Comments of and replies to the
National Hurricane Center Best-Track Change Committee
January 2003
Minutes of the best-track change committee meeting, 1 February, 2002.
Members Jack Beven, Jim Gross, Richard Pasch, Ed Rappaport, and chair
(Colin McAdie) present. (meeting 1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Replies to the NHC best-track change committee comments are given
in offset brackets. <...> - C.W. Landsea
The committee met primarily to consider another installment of changes
provided by Chris Landsea, but also to discuss several other matters.
With the 10th anniversary of H. Andrew approaching, it appears likely that
the committee will be asked to consider changes to the best-track file
concerning this system. The matter arises now due to a 10th anniversary
symposium being organized by the International Hurricane Center to take
place in May of this year. At the symposium, members of the research
community may propose, de facto, changes to the best-track file. Thus the
Director has referred the matter to the committee for consideration. This
has the effect of taking things out of chronological sequence, at least in
terms of the re-analysis project.
(Note: the chair has been informed, post-meeting, that a modest funding
request for the Andrew re-analysis has been denied. This may affect the
pace of the re-analysis.) The upshot is that the committee, through the
chair, will request input on the Andrew re-analysis as it becomes available,
but preferably by the first week in April to allow the committee to arrive
at a considered opinion before the symposium. A subcommittee consisting of
Ed Rappaport and James Franklin will be asked to evaluate the input, and
report back to the full committee.
Following this, the chair will request a presentation from the research
community 'making the case'. This will serve to educate the committee as to
what changes have been incorporated into the Hwind program, which we
understand will form the basis of the re-analysis. It was noted that the
new science has not been described in the literature, to our knowledge,
although it is being used operationally.
It was also noted that re-analysis should not be based on momentary science.
Presumably the same systems could be revised up or down again without any
addition of actual observations. The point is to improve the database, not
to raise questions about its stability.
As far as the latest installment of changes, the committee agreed to work
through the material in approximate thirds, so that we will meet on the
following schedule:
1851-1889 Feb 8
1890-1899 Feb 22
1900-1910 Mar 1
The minutes summarizing all of the changes will be given to Chris after the
final meeting.
In other matters, Jim Gross wishes to compliment Chris on the web-page,
although he finds the red-blue combination somewhat jarring.
Jim Gross also notes that the 'fix file' in the current (UNIX) ATCF uses a
4 digit year. If Chris can make this change easily, it will allow us to
import the file directly into the ATCF.
Minutes of the best-track change committee meeting, 8 February, 2002.
Members Jack Beven, Jim Gross, Richard Pasch, Ed Rappaport, and chair
(Colin McAdie) present. (meeting 2)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee met to consider the first third (1851-1889) of the most recent
set of best-track changes provided by Chris Landsea, as agreed.
Although 1851-1885 had been previously submitted by Landsea, and considered
in previous committee meetings (and are already in the official best-track
file) some additional changes were submitted, and are discussed below.
It was noted in preliminary discussion that although the early submissions
from Landsea were largely an incorporation of the work of Partagas, the
material now under consideration contains input from others interested in
the re-analysis. It was generally agreed that this broadening of input
should strengthen the end result, but means an occasional departure from
the 'known quantity' of Partagas.
General comments on wording:
It was noted that in many instances the various wind-pressure relationships
are referred to as 'northerly', 'southerly', Since direction is not implied,
northern or southern is suggested as a better modifier.
< Agreed. This has now been changed throughout the metadata file.>
It was also noted that the phrase '100 kt of wind' appears. Usage favors
simply '100 kt'.
< Agreed. This has now been changed throughout the metadata file.>
Minutes of the best-track change committee meeting, 22 February, 2002.
Members Jack Beven, Jim Gross, Richard Pasch, Ed Rappaport, Brian Jarvinen
and chair (Colin McAdie) present. (meeting 3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee met to continue consideration, as necessary, of the first
third (1851-1889) of the most recent set of best-track changes provided by
Chris Landsea, and also proceed with the second third (1890-1899) to the
extent possible.
As noted, although 1851-1885 had been previously submitted by Landsea, and
considered in previous committee meetings (and are already in the official
best-track file) some additional changes were submitted, and are discussed
below.
General comments:
There was discussion on the appropriate use of Ho. It was noted that high
water marks _may_ have wave effects included. This must be taken into
consideration. Also see the discussion on Ho for 1886 # 5.
< Agreed. Utilization of Ho's work - especially with reported storm tide
information - has been carefully scrutinized for reliability and
accuracy. >
It is very important for the clarity of this record that observations when
used to support a change be either stated, or at least referenced. Although
they are sometimes referenced, it was noted that this is done inconsistently.
Specific examples are pointed out below. The criterion used is this: could a
future researcher reasonably find or reproduce the evidence for these
changes, and reconsider that evidence?
< Agreed that this is an important criterion to adhere to. For the
period of 1851 through 1910, any raw observations mentioned in the
metadata file are from the Partagas and Diaz volumes, unless otherwise
stated. Note that all relevant raw observations of tropical storm/
hurricane conditions or location are provided for 1851 to 1885 in the
center fix file that accompanies the HURDAT and metadata files. The
center fix files for the remaining years (1886 to 1910) are still
being completed. >
It was also noted that Partagas and Diaz contains a number of entries for
possible storms. While some of these have been incorporated into the record,
it is not clear that they have all been equally considered. What decision
process was used?
< All of the possible cases in the Partagas and Diaz volumes were closely
re-examined and in two systems (new storm 7, 1899 and storm 1, 1909)
we did decide to include it as a new tropical storm/hurricane. In
general, our decision to include a new system into HURDAT was that at
least two independent observations of gale force winds (or its
equivalent in sea level pressure) must be present along with evidence
that the system was not extratropical in nature. Because of Partagas'
careful work, very few systems that he discounted were eventually added
into HURDAT. We have now added into the metadata file a very brief
description about each of these potential tropical systems (in the
"Additional Notes" section for each year) and why they were discarded,
in case additional evidence comes to light to allow further
consideration. >
Minutes of the best-track change committee meeting, 01 March, 2002.
Members Jack Beven, Jim Gross, Richard Pasch, Ed Rappaport, and chair
(Colin McAdie) present. (meeting 4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee met to continue consideration of the most recent set of
best-track changes provided by Chris Landsea et al. The committee briefly
returned to several unresolved issues for 1886 and 1887, as noted below,
then resumed discussion with storm 1 of 1888, as agreed, and proceeding
through the second third (1890-1899) of the material.
Several corrections to the 08 Feb 2002 and 22 Feb 2002 minutes were noted
and have been made.
Minutes of the best-track change committee meeting, 22 March, 2002.
Members Jack Beven, Jim Gross, Richard Pasch, Ed Rappaport, and chair
(Colin McAdie) present. (meeting 5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee met to continue consideration of the most recent set of
best-track changes provided by Chris Landsea et al. The committee resumed
discussion with storm 1 of 1897, as agreed, completed discussion on the
second third (1890-1899) of the material and then proceeded through storm 5
(becoming 6) of 1901.
Jack Beven noted that the use of 3- or 4-cup anemometers in the early
portion of the record could affect wind estimates. Although there may be
a systematic way to handle this, it is not clear whether this has been
accounted for.
< Yes, this has been accounted for as best possible. In use during the
period being revised - 1851 to 1910, though anemometers were mainly
available from the 1870s onward at coastal stations - was the four
cup Robinson anemometer. However, the primary difficulties with this
instrument were its calibration 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 are listed in
the center fix files for 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. >
Minutes of the best-track change committee meeting, 29 March, 2002.
Members Jack Beven, Brian Jarvinen, Richard Pasch, Ed Rappaport, and chair
(Colin McAdie) present. (meeting 6)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee met to continue consideration of the most recent set of
best-track changes provided by Chris Landsea et al. Prior to resuming
chronological discussion, Ed Rappaport provided comments on 1897 that had
been missed in a previous meeting, Brian Jarvinen presented his
conclusions on several storms (indicated below) for which the committee
had sought his input. The committee then resumed with discussion of
1901 # 6 (becoming proposed # 7) and proceeded through the end of 1905.
(P+D is used here to signify Partagas and Diaz)
Minutes of the best-track change committee meeting, 12 April, 2002.
Members Jack Beven, Jim Gross, Brian Jarvinen, Richard Pasch, Ed Rappaport,
and chair (Colin McAdie) present. (meeting 7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee met to conclude consideration of the most recent set of
best-track changes provided by Chris Landsea et al. Prior to resuming
chronological discussion, Brian Jarvinen presented his conclusions on
several storms (indicated below) for which the committee had sought his
input. The committee then resumed with discussion of 1906 # 1 and
proceeded through the end of 1910, concluding this installment. (P+D is
used here to signify Partagas and Diaz)
Specific points discussed, keyed to the above comments by meeting number:
1855 # 5 This system is proposed to be removed by Landsea, after its
initial inclusion. Even with the data presented, the committee questions
whether it still not possible for this to be the extratropical phase of a
tropical cyclone, rather than a purely baroclinic system. At this time of
year (late August) it seems somewhat unusual for a baroclinic system this
strong to exit the U.S. in the vicinity of N.Y. If this is the case,
this should be supported by surface observations along the populated
coastline. Has this been investigated? Recommendation is to postpone
removal. (meeting 2)
< Prof. Cary Mock at the University of South Carolina provided the
following additional information regarding this system:
Leonard Hill's Meteorological Register - Hill kept a weather diary at
Bridgewater, MA (42.0N, 71.0W). For the dates of interest, he
recorded the following:
Aug. 29. Clear, cool.
Aug. 30. Clear, cool N
Aug. 31. Frost - killed beans, &c
Sept. 1. Rain. S.W. & S.
This early freeze helps to confirm the analysis of a strong
extratropical storm system as was also observed in the Sable Island
and Halifax observations. Prof. Mock also checked his records from
the Carolinas, which showed no storm system (tropical or otherwise)
moving up from the south near or over the mid-Atlantic coast.
This storm system was likely of extratropical nature its entire
lifecycle and it is recommended to be removed from HURDAT. >
1863 # 9 Has there been any attempt to calibrate the winds from New
Orleans? (meeting 2)
< Unfortunately, there does not appear to be any straightforward way
to easily calibrate these 0 to 6 wind scales that were utilized by
many weather observers in the middle of the 19th century, as they
were extremely subjective and observer dependent. The 10 point
scales utilized by Smithsonian and military observers later in the
19th century were somewhat more consistent and had the ability to be
quantified more accurately. Suffice to say that individual's
experience with extreme winds was very limited and that an
indication of "violent storm" (6) could be anywhere from strong
tropical storm force conditions to major hurricane. For this case
with no substantial structural damage being reported, a reasonable
estimate is for landfall as a strong tropical storm (60 kt). >
1867 # 1 The damage documented here seems more consistent with a hurricane.
Is there any data from Georgia or Florida? Ship reports? While the
possibility of a category 1 hurricane is mentioned by Landsea, it is not
clear why it was kept as a tropical storm, given the damage. (meeting 2)
< Agreed that this storm should be upgraded to a Category 1 at landfall
in South Carolina and the revised HURDAT reflects this. Additional
digging uncovered more observations farther south and some ship
observations that allowed an extension back an additional day (to the
21st). >
1869 # 6 Is there a reason for introducing the use of the Fujita scale
into hurricane analysis? (meeting 2)
< Wind-caused structural damage has been utilized since the inception of
this project to help infer intensity, in the absence of in situ
meteorological observations. Boose et al.'s (2001) study systematically
rated tropical storms and hurricanes by their wind-caused damage, using
Fujita's scale as an approximation of wind speed. Our team found that
Boose's careful work quite often matched up well with available
it situ measurements, when available. This hurricane was typical of
the mid-1800s, when few quantitative wind measurements were
available. For this particular case, there were no anemometer
measurements although a central pressure of 963 mb as the center
crossed the Long Island coast was estimated by Ho (1989) from a pressure
reading in Milton, Massachusetts after landfall. The F3 conditions at
four cities in New England from this hurricane analyzed by Boose et
al. are indicative of maximum sustained winds on the order of
95-120 kt. This hurricane caused more widespread, extreme destruction
than any other hurricane in New England's history from 1635 until
today (including the 1938 hurricane), except for the 1815 hurricane.
This along with the other reasoning mentioned in the 2002 revision
(e.g. a radius of maximum wind smaller than the climatological RMW and
a faster translational velocity than climatology) provided enough
evidence to upgrade this hurricane to a Category 3 hurricane making
landfall in New England. (This is the only such tropical system for
the entire 1851 to 1910 time period to be listed as a major hurricane
[Category 3 or greater] for New England.) >
1870 # 6 How did Perez arrive at the estimate of category 3? Damage, or
observations? It seems odd that the winds drop off to tropical storm force
after the 13th. Are there observations to support this? (meeting 2)
< Perez analyzed this hurricanes as impacting Cuba as a category 3
hurricane based upon a central pressure measurement of 959 mb at
Nueva Paz on the 8th. This suggests winds of 101 kt from the
southern wind-pressure relationship and 100 kt was selected for
HURDAT. Agreed that the winds should remain at hurricane force
through the 14th as two ships reported storm force winds (~60 kt)
from the north, implying that stronger hurricane force winds would
exist on the east side of the storm. >
* 1871 # 3 Wording changes. Wording in the first sentence seems to
imply that work by Ho has been recently discovered. Presumably this is
not the case. Is the 945 mb pressure an _under_estimation? (meeting 2)
< Wording changed to: "Hurricane is revised from the previously
accepted analysis of Partagas and Diaz due to inclusion of work by
Ho (1989)." Wording changed to: "However, Ho's intensity analysis of
a 945 mb central pressure is likely too low an estimation as a 955 mb
central pressure recorded by the ship 'Victor' (as recorded in Partagas
and Diaz 1995b) occurred very near the coast, along Jupiter." >
* 1871 # 3. The history of this track change was discussed. Neumann et
al. originally had this system recurving just over land along the NE
Florida coastline. Partagas moved the track offshore, based upon ship
reports. Landsea et al. incorporated this change and it was accepted by
the committee. Subsequently, Landsea found contrary evidence in Ho, and
moved track over the central Florida peninsula. Wording: 'previous
analysis by Landsea et al.' or 'previously accepted analysis of Partagas
and Diaz' rather than 'initial analysis' is needed. This will be difficult
to reconstruct in the future as worded.
It was not clear from the text that the track now proposed is drawn by
Landsea et al. (we think) based on the observations provided by Ho, and
Partagas. It was also noted that both use the same ship observations.
Which observations were deemed the most important to this track change?
(meeting 3)
< Wording changed to: "Hurricane is revised from the previously
accepted analysis of Partagas and Diaz due to inclusion of work by
Ho (1989)." Wording changed to: "In particular, additional
observations were provided from New Smyrna, Fairview, Ocala, Picolata,
Tampa, Jacksonville (FL), and Savannah (GA). These land-based
measurements from Ho's study were key in providing the track
alteration to one that made landfall in central east Florida, passed
over Ocala, moved west of Jacksonville, then back over water off of
southern Georgia." >
1874 # 6 Why has the kink in the track been introduced? This does not
seem to match the Charleston wind. The winds indicate a track over or
west of Charleston. wording: Suggest 'small' rather than 'low' weakening.
(meeting 2)
< Agreed that the track introduced was unrealistic. Track re-drawn
to pass over Charleston and Georgetown with a smoother track and
closer to Wilmington, which also experienced a low pressure.
Wording changed as suggested. >
1875 # 3 It is not clear what 'altered the track reasonably' is meant to
imply. The changes could be major or minor, but still reasonable. It
would be more clear to call the changes 'minor' if that is what is meant.
(meeting 2)
< Agreed. I have gone back through ALL of the revised tropical storms
and hurricanes to clarify whether the changes made have been small or
large. >
1876 # 2 The 996 mb pressure is questioned. A 20 mb rise in pressure in
4 h does not seem realistic. (meeting 2)
< Agreed. After re-examination of the available data from Partagas
and Diaz (1995b), Mitchell (1924) and Boose et al. (2002), the 991 mb
pressure reading at Mayaguez was retained as a central pressure for
this hurricane as it reached the western coast of Puerto Rico. While
this is still a substantial rise in pressure, it is more realistic
than previously indicated. >
1878 #1 The same explanation for changes in given in the previous
installment (i.e. inland wind reduction) although the track is now
changed. (meeting 2)
< The Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) model was mentioned in the original 2000
HURDAT description, though it was apparently not actually used.
Wording to clear this up is added in the metadata file. >
1878 # 5 Are the gradient winds stronger that the winds caused by the
tropical cyclone? This implies a rather strange pressure field. There
appears to be a conflict between the winds at Jacksonville and St. Augustine.
If the winds at St. Augustine are wrong, this would resolve the issue.
(meeting 2)
< Agreed. The winds at St. Augustine were judged to be erroneously high
in comparison with those nearby at Jacksonville. Additionally, the
track was revised again to correct unrealistic deceleration of the
hurricane north of St. Augustine/acceleration of the hurricane after
landfall in South Carolina. The two main anchor points of relatively
known timing were 02Z on the 11th when the center went over St. Augustine
and around 12Z on the 12th when the center made its closest approach to
Savannah/Tybee Island (minimum pressure recorded). Providing a smooth
track while taking into account these points necessitated bringing the
center inland somewhat farther north and later in time. This new track
is now more consistent with available observations. >
1879 # 2 The true storm surge is actually 7 ft (BRJ). Although the 979 mb
is probably OK, 90 kt is too high at this point. 5-10 kt less is more
appropriate. Was Ho consulted? (meeting 3)
< Agreed. The winds to accompany the 979 mb central pressure measurement
have been reduced to 80 kt. (Recall that from 1851 through 1885, only
10 kt wind increments are utilized.) Ho's (1989) work was utilized in
the first analysis (and revision). >
1882 # 2 Has Perez been taken at 'face value'? The committee is not clear as
to what extent his work has been evaluated. (meeting 2)
< The hurricane re-analysis team has worked closely with Dr. Ramon Perez
to insure that changes made to HURDAT are reasonable and well-founded.
We have found that Dr. Perez, who has access to all the original
Cuban observations, has done an excellent and consistent assessment
of the Cuban tropical storms and hurricanes. His work, in addition
to the referenced technical memorandum, has been presented at seminars
in Miami and at the American Meteorological Society's Hurricanes and
Tropical Meteorology Conference in San Diego in May 2002 as well as
accepted for publication in the _International Journal of Climatology_.
For large changes to track or intensity, we have also asked Dr. Perez
to provide additional raw data to provide for confirmation. He has
been quite helpful in obtaining these for us when requested. >
* 1882 # 3 Does the 70 mph wind reported at Port Eads, LA imply that this
was a hurricane? (meeting 2)
< Not necessarily. As described earlier, the four cup Robinson
anemometer utilized then had a high bias for the sustained winds
reported. A 60 kt 5 min sustained wind from that instrument
actually converts to only about 50 kt for 1 min sustained wind speed.
Certainly higher winds in this storm were likely to occur elsewhere
as it is not probable that Port Eads measured the exact peak winds
in the storm. However, given the feedback received below, the storm
has been upgraded to a Category 2 hurricane at landfall. >
* 1882 # 3 Three feet of water that far inland would require a Cat 2 in
this area (BRJ). Should the track be adjusted northward? (meeting 3)
< Agreed. This system is boosted to a Category 2 at landfall based
upon this storm surge modeling result. The track is also adjusted
to make a landfall between Port Arthur and Lake Charles. >
1885 # 2 Why was the track moved southward into Mexico? Do any
observations from Brownsville support this? (meeting 4)
< ? There are no Mexican (or Texas) landfalling systems in this year. >
1886 # 1 Seven feet of storm surge would be consistent with an 85 kt
Cat 2 hurricane moving towards the northeast at this location.
(meeting 3)
< Agreed. This hurricane is boosted to an 85 kt Category 2 hurricane
at landfall. >
1886 # 3 This was a _major_ change from Neumann. This should always be
headlined in the text. Was there any possible confusion among the Gulf
landfalls? (meeting 3)
< Agreed that this needs clarification for this as well as all other
tropical storms and hurricanes. We have gone back through the
metadata for ALL tropical storms and hurricanes from 1871 through
1910 (where there were changes from Neumann et al. 1999) and have
made it clear if there were major alterations involved. After
re-checking the various U.S. landfalling systems, no corrections
appear necessary based upon available information. >
* 1886 # 4 A 'blow-up' of the map off the western tip of Cuba would be
extremely helpful in showing this cluster of tracks. (meeting 2)
< Agreed. This is now provided. >
Is there a source for the possible central pressure of 990 mb?
(meeting 2)
< All pressure values mentioned in the metadata file comes from the
Partagas and Diaz reports except where noted explicitly. >
Concerning this storm, and others, the committee is extremely skeptical
of proposed changes based upon 'lack of evidence'. Ideally, changes to the
best-track file are made based upon evidence, e.g. new observations,
reports, or possibly reinterpretation of existing data. It is difficult
to support a change because there is now - more than a century later - a
lack of evidence. (meeting 2)
* 1886 # 4 A 'possible central pressure' is mentioned. Please reference.
There is concern over the use of 'lack of evidence'. This could mean either
that no evidence was found, which is a weak argument for change, or that an
examination of a continuous record (e.g. a continuously published newspaper
in that vicinity) showed no evidence, which is a much stronger argument.
This is a key element in the decision to accept or reject this and similar
changes. (meeting 3)
< This is partially an issue of nomenclature, but is primarily an
issue of how HURDAT was constructed in the 1960s and attention paid
to intensities of storms and hurricanes in the early era. It is
agreed that the term "lack of evidence" is not appropriate and
should be replaced with "available observations indicate" or other
such phrasing.
The Best Track Committee should be aware of and provide flexibility
for the extremely serious problems of intensity estimates in the
existing HURDAT of 1886 through the early 1900s. This database was not
put together "more than a century" ago, rather it was decided upon back
in the 1960s by Charlie Neumann and John Hope. (See contribution on
this issue from Charlie Neumann below.) As the emphasis was upon
providing the most accurate track possible primarily near the coast,
intensity estimates were for the late 19th Century were exceedingly
coarse and only given in essentially three peak intensity bands for the
years 1886 to 1903: 50 kt (tropical storms), 85 kt (moderate
hurricanes) and 105 kt (major hurricanes). Reasonable lifecycles were
then constructed to match these somewhat arbitrary peak wind values.
The following is a listing of all tropical storms and hurricanes in the
original HURDAT for 1886 to 1903 by peak intensity achieved:
35 kt: 1895/06, 1901/01
40 kt: 1887/14, 1897/03, 1897/04, 1899/05, 1900/06, 1901/07
45 kt: 1889/02, 1891/07, 1891/08, 1892/01, 1892/09, 1900/03, 1900/07,
1901/08, 1901/09, 1902/01
50 kt: 1886/01, 1886/10, 1887/01, 1887/03, 1887/09, 1887/10, 1887/13,
1887/17, 1888/02, 1888/05, 1888/06, 1888/08, 1889/07, 1889/08,
1889/09, 1891/11, 1892/04, 1892/06, 1892/08, 1893/11, 1893/12,
1894/01, 1895/01, 1895/03, 1895/04, 1898/04, 1898/05, 1898/06,
1898/08, 1898/09, 1901/06, 1901/10, 1902/05, 1903/05
55 kt: 1897/05
60 kt: 1900/05, 1901/02
65 kt: (None)
70 kt: 1898/01, 1899/01
75 kt: (None)
80 kt: 1902/02
85 kt: 1886/02, 1886/02, 1886/04, 1886/05, 1886/06, 1886/07, 1886/08,
1887/02, 1887/06, 1887/07, 1887/08, 1887/11, 1887/12, 1887/15,
1887/16, 1888/01, 1888/04, 1888/07, 1888/09, 1889/01, 1889/03,
1889/04, 1889/05, 1889/06, 1890/01, 1891/01, 1891/02, 1891/03,
1891/04, 1891/05, 1891/06, 1891/09, 1891/10, 1892/02, 1892/03,
1892/05, 1892/07, 1893/01, 1893/02, 1893/04, 1893/05, 1893/07,
1893/08, 1893/10, 1894/02, 1894/05, 1894/06, 1895/02, 1896/01,
1896/03, 1896/05, 1896/06, 1897/01, 1897/02, 1898/02, 1898/03,
1899/02, 1900/02, 1901/03, 1901/04, 1902/03, 1902/04, 1903/03
1903/06, 1903/07, 1903/08, 1903/09
90 kt: 1903/01
95 kt: 1888/03, 1898/07
100 kt: (None)
105 kt: 1887/04, 1887/05, 1893/03, 1893/06, 1893/09, 1894/03, 1894/04,
1895/05, 1896/02, 1896/04, 1899/02, 1899/03, 1899/04, 1900/04,
1903/02
110 kt: (None)
115 kt: 1900/01
An extremely high 80% of all 1886 to 1903 tropical systems were
originally archived as being either 50, 85 or 105 kt. This compares
to only 13% for tropical systems of the 1980s and 1990s. The
percentage goes up to 92% when considering just hurricanes of the 1886
to 1903 time period that peaked at either 85 or 105 kt. Clearly, this
is an artificial coarseness decided upon by HURDAT developers. (After
1903, these problems appear much less pronounced.)
Thus the re-analysis effort needs to be provided some flexibility to
correct this deficiency for the first two decades of the original
HURDAT. If the collection of tropical cyclone observations by
Partagas and other sources show a maximum observed intensity of only
Category 1 hurricane conditions in contrast to the standard Category 2
indicated, for example, then allowance should be made to adjust the
intensity appropriately. Efforts here are only attempting to more
realistically stratify the intensity of hurricanes for the era based
upon the best available raw observations.
The following are comments solicited from Charlie Neumann about this
issue:
"To all concerned with HURDAT:
I would like to comment on some of the issues relative to the
revision of HURDAT through the year 1910. When John Hope and I put
together the original HURDAT in the mid and late 1960's, we both
worked for a NASA funded program (Spaceflight Meteorology Group--
SMG). In so far as tropical cyclones were concerned, there were
two issues of interest to NASA. One involved the transport of the
spacecraft components by barge from Slidell, LA to the Cape. The
other was the vulnerability of the spacecraft to TC's when it was
being transported from the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) to the
launch pad at Cape Kennedy. Both of these operations took five days,
longer than the 72hr forecasts provided by NHC. We were asked to
provide probability forecasts out to five days when one or both of
these transport events took place.
Neither John nor I knew much about probability and statistics and
were not computer literate. Accordingly, he took a course in
probability and statistics and I took some courses in FORTRAN
programming at the U of M where the Weather Service and the
collocated SMG were located.
We both soon realized that to come up with something for NASA we
needed a computer file of storm tracks. We put one together as best
we could, basing it mainly on the tracks presented by George Cry in
his Tech Paper number 55. This meant digitizing the tracks from
those given on his maps and also using some NCDC versions of the
tracks. For NASA purposes, we needed positions and intensities
every 6 hours. However, before 1930 Cry gave these only once every
24h and every 12h thereafter. Also, for the period 1886 to 1899,
storms were classified as being either tropical storms or hurricanes
for the entire track (even in the TD stages). The year 1899 marked
was the initial publication of the historical wx maps and this
provided at least some information. However, looking at these early
maps, it can be noted that this information was extremely limited.
This was obviously a massive effort that we could not deal with.
Relevant here, too, is the fact that the field offices of the weather
service were computer illiterate at that time. At our disposal, we
had a hand operated key-punch where, to enter other than numerical
values, it was necessary to memorize and double or triple punch the
alpha characters. At the objection of the U of M, we sometimes used
their student key punch machines as well (only on weekends) as the
more modern equipment at the collocated HRD. We purchased blank
punch-cards at a penny a piece at the U of M bookstore. When tape
became popular, we rented a van and drove to the Cape to obtain
their free surplus tapes.
John and I often worked shift before and during the frequent
manned spaceflights and didn't have much time to do this work.
Accordingly, we used U of M and Miami-Dade computer science students
and Mr. Norm Nixon (a met-tech with SMG) to do the digitizing and the
interpolations. Remember here that our main interest was for the Cape
Kennedy area and the Gulf of Mexico and we instructed the students to
concentrate on those areas. There was simply insufficient time nor
resources to worry much about the other areas. The students were told
to give storms classified as hurricanes an intensity of 85 knots along
the entire track if there was no other evidence. I don't recall
exactly but tropical storms were assigned some average wind value,
perhaps 50 knots for their entire life history. A linear
interpolation was used to fill in the missing 6-hourly positions.
In summary, the point I am making here is that there was little
attention paid to these over-water distant storms in the early years
since they were not of interest to NASA. For computer programming
reasons, however, it was desirable to have some value in the columns
other than missing data. This was the beginning of the HURDAT file.
Later on, corrections were made to the file but after SMG was
disbanded, it was never clear who had responsibility for keeping the
file up-to-date or making corrections thereto. There was never any
effort nearly as complete as that of Diaz and Partagas. Therefore I
would definitely be in favor of replacing the old HURDAT with the new
tracks and intensities.
Charlie Neumann"
1886 # 4 The committee concurs with Partagas and Diaz that this system
remain a hurricane. Discussion in Sandrik is considered insufficient in
this case for lowering the intensity. The committee will consider a less
severe reduction in intensity, but believes the system should retain
hurricane status. (meeting 4)
< Agreed. Intensity retained as a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico, but
reduced down to a Category 1. >
** 1886 # 5 There is an implosive filling implied. Is this correct?
(meeting 2) Also see the discussion on Ho for 1886 # 5. (meeting 3)
** 1886 # 5 (provided by Jarvinen) Comment on the central pressure value
from San Antonio. Looking at the MWR write-up of the observer at the
station, it appears that the center passes to the south of the location and
the station is in the RMW when the pressure obs are taken. It appears
then, that the value is not a central pressure value.
Ho acknowledges this also by stating, "_If_ the center went over the station".
Therefore, the central pressure value is probably 5-10 mb lower (i.e.
966-961 mb). Jarvinen noted that the filling rate used from Ho methodology
was not correct. Both Cat 4 and Cat 5 hurricanes fill implosively after
landfall, not just Cat 5's. Therefore, 966-961 mb - 6.5 hours back to
landfall using BRJs interpretation of Ho's filling rate gives 926-919 mb at
landfall.
A Cat 4 (930 mb) traveling WNW at 15 mph gives a storm surge of 14.4 ft
above sea level. A 920 mb hurricane would give about 16 ft at Indianola.
An adjustment in the RMW could lower this value at Indianola (i.e. RMW not
at Indianola but to the south of this location). Committee noted that
regardless of the final value this is a major hurricane (Cat 4) for Texas.
(meeting 3)
< Agreed to substantial adjustments to intensity at and after landfall
based upon B. Jarvinen's analysis. See metadata file for details. >
* 1886 # 7 becoming proposed # 8 _Major_ change from Neumann, which is
not noted. Is this significant track change justified? Are there any
observations from Jamaica, other islands, or the Bahamas? (meeting 3)
* 1886 #7 becoming proposed # 8 This appears to be a major change in
track from Neumann, and should be noted as such. It is also noted that
Tannehill supports Neumann, although there is not much additional data.
(meeting 4)
< The observations quoted in Partagas and Diaz (1996a) from the ships
"Edith Godden" and the "Ozama" provide satisfactory evidence that
the track change suggested by Partagas was justified. Additionally,
R. Perez (personal communication) confirmed the presence of a weak
landfalling tropical storm on the southeast coast of Cuba on the
17th. >
1886 # 9 becoming proposed #10 (provided by Jarvinen) Concerning the
storm tide of 12 ft at Johnson Bayou, LA. Additional research needs to
be done on the track inland in Texas/Louisiana. Roughly, 12 ft could
possibly bring this to a Cat 3 at landfall. (meeting 3)
< The track is unadjusted from the original HURDAT, as no additional
track information was brought to light near landfall. Agreed to bring
the storm up to a Category 3 (955 mb/105 kt) hurricane at landfall
based upon SLOSH run as provided by B. Jarvinen. >
1887 # 3 The committee requests that any track not be changed due to
previous policy. The data either supports a track or not, regardless
of date. Also please note that the statement 'evidence exists' is too
vague. Please state the reference for these observations. (meeting 3)
< Agreed to include data from the 11th as tropical depression.
Formative tropical depression tracks are now included from 1886
onward, rather than 1899 as previously utilized. As noted earlier,
all observations noted in metadata are from the Partagas reports,
except as noted. >
* 1887 # 4 becoming proposed # 6 Wording: 'winds of at least' (third
line). This storm should be re-examined for the 8/20 - 8/23 period.
What does the MWR say in this case? JLB agrees to investigate.
Also, please indicate what criterion was used for landfall (meeting 3)
* 1887 # 4 becoming proposed # 6 The committee agrees that category 1
conditions were likely experienced on the Outer Banks, based upon
additional investigation by Jack Beven. (meeting 4)
< Wording is altered as suggested. Inclusion on the U.S. hurricane
listing is dependent upon whether or not sustained hurricane force
winds at the surface were felt at the coast or inland. Thus this
particular hurricane qualifies for such status. However, this one
is included even though the center did not actually make landfall.
On the U.S. hurricane listing, this storm would be footnoted with
the following:
"* - Indicates that the hurricane center did not make a U.S.
landfall, but did produce hurricane force winds over land. Position
indicated is point of closest approach. Maximum winds refer, in
this table, to the strongest winds estimated for the United States.
Central pressure in this case is the hurricane's value at the point
of closest approach." >
1887 # 5 becoming proposed # 7 Intensities reduced on 'no evidence'.
Although 'no major changes' are noted from Partagas and Diaz, Partagas and
Diaz (1887 p. 21) note that 'the hurricane status which Neumann et al
attributed to this storm was fully verified by the content of many of the
items above'. From the text given here, it is not clear whether Partagas
and Diaz recommend this major change in intensity, or Landsea et al.
Does this mean that no evidence was found in any reference, or only in
Partagas and Diaz? Please clarify. (meeting 3)
< Agreed that clarification is needed. The metadata now clarifies
that the changes to the track were those proposed by Partagas and
Diaz (1996a). The changes to intensity are those suggested by the
re-analysis team, as Partagas only broadly addresses the peak
intensity by individual systems and did not provide estimates for
every six hours as needed by HURDAT. "Available observations"
typically means (and that applies here as well) all those uncovered
by Partagas and Diaz, as their analyses were usually thorough. Note
the additional observations and changes to HURDAT based upon recent
analysis by Michael Chenoweth for early in this storm's lifecycle. >
1887 # 6 becoming proposed # 8 The committee suggests starting the
extratropical phase 12 h sooner in this case. Please reference the
963 mb central pressure. (meeting 3)
< Agreed. As noted earlier, all raw observations discussed in the
metadata file come from the Partagas and Diaz reports unless
otherwise explicitly mentioned. >
* 1887 # 7 becoming proposed # 9 The comment 'no major changes from
Partagas' does not seem to fit with 25 kt wind reductions. This may have
been the decision of Landsea, but this is not clear. If hurricane
conditions were not noted in the Windward Islands, please reference, or
state the relevant observation. (meeting 3)
* 1887 # 7 becoming proposed #9 Have intensities have been reduced in
the initial stages by Partagas, or Landsea et al? This is not clear from
the text. (meeting 4)
< Have clarified that the track alterations (relatively minor) are
to be directly attributed to Partagas and Diaz (1996a), while the
intensity changes are done by our re-analysis team based upon
observations collected by Partagas and Diaz. Observations obtained
by Partagas and Diaz for the Windward Islands (primarily from the
Monthly Weather Review) indicated only a weak to moderate system
existed and that no data - direct or indirect - suggested hurricane
intensity at that point. >
1887 # 10 becoming proposed # 12 Is there any data in Perez relevant to
this change? (meeting 3)
< The Perez (2000) document only explicitly discusses Cuban tropical
storms back to 1899 (though hurricanes are covered back to 1798).
Personal communication with R. Perez indicates that the new track
suggested by Partagas and Diaz (1996a) (and recommended by the
re-analysis team) better fits available observations over Cuba. >
1887 # 13 becoming proposed # 15 Please do not remove these positions.
(meeting 3)
< Agreed. Position added back in. >
1887 # 14 becoming proposed # 16 Why is this system made extratropical on
11/1? (meeting 3)
< Observations collected by Partagas and Diaz (1996a) from North Carolina
indicate a storm system with a substantial temperature gradient.
Partagas and Diaz has also recommended transitioning the storm to
an extratropical storm as it passed the latitude of the Carolinas. >
1887 # 15 becoming proposed # 17 Please reconcile changes for 11/28-11/29
with item 2 in Partagas and Diaz for this storm. (meeting 3)
< The track proposed by Partagas and Diaz (1996a) (and adopted by the
re-analysis team) looks reasonable, with the closest approach to the
ship Claribel between 12 and 18Z on the 29th. The intensity estimates
have been boosted somewhat to that originally proposed in the revision
to better account for "heavy gale" conditions on the 28th and
"hurricane" conditions on the 29th and 30th. >
1887 # 16 becoming proposed # 18 Partagas and Diaz find insufficient
justification for this change, due to _lack_ of evidence. The committees
opinion is that a lack of evidence better supports no change, rather than
change. (see item 4 for this system in PD) (meeting 3)
< Changes to intensity are based upon evaluation of available
observations, as elaborated upon earlier. Wording changed to better
reflect these alterations. (See additional commentary in response to
1887 # 5 becoming proposed # 7.) >
1888 # 1 The committee agrees with Partagas and Diaz that this system
should remain a hurricane. (meeting 4)
< Agreed. The storm has been boosted back to a hurricane in the Gulf
and at landfall in Texas. >
* 1888 # 3 (provided by Jarvinen) Need to research this storm both in
Miami and Central LA. Miami 14 ft storm tide is greater than 1926 values
in Miami and that storm was a Cat 4! Barnes (1988a) must be checked out
very carefully! (meeting 3)
< The 14 ft storm tide provided in Barnes does not come with much
supporting information (such as time, exact location, whether it
was a storm tide or storm surge, whether there were wave effects).
Efforts to contact Barnes for more specifics were unsuccessful.
It is recommended to keep this system as a high end Category 3
hurricane until more information can be obtained about its
characteristics. This storm would make a great case study, similar
to what Sandrik has done with the 1896 and 1898 hurricanes impacting
Northeast Florida and Georgia. >
* 1888 # 3 This track appears to be too far from New Orleans. (meeting 4)
< The track has now been moved substantially closer (60 nmi) to
New Orleans at landfall. >
1888 # 5 The depression phase appears to be extratropical, based upon its
orientation. Note that the MWR reports gales in Boston. (meeting 4)
< Agreed. Extratropical stage added from 12Z on the 11th onward, with
gale force intensity retained. >
1888 # 6 Why in this case are the winds rounded down? (meeting 4)
< Agreed that the winds should have been rounded up to 70 kt. >
** 1888 # 7 Committee requests BRJ to check surge against intensity for
this case. Note destruction of hotel. A track _north_ of Jacksonville is
not consistent with the wind observations. (meeting 4)
** 1888 #7 (Committee previously requested the opinion of BRJ on this
system. He prepared the following comments for inclusion in the minutes.)
It appears that the observer was in the RMW on the east side of this
hurricane. This is strongly suggested by the fact that the wind veers
quickly and the water rises to 9 feet above mean low water in about
one-half hour. Tidal analysis for this day shows that the low water that
the observer is referring to is the lesser of the two and is in fact above
the mean tide mark by about 0.3 feet. Thus, all of the rise is storm surge
and the water rose to about 9.3 feet above msl. SLOSH model comparisons
suggest that this is a category 2 hurricane with a central pressure of
approximately 970 mb. I estimated the RMW to be 12 statute miles. Finally,
in order to get the rapid rise of water in 30 minutes or so the hurricane
had to be moving north-northeast at 20 mph. This is contrary to the track
shown in the figures for the Gulf of Mexico. The SLOSH model run gives a
one-minute wind speed of 110 mph at landfall (part of this is due to the
fast forward motion). This is in contrast to the observed wind of 75 mph
from the south as reported in the MWR. I don't know what average the 75 mph
represents or if they had a problem with the anemometer but you wont get
9 feet of storm tide with a 75 mph wind.
Further research is suggested for this hurricane.
Note to committee: Committee recommendation on this system was to increase
intensity to 90 kt at landfall, but some uncertainty has been introduced by
75 mph maximum wind observation at Cedar Key. May need to reconsider. (P+D
do not change Neumann. Landsea _decreases_ intensity by 5 kt over Gulf, but
leaves 80 kt at landfall at Cedar Key.) (meeting 6)
** 1888 #7 After further discussion by the committee, and input from
Jarvinen, it was decided that neither Neumann et al. or the revised track as
submitted by Landsea et al. are correct. The track needs more work, and
cannot be accepted as it is. A key point is that the track should
accommodate a 970 mb central pressure at the time of landfall. The track
must also allow for the 3 ft of storm surge that destroyed a seaside hotel
on St. George Island (on the Atlantic coast). (meeting 7)
< Agreed to substantial changes to both track and intensity, based
upon B. Jarvinen's analysis. See metadata for details. >
1888 # 9 Hurricane force winds continuing on the left side suggest that the
system was not extratropical as suggested. (meeting 4)
< Observations in Partagas and Diaz (1996a) report show a strongly
baroclinic system (temperatures down to the 30s in Georgia and 40s
in Florida). It is suggested that this storm transitioned to or was
absorbed by an extratropical storm with the characteristics of a
wintertime Nor'easter as in impacted the U.S. East Coast. Nor'easters
occasionally do produced hurricane force winds. >
1889 # 1 The 'lack of evidence' is not explained. Does this mean that Landsea
et al lower the intensity based upon concurrence with Partagas and Diaz?
(meeting 4)
< Changes to intensity are based upon evaluation of available
observations, as elaborated upon earlier. Wording changed to better
reflect these alterations. (See additional commentary in response to
1887 # 5 becoming proposed # 7.) >
1889 # 3 As above for #1. Although only reduction in intensity is
mentioned in the discussion, system comes to a rather abrupt conclusion at
70 kt. This does not seem realistic, and is surprising near a populated
area. (meeting 4)
< Changes to intensity are based upon evaluation of available
observations, as elaborated upon earlier. Wording changed to better
reflect these alterations. (See additional commentary in response to
1887 # 5 becoming proposed # 7.) Re-examination of ship observations
in the Partagas and Diaz (1996a) report allows for an additional day
to be added to the track, which does provide for a more realistic
decay to the system. >
1889 # 6 A major change in longitude in the early part of the track is not
mentioned in the text. It should be noted that the Cubans (Father Vines, as
reported in the MWR) thought there were two systems here. Why was the
intensity changed at landfall on the eastern coast of the Yucatan peninsula?
(meeting 4)
< Track change now explicitly mentioned and credited to Partagas and
Diaz (1996a). A note is added to the metadata file about the Cuban
conclusions. The intensity was raised at landfall in the Yucatan to
account for "great damage" that occurred. >
1889 # 9 Does Perez make any mention of this storm? A reference is needed
in this discussion - why was genesis delayed? The implied forward speed on
this system is quite remarkable. Has this been checked? (meeting 4)
< R. Perez (personal communication) indicates that this system was of
tropical depression intensity crossing Cuba based upon observations
from the Cuban weather observing network. Thus tropical depression
status is now indicated for the 5th. Forward speed of the system
originally revised peaked at 50 kt between 18Z on the 6th and 00Z on
the 7th. This unlikely velocity has been reduced by adjusting the
positions on the 6th to the north. >
1890 # 1 Committee requests that these positions not be dropped. (meeting 4)
< Agreed. These have now been added back into HURDAT. >
1890 # 2 Note that this system does not appear in MWR. Intensity at
landfall is questioned. Either the system should be further east, or
stronger, based upon the observations at Pt. Eads. (meeting 4)
< Agreed that an adjustment is needed. We have moved the track
farther to the east on the 27th and early on the 28th to better
account for observations at Pt. Eads. >
1891 # 2 There is no source given for 'observational evidence'. Although the
committee recognizes the problems inherent in assigning 85 kt to this (and
other) hurricane(s), it seems that this action just replaces one uncertain
estimate with another equally uncertain estimate. Lacking some sort of
documentation to the contrary, the committee consensus is that the original
HURDAT should remain unchanged. (meeting 4)
< Changes to intensity are based upon evaluation of available
observations, as elaborated upon earlier. Wording changed to better
reflect these alterations. (See additional commentary in response to
1887 # 5 becoming proposed # 7.) >
1891 # 3 Is there a source for the assumption of a small RMW? Although it is
noted that the genesis is not well-documented, neither is the demise.
(meeting 4)
< The assumption of small RMW for this hurricane comes from Father
Benito Vines analysis at the time, quoted in the Partagas and
Diaz (1996b) report. Agreed that neither genesis nor demise are
well-documented. Both issues are now better addressed in the
metadata. >
1891 # 7 # 8 # 9 There is a major problem with the proposed disposition of
these three systems. Although removing two systems and retaining one is
proposed, and Partagas and Diaz appears to be cited in support of this, in
fact Partagas and Diaz state that they found insufficient evidence for the
removal....and consequently....'decided to keep unchanged the tracks for
storms 7, 8, and 9'. It should also be pointed out that MWR supports the
existence of two distinct systems. Acknowledging some uncertainty, the
committee accepts the conclusion of Partagas and Diaz, and prefers at this
time to maintain the Neumann et al. analysis. (meeting 4)
< The re-analysis team conducted more research into these systems by
obtaining the COADS historical ship database for October 1891 and
have determined that they were most likely one tropical cyclone.
See the writeup and attached tabular and plotted data reports. >
1891 # 10 becoming proposed # 8 Please reference the evidence for
category 1 intensity. (meeting 4)
< Changes to intensity are based upon evaluation of available
observations, as elaborated upon earlier. Wording changed to better
reflect these alterations. (See additional commentary in response to
1887 # 5 becoming proposed # 7.) >
1892 # 2 Why is this system made extratropical at this point? It is not
clear why the intensity was reduced from 85 to 65 kts. Please reference
evidence cited. (meeting 4)
< The hurricane is estimated to have transitioned to extratropical
on the 22nd based upon ship reports of strong northerly gales between
50 and 65W. Changes to intensity are based upon evaluation of available
observations, as elaborated upon earlier. Wording changed to better
reflect these alterations. (See additional commentary in response to
1887 # 5 becoming proposed # 7.) >
1892 # 3 Although it is not clear from the text, Partagas and Diaz maintain
this system as a hurricane. Unless convinced otherwise, the consensus was
leave this system as it stands in Neumann et al. (meeting 4)
< Agreed to keep system as a hurricane, though reduced in peak
intensity. >
1892 # 8 The committee supports increasing the wind, however, using the
translational speed (assuming track is correct) winds should be higher than
70 kt. Please see observations from Bermuda given in Partagas and Diaz.
(meeting 4)
< Agreed that the intensity needs to be increased. Peak on the
14th and 15th are now up to 80 kt. >
1893 # 1 It is not clear why this system was downgraded to a tropical storm
at landfall. Please summarize evidence presented by Boose, as this work is
not readily available. It is not clear (at least from the title) why this
work would be applicable, as the system was several hundred miles offshore
as it passed by New England. (meeting 4)
< Available observational data (from modest pressure readings and weak
winds for Florida in the _Monthly Weather Review_ and indication of
a "minimal" system in Dunn and Miller [1960]) indicate system was
likely a strong tropical storm rather than a Category 2 hurricane.
Reference to Boose's work removed here, as it did not provide any
additional information worth discussing for this case. >
1893 # 2 Although it is not disputed, please justify the change in intensity
at landfall. (meeting 4)
< The re-analysis team reconsidered the intensity at landfall near
the Nicaragua/Honduras border and decided to keep it at 85 kt as
originally found in HURDAT. >
1893 # 3 Please reference a source for the 'observational evidence'.
(meeting 4)
< As a reference other than Partagas and Diaz (1996b) is utilized
(e.g. Boose et al. 2002), the metadata now explicitly references
Partagas and Diaz for the observations. >
1893 # 4 Why is Boose chosen as the preferred source of RMW in this case?
It appears that Boose is not used consistently. (meeting 4)
< Boose et al. (2001) provides a more direct measurement of RMW - at least
for this portion of the U.S. - by analysis of wind-caused damage
with respect to the hurricane's track. Boose's analysis was actually
consistently utilized, but just poorly written up by the hurricane
re-analysis team. This hopefully has been clarified now in the
metadata file. >
1893 # 5 Is there a source for the 'minimal evidence'? (meeting 4)
< Changes to intensity are based upon evaluation of available
observations, as elaborated upon earlier. Wording changed to better
reflect these alterations. (See additional commentary in response to
1887 # 5 becoming proposed # 7.) >
* 1893 # 6 Why is 87 kt rounded up to 90 kt? Note that there may be a bug
in the plotting routine - check color change at landfall. Also note that
the Block Island wind observation is not consistent with this track.
The committee requests concurrence of BRJ on this system. (meeting 4)
* 1893 # 6 (Committee previously requested the opinion of BRJ on this
system. He prepared the following comments for inclusion in the minutes.)
I believe the Savannah Weather Bureaus observations and agree with the
current computation of intensity at landfall on the coast of Georgia! The
958 mb at Savannah makes this a weak cat 3 at this time. However, SLOSH model
runs show that even at this intensity the hurricane generated 10 to 13 foot
storm tides over a large area of southern South Carolina. Many of the barrier
islands in South Carolina, where the large loss of life occurred, have
elevations up to 15 to 20 feet and many people got there or floated there and
survived. But the ones that drowned were farmers living near their rice and
indigo fields which were at much lower elevations and they opted to stay in
their homes. Many drownings occurred when the home floated and/or collapsed
and the occupants were thrown into the water. To complicate matters all this
took place at night.
After discussion of the above comments, the committee accepts the track
changes proposed by Landsea et al. (meeting 6)
< Agreed that the 87 kt from the 972 mb should be rounded down to 85 kt.
Winds adjusted accordingly. As for the color change of the track
plot near landfall, this has to be adjusted manually for quick
decaying/intensifying systems and will be corrected for the final
version. The Block Island report appears to be erroneous as it is
in conflict with the predominance of south and south-easterly wind
maxima at other coastal New England locations. >
1893 # 9 Please do not change this track based upon climatology. (meeting 4)
< Agreed. Adjustments to intensity are to be based upon available
observations. >
* 1893 # 10 The committee requests the concurrence of BRJ on this system.
(meeting 4)
* 1893 #10 (Committee previously requested the opinion of BRJ on this
system. He prepared the following comments for inclusion in the minutes.)
Several years ago Jack Beven and I worked on this hurricane to determine the
intensity while it was in the vicinity of Caminada. In all the documents I
read, including eyewitness writeups, no mention is ever given of a water
elevation. I think that the value of 20 feet given by Ho is fictitious. In
fact, if you look at a category 5 SLOSH model run....worst case for Caminada
you will come up with a whopping 12 feet of storm tide at high tide!! Twenty
feet...I don't think so! Next, the hurricane passes over a ship at anchor at
Moss Point, Mississippi which is just north of Pascagoula and the captain who
is recording the pressure every hour states that he got 970 mb in the eye.
This would correspond to a 90 to 95 kt wind at landfall. A SLOSH model
comparison with this intensity and direction gives storm tide values of about
9 to 11 feet on the right side of the hurricane and is similar to the 10 to
12 feet observed along the Mississippi and Alabama coasts.
Again this contradicts Ho who had the hurricane much stronger at landfall in
Mississippi. Using the South Florida filling rates and the approximate
12 hours from Caminada to the Mississippi coast I get a 948 mb central
pressure value for the hurricane over Caminada. A SLOSH model simulation
with this pressure gives a maximum storm tide value of about 8 feet. Since
the island was anywhere from 2 to 5 feet above msl it was over-topped. In
fact, since the eye passed along the spine of the island, moving in a
northeast direction, the front of the hurricanes storm surge swept the
island from southeast toward the northwest and then the reverse direction
after the eye passed. This is supported by the eyewitness accounts.
Given the above, the committee rejects track as proposed, which relies
heavily on Ho re-analysis. The 970 mb observation should be taken as a
central pressure. (meeting 6)
* 1893 # 10 Note that a storm surge observation for this storm has been
found in 'Hurricanes and Tropical Storms in the Gulf of Mexico, 1875-1956.'
(NHC library) (meeting 7)
< Agreed to the adjustments of Ho's work based upon B. Jarvinen's
analysis. See metadata file for details. >
1893 # 11 Retain as a TD south of Cuba. (meeting 4)
< Agreed. Storm retained as originally started in HURDAT, as a
tropical depression on the 20th and early on the 21st. >
1893 # 12 It should be noted that this is a _major_ change from Neumann et
al.
< Agreed. This is now so noted in the metadata file. >
1894 # 2 becoming proposed # 3 While some rationale is given for changes on
the 8th, it is not clear why this also applies to the 6th. Please clarify.
(meeting 4)
< Changes were made to the hurricane's intensity from the 6th through
the 8th, as hurricanes tend to reach maximum intensity at or just after
recurvature. For this system to have obtained a 948 mb central pressure
between 35 and 40N, it should have begun intensifying to reach peak
intensity a day or two earlier. >
1894 # 5 becoming # 6 Is there justification for the wobble on the 18th?
(meeting 4)
< The wobble was the result of poor digitization. It has now been
removed. >
1895 # 4 Please reference these observations. (meeting 4)
< Changes to intensity are based upon evaluation of available
observations, as elaborated upon earlier. Wording changed to better
reflect these alterations. (See additional commentary in response to
1887 # 5 becoming proposed # 7.) >
1896 # 1 Does Perez cast any light on the Cuban portion of this track?
At U.S. landfall, a 100 mph report at Pensacola seems too far to the left
of this landfall position. Please justify category 2 designation.
(meeting 4)
< Perez (2002 - personal communication) indicated that the track in
Neumann et al. (1999) originally and retained in HURDAT matches
available observations in Cuba. He also suggests a weak/moderate
tropical storm intensity at landfall in Cuba. The 100 mph wind report
from the Dunn and Miller (1960) book is either an estimate or a gust.
Either is considered unreliable. (Note that the 4 cup Robinson
anemometer utilized in the late 19th Century was reported in a
sustained wind of 5 min intervals, as shorter periods were deemed
unreliable [Fergusson and Covert 1924, Kadel 1926].) Based upon the
72 mph sustained wind out of the north at Pensacola reported in
_Monthly Weather Review_, the Category 2 (85 kt) at landfall
originally in HURDAT appears reasonable and has been retained. >
1896 # 4 Are there any observations from Jamaica to support this track?
Is a consistent methodology employed for the increasing the winds according
to RMW? It has been noted by Neumann, for example, that RMW is strongly a
function of latitude, but only a weak function of intensity. (meeting 4)
1896 # 5 Please reference observations. (meeting 4)
< Unfortunately, there are no available observations from Jamaica for
this storm. Given the variety of sources used for this system, they
are all now given with references. As documented in Landsea et al.
(2003), winds are adjusted upward 5 kt for RMW that is between 25-50%
smaller than climatology for a given central pressure and latitude.
Vickery et al's (2000) study (updated from Ho et al. 1987) did indeed
find that the RMW was strongly a function of latitude and weakly a
function of intensity. Their findings have been utilized here. >
1896 # 6 Is the 'no evidence' argument supported by Partagas and Diaz, or
have additional sources been consulted? (meeting 4)
< Changes to intensity are based upon evaluation of available
observations, as elaborated upon earlier. Wording changed to better
reflect these alterations. (See additional commentary in response to
1887 # 5 becoming proposed # 7.) >
1897 # 1 Where was the peripheral pressure mentioned? The assumption is
that it was close to eye, but please clarify. (meeting 6)
< As noted earlier, all raw observations discussed in the
metadata file come from the Partagas and Diaz reports unless
otherwise explicitly mentioned. Peripheral pressure appears to have
been taken close to the eye, near the radius of maximum winds. >
* 1897 # 2 The committee would appreciate BRJs estimate of what it would
take to generate 6 ft of storm surge in this case. Landsea et al. _please
reference observations_. (meeting 5)
* 1897 #2 (Committee previously requested opinion of BRJ on this system. His
recommendation is to accept as proposed.) (meeting 6)
< As noted earlier, all raw observations discussed in the
metadata file come from the Partagas and Diaz reports unless
otherwise explicitly mentioned. >
** 1897 # 4 Are there any changes from P+D? If not, please state that it
is incorporated without modification from P+D. (meeting 6)
< No changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b). Agreed, so noted. >
** 1897 # 4 becoming proposed # 5 It should be noted that this is a _major_
change from Neumann et al. (meeting 4)
< Agreed, so noted. >
1898 # 1 'evidence' is mentioned, but what evidence? Is 70 kt justified off
the East Coast, considering that this was described as a 'feeble' storm that
night (P+D)? (meeting 5)
< Changes to intensity are based upon evaluation of available
observations, as elaborated upon earlier. Wording changed to better
reflect these alterations. (See additional commentary in response to
1887 # 5 becoming proposed # 7.) Agreed that the intensity needs
reduction further. The re-analysis team had previously reduced this
to a strong 60 kt tropical storm. Winds now assessed at 35 kt -
minimal tropical storm - at landfall in southeast Florida. >
1898 # 3 becoming proposed # 4 The 965 mb observation apparently came from
Partagas and Diaz. Please reference. There is also a plotting problem with
this system. As plotted, there is a tropical depression phase over
Newfoundland. (meeting 5)
< As noted earlier, all raw observations discussed in the
metadata file come from the Partagas and Diaz reports unless
otherwise explicitly mentioned. The "+" signs (oriented at 0-90-
180-270 degrees) indicate extratropical stage. The "x" signs
(oriented at 45-135-225-315 degrees) indicate tropical depression
stages. >
1898 # 6 Consider shifting this track eastward. Is there an observation
from Pt. Eads or New Orleans? Does Roth comment on this system?
(meeting 5)
< Observations from Pt. Eads do suggest landfall at about the location
provided by Neumann et al. (1999) and accepted by Partagas and Diaz
(1996b), but the exact location is quite uncertain. Neither of the Roth
(1997a,b) hurricanes histories (Louisiana and Texas) comment on this
system. It likely was of only weak/moderate tropical storm intensity
at landfall. >
* 1898 # 7 The committee requests the concurrence of BRJ on these changes.
(meeting 4)
* 1898 # 7 Same plotting problem as above (i.e. 1898 # 3) (meeting 5)
* 1898 #7 (Committee previously requested opinion of BRJ on this system.
His recommendation is to accept as proposed.) (meeting 6
< The "+" signs (oriented at 0-90-180-270 degrees) indicate
extratropical stage. The "x" signs (oriented at 45-135-225-315
degrees) indicate tropical depression stages. >
1898 # 5 becoming proposed # 8. This is a _major_ change from Neumann and
should be so stated. After much discussion, the committee wishes to note
that although the P+D changes are accepted as a working hypothesis,
_considerable uncertainty_ remains concerning this track and it bears further
investigation. (meeting 5)
< Agreed. It is recognized that all storms of this era have considerable
uncertainty - this one in particular has more than usual - and that
future research may be able to better define the best tracks and
intensities. >
1898 # 8 becoming proposed # 9 Is this shift off the coast of Florida
justified? Please give the source of wind observation. Is there a comment
from Perez on this system? (meeting 5)
< As noted earlier, all raw observations discussed in the
metadata file come from the Partagas and Diaz reports unless
otherwise explicitly mentioned. The shift off the coast of Florida
does appear consistent with available observations and matches the
analysis of Tannehill (1938). Perez (2002 - personal communication)
indicates that the alteration of the track over Cuba proposed by
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) and accepted here agrees with observations
from Cuba.>
* 1899 # 1 Committee notes that MWR data for this new system is not
conclusive. (meeting 5)
< Agreed that this is a marginal storm to include into HURDAT. This
is now so indicated in the metadata. >
* 1899 # 1 becoming proposed # 2 wording - 'indicated' instead of
'indicating'. Does size determine intensity? Please clarify. Although
intensity is decreased due to passage over Hispaniola, please justify TS
status over south Florida. Are there any local observations? (meeting 5)
< Wording changed as suggested. For a given central pressure, a
hurricane with a smaller radius of maximum winds will have stronger
winds than a larger RMW hurricane. While no definitive evidence
was found to support a minimal tropical storm (40 kt) at landfall
in south Florida, the ship report on the 30th near 25N, 80.5W
had a south wind of 30 kt. Assuming that this one ship did not
measure the absolute peak in intensity for the storm at that time,
a slightly higher maximum sustained wind can be reasonably deduced. >
1899 # 2 becoming proposed # 3 Why was hurricane status _not_ accepted
through the 22nd? Please follow P+D in this rather than the existing
track book. (meeting 5)
< Agreed that Partagas and Diaz' (1996b) intensity estimate of hurricane
force up until the 22nd is more appropriate and is now used. >
1899 # 3 becoming proposed # 4 Again 'evidence' is noted, but what evidence?
(meeting 5)
< Changes to intensity are based upon evaluation of available
observations, as elaborated upon earlier. Wording changed to better
reflect these alterations. (See additional commentary in response to
1887 # 5 becoming proposed # 7.) Note that in reviewing this
hurricane, it was realized that the re-analysis team failed to
incorporate Partagas and Diaz' (1996b) (reasonable) change to strong
tropical storm intensity during this systems trek across the
Caribbean. This has now been so revised. >
1899 # 6 becoming proposed # 8 A _major_ change from Neumann early in the
track. Please note. The committee finds that the Neumann track is _not_
correct, but also finds that P+D may not be correct either. Please check
the re-analyzed surface maps (Daily Synoptic Series, Historical Weather
Maps). The system was likely west of Jamaica on the 26th. (meeting 5)
< Agreed that the track needs further alteration. After re-examination
of available observational data, the system does appear to have
formed on the 26th to the west of Jamaica. Track adjusted on the
26th through the 28th, accordingly. >
* 1900 # 1 An artificial kink has been introduced around the 7th. Is this
an artifact of the plotting program? The committee finds that the tropical
storm stage has been extended too far inland (northern Missouri). In cases
where surface observations are available, as they are in this case (see
comment above), the results from the DeMaria model should be checked
against them. Date of P+D reference is wrong - change to 1996b. Also
change 'southeast' to 'north central' in second to the last sentence.
(meeting 5)
< The program was fine, but the positions chosen were incorrect.
This track has now been corrected. Agreed that tropical storm stage
was carried too far north, as last sustained tropical storm force
winds were recorded at Fort Worth (45 kt). The results were
originally checked against the Kaplan and DeMaria model, but only
through the 9th. Results are now confirmed against the inland
decay model through early on the 11th. Reference is now corrected.
Changed "southeast" to "central", to better fit the location that the
model is being applied at. >
* 1900 # 1 (Galveston) Based upon comments from BRJ, the committee wishes
to record here that although the intensity at landfall has received most of
the attention, the _track_ of this hurricane may need to be re-examined at
some point in the future. For the record, it is noted here that there
were reports from survivors caught in the storm surge that stars were
visible. They were likely within the clear eye at this time. (meeting 6)
< Agreed that the track could be fine tuned further at some point
in the future. >
1900 # 5 Committee notes that the P+D shift in track to the west of Nova
Scotia may not be fully justified, but tentatively accepts. Evidence is
considered a little shaky. (meeting 5)
< Agree that the evidence for this track change is modest. This is
now indicated in the metadata file. >
1900 # 7 Do not delete the period from 23rd to the 25th. The 'lack of
evidence' does not justify removal. Please also check the re-analyzed
surface maps (referenced above) for confirmation. (meeting 5)
< After analyzing the available observations, it is agreed that the
system was likely a tropical cyclone (of tropical depression status)
back to the 24th. The 24th and 25th are added back into HURDAT,
accordingly. However, data on the 23rd indicates that the system
had not yet formed a closed circulation and thus genesis starts
on the 24th in HURDAT. >
1901 # 2 This is a significant change from Neumann. Please note.
(meeting 5)
< Agreed, so noted. >
1901 # 3 This change in category is based entirely on a presumed departure
from normal size. Is there no natural variation about the mean value?
(meeting 5)
< This comment is not clear, as there was no use of RMW or other
size parameter for this system to determine intensity. >
1901 # 4 The data for the 2nd through the 6th is not plotted. (meeting 5)
< Track plot now complete. >
1901 # 5 becoming # 6 Accepted after discussion. (meeting 5)
< Agreed. >
1901 # 6 becoming proposed # 7. After discussion, it was determined that
an intensity of 50 kt at the time of Florida landfall near Pensacola _is_
supported by observations. (meeting 6)
< Agreed. >
1901 # 8 becoming proposed # 9 There is a significant change from Neumann
et al. in the early portion of this track. Please note as such.
(meeting 6)
< Agreed, so noted. >
1901 # 9 becoming proposed # 10 There is a significant change from Neumann
et al. in that the proposed track no longer passes over the Leeward
Islands. Please note. (meeting 6)
< Agreed, so noted. >
1902 # 2 Is the reduction in winds based on Connor? Please indicate
reasoning. 'It was decided' is too vague. (meeting 6)
< Yes, the reduction of intensity at landfall in Texas was due to
inclusion of Connor's assessment. This is now so indicated in the
best track. >
1902 # 4 Restore eastern Pacific portion (early portion) of track.
Committee rejects reasoning put forward in P+D. Carry system over Mexico
as a tropical depression. (meeting 6)
< Agreed, the system is retained as forming in the Gulf of Tehuantepec
as found in Neumann et al. (1999), though with a altered track based
upon available observational data. Intensity as system treks over
Mexico is at tropical depression status. >
1902 # 5 Significant change in origin of system. Based on information in
P+D, it is not clear why a tropical depression phase was not started in
vicinity of Hispanola. (meeting 6)
< Agreed that a tropical depression stage is warranted beginning in the
vicinity of Hispanola. This is now added into HURDAT. >
1903 # 2 What is the source of the 105 kt wind observation? (meeting 6)
< As noted earlier, all raw observations discussed in the
metadata file come from the Partagas and Diaz reports unless
otherwise explicitly mentioned. >
1903 # 3 Please clarify comment about the pressure at Cat Cay. There is
not enough information given to evaluate this statement. (BRJ will evaluate
the implications of the 8 ft storm surge.) (meeting 6)
< The central pressure measured at at Cat Cay of 976 mb is consistent
with the estimated 977 mb at landfall in Southeast Florida suggested
by Ho (1987). This is now so clarified in the metadata file. >
1903 # 4 Second to last sentence - what observations? Please clarify.
(meeting 6)
< This is clarified to read "observations collected by Partagas and
Diaz...". >
1903 # 6 More than 80 kt implied if hurricane force winds were observed
on the weak side over Bermuda. A wind speed of 95 kt is more realistic
when forward motion is taken into account. (meeting 6)
< Agreed. Intensity raised to 95 kt and so indicated in the metadata
file. >
1903 # 8 Reasoning and data in P+D does not support this major change
from Neumann et al. The proposed track is rejected. (meeting 6)
< Agree that portions of Partagas and Diaz' (1997) track are not
reasonable. After re-examination of available observations for this
system, new track positions are proposed for the 5th through the 8th,
which are different from both Neumann et al. (1999) as well as Partagas
and Diaz. Positions for the 9th and 10th proposed by Partagas
and Diaz look quite reasonable and are retained as suggested.
Reasoning for the changes are included in detail in the metadata
file. >
1903 # 9 becoming proposed # 10 Please reference observations cited, or
lack thereof. (meeting 6)
< As noted earlier, all raw observations discussed in the
metadata file come from the Partagas and Diaz reports unless
otherwise explicitly mentioned. >
1904 # 1 Please give source of observations in Jamaica. Reasoning given
here is a little sketchy and therefore difficult to evaluate. (meeting 6)
< As more than one reference is quoted for this storm, the
Jamaica observations are explicitly referenced as being
provided by Partagas and Diaz (1997). >
1904 # 2 Please note that Table 6 in Neumann et al. is derived from the
HURDAT file, and should not be used as if it were an independent source.
Also, consider keeping this system tropical for one or two additional 6-h
periods. (meeting 6)
< Table 6 in Neumann et al. (1999) and the U.S. landfall categorization
in HURDAT ("SC1") are indeed the same and this is now so indicated.
However, the closest 6 hourly intensity estimate before landfall in
HURDAT often does not match the landfall categorization in HURDAT/
Table 6 of Neumann. (Disagreements are actually more common than
agreements.) This system now kept as a tropical storm for an
additional 6 hourly period. >
1904 # 3 Please check Dunn and Miller for Florida landfall. (meeting 6)
< Dunn and Miller characterize this system as "minor" at landfall
in southeast Florida. The 989 mb peripheral pressure (not a
central pressure measurement based upon description of winds
that accompanied it) strongly support assessment of landfall
as a minimal (Category 1) hurricane. Note that given the very
sparse population of southeast Florida of the era, the core of
the hurricane likely went just south of the city of Miami and
thus did not cause much of an impact or produce much property
damage. >
1904 # 5 Accepted after discussion. (meeting 6)
< Agreed. >
1904 unnumbered. Consider inclusion of 'special statement' system in P+D,
at least over the Caribbean. (meeting 6)
< All five "special statement" cases were re-examined for possible
inclusion into HURDAT. The first three do not have enough evidence
to support tropical storm intensity. The fourth system was of
gale force intensity, but was likely extratropical in structure.
The fifth system had numerous gale to hurricane force observations,
but was also likely of extratropical storm in structure. These
comments are now included in the "Additional Notes" section of
1904. >
1905 # 4 90 kt is a very high wind during transition to extratropical.
This may result from continuity with the 85 kt wind associated with 945 mb.
Consider reducing the 85 kt wind, and work backwards from there.
(meeting 6)
< Agreed, this has been implemented into the revisions. >
1906 # 2 wording. Suggest '...analyzed a central pressure at landfall
of 979 mb and a RMW of 26 n mi'. (meeting 7)
< Agreed, so changed. >
1906 # 3 Are there _no_ changes, or no major changes? (meeting 7)
< There are no changes for this newly documented tropical storm,
which is now so indicated in the metadata file. >
1906 # 3 becoming proposed # 4 It should be noted that there are huge
changes made to the intensity in the early part of the track. Please
reference P+D for these changes. It is also recommended that the surface
maps be checked to confirm the positions given in early portion of the
track. Otherwise accepted. (meeting 7)
< Agreed that a note and reference to the large intensity changes
early in the storm's lifecycle is needed. Also re-examination of
the Historical Weather Map series did indeed suggest that rather
big alterations were needed in the track from the 25th through the
30th. >
1906 # 4 becoming proposed # 5 It should be noted that there are drastic
changes to Neumann et al. in this track. Wording. 'Dunn and Miller (1960)
_who_ gave...' also '80 kt utilized in best-track. Without evidence for a
major hurricane...' omit 'are' and 'being'. Please provide a reference
for the 'damage'. Is there any information available from Cary Mock on this
system? (meeting 7)
< Changes to the track and intensity now noted as "large but reasonable".
Wording changed as suggested. Reference to damages now provided with
Barnes (1998b) book. Prof. Cary Mock in a search of the newspaper
archives in Charleston and Georgetown confirmed impacts from a minor
hurricane landfall in South Carolina. >
1906 # 5 becoming proposed # 6 In reviewing the commentary for this system,
it seems somewhat unlikely that a 965 mb pressure reading would be
maintained without change for 45 minutes. Was the bottom of the scale
reached? It should be noted that there was _extreme_ damage in Pensacola.
In the revised category at landfall summary, MS1 should be MS2. Please
consider whether this was in fact a stronger system than indicated.
(meeting 7)
< Agreed that the 965 mb pressure value is likely an underestimate of
how deep the hurricane was at landfall. Have utilized the Jarrell
et al. (1992)/Connor (1956) value of 958 mb instead. Winds have now
been boosted from 85 to 95 kt at landfall, making it near the
border of Category 2/Category 3 at landfall. Mississippi now
indicated as Category 2. >
1906 # 6 becoming # 7 Although it appears to be justified, it should be
noted that the loop in the track has been eliminated. (meeting 7)
< The removal of the loop is now so noted in the metadata file. >
1906 # 7 becoming # 8 This is a combination of existing 7 and 8. Please
check track for consistency with west wind shown on surface map on 11th and
12th. Committee notes that intensification over Belize appears
unrealistic. It is also not clear why the intensity is reduced from P+D
over S. Florida. Are there observations to support this? (meeting 7)
< A re-examination of the Historical Weather Map series confirms the
consistency of Partagas and Diaz' (1997) suggested track, though the
data available here are admittedly quite sparse near the tropical
cyclone. Agreed that intensification over Belize is unrealistic.
Intensity values now decreased appropriately while system has center
over land. It is also clarified why the major hurricane status for
landfall in south Florida suggested by Partagas and Diaz was not
retained: they put more weight for this intensity estimate on
unofficial surface pressure readings down to 953 mb reported in _The
Daily Miami Metropolis_ newspaper, rather than the 967 mb described
in _Monthly Weather Review_. The re-analysis team accepted the 967 mb
pressure, as its source is known (ship report) and has more
reliability. >
1906 # 11 Asterisks missing? This is a significant change from Neumann
et al. (meeting 7)
< Agreed, asterisks added and mention made of the large alteration to
Neumann et al.'s (1999) track and intensity. >
1907 # 1 It should be noted that the point of landfall has been shifted
westward. (meeting 7)
< Agreed, so noted. >
1907 # 2 Accepted after discussion. (meeting 7)
< Agreed. >
1907 # 4 Although not changed from P+D, this is a major revision of
Neumann et al. and should be noted as such. (meeting 7)
< Agreed, so noted. >
1907 # 5 Are there _any_ changes to P+D? (meeting 7)
< No changes, so noted. >
1908 # 2 Please reference the central pressure mentioned. (meeting 7)
< As noted earlier, all raw observations discussed in the
metadata file come from the Partagas and Diaz reports unless
otherwise explicitly mentioned. >
1908 # 2 becoming proposed # 3 insert the word 'pressure' after
'peripheral'. (meeting 7)
< Agreed, so changed. >
1908 # 6 becoming proposed # 7 40 kt is a huge change in intensity from
the existing track file, and should be noted. The intensity over
Hispanola is questioned, in spite of the category 2 damage estimate by
Perez. Note that P+D also question the damage. (meeting 7)
< Large intensity changes suggested by Partagas and Diaz (1997) for
the 25th through the 28th are now so noted in the HURDAT. Winds
brought down slightly at and after landfall in Hispanola. >
1908 # 7 becoming proposed # 8 Please reference the damage. This
reasoning is a little sketchy. (meeting 7)
< As noted earlier, all raw observations discussed in the
metadata file come from the Partagas and Diaz reports unless
otherwise explicitly mentioned. Reasoning for Category 2 status
at landfall is expanded. >
1909 - 1910 Are maps available from P+D from these final two years?
(meeting 7)
< Unfortunately, no. Jose Partagas passed away before these were
completed. >
1909 # 1 becoming proposed # 2 In the text, 'storm number 2' should be
'storm number 1'. Flood conditions described are well after the fact
(10 days). Could this discussion be condensed or handled by a
reference? Committee notes they are not familiar with Ellis.
Second page - insert the word 'of' in the phrase 'this region of Mexico'
(meeting 7)
< Storm number changed. It is now noted that a portion of the flooding
that occurred may not have been due directly to the hurricane.
Given that this discussion cannot be found anywhere else, it is
felt that it should be put here in its entirety. The Ellis (1988)
reference is available from the re-analysis team, if needed.
1909 # 2 becoming proposed # 3 Although the revised track is accepted,
should be noted that the end of track is very different from what appears
in Neumann et al. (meeting 7)
< Agreed, so noted. >
1909 # 3 becoming proposed # 4 Accepted after discussion. (meeting 7)
< Agreed. >
1909 # 4 becoming proposed # 5 Please clarify why the early portion of
the track was removed. (meeting 7)
< Partagas and Diaz (1999) recommended removing July 27th through
August 5th as no closed circulation existed during its supposed trek
across the eastern and central Caribbean Sea. This is now so noted in
the metadata file.>
1909 # 5 becoming proposed # 6 This is a major change from Neumann et al.
Given the track directly over central Hispanola, the Perez category 2
designation in western Cuba is questioned. This does not seem reasonable.
Committee recommends pulling the track southward, keeping it over water
just south of Cuba. (meeting 7)
< Both Partagas and Diaz (1999) and Perez (2000) are clear that a landfall
did occur at the southeastern end of Cuba, which is retained. The track
has been adjusted (closer to Partagas' position on the 23rd, slightly
south) to trek over southern Hispanola, spending less time over
mountainous terrain. These alterations are consistent with observations
from the Historical Weather Map series and elsewhere. >
1909 # 6 becoming proposed # 7 There seems to be a conflict here. P+D
state that the observations _do not_ support a closed circulation and remove
the track on the 27th, while Landsea states that observations do exist,
and retains. (meeting 7)
< Agreed that Partagas and Diaz (1999) were correct here. The 27th
is removed from HURDAT, due to lack of a closed circulation. >
1909 # 7 becoming proposed # 8 Is the decision to remove the early
portion of track based on no observations (P+D) consistent with the
decision above for 6 - 7? i.e. reasoning for these two systems seems
consistent in P+D (using the historical weather maps) but seems
inconsistent based on what is presented here. Committee notes here that
a circulation on the 13th _might_ be possible, based on the historical
surface maps. Please clarify decision. (meeting 7)
< The decisions for storm #7/1909 and this one are now consistent:
both have days removed from HURDAT where evidence is available that
a closed circulation did not exist. Agreed that beginning the
tropical cyclone on the 13th is a reasonable solution based upon
available observational evidence in the Historical Weather Map
series, which indicates that a closed circulation probably
existed south of Hispanola on that date. Thus HURDAT begun on
the 13th for this system. >
1909 # 8 becoming proposed # 9 Why was the origin of this system in the
Caribbean deleted? The data seems inconclusive on this point. (meeting 7)
< It is now clarified that the system did not have a closed circulation
on the 22nd and 23rd based upon available observational data listed
by Partagas and Diaz (1999). >
1909 # 9 becoming proposed # 10 The 957 mb pressure at Sand Key was not a
central pressure (see Barnes). Please note a 954 mb pressure recorded at
Knights Key, and that Key West was not in the eye. (meeting 7)
< There appears to be some confusion about the details of this storm. It
is agreed that the pressure recorded at Sand Key (961 mb, not 957 mb)
may not have been a central pressure. Knight's Key's value of 957 mb
(not 954 mb) from Barnes (1998a) has been and is utilized as the
central pressure at landfall by this hurricane in the Florida Keys. >
1909 # 10 becoming proposed # 11 Please document or reference the ship
reports mentioned, and provide justification for upgrade to hurricane
status. (meeting 7)
< It is now clarified since there are a few references mentioned that
these hurricane force ship reports and impacts on land were listed by
Partagas and Diaz (1999). >
1910 # 1 Although the general scheme is accepted, consider extending the
track back one position (i.e. add an initial position). (meeting 7)
< Agreed, storm begun one position earlier in time. >
1910 # 2 becoming proposed # 3 Why is P+D discarded in favor of Connor?
Please clarify. Also consider the fact that the MWR does not support
hurricane status at landfall, but rather a strong tropical storm. Wording -
omit 'The storm' in the last line. (meeting 7)
< Partagas and Diaz (1999) altered the landfall position based upon
sparse, once-daily observations from the Historical Weather Map series.
For this position, they did not have enough evidence to alter what
had previously been analyzed by Connor (1956) and Neumann et al. (1999).
Analysis of _Monthly Weather Review_ so noted in metadata file.
Wording altered as suggested. >
1910 # 3 becoming proposed # 4 Please reference observations mentioned.
(meeting 7)
< As noted earlier, all raw observations discussed in the
metadata file come from the Partagas and Diaz reports unless
otherwise explicitly mentioned. >
1910 # 4 becoming proposed # 5 Where was the peripheral pressure of
947 mb? Please provide further documentation of the Ft. Myers observation
of 955 mb. Also note that the storm surge does not support category 3
status in this case (BRJ). (meeting 7)
< The 947 mb peripheral pressure was from a ship "Prince Crown" just
offshore of Cuba. The 955 mb Ft. Myers pressure measurement
was detailed in the Partagas and Diaz (1999) report. Given the
SLOSH model runs (B. Jarvinen, personal communication), the
the central pressure for this hurricane at landfall in the United
States is kept as 955 mb, as found in Jarrell et al. (1992).
(Thus the Ft. Myers pressure value is accepted to be a central
pressure observation.) Winds at landfall are estimated at 95 kt,
at the high end of Category 2. All of the above is now detailed
in the metadata file. >
Return to Overview
![[Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory]](../hrd_top_logo7.jpg){kind=logo}
![[OAR/DOC/NOAA Logos]](../oar_noaa_doc_logos3.jpg)
