****************************************************************************
Documentation of Atlantic Tropical Cyclones Changes in HURDAT
****************************************************************************
By Chris Landsea, Craig Anderson, William Bredemeyer, Cristina Carrasco,
Noel Charles, Michael Chenoweth, Gil Clark, Sandy Delgado, Jason Dunion,
Ryan Ellis, Jose Fernandez-Partagas, Steve Feuer, John Gamache,
David Glenn, Andrew Hagen, Lyle Hufstetler, Cary Mock, Charlie Neumann,
Ramon Perez Suarez, Ricardo Prieto, Jorge Sanchez-Sesma, Adrian Santiago,
Jamese Sims, Donna Thomas, Lenworth Woolcock, and Mark Zimmer.
Special thanks to: Sim Aberson, James Belanger, Auguste Boissonnade,
Emery Boose, Hugh Cobb, Jose Colon, Neal Dorst, Daniel Gladstein,
Mark Guishard, Paul Hebert, Paul Hungerford, Mark Jelinek, Brian Jones,
Lorne Ketch, David Roth, Al Sandrik, and David Vallee.
Introduction
1) Original re-analysis efforts completed in 2000 provided an addition
to HURDAT for the years 1851 to 1885, based upon the encyclopedic work of
Partagas and Diaz as well as other sources. Unless otherwise stated,
observations mentioned here are from the Partagas and Diaz reports.
2) In August 2002, a re-analysis of 1992's Hurricane Andrew's intensity was
approved and incorporated into HURDAT. A brief synopsis of the results
of this re-analysis are provided here. A full description of presentations
made and minutes of deliberations are provided on-line at:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/andrew.html
3) Re-analysis work completed in 2003 focussed upon the period of 1886 to
1910, with some additional changes to the earlier 1851 to 1885 era. Again
the main sources utilized for this effort were the Partagas and Diaz
reports and all observations described come from these reports unless
otherwise explicitly referenced.
4) In 2005, changes and additions are made for the period of 1911 to 1914.
This is the first era completed in the reanalysis that did not have
the benefit of Jose Fernandez Partagas' efforts. Co-authors on these changes
are William Bredemeyer, John Gamache, and Lenworth Woolcock, with special
thanks are due to Michael Chenoweth and Cary Mock. We revised all 15 existing
tropical storms and hurricanes during this four year period, added 5 new
tropical storms, and discussed (but did not add in) an additional 19 suspect
systems. While there were no major US hurricanes during this relatively quiet
period, Jamaica experienced one of their worst hurricanes ever in a late
season system in November 1912. A surprising finding was the lack of any new
tropical storms or hurricanes for 1914, which was and remains the quietest
hurricane season ever for the Atlantic basin with just one tropical storm.
5) In 2006, many corrections were made for U.S. landfalling tropical
cyclones based upon research conducted by Mark Jelinek and James Belanger.
Additionally, explicit notation was given for U.S. hurricanes during the
entire 1851 to 2005 period that caused hurricane conditions (estimated
maximum sustained surface winds of 64 kt or greater) in an inland
state.
6) In 2007, minor alterations were introduced for a few cyclones during
the period of 1989 to 2005 to fix a couple typographic errors, to correctly
indicate U.S. states impacted and to make slight adjustments to the HURDAT
positions/intensities for two days in Ophelia and one time period in Wilma.
7) In 2008, a complete reanalysis was conducted for the years of 1915 to 1920.
All storms of the era were revised in track and intensity. Eight new tropical
storms were added during this period and one of the original tropical storms in
HURDAT was removed.
8) In 2009, a complete reanalysis was conducted for the years of
1921 to 1925. All 27 tropical storms and hurricanes of the era
were revised in track and intensity (with one in 1923 removed
from HURDAT). 10 new tropical cyclones were added for these five
years. Most significant hurricanes of this era were the 1921
Tampa Bay hurricane that struck as a Saffir-Simpson Hurricane
Scale Category 3, the 1922 Bermuda hurricane that struck the
Bermuda islands as a Category 3, and the 1924 Cuba hurricane
that struck as a Category 5 (and is now the first recorded Category
5 hurricane in the database).
9) In 2010, a complete reanalysis was conducted for the years
of 1926 to 1930. All 29 tropical storms and hurricanes were
revised in their tracks and intensities. Four new tropical storm
were discovered and added into HURDAT. Most significant
hurricanes of this era were the 1926 Category 4 hurricane in
the Bahamas, the 1926 Category 4 Great Miami hurricane,
the 1926 Category 4 Hurricane in Cuba (these three major hurricanes
in 1926 were separate systems), the 1928 Category 5 San Felipe
(Puerto Rico)/Category 4 Lake Okeechobee hurricane, the 1929
Category 4 hurricane in the Bahamas, and the 1930 Category 4
hurricane in the Dominican Republic.
10) In August 2011 - Multiple changes are introduced to HURDAT:
1) Four new tropical cyclones were added: 1899 (tropical storm),
1901 (hurricane), 1904 (hurricane), and 1909 (tropical storm);
2) Alterations to the track and/or intensity of some tropical
cyclones in 1857, 1859, 1866, 1882, 1885, 1887, 1900, 1901,
1909, 1910, 1912, 1915, 1921, 1922, 1925, 1926, 1927, and 1930;
3) Significant changes for U.S. hurricanes: 1857 North Carolina hurricane -
upgraded from Category 1 to Category 2, a new 1859 Florida Category 1
hurricane, 1882 Louisiana hurricane - downgraded from a Category 2 to
a tropical storm, 1885 South Carolina hurricane - downgraded from
Category 3 to Category 2, 1887 Texas hurricane - downgraded from Category 2
to Category 1, and 1925 Florida hurricane - downgraded from a Category 1
to a tropical storm;
4) Minor intensity changes for Georges (1980), Floyd (1981), Helene (1988),
and Keith (1988). These all contained original best track wind speeds to
the overly precise nearest 1 kt. Values are adjusted to the nearest 5 kt
currently used.
11) In 2012, a complete reanalysis of the Atlantic hurricane database (HURDAT) was
conducted for the 1931 to 1935 seasons. All 58 tropical storms and hurricanes
were revised in their tracks and intensities. 15 new tropical storms were
discovered and added into HURDAT, while four existing systems were removed
from the database. This era also recorded one of the busiest hurricane seasons
on record with 20 tropical storms observed in 1933, 11 of which became
hurricanes. (Originally, HURDAT listed 21 tropical storms, 10 of which were
hurricanes. In that season, there were two new tropical storms discovered,
two existing cyclones were removed from the database as they did not reach
tropical storm intensity, and two existing storms were actually one
continuous system.)
The years of 1931 to 1935 recorded four of the 25 most deadly hurricanes in
the historical record for the Atlantic basin. A Category 4 hurricane on the
Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale struck Belize (then British Honduras) in
1931 and killed around 2,500 people. In November 1932, the "Huracán de Santa
Cruz del Sur" struck Cuba as a Category 4 hurricane and killed about
3,500 people primarily in a storm surge that reached about 20 feet. In
June 1934, a tropical storm (which later became a hurricane) caused torrential
rainfall, flashfloods and mudslides, killing about 3,000 people in Honduras
and El Salvador. In October 1935, a Category 1 hurricane killed around
2,150 people in Haiti and Honduras due to extreme rains and flashfloods.
The 1931 to 1935 hurricane seasons were an active period for the continental
United States as well, as it was struck by twelve hurricanes (eleven previously
listed in HURDAT). Of these twelve, four were major hurricanes (five previously
listed in HURDAT): a Category 4 hurricane in Texas in 1932, a Category 3
hurricane in Texas in 1933, a Category 3 hurricane in Florida also in 1933,
and a Category 5 hurricane in Florida in 1935. This last hurricane, known as
the "Labor Day Hurricane" because of its landfall on that date in September,
was the strongest hurricane to ever make landfall in the United States, based
upon its central pressure of 892 mb. The maximum sustained winds at landfall
in the Florida Keys are estimated to have been around 185 mph. This is second
only to the 190 mph currently listed for 1969's Camille at landfall. 408 people
were killed by the "Labor Day Hurricane", which was the 8th most deadly in the
continental United States history.
12) December 2012 - A reanalysis of the 1936 to 1940 hurricane seasons has
been conducted. All of the existing 46 tropical storms and hurricanes were
revised (one of which - original storm #7 in 1938 - was removed from the
database as it was extratratropical throughout its lifetime). Additionally,
seven new tropical storms (three of which reached hurricane intensity) were
discovered and added into the database. The biggest impact hurricane of
these five seasons was, by far, the Great New England hurricane of 1938.
This cyclone was retained as a Category 3 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson
Hurricane Wind Scale at its landfall in New York and New England, though the
peak sustained winds at landfall in New York were increased from 85 kt
(100 mph) in the original database to 105 kt (120 mph) in the revision.
13) The Atlantic basin hurricane seasons of 1941 to 1945 have been officially
reanalyzed. Four new tropical storms were discovered and added into the database for
this five year period. Notable hurricanes in these years include the 1944 Great
Atlantic Hurricane, which affected North Carolina, the mid-Atlantic states, and New
England, killing 390 people. This hurricane was downgraded from a Saffir-Simpson
Hurricane Wind Scale Category 3 at landfall in New York to a Category 2. Also in
1944 a late season Caribbean hurricane that struck Cuba causing 315 fatalities has
been upgraded from a Category 3 to a Category 4 major hurricane at landfall.
Additionally, in September 1945 a major hurricane struck Homestead, Florida - bearing
many similarities in size, track, and impact to 1992's Hurricane Andrew - and was
upgraded from a Category 3 to a Category 4 at landfall.
14) March 2014 - A complete re-analysis of the Atlantic hurricane database (HURDAT)
was conducted for the 1946 to 1950 seasons. Revisions to the hurricane database were
accomplished by obtaining the original observations collected - mainly by ships, weather
stations, and the early Hurricane Hunter Navy and Army Air Force aircraft reconnaissance
planes - and assessing the storms based upon our understanding of hurricanes today. The
reanalysis also allowed "discovering" of tropical storms and hurricanes that occurred, but
were not yet officially recognized as such in the official records. 1946 to 1950 was an
active period for hurricanes with 13 striking the continental United States, whereas an
average five year span would have about nine U.S. hurricane impacts. Five of the 13 were
major hurricane status - Category 3, 4, or 5 on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale
- at U.S. landfall and all five struck Florida. These are a Category 4 hurricane in Fort
Lauderdale in 1947, a Category 4 hurricane in Everglades City in 1948, a Category 4 hurricane
in Lake Worth in 1949, Category 3 Hurricane Easy in Cedar Key in 1950, and Category 4 Hurricane
King in Miami in 1950. Of these, King and the 1948 and 1949 hurricanes were upgraded from a
Category 3 to a Category 4 based upon the reanalysis. Having five major hurricanes making
landfall in Florida is a record for a five year period, equaled only by the early 2000s.
In addition, nine new tropical storms were discovered and added into the database for this five
year period. Andrew Hagen, Donna Sakoskie, Daniel Gladstein, Sandy Delgado, Astryd Rodriguez,
Chris Landsea and the NHC Best Track Change Committee all made substantial contributions toward
the reanalysis of these hurricane seasons.
15) April 2014 - A re-analysis of the database for Hurricane Camille, an extremely intense
hurricane that devastated the U.S Gulf Coast on the night of August 17, 1969, has been completed.
Based upon this reassessment, Hurricane Camille is indicated at landfall on the Mississippi coast
to have been a Category 5 on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale with peak sustained winds of
175 mph and a central pressure of 900 mb. This is the same category as analyzed originally, but the
peak sustained winds were reduced from 190 mph and the central pressure lowered from 909 mb. Camille
is also reanalyzed to have undergone genesis as a tropical cyclone 18 hours earlier than first
indicated on August 14, 1969. When comparing Camille with the two other known Category 5 hurricanes
that have struck the continental United States since 1900, Camille (900 mb and 175 mph) ranks between
the 1935 Labor Day hurricane (892 mb and 185 mph) and 1992's Andrew (922 mb and 165 mph) as the strongest
hurricanes on record at landfall. Revisions to the Camille's database were accomplished by obtaining the
original observations collected - mainly by ships, weather stations, coastal radars, Navy/Air Force/Environmental
Science Services Administration (ESSA) Hurricane Hunter aircraft reconnaissance planes, ESSA/NASA satellite
imagery - and analyzing Camille based upon our understanding of hurricanes today. (The agency ESSA is now
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA.) Margie Kieper, Jack Beven, Hugh Willoughby,
Chris Landsea, and the NHC Best Track Change Committee all made substantial contributions toward the reanalysis
of this devastating hurricane. This research is supported in part by the NOAA Climate Program Office"
16) May 2015 - A complete re-analysis of the Atlantic hurricane database (HURDAT) was conducted for
the 1951 to 1955 seasons. Revisions to the hurricane database were accomplished by obtaining the original
observations collected mainly by ships, weather stations, and the early Hurricane Hunter Navy and Army Air
Force aircraft reconnaissance planes and assessing the storms based upon our understanding of hurricanes today.
The reanalysis also allowed discovering of tropical storms and hurricanes that occurred, but were not yet
officially recognized as such in the official records. Nine hurricanes were identified to have struck the
continental United States during 1951 to 1955, with one new U.S. hurricane (Hazel in 1953) identified and
two hurricanes no longer considered to be hurricane impacts in the United States (Carol in 1954 and Diane
in 1955). Originally, five of these hurricanes were considered to be a major hurricane Category 3, 4, or 5
on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale at U.S. landfall. After the reanalysis, only two were retained
as major U.S. hurricanes: 1954's Carol that struck New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island as a Category 3
and 1954's Hazel that struck South Carolina and North Carolina as a Category 4. Three other systems were
downgraded to a Category 2 at U.S. landfall: 1954's Edna in Massachusetts, 1955's Connie in North Carolina,
and 1955's Ione in North Carolina. The worst hurricanes during these five hurricane seasons were 1954's
Hurricane Hazel which killed as many as 1200 people in Grenada, Haiti, United States, and Canada and 1955's
Hurricane Janet which killed 681 people in Barbados, Belize, and Mexico. Janet also holds the distinction of
being the strongest hurricane observed during these seasons, reaching Category 5 with peak sustained winds of
175 mph at its landfall in Mexico. In addition, twelve new tropical storms were discovered and added into the
database for this five year period. Andrew Hagen, Sandy Delgado, Donna Sakoskie, Astryd Rodriguez, Brenden Moses,
Chris Landsea, and the Best Track Change Committee all made substantial contributions toward the reanalysis of
these hurricane seasons.
*******************************************************************************
1851/01 - 2003 ADDITION:
00001 06/25/1851 M= 1 1 SNBR= 1 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
00002 06/25* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*285 965 70 0* 0 0 0 0
00003 HRBTX1
Ellis' (1988) Hurricane History of the Texas Coast (and mirrored in Roth's
(1997b) Texas Hurricane History website) includes the following description:
"June 25th, 1851: A short but severe storm which passed over Matagorda Bay and
was described as the most disastrous experienced there to date. Caused
widespread damage at Saluria on Matagorda Island where saltwater contaminated
the fresh water cisterns. Wind damage at Port Lavaca was widespread and
every wharf destroyed. Indianola suffered damage to waterfront buildings,
but the storm tide did not cover the spit of land at Power Horn."
Based upon this account, a single-point hurricane is analyzed and added to the
best track database. It is quite possible that this hurricane was Category 2
(or stronger) given the sparseness of the population in the region.
1851/01 - 2004 REVISION:
00001 06/25/1851 M= 1 1 SNBR= 1 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
00001 06/25/1851 M= 4 1 SNBR= 1 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
*
00002 06/25* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*285 965 70 0* 0 0 0 0
00002 06/25*280 948 80 0*280 954 80 0*280 960 80 0*281 965 80 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
(The 26th through the 28th are new to HURDAT.)
00002 06/26*282 970 70 0*283 976 60 0*284 983 60 0*286 989 50 0
00002 06/27*290 994 50 0*295 998 40 0*3001000 40 0*3051001 40 0
00002 06/28*3101002 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
00003 HRBTX1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States
Winds Simpson Pressure Affected
1-6/25/1851 1200Z 28.5N 96.5W 70kt 1 (985mb) BTX1
1-6/25/1851 2000Z 28.1N 96.7W 80kt 1 (977mb) BTX1
**** **** **** ** ***
Prof. Cary Mock of the University of South Carolina obtained some observations
that pertain to this hurricane from Corpus Christi and Fort Brown.
Additionally, Prof. Mock and Mr. David Roth of the Hydrometeorological
Prediction Center obtained newspaper accounts of the impact of its landfall
in Texas. (The observations were primarily from Army Forts that observed the
weather four times a day: near sunrise, 9 a.m., 3 p.m., and 9 p.m. Winds
could range from a range of 0 to 10, with a 6 being equivalent to about
40 kt gusts, a 7 about 50 kt gusts and an 8 about 65 kt gusts.) A
search of the NCDC archives revealed, in addition to those provided
by Prof. Mock, observations from the following Texas forts: Fort
Graham, Fort Mcintosh, Fort Croghan, Fort Lincoln, Fort Martin Scott,
Fort Ringgold, San Antonio, Fort Merrill, Fort Duncan and New Wild.
Relevant observations are shown below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corpus Christi, Texas:
Jun. 25, 1851 - ENE1 NE1 NE4 NW1 80/85/89/83
Jun. 26, 1851 - S5 SSW2 SSW3 ESE4 74/76/78/74 rain 1am to 6 1/2 pm 3.00"
Jun. 27, 1851 - S1 S3 SE6 SSE6 79/83/88/83
Fort Mcintosh (Laredo), Texas:
Jun. 25, 1851 - E2 SE2 SE2 NE2 73/93/98/88
Jun. 26, 1851 - N2 NW2 NW2 SE3 75/92/98/83 rain began ?
Jun. 27, 1851 - NW2 E2 SW2 SE2 70/78/92/79 rain ended ? 2.48"
Fort Croghan (30.5N, 98.3W), Texas:
Jun. 25, 1851 - S3 SE4 SE4 SE3 75/85/95/80
Jun. 26, 1851 - NE2 E3 E3 E3 70/80/86/82 0.19"
Jun. 27, 1851 - S3 SE4 S4 SE4 82/81/82/79
Notes from Jun. 26th: At 10 A.M. a slight shower. Showers from 11 P.M.
through the night.
Fort Lincoln (29.4N, 99.5W), Texas (no temperatures):
Jun. 25, 1851 - SE1 SE2 SE3 SE2
Jun. 26, 1851 - NW3 N4 N4 SE8 11 a.m. rain began, 9 p.m. rain ended 0.8"
Jun. 27, 1851 - SE1 E4 ENE5 SE2 9 a.m. rain began, 3 p.m. rain ended 0.35"
Notes from Jun 26th: Rain fell in showers at intervals, accompanied by
heavy winds.
Fort Martin Scott (30.2N, 98.8W), Texas (no precipitation totals):
Jun. 25, 1851 - SE1 SE1 NE2 SE1 70/80/93/74
Jun. 26, 1851 - E1 NE3 NE3 SE1 69/76/82/71 rain at intervals during day
Jun. 27, 1851 - E1 SE2 SW3 SE4 68/76/83/72 rain at intervals during day
San Antonio, Texas:
Jun. 25, 1851 - E1 E2 N2 NE3 75/81/87/82
Jun. 26, 1851 - N1 NE4 NE4 E2 72/78/74/72
Jun. 27, 1851 - E2 SE1 SE1 NE3 70/74/78/74 rain began 11 a.m.
Addendum: Rain ended on the 28th at 11 a.m. 1.00"
Fort Merrill (28.2N, 98.1W), Texas:
Jun. 25, 1851 - 0 NE2 NE4 NE5 77/85/91/81
Jun. 26, 1851 - W5 SW5 S2 S2 75/85/77/82 rain began 6 a.m.
Jun. 27, 1851 - S1 S4 S3 S4 78/83/82/80 rain ended 3 a.m. 1.25"
Fort Duncan (Eagle Pass), Texas:
Jun. 25, 1851 - E2 E2 S2 S3 80/84/95/89
Jun. 26, 1851 - E2 N2 N3 N2 81/83/94/87
Jun. 27, 1851 - N2 E2 E2 S3 80/82/90/84
Notes: No rain on these dates. Wind apparently reported to nearest 90
degree interval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Daily Picayune (New Orleans) July 9, 1851, p.2
This vessel [The Maria Burt] left Galveston on the 24th ult. That night
a heavy gale commenced blowing, and the next day, about 10 A.M., the
steamer put back for Sabine Pass.
The Matagorda Tribune, June 30, 1851
Violent Gale on Matagorda Bay - The Shipping driven Ashore - Several Houses
Blown down at Indianola, Saluria, and Port Cavallo.
One of the heaviest gales that has perhaps ever been experienced in this
section of country, occurred within the past week. Early on Wednesday
morning [June 25th], it commenced raining furiously, and continued to pour
down in torrents for nearly the whole of that day and the following night,
with few intermissions, accompanied by violent gales of wind, frequently
veering from the east, northeast and southeast. Although we believe no
material damage has been done hereabouts, beyond perhaps the leveling of some
of the more exposed garden patches, the result, we understand, has been
calamitous to the shipping and to our neighbors, situated on the lower bay.
From Port Lavaca, we have not, as yet, had any tidings, but Indianola,
Saluria, and Port Cavallo, appear to have suffered considerable loss
from the fury of the gale. At the former place, we learn, every wharf has been
carried away, and a number of houses had either been leveled to the earth, or
blown from their foundations. At Saluria, considerable damage has also been
Done. Port Cavallo, however, has escaped with less injury, as will be seen by
The following extract from a letter from thence, addressed to a gentleman in
this city, under date of 27th June.
The loss and injury sustained among the shipping on the bay, has
doubtless been far greater than we have yet had any particulars of.
We learn at the present writing by a vessel just up from below, that
the Steamship Mexico was driven ashore opposite, or near Powder
Horn Bayou, and was still lying on the flats in that vicinity when our
informant left - that the depot or freight steamer Portland shared the
same fate, together with several other smaller crafts. The steamer
Wm. Penn was driven ashore from her anchorage near Saluria, and
will probably be a total loss.
Port Cavallo, June 27, 1851
Our place has been visited by the most terrible storm which has occurred
on this coast within the memory of the oldest inhabitant. It commenced
Wednesday the 25th inst. The sun rose clear, with the exception of a few
heavy clouds hanging to the northward, but the tide commenced rising with
unprecedented rapidity - the storm in the meantime increasing to that degree,
that by 4 P.M., it was blowing a perfect hurricane. Thus it continued all
night, coming with frightful violence. What with the torrents of rain, the
howling of the winds and the roaring of the sea, it was a scene baffling
all description. The damage here had been quite trifling, considering the
great strength of the gale. Mr. Doerow had one of the chimneys to his new
house blown over, and his fields much injured - the fences being generally
prostrated. The warehouse and wharf stood it bravely. The wharf is uninjured -
the warehouse had a few blocks washed from under it, which is the only damage
it sustained. Mr. Maverick's house was blown from its blocks - that is to say,
the small house in his yard. This is the total amount of damage done here,
except a few more fences blown down.
The schr. Velasco, with a heavy cargo of cotton and molasses, returned
back over the bar, having sprung a leak - She made fast to the wharf there and
commenced discharging, but the gale and leak still increasing, she was winded
around on the flat below the wharf where she now lies.
The schr. Buena Vista, lying at anchor on the Saluria side, dragged and
went ashore. The morning she got off, and came to on this side.
Mr. Harrison's pilot boat went ashore on the Saluria side, and is a complete
wreck. Mr. Givins' house was blown from the blocks and broke in two. Judge
Rose's warehouse at Saluria was also blown from the blocks. Gen.
Summerville's house is blown and destroyed. Dr. McCreary's house in much
injured - gallery gone.
In addition to the above, a letter was last night received by Messrs.
Doswell, Hill & Co., from Capt. Talbot, dated on Tuesday, the 26th ult., which
states that the freight of the Mexico had been discharged before the heavy blow
came on. The Mexico was then dropped astern of the Portland, and both anchors
thrown out. At 10 P.M. on Wednesday, the gale increased to great violence, and
grew more violent until 11 1/2, when the Portland broke adrift and went ashore.
The Mexico had then gotten steam up, and was working full stroke with 20 inches
of steam, and two anchors out with 60 fathoms of chain, but all could not
resist the violence of the storm. About one o'clock, the Mexico broke from
her anchorage, and was driven on a hard bottom with six feet of water.
Capt. Boehner says he never before saw so high a tide in that bay. All
Capt. Talbot's hands were at work getting out coal, and every exertion was
being made to get her off, but the captain has very little hope of success
until he can have the assistance of the Louisiana. Captain Talbot adds:
Captain Boehner's lighter is ashore, the Wm. Penn is a total wreck, all
the wharves at Indianola are gone, and some few houses prostrated. The
J. Smith, although sunk decks under water, was driven three quarters of a
mile, and is pretty much all to pieces.
The Advocate, Victoria TX, July 3, 1851, p. 2
A storm of wind and rain, unprecedented in violence in this region, passed
over this place, in common with every other point from which we have heard,
from the Bay and Gulf immediately below us as high up as the Western portion
of De Witt county, and extending as far West as the "Mission of Refugio,"
on Wednesday night of last week, (the 25th and 26th ult.) The damage done
to buildings, fences, fruit and shade trees in this place is by no means
inconsiderable. No serious injury occurred to any building that was
inhabited, or occupied, except by workmen engaged in the completion of the
same.
At Saluria, we learn, several buildings were injured by the violence of the
gale and the wash of the tide. Another evil resulting from the storm there,
we understand, is the mixture of the water and spray from the Gulf with the
water of the cisterns of the place, to such an extent as to render it unfit
for use.
At Indianola, and its vicinity, the effects of the storm are given somewhat
in detail by our correspondent. It is spoken of us being the severest storm
ever experienced in that place.
At Lavaca, in slip from the office of the "Commercial," informs us the
ravages of the storm were quite disastrous to property, though most happily,
not to life. Our friend of the "Commercial" says:
Every one of the wharves belonging to the merchant of this place was
destroyed. Of some, scarce vestige was left. The warehouse of
Mr. Ross was swept away by the violence of the tide, whilst other
sustained slighter injuries.
The schooner William & Morris, trading between this place and
Galveston, and which was anchored at the wharf of R. M. Forbes & Co.,
was thrown by the fury of the waves on the beach, where she remains
high and dry. Ornamental and fruit trees have been blown down,
fences and pilings prostrated. We have not learned the amount of damage
sustained by this destructive tornado, but it will be several thousand dollars.
Some damage has been done to dwellings and farm houses in the country, not
only in the valley of the Guadelupe, but in the Colette settlement. The
injury done to corn in all this region will be considerable. Some fields
have been laid entirely level with the earth, and place beyond the
possibility of yielding more than one third of a crop.
Quite an amount of timber along the Guadelupe and San Antonio rivers,
between this and the Espiritu Santa Bay, have been blown down and destroyed.
At Carlos' Ranch, we heard quite a number of buildings are prostrated. The
damages done to the property there is considerable, and will be severely
felt, as it falls upon those who are poorly able to sustain such losses.
At the Mission, in Refugio county, the progress and force of the storm were
manifested in the injury done to buildings, fences and trees. In one
instance, it is reported, one of the residents of the place - a female at
that - while attempting to return to her house on foot, across an open place,
was blown out quite a distance on to the prairie, and by the time she could
retrace her steps against the wind and reach the village, she was almost
entirely divested of her clothing.
At Goliad, the severity of the storm was felt, we understand, in the
demolition of several buildings, and other injuries done to property. It is
somewhat remarkable, that in all the accounts we have thus far received, no
other injury appears to have accrued to human life than that occasioned by
exposure to the rain, at an unseasonable hour of the night. It is possible,
however, when we come to receive the history of the storm more in detail,
this happy exemption will be dashed by incidents of a painful and heart-
rendering character.
Since the above was in type, we learn, from a gentleman just arrived from
Espiritu Santa Bay, that the houses of Messrs. Kuykendall, Burns, Hays,
Tucker, and Judge Duke, in that vicinity, were all demolished, or seriously
injured by the gale. One or two persons are said to have been more or less
injured, either by falling timbers, or by exposure to the storm. Mrs. Burns
is said to have dies the next morning after the occurrence of the storm,
having been sick for sometime previous.
We regret to learn that the new mail Steamship Mexico is so hard aground in
the Bay, that it will be necessary to take out her engines, &c., before she
can be removed from her present dangerous position.
The Daily Picayune (New Orleans) July 11, 1851, p.2
More of the Texas Gale - Indianola, Texas, June 27, 1851
[To the] Editors Picayune - I have to advise you of the effects of one of
the worst gales every known on this bay. The storm commenced on the 25th,
and continued till daylight of the 26th. The wind prevailed from northeast
to southeast. The wharves at this place were carried away; the steamboat
Wm Penn was blown aground, filled with water, and was badly damaged; all
the small boats in the bay were stranded and greatly injured. Several
small houses on the water's edge were more or less injured, and
considerable damage was done in various ways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hurricane's landfall near Matagorda Bay was not closely observed from
any of the fort locations, though Fort Merrill likely was just to the
south of the inland center just before 12 UTC on the 26th and Fort Lincoln
was just to the north of the inland center around 00 UTC on the 27th.
From the impacts described in the newspaper accounts - especially the
peak winds shifting from northeast to southeast in Indianola and only
easterly component in Matagorda - indicate a landfall southwest of those
locations. The observations then indicated a track at landfall toward the
northwest with a turn to the north over the next two days as it decayed. It
is estimated that the storm dissipated early on the 28th over central
Texas. Thus a track for this hurricane has now been attempted and data
from the ship "Maria Burt" allow for a portion of track to be determined
on the 25th before landfall. The winds are increased slightly at landfall to
better match the original damage descriptions as well as to account for a
long-lasting system after landfall (estimated 65 kt gusts at 00 UTC
on the 27th at Fort Lincoln). It is noted that high winds seen at some
forts on the 27th were due to straight-line southeasterly flow not
directly related to the hurricane itself.
1851/01 - 2011 REVISION:
00005 06/25/1851 M= 4 1 SNBR= 1 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
00010 06/25*280 948 80 0*280 954 80 0*280 960 80 0*281 965 80 0*
00015 06/26*282 970 70 0*283 976 60 0*284 983 60 0*286 989 50 0*
00020 06/27*290 994 50 0*295 998 40 0*3001000 40 0*3051001 40 0*
00025 06/28*3101002 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*
00030 HRBTX1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
1-6/25/1851 2100Z 28.2N 96.8W 80kt 1 --- (977mb) BTX1
1-6/25/1851 2100Z 28.2N 96.8W 80kt 1 --- (974mb) BTX1
***
The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Texas as an 80 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 977 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 974 mb -
for an 80 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
*******************************************************************************
1851/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis (was
storm #1 in Partagas and Diaz), except to assume a date of July 5th for
storm "before July 7th". No track available, only one point. Storm
determined to be a hurricane based upon destruction that occurred in Tampico.
********************************************************************************
1851/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis (was
storm #2 in Partagas and Diaz), though storm documentation is somewhat weak.
No track available, only one point.
********************************************************************************
1851/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis (was
storm #3 in Partagas and Diaz). Inland winds over Hispanola, Cuba and SE US
reduced via methodology of Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model,
but windspeed values over Hispanola and Cuba had an accelerated rate of
decay due to the enhanced topography. Storm tide value of 12' obtained from
Ludlum (1963) and Barnes (1998) for St. Marks, Florida. Storm determined to
have reached major hurricane status based upon storm tide and extreme damage
at landfall. Ludlum also called this storm the "Great Middle Florida
Hurricane of August 1851". The best track provided appears to describe the
full life cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its formation as a tropical
storm to its peak as a major hurricane until its dissipation below tropical
storm strength).
1851/04 - 2006 REVISION:
00065 08/16/1851 M=12 4 SNBR= 4 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
00070 08/16*134 480 40 0*137 495 40 0*140 510 50 0*144 528 50 0*
00075 08/17*149 546 60 0*154 565 60 0*159 585 70 0*161 604 70 0*
00080 08/18*166 625 80 0*169 641 80 0*172 660 90 0*176 676 90 0*
00085 08/19*180 693 90 0*184 711 70 0*189 726 60 0*194 743 60 0*
00090 08/20*199 759 70 0*205 776 70 0*212 790 70 0*219 804 70 0*
00095 08/21*226 814 60 0*232 825 60 0*239 836 70 0*244 843 70 0*
00100 08/22*250 849 80 0*256 855 80 0*262 860 90 0*268 863 90 0*
00105 08/23*274 865 100 0*280 866 100 0*285 866 100 0*296 861 100 0*
00110 08/24*307 851 90 0*316 841 70 0*325 830 60 0*334 814 50 0*
00115 08/25*340 800 40 0*348 786 40 0*358 770 40 0*368 751 40 0*
00120 08/26*378 736 40 0*389 718 40 0*400 700 40 0*413 668 40 0*
00125 08/27*428 633 40 0*445 602 40 0*464 572 40 0*485 542 40 0*
00130 HRAFL3 GA1
00130 HRAFL3IGA1
****
Revision indicated in continental U.S. impacts to specify that the Georgia
hurricane impact from this cyclone was inland, rather than along Georgia's
Atlantic coast.
1851/04 - 2011 REVISION:
00065 08/16/1851 M=12 4 SNBR= 4 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
00070 08/16*134 480 40 0*137 495 40 0*140 510 50 0*144 528 50 0*
00075 08/17*149 546 60 0*154 565 60 0*159 585 70 0*161 604 70 0*
00080 08/18*166 625 80 0*169 641 80 0*172 660 90 0*176 676 90 0*
00085 08/19*180 693 90 0*184 711 70 0*189 726 60 0*194 743 60 0*
00090 08/20*199 759 70 0*205 776 70 0*212 790 70 0*219 804 70 0*
00095 08/21*226 814 60 0*232 825 60 0*239 836 70 0*244 843 70 0*
00100 08/22*250 849 80 0*256 855 80 0*262 860 90 0*268 863 90 0*
00105 08/23*274 865 100 0*280 866 100 0*285 866 100 0*296 861 100 0*
00110 08/24*307 851 90 0*316 841 70 0*325 830 60 0*334 814 50 0*
00115 08/25*340 800 40 0*348 786 40 0*358 770 40 0*368 751 40 0*
00120 08/26*378 736 40 0*389 718 40 0*400 700 40 0*413 668 40 0*
00125 08/27*428 633 40 0*445 602 40 0*464 572 40 0*485 542 40 0*
00130 HRAFL3IGA1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
4-8/23/1851 2100Z 30.1N 85.7W 100kt 3 --- (960mb) AFL3,IGA1
4-8/23/1851 2100Z 30.1N 85.7W 100kt 3 --- (955mb) AFL3,IGA1
***
The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Florida as an 100 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 960 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 955 mb -
for a 100 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
1851/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis (was
storm #4 in Partagas and Diaz). Storm assumed to be stationary for 4 days.
********************************************************************************
1851/06: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
Inland winds over NE US reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay
model. The best track provided appears to describe the full life cycle of
this tropical cyclone (from its formation as a tropical storm until its
dissipation below tropical storm strength).
********************************************************************************
1851 - Additional Notes:
1. The tropical storm listed as #5 in 1851 in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) was
not included into the HURDAT because of the evidence suggesting that the
storm did not actually exist. Partagas and Diaz had found an unsupported
reference to it in Tannehill (1938), but no other information.
********************************************************************************
1852/01: Utilized Ho's (1989) work - apparently not used in Partagas and
Diaz's (1995a) analysis - to alter the track and intensity near the US.
Inland winds over SE US reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay
model. FL Keys experienced hurricane conditions, but not landfall of center.
Storm tide value of 12' obtained from Ho (1989) and Barnes (1998) for Mobile,
Alabama. Using Ho's suggested central pressure of 961 mb at landfall in AL/MS
gives 99 kt with the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship, thus utilizing
100 kt in best track - a major hurricane. Storm is also known as the "Great
Mobile Hurricane of 1852" from Ludlum (1963).
1852/01 - 2003 REVISION:
00165 08/19/1852 M= 9 1 SNBR= 5 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
00165 08/19/1852 M=12 1 SNBR= 6 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
** *
00170 08/19*205 671 60 0*207 680 60 0*209 688 60 0*211 696 60 0
00175 08/20*212 706 70 0*215 719 70 0*217 730 70 0*219 740 70 0
00180 08/21*221 749 80 0*222 761 80 0*226 771 80 0*229 781 80 0
00185 08/22*232 793 90 0*235 801 90 0*238 811 90 0*242 821 90 0
00190 08/23*247 831 90 0*252 839 90 0*257 846 90 0*262 853 90 0
00195 08/24*267 860 100 0*272 866 100 0*277 871 100 0*282 875 100 0
00200 08/25*286 878 100 0*288 880 100 0*291 881 100 0*294 884 100 0
00200 08/25*286 878 100 0*288 880 100 0*291 882 100 0*294 884 100 0
***
00205 08/26*298 886 100 0*302 886 100 961*306 885 90 0*312 881 70 0
00210 08/27*319 876 50 0*325 869 40 0*330 861 40 0*334 850 40 0
00210 08/27*318 874 50 0*323 863 40 0*328 848 40 0*332 828 40 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
(28th to the 30th are new to HURDAT)
00211 08/28*335 805 40 0*338 782 40 0*340 760 40 0*344 742 40 0
00212 08/29*352 728 50 0*364 718 50 0*380 708 50 0*396 696 50 0
00213 08/30*410 680 50 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
00215 HRBFL1 AL3 MS3AFL1
00215 HRBFL1 AL3 MS3 LA2AFL1
***
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States
Winds Simpson Pressure Affected
1-8/26/1852 0600Z 30.2N 88.6W 100kt 3 961mb AL3,MS3,AFL1
1-8/26/1852 0600Z 30.2N 88.6W 100kt 3 961mb AL3,MS3,LA2,AFL1
***
Roth (1997a) provided the following description of this hurricane's
impacts in Louisiana's Chandeleur Island:
"Four new channels were cut through Chandeleur Island. The storm claimed
the 55 foot tall Chandeleur Island lighthouse and replaced it with a broad 10
foot deep lagoon. The keepers were rescued three days later, on the verge of
starvation."
On this basis, the hurricane is also listed as causing Category 2 hurricane
conditions in Louisiana.
Prof. Cary Mock of the University of South Carolina uncovered evidence
that this system crossed over Georgia and South Carolina as a tropical
storm and modestly redeveloped in the Atlantic. Thus three additional
days (28th to the 30th) are included for this storm into HURDAT. Details
from his research are provided below:
Georgia Information on the Great Mobile Hurricane
-------------------------------------------------
Savannah GA. Elevation 77 ft. Observer: John F Posey. August 1852
Date Time Temp. Pres. Wind Cloud. Rain
8/25 6am 77.2 30.189 SE 0
8/25 2pm 87.1 30.141 SE2 6
8/25 10pm 81.0 30.100 SSE 0
8/26 6am 77.6 30.058 ESE 3
8/26 2pm 87.0 30.011 S 5
8/26 10pm 81.5 30.005 SSE 5
8/27 6am 79.0 29.934 SE 10
8/27 2pm 83.0 29.857 SSE4 10
8/27 10pm 80.4 29.778 SW4 10 0.164
8/28 6am 75.0 29.885 S 0
8/28 2pm 84.5 29.960 WSW 5
8/28 10pm 81.2 30.086 WNW 4
Additional Observations
Date Time Temp. Pres. Wind Cloud. Remarks
8/27 8am M 29.901 SSE2 10 Began to blow
8/27 11am 80.0 29.893 SSE4 10
8/27 12mid 84.6 29.893 SSE4 10
8/27 1pm 82.8 29.873 SSE4 10
8/27 2pm 83.0 29.857 SSE4 10 raining slowly at short times
8/27 3:40 83.0 29.793 SSE3 9
8/27 5:25 82.5 29.780 SSE4 10
8/27 7:38 80.7 29.779 S4 10
8/27 10pm 80.4 29.778 SW4 10 rained after ten o'clock 0.165
Mercer University, Buford GA, Prof. J.E. Willet, August 1852, 400 ft?
(Note that Prof. Mock determined that the pressure readings were
unreliable because of an uncalibrated barometer.)
Date Time Att. Ther. Pres.Wind (1-6) Cloud.
8/27 10:10am 75 29.15
8/27 11:45am 76 29.09
8/27 2:00pm SSE3 10
8/27 2:40pm 76 28.96
8/27 3:40pm 76 28.94
8/27 4:50pm 76 28.91
8/27 6:00pm 76 28.90
8/27 8:00pm 75 28.90
8/28 5:30am 70 29.12
8/28 6:30am 70.5 29.15
8/28 7:00am W2 5
8/28 8:20am 71 29.20
8/28 9:30am 72 29.23
8/28 2:00pm NNW2 9
8/28 4:00pm 82 29.32
Remarks:
8/27 7am-3:40pm: Rain continues almost constant sometimes violent
8/27 4:50pm: Rain continues more moderate
8/27 6:00pm: Rain continues more moderate Min Baro observed
8/27 8:00pm: Rain ending. Wind veered SSE, SE, SSE, SE, NW
8/28 5:30am-8:20am: Clearing away
8/28 9:30am: Clearing away. Perfectly clear at 10 a.m.
8/28 2:00pm: Total of Rain during Storm (say 27 hours) 3.925 Inches
8/30 12noon: Maximum Barometer after Storm (29.63)
Whitemarsh Island (Savannah) GA. Elevation 18 ft.
Observer: Richard Gibson. August 1852
Date Time Wind Cloud. Rain Remarks
8/25 Sunr. 0 8
8/25 9am SE3 5
8/25 3pm SE3 7
8/25 9pm S1 9 A sprinkle of Rain only fell
8/26 Sunr. 0 8
8/26 9am SW2 7
8/26 3pm S3 5
8/26 9pm S1 6 0.06 Weather looked stormy again
8/27 Sunr. SSW2 6
8/27 9am S4 5
8/27 3pm S5 7
8/27 9pm S5 7 Very little Rain. The wind
has increased gradually since Sunrise and tonight is blowing a Gale
8/28 Sunr. SW2 9
8/28 9am W4 8
8/28 3pm W3 6
8/28 9pm 0 7 0.02 The wind moderated after
9 o'clock last night
South Carolina Information on the Great Mobile Hurricane
--------------------------------------------------------
At Charleston, high wind on afternoon of 27th, and until midnight; wind S,
very little rain. (Too much material to reproduce here in entirety - see
Charleston Courier article by Lewis R. Gibbes on this storm in
September 10th issue).
J.L. Dawsons Meteorological Observations from the Charleston Courier.
Date Temp (7/2/9). Pres (7/2/9). Wind (sr/4pm) Wx.
8/25 80/84/82 30.246/30.178/30.156 SE1/SE2 Fair
8/26 81/86/83 30.114/30.020/30.018 SW2/SW2 Fair
8/27 82/84/83 30.002/29.928/29.876 SW3/SE4 Rain
0.07" rainfall
8/28 80/84/81 29.008/29.982/30.196 SW3/SW3 Fair
Black Oak Agricultural Society, Pinopolis, SC. (elevation 300 ft)
Date Pres (sr/2/9). Wind Wx. Rain
8/25 29.48/.40/.35 SE changeable
8/26 29.33/.35/.27 SE clear/cloudy
8/27 29.23/.20/.10 SE/S Clear/rain/high Wind 0.05
8/28 29.10/.23/.32 WSW clear/drizzle/cloudy
8/29 29.40/.45/.45 W clear
Rev. Clark B. Stewart (Laurens): 25th - Rain, heavy in Evening 26th -
The Rain fell from an early hour of the day - in perfect torrents until
after night some time - My fence on the Creek all gone - only 1/2 an acre
of Corn in that field - Sand left in abundance - God to praised for his
goodness. Uncle John Stewarts saw mill all gone and half the dam left -
Broke and all gone - Bridges; Mill Factorys &c. nearly all gone - Great
loss sustained in this country
Jacob Schirmer (Charleston): 30th Freshes dreadful Account from the up
country, Bridges washed away, Crops destroyed cars could not reach Hamburg,
great fears of the Columbia Bridge 31st Weather the past Month a good deal
of rain and hot Sun, the whole Country is inundated with water
Jesse James Hammond (Silver Bluff): 27th - there is a fresh 28th -The
rain yesterday not heavy but enough for the season - windy River rising
Thomas Chaplin (St Helena): Storm I neglected to state that the wind
commenced blowing violently on Friday [Aug. 28] about midday, from south.
Continued till Saturday morning, with driving rain Friday night. I hope
this is the [last] storm of the season for it has done little damage & a
trifle in comparison with the storms about the same time last year.
Alexander Glennie: 27th near Georgetown SC- [late in the day] - SW. Gale
[pressure is about 29.76] 28th SW, Clear, High Wind.
James Davis Trezevant (Orangeburg Dist.): 27th - Commenced raining about
12 N and rained heavily nearly all the afternoon 28th - Commenced blowing
and raining heavily during the night and continued to blow and rain until
after sunrise when it cleared off. The river very full today, and rising
fast. 30th - The river came to a stand today about 1 P.M. The water was
4 ft 10 in higher than the May fresh of 1846 and more than 2 ft higher than
the great Yazoo fresh of 1792[6?].
Charleston Courier, Friday, Sept. 10:
Georgetown, S.C., September 8. - The Weather and the Crops. - The rainy
weather which we announced as commencing in June last has continued up to
the present time with some short intervals; and early much annoyed the
labour in hoeing and killing grass, and during the last month was greatly
detrimental to the curing of blades
The great fall of rain on the 27th and 28th of August, and which
spread vast injury from Mobile to New York, on the various rivers, is to-day
with us on the Santee and Pee Dee rivers, and is likely to do much damage to
the rice crop, and especially to those who plant the most fruitful tide
lands highest up. All the lands in the neighborhood of Lynch's causeway on
Santee was under water yesterday. From Pee Dee we heard yesterday and the
water was not then over the banks; but it is feared that to-day, the
freshet is upon all the rice. The wind is now high at N.E., and has been so
for several days preventing the freshet from going to sea. - Winyah Observer
New York Herald, September 3, 1852
Aug. 30, lat 39, lon 71. Spoke brig Extra (Br), from Savannah for Halifax;
29th and 30th, experienced a heavy gale from NW.
1852/01 - 2006 REVISION:
00195 08/19/1852 M=12 1 SNBR= 7 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
00200 08/19*205 671 60 0*207 680 60 0*209 688 60 0*211 696 60 0*
00205 08/20*212 706 70 0*215 719 70 0*217 730 70 0*219 740 70 0*
00210 08/21*221 749 80 0*222 761 80 0*226 771 80 0*229 781 80 0*
00215 08/22*232 793 90 0*235 801 90 0*238 811 90 0*242 821 90 0*
00220 08/23*247 831 90 0*252 839 90 0*257 846 90 0*262 853 90 0*
00225 08/24*267 860 100 0*272 866 100 0*277 871 100 0*282 875 100 0*
00230 08/25*286 878 100 0*288 880 100 0*291 882 100 0*294 884 100 0*
00235 08/26*298 886 100 0*302 886 100 961*306 885 90 0*312 881 70 0*
00240 08/27*318 874 50 0*323 863 40 0*328 848 40 0*332 828 40 0*
00245 08/28*335 805 40 0*338 782 40 0*340 760 40 0*344 742 40 0*
00250 08/29*352 728 50 0*364 718 50 0*380 708 50 0*396 696 50 0*
00255 08/30*410 680 50 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*
00260 HRBFL1 AL3 MS3 LA2AFL1
00260 HRBFL2 AL3 MS3 LA2AFL1
****
Based upon research provided by Mark Jelinek and James Belanger from Georgia
Institute of Technology, the impact from this cyclone in the Florida Keys
(southwest Florida - "BFL") is revised to be a Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale
Category 2. This upgrade from a Category 1 is due to the likelihood that some
portion of the Keys experienced the most intense portion of the hurricane,
which was 90 kt Category 2 at that time. It was suggested previously that
the radius of maximum wind on the cyclone's right semi-circle may have gone
between the Dry Tortugas and Key West.
1852/01 - 2011 REVISION:
00195 08/19/1852 M=12 1 SNBR= 7 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
00200 08/19*205 671 60 0*207 680 60 0*209 688 60 0*211 696 60 0*
00205 08/20*212 706 70 0*215 719 70 0*217 730 70 0*219 740 70 0*
00210 08/21*221 749 80 0*222 761 80 0*226 771 80 0*229 781 80 0*
00215 08/22*232 793 90 0*235 801 90 0*238 811 90 0*242 821 90 0*
00220 08/23*247 831 90 0*252 839 90 0*257 846 90 0*262 853 90 0*
00225 08/24*267 860 100 0*272 866 100 0*277 871 100 0*282 875 100 0*
00230 08/25*286 878 100 0*288 880 100 0*291 882 100 0*294 884 100 0*
00235 08/26*298 886 100 0*302 886 100 961*306 885 90 0*312 881 70 0*
00240 08/27*318 874 50 0*323 863 40 0*328 848 40 0*332 828 40 0*
00245 08/28*335 805 40 0*338 782 40 0*340 760 40 0*344 742 40 0*
00250 08/29*352 728 50 0*364 718 50 0*380 708 50 0*396 696 50 0*
00255 08/30*410 680 50 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*
00260 HRBFL2 AL3 MS3 LA2AFL1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
1-8/22/1852 1200Z 23.8N 81.3W 90kt 2 --- (977mb) BFL2
1-8/22/1852 1200Z 23.8N 81.3W 90kt 2 --- (970mb) BFL2
***
1-8/26/1852 0600Z 30.2N 88.6W 100kt 3 30nmi 961mb AL3,MS3,LA2,AFL1
1-8/26/1852 0600Z 30.2N 88.6W 100kt 3 10nmi 961mb AL3,MS3,LA2,AFL1
**
The estimated central pressure at landfall in the Florida Keys at 12Z on the 22nd
was incorrectly listed as 977 mb because of a typographical error. Using the
southern pressure-wind relationship for a 90 kt hurricane, this suggests that the
central pressure was around 970 mb instead.
The original Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind relationship gave 99 kt for the 961 mb
central pressure at landfall near the Alabama/Mississippi border. The new
relationship developed for north of 25N by Brown et al. (2006) suggests 94 kt.
Originally, a large RMW value (30 nmi) was indicated by Ho (1987). However,
given the slow (4 kt) translational speed at landfall coupled with a lull
experienced at Mobile of two hours or less suggest a much smaller RMW, perhaps as
small as 10 nm. This value is substantially smaller than climatology (20 nmi -
Vickery et al. 2000) for this latitude and central pressure. Thus keeping the
landfall intensity at 100 kt and thus the Saffir-Simpson Category at 3 are reasonable.
No changes are thus made to HURDAT, but the estimated RMW is changed from 30 to 10 nm.
********************************************************************************
1852/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm
is also known as "San Lorenzo" in Puerto Rico from impact there.
********************************************************************************
1852/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Inland
winds over Florida reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay
model. The storm is determined to have reached hurricane status both in the
Gulf of Mexico and again over the Atlantic Ocean based upon ship reports from
the "Union" and the "Emily Banning".
1852/03 - 2003 REVISION:
00255 09/09/1852 M= 5 3 SNBR= 8 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
00255 09/09/1852 M= 5 3 SNBR= 9 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
*
00260 09/09*264 904 70 0*265 896 70 0*266 888 70 0*266 881 70 0
00265 09/10*268 874 70 0*269 866 70 0*271 861 70 0*273 854 70 0
00265 09/10*268 874 70 0*269 866 70 0*271 861 70 0*273 856 70 0
***
00270 09/11*274 846 70 0*276 838 70 0*278 828 70 0*284 816 60 0
00270 09/11*275 851 70 0*277 846 70 0*278 840 70 0*279 834 70 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** **
00275 09/12*289 805 50 0*295 793 60 0*302 778 70 0*310 765 70 0
00275 09/12*280 828 70 0*281 822 60 0*282 815 50 0*285 805 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** **
00280 09/13*318 750 60 0*325 735 60 0*333 721 50 0*342 706 50 0
00280 09/13*292 790 60 0*304 770 70 0*320 745 70 0*340 715 70 0
*** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
00285 HRBFL1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States
Winds Simpson Pressure Affected
3-9/11/1852$ 1200Z 27.8N 82.8W 70kt 1 (985mb) BFL1
3-9/12/1852$ 0000Z 28.0N 82.8W 70kt 1 (985mb) BFL1
** **** ****
Mr. Brian Jones of the University of Miami uncovered the following
observations from the historic Army Surgeon weather archives from the
Florida fort data:
Fort Meade (27.7N, 81.8W):
Date Sunrise 13Z 19Z 01Z
9/11/1852 NE-1 NE-1 NE-1 NE-1 .55" showers and violent storm
during the night
9/12/1852 W-8 W-6 NE-1 NE-1
Military Post Wind Force Scale
(values are estimates of the highest gusts)
-------------------------------------------
1 - Very light breeze 2 mph (2 kt)
2 - Gentle breeze 4 mph (4 kt)
3 - Fresh breeze 12 mph (10 kt)
4 - Strong breeze 25 mph (22 kt)
5 - High breeze 35 mph (30 kt)
6 - Gale 45 mph (39 kt)
7 - Strong gale 60 mph (51 kt)
8 - Violent gale 75 mph (65 kt)
9 - Hurricane 90 mph (78 kt)
10 - Most violent 100 mph (87 kt)
These observations indicate that while the track of the hurricane
and its intensity are reasonable, the track of the hurricane's passage
across Florida was about 12 hours too early. Such a discrepancy
is not implausible, given the relative scarce and ambiguous data
obtained in the original Partagas and Diaz (1995a) study. Track
and intensity values adjusted accordingly from the 10th to the
14th.
1852/03 - 2011 REVISION:
00285 09/09/1852 M= 5 3 SNBR= 9 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
00290 09/09*264 904 70 0*265 896 70 0*266 888 70 0*266 881 70 0*
00295 09/10*268 874 70 0*269 866 70 0*271 861 70 0*273 856 70 0*
00300 09/11*275 851 70 0*277 846 70 0*278 840 70 0*279 834 70 0*
00305 09/12*280 828 70 0*281 822 60 0*282 815 50 0*285 805 50 0*
00310 09/13*292 790 60 0*304 770 70 0*320 745 70 0*340 715 70 0*
00315 HRBFL1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
3-9/12/1852 0000Z 28.0N 82.8W 70kt 1 --- (985mb) BFL1
3-9/12/1852 0000Z 28.0N 82.8W 70kt 1 --- (982mb) BFL1
***
The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Florida as an 70 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 985 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 982 mb -
for an 70 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
1852/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status from multiple ship reports.
********************************************************************************
1852/05: Added an additional day - Oct. 11th - to track based upon ship
"Peerless" in Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) writeup. Inland winds over SE US
reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model. Storm tide value
of 7' obtained from Ludlum (1963) and Barnes (1998) for Newport, Florida.
Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status from destruction
in Jamaica, conditions from the ship "Hebe" and damage that occurred in
Newport. Storm also known in Ludlum as the "Middle Florida Storm of
October 1852".
1852/05 - 2006 REVISION:
00375 10/06/1852 M= 6 5 SNBR= 11 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 L
00380 10/06*170 738 90 0*171 750 90 0*172 763 90 0*172 778 90 0*
00385 10/07*177 796 90 0*182 815 90 0*187 831 90 0*195 844 90 0*
00390 10/08*204 855 90 0*212 864 90 0*224 869 90 0*240 868 90 0*
00395 10/09*256 864 90 0*269 859 90 0*280 855 90 0*292 849 90 0*
00400 10/10*305 839 80 0*318 828 60 0*330 811 50 0*340 795 50 0*
00405 10/11*350 770 50 0*360 740 50 0*380 700 60 0*400 660 60 0*
00410 HRAFL2 GA1
00410 HRAFL2IGA1
****
Revision indicated in continental U.S. impacts to specify that the Georgia
hurricane impact from this cyclone was inland, rather than along Georgia's
Atlantic coast.
1852/06 - 2011 REVISION:
00375 10/06/1852 M= 6 5 SNBR= 11 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2 L
00380 10/06*170 738 90 0*171 750 90 0*172 763 90 0*172 778 90 0*
00385 10/07*177 796 90 0*182 815 90 0*187 831 90 0*195 844 90 0*
00390 10/08*204 855 90 0*212 864 90 0*224 869 90 0*240 868 90 0*
00395 10/09*256 864 90 0*269 859 90 0*280 855 90 0*292 849 90 0*
00400 10/10*305 839 80 0*318 828 60 0*330 811 50 0*340 795 50 0*
00405 10/11*350 770 50 0*360 740 50 0*380 700 60 0*400 660 60 0*
00410 HRAFL2IGA1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
5-10/9/1852 2100Z 29.9N 84.4W 90kt 2 --- (969mb) AFL2,IGA1
5-10/9/1852 2100Z 29.9N 84.4W 90kt 2 --- (965mb) AFL2,IGA1
***
The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Florida as an 90 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 969 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 965 mb -
for an 90 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
1853/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No
track available, only one point.
********************************************************************************
1853/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No
track available, only one point.
********************************************************************************
1853/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
Central pressure measurement of 924 mb with the southern wind-pressure
relationship gives 132 kt - 130 kt utilized, a major hurricane. Ludlum
(1963) named this system the "Cape Verde and Cape Hatteras Hurricane
(offshore)".
********************************************************************************
1853/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm
is determined to have reached major hurricane status from observations
taken from the ships "Gilbert Gallatin", "Harvester Queen" and "Chesapeake".
********************************************************************************
1853/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No
track available, only one point.
********************************************************************************
1853/06: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon reports from
ships "Samuel and Edward" and "Werada".
********************************************************************************
1853/07: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No
track available, only one point.
********************************************************************************
1853/08: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm
assumed to be stationary for 2 days. Storm is determined to have reached
hurricane status based upon several ship reports.
1853/08 - REVISION:
00565 10/19/1853 M= 2 8 SNBR= 18 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
00565 10/19/1853 M= 4 8 SNBR= 19 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
* ** * *
00570 10/19*275 785 70 0*275 785 70 0*275 785 70 0*275 785 70 0
00570 10/19*275 785 70 0*280 789 70 0*285 793 80 0*289 796 80 0
*** *** *** *** ** *** *** **
00575 10/20*275 785 70 0*275 785 70 0*275 785 70 0*275 785 70 0
00575 10/20*293 799 80 0*297 802 80 0*300 805 90 0*303 807 90 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
(The 21st and 22nd are new to HURDAT.)
00577 10/21*306 809 90 0*309 809 90 0*313 806 80 0*317 801 80 0
00579 10/22*321 794 80 0*325 785 80 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
00580 HR
00580 HR GA1
***
Analysis of historical tropical storms and hurricanes impacting Georgia and
Northeast Florida by Sandrik (2001) shows that the hurricane moved northward
to just offshore Georgia and caused hurricane conditions along the Georgia
coast. This was based upon ship reports and wind reports from Jacksonville,
Brunswick and Charleston. (The hurricane was previously listed as being
stationary for two days.)
1853/08 - 2006 REVISION:
00610 10/19/1853 M= 4 8 SNBR= 19 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 L
00610 10/19/1853 M= 4 8 SNBR= 19 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=1 L
*
00615 10/19*275 785 70 0*280 789 70 0*285 793 80 0*289 796 80 0*
00620 10/20*293 799 80 0*297 802 80 0*300 805 90 0*303 807 90 0*
00625 10/21*306 809 90 0*309 809 90 0*313 806 80 0*317 801 80 0*
00630 10/22*321 794 80 0*325 785 80 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*
00635 HR GA1
As the hurricane's center did not cross the U.S. coastline (but did
cause Category 1 conditions at the coast), the XING (continental
U.S. landfall indicator) is changed to "0".
********************************************************************************
1853 - Additional Notes:
1. The tropical storm listed as #9 in 1853 in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) was
not included into the HURDAT because of evidence suggesting that the storm
did not actually exist. Partagas and Diaz had found an unsupported reference
to it in Garcia-Bonnelly (1958), but no other information.
********************************************************************************
1854/01 - 2004 ADDITION:
00621 06/25/1854 M= 3 1 SNBR= 20 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
00622 06/25*260 925 60 0*260 930 60 0*260 935 70 0*260 940 70 0
00623 06/26*260 947 70 0*261 957 70 0*262 970 70 0*264 985 50 0
00624 06/27*2681000 40 0*2741015 40 0*2801030 40 0* 0 0 0 0
00624 HRATX1
Prof. Cary Mock of the University of South Carolina and Mr. David Roth of
the Hydrometeorological Prediction Center found evidence of a newly uncovered
hurricane that made landfall in southern Texas from Army Fort data and
historical newspaper accounts. (The Army Forts observed the weather four
times a day between sunrise and sunset. Winds could range from a range of
1 to 10, with a 6 being equivalent to about 40 kt gusts, a 7 about 50 kt
gusts and an 8 about 65 kt gusts.)
Fort Brown (Brownsville, Texas):
Jun. 25, 1854 - E2 NE3 NW2 NW3 78/79/84/77 3 1/2 am rain 0.79" Showers
Jun. 26, 1854 - W4 W5 W3 SW2 76/76/76/80 11 pm to 6pm rain 5.65" Storm
Jun. 27, 1854 - SW1 SW2 W1 SW1 78/84/86/81 Light showers
Barometer (altitude 50 ft - surface pressure values)
Jun. 25, 1854 - 30.08 30.08 30.05 30.02
Jun. 26, 1854 - 29.75 29.82 29.96 30.04
Jun. 27, 1854 - 30.08 30.10 30.18 30.26
Corpus Christi, Texas:
Jun. 25, 1854 - N2 N3 N4 N7 79/80/83/80 0.70" rain
Jun. 26, 1854 - E7 E7 E8 E8 80/80/81/80 0.50" rain
Jun. 27, 1854 - SE4 SE4 SE3 SE3 80/84/84/83
Fort Ringgold (26.4N, 99.3W), Texas:
Jun. 25, 1854 - N2 N2 N4 N4 75/86/84/84 Rain 8a.m.-5p.m. 0.73"
Jun. 26, 1854 - NW2 NW4 W4 S3 75/77/76/74 Rain 3a.m.-2a.m. (27th) 5.05"
Jun. 27, 1854 - S1 S3 S3 S3 72/76/84/78 Rain 9a.m.-6p.m. 0.85"
Barometer (altitude ~200 ft - surface pressure values)
Jun. 25, 1854 - 29.87 29.89 29.80 29.81
Jun. 26, 1854 - 29.67 29.60 29.40 29.80
Jun. 27, 1854 - 29.91 29.95 29.95 29.96
Note on 27th: Showers. Distant thunder S. and S.W. during day.
Fort McIntosh (27.5N, 99.5W), Texas:
Jun. 25, 1854 - NE1 NE2 NE3 NE2 76/82/88/79
Jun. 26, 1854 - SW2 N3 NE4 SE5 74/78/76/74 0.20"
Jun. 27, 1854 - SE2 SE2 E1 E1 72/79/75/76 0.70"
Note on 25th: Rain at intervals during the day
Note on 26th: Rain at intervals from 11 o'clock a.m. until 8 p.m.
Fort Duncan (28.7N, 100.5W), Texas:
Jun. 25, 1854 - SE2 SE2 SE3 SE2 75/83/93/81
Jun. 26, 1854 - SE1 SE3 SE3 SE2 75/82/89/77 0.20"
Jun. 27, 1854 - SE2 SE2 SE2 SE2 75/78/82/77 Rain 6 1/2a.m.-3p.m. 0.14"
Note on 25th: Rain at intervals
Note on 26th: Rain at intervals and moderate during the day
Note on 27th: Rain at intervals and moderate during the day
Fort Ewell (28.2N, 99.0W), Texas:
Jun. 25, 1854 - NW1 NW2 N3 N1 74/83/94/77 Rain 5a.m.-7p.m. 0.73"
Jun. 26, 1854 - N4 N4 N2 SE0 75/76/78/72 Rain 1 1/2a.m-2a.m. 0.40"
Jun. 27, 1854 - SE3 SE4 SE3 SE2 73/80/90/77
The Daily Picayune (New Orleans) July 2, 1854, p.2
The Galveston News, of the 27th ult., has these items:...
The wind commenced blowing very strong from the eastward on Saturday
last [24th], and has continued since, sometimes almost a gale. It
caused a slight overflow of the strand yesterday and day before. It
has been accompanied with occasional showers, and with some very
severe thunder and lightning.
The Daily Picayune (New Orleans) July 2, 1854, p.2
FROM BRAZOS SANTIAGO [26.1N, 97.2W] - Severe Storm -
By the arrival of the steamship Perseverance, Capt. John Y. Lawless,
yesterday, we are placed in possession of intelligence from that place
to the 27th ult.
On Sunday last, the 25th of June, we learn that the city was visited by
a very severe storm, which caused a great deal of damage and caused yet
more disastrous consequence. The wind was higher than it had ever been
experienced since the establishment of the city, blowing, in fact, a
perfect hurricane from the S.S.E., and at the same time very heavy rain
fell. Many buildings were unroofed and otherwise damaged, while some
were completely turned round. The large cistern belong to the U.S.
Quartermaster's Department, and which contained 2,000 gallons of water,
was destroyed. Several boats employed between Point Isabel and Brazos
were driven ashore, and some sank; and at one time the greatest fears
were entertained that the partial deluge of the island actually
experienced, would extend to a complete and disastrous overflow.
The Daily Picayune (New Orleans) July 5, 1854, p.1
By the steamship Louisiana, which arrived here from Galveston, this
morning, we have advices from that city and Houston to the 2d inst. ...
The Lavaca Commercial, of the 28th, says:
We were visited by another terrible gale last evening, from the south-
east. The wind commenced blowing last evening, and continued all
night, accompanied by heavy falls of rain. The tide is very high -
several bath houses have been washed away, and some little damage has
been done to the whaves.
The Daily Picayune (New Orleans) July 12, 1854, p.1
The Nueces Valley, of the 1st inst., has the following:
Our sea board was visited on Saturday last with one of the most
tremendous gales that has ever been known of this coast. It commenced
blowing severely on Saturday evening, the 24th ult., and continued,
accompanied with rain until Tuesday morning, when the storm abated.
Some little damage was done to the shipping in this harbor, but not in
proportion of the violence of the storm.
We are informed that the current was driven into Aransas Bay through
the Pass, at the rate of ten or twelve knots per hours. It was with
difficulty that the vessels at anchorage in Aransas harbor could hold
on...It is said that Aransas Bar is much improved by the storm, being
increased both in depth and width.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
These observations indicate a tropical cyclone of about Category 1 hurricane
conditions (70 kt) made landfall around 12 UTC on the 26th north of
Brownsville, just north of Brazos Santiago, Texas. The system then passed
north of Fort Ringgold around 20 UTC on the 26th. The sea level pressure
at that fort was a minimum of about 1002 mb at that time. 1002 mb suggests
winds of at least 41 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure
relationship, though this would be for an over open water exposure. Winds
are estimated to be about 50 kt at 18 UTC on the 26th. The system then
passed west of Fort McIntosh around 00 UTC on the 27th and then is estimated
to have dissipated by about 12 UTC on the 27th. Intensity at landfall is
based primarily upon impacts of the system at Brazos Santiago. A search of
the COADS ship database did not reveal any observations in the Gulf of
Mexico near this storm.
1854/01 - 2011 REVISION:
00640 06/25/1854 M= 3 1 SNBR= 20 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
00645 06/25*260 925 60 0*260 930 60 0*260 935 70 0*260 940 70 0*
00650 06/26*260 947 70 0*261 957 70 0*262 970 70 0*264 985 50 0*
00655 06/27*2681000 40 0*2741015 40 0*2801030 40 0* 0 0 0 0*
00660 HRATX1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
1-6/26/1854 1200Z 26.2N 97.2W 70kt 1 --- (985mb) ATX1
1-6/26/1854 1200Z 26.2N 97.2W 70kt 1 --- (982mb) ATX1
***
The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Texas as an 70 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 985 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 982 mb -
for a 70 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
1854/02: (Was originally storm 1854/01 in Partagas and Diaz - May 2004 change).
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
********************************************************************************
1854/03: (Was originally storm 1854/02 in Partagas and Diaz - May 2004 change).
Utilized Ho's (1989) work - apparently not used in Partagas and
Diaz's (1995a) analysis - to alter the track and intensity near the US.
Inland winds over SE US reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay
model, though not as fast as suggested with this model due to extreme
duration of damaging winds along Georgia and South Carolina. Ship with
central pressures observation of 938 mb gives with subtropical latitude
wind-pressure relationship a 112 kt reading - utilizing 110 kt. Peripheral
pressure reading of 973 mb (at 20 UTC on the 8th of September in Savannah,
Georgia) suggest winds of at least 83 kt utilizing the same subtropical
wind-pressure relationship. Ho used this value with other information to
estimate a 950 mb central pressure at landfall which gives 103 kt again from
the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - here we are choosing 100 kt for
the best track. Both reports (of 938 mb and 950 mb) suggest that the storm
reached major hurricane status over the Atlantic. The storm is determined to
have reintensified to hurricane status after moving back over the Atlantic
Ocean after landfall. Have also adjusted track to the north by about 60 nmi
as the hurricane returned to the Atlantic to better match observed strong
gales over Northeastern U.S. The storm is named in Ludlum's (1963) book as
the "Great Carolina Hurricane of 1854" for its impacts in the Carolinas and
the "Coastal Hurricane of September 1854" for its impacts in the Middle
Atlantic and New England coasts.
1854/03 - 2003 REVISION:
00600 09/07/1854 M= 6 2 SNBR= 20 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
00600 09/07/1854 M= 6 2 SNBR= 21 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
**
00605 09/07*264 766 110 0*272 776 110 0*280 786 110 938*288 796 110 0
00610 09/08*296 803 110 0*304 806 110 0*311 809 100 0*316 811 100 950
00615 09/09*320 813 80 0*325 815 70 0*332 815 60 0*343 805 50 0
00620 09/10*355 781 40 0*368 759 40 0*378 740 50 0*384 719 60 0
00625 09/11*388 695 70 0*390 673 80 0*394 650 90 0*395 618 90 0
00630 09/12*398 583 90 0*400 551 90 0*400 520 80 0*402 480 80 0
00635 HR GA3 SC2
00635 HR GA3 SC2DFL1
****
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States
Winds Simpson Pressure Affected
2-9/8/1854 2000Z 31.7N 81.1W 100kt 3 950mb GA3,SC2
2-9/8/1854 2000Z 31.7N 81.1W 100kt 3 950mb GA3,SC2,DFL1
****
Analysis of historical tropical storms and hurricanes impacting Georgia and
Northeast Florida by Sandrik (2001) suggests that the hurricane had also
impacted Northeast Florida with Category 1 hurricane conditions as well in
its landfall in Georgia.
********************************************************************************
1854/04: (Was originally storm 1854/03 in Partagas and Diaz - May 2004 change).
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis for track.
Inland winds over Texas reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay
model. The storm is determined to reach hurricane status based upon
damage that occurred in Matagorda. Storm is known in Ludlum's (1963)
work as the "Matagorda Hurricane of 1854".
1854/04 - 2011 REVISION:
00720 09/18/1854 M= 3 4 SNBR= 23 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
00725 09/18*282 936 90 0*284 941 90 0*286 946 90 0*288 951 90 0*
00730 09/19*290 956 80 0*292 961 70 0*294 965 60 0*297 966 60 0*
00735 09/20*300 964 50 0*303 960 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*
00740 HRBTX2
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
4-9/18/1854 2100Z 28.9N 95.3W 90kt 2 --- (969mb) BTX2
4-9/18/1854 2100Z 28.9N 95.3W 90kt 2 --- (965mb) BTX2
***
The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Texas as an 90 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 969 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 965 mb -
for a 90 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
1854 - Additional Notes:
1. The tropical storm listed as #4 in 1854 in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) was
not included into the HURDAT because of evidence suggesting that the storm
did not actually exist. Partagas and Diaz had found an unsupported
reference to it in Tannehill (1938), but it is likely that this reference
was really referring to storm 1854/03 which hit the coast at the same exact
location.
********************************************************************************
1854/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
********************************************************************************
1855/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No
track available, only one point. Storm determined to have been a hurricane
based upon destruction in Tampico.
********************************************************************************
1855/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm
determined to have reached hurricane status from multiple ship reports.
********************************************************************************
1855/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No
track available, only one point. Storm determined to have reached hurricane
status from the ship "Walverine".
********************************************************************************
1855/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
Utilized the southern wind-pressure relationship for ship with central
pressure observation of 997 mb to get 53 kt, using 50 kt in best track.
Review of this storm in conjunction with the 1855/05 hurricane reveals
that they may be the same system. However, without more supporting
evidence for the intervening days (of August 28-30) between the
systems, we are opting to keep these as separate storms.
********************************************************************************
1855/05 - 2000 ORIGINAL:
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis for
track. Ludlum (1963) describes that "the tide at places between Lake
Ponchartrain and Bay St. Louis was said to have risen ten to fifteen
feet above normal high tide." Storm determined to have reached major
hurricane status at landfall based upon storm tide and destruction along
Louisiana and Mississippi. Inland winds over SE US reduced via Kaplan and
DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model. Hurricane known as the "Middle Gulf
Shore Hurricane of 1855" (Ludlum 1963). (Note that this storm was originally
labeled 1855/06 in the 2000 version of HURDAT. It was renumbered in
2003 because of the removal of storm 1855/05.)
1855/05 - 2004 REVISION:
00810 09/15/1855 M= 3 5 SNBR= 28 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
00810 09/15/1855 M= 3 5 SNBR= 29 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
**
00815 09/15*267 891 70 0*271 891 80 0*275 893 90 0*281 894 100 0
00820 09/16*288 895 110 0*296 895 100 0*302 894 90 0*310 891 60 0
00820 09/16*288 895 110 0*296 895 110 0*302 894 100 0*310 891 70 0
*** *** **
00825 09/17*320 888 50 0*330 883 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
00830 HR LA3 MS3
After a thorough review of all U.S. landfalling hurricanes for the 1851 to
1910 period by Dickinson et al. (2004 and pers. comm.) using their
numerical analysis and modeling system, two hurricanes were found to have
inconsistencies between the assigned Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale and the
estimated maximum 1-min surface winds: 1855/05 and 1878/05. In this case,
the Category 3 impact assigned for Mississippi was not consistent with the
original 12 UTC winds for this hurricane of 90 kt, while just offshore of the
Mississippi coast. The original intensity for this system was based
primarily upon the storm tide amount both in Louisiana and Mississippi (see
above) and it was intended to analyze this hurricane as a Category 3 in
both states. Thus the winds have been boosted up to 100 kt at the 12 UTC time
to retain the Category 3 assignment for Mississippi. Again utilizing the
Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) inland decay model after landfall in Mississippi
suggests increasing the 18 UTC winds up to 70 kt.
1855/05 - 2011 REVISION:
00850 09/15/1855 M= 3 5 SNBR= 29 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3 L
00855 09/15*267 891 70 0*271 891 80 0*275 893 90 0*281 894 100 0*
00860 09/16*288 895 110 0*296 895 110 0*302 894 100 0*310 891 70 0*
00865 09/17*320 888 50 0*330 883 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*
00870 HR LA3 MS3
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
5-9/16/1855 0300Z 29.2N 89.5W 110kt 3 --- (950mb) LA3,MS3
5-9/16/1855 0300Z 29.2N 89.5W 110kt 3 --- (945mb) LA3,MS3
***
The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Louisiana and Mississippi as a 110 kt hurricane. This suggested a
central pressure at landfall of 950 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 945 mb -
for a 110 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
******************************************************************************
1855 - Additional Notes:
1855/05 - 2003 REVISION: STORM REMOVED FROM HURDAT.
1855/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm
determined to have reached hurricane status from observations from ships
"Catherine" and "Rebecca". Review of this hurricane in conjunction with
the 1855/04 tropical storm reveals that they may be the same system.
However, without more supporting evidence for the intervening days (of
August 28-30) between the systems, we are opting to keep these as separate
storms.
00770 08/31/1855 M= 3 5 SNBR= 27 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
00775 08/31*414 675 70 0*424 650 70 0*434 620 70 0*445 588 70 0
00780 09/01*455 551 70 0*465 514 70 0*475 472 70 0*484 445 70 0
00785 09/02*495 414 60 0*505 384 60 0E513 355 50 0E522 330 50 0
00790 HR
(System removed from revised HURDAT.)
This hurricane is, with additional information, shown instead to be
a strong extratropical storm with well-defined baroclinic structure.
New data sources were provided by Michael Chenoweth for Sable Island and
Halifax, Canada and by Prof. Cary Mock of the University of South Carolina
for Bridgeport, Massachusetts. This tropical cyclone is thus removed from
the HURDAT database. Details about these new data sources are provided in
full below.
The two Canadian sources are (1) a weather diary kept by Alexander Muirson
at Halifax, 1828-1860 and (2) a daily record of occurrences at the "Principal
Station" on Sable Island, Nova Scotia from 1853-1855. The first is a 'pure'
meteorological register, with instrumental temperature and barometer data; the
second is what appears to be some type of government or corporate record of
activity at a fishing station. Weather is recorded daily, but is only
non-instrumental. Both records were obtained by Michael Chenoweth from the
Provincial Archives of Nova Scotia, Halifax.
Sable Island Observations:
30 August 1855
First part moderate SE winds and clear....Latter part strong
north winds and cloudy weather.
31 August 1855
A heavy northwardly blow throughout.
1 September 1855
Moderate WSW winds and clear weather.
The terminology of the time units suggests that the record is
kept by a mariner. However, the dates appear to be civil calendar
dates (midnight-midnight) and not the seaman's day of noon to noon. This
assessment is based on a scan of other day's records in the diary.
Halifax Observations:
Temperature and barometer are labeled M, N, E (morning, noon,
evening). Winds are "prevailing". Remarks give prevailing weather
conditions and register (without specifying the time usually)
a change to another prevailing weather type. Temperature and
barometer readings are most likely read at 0800, 1300-1400, and
2200 based on analysis of hourly means. Muirson never states
the morning and evening times but states once in his journal
that his mid-day reading was between 1 and 2 P.M. His thermometer also has
an eastern exposure and there is evidence for sunlight reaching the
thermometer as his morning readings in the summer are higher than his
evening reading. Muirson's barometer during the summer and early autumn
rarely exceeds 29.9 inches. Without knowing the details of his location,
cannot assume an elevation but the barometer appears not to have been
calibrated. He did routinely record the names of ships arriving in port.
Date Temp (F) Pressure (") Winds Description
29 Aug. 1855 56 70 60 29.8 29.7 29.5 changeable Clear very fine, this
morning a white frost
30 Aug. 1855 72 64 42 29.4 29.5 29.6 SW to NW Cloudy & windy --
clear & cool
31 Aug. 1855 50 64 44 29.7 29.8 29.9 N Clear & fine,
frost last night
1 Sep. 1855 53 57 56 30.0 29.9 29.7 SW Cloudy, frost last night --
heavy rain
Massachusetts Observations:
Prof. Cary Mock provided the following additional information regarding
this system: Leonard Hill's Meteorological Register. Hill kept a weather
diary at Bridgewater, MA (42.0N, 71.0W). For the dates of interest, he
recorded the following:
Aug. 29. Clear, cool.
Aug. 30. Clear, cool N
Aug. 31. Frost - killed beans, &c
Sept. 1. Rain. S.W. & S.
This early freeze helps to confirm the analysis of a strong
extratropical storm system as was also observed in the Sable Island
and Halifax observations. Prof. Mock also checked his records from
the Carolinas, which showed no storm system (tropical or otherwise)
moving up from the south near or over the mid-Atlantic coast.
********************************************************************************
1856/01: Utilized Ho's (1989) work - apparently not used in Partagas and
Diaz's (1995a) analysis - to alter the track and intensity near the US.
Inland winds over SE US reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay
model. Ship with pressure measurement of 955 mb not in the hurricane's
eye suggests at least 105 kt with the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure
relationship, utilize 130 kt in best track. Ho's estimate of 934 mb at
landfall gives 125 kt, utilize 130 kt in best track - a major hurricane.
A small RMW of 12 nmi supports slight increase of winds over suggested
wind-pressure relationship. Storm tide value of 11-12' provided by Ludlum
(1963) for Last Island, Louisiana. The storm is also known as the "Last
Island Disaster" after the destruction caused at that location.
********************************************************************************
1856/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm
determined to have reached hurricane status from destruction felt in
Grenada and Barbados.
********************************************************************************
1856/03: This storm was not identified by Partagas and Diaz's (1995a)
analysis. Enough evidence was retrieved from Ludlum's (1963) analysis
(see pages 99 and 100) to provide track and intensity estimates. Note
that the track provided here keeps the tropical storm's center offshore
of New England, which disagrees with Ludlum's assessment. This is due to
all wind reports from New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and - especially
- Massachusetts which remained at an easterly component for the duration of
this storm. If, as Ludlum suggested, the storm crossed the neck of Cape Cod,
there would have been a wind shift to a westerly component at Cape Cod and/or
Nantucket. Both remained easterly, thus suggesting a just-offshore track.
Ludlum referred to this storm as the "Charter Oak Storm of August 1856" for
the destruction of the famous Charter Oak that was a witness to the founding
of the Connecticut Colony in 1636.
********************************************************************************
1856/04: This storm was listed as #3 in 1856 originally in Partagas and
Diaz (1995a). No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
********************************************************************************
1856/05: This storm was listed as #4 in 1856 originally in Partagas and
Diaz (1995a). No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a)
analysis for track. Inland winds over SE US reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's
(1995) inland decay model. Storm tide value of 6' obtained from Barnes (1998)
for Apalachicola, Florida. Havana's central pressure observation of 969 mb
gives 90 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship, which is used
directly. Pressure reading of 968 mb not in hurricane's center (on 18 UTC
of the 30th of August) suggests winds of at least 91 kt from the Gulf of
Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 100 kt is chosen for best track. This
last reading supports that this storm reached major hurricane status, but
likely weakened slightly before making landfall in the United States. Ludlum
(1963) referred to this storm as the "Southeastern States Hurricane of
1856".
1856/05 - 2003 REVISION:
00910 08/25/1856 M=10 5 SNBR= 33 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
00915 08/25*210 698 70 0*210 708 70 0*211 719 70 0*212 728 70 0
00920 08/26*216 739 70 0*217 748 70 0*220 759 80 0*222 766 80 0
00925 08/27*224 776 80 0*226 786 80 0*227 795 90 0*227 806 90 0
00925 08/27*224 776 80 0*226 786 80 0*227 795 90 0*227 806 80 0
**
00930 08/28*229 816 90 969*230 829 90 0*232 840 90 0*236 846 90 0
00930 08/28*229 816 80 0*230 829 90 969*232 840 90 0*236 846 90 0
** *** ***
00935 08/29*239 851 90 0*242 856 90 0*247 864 90 0*249 868 90 0
00940 08/30*252 871 100 0*256 873 100 0*262 874 100 0*275 873 100 0
00945 08/31*289 866 90 0*302 859 90 0*311 848 70 0*322 833 60 0
00950 09/01*330 816 50 0*340 796 50 0*347 779 50 0*355 753 50 0
00955 09/02*363 728 50 0*368 700 50 0*372 673 50 0*377 646 50 0
00960 09/03*382 618 50 0*388 586 50 0*390 560 50 0*395 523 50 0
00965 HRAFL2 AL1 GA1
Re-analysis effort by meteorologists in Cuba (Perez 2000) confirms
landfall as Category 2 hurricane (90 kt). However, winds reduced after
landfall in Cuba until center re-emerges off of the coast. Central
pressure of 969 mb in Havana corrected from 00Z to a 06Z value.
1856/05 - 2006 REVISION:
00965 08/25/1856 M=10 5 SNBR= 34 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
00970 08/25*210 698 70 0*210 708 70 0*211 719 70 0*212 728 70 0*
00975 08/26*216 739 70 0*217 748 70 0*220 759 80 0*222 766 80 0*
00980 08/27*224 776 80 0*226 786 80 0*227 795 90 0*227 806 80 0*
00985 08/28*229 816 80 0*230 829 90 969*232 840 90 0*236 846 90 0*
00990 08/29*239 851 90 0*242 856 90 0*247 864 90 0*249 868 90 0*
00995 08/30*252 871 100 0*256 873 100 0*262 874 100 0*275 873 100 0*
01000 08/31*289 866 90 0*302 859 90 0*311 848 70 0*322 833 60 0*
01005 09/01*330 816 50 0*340 796 50 0*347 779 50 0*355 753 50 0*
01010 09/02*363 728 50 0*368 700 50 0*372 673 50 0*377 646 50 0*
01015 09/03*382 618 50 0*388 586 50 0*390 560 50 0*395 523 50 0*
01020 HRAFL2 AL1 GA1
01020 HRAFL2IAL1IGA1
********
Revision indicated in continental U.S. impacts to specify that the Georgia
and Alabama hurricane impacts from this cyclone were inland, rather than
along either states' coastal region.
1856/05 - 2011 REVISION:
00965 08/25/1856 M=10 5 SNBR= 34 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
00970 08/25*210 698 70 0*210 708 70 0*211 719 70 0*212 728 70 0*
00975 08/26*216 739 70 0*217 748 70 0*220 759 80 0*222 766 80 0*
00980 08/27*224 776 80 0*226 786 80 0*227 795 90 0*227 806 80 0*
00985 08/28*229 816 80 0*230 829 90 969*232 840 90 0*236 846 90 0*
00990 08/29*239 851 90 0*242 856 90 0*247 864 90 0*249 868 90 0*
00995 08/30*252 871 100 0*256 873 100 0*262 874 100 0*275 873 100 0*
01000 08/31*289 866 90 0*302 859 90 0*311 848 70 0*322 833 60 0*
01005 09/01*330 816 50 0*340 796 50 0*347 779 50 0*355 753 50 0*
01010 09/02*363 728 50 0*368 700 50 0*372 673 50 0*377 646 50 0*
01015 09/03*382 618 50 0*388 586 50 0*390 560 50 0*395 523 50 0*
01020 HRAFL2IAL1IGA1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
5-8/31/1856 0600Z 30.2N 85.9W 90kt 2 --- (969mb) AFL2,IAL1,IGA1
5-8/31/1856 0600Z 30.2N 85.9W 90kt 2 --- (965mb) AFL2,IAL1,IGA1
***
The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Florida as a 90 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 969 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 965 mb -
for a 90 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
1856/06: No major change from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon reports from the
ship "Utah".
1856/06 - 2003 REVISION:
00970 09/18/1856 M= 5 6 SNBR= 34 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
00975 09/18*320 488 50 0*325 489 50 0*329 490 50 0*335 493 50 0
00980 09/19*345 498 60 0*352 505 60 0*357 512 70 0*358 514 70 0
00980 09/19*345 498 60 0*352 505 60 0*356 510 70 0*358 514 70 0
*** ***
00985 09/20*360 517 70 0*360 520 70 0*362 523 70 0*363 524 70 0
00985 09/20*360 517 70 0*361 520 70 0*362 523 70 0*363 524 70 0
***
00990 09/21*364 525 60 0*365 526 60 0*365 527 60 0*365 528 60 0
00995 09/22*365 529 60 0*365 530 60 0*365 530 60 0*365 530 60 0
01000 HR
Track altered slightly for a more realistic translational velocity.
********************************************************************************
1856 - Additional Notes:
1. The tropical storm listed as #5 in 1856 in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) was
not included into the HURDAT because of evidence suggesting that the storm
did not actually exist. Partagas and Diaz had found an unsupported reference
to it in Dunn and Miller (1960), but it is likely that this reference was
really referring to storm 1856/04 which hit the coast at the same exact
location.
********************************************************************************
1857/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
********************************************************************************
1857/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
Ship with central pressure observation of 961 mb gives 94 kt with the
subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship, utilizing 90 kt in best
track - supporting hurricane status. Storm is known in Ludlum's (1963)
work as the "Central America Disaster in 1857" due to the loss of
the ship the "S.S. Central America".
1857/02 - 2011 REVISION:
01080 09/09/1857 M= 8 2 SNBR= 37 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
01080 09/06/1857 M=13 2 SNBR= 37 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
** *
(The 6th through the 8th are new to HURDAT.)
01082 09/06* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*265 730 40 0*
01083 09/07*267 728 40 0*269 726 40 0*272 724 50 0*275 723 50 0*
01084 09/08*277 725 50 0*279 727 50 0*281 729 60 0*283 730 60 0*
01085 09/09*252 676 50 0*256 686 50 0*260 696 50 0*266 706 50 0*
01085 09/09*287 736 60 0*291 742 70 0*295 747 70 0*302 758 70 0*
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
01090 09/10*272 716 60 0*277 726 60 0*283 736 70 0*289 746 70 0*
01090 09/10*302 758 70 0*305 762 70 0*307 767 80 0*310 771 80 0*
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
01095 09/11*296 753 70 0*303 761 70 0*310 768 80 0*314 774 80 0*
01095 09/11*312 774 90 0*315 777 90 0*317 780 90 0*321 782 90 0*
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
01100 09/12*318 776 80 0*322 779 80 0*325 779 90 0*330 776 90 961*
01100 09/12*323 782 90 0*325 783 90 0*328 783 90 0*333 783 90 961*
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ***
01105 09/13*338 771 90 0*345 763 90 0*354 755 90 0*360 748 90 0*
01105 09/13*339 780 90 0*345 775 80 0*349 771 70 0*355 765 60 0*
*** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
01110 09/14*365 740 90 0*369 731 90 0*373 720 80 0*377 705 80 0*
01110 09/14*360 762 50 0*363 758 50 0*365 749 50 0*368 735 60 0*
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
01115 09/15*380 691 80 0*383 676 80 0*388 661 80 0*395 636 80 0*
01115 09/15*376 718 60 0*385 698 70 0*394 676 80 0*403 652 80 0*
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ***
01120 09/16*403 612 70 0*410 590 70 0*417 567 70 0*425 542 70 0*
01120 09/16*412 617 80 0*421 589 80 0*430 560 80 0*440 530 80 972*
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** ***
(The 17th and 18th are new to HURDAT.)
01122 09/17*450 500 80 0*460 460 70 0*470 420 60 0E480 380 50 0*
01124 09/18E490 340 40 0E500 300 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*
01125 HR NC1
01125 HR NC2
***
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
2-9/13/1857 1100Z 35.2N 75.7W 80kt 1 --- 961mb NC1
2-9/13/1857 0000Z 33.9N 78.0W 90kt 2 --- 961mb NC2
**** **** **** ** * ***
Highlights:
This storm has a new start point based on daily weather maps and correction of
a Spanish ship longitude. The storm is now shown to have made a landfall across
inland eastern North Carolina and not along the Outer Banks. Saffir-Simpson
Category 2 is considered to be the landfall strength although the storm
off-shore was very near Category 3 while near the Frying Pan Shoals.
(Re-analysis of this hurricane was provided by Mike Chenoweth.)
Synoptic Features:
The first days of September featured high pressure over the SE USA and western
Atlantic inducing a large area of northeasterly winds. This pattern prevailed
through 4 September with the slow development of a surface trough of low
pressure between 70 and 75W which, by 5 September, featured a cold front moving
off the Virginia coast and an incipient area of low pressure east of
the Bahamas. Surface pressures along the SE US coast peaked on the 5th and then
slowly fell in the following days. The cold front to the north passed eastward
over the next three days, but its influence on the storm trajectory seems to
have been limited. After 7 September, the cold front cleared Bermuda and
pressure rose throughout the western Atlantic north of 35N and east of about
70W. Throughout 5-8 September, persistent northeast winds prevailed from
Florida to North Carolina.
Considerable disturbed weather was reported at Ft. Dallas and Ft. Myers and a
surface low began to form on 5 September near 25.5N 73.5W. At upper levels troughs
associated with the cold front off the Atlantic coast and the south Florida area
upper low worked with ridging over the SE US and south and west of Bermuda to
provide a weak northeast, then northerly steering current on 5-7 September. As
the ridge to the north and east became established at both the surface and aloft
from 8 September onward, the steering currents turned the storm towards the US coast.
The tropical storm moved at a relatively slow rate, generally between 6 and
8 miles per hour throughout most of its life cycle from east of the Bahamas to
landfall in North Carolina. This slow movement led to a period of up to
48 hours of gale force winds in parts of eastern North Carolina. Newspaper
accounts from North Carolina and ship reports indicate that the hurricane
reached high category 2, verging on minimal category 3 intensity (Saffir-
Simpson scale) as it slowly approached South Carolina and then turned slowly
to the north. Intensification over the warm Gulf Stream current is suggested by
the increased severity of the ship reports from about 30N 78W to 33N 78W.
The hurricane's slow turn to the north was due, in part, to high pressure
building over New England briefly on 10-12 September before breaking down on
13 September as a cold front advanced off-shore. Ahead of this cold front,
the hurricane gradually accelerated and moved east-northeastward into the North
Atlantic. The storm, after losing hurricane status after landfall in North
Carolina, re-intensified to a hurricane and by 16 September had a pressure of
at least 972 mb. This suggests 80 kt maximum sustained wind from the high
latitude pressure wind relationship, assuming that the observation was a central
pressure value. The storm became extratropical sometime on 17 or
18 September northwest of the Azores.
Major Changes from Previous HURDAT:
The start position of this storm is changed due to the recognition that
the coordinates of the Spanish brig Emilia, cited in Fernandez-Partagas and
Diaz (1995) is almost certainly based on a Spanish prime meridian and is,
therefore, located too far to the east. Weather map continuity also did not
support the ship position of 2833N 6911W. New data from ships to the east of
the Bahamas, and weather maps, instead indicate formation of an initial
closed low by mid-day of 5 September and development into a tropical storm
by late on the 6th.
The landfall of the hurricane is now determined to be just east of the city of
Wilmington during the early evening hours of 12 September. The western eyewall
may have brushed Cape Fear; at the very least first landfall was east of
Wilmington and southwest of Holly Ridge, on Onslow Bay. The center of
the hurricane then passed over the mainland of eastern North Carolina,
weakening to a tropical storm and crossing back into the Atlantic near or just
north of modern Corolla, North Carolina. This is a major change from previous
HURDAT, which had the hurricane center pass close to Cape Hatteras. The Cape
Henry and greater Norfolk areas of Virginia experienced tropical storm force
winds but there is no convincing evidence, despite one report from Hampton
Roads, of hurricane force winds in Virginia. Hurricane intensity at landfall
in North Carolina was most likely Saffir-Simpson Scale 2. The absence of
reports of building damage in Wilmington, and only minor building damage in
Washington and Beaufort suggests that the strongest winds passed over rural
areas and were probably confined to a small area. The possibility of Saffir
Simpson Scale 3 winds at landfall cannot be ruled out but no direct evidence
exists. Strong category 2 intensity is recommended. (While the original
HURDAT had the hurricane striking the Hatteras area of North Carolina as
a 90 kt 961 mb cyclone, it was analyzed that the peak winds remained offshore
and that the highest impact on land was 80 kt - Category 1. With the
revised landfall position along mainland North Carolina, the peak winds
likely did impact land, thus the upgrade to Category 2 impact for North
Carolina despite no change to intensity of the cyclone indicated.)
This hurricane re-intensified over the North Atlantic and wind speeds may have
approached or equaled the strongest winds when previously located near
the Frying Pan Shoals. The relative absence of ship reports east of 53W
indicates that the storm probably weakened and became extra-tropical soon after
passing the 50W meridian.
Compiled and edited by Michael Chenoweth, 29 October 2006
Wilmington Journal, Friday Sept. 19, 1857
"In our last we referred to the gale that had been blowing here for some time.
On Saturday, at Noon, when we closed our paper, the storm showed no signs of
abatement, but on the contrary, seemed to grow worse as the day wore on.
The rain descended in heavy sheets, fiercely dashed about by the wind and no
manner of covering appeared adequate to afford protection from the violence;
even houses that never leaked before leaked on the afternoon and night of
Saturday.
Some assert that the rain was driven through brick walls---certain it is that
dampness appeared on the inside of the walls of brick buildings, while every
crevice and cranny was searched out and found through which the beating rain might
find an entrance. Under doors, over doors, by the heads of windows, at all manner
of places, possible and impossible, did the wet come in. Between eight or nine
o'clock and midnight on Saturday, the gale seemed to have reached its height.
Before midnight, it had changed round from Northeast to West, from which last
point it blew with considerable violence and then gradually sunk away.
"The appearance of things on Sunday morning was striking. It looked as though
everything that could be blown down, was down. Fences were prostrated in all
directions, and the streets filled with the limbs and bodies of trees up-rooted
or twisted off. At one point we noticed eight good-sized trees thrown together in a
heap. Hundreds of China trees are no more, and very few Mulberries or Willows are
left standing. We have heard of only two Oaks blown over, although there
may be more. The amount of damage one way or another must be very considerable.
In the aggregate, it must come up to thousands.
What damage has been done out of town we have not yet heard. We learn that the
embankment of Mr. Green's Mill-pond has been broken through, and that
the Mill is an island.
It is said by those who know, that our town has not been visited by so severe
a blow since 1837, and it is doubtful if that equaled it in violence and duration.
The storm does not appear to have extended far inland---no further West of this place
than Fair Bluff.
"Steamer Spray started down to Smithville on Saturday, got down to Orton, the tiller
chain snapped like a thread with the force of the waves, and she fell
into the trough without any control, got out all anchors and brought her up straight,
[people remained on the steamer] and when she did ground about 8 o'clock,
the blow had somewhat abated, and she stood up nobly, not starting a plank, or
leaking a drop after several hours thumping.
We learn that the storm of Friday and Saturday was quite violent throughout this
section, but the lower part of this county seems to have been in the way of the
butt-end thereof. It was felt however, with more or less force throughout all this
part of the state. We regret to hear that the damage on the Sound was greater
than we had supposed. The plank road had a small bridge swept away between town
and the toll house.
We hear that the storm extended as far inland as the upper end of Sampson, but not
to any destructive effect. The Fayetteville Observer of Monday makes no
mention.
The late gale here lasted fully 48 hours."
Extract of the "Union" newspaper of 16 September published in the Wilmington Journal
of 19 September 1857
The Late Storm at Newbern
"On Saturday we were enjoying a perfect gale, accompanied by a heavy, drenching rain.
This continued during the balance of the day, and, in the meantime,
the tide had arisen over the wharves and for a considerable distance in the streets,
placing the merchants in the vicinity of the water under the necessity of
moving their goods and chattels to their upper store rooms. Turpentine barrels,
canoes, timber and a heterogeneous mass of &c.'s were drifted into the streets,
where the tide left them.
So far as we can learn there was not much serious damage done here. The shade trees
and fences were the principal sufferers. A large number of the former
were uprooted and the most of the streets were almost literally covered with limbs
and leaves. The top part of the bridge at Union Point was carried away. We
noticed that a number of families in the vicinity of Union Point had to be removed in
canoes to places of safety, as their houses, which were small ones, were
considered to be in serious danger of drifting from their foundations. We understand
that some of the still-yards faired pretty badly, but nothing was damaged
to any very great extent.
After night on Saturday, the wind hauled around to the South and by morning the tide
had gone down to its usual depth. The wind, however, continued to blow
very heavy at the South and South-West, and the rain to fall with considerable force
until late in the day on Sunday. Monday morning presented us with a clear
sky and calm weather."
Additional extracts of newspapers from the Wilmington Journal of 19 September 1857
The Washington N.C. Dispatch of the 18th inst. Says that the damage by the storm at
Ocracoke Bar was but slight. The packet steamer Wake, Captain
O'Brien from this port for New York, went ashore outside of Ocracoke. The crew is
reported all saved.
The Dispatch says:
"The tide (at that place) was four feet higher than usual high water. The whole of
Water Street and a portion of the back of the town was inundated. The damage
done to goods in the stores was but small, as our merchants saw the coming storm
and prepared for it. The principal loss was in naval stores, and lumber at
the ship yards and steam mills. A large shed and work-shop, belonging to Messrs.
Myers & Co. and Mr. Ritch, was blown down. The Schr. C.W. Skinner,
lying at the Castle wharf, got on the wharf, but by the exertions of Capt. Cottrell
and the crews of the Light Boat was got off without damage.
The owners of the distilleries over the river suffered considerable in the loss of
naval stores and destruction of buildings and fixtures.
The steamer Post Bay made a harbor at South Creek, and returned to Washington in
safety on Saturday afternoon.
All the vessels in port were anchored in the stream, and rode the storm in safety.
The schooners and steamboats displayed their lights, and the light-boats lit
their lamps, which threw a lurid glare over the raging river, which, with the howling
of the wind, the roaring of the water, and the pelting of the rain, presented a
most terrific and awful scene.
On Sunday, all our places of worship were closed, and the church bells were silent,
but we doubt not that out citizens in the solitude of their dwellings,
worshipped Him who spake in the tempest and ruled the storm."
The Beaufort Journal of the 16th inst. Contains the following particulars relative
to the disasters at that port and vicinity.
"The wind blew with so much violence as to cause the tide to rise up to the steps of
the business houses on Front Street, and demolishing every temporary
wharf and building thereon. The Emily and Three Sisters, two small corn vessels
anchored in the channel near the town were blown---one on Piver's Island and
the other some miles up Core Creek----neither one of which were injured materially.
In the Banks Channel, where several vessels were anchored, the Schr.
Stanard's ground-tackling having become foul, (her anchors were small and having
made no preparations for the storm) she drifted against the schooner
Charles McCleese, and causing so much damage that it became necessary for both
vessels to slip anchors. They drifted on Brant Island, where they both
lodged close together. They are both damaged and full of water, but it is thought
will be got afloat as soon as unloaded. The Standard is from Wilmington,
bound to Washington City, and loaded with lumber: her cargo will be saved. The
Chas. MCClees is from the same port, bound to New York, and loaded with
wheat, the greater portion of which is in a damaged condition.
It is feared that there has been quite a number of vessels wrecked on the coast.
Up to the hour of our going to press, we hear of only two: one of which is a
vessel of about 200 tons burthen, from the West Indies, loaded with logwood and
coffee, and bound to New York. She is on the farthest extremity of Cape
Lookout, and will probably be a total loss. The other is a brig of 400 tons
burden, John Parker, Capt. Roberts, of Providence R.I., bound for New Orleans to
Rottingdam and loaded with tobacco and staves. She is wrecked on the beach
opposite Hunting Quarters is in a damaged condition and will probably prove a
total loss. The crew of both vessels were saved."
From the Bermuda Royal Gazette, 22 September 1857
"The Barque Pearl, Captain W.S. Hutchings, from Baltimore bound to Demerera called
off these Islands on Sunday last, and after communicating with the shore,
proceeded on her voyage.
Captain Hutchings, in a letter to us, states---- that he left the Capes on the
15th instant. That on the 13th and 14th, while lying in Hampton Roads, he
experienced a heavy hurricane from the N.E. backing to N.W.; that there were
at least 130 vessels in the Roadsted, windbound, that he saw on Cape Henry
Beach four vessels ashore. On the night he left, passed through a great quantity
of wreck stuff such as cabin doors, chairs, beds, pillows, buckets, &c. On
the following morning, she spoke Brig Mary, McRae, of Belfast, the State of
Maine, with nothing standing but fore-mast, and foreyard, having been dismasted
in the gale of the 13th and 14th. Supplied her with a Spar, which, Captain
McR. Said was all he wanted. Cape Henry then bore W.N.W. 128 miles."
********************************************************************************
1857/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
Storm is suggested to be stationary throughout its four day existence.
This storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon
reports from the ship "Ocean Express".
********************************************************************************
1857/04: Combined Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis of storms #4 and #5
into one continuous track. Utilized Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay
model for storm's winds over Texas and Mexico. Storm is determined to have
reached hurricane status based upon report from the ship "Cadet".
********************************************************************************
1857 - Additional Notes:
1. The tropical storm listed as #5 in 1857 in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) was
not included into the HURDAT because we determined that this storm and
storm 1857/04 were likely the same system. Thus information on this
storm is now carried in its entirety as 1857/04, while Partagas and
and Diaz's storm #5 in 1857 is removed.
********************************************************************************
1858/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No
track available, only one point. Storm is determined to have reached
hurricane status based upon observations from ship "L. H. Sampson".
********************************************************************************
1858/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No
track available, only one point. Storm is determined to have reached
hurricane status based upon observations from ship "Shelter".
********************************************************************************
1858/03: Only major change to Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis was to
extend the track 12 hr into Canada to account for observations in Maine.
Utilized the northern wind-pressure relationship of hurricanes for winds at
landfall. A peripheral pressure reading of 978 mb (around 17 UTC on the
16th) suggests winds of at least 75 kt - 80 kt chosen for the best
track. Central pressure observation of 979 mb gives 74 kt, for the second
landfall in Connecticut/Rhode Island - 70 kt is utilized for the second
landfall. Both of these pressure measurements support hurricane status for
this storm. Also used the Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model
for winds over New England. Ludlum (1963) referred to this storm as the
"New England Tropical Storm of 1858".
1858/03 - 2003 REVISION:
01185 09/14/1858 M= 4 3 SNBR= 41 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
01190 09/14*252 846 60 0*260 839 60 0*269 831 60 0*279 820 50 0
01195 09/15*289 808 50 0*300 796 60 0*312 785 80 0*324 773 90 0
01200 09/16*340 758 90 0*360 746 90 0*385 733 80 0*414 720 70 979
01205 09/17*455 700 60 0*500 670 50 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
01205 09/17*455 700 50 0*500 670 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
** **
01210 HR NY1 CT1 RI1 MA1
As the first Kaplan and DeMaria inland decay model was utilized for this
hurricane, it was appropriate to review the results with the inland
decay model explicitly designed for New England landfalling tropical
cyclones (Kaplan and DeMaria 2001). This model does decay systems faster
and suggests a downward revision to the winds at 00 and 06Z on the 17th,
which is reflected in the revised HURDAT.
Additional information on this hurricane was also obtained by Boose et al.
(2001). They analyzed this hurricane as a Category 2 at U.S. landfall based
upon a Fujita-style analysis of hurricane wind-caused destruction, but had a
slight high bias in the reconstructed versus actual damage in their damage-
based empirical wind modeling work. Thus landfall as a high end Category 1
hurricane (80 kt) in New York is reasonable to retain. Boose et al. (2001)
also estimated a RMW of 45 nmi at landfall.
********************************************************************************
1858/04: Combined Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis of storms #4 and #5
into one continuous track. No other changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a)
analysis. The storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based
upon observations from the ships "Phantom", "Hudson" and "City of
Washington".
********************************************************************************
1858/05: Storm was originally #6 in 1858 in Partagas and Diaz's (1995a)
analysis. No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status from observations from ship
"Priscilla".
1858/05 - 2003 REVISION:
01265 09/22/1858 M= 4 5 SNBR= 43 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
01270 09/22* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*219 740 50 0*232 740 50 0
01275 09/23*246 740 60 0*261 740 60 0*279 740 70 0*293 741 70 0
01280 09/24*307 741 70 0*322 740 70 0*333 738 80 0*339 736 80 0
01280 09/24*307 741 70 0*322 740 70 0*333 738 80 0*339 737 80 0
***
01285 09/25*345 736 80 0*352 734 80 0*359 731 80 0*365 726 80 0
01290 HR
Track adjusted slightly to allow for a more realistic translational velocity.
********************************************************************************
1858/06: Storm was originally #7 in 1858 in Partagas and Diaz's (1995a)
analysis. No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status from destruction in Bermuda
and several ship reports.
********************************************************************************
1858 - Additional Notes:
1. The tropical storm listed as #5 in 1858 in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) was
not included into the HURDAT because we determined that this storm and
storm 1858/04 were likely the same system. Thus information on this
storm is now carried in its entirety as 1858/04, while Partagas and Diaz's
storm #5 in 1858 is removed.
********************************************************************************
1859/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No track
available, only one point. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane
status based upon damage in Tuxpan and Tecoluta, Mexico.
********************************************************************************
1859/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Pressure
readings of 989 and 982 mb not in the hurricane's center (on 00 UTC of August
17th and 18th, respectively) suggest winds of at least 64 and 71 kt from
the northern wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt chosen for best track because
of these values and from description of winds from ship reports, supporting
hurricane status for this storm.
********************************************************************************
1859/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status from reports provided from
St. Kitts.
1859/03 - 2003 REVISION:
01375 09/02/1859 M= 2 3 SNBR= 47 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
01380 09/02*172 597 70 0*174 607 70 0*176 618 70 0*177 630 70 0
01380 09/02*173 597 70 0*174 607 70 0*175 618 70 0*175 630 70 0
*** *** ***
01385 09/03*177 641 70 0*179 654 70 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
01385 09/03*174 641 70 0*173 654 70 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
*** ***
01390 HR
Re-examination of Salivia's (1972) Puerto Rican hurricane history, Boose
et al. (2003) and J. Colon (personal communication) reveals that this
hurricane did not impact Puerto Rico. The track is adjusted slightly
southward to avoid a direct impact on the island, yet still cause
the observed hurricane conditions in St. Kitts and St. Croix described
in Partagas and Diaz (1995a).
********************************************************************************
1859/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
No track available, only one point. Storm is determined to have reached
hurricane status from report from ship "Liberty".
1859/04 - 2003 REVISION:
01395 09/12/1859 M= 1 4 SNBR= 48 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
01395 09/12/1859 M= 2 4 SNBR= 48 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
*
01400 09/12* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*395 505 90 0* 0 0 0 0
01400 09/12* 0 0 0 0*355 575 90 0*370 545 90 0*390 520 90 0
*** *** ** *** *** *** *** **
(The 13th is new to HURDAT.)
01402 09/13*410 500 80 0*430 485 80 0*455 465 70 0*490 435 70 0
01405 HR
Mr. Doug Mayes at the University of South Carolina uncovered additional
ship observations, which allow for a track to be determined for this
hurricane from 06Z on the 12th through 18Z on the 13th.
New York Tribune Oct 1. 1859 p. 8 (and New York Times Oct 1 1859 p. 8)
Ship Coronet, Flowers, Liverpool. . . .12 inst lat 42 lon 50 experienced
a heavy gale which split fore and topsails, main spencer and done other
damage.
New York Tribune Oct 5 1859 p. 8 (and New York Times Oct 4 1859 p. 8)
Bark Etiwan (of Charleston) . . . . Sept 12th lat 36 lon 56 30 had a
very heavy gale from SE which lasted for six hours veering suddenly to
NW with equal force; split sails &c.
New York Tribune Sept 30 1859 p. 8
Ship Cordelia, Bishop, . . . Sept 13th lat 49 48 lon 4? 08 experienced a
hurricane from E to SW which blew away entire suite of sails, sprung
foreyard, main topmast crosstrees, and strained the ship badly, causing
her to leak.
New York Tribune Oct 5 1859 p. 8 (and New York Times Oct 4 1859 p. 8)
Brig Bell Flower (of Pittston). . . . . Experienced heavy gales, split
sails &c. Sept 13 lat 45 30 Lon 47 23, during the violent gale from NE,
was boarded by a sea which stove the deck cabin, filling the cabin with
water, and washed the Captain and a seaman named Samuel Thomas overboard
who were lost.
New York Times Oct 5 1859 p. 8
Ship Anna Decatur, Parsons, Sunderland. . . . Sept 13 in lat 46
experienced very heavy gales.
********************************************************************************
1859/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
No track available, only one point. Storm is determined to have reached
hurricane status based upon destruction which occurred in Mobile.
1859/05 - 2003 REVISION:
01410 09/16/1859 M= 1 5 SNBR= 49 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
01410 09/15/1859 M= 4 5 SNBR= 49 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
** *
(15th not in HURDAT originally.)
01413 09/15*280 890 70 0*285 890 70 0*290 889 70 0*296 886 70 0
01415 09/16*305 880 80 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
01415 09/16*303 881 70 0*311 875 50 0*320 868 40 0*331 848 40 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
(The 17th and 18th are new to HURDAT.)
01416 09/17*343 825 40 0*356 800 40 0*370 775 50 0*385 745 60 0
01417 09/18*400 710 70 0*412 665 70 0*420 610 70 0*425 550 70 0
01420 HR AL1
01420 HR AL1AFL1
****
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States
Winds Simpson Pressure Affected
5-9/16/1859 0000Z 30.5N 88.0W 80kt 1 (977mb) AL1
5-9/16/1859 0000Z 30.3N 88.1W 70kt 1 (985mb) AL1,AFL1
**** **** ** *** ****
Ship and land station observations uncovered by Mr. Doug Mayes and Prof.
Cary Mock at the University of South Carolina and Mr. Michael Chenoweth
are able to well document a track for this hurricane during its
passage over the southeast United States and back out over the Atlantic.
All of these newly analyzed data are documented in full below. The data
reconfirms a minimal hurricane making landfall near Mobile, Alabama which
also caused Category 1 hurricane conditions in Pensacola, Florida. The
landfall intensity though was reduced slightly due to the lack of strong
pressure drop at Warrington, FL just east of the landfall point and relatively
weak winds observed just north of Mobile (at Mt. Vernon, AL) soon after
landfall. This system then trekked to the northeast and reemerged back
over the Atlantic near Virginia/Maryland. Ship reports indicate that the
storm re-acquired hurricane intensity over the open Atlantic. A
peripheral pressure of 996 mb (at 19Z on the 17th in Annapolis) suggests
winds of at least 55 kt from the northern wind pressure relationship -
60 kt chosen for best track.
Newspaper Reports:
The Daily Picayune (New Orleans) Sunday, Sept 18, 1859, p.3
The Late Storm in Mobile. - Our Mobile exchanges, of Friday morning, come
to us with full accounts of the storm in that city the day and night
previous. It appears that the rain began to fall as early as 3 o'clock in
the morning, and continued without the slightest cessation during the
whole day, at times accompanied by a heavy gale of wind, which shifted
at the edge of evening from northeast to southeast.
At this time the alarm became very great. The wind blew a hurricane and
the water flooded the wharf at the foot of Conti, and was still rising
when the authorities ordered the water alarm bells to be rung, and "the
bell on the tower pealed forth its ten strokes with fearful import. Great
excitement prevailed, and the merchants on Commerce and Front streets
set about removing the merchandise into the second stories."
About half-past 9, however, the wind shifted to the south, the rain
ceased, and the water began to recede and fears to subside. As to the
damage, it is not, from the lateness of the hour, fully reported. It is
stated, however, that the telegraph wires were broken down in every
direction; the wharves and bath houses along the city side of the bay were
carried away; boxes, barrels and bales set afloat; and at a late hour
intelligence, from along the line of railroad track, was received, which
caused serious apprehensions that the trains would be interrupted for two
or three days, to the great inconvenience of a large amount of freight
at the depot.
Accidents from Thursday's Blow.- The schooner W. W. Harkness, Capt.
Peterson, hence for Tampico, when about two miles above the head of the
Southwest Pass, during a heavy gale on Thursday last, lost her anchors
and chains and went ashore in four feet water.
The steamboat Crescent, Capt. Carlton, left the levee on Wednesday
afternoon last . . . While proceeding on her voyage she encountered a
gale when off the Chandeleurs, which carried away her chimneys, pilot
house, texas and nearly all the bulwarks of the cabin.
The main boat California, Capt. Myers, met the gale when opposite
Point Clear.
The Daily Picayune Monday, Sept 19, 1859, p.4
The Storm on the Coast. Damage to Shipping and other Property -
The furious and destructive gale, which swept over the coast Thursday
last appears to have been much more violent at Pensacola and vicinity
than even at Mobile. The [Pensacola] Tribune of Friday says:
"On Wednesday night the first of the equinoctial storms commenced with
a vengeance, and yesterday the Storm King reigned supreme, the wind
blowing a hurricane and the rain falling a deluge. Trees were
uprooted and fences prostrated. During the forepart of the day the
wind blew, at different intervals, from every point of the compass,
with terrible force, sweeping everything before it. At noon it
settled in the southeast, from which point it blew with increased
violence.
The shipping in the bay was in a very critical condition, and greatly
confused. The wind sporting with the smaller craft as with ebaff[?]
- throwing them out on the beach and dashing them to pieces against the
wharves.
The schooner Hornet, with her cargo, was thrown ashore, and is now high
and dry.
At about 5 o'clock, the Palafox street wharf which had during the day,
up to the hour mentioned, nobly withstood the storm, succumbed to the
combined force of wind and wave, and was entirely demolished.
The new wharf also received damages to a considerable extent.
The bath-houses, the property of various individuals, situated along
the shore, were all completely destroyed.
It is almost miraculous how the entire shipping in the bay escaped
demolition. Considering the violence of the storm, the damage done,
though great, might have been, and we fear is, far greater than here
reported.
Vessels on the coast must have been greatly distressed, and we shall be
agreeably surprised, when sufficient time has elapsed, if we do not
hear of a greater loss of life and property than has ever been known
on the coast of Florida. . .
During Thursday night the wind shifted round to northeast, still
blowing hard but somewhat inclined to lull.
At daylight this morning the beach presented an indescribable mass of
timbers from the different wrecks, drifted ashore during the night.
In the city, nothing more serious than fences blown down and shade
trees topped, have, as yet, been heard of. On the beach, there are
numerous different estimates as to the value of property destroyed.
In lieu of authentic information, we give the lowest estimate rumored,
$10,000. . .
At the time we go to press it has abated its fury, though the winds
still blow in stiff breeze."
Safety of the Galveston -
By a letter of the same date, but written some hours later, in the
Mobile Tribune, we are gratified to learn of the safety of the
Galveston, Capt. Hutchings, which left this port with the Florida
mails the morning of the 14th. She arrived at Pensacola about 10
o'clock Friday morning. The writer says:
"After getting to sea the wind commenced to blow fresh from the
southeast, and increased to a gale, and blowed from almost every
point of the compass. At 5 A. M. Thursday she was within twenty
miles of Pensacola bar, but the gale increasing, it was dangerous
to keep on her course, and consequently she headed off the land and
rode the gale out. At midnight the gale moderated, and the ship
was again on her course for this place. The wheel houses are stove
in, and the forward part of the ship above the deck is stove in also.
It was necessary to throw off part of her deck load, and most of that
on deck is damaged, as the water washed through the ship from fore to
aft. She has not sustained damage though to detain her." . . .
The Damage at Mobile -
Our neighbors of Mobile appear to have been more frightened than
hurt. Only some sugar, flour, &c., on the ground floors of a few
of the warehouses were injured.
At Point Clear nearly all of the little bath houses and wharves were
swept away, and the sojourners were much alarmed.
Higher up, on the eastern shore, every wharf and bath house, except
Hudson's and Stark's is gone.
In the neighborhood of Short's wharf, two oyster boats capsized, one
of them the Sea Bird, and two persons, names unknown, were drowned.
The Daily Picayune Sunday, Sept 18, 1859, p.3
Heavy Storm at New York. Extensive Damage to Property.
New York, Sept. 17. - A very violent storm of wind a rain passed over
this city today doing considerable damage to shipping.
Among the disasters, the bark Mary Ellen, from Bremen, dragged her
anchors and went ashore on Governor's Island.
There was also considerable damage to other property.
A five-story warehouse in progress of erection, in Duane street, was
blown down and completely demolished. The house adjoining was also
thrown down and the tenants buried beneath the ruins.
Daily National Intelligencer (Washington) Tuesday Sept. 20 1859 p. 2
The ravages of the storm of Friday and Saturday have been general and
severe. The amount of water was over eight inches. The damage to the
ungathered crops and to mill dams and fences has been very great.
Daily National Intelligencer Tuesday Sept 20 1859 p. 2
The Fresh, subsequent to the date of our report of yesterday, raised
sufficiently on Sunday night to do some damage. Scantling and other
lumber was carried off from some of the lumber yards in Georgetown, and
more or less of it lost. In addition to the loss of salt by a
Georgetown merchant, about fifty barrels of flour belonging to
Mr. Cruikshank were damages. This is all we hear of worth mentioning in
addition.
Daily National Intelligencer Tuesday Sept 20 1859 p. 2
Of the Chesepeake and Ohio canal it is yet in our power to say but
little. Unauthenticated reports were current yesterday of a breach on
the nine mile level, and also east of the Great Falls, but they received
little credence. A telegraph dispatch from Harper's Ferry yesterday
announced Dam No. 4 as swept away, but this was deemed altogether
extravagant. The coffer-dam lately inserted and the yet unfinished
guard bank were most likely injured, but that the solid masonry of the
dam has suffered is scarcely credible.
Daily National Intelligencer Tuesday Sept 20 1859 p. 2
Extraordinary Fall of Rain. --- The amount of rain at Grafton Cottage
near Washington, in the storm of the 16th and 17th instant, was six
inches and four-tenths September 19, CHAS. G. PAGE.
Daily National Intelligencer Monday Sept 19 1859 p. 3
The freshet in the Potomac caused by the heavy rains of Friday and
Saturday was a source of considerable excitement yesterday all along the
river banks. . . . . At five o'clock the river was rising at the
Georgetown wharves, but we were assured that at the little falls bridge
it was falling. Some apprehension was felt for what might take place at
the next flood tide.
Daily National Intelligencer Monday Sept 19 1859 p. 3
A good many persons were hard at work at the western wharves scouring
private and public property there. The new depot of New York Steamship
company was considered in much peril if the river should rise higher; as
it was the water was up more than 100 feet beyond shore. The contents of
the depot were removed in good time.
Daily National Intelligencer Monday Sept 19 1859 p. 3
The current in the Potomac was very rapid, and large quantities of
driftwood passed down. In some cases lodging against vessels at the
wharves somewhat to there risk. The Long Bridge, in its present fragile
state, appeared to be in danger, but may withstand the pressure against
it.
Daily National Intelligencer Monday Sept 19 1859 p. 3
The Chesapeake and Ohio canal, so far as heard from has suffered no
damage from the fresh. The water was let out of the Georgetown level to
prevent breaches there, and it is hoped that similar precaution was
observed all along the line. Some solicitude is felt for dams No. 4 and
5, but nothing is known, as the telegraph was not at work yesterday.
New York Tribune Monday Sept 19, 1859 p. 8
Brig Tangent, Plummer, from Boston, for Elizabethport, in Ballast for
coal, arrived at the Hook on Friday night, and during the gale of
Saturday dragged both anchors into two fathoms of water. Her foremast
was cut away, which with the yards and main topmast, went over the side,
when she held. She was towed up to the city on Sunday.
New York Tribune Tuesday Sept. 19 1859 p. 8
Steamship Potomac, Watson, Savannah, . . . . On the 17th inst . . .
9 P.M. 10 miles off Cape Hatteras, passed steamship Parkersburg hence for
Savannah. The P. experienced a heavy gale from the N.E.
New York Tribune Tuesday Sept. 19 1859 p. 8
Ship Marathon, Tyler Liverpool, . . . 17th inst, Lat 40 30, Lon ?9 in a
gale from SE to NNE carried away main topmast trestletrees.
New York Tribune Tuesday Sept. 19 1859 p. 8
Ship Manhattan, Dixon, Liverpool Aug. 6. . . . has been twenty days west
of the banks with light westerly winds; had to haul off shore Saturday
night during the heavy easterly gales.
New York Tribune Tuesday Sept. 19 1859 p. 8
Bark Milton, Bradford, Liverpool Aug 10. . . . Saturday 17th had a heavy
gale from ESE to NNE with a bad sea, vessel laboring very heavy, Montauk
bearing North 50 miles.
New York Tribune Sept 21, 1859 p. 12
Ship Havre, Askins, . . . Sept 17 and 18, Lat 40 20 Lon 70 experienced a
heavy gale from SE to NNE.
New York Tribune Sept 21 1859 p. 12
Ship Martha (of Boston) Arr. Off the Hook 17th and hauled off shore in
a heavy gale from E. Had heavy weather off Algoa Bay; slit split sails,
washed away bulwarks, &c.
New York Tribune Sept 21 1859 p. 12
Ship Wm H Prescott (of Boston) . . . .17th inst, had a gale from SE to W;
18th had hurricane from the N during which shifted cargo.
New York Tribune Sept 21 1859 p. 12
Bark Kepler . . . 17th inst, highlands bearing WNW bearing 40 miles
passed schr Oregon lying to; experienced heavy westerly gales up to
Lon 50. since then light westerly winds and calms and on the 17th inst
had a head easterly gale.
New York Tribune Sept 21 1859 p. 12
Schr Alma . . . 17th inst5 miles E of Sandy Hook, took a gale from ESE
and was compelled to haul off shore, during which split foresail, stove
bulwarks, &c.
New York Tribune Sept 22 1859 p. 8
Ship Messenger, Hooper . . . . Sept 17 off the Capes of Delaware,
experienced a hurricane fm NE which blew away foretopsail and jib.
New York Tribune Sept 22 1859 p. 8
Brig Salus Arkle, Palmero 70 days, and Gibraltar 36 days fruit to order.
Sept 18 in a heavy gale from N., split sails &c.
New York Tribune Sept 22 1859 p. 8
Schr Sir Colin Campbell, Virgens, Sagua 11 days, sugar, &c. to Whitman
Bros. Sept 17 experienced a heavy gale from ENE lost deck load of
Molasses.
New York Tribune Sept 23 1859 p. 8
Ship Constitution . . . . 17th Lat. 41 Lon. 67 had another very heavy
blow from S and NW with a high cross sea running.
New York Tribune Sept 23 1859 p. 8
Bark R G W Dodge. . . 16th and 17th inst had heavy gale from SE
New York Tribune Sept 24 1859 p. 8
Bark Harvest Hammond Savannah 7days, in ballast to Sturgis Clearman and
Company. Sept 17 SE of Hatteras experienced a very heavy gale from
Southeast.
New York Tribune Oct 1 1859 p. 8 (and New York Times Oct 1 1859 p. 8)
Schr. Louisa A. Johnson (of Brookhaven). . . . 18th inst, lat 41 52
lon 56 49 in a hurricane from NW lost mainboom and received other
damage.
New York Times Oct 3 1859 p. 8
Ship Lady Franklin, Jordan, Liverpool. . . . Sept 18 lat 44 lon 58
experienced a hurricane from SE did no damage.
New York Times Sept 23 1859 p. 8 (and Charleston Daily Courier Sept
22 1859 p. 4)
Steamer Chesapeake . . . .during the NE gales of the 18th while off
Cape Cod sprang a leak and threw overboard 400lbs of sugar and syrup.
She still leaks and is kept free by her donkey pumps. She will, after
discharging her cargo, go to the docks for repairs.
New York Times Sept 20 1859 p. 8
Steamer George's Creek On the 16th experienced a heavy gale from the NE
and was compelled to put into Hampton Roads for harbor.
New York Times Sept 19 1859 p. 8 (and Charleston Daily Courier Sept
22 p. 4)
Steamship Nashville. . . . The Nashville experienced very heavy gales
from Hatteras to the Lower Bay where she anchored last evening the 17th.
Instrumental Records
--------------------
Date Time Station Temp in Cloudiness Wind Wind Comments
Pressure Open Amount Dir. Speed
Annapolis, Maryland
16SEP 7am 30.12 63 10 NE 2
2pm 30.06 65 10 ESE 3
9pm 29.94 64 10 ENE 3 Rain began 9pm
17SEP 7am 29.51 67 10 NE 3
2pm 29.37 60 10 N 4
9pm 29.72 63 10 NW 2 Rain ended 9pm, 4.8"
18SEP 7am 29.86 57.5 0 NW 1
2pm 29.84 72.5 3 N 1
9pm 29.86 65 3 N 1
Fort Monroe, Virginia
16SEP 7am 30.30 73 Cloudy E 4 Rain began 6am
2pm 30.20 72 Cloudy E 5
9pm NA 71 Cloudy E 5
17SEP 7am 29.71 75 Cloudy SW 4 Rain ended 5am, 0.86
2pm 29.80 75 Cloudy NE 2
9pm 30.00 68 Fair NW 2
18SEP 7am 30.15 70 Fair NW 2
2pm 30.18 73 Fair NE 2
9pm NA 70 Fair SW 2
US Naval Ob., Wash. D.C. (selected)
16SEP noon 30.22 68 10 SE 1 Rain began 2.5am
2.5pm 30.18 66 10 E 2
8.5pm 30.07 63 10 E 3
17SEP 0.5am 29.95 64 10 NE 3 Rain cont., 0.93"
2.5am 29.90 63 10 NE 3
6.5am 29.60 64 10 E 4
8.5am 29.59 68.5 10 E 5
9.5am 29.44 69 10 E 4
10.5am 29.42 68 10 NNE 5
noon 29.54 61 10 NW 6
2.5pm 29.66 60 10 NW 6
3.5pm 29.73 60 10 NW 6
4.5pm 29.78 60 10 NW 6
6.5pm 29.82 60 10 WNW 6
8.5pm 29.89 60 10 WNW 4
9.5pm 29.90 60 10 NW 3 Rain ended 9pm, 3.34"
18SEP 2.5am 29.95 60 4 NW 3
8.5am 30.04 64 1 NW 2
noon 30.03 74 10 NW 3
Washington D. C.
16SEP 7am 30.28 60 10 NE 2 Rain began 1am
2pm 30.20 67 10 SE 3
9pm 30.08 63 10 NE 4
17SEP 7am 29.51 69 10 NE 4
2pm 29.61 61 10 NW 4 cont., 4.00"
9pm 29.89 62 10 NW 4 Rain ended 9.5pm, 0.34"
18SEP 7am 30.03 61 0 NW NA
2pm 30.06 71 3 NW 1
9pm 30.08 64 0 0 0
Other records and diary entries
-------------------------------
(These observations are typically taken on a 7am/2pm/9pm timeframe.)
Mt Vernon Barracks AL
13th N2/N3/NE0
14th NE1/NE0/N0
15th NE0/NE6/NE5
16th W3/W1/N0
17th N0/NE0/NE0
On the 15th, 3.05 inches of rain, "Rained all day without ceasing"
Columbus MS
15th SE2/SE3/E3 0.108 inches of rain
16th N3/N3/N1
17th N1/S2/E1
Pauling MS
15th NE3/NE4/NE4
16th NE2/NW3/NE1
17th N1/M/E2
On the 15th, "wind at 6 pm NE5", rain 1.650 from 12 M to 1 AM
New Orleans LA
15th NE4/N5/NW5
16th W2/NW3/SW1
17th E1/NE2/E2
On the 15th, High wind in the evening. 0.39 inches of rain. Barometer
on the 15th down to 29.85 in the middle of the day.
Baton Rouge LA
15th NE2/NE4/NE2
16th W1/NE2/NE1
17th E1/E2/SE1
Thomaston GA
14th 72/76/72 29.05/29.05/29.05 SW/SE2/SE0 3.35" rain
15th 73/74/71 28.8/28.8/29.0 E1/SE2/SE4
16th 70/84/77 29.0/29.0/29.0 S5/S4/SW_
17th 70/84/77 29.0/29.0/29.0 NE/SW/SW
Whitemarsh Island, GA
14th 71/84/75 W1/SSE3/M
15th 73/80/77 N1/NE3/SE3 1.35" rain
16th 77/82/79 S4/S5/WSW5 0.08" rain
17th 72/83/75 WNW3/WNW3/M
Sparta, GA
14th 61/85/70 SW1/NW1/N1
15th 65/72/69 E1/NE2/E4 rain afternoon night
16th 70/74/69 SE1/SW3/SW4 rain During day
17th 63/83/71 W1/NW3/NE1
Augusta GA
14th 65/91/75 30.25/30.30/30.34 W0/W1/W0
15th 72.5/75/72 30.30/30.24/30.18 W0/W0/W0
16th 74/79/73 30.10/30.05/30.00 SE3/SE2/SW2 1.88" rain
17th 69/88/72 30.02/30.07/30.15 W0/W1/W0 0.42" rain
St Augustine, FL
14th 84/88/87 29.92/29.92/29.97 SW1/SE3/SW1
15th 84/86/84 30.10/30.10/30.10 SE3/SE4/SE4
16th 83/78/77 30.04/30.00/29.97 S3/SW3/SW2 0.40" rain
17th 80/90/87 30.00/30.00/30.00 NW2/SW3/SW1
Note most winds were 3+ in strength all month
Cedar Keys, FL
14th 80/86/80 S1/SW1/0
15th 80/85/81 E3/SE2/SE4
16th 76/81/80 SE3/SW3/SW4
17th 77/82/77 NW2/W2/NW2
Barrancas Barracks, FL
14th 72/88/84 N2/SE3/SE3
15th 76/81/79 NE3/SE7/SE8 3.30" rain
16th 75/87/77 NW5/NW2/N2
17th 75/87/81 N1/SW1/NW2
Warrington FL (US Naval Hospital)
14th 78/80/86/79 29.90/29.90/29.90/29.90 SW2/SW3/SW3/SW5 rain
15th 78/76/79/75 29.90/29.88/29.83/29.73 NE7/NE7/E7/SE7 rain
16th 74/80/87/80 29.79/29.80/29.84/29.87 NW7/SW5/SW4/SW3
17th 74/80/88/80 29.92/29.92/29.92/29.93 SW2/SW2/SW2/SW3
Lake City, FL
14th 77/92/78 S1/S2/0 0.50" rain
15th 79/87/75 SE1/S2/S2
16th 74/82/78 S3/SW5/SW2 1.60" rain
17th 76/88/76 SW1/0/0
A. Glennie, Pawley's Island SC
14th 74/80/62 30.05 E/S/S
15th 67/79/77 30.05 N/SE/E
16th 79/83/80 29.80 S/S/SW 0.22
17th 72/82/72 30.02 W/W/W
Black Oak, Pinopolis SC
14th 61/82/72 30.05/30.13/30.14 NW/NE/SE
15th 67/81/76 30.15/30.23/30.21 NE/NE/SE Cloudy/Rain/Cloudy
Rain 0.01"
16th 76/83/80 30.14/30.03/29.92 SE/SE/E Squally with high wind.
Rain 0.09"
17th 70/82/71 29.95/30.02/30.03 NW/NW/W Clear
Charleston Board of Health, SC
14th 69/81/78 30.11/30.15/30.21 SW2/E2 Fair
15th 76/80/78 30.24/30.26/30.25 NE2/SE2 Fair - rain 0.12"
16th 80/84/82 30.11/30.09/30.00 SE3/S5 Cloudy
17th 73/83/75 30.08/30.05/30.12 SW3/W1 Fair
Fort Moultrie, SC
14th 74/81/78 30.19/30.24/30.27 SW1/E2/E2 f/f/f - rain 0.23"
15th 76/80/77 30.22/30.24/30.26 NE1/E2/E1 cloudy/cloudy/f
rain at intervals
16th 80/82/81 30.27/30.17/30.10 SE1/SE3/S5 f/cloudy/cloudy
stormy at 4 PM and 10 PM
17th 72/84/76 30.13/30.13/30.22 SW3/NW2/NW1 f/f/f
Arsenal Academy, Richland County (Columbia), SC
14th 68/86/71 NE0/SE2
15th 70/83/72 E3/SE3 [rain] 4.5 PM continued during night
16th 73/78/68 W6/SE5 1.8" rain
17th 66/85/72 NE0/SW3
Aiken, SC
14th 63/87/72 E2/E2/E2
15th M/72/66 M/E1/NE3 0.85" rain
16th 73/80/66 NE4/SE4/W4 0.94" rain
17th 67/81/69 W3/S2/SW1
David Golightly Harris. Spartanburg, SC
16th Night before last and yesterday and last night it rained very hard
Charleston Courier, Saturday, September 17: The winds and waves
prevented the boat race which was eagerly expected on Friday afternoon.
We shall no doubt have a trial on the first fair afternoon; and after
the gales and "blows" of this period, we may expect frequent occasions of
such a delightful and exciting pastime.
Dr. Louis M. Desaussure. Beaufort Dist., SC
16th - rain, threatening Sepr gale from N.E. - warm ... Late in eveng,
hard blow or gale of wind & rain from S.E. threw cotton down funneled it
& injured it.
John McPherson DeSaussure (Kershaw Dist.): Rain fell 0.05 In. wind
S.E., S. or S.W.
Samuel Porcher Gaillard. Sumter Dist., SC:
14th Cool this morning, 68°. Cloudy this evening
15th Cloudy this morning & heavy fog. About 9 am sun came out,
overcast all morning from 11 am until 2 pm at which time the clouds were
threatening at south & S.W. At 3 pm had a few drops of rain & from that
time to this, 8 pm, occasionally a few drops, likely to rain before
morning.
16th Had a little rain last night. Cloudy & unsettled all morning.
Had a slight shower just after daylight & ceased at 7 am. At a ¼ of 12
(& previous) heard thunder & by 20 after 12 a heavy cloud came over from
S.S.W. A very heavy fall of water. It did not cease raining until near
2 pm. At 4 pm had a heavy shower all evening. About sunset every
appearance of clearing up as it has been clear at west but soon became
cloudy & has been raining off & on up to this time 9 pm the wind
indicates stormy weather.
17th Had a very heavy rain last night & wind very high, by 12 o'clock
ceased & was clear before morning. I heard this morning (which was ????
by a letter from my sister, Mrs. Rembert) that yesterday a tornado passed
over Col. James Rembert's plantation. Every building except smokehouse
unroofed even his dwelling, which is a very large building. All his
fencing down. I have no doubt it was [serious] to the crops. He said it
all was done in 5 minutes.
Charles Heyward, Charleston SC
15th Good weather until today, Cloudy & rain
16th Overcast. Threatening weather but passed off during the night with
a little high wind
Chapel Hill, NC
14th 68/80/65 29.61/29.66/29.69 NW1/W1/W1
15th 62/76/68 29.78/29.63/29.43 NE2/NE2/N2
16th 66/70/68 29.73/29.63/29.43 NW3/NW3/NW1
17th 66/80/69 29.33/29.46/29.56 NW3/NW3/SW1 0.15" rain
Murfreesboro, NC
14th W1/SE1/NE1
15th 63/76/68 29.4/29.55/29.35 E2/NE2/E2
16th 69/70/69 29.3/29.25/29.2 SE4/SW3/NW1 0.60" rain
17th 72/82/71 28.9/29.0/29.1 NW1/NW1/NW1 0.50" rain
Basil Armstrong Thomason. Yadkin County, NC
15th Cloudy and cool. Wind from the north east.
16th A real "north easter." Came as near raining all day as common.
Guess this is the equinoctial storm.
17th Clear and quite warm. It rained a small flood last night, so the
creeks are past fording to-day.
Halifax, Nova Scotia
16th 42/60/37 29.9/29.9/29.9 NW & SW clear and fine
Thermometer at sunrise 32
17th 45/64/44 29.9/29.8/29.7 SE Cloudy rain at night
18th 50/56/53 29.5/29.4/29.4 ENE Heavy rain nearly all day
19th 57/65/47 29.4/29.4/29.6 WNW Cloudy - clear and fine
1859/05 - 2011 REVISION:
01475 09/15*280 890 70 0*285 890 70 0*290 889 70 0*296 886 70 0*
01480 09/16*303 881 70 0*311 875 50 0*320 868 40 0*331 848 40 0*
01485 09/17*343 825 40 0*356 800 40 0*370 775 50 0*385 745 60 0*
01490 09/18*400 710 70 0*412 665 70 0*420 610 70 0*425 550 70 0*
01495 HR AL1AFL1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
5-9/16/1859 0000Z 30.3N 88.1W 70kt 1 --- (985mb) AL1,AFL1
5-9/16/1859 0000Z 30.3N 88.1W 70kt 1 --- (982mb) AL1,AFL1
***
The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Alabama and Florida as a 70 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 985 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 982 mb -
for a 70 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
1859/06: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Utilized
the northern wind-pressure relationship for hurricanes from ship on 6th.
Ship with central pressure observation of 938 mb gives 105 kt, used 110 kt in
best track - supporting major hurricane status of this storm.
********************************************************************************
1859/07: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Inland
winds over Florida reduced via methodology of Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995)
inland decay model.
********************************************************************************
1859/08: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Pressure
reading of 989 mb not in hurricane's center (on 12 UTC, 28th of October)
suggests winds of at least 65 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure
relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track, supporting hurricane status
for this storm.
1859/08 - 2011 REVISION:
01560 10/28/1859 M= 6 8 SNBR= 53 NOT NAMED XING=0 L
01560 10/24/1859 M= 6 8 SNBR= 53 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1 L
** * *****
(The 24th through the 27th is new to HURDAT.)
01561 10/24*202 933 40 0*203 933 40 0*204 933 40 0*206 932 40 0*
01562 10/25*207 932 40 0*208 932 50 0*210 931 50 0*212 930 50 0*
01563 10/26*214 929 60 0*216 928 60 0*218 926 70 0*220 925 80 0*
01564 10/27*223 921 80 0*225 917 80 0*231 910 80 0*239 900 80 0*
01565 10/28*294 796 70 0*296 791 70 0*298 786 80 0*300 781 80 0*
01565 10/28*248 887 80 0*257 871 80 0*267 850 80 0*277 828 80 0*
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ***
01570 10/29*302 776 90 0*303 771 90 0*305 766 90 0*307 761 90 0*
01570 10/29*292 792 70 989E303 752 60 0E317 699 50 0E327 635 40 0*
*** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** **
(The 30th through the 2nd are removed from HURDAT.)
01575 10/30*308 758 80 0*309 755 80 0*310 750 80 0*310 745 80 0*
01580 10/31*310 741 80 0*310 736 80 0*309 730 70 0*308 726 70 0*
01585 11/01*308 721 70 0*308 716 70 0*308 711 70 0*308 706 70 0*
01590 11/02*308 700 70 0*309 695 70 0*310 690 70 0*312 685 70 0*
01595 HR
01595 HR BFL1CFL1
********
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
8-10/28/1859 1800Z 27.7N 82.8W 80kt 1 --- (974mb) BFL2,CFL1
Highlights: This report documents a new land-falling Florida hurricane (Saffir-
Simpson Category 1) previously undocumented. The new start point extends
previous details of Storm 8 back to the Bay of Campeche and connects with data
from the Atlantic previously reported in HURDAT. The later stages of the
hurricane are now modified based on map analysis. The storm is now shown to
have made a landfall over southern Tampa Bay and then accelerated to the
east-northeast and becoming extratropical and passing near Bermuda by late on
29 October as it merged with a frontal wave separating a steadily encroaching
area of cold high pressure across the entire SE USA. This high pressure
dominated the weather over this area into early November.
(Re-analysis of this hurricane was provided by Mike Chenoweth.)
Key Observations:
Daily Picayune, 12 November
"The late gale, or succession of gales in the Gulf, appears to have been one
of the most extensive and prolonged we have for years had occasion to record.
On the Mexican coast it lasted ten days, and none of the great sailing tracks
appear to have been without a visit from it. Capt. Peterson, of the schooner
W.W. Harkness, arrived yesterday from Tampico the 21st ult., furnishes the
following interesting report of his experience, which will give best in the
words of the log itself:
"On the 23d October, two days out from Tampico, was compelled to heave to
and reef sails in a heavy norther in lat 25, long. 96, which lasted until
the 27th, when in lat. 22, long. 9246, was overtaken by a hurricane. Began
to blow at 8 P.M. from the northeast, and lasted till 11 A.M. the next
morning, when wind veered round to the northwest, barometer 27.50. During
all this time the Harkness was hove to with all sails furled, except a
little of the main peak set to keep her head to the sea, which run very
high. Lost two jibs, carried away head stays and worked loose bowsprit.
Vessel made water freely after the gale. Finally, obliged to drift without
any sails till temporary rigging could be made. Wind blowing strong from
N.E. all the time. November 2. - At 4P.M. exchanged signals with the schooner Star,
bound south, lat. 2524 long. 9311. November 4. - Vessel very crank. Fruits rotten.
Was obliged to run in for the land, westward, in smooth water and brought to. All
the fruit overboard. Broke cargo aft and stowed forward, so as to bring vessel into
sailing trim. November 9. - Off Timablier [sic] Island. Exchange signals with
steamships Mexico and Texas. November 10. - Arrived at Southwest Pass, 21 days
from Tampico, during which time not one single hour of fair wind. Nothing but a
northeaster from one end of the Gulf to the other."
[NOTE: The barometer reading of 27.50 is not to be relied on. Also, the date of
27 October is believed to be actually 26 October, in order to maintain
continuity with the land-based and other ship data.]
Synoptic Features:
An area of low pressure probably formed over the southern Bay of Campeche
around 23-24 October near the tail end of a cold front that was dissipating
in the area. An area of high pressure over the southern U.S. brought an
easterly flow along the entire northern Gulf Coast and strong northerly winds
to the Florida Peninsula on 24 October but southeast and south winds were
returning around the high in central and northern Texas, while northeast winds
still blew in southern Texas. On 25 October, the high weakened with a ridge
extending from Arkansas and Louisiana towards northeast Mexico. A trough of
low pressure penetrated into the Florida panhandle from the north as a low
pressure center moved across the Great Lakes region on the 25th and 26th of
October. By 1800Z 26 October (about 2 p.m. Eastern Time) weak high pressure
was central over central Texas and the lower Ohio River valley while a cold
front extended along the eastern US into the north Gulf coast area. Easterly
winds blew at Key West on 25 and 26 October.
At 1800Z 27 October a large high pressure area was central over the Great Plains
and a low pressure center over the Gulf of St. Lawrence region of Canada. A cold
front extended from the Atlantic across north-central South Carolina, central
Georgia and just clearing the southeast tip of Louisiana and entering south
Texas at about 27.5N.
At 1800Z 28 October, the hurricane made landfall along the southeastern shores
of Tampa Bay. The storm was accelerating in forward motion as it moved just
south of a frontal boundary extending from near Bermuda to the St. Augustine
and Cedar Keys area, then dipping more to the southwest into the western Gulf
of Mexico and entering Mexico near about 23N latitude. High pressure was nearly
stationary over the central Great Plains. Strong northerly winds prevailed from
Savannah, Georgia westward into southern Texas.
During the next 12 hours, the hurricane, accelerating its forward motion passed
over the present day Orlando area and emerged from the Florida coast between
Cape Canaveral and Oak Hill. By 0600Z, the cyclone was near the intersection
of the cold and warm fronts and had become extratropical. During the next 12
hours, the low pressure continued to move to the east-northeast passing near
and a little north of Bermuda. High pressure moved across Florida and dominated
the area into the opening days of November.
Pressure gradient winds account for the strong winds reported by a few ships on
31 October and 1 November previously noted in Fernandez-Partagas and Diaz (1995)
and are not associated with Storm 8. This leads to the major adjustments in
the portion of the former HURDAT track east of Florida, which until now was
the only documented portion of the storm.
Major Changes from Previous HURDAT
New ship reports from the Gulf of Mexico and daily weather maps of land-based
data allow for this storm to be tracked back to its approximate area of origin
in the Bay of Campeche. In addition, the storm end date is moved forward to
better fit with the large-scale circulation flow in which the hurricane moved
through.
Weather reports from the U.S. Coast Survey at Egmont Key (near the mouth of
Tampa Bay) and Charlotte Harbor, Florida were key to identifying the landfall
position of the storm. Egmont Key was brushed by the northern portion of the
eyewall so maximum sustained winds were not felt there (although considerable
damage was done to equipment and instruments that led to the cessation of
weather reports until early November). No barometer data are available for
the storm center except by the Kensington schooner on 28 October, with a 989 mb
reading. Based on weather map data, the time of observation of this reading is
probably about 0100-0200Z 29 October. This pressure yields 61 kt wind speed
using the Brown et al. north of 25N wind-pressure relationship. The fast
forward motion of the storm likely caused an additive effect to the maximum
wind speed, so the intensity is analyzed at minimal hurricane force (70 kt),
consistent with observed
hurricane force winds at the ship.
Land-based damage reports are limited to Egmont Key and the strongest winds
probably avoided the island. Based on the wind descriptions at Egmont Key,
a force 10 wind (~50 knots) on the weaker side of the east-northeastward moving
hurricane, an approximate forward motion at landfall of about 22 kt (and
increasing) and the subsequent pressure reading east of Florida of
989 mb, a wind speed of 80 kt is assessed for landfall intensity in
west Florida. The force 9 winds reported from Charlotte Harbor and the
description of wind speed nearly at hurricane force could suggest stronger
winds on the southeast and east side of the eye wall at landfall. This makes
the system a high end Category 1 hurricane at landfall in Florida. A similar
track of such a storm today would take it directly over or very near Walt Disney
World and the city of Orlando.
One question addressed was whether the cyclone was undergoing extratropical
transition either before landfall or after it was moving over Florida. The
temperature at Egmont Key at all three observations on 27 October was 74F with
unsettled rainy weather prevailing all day. On 28 October there is a single
temperature reading at 7am of 68.5F which would indeed indicate cooler air
close to the hurricane. The temperatures at Charlotte Harbor on 27 October
at the 3 ob times were 78-78-79 and on 28 October were 77-78-74. Keeping in
mind that the thermometers, being 1859, were in non-standard exposures and
were probably wetted and acted like a wet bulb under the weather conditions
prevailing at the time, may have indicated erroneously cooler air temperatures
than what actually occurred during the storm. Additionally, the central
pressure from the Kensington suggests the storm was still a hurricane at this
point but soon after becoming extratropical (so even having travelled over
land it maintained hurricane intensity in an increasingly unfavorable
environment). It is estimated that extratropical transition occurred around
06Z on the 28th - whereas no extratropical stage for this system was
indicated previously.
********************************************************************************
1860/01: Extended track three days into the Atlantic as was suggested by
Partagas and Diaz (1995a). However, it is noted by Prof. Cary Mock of the
University of South Carolina and Sandrik (2001) that all of the available
historical accounts from this time showed no evidence for tropical storm
strength during its transit over Georgia. It may very well be the case that
this system dropped to tropical depression stage before redeveloping into a
moderate-intensity tropical storm over the Atlantic. Due to format chosen,
however, that tropical depression stage is not utilized in HURDAT until
1871, this system will be retained here formally as a minimal tropical storm
over the southeast United States. Inland winds over SE US derived from
utilizing Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model. Storm tide
values from Ludlum (1963) for Fort St. Philip, Louisiana (12 ft) and
Mobile, Alabama (10 ft). Storm determined to have reached major hurricane
status based upon destruction and storm tide values along U.S. Gulf coast.
1860/01 - 2011 REVISION:
01600 08/08/1860 M= 9 1 SNBR= 54 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
01605 08/08*279 841 40 0*278 845 40 0*278 848 50 0*277 853 50 0*
01610 08/09*276 859 60 0*275 863 60 0*275 868 70 0*274 875 70 0*
01615 08/10*274 880 80 0*274 885 80 0*275 890 90 0*275 895 90 0*
01620 08/11*276 899 100 0*279 901 100 0*284 903 110 0*290 901 110 0*
01625 08/12*297 898 100 0*305 889 100 0*310 880 70 0*313 868 50 0*
01630 08/13*314 856 40 0*315 846 40 0*317 836 40 0*318 826 40 0*
01635 08/14*319 816 40 0*320 806 40 0*320 796 50 0*320 786 50 0*
01640 08/15*320 776 50 0*323 766 50 0*325 756 50 0*327 746 50 0*
01645 08/16*330 735 50 0*333 720 50 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*
01650 HR LA3 MS3 AL2
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
1-8/11/1860 2000Z 29.2N 90.0W 110kt 3 --- (950mb) LA3,MS3,AL2
1-8/11/1860 2000Z 29.2N 90.0W 110kt 3 --- (945mb) LA3,MS3,AL2
***
The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Louisiana and Mississippi as a 110 kt hurricane. This suggested
a central pressure at landfall of 950 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 945 mb -
for a 110 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
1860/02: Extended the track to the 26th to take into account ship
observations reported by Partagas and Diaz's (1995a). Otherwise, no major
changes. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon
reports from the ships "Sabine", "Mary Rusell" and "Zurich".
********************************************************************************
1860/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No track
available, only one point. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane
status based upon report from ship "Ocean Spray".
********************************************************************************
1860/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Inland
winds over SE US reduced via methodology of Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995)
inland decay model. Storm tide value of 10' from Ho (1989) for Mobile,
Alabama. Storm determined to have reached hurricane status from destruction
and tide experienced along the U.S. Gulf coast.
1860/04 - 2003 REVISION:
01620 09/11/1860 M= 6 4 SNBR= 56 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
01625 09/11*251 838 90 0*252 841 90 0*252 845 90 0*252 848 90 0
01630 09/12*252 851 90 0*252 856 90 0*254 860 90 0*255 866 90 0
01630 09/12*252 852 90 0*253 856 90 0*254 860 90 0*255 866 90 0
*** ***
01635 09/13*256 871 90 0*257 876 90 0*259 881 90 0*262 886 90 0
01640 09/14*267 893 90 0*272 896 90 0*277 899 90 0*283 898 90 0
01640 09/14*267 893 90 0*272 896 90 0*277 898 90 0*283 898 90 0
***
01645 09/15*289 896 90 0*295 896 90 0*301 894 90 0*308 891 70 0
01645 09/15*289 897 90 0*295 896 90 0*301 894 90 0*308 891 70 0
***
01650 09/16*318 886 50 0*330 880 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
01655 HR LA2 MS2 AL1
Track altered slightly to allow for a more realistic translational velocity.
1860/04 - 2011 REVISION:
01695 09/11/1860 M= 6 4 SNBR= 57 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
01700 09/11*251 838 90 0*252 841 90 0*252 845 90 0*252 848 90 0*
01705 09/12*252 852 90 0*253 856 90 0*254 860 90 0*255 866 90 0*
01710 09/13*256 871 90 0*257 876 90 0*259 881 90 0*262 886 90 0*
01715 09/14*267 893 90 0*272 896 90 0*277 898 90 0*283 898 90 0*
01720 09/15*289 897 90 0*295 896 90 0*301 894 90 0*308 891 70 0*
01725 09/16*318 886 50 0*330 880 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*
01730 HR LA2 MS2 AL1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
4-9/15/1860 0400Z 29.3N 89.6W 90kt 2 --- (969mb) LA2,MS2,AL1
4-9/15/1860 0400Z 29.3N 89.6W 90kt 2 --- (965mb) LA2,MS2,AL1
***
The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Louisiana and Mississippi as a 90 kt hurricane. This suggested
a central pressure at landfall of 969 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 965 mb -
for a 90 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
1860/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
********************************************************************************
1860/06: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Inland
winds over SE US reduced via methodology of Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995)
inland decay model. Storm determined to have reached hurricane status
based upon destruction in Louisiana.
1860/06 - 2011 REVISION:
01765 09/30/1860 M= 4 6 SNBR= 59 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
01770 09/30*224 910 50 0*226 911 50 0*230 913 60 0*234 915 60 0*
01775 10/01*237 916 70 0*244 919 70 0*251 920 80 0*260 921 80 0*
01780 10/02*268 920 80 0*276 919 90 0*285 916 90 0*297 914 90 0*
01785 10/03*312 909 60 0*323 905 50 0*335 900 40 0*347 891 40 0*
01790 HR LA2
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
6-10/2/1860 1700Z 29.5N 91.4W 90kt 2 --- (969mb) LA2
6-10/2/1860 1700Z 29.5N 91.4W 90kt 2 --- (965mb) LA2
***
The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Louisiana as a 90 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 969 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 965 mb -
for a 90 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
1860/07: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
inland decay model. Storm determined to have reached hurricane status
based upon several ship reports.
********************************************************************************
1861/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
Storm determined to have reached hurricane status based upon several
ship reports.
********************************************************************************
1861/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
Storm determined to have reached hurricane status based upon ship
reports from the "Santiago de Cuba" and the "Kate Stevens". Storm
is known as the "Key West Hurricane" from its impacts in Key West,
Florida (Ludlum 1963).
1861/02 - 2003 REVISION:
01800 08/14/1861 M= 4 2 SNBR= 61 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
01800 08/13/1861 M= 5 2 SNBR= 61 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
** *
(The 13th is new to HURDAT.)
01805 08/13* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*205 700 40 0*210 715 40 0
01805 08/14*230 756 70 0*231 765 70 0*232 775 70 0*232 783 70 0
01805 08/14*215 730 50 0*220 745 60 0*225 760 70 0*229 774 70 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ***
01810 08/15*235 793 80 0*237 801 80 0*237 810 90 0*239 816 90 0
01810 08/15*232 787 80 0*235 799 80 0*237 808 80 0*239 815 80 0
*** *** *** *** *** ** *** **
01815 08/16*240 823 90 0*240 828 90 0*240 835 80 0*240 839 80 0
01815 08/16*242 820 80 0*246 825 80 0*250 830 70 0*254 835 70 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
01820 08/17*240 843 80 0*240 846 80 0*240 851 80 0*239 856 80 0
01820 08/17*258 840 60 0*262 845 60 0*266 850 50 0*270 856 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** **
01825 HRBFL1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States
Winds Simpson Pressure Affected
2-8/15/1861$* 2100Z 24.0N 82.0W 70kt 1 (970mb) BFL1
2-8/16/1861$* 0000Z 24.2N 82.0W 70kt 1 (970mb) BFL1
****
Additional observations for this hurricane were obtained from a
weather record kept by the U.S. Consul at Turk's Island (Salt Cay) for
the Smithsonian Institute that is located in the US National Archives.
(Thanks to Michael Chenoweth for providing this additional data.)
These are provided in full below:
Date 0900L 1400L 2100L 0900L 1400L 2100L
August 12, 1861 29.95" 29.94" 29.94"
August 13, 1861 29.90" 29.70" 29.60" NE 6 SE 5 NE 6
August 14, 1861 29.95" 29.96" 29.96"
Comment for 13 August: This was a very stormy day. Generally
persons prepared for a hurricane.
Smithsonian Wind Force Scale
(values are estimates of the highest gusts)
-------------------------------------------
1 - Very light breeze 2 mph (2 kt)
2 - Gentle breeze 4 mph (4 kt)
3 - Fresh breeze 12 mph (10 kt)
4 - Strong breeze 25 mph (22 kt)
5 - High breeze 35 mph (30 kt)
6 - Gale 45 mph (39 kt)
7 - Strong gale 60 mph (51 kt)
8 - Violent gale 75 mph (65 kt)
9 - Hurricane 90 mph (78 kt)
10 - Most violent 100 mph (87 kt)
Best track is extended back one-half day to the 13th and the track is
adjusted on the 14th and 15th accordingly. The 1002 mb peripheral pressure
measurement suggests winds of at least 43 kt from the southern wind-pressure
relationship - 50 kt chosen for best track. Winds are adjusted accordingly
on the 14th.
Further additional observations were provided by Brian Jones of the
University of Miami in his analysis of military fort observations
in Florida:
Fort Jefferson (24.7N, 82.8W):
Date 12Z 19Z 02Z
8/13/1861 E-3 E-2 E-1 "night 0.39"
8/14/1861 NE-2 NE-1 NW-3 "rain at night .24"
8/15/1861 N-4 N-4 N-6 "light showers at intervals .06"
8/16/1861 NW-6 SW-5 W-4 (No comments provided)
8/17/1861 SW-4 SW-4 SE-3 (No comments provided)
Military Post Wind Force Scale
(values are estimates of the highest gusts)
-------------------------------------------
1 - Very light breeze 2 mph (2 kt)
2 - Gentle breeze 4 mph (4 kt)
3 - Fresh breeze 12 mph (10 kt)
4 - Strong breeze 25 mph (22 kt)
5 - High breeze 35 mph (30 kt)
6 - Gale 45 mph (39 kt)
7 - Strong gale 60 mph (51 kt)
8 - Violent gale 75 mph (65 kt)
9 - Hurricane 90 mph (78 kt)
10 - Most violent 100 mph (87 kt)
These data strongly suggest that the hurricane passed to the east,
north and then northwest of the fort, rather than moving south of
the fort. The change of track provided for the 16th and the 17th
now matches these newly available observations, while still being
consistent with the impact in Key West and the sparse ship reports.
The Fort Jefferson observations also indicate a weaker system than
the 90 kt hurricane originally estimated, even after accounting for
the hurricane's weaker side impacting the fort. Since the only data
for hurricane conditions in this system were observed on the 15th and
16th and that this system is not recorded as making landfall anywhere
on the Gulf coast, a weakening to below hurricane force is deduced
for the 17th.
1861/02 - 2006 REVISION:
01875 08/13/1861 M= 5 2 SNBR= 62 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
01875 08/13/1861 M= 5 2 SNBR= 62 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=1
*
01880 08/13* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*205 700 40 0*210 715 40 0*
01885 08/14*215 730 50 0*220 745 60 0*225 760 70 0*229 774 70 0*
01890 08/15*232 787 80 0*235 799 80 0*237 808 80 0*239 815 80 0*
01895 08/16*242 820 80 0*246 825 80 0*250 830 70 0*254 835 70 0*
01900 08/17*258 840 60 0*262 845 60 0*266 850 50 0*270 856 50 0*
01905 HRBFL1
As the hurricane's center did not cross the U.S. coastline (but did
cause Category 1 conditions at the coast), the XING (continental
U.S. landfall indicator) is changed to "0".
1861/02 - 2011 REVISION:
01875 08/13/1861 M= 5 2 SNBR= 62 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=1
01880 08/13* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*205 700 40 0*210 715 40 0*
01885 08/14*215 730 50 0*220 745 60 0*225 760 70 0*229 774 70 0*
01890 08/15*232 787 80 0*235 799 80 0*237 808 80 0*239 815 80 0*
01895 08/16*242 820 80 0*246 825 80 0*250 830 70 0*254 835 70 0*
01900 08/17*258 840 60 0*262 845 60 0*266 850 50 0*270 856 50 0*
01905 HRBFL1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
2-8/16/1861 0000Z 24.2N 82.0W 70kt 1 --- (970mb) BFL1
2-8/16/1861 0000Z 24.2N 82.0W 70kt 1 --- (978mb) BFL1
***
The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind of 80 kt
for this hurricane as it bypassed the Florida Keys with maximum sustained winds
to impact the Keys of about 70 kt. 970 mb was listed in the U.S. Hurricane
record as the central pressure at the time of closest approach. This value
is a typographic error as the southern pressure-wind relationship
suggests 978 mb landfall in Texas as an 80 kt hurricane. This estimate of
central pressure at U.S. landfall is now included into the U.S. hurricane
landfall listing. This is not explicitly added into HURDAT because this
central pressure value is an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed
value.
********************************************************************************
1861/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
Pressure reading of 958 mb not in hurricane's center (on 12 UTC,
30th of August) suggests winds of at least 91 kt from the northern
wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt chosen for best track. Storm judged
to have reached hurricane force based upon this pressure reading and
wind observations from the ships "Harvest Queen" and "Marianne".
********************************************************************************
1861/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No
track available, only one point. Storm determined to have reached
hurricane force based upon observations from the ship "David G. Wilson".
********************************************************************************
1861/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Inland
winds over NE US reduced via methodology of Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995)
inland decay model. Storm determined to have reached hurricane force
based upon observations from the ship "Virgina Ann". Hurricane is also
known as the "Equinoctial Storm" as described in Partagas and Diaz (1995a)
and Ludlum (1963).
********************************************************************************
1861/06: Have extended the storm out four additional days as was suggested
in Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) writeup to the 9th based upon the ship
"Wellington".
********************************************************************************
1861/07: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No
track available, only one point.
********************************************************************************
1861/08: Have started track over Gulf of Mexico instead of over Florida
as was drawn in Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Inland winds
over Florida and NE US reduced via methodology of Kaplan and DeMaria's
(1995) inland decay model. Values of 1000mb and 999mb give winds of
49 and 50 kt, respectively, utilizing the northern wind-pressure
relationship; 50 kt is used in the best track. Storm is determined to
have reached hurricane force based upon observations from Hatteras Inlet
and the ship "Honduras". Hurricane is also known as the "Expedition
Hurricane" as described in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) and Ludlum (1963).
********************************************************************************
1862/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
********************************************************************************
1862/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon several ship
reports.
********************************************************************************
1862/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon several ship
reports.
********************************************************************************
1862/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No
track available, only one point.
********************************************************************************
1862/05: The only major change from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis
was to add an additional half day on the 17th to accommodate the end
of the track. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane intensity
based upon several ship reports.
********************************************************************************
1862/06 - 2003 ADDITION:
02126 11/22/1862 M= 4 6 SNBR= 73 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
02127 11/22*105 795 60 0*105 795 60 0*105 795 60 0*105 795 60 0
02128 11/23*105 795 60 0*105 795 60 0*105 795 60 0*105 795 60 0
02129 11/24*105 795 60 0*105 795 60 0*105 796 50 0*105 797 50 0
02130 11/25*105 798 40 0*105 800 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
02131 TS
A new storm (possibly hurricane intensity) was uncovered from the
meteorological register kept at Aspinwall, Panama (9 22 53.7N
79 52 58.2 W) by A.F. Holmes, Acting Master Navigating Officer
of the U.S. Steamer "James Adger", part of the voluntary Smithsonian
Institute network. (Thanks to Mike Chenoweth for providing the
information for this new storm.) Below are the temperature,
wind direction/force, cloud cover (in tenths), and rainfall from
November 20-25, 1862 (unfortunately, the barometric record appears
to be defective):
Date Temp. Temp. Temp. Wind Wind Wind Cloud Cloud Cloud Rainfall
0700L 1400L 2100L 0700L 1400L 2100L 0700L 1400L 2100L
20 74.7F 80.6F 76.3F S 1 W 2 SE 1 9 6 3 0.12"
21 74.6F 79.4F 77.0F SE 1 NW 2 WNW 2 8 8 10 0.12"
22 75.2F 78.6F 76.9F NW 7 NNW 7 NW 6 10 10 10 3.45"
23 76.3F 78.0F 78.8F NNE 6 NNW 5 NW 5 10 10 10 6.18"
24 78.8F 78.3F 77.5F NNW 6 WNW 4 WxN 5 10 10 10 0.64"
25 75.4F 76.9F 77.0F WxN 3 WxN 3 WxN 4 10 10 10 0.61"
Comments:
22 November - At 2a.m. gale commenced blowing from NW. Heavy
sea came in suddenly.
23 November - Gale continued, more sea than yesterday.
24 November - Gale continues.
25 November - Gale over.
Smithsonian Wind Force Scale
1 - Very light breeze 2 mph
2 - Gentle breeze 4 mph
3 - Fresh breeze 12 mph
4 - Strong breeze 25 mph
5 - High breeze 35 mph
6 - Gale 45 mph
7 - Strong gale 60 mph
8 - Violent gale 75 mph
9 - Hurricane 90 mph
10 - Most violent 100 mph
Based upon this, a strong tropical storm was centered to the northeast
of this location from the 22nd to the 25th with weakening late on the
24th and on the 25th. No apparent motion of the storm could be detected
until late on the 24th and on the 25th when a slow westward drift is
indicated by the change in wind direction to more westerly.
********************************************************************************
1863/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon reports from
the ships "Francis B. Cutting" and "Rapid".
********************************************************************************
1863/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon reports from
the ships "American Congress" and "Herzogin".
********************************************************************************
1863/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
Ship with central pressure observation of 975 mb gives 83 kt with the
northern wind-pressure relationship, utilizing 80 kt in best track.
Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon reports
from several ships.
********************************************************************************
1863/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon report from
the ship "Dolphin".
********************************************************************************
1863/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon several ship
reports.
********************************************************************************
1863/06: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
Inland winds over NE US reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland
decay model. The best track provided appears to describe the full life
cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its formation as a tropical storm until
its dissipation below tropical storm strength).
********************************************************************************
1863/07: A 36 hr track was achieved for this storm - Partagas and
Diaz (1995a) had kept the storm stationary. Inland winds over Mexico
reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model with an
accelerated decay rate used to account for enhanced topography.
********************************************************************************
1863/08: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
********************************************************************************
1863/09 - 2003 ADDITION:
02341 09/29/1863 M= 3 9 SNBR= 82 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
02342 09/29*285 957 60 0*289 953 60 0*293 948 60 0*296 943 50 0
02343 09/30*298 937 50 0*300 931 50 0E301 925 40 0E302 919 40 0
02344 10/01E303 913 40 0E304 907 40 0E305 901 40 0E306 895 40 0
02345 TS
Prof. Cary Mock and Mr. David Roth have uncovered substantial evidence
for a previously undocumented tropical storm that made landfall in
Texas/Louisiana in the United States. The storm did exhibit some
baroclinic characteristics at landfall in Texas/Louisiana, but was
retained as a tropical cyclone until 12Z on the 30th. A peripheral
pressure of 999 mb (around 12Z on the 29th) suggests winds of at least
47 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt chosen
for the best track. Below are excerpts from the Houston weather
observer's record along with newspaper accounts of the storm's impacts.
Houston weather observer record, September/October 1863
(Temperatures taken at sunrise, 1-3pm, and sunset. Pressure, winds and
clouds were monitored 4-5 times a day between sunrise and sunset.
Pressure given in inches - 30" for values between .01 to .09 and 29"
for values between .49 and .96. Winds are given between 0 [calm] and
6 [violent storm]. Clouds are given in tenths.)
Date Temperatures Pressure Winds Clouds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/26 62/90/80 .07/.09/.04/.05 NE2/S3/S2/S3 3/6/7/8
9/27 69/83/78 .03/.04/.01/.96 E2/SE2/S4/S2 10/10/10/10
9/28 70/69/66 .84/.86/.76/.71/.63 E3/E4/SE5/E5/E6 10/10/10/10/10
9/29 68/72/71 .50/.50/.50/.49/.53 NE3/E3/NE4/M/N3 8/8/10/10/9
9/30 68/71/71 .73/.81/.85/.89 N4/N5/N5/N5 9/10/10/9
"The Storm of the 28th and 29th much more severe at Galveston & East of
Galveston than here. At Sabine Pass wind took off limbs of trees. At
Washington but little wind but heavy rain. At Velasco wind very high as
on the coast generally. Heaviest fall of water I remember in these times".
From the _Tri-Weekly Telegraph_ published in in Houston, TX:
Friday October 2, 1863
"SABINE PASS, Sept. 29 - This morning our forces captured a fine Yankee
schooner, the Manhassett, with her crew, consisting of seven men. She was
loaded with coal and was used as a tender to the blockading fleet. The
heavy gale last night drove her in near the coast, seven miles below the Pass,
and coming within range of one of our batteries, which at once prepared to
fire on her, she hoisted the white flag and surrendered. Her stores are all
safe in our hands."
"The late equinoctial storm has undoubtedly lashed the waves of the Gulf into
unusual commotion. The federal fleet now cruising about will be truly
fortunate if they have escaped disaster from the fury of the elements.
Rarely in past years has such a storm occurred without more or
less wrecks on the Louisiana and Texas coast."
October 14, 1863
"The Fordache Fight
Morgan's Ferry, Sept. 30, 1863 - ...On the night of the 28th September, our
forces crossed the Atchafalaya, at the same time that a 60 hours rain set in.
Our troops bivouacked on the east bank of the Atchafalaya on that night,
under a drenching rain."
From the New Orleans _Picayune_:
Tuesday, September 29, 1863
"The drouth (sic) still continues, but there are signs that it will not be
of much longer duration. A change is much wished for in the city, as most of
the cisterns are empty, and the dust, when agitated, is very annoying,
especially to notable house-wives."
Wednesday, September 30, 1863
"Long wished for, come at last - the refreshing and welcome rain. Now it has
commenced, the prospect is we shall have it in abundance."
Friday, October 2, 1863
"A gloomy and disagreeable day was yesterday - neither good for man nor beast.
It was a day to incite one to commit suicide - uncomfortably wet and warm,
and very debilitating. Well, a few days ago we were praying for rain. Now
we sigh for fair weather. How unsatisfied and inconsistent men are! and
women too, for that matter. For instance, a few days ago, house-wives
were complaining that there was no water for the family washing. Now they
complain that though there is an abundance of water, they cannot get the
clothes dry when they are washed. According to present appearances,
this will be a difficulty to be overcome only by ingenuity and good
management for some time to come. 'The rain it raineth every day' is
likely to be the cry for lo, many days. Well, 'Man never is, but always to
be, blest.'"
"The blustering norther that came upon us yesterday, although not the
pleasantest of visitors, was decidly (sic) welcome as the successor
of the disagreeable weather that immediately preceded it. We have fairly
entered on the few weeks of changeable weather - now hot, now cold, and
alternately dry and wet - usual at this season. It is trying to the
constitution and productive of sickness, and those who have any care for
their health will be careful to avoid all unnecessary exposure."
It was hot and uncomfortable again in New Orleans on the 2nd.
********************************************************************************
1864/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon observations
from the ship "Hattie Eaton".
********************************************************************************
1864/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No
track available, only one point.
********************************************************************************
1864/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
Inland winds over Central America reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995)
inland decay model with an accelerated decay rate used to account for
enhanced topography. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status
based upon observations from Martinique and Belize.
********************************************************************************
1864/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
Storm analyzed to be stationary for four days duration. An alternative
solution to being stationary for four days is that the storm completed
a tight (but slow) loop during this time. However, the data available
does not provide enough detail to fully document that a loop actually
occurred.
********************************************************************************
1864/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon several
ship observations.
********************************************************************************
1865/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No
track available, only one point.
********************************************************************************
1865/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No
track available, only one point.
********************************************************************************
1865/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
********************************************************************************
1865/04: This hurricane was originally listed as #5 in 1865 in Partagas and
Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Added additional day at end of the track over
Louisiana and Arkansas to provide a reasonable decay of the hurricane. Inland
winds over SE US reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model.
Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon observations
from Guadeloupe and Louisiana. This system is known as the "Sabine River-
Lake Calcasieu Storm" in Ludlum (1963).
1865/04 - 2011 REVISION:
02685 09/06/1865 M= 9 4 SNBR= 92 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
02690 09/06*160 555 90 0*160 567 90 0*160 580 90 0*160 593 90 0*
02695 09/07*161 608 90 0*162 624 90 0*165 638 90 0*167 655 90 0*
02700 09/08*167 675 90 0*170 695 90 0*171 710 90 0*174 724 90 0*
02705 09/09*177 736 90 0*180 750 90 0*185 763 90 0*189 774 90 0*
02710 09/10*192 788 90 0*199 801 90 0*202 815 90 0*207 826 90 0*
02715 09/11*210 839 90 0*212 851 90 0*219 865 90 0*226 876 90 0*
02720 09/12*231 884 90 0*237 894 90 0*246 904 90 0*254 911 90 0*
02725 09/13*263 918 90 0*271 924 90 0*281 929 90 0*292 933 90 0*
02730 09/14*304 935 70 0*316 935 50 0*328 933 40 0*340 930 40 0*
02735 HR LA2CTX1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
4-9/13/1865 2100Z 29.8N 93.4W 90kt 2 --- (969mb) LA2,CTX1
4-9/13/1865 2100Z 29.8N 93.4W 90kt 2 --- (965mb) LA2,CTX1
***
The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Louisiana as a 90 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 969 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 965 mb -
for a 90 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
1865/05: This storm was originally listed as #7 in 1865 in Partagas and
Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No major changes from their analysis. No track is
available, only one point.
********************************************************************************
1865/06: This hurricane was originally listed as #6 in 1865 in Partagas and
and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No major changes from their analysis. No track
available, only one point. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane
status based upon observations from the ship "Teresa".
********************************************************************************
1865/07: This hurricane was originally listed as #8 in 1865 in Partagas and
Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Havana central pressure observation of 975 mb
gives 83 kt with the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship, utilizing 80 kt
in best track. Inland winds over Cuba and Florida reduced via Kaplan and
DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model. Storm is determined to have reached
hurricane status based upon numerous ship reports and observations taken in
Cuba.
1865/07 - 2003 REVISION:
02695 10/18/1865 M= 8 7 SNBR= 92 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
02695 10/18/1865 M= 8 7 SNBR= 94 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
**
02700 10/18* 95 804 40 0* 97 804 40 0*100 805 40 0*102 806 40 0
02705 10/19*105 806 40 0*107 808 40 0*110 810 50 0*113 811 50 0
02710 10/20*118 813 50 0*123 814 50 0*129 816 60 0*137 818 60 0
02715 10/21*143 820 60 0*152 823 60 0*159 824 70 0*169 826 70 0
02720 10/22*179 828 80 0*189 830 80 0*200 830 90 0*212 829 90 0
02725 10/23*227 825 80 975*242 819 90 0*257 810 90 0*271 798 80 0
02725 10/23*226 826 80 975*238 821 90 0*250 814 90 0*265 802 80 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
02730 10/24*286 783 80 0*301 769 80 0*314 753 80 0*325 731 80 0
02730 10/24*282 788 80 0*299 772 80 0*314 753 80 0*325 731 80 0
*** *** *** ***
02735 10/25*335 706 70 0*347 683 70 0*360 660 70 0*373 635 70 0
02740 HRBFL2CFL1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States
Winds Simpson Pressure Affected
7-10/23/1865$ 0700Z 24.6N 81.7W 90kt 2 (969mb) BFL2
7-10/23/1865$ 1000Z 24.6N 81.7W 90kt 2 (969mb) BFL2
****
7-10/23/1865$ 1100Z 25.5N 81.2W 90kt 2 (969mb) BFL2,CFL1
7-10/23/1865$ 1400Z 25.4N 81.1W 90kt 2 (969mb) BFL2,CFL1
**** **** ****
Mr. Brian Jones of the University of Miami uncovered observations from
the U.S. military base Fort Jefferson west of Key West:
Fort Jefferson (24.7N, 82.8W):
Date 12Z 19Z 02Z
10/20/1865 NE-2 NE-2 NE-2 "9AM-?, 1.60"
10/21/1865 NE-4 NE-4 NE-10
10/22/1865 NE-10 N-4 N-4 "Rain 11AM-?, 2.50"
Military Post Wind Force Scale
(values are estimates of the highest gusts)
-------------------------------------------
1 - Very light breeze 2 mph (2 kt)
2 - Gentle breeze 4 mph (4 kt)
3 - Fresh breeze 12 mph (10 kt)
4 - Strong breeze 25 mph (22 kt)
5 - High breeze 35 mph (30 kt)
6 - Gale 45 mph (39 kt)
7 - Strong gale 60 mph (51 kt)
8 - Violent gale 75 mph (65 kt)
9 - Hurricane 90 mph (78 kt)
10 - Most violent 100 mph (87 kt)
These observations indicate that the hurricane's landfall over the
Florida Keys was somewhat later than the 07Z on the 23rd as
originally estimated. Based upon these data, the timing of the
track is adjusted back in time on the 23rd and 24th slightly. This
allows for landfall to occur in the Keys around 10Z.
********************************************************************************
1865 - Additional Notes:
1. The tropical storm listed as #4 in 1865 in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) was
not included into the HURDAT because of evidence suggesting that the storm
did not actually exist. Partagas and Diaz had found an unsupported
reference to it in Tannehill (1938), but no other information.
********************************************************************************
1866/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No
track available, only one point. Storm is determined to have reached
hurricane status based upon reports from Matagorda, Texas.
1866/01 - 2003 REVISION:
02685 07/15/1866 M= 1 1 SNBR= 93 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
02685 07/11/1866 M= 6 1 SNBR= 95 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
** * **
(The 11th to the 14th are new to HURDAT.)
02686 07/11* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*280 873 90 0*280 878 90 0
02687 07/12*280 883 90 0*280 888 90 0*281 893 90 0*281 899 90 0
02688 07/13*281 905 90 0*281 911 90 0*282 917 90 0*282 923 90 0
02689 07/14*282 929 90 0*282 935 90 0*283 941 90 0*283 947 90 0
02690 07/15* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*285 965 90 0* 0 0 0 0
02690 07/15*284 953 90 0*285 959 90 0*285 965 90 0*286 971 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
(The 16th is new to HURDAT.)
02691 07/16*286 977 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
02695 HRBTX2
Analysis by Roth (1997a) provides additional information for this hurricane
which was previously listed as a "single-point" storm in HURDAT. Roth writes:
"July 12-13th, 1866: A storm moved well off the coast of Louisiana. On the
11th at 28.5N 87.3W, a three-masted schooner was dismasted in heavy seas.
Winds "blew hard" at New Orleans for a few hours on the evening of the 12th.
Tides increased until daybreak the 13th. Damage was seen at the Timbalier
Bay lighthouse. "Ugly, threatening weather" hit on the 12th. Three feet of
water surrounded the tower. Wave action knocked away two brick piers, as 24
hours of pounding surf broke against the lighthouse. The keeper became
spooked by the combination of weather condition and loneliness, and "promptly
resigned"."
Based upon this description, the track was extended back to the 11th for
this hurricane. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for
inland winds over Texas.
1866/01 - 2011 REVISION:
02820 07/11/1866 M= 6 1 SNBR= 96 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
02825 07/11* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*280 873 90 0*280 878 90 0*
02830 07/12*280 883 90 0*280 888 90 0*281 893 90 0*281 899 90 0*
02835 07/13*281 905 90 0*281 911 90 0*282 917 90 0*282 923 90 0*
02840 07/14*282 929 90 0*282 935 90 0*283 941 90 0*283 947 90 0*
02845 07/15*284 953 90 0*285 959 90 0*285 965 90 0*286 971 60 0*
02850 07/16*286 977 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*
02855 HRBTX2
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
1-7/15/1866 1200Z 28.5N 96.5W 90kt 2 --- (969mb) BTX2
1-7/15/1866 1200Z 28.5N 96.5W 90kt 2 --- (965mb) BTX2
***
The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Texas as a 90 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 969 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 965 mb -
for a 90 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
1866/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
Inland winds over Mexico reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995)
inland decay model with an accelerated rate of decay to account for
enhanced topography. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane
status based upon observations from the ship "A. E. Patterson" and
the Fortress Monroe.
********************************************************************************
1866/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon reports from
ships "Messina" and "Robert Wing".
********************************************************************************
1866/04: Major change from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis is to
not assume that the hurricane was stationary for three days at 15N
and 29.5W. Only one six-hourly position/intensity is provided on 12 UTC
of the 18th. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based
upon ship reports from the "Iddo Kimball".
********************************************************************************
1866/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
********************************************************************************
1866/06: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
Central pressure observation from Nassau with 938 mb gives 120 kt with the
southern wind-pressure relationship, which is used in the best track.
Storm is determined to have reached major hurricane status based upon
this central pressure measurement as well as several ship reports. This
system is known as the "Great Nassau Hurricane of 1866" (Ludlum 1963).
********************************************************************************
1866/07: Major change from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis is to
extend track back one day to the 28th based upon discussion in their
analysis. Inland winds over New England reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's
(1995) inland decay model. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane
status based upon observations at Fortune Island, Bahamas.
1866/07 - 2011 REVISION:
03040 10/28/1866 M= 3 7 SNBR= 102 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 L
03040 10/29/1866 M= 2 7 SNBR= 102 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 L
** * *
(The 28th is removed from HURDAT.)
03045 10/28*210 740 80 0*220 745 80 0*235 750 80 0*255 753 80 0*
03050 10/29*275 756 70 0*295 758 70 0*315 758 70 0*337 754 70 0*
03050 10/29* 0 0 0 0*295 758 50 0*315 758 50 0*337 754 60 0*
*** *** ** ** ** **
03055 10/30*360 748 60 0*385 744 60 0*413 740 50 0*445 730 40 0*
03055 10/30*360 748 60 0E385 744 60 0E413 740 50 0E445 730 40 0*
* * *
03060 HR
03060 TS
**
U.S. Tropical Storm Landfall Data
---------------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max States
Wind Affected
7-10/30/1866 0800Z 39.5 74.3 60 NJ
(Removed as U.S. Tropical Storm, as it made landfall while extratropical.)
This system is revised based upon new information provided by Mike Chenoweth.
While Mr. Chenoweth recommended complete removal of this system from HURDAT, it
was decided to revert this track back to that originally proposed by
Fernandez-Partagas, with no extension into the Bahamas. The data is rather
ambiguous for complete removal. On one side, the data provided by Mr. Chenoweth
for the southeastern U. S. are hard to reconcile with the gales and apparent
circulation documented by Fernandez-Partagas. On the other hand, the data from
Norfolk is not consistent with a low passing offshore, which means either the
low off the southeastern U. S. coast tracked much farther west than suggested
by Fernandez-Partagas or the reports were influenced by a separate low. The
observations at Georgetown, South Carolina suggest that whatever low was off
the southeastern U. S. coast was east of the oncoming cold front and thus may
well have had some tropical characteristics. The temperature data for New
Bedford, Massachusetts indicates that the cyclone became extratropical prior
reaching New England. The complete recommendation provided by Mr. Chenoweth
is included below.
From the reanalysis' metadata page:
> 1866/07: Major change from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis is to
> extend track back one day to the 28th based upon discussion in their
> analysis. Inland winds over New England reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's
> (1995) inland decay model. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane
> status based upon observations at Fortune Island, Bahamas.
The last sentence above is a reference to Fernandez-Partagas and Diaz (1995),
storms of 1865-1870, page 30. A ship passed by Fortune Island on 30 October and
reported that the island had been destroyed by a hurricane on the previous day.
The account was published in the New York Times on 18 November based on a
(probable telegraphic) report from Baltimore on 17 November from the ship that
had arrived in port with the news.
NEW INFORMATION
The Nassau Guardian newspaper is complete for 1866 and makes no mention of severe
weather anywhere in the Bahamas in late October. There was extensive coverage of
the hurricane of 30 September to 02 October throughout the Bahamas, including an
account of the hurricane at the south side of Fortune Island on the night of 30
September and 01 October in the 20 October issue of the newspaper.
The report of an October hurricane is clearly a garbled account and Fortune Island
was destroyed by a hurricane at the end of September.
Weather reports from Oglethorpe Barracks (Savannah), GA, Hilton Head and
Wilkinsville, SC, Wilson and Statesville, NC, Fortress Monroe and Norfolk Navy
Hospital, VA and Annapolis and Baltimore, MD (among other locations) indicate that
the late October storm was most likely extratropical and underwent a strong
development off the mid-Atlantic coast. Wind data from the two Norfolk stations are
often at variance but otherwise the wind data from land stations appears to be of
good quality.
St. Stephens, New Brunswick [HMS Cordelia Logbook]
Oct 30 noon 49 SE6 30.10 Midnight 47 SE8 29.83
Oct 31 noon 53 S1 29.88 2pm SW2 4pm 53 NW1 29.95
Halifax, Nova Scotia [HMS Duncan Logbook]
Oct 30 noon 47 SE4-5 30.50
New Bedford, MA 7a, 2p, 9p ob times
29 October 45-51-54 ese2-se2-se3 30.37-30.29-30.21
30 October 58-62-52 se5-s4-nw1 29.81-29.53-29.64
31 October 42-54-40 w1-wxn2-nw1 29.81-29.87-30.06
Annapolis, MD 7a, 2p, 9p ob times
29 October 58-65-62 s2-s2-s3 30.19-0.01-29.83
30 October 57-57-48 n2-w2-nw1 29.57-29.4-29.94
31 October 39-51-43 w2-nw3-nw2 30.05-30.12-30.27
Norfolk Navy Yard Sunrise, 9am, 3pm, 9pm
29 October 68-69-66-66 se3-se3-sw4-sw5 29.96-29.94-29.85-29.78
30 October 66-65-60-59 w1-w4-wnw5-nnw4 29.62-29.62-29.60-29.60
31 October 50-51-51-50 nnw5-nnw5-nw3-nw3
Fortress Monroe, VA 7a, 2p, 9p
29 October 60-65-61 e3-e3-ne6 30.45-30.25-9.75
30 October 65-66-55 ne2-n1-n5 29.75-29.75-30.00
31 October 48-52-45 n3-n1-nw2 30.20-30.20-30.35
Wilson, NC 3541N 7747W 7a, 2p, 9p
29 October 58-70-69 e1-s2-e2
30 October 64-72-54 sw1-nw1-w1
31 October 42-54-44 nw1-n1-n1
Georgetown, SC
Oct 28 No temp NE1-E2-E1 clear-fine-cloudy
Oct 29 No temp SE5-SE5-S2 rain-rain-rain 2.5" of rain
Oct 30 MM-69-56 SW1-W3-W1 fine-clear-clear
Hilton Head, SC
29 October 68-76-66 se4-se2-sw1
30 October 62-68-56 w1-nw2-nw3
31 October 49-57-40 nw3-nw2-n2
Savannah, GA
29 October 70-76-68 s-s-ne
30 October 65-78-70 ne-ne-ne
31 October 60-72-65 ne-ne-ne
Bermuda (noon ob)
Oct 29 74 NE3 30.040 fine wx
Oct 30 73 SE4 29.945 cloudy
PROPOSED CHANGES TO STORM SEVEN OF 1866
The data indicate that a coastal low, possibly forming off of South Carolina and
Georgia moved up the coast as a cold high retreated away from New England. A cold
front passed through the Carolinas on the night of 29-30 October and relatively
mild air wrapped around the coastal low in the Norfolk area as it deepened rapidly
in this region of the coast. Reports of gales at sea are consistent with an
extratropical scenario. Although a tropical component is always a possibility, the
available ship reports are not convincing enough given the weight of evidence from
land stations and from searching for additional newspaper shipping account reports
made by this author which have failed to find evidence to support a tropical component
to this storm.
Regarding the possibility that the system began as a tropical cyclone then evolved
into an extratropical low is the following discussion: The wind shift at Georgetown,
SC is not consistent with a tropical cyclone passing by to its east; likewise, the
wind field from the Virginia and NC observations would suggest a frontal boundary by
the morning of 30 October lying between Norfolk and Wilson. A large high pressure area
retreated as the low came up the coast but it seems like the initial disturbance came
across the SE US and deepened/formed off the SC coast and then moved NNE
into southern New England where it was clearly an extratropical system as
F-P & Diaz suggested. Ludlum's sparse documentation also suggests he had
doubts about the storm's existence. I do not believe we have sufficient
evidence for a tropical cyclone especially given the absence of any storm in
lower latitudes. Also, ship reports from the brigs G.W. Barter and Eveline
do not mention rainfall or storms or any bad weather other than gales and if
they had so, this would have made me more inclined to consider the
possibility of a subtropical depression or storm forming north of the
Bahamas and east of SC. The ships also do not mention having "laid to" so
they continued moving (at whatever speed) so their coordinates may be the
location where they initially encountered gales but the weather does not
necessarily correspond to a fixed point and covers an indeterminate period
of time on the stated day.]
Given the absence of the tropical connection from the discounting of the Fortune Island
report as a garble of the September hurricane, it is recommended that storm seven be
removed from HURDAT.
********************************************************************************
1866 - Additional Notes:
1. The tropical storm listed as #8 in 1866 in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) was
not included into the HURDAT because of evidence suggesting that the storm
did not actually exist. Partagas and Diaz had found an unsupported
reference to it in Tannehill (1938), but no other information. It is likely
that this case was confused with storm 1867/09, which hit at the exact same
place at exactly the same time of year.
2. The tropical storm listed as #9 in 1866 in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) was
not included into the HURDAT because of evidence suggesting that the storm
did not actually exist. Partagas and Diaz had found an unsupported
reference to it in Tannehill (1938) and Dunn and Miller (1960), but no other
information. It is likely that this case was actually storm 1866/01.
********************************************************************************
1867/01 - 2003 ADDITION:
02901 06/21/1867 M= 3 1 SNBR= 102 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
02902 06/21* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*295 800 50 0*303 801 60 0
02903 06/22*311 800 60 0*318 799 70 0*325 798 70 0*332 796 60 0
02904 06/23*339 794 50 0*345 792 40 0*350 790 40 0*355 788 40 0
02905 HR SC1
This is a new hurricane that has been uncovered by the work of Prof. Cary
Mock at the University of South Carolina. The information that he provided
(included in total below) shows that a Category 1 hurricane made landfall
in South Carolina. As the storm made landfall just to the east of
Charleston and the city received approximately 60 kt of winds (based
upon wind-caused damage) while on the weak side of storm, peak intensity
is judged to be about 70 kt at landfall occurring between Charleston
and Georgetown.
Here are excerpts from local papers that Prof. Mock was able to obtain:
Charleston Daily Courier, Monday, June 24:
THE WEATHER. - The heavy and continuous rains from Wednesday last,
reported in Saturday's Courier, culminated Friday night and Saturday
morning in the heaviest rains and one of the severest gales witnessed here
for several years. On Friday night the shipping at the wharves had to be
doubly secured, and between nine and ten o'clock, Saturday morning, the
wind seemed to reach its highest, blowing almost a perfect hurricane from
the Northeast, for nearly two hours. Its effects at sea, we fear, have
been disastrous. The harbor presented a very black and terrible appearance.
In the city a number of wharves sustained considerable damage, houses
were unroofed, chimneys blown down, trees torn up by their roots, and
large branches blown from others, blocking up streets and sidewalks. The
tin roof of the New Custom House on East Bay, near Market-street, was
blown off and carried by the wind to the corner of Cumberland and East
Bay, a distance of between three and four hundred feet. The tin was
afterwards removed by the Custom House laborers into the Custom House
yard. Two large derricks on the South side of the building were also
blown down, crushing in their fall a number of the beautifully cut and
costly cap and cave stones, besides killing a cow belonging to Mrs.
Jenkins. The steamer Huron, lying at the Custom House Wharf, was
overflowed and sunk. The gale moderated Saturday afternoon, and on Sunday
the skies had again become clear.
We learn from Dr. George S. Pelzer, City Registrar, that the fall
of rain from Wednesday to Saturday inclusive, was seven and a half inches,
three inches of which fell on Saturday. This is said to have been the
heaviest fall of rain since 1824.
Charleston Daily Courier, Monday, June 24:
Marine News:
A GALE IN JUNE. - After some days of unsettled weather, accompanied
with rain, the wind commenced blowing a heavy gale from the Northeast at
an early hour on Saturday, and about seven to eight o'clock it had
increased to the force of an equinoctial blow, but moderated about midday.
The shipping and wharves being generally in fair order, got off with
little damage, the injuries being quite unimportant. The steamers Pilot
Bay, from Savannah, and Dictator, from Florida, arrived safely on Sunday,
without injury. The Dictator experienced the blow on her passage from
Fernandina to Savannah, and had a part of it after she anchored in
Savannah River. She reports the wind from North to Northwest, with a very
heavy sea. A brig, name unknown, had dragged ashore near Tybee.
Charleston Daily Courier, Tuesday, June 25:
THE WEATHER. - After four days of rain and wind, the sun shone out
beautifully yesterday, imparting new life and hope to Nature and her
children. What damage has been done to the crops we are not yet
sufficiently informed to speak with certainty. There is reason to apprehend
that the cotton and corn in the low country, at least, have been seriously
injured, and there is little doubt that the whole rice crop on Cooper River
has been largely, if not entirely destroyed. So far as we have been able to
learn, the wind-storm prevailed only immediately on the coast, though the
rain fell continuously three days in most of the Districts in the State. We
hope to receive more detailed intelligence to-day.
Charleston Mercury, Monday, June 24:
Marine News.
SAVANNAH, June 23. - The brig W.H. Parks was blown ashore on Tybee, during
the gale of yesterday. It is supposed that she will get off.
Charleston Mercury, Monday, June 24:
DANGEROUS RUINS. - During the gale on Saturday the walls of Tobias' old
building, at the corner of Vendue Range and East Bay, were rocked to and
fro to such a degree that their fall was momentarily expected...
Charleston Mercury, Monday, June 24:
THE GREAT STORM. - DAMAGE DONE THE TREES, WHARVES, THE BUILDINGS, AND THE
CITY CROPS. - The storm of rain which has been passing over the city for
more than four days reached its height on Saturday, and was then accompanied
by a storm of wind which might fully be termed a hurricane. Such a
storm at this season has not been known in the memory of citizens who have
resided here for nearly a century, and the last storm which equaled it in
power and fury took place in the Fall of 1854. In the city the amount and
value of injury done cannot be well estimated, but a few particulars will
enable our readers to judge for themselves.
Trees were blown down in every direction. On Orange-street a tree
one yard in diameter was uprooted, and all the fruit and ornamental trees
throughout the city have been damaged. The grape vines suffered particularly,
and all of the corn in the various garden lots has been blown down
almost without exception.
The tin roof of the new Custom House was rolled up by the wind and
carried by it to the corner of Cumberland-street, and the derricks in
front of the Custom House were blown down, killing a cow in their fall. A
portion of the roof of the South Carolina Railroad freight depot was
rolled up, but secured and fastened down before any damage had been done
to the building or its contents.
The roof of the shed on Brown's wharf was damaged, the roof of
that on Kerr's wharf was also damaged, and some little damage was done to
the roof of Atlantic wharf.
The bathing house was injured; three breaches were made in the
East Battery, and an iron stand near the corner of Church and Broad
streets were forced to the ground.
Yet, whatever the damage done in the city, it will be nothing in
comparison with that done in the country districts. In another column
will be found some account of the injury done by the rains alone, and we
await with many misgivings, the accounts of the ravages of the great storm
of June 22, 1867.
Samuel Porcher Gaillard (Sumter Dist.), June 22: Thermometer at 5 A.M. 70,
12 N 65, 9 PM 60. Rain all night and ceased about daylight at half past
6 A.M. began again & [never ceased] at times very hard up to this time 9 P.M.
has not ceased. Wind & clouds from N. East from 12 N Wind ????
David Golightly Harris (Spartanburg), June 22: Rain... The land was
entirely too wet. This evening it is raining again June 23 - Rain. All
last night there was a constant gentile rain. It has been raining
incessantly to day (11 o'clock) and no prospect of its ceasing. Much fear
is entertained that wheat will be injured in the shock. None has been
threshed yet & no prospect of suitable weather for the business. This is a
gloomy Sunday June 24 - Rain. Rain. Rain.
Jacob Schirmer (Charleston): June 22nd - Weather the past week has been
almost one Continuous Rain and that in torrents and this morning,
something of a Severe Gale, and quite cool. Great fears are entertained
that our staple crops have suffered very materially.
William J. Ball (Limerick Plantation): June 19-22 - Heavy & Continuous
Rain, Heaviest Freshet since 1837
Elias Horry (Georgetown): June 22 - Gale
Hilton Head weather record: June 22nd - 7am:SE4, 2pm:NE4, 9pm:NE4,
2.04" precipitation. (The numbers indicate force with a scale from 0 to 6.
0 indicates calm and 6 indicates a violent storm.)
Glennie weather record, Georgetown, SC: June 22nd - Sunrise:NE6-very
heavy rain, 2pm:E6-rain/gale, 9pm:E2-showery.
Statesville NC weather record: June 22 (7/2/9) - E4 E4 E4... rain started
at 8 pm June 23 - rain ended at 11 am... total 2 inches for storm...
E4 E4 E4
The Daily News and Herald (Savannah), June 24, p. 3:
The Gale of Saturday Morning
One of the most terrific gales that has ever passed over the city
since 1854, occurred on Saturday morning last. It commenced at half-past
six o'clock. At seven it was at its height, destroying beautiful shade
trees, carrying away awnings, portions of tin roofs gutters under the eaves
of houses, conductors on the sides of buildings, window shutters, etc.
The steamer Gen. Berry, lying moored to the wharf at Capt. Rufus P.
Hawkes' ship yard, opposite Abercorn street, parted her fastenings and was
driven to the Savannah shore of the river. No damage was done to her.
The steamer Annie, lying at the Hutchinson Island shore of the
Savannah river, at the pilings opposite West Broad street, had her sails,
which were chewed up, blown into ribbons, and her sides, which are torn,
chafed by coming in contact with the pilings to which she is moored.
On the Thunderbold Road a frame two-story building, in the course
of erection for Mr. Frederick A. Schultz by Bostock & Hobson, was blown down.
A tree, during the gale, fell at the southwest corner of Indian and
West Broad streets, carrying away the brick fence of the Guerard buildings.
Further up Indian street, a large tree fell on a building owned by
Mrs. Farry, crushing in the roof. On Bryan street, a tree fell against the
residence of Mrs. Sarah Puder, crushing in the windows of the second story.
Messrs. Wylly and Meinhard's building, on the south side of Broughton
street, had a portion of its tin roof blown away.
At Mr. Maupu's farm on the White Bluff Road, had several trees
prostrated, breaking down his fences, which were newly erected.
Up to the hour of writing we have not heard of any accidents.
The crops in every portion of this county have greatly suffered,
although we are hopeful that the destruction is not so great as is
apprehended.
The Daily News and Herald (Savannah), June 24, p. 2:
THE WEATHER - We have never experienced more unpleasant and
depressing weather than that which has been prevailing hereabouts for the
last five days, and we regret to learn that the continued heavy rains have
thrown a deep gloom upon the countenances of planters in this section.
New York Times, Marine Intelligence, July 1:
Brig, Alex Milliken - June 21 and 22, had a very heavy N.E. gale; split and
lost sails, and lost deck-load of molasses.
New York Times, Marine Intelligence, June 30:
Brig Agnes (Br) - June 21, lat. 30 12, lon. 79 18, had a heavy gale from
S.E. to N.E., and back to S.E., with increased violence, with high sea
running, sprung a leak, lost one boat, stove bulwarks, started headrails, &c.
New York Herald, Marine Disasters, July 5:
BRIG W H PARKS, which was blown ashore at Tybee during the recent heavy
gale, and from her position was considered as being virtually lost and only
worthy of abandonment, was got off 30th ult, sustaining but little damage,
and as she was fully repaired.
New York Herald, Marine Disasters, July 4:
SCHR MARTHA ANN, McCormick, which sailed from Charleston some days since
for New York, with a cargo of lumber, returned to Charleston on Saturday
last, having experienced heavy gales on the 21st and 22d June, off Cape
Lookout, during which lost deck load, sprung a leak, split sails, and has
sustained other damage. She has put back to C for repairs.
New York Herald, Marine Disasters, July 3:
BRIG HENRY LAURENS,... for New York, before reported put into Charleston
28th ult. leaky, reports June 19 off Sand Key Light, coast of Florida,
experienced heavy blows, varying from NE to SE, with short cross seas,
causing the vessel to labor and sprung a leak; on the 22d, had heavy
gales from the south, with short head sea, the vessel making water badly...
New York Herald, Marine Disasters, July 2:
BARK J CUMMING (Br), Hookway, at Charleston from Newport... June 22, when
near Charleston, experienced a severe gale from the northeast to northwest
in which lost two lower topsails, split other sails, and caused the bark to
leak...
New York Herald, Marine Disasters, July 2:
SCHR FOAMING SEA, North, at Charleston, from Baltimore on the 22nd ult, off
Cape Romain, experienced a severe eastern gale, and had part of the bulwarks
carried away... flying jib, and sustained other damage.
New York Herald, Marine Disasters, July 1:
BRIG WM SPARK, of Philadelphia, parted her chains in a NE gale June 22, and
went ashore Tybee Island.
From the _Wadesboro Argus_, North Carolina:
On Sunday [June 23] last this immediate section was visited by another heavy
and destructive rain storm, heavier, it is said to have been, than those
mentioned by us a week or two ago. For three hours, from 8 to 11 A.M., the
rain fell in torrents, beating down small grain not yet cut, also corn and
cotton, and washing lands. We hear of great destruction on all sides of us in
consequence of the creeks and branches being unusually swelled, and of large
quantities of wheat in the shock, left in the low grounds, floated off, and
fences swept away.
From the _Wilmington Dispatch_, North Carolina:
The Wilmington Dispatch [from the Raleigh Weekly Sentinel], July 2, speaking
of the freshet in the Cape Fear:
We learn that, in consequence of recent rains, the Cape Fear has
risen thirty feet at Fayetteville, at which it stood when our informant left.
But it was the general opinion that the volume of water poured out from the
clouds within the last ten days had not yet affected the river, the present
freshet being the result of the previous rains.
The Lincolnton Courier says of the rains of that region [from the Raleigh
Weekly Sentinel, July 2]:
The terrible rains that have fallen during the past week will ruin
the Planting interest on low lands throughout this section of country.
Reports received are truly distressing.
The Asheville News says of the late rains [from the Raleigh Weekly Sentinel,
July 2]:
On Sunday last the windows of heaven were opened and poured out
another deluge of rain upon Asheville, almost as destructive as that we
received a few weeks ago. Gardens suffered considerably, and many of the
new fences and bridges were washed off. We have heard that in some places
the wheat was injured.
From the _Asheville News_, North Carolina:
On Sunday last the windows of heaven were opened and poured out another
deluge of rain upon Asheville, almost as destructive as that we received a
few weeks ago. Gardens suffered considerably, and many of the new fences and
and bridges were washed off. We have heard that in some places the wheat was
injured.
The Wilmington Journal speaking of the damage done the crops in the Eastern
Counties by the late rains says [from the Raleigh Weekly Sentinel, July 2]:
The effect of the recent rains upon the crops in all the Eastern
portion of the State has been most disastrous. The damage sustained by
planters in Brunswick, Bladen, New Hanover, Onslow, Dunlin, Sampson,
Edgecombe, and all the Eastern counties, so far as heard from, has been
very serious and almost irreparable. The corn and cotton crop have
received a most severe blow, while the rice crop in this section has been
almost entirely ruined. Along the line of the Cape Fear, and in fact in
all the lowlands of the countries named, the damage is very apparent, and
the pernicious results of the recent terrible rains will be long remembered.
At no time could a more severe blow in this section befall us than at
present, when our future prosperity so greatly depends upon an abundant
yield.
Weekly North Carolina Standard (Raleigh),Wen. July 3, 1867, p. 3:
Sunday was the hottest day we have had so far this year, the thermometer
reaching 99 deg. in the shade. It was also the first day since Sunday the
16th in which there has not some rain, at least a few drops, fallen here in
Raleigh.
The amount of rain for the month has been enormous, measuring nine
inches and a half in depth between the 16th and 27th, and over fourteen
inches in all.
James Harvey Greenlee (McDowell Ct., NC): June 22 - Cloud warm June 23 -
It rained all day June 24 - Rained last night creek quite flush... A wet
day.
Weather observer data from Fort Monroe, VA, located near Norfolk:
On June 23, it started to rain beginning at 4 pm and by 4:40 pm the next day
it rained 1.95 inches. Written comments indicate "Rain began in the night.
Foggy & high winds during the day, Thunder & Lightning at night & Showers."
Observations of winds at 7 am, 2 pm and 9 pm on the 23rd were E 1, E 2, and
E 2 respectively, changing to SE 1, SE 2, and NE 1 the next day.
********************************************************************************
1867/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis
(was storm #1 originally in the Partagas and Diaz report). Ship with a
central pressure observation of 969 mb gives 83 kt with the northern
wind-pressure relationship, 80 kt is used in the best track. Storm is
determined to have reached hurricane status based upon the above central
pressure measurement as well as several ship reports. Storm is known
as the "Early August Offshore Hurricane of 1867" in Ludlum (1963).
********************************************************************************
1867/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis
(was storm #2 originally in the Partagas and Diaz report). No
track available, only one point. Storm is determined to have reached
hurricane status based upon observations from the ship "Suwanee".
********************************************************************************
1867/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis
(was storm #3 originally in the Partagas and Diaz report). Storm is
determined to have reached hurricane status based upon observations
from the ship "Helen R. Cooper".
********************************************************************************
1867/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis
(was storm #4 originally in the Partagas and Diaz report). No
track available, only one point.
********************************************************************************
1867/06: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis
(was storm #5 originally in the Partagas and Diaz report). Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon several ship
observations.
********************************************************************************
1867/07: Added a track for October 6-9th to database from Partagas
and Diaz's (1995a) writeup suggestion (was storm #6 originally in
the Partagas and Diaz report). Also moved track closer to
Brownsville, Texas, as it appears that the town was in the western
eyewall. Inland winds over SE US reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's
(1995) inland decay model. Storm tide value of 7' from Ludlum (1963) for
Galveston, Texas. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status
based upon damage and storm tide observations from Texas and Louisiana.
System is known as the "Galveston Hurricane of 1867" in Ludlum (1963).
1867/07 - 2011 REVISION:
03220 10/02/1867 M= 8 7 SNBR= 109 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
03225 10/02*235 965 90 0*242 968 90 0*250 970 90 0*259 971 90 0*
03230 10/03*267 968 90 0*273 963 90 0*279 956 90 0*286 946 90 0*
03235 10/04*290 936 90 0*291 925 90 0*291 915 90 0*292 906 90 0*
03240 10/05*292 896 90 0*292 888 90 0*293 878 80 0*293 868 80 0*
03245 10/06*294 858 80 0*294 848 80 0*295 840 70 0*296 831 60 0*
03250 10/07*298 825 50 0*301 818 40 0*305 810 40 0*310 800 40 0*
03255 10/08*316 789 50 0*323 776 50 0*330 765 50 0*335 755 50 0*
03260 10/09*339 746 50 0*342 740 50 0*345 735 50 0*347 731 50 0*
03265 HRATX1CTX1 LA2AFL1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
7-10/2/1867 1500Z 25.4N 97.1W 70kt 1 --- (969mb) ATX1
7-10/4/1867 1500Z 29.2N 91.0W 90kt 2 --- (969mb) LA2,CTX1
7-10/4/1867 1500Z 29.2N 91.0W 90kt 2 --- (965mb) LA2,CTX1
***
7-10/6/1867 1500Z 29.6N 83.4W 70kt 1 --- (985mb) AFL1
7-10/6/1867 1500Z 29.6N 83.4W 70kt 1 --- (982mb) AFL1
***
The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Louisiana as a 90 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 969 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 965 mb -
for a 90 kt hurricane. The original assessment in HURDAT also analyzed
a maximum sustained wind at landfall in Florida as a 70 kt hurricane.
This suggested a central pressure at landfall of 985 mb from the Gulf of Mexico
pressure-wind relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind
relationship for cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure
is needed - 982 mb - for a 70 kt hurricane. These new estimates of central
pressure at U.S. landfall are now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall
listing. These are not explicitly added into HURDAT because these central
pressure values are estimates, not observations or directly analyzed values.
********************************************************************************
1867/08: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis
(was storm #7 originally in the Partagas and Diaz report). No
track available, only one point.
********************************************************************************
1867/09: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis
(was storm #8 originally in the Partagas and Diaz report). Ship with
central pressure observation of 952 mb gives 108 kt with the southern
wind-pressure relationship, but since the RMW may have been on the
order of 5 nmi, a higher wind of 120 kt is assigned in best track. Storm
is determined to have reached major hurricane status based upon the
above central pressure and destruction that occurred in the Virgin Islands
and Puerto Rico. Hurricane is also known as "San Narciso" for effects in
Puerto Rico on October 29th. The best track provided appears to describe
the full life cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its formation as a
tropical storm to its peak as a major hurricane until its dissipation
below tropical storm strength).
1867/09 - 2003 REVISION:
03205 10/27/1867 M= 5 9 SNBR= 108 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
03205 10/27/1867 M= 5 9 SNBR= 110 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
03210 10/27*190 505 40 0*190 515 40 0*190 526 50 0*190 537 50 0
03215 10/28*190 550 60 0*190 563 60 0*190 577 70 0*191 592 80 0
03215 10/28*190 550 60 0*190 563 60 0*190 577 70 0*190 592 80 0
***
03220 10/29*190 607 90 0*189 620 100 0*185 633 110 0*182 648 120 952
03220 10/29*190 607 90 0*189 620 100 0*186 633 110 0*184 648 100 952
*** *** ***
03225 10/30*182 665 110 0*182 681 100 0*182 696 100 0*184 715 70 0
03225 10/30*183 665 80 0*182 681 70 0*182 696 80 0*184 715 60 0
*** *** *** *** **
03230 10/31*186 735 50 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
03230 10/31*186 735 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
**
03235 HR
Boose et al.'s (2003) analysis of hurricanes that made landfall in Puerto
Rico documented that this hurricane caused only Fujita-scale F1 damages in
the eastern and central portions of the island, not the F3 destruction
expected from a 120 kt Category 4 hurricane making landfall. Additionally,
E. Boose (2003, personal communication) suggested that the track may,
instead of going over Puerto Rico, have skirted just to the north of the
island. However, after a re-review of the limited meteorological data
available as well as the descriptive accounts from local reports at the
time of the hurricane (J. Colon, 2003, personal communication) suggest that
the hurricane did indeed cross the island from east to west, but as a
substantially weaker system (Category 2 - 90 kt). While good evidence
exists for major hurricane status farther east in the Virgin Islands with
the 952 mb central pressure, it is surmised that the hurricane began weakening
fairly rapidly thereafter - which would not be unusual for a late October
hurricane. Winds are thus adjusted downward from the 29th to the 31st and
the track is slightly adjusted to better match a track crossing over
Fujardo, Caguas and Mayaguez in Puerto Rico. This adjustment to Category 2
landfall in Puerto Rico is now consistent with descriptions of more intense
events (Category 4 - 1899, Category 3 - 1876, 1893, 1894) during the
second half of the 19th Century.
********************************************************************************
1868/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon several ship
reports.
********************************************************************************
1868/02: No major alterations from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
********************************************************************************
1868/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon reports from
ships "Mary E. Mangan" and "Haidee".
********************************************************************************
1868/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon observations
from multiple ship observations.
********************************************************************************
1869/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon observations
from the ships "Olaf Nicklesen" and "Prinze Frederik".
********************************************************************************
1869/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
Inland winds over Texas reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995)
inland decay model. Storm determined to have reached hurricane status
based upon observations from the ship "Julia A. Rider" and from
central Texas. The storm is also known as the "Lower Texas Coast
Hurricane of 1869" in Ludlum (1963).
1869/02 - 2011 REVISION:
03465 08/16/1869 M= 2 2 SNBR= 117 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
03470 08/16*270 916 90 0*272 926 90 0*274 936 90 0*277 946 90 0*
03475 08/17*279 956 90 0*281 966 90 0*282 976 60 0*283 988 40 0*
03480 HRBTX2
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
2-8/17/1869 0700Z 28.1N 96.8W 90kt 2 --- (969mb) BTX2
2-8/17/1869 0700Z 28.1N 96.8W 90kt 2 --- (965mb) BTX2
***
The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Texas as a 90 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 969 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 965 mb -
for a 90 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
1869/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon observations
from the ship "Siene".
********************************************************************************
1869/04: Major change for this storm: A 48 hr track was achieved, while
Partagas and Diaz (1995a) had originally kept the storm stationary. Track
was achieved by considering the observations from the "Harriet" and
"Mary Celeste".
********************************************************************************
1869/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
Inland winds over the Louisiana reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995)
inland decay model. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane
status based upon reports from Grand Isle and New Orleans.
1869/05 - 2011 REVISION:
03520 09/04/1869 M= 3 5 SNBR= 120 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
03525 09/04*262 884 70 0*267 886 70 0*272 888 70 0*278 891 70 0*
03530 09/05*283 895 70 0*287 896 70 0*292 900 70 0*297 903 50 0*
03535 09/06*302 906 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*
03540 HR LA1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
5-9/5/1869 1200Z 29.2N 90.0W 70kt 1 --- (985mb) LA1
5-9/5/1869 1200Z 29.2N 90.0W 70kt 1 --- (982mb) LA1
***
The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Louisiana as a 70 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 985 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 982 mb -
for a 70 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
1869/06: Have altered significantly the track from Partagas and Diaz's
(1995a) analysis based upon Ho's (1989) work, which was apparently not
utilized by Partagas and Diaz. Storm tide value of 8' provided by Ho (1989)
for Providence, Rhode Island. Ship with central pressure observation of 950 mb
gives 97 kt with new northern wind-pressure relationship and Ho's estimated
landfall central pressure of 963 mb gives 88 kt. Have assigned 100 kt for
six hourly intensity based upon the ship observation and 90 kt at landfall
time. Central pressure measurement of 973 mb measured at Milton, MA gives
80 kt with northern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt used in
best-track. Storm determined to have reached major hurricane status based
central pressure reading of 950 mb as well as several ship reports. Storm
also known as the "September Gale of 1869 in Eastern New England" in Ludlum
(1963). Inland winds over New England reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995)
inland decay model.
1869/06 - 2003 REVISION:
03375 09/07/1869 M= 3 6 SNBR= 117 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
03375 09/07/1869 M= 3 6 SNBR= 119 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
*** *
03380 09/07*270 745 90 0*280 745 90 0*290 744 90 0*301 741 90 0
03385 09/08*313 740 100 0*325 736 100 0*350 733 100 0*388 726 100 950
03390 09/09*428 711 80 973*470 690 60 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
03390 09/09*428 711 80 973*470 690 50 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
**
03395 HR NY1 RI2 MA2 CT1
03395 HR NY1 RI3 MA3 CT1
*** ***
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States
Winds Simpson Pressure Affected
6-9/8/1869& 2100Z 41.0N 71.9W 70kt 1 963mb NY1
6-9/8/1869& 2100Z 41.0N 71.9W 80kt 1 963mb NY1
**
6-9/8/1869 2200Z 41.4N 71.7W 90kt 2 965mb RI2,MA2,CT1
6-9/8/1869 2200Z 41.4N 71.7W 100kt 3 965mb RI3,MA3,CT1
*** * *** ***
Boose et al. (2001) analyzed this hurricane as a Category 3 at U.S. landfall,
based upon widespread reports of wind-caused Fujita-scale 2 damage in
New England. Additionally, their reconstructed damage work analyzes a RMW of
30 nmi at landfall, which is substantially smaller than the earlier estimate of
40 nmi from Ho (1989). Ho's 963 mb central pressure estimate suggests
88 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship. With a RMW slightly
smaller than that expected climatologically (around 34 nmi) for that central
pressure and latitude (Vickery et al. 2000), winds somewhat higher than
what the wind-pressure relationship suggests should be used. Additionally,
the extremely rapid forward motion of the hurricane (around 40 kt) would
also argue for higher winds than is usual on the right semi-circle of the
hurricane. Based upon all of these points, the estimated maximum sustained
winds at landfall are increased from 90 kt (Category 2) to 100 kt (Category 3),
making this a major hurricane landfall in New England. (No changes were
needed for the 6 hourly intervals within HURDAT.)
Additionally, as the first Kaplan and DeMaria inland decay model was utilized
for this hurricane, it was appropriate to review the results with the inland
decay model explicitly designed for New England landfalling tropical
cyclones (Kaplan and DeMaria 2001). This model does decay systems faster
and suggests a downward revision to the winds at 06Z on the 9th, which is
reflected in the revised HURDAT.
********************************************************************************
1869/07: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
Ship with central pressure observation of 979 mb gives 79 kt with
southern wind-pressure relationship, thus 80 kt is assigned to the best track.
Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon the
above central pressure reading and several ship observations.
********************************************************************************
1869/08: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No
track available, only one point.
********************************************************************************
1869/09: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. No track
available, only one point.
********************************************************************************
1869/10: Major alteration is to shift track farther to the west over New
England to account for observations at Nantucket Island and Gardiner as
described in Partagas and Diaz (1995a) and to take into account new analysis
by Abraham et al. (1998). Abraham et al. showed that this hurricane was
undergoing extratropical transition as it interacted with (and was likely
absorbed by) a secondary, baroclinic low on the 5th of October. Pressure
reading of 972 mb not in hurricane's center (at 18 UTC, 4th of October)
suggests winds of at least 80 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship
- 90 kt chosen for best track. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane
status based upon above peripheral pressure reading, several ship reports and
the destruction caused in Massachusetts and Maine. Inland winds over New
England and Canada reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995) inland decay model.
Storm surge of 6-7' is estimated to have occurred in the Upper Bay of Fundy,
Canada (Parkes et al. 1998). Hurricane is also known as the "Saxby's Gale"
from description given in Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) and Ludlum's (1963)
report.
1869/10 - 2003 REVISION:
03480 10/04/1869 M= 2 10 SNBR= 121 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
03480 10/04/1869 M= 2 10 SNBR= 124 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
***
03485 10/04*315 755 90 0*345 730 90 0*377 715 90 0*407 706 90 0
03490 10/05*440 700 80 0*465 685 70 0*480 655 60 0* 0 0 0 0
03490 10/05*440 700 80 0*465 685 60 0*480 655 50 0* 0 0 0 0
** **
03495 HR MA1 ME1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States
Winds Simpson Pressure Affected
10-10/4/1869& 1900Z 41.3N 70.5W 70kt 1 (960mb) MA1
10-10/4/1869& 1900Z 41.3N 70.5W 80kt 1 (965mb) MA1
** ***
10-10/4/1869& 2000Z 41.7N 70.4W 70kt 1 (960mb) MA1
10-10/4/1869& 2000Z 41.7N 70.4W 80kt 1 (965mb) MA1
** ***
10-10/4/1869 2300Z 43.7N 70.1W 80kt 1 (972mb) ME1
10-10/4/1869 2300Z 43.7N 70.1W 90kt 2 (968mb) ME2
** * *** ***
Boose et al. (2001 and personal communication) analyzed this hurricane as a
Category 2 impact in Massachusetts and Category 3 impact in Maine during
its U.S. landfall. The original HURDAT had this hurricane listed as being
a high end Category 2 as it made U.S. landfall (90 kt), but with the RMW
staying offshore near Massachusetts. Given the low number of reports
utilized in the reconstructed versus actual damage in their damage-based
empirical wind modeling work for this case, a boost to the winds at landfall
to this extent is does not have enough substantiation. However, estimates
of winds at landfall are increased moderately, though this does not
necessitate any changes to the 6-hourly HURDAT itself. Boose et al. (2001)
also estimated a RMW of 30 nmi at landfall, which does suggest a slightly
higher central pressure to match the 90 kt given a slightly smaller than
usual RMW for this windspeed and latitude (Vickery et al. 2000).
Additionally, as the first Kaplan and DeMaria inland decay model was utilized
for this hurricane, it was appropriate to review the results with the inland
decay model explicitly designed for New England landfalling tropical
cyclones (Kaplan and DeMaria 2001). This model does decay systems faster
and suggests a downward revision to the winds at 06 and 12Z on the 5th, which
is reflected in the revised HURDAT.
********************************************************************************
1870/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
No track available, only one point. Storm is determined to have
reached hurricane status based upon damage reports from Mobile, Alabama.
Storm is also known as the "Mobile Storm of July 1870" in Ludlum (1963).
1870/01 - 2011 REVISION:
03670 07/30/1870 M= 1 1 SNBR= 126 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
03675 07/30* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*305 880 70 0*
03680 HR AL1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
1-7/30/1870 1800Z 30.5N 88.0W 70kt 1 --- (985mb) AL1
1-7/30/1870 1800Z 30.5N 88.0W 70kt 1 --- (982mb) AL1
***
The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Alabama as an 70 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 985 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 982 mb -
for a 70 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
1870/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status from several ship reports.
********************************************************************************
1870/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
Ship with central pressure observation of 1004 mb gives 39 kt with
southern wind-pressure relationship, thus 40 kt is assigned to the best track.
********************************************************************************
1870/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
Ship with central pressure observation of 948 mb gives 98 kt with
northern wind-pressure relationship, thus 100 kt is assigned to the best
track. Storm is suggested to have reached major hurricane status based upon
the above central pressure reading.
********************************************************************************
1870/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
Ship with central pressure observation of 969 mb gives 83 kt with
northern wind-pressure relationship, thus 80 kt is assigned to the best
track. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon above
central pressure reading as well as several ship reports.
********************************************************************************
1870/06: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
Central pressure observation over Cuba of 969 mb gives 91 kt with southern
wind-pressure relationship, thus 90 kt is assigned to the best track. Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon the above central
pressure measurement, several ship reports and destruction that occurred
in Cuba. This system is known as the first of the "Twin Key West
Hurricanes in 1870" in Ludlum (1963).
1870/06 - 2003 REVISION:
03635 10/05/1870 M=10 6 SNBR= 127 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
03635 10/05/1870 M=10 6 SNBR= 130 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
***
03640 10/05*175 740 40 0*181 750 40 0*187 760 50 0*191 770 50 0
03645 10/06*195 780 60 0*200 791 60 0*205 800 70 0*210 804 70 0
03650 10/07*214 809 80 0*217 813 80 0*221 816 90 969*224 819 90 0
03650 10/07*214 809 80 0*217 813 90 0*221 816 100 959*224 819 100 0
** *** *** ***
03655 10/08*227 821 80 0*231 821 80 0*234 820 90 0*237 819 90 0
03655 10/08*227 821 90 0*231 821 80 0*234 820 90 0*237 819 90 0
**
03660 10/09*239 818 90 0*241 816 90 0*242 814 90 0*244 811 90 0
03665 10/10*245 810 90 0*246 808 90 0*247 806 90 0*249 803 90 0
03670 10/11*251 800 90 0*252 798 90 0*255 795 90 0*258 790 90 0
03675 10/12*262 786 90 0*265 781 90 0*268 776 80 0*273 770 80 0
03680 10/13*278 763 70 0*283 756 70 0*289 749 60 0*295 740 60 0
03680 10/13*278 763 80 0*283 756 80 0*289 749 70 0*295 740 70 0
** ** ** **
03685 10/14*301 729 60 0*307 718 60 0*314 705 60 0*322 691 60 0
03685 10/14*301 729 70 0*307 718 70 0*314 705 70 0*322 691 70 0
** ** ** **
03690 HRBFL1
03690 HRBFL1CFL1
****
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States
Winds Simpson Pressure Affected
6-10/10/1870$* 0500Z 24.6N 80.8W 70kt 1 (970mb) BFL1
6-10/10/1870$* 0500Z 24.6N 80.8W 70kt 1 (970mb) BFL1,CFL1
****
Re-analysis effort by meteorologists in Cuba (Perez 2000) have uncovered
that the central pressure for this hurricane was 959 mb (at Nueva Paz on the
8th), which suggests winds of 101 kt from the southern wind-pressure
relationship - 100 kt used for the best track. This is consistent with the
assessment of landfall as a Category 3 hurricane at landfall in Cuba (Perez
2000). The original listing of 969 mb for a central pressure (12Z on the
7th) was determined to be, instead, a peripheral pressure from Matanzas. The
hurricane is known as El Huracan de San Marcos for its impacts in Cuba (Perez
2000). The U.S. landfall designation also includes the CFL1 (Southeast
Florida) because of the new geographical designation implemented
by NHC in 2000.
1870/06 - 2006 REVISION:
03820 10/05/1870 M=10 6 SNBR= 131 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
03820 10/05/1870 M=10 6 SNBR= 131 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=1
*
03825 10/05*175 740 40 0*181 750 40 0*187 760 50 0*191 770 50 0*
03830 10/06*195 780 60 0*200 791 60 0*205 800 70 0*210 804 70 0*
03835 10/07*214 809 80 0*217 813 90 0*221 816 100 959*224 819 100 0*
03840 10/08*227 821 90 0*231 821 80 0*234 820 90 0*237 819 90 0*
03845 10/09*239 818 90 0*241 816 90 0*242 814 90 0*244 811 90 0*
03850 10/10*245 810 90 0*246 808 90 0*247 806 90 0*249 803 90 0*
03855 10/11*251 800 90 0*252 798 90 0*255 795 90 0*258 790 90 0*
03860 10/12*262 786 90 0*265 781 90 0*268 776 80 0*273 770 80 0*
03865 10/13*278 763 80 0*283 756 80 0*289 749 70 0*295 740 70 0*
03870 10/14*301 729 70 0*307 718 70 0*314 705 70 0*322 691 70 0*
03875 HRBFL1CFL1
As the hurricane's center did not cross the U.S. coastline (but did
cause Category 1 conditions at the coast), the XING (continental
U.S. landfall indicator) is changed to "0".
********************************************************************************
1870/07: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
No track available, only one point. Storm is determined to have
reached hurricane status based upon report from the ship "Horatio
Harris".
********************************************************************************
1870/08: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis. Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon several
ship observations.
********************************************************************************
1870/09: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
Inland winds over Cuba and Florida reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995)
inland decay model. Storm is determined to have reached major hurricane
status at landfall in Cuba based upon severe damage in Vuelta Abajo and
Batabano. This system is known as the second of the "Twin Key West
Hurricanes in 1870" in Ludlum (1963).
1870/09 - 2003 REVISION:
03730 10/19/1870 M= 4 9 SNBR= 130 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
03730 10/19/1870 M= 4 9 SNBR= 133 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
***
03735 10/19*195 841 100 0*199 840 100 0*204 840 100 0*211 839 100 0
03735 10/19*195 841 90 0*199 840 90 0*204 840 90 0*211 839 90 0
*** *** *** ***
03740 10/20*219 836 100 0*229 834 90 0*239 829 80 0*252 820 80 0
03740 10/20*220 837 90 0*231 835 80 0*243 831 80 0*255 823 80 0
*** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** ***
03745 10/21*266 808 70 0*280 793 60 0*291 781 70 0*303 766 70 0
03745 10/21*267 811 70 0*279 797 60 0*291 781 70 0*303 766 70 0
*** *** *** ***
03750 10/22*314 754 70 0*325 740 70 0*335 726 70 0*345 711 70 0
03755 HRBFL1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States
Winds Simpson Pressure Affected
9-10/20/1870$ 1400Z 24.7N 82.8W 80kt 1 (977mb) BFL1
(Landfall over Fort Jefferson is additional strike in U.S.)
9-10/20/1870$ 2100Z 25.9N 81.5W 80kt 1 (977mb) BFL1
9-10/20/1870$ 2000Z 26.0N 81.6W 80kt 1 (977mb) BFL1
**** **** ****
Re-analysis effort by Perez (2000) has analyzed this hurricane as a
Category 2 landfall in Cuba, instead of a Category 3 assigned in HURDAT
(mainly on the hurricane-caused damage). Winds are adjusted accordingly
on the 19th and 20th.
Mr. Brian Jones of the University of Miami uncovered observations from
the U.S. military base Fort Jefferson west of Key West:
Fort Jefferson (24.7N, 82.8W):
Date 12Z 19Z 02Z
10/19/1870 E-4 E-4 E-3
10/20/1870 E-10 NW-9 SE-5
Remarks:
"For several days past the wind has been blowing first from the E and SE.
At 9 P.M. Oct. 19th, it began increasing and at 3 A.M. Oct. 20th amounted
to a Hurricane. Heavy rainfall, but not lightning or thunder accompanied
it. Trees and fences protested, buildings surroofed & debris flying in
every direction, making it dangerous to be out. At 8:15 A.M., the wind
died completely out in 3 minutes, so close as to be uncomfortable.
Suddenly at 9:40 A.M. it set in from the opposite direction, and in
twenty minutes increased to a Hurricane. At 2 P.M. began diminishing and
at 9 P.M. amounted to a moderate breeze."
Military Post Wind Force Scale
(values are estimates of the highest gusts)
-------------------------------------------
1 - Very light breeze 2 mph (2 kt)
2 - Gentle breeze 4 mph (4 kt)
3 - Fresh breeze 12 mph (10 kt)
4 - Strong breeze 25 mph (22 kt)
5 - High breeze 35 mph (30 kt)
6 - Gale 45 mph (39 kt)
7 - Strong gale 60 mph (51 kt)
8 - Violent gale 75 mph (65 kt)
9 - Hurricane 90 mph (78 kt)
10 - Most violent 100 mph (87 kt)
These additional observations indicate that the hurricane made a direct
landfall over the fort at 14Z on the 20th, rather than passing to the
east. The track has been adjusted on the 20th and 21st appropriately.
********************************************************************************
1870/10: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995a) analysis.
No track available, only one point. Storm is determined to have reached
hurricane status based upon observations from the ships "R. Murray, Jr."
and a Spanish bark.
********************************************************************************
1870/11: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995b) analysis.
Inland winds over Mexico reduced via Kaplan and DeMaria's (1995)
inland decay model with an accelerated rate of decay to account for
the enhanced topography. Storm determined to have reached hurricane status
based upon reports from ships "Silver Star" and "Nymph".
1870/11 - 2003 REVISION:
03775 10/30/1870 M= 5 11 SNBR= 132 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
03775 10/30/1870 M= 5 11 SNBR= 135 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
03780 10/30*170 855 60 0*171 856 60 0*172 860 60 0*172 861 60 0
03785 10/31*174 864 70 0*175 866 60 0*177 869 70 0*177 871 70 0
03785 10/31*174 864 70 0*175 866 70 0*177 869 70 0*177 871 70 0
**
03790 11/01*180 876 70 0*182 878 70 0*185 880 70 0*187 880 60 0
03795 11/02*192 879 50 0*197 876 40 0*204 874 40 0*214 869 50 0
03800 11/03*222 863 60 0*230 856 60 0*237 850 70 0*242 840 70 0
03805 HR
Typographical error - the storm was designated as being of hurricane
force from 00Z on the 31st until 12Z on the 1st.
********************************************************************************
1871/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz's (1995b) analysis.
Track unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993). Inland decay model of Kaplan
and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Texas. 999 mb
central pressure provides guidance of 47 kt using the Gulf of
Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 50 kt chosen in best track.
The best track provided appears to describe the full life cycle of this
tropical cyclone (from its formation as a tropical storm until its
dissipation below tropical depression strength).
1871/01 - 2003 REVISION:
03915 06/01/1871 M= 5 1 SNBR= 133 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
03915 06/01/1871 M= 5 1 SNBR= 136 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
03920 06/01*241 810 40 0*241 821 40 0*242 836 40 0*247 846 40 0
03925 06/02*252 854 50 0*258 861 50 0*261 873 50 0*265 886 50 0
03930 06/03*268 898 50 0*270 911 50 0*273 924 50 0*277 933 50 0
03935 06/04*282 941 50 0*289 950 50 999*297 956 50 0*303 960 40 0
03935 06/04*282 941 50 0*289 950 50 999*297 956 40 0*303 960 40 0
**
03940 06/05*311 961 40 0*320 961 40 0*332 958 30 0*350 950 30 0
03945 TS
Winds not reduced after landfall occurred until well-inland. Winds
decreased at 12Z on the 4th for more realistic decay.
********************************************************************************
1871/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Track
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993). Inland decay model of Kaplan
and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Texas. The best
track provided appears to describe the full life cycle of this
tropical cyclone (from its formation as a tropical storm until its
dissipation below tropical depression strength).
********************************************************************************
1871/03: Only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) was to
extend track of storm one full day into the SE United States to
accommodate a typical decay of the hurricane to tropical depression
strength, as suggested by the inland decay model of Kaplan and
DeMaria (1995). Partagas and Diaz (1995b) did make large changes to
the track found in Neumann et al. (1993), though these are found to be
reasonable. 952 mb central pressure provides guidance of 101 kt using
the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship - 100 kt used in
the best track. 955 mb central pressure provides guidance of 99 kt
using the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship - 100 kt
used in the best track. Storm is determined to have reached major
hurricane status based upon above central pressure measurements.
1871/03 - 2003 REVISION:
03870 08/14/1871 M=10 3 SNBR= 134 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
03870 08/14/1871 M=10 3 SNBR= 137 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
*** *
03875 08/14*265 724 80 0*266 730 80 0*267 736 80 0*268 743 80 0
03875 08/14*265 724 80 0*266 730 80 0*267 736 80 0*267 743 80 0
***
03880 08/15*269 750 90 0*269 756 90 0*270 765 100 0*270 773 100 952
03880 08/15*268 750 90 0*268 758 90 0*268 767 100 0*268 777 100 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
03885 08/16*271 780 100 0*272 785 100 955*273 791 100 0*274 795 100 0
03885 08/16*268 785 100 952*268 791 100 955*268 795 100 0*269 798 100 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
03890 08/17*275 796 100 0*276 799 100 0*277 800 100 0*279 801 100 0
03890 08/17*270 801 100 0*272 805 90 0*276 811 80 0*283 817 70 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
03895 08/18*282 803 90 0*287 804 90 0*290 805 90 0*294 806 90 0
03895 08/18*290 821 70 0*297 825 60 0*304 823 60 0*308 819 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
03900 08/19*300 806 80 0*307 806 80 0*315 805 80 0*322 798 80 0
03900 08/19*313 814 50 0*318 808 60 0*321 802 60 0*323 796 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
03905 08/20*325 788 80 0*327 776 80 0*327 766 80 0*324 764 80 0
03905 08/20*325 788 60 0*327 776 60 0*326 768 60 0*324 764 60 0
** ** *** *** ** **
03910 08/21*320 761 80 0*317 763 80 0*315 765 80 0*311 771 80 0
03910 08/21*320 761 60 0*317 763 60 0*314 765 60 0*312 771 60 0
** ** *** ** *** **
03915 08/22*310 780 80 0*310 786 90 0*310 795 90 0*311 804 90 0
03915 08/22*311 780 60 0*310 786 60 0*310 795 60 0*311 804 60 0
*** ** ** ** **
03920 08/23*312 814 90 0*313 824 60 0*314 835 40 0*314 845 30 0
03920 08/23*312 814 60 0*313 824 50 0*314 835 40 0*314 845 30 0
** **
03925 HR GA2DFL1
03925 HRCFL3DFL1AFL1
**** ****
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States
Winds Simpson Pressure Affected
3-8/18/1871$* 0000Z 28.2N 80.3W 80kt 1 (965mb) DFL1
3-8/17/1871$* 0200Z 27.1N 80.2W 100kt 3 955mb CFL3,DFL1,AFL1
** ***** ***** ***** ***** * ******* **** ****
3-8/23/1871 0000Z 31.2N 81.3W 90kt 2 (965mb) GA2,DFL1
3-8/23/1871 0000Z 31.2N 81.3W 60kt TS ----- ---
**** ** ******* ********
Hurricane is revised from the previously accepted analysis of Partagas
and Diaz due to inclusion of work by Ho (1989). In particular, additional
observations were provided from New Smyrna, Fairview, Ocala, Picolata,
Tampa, Jacksonville (FL), and Savannah (GA). These land-based measurements
from Ho's study were key in providing the track alteration to one that
made landfall in central east Florida, passed over Ocala, moved west of
Jacksonville, then back over water off of southern Georgia. However, Ho's
intensity analysis of a 945 mb central pressure is likely too low an
estimation as a 955 mb central pressure recorded by the ship "Victor"
(as recorded in Partagas and Diaz 1995b) occurred very near the coast,
along Jupiter. Hurricane is re-analyzed to come ashore early on the 23rd
as a tropical storm in Georgia since there is no evidence that it
reintensified to a hurricane after weakening to a tropical storm while
over Florida.
********************************************************************************
1871/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who
made large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).
These track changes are found to be reasonable. 965 mb central
pressure provides guidance for 95 kt utilizing the southern wind-
pressure relationship - 100 kt chosen for best track. 962 mb central
pressure suggests 98 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship
- 100 kt chosen for best track. Inland decay model of Kaplan and
DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the SE United States.
Storm is determined to have reached major hurricane status based upon
above central pressure measurements. This hurricane is known as
"Santa Juana" for its impacts in Puerto Rico.
1871/04 - 2003 REVISION:
04035 08/17/1871 M=14 4 SNBR= 136 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
04035 08/17/1871 M=14 4 SNBR= 139 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
***
04040 08/17*112 307 40 0*115 322 40 0*118 339 40 0*123 355 40 0
04045 08/18*129 374 50 0*135 392 50 0*140 410 50 0*142 425 50 0
04050 08/19*143 445 60 0*145 464 60 0*147 480 70 0*149 499 70 0
04055 08/20*151 522 80 0*153 545 80 0*154 564 90 0*158 582 90 0
04060 08/21*164 600 100 0*171 616 100 0*177 629 100 965*182 640 100 0
04065 08/22*189 653 100 962*195 665 100 0*200 675 90 0*207 686 90 0
04070 08/23*212 696 90 0*220 710 90 0*225 723 90 0*232 735 90 0
04075 08/24*241 750 90 0*250 764 90 0*257 776 90 0*263 786 90 0
04080 08/25*270 795 90 0*277 805 90 0*283 813 70 0*289 819 50 0
04080 08/25*270 795 90 0*277 805 90 0*283 813 70 0*289 822 50 0
***
04085 08/26*294 825 40 0*299 831 40 0*305 843 40 0*309 845 40 0
04085 08/26*294 831 40 0*299 838 40 0*305 843 40 0*309 845 40 0
*** ***
04090 08/27*313 845 30 0*317 844 30 0*320 840 30 0*320 835 30 0
04090 08/27*313 845 30 0*317 844 30 0*320 840 30 0*321 835 30 0
***
04095 08/28*322 831 30 0*322 825 30 0*323 820 30 0*324 810 30 0
04095 08/28*322 830 30 0*322 825 30 0*323 821 30 0*324 810 30 0
*** ***
04100 08/29*325 799 40 0*327 786 40 0*330 775 50 0*340 761 50 0
04105 08/30*355 743 50 0*373 724 50 0*395 705 60 0*420 685 60 0
04110 HRCFL2DFL1
Track adjusted to provide for more realistic translational velocity.
********************************************************************************
1871/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) for this
newly documented hurricane. Storm is determined to have reached
hurricane status based upon several ship reports.
********************************************************************************
1871/06: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
reasonable small track changes from that shown in Neumann et al. (1993),
originally storm number 5. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995)
utilized for inland winds over Florida. Storm is determined to have reached
hurricane status based upon reports from the ship "Robert Myhan" and
"Lizzie M. Merrill".
1871/06 - 2006 REVISION:
04225 09/05/1871 M= 4 6 SNBR= 142 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
04230 09/05*260 901 70 0*265 890 70 0*270 876 70 0*275 861 70 0*
04235 09/06*281 849 70 0*286 841 70 0*290 833 70 0*296 825 50 0*
04240 09/07*302 818 50 0*307 811 50 0*313 803 60 0*317 793 60 0*
04245 09/08*319 783 60 0*322 770 60 0*324 759 60 0*327 750 60 0*
04250 HRAFL1
04250 HRAFL1BFL1
****
Based upon research provided by Mark Jelinek and James Belanger from Georgia
Institute of Technology, the impact from this cyclone as a Category 1
hurricane for southwest Florida ("BFL") is added. This is based upon
ship observations of hurricane force winds south of the dividing line
between northwest ("AFL") and southwest Florida.
1871/06 - 2011 REVISION:
04225 09/05/1871 M= 4 6 SNBR= 142 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
04230 09/05*260 901 70 0*265 890 70 0*270 876 70 0*275 861 70 0*
04235 09/06*281 849 70 0*286 841 70 0*290 833 70 0*296 825 50 0*
04240 09/07*302 818 50 0*307 811 50 0*313 803 60 0*317 793 60 0*
04245 09/08*319 783 60 0*322 770 60 0*324 759 60 0*327 750 60 0*
04250 HRAFL1BFL1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
6-9/6/1871 1400Z 29.2N 83.0W 70kt 1 --- (985mb) AFL1,BFL1
6-9/6/1871 1400Z 29.2N 83.0W 70kt 1 --- (982mb) AFL1,BFL1
***
The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Florida as a 70 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 985 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 982 mb -
for a 70 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
1871/07: Only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) is to
extend out the track of the storm an additional one day to the 7th
of October based upon suggestion in the Partagas and Diaz writeup
due to the ship "Robert Cadwell". Track otherwise unaltered from
Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 6. Inland decay model
of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over SE United
States. The best track provided appears to describe the full life
cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its formation as a tropical storm
to its peak as a hurricane until its dissipation below tropical storm
strength). Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status
based upon loss of steamships "Hall" and "Twelfth Era".
********************************************************************************
1871/08: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) for this
newly documented hurricane. Storm is determined to have reached
hurricane force based upon reports from ships "Nellie Antrim" and
"Armida" as well as destruction in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
********************************************************************************
1872/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Track
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993). Inland decay model of Kaplan
and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over SE United States. The
best track provided appears to describe the full life cycle of this
tropical cyclone (from its formation as a tropical storm until its
dissipation below tropical depression strength).
1872/01 - 2003 REVISION:
04255 07/09/1872 M= 5 1 SNBR= 141 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
04255 07/09/1872 M= 5 1 SNBR= 144 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
04260 07/09*235 920 40 0*241 918 40 0*246 916 40 0*251 911 40 0
04260 07/09*235 920 40 0*241 918 40 0*246 916 40 0*251 912 40 0
***
04265 07/10*258 908 50 0*263 904 50 0*270 900 50 0*277 896 50 0
04265 07/10*257 908 50 0*263 904 50 0*270 900 50 0*277 896 50 0
***
04270 07/11*284 893 50 0*292 891 50 0*300 890 50 0*305 890 50 0
04275 07/12*309 891 40 0*313 891 40 0*316 893 40 0*320 895 40 0
04275 07/12*309 890 40 0*313 891 40 0*316 893 40 0*320 895 40 0
***
04280 07/13*325 895 30 0*330 894 30 0*335 890 30 0*342 885 30 0
04285 TS
Track altered slightly to provide a more realistic translational velocity.
********************************************************************************
1872/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993). These track
changes are found to be reasonable. The storm reached hurricane status
based upon observations from several ships. The best track provided
appears to describe the full life cycle of this tropical cyclone (from
its formation as a tropical storm to its peak as a hurricane until its
dissipation as an extratropical cyclone).
********************************************************************************
1872/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
reasonable small track alterations from that shown in Neumann et al. (1993).
Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon observations
from several ships.
********************************************************************************
1872/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993). These
track changes are found to be reasonable. Storm is determined to have
reached hurricane force based upon report from the ship "Tare".
********************************************************************************
1872/05: Track considerably altered from Partagas and Diaz (1995b).
The track chosen is a compromise between that shown in Neumann et al.
(1993) and that advocated by Partagas and Diaz. The reasoning is that
observations in the 1872 _Monthly Weather Review_ show that 7 1/2 inches
of rain occurred in Norfolk , which is unlikely to be produced by a separate
extratropical storm alone as is what is suggested by Partagas and Diaz
to have caused the gales and low pressures throughout the middle
Atlantic states. Additionally, the U.S. Army Signal Corp did provide
overland tracks of extratropical storms, none of which matched up to
the one that Partagas and Diaz suggested to have occurred. This new
track takes it across Florida a bit farther south than both previous tracks
to allow for a turn northward near the ship "Cardenas", then the new track
brings the system ashore as a tropical storm in North Carolina just a bit
farther east of Neumann et al.'s landfall. The new track then stays east of
Neumann et al.'s track while over the middle Atlantic states to correspond
with the the northeast to north winds over Washington and the low pressures
measured in New York City. After leaving New England, the new track rejoins
the original Neumann et al. track.
1872/05 - 2003 REVISION:
04395 10/22/1872 M= 7 5 SNBR= 143 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
04395 10/22/1872 M= 7 5 SNBR= 146 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
04400 10/22*234 893 40 0*240 883 40 0*247 873 40 0*257 862 40 0
04405 10/23*267 848 50 0*276 833 50 0*284 818 50 0*290 803 50 0
04405 10/23*267 848 50 0*276 833 50 0*284 818 40 0*290 803 40 0
** **
04410 10/24*300 790 60 0*313 785 70 0*326 782 70 0*336 779 60 0
04410 10/24*300 790 50 0*313 785 60 0*326 782 70 0*336 779 60 0
** **
04415 10/25*343 777 50 0*350 775 50 0*357 772 40 0*365 769 40 0
04420 10/26*375 765 40 0*386 758 40 0*397 748 40 0*406 738 40 0
04425 10/27*413 726 40 0*418 713 40 0E424 692 40 0E429 672 40 0
04430 10/28E436 650 40 0E445 625 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
04435 HR
No weakening indicated in original HURDAT while passing over Florida. Inland
decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds
over Florida. Winds reduced accordingly on the 23rd and 24th.
********************************************************************************
1873/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Track
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993). Inland decay model of Kaplan
and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Georgia. The best
track provided appears to describe the full life cycle of this tropical
cyclone (from its formation as a tropical storm until its dissipation
below tropical depression strength).
********************************************************************************
1873/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993). These
track changes are found to be reasonable. 962 mb central pressure
suggests 88 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt used
in best track. Storm is determined to have reached major hurricane
status for the two days before the above central pressure measurement
was made at latitude 44N. The best track provided appears to describe
the full life cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its formation as a
tropical storm to its peak as a major hurricane until its dissipation as
an extratropical cyclone).
1873/02 - 2003 REVISION:
04550 08/13/1873 M=16 2 SNBR= 147 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
04550 08/13/1873 M=16 2 SNBR= 150 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
04555 08/13*139 250 40 0*140 260 40 0*140 270 40 0*141 281 40 0
04560 08/14*141 293 50 0*142 306 50 0*143 320 50 0*144 330 50 0
04565 08/15*145 344 50 0*145 359 50 0*145 373 50 0*146 384 50 0
04570 08/16*147 397 60 0*148 412 60 0*150 427 60 0*153 440 60 0
04575 08/17*156 455 70 0*160 470 70 0*165 490 70 0*169 505 70 0
04580 08/18*175 520 70 0*182 536 70 0*187 550 70 0*195 564 70 0
04585 08/19*202 579 80 0*212 595 80 0*220 610 80 0*229 621 80 0
04590 08/20*239 635 80 0*249 646 80 0*260 656 80 0*268 666 80 0
04595 08/21*278 673 90 0*290 678 90 0*303 683 90 0*310 684 90 0
04595 08/21*278 673 90 0*290 678 90 0*303 682 90 0*310 684 90 0
***
04600 08/22*317 685 90 0*325 686 90 0*333 685 90 0*343 683 90 0
04605 08/23*352 680 100 0*360 676 100 0*370 670 100 0*383 664 100 0
04610 08/24*395 658 100 0*409 646 100 0*420 635 90 0*430 614 90 0
04615 08/25*437 589 90 962*444 566 90 0*450 550 80 0*457 543 80 0
04620 08/26*460 541 80 0*465 541 80 0*470 540 70 0*474 540 70 0
04625 08/27*478 539 70 0*482 537 70 0E485 535 60 0E494 526 60 0
04630 08/28E504 513 60 0E510 498 60 0E520 480 50 0E530 460 50 0
04635 HR
Minor track alteration on the 21st for more realistic motion.
********************************************************************************
1873/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).
Pressure reading of 992 mb not in hurricane's center (at 12 UTC, 19th of
September) suggests winds of at least 59 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-
pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track. Inland decay
model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the
SE United States. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane force
in the Gulf of Mexico based upon destruction that occurred in Tallahassee,
Florida; storm regained hurricane strength in the Atlantic based upon above
peripheral surface pressure report along with several ship observations.
1873/03 - 2011 REVISION:
04720 09/18/1873 M= 3 3 SNBR= 152 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
04725 09/18*227 899 70 0*235 899 70 0*245 896 70 0*257 889 70 0*
04730 09/19*268 878 70 0*279 866 70 0*291 851 70 0*307 834 60 0*
04735 09/20*325 806 50 0*335 778 60 0*342 745 70 0*345 703 70 0*
04740 HRAFL1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
3-9/19/1873 1500Z 29.9N 84.4W 70kt 1 --- (985mb) AFL1
3-9/19/1873 1500Z 29.9N 84.4W 70kt 1 --- (982mb) AFL1
***
The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Florida as an 70 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 985 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 982 mb -
for a 70 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
1873/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Track
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993). Inland decay model of Kaplan
and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Florida.
********************************************************************************
1873/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
large alterations to the track reasonably shown in Neumann et al.
(1993). These track changes are found to be reasonable. Inland decay
model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over
Hispanola, Cuba and the SE United States. Used an accelerated decay
rate over Cuba to account for enhanced topography. Pressure reading
of 969 mb not in hurricane's center (on 12 UTC, September 28th) suggests
winds of at least 91 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship -
100 kt chosen for best track. Pressure reading of 971 mb not
in hurricane's center (on 00 UTC, September 29th) suggests winds of
at least 88 kt - 90 kt chosen for best track. Estimate of 959 mb for
central pressure at landfall in SW Florida from Ho (1989) appears
reasonable and matches SLOSH modeling work by Jarvinen (1990).
959 mb central pressure suggests 101 kt from the Gulf of Mexico
wind-pressure relationship - 100 kt chosen for the best track. Storm tide
value of 14' at Punta Rassa, Florida from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Storm
is determined to have reached major hurricane status on the 28th of
September based upon peripheral surface pressure reading of 969 mb and
destruction that occurred in Jacmal, Haiti. Storm regained major
hurricane status on the 7th of October based upon the estimate of central
pressure of 959 mb and surge/destruction in Punta Rassa.
1873/05 - 2003 REVISION:
04690 09/26/1873 M=15 5 SNBR= 150 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
04690 09/26/1873 M=15 5 SNBR= 153 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
***
04695 09/26*147 623 40 0*148 631 40 0*150 640 50 0*153 651 50 0
04700 09/27*157 665 60 0*160 676 60 0*162 690 70 0*166 701 70 0
04705 09/28*169 711 80 0*174 723 90 0*180 730 100 0*190 739 90 0
04710 09/29*197 745 90 0*202 755 80 0*202 765 60 0*202 771 50 0
04715 09/30*201 778 40 0*200 784 40 0*200 790 40 0*201 796 40 0
04720 10/01*201 801 40 0*201 806 40 0*200 810 40 0*200 814 40 0
04725 10/02*200 818 50 0*200 821 50 0*200 825 50 0*200 828 50 0
04730 10/03*200 831 60 0*200 836 60 0*200 840 70 0*200 846 70 0
04735 10/04*200 851 70 0*201 856 70 0*202 860 80 0*206 861 80 0
04735 10/04*200 851 70 0*201 856 70 0*202 860 80 0*204 861 80 0
***
04740 10/05*210 864 80 0*212 865 80 0*215 865 90 0*219 864 90 0
04740 10/05*208 864 80 0*212 865 80 0*215 865 90 0*219 864 90 0
***
04745 10/06*224 861 90 0*230 859 90 0*237 855 100 0*247 841 100 0
04750 10/07*262 825 100 959*281 803 80 0*297 786 80 0*311 771 80 0
04755 10/08*324 756 90 0*337 741 90 0*350 726 80 0*363 709 80 0
04760 10/09*375 685 70 0*388 661 70 0E395 645 60 0E400 630 60 0
04765 10/10E405 615 60 0E410 600 60 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
04770 HRBFL3CFL2DFL1
Track slightly altered to provide a more realistic motion.
********************************************************************************
1874/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Track
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993). Inland decay model of Kaplan
and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Texas. The best
track provided appears to describe the full life cycle of this tropical
cyclone (from its formation as a tropical storm until its dissipation
below tropical depression strength).
********************************************************************************
1874/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Track
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993). Storm is determined to have reached
hurricane status based upon a report from "a sailing vessel".
********************************************************************************
1874/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993). These
track changes are found to be reasonable. Pressure reading of 980 mb
not in storm's center (on 18 UTC, 7th of September) suggests winds of
at least 73 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt
chosen for best track as it is determined that the storm had already
undergone extratropical transition by this point. Storm determined to
have reached hurricane status based upon several ship observations.
********************************************************************************
1874/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Track
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993). Inland decay model of Kaplan and
DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Mexico and Texas. The best
track provided appears to describe the full life cycle of this tropical
cyclone (from its formation as a tropical storm until its dissipation
below tropical depression strength).
1874/04 - 2003 REVISION:
04905 09/02/1874 M= 6 4 SNBR= 154 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
04905 09/02/1874 M= 6 4 SNBR= 157 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
04910 09/02*204 946 40 0*207 950 40 0*212 953 40 0*215 956 40 0
04915 09/03*220 959 40 0*224 962 40 0*229 965 40 0*234 968 40 0
04920 09/04*239 970 50 0*244 971 50 0*250 976 50 0*255 978 50 0
04920 09/04*239 971 50 0*244 974 50 0*250 976 50 0*255 978 50 0
*** ***
04925 09/05*261 980 40 0*267 981 40 0*273 982 30 0*278 983 30 0
04930 09/06*283 984 30 0*288 985 30 0*292 985 30 0*297 985 30 0
04935 09/07*303 985 30 0*310 984 30 0*317 984 30 0*325 983 30 0
04940 TS
Track slightly adjusted to provide for a more realistic motion.
********************************************************************************
1874/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Track
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993).
********************************************************************************
1874/06: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).
Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds
over Mexico, Florida and the eastern United States. A pressure reading
of 996 mb not in the storm's center (at 06 UTC, September 28th) suggests
winds of at least 53 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure
relationship - 60 kt chosen for best track. A central pressure of 984 mb
suggests 71 kt using the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship
- 70 kt chosen for best track. A central pressure of 987 mb suggests 67 kt
using the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen
for best track. A central pressure of 980 mb suggests 73 kt using the
northern wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt chosen as it is determined that
the storm transitioned to extratropical. The storm is determined to have
reached hurricane force from the 984 mb central pressure and reports from
the ship "Emma D. Finney". The best track provided appears to describe
the full life cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its formation as a
tropical storm to its peak as a hurricane until its dissipation as an
extratropical storm).
1874/06 - 2003 REVISION:
04870 09/25/1874 M= 7 6 SNBR= 156 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
04870 09/25/1874 M= 7 6 SNBR= 159 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
***
04875 09/25*175 864 40 0*181 871 40 0*185 875 50 0*190 880 50 0
04875 09/25*175 864 40 0*181 871 40 0*185 875 50 0*190 880 40 0
**
04880 09/26*196 884 40 0*204 886 40 0*212 888 40 0*222 885 40 0
04880 09/26*196 884 40 0*204 886 30 0*212 888 30 0*222 885 40 0
** **
04885 09/27*232 880 50 0*241 875 50 0*252 865 60 0*268 851 60 0
04885 09/27*232 880 50 0*242 875 50 0*252 865 60 0*268 851 60 0
***
04890 09/28*282 836 70 0*295 825 60 0*310 810 70 0*324 801 70 984
04890 09/28*282 836 70 0*298 823 60 0*314 810 70 0*328 800 80 981
*** *** *** *** *** ** ***
04895 09/29*339 795 70 987*354 789 60 0*368 780 50 0*389 760 50 0
04895 09/29*340 790 70 0*352 780 60 0*368 770 50 0*389 755 50 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
04900 09/30*409 736 60 0*427 716 60 0E443 700 60 0E460 680 60 980
04905 10/01E480 655 50 0E500 630 50 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
04910 HRAFL1 SC1 NC1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States
Winds Simpson Pressure Affected
6-10/28/1874 0400Z 29.1N 82.8W 70kt 1 (985mb) AFL1
6-10/28/1874 0300Z 29.1N 82.9W 70kt 1 (985mb) AFL1
**** ****
6-10/28/1874 1900Z 32.6N 80.0W 70kt 1 984mb SC1,NC1
6-10/28/1874 1800Z 32.8N 80.0W 80kt 1 981mb SC1,NC1
**** **** ** ***
Unrealistically small weakening indicated in original HURDAT while passing
over the Yucatan of Mexico. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995)
utilized for inland winds over Mexico. Winds reduced accordingly on the 25th
and 26th.
Recent research by Prof. Cary Mock of the University of South Carolina
that there was a measurement of 981 mb from Georgetown which does appear
to be a central pressure value. (The hurricane appears to have maintained
intensity or slightly intensified between Charleston (984 mb) and
Georgetown (981 mb).) 981 mb suggest winds of 74 kt from the subtropical
wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track in part based upon
destruction that occurred in Charleston. The track is adjusted slightly to
the east at and after landfall to accommodate this new data (included in
full below):
Sept. 28, 1874, from the weather diary of Alexander Glennie at Georgetown, SC.
Wind strength was recorded in a numerical scale from 1-6, with 1 indicating a
very light breeze and 6 indicating a violent storm. Total precipitation at
Georgetown was 1.5 inches, which suggests it didn't receive the brunt of the
rainfall.
* Morning and Forenoon (probably sunrise, as the temperature observation is
at sunrise): 72 F, SE wind at 5, Rain, Gale
* Noon and Afternoon (temperature reading is at 2 pm): 73 F, E wind at 6,
heavy Gale Rain; wind changed 3 pm to W.. Bar [barometer] at 3 pm 28.96
* Evening and Night (temperature reading is at 9 pm): 65 F, SW 3.
The News and Courier, Tuesday, Sept. 29, 1874, p. 1.
THE GREAT GALE OF 1874
A MEMORABLE DAY-FULL DETAILS OF THE AWFUL STORM.
The long immunity which Charleston has enjoyed from disastrous
gales was interrupted yesterday by a disaster which has probably destroyed
over a quarter of a million dollars' worth of property. In the early part
of the present month everybody was on the lookout for the equinoctial
storm, because there exists a kind of tradition that severe and disastrous
equinoxes occur once in every twenty years, and it is just twenty years
since the destructive gale of 1854. But when the 21st of the month had
passed without bringing the disagreeable visitor people began to think
that Charleston would after all escape the dreadful infliction. For over
a fortnight the wind had been blowing steadily from the east, and at times
the weather had assumed a threatening aspect, but not sufficiently so to
warrant the apprehension of a gale. On Sunday evening at a late hour it
began to blow stiffly in puffs and to rain, and by daylight the wind had
increased considerably, blowing from the east and southeast. The steamer
Dictator, which arrived in the morning, reported heavy weather at sea, but
the captain failed to observe any indications of the coming blow. About
half-past six or seven o'clock in the morning the wind grew stronger, with
heavy squalls and severe puffs, which created general apprehensions. At
eight o'clock it was evident that
THE GALE WAS UPON US.
The sea was heaving and tossing in the harbor, and the rapidly
encroaching tide began to flood the wharves and streets. The squalls kept
constantly increasing in strength, and the masters of vessels in port
began to look anxiously to their moorings. At nine o'clock the tide had
risen so high that it covered all the wharves on the eastern front of the
city and flooded the streets to the depth of several feet. Many of the
wharves were washed up, and several vessels parted from their moorings and
were driven on shore.
THE SCENE FROM THE WHARVES
at this time was terrific. In every direction drift wood, bales of
cotton, wrecked boats and debris were being tossed about. The wind,
whistling through the rigging of the shipping, made melancholy music, and
the blinding rain falling in torrents rendered efforts to save anything
almost useless. The tide rose to a great height, in many instances
lifting the flooring from the piers and rendering it extremely hazardous
for anybody to stand in the vicinity. The sea in the harbor rolled
mountain high, and the waves dashed over the piers in huge rollers. At
Accommodation wharf a bark was driven from her moorings high up on the
landing into the wharf office of Campbell Wylly & Co., but was blown off a
gain when the wind shifted. So great was the force of the wind that the
bowsprit of the vessel entered the second story of the building, which was
of brick, and cut it completely in two, making a clean split. At the
wharf of the Sullivan's Island steamers the waves washed clear over the
wood work, and the anxious crowd who had gathered there to hear tidings
from friends on the Island were fairly driven back by the blinding rain
and rapidly rising waters. East Bay and Calhoun street were flooded with
water to such a depth as to
FLOAT THE CARS
of the Enterprise Railway from the track. All the wharves above Market
street were more or less damaged, but those below that point suffered the
most. At Vanderhorst wharf, a large flat loaded with phosphate rock
intended for the ship Border Chieftain parted the fastenings, and was
blown into three sloops in the dock, sinking them almost immediately. The
flat was then lifted by the waves and thrown transversely across the dock,
making a complete bridge between the two piers. The British bark
Beltiate, which had lately arrived from Liverpool and was anchored in the
stream, was blown from her moorings despite two heavy anchors held by
seventy-five and forty-five feet of iron chain and dragged into the dock
between Boyce and Atlantic wharf. The wharf on the extreme southern limit
of the eastern water front was completely washed away, and the piers
immediately adjoining on the north, at which were moored the steamers City
Point and Dictator, were also badly damaged. The work of destruction
continued without interruption until about half-past twelve, when
THE WIND MODULATED
for a short time, and then shifted around to the south and west, when it
again blew with full force for about an hour, tearing the slate and tin
from the roofs of many buildings and blowing down trees and fences in
every direction. The change in the direction of the wind, however, had
the effect of turning the tide, and in an incredible short time the waters
began to fall, and people began to breathe easier. As soon as the wind
shifted the rain ceased to fall, and the streets, which had up to this
time been dangerous to pedestrians on account of the falling shingles,
signs, and fences, were now crowded with people who had come out to view
the effects of the storm.
1874/06 - 2011 REVISION:
05055 09/25/1874 M= 7 6 SNBR= 160 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
05060 09/25*175 864 40 0*181 871 40 0*185 875 50 0*190 880 40 0*
05065 09/26*196 884 40 0*204 886 30 0*212 888 30 0*222 885 40 0*
05070 09/27*232 880 50 0*242 875 50 0*252 865 60 0*268 851 60 0*
05075 09/28*282 836 70 0*298 823 60 0*314 810 70 0*328 800 80 981*
05080 09/29*340 790 70 0*352 780 60 0*368 770 50 0*389 755 50 0*
05085 09/30*409 736 60 0*427 716 60 0E443 700 60 0E460 680 60 980*
05090 10/01E480 655 50 0E500 630 50 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*
05095 HRAFL1 SC1 NC1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
6-9/28/1874 0300Z 29.1N 82.9W 70kt 1 --- (985mb) AFL1
6-9/28/1874 0300Z 29.1N 82.9W 70kt 1 --- (982mb) AFL1
***
6-9/28/1874 1800Z 32.8N 80.0W 80kt 1 --- 981mb SC1,NC1
The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Florida as a 70 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 985 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 982 mb -
for a 70 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
1874/07: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993). These
track changes appear to be reasonable. Inland decay model of Kaplan
and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Jamaica and Cuba.
Used an accelerated decay rate over Cuba to take into account the
enhanced topography. The storm is determined to have reached
hurricane force based upon description of severe damage in Jamaica.
1874/07 - 2003 REVISION:
05020 10/31/1874 M= 5 7 SNBR= 157 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
05020 10/31/1874 M= 5 7 SNBR= 160 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
05025 10/31*135 784 40 0*141 783 40 0*147 781 50 0*151 781 50 0
05030 11/01*157 779 60 0*160 778 60 0*164 776 70 0*171 775 80 0
05030 11/01*157 779 60 0*160 778 60 0*164 776 70 0*171 774 80 0
***
05035 11/02*177 771 90 0*184 770 70 0*191 766 60 0*199 761 50 0
05035 11/02*177 772 90 0*184 770 70 0*191 766 60 0*199 761 60 0
*** **
05040 11/03*205 758 50 0*210 754 50 0*215 750 60 0*222 744 60 0
05045 11/04*231 739 70 0*237 734 70 0*245 730 70 0*255 725 70 0
05050 HR
Track slightly adjusted to provide for a more realistic motion. Winds
brought up to 60 kt at 18Z on the 2nd, since the storm had not yet made
landfall in Cuba.
1874/07 - 2006 REVISION:
05100 10/31/1874 M= 5 7 SNBR= 161 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 L
05100 10/31/1874 M= 5 7 SNBR= 161 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 L
*
05105 10/31*135 784 40 0*141 783 40 0*147 781 50 0*151 781 50 0*
05110 11/01*157 779 60 0*160 778 60 0*164 776 70 0*171 774 80 0*
05115 11/02*177 772 90 0*184 770 70 0*191 766 60 0*199 761 60 0*
05120 11/03*205 758 50 0*210 754 50 0*215 750 60 0*222 744 60 0*
05125 11/04*231 739 70 0*237 734 70 0*245 730 70 0*255 725 70 0*
05130 HR
Based upon research provided by Mark Jelinek and James Belanger from Georgia
Institute of Technology, this cyclone should not have been indicated
to be a continental U.S. landfalling system. The landfall indicator
is thus switched (from "XING=1" to "XING=0").
********************************************************************************
1875/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) for this
newly documented hurricane. The storm is determined to have reached
hurricane force based upon several ship reports.
********************************************************************************
1875/02: The only major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) is to
extend the track of this tropical cyclone back to the 1st of September
to take into account that this was the first day of its existence reported
in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 1. However, the other
track modifications that Partagas and Diaz (1995b) provided from that
shown in Neumann et al. (1993) were large, but reasonable. 982 mb
central pressure suggests 75 kt from the southern wind-pressure
relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track. The storm is determined to
have reached hurricane force based upon the central pressure measurement
and several ship reports.
********************************************************************************
1875/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993),
originally storm number 2. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria
(1995) utilized for inland winds over Cuba and Texas. 978 mb central
pressure suggests 80 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship -
80 kt chosen for best track. 992 mb central pressure suggests 61 kt from
the southern wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt chosen for best track. A
pressure reading of 979 mb not in the hurricane's center (at 00 UTC,
September 17th) suggests winds of at least 78 kt from the Gulf of Mexico
wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt is chosen for best track. Storm is
determined to have reached hurricane force in the Caribbean based
upon severe damage reports from Barbados, St. Vincent, Martinique,
Dominica and Cuba, several ship reports and the 978 mb central pressure.
A storm tide estimate of 15' is reported in Roth (1997b). Storm regained
hurricane force and reached major hurricane status in the Gulf of Mexico
based upon ship reports, wind and storm surge produced destruction in
Indianola and Galveston, Texas, and the peripheral pressure at landfall.
1875/11 - 2011 REVISION:
05225 09/08/1875 M=11 3 SNBR= 164 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
05230 09/08*139 553 70 0*139 564 70 0*140 575 70 0*140 587 70 0*
05235 09/09*141 597 80 0*142 607 80 0*143 618 80 0*144 627 80 0*
05240 09/10*145 635 80 0*146 643 80 0*148 651 80 0*151 663 80 0*
05245 09/11*155 674 90 0*158 684 90 0*161 693 90 0*164 701 90 0*
05250 09/12*167 713 90 0*171 721 90 0*175 730 90 0*182 745 90 0*
05255 09/13*194 760 90 0*202 775 90 0*210 785 80 978*220 799 80 0*
05260 09/14*227 809 70 0*234 824 60 992*240 839 70 0*247 854 80 0*
05265 09/15*258 871 80 0*263 891 80 0*266 905 90 0*268 920 90 0*
05270 09/16*270 934 90 0*271 949 90 0*271 961 100 0*274 969 100 0*
05275 09/17*280 973 90 0*288 973 70 0*295 970 60 0*300 962 50 0*
05280 09/18*303 950 40 0*306 935 40 0*310 918 30 0*315 900 30 0*
05285 HRBTX3ATX2
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
3-9/16/1875 2100Z 27.7N 97.2W 100kt 3 --- (960mb) BTX3,ATX2
3-9/16/1875 2100Z 27.7N 97.2W 100kt 3 --- (955mb) BTX3,ATX2
***
The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Texas as a 100 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 960 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 955 mb -
for a 100 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
1875/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Track
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 3. Inland
decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over
the SE United States. The best track provided appears to describe the
full life cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its formation as a
tropical storm to its dissipation below tropical depression intensity).
********************************************************************************
1875/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) for this
newly documented hurricane. Storm is determined to have reached
hurricane status based upon several ship reports.
********************************************************************************
1875/06: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally
storm number 4. These track changes are found to be reasonable. Storm is
determined to have reached hurricane force based upon reports from the
ship "E.E. Ruckett".
********************************************************************************
1876/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) for this
newly documented hurricane. 970 mb central pressure suggests
82 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt
chosen for best track. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane
intensity based upon the 970 mb central pressure measurement.
********************************************************************************
1876/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made large
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm
number 1. These track changes are found to be reasonable. Inland decay
model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over
Hispanola, Cuba and the NE United States. Used accelerated decay rate to
take into account enhanced topography over Hispanola and Cuba. 990 mb
central pressure (twice) suggests 64 kt from the southern wind-pressure
relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track. 991 mb central pressure
suggests 63 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt
chosen for best track. 999 mb central pressure suggests 49 kt from the
southern wind-pressure relationship - 50 kt chosen for best track.
985 mb central pressure suggests 68 kt from the northern wind-pressure
relationship - 60 kt chosen for best track, which is reduced as
storm was inland at this position. A central pressure of 980 mb at
landfall is estimated, which suggests 75 kt from the subtropical
latitude wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track. Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane intensity in the Caribbean based
upon damage accounts from St. Kitts and Vieques and upon the 990 mb and
991 mb central pressure measurements. Storm is determined to have
regained hurricane intensity in the Atlantic based upon ship and land
(Cape Lookout, North Carolina) wind reports as well as the 980 mb estimated
central pressure at landfall.
1876/02 - 2003 REVISION:
05230 09/12/1876 M= 8 2 SNBR= 165 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
05230 09/12/1876 M= 8 2 SNBR= 168 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
***
05235 09/12*177 585 70 0*177 597 70 0*179 610 70 0*180 621 70 0
05235 09/12*177 585 70 0*177 597 70 0*179 610 80 0*180 621 90 0
** **
05240 09/13*180 634 70 0*181 643 70 990*182 653 70 990*184 666 70 991
05240 09/13*180 634 100 0*180 646 100 0*181 660 90 0*183 676 70 991
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
05245 09/14*187 684 70 0*190 701 60 0*192 720 50 0*197 734 50 0
05245 09/14*186 692 70 0*189 707 60 0*193 720 50 0*197 734 50 0
*** *** *** *** ***
05250 09/15*201 748 50 0*204 761 50 0*207 776 50 0*210 786 50 0
05250 09/15*201 748 70 0*204 761 60 0*207 776 50 0*210 786 50 0
** **
05255 09/16*217 796 50 0*229 800 50 999*245 800 60 0*266 794 60 0
05260 09/17*288 786 70 0*314 783 70 0*335 778 80 980*360 773 60 985
05260 09/17*288 786 70 0*314 783 70 0*335 778 80 980*360 773 70 985
**
05265 09/18*382 773 50 0*408 781 40 0*425 775 40 0*430 761 40 0
05265 09/18*382 773 60 987*408 781 50 0*425 775 40 0*430 761 40 0
** *** **
05270 09/19*430 745 30 0*427 730 30 0*423 715 30 0*420 700 30 0
05275 HR NC1
05275 HR NC1 VA1
***
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States
Winds Simpson Pressure Affected
2-9/17/1876 1400Z 34.4N 77.6W 80kt 1 980mb NC1
2-9/17/1876 1400Z 34.4N 77.6W 80kt 1 980mb NC1,VA1
***
Boose et al.'s (2003) analysis of hurricanes that made landfall in Puerto
Rico documented that this hurricane caused widespread Fujita-scale F2 damage
and occasional F3 destruction. Additionally, the 990 mb pressures originally
thought to be central pressures in HURDAT were found, instead, to be
peripheral pressure measurements. Thus this hurricane is estimated
here to be a Category 3 (100 kt) at landfall in Puerto Rico, a major
hurricane. Mitchell's (1924) report also allowed for changes to both track
and intensity. A peripheral pressure of 979 mb (11 UTC on the 13th)
suggests winds of at least 79 kt from the southern wind-pressure
relationship. Mitchell's report estimated an eye diameter of 9 nmi and
rapid translational velocity of about 17 kt, both of which would suggest
increases in maximum winds above the standard wind-pressure relationship.
These facts are consistent with a 100 kt hurricane at landfall. A central
pressure of 991 mb (at 1530 UTC on the 13th) after the hurricane
transited the spine of Puerto Rico suggests winds of 63 kt. Due to the
small size and fast translational velocity, 70 kt is chosen for the
best track. Additionally, a re-analysis by Perez (2000 and personal
communication) of Cuban hurricanes indicate that this system re-attained
hurricane force at landfall in Cuba as a Category 1 hurricane based upon
moderate wind damage on the eastern end of the island. Winds are adjusted
accordingly on the 14th and 15th. Observations of sustained hurricane force
winds in Cape Henry, Virginia from Roth and Cobb's (2001) Virginia Hurricane
History are the basis for slightly boosting winds late on the 17th and early
on the 18th. A central pressure of 987 mb (at 2130Z on the 17th) suggest
winds of 66 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt chosen
for best track because of inland location. The hurricane is known as
"San Felipe" for its impacts in Puerto Rico (Boose et al. 2003).
********************************************************************************
1876/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Track
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 2.
********************************************************************************
1876/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) for this
newly documented hurricane. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria
(1995) utilized for inland winds over Central America with an
accelerated decay rate to account for enhanced topography. The storm is
determined to have reached hurricane intensity based upon reports from
the ship "Nile" and from the destruction that occurred in Nicaragua.
********************************************************************************
1876/05: Two major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). The first
is to start the track of the tropical cyclone in the southwest
Caribbean Sea to take into account heavy swells observed in Tunas de
Zaza, Cuba as reported in Partagas and Diaz (1995b). The second major
change is to position the hurricane on 12 UTC 20th of October near
Melbourne, Florida based upon observations reported in Doehring et al. (1994).
Otherwise, track is reasonably and dramatically altered from that shown in
Neumann et al. (1993) - originally storm number 3 - by Partagas and Diaz.
Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds
over Cuba and Florida. 971 mb central pressure suggests 88 kt using the
southern wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt chosen for best track. 973 mb
central pressure suggests 86 kt using the southern wind-pressure
relationship - 90 kt chosen. 976 mb central pressure suggests 80 kt using
the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for best
track. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon
destruction reported in Grand Cayman and Cuba, the central pressure
observations of 971, 973 and 976 mb, several ship reports and wind
observations from Key West, Florida.
1876/05 - 2003 REVISION:
05350 10/12/1876 M=12 5 SNBR= 168 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
05350 10/12/1876 M=12 5 SNBR= 171 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
***
05355 10/12*120 790 40 0*122 790 40 0*124 790 50 0*126 790 50 0
05360 10/13*128 790 50 0*130 791 50 0*132 792 50 0*135 792 50 0
05365 10/14*138 794 50 0*141 795 50 0*144 796 50 0*147 797 50 0
05370 10/15*150 798 50 0*154 799 50 0*158 800 50 0*162 801 50 0
05375 10/16*166 802 50 0*170 803 50 0*174 804 60 0*178 805 60 0
05380 10/17*182 806 70 0*186 807 70 0*190 808 80 0*194 809 80 0
05385 10/18*197 811 90 0*202 813 90 0*207 816 90 0*212 818 90 0
05385 10/18*197 811 90 0*202 813 90 0*207 815 90 0*212 817 90 0
*** ***
05390 10/19*217 819 90 0*221 819 90 0*227 820 90 0*236 820 90 971
05390 10/19*217 819 100 0*223 822 100 0*227 823 100 958*236 823 90 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
05395 10/20*247 819 90 973*260 813 90 0*275 805 80 0*288 796 80 976
05400 10/21*300 788 80 0*310 779 80 0*319 767 80 0*325 749 80 0
05405 10/22*330 726 80 0*333 698 80 0*335 678 70 0*335 666 70 0
05410 10/23*338 656 70 0*339 646 70 0*340 635 60 0*342 620 60 0
05415 HRBFL2CFL1
Re-analysis effort by Perez (2000) has revealed that the central pressure for
this hurricane was 958 mb (at Bejucal on the 19th), which suggests winds of
102 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 100 kt used for the
best track. This is consistent with the assessment of landfall as a
Category 3 hurricane at landfall in Cuba (Perez 2000). The original listing
of 971 mb for a central pressure (18Z on the 19th) was determined to be,
instead, a peripheral pressure. The track is shifted slightly to the west to
take into account this new center fix location. The hurricane is known as El
Huracan de Gran Cayman-La Habana for its impacts in Cuba (Perez 2000).
********************************************************************************
1877/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993). These
track changes are found to be reasonable. The best track provided
appears to describe the full life cycle of this tropical cyclone
(from its formation as a tropical storm until its dissipation below
tropical storm intensity).
********************************************************************************
1877/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).
Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds
over SE United States after final landfall in Florida. Storm is determined
to have reached hurricane intensity based upon the description of winds and
effects along the Gulf coast. The best track provided appears to describe
the full life cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its formation as a
tropical storm to its peak as a hurricane until its dissipation below
tropical storm intensity).
1877/02 - 2011 REVISION:
05640 09/14/1877 M= 8 2 SNBR= 174 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
05645 09/14*215 920 40 0*219 924 40 0*222 930 40 0*229 936 40 0*
05650 09/15*235 941 50 0*241 946 50 0*247 950 50 0*252 951 50 0*
05655 09/16*259 953 60 0*264 953 60 0*270 953 60 0*274 951 60 0*
05660 09/17*278 951 70 0*282 948 70 0*285 945 70 0*287 938 70 0*
05665 09/18*288 933 70 0*289 925 70 0*290 916 70 0*293 906 70 0*
05670 09/19*295 898 70 0*297 890 70 0*300 880 70 0*303 869 70 0*
05675 09/20*306 859 60 0*308 846 50 0*310 836 40 0*311 824 40 0*
05680 09/21*312 811 40 0*313 800 40 0*313 786 40 0*315 768 40 0*
05685 HR LA1AFL1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
2-9/18/1877 1600Z 29.2N 91.0W 70kt 1 --- (985mb) LA1
2-9/18/1877 1600Z 29.2N 91.0W 70kt 1 --- (982mb) LA1
***
2-9/19/1877 2000Z 30.4N 86.6W 70kt 1 --- (985mb) AFL1
2-9/19/1877 2000Z 30.4N 86.6W 70kt 1 --- (982mb) AFL1
***
The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Louisiana and later Florida as a 70 kt hurricane. This suggested
a central pressure at landfall in both locations of 985 mb from the Gulf of
Mexico pressure-wind relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind
relationship for cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure
is needed - 982 mb - for a 70 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central
pressure at U.S. landfall is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall
listing for both landfalls. This is not explicitly added into HURDAT because
this central pressure value is an estimate, not an observation or directly
analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
1877/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993). These
track changes are found to be reasonable. Storm is determined to have
reached hurricane force based upon reports from the ship "Harlcy John"
and from wind reports at St. Paul Island, Canada.
********************************************************************************
1877/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).
Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds
over the eastern United States. Storm tide is reported as 12' for St.
Marks, Florida from Barnes (1998). Storm is determined to have reached major
hurricane intensity based upon storm tide in St. Marks as well as reports from
the ship "Sarah Hall".
05655 09/21/1877 M=15 4 SNBR= 172 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
05655 09/21/1877 M=15 4 SNBR= 175 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
***
05660 09/21*117 555 50 0*117 565 50 0*117 577 60 0*118 591 60 0
05665 09/22*118 605 70 0*118 620 70 0*117 633 80 0*116 644 80 0
05670 09/23*116 658 90 0*116 670 90 0*117 680 90 0*118 691 90 0
05675 09/24*121 703 90 0*123 714 90 0*127 725 90 0*130 736 90 0
05680 09/25*133 746 80 0*137 759 80 0*140 770 80 0*143 780 80 0
05685 09/26*147 791 70 0*150 801 70 0*153 810 70 0*157 816 70 0
05690 09/27*161 821 70 0*167 826 70 0*171 831 70 0*177 836 70 0
05695 09/28*182 843 70 0*189 851 70 0*195 855 70 0*201 859 70 0
05700 09/29*206 861 70 0*212 864 70 0*219 868 70 0*224 870 70 0
05705 09/30*227 871 70 0*234 873 70 0*237 875 70 0*244 876 70 0
05705 09/30*229 871 70 0*234 873 70 0*239 875 70 0*244 877 70 0
*** *** ***
05710 10/01*247 878 80 0*254 878 80 0*260 876 80 0*265 876 80 0
05710 10/01*249 878 80 0*254 878 80 0*260 877 80 0*265 876 80 0
*** ***
05715 10/02*271 875 90 0*275 873 90 0*280 870 90 0*288 864 90 0
05720 10/03*295 859 100 0*301 853 90 0*307 845 70 0*317 833 50 0
05725 10/04*328 821 40 0*339 808 40 0E350 793 50 0E369 774 50 0
05730 10/05E393 749 60 0E408 724 60 0E420 695 50 0E435 660 50 0
05735 HRAFL3 GA1
Track adjusted slightly to provide for a more realistic translational velocity.
1877/04 - 2006 REVISION:
05735 09/21/1877 M=15 4 SNBR= 176 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
05740 09/21*117 555 50 0*117 565 50 0*117 577 60 0*118 591 60 0*
05745 09/22*118 605 70 0*118 620 70 0*117 633 80 0*116 644 80 0*
05750 09/23*116 658 90 0*116 670 90 0*117 680 90 0*118 691 90 0*
05755 09/24*121 703 90 0*123 714 90 0*127 725 90 0*130 736 90 0*
05760 09/25*133 746 80 0*137 759 80 0*140 770 80 0*143 780 80 0*
05765 09/26*147 791 70 0*150 801 70 0*153 810 70 0*157 816 70 0*
05770 09/27*161 821 70 0*167 826 70 0*171 831 70 0*177 836 70 0*
05775 09/28*182 843 70 0*189 851 70 0*195 855 70 0*201 859 70 0*
05780 09/29*206 861 70 0*212 864 70 0*219 868 70 0*224 870 70 0*
05785 09/30*229 871 70 0*234 873 70 0*239 875 70 0*244 877 70 0*
05790 10/01*249 878 80 0*254 878 80 0*260 877 80 0*265 876 80 0*
05795 10/02*271 875 90 0*275 873 90 0*280 870 90 0*288 864 90 0*
05800 10/03*295 859 100 0*301 853 90 0*307 845 70 0*317 833 50 0*
05805 10/04*328 821 40 0*339 808 40 0E350 793 50 0E369 774 50 0*
05810 10/05E393 749 60 0E408 724 60 0E420 695 50 0E435 660 50 0*
05815 HRAFL3 GA1
05815 HRAFL3IGA1
****
Revision indicated in continental U.S. impacts to specify that the Georgia
hurricane impact from this cyclone was inland, rather than along Georgia's
Atlantic coast.
1877/04 - 2011 REVISION:
05735 09/21/1877 M=15 4 SNBR= 176 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
05740 09/21*117 555 50 0*117 565 50 0*117 577 60 0*118 591 60 0*
05745 09/22*118 605 70 0*118 620 70 0*117 633 80 0*116 644 80 0*
05750 09/23*116 658 90 0*116 670 90 0*117 680 90 0*118 691 90 0*
05755 09/24*121 703 90 0*123 714 90 0*127 725 90 0*130 736 90 0*
05760 09/25*133 746 80 0*137 759 80 0*140 770 80 0*143 780 80 0*
05765 09/26*147 791 70 0*150 801 70 0*153 810 70 0*157 816 70 0*
05770 09/27*161 821 70 0*167 826 70 0*171 831 70 0*177 836 70 0*
05775 09/28*182 843 70 0*189 851 70 0*195 855 70 0*201 859 70 0*
05780 09/29*206 861 70 0*212 864 70 0*219 868 70 0*224 870 70 0*
05785 09/30*229 871 70 0*234 873 70 0*239 875 70 0*244 877 70 0*
05790 10/01*249 878 80 0*254 878 80 0*260 877 80 0*265 876 80 0*
05795 10/02*271 875 90 0*275 873 90 0*280 870 90 0*288 864 90 0*
05800 10/03*295 859 100 0*301 853 90 0*307 845 70 0*317 833 50 0*
05805 10/04*328 821 40 0*339 808 40 0E350 793 50 0E369 774 50 0*
05810 10/05E393 749 60 0E408 724 60 0E420 695 50 0E435 660 50 0*
05815 HRAFL3IGA1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
4-10/3/1877 0500Z 30.0N 85.5W 100kt 3 --- (960mb) AFL3,IGA1
4-10/3/1877 0500Z 30.0N 85.5W 100kt 3 --- (955mb) AFL3,IGA1
***
The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Florida as a 100 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 960 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 955 mb -
for a 100 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
1877/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).
********************************************************************************
1877/06: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Track
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993).
********************************************************************************
1877/07: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993). These
track changes are found to be reasonable.
********************************************************************************
1877/08: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Track
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993). The best track provided appears to
describe the full life cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its formation as
a tropical storm until its dissipation as an extratropical storm).
********************************************************************************
1878/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Track
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993). Inland decay model
of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over
Florida.
1878/01 - 2003 REVISION:
05790 07/01/1878 M= 3 1 SNBR= 175 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
05790 07/01/1878 M= 3 1 SNBR= 178 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
05795 07/01*254 873 40 0*254 866 40 0*255 860 40 0*256 850 40 0
05800 07/02*257 843 40 0*258 835 40 0*259 824 40 0*263 810 40 0
05800 07/02*257 843 40 0*258 835 40 0*259 824 40 0*263 810 30 0
**
05805 07/03*273 796 40 0*280 783 40 0*287 770 40 0*294 756 40 0
05810 TS
No weakening indicated in original HURDAT while passing over Florida,
even though description mentioned utilizing the Kaplan and DeMaria (1995)
inland decay model. In this revision, Kaplan and DeMaria's model was
used to reduce the winds after landfall in Florida on the 2nd.
********************************************************************************
1878/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993). These
track changes are found to be reasonable. Inland decay model of Kaplan
and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Mexico with an accelerated
decay rate to account for enhance topography. The storm is determined to
have reached hurricane intensity based upon reports from the ship "Padang".
The best track provided appears to describe the full life cycle of this
tropical cyclone (from its formation as a tropical storm to its peak as a
hurricane until its dissipation below tropical depression intensity).
1878/02 - 2003 REVISION:
05905 08/08/1878 M=12 2 SNBR= 178 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
05905 08/08/1878 M=12 2 SNBR= 181 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
05910 08/08*150 605 40 0*149 610 40 0*147 615 40 0*146 619 40 0
05915 08/09*146 624 40 0*146 628 40 0*145 633 40 0*145 641 40 0
05920 08/10*144 649 40 0*144 656 40 0*143 665 40 0*142 676 40 0
05925 08/11*141 686 40 0*140 700 40 0*140 713 40 0*141 730 40 0
05930 08/12*143 746 50 0*145 761 50 0*150 775 50 0*159 786 50 0
05935 08/13*166 796 50 0*174 806 50 0*180 815 50 0*187 825 50 0
05940 08/14*195 833 60 0*202 841 60 0*210 850 60 0*215 856 60 0
05945 08/15*220 861 70 0*225 868 70 0*228 875 70 0*229 881 70 0
05950 08/16*230 890 70 0*230 896 70 0*230 903 70 0*230 911 70 0
05955 08/17*230 921 70 0*230 930 70 0*230 940 70 0*230 948 70 0
05960 08/18*229 956 70 0*227 965 70 0*227 975 70 0*226 985 40 0
05960 08/18*229 956 70 0*228 965 70 0*227 975 70 0*226 985 40 0
***
05965 08/19*225 992 30 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
05970 HR
Track adjusted slightly to provide a more realistic translational velocity.
********************************************************************************
1878/03: Only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) for this
newly documented hurricane is to extend the storm for a full day
to the 21st of August as suggested by Partagas and Diaz. 963 mb
central pressure suggests 88 kt from the northern wind-pressure
relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track because of extremely
high latitude and cold waters. Storm determined to have reached
hurricane intensity based upon several ship reports, the 963 mb
central pressure measurement and the destruction that occurred at
Magdalene Islands, Canada.
********************************************************************************
1878/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) for this
newly documented hurricane. 996 mb central pressures suggests
55 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship -
50 kt chosen for best track. 972 mb central pressure suggests
84 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship -
90 kt chosen for best track. 975 mb central pressure suggests
78 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen
for best track. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane
intensity based upon the 972 and 975 mb central pressure readings
as well as several ship reports.
********************************************************************************
1878/05 - 2000 ORIGINAL:
Major track changes are made to this storm from that shown
in Partagas and Diaz (1995b) and Neumann et al. (1993), originally
storm number 3. These include indicating a loop in the track from
the 8th to the 11th of September rather than a stationary track.
Loop determined primarily from observations at Key West reported in
Partagas and Diaz. A pressure reading of 984 mb not in the hurricane's
center (at 06 UTC, 2nd of September) suggests winds of at least
72 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen
for best track. A pressure reading of 999 mb not in the storm's
center (at 06 UTC on the 5th) suggests winds of at least 49 kt from the
southern wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt chosen for best track.
A pressure reading of 1000 mb not in the storm's center (on 18 UTC
on the 7th) suggests winds of 47 kt from the southern wind-pressure
relationship - 50 kt are chosen for best track. A pressure reading
of 990 mb not in the hurricane's center (at 18 UTC on the 11th)
suggests winds of 63 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure
relationship - 70 kt is chosen for best track. A pressure reading
of 993 mb not in the hurricane's center (at 12 UTC on the 12th)
suggests winds of at least 59 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-
pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track. Inland decay
model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over
Hispanola, Cuba and the eastern United States. Used an accelerated
decay rate for Hispanola and Cuba to account for enhanced topography.
Storm is determined to have reached hurricane intensity in the Caribbean
based upon the 984 mb peripheral pressure, the destruction in Trinidad,
Dominican Republic, Haiti and Cuba, and several ship reports. The storm
regained hurricane force status in the Gulf of Mexico based upon several
ship reports. The storm attained hurricane intensity for a third time in
the Atlantic Ocean based upon the periphery pressure readings of 990
and 993 mb, reports from the ships "Sabre" and "City of New York",
as well as wind reports from Cape Lookout, North Carolina.
1878/05 - 2003 REVISION:
05935 09/01/1878 M=13 5 SNBR= 181 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
05935 09/01/1878 M=13 5 SNBR= 184 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
*** *
05940 09/01* 85 542 50 0* 87 556 50 0* 90 570 60 0* 96 584 60 0
05945 09/02*103 599 70 0*113 617 80 0*123 633 80 0*133 648 80 0
05950 09/03*143 663 80 0*152 678 80 0*160 693 80 0*167 701 80 0
05955 09/04*175 711 80 0*182 721 80 0*190 730 70 0*196 739 70 0
05955 09/04*175 711 80 0*182 721 70 0*189 730 60 0*195 739 70 0
** *** ** ***
05960 09/05*199 746 70 0*202 756 60 0*205 766 60 0*207 771 60 0
05960 09/05*200 746 70 0*205 756 60 0*210 766 60 0*215 771 60 0
*** *** *** ***
05965 09/06*211 778 50 0*214 783 50 0*217 786 50 0*221 793 50 0
05965 09/06*219 778 50 0*221 784 50 0*223 790 50 0*225 795 50 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
05970 09/07*222 799 50 0*226 804 50 0*230 806 50 0*237 809 50 0
05970 09/07*228 800 50 0*231 805 50 0*236 808 50 0*243 809 50 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
05975 09/08*246 810 60 0*252 810 60 0*260 815 60 0*266 821 60 0
05975 09/08*250 810 60 0*258 812 50 0*265 815 40 0*269 819 40 0
*** *** *** ** *** ** *** *** **
05980 09/09*266 829 70 0*259 831 70 0*255 834 70 0*252 831 70 0
05980 09/09*272 824 40 0*274 829 50 0*276 833 60 0*278 835 70 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ***
05985 09/10*251 826 70 0*252 818 70 0*260 811 60 0*270 808 50 0
05985 09/10*280 834 80 0*283 830 90 0*287 825 80 970*292 820 70 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** **
05990 09/11*279 806 50 0*288 806 60 0*297 806 70 0*305 806 70 0
05990 09/11*297 815 60 985*301 811 70 0*305 809 80 0*309 807 80 0
*** *** ** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
05995 09/12*312 806 80 0*317 806 80 0*325 805 80 0*345 801 60 0
05995 09/12*313 806 80 0*318 805 80 0*325 804 80 0*340 801 60 0
*** *** *** ***
06000 09/13*368 798 50 0E392 794 50 0E415 790 40 0E440 785 40 0
06000 09/13*365 798 50 0E390 794 50 0E415 790 40 0E440 785 40 0
*** ***
06005 HRBFL1 NC1 SC1 GA1
06005 HRBFL2DFL1 NC1 SC1 GA1
********
U.S. Tropical Storm Landfall Data
---------------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Landfall
Winds State
5- 9/ 8/1878$ 0100Z 24.7 81.0 60 FL
5- 9/ 7/1878$ 2100Z 24.7 80.9 60 FL
* ***** ****
5- 9/ 8/1878$ 0600Z 25.2 81.0 60 FL
5- 9/ 8/1878$ 0200Z 25.2 81.0 60 FL
*****
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States
Winds Simpson Pressure Affected
5-9/10/1878$ 1000Z 25.7N 81.3W 70kt 1 (985mb) BFL1
5-9/10/1878$ 1100Z 28.6N 82.6W 90kt 2 (970mb) BFL2,DFL1
***** ***** ***** **** * ******* **** ****
5-9/12/1878 1000Z 32.2N 80.5W 80kt 1 (976mb) NC1,SC1,GA1
5-9/12/1878 1200Z 32.5N 80.4W 80kt 1 (976mb) NC1,SC1,GA1
**** **** *****
Hurricane is revised from the initial analysis due to the inclusion of work
by Ho (1989). In particular, additional observations were provided from
Key West, Punta Rassa and St. Augustine, FL that provided alterations in
both track and intensity. Observations from Key West showed that the
system made its closest approach to the east of that town around 21 UTC on the
7th as a tropical storm, made landfall over the Florida peninsula shortly
thereafter. All measurements indicated that it proceeded slowly to the north
and drifted back offshore, where it reintensified. Early on the 10th,
it began moving back toward the east and made landfall just before 12 UTC
on the 10th, likely north of Tampa. Observations from St. Augustine showed
that the center of the hurricane passed overhead around 02 UTC on the 11th
with a central pressure of 985 mb. (The wind intensity from St. Augustine is
in conflict with those at nearby Jacksonville and it is believed that the
observer may have had a high bias at the former station. However, strong
winds along the coast from the 7th to the 9th were likely due to a
combination of the system's wind field along with a large pressure gradient
induced by a strong ridge to the north. This ridge also blocked the storm
and induced a slow motion for the same days.) The hurricane's track was
altered from the 7th until the 13th based upon these new data. The 985 mb
central pressure corresponds to 70 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure
relationship - 70 kt used in the best track after oceanfall back to the
Atlantic at 06 UTC on the 11th . From this 985 mb central pressure and that
the hurricane was over Florida for about 16 hours, a 970 mb central pressure
was estimated for its landfall in Southwest Florida from the pressure-
decay relationship of Ho et al. (1987). A 970 mb central pressure suggests
winds of 89 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt
is chosen for the winds at landfall. Winds are reduced on the 4th to
account for realistic weakening while tracking over Hispanola. Track also
adjusted during trek over Cuba from the 4th until the 7th based upon
re-analysis efforts for Cuban hurricanes by Perez (2000). Assignment of
Category 1 hurricane landfall in Cuba agrees with assessment by Perez (2000).
1878/05 - 2004 REVISION:
06080 09/01/1878 M=13 5 SNBR= 184 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
06080 09/01/1878 M=13 5 SNBR= 185 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
***
06085 09/01* 85 542 50 0* 87 556 50 0* 90 570 60 0* 96 584 60 0
06090 09/02*103 599 70 0*113 617 80 0*123 633 80 0*133 648 80 0
06095 09/03*143 663 80 0*152 678 80 0*160 693 80 0*167 701 80 0
06100 09/04*175 711 80 0*182 721 70 0*189 730 60 0*195 739 70 0
06105 09/05*200 746 70 0*205 756 60 0*210 766 60 0*215 771 60 0
06110 09/06*219 778 50 0*221 784 50 0*223 790 50 0*225 795 50 0
06115 09/07*228 800 50 0*231 805 50 0*236 808 50 0*243 809 50 0
06120 09/08*250 810 60 0*258 812 50 0*265 815 40 0*269 819 40 0
06125 09/09*272 824 40 0*274 829 50 0*276 833 60 0*278 835 70 0
06130 09/10*280 834 80 0*283 830 90 0*287 825 80 970*292 820 70 0
06135 09/11*297 815 60 985*301 811 70 0*305 809 80 0*309 807 80 0
06140 09/12*313 806 80 0*318 805 80 0*325 804 80 0*340 801 60 0
06145 09/13*365 798 50 0E390 794 50 0E415 790 40 0E440 785 40 0
06150 HRBFL2DFL1 NC1 SC1 GA1
06150 HRAFL2BFL2DFL1 SC1 GA1
**** ***
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States
Winds Simpson Pressure Affected
5-9/10/1878$ 1100Z 28.6N 82.6W 90kt 2 (970mb) BFL2,DFL1
5-9/10/1878$ 1100Z 28.6N 82.6W 90kt 2 (970mb) AFL2,BFL2,DFL1
****
5-9/12/1878 1200Z 32.5N 80.4W 80kt 1 (976mb) NC1,SC1,GA1
5-9/12/1878 1200Z 32.5N 80.4W 80kt 1 (976mb) SC1,GA1
***
After a thorough review of all U.S. landfalling hurricanes for the 1851 to
1910 period by Dickinson et al. (2004 and pers. comm.) using their
numerical analysis and modeling system, two hurricanes were found to have
inconsistencies between the assigned Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale and the
estimated maximum 1-min surface winds: 1855/05 and 1878/05. In this case,
the assignment of Category 1 hurricane impact for North Carolina does not
appear consistent with landfall in southern South Carolina. The original
assessment of Category 1 conditions for North Carolina were based upon
observed 65 kt winds at Cape Lookout (see above). It has subsequently
been learned since 2000 that the 4 cup Robinson anemometer of the time had a
severe high bias. These 5 min observed winds of 65 kt convert to 50 kt
after accounting for their high bias (Fergusson and Covert 1924) and then to
53 kt after converting from a 5 min to a maximum 1 min wind (Powell et al.
1996). While peak 1 min winds were likely somewhat higher than this somewhere
in North Carolina, direct and indirect evidence suggests that only tropical
storm conditions impacted the state. There were three other peak observations
available between Myrtle Beach, SC and Cape Lookout, NC: Smithville, NC (now
Southport) - SE 42 kt, Wilmington, NC - SE 26 kt, Sloop Point, NC (northeast
of Wilmington near Top Sail Beach) - 55 kt (estimated), and Cape Lookout.
Thus these other measurements are also consistent with tropical storm
conditions in North Carolina and North Carolina is removed from
the listing as having sustained hurricane force conditions from this
hurricane. Northwest Florida added as Category 2 impact due to location
of the landfall.
1878/05 - 2006 REVISION:
06120 09/01/1878 M=13 5 SNBR= 185 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
06125 09/01* 85 542 50 0* 87 556 50 0* 90 570 60 0* 96 584 60 0*
06130 09/02*103 599 70 0*113 617 80 0*123 633 80 0*133 648 80 0*
06135 09/03*143 663 80 0*152 678 80 0*160 693 80 0*167 701 80 0*
06140 09/04*175 711 80 0*182 721 70 0*189 730 60 0*195 739 70 0*
06145 09/05*200 746 70 0*205 756 60 0*210 766 60 0*215 771 60 0*
06150 09/06*219 778 50 0*221 784 50 0*223 790 50 0*225 795 50 0*
06155 09/07*228 800 50 0*231 805 50 0*236 808 50 0*243 809 50 0*
06160 09/08*250 810 60 0*258 812 50 0*265 815 40 0*269 819 40 0*
06165 09/09*272 824 40 0*274 829 50 0*276 833 60 0*278 835 70 0*
06170 09/10*280 834 80 0*283 830 90 0*287 825 80 970*292 820 70 0*
06175 09/11*297 815 60 985*301 811 70 0*305 809 80 0*309 807 80 0*
06180 09/12*313 806 80 0*318 805 80 0*325 804 80 0*340 801 60 0*
06185 09/13*365 798 50 0E390 794 50 0E415 790 40 0E440 785 40 0*
06190 HRBFL2DFL1 SC1 GA1
06190 HRAFL2BFL2DFL1 SC1 GA1
****
Based upon research provided by Mark Jelinek and James Belanger from Georgia
Institute of Technology, this cyclone should have been listed as a Category 2
hurricane for northwestern Florida ("AFL") as well as southwestern Florida,
based upon the intensity of the hurricane at landfall and its location.
Thus "AFL2" is added into the listing of U.S. continental hurricane
impacts.
********************************************************************************
1878/06: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Track
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 4. Storm is
determined to have reached hurricane status based upon several ship
reports.
********************************************************************************
1878/07: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally
storm number 5. These track changes are found to be reasonable. Inland
decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over
Haiti with an accelerated decay rate to account for enhanced topography.
938 mb central pressure suggests 105 kt from the northern wind-pressure
relationship - 110 kt chosen for best track. This storm is determined
to have reached hurricane intensity in the Caribbean Sea based upon
reports from the ships "Princess Alexandra" and "William Phipps". The
hurricane is determined to have reached major hurricane status based
upon the central pressure reading of 938 mb as well as several ship
reports.
06160 09/24/1878 M=15 7 SNBR= 183 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
06160 09/24/1878 M=15 7 SNBR= 186 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
06165 09/24*151 719 40 0*155 719 40 0*160 720 50 0*162 720 50 0
06170 09/25*164 720 60 0*167 721 60 0*170 721 70 0*176 723 70 0
06170 09/25*164 720 60 0*167 721 60 0*170 721 70 0*176 722 70 0
***
06175 09/26*180 724 70 0*184 724 60 0*187 725 50 0*192 726 50 0
06175 09/26*180 723 70 0*184 724 60 0*187 725 50 0*192 726 40 0
*** **
06180 09/27*195 726 50 0*197 726 50 0*201 726 60 0*205 726 60 0
06180 09/27*195 726 40 0*197 726 40 0*201 726 50 0*205 727 60 0
** ** ** ***
06185 09/28*209 728 70 0*212 728 70 0*216 730 70 0*221 731 70 0
06185 09/28*209 728 70 0*212 729 70 0*216 730 70 0*221 731 70 0
***
06190 09/29*224 733 80 0*227 734 80 0*232 735 80 0*236 735 80 0
06195 09/30*239 735 90 0*242 735 90 0*247 735 90 0*254 735 90 0
06200 10/01*258 735 100 0*263 734 100 0*268 733 100 0*274 731 100 0
06205 10/02*276 731 110 0*280 731 110 0*285 730 110 0*289 729 110 0
06210 10/03*293 726 120 0*298 725 120 0*302 721 120 0*308 719 120 0
06215 10/04*314 715 120 0*319 711 120 0*325 706 120 0*333 700 120 0
06220 10/05*339 693 110 0*344 686 110 0*350 677 110 0*360 666 110 0
06225 10/06*373 648 110 0*385 626 110 0*397 605 110 0*407 583 110 0
06230 10/07*417 555 110 0*427 519 110 0*435 485 110 938*448 443 100 0
06235 10/08*462 395 100 0*475 355 100 0*485 310 90 0*495 270 90 0
06240 HR
Track slightly adjusted to provide for a more realistic motion. Winds
slightly decreased on the 26th and 27th, due to transit over Hispanola
and accounting for reasonable weakening.
********************************************************************************
1878/08: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally
storm number 6. These track changes are found to be reasonable. Inland
decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over
the SE United States. 982 mb central pressure suggests 71 kt from the
northern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track. The
storm is determined to have reached hurricane status over the Atlantic
Ocean based upon several ship reports as well as the 982 mb central
pressure reading.
1878/08 - 2003 REVISION:
06245 10/09/1878 M= 7 8 SNBR= 184 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
06245 10/09/1878 M= 7 8 SNBR= 187 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
06250 10/09*235 913 40 0*246 911 40 0*256 906 40 0*263 901 40 0
06255 10/10*268 896 50 0*273 891 50 0*281 881 50 0*292 866 50 0
06260 10/11*306 838 50 0*315 808 50 0*327 781 60 0*335 766 60 0
06260 10/11*306 838 40 0*315 808 40 0*327 781 50 0*335 766 60 0
** ** **
06265 10/12*345 750 70 0*358 736 70 0*370 725 70 0*388 705 70 0
06270 10/13*402 681 70 0*418 651 70 0*429 626 70 982*438 597 70 0
06275 10/14*445 568 70 0*452 533 70 0*455 500 70 0*455 475 70 0
06280 10/15E455 440 60 0E455 409 60 0E455 375 60 0E455 340 60 0
06285 HR
Winds reduced on the 11th to account for weakening while tracking over
Florida and Georgia, utilizing the Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) inland
decay model.
********************************************************************************
1878/09: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Track
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 7. Note
that storms 8 and 9 likely merged as a large extratropical storm on
the 16th of October. The storm is determined to have reached hurricane
intensity based upon several ship observations.
********************************************************************************
1878/10: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Track
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 8. 951 mb
central pressure suggests 103 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-
pressure relationship - 100 kt chosen for best track. The storm is
determined to have reached major hurricane intensity based upon the
951 mb central pressure measurement.
********************************************************************************
1878/11: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993),
originally storm number 9. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria
(1995) utilized for inland winds over the eastern United States. 975 mb
central pressure suggests 78 kt from the northern wind-pressure
relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track (storm was inland by this
point suggesting lower winds than 78 kt, yet fast moving suggesting
higher winds than 78 kt). The best track provided appears to describe
the full life cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its formation as a
tropical storm to its peak as a hurricane until its dissipation as an
extratropical storm). The storm is determined to have reached hurricane
intensity based upon destruction in Cuba and the mid-Atlantic U.S.
states, wind reports in North Carolina, Virginia and New Jersey, and the
central pressure reading.
1878/11 - 2003 REVISION:
06280 10/18/1878 M= 8 11 SNBR= 187 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
06280 10/18/1878 M= 8 11 SNBR= 190 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
***
06285 10/18*172 796 40 0*177 801 40 0*180 805 50 0*182 806 50 0
06290 10/19*185 809 60 0*187 811 60 0*190 813 60 0*194 816 60 0
06295 10/20*197 819 70 0*202 821 70 0*207 824 70 0*212 824 70 0
06295 10/20*197 819 70 0*202 821 70 0*207 824 80 0*212 824 80 0
** **
06300 10/21*219 824 70 0*225 823 70 0*232 820 70 0*244 810 70 0
06300 10/21*219 824 90 0*225 822 90 0*232 818 80 0*244 810 70 0
** *** ** *** **
06305 10/22*259 798 70 0*273 793 70 0*287 788 80 0*312 780 80 0
06305 10/22*259 798 70 0*273 793 70 0*287 788 80 0*307 780 80 0
***
06310 10/23*340 776 90 0*365 775 80 0*389 770 80 975*405 760 70 0
06310 10/23*330 774 90 963*357 770 90 0*390 772 80 975*415 754 70 0
*** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** ***
06315 10/24*422 740 60 0*427 716 60 0*425 689 60 0*415 666 60 0
06315 10/24E427 736 60 0E429 714 50 0E425 688 50 0E415 666 50 0
**** *** **** *** ** * *** ** * **
06320 10/25E409 650 50 0E402 631 50 0E395 613 50 0E390 598 50 0
06325 HR NC2 VA1 MD1 DE1 NJ1 PA1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States
Winds Simpson Pressure Affected
11-10/23/1878 0100Z 34.4N 77.6W 90kt 2 (965mb) NC2,VA1,MD1,DE1,NJ1,PA1
11-10/23/1878 0400Z 34.8N 77.1W 90kt 2 (963mb) NC2,VA1,MD1,DE1,NJ1,PA1
***** ***** ***** *******
Re-analysis of Cuban hurricanes from Perez (2000) suggests that this
system impacted Cuba as a Category 2 hurricane based mainly upon wind-caused
damages, with a track slightly to the east of the original HURDAT estimate.
Winds increased on the 20th and 21st and track altered on the 21st,
accordingly.
Altered track and intensity over the United States from the 22nd until
the 24th based upon re-analysis effort by Roth and Cobb (2000). Changes
do indicate a later (04Z rather than 01Z) landfall along North Carolina.
They estimate a landfall central pressure of 963 mb which would correspond
to 92 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship. 90 kt is kept
for landfall intensity. Additional observations were obtained from the
new report by Ramsey and Reilly (2003). A 10 foot storm tide was observed
in Little Creek, Delaware; 11 foot in Fort Mifflin, Pennsylvania; and
12 foot in Pea Patch Island, Delaware (Ramsey and Reilly 2003).
1878/11 - 2006 REVISION:
06465 10/18/1878 M= 8 11 SNBR= 191 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
06470 10/18*172 796 40 0*177 801 40 0*180 805 50 0*182 806 50 0*
06475 10/19*185 809 60 0*187 811 60 0*190 813 60 0*194 816 60 0*
06480 10/20*197 819 70 0*202 821 70 0*207 824 80 0*212 824 80 0*
06485 10/21*219 824 90 0*225 822 90 0*232 818 80 0*244 810 70 0*
06490 10/22*259 798 70 0*273 793 70 0*287 788 80 0*307 780 80 0*
06495 10/23*330 774 90 963*357 770 90 0*390 772 80 975*415 754 70 0*
06500 10/24E427 736 60 0E429 714 50 0E425 688 50 0E415 666 50 0*
06505 10/25E409 650 50 0E402 631 50 0E395 613 50 0E390 598 50 0*
06510 HR NC2 VA1 MD1 DE1 NJ1
06510 HR NC2 VA1 MD1 DE1 NJ1IPA1
****
Based upon research provided by Mark Jelinek and James Belanger from Georgia
Institute of Technology, this cyclone should be indicated as causing Category
1 hurricane impact in Pennsylvania based upon the track and intensity
shown in HURDAT. This is consistent with observations of high winds
and storm surge that occurred in Philadelphia.
********************************************************************************
1878/12: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993),
originally storm number 10. Storm is also named the "San Rufo" for its
impact in Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic. The best track provided
appears to describe the full life cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its
formation as a tropical storm until its dissipation below tropical storm
intensity).
********************************************************************************
1879/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) for this
newly documented hurricane. The storm is determined to have reached
hurricane intensity based upon several ship reports.
********************************************************************************
1879/02: Only substantial change from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) is to alter
the track near the U.S. eastern seaboard to accommodate observations
described in Ho (1989). Track has otherwise reasonable though large
alterations by Partagas and Diaz (1995b) from that shown in Neumann et al.
(1993), originally storm number 1. Inland decay model of Kaplan and
DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the eastern United States.
Ho (1989) estimated 971 mb at landfall in North Carolina with a small radius
of maximum wind (16 n mi). 971 mb central pressure suggests 85 kt from the
subtropical wind-pressure relationship. However, due to the small RMW,
winds are chosen for the best track to be 100 kt. This is the basis for
determining that this storm reached major hurricane intensity. 979 mb
central pressure (while back over water) suggests winds of 74 kt from the
northern wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt chosen to take into account the
small RMW. 984 mb central pressure (twice) suggest winds of 69 kt from the
northern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen, again because of small
RMW. The best track provided appears to describe the full life cycle of
this tropical cyclone (from its formation as a tropical storm to its peak as
a major hurricane until its dissipation as an extratropical storm).
1879/02 - 2003 REVISION:
06425 08/13/1879 M= 8 2 SNBR= 190 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
06425 08/13/1879 M= 8 2 SNBR= 193 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
***
06430 08/13*190 580 40 0*190 590 40 0*190 600 40 0*190 613 40 0
06435 08/14*191 629 40 0*192 645 40 0*192 656 40 0*195 668 40 0
06440 08/15*197 680 40 0*201 690 40 0*205 700 50 0*212 711 50 0
06445 08/16*217 721 60 0*225 729 60 0*232 736 70 0*242 746 70 0
06450 08/17*252 756 80 0*265 769 80 0*277 776 90 0*293 784 90 0
06455 08/18*312 784 100 0*328 779 100 0*345 768 100 971*373 754 90 979
06455 08/18*312 784 100 0*328 779 100 0*345 768 100 971*373 754 80 979
**
06460 08/19*395 734 80 984*414 708 80 984*433 680 70 0*448 654 60 0
06460 08/19*395 734 70 0*414 708 70 984*433 680 60 0*448 654 60 0
** *** ** **
06465 08/20*465 617 60 0*482 583 60 0*493 550 50 0*502 515 50 0
06470 HR NC3 VA1 MA1
06470 HR NC3 VA2
*** ***
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States
Winds Simpson Pressure Affected
2-8/18/1879 1200Z 34.7N 76.7W 100kt 3 971mb NC3,VA1
2-8/18/1879 1200Z 34.7N 76.7W 100kt 3 971mb NC3,VA2
***
2-8/19/1879 0600Z 41.4N 70.8W 80kt 1 984mb MA1
2-8/19/1879 0600Z 41.4N 70.8W 60kt TS 984mb (None)
** ** ******
Analysis of this hurricane's impacts in Virginia by Roth and Cobb (2001)
from wind and storm surge caused damage suggest that Category 2 conditions
are more representative of what occurred in and around Norfolk, Virginia.
(Note that Category 1 sustained windspeeds were observed in Cape Henry,
Virginia before the anemometer was destroyed by the wind. Presumably
higher winds would have been measured if the anemometer continued to
function.) A storm surge of 7' (personal communication - B. Jarvinen,
total storm tide of 8' from Roth and Cobb) was observed at Norfolk. (No
changes were needed to the 6 hourly intervals in HURDAT.)
Boose et al. (2001) did not include this hurricane in their publication
on New England hurricanes. Boose (personal communication) indicated
that their analysis found only F0 damage in Massachusetts, New York and
Rhode Island, not reaching their criterion for hurricane-intensity impacts.
The original supposition that the hurricane retained a tight RMW at a second
landfall in Massachusetts (after landfall in North Carolina) does not
have much substantiation, though the 984 mb central pressure is valid.
Given the observations of only 40 kt in New England and lack of hurricane-
wind caused damages it appears that either the RMW stayed offshore, the
hurricane had weakened or both was true. The 979 mb central pressure
at 1930Z on the 18th had been utilized to support a 90 kt wind at 18Z,
under the supposition that the small RMW would cause the maximum winds to
be substantially higher than the northern wind-pressure relationship
suggested winds (of 74 kt). This has been reduced slightly down to 80 kt
at 18Z on the 18th. The 984 mb central pressure is used directly to
estimate the peak winds while the hurricane made landfall - 69 kt from the
northern pressure-wind relationship. Thus 70 kt chosen for the best track
at 06Z on the 19th, reduced from 80 kt. Highest estimated wind in New
England is 60 kt, as the RMW with hurricane force winds likely remained
offshore.
1879/02 - 2006 REVISION:
06595 08/13/1879 M= 8 2 SNBR= 194 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
06600 08/13*190 580 40 0*190 590 40 0*190 600 40 0*190 613 40 0*
06605 08/14*191 629 40 0*192 645 40 0*192 656 40 0*195 668 40 0*
06610 08/15*197 680 40 0*201 690 40 0*205 700 50 0*212 711 50 0*
06615 08/16*217 721 60 0*225 729 60 0*232 736 70 0*242 746 70 0*
06620 08/17*252 756 80 0*265 769 80 0*277 776 90 0*293 784 90 0*
06625 08/18*312 784 100 0*328 779 100 0*345 768 100 971*373 754 90 979*
06630 08/19*395 734 80 984*414 708 70 984*433 680 60 0*448 654 60 0*
06635 08/20*465 617 60 0*482 583 60 0*493 550 50 0*502 515 50 0*
06640 HR NC3 VA2
06640 HR NC3 VA2 MA1
***
Based upon research provided by Mark Jelinek and James Belanger from Georgia
Institute of Technology, this cyclone should be indicated as causing a Category
1 hurricane impact in Massachusetts. Previously, it was estimated that
the hurricane force winds stayed offshore as the hurricane clipped New England.
However, upon further inspection of the track and intensity, it is likely
that hurricane force winds were felt in southeastern Massachusetts.
********************************************************************************
1879/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made large
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm
number 2. These track changes appear to be reasonable. Inland decay model
of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the Yucatan of
Mexico and the SE United States. 982 mb estimated central pressure at
landfall in Texas suggest 74 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure
relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track. The storm is determined to
have reached hurricane intensity while in the Caribbean based upon reports
from the ship "Elvina". The storm reintensified into a hurricane in the
Gulf of Mexico based upon destruction reported in Orange, Texas and the
estimated central pressure value.
1879/03 - 2003 REVISION:
06460 08/19/1879 M= 6 3 SNBR= 191 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
06460 08/19/1879 M= 6 3 SNBR= 194 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
*** *
06465 08/19*167 811 60 0*171 821 60 0*175 830 60 0*180 841 60 0
06470 08/20*185 854 70 0*191 865 70 0*197 876 70 0*202 890 60 0
06475 08/21*210 903 60 0*220 915 60 0*230 925 70 0*240 930 70 0
06480 08/22*250 935 70 0*261 938 70 0*273 940 80 0*281 941 80 0
06480 08/22*250 935 80 0*261 938 80 0*271 940 90 0*281 942 90 0
** ** *** ** *** **
06485 08/23*290 943 80 982*300 944 70 0*310 943 50 0*322 938 40 0
06485 08/23*293 944 90 964*308 942 70 0*323 938 60 988*335 933 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** **
06490 08/24*335 928 40 0*350 916 40 0*360 905 40 0*372 886 40 0
06490 08/24*344 926 40 0*352 916 30 0*360 905 30 0*368 886 30 0
*** *** *** ** ** *** **
06495 HRCTX1 LA1
06495 HRCTX2 LA2
**** ***
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States
Winds Simpson Pressure Affected
3-8/23/1879 0300Z 29.5N 94.4W 80kt 1 982mb CTX1,LA1
3-8/23/1879 0200Z 29.6N 94.4W 90kt 2 964mb CTX2,LA2
**** **** ** * *** **** ***
Details of this hurricane near and after landfall were reconsidered given
the information from Partagas and Diaz (1995b) of a possible central
pressure of 988 mb inland at Shreveport, Louisiana. The central pressure
decay relationship from Ho et al. (1987) is utilized along with a
10 hour over land trek by the hurricane to estimate a 964 mb central
pressure at landfall. The Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship
suggests winds of 95 kt - 90 kt chosen for the best track at landfall.
The 988 mb central pressure at Shreveport suggests winds of 65 kt from
the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure - 60 kt chosen for HURDAT. The track and
intensity were adjusted accordingly on the 22nd and 23rd. Decay stage of
this hurricane to a tropical depression before dissipation over land
inadvertently left out from the first revision of the best track,
leading to slight revisions downward in intensity on the 24th.
********************************************************************************
1879/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Track
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 3. Inland
decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over
the SE United States. Morgan City's sea level pressure of 972 mb not in
storm's center (at 12 UTC, the 1st of September) suggests winds of at
least 86 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 110 kt
chosen for best track. Storm is determined to have reached major
hurricane status at landfall based upon destruction described in Morgan
City, Louisiana as well as the peripheral pressure report.
1879/04 - 2003 REVISION:
06500 08/29/1879 M= 5 4 SNBR= 192 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
06500 08/29/1879 M= 5 4 SNBR= 195 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
***
06505 08/29*235 885 50 0*237 888 50 0*240 891 50 0*242 893 50 0
06510 08/30*244 896 70 0*247 900 70 0*250 903 80 0*254 906 80 0
06515 08/31*258 910 90 0*262 913 90 0*268 916 100 0*273 916 100 0
06515 08/31*258 910 90 0*262 913 90 0*268 915 100 0*273 916 100 0
***
06520 09/01*278 917 110 0*283 916 110 0*288 916 110 0*299 911 90 0
06520 09/01*278 917 110 0*283 916 110 0*288 915 110 0*299 911 90 0
***
06525 09/02*312 905 60 0*324 899 50 0*335 885 40 0*348 871 40 0
06525 09/02*312 905 60 0*324 899 50 0*335 885 40 0*348 871 30 0
**
06530 HR LA3
Track altered slightly on the 31st and 1st to provide a more realistic
smooth track. Decay stage of this hurricane to a tropical depression before
dissipation over land inadvertently left out from the first revision of the
best track.
1879/04 - 2011 REVISION:
06685 08/29/1879 M= 5 4 SNBR= 196 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
06690 08/29*235 885 50 0*237 888 50 0*240 891 50 0*242 893 50 0*
06695 08/30*244 896 70 0*247 900 70 0*250 903 80 0*254 906 80 0*
06700 08/31*258 910 90 0*262 913 90 0*268 915 100 0*273 916 100 0*
06705 09/01*278 917 110 0*283 916 110 0*288 915 110 0*299 911 90 0*
06710 09/02*312 905 60 0*324 899 50 0*335 885 40 0*348 871 30 0*
06715 HR LA3
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
4-9/1/1879 1600Z 29.5N 91.4W 110kt 3 --- (950mb) LA3
4-9/1/1879 1600Z 29.5N 91.4W 110kt 3 --- (945mb) LA3
***
The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Louisiana a a 110 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 950 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 945 mb -
for a 110 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
1879/05: Storm was originally #6 in 1879 in Partagas and Diaz (1995b).
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Track unaltered from
Neumann et al. (1993). Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995)
utilized for inland winds over the SE United States. The best track
provided appears to describe the full life cycle of this tropical cyclone
(from its formation as a tropical storm until its dissipation below
tropical storm intensity).
1879/05 - 2003 REVISION:
06535 10/03/1879 M= 5 5 SNBR= 193 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
06535 10/03/1879 M= 5 5 SNBR= 196 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
06540 10/03*145 776 40 0*154 786 40 0*162 795 40 0*172 804 40 0
06545 10/04*182 814 40 0*191 821 40 0*200 830 40 0*207 839 40 0
06550 10/05*216 846 40 0*224 854 40 0*231 859 40 0*237 864 40 0
06555 10/06*244 869 50 0*250 874 50 0*258 879 50 0*267 884 50 0
06560 10/07*280 889 50 0*293 893 50 0*312 900 40 0*330 905 40 0
06560 10/07*280 889 50 0*293 893 50 0*312 900 40 0*330 905 30 0
**
06565 TS
Decay stage of this tropical storm to a tropical depression before dissipation
over land inadvertently left out from the first revision of the best track.
********************************************************************************
1879/06: Storm was originally #7 in 1879 in Partagas and Diaz (1995b).
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Track unaltered from
Neumann et al. (1993). Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995)
utilized for inland winds over the SE United States. The best track
provided appears to describe the full life cycle of this tropical cyclone
(from its formation as a tropical storm until its dissipation below
tropical storm intensity).
1879/06 - 2003 REVISION:
06570 10/09/1879 M= 8 6 SNBR= 194 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
06570 10/09/1879 M= 8 6 SNBR= 197 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
06575 10/09*142 560 40 0*142 572 40 0*143 585 40 0*144 599 40 0
06580 10/10*146 614 40 0*148 632 40 0*150 650 40 0*152 664 40 0
06585 10/11*154 681 40 0*157 700 40 0*160 720 50 0*162 736 50 0
06590 10/12*167 751 50 0*175 768 50 0*181 783 50 0*187 793 50 0
06595 10/13*192 803 50 0*200 811 50 0*204 819 50 0*210 826 50 0
06600 10/14*217 831 50 0*225 835 50 0*232 839 50 0*241 841 50 0
06605 10/15*249 843 50 0*259 845 50 0*268 848 50 0*277 851 50 0
06610 10/16*287 856 50 0*299 864 50 0*313 871 40 0*330 880 40 0
06610 10/16*287 856 50 0*299 864 50 0*313 871 40 0*330 880 30 0
**
06615 TS
Decay stage of this tropical storm to a tropical depression before dissipation
over land inadvertently left out from the first revision of the best track.
********************************************************************************
1879/07: Storm was originally #8 in 1879 in Partagas and Diaz (1995b).
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993). These track changes are found
to be reasonable. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized
for inland winds over Florida. Storm is documented to have reached
hurricane status based upon several ship reports.
********************************************************************************
1879/08: Storm was originally #9 in 1879 in Partagas and Diaz (1995b).
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993). These track changes are found
to be reasonable. Central pressure of 968 mb suggests winds of 84 kt from
northern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen, in part because the
hurricane had transitioned to an extratropical storm about six hours
previously. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane intensity based
upon the central pressure measurement and several ship observations.
1879/08 - 2003 REVISION:
06765 11/18/1879 M= 4 8 SNBR= 196 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
06765 11/18/1879 M= 4 8 SNBR= 199 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
06770 11/18*217 735 60 0*225 735 60 0*235 735 60 0*242 735 60 0
06775 11/19*252 735 70 0*263 735 70 0*280 735 80 0*306 730 80 0
06780 11/20*335 720 90 0*363 700 90 0*390 680 80 0*425 648 80 968
06780 11/20*335 720 90 0*363 700 90 0E390 680 80 0E425 648 80 968
* *
06785 11/21*458 618 70 0*493 587 60 0*530 555 50 0*550 540 50 0
06785 11/21E458 618 70 0E493 587 60 0E530 555 50 0E550 540 50 0
* * * *
06790 HR
Despite the description in the original writeup of an extratropical stage
beginning on the 20th, no such stage was indicated in HURDAT. This is now
corrected for the 20th and 21st.
********************************************************************************
1879 - Additional Notes:
1. The tropical storm listed as #5 in 1879 in Partagas and Diaz (1995b)
and storm number 4 in Neumann et al. (1993) was not included into the
HURDAT because of evidence suggesting that the storm did not actually
exist as a tropical cyclone. Following the suggestion by Partagas and
Diaz, this event was instead determined to be an unusually early, long-
lasting and intense "norther" (cold front). Additional investigation for
this system found that the September 1879 issue of _Monthly Weather
Review_ showed no track drawn for this storm, nor any record of
significant rainfall in any of the Florida stations. A researcher at the
time - Loomis (1881) - also did not identify this system as being a
tropical storm. The first report that did put together a track for this
storm was Garriott (1900); however, no supporting documentation was
provided by Garriott for how the track was determined. All subsequent
track books and climatologies have reproduced Garriott's track as is.
Thus, there appears to be no corroborating evidence in support of the
track apparently first provided by Garriott (1900), this system is
removed as a tropical storm from the database.
********************************************************************************
1880/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Track
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993). Inland decay model of Kaplan
and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Texas. The best track
provided appears to describe the full life cycle of this tropical cyclone
(from its formation as a tropical storm until its dissipation below
tropical storm intensity).
1880/01 - 2003 REVISION:
06690 06/21/1880 M= 5 1 SNBR= 197 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
06690 06/21/1880 M= 5 1 SNBR= 200 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
06695 06/21*267 865 40 0*268 873 40 0*270 880 40 0*272 886 40 0
06700 06/22*275 894 40 0*278 901 40 0*280 910 40 0*280 916 40 0
06705 06/23*280 923 40 0*280 928 40 0*281 934 40 0*282 940 40 0
06710 06/24*283 945 40 0*284 950 40 0*286 955 40 0*288 959 40 0
06715 06/25*291 963 40 0*295 966 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
06715 06/25*291 963 30 0*295 966 30 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
** **
06720 TS
Decay stage of this tropical storm to a tropical depression before dissipation
over land inadvertently left out from the first revision of the best track.
********************************************************************************
1880/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).
Estimate from Ho (1989) of 931 mb at landfall in Mexico just south of the
United States-Mexico border corresponds to 128 kt from the Gulf of Mexico
wind-pressure relationship - 130 kt chosen for best track. This, along
with the extreme destruction in Matamoros, Mexico and Port Isabell and
Brazos, Texas, is the basis for determining that this storm reached major
hurricane intensity. When the hurricane crossed into the United States at
about 06 UTC on the 13th of August, it is estimated that the central
pressure had filled to 943 mb which corresponds to 117 kt - 110 kt chosen
for best track because hurricane was inland by this point. Inland decay
model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over
Mexico and Texas. The best track provided appears to describe the full
life cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its formation as a tropical
storm to its peak as a major hurricane until its dissipation below
tropical storm intensity).
1880/02 - 2003 REVISION:
06725 08/04/1880 M=11 2 SNBR= 198 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
06725 08/04/1880 M=11 2 SNBR= 201 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
***
06730 08/04*160 598 40 0*159 618 40 0*160 640 40 0*161 655 40 0
06735 08/05*162 670 50 0*162 684 50 0*165 698 50 0*166 711 50 0
06740 08/06*167 725 60 0*167 738 60 0*170 751 70 0*171 763 70 0
06745 08/07*172 775 80 0*175 786 80 0*177 800 90 0*181 811 90 0
06750 08/08*185 821 90 0*189 831 90 0*192 840 90 0*196 846 90 0
06755 08/09*200 853 90 0*202 860 90 0*207 866 90 0*210 874 70 0
06755 08/09*200 853 90 0*204 860 90 0*207 867 90 0*210 874 70 0
*** ***
06760 08/10*212 881 60 0*216 889 50 0*220 896 60 0*222 904 60 0
06760 08/10*213 881 60 0*216 889 50 0*220 896 60 0*223 904 60 0
*** ***
06765 08/11*226 911 70 0*230 920 70 0*234 926 80 0*237 933 80 0
06765 08/11*226 911 70 0*230 919 70 0*234 926 80 0*237 933 80 0
***
06770 08/12*240 938 90 0*242 944 100 0*247 950 110 0*252 960 120 0
06770 08/12*240 938 90 0*243 944 100 0*247 950 110 0*252 960 120 0
***
06775 08/13*257 969 130 931*261 976 110 943*265 985 70 0*271 995 60 0
06780 08/14*2781002 50 0*2861010 40 0*2971015 40 0*3101010 40 0
06780 08/14*2781002 50 0*2861010 40 0*2971015 30 0*3101010 30 0
** **
06785 HRATX3
Track altered slightly on the 9th to the 12th to provide a more realistic
smooth track. Decay stage of this hurricane to a tropical depression before
dissipation over land inadvertently left out from the first revision of the
best track.
********************************************************************************
1880/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).
987 mb central pressure corresponds to 68 kt from the southern
wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track. 980 mb central
pressure corresponds to 78 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship -
80 kt chosen for best track. 992 mb central pressure corresponds
to 61 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt
chosen for best track. The observations of winds and central pressures
of 987 mb and 980 mb from Jamaica and Cuba are the basis for determination
that this storm reached hurricane intensity. The best track provided
appears to describe the full life cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its
formation as a tropical storm to its peak as a hurricane until its
dissipation below tropical storm intensity).
********************************************************************************
1880/04: Only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1995) is to remove
the track from September 2nd as the storm is determined to have decayed
below tropical storm strength by then. The track is otherwise unchanged
from that of Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track of Neumann et al. (1993). 972 mb central
pressure corresponds to 84 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-
pressure relationship - 90 kt chosen for best track. A pressure reading
of 999 mb not in the storm's center (at 18 UTC on the 25th of August)
suggests winds of at least 50 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-
pressure relationship - 60 kt used in best track. A pressure reading of
993 mb not in the hurricane's center (at 12 UTC on the 31st of
August) suggests winds of at least 58 kt from the Gulf of Mexico
wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track. Inland
decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds
over the S.E. United States. Storm is determined to be a hurricane
based upon several ship reports and pressure measurements both in the
Atlantic and again in the Gulf of Mexico.
1880/04 - 2003 REVISION:
06830 08/24/1880 M= 9 4 SNBR= 200 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
06830 08/24/1880 M= 9 4 SNBR= 203 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
***
06835 08/24*247 575 50 0*249 586 50 0*250 597 50 0*252 607 50 0
06840 08/25*255 618 60 0*257 628 60 0*260 638 60 0*262 650 60 0
06845 08/26*264 661 70 0*266 673 70 0*267 685 80 0*269 696 80 0
06850 08/27*271 709 90 0*272 721 90 0*273 734 90 0*274 744 90 0
06855 08/28*275 754 90 0*277 765 90 0*278 775 90 0*279 785 90 0
06860 08/29*280 794 90 972*281 801 90 0*282 806 90 0*283 811 70 0
06865 08/30*284 816 60 0*285 821 60 0*287 826 60 0*290 833 70 0
06870 08/31*294 841 70 0*298 850 70 0*302 860 60 0*307 870 60 0
06875 09/01*314 878 50 0*322 884 40 0*330 890 40 0*335 891 40 0
06875 09/01*314 878 50 0*322 884 40 0*330 890 30 0*335 891 30 0
** **
06880 HRCFL2DFL1AFL1
Decay stage of this hurricane to a tropical depression before dissipation
over land inadvertently left out from the first revision of the best track.
1880/04 - 2011 REVISION:
07015 08/24/1880 M= 9 4 SNBR= 204 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
07020 08/24*247 575 50 0*249 586 50 0*250 597 50 0*252 607 50 0*
07025 08/25*255 618 60 0*257 628 60 0*260 638 60 0*262 650 60 0*
07030 08/26*264 661 70 0*266 673 70 0*267 685 80 0*269 696 80 0*
07035 08/27*271 709 90 0*272 721 90 0*273 734 90 0*274 744 90 0*
07040 08/28*275 754 90 0*277 765 90 0*278 775 90 0*279 785 90 0*
07045 08/29*280 794 90 972*281 801 90 0*282 806 90 0*283 811 70 0*
07050 08/30*284 816 60 0*285 821 60 0*287 826 60 0*290 833 70 0*
07055 08/31*294 841 70 0*298 850 70 0*302 860 60 0*307 870 60 0*
07060 09/01*314 878 50 0*322 884 40 0*330 890 30 0*335 891 30 0*
07065 HRCFL2DFL1AFL1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
4-8/29/1880 1200Z 28.2N 80.6W 90kt 2 --- 972mb CFL2,DFL1
4-8/31/1880 0400Z 29.7N 84.8W 70kt 1 --- (985mb) AFL1
4-8/31/1880 0400Z 29.7N 84.8W 70kt 1 --- (982mb) AFL1
***
The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in the Florida panhandle as a 70 kt hurricane. This suggested
a central pressure at landfall of 985 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 982 mb -
for a 70 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
1880/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made
large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993). These
track changes are found to be reasonable. A pressure reading of 987 mb
not in the hurricane's center (at 06 UTC on the 30th of August) suggests
winds of at least 67 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure
relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track. 977 mb central pressure
corresponds to 79 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure
relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track. Storm is determined to have
reached hurricane intensity based upon several ship reports and pressure
measurements.
********************************************************************************
1880/06: No major changes from this newly documented storm from
Partagas and Diaz (1995). 987 mb central pressure corresponds to
67 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen
for best track. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995)
utilized for inland winds over Florida. Storm determined to have
reached hurricane intensity based upon central pressure reading,
destruction at Cape Henry, Virginia and reports from the ship
"T.H.A. Pitts".
1880/06 - 2003 REVISION:
06960 09/06/1880 M= 6 6 SNBR= 203 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
06965 09/06*239 886 40 0*242 884 40 0*246 880 40 0*249 876 40 0
06970 09/07*252 873 40 0*256 870 40 0*260 866 40 0*266 863 40 0
06975 09/08*271 860 50 0*277 856 50 0*287 846 50 0*301 831 50 0
06975 09/08*271 860 50 0*277 856 50 0*287 846 50 0*301 831 40 0
**
06980 09/09*317 804 60 0*335 781 70 987*353 765 70 0*370 743 70 0
06985 09/10*389 720 70 0*408 689 70 0*423 660 70 0*432 639 70 0
06990 09/11E440 617 60 0E447 591 60 0E453 567 60 0E460 542 60 0
06995 HR NC1
No weakening indicated in original HURDAT while passing over Florida. Inland
decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds
over Florida. Winds reduced accordingly on the 8th.
********************************************************************************
1880/07: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made large
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm
number 6. These track changes are found to be reasonable. Pressure
reading of 982 mb (at 12 UTC on the 8th of September) not in the
hurricane's center suggests winds of at least 73 kt from the subtropical
latitude wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track. Storm
is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon peripheral
pressure reading and wind reports from several ships.
********************************************************************************
1880/08: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made large
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm
number 7. These track changes are found to be reasonable. 928 mb central
pressure (twice) corresponds to 118 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-
pressure relationship - 120 kt chosen for best track. The storm is
determined to have reached major hurricane intensity based upon these two
central pressure measurements.
********************************************************************************
1880/09: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995b), who made large
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm
number 8. These track changes are found to be reasonable. Inland decay
model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Florida.
The storm is determined to have reached hurricane intensity both in the
Gulf of Mexico and again over the Atlantic based upon several ship
observations.
1880/09 - 2011 REVISION:
07245 10/05/1880 M= 6 9 SNBR= 209 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
07250 10/05*182 851 40 0*186 856 40 0*190 860 40 0*196 866 40 0*
07255 10/06*205 871 50 0*214 873 50 0*222 873 50 0*227 871 50 0*
07260 10/07*234 868 60 0*241 864 60 0*247 860 60 0*254 856 60 0*
07265 10/08*263 853 70 0*269 850 70 0*277 843 70 0*287 830 70 0*
07270 10/09*301 810 60 0*313 789 70 0*320 760 70 0*324 739 70 0*
07275 10/10*325 723 70 0*325 701 70 0*325 685 70 0*325 655 70 0*
07280 HRAFL1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
6-9/9/1880 1000Z 34.7N 77.1W 70kt 1 --- 987mb NC1
9-10/8/1880 1900Z 28.9N 82.7W 70kt 1 --- (985mb) AFL1
9-10/8/1880 1900Z 28.9N 82.7W 70kt 1 --- (982mb) AFL1
***
The original assessment in HURDAT analyzed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Florida as a 70 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 985 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 982 mb -
for a 70 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
1880/10: No major changes from this newly documented hurricane from
Partagas and Diaz (1995). 970 mb central pressure corresponds to
85 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship -
80 kt chosen due to cooler SSTs in October. 979 mb central pressure
corresponds to 76 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure
relationship - 70 kt chosen partially due to cooler SSTs in October.
Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon these
central pressure readings and several ship reports.
********************************************************************************
1880/11: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1995), except to
add 12 and 18 UTC positions for the 20th of October to accommodate
beginning of track portrayed. Track otherwise unaltered from Neumann
et al. (1993), originally storm number 9. 991 mb central pressure
corresponds to 61 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship -
60 kt chosen. The best track provided appears to describe the full
life cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its formation as a tropical
storm until its dissipation as an extratropical storm).
1880/11 - 2006 REVISION:
07330 10/20/1880 M= 5 11 SNBR= 211 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0 L
07330 10/20/1880 M= 5 11 SNBR= 211 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0 L
*
07335 10/20* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*271 753 40 0*282 746 40 0*
07340 10/21*293 745 40 0*302 741 40 0*310 740 40 0*317 738 40 0*
07345 10/22*324 736 50 0*332 733 50 0*340 730 50 0*353 726 50 0*
07350 10/23*375 718 60 0E402 705 60 0E435 690 60 991E460 680 50 0*
07355 10/24E478 673 50 0E490 663 50 0E500 650 50 0E508 635 50 0*
07360 TS
Based upon research provided by Mark Jelinek and James Belanger from Georgia
Institute of Technology, this cyclone should be not be indicated as
a U.S. landfall ("XING=1") as it already had become extratropical before
striking New England based upon the existing track and intensity in
HURDAT.
********************************************************************************
1881/01: Only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996) is to
remove the 12 and 18 UTC from the best track on the 4th of August
as the storm was determined to have decayed below tropical storm
force by those times. Track otherwise unaltered from Neumann et al.
(1993). Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for
inland winds over the S.E. United States. The best track provided appears
to describe the full life cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its
formation as a tropical storm until its dissipation below tropical storm
intensity).
07180 08/01/1881 M= 4 1 SNBR= 208 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
07180 08/01/1881 M= 4 1 SNBR= 211 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
07185 08/01*230 855 40 0*235 858 40 0*240 860 40 0*246 863 40 0
07190 08/02*252 866 40 0*261 868 40 0*270 870 40 0*277 874 40 0
07195 08/03*285 878 50 0*293 881 50 0*301 883 50 0*309 884 40 0
07200 08/04*315 886 40 0*320 888 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
07200 08/04*315 886 30 0*320 888 30 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
** **
07205 TS
Decay stage of this tropical storm to a tropical depression before dissipation
over land inadvertently left out from the first revision of the best track.
********************************************************************************
1881/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), who kept
the track as shown in Neumann et al. (1993). Inland decay model of
Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Texas.
07315 08/11/1881 M= 4 2 SNBR= 209 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
07315 08/11/1881 M= 4 2 SNBR= 212 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
07320 08/11* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*256 887 40 0*256 896 40 0
07325 08/12*256 905 40 0*257 915 40 0*258 924 40 0*261 934 40 0
07330 08/13*264 943 40 0*268 952 40 0*272 958 40 0*277 966 40 0
07335 08/14*283 972 40 0*289 977 30 0*296 983 30 0*308 990 30 0
07335 08/14*283 972 30 0*289 977 30 0*296 983 30 0*308 990 30 0
**
07340 TS
Winds reduced to account for weakening after landfall more realistically.
********************************************************************************
1881/03: This hurricane was newly documented by Partagas and Diaz (1996)
and no major changes are made to their track. The storm is determined
to have reached hurricane status based upon reports from the ship
"Fonthill".
********************************************************************************
1881/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), who made large
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm
number 3. These track changes are found to be reasonable. Storm is
determined to have reached hurricane status based upon reports from the
ships "Cohasset" and "Anna".
********************************************************************************
1881/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), who made
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993),
originally storm number 4. A sea level pressure reading of 985 mb (at
00 UTC on the 27th of August) not in the storm's center suggests
sustained winds of at least 70 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure
relationship - 90 kt chosen for the best track. Sandrik (1999) utilized
this peripheral pressure of 985 mb along with an estimate of a RMW of
15 nmi to get a 970 mb estimate of central pressure at landfall. 970 mb
suggests 85 kt winds from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship -
90 kt chosen for best track. 1002 mb central pressure corresponds to
45 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship - 40 kt
chosen for best track as storm was well inland at this point. Inland
decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over
the S.E. United States. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane
status based upon several ship reports, the 985 mb peripheral pressure
reading and winds from Tybee Island and Augusta, Georgia.
1881/05 - 2003 REVISION:
07330 08/21/1881 M= 9 5 SNBR= 212 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
07330 08/21/1881 M= 9 5 SNBR= 215 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
***
07335 08/21*176 570 60 0*177 580 60 0*177 590 60 0*177 599 60 0
07340 08/22*180 609 60 0*182 620 60 0*186 630 60 0*189 639 60 0
07345 08/23*192 649 60 0*196 659 60 0*201 670 60 0*207 680 60 0
07350 08/24*216 691 70 0*222 700 70 0*230 708 70 0*237 719 70 0
07355 08/25*244 728 70 0*249 736 70 0*255 746 80 0*260 754 80 0
07360 08/26*267 764 80 0*274 773 80 0*282 781 80 0*286 786 90 0
07365 08/27*293 790 90 0*299 793 90 0*307 796 90 0*313 801 90 0
07370 08/28*316 809 90 970*319 819 70 0*320 830 50 0*320 844 50 0
07375 08/29*325 863 40 0*332 876 40 0*340 890 40 1002*347 904 40 0
07375 08/29*325 863 40 0*332 876 40 0*340 890 40 1002*347 904 30 0
**
07380 HR GA2 SC1
Decay stage of this hurricane to a tropical depression before dissipation
over land inadvertently left out from the first revision of the best track.
********************************************************************************
1881/06: Only major change from Partagas and Diaz is to adjust the
track near U.S. landfall to account for analyses by Ho (1989).
Track is otherwise unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993), originally
storm number 5. Estimated central pressure at landfall of 975 mb
corresponds to 81 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure
relationship - 90 kt chosen for best track due to small (15 n mi)
radius of maximum winds. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria
(1995) utilized for inland winds over the eastern United States.
Storm is determined to have reached hurricane status based upon
several ship reports and estimated central pressure reading of 975 mb.
********************************************************************************
1881/07: No major changes from this newly documented storm from
Partagas and Diaz.
********************************************************************************
1881 - Additional Notes:
1. The tropical storm listed as #8 in 1881 in Partagas and Diaz (1995b)
and storm number 6 in Neumann et al. (1993) was not included into the
HURDAT because of evidence suggesting that the storm did not actually
exist as a tropical cyclone. Partagas and Diaz suggested that the storm
was likely an extratropical storm for the duration of its lifetime.
********************************************************************************
1882/01: No major changes from this newly documented hurricane
by Partagas and Diaz (1996). Storm is determined to have reached hurricane
intensity based upon reports from the ships "Case" and "Ida".
********************************************************************************
1882/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), who made large
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm
number 1. These track changes are found to be reasonable. 981 mb central
pressure suggests winds of 76 kt from the southern wind-pressure
relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track. 961 mb central pressure
corresponds to 94 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure
relationship - 90 kt chosen for best track. 949 mb central pressure
corresponds to 103 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship -
100 kt chosen for best track. 1000 mb central pressure suggests 49 kt
from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 50 kt chosen for best track.
A pressure reading of 980 mb not in the hurricane's center (at 06 UTC on
the 4th of September) suggests winds of at least 78 kt from the southern
wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for the best track. A pressure
reading of 986 mb not in the hurricane's center (at 18 UTC on the 5th)
suggests winds of at least 70 kt from the southern wind-pressure
relationship - 70 kt chosen for the best track. Inland decay model of
Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the S.E. United
States. Storm is determined to have reached major hurricane intensity
based upon central pressure reading of 949 mb from the ship "Cato" while
over the Gulf of Mexico.
1882/02 - 2003 REVISION:
07485 09/02/1882 M=12 2 SNBR= 216 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
07485 09/02/1882 M=12 2 SNBR= 219 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
***
07490 09/02*195 675 50 0*197 685 50 0*202 693 50 0*207 701 50 0
07495 09/03*212 709 60 0*217 718 60 0*220 725 70 0*222 734 70 0
07500 09/04*225 743 80 0*225 751 80 0*225 761 80 0*224 770 80 0
07500 09/04*225 743 80 0*225 751 80 0*225 761 90 0*224 770 90 0
** **
07505 09/05*224 778 80 0*222 786 80 0*222 795 80 0*222 809 70 0
07505 09/05*224 778 90 0*224 786 80 0*224 795 80 0*224 809 70 0
** *** *** ***
07510 09/06*222 820 70 0*222 829 70 0*222 838 70 0*222 846 70 0
07510 09/06*224 820 70 0*224 829 70 0*224 838 70 0*224 846 70 0
*** *** *** ***
07515 09/07*225 858 80 981*231 866 80 0*237 873 80 0*242 876 80 0
07515 09/07*226 858 80 981*231 866 80 0*237 873 80 0*242 876 80 0
***
07520 09/08*247 880 90 0*254 883 90 0*260 886 90 0*264 886 90 0
07520 09/08*247 880 90 0*254 883 90 0*260 886 90 0*264 887 90 0
***
07525 09/09*268 888 90 0*273 886 90 0*277 884 90 0*288 880 90 961
07525 09/09*268 888 90 0*272 887 90 0*277 884 90 0*288 880 90 961
*** ***
07530 09/10*300 871 100 949*311 861 80 0*319 851 60 0*330 841 40 0
07535 09/11*337 833 40 0*345 821 40 0*353 808 40 0*367 783 40 0
07540 09/12*384 749 50 0*400 715 60 0*417 681 50 1000*437 645 50 0
07545 09/13E452 610 40 0E465 575 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
07550 HRAFL3 AL1
Re-analysis effort by Perez (2000) has analyzed this hurricane as a
Category 2 landfall in Cuba, instead of a Category 1 assigned in HURDAT.
Winds are adjusted accordingly on the 4th and 5th. Perez' track was slightly
farther north on the 5th and 6th, so the latitudes on those dates have also
been changed accordingly. Track altered slightly on the 8th and 9th to
provide a more realistic translational velocity.
1882/02 - 2006 REVISION:
07670 09/02/1882 M=12 2 SNBR= 220 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
07675 09/02*195 675 50 0*197 685 50 0*202 693 50 0*207 701 50 0*
07680 09/03*212 709 60 0*217 718 60 0*220 725 70 0*222 734 70 0*
07685 09/04*225 743 80 0*225 751 80 0*225 761 90 0*224 770 90 0*
07690 09/05*224 778 90 0*224 786 80 0*224 795 80 0*224 809 70 0*
07695 09/06*224 820 70 0*224 829 70 0*224 838 70 0*224 846 70 0*
07700 09/07*226 858 80 981*231 866 80 0*237 873 80 0*242 876 80 0*
07705 09/08*247 880 90 0*254 883 90 0*260 886 90 0*264 887 90 0*
07710 09/09*268 888 90 0*272 887 90 0*277 884 90 0*288 880 90 961*
07715 09/10*300 871 100 949*311 861 80 0*319 851 60 0*330 841 40 0*
07720 09/11*337 833 40 0*345 821 40 0*353 808 40 0*367 783 40 0*
07725 09/12*384 749 50 0*400 715 60 0*417 681 50 1000*437 645 50 0*
07730 09/13E452 610 40 0E465 575 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*
07735 HRAFL3 AL1
07735 HRAFL3IAL1
****
Revision indicated in continental U.S. impacts to specify that the Alabama
hurricane impact from this cyclone was inland, rather than along Alabama's
Gulf coast.
1882/02 - 2011 REVISION:
07670 09/02/1882 M=12 2 SNBR= 220 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
07675 09/02*195 675 50 0*197 685 50 0*202 693 50 0*207 701 50 0*
07680 09/03*212 709 60 0*217 718 60 0*220 725 70 0*222 734 70 0*
07685 09/04*225 743 80 0*225 751 80 0*225 761 90 0*224 770 90 0*
07690 09/05*224 778 90 0*224 786 80 0*224 795 80 0*224 809 70 0*
07695 09/06*224 820 70 0*224 829 70 0*224 838 70 0*224 846 70 0*
07700 09/07*226 858 80 981*231 866 80 0*237 873 80 0*242 876 80 0*
07705 09/08*247 880 90 0*254 883 90 0*260 886 90 0*264 887 90 0*
07710 09/09*268 888 90 0*272 887 90 0*277 884 90 0*288 880 90 961*
07710 09/09*268 888 90 0*272 887 90 0*277 884 90 0*288 880 100 961*
***
07715 09/10*300 871 100 949*311 861 80 0*319 851 60 0*330 841 40 0*
07715 09/10*300 871 110 949*311 861 80 0*319 851 60 0*330 841 40 0*
***
07720 09/11*337 833 40 0*345 821 40 0*353 808 40 0*367 783 40 0*
07725 09/12*384 749 50 0*400 715 60 0*417 681 50 1000*437 645 50 0*
07730 09/13E452 610 40 0E465 575 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*
07735 HRAFL3IAL1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
2-9/10/1882 0200Z 30.4N 86.8W 100kt 3 --- 949mb AFL3,IAL1
2-9/10/1882 0200Z 30.4N 86.8W 110kt 3 --- 949mb AFL3,IAL1
***
The originally analysis of this hurricane mistakenly utilized the subtropical
pressure-wind relationship instead of the Gulf of Mexico equations.
The 961 mb central pressure at 20Z on the 9th suggests 94 kt from the Brown
et al. (2006) north of 25N pressure-wind relationship and 98 kt for
the same for the subset of intensifying hurricanes. Six hours later
at 02Z on the 10th, the hurricane made landfall with a 949 mb central
pressure. 949 mb suggests winds of 106 kt from the Brown et al. (2006)
north of 25N pressure-wind relationship and 111 kt from the same but
for the subset of intensifying hurricanes. No size estimate of the
hurricane at landfall was available and the translational velocity is
a near average 14 kt at landfall. Winds are increased from
90 kt to 100 kt at 18Z on the 9th and 100 kt to 110 kt at 00Z on the 10th
as well as at landfall at 02Z. A run of the Kaplan and DeMaria (1995)
inland decay model did not suggest that any changes in winds after
landfall were needed.
********************************************************************************
1882/03 - 2003 ADDITION:
07566 09/14/1882 M= 3 3 SNBR= 220 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
07567 09/14*280 890 90 0*282 900 90 0*285 910 90 0*289 920 90 0
07568 09/15*294 930 90 0*299 938 80 0*304 945 60 0*309 950 40 0
07569 09/16*315 953 30 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
07570 HR LA2CTX1
Roth (1997a,b) documents a newly described system that made landfall
along the U.S. coastline near the Texas-Louisiana border:
"A strong tropical storm hit the mouth of the Sabine River. A "terrific wind
and rain storm" caused damage to homes in Sabine Pass, Tx. The Lake Charles
Echo, La. reported it as a "hurricane" that destroyed a house and injured
its occupant. Streets in town were covered by 3 feet of water. Fences were
blown over a mile from their previous location. That night [the 14th], a
"Hard wind and rain" visited Lake Charles, described as a lively gale". Port
Eads, La. had winds of 70 m.p.h. and a pressure of 29.38". Abbeville, La.
reported no damage with the storm."
From this description a rough track of the storm was created that goes
from southeast to northwest, making landfall just east of Sabine Pass.
Storm surge modeling (B. Jarvinen, personal communication) suggests that
3' of standing water in the streets of Lake Charles requires a Category 2
at landfall. Thus this system is estimated as 90 kt at landfall. The
inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds
over Texas and Louisiana.
1882/03 - 2011 REVISION:
07566 09/14/1882 M= 3 3 SNBR= 220 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
07566 09/14/1882 M= 3 3 SNBR= 220 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
*
07567 09/14*280 890 90 0*282 900 90 0*285 910 90 0*289 920 90 0
07567 09/14*265 915 30 0*270 917 35 0*277 920 40 0*285 923 45 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
07568 09/15*294 930 90 0*299 938 80 0*304 945 60 0*309 950 40 0
07568 09/15*294 930 50 0*299 938 50 0*304 945 40 0*309 950 35 0
** ** ** **
07569 09/16*315 953 30 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
07570 HR LA2CTX1
07570 TS
** *******
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
3-9/15/1882 0500Z 29.8N 93.7W 90 2 --- (969) LA2,CTX1
3-9/15/1882 0500Z 29.8N 93.7W 50 TS --- ----- None
** ** *** ********
The track and intensity for this hurricane have major revisions. This reanalysis -
based upon newspaper articles and new station observations - was a combined effort
by Mike Chenoweth, Cary Mock, David Roth, Roger Erickson, and Sandy Delgado.
Some of the information used in the original analysis reported in the Roth (1997a,b)
Louisiana and Texas hurricane history was confused with impacts from the hurricane
(storm #2) that struck Florida and made a close bypass to the mouth of the Mississippi
River a week earlier. In particular, associating the report of 29.38' pressure and
70 mph winds from Port Eads for this system (storm #3) was erroneous.
Below are relevant newspaper articles from the Lake Charles Echo, a weekly publication:
"A hard wind and rain visited this section [Lake Charles] Thursday night [14 September 1882]
-the rain coming down in torrents and the wind blowing a lively gale. It was a forerunner,
doubtless, of an equinoctial blow" - Saturday, 16 September 1882
"A Lively Little Blow. On Thursday night of last week [14 September 1882], Sabine station
and vicinity was visited by a terrific wind and rain storm. Considerable damage was done
to houses, fences, etc. The greatest calamity resulting from the hurricane, from the meager
details we have at hand, was the complete destruction of Mr. Lastie Vincent's residence,
which is a total wreck. Mrs. Vincent was quite severely bruised from the falling of some
of the timbers. The town of Sabine Pass had three feet of water in her streets. Fencing
at several places was blown a distance of a mile and more. Altogether it was as severe a
blow as the people of that section have witnessed in a long time, and we trust no further
damage was done than that reported." - Saturday, 23 September 1882
Examination of the Galveston Daily News, Galveston Weekly News, and the New Orleans Picayune
from September 13-24 had no write-ups on this system at all indicating minimal to no impacts
for the upper Texas coast and eastern Texas.
Below are the relevant observations available (Washington time):
Port Eads
--Sea Level Pressure-- -----Winds (kt)------ ---Other---
Date 7a PPP 3p PPP 11p PPP 7aDDFF 3pDDFF 11pDDFF
7 Sep 1014 1013 1010 E11 E16 E13 .01" rain
8 Sep 1010 1009 1007 E16 SE19 NE25 .83" rain
9 Sep 1000 996 1006 NE46 NE56 N17 [peak NE78] 5.07" rain
10 Sep 1009 1011 1013 NW10 N10 NW10
........
14 Sep 1021 1019 1020 E14 E14 E12
15 Sep 1019 1019 1009 E07 E08 SE04 .15" rain
Galveston
14 Sep 1016 1019 1018 E16 E21 E21 Cloudy - Rain - Thrtg
15 Sep 1014 1014 1016 NW17 S04 S09 Cloudy - Fair - Clear
Peak wind night of 14-15th is E30 sometime between 11pm and 7am and a peak wind of NW19
between 7am and 3pm 15 September.
Shreveport
14 Sep 1021 1020 1019 Calm N05 Calm
15 Sep 1020 1015 1018 NE04 E13 S03 Light rain - cloudy -
Cloudy 0.15"
16 Sep 1019 1018 1017 S01 S04 Calm Cloudy - Thrtg - Clear
Mobile
14 Sep 1020 ---- ---- N05 E05 NE05
15 Sep 1021 ---- ---- N05 SE05 SW05
New Orleans
14 Sep 1019 ---- ---- N03 ---- ----
15 Sep 1017 ---- ---- E06 ---- ----
16 Sep 1018 ---- ---- N03 ---- ----
Unfortunately, there were no relevant ship observations in the Gulf of Mexico
during this period available in the COAD database. Also obtained were the U.S.
Signal Corp synoptic weather maps for the 13th to the 16th of September and the
"Precipitation Chart for September, 1882".
Examination of the available data clearly shows the storm #2 that impacted Port
Eads, Louisiana on the 9th and that there was only minimal evidence of a tropical
cyclone near Sabine Pass on the 14th and 15th. The Weather Bureau in the Monthly
Weather Review has a detailed description of Storm #2 earlier in the month that
affected the northern Gulf region and an area of low pressure at the beginning of
the month that impacted eastern Texas, but it has no account of a hurricane making
landfall near the Texas and Louisiana border, or anywhere around the area in the
time in question.
It is worth comparing this system with Storm #1 in 1886 as this also had a landfall
with estimated intensity of 90 kt in the vicinity of Sabine Pass. Press reports
were obtained for this case as well. If the 1882 storm had a 90 kt intensity and
was felt at Sabine Pass then we should expect to see comparable levels of press
accounts.
For the 1886 storm, the Picayune carries reports from Galveston, Lake Charles and
Orange and the Galveston Daily News has reports from Galveston, Orange and Sabine
Pass. There are at least 10 separate very extensive items from these areas for this
hurricane. The Picayune always provided reports from Galveston on all subject matter.
The impacts described are quite consistent with a Category 2 hurricane making landfall
near Sabine Pass.
As described above, the only press reports on this 1882 system were the very short
articles from the Lake Charles Echo on the impacts in Sabine Pass and in Lake Charles.
Again, the Galveston and New Orleans newspapers carried no press reports about the 1882
system.
The previous motivation for indicating that this system was a Category 2 hurricane
was both the Port Eads observations and the flooding within Sabine Pass. It is now
understood that the Port Eads observations were instead wrongly dated and were
instead reflective of conditions that actually occurred from storm #2. The flooding
was interpreted by the Best Track Change Committee in 2003 to be due to storm surge
flooding. However, given both the lack of other hurricane impacts along the coast as
reported by the press, it is likely that this was due to fresh-water rainfall flooding.
Thus the observations from Galveston and the other available stations along with the
modest impacts described in the newspaper articles for Lake Charles and Sabine Pass
do suggest that a small tropical storm came ashore near the Louisiana/Texas border.
But they are quite inconsistent with a hurricane strike. With these additional data,
the track is adjusted over the Gulf of Mexico toward the southwest on the 14th
beginning with as a tropical depression, intensifying to a 50 kt tropical storm by
landfall, but making landfall at the same location and time as originally indicated.
Weaker winds are also indicated during the dissipation phase.
Alternatively, some of the researchers contributing information for this system
have concluded that this was not a tropical storm either over the Gulf of
Mexico or in Louisiana/Texas and instead was a local wind/rain event (likely
a squall line) for Sabine Pass.
********************************************************************************
1882 Storm 3 - Revised 2012
07760 09/14/1882 M= 3 3 SNBR= 221 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
07765 09/14*265 915 30 0*270 917 35 0*277 920 40 0*285 923 45 0*
07765 09/14*265 915 30 0*270 917 40 0*277 920 40 0*285 923 50 0*
** **
07770 09/15*294 930 50 0*299 938 50 0*304 945 40 0*309 950 35 0*
07770 09/15*294 930 50 0*299 938 50 0*304 945 40 0*309 950 40 0*
**
07775 09/16*315 953 30 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*
07780 TS
The revisions to this cyclone made in 2011 were with overly precise maximum wind
values to the nearest 5 kt. These were not used until 1886 and thus the maximum
winds are rounded to the nearest 10 kt to be consistent with the database.
********************************************************************************
1882/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), (was originally
storm #3 in the Partagas and Diaz report). Track unaltered from Neumann
et al. (1993), their storm number 2. 1005 mb central pressure corresponds
to 40 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship, which is utilized
as the best track intensity value. The best track provided appears to
describe the full life cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its formation
as a tropical storm until its dissipation below tropical storm intensity).
1882/04 - 2003 REVISION:
07570 09/21/1882 M= 4 3 SNBR= 218 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
07570 09/21/1882 M= 4 4 SNBR= 218 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
*
07575 09/21*285 768 40 0*292 771 40 0*300 775 40 0*308 776 40 0
07580 09/22*315 776 40 0*322 776 40 0*330 774 50 0*340 771 50 0
07580 09/22*315 776 40 0*322 776 40 0*330 775 50 0*340 773 50 0
*** ***
07585 09/23*350 770 40 0*360 766 40 1005*370 761 40 0*382 755 40 0
07590 09/24*394 745 40 0*410 725 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
07595 TS
Track altered slightly on the 22nd to provide a more realistic smooth track.
********************************************************************************
1882/05: No major changes from this newly documented hurricane from
Partagas and Diaz (1996), (was originally storm #4 in the Partagas
and Diaz report). Storm is determined to have reached hurricane
intensity based upon reports from the ships "R.A. Allen" and "Sedmi
Dubrovacki".
********************************************************************************
1882/06: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), (was originally
storm #5 in the Partagas and Diaz report). Track unaltered from Neumann
et al. (1993), their storm number 3. 975 mb central pressure corresponds
to 84 kt in the southern wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt chosen for
best track. 981 mb central pressure corresponds to 76 kt of sustained
winds from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt utilized in
best track. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for
inland winds over Florida and Georgia. Storm is determined to have been
of hurricane intensity while in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico based
upon these central pressure readings, ship reports and a 9 foot storm
tide experienced at the mouth of the Colona River, Cuba. Storm regained
hurricane intensity while over the Atlantic based upon several ship
reports.
07620 10/05/1882 M=11 5 SNBR= 219 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
07620 10/05/1882 M=11 6 SNBR= 223 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
* ***
07625 10/05*142 816 40 0*146 819 40 0*150 820 40 0*154 821 40 0
07630 10/06*158 821 50 0*162 823 50 0*166 824 50 0*170 825 50 0
07635 10/07*172 826 60 0*177 828 60 0*180 829 70 0*184 830 70 0
07640 10/08*187 831 80 0*191 831 80 0*195 831 90 0*202 835 90 0
07640 10/08*187 831 80 0*191 832 90 0*195 833 100 0*202 835 110 0
*** ** *** *** ***
07645 10/09*212 836 90 975*222 839 80 981*235 840 80 0*244 840 80 0
07645 10/09*212 837 120 0*222 839 100 0*235 840 90 0*244 841 80 0
*** *** *** *** *** ** ***
07650 10/10*254 841 70 0*265 841 70 0*275 840 70 0*283 838 70 0
07655 10/11*291 836 70 0*298 831 60 0*305 826 50 0*312 815 50 0
07660 10/12*320 804 60 0*330 790 60 0*338 775 70 0*342 760 70 0
07665 10/13*347 748 70 0*350 733 70 0*355 720 70 0*358 711 70 0
07670 10/14*360 704 70 0*362 696 70 0*365 690 70 0*367 683 70 0
07675 10/15*370 676 60 0*372 670 60 0*375 661 60 0*378 651 60 0
07680 HRAFL1
Re-analysis effort by Perez (2000) has analyzed this hurricane as a
Category 4 landfall in Cuba, instead of a Category 2 assigned in HURDAT.
The pressure values of 975 mb and 981 mb on 00 and 06Z on the 9th are
found to be peripheral pressures, instead of central pressures based upon
additional information provided by Perez (2000). Winds are adjusted
accordingly on the 4th and 5th.
********************************************************************************
1883/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), who made large
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993). These track
changes are found to be reasonable. Pressure reading of 975 mb not in
hurricane's center (at 18 UTC on the 26th of August) suggests winds of at
least 78 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for
best track. The best track provided appears to describe the full life
cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its formation as a tropical storm to
its peak as a hurricane until its dissipation as an extratropical storm).
Storm is determined to have reached hurricane intensity based upon the
peripheral pressure and several ship reports.
1883/01 - 2003 REVISION:
07815 08/18/1883 M=11 1 SNBR= 224 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
07820 08/18*192 485 40 0*194 495 40 0*195 510 40 0*197 526 40 0
07825 08/19*202 544 40 0*207 560 40 0*212 575 50 0*217 590 50 0
07830 08/20*222 605 50 0*231 623 50 0*240 640 50 0*247 651 50 0
07835 08/21*258 666 60 0*270 680 60 0*281 690 60 0*287 694 60 0
07835 08/21*258 666 60 0*270 680 60 0*281 690 60 0*290 694 60 0
***
07840 08/22*295 696 70 0*306 700 70 0*315 701 70 0*320 703 70 0
07840 08/22*299 697 70 0*307 700 70 0*315 702 70 0*322 703 70 0
*** *** *** *** ***
07845 08/23*328 701 70 0*333 700 70 0*339 696 70 0*343 691 70 0
07845 08/23*328 702 70 0*334 700 70 0*339 696 70 0*343 691 70 0
*** ***
07850 08/24*349 684 70 0*353 678 70 0*358 671 70 0*364 661 70 0
07855 08/25*369 653 80 0*375 641 80 0*384 625 80 0*395 603 80 0
07860 08/26*412 574 80 0*429 541 80 0*443 509 80 0*458 480 80 0
07865 08/27*477 438 70 0*493 400 70 0E510 360 60 0E521 328 60 0
07870 08/28E534 289 60 0E547 247 60 0E557 207 50 0E567 175 50 0
07875 HR
Track altered slightly to provide a more realistic translational velocity.
********************************************************************************
1883/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), who made
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).
983 mb central pressure suggests winds of 70 kt from the northern
wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt used in best track. A pressure reading
of 948 mb not at the hurricane's center (at 00 UTC on the 29th of
August) suggests winds of at least 98 kt from the northern wind-
pressure relationship - 110 kt utilized in best track. A 963 mb
central pressure measured during the storm's extratropical stage
suggests winds of 88 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship -
80 kt chosen for best track as it had already undergone extratropical
transition. Storm is determined to have reached major hurricane
intensity based upon the 948 mb peripheral pressure measurement.
********************************************************************************
1883/03: Only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996) is to remove 12
and 18 UTC on the 13th of September as it is suggested that the hurricane
had decreased below tropical storm force winds by that time. Track from
Partagas and Diaz (1996) otherwise has reasonable small alterations from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1993). Inland decay model of Kaplan and
DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the eastern United States.
A pressure reading of 955 mb not at the hurricane's center (at 12 UTC on
the 4th of September) suggests winds of at least 105 kt from the southern
wind-pressure relationship - 110 kt chosen for best track. A pressure
reading of 978 mb not at the hurricane's center (at 18 UTC on the 8th)
suggests winds of at least 80 kt from the southern wind-pressure
relationship - 90 kt chosen for best track. A pressure reading of
982 mb not at the hurricane's center (at 06 UTC on the 10th) suggests
winds of at least 73 kt - 90 kt chosen for best track. Storm determined
to have reached major hurricane intensity while over the Atlantic
based upon peripheral pressure reading of 955 mb and from extreme
damage in Martinique.
1883/03 - 2003 REVISION:
07810 09/04/1883 M=10 3 SNBR= 222 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
07810 09/04/1883 M=10 3 SNBR= 226 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
***
07815 09/04*140 579 110 0*144 592 110 0*147 603 110 0*150 615 110 0
07820 09/05*154 628 110 0*159 641 110 0*162 655 110 0*167 668 110 0
07825 09/06*174 683 110 0*180 699 110 0*187 715 80 0*197 726 70 0
07830 09/07*209 739 70 0*214 748 70 0*220 755 70 0*225 760 70 0
07830 09/07*207 737 70 0*214 748 70 0*220 755 70 0*225 760 70 0
*** ***
07835 09/08*231 763 80 0*235 765 80 0*240 766 90 0*247 771 90 0
07835 09/08*230 763 80 0*235 766 80 0*240 769 90 0*247 772 90 0
*** *** *** ***
07840 09/09*255 774 90 0*264 778 90 0*273 780 90 0*280 781 90 0
07840 09/09*255 775 90 0*264 778 90 0*273 780 90 0*280 781 90 0
***
07845 09/10*287 781 90 0*295 783 90 0*302 784 90 0*312 786 90 0
07845 09/10*287 782 90 0*295 783 90 0*302 784 90 0*312 785 90 0
*** ***
07850 09/11*322 786 90 0*330 786 90 0*338 785 90 0*344 784 70 0
07855 09/12*350 783 50 0*354 783 50 0*360 781 40 0*370 779 40 0
07855 09/12*350 783 50 0*354 782 50 0*360 781 40 0*370 779 40 0
***
07860 09/13*380 776 40 0*393 773 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
07860 09/13*380 776 30 0*393 773 30 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
** **
07865 HR NC2 SC1
Decay stage of this hurricane to a tropical depression before dissipation
over land inadvertently left out from the first revision of the best track.
Track is adjusted slightly to provide for a more realistic translation
velocity.
********************************************************************************
1883/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), who made
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).
A pressure reading of 983 mb (at 18 UTC on the 27th of October) suggests
winds of at least 70 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship -
70 kt chosen in best track as the storm had already undergone extratropical
transformation. Storm did not reach hurricane intensity as a tropical
cyclone, but did obtain hurricane-force sustained winds on the 27th of
October as an extratropical storm.
********************************************************************************
1884/01: No major changes from this newly documented hurricane from
Partagas and Diaz (1996). Storm is determined to have reached hurricane
intensity based upon reports from the ships "Oder" and "Engelbert".
********************************************************************************
1884/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996). Track unaltered
from Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm number 1. Central pressure
of 957 mb corresponds to winds of 103 kt from the southern wind-pressure
relationship - 100 kt chosen for best track. A pressure reading of
983 mb not in the hurricane's center (at 00 UTC on the 15th of
September) suggests winds of at least 70 kt from the northern
wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track. The best
track provided appears to describe the full life cycle of this tropical
cyclone (from its formation as a tropical storm to its peak as a major
hurricane until its dissipation below tropical storm intensity).
Storm is determined to have reached major hurricane intensity based
upon the central pressure reading of 957 mb.
********************************************************************************
1884/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), who made large
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm
number 2. These track changes are found to be reasonable. 982 mb central
pressure corresponds with 73 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure
relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track. 982 mb central pressure
corresponds to 71 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt
chosen for best track. A pressure reading of 982 mb not at the hurricane's
center (at 18 UTC on the 16th of September) suggests winds of at least 73 kt
from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for
best track. The best track provided appears to describe the full life
cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its formation as a tropical storm
to its peak as a hurricane until its dissipation as an extratropical
storm). Storm is determined to have reached hurricane intensity based
upon pressure measurements and several ship reports.
1884/03 - 2003 REVISION:
08035 09/10/1884 M=11 3 SNBR= 226 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
08035 09/10/1884 M=11 3 SNBR= 230 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
08040 09/10*287 791 40 0*297 801 40 0*306 806 40 0*310 809 40 0
08045 09/11*315 811 40 0*319 815 40 0*325 816 40 0*330 813 40 0
08045 09/11*315 811 40 0*319 815 40 0*325 816 30 0*330 813 30 0
** **
08050 09/12*332 810 40 0*332 804 40 0*330 799 40 0*322 796 40 0
08050 09/12*332 810 30 0*332 804 30 0*330 799 30 0*322 796 40 0
** ** **
08055 09/13*314 791 50 0*305 785 50 0*303 773 50 0*305 764 50 0
08060 09/14*307 755 60 0*305 744 60 0*300 740 60 0*296 739 60 0
08060 09/14*307 755 60 0*305 744 60 0*300 740 60 0*296 739 70 0
**
08065 09/15*293 739 70 982*288 739 70 0*285 740 70 0*283 744 70 0
08065 09/15*293 739 70 982*288 740 70 0*284 744 70 0*281 749 70 0
*** *** *** *** ***
08070 09/16*283 748 80 0*284 751 80 0*285 753 80 0*292 754 80 0
08070 09/16*279 754 70 0*278 760 70 988*278 758 70 0*279 755 70 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ** *** *** **
08075 09/17*302 751 80 0*310 746 80 0*320 735 80 0*333 719 80 0
08075 09/17*281 751 80 0*284 746 80 0*288 735 80 0*292 715 80 0
*** *** *** *** ***
08080 09/18*350 694 70 0*365 669 70 0*380 640 70 0*393 611 70 0
08080 09/18*296 680 80 0*302 653 80 979*314 613 80 0*340 585 80 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ** *** *** **
08085 09/19*410 577 70 0*427 537 70 982*440 505 70 0*459 458 70 0
08085 09/19*390 560 70 0*427 535 70 982*445 505 70 0*460 458 70 0
*** *** *** *** ***
08090 09/20E477 404 60 0E495 345 60 0E510 290 50 0E530 230 50 0
08095 HR
Additional ship observations for this hurricane were obtained from the
_American Meteorological Journal_ of 1884 (pages 298-300). In particular,
the ship "Alpine" reported hurricane-force winds late on the 14th - thus
winds in the best track for that day are increased. A central pressure
value of 988 mb from the ship "R. M. Walls" (06Z on the 16th) suggests
winds of 66 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - winds
reduced down to 70 kt in best track along with a repositioning farther south
and west on the 15th and 16th. A central pressure value of 979 mb from the
ship "Stephen Hart" (06Z on the 18th) suggests winds of 76 kt - winds are
increased to 80 kt and the hurricane is repositioned farther to the south
and to the east on the 17th to the 19th. Decay stage of this storm to a
tropical depression while over land on the 11th and 12th inadvertently left
out from the first revision of the best track. (A thank you to Sim Aberson
for pointing out these additional ship observations.)
********************************************************************************
1884/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), who made large
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993), originally storm
number 3. These track changes are found to be reasonable. Pressure
readings of 982 and 980 mb not in the hurricane's center (on 00 UTC and
18 UTC on the 14th of October) suggest winds of at least 73 and 75 kt,
respectively, from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt
chosen for best track. Storm is determined to have reached hurricane
intensity while in the Caribbean based upon reports from the ship
"Cienfuegos" and from damage in Santiago de Cuba, Cuba. The storm then
regained hurricane intensity over the Atlantic based upon the pressure
measurements and several ship reports.
1884/04 - 2003 REVISION:
08230 10/07/1884 M=11 4 SNBR= 227 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
08230 10/07/1884 M=11 4 SNBR= 231 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
08235 10/07*162 766 40 0*165 766 40 0*169 764 50 0*175 761 50 0
08240 10/08*180 760 60 0*185 758 60 0*191 756 70 0*196 755 70 0
08245 10/09*200 754 70 0*202 754 60 0*207 753 50 0*210 751 50 0
08245 10/09*200 754 70 0*204 753 60 0*207 753 50 0*210 752 50 0
*** *** ***
08250 10/10*214 751 50 0*217 751 50 0*220 750 50 0*222 750 50 0
08250 10/10*214 751 50 0*217 750 50 0*220 750 50 0*222 750 50 0
***
08255 10/11*222 750 60 0*225 750 60 0*227 750 70 0*230 750 70 0
08255 10/11*224 750 60 0*225 750 60 0*227 750 70 0*230 750 70 0
***
08260 10/12*232 750 70 0*235 750 70 0*237 750 70 0*240 750 70 0
08265 10/13*244 750 80 0*250 750 80 0*255 750 80 0*257 750 80 0
08270 10/14*257 750 90 0*257 750 90 0*257 746 90 0*258 741 90 0
08275 10/15*261 728 80 0*264 720 80 0*268 708 80 0*272 699 80 0
08280 10/16*276 688 70 0*279 678 70 0*282 668 70 0*284 654 70 0
08285 10/17*286 637 60 0*289 618 60 0*291 601 60 0*293 580 60 0
08290 HR
Track slightly adjusted to provide for a more realistic motion. It was
suggested by Perez (personal communication, 2003) that instead of a
hard right turn by this storm, that a cyclonic loop may have been
tracked from late on the 12th to the 14th. Without more definitive
information, the original track in HURDAT is retained.
********************************************************************************
1885/01: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), who made
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).
990 mb central pressure corresponds to 63 kt from the subtropical
wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track. 981 mb central
pressure corresponds to 72 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship
- 70 kt chosen for best track. 983 mb central pressure corresponds
to 70 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt
chosen for best track. A pressure reading of 975 mb not in the
hurricane's center (at 18 UTC on the 10th of August) suggests winds
of at least 78 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship
- 80 kt chosen for best track. The storm is determined to have reached
hurricane intensity from these pressure reports and several other ship
reports.
********************************************************************************
1885/02: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), who made large
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993). These track
changes are found to be reasonable. Inland decay model of Kaplan and
DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the S.E. United States.
958 mb central pressure corresponds to 91 kt in the northern wind-pressure
relationship - 90 kt chosen for best track. A pressure reading of 976 mb
not in the hurricane's center (at 06 UTC on 25th of August) suggests winds
of at least 80 kt from the subtropical latitude wind-pressure relationship -
100 kt chosen for best track (because of this information as well
as extreme damage caused by winds in South Carolina). This is the
basis for determining that the storm reached major hurricane intensity.
1885/02 - 2011 REVISION:
08430 08/21/1885 M= 8 2 SNBR= 234 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
08430 08/21/1885 M= 8 2 SNBR= 234 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
*
08435 08/21*212 670 40 0*212 684 40 0*214 698 40 0*215 714 40 0*
08440 08/22*217 725 50 0*220 738 50 0*222 751 50 0*226 763 50 0*
08445 08/23*230 771 60 0*235 780 60 0*242 786 60 0*251 791 60 0*
08450 08/24*261 795 70 0*270 799 70 0*283 803 80 0*294 806 80 0*
08450 08/24*261 795 70 0*270 799 70 0*283 803 80 0*294 806 90 0*
**
08455 08/25*305 808 90 0*316 808 100 0*328 804 90 0*340 789 80 0*
08455 08/25*304 808 90 0*314 807 90 0*326 801 90 970*338 789 80 0*
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
08460 08/26*350 769 70 0*359 748 70 0*370 720 80 0*384 679 80 0*
08460 08/26*350 769 70 0*360 748 70 0*370 720 80 0*384 679 80 0*
***
08465 08/27*404 629 90 958*425 578 90 0*443 535 80 0*460 500 80 0*
08470 08/28E475 465 70 0E489 430 70 0E500 400 60 0E510 370 60 0*
08475 HR SC3 NC2 GA1DFL1
08475 HR SC2 NC1 GA1DFL1
*** ***
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States
Winds Simpson Pressure Affected
2-8/25/1885 0900Z 32.2N 80.7W 100kt 3 (953mb) SC3,NC2,GA1,DFL1
2-8/25/1885 1200Z 32.6N 80.1W 90kt 2 970mb SC2,NC1,GA1,DFL1
**** **** **** *** * *** *** ***
This hurricane along with four other 19th Century South Carolina hurricanes was the
focus of a Master's Thesis by Doug Mayes at University of South Carolina (Mayes 2006).
Meteorological, storm surge, and wind-caused structural damage evidence documented
therein are all consistent with an analysis of a landfalling Category 2 hurricane in
South Carolina, which would be a downgrade from a Category 3 hurricane originally.
Additionally, Mayes documented a slight shift in landfall location. These points are
summarized from the thesis below:
1) Careful analysis of a Charleston barometer (which was corrected for elevation,
gravity, and attached thermometer) shows that the eye (not the eyewall) passed right
over Charleston clearly with a lowest reading of 974 mb (pages 48-51 in Mayes 2006):
"In Charleston the wind began blowing from the east on Monday, August 24th. It
continued through the night shifting to the southeast. At daylight on Tuesday morning,
August 25th, the wind was coming from the southeast at around 26 kts (13m/s)
with gusts reaching about 44 kts (22 ms-1). At 8:00 AM Tuesday the anemometer was
broken by the wind. The Signal Service observer estimated wind velocities to be about
56 kts (29 ms-1) between 7:30 and 7:45 AM, and 65-70 kts (33-36 ms-1) between 8:00 AM
and 9:00 AM. At this time the eye of the hurricane passed over Charleston. The lull
lasted approximately 40 minutes. The wind then returned from the west. The lowest
barometer reading, 974 mb (28.72 inches), occurred at 9:15 AM."
(The measurement was originally listed in Monthly Weather Review as 972.9 mb.) This
observation, along with others along the coast, suggest a landfall around 12 UTC on
the 25th at John's Island near 32.6N, 80.1W. Given the one hour time it took the
hurricane to go from the coast to downtown Charleston, it is estimated that the central
pressure at the coast was slightly lower - around 970 mb. A 970 mb pressure suggest
winds of 85 kt from the subtropical pressure-wind relationship - which would be a
minimal Category 2 hurricane. Additionally, there is no data in the area outside of
Charleston (including instrumental data from Savannah and in North Carolina) to suggest
that the storm was any stronger.
2) Detailed mapping of the extent of the storm surge at the block-scale in downtown
Charleston reveals it is consistent with a low-moderate Category 2 hurricane when
comparing with what is normally expected with the storm surge extent according to the
SLOSH model. Comparisons of the historical storm surge extent with the CARA-COOPS
model (which took account the specific direction and intensity of a storm in its
approach to Charleston) also shows very close results at a Category 2 hurricane intensity.
Note that a Category 3 hurricane would be expected to have a storm surge extend over the
Charleston Neck (considering various directions on the track), and this is clearly not
demonstrated from the vast historical data (hundreds of accounts).
3) Reconstruction of the wind-caused structural damage give analyses in mostly in the
moderate category consistent with at most a Category 2 hurricane landfall. Architectural
aspects of tin roofs (and poor construction during Civil War recovery) is well known to
historians, and this likely also contributed some to the damage during the hurricane.
Given this evidence (and on the rather weak account that it was classified as a
Category 3 hurricane originally), the hurricane is reclassified as a Category 2
hurricane at landfall. Given the 10 kt resolution of HURDAT during this time period,
90 kt is estimated for the maximum sustained winds to have occurred at landfall. The
impact is reduced from Category 3 to 2 for South Carolina and Category 2 to 1 for
North Carolina. The track is adjusted slightly to the southeast on the 25th to
position the hurricane as making a direct landfall on Charleston. Additionally, from
the descriptions of moderate wind damage to northeast Florida as the system skirted the
coast, winds are boosted slightly from 80 to 90 kt at 18 UTC on the 24th, though the
impact is kept at a Category 1 for that portion of Florida.
********************************************************************************
1885/03: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996). Track
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993). Inland decay model of Kaplan
and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the S.E. United
States. The best track provided appears to describe the full life cycle
of this tropical cyclone (from its formation as a tropical storm until
its dissipation below tropical storm intensity).
********************************************************************************
1885/04: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996). Track
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993). Inland decay model of Kaplan
and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the S.E. United
States. Two pressure readings of 973 mb and 975 mb not in the hurricane's
center (both at 06 UTC on the 23rd of September) suggests winds of at
least 80 kt and 79 kt respectively from the northern wind-pressure
relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track. This storm is determined to
have reached hurricane status based upon these peripheral pressures.
********************************************************************************
1885/05: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996). Track
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993). 999 mb central pressure
corresponds to a wind of 49 kt from the southern wind-pressure
relationship - 50 kt utilized in best track. Storm is determined to
have reached hurricane intensity based upon reports from the ship
"Sirius".
********************************************************************************
1885/06: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996). Track
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993). Inland decay model of Kaplan
and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the S.E. United
States. Storm determined to have reached hurricane intensity while
over the Atlantic based upon reports from the ship "Lone Star".
1885/06 - 2003 REVISION:
08370 09/24/1885 M= 9 6 SNBR= 233 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
08370 09/24/1885 M= 9 6 SNBR= 237 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
08375 09/24*264 878 40 0*267 879 40 0*270 880 40 0*274 881 40 0
08380 09/25*278 883 50 0*282 884 50 0*287 886 50 0*290 888 50 0
08385 09/26*293 889 60 0*297 890 60 0*300 891 60 0*302 890 60 0
08390 09/27*303 889 60 0*304 888 50 0*305 886 50 0*306 884 40 0
08395 09/28*306 881 40 0*306 878 40 0*306 874 40 0*306 870 40 0
08400 09/29*306 865 40 0*306 860 40 0*305 854 40 0*304 848 40 0
08400 09/29*306 865 30 0*306 860 30 0*305 854 30 0*304 848 30 0
** ** ** **
08405 09/30*303 840 40 0*302 833 40 0*302 828 40 0*302 818 40 0
08405 09/30*303 840 30 0*302 833 30 0*302 828 30 0*302 818 30 0
** ** ** **
08410 10/01*304 808 40 0*307 796 40 0*312 788 50 0*320 778 60 0
08415 10/02*329 770 60 0*338 763 60 0*345 756 70 0*355 741 70 0
08420 HR
Decay stage of this storm to a tropical depression while over land
on the 29th and 30th inadvertently left out from the first revision of
the best track.
********************************************************************************
1885/07: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996). Track
unaltered from Neumann et al. (1993). A pressure reading of 982 mb
not in the hurricane's center (at 12 UTC on the 29th of September)
suggests winds of at least 71 kt from the northern wind-pressure
relationship - 80 kt chosen for the best track. Storm determined to
have reached hurricane intensity based upon this peripheral pressure
reading and wind reports from the ship "Mistletoe".
********************************************************************************
1885/08: No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996), who made
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1993).
Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds
over the eastern United States. The best track provided appears to
describe the full life cycle of this tropical cyclone (from its formation
as a tropical storm until its dissipation as an extratropical storm).
1885/08: 2003 REVISION
08585 10/08/1885 M= 7 8 SNBR= 235 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
08585 10/10/1885 M= 5 8 SNBR= 239 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
* ***
08590 10/08*172 805 40 0*176 806 40 0*180 809 40 0*187 811 40 0
08595 10/09*195 815 40 0*201 816 40 0*209 821 40 0*217 823 40 0
(The 8th and 9th are omitted from the revised HURDAT.)
08600 10/10*225 826 40 0*232 828 40 0*239 830 40 0*247 833 40 0
08600 10/10* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*239 830 40 0*247 833 40 0
*** *** ** *** *** **
08605 10/11*257 836 50 0*265 839 50 0*273 840 60 0*286 836 60 0
08610 10/12*300 830 50 0*314 824 50 0*330 815 40 0*340 808 40 0
08615 10/13*349 800 40 0*362 790 40 0E374 784 40 0E390 780 40 0
08620 10/14E405 775 40 0E420 770 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
08625 TS
Re-analysis of Cuban tropical storms and hurricanes (Perez 2000) reveals
that this system was not yet of tropical storm strength from the 8th
until early on the 10th based upon the Cuban observational network.
While it is quite possible that the system was of tropical depression
intensity on these dates, formative tropical depression stage is not
included in HURDAT until 1886.
********************************************************************************
08500 06/13/1886 M= 3 1 SNBR= 236 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
08500 06/13/1886 M= 3 1 SNBR= 240 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
*** *
08505 06/13* 0 0 0 0*232 957 35 0*247 959 40 0*260 960 45 0
08510 06/14*269 958 45 0*279 954 50 0*289 946 50 0*298 938 50 0
08510 06/14*269 958 55 0*279 953 65 0*289 947 75 0*299 940 85 0
** *** ** *** ** *** *** **
08515 06/15*304 928 50 0*309 918 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
08515 06/15*306 930 60 0*310 918 45 0*312 904 35 0*312 890 30 0
*** *** ** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
08520 TS
08520 HRCTX2 LA2
****** ***
The only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996a) is to continue the
storm until 18Z on the 15th to allow for decay to tropical depression stage.
Partagas and Diaz otherwise made reasonable small alterations to the
track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Storm is upgraded to a Category 2
hurricane (85 kt) at landfall based upon damage and 7 foot storm tide at
Sabine Pass, Texas (Partagas and Diaz 1996a). Inland decay model of
Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Texas and
Louisiana.
1886/01 - 2011 REVISION:
08700 06/13/1886 M= 3 1 SNBR= 241 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
08705 06/13* 0 0 0 0*232 957 35 0*247 959 40 0*260 960 45 0*
08710 06/14*269 958 55 0*279 953 65 0*289 947 75 0*299 940 85 0*
08715 06/15*306 930 60 0*310 918 45 0*312 904 35 0*312 890 30 0*
08720 HRCTX2 LA2
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
1-6/14/1886 1600Z 29.6N 94.2W 85kt 2 --- (973mb) CTX2,LA2
1-6/14/1886 1600Z 29.6N 94.2W 85kt 2 --- (970mb) CTX2,LA2
***
The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Texas as an 85 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 973 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 970 mb -
for an 85 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
08525 06/18/1886 M= 6 2 SNBR= 237 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
08525 06/17/1886 M= 8 2 SNBR= 241 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
** * *** *
(17th not in HURDAT previously.)
08530 06/17*191 848 35 0*196 851 35 0*200 853 40 0*204 854 40 0
08530 06/18* 0 0 0 0*194 850 35 0*198 853 50 0*201 856 65 0
08532 06/18*207 856 45 0*211 856 50 0*217 857 55 0*221 857 65 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
08535 06/19*204 858 70 0*208 861 75 0*214 864 80 0*218 865 80 0
08535 06/19*225 857 70 0*229 856 75 0*233 853 80 0*238 851 80 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
08540 06/20*224 868 85 0*232 869 85 0*242 870 85 0*254 868 85 0
08540 06/20*243 849 85 0*247 847 85 0*253 845 85 0*263 844 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
08545 06/21*267 864 85 0*280 857 85 0*294 850 85 0*308 843 75 0
08545 06/21*277 842 85 0*289 841 85 0*303 840 80 0*313 838 65 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** **
08550 06/22*323 832 50 0*338 822 40 0*352 810 35 0*363 793 35 0
08550 06/22*323 832 45 0*338 822 40 0*352 810 35 0*363 793 35 0
**
08555 06/23*373 780 35 0*384 769 35 0*393 753 35 0*399 732 35 0
08555 06/23*373 780 30 0*384 769 30 0*393 753 30 0*399 732 30 0
** ** ** **
(24th not in HURDAT previously.)
08557 06/24*402 700 30 0*401 660 30 0*400 615 30 0*399 570 30 0
08560 HR
08560 HRAFL2 GA1
****** ***
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These
track changes are found to be reasonable. Inland decay model of
Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the eastern United
States.
1886/02 - 2006 REVISION:
08725 06/17/1886 M= 8 2 SNBR= 242 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
08730 06/17*191 848 35 0*196 851 35 0*200 853 40 0*204 854 40 0*
08735 06/18*207 856 45 0*211 856 50 0*217 857 55 0*221 857 65 0*
08740 06/19*225 857 70 0*229 856 75 0*233 853 80 0*238 851 80 0*
08745 06/20*243 849 85 0*247 847 85 0*253 845 85 0*263 844 85 0*
08750 06/21*277 842 85 0*289 841 85 0*303 840 80 0*313 838 65 0*
08755 06/22*323 832 45 0*338 822 40 0*352 810 35 0*363 793 35 0*
08760 06/23*373 780 30 0*384 769 30 0*393 753 30 0*399 732 30 0*
08765 06/24*402 700 30 0*401 660 30 0*400 615 30 0*399 570 30 0*
08770 HRAFL2 GA1
08770 HRAFL2IGA1
****
Revision indicated in continental U.S. impacts to specify that the Georgia
hurricane impact from this cyclone was inland, rather than along Georgia's
Atlantic coast.
1886/02 - 2011 REVISION:
08725 06/17/1886 M= 8 2 SNBR= 242 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
08730 06/17*191 848 35 0*196 851 35 0*200 853 40 0*204 854 40 0*
08735 06/18*207 856 45 0*211 856 50 0*217 857 55 0*221 857 65 0*
08740 06/19*225 857 70 0*229 856 75 0*233 853 80 0*238 851 80 0*
08745 06/20*243 849 85 0*247 847 85 0*253 845 85 0*263 844 85 0*
08750 06/21*277 842 85 0*289 841 85 0*303 840 80 0*313 838 65 0*
08755 06/22*323 832 45 0*338 822 40 0*352 810 35 0*363 793 35 0*
08760 06/23*373 780 30 0*384 769 30 0*393 753 30 0*399 732 30 0*
08765 06/24*402 700 30 0*401 660 30 0*400 615 30 0*399 570 30 0*
08770 HRAFL2IGA1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
2-6/21/1886 1100Z 30.1N 84.0W 85kt 2 --- (973mb) AFL2,IGA1
2-6/21/1886 1100Z 30.1N 84.0W 85kt 2 --- (970mb) AFL2,IGA1
***
The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Florida as an 85 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 973 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 970 mb -
for an 85 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
08565 06/27/1886 M= 6 3 SNBR= 238 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
08565 06/27/1886 M= 6 3 SNBR= 242 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
*** *
08570 06/27* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*170 801 35 0*176 823 45 0
08570 06/27* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*183 797 35 0*192 800 45 0
*** *** *** ***
08575 06/28*183 842 65 0*191 859 80 0*200 871 85 0*211 881 80 0
08575 06/28*199 803 55 0*207 807 65 0*215 815 75 0*220 825 80 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ***
08580 06/29*223 882 80 0*235 883 85 0*247 884 85 0*255 881 85 0
08580 06/29*224 835 70 0*229 842 70 0*237 853 75 0*246 860 80 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
08585 06/30*260 878 85 0*266 875 85 0*273 869 85 0*282 859 85 0
08585 06/30*256 864 85 0*264 867 85 0*273 867 85 0*288 860 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
08590 07/01*289 848 85 0*309 828 80 0*324 818 60 0*338 803 45 0
08590 07/01*304 844 70 0*318 827 55 0*330 813 50 0*338 803 45 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
08595 07/02*349 791 40 0*361 780 35 0*372 770 35 0*382 753 35 0
08600 HR
08600 HRAFL2
****
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track
changes are found to be reasonable. Analyses from Perez (2000) indicates
that the hurricane was only Category 1 at its landfall in Cuba; winds are
adjusted downward on the 28th and 29th. Changes made to the track near
Cuba are consistent with modifications suggested by Perez (2000). Inland
decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over
the eastern United States.
1886/03 - 2006 REVISION:
08775 06/27/1886 M= 6 3 SNBR= 243 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
08780 06/27* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*183 797 35 0*192 800 45 0*
08785 06/28*199 803 55 0*207 807 65 0*215 815 75 0*220 825 80 0*
08790 06/29*224 835 70 0*229 842 70 0*237 853 75 0*246 860 80 0*
08795 06/30*256 864 85 0*264 867 85 0*273 867 85 0*288 860 85 0*
08800 07/01*304 844 70 0*318 827 55 0*330 813 50 0*338 803 45 0*
08805 07/02*349 791 40 0*361 780 35 0*372 770 35 0*382 753 35 0*
08810 HRAFL2
08810 HRAFL2IGA1
****
Based upon research provided by Mark Jelinek and James Belanger from Georgia
Institute of Technology, this cyclone should be indicated as causing
inland hurricane conditions in Georgia based upon the existing track
and intensity in HURDAT.
1886/03 - 2011 REVISION:
08775 06/27/1886 M= 6 3 SNBR= 243 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
08780 06/27* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*183 797 35 0*192 800 45 0*
08785 06/28*199 803 55 0*207 807 65 0*215 815 75 0*220 825 80 0*
08790 06/29*224 835 70 0*229 842 70 0*237 853 75 0*246 860 80 0*
08795 06/30*256 864 85 0*264 867 85 0*273 867 85 0*288 860 85 0*
08800 07/01*304 844 70 0*318 827 55 0*330 813 50 0*338 803 45 0*
08805 07/02*349 791 40 0*361 780 35 0*372 770 35 0*382 753 35 0*
08810 HRAFL2IGA1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
3-6/30/1886 2100Z 29.7N 85.2W 85kt 2 --- (973mb) AFL2,IGA1
3-6/30/1886 2100Z 29.7N 85.2W 85kt 2 --- (970mb) AFL2,IGA1
***
The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Florida as an 85 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 973 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 970 mb -
for an 85 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
08605 07/14/1886 M= 7 4 SNBR= 239 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
08605 07/14/1886 M=11 4 SNBR= 243 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
** *** *
08610 07/14* 0 0 0 0*189 829 35 0*192 834 40 0*197 839 40 0
08610 07/14* 0 0 0 0*189 829 35 0*192 834 40 0*194 838 40 0
*** ***
08615 07/15*202 844 45 0*207 850 50 0*213 855 55 0*219 861 60 0
08615 07/15*196 842 45 0*198 846 45 0*200 850 50 0*202 853 50 0
*** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
08620 07/16*226 868 65 0*234 875 70 0*241 881 75 0*251 883 75 0
08620 07/16*204 856 55 0*206 858 55 0*207 860 60 0*209 859 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
08625 07/17*260 883 80 0*270 882 85 0*274 876 85 0*277 869 85 0
08625 07/17*211 857 60 0*213 855 60 0*215 853 65 0*224 848 65 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
08630 07/18*278 860 85 0*279 851 85 0*281 843 85 0*286 832 85 0
08630 07/18*237 844 70 0*251 839 70 0*265 835 70 0*276 833 70 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
08635 07/19*291 824 85 0*299 813 80 0*305 803 75 0*312 792 70 0
08635 07/19*287 828 70 0*295 821 55 0*303 810 50 0*314 786 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
08640 07/20*319 781 70 0*328 770 70 0*338 758 70 0*347 738 70 0
08640 07/20*327 756 70 0*339 726 75 0*350 700 75 0*358 680 75 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
(21st to 24th not in HURDAT previously.)
08641 07/21*368 653 70 0*377 626 70 0*387 600 70 0*398 569 70 990
08642 07/22*414 535 70 0*430 498 70 0*443 463 70 0*451 431 65 0
08643 07/23E461 395 60 0E470 356 60 0E480 320 60 0E495 290 60 0
08644 07/24E515 258 60 0E537 227 60 0E555 210 55 0E573 195 50 0
08645 HR
08645 HRAFL1
****
The only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996a) is to start the
storm on the 14th as depicted in Neumann et al instead of Partagas
and Diaz' start date of the 16th. Partagas and Diaz otherwise made
large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), which
are found to be reasonable. A possible central pressure of 990 mb
at 21Z on the 21st suggests 63 kt from the northern wind-pressure
relationship. Peripheral pressures of 993 mb at 06Z on the 22nd suggest at
least 59 kt. 70 kt chosen for best track for the 21st and early on the
22nd. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for
inland winds over Florida. Winds from the 17th to the 19th lowered slightly
as available observations indicate this system was likely of minimal
hurricane intensity while in the Gulf of Mexico and at landfall in Northwest
Florida. Observations from Sandrik (2001) suggest that the system weakened
quickly over Florida, before re-intensifying over the Atlantic after
oceanfall.
1886/04 - 2011 REVISION:
08815 07/14/1886 M=11 4 SNBR= 244 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
08820 07/14* 0 0 0 0*189 829 35 0*192 834 40 0*194 838 40 0*
08825 07/15*196 842 45 0*198 846 45 0*200 850 50 0*202 853 50 0*
08830 07/16*204 856 55 0*206 858 55 0*207 860 60 0*209 859 60 0*
08835 07/17*211 857 60 0*213 855 60 0*215 853 65 0*224 848 65 0*
08840 07/18*237 844 70 0*251 839 70 0*265 835 70 0*276 833 70 0*
08845 07/19*287 828 70 0*295 821 55 0*303 810 50 0*314 786 60 0*
08850 07/20*327 756 70 0*339 726 75 0*350 700 75 0*358 680 75 0*
08855 07/21*368 653 70 0*377 626 70 0*387 600 70 0*398 569 70 990*
08860 07/22*414 535 70 0*430 498 70 0*443 463 70 0*451 431 65 0*
08865 07/23E461 395 60 0E470 356 60 0E480 320 60 0E495 290 60 0*
08870 07/24E515 258 60 0E537 227 60 0E555 210 55 0E573 195 50 0*
08875 HRAFL1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
4-7/19/1886 0100Z 28.8N 82.7W 70kt 1 --- (985mb) AFL1
4-7/19/1886 0100Z 28.8N 82.7W 70kt 1 --- (982mb) AFL1
***
The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Florida as an 70 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 985 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 982 mb -
for a 70 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
08650 08/12/1886 M=10 5 SNBR= 240 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
08650 08/12/1886 M=10 5 SNBR= 244 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=4
*** *
08655 08/12* 0 0 0 0*105 580 35 0*111 589 50 0*117 606 60 0
08655 08/12* 0 0 0 0*105 580 35 0*111 589 40 0*118 598 45 0
** *** *** **
08660 08/13*123 621 70 0*129 635 75 0*133 646 80 0*137 654 80 0
08660 08/13*125 607 50 0*132 617 55 0*140 627 60 0*146 639 65 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
08665 08/14*140 661 85 0*143 667 85 0*147 676 85 0*151 687 85 0
08665 08/14*152 652 70 0*157 662 75 0*163 673 80 0*169 683 85 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ***
08670 08/15*155 698 85 0*159 708 85 0*164 719 85 0*169 729 85 0
08670 08/15*174 693 85 0*179 702 85 0*183 713 80 0*186 726 75 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** **
08675 08/16*174 740 85 0*180 750 85 0*187 760 85 0*199 769 80 0
08720 08/16*188 739 70 0*191 752 80 0*195 765 85 0*204 773 80 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ***
08680 08/17*211 775 75 0*221 782 70 0*229 796 55 0*238 811 60 0
08680 08/17*213 781 75 0*221 790 70 0*225 797 55 0*231 805 60 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
08685 08/18*247 833 65 0*255 856 70 0*261 873 75 0*263 886 75 0
08685 08/18*238 817 65 0*243 830 70 0*247 843 75 0*253 861 75 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
08690 08/19*262 898 80 0*262 910 80 0*263 919 85 0*265 933 85 0
08690 08/19*256 879 80 0*259 897 90 0*263 919 100 0*265 933 110 0
*** *** *** *** ** *** ***
08695 08/20*268 945 85 0*274 956 85 0*280 966 85 0*288 976 70 984
08695 08/20*268 945 120 0*274 956 130 0*280 966 135 925*290 980 85 965
*** *** ** *** *** *** ** ***
08700 08/21*297 984 60 0*308 993 50 0*3201000 35 0*3351013 25 0
08700 08/21*300 990 60 0*310 999 50 0*3201007 35 0*3351013 25 0
*** *** *** *** ****
08705 HR
08705 HRBTX4
******
The only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996a) is to start the
storm on the 12th as depicted in Neumann et al. instead of Partagas
and Diaz' start date of the 13th. Partagas and Diaz otherwise made
large alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), which
are found to be reasonable. A slower intensification of the storm
was indicated here compared with the original HURDAT for the 12th to the
14th due to evidence of tropical storm intensity until the 14th. The
analysis by Perez (2000) confirms landfall in Cuba as a Category 2 hurricane.
Changes made to the track near Cuba are consistent with modifications
suggested by Perez (2000).
Estimated central pressure from Ho (1989) of 915 mb at landfall in Texas
is incorrect since it relied upon a pressure measurement from San Antonio,
Texas, which has been found to be a surface pressure rather than a sea level
pressure value. Additionally, it is likely that this was not a central
pressure measurement either as strong winds were still observed at the time
of lowest pressure and that winds only shifted from northeast to southeast.
This sea level pressure measurement of 971 mb (corrected from the 948 mb
surface pressure value) at 19Z on the 20th implies a central pressure of
around 965 mb, assuming that the RMW estimate of Ho (of 12 nmi) is slightly
too small (15 nmi utilized instead). 965 mb suggests winds of 94 kt from
the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship for a marine exposure - 85 kt
utilized in best track for this inland location. Using methodology in Ho
et al. (1987) as modified by B. Jarvinen (personal communication), a 6.5 hr
transit time from landfall to a position near San Antonio, and the 965 mb
central pressure near San Antonio, a new value of 925 mb at landfall is
estimated for this hurricane. This suggests winds of 133 kt from the Gulf
of Mexico wind-pressure relationship. The estimate of 15 nmi for RMW is
slightly smaller than climatology (18 nmi) for this latitude and central
pressure (Vickery et al. 2000), supporting slightly stronger winds for this
particular storm. 135 kt is chosen as the maximum sustained winds at
landfall. This is consistent with the very high storm tide and extreme
destruction in Indianola, Texas. Storm surge modeling efforts with the
SLOSH model (B. Jarvinen, personal communication) indicate that a 925 mb
central pressure and RMW of 15 nmi provides reasonable matches to observed
surge values. Positions are altered slightly after landfall to better
account for passage of the hurricane's center near San Antonio at 19Z on
the 20th.A storm tide of 15' was reported for Indianola, Texas in Roth
(1997b).
1886/05 - 2011 REVISION:
08880 08/12/1886 M=10 5 SNBR= 245 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=4
08885 08/12* 0 0 0 0*105 580 35 0*111 589 40 0*118 598 45 0*
08890 08/13*125 607 50 0*132 617 55 0*140 627 60 0*146 639 65 0*
08895 08/14*152 652 70 0*157 662 75 0*163 673 80 0*169 683 85 0*
08900 08/15*174 693 85 0*179 702 85 0*183 713 80 0*186 726 75 0*
08905 08/16*188 739 70 0*191 752 80 0*195 765 85 0*204 773 80 0*
08910 08/17*213 781 75 0*221 790 70 0*225 797 55 0*231 805 60 0*
08915 08/18*238 817 65 0*243 830 70 0*247 843 75 0*253 861 75 0*
08920 08/19*256 879 80 0*259 897 90 0*263 919 100 0*265 933 110 0*
08925 08/20*268 945 120 0*274 956 130 0*280 966 135 925*290 980 85 965*
08925 08/20*268 945 120 0*274 956 130 0*280 966 130 925*290 980 85 965*
***
08930 08/21*300 990 60 0*310 996 50 0*3201007 35 0*3351013 25 0*
08935 HRBTX4
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
5-8/20/1886 1300Z 28.1N 96.8W 135kt 4 15nmi 925mb BTX4
5-8/20/1886 1300Z 28.1N 96.8W 130kt 4 15nmi 925mb BTX4
***
The 2003 reanalysis utilized a central pressure at landfall of 925 mb
at 13Z on the 20th in central Texas, which suggested 133 kt from the original
Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind relationship. The Brown et al. (2006)
pressure-wind relationship suggests winds of 128 kt from the north of
25N equation. Given an RMW close in size to the climatological average for this
central pressure and latitude (15 nmi - Vickery et al. 2000) and a near average
translational velocity at landfall of 12 kt, winds are estimated at landfall to
be 130 kt. This is a slight reduction from the 135 kt from the 2003 reanalysis,
but retains the Category 4 status at landfall in Texas.
********************************************************************************
08710 08/16/1886 M=12 6 SNBR= 241 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
08710 08/15/1886 M=13 6 SNBR= 245 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
** ** ***
(15th not in HURDAT previously.)
08712 08/15*146 545 55 0*144 555 60 0*143 565 65 0*141 577 70 0
08715 08/16* 0 0 0 0*120 600 45 0*120 612 50 0*121 624 60 0
08715 08/16*138 589 75 0*135 600 85 0*130 613 95 0*127 624 95 0
*** *** ** *** ** *** *** ** *** **
08720 08/17*122 636 70 0*123 649 75 0*125 662 80 0*127 676 85 0
08720 08/17*125 637 95 0*125 651 90 0*125 665 85 0*125 678 85 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** *** ***
08725 08/18*129 691 85 0*131 706 85 0*134 720 85 0*137 731 85 0
08725 08/18*126 692 85 0*128 706 85 0*130 717 85 0*132 725 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
08730 08/19*140 741 85 0*144 749 85 0*148 755 85 0*153 760 85 0
08730 08/19*137 733 85 0*141 739 85 0*147 745 85 0*159 753 90 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** **
08735 08/20*159 768 85 0*165 775 85 0*170 779 85 0*175 782 85 0
08735 08/20*170 762 95 0*179 768 95 0*185 773 95 0*190 778 95 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
08740 08/21*180 785 85 0*185 787 85 0*190 791 85 0*195 794 85 0
08740 08/21*197 784 95 0*204 788 100 0*210 790 105 0*213 790 105 0
*** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
08745 08/22*199 796 85 0*205 798 85 0*214 800 85 0*228 805 80 0
08745 08/22*215 790 105 0*217 790 90 0*220 790 80 0*231 790 80 0
*** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ***
08750 08/23*241 802 80 0*260 791 85 0*280 779 85 0*298 768 85 0
08750 08/23*246 790 80 0*263 787 85 0*280 779 85 0*298 768 85 0
*** *** *** ***
08755 08/24*318 755 85 0*336 743 85 0*350 732 85 0*360 723 85 0
08760 08/25*367 716 85 0*374 708 85 0*382 700 85 0*391 690 85 0
08765 08/26*399 678 85 0*408 665 80 0*416 650 75 0*420 632 70 0
08770 08/27*422 611 65 0*425 586 60 0*430 560 60 0*436 533 60 0
08775 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track changes are
found to be reasonable. 979 mb peripheral pressure at 00Z on the 18th
suggests at least 79 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 85 kt
retained in best track. 977 mb peripheral pressure at 06Z on the 20th
suggests at least 81 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship -
95 kt used in best track. 989 mb peripheral pressure on 18Z on the 26th
suggests at least least 64 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship
- 70 kt used in best track. Winds increased from the 15th to the 17th and
the 19th to the 23rd compared to original HURDAT based upon numerous ship
reports, the peripheral pressure readings and moderate to severe damage in
St. Vincent, Jamaica and Cuba. Hurricane is analyzed by Perez (2000) to be
a Category 3 hurricane at landfall in Cuba; winds increased on the 21st and
22nd accordingly. Changes made to the track near Cuba are consistent with
modifications suggested by Perez (2000). Lifecycle of this hurricane is not
complete as information on the genesis (and possibly decay) are not
available.
********************************************************************************
08777 08/20/1886 M= 6 7 SNBR= 246 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
08777 08/20* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*317 710 40 0*301 690 50 0
08777 08/21*292 655 60 0*300 627 75 0*323 617 95 0*338 624 100 0
08777 08/22*350 634 100 0*359 642 100 0*370 650 100 0*381 660 95 0
08777 08/23*397 669 90 0*411 665 85 0*423 650 80 0*441 622 75 0
08777 08/24*459 584 70 0*476 541 65 0E485 500 60 0E486 461 55 0
08777 08/25E485 413 50 0E483 373 50 0E483 333 50 0E483 295 50 0
08777 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a) for this newly documented
hurricane. Peripheral pressure measurements of 962 mb at 15Z on the
21st and 963 mb at 04Z on the 22nd suggest at least 93 and 94 kt,
respectively, from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 100 kt
used in the best track, which makes the storm a major hurricane. 983 mb
peripheral pressure value at 00Z on the 23rd suggests at least 70 kt
from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt utilized in
best track.
********************************************************************************
08780 09/15/1886 M=10 7 SNBR= 242 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
08780 09/16/1886 M= 9 8 SNBR= 247 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
** ** *** *
08785 09/15* 0 0 0 0*140 602 35 0*144 613 45 0*148 626 60 0
(Track on the 15th is removed, since storm is relocated and begun on 16th.)
08790 09/16*150 640 70 0*152 654 80 0*153 668 80 0*152 682 85 0
08790 09/16*210 655 35 0*210 666 35 0*210 677 35 0*210 689 35 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
08795 09/17*152 697 85 0*152 712 85 0*152 727 85 0*159 748 85 0
08795 09/17*210 704 40 0*210 717 40 0*210 730 45 0*210 747 45 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
08800 09/18*174 761 85 0*190 781 85 0*203 802 85 0*213 825 85 0
08800 09/18*210 763 40 0*210 775 35 0*210 790 35 0*212 805 40 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
08805 09/19*221 852 85 0*226 879 85 0*229 902 85 0*226 920 85 0
08805 09/19*213 819 45 0*214 830 50 0*215 843 55 0*217 857 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
08810 09/20*221 931 85 0*219 943 85 0*220 950 85 0*222 952 85 0
08810 09/20*220 870 65 0*222 883 70 0*223 897 75 0*223 909 80 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
08815 09/21*224 955 85 0*227 957 85 0*230 959 85 0*233 961 85 0
08815 09/21*223 921 85 0*224 933 85 0*225 947 85 0*228 954 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
08820 09/22*237 963 85 0*240 965 85 0*244 967 85 0*249 969 85 0
08820 09/22*234 960 85 0*240 965 85 0*244 967 85 0*249 969 85 0
*** ***
08825 09/23*254 971 85 0*259 972 85 0*265 974 85 0*271 975 80 0
08825 09/23*254 971 85 0*259 972 85 0*265 974 80 0*271 975 75 0
** **
08830 09/24*278 975 75 0*285 974 65 0*292 973 45 0*309 970 30 0
08830 09/24*278 975 70 0*285 974 65 0*292 973 45 0*300 970 30 0
** ***
08835 HR
08835 HRATX1BTX1
********
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 7.
These track changes are found to be reasonable. Storm is reduced in
intensity relative to original HURDAT from the 16th to the 20th since
available observational evidence suggests that the storm reached hurricane
strength after it reached the Gulf of Mexico. A peripheral pressure reading
of 987 mb on 03Z on the 23rd suggests at least 67 kt from the Gulf of Mexico
wind-pressure relationship - 85 kt retained in best track at landfall in
Mexico. Category 1 conditions (80 kt) in Texas are supported by moderate
wind-caused damage in Brownsville. Track slightly altered at the storm's end
for a more realistic motion.
********************************************************************************
08840 09/26/1886 M= 5 8 SNBR= 243 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
08840 09/22/1886 M= 9 9 SNBR= 248 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
** * * ***
(22nd to the 25th not in HURDAT previously.)
08841 09/22*229 667 50 0*232 666 50 0*235 665 55 0*237 664 55 0
08842 09/23*240 663 60 0*244 661 65 0*247 660 70 0*248 660 75 0
08843 09/24*250 659 80 0*252 657 85 0*253 655 85 0*254 654 85 0
08844 09/25*255 652 85 0*257 650 85 0*258 650 85 0*260 650 85 0
08845 09/26* 0 0 0 0*215 655 35 0*223 662 40 0*235 666 45 0
08845 09/26*261 651 85 0*262 652 85 0*263 653 85 0*266 657 85 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
08850 09/27*246 669 55 0*256 673 60 0*262 676 65 0*267 679 70 0
08850 09/27*267 660 85 0*268 663 85 0*270 670 85 0*272 674 85 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
08855 09/28*271 683 75 0*275 686 75 0*279 690 80 0*283 695 85 0
08855 09/28*275 679 85 0*279 683 85 0*283 687 85 0*288 689 85 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ***
08860 09/29*287 701 85 0*290 707 85 0*294 712 85 0*298 715 85 0
08860 09/29*292 691 85 0*297 692 85 0*300 693 85 0*305 695 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
08865 09/30*301 715 80 0*305 714 75 0*311 710 50 0*317 705 35 0
08865 09/30*310 697 80 0*314 699 75 0*317 700 50 0*322 701 35 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
08870 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 8.
These track changes are found to be reasonable. Storm is increased in
intensity relative to original HURDAT from the 26th to the 28th based upon
ship reports in Partagas and Diaz. A peripheral pressure of 990 mb on 12Z
on the 23rd suggests at least 63 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure
relationship - 70 kt utilized in best track. Complete lifecycle of this
hurricane is not available as the genesis was not documented.
********************************************************************************
08875 10/08/1886 M= 6 9 SNBR= 244 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
08875 10/08/1886 M= 6 10 SNBR= 249 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
** *** *
08880 10/08*199 825 35 0*203 830 35 0*208 833 40 0*212 837 45 0
08880 10/08*199 825 50 0*203 830 55 0*208 833 60 0*212 837 65 0
** ** ** **
08885 10/09*217 841 50 0*222 844 55 0*227 848 55 0*233 851 60 0
08885 10/09*217 841 65 0*222 844 60 0*227 848 60 0*233 851 65 0
** ** ** **
08890 10/10*239 854 65 0*246 857 70 0*252 860 75 0*257 864 80 0
08895 10/11*262 869 85 0*267 875 85 0*272 881 85 0*276 890 85 0
08895 10/11*262 869 85 0*267 875 90 0*272 881 95 0*276 890 100 0
** ** ***
08900 10/12*279 903 85 0*282 917 85 0*286 927 85 0*292 933 85 0
08900 10/12*279 903 105 0*282 917 105 0*286 927 105 0*292 933 105 0
*** *** *** ***
08905 10/13*301 936 75 0*311 937 65 0*323 935 50 0*332 929 35 0
08905 10/13*301 936 80 0*311 937 65 0*323 935 50 0*332 929 35 0
**
08910 HR
08910 HR LA3CTX2
*******
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm
number 9. Peripheral pressures of 991 mb (20Z on the 9th), 985 mb (12Z on
the 10th), 987 mb (16Z on the 10th) and 983 mb (12Z on the 11th) suggest
at least 61 kt, 70 kt, 67 kt and 72 kt, respectively, from the Gulf of
Mexico wind-pressure relationship. Winds are increased from the 8th and
the 9th to accommodate ship reports and effects in Western Cuba consistent
with landfall of a Category 1 hurricane, which matches the assessment by
Perez (2000). Winds are increased for the 11th and 12th based upon ship
reports and effects at landfall in Texas and Louisiana. A storm tide of
12' was reported in Johnson Bayou, La. by Roth (1997a). This suggests
landfall of a Category 3 (955 mb/105 kt) hurricane based upon SLOSH runs
(B. Jarvinen, personal communication.) Lifecycle of this hurricane is not
complete as information on the genesis is not available.
1886/10 - 2011 REVISION:
09165 10/08/1886 M= 6 10 SNBR= 250 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
09170 10/08*199 825 50 0*203 830 55 0*208 833 60 0*212 837 65 0*
09175 10/09*217 841 65 0*222 844 60 0*227 848 60 0*233 851 65 0*
09180 10/10*239 854 65 0*246 857 70 0*252 860 75 0*257 864 80 0*
09185 10/11*262 869 85 0*267 875 90 0*272 881 95 0*276 890 100 0*
09190 10/12*279 903 105 0*282 917 105 0*286 927 105 0*292 933 105 0*
09195 10/13*301 936 75 0*311 937 65 0*323 935 50 0*332 929 35 0*
09200 HR LA3CTX2
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
10-10/12/1886 2200Z 29.8N 93.5W 105kt 3 --- (955mb) LA3,CTX2
10-10/12/1886 2200Z 29.8N 93.5W 105kt 3 --- (950mb) LA3,CTX2
***
The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Louisiana as a 105 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 955 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 950 mb -
for a 105 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
08911 10/10/1886 M= 6 11 SNBR= 250 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
08911 10/10*291 605 35 0*295 603 35 0*300 600 35 0*304 598 35 0
08911 10/11*307 597 40 0*311 595 40 0*313 593 40 0*316 590 40 0
08911 10/12*318 587 40 0*321 584 40 0*325 580 40 0*328 576 40 0
08911 10/13*331 571 45 0*334 566 45 0*337 560 45 0*340 553 45 0
08911 10/14*343 545 45 0*345 539 45 0*347 530 45 0*348 517 45 0
08911 10/15*350 502 40 0*350 484 40 0*350 470 35 0*350 459 35 0
08911 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a) for this newly documented
tropical storm.
********************************************************************************
08915 10/22/1886 M= 4 10 SNBR= 245 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
08915 10/21/1886 M= 6 12 SNBR= 251 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
* ** ***
(21st not in HURDAT previously.)
08920 10/21* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*178 730 35 0
08920 10/22* 0 0 0 0*199 687 35 0*210 686 35 0*220 682 40 0
08920 10/22*187 727 35 0*196 724 35 0*205 720 35 0*212 715 40 0
*** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** ***
08925 10/23*229 676 45 0*239 669 50 0*248 660 50 0*258 650 50 0
08925 10/23*219 708 45 0*227 699 50 0*237 687 55 0*244 675 60 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** **
08930 10/24*267 639 50 0*277 626 50 0*286 612 50 0*295 600 45 0
08930 10/24*249 666 60 0*253 657 60 0*257 645 60 0*260 634 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
08935 10/25*305 585 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
08935 10/25*264 626 55 0*267 617 50 0*270 607 45 0*272 597 45 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
(26th not in HURDAT previously.)
08937 10/26*274 589 40 0*275 581 40 0*277 570 35 0*279 560 35 0
08940 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large alterations
to track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 10.
These track changes are shown to be reasonable. Peripheral pressure of
992 mb at 09Z on the 24th suggests at least 61 kt from the southern wind-
pressure relationship - 60 kt chosen in best track because of lack of
hurricane winds reported and very large size of system (implying a weaker
pressure gradient for a given central pressure). Peripheral pressure of
997 mb on the 24th suggests at least 53 kt from the subtropical wind-
pressure relationship - 60 kt utilized.
********************************************************************************
1886 - Additional Notes:
Partagas and Diaz (1996a) mentioned three additional systems considered
for inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team agreed to leave them out
of HURDAT for the following reasons:
1) July 6-7, 1886: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
2) September 7, 1886: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
3) October 1-14, 1886: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
*******************************************************************************
08941 05/15/1887 M= 6 1 SNBR= 252 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
08941 05/15*293 638 35 0*298 642 35 0*303 647 40 0*308 652 40 0
08941 05/16*313 655 45 0*318 657 50 0*323 660 55 0*327 663 60 0
08941 05/17*332 665 60 0*337 667 60 0*343 667 60 0*349 667 55 0
08941 05/18*354 667 50 0*359 667 45 0E365 667 40 0E377 667 40 0
08941 05/19E395 664 40 0E411 658 35 0E423 650 35 0E440 635 35 0
08941 05/20E470 605 35 0E510 555 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
08941 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a) for this newly documented
tropical storm. A peripheral pressure of 997 mb at 16Z on the 16th
supports at least 53 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure
relationship - 60 kt utilized in best track.
********************************************************************************
08945 05/17/1887 M= 5 1 SNBR= 246 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
08945 05/17/1887 M= 5 2 SNBR= 253 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
* ***
08950 05/17*184 786 35 0*187 787 35 0*192 788 40 0*196 789 40 0
08950 05/17*156 769 35 0*160 772 35 0*165 775 40 0*171 779 40 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
08955 05/18*201 789 45 0*205 790 45 0*210 790 50 0*215 791 50 0
08955 05/18*177 783 45 0*183 786 45 0*189 787 50 0*195 787 50 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
08960 05/19*221 791 50 0*227 791 40 0*233 790 35 0*238 782 35 0
08960 05/19*203 784 50 0*213 780 40 0*220 775 35 0*226 770 35 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
08965 05/20*237 771 40 0*238 759 45 0*240 748 45 0*245 738 50 0
08965 05/20*232 765 40 0*236 758 45 0*240 748 45 0*245 738 50 0
*** *** *** ***
08970 05/21*252 728 50 0*261 718 50 0*271 708 45 0*282 703 35 0
08975 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 1.
These track changes are found to be reasonable. Peripheral pressure of
1002 mb at 20Z on the 18th suggests at least 43 kt - 50 kt used in best
track.
********************************************************************************
08976 06/11/1887 M= 4 3 SNBR= 254 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
08976 06/11* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*205 840 30 0*212 847 30 0
08976 06/12*219 853 30 0*227 859 35 0*235 865 35 0*243 869 35 0
08976 06/13*251 873 35 0*260 877 35 0*270 880 35 0*280 883 35 0
08976 06/14*290 885 35 0*300 887 35 0*310 888 30 0*320 888 30 0
08976 TS
Moderate changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a) for this newly documented
tropical storm. Storm is also carried for an additional day to account for
reasonable decay to tropical depression over land.
********************************************************************************
08980 07/20/1887 M= 9 2 SNBR= 247 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
08980 07/20/1887 M= 9 4 SNBR= 255 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
* *** *
08985 07/20* 0 0 0 0*120 582 35 0*121 594 45 0*125 621 55 0
08985 07/20*120 576 60 0*121 592 60 0*123 610 60 0*125 624 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** **
08990 07/21*127 636 60 0*129 649 70 0*132 663 75 0*134 676 75 0
08995 07/22*137 689 80 0*140 702 80 0*142 714 85 0*144 726 85 0
09000 07/23*146 738 85 0*147 750 85 0*150 765 85 0*151 774 85 0
09005 07/24*153 788 85 0*156 803 85 0*161 817 85 0*169 840 85 0
09010 07/25*179 855 85 0*189 862 85 0*203 869 85 0*215 872 85 0
09010 07/25*179 855 85 0*189 862 85 0*202 869 85 0*215 872 75 0
*** **
09015 07/26*227 873 85 0*239 875 85 0*251 876 85 0*263 877 85 0
09015 07/26*227 873 75 0*239 875 75 0*251 876 75 0*263 877 75 0
** ** ** **
09020 07/27*275 876 85 0*287 872 85 0*299 868 85 0*309 863 80 0
09020 07/27*275 876 75 0*287 872 75 0*299 868 75 0*309 863 65 0
** ** ** **
09025 07/28*317 858 70 0*323 854 60 0*328 850 50 0*336 844 35 0
09025 07/28*317 858 50 0*323 854 40 0*328 850 35 0*336 844 30 0
** ** ** **
09030 HR
09030 HRAFL1
****
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm
number 2. Storm intensity increased on the 20th based upon destruction
in Barbados. The hurricane is listed in Perez (2000) as a Category 1
hurricane for its impacts in Cuba, which is consistent with a Category 2
hurricane passing offshore of the island. Storm intensity decreased after
striking the Yucatan of Mexico. No evidence for the storm to be considered
stronger than a Category 1 hurricane in Northwest Florida, but it could be
that it struck an unpopulated stretch and that it was more intense than
listed here. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for
inland winds over Florida, Alabama and Georgia.
1887/04 - 2006 REVISION:
09390 07/20/1887 M= 9 4 SNBR= 256 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
09395 07/20*120 576 60 0*121 592 60 0*123 610 60 0*125 624 60 0*
09400 07/21*127 636 60 0*129 649 70 0*132 663 75 0*134 676 75 0*
09405 07/22*137 689 80 0*140 702 80 0*142 714 85 0*144 726 85 0*
09410 07/23*146 738 85 0*147 750 85 0*150 765 85 0*151 774 85 0*
09415 07/24*153 788 85 0*156 803 85 0*161 817 85 0*169 840 85 0*
09420 07/25*179 855 85 0*189 862 85 0*202 869 85 0*215 872 75 0*
09425 07/26*227 873 75 0*239 875 75 0*251 876 75 0*263 877 75 0*
09430 07/27*275 876 75 0*287 872 75 0*299 868 75 0*309 863 65 0*
09435 07/28*317 858 50 0*323 854 40 0*328 850 35 0*336 844 30 0*
09440 HRAFL1
09440 HRAFL1IAL1
****
Based upon research provided by Mark Jelinek and James Belanger from Georgia
Institute of Technology, this cyclone should be indicated as to causing
inland hurricane conditions in Alabama based upon the existing track
and intensity in HURDAT.
1887/04 - 2011 REVISION:
09390 07/20/1887 M= 9 4 SNBR= 256 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
09395 07/20*120 576 60 0*121 592 60 0*123 610 60 0*125 624 60 0*
09400 07/21*127 636 60 0*129 649 70 0*132 663 75 0*134 676 75 0*
09405 07/22*137 689 80 0*140 702 80 0*142 714 85 0*144 726 85 0*
09410 07/23*146 738 85 0*147 750 85 0*150 765 85 0*151 774 85 0*
09415 07/24*153 788 85 0*156 803 85 0*161 817 85 0*169 840 85 0*
09420 07/25*179 855 85 0*189 862 85 0*202 869 85 0*215 872 75 0*
09425 07/26*227 873 75 0*239 875 75 0*251 876 75 0*263 877 75 0*
09430 07/27*275 876 75 0*287 872 75 0*299 868 75 0*309 863 65 0*
09435 07/28*317 858 50 0*323 854 40 0*328 850 35 0*336 844 30 0*
09440 HRAFL1IAL1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
4-7/27/1887 1500Z 30.4N 86.6W 75kt 1 --- (981mb) AFL1,IAL1
4-7/27/1887 1500Z 30.4N 86.6W 75kt 1 --- (978mb) AFL1,IAL1
***
The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Florida as a 75 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 981 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 978 mb -
for a 75 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
09250 07/30/1887 M=10 3 SNBR= 248 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
09250 07/30/1887 M=10 5 SNBR= 256 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
* ***
09255 07/30* 0 0 0 0* 99 501 35 0*100 511 35 0*103 522 35 0
09260 07/31*105 532 35 0*108 542 40 0*110 550 40 0*112 557 40 0
09265 08/01*113 562 40 0*115 567 40 0*117 574 40 0*121 584 45 0
09270 08/02*125 595 45 0*129 606 45 0*133 615 45 0*136 623 50 0
09275 08/03*140 632 50 0*143 640 50 0*146 648 50 0*149 656 50 0
09280 08/04*152 664 50 0*155 672 50 0*158 680 50 0*161 688 50 0
09285 08/05*164 695 50 0*167 702 45 0*170 710 45 0*174 720 45 0
09290 08/06*178 732 45 0*184 745 40 0*190 760 40 0*195 771 40 0
09295 08/07*200 785 35 0*206 799 35 0*210 810 35 0*213 827 35 0
09300 08/08*214 840 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
09305 TS
Partagas and Diaz (1996a) introduced no changes from that shown in Neumann
et al. (1999), originally storm number 3.
********************************************************************************
09095 08/15/1887 M= 8 4 SNBR= 249 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
09095 08/14/1887 M=10 6 SNBR= 257 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
** ** * *** * *
(The 14th is new to HURDAT.)
09098 08/14* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*170 590 35 0*180 600 35 0
09100 08/15* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*227 623 35 0*230 635 40 0
09100 08/15*190 610 35 0*200 622 35 0*210 634 35 0*218 646 40 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ***
09105 08/16*233 647 40 0*236 658 45 0*238 670 50 0*240 681 50 0
09105 08/16*224 658 40 0*229 669 45 0*234 680 50 0*238 691 50 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
09110 08/17*242 693 55 0*244 704 60 0*246 714 65 0*249 724 70 0
09110 08/17*242 702 55 0*246 713 60 0*250 725 65 0*255 738 70 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
09115 08/18*252 733 75 0*255 741 80 0*258 750 85 0*261 759 90 0
09115 08/18*260 749 75 0*265 758 80 0*270 767 85 0*276 775 90 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
09120 08/19*264 767 90 0*268 775 95 0*272 783 100 0*274 787 100 0
09120 08/19*281 782 90 0*286 788 95 0*295 790 100 0*309 788 100 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
09125 08/20*276 790 100 0*278 792 105 0*280 794 105 0*292 796 105 0
09125 08/20*324 780 100 0*336 767 105 0*350 750 105 0*367 731 105 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
09130 08/21*305 791 100 0*322 780 95 0*339 761 90 0*361 738 80 0
09130 08/21*382 709 100 0*398 684 95 0*410 660 90 0*420 620 80 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
09135 08/22*387 701 60 0*404 669 50 0*418 635 40 0*429 590 35 0
09135 08/22*428 577 75 0*434 536 70 0E440 495 70 0E449 456 75 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** **
(23rd not in HURDAT previously.)
09137 08/23E460 420 70 0E476 386 70 0E490 350 70 972E506 300 70 0
09140 HR
09140 HR NC1
***
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 4.
These track changes are found to be reasonable. Peripheral pressures of
967 mb (07Z 20th) suggest winds of at least 88 kt from the subtropical wind-
pressure relationship - 105 kt retained as HURDAT winds. Central pressure
of 972 mb (18Z 23rd) suggest winds from the northern wind-pressure
relationship of 80 kt, respectively - 70 kt chosen for best track since
hurricane had transitioned to extratropical storm stage.
Additional observations obtained by Michael Chenoweth from the
_St. Christopher Advertiser and Weekly Intelligencer_ newspaper (St. Kitts,
17.4N, 62.7W) allow for an extension back a day and moderate adjustments
to existing positions. All observations made at 10am and 4pm. Read: date,
station pressure (inches mercury), temperature (F), weather, and wind:
Tuesday, August 16, 1887
Meteorological Register
10 Aug 29.80 29.78 84 83 Cloudy Clear E mod E light
11 Aug 29.77 29.78 83 83 Cloudy Cloudy E mod E mod
12 Aug 29.78 29.78 84 83 Clear Clear E mod E mod
13 Aug 29.79 29.79 85 82 Clear Clear E mod E light
14 Aug 29.78 29.70 84 84 Cloudy Cloudy ENE mod N fresh
15 Aug 29.70 29.72 81 82 Overcast Cloudy SW fresh SW fresh
16 Aug 29.80 29.80 85 82 Hazy Clear E light E light
General Remarks
10th - Fine bright day and clear moonlight night.
11th - 10 a.m. passing rain squalls, balance of day cloudy to fair, and
fine night. Last Quarter.
12th - Weather very fine and warm, and bright starry night.
13th - 120 p.m. A shower. Fine bright day and night.
14th - The weather today is very suspicious. During the night it blew in
gusts with light drizzly rain, and the wind went round to the NE. At
2 p.m. it began to get squally and gusty accompanied with short showers
of rain. The barometer became depressed,and went down one tenth. The
wind then began to blow from the N. At 6 o'clock it became quite clear
that a cyclone was passing to the North of this island. The wind later
veered very rapidly from N to NNW, then NW, with lightning in that
region and some distant thunder. Later in the night the wind hauled to
the Westward and finally settled at SW blowing fresh all the next day.
It is evident from the rapid changes of the wind that the stormfield
was not very extensive.
15th - Blowing fresh from the SW and cloudy. Towards afternoon and evening
it became clearer. Night clear and starry.
16th - Clear and pleasant day, night clear and starry.
Based upon these observations, it is analyzed that the system had a closed
circulation (i.e. westerly wind component) and was nearly due north of
the island around 09Z on the 15th. The track is extended back to 12Z on
the 14th, with a track substantially closer to St. Kitts than analyzed
before (but still outside any gale force wind region). However, little
can be deduced for intensity. Thus, continuing the system with minimal
(35 kt) tropical storm strength appears prudent.
1887/06 - 2006 REVISION:
09505 08/14/1887 M=10 6 SNBR= 258 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
09505 08/14/1887 M=10 6 SNBR= 258 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=1
*
09510 08/14* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*170 590 35 0*180 600 35 0*
09515 08/15*190 610 35 0*200 622 35 0*210 634 35 0*218 646 40 0*
09520 08/16*224 658 40 0*229 669 45 0*234 680 50 0*238 691 50 0*
09525 08/17*242 702 55 0*246 713 60 0*250 725 65 0*255 738 70 0*
09530 08/18*260 749 75 0*265 758 80 0*270 767 85 0*276 775 90 0*
09535 08/19*281 782 90 0*286 788 95 0*295 790 100 0*309 788 100 0*
09540 08/20*324 780 100 0*336 767 105 0*350 750 105 0*367 731 105 0*
09545 08/21*382 709 100 0*398 684 95 0*410 660 90 0*420 620 80 0*
09550 08/22*428 577 75 0*434 536 70 0E440 495 70 0E449 456 75 0*
09555 08/23E460 420 70 0E476 386 70 0E490 350 70 972E506 300 70 0*
09560 HR NC1
As the hurricane's center did not cross the U.S. coastline (but did
cause Category 1 conditions at the coast), the XING (continental
U.S. landfall indicator) is changed to "0".
********************************************************************************
09145 08/18/1887 M=10 5 SNBR= 250 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
09145 08/18/1887 M=10 7 SNBR= 258 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
* ***
09150 08/18* 0 0 0 0*169 574 35 0*172 584 50 0*177 593 65 0
09150 08/18* 0 0 0 0*180 600 35 0*188 610 35 0*196 620 35 0
*** *** *** *** ** *** *** **
09155 08/19*182 602 85 0*189 611 90 0*195 620 95 0*203 630 100 0
09155 08/19*204 632 40 0*212 645 45 0*220 660 50 0*228 675 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ***
09160 08/20*212 639 105 0*220 648 105 0*227 657 105 0*239 680 105 0
09160 08/20*236 690 55 0*243 705 55 0*250 720 60 0*255 733 60 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
09165 08/21*250 710 105 0*260 737 105 0*267 753 105 0*271 761 105 0
09165 08/21*259 744 65 0*261 753 75 0*263 760 85 0*264 766 95 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
09170 08/22*273 765 105 0*275 769 105 0*279 772 105 0*284 776 105 0
09170 08/22*265 772 105 0*266 778 110 0*270 783 110 0*278 786 110 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
09175 08/23*289 780 105 0*294 782 105 0*300 783 105 0*306 782 105 0
09175 08/23*286 787 110 0*293 786 110 0*300 785 110 0*307 784 110 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
09180 08/24*311 778 105 0*318 771 105 0*326 760 105 0*336 747 105 0
09180 08/24*314 782 110 0*318 780 110 0*323 777 110 0*333 767 110 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
09185 08/25*347 731 105 0*359 714 105 0*370 695 105 0*380 675 105 0
09185 08/25*342 756 110 0*350 744 110 0*357 733 110 0*367 713 110 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
09190 08/26*389 654 100 0*399 632 95 0*410 610 85 0*426 582 75 0
09190 08/26*379 691 105 0*390 663 105 0*400 640 100 0*420 603 100 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
09195 08/27*447 558 70 0*467 535 65 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
09195 08/27*443 560 95 0*463 514 85 0E485 460 75 0E507 397 65 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
09200 HR
Only one major change (detailed below) from Partagas and Diaz (1996a),
who otherwise made large, but reasonable alterations to the track shown in
Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 5. Intensities reduced from
the 18th to the 21st, since available observations indicate that the
system remained a tropical storm until the 21st and moderate (Category 1
and 2) hurricane status until the 22nd. Winds boosted on the 26th and 27th
based upon ship reports. Peripheral pressure of 994 mb (09Z on the 21st)
suggests winds of at least 58 kt from the southern wind-pressure
relationship - 75 kt chosen in best track (lowered from 105 kt).
Peripheral pressure of 955 mb (14Z on the 22nd) suggests winds of at least
99 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 110 kt chosen for
best track. Peripheral pressures of 952 mb (12Z on the 26th) and 955 mb
(17Z on the 26th) suggest winds of at least 96 kt and 93 kt, respectively,
from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 100 kt chosen for best
track. Peripheral pressure of 963 mb (00Z on the 27th) suggests winds of
at least 88 kt - 95 kt chosen for best track.
Additional observations obtained by Michael Chenoweth from the
_St. Christopher Advertiser and Weekly Intelligencer_ newspaper
(St. Kitts, 17.4N, 62.7W) allow for repositioning of the storm on the
18th to the 20th. All observations made at 10am and 4pm. Read: date,
station pressure (inches mercury), temperature (F), weather, and wind:
Tuesday, 23 August 1887
Meteorological Register
17 Aug 29.80 29.80 84 83 Clear Clear ENE light NE mod
18 Aug 29.75 29.72 86 85 Clear Clear NE light SW mod
19 Aug 29.80 29.80 85 85 Clear Clear S light S mod
20 Aug 29.80 29.78 84 82 Clear Cloudy E light ENE mod
General Remarks
17th - Bright and sunny day, and clear starry night.
18th - Today has been exceedingly hot and sultry, night bright starlight.
19th - The weather today has been very fine, and warm, sea moderately
smooth. Night overcast. At 8 p.m. a sudden flash of lightning
followed by a low roll of distant thunder. New moon.
20th - Weather bright with sunshine throughout the day. Afternoon sky
lightly overcast. Night clear and starry.
These observations suggest a closest approach to St. Kitts around 18Z
on the 18th (lowest pressure and wind shift to SW) as a relatively weak
system. Southerly winds on the 19th clearly indicate that the system
has moved to the west of the island. Large adjustment to track
proposed by Partagas is not too surprising given the lack of data
that Partagas could locate for the 18th through the 20th.
********************************************************************************
09205 09/01/1887 M= 6 6 SNBR= 251 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
09205 09/01/1887 M= 6 8 SNBR= 259 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
* ***
09210 09/01*279 533 35 0*288 539 40 0*297 545 45 0*306 554 50 0
09210 09/01*281 537 35 0*286 544 40 0*290 550 45 0*296 559 50 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
09215 09/02*314 560 55 0*325 567 65 0*334 571 75 0*357 572 80 0
09215 09/02*304 570 55 0*311 578 65 0*320 585 75 0*342 587 80 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
09220 09/03*380 567 85 0*403 553 85 0*428 518 85 0*447 475 85 0
09220 09/03*367 578 85 0*388 564 90 0*410 540 90 0*437 497 90 0
*** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
09225 09/04*465 430 85 0*482 392 75 0*500 350 65 0*519 320 60 0
09225 09/04*464 445 90 963*492 397 90 0E520 350 80 0E530 324 70 0
*** *** ** *** *** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** **
09230 09/05*533 296 55 0*549 269 50 0*557 230 50 0*553 181 50 0
09230 09/05E540 297 60 0E549 269 60 0E557 230 60 0E553 181 60 0
**** *** ** * ** * ** * **
09235 09/06*552 146 50 0*554 110 50 0*559 72 50 0* 0 0 0 0
09235 09/06E552 146 55 0E554 110 50 0E559 72 50 0* 0 0 0 0
* * *
09240 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm
number 6. Intensities increased from the 3rd to the 6th based upon
ship reports. A possible central pressure of 963 mb (22Z on the 3rd)
suggests winds of 88 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship -
90 kt chosen for best track. A peripheral pressure measurement of 985 mb
(17Z on the 4th) suggests winds of at least 68 kt from the northern
wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best track.
********************************************************************************
09245 09/11/1887 M=12 7 SNBR= 252 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
09245 09/11/1887 M=12 9 SNBR= 260 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
* *** *
09250 09/11* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*133 570 35 0*134 582 50 0
09250 09/11* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*133 570 35 0*134 582 40 0
**
09255 09/12*134 593 70 0*135 604 75 0*136 614 80 0*137 623 80 0
09255 09/12*134 593 45 0*135 604 50 0*136 614 55 0*137 623 60 0
** ** ** **
09260 09/13*138 631 80 0*139 639 85 0*140 648 85 0*141 662 85 0
09260 09/13*138 631 65 0*139 639 70 0*140 648 75 0*141 662 80 0
** ** ** **
09265 09/14*142 678 85 0*144 695 85 0*145 710 85 0*147 723 85 0
09270 09/15*150 735 85 0*153 747 85 0*157 760 85 0*162 778 85 0
09275 09/16*167 796 85 0*173 815 85 0*180 830 85 0*187 841 85 0
09280 09/17*195 851 85 0*203 859 85 0*210 866 85 0*214 872 85 0
09280 09/17*195 851 85 0*203 859 85 0*210 866 85 0*214 872 75 0
**
09285 09/18*219 877 85 0*223 883 85 0*230 890 85 0*231 893 85 0
09285 09/18*219 877 80 0*223 883 85 0*227 888 85 0*231 893 85 0
** *** ***
09290 09/19*235 898 85 0*239 903 85 0*245 910 85 0*250 917 85 0
09295 09/20*254 923 85 0*258 931 85 0*260 940 85 0*260 945 85 0
09295 09/20*254 923 85 0*258 931 85 0*260 940 85 0*261 948 85 0
*** ***
09300 09/21*260 949 85 0*260 954 85 0*260 959 85 0*260 964 85 0
09300 09/21*261 956 85 0*261 962 85 0*261 968 85 0*261 973 80 973
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** ***
09305 09/22*259 972 80 0*257 980 75 0*255 989 65 0*252 997 35 0
09305 09/22*260 979 60 0*258 984 45 0*255 989 35 0*250 996 30 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** ** *** *** **
09310 HR
09310 HRATX2
******
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm
number 7. Intensities reduced from the 11th to the 13th since hurricane
conditions were not noted in the Windward Islands. A central pressure
(16Z on the 21st) of 973 mb suggests winds of 85 kt from the Gulf of
Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 85 kt chosen for best track at
landfall. (Winds at 18Z on the 21st are slightly weaker.) Inland
decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over
Texas and Mexico.
1887/09 - 2011 REVISION:
09665 09/11/1887 M=12 9 SNBR= 261 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
09665 09/11/1887 M=12 9 SNBR= 261 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
*
09670 09/11* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*133 570 35 0*134 582 40 0*
09675 09/12*134 593 45 0*135 604 50 0*136 614 55 0*137 623 60 0*
09680 09/13*138 631 65 0*139 639 70 0*140 648 75 0*141 662 80 0*
09685 09/14*142 678 85 0*144 695 85 0*145 710 85 0*147 723 85 0*
09690 09/15*150 735 85 0*153 747 85 0*157 760 85 0*162 778 85 0*
09695 09/16*167 796 85 0*173 815 85 0*180 830 85 0*187 841 85 0*
09700 09/17*195 851 85 0*203 859 85 0*210 866 85 0*214 872 75 0*
09705 09/18*219 877 80 0*223 883 85 0*227 888 85 0*231 893 85 0*
09710 09/19*235 898 85 0*239 903 85 0*245 910 85 0*250 917 85 0*
09715 09/20*254 923 85 0*258 931 85 0*260 940 85 0*261 948 85 0*
09720 09/21*261 956 85 0*261 962 85 0*261 968 85 0*261 973 80 973*
09720 09/21*261 956 85 0*261 962 80 0*261 968 75 0*261 973 75 973*
** ** **
09725 09/22*260 979 60 0*258 984 45 0*255 989 35 0*250 996 30 0*
09730 HRATX2
09730 HRATX1
*
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
9-9/21/1887 1700Z 26.1N 97.2W 85kt 2 --- 973mb ATX2
9-9/21/1887 1700Z 26.1N 97.2W 75kt 1 --- 973mb ATX1
** * ****
The 2003 reanalysis utilized a 973 mb central pressure at landfall at 17Z on
the 21st in south Texas, which suggested 85 kt from the original Gulf of
Mexico pressure-wind relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) relationship
suggests 86 kt from the south of 25N equation and 81 kt from the north of 25N
equation (the hurricane made landfall at 26N). Examination of the Brownsville
and Port Isabel observations suggest an RMW of about 40 nm. Given that
climatology of RMW for this central pressure and latitude is 19 nm (Vickery et
al. 2000) and that it was moving at a slow 5 kt at landfall, winds at and just
before landfall are estimated to be 75 kt. This changes to hurricane to a
Category 1 impact for South Texas, downgraded from Category 2 originally.
********************************************************************************
09315 09/14/1887 M= 5 8 SNBR= 253 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
09315 09/14/1887 M= 5 10 SNBR= 261 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
** ***
09320 09/14* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*230 537 35 0
09325 09/15*243 541 40 0*262 547 40 0*281 550 45 0*299 552 50 0
09325 09/15*243 541 40 0*262 547 40 0*281 550 45 0*295 553 50 0
*** ***
09330 09/16*318 553 60 0*336 552 65 0*355 549 70 0*374 545 75 0
09330 09/16*308 555 55 0*325 556 60 0*340 553 65 0*354 551 70 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
09335 09/17*393 539 80 0*413 530 85 0*432 520 85 0*450 507 85 0
09335 09/17*374 547 70 0*393 541 70 0*410 535 70 0*428 527 70 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
09340 09/18*467 489 80 0*483 470 75 0*500 450 65 0*516 429 55 0
09340 09/18*457 514 70 983*480 498 65 0E505 480 60 0E531 445 55 0
*** *** ** *** *** *** ** **** *** ** **** ***
09345 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm
number 8. Intensities reduced from the 16th to the 18th since ship
observations only support category one conditions. A possible central
pressure of 983 mb (02Z on the 18th) suggests 70 kt from the
northern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt utilized in best track.
********************************************************************************
09350 10/06/1887 M= 3 9 SNBR= 254 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
09350 10/06/1887 M= 4 11 SNBR= 262 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
* ***
09355 10/06* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*197 847 35 0*197 860 45 0
09360 10/07*197 873 50 0*197 886 45 0*198 899 40 0*198 912 40 0
09365 10/08*198 925 45 0*199 937 50 0*200 950 50 0*201 978 35 0
09365 10/08*198 925 45 0*199 937 50 0*200 950 50 0*201 963 50 0
*** **
(9th not in HURDAT previously.)
09367 10/09*202 976 30 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
09370 TS
Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 9. Translational
speed too high at end of track. Adjustments made to correct this required the
addition of an extra six hourly position.
********************************************************************************
09375 10/09/1887 M= 3 10 SNBR= 255 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
09375 10/08/1887 M= 2 12 SNBR= 263 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
* * ** ***
(8th not in HURDAT previously.)
09377 10/08* 0 0 0 0*210 741 55 0*217 743 60 0*227 745 60 0
09380 10/09* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*190 805 35 0*202 812 45 0
09380 10/09*237 748 55 0*246 749 50 0*255 750 45 0*269 751 40 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
09385 10/10*213 822 50 0*221 834 50 0*228 850 45 0*233 861 50 0
09390 10/11*236 871 50 0*238 882 50 0*238 892 45 0*237 904 35 0
(10th and 11th removed from HURDAT.)
09395 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 10.
These dramatic track changes are found to be reasonable. A peripheral
pressure reading of 994 mb (10Z on the 8th) suggests winds of at least
58 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt chosen for best
track. Complete lifecycle of this tropical storm is not available as the
genesis (and possibly the decay) were not documented.
********************************************************************************
09400 10/09/1887 M=11 11 SNBR= 256 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
09400 10/09/1887 M=14 13 SNBR= 264 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
** ** *** *
09405 10/09* 0 0 0 0*191 597 35 0*192 610 45 0*193 624 55 0
09405 10/09* 0 0 0 0*191 597 35 0*192 610 40 0*193 624 45 0
** **
09410 10/10*193 638 65 0*194 652 75 0*194 666 80 0*194 680 85 0
09410 10/10*193 638 50 0*194 652 55 0*194 666 60 0*194 680 60 0
** ** ** **
09415 10/11*194 693 85 0*194 707 75 0*195 720 65 0*196 735 60 0
09415 10/11*194 697 60 0*194 711 50 0*195 727 45 0*195 743 55 0
*** ** *** ** *** ** *** *** **
09420 10/12*198 750 60 0*201 765 60 0*204 777 65 0*206 785 70 0
09420 10/12*196 760 65 0*197 774 70 0*200 787 75 0*203 798 75 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
09425 10/13*208 792 75 0*210 798 80 0*212 804 80 0*214 811 85 0
09425 10/13*207 809 75 0*211 819 75 0*215 827 75 0*217 834 75 0
*** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
09430 10/14*216 819 85 0*218 826 85 0*220 833 85 0*222 840 85 0
09430 10/14*220 841 70 0*222 847 65 0*225 853 65 0*226 859 70 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
09435 10/15*224 847 85 0*226 854 75 0*228 861 70 0*231 868 70 0
09435 10/15*229 865 75 0*231 870 75 0*233 875 75 0*235 878 75 0
*** *** ** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** **
09440 10/16*234 875 70 0*238 882 75 0*241 888 80 0*243 893 80 0
09440 10/16*237 882 75 0*239 885 75 0*241 888 75 0*243 893 75 0
*** ** *** *** ** **
09445 10/17*245 896 85 0*248 899 85 0*251 902 85 0*256 905 85 0
09445 10/17*245 896 75 0*248 899 75 0*251 902 75 0*256 905 75 0
** ** ** **
09450 10/18*263 909 85 0*271 912 85 0*277 913 85 0*283 911 85 0
09450 10/18*263 909 75 0*271 912 75 0*277 913 75 0*283 911 75 0
** ** ** **
09455 10/19*288 907 85 0*294 900 85 0*299 896 65 0*309 880 35 0
09455 10/19*289 907 75 0*295 900 65 0*302 891 55 0*309 880 45 0
*** ** *** ** *** *** ** **
(20th and 21st not in HURDAT previously.)
09457 10/20*315 861 35 0*322 841 30 0*330 825 30 0*344 799 30 0
09458 10/21E357 771 35 0E376 740 40 0E395 720 45 0E420 690 45 0
09459 10/22E466 652 45 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
09460 HR
09460 HR LA1
**
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 11.
These track changes are found to be reasonable. A peripheral pressure
reading of 989 mb (12Z on the 12th) suggests winds of at least 66 kt from
the southern wind-pressure relationship - 75 kt used in best track. A
peripheral pressure reading of 989 mb (on the 19th) suggests winds of at
least 64 kt from the Gulf wind-pressure relationship - 75 kt used in best
track. Hurricane status east of and at landfall into Hispanola is reduced
to tropical storm status since there is no evidence for this intensity.
The hurricane is reduced from the standard Category 2 (85 kt) in the original
HURDAT down to Category 1 (75 kt) while in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico
as available observation data suggests minimal hurricane status. This is
consistent with analysis by Perez (2000) indicating landfall as Category 1
hurricane over Cuba. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995)
utilized for inland winds over the Southeast U.S.
1887/13 - 2011 REVISION:
09820 10/09/1887 M=14 13 SNBR= 265 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
09825 10/09* 0 0 0 0*191 597 35 0*192 610 40 0*193 624 45 0*
09830 10/10*193 638 50 0*194 652 55 0*194 666 60 0*194 680 60 0*
09835 10/11*194 697 60 0*194 711 50 0*195 727 45 0*195 743 55 0*
09840 10/12*196 760 65 0*197 774 70 0*200 787 75 0*203 798 75 0*
09845 10/13*207 809 75 0*211 819 75 0*215 827 75 0*217 834 75 0*
09850 10/14*220 841 70 0*222 847 65 0*225 853 65 0*226 859 70 0*
09855 10/15*229 865 75 0*231 870 75 0*233 875 75 0*235 878 75 0*
09860 10/16*237 882 75 0*239 885 75 0*241 888 75 0*243 893 75 0*
09865 10/17*245 896 75 0*248 899 75 0*251 902 75 0*256 905 75 0*
09870 10/18*263 909 75 0*271 912 75 0*277 913 75 0*283 911 75 0*
09875 10/19*289 907 75 0*295 900 65 0*302 891 55 0*309 880 45 0*
09880 10/20*315 861 35 0*322 841 30 0*330 825 30 0*344 799 30 0*
09885 10/21E357 771 35 0E376 740 40 0E395 720 45 0E420 690 45 0*
09890 10/22E466 652 45 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*
09895 HR LA1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
13-10/19/1887 0200Z 29.1N 90.4W 75kt 1 --- (981mb) LA1
13-10/19/1887 0200Z 29.1N 90.4W 75kt 1 --- (978mb) LA1
***
The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Louisiana as a 75 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 981 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 978 mb -
for a 75 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
09465 10/10/1887 M= 3 12 SNBR= 257 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
09465 10/10/1887 M= 3 14 SNBR= 265 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
** ***
09470 10/10* 0 0 0 0*282 390 35 0*290 400 45 0*299 405 55 0
09470 10/10* 0 0 0 0*282 390 35 0*290 400 45 0*301 402 55 0
*** ***
09475 10/11*309 410 65 0*321 414 75 0*334 417 80 0*348 416 85 0
09475 10/11*313 402 65 0*325 401 75 0*337 400 75 0*352 399 75 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** **
09480 10/12*364 412 85 0*381 407 85 0*400 395 75 0*412 381 35 0
09480 10/12*368 398 75 0*384 397 75 0E400 395 60 0E412 381 35 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** * ** *
09485 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm
number 12. A peripheral pressure reading of 989 mb (22Z on the 11th)
suggests at least 64 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship -
75 kt used in best track. Peak winds reduced from the standard Category 2
(85 kt) in the original HURDAT down to Category 1 (75 kt) on the 11th and
12th, since evidence suggests only a minimal hurricane occurred.
********************************************************************************
09490 10/16/1887 M= 4 13 SNBR= 258 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
09490 10/15/1887 M= 5 15 SNBR= 266 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
** * ** ***
(The 15th is new to HURDAT.)
09492 10/15* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*140 480 70 0*146 490 75 0
09495 10/16* 0 0 0 0*161 512 35 0*170 520 35 0*184 530 40 0
09495 10/16*153 500 80 0*161 510 85 0*170 520 90 0*184 530 90 0
*** *** ** *** ** ** **
09500 10/17*197 538 45 0*209 544 45 0*220 550 50 0*229 554 50 0
09500 10/17*197 538 90 0*209 544 90 0*220 550 85 0*229 554 80 0
** ** ** **
09505 10/18*237 556 50 0*244 557 50 0*253 557 50 0*264 553 50 0
09505 10/18*237 556 70 0*244 557 60 0*253 557 55 0*264 553 50 0
** ** **
09510 10/19*276 547 45 0*290 537 40 0*304 525 35 0*317 513 25 0
09515 TS
09515 HR
**
Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any changes for this storm
from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 13.
Additional observations obtained by Michael Chenoweth from the
_St. Christopher Advertiser and Weekly Intelligencer_ newspaper
(St. Kitts, 17.4N, 62.7W) allow for an extension back a day and an
increase in intensity:
"Tuesday, 25 October 1887 - Royal Mail Steam Moselle arrived at
Barbados on October 18th and a couple of days before making port
encountered a hurricane: Wind began at noon of 15th from ENE. At 6pm
strong breeze. 8pm moderate gale, barometer steady. 10 pm fresh gale,
barometer falling. Midnight, strong gale. barometer falling, wind NE.
3 a.m. wind had increased to a hurricane, barometer 29[.00], wind NNE.
Between 3 am and 530am lost seven Boats, all Sheep Pens, and Fowl
Coops, with all Live Stock overboard and damaged one boat, leaving
only two small ones serviceable. Blew away Foretopsail and Foresail,
and Awning, and considerable damage was sustained around decks. At
5:30 a.m. wind NNE, barometer 28.80 blowing a fierce hurricane, with
furious squalls, wind North, backing West. 6 a.m. wind WSW with
mountainous seas. 7 a.m. Ship hove to on port tack, wind and sea
decreasing."
These observations clearly indicate hurricane intensity was achieved
by this storm. The 975 mb peripheral pressure (around 1030 UTC on
the 6th) suggests winds of at least 84 kt from the southern wind-
pressure relationship - 90 kt used in best track. Winds adjusted for
the 15th to the 18th, accordingly. Complete life cycle for this
hurricane is not known due to lack of knowledge of its genesis.
********************************************************************************
09520 10/29/1887 M= 4 14 SNBR= 259 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
09520 10/29/1887 M= 9 16 SNBR= 267 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
* ** ***
09525 10/29* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*251 849 35 0*268 823 40 0
09525 10/29* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*265 860 35 0*272 845 40 0
*** *** *** ***
09530 10/30*284 798 35 0*298 783 35 0*310 772 40 0*321 765 40 0
09530 10/30*280 830 40 0*289 815 35 0*300 800 40 0*313 787 45 0
*** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** **
09535 10/31*330 759 40 0*339 752 40 0*346 745 40 0*353 738 40 0
09535 10/31*327 774 50 0*339 761 55 0*348 748 60 0*354 734 60 993
*** *** ** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** ***
09540 11/01*359 731 40 0*364 723 40 0*368 716 35 0*373 708 35 0
09540 11/01E360 720 65 0E365 703 70 0E370 690 70 0E378 678 70 0
**** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** **
(2nd to 6th not in HURDAT previously.)
09541 11/02E385 666 65 0E392 654 65 0E400 640 60 0E406 617 60 0
09542 11/03E411 580 60 0E415 548 60 0E420 520 60 0E440 478 60 0
09543 11/04E474 442 60 0E511 402 60 0E530 360 60 0E536 320 60 0
09544 11/05E536 277 60 0E534 231 60 990E530 190 60 0E524 154 60 0
09545 11/06E518 114 55 0E508 73 50 0E500 40 45 0E483 4 40 0
09545 TS
U.S. Tropical Storm Landfall Data
---------------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max States
Winds Affected
16-10/29/1887$ 1800Z 26.8 82.3 40 FL
16-10/30/1887$ 0100Z 28.1 82.8 40 FL
** **** **** ****
Only one major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who otherwise made
large reasonable track alterations to that shown in Neumann et al. (1999),
originally storm number 14. A possible central pressure reading of 993 mb
(17Z on the 3lst) suggests winds of 59 kt from the northern wind-pressure
relationship - 60 kt used in best track. A central pressure of 990 mb (08Z on
the 5th) suggests winds of 63 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship -
60 kt used in best track since storm had transformed to extratropical.
Windspeeds increased from the 30th to the 1st to account for ship and coastal
observations (from Hudgins 2000, Roth and Cobb 2001).
The major change from Partagas and Diaz is due to work by Mr. Brian Jones of
the University of Miami, who uncovered observations from the U.S. military base
Fort Meade east of Tampa:
Fort Meade (27.7N, 81.8W):
----- Wind ------ --- Pressure --- Rain
Date 14Z 20Z 02Z 14Z 20Z 02Z
10/28/1887 E E 0 29.90 29.88 29.90 0.83"
10/29/1887 S S SW 29.82 29.78 29.78 0.16"
10/30/1887 NW NW NW 29.70 29.65 29.65
10/31/1887 NW NW NW 29.75 29.74 29.74
These observations suggest the point of closest approach to Fort Meade
occurred between the SW and NW wind directions, nearest to about 06Z
on the 30th. The track is shifted to go just north of the Fort based upon
these west winds. The minimum surface pressure value corresponds to a
sea level pressure of 1007 mb, which is supportive of just minimal tropical
storm conditions while crossing Florida already in HURDAT.
********************************************************************************
09550 11/27/1887 M= 8 15 SNBR= 260 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
09550 11/27/1887 M= 8 17 SNBR= 268 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
** ***
09555 11/27* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*221 670 35 0*231 686 40 0
09560 11/28*238 700 40 0*242 712 45 0*245 724 50 0*247 735 55 0
09560 11/28*238 700 40 0*242 712 45 0*245 724 50 0*245 728 55 0
*** ***
09565 11/29*246 748 60 0*236 752 70 0*230 747 75 0*232 730 80 0
09565 11/29*244 732 60 0*241 734 65 0*237 735 70 0*233 732 70 0
*** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
09570 11/30*239 712 80 0*248 699 85 0*256 685 85 0*260 676 85 0
09570 11/30*234 726 70 0*237 718 70 0*240 713 70 0*245 704 65 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
09575 12/01*264 667 85 0*268 659 85 0*272 653 85 0*275 648 80 0
09575 12/01*251 694 60 0*256 686 60 0*263 673 60 0*268 664 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
09580 12/02*278 644 80 0*280 640 75 0*283 635 70 0*287 629 70 0
09580 12/02*274 653 55 0*279 645 55 0*285 635 55 0*291 627 55 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** *** *** **
09585 12/03*291 623 65 0*296 617 60 0*303 610 55 0*311 601 50 0
09585 12/03*298 619 50 0*305 610 50 0*310 603 50 0*315 595 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
09590 12/04*320 588 50 0*329 575 45 0*339 565 40 0*349 555 35 0
09590 12/04*320 588 50 0*329 575 50 0*339 565 45 0*349 555 40 0
** **
09595 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 15.
These track changes are found to be reasonable. Winds reduced from the
28th until the 3rd since available observational data indicate that the
system peaked as a minimal hurricane (65 kt is chosen as peak winds),
rather than the standard Category 2 (85 kt) intensity in the original
HURDAT. Winds slightly increased on 4th due to a ship observation.
********************************************************************************
09600 12/04/1887 M= 7 16 SNBR= 261 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
09600 12/04/1887 M= 7 18 SNBR= 269 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
** ***
09605 12/04* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*192 541 35 0*207 574 40 0
09605 12/04* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*192 541 35 0*207 574 35 0
**
09610 12/05*221 600 40 0*235 619 50 0*248 628 50 0*261 632 55 0
09610 12/05*221 600 40 0*235 619 40 0*248 628 45 0*261 632 45 0
** ** **
09615 12/06*276 630 65 0*286 620 65 0*298 609 65 0*312 589 70 0
09615 12/06*276 630 50 0*286 620 50 0*298 609 55 0*312 589 60 0
** ** ** **
09620 12/07*326 571 75 0*340 556 75 0*353 543 80 0*361 518 80 0
09620 12/07*326 571 65 0*340 556 70 0*353 543 70 0*361 518 70 0
** ** ** **
09625 12/08*364 491 85 0*367 464 85 0*371 439 85 0*377 417 85 0
09625 12/08*364 491 70 0*367 464 70 0*371 439 70 0*377 417 65 0
** ** ** **
09630 12/09*384 396 85 0*392 377 85 0*400 360 80 0*409 346 75 0
09630 12/09E384 396 60 0E392 377 60 0E400 360 60 0E409 346 55 0
* ** * ** * ** * **
09635 12/10*419 334 70 0*430 325 60 0*442 318 50 0*454 313 35 0
09635 12/10E419 334 50 0E430 325 45 0E442 318 40 0E454 313 35 0
* ** * ** * ** *
09640 HR
Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 16. All gale
force or greater observations obtained for this system were the following:
50 kt from the southeast veering to the northwest around 02 UTC on the 7th
(Bark "Leocadia"), 70 kt around 17 UTC on the 7th (Steamship "Kate Fawcett"),
40 kt from the south-southwest veering to the west-northwest on the 8th
(Steamship "Orsino"), and 60 kt from the south veering to the northwest around
17 UTC on the 9th (Steamship "Westergate"). Winds are thus reduced for the
whole lifecycle of the storm since best available observations indicate that
the system likely peaked on the 7th and 8th as a minimal hurricane (70 kt
chosen as peak winds), rather than the standard Category 2 (85 kt) intensity
originally suggested in HURDAT.
********************************************************************************
09900 12/07/1887 M= 6 17 SNBR= 262 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
09900 12/07/1887 M= 6 19 SNBR= 270 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
** ***
09905 12/07* 0 0 0 0*125 585 35 0*127 596 35 0*129 606 40 0
09910 12/08*131 616 40 0*132 626 40 0*133 636 45 0*133 646 45 0
09915 12/09*133 657 45 0*132 668 50 0*130 680 50 0*128 695 50 0
09920 12/10*126 713 50 0*123 732 50 0*121 750 50 0*118 766 50 0
09925 12/11*115 782 50 0*113 796 50 0*110 810 50 0*109 815 45 0
09930 12/12*108 820 45 0*107 825 40 0*106 831 35 0*105 836 25 0
09935 TS
Partagas and Diaz (1996a) introduced no changes from that shown in Neumann
et al. (1999), originally storm number 17.
********************************************************************************
1887 - Additional Notes:
Partagas and Diaz (1996a) mentioned three additional systems considered
for inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team agreed to leave them out
of HURDAT for the following reasons:
1) June 10-15, 1887: Gale force intensity, but likely extratropical.
2) September 1-5, 1887: At least one (possible two) gale force wind reports,
but unclear if system was closed circulation.
3) October 22-23, 1887: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
4) Observations obtained by Michael Chenoweth from the _St. Christopher
Advertiser and Weekly Intelligencer_ newspaper (St. Kitts, 17.4N, 62.7W)
suggest the occurrence of (at least) a tropical depression that passed
south and then west of St. Kitts. However, without additional
information documenting tropical storm strength for this system, it will
not be added into HURDAT.
All observations made at 10am and 4pm. Read: date, station pressure (inches
mercury), temperature (F), weather, and wind (The altitude of the
observations were at approximately 30 m. Thus the surface pressures provided
below must be corrected by 0.1" to convert to sea level pressure values.)
Tuesday, September 27, 1887
Meteorological Register
20 Sep 29.80 29.78 78 81 Cloudy Overcast NE light E mod
21 Sep 29.80 29.75 83 84 Cloudy Cloudy E light S light
22 Sep 29.78 29.70 82 82 Cloudy Overcast S mod SW mod
23 Sep 29.80 29.80 85 84 Cloudy Hazy SSW light SW light
24 Sep 29.80 29.80 86 85 Clear Clear SW light SW light
25 Sep 29.80 29.80 86 86 Clear Clear SW light SW light
26 Sep 29.80 29.77 85 84 Clear Clear S light SE light
General Remarks
20th - Weather densely overcast with heavy showers of rain all day.
Night cloudy with passing showers.
21st - Commences with a cloudy sky and calm sultry atmosphere.
Mid-day intermittent sunshine. 5 p.m. raining. Night showery with
sheet lightning.
22nd - Commences with squalls of wind and rain. At 1 a.m. the wind
became boisterous, and the squalls reached the force of a moderate
gale, with frequent heavy showers. Barometer at 29.68. Noon very
squally in South, thick and raining. Night cloudy and squally.
23rd - (No account.)
24th - After the squally weather of the day before yesterday, the sky
cleared, the wind still from the southwest but light. Fine sunny
day. Night clear and dull. Plenty of sheet lightning.
25th - Bright and sunny day, clear and starry night.
26th - Warm and sunny day. 5 p.m. overcast and raining - clear
starlight night.
5) Another possible new system has been identified by Mr. Michael Chenoweth
to have struck southern Belize in October 1887. Below are some excerpts
from the _Colonial Guardian_ newspaper of Belize:
"The storm which swept last week [October 15-16, 1887] over the town,
has caused great havock in the country, blowing down trees, strewing the
truck-paths with them and rendering travelling impossible. We have been
credibly informed that many of the banana plantations of the Southern
District have been levelled with the ground; so that for three months
these plantations will produce little or nothing."
In the same day's issue, they identify the "City of Dallas" as sailing
from New Orleans and being a day late in arriving in Belize (with the new
Colonial Secretary) "due to a severe storm shortly after leaving", but the
exact date is not given. It arrived in Belize Wednesday afternoon,
October 19.
The difficulty in ascribing this destruction to a new tropical cyclone
is that storm 13 was occurring just 300-400 nmi to the north while
passing between Cuba and the Yucatan of Mexico. While it is not impossible
for two tropical systems to be that physically close to one another, it
is an unlikely event. It is also a possibility that the destruction
described here is due to storm 13, which may need a large alteration in
its track. At this point, it is recommended that this system be retained
as a possible new system (or storm 13 in need of revision of track) until
more information can be obtained to clarify the situation.
********************************************************************************
09685 06/16/1888 M= 3 1 SNBR= 263 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
09685 06/16/1888 M= 3 1 SNBR= 271 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
*** *
09690 06/16*275 932 35 0*277 937 55 0*280 943 70 0*282 948 85 0
09690 06/16*275 932 35 0*277 937 45 0*280 943 55 0*282 948 65 0
** ** **
09695 06/17*284 953 85 0*287 957 80 0*290 960 70 0*294 963 65 0
09695 06/17*284 953 70 0*287 957 70 0*290 960 50 0*294 963 40 0
** ** ** **
09700 06/18*299 965 55 0*304 967 50 0*310 968 45 0*313 966 35 0
09700 06/18*299 965 35 0*304 967 30 0*310 968 30 0*313 966 25 0
** ** ** **
09705 HR
09705 HRBTX1
****
Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Winds reduced moderately for the whole
lifecycle of the storm as available observation evidence suggests that this
system reached minimal (70 kt) hurricane status, rather than the standard
Category 2 (85 kt) utilized in the original HURDAT. Inland decay model of
Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) used for inland winds over Texas.
1888/01 - 2011 REVISION:
10150 06/16/1888 M= 3 1 SNBR= 272 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
10155 06/16*275 932 35 0*277 937 45 0*280 943 55 0*282 948 65 0*
10160 06/17*284 953 70 0*287 957 70 0*290 960 50 0*294 963 40 0*
10165 06/18*299 965 35 0*304 967 30 0*310 968 30 0*313 966 25 0*
10170 HRBTX1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
1-6/17/1888 0600Z 28.7N 95.7W 70kt 1 --- (985mb) BTX1
1-6/17/1888 0600Z 28.7N 95.7W 70kt 1 --- (982mb) BTX1
***
The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Texas as a 70 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 985 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 982 mb -
for a 70 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
09710 07/04/1888 M= 3 2 SNBR= 264 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
09710 07/04/1888 M= 3 2 SNBR= 272 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
09715 07/04* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*260 944 35 0*264 948 40 0
09720 07/05*270 951 50 0*276 953 50 0*283 955 50 0*291 956 45 0
09725 07/06*300 956 40 0*309 955 35 0*320 954 35 0* 0 0 0 0
09725 07/06*300 956 40 0*309 955 35 0*320 954 30 0* 0 0 0 0
**
09730 TS
Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Inland decay model of Kaplan and
DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Texas.
********************************************************************************
09735 08/14/1888 M=11 3 SNBR= 265 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
09735 08/14/1888 M=11 3 SNBR= 273 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
*** *
09740 08/14* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*213 713 35 0*218 724 40 0
09740 08/14* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*230 710 35 0*233 721 40 0
*** *** *** ***
09745 08/15*223 734 50 0*228 745 60 0*233 755 70 0*238 765 80 0
09745 08/15*238 734 50 0*241 745 60 0*243 755 70 0*246 765 80 0
*** *** *** ***
09750 08/16*243 774 90 0*248 783 95 0*253 793 95 0*257 806 90 0
09750 08/16*248 774 90 0*251 782 100 0*253 790 110 0*257 799 110 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
09755 08/17*262 822 85 0*266 838 90 0*269 853 90 0*271 867 95 0
09755 08/17*262 809 85 0*266 820 70 0*269 833 80 0*271 847 90 0
*** *** ** *** ** *** **
09760 08/18*271 880 95 0*272 891 95 0*273 899 95 0*276 904 95 0
09760 08/18*271 862 95 0*272 876 95 0*273 886 95 0*276 894 95 0
*** *** *** ***
09765 08/19*279 907 95 0*283 910 95 0*288 913 95 0*293 916 90 0
09765 08/19*279 900 95 0*283 904 95 0*288 906 95 0*293 908 85 0
*** *** *** *** **
09770 08/20*299 918 80 0*307 920 70 0*318 921 65 0*332 916 60 0
09770 08/20*299 909 75 0*307 910 70 0*318 910 65 0*332 908 60 0
*** ** *** *** ***
09775 08/21*348 901 55 0*365 878 50 0*380 850 45 0*393 813 45 0
09780 08/22*406 765 40 0*419 718 40 0*432 681 35 0*447 653 35 0
09780 08/22*406 765 40 0*419 718 40 0E432 681 50 0E447 653 50 0
* ** * **
09785 08/23*462 628 35 0*477 605 35 0*492 590 35 0*506 571 35 0
09785 08/23E462 628 50 0E477 605 50 0E492 590 45 0E506 571 45 0
* ** * ** * ** * **
09790 08/24*518 558 35 0*530 550 35 0*540 540 35 0*552 530 35 0
09790 08/24E518 558 40 0E530 550 40 0E540 540 35 0E552 530 35 0
* ** * ** * *
09795 HR
09795 HRCFL3BFL1 LA2
********** ***
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir- Central States
Winds Simpson Pressure Affected
3-8/16/1888$ 1700Z 25.6N 80.4W 100kt 3 (953mb) CFL3,BFL1
3-8/16/1888$ 1900Z 25.8N 80.1W 110kt 3 (945mb) CFL3,BFL1
**** **** **** *** ***
3-8/19/1888 2100Z 29.6N 91.7W 95kt 2 (964mb) LA2
Only one major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made otherwise made
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). A
peripheral pressure of 994 mb (around 21Z on the 20th) suggests winds of at
least 56 kt from the wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt at 18Z and 55 kt at
00Z are chosen for best track since reading was for inland station. A
peripheral pressure reading of 992 mb (around 12Z on the 22nd) suggests at
least 60 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 50 kt chosen for
best track since the storm had likely transitioned to extratropical
status. Winds increased while extratropical from the 22nd to the 24th
to account for wind and peripheral pressure data. A value of 14 foot
storm tide for Miami, Florida is reported in Barnes (1998a) - supporting
(at least) a high end Category 3 intensity at landfall.
The major change from Partagas and Diaz is due to work by Mr. Brian Jones of
the University of Miami, who uncovered observations from the U.S. military base
Fort Meade east of Tampa:
Fort Meade (27.7N, 81.8W):
----- Wind ------ --- Pressure --- Rain
Date 14Z 20Z 02Z 14Z 20Z 02Z
8/16/1888 NE NE NE 29.85 29.80 29.52 0.68"
8/17/1888 SE SE SE 29.50 29.88 29.65 0.50"
8/18/1888 E E 0 29.88 29.90 29.90 0.13"
These observations suggest the point of closest approach to Fort Meade
occurred between the NE and SE wind directions, nearest to about 06Z
on the 17th. This is an impact in Florida about 6 hours later than
estimated in the Partagas and Diaz analysis. The track is adjusted
accordingly on the 16th through the 18th. The minimum surface pressure value
corresponds to a sea level pressure of 1002 mb, though the hurricane center
likely passed a substantial distance to the south of the fort.
*******************************************************************************
1888/03 - 2009 REVISION:
10200 08/14/1888 M=11 3 SNBR= 274 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
10205 08/14* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*230 710 35 0*233 721 40 0*
10210 08/15*238 734 50 0*241 745 60 0*243 755 70 0*246 765 80 0*
10215 08/16*248 774 90 0*251 782 100 0*253 790 110 0*257 799 110 0*
10220 08/17*262 809 85 0*266 820 70 0*269 833 80 0*271 847 90 0*
10225 08/18*271 862 95 0*272 876 95 0*273 886 95 0*276 894 95 0*
10230 08/19*279 900 95 0*283 904 95 0*288 906 95 0*293 908 85 0*
10235 08/20*299 909 75 0*307 910 70 0*318 910 65 0*332 908 60 0*
10240 08/21*348 901 55 0*365 878 50 0*380 850 45 0*393 813 45 0*
10245 08/22*406 765 40 0*419 718 40 0E432 681 50 0E447 653 50 0*
10250 08/23E462 628 50 0E477 605 50 0E492 590 45 0E506 571 45 0*
10255 08/24E518 558 40 0E530 550 40 0E540 540 35 0E552 530 35 0*
10260 HRCFL3BFL1 LA2
10260 HRCFL3BFL1 LA2IMS1
****
The 12Z position on 8/20 (well inland over Mississippi) had a wind of 65 kt. Given
this it would make sense to code for an inland effect over Mississippi (i.e. IMS1),
which was unintentionally not counted as such previously.
1888/03 - 2011 REVISION:
10200 08/14/1888 M=11 3 SNBR= 274 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
10205 08/14* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*230 710 35 0*233 721 40 0*
10210 08/15*238 734 50 0*241 745 60 0*243 755 70 0*246 765 80 0*
10215 08/16*248 774 90 0*251 782 100 0*253 790 110 0*257 799 110 0*
10220 08/17*262 809 85 0*266 820 70 0*269 833 80 0*271 847 90 0*
10225 08/18*271 862 95 0*272 876 95 0*273 886 95 0*276 894 95 0*
10230 08/19*279 900 95 0*283 904 95 0*288 906 95 0*293 908 85 0*
10235 08/20*299 909 75 0*307 910 70 0*318 910 65 0*332 908 60 0*
10240 08/21*348 901 55 0*365 878 50 0*380 850 45 0*393 813 45 0*
10245 08/22*406 765 40 0*419 718 40 0E432 681 50 0E447 653 50 0*
10250 08/23E462 628 50 0E477 605 50 0E492 590 45 0E506 571 45 0*
10255 08/24E518 558 40 0E530 550 40 0E540 540 35 0E552 530 35 0*
10260 HRCFL3BFL1 LA2
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
3-8/16/1888 1900Z 25.8N 80.1W 110kt 3 --- (945mb) CFL3,BFL1
3-8/19/1888 1600Z 29.1N 90.7W 95kt 2 --- (964mb) LA2
3-8/19/1888 1600Z 29.1N 90.7W 95kt 2 --- (960mb) LA2
***
The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Louisiana as a 95 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 964 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 960 mb -
for a 95 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
09800 08/31/1888 M= 9 4 SNBR= 266 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
09800 08/31/1888 M= 9 4 SNBR= 274 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
09805 08/31*193 603 35 0*195 613 40 0*197 623 40 0*201 637 45 0
09805 08/31*193 603 60 0*195 613 65 0*197 623 70 0*201 637 70 0
** ** ** **
09810 09/01*205 649 50 0*208 661 55 0*210 671 60 0*211 679 60 0
09810 09/01*205 649 75 0*208 661 75 0*210 671 80 0*211 679 80 0
** ** ** **
09815 09/02*212 685 65 0*213 692 70 0*214 701 75 0*216 713 75 0
09815 09/02*212 685 85 0*213 692 85 0*214 701 90 0*216 713 90 0
** ** ** **
09820 09/03*218 724 80 0*219 736 85 0*221 748 85 0*223 759 85 0
09820 09/03*218 724 95 0*219 736 100 0*221 748 105 0*223 759 110 0
** *** *** ***
09825 09/04*224 770 85 0*226 781 85 0*227 792 85 0*227 805 75 0
09825 09/04*225 770 110 0*227 782 110 0*229 797 110 0*230 808 90 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** **
09830 09/05*226 820 70 0*223 834 70 0*221 847 70 0*219 856 70 0
09830 09/05*230 819 80 0*228 828 75 0*225 837 70 0*222 849 70 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ***
09835 09/06*216 864 70 0*214 871 70 0*211 880 70 0*208 890 70 0
09835 09/06*218 861 70 0*214 871 70 0*211 880 60 0*208 890 55 0
*** *** ** **
09840 09/07*205 900 70 0*202 911 80 0*199 923 85 0*195 933 85 0
09840 09/07*205 900 50 0*202 911 60 0*199 923 70 0*195 933 85 0
** ** **
09845 09/08*188 942 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
09845 09/08*190 943 75 0*180 952 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
*** *** ** *** *** **
09850 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Winds increased on
31st and 1st based upon ship report of hurricane force winds. Peripheral
pressure of 980 mb (17Z on the 2nd) suggests winds of at least 78 kt from
the southern wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt used in best track.
Peripheral pressure of 972 mb (12Z on the 3rd) suggests winds of at least
87 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 105 kt used in
best track. Peripheral pressure of 979 mb (14Z on the 4th) suggests
at least 79 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship. The pressure
readings on the 3rd and 4th along with extreme destruction in Sagua, Cuba
leads to a best track wind estimate of 110 kt at landfall, which is
consistent with the analysis of Perez (2000) of a Category 3 hurricane
landfall in Cuba. Changes made to the track near Cuba are consistent with
modifications suggested by Perez (2000). Inland decay model of Kaplan and
DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the Yucatan of Mexico. Track
extended six hours on the 8th for reasonable (though quick) final decay of
hurricane over Mexico. Complete lifecycle of this tropical storm is not
available as the genesis was not documented. The hurricane is known as
"El Huracan de Faquineto" for its impact in Cuba and "San Gil" for its
impact in Puerto Rico.
********************************************************************************
09855 09/06/1888 M= 8 5 SNBR= 267 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
09855 09/06/1888 M= 8 5 SNBR= 275 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
09860 09/06* 0 0 0 0*233 720 35 0*239 730 35 0*244 743 40 0
09860 09/06* 0 0 0 0*235 717 35 0*239 730 35 0*244 743 40 0
*** ***
09865 09/07*248 755 40 0*253 768 45 0*258 780 45 0*262 792 45 0
09870 09/08*266 803 45 0*270 814 35 0*274 824 35 0*279 829 40 0
09870 09/08*267 801 45 0*272 811 35 0*277 818 35 1002*283 824 40 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** **** *** ***
09875 09/09*285 831 45 0*292 831 50 999*301 829 35 0*312 823 35 0
09875 09/09*286 826 45 0*292 829 50 999*301 829 45 0*312 823 40 0
*** *** *** ** **
09880 09/10*325 815 35 0*339 806 35 0*350 797 35 0*359 788 35 0
09885 09/11*367 779 35 0*376 769 35 0*385 759 35 0*395 747 35 0
09885 09/11*367 779 35 0*376 769 35 0E385 759 35 0E395 747 35 0
* *
09890 09/12*406 733 35 0*418 716 35 0*430 699 35 0*442 675 35 0
09890 09/12E406 733 35 0E418 716 35 0E430 699 35 0E442 675 35 0
* * * *
09895 09/13*458 648 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
09895 09/13E458 648 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
*
09900 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). While the storm's
center does not get completely over water, this storm apparently began
to re-intensify while over land - as observed by the strong winds and
low pressure at Cedar Key. However, it is quite uncertain how intense
the storm was at landfall in Southeast Florida. Winds decreased to below
storm strength on the 11th to the 13th since observations in Partagas and
Diaz show no storm force winds north of Virginia.
Confirmation of the inland Florida portion of the track and intensity
was deduced by Mr. Brian Jones of the University of Miami, who uncovered
observations from the U.S. military base Fort Meade east of Tampa:
Fort Meade (27.7N, 81.8W):
----- Wind ------ --- Pressure --- Rain
Date 14Z 20Z 02Z 14Z 20Z 02Z
9/7/1888 NE NE NE 29.75 29.72 29.62 0.55"
9/8/1888 S SE SE 29.50 29.60 29.62 1.93"
These observations match Partagas and Diaz analysis that the storm
tracked over or very close to Fort Meade around 12Z on the 8th. The
surface pressure minimum above corresponds to a sea level pressure of
1002 mb, which is may very well be a central pressure reading.
1002 mb suggests marine winds of 45 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure
relationship - 35 kt retained due to over-land position.
********************************************************************************
09905 09/23/1888 M= 5 6 SNBR= 268 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
09905 09/23/1888 M= 5 6 SNBR= 276 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
09910 09/23* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*243 810 35 0*255 802 35 0
09915 09/24*266 797 40 0*277 791 40 0*287 786 45 0*295 782 45 0
09920 09/25*301 778 45 0*307 775 50 0*317 769 50 0*335 757 50 0
09920 09/25*301 778 45 0*307 775 50 0*317 769 55 0*335 757 60 0
** **
09925 09/26*361 739 50 0*389 719 50 0*412 702 50 0*430 689 50 0
09925 09/26*361 739 65 0*389 719 70 0*412 702 70 985*430 689 60 0
** ** ** *** **
09930 09/27*448 675 50 0*464 663 40 0*478 652 35 0* 0 0 0 0
09930 09/27E448 675 50 0E464 663 40 0E478 652 35 0* 0 0 0 0
* * *
09935 TS
09935 HR
**
Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). A central pressure of 985 mb (12Z on the
26th) suggests winds of 68 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship -
70 kt chosen for best track making this a minimal hurricane. However, given
the rapid translational speed, only winds of estimated 55 kt were sustained
along the U.S. coast.
********************************************************************************
09940 10/08/1888 M= 5 7 SNBR= 269 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
09940 10/08/1888 M= 5 7 SNBR= 277 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
*** *
09945 10/08* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*217 934 35 0*223 926 45 0
09950 10/09*229 918 50 0*236 909 60 0*242 900 65 0*249 891 75 0
09955 10/10*256 882 80 0*263 872 85 0*271 860 85 0*281 846 85 0
09955 10/10*256 882 80 0*263 872 85 0*270 860 90 0*277 846 95 0
*** ***
09960 10/11*295 829 80 0*310 811 75 0*327 793 70 0*345 775 60 0
09960 10/11*290 833 95 970*305 813 70 0*323 795 60 0*345 775 55 0
*** *** ** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** **
09965 10/12*364 756 50 0*384 737 45 0*406 718 40 0*419 672 35 0
09970 HR
09970 HRAFL2DFL1
********
Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Landfall time from Cedar Key
measurements in Partagas and Diaz is suggested to be slightly later than
that originally in best track - thus positions altered slightly on the 10th
and 11th. A nine foot storm tide (likely also to be storm surge value
based upon tidal data - B. Jarvinen, personal communication) occurred at
Cedar Key, Florida (Partagas and Diaz 1996a). B. Jarvinen (personal
communication) utilized the SLOSH model with the observed storm surge and
an estimated track at landfall to the north-northeast to analyze the
central pressure at 970 mb and RMW of 11 nmi at landfall. A 970 mb central
pressure suggests winds of 89 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure
relationship. Given an RMW substantially smaller than climatology for this
central pressure and latitudinal position (22 nmi from Vickery et al.
2000), winds at landfall are estimated at 95 kt - near the border of
Category 2 and 3. This assessment is substantially stronger than the
directly observed winds of 65 kt at Cedar Key. However, it is strongly
suspected that this was either an estimated wind and/or that the anemometer
failed after recording this minimal hurricane conditions before the peak winds
occurred. Observations at Jacksonville and destruction in Fort George
Island, Florida indicate that the center crossed just to the east of the
city and may have still retained minimal hurricane force as it was making
oceanfall (Sandrik 2001). The best track is adjusted accordingly on the
11th.
********************************************************************************
10230 11/01/1888 M= 8 8 SNBR= 270 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
10230 11/01/1888 M= 8 8 SNBR= 278 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
10235 11/01* 0 0 0 0*123 599 35 0*133 610 35 0*144 611 35 0
10240 11/02*155 612 35 0*166 613 35 0*175 613 40 0*184 613 40 0
10245 11/03*192 613 40 0*200 612 40 0*208 611 45 0*217 610 45 0
10250 11/04*226 607 45 0*235 602 45 0*245 597 50 0*255 588 50 0
10255 11/05*266 579 50 0*277 570 50 0*287 560 50 0*295 550 50 0
10260 11/06*306 539 50 0*315 530 50 0*323 520 50 0*331 513 50 0
10265 11/07*337 508 50 0*344 504 50 0*351 498 45 0*360 490 45 0
10270 11/08*369 482 45 0*379 472 40 0*390 462 35 0*400 452 35 0
10275 TS
Partagas and Diaz (1996a) introduced no changes from that shown in Neumann
et al. (1999).
********************************************************************************
10025 11/17/1888 M=16 9 SNBR= 271 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
10025 11/17/1888 M=16 9 SNBR= 279 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
10030 11/17* 0 0 0 0*246 560 35 0*247 567 40 0*248 575 40 0
10030 11/17*232 560 50 0*235 565 55 0*238 571 60 0*242 578 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
10035 11/18*249 583 40 0*250 590 45 0*251 598 45 0*252 605 45 0
10035 11/18*246 585 60 0*249 592 60 0*251 598 60 0*252 605 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** ** **
10040 11/19*253 612 50 0*254 619 50 0*255 626 55 0*257 634 55 0
10040 11/19*253 612 60 0*254 619 60 0*255 626 60 0*257 634 60 0
** ** ** **
10045 11/20*258 642 60 0*261 651 60 0*263 660 60 0*265 670 65 0
10045 11/20*260 642 60 0*263 650 60 0*267 657 60 0*269 664 65 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
10050 11/21*267 680 65 0*270 690 70 0*272 700 70 0*274 710 70 0
10050 11/21*271 671 65 0*275 680 70 0*277 687 70 0*281 695 70 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
10055 11/22*276 721 75 0*278 731 75 0*282 741 80 0*284 745 80 0
10055 11/22*284 705 75 0*288 714 75 0*293 723 80 0*296 729 80 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
10060 11/23*287 747 80 0*290 749 85 0*292 750 85 0*295 751 85 0
10060 11/23*298 735 80 0*301 742 85 0*305 747 85 0*310 751 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
10065 11/24*299 752 85 0*305 752 85 0*310 752 85 0*314 752 85 0
10065 11/24*315 755 85 0*321 758 85 0*327 757 85 0*331 755 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
10070 11/25*319 752 85 0*324 751 85 0*329 748 85 0*337 742 85 0
10070 11/25*336 752 85 0*340 750 85 0*345 747 85 0*353 742 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** ***
10075 11/26*348 733 85 0*359 725 85 0*370 720 85 0*379 714 85 0
10075 11/26E361 736 80 0E370 730 80 0E380 723 80 0E385 719 80 0
**** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** **
10080 11/27*389 708 85 0*398 703 85 0*407 697 85 0*415 691 85 0
10080 11/27E393 712 80 0E400 704 80 0E407 697 80 0E415 691 80 0
**** *** ** **** *** ** * ** * **
10085 11/28*424 684 85 0*433 676 85 0*441 666 80 0*448 652 70 0
10085 11/28E424 684 80 0E433 676 80 0E441 666 80 0E448 652 70 0
* ** * ** * *
10090 11/29*455 635 60 0*460 617 50 0*464 600 45 0*467 587 45 0
10090 11/29E455 635 60 0E460 617 50 0E464 600 45 0E467 587 45 0
* * * *
10095 11/30*469 575 45 0*471 561 45 0*472 543 45 0*472 520 45 0
10095 11/30E469 575 45 0E471 561 45 0E472 543 45 0E472 520 45 0
* * * *
10100 12/01*472 497 40 0*472 473 50 0*472 450 55 0*472 427 55 0
10100 12/01E472 497 40 0E472 473 50 0E472 450 55 0E472 427 55 0
* * * *
10105 12/02*473 404 60 0*474 381 60 0*475 358 60 0*480 333 60 0
10105 12/02E473 404 60 0E474 381 60 0E475 358 60 0E480 333 60 0
* * * *
10110 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Ship observation
on the 17th suggests stronger winds than originally in HURDAT - winds
increased from the 17th to the 19th. Peripheral pressure of 982 mb (on the
25th) suggests winds of at least 71 kt from the northern wind-pressure
relationship - 85 kt retained in best track. Peripheral pressure of
973 mb (14Z on the 26th) suggests winds of at least 80 kt - 80 kt chosen
in best track as storm likely transitioned to an extratropical storm
around 00Z on the 26th. It is to be noted that this system had hurricane
force winds (and produced these along the U.S. coast) during its extratropical
stage on the 26th to the 28th. Complete lifecycle of this tropical storm is
not available as the genesis was not documented.
********************************************************************************
1888 - Additional Notes:
Partagas and Diaz (1996a) mentioned two additional systems considered
for inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team agreed to leave them out
of HURDAT for the following reasons:
1) August 13, 1888: One gale force report, insufficient to determine if
system was tropical storm or waterspout.
2) September 12-13, 1888: One gale force report, insufficient to determine if
system was new tropical storm, was continuation of storm 5, or was an
extratropical storm.
*********************************************************************************
10115 05/16/1889 M= 7 1 SNBR= 272 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
10115 05/16/1889 M= 7 1 SNBR= 280 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
10120 05/16* 0 0 0 0*215 641 35 0*217 648 40 0*219 652 40 0
10125 05/17*221 657 45 0*224 663 50 0*228 670 55 0*233 678 60 0
10125 05/17*221 657 45 0*224 663 50 0*228 670 50 0*233 678 50 0
** **
10130 05/18*239 686 65 0*245 695 70 0*253 704 75 0*262 714 80 0
10130 05/18*239 686 50 0*245 695 50 0*253 704 50 0*262 714 50 0
** ** ** **
10135 05/19*273 726 85 0*283 738 85 0*292 748 85 0*299 754 85 0
10135 05/19*273 726 50 0*283 738 50 0*292 748 55 0*299 754 55 0
** ** ** **
10140 05/20*305 755 85 0*312 753 85 0*319 749 80 0*328 741 75 0
10140 05/20*305 755 55 0*312 753 60 0*319 749 65 0*328 741 70 0
** ** ** **
10145 05/21*337 731 70 0*346 720 60 0*358 708 55 0*371 702 45 0
10145 05/21*337 731 70 0*346 720 60 0E358 708 55 0E371 702 45 0
* *
10150 05/22*384 698 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
10150 05/22E384 698 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
*
10155 HR
Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Gale force and greater observations
available for this system were the following: 50 kt NNW at 38.3 N, 74.8 W
(no date - Schooner "Joseph W. Fish"), unspecific hurricane force winds
and pressure of 1002 mb on the 21st. The writeup in the Monthly Weather
Review indicated that the system "possessed moderate energy" from the 16th
to 19th and that the winds for this systems "were not severe in their
character, save on the 21st, when gales of hurricane force were reported."
This suggests that peak intensity was reached on the 21st and that it was
below hurricane force for the days preceding, which is consistent with
available observations. Thus winds are retained as is on the 21st and
reduced to tropical storm intensity on the 18th through late on the 20th.
********************************************************************************
10415 06/15/1889 M= 6 2 SNBR= 275 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
10415 06/15/1889 M= 6 2 SNBR= 281 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
10420 06/15*198 847 35 0*206 850 35 0*213 853 40 0*220 857 40 0
10420 06/15*198 837 35 0*206 840 45 0*213 843 55 0*220 846 65 0
*** *** ** *** ** *** **
10425 06/16*228 859 40 0*237 859 45 0*246 858 45 0*256 855 45 0
10425 06/16*228 850 65 0*237 854 60 0*246 855 55 0*256 854 50 0
*** ** *** ** *** ** *** **
10430 06/17*266 851 45 0*276 845 45 0*286 835 45 0*296 822 40 0
10435 06/18*307 809 35 0*317 795 40 0*327 782 40 0*337 770 45 0
10440 06/19*345 759 45 0*354 747 45 0*363 734 45 0*373 716 45 0
10445 06/20*384 694 45 0*397 668 45 0*410 640 40 0*425 612 35 0
10450 TS
10450 HR
**
Partagas and Diaz (1996a) introduced no changes from that shown in Neumann
et al. (1999). However, Perez (2000) analyzed this system as reaching
minimal hurricane intensity while tracking over western Cuba. It is listed
by Perez (2000) as a Category 1 hurricane impact in Cuba based primarily
upon wind-caused damages in Pinar del Rio. The track and intensity are
adjusted on the 15th and 16th accordingly.
********************************************************************************
10200 08/19/1889 M= 9 3 SNBR= 274 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
10200 08/19/1889 M=10 3 SNBR= 282 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
** ***
10205 08/19* 0 0 0 0*168 692 35 0*173 696 40 0*178 699 50 0
10210 08/20*183 703 50 0*187 706 50 0*192 709 45 0*196 712 45 0
10210 08/20*183 703 50 0*187 706 35 0*192 709 30 0*196 712 30 0
** ** **
10215 08/21*200 715 45 0*204 718 50 0*208 721 55 0*213 725 60 0
10215 08/21*200 715 35 0*204 718 50 0*208 721 55 0*213 725 60 0
**
10220 08/22*218 728 60 0*223 732 65 0*230 736 70 0*237 740 75 0
10220 08/22*218 728 60 0*223 732 60 0*230 736 60 0*237 740 60 0
** ** **
10225 08/23*245 744 75 0*253 748 80 0*262 752 80 0*271 755 85 0
10225 08/23*245 744 60 0*253 748 60 0*262 752 60 0*271 755 60 0
** ** ** **
10230 08/24*280 757 85 0*289 757 85 0*298 755 85 0*307 751 85 0
10230 08/24*280 757 60 0*289 757 60 0*298 755 60 0*307 751 60 0
** ** ** **
10235 08/25*315 745 85 0*322 739 85 0*329 734 85 0*335 730 80 0
10235 08/25*315 745 60 0*322 739 60 0*329 734 60 0*335 730 60 0
** ** ** **
10240 08/26*341 726 80 0*345 723 75 0*350 720 75 0*354 718 70 0
10240 08/26*341 726 60 0*345 723 60 0*350 720 65 0*354 718 65 0
** ** ** **
10245 08/27*359 717 65 0*362 717 60 0*366 718 50 0*371 721 35 0
10245 08/27*359 717 70 0*362 716 70 0*366 715 70 0*371 715 70 0
** *** ** *** ** *** **
(28th new to HURDAT.)
10247 08/28*375 715 65 0*380 715 60 0*385 715 50 0*390 715 40 0
10250 HR
Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Winds reduced on 20th and 21st due
to passage of storm over Hispanola. Available observational data indicates
that the system reached minimal (70 kt) hurricane intensity between the
26th and 28th, rather than the standard Category 2 (85 kt) hurricane peak
intensity originally in HURDAT. Winds reduced throughout much of this
system's lifetime. Additional day added to the track on the 28th from
ship observations (the "Red Wing") described in the Partagas and Diaz
report.
********************************************************************************
10255 09/01/1889 M=12 4 SNBR= 275 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
10255 09/01/1889 M=12 4 SNBR= 283 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
10260 09/01*119 550 35 0*124 557 40 0*130 563 40 0*135 571 45 0
10260 09/01*119 550 35 0*124 557 40 0*130 563 45 0*137 572 50 0
** *** *** **
10265 09/02*140 579 45 0*146 587 50 0*152 594 55 0*159 605 55 0
10265 09/02*144 582 55 0*151 593 60 0*157 603 65 0*161 613 70 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
10270 09/03*167 615 60 0*175 626 60 999*182 635 65 0*188 644 70 0
10270 09/03*169 623 75 0*174 632 80 0*180 640 90 0*187 650 90 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ** *** *** **
10275 09/04*194 651 70 0*199 658 75 0*206 665 80 0*214 671 80 0
10275 09/04*194 660 90 0*199 668 90 0*205 675 90 0*211 681 90 0
*** ** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
10280 09/05*223 677 85 0*233 681 85 0*243 684 85 0*254 685 85 0
10280 09/05*217 685 90 0*224 687 90 0*233 687 90 0*247 685 90 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** **
10285 09/06*265 686 85 0*277 687 85 0*287 687 85 0*296 687 85 0
10285 09/06*258 679 90 0*270 669 90 0*283 663 90 0*292 663 90 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
10290 09/07*304 687 85 0*310 687 85 0*316 687 85 0*321 687 85 0
10290 09/07*299 664 90 0*309 665 90 0*320 670 90 0*326 674 90 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
10295 09/08*326 688 85 0*331 689 85 0*336 690 85 0*341 692 85 0
10295 09/08*331 677 90 0*335 680 90 0*340 683 90 0*343 685 90 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
10300 09/09*346 694 85 0*350 695 85 0*355 697 85 0*359 699 85 0
10300 09/09*347 688 90 0*351 692 90 0*355 695 90 0*360 698 90 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** *** *** **
10305 09/10*363 701 85 0*366 702 80 0*370 704 80 0*374 707 75 0
10305 09/10*363 700 85 0*366 702 80 0*370 704 80 0*374 707 75 0
***
10310 09/11*377 711 70 0*380 716 70 0*383 721 65 0*384 725 60 0
10315 09/12*384 729 55 0*381 734 45 0*378 738 40 0*366 745 35 0
10315 09/12*384 729 55 0*381 734 45 0*377 739 40 0*370 745 35 0
*** *** ***
10320 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). 981 mb peripheral
pressure (around 12Z on the 3rd) suggests winds of at least 76 kt from the
southern wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt used in best track. (999 mb at
06Z on the 3rd formerly in HURDAT is not correct. A 995 mb peripheral
pressure was observed at 07Z.) Slight adjustment in last positions of
the system to allow for more realistic translational velocity. The hurricane
is known as "San Martin de Hinojosa" for its impacts in Puerto Rico.
********************************************************************************
10325 09/02/1889 M=10 5 SNBR= 276 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
10325 09/02/1889 M=10 5 SNBR= 284 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
10330 09/02*159 429 35 0*162 438 35 0*166 446 40 0*169 454 45 0
10330 09/02*159 429 35 0*162 438 35 0*166 446 40 0*169 454 40 0
**
10335 09/03*173 462 45 0*178 471 50 0*185 482 55 0*194 495 60 0
10335 09/03*173 465 45 0*177 479 45 0*180 490 50 0*183 504 50 0
*** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
10340 09/04*205 512 65 0*216 528 70 0*225 540 70 0*232 549 75 0
10340 09/04*187 519 50 0*193 531 50 0*200 543 50 0*205 550 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
10345 09/05*239 555 80 0*246 561 80 0*252 565 85 0*257 570 85 0
10345 09/05*212 556 50 0*218 561 50 0*225 565 50 0*237 572 50 0
*** *** ** *** ** *** ** *** *** **
10350 09/06*262 572 85 0*267 573 85 0*273 572 85 0*283 568 85 0
10350 09/06*246 576 50 0*254 578 50 0*263 580 50 0*275 579 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
10355 09/07*297 561 85 0*311 551 85 0*320 540 85 0*328 525 85 0
10355 09/07*291 573 55 0*303 563 60 0*313 553 65 0*321 541 70 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
10360 09/08*333 510 85 0*338 494 85 0*340 480 85 0*342 468 85 0
10360 09/08*329 524 70 0*336 507 70 0*340 490 70 0*341 477 70 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** *** *** **
10365 09/09*343 458 85 0*344 448 85 0*345 436 85 0*346 421 85 0
10365 09/09*342 463 70 0*343 448 70 0*345 430 70 0*345 411 70 0
*** *** ** *** ** *** ** *** *** **
10370 09/10*348 403 85 0*349 382 80 0*350 360 75 0*355 336 70 0
10370 09/10*346 390 70 0*348 371 70 0*353 350 70 0*358 329 70 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ***
10375 09/11*366 309 65 0*382 281 60 0*390 270 50 0*407 245 40 0
10375 09/11*366 309 65 0*377 290 60 0*390 270 50 0*407 245 40 0
*** ***
10380 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Evidence for this
storm does not support Category 2 intensity (and only marginally supports
Category 1 intensity from the 8th to the 10th); winds are reduced for much
of the duration of this storm.
********************************************************************************
10385 09/11/1889 M=16 6 SNBR= 277 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
10385 09/12/1889 M=15 6 SNBR= 285 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
** ** *** *
10390 09/11*155 585 35 0*155 594 35 0*155 604 40 0*155 612 40 0
(11th deleted from HURDAT.)
10395 09/12*155 621 45 0*156 631 50 0*156 641 55 0*156 652 55 0
10395 09/12*157 595 35 0*157 607 35 0*157 620 40 0*156 633 40 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** **
10400 09/13*157 664 60 0*157 676 65 0*158 688 70 0*159 701 75 0
10400 09/13*156 645 45 0*156 659 45 0*157 675 50 0*157 688 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
10405 09/14*160 714 80 0*161 728 80 0*162 740 85 0*163 751 85 0
10405 09/14*157 705 50 0*159 721 50 0*160 733 50 0*162 742 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
10410 09/15*165 763 85 0*167 774 85 0*169 787 85 0*170 798 85 0
10410 09/15*163 757 50 0*164 766 50 0*167 777 50 0*171 790 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
10415 09/16*171 809 85 0*173 821 85 0*174 830 85 0*175 842 85 0
10415 09/16*174 797 50 0*177 807 50 0*180 815 55 0*185 827 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
10420 09/17*177 851 85 0*178 860 85 0*179 870 85 0*179 878 85 0
10420 09/17*188 836 65 0*191 846 75 0*193 855 85 0*194 865 95 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** **
10425 09/18*180 886 80 0*180 894 70 0*181 902 60 0*184 913 60 0
10425 09/18*195 877 90 0*195 886 75 0*195 895 65 0*195 903 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ***
10430 09/19*189 921 60 0*195 926 65 0*202 929 70 0*209 931 75 0
10430 09/19*196 913 70 0*198 923 85 0*202 929 85 0*209 931 85 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** **
10435 09/20*213 931 80 0*217 931 85 0*222 931 85 0*226 930 85 0
10435 09/20*213 931 85 0*217 931 85 0*222 931 85 0*226 930 85 0
**
10440 09/21*230 930 85 0*235 930 85 0*241 929 85 0*247 928 85 0
10445 09/22*252 927 85 0*261 924 85 0*270 920 85 0*279 914 85 0
10445 09/22*252 927 85 0*261 924 85 0*270 920 80 0*279 914 75 0
** **
10450 09/23*286 906 85 0*293 894 85 0*301 880 85 0*313 862 80 0
10450 09/23*286 906 70 0*293 894 65 0*301 880 60 0*313 862 50 0
** ** ** **
10455 09/24*328 839 70 0*343 816 60 0*357 795 50 0*365 779 45 0
10455 09/24*328 839 45 0*343 816 45 0E357 795 40 0E365 779 40 0
** ** * ** * **
10460 09/25*371 767 40 0*377 754 40 0*386 738 35 0*403 717 35 0
10465 09/26*428 691 35 0*459 662 35 0*495 629 35 0* 0 0 0 0
10465 09/26E428 691 35 0E459 662 35 0E495 629 35 0* 0 0 0 0
* * *
10470 HR
10470 HR LA1
***
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track
changes are found to be reasonable. Available observational evidence
indicates that the system did not reach hurricane intensity until the
17th - intensities reduced accordingly. Intensities increased on the
17th and 18th to account for great damage that occurred in the Yucatan
of Mexico. Observations indicate that the hurricane weakened to a tropical
storm by landfall in Florida, but may have still been a minimal hurricane
while passing briefly over coastal Louisiana. It is to be noted that the
Cuban meteorologists (Father Benito Vines) believed that this system was
actually two separate tropical cyclones.
1889/06 - 2011 REVISION:
10855 09/12/1889 M=15 6 SNBR= 286 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
10860 09/12*157 595 35 0*157 607 35 0*157 620 40 0*156 633 40 0*
10865 09/13*156 645 45 0*156 659 45 0*157 675 50 0*157 688 50 0*
10870 09/14*157 705 50 0*159 721 50 0*160 733 50 0*162 742 50 0*
10875 09/15*163 757 50 0*164 766 50 0*167 777 50 0*171 790 50 0*
10880 09/16*174 797 50 0*177 807 50 0*180 815 55 0*185 827 60 0*
10885 09/17*188 836 65 0*191 846 75 0*193 855 85 0*194 865 95 0*
10890 09/18*195 877 90 0*195 886 75 0*195 895 65 0*195 903 60 0*
10895 09/19*196 913 70 0*198 923 85 0*202 929 85 0*209 931 85 0*
10900 09/20*213 931 85 0*217 931 85 0*222 931 85 0*226 930 85 0*
10905 09/21*230 930 85 0*235 930 85 0*241 929 85 0*247 928 85 0*
10910 09/22*252 927 85 0*261 924 85 0*270 920 80 0*279 914 75 0*
10915 09/23*286 906 70 0*293 894 65 0*301 880 60 0*313 862 50 0*
10920 09/24*328 839 45 0*343 816 45 0*357 795 40 0*365 779 40 0*
10925 09/25*371 767 40 0*377 754 40 0*386 738 35 0*403 717 35 0*
10930 09/26E428 691 35 0E459 662 35 0E495 629 35 0* 0 0 0 0*
10935 HR LA1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
6-9/23/1889 0400Z 29.1N 89.8W 70kt 1 --- (985mb) LA1
6-9/23/1889 0400Z 29.1N 89.8W 70kt 1 --- (982mb) LA1
***
The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Louisiana as a 70 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 985 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 982 mb -
for a 70 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
10725 09/12/1889 M= 8 7 SNBR= 278 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
10725 09/12/1889 M= 8 7 SNBR= 286 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
10730 09/12* 0 0 0 0*152 257 35 0*157 267 35 0*162 279 35 0
10735 09/13*168 290 35 0*175 301 35 0*184 312 40 0*194 323 40 0
10740 09/14*205 333 40 0*218 342 40 0*232 350 45 0*249 355 45 0
10745 09/15*270 359 45 0*291 362 45 0*306 366 45 0*317 371 50 0
10750 09/16*326 377 50 0*333 383 50 0*340 390 50 0*345 399 50 0
10755 09/17*350 410 50 0*355 423 50 0*361 435 50 0*370 457 50 0
10760 09/18*375 475 50 0*383 488 45 0*397 494 45 0*404 494 45 0
10765 09/19*414 493 45 0*423 491 40 0*431 489 35 0*440 485 35 0
10770 TS
Partagas and Diaz (1996a) introduced no changes from that shown in Neumann
et al. (1999).
********************************************************************************
10525 09/29/1889 M= 8 8 SNBR= 279 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
10525 09/29/1889 M= 8 8 SNBR= 287 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
10530 09/29* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*113 520 35 0*118 536 35 0
10535 09/30*123 551 35 0*127 564 40 0*132 575 40 0*137 585 40 0
10540 10/01*142 594 40 0*146 603 45 0*151 610 45 0*156 617 45 0
10545 10/02*162 623 45 0*169 629 50 0*179 637 50 0*188 643 50 0
10550 10/03*200 650 50 0*214 657 50 0*229 665 50 0*243 669 50 0
10555 10/04*258 672 50 0*273 674 45 0*288 674 45 0*303 670 40 0
10555 10/04*258 672 50 0*273 674 50 0*288 674 55 0*303 670 55 0
** ** **
10560 10/05*318 660 40 0*332 650 40 0*347 644 35 0*364 630 35 0
10560 10/05*318 660 60 0*332 650 60 0*347 644 55 0*364 630 50 0
** ** ** **
10565 10/06*378 612 35 0*391 594 35 0*404 575 35 0* 0 0 0 0
10565 10/06*378 612 45 0*391 594 40 0*404 575 35 0* 0 0 0 0
** **
10570 TS
Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Winds increased on the 4th to the 6th
based upon ship observations, though the peak intensity was kept at just
below hurricane force.
********************************************************************************
10575 10/04/1889 M= 7 9 SNBR= 280 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
10575 10/05/1889 M= 7 9 SNBR= 288 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
** ***
10580 10/04* 0 0 0 0*208 821 35 0*216 820 45 0*228 816 50 0
(4th removed in revised HURDAT.)
10585 10/05*237 813 45 0*248 810 50 0*258 806 50 0*270 801 45 0
10585 10/05* 0 0 0 0*200 825 30 0*215 820 30 0*234 815 35 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
10590 10/06*288 795 45 0*303 789 45 0*317 780 50 0*340 757 50 0
10590 10/06*250 810 40 0*271 802 40 0*300 788 45 0*330 765 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ***
10595 10/07*361 730 50 0*383 703 50 0*403 680 50 0*425 659 50 0
10600 10/08*445 640 50 0*464 623 45 0*480 610 40 0*496 607 40 0
10600 10/08E445 640 50 0E464 623 45 0E480 610 40 0E496 607 40 0
* * * *
10605 10/09*510 602 40 0*522 596 40 0*533 590 40 0*544 588 40 0
10605 10/09E510 602 40 0E522 596 40 0E533 590 40 0E544 588 40 0
* * * *
10610 10/10*555 584 40 0*565 580 40 0*574 575 40 0*585 570 40 0
10610 10/10E555 584 40 0E565 580 40 0E574 575 40 0E585 570 40 0
* * * *
(00 and 06Z on the 11th added into HURDAT.)
10612 10/11E605 560 35 0E630 553 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
**** *** ** **** *** **
10615 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large reasonable
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Partagas and
Diaz recommended beginning the storm on the 5th south of Cuba (rather than
the 4th) based upon available observation data indicating formation of
closed circulation on the 5th. R. Perez (2001, personal communication)
analyzed this system as of tropical depression intensity crossing Cuba based
upon observations from the Cuban weather observing network.
********************************************************************************
1889 - Additional Notes:
Partagas and Diaz (1996a) mentioned two additional systems considered
for inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team agreed to leave them out
of HURDAT for the following reasons:
1) June 24-25, 1889: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
2) October 14-16, 1889: Numerous gale to hurricane force observations, but
likely was an extratropical storm.
********************************************************************************
10616 05/27/1890 M= 3 1 SNBR= 289 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
10617 05/27* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*205 830 30 0*211 833 30 0
10618 05/28*217 836 30 0*223 838 30 0*230 840 35 0*235 842 40 0
10619 05/29*240 843 45 0*244 844 50 0*248 846 50 0*252 848 50 0
10619 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a) are introduced for this
newly documented storm. Complete lifecycle of this tropical storm is not
available as the decay was not documented.
********************************************************************************
10616 08/18/1890 M=11 2 SNBR= 290 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
10617 08/18* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*140 620 35 0*142 628 35 0
10618 08/19*144 636 40 0*145 644 40 0*147 655 40 0*148 663 40 0
10619 08/20*150 672 40 0*151 681 40 0*153 690 40 0*154 700 40 0
10620 08/21*155 709 40 0*156 717 40 0*157 725 40 0*159 736 40 0
10621 08/22*160 745 40 0*162 755 40 0*165 765 40 0*167 773 40 0
10622 08/23*169 782 45 0*172 790 45 0*175 800 45 0*178 809 45 0
10623 08/24*182 817 50 0*186 825 50 0*190 833 50 0*196 841 50 0
10624 08/25*202 849 50 0*209 858 50 0*215 867 50 0*221 876 50 0
10625 08/26*227 884 50 0*232 892 50 0*240 900 50 0*248 905 50 0
10626 08/27*258 908 50 0*268 909 50 0*280 910 50 0*295 908 40 0
10627 08/28*315 905 35 0*340 900 30 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
10628 TS
One major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a) for this newly documented
storm. The track of the tropical storm was placed closer to Pt. Eads,
Louisiana, at landfall in order to be more consistent with tropical storm
force winds that occurred there. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria
(1995) utilized for inland winds over Louisiana and Mississippi. Track
extended twelve hours on the 28th for reasonable decay of the storm.
********************************************************************************
10620 08/26/1890 M= 9 1 SNBR= 281 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
10620 08/26/1890 M= 9 3 SNBR= 291 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
* ***
10625 08/26* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*166 543 85 0*173 557 85 0
10625 08/26* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*166 543 85 0*173 557 90 0
**
10630 08/27*180 570 85 0*186 583 85 0*193 596 85 0*200 609 85 0
10630 08/27*180 570 95 0*186 583 100 0*193 596 105 0*200 609 105 0
** *** *** ***
10635 08/28*207 621 85 0*213 633 85 0*220 645 85 0*228 657 85 0
10635 08/28*207 621 105 0*213 633 105 0*220 645 105 0*228 657 105 0
*** *** *** ***
10640 08/29*239 669 85 0*250 680 85 0*261 691 85 0*272 697 85 0
10640 08/29*239 669 100 0*250 680 95 0*261 691 90 0*272 697 85 0
*** ** **
10645 08/30*283 698 85 0*294 696 85 0*305 692 85 0*317 684 85 0
10650 08/31*329 671 85 0*345 654 85 0*364 634 85 0*388 610 85 0
10655 09/01*416 584 85 0*445 554 85 0*472 522 85 0*497 485 85 0
10655 09/01*416 584 85 0*445 554 80 0*472 522 70 0*497 485 60 0
** ** **
10660 09/02*522 446 85 0*546 406 85 0*570 370 85 0*587 338 85 0
10660 09/02E522 446 50 0E546 406 50 0E570 370 50 0E587 338 50 0
* ** * ** * ** * **
10665 09/03*603 308 85 0*615 281 85 0*625 256 85 0* 0 0 0 0
10665 09/03E603 308 50 0E615 281 45 0E625 256 45 0* 0 0 0 0
* ** * ** * **
10670 HR
Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 1. A peripheral
pressure of 965 mb (at 07Z on the 28th) suggests winds of at least 95 kt from
the southern wind-pressure relationship - 105 kt used in best track. Winds
from the 26th to the 29th adjusted upward accordingly. Winds from the 1st to
the 3rd lowered based upon ship observations of a hurricane transitioning to
a (weaker) extratropical storm. Complete lifecycle of this hurricane is
not available as the genesis was not documented.
********************************************************************************
10671 10/31/1890 M= 2 4 SNBR= 292 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
10672 10/31*143 803 80 0*144 813 80 0*145 823 80 0*147 833 80 0
10673 11/01*149 844 55 0*151 855 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
10674 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a) for this newly documented
hurricane. Track extended twelve hours on the 1st for reasonable decay of
this hurricane over Central America. No dissipating tropical depression
intensity is indicated for a six hour location estimate because of rapid
dissipation over mountainous terrain.
********************************************************************************
1890 - Additional Notes:
Partagas and Diaz (1996a) mentioned three additional systems considered
for inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team agreed to leave them out
of HURDAT for the following reasons:
1) October 2, 1890: One report of gale force winds, insufficient to determine
if system was a tropical storm.
2) October 21-26, 1890: Numerous gale to hurricane force observations, but
likely was an extratropical storm.
3) October 26-28, 1890: Numerous gale to hurricane force observations, but
likely was an extratropical storm.
********************************************************************************
10675 07/03/1891 M= 6 1 SNBR= 282 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
10675 07/03/1891 M= 6 1 SNBR= 293 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
*** *
10680 07/03* 0 0 0 0*217 930 35 0*220 932 45 0*224 935 55 0
10685 07/04*229 939 65 0*234 942 75 0*240 945 80 0*247 948 85 0
10685 07/04*229 939 65 0*234 942 75 0*240 945 80 0*247 948 80 0
**
10690 07/05*254 951 85 0*262 954 85 0*271 956 85 0*281 956 85 0
10690 07/05*254 951 80 0*262 954 80 0*271 956 80 0*281 956 80 0
** ** ** **
10695 07/06*292 954 80 0*303 951 70 0*312 947 60 0*319 943 50 0
10695 07/06*292 954 70 0*303 951 60 0*312 947 55 0*319 943 50 0
** ** **
10700 07/07*325 938 45 0*331 931 40 0*337 923 40 0*342 911 35 0
10700 07/07*325 938 45 0*331 931 40 0*337 923 35 0*342 911 30 0
** **
10705 07/08*350 881 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
10705 07/08*346 897 25 0*350 881 25 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
*** *** ** *** *** **
10710 HR
10710 HRBTX1CTX1
********
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). A peripheral pressure of 990 mb (at
0230Z on the 6th) suggests winds of at least 62 kt from the Gulf of Mexico
wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt chosen for best track, which reduces
the peak intensity originally in HURDAT slightly. Decay to tropical
depression stage over land included before dissipation. Additional
six-hourly position added at end of track to allow for reasonable
translational speed of system.
1891/01 - 2011 REVISION:
11250 07/03/1891 M= 6 1 SNBR= 294 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
11255 07/03* 0 0 0 0*217 930 35 0*220 932 45 0*224 935 55 0*
11260 07/04*229 939 65 0*234 942 75 0*240 945 80 0*247 948 80 0*
11265 07/05*254 951 80 0*262 954 80 0*271 956 80 0*281 956 80 0*
11270 07/06*292 954 70 0*303 951 60 0*312 947 55 0*319 943 50 0*
11275 07/07*325 938 45 0*331 931 40 0*337 923 35 0*342 911 30 0*
11280 07/08*346 897 25 0*350 881 25 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*
11285 HRBTX1CTX1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
1-7/5/1891 2200Z 28.8N 95.5W 80kt 1 --- (977mb) BTX1,CTX1
1-7/5/1891 2200Z 28.8N 95.5W 80kt 1 --- (974mb) BTX1,CTX1
***
The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Texas as an 80 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 977 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 974 mb -
for an 80 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
10715 08/17/1891 M=13 2 SNBR= 283 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
10715 08/17/1891 M=13 2 SNBR= 294 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
10720 08/17* 0 0 0 0*133 244 35 0*136 255 35 0*138 266 35 0
10725 08/18*140 277 35 0*142 288 40 0*144 299 50 0*146 310 60 0
10730 08/19*149 320 70 0*152 330 75 0*154 340 80 0*156 349 85 0
10730 08/19*149 320 65 0*152 330 65 0*154 340 65 0*156 349 65 0
** ** ** **
10735 08/20*158 358 85 0*161 367 85 0*163 375 85 0*165 383 85 0
10735 08/20*158 358 65 0*161 367 65 0*163 375 65 0*165 383 65 0
** ** ** **
10740 08/21*167 390 85 0*170 398 85 0*173 406 85 0*177 415 85 0
10740 08/21*167 390 65 0*170 398 65 0*173 406 65 0*177 415 65 0
** ** ** **
10745 08/22*182 426 85 0*187 436 85 0*192 446 85 0*196 455 85 0
10745 08/22*182 426 65 0*187 436 65 0*192 446 65 0*196 455 65 0
** ** ** **
10750 08/23*200 463 85 0*205 471 85 0*209 480 85 0*214 489 85 0
10750 08/23*200 463 65 0*205 471 65 0*209 480 65 0*214 489 65 0
** ** ** **
10755 08/24*218 498 85 0*224 508 85 0*230 518 85 0*237 529 85 0
10755 08/24*218 498 65 0*224 508 65 0*230 518 65 0*237 529 65 0
** ** ** **
10760 08/25*245 540 85 0*253 552 85 0*260 563 85 0*267 573 85 0
10760 08/25*245 540 65 0*253 552 65 0*260 563 65 0*267 573 65 0
** ** ** **
10765 08/26*274 583 85 0*281 592 85 0*288 600 85 0*295 608 85 0
10765 08/26*274 583 65 0*281 592 65 0*288 600 65 0*295 608 65 0
** ** ** **
10770 08/27*302 615 85 0*309 621 85 0*316 627 85 0*324 633 85 0
10770 08/27*302 615 65 0*309 621 65 0*316 627 65 0*324 633 65 0
** ** ** **
10775 08/28*335 637 85 0*347 641 85 0*360 644 80 0*373 646 70 0
10775 08/28*335 637 65 0*347 641 65 0*360 644 65 0*373 646 65 0
** ** ** **
10780 08/29*388 645 65 0*403 644 55 0*419 641 35 0*433 640 25 0
10780 08/29*388 645 65 0E403 644 55 0E419 641 35 0E433 640 25 0
* * *
10785 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Gale force and
greater observations available for this system were the following: 997 mb
sea level pressure (suggestive of at least 53 kt from the subtropical
pressure-wind relationship) at Bermuda on the 27th, a ship (the steamer
"Dunsmurry") capsized in the "hurricane" on the 29th (but no specific
observations were provided), and 50 kt S wind on the 30th and 31st from the
steamer "La Touraine". Thus available observational evidence suggests
that the system may have achieved minimal hurricane intensity, but not
reaching Category 2 status as shown originally. Winds reduced for much of
the system's lifecycle.
********************************************************************************
10790 08/18/1891 M= 8 3 SNBR= 284 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
10790 08/18/1891 M= 8 3 SNBR= 295 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
*** *
10795 08/18* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*139 578 35 0*147 597 40 0
10795 08/18* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*133 580 90 0*139 594 100 0
*** *** ** *** *** ***
10800 08/19*155 614 65 0*162 629 75 0*168 640 80 0*174 649 85 0
10800 08/19*147 611 110 961*153 625 110 0*160 640 105 0*165 650 100 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
10805 08/20*179 657 85 0*184 665 80 0*190 672 80 0*196 679 80 0
10805 08/20*170 661 95 0*175 671 90 0*180 680 85 0*187 684 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
10810 08/21*202 686 85 0*207 693 85 0*213 700 85 0*218 709 85 0
10810 08/21*196 686 85 0*203 689 85 0*210 695 85 0*215 702 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
10815 08/22*222 718 85 0*226 727 85 0*230 736 85 0*234 744 85 0
10815 08/22*218 710 85 0*221 717 85 0*225 726 85 0*229 735 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
10820 08/23*237 752 85 0*240 759 85 0*243 767 85 0*246 775 85 0
10820 08/23*233 745 85 0*238 755 85 0*243 767 85 0*246 775 85 0
*** *** *** ***
10825 08/24*248 782 85 0*251 789 80 0*253 797 75 0*255 806 65 0
10825 08/24*248 782 80 0*251 789 75 0*253 797 70 0*255 806 55 0
** ** ** **
10830 08/25*258 815 60 0*260 826 50 0*262 837 45 0*262 848 35 0
10830 08/25*258 815 50 0*260 826 45 0*262 837 40 0*262 848 35 0
** ** **
10835 HR
10835 HRCFL1
****
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track changes are
found to be reasonable. A central pressure reading of 961 mb (01Z on the
19th) suggests winds of 99 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship
- 110 kt used in best track because of indications of a small radius of
maximum wind (from Father Benito Vines' analysis quoted in the Partagas
and Diaz report) as well as extensive destruction in Martinique. Hurricane
is considered Category 1 (70 kt) at landfall in South Florida, but such
designation is quite uncertain given the lack of observations near the
landfall location. Complete lifecycle of this hurricane is not available
as neither the genesis nor the decay of the system was not documented. The
hurricane is also known as "San Magin", due to the rainfall-induced
flooding that occurred in Puerto Rico.
********************************************************************************
10840 09/02/1891 M= 9 4 SNBR= 285 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
10840 09/02/1891 M= 9 4 SNBR= 296 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
10845 09/02* 0 0 0 0*193 582 35 0*197 592 40 0*199 600 40 0
10850 09/03*201 607 45 0*204 615 50 0*208 623 55 0*213 631 60 0
10855 09/04*218 639 70 0*223 647 75 0*228 655 80 0*234 662 85 0
10860 09/05*239 669 85 0*246 676 85 0*252 683 85 0*260 690 85 0
10865 09/06*271 697 85 0*283 703 85 0*296 710 85 0*310 714 85 0
10870 09/07*327 715 85 0*347 713 85 0*368 703 85 0*395 680 85 0
10875 09/08*426 646 80 0*458 609 75 0*486 579 70 0*509 555 65 0
10880 09/09*529 533 60 0*547 511 55 0*562 492 50 0*575 475 45 0
10880 09/09E529 533 60 0E547 511 55 0E562 492 50 0E575 475 45 0
* * * *
10885 09/10*585 459 40 0*592 445 35 0*597 433 30 0* 0 0 0 0
10885 09/10E585 459 40 0E592 445 35 0E597 433 30 0* 0 0 0 0
* * *
10890 HR
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Only intensity alteration is to
indicate extratropical stage for the hurricane north of 52N.
********************************************************************************
10895 09/16/1891 M=11 5 SNBR= 286 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
10895 09/16/1891 M=11 5 SNBR= 297 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
10900 09/16*193 465 35 0*198 471 35 0*202 478 35 0*207 488 35 0
10905 09/17*213 498 35 0*218 507 35 0*223 516 40 0*228 524 40 0
10910 09/18*232 532 45 0*237 539 50 0*242 547 55 0*248 556 60 0
10915 09/19*254 566 65 0*260 575 70 0*266 583 70 0*272 590 75 0
10920 09/20*277 596 80 0*282 601 80 0*288 607 85 0*294 613 85 0
10920 09/20*281 600 80 0*288 607 80 0*295 615 85 0*300 621 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
10925 09/21*300 618 85 0*306 623 85 0*312 628 85 0*318 631 85 0
10925 09/21*305 627 85 0*310 633 85 0*315 637 85 0*320 640 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
10930 09/22*324 632 85 0*330 631 85 0*336 630 85 0*342 628 85 0
10930 09/22*325 641 85 0*329 641 85 0*333 640 85 0*340 635 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
10935 09/23*349 624 85 0*356 617 85 0*363 607 85 0*370 591 85 0
10935 09/23*348 627 85 0*356 618 85 0*363 607 85 0*370 591 85 0
*** *** ***
10940 09/24*375 573 85 0*379 555 85 0*382 538 85 0*382 523 85 0
10945 09/25*382 508 80 0*382 493 80 0*382 478 75 0*384 463 65 0
10950 09/26*388 448 55 0*394 433 40 0*402 418 35 0*413 397 30 0
10950 09/26*388 448 55 0*394 433 40 0E402 418 40 0E413 397 40 0
* ** * **
10955 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). A peripheral
pressure reading of 980 mb (05Z on the 22nd) suggests winds of at least
75 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 85 kt retained in
the best track.
********************************************************************************
10960 09/29/1891 M=10 6 SNBR= 287 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
10960 09/29/1891 M=10 6 SNBR= 298 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
10965 09/29* 0 0 0 0*207 546 35 0*212 547 35 0*217 550 40 0
10970 09/30*222 554 45 0*228 558 45 0*233 562 50 0*238 566 50 0
10975 10/01*244 571 55 0*249 576 60 0*255 582 60 0*261 590 65 0
10980 10/02*267 600 70 0*274 611 75 0*280 620 80 0*283 626 80 0
10980 10/02*266 597 70 0*271 604 75 0*277 613 80 0*283 620 80 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
10985 10/03*287 633 85 0*291 639 85 0*295 645 85 0*301 653 85 0
10985 10/03*289 627 85 0*294 634 85 0*300 640 85 0*308 646 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
10990 10/04*310 662 85 0*318 671 85 0*328 680 85 0*338 684 85 0
10990 10/04*318 654 85 0*327 660 85 0*335 667 85 0*346 675 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
10995 10/05*350 686 85 0*364 688 85 0*380 688 85 0*399 678 85 0
10995 10/05*353 681 85 0*365 687 85 0*380 688 75 0*399 678 65 0
*** *** *** *** ** **
11000 10/06*425 650 85 0*453 616 85 0*472 580 80 0*484 549 75 0
11000 10/06E425 650 55 0E453 616 50 0E472 580 50 0E484 549 50 0
* ** * ** * ** * **
11005 10/07*496 517 70 0*506 484 65 0*516 450 65 0*525 414 60 0
11005 10/07E496 517 50 0E506 484 50 0E516 450 50 0E525 414 50 0
* ** * ** * ** * **
11010 10/08*534 373 60 0*542 331 55 0*550 295 50 0*568 255 45 0
11010 10/08E534 373 50 0E542 331 50 0E552 295 50 0E568 255 45 0
* ** * ** **** *
11015 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). A peripheral
pressure reading of 981 mb (01Z on the 4th) suggests winds of at least
74 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 85 kt wind retained
in the best track. Winds reduced from the 5th to the 8th due to
observations supporting tropical storm intensity south of and over Canada.
Position altered slightly on last day of system to allow a more realistic
translational velocity.
********************************************************************************
1891/07 - 2003 REVISION:
11020 10/01/1891 M=10 7 SNBR= 288 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
11020 10/01/1891 M=10 7 SNBR= 299 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
11025 10/01* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*175 598 35 0*176 608 40 0
11030 10/02*177 619 40 0*177 629 45 0*178 639 45 0*178 649 45 0
11035 10/03*179 659 45 0*179 670 45 0*179 680 45 0*180 690 45 0
11040 10/04*180 701 45 0*182 712 40 0*183 723 40 0*185 734 40 0
11045 10/05*189 745 40 0*193 756 45 0*198 767 45 0*204 778 45 0
11050 10/06*210 788 45 0*218 798 40 0*228 807 40 0*239 812 45 0
11055 10/07*250 812 45 0*262 810 40 0*273 804 40 0*284 797 40 0
11060 10/08*295 789 40 0*306 781 40 0*317 772 45 0*326 763 45 0
11065 10/09*334 753 45 0*342 743 45 0*350 732 45 0*360 718 45 0
11070 10/10*371 702 40 0*384 682 40 0*398 661 35 0* 0 0 0 0
11075 TS
No changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made no alterations to the
track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). (This storm along
with storms 8 and 9 is being further investigated by the re-analysis team.
Alterations - if any - will await the collection of all possible ship and
land based observations.)
1891/07 - 2004 REVISION:
11555 10/01/1891 M=10 7 SNBR= 299 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
11020 10/04/1891 M= 7 7 SNBR= 300 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
** ** ***
(The 1st through the 3rd are removed from HURDAT.)
11560 10/01* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*175 598 35 0*176 608 40 0
11565 10/02*177 619 40 0*177 629 45 0*178 639 45 0*178 649 45 0
11570 10/03*179 659 45 0*179 670 45 0*179 680 45 0*180 690 45 0
11575 10/04*180 701 45 0*182 712 40 0*183 723 40 0*185 734 40 0
11025 10/04* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*150 790 35 0*160 795 40 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ***
11580 10/05*189 745 40 0*193 756 45 0*198 767 45 0*204 778 45 0
11030 10/05*170 800 45 0*175 805 45 0*180 810 45 0*187 815 45 0
*** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** ***
11585 10/06*210 788 45 0*218 798 40 0*228 807 40 0*239 812 45 0
11035 10/06*195 820 45 0*205 823 45 0*215 825 45 0*226 823 45 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
11590 10/07*250 812 45 0*262 810 40 0*273 804 40 0*284 797 40 0
11040 10/07*237 820 40 0*248 815 45 0*260 810 40 0*271 803 40 1004
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** ****
11595 10/08*295 789 40 0*306 781 40 0*317 772 45 0*326 763 45 0
11045 10/08*282 793 40 0*293 782 40 0*305 770 40 0*318 755 40 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** **
11600 10/09*334 753 45 0*342 743 45 0*350 732 45 0*360 718 45 0
11050 10/09E332 740 40 0E346 725 40 0E360 710 45 0E370 695 40 0
**** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** **** *** **
11605 10/10*371 702 40 0*384 682 40 0*398 661 35 0* 0 0 0 0
11055 10/10E375 675 35 0E378 650 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
**** *** ** **** *** ** *** *** **
11610 TS
U.S. Tropical Storm Landfall Data
---------------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max States
Winds Affected
7-10/7/1891$ 0000Z 25.0N 81.2W 45kt FL
7-10/7/1891$ 0800Z 25.2N 81.3W 45kt FL
**** **** ****
Three tropical systems in early October were first suggested by Mitchell
(1924), which was utilized in the HURDAT database as well as Neumann et al.
(1999) (storms 7, 8 and 9). In contrast, the Monthly Weather Review summary
of the era suggested one primary low forming in the Caribbean on the 6th,
moving across Cuba and Florida, impacting the U.S. mid-Atlantic states
and dissipating near Nova Scotia on the 14th. MWR also had a secondary
low pressure forming near the Florida Keys on the 9th and merging with
the main low on the 11th. Partagas and Diaz (1996a) believed that, "most
likely, only one storm ... was what happened in reality". However, they
"did not find enough evidence to entirely disprove the existence of the
three storms and, consequently, [they] decided to keep unchanged the tracks
for Storms 7, 8 and 9, 1891."
Subsequent research by the re-analysis team has uncovered evidence to
support a different conclusion to all the above: two storm systems existed -
1) a moderate tropical storm forming in the Caribbean on the 4th, moving
across Cuba and Florida, being absorbed in a frontal boundary and decaying
on the 10th (storm 7); and 2) a weak tropical storm also forming in the
Caribbean on the 7th and becomming extratropical storm system near near the
Florida Keys on the 9th, crossing Florida, slowing and becoming a strong
"Nor'easter" on the 11th to the 13th and decaying on the 15th and 16th over
Nova Scotia and Newfoundland (was storms 8 and 9, now combined into 8).
Storm 9 apparently never existed as a separate storm system, but was in fact
part of the extratropical storm stage for storm 8. Thus the two original
tropical storms and one original hurricane in HURDAT have been replaced with
two tropical storms.
Evidence for this scenario comes from both the COADS ship database, U.S.
station data obtained from NCDC, and Bermuda observations provided by
Mike Chenoweth. These were then plotted and analyzed twice daily from 1 to
15 October, 1891. (Figures showing the
station and ship observations and the team's analyses are provided.)
The remainder of this writeup focusses upon storm 7. The discussion for
the storm 8 (originally storm 8 and storm 9) is contained in that storm's
metadata file.
The early portion of original storm 7's track (1st through the 5th) has
been discounted partly by ship data (especially on the 4th and 5th) but
primarily by the climatological studies of Puerto Rico (Salivia 1972),
Hispanola (Garcia-Bonnelly 1958), and Cuba (Sarasola 1928). The first two
comprehensive tropical cyclone listings indicated that no tropical storm
or hurricane impacted those locations in October 1891. Perez (2003 -
personal communication) reconfirmed the earlier Cuban historical study
that the tropical system in October 1891 formed in the Caribbean and
made landfall in south central Cuba late on the 6th of October, not moving
in along eastern Cuba as suggested in HURDAT and Neumann et al.
Ship data first indicate a closed circulation late on the 4th in the
western Caribbean. Peripheral pressures of 1004 and 1005 mb on the 5th and
6th from ships and Havana suggest winds of at least 39 and 36 kt,
respectively. These along with ship observations suggest a maximum 1 min
wind of about 45 kt for this time period. (Some small weakening over
Cuba is accounted for on the 7th with a return to 45 kt intensity for
landfall in south Florida.) Station observations clearly locate the
center of the storm during its trek across Florida on the 7th. A sea
level pressure of 1004 mb in Jupiter, Florida at 1940 UTC may have been
a central pressure. This suggests winds of about 40 kt, which is
utilized for the HURDAT revision. Over water observations are somewhat
sparse on the 8th and 9th, but enhanced winds in North Carolina (peak of
39 kt at Kitty Hawk and 35 kt at Cape Hatteras) suggest a relatively
close pass east of the state early on the 9th. This likely occurred
soon after the system's extratropical transformation. The storm then likely
dissipated north of Bermuda on the 10th. It is noted that the track
provided here is quite similar from that found in HURDAT and Neumann et al.
(1999) for storm 7 from the 7th to the 10th.
********************************************************************************
1891/08 - 2003 REVISION:
11080 10/06/1891 M= 6 8 SNBR= 289 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
11080 10/06/1891 M= 6 8 SNBR= 300 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
11085 10/06* 0 0 0 0*159 830 35 0*164 832 40 0*171 837 40 0
11090 10/07*178 841 45 0*186 844 45 0*193 847 45 0*200 849 45 0
11095 10/08*208 850 45 0*215 850 45 0*223 848 45 0*233 844 45 0
11100 10/09*246 837 45 0*259 831 45 0*270 825 45 0*278 819 40 0
11105 10/10*284 813 35 0*291 807 35 0*298 801 40 0*307 793 45 0
11110 10/11*316 784 45 0*326 774 40 0*337 762 35 0* 0 0 0 0
11115 TS
No changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made no alterations to the
track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). (This storm along
with storms 7 and 9 is being further investigated by the re-analysis team.
Alterations - if any - will await the collection of all possible ship and
land based observations.)
1891/08 - 2004 REVISION:
11615 10/06/1891 M= 6 8 SNBR= 300 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
11615 10/07/1891 M=10 8 SNBR= 301 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
** ** *** *
(The 6th removed from HURDAT.)
11620 10/06* 0 0 0 0*159 830 35 0*164 832 40 0*171 837 40 0
11625 10/07*178 841 45 0*186 844 45 0*193 847 45 0*200 849 45 0
11625 10/07* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*180 850 30 0*185 850 30 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
11630 10/08*208 850 45 0*215 850 45 0*223 848 45 0*233 844 45 0
11630 10/08*190 850 35 0*195 850 35 0*200 848 35 0*207 844 35 0
*** ** *** ** *** ** *** **
11635 10/09*246 837 45 0*259 831 45 0*270 825 45 0*278 819 40 0
11635 10/09*215 840 35 0*225 837 40 0*240 835 40 0E255 828 35 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** **** *** **
11640 10/10*284 813 35 0*291 807 35 0*298 801 40 0*307 793 45 0
11640 10/10E270 815 30 0E284 807 30 0E298 800 30 0E310 788 30 0
**** *** ** **** ** * *** ** **** *** **
11645 10/11*316 784 45 0*326 774 40 0*337 762 35 0* 0 0 0 0
11645 10/11E320 770 30 0E326 758 35 0E332 750 40 0E338 745 45 0
**** *** ** * *** ** **** *** ** **** *** **
(The 8th to the 11th from storm 9 removed. The track from storm 9 on the
12th to the 16th incorporated into storm 8's track.)
11655 10/08/1891 M= 9 9 SNBR= 301 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
11660 10/08* 0 0 0 0*238 572 35 0*245 582 40 0*251 591 40 0
11665 10/09*256 601 45 0*262 612 50 0*268 625 55 0*274 639 60 0
11670 10/10*280 653 70 0*287 666 75 0*293 680 80 0*299 694 85 0
11675 10/11*305 708 85 0*312 721 85 0*321 735 85 0*330 740 85 0
11680 10/12*340 742 85 0*350 741 85 0*359 740 85 0*366 737 85 0
11680 10/12E344 740 50 0E348 737 55 0E350 735 55 0E354 733 55 0
**** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** **
11685 10/13*373 733 85 0*380 728 85 0*388 721 85 0*395 715 85 0
11685 10/13E360 731 55 0E370 729 55 0E380 725 55 0E390 715 55 0
**** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** **** **
11690 10/14*403 706 85 0*412 694 85 0*422 681 85 0*433 665 85 0
11690 10/14E400 705 55 0E410 695 55 0E420 685 50 0E433 665 45 0
**** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** * **
11695 10/15*446 647 80 0*460 626 75 0*475 602 70 0*500 571 65 0
11695 10/15E446 640 40 0E460 620 40 0E475 602 35 0E500 571 30 0
* *** ** * *** ** * ** * **
11700 10/16*530 522 65 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
11700 10/16E530 522 30 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
* **
11650 TS
U.S. Tropical Storm Landfall Data
---------------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max States
Winds Affected
8-10/9/1891$ 1400Z 25.8N 81.7W 45kt FL
(Removed from listing)
9-10/12/1891* 0600Z 35.0N 74.1W 60kt NC
(Removed from listing)
Three tropical systems in early October were first suggested by Mitchell
(1924), which was utilized in the HURDAT database as well as Neumann et al.
(1999) (storms 7, 8 and 9). In contrast, the Monthly Weather Review summary
of the era suggested one primary low forming in the Caribbean on the 6th,
moving across Cuba and Florida, impacting the U.S. mid-Atlantic states
and dissipating near Nova Scotia on the 14th. MWR also had a secondary
low pressure forming near the Florida Keys on the 9th and merging with
the main low on the 11th. Partagas and Diaz (1996a) believed that, "most
likely, only one storm ... was what happened in reality". However, they
"did not find enough evidence to entirely disprove the existence of the
three storms and, consequently, [they] decided to keep unchanged the tracks
for Storms 7, 8 and 9, 1891."
Subsequent research by the re-analysis team has uncovered evidence to
support a different conclusion to all the above: two storm systems existed -
1) a moderate tropical storm forming in the Caribbean on the 4th, moving
across Cuba and Florida, being absorbed in a frontal boundary and decaying
on the 10th (storm 7); and 2) a weak tropical storm also forming in the
Caribbean on the 7th and becomming extratropical storm system near near the
Florida Keys on the 9th, crossing Florida, slowing and becoming a strong
"Nor'easter" on the 11th to the 13th and decaying on the 15th and 16th over
Nova Scotia and Newfoundland (was storms 8 and 9, now combined into 8).
Storm 9 apparently never existed as a separate storm system, but was in fact
part of the extratropical storm stage for storm 8. Thus the two original
tropical storms and one original hurricane in HURDAT have been replaced with
two tropical storms.
Evidence for this scenario comes from both the COADS ship database, U.S.
station data obtained from NCDC, and Bermuda observations provided by
Mike Chenoweth. These were then plotted and analyzed twice daily from 1 to
15 October, 1891. (Figures showing the
station and ship observations and the team's analyses are provided.)
The remainder of this writeup focusses upon storm 8. The discussion for
the storm 7 is contained in that storm's metadata file.
Original storm 8 and 9 were each depicting a portion of the same storm
system that occurred. The genesis of the revised system is delayed a day
until the 7th in the northwestern Caribbean. By the time it reached
the Florida Keys on the 9th, it had merged with a pre-existing baroclinic
zone and became an extratropical storm. During the two day period
when the system maintained tropical cyclone status, peak observed winds
were 35 kt N from a ship at 14 UTC on the 9th at 21.0N 86.0W and lowest
observed pressures were from same ship: 1004 mb at 22 UTC on the 7th at
20.0N 84.0W and 1005 mb at 10 UTC on the 9th at 21.0N 86.0W (though a time
series of pressure from this ship suggests that the values may be
consistant 2-4 mb too low. 1004 mb peripheral pressure suggests winds of
at least 39 kt from the southern pressure-wind relationship. Peak estimated
winds as a tropical storm are 40 kt on the 9th. However, by the
time the system reached the Florida Keys as an extratropical system, either
it had weakened slightly or had not actually attained tropical storm
intensity. Peak conditions observed were only 21 kt and 1012 mb in Key West
as the system passed just to the west of the city. The extratrpical storm
then moved slowly northeastward across Florida into the Atlantic and then
drifted to the north beginning on the 11th for about 36 hours southeast of
Cape Hatteras. During this time a high built in from the north and west and
in conjunction with the extratropical storm caused strong northeasterly winds
along the U.S. mid-Atlantic and New England coasts. Peak (uncorrected) 5 min
sustained winds reached 57 kt at Kitty Hawk, 63 kt at Cape Hatteras, 41 kt at
Atlantic City, 63 kt at Block Island, and 50 kt at Nantucket. The estimated
maximum 1 min winds for this system during its extratropical stage were
about 55 kt. On the 13th to the 15th, the baroclinic low moved northeastward
and weakened. The baroclinic nature of this system is quite clear - it had
at times a 25F east-west temperature gradient while along the Atlantic coast.
The early portion of the original storm 9 also appears to be incorrect
based upon ship and Bermuda data on the 8th to the 11th. There is no
indication that a low (tropical or baroclinic) came toward the U.S.
Atlantic seaboard from the southeast. However, the portion of original
storm 9's track from the 12th to the 15th does closely match the analysis
here of the extratropical storm stage for this revised storm 8. However,
it is to be noted that the evidence for retaining this system in HURDAT
at all as a tropical storm is marginal given one gale force report and
a couple suspect low pressure readings.
********************************************************************************
1891/09 - 2004 REVISION:
Note: Storm was originally 1891/10, but became 1891/09 after the removal
of the original 1891/09 - May 2004.
1891/09 - 2003 REVISION:
11175 10/12/1891 M= 9 10 SNBR= 291 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
11175 10/12/1891 M= 9 10 SNBR= 302 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
11180 10/12* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*125 613 35 0*136 620 45 0
11180 10/12* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*125 613 35 0*136 620 35 0
**
11185 10/13*147 627 60 0*156 632 70 0*162 636 80 0*167 639 80 0
11185 10/13*147 627 40 0*156 632 40 0*162 636 45 0*167 639 45 0
** ** ** **
11190 10/14*172 641 85 0*177 644 85 0*182 646 85 0*187 648 85 0
11190 10/14*172 641 50 0*177 644 50 0*182 646 55 0*187 648 55 0
** ** ** **
11195 10/15*192 650 85 0*197 652 85 0*202 654 85 0*213 656 85 0
11195 10/15*192 650 60 0*197 652 60 0*202 654 65 0*213 656 70 0
** ** ** **
11200 10/16*224 658 85 0*234 660 85 0*245 662 85 0*256 663 85 0
11200 10/16*224 658 75 0*234 660 75 0*245 662 75 0*256 663 75 0
** ** ** **
11205 10/17*267 662 85 0*277 661 85 0*288 660 85 0*297 659 85 0
11205 10/17*267 662 75 0*277 661 75 0*288 660 75 0*297 659 75 0
** ** ** **
11210 10/18*303 659 85 0*310 658 85 0*320 657 85 0*334 655 85 0
11210 10/18*303 659 75 0*310 658 75 0*320 657 75 0*334 655 75 0
** ** ** **
11215 10/19*353 653 85 0*372 649 85 0*390 639 85 0*409 623 85 0
11215 10/19*353 653 75 0*372 649 75 0*390 639 70 0*409 623 65 0
** ** ** **
11220 10/20*430 602 80 0*448 582 65 0*465 570 60 0*485 575 35 0
11220 10/20*430 602 60 0*448 582 50 0*465 570 40 0*485 575 35 0
** ** ** **
11225 HR
Partagas and Diaz (1996a) did not introduce any track changes from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999) for this hurricane. Gale force and
greater observations available for this system were the following:
"gales of hurricane force" on the 17th east-northeast of the Bahamas,
60 kt SE-SW wind and 992 mb on the 18th at Bermuda (this peripheral
sea level pressure suggests winds of at least 61 kt from the subtropical
wind-pressure relationship - 75 kt utilized), 70 kt wind on the 19th
("Ocean Prince") at 36 N, 62 W. Available observational evidence
suggests that the peak intensity for this hurricane was a minimal
hurricane (Category 1), rather than the standard Category 2 (85 kt)
originally in HURDAT. Winds are reduced accordingly from the 13th to
the 20th. Hurricane intensity attained after passing through the Lesser
Antilles.
********************************************************************************
1891/10 - 2004 REVISION:
Note: Storm was originally 1891/11, but became 1891/10 after the removal
of the original 1891/10 - May 2004.
1891/10 - 2003 REVISION:
11230 11/03/1891 M= 4 11 SNBR= 292 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
11230 11/03/1891 M= 4 11 SNBR= 303 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
11235 11/03*241 738 35 0*250 725 35 0*257 716 40 0*268 703 45 0
11240 11/04*279 687 45 0*291 668 50 0*302 647 50 0*313 621 50 0
11245 11/05*325 592 50 0*338 562 50 0*352 538 45 0*380 512 40 0
11250 11/06*416 490 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
11255 TS
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). The only change is to renumber the
storm number for the year.
********************************************************************************
1891 - Additional Notes - 2004 REVISION:
1) The NHC Best Track Change Committee requested further investigation into
the possible storm system first identified by Partagas and Diaz (1996b)
in mid-July 1891:
"1891 additional system #1 (July) MWR mentions 'gale' winds.
This system may warrant further research. Is there any COADS?"
Upon investigation of this system in the Monthly Weather Review, from
the COADS ship database, and coastal station data, this system was of
tropical depression intensity at its peak. The COADS data were sparse
in the vicinity of the system until the 12th, when it was east of the
U.S. mid-Atlantic states. Peak ship observations were 25 kt and 1014 mb,
though a weak closed circulation was analyzed. Station data were also
obtained for Jacksonville, Jupiter, Titusville, Savannah, Charleston,
Wilmington, Cape Hatteras, Kitty Hawk, Baltimore, Atlantic City, New
York City, New London, New Haven, Block Island and Nantucket. Peak
observed winds were 36 mph at Kitty Hawk (10th and 11th) and at
Cape Hatteras (11th). These observations also support tropical depression
status for this system. While "fresh to strong gales" were mentioned
in the Monthly Weather Review, no evidence for these were to be found
from any source. Thus this system is not added into HURDAT.
2) September 11-12, 1891: Partagas and Diaz (1996b) had investigated
this system for possibility of inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team
agreed with Partagas and Diaz to leave it out of HURDAT as there was not
enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
3) September 14-15, 1891: Partagas and Diaz (1996b) had investigated
this system for possibility of inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team
agreed with Partagas and Diaz to leave it out of HURDAT as there was not
enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
4) The NHC Best Track Change Committee requested further investigation into
the possible storm system first identified by Partagas and Diaz (1996b)
in mid-September 1891:
"1891 additional system #4 (Sept) MWR gives TS force winds at
coastal stations. This system is also given a high probability
by P+D, and bears further investigation."
Upon investigation of this system in the Monthly Weather Review, from
the COADS ship database, and coastal station data, a closed circulation for
this system could not be found. The COADS ship data did not provide any
observations near the system, though the station data was quite thorough
with observations obtained for Key West, Jupiter, Titusville, Tampa,
Jacksonville, Pensacola, Mobile, Port Eads, New Orleans and Galveston.
These data indicate that a disturbance did cross the Gulf of Mexico
being located roughly along longitude 78W on the 17th, 80W on
the 18th, 82W on the 19th, 85W on the 20th, 88W on the 21st, and 90W
on the 22nd. Peak winds recorded in association with this system were
40 mph E at Titusville on the 19th, 48 mph NE at New Orleans on the 20th,
and 40 mph NE at Galveston on the 20th. However, only easterly winds were
reported from these locations and lowest pressure recorded was only
1014 mb at Key West on the 19th. It is possible that this was a
tropical storm, but confirming observations for having a closed
circulation were not found. (It is also possible that the system was
a vigorous easterly wave with no closed circulation and a NNE-SSW oriented
wave axis.) Thus because of the uncertainty and lack of having an observed
closed circulation, this system is not included into HURDAT.
5) Storm 9 in Partagas and Diaz (1996a) and Neumann et al. (1999) apparently
did not exist as a separate tropical cyclone, but was in fact part of the
extratropical storm stage for storm 8. Thus this system is removed from
HURDAT. Details on the observations for this removal can be found within
the discussion of storm 8. (Figures showing
the station and ship observations and the team's analyses are provided.).
Below is the original HURDAT entry for this system:
11120 10/08/1891 M= 9 9 SNBR= 290 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
11125 10/08* 0 0 0 0*238 572 35 0*245 582 40 0*251 591 40 0
11130 10/09*256 601 45 0*262 612 50 0*268 625 55 0*274 639 60 0
11135 10/10*280 653 70 0*287 666 75 0*293 680 80 0*299 694 85 0
11140 10/11*305 708 85 0*312 721 85 0*321 735 85 0*330 740 85 0
11145 10/12*340 742 85 0*350 741 85 0*359 740 85 0*366 737 85 0
11150 10/13*373 733 85 0*380 728 85 0*388 721 85 0*395 715 85 0
11155 10/14*403 706 85 0*412 694 85 0*422 681 85 0*433 665 85 0
11160 10/15*446 647 80 0*460 626 75 0*475 602 70 0*500 571 65 0
11165 10/16*530 522 65 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
11170 HR
********************************************************************************
11260 06/10/1892 M= 7 1 SNBR= 293 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
11260 06/09/1892 M= 8 1 SNBR= 304 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
** * ***
(9th not in HURDAT previously.)
11262 06/09*208 831 35 0*213 834 35 0*217 837 35 0*221 838 35 0
11265 06/10*237 853 35 0*245 844 35 0*250 836 40 0*258 824 40 0
11265 06/10*229 839 35 0*238 838 35 0*247 833 40 0*252 822 40 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
11270 06/11*265 812 45 0*272 801 45 0*278 792 35 0*283 781 35 0
11270 06/11*258 810 35 0*264 799 35 0*270 787 35 0*276 776 35 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ***
11275 06/12*287 771 40 0*290 761 45 0*293 751 45 0*296 740 45 0
11275 06/12*282 767 40 0*289 758 45 0*293 751 45 0*296 740 45 0
*** *** *** ***
11280 06/13*299 728 45 0*302 719 45 0*304 716 45 0*310 716 45 0
11285 06/14*314 720 45 0*313 727 45 0*312 736 45 0*312 741 45 0
11290 06/15*313 747 45 0*315 753 45 0*318 758 45 0*320 760 45 0
11295 06/16*323 760 45 0*326 760 40 0*330 760 40 0*335 760 35 0
11300 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track changes are found
to be reasonable.
********************************************************************************
11305 08/16/1892 M= 9 2 SNBR= 294 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
11305 08/15/1892 M=10 2 SNBR= 305 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
** ** ***
(15th not previously in HURDAT.)
11307 08/15*180 545 35 0*180 555 35 0*180 565 35 0*181 575 35 0
11310 08/16* 0 0 0 0*181 563 35 0*181 573 40 0*184 585 45 0
11310 08/16*182 585 35 0*185 595 35 0*189 605 40 0*193 614 40 0
*** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** **
11315 08/17*187 597 55 0*192 609 60 0*197 620 65 0*203 631 70 0
11315 08/17*197 622 45 0*201 630 45 0*206 637 50 0*211 643 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
11320 08/18*210 642 75 0*218 652 80 0*228 662 80 0*241 673 85 0
11320 08/18*215 650 55 0*220 657 55 0*228 663 60 0*240 670 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** *** *** **
11325 08/19*258 677 85 0*274 678 85 0*288 679 85 0*299 678 85 0
11325 08/19*249 673 65 0*259 677 65 0*270 680 65 0*284 684 65 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
11330 08/20*310 676 85 0*320 673 85 0*331 669 85 0*342 665 85 0
11330 08/20*300 686 65 0*318 686 65 0*335 680 65 0*351 672 65 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
11335 08/21*354 660 85 0*368 652 85 0*400 630 85 0*417 616 85 0
11335 08/21*364 662 65 0*382 647 65 0*400 630 65 0*417 616 65 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** ** **
11340 08/22*435 598 80 0*452 578 70 0*470 552 70 0*492 515 70 0
11340 08/22E435 598 60 0E452 578 55 0E470 552 50 0E492 515 50 0
* ** * ** * ** * **
11345 08/23*519 470 70 0*547 435 70 0*570 410 70 0*584 393 70 0
11345 08/23E519 470 50 0E547 435 50 0E570 410 50 0E584 393 50 0
* ** * ** * ** * **
11350 08/24*595 370 70 0*601 336 65 0*606 310 60 0*609 283 55 0
11350 08/24E595 370 45 0E601 336 45 0E606 310 40 0E609 283 40 0
* ** * ** * ** * **
11355 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999) for this hurricane.
Available gale force or greater observations are as follows: 40 kt SE wind
on Aug. 17 at 21.6 N, 60.1 W (steamship "Francia"), 60 kt S-SE wind at 00 UTC
on Aug. 19 at 24.3 N, 65.4 W (steamer "Duart Castle"), 35 kt SW wind and
1006 mb at 10 UTC on Aug. 20 at Bermuda, and NW-N "gales of hurricane force
along the trans-Atlantic shipping routes between 50 and 65 W on Aug. 22.
These observations indicate that the system peaked at minimal hurricane
status, rather than the standard Category 2 (85 kt) originally found in
HURDAT. The hurricane is estimated to have transitioned to extratropical on
the 22nd based upon ship reports of strong northerly gales between 50 and 65W.
********************************************************************************
11360 09/03/1892 M=15 3 SNBR= 295 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
11360 09/03/1892 M=15 3 SNBR= 306 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
11365 09/03* 0 0 0 0*115 330 35 0*116 346 35 0*119 363 40 0
11370 09/04*122 378 40 0*124 391 40 0*127 402 45 0*129 410 50 0
11375 09/05*132 417 50 0*134 423 55 0*137 431 60 0*142 442 65 0
11380 09/06*148 454 65 0*154 466 70 0*161 475 75 0*168 482 75 0
11385 09/07*174 488 80 0*181 494 85 0*187 499 85 0*193 504 85 0
11390 09/08*199 509 85 0*205 513 85 0*212 518 85 0*220 523 85 0
11395 09/09*229 527 85 0*238 531 85 0*247 534 85 0*256 536 85 0
11400 09/10*264 538 85 0*273 540 85 0*281 541 85 0*290 543 85 0
11405 09/11*298 544 85 0*307 545 85 0*317 546 85 0*329 545 85 0
11410 09/12*345 540 85 0*361 532 85 0*376 522 85 0*389 509 85 0
11415 09/13*403 493 85 0*415 473 85 0*428 450 85 0*440 423 80 0
11420 09/14*451 393 75 0*461 363 70 0*470 338 65 0*477 316 60 0
11425 09/15*482 294 60 0*485 272 55 0*487 250 55 0*482 228 50 0
11430 09/16*475 206 50 0*468 184 50 0*462 162 50 0*456 144 50 0
11435 09/17*451 131 45 0*447 122 40 0*443 115 35 0* 0 0 0 0
11440 HR
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). No observations of gale force or
greater winds were found for this system. Without data for substantiating
changes to HURDAT's original intensity estimates, no alterations are made
for this hurricane.
********************************************************************************
11445 09/09/1892 M= 9 4 SNBR= 296 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
11445 09/08/1892 M=10 4 SNBR= 307 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
** ** ***
(The 8th is new to HURDAT.)
11447 09/08* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*220 928 35 0
11450 09/09*220 928 35 0*228 934 35 0*241 942 40 0*249 944 45 0
11450 09/09*227 932 35 0*234 937 35 0*241 942 40 0*249 944 45 0
*** *** *** ***
11455 09/10*256 942 50 0*261 939 50 0*266 936 50 0*269 933 50 0
11460 09/11*271 929 50 0*274 924 50 0*276 920 50 0*279 916 50 0
11465 09/12*283 912 50 0*289 907 50 0*297 901 45 0*309 889 40 0
11470 09/13*327 877 35 0*347 865 35 0*368 854 35 0*392 843 35 0
11470 09/13*327 877 35 0*347 865 35 0E368 854 40 0E392 843 45 0
* ** * **
11475 09/14*419 831 35 0*443 820 35 0*462 808 35 0*476 792 35 0
11475 09/14E419 831 50 0E443 820 50 0E462 808 45 0E476 792 45 0
* ** * ** * ** * **
11480 09/15*489 771 35 0*502 746 35 0*514 720 35 0*526 689 35 0
11480 09/15E489 771 40 0E502 746 40 0E514 720 35 0E526 689 35 0
* ** * ** * *
11485 09/16*539 652 35 0*551 615 35 0*563 584 35 0*574 560 35 0
11485 09/16E539 652 35 0E551 615 35 0E563 584 35 0E574 560 35 0
* * * *
11490 09/17*584 542 35 0*594 528 35 0*603 519 35 0* 0 0 0 0
11490 09/17E584 542 35 0E594 528 35 0E603 519 35 0* 0 0 0 0
* * *
11495 TS
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Track extended back in time slightly
and adjusted to provide for a more reasonable translational velocity at
the beginning of the storm. Winds are intensified overland while
undergoing extratropical transition due to wind and pressure observations.
********************************************************************************
11500 09/13/1892 M=11 5 SNBR= 297 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
11500 09/12/1892 M=12 5 SNBR= 308 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
** ** ***
(12th not originally in HURDAT.)
11502 09/12*153 195 35 0*154 205 40 0*155 215 45 0*156 223 50 0
11505 09/13* 0 0 0 0*153 194 35 0*154 207 35 0*156 219 35 0
11505 09/13*157 230 55 0*159 236 60 0*160 241 65 0*162 248 70 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
11510 09/14*158 231 35 0*160 242 40 0*163 254 50 0*166 266 60 0
11510 09/14*164 255 75 0*166 262 80 0*169 270 85 0*171 277 85 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
11515 09/15*169 277 70 0*172 289 75 0*176 300 80 0*180 311 80 0
11515 09/15*173 284 85 0*174 292 85 0*176 300 85 0*180 311 85 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** ** **
11520 09/16*184 323 85 0*189 334 85 0*194 345 85 0*199 356 85 0
11525 09/17*205 367 85 0*210 378 85 0*215 389 85 0*220 398 85 0
11530 09/18*224 406 85 0*229 414 85 0*234 422 85 0*239 431 85 0
11535 09/19*245 440 85 0*250 449 85 0*256 458 85 0*261 466 85 0
11540 09/20*267 474 85 0*272 482 85 0*277 489 85 0*283 495 80 0
11545 09/21*290 500 80 0*298 504 80 0*306 507 75 0*316 509 70 0
11550 09/22*326 507 70 0*337 503 70 0*347 497 65 0*355 487 60 0
11555 09/23*363 473 50 0*369 454 45 0*375 432 35 0*382 419 25 0
11560 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999) for this hurricane.
Winds increased from the 12th to the 15th to account for hurricane
conditions experienced in and near the Cape Verde Islands.
********************************************************************************
11845 09/25/1892 M= 3 6 SNBR= 298 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
11845 09/25/1892 M= 3 6 SNBR= 309 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
11850 09/25* 0 0 0 0*195 922 35 0*196 929 40 0*199 936 40 0
11855 09/26*203 943 45 0*208 949 50 0*213 955 50 0*219 961 50 0
11860 09/27*225 966 50 0*231 971 50 0*238 976 45 0*243 979 35 0
11865 TS
Partagas and Diaz (1996a) introduced no changes from that shown in Neumann
et al. (1999).
********************************************************************************
11590 10/05/1892 M=11 7 SNBR= 299 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
11590 10/05/1892 M=12 7 SNBR= 310 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
** ***
11595 10/05*115 562 35 0*113 570 40 0*112 576 45 0*112 578 50 0
11595 10/05*115 562 35 0*113 570 40 0*112 576 45 0*112 582 50 0
***
11600 10/06*112 583 55 0*111 589 55 0*111 598 60 0*111 609 65 0
11600 10/06*112 587 55 0*111 592 55 0*111 600 60 0*111 609 65 0
*** *** ***
11605 10/07*111 620 70 0*112 632 75 0*113 644 80 0*115 657 80 0
11610 10/08*116 670 85 0*118 683 85 0*120 696 85 0*122 708 85 0
11615 10/09*124 720 85 0*125 731 85 0*127 743 85 0*129 756 85 0
11620 10/10*131 769 85 0*134 783 85 0*137 795 85 0*140 805 85 0
11625 10/11*143 813 85 0*146 821 85 0*150 830 85 0*155 841 85 0
11625 10/11*143 813 85 0*146 821 85 0*150 830 85 0*155 841 80 0
**
11630 10/12*159 851 85 0*164 862 85 0*169 872 80 0*174 883 75 0
11630 10/12*159 851 75 0*164 862 80 0*169 872 85 0*174 883 85 0
** ** ** **
11635 10/13*179 893 70 0*183 904 70 0*187 914 70 0*190 923 70 0
11635 10/13*179 893 60 0*183 904 55 0*187 914 55 0*190 923 65 0
** ** ** **
11640 10/14*193 930 70 0*195 935 75 0*198 941 80 0*200 947 85 0
11645 10/15*203 954 85 0*206 960 85 0*209 966 80 0*213 973 35 0
11645 10/15*203 954 85 0*206 960 85 0*209 966 80 0*213 973 70 0
**
(16th not previously in HURDAT.)
11647 10/16*217 980 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
11650 HR
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Positions on the 5th and 6th are
adjusted slightly to provide realistic translational velocities. Winds are
adjusted to better accommodate passage over land. Additional six hour
position/intensity added on the 16th to allow for reasonable (but quick)
decay over the mountainous terrain of Mexico.
********************************************************************************
11655 10/13/1892 M= 8 8 SNBR= 300 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
11655 10/13/1892 M= 8 8 SNBR= 311 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
11660 10/13* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*262 695 35 0
11660 10/13*260 712 40 0*265 707 50 0*270 700 60 0*275 691 70 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
11665 10/14*269 682 35 0*275 671 35 0*280 661 40 0*285 650 40 0
11665 10/14*280 683 70 0*285 677 75 0*290 670 80 0*296 662 80 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
11670 10/15*290 640 45 0*295 632 45 0*300 626 50 0*302 623 50 0
11670 10/15*301 656 80 0*306 649 80 0*310 643 80 0*315 634 80 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
11675 10/16*304 620 50 0*307 616 50 0*311 609 50 0*316 599 50 0
11675 10/16*320 626 75 0*325 617 70 0*330 609 60 0*337 597 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** *** ***
11680 10/17*322 588 50 0*330 575 50 0*339 561 50 0*350 547 50 0
11680 10/17*344 582 50 0*350 572 50 0*355 560 50 0*362 546 50 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
11685 10/18*363 532 50 0*376 517 50 0*388 502 50 0*397 487 50 0
11685 10/18E370 531 50 0E378 518 50 0E388 502 50 0E397 487 50 0
**** *** **** *** * *
11690 10/19*404 473 50 0*411 463 50 0*419 455 45 0*432 446 45 0
11690 10/19E404 473 50 0E411 463 50 0E419 455 45 0E432 446 45 0
* * * *
11695 10/20*448 441 45 0*462 449 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
11695 10/20E448 441 45 0E462 449 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
* *
11700 TS
11700 HR
**
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Intensity is
increased to Category 1 (80 kt) hurricane based upon reports of hurricane
force ship observations on the 13th as well as 60 kt observed wind in
Bermuda in the weak semi-circle of the storm on the 15th.
********************************************************************************
11705 10/21/1892 M= 9 9 SNBR= 301 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
11705 10/21/1892 M= 9 9 SNBR= 312 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
11710 10/21*230 926 35 0*232 922 35 0*235 917 40 0*237 914 40 0
11715 10/22*239 910 40 0*242 906 45 0*246 900 45 0*251 894 45 0
11720 10/23*255 887 45 0*260 879 45 0*262 872 45 0*266 863 45 0
11720 10/23*255 887 45 0*259 879 45 0*262 872 45 0*266 863 45 0
***
11725 10/24*269 855 45 0*271 848 45 0*273 840 45 0*276 830 45 0
11725 10/24*269 855 45 0*271 848 45 0*273 840 45 0*276 827 45 0
***
11730 10/25*278 820 40 0*280 810 40 0*282 799 35 0*284 780 35 0
11730 10/25*280 810 40 0*283 792 35 0*285 777 35 0*286 765 35 0
*** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** ***
11735 10/26*287 763 35 0*290 748 40 0*293 735 40 0*297 721 45 0
11735 10/26*288 756 35 0*290 746 40 0*293 735 40 0*297 721 45 0
*** *** ***
11740 10/27*305 710 45 0*312 702 45 0*320 695 45 0*327 689 45 0
11745 10/28*333 683 45 0*340 678 45 0*347 672 45 0*358 666 45 0
11750 10/29*366 662 45 0*375 660 40 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
11755 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999).
********************************************************************************
1892 - Additional Notes:
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) mentioned three additional systems considered
for inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team agreed to leave them out
of HURDAT for the following reasons:
1) September 11-14, 1892: Gale force intensity, but likely extratropical.
2) September 12, 1892: Possible new hurricane, but location not known.
3) October 1-2, 1892: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
********************************************************************************
11760 06/12/1893 M= 9 1 SNBR= 302 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
11760 06/12/1893 M= 9 1 SNBR= 313 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
*** *
11765 06/12* 0 0 0 0*205 952 35 0*212 947 40 0*217 943 45 0
11770 06/13*222 939 55 0*227 934 65 0*233 927 75 0*240 919 80 0
11770 06/13*222 939 50 0*227 934 55 0*233 927 60 0*240 919 60 0
** ** ** **
11775 06/14*245 912 85 0*252 904 85 0*258 897 85 0*262 889 85 0
11775 06/14*245 912 60 0*252 904 60 0*258 897 60 0*262 889 60 0
** ** ** **
11780 06/15*266 882 85 0*270 874 85 0*275 867 85 0*286 853 80 0
11780 06/15*266 882 60 0*270 874 60 0*277 865 60 0*286 853 60 0
** ** *** *** ** **
11785 06/16*301 834 70 0*317 815 55 0*331 798 50 0*343 784 50 0
11785 06/16*301 834 50 0*317 815 45 0*331 798 50 0*343 784 50 0
** **
11790 06/17*355 771 50 0*366 757 55 0*375 743 60 0*383 729 65 0
11795 06/18*390 716 70 0*398 702 75 0*405 688 80 0*412 668 80 0
11795 06/18*390 716 65 0*398 702 65 0*405 688 65 0*412 668 65 0
** ** ** **
11800 06/19*420 641 85 0*427 613 85 0*434 593 85 0*440 580 85 0
11800 06/19*420 641 65 0*427 613 65 0*434 593 65 0*440 580 65 0
** ** ** **
11805 06/20*445 568 80 0*450 558 75 0*454 550 70 0*459 540 65 0
11805 06/20E445 568 60 0E450 558 60 0E454 550 60 0E459 540 60 0
* ** * ** * ** * **
11810 HR
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Available observational data for
Florida indicates that the system was likely of strong tropical storm
intensity at landfall. Hurricane is downgraded from the original standard
Category 2 (85 kt) to a Category 1 (65 kt) hurricane at peak intensity,
since observational evidence suggests that it was (at most) a minimal
hurricane.
********************************************************************************
11815 07/04/1893 M= 4 2 SNBR= 303 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
11815 07/04/1893 M= 4 2 SNBR= 314 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
11820 07/04* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*111 792 35 0*118 798 40 0
11825 07/05*126 804 50 0*133 812 60 0*140 820 70 0*147 829 80 0
11825 07/05*126 804 50 0*133 812 60 0*140 820 70 0*147 829 85 0
**
11830 07/06*154 839 85 0*160 849 85 0*167 860 85 0*172 870 80 0
11830 07/06*154 839 75 0*160 849 70 0*167 860 80 0*172 870 80 0
** ** **
11835 07/07*179 882 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
11835 07/07*179 882 80 0*184 895 60 0*187 910 40 0*190 925 30 0
** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
11840 HR
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Winds reduced slightly on the 6th
due to the center of the hurricane passing over Honduras, though original
landfall intensity at Nicaragua/Honduras retained (85 kt). Three position and
intensity values were added on the 7th because original final position was
not over land. These allow for a reasonable decay of the hurricane over
land by using the Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) inland decay model.
********************************************************************************
11845 08/13/1893 M=13 3 SNBR= 304 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
11845 08/13/1893 M=13 3 SNBR= 315 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
11850 08/13* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 96 505 35 0*103 515 40 0
11855 08/14*109 526 40 0*116 537 45 0*122 548 50 0*129 560 55 0
11860 08/15*135 573 60 0*142 585 65 0*148 597 65 0*154 608 70 0
11865 08/16*160 618 75 0*166 629 80 0*172 639 80 0*178 649 85 0
11865 08/16*160 618 75 0*166 629 80 0*172 639 90 0*176 649 100 0
** *** ***
11870 08/17*183 660 90 0*188 670 90 0*194 680 95 0*200 689 100 0
11870 08/17*180 659 100 0*185 670 90 0*190 680 95 0*196 689 100 0
*** *** *** *** *** ***
11875 08/18*206 697 100 0*212 704 105 0*218 712 105 0*225 721 105 0
11875 08/18*202 697 100 0*209 704 105 0*218 712 105 0*225 721 105 0
*** ***
11880 08/19*232 729 105 0*240 738 105 0*248 747 105 0*257 754 105 0
11885 08/20*267 757 105 0*279 758 105 0*301 753 105 0*308 750 105 0
11885 08/20*267 757 105 0*279 758 105 0*291 755 100 0*308 750 95 0
*** *** *** ***
11890 08/21*327 738 105 0*348 723 105 0*370 706 105 0*395 686 100 0
11890 08/21*327 738 90 0*348 723 90 0*370 706 90 0*395 686 80 0
*** *** *** ***
11895 08/22*422 663 100 0*448 638 95 0*474 597 90 0*499 553 85 0
11895 08/22*422 663 70 0E448 638 60 0E474 597 50 0E494 553 50 0
*** * ** * ** **** **
11900 08/23*507 525 80 0*513 500 75 0*519 480 70 0*511 451 65 0
11900 08/23E507 525 50 0E513 500 50 0E516 480 50 0E511 451 50 0
* ** * ** **** ** * **
11905 08/24*504 431 65 0*496 418 60 0*491 400 60 0*492 387 60 0
11905 08/24E504 431 50 0E496 418 50 0E491 400 50 0E492 387 50 0
* ** * ** * ** * **
11910 08/25*494 371 60 0*497 360 60 0*500 350 60 0*506 339 60 0
11910 08/25E494 371 50 0E497 360 45 0E500 350 40 0E506 339 35 0
* ** * ** * ** * **
11915 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996a), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Analysis from
Boose et al. (2003) documents widespread Fujita-scale F2 wind-caused
damage over Puerto Rico. Thus winds increased to 100 kt (Category 3) at
landfall over that island. Winds are increased accordingly on the
16th and 17th. Observational evidence found in Partagas and Diaz suggests
a weakening of the system after recurvature - winds are reduced from the
20th to the 22nd accordingly. Additionally, no evidence is available that
indicates that the storm struck as a hurricane in Canada. Winds reduced
from the 23rd to the 25th accordingly. The hurricane is known as "San
Roque III" in Puerto Rico from the impacts in that island.
********************************************************************************
11920 08/15/1893 M=12 4 SNBR= 305 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
11920 08/15/1893 M=12 4 SNBR= 316 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
*** *
11925 08/15* 0 0 0 0*140 365 35 0*142 377 40 0*144 386 45 0
11930 08/16*147 396 45 0*149 405 50 0*151 415 55 0*153 426 60 0
11935 08/17*156 437 65 0*159 448 65 0*161 459 70 0*163 469 75 0
11940 08/18*165 479 80 0*168 489 85 0*172 499 85 0*176 513 85 0
11945 08/19*180 529 85 0*185 545 85 0*191 558 85 0*197 570 85 0
11950 08/20*203 581 85 0*210 592 85 0*216 603 85 0*222 614 85 0
11955 08/21*227 624 85 0*233 635 85 0*239 649 85 0*244 658 85 0
11955 08/21*227 624 85 0*233 635 85 0*239 646 85 0*244 658 85 0
***
11960 08/22*252 671 85 0*261 684 85 0*271 698 85 0*284 707 85 0
11960 08/22*252 671 85 0*261 684 90 0*271 698 95 0*284 707 100 0
** ** ***
11965 08/23*298 716 85 0*314 725 85 0*331 732 85 0*353 737 85 0
11965 08/23*298 716 100 952*314 725 100 0*331 732 100 0*350 737 95 0
*** *** *** *** *** **
11970 08/24*373 740 85 0*394 739 80 0*414 735 80 0*434 724 75 0
11970 08/24*368 740 85 0*386 739 80 0*407 739 75 986*430 730 60 0
*** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** **
11975 08/25*454 707 70 0*474 685 65 0*493 660 60 0*506 631 60 0
11975 08/25E454 710 55 0E474 685 50 0E493 660 45 0E506 631 45 0
* *** ** * ** * ** * **
11980 08/26*511 597 60 0*511 565 60 0*507 538 60 0*500 514 60 0
11980 08/26E511 597 40 0E511 565 40 0E507 538 40 0E500 514 40 0
* ** * ** * ** * **
11985 HR
11985 HR NY1
***
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Track near landfall slightly altered
to better fit passage of the eye over New York City. A central pressure
of 952 mb (03Z on the 23rd) suggests winds of 101 kt from the subtropical
wind-pressure relationship - supporting upgrading this hurricane to a 100 kt
Category 3 for best track. A peripheral pressure of 990 mb (11Z on the 24th)
suggests winds of at least 63 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship
- 75 kt chosen for best track. Estimate of RMW of 45 nmi provided by
Coch and Jarvinen (2000), while an estimate of 30 nmi for RMW was provided
by Boose et al. (2001) based upon observations and modeling of observed
wind-caused damages. The latter estimate is chosen here, as this may provide
a more direct RMW result for this region. Given the track of the hurricane
and the estimated RMW, SLOSH model runs suggest a central pressure of 986 mb
(Jarvinen, personal communication) - which corresponds to 67 kt maximum
sustained winds from the northern wind-pressure relationship. 75 kt winds
chosen for best track at landfall, which is reasonable given the slightly
smaller than usual RMW at this latitude and central pressure. Thus the U.S.
landfall intensity determined here is a 75 kt Category 1 hurricane in New
York, which is at the low end of the range of the Fujita-scale F2 (upper
Category 1 to all of Category 2) damage analyzed in Boose et al. (2001).
Additionally, the changes introduced here in intensity on the 24th and 25th
after landfall match closely the analysis of wind-caused damage by Boose
et al. (2001). Hurricane also known as the "Midnight Storm" (Coch and
Jarvinen 2000).
1893/04 - 2006 REVISION:
12470 08/15/1893 M=12 4 SNBR= 316 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
12475 08/15* 0 0 0 0*140 365 35 0*142 377 40 0*144 386 45 0*
12480 08/16*147 396 45 0*149 405 50 0*151 415 55 0*153 426 60 0*
12485 08/17*156 437 65 0*159 448 65 0*161 459 70 0*163 469 75 0*
12490 08/18*165 479 80 0*168 489 85 0*172 499 85 0*176 513 85 0*
12495 08/19*180 529 85 0*185 545 85 0*191 558 85 0*197 570 85 0*
12500 08/20*203 581 85 0*210 592 85 0*216 603 85 0*222 614 85 0*
12505 08/21*227 624 85 0*233 635 85 0*239 646 85 0*244 658 85 0*
12510 08/22*252 671 85 0*261 684 90 0*271 698 95 0*284 707 100 0*
12515 08/23*298 716 100 952*314 725 100 0*331 732 100 0*350 737 95 0*
12520 08/24*368 740 85 0*386 739 80 0*407 739 75 986*430 730 60 0*
12525 08/25E454 710 55 0E474 685 50 0E493 660 40 0E506 631 45 0*
12530 08/26E511 597 40 0E511 565 40 0E507 538 40 0E500 514 40 0*
12535 HR NY1 VA1
12535 HR NY1 CT1
***
Based upon research provided by Mark Jelinek and James Belanger from Georgia
Institute of Technology, this cyclone passed too far to the east of
Virginia for that state to be counted as a hurricane impact. Moreover,
inspection of the track and intensity in HURDAT suggests that Connecticut
likely experienced Category 1 hurricane impact along a portion of
their coastline. Despite passing quite close to New Jersey, this cyclone
likely did not cause hurricane force winds along that state's coast due
the hurricane's translational speed and induced wind asymmetries.
********************************************************************************
11990 08/15/1893 M= 5 5 SNBR= 306 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
11990 08/15/1893 M= 5 5 SNBR= 317 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
11995 08/15* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*322 604 35 0*331 621 40 0
12000 08/16*342 640 45 0*355 661 55 0*370 670 60 0*384 661 70 0
12005 08/17*402 647 80 0*419 627 85 0*434 608 85 0*448 588 85 0
12010 08/18*461 568 85 0*473 547 80 0*484 525 70 0*499 497 65 0
12010 08/18*461 568 85 0*473 547 80 0*484 525 70 0*495 497 65 0
***
12015 08/19*505 479 65 0*517 445 65 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
12015 08/19*505 474 65 0*517 445 65 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
***
12020 HR
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Small track changes are introduced on
the 18th and 19th for more realistic translational velocities. No
observations of gale force or greater wind reports could be located for
this system (except for an indirect report from Bermuda of a "hurricane ...
moving northward between that station and Halifax" on the 15th). Without
data for substantiating changes to HURDAT's original intensity estimates, no
alterations are made to the intensity for this hurricane.
********************************************************************************
12025 08/15/1893 M=19 6 SNBR= 307 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
12025 08/15/1893 M=19 6 SNBR= 318 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
*** *
12030 08/15* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*181 202 40 0*176 209 40 0
12035 08/16*172 216 40 0*168 224 40 0*165 232 40 0*162 241 40 0
12040 08/17*160 250 40 0*158 260 40 0*156 269 40 0*155 278 45 0
12045 08/18*154 286 45 0*154 294 50 0*155 303 50 0*156 313 55 0
12050 08/19*158 324 55 0*161 338 60 0*165 354 65 0*170 374 70 0
12055 08/20*175 396 75 0*180 419 80 0*186 440 85 0*192 458 90 0
12055 08/20*175 396 75 0*180 419 80 0*186 440 85 0*192 458 85 0
**
12060 08/21*198 476 90 0*205 494 95 0*210 510 100 0*214 525 100 0
12060 08/21*198 476 85 0*205 494 85 0*210 510 85 0*214 525 85 0
** ** ** **
12065 08/22*217 540 100 0*219 555 105 972*220 570 105 0*221 585 105 0
12065 08/22*217 540 85 0*219 555 85 972*220 570 90 0*221 585 95 0
** ** *** ***
12070 08/23*223 600 105 0*224 614 105 0*225 627 105 0*226 639 105 0
12070 08/23*223 600 100 0*224 614 105 0*225 627 105 0*226 639 105 0
***
12075 08/24*228 649 105 0*229 659 105 0*230 670 105 0*232 681 105 0
12080 08/25*235 693 105 0*238 704 105 0*241 716 105 0*244 729 105 0
12085 08/26*247 742 105 0*251 756 105 0*255 769 105 0*261 780 105 0
12090 08/27*270 789 105 0*281 797 105 0*292 804 105 0*303 809 100 0
12090 08/27*270 789 105 0*280 798 105 0*290 803 105 0*297 806 100 0
*** *** *** *** *** ***
12095 08/28*315 812 95 0*327 812 90 0*340 810 85 0*354 805 80 0
12095 08/28*306 807 100 954*321 812 90 958*339 811 75 0*354 805 65 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** **
12100 08/29*368 796 75 0*384 782 70 0*402 760 70 0*420 737 65 0
12100 08/29*368 796 60 0*384 782 55 0*402 760 55 0*420 737 55 0
** ** ** **
12105 08/30*443 707 60 0*466 677 60 0*490 647 55 0*501 630 55 0
12105 08/30*443 707 50 0*466 677 50 0*486 650 50 0*501 630 50 0
** ** *** *** ** **
12110 08/31*513 609 55 0*522 589 50 0*530 570 50 0*536 552 50 0
12110 08/31E513 609 50 0E522 589 50 0E530 570 50 0E536 552 50 0
* ** * * *
12115 09/01*541 535 50 0*545 518 50 0*547 500 50 0*545 481 50 0
12115 09/01E541 535 50 0E545 518 50 0E547 500 50 0E545 481 50 0
* * * *
12120 09/02*544 461 50 0*542 441 50 0*540 420 50 0*539 391 50 0
12120 09/02E544 461 50 0E542 441 50 0E540 420 50 0E539 391 50 0
* * * *
12125 HR
12125 HR GA3 SC3 NC1 DFL1
*** *** *** ****
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Track altered slightly based upon
analysis from Ho (1989). A central pressure on the 22nd of 972 mb (was
already in best-track) suggests winds of 87 kt from the southern wind-
pressure relationship - 85 kt chosen for best track. A peripheral pressure
of 965 mb (on the 26th) suggests winds of at least 90 kt from the
subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 105 kt retained in best track.
For the intensity near landfall, the analysis from Ho is not accepted
because of concerns of two aspects. First the 18.2 foot storm tide
reported for Savannah Beach likely also includes a large wave component as
well. B. Jarvinen (personal communication) estimates that the storm tide
itself was closer to 11-13 foot, 2-3 foot of which was due to the astronomical
high tide. (Thus a storm surge of 9-10 foot appears to be the most
credible estimate.) A central pressure shortly after landfall of 958 mb
(05Z on the 28th in Savannah) suggests winds of 96 kt from the subtropical
wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt retained in best track since the center
of the hurricane has already made landfall. Ho discounted this central
pressure measurement from the Weather Bureau office in Savannah in favor of
a measurement of 938 mb taken by a private citizen. This 938 mb value
is dubious since it was not a calibrated instrument and that the eye of
the hurricane clearly went over the Savannah Weather Bureau office.
Using the 958 mb central pressure, a central pressure of 954 mb
at landfall is estimated via methodology from Ho et al. (1987) which
uses inland central pressure and time from landfall to the inland
central pressure measurement. (In this case, the time was approximately
one hour for the hurricane to transit from the coast to Savannah - a
distance of 17 nmi.) A landfall value of 954 mb for the central pressure
corresponds to 99 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship -
100 kt is chosen as the wind speed at landfall, since the RMW estimate
of 23 nmi (Ho 1989) is very close to the average value for that latitude
and central pressure (Vickery et al. 2000). Thus the hurricane is
determined here to be a 100 kt Category 3 at landfall with a central
pressure around 954 mb, not the 931 mb of a Category 4 hurricane
suggested by Ho (1989). Winds after landfall were reduced to reflect
no observation of hurricane force north of North Carolina as described
in Partagas and Diaz (1996b). Small track changes are introduced on
the 30th for more realistic translational velocities. Storm is known as
the "Sea Islands Hurricane" for its impact in Georgia and South Carolina.
1893/06 - 2006 REVISION:
12575 08/15/1893 M=19 6 SNBR= 318 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
12580 08/15* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*181 202 40 0*176 209 40 0*
12585 08/16*172 216 40 0*168 224 40 0*165 232 40 0*162 241 40 0*
12590 08/17*160 250 40 0*158 260 40 0*156 269 40 0*155 278 45 0*
12595 08/18*154 286 45 0*154 294 50 0*155 303 50 0*156 313 55 0*
12600 08/19*158 324 55 0*161 338 60 0*165 354 65 0*170 374 70 0*
12605 08/20*175 396 75 0*180 419 80 0*186 440 85 0*192 458 85 0*
12610 08/21*198 476 85 0*205 494 85 0*210 510 85 0*214 525 85 0*
12615 08/22*217 540 85 0*219 555 85 972*220 570 90 0*221 585 95 0*
12620 08/23*223 600 100 0*224 614 105 0*225 627 105 0*226 639 105 0*
12625 08/24*228 649 105 0*229 659 105 0*230 670 105 0*232 681 105 0*
12630 08/25*235 693 105 0*238 704 105 0*241 716 105 0*244 729 105 0*
12635 08/26*247 742 105 0*251 756 105 0*255 769 105 0*261 780 105 0*
12640 08/27*270 789 105 0*280 798 105 0*290 803 105 0*297 806 100 0*
12645 08/28*306 807 100 954*321 812 90 958*339 811 75 0*354 805 65 0*
12650 08/29*368 796 60 0*384 782 55 0*402 760 55 0*420 737 55 0*
12655 08/30*443 707 50 0*466 677 50 0*486 650 50 0*501 630 50 0*
12660 08/31E513 609 50 0E522 589 50 0E530 570 50 0E536 552 50 0*
12665 09/01E541 535 50 0E545 518 50 0E547 500 50 0E545 481 50 0*
12670 09/02E544 461 50 0E542 441 50 0E540 420 50 0E539 391 50 0*
12675 HR GA3 SC3 NC1DFL1
12675 HR GA3 SC3INC1DFL1
****
Revision indicated in continental U.S. impacts to specify that the North
Carolina hurricane impact from this cyclone was inland, rather than along
North Carolina's Atlantic coast.
********************************************************************************
12415 08/20/1893 M=10 7 SNBR= 308 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
12415 08/20/1893 M=10 7 SNBR= 319 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
12420 08/20* 0 0 0 0*118 272 35 0*120 280 40 0*123 287 45 0
12425 08/21*126 294 45 0*129 301 50 0*132 308 55 0*136 315 60 0
12430 08/22*140 321 65 0*144 328 70 0*148 334 75 0*151 340 75 0
12435 08/23*154 346 80 0*158 353 80 0*161 359 85 0*165 365 85 0
12440 08/24*170 371 85 0*175 378 85 0*181 384 85 0*187 390 85 0
12445 08/25*193 396 85 0*201 401 85 0*210 407 85 0*221 411 85 0
12450 08/26*233 414 85 0*246 413 85 0*260 410 85 0*274 403 85 0
12455 08/27*289 391 85 0*305 376 85 0*321 359 85 0*338 340 85 0
12460 08/28*353 323 85 0*373 305 80 0*400 280 75 0*409 265 70 0
12460 08/28*353 323 85 0*373 305 80 0*393 285 75 0*409 265 70 0
*** ***
12465 08/29*414 251 65 0*418 240 60 0*420 230 55 0*421 216 50 0
12470 HR
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) introduced no changes from that shown in Neumann
et al. (1999). Small track changes are introduced on the 28th for more
realistic translational velocities.
********************************************************************************
12190 09/04/1893 M= 6 8 SNBR= 309 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
12190 09/04/1893 M= 6 8 SNBR= 320 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
*** *
12195 09/04* 0 0 0 0*184 853 35 0*190 861 40 0*195 870 45 0
12200 09/05*201 879 55 0*209 887 60 0*221 899 65 0*229 908 70 0
12200 09/05*201 879 40 0*209 887 35 0*221 899 45 0*229 908 55 0
** ** ** **
12205 09/06*240 918 80 0*252 925 85 0*269 930 85 0*274 928 85 0
12205 09/06*240 918 65 0*252 925 75 0*264 930 85 0*274 928 85 0
** ** ***
12210 09/07*279 923 85 0*283 919 85 0*290 913 85 0*298 905 80 0
12210 09/07*279 923 85 0*283 919 85 0*290 913 85 0*298 905 70 0
**
12215 09/08*307 900 75 0*317 894 70 0*328 890 65 0*330 889 60 0
12215 09/08*307 900 55 0*317 894 45 0*325 890 40 0*330 889 35 0
** ** *** ** **
12220 09/09*333 888 55 0*340 887 45 0*348 885 40 0*351 885 35 0
12220 09/09*333 888 35 0*340 887 30 0*348 885 30 0*351 885 30 0
** ** ** **
12225 HR
12225 HR LA2
***
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Winds from the 5th to the 6th reduced
to take into account moving over the Yucatan of Mexico. Observations
show no evidence for hurricane intensity for nearly a full day over
the southeast U.S. Winds reduced inland via the Kaplan and DeMaria (1995)
inland decay model modified to allow slightly less weakening while
transit over the swamps of southeast Louisiana. Small track changes are
introduced on the 6th and the 8th for more realistic translational velocities.
1893/08 - 2011 REVISION:
12740 09/04/1893 M= 6 8 SNBR= 320 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
12745 09/04* 0 0 0 0*184 853 35 0*190 861 40 0*195 870 45 0*
12750 09/05*201 879 40 0*209 887 35 0*221 899 45 0*229 908 55 0*
12755 09/06*240 918 65 0*252 925 75 0*264 930 85 0*274 928 85 0*
12760 09/07*279 923 85 0*283 919 85 0*290 913 85 0*298 905 70 0*
12765 09/08*307 900 55 0*317 894 45 0*325 890 40 0*330 889 35 0*
12770 09/09*333 888 35 0*340 887 30 0*348 885 30 0*351 885 30 0*
12775 HR LA2
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
8-9/7/1893 1400Z 29.2N 91.1W 85kt 2 --- (973mb) LA2
8-9/7/1893 1400Z 29.2N 91.1W 85kt 2 --- (970mb) LA2
***
The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Louisiana as an 85 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 973 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 970 mb -
for an 85 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
12230 09/25/1893 M=21 9 SNBR= 310 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
12230 09/25/1893 M=21 9 SNBR= 321 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
*** *
12235 09/25* 0 0 0 0*116 250 35 0*116 258 40 0*117 267 45 0
12240 09/26*117 275 50 0*117 283 55 0*117 291 60 0*117 298 65 0
12240 09/26*117 275 45 0*117 283 45 0*117 291 50 0*117 298 50 0
** ** ** **
12245 09/27*117 305 70 0*117 311 75 0*117 319 80 0*117 328 85 0
12245 09/27*117 305 55 0*117 311 55 0*117 319 60 0*117 328 60 0
** ** ** **
12250 09/28*117 336 90 0*118 345 95 0*118 354 95 0*118 363 100 0
12250 09/28*117 336 65 0*118 345 65 0*118 354 65 0*118 363 65 0
** ** ** ***
12255 09/29*118 372 100 0*118 381 105 0*118 390 105 0*118 398 105 0
12255 09/29*118 372 65 0*118 381 65 0*118 390 65 0*118 398 65 0
*** *** *** ***
12260 09/30*119 405 105 0*119 412 105 0*120 420 105 0*121 430 105 0
12260 09/30*119 405 65 0*119 412 65 0*120 420 65 0*121 430 70 0
*** *** *** ***
12265 10/01*123 439 105 0*125 449 105 0*128 459 105 0*130 469 105 0
12265 10/01*123 439 75 0*125 449 80 0*128 459 85 0*130 469 90 0
*** *** *** ***
12270 10/02*133 480 105 0*136 490 105 0*140 500 105 0*144 509 105 0
12270 10/02*133 480 95 0*136 490 100 0*140 500 105 0*144 509 105 0
*** ***
12275 10/03*148 516 105 0*152 522 105 0*157 527 105 0*163 532 105 0
12280 10/04*169 537 105 0*176 542 105 0*182 547 105 0*188 552 105 0
12285 10/05*193 557 105 0*198 562 105 0*203 567 105 0*208 572 105 0
12290 10/06*212 577 105 0*215 582 105 0*218 587 105 0*220 592 105 0
12295 10/07*222 598 105 0*224 604 105 0*226 610 105 0*228 617 105 0
12300 10/08*229 625 105 0*231 633 105 0*233 642 105 0*235 651 105 0
12305 10/09*237 660 105 0*239 669 105 0*241 678 105 0*243 687 105 0
12310 10/10*245 695 105 0*248 703 105 0*250 712 105 0*252 722 105 0
12315 10/11*255 732 105 0*258 742 105 0*261 752 105 0*264 762 105 0
12320 10/12*268 771 100 0*272 781 100 0*276 790 100 0*282 797 95 0
12320 10/12*268 771 105 0*272 781 105 0*276 790 105 0*282 797 105 0
*** *** *** ***
12325 10/13*293 801 95 0*309 801 90 0*329 797 85 0*357 793 80 0
12325 10/13*293 806 105 0*308 808 105 0*326 797 105 955*350 786 80 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** **
12330 10/14*391 786 70 0*427 776 60 0*457 764 55 0*483 748 50 0
12330 10/14*387 781 65 0*427 776 60 0E457 764 60 0E483 748 60 0
*** *** ** * ** * **
12335 10/15*507 729 45 0*529 707 40 0*549 682 35 0*570 660 35 0
12335 10/15E507 729 60 0E529 707 60 0E549 682 50 0E570 660 40 0
* ** * ** * ** * **
12340 HR
12340 HR SC3 NC2 VA1
*** *** ***
The only minor change from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), is to use the track
analyzed by Ho (1989) near the landfall in the United States. Partagas
and Diaz otherwise made reasonable small track changes from that shown in
Neumann et al. (1999). It is to be noted, however, that such a long
slow translational speed of this hurricane before recurvature is very
unusual and does open the possibility that there were actually two
separate tropical cyclones instead of just the one indicated here. Until
more definitive information is uncovered, this will be retained relatively
unchanged from Neumann et al. (1999). A reduction in winds from the 28th
until the 2nd was included to make it consistent with available observations,
which indicate at most a minimal (Category 1) hurricane on these dates. A
peripheral pressure of 972 mb (21Z on the 12th) suggests winds of at least
84 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship. Peripheral pressures
(possibly central pressures) of 962 mb (on the 13th) and 959 mb (16Z on
the 13th) suggests winds of at least 93 and 95 kt, respectively, from
the wind-pressure relationship. Ho (1989) utilized these reports and
an estimate of the RMW of 15 nmi to obtain an estimated central pressure
of 955 mb. This supports winds of 99 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure
relationship. Given the small RMW for this latitude and central pressure,
winds in the best track are boosted slightly to 105 kt at landfall.
Storm tide values of 14 foot are reported in Ho (1989) for Pawley's Island.
Intensity increased after landfall on the 14th and 15th due to indications
that it became a strong extratropical storm in Canada.
1893/09 - 2006 REVISION:
12780 09/25/1893 M=21 9 SNBR= 321 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
12785 09/25* 0 0 0 0*116 250 35 0*116 258 40 0*117 267 45 0*
12790 09/26*117 275 45 0*117 283 45 0*117 291 50 0*117 298 50 0*
12795 09/27*117 305 55 0*117 311 55 0*117 319 60 0*117 328 60 0*
12800 09/28*117 336 65 0*118 345 65 0*118 354 65 0*118 363 65 0*
12805 09/29*118 372 65 0*118 381 65 0*118 390 65 0*118 398 65 0*
12810 09/30*119 405 65 0*119 412 65 0*120 420 65 0*121 430 70 0*
12815 10/01*123 439 75 0*125 449 80 0*128 459 85 0*130 469 90 0*
12820 10/02*133 480 95 0*136 490 100 0*140 500 105 0*144 509 105 0*
12825 10/03*148 516 105 0*152 522 105 0*157 527 105 0*163 532 105 0*
12830 10/04*169 537 105 0*176 542 105 0*182 547 105 0*188 552 105 0*
12835 10/05*193 557 105 0*198 562 105 0*203 567 105 0*208 572 105 0*
12840 10/06*212 577 105 0*215 582 105 0*218 587 105 0*220 592 105 0*
12845 10/07*222 598 105 0*224 604 105 0*226 610 105 0*228 617 105 0*
12850 10/08*229 625 105 0*231 633 105 0*233 642 105 0*235 651 105 0*
12855 10/09*237 660 105 0*239 669 105 0*241 678 105 0*243 687 105 0*
12860 10/10*245 695 105 0*248 703 105 0*250 712 105 0*252 722 105 0*
12865 10/11*255 732 105 0*258 742 105 0*261 752 105 0*264 762 105 0*
12870 10/12*268 771 105 0*272 781 105 0*276 790 105 0*282 797 105 0*
12875 10/13*293 806 105 0*308 808 105 0*326 797 105 955*350 786 80 0*
12880 10/14*387 781 65 0*427 776 60 0E457 764 60 0E483 748 60 0*
12885 10/15E507 729 60 0E529 707 60 0E549 682 50 0E570 660 40 0*
12890 HR SC3 NC2 VA1
12890 HR SC3 NC2IVA1
****
Revision indicated in continental U.S. impacts to specify that the Virginia
hurricane impact from this cyclone was inland, rather than along Virginia's
Atlantic coast.
********************************************************************************
12345 09/27/1893 M= 9 10 SNBR= 311 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
12345 09/27/1893 M= 9 10 SNBR= 322 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=4
***
12350 09/27* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*164 817 35 0*170 826 40 0
12355 09/28*177 834 55 0*183 842 65 0*190 850 75 0*197 858 85 0
12360 09/29*203 865 85 0*210 873 80 0*217 880 80 0*224 887 80 0
12365 09/30*231 892 85 0*238 897 85 0*245 902 85 0*251 906 85 0
12370 10/01*257 908 85 0*262 910 85 0*269 910 85 0*276 909 85 0
12370 10/01*257 908 85 0*262 910 85 0*269 910 95 0*276 909 105 0
** ***
12375 10/02*284 905 85 0*291 900 85 0*299 893 80 956*305 887 75 0
12375 10/02*284 905 115 0*291 900 115 948*299 893 95 0*305 887 85 0
*** *** *** ** *** **
12380 10/03*313 878 65 0*320 867 55 0*327 855 50 0*334 839 45 0
12385 10/04*340 818 40 0*346 797 40 0*351 780 35 0*354 760 35 0
12390 10/05*353 740 35 0*352 722 35 0*350 704 35 0* 0 0 0 0
12395 HR
12395 HR LA4 MS2 AL2
*** *** ***
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Ho (1989) provided central pressure
estimates for the two U.S. landfalls that this hurricane made. For landfall
in Mississippi, a central pressure of 956 mb was derived from a peripheral
pressure measurement of 970 mb (at 16Z on the 2nd) and an estimated
17 nmi RMW. Ho also indicated that there was a 20 foot storm tide reported
in Caminadaville, Louisiana and 10-12 foot storm tide in Pass Christian,
Mississippi. However, examination of the pressure measurements reveals
that the 970 mb was likely a true central pressure value, not a peripheral
observation. (However, this pressure measurement is not included above
since the timing was at 1530 UTC, not within the +/-2 hours of synoptic
time needed for inclusion in HURDAT. This value is though included in the
U.S. landfalling table.) This central pressure corresponds to 89 kt from the
Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship. Since Ho's reported RMW is smaller
than what would be expected on average for this central pressure and
latitude (Vickery et al. 2000), a windspeed of 95 kt is chosen for the best
track. This places the storm as a landfalling Category 2 in Mississippi
and Alabama, though near the lower boundary of Category 3.
For landfall in Louisiana, there also appear to be concerns with Ho's (1989)
estimate of intensity. Ho used an inland decay pressure model (Ho et al.
1987) to obtain an estimate of 940 mb central pressure. (The south
Florida inland decay pressure model was utilized for this particular
hurricane, since this is more appropriate given its track over marsh-covered
south Louisiana.) Using instead the landfall value at Mississippi of
970 mb central pressure, an estimate of 948 mb at landfall in Louisiana is
obtained. This central pressure corresponds to 112 kt from the Gulf of
Mexico wind-pressure relationship. Since the Ho estimated RMW at the
Louisiana landfall (12 nmi) is smaller than what is average for this central
pressure and latitude, a maximum sustained wind at landfall in Louisiana is
estimated at 115 kt. SLOSH runs with these central pressure and RMW values
(B. Jarvinen, personal communication), however, can simulate a maximum storm
tide of only about 8 feet at Caminadaville - much smaller than supposedly
observed. As this island has a maximum height of 5 feet above mean sea
level and is completely overtopped by storm surges from strong hurricanes,
the 20 foot value is suspect. 115 kt at landfall in Louisiana makes this a
Category 4 hurricane, though it is near the upper boundary of Category 3.
The hurricane is known as the "Chenier Caminanda Hurricane" for its impacts
in Louisiana.
1893/08 - 2011 REVISION:
12740 09/04/1893 M= 6 8 SNBR= 320 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
12745 09/04* 0 0 0 0*184 853 35 0*190 861 40 0*195 870 45 0*
12750 09/05*201 879 40 0*209 887 35 0*221 899 45 0*229 908 55 0*
12755 09/06*240 918 65 0*252 925 75 0*264 930 85 0*274 928 85 0*
12760 09/07*279 923 85 0*283 919 85 0*290 913 85 0*298 905 70 0*
12765 09/08*307 900 55 0*317 894 45 0*325 890 40 0*330 889 35 0*
12770 09/09*333 888 35 0*340 887 30 0*348 885 30 0*351 885 30 0*
12775 HR LA2
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
8-9/7/1893 1400Z 29.2N 91.1W 85kt 2 --- (973mb) LA2
8-9/7/1893 1400Z 29.2N 91.1W 85kt 2 --- (970mb) LA2
***
The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Louisiana as an 85 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 973 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 970 mb -
for an 85 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
12400 10/20/1893 M= 4 11 SNBR= 312 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
12400 10/20/1893 M= 4 11 SNBR= 323 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
12405 10/20* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*180 820 35 0*195 806 45 0
12405 10/20* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*180 820 30 0*195 806 30 0
** **
12410 10/21*210 794 50 0*225 785 50 0*240 780 45 0*256 777 45 0
12410 10/21*210 794 30 0*225 785 30 0*240 780 35 0*256 777 40 0
** ** ** **
12415 10/22*272 778 50 0*288 778 50 0*305 776 50 0*323 771 50 0
12415 10/22*272 778 45 0*288 778 50 0*305 776 50 0*323 771 50 0
**
12420 10/23*342 760 50 0*363 751 45 0*384 759 40 0*400 780 35 0
12425 TS
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Perez (2000 and personal communication)
indicate that this system was not of tropical storm intensity until
north of Cuba. Thus intensities reduced on the 20th through the 22nd.
********************************************************************************
12430 11/05/1893 M= 6 12 SNBR= 313 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
12430 11/05/1893 M= 8 12 SNBR= 324 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
* *** *
12435 11/05* 0 0 0 0*178 797 35 0*186 798 40 0*197 797 50 0
12435 11/05*267 708 35 0*268 717 35 0*270 725 40 0*272 731 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** ***
12440 11/06*208 795 50 0*220 792 45 0*233 789 45 0*247 785 45 0
12440 11/06*274 736 50 0*277 741 45 0*280 745 45 0*284 749 45 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
12445 11/07*260 782 50 0*273 778 50 0*287 774 50 0*301 770 50 0
12445 11/07*291 753 50 0*298 755 50 0*305 757 55 0*315 759 55 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** **
12450 11/08*314 767 50 0*328 764 50 0*341 760 50 0*352 753 50 0
12450 11/08*325 759 60 0*336 757 60 0*345 753 60 0*356 746 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
12455 11/09*359 747 45 0*364 739 45 0*368 731 40 0*373 719 35 0
12455 11/09*366 736 55 0*372 727 55 0*377 713 50 0*384 691 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
12460 11/10*379 705 30 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
12460 11/10E391 663 45 0E396 632 45 0E400 605 40 0E404 576 40 0
**** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** **
(11th and 12th are new additions to HURDAT.)
12462 11/11E406 548 40 0E408 521 40 0E410 490 40 0E410 469 40 0
12464 11/12E410 449 40 0E410 426 40 0E410 405 40 0E410 379 40 0
12465 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track changes are found
to be reasonable. Winds increased from the 7th to the 9th based upon wind
measurements along U.S. coast. Storm did not actually hit land as per best
track positions and track book, so "XING=0" is utilized.
********************************************************************************
1893 - Additional Notes:
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) mentioned two additional systems considered
for inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team agreed to leave them out
of HURDAT for the following reasons:
1) May 12-13, 1893: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
2) July 6, 1893: Damage reports in Cuba leave it uncertain if system was a
tornado or tropical storm.
********************************************************************************
12466 06/06/1894 M= 4 1 SNBR= 325 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
12467 06/06*190 774 35 0*190 778 35 0*190 783 35 0*190 789 35 0
12468 06/07*191 794 35 0*192 801 35 0*193 807 35 0*194 812 35 0
12469 06/08*195 821 35 0*196 827 35 0*197 833 35 0*199 838 35 0
12469 06/09*201 844 35 0*204 850 35 0*207 855 35 0*210 860 35 0
12469 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b) for this newly documented
tropical storm.
********************************************************************************
12470 08/05/1894 M= 4 1 SNBR= 314 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
12470 08/05/1894 M= 5 2 SNBR= 326 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
* * ***
12475 08/05* 0 0 0 0*264 893 35 0*270 890 40 0*275 886 40 0
12480 08/06*279 882 45 0*283 879 50 0*287 876 50 0*290 874 50 0
12480 08/06*279 882 45 0*283 879 50 0*287 876 50 0*290 875 50 0
***
12485 08/07*294 872 50 0*297 871 50 0*300 871 50 0*304 872 50 0
12485 08/07*294 874 50 0*297 874 50 0*300 875 50 0*303 876 50 0
*** *** *** *** ***
12490 08/08*308 874 45 0*312 876 40 0*316 880 35 0*318 885 30 0
12490 08/08*306 877 45 0*309 882 40 0*310 887 35 0*311 891 30 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
(9th of August newly added to HURDAT.)
12492 08/09*312 895 30 0*313 899 25 0*315 905 25 0*317 915 25 0
12495 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm
number 1.
********************************************************************************
12500 08/30/1894 M=11 2 SNBR= 315 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
12500 08/30/1894 M=11 3 SNBR= 327 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
* ***
12505 08/30*132 348 35 0*134 360 35 0*136 375 40 0*138 387 40 0
12510 08/31*140 399 45 0*142 411 45 0*144 423 45 0*147 435 50 0
12515 09/01*149 447 50 0*152 458 55 0*158 470 55 0*165 482 60 0
12520 09/02*172 495 65 0*179 508 65 0*186 521 70 0*193 533 75 0
12525 09/03*200 545 75 0*207 555 80 0*214 564 80 0*221 571 85 0
12530 09/04*227 576 85 0*234 580 85 0*240 584 85 0*247 588 85 0
12535 09/05*254 592 85 0*261 595 85 0*268 597 85 0*276 597 85 0
12540 09/06*284 595 85 0*293 592 85 0*301 588 85 0*309 583 85 0
12540 09/06*284 595 90 0*293 592 95 0*301 588 100 0*309 583 100 0
** ** *** ***
12545 09/07*318 577 85 0*327 569 85 0*336 560 85 0*347 549 85 0
12545 09/07*318 577 100 0*327 569 100 0*336 560 100 0*347 549 100 0
*** *** *** ***
12550 09/08*362 534 85 0*380 516 85 0*400 496 85 0*423 473 80 0
12550 09/08*362 534 100 948*380 516 100 0*400 496 100 0*423 473 90 0
*** *** *** *** **
12555 09/09*450 445 80 0*480 414 75 0*513 380 70 0*540 357 70 0
12555 09/09*450 445 80 0*480 414 75 0*513 380 70 0E540 357 70 0
*
12560 HR
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 2. Pressure
measurement (may have been a central pressure) of 948 mb (on the 8th) suggests
winds of at least 98 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 100 kt
chosen for best track. Winds increased from the 6th to the 8th accordingly,
as hurricanes tend to reach maximum intensity at or just after recurvature.
********************************************************************************
12565 09/18/1894 M=13 3 SNBR= 316 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
12565 09/18/1894 M=14 4 SNBR= 328 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
** * *** *
12570 09/18*120 503 35 0*122 511 40 0*124 522 45 0*126 531 50 0
12570 09/18*134 505 35 0*134 510 40 0*135 517 45 0*136 526 50 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
12575 09/19*128 540 55 0*131 549 65 0*133 558 70 0*135 567 80 0
12575 09/19*137 535 55 0*139 545 65 0*140 555 70 0*141 563 80 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
12580 09/20*138 577 85 0*141 588 90 0*145 599 95 0*149 612 100 0
12580 09/20*143 575 85 0*145 586 90 0*147 597 95 0*149 611 100 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
12585 09/21*153 627 105 0*158 642 105 0*162 655 105 0*166 667 105 0
12590 09/22*169 678 100 0*173 690 95 0*178 702 90 0*183 715 85 0
12590 09/22*170 679 100 0*176 693 95 0*183 710 90 0*188 727 75 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** **
12595 09/23*188 728 85 0*194 740 85 0*199 753 85 0*204 766 85 0
12595 09/23*194 743 80 0*199 758 85 0*205 770 70 0*209 782 70 0
*** *** ** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** **
12600 09/24*210 779 85 0*215 791 80 0*220 804 75 0*227 812 70 0
12600 09/24*214 794 70 0*218 806 70 0*225 815 65 0*229 817 60 994
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** ***
12605 09/25*236 817 75 0*247 819 90 0*257 820 105 0*267 819 105 0
12605 09/25*234 819 65 0*240 820 70 0*250 820 80 985*263 820 90 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** ***
12610 09/26*276 817 95 0*286 815 80 0*295 812 70 0*305 809 70 0
12610 09/26*276 817 75 0*286 815 60 0*295 812 65 0*304 810 70 0
** ** ** *** ***
12615 09/27*314 806 75 0*324 803 75 0*332 798 80 0*338 792 80 0
12615 09/27*312 809 75 0*320 807 80 0*330 803 70 0*337 794 65 0
*** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
12620 09/28*342 786 80 0*346 781 70 0*351 774 60 0*355 767 60 0
12620 09/28*340 785 60 0*344 776 60 0*347 767 60 0*352 763 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ***
12625 09/29*360 761 65 0*365 756 65 0*370 750 70 0*375 745 70 0
12625 09/29*358 758 60 0*365 754 70 0*370 750 75 0*375 745 70 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** **
12630 09/30*381 739 65 0*386 734 50 0*392 729 35 0*398 723 30 0
12630 09/30*384 739 65 0*392 732 50 0*397 725 40 0*402 715 35 0
*** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** **
(October 1st new to HURDAT.)
12632 10/01*407 700 35 0*412 676 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
12635 HR
12635 HRBFL2DFL1 SC1 VA1
******** *** ***
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm
number 3. Peak winds of 105 kt in the eastern Caribbean are retained, since
the wind-caused damage in Puerto Rico is consistent with a strong hurricane
passing south of the island (Boose et al. 2003). 85 kt retained at landfall
in Cuba - agreeing with assessment by Perez (2000). Changes made to the track
near Cuba are consistent with modifications suggested by Perez (2000). A
central pressure of 994 mb (21Z on the 24th) suggests winds of 58 kt from the
southern wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt utilized. Central pressure of
985 mb (11Z on the 25th) suggests winds of 71 kt from the southern wind-
pressure relationship - 80 kt used due to observed winds in Key West. A
peripheral pressure of 986 mb (07Z on the 27th) suggests winds of at least
68 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt utilized in best
track at 06Z and at landfall in South Carolina. A storm tide of 10' was
observed in Charleston (Partagas and Diaz 1996b). Landfall in southwest
Florida is suggested to be at a windspeed of 90 kt (with an estimated central
pressure of 975 mb) given the intensification from a 60 kt tropical storm (with
994 mb central pressure) over Havana to a 80 kt Category 1 hurricane (with
985 mb central pressure) over Key West. Analysis of historical tropical storms
and hurricanes impacting Georgia and Northeast Florida by Sandrik (2001)
suggests that the hurricane had also impacted Northeast Florida with Category 1
hurricane conditions as it reintensified quickly as it left the Northeast
Florida coast. System regained hurricane intensity again right as it made
oceanfall from North Carolina, as shown in the sustained hurricane force winds
in Cape Henry, Virginia (Roth and Cobb 2001). Hurricane is known as
"San Mateo" for its impacts in Puerto Rico. Hurricane is known as "Huracan
de Sagua la Grande" for its impacts in Cuba.
********************************************************************************
12640 10/01/1894 M=12 4 SNBR= 317 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
12640 10/01/1894 M=12 5 SNBR= 329 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
* *** *
12645 10/01*125 791 35 0*130 795 35 0*135 798 40 0*140 802 40 0
12650 10/02*145 806 45 0*149 809 45 0*154 813 50 0*159 816 55 0
12655 10/03*163 820 60 0*167 823 60 0*172 826 65 0*177 830 70 0
12660 10/04*183 834 75 0*189 838 75 0*195 842 80 0*200 845 85 0
12665 10/05*206 849 90 0*212 853 90 0*217 856 95 0*223 859 95 0
12665 10/05*206 849 90 0*212 853 90 0*217 856 95 0*220 859 95 0
***
12670 10/06*228 862 100 0*234 865 100 0*240 867 105 0*247 869 105 0
12670 10/06*225 862 100 0*230 865 100 0*237 870 105 0*243 875 105 0
*** *** *** *** *** ***
12675 10/07*255 870 105 0*264 870 105 0*271 870 105 0*276 869 105 0
12675 10/07*247 877 105 0*252 881 105 0*257 883 105 0*261 884 105 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
12680 10/08*279 867 105 0*282 864 105 0*286 861 100 0*292 856 95 0
12680 10/08*266 884 105 0*271 884 105 0*277 883 105 0*287 877 105 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
12685 10/09*300 848 90 0*310 836 80 0*322 822 75 0*339 797 70 0
12685 10/09*297 863 105 0*307 847 85 0*317 830 70 0*330 803 60 0
*** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
12690 10/10*355 775 65 0*374 755 65 0*394 740 60 0*420 719 55 0
12690 10/10*352 775 60 0*374 755 65 0*394 740 75 0*420 719 55 0
*** ** **
12695 10/11*448 702 55 0*476 689 50 0*500 673 45 0*520 662 40 0
12695 10/11E448 702 45 0E476 689 45 0E500 673 45 0E520 662 40 0
* ** * ** * *
12700 10/12*537 652 35 0*551 643 35 0*563 635 35 0* 0 0 0 0
12700 10/12E537 652 35 0E551 643 35 0E563 635 35 0* 0 0 0 0
* * *
12705 HR
12705 HRAFL3 GA1 NY1 RI1
**** *** *** ***
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm
number 4. Peripheral pressure of 961 mb (14 UTC on the 8th) suggests winds of
at least 99 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 105 kt in
best track used here and at landfall in Florida. Peripheral pressure of 984 mb
(on the 10th) suggests winds of at least 69 kt from the northern wind-
pressure relationship - 75 kt chosen for best track and landfall in
New York/Rhode Island, which is also supported by wind observations at Block
Island, R.I.
1894/05 - 2006 REVISION:
13240 10/01/1894 M=12 5 SNBR= 329 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
13245 10/01*125 791 35 0*130 795 35 0*135 798 40 0*140 802 40 0*
13250 10/02*145 806 45 0*149 809 45 0*154 813 50 0*159 816 55 0*
13255 10/03*163 820 60 0*167 823 60 0*172 826 65 0*177 830 70 0*
13260 10/04*183 834 75 0*189 838 75 0*195 842 80 0*200 845 85 0*
13265 10/05*206 849 90 0*212 853 90 0*217 856 95 0*220 859 95 0*
13270 10/06*225 862 100 0*230 865 100 0*237 870 105 0*243 875 105 0*
13275 10/07*247 877 105 0*252 881 105 0*257 883 105 0*261 884 105 0*
13280 10/08*266 884 105 0*271 884 105 0*277 883 105 0*287 877 105 0*
13285 10/09*297 863 105 0*307 847 85 0*317 830 70 0*330 803 60 0*
13290 10/10*352 775 60 0*374 755 65 0*394 740 75 0*420 719 55 0*
13295 10/11E448 702 45 0E476 689 45 0E500 673 45 0E520 662 40 0*
13300 10/12E537 652 35 0E551 643 35 0E563 635 35 0* 0 0 0 0*
13305 HRAFL3 GA1 NY1 RI1
13305 HRAFL3IGA1 NY1 RI1 CT1
**** ***
Revision indicated in continental U.S. impacts to specify that the Georgia
hurricane impact from this cyclone was inland, rather than along Georgia's
Atlantic coast. Based upon research provided by Mark Jelinek and
James Belanger from Georgia Institute of Technology, this cyclone also
caused a Category 1 hurricane impact in Connecticut based upon the
existing track and intensity in HURDAT.
1894/05 - 2011 REVISION:
13240 10/01/1894 M=12 5 SNBR= 329 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
13245 10/01*125 791 35 0*130 795 35 0*135 798 40 0*140 802 40 0*
13250 10/02*145 806 45 0*149 809 45 0*154 813 50 0*159 816 55 0*
13255 10/03*163 820 60 0*167 823 60 0*172 826 65 0*177 830 70 0*
13260 10/04*183 834 75 0*189 838 75 0*195 842 80 0*200 845 85 0*
13265 10/05*206 849 90 0*212 853 90 0*217 856 95 0*220 859 95 0*
13270 10/06*225 862 100 0*230 865 100 0*237 870 105 0*243 875 105 0*
13275 10/07*247 877 105 0*252 881 105 0*257 883 105 0*261 884 105 0*
13280 10/08*266 884 105 0*271 884 105 0*277 883 105 0*287 877 105 0*
13285 10/09*297 863 105 0*307 847 85 0*317 830 70 0*330 803 60 0*
13290 10/10*352 775 60 0*374 755 65 0*394 740 75 0*420 719 55 0*
13295 10/11E448 702 45 0E476 689 45 0E500 673 45 0E520 662 40 0*
13300 10/12E537 652 35 0E551 643 35 0E563 635 35 0* 0 0 0 0*
13305 HRAFL3IGA1 NY1 RI1 CT1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
5-10/9/1894 0300Z 30.2N 85.5W 105kt 3 --- (955mb) AFL3,IGA1
5-10/9/1894 0300Z 30.2N 85.5W 105kt 3 --- (950mb) AFL3,IGA1
***
5-10/10/1894 1500Z 40.7N 72.9W 75kt 1 --- (978mb) NY1,CT1,RI1
The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Florida as a 105 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 955 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 950 mb -
for a 105 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
12710 10/11/1894 M=10 5 SNBR= 318 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
12710 10/11/1894 M=10 6 SNBR= 330 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
* ***
12715 10/11*108 577 35 0*113 583 40 0*120 590 40 0*126 597 45 0
12715 10/11*108 577 35 0*113 583 45 0*120 590 55 0*126 597 65 0
** ** **
12720 10/12*132 603 50 0*138 609 55 0*145 615 60 0*152 621 65 0
12720 10/12*132 603 75 0*138 609 85 0*145 615 85 0*149 621 85 0
** ** ** *** **
12725 10/13*159 626 70 0*166 631 75 0*173 636 80 0*180 640 85 0
12725 10/13*154 628 85 0*159 634 85 0*167 640 85 0*175 645 85 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ***
12730 10/14*187 644 85 0*194 648 85 0*201 652 85 0*208 656 85 0
12730 10/14*181 649 85 0*187 652 85 0*193 655 85 0*202 658 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
12735 10/15*216 659 85 0*224 662 85 0*231 665 85 0*238 667 85 0
12735 10/15*209 660 85 0*217 662 85 0*225 665 85 0*231 665 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** ***
12740 10/16*244 668 85 0*251 669 85 0*258 669 85 0*266 668 85 0
12740 10/16*237 666 95 0*243 666 105 0*250 667 115 0*261 667 115 931
*** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
12745 10/17*274 666 85 0*282 663 85 0*290 657 85 0*298 650 85 0
12745 10/17*274 666 115 0*282 663 115 0*290 657 110 0*300 647 105 0
*** *** *** *** *** ***
12750 10/18*305 641 85 0*312 631 85 0*320 620 85 0*329 608 85 0
12750 10/18*311 632 100 0*323 617 95 0*333 603 90 0*341 593 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ***
12755 10/19*340 595 85 0*351 582 85 0*360 570 85 0*367 563 80 0
12755 10/19*348 584 85 0*354 577 85 0*360 570 85 0*367 563 80 0
*** *** *** ***
12760 10/20*373 558 80 0*377 555 75 0*380 552 70 0*384 548 70 0
12765 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm
number 5. Winds increased from the 11th to the 13th based upon destruction
in St. Lucia. Central pressure of 931 mb (21Z on the 16th) suggests winds of
116 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 115 kt chosen for
best track. Winds increased from the 16th to the 18th accordingly. Full
lifecycle of this hurricane is not known, due to lack of information about
its decay after the 20th.
********************************************************************************
12770 10/21/1894 M=11 6 SNBR= 319 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
12770 10/21/1894 M=11 7 SNBR= 331 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
* ***
12775 10/21* 0 0 0 0*210 603 35 0*215 610 40 0*218 617 40 0
12780 10/22*221 624 45 0*224 632 45 0*227 640 50 0*228 649 50 0
12785 10/23*229 659 55 0*232 670 60 0*235 681 65 0*241 695 65 0
12790 10/24*247 711 70 0*254 728 75 0*261 740 75 0*268 745 80 0
12790 10/24*245 706 70 0*249 718 75 0*255 730 75 0*258 735 80 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
12795 10/25*274 746 85 0*281 744 85 0*288 741 85 0*296 737 85 0
12795 10/25*262 742 85 0*266 743 85 0*270 740 85 0*280 726 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
12800 10/26*305 732 85 0*317 724 85 0*331 710 85 0*351 689 85 0
12800 10/26*290 710 85 0*300 695 85 0*310 680 85 0*329 654 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
12805 10/27*378 662 85 0*403 632 85 0*421 600 85 0*433 563 85 0
12805 10/27*349 624 85 0*371 594 85 0*390 570 85 0*411 544 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
12810 10/28*443 522 85 0*451 484 85 0*458 458 85 0*464 441 85 0
12810 10/28*432 515 90 0*447 487 90 0*458 458 95 0*464 441 95 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** ** **
12815 10/29*470 426 85 0*476 413 85 0*481 400 85 0*486 388 85 0
12815 10/29*470 426 95 955*476 413 90 0E481 400 85 0E486 388 85 0
** *** ** * *
12820 10/30*490 376 85 0*494 363 80 0*499 350 80 0*505 334 75 0
12820 10/30E490 376 85 0E494 363 80 0E499 350 80 0E505 334 75 0
* * * *
12825 10/31*513 315 70 0*521 293 65 0*530 270 65 0* 0 0 0 0
12825 10/31E513 315 70 0E521 293 65 0E530 270 65 0* 0 0 0 0
* * *
12830 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 6.
These track changes are found to be reasonable. Peripheral pressure (possible
central pressure) of 975 mb on the 28th suggests winds of at least 78 kt from
the northern wind-pressure relationship - winds kept at 85 kt in best track.
A possible central pressure of 955 mb on the 29th suggests winds of at least
93 kt - 95 kt chosen for best track. Winds are increased accordingly on the
28th and 29th.
*******************************************************************************
1894 - Additional Notes:
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) mentioned three additional systems considered
for inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team agreed to leave them out
of HURDAT for the following reasons:
1) August 27-31, 1894: Gale observations found, but likely was an
extratropical storm.
2) September 16-21, 1894: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
3) October 16-18, 1894: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
*******************************************************************************
12835 08/14/1895 M= 4 1 SNBR= 320 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
12835 08/14/1895 M= 4 1 SNBR= 332 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
12840 08/14* 0 0 0 0*272 913 35 0*276 910 40 0*279 908 45 0
12845 08/15*283 905 45 0*286 903 50 0*289 900 50 0*292 897 50 0
12850 08/16*296 894 50 0*299 891 45 0*302 888 45 0*307 886 40 0
12855 08/17*313 884 40 0*321 882 40 0*330 881 35 0*338 879 30 0
12855 08/17*313 884 35 0*321 882 30 0*330 881 25 0*338 879 25 0
** ** ** **
12860 TS
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Winds reduced after landfall with the
Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) inland wind decay model.
********************************************************************************
12865 08/22/1895 M= 8 2 SNBR= 321 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
12865 08/22/1895 M= 9 2 SNBR= 333 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
* *** *
12870 08/22*134 583 35 0*137 596 40 0*140 607 45 0*143 619 50 0
12875 08/23*145 631 55 0*148 644 55 0*150 658 60 0*153 672 65 0
12880 08/24*155 687 70 0*158 702 75 0*160 717 75 0*162 731 80 0
12880 08/24*155 687 70 0*158 702 75 0*160 717 75 0*164 733 80 0
*** ***
12885 08/25*164 745 80 0*167 758 80 0*170 772 85 0*175 789 85 0
12885 08/25*169 751 80 0*174 770 80 0*180 790 85 0*184 802 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
12890 08/26*184 809 85 0*194 829 85 0*202 845 85 0*209 858 85 0
12890 08/26*188 813 85 0*194 829 85 0*202 845 85 0*209 858 85 0
*** ***
12895 08/27*215 870 85 0*221 880 85 0*226 890 85 0*230 899 85 0
12900 08/28*234 907 85 0*239 916 85 0*243 925 80 0*248 935 80 0
12900 08/28*233 905 85 0*236 914 85 0*240 923 85 0*243 931 90 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** **
12905 08/29*252 946 75 0*257 958 70 0*262 970 65 0*266 978 35 0
12905 08/29*245 939 95 0*246 947 95 0*247 955 95 0*248 963 95 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
(30th is new to HURDAT.)
12907 08/30*249 971 95 0*250 979 65 0*251 987 40 0*252 995 30 0
12910 HR
12910 HRATX1
****
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track changes are
found to be reasonable. Perez (2000) analyzed this hurricane as causing
Category 1 conditions in western Cuba, which is consistent with the existing
track and intensity of Category 2 hurricane passing just offshore of the
island. Winds increased to 95 kt (Category 2) until landfall in Mexico, due
to destruction in Mexico described in Ellis (1988). Hurricane analyzed as
causing Category 1 conditions in extreme southern Texas based upon
description in Ellis.
********************************************************************************
1895/02 - 2009 REVISION:
13465 08/22/1895 M= 9 2 SNBR= 333 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
13465 08/22/1895 M= 9 2 SNBR= 333 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=1
*
13470 08/22*134 583 35 0*137 596 40 0*140 607 45 0*143 619 50 0*
13475 08/23*145 631 55 0*148 644 55 0*150 658 60 0*153 672 65 0*
13480 08/24*155 687 70 0*158 702 75 0*160 717 75 0*164 733 80 0*
13485 08/25*169 751 80 0*174 770 80 0*180 790 85 0*184 802 85 0*
13490 08/26*188 813 85 0*194 829 85 0*202 845 85 0*209 858 85 0*
13495 08/27*215 870 85 0*221 880 85 0*226 890 85 0*230 899 85 0*
13500 08/28*233 905 85 0*236 914 85 0*240 923 85 0*243 931 90 0*
13505 08/29*245 939 95 0*246 947 95 0*247 955 95 0*248 963 95 0*
13510 08/30*249 971 95 0*250 979 65 0*251 987 40 0*252 995 30 0*
13515 HRATX1
The reanalysis had shifted the track at landfall over northern Mexico. However,
we neglected to change XING=1 to XING=0, indicating that the system did not make a
coastal landfall in the U.S.
1895/02 - 2011 REVISION:
13465 08/22/1895 M= 9 2 SNBR= 333 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
13470 08/22*134 583 35 0*137 596 40 0*140 607 45 0*143 619 50 0*
13475 08/23*145 631 55 0*148 644 55 0*150 658 60 0*153 672 65 0*
13480 08/24*155 687 70 0*158 702 75 0*160 717 75 0*164 733 80 0*
13485 08/25*169 751 80 0*174 770 80 0*180 790 85 0*184 802 85 0*
13490 08/26*188 813 85 0*194 829 85 0*202 845 85 0*209 858 85 0*
13495 08/27*215 870 85 0*221 880 85 0*226 890 85 0*230 899 85 0*
13500 08/28*233 905 85 0*236 914 85 0*240 923 85 0*243 931 90 0*
13505 08/29*245 939 95 0*246 947 95 0*247 955 95 0*248 963 95 0*
13510 08/30*249 971 95 0*250 979 65 0*251 987 40 0*252 995 30 0*
13515 HRATX1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
2-8/30/1895 0400Z 25.0N 97.6W 65kt 2 --- (973mb) ATX1
2-8/30/1895 0400Z 25.0N 97.6W 65kt 1 --- (963mb) ATX1
* ***
The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Mexico as a 95 kt hurricane. The impact in Texas was analyzed
to be a minimal (65 kt) hurricane, which was mistakenly listed as
Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale 2 in the table. The new Brown et al. (2006)
pressure-wind relationship for cyclones south of 25N suggests a central
pressure of 966 mb, while north of 25N suggests a central pressure of 960 mb.
Thus a central pressure at landfall in Mexico is estimated to be 963 mb.
This is not explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value
is an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
12915 09/28/1895 M=10 3 SNBR= 322 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
12915 09/28/1895 M=10 3 SNBR= 334 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
12920 09/28*193 860 35 0*196 866 35 0*199 872 35 0*203 882 35 0
12920 09/28*193 860 35 0*196 866 35 0*199 872 35 0*203 882 30 0
**
12925 09/29*207 890 35 0*212 895 35 0*216 897 40 0*221 897 40 0
12925 09/29*207 890 30 0*212 895 30 0*216 897 40 0*221 897 40 0
** **
12930 09/30*227 895 45 0*232 892 45 0*237 885 50 0*238 871 50 0
12935 10/01*238 858 50 0*238 845 50 0*239 834 50 0*240 825 50 0
12940 10/02*242 815 50 0*245 807 50 0*249 799 50 0*252 792 50 0
12945 10/03*256 786 50 0*262 780 50 0*270 772 50 0*280 762 50 0
12950 10/04*290 751 50 0*301 740 50 0*311 729 50 0*321 719 50 0
12955 10/05*330 710 50 0*340 700 50 0*350 690 50 0*362 678 50 0
12960 10/06*376 664 50 0*392 648 50 0*409 630 50 0*426 611 45 0
12965 10/07*444 590 40 0*463 568 40 0*482 544 40 0* 0 0 0 0
12970 TS
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Winds reduced on the 28th and 29th
due to passage over the Yucatan.
********************************************************************************
12975 10/02/1895 M= 6 4 SNBR= 323 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
12975 10/02/1895 M= 6 4 SNBR= 335 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
12980 10/02*174 829 35 0*177 837 40 0*180 846 45 0*183 855 50 0
12980 10/02*174 829 35 0*177 837 35 0*180 846 35 0*183 855 35 0
** ** **
12985 10/03*186 863 50 0*190 872 45 0*193 880 35 0*196 888 35 0
12985 10/03*186 863 35 0*190 872 35 0*193 880 30 0*196 888 30 0
** ** ** **
12990 10/04*200 895 35 0*203 902 40 0*207 910 45 0*211 919 50 0
12990 10/04*200 895 30 0*203 902 30 0*207 910 35 0*211 919 35 0
** ** ** **
12995 10/05*214 928 50 0*218 938 50 0*222 947 50 0*226 955 50 0
12995 10/05*214 928 35 0*218 938 35 0*222 947 35 0*226 955 35 0
** ** ** **
13000 10/06*232 960 50 0*239 963 50 0*247 965 50 0*259 964 50 0
13000 10/06*232 960 35 0*239 963 35 0*247 965 35 0*259 964 35 0
** ** ** **
13005 10/07*277 956 45 0*299 944 35 0*324 926 30 0* 0 0 0 0
13005 10/07*277 956 35 0*299 944 30 0*324 926 25 0* 0 0 0 0
** ** **
13010 TS
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). No gale force winds (or equivalent
in sea level pressure) were found for this system. Peak winds observed were
only 25-30 kt in Texas and Louisiana. Partagas and Diaz commented that
since the system was not mentioned in _Monthly Weather Review_, it must have
been a "very weak" storm. Thus winds are reduced for lifetime of storm since
available observations indicate that the system was, at best, a minimal
tropical storm.
********************************************************************************
13015 10/12/1895 M=15 5 SNBR= 324 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
13015 10/12/1895 M=15 5 SNBR= 336 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
13020 10/12*120 448 35 0*120 455 40 0*120 465 45 0*120 475 50 0
13020 10/12*120 448 35 0*120 455 35 0*120 465 40 0*120 475 40 0
** ** **
13025 10/13*120 485 55 0*120 494 60 0*120 504 65 0*121 514 70 0
13025 10/13*120 485 45 0*120 494 45 0*120 504 50 0*121 514 50 0
** ** ** **
13030 10/14*122 524 75 0*123 535 80 0*124 546 85 0*125 558 90 0
13030 10/14*122 524 50 0*123 535 50 0*124 546 50 0*125 558 50 0
** ** ** **
13035 10/15*125 570 90 0*126 583 95 0*127 596 95 0*129 610 100 0
13035 10/15*125 570 50 0*126 583 50 0*127 596 50 0*129 610 50 0
** ** ** ***
13040 10/16*131 624 100 0*133 639 105 0*135 653 105 0*136 666 105 0
13040 10/16*131 624 55 0*133 639 60 0*135 653 65 0*136 666 70 0
*** *** *** ***
13045 10/17*138 679 105 0*139 692 105 0*140 704 105 0*141 715 105 0
13045 10/17*138 679 75 0*139 692 80 0*140 704 85 0*141 715 90 0
*** *** *** ***
13050 10/18*142 726 105 0*144 737 105 0*149 747 105 0*156 757 105 0
13050 10/18*143 730 90 0*146 745 90 0*150 760 90 0*153 775 90 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
13055 10/19*163 766 105 0*170 775 105 0*178 783 105 0*185 789 105 0
13055 10/19*157 795 90 0*161 810 90 0*165 815 90 0*171 818 90 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
13060 10/20*193 794 105 0*200 797 105 0*208 799 105 0*215 800 100 0
13060 10/20*177 820 90 0*183 820 90 0*189 820 90 0*195 820 90 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
13065 10/21*223 799 95 0*230 799 90 0*238 797 85 0*245 795 85 0
13065 10/21*201 820 90 0*207 817 90 0*213 813 90 0*222 807 85 0
*** *** ** *** *** *** *** ** *** ***
13070 10/22*251 791 85 0*258 787 90 0*264 782 95 0*271 775 95 0
13070 10/22*234 800 85 0*248 792 90 0*262 784 90 0*271 775 90 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ** **
13075 10/23*278 765 100 0*285 752 100 0*292 735 100 0*300 715 105 0
13075 10/23*278 765 90 0*285 752 90 0*292 735 90 0*299 717 90 0
*** *** *** *** *** ***
13080 10/24*309 692 105 0*318 666 105 0*327 638 105 0*339 609 105 0
13080 10/24*304 702 90 0*309 689 90 0*315 670 90 0*327 638 90 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
13085 10/25*350 579 105 0*352 549 105 0*350 515 100 0*347 486 95 0
13085 10/25*342 595 90 0*349 549 90 0*350 515 85 0*347 486 75 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** **
13090 10/26*344 454 90 0*342 421 65 0*340 388 35 0* 0 0 0 0
13090 10/26*344 454 65 0E342 421 55 0E340 388 45 0* 0 0 0 0
** * ** * **
13095 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track changes are
found to be reasonable. Winds reduced from the 12th to the 15th, since the
observations indicate that the system was, at most, a moderate tropical storm
going through the Lesser Antilles. Perez (2000) documents that this hurricane
made landfall as a Category 2 hurricane in Cuba - winds reduced from the 16th
to the 21st accordingly. A peripheral pressure of 973 mb (at 17Z on the 21st)
suggests winds of at least 86 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship
- 90 kt chosen for best track in agreement with assessment of Category 2 by
Perez. Changes made to the track near Cuba are consistent with modifications
suggested by Perez (2000). Winds reduced from the 22nd to the 26th since
observations indicate that the storm was only a moderate (Category 1 or 2)
hurricane in the Atlantic.
********************************************************************************
13440 10/13/1895 M= 5 6 SNBR= 325 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
13440 10/13/1895 M= 5 6 SNBR= 337 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
13445 10/13* 0 0 0 0*194 937 35 0*200 930 35 0*206 924 35 0
13450 10/14*212 918 35 0*217 911 35 0*222 904 35 0*226 897 35 0
13455 10/15*231 888 35 0*235 880 35 0*239 870 35 0*243 859 35 0
13460 10/16*248 846 35 0*252 832 35 0*256 816 35 0*264 802 30 0
13465 10/17*276 786 25 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
13470 TS
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) introduced no changes from that shown in Neumann
et al. (1999).
*******************************************************************************
1895 - Additional Notes:
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) mentioned two additional systems considered
for inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team agreed to leave them out
of HURDAT for the following reasons:
1) September 21, 1895: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
2) November 1-3, 1895: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
********************************************************************************
13135 07/04/1896 M= 9 1 SNBR= 326 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
13135 07/04/1896 M= 9 1 SNBR= 338 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
*** *
13140 07/04* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*209 811 35 0*218 820 45 0
13140 07/04* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*209 811 35 0*218 820 40 0
**
13145 07/05*226 828 50 0*234 836 60 0*242 842 75 0*249 847 80 0
13145 07/05*226 828 45 0*234 836 45 0*242 842 55 0*249 847 65 0
** ** ** **
13150 07/06*256 852 85 0*263 856 85 0*270 860 85 0*277 862 85 0
13150 07/06*256 852 75 0*263 856 85 0*270 860 85 0*277 862 85 0
**
13155 07/07*284 862 85 0*290 862 85 0*297 861 80 0*305 861 75 0
13155 07/07*284 865 85 0*290 866 85 0*297 867 85 0*305 864 85 0
*** *** *** ** *** **
13160 07/08*314 860 65 0*326 854 60 0*340 850 55 0*356 847 45 0
13160 07/08*316 853 60 0*324 843 45 0*333 835 35 0*345 829 30 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
13165 07/09*373 844 40 0*390 842 40 0*406 840 35 0*421 838 35 0
13165 07/09*364 832 30 0*385 840 30 0*406 840 25 0*421 838 25 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** ** **
13170 07/10*436 835 30 0*451 833 30 0*467 830 25 0*483 822 25 0
13170 07/10*436 835 25 0*451 833 25 0*467 830 25 0*483 822 25 0
** **
13175 07/11*500 808 25 0*517 788 25 0*535 765 25 0*553 741 25 0
13180 07/12*571 713 25 0*589 683 25 0*608 649 25 0* 0 0 0 0
13185 HR
13185 HRAFL2
****
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Winds reduced from
the 4th to the 6th since there were no observations in Cuba of a strong
tropical storm or hurricane. 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. Inland decay
model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the
Southeast U.S.
********************************************************************************
1896/01 - 2009 REVISION:
13740 07/04/1896 M= 9 1 SNBR= 338 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
13745 07/04* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*209 811 35 0*218 820 40 0*
13750 07/05*226 828 45 0*234 836 45 0*242 842 55 0*249 847 65 0*
13755 07/06*256 852 75 0*263 856 85 0*270 860 85 0*277 862 85 0*
13760 07/07*284 865 85 0*290 866 85 0*297 867 85 0*305 864 85 0*
13765 07/08*316 853 60 0*324 843 45 0*333 835 35 0*345 829 30 0*
13770 07/09*364 832 30 0*385 840 30 0*406 840 25 0*421 838 25 0*
13770 07/09E364 832 30 0E385 840 30 0E406 840 25 0E421 838 25 0*
* * * *
13775 07/10*436 835 25 0*451 833 25 0*467 830 25 0*483 822 25 0*
13775 07/10E436 835 25 0E451 833 25 0E467 830 25 0E483 822 25 0*
* * * *
13780 07/11*500 808 25 0*517 788 25 0*535 765 25 0*553 741 25 0*
13780 07/11E500 808 25 0E517 788 25 0E535 765 25 0E553 741 25 0*
* * * *
13785 07/12*571 713 25 0*589 683 25 0*608 649 25 0* 0 0 0 0*
13785 07/12E571 713 25 0E589 683 25 0E608 649 25 0* 0 0 0 0*
* * *
13790 HRAFL2
Existing HURDAT carries this system as tropical well up into Baffin Bay. A review
of the track maps indicates that a better solution would be to transition to
extratropical beginning on 0Z on 7/9.
1896/01 - 2011 REVISION:
13740 07/04/1896 M= 9 1 SNBR= 338 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
13745 07/04* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*209 811 35 0*218 820 40 0*
13750 07/05*226 828 45 0*234 836 45 0*242 842 55 0*249 847 65 0*
13755 07/06*256 852 75 0*263 856 85 0*270 860 85 0*277 862 85 0*
13760 07/07*284 865 85 0*290 866 85 0*297 867 85 0*305 864 85 0*
13765 07/08*316 853 60 0*324 843 45 0*333 835 35 0*345 829 30 0*
13770 07/09*364 832 30 0*385 840 30 0*406 840 25 0*421 838 25 0*
13775 07/10*436 835 25 0*451 833 25 0*467 830 25 0*483 822 25 0*
13780 07/11*500 808 25 0*517 788 25 0*535 765 25 0*553 741 25 0*
13785 07/12*571 713 25 0*589 683 25 0*608 649 25 0* 0 0 0 0*
13790 HRAFL2
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
1-7/7/1896 1700Z 30.4N 86.5W 85kt 2 --- (973mb) AFL2
1-7/7/1896 1700Z 30.4N 86.5W 85kt 2 --- (970mb) AFL2
***
The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Florida as an 85 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 973 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 970 mb -
for an 85 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
*******************************************************************************
13190 08/30/1896 M=13 2 SNBR= 327 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
13190 08/30/1896 M=13 2 SNBR= 339 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
*** *
13195 08/30* 0 0 0 0*140 596 35 0*145 605 50 0*149 614 65 0
13200 08/31*153 624 80 0*158 633 95 0*163 642 100 0*169 651 105 0
13200 08/31*153 624 80 0*158 633 85 0*163 642 85 0*169 651 85 0
** *** ***
13205 09/01*175 660 105 0*181 669 100 0*186 678 90 0*190 686 85 0
13205 09/01*175 660 85 0*181 669 85 0*186 678 75 0*190 686 80 0
*** *** ** **
13210 09/02*193 692 85 0*197 699 85 0*200 706 85 0*203 714 85 0
13215 09/03*206 722 85 0*209 731 90 0*212 739 95 0*215 747 95 0
13215 09/03*206 722 85 0*209 731 85 0*212 739 85 0*215 747 85 0
** ** **
13220 09/04*218 754 100 0*222 762 100 0*227 768 105 0*233 772 105 0
13220 09/04*218 754 85 0*222 762 85 0*227 768 85 0*233 772 90 0
*** *** *** ***
13225 09/05*239 773 105 0*245 773 105 0*252 772 105 0*259 770 105 0
13225 09/05*239 773 95 0*245 773 100 0*252 772 100 0*259 770 100 0
*** *** *** ***
13230 09/06*265 768 105 0*272 764 105 0*278 758 105 0*285 750 105 0
13230 09/06*265 768 100 0*272 764 100 0*278 758 100 0*285 750 100 0
*** *** *** ***
13235 09/07*291 741 105 0*298 732 105 0*304 723 105 0*313 715 105 0
13235 09/07*291 741 100 956*298 732 100 0*304 723 100 0*313 715 100 0
*** *** *** *** ***
13240 09/08*324 707 105 0*336 700 105 0*346 695 105 0*354 692 105 0
13240 09/08*324 707 100 0*336 700 100 0*346 695 100 0*354 692 100 0
*** *** *** ***
13245 09/09*362 691 105 0*370 691 105 0*378 691 105 0*386 691 105 0
13245 09/09*362 691 100 0*370 691 95 0*378 691 90 0*386 693 85 0
*** *** *** *** ***
13250 09/10*393 692 100 0*400 692 100 0*408 693 95 0*417 694 90 0
13250 09/10*393 697 80 0*400 702 75 0*410 706 70 0*420 707 55 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** **
13255 09/11*426 694 85 0*437 695 80 0*448 696 80 0*460 700 75 0
13255 09/11E430 705 50 0E439 701 45 0E448 696 40 0E457 690 40 0
**** *** ** **** *** ** * ** **** *** **
13260 HR
13260 HR RI1 MA1
*** ***
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made large alterations to
the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track changes are found to be
reasonable. Boose et al. (2003) analyze the wind-caused damage for this
hurricane at landfall in Puerto Rico as only isolated Fujita-scale F1 damage,
which does not support intensity as a major hurricane landfall. Winds are
reduced accordingly on the 31st and 1st to Category 2 (85 kt) intensity. Perez
(2000 and personal communication) indicate that this hurricane produced only
tropical storm conditions over Cuba during its close trek just offshore the
coast. Thus winds are reduced somewhat on the 3rd through the 5th. A central
pressure of 956 mb at 00Z on the 7th suggests winds of 98 kt from the
subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 100 kt is utilized in the best track.
Winds adjusted from the 5th to the 9th accordingly. Hurricane is determined
from wind observations to be a Category 1 hurricane in New England; winds
adjusted accordingly from the 9th to the 11th. Winds at landfall (Category 1)
and inland agree with assessment by Boose et al. (2001), based upon modeling
of wind-caused damages. Boose et al. (2001) also estimated a RMW of 30 nmi.
Hurricane is known as "San Ramon Nonato III" or "San Gil" for its impacts in
Puerto Rico.
********************************************************************************
13605 09/18/1896 M=11 3 SNBR= 328 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
13605 09/18/1896 M=11 3 SNBR= 340 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
13610 09/18*171 551 35 0*175 565 40 0*178 580 40 0*182 593 45 0
13615 09/19*187 606 50 0*191 618 55 0*196 628 60 0*201 637 65 0
13620 09/20*206 645 70 0*211 653 75 0*216 662 80 0*221 672 85 0
13625 09/21*227 683 85 0*234 694 85 0*241 705 85 0*249 715 85 0
13630 09/22*258 724 85 0*269 733 85 0*280 740 85 0*292 741 85 0
13635 09/23*304 738 85 0*317 727 85 0*330 710 85 0*344 690 85 0
13640 09/24*360 669 85 0*375 647 85 0*389 627 85 0*402 608 85 0
13645 09/25*413 589 85 0*425 570 85 0*438 550 85 0*452 529 85 0
13650 09/26*467 505 85 0*482 479 85 0*497 450 85 0*512 419 85 0
13655 09/27*528 388 85 0*543 357 80 0*558 325 80 0*571 293 75 0
13660 09/28*582 261 70 0*592 229 70 0*600 197 65 0* 0 0 0 0
13665 HR
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) introduced no changes from that shown in Neumann
et al. (1999).
********************************************************************************
13330 09/22/1896 M= 9 4 SNBR= 329 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
13330 09/22/1896 M= 9 4 SNBR= 341 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
*** *
13335 09/22* 0 0 0 0*167 618 35 0*167 628 40 0*167 638 45 0
13335 09/22* 0 0 0 0*167 618 35 0*167 628 35 0*167 638 35 0
** **
13340 09/23*167 647 50 0*168 656 60 0*168 665 65 0*168 673 70 0
13340 09/23*167 647 40 0*168 656 40 0*168 665 45 0*168 673 45 0
** ** ** **
13345 09/24*169 680 80 0*169 687 85 0*170 698 90 0*171 711 95 0
13345 09/24*169 680 50 0*169 687 50 0*170 698 55 0*171 711 55 0
** ** ** **
13350 09/25*171 724 100 0*172 736 100 0*173 749 105 0*174 762 105 0
13350 09/25*171 724 60 0*172 736 60 0*173 749 65 0*174 762 65 0
*** *** *** ***
13355 09/26*177 774 105 0*180 787 105 0*185 800 105 0*191 812 105 0
13355 09/26*177 774 70 0*180 787 75 0*185 800 80 0*188 809 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** ***
13360 09/27*199 822 105 0*207 831 105 0*216 840 105 0*225 848 105 0
13360 09/27*191 819 90 0*194 828 95 0*197 837 100 0*201 842 105 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
13365 09/28*234 854 105 0*244 856 105 0*254 855 100 0*265 850 100 0
13365 09/28*206 849 110 0*214 853 110 0*223 855 110 0*238 853 110 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
13370 09/29*279 841 95 0*295 832 90 0*312 824 80 0*338 808 75 0
13370 09/29*253 851 110 0*270 842 110 960*296 829 100 963*322 812 85 973
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** ***
13375 09/30*369 790 65 992*410 775 50 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
13375 09/30*357 792 70 988E395 785 60 987E420 790 50 0* 0 0 0 0
*** *** ** ******* *** ** ******* *** **
13380 HR
13380 HRAFL3DFL3 GA2 SC1 NC1 VA1
******** *** *** *** ***
The only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who otherwise made
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999),
is to use the track analyzed by Sandrik et al. (2001) near the landfall in
the United States. Winds reduced from the 22nd until the 27th since
observations from Partagas and Diaz only support intensification to
hurricane status as it approached Cuba. Perez (2001) analyzes the impacts
of this hurricane as Category 1 in Cuba, consistent with the track chosen
as just offshore the west tip of Cuba as a major hurricane. Sandrik et al.
(2001) analyzed the landfall as a 960 mb hurricane in Florida with a 15 nmi
radius of maximum winds. This central pressure suggests 100 kt from the
Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship. With a smaller than usual RMW
for this central pressure and latitude (22 nmi on average - Vickery et al.
2000) and a rapid forward motion (30 kt at landfall), winds are estimated at
110 kt at landfall. A 963 mb central pressure estimated via Ho's methodology
for 12Z on the 29th suggests 92 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure
relationship - 100 kt chosen due to small RMW and fast speed of motion
although the hurricane is overland. A 973 mb central pressure estimated via
Ho's methodology for 18Z on the 29th suggests winds of 83 kt for maximum
sustained winds, 85 kt is chosen for the best track for the same reasons
above. A 988 mb central pressure estimated for 00Z on the 30th suggests
winds of 65 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship, which is
boosted to 70 kt for the same reasons above. (Note that this was
originally recorded in HURDAT as 992 mb, which was a peripheral pressure
measurement not a central pressure.) Finally, an observed central pressure
(at 04Z on the 30th) of 987 mb occurred as the storm was going extratropical.
1896/04 - 2006 REVISION:
13935 09/22/1896 M= 9 4 SNBR= 341 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
13940 09/22* 0 0 0 0*167 618 35 0*167 628 35 0*167 638 35 0*
13945 09/23*167 647 40 0*168 656 40 0*168 665 45 0*168 673 45 0*
13950 09/24*169 680 50 0*169 687 50 0*170 698 55 0*171 711 55 0*
13955 09/25*171 724 60 0*172 736 60 0*173 749 65 0*174 762 65 0*
13960 09/26*177 774 70 0*180 787 75 0*185 800 80 0*188 809 85 0*
13965 09/27*191 819 90 0*194 828 95 0*197 837 100 0*201 842 105 0*
13970 09/28*206 849 110 0*214 853 110 0*223 855 110 0*238 853 110 0*
13975 09/29*253 851 110 0*270 842 110 960*296 829 100 963*322 812 85 973*
13980 09/30*357 792 70 988E395 785 60 987E420 790 50 0* 0 0 0 0*
13985 HRAFL3DFL3 GA2 SC1 NC1 VA1
13985 HRAFL3DFL3 GA2 SC1INC1IVA1
********
Revision indicated in continental U.S. impacts to specify that the North
Carolina and Virginia hurricane impacts from this cyclone were inland,
rather than along these states' Atlantic coast.
********************************************************************************
13385 10/07/1896 M=10 5 SNBR= 330 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
13385 10/07/1896 M=10 5 SNBR= 342 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
*** *
13390 10/07*225 912 35 0*230 902 40 0*234 890 50 0*236 882 60 0
13390 10/07*225 912 35 0*230 902 40 0*234 892 45 0*236 882 50 0
*** ** **
13395 10/08*239 873 70 0*242 863 80 0*248 852 85 0*255 839 85 0
13395 10/08*239 873 50 0*242 863 50 0*248 852 50 0*255 839 50 0
** ** ** **
13400 10/09*262 825 85 0*270 811 80 0*278 800 70 0*286 791 70 0
13400 10/09*262 825 50 0*270 811 40 0*278 800 35 0*286 791 45 0
** ** ** **
13405 10/10*294 782 75 0*302 774 80 0*310 767 80 0*318 760 85 0
13405 10/10*294 782 50 0*302 774 55 0*310 767 60 0*318 760 65 0
** ** ** **
13410 10/11*327 753 85 0*335 747 85 0*343 739 85 0*351 731 85 0
13410 10/11*327 753 75 0*335 747 85 0*343 739 85 0*351 731 85 0
**
13415 10/12*358 723 85 0*366 714 85 0*373 706 85 0*380 698 85 0
13420 10/13*386 689 85 0*393 680 85 0*400 672 85 0*408 664 85 0
13420 10/13*386 689 80 0*393 680 75 0*400 672 70 0*408 664 65 0
** ** ** **
13425 10/14*416 657 85 0*424 649 85 0*432 642 85 0*440 635 85 0
13425 10/14E416 657 60 0E424 649 55 0E432 642 50 0E440 635 45 0
* ** * ** * ** * **
13430 10/15*449 629 80 0*458 622 75 0*467 615 70 0*481 600 65 0
13430 10/15E449 629 40 0E458 622 35 0E467 615 35 0E481 600 35 0
* ** * ** * ** * **
13435 10/16*502 570 55 0*528 528 45 0*557 482 40 0* 0 0 0 0
13435 10/16E502 570 35 0E528 528 35 0E557 482 35 0* 0 0 0 0
* ** * ** * **
13440 HR
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Winds reduced while in Gulf of Mexico
since observations do not support hurricane status there or at landfall
in Florida. Winds reduced from the 13th until the 16th since observations
do not indicate hurricane intensity north of 41N or at landfall in Canada.
Small alteration to the track on the 7th provides a more realistic
translational velocity.
********************************************************************************
13445 10/26/1896 M=15 6 SNBR= 331 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
13445 10/26/1896 M=15 6 SNBR= 343 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
13450 10/26* 0 0 0 0* 87 442 35 0* 87 450 35 0* 88 455 40 0
13455 10/27* 89 460 40 0* 90 466 45 0* 92 474 45 0* 95 483 50 0
13460 10/28* 98 492 55 0*101 501 60 0*105 510 65 0*109 519 65 0
13465 10/29*114 528 70 0*120 537 75 0*126 546 80 0*134 553 85 0
13470 10/30*142 557 85 0*151 559 85 0*161 560 85 0*172 560 85 0
13475 10/31*183 558 85 0*194 555 85 0*204 550 85 0*214 543 85 0
13480 11/01*223 536 85 0*231 529 85 0*239 523 85 0*247 517 85 0
13485 11/02*254 512 85 0*261 506 85 0*267 500 85 0*273 494 85 0
13490 11/03*279 488 85 0*285 481 85 0*291 475 85 0*297 468 85 0
13495 11/04*303 461 85 0*309 454 85 0*315 446 85 0*323 436 85 0
13500 11/05*333 424 85 0*345 411 85 0*356 403 85 0*370 393 85 0
13505 11/06*384 390 85 0*398 397 85 0*404 410 80 0*404 415 80 0
13510 11/07*401 421 80 0*396 426 75 0*390 430 75 0*385 430 75 0
13515 11/08*379 425 70 0*374 417 70 0*370 407 65 0*366 396 60 0
13520 11/09*364 383 55 0*362 367 50 0*360 350 45 0*360 339 35 0
13525 HR
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). The only observation possibly
available for this system is from Bark "Gerald C. Tobay" on Oct. 28th at
21.2N 62.5W where "it came in a whirlwind with rain, thunder and lightning
... lasted only 20 minutes" and caused substantial damage to the ship. As
Partagas and Diaz discussed, this ship was about 800 miles to the northwest
of the hurricane's position on the 28th. So either the observation is
unrelated to the hurricane or the storm was a large system with an outer
rainband (and possible embedded tornado) that impacted the ship. Without
additional data for substantiating changes to HURDAT's original intensity
estimates, no alterations are made to this hurricane.
********************************************************************************
13527 11/27/1896 M= 3 7 SNBR= 344 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
13527 11/27*109 611 35 0*112 613 35 0*115 615 40 0*120 617 40 0
13527 11/28*127 618 45 0*134 619 45 0*140 620 50 0*149 622 50 0
13527 11/29*160 623 50 0*170 624 50 0*180 625 40 0*196 623 35 0
13527 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b) for this newly documented
tropical storm.
*******************************************************************************
1896 - Additional Notes:
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) mentioned one additional system considered
for inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team agreed to leave it out
of HURDAT for the following reason:
1) August 28-29, 1896: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
********************************************************************************
13530 08/31/1897 M=11 1 SNBR= 332 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
13530 08/31/1897 M=11 1 SNBR= 345 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
13535 08/31* 0 0 0 0*140 240 35 0*140 250 35 0*141 261 35 0
13540 09/01*142 273 35 0*143 284 40 0*145 295 55 0*147 306 65 0
13545 09/02*150 317 70 0*153 328 75 0*156 339 75 0*160 350 80 0
13550 09/03*164 361 80 0*169 372 85 0*175 383 85 0*181 395 85 0
13555 09/04*188 408 85 0*195 422 85 0*203 435 85 0*211 448 85 0
13560 09/05*220 462 85 0*229 475 85 0*239 488 85 0*250 498 85 0
13565 09/06*262 502 85 0*275 502 85 0*286 499 85 0*296 494 85 0
13570 09/07*304 487 85 0*313 480 85 0*322 472 85 0*332 464 85 0
13575 09/08*344 455 85 0*356 443 85 0*370 425 85 0*387 402 85 0
13580 09/09*408 373 85 0*430 345 80 0*448 319 80 0*463 294 75 0
13585 09/10*477 269 65 0*489 244 55 0*499 219 50 0*511 194 50 0
13585 09/10E477 269 65 0E489 244 55 0E499 219 50 0E511 194 50 0
* * * *
13590 HR
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). A peripheral pressure of 972 mb
apparently close to the eye (11 UTC on the 7th) supports at least 84 kt
from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 85 kt retained in the
best track. Extratropical stage is suggested to begin on the 10th, while
north of 45N.
********************************************************************************
13595 09/10/1897 M= 4 2 SNBR= 333 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
13595 09/10/1897 M= 4 2 SNBR= 346 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
*** *
13600 09/10* 0 0 0 0*237 800 65 0*240 810 65 0*244 819 65 0
13600 09/10* 0 0 0 0*237 800 50 0*240 810 55 0*244 819 60 0
** ** **
13605 09/11*248 829 65 0*254 836 75 0*260 846 80 0*266 856 85 0
13605 09/11*248 829 65 0*254 836 75 0*260 846 75 0*266 856 75 0
** **
13610 09/12*272 868 85 0*278 879 85 0*284 892 80 0*289 906 75 0
13610 09/12*272 868 75 0*278 879 75 0*283 892 75 0*288 905 75 0
** ** *** ** *** ***
13615 09/13*295 920 70 0*299 936 65 0*304 952 50 0*327 965 40 0
13615 09/13*293 922 75 0*298 941 75 0*303 957 50 0*312 975 40 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ***
13620 HR
13620 HRCTX1 LA1
**** ***
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). The hurricane is
lowered to a tropical storm on the 10th, since observations in Key West
do not indicate hurricane force had yet been reached. The hurricane is
downgraded from Category 2 (85 kt) to Category 1 (75 kt) over the Gulf of
Mexico and at landfall in Texas/Louisiana, due to evidence from observed winds,
6 ft of storm tide in Sabine Pass (Partagas and Diaz 1996b) and damage in
Texas/Louisiana. Full lifecycle of this hurricane is not known, due to lack of
information about its genesis.
1897/02 - 2011 REVISION:
14225 09/10/1897 M= 4 2 SNBR= 346 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
14230 09/10* 0 0 0 0*237 800 50 0*240 810 55 0*244 819 60 0*
14235 09/11*248 829 65 0*254 836 75 0*260 846 75 0*266 856 75 0*
14240 09/12*272 868 75 0*278 879 75 0*283 892 75 0*288 905 75 0*
14245 09/13*293 922 75 0*298 941 75 0*303 957 50 0*312 975 40 0*
14250 HRCTX1 LA1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
2-9/13/1897 0500Z 29.7N 93.8W 75kt 1 --- (981mb) LA1,TX1
2-9/13/1897 0500Z 29.7N 93.8W 75kt 1 --- (978mb) LA1,TX1
***
The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Louisiana and Texas as a 75 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 981 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 978 mb -
for a 75 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
13625 09/20/1897 M= 6 3 SNBR= 334 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
13625 09/20/1897 M= 6 3 SNBR= 347 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
13630 09/20*221 844 40 0*232 842 40 0*243 838 40 0*253 831 40 0
13630 09/20* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*243 838 40 0*253 831 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** **
13635 09/21*263 825 40 0*273 819 40 0*283 814 35 0*293 808 35 0
13635 09/21*263 825 60 0*273 819 50 0*283 814 45 0*293 807 40 0
** ** ** *** **
13640 09/22*303 802 35 0*314 795 40 0*324 789 40 0*333 783 40 0
13640 09/22*303 799 45 0*314 790 50 0*324 783 55 0*333 776 60 0
*** ** *** ** *** ** *** **
13645 09/23*342 777 40 0*349 772 40 0*358 766 40 0*368 759 40 0
13645 09/23*341 769 60 0*348 762 60 0*355 753 60 0*366 746 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
13650 09/24*381 751 40 0*396 740 40 0*412 728 35 0*433 706 30 0
13650 09/24*383 741 60 0*397 736 55 0*410 725 45 0*433 706 35 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** **
13655 09/25*459 667 30 0*490 612 30 0*525 550 25 0* 0 0 0 0
13660 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track changes are found
to be reasonable. Storm is boosted to a strong tropical storm at landfall
in Florida based upon description of impacts. Storm is boosted to a strong
tropical storm while passing along the Atlantic seaboard, but not enough
evidence was found to support Partagas and Diaz' suggestion to upgrade this
to a hurricane.
********************************************************************************
13661 09/25/1897 M= 5 4 SNBR= 348 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
13662 09/25*196 829 35 0*198 832 35 0*200 835 35 0*203 838 35 0
13663 09/26*205 840 35 0*207 842 35 0*210 845 35 0*214 848 35 0
13664 09/27*219 851 35 0*224 853 35 0*230 855 40 0*238 856 40 0
13665 09/28*247 857 40 0*254 856 40 0*259 855 40 0*263 854 40 0
13666 09/29*266 852 40 0*268 849 40 0*270 845 40 0*272 838 35 0
13667 TS
This newly documented tropical storm is incorporated from Partagas and Diaz
(1996a) without alteration.
********************************************************************************
13665 10/09/1897 M=14 4 SNBR= 335 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
13665 10/09/1897 M=14 5 SNBR= 349 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
* ***
13670 10/09* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*124 617 40 0
13675 10/10*125 626 40 0*127 638 40 0*130 649 40 0*132 661 40 0
13680 10/11*134 672 40 0*136 684 40 0*138 696 40 0*140 708 40 0
13685 10/12*141 720 40 0*142 733 40 0*144 745 40 0*146 758 40 0
13690 10/13*148 771 40 0*151 784 40 0*155 796 40 0*160 807 40 0
13695 10/14*166 815 40 0*172 823 40 0*178 829 40 0*184 835 40 0
13695 10/14*163 811 40 0*167 816 40 0*170 820 40 0*173 823 40 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
13700 10/15*189 841 40 0*195 846 40 0*200 850 40 0*205 854 40 0
13700 10/15*176 826 40 0*178 828 40 0*180 830 40 0*183 831 40 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
13705 10/16*210 857 40 0*214 859 40 0*219 860 40 0*225 861 40 0
13705 10/16*184 831 40 0*185 831 40 0*187 830 40 0*190 828 40 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
13710 10/17*231 860 40 0*236 859 40 0*241 857 40 0*245 854 40 0
13710 10/17*192 825 40 0*194 823 45 0*197 820 50 0*199 816 55 0
*** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
13715 10/18*248 851 40 0*251 847 40 0*254 844 40 0*257 841 40 0
13715 10/18*201 811 60 0*203 808 65 0*206 803 70 0*212 796 70 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
13720 10/19*260 837 40 0*263 834 40 0*266 830 35 0*277 822 35 0
13720 10/19*218 789 70 0*225 782 60 0*233 777 55 0*253 772 55 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
13725 10/20*299 807 40 0*323 787 40 0*343 765 40 0*358 742 40 0
13725 10/20*275 767 55 0*298 765 55 0*322 763 55 0*346 758 55 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
13730 10/21*372 718 40 0*383 693 40 0*390 670 40 0*393 651 40 0
13730 10/21*372 744 50 0*388 719 45 0E397 690 40 0E401 663 40 0
*** ** *** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** **
13735 10/22*396 636 40 0*398 619 40 0*400 595 40 0*401 574 40 0
13735 10/22E399 640 40 0E398 619 40 0E400 595 40 0E401 574 40 0
**** *** * * *
13740 TS
13740 HR
**
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 4.
These track changes are found to be reasonable. Peripheral pressure of
993 mb (on the 18th) suggests winds of at least 59 kt from the southern
wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt used in best track which is consistent
with analysis of a Category 1 landfall in Cuba (Perez 2000). Changes made
to the track near Cuba are consistent with modifications suggested by
Perez (2000). Storm is thus upgraded to a hurricane and winds are
increased accordingly from the 17th until the 21st. The hurricane is known
as "Ciclon de Tunas de Zaza" due to its impacts in Cuba (Perez 2000).
********************************************************************************
13745 10/23/1897 M= 9 5 SNBR= 336 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
13745 10/23/1897 M= 9 6 SNBR= 350 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
* *** *
13750 10/23* 0 0 0 0*245 773 50 0*258 769 50 0*275 761 50 0
13755 10/24*291 755 50 0*306 750 50 0*321 745 50 0*335 740 50 0
13760 10/25*347 737 50 0*359 732 55 0*370 741 55 0*367 753 55 0
13760 10/25*347 735 50 0*359 732 55 0*370 741 55 0*367 753 55 0
***
13765 10/26*359 758 50 0*350 754 45 0*348 750 40 0*345 748 40 0
13765 10/26*359 758 50 0*350 754 45 0*347 751 40 0*345 748 40 0
*** ***
13770 10/27*343 744 45 0*340 738 50 0*338 730 50 0*337 721 50 0
13775 10/28*337 712 50 0*336 702 50 0*336 692 50 0*340 681 50 0
13775 10/28*336 712 50 0*336 702 50 0*336 692 50 0*340 681 50 0
***
13780 10/29*348 668 50 0*355 657 50 0*365 647 50 0*372 639 50 0
13780 10/29*348 668 50 0*355 657 50 0E365 647 50 0E372 639 50 0
* *
13785 10/30*378 633 50 0*385 627 50 0*392 620 50 0*400 613 50 0
13785 10/30E378 633 50 0E385 627 50 0E392 620 50 0E400 613 50 0
* * * *
13790 10/31*409 606 50 0*418 598 50 0*426 590 50 0*436 574 50 0
13790 10/31E409 606 50 0E418 598 50 0E426 590 50 0E436 578 50 0
* * * * ***
13795 TS
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 5. Slight
adjustments to track made on the 25th, 26th, 28th and 31st to allow for more
realistic translational velocities. Extratropical stage indicated for portion
of track as it moved toward the northeast north of 36N in late October. Full
lifecycle of this tropical storm is not known, due to lack of information
about its genesis.
*******************************************************************************
1897 - Additional Notes:
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) mentioned one additional system considered
for inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team agreed to leave it out
of HURDAT for the following reason:
1) August 15, 1897: Damage reports in Nicaragua leave it uncertain if
system was a tornado or tropical storm.
*******************************************************************************
13800 08/02/1898 M= 2 1 SNBR= 337 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
13800 08/02/1898 M= 2 1 SNBR= 351 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
*** *
13805 08/02*268 792 35 0*274 810 70 0*280 826 65 0*289 838 65 0
13805 08/02*268 792 35 0*274 810 30 0*280 826 35 0*289 838 55 0
** ** **
13810 08/03*298 849 65 0*306 861 60 0*315 872 35 0*320 882 25 0
13810 08/03*298 849 70 0*306 861 50 0*315 872 35 0*320 882 25 0
** **
13815 HR
13815 HRAFL1
****
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Inland decay model of Kaplan and
DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the Southeast U.S. Category 1
landfall status maintained in Northwest Florida, but available observational
data (i.e., the _Monthly Weather Review_ described it as a "feeble disturbance
near Jupiter" with maximum sustained winds of 32 kt from the east on Aug.
1st) suggests that the system was only a weak tropical storm at its
first landfall in peninsular Florida.
1898/01 - 2011 REVISION:
14465 08/02/1898 M= 2 1 SNBR= 351 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
14470 08/02*268 792 35 0*274 810 30 0*280 826 35 0*289 838 55 0*
14475 08/03*298 849 70 0*306 861 50 0*315 872 35 0*320 882 25 0*
14480 HRAFL1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
1-8/2/1898 2300Z 29.7N 84.8W 70kt 1 --- (985mb) AFL1
1-8/2/1898 2300Z 29.7N 84.8W 70kt 1 --- (982mb) AFL1
***
The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in Florida as a 70 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 985 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 982 mb -
for a 70 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
13820 08/30/1898 M= 3 2 SNBR= 338 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
13820 08/30/1898 M= 3 2 SNBR= 352 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
*** *
13825 08/30* 0 0 0 0*293 791 35 0*301 794 65 0*309 798 80 0
13825 08/30* 0 0 0 0*293 791 35 0*301 794 65 0*309 798 75 0
**
13830 08/31*315 802 85 0*320 807 85 0*324 814 65 990*326 822 60 0
13830 08/31*315 802 75 0*320 807 75 0*324 814 60 *326 822 50 0
** ** ** *** **
13835 09/01*326 831 45 0*327 841 40 0*328 853 35 0*331 866 30 0
13840 HR
13840 HR GA1 SC1
*** ***
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Inland decay model of Kaplan and
DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the Southeast U.S. A
peripheral pressure (incorrectly listed as a central pressure in original
version of HURDAT) of 990 mb (at 09Z on the 31st) suggests winds of at
least 63 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 75 kt chosen
for best track.
********************************************************************************
13841 09/03/1898 M= 4 3 SNBR= 353 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
13842 09/03* 0 0 0 0*408 421 70 0*420 410 70 0*429 398 70 0
13843 09/04*439 383 70 0*449 369 70 0*460 355 70 0*468 343 70 0
13844 09/05*477 328 70 0*486 314 70 0E495 300 60 0E507 280 50 0
13845 09/06E520 253 45 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
13846 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b) for this newly documented
hurricane.
********************************************************************************
13845 09/05/1898 M=16 3 SNBR= 339 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
13845 09/05/1898 M=16 4 SNBR= 354 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
* ***
13850 09/05* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*112 269 35 0*114 290 35 0
13855 09/06*115 310 40 0*116 328 45 0*117 344 55 0*117 358 65 0
13860 09/07*117 372 70 0*118 385 75 0*119 399 80 0*119 414 80 0
13865 09/08*120 430 85 0*120 446 85 0*120 462 85 0*120 481 85 0
13865 09/08*120 430 85 0*120 446 85 0*120 462 85 0*120 477 85 0
***
13870 09/09*120 501 85 0*120 521 85 0*121 537 85 0*121 549 85 0
13870 09/09*120 491 85 0*120 503 85 0*120 515 85 0*120 526 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** ***
13875 09/10*122 559 85 0*123 569 85 0*125 579 85 0*130 595 85 0
13875 09/10*121 541 85 0*122 556 85 0*123 570 85 0*123 580 90 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** **
13880 09/11*136 609 85 0*145 620 85 0*153 628 85 0*162 630 85 0
13880 09/11*125 589 95 0*127 598 95 0*130 607 95 0*136 615 95 965
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** ***
13885 09/12*169 632 85 0*177 633 85 0*185 634 85 0*191 635 85 0
13885 09/12*145 622 95 0*157 628 95 0*170 633 95 0*183 635 95 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** **
13890 09/13*197 636 85 0*204 637 85 0*210 639 85 0*217 640 85 0
13890 09/13*197 636 95 0*204 637 95 0*210 639 95 0*217 640 95 0
** ** ** **
13895 09/14*223 642 85 0*229 644 85 0*236 648 85 0*239 649 85 0
13895 09/14*223 642 90 0*229 644 85 0*236 648 85 0*239 649 85 0
**
13900 09/15*243 652 85 0*247 655 85 0*250 658 85 0*254 662 85 0
13905 09/16*258 666 85 0*262 671 85 0*266 675 85 0*272 679 85 0
13910 09/17*281 685 85 0*290 690 85 0*300 693 85 0*309 691 85 0
13915 09/18*319 687 85 0*330 680 85 0*340 672 85 0*352 659 85 0
13920 09/19*366 647 85 0*382 634 80 0*400 620 75 0*422 603 65 0
13925 09/20*451 583 55 0*485 563 45 0*520 541 40 0* 0 0 0 0
13925 09/20E451 583 55 0E485 563 45 0E520 541 40 0* 0 0 0 0
* *
13930 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm
number 3. A central pressure of 965mb (on 16Z on the 11th) suggests winds of
95 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship. Given the estimated
motion of the hurricane and wind reports from St. Vincent, a RMW of 15 nmi is
analyzed which is close to the climatological RMW for that central pressure
and latitude (14 nmi, from Vickery et al. 2000). Thus 95 kt is chosen for
landfall in the Lesser Antilles. Winds are altered from the 8th to the 14th
accordingly.
********************************************************************************
13935 09/12/1898 M=11 4 SNBR= 340 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
13935 09/12/1898 M=11 5 SNBR= 355 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
* ***
13940 09/12* 0 0 0 0*129 791 50 0*132 795 50 0*135 797 50 0
13945 09/13*138 799 50 0*141 802 50 0*144 804 50 0*147 807 50 0
13950 09/14*149 809 50 0*152 812 50 0*154 815 50 0*156 818 50 0
13955 09/15*159 821 50 0*161 825 50 0*163 831 50 0*166 840 50 0
13960 09/16*169 851 50 0*172 863 50 0*176 875 50 0*180 887 50 0
13960 09/16*169 851 50 0*172 863 50 0*176 875 50 0*180 887 40 0
**
13965 09/17*185 900 45 0*191 913 40 0*199 924 40 0*208 932 45 0
13965 09/17*185 900 35 0*191 913 40 0*199 924 40 0*208 932 45 0
**
13970 09/18*217 936 45 0*225 938 50 0*234 939 50 0*243 939 50 0
13975 09/19*252 939 50 0*260 938 50 0*269 937 50 0*277 935 50 0
13980 09/20*284 933 50 0*291 930 50 0*298 928 50 0*305 925 45 0
13980 09/20*284 933 50 0*291 930 50 0*298 928 45 0*305 925 40 0
** **
13985 09/21*313 923 40 0*320 920 35 0*327 917 35 0*339 913 35 0
13985 09/21*313 923 35 0*320 920 35 0*327 917 30 0*339 913 30 0
** ** **
13990 09/22*358 910 35 0*380 905 35 0*399 900 35 0* 0 0 0 0
13990 09/22*358 910 30 0*380 905 25 0*399 900 25 0* 0 0 0 0
** ** **
13995 TS
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 4. Inland decay
model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Central
America and the Southeast U.S.
********************************************************************************
14055 09/20/1898 M= 9 6 SNBR= 342 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
14055 09/20/1898 M= 9 6 SNBR= 356 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
14060 09/20* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*110 798 50 0*121 806 50 0
14065 09/21*131 813 50 0*140 820 50 0*148 826 50 0*154 831 50 0
14070 09/22*161 835 50 0*167 840 50 0*173 845 50 0*180 851 50 0
14075 09/23*187 857 50 0*194 863 50 0*200 869 50 0*205 875 50 0
14075 09/23*187 857 50 0*194 863 50 0*200 869 50 0*205 875 40 0
**
14080 09/24*210 881 45 0*214 886 40 0*218 892 40 0*222 897 40 0
14080 09/24*210 881 35 0*214 886 35 0*218 892 40 0*222 897 40 0
** **
14085 09/25*225 902 45 0*229 907 50 0*233 912 50 0*237 918 50 0
14090 09/26*241 924 50 0*245 931 50 0*250 937 50 0*255 942 50 0
14095 09/27*261 945 50 0*267 947 50 0*273 948 50 0*279 949 50 0
14100 09/28*286 948 45 0*293 947 40 0*300 945 35 0*309 944 30 0
14100 09/28*286 948 50 0*293 947 50 0*300 945 40 0*309 944 30 0
** ** **
14105 TS
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Inland decay model of Kaplan and
DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Central America and the
Texas. 50 kt sustained winds maintained until landfall in Texas, rather
than weakening indicated in original HURDAT before reaching the coast.
********************************************************************************
14110 09/25/1898 M=12 7 SNBR= 343 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=9
14110 09/25/1898 M=12 7 SNBR= 357 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=4
*** *
14115 09/25*162 583 35 0*166 587 40 0*171 592 40 0*175 598 45 0
14115 09/25*162 583 35 0*166 587 40 0*171 592 40 0*177 598 45 0
***
14120 09/26*179 605 50 0*183 611 60 0*187 617 65 0*191 623 70 0
14120 09/26*184 608 50 0*191 617 60 0*197 625 65 0*205 634 65 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** **
14125 09/27*194 630 80 0*197 636 85 0*201 642 90 0*205 648 95 0
14125 09/27*213 643 65 0*219 651 70 0*225 660 75 0*232 670 80 977
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** ***
14130 09/28*210 654 95 0*216 661 95 0*222 667 95 0*228 673 95 0
14130 09/28*237 678 85 0*244 689 90 0*250 700 95 0*254 706 95 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ***
14135 09/29*234 679 95 0*241 684 95 0*247 690 95 0*254 696 95 0
14135 09/29*258 712 95 0*262 719 95 0*265 725 95 0*268 730 95 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14140 09/30*260 703 95 0*267 710 95 0*273 717 95 0*278 724 95 0
14140 09/30*271 735 95 0*272 739 95 0*275 745 95 0*279 752 95 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14145 10/01*283 732 95 0*287 741 95 0*292 751 95 0*297 763 95 0
14145 10/01*283 759 95 0*287 766 100 0*290 773 105 0*293 780 110 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14150 10/02*302 779 90 0*307 794 90 0*312 808 85 0*317 820 75 0
14150 10/02*296 787 115 0*299 796 115 0*304 806 115 938*311 818 90 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** **
14155 10/03*323 831 65 0*329 842 60 0*335 852 55 0*343 861 50 0
14155 10/03*319 831 65 0*327 842 45 0*335 852 35 0*343 861 30 0
*** *** ** ** **
14160 10/04*352 869 45 0*364 875 40 0*376 879 40 0*391 876 35 0
14160 10/04*352 869 30 0*364 875 30 0*376 879 30 0*391 876 30 0
** ** ** **
14165 10/05*410 862 35 0*429 838 30 0*445 808 30 0*456 770 30 0
14165 10/05*410 862 25 0*429 838 25 0*445 808 25 0*456 770 25 0
** ** ** **
14170 10/06*464 720 25 0*468 658 25 0*470 588 25 0*480 528 25 0
14175 HR
14175 HR GA4DFL2
*******
The major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), was to incorporate the
findings of Sandrik and Jarvinen (1999). Partagas and Diaz otherwise made
reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999),
A central pressure of 977 mb (on 18Z on the 27th) suggests winds of 81 kt
from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 80 kt used in the best track.
Winds adjusted on the 26th to the 28th accordingly. Sandrik and Jarvinen
(1999) analyzed a 938 mb central pressure at landfall based upon SLOSH runs
with observed storm surge values (16' maximum at Brunswick, Georgia) and an
estimated RMW of 18 n.mi. 938 mb central pressure suggests winds of 112 kt
from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship. A slightly higher value -
115 kt - is chosen at landfall because of the slightly smaller RMW than
would be expected climatologically (Vickery et al. 2000). Inland winds
adjusted downward based upon inland decay model and analysis of observations
from Sandrik (1998).
********************************************************************************
14000 09/20/1898 M= 9 5 SNBR= 341 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
14000 09/25/1898 M= 4 8 SNBR= 358 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
** * * *** *
14005 09/20* 0 0 0 0*155 593 50 0*157 600 50 0*160 607 50 0
14010 09/21*164 614 50 0*167 620 50 0*170 627 50 0*173 633 50 0
14015 09/22*175 639 50 0*178 645 45 0*181 651 40 0*185 659 40 0
14020 09/23*189 669 40 0*193 678 45 0*197 686 50 0*200 692 50 0
14025 09/24*203 698 50 0*207 704 50 0*210 710 50 0*214 716 50 0
(20th through the 24th are omitted. Storm started on the 25th.)
14030 09/25*217 722 50 0*221 728 50 0*225 734 50 0*229 740 50 0
14030 09/25* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*241 830 35 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
14035 09/26*234 747 50 0*239 754 50 0*244 760 50 0*250 765 50 0
14035 09/26*248 814 35 0*254 800 40 0*260 790 40 0*264 782 45 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
14040 09/27*256 768 50 0*262 770 50 0*268 770 50 0*273 768 45 0
14040 09/27*268 775 50 0*272 768 50 0*276 762 50 0*279 758 45 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14045 09/28*277 764 45 0*281 758 40 0*285 750 35 0*289 740 30 0
14045 09/28*281 755 45 0*283 752 40 0*285 750 35 0*287 748 35 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** **
14050 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 5.
These dramatic track changes are found to be reasonable. Track altered
slightly on the 28th to provide for a more realistic translational velocity.
********************************************************************************
1898/08 - 2003 REVISION:
14000 09/20/1898 M= 9 5 SNBR= 341 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
14000 09/25/1898 M= 4 8 SNBR= 358 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
** * * *** *
14005 09/20* 0 0 0 0*155 593 50 0*157 600 50 0*160 607 50 0
14010 09/21*164 614 50 0*167 620 50 0*170 627 50 0*173 633 50 0
14015 09/22*175 639 50 0*178 645 45 0*181 651 40 0*185 659 40 0
14020 09/23*189 669 40 0*193 678 45 0*197 686 50 0*200 692 50 0
14025 09/24*203 698 50 0*207 704 50 0*210 710 50 0*214 716 50 0
(20th through the 24th are omitted. Storm started on the 25th.)
14030 09/25*217 722 50 0*221 728 50 0*225 734 50 0*229 740 50 0
14030 09/25* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*241 830 35 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
14035 09/26*234 747 50 0*239 754 50 0*244 760 50 0*250 765 50 0
14035 09/26*248 814 35 0*254 800 40 0*260 790 40 0*264 782 45 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
14040 09/27*256 768 50 0*262 770 50 0*268 770 50 0*273 768 45 0
14040 09/27*268 775 50 0*272 768 50 0*276 762 50 0*279 758 45 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14045 09/28*277 764 45 0*281 758 40 0*285 750 35 0*289 740 30 0
14045 09/28*281 755 45 0*283 752 40 0*285 750 35 0*287 748 35 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** **
14050 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 5.
These dramatic track changes are found to be reasonable. Track altered
slightly on the 28th to provide for a more realistic translational velocity.
1898/08 - 2004 REVISION:
14830 09/25/1898 M= 4 8 SNBR= 358 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
14830 09/25/1898 M= 4 8 SNBR= 358 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
*
14835 09/25* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*241 830 35 0
14835 09/25* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*205 845 30 0
*** *** **
14840 09/26*248 814 35 0*254 800 40 0*260 790 40 0*264 782 45 0
14840 09/26*210 840 30 0*217 833 30 0*225 825 30 1008*235 813 30 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** **** *** *** **
14845 09/27*268 775 50 0*272 768 50 0*276 762 50 0*279 758 45 0
14845 09/27*245 800 35 0*255 790 40 0*265 780 45 0*270 772 45 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ***
14850 09/28*281 755 45 0*283 752 40 0*285 750 35 0*287 748 35 0
14850 09/28*275 764 45 0*280 757 40 0*285 750 35 0*287 748 35 0
*** *** *** ***
14855 TS
U.S. Tropical Storm Landfall Data
---------------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max States
Winds Affected
8-9/26/1898 0600Z 25.1 80.8 40 FL
(Removed from listing)
The NHC Best Track Change Committee requested that additional
research be done into this tropical storm and storm 1898/8:
"1898, Storms #7 and #8: While the series of events that Chris
has gone with matches what was originally stated in the Monthly
Weather Review, the meteorology of this situation troubles me.
Storm #8 is moving northeastward on the northwest side of storm
#7 - a developing major hurricane - and by 28 September the
two systems are only 400-500 n mi apart. Would a northeastward
motion for storm #8 be reasonable under those conditions? Chris
needs to give this situation a closer look."
Upon investigation of this system from the Monthly Weather Review, the
COADS ship database, and coastal station data, this system's track and
intensity record has been substantially altered. However, that there was
a tropical cyclone that moved generally to the northeast in advance of
an intensifying hurricane was confirmed. The
relevant ship and station data are included in the attached spreadsheet.
Ship data on the 25th and early on the 26th indicated a disturbance becoming
organized in the south central Gulf of Mexico/northwestern Caribbean
Sea. A weak vortex moved across western Cuba on the 26th accompanied by
winds of less than gale force. (The 1008 mb pressure minimum recorded
in Havana may have been a central pressure measurement, which suggests
winds of 28 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship. 30 kt
utilized at 12 UTC on the 26th.) Tampa's pressure readings reached a
minimum of 1011 mb at 1930 UTC on the 26th, indicating a closest point of
approach near that time. While no gale force winds (or equivalent in pressure)
were recorded at any time for this system, the combination of coastal and
ship observations do confirm that a closed circulation existed and that
it moved off to the northeast (just off of the southeast coast of Florida)
on the 27th and 28th with a gradual decrease in forward speed. The track
was adjusted for the lifetime of the system. The intensity was reduced to a
tropical depression during its trek across Cuba and ramped back up to the
original tropical storm intensity thereafter. It is possible, however, that
this system never achieved tropical storm status, as no COADS or station
data provide any direct evidence of tropical storm intensity.
********************************************************************************
14251 10/21/1898 M= 3 10 SNBR= 360 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
14252 10/21*185 858 35 0*190 856 35 0*195 853 35 0*200 850 35 0
14253 10/22*206 847 40 0*211 843 40 0*218 837 40 0*226 828 40 0
14254 10/23*235 816 35 0*242 804 40 0E250 790 35 0E263 769 35 0
14255 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b) for this newly documented
tropical storm.
********************************************************************************
14255 10/27/1898 M= 9 9 SNBR= 345 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
14255 10/27/1898 M= 9 11 SNBR= 361 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
** ***
14260 10/27* 0 0 0 0*179 612 50 0*177 626 50 0*176 637 50 0
14265 10/28*175 648 50 0*174 659 50 0*174 670 50 0*174 681 50 0
14270 10/29*174 692 50 0*174 703 50 0*174 713 50 0*174 723 50 0
14275 10/30*174 732 50 0*174 741 50 0*174 749 50 0*174 757 50 0
14280 10/31*174 766 50 0*174 774 50 0*174 782 50 0*174 791 50 0
14285 11/01*175 800 50 0*176 808 50 0*177 817 50 0*177 824 50 0
14290 11/02*177 830 50 0*178 836 50 0*178 843 50 0*179 851 50 0
14295 11/03*180 859 50 0*180 868 50 0*181 878 50 0*181 889 45 0
14295 11/03*180 859 50 0*180 868 50 0*181 878 40 0*181 889 35 0
** **
14300 11/04*182 901 40 0*182 913 30 0*182 927 25 0*183 938 20 0
14300 11/04*182 901 30 0*182 913 30 0*182 927 25 0*183 938 20 0
**
14305 TS
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) did not introduce any changes for this storm from
that shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 9. Partagas
and Diaz did indicate substantial doubt that the storm did in fact exist
(since their only documentation of this system comes from Mitchell
[1924], which offers no details on the storm). However, observations
from Rivas, Nicaragua (11.4N, 85.8W) from the December 1898 _Monthly Weather
Review_ do indicate a closed circulation to the north at the time that
this tropical storm would have been by passing that location. Thus this
tropical storm will be kept in the HURDAT database. Inland decay model of
Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over Central America. Full
lifecycle of this tropical storm is not known, due to lack of information about
its genesis stage.
********************************************************************************
1898 - Additional Notes - 2004 ADDITION:
1) The NHC Best Track Change Committee identified a possible new tropical
storm to add into HURDAT for 1898:
"1898 - note possible additional system. Significant rainfall
in Jamaica found in MWR. No wind data, but a pressure is given
of 28.66. (May 23-27)."
Upon investigation of this system in the Monthly Weather Review and from
the COADS ship database, this system - while producing huge amounts of
rainfall in Jamaica and some reports of gusty winds - did not have a
closed circulation and thus was not a tropical cyclone. (The "28.66"
report was actually the rainfall, not pressure, that occurred in one
day at Cinchona Plantation, Jamaica on the 25th.)
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) mentioned two additional systems considered
for inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team agreed to leave them out
of HURDAT for the following reasons:
2) September 9-11, 1898: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
3) November 5-7, 1898: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
*******************************************************************************
14306 06/26/1899 M= 2 1 SNBR= 362 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
14307 06/26* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*275 930 35 0*278 936 35 0
14308 06/27*282 942 35 0*288 948 35 0*295 955 30 0*303 962 25 0
14309 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b) for this newly documented
tropical storm. It is noted, however, that the evidence that this was
a tropical cyclone of tropical storm intensity was not completely
conclusive, as no reports of gale force winds (or pressure/damage
equivalent) were obtained.
********************************************************************************
14310 07/31/1899 M= 3 1 SNBR= 346 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
14310 07/28/1899 M= 6 2 SNBR= 363 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
* * *** *
(28th to the 30th are new to HURDAT.)
14311 07/28* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*170 695 70 0*183 708 70 0
14312 07/29*196 723 50 0*205 739 40 0*213 755 40 0*220 768 40 0
14313 07/30*229 781 40 0*241 796 40 0*251 808 35 0*258 817 35 0
14315 07/31* 0 0 0 0*262 846 60 0*270 850 65 0*277 853 70 0
14315 07/31*263 823 45 0*269 830 55 0*275 835 65 0*279 838 75 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** **
14320 08/01*285 852 70 0*290 850 70 0*297 846 65 0*301 844 55 0
14320 08/01*283 841 85 0*288 843 85 0*293 845 85 0*298 848 85 979
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** ***
14325 08/02*305 843 45 0*308 841 40 0*311 839 35 0*313 837 30 0
14325 08/02*304 852 60 0*310 856 45 0*315 860 35 0*323 865 30 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ***
14330 HR
14330 HRAFL2
****
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 1.
These dramatic track changes are found to be reasonable. Hurricane status is
indicated at landfall in the Dominican Republic based upon description of
damages in Partagas and Diaz (1996b). A central pressure of 979 mb (on the
1st from Barnes 1998a) suggests winds of 78 kt - 85 kt chosen for best track
because of analysis described in Partagas and Diaz (1996b) that the hurricane
had a smaller than usual size. (For a given central pressure, a hurricane
with a smaller radius of maximum winds will have stronger winds than a
larger RMW hurricane.) Assessment as Category 2 at landfall in
Florida is an upgrade from tropical storm at landfall status indicated in
Neumann et al. (1999). Full lifecycle of this tropical storm is not known,
due to lack of information about its genesis stage.
1899/02 - 2011 REVISION:
15025 07/28/1899 M= 6 2 SNBR= 363 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
15030 07/28* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*170 695 70 0*183 708 70 0*
15035 07/29*196 723 50 0*205 739 40 0*213 755 40 0*220 768 40 0*
15040 07/30*229 781 40 0*241 796 40 0*251 808 35 0*258 817 35 0*
15045 07/31*263 823 45 0*269 830 55 0*275 835 65 0*279 838 75 0*
15050 08/01*283 841 85 0*288 843 85 0*293 845 85 0*298 848 85 979*
15055 08/02*304 852 60 0*310 856 45 0*315 860 35 0*323 865 30 0*
15060 HRAFL2
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
2-8/1/1899 1700Z 29.7N 84.7W 85kt 2 --- 979mb AFL2
2-8/1/1899 1700Z 29.7N 84.7W 85kt 2 10nm 979mb AFL2
**
A central pressure of 979 mb was recorded at landfall in northwest Florida
around 17Z on the 1st, which suggests winds of 78 kt from the Gulf of
Mexico pressure-wind relationship. This pressure suggests winds of 74 kt
from the new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship and 77 kt
if the cyclone was deepening. (Given the lack of inner core observations
before the 979 mb central pressure measurement, it is uncertain which relationship
is most appropriate.) The system had a very small size (140 nmi radius of outer
close isobar and ~10 nm RMW), the latter of which is substantially smaller than
climatology (23 nm - Vickery et al. 2000) for this central pressure and latitude.
A reasonable analog to this system was Hurricane Paula of 2010. Given the
combination of a very small size with the assumption of an intensifying cyclone
tempered somewhat by a slow translational velocity (5 kt), an intensity at
landfall of 85 kt is analyzed. This is unchanged and thus retains the Category 2
from the 2003 reanalysis.
********************************************************************************
14335 08/03/1899 M=22 2 SNBR= 347 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
14335 08/03/1899 M=33 3 SNBR= 364 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=3
** * ***
14340 08/03*118 330 35 0*120 347 35 0*121 360 35 0*123 373 35 0
14340 08/03*117 310 35 0*118 324 45 0*120 340 50 0*122 357 55 995
*** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** ***
14345 08/04*125 385 35 0*128 399 40 0*130 412 45 0*132 426 50 0
14345 08/04*124 374 60 0*126 388 60 0*127 403 60 0*130 420 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
14350 08/05*135 440 50 0*137 455 55 0*140 470 60 0*143 487 65 0
14350 08/05*135 440 60 0*137 455 60 0*140 470 60 0*143 487 65 0
** **
14355 08/06*146 506 70 0*148 524 75 0*151 542 80 0*154 558 80 0
14355 08/06*146 506 70 0*148 524 75 0*151 542 80 0*154 558 90 0
**
14360 08/07*157 574 85 0*159 590 85 0*162 605 90 0*165 620 90 0
14360 08/07*157 574 100 0*159 590 110 0*162 605 120 0*165 620 130 930
*** *** *** *** ***
14365 08/08*169 634 90 0*174 647 95 0*178 658 100 940*183 668 100 0
14365 08/08*169 634 130 0*174 648 125 0*180 662 120 940*186 673 105 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14370 08/09*187 678 100 0*192 687 100 0*196 697 100 0*199 707 105 0
14370 08/09*189 681 105 0*193 689 105 0*197 698 105 0*201 706 105 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14375 08/10*202 716 105 0*205 726 105 0*208 735 105 0*211 744 105 0
14375 08/10*204 714 105 0*207 722 105 0*210 730 105 0*214 737 105 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14380 08/11*214 751 105 0*218 758 105 0*222 764 105 0*229 772 105 0
14380 08/11*220 745 105 0*225 753 105 0*230 760 105 0*234 765 105 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14385 08/12*235 779 105 0*243 784 105 0*250 789 105 0*255 791 105 0
14385 08/12*238 770 105 0*242 774 105 0*245 777 105 0*251 780 105 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14390 08/13*260 793 105 0*265 795 105 0*270 796 105 0*276 798 105 0
14390 08/13*256 782 105 0*262 784 105 0*270 786 105 0*276 788 105 0
*** *** *** *** *** ***
14395 08/14*283 800 105 0*290 800 105 0*297 800 105 0*303 798 105 0
14395 08/14*283 790 105 0*290 791 105 0*297 790 105 0*303 789 105 0
*** *** *** ***
14400 08/15*308 796 105 0*314 793 105 0*319 789 105 0*322 784 105 0
14400 08/15*309 787 105 0*313 784 105 0*317 780 105 0*322 775 105 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14405 08/16*325 778 105 0*328 774 105 0*330 770 105 0*338 762 105 0
14405 08/16*326 769 105 0*328 762 105 0*330 755 105 0*333 750 105 0
*** *** *** *** *** ***
14410 08/17*341 758 105 0*345 755 100 0*349 755 95 0*352 758 90 968
14410 08/17*337 746 105 0*341 744 105 0*345 745 105 0*348 750 105 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14415 08/18*355 761 85 969*359 761 80 0*363 757 80 0*366 751 75 0
14415 08/18*351 757 105 0*357 760 90 0*363 757 80 0*364 755 75 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** ***
14420 08/19*370 744 75 0*374 737 70 0*378 730 70 0*381 723 65 0
14420 08/19*364 753 75 0*364 750 70 0*365 747 70 0*370 740 70 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** **
14425 08/20*385 715 65 0*388 703 65 0*390 688 60 0E391 671 60 0
14425 08/20*377 729 70 0*383 719 70 0*388 707 70 0*393 690 70 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** **** *** **
14430 08/21E392 653 55 0E391 636 55 0E390 621 55 0E389 606 50 0
14430 08/21*394 673 70 0*395 654 70 0*397 635 70 0*395 613 65 0
**** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** **
14435 08/22E387 591 50 0E384 575 50 0E380 557 50 0E376 538 50 0
14435 08/22E393 589 60 0E391 565 55 0E387 543 50 0E383 529 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ***
14440 08/23E372 518 50 0E369 500 45 0E365 483 45 0E362 468 45 0
14440 08/23E379 520 50 0E373 509 45 0E367 500 45 0E360 490 45 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14445 08/24E359 455 45 0E357 440 40 0E357 425 40 0* 0 0 0 0
14445 08/24E354 482 45 0E347 472 40 0E343 460 40 0E342 450 40 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** **
(25th through the 4th are new to HURDAT.)
14446 08/25E343 441 40 0E346 433 40 0E353 430 40 0E356 430 40 0
14447 08/26*360 432 40 0*363 433 40 0*365 435 40 0*368 437 40 0
14448 08/27*372 440 40 0*375 442 40 0*377 445 40 0*382 447 40 0
14449 08/28*387 449 40 0*394 450 40 0*400 450 40 0*403 447 40 0
14450 08/29*406 441 40 0*406 435 40 0*405 430 40 0*405 427 40 0
14451 08/30*405 423 40 0*405 419 40 0*403 415 40 0*402 412 40 0
14452 08/31*401 409 40 0*400 405 40 0*400 400 40 0*399 393 40 0
14453 09/01*399 387 40 0*399 379 40 0*400 370 40 0*399 357 40 0
14454 09/02*397 347 45 0*395 333 50 0*390 320 55 0*383 311 60 0
14455 09/03*379 305 65 0*375 296 70 0*373 287 70 0*378 275 65 0
14456 09/04E390 255 60 0E415 225 55 0E450 185 50 0E490 155 45 0
14450 HR NC3
The only major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b) are to extend the track
through the 4th as an extratropical storm based upon available ship
observations and to reposition the hurricane slightly more offshore Florida
to account for relatively weak winds along the coast despite having a strong
hurricane offshore. Partagas and Diaz otherwise made reasonable though
large alterations to the track that shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally
storm number 2. Central pressure of 995 mb (18Z on the 3rd) suggests winds of
56 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 55 kt utilized in best
track. Winds are adjusted accordingly on the 3rd to the 5th. A central
pressure of 930 mb (on the 7th) suggests winds of 128 kt from the southern
wind-pressure relationship - 130 kt utilized in best track. Winds are
adjusted accordingly on the 6th to the 8th. A central pressure of 940 mb
(around 12Z on the 8th) suggests winds of 119 kt from the southern wind-
pressure relationship - 120 kt used in best track. This agrees with the
assessment of Boose et al. (2003) in their wind-caused damage estimates of
extensive Fujita-scale F3 damage from this hurricane. The 968 and 969 mb
central pressures originally listed in HURDAT are determined to be peripheral
pressures (though they do suggest winds of at least 83 kt from the northern
wind-pressure relationship) - 105 kt retained in best track up to landfall in
North Carolina. Landfall as a Category 3 (~105 kt) supported by peripheral
pressure and wind reports along with extensive wind and surge damage reported
in Barnes (1998b). Assessment as Category 3 retains that indicated in the
U.S. hurricane characterization in HURDAT/Table 6 of Neumann et al. (1999).
Peripheral pressure of 983 mb (at 12Z on the 3rd) suggests winds of at least
70 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 75 kt utilized in best
track. The hurricane is known as "San Ciriaco" for its impact in Puerto
Rico.
********************************************************************************
14455 08/29/1899 M=11 3 SNBR= 348 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
14455 08/29/1899 M=11 4 SNBR= 364 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
* ***
14460 08/29* 0 0 0 0*150 582 60 0*150 585 60 0*150 598 60 0
14460 08/29* 0 0 0 0*168 573 60 0*168 585 60 0*168 597 60 0
*** *** *** *** ***
14465 08/30*150 611 65 0*151 624 70 0*153 637 70 0*156 654 70 0
14465 08/30*168 608 65 0*168 619 70 0*167 630 70 0*166 641 70 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14470 08/31*159 671 70 0*164 688 70 0*169 704 70 0*172 712 70 0
14470 08/31*166 654 70 0*166 667 70 0*165 680 70 0*166 690 70 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14475 09/01*177 720 70 0*182 726 70 0*189 731 70 0*195 733 70 0
14475 09/01*167 700 70 0*170 710 70 0*175 720 70 0*185 722 55 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** **
14480 09/02*202 735 70 0*209 735 75 0*216 734 80 0*225 731 85 0
14480 09/02*192 721 40 0*200 719 50 0*207 717 55 0*217 712 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
14485 09/03*233 728 90 0*242 724 90 0*250 720 95 0*264 712 100 0
14485 09/03*226 708 65 0*236 703 75 0*245 700 85 0*257 693 90 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ***
14490 09/04*278 703 105 0*291 693 105 0*304 683 105 0*315 671 105 0
14490 09/04*270 687 90 0*282 681 90 0*295 675 85 0*316 660 80 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14495 09/05*327 657 105 0*339 640 100 0E350 623 95 0E359 604 90 0
14495 09/05*333 639 75 0*345 617 65 0E355 595 60 0E361 583 60 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ***
14500 09/06E366 583 90 0E372 562 85 0E380 544 85 0E389 530 85 0
14500 09/06E366 571 60 0E372 558 60 0E380 544 60 0E389 530 60 0
*** ** *** ** ** **
14505 09/07E398 517 75 0E408 507 70 0E418 498 60 0E429 490 55 0
14505 09/07E398 517 60 0E408 507 60 0E418 498 60 0E429 490 55 0
** **
14510 09/08E441 482 50 0E454 476 45 0E467 471 40 0E481 470 40 0
14515 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track and moderate changes to the intensity shown in
Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 3. Available observations
of gale force or greater winds (or equivalent in sea level pressure) are as
follows: 60 kt S at 12 UTC on Aug. 31 from a ship at 15.5N, 67W; 45 kt SW
on Aug. 31 at San Juan; 50 kt SE at 12 UTC on Sep. 3 from a ship at 25N,
67.5W; 70 kt on Sep. 3 from the ship "Kilpatrick" at 25N, 68.6W; 40 kt NE
at 12 UTC on Sep. 4 from a ship at 30N, 69W; 50 kt SSE at 12 UTC on Sep. 4
from a ship at 30N, 63.7W; "winds of hurricane force blew over Bermuda in a
12 hours storm" on Sep. 4. Winds unchanged along track through Caribbean as
available observations from ships and coastal stations are consistent with a
strong tropical storm/weak hurricane. Winds reduced while storm transited
over Hispanola from Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) inland decay model, modified
to account for mountainous terrain. Peak winds reduced from Category 3
(105 kt) to Category 2 (90 kt), since data from ship reports and observations
in Bermuda supports a weaker hurricane. Winds reduced accordingly from the
3rd to the 7th.
********************************************************************************
14520 09/03/1899 M=13 4 SNBR= 349 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
14520 09/03/1899 M=13 5 SNBR= 366 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
* ***
14525 09/03*132 384 35 0*132 402 35 0*134 420 35 0*138 440 35 0
14530 09/04*142 458 35 0*145 473 35 0*147 483 40 0*149 490 45 0
14535 09/05*150 497 50 0*151 504 55 0*153 511 60 0*155 519 65 0
14540 09/06*158 527 70 0*160 534 70 0*162 542 70 0*164 549 70 0
14545 09/07*165 554 70 0*166 560 75 0*168 568 80 0*170 577 85 0
14550 09/08*173 587 85 0*177 596 90 0*180 606 95 0*183 615 100 0
14550 09/08*172 586 85 0*173 595 90 0*175 605 95 0*180 617 100 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14555 09/09*187 625 100 0*192 634 105 0*198 643 105 0*206 654 105 0
14555 09/09*184 626 100 0*189 636 105 0*195 645 105 0*200 657 105 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14560 09/10*216 667 105 0*225 680 105 0*234 691 105 0*243 698 105 0
14560 09/10*205 668 105 0*211 677 105 0*217 687 105 0*225 694 105 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14565 09/11*251 701 105 0*260 701 105 0*268 699 100 0*277 694 100 0
14565 09/11*232 696 105 0*242 698 105 0*250 700 105 0*259 698 105 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14570 09/12*285 688 95 0*294 680 90 0*302 672 90 0*309 663 85 0
14570 09/12*269 696 105 0*278 690 105 0*287 683 105 0*298 673 105 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14575 09/13*315 654 85 0*323 643 85 0*333 632 85 0*348 619 85 0
14575 09/13*310 660 105 0*322 646 105 939*335 632 105 0*349 619 100 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14580 09/14*364 604 80 0*381 589 80 0*398 575 70 0*414 563 65 0
14580 09/14*365 605 95 0*385 588 90 0*405 570 85 0*431 551 80 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
14585 09/15*431 552 55 0E447 541 50 0E464 532 45 0E484 522 40 0
14585 09/15*458 535 75 0E489 525 60 0E520 525 50 0E550 530 40 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ***
14590 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm
number 4. A central pressure of 939 mb (07Z on the 13th) suggests winds of
111 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship. Wind reports from
Bermuda allow an estimation of 30 nmi for the RMW, which is larger than usual
(~21 nmi) for this central pressure and latitude (Vickery et al. 2000). Thus
105 kt chosen for best track during track near Bermuda and winds are adjusted
accordingly from the 11th to the 13th. Winds increased on the 14th and 15th
based upon ship observations and damage reports in Canada. Extratropical
transition delayed, as per Partagas and Diaz' suggestion, until after landfall
in Canada.
********************************************************************************
14595 10/02/1899 M= 7 5 SNBR= 350 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
14595 10/02/1899 M= 7 6 SNBR= 367 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
* ***
14600 10/02* 0 0 0 0*200 841 35 0*205 847 35 0*211 852 35 0
14600 10/02* 0 0 0 0*200 841 35 0*205 847 35 0*211 851 40 0
*** **
14605 10/03*217 856 35 0*223 860 35 0*230 862 35 0*238 863 35 0
14605 10/03*218 855 40 0*227 860 40 0*237 865 45 0*245 868 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
14610 10/04*246 863 35 0*254 862 40 0*262 860 40 0*268 857 35 0
14610 10/04*255 871 50 0*265 872 50 0*273 870 50 0*278 860 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
14615 10/05*273 852 35 0*280 843 40 0*290 830 40 0*305 812 40 0
14615 10/05*278 848 50 0*278 835 50 0*280 825 40 0*293 811 40 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ***
14620 10/06*322 792 40 0*339 769 40 0E357 745 35 0E374 720 35 0
14620 10/06*309 796 40 0E324 783 40 0E344 763 35 0E371 727 35 0
*** *** **** *** *** *** *** ***
14625 10/07E391 695 35 0E408 669 35 0E426 642 35 0E445 614 35 0
14625 10/07E403 688 35 0E436 648 35 0E463 613 35 0E493 575 35 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14630 10/08E468 585 35 0E492 556 35 0E518 525 35 0E543 502 35 0
14630 10/08E522 537 35 0E550 499 35 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
*** *** *** *** **** *** ** **** *** **
14635 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm
number 5. Winds increased slightly based upon ship reports and land stations
for the 2nd to the 5th.
********************************************************************************
14636 10/10/1899 M= 5 7 SNBR= 368 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
14637 10/10* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*100 350 40 0*107 357 40 0
14638 10/11*113 363 40 0*119 369 40 0*125 375 40 0*132 382 40 0
14639 10/12*138 388 40 0*144 394 40 0*150 400 40 0*157 405 40 0
14640 10/13*163 410 40 0*169 414 40 0*175 418 40 0*183 423 40 0
14641 10/14*193 427 40 0*204 431 40 0*215 435 40 0* 0 0 0 0
14642 TS
Evidence provided in the "Special statement" section of Partagas and Diaz
(1996b) suggests strongly that a tropical storm existed in the eastern
Atlantic from at least the 10th through the 14th of October. Thus a best
track was created for this newly documented tropical storm. Based upon
two ships showing gale force winds on the 10th and 14th, respectively,
12Z positions of 12.5N 37.5W (10th) and 21.5N 43.5W (14th) were
estimated. A smooth track was created based upon these two positions.
Full lifecycle of this tropical storm is not known, due to lack of
information about its genesis and decay stages.
********************************************************************************
1899/08 - 2011 ADDITION:
22826 10/15/1899 M= 4 8 SNBR= 511 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
22828 10/15* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*255 775 30 0*260 763 30 0
22828 10/16*266 752 35 0*273 742 35 0*280 735 40 0*288 735 40 0
22828 10/17*297 743 40 0*306 753 40 0*315 760 35 0*325 762 35 0
22828 10/18*335 757 30 0*345 750 30 0*355 740 25 0*365 725 25 0
22828 TS
This is a new tropical storm, previously not documented in McAdie et al. (2009).
Evidence for this system comes from the Historical Weather Map series and the COADS
ship database.
October 6: HWM indicates a low near 16N, 48W. Available observations suggest a
separate low pressure system was near 17N 58W. Ship highlights: No gales or low
pressures. Station highlights: No gales or low pressures.
October 7: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1010mb near 19N, 59W.
Available observations agree on that location for the center.
Ship highlights: 20kt NE with a pressure of 1004mb at 21N, 62W at 12Z (HWM).
Station highlights: No gales or low pressures.
October 8: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1010mb near 19N, 63W.
Available observations suggest that the center of the system is at 20.5N 62.5W.
Ship highlights: No gales or low pressures.
Station highlights: No gales or low pressures.
October 9: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1010mb near 24N, 70W with a
cold front approaching from the northwest. Available observations suggest that
the center of the low was near 24N 66W. Ship highlights: no gales or low pressures.
Station highlights: No gales or low pressures.
October 10: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1010mb near 26N, 67W with a
cold front extending east and south of the center of the low.
Available observations suggest that the front does not exist and that the
center of the low is near 25.5N 68W. Ship highlights: No gales or low pressures.
Station highlights: No gales or low pressures.
October 11: HWM indicates two closed lows of at most 1012mb near 21N, 70W and of
at most 1010 mb near 26N 62W. Available observations indicate that the former
low is near 23N 70W and that the latter low may not actually exist.
Ship highlights: No gales or low pressures. Station highlights: No gales or low pressures.
October 12: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1010mb near 18N, 73W.
Available observations suggest that the low center may be near 20N 72W, but it is
not certain that a closed low exists on this date.
Ship highlights: No gales or low pressures. Station highlights: No gales or low pressures.
October 13: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1007.5mb near 14N, 74.5W.
Available observations do not support providing a closed low on this date,
though a well pronounced trough does exist around 72W.
Ship highlights: No gales or low pressures. Station highlights: No gales or low pressures.
October 14: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1010mb near 20N, 77W.
Available observations do no support providing a closed low on this date, though
a well pronounced trough exists around 76W. Ship highlights: No gales or low pressures.
Station highlights: No gales or low pressures.
October 15: HWM indicates a trough near 15-25N, 80W. Available observations suggest
a closed low exists near 25.5N 77.5W. Ship highlights: No gales or low pressures.
Station highlights: No gales or low pressures.
October 16: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1010mb near 27N, 72W.
Available observations indicate that the center of the low is at 28N 73W.
Ship highlights: 35kt NE with a pressure of 1013mb at 30N, 74.5W at 12Z (HWM);
35 kt ENE with a pressure of 1016mb at 31N 76W (HWM).
Station highlights: No gales or low pressures.
October 17: HWM indicates a closed low of at most 1010mb near 31N, 76W.
Available observations suggest that the center of the low is at 31.5N 75W.
Ship highlights: No gales or low pressures.
Station highlights: No gales or low pressures.
October 18: HWM indicates a low near 33N, 73W with no frontal boundaries in the vicinity.
Available observations suggest that the center of the low is at 35.5N 72.5W.
Ship highlights: No gales or low pressures. Station highlights: No gales or low pressures.
Analysis of the ship and station observations indicate that a weak,
non-baroclinic area of low pressure moved slowly toward the east-northeast
north of the Lesser Antilles from the 6th to the 10th. On the 11th, this
system apparently turned toward the southwest and may have dissipated over or
near Hispanola on the 12th. There are no reports of gale force winds in
association with this system on any of those dates. On the 13th and 14th, a
closed circulation does not appear to be in existence, though a well-defined
trough was still present over the central Caribbean Sea and the Greater
Antilles. On the 15th, a center formed in the northern Bahamas along the north
side of the trough axis and genesis is indicated at 12Z on the 15th. On the 16th,
the system moved toward the northeast and intensified, as two separate ships observed
gale force winds at 12Z. These are roughly 100 and 175 nm from the center at that time.
Peak intensity is indicated to be about 40 kt late on the 16th and early on the 17th.
The temperature gradient across the center on the 16th and 17th appears to be minimal
~2 F. The structure of the system appears to have had a large radius of maximum winds
and might have today been classified as a subtropical storm, instead of a tropical storm.
Late on the 17th and early on the 18th, the cyclone appears to have weakened as it
continued off toward the north just east of the Carolinas. Dissipation of the cyclone
is analyzed to have occurred late on the 18th, but without transformation into an
extratropical cyclone. (The area of low pressure from the 6th to the 12th is not
considered to be directly part of the lifecycle of the tropical storm. Instead, the
system from the 6th to the 12th is considered a separate tropical cyclone [of tropical
depression intensity] and is included in the 1899 Additional Notes section.)
********************************************************************************
14640 10/23/1899 M=13 6 SNBR= 351 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
14640 10/26/1899 M=10 9 SNBR= 369 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
** ** * *** *
14645 10/23* 0 0 0 0*117 803 50 0*120 804 50 0*123 805 50 0
14650 10/24*125 806 55 0*128 807 60 0*130 808 65 0*133 809 70 0
14655 10/25*135 810 70 0*138 810 65 0*140 811 65 0*142 811 70 0
(The 23rd through the 25th are deleted from the revised HURDAT.)
14660 10/26*145 812 70 0*148 813 70 0*152 813 70 0*157 814 70 0
14660 10/26*162 788 35 0*166 789 35 0*170 790 35 0*174 791 35 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
14665 10/27*163 816 70 0*169 817 70 0*175 818 70 0*181 818 70 0
14665 10/27*178 792 40 0*182 793 40 0*185 794 45 0*188 795 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
14670 10/28*187 817 70 0*193 814 70 0*199 811 70 0*205 807 70 0
14670 10/28*191 796 55 0*194 797 60 0*200 798 65 0*206 797 70 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ***
14675 10/29*213 803 70 0*221 798 70 0*229 794 70 0*243 789 70 0
14675 10/29*213 796 70 0*221 795 70 0*229 794 60 0*239 790 65 0
*** *** ** *** ***
14680 10/30*255 786 75 0*267 783 80 0*280 780 85 0*293 780 85 0
14680 10/30*255 786 75 0*267 783 85 0*280 780 95 0*293 783 95 0
** ** *** **
14685 10/31*305 783 85 0*319 788 85 0*332 789 80 0*350 784 70 0
14685 10/31*310 786 95 0*327 789 95 0*345 790 75 0*362 783 55 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
14690 11/01E375 773 55 0E401 758 50 0E422 739 45 0E438 717 45 0
14690 11/01E381 771 50 0E401 758 50 0E422 739 45 0E438 717 45 0
*** *** **
14695 11/02E453 689 40 0E466 654 40 0E476 612 40 0E484 559 40 0
14700 11/03E489 497 45 0E495 435 50 0E503 380 50 0E513 332 50 0
14705 11/04E524 285 45 0E536 242 40 0E550 202 40 0E578 175 40 0
14710 HR SC1 NC1
14710 HR SC2 NC2
*** ***
One major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who otherwise made large,
but reasonable alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999),
originally storm number 6. After reconsideration of the available
observations, it was analyzed that the system did begin on the 26th, but
likely south of Jamaica instead of east. Track is adjusted accordingly on
the 26th through the 28th. With deletion of the 23rd through the 25th and
a new genesis point on the 26th south of Hispanola, winds are reduced from
the 26th to the 28th to reflect a reasonable intensification rate. A
peripheral pressure of 996 mb (on 05Z on the 29th) suggests winds of at
least 55 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for
best track which is consistent with available ship observations and
re-analysis work of Perez (2000) that suggests landfall in Cuba as a
Category 1 hurricane. Winds reduced slightly on the 29th after Cuban
landfall. Ho (1989) estimated a central pressure of 955 mb at landfall in the
Carolinas, based upon a peripheral pressure measurement of 979 mb (10Z on the
31st), an estimated RMW of 35 nmi, and an environmental pressure of 1012 mb.
This central pressure suggests winds of 99 kt from the subtropical wind-
pressure relationship. Given the larger than climatology (~25 nmi from
Vickery et al. 2000) RMW, 95 kt chosen in the best track for landfall in the
Carolinas. Winds increased accordingly on the 30th and 31st. Landfall as a
Category 2 in the Carolinas (95 kt) is lowered from the Category 3 shown in
Table 6 of Neumann et al. (1999), but increased from the Category 1 in the
U.S. hurricane characterization in HURDAT. Inland decay model of Kaplan and
DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the middle Atlantic states.
A storm tide of 8' was observed in Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina
(Ho 1989) and 9' was observed in Norfolk, Virginia (Roth and Cobb 2001).
********************************************************************************
14711 11/07/1899 M= 4 9 SNBR= 370 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
14711 11/07/1899 M= 4 10 SNBR= 370 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
14712 11/07*117 783 35 0*122 779 35 0*127 775 40 0*136 772 40 0
14713 11/08*146 768 45 0*159 765 50 0*170 765 55 0*180 765 55 0
14714 11/09*189 766 45 0*198 767 45 0*207 767 35 0*225 761 35 0
14715 11/10*244 748 30 0*260 733 30 0*275 713 30 0*284 695 30 0
14716 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b) for this newly documented
tropical storm - storm number 8 in Partagas and Diaz.
********************************************************************************
1899 - Additional Notes:
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) mentioned three additional systems considered
for inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team decided that there was
enough information to include the third system as a new tropical storm
into HURDAT. (See storm 7, 1899.) The re-analysis team agreed to leave
the first two out of HURDAT for the following reasons:
1) September 24-26, 1899: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
2) October 7-9, 1899: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
May 1-6: Historical Weather Maps indicate that a closed low with a pressure
of at least 1010mb formed on May 1st off the southern coast of Haiti. Through out
the next two days, it remained fairly stationary along the eastern coast of Cuba
and around Haiti. On the 4th, the system turned north and on the 5th it started
heading northeastward. The system then merged with a stationary front on the 6th.
No gales were found in Historical Weather Maps, Monthly Weather Review. The
maximum winds found in COADS were 20kt.
DAY LAT LONG STATUS
May 1 17N 73W Tropical Depression
May 2 21N 76W Tropical Depression
May 3 19N 73W Tropical Depression
May 4 24N 71W Tropical Depression
May 5 28N 67W Tropical Depression
May 6 30N 65W Merged with front
July 19-24: Historical Weather Maps indicate a low formed near 8N, 30W on the
20th, but there is not enough information to show that it is a closed low. It
remains that way as it moved towards the west-southwest. The low does not appear
on the 22nd, but Historical Weather Maps indicated a trough from 10-13N and 40-45W
on the 23rd. It then became a closed low on the 24th with a pressure of at most
1010mb but no observations could be found of the system after that date.
DAY LAT LONG STATUS
July 19 8N 27W ?
July 20 8N 30W ?
July 21 5N 35W ?
July 22 8N 40W ?
July 23 10N 43W ?
July 24 11N 47W Tropical Depression?
August 26-29: Historical Weather Maps indicate a low formed near Bermuda,
around 34N, 66W on August 26. The system headed south and became a closed low
with a pressure of at most 1015mb on the 27th. Then on the 28th it headed towards
the southwest until the central east coast of Florida. It remained off the coast
of Florida on the 29th with a pressure of 1005mb and by the 30th it dissipated.
The maximum winds found in COADS were 30kt and there were no gales in the Historical
Weather Maps or the Monthly Weather Review.
DAY LAT LONG STATUS
Aug 26 34N 66W Extratropical Low
Aug 27 31N 66W Tropical Depression
Aug 28 29N 77W Tropical Depression
Aug 29 30N 79W Tropical Depression
*******************************************************************************
14715 08/27/1900 M=20 1 SNBR= 352 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=4
14715 08/27/1900 M=20 1 SNBR= 371 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=4
***
14720 08/27*160 435 35 0*160 448 35 0*162 458 35 0*162 470 35 0
14720 08/27*150 421 35 0*152 434 35 0*153 447 35 0*154 456 35 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14725 08/28*163 482 35 0*163 494 35 0*164 505 35 0*165 516 35 0
14725 08/28*156 466 35 0*158 479 35 0*160 491 35 0*161 503 35 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14730 08/29*165 527 35 0*166 537 35 0*167 548 40 0*168 559 40 0
14730 08/29*163 514 35 0*164 524 35 0*165 537 40 0*166 551 40 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14735 08/30*168 570 40 0*169 581 40 0*170 592 45 0*171 605 45 0
14735 08/30*168 566 40 0*169 580 40 0*170 593 45 0*170 606 45 0
*** *** *** *** ***
14740 08/31*172 620 45 0*174 635 45 0*175 647 45 0*176 657 45 0
14740 08/31*171 619 45 0*172 633 45 0*173 647 45 0*174 656 45 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14745 09/01*178 668 45 0*179 678 45 0*181 688 45 0*183 699 40 0
14745 09/01*175 664 45 0*176 674 45 0*177 683 45 0*180 692 40 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14750 09/02*186 709 40 0*189 720 35 0*192 730 35 0*194 740 35 0
14750 09/02*183 703 40 0*187 713 35 0*190 723 35 0*193 732 35 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14755 09/03*195 748 35 0*196 757 35 0*198 765 35 0*202 773 35 0
14755 09/03*195 741 35 0*197 750 35 0*200 760 35 0*203 766 35 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14760 09/04*206 782 35 0*210 790 35 0*215 797 35 0*220 803 40 0
14760 09/04*206 772 35 0*210 777 35 0*213 783 35 0*216 789 35 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** **
14765 09/05*225 808 50 0*230 813 55 0*235 817 60 0*240 823 80 974
14765 09/05*220 795 35 0*224 801 35 0*230 807 45 0*235 815 55 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** ***
14770 09/06*246 829 85 0*251 835 90 0*255 841 95 0*258 853 100 0
14770 09/06*241 823 60 0*248 832 65 0*255 841 75 0*261 852 85 974
*** *** ** *** *** ** ** *** *** *** ***
14775 09/07*260 865 105 0*262 874 105 0*264 887 110 0*266 897 110 0
14775 09/07*265 862 95 0*268 874 105 0*270 887 115 0*272 897 125 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14780 09/08*269 906 115 0*273 915 115 0*278 924 115 0*284 935 115 0
14780 09/08*274 906 125 0*276 915 125 0*278 924 125 0*282 935 125 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14785 09/09*291 946 115 964*300 958 65 0*310 969 50 0*322 976 45 0
14785 09/09*289 947 125 936*298 959 90 0*310 969 65 0*322 976 50 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ** ** **
14790 09/10*334 978 40 0*347 978 40 0*360 976 35 0*374 973 35 0
14790 09/10*334 978 45 0*347 978 40 0*360 976 35 0*374 973 30 0
** **
14795 09/11*388 965 35 0*402 951 35 0E415 924 35 0E426 886 35 0
14795 09/11*388 965 30 0*402 951 30 0E415 924 40 0E426 886 50 0
** ** ** **
14800 09/12E434 842 40 0E443 794 40 0E452 745 40 0E463 693 40 0
14800 09/12E434 842 55 0E443 794 60 0E452 745 65 0E463 693 65 0
** ** ** **
14805 09/13E475 640 45 0E486 587 45 0E497 539 45 0E506 498 45 0
14805 09/13E475 640 65 0E486 587 65 0E497 539 65 0E506 498 60 0
** ** ** **
14810 09/14E514 462 45 0E521 430 45 0E530 400 45 0E541 372 45 0
14810 09/14E514 462 55 0E521 430 50 0E530 400 45 0E541 372 45 0
** **
14815 09/15E553 346 45 0E567 322 40 0E582 300 40 0E600 280 35 0
14820 HRCTX4
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). A peripheral pressure
of 996 mb (at 23Z on the 5th) suggests winds of at least 53 kt from the
Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt chosen for best track.
The 974 mb central pressure originally listed as occurring at 18Z on the
5th actually occurred at 19Z on the 6th. This central pressure suggests
winds of 84 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 85 kt
chosen for best track. Winds adjusted on the 5th to the 7th based on
these pressure reports. Winds maintained at 35 kt during the 4th and 5th
while traversing over Cuba based upon reports of no more than minimum
gale force winds over land. The 964 mb pressure listed as a central
pressure (at 00Z on the 9th) is actually a peripheral pressure. Ho et al.
(1987) utilized this information to analyze this hurricane as a 936 mb
hurricane at landfall in Texas with a 14 nmi RMW. This value is close to
the 931 mb central pressure estimated in Jarrell et al. (1992) at landfall,
which is from an estimate by Connor (1956). A 936 mb central pressure
suggests winds of 123 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship.
Given the slightly smaller than climatological RMW (Vickery et al. 2000,
~18 nmi), maximum sustained winds at landfall are estimated at 125 kt. This
is consistent with the assessment of Category 4 at landfall from Neumann
et al. (1999) in their Table 6/U.S. hurricane characterization in HURDAT.
Winds are adjusted accordingly on the 7th through the 9th. A storm tide of
20' in Galveston is reported in Partagas and Diaz (1995b). Inland decay
model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the
central U.S. Intensities increased from the 11th to the 14th based upon
observations of strong winds during extratropical phase in the northern
United States and Canada (Partagas and Diaz 1996b).
1900/01 - 2011 REVISION:
15550 08/27/1900 M=20 1 SNBR= 371 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=4
15555 08/27*150 421 35 0*152 434 35 0*153 447 35 0*154 456 35 0*
15560 08/28*156 466 35 0*158 479 35 0*160 491 35 0*161 503 35 0*
15565 08/29*163 514 35 0*164 524 35 0*165 537 40 0*166 551 40 0*
15570 08/30*168 566 40 0*169 580 40 0*170 593 45 0*170 606 45 0*
15575 08/31*171 619 45 0*172 633 45 0*173 647 45 0*174 656 45 0*
15580 09/01*175 664 45 0*176 674 45 0*177 683 45 0*180 692 40 0*
15585 09/02*183 703 40 0*187 713 35 0*190 723 35 0*193 732 35 0*
15590 09/03*195 741 35 0*197 750 35 0*200 760 35 0*203 766 35 0*
15595 09/04*206 772 35 0*210 777 35 0*213 783 35 0*216 789 35 0*
15600 09/05*220 795 35 0*224 801 35 0*230 807 45 0*235 815 55 0*
15605 09/06*241 823 60 0*248 832 65 0*255 841 75 0*261 852 85 974*
15610 09/07*265 862 95 0*268 874 105 0*270 887 115 0*272 897 125 0*
15615 09/08*274 906 125 0*276 915 125 0*278 924 125 0*282 935 125 0*
15615 09/08*274 906 125 0*276 915 125 0*278 924 120 0*282 935 120 0*
*** ***
15620 09/09*289 947 125 936*298 959 90 0*310 969 65 0*322 976 50 0*
15620 09/09*289 947 120 936*298 959 90 0*310 969 65 0*322 976 50 0*
***
15625 09/10*334 978 45 0*347 978 40 0*360 976 35 0*374 973 30 0*
15630 09/11*388 965 30 0*402 951 30 0E415 924 40 0E426 886 50 0*
15635 09/12E434 842 55 0E443 794 60 0E452 745 65 0E463 693 65 0*
15640 09/13E475 640 65 0E486 587 65 0E497 539 65 0E506 498 60 0*
15645 09/14E514 462 55 0E521 430 50 0E530 400 45 0E541 372 45 0*
15650 09/15E553 346 45 0E567 322 40 0E582 300 40 0E600 280 35 0*
15655 HRCTX4
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
1-9/9/1900 0200Z 29.1N 95.1W 125kt 4 15nmi 936mb CTX4
1-9/9/1900 0200Z 29.1N 95.1W 120kt 4 15nmi 936mb CTX4
***
A 936 mb central pressure was estimated for the 1900 Galveston Hurricane
at landfall around 02Z on the 9th of September in the 2003 reanalysis.
This pressure suggested a wind of 123 kt from the Gulf of Mexico
pressure-wind relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) relationship
suggests 118 kt from the north of 25N equation. Given the slightly
smaller RMW (~15 nmi) than climatological (18 nmi for this pressure
and landfall location - Vickery et al. 2000) and a near average
translational velocity (12 kt), the winds at landfall are estimated
to be 120 kt. This is slightly less than that assessed in the
2003 reanalysis (125 kt), but still retains the Category 4 impact
at landfall in Texas.
********************************************************************************
14950 09/13/1900 M= 6 4 SNBR= 355 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
14950 09/07/1900 M=13 2 SNBR= 372 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
** ** * ***
(7th to the 12th are new to HURDAT.)
14951 09/07*145 280 35 0*147 295 40 0*150 310 45 0*152 323 50 0
14952 09/08*153 336 55 0*154 348 60 0*155 360 60 0*157 373 60 0
14953 09/09*158 386 60 0*159 398 60 0*160 410 60 0*162 423 60 0
14954 09/10*163 436 60 0*164 448 60 0*165 460 60 0*167 472 60 0
14955 09/11*168 483 60 0*169 494 60 0*170 505 60 0*172 517 60 0
14956 09/12*173 528 60 0*174 539 60 0*175 550 60 0*177 561 60 0
14955 09/13*185 549 60 0*187 559 60 0*190 570 65 0*193 579 70 0
14955 09/13*180 572 60 0*185 583 60 0*190 593 65 0*195 600 70 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14960 09/14*197 587 75 0*202 596 80 0*206 606 80 0*210 615 85 0
14960 09/14*200 606 75 0*205 613 80 0*210 620 80 0*214 625 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14965 09/15*215 624 85 0*221 632 85 0*227 640 85 0*234 647 85 0
14965 09/15*218 631 85 0*222 635 85 0*227 640 85 0*234 647 85 0
*** *** *** ***
14970 09/16*242 652 90 0*251 655 95 0*260 658 100 0*270 659 105 0
14970 09/16*238 650 90 0*243 653 95 0*250 655 100 0*260 657 105 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14975 09/17*280 657 105 0*290 652 100 0*300 645 95 0*310 635 85 0
14975 09/17*271 656 105 0*282 654 105 0*293 650 100 0*311 641 95 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** **
14980 09/18*321 620 75 0*331 601 65 0*342 580 50 0*350 560 35 0
14980 09/18*332 626 85 0*351 604 75 0*365 580 65 0*380 560 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** *** *** **
(19th new to HURDAT.)
14982 09/19*397 533 35 0*415 498 30 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
14985 HR
The only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996b) is to extend the track
back to the 7th based upon ship observations. Partagas and Diaz otherwise
made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999),
originally storm number 4. Winds are increased on the 17th and 18th to
account for observations in Bermuda on weak (west) side of hurricane.
********************************************************************************
14825 09/09/1900 M=15 2 SNBR= 353 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
14825 09/08/1900 M=16 3 SNBR= 373 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
** ** * ***
(8th not previously in HURDAT.)
14828 09/08* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*100 185 40 0*103 194 45 0
14830 09/09* 0 0 0 0*123 223 60 0*128 232 60 0*131 240 65 0
14830 09/09*106 203 50 0*109 212 55 0*112 221 60 0*116 230 65 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ***
14835 09/10*133 248 70 0*134 255 70 0*136 263 70 0*137 270 70 0
14835 09/10*120 239 70 0*125 248 70 0*130 257 70 0*135 263 70 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14840 09/11*138 277 70 0*140 283 70 0*141 290 75 0*142 298 80 0
14840 09/11*140 270 70 0*145 277 70 0*150 283 75 0*155 291 80 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14845 09/12*144 308 85 0*147 318 85 0*150 327 85 0*158 334 85 0
14845 09/12*159 299 85 0*164 306 85 0*171 313 85 0*186 320 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14850 09/13*173 342 85 0*189 344 85 0*202 345 85 0*212 345 85 0
14850 09/13*197 326 85 0*208 330 85 0*220 335 85 0*230 339 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14855 09/14*221 344 85 0*230 343 85 0*237 341 85 0*243 340 85 0
14855 09/14*240 343 85 0*250 347 85 0*260 350 85 0*269 346 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14860 09/15*248 338 80 0*253 336 75 0*258 333 75 0*264 329 75 0
14860 09/15*281 339 80 0*290 331 75 0*297 323 75 0*300 318 75 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14865 09/16*268 327 75 0*270 323 75 0*274 319 75 0*276 316 75 0
14865 09/16*302 313 75 0*304 307 75 0*304 300 75 0*303 295 75 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14870 09/17*278 312 75 0*279 308 75 0*280 303 75 0*278 295 75 0
14870 09/17*301 290 75 0*295 288 75 0*290 290 75 0*288 295 75 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14875 09/18*273 294 75 0*270 300 75 0*268 312 70 0*265 323 70 0
14875 09/18*286 301 75 0*284 307 75 0*282 315 70 0*278 325 70 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14880 09/19*263 336 65 0*262 351 65 0*261 366 65 0*264 382 65 0
14880 09/19*272 337 65 0*267 349 65 0*265 365 65 0*266 381 65 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14885 09/20*270 399 65 0*275 416 60 0*280 430 50 0*284 442 45 0
14890 09/21*289 451 40 0*293 459 40 0*296 466 35 0*298 472 35 0
14895 09/22*299 477 35 0*300 483 35 0*301 489 35 0*302 495 30 0
14900 09/23*303 502 30 0*303 508 25 0*304 515 25 0*306 522 20 0
14905 HR
The only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), is to extend the track
back to the 8th based upon ship observations. Partagas and Diaz otherwise
made reasonable small alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999),
originally storm number 2. A peripheral pressure of 1004 mb (at 12Z on the
8th) suggests winds of at least 39 kt from the southern wind-pressure
relationship - 40 kt chosen for best track.
********************************************************************************
14910 09/10/1900 M= 6 3 SNBR= 354 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
14910 09/11/1900 M= 5 4 SNBR= 374 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
** * * ***
14915 09/10* 0 0 0 0*211 831 35 0*218 837 35 0*227 851 35 0
(10th deleted from HURDAT.)
14920 09/11*235 863 35 0*243 874 40 0*251 880 40 0*259 893 45 0
14920 09/11*200 852 35 0*209 860 40 0*218 870 40 0*228 876 45 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14925 09/12*266 901 45 0*273 905 45 0*280 905 45 0*287 901 45 0
14925 09/12*238 882 45 0*248 887 45 0*260 893 45 0*270 897 45 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
14930 09/13*294 896 45 0*300 891 35 0*306 887 35 0*310 884 35 0
14930 09/13*281 898 45 0*291 895 40 0*300 890 35 0*305 886 35 0
*** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** ***
14935 09/14*313 881 35 0*316 878 35 0*320 874 35 0*324 869 35 0
14935 09/14*310 883 30 0*315 878 30 0*320 874 30 0*324 869 30 0
*** *** ** *** ** ** **
14940 09/15*328 863 35 0*333 855 35 0*337 847 30 0*340 833 25 0
14940 09/15*328 863 25 0*333 855 25 0*337 847 25 0*340 833 25 0
** ** **
14945 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). This tropical storm was
originally storm 3 in Neumann et al. The track changes are found
to be reasonable. A peripheral pressure of 1005 mb (around 12Z on the 13th)
suggests winds of at least 34 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure
relationship - 35 kt retained in best track. Inland decay model of Kaplan and
DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the southeast U.S.
********************************************************************************
14990 10/04/1900 M=11 5 SNBR= 356 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
14990 10/04/1900 M=11 5 SNBR= 375 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
14995 10/04* 0 0 0 0*212 613 35 0*223 623 35 0*232 628 35 0
14995 10/04* 0 0 0 0*212 613 30 0*222 623 30 0*232 628 30 0
** *** ** **
15000 10/05*245 631 35 0*253 637 35 0*259 644 40 0*263 653 40 0
15000 10/05*242 631 30 0*251 637 30 0*259 644 30 0*263 653 30 0
*** ** *** ** ** **
15005 10/06*267 662 40 0*270 671 40 0*272 680 40 0*273 688 40 0
15005 10/06*267 662 30 0*270 671 30 0*272 680 30 0*273 688 30 0
** ** ** **
15010 10/07*273 695 40 0*273 702 45 0*274 709 45 0*275 716 45 0
15010 10/07*273 695 35 0*273 702 35 0*274 709 40 0*275 716 45 0
** ** **
15015 10/08*277 722 50 0*280 727 50 0*283 728 55 0*287 726 55 0
15015 10/08*275 724 50 0*271 729 50 0*265 730 55 0*264 721 55 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
15020 10/09*293 721 60 0*299 715 60 0*306 708 60 0*313 701 60 0
15020 10/09*269 715 60 0*276 711 60 0*290 705 60 0*307 695 60 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
15025 10/10*321 695 60 0*329 688 55 0E340 680 50 0E355 672 45 0
15025 10/10*334 688 60 0E364 685 55 0E385 685 50 0E398 685 45 0
*** *** **** *** *** *** *** ***
15030 10/11E376 664 40 0E397 655 40 0E415 647 40 0E428 639 40 0
15030 10/11E412 685 40 0E428 681 40 0E440 670 40 0E452 639 40 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
15035 10/12E438 631 40 0E448 623 40 0E462 615 40 0E480 597 40 0
15035 10/12E460 606 40 0E471 584 40 0E485 565 40 0E497 549 40 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
15040 10/13E499 564 35 0E519 527 35 0E537 500 35 0E553 482 35 0
15040 10/13E511 531 35 0E523 516 35 0E537 500 35 0E553 482 35 0
*** *** *** ***
15045 10/14E568 468 35 0E582 457 35 0E595 451 35 0* 0 0 0 0
15050 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made large alterations
to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track
and intensity changes are found to be reasonable. However, the track
change on the 11th to bring it inland as an extratropical storm over
Nova Scotia has only moderate evidence and thus is altered with some
uncertainty. Small track alterations on the 4th and 5th to allow for a
more realistic translational velocity.
********************************************************************************
15055 10/08/1900 M= 8 6 SNBR= 357 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
15055 10/10/1900 M= 6 6 SNBR= 376 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
** * ***
15060 10/08* 0 0 0 0*178 855 35 0*181 866 40 0*189 879 40 0
15065 10/09*196 889 35 0*203 898 35 0*210 905 35 0*216 910 35 0
(8th to 9th deleted in new HURDAT.)
15070 10/10*220 913 35 0*225 913 35 0*232 910 35 0*241 904 35 0
15070 10/10* 0 0 0 0*210 914 35 0*220 910 35 0*235 907 35 0
*** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** ***
15075 10/11*250 896 35 0*260 885 40 0*270 872 40 0*280 857 40 0
15075 10/11*248 902 35 0*261 894 40 0*273 885 40 0*285 866 40 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
15080 10/12*290 840 40 0*300 824 35 0E311 808 35 0E322 793 35 0
15080 10/12*292 842 40 0*300 824 35 0E311 808 35 0E322 793 35 0
*** ***
15085 10/13E334 780 35 0E346 766 35 0E358 754 35 0E369 749 35 0
15090 10/14E380 745 35 0E392 741 35 0E403 737 35 0E419 724 30 0
15095 10/15E441 707 30 0E468 686 25 0E497 661 25 0E528 638 25 0
15100 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who made large alterations to
the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track changes are found to
be reasonable.
********************************************************************************
15105 10/23/1900 M= 7 7 SNBR= 358 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
15105 10/24/1900 M= 6 7 SNBR= 377 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
** * ***
15110 10/23* 0 0 0 0*133 602 35 0*138 612 35 0*142 621 35 0
(23rd removed from HURDAT.)
15115 10/24*146 630 35 0*151 638 35 0*157 646 35 0*163 653 35 0
15115 10/24*150 645 30 0*155 652 30 0*160 660 30 0*165 668 30 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15120 10/25*170 660 35 0*176 667 35 0*183 674 35 0*190 682 35 0
15120 10/25*170 676 30 0*175 685 30 0*180 695 30 0*185 705 30 0
*** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15125 10/26*196 690 35 0*203 699 35 0*210 708 35 0*216 719 40 0
15125 10/26*190 715 30 0*195 725 30 0*200 733 35 0*206 739 40 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ***
15130 10/27*222 729 40 0*231 739 40 0*240 749 40 0*251 749 45 0
15130 10/27*212 744 40 0*218 748 40 0*225 750 40 0*236 748 45 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
15135 10/28*279 742 45 0*293 729 45 0*307 712 45 0*321 697 45 0
15135 10/28*256 744 45 0*272 738 45 0*290 728 45 0*315 714 45 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
15140 10/29*335 683 45 0*348 668 45 0*360 653 45 0E388 630 45 0
15140 10/29E348 693 45 0E380 673 45 0E415 650 45 0E450 630 45 0
**** *** **** *** **** *** ***
15145 TS
One major change from Partagas and Diaz (1996b), who otherwise made large,
but reasonable alterations to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999).
Track is extended back to the 24th based upon available observational
data that indicates the system existed as a tropical depression in
the Caribbean.
********************************************************************************
1900 - Additional Notes:
Partagas and Diaz (1996b) mentioned four additional systems considered
for inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team agreed to leave them out
of HURDAT for the following reasons:
1) June 9-13, 1900: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
2) June 12-17, 1900: One gale force report, insufficient to determine if
system was tropical storm intensity.
3) July 25-27, 1900: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
4) October 4-5, 1900: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
January 14-19: Historical Weather Maps indicate a trough located on 37W
(between 15-30N) on January 14. There were two gales; one at 20N, 40W and
the other at 20N, 47W. Yet, all the observations had winds coming from
the E or ENE which shows that there wasn't enough evidence to show that it
was a closed low. The trough was located at about 42W on the 15th and at
48W on the 16th. The system finally became a closed low on the 17th, at
about 22N, 50W. The closed low continued a northeast movement on the 18th
and 19th and became extratropical on the 19th as it merged with a front.
DAT LAT LONG STATUS
Jan 14 37W Trough
Jan 15 42W Trough
Jan 16 48W Trough
Jan 17 22N 50W Tropical Depression
Jan 18 23N 44W Tropical Depression
Jan 19 30N 35W Extratropical
June 9-17: This system appeared on Historical Weather Maps as a closed
low with a pressure of at most 1012mb on June 9. The system was located at
about 21N, 66W on the 10th and it may have attained tropical storm intensity
because a ship located near 23N, 65W reported 35kt SE winds and a pressure
of 1009mb. On the 11th, the system was in the vicinity of Turks Is. and
it then made a loop and headed back towards the northeast. On the 14th,
Historical Weather Maps indicates a closed low of at most 1005mb located
near 27N, 64W and from this day on it begins to move west-northwestward.
There were two other gales reported by ships on the 15th and the 16th with
winds of 40kt and 35kt, respectively. However, the pressures were 1030mb
and 1031mb which were too high to be considered as correct observations,
hence the gales were disregarded. The last evidence of a closed low was on
the 17th at 29N, 74W. The system then continued heading towards the northeast
as an extratropical storm from the 18th to the 21st of June. There were no
gales found in COADS or Monthly Weather Review.
DAY LAT LONG STATUS
June 9 21N 65W Tropical Depression
June 10 21N 66W Tropical Storm?
June 11 21N 70W Tropical Depression
June 12 22N 67W Tropical Depression
June 13 26N 65W Tropical Depression
June 14 27N 64W Tropical Depression
June 15 27N 69W Tropical Depression
June 16 28N 70W Tropical Depression
June 17 29N 74W Tropical Depression
June 18 36N 71W Extratropical Low
June 19 36N 69W Extratropical Low
June 20 39N 61W Extratropical Low
June 21 41N 60W Extratropical Low
June 9-14: The system appears in the Historical Weather Map on
June 9 as a closed low of at most 1010mb that formed off the northern west
coast of Florida. The system remained stationary on the 10th and then
moved slightly southwest. It then moved northward and made landfall on
the 12th on the eastern coast of Louisiana. It dissipated after the 14th.
There was no information found in the Monthly Weather Review and no gales
were found in COADS or in the Historical Weather Maps.
DAY LAT LONG STATUS
June 9 27N 86W Tropical Depression
June 10 28N 85W Tropical Depression
June 11 27N 87W Tropical Depression
June 12 29N 90W Tropical Depression
June 13 30N 90W Tropical Depression
June 14 33N 89W Tropical Depression
*******************************************************************************
15150 06/10/1901 M= 5 1 SNBR= 359 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
15150 06/11/1901 M= 5 1 SNBR= 378 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
** ***
15155 06/10*171 822 35 0*179 827 35 0*187 830 35 0*195 832 35 0
(10th is removed from the revised HURDAT.)
15160 06/11*204 835 35 0*212 837 35 0*219 840 35 0*226 843 35 0
15160 06/11*193 823 25 0*200 830 25 0*207 835 30 0*214 839 30 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15165 06/12*233 846 35 0*240 849 35 0*247 852 35 0*254 856 35 0
15165 06/12*221 843 35 0*229 847 35 0*240 850 35 0*251 852 35 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
15170 06/13*262 860 35 0*269 864 35 0*276 868 35 0*283 871 35 0
15170 06/13*261 852 35 0*274 850 35 0*285 847 35 0*295 846 35 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
15175 06/14*290 874 35 0*297 877 35 0*304 880 35 0*313 883 35 0
15175 06/14*305 847 30 0*315 848 30 0*325 850 25 0*338 854 25 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
(15th is new to HURDAT.)
15177 06/15*349 862 25 0*359 870 25 0*370 880 25 0*385 897 25 0
15180 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations
to the track and intensity from that shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These
track and intensity changes are found to be reasonable. Winds reduced to
tropical depression status on 11th, since observations indicate that tropical
storm status was not reached until the 12th. Inland decay model of
Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for inland winds over the southeast U.S.
********************************************************************************
15185 07/02/1901 M= 9 2 SNBR= 360 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
15185 07/01/1901 M=10 2 SNBR= 379 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
** ** ***
(1st is new to HURDAT.)
15187 07/01* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 90 540 35 0* 95 550 35 0
15190 07/02* 0 0 0 0*132 575 35 0*131 590 35 0*130 607 35 0
15190 07/02*102 562 35 0*108 574 35 0*115 587 35 0*123 601 35 0
*** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** ***
15195 07/03*130 624 35 0*130 640 40 0*131 657 40 0*132 674 40 0
15195 07/03*132 619 35 0*142 636 40 0*153 657 40 0*159 674 40 0
*** *** *** *** *** ***
15200 07/04*133 690 45 0*135 706 50 0*137 720 55 0*140 732 55 0
15200 07/04*163 692 45 0*166 708 50 0*170 725 55 0*174 736 55 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
15205 07/05*142 742 60 0*145 752 60 0*149 762 60 0*154 774 60 0
15205 07/05*178 746 60 0*183 755 60 0*187 765 60 0*189 774 60 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
15210 07/06*159 787 55 0*164 799 55 0*170 810 55 0*176 820 50 0
15210 07/06*192 783 60 0*194 793 60 0*197 803 60 0*201 810 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15215 07/07*181 829 50 0*187 838 50 0*193 846 50 0*199 854 45 0
15215 07/07*206 819 60 0*210 826 60 0*215 835 60 0*219 843 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15220 07/08*206 862 45 0*213 870 45 0*220 878 45 0*227 884 45 0
15220 07/08*222 850 60 0*226 859 60 0*230 870 60 0*235 879 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15225 07/09*235 894 45 0*243 903 45 0*251 912 40 0*260 924 40 0
15225 07/09*241 887 60 0*248 896 60 0*253 905 60 0*260 919 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** **
15230 07/10*269 938 40 0*279 952 40 0*289 965 35 0*300 978 30 0
15230 07/10*269 935 55 0*279 950 50 0*289 965 35 0*300 978 30 0
*** ** *** **
15235 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations
to the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Winds boosted from the 6th to
the 10th based upon 60 kt ship observation on the 9th. A 4' storm tide was
reported in Galveston, Texas (Connor 1956).
********************************************************************************
15240 07/05/1901 M= 9 3 SNBR= 361 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
15240 07/04/1901 M=10 3 SNBR= 380 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
** ** ***
(4th is new to HURDAT.)
15242 07/04* 95 555 30 0*102 558 30 0*110 563 30 0*118 570 30 0
15245 07/05* 0 0 0 0*136 600 35 0*141 608 35 0*146 617 35 0
15245 07/05*125 578 35 0*132 587 35 0*137 597 35 0*144 608 35 0
*** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** ***
15250 07/06*150 625 35 0*155 633 40 0*159 641 45 0*163 648 50 0
15250 07/06*150 619 35 0*155 630 40 0*159 641 45 0*166 651 50 0
*** *** *** ***
15255 07/07*168 655 60 0*172 661 65 0*177 668 70 0*189 680 75 0
15255 07/07*174 663 55 0*182 676 60 0*190 690 60 0*200 702 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15260 07/08*205 697 80 0*222 715 80 0*238 730 85 0*254 742 85 0
15260 07/08*213 713 60 0*228 722 60 0*245 733 60 0*264 745 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15265 07/09*269 752 85 0*285 757 85 0*300 756 85 0*314 748 85 0
15265 07/09*277 758 60 0*290 766 60 0*305 767 60 0*318 759 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15270 07/10*326 740 85 0*336 738 85 0*345 737 85 0*352 739 85 0
15270 07/10*330 751 65 0*337 742 70 0*346 738 70 0*357 738 70 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15275 07/11*356 741 80 0*360 750 75 0*356 762 65 0*353 764 50 0
15275 07/11*361 746 70 0*361 756 70 0*356 762 60 0*353 764 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** **
15280 07/12*347 766 40 0*342 768 40 0*340 771 35 0*339 776 35 0
15285 07/13*338 781 35 0*338 788 35 0*338 795 35 0*339 802 30 0
15285 07/13*340 781 35 0*342 788 35 0*345 795 35 0*348 802 30 0
*** *** *** ***
15290 HR NC1
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Winds
are reduced from the 7th to the 11th, since observations indicate that the
system did not obtain hurricane force until about the 10th. Additionally,
there is no evidence for the system attaining more than a Category 1 hurricane
status, thus peak winds are reduced from 85 kt down to 70 kt. Landfall
as a Category 1 hurricane in the U.S. as reported in Table 6 of Neumann
et al. (1999)/U.S. hurricane characterization in HURDAT is retained. The
storm is known as "San Cirilo" for its impacts in Puerto Rico.
Storm #3, 1901 - 2012 Revision:
16150 07/04/1901 M=10 3 SNBR= 381 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
16155 07/04* 95 555 30 0*102 558 35 0*110 563 30 0*118 570 30 0*
16155 07/04* 95 555 30 0*102 558 30 0*110 563 30 0*118 570 30 0*
**
16160 07/05*125 578 35 0*132 587 35 0*137 597 35 0*144 608 35 0*
16165 07/06*150 619 35 0*155 630 40 0*159 641 45 0*166 651 50 0*
16170 07/07*174 663 55 0*182 676 60 0*190 690 60 0*200 702 60 0*
16175 07/08*213 713 60 0*228 722 60 0*245 733 60 0*264 745 60 0*
16180 07/09*277 758 60 0*290 766 60 0*305 767 60 0*318 759 60 0*
16185 07/10*330 751 65 0*337 742 70 0*346 738 70 0*357 738 70 0*
16190 07/11*361 746 70 0*361 756 70 0*356 762 60 0*353 764 50 0*
16195 07/12*347 766 40 0*342 768 40 0*340 771 35 0*339 776 35 0*
16200 07/13*340 781 35 0*342 788 35 0*345 795 35 0*348 802 30 0*
16205 HR NC1
Typographic error: 35 kt at 06Z on the 4th of July should be 30 kt.
********************************************************************************
15295 08/04/1901 M=15 4 SNBR= 362 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
15295 08/02/1901 M=17 4 SNBR= 381 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
** ** *** *
(2nd and 3rd are new to HURDAT.)
15296 08/02*326 384 25 0*323 391 25 0*320 400 25 0*316 411 25 0
15298 08/03*311 423 25 0*305 437 25 0*300 450 25 0*293 463 25 0
15300 08/04* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*264 495 35 0*263 516 35 0
15300 08/04*286 473 30 0*277 488 30 0*270 500 30 0*263 516 30 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** **
15305 08/05*261 535 35 0*258 553 35 0*257 569 35 0*256 583 35 0
15305 08/05*256 532 30 0*249 548 30 0*245 565 30 0*242 579 30 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15310 08/06*256 596 35 0*255 609 35 0*254 623 35 0*253 639 35 0
15310 08/06*239 593 30 0*237 608 30 0*237 623 30 0*239 639 30 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** *** **
15315 08/07*252 656 35 0*250 673 35 0*249 688 35 0*249 702 40 0
15315 08/07*242 657 30 0*246 675 30 0*250 690 30 0*253 702 30 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** **
15320 08/08*248 714 40 0*248 725 40 0*248 734 40 0*249 743 40 0
15320 08/08*255 716 30 0*255 727 30 0*255 740 30 0*254 745 30 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15325 08/09*250 750 40 0*250 756 40 0*252 764 40 0*253 771 40 0
15325 08/09*250 750 35 0*250 756 35 0*252 764 40 0*253 771 40 0
** **
15330 08/10*254 778 40 0*256 784 40 0*258 790 40 0*261 796 40 0
15335 08/11*264 803 40 0*267 809 35 0*269 815 35 0*270 821 40 0
15335 08/11*264 804 35 0*267 813 35 0*269 821 40 0*270 827 45 0
*** ** *** *** ** *** **
15340 08/12*272 828 45 0*273 835 55 0*274 842 65 0*274 850 70 0
15340 08/12*272 832 50 0*273 837 55 0*274 842 65 0*274 848 70 0
*** ** *** ***
15345 08/13*275 859 75 0*275 868 80 0*275 876 80 0*276 884 85 0
15345 08/13*275 854 75 0*275 860 80 0*275 867 80 0*276 876 80 0
*** *** *** *** **
15350 08/14*278 890 85 0*279 895 85 0*281 897 85 0*284 898 85 0
15350 08/14*279 887 80 0*283 893 80 0*287 897 80 0*291 898 80 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** *** **
15355 08/15*288 898 80 0*293 897 75 0*299 895 65 973*305 892 50 0
15355 08/15*294 895 80 0*297 892 80 0*300 890 80 0*305 887 70 973
*** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ** ***
15360 08/16*311 890 40 0*318 889 35 0E326 892 35 0E335 895 30 0
15360 08/16*310 883 60 0*315 881 45 0*320 880 40 0*330 887 35 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** **
2
15365 08/17E344 898 30 0E354 900 30 0E363 899 25 0E371 893 25 0
15365 08/17E340 895 30 0E350 900 30 0E363 899 25 0E371 893 25 0
*** *** ***
15370 08/18E378 887 25 0E384 878 25 0E390 868 25 0E398 854 25 0
15375 HR LA2 MS2
15375 HR LA1 MS1 AL1
*** *** ***
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations
to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track
and intensity changes are found to be reasonable. Analysis of 973 mb
central pressure from Ho et al. (1987) is based upon a peripheral
pressure of 993 mb from Mobile along with an estimated 33 nmi radius of
maximum wind. (This analysis of central pressure was very similar to the
estimation in Jarrell et al. (1992) taken from Connor (1956) of 972 mb.)
A 973 mb central pressure suggests 85 kt from the Gulf of Mexico
wind-pressure relationship. Given that this radius of maximum wind is
larger than climatological value (of 23 nmi for this latitude and
central pressure - Vickery et al. 2000), a maximum sustained windspeed
of 80 kt is chosen at landfall making this system a Category 1 hurricane.
This is a downgrade from the Category 2 at U.S. landfall reported in
Table 6 of Neumann et al. (1999)/U.S. hurricane characterization in
HURDAT. Winds from the 13th to the 15th adjusted accordingly. Winds
increased on the 16th based upon observed wind reports for the day. Storm
tides of 8' were observed in Port Eads, Louisiana and Mobile, Alabama
(Connor 1956, Cline 1926).
1901/04 - 2011 REVISION:
16160 08/02/1901 M=17 4 SNBR= 381 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
16165 08/02*326 384 25 0*323 391 25 0*320 400 25 0*316 411 25 0*
16170 08/03*311 423 25 0*305 437 25 0*300 450 25 0*293 463 25 0*
16175 08/04*286 473 30 0*277 488 30 0*270 500 30 0*263 516 30 0*
16180 08/05*256 532 30 0*249 548 30 0*245 565 30 0*242 579 30 0*
16185 08/06*239 593 30 0*237 608 30 0*237 623 30 0*239 639 30 0*
16190 08/07*242 657 30 0*246 675 30 0*250 690 30 0*253 702 30 0*
16195 08/08*255 716 30 0*255 727 30 0*255 740 30 0*254 745 30 0*
16200 08/09*250 750 35 0*250 756 35 0*252 764 40 0*253 771 40 0*
16205 08/10*254 778 40 0*256 784 40 0*258 790 40 0*261 796 40 0*
16210 08/11*264 804 35 0*267 813 35 0*269 821 40 0*270 827 45 0*
16215 08/12*272 832 50 0*273 837 55 0*274 842 65 0*274 848 70 0*
16220 08/13*275 854 75 0*275 860 80 0*275 867 80 0*276 876 80 0*
16225 08/14*279 887 80 0*283 893 80 0*287 897 80 0*291 898 80 0*
16225 08/14*279 887 80 0*283 893 80 0*287 897 75 0*291 898 75 0*
** **
16230 08/15*294 895 80 0*297 892 80 0*300 890 80 0*305 887 70 973*
16230 08/15*294 895 75 0*297 892 75 0*300 890 75 0*305 887 70 973*
** ** **
16235 08/16*310 883 60 0*315 881 45 0*320 880 40 0*330 887 35 0*
16240 08/17E340 895 30 0E350 900 30 0E363 899 25 0E371 893 25 0*
16245 08/18E378 887 25 0E384 878 25 0E390 868 25 0E398 854 25 0*
16250 HR LA1 MS1 AL1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
4-8/14/1901 2110Z 29.3N 89.6W 80kt 1 --- (973mb) LA1
4-8/14/1901 2110Z 29.3N 89.6W 75kt 1 --- (973mb) LA1
**
4-8/15/1901 1700Z 30.4N 88.8W 80kt 1 35nmi 973mb MS1,AL1
4-8/15/1901 1700Z 30.4N 88.8W 75kt 1 35nmi 973mb MS1,AL1
**
An analyzed 973 mb central pressure at landfall in Mississippi in
the 2003 reanalysis suggested winds of 85 kt from the Gulf of Mexico
pressure-wind relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) relationship
for north of 25N suggests winds of 81 kt. Given both the large
size (RMW of ~35 nmi compared with climatology of 23 nmi for this pressure
and latitude - Vickery et al. 2000) and the slow motion at landfall
(5 kt), this suggests about a 75 kt hurricane at landfall. This is
a slight reduction from the 80 kt in the 2003 reanalysis, but retains
the Category 1 status.
********************************************************************************
15376 08/18/1901 M= 5 5 SNBR= 382 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
15377 08/18* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*115 530 30 0*116 540 30 0
15378 08/19*117 548 30 0*119 557 30 0*120 567 35 0*121 577 35 0
15379 08/20*122 586 40 0*122 595 40 0*123 603 45 0*123 612 45 0
15380 08/21*124 622 40 0*124 633 35 0*125 645 30 0*126 658 30 0
15381 08/22*126 671 25 0*126 683 25 0*127 695 25 0*128 710 25 0
15382 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997) for this newly documented
tropical storm.
********************************************************************************
1901/06 - 2008 ADDITION:
16291 08/25/1901 M= 6 6 SNBR= 383 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
16291 08/25* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*160 220 35 0*162 233 35 0
16291 08/26*164 246 40 0*167 258 45 0*170 270 50 0*173 280 55 0
16291 08/27*176 290 60 0*178 300 65 0*180 310 70 0*182 319 70 0
16291 08/28*185 327 70 0*188 334 65 0*190 340 60 0*192 346 60 0
16291 08/29*194 353 55 0*197 361 55 0*200 370 50 0*204 380 50 0
16291 08/30*209 390 45 0*214 400 45 0*220 410 40 0*228 420 35 0
16291 HR
This is a new hurricane, previously not documented in Neumann et al.
(1999). Evidence for this system comes from newspaper accounts, the Historical
Weather Map series, and the COADS ship database.
August 24: The Historical Weather Map analysis shows no significant features of
interest with 1010 mb and NE winds 15 kt in Senegal. No gale force winds (or equivalent
in pressure) were observed.
August 25: The Historical Weather Map analysis shows a trough extending westward out
of West Africa along 16N with the Senegal observation with WSW winds 15 kt and 1010 mb.
Available observations suggest a closed center may have existed near 16N 22W. No gale
force winds (or equivalent in pressure) were observed.
August 26: The Historical Weather Map analysis shows no significant features of interest.
Available observations suggest a closed center may have existed near 17N 27W. No gale
force winds (or equivalent in pressure) were observed.
August 27: The Historical Weather Map analysis shows no significant features of interest.
Available observations suggest a closed center was near 18N 31W.
Ship highlights: 70 kt at 19N 31W (no time, Barbados Agricultural Reporter).
"The Norwegian barque "Professor Johnson", 1,058 tons, Captain Olsen, called at this
port yesterday leaking badly after a voyage of 84 days from Ship Island [Alabama] with a
cargo of 775,000 feet of pitch pine, bound for Buenos Ayres. The Captain reports he
encountered a severe hurricane on the 27th of August when in about 19N 31W through which
the ship rode with difficulty. Four days later the vessel was brought face-to-face with a
second hurricane. She was then in about 19N 32W. [The latitude may be a typographical error
and the correct latitude may be 16N.] The hurricane carried away the ship's foretopmast,
main topgallant mast and gear attached..." (Barbados Agricultural Reporter, 18 September 1901).
August 28: The Historical Weather Map series shows no features of interest. Available
observations and continuity from the previous day suggest a center may have existed near
19N 34W. No gale force winds (or equivalent in pressure) were observed. "Had Unsettled
Weather...The British steamship Trevelynn, 1,986 tons net, Captain James Sincock, from St.
Vincent, Cape de Verde, in ballast...has arrived at the point and will load for Rotterdam.
She reports having sailed Aug. 27; had unsettled weather, with fresh northwest and southwest
winds in latitude 17 north, and between longitude 34 and 41 west, thence moderating trades
and good weather to port, arriving on the evening of Sept. 16" (New Orleans Picayune,
Wednesday, September 18, 1901).
August 29: The Historical Weather Map series shows no feature of interest where this system
may have existed, though it does show a closed low near 15N 23W in connection with storm #7
(previously #6). Available observations and continuity from the previous day suggest a center
may have existed near 20N 37W. No gale force winds (or equivalent in pressure) were observed.
August 30: The Historical Weather Map series shows no features of interest where this system
may have existed, though it does show a closed low near 15N 30W in connection with storm #7
(previously #6). Available observations and continuity suggest a center may have existed near
22N 41W. No gale force winds (or equivalent in pressure) were observed.
Genesis of this tropical cyclone likely occurred on the 25th from an African easterly wave.
The description from the barque Professor Johnson is the basis for analyzing this cyclone as
a hurricane on the 27th. With no barometric readings, the intensity is assigned to peak on
this date as a Category 1 hurricane (70 kt). The steamship Trevelynn, while not providing
specific observations of gale force, likely encountered the southern portion of the cyclone
on the 28th-39th between 34-41W. Observations after the 28th become quite sparse for this
cyclone - as is typical for systems in the eastern subtropical Atlantic - and it is analyzed
that it decayed on the 29th and 30th and dissipated late on the 30th. This portion of the
lifecycle of the cyclone is quite uncertain. (It is of note that the barque Professor Johnson
also encountered a second hurricane off of the Cape Verde Islands on the 31st of August, which
is the previous storm #6 in 1901, already documented in HURDAT.)
It is of note that this system is quite unique in its inclusion into HURDAT during the
post-1871 era based upon a single observation. However, main reason for requiring two
independent observations of either gale force and/or 1005 mb or less was to insure that a
single observation of minimal tropical storm intensity was not simply an instrumentation
problem or due to a typographical error. In this case, it is highly unlikely that this
system is not a tropical cyclone of at least tropical storm intensity because of either of
these two issues.]
********************************************************************************
15380 08/30/1901 M=13 5 SNBR= 363 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
15380 08/29/1901 M=14 7 SNBR= 383 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
** ** * ***
(29th new to HURDAT.)
15383 08/29* 0 0 0 0*136 224 30 0*137 240 35 0*139 259 35 0
15385 08/30*141 360 50 0*142 372 50 0*145 380 55 0*147 387 60 0
15385 08/30*141 274 40 0*142 288 40 0*143 302 45 0*144 315 45 0
*** ** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15390 08/31*149 395 65 0*152 404 70 0*156 414 70 0*160 426 75 0
15390 08/31*145 330 50 0*147 345 50 0*150 363 55 0*151 377 55 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15395 09/01*165 440 80 0*171 453 80 0*176 462 85 0*181 470 85 0
15395 09/01*154 390 60 0*157 404 60 0*163 420 65 0*168 432 65 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15400 09/02*185 474 85 0*190 480 85 0*195 486 85 0*200 492 85 0
15400 09/02*174 446 70 0*180 460 70 0*185 475 75 0*189 488 75 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15405 09/03*206 498 90 0*212 504 90 0*219 510 95 0*227 517 95 0
15405 09/03*192 501 80 0*196 514 80 0*200 527 85 0*207 542 85 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15410 09/04*237 526 100 0*246 535 100 0*255 543 105 0*262 550 105 0
15410 09/04*215 556 90 0*226 570 90 0*240 580 90 0*250 584 90 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15415 09/05*268 557 105 0*275 564 105 0*282 570 105 0*290 576 100 0
15415 09/05*261 587 90 0*271 589 90 0*280 590 90 0*288 591 90 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15420 09/06*298 581 95 0*307 585 90 0*315 587 85 0*323 583 85 0
15420 09/06*295 592 90 0*301 591 90 0*307 590 85 0*316 586 85 0
*** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** ***
15425 09/07*330 578 85 0*336 570 85 0*342 561 85 0*347 553 85 0
15425 09/07*326 578 85 0*336 570 85 0*342 561 85 0*347 553 85 0
***
15430 09/08*352 540 85 0*356 519 80 0*358 500 80 0*360 475 80 0
15430 09/08*352 540 85 0*356 520 80 0*358 500 80 0*360 475 80 0
***
15435 09/09*360 444 80 0*362 413 80 0*370 390 80 0*381 381 75 0
15435 09/09*360 444 80 0*362 413 80 0*370 390 80 0*381 374 75 0
***
15440 09/10*397 377 70 0*415 379 70 0E431 378 65 0E445 368 65 0
15440 09/10*395 357 70 0*410 338 70 0*430 320 65 0*444 309 65 0
*** *** *** *** **** *** **** ***
15445 09/11E469 325 55 0E480 290 45 0E486 250 40 0E492 200 35 0
15445 09/11E458 293 55 0E473 277 45 0E486 250 40 0E492 200 35 0
*** *** *** ***
15450 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations
to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally
storm number 5. These track and intensity changes are found to be
reasonable. A 991 mb peripheral pressure on 12Z of the 8th supports
winds of at least 62 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - winds
maintained at 80 kt. Peak winds are reduced from 105 kt down to 90 kt, since
observations available support only a Category 1 hurricane, or Category 2
hurricane at most. Winds reduced from the 1st to the 6th accordingly.
********************************************************************************
15455 09/09/1901 M=11 6 SNBR= 364 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
15455 09/09/1901 M=11 8 SNBR= 384 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
* ***
15460 09/09* 0 0 0 0*188 493 35 0*186 504 35 0*184 518 35 0
15460 09/09* 0 0 0 0*176 507 35 0*175 520 35 0*175 532 35 0
*** *** *** *** *** ***
15465 09/10*184 532 35 0*183 546 35 0*183 560 35 0*182 574 35 0
15465 09/10*174 546 35 0*174 560 35 0*173 573 35 0*174 588 35 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
15470 09/11*182 587 35 0*181 600 40 0*182 614 40 0*183 630 40 0
15470 09/11*175 601 35 0*176 613 40 0*178 627 45 0*181 643 50 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** **
15475 09/12*185 647 40 0*186 665 40 0*186 682 40 0*188 698 35 0
15475 09/12*184 656 50 0*185 669 50 0*186 682 50 0*187 696 40 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** ** *** *** **
15480 09/13*190 714 35 0*192 730 35 0*194 742 35 0*197 757 40 0
15480 09/13*188 710 35 0*189 726 35 0*190 743 45 0*191 757 50 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** **
15485 09/14*199 770 40 0*201 783 45 0*204 796 45 0*208 809 50 0
15485 09/14*192 770 55 0*194 783 60 0*197 795 65 0*201 806 65 0
*** ** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15490 09/15*214 822 50 0*221 834 50 0*228 847 50 0*234 857 50 0
15490 09/15*205 819 70 0*210 833 70 0*215 845 70 0*220 856 65 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15495 09/16*240 864 50 0*245 869 50 0*251 875 50 0*257 880 50 0
15495 09/16*226 865 60 0*233 873 55 0*243 880 50 0*253 885 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ***
15500 09/17*263 883 50 0*270 885 50 0*278 887 45 0*289 882 45 0
15500 09/17*265 885 50 0*277 881 50 0*290 875 50 0*303 867 50 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** **
15505 09/18*302 873 40 0*316 850 35 0E330 812 35 0E342 770 35 0
15505 09/18*316 853 40 0*325 834 35 0*330 812 35 0*342 770 35 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** * *
15510 09/19E358 742 35 0E371 725 35 0E387 700 35 0E405 672 35 0
15510 09/19E358 742 40 0E371 725 45 0E387 700 50 0E405 672 50 0
** ** ** **
15515 TS
15515 HR
**
The only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1997) is to upgrade the storm
to a hurricane in the vicinity of Cuba. Partagas and Diaz otherwise made
reasonable small alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et
al. (1999), originally storm number 6. This upgrade to a hurricane is
based upon the re-analysis work of Perez (2000), which analyzed the storm as
a Category 1 hurricane in the vicinity of Cuba. Winds are increased
accordingly on the 13th to the 16th. A peripheral pressure of 1001 mb (06Z
on the 12th) suggests winds of at least 45 kt from the southern wind-pressure
relationship - 50 kt used in best track. Winds adjusted accordingly on the
11th and 12th. The storm is known as "San Leoncio" or "San Vicente IV" for
its impacts in Puerto Rico.
********************************************************************************
15520 09/12/1901 M= 6 7 SNBR= 365 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
15520 09/12/1901 M= 6 9 SNBR= 385 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
* ***
15525 09/12*111 281 35 0*115 285 35 0*121 289 35 0*127 291 35 0
15530 09/13*133 294 35 0*138 295 35 0*143 296 35 0*148 296 35 0
15530 09/13*133 294 40 0*138 295 40 0*143 296 45 0*148 296 45 0
** ** ** **
15535 09/14*153 296 35 0*158 294 40 0*162 292 40 0*166 291 40 0
15535 09/14*153 296 50 0*158 294 50 0*162 292 50 0*166 291 50 0
** ** ** **
15540 09/15*170 290 40 0*174 290 35 0*178 292 35 0*181 294 35 0
15540 09/15*170 290 45 0*174 290 40 0*178 292 35 0*181 294 35 0
** **
15545 09/16*184 298 35 0*186 302 35 0*189 307 35 0*191 309 35 0
15550 09/17*194 311 35 0*198 314 35 0*202 316 35 0*208 320 30 0
15555 TS
Partagas and Diaz (1997) introduced no changes to the track shown in
Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 7. However, ship reports
indicate that the storm was somewhat stronger than originally indicated
in HURDAT. Winds increased on the 13th to the 15th accordingly.
********************************************************************************
15560 09/21/1901 M=12 8 SNBR= 366 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
15560 09/21/1901 M=12 10 SNBR= 386 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
* ***
15565 09/21*110 802 35 0*115 804 35 0*120 806 35 0*125 808 35 0
15565 09/21*137 730 35 0*138 740 35 0*140 750 35 0*142 759 35 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
15570 09/22*130 810 35 0*135 813 35 0*140 815 35 0*146 817 35 0
15570 09/22*144 769 35 0*147 780 35 0*150 790 35 0*152 798 35 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
15575 09/23*151 820 35 0*157 822 35 0*163 825 35 0*168 828 35 0
15575 09/23*155 806 35 0*159 813 35 0*165 820 35 0*169 823 35 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
15580 09/24*173 831 35 0*178 834 35 0*183 837 35 0*189 840 35 0
15580 09/24*174 825 35 0*180 828 35 0*185 830 35 0*188 832 35 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
15585 09/25*194 843 35 0*201 846 35 0*207 849 40 0*213 852 40 0
15585 09/25*192 833 35 0*196 834 35 0*200 835 40 0*203 837 40 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
15590 09/26*220 853 40 0*228 854 45 0*238 855 45 0*250 855 45 0
15590 09/26*207 838 40 0*211 839 45 0*215 840 45 0*221 842 45 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
15595 09/27*263 853 40 0*275 851 40 0*288 848 40 0*300 843 40 0
15595 09/27*232 845 40 0*243 848 40 0*255 850 40 0*270 849 40 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
15600 09/28*312 839 40 0*325 835 40 0E337 830 35 0E354 823 35 0
15600 09/28*288 847 40 0*306 845 35 0E325 840 35 0E351 827 35 0
*** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** ***
15605 09/29E378 814 30 0E403 801 25 0E425 786 25 0E442 765 25 0
15610 09/30E457 745 25 0E470 725 25 0E480 674 25 0E482 639 30 0
15610 09/30E457 745 25 0E470 725 25 0E480 685 25 0E482 639 30 0
***
15615 10/01E482 601 30 0E483 559 35 0E485 515 35 0E490 461 40 0
15620 10/02E508 394 40 0E531 326 45 0E553 270 45 0* 0 0 0 0
15625 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations to
the track shown in Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 8. These
track changes are found to be reasonable. Track adjusted slightly on the
30th to allow for a more realistic translational velocity.
********************************************************************************
15630 10/07/1901 M= 8 9 SNBR= 367 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
15630 10/05/1901 M=10 11 SNBR= 387 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
** ** ** ***
(The 5th and 6th are new to HURDAT.)
15632 10/05*120 515 35 0*122 517 35 0*125 520 35 0*127 523 35 0
15634 10/06*130 526 40 0*132 529 40 0*135 533 40 0*138 537 45 0
15635 10/07*147 508 35 0*148 520 35 0*150 531 35 0*151 542 35 0
15635 10/07*142 541 50 0*146 545 55 0*150 550 60 0*155 556 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15640 10/08*153 554 35 0*155 567 35 0*158 581 35 0*161 597 35 0
15640 10/08*162 567 60 0*169 576 60 0*175 585 55 0*184 596 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15645 10/09*165 615 35 0*172 634 35 0*178 650 35 0*185 662 35 0
15645 10/09*194 606 45 0*202 614 40 0*210 623 35 0*218 637 35 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ***
15650 10/10*193 675 35 0*204 689 35 0*220 700 35 0*240 702 35 0
15650 10/10*227 655 35 0*240 670 35 0*256 685 35 0*277 690 35 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
15655 10/11*261 689 40 0*281 670 40 0*302 651 45 0*323 638 45 0
15655 10/11E303 685 40 0E330 672 40 0E350 650 45 0E358 638 45 0
**** *** **** *** **** *** ****
15660 10/12*346 625 45 0*366 613 40 0E381 600 35 0E392 587 35 0
15660 10/12E365 625 45 0E373 613 40 0E381 600 35 0E392 587 35 0
**** ****
15665 10/13E402 570 35 0E411 556 35 0E420 541 35 0E430 516 35 0
15670 10/14E439 484 35 0E449 444 35 0E458 400 35 0* 0 0 0 0
15675 TS
The only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1997) is to provide a more
realistic position on the 5th. The Partagas and Diaz position on the 5th
required a motion toward the northeast, which is not supported by climatology
or available ship observations. Partagas and Diaz otherwise made large
though reasonable alterations to the track and intensity from that shown in
Neumann et al. (1999), originally storm number 9. Winds increased from the
7th to the 9th based upon ship reports in Partagas and Diaz.
********************************************************************************
15676 10/15/1901 M= 4 11 SNBR= 388 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
15676 10/15/1901 M= 4 12 SNBR= 388 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
15677 10/15*210 800 30 0*215 793 30 0*220 785 30 0*225 777 35 0
15678 10/16*229 767 40 0*233 758 45 0*237 750 50 0*243 737 50 0
15679 10/17*252 724 50 0*258 711 50 0*265 695 45 0*269 684 40 0
15679 10/18*273 672 40 0E276 661 40 0E280 650 40 0E284 637 40 0
15679 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997) for this newly documented
tropical storm.
********************************************************************************
15680 10/31/1901 M= 7 10 SNBR= 368 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
15680 10/30/1901 M= 8 13 SNBR= 389 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
** * ** ***
(The 30th is new to HURDAT.)
15682 10/30* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*193 673 30 0*205 672 30 0
15685 10/31* 0 0 0 0*217 688 35 0*225 680 35 0*235 672 35 0
15685 10/31*217 671 35 0*229 669 35 0*240 667 35 0*247 664 35 0
*** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** ***
15690 11/01*243 665 35 0*251 659 35 0*258 653 40 0*263 648 40 0
15690 11/01*254 661 40 0*261 657 45 0*267 653 50 0*274 649 55 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15695 11/02*268 644 45 0*273 639 45 0*278 634 45 0*284 628 50 0
15695 11/02*280 646 55 0*286 642 60 0*293 635 60 0*296 628 65 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** **
15700 11/03*290 622 50 0*297 616 50 0*305 610 50 0*313 604 50 0
15700 11/03*300 620 70 0*305 611 70 0*312 603 70 0*324 591 70 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15705 11/04*322 599 50 0*331 594 50 0*340 590 50 0*351 585 50 0
15705 11/04*340 581 65 0*356 571 60 0*368 563 55 0*374 557 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ***
15710 11/05*364 578 50 0*374 565 50 0*378 550 45 0*380 538 45 0
15710 11/05*379 555 50 0*383 550 50 0*385 545 45 0*383 534 45 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
15715 11/06*381 525 40 0*381 512 40 0*381 500 35 0*383 485 30 0
15715 11/06E378 525 40 0E373 515 40 0E370 505 35 0E370 492 30 0
**** **** *** **** *** **** ***
15720 TS
15720 HR
**
The major change from Partagas and Diaz (1997) is to upgrade the storm to a
hurricane. A peripheral pressure of 989 mb (12Z on the 3rd) suggests winds
of at least 65 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt
chosen for the best track. Partagas and Diaz otherwise made reasonable
small alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999),
originally storm number 10. A peripheral pressure of 1001 mb (12Z on
the 1st) suggests winds of at least 45 kt from the southern wind-
pressure relationship - 50 kt chosen for the best track. Winds changed
accordingly from the 1st to the 4th based upon these measurements.
*******************************************************************************
1901 - Additional Notes:
Partagas and Diaz (1997) mentioned one additional system considered
for inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team agreed to leave it out
of HURDAT for the following reason:
1) October 5, 1901: One gale force report, insufficient to determine if
system was tropical storm intensity.
October 4-11: Historical Weather Maps indicate a closed low at 10N,
19W with a pressure of at most 1010mb on October 4. On the 5th, the system
moved west-northwestward and Historical Weather Maps indicated a gale near
the storm of 35kt SSE. However, this was the only gale found that was
related to this system. From the 6th to the 11th, Historical Weather Maps
does not show this system as a closed low anymore. COADS and Monthly Weather
Review did not report any gales for this system.
DAY LAT LONG STATUS
Oct 4 10N 19W Tropical Depression
Oct 5 15N 29W Tropical Storm?
Oct 6 23N 25-40W ?
*******************************************************************************
15725 06/10/1902 M= 7 1 SNBR= 369 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
15725 06/12/1902 M= 6 1 SNBR= 390 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
** * ***
15730 06/10* 0 0 0 0*134 817 35 0*138 819 35 0*141 821 35 0
15735 06/11*144 823 35 0*150 826 35 0*158 828 35 0*168 831 35 0
(The 10th and 11th are removed from HURDAT.)
15740 06/12*178 834 35 0*189 837 35 0*201 840 35 0*213 843 35 0
15740 06/12* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*177 840 30 0*191 836 30 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15745 06/13*226 845 35 0*238 847 40 0*250 848 40 0*262 848 45 0
15745 06/13*207 833 35 0*222 831 40 0*238 830 45 0*249 832 50 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** **
15750 06/14*275 847 45 0*287 845 45 0*299 841 40 0*306 838 30 0
15750 06/14*259 835 50 0*269 838 50 0*280 840 50 0*290 839 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15755 06/15*312 835 25 0*320 832 25 0*331 825 25 0*336 821 25 0
15755 06/15*300 836 45 0*310 832 40 0*320 825 35 0*330 817 35 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15760 06/16E344 814 25 0E352 807 25 0E360 798 25 0E370 780 25 0
15760 06/16*340 807 35 0*352 795 35 0E367 780 40 0E386 749 40 0
**** *** ** * *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
(The 17th is new to HURDAT.)
15762 06/17E419 715 35 0E450 682 35 0E475 660 30 0E494 640 30 0
15765 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations to
the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track and
intensity changes are found to be reasonable. Winds increased slightly from
the 13th to the 16th based upon ship and coastal observations.
********************************************************************************
15770 06/19/1902 M=10 2 SNBR= 370 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
15770 06/21/1902 M= 9 2 SNBR= 391 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
** ** ***
15775 06/19* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*170 850 35 0*173 858 35 0
15780 06/20*175 866 40 0*177 873 40 0*181 880 40 0*183 885 35 0
(The 19th and 20th are removed from HURDAT.)
15785 06/21*185 890 35 0*187 895 35 0*189 899 35 0*192 907 35 0
15785 06/21*172 921 25 0*176 924 25 0*180 927 25 0*182 929 25 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15790 06/22*195 915 35 0*197 922 35 0*199 928 40 0*202 932 40 0
15790 06/22*184 930 30 0*187 932 30 0*190 935 30 0*192 937 30 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15795 06/23*205 935 45 0*208 938 45 0*211 942 50 0*215 946 50 0
15795 06/23*195 939 30 0*197 941 30 0*200 943 30 0*203 945 30 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15800 06/24*219 950 55 0*223 954 60 0*228 958 65 0*233 961 70 0
15800 06/24*205 946 30 0*207 948 30 0*210 950 35 0*215 953 40 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15805 06/25*238 964 70 0*243 966 70 0*248 968 70 0*253 969 70 0
15805 06/25*221 956 45 0*227 960 50 0*233 963 55 0*239 966 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15810 06/26*258 970 70 0*264 970 70 0*270 970 75 0*278 970 80 0
15810 06/26*247 968 65 0*255 969 70 0*264 970 65 0*272 971 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** *** ** *** *** **
15815 06/27*288 969 65 0*299 967 50 0*310 965 40 0*321 962 30 0
15815 06/27*281 972 50 0*290 973 45 0*300 974 40 0*315 972 35 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** **
15820 06/28*332 959 30 0*343 954 25 0E354 949 25 0* 0 0 0 0
15820 06/28*328 966 35 0*342 959 35 0E358 945 35 0E376 923 35 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
(The 29th was not in HURDAT previously.)
15822 06/29E395 886 35 0E406 854 35 0E415 820 35 0E418 786 35 0
15825 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations to
the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track and
intensity changes are found to be reasonable. Despite HURDAT having 80 kt at
landfall originally and Neumann et al. (1999) showing hurricane intensity in
the track plot up to landfall in Texas, this storm was not listed in Neumann
et al.'s Table 6 or HURDAT's U.S. hurricane characterization as a U.S.
landfalling hurricane. More significantly, Connor (1956) specifically
listed this system as being "not hurricane intensity" at landfall in Texas.
For the re-analysis here, it was decided to reduce the hurricane to just
below hurricane force before landfall in Texas based upon Connor's
assessment, but still maintaining a peak intensity of 70 kt while over the
open Gulf of Mexico. A peripheral pressure of 995 mb (on the 26th) suggests
winds of at least 54 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship at
landfall - 60 kt chosen for best track, which is a reduction from 80 kt
previously in HURDAT.
********************************************************************************
15830 09/16/1902 M=10 3 SNBR= 371 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
15830 09/16/1902 M=10 3 SNBR= 392 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
15835 09/16* 0 0 0 0* 82 330 35 0* 85 336 35 0* 90 342 35 0
15835 09/16* 0 0 0 0* 77 308 35 0* 80 320 35 0* 85 332 35 0
** *** ** *** ** ***
15840 09/17* 95 350 35 0* 99 360 35 0*104 375 35 0*110 394 35 0
15840 09/17* 92 345 35 0* 98 360 35 0*104 375 35 0*109 389 35 0
** *** ** *** ***
15845 09/18*116 411 40 0*123 430 40 0*129 448 40 0*134 464 45 0
15845 09/18*114 403 40 0*119 417 40 0*123 430 40 0*126 444 45 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
15850 09/19*139 480 50 0*146 498 50 0*153 514 55 0*167 523 60 0
15850 09/19*131 461 50 0*136 477 50 0*143 493 55 0*153 509 60 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
15855 09/20*180 528 65 0*194 530 70 0*210 530 75 0*229 526 80 0
15855 09/20*168 523 65 0*189 530 70 0*210 530 75 0*229 526 80 0
*** *** ***
15860 09/21*250 515 85 0*271 502 85 0*290 490 85 0*305 480 85 0
15860 09/21*247 517 85 0*265 505 85 0*283 495 85 0*302 484 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
15865 09/22*322 469 80 0*336 460 75 0E348 448 75 0E359 422 70 0
15865 09/22*321 473 80 0*336 460 75 0E348 448 75 0E358 429 70 0
*** *** *** ***
15870 09/23E369 401 65 0E379 381 65 0E389 361 60 0E399 349 55 0
15870 09/23E368 414 65 0E378 399 65 0E387 385 60 0E395 371 55 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
15875 09/24E407 341 55 0E416 332 50 0E426 323 50 0E439 314 45 0
15875 09/24E404 358 55 0E413 345 50 0E423 331 50 0E440 317 45 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
15880 09/25E456 303 45 0E476 296 45 0E498 288 40 0E516 292 40 0
15880 09/25E457 304 45 0E476 296 45 0E498 288 40 0E516 292 40 0
*** ***
15885 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). A
peripheral pressure of 981 mb (12Z on the 21st) suggests winds of at least
74 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 85 kt retained in
best track.
********************************************************************************
15890 10/03/1902 M=11 4 SNBR= 372 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
15890 10/03/1902 M=11 4 SNBR= 393 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
***
15895 10/03* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*140 930 50 0*150 930 50 0
15895 10/03*140 938 30 0*145 940 30 0*150 942 30 0*155 943 30 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15900 10/04*159 930 50 0*167 929 45 0*172 929 40 0*176 928 40 0
15900 10/04*160 944 30 0*165 945 30 0*170 946 30 0*175 947 30 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15905 10/05*179 927 40 0*182 927 45 0*184 926 50 0*186 926 55 0
15905 10/05*180 948 30 0*185 949 30 0*187 949 35 0*188 947 45 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15910 10/06*188 926 60 0*189 925 60 0*191 925 65 0*193 925 70 0
15910 10/06*189 944 55 0*191 940 60 0*193 937 65 0*195 933 75 0
*** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** **
15915 10/07*195 924 70 0*198 923 75 0*201 924 75 0*205 923 80 0
15915 10/07*197 929 85 0*200 925 90 970*203 920 90 0*207 915 90 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ** *** *** **
15920 10/08*211 922 80 0*219 921 85 0*228 920 85 0*235 918 85 0
15920 10/08*211 911 90 0*215 908 90 0*220 905 90 0*227 902 90 0
*** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15925 10/09*243 916 85 0*251 913 85 0*260 909 80 0*269 906 70 0
15925 10/09*234 900 90 0*239 899 85 0*245 897 80 0*253 895 70 0
*** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** ***
15930 10/10*277 903 65 0*285 898 60 0*294 892 60 0*303 883 50 0
15930 10/10*262 891 65 0*271 888 60 0*280 885 55 0*294 878 50 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** ***
15935 10/11E314 874 40 0E325 863 35 0E337 848 35 0E349 828 35 0
15935 10/11*310 869 40 0E325 859 35 0E337 848 35 0E349 828 35 0
**** *** ***
15940 10/12E366 799 35 0E376 780 35 0E388 728 35 0E399 691 35 0
15940 10/12E364 805 35 0E376 780 35 0E388 728 35 0E399 691 35 0
*** ***
15945 10/13E409 655 35 0E419 610 40 0E428 551 40 0* 0 0 0 0
15950 HR
One major change from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who otherwise made large,
but reasonable alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et
al. (1999). The formation of the system in the Gulf of Tehuantepec as
found in Neumann et al. has been retained, though slightly altered in
track based upon observations collected by Partagas and Diaz. Trek across
the Mexico likely to be at tropical depression intensity. A central
pressure of 970 mb (at 09Z on the 7th) suggests winds of 89 kt from the
Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt utilized in best track.
Winds are adjusted according on the 6th through the 9th. Slight alteration
in track on the 12th to provide for a more realistic translational velocity.
********************************************************************************
15955 11/01/1902 M= 6 5 SNBR= 373 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
15955 11/01/1902 M= 6 5 SNBR= 394 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
15960 11/01* 0 0 0 0*221 621 35 0*231 630 35 0*242 638 35 0
15960 11/01*200 673 30 0*210 683 30 0*225 673 35 0*246 663 35 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ***
15965 11/02*253 640 35 0*266 642 35 0*279 642 40 0*295 637 40 0
15965 11/02*266 653 35 0*287 639 40 0*305 626 45 0*318 613 50 0
*** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15970 11/03*311 625 40 0*327 611 40 0*342 590 45 0*352 575 45 0
15970 11/03*327 603 55 0*335 592 60 0*343 580 60 0*348 572 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
15975 11/04*362 560 45 0*372 543 45 0*377 530 50 0*381 520 50 0
15975 11/04*352 565 60 0*357 557 55 0*360 550 50 0*363 538 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ***
15980 11/05*385 510 50 0*388 500 50 0*390 490 50 0*392 480 40 0
15980 11/05*366 528 50 0*368 519 50 0*370 510 50 0*371 498 40 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
15985 11/06*394 470 35 0*396 460 30 0*397 450 25 0*398 439 20 0
15985 11/06*371 486 35 0*370 474 30 0*370 465 25 0*371 454 20 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
15990 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). A
peripheral pressure of 993 mb (at 12Z on the 3rd) suggests winds of at least
59 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt chosen for best
track. (A slightly higher wind speed could have been chosen, but given the
time of year - early November - with cooler SSTs prevailing a more
conservative value is chosen.) Winds are adjusted accordingly on the 2nd
through the 4th.
*******************************************************************************
1902 - Additional Notes:
Partagas and Diaz (1997) mentioned one additional system considered
for inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team agreed to leave it out
of HURDAT for the following reason:
1) August 25-28, 1902: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
********************************************************************************
15995 07/19/1903 M= 8 1 SNBR= 374 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
15995 07/21/1903 M= 6 1 SNBR= 395 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
** * ***
16000 07/19* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*165 618 35 0*172 639 35 0
16005 07/20*179 656 35 0*185 668 35 0*193 683 35 0*200 697 40 0
(The 19th and 20th are omitted from the new HURDAT.)
16010 07/21*209 710 45 0*216 720 55 0*225 732 60 0*236 742 60 0
16010 07/21*200 678 35 0*207 689 35 0*215 700 35 0*225 712 35 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
16015 07/22*248 748 60 0*261 750 70 0*273 750 80 0*284 747 85 0
16015 07/22*237 726 35 0*249 738 35 0*265 750 40 0*276 755 40 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
16020 07/23*295 742 90 0*305 737 90 0*316 730 90 0*324 723 90 0
16020 07/23*288 756 45 0*299 754 50 0*310 750 55 0*322 736 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
16025 07/24*332 716 90 0*340 705 90 0*347 696 85 0*353 685 85 0
16025 07/24*334 716 65 0*343 701 70 0*353 685 70 0*364 669 70 0
*** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
16030 07/25*358 672 80 0*364 656 75 0*370 638 70 0*378 605 70 0
16030 07/25*373 652 70 0*379 636 65 0*385 615 60 0*393 580 55 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
16035 07/26*388 570 60 0*398 535 50 0E410 503 45 0E425 466 40 0
16035 07/26*399 547 50 0E405 514 50 0E410 485 45 0E414 457 40 0
*** *** ** **** *** *** *** ***
16040 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations to
the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track and
intensity changes are found to be reasonable. Partagas and Diaz'
analysis documented that this hurricane reached, at best, a Category 1
hurricane status. Thus peak winds are reduced from 90 kt to 70 kt
and winds are adjusted downward accordingly for the lifetime of this
system.
********************************************************************************
16045 08/06/1903 M=11 2 SNBR= 375 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
16045 08/06/1903 M=11 2 SNBR= 396 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
16050 08/06* 0 0 0 0*125 432 50 0*125 450 50 0*127 470 50 0
16050 08/06* 0 0 0 0*118 423 50 0*120 435 50 0*123 447 50 0
*** *** *** *** *** ***
16055 08/07*130 488 55 0*132 505 65 0*134 520 70 0*136 533 70 0
16055 08/07*126 460 55 0*131 475 65 0*135 490 70 0*137 509 70 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
16060 08/08*138 544 70 0*139 556 70 0*141 569 70 0*143 583 75 0
16060 08/08*138 526 70 0*138 541 70 0*140 560 70 0*143 578 75 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
16065 08/09*144 598 75 0*145 614 80 0*147 630 80 0*149 647 80 0
16065 08/09*144 598 80 0*145 614 90 970*147 630 100 0*149 647 105 0
** ** *** *** ***
16070 08/10*152 664 85 0*156 682 85 0*160 700 90 0*165 720 90 0
16070 08/10*152 664 105 0*156 682 105 0*160 700 105 0*166 720 105 0
*** *** *** ***
16075 08/11*170 741 90 0*176 762 95 0*182 780 100 0*189 796 105 0
16075 08/11*172 738 105 0*177 756 105 0*183 773 105 0*186 787 105 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
16080 08/12*193 810 105 0*197 823 105 0*200 836 105 0*203 849 100 0
16080 08/12*190 800 105 0*194 811 105 958*197 825 105 0*201 840 105 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
16085 08/13*206 861 95 0*208 873 90 0*210 884 90 0*211 892 85 0
16085 08/13*204 856 105 0*208 873 85 0*210 884 70 0*212 894 65 0
*** *** *** ** ** *** *** **
16090 08/14*212 900 85 0*213 909 85 0*215 914 85 0*217 923 85 0
16090 08/14*214 904 70 0*217 914 70 0*220 925 70 0*221 934 70 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
16095 08/15*220 930 85 0*224 940 85 0*228 950 85 0*230 960 80 0
16095 08/15*223 943 70 0*226 951 70 986*230 960 70 0*231 968 70 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ** *** *** **
16100 08/16*232 968 75 0*234 975 50 0*234 986 40 0*232 996 35 0
16100 08/16*230 976 70 0*228 983 50 0*225 990 40 0*220 996 35 0
*** *** ** *** *** *** *** ***
16105 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999).
A central pressure of 970 mb (0430Z on the 9th) suggests winds of 89 kt from
the southern wind-pressure relationship - 90 kt utilized in best track, up
from 80 kt previously. A peripheral pressure of 975 mb (0930Z on the
11th) suggests winds of at least 84 kt from the southern wind-pressure
relationship and a wind measurement of 105 kt was observed - 105 kt used in
the best track, up from 100 kt previously. A central pressure of 958 mb
(05Z on the 12th) suggests winds of 102 kt from the southern wind-pressure
relationship and a wind measurement of 100 kt was observed - 105 kt retained
in best track. A central pressure of 986 mb (03Z on the 15th) suggests
winds of 68 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt
used in best track, down from 85 kt. Winds adjusted accordingly from the
9th to the 16th. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized
for inland winds over the Yucatan of Mexico. Full lifecycle of this
hurricane is not known, due to lack of information about its genesis stage.
********************************************************************************
16110 09/09/1903 M= 8 3 SNBR= 376 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=2
16110 09/09/1903 M= 8 3 SNBR= 397 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
*** *
16115 09/09* 0 0 0 0*214 724 50 0*218 734 50 0*222 740 50 0
16120 09/10*226 747 55 0*232 753 60 0*238 760 65 0*240 765 70 0
16120 09/10*226 747 55 0*232 753 60 0*238 760 65 0*245 767 70 0
*** ***
16125 09/11*244 769 80 0*249 775 85 0*254 784 85 0*258 791 85 0
16125 09/11*251 775 75 0*255 782 75 0*257 789 75 0*259 796 75 976
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** ***
16130 09/12*264 803 75 0*269 812 65 0*273 821 60 988*278 829 50 0
16130 09/12*262 803 70 0*267 812 60 0*273 821 55 988*277 829 50 0
*** ** *** ** ** ***
16135 09/13*281 836 55 0*285 842 60 0*289 848 65 0*295 853 70 0
16135 09/13*281 836 60 0*285 842 70 0*289 848 80 0*295 853 80 0
** ** ** **
16140 09/14*303 857 65 0*310 859 55 0*316 860 35 0*320 860 35 0
16140 09/14*303 857 80 0*310 859 60 0*316 860 45 0*320 860 35 0
** ** **
16145 09/15*324 859 35 0*327 856 35 0*330 853 35 0*333 849 35 0
16150 09/16*336 843 35 0*338 837 35 0*340 830 35 0*339 823 30 0
16150 09/16*336 843 30 0*338 837 30 0*340 830 30 0*339 823 30 0
** ** **
16155 HRCFL2AFL1
16155 HRCFL1AFL1
****
Two major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997) where made to the track of
this hurricane. The first alteration is to bring the center of the system
to just west of Nassau near 00 UTC on the 10th, based upon wind and pressure
observations. The second major alteration is to utilize the Ho
et al. (1987) landfall position for Southeast Florida, which does better
match the possible central position from Cat Cay. Partagas and Diaz
otherwise made reasonable small alterations to the track and intensity
shown in Neumann et al. (1999). A central pressure of 976 mb (11th) suggests
winds of 80 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship. However, Ho
et al. estimate a large (43 nmi) RMW, so that winds are chosen to be 75 kt
which matches the observed winds in Jupiter, Florida - this is a moderate
reduction from the original HURDAT. Ho et al.'s estimate of 977 mb at
landfall in Southeast Florida was based upon a peripheral pressure of 996 mb
from Tampa. This is consistent with the measured 976 mb central pressure
from Cat Cay, Bahamas. The 75 kt at landfall in Southeast Florida makes this
hurricane a Category 1, which is downgraded from the estimate of Category 2
in Neumann et al.'s (1999) Table 6/U.S. hurricane characterization in
HURDAT. A storm tide of 8' was recorded at Jupiter, Florida (Barnes 1998a).
A peripheral pressure of 985 mb (at 22Z on the 13th) suggests winds of at
least 70 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship. A storm tide
value of 10' was recorded at Apalachicola, Florida (Barnes 1998a). Winds
at landfall are estimated at 80 kt based upon these observations, which is
increased slightly from the 70 kt originally in HURDAT. The 80 kt at landfall
in the panhandle of Florida retains the Category 1 in Neumann et al.'s
assessment. Winds are adjusted accordingly on the 13th and 14th.
Full lifecycle of this hurricane is not known, due to lack of information
about its genesis stage.
1903/03 - 2011 REVISION:
17050 09/09/1903 M= 8 3 SNBR= 397 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
17055 09/09* 0 0 0 0*214 724 50 0*218 734 50 0*222 740 50 0*
17060 09/10*226 747 55 0*232 753 60 0*238 760 65 0*245 767 70 0*
17065 09/11*251 775 75 0*255 782 75 0*257 789 75 0*259 796 75 976*
17070 09/12*262 803 70 0*267 812 60 0*273 821 55 988*277 829 50 0*
17075 09/13*281 836 60 0*285 842 70 0*289 848 80 0*295 853 80 0*
17080 09/14*303 857 80 0*310 859 60 0*316 860 45 0*320 860 35 0*
17085 09/15*324 859 35 0*327 856 35 0*330 853 35 0*333 849 35 0*
17090 09/16*336 843 30 0*338 837 30 0*340 830 30 0*339 823 30 0*
17095 HRCFL1AFL1
U.S. Hurricane Landfall Data
----------------------------
#/Date Time Lat Lon Max Saffir RMW Central States
Wind Simpson Pressure Affected
3-9/11/1903 2300Z 26.1N 80.1W 75kt 1 43nmi 976mb CFL1
3-9/14/1903 0000Z 30.1N 85.6W 80kt 1 --- (977mb) AFL1
3-9/14/1903 0000Z 30.1N 85.6W 80kt 1 --- (974mb) AFL1
***
The 2003 HURDAT reanalysis assessed a maximum sustained wind at
landfall in northwest Florida as an 80 kt hurricane. This suggested a central
pressure at landfall of 977 mb from the Gulf of Mexico pressure-wind
relationship. The new Brown et al. (2006) pressure-wind relationship for
cyclones north of 25N suggests a deeper central pressure is needed - 974 mb -
for an 80 kt hurricane. This new estimate of central pressure at U.S. landfall
is now included into the U.S. hurricane landfall listing. This is not
explicitly added into HURDAT because this central pressure value is
an estimate, not an observation or directly analyzed value.
********************************************************************************
16160 09/12/1903 M= 6 4 SNBR= 377 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
16160 09/12/1903 M= 6 4 SNBR= 398 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
***
16165 09/12*225 556 60 0*233 564 60 0*242 573 70 0*251 583 70 0
16165 09/12*225 556 60 0*233 564 60 0*242 573 60 0*254 587 60 0
** *** *** **
16170 09/13*260 594 70 0*268 607 70 0*275 620 70 0*281 636 70 0
16170 09/13*265 604 60 0*274 622 60 0*280 640 60 0*284 652 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
16175 09/14*286 654 70 0*292 672 70 0*297 686 70 0*303 696 70 0
16175 09/14*288 665 60 0*291 678 60 0*295 690 60 0*301 703 65 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
16180 09/15*309 704 70 0*315 712 75 0*321 718 80 0*331 723 85 0
16180 09/15*308 715 70 0*316 726 75 0*325 733 80 0*341 740 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
16185 09/16*346 728 85 0*364 733 80 0*384 739 70 0*400 747 65 0
16185 09/16*362 745 80 0*380 746 75 0*393 747 70 990*403 750 55 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** **
16190 09/17*410 756 55 0*419 764 45 0E430 772 40 0E448 770 30 0
16190 09/17*411 755 55 0*419 763 45 0E430 770 40 0E448 770 30 0
*** *** *** ***
16195 HR NJ1 NY1 CT1
16195 HR NJ1 DE1
*** ***
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). A
peripheral pressure of 997 mb (15Z on the 16th) suggests winds of at least
53 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt chosen for best
track which is the same as the original HURDAT. 990 mb was analyzed as the
central pressure at landfall in Jarrell et al. (1992), which suggests winds
of 63 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship. Intensity at landfall
is retained as a Category 1 at New Jersey (70 kt) - which agrees with Table 6
in Neumann et al. (1999)/U.S. hurricane characterization in HURDAT. A ship
report of hurricane force winds at the Delaware Capes (from Roth and Cobb
2001) suggests that the Delaware coast also experienced Category 1
conditions. However, observations collected by Partagas and Diaz indicate
that New York and Connecticut were not likely affected by sustained
hurricane winds so that they are removed from being listed as a Category 1
at landfall. Full lifecycle of this hurricane is not known, due to lack of
information about its genesis stage.
********************************************************************************
16200 09/20/1903 M= 7 5 SNBR= 378 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
16200 09/19/1903 M= 8 5 SNBR= 399 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
** * ***
(The 19th is new to HURDAT.)
16202 09/19*208 716 30 0*213 717 30 0*217 717 30 0*220 717 30 0
16205 09/20*219 716 35 0*225 714 35 0*230 712 35 0*234 713 35 0
16205 09/20*223 717 30 0*226 717 30 0*230 717 30 0*235 718 30 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
16210 09/21*239 714 35 0*243 716 35 0*247 718 40 0*251 720 40 0
16210 09/21*241 720 30 0*246 722 30 0*250 725 30 0*255 727 30 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
16215 09/22*254 722 45 0*258 724 45 0*262 726 45 0*267 728 45 0
16215 09/22*260 729 30 0*265 731 30 0*270 733 35 0*275 735 35 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
16220 09/23*272 729 45 0*278 729 45 0*284 729 45 0*290 729 45 0
16220 09/23*279 736 40 0*285 736 40 0*290 737 45 0*300 739 45 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ***
16225 09/24*297 727 50 0*303 724 50 0*310 720 50 0*318 713 50 0
16225 09/24*314 740 50 0*328 738 50 0*340 730 50 0*347 716 50 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
16230 09/25*328 703 50 0*339 691 45 0*347 675 45 0*351 659 40 0
16230 09/25*351 704 50 0*354 690 45 0*355 675 45 0*360 653 40 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
16235 09/26*358 637 35 0*360 611 30 0*366 582 25 0* 0 0 0 0
16235 09/26*367 627 35 0*373 601 30 0*378 575 25 0*382 556 25 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** **
16240 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations to
the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track and
intensity changes are found to be reasonable. A peripheral pressure of
1003 mb (12Z on the 24th) suggests winds of at least 43 kt from the
subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 50 kt retained in HURDAT.
A peripheral pressure of 1004 mb (12Z on the 25th) suggests winds of
at least 42 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship - 45 kt
retained in HURDAT.
********************************************************************************
16245 09/26/1903 M= 5 6 SNBR= 379 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
16245 09/26/1903 M= 5 6 SNBR= 400 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
16250 09/26* 0 0 0 0*229 588 40 0*233 600 40 0*236 616 40 0
16255 09/27*239 628 45 0*243 638 50 0*248 646 50 0*261 653 55 0
16255 09/27*239 628 45 0*243 638 50 0*248 646 55 0*260 653 60 0
** *** **
16260 09/28*274 654 60 0*288 652 65 0*302 647 70 0*316 637 75 0
16260 09/28*273 657 70 0*287 657 80 0*300 655 90 0*321 642 95 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
16265 09/29*331 624 80 0*346 606 85 0*362 576 85 0*379 530 85 0
16265 09/29*341 623 95 0*360 591 95 0*375 563 90 0*394 528 85 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ***
16270 09/30*388 500 80 0E406 462 75 0E435 410 70 0* 0 0 0 0
16270 09/30*412 486 80 0E427 448 75 0E445 405 70 0E465 355 60 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** **** *** **
16275 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made reasonable small
alterations to the the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999).
A peripheral pressure of 988 mb (16Z on the 28th) suggests winds of
at least 66 kt - 95 kt is chosen for the best track which is appropriate
given hurricane force winds were observed in Bermuda on the weak side of
the storm.
********************************************************************************
16280 10/01/1903 M=10 7 SNBR= 380 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
16280 10/01/1903 M=10 7 SNBR= 401 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
16285 10/01*202 575 60 0*204 588 60 0*208 600 65 0*214 612 70 0
16285 10/01*170 560 60 0*177 573 60 0*185 585 60 0*194 597 60 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** **
16290 10/02*221 620 70 0*229 628 70 0*237 634 70 0*247 636 70 0
16290 10/02*203 610 65 0*215 622 70 0*230 635 70 0*243 638 70 0
*** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** ***
16295 10/03*259 633 70 0*271 629 70 0*281 622 75 0*290 612 75 0
16295 10/03*254 637 70 0*263 634 70 0*273 630 75 0*280 627 75 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
16300 10/04*297 603 80 0*301 593 80 0*301 580 85 0*299 566 85 0
16300 10/04*289 622 80 0*295 616 80 0*300 607 85 0*305 591 85 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
16305 10/05*296 552 85 0*293 538 85 0*289 525 85 0*286 510 80 0
16305 10/05*306 572 85 0*304 552 85 0*300 534 85 0*295 519 80 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
16310 10/06*284 497 75 0*282 484 70 0*279 471 70 0*273 470 70 0
16310 10/06*289 502 75 0*281 488 70 0*270 480 70 0*268 482 70 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
16315 10/07*268 478 70 0*269 488 70 0*272 493 70 0*279 489 70 0
16315 10/07*267 484 70 0*268 487 70 0*270 490 70 0*276 488 70 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
16320 10/08*281 482 70 0*282 472 70 0*283 465 70 0*284 450 65 0
16320 10/08*280 482 70 0*282 472 70 0*283 462 70 0*285 450 65 0
*** *** ***
16325 10/09*285 434 65 0*286 419 60 0*288 404 50 0*293 390 45 0
16325 10/09*290 431 65 0*295 415 60 0*300 400 50 0*305 387 45 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
16330 10/10E301 375 40 0E312 362 35 0E324 350 35 0* 0 0 0 0
16330 10/10E309 375 40 0E316 362 35 0E324 350 35 0E336 332 35 0
*** *** **** *** **
16335 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999).
Full lifecycle of this hurricane is not known, due to lack of information
about its genesis stage.
********************************************************************************
16340 10/05/1903 M= 6 8 SNBR= 381 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
16340 10/05/1903 M= 6 8 SNBR= 402 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
16345 10/05*240 688 40 0*244 691 45 0*250 695 50 0*257 695 55 0
16345 10/05*255 725 35 0*257 723 35 0*260 720 40 0*263 717 40 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
16350 10/06*263 694 55 0*268 692 60 0*272 690 65 0*275 688 70 0
16350 10/06*266 713 40 0*269 709 40 0*272 705 40 0*275 701 40 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** *** **
16355 10/07*278 685 70 0*280 683 70 0*283 680 70 0*286 676 70 0
16355 10/07*278 697 40 0*281 693 40 0*285 688 40 0*290 682 45 0
*** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
16360 10/08*289 671 70 0*292 666 70 0*297 661 75 0*300 660 75 0
16360 10/08*295 674 50 0*300 669 55 0*305 665 60 0*311 662 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
16365 10/09*304 660 80 0*309 662 85 0*313 668 85 0*316 677 85 0
16365 10/09*317 659 60 0*323 657 60 0*330 655 60 0*337 653 60 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
16370 10/10*319 691 85 0*322 709 75 0*330 730 70 0E344 737 70 0
16370 10/10*345 652 55 0*353 651 50 0E361 650 50 0E372 648 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** **** *** ** **** *** **
16375 HR
16375 TS
**
Major changes were made to this system from that proposed by Partagas and
Diaz (1997). Portions of track that they proposed are not reasonable.
After re-examination of available observations for this system from
the Historical Weather Map series, 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. These position are only moderately
altered from those seen in Neumann et al. (Partagas and Diaz' apparent
error was in focusing upon a possible position based on one ship [at 23N,
75W] on the 6th. However, space-time continuity with data on the 7th and
8th was not consistent with what they believed occurred on the 6th.)
Positions for the 9th and 10th proposed by Partagas and Diaz are large
alterations to what appears in Neumann et al., but do look quite
reasonable and are retained as suggested. (On the 9th, a strong front
entered the Atlantic from the U.S. east coast accompanied by an
extratropical low centered near 35N, 73W. On the 10th, the
extratropical low had drifted north (37N, 73.5W) and intensified, while
the tropical storm was becoming absorbed into the extratropical system
near the warm frontal boundary on the east side of the extratropical low.)
Partagas and Diaz analyzed this tropical system as peaking as a tropical
storm, rather than as a hurricane as found in Neumann et al. and HURDAT.
Partagas and Diaz' characterization of the intensity is retained here.
Two peripheral pressures of 997 mb (both at 12Z on the 9th) suggest winds
of at least 53 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 60 kt
chosen for the best track. Peak winds reduced from the standard
Category 2 (85 kt) down to a strong tropical storm (60 kt), since
available observations support a substantially weaker system. A storm
tide of 9' attributed to this system observed in Norfolk, Virginia (Roth
and Cobb 2001) was instead caused by the separate, strong extratropical
storm system.
********************************************************************************
16376 10/21/1903 M= 7 9 SNBR= 403 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
16376 10/21* 0 0 0 0*212 720 30 0*215 725 30 0*219 729 30 0
16376 10/22*225 733 30 0*232 736 30 0*240 740 30 0*248 742 30 0
16376 10/23*256 743 30 0*263 743 30 0*270 743 35 0*279 745 40 0
16376 10/24*290 748 45 0*301 751 50 0*312 750 50 0E324 745 50 0
16376 10/25E336 731 50 0E345 715 50 0E358 695 50 0E380 669 50 0
16376 10/26E405 637 50 0E428 604 50 0E450 575 45 0E473 554 40 0
16376 10/27E491 537 40 0E511 524 40 0E530 510 35 0E552 495 35 0
16376 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997) for this newly documented
tropical storm.
********************************************************************************
16380 11/17/1903 M= 9 9 SNBR= 382 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
16380 11/17/1903 M= 9 10 SNBR= 404 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
** ***
16385 11/17* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*197 396 35 0*201 410 35 0
16385 11/17* 0 0 0 0*190 370 35 0*195 385 35 0*199 397 35 0
*** *** ** *** *** *** ***
16390 11/18*205 420 35 0*211 432 35 0*219 444 35 0*228 456 35 0
16390 11/18*204 413 35 0*211 429 35 0*219 444 35 0*228 456 35 0
*** *** ***
16395 11/19*237 468 35 0*245 480 40 0*255 493 45 0*264 500 50 0
16395 11/19*237 468 35 0*245 480 40 0*255 493 45 0*264 498 50 0
***
16400 11/20*273 502 60 0*282 500 65 0*290 492 70 0*292 483 70 0
16400 11/20*273 496 60 0*282 493 65 0*290 485 70 0*292 477 70 0
*** *** *** ** ***
16405 11/21*293 473 70 0*293 462 75 0*293 454 75 0*295 447 80 0
16405 11/21*293 471 70 0*293 462 70 0*293 454 70 0*295 447 70 0
*** *** ** ** **
16410 11/22*297 441 80 0*300 436 85 0*304 432 85 0*313 429 85 0
16410 11/22*297 441 70 0*300 436 70 0*304 432 70 0*313 429 70 0
** ** ** **
16415 11/23*328 427 85 0*343 425 80 0*354 423 75 0*363 421 70 0
16415 11/23*328 427 70 0*343 425 70 0*354 423 70 0*363 421 70 0
** ** **
16420 11/24*370 419 70 0*377 417 70 0*385 414 70 0*394 409 70 0
16425 11/25*403 405 65 0*413 400 65 0*422 396 65 0E435 389 50 0
16430 HR
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999),
originally storm number 9. Peak winds are reduced from the standard
Category 2 (85 kt) down to Category 1 (70 kt) based upon available
observations that suggest that the system was, at most, a minimal
hurricane.
********************************************************************************
1903 - Additional Notes - 2004 REVISION:
1) The NHC Best Track Change Committee requested further investigation into
the possible storm system first identified by Partagas and Diaz (1997)
in mid-June 1903:
"1903 Additional system #1 Block Island and Nantucket observations
suggest tropical storm force winds, although the structure of the
system is not clear. Needs further research."
Upon investigation of this system from the Monthly Weather Review, the COADS
ship database, the Historical Weather Map series, and coastal station data,
this system did cause winds of gale force both over the Atlantic and at the
coast, but it had an extratropical storm structure at that time. The system
formed near the northern Bahamas on the 9th; apparently achieved tropical
depression status on the 10th near 28N, 78W; moved to the north-northeast on
the 11th with maximum winds of 30kt; merged with a frontal boundary and
intensified on the 12th; made landfall late on the 12th in New York;
moved northward and occluded over land on the 13th; and weakened on
the 14th near Lake Erie. Peak winds from this storm were 63 kt E at
Block Island (this corrects to 52 kt after accounting for the high bias
of the anemometer and converting to a peak 1 min wind), 42 kt SE at
Nantucket, 36 kt E at Boston, 35 kt E at Portland, and a COADS ship of
35 kt SE at 37N, 70W. Lowest sea level pressure observed was 997 mb at
New York City. (All peak observations were on the 12th of June).
However, the system at the time of tropical storm force conditions had
already acquired a baroclinic structure. As an example, New York City
experienced 67 F temperature and 65 F dewpoint with a 27 kt E wind
under light rain conditions at 12 UTC on the 12th. This became 57 F
temperature, 54 F dewpoint with a 5 kt W wind under cloudy conditions
a day later. Such changes are typical of that experienced in the region.
This structure is consistent with a moderate cold frontal feature.
Thus the system was likely not a tropical storm and is not included
into HURDAT.
Partagas and Diaz (1997) mentioned two additional systems considered
for inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team agreed to leave them out
of HURDAT for the following reasons:
2) August 20-23, 1903: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
3) November 23-26, 1903: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
4) The NHC Best Track Change Committee requested further investigation into
a possible storm system identified by the Committee from information
within Monthly Weather Review:
"1903 Additional system for 10-11 Sept. A possible depression
in the Gulf of Mexico. Isaac Cline states that warnings were
issued. System not noted in P+D. Needs further research."
Upon investigation of this system from the Monthly Weather Review, the COADS
ship database, the Historical Weather Map series, and coastal station data,
this system did cause heavy rains and winds up to 25 kt in the northern
Gulf of Mexico and in Louisiana and Texas. However, there was no closed
circulation with this system and it did not produce gale force winds.
Therefore, this system will not be included into HURDAT.
********************************************************************************
16435 06/11/1904 M= 4 1 SNBR= 383 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
16435 06/10/1904 M= 5 1 SNBR= 405 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
** * ***
(The 10th is new to HURDAT.)
16437 06/10* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*130 805 30 0*136 807 30 0
16440 06/11* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*155 793 35 0*159 792 35 0
16440 06/11*142 807 30 0*146 805 30 0*150 803 30 0*157 802 30 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
16445 06/12*164 792 35 0*168 791 35 0*172 790 35 0*176 788 35 0
16445 06/12*162 801 35 0*168 799 40 0*173 797 45 0*177 795 50 0
*** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
16455 06/13*180 786 40 0*184 783 45 0*188 780 50 0*192 778 55 0
16450 06/13*181 792 55 0*184 789 60 0*187 785 65 0*194 777 70 0
*** *** ** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
16455 06/14*195 774 60 0*197 770 55 0*199 765 35 0*201 760 25 0
16455 06/14*203 768 55 0*211 760 40 0*220 753 35 0*229 746 25 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ***
16460 TS
16460 HR
**
The only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1997) is to increase the storm
to minimal hurricane status (Category 1 - 70 kt) at landfall in Cuba, based
upon the analysis from Perez (2000). Partagas and Diaz otherwise made
reasonable small alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et
al. (1999). Winds are also boosted from the 12th and the 13th based upon
observations in Jamaica listed by Partagas and Diaz. Winds reduced on the
14th, due to earlier landfall in revised HURDAT.
********************************************************************************
16465 09/08/1904 M= 8 2 SNBR= 384 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
16465 09/08/1904 M= 8 2 SNBR= 406 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
***
16470 09/08*193 539 60 0*196 550 60 0*200 561 65 0*205 575 70 0
16470 09/08*162 540 50 0*167 548 50 0*173 557 50 0*181 571 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
16475 09/09*210 586 70 0*214 596 70 0*218 606 70 0*223 615 70 0
16475 09/09*190 586 50 0*199 603 50 0*210 620 50 0*217 630 50 0
*** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
16480 09/10*226 621 70 0*230 630 70 0*236 640 70 0*241 650 70 0
16480 09/10*225 642 50 0*234 655 50 0*240 665 50 0*247 673 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
16485 09/11*245 659 70 0*249 667 70 0*254 676 75 0*259 685 75 0
16485 09/11*251 680 50 0*255 690 50 0*259 700 50 0*262 708 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
16490 09/12*263 693 75 0*267 702 80 0*271 711 85 0*275 721 85 0
16490 09/12*266 716 55 0*268 723 60 0*270 730 65 0*272 738 70 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
16495 09/13*280 732 85 0*284 742 85 0*290 753 85 0*296 760 85 0
16495 09/13*276 747 70 0*281 757 70 0*290 767 70 0*297 774 70 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** *** *** **
16500 09/14*305 770 85 0*315 780 80 0*327 790 75 0*346 792 65 0
16500 09/14*304 780 70 0*315 785 70 0*327 790 70 0*346 795 60 0
*** *** ** *** ** ** *** **
16505 09/15E365 776 65 0E391 750 65 0E420 703 65 0E459 640 55 0
16505 09/15*365 776 55 0E391 750 65 0E420 703 75 0E459 640 55 0
* ** **
16510 HR SC1
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made reasonable small
alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). Peak
winds reduced from Category 2 (85 kt) down to Category 1 (70 kt) as a hurricane
since observations indicate that the system was, at best, a minimal hurricane.
Winds reduced accordingly from the 8th to the 14th. Winds are increased on
the 15th due to observations over New England in Partagas and Diaz while
during its extratropical stage. Landfall at South Carolina as a 70 kt
Category 1 agrees with assessment in the U.S. landfall categorization
in HURDAT/Table 6 of Neumann et al. (1999). It is to be noted that
this system had hurricane force winds (and produced these along the U.S.
coast) during its extratropical stage on the 15th. Full lifecycle of this
hurricane is not known, due to lack of information about its genesis stage.
********************************************************************************
1904/03 - 2011 ADDITION:
00005 09/28/1904 M= 7 3 SNBR= 407 NOT NAMED XING=0
00010 09/28*120 800 25 0*122 803 25 0*125 805 30 0*128 808 30 0*
00015 09/29*130 810 35 0*132 812 35 0*135 815 40 0*139 818 40 0*
00020 09/30*144 820 45 0*150 822 50 0*155 825 55 0*159 828 60 0*
00025 10/01*163 831 65 0*167 835 70 0*170 840 70 0*173 846 70 0*
00030 10/02*176 852 65 0*178 858 60 0*180 865 55 0*181 872 50 0*
00035 10/03*182 878 50 0*181 884 40 0*180 890 35 0*179 897 35 0*
00040 10/04*177 904 30 0*174 912 30 0*170 920 25 0*165 928 25 0*
00045 HR
This new hurricane was uncovered by Michael Chenoweth in his examination of the
"Nautical Notes" section of the New Orleans Picayune newspaper archives. The track
and intensity was based upon ship observations from this newspaper as well as COADS
data and Historical Weather Map observations.
September 28: The Historical Weather Map analysis shows a broad closed low of at
most 1010 mb pressure centered near 11N 75W. Available observations are sparse,
but these along with continuity suggests that a tropical depression was present
near 12.5N 80.5W. No gales or equivalent in pressure were observed.
September 29: The Historical Weather Map analysis shows no features of interest
in the Western Caribbean. Available observations are sparse, but these along with
continuity suggests that a tropical storm was present near 13.5N 81.5W. No gales or
equivalent in pressure were observed. "The Norwegian steamship Utstein, Captain T.
Aaravold, from Bluefields, Nicaragua...crossed the bar at 11:45 p.m. on October 3, and
released from Quarantine at 2:30 a.m. on Oct. 4, and arrived about 10 a.m. at Post 15,
First District. Reports sailing from Bluefields at 4 p.m. Sept. 28; had stormy weather,
with strong northerly winds to Cape Gracias, thence to Yucatan strong north to
north-northeast winds, with a heavy swell, thence northerly winds to bar" [New Orleans
Picayune, 5 October 1904, p. 13] COMMENT: This ship left for New Orleans earlier than
other ships from the area and stayed ahead of the storm center to its south and southeast.
September 30: The Historical Weather Map analysis shows no features of interest in
the Western Caribbean. Available observations indicate that the center of a tropical
storm was near 15.5N 82.5W. Ship highlights: SE 40 kt near 14N 82W (NOP). "The
Norwegian steamship Nicaragua, Captain L.H. Larssen, from Bluefields, Nicaragua...crossed
the bar at 8 p.m. on Oct. 5, and arrived at 8 a.m. yesterday at Post 15, First District.
She reports sailing from Bluefields on Sept. 30; when between Bluefields and Cape Gracias,
ran into a hard wind from southeast, blowing with gale force, with a high sea, lasting to
Yucatan; wind then moderated and shifted to north, light, with good weather to bar"
[New Orleans Picayune, 7 October 1904, p. 13]. "The Norwegian steamship Harald, Captain
K.S. Irgens, from Port Limon, Costa Rica...crossed the bar at 9 p.m. Oct. 3 and arrived at
7:30 a.m. yesterday at Post 15, First District. Reports sailing from Port Limon at 2 p.m.
Sept. 28, and encountered heavy weather off Swan Island for about twenty hours, with
heavy seas, thence moderate weather to bar" [New Orleans Picayune, 5 October, p. 13]
COMMENT: The steamship was probably in the area of Swan Island on 30 September and had
bad weather to the north of the storm center.
October 1: The Historical Weather Map analysis shows no features of interest in the
Western Caribbean. Available observations indicate that the center of a hurricane was
near 17N 84W. Ship highlights: SE 70 kt at 05Z near 16N 83W (NOP); 50 kt near 18N 87W
(NOP); NNE 40 near 19N 87W (NOP); SSE 40 kt near 16N 83W (NOP). "The Norwegian steamship
Ellis, Captain E. Hansen, from Port Limon....reports having sailed Sept. 29, at 5:30 p.m.,
had strong north winds and cloudy weather; passed Cape Gracias at 7:10 p.m., Sept. 30,
but failed to distinguish the light; on rounding the Cape encountered a southeast wind,
blowing with hurricane-like force, with torrents of rain; during the night the wind and
sea kept increasing and at midnight the wind blew with terrific force, accompanied by
fearful high seas; at 6 a.m., Oct. 1, the wind and sea began to moderate and was followed
by fine weather during the remainder of the passage, crossing the bar [in Louisiana] at
10 p.m., Oct. 3 and arrived at her wharf at 6 a.m. yesterday" [New Orleans Picayune,
5 October 1904, page 13]. "The Norwegian steamship Beacon, Captain J. Pettersen, from
ocas del Toro...crossed the bar at noon Oct. 4 and arrived at 5 a.m. yesterday at Post 15,
First District. Reports sailing from Bocas del Toro Sept. 29; had good weather to Cape
Gracias, thence a strong south-southeast wind, with fierce lightning and heavy thunder,
and in order to clear the storm changed her course to the outside banks at Cape Gracias,
when quite a number of birds, large and small, came on board, and were so tired that they
could be picked up. During the latter part of the passage had good weather. [New Orleans
Picayune, 6 October 1904, page 13] COMMENT: The ship was east of Cape Gracias a Dios
probably by the evening of 30 September and in a rain band to the east of the storm
center. The mass landing of birds is suggestive of a severe storm in the area, quite
likely of hurricane intensity. "The British steamship Wanderer, 2,666 tons net, Captain
R. Hunter, from Liverpool, via Colon and Mexican ports...released from Quarantine Thursday
[20 Oct.] arrived at Stuyvesant Dock to fill out for Liverpool. She reports sailing from
Liverpool on Sept.8; had fair weather across the Atlantic and off the Bay of Honduras
encountered the tail end of a hurricane, heavy rains and fierce squalls being encountered
with thick, dirty weather and a heavy cross sea, lasting twenty-four hours, and followed
by unsettled weather to and around the coast, and in the Gulf of Mexico experienced
strong northeast to east-northeast wind, with a heavy head swell to bar" [New Orleans
Picayune, 22 October 1904, page 11] COMMENT: The steamship probably encountered the
storm on about 1 October. "The Norwegian steamship Hispania, Captain T. Seeberg...
crossed the bar at 4 a.m. on Oct. 4 and arrived at 2:10 p.m. on the same date at Post 15,
First District. Reports sailing from [La] Ceiba [Honduras] Sept. 30; had strong
north-northeast winds, blowing with gale force and a heavy sea to north end of Cozumel
Island, thence moderate weather to the bar" [New Orleans Picayune, 5 October, p. 13]
COMMENT: The steamship probably encountered the storm on about 1 October. "The
Norwegian steamship Gyller, Captain S. Alshager, from Port Cortez [Puerto Cortez, Honduras]....
arrived yesterday morning at Post 30, Third District. Reports sailing from Port Cortez
Sept. 30; had stormy weather and heavy squalls and winds from northwest to northeast up
to night of Oct. 2, the weather then moderating, being fine from Yucatan to the bar"
[New Orleans Picayune, 6 October 1904, p. 13]. "The Norwegian steamship Hiram, Captain
J. Pedersen, from Puerto Cortez...crossed the bar at 10 a.m. on Oct. 5, and arrived at
8:30 p.m., the same date, at Post 30, Third District. She reports sailing from Puerto
Cortez at 4 a.m. Oct. 1; experienced strong northwest to northeast winds and high seas
for two days, till off Yucatan; thence fine weather" [New Orleans Picayune, 7 October
1904, p. 13].
October 2: The Historical Weather Map analysis shows no features of interest in the
Western Caribbean. Available observations indicate that the center of a tropical storm
was near 18N 86.5W. No gales or equivalent in pressure were observed.
October 3: The Historical Weather Map analysis shows no features of interest in the
Western Caribbean or the Gulf of Mexico. Available observations indicate that the center
of a tropical storm was located inland near 18N 89W near the Mexico-Belize border.
No gales or equivalent in pressure were observed.
October 4: The Historical Weather Map analysis shows a trough over Central America.
Available observations indicate that the center of a tropical depression was located
inland near 17N 92W near the Mexico-Guatemala border. No gales or equivalent in pressure
were observed. "The British steamship Floridian...from Liverpool via various ports,
released from Quarantine at 1 p.m. Oct. 11... left UK Sept. 1 and had fine weather to
Tampico, where detained three days by a light norther and very heavy rains making the
bar impassable; sailed from Tampico Oct. 6, and had strong northeast winds to the Passes"
[New Orleans Picayune, 13 October 1904, p. 13] COMMENT: U.S. daily weather maps and
the Historical Weather Maps indicate that a strong cold front moved well into the Gulf of
Mexico only on 6 October, which would be associated with the "strong northeast winds
to the Passes".
October 5: The Historical Weather Map analysis shows no features of interest over
Western Caribbean or the Gulf of Mexico. Available observations suggest that the tropical
cyclone had dissipated. No gales or equivalent were observed.
Genesis of this cyclone is estimated to have occurred around 00 UTC on the 28th of
September in the southwestern Caribbean. Numerous ship encounters with this cyclone
were uncovered from the 29th of September through the 2nd of October. Moving slowly
toward the northwest, development into a tropical storm likely occurred around 00 UTC
on the 29th. The center of the cyclone passed just offshore of Cape Gracias, near the
Nicaragua-Honduras border on the 30th. Observations from the Steamship Ellis indicate
that that cyclone reached hurricane intensity while in the northwestern Caribbean Sea
on the 1st on October. While data are somewhat inconclusive, it is analyzed that the
cyclone weakened to tropical storm intensity on the 2nd before making landfall in Belize.
No observations were available from Nicaragua, Honduras, or Belize. Mexican and ship
data suggest that the cyclone moved westward over land while weakening on the 3rd.
Dissipation likely occurred late on the 4th over southeastern Mexico, as there are no
indications that the cyclone moved into the Gulf of Mexico.
********************************************************************************
16515 10/12/1904 M=10 3 SNBR= 385 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
16515 10/12/1904 M=10 4 SNBR= 407 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=1
*** *
16520 10/12* 0 0 0 0*153 757 35 0*153 764 35 0*154 771 35 0
16525 10/13*156 777 35 0*159 782 35 0*164 787 35 0*171 791 35 0
16525 10/13*159 777 35 0*164 782 35 0*170 787 40 0*175 791 40 0
*** *** *** ** *** **
16530 10/14*179 793 35 0*186 795 35 0*193 797 40 0*199 798 40 0
16530 10/14*180 793 40 0*186 795 40 0*193 797 45 0*198 798 50 0
*** ** ** ** *** **
16535 10/15*204 799 45 0*209 799 45 0*215 800 40 0*221 799 40 0
16535 10/15*201 799 55 0*206 799 60 0*210 800 65 0*214 800 65 0
*** ** *** ** *** ** *** *** **
16540 10/16*228 797 40 0*235 795 45 0*242 793 55 0*248 791 65 0
16540 10/16*217 800 65 0*220 800 55 0*225 800 50 0*233 799 55 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
16545 10/17*253 792 65 0*256 794 65 0*260 798 65 0*260 805 60 0
16545 10/17*242 799 65 0*251 801 70 0*257 807 60 0*259 809 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
16550 10/18*260 809 55 0*257 814 45 0*252 816 40 0*253 809 35 0
16550 10/18*262 811 45 0*265 814 40 0*267 817 40 0*268 823 35 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ***
16555 10/19*259 808 30 0*263 809 25 0*267 810 25 0*269 809 20 0
16555 10/19*267 825 35 0*266 826 35 0*263 827 35 0*259 826 35 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
16560 10/20*271 807 20 0*273 806 20 0*275 805 20 0*277 802 20 0
16560 10/20*256 822 35 0*254 816 35 0*255 810 35 0*258 800 30 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
16565 10/21*280 799 20 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
16565 10/21*261 790 25 0*265 782 20 0*270 770 20 0*274 759 20 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** **
16570 HR
16570 HRCFL1
****
The only major change from Partagas and Diaz (1997) is to increase the storm
to minimal hurricane status (Category 1 - 65 kt) at landfall in Cuba, based
upon the analysis from Perez (2000). Winds increased accordingly on the 14th
through the 16th. Partagas and Diaz otherwise made reasonable small
alterations to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999).
A peripheral pressure of 1004 mb (12Z on the 12th) suggests winds of at least
39 kt from the southern wind-pressure relationship - 40 kt chosen for best
track. A peripheral pressure of 989 mb (05Z on the 17th) suggests winds
of at least 65 kt from the subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 70 kt
chosen for best track. Winds at landfall in southeast Florida are
estimated at 70 kt, making this a Category 1 landfall which is consistent
with the original HURDAT 6 hourly intensity estimate just before landfall
(which had 65 kt). However, Table 6 in Neumann et al. (1999)/U.S. hurricane
characterization in HURDAT did not list this as a U.S. landfalling
hurricane. A peripheral pressure of 1001 mb (12Z on the 20th) suggests
winds of at least 43 kt from the Gulf of Mexico wind-pressure relationship -
35 kt chosen for best track since the center had already made a second
landfall by this time. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995)
utilized for inland winds over Florida.
********************************************************************************
16575 10/19/1904 M= 5 4 SNBR= 386 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
16575 10/19/1904 M= 7 5 SNBR= 408 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
* ***
16580 10/19* 0 0 0 0*260 462 35 0*258 470 35 0*255 479 35 0
16580 10/19* 0 0 0 0*258 454 35 0*250 463 35 0*238 475 35 0
*** *** *** *** *** ***
16585 10/20*250 488 35 0*247 497 35 0*245 506 35 0*244 514 35 0
16585 10/20*227 488 35 0*221 503 35 0*225 516 35 0*230 522 35 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
16590 10/21*244 522 40 0*244 529 40 0*245 537 45 0*246 544 45 0
16590 10/21*236 523 40 0*243 522 40 0*250 520 45 0*260 522 45 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
16595 10/22*250 550 45 0*254 555 45 0*260 560 40 0*265 564 35 0
16595 10/22*267 528 45 0*275 536 45 0*285 545 40 0*296 553 35 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
16600 10/23*275 570 35 0*286 573 35 0*300 578 30 0* 0 0 0 0
16600 10/23*311 561 35 0*328 568 35 0*350 575 35 0*367 575 35 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** **
(24th and 25th are new to HURDAT.)
16601 10/24E392 567 35 0E417 556 35 0E445 540 35 0E473 512 35 0
16602 10/25E504 484 35 0E534 454 35 0E560 425 35 0E578 395 35 0
16605 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations to
the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track and
intensity changes are found to be reasonable. A peripheral pressure of
1005 mb (12Z on the 21st) suggests winds of at least 38 kt from the
subtropical wind-pressure relationship - 45 kt retained in best track.
********************************************************************************
16610 10/29/1904 M= 8 5 SNBR= 387 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
16610 10/31/1904 M= 7 6 SNBR= 409 NOT NAMED XING=1 SSS=0
** * ***
16615 10/29* 0 0 0 0*199 860 35 0*203 868 40 0*206 875 35 0
16620 10/30*208 881 35 0*212 889 35 0*217 896 35 0*222 901 35 0
(The 29th and 30th are deleted from HURDAT.)
16625 10/31*226 906 35 0*231 911 35 0*237 916 35 0*242 919 35 0
16625 10/31* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*200 913 35 0*204 918 35 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ***
16630 11/01*246 920 35 0*251 920 40 0*257 919 40 0*262 918 45 0
16630 11/01*210 920 35 0*216 922 40 0*223 920 40 0*231 917 45 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
16635 11/02*268 915 45 0*274 911 45 0*282 906 40 0*290 899 35 0
16635 11/02*238 914 45 0*244 911 45 0*253 907 40 0*265 898 35 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
16640 11/03*300 891 35 0*309 879 35 0*316 864 35 0*316 843 35 0
16640 11/03*278 889 35 0*291 881 35 0*303 867 35 0*313 848 30 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** **
16645 11/04*319 828 35 0*328 806 35 0*336 786 35 0*340 765 35 0
16645 11/04*321 827 30 0*329 804 30 0E335 780 35 0E338 760 35 0
*** *** ** *** *** ** **** *** **** ***
16650 11/05*344 745 35 0*349 724 35 0*353 703 30 0*360 685 25 0
16650 11/05E345 734 35 0E351 711 35 0E360 687 35 0E377 660 35 0
**** *** **** *** **** *** ** **** ***
(The 6th is new to HURDAT.)
16652 11/06E400 624 35 0E424 593 35 0E450 575 35 0E466 557 35 0
16655 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations
to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track and
intensity changes are found to be reasonable. A peripheral pressure of
1005 mb (12Z on the 31st) suggests winds of at least 34 kt - 35 kt retained
in best track. Inland decay model of Kaplan and DeMaria (1995) utilized for
inland winds over the Southeast U.S.
********************************************************************************
1904 - Additional Notes:
Partagas and Diaz (1997) mentioned five additional systems considered
for inclusion into HURDAT. The re-analysis team agreed to leave them out
of HURDAT for the following reasons:
1) September 3-5, 1904: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
2) September 24-30, 1904: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
3) October 10-16, 1904: Not enough evidence for tropical storm intensity.
4) October 28-November 2, 1904: Gale force intensity, but likely
extratropical.
5) November 9-14, 1904: Numerous gale to hurricane force observations, but
likely was an extratropical storm.
********************************************************************************
16660 09/06/1905 M= 2 1 SNBR= 388 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
16660 09/06/1905 M= 3 1 SNBR= 410 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
* ***
16665 09/06* 0 0 0 0*140 580 50 0*140 590 50 0*140 600 50 0
16665 09/06* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*116 585 50 0*120 598 50 0
*** *** ** *** *** *** ***
16670 09/07*141 609 50 0*141 618 50 0*141 627 40 0*141 640 30 0
16670 09/07*125 611 50 0*130 628 50 0*135 643 40 0*139 658 35 0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** **
(The 8th is new to HURDAT.)
16672 09/08*144 673 30 0*149 689 30 0*153 703 30 0*159 721 25 0
16675 TS
No major changes from Partagas and Diaz (1997), who made large alterations
to the track and intensity shown in Neumann et al. (1999). These track
and intensity changes are found to be reasonable. Full lifecycle
of this tropical storm is not known, due to lack of information about its
genesis stage.
********************************************************************************
17350 09/11/1905 M= 6 2 SNBR= 389 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
17350 09/11/1905 M= 6 2 SNBR= 411 NOT NAMED XING=0 SSS=0
***
17355 09/11* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*195 510 35 0*197 521 35 0
17360 09/12*200 533 35 0*202 541 35 0*205 550 40 0*210 560 40 0
17365 09/13*214 568 40 0*218 574 45 0*221 579 50 0*223 583 50 0
17370 09/14*226 586 50 0*229 588 50 0*232 591 45 0*238 594 40 0
1737