The Atlantic Hurricane Database Re-analysis Project -
Documentation for 1851-1910 Alterations and Additions to the
HURDAT Database
Christopher W. Landsea*
Craig Anderson**
Noel Charles***
Gilbert Clark***
Jason Dunion*
Jose Fernandez-Partagas*****
Paul Hungerford***
Charlie Neumann****
Mark Zimmer***
*NOAA/Hurricane Research Division, Miami, Florida, USA;
**NOAA/Climate Diagnostics Center, Boulder, Colorado, USA;
***Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA;
****SAIC, Miami, Florida, USA;
*****Deceased
Contributed as a Chapter for the RPI Book
Revised – 6 January 2003
ABSTRACT
A re-analysis of
the Atlantic basin tropical storm and hurricane database (“best track”) for the
period of 1851 to 1910 has been completed.
This reworking and extension back in time of the main archive for
tropical cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico
was necessary to correct systematic and random errors and biases in the data as
well as to incorporate the recent historical analyses by Partagas and
Diaz. The re-analysis project provides
the revised tropical storm and hurricane database, a metadata file detailing
individual changes for each tropical cyclone, a “center fix” file of raw
tropical cyclone observations, a collection of U.S. landfalling tropical storms
and hurricanes, and comments from/replies to the National Hurricane Center’s
Best Track Change Committee. This
chapter details the methodologies and references utilized for this re-analysis
of the Atlantic tropical cyclone record.
1.) Introduction
This chapter provides documentation of the first efforts to re-analyze
the National Hurricane Center's (NHC's) North Atlantic hurricane database (or
HURDAT, also called “best tracks” since they are the “best” determination of
track and intensity in a post-season analysis of the tropical cyclones). The original database of six-hourly tropical
cyclone (i.e. tropical storms and hurricanes) positions and intensities was
assembled in the 1960s in support of the Apollo space program to help provide
statistical tropical cyclone track forecasting guidance (Jarvinen et al.
1984). Since its inception, this
database, which is freely and easily accessible on the Internet from NHC's
webpage <http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastall.shtml>,
has been utilized for a wide variety of additional projects: setting of appropriate building codes for
coastal zones, risk assessment for emergency managers, analysis of potential
losses for insurance and business interests, intensity forecasting techniques,
verification of official and model predictions of track and intensity, seasonal
forecasting, and climatic change studies.
Unfortunately, HURDAT was not designed with all of these uses in mind
when it was first put together and not all of them may be appropriate, given
its original motivation and limitations.
There are many reasons why a
re-analysis of the HURDAT dataset was both needed and timely. HURDAT contained many systematic and random
errors that needed correction (Neumann 1994).
Additionally, as our understanding of tropical cyclones had developed,
analysis techniques at NHC changed over the years, and led to biases in the
historical database that had not been addressed (Landsea 1993). Another difficulty in applying the hurricane
database to studies concerned with landfalling events was the lack of exact
location, time and intensity information at landfall. Finally, recent efforts led by Jose Fernandez-Partagas to uncover
previously undocumented historical tropical cyclones in the mid-1800s to early
1900s have greatly increased our knowledge of these past events (Partagas and
Diaz 1996a), which also had not been incorporated into the HURDAT database.
Currently, the HURDAT database is
updated at the end of each year's hurricane season after the NHC hurricane
specialists perform a post-season analysis of that year’s storms. The most recent documentation generally
available for the database is a NOAA Technical Memorandum by Jarvinen et
al. (1984). While this reference is
still valid for most descriptions of the tropical cyclone database, it too is
in need of revision. This chapter is
designed to help provide a more up to date documentation for HURDAT.
A re-analysis of the Atlantic
tropical cyclone database is justified by the need to address these
deficiencies as well as to extend the historical record back in time. This chapter details the first efforts to
improve both the accuracy and consistency of HURDAT for the years of 1886 to
1910 as well as to provide an additional thirty-five years (1851-1885) into the
archived database of Atlantic tropical storms and hurricanes.
2.) Outline of Databases
Provided in the Re-Analysis
As part of the re-analysis effort,
five files have been made available:
1) The revised Atlantic
HURDAT: This contains six-hourly
intensity (maximum sustained 1-minute winds at the surface [10 m] and, when
available, central pressures) and position (to the nearest 0.1o latitude
and longitude) estimates of all known tropical storms and hurricanes.
2) A HURDAT metafile: This documentation file has detailed
information about each change in the revised HURDAT. Included are the original HURDAT values of position and/or
intensity, the revised values in HURDAT, and the reasoning behind the changes.
3) A “center fix”
file: A file has been created that is
composed of raw observations of tropical cyclone positions (thus “center
fixes”) and intensity measurements from either ships or coastal stations.
4) A U.S. landfalling tropical storm and hurricane database: This file contains information on the exact
time, location, intensity, radius of maximum winds (RMW), environmental sea
level pressure and storm surge for continental U.S. landfalling (and those whose centers do not make
landfall, but do impact land) tropical storms and hurricanes.
5) NHC Best Track Change Committee comments: This file provides detailed comments from
the NHC’s Best Track Change Committee – a group tasked with approving
alterations to the HURDAT database.
Replies by the authors to the various comments and recommendations are
also included.
These files along with track maps
showing all tropical storms and hurricanes for individual years are available
on the HURDAT re-analysis web page:
<http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/data_sub/re_anal.html>.
3a.) The Work of Jose Fernandez-Partagas
Efforts to digitize and quality
control the work of Partagas and Diaz (1995a, 1995b, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c, 1997,
1999) produced the largest additions and alterations to HURDAT. Partagas and Diaz utilized a variety of
sources for their research: ship
reports in newspapers, individual and seasonal summaries published in the Monthly
Weather Review, documents from government agencies, historical reviews and
scientific publications (Table 1). A
distillation of this information by the re-analysis project led to the creation
of completely new tropical cyclone tracks and intensities for the years 1851 to
1885 and the alteration of existing track and intensity data for the period of
1886 to 1910. Secondarily, the
re-analysis effort also corrected many of the existing systematic and random
errors that existed in the 1886 to 1910 portion of HURDAT. The improvements included: a) corrected interpolations of winds near
landfall, b) more realistic speed changes at the beginning and/or end of the
tropical cyclone track, c) improved landfall locations, and d) corrected of
reduction of inland winds using Kaplan and DeMaria’s (1995, 2001)
methodology. A number of sources beyond
those utilized by Partagas and Diaz were also used in the re-analysis work,
which are detailed in Table 1.
Jose Fernandez-Partagas’ research -
extremely painstaking and time-consuming work - was detailed in full in the
volumes from Partagas and Diaz (1995a, 1995b, 1996b, 1996c, 1997 and
1999). An example of the documentation
that he provided is shown below for the first storm of 1856. (The storm track mentioned in Fig. [1] is
shown as Storm 1 in Figure 1.)
“Storm 1, 1856 (Aug. 10-11).
Tannehill (1938) has mentioned this
storm as having occurred along the Louisiana coast. Dunn and Miller (1960) and Ludlum (1963) have also mentioned this
storm. The author of this study has
prepared the storm track which is displayed in Fig. [1].
The New-York Daily Times, Aug. 16, 1856 p.1, col.1, published that
there had been a storm in the New Orleans area on August 10 and that such a
storm had been most disastrous at Last Island (Ile Derniere). A narrative of what had happened at Last
Island included some meteorological remarks:
Heavy N.E. winds prevailed during the night of August 9 and a perfect
hurricane started blowing around 10 A.M. August 10. The water commenced to rise about 2 P.M. and by 4 P.M. currents
from the Gulf and the Bay had met and the sea waved over the whole island (The
New-York Daily Times, Aug. 21, p.3, col.4).
The following information has been extracted from Ludlum (1963): The ship "C. D. Mervin" passed through the eye of the storm off the Southwest Pass. Captain Mervin checked the barometer at 8 A.M. Aug. 10 and noticed a reading of 28.20 inches, a 24-hr drop of 1.70 inches. At 9 A.M. the ship had a calm which lasted for 5 minutes. The sun shone and there was every appearance of clearing off but the wind suddenly struck the ship from the opposite direction. For two more hours, more a southerly hurricane struck the ship and then gradually abated. After the hurricane, the ship location was found to be only 60 miles to the W.S.W. of Southwest Pass.
At Iberville, Parish of Vermillon, the Aug. 10-11 storm raged with terrific force but only gales were reported at New Orleans, where the maximum wind at observation time was force 8 on the Beaufort scale (39-46 miles per hour) from an easterly direction at 2 P.M. August 10 (Ludlum, 1963).
It can be inferred from the above
information that Storm 1, 1856 was a hurricane which was moving on a
northwesterly course as shown in Fig. [1].”
3b.) Center Fix Files
From the observations uncovered by
Partagas for this storm – Storm 1, 1856, the following “center fix” data were
archived as shown in Table 2a. (A
center fix position observation was unavailable for this storm, so a sample
data point for Storm 5, 1852 is shown as an example in Table 2b.)
The conversion from descriptive
measures of winds to quantitative wind speeds, while quite subjective, is
assisted by the usage of the Beaufort Scale, which was developed as a wind
force scale for sailing ships by Admiral Francis Beaufort in 1805 and made
mandatory for log entries in the British Royal Navy by 1838 (Kinsman
1969). Subsequently, the scale evolved
into one associated with specific wind speed ranges as specified by
interpretations of the sea state, rather than the wind’s impact on sails (Table
3). Due to limitations at the top end
of the Beaufort Scale, the center fix and best track data in the re-analysis
generally list ship reports of “hurricane” force winds as 70 kt (36 m s-1)
winds. The listed wind speeds were
boosted to 90 kt (46 m s-1) when ship reports included terms
such as “severe”, “violent”, “terrific”, or “great hurricane”. Hurricanes at sea were not assigned a best
track intensity value of major hurricane (Saffir-Simpson Scale Category 3, 4 or
5; 96 kt [50 m s-1] or greater maximum sustained
surface wind speeds) unless corresponding central pressure data was able to
confirm such an intensity. Caution was
warranted in the direct use of these Beaufort Scale wind estimates for tropical
storm and hurricane intensity assignments due to lack of consistency and
standardization in the scale during the late 19th and early 20th
Centuries (Cardone et al. 1990).
However, in many cases these Beaufort Scale measurements by mariners
were the only clues available for estimating the intensity of tropical cyclones
of this era.
Occasionally, there were ship
observations with no specific dates available.
These were primarily utilized to provide information about the track of
the storm (e.g. a southwest gale noted by a ship captain would indicate a
tropical cyclone located to the northwest of the ship’s position) as long as
other ship/land observations could help pinpoint its timing. “Dateless” ship observations were also
infrequently utilized to assist in the intensity estimates.
For land based observations of wind
speed, there were generally two types available during the second half of the
19th and early 20th Centuries: visual estimates and the four cup Robinson anemometer (Ludlum
1963, Ho 1989). Visual estimates,
though crude, were somewhat standardized by use of a ten point scale for use by
volunteers of the Smithsonian Institute as well as by Army observers at various
forts (Table 4, M. Chenoweth, personal communication, 2001).
Of modestly more reliability was
the four cup anemometer, first developed by Robinson in the 1840s (Kinsman
1969). Of primary difficulties were
calibrating the instrument and its mechanical failure in high wind
conditions. Even as late as 1890, the
highest wind that could be reliably calibrated with this instrument was only
about 30 kt (from a whirling machine), due to lack of a strict comparison with
a known quantity of stronger winds (Fergusson and Covert 1924). By the early 1920s, wind tunnels allowed for
calibration against much stronger winds.
These showed that the winds from these early cup anemometers had a
strong overestimation bias, which was most pronounced at very strong wind
speeds (Fergusson and Covert 1924). For
example, an indicated wind of minimal hurricane force (64 kt) in actuality was
only about 50 kt. Moreover, most of
these early four cup anemometers were disabled or destroyed before sampling the
highest winds of hurricanes. The
strongest observed winds in an Atlantic hurricane by this type of anemometer
was a 5-min sustained wind measurement of 120 kt in storm 2, 1879, just before
the instrument was destroyed by this North Carolina-landfalling hurricane
(Kadel 1926). (A standard of 5-min was
typically utilized in U.S. Army Corps and Weather Bureau reports of “maximum
winds”, due to instrumental uncertainties in obtained reliable values for
shorter time period winds.) With
reliable calibrations available in the 1920s, this extreme wind’s true velocity
was only about 91 kt. Current
understanding of gustiness in hurricane conditions suggest a boost of 1.05 to
convert from a 5-min to a 1-min maximum sustained wind (Dunion et al. 2002),
giving a best estimate of the maximum 1-min sustained wind of about 96 kt.
Coastal station wind data listed in
the center fix files are the original measurements provided. It is in the interpretation of these data
for inclusion into the best track that these various biases and limitations
(i.e., strong overestimation in high wind regime, conversion of 5-min to 1-min
wind, and instrumental failure) are taken into account. More on the difficulties of the intensity
estimations is found in the Limitations and Errors section
3c.) Wind-Pressure Relationships
Sea level atmospheric pressure
measurements (either peripheral pressures or central pressures) can provide
estimates of the maximum sustained wind speeds in a tropical cyclone, in the
absence of in situ observations of the peak wind strength. In the case of Storm 1, 1856, the ship “C.D.
Mervin” observed a peripheral pressure of 955 mb (Table 2a), likely while in
the western eyewall. Central pressures
of tropical cyclones can be estimated from such peripheral pressure
measurements if relatively reliable values of the RMW and environmental (or
surrounding) sea level pressure can also be obtained. Radius of maximum wind information was occasionally obtained from
ships or coastal stations that were unfortunate enough to have the eye of the
hurricane pass directly overhead.
Careful notation of the times of the peak winds and the calm of the eye
experienced along with the best estimate of the translational speed of the
hurricane allowed for direct calculation of the RMW. Another method for estimating RMW was to measure the mean
distance from the hurricane’s track to the location of the peak storm surge
and/or peak wind-caused damages. Such
RMW measurements or estimates were relatively rare over the open ocean and only
somewhat more common as hurricanes made landfall over populated
coastlines. Central pressure can then
be estimated from the following equation (Schloemer, 1954; Ho, 1989):
PR - Po
--------- = e(-RMW/R)
Pn - Po
where PR is the sea level pressure at radius R, Po
is the central pressure at sea level, and Pn is the environmental
(or surrounding) sea level pressure at the outer limit of a tropical cyclone
where the cyclonic circulation ends.
Once a central pressure has been estimated, maximum sustained wind speeds can be obtained from a wind-pressure relationship. The current standard wind-pressure relationship for use in the Atlantic basin by NHC (OFCM 2001) is that developed by Dvorak (1984) as modified from earlier work by Kraft (1961).
The re-analysis developed new
wind-pressure relationships (described below) to help derive winds from an
observed (or estimated) central pressure only in the absence of reliable wind
data. These relationships are not
intended to give best track wind estimates for hurricanes in the last few
decades of the 20th Century. During
this time, accurate flight-level wind measurements were commonly available from
reconnaissance aircraft. The new
wind-pressure relationship estimates should not supercede the use of any
reliable, direct wind observations (rare in the 19th and early 20th
centuries), which may be available in a tropical cyclone. It is important to avoid situations where
accurate in situ data are modified by estimates from a wind-pressure
relationship.
The re-analysis used new
wind-pressure relationships for four regions in the Atlantic basin: Gulf of
Mexico (GMEX), southern latitudes (south of 25oN), subtropical
latitudes (25-35oN) and northern latitudes (35-45oN). Regional wind-pressure relationships were
developed because of a tendency for the association to differ depending upon
latitude. The equations relating
maximum sustained surface wind speeds to a corresponding central pressure as
well as those for the Kraft and Dvorak formulations are shown below and
representative values are displayed in Table 5. The tabular wind values are based on the following regression
equations:
1) For GMEX Wind (kt)=10.627*(1013-Po)0.5640 Sample size =664; r=0.991
2) For < 25oN Wind (kt)=12.016*(1013-Po)0.5337 Sample size =1033; r=0.994
3) For 25-35oN Wind (kt)=14.172*(1013-Po)0.4778 Sample size =922; r=0.996
4) For 35-45oN Wind (kt)=16.086*(1013-Po)0.4333 Sample size =492; r=0.974
5) For Kraft Wind (kt)=14.000*(1013-Po)0.5000 Sample size =13
The central pressure for these equations is given in units of
millibars and r refers to the linear correlation coefficient. Dashes in Table 5 indicate that the pressure
is lower than that available in the developmental dataset. Wind and pressure
data used for the regression were obtained from the HURDAT file, 1970-1997. The
developmental dataset excludes all overland tropical cyclone positions. Data for the < 25oN zone were
obtained from longitudes of 62oW and westward. Data for the 25-35oN zone are
from 57.5oW and westward.
Data for 35-45oN include the longitudes of 51oW
and westward. GMEX includes all over-water data west of a line from
northeastern Yucatan to 25oN, 80oW. These locations were chosen based on their
accessibility by aircraft reconnaissance that can provide both actual wind
speed and pressure measurements.
When developing the wind-pressure
relationships, attempts were first made to develop the equations with all of
the available data for each region.
However, the overwhelming numbers of observations at the low wind speed
ranges overweighted the observations of the tropical storms and Category 1
hurricanes at the expense of the major hurricanes. When the derived equations were compared against the observations
of wind and pressure at the very high wind values (> 100 kt [51 m s-1]),
the fit was quite poor. This was
overcome by binning the observations into 5 mb groups and then performing the
regression. Using this methodology, the
observations at the 981-985 mb range, for example, were weighted equally to
those of the 931-935 mb range. After
performing the regression this way, a much more accurate set of regression
equations with the wind and pressure estimates for the Category 3, 4 and 5
hurricane ranges was obtained. Because
this method reduces the standard deviation of the sample as well as the sample
size, the correlation coefficients are inflated.
In general, the Dvorak formulation
is most similar to the Gulf of Mexico and southern latitude relationships. For example, a 960 mb hurricane is suggested
to have 102 kt (52 m s-1) sustained surface winds from
Dvorak's relationship, which is quite close to the 100 kt (51 m s-1)
estimate provided by both the Gulf of Mexico and southern latitude
relationships. However, there is a tendency for the Dvorak wind values to be
higher than winds provided by the Gulf of Mexico and southern latitude
wind-pressure relationships for the extremely intense (< 920 mb) hurricanes,
though the number of data points available for calibration of this end of the
wind-pressure curves is quite low. In
addition, the Dvorak wind-pressure relationship systematically overestimates
the wind speeds actually utilized by NHC for the subtropical and northern
latitude hurricanes with central pressures less than 975 mb. For the case of a hurricane with a 960 mb
central pressure, the subtropical and northern latitude equations suggest 94 kt
(48 m s-1) and 90 kt (46 m s-1), respectively. The weaker winds
in higher latitudes can be explained physically with the following
reasoning: As hurricanes move poleward
encountering cooler sea surface temperatures and begin to evolve into an
extratropical cyclone, the tight pressure gradient and resulting wind field
typically weakens and expands outward.
This is due in part to structural evolution, but also due to less
efficient vertical momentum transport by convection in a more stable
environment. In addition, increases in
the Coriolis force causes a corresponding, but small, decrease in tangential
wind speed (Holland 1987). Since these
changes become more pronounced as the tropical cyclones move into higher
latitudes, an even larger reduction in wind speed was utilized poleward of 45oN. It is thus consistent that the Dvorak
wind-pressure relationship overestimates of winds in higher latitudes because
the original formulation of Kraft is based primarily upon observations from the
Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico.
The use of wind-pressure relationships
to estimate winds in tropical cyclones has a few associated caveats. First, for a given central pressure, a
smaller-sized tropical cyclone (measured either by RMW or radius of
hurricane/gale force winds) will produce stronger winds than a large tropical
cyclone. From Vickery et al. (2001),
the mean RMW (in km) of Atlantic tropical cyclones can be expressed as a
function of central pressure (Po), environmental pressure (Pn)
and latitude (L):
ln(RMW) = 2.636 - 0.00005086*( Po
- Pn )2 +
0.0394899*(L).
Tropical storms and hurricanes with observed/estimated RMW that
deviated by 25-50% from the average RMW values had wind speeds adjusted
accordingly by about 5 kt. Tropical
cyclones with RMW dramatically (more than 50%) different from climatology had
winds adjusted by about 10 kt.
A second caveat concerns the
translational speed of the tropical cyclone.
In general, the translational speed is an additive factor on the right
side of the storm and a negative factor on the left (Callaghan and Smith
1998). For example, a tropical cyclone
moving westward in the Northern Hemisphere at 10 kt (5 m s-1)
with maximum sustained winds of 90 kt (46 m s-1)
on the west and east sides would produce approximately 100 kt (51 m s-1)
of wind on the north side and only 80 kt (41 m s-1)
on the south side. At low to medium
translational speeds (less than around 20 kt [10 m s-1]),
the variation in storm winds on opposite sides of the storm track is
approximately twice the translational velocity, although there is substantial
uncertainty and non-uniformity regarding this impact on tropical cyclone
winds. At faster translational speeds,
this factor is somewhat less than two (Boose et al. 2001). Storms that move significantly faster than
the regionally-dependent climatological translational speeds (Neumann 1993,
Vickery et al. 2001) have been chosen in the re-analysis to have higher maximum
sustained wind speeds than slower storms with the same central pressure. Similarly, storms with slower than usual
rates of translational velocity may have slightly lower winds for a given
central pressure. Such alterations to
the standard wind-pressure relationship were previously accounted for to some
degree in the original version of HURDAT (Jarvinen et al. 1984), so the period
of 1886 to 1910 was checked for consistency in the implementation of
translational velocity impacts upon maximum sustained surface winds and changes
made where needed.
A third caveat of the wind-pressure
relationships is that these algorithms were derived assuming over-water
conditions. The use of the relationship
for tropical cyclones overland must consider the increased roughness length of
typical land surfaces and the dampening of the maximum sustained wind speeds
that result. In general, maximum
sustained wind speeds over open terrain exposures (with roughness lengths of
0.03 m) are about 5-10% slower than over-water wind speeds (Powell and Houston
1996), though for rougher terrain the wind speed decrease is substantially
greater.
Finally, the derivation of the new
regional wind-pressure relationships here is quite different from those
originally analyzed by Kraft (1961) and Dvorak (1984). In these earlier efforts, observed central
pressures were directly matched with observed maximum sustained surface
winds. One substantial limitation in
such efforts was in obtaining a sizable sample upon which to derive the
wind-pressure equations. Here this
limitation is avoided by using the actual HURDAT wind and central pressure values
in recent years, which does provide a large dataset to work with. However, this approach lacks a degree of
independence, as NHC used the Kraft and Dvorak wind-pressure curves to provide
estimates of maximum sustained surface winds from observed central
pressures. This was especially the case
during the 1970s, when aircraft flight-level winds were often discarded in
favor of using the measured central pressure since there was considerable
uncertainty as to how to extrapolate flight-level winds to the surface (Paul
Hebert, personal communication). Such
interdependence between recent HURDAT winds and central pressures may somewhat
account for the close match between the Dvorak formulation to the Gulf of
Mexico and southern latitude relationships.
Despite these concerns, the development of regionalized wind-pressure
relationships represents a step toward more realistic wind-pressure
associations, though improvements beyond what has been presented here could
certainly be achieved.
For many late 19th and
early 20th Century storms, the central pressure could not be
estimated from peripheral pressure measurements with the Schloemer equation
because of unknown values for the RMW.
Such peripheral pressure data were noted accordingly in the metadata
file and used as a minimum estimate of what the best track winds were at the
time. In most of these cases, the best
track winds that were chosen were substantially higher than that suggested by
the wind-pressure relationship itself. For Storm 1, 1856, maximum sustained
winds consistent with the ship report of a 955 mb peripheral pressure
measurement should be at least 105 kt (54 m s-1)
based on the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship (Table 5).
In this case, 130 kt (67 m s-1) was chosen for the best track at
the time of this ship report (see Metadata Files section for more details).
3d.) Best Track Files
Tropical cyclone positions and intensities in HURDAT have been
added to and changed for the re-analyzed period of 1851 to 1910. Tracks added for the years of 1851 to 1870
were digitized from the work of Partagas and Diaz (1995a). For the years 1871 to 1885, tracks for
tropical cyclones that were unaltered by Partagas and Diaz (1995b, 1996b) were
digitized directly from Neumann et al. (1993).
The intensity estimates for 1851 to 1885 were determined with
consideration of available raw data found in Partagas and Diaz (1995a, 1995b,
1996b), Ludlum (1963), Ho (1989) and other references, all of which have been
recorded in the center fix files. A
large majority of the tropical cyclones for the years 1886 to 1910 were altered
in their track and/or intensity based upon the work of Partagas and Diaz
(1996b, 1996c, 1997, 1999) and others listed in Table 1. Additions and changes made to individual
tropical cyclones and the references that were the basis for the alterations
are listed in detail in the metafiles for the separate tropical cyclones.
Tropical cyclone positions were
determined primarily by wind direction observations from ships and coastal
stations and secondarily by sea level pressure measurements and reports of
damages from winds, storm tides or fresh-water flooding. Figure 2 illustrates for an idealized case
how to estimate a tropical cyclone center from two ship observations. With these observations and the knowledge
that the flow in a tropical cyclone is relatively symmetric (i.e. circular flow
with an inflow angle of 20o, Jelesnianski 1993), a relatively
reliable estimate of the center of the storm can be obtained from a few
peripheral wind direction measurements.
However, analysis of tropical cyclone intensity is much less
straightforward. Intensity, described
as the maximum sustained 1-min surface (10 m) winds, of tropical cyclones for
the period of 1851 to 1910 was based upon (in decreasing order of weighting)
central pressure observations, wind observations from anemometers, Beaufort
wind estimates, peripheral pressure measurements, wind-caused damages along the
coast and storm tide. The next section
in the chapter goes into detail about limitations and possible errors in the
HURDAT position and intensity estimates for this era.
Table 6 provides the best track for
Storm 1, 1856 based upon the Partagas and Diaz (1995a) track after conducting a
critical independent assessment of their proposed positions and wind speeds (10
kt [5 m s-1] increments) from known ship and
land observations. This storm is a
typical (though intense) example of one of the many newly archived tropical
cyclones in the database. It is fully
acknowledged that the best tracks drawn for tropical cyclones during the period
1851-1910 represent just a fragmentary record of what truly occurred over the
open Atlantic Ocean. For this
particular hurricane, the first six-hourly intensity given on 9 August at 00
UTC is 70 kt (36 m s-1).
It should not be inferred that this hurricane began its lifecycle at 70
kt, but instead that data were lacking to make an estimate of its position and
intensity before this date.
Occasionally, there
are tropical cyclones in the best track for which only one six-hourly position
and intensity estimate was available (the “single point” storms - e.g. Storm 1,
1851). This was typically due to one
encounter of a tropical cyclone by a ship or the landfall of the system along
the coast with no prior recorded contact with other ships or coastal communities. The position and intensity estimated for
such tropical cyclones have more uncertainty than usual, since it was not
possible to check for consistency between consecutive position/intensity
estimates. Users are to be cautioned
that these single point storms will cause programming difficulties for versions
of programs that are expecting at least two position/intensity estimates.
For the period of 1886 to 1930, the
existing HURDAT was originally created from a once daily (12Z) estimate of
position and intensity (Jarvinen et al. 1984).
This caused some difficulty in situations of rapid intensification and
rapid decay, such as the landfall of a tropical cyclone. For the latter case, the Kaplan and DeMaria
(1995, 2001) models provided guidance for determining wind speeds for the best
track after landfall of a tropical cyclone, but only in the absence of observed
inland winds. The models used by Kaplan
and DeMaria begin with a maximum sustained wind at landfall and provides
decayed wind speed values out to about two days after landfall. Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) was designed for
landfalling tropical cyclones over the southeastern United States where nearly
all of the region within 150 nmi (275 km) of the coast has elevations less than
650 ft (200 m). Therefore the decay of
winds over higher terrain areas such as Hispanola and much of Mexico predicted
with the Kaplan and DeMaria (1985) model is inadequate (e.g., Bender et al.
1985). For these cases, a faster rate
of decay than that given from this model (on the order of 30% accelerated rate
of decay) was utilized in the re-analysis.
Ho et
al. (1987) also developed several relationships for the decay of tropical
cyclone central pressure after landfall, which were stratified by geographic
location and value of the pressure deficit (environmental pressure minus
central pressure) at landfall. In
general, for tropical cyclones striking the U.S. Gulf Coast, at ten hours after
landfall, the pressure deficit decreased by half. For Florida (south of 29oN)
hurricanes at ten hours after landfall, the pressure deficit decreased by only
one-quarter. For U.S. hurricanes making
landfall north of Georgia, the pressure deficit is 0.55 times that of the
landfalling value at ten hours after landfall.
For extremely intense hurricanes, the rate of decay is somewhat
faster. The relationships that Ho et
al. (1987) developed are utilized here on occasion to derive an estimated
central pressure at landfall from an inland central pressure measurement. The only deviation is for hurricanes
traversing the marshes of southern Louisiana.
In the Ho et al. (1987) study, Hurricane Betsy behaved anomalously,
since it decayed much more slowly than most of the hurricanes striking the
southeast U.S. It is hypothesized that
this is due to enhanced sensible and latent heat fluxes available over the
Louisiana marshes, relative to the dry land found throughout the rest of the
region. Ho (1989) suggests utilizing
the Florida decay rate for these hurricanes (e.g. Storm 10, 1893), since this
rate better matches decay rates for hurricanes similar to Betsy.
The best track files for 1851 to
1870 do not include the tropical depression stages of tropical cyclones. Obtaining adequate information to document a
storm’s beginning and ending tropical depression stages would be extremely
difficult, as most of the available observations focus upon gale force and
stronger wind speeds. Additionally,
motivation for this work was to better document the tropical storm and hurricane
stages, as these account for the large majority of impacts on society (ie.
winds, storm surge and inland flooding).
However, the authors were able to add into HURDAT for the years 1871 to
1898 the dissipating tropical depression stage for those tropical cyclones that
decayed over land. The Kaplan and
DeMaria (1995, 2001) inland decay models were utilized to calculate wind speed
estimates after landfall, in the absence of in situ wind or pressure data. This was done to ensure that existing tracks
indicated by Neumann et al. (1993, 1999) and the original HURDAT were not
truncated because the tropical cyclones decayed from tropical storm to tropical
depression status. Starting in 1886,
both the formative tropical depression stage and the tropical depression stage
of tropical cyclones as they are decaying over water are included when
available observations allow for a reasonable analysis. This is consistent with the previous HURDAT
methodology. Additionally, where
possible, the transition to the extratropical storm stage was documented and
included in the best track.
The
period of 1886 to 1898 in the existing HURDAT contained rather generic peak
intensities: most systems that were
determined to have been tropical storms were assigned peak winds of 50 kt (26 m
s-1) and most hurricanes were
assigned peak winds of 85 kt (44m s-1)
(Hebert and McAdie 1997). In fact, of
the 70 hurricanes from 1886 to 1898 in the original HURDAT, only one was
Category 1, 59 were Category 2, 10 were Category 3 and none were Category 4 and
5. This compares to recent historical
averages of only about a fourth of all hurricanes are Category 2 (Pielke and
Landsea 1998). In many of the tropical
storms and hurricanes for this period, the available ship and land-based
observations were utilized to provide a more realistic peak intensity value, if
possible.
For the
years 1899 to 1910, Partagas and Diaz (1996c, 1997, 1999) made extensive use of
the Historical Weather Maps series, a reconstruction of daily surface Northern
Hemispheric synoptic maps accomplished by the U.S. Navy and U.S. Weather Bureau
in the late 1920s. This reconstruction
effort was able to incorporate ship and coastal station data not available in
the original tropical storm and hurricane track determinations. Thus, over 90% of the tracks for this twelve-year
period have been modified.
3e.) Limitations and
Errors:
The tropical storms and hurricanes
that stayed out at sea for their duration and did not encounter ships (or
tropical cyclones that sunk all ships that they overran) obviously will at this
point remain undocumented for the time period of 1851 to 1910. It was estimated that the number of “missed”
tropical storms and hurricanes for the 1851-85 era is on the order of 0-6 per
year and on the order of 0-4 per year for the period of 1886 to 1910. (The higher detection for the latter period
is due to increased ship traffic, larger populations along the coastlines and
more meteorological measurements being taken.) By no means should the tropical cyclone record over the Atlantic
Ocean be considered complete for either the frequency or intensity of tropical
storms and hurricanes for the years 1851 to 1910. However, more accurate and complete information is available for
landfalling tropical cyclones along much of the United States coastline. (See the U.S. landfalling tropical cyclone
section for more details.)
Tropical storms and hurricanes that
remained out over the Atlantic Ocean waters during 1851 to 1910 had relatively
few chances to be observed and thus included into this database. This is because, unlike today, the wide
array of observing systems such as geostationary/polar orbiting satellites,
aircraft reconnaissance and radars were not available. Detection of tropical storms and hurricanes
in the second half of the 19th Century was limited to those tropical storms and
hurricanes that affected ships and those that impacted land. In general, the data should be slightly more
complete for the years 1886 to 1910, than in the preceding decades because of some
improvements in the monitoring network during this period. Improvements in the monitoring of Atlantic
tropical storms and hurricanes for the 19th and early 20th
centuries can be summarized in the following timeline (Fitzpatrick 1999,
Neumann et al. 1999):
1800s: Ship logs provided tropical cyclone
observations (after returning to port)
1845: First telegraph line
completed from Washington, D.C. to Boston
1846: The cup anemometer invented
by Robinson
1848: Smithsonian Institute
volunteer weather observer network started in United States
1870: U.S. national meteorological
service begun through the Army Signal Corps
1875: First hurricane forecasting
system started by Benito Vines in Cuba
1890: U.S. weather service
transferred to civilian agency - U.S. Weather Bureau
1898: U.S. Weather Bureau establishes
observation stations throughout Caribbean
1905: Transmitted ship observations
of tropical storms and hurricanes (via radio)
Note that until the invention of radio (1902), the only way to
obtain ship reports of hurricanes at sea was after the ships made their way
back to port. Observations from ship
reports were not of use to the fledgling weather services in the United States
and Cuba operationally, though some of them were available for post-season
analyses of the tropical cyclone activity.
These ship reports – many not collected previously - proved to be
invaluable to Ludlum (1963), Ho (1989) and Partagas and Diaz (1995a, 1995b,
1996b, 1996c, 1997) and others in their historical reconstruction of past
hurricanes.
While geographical positions of tropical
cyclones in HURDAT were estimated to the nearest 0.1 degrees latitude and
longitude (~6 nmi or ~11 km), the average errors were typically much larger in
the late 19th and early 20th Centuries than this
precision might imply (Table 7).
Holland (1981) demonstrated that even with the presence of numerous
ships and buoys in the vicinity of a strong tropical cyclone that was also
monitored by aircraft reconnaissance, there were substantial errors in
estimating its exact center position from the ship and buoy data alone. Based upon this, storms documented over the
open ocean during the period of 1851 to 1885 were estimated to have position
errors that averaged 120 nmi (220 km), with ranges of 180 to 240 nmi (330 to
440 km) errors being quite possible. In
the later years of 1886 to 1910, this is improved somewhat to average position
errors of around 100 nmi (185 km). At
landfall, knowledge of the location of the tropical cyclone was generally more
accurate, as long as the storm came ashore in a relatively populated region
(Table 7). Users should consult the
corresponding center fix files to see if there are actual location center fixes
available from ships or coastal observations.
If so, the location error for the nearest six-hourly best track position
would be smaller - on the order of 30 nmi (55 km).
Storm intensity values for 1851 to
1885 were estimated to the nearest 10 kt (5 m s-1),
but were likely to have large uncertainty as well (Table 7). Starting in 1886, winds were given in
intervals of 5 kt (2.5 m s-1), consistent with the previous
version of HURDAT. Best track intensity
estimates for 1851 to 1910 were based mainly upon observations by ships at sea,
which more often than not, would not sample the very worst part of the storm
(typically only 30-60 nmi (55-110 km) in diameter). Holland (1981) demonstrated that even in a relatively data-rich
region of ship and buoy observations within the circulation of a tropical
cyclone, the actual intensity was likely to be substantially underestimated.
Figures 3 and 4 provide a graphic demonstration of this for Major Hurricane
Erin of 2001 that made a close by-pass of Bermuda. Aircraft winds extrapolated to the ocean surface indicated
maximum sustained surface winds of just above 100 kt (51 m s-1)
in Major Hurricane Erin (Figure 3). However, despite transiting within 85 nmi
(160 km) of Bermuda, the highest observed surface winds from ships and coastal
stations were only around 40 kt (20 m s-1) (Figure 4). Such an underestimation of tropical cyclone
intensities was likely common in the pre-satellite and pre-aircraft
reconnaissance era. It was estimated
that the intensity measurements for 1851 to 1885 were in error an average of 25
kt (13 m s-1) over the open ocean, with a bias
toward underestimating the true intensity (Table 7). For the later period of 1886 to 1910, this was slightly improved
– to an average error of 20 kt (10 m s-1) over the ocean. At landfall, intensity estimates were
improved and show a negligible bias as long as the landfall occurs over a
populated coastline (Table 7).
3f.) Metadata Files
All Atlantic basin tropical storms
and hurricanes in the new best track database are accompanied by a “metadata
file”. This file consists of a
descriptive paragraph about the particular storm of interest that provides
information about the sources that went into creating the best track, whether
or not a wind-pressure relationship was utilized, if the Kaplan and DeMaria
(1995, 2001) wind decay models were used for inland wind estimates, and any other
pertinent information. Storms and hurricanes for which the entire lifecycle is
available during the period of 1851 to 1885 (from genesis as a tropical storm,
to peak intensity, to decay to minimal tropical storm or transformation to an
extratropical storm) are so indicated in the metadata file. If this is not indicated in the metadata
file, users of the data are cautioned that only a partial lifecycle of the
particular storm is available. Since
documenting the full lifecycle of tropical cyclones became somewhat more
frequent starting in 1886, only those tropical cyclones that lack archival of
their full lifecycle are so noted in the metadata files for the years 1886 to
1910. All of the tropical storms and
hurricanes for the period of 1851-1910 are considered “UNNAMED”. However, many of these storms have been
recognized by various informal names.
These are included in the metadata file when at all possible. Below is the metadata file for Storm 1,
1856:
1856/01: Utilized Ho's (1989) work - apparently not used in Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis - to alter the track and intensity near the US. Inland winds over SE US reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model. Ship with pressure measurement of 955 mb not in the hurricane's eye suggests at least 105 kt with the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship, utilize 130 kt in best track. Ho's estimate of 934 mb at landfall gives 125 kt, utilize 130 kt in best track - a major hurricane. A small RMW of 12 nmi supports slight increase of winds over suggested wind-pressure relationship. Surge value of 11-12' provided by Ludlum (1963) for Last Island, Louisiana. The storm is also known as the “Last Island Hurricane” after the destruction caused at that location.
For the cases where Partagas and
Diaz or the original HURDAT had listed a storm, but it was not for some reason
included into the revised HURDAT, an addendum to the Metadata File for that
year is included. For example, here is
a case for 1851:
1851 - Additional Notes:
1. The tropical storm
listed as #5 in 1851 in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) was not included into the
HURDAT because of the lack of evidence to suggest that the storm actually
existed. Partagas and Diaz had found an
unsupported reference to it in Tannehill (1938), but no other information.
Tables 8 and 9 summarize the
continental U.S. hurricanes and tropical storms, respectively, for the years
1851-1910 and the states impacted by these systems. U. S. hurricanes are defined as those hurricanes that are
analyzed to cause maximum sustained (1 min) surface (10 m) winds of at least 64
kt (33 m/s) for an open exposure on the coast or inland in the continental
United States. Both hurricanes that make
a direct landfall as well as those that make a close bypass are
considered. Likewise, U.S. tropical
storms are those that produced winds of 34 to 63 kt (18 to 32 m/s) at the coast
or inland. In addition to the parameters
also common to HURDAT (e.g. latitude, longitude, maximum sustained winds and
central pressure), the U.S. hurricane compilation also includes - where
available - the RMW, peak observed storm surge and environmental pressure. For the period of 1851 to 1899, the timing
of U.S. landfalls is estimated to the nearest hour; while for the later years
of 1900 to 1910, the more complete observational network allowed for an
indication of U.S. hurricanes and tropical storms to the nearest 10 minutes of
landfall. As was utilized in HURDAT,
maximum sustained wind speeds are estimated to the nearest 10 kt for the years
of 1851 to 1885, while a more precise measure of 5 kt increments are used for
the period of 1886 to 1910.
As mentioned earlier, because of
the lack of continuously populated coastal regions over this era, this record
represents an incomplete listing of the frequency and intensity of tropical
cyclones that have impacted the United States.
Based upon analysis of
"settled regions" (defined as at least two inhabitants per
square mile) from U.S. Census reports and other historical analyses (Department
of the Interior 1895, Kagan 1966, and Tanner 1995), estimated dates are
provided for when accurate tropical cyclone records began in specified regions
of the United States (Table 10). Prior to
these dates, tropical storms or hurricanes -especially smaller systems like
Andrew in 1992 and Bret in 1999 - might
have been missed completely or may have had their true intensity
underestimated.
As an example of the intensity
underestimation bias of a landfalling hurricane along a relatively uninhabited
coastal region, consider the case of Storm 2, 1882. This tropical cyclone had been characterized by Dunn and Miller
(1960) as a “minimal” storm in northwest Florida based upon a minimum sea level
pressure measurement of just 994 mb and a 50 kt (26 m s-1)
wind observed at Pensacola. However,
only hours before landfall the barkentine "Cato" measured a central
pressure of 949 mb, an observation apparently unknown to Dunn and Miller. Thus, this storm was likely a major
hurricane at landfall, though the intense inner core missed making a direct
strike on any populated areas. It is
certain that many other storms (both in the U.S. and other land masses) made
landfall without ships or coastal communities sampling the intense inner core,
resulting in an underestimation of their intensity at landfall. Such underestimations of landfall intensity
are particularly problematic for locations such as south Florida, where, for
example, Miami was not incorporated until 1896. There is less uncertainty for an area like New England, which has
been fairly densely populated since well before the 1850s. Despite these limitations, this analysis
does allow for extending the accurate historical record back in time for several
locations along the U.S. coastline.
For some U.S. hurricanes, a central
pressure estimate was obtained from the work of Ho et al. (1987), Ho (1989) or
other references (so noted in the metadata file for the appropriate storms),
which was then used to estimate maximum wind speeds through application of one
of the new wind-pressure relationships.
If no measured or analyzed (via the Ho [1989] methodology) central
pressure was described in the metadata file, then the winds at landfall were
determined from coastal station observations or ships immediately offshore,
destruction at the coast and/or observed storm surge values. In general, it was extremely rare for
land-based anemometers to actually measure what was suspected to be the maximum
sustained surface winds. This was due
to the relative sparsity of coastal stations combined with the small RMW
typical of hurricanes as well as the inability of anemometers of the era to
survive in extreme wind events. In the
cases where there was no central pressure value directly available, the
estimated winds at landfall were then used via the wind-pressure relationship
to back out a reasonable central pressure.
In either case, the objective was to provide both an estimate of the
maximum sustained wind at landfall and a central pressure for all U.S.
hurricanes.
3h.) Evaluation of the
HURDAT Revision by NHC
This re-analysis effort has been
done with considerable interaction with the hurricane specialists and
researchers at the National Hurricane Center.
The HURDAT database has been maintained and updated yearly by NHC for
decades. Thus all revisions to the
existing best track (or extensions back in time as is the case for the period
of 1851 to 1885) have been examined and approved by the NHC Best Track Change
Committee. Comments by the NHC Best
Track Change Committee and the authors’ replies back to the Committee are also
available via the HURDAT re-analysis web page.
4.) Future Re-analysis
Work
Historical tropical cyclone
reconstructions are inevitably subject to revisions whenever new archived
information is uncovered. Thus while
several thousand alterations and additions to HURDAT have been completed for
the years 1851 to 1910, this does not insure that there may not be further
changes once new information is made available. Such an archive of historical data – especially one based upon
quasi-objective interpretations of limited observations – should always be one
that can be revised when more data or better interpretations of exisiting
information becomes available.
However, much more work still needs
to be accomplished for the Atlantic hurricane database. One essential project is a Partagas and Diaz
style re-analysis for both the years before 1851 and for the pre-aircraft
reconnaissance era of 1911 to 1943. The
former may lead to a complete dataset of U.S. landfalling hurricanes for the
Atlantic coast from Georgia to New England back to at least 1800, given the
relatively high density of population extending that far into the past. The latter project would likely yield a much
higher quality dataset for the entire Atlantic basin – especially for frequency
and intensity of tropical cyclones – given the availability of revised
compilations of ship data (e.g. Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set,
Woodruff et al. 1987). Another
possibility is to re-examine the intensity record of tropical cyclones since
1944 by utilizing the original aircraft reconnaissance data in the context of
today’s understanding of tropical cyclone eyewall structure and best
extrapolations from flight-level winds to the surface winds (e.g. Dunion et al.
2002). Finally, efforts could be
directed to extending the scope of the HURDAT database to include other
parameters of interest, such as RMW and radii of gale and hurricane force winds
by quadrant.
Regardless of the final direction
pursued by future research into the re-analysis of Atlantic hurricanes, it is
hoped that efforts detailed here have already expanded the possibilities for
the utilization of the Atlantic hurricane database. Users now have access to a more complete record of Atlantic
hurricanes, one that extends further back in time and one that provides more
information regarding the limitations and error sources. In any planning for the future, a thorough
appreciation of past events helps one prepare for possibilities to come. Atlantic hurricanes, arguably the most
destructive of all natural phenomena in the Western Hemisphere, demand our
attention for their understanding to better prepare society for the impacts
that they bring. This re-analysis of
Atlantic basin tropical storms and hurricanes that now provide users with 150
years of record may be able to assist in such
endeavors in at least a small way.
5.) Acknowledgments:
This work has been sponsored by
a NOAA grant "The National Hurricane Center HURDAT File: Proposed
Revision" (NA76P0369) as well as through a grant from the Insurance
Friends of the National Hurricane Center.
The authors wish to thank the NHC Best Track Change Committee (Jack
Beven, Jim Gross, Brian Jarvinen, Richard Pasch, Ed Rappaport and Chair - Colin
McAdie) for their encouragement and detailed suggestions that have helped
to quality control the thousands of alterations and additions to HURDAT. Special thanks for their individual
contributions toward this project are also given to Sim Aberson, Auguste
Boissonnade, Emery Boose, Mike Chenoweth, Hugh Cobb, Paul Hebert, Paul
Hungerford, Lorne Ketch, Doug Mayes, Cary Mock, Ramon Perez Suarez, David Roth,
Al Sandrik, David Vallee and Roger Williams.
The authors also thank John Kaplan, Rick Murnane and two anonymous
reviewers for their constructive comments on an earlier draft of this chapter.
6. ) References
Abraham,
J., G. Parkes and P. Bowyer, 1998: The
transition of the "Saxby Gale" into and extratropical storm. Preprints of the 23rd Conference
on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology, Amer. Meteor. Soc., Dallas, Texas,
795-798.
Academia
de Ciencias, 1970: Atlas Nacional de Cuba.
Havana, Cuba, 132 pp.
Alexander,
W. H., 1902: Hurricanes, especially
those of Puerto Rico and St. Kitts.
Bulletin 32, Weather Bureau, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,
D.C., 79 pp.
Barnes,
J., 1998a: Florida's Hurricane
History. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 330 pp.
Barnes,
J., 1998b: North Carolina's Hurricane History. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 256 pp.
Bender, M.
A., R. E. Tuleya, and Y. Kurihara, 1985:
A numerical study of the effect of a mountain range on a landfalling
tropical cyclone. Mon. Wea. Rev., 113, 567-582.
Boose, E.
R., K. E. Chamberlin, and D. R. Foster, 2001:
Landscape and regional impacts of hurricanes in New England. Ecological Monographs, 71,
27-48.
Boose, E.
R., M. I. Serrano, and D. R. Foster, 2002: Landscape and regional impacts of
hurricanes in Puerto Rico. (In
preparation.)
Callaghan,
J. and R. K. Smith, 1998: The
relationship between maximum surface wind speeds and central pressure in
tropical cyclones. Aust. Met. Mag., 47, 191-202.
Cardone,
V. J., J. G. Greenwood, and M. A. Cane, 1990:
On trends in historical marine wind data. J. Climate, 3,
113-127.
Cline, I.
M., 1926: Tropical Cyclones, The
Macmillan Company, New York, 301 pp.
Coch, N.
K. and B. Jarvinen, 2000:
Reconstruction of the 1893 New York City hurricane from meteorological
and archaeological records – Implications for the future. Preprints of the 24th Conference on
Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology, Amer. Meteor. Soc., Ft. Lauderdale,
FL, 546.
Connor,
1956: Preliminary Summary of Gulf of
Mexico Hurricane Data. Report from the
New Orleans Forecast Office.
Department
of Interior, 1895: Report on
Population of the United States at the Eleventh Census: 1890_. Part I. Washington, D.C., Government
Printing Office.
Doehring,
F., I.W. Duedall, and J.M. Williams, 1994: Florida Hurricanes and Tropical
Storms, 1871-1993, An Historical Survey. Tp-71, Florida Sea Grant College
Program, Gainesville, Florida, USA, 118 pp.
Dunion, J.
P., C. W. Landsea, and S. H. Houston, 2002:
A re-analysis of the surface winds for Hurricane Donna of 1960. Accepted to Mon. Wea. Rev.
Dunn, G.
E., and Miller, B. I., 1960: Atlantic
Hurricanes, Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, La., 326 pp.
Dvorak,
V.F., 1984: Tropical cyclone intensity analysis using satellite data. NOAA
Technical Report. NESDIS 11, 47 pp.
Ellis, M.
J., 1988: The Hurricane Almanac -
1988 Texas Edition. Hurricane
Publications, Inc., Corpus Christi, Texas, 213 pp, (ISBN 0-9618707-1-0).
Fergusson,
S. P., and R. N. Covert, 1924: New
standards of anemometry. Mon. Wea.
Rev., 52, 216-218.
Fitzpatrick,
P. J., 1999: Natural Disasters:
Hurricanes. ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara, CA, 286 pp.
Garcia-Bonnelly,
J. U., 1958: Hurricanes which caused
damage on the Island of Hispanola.
Final report of the Caribbean hurricane seminar, Ciudad Trujillo, D.N.,
Dominican Republic, Feb. 16-25, 1956, 401 pp.
Garriott,
E. B., 1900: West Indian
Hurricanes. Bulletin H, U.S.
Weather Bureau, Washington, D. C., 69 pp.
Gutierrez-Lanza,
M., 1904: Apuntes historicos acerca del
Observatorio del Colegio de Belen. Imprenta Avisador
Comercial, Havana, 178 pp.
Hebert, P.
J., and C. J. McAdie, 1997: Tropical
cyclone intensity climatology of the North Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea and
Gulf of Mexico. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NWS TPC 2, Miami, Florida, 48 pp.
Ho, F. P.,
1989: Extreme hurricanes in the
nineteenth century. NOAA Technical Memorandum, NWS Hydro 43, Silver
Spring, Maryland, 134 pp.
Ho, F. P.,
J. C. Su, K. L. Hanevich, R. J. Smith, and F. P. Richards, 1987: Hurricane climatology for the Atlantic and
Gulf coasts of the United States. NOAA
Technical Report, NWS 38, 193 pp.
Holland,
G. J., 1981: On the quality of the
Australian tropical cyclone data base. Aust.
Met. Mag., 29, 169-181.
Holland, G. J., 1987: Mature structure and structure changes. A Global View of Tropical Cyclones. R. L. Elsberry, Ed.,
University of Chicago Press, 195 pp.
Hudgins,
J. E., 2000: Tropical cyclones
affecting North Carolina since 1586 - An historical perspective. NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS ER-92_,
83 pp.
Instituto
Cubano de Geodesia y Cartografia, 1978:
Atlas
de Cuba. Havana, Cuba, 143 pp.
Jarvinen,
B., 1990: Storm surge atlas for
Southwest Florida. NOAA Technical
Memorandum
Jarvinen,
B. R., C. J. Neumann, and M. A. S. Davis, 1984: A tropical cyclone data tape for the North Atlantic Basin,
1886-1983: Contents, limitations, and uses. NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS NHC 22,
Coral Gables, Florida, 21 pp.
Jarrell,
J. D., P. J. Hebert, and M. Mayfield, 1992:
Hurricane experience levels of coastal county populations from Texas to
Maine. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NWS NHC-46, 152 pp.
Jelesnianski, C. P., 1993: The habitation layer. Global Guide to Tropical Cyclone Forecasting. WMO/TC-No. 560, Report No. TCP-31, World Meteorological Organization; Geneva, Switzerland.
Kadel, B.
C., 1926: An interpretation of the wind
velocity record at Miami Beach, Fla., September 17-18, 1926. Mon. Wea. Rev., 54, 414-416.
Kagan, H.
H. (Ed.), 1966: American Heritage,
American Heritage Publishing Co., New York.
Kaplan,
J., and M. DeMaria, 1995: A simple
empirical model for predicting the decay of tropical cyclone winds after
landfall. J. Appl. Meteor., 34,
2499-2512.
Kaplan,
J., and M. DeMaria, 2001: On the decay
of tropical cyclone winds after landfall in the New England area. J. Appl. Meteor., 40, 280-286.
Kinsman,
B., 1969: Who put the wind speeds in
Admiral Beaufort’s Force Scale? Oceans.,
2, 18-25.
Kraft, R.
H., 1961: The hurricane's central pressure and highest wind. Mar. Wea. Log,
5, 155.
Landsea,
C. W., 1993: A climatology of intense
(or major) Atlantic hurricanes. Mon.
Wea. Rev., 121, 1703-1713.
Ludlum, D.
M., 1963: Early American Hurricanes
1492-1870. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,
Boston, 198 pp.
Martinez-Fortun,
J. A., 1942: Ciclones de Cuba. Revista Bimestre Cubana, 50,
232-249.
Mitchell,
C. L., 1924: West Indian hurricanes and
other tropical cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean. Mon. Wea. Rev.,, Supplement 24, Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C., 47 pp.
Neumann,
C. J., 1993: Global Overview - Chapter
1, Global Guide to Tropical Cyclone Forecasting, WMO/TC-No. 560, Report
No. TCP-31, World Meteorological Organization, Geneva.
Neumann,
C. J., 1994: An update to the National
Hurricane Center “Track Book”. Minutes of the 48th
Interdepartmental Conference, Miami, FL, Office of Federal Coordinator for Meteorological
Services and Supporting Research, NOAA, A-47 – A-53.
Neumann,
C. J., B. R. Jarvinen, C. J. McAdie, and J. D. Elms, 1993: Tropical Cyclones of the North Atlantic
Ocean, 1871-1992. NOAA NESDIS,
Historical Climatology Series 6-2, 193 pp.
Neumann,
C. J., B. R. Jarvinen, C. J. McAdie, and G. R. Hammer, 1999: Tropical Cyclones of the North Atlantic
Ocean, 1871-1999. NOAA/NWS/NESDIS,
Historical Climatology Series 6-2, 206 pp.
Office of
the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research
(OFCM) 2001: National Hurricane
Operations Plan (NHOP). FCM-P12-2001, NOAA, Washington, D.C.
Ortiz-Hector,
R., 1975: Organismos ciclonicos tropicales
extemporaneous. Serie meteorological No. 5, Academia de
Ciencias de Cuba, Havana, 99 pp.
Parkes, G.
S., L. A. Ketch, C. T. O'Reilly, J. Shaw and A. Ruffman, 1998: The Saxby Gale
of 1869 in the Canadian maritimes. Preprints
of the 23rd Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology,
Amer. Meteor. Soc., Dallas, Texas, 791-794.
Partagas,
J. F.-, and H. F. Diaz, 1995a: A
reconstruction of historical tropical cyclone frequency in the Atlantic from
documentary and other historical sources 1851 to 1880. Part I: 1851-1870. Climate Diagnostics Center, NOAA, Boulder.
Partagas,
J. F.-, and H. F. Diaz, 1995b: A
reconstruction of historical tropical cyclone frequency in the Atlantic from
documentary and other historical sources 1851 to 1880. Part II: 1871-1880. Climate Diagnostics Center, NOAA, Boulder.
Partagas, J. F.-, and H. F. Diaz, 1996a: Atlantic Hurricanes
in the second half of the Nineteenth Century. Bull.
Amer. Meteor. Soc., 77,
2899-2906.
Partagas,
J. F.-, and H. F. Diaz, 1996b: A
reconstruction of historical tropical cyclone frequency in the Atlantic from
documentary and other historical sources.
Part III: 1881-1890. Climate
Diagnostics Center, NOAA, Boulder.
Partagas,
J. F.-, and H. F. Diaz, 1996c: A
reconstruction of historical tropical cyclone frequency in the Atlantic from
documentary and other historical sources.
Part IV: 1891-1900. Climate
Diagnostics Center, NOAA, Boulder.
Partagas,
J. F.-, and H. F. Diaz, 1997: A
reconstruction of historical tropical cyclone frequency in the Atlantic from
documentary and other historical sources.
Part V: 1901-1908. Climate
Diagnostics Center, NOAA, Boulder.
Partagas,
J. F.-, and H. F. Diaz, 1999: A
reconstruction of historical tropical cyclone frequency in the Atlantic from
documentary and other historical sources.
Part VI: 1909-1910. Climate
Diagnostics Center, NOAA, Boulder.
Perez
Suarez, R., R. Vega y M. Limia, 2000:
Cronologia de los ciclones tropicales de Cuba. En Informe Final del Proyecto "Los ciclones tropicales de
Cuba, su variabilidad y su posible vinculacion con los Cambios Globales".
Instituto de Meteorologia. La Habana. Cuba.100 pp.
Pielke R. A., and C. W. Landsea, 1998: Normalized hurricane
damages in the hurricane United States: 1925-95, Wea. Forecasting, 13,
621-631.
Powell, M.
D., and S. H. Houston, 1996: Hurricane Andrew's landfall in South Florida. Part II: Surface wind fields and potential
real-time applications. Wea.
Forecasting, 11, 329-349.
Ramsey,
R., and M. J. Reilly, 2002: The
Hurricane of October 21-24, 1878.
Delaware Geological Survey, Special Publication No. 22, 88 pp.
Rappaport, E. N., and J. F.-Partagas, 1995: The deadliest Atlantic tropical cyclones, 1492-1994. NOAA Technical Memorandum, NWS NHC-47, Coral Gables, 41 pp.
Rodriguez-Demorizi,
E., 1958: La marina de Guerra domincana.
Editorial Montalvo, Ciudad Trujillo, R.D., 430 pp.
Rodriguez-Ferrer,
M., 1876: Naturaleza y civilizacion de la
grandiose Isla de Cuba. Imprenta J. Noriega, Madrid, 942 pp.
Roth, D.
M., 1997a: Louisiana Hurricane
History. National Weather Service, Lake
Charles, Louisiana, <http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lch/research/lahur.htm>
Roth, D.
M., 1997b: Texas Hurricane
History. National Weather Service, Lake
Charles, Louisiana, <http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lch/research/txhur.htm>.
Roth, D.
M. and H. D. Cobb, III, 2000: Re-analysis
of the gale of '78 - Storm 9 of the 1878 hurricane season. Preprints of the 24th Conferenceon
Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology, American Meteorological Society, Fort
Lauderdale, FL, 544-545.
Roth, D.
M. and H. D. Cobb, III, 2001: Virginia
Hurricane History. Hydrometeorological Prediction Center, Camp Springs,
Maryland, <http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/roth/vahur.htm>.
Salivia,
L. A., 1972: Historia de los
temporales de Puerto Rico y las Antillas (1492-1970). Editorial Edio, Inc., San Juan, Puerto Rico,
325 pp.
Sandrik,
A., 2002: Chronological listing of
tropical cyclones affecting North Florida and coastal Georgia 1565-1899. To be submitted to NOAA Technical
Memorandum.
Sandrik,
A. and B. Jarvinen, 1999: A
re-evaluation of the Georgia and northeast Florida tropical cyclone of 2
October 1898. Preprints of the 23rd Conference on Hurricanes and
Tropical Meteorology, American Meteorological Society, Dallas, TX, 475-478.
Sarasola,
S., 1928: Los huracanes en las Antillas.
Imprenta Clasica Espanola, Madrid, 254 pp.
Schloemer,
R. W., 1954: Analysis and synthesis of
hurricane wind patterns over Lake Okeechobee, Florida. Hydrometeorological Report No. 31,
U.S. Weather Bureau, Department of Commerce and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington, D.C.
Simpson,
R. H., and H. Riehl, 1981: The
Hurricane and its Impact. Louisiana
University Press, Baton Rouge and London, 398 pp.
Sullivan,
C. L., 1986: Hurricanes of the
Mississippi Gulf Coast.
Gulf Publishing Co., MS, 139 pp.
Tannehill,
I. R., 1938: Hurricanes, their
nature and history. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 257 pp.
Tanner, H.
H. (Ed.), 1995: The Settling of
North America, Macmillan, New York, (ISBN 0-02-616272-5).
Tucker,
T., 1982: Beware the Hurricane! The Story of the Cyclonic Tropical Storms
that have Struck Bermuda 1609-1982. Island Press Limited,
Hamilton, Bermuda, 173 pp.
Vickery,
P. J., P. F. Skerlj, and L. A. Twisdale, 2000:
Simulation of hurricane risk in the U. S. using empirical track
model. J. of Structural Engineering,
126, 1222-1237.
Vines, B.,
1877: Apuntes relativos a los huracanes de
las Antillas en septiembre y octubre de 1875 y 76.
Tipografia El Iris, Havana, 256 pp.
Vines, B.,
1895: Investigaciones relatives a la
circulacion y translacion ciclonica en los huracanes de las Antillas.
Imprenta El Aviasador Comercial, Havana, 79 pp.
Woodruff,
S. D., R. J. Slutz, R. L. Jenne, and P. M. Steurer, 1987: A Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data
Set. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 68, 1239-1250.
Figure 1: Reconstructed
Atlantic tropical cyclone tracks and intensities for 1856.
Figure
2: An idealized representation for
finding the center of a tropical cyclone based upon peripheral wind
observations. Two ship observations
(indicated by the red wind barbs) roughly indicate the tropical cyclone center
(where the two black lines cross) assuming cyclonic flow with a 20o
inflow angle.
Figure 3: Surface windfield analysis for Major Hurricane Erin on 9 September 2001 at 1930 UTC.
This analysis utilizes all available surface and near surface wind data including surface-reduced aircraft reconnaissance winds, surface-reduced cloud-drift winds, and ship and buoy observations. These data are all storm-relative composited for the period of 1500 to 1900 UTC, 9 September 2001 and are adjusted to a standard maximum sustained surface (1 min, 10 m) measurement. Peak sustained winds are analyzed to be 102 kt (52 m s-1) to the east-southeast of Erin’s center at a radius of 20 nmi (37 km).
Figure 4: Same as Figure 3, but without the benefit of surface-reduced aircraft reconnaissance flight-level winds. In this case, highest analyzed surface winds were only 39 kt (20 m s-1) based upon observations from Bermuda about 100 nmi (160 km) from Erin’s center. Such an analysis is typical of data available before the advent of aircraft reconnaissance data in the mid-1940s and is illustrative of the underestimation bias that occurred for many tropical cyclones during the era of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries being re-analyzed.
Table 1: Sources
utilized by Partagas and Diaz in their original work:
Ship reports published in The New York Times, The
Times (London) and Gaceta de la Habana, the Monthly Weather
Review individual storm and seasonal summaries, the Historical Weather Maps
series, reports of the Chief of the Weather Bureau (U.S.), Academia de Ciencias
(1970), Alexander (1902), Cline (1926), Dunn and Miller (1960), Garcia-Bonnelly
(1958), Garriott (1900), Gutierrez-Lanza (1904), Ho et al. (1987), Instituto
Cubano de Geodesia y Cartografia (1978), Ludlum (1963), Martinez-Fortun (1942),
Mitchell (1924), Neumann et al. (1993), Ortiz-Hector (1975), Rappaport and
Partagas (1995), Rodriguez-Demorizi (1958), Rodriguez-Ferrer (1876), Salivia
(1972), Sarasola (1928), Simpson and Riehl (1981), Sullivan (1986), Tannehill
(1938), Tucker (1982), Vines (1877), and Vines (1895).
Sources utilized in the re-analysis effort beyond those listed
above:
Abraham et al. (1998), Barnes (1998a, 1998b), Boose et al.
(2001, 2002), Coch and Jarvinen (2000), Connor (1956), Doehring et al. (1994),
Ellis (1988), Hebert and McAdie (1997), Ho (1989), Hudgins (2000), Jarvinen
(1990), Jarrell et al. (1992), Neumann et al. (1999), Parkes et al. (1998), Perez
et al. (2000), Roth (1997a, 1997b), Roth and Cobb (2000, 2001), Sandrik (2002),
and Sandrik and Jarvinen (1999).
Table 2a: "Center
fix" intensity measurement data for Storm 1, 1856.
_____________________________________________________________________________
1856/01 (Synoptic/intensity):
Date
Time Wind/Dir. Pressure1 Location Source2
8/10/1856
???? UTC 40 kt/?? ???? mb
29.3N 89.9W Fort Livingston
8/10/1856
???? UTC 60 kt/?? ???? mb
30.3N 91.4W Iberville Parish
8/10/1856
0900 UTC 70 kt/N-S 955 mb
28.6N 90.2W "C.D. Mervin"
8/10/1856
1400 UTC 40 kt/E ???? mb
30.0N 90.1W New Orleans
8/10/1856
2100 UTC 70 kt/?? ???? mb
29.0N 90.9W Last Island
8/10/1856
2200 UTC 70 kt/?? ???? mb
29.7N 91.2W Bayou Boeuf
8/11/1856
???? UTC 40 kt/?? ???? mb
30.4N 91.2W Baton Rouge
8/11/1856
???? UTC 40 kt/?? ???? mb
32.2N 91.1W New Carthage
8/11/1856
???? UTC 60 kt/?? ???? mb
31.6N 91.4W Natchez
_____________________________________________________________________________
1) If the sea level pressure measurement was determined to be a
"central pressure", a "C" was indicated after the
value. Otherwise, the pressure value
was considered to be a peripheral (either eyewall or rainband environment of
the storm) observation.
2) Sources are either from coastal or inland station data or
from ship data (in quotation marks).
Table 2b. "Center
fix" intensity position data for Storm 5, 1852.
_____________________________________________________________________________
1852/05 (Center positions):
Date Time Location Source1
10/09/1852 ???? UTC
25.6N 86.5W "Hebe"
_____________________________________________________________________________
1) Sources
are either from coastal or inland station data or from ship data (in quotation
marks).
Table 3: The Beaufort Wind Scale (Fitzpatrick 1999).
_____________________________________________________________________________
Beaufort Knots Description Specifications
at Sea
Number
_____________________________________________________________________________
0 < 1 Calm Sea
like a mirror
1 1-3 Light air Ripples
with the appearance of scales are formed, but without
foam
crest
2 4-6 Light breeze Small wavelets, still short but more pronounced;
crests have a
glassy
appearance and do not break
3 7-10 Gentle breeze Large wavelets; crests begin to break; foam of glassy
appearance;
perhaps scattered white horses
4 11-16 Moderate breeze Small waves,
becoming longer; fairly frequent white horses
5 17-21 Fresh breeze Moderate
waves, taking a more pronounced long form; many
white
horses are formed (chance of some spray)
6 22-27 Strong breeze Large waves
begin to form; the white foam crests are more
extensive
everywhere (probably some spray)
7 28-33 Near
gale Sea heaps up and white foam from breaking waves begins
to
be
blown in streaks in the direction of the wind
8 34-40 Gale Moderately
high waves of greater length; edges of crests
begin
to break into spindrift; foam is blown in well-marked
streaks
along the direction of the wind
9 41-47 Strong gale High waves; dense
streaks of foam along the direction of the
wind;
crests of waves begin to topple, tumble, and roll over;
spray
may affect visibility
10 48-55 Storm Very
high waves with long overhanging crests; the resulting
foam,
in great patches, is blown in dense white streaks along
the
direction of the wind; on the whole, the surface of the sea
takes
on a white appearance; the tumbling of the sea becomes
heavy
and shock-like; visibility affected
11 56-63 Violent
storm Exceptionally high waves (small and medium-sized ships
might
be for a time lost to view behind the waves); the sea
completely
covered with long white patches of foam lying
along
the direction of the wind; everywhere the edges of wave
crests
are blown into froth; visibility affected
12 > 63
Hurricane The
air is filled with foam and spray; sea completely white
with
driving spray; visibility very seriously affected
_____________________________________________________________________________
Table 4: The Smithsonian
Institute and Military Fort Wind Force Scale (Ludlum 1963, Ho
1989, M. Chenoweth, personal communication, 2001). 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)
________________________________
Table 5: Newly developed
regionally-based wind-pressure relationships for the Atlantic basin.
Winds are maximum sustained surface winds in knots and pressures
are central pressures in mb at sea level.
_____________________________________________________________________________
P(MB)
GMEX <25N 25-35N
35-45N KRAFT DVORAK
1000
45 47 48 49 50 45
990
62 64 63 63 67 61
980
76 78 75 73 80 76
970
89 89 85 82 92 90
960
100 100 94 90 102 102
950 110 110 103 97 111 113
940
119 119 110
103 120 122
930
128 127 117
--- 128 132
920
137 135 124
--- 135 141
910
145 143
--- --- 142
151
900
153 150 ---
--- 149 161
890
--- 157 ---
--- --- 170
_____________________________________________________________________________
Table 6: Best track
information for Storm 1, 1856 in the standard HURDAT format (a) and in an
“easy-to-read” version (b).
_____________________________________________________________________________
(a)
00820
08/09/1856 M= 4 1 SNBR= 29 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=4
00825
08/09*250 839 70 0*257 851
80 0*263 865 90
0*270 878 100 0
00830
08/10*277 891 110 0*282 898 120 0*287 905 130 0*292 911 130 934
00835
08/11*297 916 110 0*300 918 80
0*303 919 60 0*306 918
50 0
00840
08/12*309 916 40 0*313 910
40 0* 0
0 0 0* 0 0
0 0
00845
HR LA4
_____________________________________________________________________________
(b)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Month Day Hour Lat.
Long. Dir. ______Speed_____ _____Wind________ Pressure
Type
8
9 0 UTC 25.0N
83.9W deg mph/
km/hr 80 mph/130 km/hr mb
H-Cat. 1
8
9 6 UTC 25.7N
85.1W 305 deg 13 mph/ 22 km/hr 90 mph/150 km/hr
mb H-Cat. 1
8 9
12 UTC 26.3N 86.5W 295 deg 14 mph/ 24 km/hr 100 mph/170 km/hr
mb H-Cat. 2
8 9
18 UTC 27.0N 87.8W 300 deg 14 mph/ 24 km/hr 120 mph/190 km/hr
mb MH-Cat. 3
8
10 0 UTC 27.7N
89.1W 300 deg 14 mph/ 24 km/hr 130 mph/200 km/hr
mb MH-Cat. 3
8
10 6 UTC 28.2N
89.8W 310 deg 8 mph/ 12 km/hr 140 mph/220 km/hr
mb MH-Cat. 4
8 10
12 UTC 28.7N 90.5W 310 deg 8 mph/ 12 km/hr 150 mph/240 km/hr
mb MH-Cat. 4
8 10
18 UTC 29.2N 91.1W 315 deg 8 mph/ 12 km/hr 150 mph/240 km/hr 934
mb MH-Cat. 4 - Landfall
8
11 0 UTC 29.7N
91.6W 320 deg 6 mph/ 11 km/hr 130 mph/200 km/hr
mb MH-Cat. 3
8
11 6 UTC 30.0N
91.8W 330 deg 3 mph/
5 km/hr 90 mph/150 km/hr mb
H-Cat. 1
8 11
12 UTC 30.3N 91.9W 345 deg 3 mph/
5 km/hr 70 mph/110 km/hr mb
TS
8 11
18 UTC 30.6N 91.8W 15 deg 3 mph/
5 km/hr 60 mph/ 90 km/hr mb
TS
8
12 0 UTC 30.9N
91.6W 30 deg 3 mph/
5 km/hr 50 mph/ 70 km/hr mb
TS
8
12 6 UTC 31.3N
91.0W 50 deg 6 mph/ 11 km/hr 50 mph/ 70 km/hr
mb TS
_____________________________________________________________________________
Table 7: Estimated
average position and intensity errors in best track for the years
1851-1910. Negative bias errors
indicate an underestimation of the true intensity.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Situation Dates Position Intensity Error Intensity Error
Error (absolute) (bias)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Open ocean 1851-1885 120 nmi/220 km 25 kt/13 m s-1 -15 kt/-8 m s-1
1886-1910 100 nmi/185 km 20 kt/10 m s-1 -10 kt/-5 m s-1
Landfall at sparsely populated
area 1851-1885 120 nmi/220 km 25
kt/13 m s-1 -15
kt/-8 m s-1
1886-1910 100
nmi/185 km 20 kt/10 m s-1 -10 kt/-5 m s-1
Landfall at settled area 1851-1885 60 nmi/110 km 15 kt/8 m s-1 0 kt/0 m s-1
1886-1910 60
nmi/110 km 12 kt/6 m s-1 0 kt/0 m s-1
____________________________________________________________________________
Table 8: Continental United States Hurricanes: 1851-1910
____________________________________________________________________________
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max
Saffir- RMW Storm Central
Environ. States
Winds
Simpson Surge Pressure
Pressure Affected
1-6/25/1851$ 1200Z 28.5N 96.5W 70kt 1
--- --- (985mb)
------ BTX1
4-8/23/1851$ 2100Z 30.1N 85.7W 100kt 3
--- 12'% (960mb)
------ AFL3,GA1
1-8/22/1852$* 1200Z 23.8N
81.3W 80kt 1
--- --- (977mb)
------ BFL1
1-8/26/1852 0600Z 30.2N 88.6W 100kt 3
30nmi 12'% 961mb
------ AL3,MS3,LA2,AFL1
3-9/12/1852$ 0000Z 28.0N 82.8W 70kt 1
--- --- (985mb)
------ BFL1
5-10/9/1852$ 2100Z 29.9N 84.4W 90kt 2
--- 7'% (969mb)
------ AFL2,GA1
8-10/21/1853* 0600Z 30.9N
80.9W 70kt 1
--- --- (965mb)
------ GA1
2-9/8/1854 2000Z 31.7N 81.1W 100kt 3
40nmi --- 950mb
------ GA3,SC2,DFL1
3-9/18/1854 2100Z 28.9N 95.3W 90kt 2
--- --- (969mb)
------ BTX2
6-9/16/1855$ 0300Z 29.2N 89.5W 110kt 3
--- 10-15'% (950mb) ------
LA3,MS3
1-8/10/1856$ 1800Z 29.2N 91.1W 130kt 4
12nmi 11-12'% 934mb ------
LA4
5-8/31/1856$ 0600Z 30.2N 85.9W 90kt 2
--- 6'% (969mb)
------ AFL2,AL1,GA1
2-9/13/1857& 1100Z 35.2N 75.7W 80kt 1
--- --- 961mb
------ NC1
3-9/16/1858 1700Z 40.9N 72.2W 80kt 1
45nmi --- (976mb)
------ NY1
3-9/16/1858 1800Z 41.3N 72.0W 70kt 1
45nmi --- 979mb
------ CT1,RI1,MA1
5-9/16/1859 0000Z 30.3N 88.1W 70kt 1
--- --- (985mb)
------ AL1
1-8/11/1860$ 2000Z 29.2N 90.0W 110kt 3
--- 12'% (950mb)
------ LA3,MS3,AL2
4-9/15/1860$ 0400Z 29.3N 89.6W 90kt 2
--- 10'% (969mb)
------ LA2,MS2,AL1
6-10/2/1860$ 1700Z 29.5N 91.4W 90kt 2
--- --- (969mb)
------ LA2
2-8/16/1861$* 0000Z 24.2N
82.0W 70kt 1
--- --- (970mb)
------ BFL1
5-9/27/1861 1700Z 34.5N 77.4W 70kt 1
--- --- (985mb)
------ NC1
8-11/2/1861 1000Z 34.7N 76.6W 70kt 1
--- --- (985mb)
------ NC1
4-9/13/1865$ 2100Z 29.8N 93.4W 90kt 2
--- --- (969mb)
------ LA2,CTX1
7-10/23/1865$ 1000Z 24.6N
81.7W 90kt 2
--- --- (969mb)
------ BFL2
7-10/23/1865$ 1400Z 25.4N
81.1W 90kt 2
--- --- (969mb)
------ BFL2,CFL1
1-7/15/1866 1200Z 28.5N 96.5W 90kt 2
--- --- (969mb)
------ BTX2
1-6/22/1867 1400Z 32.9N 79.7W 70kt
1 --- ---
(985mb) ------ SC1
7-10/2/1867$# 1500Z 25.4N
97.1W 70kt 1
--- --- (969mb)
------ ATX1
7-10/4/1867$ 1500Z 29.2N 91.0W 90kt 2
--- 7'% (969mb)
------ LA2,CTX1
7-10/6/1867$ 1500Z 29.6N 83.4W 70kt 1
--- --- (985mb)
------ AFL1
2-8/17/1869 0700Z 28.1N 96.8W 90kt 2
--- --- (969mb)
------ BTX2
5-9/5/1869$ 1200Z 29.2N 90.0W 70kt 1
--- --- (985mb)
------ LA1
6-9/8/1869& 2100Z 41.0N 71.9W 80kt 1
30nmi --- 963mb
------ NY1
6-9/8/1869 2200Z 41.4N 71.7W 100kt 3
30nmi 8'% 965mb
------ RI3,MA3,CT1
10-10/4/1869& 1900Z 41.3N
70.5W 80kt 1
30nmi --- (965mb)
------ MA1
10-10/4/1869& 2000Z 41.7N
70.4W 80kt 1
30nmi --- (965mb)
------ MA1
10-10/4/1869 2300Z 43.7N 70.1W 90kt 2
--- --- (968mb)
------ ME2
1-7/30/1870 1800Z 30.5N 88.0W 70kt 1
--- --- (985mb)
------ AL1
6-10/10/1870$*
0500Z 24.6N 80.8W 70kt
1 --- ---
(970mb) ------ BFL1,CFL1
9-10/20/1870$ 1400Z
24.7N 82.8W 80kt 1 ---
--- (977mb) ------
BFL1
9-10/20/1870$ 2000Z 26.0N
81.6W 80kt 1
--- --- (977mb)
------ BFL1
3-8/17/1871$ 0200Z 27.1N 80.2W 100kt 3
30nmi --- 955mb
1016mb CFL3,DFL1,AFL1
4-8/25/1871$ 0500Z 27.6N 80.3W 90kt 2
--- --- (965mb)
------ CFL2,DFL1
6-9/6/1871$ 1400Z 29.2N 83.0W 70kt 1
--- --- (985mb)
------ AFL1
3-9/19/1873$ 1500Z 29.9N 84.4W 70kt 1
--- --- (985mb)
------ AFL1
5-10/7/1873$ 0100Z 26.5N 82.2W 100kt 3
26nmi 14'% 959mb
1014mb BFL3,CFL2,DFL1
6-9/28/1874$ 0300Z 29.1N 82.9W 70kt 1
--- --- (985mb)
------ AFL1
6-9/28/1874 1800Z 32.8N 80.0W 80kt 1
--- --- 981mb
------ SC1,NC1
3-9/16/1875 2100Z 27.7N 97.2W 100kt 3
--- 15'% (960mb)
------ BTX3,ATX2
2-9/17/1876 1400Z 34.4N 77.6W 80kt 1
--- --- 980mb
------ NC1,VA1
5-10/20/1876$ 0500Z 25.8N
81.4W 90kt 2
--- --- 973mb
------ BFL2,CFL1
2-9/18/1877$ 1600Z 29.2N 91.0W 70kt 1 --- ---
(985mb) ------ LA1
2-9/19/1877$ 2000Z 30.4N 86.6W 70kt 1
--- --- (985mb)
------ AFL1
4-10/3/1877$ 0500Z 30.0N 85.5W 100kt 3
--- 12'% (960mb)
------ AFL3,GA1
5-9/10/1878$ 1100Z 28.6N 82.6W 90kt 2 ---
--- (970mb) 1010mb
BFL2,DFL1
5-9/12/1878 1200Z 32.5N 80.4W 80kt 1
--- --- (976mb)
------ NC1,SC1,GA1
11-10/23/1878 0400Z 34.8N
77.1W 90kt 2
--- 12’% (963mb)
------ NC2,VA1,MD1,DE1,NJ1,PA1
2-8/18/1879 1200Z 34.7N 76.7W 100kt 3
16nmi 7’ 971mb
1014mb NC3,VA2
2-8/19/1879& 0600Z 41.4N 70.8W 60kt TS
--- --- 984mb
------ (None)
3-8/23/1879 0200Z 29.4N 94.4W 90kt 2
--- --- 964mb
------ CTX2,LA2
4-9/1/1879$ 1600Z 29.5N 91.4W 110kt 3
--- --- (950mb)
------ LA3
2-8/13/1880# 0100Z 25.8N 97.0W 110kt 3
12nmi --- 931mb
------ ATX3
4-8/29/1880$ 1200Z 28.2N 80.6W 90kt 2
--- --- 972mb
------ CFL2,DFL1
4-8/31/1880 0400Z 29.7N 84.8W 70kt 1
--- --- (985mb)
------ AFL1
6-9/9/1880 1000Z 34.7N 77.1W 70kt 1
--- --- 987mb
------ NC1
9-10/8/1880 1900Z 28.9N 82.7W 70kt 1
--- --- (985mb)
------ AFL1
5-8/28/1881 0200Z 31.7N 81.1W 90kt 2
15nmi --- 970mb
------ GA2,SC1
6-9/9/1881 1600Z 33.9N 78.1W 90kt 2
15nmi --- 975mb
------ NC2
2-9/10/1882 0200Z 30.4N 86.8W 100kt 3
--- --- 949mb
------ AFL3,AL1
3-9/15/1882 0500Z 29.8N 93.7W 90kt 2
--- --- (969mb)
------ LA2,CTX1
6-10/11/1882 0400Z 29.5N 83.3W 70kt 1
--- --- (985mb)
------ AFL1
3-9/11/1883 1300Z 33.9N 78.5W 90kt 2
--- --- (965mb)
------ NC2,SC1
2-8/25/1885 0900Z 32.2N 80.7W 100kt 3
--- --- (953mb)
------ SC3,NC2,GA1,DFL1
1-6/14/1886 1600Z 29.6N 94.2W 85kt 2
--- 7'% (973mb)
------ CTX2,LA2
2-6/21/1886 1100Z 30.1N 84.0W 85kt 2
--- --- (973mb)
------ AFL2,GA1
3-6/30/1886 2100Z 29.7N 85.2W 85kt 2
--- --- (973mb)
------ AFL2
4-7/19/1886 0100Z 28.8N 82.7W 70kt 1
--- --- (985mb)
------ AFL1
5-8/20/1886 1300Z 28.1N 96.8W 135kt 4
15nmi 15' 925mb
------ BTX4
8-9/23/1886# 0700Z 26.0N 97.2W 80kt 1
--- --- (973mb)
------ ATX1,BTX1
10-10/12/1886 2200Z 29.8N
93.5W 105kt 3
--- 12'% (955mb)
------ LA3,CTX2
4-7/27/1887 1500Z 30.4N 86.6W 75kt 1
--- --- (981mb)
------ AFL1
6-8/20/1887* 1200Z 35.0N 75.0W 65kt 1
--- --- (946mb)
------ NC1
9-9/21/1887 1700Z 26.1N 97.2W 85kt 2
--- --- 973mb
------ ATX2
13-10/19/1887 0200Z 29.1N
90.4W 75kt 1
--- --- (981mb)
------ LA1
1-6/17/1888 0600Z 28.7N 95.7W 70kt 1
--- --- (985mb)
------ BTX1
3-8/16/1888$ 1900Z 25.8N 80.1W 100kt 3
--- 14'% (953mb)
------ CFL3,BFL1
3-8/19/1888 1600Z 29.1N 90.7W 95kt 2
--- --- (964mb) ------
LA2
6-9/26/1888& 1300Z 41.6N 69.9W 55kt TS
--- --- 985mb
------ (None)
7-10/11/1888 0100Z 29.2N 83.1W 95kt 2
11nmi 9' 970mb
------ AFL2,DFL1
6-9/23/1889 0400Z 29.1N 89.8W 70kt 1
--- --- (985mb)
------ LA1
1-7/5/1891 2200Z 28.8N 95.5W 80kt 1
--- --- (977mb)
------ BTX1,CTX1
3-8/24/1891$ 1500Z 25.4N 80.2W 70kt 1
--- --- (985mb)
------ CFL1
7-10/12/1891* 1200Z 34.5N
74.0W 65kt 1 ---
--- (965mb) ------
NC1
4-8/24/1893 1200Z 40.6N 73.9W 75kt 1
30nmi --- 986mb
------ NY1,VA1
6-8/28/1893 0500Z 31.7N 81.1W 100kt 3
23nmi 9-10' 954mb
1010mb GA3,SC3,NC1,DFL1
8-9/7/1893 1400Z 29.2N 91.1W 85kt 2
--- --- 973mb
------ LA2
10-10/2/1893 0800Z 29.3N 89.8W 115kt 4
12nmi --- 948mb
------ LA4
10-10/2/1893 1600Z 30.3N 88.9W 95kt 2
17nmi 10-12'% 970mb ------
MS2,AL2
9-10/13/1893 1300Z 33.0N 79.5W 105kt 3
15nmi 14'% 955mb
------ SC3,NC2,VA1
4-9/25/1894$ 1100Z 24.7N 82.0W 80kt 1
--- --- 985mb
------ BFL1
4-9/25/1894$ 1900Z 26.5N 82.0W 90kt 2
--- --- (975mb)
------ BFL2,DFL1
4-9/27/1894 0700Z 32.3N 80.7W 80kt 1
--- 10'% (976mb)
------ SC1
4-9/29/1894* 1200Z 37.0N 75.0W 70kt 1
--- --- (978mb)
------ VA1
5-10/9/1894 0300Z 30.2N 85.5W 105kt 3
--- --- (955mb)
------ AFL3,GA1
5-10/10/1894 1500Z 40.7N 72.9W 75kt 1
--- --- (978mb)
------ NY1,RI1
2-8/30/1895# 0400Z 25.0N 97.6W 65kt 2
--- --- (973mb)
------ ATX1
1-7/7/1896 1700Z 30.4N 86.5W 85kt 2
--- --- (973mb)
------ AFL2
2-9/10/1896 1300Z 41.2N 70.6W 70kt 1
30nmi --- (985mb)
------ RI1,MA1
4-9/29/1896 1100Z 29.2N 83.1W 110kt 3
15nmi --- 960mb
1014mb
AFL3,DFL3,GA2,SC1,NC1,VA1
2-9/13/1897 0500Z 29.7N 93.8W 75kt 1
--- 6'% (981mb)
------ LA1,TX1
1-8/2/1898 2300Z 29.7N 84.8W 70kt 1
--- --- (985mb)
------ AFL1
2-8/31/1898 0700Z 32.1N 80.8W 75kt 1
--- --- (980mb)
------ GA1,SC1
7-10/2/1898 1600Z 30.9N 81.4W 115kt 4
18nmi 16' 938mb
1010mb GA4,DFL2
2-8/1/1899 1700Z 29.7N 84.7W 85kt 2
--- --- 979mb
1017mb AFL2
3-8/18/1899 0100Z 35.2N 75.8W 105kt 3
--- --- (945mb)
1012mb NC3
8-10/31/1899 0900Z 33.6N 79.0W 95kt 2
35nmi 9'% 955mb
1012mb NC2,SC2
1-9/9/1900 0140Z 29.1N 95.1W 125kt 4
14nmi 20'% 931mb
1012mb CTX4
3-7/11/1901 0720Z 36.0N 75.8W 70kt 1
--- --- (983mb)
1016mb NC1
4-8/14/1901 2110Z 29.3N 89.6W 80kt 1
--- 8'% (973mb)
1013mb LA1
4-8/15/1901 1700Z 30.4N 88.8W 80kt 1
33nmi 8'% 973mb
1013mb MS1,AL1
3-9/11/1903 2250Z 26.1N 80.1W 75kt 1
43nmi 8'% 976mb
1016mb CFL1
3-9/13/1903 2330Z 30.1N 85.6W 80kt 1
--- 10'% (977mb)
1016mb AFL1
4-9/16/1903 1120Z 39.1N 74.7W 70kt 1
--- --- 990mb
1020mb NJ1,DE1
2-9/14/1904 1320Z 33.1N 79.2W 70kt 1
--- --- (985mb)
1017mb SC1
3-10/17/1904 0750Z 25.3N 80.3W 70kt 1
--- --- (985mb)
1016mb CFL1
2-6/17/1906 0240Z 24.7N 81.1W 70kt 1
--- --- (986mb)
1013mb BFL1,CFL1
2-6/17/1906 0750Z 25.2N 80.7W 75kt 1
26nmi --- 979mb
1013mb CFL1
5-9/17/1906 2140Z 33.3N 79.2W 80kt 1
30nmi --- 977mb
1018mb SC1,NC1
6-9/27/1906 1100Z 30.2N 88.6W 95kt 2
43nmi 14'% 958mb
1013mb MS2,AL2,AFL2,LA1
8-10/18/1906 0930Z 24.7N 81.1W 95kt 2
16nmi --- 967mb
1010mb BFL2,CFL2
8-10/18/1906 1130Z 25.2N 80.8W 95kt 2 16nmi ---
967mb 1010mb CFL2,BFL1
2-5/29/1908& 2100Z 35.2N 75.6W 55kt TS
--- --- 989mb
1015mb (None)
3-7/31/1908 1130Z 34.6N 77.1W 70kt 1
--- --- (985mb)
1017mb NC1
2-6/29/1909 1700Z 26.1N 97.2W 85kt 2
--- 7'% 972mb
1012mb ATX2
4-7/21/1909 1650Z 28.9N 95.3W 100kt 3
19nmi 10'% 959mb
1015mb CTX3
6-8/27/1909# 2140Z 23.7N 97.7W 65kt 1
--- --- (955mb)
1014mb ATX1
8-9/21/1909 0000Z 29.5N 91.3W 105kt 3
28nmi 15'% 952mb
1012mb LA3,MS2
10-10/11/1909&
1800Z 24.7N 81.0W 90kt
2 22nmi ---
957mb 1009mb BFL2,CFL2
3-9/14/1910 2200Z 26.9N 97.4W 95kt 2
--- --- (965mb)
1011mb ATX2
5-10/17/1910* 1900Z 24.6N
82.6W 90kt 2
28nmi --- 941mb
1008mb BFL2
5-10/18/1910 0600Z 26.5N 82.0W 95kt 2
28nmi 15'% 955mb
1008mb BFL2
____________________________________________________________________________
Notes:
Date/Time: Day and time when the circulation center
crossed the U.S. coastline (including barrier islands). Time was estimate to the nearest hour for
the period of 1851 to 1899 and to the nearest ten minutes for the period of
1900 to 1910.
Lat/Lon: Location was estimated to the nearest 0.1
degrees latitude and longitude (about 6 nmi).
Max Winds: Estimated maximum sustained 1-min surface
(10 m) winds to occur along the U. S. coast.
Winds are estimated to the nearest 10 kt for the period of 1851 to 1885
and to the nearest 5 kt for the period of 1886 to 1910.
Saffir-Simpson: The estimated Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale
at landfall based upon maximum sustained surface winds. "TS" indicates that the
hurricane's center made landfall, but that hurricane force wind remained
offshore.
RMW: The radius of maximum winds at the surface (primarily for the
right front quadrant of the hurricane), if available.
Storm surge: Maximum observed storm surge, if
available. Though a higher value may
have occurred, it might not have been recorded.
Central Pressure: The observed (or analyzed from peripheral
pressure measurements) minimum central pressure of the hurricane at
landfall. Central pressure values in
parentheses indicate that the value was a simple estimation (based upon a
wind-pressure relationship) and not directly observed or calculated.
Environmental Pressure: The sea
level pressure at the outer limits of the hurricane circulation determined by
moving outward from the storm center to the first anticyclonically turning
isobar in four equally spaced directions and averaging the four pressures thus
obtained.
States Affected: The impact of the hurricane on individual
U.S. states based upon the Saffir-Simpson Scale (again through the estimate of
the maximum sustained surface winds at each state). (ATX-South Texas, BTX-Central Texas, CTX-North Texas,
LA-Louisiana, MS-Mississippi, AL-Alabama, AFL-Northwest Florida, BFL-Southwest
Florida, CFL-Southeast Florida, DFL-Northeast Florida, GA-Georgia, SC-South
Carolina, NC-North Carolina, VA-Virginia, MD-Maryland, DE-Delaware, NJ-New
Jersey, NY-New York, PA-Pennsylvania, CT-Connecticut, RI-Rhode Island,
MA-Massachusetts, NH-New Hampshire, ME-Maine.
In Texas, south refers to the area from the Mexican border to Corpus
Christi; central spans from north of Corpus Christi to Matagorda Bay and north
refers to the region from north of Matagorda Bay to the Louisiana border. In Florida, the north-south dividing line is
from Cape Canaveral [28.45N] to Tarpon Springs [28.17N]. The dividing line between west-east Florida
goes from 82.69W at the north Florida border with Georgia, to Lake Okechobee
and due south along longitude 80.85W.)
$ - Indicates that the
hurricane may not have been reliably estimated for intensity (both central
pressure and maximum sustained wind speed) because of landfall in a relatively
uninhabited region. Errors in intensity
are likely to be underestimates of the true intensity.
* - Indicates that the
hurricane center did not make a U.S. landfall, but did produce hurricane force
winds over land. The position indicated
is the point of closest approach. In
this table, maximum winds refer to the strongest winds estimated to impact the
United States. In this case, central
pressure is given for the hurricane's point of closest approach.
& - Indicates that the
hurricane center did make a direct landfall, but that the strongest winds
likely remained offshore. Thus the
winds indicated here are lower than in HURDAT.
# - Indicates that the
hurricane made landfall over Mexico, but also caused hurricane winds in
Texas. The position given is that of
the Mexican landfall. The strongest
winds at landfall impacted Mexico, while the weaker maximum sustained winds
indicated here were conditions estimated to occur in Texas. Indicated central pressure given is that at
Mexican landfall.
% - Indicates that the value
listed is a "storm tide" observation rather than a "storm
surge", which removes the astronomical tide component.
Table 9: Continental United States Tropical Storms: 1851-1910
____________________________________________________________________________
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max
Landfall
Winds State
6-10/19/1851 1500Z
41.1N 71.7W 50kt
NY
3-
8/19/1856 1100Z 34.8
76.4 50 NC
4-
9/30/1857$ 1000Z 25.8
97.0 50 TX
3-
9/14/1858$ 1500Z 27.6
82.7 60 FL
3-
9/16/1858* 0300Z 35.2
75.2 50 NC
7-10/17/1859$ 1600Z
26.4 80.1 60
FL
7-10/
7/1861 1200Z 35.3
75.3 50 NC
8-11/ 1/1861$ 0800Z
26.0 81.8 60
FL
8-11/
3/1861 0800Z 41.0
72.3 60 NY
8-11/
3/1861 0900Z 41.2
72.0 50 CT
6-
9/18/1863 1300Z 34.6
77.1 60 NC
9-
9/29/1863$ 1200Z 29.3
94.8 60 TX
2-
6/30/1865$ 1800Z 26.0
97.5 50 TX
3-
8/22/1865* 1800Z 34.5
74.6 40 NC
6- 9/
7/1865$ 0000Z 29.7
92.0 60 LA
7-10/30/1866 0800Z
39.5 74.3 60
NJ
2- 8/
2/1867* 0300Z 35.3
74.7 60 NC
2- 8/
2/1867* 2200Z 40.7
69.6 50 MA
2-10/
4/1868$ 1600Z 29.9
85.4 60 FL
2- 9/
3/1870* 1800Z 40.5
68.8 40 MA
1- 6/
4/1871 0700Z 29.1
95.1 50 TX
2- 6/
9/1871 1700Z 29.2
95.0 50 TX
3-8/23/1871 0000Z
31.2 81.3 60
GA
7-10/ 5/1871$ 1600Z
30.0 83.9 60
FL
1-
7/11/1872 0500Z 29.1
89.1 50 LA
1-
7/11/1872 0800Z 30.2
89.0 50 MS
5-10/23/1872$ 0800Z
27.9 82.7 50
FL
5-10/25/1872 0100Z
34.4 77.7 50
NC
1- 6/
2/1873 1100Z 30.8
81.4 40 GA
4-
9/23/1873$ 1000Z 27.8
82.8 50 FL
1- 7/
4/1874 2000Z 28.5
96.2 50 TX
4- 9/
4/1874$# 1200Z 25.0
97.6 40 TX
4-
9/27/1875$ 1300Z 30.1
85.7 50 FL
2-
9/16/1876$* 1500Z 25.5
79.7 40 FL
7-10/26/1877$ 2100Z
29.3 83.2 40
FL
1- 7/
2/1878$ 1500Z 26.0
81.8 40 FL
5- 9/
7/1878$ 2100Z 24.7
80.9 60 FL
5- 9/
8/1878$ 0200Z 25.2
81.0 60 FL
8-10/10/1878$ 2100Z
29.9 85.4 50
FL
11-10/22/1878$*
0000Z 25.9 79.8 50 FL
2-8/19/1879& 0600Z
41.4 70.8 60
MA
5-10/
7/1879 0500Z 29.0
89.2 50 LA
6-10/16/1879$ 0800Z
30.4 86.6 50
FL
7-10/27/1879$ 2100Z
29.0 82.7 60
FL
1-
6/24/1880 1500Z 28.7
95.7 40 TX
6- 9/
8/1880 1600Z 29.8
83.6 50 FL
11-10/23/1880 0800Z
41.3 70.0 60
MA
11-10/23/1880 1300Z
44.0 68.8 60
ME
1- 8/
3/1881 1300Z 30.2
88.3 50 AL
2-
8/13/1881 2100Z 28.0
96.9 40 TX
4-
9/22/1882 2200Z 34.7
77.0 50 NC
4-
9/24/1882 0500Z 40.7
72.8 40 NY
3-
9/11/1884 0100Z 31.6
81.2 40 GA
3-
8/22/1885 2300Z 30.1
85.7 50 FL
4-
9/21/1885 0300Z 29.0
89.4 50 LA
4- 9/21/1885 1200Z
30.0 85.6 50
FL
4-
9/23/1885* 0300Z 41.6
69.7 50 MA
6-
9/26/1885 0400Z 29.6
89.0 60 LA
6-10/
2/1885* 1500Z 35.0
74.8 50 NC
8-10/11/1885 2200Z
29.4 83.2 60
FL
5-8/18/1886*$ 0100Z 23.9 81.9 55
FL
3-6/14/1887 0700Z
30.2 88.7 35
MS
7-8/25/1887* 0600Z
35.0 74.4 50
NC
16-10/30/1887$ 0100Z
26.8 82.3 40
FL
2-7/5/1888 1600Z
28.8 95.6 50
TX
4-9/6/1888*$ 0000Z
23.0 81.9 50
FL
5-9/8/1888$ 0000Z
26.7 80.0 45
FL
6-9/26/1888& 1300Z
41.6 69.9 55
MA
7-10/11/1888 1600Z
33.9 78.1 60
NC
9-11/25/1888* 1800Z
35.3 74.2 60
NC
2-6/17/1889 1500Z
29.1 82.9 45
FL
4-9/11/1889* 2100Z
38.4 72.7 60
NJ
6-9/23/1889 1300Z
30.3 87.7 60
FL
9-10/5/1889$ 2300Z
24.7 81.1 40
FL
9-10/6/1889$ 0100Z
25.2 80.9 40
FL
2-8/27/1890 1600Z
29.1 90.8 50
LA
7-10/9/1891$ 1400Z 25.8 81.7 45
FL
1-6/10/1892$ 2300Z
25.7 81.3 40
FL
4-9/12/1892 0700Z
29.0 90.6 50
LA
9-10/24/1892$ 1900Z
27.6 82.8 45
FL
1-6/15/1893 2300Z
29.9 83.7 60
FL
11-10/23/1893 0300Z
35.2 75.6 50
NC
11-10/23/1893 1100Z
38.1 75.6 45
VI
12-11/8/1893* 1800Z
35.6 74.6 55
NC
2-8/7/1894 1800Z
30.3 87.6 50
AL
4-9/28/1894 1200Z
34.7 76.7 60
NC
1-8/15/1895 1900Z
29.3 89.6 50
LA
1-8/16/1895 1300Z
30.2 88.8 45
MS
4-10/7/1895 0400Z
29.3 94.8 35
TX
6-10/16/1895$ 1300Z
25.7 81.3 35
FL
5-10/9/1896$ 0200Z
26.4 82.0 50
FL
5-10/13/1896* 1200Z
40.7 67.2 60
RI
2-9/10/1897$& 1800Z
24.4 81.9 50
FL
3-9/21/1897$ 0200Z
26.7 82.3 60
FL
3-9/23/1897& 1000Z
35.2 75.7 50
NC
3-9/24/1897 1100Z
40.8 72.7 50
NY
3-9/24/1897 1300Z
41.3 72.2 45
CT
5-10/20/1897 2000Z
35.2 75.5 55
NC
6-10/25/1897 2300Z
36.1 75.8 55
NC
1-8/2/1898$ 0300Z
27.1 80.1 35
FL
5-9/20/1898 1100Z
29.6 92.8 50
LA
6-9/28/1898 0700Z
29.4 94.7 50
TX
8-9/26/1898$ 0600Z
25.1 80.8 40
FL
9-10/11/1898$& 1200Z
24.5 80.0 40
FL
1-6/27/1899 0900Z
29.1 95.1 35
TX
2-7/30/1899$ 1000Z
24.9 80.6 40
FL
3-8/13/1899* 1200Z
27.0 78.6 60
FL
6-10/5/1899$ 1000Z
27.9 82.8 50
FL
3-9/13/1900 0630Z
29.2 89.5 40
LA
3-9/13/1900 1500Z
30.3 88.8 35
MS
6-10/12/1900 0250Z
29.5 83.3 40
FL
1-6/13/1901 2050Z
29.9 84.6 35
FL
2-7/10/1901 1010Z
28.6 96.0 45
TX
3-7/12/1901 2210Z
34.0 77.9 35
NC
4-8/10/1901 2130Z
26.3 80.1 40
FL
7-9/17/1901 1930Z
30.4 86.6 50
FL
9-9/28/1901 0250Z
29.9 84.6 40
FL
1-6/14/1902 2310Z
29.8 83.7 50
FL
2-6/26/1902 2110Z
27.7 97.2 60
TX
4-10/10/1902 2120Z
30.3 87.3 50
FL
3-10/20/1904 1010Z
25.5 81.2 35
FL
5-11/3/1904 1230Z
30.5 86.4 35
FL
3-9/29/1905 0940Z
29.6 92.6 45
LA
5-10/9/1905 1720Z
29.5 91.4 45
LA
1-6/12/1906 2030Z
30.1 85.6 45
FL
8-10/21/1906 0840Z
30.2 81.4 50
FL
1-6/28/1907 2340Z
30.3 85.9 50
FL
2-9/21/1907 1430Z
30.2 89.0 40
MS
3-9/28/1907 2020Z
30.1 85.7 45
FL
2-5/29/1908& 2100Z
35.2 75.6 55
NC
2-5/30/1908 2250Z
41.3 72.0 35
CT
4-9/1/1908 0900Z
34.7 76.5 45
NC
3-6/28/1909 2010Z
26.0 80.1 45
FL
3-6/30/1909 1400Z
30.1 84.1 35
FL
7-8/29/1909 0900Z
26.4 80.1 45
FL
2-8/21/1910# 0000Z
25.7 97.2 40
TX
____________________________________________________________________________
Notes:
Date/Time: Day and time
when the circulation center crossed the U.S. coastline (including barrier
islands). Time was estimated to the
nearest hour for the period of 1851 to 1899 and to the nearest ten minutes for
the period of 1900 to 1910.
Lat/Lon: Location was
estimated to the nearest 0.1 degrees latitude and longitude (about 6 nmi).
Max Winds: Estimated maximum sustained 1-min surface
(10 m) winds to occur along the U. S. coast.
Winds are estimated to the nearest 10 kt for the period of 1851 to 1885
and to the nearest 5 kt for the period of 1886 to 1910.
Landfall States: TX-
Texas, LA-Louisiana, MS-Mississippi, AL-Alabama, FL- Florida, GA-Georgia,
SC-South Carolina, NC-North Carolina, VA-Virginia, MD-Maryland, DE-Delaware,
NJ-New Jersey, NY-New York, CT-Connecticut, RI-Rhode Island, MA-Massachusetts,
NH-New Hampshire, ME-Maine.
$ - Indicates that the tropical storm may not have been reliably
estimated for intensity (maximum sustained wind speed) because of landfall in a
relatively uninhabited region. Errors
in intensity are likely to be underestimates of the true intensity.
# - Indicates that the tropical
storm or hurricane made landfall over Mexico, but also caused tropical storm
force winds in Texas. The position
given is that of the Mexican landfall.
The strongest winds at landfall impacted Mexico, while the weaker
maximum sustained winds indicated here were conditions estimated to occur in
Texas.
* - Indicates that the tropical storm or hurricane center did
not make a U.S. landfall, but did produce tropical storm force winds over
land. The position indicated is the
point of closest approach. In this table,
maximum winds refer to the strongest winds estimated to impact the United
States.
& - Indicates that the tropical storm or hurricane center
did make a direct landfall, but that the strongest winds likely remained
offshore. Thus the winds indicated here
are lower than in HURDAT.
Table
10: Estimated dates when accurate
tropical cyclone records began for specified regions of the United States based
upon U.S Census reports and other historical analyses. Years in parenthesis indicate possible
starting dates for reliable records before the 1850s that may be available with
additional research.
____________________________________________________________________________
State Date
Texas -
south 1880
Texas -
central 1850
Texas -
north 1860
Louisiana 1880
Mississippi 1850
Alabama < 1851 (1830)
Florida –
northwest 1880
Florida –
southwest 1900
Florida –
southeast 1900
Florida –
northeast 1880
Georgia < 1851 (1800)
South
Carolina < 1851 (1760)
North
Carolina < 1851 (1760)
Virginia < 1851 (1700)
Maryland < 1851 (1760)
Delaware < 1851 (1700)
New Jersey < 1851 (1760)
New York < 1851 (1700)
Connecticut < 1851 (1660)
Rhode
Island < 1851 (1760)
Massachusetts < 1851 (1660)
New
Hampshire < 1851 (1660)
Maine < 1851 (1790)
____________________________________________________________________________