthly Weather Review_ or Neumann et al. (1999). Evidence for this system comes from the Historical Weather Map series and the COADS ship database. August 13: A stationary front is depicted in HWM as extending from near Bermuda to North Carolina, though the structure appears to be better described as a trough with little to no surface baroclinic structure. No closed circulation is evident, though there are winds up to 25 kt on the south side of the trough. August 14: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1010 mb at 32N, 71W with a cold front extending to the southwest and a stationary front extending to the east of the center. However, COADS and HWM data indicate that likely no frontal features existed at this time and that the center was closer to 32N, 68W. No gale force winds (or equivalent in pressure) were observed. August 15: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1015 mb at 35N, 61.5W with a cold front extending to the southwest and a stationary front extending to the east of the center. However, COADS and HWM data indicate that likely no frontal features existed at this time and that the center was closer to 36N, 59W. Ship highlights: 35 kt SSW at 33.3N, 55.3W at 12 UTC (HWM) and 35 kt ENE at 39.3N, 58.0W (HWM). August 16: HWM indicates a stationary front extending from near Bermuda to north-northeastward to 39N, 60W, then extending east-northeastward to 43N, 45W. While it does appear at this time that modest frontal features has formed by this time, a closed circulation can be identified at 41N, 56W. Ship highlight: 35 kt S at 40.7N, 58.2W (HWM). August 17: System has been completely absorbed into a frontal boundary and has lost its identity. This system formed as a tropical cyclone of tropical depression intensity on the 14th of August west of Bermuda. It intensified to a tropical storm on the 15th and reached a peak intensity of around 40 kt late on the 15th and early on the 16th. It transformed into an extratropical storm system on the 16th and had dissipated south of Newfoundland by the 17th. There is some uncertainty of the true character of this system, as on the 15th (the date of peak intensity) the storm's center is elongated SW-NE along HWM's (supposed) frontal boundary. Another interpretation of this system is that it could be described as a non-tropical gale with an ill-defined center. ******************************************************************************* 1913/03 - 2005 REVISION: 20545 09/03/1913 M=10 3 SNBR= 468 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 20545 08/26/1913 M=18 3 SNBR= 472 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 ** ** ** *** (The 26th of August through the 2nd of September are new to HURDAT.) 20546 08/26* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*125 210 30 0*126 222 30 0* 20546 08/27*127 235 35 0*127 247 35 0*127 260 40 0*127 273 45 0* 20546 08/28*127 285 45 0*127 298 45 0*127 310 45 0*127 322 45 0* 20546 08/29*128 335 45 0*129 347 45 0*130 360 45 0*130 373 45 0* 20546 08/30*130 385 45 0*131 398 45 0*132 410 45 0*132 422 45 0* 20546 08/31*133 435 45 0*134 447 45 0*135 460 45 0*136 472 45 0* 20546 09/01*137 483 45 0*138 494 45 0*140 505 45 0*142 516 45 0* 20546 09/02*144 527 45 0*147 538 45 0*150 550 45 0*155 562 45 0* 20550 09/03* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*170 596 35 0*177 602 35 0* 20550 09/03*160 574 45 0*165 584 45 0*170 596 45 0*177 602 45 0* *** *** ** *** *** ** ** ** 20555 09/04*184 607 35 0*191 611 40 0*198 614 40 0*204 616 45 0* 20555 09/04*184 607 45 0*191 611 45 0*198 614 45 0*206 616 45 0* ** ** ** *** 20560 09/05*210 618 45 0*216 619 50 0*223 623 50 0*233 624 55 0* 20560 09/05*214 618 45 0*222 619 45 0*230 623 45 0*239 624 45 0* *** *** ** *** ** *** ** 20565 09/06*246 627 60 0*259 627 60 0*271 621 60 0*282 605 70 0* 20565 09/06*249 627 45 0*260 627 45 0*271 621 50 0*282 605 50 0* *** ** *** ** ** ** 20570 09/07*292 585 70 0*300 562 75 0*306 540 75 0*308 518 80 0* 20570 09/07*292 585 50 0*300 562 50 0*306 540 55 0*308 518 55 0* ** ** ** ** 20575 09/08*310 496 80 0*313 474 85 0*321 456 85 0*324 454 85 0* 20575 09/08*310 496 55 0*310 474 60 0*311 460 60 0*315 454 60 0* ** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** 20580 09/09*329 453 85 0*334 454 85 0*339 459 85 0*344 464 85 0* 20580 09/09*323 453 60 0*331 454 60 0*339 459 60 0*344 464 60 0* *** ** *** ** ** ** 20585 09/10*349 469 85 0*353 475 80 0*358 482 75 0*362 490 70 0* 20585 09/10*349 469 60 0*353 475 60 0*358 482 60 0*364 488 55 0* ** ** ** *** *** ** 20590 09/11*365 499 70 0*368 509 70 0*370 520 70 0*371 531 65 0* 20590 09/11*371 493 55 0*378 498 55 0*385 500 55 0*394 500 50 0* *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 20595 09/12*371 544 60 0*369 557 45 0*360 570 35 0*350 568 30 0* 20595 09/12*404 500 45 0*416 500 40 0E430 500 35 0E445 500 30 0* *** *** ** *** *** ** **** *** **** *** 20600 HR 20600 TS ** Major changes to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Evidence for these alterations comes from the Historical Weather Map series, the COADS ship database and _Monthly Weather Review_. August 26: Observations from HWM and COADS suggests a closed low near 12.5N, 21W. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. August 27: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1010 mb at 12.7N, 26W. Ship highlight: 35 kt E at 13.5N, 26.5W at 12 UTC (COA). August 28: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1010 mb at 16N, 31W. HWM and COADS observations analyze the system farther south. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. August 29: Observations from HWM and COADS do not suggest a closed low, but data are sparse on the west and south sides. A low center was analyzed at 13N, 36W based upon continuity. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. August 30: Observations from HWM and COADS suggest a closed low near 13N, 41W. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. August 31: Observations from HWM and COADS suggest a closed low near 13.5N, 46W. Ship highlight: 35 kt NE and 1005 mb at 14.6N, 47.0W at 12 UTC (HWM). September 1: Observations from HWM and COADS do not suggest a closed low, but data are sparse on all sides. A low center was analyzed at 14N, 50.5W based upon continuity. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. September 2: Observations from HWM and COADS do not suggest a closed low, but data are sparse on all sides. A low center was analyzed at 15N, 55W based upon continuity. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. September 3: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1012.5 mb at 17N, 59.5W. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 12 UTC at 17.0N, 59.6W. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. September 4: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1012.5 mb at 19N, 58W. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 12 UTC at 19.8N, 61.4W. HWM and COADS observations indicate that the HURDAT position is more reasonable. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. September 5: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1012.5 mb at 22.5N, 62W. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 12 UTC at 22.3N, 62.3W. Available observations indicate a center north of HURDAT and HWM. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. September 6: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1010 mb at 26.5N, 64.5W. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 12 UTC at 27.1, 62.1W. HWM and COADS observations indicate that the HURDAT position is more reasonable. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. September 7: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1000 mb at 30.5N, 54W. HURDAT listed this as a Category 1 hurricane at 12 UTC at 30.6N, 54.0W. Ship highlight: 20 kt NNW and 1005 mb at 12 UTC at 31.0N, 55.7W (HWM). September 8: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1000 mb at 32N, 45.5W. HURDAT listed this as a Category 2 hurricane at 12 UTC at 32.1N, 45.6W. HWM and COADS ship observations indicate a moderate cold front passing to the north of the storm and that the storm is somewhat south and west of the HWM and HURDAT positions. Ship highlight: 35 kt SSE at 12 UTC at 30.3N, 44.4W (HWM). September 9: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1005 mb at 34N, 45.5W. HURDAT listed this as a Category 2 hurricane at 12 UTC at 33.9N, 45.9W. Ship highlight: 35 kt N at 12 UTC at 34.5N, 47.2W (HWM). September 10: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1005 mb at 36N, 48W. A non-tropical low system is approaching the tropical cyclone from the west. HURDAT listed the tropical cyclone as a Category 1 hurricane at 12 UTC at 35.8N, 48.2W. Ship highlight: Several ships with 35 kt (HWM and COA). September 11: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1010 mb at 37.5N, 58.5W. HURDAT listed this as a Category 1 hurricane at 12 UTC at 37.0N, 52.0W. The low shown by HWM appears to be an unrelated non-tropical low. Available observations suggest that the tropical cyclone is closer to, but to the north and east of, the HURDAT position. Ship highlight: 45 kt SW at 12 UTC at 37.9N, 48.1W (COA). September 12: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1010 mb at 36.5N, 57W. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 12 UTC at 36.0N, 57.0W. However, available observations and continuity suggest that the system near 36N, 57W is not the tropical cyclone, but is instead the unrelated non-tropical low seen on the 11th. The tropical cyclone was identified farther northeast near 43N, 50W and was weakening in increasingly baroclinic surroundings. No gale force winds (or implied from pressures) were observed. This tropical cyclone is begun eight days earlier than the original HURDAT as ship observations indicate it formed off of Africa on the 26th and became a tropical storm on the next day. Small alterations are made on the track of this system on the 3rd through the 10th (excluding the 7th when no location changes were made). A large track change was made for the 11th and 12th as ship observations from HWM and COADS indicate that the system continued to move to the north rather than turning abruptly back to the west and south. The turn to the west and south in HURDAT originally was due to confusing the tropical cyclone with a non-tropical low that moved toward the existing system from the west. Extensive ship data shows that the tropical cyclone reached only tropical storm intensity (peak of at most 60 kt on the 8th through the 10th). Intensities reduced substantially in HURDAT from the 6th to the 11th and the system has been downgraded from a peak of a Category 2 hurricane to a tropical storm/ borderline hurricane. ***************************************************************************** 1913/04 - 2005 REVISION: 20505 08/30/1913 M= 6 2 SNBR= 467 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 20505 08/30/1913 M= 6 4 SNBR= 473 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 * *** 20510 08/30* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*300 700 40 0*303 702 45 0* 20510 08/30* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*285 725 40 0*295 726 40 0* *** *** *** *** ** 20515 08/31*306 704 50 0*308 707 60 0*313 713 65 0*314 716 70 0* 20515 08/31*302 727 45 0*308 728 45 0*313 730 50 0*317 732 50 0* *** *** ** *** ** *** ** *** *** ** 20520 09/01*316 720 75 0*319 725 80 0*324 730 80 0*326 735 80 0* 20520 09/01*320 734 55 0*322 737 60 0*324 740 65 0*326 742 70 0* *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** *** ** 20525 09/02*331 740 75 0*336 745 70 0*340 750 70 0*343 754 70 0* 20525 09/02*329 743 75 0*332 745 75 0*335 748 75 0*339 752 75 0* *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 20530 09/03*346 758 70 0*348 761 70 0*349 767 60 0*350 773 50 0* 20530 09/03*343 757 75 0*346 763 75 976*349 772 55 0*352 784 40 0* *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 20535 09/04*351 787 35 0*352 805 25 0*350 825 20 0* 0 0 0 0* 20535 09/04*351 798 30 0*350 815 25 0*345 835 20 0* 0 0 0 0* *** ** *** *** *** *** 20540 HR NC1 Minor changes are made to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm #2. Evidence for these alterations comes from the Historical Weather Map series, the COADS ship database, _Monthly Weather Review_, Original Monthly Record station data from NCDC, Tannehill (1938), Dunn and Miller (1960), Schwerdt et al. (1979), Ho et al. (1987), and Jarrell et al. (1992). August 29: HWM and COADS ship data do not indicate a closed circulation between the Bahamas and Bermuda, though several ships are reporting winds up to 20 kt. "On August 29 there was a slight pressure fall over the Windward Islands to the southeastward and the fall probably drifted normally to the northwestward without attaining true cyclonic development until assisted by the heat and moisture of the Gulf Stream during the night of August 31 - September 1" (Monthly Weather Review). August 30: Observations from HWM indicate a closed circulation exists near 28.5N, 72.5W. HURDAT lists this as a tropical storm at 12 UTC at 30.0N, 70.0W. There were no reports of gale force wind (or equivalent in pressure). August 31: HWM indicates a dissipating stationary front off of the U.S. Atlantic coast, though available observations do not support any significant frontal boundary. Available HWM and COADS observations indicate a closed low near 31.5N, 73.0W. HURDAT lists this a Category 1 hurricane at 12 UTC at 31.3N, 71.3W. There were no reports of gale force wind (or equivalent in pressure). September 1: HWM depicts a closed low of at most 1015 mb at 32N, 73W with a warm frontal boundary extending from the system off to the northeast, though available observations do not indicate a significant frontal feature. HURDAT lists this as a Category 1 hurricane at 12 UTC at 32.4N, 73.0W. MWR Tracks of Low Centers suggests 32.4N, 74.3W and 1011 mb (a.m). Observations from HWM and COADS and the MWR location suggest a center farther west of that in HURDAT. There were no reports of gale force winds (or equivalent in pressure). "The morning weather map of September 1, 1913, revealed the presence of a disturbance, apparently of very moderate force, central in the Atlantic Ocean about 300 miles southeast of the coast of North Carolina in which the lowest pressure was about 29.9 inches" (Monthly Weather Review). September 2: HWM depicts a closed low of a most 1010 mb at 34N, 74.5W. HURDAT lists this as a Category 1 hurricane at 12 UTC at 34.0N, 75.0W. Observations from HWM and COADS suggest a center farther south than both the HWM and HURDAT and between the longitudes given in HWM and HURDAT. Ship highlight: 45 kt E and 1009 mb at 12 UTC at 34.8N, 74.3W (COA). September 3: HWM depicts a closed low of at most 1005 mb just inland in North Carolina at 35N, 77W. HURDAT lists this as a tropical storm at 34.9N, 76.7W at 12 UTC. MWR Tracks of Low Centers suggests 34.8N, 77.5W with 1007 mb (a.m.) and 35.5N, 79.5W and 1007 mb (p.m). Available observations suggests that the HURDAT and HWM centers may be more accurate than MWR. Ship highlight: 50 kt from three ship reports at 01, 05, and 12 UTC (COA). Station highlight: 64 kt SE at 11 UTC and 1003 mb at 09 UTC at Cape Hatteras (DLR). "At 8:30 p.m. [September 2nd] the pressure was 29.98 inches, having fallen only .06 of an inch, but from 8:30 p.m. there was a rapid decrease to 29.54 inches at 4:45 a.m. on the 3rd; at 5 a.m. the pressure began to rise rapidly and at 5:31 a.m. the 5 minute maximum velocity for the storm was recorded and showed a velocity of 74 miles per hour from the southeast, with one mile at the rate of 92 miles per hour fifteen minutes later. The wind reached its maximum velocity by a steady hourly increase, though the wind came in severe flaws lasting from 10 to 20 seconds and seeming reaching a velocity of 100 miles per hour, then dropping to 50 miles per hour for a few seconds" (Original Monthly Record, Hatteras, N.C.). "A severe coast storm passed inland and near the station on the 3d. The barometer began to fall about midnight, and continued falling slowly until 8:00 a.m. (reading 29.86) when there was decided drop. The pressure continued to fall rapidly until 2:00 p.m., when the lowest reading occurred. (The corrected barograph reading was 29.37). The wind shifted from northeast to east at 2.10 p.m., and to southeast at 2:20 p.m., with the pressure rising as rapidly as it fell. The storm was attend by excessive rainfall and high winds which lasted about ten hours. During this period the wind blew, first from the northeast then from the southeast at the rate of from 30 to 37 miles per hour. Considerable damage resulted therefrom, especially to the telegraph and the telephone" (Original Monthly Record, Raleigh, N.C.). "Another noteworthy feature was the small storm that entered North Carolina between Wilmington and Hatteras from the Atlantic Ocean on September 3, which instead or recurving northeastward, drifted slowly westward, passing south of Raleigh, where the pressure fell to 29.37 inches ... The center of the disturbance moved inland between Hatteras and Beaufort, N. C., took a westerly course, and passed south of Raleigh about 2 p.m. on the third. The barograph trace at this station is of interest in showing the rapidity of the fall and rise of pressure, although the lowest pressure reached was only 29.37 inches at 2.10 ;.m. of that date ... Great damage to property and crops resulted over the eastern portion of the State, especially in the Pamlico Sound section, owing to the high waves from the Sound. The highest wind velocity registered was 74 miles from the southeast at Hatteras. At Raleigh the maximum velocity was 37 miles from the northeast, at Wilmington 30 miles from the west, while at Charlotte there was no wind of any consequence. The greatest loss of property occurred in the vicinity of Washington and Newbern, where the water driven by northeast to southeast gales is reported to have risen 10 feet above previous high-water marks. The bridge of the Norfolk & Southern Railroad at Washington, a mile in length, was washed away, and also a similar bridge at Newbern, and many other small bridges and trestles. The loss by inundation of the lower streets, also to small boats and fishing craft, was very heavy. Telegraph and telephone lines were prostrated or damaged over a wide area ... In the vicinity of Norfolk, Va., the damage by wind was not great. In the open country telegraph and telephone poles and trees were blown down, and at Ocean View, Newport News, and Old Point, Va., a number of small houses were unroofed. There were no marine disasters in Hampton Roads." (Monthly Weather Review). "Five lives were lost an property damage was estimated at four or five million dollars" (Tannehill). "Sept. 3, N.C. Minimal Intensity, 5 killed" (Dunn and Miller). "Sep. 3, 1913, 34.8N, 76.4W landfall position, central pressure estimate 976 mb, radius of maximum wind 38 nmi (Ho et al.). Maximum 1 min, surface wind estimate at the coast 84 kt, 1016 mb environmental pressure" (Schwerdt et al.). "1913, Sep. NC 1, MSLP - missing" (Jarrell et al.) September 4: No closed low is analyzed in HWM, but available station observations suggest a closed center can be found near 34.5N, 83.5W over northeast Georgia. HURDAT lists this as a tropical depression at 35.0N, 82.5W at 12 UTC. MWR Tracks of Low Centers suggests 34.7N, 83.0W with 1011 mb pressure (a.m.) and 33.5N, 88.5W with 1010 mb pressure (p.m.). There were no winds gale force (or equivalent in pressure) observed. "[The storm was] degenerating into a general rain area over western North Carolina and Virginia on the 4th ... After leaving the coast section the storm diminished rapidly in intensity and finally spent its force before reaching the mountain region" (Monthly Weather Review). September 5 and 6: MWR Tracks of Low Centers suggests 34.0N, 90.5W with 1012 mb pressure (5th a.m.), 33.0N, 94.5W with 1009 mb pressure (5th p.m.), 32.5N, 93.0W with 1011 mb pressure (6th a.m.), 32.0N, 91.5W with 1009 mb pressure (6th p.m.). However, available station data indicate that the system dissipated over land by late on the 4th. Small changes to the track of this hurricane are made for the lifetime of the system, with the largest alterations made on the 30th and 31st. The intensity is reduced moderately from the 30th until the 1st based upon available HWM and COADS ship observations. Highest observed winds for this hurricane were 64 kt at Cape Hatteras at 11 UTC on the 3rd, which converts to 53 kt after accounting for the high bias of the instrument and adjusting from 5 min to a peak 1 min (Fergusson and Covert 1924 and Powell et al. 1996). Lowest observed pressure was 995 mb from Raleigh (well-inland) at 18 UTC on the 3rd, though this reading was likely somewhat north of the eye as the storm moved along toward the west. Estimated central pressure from Ho et al. (1987) of 976 mb was derived from this Raleigh pressure, assuming an inland decay function of pressure after landfall. Utilizing this 976 mb as a landfall central pressure (which looks reasonable), one would get 80 kt from the subtropical pressure-wind relationship and 77 kt from the northern pressure-wind relationship (the border between the two at 35N). Ho et al. also analyzed a radius of maximum wind that was 38 nmi, which is somewhat larger than the 28 nmi on average from climatology at that latitude and central pressure (Vickery et al. 2000). Thus maximum 1 min surface winds at landfall are assessed at 75 kt, which is consistent with the original assessment of Category 1 in Neumann et al. and Jarrell et al. and is just slightly higher than the 70 kt originally entered in HURDAT. (It is lower than the 84 kt suggested by Schwerdt et al., but this seems somewhat too high given the larger RMW than usual.) Winds are adjusted upward accordingly on the 2nd and 3rd. Landfall is analyzed to be at 34.7N, 76.5W, just south and west of Ho et al.'s position around 07 UTC. Maximum observed winds within 2 hours of the synoptic times after landfall at 12 and 18 UTC on the 3rd and 00 UTC on the 4th are: 64, 40, and 29 kt. These convert to 52, 34 and 25 kt, respectively, after adjusting for the high bias and measurement interval. A run of the inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) suggests winds at the same times of 56, 41, 32 kt. Given the somewhat sparse data coverage after landfall, the higher values from the inland decay model appear to be more realistic. Winds in HURDAT reduced from 60 to 55 kt at 12 UTC, reduced from 50 to 40 kt at 18 UTC, and reduced from 35 to 30 kt at 00 UTC. ******************************************************************************* 1913/05 - 2005 REVISION: 20605 10/06/1913 M= 6 4 SNBR= 469 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 20605 10/02/1913 M=10 5 SNBR= 474 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 ** ** * *** * (The 2nd to the 5th are new to HURDAT.) 20606 10/02* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0E410 710 50 0E405 705 50 0* 20607 10/03E400 700 50 0E395 695 50 0E390 690 50 0E387 682 55 0* 20608 10/04E384 672 55 0E382 665 55 0E380 660 55 0E378 659 55 0* 20609 10/05E376 661 55 0E373 665 55 0E370 670 55 0E365 676 55 0* 20610 10/06* 0 0 0 0*347 708 50 0*340 718 50 0*335 726 50 0* 20610 10/06*360 684 50 0*355 694 50 0*350 705 50 0*343 717 50 0* *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** 20615 10/07*331 734 50 0*328 742 50 0*326 750 50 0*326 760 50 0* 20615 10/07*336 728 50 0*330 739 50 0*326 750 55 0*326 760 55 0* *** *** *** *** ** ** 20620 10/08*326 771 50 0*326 782 45 0*328 791 45 0*330 798 45 0* 20620 10/08*326 771 60 0*328 782 65 0*330 791 65 0*332 798 45 0* ** *** ** *** ** *** 20625 10/09*332 802 40 0*335 804 35 0*337 804 35 0*340 803 35 0* 20625 10/09*334 802 40 0*336 804 35 0*338 804 35 0*340 803 35 0* *** *** *** 20630 10/10*343 801 35 0*345 799 35 0*348 796 30 0*349 792 30 0* 20630 10/10*343 801 35 0*344 799 35 0*345 796 30 0*345 792 30 0* *** *** *** 20635 10/11*349 788 25 0*350 784 20 0*351 779 15 0* 0 0 0 0* 20635 10/11E345 788 25 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* **** *** *** ** *** *** ** 20640 TS 20640 HR SC1 ** *** Major changes to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm #4. Evidence for these alterations comes from the Historical Weather Map series, the COADS ship database, _Monthly Weather Review_ and newspaper accounts provided by Prof. Cary Mock of the University of South Carolina. October 2: HWM indicates an extratropical storm system of at most 1000 mb pressure located at about 41N, 71W, just offshore New England, with a cold front extending southwest and a warm front extending to the southeast. Peak ship observations: 45 kt S at 41.1N, 65.0W at 12 UTC (COA) and 993 mb at 40.5N, 73.5W at 21 UTC (COA). October 3: HWM indicates an extratropical storm system of at most 995 mb pressure located near 39N, 69W with a cold front extending to the southwest with a warm front extending to the northeast. (A secondary frontal system east of the existing cold front appears somewhat suspicious.) Peak ship observations: 45 kt W at 36.5N, 70.5W at 13 UTC (COA) and 45 kt WSW at 36.5N, 71.5W at 17 UTC (COA) and 992 mb (three ship reports - COA). October 4: HWM indicates an extratropical storm system of at most 1000 mb pressure located near 38W, 66W with a cold front extending to the south and a warm front to the east. Peak ship observations: 50 kt N at 36.5N, 72.5W at 01 UTC (COA) and 50 kt N at 36.5N, 73.5W at 05 UTC (COA) and 991 mb at 38.1N, 70.8W at 12 UTC (COA). October 5: HWM indicates an occluding extratropical storm system of at most 1005 mb pressure near 37N, 67W with a dissipating front boundary extending to the east of the center. Peak ship observations: 50 kt ENE at 38.7N, 68.3W at 12 UTC (COA) and 1002 mb at 39.4N, 60.1W at 12 UTC (COA). October 6: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1005 mb pressure near 35N, 70.5W. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 34.0N, 71.8W at 12 UTC. The MWR Tracks of Centers of Lows indicates the center at 33.5N, 72.3W with 1011 mb (a.m.) and 32.7N, 75.0W with 1009 mb (p.m.). Available observations suggest the HWM position is more accurate than HURDAT and MWR locations. The HWM analysis of no frontal features at this time does appear realistic. Peak ship observation: 50 kt N 37.5N, 71.5W at 05 UTC (COA). October 7: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1010 mb pressure near 34N, 75W. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 32.6N, 75.0W at 12 UTC. The MWR Tracks of Centers of Lows indicates the center at 33.0N, 76.5W with 1012 mb (a.m.) and at 31.8N, 77.5W with 997 mb (p.m.). Available observations suggest that the HURDAT position is most reasonable. Peak ship observations: 45 kt NW and 1002 mb at 32.2N, 78.3W at 21 UTC (COA) and 30 kt NW and 998 mb at 30.7N, 76.0W (COA). October 8: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1005 mb pressure near 32.5N, 79W, almost at landfall in South Carolina. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 32.8N, 79.1W at 12 UTC. The MWR Tracks of Centers of Lows indicates the center at 31.5N, 79.5W and 1005 mb (a.m.) and 32.8N, 80.5W and 1003 mb (p.m.). Available observations suggest that the HURDAT position is most reasonable. Peak ship observations: 60 kt W and 992 mb at 32.7N, 79.2W at 12 UTC (COA). Peak land station observations: 32 kt at 1430 UTC and 1002 mb at 19 UTC at Charleston (OMR). "The following details, though obtainable from the records, are summarized here for convenience: North and northwest winds prevailed on the 7th and continued on the 8th, being more steadily from the northwest after 4 a.m. on the 8th, shifting to west at Noon, to southwest at 3:30 p.m. and to south at 11 p.m. The highest velocity in connection with this disturbance was 37 miles from the northwest at 9:30 a.m. on the 8th and velocities were greatest from 8 a.m. to Noon on the 8th, diminishing during the afternoon but rising to higher velocity towards Midnight, reaching a velocity of 34 miles from the south at 12:05 a.m., on the 9th and diminishing slowly thereafter. Changes in pressure were gradual, the lowest, 29.58 inches, reduced to sea level, occurring at 2 p.m., but if the usual diurnal oscillation be eliminated the record would show that the pressure remained stationary at the lowest from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., after which it rose very gradually..." (Original Monthly Record, Charleston). "The first marked barometric depression of October was that which entered the district from the Atlantic Ocean near Charleston on the 8th, the pressure at that point falling to 29.58 inches. This was a small disturbance rapidly diminishing in force, but it was accompanied by heavy rains over southeastern North Carolina and the adjacent portions of South Carolina ... There were practically no damage either at Georgetown or Charleston, or, so far as reports indicate, at any point" (Monthly Weather Review). "Sat., Oct. 11, 1913, p. 1 No Serious Damage. A storm of wind and rain struck Georgetown early Wednesday morning, and for a short time the city was in the midst of what promised to be a very serious and disastrous storm, but fortunately for the city no great amount of damage was done. The greatest sufferers from the blow were the Georgetown Railway and Light Company and the Home Telephone Company. Wires and poles were prostrated all over the city. All connection with the outside world being cut off for a short time, but the managers of both of these concerns bestirred themselves and it was not long before they had adjusted matters. Other than a few fences and limbs of trees being blown down there was no damage worth mentioning. It is reported that much damage has been done to the cotton crop in various sections of the county, but we have not been able to get any reliable information on the subject" (Georgetown Times). "Wed., Oct. 15, 1913, p. 1 CONSIDERABLE DAMAGE To Crops Occasioned by the Wind and rain of Last Week. Reports are beginning to come in from all sections of the county respecting the high winds and heavy rains of last week. The disturbance seems to have covered the entire county. While there was no loss of life and no especial spot of damage by reason of the storm, nevertheless the loss to farmers will probably aggregate about $75,000. One of the heaviest individual losers, so far as the information goes, was Mr. Joseph H, Johnson. Mr. Johnson estimates that his cotton output will be diminished by at least twelve bales. A great deal of hay had been cut just previous to the breaking of the storm. A considerable portion of this was saved, but several hundred tons of it was spoiled - a total loss. Corn, too, suffered, but not so much as would have been the case had the storm occurred a week earlier. All things considered, the farmers of the county are not feeling in the least blue. They made fine crops, and feel grateful that so large a proportion of them was saved. Strawberries, beans and tobacco are always harvested and out of the way before the coming of the September and October gales" (Georgetown Times). October 9: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1010 mb pressure near 33N, 80.5W, inland over South Carolina. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 33.7N, 80.4W at 12 UTC. The MWR Tracks of Centers of Lows does not show a low for this day. Available observations suggest that HURDAT is more reasonable in location. Peak ship observation: 35 kt SE at 33.1N, 77.6W at 12 UTC (COA). No gales (or equivalent in pressure) were observed over land. October 10: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1015 mb pressure near 33.5N, 79W, at the South Carolina coastline. HURDAT listed this as a tropical storm at 34.8N, 79.6W. The MWR Tracks of Centers of Lows indicates the center at 34.0N, 79.5W (p.m.) and 1014 pressure, but no center in the morning. The HURDAT position appears to be reasonable. No gale force winds (or equivalent in pressure) were observed. October 11: HWM shows a strong cold front has swept through the region, leaving no identifiable closed low. Gale force winds were observed in Cape Henry and in ships along the upper Atlantic coast, but these were northerly winds occurring after the frontal passage. The MWR Tracks of Centers of Lows indicates the center at 35.5N, 78.2W with 1014 mb (11th a.m.), 36.8N, 76.5W with 1013 mb (11th p.m.), 37.8N, 71.5W with 1011 mb (12th a.m.), 43.0N, 65.0W with 1011 mb (12th p.m.). (The MWR apparently latched onto a separate frontal wave, which does not appear to directly linked to tropical system.) The origins of this tropical storm have been extended back four days in time to the 2nd, beginning as an extratropical storm system off of New England. As the system drifted south (first southeast, then southwest), it gradually occluded and developed tropical characteristics. By 00 UTC on the 6th, it is estimated that it transitioned to a tropical storm. Minor track changes are made from the 6th to the 11th to better match available observations. The 06 and 12 UTC portions of the 11th were removed from HURDAT, as the system was absorbed by a vigorous front early on the 11th. A 998 mb peripheral pressure on the 7th suggests winds of at least 52 kt from the subtropical pressure-wind relationship - 55 kt utilized. On the 8th, just before landfall in South Carolina, a ship reported a 60 kt WSW wind and a 992 mb pressure. This peripheral pressure supports winds of at least 61 kt from the subtropical pressure-wind relationship. Because of these observations along with the moderate damage impacts described in the newspaper articles provided by Prof. Cary Mock, it is analyzed that this system strengthened to a minimal (Category 1) hurricane at landfall in South Carolina. Thus the intensity is boosted from 45 kt up to 65 kt at landfall in South Carolina around 15 UTC on the 8th. ***************************************************************************** 1913/06 - 2005 REVISION: 20641 10/28/1913 M= 3 6 SNBR= 475 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 L 20642 10/28*180 865 35 0*190 863 40 0*200 860 45 0*210 855 55 0* 20643 10/29*215 851 65 0*218 848 65 0*220 844 55 0*222 840 40 1003* 20644 10/30*225 833 35 0E228 823 30 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 20644 HR This is a new hurricane, previously not documented in Neumann et al. (1999), but it was depicted in Tannehill (1938). Evidence for this system comes from the Historical Weather Map series, the COADS ship database and and station observations provided by Dr. Ramon Perez from the Cuban journal Resena Meteorologica. October 27: HWM and COADS observations indicate no closed low existed at this point, but did suggest an open trough along 85W with a cold front moving across the central Gulf of Mexico. No gale force winds (or equivalent in pressure) were observed. October 28: HWM and COADS observations indicate that a closed low existed near 20N, 86W. A weakening frontal boundary was becoming stationary in the southeastern Gulf of Mexico. Ship highlight: 35 kt NW and 1015 mb at 17.5N, 86.7W at 11 UTC (COA). October 29: HWM, COADS and Cuba observations indicate that a closed low was near 22N, 84.5N over westernmost Cuba. A dissipating stationary front was over the southeastern Gulf of Mexico, while a second surge of cold air was present over the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Station highlights: 992 mb and E-NW winds at the Cape of San Antonio at 0330 UTC (Cuba); 1003 mb and SE-calm-NW winds at Remates (Guane) at 18 UTC (Cuba). "By the date of the 29th [of October] the system had become a true cyclone of moderate intensity according to the observation from the Cape of San Antonio, where the barometer reached a low of 744.22 mm [992 mb] on the night of the 28th, along with strong rain and wind of 80 mph, rolling from east to northwest. It is not known if the rotation [of the wind] passed by the south or north. In Remates [Guane] the minimum barometer was 752.60 mm [1003 mb] at 2 pm. on the 29th, and the wind in that morning rolled from the southeast to south, then went calm at 2 pm, then the wind came from the northwest at 3pm" (Resena Meteorologica). October 30: The secondary cold front is analyzed in HWM to go through the Straits of Florida over to the Yucatan of Mexico. However, additional COADS observations indicate that the front actually extended across central Cuba down toward the Gulf of Honduras. The tropical cyclone has likely been absorbed by the frontal boundary just north and east of Cuba. No gale force winds (or equivalent in pressure) were observed in connection with the tropical cyclone. This system is analyzed to have undergone genesis early on the 28th of October in the Gulf of Honduras. A 992 mb peripheral pressure early on the 29th suggests winds of at least 61 kt from the southern pressure-wind relationship and at least 59 kt from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind relationship. Thus 65 kt (and therefore a minimal hurricane) is chosen for 00 UTC on the 29th, which is also its peak intensity as it made landfall into westernmost Cuba. The "80 mph" value from the observer in Cape San Antonio while being a visual estimate and thus subject to considerable uncertainty, also supports hurricane intensity. A 1003 mb central pressure value at 18 UTC on the 29th suggests winds of 41 kt from the southern pressure-wind relationship and 39 kt from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind relationship. 40 kt is chosen for HURDAT at this time. The weakening of the system during the 29th is consistent with decay expected over land, along with possibly enhanced shear experienced as a front was approaching the area. The system apparently was absorbed by the strong cold frontal boundary pushing through the region early on the 30th. The track derived is similar to that shown in Tannehill (1938). *************************************************************** 1913 - Additional Notes: 1) May 1-9: Historical Weather Maps and COADS indicate that a tropical depression formed northeast of Bermuda near 35N, 60W on 5 May 1913 from an existing extratropical storm. The system slowly moved toward the southwest the next three days and was absorbed by the frontal boundary of a second extratropical cyclone late on the 7th. Highest winds observed were a single report of 35 kt on the 5th (COA). Lowest pressures observed were 1003 mb on the 5th (COA). However, with only one observation of gale force winds and moderately low environmental pressures, not enough evidence exists to designate this as a tropical storm. Therefore this system is considered a tropical depression (or possibly a subtropical depression) and will not be added to HURDAT. DAY LAT LON STATUS May 01 42N 58W Extratropical May 02 40N 60W Extratropical May 03 39N 55W Extratropical May 04 36N 57W Extratropical May 05 35N 60W Tropical Depression May 06 34N 63W Tropical Depression May 07 36N 60W Tropical Depression (being absorbed) May 08 39N 60W Dissipating May 09 --- --- Dissipated/Merged with Frontal Boundary 2) June 13-17: A closed circulation was apparent in the southwestern Gulf of Mexico in the Bay of Campeche, possibly formed at the end of an old front that dissipated a few days earlier. It drifted to the north and west and made landfall late on the 16th in southern Texas and dissipated on the 17th overland. It was likely to have been a tropical depression. No gale force winds were reported with this system. One ship reported 1001, 1001, and 1002 mb on the 13th, 14th, and 15th - not consistent with the other ships or wind reports. The pressure readings on the ship are likely to be about 10 mb too low. DAY LAT LON STATUS Jun. 13 21N 94W Tropical Depression Jun. 14 24N 93W Tropical Depression Jun. 15 25N 95W Tropical Depression Jun. 16 26N 97W Tropical Depression Jun. 17 27N 99W Tropical Depression Dissipating 3) July 20-24: A closed circulation near the Azores was apparent. Pressures were 5-10 mb lower than in the surrounding high-pressure region. It was apparently a tropical depression or a non-tropical low center. However, no gales or sufficiently low pressures were found to characterize it as a tropical storm. The low was absorbed into a frontal band on the 24th. DAY LAT LON STATUS Jul. 20 37N 25W Tropical Depression/Non-tropical Low Jul. 21 37N 23W Tropical Depression/Non-tropical Low Jul. 22 38N 22W Tropical Depression/Non-tropical Low Jul. 23 38N 22W Tropical Depression/Non-tropical Low Jul. 24 --- --- Absorbed by Front 3) August 3-7: A low, an apparent tropical depression, formed from an old frontal band late on the 3rd of August in the Gulf of Mexico south of Tallahassee. On the 4th, 5th, and 6th, it appeared to be a closed circulation of tropical nature that was drifting southwestward toward Mexico. It dissipated over the open Gulf of Mexico late on the 7th. No gales or sufficiently low pressures were found, however, to classify it as more than a tropical depression. DAY LAT LON STATUS Aug. 3 --- --- Open Wave Aug. 4 28N 86W Tropical Depression Aug. 5 27N 88W Tropical Depression Aug. 6 26N 90W Tropical Depression Aug. 7 28N 89W Tropical Depression Dissipating 4) Sept 12-15: A system was mentioned in the Monthly Weather Review near the mouth of the Rio Grande on the 12-15 of September, 1913. Storm warnings were issued by the Weather Bureau. A review of the Historical Weather Maps for these dates shows a vigorous cold front pushing through Texas on the 12th and 13th, cyclogenesis forming along the front late on the 13th and 14th off of Texas, then the low moving northward through Texas and Louisiana on the 15th. The system clearly was of extratropical nature throughout its lifetime. 5) Sept 24-28: A stationary system is mentioned in the Monthly Weather Review off of the Texas coast. Storm warnings were also issued for this system by the Weather Bureau. A review of the Historical Weather Maps for this system reveals a strong cold front moving through Texas on the 24th and 25th, cyclogenesis just off the Texas coast late on the 25th and 26th along the front, and the low weakening into an open trough on the 27th and 28th near the Louisiana/Texas border. While the HWM does analyze a small closed low ahead of the cold front on the morning of the 25th, available observations do not confirm that the system had a closed circulation - though it may have been a tropical depression briefly before the front arrived. Thus despite the heavy rains that accompanied the front/low (over 8" in Brownsville), the system was baroclinic for the duration that it retained a closed circulation. ***************************************************************************** 1914/01 - REVISION: 20465 09/14/1914 M= 6 1 SNBR= 470 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 20465 09/15/1914 M= 5 1 SNBR= 475 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 ** * *** (The 14th removed from HURDAT.) 20470 09/14* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*238 735 35 0*239 736 35 0 20475 09/15*242 739 35 0*246 742 35 0*254 748 35 0*260 755 35 0 20475 09/15*252 764 30 0*259 767 35 0*265 770 40 0*270 773 40 0 *** *** ** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** 20480 09/16*269 763 40 0*278 772 40 0*291 782 45 0*295 793 45 0 20480 09/16*275 777 40 0*280 781 45 0*285 785 50 0*291 792 55 0 *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** 20485 09/17*304 804 40 0*310 816 40 0*315 831 35 0*315 843 35 0 20485 09/17*298 801 60 0*305 812 60 0*310 825 40 0*312 839 35 0 *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** 20490 09/18*311 859 35 0*305 874 35 0*302 888 35 0*301 900 35 0 20490 09/18*311 854 35 0*305 870 35 0*302 888 35 0*301 906 30 0 *** *** *** ** 20495 09/19*300 912 35 0*300 922 35 0*300 931 30 0* 0 0 0 0 20495 09/19*300 922 30 0*300 937 25 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 *** ** *** ** *** *** ** 20500 TS Minor changes to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Evidence for these alterations comes from the Historical Weather Map series, the COADS ship database, Original Monthly Record station data from NCDC, and _Monthly Weather Review_. September 13: HWM and COADS observations indicate the presence of an open wave near longitude 73W. No gale force winds (or equivalent in pressure) were observed. September 14: HWM indicates a dissipating cold front extending from the Florida Straits off to the east-northeast. A closed low apparently does not exist in the region, though a trough axis could be analyzed near 76W. HURDAT lists this system as a tropical storm at 23.8N, 73.5W at 12 UTC. No gale force winds (or equivalent in pressure) were observed. September 15: HWM indicates a low of at most 1005 mb located at 27N, 74.5W. HURDAT lists this as a tropical storm at 25.4N, 74.8W at 12 UTC. The MWR Tracks of Low Centers indicates the center was at 24N, 75.5W with 1012 mb (a.m.) and at 26.3N, 77W with 1012 mb (p.m.). Available observations and continuity indicate that the center was likely just south of the HWM position, but west of all estimates. Ship highlights: three ships with 35 kt at 12 UTC (HWM and COA). September 16: HWM indicates a low of at most 995 mb located at 28.5N, 78.5W. HURDAT lists this as a tropical storm at 29.1N, 78.2W. The MWR Tracks of Low Centers indicates the center was at 28.0N, 78.0W with 1010 mb (a.m.) and at 30N, 79.8W with 1008 mb (p.m.). Available observations suggests that the HWM position is more accurate. Ship highlight: 35 kt ENE at 32.7N, 77.5W at 12 UTC (COA). Station highlight: 34 kt NE at Charleston at 17 UTC (OMR). "The storm on the morning of the 16th was off the eastern coast of Florida and on the evening of that date off the southern Georgia coast" (Monthly Weather Review). September 17: HWM indicates a low of at most 1005 mb inland over Georgia at 31.5N, 83W. HURDAT lists this as a tropical storm at 31.5N, 83.1W at 12 UTC. The MWR Tracks of Low Centers indicates the center was at 31.7N, 82.2W with 1008 mb (a.m.) and at 30.7N, 85.7W with 1008 mb (p.m.). Available observations suggest that the center was farther south than these estimates and was between the HWM and MWR longitude positions. Ship highlight: 60 kt ESE and 1004 mb at 32.5N, 78.5W at 05 UTC (COA). Station highlight: 40 kt E Charleston at 07 UTC (OMR). "Instead of passing northward up the coast, as is customary with disturbances of this character, it advanced westward over southern Georgia and continued its progress westward to the Texas coast, where it disintegrated. This disturbance caused winds of gale force along the south Atlantic coast, and vessel reports indicate that it was even more severe off the Georgia coast. After reaching the land the storm decreased in intensity and caused general rains in the south Atlantic and Gulf States" (Monthly Weather Review). The _New York Times_ reported in the "Weather" section on Sept. 18th "The southern storm passed inland during Wednesday [16th] night and Thursday [17th] night its center was over Alabama. This disturbance has diminished greatly in intensity but during the last twenty-four hours it caused general showers in the South Atlantic and East Gulf States, and during Wednesday night it caused strong shifting winds on the South Atlantic Coast". The _Miami Herald_ reported also on the 18th: "The northeast of Wednesday [16th] raised some water around St. Augustine, causing the tide to come in so high that it ran over the South Street Causeway, and tons of dead grass were washed away from the marshes about the city. No damage was done as the boatmen had plenty of warning of the blow." September 18: HWM indicates a low of at most 1005 mb over just offshore at 29N, 89W. HURDAT lists this as a tropical storm at 30.2N, 88.8W at 12 UTC. The MWR Tracks of Low Centers indicates the center was at 30.3N, 89.0W with 1008 mb (a.m.) and 30.5N, 91.0W with 1010 mb (p.m.). Available observations suggest that the HURDAT and MWR locations are more reasonable. No gale force winds (or equivalent in pressure) were observed. September 19: HWM indicates an open trough extending NE-SW in Texas and Louisiana. HURDAT lists this as a tropical depression at 30.0N, 93.1W at 12 UTC. The MWR Tracks of Low Centers indicates a center near 30.2N, 93.2W with 1011 mb (a.m.). Available observations suggest that the HWM is correct that the tropical system had dissipated by 12 UTC on this date. Genesis for this system was begun a day later on the 15th at 00 UTC as a tropical depression, as observations indicate that it was an open wave on the 14th. The track had minor alterations for the duration of the tropical storm's lifetime. The winds were increased on the 16th and 17th due to a 60 kt ship report near the coast as the tropical storm was making landfall. This wind was chosen as the peak intensity for the system as well as its landfall intensity. This boost is consistent with modest storm surge observed along the coastline. (Wind observations on the coast reached only 40 kt, but the tropical storm made landfall in a sparsely monitored region between the Jacksonville and Savannah stations.) Landfall is estimated to have occurred around 07 UTC on the 17th near 30.6N, 81.4W. Dissipation likely occurred earlier than that indicated in HURDAT as seen from HWM and COADS observations on the 19th. ***************************************************************************** 1914 - Additional Notes: 1) A cyclone in the northern Gulf of Mexico in late September and early October was investigated for the possibility of inclusion into HURDAT. On the 28th of September, brisk east to northeast to north winds covered the Gulf of Mexico after an early, vigorous cold front passed through the region. On the 29th, a possible low center was forming along this pre-existing frontal boundary in the northern Gulf of Mexico. The pressure gradient was enhanced and 42 kt from the east were observed in Mobile. On the 30th, the low was in the northeastern Gulf just south of Pensacola and though high winds were reported (peak of 42 kt from the east in Pensacola), the system continued to be baroclinic in structure with a cold front off to the southwest and a warm front off to the southeast. On October 1st, the system went inland and weakened over southern Alabama and Mississippi. The remnants of the system continued to cause rains in the along the Gulf coastal states on the 2nd. While the storm clearly had gale force winds associated with it, the system also apparently retained its baroclinic character throughout its lifetime. Thus this extratropical storm is not added into HURDAT. DAY LAT LON STATUS Sep. 29 26N 92W Extratropical Sep. 30 29N 88W Extratropical Oct. 1 31N 91W Extratropical Oct. 2 --- --- Extratropical Dissipating 2) Both Tannehill (1938) and Connor (1956) listed a second tropical system occurring in late October in their compilations of the season. early October. This was investigated for the possibility of inclusion into HURDAT. On the 24th, low pressure was present throughout the western Gulf of Mexico and northwestern Caribbean Sea. A possible low center was forming in the extreme northwestern Gulf of Mexico with an attached cold front extending to the south. On the 25th, this low had consolidated somewhat and was moving toward the east across the central Gulf of Mexico as a well- defined extratropical storm with gale force winds on the northern half of the system. At the same time, HWM and COADS ship observations suggest that a separate low pressure center - perhaps a tropical depression - had formed in the northwestern Caribbean Sea. Lowest pressure with this possible tropical low were down to 1004 mb, but peak winds associated with it were only 20 kt due to the overall weak pressure gradient present. On the 26th, the extratropical low continued moving toward the east and its associated cold front began moving across Florida and Cuba. It appears likely that the frontal boundary absorbed the possible tropical depression at this date. On the 27th, the extratropical storm center weakened to an open trough, even though strong northerly winds were observed along the Carolina coasts behind the associated cold front. There is no indication of a separate tropical cyclone being present on this date. Thus the main system 7apparently retained its extratropical character for its lifetime, but the secondary low on the 25th was likely a tropical depression. It is unlikely that this reached tropical storm strength and thus is not included into HURDAT. DAY LAT LON STATUS Oct. 24 27N 97W Extratropical Oct. 25 26N 91W Extratropical (and) 21N 86W Tropical Depression Oct. 26 27N 86W Extratropical (and) --- --- Tropical Depression Absorbed into Front Oct. 27 --- --- Extratropical Degenerated into open trough ******************************************************************************** 1915/04 - 2006 REVISION: 21225 08/31/1915 M= 7 4 SNBR= 480 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 21230 08/31* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*153 788 55 0*158 788 55 0* 21235 09/01*164 789 60 0*170 791 65 0*176 796 70 0*182 803 70 0* 21240 09/02*189 811 75 0*197 819 75 0*205 826 80 0*214 832 80 0* 21245 09/03*225 837 85 0*236 842 85 0*248 848 85 0*260 851 85 0* 21250 09/04*274 853 80 0*287 854 80 0*302 854 75 0*318 853 65 1003* 21255 09/05*335 850 45 0*353 847 30 0*369 846 30 0*384 846 25 0* 21260 09/06*398 846 20 0*411 847 20 0*424 849 15 0* 0 0 0 0* 21265 HRAFL1 21265 HRAFL1IGA1 **** Revision indicated in continental U.S. impacts to specify that Georgia was also impacted as a Category 1 hurricane inland based upon the existing track and intensity in HURDAT. ******************************************************************************** 1958/08 HELENE - 2006 REVISION: 38515 09/21/1958 M=14 8 SNBR= 846 HELENE XING=1 SSS=0 38515 09/21/1958 M=14 8 SNBR= 846 HELENE XING=0 SSS=3 * * 38520 09/21* 0 0 0 0*185 515 25 0*190 542 25 0*195 563 25 0* 38525 09/22*201 583 25 0*207 602 25 0*213 619 25 1015*219 635 30 1014* 38530 09/23*225 648 35 1013*230 658 40 1011*234 669 45 1009*240 682 45 1007* 38535 09/24*247 696 45 1005*257 709 50 1004*267 720 65 1002*272 729 65 998* 38540 09/25*277 734 65 993*283 736 70 987*288 739 75 984*292 743 80 983* 38545 09/26*296 748 85 980*299 754 85 977*303 761 90 967*310 771 105 955* 38550 09/27*317 781 110 943*324 785 110 934*331 782 115 938*339 775 115 943* 38555 09/28*348 758 110 946*358 732 110 950*369 705 105 954*380 683 90 957* 38560 09/29*390 659 85 959*417 619 70 963*457 590 65 966E490 566 65 968* 38565 09/30E520 524 60 972E539 488 60 0E550 450 60 0E562 411 55 0* 38570 10/01E570 373 55 0E573 345 55 0E575 320 50 0E577 289 50 0* 38575 10/02E575 255 50 0E561 212 45 0E543 173 45 0E531 154 45 0* 38580 10/03E522 142 40 0E518 134 35 0E514 125 35 0E510 104 35 0* 38585 10/04E505 73 35 0E516 49 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 38590 HR 38590 HR NC3 *** Based upon research by the NHC Best Track Change Committee, it was determined that the existing HURDAT was in error for this hurricane. A major hurricane impact was observed in North Carolina from this cyclone as depicted in Monthly Weather Review and Barnes (1998). Based upon existing HURDAT track and intensity, this impact is estimated to be Category 3 for North Carolina ("NC3"). However, the eye of the hurricane remained offshore, so the U.S. landfall indicator ("XING=1") is changed accordingly. ******************************************************************************** 1975/08 ELOISE - 2006 REVISION: 47155 09/13/1975 M=12 5 SNBR=1008 ELOISE XING=1 SSS=3 47160 09/13* 0 0 0 0*175 541 25 0*176 552 25 1009*177 563 25 1009* 47165 09/14*178 573 25 1009*179 583 25 1009*180 594 25 1009*181 605 25 1009* 47170 09/15*183 617 25 1009*185 628 25 1009*188 638 30 1007*189 648 30 1007* 47175 09/16*190 656 35 1007*192 667 45 1007*194 675 55 1002*195 684 65 1002* 47180 09/17*196 692 65 997*197 702 60 1000*197 712 55 1000*198 722 50 1000* 47185 09/18*199 733 45 1000*199 745 45 1000*199 757 40 1000*200 770 40 1000* 47190 09/19*200 782 35 1000*199 791 35 1000*199 798 35 1000*198 810 35 1000* 47195 09/20*198 822 35 1000*198 834 35 1000*199 846 35 1006*200 855 35 1006* 47200 09/21*202 864 40 1001*208 871 45 1001*214 878 50 1001*224 885 55 995* 47205 09/22*236 889 60 995*248 894 65 993*258 895 75 986*265 894 85 980* 47210 09/23*273 885 95 968*284 873 105 958*302 863 110 955*330 857 55 982* 47215 09/24*355 843 30 999E365 835 20 1004E370 825 20 1004E375 815 20 1004* 47220 HRAFL3 47220 HRAFL3IAL1 **** Revision indicated in continental U.S. impacts to specify that Alabama was also impacted as a Category 1 hurricane inland based upon the existing track and intensity in HURDAT. ******************************************************************************** 1985/11 KATE - 2006 REVISION: 51925 11/15/1985 M= 9 11 SNBR=1106 KATE XING=1 SSS=2 L 51930 11/15* 0* 0* 0*2110638 35 999* 51935 11/16*2160639 45 998*2170642 50 996*2150648 55 993*2110653 70 987* 51940 11/17*2070660 75 981*2040664 75 984*2070673 75 982*2110688 80 977* 51945 11/18*2140700 80 976*2160718 80 975*2160733 80 975*2190751 85 972* 51950 11/19*2210768 95 967*2210784 95 968*2270802 90 971*2320819 80 976* 51955 11/20*2390835 85 972*2460845 95 968*2520853 105 956*2600860 105 955* 51960 11/21*2680865 105 954*2750866 100 961*2830865 95 965*2920861 85 967* 51965 11/22*3020851 80 975*3150835 65 983*3250815 50 990*3370792 45 996* 51970 11/23*3470762 40 1003*3440735 35 1005*3400720 35 1006E3350705 35 1006* 51975 HRAFL2 51975 HRAFL2IGA1 **** Revision indicated in continental U.S. impacts to specify that Georgia was also impacted as a Category 1 hurricane inland based upon the existing track and intensity in HURDAT. ******************************************************************************** 1989/08 HUGO - 2006 REVISION: 53685 09/10/1989 M=16 08 SNBR=1139 HUGO XING=1 SSS=4 53690 09/10 *1320200 25 1010*1330218 25 1010* 53695 09/11*1320237 030 1009*1300255 030 1007*1280273 30 1005*1250292 35 1003* 53700 09/12*1250310 040 1002*1250329 045 1000*1250348 045 998*1260367 50 0996* 53705 09/13*1260382 055 994*1270400 055 992*1280418 060 990*1280435 65 0987* 53710 09/14*1290449 070 984*1300463 080 980*1320478 085 975*1360491 90 0970* 53715 09/15*1380505 100 962*1400519 110 957*1420533 125 940*1460546 140 0918* 53720 09/16*1480561 135 923*1510573 130 927*1540584 120 940*1580594 120 0941* 53725 09/17*1610604 120 941*1640615 120 943*1660625 125 949*1690635 125 0945* 53730 09/18*1720641 130 934*1770648 120 940*1820655 110 945*1910664 105 0958* 53735 09/19*1970668 100 959*2070673 090 962*2160680 090 964*2260686 90 0966* 53740 09/20*2350693 090 957*2440701 090 957*2520710 095 958*2630722 95 0953* 53745 09/21*2720734 100 950*2800749 100 950*2900761 110 948*3020775 120 0944* 53750 09/22*3170788 120 935*3350803 085 952*3590817 055 975*3850818 40 0987* 53755 09/23E4220802 035 988E4600745 040 990E4900690 040 992E5100650 40 0993* 53760 09/24E5200620 040 994E5250605 040 993E5300595 040 991E5350585 40 0989* 53765 09/25E5400570 040 983E5600520 040 979E5800460 040 974 53770 HR SC4 53770 HR SC4INC1 **** Revision indicated in continental U.S. impacts to specify that North Carolina was also impacted as a Category 1 hurricane inland based upon the existing track and intensity in HURDAT. ***************************************************************************** 1992/02 - ANDREW - 2002 ADDITION: 54545 08/16/1992 M=13 2 SNBR=1158 ANDREW XING=1 SSS=4 54545 08/16/1992 M=13 2 SNBR=1158 ANDREW XING=1 SSS=5 * 54550 08/16* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*108 355 25 1010 54555 08/17*112 374 30 1009*117 396 30 1008*123 420 35 1006*131 442 35 1003 54560 08/18*136 462 40 1002*141 480 45 1001*146 499 45 1000*154 518 45 1000 54565 08/19*163 535 45 1001*172 553 45 1002*180 569 45 1005*188 583 45 1007 54570 08/20*198 593 40 1011*207 600 40 1013*217 607 40 1015*225 615 40 1014 54575 08/21*232 624 45 1014*239 633 45 1010*244 642 50 1007*248 649 50 1004 54580 08/22*253 659 55 1000*256 670 60 994*258 683 70 981*257 697 80 969 54580 08/22*253 659 55 1000*256 670 65 994*258 683 80 981*257 697 95 969 ** ** ** 54585 08/23*256 711 90 961*255 725 105 947*254 742 120 933*254 758 135 922 54585 08/23*256 711 110 961*255 725 130 947*254 742 145 933*254 758 150 922 *** *** *** *** 54590 08/24*254 775 125 930*254 793 120 937*256 812 110 951*258 831 115 947 54590 08/24*254 775 125 930*254 793 130 937*256 812 115 951*258 831 115 947 *** *** 54595 08/25*262 850 115 943*266 867 115 948*272 882 115 946*278 896 120 941 54595 08/25*262 850 115 943*266 867 115 948*272 882 120 946*278 896 125 941 *** *** 54600 08/26*285 905 120 937*292 913 115 955*301 917 80 973*309 916 50 991 54600 08/26*285 905 125 937*292 913 120 955*301 917 80 973*309 916 50 991 *** *** 54605 08/27*315 911 35 995*321 905 30 997*328 896 30 998*336 884 25 999 54610 08/28*344 867 20 1000*354 840 20 1000* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 54615 HRCFL4BFL3 LA3 54615 HRCFL5BFL4 LA3 ******** U.S. and Bahamian Hurricane Data -------------------------------- Date/Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central Landfall States Winds Simpson Pressure Location Affected 8/23/2100Z 25.4N 76.6W 130kt 4 923mb Eleuthera, Ba --- 8/23/2100Z 25.4N 76.6W 140kt 5 923mb Eleuthera, Ba --- *** * 8/24/0100Z 25.4N 77.8W 125kt 4 931mb Barry Is., Ba --- 8/24/0100Z 25.4N 77.8W 130kt 4 931mb Barry Is., Ba --- *** 8/24/0905Z 25.5N 80.3W 125kt 4 922mb Fender Point CFL4, BFL3 8/24/0905Z 25.5N 80.3W 145kt 5 922mb Fender Point CFL5, BFL4 *** * **** **** 8/26/0830Z 29.6N 91.5W 105kt 3 956mb Pt. Chevreuil LA3 8/26/0830Z 29.6N 91.5W 100kt 3 956mb Pt. Chevreuil LA3 *** After considering the presentations regarding various recommendations for the revisions of Andrew's best track intensities, the NHC Best Track Change Committee made alterations to the winds in HURDAT for Hurricane Andrew for the dates of 22 to 26 August. These changes are made to Hurricane Andrew's intensity data for the time while the storm was over the Atlantic Ocean just east of the Bahamas, over the Bahamian islands and south Florida, over the Gulf of Mexico and at landfall in Louisiana. Neither the best track positions nor the central pressure values of Andrew were adjusted. The alterations in wind intensity were based upon the Franklin et al. (2003) methodology, which is consistent with the work of Dunion et al. (2003) and Dunion and Powell (2002) as discussed earlier. The changes to HURDAT were applied for these dates as aircraft reconnaissance observations were available throughout this period and there were limited in-situ surface observations indicative of the maximum 1 min surface winds. The revisions make Andrew a Category 5 hurricane on the SSHS at landfall in both Eleuthera Island, Bahamas and in southeastern Florida. The maximum 1 min surface wind for Hurricane Andrew at landfall in mainland southeastern Florida near Fender Point (8 nmi [13 km] east of Homestead) at 0905 UTC 24 August is officially estimated to be 145 kt. The original best track landfall intensity estimate was 125 kt. The peak intensity of Andrew, originally assessed at 135 kt, is now judged to be 150 kt at 1800 UTC 23 August just east of the northern Bahamas. Details of presentations made and minutes of deliberations can be found at: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/index.html ******************************************************************************** 1993/08 EMILY - 2006 REVISION: 55545 08/22/1993 M=16 5 SNBR=1176 EMILY XING=1 SSS=3 55545 08/22/1993 M=16 5 SNBR=1176 EMILY XING=0 SSS=3 * 55550 08/22*0000000 0 0*0000000 0 0*0000000 0 0*1990526 30 1020* 55555 08/23*2050536 30 1020*2130548 30 1020*2230560 30 1020*2320571 30 1020* 55560 08/24*2430578 30 1020*2540586 30 1020*2670595 30 1020*2760600 30 1019* 55565 08/25*2800603 30 1018*2790605 30 1017*2800604 35 1016*2820604 40 1015* 55570 08/26*2830607 45 1013*2790610 55 1010*2740612 60 1007*2690617 65 1004* 55575 08/27*2660624 60 1000*2640630 60 997*2630635 60 992*2640644 65 982* 55580 08/28*2660652 75 981*2700661 75 982*2740669 75 981*2800676 75 976* 55585 08/29*2860682 70 973*2930688 70 978*3000692 70 979*3060697 70 978* 55590 08/30*3120702 70 977*3150708 70 976*3180714 75 975*3200722 75 974* 55595 08/31*3240730 80 972*3290738 85 970*3360747 95 965*3450752 100 962* 55600 09/01*3560749 100 960*3660744 100 962*3750727 95 965*3820707 90 969* 55605 09/02*3900685 90 971*3920660 90 972*3920636 90 973*3900614 85 974* 55610 09/03*3860596 80 975*3810583 75 979*3750577 70 985*3690575 60 994* 55615 09/04*3640576 50 999*3600576 40 1002*3580575 35 1001*3610572 30 1006* 55620 09/05*3670569 30 1008*3740564 30 1009*3800557 25 1010*3870548 25 1011* 55625 09/06*3900530 25 1012*3930511 25 1013E3980494 25 1014*0000000 0 0* 55630 HR NC3 As the hurricane's center did not cross the U.S. coastline (but did cause Category 3 conditions at the coast), the XING (continental U.S. landfall indicator) is changed to "0". ******************************************************************************** 1995/15 OPAL - 2006 REVISION: 57000 09/27/1995 M=10 15 SNBR=1201 OPAL XING=1 SSS=3 57005 09/27 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*191 873 25 1004* 57010 09/28*194 875 25 1004*194 879 25 1004*193 882 25 1003*193 884 25 1003* 57015 09/29*194 884 25 1003*195 884 25 1003*196 883 25 1003*198 882 30 1003* 57020 09/30*201 882 30 1002*206 883 30 1002*211 885 35 1001*214 891 40 1000* 57025 10/01*213 899 45 994*211 907 45 987*209 912 45 986*208 916 50 985* 57030 10/02*207 919 55 984*208 921 60 980*210 923 65 973*212 923 65 972* 57035 10/03*217 922 70 970*222 920 75 969*228 916 80 968*235 910 85 965* 57040 10/04*245 901 100 953*259 894 110 935*273 885 130 919*290 877 110 938* 57045 10/05*310 868 80 950*332 862 50 974*354 857 30 982E385 835 40 986* 57050 10/06E405 823 40 989E420 805 40 991E433 784 35 997E445 765 30 1002* 57055 HRAFL3 57055 HRAFL3IAL1 **** Revision indicated in continental U.S. impacts to specify that Alabama was also impacted as a Category 1 hurricane inland based upon the existing track and intensity in HURDAT. ******************************************************************************** 2004/01 ALEX - 2006 REVISION: 63090 07/31/2004 M= 7 1 SNBR=1311 ALEX XING=1 SSS=1 63090 07/31/2004 M= 7 1 SNBR=1311 ALEX XING=0 SSS=1 * 63095 07/31*0000000 0 0*0000000 0 0*0000000 0 0*3030783 25 1010* 63100 08/01*3100788 25 1009*3150790 25 1009*3160791 30 1009*3160792 35 1009* 63105 08/02*3150793 35 1007*3140794 40 1005*3130790 50 992*3180787 50 993* 63110 08/03*3240782 60 987*3300774 70 983*3420764 85 974*3530752 85 972* 63115 08/04*3600737 80 974*3680721 80 973*3730702 85 973*3780683 95 965* 63120 08/05*3850660 105 957*3950631 105 957*4080596 100 962*4270550 90 970* 63125 08/06*4450493 75 978*4610442 65 984*4700375 50 987E4740327 30 992* 63130 HR NC1 As the hurricane's center did not cross the U.S. coastline (but did cause Category 1 conditions at the coast), the XING (continental U.S. landfall indicator) is changed to "0". ********************************************************************************