For Katdaddy and Texas

[Berwick Bay]

Really for anyone on the board. The 1919 Hurricane, not talked about all that much. Very powerful and VERY LARGE. Also a SLOW MOVER. Here's the story of one of the most threatening storms in American History.

1919: A severe hurricane formed just east of the Virgin Islands on the 1st of September. It gained much of its strength between Santo Domingo and the Central Bahamas, one of the favored areas for major hurricane development. The pressure at Key West fell to 28.81" as the storm passed by on the 9-10th; gales were experienced for 26 1/2 hours due to the storm's slow movement. The Sand Key Weather Bureau station was abandoned at 1 P.M. on the 9th. The anemometer was blown away as winds passed 84 m.p.h. and the pressure fell to 28.35" at midnight.

As it moved over the Dry Tortugas on the 10th, the pressure had dived to 27.51"...a nearby ship reported a pressure of 27.36". Ten vessels were lost in the Florida Straits, among them included a ship with 488 people on board. Gales began along the entire Gulf coast, yet the Weather Bureau had difficulty keeping track of it due to very few ship reports. Storm warnings were hoisted on the 11th for the state. Fish invaded the Corpus Christi Bay that day. On the 12th, a ship about 300 miles south of New Orleans reported a pressure of 27.50"...and Galveston already had a storm surge of 8.8 feet!

Rumors began to spread that the hurricane made landfall in Louisiana and Mississippi, which caused the dropping of the storm warnings. Even as the Bay became frothy early on the 14th, their Weather Bureau advised it would be smaller than the 1916 hurricane, and winds would only be 40 mph. Soon after though, hurricane flags were back up.

By September 14th, the storm moved inland 25 miles south of Corpus Christi while the storm continued its slow forward trek, putting the city in the dreaded right-front quadrant of the storm, where the highest winds and storm surges normally occur. Corpus Christi's number was finally up. Winds of 110 mph and a pressure of 28.65" were noted. Storm surge at Corpus Christi was 16 feet. Timbers from the docks at Port Aransas became battering rams, destroying buildings. Residents on North Beach took an 18 hour trip across Nueces Bay, but this was no pleasure cruise. They clung to whatever they could find and battled the 10 foot waves.

After the storm, the beaches were littered with debris and bodies. Many were quickly buried in mass graves near White Point. Over 300 people died. Damage estimates were at 20 million dollars. During the storm's life, Miami, Burrwood in Louisiana, and Galveston all reported winds at least as high as 60 m.p.h., indicating this system's large size. Aftermath of the storm led to a breakwater in 1925, and ultimately to their seawall by 1940.

[boca]

Here's the track of that 1919 hurricane.
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/at1919.asp

[Berwick Bay]

Thanks for the track, Boca. One note. That chart gave the tracks for all known storms during the 1919 season. There were just three! One theory which I have heard is that slow seasons can sometimes produce a monster storm. Another example of this would be 1992, a slow season which produced Andrew! However, it seems like we're in some new kind of hurricane stage. I don't know if its global warming, or any other factor. But 2005 was incredibly active, with incredibly intense hurricanes!! A real rarity. 2005 is sometimes compared with 1933. Each season produced over 20 tropical systems. But the storms of '33 were not known for their intensity.

[MiamiensisWx]

Thanks for the track, Boca. One note. That chart gave the tracks for all known storms during the 1919 season. There were just three! One theory which I have heard is that slow seasons can sometimes produce a monster storm. Another example of this would be 1992, a slow season which produced Andrew! However, it seems like we're in some new kind of hurricane stage. I don't know if its global warming, or any other factor. But 2005 was incredibly active, with incredibly intense hurricanes!! A real rarity. 2005 is sometimes compared with 1933. Each season produced over 20 tropical systems. But the storms of '33 were not known for their intensity.

I have a suspicion that some of the 1933 storms may have been underestimated. Many systems are listed as Category 1/2 hurricanes in HURDAT, but evidence suggests that these estimates may be incorrect. Based on available data (and scarce observations), at least three hurricanes in that season may have been misclassified. In the September 1933 Monthly Weather Review, there is one document that indicates several intense storms (with pressures below 965 mbar). Storm Fifteen is listed as a 95KT (110 mph) Category 2 tropical cyclone, but a ship reported a minimum central pressure of 928 mbar (27.40") on September 20. A well-defined inner core was documented. At this time, the storm was south-southwest of Jamaica. Despite the description of an "intense hurricane", the storm is listed as a Category 1 storm on this date. Other obs indicate a pressure gradient that supports winds of 125 to 135KT (145 to 155 mph). As the hurricane struck the Yucatan Peninsula, it likely retained winds of Category 3 intensity (few obs were available at the time of landfall).

Storm Eleven is listed as a Category 3 hurricane, but a ship (near the center) reported a minimum pressure of 930 mbar (27.47") on August 30. At this time, the hurricane was located south of the Turks and Caicos, but it is listed as a minimal hurricane (81 to 86 mph). Over the course of the next few days, other ships along the path reported intense peripheral pressures (including a reading of 947 mbar on September 2). The storm remained intense as it moved into the central Gulf of Mexico. Storm Fourteen is listed as a 75KT (86 mph) hurricane, but data indicates that it may have been more intense than indicated in HURDAT. For example, wind data suggests a moderate pressure gradient, and a reading of 960 mbar supports winds of Category 2/3 intensity.

There is insufficient data to suggest that 1933's storms were not as intense as the hurricanes of 2005. Many intense storms were overlooked, while other storms were grossly overestimated (including Hurricane Dog of 1950). 1933 featured low pressures, and this supported intense development. Although these ship reports should be taken with a grain pf salt, recent seasons suggest that intense storms may have been more common than we acknowledged. In addition, data is sketchy before 1975.

[MiamiensisWx]

I have a suspicion that some of the 1933 storms may have been underestimated. Many systems are listed as Category 1/2 hurricanes in HURDAT, but evidence suggests that these estimates may be incorrect. Based on available data (and scarce observations), at least three hurricanes in that season may have been misclassified. In the September 1933 Monthly Weather Review, there is one document that indicates several intense storms (with pressures below 965 mbar). Storm Fifteen is listed as a 95KT (110 mph) Category 2 tropical cyclone, but a ship reported a minimum central pressure of 928 mbar (27.40") on September 20. A well-defined inner core was documented. At this time, the storm was south-southwest of Jamaica. Despite the description of an "intense hurricane", the storm is listed as a Category 1 storm on this date. Other obs indicate a pressure gradient that supports winds of 125 to 135KT (145 to 155 mph). As the hurricane struck the Yucatan Peninsula, it likely retained winds of Category 3 intensity (few obs were available at the time of landfall).

Storm Eleven is listed as a Category 3 hurricane, but a ship (near the center) reported a minimum pressure of 930 mbar (27.47") on August 30. At this time, the hurricane was located south of the Turks and Caicos, but it is listed as a minimal hurricane (81 to 86 mph). Over the course of the next few days, other ships along the path reported intense peripheral pressures (including a reading of 947 mbar on September 2). The storm remained intense as it moved into the central Gulf of Mexico. Storm Fourteen is listed as a 75KT (86 mph) hurricane, but data indicates that it may have been more intense than indicated in HURDAT. For example, wind data suggests a moderate pressure gradient, and a reading of 960 mbar supports winds of Category 2/3 intensity.

There is insufficient data to suggest that 1933's storms were not as intense as the hurricanes of 2005. Many intense storms were overlooked, while other storms were grossly overestimated (including Hurricane Dog of 1950). 1933 featured low pressures, and this supported intense development. Although these ship reports should be taken with a grain pf salt, recent seasons suggest that intense storms may have been more common than we acknowledged. In addition, data is sketchy before 1975.

I have received no comments on this post. I'm eager for opinions. What do you think?

[Steve]

>>One theory which I have heard is that slow seasons can sometimes produce a monster storm.

That's kind of a weak theory IMHO. Sometimes slow seasons can produce monster storms = +/- sometimes busy seasons can produce a monster storm = +/- sometimes average seasons can produce a monster storm. Not meaning to be facetious, but in the tropical world, "sometimes" anything can happen IMHO.

Steve

[Berwick Bay]

Steve, you're probably right. It does sound a like a weak, old wives tale, type of theory. Seems like maybe a gross generalization. Its something I had heard a few years ago. Maybe nothing to it. On the other hand, one possible merit to it might be that example of 1919. Only three storms recorded that whole year. Even though we're talking almost 90 years ago here, this number is probably pretty accurate(based on other years from late 1800's to early 1900's where numerous storms were recorded. It may mean nothing, but in that year you have to believe that overall conditions for tropical development must have been horrible (shear or dust or SST's, whatever the reason). Only three storms were eeked out in the tropics that year. Now, with overall conditions so hostile, what are the odds that one of those paltry three would be a monster? Seems reasonable that the odds would be much, much, lower in finding monster out of only three storms, in a year with overall hostile conditions, compared to lets say 18 storms in a year where overall conditions must have been superior.

[Berwick Bay]

I have a suspicion that some of the 1933 storms may have been underestimated. Many systems are listed as Category 1/2 hurricanes in HURDAT, but evidence suggests that these estimates may be incorrect. Based on available data (and scarce observations), at least three hurricanes in that season may have been misclassified. In the September 1933 Monthly Weather Review, there is one document that indicates several intense storms (with pressures below 965 mbar). Storm Fifteen is listed as a 95KT (110 mph) Category 2 tropical cyclone, but a ship reported a minimum central pressure of 928 mbar (27.40") on September 20. A well-defined inner core was documented. At this time, the storm was south-southwest of Jamaica. Despite the description of an "intense hurricane", the storm is listed as a Category 1 storm on this date. Other obs indicate a pressure gradient that supports winds of 125 to 135KT (145 to 155 mph). As the hurricane struck the Yucatan Peninsula, it likely retained winds of Category 3 intensity (few obs were available at the time of landfall).

Miami, you asked for a response, well here's mine. In the last few years I have become somewhat disappointed shall we say, with the ability of our best scientists in attempting to understand these fascinating forces through numbers. I've already commented on the inadequacies of the Saffir-Simpson Scale. Important factors relating to destructive force of the storm can be left out of that Scale Number as applied to a specific storm. Size is not a factor, storm surge is less relevant than windspeed (yet we know that storm surge is THE MOST important factor relating to destruction and loss of life. Certain storms have more downdrafts or bursts which are extremely destructive(not a factor). Tornadic potential is not well understood, yet to be quantified as far as I know. Now lets go beyond even that. Miami, you are one of the most articulate and science based posters on this board. You understand the numbers and the reasons behind them as well as anyone. But look at the information in your last post. Its not your fault. As you say yourself, look at the inconsistencies between barometric pressure and the categorization of the individual storms. You're at a loss to explain it. And I don't blame you. Also, if you can't really understand the correlation made by the HURDAT people then who can? Of course, I haven't really given up on science, no rational person can. But you may have noticed that I've tried to take a more intuitive look at the storms than I once would have. The numbers have not always enlightened us. You know the old saying "I can't see the forest for the trees", I mean the "storm for the numbers".

Storm Eleven is listed as a Category 3 hurricane, but a ship (near the center) reported a minimum pressure of 930 mbar (27.47") on August 30. At this time, the hurricane was located south of the Turks and Caicos, but it is listed as a minimal hurricane (81 to 86 mph). Over the course of the next few days, other ships along the path reported intense peripheral pressures (including a reading of 947 mbar on September 2). The storm remained intense as it moved into the central Gulf of Mexico. Storm Fourteen is listed as a 75KT (86 mph) hurricane, but data indicates that it may have been more intense than indicated in HURDAT. For example, wind data suggests a moderate pressure gradient, and a reading of 960 mbar supports winds of Category 2/3 intensity.

There is insufficient data to suggest that 1933's storms were not as intense as the hurricanes of 2005. Many intense storms were overlooked, while other storms were grossly overestimated (including Hurricane Dog of 1950). 1933 featured low pressures, and this supported intense development. Although these ship reports should be taken with a grain pf salt, recent seasons suggest that intense storms may have been more common than we acknowledged. In addition, data is sketchy before 1975.

I have received no comments on this post. I'm eager for opinions. What do you think?

[Berwick Bay]

Miami, I just posted a response (as you requested one) to your last post in this thread. My response was rather lengthy and somehow got mixed up in the quote from your last post. Check my last post in this thread, look carefully and you'll find my response in the middle of the your quote.

[Steve]

Yeah I hear ya'. I had heard the same thing and in some ways it is legit (as per the 1992 reference). Maybe because the focus on the one major storm in an otherwise inactive year, it stands out more (especially with a landfall). Then we have the opposite in a year like 2005 where there are numerous Cat 5's (at a given time). And then sometimes in "average" years we end up with a big storm in the G's, H's or I's.

I know it wasn't your or my theory, but maybe it holds a little water in some seasons.

Steve

[Ptarmigan]

Those three storms recorded in 1919 were just documented. I think there were likely more storms that year. 1919 was an El Nino year as well. I believe there actual total for 1919 is 6 to 8 storms. I would not be surprised if 1933 had at least one Category 5 hurricane.