www.nws.noaa.gov Organization Search AI NWS search _ NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS SR-206 (Updaled Through 2002) . .1 . . " 0 W Local forecast by "City, St' or zip code City, Stj| Home TEXT ONLY HEREI Current Hazards SW La.ISE Tex. Outlooks Shelter-in-Place Current Conditions Observations Satellite Imagery River & Lake AHPS Radar Imagery Lake Charles Fort Polk Nationwide Forecasts SW La./SE Tex. Graphical Marine Tropical Aviation Fire Weather Hydrology/Rivers Stages/Forecasts Hydrology/Rivers Climate SW La./SE Tex. Climate Prediction Office Programs NOAA Wx Radio Observation Research ATLANTIC TROPICAL STORMS AND HURRICANES AFFECTING THE UNITED STATES: 1899-2002 Donovan Landreneau National Weather Service Office Lake Charles, Louisiana 1. Introduction Tropical storms and hurricanes have affected every coastal state along the Atlanlic and Gulf of Mexico fro Texas to Maine. Even some inland states, such as Arkansas and Tennessee, have adversely experience: effects of such storms. Anyone living In the eastern half of the U.S. should be aware of the effects of tropic storms and hurricanes, and how they could affect their lives and businesses. This study was Initiated for the purpose of addressing such concerns and others like them. By using a larg of the work done by Neumann; et al. (1993), several statistics are revealed, Including frequency and returr period of tropical storms and/or hurricanes which have affected the various coastal and inland states. The distance between landfalls for hurricanes Is introduced to show which coastal state has the most concenIr of landfalls over time, rather than just looking at which state has the highest number of landfalls. 2. Data Collection The majority of the information used for this study came from Neumann, et al. (1999). The Atlantic track fli (Jarvinen, et al. 1984) was used to complement this publication. Additional data for the years 1999-2002,i well as an updated Atlantic track file through 2002, were obtained from the National Hurricano Center Wel Tropical depressions were excluded from this study due to the absence of data for these weak tropical sy! Information on coastline length was obtained from Famighetti (1996). During the process of measuring the coastline, Connecticut was eliminated and had no measurement of a coastline. A CD-ROM mapping progi DeLorme (1997), was used to estimate a coastline length for Connecticut. IhItn. fi/u'uju erht nnaun rnpl'/aaphIrlillhim fii-f~l na11 zl lnn/!
94
Embed
City, Stj| ATLANTIC TROPICAL STORMS AND THE UNITED … · ATLANTIC TROPICAL STORMS AND HURRICANES AFFECTING THE UNITED STATES: 1899-2002 Donovan Landreneau National Weather Service
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
www.nws.noaa.gov
Organization Search AI NWS search _
NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS SR-206 (Updaled Through 2002)
. .1. . " 0
W
Local forecast by"City, St' or zip code
City, Stj|
HomeTEXT ONLY HEREICurrent Hazards
SW La.ISE Tex.OutlooksShelter-in-Place
Current ConditionsObservationsSatellite ImageryRiver & Lake AHPS
ATLANTIC TROPICAL STORMS AND HURRICANES AFFECTINGTHE UNITED STATES: 1899-2002
Donovan LandreneauNational Weather Service Office
Lake Charles, Louisiana
1. Introduction
Tropical storms and hurricanes have affected every coastal state along the Atlanlic and Gulf of Mexico froTexas to Maine. Even some inland states, such as Arkansas and Tennessee, have adversely experience:effects of such storms. Anyone living In the eastern half of the U.S. should be aware of the effects of tropicstorms and hurricanes, and how they could affect their lives and businesses.
This study was Initiated for the purpose of addressing such concerns and others like them. By using a largof the work done by Neumann; et al. (1993), several statistics are revealed, Including frequency and returrperiod of tropical storms and/or hurricanes which have affected the various coastal and inland states. Thedistance between landfalls for hurricanes Is introduced to show which coastal state has the most concenIrof landfalls over time, rather than just looking at which state has the highest number of landfalls.
2. Data Collection
The majority of the information used for this study came from Neumann, et al. (1999). The Atlantic track fli(Jarvinen, et al. 1984) was used to complement this publication. Additional data for the years 1999-2002,iwell as an updated Atlantic track file through 2002, were obtained from the National Hurricano Center WelTropical depressions were excluded from this study due to the absence of data for these weak tropical sy!
Information on coastline length was obtained from Famighetti (1996). During the process of measuring thecoastline, Connecticut was eliminated and had no measurement of a coastline. A CD-ROM mapping progiDeLorme (1997), was used to estimate a coastline length for Connecticut.
NWS InformationOur OfficeOther LinksIn The CommunityRecent Tours"Jambalaya"
Weather SafetyLocal StormReadyPreparedness
Contact UsEmail the webmasterl
3. Analysis and Results
Hurricanes are ranked according to strength and by the amount of damage they cause. Table 1 Is a briefdescription of the Saffir/Simpson hunicane intensity scale. The weakest hurricane is designated a CategoOne with a maximum sustained wind from 74 to 95 mph and an average storm surge of 4 to 5 ft above se,level. In contrast, a Category Five hurricane has a maximum sustained wind greater than 155 mph and a:surge of greater than 18 ft. Storm depends on many factors such as the shape of the continental shelf justoffshore, whether the hurricane makes landfall at high or low tide, and the location of the onshore and offswinds relative to the eye of the hurricane.
Appendix A is a chronological list of hurricanes of various intensities which have struck from Texas to Malithe years 1899-2002. In this study, a storm affects a state only once. For example, Hurricane Erin of 1995landfall on the east coast of Florida, moved over the peninsula, and struck the Florida panhandle two daysSuch situations are counted once for simplicity since it was the same storm. Table 2 further divides thesehits according to category using the Saffir/Simpson scale. As one would expect, Category One hurricanesstruck most frequently with 63 landfalls, and Category Five storms are rare with only three landfalls. Noticesecondary maximum of Category Three landfalls.
The Glossary of Meteorology (Huschke 1959) and Elsner and Kara (1999) define frequency as the numbetimes a specified event occurs in a given series of observations, or period of time. In Table 2, the landfallfrequency is represented by dividing the number of storms which made a landfall or direct hit by time. In ticase, the time is 104 years. With the exception of the total for the United States, the results for each statesmaller than one, since no state averages a hurricane landfall or direct hit every year. The frequency of 1.'the United States signifies an average of one to two hurricane landfalls per year, somewhere along the GoAtlantic coastline.
The above references define return period as the average time interval between the occurrence of a givenquantity and that of an equal or greater quantity. This would represent the reciprocal of frequency, or theaverage number of years between each hurricane landfall. Table 2 shows, for example, that the averagenumber of years between a hurricane landfall for Louisiana Is 3.9. In contrast, the average number of yea,between landfalls In Georgia is 20.0. This gives an Idea of the climatological average.
Table 2 also gives information on the coastline length of each state and the distance between each hurridclandfall. We assume storms are, on average, distributed randomly along the coast, and we obtain this figudividing the state's coastline length by the number of hurricanes which have affected that state. This valueIntroduced to show the concentration of landfalling hurricanes for each state. The smaller the number, thesmaller the distance between each landfall resulting in a greater concentration of landfalls over time. Forexample, the total coastline length for Texas Is 367 mi. Dividing this figure by the total number of hurricanlandfalls, in this case 37, gives the distance between landfalls of 9.9 mi. Alabama, on the other hand, only11 hurricane landfalls during this time period. Since Its coastline Is only 53 mi, the resulting distance betwilandfalls Is 4.8 mi, a higher concentration than Texas. The relative numbers for states should be used withsome caution, however, because the assumption of random distribution may not be valid. Portions of theAtlantic and Gulf coasts of Florida, for instance, may have significantly different landfall frequencies.
A tropical storm has maximum sustained winds of 39 to 73 mph. In this analysis, a tropical storm Is considto have affected a state if the center of the storm Intersected any portion of the state while the storm was Etropical storm Intensity. This does not Include periphery effects from storms affecting adjacent states or
countries. To obtain these data, a very detailed analysis of each track was performed using the yearly traccharts (Neumann, et al. 1999) In conjunction with the Atlantic track file (Jarvinen, et al. 1984). The resultsshown in Appendix B.
Using the results in Appendix B, Table 3 was constructed to represent the total number of tropical storms'have affected each state, along with the frequency and return period. The methodology for computing freqand return period is the same as Table 2, except each hit represents a tropical storm passing through anyof the state, and not just a coastal landfall. Table 4 shows the number of landfalling hurricanes and tropicastorms which have affected each coastal state, along with the frequency and return period. Once again, thmethodology for computing frequency and return period Is the same as Tables 2 and 3.
4. Summary
The main purpose for this study is to show which states are more susceptible to tropical storms and hurricby using frequency of occurrence and the return period. The distance between landfalling hurricanes wasintroduced to compare which states have the most concentration of landfalls, or in other words, the smalleaverage distance between landfalls over the 104-year data span. I emphasize again, however, that the lera state's coastline plays a significant role In the likelihood of a land-falling storm (I.e., exposure), and a Ioncoastline decreases the possibility that land-falling storms will strike with equal likelihood along all parts ofcoast. The latter is especially true for Florida and Texas (Eisner and Kara 1999).
Over the years, certain cycles and patterns of tropical cyclones affecting coastal states can be observed.patterns Include periods when most of the storms made landfall along the east coast of the U.S. verses thicoast, during El Nino/La Nifna events, etc. Such distinctions were not attempted In this paper, as many NItoffices within the studied area have performed local studies to address these issues. The subject Is also 'A
covered in many published papers and texts, see for example Elsner and Kara (1999) and its references.
Results presented in this study represent averages, and are not intended for use as a forecast of when thitropical storm or hurricane will affect a state. Instead, they may serve as a general tropical cyclone climatefor coastal states as well as some inland states as noted in this analysis.
5. Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank the many authors and editors of the various publications used in this study,especially Neumann, et al. (1993), without which this analysis would have been close to impossible to conMany thanks also go to Lee Harrison (MIC) and Ken Falk (SOO) of WFO Shreveport, as well as Steve Rir(MIC) of WFO Lake Charles for allowing time to complete this project and reviewing the format and conterthis paper.
6. References
DeLorme, 1997: Street Atlas USA. Vers. 3.0. CD-ROM Computer Software.
1-atnr-Mtvisfil rob nrnoa t~s}rrrreea*r"rlfin nM/l <11(111A
Eisner, James B. and A. Birol Kara, 1999: Hurricanes of the North Atlantic - Climato and Society. OxfordUniversity Press.
Famighelli, Robert, 1996: The WorldAlmanac and Book of Facts. 1997 ed.
Huschke, Ralph E., 1959: Glossary of Meteorology. American Meteorological Society, Boston, MA.
Jarvinen, Brian R., Charles J. Neumann, and Mary A. S. Davis, 1984: A Tropical Cyclone Data Tape for thNorth Atlantic Basin, 1886-1983: Contents, Limitations, and Uses. NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS-\22.
Neumann, Charles J., Brian R. Jarvinen, Colin J. McAdie, and Joe D. Elms, 1999: Tropical Cyclones of thNorth Atlantic Ocean, 1871-1998. Historical Climatology Series 6-2, Asheville, North Carolina, National ClData Center.
Notes:Asterisks (*) indicate that all hurricanes in this category were moving in excess of 30 mph. Thehurricane (direct hits) portion of this table Is taken from the NOAA publication Tropical Cyclones of theNorth Atlantic Ocean, 1871-1998 (Neumann, et al. 1999). Additional data for the years 1999-2002were obtained from the National Hurricane Center's web site using the updated Atlantic track file(Jarvinen, et al. 1984) through 2002.
Coastline lengths were obtained from NOAA/Department of Commerce by using The World Almanacand Book of Facts (Famighetti, 1996). The measurements were made with a unit measure of 30minutes of latitude on charts with a scale of 1:1,200,000. The coastline of sounds and bays wasincluded to a point where they narrow to the width of unit measure, and included the distance acrosssuch a point. The plus sign (+) indicates that this coastline was estimated by using the CD-ROMsoftware package (DeLorme, 1997).
The distance between landfalls was obtained by dividing the area's coastline by the number ofhurricanes to affect that area.
To page 3
ht-hsa orh nnoan nn/e/osrl/snia0htm AvI ;/^Inn4
www.nws.noaa.gov
IS search - Hi
Local forecast by"City, St' or zip code
HomeTEXT ONLY HEREICurrent Hazards
SW La./SE Tex.OutlooksShelter-In-Place
Current ConditionsObservationsSatellite ImageryRiver & Lake AHPS
Note: In this table, a tropical storm Is considered to have affected a state If the center of the stointersected any portion of the state while the storm was at tropical storm Intensity.
Table 4. Total tropical storms and hurricanes affecting the Individual coastal states, 1899.2002.
Area Total Frequency | Return Periodl | (storms per year) J (years)
httn flu\nutxt zrh -nr~nf arlhrcnr/t ir htnm nes ;/1n004
|Virginia (VA) I 21 | 0.20 1 5.0 l
Note: The hurricane information used for this table came from the NOAA publication TropicalCyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean, 1801-199b (Neumann, et al. 1999). Additional data for thyears 1999-2002 were obtained from the National Hurricane Center's web site using the updateAtlantic track file (Jarvinen, et al. 1984) through 2002.
.4 |1985 AUG Danny 1 |LA15 1985 SEP Elena 3 |AL3,MS3
1985 SEP Gloria 3 NC 3, NY 3*, CT 2*, NH 2*, ME 1*1985 OCT IJuan 1 |_LA I
11 1985 NOV | Kate | 2 FL22 1986 JUN |Bonnie 1 TX 13 1986 AUG jCharley j 1 NC 1, VA 17 1987 OCT Floyd 1 FL 16 1988 SEP Florence 1 LA 13 1989 AUG |Chantal 1 |TX 18 119891 SEP I Hugo 4 SC 410 |1989I OCT IJerry | 1 |TX 1
1991 AUG Bob 2 Rl2, MA2, NY2 CT22 11992 AUG Andrew 5 FL 5, LA 35 1993 AUG jEmily 3 jNC 35 |1995 AUG I Erin 2 IFL2
15 1995| OCT IOpoal 3 [FL 32 1996 JUL IBertha | 2 NC 26 1996 SEP I Fran J 3 |NC3
11997 JUL JDanny J 1 LA 1, AL 12 1998 AUG |Bonnie 2 NC25 1998 | SEP E 1 1 |FL17 1998 SEP Georges | 2 |FL 2, MS22 |1999 1 AUG |Bret I 3 |_TX 36 j1999 SEP |Floyd | 2 |NC2
199 | OCT |Irene | 1 |FL 112 |2002 | OCT |Lili 1 |LA 1
Notes: Asterisks (*) indicate that all hurricanes in this category were moving in excess of 30 mpThe state abbreviations legend can be found in table 2. The information used for this appendix,from table 6 of the NOAA publication Tropical Cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean, 1871-199£(Neumann, et al. 1999). Additional data for the years 1999-2002 were obtained from the NationHurricane Center's web site using the updated Atlantic track file (Jarvinen, et al. 1984) through.
8 1942| OCT |- J |NC6 |1943| SEP |- | |LA7 1943 SEP/OCTI - | DE, MD3 1944 AUG |- 1 IDE,MD,NJ,VA6 1944 SEP |- |LAMS7 1944j SEP I- 3 IME11 1944 OCT |- 3 |NC,SC1 1945 JUN |- 1 |NC7 1945| SEP I- I |FL9 1945| SEP - 3 |GA,NC,SC,VA1 |1946 JUN | ILATX
2 |19461 JUL |NC5 |1946 OCT |- 1 IGA,NC,SC6 1946 NOV !- ! FL
1'itin-rHtimsma rh e nnb nn /IIhmrponyh/trnniralC him nA/i,,/nnA
I 1947 1 AUG| I TX
4 1947 SEP |- 1 4 ITX5 1947 SEP -AL, MS6 1947 SEP ______| FL, GA7 . 1947 O |- | IFL, GA2 JUL ____i IFL5 | 1948 SEP I -MS2 |19491 AUG - 3 GA, MD, NC, NY, SC, VA, PA, VT5 1949 SEP |- l LA, MS10 1949 OCT - 2 LA, AR2 11950 AUG Baker 1 FL5 1950 | SEP | Easy 3 GA11 |1950| OCT King j 3 GA13 1950 OCT |Love I |FL8 | 1951 OCT |How IFL1 1952 FEB - |FL2 |1952 AUG/SEPI Able 1 MD, NC, VA, PA
.119531 JUN lAlice |FL
3 |j1953 AUG/SEPI- |FL, GA7 ] 1953 SEP . FL12 1953 OCT Hazel FL2 |1954 JUL Barbara |LA1 1955 AUG Brenda __ __LA2 19551 AUG Connie 3 MD, PA3 1955 | AUG |Diane 1 MD, NJ, NY, VA, PA5 |1955 AUG |- | LA,TX1 119561 JUN |- | | LA7 119561 SEP IFlossy 2 IGA1 | 1957 JUN __- I I FL, GA, SC3 |1957| AUG Bertha |LA,TX5 | 1957 SEP Debbie | FL6 1957 SEP |Esther I | LA
5 | 19581 SEP I Ella ! ITX
, .* . --. .,- Is: ......... L.. aIl II IVn)M
1 1959 MAY I Arlene |LA8 1959 SEP |Gracle I jNC10 1959 OCT Irene ] AL, FL11 1959 | OCT |Judith | FL1 1960 JUN | - ] ] TX3 19601. JUL Brenda CT, DE, GA, MA, MD, ME, NC, NH, NJ, I
5 1979 SEP I Elena I TX6 j1979j SEP j Frederic 3 NY, KY, PA, TN, WV4 |19801 SEP |Danlelle [. |TX,2 1981 JUN/JUL I Bret IVA4 _ _ 19811 AUG ( Dennis IFL, NC, SC4 |119821 SEP I Chris I ILA, TX2 1983 AUG |Barry |FL
9 1985 OCT Isabel |_ |_FL, GA10 O198510CT/NOVlJuan IAL, FL11 | 1985 NOV |Kate 1 | GA, NC, SC1 1987 AUG } 2 TX2 1988 AUG . Beryl | |_LA3 1988 AUG Chris IGA, SC12 1988 NOV Keith | IFL1 1989 JUN Allison |TX8 1989 _SEP |Hugo | 4 | NC,VA,OH,WV13 19901 OCT I Marco__ I FL2 1991 AUG |Bob 2 ME2 11992 AUG | Andrew 4 MS5 1992 SEP Danielle DE, MD, VA, PA1 1993 JUN Arlene |TX1 1994 JUL Alberto | AL, FL
2 |1994 AUG Beryl | AL, FL, GA7 1994 NOV Gordon | FL1 1995 JUN Allison | FL, GA
4 |I19 JUL IDean I | TX5 1995 AUG Erin 1 2 AL, MS10 1995 AUG Jerry I FL
1s#_. //ws ...... dean _ __ -lhnns _^ IC h nAi 7Arfl4
|15 1 995 OCT I Opal 3 I AL1 |1996 JUN lArthur I jNC
7 __ 2002 SEP Gustav | |NC8 2002 SEP Hanna _ AL, LA, MS9 2002 SEP Isidore | LA, MS11 20021 OCT Kyle _ NC, SC12 2002 OCT Lill 1 |AR
Notes: In this table, a tropical storm is considered to have affected a state if the center of the stiintersected any portion of the state while the storm was at tropical storm intensity. The hurricane(highest U.S. category) portion of this table is taken from the NOAA publication Tropical Cyclonthe North Atlantic Ocean, 1871-1998 (Neumann, et al. 1999). Additional data for the years 199M2002 were obtained from the National Hurricane Center's web site using the updated Atlantic tnfile (Jarvinen, et al. 1984) through 2002.
h1ttrv/llmi'.,? VA neon I-It/l"-/ra rph/trnpio1l Lena nvvl imnn
THE NORTH ATLANTIC HURRICANE OF SEPTEMBER 8-16, 1944
By E. C. SUMNER
(Weather Beanc, Wasbhinton, D. C.1
DURING September 14 and the morning of the 15than intense hurricane, similar in many respects to the
destructive storm of 1938, lashed 900 miles of the eastcoast of the United States from Hatteras northward.The tracks of these two storms are reproduced in chart I.As they occurred in an interval of less than 6 years,. andwere the first intense tropical storms to -reach -the NewEngland area in over 50 years, they will probably cometo be known as the First and Second 'New EnglandHurricanes.' Earlier storms, apparently of tropical origin,have ravaged the same section, and a listing of thesestorms is given later in this report. Tracks for those of1815 and 1821, which by coincidence also occurred withina period of 6 years, are traced in chart II.*
The hurricane of September 17-291,' 193S, is recognizednot only is the most destructive storm to reach the coastsof -is country but also, from the standpoint of damagein .ted, as one of the two greatest disasters in 'the historyof the continent. Reliable estimates have placed propertydamage in the San Francisco Earthquake and in theEur.-icane of 1 03S at about the same figure-$350,000,000.
Several hurricanes have resulted in a greater number offatalities, notably: The South Atlantic Coast storm oflate August 1893, with a loss of about 2,000 lives; theLouisiana-MAississippi hurricane of early October* 1893,with an estimated 1,800 fatalities; the Palm Beach hurri-cane of September 1928, which resulted in 1,836 deaths;and the Galveston hurricane and tidal wave, September8, 1900, which took a toll of about 6,000 lives.
Although the hurricane of 1944 was probably of asgreat intensity as that of 1938 while it swept over theAtlantic east of Florida, several circumstances combinedto militate against the heavy casualties and propertydamage that occurred in the 1938 storm. First amongthem was a gradual filling of the depression, and a resultantdrop in wind velocity after the center passed Hatteras.This decrease in the pressure gradient, coupled with a;lower progressive movement than accompanied theearlier storm, brou ht the center to the heavily populatedzoastal regions of .ew England in a less vigorous formthan was evidenced in the hurricane of 1938.
'Trac of the LU15 buhiLne constructed by Ta=ahM, from taespaP'r clpplngm1Ieeted and abstracted by Sryes DarUng sad iublished tn The Americ=n Jotuls! of3elence and Arts. Vol KI.LI, pp. 243-232 Now Esven 1842 Track of e 13S11 hbnicsne.iccording to Redbeld.
HISTORY OF TEE HURRICANE
The existence of the 1944 hurricane was first suspectedon the 8th of September when a pressure fall, accoln-panied by erratic vwinds, was noted moving into the Wind-ward- Islands.. This disturbed condition later showed acirculation pattern. "At 4 p. m. (E. W. T.) on the 8th,the presence of a tropical disturbance was announced ina preliminary advisory radioed-from San Juan, P. R.
Since this light circulation did not-account for otherindications that a strong disturbance existed in the vicin-ity, a reconnaissance plane was dispatched on the 9th tosearch for 'a storm farther north. This flight located anintense storm in'the vicinity of latitude 21° N., longi-tude 60°-W., and later reconnaissance proved it to be a.fully developed hurricane moving in a west-northwesterlydirection: -
From this point -to 'the northeast of the LeewardIslands the hurricane drifted west-northwestward, in theprevailing air stream, until further reconnaissance lo-cated the center off the northern Bahama Islands nearlatitude 27° N., longitude 74° W. on the 'evening of the12th. .At this stage of its progress the hurricane was solarge and violent that the term- "Great Atlantic Hurri-cane" was adopted in advisory messages from Miami inorder to convey a proper description.
A weather officer aboard an army reconnaissance planewhich became involved in the storm estimated the windat about -140 miles per hour. He reported turbulence sogreat that with the pilot and copilot both at the controlsthe plane could not be kept under control, and severaltimes it was feared it would be torn apart or crash out ofcontrol. -When they returned to base it was found that150 rivets had been sheared off on one wing alone.
At about 9 p. m. of the 12th, the storm was centerednear the 75th meridian and th'e e.cpected recurve to thenorthward became apparent. -Mloving almost due north,at a rate of 25-30 miles per hour, the center passed justeast of Hatteras at about 9:20 a.7m. (E. W. r.) on the14th. Then turning slightly to the northeastward itmoved up the coast, at an accelerated speed of about 40miles per hour, and crossed over eastern Long Island atabout 10 p. m. of the snme date. Moving inland aboutan hour later near Point Judith, R. I., the center crossed
18781594-11-44--i
MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW SErTEMBER 1944
the States of Rhode Island and Massachusetts, passinga short distance southeast of Boston, and moved intoMassachusetts Bay shortly after 1 a. In.
'The center again passed inland, on the Maine coast,' later crossed southeastern Newv Brunswick near the
head of the Ba, o'f Fundv. Late on the 15th it passedover Newfoundlabd and finall merged with an extra-tropical cyclone southeast of Greenland.
PRESSURE
'The lowest pressure so far reported for the 1044 hurri-cane is 947.2 imillibars (27.97 inches) recorded atHatteras,N. C., about 8:20 a. In. of the 14th. The reading is only0.12 of an inch hiher than the low pressure of 943.1millibars (27.85 inches) observed aboard the S. S. C&-inthiaduring the hurricane of 1938. It is quite possible that,when readings of barometric Pressure become availablefrom ships heavily involved in' the recent stoim evenlower readings than 'those above will be reported.'
The lowest sea-level pressure oii'record is areading of26.185 inches taken on August 18, 1927, aboard theDutch steamship Sapoeroea, while she was involved-in aPacific typhoon 460 -miles of the Island of Luzon in thePhilippines. The lowest sea-level pressure on record in theWestern Hemisphere is 26.35 inches, recorded in theFlorida Kers storm of September 2, 1935.
EiNDS
The highest wind velocity recorded by instrument wasan e:treme velocity of 134 miles per hour, observed atapproximately 12:20 p. m. on September 14,'at CapeHenry, Va. Maximum wind velocities equaled or ex-
ded all previous records at Hatteras, Cape Henry,Atlantic City, New York, and Block Island.
Stations in table 1, a summary of meteorological con-ditions accompanying the 1944 hurricane, are arrancned ina time sequence corresponding, as nearly as possible, tothe order in which they were affected by the storm
TIDES AND INUNDATIO1N
Fortunately, and in 'contrast to the hurricane of 1938,the recent storm struck inland over Connecticut, RhodeIsland and southeastern Massachusetts at a time ofnormahy low tide. In addition the latest storm struckthe coast obliquely, with. coastal points on the left orweaker side of the center. As a result the great storm tidewhich is created by the stronger winds in the 'riohthandquadrants, expended most of its force at sea. so tideheights were recorded in the recent storm which evenremotel y approach the 20- to 25-foot levels. registered in1938.
LOSS OF LIFE AND PROPERTY DAMIAGE
A total of 300 lives were lost as a. result of the 1944hurricane, a large proportion of them as -a result of 'Marine'
casualties. The 46 deaths listed as occurring along thecoastal areas of the 'United States is less than 10 percentof the 494 featalities resulting from the storm of 1938.Heavy marine casualties wvere directly related to in-tensified patrol Work and other exigencies resulting fromwar conditions. Prbperty damage Gas been estimated at' roxirmately $100,000,000 or about one-third tha~te..Inated for the 1938 hurricane.
A survey of the hurricanes of the past 50 years showsthat a constantly-improving hurricane warning servicehas brought about a progressive reduction in the numberof deaths per unit of hurrinane damage. A tabular break-down of casualties and damage, by States, is included intable 4.'
- WARNINGS AND ADVISORIES
A total of .51 warnings and advisories were issued bibthe .Hurricafie Warning Centers at San Juan,; MiasriiWashington, and Boston. Prompt, dissemination. ofthese wrnings by news distributing aencies r'esulted'inthe evacuation of thousands bf persons in threatenedareas, and the safeguarding from storm damage, insofaras was possibld.of pr6tectable property. In New YorkCity, durinig the.priod -of stormri inquiries from September12 to 15 inclusive,. fi total of 289,4SG calls Were receivedover. the autoniatic telephone 'system.
HISTORICAL .STORMS OF N . ENGLAND
Below are descriptions of three of the most severe NewEngland hurricanes. -'Other storms, probably all' oftropical origin, which'se-ioualy affected the New EnglandStates occurred on.August -19, '1788; September 8, 1869;October 23-24, 1878; and August 24, 1893.
August 15; 1635. Probably the earliest tropical stormon rec6rd in'New England'began -li6rtly 'after midnightwith heavy rainand' a wind tat had shied ifron south-southwest to northeast.. Later the > wind' 'increased -Inviol'nce'*nd'las ackompaenid by- torrential rain. . Afterthe gale had continued 5 -o'6 hours, the wind chdiiged tonorthwest and graduhlly subsided. During that month ahurricane possibly the same storm in .an earlier stageoccurred between Martinique and 'St. Kitts.
September 22-23, 1815. The- "Great September Gale'!of 1815 wvas bne ofthe most destrctive huirricanes toreach' New'.England." Heaviest 'damage occurred inRhode Islaid and central Alassachusetts. '.On the coastof Connecticut'high tides and hurricaine winids destroyedmany buildings and numerous vdsseli were driven ashore.The stoim began on September 22 and reached its heightshortly before noon on the fdllowing day. This' storm;which had moved up from the IVWt Indies, had beenrecorded at St. Bartholomew on the 18th. A survey. 6fthe dama e caused' by this hurricine6 convinced W. C.Redfield tEat the storm was a "progressive w'hirlwind,"'and as a rsiulthe began his study of cyclonology
*September 3, 1821. The center 4of this destructivehurricane crossed the western 'pa of Long Island aiid'passed niorthward'into Connecticut..
*.Complete acedints of most of these eiirly New Englandstorms can be found in Historic St6ims of New England"by Sidney Perley, The Saem' Press, 1891."
* *COwrEDGUI.NT8
The Weather Bureau wishes to. express its sincereappreciation to the many organizations and agencieswhich perfornmed essential roles in vitalizing the HurricaneWarning Service.
To the Arny Air. Forces newly organized WeatheUnit goes credit for the early detection of the storm, andfor securmng fixes on the center, direction of movements,and wind mtensities, at a time whendthe hurricane w*sstill some distance east of Antigua n the West Indies,and 5 days before signs indicative of such a circula9ti6lcould have beon picked up on the Atlantic coast. Withthe absence of radio weather reports from ships, thisaircraft' reconnaissance service, which is employed' bythe Army, Navy, and Coast Guard, was the only source'ofearly obseivational data.
Equally. appreciated is the unqualified support givenby all newsIdistributing agencies who, through their vastfacilities, wrere charged wh getting the warnings to thepublic. Personnel of the iewspapers and the radio net-works bent every effort toward the fufirlment of this trhyt.
SEP'TrnEP 1944 MONTMTY WElATHER REVIEW 189
T"LEi 1.-Meteorological data for the hurricane of Sept. 8-16, 1944, E. S. T. 1
Lowest W elct a d Mal~~ wn Time of '1 . elocity and Ti eo Velocity of o rsoinstto rsue lowest time oirecowestfor nmn direction erme extreme winds over
Pres ssre e of lss alt a 3velocity (fastest Miae veoiy got 33 milest r s u e ei d v l ct rm re.gister) Per hour
Nantnc1et, Mans....Fal Pi ss....e.............s .... . ....
South Weymouth, s M............... .. ...BluetonS. 5M s..................................Coacord. W 2... a.........................* Gloucesrer 2.ass ............... .............
Rockpoit 1 u.. ..... a s s............... ..Concord. NW. H...............................Portland, . M ind . ....... . . ............Bangor. Maine... -------- . .... . .................Eastpor: . an ................... .......111111nodkec.2Malne .......... .... .....* Houitor.- f.aline-.....Extreme Pressure a d hg etvlcte . .
27.97Z. 8323.1123. Sd23. 73
29.3123.042S. SC28.942M.412S. 34.2&. 4S323.0425. a23.922"' AA
am0 a10:35 a11:45 a12'10 P
6:50 p6:40 P6:40 p7:16 p8:50 p0:50 p9:45 p
l0:-09 P1-lo0p
1128 p10:30 P10:S0 P
17 NE..........
17 NE.-...58 SW.....
10 NW. I85 NW ....43 N.32 N . .....
-StI N '.....33 N......80 N......is3.......82. SE'..43 SE .....57 SW.....
10-00 a10:30 aI1Z0 a
6:43 p
7r.27 pII= p
100i1 P1117, p
Ito02W..
73 .........134......91 NE....34 .........
38 NE....62 N .. . ....
49...79 ......
1:13 p
10:0 p
12:45 a
950.
801L......
96 ..........
C03 I... ....
6
47
i
03)4
72
. . ---- I- ------ I------I-------------I.........I.......- AIN E ....
12 NW .. . ....15 NN-E....286 N...._.20 NE I....IS ENE....
a N..........
19 NNE....is N .-----
60.dot.........41 NE ........
40 NE....40HE........40..is.........
90' W .----
10:40 pIC:= p9:43 p
10:50 p1:S5 a
12:05 aIM3 a7:30 IL3.50 -a8130 aG.=4 a
72 NE....
40..
134 .... _
10:43 p
7:00 a3:621 a
601 ......." .......
- lEh.-1 i7 .
1.. . . .0.. . 2...
.. . ....
I oxyersnts observatiown taken on the 14th and 15Sth of September. I Estimnated.*Idrtrxled before highest velocity. # Claocked for 4 seconds (10:07 p).
I .Wlad taken from indicator. H1 R Wind taken trom hourly record.
I Equals or exceeds all previous reeords.
T.BLE 2.-Comparative data on the hurricanes of Sept. 17-21, 1988, T&aBLE.4.-Fatalilies, casuallies, and property damage in theand Sevt. 8-16. 19.1.4 cane of Sept. 8-16. 194.4*
Stor= 1933 14
Dateo- - - ---.-- Sept. 17%-21, I033..... SePt. 8.16. 1IN4'aeweefrtrpre.Newr21N~.* 6?`W_..:: Located by aircraft reaon-naissaince near 22., N.,
62.5 AN.Coast tnes crossed.-----New York and Connecticut. New York. Connecticut.
Rhode Island. bMassaqhn-setts, and Maine.
Lowest lbaroeter report- 943.1 milllbars (27.83 inches)ed at tsea.- S. S. ChrintAia.
Lowest Aaraineter report- M4.2 mifllibars; (27.94 Inches) 047.2 mnillibars (27.97, inches)ed aLnrZ coast. at Bellport Coast Guard at Hatteras, N. C.
Station. Long Island, AN.
Mfaxlimu wind veloc~ty $7 rsper hour from the Estimated 00 mfllesper hourand detfou for a S. Southwest at Providence, fromi the vest at ilsttgras,rainurz period. Rt. L, Blue Hill, I51 S.1I N. C.
Extreme -wind velocity ...... .......... 154 mIles per hour at Capeand .4floaction (fastest Henry, Va.M Be ftom rezister).
Veloci:-,of extreme gust- 158 mle pebour at Blue Estimated IS0 miles per bowrHill Obscratory, Milton, at Cape Renry, Va.M-ass.
Place of dissipation ..... Onterlo, Canada .M...... er-ged with extra-tropicaltow In the north Atlanticocean southeast of Green-land.
Number of persons kIlled.. 494 lives lost in New York 45 lives lost along thoesestand the New England coast. 344 lost at sea.States.
Estmastad. dms a -e .--- S0.000,000 to " S3000.000.. APProxImatel7 $100,000,000.
I The extremely high wind at Blue Hill at some distance from the burrtcnane center.enn partally to attributed to the upslope eilect at that station. Winds at the level ofthre surrxudIng ecunt:y were considerabl? lower.
T.4.U~ S.-Slorm tides during the hurricanes of Sept. 17-21, 1O38,and Sept. 8-16, 19A4 _____
Stae .on ofTim e ofHighest Tibje tif Eighest Eh'hbestdtde
Fgd FeeHatterus.X. C ..... 0 $zoo . M.. 7.0 :30 a. m.R orfo lk.V a4.4 1:30P.M. 6.8 12±0Op. vCaps Hffiry Va --------- 4.0 10:15 a. ns: 'RB 12:4 P. m.
Yedrk.iLY .. :............ &4 4.30p.mt.. 6.4 8:30P. M.W Hivcn.Conn............ 9.4 9:00P. M_ 10. 5 l0.l P. M.
,b~ien It. L............ 17.6 6.00 p.mI.. 12.0 10:45P. M.Doston, If ns.............. 11.3 ... ...... I 10:45 p.m.
I Height above mean low tide.3'Storm tides for the 1933 hurricane were observed on Sept. 21 and those for 1044 00
Sept. 14.IEstic-ated.
IOther OtherKildIlrdHomes Homes build. build. Boats Boats
I A release by the public relations oficle of the Nith Naval district lists 344 men, deador missing. from S vessels wrecked and sunk during the hurricane of Sept. S-16. 1941.The casunltlir were from ihe destroyer H'aavisgtas* ithe Coast Guard cutters Jraebo"and .Hcdioee the light vessel Vineyard &ound, and the minesweeper VUS-40l9. Thecutters capsized and sank while protecting a Liberty Ship torpedoed off the NorthCarolina coast, Iand the light vessel dragged anchor and sack about 2 miles to the north-eastward of her station of fMartha's Vineyard, M.%ass.
Fatalities, casuaotjes, and property damage in the hurricane of'Sept. 17-21, 1938*IHomes Homes Other Otuidh oaseoas
state Kiled Injuredl de- dam- btild. I ns d- dam..is troyed aged fatis de ig stoed gertroyed da-3rydae
*Condensed from reports released by the A1merican Rled Cross.
I'll
MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEWEditor, EDGAR W. WOOLARD4
VOL. 72, No. 12W. B. No. 1429 DECEMBER 1944 CLOSED FEBRUAa Y 5, 1945
ISSUED MARCH 5, 1945
NORTH ATLANTIC HURRICANES AND TROPICAL DISTURBANCES OF 1944
By E. C. SCUxznE[lwttber Buranu, Wasbingtcn, D. C.. December :9H4 :
THE intense Atlantic coast hurricane of September 8-16.and the Florida-Cuba storm of October 13-21, each of
which wrought damage in excess of S100,000,000, carriedthe hurricane season of 1944 into second position amongthe most. destructive years of record. The historicaNew England hurricane of September 17-21, 1938, whichfrom the viewpoint of property damage was probably thegreatest natural disaster ever to befall the country, placedthe season of 1938 at the top of the list. Other seasonshave been more costly in the loss of human life, notablythat of 1900 during which the great Galveston hurricanecaused the death of about 6,000 persons.
Although the number of tropical disturbances detectedduring tbe past season was only slightly above the averageof 8.6 storms per year for the last decade, the season of1944 was notable for the high percentage of storms thatdeveloped full hurricane minds along the Atlantic coastnorth. of Florida. No tropical disturbances of any -con-3equ~ence struck the Gulf coast of the United States westof -rida, although two huiricanes moved inland or. theMi.. scan east coast and caused considerable damage.
Aicraft reconnaissance which was inaugurated duringthe 1943 season was extensively used for securing earlyfixes oil tropical disturbances during the past year, andbrought the Hurricane Warning Service an excellent newtool for detecting the'presence and probable movement oftropical hurricanes.
Below are reviews of the individual hurricanes and tropi-mal disturbances of 1944 taken in the main from stationreports. A synopsis of some of the more important fea-cures ot these storms is given in the tabular listing at theend of this summary; and their tracks numbered I to X,2hronologically. are plotted on the accompanving chart.
I. Tropical disturbance of July 12-19.-The first tropicalstorm of the season developed cast of the Bahama Islands)n the 14th of July from a wave disturbance that had been:raced from the eastern Caribbean Sea, where it was firstaoted near the Grenada Islands on the 11th. It moved;1irouzh Mlona Passage on the evening of the 192th withoutihowving signs of development. The first evidence of in-reasin- intensitv was noted as it neared Turks Island on
;he 13th, and by the 14th a definite circular wind patternlad been established. At this time the Bahama Islandsvere reporting fairly high ocean swells moving on the coastrt the rate of about six per minute.
Moving north-northw.restward and increasing slowly inntensitv the center reached a position near latitude'31l;o 32° N., longitude 76° W., by the evening of the 15th,Lt -li4ch tune a slowing of progressive movement was evi-le' and the subsequent recurve toward the northeast)egan. Bermuda reported winds of approximately 40niles per hour as the center passed about 250 miles to theiorthwest of that station. No strong gwinds were re-
ported from stations along the east coast of the UnitedStates. Althouglh no actual observations of hurricanewinds are available over ocean areas, it is believed thatthis storm was of hurricane force from about the time itcurved to the northeastward.
II Tropical storm-July 24-26.-On July 24 a smalldisturbance was noted east of Martinique and Santa Lucia.About 7 p. 'm.1 of that date the center passed betweenthose islands and a maximum wind of 55 miles per hour-was reported from Fort de France,. a town which had beenall but destroyed by the disastrous hurricane of August1891.
The disturbance moved rather rapidly west-north-westward and was located by -aircraft reconnaissancenear latitude 160 N., longitude' 67° W., at 2:30 p. m. onthe 25th. After this fix the center was not again defi-nitely located, but there were positive evidences that itwas near the coast of Haiti not far south of Port au Princeon the mnorning of the 26th. A wind of 70 knots was en-countered by an airplane near this point (exact locationand elevation unknown), and the Port -au Prince upperair soundings shouted winds aloft of hurricane force, waithsqualls of 35 miles per hour at the surface. "Consider-able damage" was reported from the town of Jacmel onthe coast south of Port au Prince. Indications are thatthe small center struck the high mountains of the HaitianPeninsula and was broken up. It is not believed thatwinds of hurricane force accompanied this storm at thesurface, but that velocities of about 60 miles per hourmarked its entire course.
III. Hurricane-July 30-August 4.-The first tropicalstorn of 1944 to reach the coast line of the United Statesformed east of the Bahamas during the night of July 30-31from a wave that, during the previous 2 days, had movedfrom the region northeast of Puerto Rico. The centerwas definitely located by reconnaissance about 175 milesnortheast of v'assau at about 7 a. Il. on the 31st. Movingnorth-northwestward the storm approached 'the NfortlCarolina coast with slowly increasing intensity andmoved inland south of Southport at about 7 p. m. onAugust 1. The diameter of the storm was snall butreports indicate that winds were of hurricane force.
The Coast Guard station on Oak Island reported awind of 59 miles per hour before the wind indicatorfailed at 4:30 :p.' m. Winds increased thereafter and atabout 5:50 p m. -were estimated at 70 to 80 miles perhour. The lowest observed pressure 29.22 inches (989.5millibars) occurred on Oak Island at 6:30 p. m.
The Wilmington Weather Bureau Office, located about20 miles inland, reported a maximum velocity (maintainedfor a 5-minute period) of .40 miles per hour, an extreme
IAll times referred to La this sammary are eastern standard.
237
MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW DCEMuBrn 1944
7elocity of 52 miles per hour, and a lowest pressure of29.43 inches (996.6 millibars3.
Damage to property and crops in the Wilmington areaat Ben estimated at about S2,000,000. On the beaches,
rdl-.4cularly at Carolina and Wrichtsville, many housesind cottagees were destro-ed or -had their foundationsundermined by Nigh tides and extremely high s as.tubstandally built structur ei not subject to under:miningby water action went through the stormi without damage.A guest at the Ocean Texrjite Hotel, Wrightsville Beach,who had retired early, awvoke the mnorning after the stormand found, after a sound night's sleeD, ihat she was thesole occupant of a hotel from whiclh everyone else hadbeen evacuated. Property lotsse in the city of Wilrrunp-ton have been reported as totaling about $60,000. tind inSouthport-the danmage fiture has been plced at Ig0,000.Slight storm damage was reported irom the *beachesnorth of WNilmington.
Crop damage was heaviest in the counties of 2\NewHanover, Brunswick, Onslow, and Pender. The countyagent of -N-ew Hanover County has estimated crop losst'sfor the entire area at S1,209,000.
M-lore than 10,000 persons were evacuated frot beachesand e-xposed locations in advance of thie storm, and as aresult no lives v.-ore lost and few serious injuries werereported.
Moving north from the Wilnirligton rea the centerbeguan a recurve to the norTheastwtird, passed near Rich-mond and Weashlitton about noon of the 2d, and movedout to sea near it antic Cit-% where nn extreme wind of38 miles per hour was recorded duiinc the afternoon' of thesame day. At Washington, 6.15 inches of rain fell duringRa -hour period as the storm center passed east of thaten.>. This amount, the second heaviest 24-hour fall in71 years of record at that station, is exceeded only bythe 7.31 inches that accompanied passage of an earlierhurricane on August 11-12, 192-S. There is no indicationthat tbe storm regained intenst;v over the oceall ns itskirted the southern New Enhgland coast.
IV. Hurricane of August 16-235.-This smnll intensestorm was first noted east of Barbndos on the lbtlh.Passirnr south of Barbados and over thbe Grenada Jslandiduringl tle nibht it entered tbe Coriblbenn not far fromSt. VfiIcent abort. 8:30 a. m. on the 17th.
On the morning of August 18, a vessel, el) route fromNew Orleans to Buenos Aires, -fwas heavilv involved in tLkestorm rnear 15°i0' N., 60640' W. or about 180 mlS les southof Puerto Rico. The muster reported a low barometerrending, of 2S.74 inches (973.3 millilbars) which coincidedin time with a 5-to 10-minute calni which aecompaniedpassage of thc storm center. A fall in baromletric pressureof 40 millibars in 3 hours preceded the low reading and asimilar rise in the same spnee of rime followed passage ofthe center. Winds were estimated at 70 to C0 miles perhour with ceiling arid visibility zero. Evcen wvith fullspeed ahead to reduce poulldillng GnI the port side it Wasvirtually impossible to keep the Cvessel of S.49S gross tons,and a nmaximum speed of 14 knots, lweaed into the windsince the ship was swungt, to-and-fro by the force of the.
Followingr its west-nortli'vest course the lunricalneA.t inlntd over the soutlheast coast of Jamraics, in the
I. .tou Bey nrca, shortly before noon on tbe 20th andpassed off thle twestern const near Mlontego Bay sone hourslIter. The stornm lost muchl of its intensitv as it. crossedthe island, for w^indes ftll from ani estimnted 100 to 120miles per hour on the east coast to 80 miles per ho]ur in thevicinity of BMontero where d(namnre was not serious.
uinzston in the rizlht-hand semicircle of lesser windsreported a marndmani of 60 miles per hour from the west-southwest and a low pressure of 29.50 incnes (999.0 milli-bars). Heavies;n damage occurred in the main bananaand coconut belt, two cropis -whieh are aniong the nmostimportant on the Islanld. Press photos show thlat onsoxne of the large coconut plantations, in the more seriouslYaffected aree!s, not a tree was left standin=.
The hurricane center passed 1ear Grafnd Caviman Islandon the 21st with winds of 80 to 90 mniles per hour, in gusts,
and more tlan 20 gusts over S0 miles per hour reported.No damnage reports have been received from GrtndCayman.
On the morning of the 20d the center moved inland onthe west coast of YucAau aa short distance south of Cozu-mel Island. and while it lost force in passing over thePeninsula, it emerged into the Gulf of M1exico intact andmoved westward into Mexico a short distance south ofTuxpan. According to press reports at least 12 deathswere caused inland in M\ exico as a result of floods thatamcompanied dissipation of the storm.
A conservative estimate of fatalities resulting from thishurricane, taken from incomplete statistics, places loss oflife at 216. M\Iarine casualties include a British snilinc,vessel vwhich disadpeared near the Grenada Islands with74 persons aboard, nl! of whom are presunmed lost; andthc. 110-foot motorship I.Tand Tradler, out of Mtfianmi forBelize, vwhich was reported lost off Yucntan without detailsof loss of life and cargo being given. In addition vaxiousdegrees of damage have been reported from other ships.
Estimates of property damnage are incomplete but willtotal several million dollars. rExtremely heavy crop losseswere suffered on Jamaica, where a crippling blow wasdoalt rowers, exporters, and industrialists depcundent iponthe hbchlv important banana and coconut yields. Themost autboritative estimate of the mlrdber of coconuttrees destroved on the whole Island is 41 percent, whilebanana trees which were concentra'ted in'the stricken zone,were about 90 percent destroyed. Damage figures ior*other areas affected by the hurricane are not available.
V. Minor tropical distarbance of August 20-.2.-Development of a circulation and nn increase in intensitywas noted north of the Yucatan Peninsula, in an isallo-baric wave that for soine timo had been moving westwardthrough the Caribbean. The disturbance continued awestward or west-northlwestward movement and crossedthe M1exican coast south of Brownsville about noon of the22fd. Hliahest, winds observed at coastal stations were34 miles per hour at Fort Isabel and 32 miles per hour atBrownsville. The disturbance did not develop winds ofmore than moderate gale force.
VI. The intense ANew Enqland hurricane of September8-16.-The second most destructive hurricane in the
history of the country struck inland over Long Island onSeptember 14, took a toll of 390 lives (including marinecasualties), and wrought property damage of overS100,000,000.
A complete report of this hurricane, in lwhich listings oflowest pressures, highest winds, tides, fatalities, and prop-erty damage are tabulated and compared withl lil-.e figuresfor the great. New England hurricane of September 193S,can be found iL thel MONTHLTY WrUTHUR REVIEw, SCPtem-bor 1944; 72: 187-hS9.
VII.. Tropical disturbance of Seytember 8-10.- A partialwind circulation, evident early in the afternoon of Sep-tember 7, developed and .within the next 36 hours isobarswith cyclonic curvature covered the entire west Gulf, andsuggested a complete -wind circulation with center near
DEcE:wBm 1944 EMONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW 239
latitude 230 N., longitude 940 W. First moving north-ward and turning to the northeastward during the 9th it.reached the vicinity of Mobile late on the 10th, accorn-,rauied by heavy washing rains that continued for about
hours and moderate to fresh, occasionally gusty, east-erly wnvds.
At Mobile a low pressure of 29.63 inches -(1,003.4 milli-bars).was reached at.2 45 p. in. on the 10th. At approxi-mately the same time, the windjreached a maximumvelocity of 18 miles per hour from the .south with a fewgusts reaching 30 miles per-hour.- Penisacola Naval AirStation reported a maximum wind velocity of 54 milesper hour.
High tides and heavy rains vWere responsible for prac-tically all of the damage reported. 'High tide in theMobile River, reached shortly before .the.computed timeof low tide, was 3.8 feet above sea level, the highest tidesince September 1, 1932. The heaviest 24-hour rainfallsince 1937, 7.04 inches, was retisteied'at Mobile.. Otherexcessive 24-hour falls included 9.50 inches at Springhill,10.15 inches at Riv-er Falls, and 11 inches at BellingrathGardens about 295 miles south of Mobile;
Streets in Mlobile'werc looded to depths ranging from6 to 1S inches, and rain water backed into the lower floorsof some homes in the southern section of the city. Inthis area small boats were used on some streets betiveen10 a.' m. and 3 p. m. on the' 10th. The bridge causewaywas closed part of the afternoon when water to a depth of1 foot. washed over it. No fatalities or injuries resultingfrom the storm have been reported.
Reduction of various crops in Mobile and Baldwincounties as a result of flooding have been estimated as' 'lows: corn 15 percent, soy beans 10 percent, hay 40
d.cent, peanut hay 30 percent, and fall potatoes 40percent.
VIII. Hurricane of September 19-21.-Forming from awave in .the Caribbean Sea near the Yucatan Channel,this storm quickly developed a small center with windsof about hurricane force and moved into northern Yuca-tan on the 20th: Curving toward the southwest and
passing south of M-erida, it entered the Gulf of Mlexico atCarmpeche about midnight of the 2Oth-21st. Traversinga small extent of the Gulf the center reentered. Mexicobetween Coatzacoalcos and Ciudad del Carmen in the lateafternoon of the 21st. Reports received from Yucatanand from aircraft indicate a very small center with winds6f 75 miles per hour throughout tho life of this storm.
Although no figured estimates of total damage in Mexicoare available, it is known that floods and resultant land-slides did extensive daimnage to transport and communica-tion systems.
Press reports indicate that 200-300 persons drowned infloods that occurred in the Isthmus of Tehuanepec, and 2or 3 crew members were lost in the sinking of a Mexicanschooner of 150 tons off the coast of Caampeche.
IX Slight tropical disturbance of October 1-2.-Develop-jng from distuirbed and squally conditions that had beennoted east of the Lesser Antilles, during the several daysprevious, this disturbance moved. northward near the60th meridian into a strong trough that existed east ofBermuda. The storm did not develop hurricane windsand no reports of damage to shipping have.been'rdecived7
X. The severe Florida-Cuba hurricane of October 18-01.-A detailed report on this storm, which took a toll of over.300 lives and resulted in total property damage exceeding$100,000,000, is contained in the No0TrHLY W'EATHERREVIEVw, November 1944; 72: 221-223.* Slorm.-On November 2 at iabout 5:30 a. in. a vessel,
involved in a storm near latitude 11° N., longitude 82036'. W., sent a report of a 60 knot wind from the west,pressure 29.60 inches (1,002.4 millibars), seas mountain-ois, and vessel laboring heavily. Similar conditions werereported for about 3 hours, during which time the vesselcalled for assistance. The storm dissipated or smoved in-land a short time later as aircraft reconnaissance early onthe following day failed to locate any disturbance. Sinceit is impossible to trace a movement, from available re-ports, or to determine whether the ship weas involved in.asmall hurricane or a very severe squall, this storm iscarried as a matter of record, and it is not listed as atropical disturbance of the past season.
Fop- IdrAu 000
IMPORTANT....INSURANCE INQUIRIES. Certified data CAN ONLY be obtained through the NationalClimatic Data Center
* Storm Surveys of Gaston. Visit the Certified Consulting Meteorologist web site via the AMS OR. NWS INDUSTRIAL METEOROLOGY web site.
Tropical storm Gaston brought intense rainfall and isolated tornados to south central Viriginia. Clickon the thumbnail graphics and look for updates to this page during the next 48 hours.
Richmond 24hr Rainfall Records
|x Clickthumbnail ofRadarPrecipitationTotals
24 Hour RadarProducedStorm TotalRainfall
i9orm Date (nhs1 J Connie Aug 12, 19551 8.792 Gaston Aug 30, 20041 6.683 if if Sept 15-16, 65
PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT... UPDATED FOR NEW KENT AND CHRONOLOGYNATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE WAKEFIELD VA920 AM EDT FRI SEP 3 2004
THE REMNANTS OF TROPICAL STORM GASTON MOVED ACROSS SOUTHERNVIRGINIA ON MONDAY AUGUST 30 2004. THIS SYSTEM SPAWNED NUMEROUS WEAKTORNADOES DURING THE AFTERNOON HOURS. NWS PERSONNEL CONDUCTED STORMDAMAGE SURVEYS. AT THIS TIME WE HAVE CONFIRMED TWELVE TORNADOES.THIS NUMBER MAY INCREASE SLIGHTLY SINCE WE HAVE A FEW MORE SITES TOSURVEY. ALL OF THE TORNADOES WERE RATED AT FO ON THE FUJITA SCALE.FO TORNADOES HAVE WINDS LESS THAN 73 MILES PER HOUR.
..TIME..... DATE...
..EVENT....MAG....
.REMARKS..
... CITY LOCATION ...LAT.LON...
..COUNTY LOCATION... ST.. -SOURCE....
1210 PM08/30/2004
TORNADOFO
4 WNW CENTER STARDINWIDDIE
37.13N 77.70WVA NWS STORM SURVEY
FO TORNADO. TREES DOWN/DAMAGED..SHED LIFTED UP AND THROWNINTERMITTENTLY ALONG A PATH FROM 4 WNW CENTER STAR TO 1 WFORD.
0110 PM08/30/2004
TORNADOFO
3 W BLACKSTONENOTTOWAY
37.08N 78.06WVA NWS STORM SURVEY
MINIMAL DAMAGE. SHEET METAL ROOFING RIPPED OFF OF CHURCH.
TOPS OF TREES SNAPPED OFF.
0120 PM08/30/2004
TORNADOFO
CLAREMONTSURRY
37.23N 76.97WVA PUBLIC
TREES DOWN.. .MINOR BUIILDING DAMAGE. TORNADO BEGAN NEARCLAREMONT AND ENDED IN THE UPPER BRANDONS PLANTATION AREAOF NORTHEAST PRINGE GEORGE COUNTY. PATH LENGTH APPROX 2MILES.
0135 PM08/30/2004
TORNADOFO
HOPEWELL 37.29N 77.30WCITY OF HOPEWELL VA NWS STORM SURVEY
FO TORNADO IN APPOMATTOX MANOR AREATREES BLOWN DOWN/DAMAGED. DAMAGE TOTREE DAMAGE SEEN FROM THIS POINT TOCHESTER.
OF HOPEWELL. 25 TO 30SHED. INTERMITTENTABOUT 2 MILES NW OF
0142 PM08/30/2004
TORNADOFO
3 NW JAMESTOWNJAMES CITY
37.25N 76.80WVA NWS STORM SURVEY
50 YARDS WIDE. INTERMITTENT PATH 3 MILES. FROM NEARWILLIAMSBURG ARPT TO JAMESTOWN HIGH SCHOOL.
0240 PM08/30/2004
TORNADOFO
2 NW JAMESTOWNJAMES CITY
37.24N 76.79WVA OFFICIAL NIS OBS
20 YARDS WIDE. 2/10 MILES LONG. NEAR DRUMMONDS FIELDSUBDIVISION AND THE JAMES RIVER.
POQUOSON 37.13N 76.38WCITY OF POQUOSON VA NWS STORM SURVEY
TREES DOWN ON RIVER ROAD AND WYTHE CREEK ROAD.
0333 PM08/30/2004
TORNADOFO
HAMPTONCITY OF HAMPTON
37.05N 76.29WVA COUNTY OFFICIAL
HALL ROAD. SHED AND TREE DAMAGE.
.0356 PM08/30/2004
TORNADOP0
2 SE TABBYORK
37.11N 76.43WVA NWS STORM SURVEY
TREES DOWN AND DAMAGE TO ROOFS PINEWOOD DR AND HWY 134.INTERMITTENT TRACK 1.7 MILES LONG AND 40 YDS WIDE.
0400 PM08/30/2004
TORNADOFO
1 N SEAFORDYORK
37.21N 76.43WVA NWS STORM SURVEY
ROOF BLOWN OFF OF GARAGE...TREE DAMAGE. PATH LENGTHONE-TENTH OF A MILE.
0415 PM08/30/2004
TORNADOFO
2 N NEW KENT
NEW KENT37.55N 76.98W
VA PUBLIC
TORNADO TOUCHED DOWN AT CUMBERLAND HOSPITAL... DOWNINGTREES AND CAUSING SOME STRUCTURAL DAMAGE. TORNADO THENCAUSED INTERMITTENT DAMAGE TO TREES ALONG A NEARLY 6MILES PATH ENDING ABOUT 2 MILES SOUTH OF TUNSTALL.
0435 PM08/30/2004
TORNADOFo
TUNSTALLNEW KENT
37.61N 77.12WVA NWS STORM SURVEY
TREES DOWN/DAMAGED ALONG RTES 606 607 619 AND... .INHANOVER COUNTY.. .RT 693.
PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENTNATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE WAKEFIELD VA1123 AM EDT TUE AUG 31 2004
THE FOLLOWING ARE SOME PRELIMINARY RAINFALL TOTALS(INCHES) ACROSSTHE REGION FROM TROPICAL STORM GASTON:
IN THE CITY OF RICHMOND VA:
ST. MARY'S SCHOOL 5.80CLOVER HILL H.S. 4.30WWBT TV-12 4.80ST. CHRISTOPHER'S SCHOOL 6.40SCIENCE MUSEUM 6.56MATH & SCIENCE CTR. 12.30RICHMOND AIRPORT 6.68WEST END 12.60
IN CHESTERFIELD CO.:
MIDLOTHIAN 4.30,CHESTER 6.20WINTERPOCK 5.69
IN HANOVER CO.:
ASHLAND VA ASOS 10.61* MECHANICSVILLE 10.70
IN THE CITY OF HOPEWELL VA:
CARTER G. WOODSON SCHOOL 5.40
IN BRUNSWICK CO.:
LAWRENCEVILLE 3.70
IN NOTTOWAY CO.:
CAMP PICKETT 4.96
IN HENRICO CO.:
SANDSTON 8.10
NOTE: WSR88D RADAR ESTIMATES SHOW THE HEAVIEST RAUNFALL (10 TO 12INCHES) OVER THE CITY OF RICHMOND AND WESTERN HANOVER COUNTY.
IMPORTANT....INSURANCE INQUIRIES. Certified data CAN ONLY be obtained through the NationalClimatic Data Center
. Storm Surveys of Gaston
. Visit the Certified Consulting Meteorologist web site via the AMS OR
. NWS INDUSTRIAL METEOROLOGY web site.
Tropical storm Gaston brought intense rainfall and isolated tornados to south central Viriginia. Clickon the thumbnail graphics and look for updates to this page during the next 48 hours.
PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT...UPDATED FOR NEW KENT AND CHRONOLOGYNATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE WAKEFIELD VA920 AM EDT FRI SEP 3 2004
THE REMNANTS OF TROPICAL STORM GASTON MOVED ACROSS SOUTHERNVIRGINIA ON MONDAY AUGUST 30 2004. THIS SYSTEM SPAWNED NUMEROUS WEAKTORNADOES DURING THE AFTERNOON HOURS. NWS PERSONNEL CONDUCTED STORMDAMAGE SURVEYS. AT THIS TIME WE HAVE CONFIRMED TWELVE TORNADOES.THIS NUMBER MAY INCREASE SLIGHTLY SINCE WE HAVE A FEW MORE SITES TOSURVEY. ALL OF THE TORNADOES WERE RATED AT FO ON THE FUJITA SCALE.F0 TORNADOES HAVE WINDS LESS THAN 73 MILES PER HOUR.
F0 TORNADO. TREES DOWN/DAMAGED..SHED LIFTED UP AND THROWNINTERMITTENTLY ALONG A PATH FROM 4 WNW CENTER STAR TO 1 WFORD.
0110 PM08/30/2004
TORNADOFO
3 W BLACKSTONENOTTOWAY
37.08N 78.06WVA NWS STORM SURVEY
MINIMAL DAMAGE. SHEET METAL ROOFING RIPPED OFF OF CHURCH.TOPS OF TREES SNAPPED OFF.
0120 PM08/30/2004
TORNADOF0
CLAREMONTSURRY
37.23N 76.97WVA PUBLIC
TREES DOWN... MINOR BUIILDING DAMAGE. TORNADO BEGAN NEARCLAREMONT AND ENDED IN THE UPPER BRANDONS PLANTATION AREAOF NORTHEAST PRINGE GEORGE COUNTY. PATH LENGTH APPROX 2MILES.
0135 PM08/30/2004
TORNADOF0
HOPEWELLCITY OF HOPEWELL
37.29N 77.30WVA NWS STORM SURVEY
FO TORNADO IN APPOMATTOX MANOR AREATREES BLOWN DOWN/DAMAGED. DAMAGE TOTREE DAMAGE SEEN FROM THIS POINT TOCHESTER.
OF HOPEWELL. 25 TO 30SHED. INTERMITTENTABOUT 2 MILES NW OF
0142 PM08/30/2004
TORNADOF0
3 NW JAMESTOWNJAMES CITY
37.25N 76.80WVA NWS STORM SURVEY
50 YARDS WIDE. INTERMITTENT PATH 3 MILES. FROM NEARWILLIAMSBURG ARPT TO JAMESTOWN HIGH SCHOOL.
0240 PM08/30/2004
TORNADOFO
2 NW JAMESTOWNJAMES CITY
37.24N 76.79WVA OFFICIAL NWS OBS
20 YARDS WIDE. 2/10 MILES LONG. NEAR DRUMMONDS FIELDSUBDIVISION AND THE JAMES RIVER.
POQUOSON 37i13N 76.38WCITY OF POQUOSON VA NWS STORM SURVEY
TREES DOWN ON RIVER ROAD AND WYTHE CREEK ROAD.
0333 PM08/30/2004
TORNADOFO
HAMPTONCITY OF HAMPTON
37.05N 76.29WVA COUNTY OFFICIAL
HALL ROAD. SHED AND TREE DAMAGE.
.0356 PM08/30/2004
TORNADOFO
2 SE TABBYORK
37.11N 76.43WVA NWS STORM SURVEY
TREES DOWN AND DAMAGE TO ROOFS PINEWOOD DR AND HWY 134.INTERMITTENT TRACK 1.7 MILES LONG AND 40 YDS WIDE.
0400 PM08/30/2004
TORNADOFo
1 N SEAFORDYORK
37.21N 76.43WVA NWS STORM SURVEY
ROOF BLOWN OFF OF GARAGE...TREE DAMAGE. PATH LENGTH
ONE-TENTH OF A MILE.
0415 PM08/30/2004
TORNADOFO
2 N NEW KENTNEW KENT
37.55N 76.98WVA PUBLIC
TORNADO TOUCHED DOWN AT CUMBERLAND HOSPITAL.. .DOWNINGTREES AND CAUSING SOME STRUCTURAL DAMAGE. TORNADO THENCAUSED INTERMITTENT DAMAGE TO TREES ALONG A NEARLY 6MILES PATH ENDING ABOUT 2 MILES SOUTH OF TUNSTALL.
0435 PM08/30/2004
TORNADOFo
TUNSTALLNEW KENT
37.61N 77.12WVA NWS STORM SURVEY
TREES DOWN/DAMAGED ALONG RTES 606 607 619 AND.. . INHANOVER COUNTY.. .RT 693.
PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENTNATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE WAKEFIELD VA1123 AM EDT TUE AUG 31 2004
THE FOLLOWING ARE SOME PRELIMINARY RAINFALL TOTALS(INCHES) ACROSSTHE REGION FROM TROPICAL STORM GASTON:
IN THE CITY OF RICHMOND VA:
ST. MARY'S SCHOOL 5.80CLOVER HILL H.S. 4.30WWBT TV-12 4.80ST. CHRISTOPHER'S SCHOOL 6.40SCIENCE MUSEUM 6.56MATH & SCIENCE CTR. 12.30RICHMOND AIRPORT 6.68WEST END 12.60
IN CHESTERFIELD CO.:
MIDLOTHIAN 4.30CHESTER 6.20WINTERPOCK 5.69
IN HANOVER CO.:
ASHLAND VA ASOS 10.61MECHANICSVILLE 10.70
IN THE CITY OF HOPEWELL VA:
CARTER G. WOODSON SCHOOL 5.40
IN BRUNSWICK CO.:
LAWRENCEVILLE 3.70
IN NOTTOWAY CO.:
CAMP PICKETT 4.96
IN HENRICO CO.:
SANDSTON 8.10
NOTE: WSR88D RADAR ESTIMATES SHOW THE HEAVIEST RAUNFALL (10 TO 12
INCHES) OVER THE CITY OF RICHMOND AND WESTERN HANOVER COUNTY.
Wi NCDC / Climate Resources / Climate Data / Events / Stonn Events /Results / Search / Help
Event Record Details
Event: Tropical StormBegin Date: 18 Sep 2003, 09:00:00 AM EST
Begin Location: Not KnownEnd Date: 19 Sep 2003,04:00:00 AM EST
End Location: Not KnownMagnitude: 0
Fatalities: 3Injuries: 0Property $ 45.1MDamage:
Crop Damage: $ 7.1M
State: VirginiaMap of Counties
Forecast Amelia, Brunswick,Zones Caroline,
affected: Chesterfield /Colonial Height,Cumberland,Dinwiddie /Petersburg,Fluvanna,Goochland, Hanover,Henrico / Richmond,King And Queen,King William,Louisa, Lunenburg,Mecklenburg,Nottoway, Powhatan,Prince Edward
Description:Tropical Storm Isabel produced tropical storm force sustained winds and mind gusts over thepiedmont of central and south central Virginia, as it crossed the Wakefield WFO countywarning area. Isabel made landfall near Ocracoke Inlet in North Carolina, tracked northwestinto central Virginia just west of Richmond, then continued northward into westernPennsylvania. The highest sustained wind speed recorded was 38 mph at RichmondInternational Airport. The highest gusts recorded were 73 mph at Richmond InternationalAirport, 63 mph at WWBT-TV, and 53 mph at Chase City in Mecklenburg county.Approximately several thousand persons were evacuated and housed in numerous sheltersacross the piedmont of central and south central Virginia. The unusually large wind fielduprooted many thousands of trees, downed many power lines, damaged hundreds of houses,and snapped thousands of telephone poles and cross arms. Hundreds of roads, includingmajor highways, were blocked by fallen trees. Over 2 million customers of Dominion VirginiaPower were without electricity. Local electrical cooperatives also reported thousands ofcustomers were without power. The lowest sea level pressure recorded was 987 mb atPortsmouth Virginia. Isabel will be remembered for the greatest wind and storm surge in theregion since Hazel in 1954, and the 1933 Chesapeake-Potomac Hurricane. Also, Isabel will beremembered for the most extensive power outages ever in Virginia, and permanent change tothe landscape from all the fallen trees and storm surge. Rainfall amounts ranged from 4 to 7inches across the piedmont of central and south central Virginia. Inland flooding due to heavyrainfall occurred over parts of the piedmont of central and south central Virginia. High waterwas reported around Swift Creek in Colonial Heights around Pinehurst Drive. Some areas inChesterfield county, such as Beach road also had high water. Eight deaths can be directlyattributed to Isabel in the Wakefield area of responsibility, with 7 in Virginia. There weremore than 15 deaths indirectly attributed to the storm. M270U, M541W, F45PH
O' NCDC I Climate Resources I Climate Data /lEvents / Storm Events /Results / Search / Help
This page dynamically generated 10 Sep 2004 from:hbtp:// Av4.ncdc.noaa.xgov/cgi-wvin/wvegi.dll?wvvEvent-stonnisPlease send questions or comments about this system to [email protected] see the NCDC Contact Page ifyou have questions or comments.
Hurricane Isabel was a long-lived Cape Verdehurricane that reached Category 5 status on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale. It made landfall near DrumInlet on the Outer Banks of North Carolina as aCategory 2 hurricane. Isabel is considered to be one ofthe most significant tropical cyclones to affectportions of northeastern North Carolina and east-central Virginia since Hurricane Hazel in 1954 and theChesapeake-Potomac Hurricane of 1933.
a. Synoptic History
Isabel formed from a tropical wave that moved westward from the coast ofAfrica on 1 September. Over the next several days, the wave moved slowlywestward and gradually became better organized. By 0000 UTC 5September, there was sufficient organized convection for satellite-basedDvorak intensity estimates to begin. Development continued, and it isestimated that a tropical depression formed at 0000 UTC 6 September, withthe depression becoming Tropical Storm Isabel six hours later. The "besttrack" chart of Isabel is given in Figure 1, with the wind and pressurehistories shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3, respectively. The best trackpositions and intensities are listed in Table 1.
Isabel turned west-northwestward on 7 September and intensified into ahurricane. Strengthening continued for the next two days while Isabel movedbetween west-northwest and northwest. Isabel turned westward on 10September and maintained this motion until 13 September on the south sideof the Azores-Bermuda High. Isabel strengthened to a Category 5 hurricane
on 11 September with maximum sustained winds estimated at 145 kt at1800 UTC that day. After this peak, the maximum winds remained in the130-140 kt range until 15 September. During this time, Isabel displayed apersistent 35-45 n mi diameter eye.
Isabel approached a weakness in the western portion of the Azores-Bermuda High, which allowed the hurricane to turn west-northwestward on13 September, northwestward on 15, September, and north-northwestwardon 16 September. The latter motion would continue for the rest of Isabel'slife as a tropical cyclone.
Increased vertical wind shear on 15 September caused Isabel to graduallyweaken. The system weakened below major hurricane status (96 kt orCategory 3 on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale) on 16 September. Itmaintained Category 2 status with 85-90 kt maximum winds for the next twodays while the overall size of the hurricane increased. Isabel made landfallnear Drum Inlet, North Carolina near 1700 UTC 18 September as aCategory 2 hurricane, then weakened as it moved across eastern NorthCarolina. It weakened to a tropical storm over southern Virginia, then losttropical characteristics as it moved across western Pennsylvania on 19September. Extratropical Isabel moved northward into Canada and wasabsorbed into a larger baroclinic system moving eastward across southcentral Canada early the next day.
b. Meteorological Statistics
Observations in Isabel (Figure 2 and Figure 3) include satellite-basedDvorak technique intensity estimates from the Tropical Analysis andForecast Branch (TAFB), the Satellite Analysis Branch (SAB) and the U. S.Air Force Weather Agency (AFWA). Also included are flight-level anddropwindsonde observations from flights by the 53d WeatherReconnaissance Squadron of the U. S. Air Force Reserve Command, theNOAA Aircraft Operations Center, and a Canadian research aircraft.Observations from ships (Table 2), land stations, and data buoys (Table 3)are included where appropriate. Microwave satellite imagery from theNational Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Tropical RainfallMeasuring Mission (TRMM), the NASA Quikscat, and the DefenseMeteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) satellites were also useful intracking Isabel.
The Air Force Reserve Hurricane Hunters made 39 center fixes duringIsabel. The NOAA Hurricane Hunters made two formal center fixes and flewseven research missions into the storm. The highest winds measured by theaircraft were 158 kt (Air Force at 700 mb) and 157 kt (NOAA at 8400 ft)between 1700-1730 UTC 13 September. A 156-kt flight-level wind (700 mb)was also observed at 1719 UTC 12 September. Stronger winds wereobserved on eyewall dropsondes, with a maximum of 203 kt reported at 806mb (4500 ft) at 1753 UTC 13 September. This is the strongest wind everobserved in an Atlantic hurricane, although it likely does not represent a 1-min average.
Comparison of the aircraft and satellite data makes the peak intensity ofIsabel somewhat speculative. Aircraft data on 12 September indicate thatIsabel had winds near 140 kt. However, the maximum intensity based on
A IAAl A '' A *^WkI.-' -J -AW- As1v%0* A"r5- -1 J& WJ~
satellite imagery was reached on 11 September before the firstreconnaissance mission, and the satellite signature was weaker at the timeof the first mission. The maximum intensity estimate of 145 kt on 11September is based on the aircraft data of 12 September and the strongersatellite signature on the previous day. The minimum central pressure of 915mb on 11 September has a similar basis.
Isabel's intensity is also'somewhat uncertain during 16-18 September.During this time, a large outer eyewall formed, which disrupted the innercore wind structure. Dropsonde data indicated that the usual 90% reductionfor 700 mb winds to the surface in the eyewall was not valid, with the actualreductions being closer to 70-75%. Both Air Force and NOAA aircraftmeasured 11 8-kt flight-level winds in the northeast eyewall just as Isabelwas making landfall, which using the 90% reduction would support 105 ktsustained surface winds. However, using a 75% reduction gives a sustainedsurface wind of near 90 kt, which is in better agreement with maximumsurface winds estimated by a dropsonde (83 kt) and the Stepped FrequencyMicrowave Radiometer on the NOAA aircraft (90 kt) near the same time.Based on this, the best estimate of the landfall intensity is 90 kt.
Isabel brought hurricane conditions to portions of eastern North Carolina andsoutheastern Virginia. The highest observed wind on land (Table 3) wassustained at 69 kt with a gust to 85 kt at an instrumented tower near CapeHatteras, North Carolina at 1622 UTC 18 September. Another tower inElizabeth City, North Carolina reported 64-kt sustained winds with a gust to84 kt at 1853 UTC that day. The National Ocean Service (NOS) station atCape Hatteras reported 68-kt sustained winds with a gust to 83 kt beforecontact was lost. The Coastal Marine Automated Stations (C-MAN) atChesapeake Light, Virginia and Duck, North Carolina reported similar winds.Elsewhere in Virginia, Gloucester Point reported 60-kt sustained winds witha gust to 79 kt at 2200 UTC 18 September, while the Norfolk Naval AirStation reported 50-kt sustained winds with a gust to 72 kt at 2100 UTC thatday. Unofficial reports from the affected area include a gist of 102 kt at KittyHawk, North Carolina, a gust of 93 kt from Gwynns Island, Virginia, a gust of91 kt at Ocracoke, North Carolina, and a gust of 88 kt at New Bern, NorthCarolina. The wind record from the most seriously affected areas isincomplete, as several observing stations were either destroyed or lostpower as Isabel passed.
Isabel brought tropical-storm conditions to a large area from eastern NorthCarolina northward to the eastern Great Lakes and western New England.The C-MAN station at Thomas Point, Maryland reported 42 kt sustainedwinds with a gust to 58 kt at 0850 UTC 19 September. Reagan NationalAirport in Washington, DC reported 39-kt sustained winds with a gust to 50kt at 0139 UTC that day. Sustained tropical storm-force winds were reportedat Kennedy and LaGuardia Airports in New York City, while a gust of 52 ktwas reported in Middletown, Pennsylvania. Extratropical Isabel brought gale-force winds to portions of the eastern Great Lakes and southeasternCanada.
Shipping for the most part avoided Isabel. The most significant ship reportwas from the ZIPR7 (name unknown), which reported 52-kt winds at 1200UTC 17 September (Table 2). Additionally, NOAA buoy 41002 reported a10-min average wind of 52 kt with a gust to 70 kt at 0540 UTC 18
A I*A..g$ A� A ' j...At. II-t A-LtPJA A -E,- -6 M. i_
September. Two NOAA data buoys broke loose as the storm passed andhad to be replaced.
The lowest pressure observed by reconnaissance aircraft was 920 mb at1712 and 1901 UTC 12 September. The lowest pressures observed on landwere unofficial reports of 957 mb at Arrowhead Beach, North Carolina, and958 mb from a storm chaser in Hobucken, North Carolina. The lowestpressures from official observation sites were 962.8 mb from aninstrumented tower in Atlantic Beach, North Carolina at 1645 UTC 18September, and 963.5 mb at Washington, North Carolina at 1944 UTC thatday.
Isabel produced storm surges of 6-8 ft above normal tide levels near thepoint of landfall along the Atlantic coast of North Carolina. Farther north,storm surge values ranged from 4-6 ft along the Virginia coast, 2-4 ft alongthe Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey shorelines, and 1-2 ft along thecoast of Long Island and in the Long Island sound.
In the North Carolina estuaries, storm surge values were generally 4-6 ftabove normal tide levels over the eastern portions of the Pamlico Sound andmost of the Albemarle Sound. Values of 6-10 ft above normal tide levelswere observed in the western end of the Pamlico Sound with a maximumvalue of 10.5 ft reported on the Neuse River in Craven County (Table 3).
Storm surges of 3-5 ft above normal tide levels were observed over thecentral portions of the Chesapeake Bay and 5-6 ft over the southern portionof the Bay in the vicinity of Hampton Roads, Virginia. Surge values of 6-8 ftabove normal levels were observed in the upper reaches of the ChesapeakeBay near Annapolis and Baltimore, Maryland and in most of the main stemrivers draining into the Chesapeake Bay. Even higher surges occurred at theheads of the rivers, with values of 8.5 ft above normal levels at theRichmond City locks along the James River in Virginia and nearly 8 ft alongthe Potomac River in Washington, D.C. Water levels exceeded previousrecord levels established in the Chesapeake-Potomac Hurricane of 1933 inWashington, D.C., Baltimore and Annapolis.
Storm surges in Delaware Bay were generally 3-4 ft at the mouth of the bayand 5-6.5 ft at the head of the bay and along the Delaware River in thevicinity of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Rainfall from Hurricane Isabel averaged 4-7 in over large portions of easternNorth Carolina, east-central Virginia and Maryland. Rainfall totals of 8-12 inwith locally higher amounts occurred in the Shenandoah valley in northernVirginia. Upper Sherando, Virginia, reported a storm total of 20.20 in (Table4). Lesser amounts in the 2-4 in range occurred elsewhere over easternVirginia and the Delmarva Peninsula.
One tornado occurred in association with Hurricane Isabel. It touched downin the Ocean View section of Norfolk, Virginia at approximately 2200 UTC 18September and was verified only by visual confirmation from lawenforcement officials. No Fujita scale rating has been assigned to thetornado since its damage could not be distinguished from the extensivehurricane-related wind damage in the area.
Isabel is directly responsible for 16 deaths: 10 in Virginia, and 1 each inNorth Carolina, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, andFlorida. The deaths in Florida and Rhode Island were drownings in high surfgenerated by Isabel. Isabel was indirectly responsible for 34 deaths: 22 inVirginia, 6 in Maryland, 2 in North Carolina and Pennsylvania, and I each inNew Jersey and the District of Columbia.
Isabel caused widespread wind and storm surge damage in coastal easternNorth Carolina and southeastern Virginia. Storm surge damage alsooccurred along Chesapeake Bay and the associated river estuaries, whilewind damage occurred over portions of the remaining area from southernVirginia northward to New York. The current estimate for insured propertydamage is $1.685 billion - $925 million in Virginia, $410 million in Maryland,$170 million in North Carolina, $80 million in Pennsylvania, $45 million inNew York, $25 million in New Jersey, $20 million in Delaware, and $10million in West Virginia. The total damage for Isabel is estimated to be abouttwice that of the insured damage, or $3.37 billion.
d. Forecast and Warning Critique
The track of Isabel was in general well forecast. Average official track errors(with the number of cases in parentheses) for Hurricane Isabel were 22 (51),39 (49), 52 (47), 60 (45), 80 (41), 104 (37), and 146 (33) n mi for the 12, 24,36, 48, 72, 96, and 120 h forecasts, respectively'. These errors are muchlower than the average official track errors for the 1 0-yr period 1993-20022(45, 81, 116, 150, 225, 282, and 374 n mi, respectively) (Table 5) - 50-65 %smaller than the average forecast errors at all times. The track forecasts alsoshowed tremendous skill when compared to the errors of the Climatology-Persistence (CLP5) model (32, 68, 109, 148, 231, 350, and 537 n mi for the12, 24, 36, 48, 72, 96, and 120 h forecasts, respectively) - including analmost 75% improvement at 120 h. Overall, the official track forecasts hadsmaller errors than the dynamical models. However, three ensemblemethods that combine the forecasts of the dynamical models (GUNS,GUNA, and FSSE) had smaller errors than the official forecasts.
There appear to be three primary reasons for the excellent track forecasts.First, Isabel was a large and strong hurricane, and this type of tropicalcyclone is generally easier to forecast.
Second, Isabel moved slowly through the central and eastern Atlantic in arelatively predictable steering pattern. While an initial northwestward motionwas not as well forecast as other parts of the track, the forecasts didcorrectly anticipate that Isabel would turn westward and maintain that coursefor several days.
Third, when Isabel reached the western Atlantic, synoptic surveillancemissions began using both the NOAA Gulfstream-IV jet and Air ForceReserve aircraft. These mission helped resolve a complex steering flowpattern around Isabel. Preliminary estimates from the Hurricane ResearchDivision indicate that the synoptic surveillance data improved the trackforecasts of the NWS Global Forecast System model (AVNO in Table 5) by
IL LIJ_.. .1A ... AL AJJIF.1 '..l % 1,JA AL~.FWJ L A 6 Web - as
as much as 40% at 120 h. Qualitative examination of forecasts from theNOGAPS (NGPS) and UKMET models (UKM) also suggest forecast trackimprovement due to the data.
The landfall forecasts were exceptionally accurate. The track forecast errorsverifying at 1800 UTC 18 September (1 h after landfall) had errors of 6,12,6, 16, 31, 86, and 118 n mi forthe 12,24,36,48,72, 96, and 120 hforecasts, respectively.
The intensity forecasts were less accurate than the track forecasts. Averageofficial intensity errors were 7,11,14,17, 22, 25, and 27 kt for the 12, 24,36, 48, 72, 96, and 120 h forecasts, respectively, which are larger than theaverage official intensity errors over the 10-yr period 1993-2002 (6,10, 13,15, 19, 21, and 22 kt, respectively). However, the intensity forecasts showedskill when compared to intensity climatology and persistence, which haderrors of 8,13,18, 23, 29, 32, and 35 kt for the 12, 24, 36, 48, 72, 96, and120 h forecasts, respectively. The greatest contributors to the intensityforecast errors included 1) underforecasting how quickly Isabel wouldintensify over the eastern Atlantic, and 2) overforecasting how strong Isabelwould remain as it reached a less favorable environment in the westernAtlantic.
Table 6 lists the watches and warnings associated with Hurricane Isabel.The accurate track forecasts and the large size of Isabel led to longer thannormal watch and warning lead times. A hurricane watch was issued for thelandfall area 50 h before the center made landfall. A hurricane warning wasissued 38 h before landfall.
Acknowledgements
Much of the data from the affected areas were provided by the NWSWeather Forecast Offices at Wilmington, Morehead City, and Raleigh, NorthCarolina, Wakefield, Sterling, and Blacksburg, Virginia, Mount Holly, NewJersey, Upton, New York, and Pittsburgh and State College, Pennsylvania.NOAA buoy and C-MAN data were provided by the National Data BuoyCenter. NOS data were provided by the NOAA National Ocean Service.Remote Automated Weather Stations (RAWS) data were provided by theNational Interagency Fire Center. USGS data were provided by theNWISWeb web site. Other data were provided by the Weather Undergroundweb site.
'All forecast verifications in this report include the depression stage of thecyclone. National Hurricane Center verifications presented in these reportsprior to 2003 did not include the depression stage.
2Errors given for the 96 and 120 h periods are averages over the two-yearperiod 2001-2002.
Table 1: Best track for Hurricane Isabel, 6-19 September 2003.
I Date/Time ionPressure Wind Speed Stage(UTC) et. It Lon. I(mb) | (it)
I411%.4 .LI '... I LWJJt~.44L %-)%,I VI I% %..jJ.J1l A "r,. IV % *& R J
Uncoln (WeatherUnderground) 19/1231 44
Mt Mansfield | 19/1805 72|
Pleasant Valley 119/1728 = 48
Salisbury 119/1620 _ 43
aDate/time Is for sustained wind when both sustained and gust are listed.b Except as noted, sustained wind averaging periods for C-MAN and land-based ASOSreports are 2 min; buoy averaging periods are 8 min; NOS stations averaging periods are 6min; RAWS stations report 10 min average sustained winds.CStorm surge Is water height above normal astronomical tide level.d Storm tide is water height above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (1929 mean sea level).eIncomplete record - more extreme values may have occurred'Station destroyed - more extreme values may have occurred010-min averagehSubsequent.Survey Storm Surge value115-min averageJEstimated
Table 5: Preliminary forecast evaluation (heterogeneous sample) forHurricane Isabel, 6-19 September 2003. Forecast errors (n mi) are followed
by the number of forecasts in parentheses. Errors smaller than the NHCofficial forecast are shown in bold-face type. Verification includes thedepression stage, but does not include the extratropical stage, if any.
Forecast Period (hours)Technique 12 24 36 48 72 96 120
�ii%.d £ A A A�JjiA%..UI �J�1iJII�-' A��j'*J�� S 4�J� *JA �
AIIJA%- JAs~ Avvtu AJVsAlk" A%\k-J. A -f, -- A - -
U �-- �-: �.
Huckan* Isabel. -19 Saptembw 2003
- 7.OMS
- TV. D
' - 6. Sky
. .... . e. D.P
. ..... te 1yft
_1 O T UTC PDODS* *2 DTC Pi.Mo Ii LFT-aeo.I : I , :
iI I I.. _ 1 1:I .l ~ - I0- I I. I .
7Vi��7J7V
85 .d .75 -70 .45 0 .55 40 .5 .40 -35 M -
Figure 1: Best track positions for Hurricane Isabel, 6-19 September 2003.
Figure 2: Selected wind estimates/observations and best track maximumsustained surface wind speed curve for Hurricane Isabel, 6-19 September
2003. Aircraft observations have been adjusted for elevation using 90% and80% reduction factors for observations from 700 mb and 850 mb
respectively. Dropwindsonde observations include actual 10 m winds (sfc),as well as surface estimates derived from the mean wind over the lowest150 m of the wind sounding (LLM), and from the sounding boundary layer
!C:\WINDOWS\Profiles\RBH\Persu; .arly Site Permits\Temp Extremes.xis
A B C
2345679 100 n return period (years)
11 36.4 M (max) mean of the annual extreme max temp12 1.4 s (max) standard deviation of the annual extreme max temp
14 -14.4 M (min) mean of the annual extreme min temp15 3.2 s (min) standard deviation of the annual extreme min temp
1718 3.14 F intermediate calculation parameter1920 40.8 Tn (max) n-year return period max dry-bulb temperature 421 -24.4 Tn (min) n-year return period min dry-bulb temperature22
Reference: Table 1A,Columns 6a-6d, forRichmond, VA, fromChapter 27 of the2001 ASHRAEHandbook -
23 Fundamentals
- (toS.,(F)
- k ,1qF)
Io0-u- LPAA Acd Ad 4QAM/pO~d+ _L4 -4jagoL. Cd�uxj..'VIA�
C.\WINDOWS\Profiles\RBH\Peru,1 ial\Early Site Permits\Temp Extremes.xis
A B | C
2345679 100 n return period (years)11 36.4 M (max) mean of the annual extreme max temp12 1.4 s (max) standard deviation of the annual extreme max temp
14 -14.4 M (min) mean of the annual extreme min temp15 3.2 s (min) standard deviation of the annual extreme min temp1718 =.SQRT(6)/Pl(*(0.5772+LN(LN(A9/(A9-1)))) F Intermediate calculation parameter1920 =Al 1 +A1 8*A1 2 Tn (max) n-year return period max dry-bulb temperature21 =A14-A18*A15 Tn (min) n-year return period min dry-bulb temperature22
Reference: Equation (1) from Chapter 27 of the23 2001 ASHRAE Handbook - Fundamentals
C:\WINDOWS\Profiles\RBH\Personal\Ear,, ,ite Permits\North Anna\Richmond DB & WB.xis
C
Dry Bull
Wet Bul
)
100 n return period (years)
36.2 M (max) mean of the annual extreme max temp1.4 s (max) standard deviation of the annual extreme max temp
-12.2 M (min) mean of the annual extreme min temp3.4 s (min) standard deviation of the annual extreme min temp
3.14 F Intermediate calculation parameter
40.6 Tn (max) n-year return period max dry-bulb temperature-22.8 T, (min) n-year return period min dry-bulb temperature
b
100 n return period (years)
27.3 M (max) mean of the annual extreme max temp1.1 s (max) standard deviation of the annual extreme max temp
-13.4 M (min) mean of the annual extreme min temp3.0 s (min) standard deviation of the annual extreme min temp
3.14 F intermediate calculation parameter
30.9 Tn (max) n-year return period max dry-bulb temperature-22.9 Tn (min) n-year return period min dry-bulb temperature
C.\WINDOWS\Profiles\RBH\Personal\Eary Pite Permits\North Anna\Richmond DB & WB.xIs
A B C
2 Dry Bulb35 100 n return period (years)7 =Sheet1 IB29 M (max) mean of the annual extreme max temp8 =SheetlIB30 s (max) standard deviation of the annual extreme max temp
10 =Sheetl IC29 M (min) mean of the annual extreme min temp11 =Sheetl 1C30 s (min) standard deviation of the annual extreme min temp
1314 =-SQRT(6)/P1(*(0.5772+LN(LN(A5/(A5-1)))) F intermediate calculation parameter1516 =A7+A14*A8 Tn (max) n-year return period max dry-bulb temperature17 =A1 0-Al 4*A1 1 Tn (min) n-year return period min dry-bulb temperature181920 Wet Bulb2122 100 n return period (years)
24 =Sheetl ID29 M (max) mean of the annual extreme max temp25 =Sheetl1ID30 s (max) standard deviation of the annual extreme max temp
27 =Sheetl IE29 M (min) mean of the annual extreme min temp28 =SheetliE30 s (min) standard deviation of the annual extreme min temp
3031 =-SQRT(6)/Pl(*(0.5772+LN(LN(A22/(A22-1)))) F Intermediate calculation parameter3233 =A24+A31*A25 Tn (max) n-year return period max dry-bulb temperature34 =A27-A31 *A28 Tn (min) n-year return period min dry-bulb temperature
Noni.eAnna
eozaL 3 -CAoLvXCJi
Best Estimate 95% ConfidenceProbability Level Probability Level
1 E 05 1 E-061 1 E-07 1 E-051 1 E-06 1 E-07
maximum wind speed u mi/hl 141 | 197 245 164 216 260
damage threshold Ud mVh 59 59 59 59 59 59
density of air p 0.07414| 0.07414 0.07414 0.07414 0.07414 0.07414
radius of maximum speed rmax ft 109 172 248 207 282 234
fast rate of pressure drop Ap/At lbIin2/s 0.17 0.29 0.38 0.14 0.23 0.49tomado maximum pressure drop_ Ap lb/in2 0.44 0.85 1.32 0.59 1.03 1.49
translational speed u, ml/h 28 39 49 33 43 52rotational wind speed U, mi/h 113 158J 1961 131 173 208
d radiusof maximum speed rmx ft 911 1451 209 174 237 197I Irate of pressure drop Ap/At lb/in2/s 0.07 0.121 0.16 0.06 0.10 0.20
ltorado maximum pressure drop | ap lb/in2 | _0.62_ 1.211 1.86 0.84 1.45 2.10
[ra translatonal speed ut I ml/h 71 101 121 8 11i 13rotational wind speed Iu mi/h 1341 1871 2331 1561 2051 247
Imaximum wind speed |UO| mith ___I| ::;260.density of air _ Ip i Ib/ft * i 1*i: 0.075i
radius of maximum speed rmax ft | _______ , ,150
Bechtel rate of pressure drop Ap/At lb/in2/s 0.77tomado maximum pressure drop . Ap lb/in [ _ _ 1.5
translational speed u, I mi/h _ ____52
rotational wind speed I u,_| mih [ | 208
C:\WINDOWS\Profiles\RBH\Personal\Early Site Permits\DBT TER Review.xis
Nort. ..i,.na
A B C 0 D E F G H I J123 Best Estimate 95% Confidence
5.E1 1 E-061 1 E-07 1 E-051 1 E-06 1 E-07
7 maximum wind speed u, m/h 1411 1971 245 164| 216 2608 damage threshold Ud mih 591 599 density of air P Iif 0.074141 0.07414 0.07414 0.074141 0.07414 0.07414
11 f-scale r 22 1 3 4 34412 expected tornado width w(f) ft 1 4151 920 16501 9201 1650 1650
14 radius of maximum speed rmax ft 109 172 248 207 282 234
15 rate of pressure drop Ap/At ib/1n 2/s 0.17 0.29 0.38 0.14 0.23 0.4916 torado maximum pressure drop Ap lb/in2 0.44 0.85 1.32 0.59 1.03 1.4917 translational speed Ut ml/h 28 39 49 33 43 5218 rotational wind speed U, mi/h 113 158 196 131 173 208
20 radius of maximum speed rMax ft 91 145 209 174 237 197
21 rate of pressure drop Ap/At lbWin 2%s 0.07 0.12 0.16 0.06 0.10 0.20
22 tornado maximum pressure drop |Ap | b/in 2| 0.62 1.21 1.86 0.84 1.45 2.1023 translational speed ut mi/h . 7 10, 12 8 11 1324 rotational wind speed I u, I mi/h | 1341 1871 233 156 205 24725 -
26 maximum wind speed J u, | mil/h _ | 26027 density of air p b/f10.075
29 radius of maximum speed rmax ft .150
30 Beht rate of pressure drop Ap/At lb/in2/s _ 0.7731 tornado maximum pressure drop Ap Ib/n 2 1.532 translational speed utJ mI/h _ _ 52,33 |rotational wind speed u mi/h | 2081
C:\WINDOWS\Profiles\RBH\Personal\Early Site Permilts\DBT TER Review.xls
Nort,. . a
A B C I D G
23 Best Estimate4 Probability Level5 |0.0000001
7 maximum wind speed u r mri/h 2458 damage threshold Ud mi/h 599 density of air p lb/ft - 0.074 14
11 f-scale I I=lF(G7<73,0,lF(G7<1 13,1,IF(G7<158,2,IF(G7<207,3,IF(G7<261 ,4,5)))))12 expected tornado width I w(f)IftI=lF(Gl 1=0,115,1F(G 1=1,220,IF(Gl 1=2,415,1F(Gl 1=3,920,|F(G 11=4,1650,2050)))))
14 radius of maximum speed r,. ft =G12*G$8/2/G18
15 rate of pressure drop Ap/At lb/in2/s =G16*G17*5280/3600/G1416 fast tornado maximum pressure drop *p lb/in2 =G9*(G18*5280/3600)A2/32.174/14417 translational speed u, mi/h =G7*0.218 rotational wind speed u, mi/h =G7-G17
20 radius of maximum speed rx ft =G12*G$8/2/G2421 rate of pressure drop Ap/At Ib/in2/s _G22*G23*5280/3600/G20
22 slow tornado maximum pressure drop Ap lb/in2 =G9*(G24*5280/3600)A2/32.174/14423 translational speed ut mi/h =G7*0.0524 rotational wind speed u, mi/h =G7-G232526 Imaximumn wind speed u mihI260, -
27 density of air _ J p |b/f7 jO075 - .
29 radius of maximum speed r, ft 150 2 E Ki
30 rate of pressure drop Ap/At WIin 2/s =G31*G32*5280/3600/G2931 Bechtel tornado maximum pressure drop AP lb/in2 =G27*(G33*5280/3600)2/32.174/14432 translational speed ut mi/h =G26*0.233 rotational wind speed ur mi/h =G26-G32
C:\WINDOWS\Profiles\RBH\Personal\Early Site Permits\DBT TER Review.xIs
North Anna
\yAJiA ?%YJt t4 Cc'K i~t"y.x z
PMP Depth (In |Duration (hr) Nov Dec Jan/Feb Mar Apr