AccuWeather Hurricane Threat

[Steve]

MW,

Here's the problem:

>>I don't want to pass judgement on should or shouldn't...my comment is more on how he goes about the forecast...unless there are no landfalls this year...anything that happens can be called a successful forecast.

That's not it at all. What you're looking at on that map is the area of highest risk zones. That's off the free site. It's hardly Bastardi's Landfall Intensity Forecast. His forecast is QUANTIFABLE but if you haven't seen it, you really shouldn't comment on it. He ascribes a certain value to each landfall region (as outlined in the areas of highest risk) based on the pressure at landfall, winds in an adjacent zone and hedges in 50% from the NHC in case they are trying to verify a forecast that is different from his. That's as objective as they get. Normal US/Canadian landfall intesity (last 50 years I think) is something like 36.7 value points per year. This year he's called for somehwhere in the low 80's. And he definitely gives a value per region (as previously noted) based on the objective measurement of BAROMETRIC PRESSURE (vs. the subjective decision of a NHC forecaster to classify something which is far more capricious).

Points are as follows:

1 for TD (1000 - 1010mb)
2 for TS (990 - 1000mb)
4 for Cat 1 (975-990mb)
8 for Cat 2 (960-975mb)
16 for Cat 3 (940-960mb)
32 for Cat 4 (920-940mb)
64 for Cat 5 (below 920mb)

What he can't tell you is whether a specific zone is going to be scored based on multiple weaker hits or if it's one big storm. Put it this way, there are 4 regions that exceed Cat 2 (cummulative) effects this year including 1 that exceeds Cat 3 cum. effects. Those areas are Texas, MS-FL Panhandle, W FL, and the Coastal Carolinas. W FL exceeds Cat 3 by a hair. The Maritimes and the VA-NJ Coasts are just below cum. Cat 2 status.

So saying that you can verify this anyway you want and call it successful isn't anywhere near the truth. As noted above, his forecast is highly detailed and has demonstrated considerable skill the last 2-3 years (with some obvious hits and misses). The point is that he's expecting nearly triple the usual US/Canadian effects this year from his rating scale. For a bit more information, here's a cut and paste of the writeup I did on FLHURRICANE when it first came out (hopefuly not a violation of the terms of service at Acc):

Bastardi issued his eagerly awaited landfall Intensity forecast today. I read the text but I haven't had time to view the videos yet. His synopsis is fairly interesting this year as many members of this board, if he verifies, are going to see at least tropical storm conditions and possibly more. You're getting a super condensed version here. If you want it all, you can go sign up for the 30 day free trial at Accuweather. The way the landfall Intensity scale works is that numbers are assigned based on pressure at landfall with 50% of the NHC's call weighted in to diffuse any bias or agenda.

1 = 1000-1010mb (T.D.)
2 = 990-1000mb (T.S.)
4 = 975-990mb (Cat 1)
8 = 960-975mb (Cat 2)
16 = 940-960mb (Cat 3)
32 = 920-940mb (Cat 4)
64 = < 920mb (Cat 5)

He had originally hinted that his landfall # (based on the pressure of a storm at landfall) was set to be somewhat above normal (normal = 36.7 points). But it looks like he ramped it up even higher than last year and values overall landfall Intensity for the US and Canada at quite a bit more than double the average.

Joe's highest threat area this year is Cape San Blas southward to Key Largo on the Gulf Coast side of Florida. The implications are for the equivalent of a major hurricane hit, though he can't say that it's going to be an aggregate of more than one storm or simply a Cat 3. The second highest potential (Cat 2 aggregate) is for the Texas Gulf Coast. 3rd highest is the coasts of NC & SC with > Cat 2 aggregate potential. 4th highest threat is the Mouth of the Mississippi River to Cape San Blas.

It should be noted that no area from Brownsville to the Canadian Maritimes is listed below normal for the year though Joe sees Louisiana and SE Florida only as normal. That means every other zone should see effects (and that doesn't mean a direct landfall because the effects from a landfall outside of a zone can still affect that zone) from the tropics at greater than normal.

Anyway, if you want the meat of the forecast, go ahead and sign up for their 30 day free trial. You can always cancel it after your 30 days are up, but you get the benefit of the forecast as well as 4 weeks worth of streaming videos and columns. You can't go wrong with that.

Enjoy.

Steve

[cycloneye]

Great discussions being posted here.

If I am reading this forecast right I have to be worried here in Puerto Rico and our friends in the other islands too because JB implies more landfall probabilitys to Florida meaning low latitud CV systems tracking thru the lesser antilles and that sounds troublesome for us although some caribbean homegrown systems may form too and threat the Penninsula.

[wxman57]

That's what I don't get about these types of forecasts. How does anyone know for sure that a sysyem will or will not recurve at 80W. Last time I checked storms by themselves dont choose a side of 80W to head north.

How can the #1 landfall area be directly adjacent to an area of below normal probablility?

MW

It's not a question of knowing that a storm will or will not recurve at a particular longitude - it's observing the predominant general mid/upper-level steering patterns. Patterns suggest that more storms may travel farther west before recurving. We can't say exactly if or when, as only a slight difference in timing may mean the difference between a "fish" or a major hit.

As for the #1 landfall area being directly adjacent to the #10 region, northeast Florida has been hit by only a single major hurricane in about 150 years. They just don't hit there, as storms at that latitude are generally moving northward and paralleling the coast. But it's a big difference on the west coast of the Peninsula. That area has been frequently hit in the last century. And we're talking about LANDFALL points only. Of course, if a Cat 3-4 hits Tampa moving NE, northeast FL will be hit pretty hard too - but that won't count as a landfall there.

[wxman57]

Great discussions being posted here.

If I am reading this forecast right I have to be worried here in Puerto Rico and our friends in the other islands too because JB implies more landfall probabilitys to Florida meaning low latitud CV systems tracking thru the lesser antilles and that sounds troublesome for us although some caribbean howmgrown systems may form too and threat the Penninsula.

I would agree with that assessment, cycloneye. Think of Isabel and Fabian tracking west like Allen '80 or Gilbert '88 instead of recurving.

[Guest]

But what I see as inconsistent in the pattern with his forecast is that later recurvature would put SE Florida and the keys in harms way. He shows from Ft. Pierce to Islamorada as a "7"? The "1" he has on the map for the Florida west coast doe NOT represent a delayed curving Atlantic storm, but a GOM or western caribbean origin hurricane; unless it pulls a Donna, and she affected the SE FL coast as well.

Well, it could mean a REALLY delayed recurvature, like west thru the Caribbean, into the Gulf, then NE to western FL. Basically, he sees the steering pattern as taking more storms west through the Caribbean into the Gulf. I agree, but don't differentiate between either side of the FL peninsula. Both sides are at high risk.

That's what I don't get about these types of forecasts. How does anyone know for sure that a sysyem will or will not recurve at 80W. Last time I checked storms by themselves dont choose a side of 80W to head north.

How can the #1 landfall area be directly adjacent to an area of below normal probablility?

Yep...This is what I don't understand myself.

But ask JB about this & he'll come up with some clever reasoning I'm sure

MW

[Stephanie]

I find it interesting that the DelMarVa peninsula and NJ are right smack in the middle of the forecast probability.

Back in 1999, Floyd skirted the coast. That was the last time a hurricane affected us. Isabel came REALLY CLOSE to us last year. I guess it's just a matter of time.

[Derek Ortt]

You CANNOT classify a TC based upon intensity. That is not how it is scientifically done. A hurricane is based upon wind speed, not pressure. Seems to me, he missed the gradient wind section of atmospheric dynamics class. You can, however, classify the intensity change based upon pressure, which is how I have been advised to do so in my research. That being said, I'd be laughed at if I tried to say a 50KT system was a cane because the pressure was 988mb

[southerngale]

That's what I don't get about these types of forecasts. How does anyone know for sure that a sysyem will or will not recurve at 80W. Last time I checked storms by themselves dont choose a side of 80W to head north.

How can the #1 landfall area be directly adjacent to an area of below normal probablility?

MW

Yeah, I'm in Beaumont in Southeast Texas, very close to the Louisiana border. According to this, I'm in the 2nd highest threat area. However, if I drive about 30 miles to my east, I'll be in the 2nd lowest threat area.

[NJCane]

I find it interesting that the DelMarVa peninsula and NJ are right smack in the middle of the forecast probability.

Back in 1999, Floyd skirted the coast. That was the last time a hurricane affected us. Isabel came REALLY CLOSE to us last year. I guess it's just a matter of time.

NJ is way overdue for a hit. It has been over a 100 years since the NJ coast has been directly hit by a hurricane and the only other real storm of consequence was 1944.

[HurricaneBill]

unless it pulls a Donna, and she affected the SE FL coast as well.

Where DIDN'T Donna hit?

[Derecho]

He ascribes a certain value to each landfall region (as outlined in the areas of highest risk) based on the pressure at landfall, winds in an adjacent zone and hedges in 50% from the NHC in case they are trying to verify a forecast that is different from his.

Translation: So Bastardi can spin his forecasts so it's a hit.

And he definitely gives a value per region (as previously noted) based on the objective measurement of BAROMETRIC PRESSURE (vs. the subjective decision of a NHC forecaster to classify something which is far more capricious).

Translation: So Bastardi can do his usual whiny denial/critique of Air Force recon wind measurements.

Points are as follows:

1 for TD (1000 - 1010mb)
2 for TS (990 - 1000mb)
4 for Cat 1 (975-990mb)
8 for Cat 2 (960-975mb)
16 for Cat 3 (940-960mb)
32 for Cat 4 (920-940mb)
64 for Cat 5 (below 920mb)

Pressures HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SAFFIR-SIMPSON scale. It's misleading because you routinely see the SAFFIR-SIMPSON scale listed on the net with pressures; those actually have nothing to do with classifying a storm on the scale. It's ENTIRELY based on wind speed and wind speed alone. Any met unaware of that is incompetent.

What he can't tell you is whether a specific zone is going to be scored based on multiple weaker hits or if it's one big storm. Put it this way, there are 4 regions that exceed Cat 2 (cummulative) effects this year including 1 that exceeds Cat 3 cum. effects. Those areas are Texas, MS-FL Panhandle, W FL, and the Coastal Carolinas. W FL exceeds Cat 3 by a hair. The Maritimes and the VA-NJ Coasts are just below cum. Cat 2 status.

The above proves my point that it's literally impossible for anyone else to verify those forecasts because it's so subjective and complicated that it really can only be verified by the forecaster himself, who can be relied upon to furiously spin at several million RPM to make what happens fit the forecast.

[i]Bastardi issued his eagerly awaited landfall Intensity forecast today.

I await his landfall forecast with about the same enthusiasm with which I await William Hung's next album.

[MWatkins]

That's not it at all. What you're looking at on that map is the area of highest risk zones. That's off the free site. It's hardly Bastardi's Landfall Intensity Forecast. His forecast is QUANTIFABLE but if you haven't seen it, you really shouldn't comment on it. He ascribes a certain value to each landfall region (as outlined in the areas of highest risk) based on the pressure at landfall, winds in an adjacent zone and hedges in 50% from the NHC in case they are trying to verify a forecast that is different from his. That's as objective as they get. Normal US/Canadian landfall intesity (last 50 years I think) is something like 36.7 value points per year. This year he's called for somehwhere in the low 80's. And he definitely gives a value per region (as previously noted) based on the objective measurement of BAROMETRIC PRESSURE (vs. the subjective decision of a NHC forecaster to classify something which is far more capricious).

Points are as follows:

1 for TD (1000 - 1010mb)
2 for TS (990 - 1000mb)
4 for Cat 1 (975-990mb)
8 for Cat 2 (960-975mb)
16 for Cat 3 (940-960mb)
32 for Cat 4 (920-940mb)
64 for Cat 5 (below 920mb)

What he can't tell you is whether a specific zone is going to be scored based on multiple weaker hits or if it's one big storm. Put it this way, there are 4 regions that exceed Cat 2 (cummulative) effects this year including 1 that exceeds Cat 3 cum. effects. Those areas are Texas, MS-FL Panhandle, W FL, and the Coastal Carolinas. W FL exceeds Cat 3 by a hair. The Maritimes and the VA-NJ Coasts are just below cum. Cat 2 status.

So saying that you can verify this anyway you want and call it successful isn't anywhere near the truth. As noted above, his forecast is highly detailed and has demonstrated considerable skill the last 2-3 years (with some obvious hits and misses). The point is that he's expecting nearly triple the usual US/Canadian effects this year from his rating scale. For a bit more information, here's a cut and paste of the writeup I did on FLHURRICANE when it first came out (hopefuly not a violation of the terms of service at Acc):

I will give him credit that he verifies his landfall forecast...not everyone does that. But I'm not attacking Joe or anybody else specifically with my point of view.

My point is this. I do not believe that a landfall foreast can be considered skillfull if it verifies to 100% accuracy...if every storm was exactly forecast to hit some arbitrary 300nm wide area. Even if Joe does that this year...it's not significant.

There are many many dependant and independant variables that affect the strength...position and movement of a hurricane. These are dynamic in nature. For example...1995 featured an abnormally weak 500MB azores high during the active months of the hurricane season. This opened a huge corridor for recurvature that could not have been anticipated in advance.

Verifying a landfall forecast during an average season..10 chances...would be the same deal...mathematically...as the hurricane center randomly picing one track forecast from every storm (10 in total)...and using those for the yearly verification.

More data is needed. 20 years probably isnt enough to proclaim statistically significant skill IMHO.

Still...something is better than nothing. Some verification is better than no verification. But tell me...does Joe B verify against climatology? Because if he doesn't...there is no way to ascertain if he is truely skillful against the baseline.

MW

[MWatkins]

I'm going to hit a couple of different replies...please bear with me...

WXMAN57:

It's not a question of knowing that a storm will or will not recurve at a particular longitude - it's observing the predominant general mid/upper-level steering patterns. Patterns suggest that more storms may travel farther west before recurving. We can't say exactly if or when, as only a slight difference in timing may mean the difference between a "fish" or a major hit.

As for the #1 landfall area being directly adjacent to the #10 region, northeast Florida has been hit by only a single major hurricane in about 150 years. They just don't hit there, as storms at that latitude are generally moving northward and paralleling the coast. But it's a big difference on the west coast of the Peninsula. That area has been frequently hit in the last century. And we're talking about LANDFALL points only. Of course, if a Cat 3-4 hits Tampa moving NE, northeast FL will be hit pretty hard too - but that won't count as a landfall there.

No problem about the JAX thing...they are noocked up there so that a hurricane would almost have to come in form the NE to hit them squarely. I was referring to the west coast vs. east coast of Florida. In the late 40's there were at least 2 hurrcanes that came up from the Caribbean and crossed SW then SE Florida...I can't see how this wouldn't increase the EC of Florida from a 7 when the region on the other side of 81W is a 1.

I don't want to imply that I don't understand mean flow patterns...I get that. But a little tiny upper low in the right place at the right time could make the difference between a SFL hit and something heading up to Pensacola. There is no way anyone or any model can predict that 3 months in advance.

DOrtt:

You CANNOT classify a TC based upon intensity. That is not how it is scientifically done. A hurricane is based upon wind speed, not pressure. Seems to me, he missed the gradient wind section of atmospheric dynamics class.

Good point.

You can, however, classify the intensity change based upon pressure, which is how I have been advised to do so in my research. That being said, I'd be laughed at if I tried to say a 50KT system was a cane because the pressure was 988mb

Yes you would. Which is yet another reason why the Saffir-Simpson scale doesn't apply to the EPAC due to differences in pressure backgrounds between the basins.

MW


[/quote]

[Steve]

>>Translation: So Bastardi can spin his forecasts so it's a hit.

No. It's so that he can add some impartiality to his forecasts. What the NHC says is acceptable in to the general public though what they say often doesn't verify.

>>Translation: So Bastardi can do his usual whiny denial/critique of Air Force recon wind measurements.

No. He's usually wondering why there aren't more of them out there investigating a given system.

>>Pressures HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SAFFIR-SIMPSON scale. It's misleading because you routinely see the SAFFIR-SIMPSON scale listed on the net with pressures; those actually have nothing to do with classifying a storm on the scale. It's ENTIRELY based on wind speed and wind speed alone. Any met unaware of that is incompetent.

Speaking of incompetent, while you routinely put out reasonable information for the hurricane enthusiast to peruse, you don't take any chances at all. Every year we have to go through a Dericho is cocky post because you're quick to tear anything else down without providing any reasonable alternative. The day you put out something for consumption that is quantifable, you'll earn your cockiness. Until then, you're just kind of a meterologically smart dude with an attitude. As for pressures, I wan't going to bother to type "roughly" behind the corresponding pressure and the SS Scale rating because I figured most people reading it would get the general idea. If you want Joe's take on why he uses pressure, e-mail him. Don't attack my post. Everyone knows that pressure falls and rises are indicative of only potential wind speed. They don't tell the whole story. And any enthusiast worth his salt knows that sometimes a "hurricane" only brings gusts to 45 to his or her area. And it cuts both ways (see Texas last year). The NHC rarely verifies. I see it first hand all the time. I've seen pieces of about 8 systems up close in the last 5 or 6 years.

>>The above proves my point that it's literally impossible for anyone else to verify those forecasts because it's so subjective and complicated that it really can only be verified by the forecaster himself, who can be relied upon to furiously spin at several million RPM to make what happens fit the forecast.

Well judge for yourself. And I'd further challenge you to address his forecast after the season is up. He's given you 81.6 landfall intensity points spread out among the regions. For instance, it's not illogical to think if a Hurricane was to strike North Carolina, that the Virginia to New Jersey zone might feel tropical storm effects and thus have a rating for that particular area. Be a man if you can be. Get his specific forecast and pick it apart yourself. But if he hits it pretty close, stay a man and admit that you didn't put out anything of that caliber yourself.

>>I await his landfall forecast with about the same enthusiasm with which I await William Hung's next album.

Whatever. You can dump on Joe all you want. He's one of several sources available to people who give a damn. I'm not saying the dude is God or anything, far from it. I've challenged him where I knew he was wrong and wasn't a jerk about it. But until you show better, you're only to be taken with a grain of salt.

Steve

[Steve]

>>You CANNOT classify a TC based upon intensity. That is not how it is scientifically done. A hurricane is based upon wind speed, not pressure. Seems to me, he missed the gradient wind section of atmospheric dynamics class. You can, however, classify the intensity change based upon pressure, which is how I have been advised to do so in my research. That being said, I'd be laughed at if I tried to say a 50KT system was a cane because the pressure was 988mb

Again, it was a rough estimate. The same pressure in two different systems rarely (if ever) has the same wind speed, wind field or wind distribution. I've seen "hurricanes" pass directly overhead (e.g. Florence 1988) where the highest wind GUST was maybe 57 in my area. I've been hit by "tropical storms" where we didn't even get rain here (ref Hermine 1998). The ratings are ROUGH estimates toward what is and isn't a cane. And as noted, they're 50% of the equation. The other 50% comes directly from the NHC classification. Regardless of what windspeed is associated with a system at landfall, the pressure is what it is. And that's what he rates on. Whether the classification of a given system fits directly within the parameters of a particular storm's windspeed or not is irrelevant (unless said windspeed warrants a rating in an adjacent area).

Again, like Joe always says - judge the tree by the fruit it bears. I've presented enough of his forecast in my first post on this thread that is measuable for a research scientist. Judge for yourself. Does he blow it? Are West Florida, Texas, Mouth of the Mississippi to Cape san Blas, and the Coastal Carolinas not cummulatively affected by pressure totals of the approximation of at least Cat 2's, dog him all you want. He earned it. But I'd respectively request that until then, you keep your personal biases against the crappy way Accuweather runs its company (which I completely agree with you by the way) apart from what Joe has laid out. Only time will tell.

Steve

[Anonymous]

I find it odd that Canada has a better chance than the E Coast of fla... Fla is always more likely to get a cane than canada-and potentially a stronger, more dangerous one. If people in fla actually went by his forecast, they could say fla is off the hook for 2004 then get a surprise by September. Of course my area is a 10--least likely plce on that entire map (as usual).

Also, FWIW...Here is the map from TWC showing landfall frequency historically.... Its not exactly the same as the accuwx map

http://image.weather.com/images/maps/tr ... 20x486.jpg

[Downdraft]

I don't see anything extraordinary with JB's forecast. Florida's greatest threat has always been Gulf side hurricanes crossing into the Atlantic and Jacksonville hasn't taken a direct hit from an Atlantic storm in 400 years. If south Florida takes a hit he can say it was rated above average if it doesn't oh well. JB is fun to read but he jumps on the "NHC Bash Wagon" far to quickly. I still remember his forecast for Gilbert in Texas and it still makes me shake my head.

[Anonymous]

NE FLa has in the past been hit more than JB's "once in every 400 yrs" only once this century (dora 1964) however, data going back to the 1500's says NE fla has had far more canes in the past... though some hit the Ga coast, Jax still saw hurricane conditions... not to mention the "backdoor canes". Here is just the late 1800s... Not many here really think we are in a threat area, but it has happenned in the past. JB does deserve some credit though as with Floyd in 99, even as people were evacuating, he was on the radio sayying dont worry, Jax will be spared. Its going to hit the carolinas. Of course he added "there will be great whailing and gnashing of the teeth in fla e coast" lol

Complete Jax Hurricane history to 1500's can be found here... http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/history/index.html

Code: Select all

Year:1854

Date(s): 7-8 September

Principle Affected Area(s):  Upper Georgia - major hurricane

                                               Lower Georgia - major hurricane

                                                Upper Georgia coastal waters - major hurricane

                                                Lower Georgia coastal waters - major hurricane

                                                Northeast Florida - hurricane

                                                Northeast Florida coastal waters - major hurricane

Landfall Point(s): Between Brunswick and Savannah

Remarks: Partagas and Diaz/HURDAT Storm 2, 1854. Dunn and Miller report for Florida, “minor affects on land but was very severe offshore.” St. Augustine reported a northeast gale from the 5th through the 9th shifting to northwest as the storm passed offshore. Jacksonville also reported gales but no serious flooding on the river. Apparently, this storm was blocked by a high to it’s north and then turned northward just offshore, as the high moved into the Atlantic. The storm then moved inland on a north-northwest trajectory, and was very destructive from St. Simons Island northward to Charleston. “Extraordinary tides” reported at Savannah and Charleston. Ho reconstructed this event arriving at a 950 mb pressure and an RMW of 40 nmi 
 Ho. Page 30.


Close . Extensive reports of damage exist from the entire Georgia coast. The Journal of Hugh Fraser Grant adds some credence to the likelihood of a large high pressure center to the north of the storm and a very slow movement,

“6 ...Wind Fresh from N. E.

  7 ...Blowing a gale from N. E. Tides very high but no damage yet — Look for trouble this night —

  8 Dreadful Gale. Everything under water break in 16, 22, 18 & Kesia Scipio Square. Every stack in the field

            blown and washed away. Lost entire 110 Acres of Rice about 6,000 Bushels

 9 Heavy Clouds & Rain Thunder & Lightning most uncommon after a gale.” 
 Grant, Page 120.


Close

Summary: Such a well known event with so much overwhelming evidence as it could be a study in its own right. This storm will be counted as a major hurricane for the upper Georgia coast, the lower Georgia coast and all three coastal waters areas. It will count as a hurricane for northeast Florida.



Year:1878

Date(s): 11-12 September

Principle Affected Area(s):  Northeast Florida - hurricane

                                                Upper Georgia - hurricane

                                                Lower Georgia - hurricane

                                                Northeast Florida coastal waters - hurricane

                                                Upper Georgia coastal waters - hurricane

                                                Lower Georgia coastal waters - hurricane

Landfall Point(s): Passed just offshore

Remarks: Partagas and Diaz/HURDAT Storm 5, 1878. listed as minimal by Dunn and Miller with 13 wrecks along the northeast coast. 
 Dunn and Miller, Page 315.


Close Wrecks were strewn out from Cape Canaveral to Amelia Island. Tracked by all sources as developing east of the Lesser Antilles. Lowest Jacksonville barometer 29.19 inches/989 mb on the 11th. Produced northeast gales and the tide backed up into the streets. Maximum wind at Jacksonville NE at 48 mph.

            In 1878 a storm is reported as having destroyed the rice crop at Butler Island, leading to the decision to abandon that property, 
 Carter, Page 15.


Close and this storm was locally credited with producing the highest tide since the September 8th 1854 event. It seems reasonable that this storm would be the leading suspect as the high tides and swells are reported to have flooded the rice paddies. The storm was likely of hurricane intensity over the coastal waters and along the Georgia coast and of tropical storm intensity over northeast Florida. Using Ho’s equation a RMW of 25 nm, Jacksonville’s pressure of 989 mb, an outer pressure of 1010 mb, and a distance from downtown Jacksonville of 75 nm yields a central pressure of 976 mb at the storm’s closest point of approach to Jacksonville.

Summary: This storm likely caused hurricane conditions along the immediate coast and coastal waters. Therefore, it will be counted as a hurricane for all of the study area, except inland locations.



Year: 1893

Date(s): 27-28 August

Principle Affected Area(s):  Upper Georgia - Major hurricane

                                                Upper Georgia coastal waters - Major hurricane

                                                Lower Georgia - hurricane

                                                Lower Georgia coastal waters - Major hurricane

                                                North Florida - hurricane

                                                North Florida coastal waters - Major hurricane

Landfall Point(s): South of Tybee Island

Remarks: Partagas and Diaz Storm 6, 1893, listed by Davis.

            One of the great weather related natural disasters. Up to 2,500 perished along the Georgia and South Carolina coasts. Accompanied by a tremendous surge which completely submerged many of the Sea Islands. This storm was sharply recurving offshore. It passed to the east of downtown Jacksonville by 45-60 statute miles and offshore of St. Simons Island by 25-30 statute miles. Jacksonville barometer was 29.04 inches/983.4 mb, based on local station records. 9 cottages blown down at Mayport, may have destroyed the remains of the original lighthouse at Mayport. Dr. Frances Ho, estimated a central pressure of 931 mb (making it a category four storm) at landfall. 
 Ho, Page 53.


Close The Atlantic Hurricane Re-analysis Project has indicated a Category three landfall along the upper Georgia coast with a minimum central pressure at landfall of 954 mb and a 23 nmi Radius of maximum winds. Additionally, the storm made landfall coincident with the full moon phase the moon reaching full at 3:42 am on the 27th.

            Utilizing Ho’s central pressure relationship equation for this event, with the same RMW (as at Savannah) of 23 nm, an outer pressure of 1010 mb, a Jacksonville minimum pressure of 983.4 mb, and distance from downtown Jacksonville of 45 nm yields a central pressure of 943.5 mb at the storm’s closest point of approach to Jacksonville. It seems unlikely that the storm was deepening at the time of landfall as Ho’s analysis suggests, and the Re-analysis Project’s 954 mb landfall pressure and a weakening trend prior to landfall seem more reasonable. As the North Florida and Lower Georgia coastal areas were on the weaker western side of the storm it will be counted as a minimal hurricane for those areas. Damage reports from the 1893 hurricane are very similar to damage sustained in Hurricane Floyd in 1999 and it appears the 1893 event was a similar storm for those areas.

Summary: This storm will be counted as a hurricane for northeast Florida and the lower Georgia coast and a major hurricane for the upper Georgia coast and all of the coastal water areas

Year: 1898

Date(s): 2 October

Principle Affected Area(s):  Northeast Florida - hurricane

                                                Upper Georgia - major hurricane

                                                Lower Georgia - major hurricane

                                                Northeast Florida coastal waters - major hurricane

                                                Upper Georgia coastal waters - major hurricane

                                                Lower Georgia coastal waters - major hurricane

Landfall Point(s): Cumberland Island

Remarks: Partagas and Diaz Storm 7, 1898, listed by Davis. A major hurricane event with landfall on central Cumberland Island. Moving on a due west course similar to “Dora” in 1964, but intensifying on landfall much like Hugo (1989). Dunn and Miller reported 179 killed in coastal Georgia 
 Dunn and Miller, Page 312.


Close . Severe impacts in Florida were restricted to the extreme northeast portion of the state. The Fernandina waterfront was heavily damaged with a possible 12' storm surge. It was reported that 4 feet of water flowed into the office of the local newspaper, The Mirror. "The water invaded every building as high as Third street.". The Cumberland Island Pilot Boat MAUD HELEN was left 20 feet high on a bluff at High Point, with a 16 foot storm surge in downtown Brunswick. This event caused the storm surge of record for most points in northeast Florida and southeast Georgia. Ho re-evaluated this event as being a 945 mb storm with an RMW of 24 nmi   Ho, Page 65.


Close . A subsequent re-evaluation by Sandrik and Jarvinen ( 1999 ) determined a central pressure of 938 mb and a radius of maximum winds of 18 nmi   Sandrik, Al and Jarvinen, Brian, A Reevaluation of the Georgia and Northeast FloridaTropical Cyclone of 2 October 1898, Pre-prints 23rd Conference on Hurricanes and TropicalMeteorology ( Vol I ), Dallas, Texas, 10-15 January 1999, Pg 475-478.


Close . These values were derived based on multiple SLOSH runs to determine a best fit hurricane from observed storm surge values.

Summary: This storm will be counted as a major hurricane for the entire Georgia coast as well as all of the coastal waters areas and a hurricane for Northeast Florida (though approaching major hurricane status in Fernandina). Clearly this event compares favorably to Hurricane “Hugo” of 1989.



[NJCane]

Canada has a better chance due to the setup this year. It looks to be a predominant Tropical Atlantic season (as opposed to Gulf). Check out this link and as noted several times, the QBO will be westerly forcing recurving before the coast. Very indepth link and a good forecast. Means good waves for the East coast... http://independentwx.com/2004.html

[KatDaddy]

A scare I will never forget. There was quite a bit of fall-out from that forecast. I will never forget all the large billboards be dismantled on I-45 from Houston to Galveston days in advance of the forecasted landfall. Gilbert was just entering the GOM when Accu-weather showed a path straight for the Upper Texas Coast. The last time such a threat loomed was Allen in 1980. Another massive GOM storm that weakened as it continued its WNW path.

One of these times a massive CAT 4 or 5 system will make that NW turn and not weaken. This is a frightening thought which I hope will not happen.

In fact Isidores forecast path and Lili was quite a scare.