****************************************************************************
Documentation of Atlantic Tropical Cyclones Changes in HURDAT -
****************************************************************************
By Chris Landsea, Craig Anderson, William Bredemeyer, Cristina Carrasco,
Noel Charles, Michael Chenoweth, Gil Clark, Jason Dunion, Ryan Ellis,
Jose Fernandez-Partagas, John Gamache, David Glenn, Lyle Hufstetler,
Cary Mock, Charlie Neumann, Adrian Santiago, Donna Thomas,
Lenworth Woolcock, and Mark Zimmer.
Special thanks to: Sim Aberson, James Belanger, Auguste Boissonnade,
Emery Boose, Hugh Cobb, Jose Colon, Paul Hebert, Paul Hungerford,
Mark Jelinek, Brian Jones, Lorne Ketch, Ramon Perez Suarez, David Roth,
Al Sandrik, and David Vallee.
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.
6) In 2007, minor alterations were introduced for a few cyclones during
the period of 1989 to 2005 to fix a couple typographic errors, to correctly
indicate U.S. states impacted and to make slight adjustments to the HURDAT
positions/intensities for two days in Ophelia and one time period in Wilma.
7) In 2008, a complete reanalysis was conducted for the years of 1915 to 1920.
All storms of the era were revised in track and intensity. Eight new tropical
storms were added during this period and one of the original tropical storms in
HURDAT was removed.
*******************************************************************************
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