Major Hurricanes 1851-present

[LongIslandHurricanes]

I went back to 1851 and got all the majors hurricanes.I then made a list of majors by month for each year,majors by year,and USA landfalls with landfall location.Also listed records and facts on majors that I got from the lists.

http://www.hurricanes-blizzards-noreasters.com/Majors.html

[toad strangler]

Homestead! wow ...

This work will need to be approved by Josh

Just an FYI, a typo on "Stuart" FL landfall.

[phil882]

Nice list... but I have noticed a few errors already which makes me question the rest of the numbers

There were not 2 majors in July in 2008, and there were only 5 major hurricanes... not 6. It seems like Dolly was counted as a major hurricane when it only got to Cat 2 intensity. Also for the statistic "Most majors USA landfall" you mention that 2004-2005 had the most majors making landfall in a 2 year period, yet for a 3 year period, the number is lower and goes to another set of months even though either 2003-2005 or 2004-2006 would still have 7 landfalls even though no major landfalls occurred in 2003 or 2006. Perhaps add in that there has to be at least one major landfall in the consecutive years list.

However, I'm fairly impressed by the list... Josh will certainly have something to say about this

[wxmx]

There are several mistakes, ie there have been 96 Majors since 1851 that have hit as such the US. Starting by 1851, there was a major around Panama city. There have been 305 majors (vs the 212 you counted)...etc. I'm not sure if your sources include reanalysis stuff. The best approach is to parse the data and insert it into a database, that way the errors would be reduced to a minimum. Try this tool, it would help you a lot, especially with US landfalls.

[LongIslandHurricanes]

Nice list... but I have noticed a few errors already which makes me question the rest of the numbers

There were not 2 majors in July in 2008, and there were only 5 major hurricanes... not 6. It seems like Dolly was counted as a major hurricane when it only got to Cat 2 intensity. Also for the statistic "Most majors USA landfall" you mention that 2004-2005 had the most majors making landfall in a 2 year period, yet for a 3 year period, the number is lower and goes to another set of months even though either 2003-2005 or 2004-2006 would still have 7 landfalls even though no major landfalls occurred in 2003 or 2006. Perhaps add in that there has to be at least one major landfall in the consecutive years list.

However, I'm fairly impressed by the list... Josh will certainly have something to say about this

You are right.Only 1 major in 2008 and 5 for the year,I did have that correct written down on paper,but entered it incorrectly on spreadsheet.And the 3 year ,it is with at least one major landfall each year.

[LongIslandHurricanes]

There are several mistakes, ie there have been 96 Majors since 1851 that have hit as such the US. Starting by 1851, there was a major around Panama city. There have been 305 majors (vs the 212 you counted)...etc. I'm not sure if your sources include reanalysis stuff. The best approach is to parse the data and insert it into a database, that way the errors would be reduced to a minimum. Try this tool, it would help you a lot, especially with US landfalls.

Thank you very much.for pointing that out. I Checked my math, it was off with majors per month,the spreadsheet is correct it has 319 storms(14 of those majors crossed over into 2 months which would be 305 total)Don't know what I did,but messed up on adding them up.Got to go check up and count the major landfalls again.

[rainstorm]

great work!! you put in lots of effort.

[LongIslandHurricanes]

There are several mistakes, ie there have been 96 Majors since 1851 that have hit as such the US. Starting by 1851, there was a major around Panama city. There have been 305 majors (vs the 212 you counted)...etc. I'm not sure if your sources include reanalysis stuff. The best approach is to parse the data and insert it into a database, that way the errors would be reduced to a minimum. Try this tool, it would help you a lot, especially with US landfalls.

I went back and checked every year(originaly I had 81 major US landfalls,direct hits) I found 3 that I missed (1851 Florida,1869 New York,Rhode Island, and 1877 Florida)So that brings total to 84..

I used this program to find them

http://csc.noaa.gov/hurricanes/#app=1834&3e3d-selectedIndex=0

If you could find the 12 that I may have missed pleas let me know

Some may consider these 3 as landfalls but are not on my list as they were not direct hits

1958 Helene NC

1961 Esther ,Nantucket

1967 Beulah,was a major in Texas,but landfall was in Mexico

[matthewweatherwatcher]

Good stuff. Keep up the good work.

[wxmx]

I went back and checked every year(originaly I had 81 major US landfalls,direct hits) I found 3 that I missed (1851 Florida,1869 New York,Rhode Island, and 1877 Florida)So that brings total to 84..

I used this program to find them

http://csc.noaa.gov/...selectedIndex=0

If you could find the 12 that I may have missed pleas let me know

Some may consider these 3 as landfalls but are not on my list as they were not direct hits

1958 Helene NC

1961 Esther ,Nantucket

1967 Beulah,was a major in Texas,but landfall was in Mexico

There are 2 kind of records... best track, and US Landfalls from the NHC... they come from the same agency, but are divergent from post reanalysis years (1931+) to 1985 or so...that's where most of the difference lies. You are going by best track, so it's fine if you are using the same source for all cyclones. You are considering only landfalls and not direct hits (a major direct hit is defined as if there's cat 3+ conditions, regardless if there's a landfall or not), so that's ok, as long as you keep it consistent, which you do. Taking that into account, the only omission is 1929 over Plantation Key, FL. Dora '64 is a close call, as it's considered a cat 2 landfall (95kts) by the US Landfalls data from hurdat, and best track shows it weakening from cat 3 to cat 2 just inland... so we'll never know for sure until reanalysis revisits the storm.

[HurricaneJosh]

Hey, guys!

Just thought I'd chime in here...

The correct, official source for all USA direct hits/landfalls is this list: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/All_U.S._Hurricanes.html

As Jorge has pointed out, it doesn't completely match best track-- the period 1931-1979 has not been reanalyzed and there are all sort of inconsistencies. But, again, for a list of direct impacts on the USA, this is the official source.

Helene 1958 and Esther 1961 are not considered landfalls in the USA (although apparently a portion of Helene's RMW swiped the NC coast, so it looks like they count it as a hit). Beulah 1967 absolutely was a direct hit for TX and is considered such by official records. Yes, it came ashore a couple of miles S of the TX/MX border, but it was moving NNW and the center/core passed over TX while the cyclone was still Cat-3 intensity. Dora 1964 is officially listed as a Cat 2 landfall, although I have suspicions it was actually a big Cat 1. It was most certainly not a Cat 3-- no way.

[wxmx]

Hey, guys!

Just thought I'd chime in here...

The correct, official source for all USA direct hits/landfalls is this list: http://www.aoml.noaa...Hurricanes.html

As Jorge has pointed out, it doesn't completely match best track-- the period 1931-1979 has not been reanalyzed and there are all sort of inconsistencies. But, again, for a list of direct impacts on the USA, this is the official source.

Helene 1958 and Esther 1961 are not considered landfalls in the USA (although apparently a portion of Helene's RMW swiped the NC coast). Beulah 1967 absolutely was a direct hit for TX and is considered such by official records. Yes, it came ashore a couple of miles S of the TX/MX border, but it was moving NNW and the center/core passed over TX while the cyclone was still Cat-3 intensity. Dora 1964 is officially listed as a Cat 2 landfall, although I have suspicions it was actually a big Cat 1. It was most certainly not a Cat 3-- no way.

Although most readings back up your suspicions, and Orlando's St Augustine's 125mph 1 min look spurious, and was also estimated.... Fernandina Beach recorded 115mph at the beach according to the MWR. Jax highest wind recorded (1 min) was 82 mph

[HurricaneJosh]

Although most readings back up your suspicions, and Orlando's 125mph 1 min look spurious, and was also estimated.... Fernandina Beach recorded 115mph at the beach according to the MWR. Jax highest wind recorded (1 min) was 82 mph

The Fernandina Beach reading was probably a fastest mile, not a 1-min wind, as that was the norm then. This aside, I frankly don't take it too seriously. The fact that it's mentioned as a tiny footnote makes it suspect.

The 125 mph is from St. Augustine (not Orlando), and since it's an estimate, not a measured wind, it has essentially zero value. As we all know, estimates from the 1950s and '60s were always absurdly inflated.

Dora was a large, loose cyclone with an enormous RMW that came ashore on a weakening trend with a central pressure of 966 mb. Based on these metrics, it's hard to believe it even had winds of 90 kt. I suspect it was more like 75 or 80 kt, and the overestimates were partly the result of the fact that this part of FL is not accustomed to hurricanes and observers overreacted to it.

[wxmx]

The Fernandina Beach reading was probably a fastest mile, not a 1-min wind, as that was the norm then. This aside, I frankly don't take it too seriously. The fact that it's mentioned as a tiny footnote makes it suspect.

The 125 mph is from St. Augustine (not Orlando), and it's an estimate, not a measured wind-- which means it has absolutely zero value. As we all know, estimates from the 1950s and '60s were always absurdly inflated.

Dora was a large, loose cyclone with an enormous RMW that came ashore on a weakening trend with a central pressure of 966 mb. Based on these metrics, it's hard to believe it even had winds of 90 kt. I suspect it was more like 75 or 80 kt, and the overestimates were partly the result of the fact that this part of FL is not accustomed to hurricanes and observers overreacted to it.

I'm with you in that I think it wasn't more than a cat 2, I'm just pointing out data that might keep up the hopes for Calderon .

I'm not sure what the fastest mile means, but there's a double asterisk which is referenced as "or one minute"

[HurricaneJosh]

I'm with you in that I think it wasn't more than a cat 2, I'm just pointing out data that might keep up the hopes for Calderon .

I'm not sure what the fastest mile means, but there's a double asterisk which is referenced as "or one minute"

Fastest mile is the speed at which the fastest mile of wind passed the observing point-- so for winds over 60 mph, the period will be less than 1 minute. I notice older reports (1950s and '60s and even '70s) seem to use this metric a lot, but you never see it anymore. Looking at the table, of course we can't tell what's fastest mile and what's 1-min, and I'm not inclined to give that silly reading the benefit of the doubt.

Frankly, I doubt Dora was even a Cat 2. When you model it mathematically, it comes out as a big, messy Cat 1.

[LongIslandHurricanes]

Hey, guys!

Just thought I'd chime in here...

The correct, official source for all USA direct hits/landfalls is this list: http://www.aoml.noaa...Hurricanes.html

As Jorge has pointed out, it doesn't completely match best track-- the period 1931-1979 has not been reanalyzed and there are all sort of inconsistencies. But, again, for a list of direct impacts on the USA, this is the official source.

Helene 1958 and Esther 1961 are not considered landfalls in the USA (although apparently a portion of Helene's RMW swiped the NC coast, so it looks like they count it as a hit). Beulah 1967 absolutely was a direct hit for TX and is considered such by official records. Yes, it came ashore a couple of miles S of the TX/MX border, but it was moving NNW and the center/core passed over TX while the cyclone was still Cat-3 intensity. Dora 1964 is officially listed as a Cat 2 landfall, although I have suspicions it was actually a big Cat 1. It was most certainly not a Cat 3-- no way.

Josh,If you could look over my list and see any mistakes can you please let me know??

With the Re-analys i see i need to make 7 changes from 1851-1930. And once reanalysis is done for for 1931 on I will make changes as needed.

[Mencken_Fan]

Fastest mile is the speed at which the fastest mile of wind passed the observing point-- so for winds over 60 mph, the period will be less than 1 minute. I notice older reports (1950s and '60s and even '70s) seem to use this metric a lot, but you never see it anymore. Looking at the table, of course we can't tell what's fastest mile and what's 1-min, and I'm not inclined to give that silly reading the benefit of the doubt.

Frankly, I doubt Dora was even a Cat 2. When you model it mathematically, it comes out as a big, messy Cat 1.

Heck....it's amazing they even had hurricanes before our modern, perfect, measuring systems.

[HurricaneJosh]

Josh,If you could look over my list and see any mistakes can you please let me know??

With the Re-analys i see i need to make 7 changes from 1851-1930. And once reanalysis is done for for 1931 on I will make changes as needed.

Yeah, sure-- I'll take another look and let you know if I see anything more.

By the way, I really like your site-- lots of great old clippings and things on it. It's like a historical treasure chest.

Heck....it's amazing they even had hurricanes before our modern, perfect, measuring systems.

I don't think anyone has illusions that today's wind readings are perfect. The difference is now there's more quality control and context. When the NHC creates a tropical cyclone report now, they designate readings as official or unofficial, and things like the height of the instrument, the make/quality of the instrument, and the averaging period are known, so that the reading can be properly understood and factored into an analysis of the cyclone's intensity. Back in these old reports, there was none of this quality control and context, and so it's really hard to know what half these readings even really mean.