[Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory]

HRD Home
About AOML
About HRD
Data Sets
 yellow triangle bulletMission Catalog
 yellow triangle bulletSfc. Wind Anal.
 yellow triangle bulletSyn. Surveillance
 yellow triangle bulletRe-Anal. Proj.
 yellow triangle bulletBasin-Wide Data
 yellow triangle bulletData Formats
Weather Info
What's New

National Hurricane Center Logo
National Hurricane Center

NOAA Aircraft Operations Center Logo
NOAA Aircraft Operations Center

Site Map

Staff Data Center Contact  Information

Research Divisions

Hurricane Research Division

Comments of and replies to the
National Hurricane Center Best-Track Change Committee
August 2004

Minutes of the best-track change committee meeting, 10 June 2004.
Members Jack Beven, Jim Gross, Brian Jarvinen, Richard Pasch, and chair 
(Colin McAdie) present.					

   < Reply to comments ... CWL - August 2004 >

The committee met to consider the revisions submitted by Chris Landsea et 
al. for the period 1911-1914

Reviewing previous actions, it was noted that the final set of changes for 
the pre-1911 period had been accepted by the committee.  

It was suggested that future research would be made easier if the Partagas 
and Diaz publications were made available electronically.   They are not 
generally available.  This series of publications should already exist in 
word processor format, which could facilitate the conversion.    Richard 
will contact Diaz in this regard.  

   < These are available on-line through efforts of the reanalysis project:
     http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/hurdat_pub.html >

It was also noted that in reviewing the current submission, much emphasis 
has been placed on the Historical Weather Map series and COADS.  There 
appears to be much less mention of newspaper sources than previously.  
These should not be neglected. 

   < The main reason that Partagas utilized newspaper sources (primarily
     the New York Times, London Times and Gazetta de Habana) was to 
     locate ship observations, as these were regularly published in these
     papers.  Another motivation for using newspaper accounts was to 
     discover potentially new tropical systems and to further document
     existing tropical storms and hurricanes.  However, our efforts in
     using COADS to provide ship reports preclude the use of newspapers 
     for the first purpose (plus such reporting in the newspapers was 
     much less common in the 20th Century).  Additionally, communications
     were much more rapid in the 20th Century with telephone service and
     radio making it much less likely than any completely new tropical 
     system will be discovered through newspaper searches by this
     method.  It is noted that the Monthly Weather Review beginning in 
     the 1910s and 1920s also became much more thorough in it descriptions 
     and reporting of significant weather events in the Caribbean islands
     and the open Atlantic Ocean.

     That said, there still is a role for newspaper searches in systems
     where there is ambiguous meteorological data to make a confident
     determination of the track and/or intensity of a tropical system.
     The case of storm 5 in 1913 is an example of a case where additional
     local information is being collected to better ascertain the
     intensity (ie. was this system a tropical storm or Category 1 hurricane 
     at landfall).  Thus for select cases, additional efforts will be made
     to obtain impact information (wind-caused damages, storm tide
     values, etc.) to clarify the track and/or intensity.  For the years of
     1911 through 1914, this was employed for 1911/03, 1913/05 and 1914/01.  
     But conducting newspaper searches for all systems is beyond the scope 
     of this project. >

For convenience, the following is organized by year and new storm number.

Specific comments: 

1911 #1 This additional storm is not accepted for inclusion in the database.
This occurrence is very early climatologically, and seems frontal in nature.
This storm would probably not be considered tropical using current 

   < Agreed.  This system has been removed from consideration for HURDAT,
     but retained in the Additional Notes section of 1911. )

1911 #2 Accepted as revised.   Semantic note: to our knowledge, oceanfall is 
not a word. 

   < System is hereafter referred to as 1911 #1 with removal of first storm
     proposed.  "Oceanfall" has been changed to "reaching the ocean". >

1911 #3 Accepted as revised.   Change early to earlier (first sentence, last 
paragraph).  Observations from Mobile were reviewed and found to support a 
track slightly to the south of Mobile, as submitted.   The one-foot storm 
tide is difficult to interpret and seems questionable.   This is a case 
where local newspaper records could be extremely useful.   

   < System is hereafter referred to as 1911 #2 with removal of first storm
     proposed.  Wording changed as suggested.  Given the trajectory of the 
     hurricane toward the west-northwest with landfall about 6 hours before
     its closest approach to Mobile, there would be quite limited time for a 
     surge to be generated into Mobile Bay with southerly winds.  Thus the 
     small storm tide reported in the city of Mobile may be understandable.  
     It is quite likely that a substantially higher storm tide was produced 
     at the sparsely populated Florida-Alabama border.  

     Newspaper accounts from the _New York Times_ and _Miami Herald_ found
     at the Florida International University library were reviewed of this 
     system.  The _New York Times_ on the 13th of August, 1911 had headlines
     "Pensacola Storm Loss Big; No Lives Lost in City, but Much Damage to
     Property" followed by an article on the storm's impact in Florida, but 
     no description on this (or other day) on what occurred in Alabama.
     The _Miami Herald_ on the 13th of August had a similar headline, but
     no accompanying article. > 

1911 #4  Accepted as revised.

   < System is hereafter referred to as 1911 #3 with removal of first storm
     proposed. >

1911 #5   Grounds for revision are somewhat sketchy, revision is not accepted.
Observations from Barbados are extremely important for this revision.   In 
this regard please clarify interpretation of plotting convention used in ship 
observation of 3 Sept in this vicinity.  The arrow may indicate two 
observations from the same ship (implying ship movement).  Was this the basis 
for shifting the track southward?  

   < System is hereafter referred to as 1911 #4 with removal of first storm
     proposed.  The plotting convention of the Historical Weather Map
     analysts was to write a ship observation that was very close in space
     to another one off to the side with an arrow indicating the correct
     position.  So on the 3rd of September, there were two separate ships
     both at approximately 11.5N, 57.5W - one reporting WNW winds at 20 mph,
     with the other one reporting 25 mph winds out of the north and a 
     pressure of 1021 mb.  While the pressure seems suspectly too high,
     we have used these observations to analyze this system as a weak
     tropical cyclone (tropical depression ~30 kt) with a small circulation
     and a position east and substantially farther south than originally
     indicated.  Even if one discards the N wind report completely, a
     position farther south and east than that originally in HURDAT is
     reasonable.  Very little observational data was available for several
     days after the 3rd near the center of the system, so a combination of
     persistence of the southerly position and climatology were used 
     to adjust the track.  Retaining a track similar to HURDAT would only be
     obtained if both of these observations on the 3rd are decided to be
     erroneous.  It is our suggestion to use these available observations
     and keep the system as currently revised. > 
1911 #6  Additional system accepted.  Is there any evidence to support a few 
earlier positions (12-14 September)?     

   < System is hereafter referred to as 1911 #5 with removal of first storm
     proposed.  Earlier data were inconclusive in identifying a closed 
     circulation that is consistent with the rather well-defined vortex on 
     the 15th.  While the system likely was a tropical depression/tropical 
     storm on the 14th (and maybe earlier), we are unable to extend the track
     back further in time. >

1911 #7 This revision needs more work.  There are several issues.  1) Where 
did the system form?  The earliest evidence seems to be as a wave on the 
29th.   2) Data is scarce in the northwest Caribbean during the 27-30th.  In 
spite of this, the track is pushed quite far over towards Cozumel.  Is there 
any evidence from Cuba that would support the existing track? 3)  In the 
final stage it seems likely that the storm would turn towards the northeast 
as it was absorbed by the front.  Remnants could have swept across Florida.  
Were Florida sources checked for evidence?

   < System is hereafter referred to as 1911 #6 with removal of first storm
     proposed.  The Cuban data available is primarily from Cienfuegos and
     Havana for this time period.  These suggest a wave passage to the
     south of Cuba during the 24th to the 27th.  It is agreed that the 
     genesis of this tropical storm most likely occurred much latter than 
     the 23rd.  We have revised this now to begin late on the 28th in the 
     northwestern Caribbean.  For the decay of the system, in response to
     this request, we did obtain the Original Monthly Records for Tampa,
     Pensacola and Jacksonville.  While no gales (or equivalent in pressure)
     were obtained, the data did reveal that the system did turn to the
     northeast ahead of the front.  In particular, Tampa's observations
     showed a minimum pressure (for the whole month) of 1009 mb at 17 UTC
     on the 31st with S winds at 9 kt.  At 00 UTC on the 1st, Pensacola
     and Jacksonville reported NE winds around 10 kt and Tampa had SW
     winds around 10 kt with pressure up to 1011 mb in Tampa.  By 12 UTC
     on the 1st, all three stations reported N winds, rising pressure and
     substantially cooler temperatures than the day before. >

Committee concurs with decision to not add system appearing in 1911 
additional notes.

1912 #1 It is noted that no central pressures are given during the overland 
phase.   Could not these be estimated from available surface observations? 
The system was likely extratropical on the 14th.  MWR states that a system 
passed over Florida at this time.  Please rule out any connection.  
Otherwise accepted.  

   < The system made closest passes to the Weather Bureau's stations of
     Montgomery, AL; Atlanta, GA; Charlotte, NC; and Cape Hatteras, NC.
     Unfortunately, none of these provided any non-00 or 12 UTC pressure
     measurements.  The central pressure would have been lower than 1002 mb
     on 00 UTC on the 14th as Montgomery recorded 1002 mb and 29 kt SW
     at that time.  However, the 1005 mb measured at Cape Hatteras at
     00 UTC on the 15th may indeed have been a central pressure as the
     winds at that time were nearly calm (4 kt) and were preceeded by
     SW winds that peaked at 40 kt and followed by N winds that peaked
     at 31 kt.  This is now added to HURDAT.  
     Regarding its extratropical versus tropical characterization, it is
     agreed that it went extatropical for a time over the SE United States.
     However, it appears from the data available that it did once again
     regain tropical cyclone features on the 16th and 17th as warm,
     isothermal air masses were present around and in the system.  Thus
     the system is declared extratropical around 06 UTC on the 14th and
     then regaining tropical status around 00 UTC on the 16th. 

     A review of the Historical Weather Maps for this time period does
     not indicate any significant closed lows impacting Florida during 
     this time period.  It is not clear what the Monthly Weather Review
     was referring to.  However, it can be ruled out that what was
     mentioned had any direct connection to storm #1. >

1912 #2 Accepted as revised.

1912 #3 Additional system accepted.

1912 #4 There may be a systematic difference between the observations at 
Mobile and Pensacola.  If so, the large RMW would not be necessary.     
Given the closeness in time, it is possible that additional system #3 was the 
origin of #4. This possibility should be examined further.  Otherwise accepted. 

   < It is agreed that there may be unknown biases in the wind records
     (e.g., poor exposure, funnelling of winds) that makes direct evidence
     of RMW problematic.  However, due to impacts that were about as
     damaging by surge (and to a lesser extent by wind) in both Mobile
     and Pensacola, an RMW between the two location appears reasonable.
     But to accomodate the uncertainty, a range of 40-60 nmi for RMW for
     this system at landfall is now indicated. 

     Beginning on the 6th of September as storm #3 was inland over Georgia,
     a trough of low pressure formed in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.  This
     trough appears to be a separate entity to storm #3 or its remnants.  
     The trough remained in the eastern Gulf of Mexico from the 6th through
     the 9th, though it did not seem possible to close off a well-defined 
     center of circulation.  By the 10th, this system had developed 
     enough to characterize it as a tropical depression, one day earlier
     than originally shown in HURDAT. >

1912 #5  Accepted as revised.    

1912 #6  The reported 6 ft storm surge at Port Isabel would support a 
category 3 landfall.  Intensity at landfall is not resolved at this time.  
Are there any Mexican observations to support the intensity over the Yucatan 

   < It is to be noted that the 6' storm TIDE (not surge) value comes from
     an unofficial source (Ellis) and thus the reliability may be somewhat
     suspect.  Additionally, wave impacts may also have been counted as part
     of this storm tide observations.  However, it may be prudent to 
     upgrade this to a Category 2 at landfall, which would be more
     consistent with the storm surge submerging Padre and Brazos Islands.
     The system is estimated then to retain about 85 kt (~973 mb) from
     late on the 15th (as originally listed in HURDAT) until landfall
     around 18 UTC on the 16th.  Unfortunately, due to the Mexican 
     Revolution during the 1910s, very few observations were available
     for Mexico. >

1912 #7 It is not clear what the discussion from Trinidad has to do with this 
storm.  Is this evidence for some other system?    The upward revision in 
intensity during the initial period (13-14th) is too great.  Concerning the 
correction for instrument bias, the U.S. was using the 4-cup anemometer 
during this period, but was this also true of Jamaica?    Please note the 
second account of this storm appearing in MWR pp 1756-1757.
(discussion continued during the next meeting - 18 June 2004)

   < It was investigated to see whnther either the HWM closed circulation 
     and/or the squall in Trinidad had any direct association with storm #7.  
     However, surface observations from HWM, COADS and newspaper accounts 
     show no closed circulation existed from the 6th through the 9th, though 
     the data is sparse away from the Lesser Antilles. 

     Agree to lower the spin up some, but the 992 mb pressure ship on the 
     13th would suggest minimal hurricane conditions were reached by at
     least late in the day.

     The Caribbean countries also utilized the same 4-cup Robinson
     anemometers during this time frame (up until the early 1930s) and
     so they have the same high bias that the U.S. anemometers 

     We made use of the original account of this storm that appeared
     in Hall (1913), which was then abridged for use in Monthly Weather
     Review pages 1756-1757. > 

Minutes of the best-track change committee meeting, 17 June 2004.
Members Jack Beven, Jim Gross, Ed Rappaport, and chair (Colin McAdie) present.					
The committee reconvened to consider the revisions submitted by Chris Landsea 
et al. for the period 1911-1914.

General comments:

It was suggested that when non-developing depressions are found in the 
routine course of this work, it might be advisable to place them in a 
parallel track file.  

   < We are providing once daily estimates of non-developing tropical
     depressions in the Additional Notes section for each year.
     However, to develop a standard 6 hourly HURDAT format database
     for these systems is beyond the scope of this project. >

The phrase "at most" is used frequently in reference, we believe,  to the 
innermost closed isobar on the HWM analysis.   This terminology is 
somewhat confusing.  Does this mean that the pressure was no higher than, 
or no lower than, the specicied value?    For convenience, the following is 
organized by year and new storm number.

   < To clarify, "at most" in reference to the pressure analyzed on the
     Historical Weather Map series can be the innermost closed isobar,
     but it also in some cases is an estimated central pressure listed
     for the system.  It does mean that the actual central pressure was no 
     higher than, but could be lower than the specified value.  (In much the 
     same way, one could say that a system had "at least" 35 kt of wind, 
     meaning that the storm had no lower than, but possibly higher than, 
     35 kt.) >
Specific comments: 

1912 #7 (resumption of discussion from previous meeting)  The issue of the 
track of the system north of Cuba remained unresolved.  Although heavy 
emphasis is placed on the HWM, other analyses are possible from these data.  
In particular, a baroclinic circulation could be analyzed off Cape Canaveral 
on the 22nd.  It is also possible that a weakened system passed over Cuba.  
Also note that the metadata states that observations from Cuba (Perez 2000) 
indicate that no tropical storm or hurricane made landfall in Cuba.  However, 
Perez does list this system in his Table 3.5 (El Huracan de Jamaica) as 
affecting Guantanamo.    

   < The baroclinic cyclone east of NE Florida was described in the
     metadata on the 22nd of November.  In the concluding paragraph in
     the metadata, it is clarified that "it is to be noted that on the 
     22nd the HWM had the baroclinic low well to the southeast of its 
     actual position." 

     It is now clarified that the MWR/HWM/HURDAT tracks cannot be correct
     as Perez' (2000) observations show that no system made landfall in
     CENTRAL Cuba.  Perez did suggest that instead the hurricane impacted
     Guantanamo as a Category 1 system.  But this was analyzed without 
     any supporting data to somehow reconcile having a strong hurricane
     in the Caribbean and a hurricane later off of the U.S. Atlantic
     seaboard.  Further contacts with Perez confirmed that no observations
     were taken in eastern Cuba that actually showed (or even implied)
     hurricane impacts in that part of the country (or elsewhere). >

1912 Additional systems

Additional notes #3.    Note that MWR has the system peaking over water and 
weakening over land, which is not usual for a baroclinic system.  A late 
September occurrence of this sort is also somewhat against climatology.  
Josephine (1996) would be a possible analog.   

   < This estimated central pressure variation is now noted in the 
     Additional Notes writeup of this suspect.  Howver, re-examination of
     it reconfirms the clearly baroclinic nature of the system.  
     Temperatures in the 40s in Texas on the 22nd and 23rd are indicative
     of the rather unseasonal cold air outbreak that occurred in 
     conjunction with this system. >

1913 #1   Regarding the sharp reduction in intensity during the initial phase 
of the storm, the available observations are quite distant from the center, 
and do not appear to rule out the existing intensity.  It is difficult to 
justify this much reduction.   How were the wind estimates made (i.e. why 
not 45-50 kt, rather than 35-40)?  Revised position on the 23rd does not 
seem consistent with the observation at San Andres.  It is noted that the 
metadata contains a mix of units (kt and mph).  Are all of the conversions 
correct?  It is stated that the 12.7 ft storm surge is considered 
erroneous.   Is the 100 mph wind also erroneous? 

   < Agreed that the intensity was too drastically reduced from the 22nd
     until the 25th.  These are now brought up to the level suggested.

     The observations near 11N, 80.5W is not the island San Andres, but
     is instead a ship that does not appear to be reliable in either its
     pressure or winds.

     The "100 mph" was a direct quote, so it was kept as is (but conversion
     to kt added).  The Ellis reference is an unofficial history of
     Texas hurricanes that occassionally does provide useful information
     not contained in standard sources.  However, these storm surge and wind
     wind values are erroneous as can be shown from the Weather Bureau 
     Galveston station Original Monthly Records:  "27th - The tide was 
     about 1.5 feet above normal most of the day...Maximum velocity 39 mph 
     [34 kt]". >

1913 #2  Additional system accepted.  

1913 #3   The segments added to the beginning and end of the track appear 
to be justified; however, there are some questions about the intensity, and 
the revised intensity of the existing track.   In the initial portion, it is 
unusual that a system on this track at this time of year would stay a 
constant intensity of 40 kt for 9 days.   Observations available would 
support a 45 kt intensity during the westward portion of the track.  
During the existing portion of the track during which peak intensity 
occurred, the committee is not convinced that the system should be reduced 
this drastically (from a hurricane to a weak tropical storm) based on the 
distribution of the available ship data and uncertainties in the vortex 
position.  Please comment on what became of the pre-existing extratropical 
low.  It should be noted that the HWM analysis is not consistent during the 
latter stages of this system, and does not attempt to depict two systems.
Is there any support, or other reference, for the final westward movement 
shown in the existing track?   

   < It is agreed that having a constant intensity for nine days is not very
     realistic.  However, the system traversed the very data sparse region 
     of the tropical North Atlantic.  Winds are increased to 45 kt on the
     westward portion of the track as requested.  It is also agreed that
     the winds were reduced too drastically to a weak tropical storm.
     The winds are now increased back to a peak at the boundary between a 
     tropical storm and hurricane at 60 kt on the 8th through the 10th.
     The interaction with the non-tropical low is now better described
     for the dates of the 10th through the 12th.  The tropical cyclone
     stayed separate from this low and dissipated to its northeast on
     the 12th.  Given the close proximity, it is understandable that
     HWM did not depict two separate systems on the 11th and 12th and
     that HURDAT originally mistook the non-tropical low for the tropical
     cyclone on the 12th. >     

1913 #4 The 10 ft storm surge and 92 fastest mile wind suggest that the 
winds may have been stronger than 75 kt at the time of landfall.  Is the 
Ho RMW accepted at face value?  It appears to have been a factor in the 
reduction of the wind estimate at landfall. Otherwise accepted. 

   < While we utilized the 5 min "maximum velocity" to get (after
     bias-removal and conversion to 1 min) 64 kt, one could use the
     92 mph (80 kt) 1 min "extreme velocity" to obtain 61 kt after bias-
     removal.  (In general, 5 min winds were the most reliable to use
     in that era of the 4-cup Robinson anemometer as shorter observation
     intervals were not well monitored by that instrument.)  Ho's estimate
     of the RMW came from an average of the pressure profile in Raleigh
     as well as the wind observations in Cape Hatteras.  This somewhat
     larger than usual value was the main reason for reducing the subtropical
     pressure-wind relationship of 80 kt for 976 mb central pressure down
     to 75 kt. >

1913 #5 Multiple 50 kt ship observations (e.g. 10/4) would seem to support 
an intensity of greater than 50 kt.   In the same sense, the WSW 60 kt ship 
observation would support a 65 kt hurricane.   Is it possible that the RMW 
passed over Georgetown?  Please revise to reflect category 1 status at the 
time of landfall.  

   < Agreed to boost the intensity late on the 3rd to the 5th to 55 kt.
     The landfall intensity is somewhat problematic.  While the 60 kt
     W ship with 992 mb pressure would suggest minimal hurricane 
     conditions at landfall, other evidence indicates tropical storm
     impact instead.  We asked Prof. Cary Mock to provide excerpts of
     newspaper accounts in South Carolina at the time.  (Relevant portions
     of these are now included in the metadata file.  These accounts 
     show that no signficant structural damage was reported at all in 
     Charleston, Georgetown or surrounding communities.  It would seem 
     easier to discount the ship observation as being somewhat too high 
     in its subjective Beaufort scale estimation of Force 10 (~60 kt), 
     rather than not taking into account the lack of significant
     wind-caused damages at the coast.  Thus we would argue to keep
     the designation of a 60 kt tropical storm, rather than a hurricane
     at landfall in South Carolina. >

1913 Additions to the additional systems. 

Sept 12-15.  A system is mentioned in the MWR near the mouth of the Rio 
Grande.  Storm warnings were issued.  Was it tropical?

   < A review of the Historical Weather Maps for September 12-15, 1913 
     shows a vigorous cold front pushing through Texas on the 12th and
     13th, cyclogenesis forming along the front late on the 13th and
     14th off of Texas, then the low moving northward through Texas
     and Louisiana on the 15th.  The system clearly was of extratropical
     nature throughout its lifetime.  This is now added in the 
     Additional Notes section of 1913. )

Sept 24-28.  A stationary system is mentioned in the MWR off the Texas coast.  
Storm warnings were also issued for this system.  Was it tropical?

   < A review of the Historical Weather Maps for September 24-28, 1913
     reveals a strong cold front moving through Texas on the 24th and 25th,
     cyclogenesis just off the Texas coast late on the 25th and 26th along
     the front, and the low weakening into an open trough on the 27th and 
     28th near the Louisiana/Texas border.  While the HWM does analyze a 
     small closed low ahead of the cold front on the morning of the 25th,
     available observations do not confirm that the system had a 
     closed circulation - though it may have been a tropical depression
     briefly before the front arrived.  Thus despite the heavy rains that
     accompanied the front/low (over 8" in Brownsville), the system was
     baroclinic for the duration that it retained a closed circulation.
     This is now added in the Additional Notes section of 1913. >
1914 #1  Note spelling:  Florida Straits.  
Given three 35 kt ships (9/15) the intensity should be higher.  Suggest 
40 kt. The 60 kt ship (9/17) is quite far from the center position.  Please 
reconcile with 60 kt intensity.   Is the ship representative?  Also, 
committee notes that newspaper reports could be extremely useful in gauging 
the intensity at landfall.  

   < Spelling corrected.  Agree that intensity on the 15th should be
     boosted to 40 kt.  It should be noted, as can be seen from the
     provided spreadsheets of all available data, that ship locations
     are often apparently given in 1 degree latitude-longitude 
     increments.  In the case of the 60 kt ship report, it was 
     located at 32.5N, 78.5W at 05 UTC (also listed there at 01 UTC).
     Its 09 UTC position four hours later was given as 31.5N, 79.5W.
     Given these rather coarse estimates of position, immediately 
     there is an error inherent of about 0.5 degree latitude-longitude.
     This assumes that the estimate of position does not have additional
     errors introduced by an incorrect recconing of the ship's
     position by the navigator/captain.  Occassionally, there are also
     errors found in the time and/or date of ships in the COADS 
     database.  So for this case, it is somewhat perplexing about the
     distance of the ship to the storm's center and the winds reported.
     It may be that the ship's location is in error, either to a minor
     degree or worse.  However, given the relative wealth of other
     ship and coastal station data, it does not appear that we should
     move the track of the storm closer to this single observation.
     It is also possible that the winds reported from this COADS report 
     were too high given the somewhat modest pressure (1004 mb) given at 
     the same time.  However, this higher wind report does match 
     statements found in _Monthly Weather Review_, regarding "vessel
     reports indicate that it was even more severe off the Georgia

     Finally, a search of the _New York Times_ and _Miami Herald_ was 
     conducted for additional clues about the intensity of this system.
     The _New York Times_ reported in the "Weather" section on Sept. 18th
     "The southern storm passed inland during Wednesday [16th] night and
     Thursday [17th] night its center was over Alabama.  This disturbance
     has diminished greatly in intensity but during the last twenty-four
     hours it caused general showers in the South Atlantic and East Gulf
     States, and during Wednesday night it caused strong shifting winds
     on the South Atlantic Coast".  The _Miami Herald_ reported also on
     the 18th:  "The northeast of Wednesday [16th] raised some water 
     around St. Augustine, causing the tide to come in so high that it
     ran over the South Street Causeway, and tons of dead grass were 
     washed away from the marshes about the city.  No damage was done as
     the boatmen had plenty of warning of the blow."  No reports in either
     the _New York Times_ or _Miami Herald" discuss that any substantial
     wind caused damage occurred, though the storm tide does suggest 
     a stronger system than originally indicated.  Thus a boost for this 
     system to a high end tropical storm (60 kt) at landfall from the
     original minimal tropical storm (40 kt) looks reasonable. >
1914 Additional systems. 

It should be noted in the metadata that additional system #2 appears both in 
Connor and Tannehill.  Given this historical reference, are we completely 
confident in not including this system?  Are there any Mexican observations?

   < It is now noted in the metadata that Connor and Tannehill considered
     this system as a tropical storm.  However, after further re-review
     of this complex system, it appears to be rather clear that the
     main low was baroclinic throughout its lifetime and that the 
     short-lived system in the northwestern Caribbean did not obtain
     tropical storm intensity.  Naturally, this is all dependent upon
     observations available and that the short-lived system could have
     achieved gale force winds.   Unfortunately, Mexican observations 
     are rather sparse throughout the 1910s because of the ongoing 
     Mexican Revolution.  Without substantiating observations, we can
     not offer this system up as a new entry to HURDAT. 
     Note:  We are as surprised as anyone that no additional new 
     systems could be added to HURDAT for 1914.  Of all the years that 
     one would suspect that there were tropical storms or hurricanes 
     that occurred (of course, HURDAT currently lists this season as 
     the only one with a single tropical storm), but were simply not 
     monitored.  Despite our searches, no suitable candidates
     arose.  We still feel that out in the open Atlantic there were
     likely a storm or two additional, but that these were not
     monitored by the rather sparse shipping traffic. >

Return to Overview

[Horizontal Rule]

[OAR/DOC/NOAA Logos] Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory Logo [United States Department of Commerce] [Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory] Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory Logo [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] [Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research] Department of Commerce Logo National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Logo Ocean and Atmospheric Research Logo

  Disclaimer | Privacy