[Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory]

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

National Hurricane Center Logo
National Hurricane Center

NOAA Aircraft Operations Center Logo
NOAA Aircraft Operations Center

Site Map

Staff Data Center Contact  Information

Research Divisions

Hurricane Research Division

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

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,

     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
     "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 
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 

   < 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

[Horizontal Rule]

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

  Disclaimer | Privacy